The Altar of the Six Goddesses in Thessalian Pherai

Author(s): Stephen G. Miller

Source: California Studies in Classical Antiquity, Vol. 7 (1974), pp. 231-256
Published by: University of California Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25010672 .
Accessed: 26/02/2011 14:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
California Studies in Classical Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org
 STEPHEN G. MILLER

The Altar of the Six Goddesses inThessalian

Pherai

The purpose of this study is to present two recently dis

covered ancient blocks from Pherai in Thessaly.1 Because these two
blocks are only part of amuch largermonument, and because they have
several self-contained anomalies, this presentation must consider the
questions of reconstruction and interpretation. Although speculative
and incapable of proof, the reconstruction and interpretation of the
monument offered here will, I hope, be taken as serious and possible
explanations of the peculiarities presented by the blocks and the area
where theywere discovered.

I. DESCRIPTION

Block A, Volos Museum no. E 1270 (fig. 1, pl. 1:1)

Height: 0.685 m.
Length: 0.993 m.
Thickness: 0.372 m.
Letter height: 0.015-0.016 m. (lines 1-2),
0.026 m. (line 3)
1For permission to study and publish thismonument Iwould thank the then
Ephor of Antiquities of Thessaly, D. R. Theochares. For helpful comments and suggestions
during the preparation of this paper Iwould thankVictorine von Gonzenbach, Ch. Habicht,
M. Jameson, Stella G. Miller, R. Stroud, Maria Theochare, and Dorothy B. Thompson.
Their assistance does not necessarily imply that they subscribe to all the hypotheses pre
sented here. For financial support during the initial phases of study I would thank the
American Council of Learned Societies (see infran. 7).
 ?'?.~'::.:~?~~?'?~?;:. ._,1
., .

''
m

11,
4 S 4: f:
-
iS:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~?:Q ? ? ? - -I

-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I Block1 A.
 Altar of the Six Goddesses 233
Dark blue medium crystalmarble with white veins forming
a beige-brown patina with exposure to the weather. Complete except
for chips and bulldozer scars. Top left rear corner broken away, but
joining fragment survives (pl. 1:2). Right end worked smooth with fine
tooth-chisel. Anathyrosis on left end, back, bottom, and top. Latter
surface has hook clamp cutting to left, hook clamp cutting to rear near
left end, and Z clamp cutting to rear near right end. Front worked with
fine tooth-chisel, taenia 0.060 m. high across top, series of five-and-one
half low relief (0.003 m.) simple stelai below. Each stele has three
inscribed lines the first two of which have been erased but are still
legible. The hand inscribing each line is different, although the first
two lines appear very similar in character (pl. 2: 1, 2):
['tl]]ak1c 4 71p7?P['Ev]oSla Aqposrrl q [AQeyls
0'rva >
'Icra[]Ia J-777TP 'Ev[oS]la AO'1(v[a] Apf>po[1]r @9,4[ts] --
[fE]iuS +Apotn ASi Ova 'Evo&Sa JrqprS p 'Ica ->
Block B (fig. 2, p. 1:3)
Height: 0.685 m.
Length: 0.978 m.
Thickness: 0.253 m.
Dark blue medium crystal marble with white veins form
ing a beige-brown patina with exposure to the weather. Complete
except for chips. Right rear bottom corner broken away, but five small
joining fragments survive. Left end and face worked smooth with fine
tooth-chisel. Anathyrosis on right end, back, bottom, and top; latter
surface has hook clamp cutting to right, hook clamp cutting to rear
near right end, and Z clamp cutting to rear near left end.

II. PROVENIENCE

The Acropolis of Pherai2 is a steep-sloped hill situated at

the southwestern outskirts of the modern village of Velestino in Thes
saly. Although overshadowed by Mt. Chalkodonion to the south,3
the Acropolis is prominent and easily distinguished by its broad table
top configuration. To the north the land at the foot of the Acropolis
steps down gradually in a series of broad terraces toward the so-called

2Cf. F. Stahlin, Das hellenischeThessalien(Stuttgart 1924) 105, fig. 5,Hill 150.

3 Cf. Apollonios Rhodios 1.49-50 and Scholion ad loc.: opos vTrrepavw 'epwv 'TO
XaAKcwSo'vov.
 :,?1? '?.'? ??. ?:?.?
''' '?? ?::'' ??'
: -, .-..-.. -? ?.. ?.?????.??. ..?????.....
?;
=.?:
?? ?
???.?'.?'??..' '.?'.?. ?? '.:?'..:;?'?'. ".?
'.?..
'' '

?lr?T
??;'"?s??r??I?2????J"1?2*i M":"...."`'?+
?I?; ??-?i :?:??:.?:?2?
--5Li?i -?r'?T
..?.1;,.-
??-:i-????
?;.?;?;?l:;F
Rc????., ... ;;. ;., ,,?????????to?:
??f???;
,111,,, -?";?
?L3CI??`E:'
-r_.er8ir,?"s;
'-':::?:????=`?'
-'Jfl:'??' ,I?
=???" ?."'-r?:?-??
.Ct' ,?tl
??t. ?;
i??zf?i?i:'i `i??- 19':?:
?;?3;a "' ; L?'`51:?
,???,;-?rl??
'a ?f?-?tr?f"
????r????-`?:.... ;:ii I'.''
?C-?a
?i???c ?
-,??I
-.-i?.`;
P 1.:11.Ilil
IF???? ?.?1. .I
i ;??.: ,:,, .??:?:???.??
Il?L
'-C`"r? i' i::?-
sr, ?:,.?
a r?;????- ?j '`''
Yj?iil
:?tLc?; ?= CI?_ ::i1?111?ll(r;?li.l(k%?
???-
'??:?
;I
F?`t:S
?sr- ;I?\"`
-P"i;??*
li?*-
?-.-?? 1?5 .=?
,.1?`:.(???.;I;:????,?
,;
ll,.L. .(?II
??11*?-?:????1 i' . ??
E.:?
6?S?1: FC1?; I?
?ll.f2211n?It?i? 1112
C Jr;i?\ ? - T.,1
??I?
'"'?:dil?I:"?:"?:"4?-
?(
?-?
1';?
:t==?,:`?\,-'li`'?'"-?2?"?';
" 1;5 :,,,.?..
ifl...

?????:
?.: '' ?? O$
"?`??;.'??`. .?.. ? ??='?- ' ?'?? ???.`????.?'
:* ,??
=??'I,?.??' ??
?? . ?; ?..?.,r??
?' , ?-?.._=- ..
??. .....-. ?:: ?'

2. BlocklS.
Plate i Miller
i , '' a" ' . ? r,<:. :
".... .'
.
... ??
.,. .,. . , ,~~,
?.,..c ..~ . ... ,
....'
~,~,~ ...F.;: ?\,.
. . r. ? t.: ;
.,.
L~~~ I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~?
~ ~ ~ i ~~~~..?.
~~~

. ~.
is~~~~~~~~~~r~~ ...?. :.
~
:?
:' . "~: . :? ?;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~f:
.:.:..:?
. . .;. ":
,~~~??:
'.:

'~~~~~~ ;r? C..

:?
~~~~~~~~."
?'?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
:.:.71..L;.
;d
~;:.:...~."?, .. . ?
I;~~~~?~~~"'~~~~J~~~F~~~'-
i~,
.
~.~.:::. ?::..
" 'i... . ~::.'":. . . . . :
:~ .:~.,,.,;'~:
, _ :... ~~ _:~:::::::.-.~:,::?- ~,<.?.~tL-.
~...f
~~r~~r~~~F~
"*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..' :~~t~~ii?:
"? ~. . . . .. . ~C" ? ? , , ,i
,, :::r?: ,--;~
:::
1.
Block A."'s
;~:',?:'~
:",~.....?.:'~:4
~ ~~~I '' ":....
~
: .??.:" . :,: :.'.:.:'~:.
' :.P": . rl. ' ~ i~ I
:
i..: ~$i.:' :'; ,''. I. :". ?? ' ..... ? ., ::
:"~~~'
? ....
';'
i~ ~ ~ ~ ;.-~ ~ , ..
:i:
? , ,::n,- . :?
4~ ,,. ~ ,:':'.::,..'?.:'

1~~~?. B loc A.

. ......
.,9_.
 Miller Plate 2
....... ....'."
:i~~ ,* I..... .;'{.J! ~- '.."" .......,:,, . ...
,;',~, ,
.,~ I? . .~. u. .....,
...............?J,,
;4.~~~~~~~~~~~~? , ,;~, .~.'~ ........: ,,~~

r~~~~~i""* :" i '"';

i? ~~C?~~!~~d~~i~~rt~
:. i

? ..:?'i.. .. ,.

i . ~ i ...
.~'
lSPI:;~:'?
':.-~, ~-::!.....,"
~~**r:;iT~~~~~""....1 ~'~'',~,~..A.

Z.. ~
"
*P....."

...... .
?..: . :.:1.,..
? .., ~:.~
,;"
,'r i....
:.
?, : 3~~~~~~~
.. ?LI'~~~~~~~~~~~4
......~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
P -:
.:..::: ? ,...; ~~.i. .
:~? .~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~Llf~:~a
.
-.- :;.~-:
u.-.~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1,W..
.~* .,~ ~
"lk?
,-~'~-': ~,~ 4Ei '
;! '~:'.'~.-.
~
'"'"
w~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,' :.: ;if":
7 ?. ?, :,~ ......
?" " .....
~~~~~'*

?r ,':,, ~.:. ,. ~ :' .

?r ~. .fl ...? ~~~. .., :? ii
... .: . .... sI.~ .:
'ir~~~
, :
~ ~~?*
" "- ~~
:
,;?*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~?
,'
"I
w ~ ?
.i? *~t.?t
~,i: i--:~"~.
. t
:if .' ?;. 'E~6 ,,'~,:? ' ?'

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'~....~.?
:~
~:-
...,?.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I ~~~, ~fro ~ ~ ~ ~?~~. ~..Block:::.
Detail ;of incrpto on*,,::, fourt'stel" righ end!Iof
" ...'.....
:~~~~~ ... ~. ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
!~.....'-. ":'..r;~

r' ... ......,,:,,% ~

*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~! , ~:,
'':i~,e

?rr~~~~~
~ ~ ~~~~.
!~.':: . ~, 'E.~..~.'1{::.3i ...'l .....
. ~!'~'~'~_~ 11.~.~

.i~~~~~~~~~~~~
:~:
.......F
?:ly?? :i~~~~~ii
Y'~~b~~~ ~ ~. , ' , ~..,~:,
,,.:: ;:~+" ::
'~;~ ..:..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ..
"'~, ..-. !;.;
?i~,:,~
~ ~ ~ ~~ ??. ~ ncito
Dealo n?ut t1 lc
~m~?tedo .
 Plate 3 Miller

,.C*3e . .
V ~
i:-; P 4T :1: - .:...

.... :'.'

W b. X *, i
?, *-r +

_.,,~.~ : ,'~- ... ' .; ........,

O.O."b %.,;,:..~ SS,

....-.*..'"'; ",?; :. , %,, ; ;' 0- X,
~ _, . :'.~,..

?i ???::
jG
_ ;D.

?5: : ::1
'F
. of Pherai from Pelion
kw~t=.Bg ini background, ' arrow at
T Block e B. . . -?
Acropolis ;2 ., ,,41--?
west*,, ;Mt.

_l~~~~~~~~
of1i-
Phra
1. Acropolis1-- fromwet t ein nbcgonaro tBokB _ ~~~~ * I1
2~~~~~~~~~~~~~? .
Theemrbefeal easemede i orsslbinLaisaMsem

.. ...'...""..'..
:, . .:;?,..:":;;.'.:....

,.X '.. .~s,,

r;;~
:,-?,~

2. Three mable female eads embeded in porosslab in Larssa Museum

M, ~ ~ ~ ~ ,

Tree1
2. m _a headseo
Miller Plate 4

bS
.e....,':

..":: . i~' ;2..

...
.
.:.. ...... .. .
....... X

A..
.

'
??;;-;:? ~~ ~
~~~~~.:.C ':"

1. Relief stele from Pherai dedicated to 4. Bomiskos dedicated to Artemis Enodia

Zeus Thaulios inHalmyros Museum. from :'" " ~,**,
Demetrias,
::::::~~~~~~~~~~"'
,,::".: '. in Halmyros Museum.

: " "'7~:',.
.:
i~~~~~~n~~~~~l?
~~ ':"
.;;v.so

A 'liz
.~~~~~~~~a

4.Bomiskos dedicated to
Poseidon from Pherai
from Demetrias in
VoHalmyros Museum.
|;i_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ?8":

Dedcaio
3.~~ ?t Psedo frmPea
Voo
ina uem
2.Dedication to from
Dionysos Glaphyrai

41i..: . usu
 Altar of the Six Goddesses 235

Temple of Zeus Thaulios4 while behind, to the south, the Acropolis is

connected by a low ridge to another height.5 On the east, the sidewhere
the ancient city of Pherai lay, the slopes of theAcropolis aremore steep,
as is also the case on thewest. On the latter side the slopes end in a dry
streambed, the 'Makalorevma', which seems to have formed the line
of the city walls in this area.6About halfway up thiswestern slope there
is a fairly narrow naturally formed ramp sloping upward toward the
saddle which connects the Acropolis with Hill 154 to the south. It was
during the bulldozing of this "ramp" in order to create a broader,
flatter, and hence more arable area, that Block A was found.
When firstmoved to the museum at Volos, Block A was
missing its upper rear left corner. The missing fragment was found in
the area of the bulldozed ramp of theAcropolis by the author inAugust
of 1972. At the same time, Block B was found just below the ramp and
can be discerned in Plate 3:1 as the white dot to the left of center.7
The discovery of two blocks of the same monument in the same area
raises the question of whether the blocks had been in situ before being
unearthed by the bulldozer. Another possibility is that the monument
once rested on the top of the Acropolis near itswestern edge and that
the blocks fell down onto the ramp and came to rest close to one an
other. In either case, since the foundations of the altar are presumably
still in place, excavations at the site could determine the original pro
venience of the altar.

III. DATE
Since the blocks were not found in situ, the only evidence
for dating is that contained on the blocks themselves. The hook clamps
on the top surfaces are most characteristic of theHellenistic period, and
ought not to be earlier than the fourth century B.C.8The Z clamp (our
4Y. Bequignon, Recherches a PheresdeThessalie (Paris 1937) 29ff.
archeologiques
For the question of the identification of the remains see E. Kirsten, RE Suppl. 7 (1940) 998
999.
5Hill 154. The saddle is the site of the Church of the Panaghia, a
connecting
modern reconstruction of which is presently cutting through a previously well preserved
section of the ancient citywalls.
6
Bequignon, op. cit. 15.
7 Both Block B and the joining of Block A were taken to the mu
fragment
seum in Volos in August of 1972. For provision of the funds necessary for workmen and
transportation of the block, as well as personal maintenance in Thessaly I would thank the
American Council of Learned Societies.
8R. Martin, Manuel d'architecture GrequeI (Paris 1965) 273-279.
236 Stephen G. Miller
version is actually a double F) ought to be earlier than the hook
clamps and is usually found in late Archaic or early Classical
contexts. There are, however, examples known from the fourth century,
the most significant of which is in the Daochos dedication at Delphi.9
The letter forms of the inscriptions may give a somewhat
closer date. Although there are differences among the three lines (e.g.
the sigmas of the last line are more elongated than those of the first),
the similarities are more pronounced and argue that the dates of the
three lines are relatively close. The slightly splayed tips of the letters of
all three lines should place them well into the fourth century, and there
is no primafacie reason for dating the letters of the last line later than the
early third century B.C.10
On the other hand, there might appear to be a problem
with the orthography of the inscribed names which consistently uses eta
rather than the typical Aeolic-Thessalian alpha. This use of r for amust
be an example of the intrusion of the Attic-Ionic koine which became
very widespread in Thessaly, but not until the late second or early first
century B.C.11For example, the letters of Philip V to the Thessalian
League from the late third century B.C.12were originally written in
Attic but had to be presented in Larissa together with a Thessalian
translation. This general tendency need not preclude, however, the
earlier use of the koine in Thessaly. Indeed, the closest parallels for the
letter forms of our monument appear in an unpublished inscription
from Pherai written in koine and probably dating to themiddle of the
fourth century B.C.13
It is always tempting to associate monuments with known
historical events. If the real date of the altar is in themiddle of the fourth
century, and the tenuous nature of the chronological evidence must be
emphasized, then the damage and repairs to themonument (see below)
9 Ibid. 256.
10For the closest
parallel to the letter forms of the present monument see
infra n. 13.
11Cf. C. D. Buck. The GreekDialects (Chicago 1955) 151, and Thumb
Scherer, Handbuchdergriechische-Dialekte
112 (Heidelberg 1959) 55.
12IG IX2, 517; for the proper date seeHabicht. "
Epigraphische Zeugnisse
zurGeschichte Thessaliens," AncientMacedonia (Thessalonike 1970) 273-278.
13Volos Museum no. n 98. I would thank Ch. Habicht for calling my
attention to the existence of this stone, for allowing me to use his squeeze of it for comparative
purposes, and for discussing its date with me. Mr. Habicht argues convincingly that the text
which is a proxeny decree of the Pheraians must, on historical grounds, date to the period
before theMacedonian domination ofThessaly.
 Altar of the Six Goddesses 237

may have been a result of the capture of Pherai in 344 B.C. by Philip
of Macedon.14 Another possible time for this damage is the siege of
Cassander's garrison at Pherai by Demetrios Poliorketes in 302 B.C.,15
but neither suggestion can be proven. It is perhaps better simply to
date the monument to the late Classical or early Hellenistic period.16

IV. RECONSTRUCTION
As previously mentioned, Blocks A and B are twomembers
of a largermonument. These two blocks belong together back to back as
is shown by the similarity of heights and lengths, by the alignment of
the clamp cuttings, and by the correspondence of the Z and hook clamps
of the one block vis-a-vis those of the other. This joint establishes the
depth of themonument as 0.635 m., and provides the additional infor
mation that the back and one end (probably both ends) of the monu
ment were plain, while the front was covered with a series of low
relief stelai each of which bore the name of a female divinity. Although
we lack the left end of the monument, its original length can be esti
mated. This is so because the successive lines of the inscription, the first
reading left to right, the second right to left, both begin and end with
Hestia and Themis which means that six stelai originally comprised a
complete unit. It will be shown below that the six goddesses listed on
these stelai comprised the Pheraian version of the female members of
the Twelve Olympian Gods. Thus, there are two possible reconstruc
tions of the original monument:

1. There were six, and only six, deities worshipped which

means that we have to restore only the remaining half stele and a mar
gin to the left balancing that to the right. This would be done by means
14Dem. 8.59; cf.Dem. 7.32; 9.12; 19.260. Bequignon, op. cit. 19, argues that
Pherai suffered no damage during the take-over by Philip, but the long history of antipathy
between Pherai and Philip would not lead one to believe that Philip was particularly tender
with the city; cf. H. D. Westlake, Thessaly in theFourthCenturyB.C. (London 1935) 192.
B&quignon further attempts to assign traces of burning which he noted on the Acropolis
(p. 15) and at the so-called Temple of Zeus Thaulios (p. 30) to the later siege of theAcropolis
by Demetrios (infra).Bequignon does not adduce any archaeological evidence forhis dating of
the fires, and the two fires need not have been from the same cause, nor even at the same time.
15Diod. Sic. 20.110.6.
16 the best time for the establishment of a monument such as
However,
ours would seem to be during the Pheraian tyranny, either under Alexander (369-358 B.c.)
or under the sons of Jason, the last of whom, Peitholaos, was ejected from Pherai by Philip
for the third and last time in 344 B.c. Although perhaps of no significance, it is interesting to
remember that the Altar of the Twelve Gods in Athens was also established by a tyranny;
cf. Thuc. 6.54.6-7.
238 Stephen G. Miller

3. Possible reconstruction of central course of monument.

backto back and a thin slab masking their ends on one side, is unusual
of a thin slab, 0.12 meters thick,with the remaining half stele carved on
one thin end, and having the full depth of themonument of 0.635 m.
(fig. 3). The total monument length will have been ca. 1.113 m. The
type of construction thus restored, with two relatively thick blocks set

and may not be original. This possibility is supported by a consideration

of the difference in the forms of the clamps used on the top surface of
the two blocks.We might think of themonument as originally consisting
of the two blocks A and willgth bere have
1.113 m. long and bound to
gether by a Z clamp at each end. The left end of the monument was
subsequently damaged, Blocks A and B smoothed off on this end, and
the end covered by the block restored as measuring 0.12 x 0.635 x
0.685 m. The original Z clamp at the left (corresponding to that still
preserved at the right) will have been cut away during the repairs and
replaced by a new hook clamp further to the right. The new slab will
have been bound to the ends of both Blocks A and B by a hook clamp
to each block.17
17 If the monument
is, as will be argued below, a part of a Dodekatheon,
then this reconstruction means that there will have been two separate altars with six deities
on each. It will be seen below that the gods were in four groups of three in the Delian Dode
katheon, and therewas awidespread tendency to split the twelve into four groups of three, six
groups of two, or two groups of six in both literature and art; cf. O. Weinreich, Roschers.v.
Zwolfg6tter 842.
 Altar of the Six Goddesses 239
2. The second possibility is that the altar was dedicated
to all Twelve Gods with the sixmale deities to the left, the six female to
the right. In this case the altar will have had an original length of ca.
2.16 m. Such a possibility, however, would cause an original vertical
joint to fall through one stele,18 would fail to provide an explanation
for the difference in the forms of the clamps, and would take no account
of the fact that the three successive series of inscribed names form a
complete unit as they stand.19 The first suggested reconstruction seems
more probable.

The anathyrosis on the bottoms of the blocks shows that

they rested on another stone surfacewith which a close fitting joint was
formed. Since themonument is finished on the preserved three sides,we
can best imagine the lower element as a stepped krepidoma with a free
standing monument on top.
Another element obviously belonged above Blocks A and B
as is shown not only by the anathyrosis, but also by the otherwise ex
posed clamp cuttings on their upper surfaces. The nature of thismissing
element cannot be restored with certainty and there are several possi
bilities-as, for example, a simple moulded flat slab, or a slab with
barriers (plain or decorated) at each end.20Another possibility is sug
gested by a consideration of the inscriptions on the front of the monu
ment. In the original line the goddesses were named in the series:
Hestia, Demeter, Enodia, Aphrodite, Athena, Themis. In the second
line, the series is retrograde, but almost the same: Hestia, Demeter,
Enodia, Athena, Aphrodite, Themis.21 Finally, each name in line 2
was turned around in line 3 so that the series reads from left to right,
but is now reversed: Themis, Aphrodite, Athena, Enodia, Demeter,
Hestia. What is the significance of these changes ?
It would appear that the solution to this question is to be
18With the first
possibility discussed above, this vertical joint will have been
the result of later repairs,not a part of the original construction.
19A variation on this reconstruction would be to restore a
plain central
section and another group of six stelai further to the left, thusmaking one longmonument.
Such a reconstructionwould require, however, the restoration of somany missing pieces that I
refrain from suggesting it.
20 Cf. C. G. Greek Altars
Yavis, (St. Louis 1949) passim, for the various

possibilities.
21The only difference in the two series is the inversion of the sequence
Aphrodite-Athena toAthena-Aphrodite. There may be a significance in this inversionwhich
has eluded me. It seems better to regard this change as an error on the part of the inscriber of
line 2.
240 Stephen G. Miller
sought in one of two areas. The firstwould be in the field of religious
superstition or magic. If the explanation does lie here, it is not known to
me. It cannot, however, be discounted as a possible explanation since
Thessalian women in general,22 and the priestess of Pheraian Enodia in
particular,23 were well known in antiquity for their magical powers.
In this same religious context one other peculiarity of the altar should be
noted. The first named goddess in line 1was Hestia and the last named
goddess in line 3 was also Hestia. It may be purely coincidental, but
we should recall the proverb o' 'Earias aPXeaocat or E' 'EaEras apXEra
Oat.24As explained by the story of the birth of the children of Kronos
and Rhea (their successive consumption by Kronos, and the stone
substituted for Zeus which caused Kronos to regurgitate his children in
reverse order), Hestia was both the first and the last of the children of
Kronos and Rhea,25 and was worshipped first and last in sacrifices.26
Since, however, the first line of names on our altar was probably
erased by the time the last line was inscribed, any connection between
the proverb and the changes in the inscribed names on the altar would
seem to be fortuitous.
A second possible answer to the question of themeaning of
the name changes ismore prosaic and concerns the possible form of the
upper member of the monument. If one considers the names to have
been not merely a list of the divinities worshipped at this altar, but as
having a more specific function as labels, it is possible to imagine that
the upper member of the altar contained images of the goddesses and
that the inscriptionswere intended to help the viewer distinguish among
the images. Such a type of monument is not well-known and yet there is
a certain body of evidence which suggests that an altar with a series of
statues or statuettes of gods on top was fairly common in antiquity.
The evidence has to do with various processions which included images
of deities, and specifically with images of the Twelve Gods who were
worshipped as a group. A few of the pertinent sources are:
22See, for
example, Aristophanes, Nubes 749-752; Ov. Met. 7.74-99, et al.;
Apul. 2.1; Lucian, The Ass, passim.
23
Polyainos 8.43.
24 PI. Kra. 401 B, D; Hesychios,
Euthphr. 3A; s.v. &a' 'Earlra &pXo'Pevos; cf.
Aristophanes, Vespae864.
25 Hes. Theog. 453-497.
26 Cornutus c28 (p. 53, Teubner): MvOEverat 8e (sc. 'Eacrra) 7rprrq rE Kal&
eaxanT7 yveveaOa rO eTi rearL raff
vaAvEVa7' auTs yLvo4eva Ka& i aSr^ avviacrlaOa, KaOO
KaV rTaL OVaucrsTolt 'EAves arro rp'wrrs Te aVcTrsi PXOVRo Kat els cacrXyaTvavorTv KaTcirauov. Cf.
Cicero, De natura deorum 2.67; Homeric Hymn 29.4-6.
 Altar of the Six Goddesses 241
1. At Aigai inMacedonia in 336/5 B.C. Philip is said to
have paraded the images (E'3Zs)a) of the Twelve Gods and to have
added a thirteenth figure of himself which was included in the proces
sion.27
2. At Rome there was an annual procession from the
Capitoline through the Forum to the Circus Maximus which was said
to have been based on similar Greek processions and which included
images (EdKo'VE) of the Twelve Gods carried on men's shoulders.28
3. At Magnesia on the Maeander the stephanephoros
of the city was each year to carry the images of the Twelve Gods
(odava 7Tdvrovv 'rv 83csE&Ka E
6v) in a procession.29

Our concern here is not with the processions but rather

with the place of residence of the images of the Twelve Gods during the
rest of the year and with the fact that they could be removed and
carried about. Although the sources cited above do not indicate where
the images were housed, it is logical to assume that they were kept all
together in one place inasmuch as they were worshipped as a group and
paraded as a group. Such must have been the case at Delos, for example,
where the attested twelve statues30were almost certainly housed in the
Dodekatheon.31 This shrine has been identified32 and the placement
of the twelve statues was probably on a series of bases in front of the
temple in the temenos.33 An orthostate of one of these bases survives34
and the face of this orthostate is inscribed with the three names [AG10]
vs AJto "Hpas. The Delian monument will have looked, then, some
thing like themonument in a wall painting from Herculaneum.35
The purpose of the preceding discussion has been to show
(1) that there were in antiquity sanctuaries of the Twelve Gods which
contained statues or statuettes of these deities; (2) that at least in some

27 Diod. Sic. 16.92.5.

28Dion. Hal. 7.72.13; cf. 7.71.3.
29 0. Kern. Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander (Berlin 1900) 83, no.
98.41-42.
30 IG XI2 158.65: Tr&SoSEKa aytAcTaa; cf. IG XI2 203.45 and 287.72: ra
&USEKa.
31Insc.Del. 401.12, 403.37, 406.36, et al.
32R. Vallois,
"Topographie Delienne II," BCH 53 (1929) 225-249.
33 P. Les Cultes de Delos
Bruneau, (Paris 1970) 439.
34 E. Will, Ddlos XXII, Le Dodekatheon (Paris 1955) 157-158.
35H. G.
Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration II (The Hague 1960) fig.
139.
 242 Stephen G. Miller
cases these figures could be detached and carried in processions; and
(3) that all twelve figures did not have to be set into a single base. The
last point shows the possibility that themonument from Pherai was one
of two bases in a dodekatheon with the sixmale deities on one base and
the six female deities on another.36 The first point permits the suggested
reconstruction of the upper member of the monument as consisting of
statuettes of the goddesses, and the second point would permit those
figures to have been removable. But if the images on the Thessalian
altar were full-figure statuettes, the use of labels would not have been
absolutely necessary.37 There is, in our Thessalian context, another
possibility.
In the museum of Larissa there is a curious object the
purpose of which has never been explained (pl. 3:2).38 Found at
Dilophos (Chalitsi) south of Larissa and about 20 miles northwest of
Pherai, this object consists of a large poros slab (about 0.20 x 0.50 x
1.00 m.) with three circular holes cut through it. Into these holes are
set the marble heads of three females with very similar features. The
heads are held in place by a collar of lead around their long shaft-like
necks. Ifwe restore some such upper member on our altar, an explana
tion for the reversal of the inscriptions on the face of the monument
becomes possible. A conjectural history of the monument might have
been something like this:

1. The altar is constructed as a free-standing monument

on top of a stepped krepidoma with an upper member consisting of a
single slab pierced by six holes into which were set the heads of the six
36 Cf.
supra n. 17.
37 In the same area where the blocks of our monument came to light there
was discovered the fragmentary torso of a marble statue of Athena. Although under life-size,
this statue is still too large to allow its association with themonument. The publication of the
torsoby G. Bakalakes is forthcoming in Thessalika.
38 Larissa Museum no. 948; cf. ZeAT7ov 16 (1960) 183-184. The piece was
discovered by Mrs. M. Theochare whom I would thank for permission to cite it here, but has
not yet been fully published.
Although thisThessalian three-headed slabmight seem extraordinary, one
might remember the female terracotta heads of the second half of the fifth century B.C.
discovered at Brauron. These heads, like those of the Dilophos slab, have elongated necks
which obviously served to hold them in place; cf. BCH 87 (1963) 707, and ERGON 1962, 30
32. An effect quite similar to that of the Dilophos slab is achieved by a series of miniature
bronze heads recently discovered in Etruria which were set in stone bases. In this case, how
ever, a smaller tenon projects down from the base of the neck to serve the same function as
the elongated necks of the Dilophos and Brauron heads; cf. M. A. Del Chiaro and A. Taloc
chini, AJA 77 (1973) pl. 60.5.
 Altar of the Six Goddesses 243

goddesses. The front of the monument is carved with six low relief
stelai, one below each goddess, and inscribedwith the name of the deity
portrayed above.
2. The altar is damaged and in the subsequent repairs the
left end is trimmed and replaced by a thin vertical slab onto which is
carved the left half of the first relief stele (see above and fig. 3). The
upper slab is set back on top of the repaired monument, but turned
around 180? (by mistake?) so that the backs of the heads of the god
desses are toward the front, and the stelai are reinscribed in retrograde
following the original sequence. Thus Hestia, originally the first on the
left facing the front of themonument, is now the last on the right facing
the back of themonument.
3. The "mistake" is corrected by turning each head
around individually (after an annual procession of the Twelve Gods?)
so that it faces the front of the altar, and the stelai receive their final
reinscription in the form of turning the individual names around so that
they read from left to right, but in the reverse of the original sequence.
Both the head and the name of Hestia, for example, originally first on
the left facing front, then last on the right facing back, is finally last on
the right facing front (fig. 4).

Although the suggested reconstruction of the altar and its

is
history highly conjectural and cannot be proven, itwould explain the
peculiarities on the front of themonument. But if the reconstruction is
correct, the form of themonument is unique. A possible parallel might
be a rockcut relief of the Roman period in France,39 but the difference
in time and place is too great to allow even a hypothetical connection.
Similar to the suggested reconstruction of our monument in spirit, but
not exactly equivalent in form, are three monuments found in the Bay
of Naples and dedicated to the Syrian god Dusares.40 All three are
shaped like normal altars. Two have rectangular cuttings for three
objects on top, while the third largermonument has cuttings for seven
39 A. Blanc. "Nouveaux Bas-reliefs des Deesses-meres et du Dieu au Maillet
chez lesTricastins," Gallia 25 (1967) 70, fig. 3. It is equally possible that in the relief cited we
have to do not with three heads set upon an altar, but rather with a compression of the space

dividing two zones so that the relief should be considered in two zones with three busts in the

upper and an altar in the lower, a much more common composition for this type of monu
ment. Note also the circular Roman altar in the Louvre with the heads of the Twelve Gods
applied around the rim; cf.Weinreich, op. cit. (supran. 17) 826, fig. 8.
40V. Tran Tam Tinh, Le Culte desDivinites orientalesen Campanie (Leiden
1972) 127-131, 144-146, figs. 65-67.
1.o

CC
-. ?T~-_"*.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~'r. ZZ VC~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C

INS,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

4.~, c Pb r nt 1g t t

4. Possible reconstructionof the altar of the six god

 Altar of the Six Goddesses 245

objects. These objects were small simple stelai with rounded tops, as is
shown by the discovery of four of them near the larger altar. The lower
part of each stele is provided with a tenon which fits neatly into the
socket on top of the altar.
If none of thesemonuments provides a precise parallel for
the suggested reconstruction of the Pheraian monument, they at least
show that curious monuments do exist elsewhere in the ancient world,
and that the reconstruction suggested above ought to be considered as
a possibility, however remote.41 It should be remembered, moreover,
that the suggested reconstruction may be rejected but the suggested
history retained by reconstructing full-figure statuettes on the upper
element.

V. THE FORM OF THE ALTAR

Even without the hypothetical reconstruction of the upper

element, there are peculiarities which can be best explained in a local
Pheraian context. For example, the idea of individual stelai carved in
relief on a largermonument is not easily paralleled, and yet there is a
fragment of another monument from Pherai which must have been
similar to our monument in this respect. This is a fragment of marble
from the upper left corner of a monument upon whose face was carved
a stele in relief (pl. 4: 1).42The inscription on the face of the stele is a
dedication to Zeus Thaulios.43 Unfortunately, we cannot know if there
were more than one stele on the face of themonument, and the form of
the stele ismuch more developed (e.g., pediment, acroteria, etc.) than
that of the stelai on the Pheraian altar.
41Although I have
sought to explain the curious nature of the inscription on
the face of themonument in terms of the upper element, other explanations are possible. One
which has been suggested is that lines 1 and 2 are contemporary on Block A and represent a
later copy of an earlier inscription as indicated by the use of retrograde in line 2. These lines
are then replaced by the new "edition" of line 3 which does away with the use of "old
fashioned" retrograde in line 2. The reproduction of lines 1 and 2 on themonument is to be
attributed to a religious conservatism which is, however, then disregarded by the erasure of
those lines and the inscription of line 3.
42Now in theHalmyros Museum, no. 27; cf. Bequignon, op. cit. 94, no. 71,
and N. Giannopoulos, 'Apx. 'E+. 1913, 218, no. 1. Perhaps the most obvious parallels, al
though in a funerary context, to the form of our altar with individual stelai simulated on a
largermonument are those bearing the fifth-centuryAthenian casualty lists; cf. D. Bradeen,
Hesperia33 (1964) 23-29, and Hesperia36 (1967) 324-328.
43The meaning of the epithet is not agreed upon; see F. Hiller von Gaer
tringen, Hermes 46 (1911) 154-156; F. Solmsen, Hermes 46 (1911) 286-291; V. Costanzi,
Athenaeum1914, 49-51.
246 Stephen G. Miller
These stelai are, in fact, one of themore intriguing aspects
of the monument. Simple pointed stelai, although common as grave
stones throughout Greece, are extremely rare in other contexts. I have
been able to find only two other instances of the use of this shape in
connection with the gods.
1. Volos Museum no. E 432, from Glaphyrai (pl. 4:2)44
Height: 0.955 m.
Width: 0.235 m.
Thickness: 0.060 m.
The stone has suffered greatly since its discovery and only
traces of a few strokes still survive in the last three lines. I reproduce the
text of the Corpus.
'Epwkwv evI;&
VLEVOS zdLOWV
uevos Atovv

awr
cuVSe
aVO7 KE

Kal nappe
VLXOsKayC Nt

K[a]va8pos
2. Volos Museum no. E 1019, from Pherai (pl. 4:3)45
Height 0.54 m.
Width at top: 0.152 m.
Width at bottom: 0.19 m.
Thickness (maximum): 0.081 m.

NvSaczos
7Trpaldov
vos 17Hrel

One might rather expect EvSapcosas the name in line 1,

but the reading of the first letter as nu is secure. The Thessalian form Trep
is attested at Pherai,46 as is themore usual 7Trep.47

44 IG IX2, 411. This is the stone which Stahlin, op. cit. 61, n. 16, dates to the
Archaic period and attributes toBoibe. I can find no reason for Stahlin's change of the third
century date and theGlaphyrai provenience published by Kern.
45Unpublished; discoveredMarch, 1940.
46Bequignon, op. cit. 96, no. 78.
47 Ibid. 91, no. 62.
 Altar of the Six Goddesses 247
These two stelai are obviously aniconic monuments and
the discovery of them in the same region as our altar suggests that
Pherai was the center of a well developed and even formalized ani
conism.
Aniconism was, of course, well known throughout Greece
in the historical period, and there are many ancient references to
aniconic images. Zeus,48 Hera,49 Aphrodite,50 Artemis,51 and Apollo52
were all worshipped in aniconic form together with other deities and
heroes in various parts of the ancient world. These aniconic monu
ments are sometimes portrayed in other art forms as, for example, on an
Apulian red-figured bell crater in the Cleveland Museum, where a
plain stele bears the inscription APPOAITH and must be an aniconic
image of the goddess.53 Even more pertinent to the present discussion
are the regions where a flourishing aniconism is attested as, for example,
at Pharai in Achaea where some 30 squared stones in the agora were
worshipped with the name of a god given to each.54More notable yet is
Tegea in Arcadia where Pausanias noted a square image of Zeus and
continued with his own editorial comment: "It seems to me that the
Arcadians particularly like this form."55 This statement has been well
documented by the discovery of nearly 30 such "statues" in Arcadia,
mostly from Tegea.56 These rETpdycywaayaC(ya-ra fall into two categories.
One is the familiar human-headed Herm, the other a plain square
shaft crowned by a pyramid which is set off from the shaft by a scotia

48Paus. 2.9.6 (Sicyon).

49Clem. Al. Protr. 40P (Samos), and Strom.418P (Argos).
50Tac. Hist. 2.3 (Paphos on Cyprus).
51Paus. 2.9.6 (Sicyon).
52 under the epithet Agyieus; cf. Harp. s.v. Ayvt&s ...l. .Ayyu S
Especially
EaTt KIwV
OVEtS V A'4ywv, Ov lariaat 7Trv
rpo Ovpcv ... tSiovs 8 etvacl xaaov avtrovs Aiovos.
Note also Paus. 1.44.2. Perhaps themost obvious ancient representation of Apollo in this form
is on a terracotta plaque fromRome; cf. Fasti Archaeologici22 (1967) fig. 48.
53 Cleveland Museum no. 24.534; CVA Cleveland, fasc. 1 (USA 15) pl. 43.1.
Note also the stelai ofNike on bell craters now inBonn, museum no. 79, andMadrid, museum
no. 11081; cf. A. Cambitoglou and A. D. Trendall, ApulianRed-FiguredVasesof thePlain Style
(Rutland and Tokyo 1961) pl. 20.96 and 98. A stele of Zeus appears on a vase at Ruvo; cf.
L.R. Farnell. The Cultsof theGreekStates I (Oxford 1896) pl. Ia.
54 Paus. 7.22.1-5.
55 Paus. 8.48.6: neirroL'-oal 8S Kal Alos TeXAlov 3fculos Kat ayaXAia Terpdaywvov

7Teplaacs yap 8'j Ti rZ aoXjLaT' ToV-rthoaIvovrat pLot XalpeLV ol 'APXdEae. Note also the presence of
Apollo Agyieus (n. 52 supra) at Tegea; Paus. 8.53.1 and 6.
56 Cf. K. A. 'E+. 1911, 149-159.
Rhomaios, ApX.
248 Stephen G. Miller
and a toros.57The variations between these "pyramidal pillars" are
small, and it is clear that a formalized aniconism was active inArcadia
in general and in Tegea in particular. One of these monuments is of
especial interest in that it consists of three such pillars carved from a
single block and inscribed NviuL v.58 Like our Thessalian altar, the
Arcadian dedication is amultiple aniconic monument. The "pyramidal
pillars" of Tegea and the simple pointed stelai of Pherai are local, but
well-defined and formalized, variations of a strong aniconic influence.
Although this interpretation accounts for the stelai on the
face of the Thessalian altar, it does not take into consideration the
(hypothetical) upper member with its female heads. If the reconstruc
tion is valid, then the monument as a whole is not purely aniconic.
Rather, itwould represent a stage halfway between aniconism and ico
nism. Such an intermediate stage iswell attested elsewhere, particularly
with reference to Dionysos. One can, in fact, trace the development of
portrayals of Dionysos from a simple aniconic monument59 to a com
plete anthropomorphization. Particularly instructive for the inter
mediate stage in this evolutionary process are the many instances in
vase painting where a pillar, or a column, or even a tree trunk, has a
mask of Dionysos affixed to it and wrapped in clothing below.60 The
aniconic image is transformed into a quasi-anthropomorphic statue by
the addition of a human head. That this practice survived well into
the classical period, and probably even later, is shown not only by the
portrayal of the custom on red-figured vases, but also by the survival of
themasks themselves both in terracotta and inmarble.61
It was probably from some such rather temporary com
bination that the more formal Herm was developed.62 This is not to

57 IG V2 59-66 (Tegea) and 280, 290 (Mantinea), and eight uninscribed

shaftsmentioned by Rhomaios, op. cit. 149.
58 IGV2 65.
59Clem. Al. Strom.418P; cf. Paus. 9.12.4.
60See M. P. Nilsson, Geschichteder griechischen
Religion I3 (Munich 1967)
207-208, 572, for bibliography.
61Cf.W. Wrede, "DerMaskengott," Ath.Mitt. 53 (1928) 66-95.
62H. "The of the Greek 46 67-68.
Goldman, Origin Herm," AJA (1942)
Miss Goldman's additional contention, that theHerm was originally and specifically Diony
siac is not necessary to our argument; cf. Nilsson, op. cit. 207, n. 4. Miss Goldman herself
admits (p. 63) that the mask was not unique to Dionysos, and what is important for us is the
existence of the aniconic-iconic intermediate stagewhich is best documented with regard to
Dionysos and Hermes. The use of the quasi-anthropomorphic herm was almost certainly
once more universal for, as Miss Goldman points out (p. 61): "the custom of weaving gar
 Altar of the Six Goddesses 249

deny the generally accepted derivation of the herm from the wayside
piles of stones, or ppa,which served as sign posts,63 but it is to posit an
intermediate stage of anthropomorphic evolution. The manifestation
of this stage is the attachment of a human head to an aniconic body.
Although inconclusive, it is tantalizing to note that the earliest attested
Herm was attributed to Hipparchos son of Peisistratos.64 One of these
Herms is known, and it shows traces of anathyrosis on its top surface
which indicates that the head was attached to the shaft as a separate
piece.65 In other words, theHipparchan Herm may retain the physical
manifestations of the first attachment of iconic head to aniconic body.
The straight shaft with phallus, stubby shoulder pieces,
and bearded human head is best known to us as a representation of
Hermes, but there is evidence that this form was once used for many
other divinities (cf. notes 48-53). That this form did not remain in use
for most deities was due to the impulses toward full anthropomor
phization; but in an area, such as Arcadia, where aniconism was
particularly strong, this impulse would be resisted. We have already
seen that aniconism remained strong inArcadia, but iconism also inter
vened. One possible result of a conflict between the traditional aniconic
form and the new iconic formmight well be a compromise which took
the form which we know as a Herm. In fact, Tegea once again provides
evidence that such a compromise could and did take place given the
proper conditions of a strong aniconic tradition in a fairly isolated area.
That aniconic tradition is represented by the "pyramidal pillars"
mentioned above, but Tegea also has a series of human-headed shafts,
or Herms, which would not be particularly surprising were it not for
the fact that these are all "statues " of gods other thanHermes. Aphro
dite,66Artemis,67 and Agathos Theos68 are all represented by individual
herms. Even more interesting is the fragmentary multiple herm now
broken at the top, bottom, and right side, but clearly once topped by
human heads.69 In its present state we have only three shafts although
ments for statues could only have arisen at a time when the full anthropomorphic statue had
not yet evolved."
63 See E. B. 113 and n. 48.
Harrison, Agora XI (Princeton 1965)
64 [Plato] Hipparchos228D.
65 and S. Dow. " Inschriften vom attischen Ath. Mitt. 62
J. Kirchner Lande,"
(1937) 3.
66 IG V2 69 and 70.
67 IG V2 68.
68 IG V2 67.
69 IG V2 73.
250 Stephen G. Miller
there may have been more originally. Each shaft is inscribed with a
name identifying the image: Zeus, Poseidon, and Demeter. Another
multiple herm of six contiguous shafts is sadly defaced and its inscrip
tion badly scarred, but itwas obviously amonument of this same type.70
If one now looks again at the suggested restoration of the
Pheraian altar (fig. 4), itwill be seen, I believe, that its spirit and moti
vation-its content in an art historical sense-is precisely the same as
the Arcadian monuments, even if its form is not precisely the same.
Certainly there can be little doubt that Thessaly, like Arcadia, had a
strong aniconic tradition, and if this tradition, confronted by the im
pulses of anthropomorphization, could produce monuments such as
have been seen from Arcadia, then it is possible that Thessaly could
have produced, under a similar iconic impulse, a monument such as
thatwhich has been restored. One would then have to do with an inter
mediate stage in the evolution of anthropomorhization where human
heads are set on top of the traditional forms of aniconic images.

VI. THE Six GODDESSES

We now turn to the deities represented on the altar. As

mentioned before, I believe that these six goddesses represent the distaff
side of the Twelve Gods in Thessaly, or at least in Pherai. Four of the
goddesses are definitely part of the canonical Twelve and require no
special pleading for their places here. Hestia, Demeter, Athena, and
Aphrodite are all attested in Thessaly and are all charter members of
the Twelve Olympians. Normally, one should expect Artemis and Hera
as the remaining two goddesses, but nothing is normal about this
monument, and Enodia and Themis require explanation.
At this point, it should be noted that the Twelve canonical
members were not immutable. Although the great bulk of evidence
confirms the membership as belonging principally to Zeus, Apollo,
Ares, Hermes, Hephaistos, Poseidon, Hera, Demeter, Athena, Aphro
dite, Artemis, and Hestia, some of these gods and goddesses were oc
casionally replaced by other deities. Dionysos frequently usurps the seat
of Hestia, and local deities were sometimes enrolled as replacements
70 IG V2 72. For other such multiple heads bases see AA 1941,
upon plain
652 and fig. 130 (Locri), and E. Esperandieu, RecueilgeneraldesBas-Reliefs, Statues et Bustes
de laGauleRomaineIV (Paris 1911) 3426, where five joined female heads from theMuseum of
Chatillon are shown. Although broken below, these heads may well have belonged on a base
like that shown ibid. no. 3411.1.
 Altar of the Six Goddesses 251
for less popular divinities. Such appears to have been the case, for
example, with the original Twelve Gods worshipped at the shrine in
the Athenian Agora,71 and at Olympia the deified Alpheios river was
listed among the local version of the Twelve.72
The case for Enodia as a member of the Twelve Gods at
Pherai is simple and straightforward. She replaces Artemis.73 Enodia,
although well-known throughout Thessaly,74 was particularly venerated
by the people of Pherai. She appears on their coins,75 and is frequently
called simply Pheraia, or the Pheraian goddess, in literary sources.
She is a combination of Artemis and Hekate, with a dash of Alkestis
thrown in.76 Daughter of Zeus, Enodia's maternal grandfather was
Aiolos, a satisfactory genealogy in Aiolic Thessaly, and her general
importance in the area may well have been connected to the prevalence
of witchcraft.77 Her iconography is well established, not only by the
coins of Pherai, but also by fragmentary dedicatory reliefs fromMace
donia, a composite of which shows Enodia seated side-saddle on horse
back and bearing a single torch.78 In other representations, as on the
coins cited above, she carries a torch in each hand.
In addition toMacedonia, Enodia is attested epigraphi
cally outside Thessaly at Epidauros,79 Oreos in Euboea,80 and as far
away as Issa in Dalmatia.81 Pausanias, who calls her Artemis Pheraia,
71H. A. 131
Thompson and R. E. Wycherley, Agora XIV (Princeton 1972)
132.
72 Pind. 01. 10.48-49.
73 P. A. Clement, "A Note on the Thessalian Cult of Enodia," Hesperia 8

(1939) 200.
74 IG IX2 575-578, and Mnemosyne23 (1970) 251 (Larissa); 'ApX.'E+. 1911,
127, no. 61 (Gonnos); IG IX2 358 (Demetrias); JeAnov 1926, 52, no. 4 = Hesperia8 (1939)
200 (Phalanna).
75E.g., E. Babelon, Traite desMonnaiesGrecquesetRomaines IV (Paris 1932)
pl. 294.8.
76Hesychios s.v. epatca;Lykoph. 5.1176-1180 and scholion ad loc.;
Polyainos 8.43.
77L. R. Farnell, The Cults of theGreekStates II (Oxford 1896) 504-505; cf.
supra n. 22-23.
78 L. Hellenica 11-12 588-595. Robert has collected several
Robert, (1960)
representations of Enodia towhich we might add the red-figured kylix inVienna, museum
no. 204; CVA,Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum, fasc. 1, pl. 30.4; and the gem stone of a gold
finger ring;A. Furtwangler, Die antikenGemmenI (Leipzig and Berlin 1900) pl. 25.21.
79 IG IV 1191, 1192, and 1542.
80 IG XII9 1193.
81 CIG 1837; cf. J. and L. Robert, REG 66 (1953) 147, no. 118. It is in
teresting to note that Jason sacrificed to Artemis in a temple on an island in this same area;

Ap. Rhod., Argon. 4.470.

252 Stephen G. Miller
tells us of her cult inAthens, Sicyon, and Argos.82 Both theArgives and
the Sicyonians claimed that their xoanaof the goddess had been brought
from Pherai. Itmight be noted in passing that these xoanawere of wood
and, on the basis of what has been seen of aniconism in Thessaly, itmay
be conjectured that they were less than fully anthropomorphized. Be
that as itmay, Enodia was clearly a goddess in her own right, existing
inmany places side by side with Artemis, but frequently conflated and
identified with her as, for example, on a small altar or bomiskos from
Demetrias (pl. 4:4).83
We do not know why Enodia was so especially revered at
Pherai, but her name provides a clue. Pherai is situated at a cross-roads
and controls the passage to Pagasai-Demetrias, the only viable harbor
available to the otherwise land-locked Thessalians. Control of this
access route was crucial to Pherai,84 and Enodia, the goddess of the
road, would have been a natural benefactor to the Pheraians. If one
further considers the previously mentioned importance of Enodia to
Thessalian magic, it isnot difficult to understand why shewould replace
Artemis among the Twelve Gods at Pherai.
The appearance of Themis on the altar ismore difficult to
explain, and the argument here must also consider Hera, the goddess
whose place Themis takes. If themonument is, as suggested, the female
part of a sanctuary of the Twelve Gods, then Hera must be missing. At
first thismay seem incredible, but with closer examination of the Thes
salian context it is not so unlikely, for there is evidence that Hera was
not welcome in Thessaly. For example, in the hundreds of dedications
known from Thessaly, Hera ismentioned only twice. Her first appear
ance is in an inscription of the first century after Christ which mentions
the priestess of Livia Hera Sebaste.85 This is obviously a reference to a
cult of the deified Livia where she is equated with Juno, which is trans
lated into Greek as Hera as a matter of course. The other epigraphical
mention of Hera in Thessaly86 couples her with Zeus in the canonical
fashion, but also belongs to the Roman period. Furthermore, Hera is
not represented on any Thessalian coins, nor is there any literary evi
dence for a cult of Hera in Thessaly.87
82Paus. 2.10.7 and 2.23.5.
83SEG III 485; Halmyros Museum no. 210.
84 Cf.
Westlake, op. cit. (supra n. 14) 10-11.
85 IG IX2 333.
86
'ApX. 'Ep. 1931, 177, no. 13.
87Without to understand have
being in a position the significance, scholars
 Altar of the Six Goddesses 253
The documentation for the presence of Themis in Thes
saly, while not overwhelming, is impressive when compared to that of
Hera. Themis is attested epigraphically four times in the period ranging
from the sixth to the third centuries B.C.88Moreover, one of the Thes
salian months, Themistios,89 was named for her, a fact which obviously
gives her a high rank on the religious calendar. In this context itmay be
noted that Demetrias, the early Hellenistic settlement of Demetrios
Poliorketes on the bay of Volos, named its twelve months after the
Twelve Gods, apparently along Platonic guidelines.90 Of the twelve
month names at Demetrias, ten have been recovered and they represent
ten of the canonical Twelve Gods.91 Itmay be fortuitous, but one of the
two missing Olympians isHera. Future epigraphic discoveries may, of
course, reveal Hera among these month names, but if the local tradi
tion in Thessaly was adequately strong, Themis may rather be found as
one of the twelve-month deities at Demetrias.
One other body of evidence lies in the personal names of
Thessalians. There are attested some 14 examples of names which are
derived from Themis, such as Pasithemis, Themistion, Themison,
Themistokles, and, especially popular, Themistogenes.92 Most of these
are Hellenistic, the latest are Augustan in date. There are 11 examples
of Hera-derived names in Thessaly, such as Herais, Herophilos, and
Herodotos.93 Of these, two are late Roman (third-fourth centuries
A.D.) and three are slaves. This leaves a proportion of Themis names to
Hera names ofmore than 2: 1.The proportion of Themis toHera names
inAttica is, for example, about 1: 1.94
So far we have adduced only arguments ex silentio, but

previously noted the sparcity of evidence for a cult of Hera in Thessaly; Farnell, op. cit.
(supra n. 53): " [The cult of Hera does not] appear to have had such vogue in Thessaly and
along the northern shores as it had inBoeotia, Euboea, Attica, Sicyon, Corinth and the Pelo
ponnese." S. Eitrem, RE s.v. Hera 370: "Thessalien. Die Spuren eines Kultus sind sehr
durftig." P. Philippson, ThessalischeMythologie (Zurich 1944) 69: "Hera hat in Thessalien
kaum einen bezeugten Kult." M. P. Nilsson, op. cit. (supran. 60): "Der Kult der Hera....
[ist] sehr sparlich inThessalien, Attika, Phokis und Achaia."
88 IG IX2 1236 (Phalanna); IpaKrLKd1908, 171 (Thebes); RevPhil 35
(1911) 300-301, no. 49 (Magnesia); SGDI 1557 (Mondaia).
89 IG IX2 274 and 277.
E.g.
90P1. Leg. 745B-E, 828B-C, 848D.
91F. Stahlin, E. Mayer, A. Heidner, Pagasai undDemetrias (Berlin 1934) 186.
92E.g. IG IX2 104; 109a; 219; 415; 530-532; 539; 568; 1232.
93E.g. IG IX2 18; 526; 538; 590; 824.
94This proportion is based on the names which appear in Kirchner, PA,
which are of sufficient quantity to yield an accurate general ratio.
254 Stephen G. Miller
these arguments are highly suggestive, if not conclusive. They are
adequate, I would submit, to formulate the hypothesis that Hera was
unpopular in Thessaly, and that Themis was her local equivalent. If
one accepts this as a working hypothesis, certain literary passages be
come explicable. Most interesting among these is the peculiar situation
of Hera in the Argonautica. In this story, Hera is cast as the protectress
of theArgonauts and as the patron saint ofJason, but there are anoma
lieswhich have escaped the notice, so far as I can discover, of commen
tators. In the first two books of the epic Hera appears only six times;
she plays an active role in the story only upon two of these occasions,
and in one of them she is actually responsible for an obstacle in the
path of theArgonauts.95 It isAthena, not Hera, who is the protectress in
these two books. Athena lays the plans for the Argo and aids in its
construction; Athena presentsJason with his wonderful robe, the equiva
lent of the Shield of Achilles in the Iliad; and Athena pushes apart the
Symplegades and helps the Argo pass through.96 Hera's active role,
which completely supplants that of Athena, begins only in Book 3
together with the entrance of Medea. The Argonauts have made the
passage to Colchis, and are within sight of the Golden Fleece before
Hera steps into the action. Her reason for doing so, her avowed purpose
in supporting Jason, is to see that Medea returns to Thessaly in order to

bring vengence upon Pelias, Jason's half-uncle, who does not pay her
honors. This motif is stated several times; Pelias does not worship
Hera, and her interest in Jason is based solely upon a self-serving desire
for revenge on Pelias.97
This same theme is taken up by [Apollodoros]98 who
relates that Pelias and his brother Neleus, finding that their mother
Tyro was being mistreated by her step-mother Sidero, chased Sidero,
who took refuge in a temenos of Hera. Pelias then slew Sidero upon the
altar in this temenos and subsequently refused to pay honor to Hera.
This sounds very much like an aetiological tale designed to explain the

95Ap. Rhod., Argon. 1.997; cf. 2.216, 2.865. At 2.216 it is stated that the
Argo isunder the special protection ofHera. This isobviously a foreshadowing sinceHera has
done nothing to thispoint to deserve the title of Protectress of theArgo.
96 Ibid. 1.110; 1.721-768; 2.598-599.
97 Ibid. 3.64-65; 74-75; 1134-1136; 4.241-243. Although the motif of the
of Hera on Pelias is not exploited until the second half of the epic, the stage is set
revenge
early, for at 1.14 Jason enters to find Pelias sacrificing to Poseidon and all the gods except
Pelasgian Hera.
98 [Apollodoros], Bibl. 1.9.8.; cf. 1.9.16.
 Altar of the Six Goddesses 255
lack of popularity of Hera in Thessaly as well as her antipathy toward
Pelias. While it is not very likely that the reason for this antipathy was
that given by [Apollodoros], the ancestry of Pelias vis-a-vis that ofJason
may provide a clue. Jason and his ancestors traced their lineage directly
back to Aiolos, the eponymous hero of the Aiolic Thessalians. There is
no reason to suppose that Hera was unpopular with the Aiolians, and
there is evidence of a cult of Hera Aioleia on Lesbos.99 Pelias, on the
other hand, although a great-grandson of Aiolos on his mother's side,
was sired by Poseidon in the form of the Enipeos river, the large central
Thessalian tributary of the Penios river.100We may suggest that Pelias
represents an indigenous culture in which Themis played the role of
Hera. This culture may have been represented in historical times by
the Penestai, a group of lower-class serfs not unlike the Helots of La
conia; the pure Aiolians, such as Jason, would have formed the over
lord baronial class.101The indigenous culture may have had sufficient
influence to prevent the replacement of Themis by Hera.
There is, moreover, good evidence that Hera was not
originally the wife of Zeus, and that she replaced Themis as his consort
in the rest of Greece. Hesiod says that Themis was an earlier wife of
Zeus,102 and Pindar calls Themis the original wife of Zeus.103 If true,
and if Themis remained enthroned next to Zeus in the Thessalian
Pantheon, then Thessaly represents, for whatever reasons, a holdover
from earlier times. Themis is a member of the Thessalian version of the
Twelve Gods and a legitimate holder of her position on the altar of the
six goddesses at Pherai.

VII. CONCLUSION
If the hypothesis is accepted that Themis does hold the
position in Thessaly more usually held by Hera in other parts of
Greece, then the interpretation of our monument as a part of a sanctuary
of the Twelve Gods is considerably strengthened. That this dodekatheon
had an element of aniconism can also be regarded as reasonably well
99Ch. Picard, "La Triade Zeus-Hera-Dionysos dans l'OrientHellenique,"
BCH 70 (1946) 456.
100 loc. cit.
[Apollodoros]
101F. Miltner, RE s.v. Penesten; cf.Westlake, op. cit. (supran. 14) 27-28.
102Hes., Theog. 901.
103 5: &pXalov aMoXov Jdo'. If correct,
Pindar, frag. 30 (Snell) the theory
that Hera was unable to supplant Themis as the wife of Zeus in Thessaly would support the

opinions of A. B. Cook, Zeus III (Cambridge 1940) 1065: "the case forHera as essentially
and ab origine the bride of Zeus is neither proven nor probable."
256 Stephen G. Miller
established, but the questions of the precise form and, to a lesser degree,
the chronology of the monument must be left open. The solutions to
these questions which have been offered in this paper are tentative and
can be proven or disproven only by future excavations at the site of the
altar of the six goddesses on theAcropolis of Pherai.

University of California
Berkeley

Postscript: On p. 250 an intermediate stage in anthropomorphic

development was discussed. I have recently found reference to an
apparent equivalent intermediate stage of the evolution inRome. The
manifestation was, however, the opposite of that posited on p. 250 with
the aniconic head of the Magna Mater set into an anthropomorphic
body; cf. Am. Adv.Nat. 7.49.