Abbreviations

Adam Adam, S., The Technique of Greek Sculpture in the Archaic and Classical Periods (BSA Supplementary Paper 5, London 1966).Google Scholar

Andronikos Andronikos, M., ‘Peri tes steles tou “Hoplitodromou”, AE (1953/1954), Festschrift, Oikonomos, ii. 317 ff.Google Scholar

Boardman Boardman, J., Greek Sculpture. The Archaic Period (London 1978).Google Scholar

Dinsmoor Dinsmoor, W. B., The Architecture of Ancient Greece (London-New York 1950).Google Scholar

Philios Philios, D., ‘Anaglyptos epitymbios archaike stele’, AE (1903) 42 ff.Google Scholar

Fuchs Fuchs, W., Die Skulptur der Griechen (Munich 1983).Google Scholar

Harrison Harrison, E., Archaic and Archaistic Sculpture, The Athenian Agora v. xi (Princeton 1965).Google Scholar

Himmelmann-Wildschültz Himmelmann-Wildschültz, N., Studien zum Ilissos-Relief (Munich 1956).Google Scholar

Jeffery ‘Gravestones’ Jeffery, L. H., ‘The Inscribed Gravestones of Archaic Attica’, BSA 57 (1962) 115 ff.Google Scholar

Johansen Johansen, K. F., The Attic Grave-reliefs of the Classical Period (Copenhagen 1951).Google Scholar

Karouzou Papaspiridi-Karouzou, S., Guide de Musée National. Marbles, bronzes et vases (Athens 1927).Google Scholar

Kontoleon AGP Kontoleon, N., Aspects de la Grèce preclassique (Paris 1970).Google Scholar

Kurtz Kurtz, D., Athenian White Lekythoi. Patterns and Painters (Oxford 1975).Google Scholar

Kurtz/Boardman Kurtz, D. C. and Boardman, J., Greek Burial Customs (London 1967).Google Scholar

Orlandos Orlandos, A., Ta hylika domes ton archaion Hellenon v. ii (Athens 1958).Google Scholar

Philios Philios, D., ‘Anaglyptos archaikestele’, AE (1903) 42 ff.Google Scholar

Richter AGA Richter, G. M. A., The Archaic Gravestones of Attica (London 1961).Google Scholar

Ridgway ASGS Sismondo-Ridgway, B., The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture (Princeton 1977).Google Scholar

Robertson Robertson, M., A History of Greek Art vols. i–ii (Cambridge 1975)Google Scholar

Schilardi Schilardi, D. U., ‘Representatios of Free-standing Sarcophagi on Attic, White-ground Lekythoi’, Ancient Greek and Related Pottery (Proceedings of the International Vase Symposium, Amsterdam 1984) Allard Pierson Series v. 5, Brijdez, H. A. G. (ed.) (1984).Google Scholar

Stevens Stevens, G. P. and Paton, M., The Erechtheum (Cambridge, Mass. 1927).Google Scholar

Travlos Travlos, J., Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens (London 1971).Google Scholar

Wiegartz Wiegartz, H., ‘Zur Deutung der “Waffenlaüfer-stele”’, Marburger Winck. Progr. (1965) 59 ff.Google Scholar

¹ ‘Anaglyptos epitymbios archaike stele’, AE (1903) 42–56 pl. 1. For views about the representation and the original form of the monument, until 1954, see Andronikos, M., ‘Peri tes steles tou “Hoplitodromou”’, AE (1953/1954)Google Scholar, Oikonomos Festschrift, II, 317–26 (with bibliog.). For bibliog. on the same relief, see G. Lippold, Handbuch der Archäologie, Band 3.1 Die griechische Plastik (1950) 84 n. 16 pl. 27, 4; Schefold, K., Die Griechen und ihre nachbarn (1967) 170 pl. 41Google Scholar; Wiegartz, H., ‘Zur Deutung der “Waffenlaüfer-stele”’, Marburger Winck. Progr. (1965) 59–60Google Scholar; Mitropoulou, E., Corpus I: Attic Votive Reliefs of the 6th and the5th Centuries B.C. (1977) 20–1Google Scholar; Fuchs, 503–4.

² The author is indebted to the following scholars who have provided assistance and advice in the completion of this article: Dr O. Alexandri, Professor G. Gruben, Mrs C. Rhomiopoulou and Professor N. Yalouris. Special thanks are due to Dr M. Korres, architect of the Acropolis restoration programme, who examined the relief and discussed its problems with the author.

³ On conflicting views about this relief, see Andronikos, 317 ff.,esp. p. 318 and more recently, Robertson, 111–12 n. 87.

⁴ The name refers to the attributes of the represented youth; see Andronikos, 317. In early publications the find is called ‘The Marathon Runner Relief’. The name derives from the erroneous opinion that the relief represents a warrior of the Marathon battle, a view which was justifiably rejected by Philios in the first publication of the monument (AE 1903, 50).

⁵ By personal inspection. The stele is distinguished by the excellent quality of marble, which is fine grained and its translucency exceeds 0.03 m. On the probability that the marble is Parian, see also Philios, 45.

⁶ AE (1903) 47–8, 52–6.

⁷ See, e.g., Robertson, 111–12 fig. 31b; Boardman, fig. 239.

⁸ For a more recent view that the relief represents a dancer of the Pyrrhic, see Wiegartz, 46–64 pls. 12–64. On earlier views, see n. 1 above.

⁹ Robertson, 112; Fuchs, 503–4.

¹⁰ AGA 42 n. 11.

¹¹ p. 103 n. 1.

¹² Studien zum Ilissos-Relief (1956) 35.

¹³ pp. 46–64.

¹⁴ Ibid. 58.

¹⁵ p. 112.

¹⁶ ASGS 166 n. 23.

¹⁷ AGP 19.

¹⁸ Ibid.

¹⁹ A detailed examination of this aspect is offered at the end of this study.

²⁰ The relief has been related to the work of Antenor, a view which is not attainable any longer; see Schefold, , Griechische Plastik I, Die grossen Bildhauer der archaischen Athen (1949) 103 n. 67 pp. 162Google Scholar, 186 with ch. 4 nn. 15, 49; Andronikos, ArchEph. (1953/4) 319 n. 1; 4 Mitropoulou, op. cit. (see n. 1 above) 20–1 no. 7.

²¹ Robertson, 112; Fuchs, 503.

²² The first publisher Philios, dated the relief about 520 BC (ArchEph. 1903, 52). See also Fuchs, 503; Boardman, fig. 239. For a lower date, see Neumann, G., Probleme des Griechischen Weihreliefs (Tübinger Studien zur Archäologie und Kunstgeschichte v. 3 (1979) 40.Google Scholar

²³ On the use of the drove on the sides of Archaic stelai, see Adams, 23. On drove-finished sides of Attic stelai assigned to the second half of the sixth-century BC, see Harrison, E., ‘Archaic Gravestones of the Athenian Agora’, Hesp. 25 (1956) 33–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁴ The top, however, of the volutes on the upper part of the stele, has been dressed roughly with the drove (below).

²⁵ On the use of the claw chisel during Archaic times, see Adams, 18–22; also Harrison, Hesp. 25 (1956) 32–4.

²⁶ Free-standing stelai of the Archaic period were as a rule finished on the sides and the back. See Richter AGA 5 and also the examples ibid. p. 40 nos. 54, 55, figs. 137, 185–6; p. 41 no. 58 fig. 146; p. 47 no. 67 figs. 155–8; p. 48 no. 70 figs. 159–60.

²⁷ See, e.g., a similar working on the Metropolitan Museum stele 36.11.13, Richter AGA 32 no. 45 fig. 126.

²⁸ On pry holes, see Orlandos, 198 and Stevens, 191–2.

²⁹ Stevens, 185.

³⁰ Philios, , ArchEph. (1903) 44.Google Scholar

³¹ Ibid. 43.

³² Ibid.

³³ See Judeich, W., Topographie von Athen (1931) 126Google Scholar pl. i C3, where the church is called Aghios Athanasios Kakouris, instead of Chalkouris, which was the original name. For the course of the fortification wall in the same area, see Travlos, fig. 417.

³⁴ Philios, 44.

³⁵ Ibid. 44 n. 2; Andronikos, 320.

³⁶ Lykourgos, Leokratts 44; Travlos, 159, 299.

³⁷ Jeffery, ‘Gravestones’, 128 no. 2 (stelai).

³⁸ The two large cemeteries situated at the Kerameikos Sacred Gate and the Piraieus Gate have afforded ample evidence confirming the ancient literary sources. Numerous funerary monuments have been discovered, built in sections of the wall; see Philadelpheus, A., AE (1920/9121) 1 ff.Google Scholar and AA (1922) 5–59; Oikonomos, G., AE (1920/1921) 56 ff.Google Scholar The detailed listing of occasional discoveries from the same area, provided by Jeffery, ‘Gravestones’, is extremely useful because it shows that like the Hoplite relief, numerous other funerary monuments had been incorporated in the ancient wall; see Jeffery, ibid., ‘Thriasian Gate and Sacred Gate’, p. 118 no. 3, p. 119 nos. 3, 6, p. 120 no. 9, p. 121 no. 12, pp. 121–2 no. 13, p. 122 no. 14 (inscribed bases), p. 123 no. 1 (kouros head), p. 124 nos. 7, 8a, p. 125 nos. 8b, 9, 11 (stelai), p. 125 no. 1 (seated figure), p. 125 no. 1 (body of horse), p. 126 no. 1 (sphinx), p. 126 nos. 2, 3, 4 (seated lions); ‘Piraieus Gate’, p. 126 no. 18, p. 127 no. 19 (inscribed bases), p. 127 nos. 1, 2 (relief pedestal bases), p. 128 no. 1 (kouros), p. 128 no. 1 (stele). The Hoplite relief is classified with the same group of funerary material, uncovered in the same area: ibid. p. 128, no. 2.

³⁹ AJA 63 (1959) 209. Cf. also Andronikos, 320.

⁴⁰ p. 103 n. 1.

⁴¹ AGA 42 no. 59 n. 11.

⁴² P. 35.

⁴³ p. 503 fig. 585.

⁴⁴ pp. 46–64 pls. 12–16 fig. 1.

⁴⁵ H. Payne, Archaic Marble Sculpture from the Acropolis, pl. 128, 3 (inv. 702).

⁴⁶ Ibid. pl. 129, 2 (inv. 1322).

⁴⁷ Himmelmann-Wildschütz, 37.

⁴⁸ p. 19.

⁴⁹ p. 19.

⁵⁰ p. 111.

⁵¹ p. 112.

⁵² ASGS 166. Neumann, also, considers the relief funerary; see Probleme its Griechischen. Weihreliefs (Tübinger Studien zur Archäologie und Kunstgeschichte, v. 3, 1979) 39.

⁵³ ASGS 166.

⁵⁴ Papapostolou, I., ADelt. 1 (1966) 102–15 fig. 1 pls. 43–6Google Scholar, summary p. 213; see esp. p. 110 n. 49.

⁵⁵ Richter AGA, 50–1 no. 77 fig. 172.

⁵⁶ ADelt 21. 1 (1966) 110. n. 49.

⁵⁷ Ridgway ASGS 166. The same observation is also valid for the statues of kouroi and korai erected both on sanctuaries and on tombs. See, e.g., ibid. 86, 150–1 and Kontoleon AGP 59–60.

⁵⁸ On both eyes the centre is marked with a tiny hole. The centres were used as departure points for the description of the volutes with a compass. The feature occurs on Classical monuments, but also on voluted finials of the Archaic times. See Stevens, 22–3 and Richter AGA 45 no. 63 figs. 124–5, 145.

⁵⁹ Dinsmoor, 144.

⁶⁰ AE (1903) pl. 1.

⁶¹ Wiegartz, 46–64

⁶² Boardman, Greek Sculpture, fig. 239 (text).

⁶³ The four slabs, represent three men wearing a petasos and in addition a horse rider; see Willemsen, F., ‘Stelen’, AM 85 (1970) 30–4 Pls. 12–13.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Ibid. 34. For a discussion on the panels and their date, see also Ridgway ASGS 168.

⁶⁵ The measurements refer to the clamp cuttings of the panel Willemsen, , AM 85 (1970) 30 ff. pl. 12 (Athens, NM 89).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Andronikos, 325–6

⁶⁷ Schilardi, 266 fig. 3.

⁶⁸ Ibid. 266–7.

⁶⁹ ARV 1168 no. 131, attributed to ‘the Painter of Munich 2335’. For a second representation of an altar furnished with barriers showing downward curling volutes, see the red-figured lekythos Oxford 1917.58, CVA G. Britain 3 (Oxford 1) pl. 126, 2, attributed to ‘the Tithonos Painter’ (ARV ² 309 no. 10)

⁷⁰ On the basis of the shape, one might be tempted to suggest that the Hoplite relief could have belonged to a composite trapeza, a monument whose type was common in Attic cemeteries; see Kurtz/Boardman, , GBC 168, 235–7.Google Scholar In funerary vase-painting, there are representations of similar monuments in the shape of altars: Schilardi, 267.

⁷¹ Karouzou, 30–1.

⁷² On the use of the drill from classical times onwards, see Orlandos, 126–7 n. 1. Cf. also Adam, 41 ff.

⁷³ Observations given by Dr M. Korres. On the shape of archaic sockets, see e.g., the foot-plinth of the Ptoon sanctuary kouros, Athens, NM 12A, S. Karouzou, (1967) and Richter, G. M. A., Kouroi: Archaic Greek Youths (1960) 122–3 no 145.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ On the term, see Ar. Av. 1114.

⁷⁵ Metal meniskoi occur on statues and also on funerary stelai crowned with figures worked in the round. See, e.g., Brouskari, M. S., The Acropolis Museum. A Descriptive Catalogue (1974) 64 fig. 114 (Kore 673)Google Scholar; Richter AGA 28 no. 37 figs. 99, 105–6. Attachment holes observed on the Heraion of Corfu and the Acropolis Hekatompedon may have been bird-spikes; see Ridgway ASGS 195, 201.

⁷⁶ Andronikos, 326; Jeffery, ‘Gravestones’, 128 n. 2.

⁷⁷ Ibid. It is interesting that since argumentation regarding the finial had been based on the non-existing mortise, the significance of the lateral sockets was downgraded. Sometimes, the occurrence of the lateral sockets would not be discussed altogether, even in cases when the slab was viewed as free-standing; see Kontoleon AGP 8 fig. IB.

⁷⁸ Andronikos, 322.

⁷⁹ The practice of making the finial in a separate piece was not unusual in archaic times. See Richter AGA 30 no. 42 fig. 123, 36 no. 53 fig. 134, 43–4 no. 60A + 60B figs. 148–50 (stele of Theron); on the same stele, see Harrison, 43–5, no. 101 (Agora, I 2056-third quarter of the sixth century BC).

⁸⁰ On the method, see Adams, 81; Dinsmoor, 75, 187; Stevens, 195–6, 206–14, 243.

⁸¹ On the attachment of metal ornaments on marble monuments, see Stevens, 82, 84–5; Schmaltz, B., AM 86 (1971) 67–78 fig. la–b pls. 44–5.Google Scholar

⁸² BCH 101 (1977) 582, 584 figs. 151, 153–4.

⁸³ Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, inv. 01.8080; Kurtz, pl. 31, la–b. The painting has been attributed by Beazley near the Thanatos Painter (ARV 1231). For comments about the representation, see Schilardi, 266 no. 5. Cf. also the representations Kurtz pl. 19, 1 (Madrid, Museo Arqueológico National, 19497) and pl. 33, 2 (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, 3746)

⁸⁴ For the technique of ‘roughening’ the surfaces which needed to be joined and the observation that the practice was often combined with the application of mortar, stucco, or cement, see Adams, 82. For the technique of cementing pieces together, see Stevens, 207–8, 213, 225–6.

⁸⁵ The finish on the top of the bolster rules out the possibility that the lateral sockets had served for the attachment of long metal whorls which spread from the missing apex to the sides of the stele. The hypothesis has been advanced by Kontoleon (AGP, p. 8), who based his argumentations on the parallel of the broad stele from Ikaria. Although it is not impossible that the pins on the Hoplite relief held two independent floral ornaments, on the parallel of the representation of the Boston lekythos, Museum of Fine Arts inv. 01.8080 (n. 83 above), we are inclined to believe that the bolster was decorated with acroteria in the form of small statuettes.

⁸⁶ The original publication by Philios AE (1903) contains a photograph (pl. 1) which is extremely informative in details regarding the surface around the broken front of the bolster.

⁸⁷ Brouskari, , The Acropolis Museum. A Descriptive Catalogue (1974) 123–4 no 695 fig. 237Google Scholar; see also Ridgway, , The Severe Style in Greek Sculpture (1970) 48, 55 fig. 69.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ AE (1953/4) figs. 2–3.

⁸⁹ Marburger Winck. Progr. (1965), fig. 1.

⁹⁰ AGP fig. IB.

⁹¹ On account of this observation the form of the scrolls needs to be corrected, if the hypothetical reconstruction advanced thus far by Andronikos and Wiegartz is close to reality.

⁹² The evidence suggests that the finial measured 0.212 m at its base. It is not known, however, whether the measurement regards the hypothetical scrolls curling under the palmette, or the lower part of the palmette itself.

⁹³ Andronikos, 326.

⁹⁴ If the finial had been made in a separate piece, the palmette would have broken off at the supposed joint. Moreover, the top of the bolster would have survived cut in a straight line, in the area of the supposed joint with the finial. The evidence of the broken marble does not support the hypothesis of a separately made finial.

⁹⁵ Contemporary stelai from Attic cemeteries help us visualize the type of palmette, popular at the time of the production of the Hoplite relief. See, e.g., Richter AGA, 44 no. 61 fig. 147 (stele of Antigenes, New York, Metropolitan Museum, 15.167); Andronikos, 326.

⁹⁶ The reconstruction presented herein has taken into consideration the old works of Andronikos and Wiegartz (see nn. 88–9 above), although a few insignificant corrections have been made with regard to the hypothetical form of the top of the Hoplite relief and the spirals of the finial.

⁹⁷ Dinsmoor, 144. See also Philios, 51. On the influence of the art of Ionia on Attica during the second half of the sixth century Be, see Papapostolou, ADelt 21. 1 (1966) 112–13.

⁹⁸ Andronikos, 318.

⁹⁹ Richter AGA, passim.

¹⁰⁰ See nn. 54–5 above.

¹⁰¹ Richter AGA figs. 94, 175–80.

¹⁰² The possibility that the Hoplite relief was in fact surmounted on a high pedestal is very strong. The limited size of the stele should thus be explained by the fact that it made part of a large composition, which has been lost. The same hypothesis should serve, consequendy, to counteract the statement of Andronikos (p. 318) that the Hoplite relief does not constitute a distinguished, on account of the size, monument.

¹⁰³ See nn. 36–7 above.