I am most grateful to all who have commented on earlier drafts of this article, especially A. E. Raubitschek, P. A. Hansen, M. B. Flory, M. B. Wallace, L. P. Day, L. V. Kurke, J. E. Fischer, and the Journal's referees. They have improved the paper enormously and are not at all responsible for remaining flaws. Audiences at Wabash honour College (1986) and meetings of CAMWS (1986) and the APA (1987) commented helpfully on oral versions. I also acknowledge institutions for support and cooperation: the National Endowment for the Humanities, Wabash College, the American Philosophical Society, the College of Wooster, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, the Greek Archaeological Service (esp. D. Peppas-Delmousou), and the German Archaeological Institute in Athens (esp. U. Knigge).

¹ For parallels, cf. Friedländer, P. with Hoffleit, H. B., Epigrammata: Greek inscriptions in verse (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1948)Google Scholar, and Gentili, B., ‘Epigramma ed elegia’, Fondation Hardt xiv (1968) 39–90Google Scholar. Broad thematic studies of epigrammatic tradition offer little on the archaic material; cf. Lattimore, R., Themes in Greek and Latin epitaphs (Urbana 1942)Google Scholar; Vérilhac, A.-M., Παῖδες ἄωοι: poésie funéraire i πραγματεῖαι τῆς Ἀκαδημίας Ἀθηνῶν xli (Athens 1978)Google Scholar; and various issues of Commentationes aenipontanae. As a corrective, cf. Humphreys, S. C., ‘Family tombs and tomb cult in ancient Athens: tradition or traditionalism’, JHS c (1980) 96–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the lack of consensus, contrast Wallace, M. B., ‘The metres of early Greek epigrams’, in Gerber, D. E. (ed.), Early Greek poetry and philosophy: studies in honour of Leonard Woodbury (Chico 1984) 303–17, esp. 307Google Scholar f., with Lausberg, M., Das Einzeldistichon: Studien zum antiken Epigramm, Studia et testimonia antiqua xix (Munich 1982), esp. 102–22Google Scholar.

² Hansen, P. A., ‘DAA 374–5 and the early elegiac epigram’, Glotta lvi (1978) 200Google Scholar notes that the extant corpus lacks standard lines.

³ Hansen, P. A., Carmina epigraphica graeca saeculorum vii-v a. Chr. n., Texte und Kommentare xii (Berlin and New York 1983)Google Scholar, hereafter CEC with his numbers, provides the corpus for this study. For addenda and corrigenda, cf. Hansen, P. A., A list of Greek verse inscriptions, c. 400–300 B.C., Opuscula graecolatina xxviii (Copenhagen 1985) 11–13Google Scholar. On CEG's comprehensiveness, cf. Wallace (n. 1) 303 with n. 1, 316 f., and Day, J. W., AJPh cvi (1985) 374–6Google Scholar. I occasionally augment CEG from Page, D. L., Further Greek epigrams (Cambridge Univ. 1981)Google Scholar, hereafter FGE with his running line numbers.

⁴ Morris, I., Burial and ancient society (Cambridge Univ. 1987)Google Scholarpassim; Kurtz, D. C. and Boardman, J., Greek burial customs (Ithaca 1971) 218, 260 f.Google Scholar; Vermeule, E., Aspects of death in early Greek art and poetry (Berkeley, etc. 1979) 60 f.Google ScholarCf. Hom. Il. vii 85–91, xvi 456 f., xxiii 245–8, Od. xxiv 80–4; and, for the lack of a tomb, Il. xxi 316–23, Od. xxiv 24–34. Midas' epitaph (A. Pal. vii 153, etc.), not Simonides' sardonic comment on it (PMG 581), reflects archaic feeling.

⁵ For the name alone as a signal honor at Sparta, cf. Plut. Lyc. 27.

⁶ Jeffery, L. H., ‘The inscribed gravestones of archaic Attica’, ABSA lvii (1962)Google Scholar, no. 6, c. 540–530. Non-Attic material offers a few additional formulas, but nothing substantially different.

⁷ For the echo, cf. Friedländer (n. 1), no. 1. Peek, W., Griechische Vers-Inschriften i (Berlin 1955)Google Scholar summarizes the formula: μνῆα (σῆμα) τόδ' ἐστὶν (εἰμἰ) τοῦ δεῖνος.

⁸ Cf. Wallace (n. 1). Jeffery (n. 6) 115–53 catalogues 44 verse epitaphs and 25 in prose.

⁹ The Romans with their prose laudatio funebris learned verse epitaphs from the Greeks; cf. Van Sickle, J., ‘The elogia of the Cornelii Scipiones and the origin of the epigram at Rome’, AJPh cviii (1987) 41–55.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Cf. Gentili (n. 1) 54–6. Pl. Leg. xii 958e, calls epitaphs ἐγκώμια βίου. Bundy, E. L., Studio pindarica, U. Cal. Publ. Class. Phil, xviii (1962)Google Scholar remains essential on encomiastic form; cf. Slater, W. J., ‘Doubts about Pindaric interpretation’, CJ lxxii (1977) 193–208.Google Scholar

¹¹ Stecher, A., Inschriftliche Grabgedichte auf Krieger und Athleten: eine Studie zu griechischen Wertprädikationen, Commentationes aenipontanae xxvii (Innsbruck 1981) 28Google Scholar; Skiadas, A. D., Ἐπὶ τύμβῳ: συμβολἡ εἰς τὴν ἑρμηνείαν τῶν ἑλληνικῶν ἐπιτυμβίων ἐμμέτρων ἐπιγραφῶν, Ἑλληνικἡ Ἀνθρωπιστκὴ Ἑταιρεία, μελέται καὶ ἔρευναι, Second Series xiv (Athens 1967) 36–40Google Scholar; Willemsen, F., ‘Archaische Grabmalbasen’, AthMitt lviii (1963) 118–21Google Scholar; Guarducci, M. in Richter, G. M. A., The archaic gravestones of Attica (London 1961) 158.Google Scholar

¹² Cf. Lausberg (n. 1) 116 with 534 n. 2; Loraux, N., trans. by Sheridan, A., The invention of Athens (Harvard 1986)Google Scholar acknowledges the dominance of praise in CEG 13 (366 n. 194), but she emphasizes more than I the epigrams' calls for pity and thus their character as lament rather than encomium (42–56).

¹³ Wallace (n. 1) 312 emphasizes the exceptional quality of CEG 13, but Lausberg (n. 1) 116 perceives much in it that others imply.

¹⁴ Cf. Tyrt. 10–12 W. For an epic rather than elegiac model in military epitaphs, cf. CEG 145 with Friedländer (n. 1), no. 25. Young, D. C., Pindar Isthmian 7, myth and exempla, Mnemosyne suppl. xv (Leiden 1971) 24 f.Google Scholar, 46 compares a military death in Pindar with an epitaph (CEG 27, quoted below). For the καλὸς θάνατος, cf. Vernant, J.-P., ‘La belle mort et le cadavre outragé’, in Gnoli, G. and Vernant, J.-P. (eds), La mort, les morts dans les sociétés anciennes (Cambridge, etc. 1982) 45–76Google Scholar; Humphreys, S. C. and King, H., Mortality and immortality: the anthropology and archaeology of death (London, etc. 1981) 269, 285–7Google Scholar; Loraux (n. 12) 98–118.

¹⁵ CEG 34, 36; cf. 41 and Wallace (n. 1) 311.

¹⁶ CEG 58, 61, 151. Others are crude specimens: CEG 37, 47, 49.

¹⁷ CEG 11, 52, 58, 66, 77, 80, 108, 130, 132, 143, 166, 170, 171, 173.

¹⁸ For ‘youth’ as a social and moral, rather than a physiological, category, cf. A. M. D'Onofrio, ‘Korai e kouroi funerari attici’, AION, sez. Arch, e Stor., iv (1982) 164. Many formulas for youthful death are encomiastic in their own right, e.g., ὥλεσεν ἥβην by association, since it only occurs in military epitaphs; cf. CEG 4, 6, 13, 82, 136, 155. Elsewhere I shall argue that ὤλεσεν ἔλπ' ἀγαθήν (CEG 51), said of a παῖς, is also encomiastic. For a parent conducting a child's funeral, cf. below, p. 25.

¹⁹ Cf. Lausberg (n. 1) 35 f., 104; Bundy (n. 10) 8; Young, D. C., ‘Pindar Pythians 2 and 3: inscriptional ποτέ and the poetic epistle’, HSCPh lxxxvii (1983) 31–48Google Scholar, esp. 41 with n. 30. N.b. Pind. O. 5.4, I. 8.63, and Bacch. 10.15, with n. 60 below.

²⁰ CEG 4*, 10.11, 12*, 27*. 47, 51 (cf. n. 18), 58.3, 68, 83.5, 87, 93, 103.112*, 118,123, 142. We should add 43 and 61, if the erection of a monument implies praise; cf. also 42 and 46, and below, p. 24. Further examples may have existed in 33, 91, and 148, and cf. FCE 702 ff.*, 786 ff., 1536 ff.* Examples marked with an asterisk contain ποτέ (see below); cf. also 148 and 431.

²¹ Cf. Young (n. 19).

²² Cf. Young (n. 14) passim.

²³ Cf. CEC 2iii, 4, 24 (below, p. 26), 69, 82, possibly 114, 127, 136.3 (=13.3); also FGE 776 f.

²⁴ Slater (above, n. 10).

²⁵ Cf. below, p. 27. On the imperative expressing the χρέος motif, cf. Bundy (n. 10) 55. For the subordination of lament, cf. Thuc. ii 46.2 (ἀπολοφυράμενοι … ἄπιτε), with Loraux (n. 12) 368 n. 219.

²⁶ Cf. Bundy (n. 10) 24; C.Carey, A commentary on five odes of Pindar (New York 1981) 96; Friedländer (n. 1), no. 70 ( = CEG 112).

²⁷ Cf. below, p. 22. Dr. J. P. Binder suggested privatim that Tettichos' monument, found at Sepolia, might have stood beside a road leading north out of Athens.

²⁸ Cf. Bundy (n. 10) 40 f.

²⁹ N.b. the repetition of ἀγαθόν; cf. Friedländer (n. 1), no. 135. However, Humphreys (n. 1) 103 translates, ‘… and go on your way with good fortune’; cf. CEG 110.

³⁰ For the motif in Pindar, cf. Slater (n. 10) 197.

³¹ CEG 27, 28, 68, 148, 174; cf. 34, 117, 159, FGE 776 f. (ὦ ξεῖν᾿, ἀγγέλλειν …). Cf. below, p. 27. D. M. Lewis apud A. P. Matthaiou, ‘Δύο ἀρχαϊκὲς ἀττικὲς ἐπιτύβιες στῆλες’, Horos iv (1986) 31–4 restores (e.g.) a newly found fragment, [στε῀θι καὶ οἴκ]τιρ[ον. The first-person ἀνιο῀μαι in the other new piece weakens Willem-sen's emendation, οἴκτιρο<v>, in CEG 51; cf. Hansen, P. A., apud Lewis, D. M., ‘Bowie on elegy: a footnote’, JHS cvii (1987) 188Google Scholar.

³² For the memento mori as a similar universalizing motif (‘we all die’), cf. CEG 34 and 28 (with Skiadas [n. 11] 28).

³³ The siting of monuments (cf. below, p. 22) explains another hindrance motif in epitaphs, viz., the assumption that readers would be strangers to the deceased; cf. Humphreys (n. 1) 103 f.

³⁴ For a public Athenian commemorative epigram of the 470's that is explicit on the point, cf. FGE 851 f.: … μᾶλλόv τις τάδ᾿ ἰδών καί ἐπσσομένων ἐθελήσει | ἀμφὶ περὶ ξυνοῖς πράγμασι δῆριν ἔχειν.

³⁵ In general, cf. Slater (n. 10) 197; and for Pindar, C. Segal, ‘Messages to the underworld’, AJPh cvi (1985) 211.

³⁶ E.g., CEG 28, σῆμα … ἰδών. For the road, cf. Wallace (n. 1) 310 with n. 24.

³⁷ Cf. CEG 19, 26, 31, 161.

³⁸ D' Onofrio (n. 18) 157–63 argues that κατατίθημι connotes the offering of a valuable prize of honor (γέρας) in exchange for the dead person's excellence. For my emphasis on value, cf. below, n. 70.

³⁹ Clairmont, C. W., Gravestone and epigram (Mainz 1970) xvii–xviiiGoogle Scholar concludes: ‘in the majority of the monuments there is little or no correlation of epigram and figured scene’. Cf. Schmaltz, B., Griechische Grabreliefs, Erträge der Forschung cxcii (Darmstadt 1983) 119Google Scholar; Daux, G., ‘Stèles funéraires et épigrammes’, BCH xcvi (1972) 505 f.Google Scholar; but Woodhead, A. G., JHS xcii (1972) 236 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁰ Cf. Häusle, H., Einfache und frühe Formen des griechischen Epigramms, Commentationes aenipontanae xxv (Innsbruck 1979) 89–105Google Scholar. Raubitschek, A. E., ‘Das Denkmal–Epigramm’, Fondation Hardt xiv (1968) 1–26Google Scholar has especially influenced my thinking with his emphasis on epigrams as texts meant to be performed orally.

⁴¹ Cf. Jeffery (n. 6), no. 34 with pl. 38.a; Richter (n. 11), no. 36 with fig. 203; and, for more comparanda, Schmaltz (n. 39) 149–89. Discussion here is limited to types appropriate to Tettichos, i.e., youths and warriors, far the most common types in any case.

⁴² Richter (n. 11), no. 36 assumes a lyre-shaped capital with a sphinx.

⁴³ Ridgway, B. S., The archaic style in Greek sculpture (Princeton 1977) 12 f.Google Scholar, 164 f.; Pollitt, J. J., The ancient view of Greek art (Yale 1974) 12–23, 218–28Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Cf. Hom. Il. xxii 52–76 (with Tyrt. 10 W); above, n. 14; D'Onofrio (n. 18) 165; Humphreys (n. 1) 104; Hurwit, J. M., The art and culture of early Greece, 1100–480 BC (Ithaca and London 1985) 197–202, 253–5Google Scholar; Ridgway (n. 43) 49–59; Vernant, J.-P., ‘Étude comparée des religions antiques’, Annuaire du Collège de France lxxvii (1977) 423–43, esp. 436–41Google Scholar; ‘πάντα καλά d' Homère a Simonide’, Proc. viith congr. Intemat. Fed. Soc. Class. St. i (Budapest 1984) 167–73.

⁴⁵ Ridgway (n. 43) 167–9 notes that depictions of activity on a few stelai also fall into types. D'Onofrio (n. 18) 167 distinguishes kouroi (images of epic heroism) from stelai (civic virtues, e.g., hoplites and athletes).

⁴⁶ For horses on stelai, cf. Richter (n. 11) 33 (no. 45), and figs 68, 126 and 128, 154, 159 f., 163 f.; on bases, Willemsen (n. 11) 105–9, no. 1; Ridgway (n. 43) 167; D'Onofrio, A. M., ‘Un ‘Programma’ figurativo tardo arcaico’, AION, sez. Arch. e Stor., viii (1986) 175–93Google Scholar. However, cf. below, p. 24. For the main image as equestrian, cf. CEG 50.

⁴⁷ For ornamentation as a prized quality in archaic art as in poetry, cf. Hurwit (n. 44) 23. For the monument as an aristocratic manifesto, cf. Wallace, M. B., ‘Early Greek grave epigrams’, Phoenix xxiv (1970) 98Google Scholar; Humphreys (n. 1) 99 f.; Hurwit (n. 44) 69, 198 f. The aristocrats' desire for ostentation triggered legal limits on funerary display; cf. Stupperich, R., Staatsbegräbnis und Privatgrabmal im klassischen Athen (Diss. Westfalische Wilhelms-Universität 1977) 71–86Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Cf. Jeffery (n. 6); D'Onofrio (n. 18) 148–57.

⁴⁹ Mastrokostas, E., ‘Εἰς ἀναʒήτησιν ἐλλειπόντων μελῶν ἐπιτυβίων ἀρχαϊκῶν γλυπτῶν παρὰ τὴν Ἀνάβuσσον’, AAA vii (1974) 215–28Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ For art as substitution, cf. Gombrich, E. M., Meditations on a hobby horse (London 1963) 1–11Google Scholar. For the grave marker as substitute, cf. Vernant (n. 44), ‘Étude comparée’, ibid. and lxxvi (1976) 367–76, lxxviii (1978) 451–66, with the warnings of D'Onofrio (n. 18) 136–8.

⁵¹ Exceptions in art would be the Hoplite relief in the unlikely event it portrays a wounded warrior (cf. Ridgway [n. 43] 166 n. 23; Schilardi, D. U., ‘New evidence about the hoplite relief’, ABSA lxxxii [1987] 266 f.Google Scholar), and the Getty relief (Frel, J., Death of a hero [Malibu 1984]Google Scholar), if it is genuine.

⁵² Cf. Humphreys and King (n. 14) 262–70, 285 f.; Vernant 1977 (n. 44). For the poorly attested genre of funerary praise poetry, cf. Alexiou, M., The ritual lament in the Greek tradition (Cambridge Univ. 1974) 11 f.Google Scholar, 102–8; Loraux (n. 12) 43–6. For the mound and marker, cf., e.g., Il. xxiii and Od. xxiv.

⁵³ Cf. Humphreys (n. 1) 99–104; Garland, R., The Greek way of death (Ithaca 1985)Google Scholar, chapter 7. For stelai treated as corpses, cf. Burkert, W., Homo necans, trans, by Bing, P. (Berkeley, etc. 1983) 56–8Google Scholar. For such rites too as analogies for praise poetry, cf. Kurke, L. V., Pindar's OIKONOMIA: the house as organizing metaphor in the odes of Pindar (Diss. Princeton 1987) 45–51Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ E.g., Hym. Ap. 146–55 and Pindar's sense of an ode's performance as κῶμος. For social events as conventional analogies for poetry, cf. Kurke (n. 53) 6 f.

⁵⁵ Cf. Il. xxiii, Od. xxiv, and Garland, R. S.J., ‘Γέρας θανόντων: an investigation into the claims of the Homeric dead’, AncSoc xv–xvii (1984–1986) 5–22Google Scholar. Cf. Tyrt. 12.27–32 W. For the exclusion of ‘κακοἰ’ from elaborate burial, cf. Morris (n. 4) passim.

⁵⁶ Cf. Carey (n. 26) 199–202. Nagy, G., The best of the Achaeans (Baltimore and London 1979) 175–7Google Scholar compares Horn. Od. xxiv 58–64 and suggests Pindar reflects epic tradition's self-consciousness of the Iliad's origin in the Muses' lament for Achilles.

⁵⁷ On the significance of this expression, cf. Carey (n. 26) 202.

⁵⁸ For Pindar as a gauge of archaic traditions, cf. Fowler, B. H., ‘The centaur's smile: Pindar and the archaic aesthetic’, in Moon, W. G. (ed.), Ancient Greek art and iconography (Wisconsin 1983) 159–70Google Scholar. For a similar juxtaposition of concepts, cf. Simonides, PMG 531.3: βωμὸς δ᾿ ὁ τάφος, πρὸ γόων δὲ μνᾶστις, ὁ δ᾿ οἶκτος ἔπαινος. I interpret the last phrase, ‘their ritual lament is a song of praise’, but cf. Loraux (n. 12) 44 with 366 n. 186.

⁵⁹ Cf. Thummer, E., Pindar: die isthmischen Gedichte ii (Heidelberg 1969) 140Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Thummer (n. 59) takes μνᾶμα literally as a grave marker, but cf. Köhnken, A., ‘Gods and descendants of Aiakos in Pindar's eighth Isthmian ode’, BICS xxii (1975) 36Google Scholar n. 30. Other metaphors of songs as monuments that memorialize ritual support Thummer. N. 4.79–88 contains a grave monument; cf. N. 8.13–16 (with 46–50) and Bacch. 1.181–4. For dedications, cf. O. 5.3, 7 f.; N. 3.13; Bacch. 5.4; 10.11; Enc. 20 B 5.

⁶¹ Cf. above, pp. 18–9. Pindar quotes an epigram at P. 1.73 f. (cf. CEG 2) and envisages an inscription at O. 7.86 f. For Theognis' poetry as a μνῆμα meant to be read as an epitaph, cf. Ford, A. L., in Figueira, T. J. and Nagy, G. (eds), Theognis of Megara (Baltimore and London 1985) 89–95.Google Scholar

⁶² Cf. above, n. 55; Hom. Il. xvi 456 f.; Morris (n. 4) 8 f, 44–54, 151–4, and passim.

⁶³ Kurtz, D. C., ‘Vases for the dead, an Attic selection, 750–400 BC’, in Brijder, H. A. G. (ed.), Ancient Greek and related pottery, Allard Pierson series v (Amsterdam 1984) 314–28Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ For the plaques, cf. Kurtz and Boardman (n. 4) 83 with pl. 33; for the capital, Richter (n. 11), fig. 66 f; and for the sphinx as a perpetual mourner, Vermeule (n. 4) 205. However, for equestrian scenes, cf. above, n. 46.

⁶⁵ Cf. Friedländer (n. 1), no. 26 with 29. For death at sea in consolations cf. Archil. 8–13 W; in epitaphs, CEG 132, 166. For a passage ascribed to Anacreon, possibly an epitaph, which also describes a civic funeral and seems to quote a praising dirge, cf. FGE 484–7.

⁶⁶ Peek (n. 7) summarizes the type: μνῆμα (σῆμα) τόδ᾿ ἔστησεν ( ἔστησα) ὁ δεῖνα τῶι δεῖνι (ἐμοί), or the like.

⁶⁷ The stele depicts Lyseas' special status; cf. Richter (n. 11), fig. 159 f.

⁶⁸ Cf. Il. xvi 457. For the connotation of κατατίθημι, cf. above, n. 38.

⁶⁹ Hom. Od. xxiv 59 (compare Pind. I. 8.57 f.); Eurip. Rh. 896; cf. Tyrt. 12.27 W; below, pp. 26–7. For πένθος taken similarly, cf. Nagy (n. 56) 95; CEG 114 (θ]ρε῀νον ἔθεκα). For κῆδος, cf. CEG 9, 17, 120.

⁷⁰ For lament, cf. Alexiou (n. 52) 120–2; for Phrasikleia's worth, D'Onofrio (n. 18) 166 f.; for κλέος, Thgn. 245 f., and CEG 116, 142 (τόδε σᾶμα κεκλήσεται), with 106 (if Homeric parallels [CEG, ad loc.] suggest σῆμα τέτυκται is equally assertive).

⁷¹ Cf. CEG 64 and 134. The formula καί ἐσσομένοισι πυθέσθαι can be used of epic poetry (Il. xxii 305, cf. Od. viii 580) or a grave monument (Od. xi 76; cf. FGE 851). Cf. CEG 356; Il. vii 87, … καί ὀψιγόνων ἀνθρώπων, with n. 78, below.

⁷² Hansen, P. A., ‘An Olympic victor by the name of “-kles”’, Kadmos xiii (1974) 160Google Scholar.

⁷³ Above, notes 18 and 31.

⁷⁴ Cf. Lewis (n. 31), pace Bowie, E. L., ‘Early Greek elegy, symposium, and public festival’, JHS cvi (1986) 22–7Google Scholar, who denies the existence of threnodic elegy. Cf. also Friedländer (n. 1) 65–70; Harvey, A. E., ‘The classification of Greek lyric poetry’, CQ n.s. 5 (1955) 168–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Raubitschek (n. 40).

⁷⁵ Cf. CEG 13, 27, 28, 34, 68, 148; above, n. 11; Vernant 1976 (n. 50), 1977 (n. 44); Loraux (n. 12) 42–56.

⁷⁶ For this as a prototype of the dialogue epigram (e.g., CEG 120), cf. Skiadas (n. 11) 27 ff.; Friedländer (n. 1), s.v. no. 84; but the warnings of Kassel, R., ‘Dialoge mit Statuen’, ZPE li (1983) 10 fGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁷ At Od. xxiv 59 οἵκτρ᾿ ὀλοφυρόμεναι seems to apply to those singing the emotional γόος; but for the confusion of terms for lament, cf. above, Harvey (n. 74); Alexiou (n. 52).

⁷⁸ For Il. vii 89 f. as an epigram, cf. Ps.-Plut. vit. et poes. Hom. 2.215, with Lausberg (n. 1) 532 n. 4, and Young (n. 19) 39 n. 24; but Raubitschek (n. 40) 5 f, and Nagy (n. 56) 28, 175–7, 340–2.

⁷⁹ For the democratization of burial practices in Athens, cf. Morris (n. 4) passim.

⁸⁰ Cf. Raubitschek (n. 40); Vermeule (n. 4) 22; but Gentili (n. 1) 54–6.