Sacred Landscapes of Aetolia and Achaea: Synoecism Processes and Non-Urban Sanctuaries

American Journal of Archaeology (on line review)

Artemis has traditionally been described as the goddess of the hunt, as a potnia theron, as a moon and warrior goddess, and as a fertility goddess. 1 The Great

Kernos 16, 247-306, 2003

Arno Press, 1975

In my book, The Dionysiac Mysteries of the Hellenistic and Roman Age, p. 93 f., I have made a mistake which is annoying, although it does not affect my argumentation. Miss CHRISTINE ALEXANDER, Curator of the Greek and Roman Antiquities in the Metropolitan Museum in New York, has kindly called my attention to it. She writes: •>May I in passing call attention to an unimportant misunderstanding on Dr NILSSON's part, on his pp. 93 ff? The cup fig. 22 a, bis not in New York. CuMONT's »New York», which understandably misled M. P. N., refers simply to the place of publication. This cup or mould, rather, since the photograph is from a plaster impression, actually does have the altar scene, and the fluting satyr as well, i. e., all the figures shown 1n the Florence cup, NILSSON's fig. 21. The real New York mould is CVA, U.S. A., fasc. 9, Met. Museum, Pase. I, plates 2-4, and it too has all the figures, but in another sequence. All this does not affect his arguments, but he might like to correct it for a future edition.•> P. 53, line I some words have been omitted in the inscription quoted. It reads: TOV b,-rij; 6ta-ra17ew; µva-criv lmµe)..ri0iv-rwv TWV :rreei TOV KaOriyeµova L1i6vvaov µva-cwv.

SCRIPTA CLASSICA ISRAELICA , 2004

This is an important book. Clearly written, concisely argued and cogently organized, it belongs in the library of any serious student of early Greek cult, culture and art. Catherine Keesling (hereafter Κ.) treats the votive sculpture of the Athenian Acropolis-its contexts, functions, and meanings as well as its position in the history of sixth and fifth century Attic art. It is a genuinely ground breaking study that goes a long way towards redefining the nature of the questions surrounding this important body of ancient Athenian sculpture. Even so, the reader must be warned at the outset: this is not a traditional, art historical treat ment of the famous Archaic and Classical period votives of Athena's temenos. And those coming to this volume in search of clear-cut answers and trendy arguments will be brutally disappointed. Why? Because this is a truly intellectual, truly serious book. The ideas presented are complex, imaginative and intricate. As such, they perfectly reflect the often overlooked nuances of the sub ject matter that they encompass. Indeed, only when one completes this volume is the full scope of its purpose made clear, namely that the book is designed as a holistic, synthetic and creative examination of the fundamental principles and contexts that allow the votive sculpture of the Athenian Acropolis to signify. In other words, K.'s arguments represent a series of critical steps towards understanding the underlying epistemological and methodological bases for reading early votive sculpture. The book is therefore fundamental reading. It is a starting point for all further enquiries into Athenian votive studies and the study of Greek votive art generally. The text is divided into three parts. Part Ι (Anathemata) is based, in part, on K.'s 1995 dissertation 'Monumental Private Votive Dedications on the Athenian Acropolis, ca. 600-400 B.C.' (a volume that also deserves to be widely and independently read) and treats the dedicatory mechanisms, sacred spaces, epigraphical problems and religio-historical realities-in short, the deep contexts-of Acropolis votive sculpture. In Part II (Divine Identities), the most famous and problematic images of the late sixth and early fifth century Acropolis, the Acropolis korai, are subjected to a detailed and refreshing reading. Part III (Human Identities) discusses the beginnings of portraiture on the Acropolis and the non-canonical portrait types that can be discerned using non-traditional methodological tools. There are three Appendices. The first gives a useful list of votives as recorded by Pausanias, the second lists sculptors' 'signatures' as found in the Acropolis dedications, while the third provides a list of Acropolis statues matched with inscribed bases. (Pp. 210-12, in Appendix 3, provide a wonderful example of K.'s careful and polite discussion of a potentially volatile subject-the problematic join between the famous dedication of Alkimachos son of Chairion and Acr. No. 629-and perfectly exemplifies the care and attention to detail witnessed throughout the rest of the text.) It should be admitted here that any attempt to summarize the intricacies of K.'s arguments in the space allotted does injustice both to their thoughtful construction and to their subtlety. Instead, three significant conclusions are summarized below-one from each of K.'s sections-that here serve to whet the appetites of those who relish truly cerebral cuisine. These are not the only con clusions of significance in this volume nor are they even the most provocative. Instead they repre sent a cross-section of the type of questions asked and the manner in which the answers are given. In Chapter Three ('Nothing to Do with Democracy? Votive Statues and Athenian History'pp. 36-62), Κ. challenges the prevailing notion that the late Archaic/early Classical history of Athens-whether it be tyranny or democracy-can be read through or within the archaeology of Acropolis votives. Underpinning the chapter is a long-overdue (and very cleverly designed) critique of the relative/stylistic/so-called 'fixed point' dating game as practised by art historians and epigraphers for the last two centuries. The entire chapter is pure bliss. And no small part of the pleasure comes from realizing that historians of style and non-critical epigraphers will squirm with each passing page since the argument civilly exposes the yawning cavern of subjectivity lying

2011

Honorary inscription from Pelusion (Egypt, 3rd c. AD) with the theophoric names Isidorion (father) and Kasios (son); both names are related to the principle deities worshipped in Pelusion (Isis, Zeus Rasios). [AC] 2) M. ABD EL-MAKSOUD-G. WAGNER, L'inscription grecque du grand bain romain de Péluse, in CRIPEL, 11 (1989), p. 135-138: Mosaic inscription in the Roman bath ofPelusion with the benediction eutuX&ç tél> K'ttcrtTl (3rd c. AD). [Cf. infra nO 68]. [AC] 3) A. ALESIO-P.G. Guzzo, 8antuari e fattorie ad est di Taranto. Elementi archeologici per un modello di interpretazione, in Anathema, p. 363-396: Presentation of a field survey in the area of Taras. A.-G. discuss a list of agricultural implements and cult objects belonging to a sanctuary of Artemis (EBGR 1987, 65); they interpret it as an inventory of cult implements used in a ritual, on which animaIs were sacrificed and partly burned, partly consumed at a banquet. [According to L. DUBOIS it is an inventory of cult objects delivered by potters and smiths: see EBGR 1989, 30; cf. infra nO 243]. They also discuss some terms (K68cov, cr<j)'upa, crtpo<jltç). [AC]

Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 1994