An Athenian woman’s competence: the case of Xenokrateia

DOI : 10.54563/eugesta.399

Abstract

The famous dedication by Xenokrateia to the river god Kephisos and other divinities not far from the city of Athens in c. 400 BC (NM 2756; IG I3 987; IG II2 4547) is a rare example of a sizeable, public ego-document by a citizen woman. Close reading of the iconography of the votive relief, of the dedicatory epigram and the inscribed offering list, and comparison with other private foundations allow reconstructing Xenokrateia’s sense of her identity and the religious, intellectual and economic competences she must have had to bring this dedication about. As a literate, self-confident and pious Athenian citizen, mother, widow and heiress, she spent on estimation several hundred drachmas on her dedication, pace the law quoted at Is. 10.10. The plot of land involved was either her own property or a place already sacred to Kephisos and the Nymphs, to which she added her own dedication. For the latter possibility, a double relief dedicated by Kephisodotos to the hero Echelos and other deities (NM 1783) provides additional evidence.

Xenokrateia’s dedication is exceptional for the detailed, qualitative analysis it allows, but it is not exceptional in quantitative terms: numerous dedications by women show them using similar competences. This approach to the evidence, initiated in recent scholarship, may open new windows on women’s agency in classical Athens.

Outline

Text

Around 400 BC, Xenokrateia, an Athenian woman, dedicated to Kephisos and other gods a beautiful relief with a dedicatory epigram on its base. It came to light near the mouth of the river Kephisos, in present-day Neo Phaliron, in 19081. With its detailed relief and poignant epigram, Xenokrateia’s dedication is a rare example of a public ego-document by a citizen woman. The archaeological, iconographical, epigraphical and religious aspects of the monument, and of a sacrificial list found close by, have elicited a wealth of scholarship2. In this article, I hope to contribute to the debate on women’s lives and agency in classical Athens by investigating this monument and its context as a document of an individual woman, in which she presented herself, her gift to the gods and her motives for it to the human and divine world. The dedication in its entirety reflects the competences she needed to create it, competences that she must have had in common with many Athenians, male and female, even if her gift to Kephisos is exceptional for its splendour, expressiveness and survival.

In the debate about women in Athens, scholars have often pointed out that our literary sources were all written by men, offering representations of women and values about them from a male perspective. Polis decrees likewise were written and decided by men; although these texts need additional evidence to appraise their effects in society, again they highlight legal constraints on women, in norms and conduct, in an androcentric society. Epigraphical and archaeological evidence occasionally offers access to women’s presence and actions in ways that seem less mediated by men, even if it is still difficult to attain insight in women’s own aims. Shifting the perspective away from legal, economic, social and political constraints that had to be circumvented or negotiated, we may try to find women’s agency in classical Athens by reconstructing the competences women needed to have to do the kind of things we see them doing in the evidence.

Such an approach requires reading between the lines, literally and figuratively, of our evidence, with an appropriate methodology. Many excellent publications have done so convincingly, but for my present purposes two in particular have been inspirational. In her study Literacy and democracy in fifth-century Athens (2011), Anna Missiou advocates the existence of widespread low literacy among Athenian men, because for the democracy to operate, writing, some of it simple and short, other more extensive, was simply indispensable. However, elementary schooling for all citizen boys is not clearly attested before the Hellenistic age3, and high literacy, with concomitant access to philosophy, science and rhetoric, was only available to those who could afford a qualified teacher within the household or visiting a private school. Given the limited access to formal schooling in classical Athens, Missiou argues that male citizens at large must have acquired some competence in reading and writing by picking up the principles from peers and at home, aided by the relative simplicity of alphabetic writing and the omnipresence of written texts on central spaces in the city. The same would apply, I will argue with some modifications, to Athenian women, as is relevant for retrieving Xenokrateia’s literacy. The second source of inspiration is the recent volume (2017) Women’s ritual competence in the Greco-Roman Mediterranean, edited by Matthew Dillon, Esther Eidinow and Lisa Maurizio. Behind the written and visual evidence, the contributors identify the skills, knowledge and agency of women in the religious domain, and they observe competences manifest at multiple levels, from nearly unconscious, automatic conventions to expressive, conspicuous actions. ‘Competence’, as used in this volume, is also what I intend to reconstruct here from reading Xenokrateia’s monument; some elucidation of this notion is therefore in place.

Competences

In everyday language, by competence we mean a mode of behaviour relying on adequate knowledge of the matter at hand, cognizance of the societal conditions in which one is to act, shaping self-awareness and identity, and the ability to communicate all of this effectively to others. It entails aligning internal capacities (cognitive, social and emotional skills) to external factors (formal and informal societal constraints; available styles of action) for a satisfactory performance. Competence thus also implies recognition by others.

Owing to present-day psychological research, we can be more precise on the development and effects of competence. Interest, in the sense of the wish and perseverance to attain a certain skill, knowledge or social position, is now found to be driven by intrinsic motivation more strongly and consistently than by external factors such as rewards or punishments (as behavioural psychologists used to suppose). But rewards do shape and sustain such interests, and verbal encouragement is often more effective than tangible rewards, especially in the long run4. Achieving cognitive and social competences, furthermore, is significantly influenced by how a person perceives herself, in terms of her own abilities, qualification and learning capacities. A visible effect of this process is the growing sense of autonomy in dealing with the matter at hand5. Vice versa, cognitive competences play an important role in identity formation, a process that depends on exploring the possibilities and making decisions to commit oneself (for some time) to certain roles and views. Problems in this process are solved by creating alternatives, temporarily adopting multiple perspectives to weigh the pros and cons of a certain position, and critical evaluation of alternatives to review and revise earlier positions. With these cognitive competences, coming to terms with social norms and finding viable alternatives are crucial to achieve a stable identity6. Researchers retrieve these processes by detailed questionnaires among a representative population, showing that cognitive and other competences are learned in formal education as well as by following role models, by observing others and by casual oral instructions and comments. Reflecting a diverse group of test persons, in terms of ethnicity, gender and class, such patterns presumably are at work in the development of competences in the human psyche generally.

For ancient Athens, the evidence on formal education, actual role models and informal guidance is scarce, especially for women. If we are to reconstruct women’s competences, we need to hypothesise that these qualities operated behind the scenes of our evidence that shows their outcome, and they can only be retrieved by reading between the lines. Following the psychological research just mentioned, we may suppose that for an Athenian woman, too, her own interest would be a strong drive to attain certain goals and acquire the necessary skills. To all likelihood, this process began in the areas where women traditionally played a major role, the household and religion. The skills and competences necessary in both domains were considerable, also depending of course on their material resources. Identifying different domains of women’s lives and charting their abilities and restrictions in each is not irrelevant, but if we allow more room for the effects of interaction between such domains, especially in terms of reinforcing competences, our views may change considerably. Beginning at a level of elementary, almost self-evident practice, they would be growing more extensive, conscious and mature over time. Acquiring competence in one area would generate confidence and a sense of learning capacities that would stimulate developing competences in other areas as well. All of these would be constitutive in the formation of her identity as an agent in the public and private spheres, in which handling legal and social norms was fully integrated. Instead of assuming a situation in which she and perhaps her male relatives were resourceful enough to circumvent or ignore formidable social barriers or the law, focusing on competences makes us project a situation in which a woman’s agency and performance were considered normal, and even laudable, by all concerned, enhancing a committed sense of herself in society.

Investigating all of this in full far exceeds the scope of this article, but the present case study hopefully will stimulate further work. One aspect, central to the case of Xenokrateia, may be illustrative. In the economic domain, the law allegedly restricted women’s transactions to a value up to ca. three drachmas7. In the sphere of religion, by contrast, women played a role largely symmetrical to that of men, also in public life8. Yet the numerous dedications by women are not only evidence of their piety, but also of their economic transactions9. From the sixth century to ca. 300 BC, the extant inscribed artefacts include some 150 women who dedicated gifts in stone or bronze to the gods in their own name, alone or together with others; many of these gifts were worth (far) more than three drachmas10. Costly textiles, now only known from inventories, were dedicated especially to goddesses; the women who consecrated them probably made themselves these garments, which represented also a high economic value11. Their sheer quantity must reflect the normality of these transactions and gives an idea of the scale on which women handled wealth for such purposes, inviting us to reconsider the economic competences of women more widely12. Xenokrateia’s dedication offers a rare possibility for an in-depth, qualitative analysis of the ritual, social and economic agency of one, individual woman. Discussing the monuments in some detail, with a few proposed revisions to the scholarship, I intend to elicit Xenokrateia’s identity as a woman and an Athenian citizen, her competences in the ritual sphere, her literacy and her economic capacities, all of which she combined to accomplish her gift to the gods.

Xenokrateia’s dedication

Xenokrateia’s dedication consists of a relief of white marble (Fig. 1) with its imposing poros base carrying the dedicatory inscription (Fig. 5)13. The finely carved relief, now soft-lined due to wear, shows in the centre a woman with a little boy stretching out his right arm, facing a larger male figure who bends over to her and seems to address her with a gesture of his hand. Behind them figures a large group of deities: ten figures in all, of which on the outer left Apollo Pythios, seated on a tripod with an eagle and the omphalos at his feet, and on the outer right Acheloös with his bull’s head may be identified at once.

The dedicatory epigram in (not highly accomplished) verse is preceded by the name of the dedicator14:

Ξενοκράτεια ΚηφισÕ ἱερὸν ἱδρύσατο καὶ ἀνέθηκεν
                    ξυμβώμοις τε θεοῖς(ι) διδασκαλίας τόδε δῶρον,
                    ΞενιάδÕ θυγάτηρ καὶ μήτηρ ἐκ Χολλειδῶν (vacat)
                    θύεν τῶι βουλομένωι ἐπὶ
                    τελεστῶν ἀγαθῶν (vacat).

Xenokrateia founded the sanctuary of Kephisos and dedicated
                    to the gods who share his altar this gift because of instruction
                    daughter and mother of Xeniades of Cholleidai;
                    for whoever wishes to sacrifice for
                    fulfilment of good things.

A low poros stone inscribed with a list of gods was found close by; with all names in the dative, it is clearly a sacrificial list (fig. 7)15:
 

Ἑστίαι Κηφισ-
ῶι Ἀπόλλωνι
Πυθίωι Λητοῖ,
Ἀρτέμιδι Λοχ-
ίαι Ἰλειθύαι Ἀχ-
ελώιωι Καλλ-
ιρόηι Γεραισ -
ταῖς - Νύμφαι
ς γενεθλί -
αιςΡαψοῖ.

To Hestia Kephis-
os Apollo
Pythios Leto
Artemis Loch-
ia Ileithya Ach-
eloös Kall-
irhoë Gerais-
tais Nymphais
Genethli-
ais Rhapso

 

The whole set raises several questions:

  1. Who was Xenokrateia, what does she tell us about herself and her motives in her dedication?

  2. What did her dedication consist of? This question involves the date of the monuments, their location, their various components, especially the relation between the sacrificial list and the divinities on the relief.

  3. How did she get the resources for this dedication and which competences did she need to bring it about?

Furthermore, another dedication found close by may have been connected to Xenokrateia’s in some way. It consists of a marble double relief, showing on one side (A) Artemis with a male figure (god?), Kephisos and Nymphs (fig. 3), and on the other (B) Hermes with the hero Echelos abducting the nymph Iasile (fig. 4), and its base of poros stone with a dedicatory inscription (fig. 6)16:
 

Κηφισόδοτος17 Δεμογένος

Βουτάδες ἱδρυσατο

καὶ τόν βωμόν.

Kephisodotos son of Demogenes

Of Boutadai founded [this]

And the altar.

 

For this monument the same questions about the date, the identity of the divinities depicted, the location and resources, are relevant, in order to understand

  1. What, if anything, had Xenokrateia’s dedication to do with that of Kephisodotos?

For the purposes of this article, questions a) and c) are the most important, but they can only be answered once questions b) and d) are, and all answers tend to be interdependent to some extent.

Beginning with b), some elements of Xenokrateia’s dedication can be identified straightaway: the relief with its base and epigram. Whether she also dedicated a sanctuary was called into question by epigraphist Margarita Guarducci, who held that ἱερόν, because it lacks an article, is an adjective to δῶρον, i.e. not ‘a sanctuary’ but ‘a hieros gift’18. This reading is unconvincing, however, due to the syntax of the sentence and to comparative cases of absence of articles meaning ‘this object’ nonetheless19. So, Xenokrateia also dedicated the sanctuary in which the relief was standing. Williams rightly observes that ‘the extent of the sanctuary cannot be established, since only a small area was explored during the brief salvage excavations’20. Previous speculations about the sanctuary being a grove or similar kind of cult place are therefore unfounded.

Whether the inscribed offering list also belonged to Xenokrateia’s dedication was doubted for a long time, because in earlier scholarship the list was dated one to two decades after the relief. The relief is dated on iconographical and sculptural arguments. In 1966, Jiří Frel ascribed the relief to the ‘Xenokrateia sculptor’, to whom he also ascribed side A of the double relief of Kephisodotos, and assigned it to c. 410-40021. Frel’s date was confirmed by Brunilde Ridgway and hence c. 410-400 became standard for a long time22. The sacrificial list was dated in IG (IG II2 4547) to the early fourth century due to Ionic features in its script, which in IG was taken to date after 403/2, and its letterforms. However, the arguments behind these divergent dates have been gradually revised. Charles Edwards has convincingly argued that the reliefs were made by two different sculptors, arriving at a date of c. 405-390 for the Xenokrateia relief23. For the sacrificial list, the use of Ionic is no longer taken to indicate a date after c. 400, because it appears sparingly from the mid-fifth century and increasingly from the 420s onward24. Nor do the letterforms necessarily point to the later date; on balance, a date c. 400 is more convincing25. In sum, precise dates being impossible for both monuments, with a margin they can be dated to the decade around 400 and could belong together on that account26.

Since according to her epigram Xenokrateia founded the sanctuary, she probably also set up the altar to Kephisos and the other gods she mentions, but this was not the stone with the offering list. The stone has neither the shape for nor traces of offerings (fig. 8) and in the list the deities are all set in the dative, instead of the genitive more commonly used for gods as owners of an altar (and hence recipients of its offerings)27.

Finally, some scholars have argued that on the base the invitation to other worshippers was added later to the dedicatory epigram by someone else, as the letters of the first three lines (dedication) would differ from those of the last two lines (invitation) and be separated from each other28. On autopsy I cannot confirm this. The base and the sacrificial list are made of poros stone, each of a different kind but both of an uneven, brittle quality that is difficult to inscribe; consequently, the letters are quite irregular throughout both inscriptions29. On the base, it is rather the irregular shape of the space for the inscription due to the uneven surface that has affected the shape and position of the lines (fig. 5). A few differences between the letters on the base and on the list suggest two different cutters for the two stones, whereas the similarities reflect the style of these decades30. It is notable, furthermore, that the inscription on the base is faded and worn, whereas the letters of the offering list are crisp, suggesting that this stone stood inside the sanctuary, whereas the base with its relief was more exposed. In sum, I regard the whole epigram including the invitation as Xenokrateia’s message, and the sacrificial list as also ordered by her from a different cutter or workshop.

We may conclude that Xenokrateia founded a sanctuary and dedicated a relief with an epigram, a stone with a sacrificial list and probably an altar. This combination of a cult or sanctuary with an inscription explaining the reason for the gift and a prescription for the cult or the offerings is a well-known, indeed typical feature of private foundations31.

The deities of Xenokrateia’s dedication

If we want to understand Xenokrateia’s self-presentation and her purposes in her gift to the gods, it is crucial to ascertain to whom she dedicated it. Obviously, the river god Kephisos was the primary recipient, as clearly stated in the epigram and enhanced by the location she chose for the sanctuary, at the mouth of the Kephisos, in an area known as the region of the Tetrakomoi of Herakles (see map)32. Her relief, base and offering list were found at the place of the north wall, the double relief and base of Kephisodotos at the south wall of the western Long Walls from Athens to Piraeus. Whether or not the Walls were standing when these dedications were made, cannot be ascertained, nor whether their destruction and rebuilding had an impact on the construction of the sanctuary33. Some scholars explain Xenokrateia’s choice of Kephisos as due to her familiarity with the river: the location of Xenokrateia’s deme Cholleidai is not certain but seems to have been to the north of the city and may have been at the Kephisos34. Boutadai, the deme of Kephisodotos, was certainly situated at the river. But the main motive for Kephisos as the central deity of her dedication was doubtless his role as kourotrophos, as will be discussed below.
 

Image 1000000000000280000002163716B6BE93A6DE8E.jpg

 

But who were the other gods on the relief, whom she meant to share in the honours for Kephisos? Are they the gods mentioned on the sacrificial list? For answering this question, I refer to the drawing with numbered figures of the relief used by Andreas Linfert35.
 

Image 100000000000035C000002734B9F32D1F9F03C3F.jpg

 

At first sight, the most plausible inference is that the gods on the sacrificial list are the same as those on the relief, as both include beyond a doubt Apollo Pythios (fig. 1) and Acheloös (fig. 10). Kephisos, the primary recipient of the dedication, might be the youthful male figure (fig. c) engaging with Xenokrateia (fig. a); on the list, he is to receive offerings directly after Hestia, who always received the first sacrifices in Athens. He is depicted with his foot on a block, probably an altar; it seems a gesture of possession and would fit the dedication to him as the primary beneficiary of this altar.

However, many scholars have contested that the gods on the list match those on the relief. If that is so, we could no longer be sure the sacrificial list belonged to Xenokrateia’s dedication and there would be little reason to read the one monument as relevant to the other (although not all scholars seem to be aware of this implication)36. Ascertaining the identities of the gods on the relief, on comparison with the list, is therefore necessary at this point. Why has the correspondence between the gods on both monuments been called into question?

First of all, the identity of Kephisos as fig. c has been contested because the river god is frequently depicted as an adult male crowned with horns; in this shape he appears on side A of the double relief37. In fact, however, river gods could be rendered in various ways: the river god in the west pediment of the Parthenon, for instance, identified as either Ilissos, Eridanos or Kephisos, is a young male (the head is missing)38. Fig. c, then, can be accepted as Kephisos. Second, on the relief there are eleven deities; the list contains ten names, if Lochia is taken to be an epiklesis of Artemis and Ileithyia to be the goddess of birth, but as nymphs usually come in groups of three, all deities together would make twelve. Some scholars therefore suggested that in this case there are just two nymphs (fig. 7 and 8). Rhapso is mentioned only here, so beside speculations on her name nothing substantial can be said about her39. The third obstacle to identifying the gods on the relief with those on the list is uncertainty about the gender of some figures. Some scholars hold that the figures 3 and 4 are male (fig. 2), due to their features, more precisely Hermes wearing a chlamys over his shoulder and whose staff-like object would be the kerykeion, and the heros Echelos, because he figures also on the other relief40. Due to these discrepancies, the list has been dissociated from the relief.

Yet I think there are sufficient arguments to reconnect the list firmly to the relief, even if some questions cannot be answered unequivocally. Fig. 3 may seem to have masculine features, but several contemporary monuments show figures who are unambiguously female due to their breasts, but have the same muscular arms, cropped hair or straight profile41. Not only Hermes holds a staff; so does Artemis, also in her function as Lochia42. The clothing certainly resembles a chlamys, but also a Doric chiton, leaving the arms bare, topped with a mantle; its long folds are visible below the hands of the deity and below they merge with the chiton of Xenokrateia, whereas a male wearing a chlamys would have a bare torso here43. In sum, the gender of fig. 3 is not distinct, she might be female. What speaks against the identity of fig. 3 as Hermes, beside the clothing, is that (s)he is just standing, at best observing the figures on the right, but not in any way engaged with the nymphs, who should be among the female figures on the right44. Depictions of Hermes and the nymphs, however, always show the god either actively leading or in proximity to and contact with the nymphs. Uncertainty of gender is also the case with fig. 4, who seems masculine because the left shoulder seems to be bare and breasts are not visible (fig. 2). However, no convincing arguments have been advanced so far for the identity of fig. 4 as Echelos, nor for a connection of this hero with Xenokrateia’s dedication, in which he is not mentioned45. By contrast, the face and hair, and to a lesser extent the dress, of fig. 4 have strong parallels with female figures, notably nymphs, on other reliefs46. If underneath the folds of the mantle carved in the relief, clothing was indicated with paint, this could be a female figure.

Fig. 9 seems to represent a statue, rather than a goddess herself; her identity has been disputed47. Now, a recently found fragment of a fourth-century votive relief to Eileithyia, showing three female ‘herms’, combined with an inscribed base of a statue dedicated to her and many other gifts related to children and childbirth, is attractively interpreted by Dimitri Sourlas as connected to the sanctuary of this goddess in Athens and her representation there48. The herms represent Eileithyia as a frontal statue wearing a high polos; Pausanias (1.18.5) confirms the presence of three cult statues of the goddess in her sanctuary49. On this evidence, we can now confidently identify fig. 9 as Eileithyia.

Fig. 2 makes a gesture of anakalypsis, unveiling; it was a ritual moment, often performed by female helpers of the bride, in which a woman showed herself to her husband in her marriage ceremony50. This gesture also features in scenes of women whom John Oakley calls ‘pseudo-brides’: women who are abducted or otherwise partners of men in an irregular or involuntary manner51. This does not preclude them acting as mothers: especially Leto figures in visual arts as a bride with veil and crown (‘married’ to Zeus), representing her maternity of her twins, Apollo and Artemis52. On the relief, she is standing between Apollo and the androgynous deity fig. 3 with attributes of Artemis Lochia. It is appropriate to identify her as Leto, an identity that would reinforce the possibility that fig. 3 represents Artemis Lochia.

Of all the deities on the list, Kephisos, Apollo Pythios, Leto, Eileithya, Acheloös and (probably) Artemis Lochia have now been identified also on the relief. This justifies looking for the others as well, but now it is difficult, if not impossible, to decide among the remaining female figures who might be Hestia, Kallirhoë, the Geraistai Nymphai Genethliai (Venerable nymphs of birth) and Rhapso. I prefer three nymphs, since that is their regular number in Athenian votives; they might be the three veiled deities (fig. 5, 6, 8) standing with the youthful female (fig. 7; Kallirhoë?) close to Acheloös and Eileithyia, with whom they are associated. This leaves the ambiguous fig. 4 to be either Rhapso or Hestia. Without distinctive attributes, Hestia is difficult to identify, and I would hazard that she may not be depicted, because hers is to be the first sacrifice by convention; she may be ‘implied’ in the scene of the relief53. By this elimination, fig. 4 would be Rhapso, but perhaps one would not expect a relatively modest figure, mentioned at the very end of the list, on such a central place in the relief. However, if we take a visual clue by following the list with our eyes on the relief, we first read Hestia (not depicted), next we see Kephisos (central), then Apollo on the extreme left followed by Leto and Artemis Lochia. Now finding Eileithyia on the extreme right, we see below her Acheloös, next Kallirhoë (who on this viewing order must be the veiled goddess on the right), three nymphs and, finally, ending up in the middle, Rhapso. Although this identification of the remaining goddesses cannot be secured, I would conclude that the correspondence between the offering list and the relief is such that the two may be ‘read’ together as evidence for Xenokrateia’s self-presentation.

Xenokrateia’s self-presentation

Xenokrateia’s epigram fulfils the crucial functions that Andrea Purvis identified in such private dedications: to recognise and offer thanks for divine gifts, to declare her own role in creating the sanctuary, and to encourage others to worship these gods, giving thanks for favours received and for similar blessings in the future54. In some respects, the epigram is clear and outspoken, other phrases are more ambivalent, perhaps intentionally, but also due to the concision of the phrasing.

Beginning with her own name before the dedication in verse, she firmly draws attention to her agency as dedicator. For women to make dedications in their own name, without mentioning male relatives, was not at all unusual55, but Xenokrateia is singularly outspoken about her identity. Calling herself in the epigram ‘mother and daughter of Xeniades of Cholleidai’, Xenokrateia proclaims her pivotal role in continuing the patrilinear line of descent56, and by adding the demotic of her father she highlights her status as a citizen57. Her husband, Xeniades’ father, might have had the same demotic (Cholleidai), but his absence altogether, combined with the emphasis on the same name of her father and her son, rather suggests that Xeniades was strongly associated with his maternal grandfather and carried his demotic. All these signs point to Xenokrateia being an epikleros, whose child was adopted by her father, as well as a widow58. From the inscription, we cannot infer if her father was still alive. Considering naming traditions in Athens, by which the first son was called after the paternal grandfather, little Xeniades, called after his maternal grandfather, was probably not the eldest, but the second son59. Although loosing husband and child must always have been the fate of numerous women in Athens, we should recall here that Xenokrateia made her dedication at the very end of, or, more likely, shortly after the Peloponnesian War, when the death toll amongst the Athenians had been exceptionally high60. Beside her other motives discussed below, with her dedication Xenokrateia possibly expressed her gratitude to the gods for the survival of herself and her son, hoping they would continue to offer their protection.

In her invitation to other worshippers to sacrifice at the altar, Xenokrateia uses the phrase τῶι βουλομένωι (for anyone who wishes). It is an expression used frequently in the public discourse of the Athenian democracy, notably the right to speak in the assembly, but also in decrees relating to other institutions, underlining the equal access for all involved to share in the relevant benefits61. Xenokrateia uses it in her private dedication for any other who wishes to share in the agatha that the gods bestow on sacrifice, for her share of which she here demonstrates her gratitude. But with these words she also underlines again her status as a citizen, using a vocabulary of citizenship that all citizens recognised as such.

Presenting thus emphatically her identity as an Athenian citizen in terms of her descent and her discourse, Xenokrateia does so equally emphatically in the choice of the gods to whom she dedicated her gifts. Private founders and dedicators normally chose their own favourite deity or deities from among the polis’ gods for their worship, and we may safely assume that this group of Kephisos and the other divinities was Xenokrateia’s own choice. Leaving aside the visual order of the relief and the list, they may be clustered into meaningful groups:

  1. gods of the Athenian polis: Hestia, the goddess of the hearth, of the polis in the prytaneion and in every single Athenian household62; Apollo Pythios, the ancestral god of the Athenian phratries; and Kephisos, Acheloös and Kallirhoë. The river Acheloös, which flowed in central Greece, not in Attica, was honoured at Athens as the father of the Nymphs, kourotrophoi par excellence63. In myth, the river Kephisos was the father of Praxithea, wife of the arch-king Erechtheus and the first priestess of Athena Polias, according to a tradition reflected in Euripides’ play Erechtheus. In daily life, he represented for the Athenians the wellspring of their polis; seventeen male names and two female names with the stem Kephisos are attested, among whom the dedicator of the double relief, with just one for the Acheloös and one for the Ilissos64. The spring Kallirhoë, finally, at the source of the Ilissos, fed the Enneakrounos, the ‘Fountain with nine spouts’, whose waters were used traditionally for prenuptial rituals and other hiera (Thuc. 2.15.5). Together, the divine waters formed a cultic landscape within and around Athens with which Xenokrateia and the viewers of the relief identified. Apollo Pythios forms the bridge to group

  2. the triad of Apollo, Artemis and their mother Leto; as we just saw, Leto with her twin figures clearly as a mother, and the three of them together were kourotrophos, nurturing children65. Artemis appears here with the epiklesis Lochia as goddess of birth, forming the bridge to group

  3. divinities of birth: Eileithyia and the Venerable Nymphs of Birth, and finally

  4. the elusive nymph Rhapso.

All the deities of her dedication together represent the polis as social and ritual community and especially the kourotrophic powers supporting its offspring and wellbeing66.

Xenokrateia also offered the visitor of the sanctuary the reason for her gift in the epigram. But what exactly does the phrase διδασκαλίας τόδε δῶρον mean? Are we to read ‘this gift of instruction’, i.e. serving as instruction for the other worshippers, as some scholars have argued67? Surely her dedication and its invitation meant to stimulate others to act likewise, but for contemporary viewers, who knew that dedications usually were a counter-gift for a gift of the gods in gratitude and in hope of perpetuation, the most obvious reading would be ‘this gift because of instruction (received)’68. Given this meaning, who received the instruction, Xenokrateia or her son Xeniades? Most scholars see Xeniades as the recipient of the didaskalia and Kephisos’ benefits to him as the main purpose of the dedication69. But several clues suggest otherwise. First and foremost, the visual message of the relief, as Purvis rightly observes (see fig. 2):

[The god] stoops down to Xenocratia with his right arm bent and index finger raised, his palm turned toward himself [...]. The position of the divinity’s head makes it clear that Xenocratia rather than her son is the main recipient; the eyes of the woman and the god seem to meet, while the boy attempts but does not succeed in receiving the direct attention of the god [...]. the divinity is imparting from himself (hence palm toward himself) to Xenocratia some sort of knowledge which she receives and embraces as it is passed to her70.

Second, her epigram includes in her gift to Kephisos all the other the gods because of the instruction (ἀνέθηκεν ξυμβώμοις τε θεοῖς(ι) διδασκαλίας τόδε δῶρον). I would argue that in her text and in her relief Xenokrateia presented herself as the recipient of the didaskalia from Kephisos, but also of all the other gods, and that she therefore offered her gratitude to him and to them in her gift and the offer to share his altar. She did not disclose the contents of this instruction, but at least a large part of it may be inferred from her dedication. Presenting herself in image and word as sharing in the hiera and hosia of oikos and polis, she honoured Kephisos and all the gods and nymphs who made her what she was now: an Athenian citizen, proud of her lineage, aware of her place among humans and gods, and the mother of a healthy young son71. And perhaps she also felt that with their ‘instruction’ how to live, the gods had helped her to survive the perils of the Peloponnesian war with him. Her little son was both a divine gift himself and a beneficiary of such gifts, and she included him in her dedication. Finally, she invited anyone who so wished to likewise honour the gods in gratitude and in hope for the future.

Xenokrateia’s competences

For her dedication, Xenokrateia needed many competences: religious, economic, intellectual, social. Yet, as explained above, we need to argue the other way around, inferring from the evidence which competences must have been employed to bring it about, an argument to be checked against further, circumstantial evidence. Although the size and quality of her dedication are rather exceptional, I would argue that Xenokrateia’s competences and the ways in which she used them are not, but instead were capacities she shared with many of her fellow citizens. Expounding each aspect in full would take too far here; I shall briefly comment on her ritual and intellectual skills and next look more extensively into her material resources and how she could use them for this dedication.

First of all, her ritual competence. Ritual is defined in many ways and studied with many different methods, ranging from a focus on a pre-conscious level of learning, to attention to the performative meanings of ritual to the explicit instruction in certain rules72. Religious conduct in ancient Greece was based on a mixture of written and unwritten norms and rules. Reciprocal gift-giving with the gods in the polis was the ‘generative and primary system of communication’ with the gods, embedded in a ritual competence that was hardly conscious73. But offering an actual gift or addressing a prayer to the gods on a specific moment for a certain purpose was a conscious act of ritual performance. At this level, we may suppose what Saskia Peels has called the cultural knowledge of the unwritten norm to have steered the conduct at particular sanctuaries, festivals and cults74. Added to these unwritten rules were numerous written norms and regulations for particular cults and sanctuaries, preserved in the epigraphic record. The ritual exchange with the gods was integrated into many moments and actions, both within the house and beyond, in the public domain75. Sharing actively in the polis’ cultic life, in public festivals of polis and deme, and in semi-private rituals such as of the phratries and the private cults of the family, was the foremost way of men, women and occasionally also children to put one’s citizenship into practice76. In this way, by oral communication, practical example and written prescripts, one learned the main tenets of religious beliefs, of the most common rituals and their place in life.

Setting up a cult was a highly specific act of piety, which happened more often than we may be inclined to think. Xenokrateia, like other private founders, apparently knew how to go about doing so, in the first place by following the example of others. Private founders usually felt a strong personal bond with one god in particular whom they wanted to honour with more than common worship77. A dedicator would have made his or her own choice as to the deity and the regulations of the intended cult, such as who was to be invited to share in the worship and on which conditions, for instance offering specific sacrifices. Oracular consultation (Apollo at Delphi, Zeus at Dodona, or other shrines) inquiring whether all of this was right could be the first step, but not all dedicators did so, nor did they all mention this in their inscribed presentation – Xenokrateia, for instance, did not. Normally, such actions of private piety concerned deities who already enjoyed an established role in the polis pantheon; introducing new gods from elsewhere was a different matter that we can leave aside here. As we just saw, Xenokrateia was fully aware to whom of the deities and heroes of Athens she owed her benefits, reflecting her theological knowledge of her polytheistic polis world and a strong sense of contact with Kephisos in particular78. The eloquent way in which her own proximity and devotion to Kephisos are rendered on the relief, with little Xeniades close at her side, suggests she had clear views on how her piety was to be represented, which she may have discussed orally with the sculptor. Of her highly personal selection of deities as ‘her own’ from among the Athenian pantheon, she may have made a list for the sculptor and for the cutter of the sacrificial order.

Private worshippers and founders like Xenokrateia also had to comply with the regulations of the polis on the establishment of cults79. As Henk Versnel shows, people could set up such cults in their own private grounds, but the polis was not very keen on such private initiatives entering public sacred space80. The written record has left no (written) laws on the do’s and don’ts for founding a cult in general, but apparently those rules belonged to the kind of knowledge people imbued by reading specific decrees on newly founded cults, by oral communication and from the examples of earlier cults with their written dedications. At this point, we see the intersection between ritual competence and intellectual skills, notably literacy and numeracy. To Missiou’s evidence for the spread of literacy in classical Athens due to political procedures, we must add the immense record of written religious norms, issued by the polis, demes and caretakers of sanctuaries on the one hand, and of dedications, inscribed by individual worshippers or groups, on the other81. The numerous public accounts of finances involved in cult extends the argument to functional numeracy. Sums of money were written in acrophonic numerals, a system of notation supported by an abacus or counter board for actual calculations82. Anyone with low literacy could easily learn acrophonic numerals, which were also relatively efficient in cognitive terms compared to alphabetic numerals83. It was a system people used also at home for household purposes, and like alphabetic writing it was a skill many people could and might learn from parents, relatives and watching others. In sum, elementary literacy and numeracy would often begin at home and could further develop due to the wide exposure to written texts and numbers in the public sphere of Athens, not only in the political domain of men, but also in religion, which involved men and women equally.

Yet, beside these ways of acquiring some literacy and numeracy, wealth must have been an important factor in developing wider intellectual competences. For men, this is well known, but for the formal education of women in classical Athens the evidence is very scarce. Given that for ‘decent’ girls remaining indoors and quiet was valued, scholars often assumed that women received no formal education to speak of, and that the little evidence there is for educated, literate women must therefore refer to ‘indecent’ girls, read: hetaerae84. This circular argument has now been refuted: women did not always stay indoors, nor were they always silent; not all hetaerae were educated, nor all educated women hetaerae85. Sian Lewis concludes, on analysis of the iconographic evidence, that in the classical age ‘female literacy was normal among the elite’86. Non-elite girls and women may have picked up some reading and writing at home, as I argued above, just like non-elite men, but most women certainly had fewer opportunities than men to be directly engaged with written texts. On the other hand, Edward Cohen argues that their responsibility for their household economy and their valuable skills in textiles and other crafts enabled women to become practiced and successful businesswomen, while their husbands, restricted by (old-fashioned) ideals of andreia, were not expected to engage in crafts and trade87. Although I think we should beware taking the rhetorical and philosophical exhortations about andreia to be effective prescripts for men’s lives, just as we should beware to take the ideals voiced about women’s conduct to be strict regulations, the changes a monetised economy brought to traditional forms of labour and exchange were real enough. Both men and women had to engage with new forms of exchange and acquire the skills to do so.

Several aspects of Xenokrateia’s dedication suggest that she, too, was literate: she had made the polis’ regulations on founding cults sufficiently her own, she drew up a probably written list of her personal choice of gods for her dedication, and the base carried her epigram. As a Greek woman and citizen of Athens, Xenokrateia must have been familiar with poetry, oral and/or written, if it were only from participating in festivals, attending the theatre, listening to popular songs and reading epigrams88. If the modest quality of the verse indicates she composed the epigram herself, as most scholars suppose, she may have given a written text to the cutter to inscribe. In the expression ‘for whoever wishes’ she used vocabulary common in the assembly and courts, as well as in religious associations89. She could have acquired this vocabulary from oral communication, and her use of the term didaskalia points in that direction. It may refer to any kind of instruction, lesson and education, and often such teachings were oral. On her relief, Kephisos is depicted precisely in this way, instructing her orally. But that she chose this word, and no other, to express what she owed to Kephisos and the other gods, may be due to the visibility of the verb didasko in the public space of Athens, on choregic monuments attesting to the victories of the choruses in Dionysian festivals and the persons who instructed them90. For her, too, instruction had shaped her identity as citizen and mother that she now showed in her dedication.

Xenokrateia’s economic competences

To realise her gift, Xenokrateia needed material resources and economic competences, and reconstructing these needs answering again several questions. First, since her dedication obviously cost much more than c. three drachmas, we shall look into the law, briefly mentioned above, allegedly forbidding her to spend so much money on her own account, with the concomitant question how much a kyrios was really involved in a woman’s life and actions. Second, I should like to tease out the costs of her dedication, to get an idea of her economic status. And last but not least, we need to understand how using a plot of land for her dedication came within her purview – a difficult question to which several answers are possible, and which will engage the dedication by Kephisodotos more fully in the discussion.

Dedications were goods honouring the gods by being given to them. Once made divine property, the objects could not re-enter the human economic circuit, but, like many other gifts to the gods such as sacrifices and festivities, they represented a real economic value in human society. These goods had to be purchased on the market or kept aside from one’s property, and their economic value was an inherent feature of their religious value. Tithes were proudly presented as such, a tenth part of a property, harvest or windfall. For sacrifices, the costs in drachmas were listed in advance in sacrificial calendars or decrees, or were recorded after the sacrifice in inscribed accounts. Visibility and costliness contributed significantly to the gesture material dedications (in marble, bronze or more modest materials) made towards the divine recipients and human viewers. They showed the honour awarded to this deity as a tribute to his or her powers, and the debt the givers felt towards the deity for the benefits bestowed91. Xenokrateia, likewise, showed with her lavish gift and her epigram her indebtedness to Kephisos and the other gods, honouring his powers with a valuable gift for all to see. But how could she make the necessary economic transactions?

For a long time, the quote in Is.10.10 ‘The law states explicitly that it is not permitted to a child or to a woman to enter a legal transaction worth more than one medimnos of barley’92 was taken to mean that women were not allowed to make any financial transaction over the value of a medimnos barley, roughly three drachmas, without the consent of their kyrios. As quoted by Isaeus, the law does not mention a kyrios93, but scholars assumed his role was implied because women needed a kyrios in legal affairs. The law would fit the subordination of Athenian women to their male kinsmen, a position of legal minority commensurate with their exclusion from citizenship defined as holding political office, a privilege limited to adult male Athenians94. Hence, women whom the evidence showed to be handling sums (much) larger than three drachmas were classified either as exceptions or as metic women rather than citizens95. If they were clearly citizen women, the consent of their kyrios was supposed to have been involved.

Various kinds of evidence speak against this view. The number of citizen women engaged in substantial wealth transactions is too large to be considered exceptional: c. 80 women feature in the extant forensic speeches as involved in contested property (inheritances and dowries) at least worth going to court for, and they surely represent a much larger number of women of a more modest wealth96. We just saw Cohen’s view on women’s capacity for business, and Edward Harris has advanced extensive evidence for women’s economic contributions to their households; for many such activities, women needed to handle larger sums, and asking time and again for consent of their kyrios seems hardly plausible97. Several scholars therefore contend that the law at Is. 10.10 cannot have been what it has conventionally be taken to mean. Louise Kuenen-Janssens advanced (1941) the argument that a medimnos of barley could feed a modest family for five to six days and hence was not so small a sum in the first place, while for larger transactions by a woman her kyrios was expected to tacitly consent by default; the law was thus more flexible than it would seem98. According to Harris, resourceful women and their relatives found ways around the law99. Lin Foxhall makes the fundamental argument that the economy of the Athenian household cannot be understood by modern notions of ownership, but that instead husband and wife each contributed to the common wealth, of which the husband was the legal representative but within which the wife had an economic standing of her own100. She thinks not so much in terms of a gap between law and reality, but rather of shifting priorities between economic interests of households and the law: ‘social preference was frequently stronger than legal right’101. In view of the evidence for women’s economic activities, without a kyrios visibly involved, Virginia Hunter contends that in classical Athens the law of Is. 10.10 must have been a dead letter102. There are, finally, also legal objections to the conventional view. In the context of financial transactions, the verb συμβάλλειν means either to contribute a part to a larger sum, or to engage in an agreement with a security or loan103. In both cases, one makes a pledge for a sum to be paid; it would seem the law in Is. 10.10 is primarily concerned with securities. Assuming that for a woman making a contract with a security over three drachmas her kyrios was to be (tacitly) involved, is therefore justified, in so far as this concerned a legal transaction, but this does not mean women needed a kyrios for any financial transaction such as a sale.

For Xenokrateia, her father, if he was still alive, may have acted as her kyrios, but she does not mention anyone in this role; nor did the many other women making costly dedications on behalf of themselves and/ or others. A certain Mikythe dedicated a marble column with a statue (now lost) to Athena in the second quarter of the fifth century, with an inscription: ‘Mikythe dedicated me to Athena, this agalma, having vowed a tithe, both on behalf of her children and of herself. Euphron made it’104. No father, no husband, no other male relative mentioned – Mikythe dedicated for her children and herself; the gift represented a tenth of the value of an unknown kind she received or possessed, at all events a considerable economic asset. Lysistrate, priestess of Demeter and Kore, dedicated in the second half of the fifth century a marble base with an agalma to her own goddess. The surprise is in her epigram: ‘Attendant of your secret ceremony, Mistress Deo, and your daughter’s, Lysistrate, set up this pleasing gift, two crowns, an adornment for your porch, and she does not spare her possessions, but to the gods she is unstinting to the extent of her ability’105. The two crowns the council and demos had awarded her, she dedicated to the goddess, as was usual with such signs of honour, but she emphasised that she added substantially from her own property to pay for the column. No kyrios is mentioned anywhere. For the supposition that the transactions for these and all the other hundred and fifty dedications were silently mediated by their kyrioi, rather than by these women themselves, some clear evidence is necessary beyond the law quoted in Is. 10.10.

If the law was indeed concerned with legal agreements involving securities or loans, rather than any economic transaction by a woman, we may still wonder if it was still in force in the later fifth century. Expressing value in measures of grain, rather than in silver or coins, points to an agricultural, archaic origin of the law. Possibly, it was precisely because of its archaic appearance that Isaeus brought it up at this point in this speech: the speaker contends that at the time a man allegedly had made an adoption by will, there was still a minor legitimate son alive, who could neither have been bypassed nor, of course, could have made such a will himself. No one seriously considered the latter possibility, but a law setting economic values in medimnoi reminded listeners of Solon’s laws and hence gave some weight to the speaker’s contention, creating a rhetorical prop for a straw man. In classical Athens with its expanding, monetised markets, this archaic law was perhaps becoming an anomaly, and it may be no coincidence that we find no more references to it106. Yet, Athenian laws were seldom abolished, especially when they were held to be Solonian, but rather allowed to lapse into disuse. The social values the law embodied might still linger to some extent, potentially affecting the conduct both of women making transactions and of the people she had to deal with, especially when such transactions had to do with related values concerning property. As Foxhall notes, no law (that we know of) forbade women’s ownership of land or real property in Athens, but there are very few instances in the evidence of women owning such property; in most cases, women owned – and used – moveable wealth107.

Xenokrateia used hers in the first place for the relief, altar and sacrificial list. For the costs of the relief, we should note that it is an exceptionally fine and elaborate piece of work. Sculpture workshops usually had stones like this in stock, to be used as a grave relief or similar work. If that was the case here, too, she would have had no additional costs for getting it from the quarry108. Sculptors were paid on a daily basis for the carving and the much-demanding polishing of the stone. Rare examples of extant prices for the work on grave reliefs, decrees and occasionally monuments such as the Erechtheion friezes in the late fifth century, show a disparate picture: from 20-40 drachmas for a grave relief (usually no more than three figures, so far more limited than Xenokrateia’s votive relief) to 120 drachmas for a horse and his rider and 240 drachmas for a chariot, a young man and a horse on the Erechtheion (fewer figures but larger in size than Xenokrateia’s relief)109. An estimated price of 200 drachmas for her relief would not seem improbable. The base of simple poros stone and the short, not very sophisticated inscription cannot have been very expensive110. What the altar was like, we cannot tell, nor the construction of the sanctuary, but the stone with the offering list was inscribed and added to the whole. All these objects had to be transported to the sanctuary and set up there. Together, I hazard an estimation of 300-350 drachmas for these elements of the dedication.

But how did she get a plot of lands on which to erect her dedication? To explain how she might have done so despite the restrictions of the law in Is. 10.10, Williams proposes that the land was hers, but that with this dedication she did not really alienate it. Williams compares her foundation with the one Xenophon made to Artemis (An. 5.3.8-13). Acquiring a plot of land near his estate at Skillous, close to Olympia, following an oracle of Apollo, Xenophon built an altar and a temple for the goddess. He destined a tithe of the produce of the land to fund the annual festival for her and the remainder for the upkeep of the temple, laying all of this down in an inscription. A hunting expedition in which Xenophon’s sons and the sons of the other citizens and ‘those who wished’ (οἱ βουλομενοί) of the adult men participated, yielded game that were added to the festive sacrificial meals. Xenokrateia acted likewise, according to Williams:

because she did not alienate the land in the same way that she would have done in the case of a sale, it was not necessary for her to own the land in her own right... her dedication to Cephisus and the other gods still kept it within her family, destined to be maintained by Xeniades and his descendants111.

Although this is an ingenious solution, the situation is not exactly as Williams takes it to be. Xenophon bought the plot for the sanctuary with his part of the booty that was set aside for Artemis; in other words, the money he used to buy the property for the sanctuary was hieros when he received it and not human property112. Xenophon therefore never owned this property. Nothing of the proceeds went to humans either, but they were used entirely to honour the goddess and for the upkeep of her sanctuary. The person who held it in trust (Xenophon, his descendants or someone else) was responsible for the sanctuary and hence gained the goddess’ favour, but he did not reap any material profit from it, nor did he own it.

For Xenokrateia, there are, I think, two possibilities: either the plot of land was hers, on which she was in principle free to found a sanctuary to a deity of the Athenian pantheon; or it was already a sacred place, to which she added her dedication. These two options entail quite different scenarios.

 

Option a: the land was her property

It may have been a part of her inheritance, but considering that she dedicated it not just to Kephisos but also near the river, at some distance of her original deme, she could also have bought it for this purpose with money she owned. The problem with a sale is not so much the law at Is. 10.10, but rather the fact that the evidence on sales of land is so scarce, as selling (ancestral) land was rather frowned upon. Yet, land in Attica did change hands. In the Lykourgan era, sale of lands belonging to corporate groups provides some evidence for the value of such estates. Comparing it to properties sold in the area close to where Xenokrateia founded her sanctuary, in the range of 100 – 300 drachmas, I estimate its value at 150 drachmas113, a sum she spent either by buying it or setting it apart from her inheritance.

If thus the costs of the entire dedication, including the plot of land, are estimated at 450-500 drachmas, and if this amounted to a tithe of her property, Xenokrateia owned 4,500-5,000 drachmas worth of estate; without the plot, it might be 3,000-3,500 drachmas. In her comparative analysis of income and wealth at classical Athens, Claire Taylor finds that around half the Athenian citizen population lived below the median income of 450 drachmas a year, and around 20 % at or below half the median income of 3 obols a day; 77 % of the citizens owned less than the median wealth of 2,650 drachmas114. Her property would put Xenokrateia in the upper middle range of citizens in terms of wealth. Obviously, all of these figures are only educated guesses based on suppositions, but they need not be wide of the mark.

If the plot was indeed her property, Xenokrateia’s dedication of it to Kephisos did not entail the kind of alienation involved in a sale to another human being, but the property was alienated nonetheless: she made it hieros and it would never again be owned by Xenokrateia or her family. Whether the plot was large enough to yield crops that could be used to pay for sacrifice and maintenance, is unknown; she does not mention anything of the kind in her regulation, which instead only gives a sacrificial order but nothing about the kind or the costs of the offerings. We might indeed expect that responsibility for the sanctuary remained with Xenokrateia and next within her family, i.e. Xeniades and his descendants, but apparently without any provision for the costs involved (unless she had provided for them in a separate regulation), expecting no benefits other than divine favour. The evidence allows for the conclusion that Xenokrateia became the owner of a plot of land she disposed of by giving it to the gods: she made it into a hieron, with an altar, the relief and its base with the epigram, and the sacrificial regulation.

 

Option b: the land was not Xenokrateia’s property, but already sacred

Beside on their private estates, citizens founded private cults on places already dedicated to the gods. Although, as we just saw, the polis did not always welcome such foundations in polis sanctuaries, it was certainly allowed to add or join cults to existing sacred places, provided the consent of the gods and humans concerned. A conspicuous case is the cult of Asklepios, added to the domain of the Kerykes, literally to their estate on the south side of the Acropolis and in cultic terms to the program of the Eleusinia, on the initiative of a certain Telemachos and with the consent of the demos, in 420115. A certain Archedemos added his personal cult of Pan to an existing sanctuary of the god in the cave at Vari in c. 400116. Several shrines of Herakles were shared by different groups, among which was a shrine owned by the genos Praxiergidai and co-used by thiasotai of Herakles, and a shrine of Herakles Pankrates, used by a group of citizen orgeones, a koinon of thiasotai and a group of eranistai117.

For the possibility that the place where Xenokrateia founded her cult of Kephisos was already a sanctuary, we need to have a closer look at the double relief dedicated by Kephisodotos close by. The reliefs date to c. 400-390118; both sides were made by the same sculptor, a different artist from the Xenokrateia relief119. Side A seems to have been carved first, side B later120. The differences in wear of the reliefs and the base suggest that side A was more exposed to weather influences than side B121.

Side A of the relief shows on the left Artemis, facing a procession led by a bearded, adult male wearing a fillet or diadem in his hair, next Kephisos represented as a bearded, horned, male god, and three Nymphs122. Kephisos does not seem to be leading the Nymphs, as he does not hold the hand of the first Nymph; they rather seem to follow on their own accord. The inscription has largely faded: Ἑρμῆι καὶ Νύμφαις ἱνα ἀέξοιε̣ν̣ (to Hermes and the nymphs, to make grow); the rest is illegible123. Dedicating a relief to a god explicitly in the inscription but not depicting him, as is here the case with Hermes, is unusual124. Especially with the Nymphs we rather see the reverse, where on reliefs the inscription mentions only the Nymphs but the relief shows also Hermes and/or Pan125. Perhaps, the viewer of side A was expected to mentally include Hermes in the scene.

On side B, Hermes is present, but not as leader of the Nymphs. He faces on the right a hero abducting a woman in a chariot; all are identified in the inscription: ℎερμῆς Ἔχελος Ἰασίλη126. Echelos is known from a decree of his orgeones, found on the agora (Ag. XVI 161), dating to the early third century127. By then the group had two cult places, one in the city and one ‘of the hero Echelos’, a place identified by the find spot of this relief and known at least in the fourth century as Echelidai128. The orgeones consisted of two groups, one worshipping Echelos and one the Heroines, who at some point merged for joint worship; they seem to have been active already in the mid-fifth century129. Echelos appears to have been a chthonic hero, but little is known about him and his cult beyond the evidence mentioned here130. Iasile is even more obscure; her name has been explained etymologically as having to do with health131.

The two sides of the relief must be connected, but how is not obvious, nor why the two sides were carved with different themes. Hermes plays a role in both, but in neither he is the crucial figure. Edwards suggests that the bearded male figure on side A is Echelos at an advanced age, in contrast to his youthful adventures on side B. On A, he is greeting Artemis (Mounychia) as the local deity, bringing with him Kephisos and the Nymphs in their newly founded cult132. An aged Echelos is entirely speculative and this identification therefore unsatisfactory. On analogy with the representations of the Athenian Demos as an adult male with beard and fillet or diadem, figuring increasingly on reliefs from the last quarter of the fifth century onward, I would suggest that the bearded male might be a personification of the orgeones as cult group, included visually in the dedication133. For them, Kephisodotos instituted a new cult place of Echelos here, with the relief depicting the dedication on side A, and the core theme of Echelos’ myth on side B. In his epigram, Kephisodotos referred with ἱδρυσατο in the first place to the relief, but, by including the altar of the hero, to the foundation of Echelos’ cult of the orgeones in its entirety on this spot.

For doing so, he faced the same question as Xenokrateia of finding a place for the cult. He, too, may have had a private estate here, but the evidence rather suggests that he chose this place because here at the river he could align the cult of Echelos with that of Kephisos, the god after whom he was named. If that is correct, his motive for this spot was that it was sacred to deities with whom he had a personal tie and who would accept comparable cults. Some scholars suppose that the place itself was already sacred to Echelos134. This possibility cannot be ruled out, but it does not seem the most plausible: if it were, we would also expect Xenokrateia to somehow honour the hero in her dedication, but she did not (as I read it); nor had she anything demonstrably to do with Kephisodotos135. Instead, the two sides of the double relief and Xenokrateia’s dedication make more sense if we suppose that this place was sacred to Kephisos and to the Nymphs. Xenokrateia’s dedication honours Kephisos, several Nymphs and their father Acheloös. Kephisos and the Nymphs all appear on side A of the double relief, with (inscribed) the Nymphs’ conventional guide Hermes, accompanying the (representation of the) orgeones towards Artemis (Mounychia). This side of the relief, which was carved first, depicts the foundation of the cult of the orgeones on this spot. The other side shows Echelos abducting the Nymph Iasile, a scene in which Hermes plays a role unknown to us (does he protect Echelos? Or Iasile?). As side A was more exposed to the weather, it probably faced ‘outside’, showing to the visitor the acceptance by the Nymphs and Kephisos of the orgeones’ cult; side B, facing inside, focused on the cult of Echelos himself. This reading of the two reliefs may explain why the monument carried two reliefs with different actors and why they were carved in this order: the iconography carefully builds up the divine approval of the settlement of the cult of Echelos on this spot, which belonged to the Nymphs and was co-protected by Kephisos. If this reconstruction is valid, the name ‘Echelidai’ later came to be attached to this place.

In conclusion, on the available evidence it would seem that this place was sacred to Kephisos and the Nymphs, either because Xenokrateia made it so by dedicating it (option a) or because it was already sacred to these divinities (option b). There are no decisive indications for either option, but for b) there are more comparable cases. If that is what happened here, Xenokrateia and Kephisodotos added their own foundations for their own deities and heroes/ heroines to this sacred place, but with explicit honours for the original divine owners.

Conclusions

On close-reading Xenokrateia’s dedication to Kephisos and other gods of Athens, of c. 400 BC, I have attempted to reconstruct her agency in creating this foundation and the competences she and other Athenians must have had to act as the evidence shows them doing. Ritual competences, interacting with elementary literacy and numeracy, provided a basis which over the years could expand and solidify into a self-confident identity. Women’s opportunities for developing such competences were on average more limited than those of men, who could actively engage in the political and legal domain, but Xenokrateia’s dedication suggests that nonetheless such opportunities were widely available and more effective than has often been assumed. Building up from household skills and religious participation in the home to adult qualifications and social roles, a woman’s competences supported her identity as a citizen who knew how to act in public and private spaces. Her economic competences depended of course on her material resources, but her capacity to act appears to be less restrained than the law at Is.10.10 has been understood to imply. Xenokrateia’s dedication is rare in the aesthetic quality of its relief, its outspoken epigram and extensive sacrificial list, allowing a detailed, qualitative analysis of her identities as a pious woman, daughter, mother and citizen. But it is not exceptional in quantitative terms: numerous dedications by women show that Xenokrateia was far from alone in acquiring and using her competences. This approach to the evidence, initiated in recent scholarship, may open new windows on women’s agency in classical Athens.

 

* * *

 

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

NM 2756: marble votive relief dedicated by Xenokrateia, c. 400; Xenokrateia, Xeniades, Kephisos and other divinities

 

 

Fig. 2

Fig. 2

NM 2756: detail

 

 

Fig. 3

Fig. 3

NM 1783: marble double relief dedicated by Kephisodotos, c. 400, side A: Artemis, male figure, Kephisos, Nymphs

 

 

Fig. 4

Fig. 4

NM 1783: marble double relief dedicated by Kephisodotos, c. 400, side B: Hermes, Echelos, Iasile

 

 

Fig. 5

Fig. 5

NM 2756: poros base of Xenokrateia’s votive relief with epigram

 

 

Fig. 6

Fig. 6

NM 1783: poros base of Kephisodotos’ double relief with dedicatory inscription

 

 

Fig. 7

Fig. 7

EM 8102: poros stone with inscribed offering list, c. 400

 

 

Fig. 8

Fig. 8

EM 8102: poros stone; detail of top

Bibliography

Anti C., (1923-1924), ‘Appunti di esegesi figurate’, Atti dell’Instituto Veneto di Scienze, 83 (2), 567-584.

Bakx A. W. E. A., Sanden J. M. M. van der, Sijtsma K., Croon M. A. and Vermetten Y. J. M., (2006), ‘The role of students’ personality characteristics, self-perceived competence and learning conceptions in the acquisition and development of social communicative competence: a longitudinal study’, Higher Education 51, 71-104.

Baumer L. E., (1997), Vorbilden und Vorlagen; Studien zu klassischen Frauenstatuen und ihre Verwendung für Reliefs und Statuetten des 5. Und 4. Jahrhunderts vor Christus, Bern.

Berman A. M., Schwartz S. J., Kurtines W. M. and Berman S. L., (2001), ‘The process of exploration in identity formation: the role of style and competence’, Journal of Adolescence 24, 513-28.

Beschi L., (2002), ‘Culti stranieri e fondazioni private nell’ Attica classica: alcuni casi’, Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente, 80, III.2., 13-42.

Blok J. H., (2001), ‘Virtual Voices. Towards a choreography of women’s speech in classical Athens’, in A. Lardinois and L. McClure (eds.), Making Silence Speak. Women’s voices in Greek literature and society, Princeton, 95-116.

 — (2015), ‘The diôbelia: on the political economy of an Athenian state fund’, ZPE 193, 87-102.

 — (2017), Citizenship in classical Athens, Cambridge.

 — (forthc.), ‘Reading Greek numeracy: a closer look at Greek numerals’, in Proceedings of the Fourth Euro-Japanese Colloquium on the Ancient Mediterranean World, Transmission and organisation of knowledge in the ancient world, Nagoya University, Japan, 3-7 Sept. 2018.

Brøns C., (2017), Gods and garments. Textiles in Greek sanctuaries in the 7th to the 1st centuries BC, Oxford/Philadelphia.

Cohen E. E., (2016), ‘The Athenian businesswoman’, in S. L. Budin and J. M. Turfa (eds.), Women in antiquity: real women across the ancient world, London, 714-25.

Comella A., (2002), I rilievi votive greci di periodo archaico e classico. Diffusione, ideologia, comittenza, Bari.

Cook A. B., (1914-1940), Zeus; a study in ancient religion, Cambridge; vol. 2 (1925), Zeus, god of the dark sky.

Cox C. A., (1998), Household interests. Property, marriage strategies, and family dynamics in ancient Athens, Princeton.

Dunant E., (2009), ‘Natural water resources and the sacred in Attica’, in C. Kosso and A. Scott (eds.), The nature and function of water, baths, bathing, and hygiene from antiquity through the Renaissance, Leiden/Boston, 277-300.

Dillon M., (2002), Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion, London.

Dillon M., Eidinow E. and Maurizio L. (eds.), (2017), Women’s ritual competence in the Greco-Roman Mediterranean, Abingdon.

Edwards C. M., (1985), Greek Votive Reliefs to Pan and the Nymphs, PhD Dissertation, NYU.

Ferguson W. S., (1944), ‘The Attic orgeones’, HThR 37 (2), 61-140.

Foxhall L., (1989), ‘Household, gender and property in classical Athens’, CQ, n.s. 39, 22-44.

 — (1996), ‘The law and the lady: women and legal proceedings in classical Athens’, in L. Foxhall and A. D. E. Lewis (eds.), Greek law in its political setting: justifications not justice, Oxford, 133-52.

Frel J., (1966), ‘Ateliers et sculpteurs attiques fin 5e – debut 4e s.’, Eirene 5, 79-98.

Frel J. and Kingsley B. M., (1970), ‘Three Attic sculpture workshops’, GRBS 11, 197-218.

Glowacki K., (2003), ‘A Personification of Demos on a New Attic Document Relief’, Hesperia 72, 447-466.

Golden M., (1990), Children and childhood in classical Athens, Baltimore.

Goldhill S., (1994), ‘Representing Democracy: Women at the Great Dionysia’, in R. Osborne and S. Hornblower (eds.), Ritual, Finance, Politics. Athenian Democratic Accounts Presented to David Lewis, Oxford, 347-369.

Grimes R. L., (2013), The craft of ritual studies, Oxford.

Guarducci M., (1952), ‘Le iscrizioni del santuario di Cefiso presso il Falero’, in Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente, 21-23 (1949-51), 117-133.

 — (1974), ‘L’offerta di Xenokrateia nel sanctuario di Cefiso al Falero’, in D. W. Bradeen and M. F. McGregor (eds.), Φόρος: Tribute to Benjamin Dean Meritt, New York, 57-66; repr. 1983, Scritti scelti sulla religione greca e romana e sul cristianismo, Leiden, 45-59.

Hansen P. A., (1983), Carmina epigraphica graeca saeculorum VIII-V a. Chr.n., Berlin/New York.

Harris D., (1995), The treasures of the Parthenon and the Erechtheion, Oxford.

Harris E. M., (2002), ‘Workshop, marketplace and household. The nature of technical specialization in classical Athens and its influence on economy and society’, in P. Cartledge, E. E. Cohen and L. Foxhall (eds.), Money, labour, and land: approaches to the economies of ancient Greece, London, 67-99.

 — (2006), ‘Women and lending in Athenian society; a horos re-examined’, in idem, Democracy and the rule of law in classical Athens, Cambridge, 333-46.

 — (2014), ‘Wife, Household, and Marketplace; the Role of Women in the Economy of Classical Athens’, in U. Bultrighini and E. Dimauro (eds.), Donne che contano nella storia greca, Lanciano, 185-207.

Harrison A. R. W., (1971), The Law of Athens. 2 vols., Oxford/London/ Indianapolis.

Henderson J., (1991), ‘Women and the Athenian dramatic festivals’, TAPA 121, 133-147.

Hidi S., (2000), ‘An interest researcher’s perspective: the effects of extrinsic and intrinsic factors on motivation’, in C. Sansone and J. M. Harackiewicz (eds.), Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: The Search for Optimal Motivation and Performance, Elsevier Academic Press, 309-39.

Homolle Th., (1920), ‘Sur trois bas-reliefs de Phalère’, RA, 1-81.

Hunter V., (1994), Policing Athens. Social Control in the Attic Lawsuits, 420-320 BC, Princeton.

Jenkins I., (2007), The Parthenon sculptures, Cambridge Ma.

Jim T. S. F., (2014), Sharing with the Gods. Aparchai and dekatai in ancient Greece, Oxford.

Johnstone S., (2003), ‘Women, property, and surveillance in classical Athens’, CA 22, 247-74.

Just R., (1989), Women in Athenian law and life, London/New York.

Hochscheid H., (2015), Networks of stone. Sculpture and society in archaic and classical Athens, Bern.

Hupfloher A., (2012), ‘Kultgründungen durch Individuen im klassischen Griechenland’, in J. Rüpke, W. Spieckermann (eds.), Reflections on religious individuality. Greco-Roman and Judaeo-Christian texts and practices, Berlin, 11-42.

Kant A., (2018), Women’s dedicatory practice in ancient Attica. A reconsideration of women’s economic agency, RMA Thesis Ancient, Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Utrecht University 2018.

Karanika A., (2017), ‘Materiality and ritual competence. Insights from women’s prayer typology in Homer’, in M. Dillon, E. Eidinow and L. Maurizio (eds.), Women’s ritual competence in the Greco-Roman world, Abingdon, 32-45.

Kavvadias P., (1893), ‘Αναγλύφον αναθηματικόν ῾Ερμηι καὶ Νύμφαις’, Αρχαιολογική Εφημερίς, 110-12, 129-45.

Kron G., (2011), ‘The distribution of wealth in Athens in comparative perspective’, ZPE 179, 129-138.

Kron U., (1976), Die zehn attischen Phylenheroen. Geschichte, Mythos, Kult und Darstellungen, Berlin.

 — (1996), ‘Priesthoods, Dedications and Euergetism: What Part Did Religion Play in the Political and Social Status of Women?’, in P. Hellström and B. Alroth (eds.), Religion and Power in the Ancient Greek World. Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium of 1993, Uppsala, 139-182.

Kuenen-Janssens L. J. T., (1941), ‘Some notes upon the competence of the Athenian woman to conduct a transaction’, Mnemosyne 9, 199-214.

Lambert S. D., (1997), Rationes centesimarum: sales of public lands in Lykourgan Athens, Amsterdam.

 — (19982), The Phratries of Attica, Ann Arbor.

 — (2000-2003), ‘Two documents of Attic gene’, Horos 14-16, 77-82.

 — (2004), ‘Restoring Athenian names’, in A. P. Matthaiou (ed.), Attikai epigraphai praktika symposion eis mnèmèn Adolph Wilhelm (1864-1950), Athens: 327-341.

 — (2012), ‘The social construction of priests and priestesses in Athenian honorific decrees from the fourth century BC to the Augustan period’, in M. Horster and A. Klöckner (eds.), Civic priests. Cult personnel in Athens from the Hellenistic period to Late Antiquity, Berlin, 67-133.

Larson J., (2001), Greek Nymphs: myth, cult, lore, Oxford.

Lawton C. L., (1995), Attic document reliefs. Art and politics in ancient Athens, Oxford, Oxford UP.

 — (2007), ‘Children in Classical Attic Votive Reliefs’, in A. Cohen and J. B. Rutter (eds.), Constructions of Childhood in Ancient Greece and Italy, Princeton, 41-60.

Lazzarini M. L., (1976), Le formule delle dediche votive nella Grecia arcaica, Rome.

Lewis S., (2002), The Athenian woman. An iconographic handbook, London/New York.

Linfert A., (1967), ‘Die Deutung des Xenokrateiareliefs’, in MDAI, AA, 82, 149-157.

Matthaiou A. P., (2009), ‘Attic public inscriptions of the fifth century BC in Ionic script’, in L. G. Mitchell and L. Rubinstein (eds.), Greek history and epigraphy: essays in honour of P. J. Rhodes, Swansea, 201-212.

Meritt B. D., (1942), ‘Greek inscriptions’, Hesperia, 11, 275-298.

Meyer E. A., (1993), ‘Epitaphs and citizenship in classical Athens’, JHS 113, 99-121.

Missiou A., (2011), Literacy and democracy in fifth-century Athens, Cambridge.

Netz R., (2002), ‘Counter culture: towards a history of Greek numeracy’, Hist.Sci. 40, 321-352.

Oakley J. H., (1995), ‘Hochzeitliche Bildelemente in nicht-hochzeitlichen mythologischen Szenen’, in E. D. Reeder (ed.), Pandora. Frauen im klassischen Griechenland, Baltimore, 63-73.

Oakley J. H. and Sinos R. H., (1995), The wedding in ancient Athens, Madison.

Ober J., (2008), Democracy and knowledge. Innovation and learning in classical Athens, Princeton.

 — (2010), ‘Wealthy Hellas’, TAPA 140, 241-289.

Parker R. T. C., (2005), Polytheism and Society at Athens, Oxford.

Purvis A., (2003 (e-book 2004)), Singular dedications: Founders and innovators of private cults in classical Greece, New York.

Räuchle V. J., (2015), ‘The Myth of Mothers as Others. Motherhood and Autochthony on the Athenian Akropolis (L’exclusion des femmes – un mythe scientifique. Maternité et autochtonie sur l’Acropole athénienne)’, Cahiers des mondes anciens 6; https://mondesanciens.revues.org/1422?lang=en#ftn23.

Ridgway B. S., (1981), Fifth-century styles in Greek sculpture, Princeton.

Roccos L. J., (2000), ‘Back-Mantle and Peplos. The Special Costume of Greek Maidens in 4th-Century Funerary and Votive Reliefs’, Hesperia 69, 235-265.

Roselli David Kawalko, (2011), Theater of the People: Spectators and Society in Ancient Athens, Austin.

Schaps D. M., (1979), Economic rights of women in ancient Greece, Edinburgh.

Scheer T. S., (2011), Griechische Geschlechtergeschichte, München.

Sommerstein A. H., (1998), Aristophanes Ecclesiazuae, ed. transl. with comm., Warminster (The comedies of Aristophanes, vol. 10).

Sourlas D., (2017), ‘In search of Eileithyia and Aphrodite Pandemos; two new classical reliefs from Athens’, in H. Frielinghaus and J. Stroszek (eds.), Kulte und Heiligtümer in Griechenland. Neue Funde und Forschungen, Mainz, 163-91.

Sourvinou-Inwood C., (1995), ‘Male and female, public and private, ancient and modern’, in E. D. Reeder (ed.), Pandora. Women in classical Greece, Princeton, 111-120.

Stais V., (1909), ‘Άναθηματιχον άνάγλυφον έκ Φαλήρου’, Αρχαιολογική Εφημερίς, 239-264.

Ste. Croix G. E. M. de, (1970), ‘Some observations on the property rights of women’, CR (N.S.) 20, 273-278.

Straten F. T. van, (1995), Hiera Kala. Images of animal sacrifice in archaic and classical Greece, Leiden/New York/Cologne.

Svoronos J. N., (1908-1911), Das Athener Nationalmuseum, Athens.

Taylor C., (2017), Poverty, wealth, and well-being. Experiencing Penia in democratic Athens, Oxford.

Todd S. C., (1993), The shape of Athenian law, Oxford.

Tracy S. V., (2016), Athenian lettering of the fifth century BC. The rise of the professional letter cutter, Berlin.

Vazaki A., (2003), Mousike gyne. Die musisch-literarische Erziehung und Bildung von Frauen im Athen der klassischen Zeit, Möhnesee.

Versnel H. S., (2011), Coping with the Gods. Wayward Readings in Greek Theology, Leiden/Boston.

Voutiras E., (2011), ‘Φροντίσµατα: Το ανάγλυφο της Ξενοκράτειας και το ιερό του Κηφισού στο Νέο Φάληρο’, in A. Delivorrias, G. Despinis and A. Zakardas (eds.), Έπαινος Luigi Beschi, Athens, 49-58.

Walter O., (1937), ‘Die Reliefs aus dem Heiligtum der Echeliden in Neu Phaleron’, Αρχαιολογική Εφημερίς, 97-119.

Wees H. van, (2011), ‘Demetrius and Draco: Athens’ property classes and population in and before 317 BC’, JHS 131, 95-114.

Weinreich O., (1912), ‘Didaskalias in der Xenokrateia-Inschrift’, Journal international d’archéologie numismatique, 14, 191-2.

Wijk R. van, (2016), ‘Negotiation and reconciliation. A new interpretation of the Athenian introduction of the Asklepios cult’, Klio 98 (1), 118-138.

Williams A., (2015), ‘Xenocratia and the Hieron of Cephisus’, in J. Bodel and N. Dimitrova (eds.), Ancient Documents and their Contexts. First North American Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy (2011), Leiden/Boston, 67-81.

Appendix

Abbreviations

Abbreviations of epigraphical corpora not included below follow those of the Packard Humanities Institute (www.epigraphy.packhum.org); abbreviations of journals follow L’année philologique (www.annee-philologique.com).

Ag. XVI : A. G. Woodhead (ed.), The Athenian Agora XVI: Inscriptions: The decrees (Princeton 1997).

Ag. XIX : G. V. Lalonde, M. K. Langdon and M. B. Walbank (eds.), The Athenian Agora XIX: Inscriptions: Horoi, poletai records, and leases of public lands (Princeton 1991).

Ag. XXXVIII : C. L. Lawton (ed.), The Athenian Agora. Vol. XXXVIII: Votive reliefs (Princeton 2017).

AIO : Attic inscriptions Online (www.atticinscriptions.com).

CGRN : Collection of Greek Ritual Norms (http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be).

IG I3 : Inscriptiones Graecae I: Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno anteriores. 3rd edn. Berlin 1981, 1994. Fasc. 1, D. Lewis (ed.), Decreta et tabulae magistratuum (nos. 1-500); fasc. 2, D. Lewis and L. Jeffery (edd.), Dedicationes. Catalogi. Termini. Tituli sepulcrales. Varia. Tituli Attici extra Atticam reperti. Addenda (nos. 501-1517).

IG II2 : Inscriptiones Graecae II et III: Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores, 2nd edn., Joh. Kirchner (ed.), Berlin 1913-1940.

IG II3 4 : Inscriptiones Graecae II et III: Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores, 3rd edn. Part IV, fasc. II, J. Curbera (ed.), Dedicationes: Dedicationes privatae, Berlin 2017.

RO : P. J. Rhodes and R. Osborne, Greek historical inscriptions 404-323 BC (Oxford 2003).

Notes

1 Stais (1909). Return to text

I am most grateful to Stephen Lambert for his collaboration in the autopsy of both reliefs and the accompanying inscriptions in March 2018, and for his constructive comments on a draft of this article; to the National Archaeological Museum of Athens for the permission to study the reliefs and their bases (NM 1783 and 2756); to the Epigraphical Museum at Athens and its director Dr. N. Themos for access to the sacrificial list EM 8102; to Dr. A.P. Matthaiou for his helpful comments on this inscription; to the Netherlands Institute at Athens, especially Ms. E. Mestropian-Makri for obtaining all the permits; to the audience of the Forum Antiquum at Leiden for valuable comments on a presentation of this material on 15/3/2018, and to an anonymous referee for Eugesta for helpful suggestions improving this article. The photos by the author are reproduced here by courtesy of the National Archaeological Museum, the Epigraphical Museum and the Ministry of Culture and Sports of Greece.

2 The literature on Xenokrateia’s monument and Kephisodotos’ dedication (see below) is immense; valuable recent discussions are Williams (2015); Parker (2005) 429-32; Purvis (2004) 14-30; Kron (1996) 166-68; Edwards (1985) 310-70; Linfert (1967), and of the older scholarship esp. Walter (1937); Meritt (1942). In the present article, I expand my brief discussion (Blok 2017, 131-33) of Xenokrateia’s dedication as evidence for women’s citizenship and economic agency, to address the wider question of women’s competences in various domains of life. Return to text

3 Such evidence consists of honorific decrees for teachers employed by the polis: Delphi: FD III 1:223 (1st c. BC); Miletus: Milet I 3,145 (ca. 200 BC); Milet I 7, 259; Andros: IG XII Suppl. 248 (2nd c. BC); Teos 41 (date?). We need to take the peculiarities of the epigraphical habit into account. Return to text

4 Hidi (2000), bringing together the recent debate on this issue. Return to text

5 Bakx et al. (2006). The competence involved in this empirical longitudinal study is the ability to communicate effectively. Return to text

6 Berman et al. (2001), with an overview of the consensus and an empirical contribution to the role of styles of cognitive competences for identity formation, in a cross-ethnicity, -gender and -class study in the USA. Return to text

7 Is. 10.10; see further below. Return to text

8 Sourvinou-Inwood (1995); Lambert (2012); Blok (2017) 187-248. Return to text

9 In her pioneering article, Kron (1996) focused primarily on the implications of women’s cultic performance for what she labelled their ‘political and social status’, but in the section on dedications (155-171) the economic aspects are pronounced as well. See also Harris (1995). Return to text

10 Kant (2018) 34-5: In IG I3, 45 out of 606 and in IG II3 4, 96 out of 481 private dedications are by women. Return to text

11 Brøns (2017). Return to text

12 Williams (2015) investigated how Xenokrateia may have handled the ownership of the plot of land for her foundation, a question to which I shall give a different answer below. Return to text

13 Relief: NM 2756, h. 0.57; w. 1.05; th. 0,135 m.; base: h. 1,60; w. 0,53-0,67; th. 0,42-0,46 m. In the top of the base is a deep oblong hole, where the foot of the relief may have been cast in lead; in the bottom of the relief a smaller hole is cut, perhaps for an additional dowel. Inscription: IG I3 987; IG II2 4548. Return to text

14 For the metre and structure Walter (1937) 99-100; Hansen (1983) II, 167. Return to text

15 EM 8102; IG II2 4547. Walter (1937) 98 identified the list as an ‘Opferordnung’. Return to text

16 Kavvadias (1893). Relief: NM 1783; h. 0,76; w. 0,88; th. 0,06 m.; base: h. 1,90; w. 0,61-0,67 m. Inscription: side A; IG I3 986 Ba; IG II2 4546 l. 5; side B: IG I3 986 Bb; IG II2 4546 l. 4. IG II2 4546 in comm. mentions the claim of Homolle (1920) 3 to have read [Κ]η[φ]ι[σ][δο]τ[ος] τῶι ἥ[ρω]ι [ἀνέθηκεν] below the relief, but his reading was not confirmed by any other scholar before or since and is omitted from IG I3. Base: NM 1783, IG I3 986 A, IG II2 4546 l. 1-3. Return to text

17 Due to the wear of the stone it is difficult to see if Kephisodotos is written with Ε or Η; cf. Hansen II, 166. Return to text

18 Guarducci (1974) 58 (revising Guarducci 1952; non vidi); her reading is accepted by Parker (2005) 430 n. 49. Return to text

19 Syntactically ἱδρύσατο is connected with ἱερόν in the accusative with ΚηφισÕ in the genitive, and ἀνέθηκεν with the accusative δῶρον and θεοῖς in the dative; for comparable cases of ἱερόν without an article used in this way, e.g. IG II3 1, 337, 37-8; cf. Hansen (1983) II, 167-8; Purvis (2004) 129 n. 5; Williams (2015) 71-72. Return to text

20 Williams (2015) 70. Return to text

21 Frel (1966); he attributed side B (Echelos) to the ‘sculpteur de la petite dame Rayet’, close to 400. Later (Frel and Kingsley 1970) he revised his view on side B, assigning it to the ‘sculptor of Dion’ and identifying the Xenokrateia-sculptor to be the same artist who made the relief of the honorific decree for Proxenides of Knidos (IG I3 91), now dated by Lawton (1995) 115-16, no. 68 to c. 420. Return to text

22 Ridgway (1981) 131-4 pointed to similarities between Kephisos on the relief and the Sandal Binder on the Athena Nike parapet. Linfert (1967) 150 dates the relief c. 405-400, on comparison with decree reliefs; Baumer (1997) 132 dates it to c. 410, on similarities with the Choiseul-marble in the Louvre (cat. somm. 831; IG I3 375 and 377) but without any analytical details. Return to text

23 Edwards (1985) 310, 317, rejecting a date ca. 410 as too early on clearly defined differences from the relief of the Choiseul-marble (compare Baumer, note 22). Xenokrateia’s relief seems to him closer to the relief of the decree of Athens honouring the Samians (IG II2 1, 403/2; NM 1333; RO 2 with Pl. 1) and a grave relief on Rhodes of c. 390 (of Timarista and Krito; Tit.Cam. 162); Edwards (1985) 258-59. For Kephisodotos’ relief, see below. Return to text

24 Matthaiou (2009). Return to text

25 Some elements of the letterforms point to the late fifth century, others to the early fourth: the Ε with a short line in the middle is often a sign of a later date, but it also occurs in the decree on the water of the Halykon (IG I3 256) of several decades earlier; I thank A.P. Matthaiou for his comments on autopsy. Return to text

26 The lowered date poses problems for interpretations based on the earlier dating of c. 410 by Frel and Ridgway; e.g. Voutiras (2011), following Stais (1909) and Beschi (2002; non vidi), suggests that Xenokrateia founded the sanctuary shortly after the summer of 413, when the Spartans invaded Attica and fortified Dekeleia, forcing the inhabitants of the countryside to live within the Long Walls for the largest part of the year (Thuc. 7.27.3-28.2). Return to text

27 E.g. IG I3 596 ε͂ς Νίκες βομός; SEG 21:519 βωμὸς τοῦ Ἄρεως ­καὶ ­τῆς ­Ἀθηνᾶς ­τῆς ­Ἀρείας. ­In IG II2 4547 Ἀχελώωι is an error, as the iota in Ἀχελώιωι is clearly visible; cf. Hansen (1983) II, 168; Williams (2015) 69 n. 20. Return to text

28 As Homolle (1920) 63 n. 3 claimed to observe, and ‘une coupure nette’ between the upper and lower lines; his view is accepted by Purvis (2004) 129 n. 12 and Williams (2015) 74. Return to text

29 The stone of the base with the epigram is light grey, that of the sacrificial list is reddish brown. In the list, the size of the alpha varies from 2 cm. high and 3 cm. wide at the bottom to 1,8 cm. high and 1,5 cm. wide at the bottom. Return to text

30 In IG II2 4547, the Ω is very wide at the bottom, wider than in IG I3 987; Υ is cut with two strokes, wide at the top and overall larger, both more so than in IG I3 987, in which Y seems to be cut with three strokes; and the short middle stroke in Ε is shorter than in IG I3 987, which has some Es with a shorter middle stroke but none as markedly short as in IG II2 4547. Neither cutter can be identified with a cutter described by Tracy (2016), although both show some similarities with the contemporary Cutter of IG II2 17 (established work 414/3-386/5) and the Cutter of IG II2 1401 (c. 395). Return to text

31 For parallel cases, CGRN 9 (Paros, 500-475); 11 (Thalamai, 500-475, with name of the dedicator); 28 (Thasos, 450-425; with name of dedicator); 60 (Thera, fourth century with name of dedicator of regulation); 104 (Halikarnassos, third century); 106 (Kalaureia, third century; private regulation of sacrifices), etc. I thank Saskia Peels for her comments. Cf. Purvis (2004) 16 for a parallel with a private cult for Pan, Hermes, the nymphs and other gods in Thessaly (fourth century). Return to text

32 Between Piraeus, Xypete and Phaleron; the fourth kome, Thymaitadai, is further to the northwest. See also Travlos (1988) 288-90 and fig. 364. For the Tetrakomoi, IG II3 4, 225 with comm. on AIO. Return to text

33 On the new dating of the monuments to c. 400, the dedications were made either at the very end of the Peloponnesian War or shortly after, when the Walls had been torn down and were probably hardly more than ruins. On the lower end of the dating, after the beginning of the Corinthian war (395), they might have been enclosed by the Long Walls by then rebuilt by Conon. Return to text

34 Voutiras (2011), for instance, regards a location of Cholleidai at the Kephisos as certain. For the demes, Traill (1986) 130: Cholleidai (Leontis); 133 Boutadai (Oineis). Return to text

35 Linfert (1967) 152; drawing after Cook (1925) plate 10; in the e-book edition of Cook, fig. 4 is not visible. Since Linfert’s article, in which he summarised all earlier views, has become more or less standard in the debate about the relief, I engage here with his interpretation in the first place. Return to text

36 Linfert (1967) on 155 proposes to read Ῥαψοῖ as a masculine plural referring to the dedicators who he thinks were missing on the list [sic]. Return to text

37 Several scholars have argued that fig. c is not a god, but a mortal; e.g. Guarducci (1974) held him to be a priest of Kephisos, rather than the god himself. This view is not convincing, as votive reliefs never depict priests and priestesses as intermediaries, but always mortals in direct exchange with the divine (cf. Lawton (2017) = Ag. XXXVIII, 15-17). Furthermore, as the figure is substantially larger than Xenokrateia while bending over, he is of the same size as the other deities. Purvis (2004) argues that fig. c is Dionysos, who is absent from the list; she identifies the folds over the arm of the god as an animal skin. Although this seems a specific drapery to which elements might have been added in paint, I cannot recognize an animal skin in it; the folds resemble those of the textiles. Return to text

38 Jenkins (2007) 60-65. Return to text

39 The dative Ῥαψοῖ is analogous to the dative Λητοῖ. The name is usually associated with ῥάπτω, to stitch (words, fate), or might be a derivation from ῥάψ, reed, but all of this remains speculative. Return to text

40 Linfert (1967), summarising Anti (1923-24 (non vidi)); Walter (1937) thought fig. 3 to be Echelos and fig. 4 Kephisos, featuring twice on the relief. Larson (2001) 131-3, who follows Edwards who in turn largely follows Linfert for the interpretation of the relief, sees the resulting discrepancy between the list and the relief due to their different functions, without explaining, however, why Xenokrateia would depict quite a different group of deities on her relief from the ones she wanted to be honoured with sacrifices. Return to text

41 Beside the Artemis on the double relief, other contemporary cases are: NM 1500, a votive relief for Dionysos, third woman to the left; NM 714, a grave relief, sitting woman; NM 3790, grave relief of Phylone. Return to text

42 Delos, Museum A 3153 (Van Straten (1995) fig. 89): votive relief of a family for Artemis Lochia; NY Met. Cat. no. 123: attic red-figure amphora, showing Apollo with his lyre and Artemis, together making a libation. Return to text

43 Cf. Guarducci (1974) 51. For the pinned back-mantle, typically worn by parthenoi, also by Athena and Artemis on Athenian votive reliefs from the later fifth century onwards, Roccos (2000) 238-40. The kore (‘karyatide’) C of the building known as the Erechtheion is wearing this mantle over a peplos. Return to text

44 Interestingly, Linfert (1967) 156 himself observes this: Hermes is here ‘als Geleiter zu verstehen, der jetzt, nachdem er seine Aufgabe erfüllt hat, recht teilnahmslos und unbeachtet dabeisteht’. Return to text

45 Linfert (1967) 156, again following Anti (1923-4; non vidi), sees Echelos as representative of the deme and as go-between between Xenokrateia and the gods. That Echelos would appear in this role although such ‘Vermittler’ are not normally seen on votive reliefs, Linfert explains by claiming (n. 11) that Xenokrateia’s is not at all a normal votive relief [sic]. Beside the fact that Echelidai was not a deme, Xenokrateia belonged to Cholleidai, as she explicitly says, and she also explicitly addresses Kephisos, without any gesture towards Echelos, in her epigram. The orgeones of Echelos, moreover, were a cult society consisting in the first place of men; their wives were invited to the sacrifice receiving an equal portion, while the children received half a portion (Ag. XVI, 161, ll. 19-23). Return to text

46 A striking case is the nymph in the middle on a contemporary votive relief for Hermes and the nymphs with Acheloös, Berlin Sk 709A. Less strikingly similar but still comparable is the middle nymph on side A of the double relief. Return to text

47 Ridgway (1981) 132 thought she might be Hekate, who was represented as a statue on crossroads, but most scholars identified her as Kallirhoë (Linfert (1967) 153-4) without explaining why she is rendered as a statue. Return to text

48 Sourlas (2017) 163-74; pl. 73, 1-2; pl. 75,2. Return to text

49 Sourlas (2017) 169-70. Return to text

50 Oakley and Sinos (1993) 30. Linfert (1967) 152 recognises the gesture but, quite surprisingly, argues nonetheless that fig. 2 could be Artemis (!), who on relief NM 1389 ‘greift met einer Hand ganz ähnlich ins Gewand’. But the gesture on the latter relief is not ‘ganz ähnlich’: holding her dress (veil? mantle?) with one hand at the shoulder is not the same as unveiling with two hands. See http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/image?img=Perseus:image:1998.01.0054. Return to text

51 Oakley (1996) 66-69. Return to text

52 Oakley (1996) 69. Return to text

53 Compare Hermes ‘implied’ but not depicted in the dedication to the Nymphs of the double relief side A; see below. Return to text

54 Purvis (2004) 17. Return to text

55 Women singly dedicating a substantial gift to the gods in the later sixth through the fifth century, usually mentioning their personal name only: IG I3 534; 540; 546-547; 548bis; 555; 560; 565; 567; 571-572; 574; 577; 615; 656; 683; 703; 767; 794; 813-814; 838; 857; 921; see Kant (2018). Return to text

56 For a similar emphasis on the paternal family line in a dedication, see Hegelochos father and son of Ekphantos (IG I3 850); Blok (2017) 255-7. Return to text

57 The use of demotics by citizens increased in the later fifth century, probably enhanced by the conditions of living, dying and burial between the Long Walls, and became standard only in the fourth century; see Meyer (1993). Return to text

58 Epikleros: cf. Kron (1996) 168; Vazaki (2003) 21. Return to text

59 As Walter (1937) 100 was the first to observe; for Athenian naming practices, Lambert (2004). Return to text

60 For institutions for the care of (war) widows and orphans in these years, Blok (2015). Return to text

61 For βουλόμενος in the assembly and courts, Ath.Pol. 43.4-6; Aeschin. 1.23-24. Epigraphic evidence for the use of τῶι βουλομένωι: IG I3 14 l.8; 34, l. 34; 58 l. 22 (restored); 63 l. 12-13; 84 l. 26; 1453; etc. Interestingly, its use in inscribed decrees decreased markedly in focus and number after 400: compared to ten cases between c. 450 and 403/2, there are also ten instances for the period c. 400-100 (IG II2 43 l. 42-3; 463 l.30; 487 l.8; 1013 l.14; 1180 l.15; 1225 l.20; 1237 l. 43; 1275; 1361 l. 21; RO 37 = Ag. XIX Leases L 4a.; Ag. XVI 56 l. 25). Of these ten cases, four concern private religious groups (RO 37: the genos Salaminioi; IG II2 1237: the phratry Demotionidai; 1275: thiasotai; 1361: orgeones of Bendis, inviting whoever wishes to join the group) and two demes (IG II2 1180: Sounieis; IG II2 1225: Salaminioi). In the context of sacrifice the expression is very rare: SEG 28.750 (CRGN 108): θύην τὸν βωλόμενον, in an early Hellenistic dedication for Asklepios on Crete. Return to text

62 Parker (2005) 430-1 calls her in the present context ‘goddess of good beginnings’. Return to text

63 Eur. Bacch. 519; Plat. Phaedrus, 230B; 263D; Attic red-figure column krater with Acheloös and Herakles (Louvre G365). Return to text

64 See www.seanbg.org; the numerous individuals with a Kephisos-related name did not all come from demes through which the river flowed. The phratry Gleontis had a cult of Kephisos; Ag. XIX, Horos H 9; cf. Lambert (1998) 218-19, T 6 308-9, and on Kephisos involved in the koureion. Return to text

65 Parker (2005) 431. Return to text

66 The kourotrophic focus of the dedication is recognised by most scholars, see e.g. Purvis (2004) 17-18; Parker (2005) 430-1; Räuchle (2015). Return to text

67 Guarducci (1974) 47, as she thought that for a meaning ‘gift because of instruction’ the proposition ὑπὲρ was necessary; cf. Versnel (2011) 130 n. 392. But see next note. Return to text

68 Weinreich (1912) already showed that in votive contexts the meaning ‘because of’ does not require the preposition ὑπὲρ, but that the genitive clearly suffices: IG II2 4249: Στατίαν Θάλλουσαν φιλανδρίας Τρύφων ἀνέστησεν; MAMA Lists I (i): 181, 36: Παπα Παπας τέκνων σωτηρίας Μηνὶ εὐχήν. In effect, we are to read this as χάριν διδασκαλίας. By contrast, ὑπὲρ in dedications rather indicates a gift ‘on behalf of’ others, e.g. IG I3 857: [Μ]ικύθη μἀνέ[θηκεν] [Ἀθ]ηναίηι τό[δἄγαλμα]/[εὐξ]αμένη̣ δ̣[εκάτην] [καὶ] ὑ̣πὲρ πα[ίδων] [κ]αὶ ἑαυτῆ̣[ς]. (second quarter of fifth century). Cf. Purvis (2004) 17. Return to text

69 Walter (1937) sees Xenokrateia’s dedication as meant entirely for the sake of her son; Linfert (1967) 150: ‘Anlass der Weihung ist die Erziehung des zwischen beiden stehenden Söhnchens der Xenokrateia’. Golden (1990) 62: ‘in recognition of her son Xeniades’ education (didaskalias)’. Dunant (2009) 279: ‘for the sake of her son Xeniades and his education (didaskalia)’. Lawton (2007) 48: ‘on behalf of her son Xeniades, for the furtherance of his education’. Return to text

70 Purvis (2004) 20, who further argues that the god is not Kephisos but Dionysos (see above); I am not convinced by this identification, nor by her argument that Xenokrateia passed this knowledge on to her son, helping him to be successful in a Dionysian competition. Return to text

71 For hiera and hosia as core of the polis, Blok (2017); in Xenokrateia’s presentation, 132-3. Return to text

72 For the theoretical background and the application to women’s ritual competence, see the contributions to Dillon, Eidinow and Maurizio (2017). Return to text

73 Karanika (2017), drawing on Grimes (2013). Return to text

74 Peels (2015) 168-206, esp. 173. Return to text

75 For the involvement of the gods in everyday life, with rituals actions large and small by humans to thank them in reciprocity in classical Athens, Parker (2005), esp. 387-455 for protection and growth of the city at large and 9-49 for cult in the household; also Golden (1990) 23-50 for children’s socialization in the cults of household and polis. Return to text

76 Blok (2017) 10-13, 200-48. Return to text

77 Versnel (2011) 130-35. Return to text

78 For Xenokrateia’s dedication as typical of private piety in polis context, Versnel (2011) 130-35, who shows the similarities with Archedemos’ embrace of the cult of Pan and the Nymphs in the cave at Vari by c. 400 and with other worshippers of the Nymphs; for the sense of ‘personal attention focused on an ‘elect’ god, ibid. 135. Return to text

79 See especially Versnel (2011) 119-37; Purvis (2004); Hupfloher (2012). Return to text

80 Versnel (2011) 132-35; in the Laws (10.909d-910a), Plato even wanted to prohibit shrines in private houses due to the proliferation of such cults everywhere. Return to text

81 For dedications, see now IG II3 4; for inscribed norms in Greece more widely, CGRN. Like Missiou, Ober (2008) offers a fascinating view on the spread of knowledge in Athens through its institutions, but again restricted to male citizens in the political domain. Return to text

82 For the widespread use of counter boards, see esp. Netz (2002). Return to text

83 Blok (forthc.). Return to text

84 See for instance Golden (1990) 72-74. Return to text

85 On women’s movements and voices in public, Blok (2001); hetaerae and education: Vazaki (2003) 31-34; cf. Scheer (2011) 85. Return to text

86 Lewis (2002) 157-59. Return to text

87 Cohen (2016). Return to text

88 Whether women attended the theatre is (again) a contested issue. Goldhill (1994) argued against their presence, because in his view Athenian drama was a civic performance in the first place and Athenian women were not citizens. However, Henderson (1991) convincingly pointed to the cultic features of the Dionysian festivals and the appropriateness of women to attend these religious events; cf. Roselli (2011) 164-5. For Athenian women as citizens, Blok (2017) 100-46 for women as citizens by descent, 147-86 for citizenship vocabulary including women and men, and 200-48 for women’s participation in public life as citizens in rituals and religious office. Return to text

89 See above, note 61. Return to text

90 IG I3 957-967; IG II2 2318. Return to text

91 Jim (2014) debts to the gods: 17, 86; display of the god’s power: 91-4. Return to text

92 Is. 10.10: ὁ γὰρ νόμος διαρρήδην κωλύει παιδὶ μὴ ἐξεῖναι συμβάλλειν μηδὲ γυναικὶ πέρα μεδίμνου κριθῶν. The issue of kyrieia and economic competences of women deserves a far more thorough revision than I can offer here. Return to text

93 Kant (2018) 19-21. Return to text

94 De Ste. Croix (1970), Schaps (1979) 52-8, 74-88; Harrison (1971) I, 108 n. 5; Just (1989) 29; Todd (1993) 208-10. For the debate before 1940, Kuenen-Janssens (1941). Return to text

95 The most famous case is Archippe, first married to the banker Pasion and next to his successor and heir Phormion; in the debate on her complicated legal status as a metic or a citizen, her large wealth plays a crucial role, cf. Blok (2017) 260-61. Return to text

96 In these court cases, women were indeed always represented by a male relative, but that does not mean they needed a kyrios for handling sums over three drachmas: the wife of Polyeuktos (Dem. 41) was in charge of many large-scale financial transactions; Demosthenes’ mother was kyria of four talents (Dem. 27.53 etc.). Numbers of women with wealth in Lysias: 12, in Isaeus: 31, in Isocrates: 7, in the Demosthenic corpus: 40; I thank Alexandros Mourtzos for his research. See also Golden (1990) 174-80 for women possessing dowries between 6,000 and 60,000 drachmas in New Comedy. Return to text

97 Harris (2002), (2014). Return to text

98 Kuenen-Janssens (1941); cf. Schaps (1979) 53-6; Johnstone (2003) 268. Return to text

99 Harris (2006); he substantiates his argument with a case of a woman who solicited contributions for a 500 dr. eranos loan, while a man (Dion) acted as the legal representative concerning a house pledged as security by the borrower (as testified in a horos, Ag. XIX, Horoi, H 124). I think this case supports the possibility that the law in Is. 10.10 meant women’s involvement in loans and securities, which are as much a legal matter as an economic one. Return to text

100 Foxhall (1989); more extensively demonstrated by Cox (1998). Return to text

101 Foxhall (1996) 142. Return to text

102 Hunter (1994) 19-29. Return to text

103 Contribution: Is. 5.36; Dem. 23.213; cf. LSJ s.v. συμβάλλειν (9); security: Isoc. 21.13, 15; Dem. 27.27; cf. LSJ s.v. συμβάλλειν (8). Return to text

104 IG I3 857, DAA 298: [Μ]ικύθη μἀνέ[θηκεν]/[Ἀθ]ηναίηι τό[δἄγαλμα]/[εὐξ]αμένη̣ δ̣[εκάτην]/[καὶ] ὑ̣πὲρ πα[ίδων] /[κ]αὶ ἑαυτῆ̣[ς]. v. Εὔφρων̣ [ἐπο]/[]ησεν̣. Return to text

105 IG I3 953: []ρρήτο ­τελετῆς ­πρόπολος ­σῆς­, ­πότνια ­Δηοῖ,/καὶ ­θυγατρὸς ­προθύρο κόσμον ­ἄγαλμα ­τόδε/ἔστησεν ­στεφάνω ­Λυσιστράτη, οὐδὲ ­παρόντων/φείδεται, ­ἀλλὰ ­θεοῖς ­ἄφθονος ­ἐς ­δύναμιν. Transl. AIO, with commentary. To go by the epigram, the agalma seems to be the two crowns, but she may have added something beautiful upon which to set the crowns. Return to text

106 One allusion to this law appears in Aristophanes’ Ecclesiazusae (ca. 390), when one of the old women proclaims that the law now prohibits men to transact pledges over the value of a medimnos: Ar. Eccl. 1023-25: Old woman: ‘Our laws must be obeyed’. Epigenes: ‘What if one of my demesmen or friends comes and offers bail for me?’ Old woman: ‘No man is any longer permitted to transact business over the one-bushel limit’ (ἀλλ` οὐ κύριος ὑπὲρ μέδιμνόν ἐστ` ἀνὴρ οὐδεὶς ἔτι). Transl. J. Henderson, Loeb-ed. As Sommerstein comments ad loc., that no such transaction is now possible at all because private property has been abolished, is forgotten. Return to text

107 Foxhall (1996) 142; women owning real property: Archippe ([Dem.] 45) owning a tenement house, and a horos-stone marking a house probably owned by a woman (Finley 1985: 192, no. 175A). For the background to such property due to inheritance patterns and dowries, Blok (2017) 100-46. Return to text

108 For all the details of sculpture as craft and trade in classical Athens, Hochscheid (2015). Return to text

109 Erechtheion: IG I3 476, l. 161-8 (408/7 BC); Hochscheid (2015) 227-33, with further refs. Return to text

110 The prices known for inscribing decrees (c. 20-40 drachmas) concern much longer texts by (for the majority) higher quality cutters than is the case in the epigram of Xenokrateia. Return to text

111 Williams (2015) 78-9. Return to text

112 Xen. An.V.3.4-6. From his part destined to Apollo, he dedicated a votive in the Athenian treasury at Delphi, on behalf of himself and his slain fellow Proxenos. Return to text

113 Lambert (1997) Fr. 9B, ll. 2-8; table no. 76-78, estates at Phaleron. Fr. 9A, l. 8-9, table no. 64, concerns an estate in Ech[elidai?], but the price is unknown. Return to text

114 Taylor (2017) 77-84; she draws mainly on Ober (2010) and Kron (2011); Cf. Van Wees (2011) 111-12. Most of the evidence pertains to the fourth c., and for the estimation we need to assume that the distribution of wealth in the fifth c. was not drastically different. Return to text

115 SEG 47.232, dating to c. 400; see AIO comm. For a fresh discussion of Athens’ interest in the cult from Epidauros and the demos’ role in this foundation, Van Wijk (2016) with further refs. Return to text

116 Cf. above, note 78. Return to text

117 Lambert 2000-2003, with further refs., elaborating work by Michael Jameson. I thank Stephen Lambert for his constructive comments on this topic. Return to text

118 Edwards (1985) 347-8, with further refs. He observes elements in side A indicating a date around 400, in side B to the 390s, but the differences are fewer than the similarities in style. Return to text

119 Edwards (1985) 354-7, contra Frel (1966); Frel and Kingsley (1970). His conclusion proves a formidable obstacle to all interpretations based on Frel’s contention that they were made by the same sculptor, for instance Purvis (2004) 25, 31, who on Frel’s view suggests that Kephisodotos was Xenokrateia’s husband and the father of Xeniades, an idea which is anyway unconvincing, as we might then expect Xenokrateia to acknowledge him in some way in relation to her son; cf. Williams (2015) 69. Return to text

120 Edwards (1985) 341, 344-5, 354-5 confirms the view of Walter (1937) 117-18 that side A was carved first due to the relative depth of the figures in relation to the crowns on both sides: ‘the block that was chosen by the sculptor of the Echelos relief was probably not intended to be an amphiglyphon, but he made it one’ (354). The stone also leans over slightly to side B. For each side, the sculptor used different sources: for side A, notably for Kephisos, examples of sculpture in the round, for side B a pictorial source. Return to text

121 Especially side A shows the effect of wear. The back side of the base is rough and uneven, but this is typical of this kind of stone; the face of the base of Xenokrateia’s relief is hardly any better, and the front below the inscription and the top of the sacrificial list are as uneven as the back of the Echelos base. Return to text

122 Ridgway (1981) 133 points to features of Artemis that recall Amazons but also Hermes on the so-called Orpheus-relief. Most scholars follow the identification of Kephisos by Walter (1937) 110, with ref. to Ael. VH II, 33: Ἀθηναῖοι δὲ τὸν Κηφισὸν ἄνδρα μὲν δεικνύουσιν ἐν τιμῆι κέρατα δὲ ὑποφαίνοντα, interpreting ἐν τιμῆι as referring to adult age. Comella (2002) 70 prefers Acheloös. Return to text

123 For the readings by Kavvadias, Wilhelm, Walter, Guarducci (1974) and Hansen, see the comm. to IG I3 986; the text of IG of Ba is untenable. On autopsy, we confirm ΕΡΜΗΙΚΑΙΝΥΜΦΑΙΣΙΝΑAEΞOI Ι Ι ////Λ Λ̣ ////. The two vertical strokes at some distance from each other could be E and N partly indicated with paint; the first //// indicate a round hole with a mark in the middle and then two caps, possibly Α and Λ. Walter restored φί]λ[ον υἱὸν] (his son) which does not fit the two caps. Guarducci and Hansen read Φαλε̣[ρε̣̃ς̣] (the Phaleres), leaving us with two different dedicators of the stone, as Kephisodotos of Boutadai could not belong to the Phaleres; this solution is unsatisfactory. The following E they claimed to see we cannot confirm. No contemporary parallels of such a phrase in dedications is known, but in literary texts ἀέξω occurs frequently. Very tentatively I would suggest a word beginning with ΘΑΛ (a form or cognate of θάλλω, to flourish), a notion attested in combination with ἀέξω and relevant to the sphere of the Nymphs: Theogn. 1276; Aesch. Suppl. 856-57; RO 88, 1 (ephebic oath), l. 16-19. But perhaps we should rather admit defeat, with Parker (2005) 430 n. 49. Return to text

124 On inscribed reliefs with sacrificial scenes, usually the inscription corresponds to the deities depicted on the relief; cf. Van Straten (1995) R 41, 56, 73, 77, 85, 89, 90, 97, 100, 102, 144, 150, 165, 188. Return to text

125 Van Straten (1995) R 100, 102. Return to text

126 The cutter first made a vertical stroke and next decided to begin the inscription a bit further to the right. Some scholars proposed to replace Iasile by Basile, the nymph known from the decree on the temenos of Neleus in the asty (IG I3 84), but there is no good reason to do so; there is no space for a B. For this inscription, especially the cutting, Meritt (1942) 285-6; Hansen (1983) II, 166. On both sides of the relief and in the inscriptions, several elements must have been painted (e.g. the reins of the horses; elements of the letters E and N on side B) rather than cut into the stone. Return to text

127 Meritt (1942). Ag. XVI, 161 ll. 12 ff. (with AIO and CGRN 102) is an older decree of the orgeones concerning the sacrifices to the hero Echelos and the heroines, included in the early third-century decree that provided for a list of contributors to be inscribed and set up ‘next to the altar’. As this decree was found on the agora, the altar mentioned was probably that of the sanctuary in the city. The earlier decree reflects the situation when the two groups had merged and joined their sacrifices. Return to text

128 Steph.Byz. (5.181) s.v. Ἐχελίδαι. ¬δῆμος ¬τῆς ¬Ἀττικῆς, ¬ἀπὸ ¬Ἐχέλου¬ ¬ἥρωος. ¬οὕτως ¬δ’ ­ἀπὸ ­ἕλους ­τόπου ­μεταξὺ ­ὄντος ­τοῦ ­Πειραιέως ­καὶ ­τοῦ ­Τετρακώμου ­Ἡρακλείου, ­ἐν ­ᾧ ­τοὺς ­γυμνικοὺς ­ἀγῶνας ­ἐτίθεσαν ­τοῖς Παναθηναίοις. ὁ δημότης Ἐχελίδης. τὰ τοπικὰ ἐκ τῆς γενικῆς τῶν πληθυντικῶν. However, Echelidai was not a deme in classical Athens; the region was called after the hero and later a statue of him was erected there (Etym.M. s.v. Ἔχελος). Return to text

129 Ferguson (1944) 76 assigns the older decree included in Ag. XVI 161 12 ff. to the mid-fifth century on grounds of syntax and vocabulary. Return to text

130 Walter (1937) 114 argued persuasively against the equation of Echelos – Iasile with Hades – Persephone, but his suggestion that the relief represents the myth of the first chariot racing at the Panathenaia is unconvincing; this feat was firmly attributed to Erechtheus (Kron (1976) 74-7), whereas the scene with Echelos is typical of abduction-scenes. Return to text

131 Feminine of Ἰασί-λαος; Walter (1937) 113. Return to text

132 Edwards (1985) 350, 352-3. Return to text

133 For the representations of Demos, see Glowacki (2003); not all these figures can be identified with certainty as Demos; see his p. 463-66 for an overview. Walter (1937) 111 also mentioned Demos as one of the possibilities of the relief A, and Edwards (1985) 353 noted that ‘the composition recalls those of decree reliefs’. Return to text

134 E.g. Larson (2001) 134, drawing on Linfert and Edwards (see above); Walter (1937). Return to text

135 Pace Purvis (above, note 119) who takes them to be husband and wife, and pace Larson (2001) 134 who calls Kephisodotos her ‘associate’; I see no evidence for either contention. Return to text

Illustrations

References

Electronic reference

Josine Blok, « An Athenian woman’s competence: the case of Xenokrateia », Eugesta [Online], 8 | 2018, Online since 01 janvier 2018, connection on 13 novembre 2024. URL : http://www.peren-revues.fr/eugesta/399

Author

Josine Blok

Universiteit Utrecht
j.h.blok@uu.nl

Copyright

CC-BY