The Macedonians in Athens, 322-229 B.C.

Proceedings of an International Conference held at the University of Athens, May 24-26, 2001

Olga Palagia, Stephen V. Tracy

• Éditeur: Oxbow Books
• Année: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781785705304
• Sujet: Social Sciences
• Sous-sujet: Archaeology

For a century following the end of the Lamian War in 322 B.C., Athens' harbour at Pireus was almost constantly occupied by a Macedonian garrison. The Macedonian presence dealt a crucial blow to Athenian independence and Athenian democracy, initiating the first in a long and intermittent series of foreign occupations. The twenty-eight papers in this volume are based on an international conference hosted by the University of Athens in May 2001, and focus on various aspects of Athenian art, archaeology and history in the century of Macedonian domination. They consider Athens' new role as a political stepping stone for potential Successors to the throne of Macedon - Cassander, Demetrios Poliorketes and Antigonos Gonatas were each able to secure Macedonia by using Athens as a power base - and the ways in which Athenian culture was affected by the Macedonian presence. They contribute to the ongoing debate about the reasons for the Macedonian ascendancy, the degree of independence accorded Athens by their Macedonian overlords, the third-century archon list, and changes in Athenian art and architecture.

Tradition and innovation: portraits and dedications on the early Hellenistic Akropolis

Ralf von den Hoff

“[In Athens] you will see the most beautiful sights on earth:[...] a magnificent temple of Athena, something out of this world and worth seeing, the so-called Parthenon, which lies above the theatre; it makes a great impression on sightseers.”

Herakleides 1.1 (third century B.C.)1

Studying cultural change in ancient societies requires looking not only for the historical or artistic record, but also for cultural context: for focal points of identity construction and cultural practice, such as were provided by sanctuaries in ancient Greece. The manner in which heterogeneous objects were dedicated and viewed together, and the appearance of the sanctuary as a whole can be taken as records of specific interests and patterns of behaviour and of the historical conditions that created them. In this sense, the Athenian Akropolis was always taken as a visible manifestation of the classical period of Athens in the fifth century B.C. However, its history after the death of Alexander the Great should be of more interest than recent studies suggest.2 What was happening in Athens’ most important sanctuary and what were the Athenians’ interests concerning it during the Macedonian occupation? The existing epigraphical, literary and sculptural evidence of this period has not been studied together as a record of cultural change up to now. My purpose is to do so and to develop some broader ideas concerning the significance of the Akropolis for the Athenians after 323 and into the third century. Because of the fragmentary nature of our records, the results will be preliminary and are to be understood as nothing more than a basis for further discussion. I will focus on two aspects: dedications and portrait statues on the Akropolis.

The Panathenaia – Athens’ most important festival connected to the Akropolis – seem to have provided a prime occasion for foreign rulers to demonstrate their status and piety in early Hellenistic times. Bearing witness of this are Lysimachos’ (IG II2 657 ll. 14–16)3 and Ptolemy II’s (SEG 28.60 ll. 66–70)4 donations of equipment for the Panathenaic ship, as well as the fact that images of Demetrios and Antigonos were by decree woven into Athena’s Panathenaic peplos alongside the gods shortly after 306 (Plut. Demetr. 12.2–4; Diod. 20.46).5 Thus, foreign kings were indirectly included in the traditional cult affairs of the polis. During the same period, rulers were active in the Akropolis cults as well. The sacrifice of Pyrrhos to Athena Polias in 287/6, after Athens’ liberation from Demetrios Poliorketes (Plut. Pyrrh. 12.4), was a symbolic act of reverence to the polis goddess.6 Other instances of this were armour dedications. After 334 Alexander dedicated 300 panoplies “captured from the barbarians who inhabit Asia” (Arr. Anab. 1.16.7) to Athena. Plutarch only mentions 300 shields (Plut. Alex. 16.17), but it is far from certain that they were attached to the east architrave of the Parthenon, as has often been suggested. However, the dowel holes in this architrave can be taken as tokens of similar votives, though not dated precisely.7 In 318, Alexander’s namesake, the son of Polyperchon, who had just ‘liberated’ Athens, dedicated a ceremonial panoply to Athena (IG II2 1473 ll. 6–8).8 Finally, the golden shields Lachares removed (Paus. 1.25.7) must have been parts of similar dedications, while the 1,200 suits of armour donated by Demetrios Poliorketes (Plut. Demetr. 17.1) were probably actual military equipment.9 For Alexander, the dedication of barbarian weapons had certainly been a gesture of acknowledgement of the Athenian victories over the Persians: not only a reverence for tradition but also a token of his unchallenged legacy.10 On the other hand, the role of some dedicants as liberators seems to have been important, as it must have been for Pyrrhos’ sacrifice. It appears that the foreign rulers’ claims to be Athens’ liberators were often underlined by armour dedications or sacrifices on the Akropolis. Furthermore, giving armour to Athena was in keeping with an old-fashioned trend in dedications,11 avoiding nontraditional patterns of behaviour. The Akropolis seems to have served as a focal point for the advertisement of ruler interests in traditional patterns, and so did the Panathenaia.

So far as Athenian activities are concerned, we know that the tamiai ordered silver vessels to be crafted for the Akropolis from recycled material in 321/0, 320/19 and 314/3, possibly also in 318/7, 311/0 and 307–304.12 Gold phialai were produced from a 1% tax collected by the archon of the previous year in 320/19.13 The boule dedicated a silver kanoun in 318/7.14 All these activities pursued old practices and Lykourgan interests, and it is not astonishing that Lykourgos was honoured in 307 for his diligence in preserving the kosmos of the Akropolis.15 Nevertheless, the nearly annual dedications by public institutions after 323 are a sign of sustained interest in it. Inscriptions on the objects named the source of the material, the artist and the dedicant. This practice became widespread possibly in order to demonstrate the democratic character of the procedure (and so did the inventories).16 Hence, in the late fourth century, the Athenians tried to maintain ‘business as usual’ so far as the Akropolis cult was concerned. The regular examination of the Athena Parthenos,17 the interest to maintain the regularity of the Panathenaia, the Athenians’ active engagement in the festival in addition to the above mentioned ruler activities18 and the resumption of published inventories of the Akropolis treasures around 240/3019 point in the same direction.

But what about the images on view inside the sanctuary? First of all: what about the presence of royal portraits, which could underline the kings’ interest in self-presentation or Athens’ gratitude towards them? This practice is attested in other Greek sanctuaries20 and in the Athenian Agora, where, among others, honorary statues of Lysimachos (Paus. 1.9.4), Pyrrhos (Paus. 1.11.9), Seleukos I (Paus. 1.16.1), Demetrios21 and Antigonos (SEG 25.149; Diod. 20.46.2) were set up.22 But we have no certain evidence for Hellenistic royal portraits on the third-century Akropolis.23 It seems unlikely that this lack could be due to a loss of records, because actually some statues are known, but they are ‘late-comers’, after 229. The earliest ones are the pillar monuments of the Attalids.24 The lack of royal portraits – both honorary and votive – is astonishing. It is possible that early Hellenistic kings studiously refrained from dedicating their own portraits on the Akropolis, thus respecting traditional patterns of behaviour and the monument of Athens’ past. But it seems to be more likely that the Athenians themselves tried to keep statues of kings out of Athena’s sanctuary.

In this context, it is revealing to look at portrait dedications by Athenians. So far as honorary statues are concerned, that is, statues dedicated by the demos or the boule, the images of Demetrios of Phaleron and of Olympiodoros are the only ones on the early Hellenistic ...