|
Precinct of a Healing God on the West Slope of the Acropolis (Ath. Mitt. XVIII 1893, pp.231-256).
During
the excavations undertaken by the Athenian Institute, which led to the
discovery of the city fountain of Athens, the Enneakrunos, the precinct
of a healing god unexpectedly came to light on the western slope of the
Acropolis, of which Dörpfeld gives the following description.
‘On
the eastern side of the old road leading to the Acropolis, between the
Pnyx, Areopagus and Acropolis, the entrance and the western boundary
wall of a district came to light, which the finds made in it turned out
to be the sanctuary of a healing god’.
' The dimensions of a
ditch drawn across the district are determined to such an extent that
its circumference can be given at least as a guess in the drawing below
(fig.1). Its exact form can only be determined when the excavations
are planned to continue'.
' In plan the district seems to have
formed an irregular square, of about 17m mean length and about 13m
mean width. The entrance is not, as is usually the case, in the middle
of the side of the square adjoining the road, but at the north-west
corner, evidently because at this point a second path leading directly
to the Acropolis branched off from the larger road. In the case of a
sanctuary situated on two crossing streets, the arrangement of the
entrance at the crossing point was the most appropriate'.
Fig.1: Plan of the Sanctuary, as partially exposed in 1893.
'What
was uncovered of the enclosing wall and how much (p.232) of it is still
preserved can be seen from the plan. The destroyed parts are light,
those that are preserved are shaded darker; the pieces not yet
excavated are only in dotted lines. The material of the wall is the blue hard
limestone that makes up the Acropolis rock and the neighboring hills.
The individual stones are cut polygonally and carefully joined
together. In accordance with the different meaning of the two paths,
the wall on the road is made of larger stones (up to 1.40 m long), while
the one on the footpath is made of much smaller stones.
' The
entrance gate changed its shape in antiquity. (p.233) Originally it
consisted of a double door with a simple vestibule, which probably had
no architectural decorations. ln Roman times, when the street floor had
been significantly raised, a higher read special porch is made of
bluish marble and is probable equipped with two pilasters or columns.
The width of the old gate is 1.31m, which corresponds exactly to four
ancient Greek feet.
'Inside the district, important remains of
the original furnishings have been found: several foundations for
votive offerings of various forms, several beliefs which appear to have
formed votive offerings for a healing god and one of which contains the
name of Asklepios, the foundations of a chapel with the lower part of a
sacrificial table and finally the large estuary stone of a well.
'Of
the foundations, which by their design have borne votive offerings,
most (?, B, C, D and E) are still in place and only two (G and H) are
perhaps somewhat removed from their original location. They all carried
reliefs, round columns or steles, as can be seen from the various inlet
holes and traces of attachment.'
The reliefs themselves that
were found were no longer in their original place. Also the large
relief with the man carrying a large leg, which appeared standing
upright between the gate and the base A close to the enclosing wall,
probably no longer took its original place because of the lack of a
special foundation. At the same time, the supposition expressed in
Athens that the reliefs had been carried here from the large
Asklepieion on the south side of the Acropolis is completely
inadmissible. Since the reliefs have been found throughout the district
and at different heights, one would have to assume that they had been
brought here (p.234) in different centuries, precisely to a place where
there were foundations deep in the earth for similar votive offerings .'
'
Particularly valuable is the lower part of a marble table (F) found in
its old place, from which, apart from the base, the remains of two
table legs, each with lion's paws, and the plate connecting them are
preserved. The latter was decorated with two snakes on the north-facing
side, as can still be clearly seen from the small remains. The table
appears to have stood in a chapel; in fact, in its vicinity one sees
several walls, dating from different periods, which probably formed a
small temple. However, its shape will not be known until the entire
building has been uncovered.'
' Finally, the large estuary stone
of a well deserves to be mentioned, which came to light at K. It
doesn't seem to be in its old place anymore, but because of its size it
shouldn't have been moved far from its original place. The presence of
a well could be expected for the precinct of a healing god, because a
well or spring is always part of an asklepieion. The fact that there
was water in our district is also secured by a gully that was laid in
the northern enclosing wall (at L) when the district was built. It is
very likely that a water pipe can also be assigned to the district,
which branches off further south from the large Pisistratic water pipe
of the Enneakrunos and leads drinking water under the road to the area
of our sanctuary. Only further excavations will shed light on this, too.
'
It is currently not possible to determine exactly when the sacred
precinct was created. From the polygonal construction and the material
used, it is only certain that it comes from older Greek times. However,
since several buildings on the old road and (p.235) perhaps this road
itself owe their existence to the Pisistratid period, our sanctuary can
also be assigned with some probability to the sixth century BC.'
I will follow Dörpfeld's description of the sacred area above with a discussion of the individual finds.
1.
Votive relief (fig.2), height 0.73ra, width 0.35m. Pentelic marble. The
top part is missing, the plate is also broken diagonally, the fractured
surfaces close together well. The lower edge is left rough. it was
apparently embedded in a base of the kind shown at A-E, G and H on the
plan. The relief was found just to the left of the old entrance
(between this and L) leaning upright against the wall, with the
sculpted side towards the interior of the precinct.
Plate 11 Votive relief No.1 .
A
bearded man standing to the left, slightly bent, grasps with both hands
a colossal right leg, which is on the ground in front of him and
reaches to his chest. Both of his feet are on the ground with their
whole soles, the right one is slightly forward. His cloak is wrapped
around his body from his left shoulder under his right armpit and then
thrown back over his left shoulder, leaving his right shoulder and half
of his chest free. The head with a fairly long, pointed beard is in
good condition, only the nose is slightly chipped. The full head of
hair is tied up at the back in the manner that is particularly
characteristic of Dionysus; the same hairstyle can also be found on
some Asklepios heads (Ziehen, Athens. Mitth. XVII p. 243 ff.).
One
might be tempted to take the man for the god of salvation himself
because of this hairstyle, but the size of the leg in front of him
forbids that; it is impossible for the god to be represented smaller
than, say, a votive offering in his sanctuary. On the colossal leg a
strong vein stands out very conspicuously, extending from the man's
left hand to the ankle; no doubt it is intended to indicate the
suffering from which the patient was freed by the (p.236) god—he was
suffering from varicose veins. That the scene is intended in the
sanctuary itself,is indicated by the two feet, which are set up
in a niche on the left in front of the leg and are also to be
understood as votive offerings. The sanctuary of a healing deity on a
Boeotian crater of the local arch. Society (5840, illustrated Έφγιμερίς
άρχ. 1890 Taf. 7), marked; I am not aware of any corresponding
indication of the inn on Attic votive reliefs.
The depiction of
our relief has so far been completely alone among the votive offerings
to healing gods. Three classes can be distinguished among these votive
offerings.
The simplest form is the simple replica of the healed
limb, a form of thanksgiving to the deity that has survived to our day.
The inventories of all sanctuaries of healing gods list such links made
of gold or silver [1], stone-worked ones have been found at the most
diverse places of worship, and they are not lacking in our sanctuary
either (see nos. 6-8, 11, 12)
A second form is that the healed
person presents himself and his family showing their thanks to the god
through sacrifice and worship. This is where the overwhelming majority
of the reliefs found in the large Asklepieion on the southern slope of
the Acropolis belong.
Finally, the healing is sometimes represented by the god himself (cf. Ziehen, Ath.Mitt. XVII p. 230 ff.) [2]
On
our relief we now find a new form, as it were a fusion of the first and
second types of votive offerings. The healed limb is shown, but at the
same time (p.237) its offering by the dedicant; the god, of course, who
forms the center of most of the reliefs, is omitted here.
It
remains uncertain whether the depicted dedicant is the healed person or
the doctor. For the latter assumption one could cite the appearance of
the man, which approximated the type of the god. It is quite possible
that a doctor once made a votive offering to his divine master for a
particularly successful cure. In one of the reliefs from the
Asklepieion (No. 41 Dulin), Girard [3] most likely has the votive gift
of a doctor -Collegium suspected. and that the physicians sacrificed
twice a year to Asklepios and Hygieia ύττέρ τε αυτών καί των σωμάτων ών
έκαστοι ιάσαντο is handed down in writing (C.l.A. II 352b).
The
work of the relief is manual but fresh, as is the case with most votive
reliefs from the Asklepieion. The fact that we are encountering an
otherwise unknown type here makes it advisable to start the relief
relatively early, before the types for these votive offerings were
completely rigid, i.e. in the first half of the fourth century. The
written character of the inscription above the man's head also fits in
with this, which is unfortunately too severely mutilated to allow a
reconstruction. We read:
 Fig.1b: Inscription on votive relief No.1. It includes the phrase "Lysimachides Lysimachus son of Acharnae."
(p.238) Line 2 seems
to have been the first two letters op or θρ (roughly άρ]θρων). The form
σεμνότατη makes it very likely that the inscription was written in
metric. A Lysimachides Lysimachus' son of Acharnae (line 3) comes before C.I.A. 11 1924.
2.
Votive relief (fig. 2) H. 0.32m, W.0.41m. Broken off at the top and
right, a matching piece of the ground was found separately. Left ante,
over which the representation overlaps. Pentelic marble.
Fig.2: votive relief No.2, showing the goddess Hygeia at right with 5 worshippers.
To
the right is a round, wreathed altar, above which one can see the rest
of a hand stretched out from the right, holding a kantharos. The arm to
which this hand belongs did not rest on the relief ground, it was
worked freely and probably attached. To the left of the altar is a
goddess in frontal view (right leg), her head (p.239) and the right
forearm, which used to be particularly attached, are missing. She is
dressed in a sleeveless, belted chiton and a cloak that is pulled over
the back of her head and is held in her right hand at chin level. The
chiton is slightly picked up at the right hip and swells out over the
coat in a small puff. A roughly horizontal line that cuts across the
chiton just above the feet and seems to indicate a doubling of the same
is, I believe, an unintentional saw line. In her left hand the goddess
holds a round box with a flat, domed lid.
Approaching
her from the left are five worshipers, first a man (head missing),
whose cloak covers his arms and leaves only his right hand raised in
adoration and part of his chest uncovered, then a second, also
headless, whose right arm is hanging limply just as the breasts are not
covered by the cloak. A boy follows, fully wrapped in a cloak, and two
women (the one in front without a head) with their hands raised in
adoration, both in chitons and cloaks, which the last one has pulled
over the back of their heads.
Traces of blue survive on the
relief ground, red at the base of the altar, the goddess's chiton, the
foremost man's shoes, the boy's hair and shoes.
The relief
corresponds in composition and workmanship to the mass of those found
on the southern slope of the Acropolis. We may certainly recognize
Hygieia in the goddess; except for the box in her left hand, she agrees
entirely with the Hygieia des Reliefs Duhn (Arch. Zeitung 1877) No. 17
- Sybel 3994; also Duhn 32=Sybel 40 I 3, Duhn 15=Sybel 4009 and Duhn
10=Sybel 4 001 (illustrated Ath.Mitt.
X p. 258) are closely related in the depiction of the goddess. We find
the goddess on all these reliefs in the fuller, more maternal type,
which Koepp (Ath.Mitt. X p.
257 ff.) rightly separates from the youthful one (p. 240) that later
became established [4]. We seldom find the box in her hand, an
attribute that is perfectly suited to the goddess of healing. As far as
I can see, it only appears on the relief Duhn 29 = Sybel 4032 [5].
The
kantharos, which is the only remnant of the deity on the right, is
otherwise not found on the reliefs of this genre. As far as I can see,
this standing attribute of the heroes is never found in the hand of
Asclepius [6]. Asklepios holds a deep kylix on the fine fragment (Duhn
5 = Sybel 4510, reproduced Ath.Mitt
XVII p. 240), which cites Ziehen as an example of the dispensation of
medical aid by the god. But the kantharos on our relief can hardly have
this purpose; if the god offered the healing drink to the mortal, the
worshiper would have to stand closer to the altar and stretch out his
hand for the cup. Here, as on the numerous hero reliefs, the kantharos
serves only to indicate the donation that the god or hero accepts from
the mortal.
3. Fragment
of a votive relief. Broken off at top and left. On the right an ante
over which the depiction extends. H. 0.185m, width 0.10m Pentelic
marble.
In the foreground a sacrificial sheep being led to the
left by a boy standing in the second row, behind him (in the third row)
an adoring woman in a chiton and cloak. She is followed on the right by
a man in a cloak, his chest half bare, his left hand resting on his
hip. The work of the relief is very poor, the condition bad, especially
the heads of the man and the boy are badly damaged.
4. Fragment of a votive relief, chipped on all sides. H. 0.19, W. 0.10m. Pentelic marble (p.241).
Bearded
adorant to the right. The cloak leaves the chest and right arm
uncovered. The upturned head is heavily chipped. the lower legs are
missing.
5. Fragment of
a funeral meal, H. 0.28, W. 0.25m. The old rim survives only on the
right, where it has an antennae shape. Pentelic marble. Found about
1.50m north of the district on the road.
On the right, partly in
front of the ante, stands a large amphora with volute handles, the
lower part of which is badly damaged. A young man follows from the
front on the left, the head, right arm and feet are missing, the
surface of the body is also heavily chipped, the left hand is holding
an indistinct object (drinking horn?). Next to him on the left is a
piece of an overhanging kline with a low table in front of it and small
remains of the hero lying on the kline. We may assume with certainty
that this banquet was set up in the sacred precinct in the immediate
vicinity of which it is found. The cult of the heroized dead tends to
attach itself to the shrines of the healing gods and heroes. In
addition to the finds in the Athenian Asklepieion (cf. Milchhöfer, Jahrbuch II
p. 26 ff.), there are now finds from the cult sites of Amphiaraos in
Oropos and Rhamnus (Λελτίον 1891 p. 1 17 no. 23), and it is certainly
no coincidence that that also in Athens near the Amphiaraos reliefs
(Λελτίον 1891 p. 89 no. 23 f.) a funeral meal has come to light
(Λελτίον 1891 p. 115 no. 5).
6.
Marble slab with female breast in high relief. (fig.4). H. 0.17m, width
0.08m. Pentelic marble. Under the breast on a slightly tapered base is
the inscription:
Fig.3: Votive relief No. 6 with inscription.
The inscription is very
carelessly written and probably belongs to the third century BC at the
earliest. A nail driven between the breast (p.242) and the inscription,
which was used for attachment to the wall or a pillar, caused the lower
part to break off due to its rusting.
7.
Marble slab with male genitals in relief (fig.4). The limb is broken
off. The relief ground was colored red. The plate was nailed to the
wall, as shown by a round hole below the testicles. Height 0.11 m,
width 0.08 m.
8. Marble slab with two ears in relief (fig.5). Height 0.105 m. Width 0.155m.
Fig.4 (left): Votive relief No.7.
Fig.5 (right): Votive relief No.8 .
9.
Slab of bluish marble, broken off at the bottom. Height 0.23m, width
0.24m. Rearing, bearded snake, of which, in addition to the raised head
and neck, a coiled body has been preserved.
10.
White marble chipped fragment on ring. Height 0.14m, width 0.08m. A
snake curls up on a rock, the head is missing. Probably from a votive
relief.
11. The two anterior phalanxes of a finger which appears to have been consecrated separately. Bluish marble. Length 0.085m.
12. Two limbs of a finger, also consecrated individually. Pentelic marble. L. 0.085m. (p.243)
13.
Statuette of a Goddess. Pentelic marble. Height 0.31m. head, neck, the
right upper arm and the entire left arm were specially attached and are
now missing, including the right arm. Foot and half of the 1st are
broken off. The goddess is dressed in a sleeveless, high-girded chiton
and what appears to be a cloak. Traces of red on the first shoe. Very
rough work, probably from Roman times.
14. Right foot of a statuette of Pentelic marble, Length 0.08m.
15. Forearm of a statuette of Pentelic marble, Length 0.09m.
16.
Ivory statuette, Height 0.075m. Glued back together from many pieces.
The back is not worked, the thighs are badly chipped off, the lower
legs are missing except for a piece of the left one.
A standing,
beardless man. The head is tilted slightly to the right, the arms are
crossed in front of the chest. He wears chainmail over a chiton
and a coat thrown over the left shoulder (cf. Olympia IV. Die Bronzen Taf. LX, N° 984. Antiquites du Bosphore Cimmerien Taf. 27, 4-6. Compte-rendu 1876 Taf. 2,19). Meticulous Roman work.
17. The following terracottas were all found inside the precinct near the ancient entrance:
d)
Archaic enthroned goddess in the usual type. Long curls fall to the
shoulders, both hands resting on the thighs. Height 0.10m.
b)
Seated woman, completely wrapped in the cloak, the right hand in front
of the breast, the left hand in her lap. The head is missing. Remains
of white paint. Height 0.055m.
c) Seated woman of exactly the same type, also without a head. Remains of white paint. Height 0.055m.
d) Torso of a standing woman with a child on her left arm. The heads are missing. remnants of pink. Height 0.065m.
e) Torso of a standing woman in a coat, left hand on her side. The head and lower legs are missing. Height 0.09m. (p.244)
f) Female nude doll with specially attached arms. Height 0.10”.
g) A girl's head intended for use in a figure. Pierced vertically, traces of yellow in the hair. Height 0.04m.
h) Head of the same type, split off behind. Height 0.04m.
Finally, in strata deeper than the old doorstep, a number of sherds of the dipylon type were found.
The
finds prove that the humble district was a place of worship for a long
number of years. Based on the architectural features [7], it can
(according to Dörpfeld) with some probability still be assigned to the
sixth century BC. This probability seems to me to be increased by the
terracottas (especially No. a) [8]. From the fourth century BC we have
the votive reliefs (Nos. 1-5, 10), from more recent times the sculpted
members (Nos. 6-8, 11, 12), and that the sanctuary was still venerated
in Roman times is shown by the reconstruction of the entrance and finds
such as the ivory statuette (No. 16).
If I place the adorant
reliefs around the fourth century BC and the sculpted limbs later, I
think I am justified by the analogy of other sanctuaries of healing
gods. It has long been noted (Koepp, Ath.Mitt.
X p. 263) that the whole mass of votive reliefs from the southern slope
of the castle, which stylistically completely follow those from the
amphiaraia in Oropos and Rhamnus, as well as those from our sanctuary,
come from a relatively (p.245) short period of time.
The
almost sudden breaking off of a class of votive offerings, which for a
certain time enjoyed such great popularity, cannot be explained by a
rapid fading of the bloom of the sanctuary—this is contradicted by the
written testimonies—but we must seek the reasons for this in other
circumstances. Brückner's important proof (Arch. Anzeiger
1892 p. 28) that Demetrius's grave law destroyed the flourishing grave
relief sculpture of Attica at one blow also explains the sudden end of
the votive reliefs. The ban on funerary reliefs cut off the lifeline of
the entire business of Attic relief craftsmen; this whole industry
evidently perished in a short time and the votive reliefs disappeared
with it. The following centuries limited themselves in their sculpted
votive offerings to the more or less crude rendering of the healed
limb, and this type of anathema seems to have become very popular,
particularly in Roman times [9].
If we now put the question to whom these consecrations are
directed, who is the lord of the sacred precinct, the answer is not as
easy to give as it first appears. We do have a dedicatory inscription
to Asklepios, but it is late and, in my opinion, not sufficient to
prove the god to be the proprietor of the sanctuary for earlier
centuries.
We may go further: Asklepios cannot have been the
original lord of the district, for he only came to Athens in the last
decades of the fifth (p.246) century BC. The introduction of the
Asklepios cult in Athens, which Koepp (Ath.Mitt. X p. 255) and
recently also Wilamowitz (Commentarium gramm. IV p. 25, 1) with
convincing reasons place in the time of the Peloponnesian War (cf. also
Wolters, Ath.Mitt.
XVI p.164, 2), can be determined even more
precisely than has been done so far. In The Wasps (v. 122),
Aristophanes does not yet know of any Asklepios cult in Athens, but
Sophocles still celebrates the god in a Paian; the years 422 and 406 BC
given by these two facts have hitherto formed the limits within which
the introduction of the god had to be set [10].
Now, as has long been noted, we have an inscribed report on the founding of the Asklepieion (Köhler in C.I.A.II, 1649, Wilamowitz loc.cit.);
It was Telemachus of Acharnae who introduced the cult of Asclepius in
Athens, and he was not a little proud of this deed (see C.I.A.
II, 1442, 1443, 1649, 1650). If Köhler seems to despair of restoring
the important document C.I.A. 11,1649, this is due to the erroneous
composition of two fragments, which makes the condition of the
inscription appear much more hopeless than it is. I repeat here the two
fragments b and c according to Köhler's edition, leaving out the side
page, which is unimportant for us:
Fig.6: Inscription with two parts b and c mismatched.
When
the stones were revised, it became clear to me that these fragments,
which seem to fit together so perfectly, do not belong to one another.
Neither the T in line 1 0 nor the N in line 11 can be put together from
the remains on both stones in the same way as was done in the corpus,
both letters would be half too wide. The peculiar coincidence that c
fits so well in sense to b is explained very easily on closer
inspection, in c the same things are repeated almost verbatim as are
also reported in b. The last letters of each line of c are identical to
the first letters of the following line of b, as it turns out:
Z. 6- 7 AIT
» 7- 8 POS
» 8- 9 TOS El
» 9-10 EKAI (Η K AI b)
» 10-11 SAS
» 11-12 AE
If
one crosses out these matching letters in c in Köhler's edition, the
individual lines follow one another and their length can be determined
at 18 letters. We can thus partially supplement b from c Z. 6
Ιπεσκ]ευάσθη τα ξ. ί]ερώνπ|ροσιδρύσατο . . . 6x.pt|τος έττί του στήσε
κοσριηΐσας το τέαενος άπαν τέ|λει.
 The repetition was not
exactly verbatim, as is proved (p.248) by the shift of the
corresponding letters of lines 6 and 7 (in c) by two places to the
right and the H at the beginning of line 10 instead of the E to be
assumed after c The reason for the whole repetition is not apparent to
me, but I have no doubts about its existence.
What
is valuable now is that from the correct use of b and c we also obtain
a secure line length of 18 letters for the by far most important
fragment a. The same is [10]:
Fig.7: Inscription part a.
If
we now try to complete the most important lines 10 ff. to 18 letters,
the reading "ούτως ίδρύθη [το ίερό]ν τόδε άπαν επί ............ λο άρχοντος." results
ούτως ιδρύθηκε το ίερόν τόδε άπαν επί ............ λο άρχοντος.
"thus the sanctuary was founded then on ............ the lord."
Who
was the archon named, whose name ends in -λος? In the year 442 BC we
have the archon Diphilos, but this year is much too early, also the
number of letters in the name does not fit, 381 BC we find Demophilos
as the archon, but this year is definitely too late, in the 60 years in
between we only encounter one Archon on -λος, that is the one from 420,
Astyphilos. Here the length of the name and the year fit perfectly and
we can therefore state it as a certain fact that the Athenian
Asklepieion was founded in 420 BC under the archon Astyphilos.
Lines
4-5: Girard's suggestion (L'Asclepieion d'Athenes p.130) ές το
Έλ[ευσίνιον is quite possible "... the Eleusinion"
Line 5 f. I consider οί'κοθε[ν μεταπεμ]ψάμενος to be certain,
οί'κοθε[ν μεταπεμ]ψάμενος "Moved from home to home"
Line
7 is to be read with Köhler -ηγ]αγεν δευρε, and then perhaps line 8 of
Telemacho's name will have to be added in the nominative as a subject.
But there are gaps in between that I haven't been able to fill so far.
On
the other hand, I certainly think I can add Z. 9 άμα ηλθεν Ύγ[ίεια
καί.. . Who else should have come at the same time as the god 'taken
from his homeland' than the goddess, whose first two letters are on the
stone?
So we have as the core of the inscription the sentence:
άμα ηλθεν 'Υγίεια καί ούτως ίδρύθη το ιερόν τόδε άπαν επί Άστυφ ίλου
άρχοντος. [11]
"if Hygieia came and thus founded the sanctuary, then again during the Astyphile reign."
Hygieia came to Athens at the same time as Asklepios, in which Thrämer (Roscher's Lexikon 1 p. 2773) keeps against Koepp (Ath.Mitt. X p. 256ff.), Wilamowitz (Isyllos p. 192 f.) and more recently Blinkenberg (Asklepios og hans Fraender i Hieron ved Epidauros
p. 78) That may be right, but she didn't come from Epidauros, as our
inscription already shows, where her introduction is clearly separated
from that of Asclepius from Epidauros (οϊκοθεν) ("everywhere") (p.250).
Wherever we find the Epidaurian Asklepios family united, Hygieia [12] is
missing in older times.
Thus, in the sacrificial regulations written at the beginning of the fourth century from the Munich Asklepieion (C.I.A.
II, 1651) Iaso, Akeso and Panakeia are assigned their πόπχνα ("dear"),
while Hygieia is not named [13]. Nor do we find them on the relief of
the Athenian Asklepieion published by Ziehen, which offers the
Asklepios family particularly complete and with the inscriptions
Epione, Akeso, laso and Panakeia (Ath.Mitth. XVII p. 243 Fig. 7).
As
Hygieia from the Peloponnese, where i.e.. in Titane her cult is
obviously old (Paus. II 11, 6 and VH 23, 8), came to Athens and
together with Asklepios moved into the sanctuary on the southern slope
of the Acropolis, there she stood next to the Epidaurian family of the
god as one Stranger, she was neither the wife nor the daughter of
Asclepius of Epidauria [14]. So they could call Ariphron (Athens. XV p. 702)
and Licymnios (Sextus Emp. XI 49) as πρεσβίστα μακάρων ("blessed
presbyter") and as λιπαpόmmατε maτερ ("lubricious mother"), which also
explains the oscillation of the votive reliefs between the maternal and
the youthful type. Gradually her relationship to Asklepios was fixed as
a daughter's, and even in the late Paian of Macedonia she was not
completely fused with the other Asklepios daughters (C.I.A. III 171 b).
After
this digression, I return to our sacred precinct. Since Asklepios came
to Athens in 420 BC, the sanctuary cannot have been designed for him
first, as it is undoubtedly older. So the only question is, when did
Asklepios oust an older god or hero here, or did he ever completely
oust him? [15]
The probability that the Epidaurian god was
installed in a second district, so close by, soon after the erection of
his large, splendid sanctuary on the southern slope of the castle, is
not very great. Throughout antiquity, writers and inscriptions only
know of one Asklepieion in Athens (see the testimonies of Curtius, Stadtgeschichte p. XVII), in contrast to the one in Munich (see Δελτίον 1888 p. 132 ff. cf. Bull, de corr. hell.
XIV p. 619) τό έν άστει, and we will not assume a second one for
classical time without absolutely compelling reasons. We know, of
course, that Demon des Demomeles' son, the cousin of the orator
Demosthenes, dedicated his house and garden to Asklepios around the
middle of the fourth century and became his priest (C.I.A.
II 1654 ), but this dedication can - if developed a special
sanctuary out of it — by no means be identical with our sacred area,
which as a sanctuary is considerably older. In addition to the
terracottas already mentioned, the complete absence of old inner walls
already proves that an old private house was not later transformed into
a τέμενος.
One might think that reliefs 1 and 2 are compelling
proof of the age of the Asklepios cult in our district. We see a man
with the head type of Asklepios on one relief, see Hygieia on (p.252)
the other relief, so the conclusion is very close that these reliefs
are votive gifts to Asklepios himself, the god already in the fourth
century BC possessed of a Temenos. The conclusion is obvious, but it is
not permissible, as a consideration of the pictorial tradition teaches.
Asclepius
was not the oldest god of healing that Attic art attempted to depict.
Considerably older than any Attic image of Asclepius and sanctuary
known to us [16] is the small amphiareion at Rhamnus, the excavation of
which is credited to the Greek Archaeological Society. Two small heads
of the god were found here, which Stai's (Δελτίον 1891 p. 117 no. 19
and 50) briefly described. One (No. 19), less well preserved, is still
completely archaic, probably from the end of the sixth century, it is
reminiscent of ancient Zeus heads in the shape of the hair and beard,
the other (No. 50), incomparably more beautiful and better preserved,
is certainly not younger than 430. The full head of hair falls long and
sleek on the nape of the neck, it is swept back from the temples in two
mighty waves, the mustache hangs softly on the strong, slightly curled
full beard, the large eyes are still a little severely formed, the
whole head has something majestic in spite of its small size.
Apparently a special type for the god of healing has not yet been found
here, the Zeus type is simply transferred to him [17]. At the time when
the Epidaurian god was introduced in Athens, the artists of the
Phidasian circle created - one would like to think of Alkamenes [18]
(cf. Overbeck, Gesch. der greich.(p.253) Plastik 4 1 p. 379 and above
all Reisch, Eranos Vindobonensis p. 21 f.) - for him that ideal, which
is a mild, purely humane Zeus ideal [19] ( Brunn, Götterideale p. 96
ff.). In the two types of god enthroned and leaning on his staff, this
ideal absolutely dominates fourth-century Attic reliefs of Asclepius,
but it was not used for Asclepius alone.
Without the slightest
change, the two types of Asklepios are transferred to Amphiaraos, for
whom no separate type develops at all. The sometimes standing,
sometimes enthroned god on the reliefs from Oropos (cf. Berliner
philol. Wochenschrift 1888 p. 259), from Rhamnus (Δελτίον 1891 p. 117
no. 18 and 23), from Athens (Δελτίον 1891 p. 89 no. 23) without knowing
where it was found or the inscriptions, one would have to take it for
Asklepios. Even more, the Attic craftsmen, who were accustomed to
depicting Hygieia alongside Asklepios, also associate the goddess with
the Boeotian hero, whom they equate with their Asklepios, although
Amphiaraos originally has nothing to do with Hygieia [20]. We would
dare to call the goddess Hygieia on the reliefs cited if the name were
not even given to her (Δελτίον 1891 p. 89 no. 23). It is a most
remarkable (p.254) example of the powerful influence which art and its
types exert on the cults.
Hygieia came after Oropos and Rhamnus
only because the Athenian stonemason wanted to add the helpful goddess,
whom he was used to associating with him, in addition to the god of
healing. Indeed, in Oropos she seems gradually to have entered into a
similar, if looser, relation to Amphiaraos as she has to Asklepios in
Athens; we see at least that in the first century BC. of the demos of
the Oropi statues of Metella, Sulla's wife, and a Lentulus Άαφιαράω καί
Ύγιεία ( Έφημερίς άρχ. 1885 p. 102 no. 4. p. 106 no. 6, cf. 1891 p .1
37 [21]
There is a second example of the tenacity with which the
Attic stonemasons clung to the types of relief that had been developed
for Asklepios in relation to related deities, and that is the beautiful
relief from Luku, which Lüders published (Annali
1873 p. 11 4 ff. taf. M. N. Sybel No. 319). At today's Luku Monastery,
Polemocrates, according to Pausanias II 38, 6 a grandson of Asklepios,
had a sanctuary (cf. Lölling in Iwan Müller's Handbuch III p. 166), from which the mentioned relief and another [22] (Sybel 357, badly illustrated Expedition de Moree
111 plate 90) apparently originate; both are undoubtedly Attic in
material and style. Here Polemocrates did not adopt the type of
Asklepios, but the sculptor simply depicted Asklepios with a large
family, and left it to the discretion of the customer which of the two
youths behind Asklepios he wanted to take for Polemocrates. The hero,
to whom the dedication was presumably intended, is thus represented in
his own sanctuary as a secondary figure next to the Attic god. In
addition, there is of course the possibility of interpreting the relief
as a dedication to Asklepios himself; then it would occupy the same
(p.255) place in the sanctuary of Polemocrates as perhaps the
dedication of Hedeia in our Athenian temenos.
For our sanctuary,
the analogy of the Amphiaraus reliefs is particularly important. In
Rhamnus in the third century, the hero Aristomachos is equated with
Amphiaraos; 'Ιεροκλής 'Ιε'ρωνος Αριστοράχω Άριφιεράφ reads the
inscription on the base of his cult hild (Λελτίον 1891 p. 116 no. 14.
Lölling , Αθήνα. III p. 597.1). Aristomachos is again identified in
Marathon with the hero latros [23] (Bekker, Anecdota p. 262.16), and
for the latter Kern ( Έφηαερίς άρχ. 1892 p. 115ff.) has made Eleusinian
origin probable. One sees, therefore, that the Attic healing heroes are
very closely related to one another, despite their different origins,
and the types of the Asklepios reliefs may just as well have been
transferred to any other healing hero as to Amphiaraos [24]. It is
therefore absolutely impossible to see from our reliefs Nos. 1 and 2
which god or hero they are dedicated to. But perhaps the kantharos of
Relief No. 2 speaks for the fact that a hero, not Asklepios, was
actually depicted.
Of the Athenian healing heroes known to us,
two cannot come into question for our district, because their shrines
are fixed in other places in the city. For the Heros latros, who one
would particularly like to think of here, in the vicinity of the
Eleusinion, because of his connections to Eleusis (Έφηρ,ερίς άρχ. 1890
p. 117 f. 1892 p. 115), the location is in the north of the city
secured where the Boreasstrasse now meets the Athenastrasse. Two large
blocks of inscriptions relating to his sanctuary were found there (C.I.A. 11 403 and 404), and the literary evidence (see Gurtius, Stadtgeschichte
S.L) also points there. Furthermore, Amphiaraos, whose cult in Athens
is attested by (p.256) the just mentioned reliefs and the sacral laws
of Lycurgus ( C.I.A. II 162
Z. 21. Add. p. 411) had according to Pausanias 18.2 close to the
eponyms a statue [25]. That he had in the same region a district not
mentioned by Pausanias is shown by the reliefs found near the Theseion
on the prolongation of the Piraeus Railway.
We also know Alkon
[26] from Athenian healing heroes, whose priesthood was held by
Sophocles, whose cult was therefore older than that of Asklepios. It is
very possible that he was the old owner of our district [27]. We must
therefore, in my opinion, leave it undecided for the time being whether
a second Asklepieion was created here in the west of the castle using
an older area, or whether this sanctuary still belonged to another hero
in the fourth century, alongside whom Asklepios was later worshiped
became. It is to be hoped that new excavations will decide this
question.
Athens
Alfred Koerte
Footnotes:
1. See the inventories of Asklepios in Athens C.I.A. II 766 f., of Heros Iatros there C.I.A. II 403, of Arnphiaraos in Oropos C.I.Graeciae Septent. I 303 and 3498.
2.
A relief fragment from the Amphiareion in Rhamnus joins the five pieces
cited by Ziehen as the sixth piece. The god (only the lower body
survives) is seated next to a man lying on the kline, apparently
touching the patient's chin.
3. Bull. de corr. Hell. II p. 89 ff. The concerns that Girard himself later (L'Asclepieion d'Athenes p. 48) raised against his earlier assumption do not seem to me to be valid (cf. Köhler on C.l.A. II 1449. Kern, Έφηρερίς άρχ. 1892 p. 116. Curtius, Stadtgeschichte p. 211).
4. Thrämer (in Roscher's Lexikon
I p. 2780 ff.) wants to recognize epions in all maternal figures,
wrongly so. I will show below how the fluctuation of the Hygieia type
in Attic art can be explained.
5. Duhn and Sybel overlooked them here.
6.
On the Boeotian crater published by Kern (Έφηρερις άρχ. 1890 plate 7) a
healing deity holds the kantharos; but whether the reclining man
represents Asklepios or a healing hero cannot be decided.
7.
To the reasons put forward by Dörpfeld I would like to add the material
of the old threshold, it is the same soft, yellowish porosity from
which the water pipe and parts of the well house of the Enneakrunos are
built (cf. Ath.Mitt. XVII p. 442 f .).
8.
There is no doubt that the 8 pieces listed were dedicated in the
sanctuary given the small space in which they were found.
9. All such dedications to Zeus Hypsistos from the Pnyx Terrace are Roman (C.I.A. III 150-156), as well as those from Melos (Expediion de Moree III Tal. 29.2 cf. pp. 47.1; C.I.A. 2429. Annali 1829 p.342 (Lenormant), 1843 p.332 (Ross)), which is in Wohurn-Abbey Arch. Anzeiger 1864 plate A Fig. 1, a piece which I had the opportunity to see in Oropos, and most of them from the Athenian Asklepieion C. I. A.
III 132 g-k ,p-r, probably also Sybel 4058 and 4730. The somewhat
richer decorated anathemas of Eucrates in Eleusis ( Έφημερις άρχ. 1892
Taf. 5 p. 11 3 ff. Kern) and the Praxias in Athens (Curtius, Atlas of Athens Bl XI. C.I.A. 11,1453), also C.I.A. II, 1482.
10.
line 4 Köhler writes as "I Γ ". I consider the apparently shorter
leg of the P to be an accidental injury to the stone, the horizontal
line clearly extends beyond its base, so the letter was probably Γ not
P; the vertical hash in front of the Γ is not over the middle but over
the right leg of the N in line 5, is therefore not a 1 but a remainder
of an N or H.
11. 1 In the following lines is only understandable 14 ο! ζ]ή[ρ]υχες ήμφεσβ[ητη-σαν χ]ωρίου (see Wilamowitz loc. cit.).
12. Thrämer
op.cit. p. 2774 did not succeed in proving a cult of Hygieia in
Epidauros for the earlier period (cf. Blinkenberg, loc. cit. p. 79 f.). The oldest dedication to Hygieia that we have in Epidaurus (Cavvadias, Fouilles d'Epidaure I
No. 250) dates from about 200 BC. The naming of the goddess on the
Epidaurian coins (see Hes. Lambros, Νομίσματα της Αμοργού' No. 28) is
quite arbitrary, Epione can just as well be represented here.
13. That's why Aristophanes doesn't name her in Plutos, whose healing scene 633 ff. takes place in the Municipal sanctuary.
14.
I do not rule out the fact that she was originally the wife of
Asklepios in Titane and other places (see, for example, the
difficult-to-understand passage of Paus. VII 23.7), also her oldest
representations, e.g. in the votive gift of the Smikythos at
Olympia (Paus. V 26, 2) could very well have been maternal.
15.
The one consecration to Asklepios does not yet prove a complete
suppression, even in the sanctuary of a related god a votive offering
for the healing god κατ' εξοχήν ("par excellance") could once be
donated, especially in recent times.
16. To disregard the
rude, youthful Asklepios das Kalamis in Sicyon (Paus II 10, 3), who
cannot be precisely described and apparently had no influence on the
art of the subsequent period.
17. I would like to believe that
in few surviving heads is there as much of the Zeus of Phidias as in
the little Rhamnuntian head.
18. An Asclepius of Alkamenes is
not attested for Athens, but for Mantinea (Paus. VIII 9, 1). The
standing Asclepius on late coins from Mantinea (see Catalog of the Greek coins in the British Museum.
Petoponnesus Taf. XXXV, 9) goes back to this picture. We know two
representations of the god from Kolotes, a gold ivory slab in Ivyllene
(Strabo VIII, 337) and a relief on the τράπεζα in Olympia (Paus V 20,
1).
19. Amelung's attempt to prove a second ideal of Asklepios from the late 5th century (Florentiner Antiquities
p. 39 ff.) does not seem to have been successful. The beautiful head he
published is probably more of an ideal portrait of a poet than the god
of healing.
20. The fact that in Pausanias' time, together with
Aphrodite, Panacea, Iaso and Athena Paionia, she held one fifth of the
great Amphiaraos altar in Oropos (Paus. I 34,3), of course proves
nothing for an old connection with the god. On this altar are united
all the deities who could possibly be associated with the art of
healing and with Oropos. Its late origin is proven by the remains of
older altars under its foundations (see Πρακτικά
1884 p. 92 Taf. E, Dörpfeld). Where Hygieia has ancient cult, as in
Titane (Paus. II 11.0, VII 23.8), she is connected only with Asklepios.
21. Cf. also C. I. Grxc. Sept. 412 and Ath. Mitt.XII p. 318 no. 418
22. Only the dedicants are preserved on this one.
23. Lölling op.cit. that the Rhamnuntische Amphiaraos also bears the nickname Heros latros.
24. For Trophonios, Pausanias (IX 39.3 and 4) expressly attests that Praxiteles formed him in the Asklepios type.
25.
It is not possible to determine exactly when his cult was introduced in
Athens. The sacral law mentioned calls him before Asklepios — και τω
Άμφιαράω καί τω Άσκληπιω— from which one might conclude that his cult
was of a higher age. However, the fact that Aristopbanes in Amphiaraos,
cited in 415, still seems to send his patient to Oropos speaks against
this. I would like to infer this especially from the ακραιφνές ΰδωρ
(Fr. 32 Kock), because the goodness and coldness of the spring in
Oropos, which still refreshes every visitor to the beautiful forest
valley, is often praised in antiquity (Xenophon Mem. III 13, 3, Athens II p.46c).
26. To refrain from Toxaris; see Sybel Hermes XX p. 41 1Γ.
27. Sybel's attempt to place Alkon on the southern slope of the castle as Asklepios' predecessor (Ath.Mitt.. X p. 97) has been refuted by Wilamowitz, Isyllos S, 189 ff.
[Return to Table of Contents]
|
|