{"word_count": 7756, "character_count": 49241}
As a major place of worship, the Acropolis of Athens received hundreds of votive offerings during the Late Archaic and Early Classical periods (Keesling 2005, p. 396-397 ; Scholl 2007). This study concentrates on a handful of offerings among female dedications set up by or on behalf of women, which can be specifically attributed to mothers through epigraphic or other corroborating evidence. The question of maternal dedications on the Acropolis may come as a surprise, since Athena is conceived as a political deity, associated predominantly with male heroes, male citizens, and the notion of autochthony (Loraux 1993 and 2000). The patron deity of Athens is rarely mentioned when treating questions of birth and maternity, with the exception, of course, of her own unorthodox offspring, Erichthonios, and the up-bringing of future Athenian citizens (Kron 1976, p. 55-67, and more recently Shapiro 2003, p. 87-89 and Avramidou 2011, p. 33-35). And it is in this capacity that she receives offerings from women representing their oikos, as I argue below. Moreover, let us keep in mind that Athena was not the only deity worshipped on the Acropolis; among the various cults on the Sacred Rock a family-related god, Zeus Herkeios, received maternal dedications, as well.This paper reevaluates the role of women, and more specifically of mothers, as representatives of the oikos and examines their participation in private and public family ceremonies. The timeframe of the study is purposefully restricted within the Late Archaic and Early Classical periods (roughly from 530 to 470-450 BCE) because of the abundance of female and joint family dedications, and the richness of contextual evidence available for comparison. Diverse classes of material are brought into examination in order to achieve plurality of evidence while investigating the role of women within family rituals and dedications.1 Starting with an exploration of the inscribed dedications, I proceed with an overview of the imagery of votive pinakes (plaques) and reliefs, along with a survey on shapes and iconography of the pottery deposited on the Acropolis.2Before I embark on the study of maternal dedications from the Acropolis, it is important to remember the parameters that obscure this endeavor. When discussing finds from the Acropolis, one needs to be aware of the inadequate methodologies used during the early excavations of the 19th century, which resulted in confusing stratigraphy and lacking documentation (Glowacki 1998, p. 79, esp. n. 4; Schulze 2004, p. 11-14; Stewart 2008). Furthermore, one has to acknowledge that neither all objects found on the Sacred Rock had a votive character, nor was Athena the sole recipient of the dedicated objects.3 Similarly, as with the majority of dedications in Greek sanctuaries, not all dedications carry inscriptions and even when they are inscribed, not all of them give the name of the donor. To make things more challenging, even when a woman’s name is attested as the devotee, it is rarely accompanied by information about her family status, leaving us in the dark about her position within the oikos.4Inscribed OfferingsDespite the limitations outlined above, I was able to detect nearly forty inscribed offerings from the Acropolis naming a woman dedicator, dated between the Late Archaic and Early Classical periods (Table 1). Of these, only two were offered specifically by mothers, a bronze hydria and a marble votive pillar, while one can make a case for several other bronze and a couple of clay vessels and attempt to interpret them as maternal dedications (see discussion below). At least two examples from the second half of the fifth century were offered by married women, allowing the assumption that they were mothers, as well (IG I3 888 ca. 450 BCE [wife of Eumelides], 894 [wife of Prepis]). Moreover, it is not uncommon for a relative, such as a spouse, a child, a parent or a sibling, to fulfill a dedication on behalf of a woman (mother or other), e.g., IG I3 703 (Thoutime), 745 (Aristomache and Archestrate), and from the fourth century IG II2 4914 (Alkippe), but, despite the variety of our samples, the majority of female offerings reveals little information about a woman’s family ties.Table 1. Catalogue of Inscribed Female Votives from the Late Archaic-Early Classical AcropolisIG I3ObjectInv. No.Date (BCE)FindspotDedicator1536Bronze baseAthens, National Archaeological Museum X 6944; Lazzarini 1976, no. 667480?Glyke2537Bronze baseAthens, National Archaeological Museum X 6942480?Ch]alchis and Thethis3538Bronze baseAthens, National Archaeological Museum X 6947; Lazzarini 1976, no. 25ca. 480?Klearete4540Bronze statuette of Athena PromachosAthens, National Archaeological Museum 6447; Lazzarini 1976, no. 647ca. 480?Meleso5546Bronze miniature shieldAthens, National Archaeological Museum X 6837; Lazzarini 1976, no. 46ca. 500?Phrygia6547Bronze cymbalAthens, National Archaeological Museum X 17525; Lazzarini 1976, no. 632500-475?Lysilla7548bisBronze mirror handleAthens, National Archaeological Museum 6944480From the Brauroneia sanctuaryGlyke8555Bronze chernibeion (handle)Athens, National Archaeological Museum X 7176; Lazzarini 1976, no. 229525-500?Timagora9560Bronze phialeAthens, National Archaeological Museum X 726; Lazzarini 1976, no. 12 (Nika)500-480?Nika[tta]10565Bronze chernibeionAthens, National Archaeological Museum X 7336; Lazzarini 1976, no. 648Early fifth century?Kapanis11567Bronze lekaneAthens, National Archaeological Museum X 7271; Lazzarini 1976, no. 670ca. 475-450?Meli[tei]a12571Bronze oinochoeAcropolis Museum 5902; Lazzarini 1976, no. 16ca. 500-480?Himera?13572Bronze oinochoe handleAthens, National Archaeological Museum X 17524; Lazzarini 1976, no. 10Early fifth century?Myrto14573Bronze hydriaAthens, National Archaeological Museum X 7294; Lazzarini 1976, 277, no 717500-480?A mother on behalf of her sons15574Bronze hydriaAthens, National Archaeological Museum X 7274; Lazzarini 1976, no. 666ca. 475S]mikythe16577KylixAcropolis Museum 5897ca. 500-480?Smikra17609Base of three tripodsLazzarini 1976, no 237End of sixth centuryChionis18615Pillar monumentAthens, Epigraphical Museum 6321; Lazzarini 1976, no. 617; Raubitschek 1949, no. 232525-510In the Persershutt near the TholosErgokleia19656Low baseAthens, National Archaeological Museum 6250; Raubitschek 1949, no. 81ca. 510-500fr a: east of Parthenon, fr b: SW corner of Parthenon.Ph]sakythe20683Votive columnAthens, National Archaeological Museum 6241; Lazzarini 1976, no. 3; Raubitschek 1949, no. 3510-500fr a: Found east of the Parthenon, fr b: near north wall, ca 50 meters west of where most of the korai were found, fr c: SW from ParthenonIphidike21700Low baseAthens, National Archaeological Museum 12780 + 6383; Lazzarini 1976, no. 23; Raubitschek 1949, no. 93ca. 490Found in the pit under the Parthenon column drum, built into the north wallPhryne and Smik[ythe]22703Votive pillar crowned by capitalAthens, National Archaeological Museum 6333+6475; Raubitschek 1949, no. 284Early fifth century?On behalf of Thoutime23745Low statue baseAthens, National Archaeological Museum 6301; Löhr 2000, no. 23; Raubitschek 1949, no. 79500-480?Found near the north wallOn behalf of Aristomache and Archestrate24767Votive columnAcropolis Museum, courtyard no inv. no.; Lazzarini 1976, no. 649b; Raubitschek 1949, no. 25500-480?Empedia25773Animal statue baseAthens, National Archaeological Museum 6263+6263a; Löhr 33, no. 33500-480Found between the Erechtheion and PropylaiaFor the mother of Timarchos26794Base for ritual basinAcropolis Museum 607; Raubitschek 1949, no. 380Early fifth centuryFound in debris inside the ParthenonSmikythe27803Pillar monumentAthens, National Archaeological Museum 6401; Raubitschek 1949, no. 201ca. 490?My]rine28813Pillar monumentAcropolis Museum no inv. no.; Lazzarini 1976, no. 227; Raubitschek 1949, no. 258ca. 480Found in the Acropolis wall, NW of the Mycenean stairwayPheido29814Votive columnAcropolis Museum, no inv. no.; Lazzarini 1976, no. 649a; Raubitschek 1949, no. 33500-490Found near the ErechtheionKalis30857Pillar monumentAthens, National Archaeological Museum 6254 Athens, Epigraphical Museum G254; Lazzarini 1976, no. 678; Löhr 2000, no. 47; Raubitschek 1949, no. 298470-450Near the south wall of the AcropolisM]ikythe31858Pillar monumentAthens, National Archaeological Museum 8169; Löhr 2000, no. 46; Raubitschek 1949, no. 297Second quarter of the fifth century?Aristomache and Charikleia32888Base for ritual basinAthens, National Archaeological Museum 6326; Raubitschek 1949, no. 378ca. 450Found near the ErechtheionWife of Eumelides33921Ritual basinEpigraphical Museum 6541+5503; Lazzarini 1976, no. 609b; Raubitschek 1949, no. 348ca. 490-480Kalikri]te34934Ritual basinAthens, National Archaeological Museum 6527; Lazzarini 1976, no. 620; Raubitschek 1949, no. 369480?Kal]listo35IG II/III2 2950VaseGraef and Langlotz 1925-1933, vol. 2, no. 1337; Lazzarini 1976, no. 116th century?Sabys (male?)36IG II/III² 3460Foot of a vaseGraef and Langlotz 1925-1933, vol. 2, no. 1349, pl. 92End of sixth sixth century?T]im[o]strat[a]37Kaltsas and Shapiro 2008, 54, no. 13Bronze lekanisAthens, National Archaeological Museum X 18497 and X 7109; unpublished525-470?Peithylla38Graef and Langlotz 1925-1933, vol. 1, no. 1295A-K, pl. 72.1295SkyphosAcropolis Museum 1.1295Last third of the sixthOne ostrakon found in the Parthenon foundation]kleiaThe offerings vary in size, material and value, and comprise marble ritual basins, pillars and columns, pedestals and bases, bronze vessels, and other objects, such as statuettes.5 Overall, the date of the inscribed dedications ranges between the last quarter of the sixth through the second quarter of the fifth century BCE, while their exact findspot on the Acropolis usually remains unknown.Despite their difference in numbers, women’s and men’s offerings on the Acropolis are indistinguishable, i.e., there are no types of dedications specifically associated with women (Ridgway 1987, p. 402; Löhr 2000, p. 232-233), with the exception perhaps of the bronze phiale, a point to which we shall return.6 Women of means can offer expensive gifts to Athena, even if they are not Athenian citizens (e.g., IG I3 858 [Aristomache and Charikleia], Raubitschek 1949, p. 320-321, no. 297; IG I3 683 [Iphidike], Dillon 2002, p. 17; Kaltsas and Shapiro 2008, 52, no. 11), while professional women donate small or large gifts and identify themselves through their line of work (e.g., IG I3 794 plyntria [Raubitschek 1949, p. 407-408, no. 380; Kaltsas and Shapiro 2008, p. 51, no. 10], IG I3 546 artopolis [Kaltsas and Shapiro 2008, p. 64-65, no. 23]; Ridgway 1987, p. 402; cf. the studies of Brock 1994; Kron 1996, p. 161-163; Kosmopoulou 2001; Dillon 2002, p. 15-17; Vikela 2005, p. 97-99). Votive offerings are frequently characterized as a dekate, a gift equal to one tenth of one’s income, or as an aparche, a symbolic offering from the first profits of an activity, whether commercial, agricultural, or even the acceptance of dowry and inheritance (e.g., IG I3 547, 615, 921, 934; IG I3 536, 540, 548bis, 565, 567, 574, 767, 794, 857; Löhr 2000, p. 232-233; Keesling 2003, p. 6-10 and 2005, p. 398 citing Herodotus 1.92.1-4). Few dedicatory inscriptions include the name of the artist (e.g., IG I3 703, 857; Raubitschek 1949, nos. 284, 298; Dillon 2002, p. 14-19; Kaltsas and Shapiro 2008, p. 52, no. 11).After 450 BCE female dedications on the Sacred Rock are less frequently displayed in public and instead votive offerings typically associated with women, such as phialai and jewelry, are registered in inventory lists and kept within the temples (Harris 1995 and here n. 18). Looking at other Attic sanctuaries of the Classical era, we come across a few surviving exceptions to this practice, the most notable being the Xenokrateia relief from Neo Phalero, dedicated to the river god Kephissos for the upbringing of her son around the end of fifth century BCE (Athens, National Archaeological Museum 2576; IG I3 987; Kron 1996, p. 166-168; Dillon 2002, p. 24-25, fig. 1.3; on the placement and arrangement of votive offerings in Greek sanctuaries, see von Straten 1990). In the fourth century, women devotees continue to appear in inscriptions: mothers may set up dedications for their children on their own or jointly with a spouse, while male relatives often undertake the fulfillment of a vow on behalf of female family members.7Fig. 1: Fragmentary bronze hydria. Acropolis, ca. 500-480 BCE.After Kaltsas and Shapiro 2008, p. 56, no. 15.This brief overview illustrates the challenges involved in the study of female dedications in general, let alone that of maternal votive offerings. A rare example of the latter is the bronze vessel from the Athenian Acropolis, dated between 500-480 BCE (Fig. 1). This fragmentary bronze hydria preserves only portions of the neck and about half the rim of the vase, which was partially inscribed on its upper surface: Ζενός: Ἑρ[κείου]… [υπέρ αὐ]τῆς καἰ παίδων: θεκεν: ἄγαλμα :ετεον (IG I3 573; Löhr 2000, p. 29, no. 27; Kaltsas and Shapiro 2008, p. 56, no. 15 [N. Palaiokrassa]). The inscription informs us that the luxurious gift was an agalma dedicated not to Athena, but to Zeus Herkeios. Even though the word agalma is usually associated with the cult statue of a deity, it may also denote a sacred object or the very object carrying the dedication, through which a deity is glorified. In this case the latter explanation seems more appropriate: unless we assume a statue of a kore, for example, carrying the hydria, the bronze water jar must be the agalma mentioned in the inscription, thus forming an “objet parlant” (Keesling 2003, p. 10, 19-20; Day 2011, p. 85-130).On the Acropolis, Zeus was worshipped as Polieus in his homonymous shrine on the eastern part of the Sacred Rock, and as Herkeios inside the sanctuary of Pandrosos, west of the Erechtheion, where an altar was dedicated to him (Philochoros fr. 67 = FGrHist 3 F 118; Dionysos Halicarnassos On Dinarchus 3; Travlos 1971, 213-214; Thorikos Sacred Calendar SEG 33.147.22 and 33.147.13; cf. also, a possible votive to Zeus Polieus, Kaltsas and Shapiro 2008, p. 71, no. 29). Zeus Herkeios was predominantly a household deity and altars were set up in his name within house courtyards. As his epithet suggests, he oversaw the boundaries of the family and its property. Sacrifices to Zeus Herkeios were performed by the male head of the family (Faraone 2008, esp. p. 212-213; Boedecker 2008, p. 228-234, 240-242 commenting on [Aristoteles] Athenaiôn Politeia 55 and Demosthenes 57.67). It is all the more striking to have a woman dedicating an expensive metal vessel to Zeus Herkeios, an action that equates her to the status of a male oikos representative. This observation brings us to the most stimulating feature of the inscription, the identity of the dedicators: a woman and her children, more accurately, her sons. Contrary to the norm that wants the kyrios in charge of making offerings and publically representing the oikos within the polis, this bronze hydria was dedicated jointly by a mother and her sons.8 Such an extraordinary case could be explained as a rare occasion where the male head of the family is deceased or for some reason unable to perform his duties.According to John Ma’s study on Hellenistic honorific portraits, the formula hyper hautes kai paidon is best translated as “on account of,” “on behalf of” or “for the safety of.” A votive given “hyper someone” can be a religious offering, an act of thanksgiving, or the fulfillment of a vow, while the usage of the word paidon instead of teknon hints to a rather emotional motive.9 More critical is Christoph Löhr’s observation that the hyper dedications are usually associated with a prayer for the health of a relative, such as curing an illness or escaping danger, and that the phrase is most common among votive offerings by mothers and children. The bronze hydria offered to Zeus Herkeios seems to fall into this very category (e.g., hyper: IG I3 857 [Mikythe] from the fourth century: IG II2 4883 [Hipparche], 4613 [Lysistrate], 4588 [Phile]; beyond Athens in the fifth century: IG IX 2 575 [Argeia]. Cf. Löhr 2000, p. 114, 129, 134, 148-149, 232-233, nos. 135, 148, 153, 169, and several dedications to Asklepeios).A second example of maternal dedications from the Late Archaic period is a marble votive pillar that once carried a sculpture by Euphron, dated ca. 470-450 BCE (Raubitschek 1939/1940, 28-29; Keesling 2005, p. 410-411, n. 56, 61). As in the case of the bronze hydria, it is the object that speaks: [Μ]ικύθη μ’ ἀνέθ[ηκεν] / [Ἀθ]ηναίη το [ἄγαλμα] / [εὐ]ξαμένη δ[εκάτην] / [καί] ὑπέρ παί[δων] / [κ]αί ἑαυτῆ[ς] / Εὔφρων [ἐπο][ί]ησεν (IG I3 857; Raubitschek 1949, p. 321-322, no. 298; Ridgway 1987, p. 401; Dillon 2002, p. 15-17). Note that the inscription is written in Ionian dialect, reflecting perhaps the origins of the dedicator, and mentions that a woman named Mikythe offers an agalma on behalf of herself and her sons (hyperpaidon kai heautes) to Athena thus fulfilling a vow (euxamene). This time, however, the recipient deity is not Zeus Herkeios but Athena. The lack of patronymic has lead some scholars to suggest that Mikythe is a metic or a foreigner, but according to Uta Kron (1996, p. 161), such a motherly prayer is more typical of an Athenian citizen (aste). The dedication was made as a dekate, making one wonder what the occasion was for such a votive: perhaps mother and sons were involved in some family business or maybe they received an inheritance, from the deceased (?) father or other family protector, which might explain why the monument was dedicated by the mother and her children. Alternatively, the votive could commemorate an event in the life of the paides, upon which the family made a vow (euche) and, for some reason, it became the mother’s duty to materialize it. As Löhr points out (2000, p. 232-233; cf. Keesling 2003, p. 4-6; for an overview of women as ritual agents in epigrams, see Day 2011, p. 190), the word dekate indicates the prosperity of a family but on the other hand, the term euxamene hints to a religious obligation, thus emphasizing both the social and religious motives of the dedication (e.g., euxamenos(e): IG I3 703, 745, 773; from the fourth century: IG II2 4403, 4588).Both the bronze hydria and the votive pillar allow the hypothesis that it is a mother’s relation to her sons and the temporary gap in the line of male citizens in the family that compel her to act on behalf of the oikos. The public display of expensive gifts to deities worshipped on the Acropolis is not only a demonstration of wealth and piety, but rather an effort to maintain the family’s social status during transitional periods, marked by the absence of a male family leader. A mother in her own right may temporarily fill in a man’s shoes, but she is still defined socially through her ties to male relatives. As an unmarried girl, she is identified through her relation to her father, as a wife by her allegiance to her husband, while in their absence a mother can be defined by her sons, the legal heirs to the family. It is noteworthy that there are no preserved inscriptions naming a mother as the sole dedicator, while dedications made by a mother and/on behalf of her daughter(s) are equally rare.10Similar to the dedications described above are two inscribed maternal offerings from Archaic Paros, which were probably meant to be displayed on Delos (Stehle 1997, p. 115-116). The first inscription informs us that a certain Telestodike, mother of Asphalios and daughter of Therselos, dedicated an agalma to Artemis, possibly for the benefit of her son who is named first. There is no mention of a husband, same as in Mikythe’s example, which is indicative of a certain level of financial independence on her part (IG XII 5, 216; Kron 1996, p. 157-158; Löhr 2000, p. 24-25, no. 21; Dillon 2002, p. 11-12; Day 2011, p. 188-189).The second inscription refers to a joint dedication by the same (?) Telestodike and her husband Demodekes, who offered an agalma to Artemis from common capital, in hope for increase of their finances and family (IG XII 5, 215; Kron 1996, p. 158; Löhr 2000, p. 24-25, no. 21; Dillon 2002, p. 11-12). Even if this second Telestodike is not clearly defined as a mother, from her dedication we can infer her desire to become pregnant: having an heir was just as important for the oikos as maintaining the family’s prosperity.The hypothesis that these two votive offerings were meant to be set up at the sanctuary of Artemis on Delos, controlled by Peisistratos of Athens at the time, is perhaps suggestive of an ongoing exchange of social and religious practices, since both elite Parian and Athenian women seem to enjoy similar privileges in representing the oikos and themselves within a public, religious setting. In this light, the dedications from the Acropolis and Paros can be construed as proof of the social position of elite women in the Archaic period, and particularly of the visibility aristocratic mothers enjoyed while publicly expressing their religious sentiments through dedications (Kron 1996; Day 2011, p. 187-190). Such a display of power and piety reflects not only the social status of the mother as an isolated devotee, but also it functions as a public acknowledgement of the women’s contribution to the well-being of the Archaic oikos.PinakesThe next body of evidence involves a group of pinakes, i.e., clay, painted or relief votive plaques, which were common, inexpensive dedications in many Greek sanctuaries. We focus on them here because they were exclusively votive objects with no other function, in contrast to, say, cups, loutrophoroi and other ceramic products that may have had a functional usage before they were ritually deposited in the sanctuary (Vlassopoulou 2003, p. 17-22, 23-45; Schulze 2004, p. 7-11).In her study, Kyriaki Karoglou points out that the majority of Attic votive plaques date between the late sixth and early fifth century and argues that such modest offerings were probably dedicated by banausoi and women because they were more affordable than the lavish marble or bronze votive offerings (Karoglou 2010, p. 44 chart, 49-61), a theory that can be challenged based on the dedications examined earlier. With regard to iconography, Athena’s representations on pinakes are predominant, especially as Promachos. According to Karoglou, this trend indicates a deep connection with the Panathenaic festival by association to the Athena Promachos depicted on Panathenaic amphoras. Herakles is an equally popular subject, along with warrior-scenes, horsemen, and chariots, echoing the repertory of contemporary Attic vase painting. It is interesting to note that at least two pinakes represent the judgment of Paris, while five scenes can be associated with the female sphere, as they illustrate women in processions, holding wreaths or within a domestic setting (Karoglou 2010, esp. p. 19-20, and 56-59 for the connection to the Panathenaic Games; cf. Wagner 2001; Schulze 2004, p. 11-14, 16-40, esp. 38-40; on relief votive plaques: Vlassopoulou 2003, p. 42-66).Fig. 2: Fragmentary black-figure painted plaque ca. 550 BCE.After Foley 2003, p. 118-119, fig. 7.Even though there is no concrete proof (e.g., an inscription) that a plaque was offered by a mother, there is one pinax that could be conceived as a maternal dedication: the fragmentary black-figure plaque from ca. 550 BCE, preserving a rare snapshot of the women’s quarters (Fig. 2) (Athens, National Archaeological Museum, Acr. 2525; Graef and Langlotz 1909, no. 2525, pl. 104; Beaumont 2003, p. 63; Foley 2003, p. 118-119, fig. 7; Schulze 2004, p. 38, no. 22, pl. 12.46). Seated on a stool and dressed in a peplos, a woman is depicted working with a flat white object on the table in front of her. Colorful sashes, piles of clothes and textiles are shown in the background. Behind her a young girl, probably her daughter, is sitting on the floor. Her young age, indicated by her nudity (white overpaint) and the fact that she is playing with balls of wool instead of helping with the work, supports her identification as a daughter rather than an assistant.11Depending on the interpretation of the white object as wool or textile, the seated woman has been recognized as a washer, a weaver, and a sash-seller (Foley 2003, p. 119, fig. 7; Schulze 2004, p. 38-40, no. 122, pl. 12.46; cf., the Early Classical terracotta group from Tanagra with a woman teaching a girl to cook, Neils and Oakley 2003, p. 257, no. 61). Consequently, the black-figure plaque is taken to be a craftsman’s offering, albeit a modest one compared to the expensive dedications of other professionals. Indeed, the scene illustrated on the plaque would be appropriate for a dedication made by a mother running a business: not only does she offer her gratitude to Athena (Ergane?) for helping her sustain a living but at the same time she publicizes her skillful work.There are, however, two more alternatives: first, the plaque could have been offered by an Athenian citizen who thanks the goddess for the gift of her craft, a skill she will then pass on to her daughter and thus prepare her for her future role as a responsible housewife. After all, weaving was an essential factor in oikos-management and a much-desired quality for a bride-to-be, as Xenophon’s Oeconomicus (7.6) informs us. Undoubtedly, the sanctuary of Athena on the Acropolis was the best place to advertize such a promising bride.12Alternatively, the scene may be related to the imagery of a group of relief pinakes showing a girl weaving, often recognized as a young Athena Ergane (Pausanias 1.24.3; Brouskari 1974, p. 41, pls. 65, 66, 67; Vlassopoulou 2003, p. 51-52, 72-74, pls. 5, 34-36, nos. 106-109; Schulze 2004, p. 39). The joint depiction of a pre-adolescent girl and an older woman, possibly her mother, brings to mind Pierre Brulé’s hypothesis (1987, p. 99-105) that the mothers of the ergastinai, the young girls responsible for weaving Athena’s peplos, were somehow involved in the ritual process, as well.13 However, according to Jan Müller’s work on the inscribed dedications of Athena Ergane from Athens, the goddess is first mentioned in the literary sources only in the fifth century BCE, while epigraphically her cult is not attested until the fourth century (Müller 2010, p. 163-167, 171). After the fourth century, it seems that the epithet of Ergane is absorbed within the larger aspect of Athena Polias. Even though an association of the plaque with Athena Ergane remains problematic, its imagery still allows the assumption that the pinax was offered by a mother, based on the iconographic analysis pursued above.PotteryLet us now turn to the pottery deposited on the Acropolis from ca. 550 to 475 BCE. As expected, a survey of the publication of Botho Graef and Ernst Langlotz (1925-1933) and the Beazley Archive Pottery Database in Oxford turned hundreds of vases (BAPD http://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/index.htm, last visit 18/5/2013, date range 550-500 and 525-475 BCE, provenance key “Athens, Acropolis”; total number of vases ca. 700 including plaques and a few overlaps between the two periods; number reflects only the figural pottery, not the plain styles). For this reason, the results were refined by two criteria ; a) the number of vases carrying dedicatory inscriptions, and b) the potential contribution of a study of shapes and iconography to our quest for maternal dedications (Tables 2 and 3).Table 2: Black- and Red-Figure Attic Pottery from the Acropolis between 550-475 BCETable 3: Correlation of Black- and Red-Figure Shapes from the Acropolis between 550-475 BCEStarting from the last question, the results are disappointing: neither the study of shapes,14 nor of iconography alone15 offers any substantial evidence to pursue this research path. Equally challenging is the study of inscribed vases: the percentage of Late Archaic-Early Classical pots with dedicatory inscriptions is quite low.16 The phrase hiera tes Athenas and the single word hiera occur often, but their meaning can be confusing, as they may characterize both votive objects and property items of the sanctuary.17We are on safer ground with vases that carry a dedication with the word anetheken, dekate, or aparche, but, lamentably, there is only a handful of them preserved. One such example is the black-figure hydria that depicts the myth of Icaros and the birth of Athena attended by deities, most of them named (Athens, National Archaeological Museum, Acr. 601; ABV 80.1, 682; Para 30; Graef and Langlotz 1925-1933, vol. 1, pl. 28). Unfortunately, the name of the dedicator is missing, preventing us from making any further suggestions.18 In other cases, the name of the devotee is preserved but we have no indication of her family status, as for example the fragmentary vase naming Timostrata (Graef and Langlotz 1925-1933, vol. 2, no. 1349, pl. 92).Fig. 3: Fragmentary black-figure skyphos, ca. 530-500 BCE.After Graef and Langlotz 1925-1933, vol. 2, no. 1349, pl. 92.Despite this conservative approach, there are still a couple of vases that can be interpreted as maternal dedications based on a joint examination of inscriptions and iconography. Our best example involves a black-figure skyphos with the dedicatory inscription ἱερά [τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς ---] ---]κλεια ἀνέθ[ηκεν] dated to the last third of the sixth century BCE (BAPD 32105; Graef and Langlotz 1925-1933, vol. 1, no. 1295A-K, pl. 72.1295; Acropolis Museum 1.1295) (Fig. 3). It depicts a sacrificial procession of draped men and women towards two altars, carrying an oinochoe, a kanoun, and a piglet, while a swan or heron is found in front of one of the altars.19 The recipients of the sacrifice appear to be two goddesses seated on diphroi inside buildings decorated with branches. Based on the inscription, one may assume that the scene commemorates a sacrificial procession in honor of Athena and possibly a second female deity. Athena can be identified as the goddess in the elaborate dress, carrying a large bird (perhaps an owl).20 The presence of a swan or a heron near the second deity hints towards Aphrodite, while the sacrificial victim of choice, a piglet, suggests a fertility deity, such as Demeter or Kourotrophos (ThesCRA I 79-82, no. 286 [A. Hermary et al.]). Let us keep in mind though that pigs can also be sacrificed in honor of Athena on private ceremonies and public festivals, such as the Panathenaia or the Apatouria.21In her study, Ingebor Scheibler (2000) associated certain types of large Attic skyphoi from around 500 BCE (including the one dedicated by ]kleia) with wine drinking festivals, such as the Anthesteria or more plausibly, the Apatouria. Drawing from Athenaeus and Hesychius, she proposed that we identify these large skyphoi  with the oinisteria cups that each father offered upon the introduction of his son to his phratry during the Apatouria. This practice is similar to the communal drinking of the ephebes from a mega poterion (a large cup), following the offering of wine to Herakles at the same festival (Athenaeus 11.494-496 [Pamphilos]; Hesychius s.v. oinisteria; RE XVII2 [1937] 2229 [L. Ziehen]; von Straten 1990, p. 277-278; Scheibler 2000, esp. p. 37-39; Mikalson 2010, p. 142-143).Fig. 4: Red-figure loutrophoros, ca. 520-510 BCE.After Kaltsas and Shapiro 2008, p. 256-257, no. 116.Our study so far indicates that both the shape and the decoration of the skyphos offered by the woman named […]kleia and described above are somehow related to a public, family ceremony in which Athena, and possibly Aphrodite or Kourotrophos, are invoked. Our analysis can be further enhanced by the examination of a similar sacrificial procession decorating the neck of a large red-figure loutrophoros by Phintias dated ca. 520-510 BCE (National Museun of Athens, Acr. 636; ABV 673; ARV2 25.1, 237, 1604; Graef and Langlotz 1933, vol. 2, no. 636, pl. 50-51; ThesCRA I, 114, no. 457 and II, 371-374 [A. Hermary et al.]; Kaltsas and Shapiro 2008, p. 256-257, no. 116 [G. Kavvadias]) (Fig. 4). The vase has no dedicatory inscription but several figures in the procession are named. Two youths carrying thalloi (branches) and an oinochoe lead a pregnant sow to sacrifice, followed by two adult men: Mitron carries branches and Lykos plays the auloi. Next come two women, possibly members of Mitron’s family, also carrying branches; they are elegantly dressed and involved in vivid conversation, judging from their gestures. There are three more inscriptions on the vase, one naming a certain Proxenides, and two kalos inscriptions, praising the beauty of the pais and of Olympiodoros. Praising the beautiful youths and specifying by name the male participants of the procession indicates a deliberate attempt to highlight the qualities of the family and its male members. At the same time, the women of the oikos play an important role in this event, as they reinforce the family’s public image through their expensive clothes and graceful gestures.This scene is extraordinary because it is the only one of its kind found on a loutrophoros, a shape usually associated with nuptial baths or funeral rites. The animal brought for sacrifice, a pregnant pig, is traditionally offered to fertility deities and not to Athena, and perhaps fecundity was the donor’s request. Giorgos Kavvadias (in Kaltsas and Shapiro 2008, p. 256-257, no. 116) disassociates the sacrificial procession from the Panathenaia and suggests a sacrifice not to Athena as Polias, but either to a different aspect of the goddess or to another deity or hero altogether.A joint examination of the scenes depicted on the black-figure skyphos and the red-figure loutrophoros brings forth the following common elements: a family (?) sacrificial procession takes place on the Acropolis, with both male and female members participating. The sacrificial animal in both cases is a pig and/or a sow, suggesting a preoccupation with fertility. If we accept Athena as the (co-)recipient of both sacrifices, then we need to look for an occasion where the patron deity of Athens oversees a family-oriented, fertility rite. In this light, one may suggest the sacrifice of gamelia during the third day of the Apatouria, known as Koureotis, which linked the bride-to-be with the phratry of her future husband, even though a woman’s presence during the sacrifice is not clearly stated in the sources (Isaios 3.76, 79; 6.64; 8.18; Pollux 8.107; Demosthenes 57.43, 69; Hesychius s.v. gamelia; Schmitt Pantel 1977, p. 1059-1060; Cole 1984, p. 233-238; Golden 1985; ThesCRA II, 233, 235, nos. 112, 113 [P. Schmitt Pantel-Fr. Lissarrague]).Such a hypothesis explains the joint representation of Athena with a fertility deity (Aphrodite or Kourotrophos), and the pig as a sacrificial animal of choice: the sacrifice takes place at Athena’s precinct as it introduces the bride to her husband’s tribe, but at the same time the devotees seek the favor of deities associated with marriage and procreation. Also, the shapes of the two vases in question and the inscription on the skyphos concur with this interpretation: the loutrophoros is a vase commonly used for nuptial rituals, while, as we saw earlier, the large skyphos has been associated with the Apatouria festival.If our hypothesis stands, one may read the scene illustrated on the black-figure skyphos as a family procession to the Acropolis and interpret the vase as a rare oikos-dedication undertaken not by the father but perhaps by the acting-family-representative, the mother named […]kleia. This fragmentary scene is reminiscent of the well-known votive relief from the Acropolis that has been tentatively recognized as a family visit at Apatouria (see below). The iconographic similarities between the two vases and the relief, along with their contemporaneity, encourage such an approach and invite a reevaluation of the role of women – and mothers in particularly – in family festivals.ReliefsFig. 5: Marble votive relief. Acropolis, ca. 490-480 BCE.After Palagia 1995, pl. 114a.Let us now turn to the marble votive relief from the Acropolis dated ca. 490-480 BCE (Acropolis Museum 581; Brouskari 1974, p. 52-53, pl. 94; Palagia 1995; Dillon 2002, p. 31-32, fig. 1.4; Neils 2003, p. 144-145; Vikela 2005, esp. p. 93-95, n. 24, pl. 12.2.) (Fig. 5). It depicts a family approaching a standing, kore-like Athena in a solemn procession: two twin (?) boys, one carrying a phiale and the other making a gesture of adoration, lead the group, while the father brings in a sow for sacrifice (cf. also Lawton 2007 for the Classical period). Behind them follow an older sister and the mother, who is sometimes, mistakenly, described as pregnant because of the large overfold of her peplos. This is indeed a unique piece, because, even though it represents a private, family sacrifice, it was displayed in a public setting.In her interpretation of the relief, Eugenia Vikela (2005, p. 93-95, 156-159) argues against its association with the Apatouria, mainly because it represents the whole family and not a father with his son alone. Instead, she pursues a reading with political connotations: the minimal distance between the goddess and the worshippers, the only somewhat smaller size of the couple vis-à-vis the deity, and Athena’s forward tilting of the head giving the impression that she leans over to hear their prayers, are, according to Vikela, components of a developing iconography that reflects a newly obtained self-assertion of the citizen towards the city-deity. This new attitude can only be explained as the result of new political and social norms (Kleisthenes’ reforms) and the rise of the middle class with their renewed self-esteem.On the other hand, Palagia (1995) offers a different approach: the fact that the boys are so prominently leading the procession led her to the conclusion that the scene relates to the festival of Apatouria. The sow that is brought to sacrifice strengthens this argument, as epigraphic evidence attests to pig sacrifices to Athena.22 In this light, the goddess does not need to be associated with Kourotrophos, who is after all a deity on her own right on the Acropolis (Pausanias 2.33.1), but can be recognized as Athena Phratria. If this suggestion is correct, then we gain a rare representation of the Apatouria festival and visual evidence of the participation of female family members, mother and daughter, to the ceremony.The patron deities of Athenian phratries, Athena Phratria and Zeus Phratrios, were worshipped in the Agora, while the possibility of a phratry shrine or a state cult of Athena Phratria on the Acropolis is still disputed. Palagia (1995, p. 498-499) has argued for the existence of a phratry shrine by the Medontidai on account of a horos stone that was found outside the Beulé gate on the Acropolis, but there is no firm evidence to support her hypothesis. In her case’s defense, I wonder if the so-called Mourning Athena relief, dated around 470-460 BCE, may also be associated with Athena Phratria: the goddess could be reading the new phratry registrations carved on the pillar rather than contemplating in front of a funerary monument or a running post, as suggested in the past (Acropolis Museum 695; Brouskari 1974, p. 123-124, 129, pl. 237; Schäfer 1996, p. 120, n. 43; Vikela 2005, p. 101-103; Palagia 2006, p. 121; Thomsen 2011, p. 205; Valavanis 2013, p. 60).Fig. 6: Marble votive relief. Acropolis, mid-fourth century BCE.After Shapiro 2003, p. 97-98, fig. 14.It is interesting to contrast this family portrait of the Archaic period to a mid-fourth century relief from the Acropolis, thought to represent the introduction of a young boy to his father’s phratry (Acropolis Museum 3030; Shapiro 2003, p. 97-98, fig. 14, esp. n. 69; Neils 2003, p. 145, n. 19) (Fig. 6). It depicts a man wrapped in his mantle slowly pacing towards Athena. Even though most of the goddess’ figure is missing, she is still identifiable by the owl perched on her right hand and by the partially preserved crested helmet. The boy paces in front of his father and holds his hands out in awe. All three figures stand on an elevated platform, which may demarcate a shrine on the Acropolis, possibly a phratry shrine (?), while the relief itself is crowned by a pediment – a feature uncharacteristic of votive reliefs, and thus perhaps another indication of the sacred space where the scene develops (cf. Vikela 2005, p. 132-133).If we accept that both the Archaic and the Late Classical reliefs represent a scene from the Apatouria, then we notice a striking change with regard to the ritual: a festival that in its initial stage linked the oikos with the city and had a celebratory character that probably included female family members, overtime it transformed into a state registration ceremony that excluded women, and stressed the role of Athena as the protector of male citizens.23ConclusionBeing a mother in ancient Athens was the peak in a woman’s life and proof that she had successfully transgressed all previous stages from childhood to puberty to womanhood. As the wife of an Athenian citizen, her main role was to provide him with healthy heirs – preferably males – and efficiently manage the oikos (for a study on Athenian women and their visibility in vase paintings: Lewis 2002). Since the mortality rate during childbirth of both mothers and children in antiquity was quite high, seeking the protection of the gods was a common practice. Pregnant women were considered as a source of pollution (miasma) and important religious functions were undertaken to purge mother and child, as well as the whole oikos after birth. This is why it was very important that mother and infant were bathed, and thus purified, in water from a sacred spring, washing away the pollution (Parker 1983, p. 48-66; Dillon 2002, p. 178, 250-254; Foley 2003, p. 130-137; Neils 2003, p. 143; Oakley 2003, p. 163-194. Cf. the imagery on two fourth-century Attic gravestones: Neils and Oakley 2003, p. 143, 222-224, nos. 19, 20).Based on this information, one wonders if the fragments of large ritual basins, along with the bronze lekanes, chernibeia, hydriai and other water containers from the Acropolis could be associated with such purification rites. Granted, such vessels are multivalent and can perform many functions, but it is striking that a) at least four marble basins were dedicated by women (e.g., IG I3 794, 888, 921, 934; on louteria and perirrhanteria as cultic implements, see Kron 1996, p. 163; Pimpl 1997), b) the bronze hydria dedicated to Zeus Herkeios was also a mother’s votive, and c) at least three more bronze vessels (two chernibeia and an oinochoe) carry an inscription naming a woman dedicator (IG I3 555, 560, 565, 567, 572, 574: Kaltsas and Shapiro 2008, p. 54, no. 13 [unpublished; Athens, National Archaeological Museum X 18497 and X 7109]; 55, 14; 59, no. 18; 64, no. 22. Also, cf. Kaltsas and Shapiro 2008, p. 57, no. 16 [Athens, National Archaeological Museum X 7341]; 58, no. 17 [Athens, National Archaeological Museum 7032]; 60, no. 19 [Athens, National Archaeological Museum X 7336]; 62, no. 20 [IG I3 579; Athens, National Archaeological Museum X 17520]; 63, no. 21 [IG I3 580; Athens, National Archaeological Museum X 17517]. For a discussion on the sacrificial, agonistic or other function of bronze vessels, see Keesling 2005, p. 418). An expensive marble or bronze vessel would make an appropriate gift to Athena and other family gods for granting a safe delivery of a future citizen, and at the same time, it could signal the end of pollution after birth.Mothers had no control over the fate of their baby, as it was the father who could decide whether it would be reared or exposed. Once the newborn was accepted by the father as a legitimate child, it was welcomed in the family during the Amphidromia, a celebration that took place around the fifth day after birth. It consisted of carrying the baby in a ritual run around the hearth, the most sacred place in a Greek home and the spot where all newcomers were introduced to the household. This was followed by sacrificies to the gods, the supply of basic nurture for the baby and a meal amongst the immediate family members, which signaled the introduction of the newbron in the oikos. Women were also present during this family ritual, and based on a thourough study of literary sources, Florence Gherchanoc recenlty suggested that they were actually more involved in testing whether a newborn was worthy of and fit for survival during the Amphdromia than we originally thought (Ephippos PCG vol. 5 F3 = Atheneus 370c-d; Hesychius s.v. dromiamphion hemar; Schol. Plato Theaetetus 160e; Schol. Aristophanes Lysistrata 757; Sudas.v.amphidromia; Hamilton 1984; Garland 1990, p. 93-96; Dillon 2002, p. 253-254; Bonnard 2003; Neils 2003, p. 144; Boedeker 2008, p. 241; Gherchanoc 2012, p. 36-44).To my knowledge, there is no representation of this family event in the visual arts and the closest parallel that I could find involves a divine protagonist. The scene in question decorates the elaborate red-figure kylix potted by Hieron and attributed to Makron from the Acropolis, dated to ca. 490 BCE (Athens, National Archaeological Museum, Acr. 325; BAPD 204701; ARV2 460.20; Shapiro 2003, p. 86-87). It depicts the introduction of the infant Dionysos to Olympos, held by his father, Zeus. Athena, Poseidon and Hermes participate in the divine procession towards an altar, while two women, perhaps the Nymphs, carry a kanoun and a hydria. Even though Dionysos and Zeus have a rather unorthodox father-and-son-relation (LIMC III, 414, 478-479, nos. 664-668, s.v. Dionysos [A. Veneri-C. Gaspari]), the scene is indeed reminiscent of the Amphidromia celebration, described in the ancient sources.Provided that the baby survived the challenges of his first week in the world, he received his name by his father on the tenth day after birth, during another ceremony, this time attended by a larger circle of friends and relatives, and appropriately called Dekatê. Euboulos, a fourth-century playwright, describes in one of his comedies the oppulent feast organized by the family and narrates how women danced all night (pannuchis) in thanksgiving for the life of the child. (Aristophanes, Birds 494; Euboulos PCG vol. 5 F2-3 = Athenaeus 65c-d; Suda s.v. dekaten hestiasai; Hamilton 1984. Cf. also Garland 1990, p. 94-95; Dillon 2002, p. 254; Neils 2003, p. 144; Gherchanoc 2012, p. 44-48).Both ceremonies, Amphidromia and Dekate, were conducted in the close quarters of an oikos still polluted by childbirth. In contrast, the festival of Apatouria was very much an official, public affair (Parke 1977, p. 88-92; Schmitt Pantel 1977, p. 1059-1073; Lambert 1998, p. 143-189; Palagia 1995, esp. p. 496-498; Neils 2003, p. 144-145). During this festival, the father presented his son to his phratry, and possibly his daughter as well (Gould 1980, p. 40-42; Golden 1985; Palagia 1995, p. 497. Pro girls’ introduction to their fathers’ phratries: Golden 1985, p. 9-13, Hendrick 1990, p. 28; Lambert 1998, p. 162-166; Gherchanoc 2012, p. 150. Contra Gould 1980, p. 40-43; Cole 1984, p. 236; Pomeroy 1997, p. 76-82). By doing so, he swore to the legitimacy of the child and prepared his proper registration at around age sixteen (cf. Knauer 1996, esp. p. 233-234). As suggested above, the so-called Apatouria relief may preserve a rare representation of female family members participating to the ceremony.Overall, this survey of female dedications on the Acropolis during the Late Archaic and Early Classical periods demonstrates that one can still detect offerings made by mothers, and through them attempt to shed new light on women’s role at family festivals and in oikos-dedications. Since Athena is primarily concerned with matters of the polis and not of fertility, birth or childhood, even the dedications she receives from women (including mothers) have a public character and relate to the oikos in its connection to the city rather than a typical female issue. Athenian women seem to have enjoyed relative freedom in terms of dedications and public religious expression before the establishment of the Classical polis system and the social changes that followed the road to democracy, while sporadic maternal offerings, such as the one by Mikythe, suggest that this practice continued through the middle of the fifth century. Like other elite women of the same period, the Athenians set up votive offerings that were not solely of personal nature but aimed to the family’s praise and the devotee’s public esteem (cf. Lazzarini 1976, nos. 150-154 [Delos, unnamed], 157 [Delos/Naxos, Nikandre], 317 [Delos, Proxene], 726 [Paros, Telestodike]; Ridgway 1987; Kron 1996, p. 155, 157, 160, 166, 168, 181). The preserved maternal dedications examined here indicate that mothers occasionally acted as representatives of the oikos. This observation strengthens their role within the Athenian family and provides additional support in favor of female participation in both private and public family festivals during the Archaic and Early Classical eras.