Ancient Greek women and their relationship to the visual arts are here discussed solely on the evidence of the extant monuments, rather than on the information of the literary sources. Although this review makes no attempt to be complete, several forms of the relationship are explored. The most important is that of women as sponsors of architectural projects; second is that of women as dedicators of statues and other offerings. Finally, the objects meant to be used by women, or those that represent them, are included, although the men of the family might have been responsible for the commission and the funding. The survey follows a chronological arrangement.IAn oral version of this study was delivered as part of a symposium on "Women in the Ancient World" held on 1 February 1986 at Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas. I am indebted to Prof. C. Valone for her invitation to participate in the symposium and for her suggestion that I address the issue of Greek women as patrons. In keeping with my archaeological training, I tried to approach the topic from the tangible evidence alone, using literary sources only as supporting information. Since delivering the paper, I have received several requests for my text, and I have therefore attempted to put it into article form, although without the help of the many illustrations which accompanied the original presentation; it must still be considered in the nature of comments rather than a thorough study, and primarily useful for pointing the way for potential future research.For a helpful collection of literary sources on women, see, for instance, M.R. Lefkowitz and M.B. Fant, Women's Life in Greece and Rome (rev. ed., Baltimore 1982). But tragedies, historical accounts, and legal records are likely to deal only with extreme cases, and not with common, everyday life. For interpretation of scenes on vases see, e.g., E. Keuls, The Reign of the Phallus (New York 1985), but that different interpretations are also possible is shown, e.g., by G.F. Pinney, "Money-Bags?" AJA 90 (1986) 218. For a more moderate approach see also A. Cameron and A. Kuhrt eds., Images of Women in Antiquity (Detroit 1983); I owe this reference to R. Hamilton, to whom I am grateful also for many helpful comments. Other useful studies are M.R. Lefkowitz, Heroines and Hysterics (New York 1981) and S.B. Pomeroy, Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves (New York 1975); in the latter, however, the archaeological evidence, because of the compass of the study, has been condensed and simplified to the point of being occasionally misleading (e.g., p. 46, on Archaic Attic gravestones of women; not only is there some evidence that stelai just for women existed, but no grave relief, to my knowledge, shows a woman with a warrior).In my text, all dates should be taken as B.C., unless otherwise specified. Reference has been made to general handbooks or sources of illustrations, to facilitate consultation.

No abstract

Standard assumptions about the portrait of Anakreon known through works of the Roman period are here reviewed in light of all available evidence. Pausanias's mention of a statue of the Ionic poet on the Athenian Akropolis has led to extensive conjectures about Anakreon's relationship to Perikles' family and the message such a monument was meant to convey. The possibility is raised that the known portrait was created later than ca. 440, and, more specifically, that the full-body representation now in Copenhagen served the requirements of its Roman commissioner rather than reproducing a true fifth-century original.* A recent article by Emmanuel Voutiras' convincingly argues against one of the most generally accepted tenets of Greek portraiture: it reverses the traditional sequence of Sokrates' portraits, claiming the precedence of Type B over Type A and undermining both its chronology and its standard attribution to Lysippos.2 In so doing, the author also re-* I would like to thank Mette Moltesen of the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek and Despoina Tsiafakis of theJ. Paul Getty Museum for their courtesy in providing me with photo-

No abstract

Research on metal attachments in Archaic sculpture leads to the conclusion that the "meniskoi" mentioned by Aristophanes as protection against the birds may be a pun or allusion, the meaning of which escapes us today. Spikes and attachment holes on the heads of kouroi and korai should rather be seen in the light of some examples on marble sphinxes, where traces of paint and other devices indicate specific meanings for the metal bars. It is argued that what has usually been taken as simplification in the rendering of Archaic hair should often be read as a head cover; in particular, Antenor's Kore, Akr. 681, is considered an Athena wearing a helmet, in imitation of an earlier image. Elaborate Archaic headdresses may have their roots in prehistoric or Eastern practices, and in turn lead to the complicated fashions of fifth-century temple statues, like the Athena Parthenos and the Rhamnousian Nemesis. Identification must be made on a case-by-case basis, but it seems plausible to suggest that most kouroi and korai represented divine beings, whose distinctive headdresses served as identifiers for the ancient viewers.* AMA Die archaische Marmorbildwerke der Akropolis (Frankfurt 1939). Korai published by E. Langlotz, other sculptures in the round and reliefs by W.-H. Schuchhardt, architectural sculpture by H. Schrader. Boardman, J. Boardman, Greek Sculpture: The Ar-Archaic Period chaic Period (London 1978). Richter, G.M.A Richter, The Archaic Gravestones AGA of Attica (London 1961).