LAUSR

The demosion sema in Athens has received a great deal of attention in recent years although a comprehensive study has been lacking. Arrington’s self-assured study of the demosion sema, which originated as the author’s doctoral dissertation, is intended to fill this lacuna. Seven chapters, framed by an Introduction and Conclusion, consider commemoration, memory, perceptions and ‘uses’ of the war dead in fifth-century bc Athens in the public sphere (Chapters 1–4) and the private realm (Chapters 5–7). Weaving together literature, epitaphs and especially visual imagery, Arrington argues that the patrios nomos of the demosion sema aimed to usurp tasks—both manual and psychological—usually performed by families for their kin in order to create a sense of community and to inspire both present and future warriors. As a result, families devised new means to preserve the memory of individuals. A relationship exists between the imagery on public monuments (as they are known to us) and that on private ones, but this influence is not manifested in imitation, as others have claimed, and instead resorts to subversion to reclaim private memory, which was otherwise eclipsed by the public monuments and the rituals surrounding them. The Introduction sets forth the study’s questions and evidence, and includes an essential discussion of the author’s use of the terms ‘public’ and ‘private’ in fifth-century Athens. Chapter 1 addresses the dates of the inception of Athenian public burial of the war dead (Arrington concludes c. 506/5–490/89 bc, perhaps as late as 480 bc: p. 48), the result of an archaic valorization of death on the battlefield, praise of its beauty in poetry, and changes in the actual Athenian experience of the same in the fifth century bc. Arrington considers the ‘spectacle of the body’ as known from ancient written descriptions of the battlefield and poetic imaginings. Using modern reconstructions of hoplite battlefield action and extrapolated statistics, the author arrives at these chilling results: of a population of 40,000–60,000 Athenian adult males (the population estimate as assessed in 431 bc), 26,000 died during the Peloponnesian War and its immediate aftermath (431–403) (p. 22). Private burial of the war dead in the sixth century bc is described as background to the changes instigated by the introduction of the public funeral. The author concludes with a discussion of what prompted the inception of this new practice. Arrington is right that we know little about Athenian warfare in the sixth century, which is precisely why his claim that ‘there were no mass mobilizations or campaigns ... conflicts were small in scale and number’ (p. 30) should be taken with a grain of salt. Much of the argument for the chronology and the reason for the institution of the public burial rests on a hypothetical sequence of events, including some resistance to the institution of the public burial, for which there is no direct evidence. Chapter 2 examines the location, chronology and development of the public cemetery. Using written sources and archaeological finds, the author maps out the broad parameters of the public burial area, which results in two clusters along the street to the Academy. According to Arrington, these were formed by aggregation around the posited locations of two important monuments, the Marathon monument and the tomb of the Tyrannicides, whose deeds served as a measure of Athenian valour and self-sacrifice. To determine the appearance of the graves, Arrington relies on vase paintings, which he nominates as (possibly) depicting public graves and actual burial sites, including a polyandrion containing cremated ashes. He also gives some attention to other features (e.g. waterways, workshops and private tombs) located in this area and to activities that occurred here. Chapter 3, some of which was published already in a 2011 article, is devoted to casualty lists, including their format and monuments, as well as to images in the public cemetery. The introduction, which deals with the limitations and requirements of public epitaphs, including modern monuments, belabours the point. However, Arrington is right to consider how the casualty lists would have been perceived in the context of funeral orations and employs an apt analogy in likening the casualty lists to tribute lists (p. 113). One wonders—although Arrington does not discuss this—whether orators would have gestured toward the monuments, both past and present, as they spoke. Chapter 4 compares ‘war dead’ depictions in architectural sculpture, specifically on temples, to sculptural depictions designed for (and of) the actual war dead. This is the least satisfying chapter in the book, not only because of methodological problems (see below), but also because it offers the least originality and often repeats tropes, such as the oft-heard claim that the Amazons signify Persians in fifthcentury bc imagery when, in fact, there is no evidence for this until the fourth century bc. CAJ 27:1, 195–197 C © 2017 McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research