AMERICAN JOURNAL

OF ARCHAEOLOGY
THE JOURNAL OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA

Volume 109 • No. 3 July 2005

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY, the journal of the Archaeological Institute of
America, was founded in 1885; the second series was begun in 1897. Indices have been published
for volumes 1–11 (1885–1896), for the second series, volumes 1–10 (1897–1906) and volumes 11–
70 (1907–1966). The Journal is indexed in the Humanities Index, the ABS International Guide to Classical
Studies, Current Contents, the Book Review Index, the Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, Anthropological
Literature: An Index to Periodical Articles and Essays, and the Art Index.

MANUSCRIPTS and all communications for the editors should be addressed to Professor Naomi J.
Norman, Editor-in-Chief, AJA, Department of Classics, Park Hall, University of Georgia, Athens,
Georgia 30602-6203, fax 706-542-8503, email nnorman@aia.bu.edu. The American Journal of
Archaeology is devoted to the art and archaeology of ancient Europe and the Mediterranean world,
including the Near East and Egypt, from prehistoric to late antique times. The attention of
contributors is directed to “Editorial Policy, Instructions for Contributors, and Abbreviations,” AJA 104
(2000) 3–24. Guidelines for AJA authors can also be found on the World Wide Web at
www.ajaonline.org. Contributors are requested to include abstracts summarizing the main points
and principal conclusions of their articles. Manuscripts, including photocopies of illustrations,
should be submitted in triplicate; original photographs, drawings, and plans should not be sent
unless requested by the editors. In order to facilitate the peer-review process, all submissions should
be prepared in such a way as to maintain anonymity of the author. As the official journal of the
Archaeological Institute of America, AJA will not serve for the announcement or initial scholarly
presentation of any object in a private or public collection acquired after 30 December 1973,
unless its existence was documented before that date or it was legally exported from the country of
origin. An exception may be made if, in the view of the Editor-in-Chief, the aim of the publication is
to emphasize the loss of archaeological context. Reviews of exhibitions, catalogues, or publications
that do not follow these guidelines should state that the exhibition or publication in question includes
material without known archaeological findspot.

BOOKS FOR REVIEW should be sent to Professor John G. Younger, Editor, AJA Book Reviews, Classics
Department, Wescoe Hall, 1445 Jayhawk Boulevard, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045-
2139, tel. 785-864-3153, fax 785-864-5566, email jyounger@ukans.edu. The following are excluded
from review and should not be sent: offprints; reeditions, except those with great and significant
changes; journal volumes, except the first in a new series; monographs of very small size and scope;
and books dealing with the archaeology of the New World.

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY (ISSN 0002-9114) is published four times a year in
January, April, July, and October by the Archaeological Institute of America, located at Boston Uni-
versity, 656 Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02215-2006, tel. 617-353-9361, fax 617-353-6550,
email aia@aia.bu.edu. Subscriptions to the American Journal of Archaeology may be addressed to the
Institute headquarters in Boston. An annual subscription is $75 (international, $95); the institutional
rate is $250 (international, $290). Membership in the AIA, including a subscription to AJA, is $125
per year (C$192). Student membership is $73 (C$118.50); proof of full-time status required.
International subscriptions and memberships must be paid in U.S. dollars, by a check drawn on a
bank in the U.S., by money order, or by credit card. Subscriptions due 30 days prior to issue date. No
replacement for nonreceipt of any issue of AJA will be honored after 90 days (180 days for international
subscriptions) from the date of issuance of the fascicle in question. When corresponding about
memberships or subscriptions, always give your account number, as shown on the mailing label or
invoice. A microfilm edition of the Journal, beginning with volume 53 (1949), is issued after the
completion of each volume of the printed edition. Subscriptions to the microfilm edition, which are
available only to subscribers to the printed edition of the Journal, should be sent to ProQuest
Information and Learning (formerly Bell & Howell Information and Learning), 300 North Zeeb
Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106. Back numbers of AJA and the Index 1907–2004 may be ordered
from the Archaeological Institute of America in Boston. Exchanged periodicals and correspondence
relating to exchanges should be directed to the Archaeological Institute of America in Boston.
Periodicals postage paid at Boston, Massachusetts, and additional mailing offices. Postmaster: send
address changes to the American Journal of Archaeology, Archaeological Institute of America, located at
Boston University, 656 Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02215-2006.

The opinions expressed in the articles and book reviews published in the American Journal of Archaeology
are those of the authors and not of the editors or of the Archaeological Institute of America.

Copyright © 2005 by the Archaeological Institute of America

The American Journal of Archaeology is composed in ITC New Baskerville

at the offices of the Archaeological Institute of America, located at Boston University.

The paper in this journal is acid-free and meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the
Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources.
 The Greek Temple as Museum: The Case of the
Legendary Treasure of Athena from Lindos
JOSEPHINE SHAYA
Abstract
While many scholars have compared the Greek temple
to a museum, no one has explored this metaphor system-
atically. In this article, I bring the insights of recent work
in museum studies to bear upon an analysis of the Greek
temple. I center upon the Lindian Temple Chronicle, a
monumental inscription erected in 99 B.C.E. that com-
memorated the legendary treasures and miracles of Ath-
ena Lindia from Rhodes. Carolyn Higbie has recently
published a new edition and translation of this inscrip-
tion, with an extensive commentary and three interpre-
tive essays, yet attention has not been paid to what the
stele reveals about the cultural functions of Hellenistic
temple treasures. What we see when we examine the logic
of the Lindian Temple Chronicle is not the temple as the
god’s treasure house but rather the temple as the
community’s “museum,” a sacred-historical space that both
legitimated and interpreted material traces of the past.
This article will be of interest to those who study the
history of collecting and museums, for it offers an early
example of the way in which a collection of objects was
imagined, organized, described, documented, and used. It
will also appeal to classicists, ancient art historians, and
archaeologists interested in the cultural work performed
by Late Hellenistic temples and votive offerings.*
museums, temples, and cultural politics
It is commonplace among ancient art historians,
archaeologists, and historians to describe the Greek
* I would like to thank Thelma Thomas, Sally Humphreys,
Susan Alcock, Elizabeth Sears, John Cherry, Beate Dignas, and
Jav Elsner for their help with an earlier version of this project.
Thanks also to John Lund, Bodil Bundgaard Rasmussen, and
Charlotte Andersen at the National Museum of Denmark for
their kind assistance with my research and for providing the
photograph of the stele. The Junior Faculty Reading Group at
the College of Wooster read an early draft of the paper and
offered many useful comments; I would particularly like to thank
Terry Prendergast and Neil Bernstein for their suggestions.
Thanks also to Naomi Norman and the AJA’s two anonymous
readers for their insightful comments and queries. Finally, I
offer a special thanks to Greg Shaya for his help in clarifying
the paper’s argument and for his continual encouragement.
1
See, e.g., Hill 1944, 355;Wace 1949, 22; Thompson 1956,
291; Jacob 1980, 81; Snodgrass 1980, 63; Roux 1984, 159–62;
Howard 1990, 29; Aleshire 1991, 46; Kyrieleis 1993, 148; Brem-
mer 1994, 33; Scheer 1996; Mayor 2000, 172–5; Boardman
2003, 8. For Roman temples as museums: Lehmann 1945;
Strong 1973; Stambaugh 1978, 586; Beaujeu 1982; Isager 1991,
158. For the museum as a temple: von Holst 1967, 215–6;
Duncan and Wallach 1980, 449–52; Findlen 1989; Lee 1997.
See also Bounia 2004, 68–9.
423
American Journal of Archaeology 109 (2005) 423–42
temple as a “museum.”1 This characterization typi-
cally refers to the role that temples played as re-
positories of wealth, art, and historical memorabilia.2
However, the museum is a much more potent and
compelling metaphor than this characterization
suggests. If we take it seriously—if we view the
Greek temple as a museum—we can understand it
not as a storehouse but as a powerful cultural in-
strument that used collections of objects to substan-
tiate, reinforce, and broadcast a particular view of
the world.
Recent studies in the history and theory of muse-
ums show that these institutions express the ways
in which cultures organize and make sense of the
world.3 By analyzing how museums classify, describe,
and exhibit objects, these works illuminate the cul-
tural assumptions and political motivations of mu-
seums. 4 Often, the manner in which objects are
labeled and displayed in museums reveals more
about the creators of such displays than it does
about the people who made the objects.5
As works in this field demonstrate, museums are
much more than simply mirrors of society. Rather,
museums are both cultural products and cultural
producers; describing a view of history, aesthetics,
2
See also Pearce and Bounia 2000, 63; Bounia 2004, 68–9.
3
For three helpful reviews of this literature, see Jones 1993;
Elsner 1996; Starn 2005. Within this large body of work, a few
key items: Bourdieu 1984; Clifford 1988; Vergo 1989; Pomian
1990; Bourdieu et al. 1991; Karp and Lavine 1991; Ames 1992;
Hooper-Greenhill 1992; Karp et al. 1992; Stewart 1993; Elsner
and Cardinal 1994; Pearce 1994; Duncan 1995; Carbonell 2004.
4
Hooper-Greenhill 1992, 4–9.
5
Martin Ames (1992, 51) offers an example: in the latter
19th century, European and American anthropological muse-
ums displayed indigenous arts and crafts in typological sequenc-
es. Pot forms, like flora and fauna, were shown to vary with
geography and the stage of a culture’s evolutionary develop-
ment. This organization failed to illustrate the way indigenous
people thought about their pots and instead made the materi-
al correspond to patterns in 19th-century academic thought:
because academics regarded indigenous peoples as part of na-
ture, they represented them through the schemas employed
to represent the natural world. Of course, museums presented
almost everything, not just the artifacts of indigenous peoples,
through these schemas. This early anthropological perspective
can still be found in the Pitt Rivers Museum at the University
of Oxford. See Blackwood 1970.
424 JOSEPHINE SHAYA
nature, or science, their collections substantiate and
reinforce that view. Museum visitors often shift into
a heightened state of receptivity when viewing mu-
seum displays; they frequently follow a route through
a programmed selection and narrative of objects
that expresses and demonstrates the ideas and in-
terests of powerful groups within the community.6
By examining museums as historically and geo-
graphically specific cultural forms, recent studies
of museums reveal the large degree to which these
institutions have been entangled in colonialism,
the rise of nation states, capitalism, the definition
of national, regional, sexual, or racial identities, and
the creation of myths of origins and history.7 What
museums do and do not display and how they in-
terpret their objects bears on the larger questions
of what constitutes the past, the community, indeed,
the truth, and on who exercises the power to articu-
late and define this knowledge.8
Such fresh thinking about museums offers a new
angle from which to approach Greek temples. My
aim in this article is to bring together the insights
of this literature on museums with a close analysis
of a particularly compelling example of a temple
and its treasure: the temple of Lindos Athena on
Rhodes and the legendary treasure documented
in the Lindian Temple Chronicle, erected in 99
B.C.E. The dynamics that scholars see in the mu-
seum—connections among power, the organization
of knowledge, the representation and reception of
history and memory, and the construction of iden-
6
Duncan 1995, 8.
7
See, e.g., Clifford 1988, 189–251; Durrans 1988; Porter
1988; Ames 1992; Bal 1992; Jones 1993, 204–12; Bennett 1995.
8
Corrin 1994; Duncan 1995, 8–9.The well-known contro-
versy over the Smithsonian’s Enola Gay exhibit offers a case in
point. The original plan of the exhibit, due to open during
ceremonies commemorating the 50th anniversary of the end
of the war, explored questions about the necessity of the bomb-
ing of Hiroshima, its price in human suffering, and its postwar
legacy of the nuclear age. The Air Force Association and the
American Legion vigorously contested this plan as being un-
patriotic and insulting to World War II veterans. While makers
of the exhibit wanted to commemorate what the bomb did,
the veterans wanted the museum to commemorate their own
sacrifice. A vitriolic battle ensued, ending with certain mem-
bers of Congress threatening massive funding cuts to the
Smithsonian should the museum impugn “the memory of those
who gave their lives for freedom.” The original exhibit was
effectively censored and the one that opened on 28 June 1995
consisted of little more than the front half of the Enola Gay
fuselage and information about the B-52 bomber and mission’s
crew (Fenrich 1995; Linenthal 1995, 16–9).
9
The two share an etymological link. Briefly, in antiquity,
the word musaeum normally referred to a place connected to
the muses or their arts. The most famous of these was the
Musaeum at Alexandria, a royally funded cult center of learn-
[AJA 109
tity—governed the collection and display of objects
in Greek temples, though they were expressed in
very different ways.
Formal affinities do exist between the temple and
the museum. 9 Temples, like museums, not only
preserved objects but also were major forces in in-
terpreting them. As with museums, implicit rules
governed what sorts of objects were suitable for
temples to keep. The mere act of placing such ob-
jects in temples radically transformed their mean-
ing by setting them apart from the ordinary. Once
housed within a temple, objects were not likely to
leave. Like museum objects, temple treasures were
kept under special protection in a highly manipu-
lated domain, far from their utilitarian use.10 Within
this domain, objects were invested with meanings
that were very much dependent on their status as
gifts and divine possessions, on the very place in
which they were kept, on their relationship to other
treasures, and on the narratives to which they were
made to attest.
Temples and museums offer parallel (though far
from identical) contexts in which to explore ques-
tions about the cultural role played by collections
of objects. Museum studies not only pose pointed
questions but also offer methods of analysis that we
can bring to bear upon Greek temple treasures;
they teach us to examine the relationships between
objects, the principles used to organize them, and
the ways in which they are described.11 By consider-
ing the logic that underpins Greek temple trea-
ing founded by Ptolemy I Soter. This musaeum was well known
not because of any collections of objects but because of its schol-
ars and its connection to the famous Library of Alexandria.
During the Rennaisance, the word musaeum came to mean a
collector-scholar’s private study—a repository, filled with an
encyclopedic assortment of objects that served as the basis for
his exploration of the world. The name musaeum expressed
the collector-scholar’s desire and effort both to recreate a
shrine of the Muses and to recapture the learning of the an-
cient world as it was embodied in the Musaeum of Alexandria.
In the 18th century, the musaeum gradually emerged from the
domestic space of the study and became an academy or research
institute dedicated to the accumulation and advancement of
knowledge. Again, this government-supported community of
scholars was often conceived of as the descendent of the
Musaeum at Alexandria. Gradually, the purpose of this institu-
tion shifted more and more away from advanced research and
toward the collection, interpretation, and display of objects for
the public, becoming the modern museum. For the ancient
musaeum and the Musaeum at Alexandria, see Fraser 1972,
312–20; El-Abbadi 1992; Casson 2001, 31–4. For the Renais-
sance etymology of musaeum, see Findlen 1989; Fabianski
1990. For the word’s modern etymology, see Lee 1997.
10
Pomian 1990, 13.
11
See, e.g., Salomon 2003.
2005] THE GREEK TEMPLE AS MUSEUM
sures, we can approach the thoughts and assump-
tions of their makers and keepers.
Although Greek temple treasures are no longer
directly accessible to us , we do have much evidence
from which to reconstruct them. Inscribed temple
inventories suggest their possible extent, monetary
value, and arrangement.12 Literary sources provide
an overall picture of temple interiors often cluttered
with votive offerings, statues, and paintings, and of
cult statues covered with ornaments, fabrics, and jew-
els.13 Votive pits point to the jumble of modest offer-
ings that collected in sanctuaries. But perhaps the
most revealing source for the temple as a museum
is the Lindian Temple Chronicle—a monumental
inscription set up on the island of Rhodes that
included accounts of Athena’s ancient possessions
and of four epiphanies of the goddess (fig. 1).14
In 99 B.C.E., the citizens of Lindos erected this
stele to commemorate the legendary possessions
of their Temple of Athena, gifts of great antiquity
and illustrious provenance—an inscribed bronze
cauldron from Kadmos, a silver drinking cup from
Minos, bracelets from Helen of Troy, a great krater
from the people of Gela, weapons from Alexander
12
Linders 1972, 1975, 1992; Aleshire 1991; Harris 1995;
Dignas 1998; Hamilton 2000; Shaya 2002, 128–37, 202–7.
13
Pausanias provides countless examples. Describing the
Heraeum near Mycenae, he reported that on one side of the
pronaos he saw ancient statues of the Graces, while on the
other stood a couch of Hera and votive offerings, including
the shield that Menelaos took from Euphorbos at Troy. Within
the naos, a very large chryselephantine statue of Hera sat on
a throne next to a chryselephantine image of Hebe and an
ancient image of Hera on a pillar. Pausanias related that he
also saw the temple’s oldest image: a rather small, seated statue
made of wild pear-wood originally dedicated in Tiryns by
Peirasos, the son of Argos, and brought to the Heraeum when
the Argives destroyed Tiryns. Of the other offerings, he com-
mented that the most noteworthy were the silver altar cov-
ered in relief with the story of the marriage of Hebe and
Herakles, the gold peacock ornamented with gleaming stones
dedicated by the emperor Hadrian, and the gold crown and a
purple robe dedicated by Nero (Paus. 2.17.3–6).
14
The inscription has been well published. In detailed works,
Christian Blinkenberg (1912, 1915; 1941, 2:148–99) and, sub-
sequently, Felix Jacoby (FGrHist 532) examined it as a source
for the writings and personalities of vanished priests, local his-
torians, chronographers, and others. Blinkenberg also worked
to establish the stele’s value as a source for earlier Greek his-
tory by investigating the credibility of the Lindians’ claims about
the offerings, their dates, the chronological accuracy of their
listing, and the political circumstances that were said to have
led certain heroes, leaders, and cities to donate gifts to the
goddess. He furthermore collected epic and historical traditions
about the ex-votos—their donors, the donors’ travels, and pos-
sible links of the donors with Rhodes. More recently, Angelos
Chaniotis (188, T13), Laura Boffo (1988), and Hans-Ulrich
425
the Great, and many more. For the Lindians, the
meaning of these objects lay not in their material
value but in their origins, in the history that they
were believed to have witnessed, in their connec-
tions with famous persons who had worshipped
Athena, in their long renown as votive offerings, in
their relationship to one another, and in their links
to divine epiphanies.
Museum collections express culturally deter-
mined sets of beliefs; to know a collection—its
organization, description, and hierarchies—is to
know a way of thinking about the world. What we
see when we examine the logic of the Lindian
Temple Chronicle is not the temple as the god’s
treasure house but as the community’s museum—
a sacred-historical space that both legitimated and
interpreted material traces of the past. Within this
collection, the leather helmet of Paris was much
more than a detail from the story of the Trojan War.
In concert with some 44 other donations, it testi-
fied to beliefs about the past, worked to define the
present-day Lindian community, and attested to this
community’s cultural importance in the face of
encroaching Roman hegemony.
Wiemer (2001, 27–32) have examined the inscription as an
example of local history inscribed on stone by a Greek polis.
Carolyn Higbie (2003) has produced a new translation of the
stele, together with an extensive commentary and three
essays, which address its language and structure, narrative pat-
terns, and the ancient Greek use of documentary evidence in
the construction of the past. This paper comes out of my dis-
sertation, which explores the Lindian Temple Chronicle as a
source for the cultural functions of Greek temple treasures and
also includes a translation of the stele together with a com-
mentary (Shaya 2002). Because the inscription does not be-
long to a well-known genre of writing, it has had several
different names since its discovery. Blinkenberg (1912) and
many after him have called it “The Lindian Temple Chronicle.”
Jacoby (FGrHist 532; commentary, 445) objected that if it were
a chronicle, it would have included accounts of the founding
of the temple, its renewal, the temple fire, and its subsequent
restoration, in addition to a list of eponymous priests. Viewing
the inscription as a “hybrid text” composed of an inventory
and epiphany accounts, he preferred to call it the “Lindian
Anagraphe,” and many follow in his footsteps. Richards (1929,
76) proposed “A Historical Inventory of the Temple Treasures,”
but this name has not been used subsequently nor is the in-
scription a temple inventory (although it certainly mimics the
form of one), for most of the objects that it recorded, as far as
we can tell, did not physically exist. For the problem of the
genre of the text, see Shaya 2002, 128–37; Higbie 2003, 259–
62. I have used Blinkenberg’s (and subsequently Higbie’s)
system for numbering the inscription. The letters A, B, C, and
D indicate the columns of text. The Roman numerals mark
the donations, which run continuously from column B to col-
umn C. The Arabic numerals are the line numbers, which start
over in each column.
426 JOSEPHINE SHAYA
Fig. 1. Arrangement of text on the Lindian Temple
Chronicle: A=prescript, B and C=list of votive offerings,
D=epiphanies. (After Blinkenberg 1941, fig. 1) (Courtesy
The National Museum of Copenhagen inv. 7125)
15
A.1–8 (Higbie 2003): [
]π ερως Τεισ
λ[ου το α7ρεθντες κατασκευαξντων στλαν | [λ]θου Λαρτου καθ
Σωσικρτευς, Αρτα]µιτου δωδεκται δοξε µαστρος κα 8 κα 9 *ρχ[ιτκτων γρψηι κα *ναγραψντ]ω ες α3τ.ν τ+δε
Λινδο[ις!]|["Α]γηστιµος Τιµαχδα Λ[ινδοπολτας ε&πε!
πε τ' ψφισµα, *ναγραψντω δ1 κ τε τ(ν | [
π]ιστολ(ν κα
τ' ερ']ν τ(ς Αθνας τ(ς Λινδας *ρχαι+τατ+ν τε κα τ2ν χρηµατ[ισµ2ν κα
κ τ2ν 6λλων µαρτυρ]ων 8 κα :ι

ντιµ+[τα]| τον -πρχον πολλος κ[α καλος *ναθµασι
κ
παλαιοτ]των χρ+νων κεκ+σµηται δι. τ.ν τ(ς θεο

πιφνειαν, | συµβανει δ1 τ2ν *να[θεµτων τ. πλεστα µετ.
τ(ν α3τ2ν
]πιγραφ(ν δι. τ'ν χρ+νον
φθρθαι, τ
χαι 17
*γαθ(ι δεδ+χθαι || [µ]αστρος κα Λινδοις κυρ[ωθντος
τοδε το ψαφσµατος 5λ]σθαι 6νδρας δ
ο, το δ1 fish, fruit, and flowers as accessories to banquets in 11 or more
[AJA 109
a description of the stele
Now housed in the National Museum of Den-
mark, the Lindian Temple Chronicle is an inscribed
grayish marble slab, roughly 8 ft. high and 3 ft. wide.
The stone is broken in two, with a smaller portion
at the top and a larger one below. Its worn text,
which covers all but the very bottom of the front of
the stele, is divided into four sections. A decree
running along the top gives the official version of
why and how the inscription came to be created
(fig. 1, section A):
In the priesthood of Teisylos, the son of Sosikrates,
on the twelfth day of [the month of] Artamitios, it
was resolved by the Councilors [of the Lindians] and
the Lindians: Hagesitimos, son of Timakhos, a citizen
of Lindos, made the proposal: since the temple of
Athena Lindia is both most ancient and most hon-
ored, [and] has been adorned with many beautiful
offerings from the oldest times on account of the
epiphany of the goddess, and [since] it happens that
most of the offerings together with their inscriptions
have been destroyed by time, with good fortune be
it resolved by the Councilors and the Lindians, with
the ratification of this decree, to choose two men,
who, once chosen, are to prepare a stele of Lartian
stone according to the written instructions of the
architect, and they are to inscribe upon it this decree
[and] are to inscribe from the letters and public doc-
uments and from other testimonials whatever is suit-
able concerning the offerings and the epiphany of
the goddess.15
In other words, because time had destroyed many
of the ancient offerings that adorned the Temple of
Athena, a Lindian citizen named Hagesitimos
moved that two men be commissioned to draw up a
record of written testimonies to the objects and the
continual, manifest presence of the goddess. The
Lindian councilors and citizens approved of the
motion and appointed Tharsagoras, son of Stratos,
and Timakhidas, Hagesitimos’ own son, to create
the record.16 We do not know anything further about
Tharsagoras, but Timakhidas seems to have been
Timakhidas of Rhodes—a poet, philologist, literary
critic, and author of several lost books, including a
work on definitions called Rare Words, and commen-
taries on Euripides, Aristophanes, Menander, and
Eratosthenes.17 Although it seems quite possible that

;ρµ+ζοντα περ τ2ν *ναθεµτων κα τ(ς
πιφανεας | [τ](ς
θε<ο>. . . . (All translations, unless otherwise noted, are mine.)
16
A.12.
Blinkenberg 1915. This Timakhidas also wrote another
lost work called Suppers, which dealt with, among other things,
2005] THE GREEK TEMPLE AS MUSEUM
Hagesitimos had proposed the project to promote
his son’s chosen work, it is unlikely that the Lindians
approved all such suggestions; rather they probably
saw this one as fulfilling their own desires.
Three columns of text (B, C, D), separated by
narrow margins, follow the decree (fig. 1). Columns
B and C, which share the title “The following made
offerings to Athena Lindia,” contain a catalogue of
offerings. Originally this catalogue had around 45
entries; today, 37 are legible.18 Placed in chrono-
logical order, the entries span a long period of time,
from the eponymous hero Lindos (dating to the
epoch before the Trojan War) to King Philip V of
Macedon (238–179 B.C.E.).19 Each entry begins at
the left margin with the name of the donor followed
by an identification and brief description of his or
her gifts, including their material and the inscrip-
tions upon them. Each concludes with a list of ref-
erences to literary works, letters, and temple
archives—a bibliography—that in turn mentioned
the gift. Paragraphoi, or thin, short horizontal lines,
project into the left margins and separate the en-
tries from one another. To take one example,
Herakles purportedly had dedicated the wicker
shields of Eurypylos, the king of Kos, and Laomedon,
the king of Troy:
Herakles, two wicker shields, the one covered with
leather, the other covered with bronze, upon the
one of these covered with leather had been written
“Herakles from the Meropes [the shield] of
Eurypylos,” while upon the one covered with bronze
“The [shield] of Laomedon, Herakles from the
Teucrians to Athena Polias and Zeus Polieus,” as
Xenagoras shows in the first book of his Chronography,
Gorgon in the first book of his On Rhodes, Nikasylos
in the third book of his Chronography, Hegesias in his
Praise of Rhodes, Aielouros in his On the War against
the Exagiades, Phaennos in his On Lindos, Gorgosthenes
in his letter, Hieroboulos in his letter.20
books of epic verse. For the fragments of Timakhidas, see
Blinkenberg 1915, 41–7.
18
Although the lower part of all the columns is completely
illegible, it is clear that column B originally had 155 lines, end-
ing 26 cm above the bottom of the stele. We do not know
exactly how many lines were in columns C and D. Today 131
lines are preserved in column C and 119 in column D (Blinken-
berg 1912, 3).
τας µ+[νο]ν
19
The order of the catalogue is based on the Lindian chro-
nological understanding of the past, not our own.
20
B.V (Higbie 2003): "Ηρακλ@ς γρρα δ
ο, τ' µ1ν Aν βοαθεας, κα εW κα µQ παραγ|νηται κατ. τ'ν Gρισµνον
περιεσκυτωµ|νον, τ' δ1 κατακεχαλκωµνον, Bν
π µ1ν το
||
σκυτωµνου
πεγγραπτο! “ "Ηρακλ@ς *π'| Μερ+πων
αρχος παραχρ@µα | µ1ν *κο
σας
γλασε,
τ.ν Ε[3]ρυπ
λου”,
π δ1 το κατακε|χαλκωµνου! “τ.ν
πε δ1
ν τ(ι |
χοµναι ;µραι γν+φ[ο]υ µεζ<ο>νος | περ
Λαοµδοντος "Ηρακλ@ς *|π' Τε
κρων Αθναι Πολιδι κα τ.ν *κρ+πολιν συσστντος κα πολ||λο καταραγν[τ]ος
∆ι Πολιε”,| Gς *ποφανεται Ξεναγ+ρας
ν τ(ι Α τ(ς ||
χ[ρ]ονικ(ς συντξιος, Γ+ργων
ν τ(ι Α τ(ν | περ "Ρ+δου,
µε|νοι δαψιλ1ς σχον Rδωρ, ; δ1 Περσικ. δ
να|µις
Νικασ
λος
ν τ(ι Γ τ(ς χρονι|κ(ς συντξιος, "Ηγησας
ν
τ2ι "Ρ+δου
γκω|µωι, Αλουρος
ν τ2ι περ το ποτ τοLς
427
A record of four epiphanies of the goddess, each
concluding with its own list of attestations, fills
column D. Headings placed over each miracle story
divide this column: the whole column is entitled
“Epiphanies,” the second section is “Another,” and
the third is “Other.” The first miracle story survives
completely, the second and third are fragmentary,
and the fourth is illegible. From what remains, we
see that in these stories the authors narrated the
time of the event, the occasion that required Athena’s
help, the appearance of the goddess in a dream,
her reassurances, instructions, and aid. Possibly,
within each story, they also recorded a list of offer-
ings that were given to Athena on account of the
epiphany, but today only one such record, for the
first epiphany, survives. In this story, Athena saved
the Rhodians from the attack of the Persian general
Datis, who had besieged them during the Persian
invasion of Greece (490 B.C.E.). The Lindians,
gathered in the city and distressed because of the
scarcity of water, were contemplating surrender:
At which time the goddess, standing over one of the
magistrates in his sleep, encouraged him to take heart,
since she herself would ask her father for the much
needed water for them, and the one who saw the
vision announced to the citizens the order of Athena.
On examination they found that they had [water]
sufficient for only five days, [and] for those days alone
they asked the Barbarians for a truce, saying that
Athena had sent to her father for help, and that if it
did not arrive by the appointed time, they would sur-
render the city to them. Datis, the admiral of Darius,
hearing [this] laughed on the spot, but the following
day, when great darkness gathered over the acropo-
lis, and much rain broke over its center, thus, unex-
pectedly, the besieged had abundant water, but the
Persian forces lacked it.21
Astounded by the miracle, Datis made a quick
pact of friendship with the Lindians and broke
|Εξαγιδας πολµου, Φεννος
ν τ2ι περ || Λνδου,
Γοργοσθνης
ν τ(ι
πιστολ(ι, Ιερ+βουλος
ν τ(ι
πιστολ(ι.
21
D.13–32 (Higbie 2003): καθ Pν δQ χρ+νον ; µ1ν θε'ς
5ν τ2ν *ρ|χ+ντων
πιστ(σα καθ Rπνον παρεκλει || θαρσεν
Gς α3τ. παρ. το πατρ'ς ατησευ|µνα τ' κατεπεγον
α3τοLς Rδωρ, 9 δ1 τ.ν | Sψιν δTν *νγγειλε τος πολταις
τ.ν πο|τταξιν τ(ς Αθνας. ο7 δ1
ξετξαντες | Uτι ες πντε
;µρας µ+[νο]ν χοντι διαρ||κεν,
π τοσα
ατVσαντο | παρ. τ2ν βαρβρων τ.ς *νοχς, λγοντες |
*πεστλκειν τ.ν Αθναν ποτ τ'ν α-τ(ς | πατρα περ
χρ+νον, παρα||δωσεν φασαν α3τος τ.ν π+λιν. [vac.] | ∆(τις
δ1 9 ∆αρεου να

Sµβρου κατ. µσον | ο[R]τ<ω>ς παραδ+ξως το µ1ν
πολιορκε

σπνιζε. . . .
428 JOSEPHINE SHAYA
camp after offering the goddess his own cloak,
torque, and armlets together with a Persian cap, a
Persian curved sword, and a covered carriage.22
From this account, we can also surmise how the
Lindians thought that they had lost their votive of-
ferings in the first place. At the end of the story we
learn that Datis’ gifts had survived until a fire de-
molished them together with Athena’s temple in
the priesthood of Eukles, or 392/1 B.C.E.—roughly
300 years before the creation of the stele. 23 Al-
though the stele does not say how Athena’s other
treasures were lost, Christian Blinkenberg, who first
published the inscription in the early 20th cen-
tury, pointed to this fire as the probable cause.24
Grammatical evidence within the inscription fur-
ther suggests that the offerings that dated to the
period after the temple fire still survived in 99
B.C.E.—the oldest of these being ox skulls and
weapons dedicated by Alexander the Great.25 How-
ever, if these later gifts did in fact exist, it must be
emphasized that the stele called little attention to
that fact. Its authors never stated specifically what
was in the temple and what was not; they never
claimed to have examined the objects in person.
Indeed, Hagesitimos proposed the stele’s creation
because most of the offerings with their inscrip-
tions had been destroyed by time. Here, the em-
phasis was on the preservation of memory, not the
objects’ survival.
the logic of the treasure
What we do not have, then, is a record of the full
treasure of the Temple of Athena, either before or
22
D.34–38.
23
D.40. For the priesthood of Eukles: Morricone 1949–1951,
376; Higbie 2003, 146, 25. The temple itself was rebuilt nearly
100 years after the fire in the late fourth or early third centu-
ries B.C.E (Gruben 1976, 414; Lippolis 1988–1989, 102; Shaya
2002, 44).
24
Blinkenberg 1912, 132–4.
25
As Blinkenberg (1941, 157) first observed, beginning with
the gifts of Alexander the Great, Timakhidas and Tharsagoras
used the perfect tense instead of the pluperfect to describe
the inscriptions on the offerings, thus suggesting that these
last gifts still survived when the authors wrote. Sections XXX–
VII, XL, and XLI provide further evidence that some offer-
ings might have existed in 99 B.C.E. Again, Blinkenberg (1912,
83) first pointed out that here the authors stated that there
were inscriptions on the offerings, but they did not cite docu-
ments for the texts of the inscriptions. Rather, it seems that
they might have examined the objects themselves (Shaya 2002,
125–7; Higbie 2003, 137, 164, 174).
26
Archaeological excavations have revealed many small of-
ferings (see Blinkenberg 1931). Literary sources, furthermore,
mention distinctive gifts that the stele does note include.
Among these are an image of Athena from Danaos (Apollod.
[AJA 109
after the fire of the third century B.C.E. Most of the
offerings recorded on the stele did not exist; more-
over, Athena certainly possessed offerings not in-
cluded on the stele.26 What we do have, rather, is a
record of an imagined treasure—a treasure selected
by Timakhidas and Tharsagoras out of memories
and testimonials and framed with texts, documents,
references, and stories. We can understand this
imagined treasure much like a museum exhibition
composed of objects drawn from storerooms and
organized so as to express a particular idea. Like
such an exhibition, Timakhidas and Tharsagoras’
treasure was selected, it had an organization and
logic, and an important cultural role.27 A close read-
ing of the catalogue of this imagined treasure—
that is, the text of the stele—reveals a collection of
objects that testified to the history and identity of
the Lindians and the antiquity and renown of their
sanctuary.
Chronology was the catalogue’s first principle of
organization. Each donation marked a particular
moment. Placed in chronological order, the offer-
ings revealed the expanse of time in which the sanc-
tuary had existed, with the list traveling through
the epochs of the founding heroes, the Trojan War,
Greek colonization, the Persian conquest, Lindian
democracy, Rhodian synoecism, Alexander the
Great’s rule, and the reigns of the Hellenistic kings.
The earliest gifts testified to the sanctuary’s ven-
erable age. Proof of their antiquity was clearly para-
mount to those who commissioned the stele. The
decree described the temple as “most ancient”; the
offerings had been given “from the oldest times”; a
Bibl. 2.1.4; Diod. Sic. 5.58.3; Euseb. Praep. evang. 3.8.1.7–10 =
Callim. fr. 100, Pfeiffer), a statue called Apollo Telchinius
(Diod. Sic. 5.55.1–3), an electrum cup that was the same size
as Helen’s breast (Plin. HN 33.81), a cup made by the artist
Boëthos (Plin. HN 33.155); a painting of Herakles by the paint-
er Parrhasius (Plin. HN 35.36; Ath. 12.543); the spoils from
Syracuse offered by Marcellus (Plut. Vit. Marc. 30.6–8); and
Pindar’s seventh Olympian Ode written in gold (FGrHist 515,
F18). For these accounts and Byzantine testimonials, see
Blinkenberg 1912; Shaya 2002, 271–4.
27
It might be argued that Timakhidas and Tharsagoras had
little latitude of their own when creating the stele and hence
their work was simply a recapitulation of earlier texts. And cer-
tainly, to a great extent, their work did involve the compila-
tion of extracts drawn from earlier letters, public documents,
and literary texts. Timakhidas and Tharsagoras’authority, how-
ever, lay in the piecing together and organization of the text,
in the suppression and elaboration of information, and in the
very act of choosing offerings and collecting testimonies to
them. None of their sources referred to all the donations that
Timakhidas and Tharsagoras recorded, and some sources, as the
authors duly noted, disagreed with others.
2005] THE GREEK TEMPLE AS MUSEUM
record had to be made of them because they had
been destroyed “by time.” Comments on the mate-
rial and style of the early gifts underscored their
antiquity. No one, Timakhidas and Tharsagoras ob-
served, had been able to learn the material from
which the phiale offered by the eponymous hero,
Lindos, was made.28 By the time their sources re-
corded this gift, knowledge of its ancient substance
had been lost.
Similarly, observations regarding the style of the
earliest gifts called attention to their age. One
entry recorded gifts from the three original Rhod-
ian tribes:
Each of the tribes, an extremely ancient plaque, on
which was painted a phylarch and nine runners, all
depicted in ancient poses, with the name of each
written upon the image, and upon one of the plaques
had been written, “The Haliadai tribe, victorious,
dedicated [this plaque] to Lindian Athena,” and
upon the second, “This is a sign of victory. The tribe
of the Autochthones, having conquered, adorned the
goddess,” and upon the third, “The tribe of the
Telchines, victorious, dedicated [this plaque] to Ath-
ena. Lykopadas, the son of Lykeus, was the leader of
the torchlight procession.” Gorgon reports these
things in the first book of his On Rhodes, Xenagoras in
the first book of his Chronography.29
Here the description of the runners’ pose was
an indication of the paintings’ extreme antiquity,
as were the inscriptions reportedly written upon
the figures.30 So, too, the names of their donors—
the tribes of the Autochthones, the Telchines, and
the Haliadai (or those sprung from the soil, the
descendents of the supernatural craftsmen, the
Telchines, and the descendents of the god
Halios)—evoked their remote origins.
Chronological developments in the types of do-
nations pointed to the long life of the sanctuary.
28
B.I.2–3.
29
B.XV (Higbie 2003): τ(ν φυλ(ν 5κστα πνακα
[παναρχ]αϊκ+ν,
ν Bι :ν |
ζωγραφηµνος φ
λαρχος κα los in the Temple of Hera at Olympia (Paus. 5.17.10). See also
δροµες
νν@ || πντες *ρχαϊκ2ς χοντες το<ς> σχVµασι,
Bν 5κ|στου
πεγγραπτο τ[(]ι εκ+νι τ' Sνοµα κ[α]
|π 1960, 243; Snodgrass 1998, 101.
µ1ν το 5ν'ς τ2ν π[ιν][κ]ων
πεγγραπτο! | “"Αλιαδ(ν
φυλ. νικσ[ασ *ν]θηκε τ(ι Λινδαι | Αθναι”,
φ 5τρου
δ! “Νκας τ+δ
στ σ(µα! τ2ν || Α3τοχθ+νων φυλ. κρατVσασ
*γλϊ<ξ>ε τ.[ν] θε+ν”, |
π δ1 το τρτου! “Τελχενων φυλ.
νικ2σ *νθ[η-] | κεν Αθναι, Λυκωπδας δ1 9 Λυγκως πας

λαµ|παδρχει”. περ το
των 7στορε Γ+ργων
ν τ(ι Α | τ(ν Phaselis, and by the sword of Memnon in the Temple of Askle-
περ "Ρ+δου, Ξεναγ+ρας
ν τ(ι Α τ(ς χρονικ(ς || συντξιος.
30
Today we know that such label inscriptions first appeared
in the second quarter of the seventh century B.C.E.; they
became widespread in the sixth century, and much less com-
mon in the fifth. For the stele’s first century B.C.E. authors,
the account of these inscriptions must have brought to mind
rare and ancient works of art that still could be found in some
429
The gifts were traces of a succession of historical
ages, each with its own practices of offering.
Homeric heroes and their ancestors, for instance,
reportedly offered unadorned vessels, weapons,
tools, and jewelry made of bronze, silver, or gold.31
While colonists still gave vessels and weapons, they
reportedly also offered wooden, acrolithic, and ivory
images.32 The style of the votive inscriptions also
evolved: whereas pre-Trojan War and Trojan War
heroes inscribed their gifts in prose, several per-
sons from what we recognize as the Archaic period
inscribed theirs in verse.33
While the authors documented such develop-
ments in the nature of the dedications, they also
registered long-term continuities in the treasure.
Clear links existed between ancient Lindos and
the Lindos of their own day. The catalogue implied
that the temple, or some version of it, existed
before the Trojan War; its treasure had been care-
fully cared for from the time of the hero Lindos.
The temple had always been famous and worthy
of notice by heroes, kings, city founders, and the
like.
Though the Lindian offerings covered a vast chro-
nological spread, age alone was not enough to
warrant commemoration. Timakhidas and Thars-
agoras carefully recorded the name of every donor,
for the origins of the gifts revealed the renown of
the sanctuary. Sandwiched between the hero Lindos
and the Hellenistic King Philip V were such notables
as Minos, Kadmos, Telephos, Amasis, and Alexander,
as well as various peoples such as those who colo-
nized Cyrene with Battos. Many of the donors are
familiar today. Most are known from surviving an-
cient sources, and those who are not once appeared
in now lost literary works, as the attestations at the
end of each entry reveal.
temples. Cf. Pausanias’ description of five runners accompa-
nied by a judge all with inscribed names on the chest of Kypse-
Arafat 1995, 465; Snodgrass 2001. For label inscriptions: Cook
31
This idea was common in antiquity. Cf. Pausanias on heroic
weapons: “That weapons in the heroic age were all bronze is
shown by Homer’s lines about the axe of Pisander and the arrow
of Meriones; and I am confirmed in this view by the spear of
Achilles, which is dedicated in the sanctuary of Athena at
pios at Nicomedia; for the blade and the spike at the butt-end of
the spear and the whole of the sword are bronze. This I know to
be so” (Paus. 3.3.8, trans. Frazer 1898). See also Ath. 6.231.
32
E.g., C.XXVI.15, C.XXVIII.31–32, C.XXX.56–57.
33
C.XXVI.16–18; C.XXIX.49–51; C.XXXI.62–63. For the
metrical inscriptions, see Blinkenberg 1912, 85 n. 3; Higbie
2003, 107–8, 118, 121.
430 JOSEPHINE SHAYA
The past connection between these donors and
the votive offerings made each item worthy of note.
In some sections, the authors emphasized that the
donor had, in fact, used the gift. For instance, one
record begins, “King Pyrrhos, ox skulls and weap-
ons which he himself used in dangers . . . as the
public records of the Lindians contain. . . .”34 The
report that King Pyrrhos had wielded the weap-
ons in dangerous situations only increased their
significance.
Although Timakhidas and Tharsagoras clearly
reconstructed a rich treasure—one that included,
among other things, a gold drinking cup, a silver
quiver, an ivory palladium, jewelry, gold crowns, and
a royal Persian robe—the material cost of an offer-
ing, no matter how great, was not in itself enough to
warrant inclusion in the catalogue.35 The offerings
to Athena were irreplaceable because of their his-
tory, not their physical substance. Paris’ leather
helmet was worth much more than any other hel-
met, for it had belonged to Paris; it had come to
stand for him, as well as the hero who had offered it
to Athena—Menelaos.36
Such donors tied Lindos to the great overarching
themes of Greek history as it was understood in the
Hellenistic period. All were connected to Lindos
in some manner: Eight of the gifts were from the
Lindians, or people of the Rhodian state. Herakles
reportedly passed through Lindos and subse-
quently was worshipped there. Tlapolemos’ wife,
Polyxo, was said to have murdered Helen on
Rhodes after she fled to the island following the
death of Menelaos.37
The treasure thus demonstrated on a grand scale
who the Lindians had been, what they had done,
where they had gone, who they had encountered,
and how they had reached their present state.
Together, the gifts represented Lindos as a vener-
able place, founded by heroes (Lindos), magical
craftsmen (the Telchines), and sages (Kleoboulos).
The city had established many colonies (Cyrene,
34
C.XL.114–116 (Higbie 2003): ΒασιλεL[ς] Π
ρρο[ς] back to Telephos, the son of Herakles, who, the stele record-
βουκ[]φαλα κα Uπλα, ο\ς || α3τ'[ς
]χ[ρ]ετο
ν τος
κινδ
[ν]οι[ς]. . . Gς περιχοντι | το Λινδων χρηµατισµο. . . . scribed marble shield dating to the beginning of the second
35
Cf. temple inventories that typically take into account the
material value of temple treasures: Linders 1972, 1975; Aleshire
1989; Harris 1995; Hamilton 2000.
36
B.X.62–63. In the Iliad, Menelaos grabs Paris by the hel-
met and spins him toward the Greek line. Aphrodite rescues
the hero by snapping his helmet’s braided leather chin strap.
Il. 3.373.
37
For Herakles on Lindos: Apollod., Bibl., 2.5.11; for Helen:
Paus. 3.19.9–10.
38
E.g., one Lindian family seems to have traced its origins
[AJA 109
Phaselis, Gela, Akragas, and Soli), won wars (against
Troy and Krete), had great allies (Ptolemy Soter),
and still more enemies (Darius, Datis, Demetrius,
Ptolemy Philadelphos). There was no room in the
catalogue for gifts from local figures known to the
Lindians alone. Rather, the treasure was created, in
part, for locals. Standing in the sanctuary, they stood
in the footsteps of their ancestors and the kings,
heroes, and leaders of ancient Greece, Persia,
and Egypt.38 The catalogue informed them that they
worshipped a goddess who had been honored by
the honorable throughout the ages.
Just as individual Lindians are absent from the
catalogue, so too are the names of the Lindian demes,
as well as those of the other small Rhodian towns.
Again, the catalogue’s scope was grander, repre-
senting Lindos’ worldwide fame. Though Helle-
nistic Lindos was a small community, the treasure
demonstrated the international appeal of its sanc-
tuary. The names of foreign donors fill the stele;
most gifts came from afar: shields from Lycia, a sword
from Persia, bowls from Egypt. Timakhidas and
Tharsagoras noted alien features of such objects,
like the reported hieroglyphic writing on the statue
dedicated by Amasis, and the Phoenician letters
on the bronze cauldron offered by Kadmos.39
Gathered together on stone, the treasures offered
a map and a history of the world from the Lindian
point of view. The catalogue represented the
Lindian past as a story of widening horizons, from
the Aegean to Magna Graecia, and from Egypt to
Persia. While such an expansion fits with Greek
history, cities that have dominated this history (e.g.,
Mycene, Athens, Alexandria, Rome, are absent).
Rather, Lindos holds the center. Tlepolemos, the
king of Rhodes, was the first Trojan War hero named
in the catalogue. All the colonies—Cyrene, Phaselis,
Gela, Akragas, and Soloi—were at least in part
Lindian. According to Timakhidas and Tharsagoras,
Rhodes played the opening role in the saga of the
Persian invasion. When Darius sent out forces to en-
ed, had dedicated a phiale to Athena. A fragment of an in-
century B.C.E. and probably originally fastened to a victory
monument included Telephos, the son of Telephos, the son
of Telephos, in a list of Lindian navy officers. Another family
believed itself to be descended from Pankis, who, the Lindos
stele reported, had colonized Cyrene with Battos (B.XVII). A
fourth or third century B.C.E. inscription marked their offer-
ing to Athena Lindia (Blinkenberg 1912, 121; 1941, 160, lines
14–15; IG 12, 1.773.
39
C.XXIX.53; B.III.15–16.
2005] THE GREEK TEMPLE AS MUSEUM
slave Greece, “his naval expedition approached this
island first.”40
Due to the historical significance of the gifts,
Timakhidas and Tharsagoras included the ancient
inscriptions reported to have been on the objects,
as they had been instructed to do by the decree. All
but five of the offerings reportedly bore inscrip-
tions. These texts were a set of labels that identi-
fied the legendary objects. They recorded that the
bracelets of Helen simply had said, “Helen to
Athena”; the spoils offered by Tlepolemos’ troops
had once proclaimed, “Those who marched with
Tlepolemos against Ilion to Athena Lindia the first
fruits of the [spoils] of Troy.”41 Records of such in-
scriptions not only identified the objects but also
authenticated them. The Lindians knew that they
once possessed treasures from Troy because they
had been inscribed as such. Furthermore, the in-
scriptions provided another link to the donors. Even
though time had destroyed the Trojan spoils, the
words of Tlepolemos and his troops remained.
Most of the offerings were vestiges from specific
past events; many of the inscriptions attested to the
occasions on which the donors either had acquired
or offered them to Athena. Some provided even
further information about the early lives of the vo-
tive offerings. For instance, the stele recorded an
offering made by Phalaris, the sixth-century tyrant
of the Akragantines:
Phalaris, the tyrant of the Akragantines, a krater, on
one side of which a Titanomachy had been fashioned,
and on the other Kronos taking his children from
Rhea and devouring them. And upon the rim had
been written, “Daidalos gave me as a guest gift to
Kokalos,” and upon the base “Phalaris from Akragas
to Lindian Athena,” as Xenagoras shows in the first
book of his Chronography.42
The second inscription upon the krater’s rim im-
plied that the vessel had been treasured in Akragas
from the time of Kokalos, the king of Sicily who
protected Daidalos when he fled from Minos, and
40
D.4–5 (Higbie 2003): 9 ναυτικ'ς α3το στ+λος τα
ται parlant in the catalogue. The inscription’s style, which we now
ποτεπλασε | πρτα<ι> τ(ν νσων.
41
B.XI.70–71 and B.IX.57–59 (Higbie 2003): “"Ελνα
Αθναι”; “το µετ[. Τλαπολµου] | ες `Ιλιον στρατευσµενοι
τ[(ι Αθναι τ(ι] | Λινδαι *κροθνια τ2ν
κ Τρο[ας”. . . .
42
C.XXVII (Higbie 2003): Φλαρις 9 Ακραγαντνων
τυραννε
σας κρατ@|ρα, οa
τετ+ρευτο
ν µ1ν τ2ι 5τρωι cuirass, see Picard 1957; Törnkvist 1969.
µρει Τιτανο|µαχα,
ν δ1 τ2ι 5τρωι Κρ+νος λαµβνων
παρ. | "Ρας τ. τκνα κ[α] κ[α]ταπενων, κα
π µ1ν το ||
χελευς
πεγ[γρ]απτο! “∆αδαλο[ς] δωκε ξενι|+ν µε
Κωκαλωι”, [
π] δ1 τ(ς βσιος! “Φλαρις
ξ Α|κργαντος
τ([ι Λι]νδ[]αι Αθναι”, Gς *ποφανεται | Ξεναγ+ρας
ν
τ[(ι] Α τ(ς χρονικ(ς συντξιος. The krater is the only objet
431
had been reused centuries later by Phalaris as an
antique dedication to Athena. Its prestigious gene-
alogy only added to its value.
More than simply historical remains, offerings
like Daidalos’ krater were steeped in magic, proph-
ecy, and the unfathomable. The gifts from Lindos
and the Telchines were made from mysterious un-
known substances.43 Their primary position in the
catalogue suggested the idea of semi-divine craft
as a controlling principle of the treasure. Some of
the items that followed were precisely the sorts
of wonders that might have been associated with
these primordial craftsmen. For instance, the num-
ber of threads of the cuirass of Amasis has as-
tounded ancient and modern writers alike. 44
According to Herodotus, the cuirass was decorated
with gold and cotton embroidery and interwoven
with many figures, but, he continued, the true won-
der of it lay in the fact that each single fine thread
of the fabric was composed of 360 strands.45 Pliny
the Elder compared it to fishing nets of Cumae,
which, he wrote, were remarkable not only because
they could cut the bristles of a boar but also be-
cause each string was made up of 150 threads, a fact
that would be marvelous, he continued, to anyone
not familiar with the breastplate of Amasis at
Lindos. 46
Other donations were connected to extraordi-
nary events. For instance, a certain Amphinomos
and his sons from Sybaris had dedicated a wooden
cow and calf after their ship had been saved.47 Like-
wise, Timakhidas and Tharsagoras recorded that
the Rhodian demos had offered a shield to Athena
in fulfillment of the oracular declaration that the
war then raging against Ptolemy Philadelphos would
end upon its donation.48 To this, Timakhidas and
Tharsagoras added “And it happened.” The shield
was a relic of a prophecy come true.
While the catalogue emphasized the marvelous
nature of some of the gifts and the events to which
they were connected, it also included an impres-
recognize as being particularly common in the Archaic period,
was probably a sign of its age. Other inscriptions also contained
archaic terms and phrases (see Chaniotis 1988, 269–70).
43
B.I.2–3 and B.II.9–10.
44
C.XXIX.37. For modern attempts at reconstructing this
45
Hdt. 3.47.
46
Plin. HN 19.2.12.
47
C.XXVI. Though Amphinomos and his sons are otherwise
unknown today, they were known in antiquity. Timachidas and
Tharsagoras cited two sources for their offering.
48
C.XXXVII.
432 JOSEPHINE SHAYA
sive scholarly apparatus that both celebrated the
offerings and testified to their authenticity. The
stele made it clear that many writers had described
the Lindian offerings. Much of its account of the
objects was, in fact, documentation: Timakhidas and
Tharsagoras included 103 citations from at least 25
different sources. Every gift had a bibliography.
More lines detailed who wrote about the helmet of
Paris than described the helmet itself.
Except for Herodotus, Myron, and possibly
Xenagoras, all the writers cited on the stele seem
to have been from Rhodes.49 Most date from the
Hellenistic period, and of all the sources, only
Herodotus’ History survives today.50 Both Christian
Blinkenberg and Felix Jacoby investigated how
many of these texts Timakhidas and Tharsagoras
actually read and came to the perhaps surprising
conclusion that they looked at some, but certainly
not all, of the works cited.51 Such a method reveals
their purpose: Timakhidas and Tharsagoras
needed to collect and organize references to ac-
counts about the offerings. They did not need to
determine the exact context of these accounts.
The apparatus of scholarship—the noting of not
only the writers’ names and the titles of their works
but also the particular book numbers in which the
references appeared—impressed more than in-
formed. The 103 citations, the short additional com-
ments on what a particular writer had said about an
offering, and the different types of works cited (his-
tories, antiquarian writings, encomia, letters, and
public records) all revealed that the objects had
been worthy of notice over the ages. Such refer-
ences were not relegated to the end of the text but
were an integral part of its message. This is appar-
ent, for instance, in the record of the gift from
Amasis:
49
FGrHist 532; commentary, 446.
50
FGrHist 532; commentary, 447.
ριος
ν τ(ι Β |
51
Indeed, Jacoby (FGrHist 532; commentary, 444–7) esti-
ζαλος
]ν τ(ι ∆. Ιρω[ν δ1] ||
[ν] τ(ι
mated that they only read about six works in total. It seems
likely, for instance, that they took their reference to Herodot-
σεα [δ
ο], | [Αγλοχο]ς
ν τ(ι Λ
us from an intermediary source. For although Timakhidas and
Tharsagoras cited Herodotus, Book 2, for the linen cuirass of
Amasis, they missed his reference in Book 3 to the two stone
images that Amasis reportedly also had given to the temple
(Hdt. 2.182; 3.47). If Timakhidas and Tharsagoras had known
that Herodotus had mentioned the gilded images, they almost
ο *γαλµτων φι|λας δκα,
πιγεγρφθαι δ1
certainly would have included this information in their text
ο, Bν τ'ν µ1ν οRτως χειν!
for they cited other authors who had noted the two statues
πτου | βασιλ[εL]ς τηλκλυτος fπασ `Αµασις”, τ'ν δ1
(Blinkenberg 1912, 101–2). For extensive discussions of which
works the authors might or might not have read, see Blinken-
berg 1912, 88–111.
52
C.XXIX (Higbie 2003): `Αµασις Αγυπτων βασιλεLς
[AJA 109
Amasis, king of the Egyptians, a linen cuirass, each
thread of which had three hundred and sixty threads,
about which Herodotus the Thurian testifies in the
second book of his History, Polyzalos in the fourth.
Hieron in the first book of his On Rhodes affirms that
he also dedicated two gilded statues along with the
cuirass, Hagelokhos in the eleventh book of his
Chronography, Aristion in the first book of his
Chronography, Aristonymos in his Chronological Collec-
tion, Onomastos in the first book of his Chronography.
Xenagoras in the first and fourth books of his
Chronography says that together with the cuirass and
with the two statues he also dedicated ten phialai, and
upon the statues two lines had been inscribed, one of
which read “I, Amasis, far-famed king of Egypt, gave
this,” the other had been written in the letters which
are called holy by the Egyptians. Hieroboulos also
says this in his letter to the members of the Council.52
Herodotus and Polyzalos “testify” to the linen cui-
rass; Hieron, Hagelokhos, Aristion, and Onomastos
each “affirm” that Amasis also dedicated two gilded
statues; Xenagoras and Hieroboulos each “say” that
together with these he dedicated 10 bowls. In other
passages, sources “show” and “tell” that the dedica-
tions had been made. More significant than the
exact translation of each of these words was the gen-
eral connotation of them all: ancient authors at-
tested to the dedications. The details of what they
said were less important than the fact that they said
anything at all.53 More significant than individual
attestations was their collection. Piled up, one after
the other, the stream of citations confirmed the pedi-
grees of the legendary objects, witnessed their wide-
spread reputation, and verified their long lives as
votive offerings within the sanctuary.
In sum, the Lindians clearly had much to boast
of: They traced their ancestry back to the hero
Lindos; their history was rooted in the traditions of
the Trojan War; they had close ancestral ties with
θc[ρακ]α λνεον, | οa 5κστα [;ρ]πεδ+να ε&χε στ[µον]ας
ΤΞ, | περ οa µ[αρτ]υρε "Ηρ+δοτος [9 Θ]ο
τ(ν 7στο[ρι]([ν, Πολ
[Α τ(ν π]ερ "Ρ+δου φατ *ναθµειν α[3τ'ν] | [µετ. το]
θcρακος κα *γλµατα χρ
τ(ς χρονικ(ς συντ[ξιος], | [Αρι]στων
ν τ([ι Α τ](ς
χρονικ(ς συντξιος, | Αριστc[ν]υµος
[ν] τ.ι συναγωγ(ι
τ2[ν χ]ρ+νων, || Ον+µασ[τ]ος
ν τ(ι Α τ(ς χρονικ(ς
συντξιος. | Ξεναγ+ρας δ1
ν τ(ι Α κα ∆ τ(ς χρονικ(ς |
συντξιος λγει µετ. το θcρακος *ναθ|µειν α3τ'ν κα
µετ[.] τ2ν δ

π τ2[ν] *γαλµτων || στχους δ
“Αγ
gτε|ρον
πιγεγρφθαι δι. τ2ν παρ Αγυπτοις κα|λουµνων
ερ2ν γραµµτων! Ιερ+βουλος δ1 | κα α3τ'ς λγει
ν τ(ι
ποτ τοLς µαστροLς ||
πιστολ(ι.
53
Herodotus said very little about the cuirass.
2005] THE GREEK TEMPLE AS MUSEUM
many cities, particularly those in Magna Graecia;
they had stood against foreign invaders; their sanc-
tuary had been dignified by kings; and their trea-
sure had been renowned throughout the ages. By
compiling the offerings, by selecting significant
information about them, and by arranging them in
a meaningful manner, Timakhidas and Tharsagoras
created an imaginary treasure (spun out of priests’
letters, literary sources, public records, and remains
in the temple) that testified to the power and im-
port of Lindos and its sanctuary.
It is here that the analogy with the museum is
most revealing. As with a museum exhibition, the
treasure was much more than the sum of its parts.
Collected in this way—in historical sequence, an-
notated, quoted, documented, celebrated—the votive
offerings were a celebration of the fame of Lindos.
The record of offerings served both as a dramatiza-
tion of Lindian identity and as a historical attrac-
tion, vaunting the importance of Lindos for all to
see.
We must remember, however, that the point of
the catalogue was, first and foremost, to glorify a
goddess: Athena. She suffuses everything. If the
treasure demonstrated a view of the world centered
on Lindos, it was Athena that made this world turn.
She was the source of Lindos’ power and fame, a
fact perfectly borne out by the treasure. It was, after
all, hers. The stele was set up in her sanctuary, and
most of the dedications pointed directly to her:
“Telephos, to Athena. . . .,” “Phalaris from Akragas
to the Lindian Athena,” “The demos of the
Rhodians to Athena Lindia. . . .”54 If her worship-
pers were renowned, how much more so was she; if
54
B.VIII.49; C.XXVII.26–27; C.XXXVII.102 (Higbie 2003):
“ΤVλεφος Αθναι”; “Φλαρις
ξ Α|κργαντος τ([ι
Λι]νδ[]αι Αθναι”; “9 δ(µος 9 "Ροδων Αθναι Λιν[δαι
. . .].”
55
Needless to say, such divine aid always led to victory.
56
Cf. the miracles of Zeus Panamaros: Roussel 1931. For
many more examples, see Pfister 1894, 298–305. For a cata-
logue of 49 military epiphanies, see Pritchett 1979, 19–39. For
Hellenistic miracle inscriptions: Longo 1969, 25–34; Chani-
otis 1988, 22.
57
Cf. D.46–47: after making a treaty of friendship, Datis
declared that the gods guarded the Lindians.
58
To begin with, we have no other surviving examples of
offering lists joined with epiphanies. Tantalizing titles and frag-
ments do, however, exist. For instance, in the middle of the
second century B.C.E., the demos of Samos set up an honorary
statue for their local historian, Leon, after he wrote a work
that celebrated the achievements of their city, the local god-
dess Hera, and the many things that the Samians had accom-
plished with their ships to make her temple splendid with booty.
As Werner Peek (1940) first suggested, Leon’s history might
433
she possessed gifts from all over the world, how vast
was her reach; if she had been honored since the
earliest times, how timeless she was! The power and
fame of Lindos was hers, a power and fame mani-
fest in the collection of legendary offerings.
But what about the epiphany stories? It is not that
their content was peculiar. Other gods appeared
in much the same way in the Hellenistic world, de-
fending their sanctuaries and devotees by appear-
ing at moments of crisis, offering encouraging
words, providing instructions, fighting on behalf of
a city or army, and protecting the faithful by work-
ing wonders, frequently through the weather. 55
Greeks often erected records of such marvels in
their cities and sanctuaries.56 Such texts attested
that a god guarded the community.57 But the pres-
ence of these epiphanies here cries out for explana-
tion.58 They seem to run against the very analogy
with the museum that I have been pursuing.
In fact, the epiphanies should be read as both
the justification of the votive offerings—for they
testified to the presence of Lindos Athena—and as
the frame that elaborated their meaning. In the
epiphanies, Athena appears directly—in dreams
that is. She is no longer the mere recipient of gifts.
Rather, she is the active goddess, protecting the
city and her shrine from enemies without and pol-
lution within. The epiphanies dramatize her power
in direct fashion. When a suicide took place in her
temple, she appeared to a priest and commanded
him to be at ease about her and then offered spe-
cific instructions as to how to purify the temple.59
When the city was besieged, she came to the res-
cue.60 Such miracles elaborated the meaning of the
have contained an account of the miracles of the goddess to-
gether with a description of the spoils in her sanctuary. These
topics would have been familiar at Samos: Menodotos of Samos
(ca. 200 B.C.E.), writing slightly earlier than Leon, covered
the offerings in two separate works, his Register of Notable Things
in Samos and On the Objects at the Temple of the Samian Hera. A
long fragment from the Register of Notable Things related by
Athenaeus includes a reference to an epiphany of Hera (Ath.
15.672b). But even if such works brought Hera’s miracles to-
gether with an account of the treasures in her temple, they
still would not have been exactly the same as the Lindian
Temple Chronicle, since the Lindos stele, pointing to many
sources, combined a reconstruction of a legendary treasure to-
gether with accounts of Athena’s epiphanies. Most of the
objects were not in the temple to see. For the honorary in-
scription: Peek 1940; FGrHist 540; Chaniotis 1988, E16. For
commentary: Peek 1940, 166; FGrHist 540; notes, 460;
Chaniotis 1988, 53, 309. For Menodotos of Samos: Ath.
15.672b, 14.655a = FGrHist 541 F 1, 2.
59
D.65–78.
60
D.95–104.
434 JOSEPHINE SHAYA
treasure. Like the narratives in catalogues and on
wall texts that frame museum exhibitions, the
epiphany stories explained just what the treasure
demonstrated, namely the power of Athena and her
steadfast devotion to Lindos. Athena exists in the
treasure first as the goddess who protects the city
and then as the sum of the glory evident in the
offerings.
a past for 99 b.c.e.
An analysis of the structure of the Lindian cata-
logue provides a fascinating view into how the
Lindians imagined themselves, their past, and the
divine. Thus far, we have looked at the stele inter-
nally, but what about its context? What museums do
and do not display—their principles of inclusion,
exclusion, emphasis, and indifference—bears on
larger questions of what constitutes the past and
who exercises the power to define it. Why did
Timakhidas and Tharsagoras organize, describe,
document, and catalogue such a treasure in 99
B.C.E., 293 years after the old Temple of Athena
and many of its treasures had been destroyed?
By registering Athena’s ancient worshippers and
her earlier epiphanies, Timakhidas and Tharsagoras
constructed a glorified image of the sanctuary, yet
also an image set entirely in the past. The last gift
named in the catalogue had been donated at the
height of Rhodian prosperity, roughly 100 years be-
fore the creation of the stele. The miracles, too, were
from long ago, with the last preserved one taking
place in the mid fourth century B.C.E., 250 years
before Timakhidas and Tharsagoras compiled their
text. Admittedly, the final donations and the last
miracle are lost, but even if they were from later
61
Boffo (1988) and Chaniotis (1988) collect many exam-
ples. See also Shaya 2002, 28–34; Higbie 2003, 273–88.
62
See, e.g., the two lives of Archilochos created by mem-
bers of prominent Parian families and erected in the Parian
Archilocheion in the second and first centuries B.C.E. (Chan-
iotis 1988, T3, T14).
63
Such local histories belonged to a wider literary context.
By at least the third century B.C.E., many literary works treat-
ed the kind of material that the Lindos stele and other histor-
ical inscriptions preserved. As titles and fragments reveal, there
was a body of travel literature, the aim of which was, in part, to
describe notable votive offerings to the gods and recount the
histories of their sanctuaries. The best known today is the work
of Pausanias, but such guides began to be produced in the third
century B.C.E. Literary works devoted to miracles probably also
dealt with some of the same material that we find in many of
these inscriptions. So too did paradoxographies, or descriptions
of the marvels of the world, which were intended to surprise
the reader and arouse a sense of admiratio, or θαµα. For the
blurred boundaries between these different genres, see Gab-
[AJA 109
times, the great majority was not. The authors of the
stele created an exalted image of their sanctuary,
yet one that was also solidly based on its antiquity,
not its present.
Certainly, an emphasis on the ancient history of
cults was a general phenomenon throughout the
Hellenistic period. Local history flourished, with
many cities recording the lives of their heroes and
poets, accounts of miraculous cures and divine
epiphanies, histories of the founding of cults, and
speeches praising their ancestors’ achievements.61
Like Timakhidas and Tharsagoras, the authors of
such works were well-educated, scholarly men,
whose families held important places in the politi-
cal and religious lives of their cities. They, too,
often quoted from previous scholarship, the sayings
of the ancients, and original documents like inscrip-
tions, oracles, and poems.62 Clearly, Timakhidas and
Tharsagoras were not alone in their interests and
concerns.63 As was common among local historians
in the Hellenistic period, their devotion was en-
tangled with erudite research into the past.
Timakhidas and Tharsagoras’ investigations both
attested to the enduring piety of the Lindians and
evoked the awesome sweep of time through which
their sanctuary had existed.
Moreover, seen in its political context, the
Lindian Temple Chronicle also resonates with the
concurrent loss of Rhodian power in the face of
encroaching Roman hegemony. Its creation coin-
cided with a transformative period for Rhodes, a
time when the importance of the state shifted away
from being a political center while it remained a
cultural one. 64 Elite Lindians might have re-
sponded to this change by engaging more and more
ba 1981, 52–5; Humphreys 1997, 217–20.
64
The traditional view of Rhodian relations with Rome, based
on the accounts of Polybius and Livy, states that Rhodes lost its
importance as a political and economic center following the
third Macedonian War (171–168 B.C.E.), a period that has
been characterized as one of nearly total Rhodian decline. More
recently, Vincent Gabrielsen (1993; 1997, 18), among others,
has challenged this theory, arguing that the pro-Roman bias
of the literary sources has led us astray. Nevertheless, as
Gabrielsen himself asserts, though the situation was not as dire
as it has been described in the past, a real change occurred in
Rhodian political, commercial, and cultural activity in the mid
second century B.C.E. Rome was the new center of power in
the Mediterranean and, as a Hellenistic city-state that had
preserved genuine political independence, Rhodes probably
felt Roman encroachment all the more keenly. With Rome in
the region, Rhodes was no longer able to maintain its formerly
active, independent role in international politics. For the
traditional view, see, e.g., Berthold 1984, 168–212.
2005] THE GREEK TEMPLE AS MUSEUM
with memories of their prestigious history and less
with more recent events.65
It is significant that no Romans appeared in the
catalogue, despite the fact that literary and epi-
graphic sources record Roman offerings at Lindos.66
Plutarch, for instance, reported that the Roman
general Marcellus had dedicated the spoils from
the destruction of Syracuse (211 B.C.E.) to Athena
Lindia.67 While the Lindians in 99 B.C.E. almost
certainly had records of these gifts—if not the gifts
themselves—Timakhidas and Tharsagoras did not
register them. Their silence, together with the lack
of any other references to Romans or Roman ances-
tors on the stele, suggests that Timakhidas and
Tharsagoras knowingly excluded Romans from the
ranks of Athena’s most memorable devotees.
Seen in their historical context, the miracles, too,
have a double valence. Datis’ siege of Lindos was
the beginning of what had become the defining
story of Greek victory over foreign invaders. The
third miracle story reworked the same theme as the
first; again Athena saved Rhodes, only this time from
the siege of Demetrius I Poliorketes (ca. 305–304
B.C.E.), the son of the Hellenistic King Antigonos.
From the fragmentary account, it is clear that Athena
was again the main actor in a story of Lindian resis-
tance: she promised to lead the fight and to secure
the victory. Speaking to the present in terms of the
past, the two military miracles might have conjured
up fond memories of defiance to foreign empires
65
For the Lindian Temple Chronicle within the context of
the international politics of 99 B.C.E, see Shaya 2002, 45–52,
164–94; Higbie 2003, 240–2. Other evidence, in addition to
the chronicle, speaks of a heightened Lindian interest in their
sanctuary’s past in the late second and first centuries B.C.E.
For instance, inscriptions reveal that the Lindians initiated a
cult of the hero, Lindos, around 100 B.C.E. At this time, they
set up a large monument honoring Lindos, the son of Kerka-
phos, as the Lindian founder. The inscription, which appears
to be the earliest known reference to the eponymous hero
from the sanctuary, is very brief, not saying on what occasion
the monument was erected (Blinkenberg 1941, no. 274).
Around the same time, the Lindians created a priesthood of
“Lindos and the Other Heroes,” a title that first appeared in
an inscription dated to 98 B.C.E. Eight further references to
this sacred office occur in inscriptions dated throughout the
first century B.C.E., but after this time, the priesthood drops
out of sight (Blinkenberg, 1941, no. 282, line 31; 294, line 22;
299c, line 16; 317, line 24; 346, line 25; 347, line 29; 349, line
22; 378b, line 54; 409). Around the time of the creation of the
Lindian Temple Chronicle, other sanctuaries on Rhodes also
took a turn toward the past. The Oracle of Pythian Apollo on
Mount Stefano, for instance, seems to have been resurrected
in the retrospective climate of first-century B.C.E. Rhodes. For
the revival of the oracle, see Segre 1949, 78. For first-century
B.C.E. interest in the past at Lindos and elsewhere on Rhodes,
435
that had threatened current political freedoms.68
The long-gone threats of Datis and Demetrius might
have resonated with pressing present-day concerns
about Rome.
Without offering a direct challenge to Rome, the
Lindian Temple Chronicle reflected the politics
of 99 B.C.E. Certainly by the time of its creation, a
good deal of negotiation of attitude had begun by
elite Greeks and Romans about the meaning of the
Greek past and its relation to the present.69 By re-
capturing a glorious history, the stele both fed the
city’s sense of self-importance and expressed a cul-
tural claim to power based on its ancient sanctuary
of Athena.
This claim would have resonated with both lo-
cals and visitors. We do not have much evidence for
the stele’s audience, but we do know that impor-
tant people came to Lindos and took time to exam-
ine what they found there. Although we do not have
literary descriptions of Republican era visits to
Lindos, Pliny the Elder related that in the second
half of the first century C.E., C. Licinius Mucianus,
Vespasian’s right-hand man, went to the sanctuary
of Athena at Lindos, personally examined the
famed cuirass of Amasis, and affirmed that each
apparent thread of its fabric consisted of 365 sepa-
rate threads.70 The Lindians had apparently “redis-
covered” the lost cuirass sometime after 99 B.C.E.
and placed it again in the temple for visitors to ad-
mire, where it seems to have attracted much atten-
see Shaya 2002, 169–74.
66
For Romans on Rhodes: Mygind 1999; Shaya 2002, 175–
80; Higbie 2003, 240–1.
67
Plut. Vit. Marc. 30.6.
68
Cf. Spawforth (1994, 245–6) on Persian War memories.
See also Alcock 2002, 74–86.
69
A good deal of recent scholarship scrutinizes ancient Greek
nostalgia, particularly its expression during the Second Sophis-
tic. Scholars have interpreted the Greek turn to the past in
terms of power and politics. Bowie (1969, 4) argues that as Greek
aristocrats and cities lost power to Roman governors, they en-
gaged more and more with memories of their glorious history,
countering the fact of political dependence with nostalgia.
Alcock (1993, 2000) rightly reads this nostalgia not as an es-
capist retreat from the present but as an active force, provid-
ing wealthy Greek families with an ideological claim to power
and authority despite their politically insignificant position
within the Roman empire. See also Cartledge and Spawforth
1989; Elsner 1992; Swain 1996. A century and a half before
the beginning of the Second Sophistic, the Lindians took what
appears to be a somewhat similar turn to the past. Cf. the first
century B.C.E. “pushing” of classical history and monuments
by the Athenian elite (Alcock 2002, 51–73). See also Alcock
1997.
70
Plin. HN 19.2.11–13. The stele and Herodotus both re-
ported 360 threads. C.XXIX.37; Hdt. 3.47.
436 JOSEPHINE SHAYA
tion, for, according to Pliny, Mucianus stated that
only small remnants (parvas reliquias) of it survived,
due to the damage done by persons examining its
threads. 71
A small city like Lindos would have done well to
impress visitors like Mucianus with its ancient trea-
sures.72 Here again the analogy with the museum is
apt. The treasures at Lindos (whether monumen-
talized on stone or housed in the temple) demon-
strated to insiders and outsiders alike the ideas of
powerful members of the Lindian community.
Faced with its ancient treasures (or a large-scale
record of them), viewers had to reckon with the
temple’s version of history.73 As with the museum,
this history often was difficult to refuse; the author-
ity and esteem granted to temples led visitors to
assume that its treasures were “real” and the stories
to which they attested were “true.” 74 The demon-
strative force of these treasures, or of records of
them, only added weight to the tales told about
them.
the greek temple as a museum
Why view the Temple of Lindos Athena, in par-
ticular, and the Greek temple, in general, as a mu-
seum? To begin with, the metaphor helps us analyze
the Lindian Temple Chronicle and the treasure it
proclaimed. It directs us to seek out the logic of the
collection in the organization of the votives, in the
71
Plin. HN 19.2.11–13. This account of the ruined fragments
is unique and seems to be based on personal examination.
Mucianus traveled on Rhodes, perhaps with Titus, where, Pliny
related, he saw several statues made by Boëthos, the bases of
which have been revealed by modern excavations (Plin. HN
34.16.37). For the statue bases: Blinkenberg, 1941, no. 165;
Traiana 1987, 390. Other votive offerings, in addition to the
cuirass, reappeared over the ages (see Mango et al. 1992, 92–
3; Shaya 2002, 239–49).
72
Serving as consul suffectus in C.E. 64 or 67, 70, and 72,
governor of Syria, commander of four legions, and Vespasian’s
main general and chief advisor in the civil war of C.E. 69 against
Vitellius, Mucianus was a leading political figure of his day.
73
The small size of the Lindian Temple Chronicle’s letter-
ing (0.7–1.1 cm) and its height (2.7 m) might seem to pose a
problem for this interpretation. Certainly, the stele would have
been difficult to read in antiquity. However, today its appear-
ance is somewhat deceptive, for what remains is only the scaf-
fold that supported a painted text. In antiquity, the cut letters
almost certainly would have been filled with colored wax, which
would have given the monument a very different look. The
fact that the inscription was composed of lists of offerings and
miracles would have been readily apparent. Colored red or blue,
the paragraphoi would have made the structure of the list ap-
parent. The titles over the offering list and each epiphany story
would have indicated different bodies of information, as would
have the division of the text into columns and the breaking of
[AJA 109
scholarly apparatus attached to them, and in the
narratives surrounding them. The logic of this col-
lection was twofold: the fame of the donors and the
antiquity of the objects reflected the renown of
Lindos. At the same time, these objects, backed up
by the epiphanies, celebrated the goddess Athena,
who was an active force, helping the Lindians in
times of need.
Second, the museum metaphor helps us under-
stand the cultural role that the stele and the trea-
sure it documented performed. The analogy points
to the politics inherent in the very act of selecting,
organizing, and describing the treasures. In the
stele we see the public face of Lindos. At a time of
diminished political power, the Lindians repre-
sented their place in the world, their history, and,
above all, their relationship to Athena to locals and
visitors alike through a carefully constructed col-
lection of objects.
The metaphor of the temple as museum and the
insights it offers can be usefully extended beyond
the case of Lindos. As a catalogue of legendary ob-
jects, the Lindian Temple Chronicle was unusual.75
Yet the types of offerings and the literary references
to them recorded in the chronicle are by no means
exceptional: we encounter references to many such
antique and renowned temple treasures through-
out ancient literature.76 As a monumental surro-
gate for legendary votive offerings, the stele attests
columns into sections. For the literate, it would not have been
too difficult to pick out names and objects while a local exegete,
priest, or prominent Lindian, already familiar with traditions
about the treasures, filled in details. Judging from Pausanias
and Plutarch, this is something that onsite expounders did and
that visitors to ancient sanctuaries typically enjoyed (see, e.g.,
Paus. 2.236; Plut. De Pyth. or. 395.2). For such guides, see Hab-
icht 1985, 144–7; Jones 2001. For Pausanias’ reckoning with
ancient treasures, see Veyne 1988, 100–2.
74
For the authority of museums, see Crew and Sims 1991;
Beard and Henderson 1994, 8, 15–34.
75
Literary and epigraphic sources preserve a few similar
cases (see, e.g., accounts of the Temple of Apollo at Sikyon:
Paus. 2.7.9; Ampelius, Lib. mem. 8). See also Scheer 1996, 358–
61; Shaya 2002, 219–23; Higbie 2003, 269–71.
76
Again, Pausanias provides countless examples. For in-
stance, he reported that ribbons suspended Leda’s egg from
the ceiling of the Spartan Temple of Hilaeira and Phoibe; the
throne of Danaos sat in the Temple of Apollo Lykeios in
Argos; the Temple of Apollo at Delphi contained, among oth-
er things, the hearth upon which the priest of Apollo killed
Neoptolemos, as well as Pindar’s throne; the cuirass and spear
of Alexander the Great were in the possession of the Temple
of Asklepios at Gortyn; Celtic arms dedicated by King Pyrrhos
were in the sanctuary of Zeus at Dodona; and among the many
offerings in the Temple of Zeus at Olympia were four gold
wreaths dedicated by the emperor Nero (Paus. 3.16.1 [Hilaei-
2005] THE GREEK TEMPLE AS MUSEUM
to the value of such collections in the Hellenistic
world. Peering through the mass of votive offerings
that cluttered Greek sanctuaries, Pausanias later
recorded for his readers many similar things “worth
seeing”: offerings that were famous because of their
artists, donors, extraordinary materials, or the events
that once involved them. For him, as for Timakhidas
and Tharsagoras, these objects, whether lost or in
the temple, were the heart of the gods’ possessions.
Since Pausanias was an outsider (he traveled to
mainland Greece from Caria), he relied on locals,
inscriptions, and literary works for information
about such objects. He could only know treasures
like the hide of the Kalydonian boar housed in the
Temple of Alean Athena in Tegea, for instance,
through what “they said,” for time had rotted the
hide itself and left it largely unrecognizable, with-
out a single bristle.77 What is so fascinating about
the Lindian Temple Chronicle is that it offers a
detailed example of how one community created,
envisioned, and used their goddess’ most memo-
rable possessions. At Lindos we encounter those
things “worth seeing” from the local point of view.
In other words, the Lindian Temple Chronicle is
an example of what “they said”—what the learned
among the Lindians said—about their own most
valued treasures.
We have heard of the temple-as-museum before
and have seen the temple cluttered with gifts well
known to locals and visitors alike. I have argued,
however, that we should see the analogy of the
temple-as-museum as more than an offhand meta-
phor. Rather, it offers an analytic approach to the
objects collected within ancient Greek temples. To
see the temple as a museum is to see it as a site that
conferred authenticity on objects. It is to see that
communities used such objects to express their
ideas and interests; to see that an underlying logic
governed collections of these objects; and to see
that through these collections communities reified,
affirmed, and broadcast their most cherished
beliefs.
department of classical studies
kauke hall
400 e. university
college of wooster
wooster, ohio 44691–2363
jshaya@wooster.edu
ra and Phoibe at Sparta], 2.19.5 [Apollo Lykeios in Argos];
10.2.4 [Apollo at Delphi], 8.28.1 [Asklepios at Gortyn], 1.13.2
[Zeus at Dodona], 5.12.8 [Zeus at Olympia]). For many more
437
Appendix: Summary of the Lindian
Temple Chronicle
column a: decree
Column A (lines 1–12) records the decree that
authorized the creation of the stele and gives spe-
cific instructions as to how the inscription should
be made. It begins with a resolution by the council-
ors and the Lindians to enact a proposal made by
Hagesitimos: since the temple was most ancient and
honored and had been adorned with many beauti-
ful offerings from antiquity on account of the
epiphany of the goddess, and since time had de-
stroyed most of the offerings and their inscriptions,
it was resolved to choose two men who were to pre-
pare a stele and inscribe it with the decree and
testimonials to the offerings and the epiphanies of
the goddess. The decree then sets the parameters
for the creation of the inscription and its place-
ment in the sanctuary of Athena. It concludes by
stating that a 500-drachma fine would be levied
against those who did not comply with the decree
and that Tharsagoras, son of Stratos, and Timakhidas,
son of Hagesitimos, were selected.
columns b and c: catalogue of votive
offerings
A list of donors, votive offerings, and testimoni-
als, entitled “The following made offerings to
Athena” fills columns B and C (tables 1, 2). The list
originally contained records of at least 45 donations,
37 of which survive today. All but five of the offerings
reportedly bore inscriptions. For the donations, the
authors include 103 citations from 25 authorities.
column d: epiphanies
Column D, entitled “Epiphanies,” originally re-
corded four miracles of Athena. In the first story
(lines 2–59), Athena defeats the Persian general
Datis who had besieged Lindos at the beginning of
the Persian invasion of Greece. Because the
Lindians lacked water, they began to contemplate
surrender, but Athena appeared to a magistrate in
a dream and said that she would ask her father for
help. Since they had enough water for five days, the
Lindians made a truce with the Persians for that
period and agreed to surrender if Athena did not
rescue them. Datis laughed at the Lindians, but on
the following day a great storm broke out over the
examples from other ancient authors, see Pfister 1909–1912;
Thompson 1985.
77
Paus. 8.47.2.
438 JOSEPHINE SHAYA [AJA 109

Table 1. Column B of the Lindian Temple Chronicle, showing the List of Donors and their Gifts
Donation.Lines Donors Gifts
I.2–8 Lindos a phiale, which no one was able to learn from
what it is made
II.9–14 The Telchines a vessel, which no one was able to learn from
what it is made
III.15–17 Kadmos a bronze lebes inscribed with Phoenician letters
IV.18–22 Minos a silver drinking cup
V.23–36 Herakles the wicker shields of Eurypylos and Laomedon,
the one covered with leather, the other
covered with bronze
VI.37–41 Tlapolemos a phiale
VII.42–47 Rhesos a gold drinking cup
VIII.48–53 Telephos a phiale with a gold center
IX.54–61 Those men who marched spoils from Troy: 9 shields, 9 daggers, 9 helmets,
with Tlapolemos against Ilion 9 pairs of greaves
X.62–69 Menelaos the leather helmet of Paris and a dagger
XI.70–72 Helen a pair of bracelets
XII.73–77 Kanopos tillers
XIII.78–81 Meriones a silver quiver from Troy
XIV.82–87 Teucer the quiver of Pandaros and a bow
XV.88–100 The Haliadai tribe, the tribe 3 ancient plaques on which were painted a
of the Autochthones, the phylarch and 9 runners all depicted in an
tribe of the Telchines ancient-looking pose, with the name of each
written on the image
XVI.101–108 Aretakritos and his sons a vase, which had the base of a krater
XVII.109–117 Those of the Lindians who a lotus-wood Pallus and a lion being strangled
with the children of Pankis by Herakles
colonized Cyrene with Battos

Five additonal entries are illegible. The text begins again at the top of column C.

acropolis and poured rain upon Lindos, but not
upon the Persians. Astounded, Datis sent his own
cloak, torque, and armlets together with a Persian
cap, a Persian curved sword, and a covered carriage
to Athena. He then broke camp and made a pact of
friendship with the Lindians, declaring that the
gods guarded these people. The miracle concludes
with a list of eight testimonials.
The second account (lines 60–93) revolves
around the pollution of Athena’s temple. When
the Lindians planned to send to Delphi to ask what
to do about a suicide that took place in the temple,
Athena appeared to a priest in a dream and offered
reassurances and instructions on how to purify her
shrine. The account breaks off in the midst of these
instructions. Five testimonials to the epiphany
survive.
In the third story (lines 94–115), Rhodes is again
under attack. When Demetrius besieged the city,
Athena appeared to a retired priest in a dream and
ordered him to tell one of the prytaneis, a certain
Anaxipolis, to write to King Ptolemy and invite him
to help the city since she would lead the fight and
would secure victory. When the priest kept quiet
about the vision, Athena appeared to him again for
six consecutive nights, each time making the same
demand until he finally went into the city and pro-
claimed her message to the council. The account
breaks off at the point when the councilors send
Anaxipolis to Ptolemy.
2005] THE GREEK TEMPLE AS MUSEUM 439

Table 2. Column C of the Lindian Temple Chronicle, showing the List of Donors and their Gifts
Donation.Lines Donors Gifts
XXIII.1–5 Those who made a campaign 8 shields and a gold crown for the statue
with Kleoboulos against Lycia
XXIV.6–10 The Phaselites spoils from the Solymi: helmets and sickle-
shaped swords
XXV.11–14 The Geloians a great krater from Ariaiton
XXVI.15–20 Amphinomos and his sons a wooden cow and calf
from Sybaris
XXVII.21–28 Phalaris, tyrant of a krater, embossed on one side with the
Akragantines Titanomachy, onthe other with Kronos taking
his children from Rhea and devouring them
XXVIII.29–35 Deinomenes, a Lindian who a Gorgon made of cypress wood with a stone face
colonized Gela together with
Antiphamos
XXIX.36–55 Amasis, king of Egypt a linen cuirass, each thread of which has 360
strands, 2 gilded statues, 10 phialai
XXX.56–59 The Akragantines a palladium with ivory limbs
XXXI.60–64 . . . lis, uncle of Hippokrates, wooden statues, which were called daidaleia
tyrant of Gela
XXXII.65–74 . . . the general of Darius, . . . a torque, a Persian cap, armlets, a Persian
the King of the Persians curved sword, trousers, a covered carriage
XXXIII.75–79 The Soloians a phiale with a Gorgon embossed in gold in the
middle
XXXIV.80–84 The Lindians a 10th part from the spoils from Crete from which
they made the gold crown and necklaces and
most of the other ornaments which the statue had
XXXV.85–93 The demos the things that Artaxerxes honored the demos:
a gold torque, a Persian cap, a Persian curved
sword with much inlay work, gold bracelets with
inlay work, the whole weighing 1,375 [mnas] of
gold, and a royal robe
XXXVI.94–96 The Lindians a Victory weighing 1,300 [mnas] of gold
XXXVII.97–102 The demos of the Rhodians a shield in accordance with an oracle which
announced that when it had been dedicated to
Athena there would follow a resolution of the
war then raging against Ptolemy Philadelphos.
And it happened
XXXVIII.103–109 King Alexander ox skulls and weapons
XXXIX.110–113 King Ptolemy [Soter] 20 brows of oxen
XL.114–121 King Pyrrhos ox skulls and weapons which he himself used in
dangerous situations, dedicated in accordance
with an oracle from Dodona
XLI.122–126 King Hieron weapons, which he himself used
XLII.127–131 King Philip 10 small, light shields; 10 sarissas; 10 helmets

At least 3 additional entries are illegible.

440 JOSEPHINE SHAYA
Works Cited
Alcock, S.E. 1993. Graecia Capta: The Landscapes of Ro-
man Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 1997. “The Heroic Past in a Hellenistic Present.”
In Hellenistic Constructs: Essays in Culture, History, and
Historiography, edited by P. Cartledge, P. Garnsey, and
E. Gruen, 20–34. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
———. 2000. “Classical Order, Alternative Orders, and
the Uses of Nostalgia.” In Order, Legitimacy, and Wealth
in Ancient States, edited by J. Richards and M. Van
Buren, 110–9. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2002. Archaeologies of the Greek Past: Landscape,
Monuments, and Memories. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Aleshire, S. 1989. The Athenian Asklepieion: The People, Their
Dedications and the Inventories. Amsterdam: Gieben.
———. 1991. Asklepios at Athens: Epigraphic and Proso-
pographic Essays on the Athenian Healing Cults.
Amsterdam: Gieben.
Ames, M. 1992. Cannibal Tours and Glass Boxes: The
Anthropology of Museums. Vancouver: UCB Press.
Arafat, K.W. 1995. “Pausanias and the Temple of Hera
at Olympia.” BSA 87:387–409.
Bal, M. 1992. “Telling, Showing, Showing Off.” Critical
Inquiry 18:556–94.
Beard, M., and J. Henderson. 1994. “‘Please Don’t Touch
the Ceiling’: The Culture of Appropriation.” In
Museums and the Appropriation of Culture, edited by S.
Pearce, 5–42. London: Athlone Press.
Beaujeu, M.J. 1982. “A-t-il existé une direction des musées
dans la Rome impériale?” CRAI:671–88.
Bennett, T. 1995. The Birth of the Museum: History, Theory,
Politics. London: Routledge.
Berthold, R. 1984. Rhodes in the Hellenistic Age. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
Blackwood, B. 1970. The Classification of Artefacts in the Pitt
Rivers Museum Oxford. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blinkenberg, C. 1912. La chronique du temple lindien. B.
Luno: Copenhagen.
———. 1913. “RODOU KTISTAI.” Hermes 48:236–49.
———. 1915. Die lindische Tempelchronik (Kleine Texte für
Vorlesungen und Übungen, 131). Bonn: A. Marcus and
E. Weber.
———. 1931. Lindos: Fouilles et recherches 1902–1914. Vol.
1, Les petits objects. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.
———. 1941. Lindos: Fouilles et recherches 1902–1914. Vol.
2, Inscriptions. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.
Boardman, J. 2003. The Archaeology of Nostalgia. How the
Greeks Re-created Their Mythical Past. London: Thames
and Hudson.
Boffo, L. 1988. “Epigrafi di città greche: Un’espressione
di storiografia locale.” In Studi di storia e storiografia an-
tiche: per Emilio Gabba, edited by L. Boffo, 9–48. Como:
Edizioni New Press.
Bounia, A. 2004. The Nature of Classical Collecting: Collec-
tors and Collections 100 BCE–100 CE. Burlington:
Ashgate Publishing.
Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judg-
ment of Taste. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P., A. Darbel, and D. Schnapper. 1991. The
Love of Art: European Art Museums and Their Public.
Translated by C. Beattie and N. Merriman. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
[AJA 109
Bowie, E.L., 1969. “Greeks and Their Past in the Second
Sophistic.” PastPres 45:3–41.
Bremmer, J. 1994. Greek Religion. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Carbonell, B.M., ed. 2004. Museum Studies: An Anthology
of Contexts. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
Cartledge, P., and A. Spawforth. 1989. Hellenistic and
Roman Sparta: A Tale of Two Cities. London: Routledge.
Casson, L. 2001. Libraries in the Ancient World. New Ha-
ven: Yale University Press.
Chaniotis, A. 1988. Historie und Historiker in den griechis-
chen Inschriften: epigraphische Beiträge zur griechischen
Historiographie. Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden.
Clifford, J. 1988. The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-
Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Cook, R.M. 1960. Greek Painted Pottery. London: Methuen.
Corrin, L., ed. 1994. Mining the Museum: An Installation
by Fred Wilson. New York: W.W. Norton.
Crew, S., and J. Sims. 1991. “Locating Authenticity: Frag-
ments of a Dialogue.” In Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics
and Politics of Museum Display, edited by I. Karp and S.
Lavine, 159–75. Washington: Smithsonian Institution
Press.
Dignas, B. 1998. “‘Inventories’ or ‘Offering Lists’? Assess-
ing the Wealth of Apollo Didymaeus.” ZPE 138:235–44.
Duncan, C. 1995. Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art Muse-
ums. London: Routledge.
Duncan, C., and A. Wallach. 1980. “The Universal Sur-
vey Museum.” Art History 3(4):448–69.
Durrans, B. 1988. “The Future of the Other: Changing
Cultures on Display in Ethnographic Museums.” In
The Museum Time Machine: Putting Cultures on Display,
edited by R. Lumley, 144–69. London: Routledge.
El-Abbadi, M. 1990. The Life and Fate of the Ancient Library
of Alexandria. Paris: Unesco/UNDP.
Elsner, J. 1992. “Pausanias: A Greek Pilgrim in the Ro-
man World.” PastPres 135:3–29.
———. 1996. “The New Museology and Classical Art.”
AJA 100(4):769–73.
Elsner, J., and R. Cardinal, eds. 1994. The Cultures of Col-
lecting. Cambridge: Reaktion Books.
Fabianski, M. 1990. “Musaea in Written Sources of the
Fifteenth to Eighteenth Centuries.” Opuscula Musealia:
47–44.
Fenrich, L. 1995. “The Enola Gay and the Politics of
Representation.” In Remembering the Bomb: The Fiftieth
Anniversary in the United States and Japan. Bulletin of
Concerned Asian Scholars 27(2), edited by L. Hein, 26–
32.
FGrHist: Jacoby, F. 1923–1962. Fragmente der griechischen
Historiker. Berlin: Weidmann.
Findlen, P. 1989. “The Museum: Its Classical Etymology
and Renaissance Genealogy.” Journal of the History of
Collections 1:59–78.
Fraser, P.M. 1972. Ptolemaic Alexandria. Oxford: Claren-
don Press.
Frazer, J.G. 1898. Pausanias’ Description of Greece. Lon-
don: Macmillan.
Gabba, E. 1981. “True and False History in Classical
Antiquity.” JRS 71:50–62.
Gabrielsen,V. 1993. “Rhodes and Rome after the Third
Macedonian War.” In Centre and Periphery in the Helle-
nistic World. Studies in Hellenistic Civilization IV, edited
by P. Bilde, T. Engberg-Pedersen, L. Hannestad, J.
2005] THE GREEK TEMPLE AS MUSEUM
Zahle, and K. Randsborg, 285–315. Aarhus: Aarhus
University Press.
———. 1997. The Naval Aristocracy of Hellenistic Rhodes.
Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Gruben, G. 1976. Die Tempel der Griechen. Munich: Hirmer.
Habicht, C. 1985. Pausanias’ Guide to Ancient Greece.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hamilton, R. 2000. Treasure Map: A Guide to the Delian
Inventories. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Harris, D. 1995. The Treasures of the Parthenon and the
Erechtheion. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Higbie, C. 2003. The Lindian Chronicle and the Greek Cre-
ation of Their Past. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hill, D.K. 1944. “Hera the Sphinx.” Hesperia 13(4):353–60.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. 1992. Museums and the Shaping of
Knowledge. London: Routledge.
Howard, S. 1990. Antiquity Restored. Vienna: IRSA.
Humphreys, S.C. 1997. “Fragments, Fetishes, and Philos-
ophies. Toward a History of Greek Historiography
after Thucydides.” In Collecting Fragments, Fragmente
Sammeln, edited by G. Most, 207–24. Göttingen: Van-
denhoeck and Ruprecht.
Isager, J. 1991. Pliny on Art and Society: The Elder Pliny’s
Chapters on the History of Art. Translated by Henrik
Rosenmeier. Odense: Odense University Press.
Jacob, C. 1980. “The Greek Traveler’s Area of Knowl-
edge.” Yale French Studies 59:65–85.
Jones, A.N. 1993. “Exploding Canons: The Anthropology
of Museums.” Annual Review of Anthropology 22:201–20.
Jones, C. P. 2001. “Pausanias and His Guides.” In Pausa-
nias: Travel and Memory in Roman Greece, edited by S.
Alcock, J. Cherry, and J. Elsner, 33–9. New York: Ox-
ford University Press.
Karp, I., and S. Lavine, eds. 1991. Exhibiting Cultures: The
Poetics and Politics of Museum Display. Washington:
Smithsonian University Press.
Karp, I., S. Lavine, and C. Mullen Kreamer, eds. 1992.
Museums and Communities: The Politics of Public Culture.
Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Kyrieleis, H. 1993. “The Heraion at Samos.” In Greek
Sanctuaries, New Approaches, edited by N. Marinatos
and R. Hägg, 125–53. London: Routledge.
Lee, P.Y. 1997. “The Musaeum of Alexandria and the
Formation of the Museum in Eighteenth-Century
France.” ArtB 79(3):385–412.
Lehmann, K. 1945. “A Roman Poet Visits a Museum.”
Hesperia 14:259–69.
Linders, T. 1972. Studies in the Treasure Records of Artemis
Brauronia Found in Athens. Stockholm: Svenska insti-
tutet i Athen.
———. 1975. The Treasures of the Other Gods in Athens and
Their Functions. Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 62.
Meisenheim (am Glan): Hain.
———. 1992. “The Delian Temple Accounts. Some Ob-
servations.” OpAth 19:69–73.
Linenthal, E. 1995. “Between History and Memory: The
Enola Gay Controversy at the National Air and Space
Museum.” In Remembering the Bomb: The Fiftieth Anni-
versary in the United States and Japan. Bulletin of Con-
cerned Asian Scholars 27 (2), edited by L. Hein, 16–8.
Lippolis, E. 1988–1989. “Il santuario di Athana a Lindo.”
ASAtene 66–67:97–157.
Longo, V. 1969. Aretalogie nel mondo greco. Genova: Pubbli-
cazioni dell’Istituto di filologia classica dell’Universitè
di Genova, 29.
441
Mango, C., M. Vickers, and E.D. Francis. 1992. “The
Palace of Lausus at Constantinople and its Collection
of Ancient Statues.” Journal of the History of Collections
4(1):89–98.
Mayor, A. 2000. The First Fossil Hunters: Paleontology in
Greek and Roman Times. Princeton: Princeton Univer-
sity Press.
Morricone, L. 1949–1951. “I sacerdoti di Halios. Fram-
mento di catalogo rinvenuto a Rodi.” ASAtene 27–
29:361–80.
Mygind, B. 1999. “Intellectuals in Rhodes.” In Hellenistic
Rhodes: Politics, Culture, and Society, edited by V. Gabri-
elsen, P. Bilde, T. Engberg-Pedersen, L. Hannestad,
and J. Zahle, 247–330. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Pearce, S. 1994. Interpreting Objects and Collections. Lon-
don: Routledge.
Pearce, S., and A. Bounia, eds. 2002. The Collector’s Voice.
Critical Readings in the Practice of Collecting, Vol. 1, An-
cient Voices. Burlington: Ashgate.
Peek, W. 1940. “Ein neuer samischer Historiker.” Klio
33:164–70.
Pfister, F. 1894. “Epiphanie.” RE Suppl. 4:277–323.
———. 1909–1912. Der Reliquienkult im Altertum. Giessen:
A. Töpelmann.
Picard, M.-Th. 1957. “La thoraké d’Amasis.” Hommages
à Waldemar Deonna, Coll Latomus 28:363–70.
Pomian, K. 1990. Collectors and Curiosities. Paris and Venice
1500–1800. Translated by E. Wiles-Portier. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Porter, G. 1988. “Putting Your House in Order: Repre-
sentations of Women and Domestic Life.” In The
Museum Time Machine: Putting Cultures on Display,
edited by R. Lumley, 102–27. London: Routledge.
Pritchett, W.K. 1979. The Greek State at War. Part 3, Reli-
gion. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Richards, G.C. 1929. “Timakhidas.” In New Chapters in
the History of Greek Literature, Second Series, edited by
J.U. Powell and E.A. Barber, 76–82. Oxford: Claren-
don Press.
Roussel, P. 1931. “Le miracle de Zeus Panamaros.” BCH
55:70–116.
Roux, G. 1984. “Trésors, temples, tholos.” In Temples et
sanctuaries, edited by G. Roux, 153–72. Lyon: GIS-
Maison de l’Orient.
Salomon, X.F. 2003. “Cardinal Pietro Barbo’s Collec-
tion and its Inventory Reconsidered.” Journal of the
History of Collections 15(1):1–18.
Scheer, T. 1996. “Ein Museum griechischer, ‘Frühge-
schichte’ im Apollontempel von Sikyon.” Klio 78:353–
73.
Segre, M. 1949. “L’oracolo di Apollo Pythaeus a Rodi.”
PP 4:72–82.
Shaya, J. 2002. “The Lindos Stele and the Lost Treasures
of Athena: Catalogs, Collections, and Local History.”
Ph.D.diss., University of Michigan.
Snodgrass, A.M. 1980. Archaic Greece: The Age of Experi-
ment. London: J.M. Dent.
———. 1998. Homer and the Artists: Text and Picture in
Early Greek Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2001. “Pausanias and the Chest of Kypselos.” In
Pausanias. Travel and Memory in Roman Greece, edited
by S. Alcock, J. Cherry, and J. Elsner, 127–41. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Spawforth, A. 1994. “Symbol of Unity? The Persian-Wars
442 JOSEPHINE SHAYA, THE GREEK TEMPLE AS MUSEUM
Tradition in the Roman Empire.” In Greek Historio-
graphy, edited by S. Hornblower, 233–47. Oxford: Clar-
endon Press.
Stambaugh, J. 1978. “The Functions of Roman Temples.”
ANRW, Part 2, 16(1):554–608.
Starn, R. 2005. “A Historian’s Brief Guide to New Muse-
um Studies.” AHR 110(1):68–98.
Stewart, S. 1993. On Longing: Narratives of the Miniature,
the Gigantic, the Souvenir, the Collection. Durham: Duke
University Press.
Strong, D. 1973. “Roman Museums.” In Archaeological
Theory and Practice, edited by D. Strong, 247–64. Lon-
don: Seminar Press.
Swain, S. 1996. Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism,
and Power in the Greek World, A.D. 50–250. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Thompson, D. 1956. “The Persian Spoils in Athens.” In
The Aegean and the Near East, edited by S. Weinberg,
281–91. Locust Valley, N.Y.: J.J. Augustin.
Thompson, E. 1985. “The Relics of Heroes in Ancient
Greece.” Ph.D. diss., University of Washington.
Törnkvist, S. 1969. “Notes on Linen Corslets.” OpRom
7:81–2.
Traiana, G. 1987. “Il mondo di C. Licinio Muciano.”
Athenaeum 75:379–406.
Vergo, P. 1989. The New Museology. London: Reaktion
Books.
Veyne, P. 1988. Did the Greeks Believe in Their Myths? Trans-
lated by P. Wissing. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
von Holst, N. 1967. Creators, Collectors, and Connoisseurs:
The Anatomy of Artistic Taste from Antiquity to the Present.
London: Putnam.
Wace, A. 1949. “The Greeks and Romans as Archaeo-
logists.” BSRAA 38:21–35.
Wiemer, H.-U. 2001. Rhodische Traditionem in der hellenis-
tischen Historiographie. Frankfurt am Main: Marthe
Clauss.