W.-K.’s monograph provides a comprehensive presentation of the form and meaning of grave monuments in Attica up to the end of the classical period. W.-K. adopts an anthropological approach, highlighting how the management of death is a fundamental human experience, and clearly distinguishes the Greek view of death from the Christian one. A central concept is geras thanonton, the honour and lasting memory due to the deceased. Athens is chosen as the primary case study not only for its cultural centrality but also for its wealth of figurative evidence, boasting four and a half times the number of grave reliefs compared to the rest of classical Greece.
The book is divided into four chapters, in their turn subdivided into several sections, that follow a chronological order in which the evolution of Athenian funerary practices is discussed. Chapter 1 addresses the Geometric period (1000–700 bce), during which Greeks did not reserve space for exclusive use for the dead; tombs framed the main roads, as a presence in daily life. The Homeric ideal of seeking posthumous fame and glory permeated the conception of death. Images on grave vessels, appearing in the mid-eighth century bce, do not document the contemporary customs but follow an ‘image strategy of ennoblement’ (p. 36) and are testimonies of universal concepts and values, not tied to specific social statuses. Communication and commemoration were not bound to literacy during this period. The first half of the seventh century bce is seen as transitional, but is not explicitly covered in W.-K.’s analysis.
Chapter 2 deals with the Archaic period (c. 650–490 bce). This period is marked by two fundamental innovations: the deceased is named and depicted in the image, either as a statue or as a relief. The inscription transforms the image into a portrait, marking an ‘anthropological event of the first rank’ – the ‘discovery of the individual’ (p. 58). However, funerary portraits in Attica are attested later than the first named stelae and early funerary statues in the Cyclades. Funerary statues, such as the kouros type, aimed to keep the memory of the deceased alive; their youthfulness was understood as an expression of an ideal, not their condition. W.-K. rightly identifies the kouros as the first depiction of nude male figures, with their nudity being polyvalent and not limited to athletes. Grave monuments were positioned to be seen, and the (loud) reading of funerary epigrams was a way to offer geras thanonton. Unlike in other regions, in Athens, the ‘beautiful death’ for the polis did not yet play a significant role. Images of the funeral ritual, a dominant theme on Geometric vessels, were gradually replaced by smaller clay vessels or clay pinakes on rectangular tomb structures. Archaic statues are described as self-referential works. The dynamic, though restrained, posture of these figures was a prodigious novelty, showing the deceased alive and standing, not lying down. They often ‘smiled’ during the sixth century bce (570–490 bce), further emphasising vitality and distancing from a sombre funerary atmosphere. Sphinxes, common as finials on grave stelae from around 600 bce, are interpreted as reminders of the ‘presence of the demonic’, and their disappearance around 530 bce is linked to a ‘change of perspective’ (p. 81) from imagined threats to human conditions.
Chapter 3 addresses the classical period (c. 490–300 bce). This period is characterised by the ‘discovery of the self and the other’ (p. 127), with funerary monuments often depicting the deceased alongside family members. The approximately 2,700 Attic grave reliefs, the largest collection of classical sculpture, are a rich iconographic source for historical individuals of this period. W.-K. attributes the changes between the timeless appearances of the Archaic period and the figures on classical reliefs to a shift in mentality. In contrast to the self-referential Archaic statues, classical figures, with their balanced posture, show capacity for reaction and communication. The ‘conscious death’ does not replace the ‘familiar’ one, but rather testifies to a new dimension of awareness: the relationship between the living and the deceased is now a central theme. Classical reliefs often depict the community of the living and the dead, evoked by the handshake, dexiosis. Not much importance is given to the concretisation of personal relationships (kinship, slaves), but generational differences are recognised. Often, the deceased is not identifiable as such, which W.-K. considers significant: the emphasis is on community, not separation caused by death. The dexiosis is a visual formula of lasting connection, not a narrative greeting or farewell. The new interest in visualising non-situational but lasting bonds is also evident in the traditional theme of the warrior’s farewell. The figures with their balanced posture demonstrate the capacity for reaction and communication, a prerequisite for the dialogic compositions on classical grave reliefs.
Within Chapter 3 W.-K. discusses white-ground lekythoi. Used primarily in funerary contexts from around 470 to 400 bce, they focus on attention to the dead – preparations for funerary cults and imaginary encounters with the deceased at the tomb. These vessels visualise an ‘internalisation of grief detached from ritual’. The white-ground lekythoi are seen by W.-K. not as representations of rituals, but as visualisations of an interiorisation of mourning detached from ritual. After 430 bce the lekythos evolved into a funerary symbol rather than an oil container, probably influenced by the needs of Athenian customers.
Chapter 3 also touches on the Demosion Sema (‘State Tomb’). Established after the Persian Wars, figurative representations began around 430 bce, showing soldiers and cavalrymen in battle. During this period the ‘beautiful death’ for the polis was also praised in Athens, both in epigraphs and in images. This practice, including the prothesis of biers, citizen participation, the funeral oration, communal burial and monument construction, marked a distinct difference from Sparta. The public burial ritual strengthened the notion of the public sphere and enhanced civic consciousness. A minor addition could be a reference to the works by G. Proietti on the Demosion Sema: Proietti engages with the modern impression of this area, which was probably different from the appearance at the time. This would include, on the one hand, the mnemonic aspect of the Kerameikos in antiquity and, on the other hand, reception studies (G. Proietti, ‘Ancient Reality, Modern Perceptions. A Status Quaestionis on the Athenian Demosion Sema as a (non) National Military Cemetery’, Pelargòs 4 [2023], 125–43). Additionally, Chapter 3 discusses family tomb precincts. These represent a new, and according to W.-K., decisive feature of the classical age, emphasising community and family genealogy on nameless stelae without images.
Chapter 4 is devoted to the late classical Period (after the mid-fourth century bce). Images then acquire a pathetic quality, intensifying emotional connection through gestures or, conversely, highlighting the deceased’s inaccessibility through a demonstrative refusal of contact. These images address universal themes of life and death, not being representative family portraits or biographies. The happiness of a long life and the presence of generations of descendants are celebrated in epigrams. The period after 350 bce saw a crisis in Attic funerary stelae, with reliefs growing larger and figures projecting further, threatening the morphological unity of the stele. Within Chapter 4 W.-K discusses the end of the grave markers. The last generation of classical reliefs shows an isolation of the dead and an emotional intensity. An increase in size (architectural complexes), furnishings and thematic range of images is noted. The sumptuary law of Demetrius of Phalerum (317–307 bce) ended the production of funerary reliefs, as the historical and social context had changed.
While the large number of illustrations throughout the text is to be commended, the decision to use endnotes instead of footnotes is a pity, as it prevents direct access to additional information. W.-K.’s work successfully presents significant aspects of the Athenian funerary evidence in a remarkably concise and compelling manner, highlighting constants across epochs and notable innovations. In summary, funerary rites and monuments in Athens are discussed over a considerable period of time, not only as expressions of individual grief, but also as powerful vehicles of social values, collective identity and power strategies, providing insights into the mentality of the Athenians, their values and their communication practices.
