CAVANAGH, Chris. An Analysis of 'Héroa' in The Greek World

An Analysis of ἥρωα in the Greek World
Chris Cavanagh
Abstract
There has been much discussion relating to hero cults and hero worship, but general studies
on the shrines at which these heroes were worshipped is sadly lacking. The objective of this
paper was to assess whether hero shrines – predominantly in the Archaic and Classical
periods – exhibited any patterns or features which could suggest architectural typologies, as
current scholarly opinion differs as to their origins and layouts. This was achieved via
establishing a series of criteria which suggested a monument’s function as a hero cult,
followed by compiling a catalogue of 50 shrines/shrine building phases, containing relevant
data which was selected on the basis of said criteria.
The analysis and results suggested several interesting conclusions; notably that hero cult
worship appears to have been a constant process throughout the Archaic and Classical
periods, with a marked increase in the monumentalisation of buildings and the
establishment of larger building complexes in the Classical era. While the data could not
provide any definitive evidence suggesting shrine categories, a heuristic and less stringent
analysis of the catalogue suggested that some generic patterns were apparent, patterns
which were analysed and eventually categorised into seven types of shrine, with only a small
number being incapable of categorisation.
Contents
Introduction 1-14
Defining ἥρως 2
Defining Hero Cult 3-4
The Definition of Hero Shrines and Areas of Cult Activity 4-9
Θεός or ἥρως: Herakles, Asklepios, and the Dioskouroi 9-14
Approach and Methodology 15-18
Methodology 15
Selection Criteria and Approach 16
Criticisms 16-18
Catalogue of Hero Shrines 19-64
Catalogue Introduction 19-20

The Catalogue 20-64
Analysis and Discussion 65-93
Analysis of Shrines according to Region 65-67

Analysis of Periods of Construction and Alteration 67-69
Regarding Shrine Demarcations, Buildings and Shrine Scales 69-73
Analysis of Ritual Artefacts and Auxiliary Structures 73-79
Spatiality and Location within the Polis 79-85
Discussion and Hypothesised Shrine Types 85-93
Conclusion 94-95
Acknowledgements 96
Glossary 97-98
Bibliography 99-105
Supplementary Figures 106-137
Fig.1/front cover image: Pearson (2014); 5th century Attic wine cup depicting the birth of
Erechthonius.
Introduction
Heroes and hero cults have been the subject of great interest throughout the years in classical
history and archaeology, with studies on hero cult being in plentiful supply for classical scholars and
enthusiasts.1 The worship of Greek heroes was not a minor phenomenon; indeed, from the
epigraphic and literary evidence it seems that hero cults were scattered throughout the Greek world
in abundance,2 so they were clearly a significant aspect of Greek society.
However it is worth noting that while there have been numerous studies and publications on Greek
hero cults by modern scholars very few of these deal specifically with the actual hero shrines at
which their cults carried out their respective rituals. As any affiliated scholar or tourist to such sites
has noticed, it is clear that the various monuments commonly noted as hero shrines appear to show
stark differences in appearance at first glance (two examples that come to mind are the Menelaion
of Therapne and the Erechtheion in Athens). Is this a question of local building techniques, or is it
cultural? Or, are these perceived differences merely skin-deep; could they follow similar
architectural patterns or plans, unknown as of yet to modern observers? Moreover, could there be
similarities apparent with shrines in regards to their position in the landscape? It is clear in the
ancient world that certain aspects of Greek constructs followed some patterns and similarities, if not
in direct physical appearance then at least in other ways (for example, the tetrastyle or hexastyle
plan for Greek temples, the πρόναος and ὀπισθόδομος of the same or the recurring positioning of
the πρυτανεῖον in the agora). Therefore it may be that hero shrines follow patterns of such similar
nature, or they may be utterly enigmatic or chaotic (whether that applies to their design,
appearance or their position in the polis, collectively or individually).
As mentioned previously, while many publications have addressed the meaning behind hero cults,
their origin or the hero’s significance in Greek society few have actively assessed hero shrines on the
basis of such questions as have been posed here. Therefore the principal aim of this paper is to
investigate the variations between Greek hero shrines, with an emphasis on architecture, spatiality
and the location of these shrines within the classical polis. Do these defined monuments share
attributes that could potentially mark them as separate from other temples? Can typologies be
made to mark distinct types of heroa in the Greek world, unseen at present, or are they purely
incapable of categorisation?
In order to assess these questions a significant number of hero shrines from the Archaic and Classical
periods of Greece will have to be selected and analysed for any similarities or consistencies, the
results of which should provide a suitable area for an analysis and discussion of their significance.
1
For some basic introductions to the realm of Greek hero cults, see Larson, J. (2007) “Ancient Greek Cults” and
Farnell, L. (1920) “Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality”, both of which provide a good starting point for
further research into the area. Moreover, see Ekroth, G. (2002) “Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Hero-Cults” (for
details on sacrifice) and Whitley, J. (1994) “The Monuments That Stood before Marathon: Tomb Cult and Hero
Cult in Archaic Attica” for further viewpoints and opinions on specific aspects of heroic cult. For work
specifically related to my topic, see Fedak, J. (1990) “Monumental Tombs of the Hellenistic Age”. However, his
work focuses on areas outside mainland Greece and on monumental tombs rather than heroic shrines.
2
Parker (2005), 54.
1
The potential benefits of such research may be quickly apparent; as a topic that has been somewhat
neglected in hero cult studies it will surely benefit/add to archaeological studies in the subject area.
Moreover, it is quite possible that the results could open a new window in future studies on Greek
cult, or at least (through the identification/creation of new typologies or hallmarks of hero shrines)
provide scholars and archaeologists with a possible framework through which they could identify
hero shrines at relevant excavations in future. Or alternatively if no such patterns exist, then it could
confirm that hero shrines are simply incapable of categorisation and definition, and must rely on
definition purely through the basis of cult functions and origin. Even if categorisations cannot be
made, this investigation may yet show us other information of interest (for example, architectural
scale and changes over time, from the Archaic-Classical periods).
However in order to even contemplate such a study, one must first consider a proper framework
from which to begin analysing hero shrines (as several issues in hero cult are apparent, which will be
addressed further on in this chapter); considering that hero cult is a subject area that is
unfortunately scarce in information much must be based upon interpretation of the evidence
available.3 Therefore in order to address this properly one must first ask a series of questions - what
exactly is a hero, and what is meant by hero cult? Is there any evidence available that we can use
which suggests a hero shrine? A definitive conclusion in these areas will allow us clear criteria from
which we can search for heroon examples.
Defining ἥρως
In modern terms a hero usually refers to someone who overcomes great adversity to protect others
or achieve great deeds. Yet in classical history the word ἥρως may take on an altogether different
meaning. In Homeric language a hero was a term used to describe various characters in the Iliad – a
word which Kearns and Mirto have interpreted as a title of respect given to warriors and rulers of
the highest class in Mycenaean Greece.4 However what is certain is that the term itself is somewhat
ambiguous. Several scholars have admitted that the term hero is somewhat hazy, with poor
explanations from both literary and epigraphic source material.5 In fact the term even appears to be
questionable by primary sources; in Lucian’s Dialogues of the Dead,6 the seer Menippus is seen to
ask the dead hero Trophonius “what is a Hero? I am sure I don't know”. Thankfully an answer is
given when Trophonius is seen to reply that “he is half God, and half man”. This definition of ἥρως
seemingly differs from the Homeric version, and is indicative of changing views about it over time.7
Nonetheless, the period which this project focuses on does not include the Homeric age, and the
generally accepted view among scholars is that the classical definition of a hero is somebody who
3
Larson (1995), 4; Ekroth (2002), 335; Coldstream (1976), 8.
4
Kearns (1989), 2; Mirto (2012), 8.
5
Kearns (1989), 1-3; Whitley (1995), 51; Parker (1996), 36-39.
6
Luc. DMort. 10.3.
7
Parker (1996), 36-39 suggests that Homer’s definition of hero differs from Archaic/Classical definitions of the
term.
2
was “more than a man, but less than a God”.8 Therefore it seems clear that this definition is valid for
this particular investigation.
Defining Hero Cult
Regarding hero cult, the term is vague in itself (much like ἥρως). A common assumption would be
that hero cult is often used to apply to the religious cults or followers of a hero, who gathered to
sacrifice to/honour their patron; a practice which is often centred in or around the hero’s tomb or
shrine, whose sacrifices were usually chthonic in nature.9 However, debate exists as to what truly
constitutes hero cult, with some scholars dividing hero cults into various subcategories,10 and
another major problem being that several scholars suggest that hero cult and ancestor cult are not
one and the same.11 We must remember here that “hero cult” is a modern term, and is therefore
utterly subjective; the best we can do is to pick a middle ground for understanding. So, what
differentiates heroic cult from tomb/ancestral cult? Antonaccio has suggested that hero cult
requires the formal worship of a hero, whereas tomb cult is the veneration of Mycenaean or other
period tombs with various offerings.12 If so, then what differentiates an area of hero cult activity
from that of tomb cult? For starters, the primary source material often tends to refer specifically to
heroes when describing various monuments or places; for example, to simply quote some of
Pausanias’ texts:
[Regarding the Tomb of Tereus] He committed suicide in Megara, and the Megarians
forthwith raised him a barrow, and every year sacrifice to him, using in the sacrifice gravel
instead of barley meal; they say that the bird called the hoopoe appeared here for the first
time.13
A little before the city of Dyme there is, on the right of the road, the grave of Sostratus. He
was a native youth, loved they say by Heracles, who outliving Sostratus made him his tomb
and gave him some hair from his head as a primal offering. Even today there is a slab on the
top of the mound, with a figure of Heracles in relief. I was told that the natives also sacrifice
to Sostratus as to a hero.14
These passages seem to explain that clearly – if a monument, tomb or place is specifically connected
with heroic worship, then that area is one of hero cult, not ancestral or tomb cult. While it could be
suggested that some heroic cults have strong bases in tomb cults,15 the origins of heroic cults are not
8
Whitley (1995), 51; Ekroth (2002), 20-22; Nagy (1999), 114-17 suggests that there were 2 types of hero (those
of epic poetry and chthonian beings tied to particular locations).
9
Larson (1995), 8.
10
Whitley (1995), 53-54 notes four categories of hero cult; Ainian (1999), 10 argues that in archaeological
terms hero cults can be divided into three broad categories, namely tomb cults at prehistoric tombs,
eponymous heroes from epics/myths and cults in honour of the recent dead.
11
Farnell (1920), 2; Antonaccio (1999), 115 has suggested a marked difference between cults, dividing them
into hero cults and tomb cults, suggesting that both occurred together in Greek history; De Polignac (1995),
138 claims that Homeric hero cults were not centred on tombs, and were practiced far from burial grounds.
12
Antonaccio (1999), 115.
13
Paus. 1.41.9.
14
Paus. 7.17.8.
15
Kearns (1989), 131-132 notes that no single theory will fit all heroic cults.
3
the purpose of this investigation, and their origins do not affect their roles in the time period.
Therefore, in order to define hero cult two items are required:
 Physical evidence suggesting or implying heroic cult

 Specific mention of a hero (via literary or epigraphic sources)
If these rules are followed then it can be reasonably assumed that the site suggests hero cult, rather
than ancestral or tomb cult. If a site contains purely sacrificial evidence then the site cannot be
assuredly categorised as one where heroic cult took place. However there are more factors to take
into consideration, which will be addressed in the following section.
The Definition of Hero Shrines and Areas of Cult Activity
The prior discussions now bring us to the most important question – what is a hero shrine, and how
can we identify one through the archaeological remains left to us? A simple suggestion would be
that it is a shrine dedicated to the hero, where cult activity takes place. Larson specifically states that
hero shrines were “small chapels” which were thought to contain the remains of the deceased
hero.16 So just how valid is this viewpoint; after all, as was mentioned in the introduction, while
there is a plethora of data available regarding hero cults, there is a significant paucity of information
when it comes to modern articles pertaining to hero shrines. Therefore how can we establish what
they are? How can we tell whether a particular mound in Attica is a hero shrine rather than a simple
grave mound?
We have to remember that in order for this investigation to succeed, we must ensure that the
samples presented adhere to particular criteria that we can establish, to ensure the validity of our
results. A simple way to start would be by looking at the literary source materials available to us. So
what do the sources tell us? For a start, it should be noted that Pausanias (who is our main source
for hero cults in the period) seemingly refers to hero shrines by a number of words; while the term
ἥρῷον is used, τάφος, ἱερόν and μνῆμα are also used in his texts to refer to shrines at which hero
cults are located.17 Indeed, Larson has noted that in between Pausanias 1.39.4 - 1.44.10 he uses
τάφος 7 times, μνῆμα 12 times, ἥρῷον 5 times and ἱερόν only once.18 Interestingly he uses ἥρῷον
less than other terms – why is this? Larson suggests that ἱερόν refers more to a larger temple,
suggesting that ἥρῷα are smaller to begin with. Yet this does not account as to why Pausanias uses
τάφος and μνῆμα when referring to apparent hero shrines (or as to why they constitute the majority
of references). Larson suggests that ἥρῷον may have special meaning;19 a shrine of greater
importance than τάφος or μνῆμα (in other words, suggesting that Pausanias has a hierarchy for
various hero shrines).While we could agree with Larson and suggest that Pausanias is referring to
different monuments here, an alternative suggestion could be that Pausanias is simply using
variation in his descriptions of what he sees (to avoid boredom and keep his reader interested). Or, it
could be suggested that if he sees a tomb, he will describe it as τάφος; if he sees something
16
Larson (1995), 10-11.
17
Larson (1995), 9-13.
18
Larson (1995), 12.
19
Larson (1995), 13.
4
resembling a temple, he will refer to it as a ναός or possibly ἱερόν (as suggested by Larson).20 A
ἥρῷον may be a term to explain somewhat “unique” features, or it could indicate an entirely new
type of monument altogether. Therefore it would seem apparent that the word alone appears not to
indicate its heroic status, or an affirmation of the presence of hero cult – instead it is the additional
description of the site at hand by the scholar that can reveal more information, or the name of the
person to which the monument is affiliated – that tells us whether or not the monument in question
is in fact a hero shrine.
In addition to literary description, what other evidence can we find that suggests the location of a
hero shrine (or failing that, heroic cult)? Our first thought may be “the presence of a tomb” or
human remains; after all, Pausanias refers to tombs as places of heroic cult on many occasions,21 but
this assumption can be challenged by the fact that while many hero shrines appear to have been
affiliated with tombs and dead persons, many identified heroa contain no evidence for human
remains, or indeed a grave of any kind.22 Even Pausanias implies that some apparent hero shrines do
not contain tombs or human remains.23 Therefore we can assume that, while a tomb may be
indicative of some examples of heroic cult shrines, a tomb in itself is not sufficient evidence for the
presence of one.
Another assumption could be the presence of a large monument or temple. However, Whitley has
noted (in regards to religious and heroic sanctuaries) that the presence of a temple was not always
necessary for ritual cult; instead, he argues that animal sacrifice was a much more important
catalyst.24 Therefore from this we should assume that in order for a sacrifice to proceed there would
need to be some form of altar to carry out said sacrifices. Ergo, rather than a temple or shrine being
the indicator of a hero shine we could consider altars as a possible focal point or indicator of heroic
cult (although this does not exclude temples as indicators either).
What other examples can we find? Cole has noted that, in regards to hero shrines, the division of the
divine or religious realm was separated from the human realm by the placing of ὅροι, περίβολοι and
περιρραντήρια.25 These markers helped indicate what is known as the “τέμενος”, an area of religious
importance common with religious sanctuaries and shrines.26 In support of his argument, to quote
Hippocrates:27
20
Paus. 3.19.9; Hdt. 6.61 both specifically refer to the Menelaion of Therapne as a “ναός”; Tomlinson (1992),
254 suggests however that in regards to the Menelaion, "ναός" refers more to the monuments function rather
than its form.
21
Paus. 1.29.2, 1.43.3, 3.13.1, 6.24.9, 8.93-4 etc.
22
For example, De Polignac (1995), 147 (citing the heroa of Megara Hyblaea); Ekroth (2002), 20-22; Kearns
(1989), 3; Neer (2012), 283-287; Tomlinson (1992), 250; Catling (1976-1977), 34-42 suggests that a natural
knoll now enclosed by the classical shrine may have been identified as the tomb of Menelaos and Helen by the
founders; Pausanias 3.19.9 implies that the belief WAS that Helen and Menelaos were buried there.
23
Paus. 2.23.2.
24
Whitley (2004), 134.
25
Cole (2004), 36.
26
Whitley (2004), 136.
27
Hp. Morb. Sacr. 1.110-1.112.
5
We mark out the boundaries of the temples and the groves of the gods, so that no one may
pass them unless he be pure.28
Therefore, as the religious realm appears to incorporate heroic cult, we should assume that this rule
also applies to hero shrines. Evidence of ὅροι markers or περίβολοι may very well be indicative of a
hero shrine or a place of heroic cult activity.29
Yet what differentiates our place of religious significance from that of a normal religious sanctuary?
In order to address this issue we should turn to sacrificial rituals. In regards to sacrifices, a commonly
held belief among scholars is that common sacrifice (θυσία) to the Gods differed from that of
heroes.30 Due to their “chthonian” nature, heroes tended to receive ἐναγίζειν, often defined as
“sacrifice offered to the dead”.31 How though does this relate to the archaeological record? Ekroth
and Stroszeck note that a βόθρος is often assumed to be characteristic of heroic cults and other
chthonian deities (for example, Hades, Persephone or Hekate).32 Their ritual function was to receive
the pouring of liquid libations, the most prominent being blood from sacrificial victims.33 These
βόθροι can be identified as either a simple shallow hole or pit in the ground (for temporary use) or
as much more elaborate pits (almost akin to wells) which were intended for use on a much more
permanent basis.34 Indeed the term appears in the literary sources on several occasions; in
Pausanias where he mentions a βόθρος for Kore,35 and again where he mentions one for Pelops.
Homer also refers to a potential βόθρος in the Odyssey:36
When you have reached this spot, as I now tell you, dig a trench a cubit or so in length,
breadth, and depth, and pour into it as a drink-offering to all the dead, first, honey mixed
with milk, then wine, and in the third place water-sprinkling white barley meal over the
whole. Moreover you must offer many prayers to the poor feeble ghosts, and promise them
that when you get back to Ithaca you will sacrifice a barren heifer to them, the best you
have, and will load the pyre with good things.
One problem is apparent, as it seems clear that these pits are not exclusive to heroic cult;37 the
literary sources attest to this, and Ekroth also acknowledges this fact.38 However she does
28
On the issue of impurity, Paus. 5.13.3; “if anybody, whether Elean or stranger, eat of the meat of the victim
sacrificed to Pelops, he may not enter the temple of Zeus”; Ekroth (2002), 263 also implies that heroa may have
been seen as impure/unclean by Greeks of the period.
29
For examples of ὅροι, περίβολοι and περιρραντήρια, see Figs.2, 3 and 4.
30
Farnell (1920), 95; Ekroth (2002), 300-301 notes that θυσία was primarily for Gods, and consists of an animal
sacrifice followed by ritual dining.
31
Farnell (1920), 95; Ekroth (2002), 74; Ekroth (2002), 121-128 notes that ἐναγίζειν was only used for normal
dead and heroes in the Classical period. She also notes that what was sacrificed was not often specified;
Kearns (1989), 3 notes that heroes and chthonian gods received ἐναγίζειν, but that there could be exceptions
to this rule at times; Kearns (1989), 14 also notes that Pausanias uses both θυσία and ἐναγίζειν when referring
to heroic sacrifices; Scullion (2005), 38 states that both Herodotus and Pausanias’ use of ἐναγίζειν refers to
either the dead or heroes, and never gods. For further details on the concepts of “ἐναγίζειν” sacrifice, see
Ekroth (2002), 74-128.
32
Ekroth (2002), 60; Stroszeck (2010), 78.
33
Farnell (1920), 95.
34
For an example of a βόθρος, see Fig. 5.
35
Paus. 2.22.3 and 5.13.2.
36
Hom. Od. 10.517.
37
De Polignac (1995), 115 notes that Kore was worshipped in chthonian fashion.
6
acknowledge that the βόθρος is at least linked with chthonian deities, from ghosts to heroes and the
dead. Therefore while not conclusive in defining a hero shrine, it does suggest the presence of a
chthonian monument, which significantly narrows the possibilities for interpretation.
What else can help identify a hero shrine? The most obvious place to look is perhaps the material
culture; excavations of various objects at some monuments may be indicative of the presence of a
hero, from pottery sherds and ceramics to votive offerings and valuables.39 Indeed, examples can be
seen in the material culture, which can even contain the names of specific heroes (through artefacts
such as votive dedications/offerings).40 While Ainian argues that it is a major challenge distinguishing
hero cults from ancestral cult worship and chthonian deity worship (as he suggests that there seem
to be no specific rituals or votive offerings distinguishing one from the other) we should refute this,
as the specific mention of heroes in some of the votive offerings found contradict this line of
argument.41
Indeed, one particular votive offering may also be indicative of a heroic cult. Images have been
found depicting a man reclining on a couch, usually with a female companion by his feet, with a
table arranged in front of him bearing food and wine. The images can also include other people
(assumed to be worshippers) on the far edge, usually smaller in scale, and a horse in a “window” in
the corner. In addition to this a snake or dog can be seen near the food table. These images,
commonly known as “Totenmahl” reliefs, are often affiliated with heroes in general.42 While they
mostly appear in Attica, other similar reliefs have been found elsewhere, in particular Laconia.43
These are often suggested as being related, or at least fulfilling the same roles due to the fact that
they share similarities; often including depictions of a snake and pomegranate, as well as sharing
parallels in their locations (at suspected hero shrines).44 Moreover, other votive reliefs exist which
can depict a person in a variety of poses, yet even still they all share similarities with the Totenmahl
model in that they usually contain some of the features familiar with other hero reliefs (for example,
a particular 5th century relief found at Cumae depicts a youth on horseback, yet also displays a
female figure behind him, and a row of smaller scale supporters or worshippers to the right of the
primary figure).45 However, while these Totenmahl reliefs may indicate heroic cult Larson has noted
38
Ekroth (2002), 72 in fact notes that this kind of sacrificial installation was not a regular feature of most heroic
cults.
39
De Polignac (1995), 141 notes that most permanent hero cults are marked by an abundance of votive
materials. Regarding specific materials, Shear (1970), 170 has suggested that tripods can be strongly indicative
of heroic cult. Abramson (1979), 11 also notes that tripods are frequently found in hero shrines, as well as
swords, horse figurines, plaques and shields. Cook (1953), 33 has suggested that pedestal-craters are
suggestive of a heroic presence also.
40
Catling (1976-1977), 36-37 and Cavanagh (2015) both note a tablet that says “Euthikrenes dedicated this to
Menelaos” (Fig.6), as well as a bronze vase containing the word “Helen” in retrograde around the rim, found at
the Menelaion in Laconia; Fitzhardinge (1980), 122 describes an inscription on a bronze oil flask to “Helen the
husband of Menelaos” at the same place. Malkin (1987), front cover image of her book shows an image taken
of a fragment of an excavated 5th century Attican kylix, which says “Mnasithales dedicated this to Antiphamos
(of Gela)” (Fig.7).
41
Ainian (1999), 10.
42
Larson (1995), 44; see Fig.8 for an example of a Totenmahl relief.
43
Hibler (1992), 115-122.
44
Hall (1999), 58 notes a possible tomb of Agamemnon in Sparta; finds there include reliefs that are of the
heroic type known in Laconia, as well as pottery sherd votives to Agamemnon and Kassandra-Alexandra.
45
Larson (1995), 53.
7
that these Totenmahl images are only purely indicative of hero cult until the Hellenistic era,46
whereupon these images became much more widespread. Again, these images may suggest the
presence of hero shrines, but are not sufficient evidence in themselves.
One more point of note should be made; that of chthonic symbols in the material culture. As has
been mentioned in earlier discussion, heroes are often affiliated with chthonian ritual – ergo, it
should be assumed that symbols of chthonic nature are present in hero cults. One such symbol is
that of the snake – many scholars agree that the snake is a chthonian symbol,47 and even
contemporary sources directly imply the snake as affiliated with heroes in some shape or form. For
example, Kekrops was depicted as being half man, half serpent,48 and, to quote an end passage from
Euripides’ Bacchae:
[Dionysius, speaking to Cadmus] Thou shalt be changed into a serpent; and thy wife
Harmonia, Ares' child, whom thou in thy human life didst wed, shall change her nature for a
snake's, and take its form. With her shalt thou, as leader of barbarian tribes, drive thy team
of steers, so saith an oracle of Zeus; and many a city shalt thou sack with an army
numberless; but in the day they plunder the oracle of Loxias, shall they rue their homeward
march; but thee and Harmonia will Ares rescue, and set thee to live henceforth in the land of
the blessed. This do I declare, I Dionysus, son of no mortal father but of Zeus.49
Another text by Apollodorus also shows this heroic affiliation:
Him [Erechthonius] Athena brought up unknown to the other gods, wishing to make him
immortal; and having put him in a chest, she committed it to Pandrosus, daughter of
Cecrops, forbidding her to open the chest. But the sisters of Pandrosus opened it out of
curiosity, and beheld a serpent coiled about the babe; and, as some say, they were destroyed
by the serpent, but according to others they were driven mad by reason of the anger of
Athena and threw themselves down from the acropolis.50
Therefore it seems clear that the snake is indeed chthonian. Other symbols of such nature include
such objects as pomegranates and horses,51 but the snake appears to be the most common
chthonian symbol,52 and therefore the one we should focus most of our attention on. As has been
noted earlier, Totenmahl reliefs and those of similar layout usually depict snakes, implying a
connection with the underworld (and therefore a heroic connotation). Therefore, while inconclusive
on their own we must be aware of their presence when on the search for hero cults.
To conclude, it would appear that proper identification of hero shrines may be more problematic
than originally envisaged; a supposed hero shrine may end up consisting of a tomb, a temple or even
46
Larson (1995), 44.
47
Larson (1995), 61-62; Scullion (2005), 35; Kearns (1989), 16 and 111.
48
Kearns (1989), 111; see Fig.1 on the front cover for a depiction of Kekrops in contemporary art.
49
Eur. Ba. 1330-1340.
50
Apollod. 3.14.6.
51
Abramson (1979), 11; Hibler (1992), 121 notes that the imagery on the Laconian reliefs (namely the snake,
pomegranate and gesture of unveiling) either suggests chthonian deities or heroes. For an example of a
Laconian relief, see Fig.9.
52
Indeed, Kearns (1989), 111 claims that a snake is the “most chthonic of animals”.
8
a simple altar (or perhaps a collection of all of the above); moreover, there seems to be no single
trait at present which can help us define hero shrines or hero cult more clearly (mainly as the
majority of traits inherent in heroic cult also appear to be seen in cults affiliated with chthonian
deities like Hades and Hekate, or can be linked to tombs for the ordinary dead). While the evidence
for votive offerings containing specific names of heroes/heroines may be a particularly powerful
piece of evidence for heroic cult it alone cannot be a decisive factor in our study. It would seem then
that the only valid indication of a hero shrine for our investigation is if a site displays several of the
aforementioned traits (for example, the presence of Totenmahl reliefs in addition to a βόθρος at a
site).
Θεός or ἥρως: Herakles, Asklepios, and the Dioskouroi
Now that we have addressed ways in how we can identify heroic shrines/places of hero cult we
come to one final obstacle. While we have defined heroes as “more than men, less than gods” we
come to the issue of Herakles, Asklepios, and the Dioskouroi/Tyndaridai, Castor and Polydeuces
(among others, although these three cults by far constitute the largest of them). A commonly held
view is that they are gods (θεός), yet they were also born as mortals who ascended to godhood,
thereby becoming something of an enigma within Greek hero cults. Moreover, these particular god-
heroes comprise a significant number of Greek hero cults that we know of today. Therefore, to
which category do they then belong? Should we include their monuments in our analysis of Greek
hero shrines or should we discard them entirely?
Unfortunately, modern scholars appear to be utterly divided on this issue,53 with some implying that
they are Gods and some suggesting otherwise. Due to this deadlock, we are unsure whether or not
Herakles, Asklepios and the Dioskouroi can actually qualify for addition into our analysis and
investigation. Moreover, there appears to have been no major attempt to try and clarify this issue.
As a result this subchapter will attempt to more clearly define what these three deities actually are,
in an attempt to ascertain their validity for inclusion into this investigation (as well as possibly
concluding the academic deadlock on the issue), by consulting the literary and material evidence
available to us.
To start, we should review a few literary source examples in the historical text, starting with
Herakles. To quote Philostratus:
53
Parker (2005), 78 notes that Asklepios was a “deity”; Cole (2004), 51 labels the Dioskouroi as divinities;
Bergquist (2005), 61-70 argues that a hero cult on Thasos did not exist due to Herakles being a god rather than
mortal etc; Farnell (1920), 118 suggests that Herakles was worshipped by the Spartans more like a hero than a
god. However on 122 he suggests a contrast noting that the βωμός/ἐσχάρα and ναός at one of his cults seems
“altogether theistic”; Farnell (1920), 196 also notes that the friendly protection of the Spartan dual kingship by
the Dioskouroi “suggests the hero rather than θεός”; Sanders (1992), 208 argues that the lack of mythological
or narrative content regarding the Dioskouroi in Laconian reliefs identify them as heroic; Larson (1995), 64-65
notes that the Dioskouroi are attributed with snakes and horses; objects of a chthonian nature.
9
[Referring to Herakles] for I chose him to help me, because he is the wise and courageous
god, who once purged of the plague the city of Elis, by washing away with the river-tide the
foul exhalations which the land sent up under the tyranny of Augias.54
Herakles is also mentioned by Pausanias:
[Referring to Herakles] There was a wooden raft, on which the god set out from Tyre in
Phoenicia.55
Mantiklos founded the temple of Herakles for the Messenians; the temple of the god is
outside the walls and he is called Herakles Mantiklos.56
We can see that they both view Herakles as θεός, rather than ἥρως. By contrast, Pausanias notes
something different in an earlier passage:
[Regarding Herakles] Even at the present day the Sicyonians, after slaying a lamb and
burning the thighs upon the altar, eat some of the meat as part of a victim given to a god,
while the rest they offer as to a hero.57
This alone seems to contradict his earlier description of Herakles as θεός. Furthermore, Herodotus
notes:58
So I went on to Thasos, where I found a temple of Hercules which had been built by the
Phoenicians who colonised that island when they sailed in search of Europa. Even this was
five generations earlier than the time when Hercules, son of Amphitryon, was born in Greece.
These researches show plainly that there is an ancient god Hercules; and my own opinion is
that those Greeks act most wisely who build and maintain two temples of Hercules, in the
one of which the Hercules worshipped is known by the name of Olympian, and has sacrifice
offered to him as an immortal, while in the other the honours paid are such as are due to a
hero.
So it would seem that Herakles is BOTH θεός and ἥρως, according to Pausanias and Herodotus. For
now though we should continue on to Asklepios. Homer refers to him on several occasions:
And they that held Tricca and Ithome of the crags, and Oechalia, city of Oechalian Eurytus,
these again were led by the two sons of Asclepius, the skilled leeches Podaleirius and
Machaon.59
Rouse thee, son of Asclepius; lord Agamemnon calleth thee to see warlike Menelaus, captain
of the Achaeans, whom some man, well skilled in archery, hath smitten with an arrow, some
Trojan or Lycian, compassing glory for himself but for us sorrow.60
54
Philostr. VA 8.7.9.
55
Paus. 7.5.5.
56
Paus. 4.23.10.
57
Paus. 2.10.1.
58
Hdt. 2.44.5.
59
Hom. Il. 2.731.
60
Hom. Il. 4.194.
10
Forthwith he got him upon his chariot, and beside him mounted Machaon, the son of
Asclepius the peerless leech; and he touched the horses with the lash, and nothing loath the
pair sped on to the hollow ships, for there were they fain to be.61
Unfortunately Homer does not say anything referencing Asklepios directly. His writing style
regarding his sons refers to his healing prowess, but not to his status as human or divine. However
we could surmise from the text that Asklepios may be heroic, due to the inclusion of his sons among
the host of Agamemnon (although by contrast Achilles was known to be the son of the nymph
Thetis, so this argument may be invalid). Pindar however provides a much clearer viewpoint:
If it were proper for this commonplace prayer to be made by my tongue, I would want
Cheiron the son of Philyra to be alive again, he who has departed, the wide-ruling son of
Cronus son of Uranus; and I would want him to reign again in the glens of Pelion, the beast of
the wilds, whose mind was friendly to men; just as he was when once he reared Asclepius,
that gentle craftsman who drove pain from the limbs that he healed, that hero who cured all
types of diseases.62
It would appear than that Pindar specifically refers to Asklepios as ἥρως, and views him as such.
However if we turn to Pausanias, several of his passages view Asklepios in a different light:
The sanctuary of Asclepius is worth seeing both for its paintings and for the statues of the
god and his children.63
The sanctuary of Agnitas has been made on the right of the Course; Agnitas is a surname of
Asclepius, because the god had a wooden image of agnus castus. The agnus is a willow like
the thorn.64
Aelian also appears to exhibit a similar viewpoint:
And Atarbes, for that he killed the Sparrow sacred to Æsculapius, they spared not, but
executed him: Not pardoning either his ignorance or madness, but preferring the
concernment of the God before both these. For some said he did it by chance, others,
through fury.65
We can see that Pausanias and Aelian both view Asklepios as θεός, leaving us burdened with the
same dilemma as that of Herakles.66 What then do the sources have to say for the
Dioskouroi/Tyndaridai? Several writers note them specifically, notably Pindar, who refers to them in
several passages. To quote one such example:
61
Hom. Il. 11.518.
62
Pind. P. 3.
63
Paus. 1.21.4.
64
Paus. 3.14.7.
65
Aelian, 5.17.
66
Pausanias refers to Asklepios as θεός on many other occasions; 2.13.5, 2.26.1-28.1, 7.27.11, 8.32.4 (to name
a few).
11
Iolaus, whose praises are sung; and of the strength of Castor, and of you, lord Polydeuces,
sons of the gods: you who dwell for one day at home in Therapne, and for the other in
Olympus.67
Plutarch also notes the Dioskouroi in his work:
There were some who declared that the Dioskouroi appeared as twin stars on either side of
Lysander's ship just as he was sailing out of the harbour against the enemy, and shone out
over the rudder-sweeps.68
Furthermore, Pausanias also makes reference to the Dioskouroi:
At Cephale the chief cult is that of the Dioskouroi, for the in habitants call them the Great
Gods.69
Therefore it seems fair to assume from the authors that the Dioskouroi are θεός. However Pausanias
also has this to say:
Hard by is the grave of Cynortas son of Amyclas, together with the tomb of Castor, and over
the tomb there has also been made a sanctuary, for they say that it was not before the
fortieth year after the fight with Idas and Lynceus that divine honors were paid to the sons of
Tyndareus.70
This last passage notes a tomb of Castor, which seemingly contrasts with the view of both Castor and
Polydeuces as θεός; after all, how can they both be gods if some of their mortal remains are left
behind? Pindar also adds to this confusion:
Changing places in alternation, the Dioskouroi spend one day beside their dear father Zeus,
and the other beneath the depths of the earth in the hollows of Therapne, each fulfilling an
equal destiny, since Polydeuces preferred this life to being wholly a god and living in heaven,
when Castor was killed in battle.71
Pindar here implies that Polydeuces and Castor are mortal, as Polydeuces is not “wholly a God” and
Castor was killed in battle), in contrast to the passage mentioned earlier. Therefore in conclusion it
would seem that the literary sources contradict each other about the status of our apotheosised
heroes (some more than others), meaning that we cannot define their status based upon the
opinions of the classical writers. So can the archaeological record help alleviate this issue better?
It would appear that the archaeological record presents a different story. In support of the heroic
aspect of Herakles, it could be noted that some Laconian vases depicting Herakles show him in
hoplite array, rather than the atypical club and lionskin (as can be seen in some Attic examples).72
While bronze figurines on the other hand do depict him in lionskin, Boardman has noted that, upon
67
Pind. P. 11.
68
Plut. Lys. 12.1.
69
Paus. 1.31.1. Another example of Pausanias referring to them as θεός can be seen in 8.21.4.
70
Paus. 3.13.1.
71
Pind. N. 10.
72
Larson (1995), 186 notes that “the Spartan Herakles was less the club wielding, skin-clad figure familiar from
Attican vases, and more an idealized warrior”.
12
closer inspection, the lionskin appears to be that of a πάρδαλις (panther) rather than the legendary
armoured skin of the Nemean lion.73 By contrast, Attic iconography appears to depict Herakles in a
somewhat typical style and manner, so this may just be a purely Laconian phenomenon.
In regards to Asklepios, we should look at the votive reliefs to his sanctuary. Many reliefs depict
Asklepios with his family in an arrangement similar to the Totenmahl style hero reliefs that we have
discussed previously. For example, reliefs found at his sanctuary in Attica depict Asklepios with his
daughter Hygieia behind him, with him either standing or on a throne. Some even show smaller
scale worshippers, in a pattern reminiscent of the chthonian reliefs of the same period.74 Moreover,
one particular votive relief of interest is that of Asklepios at Oropos, which depicts a collection of
scenes; the first scene shows a doctor healing a patient’s shoulder, then afterwards a snake visits the
man overnight to heal him; the significance of this being the snake, which (as already noted) is a
distinctly chthonian symbol,75 and is often associated with Asklepios and his cult. By contrast, the
relief could be interpreted as showing the divine aspect of Asklepios’ healing powers (via the
“miraculous” healing overnight). Alternatively, it may not suggest Asklepios as a chthonian ἥρως, but
rather as a chthonian deity like Hekate or Persephone (therefore implying that he is θεός).
Finally, regarding the Dioskouroi, we again turn to the votive reliefs as indicative of heroic status, in
particular the δόκανα – a unique symbol associated with the cult of the Dioskouroi.76 Several reliefs
of the δόκανα show snakes entwined around the characteristic wooden beams,77 with Farnell noting
one δόκανα in particular excavated at Verona that bears several of the hallmarks of a
Totenmahl/Laconian style relief, in that it displays such objects as food offerings in amphorae and
the characteristic snake.78 Furthermore, a particularly famous 6th century Laconian relief of the twin
brothers (housed in the museum in Sparta) depicts them in the traditional form, facing each other
with πῖλος helmets and spears. Above them are two snakes facing each other, parallel to the twins
below.79 Many other reliefs can be found depicting the Dioskouroi with snakes as a prominent
feature,80 which must surely indicate their chthonian origins. However to contrast with the above
findings, a sanctuary in Thera dedicated to multiple deities appears to contain a small shrine for the
Dioskouroi, which depicts them in the traditional pose with πῖλος, yet interestingly they also contain
stars above their heads.81 As the star is a particularly potent symbol for the Dioskouroi (as it marks
their apotheosis to godhood, as was noted by Plutarch earlier)82 this surely indicates a much more
divine status in their case.83
So it would seem from the evidence provided (both literary and material) that the apotheosised
heroes fulfil some kind of a dual role. Indeed, some modern writers have commented on this
73
See Fig.10.
74
Larson (1995), 64; see Fig. 11 for an example of such a relief.
75
Kearns (1989), 21.
76
See Fig. 12 for an example of a δόκανα.
77
Farnell (1920), 189.
78
Farnell (1920), 189-190; he also notes the δόκανα as indicative of the chthonian aspect of the Dioskouroi.
79
Farnell (1920), 194; Sanders (1992), 207; also see Fig.13.
80
Sanders (1992), 207.
81
Palagia (1992), 171-177.
82
Plut. Lys. 12.1. Also seen in Eur. Hel. 140.; when Helen asks Teucer about her brothers, he replies that “Men
say that they are gods in the likeness of stars”.
83
Shapiro (1999), 106 notes the transformation in iconography of the Dioskouroi around the 5th century BC
(to have stars above their heads).
13
supposed duality, noting that some of the apotheosised heroes may in fact be, as Herodotus put it,
both god and hero.84 Indeed, Reithmüller notes actual similarities between both Herakles and
Asklepios regarding this duality in cult,85 while Malkin supports Herodotus’ passage on the duality of
Herakles by noting a Heraklean cult in Sicyon,86 which worshipped him both as a god and a hero.
Before the conclusion we should re-affirm that the bulk of this discussion is relatively minor; further
studies are required in order to provide a much more decisive discussion and debate. However from
the evidence provided here it would seem that we have a fair conclusion; it seems the status of
apotheosised heroes as θεός/ἥρως cannot be made clear. Based upon this, if a tentative suggestion
can be made then it may be that they fulfil a unique type of role in society, due to their duality as
both heroic and divine and the popularity of their cults in the Greek world - perhaps they are a type
of “μέγας ἥρως”, capable of acting as both θεός and ἥρως depending on the circumstances.
Nevertheless this suggestion is again subjective and open to alternative ideas. One point of note is
this; as the evidence suggests that their status varies per person and per region (i.e. Attica and
Laconia) it may be safe then to assume that this subjectivity also holds true with regards to their
hero cults. So, can they be included in this investigation? In spite of the confusing evidence there is
enough to imply that they are still heroic in some shape or form; therefore their temples and
affiliated monuments could be included as examples of hero cults. However, are they in fact valid
additions to this investigation? The answer again depends on the views of the reader. If one wishes
to take a strict definition of the terms ἥρως and θεός then one should exclude them utterly.
However if one believes that the boundaries between the two are not as black and white, then these
“μέγας ἥρως” may be a useful addition to this investigation.
84
Ekroth (2002), 126-127; Kearns (1989), 17 and 126; Sanders (1992), 205; Reithmüller (1999), 139-140 and
141-142; Mirto (2012), 20; Farnell (1920), 155, 193-195 and 279.
85
Reithmüller (1999), 141-142; using the Herakleion of Melite’s architecture as akin to the Asklepeion in
Athens, indicative of both divine and heroic status.
86
Malkin (1987), 236.
14
Approach and Methodology
Methodology
The objective of this investigation has hopefully been explained in a relatively straightforward
manner; the primary goal was to select a number of hero shrines in the Hellenic world and analyse
them for similarities, either architecturally, geographically or spatially, in the hopes of providing
some results that could tell us more about hero cult. However, as has been covered in the
introduction the analysis was subject to problems, based upon definition; namely, what could be
defined as an area of heroic cult activity, and what could we define as a hero shrine? The evidence
presented in those areas (while inconclusive of hero shrines individually) suggested promise when
there was more than one item of evidence provided (for example, primary literary documentation of
a site as a hero shrine AND the presence of Totenmahl reliefs on an affiliated site, or the presence of
a βόθρος as well as ὅροι containing a name unaffiliated with any Olympian or chthonian deities).
Therefore the approach I decided upon took the conclusions of these discussions into consideration;
provided that an archaeological feature contained significant evidence suggesting its function as a
heroic site (containing at least two distinct clues indicating it as a monument of heroic or chthonian
nature) then it would be considered for inclusion into the investigation. Moreover, in order to fit the
criteria for study each site had to have been noted in published archaeological excavation reports;
after all, how can detailed and accurate analyses have been made if there are no maps or detailed
reports given previously? In addition to the increased level of detail, the site reports included in
these excavations would provide details that had been gathered with proper archaeological
procedure, minimising the likelihood for inaccuracies or falsehoods in the site descriptions.
That being said, the decision was also made to expand the study to include the entire Greek world,
or sites under clear Greek occupation and control (for example, Sicily), rather than focus specifically
on mainland Greece; that way the study was able to take in a larger number of surviving shrines, not
to mention the increased availability of excavation reports that could be provided with this
expansion.
Moreover, after considering the somewhat difficult issue over the “apotheosised” heroes (i.e.
Asklepios, the Dioskouroi and Herakles) the decision was made to include their shrines into the
investigation for several reasons:
 They provided further examples of shrines from which to choose from.

 The fact that religious sites dedicated to them were easier to identify.
 The conclusion reached in the introductory chapter – that they were not deities but
something in between (μέγας ἥρως), yet still fulfilling the criteria of a hero.
The above approaches were mainly chosen to allow a larger number of examples to be taken into
consideration for the study; as has been documented on several occasions, studies into hero cult are
often frustrated by the paucity of information available – therefore by maximising the availability of
the data we could perhaps achieve much better results.
15
Selection Criteria and Approach
To summarise, the hero shrines in the catalogue were selected on these principles:
 Each example has been previously excavated (that is, site reports for the site exist).
 Each example contained at least two criteria suggestive of hero cult (as outlined in the
Introduction chapter “The Definition of Hero Shrines and Areas of Cult Activity”).
 The example candidates had to have come from the Greek world, and have been
constructed between the Archaic and Classical periods. Therefore shrines built in the
Hellenistic and Roman periods, or built outside areas of Greek influence/control were
excluded (note: while two examples did date to the Hellenistic period they were building
phases rather than new constructions, and were therefore considered valid examples).
Many of these shrines in the catalogue were found online in archaeological journals (for example
Hesperia and the British School at Athens) or through independent digital publications on various
aspects of hero cult. Furthermore, many shrines in the catalogue were identified through books, as
well as essays and treatises relevant to this field. It is interesting to note that there appears to have
been a continuous number of publications on hero cult from as far back as the early 20th century (i.e.
Gardiner, whose book was dated to 1925). Several sources were often consulted per shrine in order
to provide a clearer picture of the monument in question (for example, Cavanagh, Catling and
Fitzhardinge for the Menelaion) although in some cases the availability of information was so scarce
that only one modern source could be provided for that particular shrine (i.e. Ekroth and the shrine
of Heros Ptoios). It should be noted that none were selected or added purely on the works of ancient
authors; every catalogued shrine detail was ascertained via the comments of a modern academic
publication.
Criticisms
Naturally, there were several issues with this approach that should be mentioned. For starters, it
should be obvious that the remains we mostly see today are stone, whereas the majority of
monuments in the Archaic-Classical period were probably made of wood or perishable materials.87
Therefore the hero shrines in the catalogue may not be necessarily representative of the entire
scope of hero cult (although that is an unavoidable problem with archaeology; the best we can do is
work with what we have).
One other obvious issue is that of the “apotheosised” heroes. Due to their seemingly special status
in Greek society the decision was taken to include them into the candidate list. However detractors
could easily suggest that they are unsuited as candidates for study into hero shrines (due to their
unique status, as they are not “heroes” but something else). In defence of their inclusion it should be
remembered that the definition of a hero (by Greek standards) has always been somewhat difficult,
due to poor definition in literary/epigraphic source materials, and modern issues with the term;88
therefore, unless one wishes to be extremely specific with what is viewed as a “hero” then the
possibility of including Herakles, Asklepios and the Dioskouroi etc. should not be discarded.
87
Whitley (2004), 134; De Polignac (1995), 141.
88
As was noted previously in Kearns (1989), 1-3; Whitley (1995), 51; Parker (1996), 36-39.
16
Moreover, as was mentioned previously the lack of evidence pertaining to hero cults is a severe
setback to this type of research, meaning that by allowing these “apotheosised” types in we give
ourselves more to work with.
Another critique could be that at the turn of the 4th century BC the amount of hero shrines appear to
flourish, with more recent dead being heroised at an increasing rate, as well as an increase in
material evidence for hero cults.89 In expanding upon this problem, Larson has noted that the
aforementioned “Totenmahl model” votive reliefs dedicated to heroes/chthonian deities begin to
appear at gravesites to the ordinary dead around the 4th century BC,90 which complicates the
distinction between a votive relief and a gravestone. To counter this, I have attempted to ensure
that either the evidence for votive reliefs at a site date to before the 4th century BC, or that there are
other pieces of evidence available that will further suggest it as an area of heroic cult (i.e. the
presence of ὅροι markers). Furthermore, I have tried to focus more on potential hero shrines dated
to before the 4th century to alleviate this issue (although focusing purely on earlier shrines was not
possible, given the availability of evidence – a small minority of shrines date to the 4th century BC).
This attempted avoidance of 4th century Hellenistic period shrines is reflected in the catalogue, of
which there is a large disparity between examples dated to the Archaic/Classical and Hellenistic eras.
One possibly major flaw in this investigation that must be noted is that each hero shrine is unique. Is
it possible to be able to apply categories to a seemingly diverse set of individual monuments?
Furthermore, hero shrines may not be unique within religious architecture – could it be that rather
than displaying unique characteristics hero shrines in fact exhibit patterns which are common with
all shrines, including those for Olympian gods/goddesses? If true, then this revelation may make any
attempt at interpretation extremely difficult at best.
Yet another critique is relatively straightforward; it cannot be expected that a hero shrine maintains
its form for the entirety of antiquity. This could even apply to the issue of a shrines location – a
shrine located in a special grove may not have the original grove in modern times.91 Indeed, some
well-known hero shrines are known to be quite old, with some dated to the 8th century BC.92
Therefore it would be naive to expect a monument to continue to remain the exact same
throughout the decades or centuries of its use. Moreover, the sites in question may have been
altered or rebuilt to suit the historical society’s particular needs of the time; therefore it is important
that we have chosen to only consider sites that have been archaeologically excavated, for several
reasons:
 The site reports highlight the various building phases of monument (and the historical
periods to which each building phase belonged).
 They could also indicate which aspects of the site were Greek and which were not.
Furthermore, in resolving this issue further it was decided to divide a monument example into
phases, depending on the amount of information available regarding their periods of expansion or
89
Kearns (1989), 5; Larson (1995), 22 notes that after the 4th century BC a family could independently heroise
a dead person if they had the resources to establish such a cult; Larson (1995), 44 (as noted previously)
suggests that Totenmahl reliefs become much more widespread from the 3rd century BC onwards.
90
Larson (1995), 52-53.
91
Whitley (2004), 148.
92
Catling (1976-1977), 34; Tomlinson (1992), 249.
17
alteration (for example, Site “X” Phase I,II,III etc.), in the hopes of alleviating this problem to a
certain extent. Moreover, by dating each period of expansion/alteration it was hoped to have
actually been beneficial to the investigation (in case any new phases showed patterns with other
shrines built around the same time period).
One final point of note regarding the definition of hero shrines; as was explained earlier it was
decided to select monuments based on the condition that they contained two distinct traits
suggesting chthonian/heroic cult – in spite of this reasonably strict definition this policy could be
criticised, as a shrine noted as one of heroic cult could instead be one dedicated to the chthonian
gods, or even a normal tomb. However in defence of this approach, the paucity of information
pertaining to monuments suggestive of hero cult must be stressed; moreover, such a flaw would be
unavoidable unless even stricter criteria were set in place for defining a hero shrine, which would
only have resulted in a larger loss of examples available for our use.
In conclusion, we should be aware that the project may contain potential flaws, but in its defence we
should remember that it is also a first in this type of study (at least when relating to hero cult, and on
such a scale).
18
Catalogue of Hero Shrines
Catalogue Introduction
The following catalogue comprises a list of 50 monuments which appear to fit the criteria
established in the Introduction and Methodology segment of this study. The details regarding said
shrines have been simplified and categorised for the benefit of the reader, and have been divided as
follows:
General Information:
Period of Construction: these have been divided into the Archaic (8th-6th centuries BC), Classical (5th-4th
centuries BC) and Hellenistic periods (3rd century onwards)
Monument Status: divided into New Construction and Alteration/Expansion, this section explains whether or
not the monument is a new construction or an alteration to a pre-existing monument.
Monument Description: this section provides a small description of the shrine in question (to help the reader
gain an understanding of the monuments appearance).
Regarding Location:
Position: divided between Urban (General)/Urban (Agora)/Urban (Acropolis)/Urban (City Wall/City

Gate)/Suburban and Extraurban, this segment notes the geographical location of the monument in relation to
the city.
Elevated Position?: this section simply notes whether or not the monument is situated on high ground, such as
a hill or acropolis.
Located within a larger Sanctuary?: this section notes whether the shrine is in fact a subsidiary of a larger
shrine or religious precinct.
By a Crossroads?: this section notes if the shrine is located by a crossroads, a noted feature with some hero
cult shrines.
Τέμενος Details:
Boundary Markers?: this notes if there are any demarcation markers for the shrine τέμενος, in particular ὅροι
or a περίβολος wall.
Τέμενος Plan: this notes the ground plan of the shrine τέμενος, be it Square, Rectangular, Circular or Polygonal
etc.
Τέμενος Area: this section notes the precinct area, and is separated into 3 distinct scales; Major (more than
600m2), Intermediate (ranging between 250-600m2) and Minor (below 250m2). Due to the incomplete nature
of many of the shrine demarcations we cannot rely on specific numbers, and can only give reasonable
estimates for the majority of shrines. The scales are subjective, chosen with a tennis court as the basis of scale
(as one tennis court averages around 250m2).
19
Accessibility: this lists the various ways in which one could have accessed the monument; i.e. via a single
entrance, via multiple entranceways or if it was totally inaccessible (ἄβατον).
Monument Architecture:
Altar Present?: this notes whether the shrine has evidence for an altar (or similar structure).
Building(s) Present?: this notes whether the shrine has evidence for a building, defined here as a roofed or
solid structure, distinct from a walled precinct or enclosure.
Building Type: this segment lists the type of building or buildings present in the shrine (if applicable); the types
have been divided into a single building of clear focal importance with or without subsidiaries (listed as a “focal
monument”) and several buildings of equal or similar scale (listed as a “building complex”).
Monument Plan: this notes the shape of the building present in the shrine (only applicable to those
categorised as a “focal monument”).
Monument Area: this notes the area of the building (if applicable). Again it is only applicable to those shrines
which are classed as a “focal monument”, and is divided into 3 subjective scales; Minor (less than 50m2),
Intermediate (50-100m2) and Major (greater than 100m2).
Accessibility: this notes the accessibility of the monument building (if applicable). The same rules apply to this
segment as those for the Monument Plan and Area.
Ritual Artefacts and Material Culture:
Mortuary Artefacts?: this notes whether or not the shrine contains evidence for any artefacts of a mortuary
nature, notably a tomb or human remains.
βόθροι?: this section notes if the shrine contains a ritual pit or βόθρος (as defined in the Introduction).
Περιρραντήρια or other Water-related Objects?: this notes whether the shrine contains any artefacts relating
to ritual purification, notably a water basin or περιρραντήριον.
Chthonian Votives/Symbols?: this notes whether the shrine contains any material artefacts of a chthonian
nature, including (but not exclusively) artefacts such as Totenmahl reliefs, horse and rider figurines and snakes
etc.
The Catalogue
1. The Menelaion Phase I, Therapne (Laconia)93

Period of Construction – Archaic Period (8th century BC)
Monument Status – New Construction
93
Catling (1976-77), 24-42; Cavanagh (2015); Identified in Hdt. 6.61., Paus. 3.19.9. and Isoc. 10.63. as a shrine
dedicated to Helen and Menelaos; excavations carried out on a monumental site in the area uncovered votive
offerings containing the names Helen and Menelaios, suggesting (in combination with the notes of the literary
sources) its function as a hero shrine (Catling (1976-1977), 36-37 and Cavanagh (2015)). Catling’s excavation
reports hypothesised a series of monumental phases, beginning with a minor shrine (as documented above)
and an eventual expansion into a small temple, culminating in the structure we see today.
20
Monument Description – A simple altar with a surrounding περίβολος wall.94
Regarding Location
Position – Suburban
Elevated Position? – Yes (Hillside)
Located within a larger Sanctuary? – No
By a Crossroads? – No
Τέμενος Details
Boundary Markers? – Unknown
Τέμενος Plan – Unknown (possibly Square)
Τέμενος Area – Unknown (probably Minor)
Accessibility – Single entranceway
Monument Architecture
Altar Present? – Yes
Building(s) Present? – No
Building Type – n/a
Monument Plan – n/a
Monument Area – n/a
Accessibility – n/a
Ritual Artefacts and Material Culture

Mortuary Artefacts? – Unknown
βόθροι? – Unknown
Περιρραντήρια or other Water-related Objects? – Unknown
Chthonian Votives/Symbols? – Unknown
2. The Menelaion Phase II, Therapne (Laconia)

Period of Construction – Archaic Period (Late 7th/Early 6th century BC)
Monument Status – Alteration/Expansion
Monument Description – Probable tetrastyle or distyle ναός.95
Regarding Location
Τέμενος Plan – Unknown
94
See. Fig.14 for a tentative depiction of the altars appearance.
95
See. Fig.15 for a depiction of the monument (image based upon various artefacts which have been identified
on site).
21
Τέμενος Area – Unknown
Accessibility – Unknown
Altar Present? – Unknown
Building(s) Present? – Yes
Building Type – Focal Monument
Monument Plan – Unknown (probably Rectangular)
Monument Area – Unknown
Accessibility – Unknown (probably single entranceway)

Chthonian votives/symbols? – Yes
3. The Menelaion Phase III, Therapne (Laconia)

Period of Construction – Classical Period (5th century BC)
Monument Description – Multi-tiered structure, surrounded by a base ramp providing
access to the upper levels.96
Regarding Location
Monument Plan – Rectangular
Monument Area – Major (>100m2)
96
See Figs.16 and 17 for a visual image of the monument today, as well as a depiction of the original
monument.
22
Περιρραντήρια or other Water-related Objects? – Yes (water cistern)
Chthonian Votives/Symbols? – Yes
4. Triangular Heroon, Athens (Attica)97

Monument Description – Triangular base monument with supposed tomb or altar in the
centre, and a surrounding τέμενος wall.98
Regarding Location
Position – Urban (General)
Elevated Position? – No
By a Crossroads? – Yes
Boundary Markers? – Yes99
Monument Plan – Triangular
Monument Area – Minor (<50m2)
Accessibility – ἄβατον

βόθροι? – Yes
Chthonian Votives/Symbols? – Yes100
97
Wycherly (1970), 289-290; Lalonde (1968), 123-133. Defined as a hero shrine due to the excavation of a ὅρος
containing a dedication “to the Hero”, as well as a clear τέμενος boundary. Shrine identified as one possibly to
Iatros or the “Hero General”; see Wycherly (1970), 290.
98
See Fig.18.
99
See Fig.19.
100
Lalonde (1968), 130 notes multiple pottery deposits of good quality, depicting horses and horsemen, as well
as terracotta horse figurines (horses can be associated with chthonian elements).
23
5. Monument of the Eponymous Heroes Phase I, Athens (Attica)101
Period of Construction – Classical Period (5th/4th century BC)
Monument Description – Row of statues on plinth, surrounded by a περίβολος fence.102
Regarding Location
Position – Urban (Agora)
Boundary Markers? – Yes
Τέμενος Plan – Rectangular
Τέμενος Area – Minor (<250m2)
Monument Area – Intermediate (50-100m2)

Mortuary Artefacts? – No
6. Monument of the Eponymous Heroes Phase II, Athens (Attica)

Monument Description – An extended row of statues on a now enlarged plinth, with an
accompanying περίβολος fence.
Regarding Location
101
Shear (1970); defined as a hero shrine due to the presence of a τέμενος, with tripod votive offerings
(associated with hero cult). In his study Shear notes 5 phases, but only 3 significantly alter the appearance and
scale of the monument; moreover, the final phase occurs in the Roman period, and is therefore invalid for this
investigation.
102
See. Figs.20 and 21.
24

7. The Herakleion Phase I, Thasos (Aegean Islands)103

Period of Construction – Archaic Period (7th/6th century BC)
Monument Description – Early sanctuary including a rough altar with βόθροι alongside the
base of the altar.104
Regarding Location
Position – Extraurban
103
The Herakleion has been identified by Bergquist (1973), 13 as a hero shrine due to its mention by scholiasts,
notably Herodotus, 2.44, who mentions a “dual cult” of Herakles on Thasos. Moreover, various pieces of
evidence found on site (i.e. a τέμενος and βόθροι) indicate this site as the Herakleion in question. Of the 3
phases included here Bergquist added a 4th phase, yet due to the fact that it is purely conjectural it has not
been included in this study. Interestingly the focal point of this sanctuary appears to be the central altar rather
than the surrounding buildings or monuments; therefore the central altar will be treated as the “hero shrine”
rather than surrounding monuments.
104
See Fig.22.
25
Τέμενος Plan – Polygonal
Τέμενος Area – Major (>600m2)

8. The Herakleion Phase II, Thasos (Aegean Islands)

Monument Description – Sanctuary comprised of a rough altar with a neighbouring
έστιατόριον.105
Regarding Location
Building Type – Building Complex106
105
See Fig.23.
106
Based on the identification of the building as a έστιατόριον; a dining hall was unlikely to be the single focal
point in the Herakleian cult.
26

9. The Herakleion Phase III, Thasos (Aegean Islands)

Monument Description – Sanctuary consisting of a monumental altar with multiple βόθροι, a
surrounding περίβολος, a έστιατόριον and a προπύλαιον over the entrance.107
Regarding Location
Building Type – Building Complex

Περιρραντήρια or other Water-related Objects? – Yes108
10. Heroon of Perikle, Limyra (Asia Minor)109
107
See Fig.24.
108
A monumental circular pit has been dated to this phase of monument; whether it is a well is unknown,
although I would suggest its function as a well, simply due to the existence of other βόθροι.
109
Fedak (1990), 68-71; identified as a hero shrine due to the presence of a tomb, as well as a τέμενος.
27
Monument Description – περίβολος wall enclosing an amphiprostyle ναός with caryatids.110
Regarding Location
Position – Urban (Acropolis)
Elevated Position? – Yes
Τέμενος Area – Intermediate (250-600m2)
Accessibility – ἄβατον111

Mortuary Artefacts? – Yes
11. Heroon of Golbasi-Trysa (Asia Minor)112

Monument Description – Tristyle ναός with possible minor wooden cult buildings and a
surrounding περίβολος.113
Regarding Location
110
See Figs.25 and 26.
111
Interestingly the hero shrine contains steps extending from the front of the tomb to the cliff edge, yet these
appear to be purely aesthetic.
112
Fedak (1990), 88-96; identified as a shrine due to the large περίβολος (indicating a τέμενος), as well as
several tombs and ναός.
113
See Fig.27.
28

12. Charmyleion, Kos (Aegean Islands)115

Monument Description – Double storey monument containing twin entrances with raised
steps providing access.116
Regarding Location
114
Fig. A119c (Beazley Archive, 2015) is strongly reminiscent of Totenmahl/heroic design. Moreover, Fedak
(1990), 90 notes multiple friezes that depict scenes of heroic mythology, including the Amazonomachy, the
deeds of Theseus and Perseus and the Seven against Thebes.
115
Fedak (1990), 82-83; Winter (2006), 84; identified as a hero shrine due to the presence of a monumental
tomb, as well as an inscription naming the tomb inhabitant and the fact it had a τέμενος. The inscription also
notes that other buildings and gardens to “The Twelve Gods and the Hero” existed.
116
See Figs.28 and 29.
29
Monument Plan – Square
Accessibility – Twin entranceways

13. Tomb of Themistokles, Piraeus (Attica)117

Monument Description – Sarcophagus (now submerged underwater) with τέμενος and
restored standing column nearby.118
Regarding Location
117
While the location of his tomb is debated, this monument has been suggested as his tomb by Wallace
(1972), 451-462; moreover, Paus. 1.12. notes the existence of his tomb at Piraeus, and that his bones were
brought to be placed here; a practice consistent with heroic ritual, seen in Plut. Cim. 6. who notes that “the
Athenians had once received an oracle bidding them bring back the bones of Theseus to the city and honour
him as became a hero”. Ergo, from these texts the tomb fits the criteria for a hero shrine.
118
See Figs.30 and 31.
119
The tomb contains no definitive ὅροι, yet the sarcophagus is surrounded by ashlar walls which I have
interpreted as a περίβολος.
30

14. Triangular Heroon Phase I, Eretria (Euboea)120

Monument Description – Multiple tombs within a triangular base, surrounded by a
rectangular περίβολος and containing βόθροι.121
Regarding Location
Position – Urban (City Gates/City Wall)

120
De Polignac (1995), 129-132; identified this as a heroon due to the presence of a περίβολος, as well as a
tomb and a later ὰνδρεῖον (associated with dining rituals). Moreover, βόθροι are also found on site, strongly
suggesting a ritual function as a hero shrine.
121
See Figs.32 and 33.
31
Chthonian Votives/Symbols? – Unknown122
15. Triangular Heroon Phase II, Eretria (Euboea)

Monument Description – Multiple tombs within a triangular base, enclosed by a rectangular
περίβολος and including an ὰνδρεῖον over the old βόθρος.
Regarding Location

16. Hero Shrine of Phrontis, Sounion (Attica)123

Period of Construction – Archaic Period (8th/7th century BC)124
Monument Description – Distyle ναός with statue base inside, an altar outside, a βόθρος and
a surrounding περίβολος.125
122
Multiple grave goods were found of high quality, including swords (which are seen with hero burials,
according to Abramson); however these were deposited in the tombs before the construction of the
περίβολος and other paraphernalia, and are therefore inconclusive evidence for heroic votive offerings.
123
Abramson (1979), 12-15; identified as a hero shrine due to the presence of a περίβολος, ναός and βόθρος,
including offerings in the βόθρος indicative of chthonian or heroic cult. Moreover, a plaque found on site
depicting hoplites on a ship with a helmsman is taken to be indicative of Phrontis’ cult.
124
Dating based upon age of votive offerings in the βόθρος.
125
See Figs.34 and 35.
32
Regarding Location
Located within a larger Sanctuary? – No126

17. The Pelopeion Phase I, Olympia (Elis)127

Period of Construction – Archaic Period (6th century BC)128
Monument Description – Ash mound/tumulus with a tetrastylon covering an altar at its
base.
Regarding Location
126
From the 5th century onwards the monument fell within the τέμενος of a temple of Athena, but evidence
for use of the hero cult dates to before this time period.
127
Identified as such by the geographical location of archaeological remains to the North of the Temple of Zeus
(Perseus, 2015), in addition to Paus. 5.13.1., who describes it as “to the right of the entrance of the temple of
Zeus, on the north side…….it is surrounded by a stone fence, within which trees grow and statues have been
dedicated”. Moreover the presence of a περίβολος and προπύλαιον indicate its status as a religious sanctuary.
While there is scanty evidence for this earliest phase of monument (even though we know it existed), Ekroth
(2012), 106 suggests that the original monument may have been a tumulus with a tetrastylon at the foot of the
mound covering a simple altar, to which sacrifices were offered. It must be stressed that this is still somewhat
hypothetical, albeit strong enough to warrant inclusion into this investigation.
128
The monument is known to have at least been in use from this period; Ekroth (2012), 106.
33
Accessibility – Unknown (possibly open access)
Building(s) Present? – Unknown
Building Type – Unknown
Monument Plan – Unknown

Mortuary Artefacts? – Unknown129
18. The Pelopeion Phase II, Olympia (Elis)

Monument Description – Ash mound “altar” in grove surrounded by polygonal περίβολος,
with a tetrastyle προπύλαιον.131
Regarding Location
129
Supposition based upon the presence of a tumulus; indicative of a tomb, or at least earlier burial.
Alternatively it could just be a raised mound of earth. There have been no human remains or definitive signs
indicative of tombs thus far, therefore we cannot be certain as to the function of the earthen mound at
present.
130
The monument is known to have at least been in use from this period; Ekroth (2012), 106 suggests that the
original monument may have been a tumulus with a tetrastylon at the foot of the mound, yet there is
insufficient evidence to strongly support this theory at present (therefore it is not included as a phase for the
Pelopeion).
131
See Fig.36.
34

βόθροι? – Yes132
19. The Asklepeion Phase I, Athens (Attica)133

Monument Description – Sanctuary containing a tetrastyle ναός, with περίβολος, a large
βόθρος, an altar and a προπύλαιον near the ναός.134
Regarding Location
Located within a larger Sanctuary? – Unknown135
132
Not proven archaeologically, yet it is noted in Paus.5.13.2. that “Heracles too was a great-grandson of
Pelops, and he is also said to have sacrificed to him [Pelops] into the pit”, thus implying a sacrificial pit or
βόθρος.
133
Reithmüller (1999), 123-143; Identified as an Asklepeion due to the vast number of votive reliefs excavated
on site, as well as βόθροι, surrounding περίβολος and a προπύλαιον. Moreover, honorary decrees pertaining
to the Heroia festival can be found on site (affiliated with Asklepios and his cult), again indicating the sanctuary
owner as Askepios.
134
See Figs.37 and 38; the site also contains a second stoa on its southern side, although this is dated to the
Roman period.
135
Reithmüller (1999), 128. A western extension to the site exists, separated via a pathway; while shrines there
have been suggested as belonging to Isis and Themis there remains a clear barrier between both the East and
West sides of the terrace, implying that they may not be part of the same sanctuary; however the
hypothesised προπύλαιον leading to both sections leaves this issue somewhat inconclusive at present.
35

20. The Asklepeion Phase II, Athens (Attica)

Monument Description – Sanctuary containing a tetrastyle ναός, with περίβολος, a
significant monumental βόθρος under a tetrastyle canopy surrounded by minor walls, a new
2 storied ἄβατον to the north with a fountain, an altar and a προπύλαιον near the ναός.
Regarding Location
Located within a larger Sanctuary? – Unknown
136
See Fig.39.
137
Reithmüller (1999), 129 notes the presence of a fountain house adjoining the northern stoa, built into the
base of the Acropolis, called the “Tholos”.
138
Interestingly, the original προπύλαιον displayed snakes along the tympanum of the gateway.
36

Περιρραντήρια or other Water-related Objects? – Yes
21. The Heroon of Opheltes Phase I, Nemea (Argolid)139

Monument Description – Remains for an ashlar περίβολος are visible; may have originally
been a simple grove surrounded by a wall.140
Regarding Location
Located within a larger Sanctuary? – Yes141

139
Miller (1989), 27-28 and 104-110 notes 3 building phases; Early Archaic, Late Archaic and Hellenistic. The
monument is identified as a hero shrine due to the presence of a περίβολος, as well as altars and statues of a
young child (presumably that of Opheltes himself). Moreover, Paus. 2.15.3. notes that “(beside the Temple of
Zeus) in this place is the grave of Opheltes; around it is a fence of stones, and within the enclosure are altars” –
seemingly fitting the monument in question here.
140
See Fig.40 for a plan displaying all 3 phases of the περίβολος and their respective layouts.
141
Miller (1989), 110 notes that the location of the hero shrine is not central; rather it occupies a position on
the periphery behind the Temple of Zeus.
37
22. The Heroon of Opheltes Phase II, Nemea (Argolid)

Monument Description – Pentagonal περίβολος of rough masonry surrounding a grove,
containing altars and a newly constructed rectangular tomb.
Regarding Location
Located within a larger Sanctuary? – Yes
Τέμενος Plan – Pentagonal

Mortuary Artefacts? – Yes142
23. The Heroon of Opheltes Phase III, Nemea (Argolid)

Period of Construction – Hellenistic Period (3rd century BC)
Monument Description – Pentagonal περίβολος surrounding a grove, containing an altar, a
monumental tomb and a προπύλαιον or porch.144
142
Miller (1989), 108 notes that the tomb here contains no evidence of human burial; rather it may be a
symbolic monument similar to the tomb of Achilles at Elis.
143
Miller (1989), 108 notes the presence of votive offerings and bones indicative of sacrifice around the
supposed rectangular tomb.
144
See Fig.41.
38
Regarding Location
Τέμενος Plan – Pentagonal

24. The Heroon of Battos Phase I, Cyrene (Cyrenaica)146

Monument Description – Circular tumulus with surrounding τέμενος, containing a minor
shrine.147
Regarding Location
145
Miller (1989), 28; the dating of the water basin remains are unknown, so it is perhaps best to only place it
around this latest phase of monument rather than earlier phases.
146
Jones (2010), 1-18; also identified as a hero shrine due to Pind. P. 5.80-95. (regarding the description of
Battos’ tomb in the Agora), where he says; “and he (Battos) founded precincts of the gods that were greater
than before, and he established, for the processions of Apollo, protector of men, a straight cut, level, paved
road for the clatter of horses' hooves, where at the edge of the marketplace he rests by himself in death. He
was blessed when he dwelled among men, and thereafter a hero worshipped by the people”. Excavations in the
agora have uncovered to a demarcated τέμενος as well as a tumulus in this area and sacrificial remains; ergo
the belief is that it is the tomb of Battos, or at least some other hero.
147
See Fig.42 for a plan of the monument, its location and its composition.
39
Τέμενος Plan – Square

25. The Heroon of Battos Phase II, Cyrene (Cyrenaica)

Monument Description – Rectangular tomb/sarcophagus with τέμενος and minor shrine;
possibly containing a statue and altar.
Regarding Location
148
Jones (2010), 5 notes that a pottery sherd was found that possibly contained the name “Opheltes”; an
association of Asklepios. However the accuracy of this identification is disputed.
40

Περιρραντήρια or other Water-related Objects? – Unknown150
26. The Archegesion Phase I, Delos (Aegean Islands)151

Monument Description – Ash altar surrounded by a βόθρος, probably enclosed by a wooden
peristyle.152
Regarding Location
Elevated Position? – Unknown
149
Jones (2010), 6.
150
Jones (2010), 6-7; A stele found on site mentions the ritual act of cleanliness (often associated with water
basins), yet none have been found so far.
151
Jones (2010), 7-9; Identified due to the presence of a possible early τέμενος, as well as an epigraphic
inscription which says “to the hero Archegetes”. Moreover, multiple potsherds have been recovered which
state the name “Anios” (a mythical King of Delos), so this lends credence to the supposition that the site is
indeed a heroon.
152
See Fig.43.
153
In this case, the τέμενος was demarcated by the surrounding wooden peristyle that enclosed the shrine.
41

27. The Archegesion Phase II, Delos (Aegean Islands)

Monument Description – Ash altar surrounded by a βόθρος, enclosed by a stone περίβολος.
Regarding Location

28. The Marathon Tumulus, Marathon (Attica)155
154
A pit was found surrounding the altar, filled with bones and other items associated with sacrifice; this
normally fits the criteria for a βόθρος.
155
Vanderpool (1966), 101-106; Whitley (1994), 213-217; Identified as a hero shrine due to its prominence on
the plain of Marathon, as well as the presence of offering trenches, votive offerings and human remains.
Moreover its existence and function as a hero shrine is mentioned in Paus. 1.32.3-4., who notes that “On the
42
Monument Description – Large tumulus with grave stelae on the periphery, containing
offering trenches and possibly an Ionian column/marble plinth adorned with a trophy and/or
statue.156
Regarding Location
Boundary Markers? – Unknown157

βόθροι? – Unknown159
29. The Tritopatreion, Athens (Attica)161
plain is the grave of the Athenians………..the Marathonians worship both those who died in the fighting, calling
them heroes”. Interestingly the affiliated marble monument noted in Paus. 1.32.5. (“A trophy too of white
marble has been erected”) appears to be located separately from the tumulus.
156
See Fig.44.
157
There are no known ὅροι or περίβολοι at the site; however note that the marble monument of Pausanias
1.32.5 is distinct from the tumulus; this could imply a large τέμενος or sacred area – unfortunately due to the
lack of evidence this is merely speculative. Why does Pausanias describe both the tumulus and monument as if
they were affiliated?
158
Whitley (1994), 215-216; A “funerary” trench has been excavated under the tumulus; identified as the
trench for the Athenian dead.
159
Whitley (1994), 216; Rather than a circular hole, a pit has been excavated that contained some offerings
(although whether this constitutes a valid βόθρος is hard to tell at present).
160
Whitley (1994), 216; While offerings have been found, none are specifically of a chthonian nature.
Alternatively one could identify the placing of offerings in a trench as chthonian.
43
Monument Description – Triangular enclosure with evidence for a stone base, surrounded
by ὅροι; possibly including a grove inside the τέμενος.163
Regarding Location
By a Crossroads? – Yes164
Τέμενος Plan – Triangular
Τέμενος Area – Intermediate (250-600m2)165

30. The Heroon of the Crossroads Phase I, Corinth (Corinthia)169
161
Antonaccio (1995), 264; Van De Kerkhof (2014), 1-17; Stroszeck (2010), 55-85; Identified as a hero shrine
due to the presence of a περίβολος, and (importantly) several ὅροι bearing the inscription “heroes of the
Tritopatreion”. Evidence also exists for a possible tumulus and βόθρος directly beside the monument.
162
Antonaccio (1995), 264.
163
See Figs.45 and 46.
164
Stroszeck (2010), 57.
165
While the current remains of the monument today are somewhat minor, the estimated scale of the original
τέμενος appears to exceed 300m2.
166
Stroszeck (2010), 59; The monuments inaccessibility is made clear by the ὅροι, which list the monument as
ἄβατον.
167
Stroszeck (2010), 65-66 notes a possible tumulus beside the monument, potentially indicating a tomb of
sorts, although she argues that there are no epigraphic or literary references to a grave of any sorts.
168
Stroszeck (2010), 65 notes the presence of a βόθρος just beside the monument.
169
Steiner (1992), 401; Kaufman Williams II (1981), 408-412; Kaufman Williams II et al. (1973), 1-6; the
monument is identified as a hero shrine due to the presence of votive figurines such as horses, as well as an
44
Monument Description – Cist grave/tomb covered by a stone slab, surrounded by a small
rectangular περίβολος and containing a small stone altar170.
Regarding Location

31. The Heroon of the Crossroads Phase II, Corinth (Corinthia)

Monument Description – Cist tomb covered by a stone slab, surrounded by a small
rectangular περίβολος (with the former altar removed).
Regarding Location
amphora fragment depicting Herakles fighting Amazons. Moreover, the presence of human remains and a
περίβολος strongly indicates a ritual function as a shrine for heroic cult.
170
See Fig.47.
171
Kaufman Williams II et al. (1973), 5-6; Interestingly the monument contains 4 graves, although it appears
that only one was used or even detected by the 6th century Greeks who built the monument (in fact, the
περίβολος cuts directly into one of the graves).
172
Kaufman Williams II et al. (1973) dates the aforementioned Herakleian amphora fragment to this first phase
of monument.
45

32. Unidentified Hero Sanctuary, Olympia (Elis)174

Monument Description – Circular building surrounded by square enclosure/περίβολος,
divided into 3 rooms; 2 of which contained altars, and accessed via a colonnaded
entranceway. The presence of triangular roof tiles suggests that the circular room contained
a conical roof.175
Regarding Location
173
Kaufman Williams II et al. (1973), 4-5; the horse and rider figurines are dated to this later phase of
monument.
174
Gardiner (1925), 204-205; Perseus (2015); Identified as heroic due to the clear indication of a τέμενος and
earthen altar, containing an inscription saying “hero”.
175
See Fig.48.
46

33. Sanctuary of Demeter and the Dioskouroi Phase I, Messene (Messenia)176

Period of Construction – Archaic Period (7th/6th century BC)
Monument Description – Small οἶκος surrounded by a περίβολος, containing a βόθρος in the
center.177
Regarding Location
Located within a larger Sanctuary? – No178
176
Themelis (1993), 157-186; While Demeter is a chthonian goddess, the vast number of heroic symbols and
artefacts directly offered to the Dioskouroi and other heroes is enough to suggest that this sanctuary
contained a strongly heroic element. Moreover, in Paus. 4.31.9. a Messenian monument is noted (to which
this site has been identified); “there is a holy shrine of Demeter at Messene and statues of the Dioskouroi,
carrying the daughters of Leucippus”. It is interesting to note that the monument predates the re-founding of
Messene in the 4th century BC, with Themelis identifying it as originally a hero shrine to the Archegetes or
founder.
177
Themelis (1993), 158-159.
178
This monument phase predates the founding of the massive Asklepeion complex, and therefore was
originally not a part of it.
47

34. Sanctuary of Demeter and the Dioskouroi Phase II, Messene (Messenia)
Monument Description – Small οἶκος containing a nearby βόθρος, with a new rectangular
temple-esque building constructed to the north, as well as another obscure polygonal
structure just north of the temple.
Regarding Location
Boundary Markers? – Unknown181
179
Themelis (1993), 160-182; notably votive plaques of the Totenmahl style (depicting a reclining figure, often
drinking and placed alongside a feast table, sometimes depicting a female companion and a snake);
interestingly, some of the older artefacts depict females reclining in lieu of a male figure. Other artefacts
include armoured hoplites depicted alongside snakes and figurines depicting a male youth (κοῦρος) or a
female.
180
Themelis (1993), 157 notes the position of the sanctuary on the north-western terrace of the Asklepeion.
181
It is unclear whether the περίβολος of the earlier phase was still in use at this period, or whether it even
incorporated the new structures.
48

35. Sanctuary of Demeter and the Dioskouroi Phase III, Messene (Messenia)
Monument Description – Large hypaethral building complex, comprised of a number of
rooms with a water cistern and a monumental βόθρος.
Regarding Location

182
Themelis (1993), 160-182 notes hundreds of artefacts dating to this phase of monument; examples include
Totenmahl style reliefs, with others depicting a horse and rider (associated with the Dioskouroi or other
chthonian elements) or armoured hoplites with snakes; figurines found include those of the male “κοῦρος”
type noted for the prior phase, as well as fully clothed females. One particularly striking find was a bronze
shield dedicated to Polydeuces.
49
36. The Kekropeion/Pandroseion, Athens (Attica)185

Monument Description – A ναός surrounded by περίβολος wall, containing an L-shaped
stoa, an altar to Zeus and an olive tree, with a possible tumulus in the southern end of the
monument accessed by descending steps.186
Regarding Location
Position – Urban (Acropolis)
Accessibility – Single entranceway188

183
Themelis (1993), 158 notes 2 cisterns dated to this phase.
184
Themelis (1993), 160-182; some of the votive offerings mentioned for the prior monument have uncertain
dates, and it is most likely that some are dated to this phase of monument. Moreover, several of the figurines
have been accurately dated to this latest phase.
185
Perseus (2015); Kearns (1989), 192-193; Hurwit (1999), 290; Lesk (2005), 39; Identified as a hero shrine due
to the discovery of a clear περίβολος, its proximity to the Erechtheion and specific mention of a shrine
dedicated to Pandrosus in Paus. 1.27.2., who states that “adjoining the temple of Athena (assumed to be the
Erechtheion) is the temple of Pandrosus, the only one of the sisters to be faithful to the trust (of Athena)”.
186
See Fig.50.
187
It is unclear whether the monument is directly part of the Erechtheion or is simply adjoined to it, although
the mythological connections between Erechtheus/Erechthonius and Pandrosus imply that it was indeed
connected (not to mention the access provided through the Erechtheion monument).
188
Lesk (2005), 327 notes that the shrine was accessed through the Erechtheion rather than outside, implying
that it was a larger part of the building complex rather than a freestanding shrine.
189
Lesk (2005), 40 notes that the mound of Kekrops lay within the south corner of the West Façade.
50
37. The Agamemnoneion Phase I, Mycenae (Argolid)190

Monument Description – Unknown; the only evidence for the shrine are a collection of
archaic roof tiles, a περίβολος of rough masonry and cross walls indicating sections for the
monument.191
Regarding Location
Accessibility – Single entranceway 192

Mortuary Artefacts? – Unknown193
190
Cook (1953), 30-75; Identified as heroic due to several hallmarks of a religious nature (i.e. a sacrificial pit,
περίβολος, pedestal-craters and votive inscriptions on vases to Agamemnon dating to the 4 th century BC).
191
See Fig.51.
192
Cook (1953), 30 notes a possible entrance on the eastern side of the wall.
193
It is interesting to note that Paus.2.16.7. says the following (when at Mycenae); “Clytemnestra and
Aegisthus were buried at some little distance from the wall. They were thought unworthy of a place within it,
where lay Agamemnon himself and those who were murdered with him.” – Pausanias therefore implies that
Agamemnon’s tomb lay within the walls of Mycenae, rather than in this particular hero shrine.
194
Cook (1953) 32 notes a sacrificial pit into which objects were placed; whether this constitutes a proper
βόθρος is open to speculation.
195
Cook (1953), 33 notes that pedestal-craters have been excavated which have been identified as symbolising
bathtubs; an ironic or insulting offering to Agamemnon (who was - according to legend - murdered in the
bath)!
51
38. The Agamemnoneion Phase II, Mycenae (Argolid)

Monument Description – περίβολος of rough masonry, with a possible roofed monument on
the western end of the shrine, with evidence suggesting a paved floor.197
Regarding Location
Accessibility – Single entranceway 198

Περιρραντήρια or other Water-related Objects? – Yes
39. The Polis Cave, Ithaka (Ionian Islands)200
196
Cook (1953), 34-75 gives notes a large number of pottery deposits, including more than 60 pedestal-craters
dating to the Archaic period, as well as tripods and horse and rider figurines dating to the same period.
197
Cook (1953), 32 suggests this based upon the significant deposit of Hellenistic roof tiles in this area.
198
Cook (1953), 30; provided that the περίβολος remained unchanged.
199
Cook (1953), 33-75 notes that the material deposits from the 4th century onwards are slight, although
pottery sherds and inscribed roof tiles do exist. Moreover the aforementioned vases bearing the
“Agamemnon” inscriptions date to this period.
200
Larson (2007), 199; Heurtley (1939/40), 11-13; Benton (1934/35), 45-73 identify this as a possible hero
shrine due to the presence of bronze tripod offerings; moreover, an inscription on a votive mask found on site
has been identified as a dedication to Odysseus. In Hom. Od. 13. a cave is noted on Ithaka at which Odysseus
deposits his treasure; a cave that may have been interpreted by his worshippers as this shrine; “therewith she
52
Period of Construction – Archaic Period? (11th/9thth century BC) 201
Monument Description – Cave containing a rough pavement with a minor wall across the
cave entrance.202
Regarding Location

went down into the cave to look for the safest hiding places, while Odysseus brought up all the treasure of gold,
bronze, and good clothing which the Phaecians had given him. They stowed everything carefully away, and
Athena set a stone against the door of the cave”.
201
The evidence for occupation at the shrine dates to the Bronze Age, although the votive tripods (and other
chthonian elements) only begin to appear by the Protogeometric period, leaving the accurate dating of the
shrines conception to debate. Furthermore, due to the lack of architectural information available the
cave/monument cannot be divided into phases of building.
202
See Fig.52.
203
Benton (1934/35), 48; the presence of a boundary wall separating the cave from the outside could arguably
be considered a περίβολος (something which Benton openly suggests on pg.51).
204
Benton (1934/35), 52 notes that human remains have been found in the cave, possibly dating to the
Mycenaean period.
205
Benton (1934/35), 52-81 notes a number of deposits, including swords, helmets and valuable offerings;
human and horse figurines also appear, and (more significantly) a large collection of bronze votive tripods
dating from the Protogeometric right up to the Roman periods; on an even more interesting note, an
inscription on a votive mask contains the words “dedicated to Odysseus”, suggesting who a potential cult
recipient was here.
53
40. Submerged Heroon, Paestum/Poseidonia (Magna Graecia and Sicily)206
Monument Description – Triangular gabled roof covering a partially submerged rectangular
tomb of monumental design containing a bed and an opening for ritual deposition,
surrounded by a περίβολος.208
Regarding Location
Position – Suburban209
Accessibility – Unknown210

41. Possible Heroon, Megara Hyblaea (Magna Graecia and Sicily)212
206
Sestieri (1956), 22-33; Identified as a hero shrine due to the presence of a περίβολος and monumental
tomb (albeit empty). While Sestieri identifies the monument as belonging to a chthonian deity the possibility
of it belonging to a hero cannot be discarded, due to the actual physical tomb present.
207
Sestieri (1956), 30; Based on the dating of the bronze vases excavated within the central monument.
Moreover, this predates the Lucanian conquest of the city in 400BC; suggesting its origin as Greek (rather than
Lucanian or Roman).
208
See Figs.53 and 54.
209
Sestieri (1956), 22.
210
Sestieri (1956), 22; It should be noted that the actual tomb itself was ἄβατον.
211
It could be suggested that the submerged nature of the monument (even in ancient times) is indicative of a
chthonian element. Whether this is dedicated to a chthonian deity or a hero though is open to speculation,
although the actual presence of a “tomb” could be seen to imply the latter.
54
Monument Description – Irregular rectangular περίβολος divided into 2 chambers.213
Regarding Location

Mortuary Artefacts? – No214
42. Heroon of Iphigeneia Phase I, Brauron (Attica)216
212
Grupico (2008), 79; Tsetskhladze (2008), 411; Salt (2008), 128-129; De Polignac (1995), 148; identified as a
hero shrine due to the presence of a περίβολος and possible βόθροι, although this supposition IS tentative.
Interestingly this monument predates the supposed foundation of Megara Hyblaea.
213
See Fig.55.
214
De Polignac (1995), 148.
215
Tsetskhladze (2008), 411; Based upon the presence of pits by the shrine, although their chthonian function
is debateable.
216
Ekroth (2003); 59-118; Larson (1995), 15; identified as a potential hero shrine due to the knowledge that
the “Arkteia” festival occurred at Brauron (a festival for the transition to womanhood); moreover the presence
of elements within the sanctuary that are possibly affiliated with Iphigeneia (namely votive offerings
overwhelmingly feminine in nature); moreover her heroisation is mentioned in Eur. IT. 1460-1470., when
Athena tells her; “You, Iphigenia, must be key-holder for this goddess on the hallowed stairs of Brauron, and
will die there and be buried; and they will dedicate adornment to you, finely-woven robes which women who
have died in childbirth leave in their homes.” Ekroth has challenged this identification, suggesting it as
belonging to Artemis – however as it appears that there is already a significant number of monumental
buildings dedicated to this goddess on site it would appear strange for the worshippers to have built more.
55
Monument Description – A sanctuary along a small cliff, centred on a cave with multiple
rooms and an οἶκος, possibly a έστιατόριον, to the south east by the cave entrance.218
Regarding Location

Mortuary Artefacts? – No220
43. Heroon of Iphigeneia Phase II, Brauron (Attica)

Furthermore, due to the lack of evidence suggesting any other site as the hero shrine of Iphigenia it would be
best to identify this as the actual monument, especially considering the evidence given.
217
Ekroth (2003), 77; Dates are based upon pottery finds in the cave and outside. The cave appears to have
collapsed by the 5th century BC, which ended this particular phase.
218
See Figs.56 and 57.
219
Located within the sanctuary of Artemis.
220
Ekroth (2003), 78 has noted that while the original investigator stated the presence of remains here as
indicative of a tomb, the actual bodies date to the Roman period, well after the lifespan of this shrine.
221
Ekroth (2003), 77 notes a series of ash filled pits containing votive deposits; while inconclusive on their own
a much larger pit surrounded by stones found in the cave is much more suggestive of a chthonian sacrificial pit.
222
Terracotta figurines and large assemblages of votive offerings were found that are consistent with a female
figure. However they could be interpreted as dedications to a chthonian goddess, i.e. Demeter or Persephone.
56
Monument Description – A sanctuary along a small cliff, centred on an abandoned/collapsed
cave with a έστιατόριον to the south east of the old entrance, and a new οἶκος blocking the
old entrance in the north-west.
Regarding Location

44. The Aiakeion Phase I, Athens (Attica)223

223
Thompson (1954), 31-73; Camp (2003), 22; Kearns (1989), 141; Perseus (2015); Aiakeion (2015); identified
originally as a courthouse by Thompson, modern analysis has identified it as a sanctuary to Aiakos based upon
the presence of an apparent περίβολος and its morphology and position, including 2 inscriptions dated to the
mid-4th century BC, one which notes a monument to the hero located in the Athenian Agora and another that
notes the Aiakeion’s conversion into a roofed building for holding grain. Moreover, Hdt. 5.89. lends some
support to this assumption; “While the Aeginetans were laying waste to the seaboard of Attica, the Athenians
were setting out to march against them, but an oracle from Delphi came to them bidding them to restrain
themselves for thirty years after the wrongdoing of the Aeginetans, and in the thirty-first to mark out a precinct
for Aiakos and begin the war with Aegina………. when the Athenians heard this reported to them, they marked
out for Aiakos that precinct which is now set in their marketplace, but they could not stomach the order that
they must hold their hand for thirty years, seeing that the Aeginetans had dealt them a foul blow”. NB: this
monument underwent changes in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, however as those periods fall outside
the scope of this investigation (post-3rd century BC) they have been excluded.
57
Monument Description – An altar with a statue, surrounded by a τέμενος wall and a raised
step entrance providing access from the front, with a smaller entrance to the west.224
Regarding Location

45. The Aiakeion Phase II, Athens (Attica)225

Monument Description – Square περίβολος with a secondary wall (at least on the western
side of the original monument), containing rooms and column bases; a new staircase on the
north was also installed, possibly including a προπύλαιον.226
Regarding Location
224
See Figs.58 and 59.
225
Due to the monument’s use as a site for grain storage it is unclear whether it still held any religious
connotations or whether it lost its role as a hero shrine. However for the sake of argument, it will be assumed
so.
226
It could perhaps be suggested here that the column bases are indicative of a tetrastylon or other similar
monument, as has been seen in other hero shrines.
58
Accessibility – Two entranceways

Περιρραντήρια or other Water-related Objects? – Unknown227
46. The Leokoreion, Athens (Attica)228

Monument Description – Natural stone base (serving as an altar) surrounded by a περίβολος
of smooth masonry, with a neighbouring well which appears to be connected to the
shrine.229
Regarding Location
By a Crossroads? – Yes230
227
Aiakeion (2015); while a fountain is located next to the monument it is uncertain whether it directly adjoins
the Aiakeion or is simply nearby.
228
Shear (1973), 126-134; Perseus (2015); Lalonde (1968), 102; Kearns (1989), 181; Rotroff (1978), 207;
identified as a potential hero shrine due to the clear presence of a περίβολος and altar, including offerings of a
female nature. Moreover it is similar in appearance to various hero shrines in the Athenian agora. As a result, it
has been named the Leokoreion (after the daughters of Leos, who may even have shared the monument with
his daughters). Moreover, documents pertaining to the tribe that worshipped Leos have been found in the
agora, documents which are often placed in the eponymous hero’s sanctuary.
229
See Figs.60 and 61.
230
The monument lies on a crossroads of the Panathenaic Way, in the Athenian Agora.
59

47. Unidentified Minor Shrine, Corinth (Corinthia)235

Monument Description – Simple περίβολος surrounding an altar.236
Regarding Location
231
Shear (1973), 128; while there is no direct mention of the monument being ἄβατον (albeit hinted), Shear
notes that the vast quantity of pottery sherds found on the rock altar suggest that the pots were thrown at it
and left where they lay in some “unknown ritual”. I would like to suggest this as a practical ritual born out of its
inaccessibility; if the shrine was indeed ἄβατον then the worshippers could not access the central altar – ergo
the only option was to throw offerings into the shrine (which could have manifested later in this ritual
throwing of pots at the altar stone). Moreover, the plan of the wall appears to fully encircle the central altar.
232
Shear (1973), 130; burnt sacrificial remains in the floor fill were found, although it is unclear whether these
were ritual contexts or not.
233
Shear (1973), 130-131 notes a well 3m from the shrine which contained a massive amount of votive
offerings of the same type as those found in the monument, implying a connection.
234
Shear (1973), 128-134 notes the vast quantity of votive materials of a feminine nature, yet as with the hero
shrine of Iphigeneia this is not conclusive evidence; it does not explain whether the deity was a goddess or
heroine.
235
Kaufman Williams II (1978), 1-39; identified as a hero shrine due to the περίβολος and material culture
which is indicative of a hero cult (horse and rider, terracotta figurines, banqueting reliefs etc.). Interestingly,
the shrine has been erected over an earlier house; as to why this is the case is open to debate.
236
See Fig.62; Kaufman Williams II (1978), 7 and 11 suggests an altar based upon the presence of 2 poros slabs
set roughly equidistant from one another (implying an altar base of some kind). It should also be noted that
during the 4th century BC the south stoa is erected, adjoining with the shrine itself (although this does not
drastically alter the known plan of the monument, therefore a second phase is unnecessary here.
60
Accessibility – Single entranceway237

48. The Asklepeion Phase I, Corinth (Corinthia)239

Monument Description – Rectangular περίβολος surrounding an altar, table and libation
drain (with a possible tetrastylon behind the altar, perhaps housing a statue), with a
polygonal οἶκος of unknown designation nearby.240
Regarding Location
Located within a larger Sanctuary? – Unknown241
237
Kaufman Williams II (1978), 7 notes that the shrine appears to have been designed to allow access, with a
doorway in the south or eastern enclosure wall.
238
Kaufman Williams II (1978), 8-10 and 35; notes a variety of material deposits, notably terracotta figurines
and horse and rider figurines, and even a figurine of a person dining (perhaps suggesting the chthonic ritual
often affiliated with Totenmahl reliefs).
239
Roebuck (1951), 1-152; identified as an Asklepeion due to the discovery of a sanctuary, including a large
amount of votive deposits which are consistent with the hero (i.e. votive reliefs, terracotta figurines and casts
of body parts). The Asklepeion has also been noted in Paus. 2.4.5.; “Not far from this theater is the ancient
gymnasium, and a spring called Lerna. Pillars stand around it, and seats have been made to refresh in summer
time those who have entered it. By this gymnasium are temples of Zeus and Asclepius. The images of Asklepios
and of Health are of white marble; that of Zeus is of bronze”.
240
See Figs.63 and 64; Roebuck (1951), 8-12; it is interesting to note the apparent tetrastylon – the Asklepeion
in Athens was known to contain one also.
61

49. The Asklepeion Phase II, Corinth (Corinthia)

Monument Description – Large περίβολος enclosing the hill, with contained a Doric
tetrastyle temple with an altar in front, a colonnaded stoa to the north and an ἄβατον to the
west, including a fountain house and colonnaded peristyle at the adjoining Lerna spring. The
site was accessed by a monumental προπύλαιον.245
Regarding Location
241
Roebuck (1951), 22 notes that it is possible that the shrine may have been shared with Apollo at this early
stage.
242
Roebuck (1951), 20 notes the discovery of 3 sarcophagi containing the bones of children at the foot of the
Asklepeion hill, with offerings nearby dated to the 6th century BC.
243
Roebuck (1951), 12-14 notes a water basin and several wells dated to this phase of monument. Moreover,
the nearby spring at Lerna appears to have been connected to the site, and should be included.
244
Roebuck (1951), 19 notes the large number of terracotta figurines (namely those of the horse and rider
type) found which date to this period.
245
Roebuck (1951), 23-24; It is perhaps interesting to note the architectural similarities between this and the
Asklepeion in Athens (notably the addition of a stoa/ἄβατον for the worshippers to sleep in.
62

50. Sanctuary of Heros Ptoios, Akraiphia (Boeotia)250

Monument Description – Simple ναός with possible complex nearby, and a circular altar with
a circular περίβολος.251
Regarding Location
246
Valid only if we consider the remains from the earlier phase to be relevant here.
247
Roebuck (1951), 43; while not proven specifically, Roebuck identifies a stone paved circular pit between the
stoa and ἄβατον as a drainage pit; based upon the apparent similarities between this pit and the one in the
Athenian Asklepeion it would make more sense for it to be interpreted as a βόθρος instead.
248
Roebuck (1951), 23-24 and 26-27 notes a fountain house built over the Lerna spring, as well as individual
water basins in the Asklepeion itself.
249
Roebuck (1951), 113-151 notes a large number of votives dating to this phase of monument, including casts
of body parts (affiliated with a healing deity like Asklepios), terracotta figurines (including banqueters, horse
and riders, κοῦροι and female figurines) and statues of Asklepios (some of which include a snake) and a snake
head. Interestingly the Totenmahl styled votive reliefs are absent.
250
Ekroth (1998), 121-123; identified as a hero shrine due to the presence of a περίβολος, votive offerings and
epigraphical evidence suggesting it’s function as a cult to a hero (in this case Ptoion).
251
See Fig.65.
63

252
Ekroth (1998), 121 notes a large number of figurines excavated on site.
64
Analysis and Discussion
The findings from the catalogue have given us a lot to consider; those areas of the catalogue which I
have judged to be of particular interest to the overall analysis have been included below; this
includes analyses of the shrines catalogued via region, construction/alteration periods, demarcation
and monument types, ritual artefacts/auxiliary structures and spatiality.
Analysis of Shrines according to Region
The locations of the hero shrines are tallied below:
Hero Shrines per Region Number

Attica 15
Aegean Islands (Cyclades and Dodecanese) 6
Argolid 5
Corinthia 5
Laconia 3
Elis 3
Messenia 3
Euboea 2
Cyrenaica 2
Asia Minor 2
Magna Graecia and Sicily 2
Boeotia 1
Ionian Islands 1
Hero Shrines per Region

16
14
12
Number
10
8
6
4
2
0
65
Hero Shrines per Region
2%
4% 2% Attica
4% Aegean Islands (Cyclades & Dodecanese)
Argolid
4%
Corinthia
4% 30% Laconia
Elis
6% Messenia
Euboea
6%
Cyrenaica
6% 12% Asia Minor
Magna Graecia & Sicily
10%
10% Boeotia
Ionian Islands
As can be seen, the overwhelming majority of shrines tend to originate from Attica, with a significant
minority of shrines originating from the islands of the Aegean, Corinthia and the Argolid. There are a
few suggestions for this; Parker has noted that each Attic deme had its own affiliated hero, at whose
shrine worship was carried out (as well as the hero shrine acting as a focal point for the deme),
which could explain the large number of shrines in the region.253 However I would like to propose an
alternative explanation; one such viewpoint is to argue that Attica, being the region in which Athens
is located, simply has more shrines available. After all, ancient Athens was the largest of all
contemporary Greek poleis, as well as being a centre of culture and power throughout the
Hellenistic and Roman periods. It would therefore be logical to assume that, as one of the leading
city states (with the largest population) it would house the largest number of hero cults.
However we should also take note of Pausanias’ work here. It is interesting to note that while he has
quite a bit to say regarding Attica he also has an almost equal amount of monuments and sites to
note when travelling through other regions of Greece,254 notably the Argolid,255 as well as Arcadia
(the latter which in fact contains more literary information for the whole book than the Attic
segment).256 Instead of assuming this information to be contrary to the evidence provided, we
should rather remember that the majority of archaeological excavations take part in the region of
Attica (which also contains some of the largest amount of literary and epigraphic evidence remaining
in mainland Greece), and therefore over time we may find much more evidence of hero shrines in
the other areas of the Greek world. Moreover, as was noted in the Methodology, many shrines were
probably of an impermanent nature (i.e. made of wood, rather than stone).257 Indeed some of the
site reports for the catalogued shrines suggest their earliest construction phases to have been built
of wood; therefore much of the data available is unfortunately unclear to us, meaning that the large
number of shrines in Attica may not be truly indicative of the distribution of hero cults in the Greek
world. Moreover, we should note the wealth and prosperity of ancient Athens (when compared to
253
Parker (2005), 70-71.
254
Paus. 1.1-44.
255
Paus. 2.1-38.
256
Paus. 8.1-54.
257
Whitley (2004), 134.
66
its contemporaries). A city of such power would naturally erect more substantial and permanent
monuments; monuments which would naturally be much better preserved than those of a more
impermanent design. By taking this assumption it may be that we can remedy the apparent
contradiction between the large numbers of shrines in Pausanias’ time and the archaeological
record.
Analysis of Periods of Construction and Alteration
Perhaps we may find more decisive information in regards to other areas. What can be said for the
periods in which these shrines were built? If we look at the data in the catalogue we can see the
following:
Period of Construction/Alteration Number

Archaic Period (9th-6th centuries BC) 24
Classical Period (5th-4th centuries BC) 25
Hellenistic Period (3rd century BC) 1
Period of Shrine
Construction/Alteration
30
25
20
Number
15
10
5
0
Archaic Period (9th-6th Classical Period (5th-4th Hellenistic Period (3rd
centuries BC) centuries BC) century BC)
Due to the deliberate aim of avoiding shrines dated to the Hellenistic period (as was noted in the
Methodology) we only have one example of a monument dated to this period; therefore the analysis
will exclude it and focus on the earlier Archaic and Classical eras. In regards to these periods, there
appears to be no significant disparity between the two. However we should take note that the data
presented does not only account for newly constructed monuments but also includes those which
have been altered or changed in any significant way; therefore the logical assumption to be made
here is that least the construction activity regarding these shrines appears to have been constant
throughout both the Archaic and Classical periods. In order to reach a more satisfactory conclusion
we should analyse these statistics deeper:
67
Historical Period New Construction Alteration or Expansion
Archaic Period 19 5
Classical Period 12 13
Hellenistic Period 0 1
Period of Shrine Construction

including Alteration/Expansion
20
15
Number
10 New Construction
Alteration or Expansion
5
0
Archaic Period Classical Hellenistic
Period Period
As is clear from these tables, we can see that the majority of catalogued shrines were newly
constructed in the Archaic period; while some appear to have undergone alterations in the same
period these all date to the later Archaic. In regards to the Classical era we can see a significant
number of newly constructed shrines, yet we can also see a slightly higher number of altered or
amended hero shrines (even the single Hellenistic period example is an alteration of a prior
structure). From the new data presented it seems to imply that the majority of hero shrines were
constructed in the Archaic era, with the Classical period experiencing a significant number of newly
constructed monuments as well. The higher number of altered monuments in the Classical period
could be explained as alteration to prior Archaic monuments, or later alterations/extensions to early
Classical shrines.
What else can we take from this information? It is clear from the data that heroic cults appear to
have been in constant use throughout the Archaic-Classical periods. Indeed, we should remember
Pausanias’ travels through Greece, whereupon he notes a significant number of hero shrines and
monuments even in the 2nd century AD – long after this period of study. Furthermore, some of his
descriptions about said shrines arguably imply that they have existed/have been in use for a very
long time. To quote a few examples:
The sanctuary of the Dioskouroi is ancient. They themselves are represented as standing,
while their sons are seated on horses. Here Polygnotus has painted the marriage of the
daughters of Leucippus……….was a part of the gods' history, but Micon those who sailed with
Jason to the Colchians, and he has concentrated his attention upon Acastus and his horses.258
258
Paus. 1.18.1.
68
Within the enclosure are olive trees that have grown there from of old, and there is an altar
which is raised but a little from the ground. That this altar is also the tomb of Aeacus is told
as a holy secret.259
[Regarding the Pelopion in Olympia] Right down to the present day the magistrates of the
year sacrifice to him, and the victim is a black ram. No portion of this sacrifice goes to the
sooth-sayer, only the neck of the ram it is usual to give to the “woodman,” as he is called.260
Therefore in conclusion it seems unlikely that there was any significant or even marked decline in
hero cult worship throughout the Archaic-Classical periods.
Regarding Shrine Demarcations, Buildings and Shrine Scales
The data presented for each of these three features cannot be categorised together. Therefore we
should focus on each individually, starting with the demarcation of both shrine boundaries and then
analysing the monuments inside (where applicable):
Shrines with clear demarcation of a τέμενος Number

(περίβολος or ὅροι)
Yes 41
No (or Unknown) 9
It is clear then that the vast majority of hero shrines catalogued contain evidence for a sacred area
or boundary, therefore proving the applicability of hero shrines to Cole’s discussion (in the
Introduction) on religious boundaries at sanctuaries.261 As for the remainder; it should be noted that
there is simply no present evidence for a boundary marker at these sites (rather than there being
irrefutable evidence suggesting the absence of any such boundary marker), which when taken with
the overwhelming evidence for such markers strongly implies that those listed in this category may
have contained a περίβολος or other such marker.
If we then look at the statistics for the τέμενος and monument scale of catalogued shrines we see
the following:
Hero Shrine Tέμενος Area

Major (>600m2) 12
Intermediate (250-600m2) 11
Minor (<250m2) 10
Unknown or Inapplicable 17
259
Paus. 2.29.8.
260
Paus. 5.13.2.
261
Cole (2004), 36.
69
Hero Shrine Monument Area
Major (>100m2) 1
Intermediate (50-100m2) 4
Minor (<50m2) 4
At first glance, it would appear that there is a reasonable balance between the numbers of shrines
and the respective sizes of their precincts. It is interesting to see that the majority of τέμενος areas
do not exceed 600m2; the same appears to apply to those shrines containing monuments, of which
only 1 of these exceeds 100m2. In regards to monuments, there are a vast number of shrines which
are unknown in size (or inapplicable). This large disparity could be explained by the possibility that
many shrines did not contain focal monuments (meaning that they were a minority in Greek hero
cults), or that many of those listed as inapplicable are in fact building complexes.
The results bring us to another avenue for analysis; what can be said for the scale of these shrines
over time? Do they expand in size or are the results inconclusive? If we look at the following tables:
Τέμενος Scale vs. Archaic Period Classical Period Hellenistic Period

Period of Construction
Major (>600m2) 6 5 1
Intermediate (250- 5 6 0
600m2)
Minor (<250m2) 4 6 0
Τέμενος Scale vs. Period of

Construction
7
6
5 Major (>600m2)
Number
4
3 Intermediate (250-
600m2)
2
1 Minor (<250m2)
0
Archaic Period Classical Period Hellenistic
Period
70
Monument Scale vs. Archaic Period Classical Period Hellenistic Period
Major (>100m2) 0 1 0
Intermediate (50- 0 4 0
100m2)
Minor (<50m2) 3 1 0
Monument Area vs. Period of

Construction
5
4
Number
3
Major (>100m2)
2 Intermediate (50-100m2)
1 Minor (<50m2)
0
Archaic Period Classical Hellenistic
Period Period
The evidence shows that there appear to be no correlations between the scale/expansion of a
shrines τέμενος. The data presented is by far insufficient to make any kind of speculation, therefore
it is perhaps best to leave that to one side. However, if we turn to the statistics for focal monuments
it is interesting to note a sudden rise in the size of said monuments; there is a noticeable drop in
shrines considered “Minor” in size, and an expansion of shrines (by a factor of 5) into significantly
larger monuments (both Intermediate and Major). Perhaps this data could be interpreted as
suggesting that the Classical era saw a rise in increasing monumentality?
Moving on again, the evidence for monuments containing a building/monument is as follows:
Shrines containing a Building/Monument Number

Yes 30
No 20
In this case, it would seem that a significant majority of shrines contain at least one building
(whether that implies a ναός, tomb, stoa or generic structure). However we must note that this
majority only constitutes 60% of those catalogued - an insufficient number to note any strong
patterns inherent in ALL hero shrines. Perhaps if we were also to look at the ratio of shrines
containing buildings defined as “complexes” over “focal monuments” then we may find some
patterns. It should however be noted that the former were not included in analyses of monument
scale (due to their nature; i.e. multiple buildings are difficult to analyse; moreover, a size average
71
would be a poor substitute for monument scale).
If we divide the data for shrines containing a building into Focal Monuments and Building Complexes
the data is as follows:
Hero Shrine Building Type

Focal Monument 13
Building Complex 18
This new data shows that the majority of shrines containing buildings appear to favour a complex of
multiple structures (rather than a single central monument). What then can be said for this over
time; are the construction of building complexes a constant process, or a phenomenon specific to
one period? If we look at the following tables:
Building Type vs. Archaic Period Classical Period Hellenistic Period

Focal Monument 6 7 0
Building Complex 5 13 0
Building Type vs. Period of

Construction
14
12
10
Number
8
6 Focal Monument
4 Building Complex
2
0
Archaic Period Classical Period Hellenistic
Period
Then we can see an interesting development; it appears that the Archaic period displays a near
equal number of shrines containing central monuments and multiple building complexes. By
contrast, there appears to be a rise in both the number of shrines that develop both central
structures, with a particularly sharp increase in the number of building complexes in the Classical
period. What could this suggest? It is perhaps best if we remember the increase in large scale
projects at the onset of the Classical period; a period of ambitious building programmes and
increasing “monumentalisation” (for example, the famous Parthenon and Erechtheion in Athens, the
building projects of Syracuse under Dionysius I, the expansion of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi
etc.). It may be logical to assume that with such an expansion of culture (expressed in many forms,
including monument construction) hero shrines too saw a significant development and/or
72
expansion, notably with the construction of grander shrines to benefit the religious supplicants and
attendants at these sanctuaries.
Analysis of Ritual Artefacts and Auxiliary Structures
We should now begin assessing the data relating to material culture and ritual artefacts (namely
tombs, altars, περιρραντήρια and βόθροι). It is perhaps best if we focus on such issues individually,
in order to avoid any confusion. To start, we could look at the data relating to mortuary remains. If
we analyse the data the evidence from our research is as follows:
Mortuary Artefacts: Tombs/Human Remains Number

Present 22
Not Present 12
Unknown 16
From this information, we can see that there are a majority of shrines which contain evidence for
items of a mortuary nature; however a significant minority appear to have no evidence whatsoever
for any funerary activity. Moreover, we are faced with a dilemma; there are also a significant
number of monuments for which the evidence for funerary remains is simply unknown. What could
this imply for these results? For one, it suggests that we cannot claim the data is suggestive of hero
shrines always containing a tomb, seemingly contrasting with the views of some scholars, notably
Mirto and Larson, the former arguing that remains of heroes at tombs become the basis for
sanctuaries,262 and the latter arguing that a tomb is often the focal point of a hero cult.263 However
in Larson’s defence she goes on to suggest that Herakles and the Dioskouroi do not fit this role, nor
do “contested heroes” with shrines in multiple places (for example, Arsinoe). Indeed this argument
that tombs are not a mandatory trait inherent in heroic cult is something that is echoed by various
scholars, notably Ekroth and De Polignac.264 Kearns has suggested that heroes were worshipped at
their tombs,265 but that they were also worshipped “elsewhere”, which could also be taken to
assume a similar viewpoint to that of Ekroth or De Polignac. It is possible that the large number of
“unknowns” could have contained tombs or mortuary elements (and we just have no evidence at
present), however due to the large number of monuments not containing tombs (which are a
minority individually, yet would comprise 56% of all analysed shrines when combined with those
designated as unknown) we cannot reliably state that the majority of hero shrines were constructed
or built around a tomb without more conclusive evidence, nor can we state the opposite!
If we use the data and apply it over time, we can see the following in regards to mortuary artefacts:
262
Mirto (2012), 120-121.
263
Larson (1995), 9.
264
Ekroth (2002), 20 notes that “the tomb is sometimes the focus of a cult, but it is not necessary to have the
heroes tomb to start a cult”. De Polignac (1995), 147 notes that not all hero shrines contained tombs, citing
the example of Megara Hyblaea which was covered in the catalogue.
265
Kearns (1989), 3.
73
Mortuary Artefacts vs. Archaic Period Classical Period Hellenistic Period
Present 10 11 1
Not Present 6 6 0
Unknown 8 8 0
Mortuary Artefacts vs. Period of

Construction
12
10
8
Number
Present
6
Not Present
4 Unknown
2
0
Archaic Period Classical Period Hellenistic Period
It is interesting to note that while we see a pattern of continuity regarding shrines not containing a
tomb (as well as those listed as unknown) we see that there appears to be a single new addition to
those containing a tomb in the Classical period. I must however caution against the assumption that
these statistics are contiguous; it may be that the Classical period tombs are not in fact direct
successors of Archaic monuments. If we investigate this further, we see this:
Classical and Hellenistic Period Shrines Number

Containing Mortuary Artefacts
Successor to a prior Archaic Monument 4
Independent 8
The table above therefore strongly suggests that the data in the bar chart is not actually indicative of
any significant continuation. How then can we explain these new shrines in the Classical era? Several
scholars have suggested that some hero shrines may have sprung up around Bronze age/Mycenaean
period tombs;266 it is possible that many of these Classical period shrines originated from a prior
Mycenaean tomb. However there are other possibilities; for example, if we look at Pausanias he
notes a shrine of particular interest:
On the plain is the grave of the Athenians………..the Marathonians worship both those who
died in the fighting, calling them heroes.267
266
De Polignac (1995), 128; Kearns (1989), 130; Antonaccio (1999), 116.
267
Paus. 1.32.3-4.
74
Mentioned earlier in the catalogue, this quote refers to the Athenian dead of Marathon, a battle
which occurred in the 5th century BC (and therefore the Classical period). The tumulus erected
around their remains appears to have become a significant aspect of their heroic cult. Pausanias also
notes a further example of a similar phenomenon in the Classical era, which is as follows:
Even up to my time there were docks there, and near the largest harbor is the grave of
Themistocles. For it is said that the Athenians repented of their treatment of Themistokles,
and that his relations took up his bones and brought them from Magnesia.268
The tomb, supposedly located at Piraeus (noted in the catalogue) appears to have been erected in
the Classical period – moreover, Themistokles himself lived in the same historical era. In conclusion,
the data supports the supposition that new cults could spring up around tombs at any given time or
be created from the contemporary dead, meaning that heroes were not analogous to the Archaic or
Bronze Age periods.
If we move onto altars then we can see the following:
Altars Number
Present 28
Unknown 22
In this case the evidence shows that a majority of these hero shrines contain evidence of an altar or
similar ritual structure. Therefore from this information it may be possible to speculate that an altar
was a relatively common sight in many hero cult shrines, a sentiment shared by other scholars.269
However, similar to the information for mortuary elements we must remember that the evidence is
insufficient to claim that ALL hero shrines were likely to contain an altar, due to the significant
minority of unknowns (even if the presence of an altar is a general assumption for religious shrines).
If we analyse the data corresponding to altars over time then we can see the following:
Altars vs. Period of Archaic Period Classical Period Hellenistic Period

Construction
Present 15 12 1
Unknown 9 13 0
268
Paus. 1.12.
269
Ekroth (2002), 14-17 notes that most hero sacrifices took place on an altar; indirectly, the implication she
makes here is that altars are commonplace in hero shrines.
75
Altars vs. Period of Construction
16
14
12
10
Number
8 Present
6 Unknown
4
2
0
The data here does not suggest anything significant; there appears to be a small decline of
monuments containing altars in the Classical period, although this could be reasoned as a lack of
archaeological information; moreover, the increase in “unknowns” may corroborate with this
supposition. It is interesting to note the vast majority of monuments which date to the Archaic
period and which actually contain evidence for an altar or similar structure; while the unknowns are
a significant minority they do not constitute evidence for the absence of an altar. In fact, if we
hypothesised that every unknown was in fact proof of no altar whatsoever (which is an extreme
supposition, given the frequency of sacrifice at religious shrines and sanctuaries) a comfortable
majority of hero shrines still would contain one in the Archaic period, with a very slim minority of
shrines containing an altar in the Classical period.
What then can be said for περιρραντήρια?
Περιρραντήρια or Objects involving Water/Ritual Number

Purification
Present 11
Unknown 39
The data here is notable in that there are a significant minority of shrines which contain objects
affiliated with water and/or ritual cleanliness. While none of the catalogued shrines contain definite
evidence against the presence of such objects, the overwhelming majority have no evidence to
suggest such artefacts at present. What could this mean for our study?
We should remember that water was ritually seen as pure, therefore περιρραντήρια and other
objects of a similar nature were used to purify a person before entering the shrine of a particular
religious deity.270 Some scholars have noted that some heroes appear to have been considered
“unclean” or “impure”;271 however, some have also argued that heroes were not impure like the
270
Cole (2004), 35-36.
271
Ekroth (2002), 263.
76
ordinary dead,272 but were clean from such taboo or stigma; so which one is it? Pausanias may lend
some light to this issue:
If anybody, whether Elean or stranger, eat of the meat of the victim sacrificed to Pelops, he
may not enter the temple of Zeus. The same rule applies to those who sacrifice to Telephus at
Pergamus on the river Caicus; these too may not go up to the temple of Asclepius before they
have bathed.273
These comments (referring to two heroes, one of whose monuments is directly noted in the
catalogue) clearly suggest that partaking in some religious sacrifices was considered “unclean” or
impure; is it possible then that the apparent lack of artefacts associated with ritual purification is
due to these suppositions or beliefs about the unclean nature of chthonian heroes (whereas
Olympian deities, being pure, contained cleaning basins to clean one-self before approaching their
shrine)? It could perhaps be suggested that this uncleanliness only refers to specific heroes (who
constitute the exception rather than the rule), as we do have evidence for some shrines containing
περιρραντήρια. As to whether this religious “uncleanliness” was the standard we are unfortunately
clueless, due to the largely “unknown” nature of the majority of these hero shrines (reflected in the
data gathered).
If we analyse περιρραντήρια over time then we see the following:
Περιρραντήρια/Objects Archaic Period Classical Period Hellenistic Period

for Ritual Purification
vs. Period of
Construction
Present 1 9 1
Unknown 23 16 0
Περιρραντήρια/Objects for Ritual

Purification vs. Period of
Construction
25
20
Number
15
Present
10
Unknown
5
0
272
Kearns (1989), 126.
273
Paus. 5.13.3.
77
As we can see from the data there appears to be a marked number of περιρραντήρια/similar ritual
objects dated to the Classical period, with only 1 known to have existed in the Archaic period. Could
this then suggest that the ritual of cleanliness and purification (when referring to heroes) is largely a
Classical period phenomenon? It is possible, given the marked disparity in results. However such a
suggestion is tentative, due to the fact that those listed as “unknown” constitute the vast majority of
our results. Perhaps the large number of shrines dated to the Archaic period contained
περιρραντήρια, or perhaps none of them did; we cannot know for certain. What is certain is that
those listed as unknown constitute an unfortunate complication that counters any serious attempt
at a strong hypothesis regarding such ritual artefacts.
Finally, we come to βόθροι:
Sacrificial Pits or βόθροι Number

Present 21
Unknown 29
The data here is somewhat reminiscent of that for tombs and mortuary elements, in that there is a
large minority of catalogued shrines which display evidence for some form of sacrificial pit. However,
as was noted with the data for περιρραντήρια those shrines which are “unknown” constitute the
majority of those in the catalogue. What can be said for this information? Ekroth has argued that
βόθροι were never a major feature of hero cults, and were often relegated to sanctuaries outside
the city boundaries.274 However the information here directly refutes this; while it is true that the
number of shrines showing clear evidence for βόθροι is in the minority (at least, when compared to
those designated as unknown) they still constitute over 40% of all catalogued shrines. Could this be
purely coincidental, or does this refute Ekroth’s argument?
Once again, due to the large number of unknowns we are unfortunately unable to verify whether
βόθροι were present in most hero cults; however it appears reasonable to surmise that, from the
data provided, the evidence seems to challenge Ekroth’s stance on βόθροι as “never being a major
feature”. Furthermore, the data suggests that while βόθροι were not a staple of all heroic cults they
certainly appear to have been a fairly common sight in hero shrines.
If we look at the statistics for βόθροι over time then we see the following:
Sacrificial Pits/βόθροι Archaic Period Classical Period Hellenistic Period

vs. Period of
Construction
Present 10 11 0
Unknown 14 14 1
274
Ekroth (2002), 72.
78
Sacrificial Pits/βόθροι vs. Period of
Construction
16
14
12
10
Number
8 Present
6 Unknown
4
2
0
The data here is intriguing in that there appears to be no strong rise in βόθροι throughout the
Classical period; while there is an increase the number only rises by one, therefore implying no
major change in ritual practice or custom (at least, according to the data). As mentioned previously
we cannot suggest anything with certainty due to the number of “unknowns” in our data, leaving
this area of analysis sadly inconclusive.
Spatiality and Location within the Polis
There is a significant amount of data relating to the spatiality of the shrines in the catalogue; as with
earlier analyses, we should assess the results from the catalogue individually starting with shrines
and elevation to avoid confusion, which is as follows:
Elevated Position in Landscape Number

Yes 12
No 35
Unclear or Unknown 3
As is clear from the data, the vast majority of shrines appear not to be located on high ground. The
significance of this could be that hero shrines were perhaps (as a whole) not intended to dominate
the landscape (like the Parthenon, whose visibility from afar was perhaps an intention of the
monuments importance to the Athenians); however there are a significant number of shrines that
are built in such situations, notably the Menelaion and the Pandroseion. Perhaps the shrines built on
such ground were of much higher importance to the builders than most that have been analysed in
this study; yet this is merely speculative. The fact that the majority are not located on high ground
could lend support to the notion that heroes were seen as inferior to the Olympian gods (who often
tended to occupy high, visible positions in the landscape). On a related note, the lack of shrines on
high ground could be an implication of the chthonian “underworld” aspect of heroes and hero
worship in general. However, we must remember that these suggestions are merely tentative.
79
If we turn to the data regarding crossroads, we see the following:
Shrine Location in respect to Crossroads Number

Shrines located by Crossroads 8
Shrines not located by Crossroads 42
While several scholars have noted connections between some hero shrines and crossroads,275 it is
notable that the overwhelming majority of monuments analysed contain no evidence for being
situated by a crossroads in any shape or form, therefore seemingly ruling out crossroads as a
common/atypical aspect of hero cults (although that is not to say that this rule applies to ALL hero
shrines).
Moving on to the question of shrines and larger sanctuaries, the information is as follows:
Shrines and Larger Sanctuaries Number

Located within a Sanctuary 8
Independent Shrine 39
Unknown/Unclear 3
As with the data for crossroads, the vast majority of monuments appear to be independent shrines
rather than auxiliaries of a larger religious complex; however there remains a significant minority of
monuments which do fit this category. In answering as to why this may occur, some scholars have
noted that various deities and heroes share a relationship,276 often manifested in physical cult; for
example, Kearns notes the catalogued shrine of Iphigenia at Brauron,277 claiming that Iphigenia may
have in fact been a manifestation of Artemis herself. However according to primary sources,
Iphigenia may have been the first priestess of Artemis at the shrine, and her shrine may have been
established for that reason (a type of hero cult that Kearns acknowledges, noting their establishment
due to the priest/priestesses role as the founder of the religious cult for that particular deity);278
indeed, Euripides’ “Iphigenia in Tauris” supports this hypothesis:
You, Iphigenia, must be key-holder for this goddess on the hallowed stairs of Brauron, and
will die there and be buried; and they will dedicate adornment to you, finely-woven robes
which women who have died in childbirth leave in their homes.279
It would seem then that monuments which are situated within a larger precinct most likely have a
connection to the leading deity in some shape or form; whether the monument is an affiliated
person or another facet of the presiding deity however is debateable.
Finally, we turn to the analysis of monument location in relation to the land, which is as follows:
275
Malkin (1987), 211; Shear (1973), 125.
276
Kearns (1989), 3.
277
Kearns (1989), 32.
278
Kearns (1989), 97 and 127.
279
Eur. IT. 1460-1470.
80
Shrine Location in Relation to the Environment Number
Urban 27
Suburban 8
Extraurban 15
The evidence strongly suggests that the majority of hero shrines (at least in the catalogue) are
located within an urbanised area; why could this be the case?
The first thought to come to mind is that the dominance of urban shrines is to be expected, given
that the majority of building construction in history tends to lie in areas of dense human population
and congregation. However it could also be suggested that modern archaeology is to blame for this,
for one reason: Modern archaeological excavations tend to take place in areas of modern urban
activity. Moreover, many excavations begin in places where a site has been accidentally unearthed
(for example, during the laying down of foundations for a new building); therefore, as most
construction occurs in urban areas this could imply modern bias as a contributing factor to these
results.
That being said however, we must remember that modern urbanisation is not necessarily a direct
evolution of past urban zones (although whether this is directly applicable in this particular case is
uncertain).
If we continue on; analysing these results further should discern more details:
Shrine Location in Relation to the Environment Number

(ii)
Urban (General) 7
Urban (Agora) 13
Urban (Acropolis) 2
Urban (City Wall/City Gate) 5
Suburban 8
Extraurban 15
81
Shrine Location in Relation to the
Environment (ii)
Urban (General)
14% Urban (Agora)

30%
Urban (Acropolis)
26% Urban (City Wall/City

Gate)
16% Suburban
10%
4% Extraurban/Countryside
Now that we have divided the shrines into even smaller categories we find much more to discuss; it
is clear now that the predominant categories are shrines belonging to the countryside, closely
followed by a large number in the agora and those fitting the suburban/generic urban categories
shortly behind those. What could this mean? The large number of shrines located in the countryside
could possibly be explained by the fact that in Attica the tribal system was organised so that each
tribe contained a founder hero that acted as a focal point for the tribe to gather around, where the
activities of the tribe could take place (for example, notices, meetings, decrees etc.).280 After all, it
must be remembered that Athenian tribes were organised with heroes as their origin, heroes whose
shrines may have been located in an assortment of places, depending on their respective
mythologies. Another possible explanation is that some were placed there as boundary/territorial
markers for the city state.281 Proponents of this include scholars such as Fol,282 who notes that the
Athenian foundation of Amphipolis was achieved using the transfer of the remains of the hero
Rhesus from the Troad to the Chalcidice; she also argues that this was the Athenians way of
ideologically claiming the land as their own (by returning the bones of a local legendary hero,
burying them and honouring him).
Unfortunately, in contrast to these arguments we should remember that the supposed tribal system
for Attica may not necessarily be applicable to those monuments in the countryside found outside
this region, which renders this discussion somewhat moot (at present).
If we turn to urban shrines; regarding those shrines by the city gates/city walls, it has been argued
that the positioning of hero shrines by the gates is a way of “protecting the city from outside
invaders”, for example the tomb of Antiope the Amazon in Athens or that of Amphion and Zeta at
Thebes. Furthermore, in regards to Suburban shrines it may be suggested that those monuments
which are defined here as such could have fulfilled a similar role to their city gate/city wall
counterparts.
280
Parker (1996), 70-71; Kearns (1989), 99-100 notes that while the larger demes also had founder heroes
their roles were different; due to the spatial identity dimensions of an Athenian deme their heroes would not
have the same role, resulting in meetings probably happening in the agora.
281
De Polignac (1995), 33; Antonaccio (1999), 118.
282
Fol (2005), 67-72.
82
What then of those in the inner city? It should be noted that the large number of shrines in the
agora may have a connection to the “founder hypothesis”, a theory supported by several scholars of
hero cults.283 The hypothesis is that many hero cults were placed in the focal point of the city (often
the agora) due to their status as founders of the city. Indeed this notion is actually mentioned by
Pindar, who says:
Founders were buried in the centre of the poleis according to custom.284
Some shrines noted by ancient writers appear to fit this notion – to quote one example of Pausanias:
There is also a temple of Messene, the daughter of Triopas, with a statue of gold and Parian
marble.285
Another example (noted in the catalogue) by Pindar is as follows:
And he [Battos] founded precincts of the gods that were greater than before, and he
established, for the processions of Apollo, protector of men, a straight cut, level, paved road
for the clatter of horses' hooves, where at the edge of the marketplace he rests by himself in
death. He was blessed when he dwelled among men, and thereafter a hero worshipped by
the people.286
However there are some issues inherent with “founder shrines”, as it would appear that shrines
designated as those to city founders are not always the actual founders of the city; for example the
tomb of Ajax in Salamis which appears to occupy the Agora,287 or the tomb of Brasidas at Amphipolis
(noted by Thucydides), in which Brasidas was buried in the heart of the agora at public expense,
given heroic rites and (more importantly) the original founder, Hagnon, had his monument torn
down and supplanted by that of Brasidas.288 Another example by Larson notes how Alkathous of
Megara has his tomb in the middle of the Megarian agora, therefore fitting his role as a founder.289
Yet what makes this confusing is that it was King Megareus who gave the city its name, implying that
HE was in fact the city founder. To make matters even more confusing, the Athenian agora alone
contains several hero shrines, many of which are unaffiliated with the foundation of the city. In fact,
the hero Theseus (often associated with the synoecism of Athens) may have had his supposed hero
shrine by the city gates!290
Based upon what we have discussed so far it would seem that there is no solid or real explanation as
to their location in the landscape; an argument that is supported by Parker, who notes that “heroes
can be found almost anywhere.”291 So instead of looking at them from a “locational” viewpoint,
what if we view the location of these monuments from a different perspective? Kearns has
283
Antonaccio (1999), 110; De Polignac (1995), 128; Hall (1999), 49-50; Larson (1995), 72; Malkin (1987), 189.
284
Malkin (1987), 193.
285
Paus. 4.31.11.; Themelis (1994), 4-6; Messene’s temple was located in the Asklepeion, often assumed to be
the heart of the city.
286
Pind. P. 5.80-95.
287
Paus. 1.35.3.; Abramson (1979), 14.
288
Thuc. 5.11.
289
Larson (1995), 72.
290
De Polignac (1995), 148.
291
Parker (1996), 54.
83
emphasised the role of heroes as “protectors” of the polis,292 which encompasses most (if not all)
hero shrines, regardless of location. To expand upon this, McCauley notes the phenomenon of bone
transferral, arguing that the Greeks believed the bones of heroes to contain power – therefore
transferring them from one region to the other would deprive that region of the hero’s protection
and/or allegiance, giving it to the region that now possessed the hero’s bones.293 This could account
for why some shrines are located in the agora; by placing the hero shrine in the agora the polis is
guaranteed of the hero’s protection and favour, therefore legitimising their control over the original
land in question; it would seem that the Aiakeion at least appears to fit this theory well (as the
establishment of a shrine to Aiakos gave Athens legitimacy over the island of Aegina, supplanting the
claims of Megara), as well as possibly accounting for the placing of Rhesus’ remains in Amphipolis;
something that McCauley acknowledges.294 It would seem then that some shrines may be located in
various areas due to the power associated with them; the removal of Hagnon from the agora of
Amphipolis and his replacing by Brasidas shows a clear transfer of power, from Athens to Sparta. It
also may have been a ritual way for the Amphipolitans to “throw off” the yoke of Athenian
hegemony. Furthermore, Fol’s earlier argument on hero shrines being used as ways to control the
land may explain the location of some shrines, not just in the countryside but in a number of places.
A possible example supporting this is the story of Orestes, noted by several ancient writers,
particularly Herodotus:
Having been worsted in every engagement by their enemy, they (the Spartans) sent to
Delphi, and inquired of the oracle what god they must propitiate to prevail in the war against
the Tegeans. The answer of the Pythoness was that before they could prevail, they must
remove to Sparta the bones of Orestes, the son of Agamemnon…………. From henceforth,
whenever the Spartans and the Tegeans made trial of each other's skill in arms, the Spartans
always had greatly the advantage; and by the time to which we are now come they were
masters of most of the Peloponnese.295
Moreover, Pausanias’ notes the following:
The Lacedaemonians have also a sanctuary of the Fates, by which is the grave of Orestes, son
of Agamemnon. For when the bones of Orestes were brought from Tegea in accordance with
an oracle they were buried here.296
Therefore this implies that while hero shrines may certainly have been used to control the land, this
appears to have not been specific to the countryside or disputed areas (but encompassed the
entirety of the polis).
In closing, I would like to suggest a few personal explanations as to the seemingly random location of
many of the shrines in the catalogue; it could perhaps be argued that the location of some shrines,
particularly in the agora and acropolis, may be down to the esteem with which the heroes were held
by the citizens, or a mark of the importance of that particular hero/heroine. It is a well-known fact
that the Parthenon was established primarily to Athena, the patron goddess of Athens; if such a
292
Kearns (1989), 63.
293
McCauley (1999), 95.
294
McCauley (1999), 97.
295
Hdt. 1.66-68.
296
Paus. 3.11.10.
84
monument occupying land in the focal point of the city can exist for deities, then can the same not
be true for heroes? For example, the catalogued Pandroseion, occupying ground near the Parthenon
is apparently dedicated to Pandrosus; the shrine itself, being notable for containing many elements
associated with her immediate family (i.e. Kekrops, Erechthonius etc.) could be located in such a
focal point due to the importance of Kekrops and his family in the mythological foundations of early
Athens. The same principle could perhaps be applied to the Pelopeion in Olympia; according to
mythology Pelops was the founder of the Olympic Games, therefore it is plausible to suggest that
the location of his shrine in the centre of the city reflected his importance in local mythology.
A second point I would like to suggest would be that in the 21st century we are still quite ignorant of
many ancient customs and rituals, including the ancient Greeks. It is therefore possible that many of
these shrines were specifically positioned due to some local myth or custom, whose legend is now
lost to us. Many of these lost beliefs and customs may account for some of the generic urban and
extraurban shrines catalogued in this study. However, we should note that the actual results for the
catalogue show no strong trend hmfor shrines being situated in a particular location; therefore it
would seem that we can find no clear patterns in this regard.
Discussion and Hypothesised Shrine Types
From the results (and discussion) above, we can conclude that there appear to be no overwhelming
indicators or patterns seen with hero shrines, at least when taken on an individual level. Does this
mean then that hero shrines are incapable of categorisation? Not necessarily - there is evidence in
the catalogue that some shrines appear to exhibit various patterns or trends which may indicate a
general category, so to speak. These patterns shall be addressed further below in the individual
shrine categories I have created.
In this next section I have proposed a number of ideal “types” which account for various shrines in
the catalogue; whether they apply to all shrines in Greek history is however debateable. It must be
stressed that the following types are merely tentative, and are based upon my gathered knowledge
from this study, somewhat independent of the analysis above. Furthermore, there are no strict
criteria; a shrine that fits the description of one type (for example, the Triangular type noted later)
may, for example, exhibit some aspects consistent with a Focal Monument type. However, shrines
that do this exhibit a distinct pattern that, when defined below, distinguish it from other types (even
if similar).
The shrine types below have only been created from shrines listed in the catalogue (although some
examples from outside have been referenced to support these hypotheses), but due to the
tentativeness of these suggestions they may be liable for amendment with future information and
stronger evidence.
The types are as follows:
1. Natural Cave – this type is distinguishable by the use of a natural rock formation (namely a cave or
85
cleft) as a place of worship.297 While there are only a few monuments in the catalogue which would
fit this description they do exist, and appear to be somewhat distinct from other hero shrines. Why
would the Greeks establish a shrine in such a place? As noted in earlier discussion, it may be that the
cave or area is affiliated with the hero in some shape or form; for example the Polis Cave on Ithaka
(as mentioned in the catalogue) appears to have been affiliated with Odysseus, as Homer notes the
hero visiting such a place:
Therewith she went down into the cave to look for the safest hiding places, while Odysseus
brought up all the treasure of gold, bronze, and good clothing which the Phaecians had given
him. They stowed everything carefully away, and Athena set a stone against the door of the
cave.298
Therefore it could be surmised that the cave was established as a shrine purely on the basis of an
apparent heroic affiliation. However I would like to suggest another explanation for the appearance
of this shrine type – due to heroes being seen as chthonian, a cave, being a chthonian place and a
connection to the underworld, would be a natural gathering point for those who wished to worship
heroes (who tended to be located there). Indeed Greek mythology is filled with accounts of heroes
who travelled to the Underworld, for various reasons. One such example is the story of Orpheus and
Eurydice, in which Orpheus travels to the Underworld to regain his dead wife; indeed Vergil seems to
hint at a cave in his verse on Orpheus:
And now, retracing his steps, he evaded all mischance,
and Eurydice, regained, approached the upper air,
he following behind (since Proserpine had ordained it),
when a sudden madness seized the incautious lover,
one to be forgiven, if the spirits knew how to forgive:
he stopped, and forgetful, alas, on the edge of light,
his will conquered, he looked back, now, at his Eurydice.
In that instant, all his effort was wasted, and his pact
with the cruel tyrant was broken, and three times a crash
was heard by the waters of Avernus.299
The “edge of light” noted in this verse (which implies an ascension of some form) could arguably be
taken to imply a cave or subterranean hole from which Orpheus entered the Underworld, and from
which the hero is now returning. Another example is the famous 12th Labour of Herakles, where he
brought Cerberus up to the surface through a cave in the Peloponnese; interestingly Pausanias’
makes note of this supposed cave in his travels:
297
See Figs. 52 and 56 for a few examples of this type.
298
Hom. Od. 13.
299
Verg. G. 4.453-527.
86
All are surrounded by fences of stones, while in the place of Clymenus there is also a chasm in
the earth. Through this, according to the legend of the Hermionians, Heracles brought up the
Hound of Hell.300
Therefore it appears reasonable to suggest that a cave, with its connotations to the underworld,
would act as a natural conduit for speaking to the hero via worship and establishment of a shrine.
2. Focal Monument – This type appears to be characterised by a shrine, often (but not always)
surrounded by a περίβολος or boundary marker, with the distinguishing element being a large
singular monument building in the centre.301 Good examples of shrines which fit this type would be
the heroon of Golbasi-Trysa or the heroon at Limyra. It seems that a significant number of these
focal monuments are tombs, yet some appear to challenge this assumption, notably the Menelaion
and the shrine of Phrontis at Sounion. Regardless of the function of said focal monuments, they all
share similarities in that while individual architectural details may differ (notably the caryatids on the
shrine at Limyra) they all act as a focal point for the worship of the presiding hero. Moreover, there
appears to be no buildings or constructs of a similar size that can deter attention from the central
building. In explaining their origins, it is possible that some of these shrines, while initially smaller in
nature (like those of the simple type) could have seen expansion into more significant monuments
throughout the Classical period. It would appear that the Menelaion certainly adheres to this
suggestion; according to Catling the monument initially begins as a minor altar with a περίβολος,
later expanding into a larger ναός and eventually being reconstituted as the large structure we see
today in the Classical period.302 Alternatively, it could be suggested that the monumentality of the
shrine is perhaps due to the respect with which the inhabitants held this particular hero. The
Menelaion, being the shrine of Helen and Menelaos, is naturally expected to hold high esteem in the
eyes of the Spartans, as both heroes were seen to be among Laconia’s most iconic heroes (alongside
the Dioskouroi). Another explanation for the appearance of this type may be that the central
monument was in fact a tomb or even a memorial/cenotaph, built for a distinguished person or
magistrate of the area. The heroon of Golbasi-Trysa and Limyra appear to fit this type. It may be that
some of these shrines mark the beginning of a largely later fashion of hero shrine which expands in
the Hellenistic period; after all, as was noted by Larson it seems that after the 4th century BC a
family could independently heroise a relative if they had the resources to do so.303 Moreover, there
are some monuments much later in time which certainly appear to display similarities to the “focal
monument type”, notably the Heroon of Thermon in Sicily and the Tomb of Saithidas in Messene,
both of which are comprised of a clear central structure with no neighbouring monuments.304
3. Simple Shrine – this type (like that of the focal monument) tends to be smaller than the focal
monuments, is often comprised of a demarcation for a τέμενος (either via a περίβολος or ὅροι) and
surrounds a small area, often centred on an altar or small tomb.305 Several of the shrines in the
catalogue appear to fit this type, notably the tomb of Themistokles and Leokoreion in Athens, the
Crossroads Heroon in Corinth and the submerged heroon in Paestum/Poseidonia. As with the focal
300
Paus. 2.35.10.
301
See Figs. 17, 28 and 29 for some examples of this type.
302
Catling (1976-77), 24-42.
303
Larson (1995), 22.
304
Fedak (1990), 125-126.
305
See Figs. 43, 53, 60 and 61 for “Simple Shrine” examples.
87
monument type, there is no clear or strong characteristic in architecture that defines these shrines;
each shrine appears to differ in its composition and appearance (for example, the earliest phase of
the Herakleion in Thasos contains a central altar and βόθροι, while the earliest phase of the
Archegesion in Delos contains an altar, surrounded by a wooden peristyle). However they all share a
feature similar to that of the focal monument; they are often demarcated, with the shrine “interior”
usually being comprised of a small altar or tomb (possibly both), with auxiliary structures such as
βόθροι on the periphery. In explaining their origins, it may be that this type relates to a significant
number of those in the catalogue which were built in the Archaic period and were relatively small
scale in nature; perhaps the “simple type” is in fact an early phase of construction in the Archaic,
which may have progressed into a larger type throughout the Classical era (a theory which may
account for the eventual growth of both the Menelaion of Therapne and Herakleion of Thasos). Or
alternatively, this type may be valid for “oikist heroes” or polis founders. In supporting this
suggestion it would appear that the supposed tombs in Kyrene and Poseidonia fit this category well
(as both contain among other minor structures a tomb and a περίβολος as demarcation). A third and
final suggestion could be that this category may be valid for those heroes who in antiquity were
heroised and given honours at their tomb; the best example being that of Themistokles, whose
supposed tomb was enclosed by a wall and (according to scholiasts) given heroic honours.
4. Monumental Complex – this type (again like the focal monument and simple shrine) is often
demarcated by a τέμενος wall of some form, yet it differs from the focal monument type in that
instead of one single monumental structure it contains several large buildings often dedicated to
various aspects of ritual, for example a ναός, stoa and έστιατόριον.306 A few examples of this type
include the late phase of the Herakleion in Thasos, the Asklepeion in Athens and the late phase
shrine of Iphigenia at Brauron. The presence of various minor structures such as external altars or
βόθροι tends to vary depending on each individual shrine, yet all contain a series of buildings with
no clear focal point. It is perhaps even possible to discern a subtype within this category, at least in
relation to shrines of Asklepios. Reithmüller has noted various similarities in the architectural layout
of an Asklepeion; in particular the presence of a large incubation hall (or ἄβατον, not to be confused
with the same word meaning “inaccessible”) a ναός and a monumental βόθρος, examples of which
can be seen in the Asklepeion of Corinth and Athens, as well as shrines outside this study (like the
Asklepeion of Messene and that of Epidamnos).307 However, regardless of these similarities we must
note that they still adhere to this particular category of shrine, as they still contain several buildings
dedicated to the presiding hero, of which none are of central importance or interest. What then can
be said for their existence in antiquity? It is possible (like those which fit the focal monument type)
that these shrines were built as a result of the power of that particular hero; Asklepios, being a
hugely popular pan-Hellenic deity, is a prime example of this – as a result of his popularity and
appeal his temples are usually quite large in scale and often contain several buildings dedicated to
the hero. The Pandroseion/Kekropeion is again another potential example, being comprised of a
ναός, stoa and supposed tomb. As was noted earlier the family of Kekrops comprised some of the
best known figures in Athenian mythology, therefore it is to be expected that they received worship
befitting their status in the city. Another possibility (again emulating the hypothesised focal
monument type) is that these shrines were initially minor shrines (of the simple type) which then
expanded into these monumental complexes. Indeed the Herakleion is a prime example of this
306
For depictions of a Monumental Complex, see Figs. 24, 37, 50 and 63.
307
Reithmüller (1999), 129-137.
88
hypothesis; originating as an altar and series of simple βόθροι in the Archaic period it expands into a
vast complex with several buildings throughout the Classical period.
5. Triangular Base Monument – This type is of particular interest, in that the shrines catalogued as
this type appear to have no common distinguishing characteristics (such as altars or buildings); some
in fact exhibit patterns seen in Focal Monument shrines (for example, the Heroon in Eretria and the
Triangular Shrine in Athens both contain evidence suggesting a central monument, although it is
unclear whether the remains for a structure on the latter is in fact a base for an altar). What
separates these shrines from their counterparts is that (uniquely among the catalogued shrines)
these monuments have a distinctive triangle shaped base as the focal point of the monument, which
appears to be marked as ἄβατον.308 Examples of this type include the aforementioned Heroon of
Eretria and the Tritopatreion in Athens. Interestingly the architectural pattern of the triangular base
type has been recognised by several modern scholars, notably Wycherly,309 who claims it is a
characteristic of some shrines. A tentative suggestion for their appearance is that all triangular
shrines could in fact be shrines to the Tritopatores; ancient ancestral heroes of a somewhat unclear
origin. Of the examples that fit this category, one is a clear monument for the Tritopatores, whereas
the other two are of an unknown dedication; the triangular shrine in Athens simply contains an ὅρος
labelled “to the hero”, whereas the heroon of Eretria contains no clear named heroic recipient
(although it does contain several tombs). Further still, Van de Kerkhof notes other triangular shrines
of a similar design, all of which are apparently shrines dedicated to the Tritopatores.310 If we
stretched our suggestion further, we should note that the Tritopatores were the “three fathers”; a
number which coincidentally corresponds with the 3 sided triangle design. Regardless of the
speculation behind their origin, the triangular base inherent in these monuments seems to be
unique in hero shrines (both catalogued and external). Whether they belong to the type categorised
as a focal monument or are an independent type themselves is currently open to debate.
6. Sacred Grove – This type displays characteristics similar to the “simple shrine” type, in that it is
comprised of a τέμενος wall surrounding a central area, often containing a few smaller structures
such as altars and tumuli. However it differs from a simple shrine in that the shrines in this category
have been known to contain a grove or assortment of trees and other flora.311 Examples of this
include the shrine of Opheltes in Nemea and the Pelopeion in Olympia. In supporting this category it
should be noted that classical writers have actually noted this distinction in their descriptions, to
quote an example:
Within the Altis there is also a sacred enclosure consecrated to Pelops, whom the Eleans as
much prefer in honour above the heroes of Olympia as they prefer Zeus over the other gods.
To the right of the entrance of the temple of Zeus, on the north side, lies the Pelopeion. It is
far enough removed from the temple for statues and other offerings to stand in the
intervening space, and beginning at about the middle of the temple it extends as far as the
308
See Figs. 32, 33 and 46 for examples of the Triangular Base type.
309
Wycherly (1970), 290.
310
Van De Kerkhof (2014), 6.
311
For examples of a Sacred Grove, see Figs. 40 and 41.
89
rear chamber. It is surrounded by a stone fence, within which trees grow and statues have
been dedicated.312
As to their purpose, it is difficult to speculate. One possible suggestion may be that a tomb or ritual
place marked as important to the presiding hero contained a small copse of trees, or a natural
element such as a pond or stream. Therefore instead of clearing this sacred area they simply
enclosed it, flora included.
7. Multichambered Shrine – This type appears to be somewhat minor (in that relatively few of the
shrines in the catalogue are of this category); it appears to be characterised as either a single
monument divided into multiple chambers/rooms, or a walled enclosure divided into multiple
rooms; rather than a complex of several buildings these rooms constitute part of the greater
surrounding wall.313 Examples of this include the unidentified shrine in Olympia, the later phase
Aiakeion in Athens and the supposed oikist tomb in Megara Hyblaea. In explaining their function, like
sacred groves it appears to be somewhat difficult. It could be suggested that these monuments
share a function similar to the building complexes; multiple rooms in a hero sanctuary (like the
multiple buildings of a building complex) may imply multiple functions, which could be an indication
of the role of that particular hero. This description may fit that of the Aiakeion or Sanctuary of the
Dioskouroi in Messene, as well as the Heroon in Megara Hyblaea. One final suggestion could be that
some of these rooms were in fact rooms for ritual dining or τηεοχεινια, a common feature in ancient
religious cults (both gods and heroes).314 It may then be fair to suggest that some of these rooms
could have fulfilled the role of a έστιατόριον, a building which is fairly common in monumental
complexes and even some independent shrines (for example, both the Asklepeions of Athens and
Messene, as well as the Triangular shrine in Eretria).
8. Uncategorised/Unique – The few shrines that have been placed under this category are utterly
unique in their layout and general design; while they may constitute a valid type in their own right
there is insufficient evidence in the catalogue (or to my knowledge in current archaeology) to
support this theory315. Examples of unique shrines include the Shrine of the Eponymous Heroes
(which is comprised of a stone base crowned by statues, yet is surrounded by a περίβολος marking
the area as sacred) and the Marathon Tumulus (which is a large circular mound). While the latter
could be suggested as a focal monument in itself, its uniqueness with respect to other shrines in the
catalogue designated as a focal monument type means that it cannot be fairly categorised without
further evidence (in other words, we should not create an entirely new category based upon one
single shrine example). In conclusion I would like to argue that these shrines (and others under this
category) may not be permanently designated as “unique”; perhaps with further research more light
can be shed on the shrines which currently fall under this heading.
It should be noted that auxiliary objects such as βόθροι and περιρραντήρια do not appear to have a
major impact on the types of shrine which I have suggested above. Altars have a slightly more
significant part to play in shrine types (notably those designated as the “simple” type), as they are
often found as indicators of that particular shrine. The decisive factor in identifying these shrine
312
Paus. 5.13.1.
313
See Figs. 48 and 55 for examples of the Multichambered Type.
314
Ekroth (2002), 136 notes that τηεοχεινια were ritual offerings of food and drink for both Gods and heroes.
315
See Figs. 20, 21 and 44 for depictions of Uncategorised/Unique shrines.
90
types has not been particular architectural flourishes or common designs, but rather a somewhat
generic pattern that these shrines appear to follow. While each individual shrine naturally differs on
details like location, scale and structures present, those which have been categorised all share
patterns that adhere to the various criteria I have set above.
With these eight types in mind, I have conducted an analysis to see exactly how many shrines in the
catalogue fit these various categories, which is as follows:
Monument Category Number

Natural Cave 2
Focal Monument 8
Simple Shrine 13
Monumental Complex 12
Triangular Base Monument 4
Sacred Grove 4
Multichambered Shrine 4
Uncategorised/Unique 3
Monument Categories
14
12 Natural Cave
Focal Monument
10
Simple Shrine
Number
8 Monumental Complex
6 Triangular Base Monument

Sacred Grove
4
Multichambered Shrine
2 Uncategorised/Unique
91
Monument Categories
6% 4% Natural Cave
8% Focal Monument
16%
8% Simple Shrine
Monumental Complex
8% Triangular Base Monument
26% Sacred Grove

Multichambered Shrine
24%
Uncategorised/Unique
As can be seen, those monuments incapable of categorisation only form a small number of the total
shrines catalogued (6%). We can also see that the majority of shrines appear to be of the “simple
type”, closely followed by “monumental complexes”, including a significant number of “focal
monuments”. What else can we glean from this information? If we tally the results over time then
we see the following:
Monument Category Archaic Period Classical Period Hellenistic Period

vs. Period of
Construction
Natural Cave 2 0 0
Focal Monument 4 4 0
Simple Shrine 8 5 0
Monumental Complex 3 9 0
Triangular Base 3 1 0
Monument
Sacred Grove 3 0 1
Multichambered 1 3 0
Shrine
Uncategorised/Unique 0 3 0
92
Monument Categories over Time
10
9
8
7
Number
6
5
4
3 Archaic Period
2
1
0 Classical Period
Hellenistic Period
The data presented appears to support my initial hypothesis; that those of the simple shrine type are
largely constructed in the Archaic period, with Monumental Complexes mostly being constructed in
the Classical Era; perhaps the sudden dip in numbers for the Simple Shrine type could be related to
the stark rise in numbers of monumental complex types. Those of the multichambered type also
appear to initially fit the aforementioned hypothesis; however the lack of these shrine types
complicates this suggestion. Natural cave types, sacred groves and triangular base monuments all
appear to date largely to the Archaic as well, with the focal monument type remaining an enigma;
bar one extra shrine in the Classical Era their number remains roughly constant throughout the
Archaic-Classic periods.
93
Conclusion
The objective of this study was to analyse hero shrines, and see whether or not we could discover
any patterns, particular types or categories based upon what little archaeological information we
had available. The evidence presented and subsequent analysis did indeed contain some interesting
results:
 The data implied that most shrines are to be found in Attica, although the testament of
ancient authors suggests the reality to be otherwise.
 Hero cult worship appears to have been constant throughout the Archaic and Classical
periods, with no indication of any marked decline over time.
 The evidence and analysis suggested that the boundaries of religious sanctuaries did not
expand or diminish over time; however focal monuments located inside these shrines
appear to have increased in size and scale in the Classical era.
 The evidence suggested that larger monument complexes are primarily a later period
phenomenon, with a marked rise in the construction of “hero complexes” in the
Classical period.
 The analysis of mortuary artefacts (tombs and human remains) suggested that some of
the catalogued monuments containing tombs were created in the Classical period,
instead of originating in the Archaic (75% of tombs dated to the Classical period are
seemingly new); this proves that the establishment of new hero shrines was not a
specifically Archaic phenomenon.
 There was insufficient evidence to prove whether or not βόθροι and περιρραντήρια
were a definite aspect of hero cults; however, the evidence does contain a large number
of unknowns. When taken into consideration with the significant numbers of shrines
that did contain these objects we can assume that they were a common feature in
many, if not all, hero cult shrines.
 Regarding spatiality, the majority of shrines appear to have been independent rather
than affiliated with/attached to a larger deities precinct or sanctuary.
 The majority of shrines were located in urban areas, with a significant number of these
urban shrines being found in the agora.
That being said, the evidence did little in recognising distinct trends or patterns inherent in hero
shrines; it is clear that each shrine in the catalogue is unique in some shape or form, from their
architectural components to their size, their physical appearance and the votive offerings present at
each site. However if we take a more generic/less stringent view of said shrines it is clear that there
are some patterns; patterns which have been stated, analysed and categorised into the seven types
(excluding those listed as Uncategorised/Unique) noted at the end of the previous chapter. Although
the categories I have presented constitute ideal types and are admittedly somewhat “loose” it must
again be stressed that these typologies are merely tentative, and based upon the examples
presented in the catalogue, as well as the knowledge gained from a long period of observing and
cataloguing these shrines. It is also possible that some of these categories are in fact subtypes of a
larger one (the example that I give again being the Triangular type, which arguably displays patterns
commonly seen in those of the Focal Monument type). Nonetheless, I feel that by imposing less
94
strict criteria on hero shrines we are able to view patterns, which while imperfect, are clearly
apparent when one takes a less stringent approach to definition. Perhaps it is simply impossible to
categorise hero shrines without taking a more generic approach to the subject.
Before concluding I would like to note the possibility that the categories identified in these shrines
are not unique to hero cults; the patterns I have noted above may in fact be typical of most Greek
religious shrines, including those of Olympian gods (a criticism I noted in the Methodology).
However addressing this question would require a lengthy investigation, beyond the scope of this
current analysis; perhaps a future study in this area could prove or disprove this issue.
Finally, one dilemma with this project has been the sheer lack of archaeological evidence for my
investigation; I have attempted to do what I can with the limited data available. It must be
remembered that my conclusions are based upon a very finite number of shrine examples available
to us, many of which whose statuses as hero shrines are debated to this day. In spite of the limited
information available I believe that this project has marked a decent first attempt at understanding
the nature of hero shrines; an aspect of Greek hero cult that has been largely avoided or ignored by
modern scholars. Perhaps with future archaeological research and further excavation more shrines
can be uncovered, which will either support, or refute, the conclusions I have gathered in this study.
95
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the following people for helping me get through this project:
 My supervisor Henrik, for providing the invaluable advice and constructive criticism
needed to put this thing together.
 Michael, Laurin, Axel and Isak; for general advice, brainstorming ideas with me and
helping me with minor tidbits.
 Ma, Da and my brothers (eyo)!
 Tia, for being a constant source of support and encouragement over the past few
months (which couldn’t have been easy!).
96
Glossary
ἄβατον (abaton) – a Greek term meaning “inaccessible”; often used to apply to certain religious
sanctuaries. Alternatively it refers to a special building within an Asklepeion which often contained
beds and a έστιατόριον (among other things), and functioned as a place for worshippers to sleep
while they waited to be healed by the hero.
ὰνδρεῖον (andreion) – a mess hall (similar to έστιατόριον).
βόθρος (bothros) – a small pit into which sacrifices were deposited, often associated with the dead,
chthonian deities or heroes.
δόκανα (dokana) – a relief style characterised by several beams topped with a crossbeam, similar to
a “T” shape. Often associated with the Dioskouroi.
ἐναγίζειν (enagizein) – a word taken to mean “sacrifice to the dead”; hence chthonian.
ἐσχάρα (eschara) – an altar.
ἥρῷον (heroon) – a common term for a hero shrine.
ἥρως (heros) – a hero.
έστιατόριον (hestiatorion) – dining hall.
ἱερόν (hieron) – a temple; used by Pausanias for hero shrines.
ὅρος (horos) – boundary stones marking out an area of religious significance.
κοῦρος (kouros) – a figure or statue of a male youth, usually naked.
μέγας (megas) – large/great/grand.
μνῆμα (mnema) – monument/memorial/tomb; used by Pausanias to refer to hero shrines.
ναός (naos) – common term for a temple.
οἶκος (oikos) – a house or generic building.
ὀπισθόδομος (opisthodomos) – the rear porch of a temple, beside the adyton.
πάρδαλις (pardalis) – a panther.
περίβολος (peribolos) – a wall surrounding a religious sanctuary.
περιρραντήριον (perirrhanterion) – a large fountain/water basin that was used for ritual purification.
πῖλος (pilos) – a type of helmet popular with Spartans, and characteristic of the Dioskouroi.
προπύλαιον (propylon) – a gateway, usually leading to a shrine or religious sanctuary.
97
πρόναος (pronaos) – the inner area of a portico, before the ναος.
πρυτανεῖον (prytaneion) – place or seat of government in Greek poleis; often found in the agora.
τάφος (taphos) – a burial/grave; notable as one of Pausanias’ terms for hero shrines.
τέμενος (temenos) – a sacred area for a sanctuary, often demarcated by a wall or other markers.
θεός (theos) – a god.
τηεοχεινια (theoxenia) – ritual food offerings to a deity; more specifically a type of sacrifice involving
a ritual feast in a dining hall, where worshippers would leave offerings of food and drink to the
respective deity, who would then join these worshippers as a guest.
θυσία (thysia) – the most common word for “sacrifice”.
98
Bibliography
Abramson, H. (1979) 'A Hero Shrine for Phrontis at Sounion?', California Studies in Classical
Antiquity, 12(1), 1-19.
Aelian. Various Histories. Translation by Stanley, T. (1665) [Online]. Available at:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/aelian/varhist5.xhtml#chap17 (Accessed: 10/03/15).
Ainian, A.M. (1999) 'Reflections on hero cults in Early Iron Age Greece', in Hägg, R. (ed.) Ancient
Greek Hero Cult: Proceedings of the 5th International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult. Stockholm:
Svenska Institutet i Athen, 9-36.
Antonaccio, C. M. (1995) An Archaeology of Ancestors: Tomb Cult and Hero Cult in Early Greece,
Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Antonaccio, C.M. (1999) 'Colonization and the origins of hero cult', in Hägg, R. (ed.) Ancient Greek
Hero Cult: Proceedings of the 5th International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult. Stockholm: Svenska
Institutet i Athen, 109-121.
Apollodorus. Book III of the Library. Translation by Frazer, J. (1921) [Online]. Available at:
http://www.theoi.com/Text/Apollodorus3.html#14 (Accessed: 08/03/15).
Benton, S. (1934-1935) 'Excavations in Ithaca, III', The Annual of the British School at Athens, 35(),
45-73.
Bergquist, B. (1973) Herakles on Thasos: The Archaeological, Literary and Epigraphic Evidence for his
Sanctuary, Status and Cult Reconsidered, 1 edn., Sweden: Berlingska Boktryckeriet.
Bergquist, B. (2005) 'A re-study of two Thasian instances of ενατευειν', in Hägg, R. and Alroth, B.
(ed.) Greek Sacrificial Ritual, Olympian and Chthonian: Proceedings of the 6th International Seminar
on Ancient Greek Cult. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen, 61-70.
Boardman, J. (1992) '"For you are the progeny of Unconquered Herakles"', in Sanders, J.M. (ed.)
ΦΙΛΟΛΑΚΩΝ: Lakonian Studies in Honour of Hector Catling. London: British School at Athens, 25-34.
Camp II, J. (2003) The Athenian Agora: a Short Guide to the Excavations.
Catling, H.W. (1976-1977) 'Excavations at the Menelaion, Sparta, 1973-1976', Archaeological

Reports, 23, 24-42.
Cavanagh, C.G. (2015) The Menelaion of Therapne: A Restorative Project. Academia [Online].
Available at: https://www.academia.edu/10834754/The_Menelaion_of_Therapne_-
_A_Tentative_Restoration (Accessed: 01/02/15).
Cole, S.G. (2004) Landscapes, Gender and Ritual Space, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press.
99
Consoli, R. (2015) Squinchpix: Bothros [Online]. Available at:
http://www.squinchpix.com/PHP_1.php?imgnum=3&setidx=93321 (Accessed: 01/05/15).
Cook, J. (1953) 'Mycenae, 1939-1952: Part III. The Agamemnoneion', The Annual of the British School
at Athens, 48(), 30-68.
De Polignac, F. (1995) Cults, Territory, and the origins of the Greek city-state, London and Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Diffindale, D. (2009) Flickr: Horos of Athena [Online]. Available at:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/dandiffendale/3894705759/ (Accessed: 30/04/15).
Ekroth, G. (1998) 'Altars in Greek Hero Cults: a Review of the Evidence', in Hägg, R. (ed.) Ancient
Greek Cult Practice from the Archaeological Evidence. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen, 117-
130.
Ekroth, G. (2002) The Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Hero-Cults, Liege: Centre International d'Etude de la
Religion Grecque Antique.
Ekroth, G. (2003) 'Inventing Iphigeneia? On Euripides and the Cultic Construction of Brauron',
Kernos, 16(1), 59-118.
Ekroth, G. (2012) 'Pelops Joins the Party: Transformations of a Hero Cult within the Festival at
Olympia', in Brandt, J. and Iddeng, J. (ed.) Greek and Roman Festivals: Content, Meaning, and
Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 95-137.
Encyclopedia Thelemica (2012) Vravrona the cave-2008.JPG, Available at:

http://www.lashtal.com/wiki/File:Vravrona_the_cave-2008.JPG (Accessed: 04/05/15).
Euripides. Bacchae/the Bacchantes. Translation by Buckley, T. (1850) [Online]. Available at:

http://classics.mit.edu/Euripides/bacchan.pl.txt (Accessed: 08/03/15).
Euripides. Helen. Translation by Coleridge, E. (1938) [Online]. Available at:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Eur.+Hel.+140&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999
.01.0100 (Accessed: 07/03/15).
Euripides. Iphigenia in Tauris. Translation by Potter, R. (1938) [Online]. Available at:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0112%3Acard%3D1
(Accessed: 05/03/15).
Farnell, L.R. (1920) Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality. Internet Archive.
Fedak, J. (1990) Monumental Tombs of the Hellenistic Age, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Fitzhardinge, L.F. (1980) The Spartans, London: Thames and Hudson.
Fol, V. (2005) 'Heroons, Tombs, Sanctuaries', Thracia, 16(1), 67-77.
Gardiner, E. (1925) Olympia: Its History and Remains, 1 edn., Oxford: Clarendon Press.
100
Glowacki, K. (2015) P16053.JPG: The Kerameikos [Online]. Available at:
http://www.stoa.org/athens/sites/kerameikos/source/p16053.html (Accessed: 03/05/15).
Grupico, T. (2008) The Influence of Urban Planning on Temple Design in West Greece, 1 edn., USA:
Scholars Press.
Hall, J.M. (1999) 'Beyond the Polis: The multilocality of Heroes', in Hägg, R. (ed.) Ancient Greek Hero
Cult: Proceedings of the 5th International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult. Stockholm: Svenska
Institutet i Athen, 49-59.
Herodotus. The Histories: Book II. Translation by Godley, A. (1920) [Online]. Available at:
http://classics.mit.edu/Herodotus/history.2.ii.html (Accessed: 05/03/15).
Heurtley, W. (1939-1940) 'Excavations in Ithaca, 1930-35', The Annual of the British School at
Athens, 40, 1-13.
Hibler, D. (1992) 'Three Reliefs from Sparta', in Sanders, J.M. (ed.) ΦΙΛΟΛΑΚΩΝ: Lakonian Studies in
Honour of Hector Catling. London: British School at Athens, 115-122.
Hippocrates. Dialogi mortuorum/De Morbo Sacro. Translation by Adams, C. (1868) [Online].

Available at:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0248%3Atext%3DMor
b.+Sacr. (Accessed: 05/03/15).
Homer. The Iliad. Translation by Butler, S. (1898) [Online]. Available at:

http://classics.mit.edu/Homer/iliad.html (Accessed: 09/03/15).
Homer. The Odyssey. Translation by Butler, S. (1900) [Online]. Available at:

http://classics.mit.edu/Homer/odyssey.10.x.html (Accessed: 05/03/15).
Hurwit, J. (1999) The Athenian Acropolis: History, Mythology and Archaeology from the Neolithic Era
to the Present, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, H. (2010) “ὡς νόμος οἰκιστῇ”: Oikist Cults at Cyrene, Delos, and Eretria. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.ascs.org.au/news/prizes_awards/aust_essay_comp/First%20Prize%202010%20Harrison
%20Jones.pdf (Accessed: 25/02/15).
Kaufman Williams II, C., MacIntosh, J. and Fisher, J. (1974) 'Excavation at Corinth, 1973', Hesperia,
43(1), 1-76.
Kaufman Williams II, C. (1978) 'Corinth 1977, Forum Southwest', Hesperia, 47(1), 1-39.
Kaufman Williams II, C. (1981) 'The City of Corinth and its Domestic Religion', Hesperia, 50(4), 408-
421.
Kearns, E. (1989) The Heroes of Attica, London: Institute of Classical Studies.
Lahanas, M. (2015) Asclepius and Hygeia [Online]. Available at:

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Lahanas/AsclepiusHygeia.html (Accessed: 02/05/15).
101
Lalonde, G. (1968) 'A Fifth Century Hieron Southwest of the Athenian Agora', Hesperia, 37(2), 123-
133.
Larson, J. (1995) Greek Heroine Cults, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.
Larson, J. (2007) Ancient Greek Cults: a Guide, New York: Routledge.
Lesk, A. (2005) A Diachronic Examination of the Erechtheion and its Reception. [Online]. Available at:
http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ucin1108170608 (Accessed: 08/03/15).
Levine, D. (2002) Ancient Greek Religion: Images [Online]. Available at:

http://www.uark.edu/campus-resources/dlevine/ReligionImages.html (Accessed: 01/05/15).
Lucian. Dialogues of the Dead. Translation by Fowler, F. and Fowler, W. (1905) [Online]. Available at:
http://www.theoi.com/Text/LucianDialoguesDead1.html (Accessed: 04/03/15).
Malkin, I. (1987) Religion and Colonization in Ancient Greece, Leiden: E.J. Brill.
McCauley, B. (1999) 'Heroes and Power: the politics of bone transferal', in Hägg, R. (ed.) Ancient
Greek Hero Cult: Proceedings of the 5th International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult. Stockholm:
Svenska Institutet i Athen, 85-98.
Mertens, D. (2006) Città e monumenti dei Greci d'Occidente, 1 edn., Italy: L'erma di Bretschneider.
Miller, S. (1989) Nemea: A Guide to the Site and Museum. [Online]. Available at:
http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft1q2nb0x1;brand=ucpress (Accessed:
20/02/15).
Mirto, M.S. (2012) Death in the Greek World: From Homer to the Classical Age, Oklahoma:
University of Oklahoma Press: Norman.
Nagy, G. (1999) The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry, London:
John Hopkins University Press.
Neer, R.T. (2012) Art and Archaeology of the Greek World, London: Thames and Hudson.
Palagia, O. (1992) 'Cult and Allegory: The Life Story of Artemidoros of Perge', in Sanders, J.M. (ed.)
ΦΙΛΟΛΑΚΩΝ: Lakonian Studies in Honour of Hector Catling. London: British School at Athens, 171-
178.
Parker, R. (1996) Athenian Religion: A History, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Parker, R. (2005) Polytheism and Society at Athens, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pausanias. Description of Greece. Translation by Jones, W. (1918) [Online]. Available at:

http://www.theoi.com/Text/Pausanias1A.html (Accessed: 04/03/15).
Pearson (2014) Theseus and the Myths of Athens: Image Archive [Online]. Available at:
http://wps.ablongman.com/long_powell_cm_7/212/54496/13951147.cw/content/index.html
(Accessed: 30/04/15).
102
Perseus Digital Library (2015) Athens, Heliaia [Online]. Available at:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/artifact?name=Athens%2c+Heliaiaandobject=Building
(Accessed: 20/03/15).
Perseus Digital Library (2015) Athens, Leokoreion [Online]. Available at:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/artifact?name=Athens%2c+Leokoreionandobject=Building
(Accessed: 14/03/15).
Perseus Digital Library (2015) Athens, Sanctuary of Pandrosos [Online]. Available at:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/artifact?name=Athens,+Sanctuary+of+Pandrososandobject=b
uilding (Accessed: 19/03/15).
Perseus Digital Library (2015) Olympia, Heroon (Sanctuary of a Hero) [Online]. Available at:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/artifact?name=Olympia%2c+Heroon+(Sanctuary+of+a+Hero)
andobject=Building (Accessed: 15/03/15).
Perseus Digital Library (2015) Olympia, Pelopeion [Online]. Available at:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/artifact?name=Olympia,+Pelopeion&object=building
(Accessed: 03/05/15).
Philostratus. The Life of Apollonius: Book VII. Translation by Conybaere, F. (1912) [Online]. Available
at: http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/apollonius/life/va_8_07b.html (Accessed: 08/03/15).
Pindar. Nemean 10. Translation by Svarlien, D. (1990) [Online]. Available at:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Pind.+N.+10andfromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999
.01.0162 (Accessed: 10/03/15).
Pindar. Pythian 3. Translation by Svarlien, D. (1990) [Online]. Available at:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0162%3Abook%3DP.
%3Apoem%3D3 (Accessed: 09/03/15).
Pindar. Pythian 11. Translation by Svarlien, D. (1990) [Online]. Available at:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Pind.+P.+11andfromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.
01.0162 (Accessed: 10/03/15).
Plutarch. Parallel Lives: Life of Lysander. Translation by Perrin, B. (1916) [Online]. Available at:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Pind.+N.+10andfromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999
.01.0162 (Accessed: 12/03/15).
Reithmüller, J.W. (1999) 'Bothros and tetrastyle: the heroon of Asclepius in Athens', in Hägg, R. (ed.)
Ancient Greek Hero Cult: Proceedings of the 5th International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult.
Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen, 123-143.
Rochow, R. (2015) Museum von Wien [Online]. Available at:

http://www.histolia.de/museum/museum-wien.html (Accessed: 01/05/15).
Roebuck, C. (1951) 'The Asklepieion and Lerna', Corinth, 14(1), 1-194.
Rotroff, S. (1978) 'An Anonymous Hero in the Athenian Agora', Hesperia, 47(2), 196-209.
103
Salt, A. (2008) Creating collective identities through astronomy? A study of Greek temples in Sicily.
[Online]. Available at: https://lra.le.ac.uk/handle/2381/7783 (Accessed: 02/03/15).
Sanders, J.M. (1992) 'The Early Lakonia Dioskouroi Reliefs', in Sanders, J.M. (ed.) ΦΙΛΟΛΑΚΩΝ:
Lakonian Studies in Honour of Hector Catling. London: British School at Athens, 205-210.
Schmitz, H. (2015) Menelaion, Sparta [Online]. Available at:

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Cities/SpartaMenelaion.html (Accessed: 02/05/15).
Scullion, S. (2005) '"Saviours of the father's hearth": Olympian and chthonian in the Oresteia', in
Hägg, R. and Alroth, B. (ed.) Greek Sacrificial Ritual, Olympian and Chthonian: Proceedings of the 6th
International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen, 23-36.
Sestieri, P. (1956) 'An Underground Shrine at Paestum', Archaeology, 9(1), 22-33.
Seyer, M. (2015) Excavations at Limyra, [Online]. Available at: http://www.oeai.at/index.php/limyra-

274.html (Accessed: 02/05/15).
Shapiro, H.A. (1999) 'Cult Warfare: The Dioskouroi between Sparta and Athens', in Hägg, R. (ed.)
Ancient Greek Hero Cult: Proceedings of the 5th International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult.
Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen, 99-107.
Shear, L. (1970) 'The Monument of the Eponymous Heroes in the Athenian Agora', Hesperia, 39(3),
145-222.
Shear, L. (1973) 'The Athenian Agora: Excavations of 1971', Hesperia, 42(2), 121-179.
Sonntag, A. (2010) The Peribolos of the Twelve Gods [Online]. Available at: http://thaumazein-
albert.blogspot.se/2010/04/in-footsteps-of-socrates.html (Accessed: 30/04/15).
Steiner, A. (1992) 'Pottery and Cult in Corinth: Oil and Water at the Sacred Sprin', Hesperia, 61(3),
385-408.
Stroszeck, J. (2010) Neue Forschungen zu griechischen Städten und Heiligtümern. [Online]. Available
at:
https://www.academia.edu/732123/Das_Heiligtum_der_Tritopatores_im_Kerameikos_von_Athen_i
n_H._Frielinghaus_J._Stroszeck_Hrsg._Neue_Forschungen_in_griechischen_St%C3%A4dten_und_He
iligt%C3%BCmern._Festschrift_f%C3%BCr_Burkhard_Wesenberg_zum_65._Geburtstag._Beitr%C3%
A4ge_zur_Arch%C3%A4ologie_Griechenlands_Bd._1_M%C3%BCnster_2010_55-83_Taf._25-33
(Accessed: 02/03/15).
Swiss School of Archaeology in Greece (2015) Monuments Gallery: Heroon 8th Century BC [Online].
Available at: http://www.unil.ch/esag/en/home/menuinst/eretria/museum-and-site/monuments-
gallery.html (Accessed: 02/05/15).
The Beazley Archive (2013) Fig.A119C: Casts from the Heroon at Trysa [Online]. Available at:
https://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/CGPrograms/Cast/ASP/Cast.asp?CastNo=A119c.html (Accessed:
09/02/15).
104
Themelis, P. (1993) The Sanctuary of Demeter and the Dioscouri at Messene. [Online]. Available at:
https://www.academia.edu/6628035/P.Themelis_The_Sanctuary_of_Demeter_and_the_Dioscuri_at
_Messene (Accessed: 22/02/15).
Themelis, P. (1994) 'Damophon of Messene: New Evidence', in Sheedy, K.A. (ed.) Archaeology in the
Peloponnese. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1-39.
Thompson, H. (1954) 'Excavations in the Athenian Agora: 1953', Hesperia, 23(1), 31-67.
Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War. Translation by Hobbes, T. (1843) [Online]. Available
at:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0247%3Abook%3Dint
ro%3Achapter%3D1 (Accessed: 17/03/15).
Tomlinson, R.A. (1992) 'The Menelaion and Spartan Architecture', in Sanders, J.M. (ed.)
ΦΙΛΟΛΑΚΩΝ: Lakonian Studies in Honour of Hector Catling. London: British School at Athens, 247-
256.
Tsetskhladze, G. (2008) Greek Colonisation: An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements
Overseas, 1 edn., The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Van de Kerkhof, J. (2014) Triangular Shrines: A Comparison between the Tritopatreion, Areopagus II
and Eretria III [Online]. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/10157552/Triangular_Shrines
(Accessed: 02/03/15).
Vanderpool, E. (1966) 'A Monument to the Battle of Marathon', Hesperia, 35(2), 93-106.
Vergil. The Georgics. Translation by Kline, A. (2001) [Online]. Available at:

http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/VirgilGeorgicsIV.htm#anchor_Toc534524384
(Accessed: 01/05/15).
Virtual Reality Digital Collection (2015) Aiakeion [Online]. Available at: http://project.athens-
agora.gr/index.php?view=ktirio&pid=6&lang_id=en (Accessed: 04/05/15).
Wallace, P. (1972) 'The Tomb of Themistokles in the Peiraieus', Hesperia, 41(4), 451-462.
Whitley, J. (1994) 'The Monuments That Stood before Marathon: Tomb Cult and Hero Cult in Archaic
Attica', American Journal of Archaeology, 98(2), 213-230.
Whitley, J. (1995) 'Tomb Cult and Hero Cult: the uses of the past in Archaic Greece', in Spencer, N.
(ed.) Time, Tradition and Society in Greek Archaeology: Bridging the Great Divide. London:
Routledge, 43-61.
Whitley, J. (2004) The Archaeology of Ancient Greece, 2 edn., Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Wikispaces (2015) Cult of the Dioscuri [Online]. Available at: https://vico.wikispaces.com/Sparta42

(Accessed: 02/05/15).
Wycherly, R. (1970) 'Minor Shrines in Ancient Athens', Phoenix, 24(4), 283-295.
105
Supplementary Figures
Fig.2: Diffindale (2009); example of a ὅρος or boundary stone of Athena.
Fig.3: Sonntag (2010); artistic example of a περίβολος wall surrounding a simple altar.
106
Fig.4: Levine (2002); 7th century example of a περιρραντήριον from the sanctuary of Poseidon in
Isthmia.
Fig.5: Consoli (2015); 5th century example of a βόθρος at the sanctuary of Demeter Malophoros in
Selinus, Sicily.
107
Fig.6: Catling (1976-77); a stone stele excavated at the Menelaion, which says “Euthikrenes
dedicates this to Menelaos”.
Fig.7: Malkin (1987); An inscription on a 5th century Attic kylix which says “Mnasithales dedicates this
to Antiphamos”.
108
Fig.8: Rochow (2015); an example of an Attic Totenmahl relief.
Fig.9: Hibler (1992); an example of a Laconian Totenmahl relief.
109
Fig.10: Boardman (1992); a Laconian figurine of Herakles, wearing a bell cuirass and πάρδαλις skin.
Fig.11: Lahanas (2015); a 4th century Attic votive relief of Asklepios and Hygeia, in a pose similar to
the Totenmahl reliefs.
110
Fig.12: Sanders (1992); a stone relief depicting a δόκανα, a symbol commonly affiliated with the
Dioskouroi.
Fig.13: Wikispaces (2015); image of a Laconian stelae depicting the Dioskouroi in the centre, with
symmetrical snakes approaching the egg of Leda above.
111
Fig.14: Cavanagh (2015); Depiction of the 1st phase of the Menelaion, based upon Catling’s
suppositions.
Fig.15: Cavanagh (2015); Depiction of the 2nd phase of the same monument, again based on Catling’s
analyses.
112
Fig.16: Schmitz (2015); the Menelaion of Therapne in its 3rd phase/current state.
Fig.17: Cavanagh (2015); a hypothetical sketch of the Menelaion’s 3rd phase in its original form.
113
Fig.18: Lalonde (1968); a floor plan of the Triangular shrine in Athens.
Fig.19: Lalonde (1968); an image of an ὅρος stone at the Triangular shrine in Athens, which reads “to
the hero”.
114
Fig.20: Shear (1970); an image taken of the monument to the Eponymous Heroes in Athens, showing
the fenced περίβολος in the centre.
Fig.21: Shear (1970); a reconstruction of the monument to the Eponymous Heroes.
115
Fig.22: Bergquist (1973); a plan of the earliest phase of the Heraklion of Thasos.
Fig.23: Bergquist (1973); a plan of the 2nd phase of the Heraklion of Thasos.
116
Fig.24: Bergquist (1973); a plan of the 3rd phase of the Heraklion of Thasos.
Fig.25: Fedak (1990); a reconstruction depicting the front façade of the Heroon of Limyra, in Asia
Minor.
117
Fig.26: Seyer (2015); a model depicting the focal monument at the Heroon of Limyra.
Fig.27: Fedak (1990); a reconstruction of the heroon at Golbasi-Trysa.
118
Fig.28: Fedak (1990); a reconstruction of the Charmyleion.
Fig.29: Fedak (1990); a top down plan of the Charmyleion.
119
Fig.30: Wallace (1972); a photograph of the supposed Tomb of Themistokles at Piraeus.
Fig.31: Wallace (1972) a modern plan of the Tomb of Themistokles in Piraeus.
120
Fig.32: Ainian (1999); a plan of the triangular heroon of Eretria.
Fig.33: Swiss School of Archaeology in Greece (2015); a photograph displaying the triangular base of
the heroon at Eretria.
121
Fig.34: Abramson (1979); a plan of the ναός or temple monument of Phrontis at Sounion.
Fig.35: Abramson (1979); a plan of the terrain and landscape around the precinct of Athena,
including the shrine of Phrontis.
122
Fig.36: Perseus (2015); a simple plan layout of the 2nd/later phase of the Pelopeion at Olympia.
Fig.37: Reithmüller (1999); a plan of the Asklepeion complex in Athens.
123
Fig.38: Reithmüller (1999); a picture of the Asklepeion complex in Athens, during the period of
excavation.
Fig.39: Reithmüller (1999); a picture showing the monumental βόθρος in the Asklepeion complex of
Athens.
124
Fig.40: Miller (1989); a floor plan of the Heroon of Opheltes in Nemea, displaying each building
phases with respect to the τέμενος walls.
Fig.41: Miller (1989); a reconstruction of the Heroon of Opheltes in the Hellenistic Period.
125
Fig.42: Jones (2010); a site plan of the Heroon of Battos, displaying its location in the polis, as well as
its layout and composition.
Fig.43: Ekroth (1998); a plan of the Archegesion of Delos (the monument on the lower left),
displaying a περίβολος, an altar and paved flooring.
126
Fig.44: Whitley (1994); a plan displaying the tumulus of the Athenian dead at Marathon, Attica.
Fig.45: Stroszeck (2010); a plan of the Tritopatreion in Athens, including its hypothesised initial size
and scale.
127
Fig.46: Glowacki (2015); a photograph showing the Tritopatreion of Athens as it stands today.
Fig.47: Kaufman Williams II (1981); a plan of the Heroon at the Crossroads in Corinth, displaying the
position and layout of the cist graves found in the shrine.
128
Fig.48: Perseus (2015); a simple plan of the unnamed hero shrine in Olympia.
Fig.49: Themelis (1993); a current site plan of the Sanctuary of Demeter and the Dioskouroi in
Messene, displaying each building phase, colour coded depending on said phase.
129
Fig.50: Perseus (2015); a plan of the Pandroseion/Kekropeion in Athens, with the greyed area
representing the adjacent Erechtheion.
Fig.51: Cook (1953); a photograph of the Agamemnoneion in Mycenae.
130
Fig.52: Benton (1934-35); a drawing plan of the Polis Cave in Ithaca, displaying the semi-circular
τέμενος wall.
Fig.53: Sestieri (1956); a ground plan of the Submerged Heroon in Poseidonia/Paestum, Magna
Graecia.
131
Fig.54: Sestieri (1956); a photograph displaying the monumental tomb in the centre of the heroon in
Poseidonia/Paestum.
Fig.55: Mertens (2006); a plan of the multichambered Heroon in Megara Hyblaea, Sicily.
132
Fig.56: Ekroth (2003); a ground plan displaying the layout for the heroon of Iphigenia at Brauron,
Attica; the image is notable in that it depicts every building phase at once.
Fig.57: Encyclopaedia Thelemica (2012); a photograph of the modern site of the Iphigenia heroon at
Brauron.
133
Fig.58: Virtual Reality Digital Collection (2006); a reconstruction of the 1st phase of the Aiakeion,
depicting its τέμενος wall and entrance.
Fig.59: Perseus (2015); a ground plan depicting the 2nd phase of the Aiakeion, mistakenly referred to
here as the Heliaia.
134
Fig.60: Perseus (2015); a simple ground plan depicting the Leokoreion shrine in the agora of Athens.
Fig.61: Shear (1973); a map displaying the location of the Leokoreion in relation to the landscape.
135
Fig.62: Kaufman Williams II (1978); a simple ground plan displaying the Unidentified Minor Shrine of
Corinth in relation to the landscape.
Fig.63: Roebuck (1951); a plan depicting the 1st phase of the Asklepeion in Corinth.
136
Fig.64: Roebuck (1951); a map of Corinth, displaying the location of the Asklepeion beside the city
wall, as well as an indication of the later monument phases scale.
Fig.65: Ekroth (1998); a plan of the Sanctuary of Heros Ptoios in Boeotia.
137

CAVANAGH, Chris. An Analysis of 'Héroa' in The Greek World

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CAVANAGH, Chris. An Analysis of 'Héroa' in The Greek World

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Analysis of ἥρωα in the Greek World

Approach and Methodology 15-18

Catalogue of Hero Shrines 19-64

Catalogue Introduction 19-20

Analysis and Discussion 65-93

Analysis of Shrines according to Region 65-67

Supplementary Figures 106-137

Defining Hero Cult

 Physical evidence suggesting or implying heroic cult

The Definition of Hero Shrines and Areas of Cult Activity

Another text by Apollodorus also shows this heroic affiliation:

Θεός or ἥρως: Herakles, Asklepios, and the Dioskouroi

Herakles is also mentioned by Pausanias:

Aelian also appears to exhibit a similar viewpoint:

Plutarch also notes the Dioskouroi in his work:

Furthermore, Pausanias also makes reference to the Dioskouroi:

 They provided further examples of shrines from which to choose from.

Position: divided between Urban (General)/Urban (Agora)/Urban (Acropolis)/Urban (City Wall/City

Ritual Artefacts and Material Culture:

1. The Menelaion Phase I, Therapne (Laconia)93

Ritual Artefacts and Material Culture

2. The Menelaion Phase II, Therapne (Laconia)

Ritual Artefacts and Material Culture

3. The Menelaion Phase III, Therapne (Laconia)

4. Triangular Heroon, Athens (Attica)97

Ritual Artefacts and Material Culture

Ritual Artefacts and Material Culture

6. Monument of the Eponymous Heroes Phase II, Athens (Attica)

Ritual Artefacts and Material Culture

7. The Herakleion Phase I, Thasos (Aegean Islands)103

Ritual Artefacts and Material Culture

8. The Herakleion Phase II, Thasos (Aegean Islands)

Ritual Artefacts and Material Culture

9. The Herakleion Phase III, Thasos (Aegean Islands)

Ritual Artefacts and Material Culture

10. Heroon of Perikle, Limyra (Asia Minor)109

Ritual Artefacts and Material Culture

11. Heroon of Golbasi-Trysa (Asia Minor)112

Ritual Artefacts and Material Culture

12. Charmyleion, Kos (Aegean Islands)115

Ritual Artefacts and Material Culture

13. Tomb of Themistokles, Piraeus (Attica)117

Ritual Artefacts and Material Culture

14. Triangular Heroon Phase I, Eretria (Euboea)120

Ritual Artefacts and Material Culture

15. Triangular Heroon Phase II, Eretria (Euboea)

Ritual Artefacts and Material Culture

16. Hero Shrine of Phrontis, Sounion (Attica)123

Ritual Artefacts and Material Culture

17. The Pelopeion Phase I, Olympia (Elis)127

Ritual Artefacts and Material Culture

18. The Pelopeion Phase II, Olympia (Elis)

Ritual Artefacts and Material Culture

19. The Asklepeion Phase I, Athens (Attica)133

Ritual Artefacts and Material Culture

20. The Asklepeion Phase II, Athens (Attica)

Ritual Artefacts and Material Culture

21. The Heroon of Opheltes Phase I, Nemea (Argolid)139

Ritual Artefacts and Material Culture

22. The Heroon of Opheltes Phase II, Nemea (Argolid)

Ritual Artefacts and Material Culture

23. The Heroon of Opheltes Phase III, Nemea (Argolid)