•

C) L,,/ 0

u+
...__��ece & Rome C)LJO - •

NEW SURVEYS N
I THECLA SSICSNo. 24
•

I I
•

BY

JANN. BREMM E R

,.
Published fo1 the Classical Association
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
1994

I
'(

Oxfo1·d Universil)' Press \\'lal£01i S11·eel O.,"(,ford ox2 6oP

Oxford New York Toronto
Dell1i Bon1ba), Calcullil Mad1·as Ka1·achi
Peialing Jaya Singapo1·e Horig Ko,ig Tok),o
Nairobi Dar Es Salaarn Cape Town
Melbou111.e Auckland
and associaLed conipariies in
Berlin lbada11

ISS 0017-3835
ISB 019 922073-5

© Oxfo1·d U1iive1·sit)' Press 1994

Prir1ted ir1 Great B1ilain

by Bell and Bain Lid.,
Glasgow
 CONTENTS

Abbreviations
•••
Vlll
List of illustrations
•
lX
I Introduction: General Characteristics 1
II Gods 11
III Sanctuaries 27
IV Ritual 38
V Mythology 55
VI Gender .9½ c.\". 69
VII Transformations 84
Appendix: The Genesis of Greek Religion 98
About the author 101
Index of names, subjects, and passages 103

•
 •

ABBREVIATIONS

A/ON Annali, lstituto orientale di Napoli: Archeologia e

• •

stona antica
Bruit/Schmitt, Religion L. Bruit Zaidman and P. Schmitt Pantel, Reli­
gion in the Ancient Greek City (Cambridge,
1992)
Burkert, GR W. Burkert, Greek Religion (Oxford, 1985)
DDD I<. van den Toorn, B. Becking, P.W. van der
Horst (eds), Dictionary of Deities and Demo1is in
the Bible (Leiden, 1994)
FGrH F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechische1i His­
toriker (Berlin and Leiden, 1923-58)
Graf, NK F. Graf, Nordionische Kulte (Rome, 1985)
GRBS Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies
HSCP Harva1"d Studies in Classical Philology
IC lnscriptiones Creticae
JG Inscriptiones Graecae
JDAI Jahrbuch des deutschen archiiologischen Instituts
JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies
L/MC Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae
(Zurich, 1981-)
REG Revue des Etudes Grecques
SEG Supplementum epigraphicu1n Graecum
ZPE Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik

For texts and fragments I have used the most recent standard editions .

•
 I I I. SANCTUARIES

Popular ideas about Greek places of worship are much influenced by the
splendour of a few surviving temples, such as Athena's Parthenon or
Poseidon's temple at Sounion. Yet these aesthetically pleasing but ruined
and empty buildings give little insight into their former functions. So let us
first look at sanctuaries proper (§ 1), then their locations (§ 2) and, finally,
their secular and religious functions (§ 3). 1

1. Buildings, statues, and personnel

In our oldest literary source, Homer, sanctuaries with a temple, statue, and
priest(ess) are already well established. Rector's mother Hecuba went to
the temple of Athena on the Acropolis, where the priestess Theano opened
the doors put Hecuba's valuable gift of an embroidered robe on the knees
•
of Athena's statue and pronounced a prayer (Il. 6.285-311), and Zeus
\vent to Cretan Ida, the site of 'his temenos and . . . altar' (8.48). As archaeo-
logy has shown, this combination of a temenos (a piece of land set aside for
gods or heroes) with altar had already emerged in the Dark Age, but it •

would last to the 8th century when the first temples appeared on the
scene;2 this late arrival precluded a standard form and, for example, some
temples always remained roofless. 3 Typical signs of a sanctuary were water
(for· ritual use), a tree or grove, and a stone (to mark the place as special), 4

but only the altar was indispensable: some sanctuaries never acquired a
temple. 5

A sitting statue, such as Athena's in Troy, was normal for goddesses in

A1·chaic Greece, whereas male gods preferred the more manly attitude of
standing (fig. 6). Other divinities, though, could have aniconic statues:
6

Apollo Agyieus regularly appears on coins as a conic column and the

7
famous image of Eros in Thespiae was only a rough stone. As such statues
co-existed with the more 'normal' figurative ones, aniconism probably
8

tended to indicate a certain 'abnormality' of the cult. And indeed, strange

statues of Artemis and J{era, but also of Dionysus, were regularly asso­
ciated with festivals of reversal (Ch. IV.3); sometimes these statues were
considered so dangerous that they were tied up and only released once a
ear. 9

In the sanctuaries, priests usually officiated for gods and priestesses for
goddesses, but, as with sacrificial victims (Ch. IV.2), there was no iron rule:
Athena regularly had a priest. Priests perf armed sacrifices and guarded the

•
28 SA CTUARIES

treasures of the sanctuary, but in l arger sanctuaries spe cial pers onnel did
the more menial jobs, such as preventing birds from fouling statues. In
smal ler, rural sanctuaries priests were not always present and here
worshippers themselves could sacrifice after having called for the priest in

- ,,-- - :---- - - -

r
.::, � '
.::::
- _,,
,;,
� .,.
�
-
. >,
�- ••
...
� .. •
/-
...
• ••
••
•••

'
....
..I•I
....I

6. Gilded bronze statue of Apollo in temple with adjacent picture of the god himself with his lyre.

vain. As mediators between gods and worshippers, pries ts distinguished

10

themselves through their white or purple clothing, and on vases priestesses

are often pictured with metal keys, some of which have bee n e xcav ated; in
fact, temples were usually closed to worshippers and only opened on fixed
or festive day s: it was the altar not the temple which was the real centre of a
sanctuary.1 1
Rather strikingly, adolescents sometimes occupied a priestly function in
initiatory cults. This shows how different Greek priests could be from ours.
The occasional appearance in the outfit of their divinities is another ill us­
tration of this difference; on Attic vases Athena's prieste s s is sometimes
difficult to distinguish from the goddess. Was this identification perhaps a
prie stly strategy to increase status because Greek pries ts were always
subject to the authority of the people and never managed to develop into a
ruling class, as they did in India or ancient Israel? 1 2
There was no sharp distinction betwen gods and heroes in these respects.
Admittedly, a s anctuary of heroes (heroon) was normal ly smaller than that
of divinities, but some heroa were l arge enough to all ow the squatting of
 •

S A NCTU A R I ES 29

Attic refugees during the Peloponnesian War (Thucydides 2.17.1). Heroes

also had a s tatue and were regularly portrayed in armour, as many were
believed to have been great warriors. Several authors, who are all later than
the 4th century B . c . , distingui sh between a divine ( bomos) and heroic
( esc hara) al tar, the first being rectangular, monumental, and with a
projecting step or stepped base, whereas the latter would be low, hollow,
circular, and standing directly on the ground. As with the distinction
between Olympian and Chthonic gods (Ch. II.2), reality was more diverse,
heroes had a divine altar.13
and various

2. L oc ations
Major sanctuaries outside the walls or situated at remote places played
important roles in the rise of panhell enism, political federations, and the
birth of the polis. Delphi and Olympia devel oped in an especially spectacu­
lar way in the ninth and eighth centuries because here the aristocracies of
the surrounding places could meet and compete in games and conspicuous
offerings, thus fostering panhell enism. Other sanctuaries away from major
cities developed into centres of political federations, such as Poseidon' s at
Boeotian Onchestos and on the isle of Kalaureia, off Troizen. Finally, •

sanctuaries could mark the borders of a city' s territory, such as those of

Hera Lacinia and Apol lo Aleos, respectively south and north of South­
Italian Craton, or they could be used to strengthen ties with border areas,
as the Peis istratids did by connecting Athens with the outlying sanctuaries
of Brauron and Eleutherae. In s hort, the l ocation of the sanctuary con-
14
tributed to determine its social and political roles . •

Much less attention has been directed towards the question why some
1 5 •
divine sanctuaries were located in the polis but others not. If a sanctuary
important for the religious life of the comm unity is not situated i n the heart
of that community or at such a distance that citizens have to leave their
fam iliar surroundings in order to worship, we may expect those cults to be
in some way s in opposition to those which occupied a more central loca­
tion. As cults co-determine the character of gods (Ch. ll.1), an extra-mural
16
cult may also point to an 'eccentric' or l ess central divinity. Is this sup­
position true?
In the heart of the city we naturally find Zeus and Athena, who as polis
gods p ar exc ellence had sanctuaries on the agora and the acropolis, respect­
ively, although Zeus' origin as weather god remained vi sible in his sanctu­
17
aries on mountaintops. Apollo and Demeter were more ambivalent cases.
Apollo's sanctuary was often l ocated on the agora, as in Peloponnesian

•
•

30 SANCTU ARIES

Argos, Cretan Dreros, and Crimean Olbia, but he was also worshipped
away from the centre at the sea-side, especially with the epithet Delphinios,
or in the 'suburbs', as in the Athenian Lykeion. The differing locations
probably reflect his own ambivalent position between adolescence and
adulthood (Ch. II.3). When inside the city, Demeter's sanctuaries were
18

nearly always away from inhabited areas and the agora, as in Corinth and
Priene. As a rule, they were situated before or somewhat outside the city
often on the slope of a hill, which precludes an agricultural interpretation
and fits with her 'eccentricity' (Ch. II.3). Finally, sanctuaries of the birth­
19

goddess Eileithyia could be found near the city gate: not because she pre­
sided over the production of future soldiers, but because there was no place
in the heart of the city for a goddess closely connected with pollution. 20
22
Outside the polis we usually find sanctuaries of Poseidon, Dionysus,
21

Hera, and Artemis. The Heraion was about 6- 10 kilometres away from the
city centre in Argos, Craton, Paestum, and on Samos; on Paros it was situ­
ated in a hilly area. Hera's sanctuaries were connected with initiation and
festivals of reversal; moreover, the rituals were often performed by women
but concluded by men. Clearly, the Homeric picture of the quarrelsome
wife of Zeus has overlaid a much older, more interesting cult.23 Artemis
sanctuaries could also be found in mountainous regions, but their distinct­
ive feature was the closeness of rivers and swampy places - witness her
epithet Limnatis, 'of the Marshes'. This 'watery' environment was typical
of Artemis, and the second-century rhetor Maximus Tyrius already noted
that fountains of water, hollow thickets, and flowery meadows are sacred
to Artemis' (8. 1). Dry as Greece was, these areas connected with Artemis
must have been striking for their moist, luxuriant lushness. As places of
eternal spring they were particularly suited to girls in the full bloom of
youth - a striking confirmation of Artemis' initiatory function. 24

The location of hero-sanctuaries does not seem to have been very differ­
ent from divine complexes. They could be sited on prominent hills, in the
midst of mountains, such as the temenos of Telephos on the Arcadian
mount Parthenion, or near springs, like the one at Attica where Makaria
was worshipped. Heroes (not heroines), who had founded a city, were often
25
buried in the agora and clearly closely connected with the life of the polis;
in some cities, as in Athens and Thebes, there was even a secret heroi c
grave on which the safety of the city depended. Other heroes were situ­
26

ated near the city gates - not primarily because the gates relate to the sta­
tus of the hero as a liminal category, but because they were the most
vulnerable parts of the city which therefore needed support from supernat­
ural warriors: Apollo was also often invoked as defender of the gates.27
 •

SA CTU ARIES 31

Our analysis of the location of sanctuaries, then, has confirmed our

discussion of the gods and heroes: those connect ed mo st with the pol itical
and social order also occupied central places in the Greek po leis. For a
complete picture of Greek gods and heroes the location of their sanctuaries
cannot be neglected.
Final ly, familiarity breeds contempt, as the proverb says, but does it also
promote intimacy? In other words, was it religiously important to live close
to a sanctuary? For t he Greeks , of all t he good relations hips between men,
that between neighbours was considered to be best. It would hardly be
surprising, therefore, if t hey al so developed a special relationship with
those gods and heroes whose s hrines and sanctuaries were in t heir neigh­
bourhood or even adjacent to t heir houses. In fact , many examples in
ancient literature show that ' a hero whose shrine was near an individual
house might be '' do mesticated'' and receive regular greetings and offerings
fro m his mortal neighbours; in return, the hero was expected to influence
the fortunes of ' his'' family'. If, indeed, our literary evidence mainly
concerns hero es, this does not mean that t he clos eness of a divine shrine
was considered to be insignificant. On the contrary. Many Greek parent s
gave their children names, which were expressive of the fact that a god was
their neighbour (geiton), such as Athanogiton (Athena), Damatrogiton
(Demeter), Diogeiton (Zeus), Pythogeiton (Apollo), or just Theogeiton. ·
One may even wonder whether t hese names were not suggestive of a more
personal devotion to a specific god. 28

3. Social and religioits functions

Greek sanctuaries functio ned in a much mo re varied way in society than
modern churches, as some examples of their social, economic, and pol itical
29
ro les may illust rate. Excavations and literary t estimonia show t hat many
sanctuaries contained temporary and permanent buildings which were
used fo r dining; in some cases, as in Corint h, the cooking pots and drinking­
cups could still be recovered. The small Greek houses offered l ittle pos­
sibilities for larger groups and, moreover, a sanctuary was a secure place to
30
meet , since it was divine property. This security was frequently made use
of by slaves, criminal s, and political victims for refuge through t he ritual of
supplication. 3 1 As in modern days t he number of suppliants could be con­
siderable: Herodotus ment ions the presence of 300 boys in a Samian
sanctuary of Artemis (3.48). Not surprisingly, some sanctuaries had to set
aside l arge tracts of l and on which to keep these permanent pilgrims' . 32
Like the medieval Church, major sanctuaries owned large estates to pay
32 SA C T U A R I E S

for their upkeep and personnel, but these estates also had a wider economic
33
function. The land was leased and on Delos, for instance, we hear of
farms, trees, barley, and vineyards. And like the medieval Church, rich
estates stimulated greed. Many a sanctuary issued a sacred law to prohibit
the grazing of its meadows and the cutting of its trees. 34 The land could be
so valuable that various wars were fought over the uncultivated land of the
Cirrhaean plain below Delphi; comparable wars took place in Crete even
35
up to the end of the second century B . c .
Temples also functioned as reserve banks. In the debate before the
second Athenian expedition to Sicily, Thucydides lets Nicias warn that the
Sicilians not only had considerable private means but also great wealth in
the sanctuary of Selinus (6.20.4), where, as in other temples, objects of
precious metal were safeguarded by countersigning them with names of
gods. Indeed, the inventories of Greek sanctuaries, on which temple offi­
cials recorded the treasures and dedications (below) of the temples at the
36
end of their service, demonstrate their considerable wealth. Inventories
also show that in times of need cities and their inhabitants happily bor­
rowed from their gods but were not always as forthcoming in paying back.
The gods were lenient creditors. 37
In addition to their economic function, temples also played a role in
political life. The first written laws in Greece were deposited in a sanctuary
or actually inscribed on the more visible walls of the major temple of the
city, such as the famous laws of Cretan Gortyn on the walls of the sanctu­
ary of Apollo Pythios. Indeed, it usually was a sanctuary of Apollo that
contained the laws, decrees, and treaties of a city, although the Athenians
used the sanctuary of the Mother of the Gods, the Metroon, as their city
archive. At least initially, the choice of a temple for 'publication' and
preservation must have suggested inviolability and a binding character.
When the Ephesian philosopher Heraclitus ( ea. 500 B.c .) deposited his
work in the temple of Artemis (Diog. Laert. 9.6), his gesture may still have
38
presupposed this tradition.
But what about worship? Some sanctuaries were specialized, such as
those for mysteries and healing cults (Ch. VII. 1 ,2) or those to obtain
oracles. Divination has to uphold a certain amount of objectivity to remain
credible and, consequently, major oracular shrines were situated at a fair
distance from the territories of influential city-states: Homer knew already
of the wealth of Delphi (Il. 9.404f) and far-away Dodona with 'the Helloi,
your interpreters, with unwashed feet, sleepers on the ground' ( 16.234f);
Olympia, too, started as an oracular shrine before giving us the Olympian
39
Games. But some oracles were nearer home, such as those of Amphiaraos
 SA CT A R I E S 33

in Oropos not far from Athens, Trophonios, not that far from Thebes,
Didyma near Miletos, and Claros on the edge of the territories of Notion
and Colophon. There is a certain difference between these far-away and
40

near-to-home oracles. The earlier flourished especially in the archaic

period and were consulted in such matters as colonization and land dis­
tribution, the great problems in the period of Greek state-formation. The
latter were 1nore consulted in matters of potentially civic troubles. But in all
cases ancient oracles assisted in making choices and setting the seal on col­
lective decisions rather than in predicting the future. The crystal ball is a
recent invention. 4 1
The main purpose of most sanctuaries, though, was to enable worship­
pers to sacrifice (Ch. IV.2) and to make votive offerings. Whenever the
Greeks wanted to thank the gods and/or tried to obtain a favour, they
could dedicate a votive offering, which would be a more lasting testimony
than a sacrifice. Even though the extremes in value (poor painted wooden
panels and rich gold and silver plates) have all but disappeared, many
inscriptions and votive reliefs have been preserved which allow us a unique
glimpse into Greek religious practice. Through them we see who thought
of the gods and why, where, and what offerings were thought suitable. 42

Thanks to the possibility of using very cheap material, all sections of

society could make votive offerings. Men, women, families - the gods were
most hospitable. Sometimes, foreigners also made dedications to Greek
gods. Herodotus mentions the many votives in gold and silver of Croesus
( 1 .50-2 90), but he was not the only one to do so: in Archaic times espe­
cially (see below) many traders, in particular Phoenicians but also the
43
occasional Etruscan, enriched Greek sanctuaries.
The 'why' of offerings is sometimes explained by the 'what'. After a
victory, part of the booty could be consecrated. As here was a story to tell,
local sanctuaries thus served as a kind of museum, which helped to keep
collective memories alive.44 A girl could dedicate her toys to Artemis on the
eve of her wedding and a boy his statue (the famous kouroi) to Apollo on
the occasion of his initiation, even if these were sometimes extremely small
(fig. 7). Healing gods received replicas of the limbs they had cured and so
45

their sanctuaries were filled with arms and legs, vulvae and penises. In 46

other cases, worshippers dedicated figurines of divinities in their specific

sanctuaries but also in those of other gods; once again, the gods were most
hospitable. Finally, there were costly gifts whose purpose was clearly not
47

only to please gods but also to impress humans, such as those by Croesus;
the gift of golden tripods to Delphi by Sicilian tyrants at the beginning of
the fifth century was in the same vein. 48

•
3-t A CT A R I ES

People also dedicated curious objects. In

the Heraion of Samos teeth of a hippopota­
mus, antlers of an antelope, and eggs of an
ostrich have been found. In the same sanc­
tuary even living curiosities peacocks,
49
walked about. In other words some major
sanctuaries must have looked like one big
'curiosity shop . And what about the inside
of popular temples? An inventory of the
Athenian temple of Asclepius describes in
great detail where the dedications were
located: a gold crown, iron finger-ring and
gold chain 'at the ridge beam', and a
woman's face and 10 silve1· reliefs on the
left as one enters. First rafter.' The invent­
ory thus allows us to reconstruct the whole
50
interior of the temple, which must have
closely resembled not the bare rooms of our
drawings but the most jumbled and
crowded antique store or museum store­
room that most of us can imagine'. 5 1
Finally, dedications have a history, too.
In the course of the Archaic Age, striking
changes took place in the major Greek
sanctuaries. A good example is the dedica­
tion of bronze j ewellery in Olympia.
Whereas only 49 finds have been made
from the period ea. 1050-750 B.c., there
7. A ko11ros could also be sn1all: this
copy from Eastern G reece is only
are 948 finds from ea. 75 0-450 B.c. but,
28 cm. again, only 77 finds from ea. 450- 150 B.c.
These changes, which can be paralleled in
other objects such as hoplite figurines and
helmets, are not easy to explain. They probably reflect the changing status
of the aristocracy at the end of the Archaic Age, but other factors may also
have played a role. The absence of informative texts prevents a clearer view
52
in this respect.
 SAr CTU A R I E S 35

OTES

, 1. For a relatively short surve)' see Burkert, GR pp. 84-98 to be supplemented now by his 'The
\ \eaning and Function of the Temple', in J\!\. . Fox (ed) Teniple i11 (Jciet), (\Xii non a Lake, 1 988),
pp. 27-47 and 'Greek Temple Builders: Who \Xl here and \X/hy?' in R. Hagg (ed), TI1 e Role of Religio, 1
i11 1l1e Ec1 rl_,, Po/is (Stockholn1, 1 995). T\,10 informati,,e collections: Le sa 11c£11aire grec = E11 tretie11s Hardt
3 7 (\'andoeu,,res and Gene,, a, 1 992); i\1 \arinatos/Hagg, G 1 ·eck a 11c£z1a,·ies (good bibliography by
E. Ostb)', 1 92-227).
2. C. Sour,,inou-lnvvood, 'Earl sanctuaries, the eighth century and ritual space' , i n J\ \arinatos / 1

Hagg, Greek a11ctz1a11·es pp. 1 - 1 7 esp. 8. For the vocabular)1 of sanctuaries see t\1 \ . Ca e,,itz, in
G. Roux (ed) Te1 1zples et sa 11c1 11aires (Lyon, 1 984), pp. 8 1-95.
3. ] . . . Coldstream, 'Greek Ten1ples: \X/h)' and \)' here? in Easterling/1\ \uir, Greek /�eligio11 a,zd
1

��c )<.:i t!()', pp. 67-97 · R. Schmitt, Ha 1 1dbitclz zz, den Te,,ipe/1 1 der G 1iecl1e 11 (Berne, 1 992). Roofles.., temple :
\.-C. Helln1ann, ' Les ou, ertures des toits ou retour sur le temple hypethre Rei,. A rclz. 1 993, 73-90.
1

4. \Xl ate r: G. Panessa ' Le risorse idriche dei santuari greci nei loro aspetti giuridici ed economici ,
,.\ 1111 . c. . Pisa I I I 1 3 ( 1 983), 359-87; S. G. Cole 'The uses of \Vater in Greek sanctuaries , in Hagg,
Ec1rl_,, Greek C 11ll Practice pp. 1 6 1-5. Tree: Burkert, GR pp. 85f. Gro,,e: J. Scheid et al. Les bois sacres
(Napl�s, 1 983). Stone: Do,�rden Deatl1 a1 1 d tlze 1\tlaide,1 pp. 1 3 8-40.
5. Altars: R. Etienne and tv\.-Th. le Dinahet (eds) L 'espace sac 1 ·iflciel da 11 s les ci'l1ilisatio11s niedi-
1erra11ee 1111 es de L 'a11 LiqL1ile (Paris, 1 99 1 ); R. Etienne, 'Autels et sacrifices' in a11cluaire grec pp. 2 9 1 -
3 1 2. o ten1ple: Sourvinou-ln\vood (n. 2) p. 1 6 11. 60 (e.g., no temple in the 1iletan Delphinion before
the Ron1ans).
6. H. Jung Tl1 ro1ze1zde i£1 1 d silze11 de Gi/t ter (Bonn 1 982)· add Graf 1VK 44f.
7. Cf. U. Kron Heilige Steine , in Froning, Ko£i110s pp. 5 6-70· \/. Fehrentz, • Der antike Agyieus',
�1D1.\I 108 ( 1 993), 1 23-96. .
8. Cf. A. A. Donohue Xoa11a a1 1 d £lie 0,1gins of Greek c11/pt 1lre (Atlanta, 1 988), pp. 226f. •
1
9. Graf , K 8 1 -96· \/ersnel lnco 11 siste1 1 cies 2, index s., 'chained gods Statues are an under­
1• •

researched ubject but see R. Gordon t-\rl Histo1)1 2 ( 1 979) 5-34· I. B. Romano, 'Earl)' Greek Cult
[mages and Cult Practices ' in Hagg, Ear/), Greek CL1l1 Practice, pp. 1 27-33· A. Larcher 'Gemalte Got­
terstatuen. Ein Beitrag zur Ikonographie der pompejanischen Wandmalerei , in B. Otto and F. Ehr!
(eds), Ecl10. FesLsclz,ift J. B. Tre 11lini (Innsbruck 1 990), pp. 1 97-208 · B. Alroth Changing t\l \odes in
the Represe11tation of Cult Images', in R. Hagg (ed) Tize lco 11 ograpl1)' of Greek Cu/1 i11 tl1 e A rcl1aic arid
Classical Pe,·iods (Athens and Liege 1 992) pp. 9-46.
10. Graf K 40 (calling) 2 1 4 (Athena s priest). Birds: Eur. 1011 1 06-9· ]. i\\axmin JH 95 ( 1 975),
175-80 (n1etal ·umbrellas to protect statues)· P. Danner '1\1eniskoi and Obeloi. Zun1 Schutz ,1on
Statuen und Bau,verken ,1or den ogeln' Jal1 resl1. Osle, -,·. A rcfz. !11sl. \Ylie,z 62 ( 1 993: Hauptblatt) 1 9-
28.
1 1 . Cf. A. G. 1 \antis Proble 11ia£a Les eiko11ograpl1 ias £0 11 iereio, 1 kai £01 1 iereorz ste1 1 arcl1 aia Elle,zike
1ec/111 e (Athens 1 990) pp. 28-65 (keys) 82-96 (iconograph_ of priests) l 14f (catalogue of preser,1ed
ke)·s); R. Garland Priests and Po,ver in Classical Athens in 1\1 \. Beard and J. orth (eds) Paga,1
JJriesls (London 1 990) pp. 7 5-9 1 , esp. 77-8 1 · this volume, Ch. I.3.
1 2. Adolescents: Bremmer 'The role ot� the temple in Greek initiatory ritual , in Acles du \life
Ct>izgres de la F. I.E. C. I (Budapest 1 983 ), 1 2 1 -4. Identification: C. Berard ' Hommes pretres <lieux
in J. \X ' aardenburg (ed) L 'lsla1 1z: 11 11e religio 11 (Gene,1a 1 989) pp. 9 5- 1 20.
13. Cf. E. I<.earns Bet,veen God and J\ \an: Status and Function of Heroes and Their Sanctuaries in
1

a1 1c£11aire grec (pp. 65-99) pp. 65-8. Heroes as \varriors: Ar. fr. 240; an Straten (Ch. 2 n. 23) 1 87-9
(also on altars).
1 4. For these roles see especially F. de Polignac La 11aissarzce de la ciLe grecqi,e (Paris 1 984 )· id.
' lediation Competition, and So,,ereignty: The Evolution of Rural Sanctuaries in Geometric Greece'
in S. Alcock and R. Osborne (eds) Placi11g £11, e Gods (Cambridge, 1 994), pp. 3 - 1 8· C. 1 \organ Atlzleles
I
a,zd Oracles (Cambridge, 1 990)· eadem The origins of pan-Hellenism in \arinatos/Hagg Greek
Slz11c1uaries pp. 1 8-44.
1 5. Locations of sanctuaries in Magna Graecia: I. Edlund Tlie Gods a11 d £lie Place (Stockholm
1987); G. Pugliese Carratelli (ed), J\tfagna Grecia 3 (Milano, 1988), pp. 1 49-5 8. Greece and the Aegean:
A. Schacl1ter 'PoliC)', Cult and the Placing of Greek Sanctuaries', in Sa1zc£z1aire Gree pp. 1 -5 7 ·
O sborne/ Alcock Placitzg Ll1 e Gods.
36 SA C T U A R I E S

1 6. As is persuasive!)' argued b)' F. Graf, 'Culti e crcdenze religiose della /\1 \agna Grecia , Alli
Tara1llO 2 1 ( aples, 1 982), 1 5 7-85, esp. 1 66.
1 7. Athena: Burkert GR p. 1 40; Graf K 44. Zeus: Graf, K, 1 82 1 97 , 202f (mountains);
t\1 \ . Langdon, A anc1ua1)' ofZei,s 011 1\1f ol1n1 HJ1n1etlos (Princeton, 1 976); J \. L. Zimmerman \unn The
Zeus Sanctuary on Mt Kokkygion abo,,e Hermion, Argolis , A,11. J. A rel,. 90 ( 1 986), 192f
1 8. Graf, Apollon Delphinios , /\111s. Helv. 36 ( 1 979) 2-22 (near the sea or on the agora); Graf
I K 222 (A. ·Lykeios on agora).
1 9. Cf. S. G. Cole ' Demeter in the Ancien t Greek City and it Countryside', in Alcock/ Osborne ,
Placi11g Llze Gods pp. 1 99-2 1 6. Locations of Demeter's sanctuary on an acropolis (Thebes, Mytiline,
Lepreon) may derive from the goddess s connection \Vith poli tical po,ver (Ch. II.3).
20. Gate: Paus. 2. 5. 4 (Corinth) 2. 1 8. 3 (Argos, cf. M. Pierart B1111. Co11·. Hell. 1 06, 1 982, 1 4 1 -9),
2. 35. 1 1 (Hermione); in general R. Olmod , L/1\1[C III. l ( 1 986), s.v. Contra !(earns ' Between God and
t\ 1an' p. 7 4, vvho neglects the abnormality of the goddess's sacrificial ,1 ictim (a dog: Ch. I .2) and the
regular location of birth-goddesses outside the city (Graf NK 4 2 1 f).
2 1 . Poscidon 's sanctuaries are ottcn near the sea but also in the mountains, cf. Bren1mer ' Poscidon ·
R. Schumacher 'Three related sanctuarie of Poseidon: Geraistos I<alaureia and Tainaron in
Mari natos/ Hagg, Greek anctua,·ies, pp. 62-87.
22. There ,vere no temples of Dionysus in classical times but the name of his sanctuary in Atl1en , e11
li1n11ais or 'in the marshes suggests locations outside the ci ty, as does thcfact that on ,,ases Dionysus
sanctuary is often a ca,,e, cf. C. Berard 'A.-\--ie ta11re' in 1\1ela11ges . . . Pai,! Collar/ (Lausanne, 1 976)
pp. 6 1 -73.
23. R. Hagg, in t\ l\. Pierart (ed) Pol:;1dipsio11 A ,gos = BL1Ll. Co,1·. !-Jell. Suppl. 22 (Paris, 1 992)
pp. 1 4- 1 6 (Argos); E. Lattanzi in Cal1iers dL1 Ce11lre Jea11 Berard 1 6 ( 1 aples, 1 99 1 ), 67-7 1 (Croton)·
K. J unker, Der iiltere Te11zpel i,11 Heraion a,,z eLe (Cologne 1 993: Paestum)· H. I(yrieleis in Marinatos/
Hagg Greek anclzta1·ies, p. 1 2 5 (Samos)· A. Corso ) A t111. Sc. A rclz. Ate11e 62 ( 1 984 [ 1 988] ) 97- 1 0 1
(Paros). I n general: Graf, 'Cul ti e credenzc', 1 66-7 1 .
24. Cf. A. Mott e Prai11·es etjardi11s de la Grece a11tiq11e (Brussels 1 973), pp. 94- 104· P. Brule, La fille
d 'Allie,zes (Paris, 1 987), pp. 1 97-200.
25. W. Leschhorn G11'i11der der Slad1 (St uttgart 1984 )· I. Malkin, J�eligio11 a11d C0Lorziza1io11 i11
A11cienl Greece (Leiden, 1 987) pp. 1 89-240; S. Hornblower A Co111111enta1y 011 TlzL1cydides 1 (Oxford
1 99 1 ) pp. 20f.
26. Faraone Talis111a11s & Troja,1 Horses pp. 1 1 5 f· Bremmer 'Religious Secrets and SecreC)' in Clas­
sical Greece' in H . I(ippenberg and G. Stroumsa (eds), ecrec), and Conceal111e111 i,1 A11cie1z1 a,zd lsla111ic
Hislo1y of Religio11s (Leiden 1 994).
27. For the hero-sanctuaries see I<earns 'Bet,.\,een God and t\t\an' although I differ from her inter­
pretation on heroes at the gates (74), cf. Graf, NK, 1 73-6 (Apollo).
28. Cf. ]. S. Rusten Geilon l1e1·0s: Pindar's Pra),er to Heracles (N. 7.86- 1 0 1 ) and Greek Popular
Religion' HSCP 87 (1 983) 289-97 esp. 296 (quotation). Rusten has overlooked the onon1astic e\iid­
ence which, curiously \vas especially popular in the Megarid, cf. L. Robert, Opera 111i11ora selecla 5
(Amsterdam, 1 989) p. 2 6 1 .
29. These aspects are under-researched but see F. Ghinatti Manifestazioni ,,otive iscrizioni e vita
economica nei sant uari della 1\t \agna Grecia' Studia Patavi11a 30 ( 1 983), 24 1 -322.
30. Cf. F. Cooper and S. t\ 1orris 'Dining in Round Buildings' and . Bookidis Ritual Dining in the
Sanctuary of Demeter and I<ore at Corinth: Some Questions in 0. Murray (ed), Sympolica (Oxford,
1 990), pp. 66-85 and 86-94 respectively.
3 1 . See most recent!)' F. Letoublon 'Le ,,ocabulaire de la supplication en grec Li1zgita 52 ( 1 980)
325-36· Parker, J\![iaS111a pp. 1 8 1-6· .l\1 \ikalson Ho11or 771y Gods pp. 69-77.
32. I(. A. Christensen, 'The Theseion: A Slave Refuge at Athens' A ,n. J. A 1'ZC. !-list. 9 ( 1 984 ), 23-32·
U. Sinn Greek sanctuaries as places of refuge i n 1\ 1\arinatos/Hagg Greek Sanclz1an·es pp. 88- 1 09·
A£l1en. /\ 1lill. 105 ( 1 990) 5 3- 1 1 6 (Heraion at Perachora) and A nt. \\'felt 23 ( 1 992) 1 75-90 (Sounion).
33. Cf. R. Osborne, Social and economic implications of the leasing of land and property in Classical
and Hellenistic Greece' Cl1i1·011 1 8 ( 1 988) 279-323· C. Am polo 'The Economics of the Sanctuaries in
Southern ltal)1 and Sicily in T. Linders and B. Alroth (eds) Eco11oniics of CL1l1 i11 £)ze Ancient Greek
1¥/orld (Uppsala 1 992) pp. 25-8· S. Isager and 1· . Skydsgaard Ancie11£ Greek Ag,icull11re (London and
ew York 1 992) pp. 1 8 1 -90.
34. Delos: tv\. Brunet, Bi,ll. Co11·. Hell. 1 1 4 ( 1 990) 669-82. Trees: A. Henrichs, Thou shalt not kill
a tree' : Greek, Manichaean and Indian Tales ' Bi,ll. A,11. Soc. Pap. 1 6 ( 1 979) 85-108· B. Jordan and
 SANCTU A R I E S 37
I

J. Perlin, 'On the Protection of Sacred Groves in Sii,dies Prese11led lo Sterling Dow (Durham C,
1 984) pp. 1 5 3-9.
35. Parker Atf ias,na, pp. 1 60-6· A. Chaniotis 'Habgierige Gotter habgierige Stadte. Heiligtum­
,
besitz und Gebietsanspruch in den kretischen Staatsvertragen , Klema 1 3 ( 1 988 [ 1 992) ), 2 1 -39.
36. It was not until the fourth century that these treasures, which the inviolability of sanctuaries had
always protected became the object of looting, cf. Parker MiaS11ia, pp. 1 70-6· W. Pritchett, The Greek
Stale al U'la1· 5 (Berkeley etc., 1 9 9 1 ) pp. 1 60-8.
37. Selinus: SEG 34. 970. Temples as banks: Parker, J\1.iasma, pp. 1 70-5; C. Ampolo, 'Fra economia,
,
religione e politica: tesori e offerte nei santuari greci Scie112e dell 'Aritichiw (hencet�orth SA) 3-4
( 1 989-90), 2 7 1 -9· T. Linders, 'Sacred Finances: Some Observations' in Linders/ Alroth, Eco11011iics of
Ci,lt pp. 9- 1 3.
38. R. Thomas, Oral Tradiliori & W1itte11 record in Classical Athe,is (Cambridge, 1 989) pp. 38-40
( 1 \etroon); K.-J. Holkeskamp Written Law in Archaic Greece , PCPliS 38 ( 1 992) 87-1 1 7 esp. 99-
102.
39. Dodona: F. T. van Straten, 'Twee orakels in Epirus' La11ipas 1 5 ( 1 982) 1 9 5-230 (also on the
Epirote nekyomanteion); R. J anko, The Iliad: A Commenla1)1 IV (Cambridge, 1 992), p. 350, makes a
strong case for Helloi instead of Sellai although Archilochus heard Sellai (fr. 1 83: the seer Selleus), cf.
F. Bossi, Siudi su A rcl1iloco (Bari 1 990 2), pp. 207- 1 0 . Delphi: J\i\ organ Atlzleles a1id Oracles. Olympia:
,
G. Sinn 'Die Stellung der \X/ettkampfe i m Kult des Zeus Olympios , ikephoros 4 ( 1 99 1 ) 3 1-54.
40. Amphiaraion: P. Roesch, in Roux Ten1ples el sancli1ai1·es , pp. 1 7 3-84. Trophoneion: P. and �1\.
Bonnechere Les El. Class. 57 ( 1 989) 289-302. Didyma and Claros: H. W. Parke 77ie Sanc£1ia1ies of
,�\po/lo in AsilL 1\l!inor (London, 1 9 85); J. Fontenrose Did::,r11za. Apollo s Oracle Ci,ll arid Conipanio11s
(Berkeley etc., 1 988), \Vith the reviews by R. Parker, CR 39 ( 1 989) 270f and C. Morgan Her11ialliena
,
146 ( 1 989), 64-9; L. and J. Robert Claros I (Paris, 1 989)· J. de la Geniere, Le sanctuaire d Apollon a
Claros; nou\1elles decouvertes , REG 103 ( 1 990), 9 5-1 10· K. Tuchelt B1·ancliidai - Did)111ia (Mainz,
1 992).
4 1 . Cf. R. Parker Greek States & Greek Oracles , in P. Cartledge and F. Har\1 ey (eds) C1·11x. Essaj,s
. . . G. E. J\tl. de Sle. C1·oix (Londo11 1 985) pp. 298-326· C. Morgan, 'Divination and Society at Delphi
and Didyma He1111atl2ena 1 4 7 ( 1 989) 1 7-42.
1

,
42. The most important studies are by F. T. van Straten: Gifts for the Gods , in H. S. Versnel (ed)
Faill1 !-lope a,id i'(/orship (Leiden, 1 9 8 1 ) pp. 65- 1 5 1 · 'Unclassical Religion in Classical G reece: The
Archaeological Angle , Proc. Xl!Llz Col'zgr. A rcli. 4 (Athens, 1 988), 288-92; Votives and \lotaries in
,
Greek Sanctuaries in Sanctuai1·e g1-ec, pp. 247-84. Painted votives: M. owicka 'Les portraits \1 otifs
peints dans la Grece antique', Eos 78 ( 1 990) 1 3 3-6. Formulas of \1oti\1es: i\l\. L. Lazzarini ' Iscrizioni
\'Oti\1 e greche SA 3-4 ( 1 989-90) 845-59.
43. Phoenicians: I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, 'Fremde � eihungen in griechischen Heiligti.imern \ion 8. bis
zum Begin des 7. Jahrhunderts' Jalirb. Rii111. -Ge,111. ZenL1·almi1s. 3 2 ( 1 985) 2 1 5-54. Etruscan: A. John­
ston Arclz. A11z. 1 993 597f.
44. Cf. A. H. Jackson Hoplites and the Gods: The Dedication of Captured Arms and Armour' in
\!. D. Hanson (ed) Hopli tes. 17ie Classical Greek Battle Expe,ience (London 1 99 1 ), pp. 228-49.
4 5. G1·eek A nl}iolog:;1 6.280 (girl)· W. �l\artini Die arcliaisclie Plasiik der G1ieclzen (Darmstad t 1 990).
46. For anatomical votives see most recently B. Forsen and E. Sironen ZPE 87 ( 1 9 9 1 ) 1 73-5.
47. Cf. Alroth Greek gods andfigu1-i11es· eadem Visiting gods , SA 3-4 ( 1 989-90), 3 0 1 - 1 0.
,
48. R. Krumeich, Zu den goldenen Dreifi.isse der Deinomeniden in Delphi ]DAI 1 06 ( 1 9 9 1 ) 3 7-
62.
49. Cf. ]. Boessneck and A. von den Driesch Allie1i. 1\ 1fill. 96 ( 1 9 8 1 ) 245-8 and 98 ( 1 983) 2 1 -4.
Peacocks: Antiphanes fr. 1 73· Menedotus FG1·H 5 4 1 F 2.
50. On in\1entories see D. Knoepfler (ed), Coniples el i11venlai1-es da,is la cile grecqi,e (Neuchatel and
Gene\ a, 1 988)· T. Linders 'Inscriptions and Orality' S)11rib. Osl. 67 ( 1 992), 27-40.
1

5 1. S. B. Aleshire, 171e Allier1ia11 Asklepieion (Amsterdam, 1 989) pp. 1 77-248 (inventor)') and
Asklepios al A tl1e1zs (Amsterdam 1 99 1 ) pp. 4 1 -6 ( quote p. 46).
5 2. On the changes see A. Snodgrass 'The Economics of Dedication at Greek Sanctuaries SA 3-4
(1 989-90) 287-94.
 •

IV. RITUAL

In his handbook, Burkert considers ritual to be the cornerstone of Greek

religion and, accordingly, starts his analysis with a chapter called 'Ritual
and sanctuary'. As he uses the term 'ritual' as self-evident, we will start
1 2

with some introductory observations on the use of the term and on the pos­
sibilities for studying ancient ritual (§ 1). Subsequently we analyse import­
ant ritual acts, such as prayer, procession and, in particular, sacrifice (§ 2).
We conclude the chapter with a discussion of various larger ritual com­
plexes (§ 3).

1. Wh at is rit ual?
Considering the importance attached to ritual in modern studies of Greek
religion, it is rather surprising to notice that the Greeks did not have an
3

all-embracing category called ' ritual'. They approached ritual acts and
4

processes from at least three different angles. First, they called many of
their ritual activities t a 11, omizom ena, 'what is customary' (Ch. I.3); modern
scholarship of ritual also stresses the importance for rites to look tradi­
5
tional, even if they are recent constructions or innovations. Second, they
often named rituals after their central, most striking act: the Athenian
festival Anthesteria was often called Choes from its most striking day (§ 3)
and the sphagia, a type of sacrifice which was not followed by a banquet,
was named after its most striking act, the 'piercing of the throat'. 6 Third,
many elaborate rituals were called heortai, a term associated with good
7 The heort e was
food, good company, and good entertainment. an import­
ant way of celebrating the gods, which provided a pleasant interruption to
the routines of everyday life. As the philosopher Democritus observed, 'a
life without heort ai is like a road without inns' (B 230). 8

This fragmentation of the vocabulary of what nowadays is called 'ritual'

is not a purely Greek phenomenon. In fact, it is only since the turn of this
century that anthropologists and historians of religion have started to use
'ritual' as the standard term for repetitive, representational behaviour that
often has to be decoded. In other words, by introducing a new classifica­
9

tion based on only one aspect of a mass of heterogeneous phenomena, viz.

its prescribed and repetitive character, they could reduce both single rites,
such as prayer (§ 2), and extended rituals, like initiation (§ 3), to one com­
mon denominator. We follow the modern categorization but keep in mind
that 'ritual' is not a native· category.
 RITUAL 39

It is not eas y to analyse ancient ritual, since the evidence usually stems
from diffe re nt periods, places, and genre s. Moreover, the nature of the
evide nce rarely enables us to integrate the opinions of the participants or to
describe a ritual in all its details, since ancient authors focussed on t he
unusual and considered the usual too well-known to be mentioned. Neces­
sarily but regrettably, our descriptions, then, often have to focus on the
structure of the ritual and to be short on its psy chological impact.

2. Prayer) proc ession) an d sacrific e

The more elaborate Greek festivals were made up of a limited number of
basic ritual acts: dances, 10 musical and athletic contests, 1 1 prayers and
h),mns, processions and, most import ant of all, animal sacrifices. Prayers
usually fol lowed a struct ure of invocation, cl aim for attention, and request,
as w-h e n Achil les prays to Zeus (Il. 16.233-48). Striking differences from
Chri stian prayer were the lack of a feeling of gratitude (inste ad, the Greeks
offe red expressions of praise and honour), the posture (Greeks did not
kneel but prayed with hands raised [see Appe ndix] , the l oudness (silent
prayer be came more usual only in Late Antiquity), and the regular singing
12
of prayers in the form of hymns; the latter sometimes developed into a
special ge nre for a particular god: paeans for Apol lo and dithyrambs for
13
Di onysus.
14
Proce ssions were part and parcel of Greek life. The sacrificial proc�s­
sion paraded the val ue of the sacrificial victim and the piety of the sacri­
ficers (fig. 8). The wedding procession advertised the official nature of a
wedding, and for more than hal f a millennium a yearly procession kept the

8. Sacrificial procession
 40 RITU AL

memory alive of those who had fall en at the battle of Plataea in 479 B . c .
Processions with a divine statue were often part of festivals of reversal (§ 3)
but could als o stress the existing order, as when, once a year, Miletan
aristocrats, the Molpoi, travell ed in procession to Didy ma singing paeans at
all the sanct uaries along the road. Processions could even sy mbolize the
•
res toration of the old order, as when Thrasybulus sol emnized the restora­
tion of Athenian democracy in 403 B . c . with a marc h from the Piraeus to
15
the Acropolis. In short, t he functions of processions were manifold.
Processions were particularly suited to make symbolic statements about
power relations, since they often drew large audiences . For example,
during the s acrificial procession of t he Panathenaea A thenian colonies and
allies had to parade a cow and panoply, the daughters of Athenian metics
carried paras ol s for female citizens, and adult metics carried sacrificial
equipment; colonies al so had to contribute a phall us to the procession of
16
the Great Diony sia. W hereas processions t hus demonstrated Athenian
superiority, they could als o demonstrate modesty. During t he Spartan
Hyacinthia festival, adolescent girls rode down in a procession to A myclae,
showing t hemselves off to the community after, probably, an initiatory
seclusion at the border area. Some aristocratic girls rode in race-carts,
others in carriages with the shape of griffins or goat-stags. The daughter of
the Spartan king A gesilaus went in one of the latter vehicles, a public one
which was no more elaborate than that of any other maiden'. Evidently
the Hyacinthia procession normally demonstrated that some Spartans
were more equal than others, although Spartan ideology claimed other­
wise.17
All these elements were important, but the pivot of Greek ritual was
18
undoubtedly animal sacrifice. Both B urkert and Vernant (with his
Parisian eq uipe) have devoted much of t heir scholarly efforts to the mean­
ing of sacrifice and it s place in Greek society - although drawing very dif­
19
ferent conclusions. We still miss studies focusing on l ocal practices, but
two developments, especially, enable us now to evaluate these studies in a
more satisfactory way than a decade ago. The school of Vernant has
demonstrated that Attic vases are an important source for sacrificial
20
representations. Secondly, biologists have started to analyse faunal
remains of excavated altars, which now all ows a glimpse of the realities of
Greek sacrificial practice.2 1 Instead of a step-by-step analysis of normative
Greek animal sacrifice, sacrifices at t he beginning of battle, at the crossing
22 23
of rivers, at the conclusion of oaths, and human sacrifice, space limits us
to two questi ons.
B earing in mind our attention to the hierarchy within the Greek
 RITCAL 41

pantheon (Ch. II.3 and III.2), we will first briefly look at the choice of
sacrificial victims. Did all divinities receive the same animals or did some
fare better than others? Although cattle constituted the most valued
v ictims the preferred victims for all major gods were sheep and goats. 24

The main exceptions to this rule were Hestia (the goddess of the [city] •
hearth), who customarily received a preliminary, usually cheap, sacrifice,
and Demeter, who traditionally received a pig(let); on Attic vases Dionysus
25
�,as also regularly associated with a pig sacrifice. Polluted Eileithyuia
(Ch. III.2), cruel Ares (§ 3) and spooky Hekate received dogs, lovely
26
Aphrodite birds, and randy Priapus fish. Admittedly, excavations have
demonstrated the sacrifice of dogs to Apollo in Didyma, but this is probably
due to influence from Asia Minor: Hittites and Lydians happily consumed
27
dog meat. Most gods, then, received cattle, sheep, and goats, whereas
inedible or very cheap animals were offered to those divinities, who were
connected with impurity and/or situated at the margin of the social order.
The eccentric' position of Demeter and Dionysus, which we already
noticed during our discussion of the gods (Ch. II.3) and the locations of
sanctuaries (Ch. III.3), is confirmed by the eccentricity' of their victims,
the pigs whose rooting, digging habits made them less suitable for densely
28
populated areas. Evidently, the choice of sacrificial victims reflected and
helped to reinforce the divine pecking order.
The question of sacrificial hierarchy has hardly received attention in
recent times, but the second question goes to the heart of the current
debate on Greek sacrifice: what was the significance of the ritual sur­
rounding the killing of the sacrificial victim? Following the views of IZarl
l\1euli ( 1 8 9 1 - 1 968) that Greek sacrifice eventually derived from hunting
practices and that hunters feeling guilty for having killed their game,
29
regular I)' tried to disclaim their responsibility , Burkert has made this
30
feeling of guilt the focus of his sacrificial theory. His crown witness is the
Dipolieia, an Athenian festival during which an ox was sacrificed because it
had tasted sacrificial cakes. Subsequently the sacrificial knife was con­
•
demned and expelled from the city, but the ox ritually re-erected, yoked to
a plough. In the aetiological myth the killer of the ox eased his conscience
by suggesting that everybody should partake in the killing of the sacrificial
3 1
\1ictim. Burkert takes this comedy of innocence' to be paradigmatic for
every sacrifice: humans experience A ngst when actually killing the animals
and have feelings of guilt over the blood which they have shed.
However, Burkert's observations cannot be accepted in their totality,
since there are virtually no testimonies of actual fear and guilt among the
Greeks. On the contrary, Attic vases constantly connect sacrifice with ideas
42 RITUAL
32
of festivity, celebrations, and blessings. The ritual of the Dipolieia cannot
33
make up for this absence: it had only limited circulation, and it already
34
presupposed the developed Attic rules of justice. Its protagonis t was a
plough-ox which, reportedly, it had once been a crime to kill at Athens. 35

Meuli considered the plough a latecomer in the ritual, but it was its vital
position in Athenian society and its closeness to the farmer that made the
killing of the plough-ox the subject of an elaborate ritual: Theophras tus
explicitly notes that the ritual was inaugurated to enable people to eat the
ox (fr. 584A).
The expansion of the Athenian state, however, which required the
sacrifice of numerous oxen in order to feed the people at the banquets
accompanying s tate-festivals - Is ocrates mentions sacrificial processions of
three hundred oxen (Ar. 29) - removed the original tie which the farmers
of an earlier smaller Athens will have felt with their plough-ox. It is no
wonder, then, that already Aristophanes in his Clouds considers the
Bouphonia an archaic affair (984f). Consequently we should not general­
ize from this particular sacrificial ritual to a general view of killing in
Greek sacrifice.
Finally in explicit opposition to Meuli and Burkert Jean-Pierre Vernant
has argued that ( 1 ) Greek sacrificial rites should not be compared with
hunting rituals but res ituated within their proper religious Greek system
and that (2) the killing of the victim does not constitute the centre of
36
gravity of sacrifice, although he explicitly notes that rituals, myths, and
representations are all painfully careful in avoiding any reference to the
actual kill ing of the sacrificial victim. He even uses the expression
ni e1i so1i ge ( lie' !) par 01n ission for this hiding of an apparently unpalatable
37
truth. In this way according to Vernant the Greeks wanted to exclude
the elements of violence and sa uva gerie from their sacrifice in order to
differentiate it from murder.
Vernant is certainly right in questioning Meuli' s and Burkert s al l too
strong accentuation of the infl uence of hunting traditions: Meuli totally
38
overlooked the influence of Syro-Palestine, and unlike hunters (and the
Jews), the Greeks broke the bones to extract marrow, as excavations in
39
Sama s, Didyma and IZal apodi have shown. On the other hand, the dif­
ferentiation between sacrifi ce and murder does indicate an underlying
feeling of unease with the ritual, as is confi rmed by other indications. In the
myth of the Dipolieia the killer of the ox is a foreigner; the sacrificial knife
40
is hidden as long as possible; the Greeks employed the euphemism ' to do'
4
fo1 sacrificing, and without the existence of some mixed feelings about
sacrificial killing, it remains hard to explain why Orphics Pythagoreans
 R ITU A L 43
41
and Empedocles rejected animal sacrifice altogether. l(illing for sacrifice,
then did not generate fear and A 1igst, but it certainly generated feelings of
unease.
Finally, whereas the Greeks themselves did represent gods in the act of
sacrifice (fig. 9), the protagonists in the modern debates feel apparently ill

9. Sacrificing ike
•

at ease with the religious functions of sacrifice and approach the subject in
a strikingly secular manner. For Meuli, it was nothing but ritual slaughter;
fo1· Burkert the shared aggression of the sacrificial killing primarily leads to
the founding of a community, and for Vernant sacrifice is, fundamentally,
42
killing for eating. Clearly, though, this act, which stands at the centre of
Greek ritual, is much richer than these reductive formulas suggest. We
43
need more investigations into its religious, literary, social, economic, and
cultural significance, but these researches will have to take into considera­
tion all available kinds of evidence. Future studies of sacrifice will be satis­
factory only if they are based on literary, epigraphical, iconographical, and
44
archaeological evidence.
44 RITUA L

3. Inilialion a1id Jes tivals

R egarding 111ore elaborate rituals, modern ant hropology often distin­
guishes between rites of transition like initiat ion, and cycl ical rites, such as
New Year. We will conclude this chapter with a discussion of both types .,
paying special attention to their function sy mbols and logic. We start with
initiation which has become an increasingly popu lar issue among classical
45
scholars in the last decade. Instead of the more often discussed rites of
46
At hens and Sparta, we will concentrate on Crete, about which the fourth­
47
century historian Ephorus has left us a detail ed, contemporary report. As
was the case with 'ritual' (§ 1), the Greeks had no term for ' initiation' but
48
Minoans and early Indo-Europeans pract ised it the Spartans called their
initiatory process agoge ( the leading of a horse by the hand': see below on
agela ), and the names of various initiatory festivals have survived. We, the
outs iders construct a whole whereas the insiders focused more on the
49
different p arts.
Cretan po l itical power was in the hands of an aristocratic elite which
dominated both the serfs (the native Cretans) and the less privileged free.
The aristocrats were organized in clubs and dined in 'men's houses
(andreia) where young Cretan boys, summer and wint er dressed in the
same dirty garment, waited on the adu lts. They received little food and
drink and their main activity was fighting. At seventeen, the boys who
were most conspicuous and also most influential' - surely the sons of the
elite - co llected as many boys as possible around them into an agela, or
herd of horses': apparently ., the youths were seen as unruly foals that had
to be do mesticated.50
The herds' were supervis ed by the fathers of these boys, who also
directed their most important activities: running., hunting ., dancing in
choruses marching over st eep roads, and fighting in gy mnasia 'wit h the
fist and with clubs ., as was prescribed by l aw' (Heracl ides Lembus fr. 15).
On cert ain appoint ed days, the agelai fought against each other, marching
rhythmically into batt le, to the tune of aulos and lyre, as is their custom in
actual war'. In addition to these physical activities, the boys also had to
learn their letters and songs prescribed by the laws', which consisted of
l aws, hymns to the gods, and praises of brave men, although Plato, who still
knew them, rated their qual ity rather low (Laivs 666D).
The final stage of Cretan education began with a ceremonial cast ing off
of the dirty garment: in fact, in various Cretan cities the technical term for
leaving the agela was 'to undress'. The change is firmly located in an
init iatory setting by the aet iological myth of the Ekdysia ('Undressing')

•
 RITUAL 45

fes tival at Phaistos for Leto, an initiatory goddess (Ch. II.3): a girl who had
been brought up as a boy actually changed into a real boy the moment she
became an adolescent. Further details are absent, but both the names < nude
ones and 'very nude ones' for adolescents near maturation, and the exist­
en ce of a Fes tival of the Garment' (Periblemaia) at Lyttos, strongly
suggest that the order of the final stage of initiation was: undressing, being
nude and donning the new adult garment. The focus on the garment during
the graduation' is hardly surprising, since Ephoros tells us that the elite
were characterized by a distinctive dres s. Clearly the transition from dirty
garment to adult dress was too great to be made in one step. It had to be
51
eased and dramatized by a s eries of festival s. In Sparta, where the differ­
en ce between y ouths and adults was even more strongly marked, initiation
was also concluded with a series of festival s, but in Athens, where the
difference was much less strong, a concluding festival no longer existed.
I n addition to nudity, the contrast with the future status was al so
expres sed in a different way. Ephoros tells us that s hortly before offi cial
adulthood the aris tocratic boys were 'kidnapped' for a short homosexual
relations hip; in fact, in more or less formalized ways pederasty was widely
sp read in the Greek world. As, ideologically, the boys could only play a
passive role in the relationship, this part of the ritual stressed their non­
manhood before they became real males. 52
The phys ical side of Cretan initiation, then, prepared the boys for a life
in which fighting was of the utmos t importance, whereas songs helped to
instil the corresponding ideology. At the same time, the initiatory process
had been manipulated to reflect the political situation of Crete. The
prominent position of the elite' s sons and the focus on the garment
impressed the domination of the aris tocrats on their inferiors but, by
incorporating the latter into the agela, feudal ties were promoted which
helped to support the political system. As Burkert often stress es continuity
in rit ual it is equally important to note its innovative powers and flexibility.
This is shown by the introduction of l iteracy in the training, which will not
predate the fifth century, and the stress on running which was absent from
Athen ian and Spartan initiation. Crete is very mountainous and without
the ability to run Cretans could hardly have survived as soldiers. In fact
running was so important that the Cretan term for adult was dromeus or
runner ' : even ecology can be a factor in the shaping of a particular ritual.
Contrasts not only played a role in the l ogic of rites of transition; we also
find them in cyclical rituals, as a Theban festival may il lustrate. Xeno­
phon tells us in his contemporary Hellenica (5.4. 4-6) that Theban
polemarchs (generals) customarily celebrated a festival of Aphrodite at the

•
46 RITUAL

end of their office. In the winter of 37 9 the pro-Spartan polemarchs were

promis ed a night with w omen and wi ne, but the veiled w omen turned out
to be conspi rators in di sguis e, who efficiently disposed of their opponents
and liberated the town from the Spartans . How do we explain this connec­
tion of the mi litary with the goddess of love?
The connection is les s surprising than might at first sight be expected
since Aphrodite w as associated with the god of war Ares in literature (wit­
ness Homer' s delightful story of their liai s on) in art (witness the represen­
tation of Ares assi sting with Aphrodite's birth), and in cult (witness their
communal temp les and altars ). Moreover, Aphrodite was widely associ ated
with magistrates, civilian and mili tary, w hose harmonious cooperation she
was believed to promote. Yet the goddess w as also sometimes contrasted
with Ares because in the Hom eric Hymn t o Aphrodit e Athena states that she
took no pleasure 'in the works of golden Aphrodite but liked wars and the
work of Ares' (9-10). So how do we app roach the Theban case? 5 3

The answer is found on Aegina, the island from w hich Plutarch explains
the otherwise unknown ritual of the ' s oli tary eaters' in his Gre ek Qu estio1is
(30 l E-F) . The Aeginetans celebrated a festival of Poseidon by isolating
themselves in thei r homes and by feasting in silence wi thout the presence
of non-kinsmen and slaves for sixteen days. The festival shows all the signs
of a disturbance of the social order: normally the Greeks feasted up­
roari ously i n the company of fami ly and friends. Interes tingly, the festival
was terminated with the Aphrodisia before the return of normal life. Since
Poseidon w as al so a macho god (Ch. III.3), he was in various w ays compa1·­
able to Ares. So in both cases the transition from the sphere of war and
virility to peace was eased by passing through the oppositi on to w ar: l ove.
At the same time we may assume that the juxtaposition of the two festivals
put their contrasting contents in sharper relief: the significance of indi­
vidual parts of a more el aborate ritual cannot be separated from their
positi on withi n the ritual.
We now turn to more elaborate festivals of which the analysis has made
much progress in recent decades: Burkert' s Homo 11, ecans (1983) and
Graf' s Nordi onisc he Kult e (1985) p1·ovi de outstanding examples; yet onl)'
two decades ago the farmer' s combi nation of structuralism, functionalism
and ethology was deemed so revolutionary that the original German
edition (1972) was not reviewed in the major classical journal s.5 4 We will
built upon their insights in an analysis of perhaps the most complex Greek
festival that we have, the Athenian Anthesteria. As is often the case with
Greek festivals, we partially depend on l ater sources for our reconstruction
and not all events are securely attested. 5 5
 RITt;AL 47

The festival took place on three successive days in the month Anthes­
terion, roughly the end of February, which were called Pithoigia, Choes,
and Chytroi. The first day, 'The opening of the wi ne jars', dramatized the
opening of the festival, as di d the first day of the Thesmophori a (Ch. VI.3).
On that day the farmers of Atti ca brought their jars with new wine to the
sanctuary of the god of the wine, Dionysus 'i n the marshes' (Ch. Ill .2), to
have the wine ceremoni ously opened, mixed with water, and tasted for the
fi rst time. This was also the moment of celebrating the god. As a fourth­
century eyewitness noted, 'delighted then with the mixture, the peopl e
celebrated Dionys us in song, danci ng, and cal ling upon him as Flowery,
Dithyrambos (§ 2), the Frenzied One, and the Roarer' (Phanodemus
FGrH 325 F 12). Wine mixed with water was the main dri nk in Greece and
an indispensable part of libations. It is therefore not surpri sing that the
advent of new wine was a matter of general concern and controlled by the
•
community.
But as with the Cretan graduation', the advent of such an i mportant
dr·ink as new wine had to be extended in time. The next day, the Choes
('J ugs ), which often gave its name to the whole festival (§ 1), started wi th
the chewi ng of leaves of buckthorn (a rather unappetizing plant). Doors
were smeared with pitch, temples were closed (with the exception of that of
Dionysus), and men on wagons reviled passers-by. Thi s di ssolution of the
soci al order preceded a strange drinki ng contest in the late afternoon,
which was held both centrally, supervised by the highest magi strate, and
locally in the v arious Attic demes (districts and vill ages). Contrary to
custom the Atheni ans brought unmixed wine, their own jug (clious) and
were seated at separate tables, whereas normally guests were regaled,
drunk mixed wine from cups, and reclined together on couches. Crowned
with ivy, the pl ant dear to Diony sus, the banqueters awaited the sign of a
trumpet, seen as an uncanny instrument by the Greek s, before trying to
56
drain their three litres (!) as quickly as possible in complete silence.
The ritual shows a clear resemblance to that of the Aeginetan 'solitary
eaters' and illutrates how the Greek s s haped a 'negative' (part of a) ritual
by a reversal of normal practices. Other means would be the absence of
wreaths ; libati ons of unmixed wine, water or oil instead of mixed wine; or5 7

the dark col our and/ or holocaust of the sacrificial victim instead of a
5 8
sacrifice ending in a banquet. It was the presence and i ntensity of these
ri tual markers whi ch determined the nature, positive or negative, of a
ri tual.
The resemblance with Aegina extended to the level of myth. The
Aeginetans explained their festival as recalling the return of the survivors
48 RITUAL

of the Troj an War. Since they had no wish to hurt the feelings of those
whose relatives had not returned, they feasted separately and secretly. In a
comparable way, the Athenian custom of silent drinking was explained by
the arrival of the matricide Orestes, whom Athenians did not want to enter­
tain except in silence and at a separate table. A different, perhaps later,
aetiology connected the strange features with the Athenian murder of
Aetolians who had brought them the wine. These myths can be used as a
substitute for the unknown reactions of participants, since they tell us how
the atmosphere was perceived. We have another indication as well of the
sombre mood: we are told that at the time of the Choes Sophocles had
choked on an unripe grape. Since at that time of year grapevines could
hardly have finished blossoming, the anecdote is most likely not historical -
the more so since Anacreon reportedly also choked on a grape. Yet it is
important to note that the sad event was said to have occurred during the
Choes, thus fitting the sombre atmosphere of the ritual. 59 The myth of
Orestes focused on the strange nature of the contest, which can only have
lasted a few mintues. Afterwards everybody indulged in a copious dinner
and even a misanthrope would have at least one table companion. The
picture of the banquet in Aristophanes' Achaniians is a happy one and that
60
obviously is how the Athenians abroad remembered the festival (below).
So far one could have thought that the festival was only for Athenian
male citizens, but nothing would be further from the truth. A few texts and
certain small j ugs confusingly called choes, show that three-year-old
children received such j ugs as toys and probably were the centre of special
attention on this day. Slaves, too, had a good time and their licence was
explained by the great number of Karian slaves or the one-time Karian
ownership of a part of Attica: the stress on Karians seems to suggest
mumming by the slaves. Another explanation spoke of the Keres, spirits of
the dead. It is hard to choose from these explanations and probably
unnecessary, since both ( ancestral) I(arians and spirits of the dead are
structurally equivalent: entities normally absent from ordered Athenian
61
life.
The licence of the slaves was one more sign of the dissolution of the
social order. Their inclusion in the general atmosphere of merriment may
well have contributed to better relations with their owners, since such
festivals of reversal could work as a safety-valve, as American ex-slave
testimony confirms. But did they also have a legitimizing function as has
been suggested recently? Perhaps in the eyes of the ruling class but hardly
from the point of view of the slaves. Such a view could only be sustained if
Athens had been a relatively static society. Athenian slaves, however, had
 RITUAL 49

often been imported during their own lifetimes and their massive flight
during the Peloponnesian War shows their refusal to accept the existing
order. In fact, several of these festivals of reversal became the scene of
revolution, which is hard to explain if they real ly helped to legitimize the
existing order.62
The recent find of a sacrifi cial calendar in Thorikos, which dates from
the 430s or 420s, shows that during the Choes this deme sacrificed a small,
tawny (or perhaps bl ack) kid that lacked milk teeth to Dionysus. The dark
colour fitted the character of the day and the small size of the kid seems to
suggest the absence of a public banquet: such a goat could hardly have fed
many stomachs. Apparently, the Attic demes contributed a modest public
supplement to the many private festivities .63
Yet society cannot live in permanent disorder and at the end of the
Choes a herald announced the third day of the festival, the Chytroi ('P ots').
The return to order seems to have been cel ebrated by a symbolic wedding
•

between the wife of the highest magistrate and the god, although our evid-
ence for this event having taken place at the Anthesteria is not unequivo­
cal.64 It was certainly celebrated by remembering the Fl ood. People ate a
stew of al l kinds of v egetables and sacrificed to Dionysus and Hermes
Chthonios, the god associated with the victims of the Flood. Aristophanes'
Frogs mentions a proces sion with drunken peopl e on the Chytroi (211-19)
and, thus, the festival seems to have been officially concl uded with
choruses at the place where it had al l begun: the sanctuary of Dionysus.
For the Athenians themselves one of the most striking features of the
festival must have been the licence accorded to the slaves and it is therefore
not surprising that their return to normality had to be dramatized. So at the
end of the festival the owners, presumably , said: 'To the door Karians/
I eres. (It' s) no longer Anthesteria.' Simil arly, the enormous phal lus which
had been carried round Athens during the Dionysia was ceremoniously
65
burned at the end of that festival.
On the third day, another feast al so took place. Girls commemorated the
maiden Erigone, who hanged herself after the murder of her father I karios
for introducing wine to Attica, by s winging. This feast, the Aiora, is not
fou nd in non-Athenian Anthesteria festivals and is not attested in literature
as part of the Anthesteria before the Hellenistic era; the artistic evidence
for the corresponding myth is only found during Roman times. Although
the myth fits the Diony siac themes of the festival and the special place of
the girl s fits that of young children and slaves, this part seems to be a later
ad dition from a particular local festival: one more testimony to the flexibil-
66
ity of ritual .
50 RITUAL

Of all their festivals, the Anthesteria lay closest to the Athenians' hearts.
As a politi�al refugee, Themistocles introduced it to Magnesia, which he
had received as a fiefdom from the Persian king. It was also celebrated at
the court of the Sicilian tyrant Dionysius, where it may well have been
organized for or perhaps by Plato during his stay in Sicily. This feeling
lasted into the third century, since the followers of Epicurus countered
accusations of atheism against their master with the argument that he had
celebrated the Choes and had advised his pupils to do likewise. And Calli­
machus mentions an Athenian who celebrated the Anthesteria in Egypt.
Clearly the festival had become part and parcel of Athenian identity, like
Christmas for European colonists or l assover for J ews.
") 67

The Anthesteria displays the typical signs of la g1�ande festa, as ethno­

logists have called the type of festival which all over the world dramatized
the advent of the new harvest/fruit/wine by a sharp break with the existing
order. The festival then resembled a New Year celebration, and this may
explain why teachers were paid during the festival (Eubulides, fr. 1 ). Yet its
New Year character was naturally stressed less than that of the official
Athenian New Year. This was celebrated in Hekatombaion, a month
marked by two official New Year festivals, Synoikia and Panathenaea
(§ 2), and preceded by two festivals characterized by the dissolution of the
68
social order, IZronia (Ch. V.3) and Skira.
As was customa1·y, the Anthesteria had given its name to the month in
which it was celebrated: Anthesterion. It was an old Ionian month, which
went back to the period before the Ionian colonization, as Thucydides
already realized· we may thus safely assume that the Anthesteria was one
of the oldest Greek festivals. Greek calendars are under-researched, but
they are important for determining the connotations attached to a festival
and for the varying positions of divinities in Greek cities. Yet here, too, we
have to be careful. The month Anthesterion, like other months, did not
occupy the same place in the year in the calendar of every Ionian city:
evidently, names of months were moved around and changed in the course
69
of the centuries.
It is time to come to a close. We have seen that the study of smaller and
larger rituals has to take into account many aspects: the calendrical order,
the spatial organization gender, social groups and relations, systems of
classification psychological and emotional aspects, power aspects, the
place of divinities local peculiarities, the internal logic, and commentaries
of participants. The fragmentary state of our tradition often makes it
impossible to pay attention to all these aspects, but we should at least try. In
a way the study of Greek ritual has only just begun.
 R IT U A L 51

OTES
1. As do Bruit/Schmitt, Religion, but J. Rudhardt 0£io1is fo1'zdame1ilales de La pensee religie11se . . .
19 5 8 1 (Paris 1 9922 ), begins ,1vith the vocabular>' of the sacred, and Jost Aspects , ,vith the gods.
2. But note his SL11,1,cliLre a11d ffisl01)1 pp. 35-58.
3. For a (not q uite satisfactory) historical sur,,e>' see I. Morris 'Poetics of Po"ver. The Inter­
pretation of Ritual Action in Archaic Greece' in Dougherty/l(urke Ci1l£111·al Poetics pp. 1 5-45.
1
4. As is observed by C. Calame Mythe" et rite · en Grece: des categories indigenes?' Ke1110s 4
( 1 99 1 ) 1 79-204 esp. 1 96-203.
5. Cf. E. Hobsbawn and T. Ranger (eds), The lnvenLion of Tradition (Cambridge 198 3).
6. Cf. C. Calame, Morfologia e funzione della festa nell' Antichita AIO 4-5 ( 1 982-3), 3-23;
J. Rudhardt Remarques sur le geste rituel . . . ' in A.-M. Blondeau and l . Schipper (eds) Essais s·ur le
1

rituel 2 (Louvain and Paris 1 988), pp. 1 - 1 3.

7. The usual translation by festi,,al' hardly co,1 ers the variety of anc ient festivities or the presence
of sombre aspects amongst them.
8. J. Mikalson 'The Heorte of Heortology , GRBS 2 3 ( 1 982) 2 1 3- 2 1 · Calame (n. 4) l 96f. In
general: Burkert, Die antike Stadt als Festgemeinschaft' in P. Hugger (ed) Siad£ u11d Fest ( nterageri
and Stuttgart 1 987) pp. 2 5 -44; C. 1 \eier Zur Funktion der Festc in A then im 5 . J ahrhundert vor
Christus in \Y/. Haug and R. \X'arning (eds) Das Fest (Munich 1 989) pp. 569-9 1 .
9. Cf. Asad Genealogies of Religio11, pp. 5 5-79. The opposition sacred/profane originated at
exactly the san1e time cf. F.-A. Isambert Le sens di, sacre (Paris 1 982) pp. 2 1 5-45. This coi11cidence
requ ires further study.
10. S. H. Lonsdale, Dance a11d Ritual PlaJ1 in G1·eek Religio11 (Balt i more and London, 1 993).
1 1 . H. I<.otsidu Die 111u.sisclze11 Ago11e i,1 a1·cl1a£sclier u11d klassisclzer Zeit (l\-1unich 1 9 9 1)· H. A.
Shapi ro Mousikoi Agones: Music and Poetry at the Panathenaia and D. Kyle, The Panathenaic
Games: Sacred and Ci,1 ic Athletics' in J. eils (ed) Goddess and Polis. Tlie Panatl1e11aic Festival i11
.411cie11L Atl1ens (Hanover and Pr i nceton, 1 992) pp. 5 3-75 77- 1 0 1 respecri,1ely.
12. See, respecti,1 ely H. S. Versnel ' Religious 1\1 \entalit>' in Ancient Pra)1er , in ersnel Fait/1, pp. 1 -
64; P. '\' . van der Horst Silent Prayer in Antiquit:)1 l1t111e11 4 1 ( 1 994) 1-25· J. r-..1 1. Bremer Greek
H)rmns in \lersnel Fait/1, pp. 1 93-2 1 5 . In general: J. D. 1 \ikalson I
nans\,,ered Prayers in Greek
Tragedy' JHS 1 09 ( 1 989), 8 1 -98· D. Aubriot-Sevin P,1·ere et co11ceplions religiei,ses en Grece a11cie1111c
(Paris 1 992).
1 3. Kappel Paian ; B. Zimmermann, DitlzJ 1ra1t1bos (Gottingen 1 992).
1 4. Burkert GR pp. 1 02f· , . R. Connor, 'Tribes, Festi,,als and Processions', JHS 107 ( 1 987), 40-
50; Bruit/Schmitt Religion pp. 105-7.
1 5. Plataea: Burkert f-/01110 11eca11s 1 97 2 1 (Berkele_ etc. 1 983) pp. 56f. 1\ \olpoi: I<. Godecken
1

'Beobachtungen und Funde a n der Heil igen Strasse Z\,v ischen 1v \ilet und Did)1ma 1 984 , ZPE 66
( 1 986) 2 1 7-5 3. Thrasybulus: B. Strauss ' Ritual, Social Drama and Politics i n Classical Athens , A111. J.
,. .\,zc. His£. 10 ( 1 985 [ 1 992!] ) 67-83.
1 6. JG 1 3 34.42 46. 1 5 f, 7 1 .57 (cow, phallus and panoply)· Ael. \If-/. 6. 1 (equipment)· 1\ C. �\illcr
1\.

'The Parasol: An Oriental Status-Symbol in Late-Archaic and Classical Athens , JI-JS 1 1 2 ( 1 992) 9 1 -
105, esp. 103-5 · eils, Goddess a11d Polis (beautifully produced); S. G. Cole 'Procession and Celebra­
tion at the Dionysia', in R. Scodel (ed) Tlzealer and Societ), i11 £lie Classical \\1/orld (Ann Arbor 1 993)
pp. 25-38.
17. Xen. Ag. 8.7 (quote); C. Calame, Les cl1oeurs de je1111es _filles 1 , pp. 306f.
18. For good sur,,eys see no\,,, 1\1\. H . Jameson, Sacrifice and Ritual: G reece i n \. Grant and R. l( it ­
zi nger (eds) Civilizatio11 of Ll1e A11cie11t A1Iedite11·a11ea11. Greece a11d Ro111e 2 ( 1 e,v York, 1 988) pp. 959-
79; �1. Lambert, 'Ancient Greek and Zulu Sacrificial Ritual' 11111e11 40 ( 1 993 ), 293-3 1 8.
1 9. But see nov.1 . Rosi,1 ach Tl1e S),sle111 of Pz,blic ac11fice i11 Fo11rLl1-Ce11L111)1 -1 Llle11s (Atlanta
✓

199 3 ).
20. Cf. J.-L. Durand ac,ifice et labot,r e11 Grece a11cie1"tne (Paris, 1 986)· see also F. T. ,,an traten
· Greek Sacrificial Representations: Li,,estock Prices and Religious fv\entalit>' in T. Linders and
G. Nordquist, Gifts LO Ll1e Gods (Uppsala, 1 987) pp. 1 5 9-70 and especiall)' , S. Peirce ' Death, Re,,elry,
and Tl1)1sia', Class. Ant. 1 2 ( 1 993) 2 1 9-66.
2 1. See more recentl>' J. Boessneck and A. von den Driesch 'Tierknochenfunde aus Did)rma , l1rcl1.
l
:-\11.z. 1 98 3, 6 1 1-5 1 · id., Knoclze11abfall vo11 Opfe1111alzle11 ll11d \\' eil1gabe11 a11s de11z Heraio11 1-1011 u111os
 52 R IT U A L
1
(�\unicl1 1 1 988)· J. Boessneck and J. Schaffer,'Tierknochenfunde aus Did)rma I I A rclz . .,4rzz. 1 986,
,

2 5 1 - 3 0 1 ; D. Reese, 'Faunal Remains from the Altar of Aphrodite Ourania, Athens' Hespe,-ia 58
( 1 989), 63-70· i\t\. Stanzel Die Tie,·resle ai,s de111 A r1e111is-/Apollon-Heilig1i1111 bei I<..alapodi i11 Biiolie11/
G,1·eclze11la11d (Diss. \unich, 1 9 9 1 ); I . Tuchelt, 'Tieropfer in Didyma - Ein achtrag , A rc/1. r\11.:.
1 992, 6 1 -8 1 .
22. Battle: fv\. Jameson, 'Sacrifice before Battle in Hanson Hopli£es pp. 1 97-227; F. Jouan 'Com­
ment partir en guerre en Grece antique en a)rant les dieux pour soi Re1. 1 11e de la socieLe E111esl Re11a11 40
( 1 990- 1) 25-42 (also on crossing rivers); Peirce, Death', 25 3f. Oath: C. Faraone, · Molten \X/ ax . . . '
JHS 1 1 3 ( 1 993) 60-80.
23. A. Henrichs 1 ' Human Sacrifice in Greek Religion , E111re£ie11s Hardt 27 (\landoeuvres and
Gene, a 1 98 1 ) 1 9 5-23 5 · Bremmer ' Scapegoat Rituals in A11cient Greece , H GP 87 ( 1 983), 299-
1

320· D. Hughes 1-I-i,rnan Sac, -ifice i11 A11cie111 Greece (London and ew York, 1 99 1 ), re,,. Burkert
G11orno11 66 ( 1 994) 97-1 00.
f
24. Cf. i\t\. Jameson, Sacrifice and Animal Husbandry in Classical Greece', in C. R. \X hittaker (ed)
Pas Loral Eco11omies i11 Classical A11£iq11it)' = PCPl1S , Suppl. 1 4 ( 1 988) 87- 1 1 9 esp. 94.
25. Hestia: Eupolis fr. 3 0 1 ; Graf 1 K 363· M. Detienne, L 'ec1·iti1re d 'O,plzee (Paris 1989), pp. 89-
98. Demeter: Jameson "Sacrifice 92· E. G. Pemberton, Co1intl1. Tlze anct-i,a1)1 of De111eLer a11d Kore,
,,ol. 1 8 . 1 (Prince ton 1 989) p. 96 (pigs and goats)· D. Ruscillo, F aunal Remains from the Acropolis
Site, \ytilene Class. Vieivs 37 ( 1 993) 2 0 1 - 1 0. Dionysus: Peirce ' Death , 2 5 5 f.
26. Dogs: Parker A1ias1na, pp. 357f· Graf K 422. Birds: Lydus, J\tle11s. 4.64. Fish: Antl1ol. Graeca
1 0.9 1 4, 1 6 · L. Robert, Helle,rica 9 ( 1 950) 82.
27. Cf. Boessneck and Schaffer 'Didyma I I ' 285-94 300· B. J. Collins, The Puppy in Hitt ite
1

Ritual', J. C1111eifo1711 St1-id. 42 ( 1 990) 2 1 1-26.

28. Cf. Ja meson, 'Sacrifice', 98f. \X/. Houston Pi11·iL)' a11d Atf 011otlzeism (Sheffield 1 993 ), pp. 8 2 , 85 f
also points out that pigs need shade and water neither of \.V hich was continuously available in most
places in ancient Greece.
29. K. 1\1\euli: Gesa1n1nelle Scli1ifte11 II (Basle 1 9 7 5), pp. 907- 1 02 1 ( 1 946 1 ). On i\t\euli see especially
A. Henrichs 'Gott Mensch und Tier: Antike Daseinsstruktur und religioses \ferhalten im Denken I<arl
Meulis' in F. Graf (ed) Klassisclze A11i-ike 1ind ei,e U 'lege de1· Ki,l£urwissenschafte11. S)1rrzposiunz Karl
/\1euli (Basle 1 992) pp. 1 29-6 7.
30. For Burkert's vie\.vS see n1ost recently: Opferritual bei Sophokles. Pragmatik - Symbolik -
Theater Der altspraclzliche Urzce11·ichl 27 ( 1 985) 5-20· The Problem of Ritual Killing , in R. G.
Hamerton-I<elly (ed) Viole111 01·igins (Stanford, 1 987) pp. 1 49-76, 1 77-88 (discussion); 'Offerings in
perspecti,,e: surrender distribution exchange' in Linders/ ordquist Gifts lo tlze Gods pp. 43-50.
3 1. Burkert Homo necans pp. 1 36-4 3 · Durand Sac,ifice el laboi,r pp. 43-87 (representations in
black-figure vase painting).
32. This is rightly stressed by Peirce, 'Death'.
33. The month Bouphonion 'Ox-killing' only occurs on Euboea its colonies and adjacent islands:
Karystos (JG X Il.9.207) Chalkidike (SEC 38.67 1 ) Delos (JG X I.2.203 A; SEC 35.882) and Tenos (JG
X II.5 .842).
34. So rightly D. Obbink 'The Origin of Greek Sacrifice: Theophrastus on Religion and Cultural
History' in W. \YJ. Fortenbaugh and R. \X/. Sharples (eds), Tlzeopli1·astean Studies ( e\.v Brunswick and
London 1 988) pp. 272-95· Henrichs 'Gott J\l\ensch, Tier' pp. 1 5 3-8 · M. A. Katz, 'Buphonia and
Goring Ox: Homicide, Animal sacrifice and J udicial Process in Rosen/Farrell , 011zodeiktes, pp. 1 5 5-
78.
35. Aristoxenus fr. 29 Wehrli (P)rthagoras avoided eating plough-oxen)· Ael. VH 5 . 1 4· Varro, De re
111s£ica 2.5.3· Columella 6 praef 7 · Schol. Od. 1 2.3 5 3 · see also Aratus 1 3 1 f; Ovid A tfel. 1 5 . 1 20-42, 470;
Rosivach Pi,blic Sac11fice ir1 Foi11·£h-Centi11)1 A l hens, pp. 1 6 1 -3.
36. 1 \. Detienne and J.-P. Vernant (eds), 771e Cuisi11e of Sac1·ifice a111011g the Greeks 1 979 1 (Chicago
1 989) · Vernant AtforLals and 11'n1rzo1·tals pp. 290-302 (Vernant s opposition to Meuli and Burkert:
pp. 29 l f).
3 7. Vern ant Mo1·tals and Jn1,11101·tals , 296 translated less lapidarily as 'overt and falsifying omis­
,
sion .
38. Burkert, 'Opfer als T otur.gsritual. Eine Konstante der menschlichen Kulturgeschichte? , in
Graf, Klassiscl1e An£ike pp. 1 69-89.
39. Samos: Boessneck and Von den Driesch, K11oclienabfall 6. Didyma: id., 'Didyma l l' 257. Kala­
podi: Stanzel Tien·este ai,s Kalapodi p. 45 .

•
 R IT U A L 53

40. Peirce, 'Death 256f has o,1 erlooked the fact that from her fe,v exceptions Busiris attempt to
acrifice Heracles is a typical case of a 'perverted sacrifice, ,vhich supports rather than undermines the
'taboo on the presence of the knife cf. J.-L. Durand and F. Lissarrague, ' Heros cru ou hote cuit:
histoire quasi cannibale d'Herakles chez Busiris , in Lissarrague and F. Thelamon_ (eds), !11iage el
cera,rzique g1·ecqi,e (Rouen, 1 983) pp. 1 5 3-67.
4 1 . Parker Mias11za pp. 299f.
42. Cf. Meuli, Gesanimelle Scl11·iften II p. 948: das Olympische Opfer nichts anderes sei als ein
rituelles Schlachten ; Burkert, Ho,110 necans pp. 35-48· Vernant, in Enireliens Hard£ 2 7 ( 1 9 8 1 ), 26:
'Sacrifier c'est fondamentalement tuer pour manger'.
43. See, most recently R. Seaford ' Homeric and Tragic Sacrifice , TAPl1A 1 1 9 (1 989), 87-95·
J. Jouanna 'Libations et sacrifices dans la tragedie grecque REG 105 ( 1 992) 406-34.
44. For example Peirce, 'Death bases her ,,ie\vs of sacrifice mainly on the iconographical e,,idence
\Vith its strong Dionysiac bias. Such a vie,v is as skewed as that of Greek religion based solely on traged
(Ch. 11. 1 )· on the difference bet,veen 'icon and text' R. Hamilton Clzoes & A11ll1es£e1 ·ia (Ann Arbor
1992) pp. 1 23-46.
45. Burkert, GR pp. 260-4, 448f; A. Moreau, Initiation en Grece antique Dial. d 'Hisl. A11c. 1 8
(1992) 1 9 1 -244; Versnel, Jnconsisie11cies 2 pp. 48-60 (extensi,,e bibliographies)· F. Graf I nitiations­
ri ten in der antiken i\1ittelmeer\.velt' Der allspracliliclze UnLe111·ch£ 36.2 ( 1 993) 29-40.
46. Sparta: see now J\1. Pettersson Cults of Apollo al Sparta. Tlie HJ1akin£l1ia llze GJ11ri1iopaidiai a11d
tl1e Ka171eia (Stockholm 1 992). Athens: P. Vidal- aq uet Le CJiassei,r noir (Paris 1 983 2), pp. 1 5 1-7 5
(1 968 1 : a classic)· see no,v also his 'The Black Hunter Revisited , PCPlzS 2 1 2 ( 1 986) 1 26-44 ~ Retour
au chasseur noir in A1elanges Pie11·e Leveque I I (Paris 1 989) pp. 387-4 1 1 .
47. Ephoros FGrH 70 F 149 (= Strabo 1 0.4. 1 6-20: all quotes)· J\1. Laurencic 'A11dreion Tycl1e 3
(1 988) 1 47-6 1 .
48. . Marinates, 1\lli1ioan Religion ( e'vv York 1 993) pp. 20 1 -20· J. Bremmer and . Horsfall
Ro11ia11 Mylh and Mylfzog,·apliy (London, 1 9 87), pp. 38-43, 5 3-6 (Bremmer: Indo-Europeans).
49. Anthropologists such as C. Geertz, Local K11oivledge (Ne\\1 York 1 983) pp. 56-8 have stressed
that these ,,iews are t\vo necessary, sides of the san1e coin. This is a more constructive attitude than
that of Rudhardt and Vernant cil111 si,is, \Vho sometimes seem to suggest that \Ve can look at Greek
practices as if \Ve ourselves ,vere Greeks.
50. For this important metaphor i n Greek initiation see Calame, Les clzoe11rs de jeunes ftlles 1
pp. 3 7 4f· this volume, Ch. VI. 1 .
5 1 . Ekdysia: Nicander api,d Ant. Lib. 1 7 cf. Bremmer 'Dionysos tra,,esti 194. 'To undress': IC I.ix
(Dre ros). 1 .A.99f; I.xix (Malla). l . 1 7 f etc. ude ones : IC I.ix (Dreros). 1.D. 1 40f (azosloi) cf. Hscl1. s.,,.
l1Zostos. '\lery nude ones : JC I.ix (Dreros). 1 A . l l f (Pa11azostoi). Periblemaia: JC I.xix ( \alla). 1 9. 1 .
52. See my ·Greek Pederasty and J\t\odern Homosexuality', in Bremmer (ed), Fro11l Sapp/10 lo De
Sade (London 1 99 1 2), pp. 1 - 14· C. Calame, I G1·eci e I Eros (Bari 1 992) pp. 65-8 1 . For (unpersuasi,,e)
objections to the initiatory interpretation see K. J. Do,,er Tlze Greeks a11d tlzeir Legac), (Oxford 1 988)
pp. 1 1 5-34· D. Halperin, One Hil11dred Years of Homosexi,ality (London 1 990) pp. 54-6 1 . Kidnap :
Bremmer/Horsfall Ron1a11 J\!{)1tl1 pp. 1 0 5- 1 1 (Bremmer).
53. Ares and Aphrodite: LIMC I I . 1 ( 1 984), 1 23-5 (A. Deli,1 orrias) 482f (Ph. Bruneau)· Graf IK
264 (magistrates). Ares: P. \Xlathelet, 'Ares le mal aime Les El. Class. 60 ( 1 992) 1 1 3-28· DDD s.,1•
(Bremmer). Aphrodite: V. Pirenne-Delforge L 'Apl11·odile g1 ·ecque (Athens and Liege 1 994 ).
54. See Bremmer, CR 35 ( 1 985) 3 1 2f and J\tf1ze111osJ1ne IV 43 ( 1 989), 260-3, respecti,,ely.
SS. Cf. Burkert Ho,110 11eca11s pp. 2 1 3-43 · Bremmer TJ1e Earl) 1 Greek Co11cepl of tlze S01,l (Prince­
ton, 1 983), pp. 1 08-22· E. Simon Feslivals of Allica (1 \adison 1 983), pp. 92-9· C. Auffarth Der
drolze11de Unierga11g. ''Scl1opfi111g " i11 J\ 1JJ1llzos 111zd Ritual i11z AILe11 Orie,1 1 1111d i,i G1·ieclze11larzd (Berlin and
Ne,v York, 1 9 9 1 ), pp. 202-72 · Hamilton Clioes (the most S)'Stematic if rather ceptical discussion of
the sources)· A. Bowie, A-,istopl1anes: 1'1 l)1tl1 Rilual atid Co11zcd)1 (Cambridge 1 993), pp. 3 5-9 1 4 7-50
and 'Religion and Politics in Aeschylus' Oresleia' CQ 43 ( 1 993), 1 0-3 1 esp. 22-4.
56. Trumpet: Graf K 245 · P. Krentz 'The alpi11.t in Greek \X/arfare in Hanson Hoplites
pp. 1 1 0-20.
57. Cf. Graf K 28 (,",reaths libations)· A. Henrichs 'The Eumenides and \X/ineless Libations in
the Der,,eni Papyrus Atli X VI! Co11gr. J1zl. Papir. II ( aples 1 984), 2 55-68.
58. \X/hereas Burkert in his Ho,110 11eca11s overvalues sacrifice, painting it aJ,,,ay in dark colours
sacritice is virtually absent in Graf s ordio11iscl1e Kulle. In m)' vie\v sacrifice is an important element
in determining the nature of Greek rituals but usually not as sombre as Burkert suggests.
54 RITlAL

59. Sad or glad e\ ents \Vere often remembered on ominous or felicitous da)'S, cf. A. Grafton and
1

. S\vcrdlo\v, 'Calendar Dates and Ominou Da) S in Ancient Historiography , J. \,Ylarburg a11d
1

C<Jurtaz,ld Iris£. 5 1 ( 1 988), 1 4-42· A. Chianotis Gedenktage der Griechen' in J. Assmann (ed), Das
Fest und das I leilige (Gutersloh 1 9 9 1 ), pp. 1 23-45.
60. R. Buxton ...S'oplzocles (Oxford 1 984) 1 p. 4· al. �1ax. 9.8 (Anacreon). Aclza111iarzs: . Fisher,
' � \L1ltiplc Personalities and Dionysiac Festi,,als: Dicaeopolis i11 Aristophanes' Acl1a1·n ia11s' G & R 40
(1 993), 3 1 -47. 1\1\isanthropc: Plut. A11£. 70.
6 1 . Cl1oes: Hamilton, Cl1oes pp. 63- 1 2 1 . K ares/ Keres: Bremmer 011 I pp. 1 1 3- 18.
62. CcJ11tra \lersncl, lncorzsisterzcies 2 pp. l l 6 f (cf Bremmer/ Horsfall, Ro11ian J\1 lyLl1, pp. 86f),
although his obscr\1 ations on festi\1al of re\rersal are of great interest (pp. 1 1 5-2 1 ).
63. Thorikos: ...5EG 3 3 . 1 4 7 , cf. R. J)arkcr Festivals of the Attic Demes in Linders/ ordquist, G1fLS
1
,

lo Llze (,(Jds pp. 1 3 7-4 7, esp. 1 42· A. Henrichs ' Between Country and City: Cul tic Dimensions of
Dion)'SUS in Athens and Attica in 1\t\. Griffith and D. Mastronarde (eds) Cabinet of tlze 1\ tfilses (Atlanta
1
,

1 990), pp. 2 5 7-77, esp. 262f

64. As is persuasive!)' argued b)' Hamilton Cl1oes pp. 5 5 f. In any case, Burkert, Ho1no neca11s,
p. 235 mistakenly suggests that Aristotle speaks of a sexual act cf. P. J. Rhodes, A Co11zrrzenla1)1 on £lie
i1 1isL<JtelicLn A Llzenaio,z f)oliteia (Oxford 1 9 8 1 ) pp. 104f. In general: A. A vagianou, acred Ma111·age i11
tl1e R iti,als of Greek Religior1 (Berne 1 991 )· J anko, Coni1nenta1)', p. 1 7 1 .
65. Choruses: Hamilton, Clzoes pp. 38-42. Phallus: Co111. A11l. Frag,,z. III 398f no. 7 Kock; Dio Chr.
3 3.63.
66. E. Poch mar ki L/1 \1/ C III. l ( 1 986) s.v. Erigone I; D. Gondicas LIM C \ . l ( 1 990) s.\,. lkarios I.
6 7. See respecti, ely, J )ossis FGr/-1 480 F 1 ; Diog. Laert. 4.8· Philodemus De pielale 806-8 865-9
1

Obbink (Epicurus: to be added to the sources in Hamilton, Clioes)· Call. fr. 1 78.
68. / Ja gra1Ldc fesla: \lcrsnel, lnco11sisLe1zcies 2, pp. l 27f. S)rnoikia: Graf K, 1 6 7 · Hornblo\;v er, Cor11-
1nenta1)1, p. 265. Skira: Burkert Ho11zo neca11s pp. 1 43-9.
69. Thuc),dides: 2 . 1 4.4 1 but see Hornblo\ver, Conzr12enlar)1 pp. 266f. ames: ]. Sarkady A Problem
in the H istor)' of · the Greek Calendar (The Date of tl1e Origin of the 1\t \onths' ames)' Acla Class.
J)ebrecen 2 1 ( 1 985) 3- 1 7 · Burkert ' Athenian Cults and Festivals' Carribr. A11c. Hist. I V2 (Cambridge,
1 988), pp. 245-67.