1 Early versions of this paper were presented in English at the University of California, Santa Barbara in 2016, at Yale University in 2019, and at the conference “Built Ritual Space” at the University of Kiel in 2021; in modern Greek at the University of Crete in 2021. The paper in its current form profited enormously from the exchanges I had with the audiences in Santa Barbara, New Haven, Kiel, and Rethymnon. Special thanks will have to go to Bernhard Blattmann, Dimitris Bosnakis, Jan-Henrik Hartung, Pavlina Karanastasi, Philipp Kobusch, Vasileios Marinis, Mark Meadow, and Claudia Moser who discussed with me various aspects of this paper. I am deeply grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments.

2 Transl. S. Mitchell, New York, Random House, 1983, p. 47.

3 Holl 2012, p. 7.

4 See, for example, Kabourakis 2003.

5 This approach can be observed both in older and more established studies, such as Dinsmoor 1950; Coulton 1977; Gruben 2001 and in more recent and rather innovative ones, such as Barletta 2001; Senseney 2011; Wilson Jones 2014; Pierattini 2022.

6 See, for example, Butler, Purves 2013; Toner 2014; Bradley 2015; Squire 2016; Purves 2018; Rudolph 2018; Butler, Nooter 2019; Alvar Nuño et al. 2021. Hamilakis 2013 remains the only monographic publication that explore senses in antiquity from an almost exclusively archaeological and anthropological perspective.

7 See, for example, Emetit et al. 2015; Angliker, Bellia 2021; Emetit et al. 2022.

8 Naiden 2013. See, however, Detienne 2009, p. 69-74 who specifically addresses the sensorily unpleasant aspects of a sacrifice.

9 See, for example, Scully 1962; Emerson 2018.

10 The five lengthy contributions in Angliker, Bellia 2021 are a good example of how scholarship has focused on the rather positive aspects of possible sensorial experiences in Greek sanctuaries. See, however, also Perrot 2022 who discusses kokophônia but without any emphasis placed on a ritual context. It comes as no surprise that ancient Greeks and Romans considered the music of Others noise, as Vendries 2022 demonstrates. Perrot 2015 offers an excellent overview on ancient sound experience and stresses – among other things – the importance of the specific characteristics of a (sacred) locality in the sensory processes.

11 Grand-Clément 2018 discusses, for example, how nectar and ambrosia were those aromatic substances that, especially in the Homeric poems, defined the sensorial experience of the divine and differentiated it from anything human.

12 Crosby 1949; Thompson 1952; Travlos 1971, p. 458-461 (Travlos prefers the more accurate term “peribolos of the Twelve Gods”); Gadbery 1992. On the cult of the Twelve Gods in the Greek world, see, in general, Georgoudi 1996 and 1998.

13 On the more pleasant olfactory aspects of a sacrifice, see Prost 2008, p. 99, Mehl 2015, and Mehl 2021. Vergara Cerqueira 2021 focuses on the omnipresence of the sound of the aulos and the salpinx in Olympia during sacrifices and other ritual performances and especially athletic competitions, but does not discusses the noise pandemonium a visitor to Olympia must have experienced in particular during the games.

14 On the ways pottery workshops were integrated in the fabric of ancient Greek cities, sanctuaries, and cemeteries, see Hasaki 2002, p. 285-295.

15 Hasaki 2002, p. 102-108; Tsatsaki 2014, p. 297.

16 Camp 1990, p. 97, fig. 53.

17 Krauter 2004, p. 53-113.

18 Garland 1981.

19 Karatas 2020.

20 Theophrastos, Characters IV, 2-3 (ed. J. Rusten, Cambridge Mass., HUP, 2002).

21 Theophrastos, Characters XXVI, 5 (ed. J. Rusten, Cambridge Mass., HUP, 2002).

22 Aristophanes, Thesmophoriazousai 491-496 (ed. J. Henderson, Cambridge Mass., HUP, 2000). On Aristophanes and his use of (bad) smell as a means to mock people, see Telò 2013.

23 Parker 1983 remains the classic study on miasma. Chaniotis 1997a, p. 145-148 on bodily cleanliness in a ritual context.

24 Dillon 1997, p. 126 with fn. 123.

25 Lukian, Alexander the false prophet 39 (ed. A.M. Harmon, Cambridge Mass., HUP, 2006).

26 Pausanias, I, 3, 1-17, 1 (ed. W.H.S. Jones, H.A. Ormestod, Cambridge Mass., HUP, 1926).

27 Plato, Leges X, 909E-910A (ed. R.G. Bury, Cambridge Mass., HUP, 1926).

28 Detienne 2009, p. 76-82. A sacred regulation from Cyrene prescribes clearly that the person who performs a sacrifice will have to remove the residue of grease and the ash from the altar and wash it, CGRN 99, lines A27-29 (325-300 BCE). However, a significant detail is provided in line 26: the regulation applies only when someone sacrifices an animal that is not customary to offer. A further reference to the removal of grease residue after the completion of a sacrifice is also found in a sacred regulation from Kos, CGRN 148, lines B58-61 (240 BCE). It is unclear, however, whether this text refers to a regulation applicable to the sacrifice of an uncustomary animal or to a more general expectation to clean the altar after every sacrifice. On archaeological evidence related to the disposal of burnt bones and sacrificial residue in general, see Ekroth 2017, p. 37-41.

29 Kyrieleis 2002. More general on ash and bones being transformed into altars, see Ekroth 2017, p. 41-43.

30 Pausanias, V, 13, 8-11 (ed. W.H.S. Jones, H.A. Ormestod, Cambridge Mass., HUP, 1926).

31 Ibid. V, 14, 2.

32 Most relevant studies have been focusing almost exclusively on viewing as a non-active form of ritual participation and the visual aspects of Greek religion, see, for example, Mylonopoulos 2006, p. 92-103 and 2015, p. 334-343. However, a more holistic approach should be employed.

33 For altars inside Hellenistic temples, see most recently Kobusch 2022, p. 73-77.

34 Pausanias, I, 26, 5 (ed. W.H.S. Jones, H.A. Ormestod, Cambridge Mass., HUP, 1926).

35 Ibid., X, 24, 4.

36 Ekroth 2021 argues that the animal sacrifice and the burning of the meat parts for the gods took place outside, while the interior of the so-called hearth temples was used for the preparation and consumption of communal meals, perhaps also for some sort of theoxenia rituals. Even if this hypothesis were accurate, the smell from the preparation of the ritual common meals would have filled the interior of the small Cretan temple structures.

37 Gill 1991. On the olfactory aspects of incense inside a temple, see Prost 2008, p. 100.

38 Gill 1991, p. 15-19.

39 Pentcheva 2018. See also the far more detailed analysis of the acoustical properties of the Acheiropoietos Basilica and the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia in Thessaloniki in Gerstel et al. 2018.

40 Pallasmaa 2012, p. 55. See also Pentcheva 2021.

41 Scheer 2001, p. 45-46.

42 Graf 1996, p. 77.

43 Seneca, Epistulae morales XLI, 1 (ed. R.M. Gummere, Cambridge Mass., HUP, 1917).

44 Dion Chrysostomos, VIII, 9-10 (ed. J.W. Cohoon, Cambridge Mass., HUP, 1932).

45 Kobusch 2022 is a thorough discussion of the interior of Hellenistic temples. The author, however, does not incorporate the dedications kept in temples’ interiors in his approach.

46 Athens (Acropolis): Harris 1995; Delos: Hamilton 2000.

47 Pausanias, II, 14, 4 (ed. W.H.S. Jones, H.A. Ormestod, Cambridge Mass., HUP 1926).

48 Euripides, Ion 184-218 (ed. D. Kovacs, H.A. Ormestod, Cambridge Mass., HUP, 1999).

49 Prost 2008, p. 100-102; Brøns 2017, p. 169-266; Grand-Clément 2017; Hölscher 2017, p. 117-142. Prêtre 2021 is more focused on touching and healing in the sanctuary of Asklepios in Epidauros and explores the inversion of directionality in the act of touching with the god being the active part.

50 Scheer 2000, p. 75-77; Hölscher 2017, p. 171-175.

51 Cicero, In Verrem II, 4, 94 (ed. L.H.G. Greenwood, H.A. Ormestod, Cambridge Mass., HUP, 1935).

52 Aelian, Varia Historia IX, 39 (ed. N.G. Wilson, Cambridge Mass., HUP, 1997).

53 Zanker 2003, p. 48-49.

54 Scobie, Taylor 1975; Corso 1999, p. 101-104; Però 2012, p. 100-111.

55 Pseudo-Lukian, Amores 13-16 (ed. M.D. MacLeod, Cambridge Mass., HUP, 1967).

56 Winter 2006, p. 31-32.

57 Mylonopoulos 2011a, p. 281-288.

58 Pallasmaa 2012, p. 43.

59 See, in general, Berthoz 2000.

60 Mylonopoulos 2011b, p. 46-48. Focusing on the so-called Egyptian cults and more specifically that of Isis, Beaurin 2021, understands processions as a multisensorial experience as well.

61 Pausanias, V, 13-15 (ed. W.H.S. Jones, H.A. Ormestod, Cambridge Mass., HUP, 1926).

62 Mylonopoulos 2006, p. 106-108 and 2011b p. 57-59.

63 Arbib 2021, p. 210; Bernstein 2021. Chris Downey’s inspiring website can be visited at http://arch4blind.com/.

64 There is a difference between simply “looking at” and visually “studying” an object, which cannot be discussed here. Neither can I go into issues related to how object knowledge influences perception or whether the so-called visual intelligence might affect the ways one looks at and studies objects. On these issues, see, in general, Mather 2014, esp. chapters 2, 5, and 6.

65 Euripides, Ion 184-218 (ed. D. Kovacs, H.A. Ormestod, Cambridge Mass., HUP, 1999).

66 Pausanias, V, 12, 4 (ed. W.H.S. Jones, H.A. Ormestod, Cambridge Mass., HUP, 1926).

67 Clermont Ganneau 1878, p. 80-81.

68 On epiphany, see Platt 2011; Petridou 2015. On the ways motion can affect the experience of architecture in antiquity, see Dromain, Dubernet 2021.

69 Chaniotis 1997b. Chaniotis discusses in general theatricality in public life during the Hellenistic period, but offers in p. 222-224 an intriguing definition of the term that is applied here “the effort to gain control over the emotions and the thoughts of others, to provoke specific reactions, such as, sorrow, pity, anger, fear, admiration, or respect.”

70 Hennemeyer 2011, p. 102-104.

71 Mylonopoulos 2011a, p. 275.

72 Mylonopoulos 2019, p. 235-237, 259-260.

73 Marconi 2009, p. 170-173. Marconi emphasizes the dual function of the frieze as a votive relief, mnêma and agalma. However, for a mnêma to serve adequately as a means of commemoration of the dedicator, it has to be seen.

74 See, for example, Oliver 2007. Strikingly enough, there is no in-depth study of the use and concrete (contextualized) meaning of the term epiphanestatos topos.

75 Korres 2004.

76 See the summary discussions of the fours friezes in Knell 1998, p. 95-126 (Parthenon), p. 127-139 (Hephaisteion), p. 150-159 (Bassai); Leventi 2009 (Sounion). Trianti 1998, p. 31-32 with fig. 50-52 suggested that already the so-called Old Temple on the Athenian Acropolis was decorated with an Ionic frieze, a hypothesis that has been challenged and cannot be discussed here. The possible influence of the Archaic temple of Athena at Assos in Asia Minor with its frieze right above the outer Doric columns on this Athenian ‘experiment’ cannot be discussed here either; on the temple in Assos, see Wescoat 2012.

77 Fehr 2011, p. 13.

78 Osborne 1987, p. 99 addresses this idea very briefly but without really expanding on it: “to a certain extent this can be seen to transform the Ionic continuous frieze into a Doric discontinuous frieze of metopes.”

79 A recent study of the West frieze of the Parthenon (Bouzakis et al. 2016) has shown that mathematically estimated optical refinements were employed in the rendering of the human figures in order to avoid optical illusions due to perspective distortions. Thus the frieze was from its inception meant to be seen and the viewers’ reactions were taken into consideration.

80 The vividness of the ever-changing metopes created in the mind of the viewer was certainly heightened through the use of color.

81 Meadow 1992, p. 197-200.

82 Ibid., p. 197.

83 Aelian, Varia Historia XIV, 18 (ed. N.G. Wilson, Cambridge Mass., HUP, 1997).

84 Voss 2004.

85 Höland 2010, p. 85.

86 Polybios, XV, 29, 8-14 (ed. W.R. Paton, Cambridge Mass., HUP, 2011).