Rules of the Game. Individual Donations in relation to the Cult Image during the Hellenistic Period

Dirk Steuernagel

p. 77-97


Texte intégral

Introduction

1Discussions about the developments of Greek religion between the Late Classical and the Hellenistic Age have revealed an apparently self-contradictory change, concerning the relationship between worshippers and gods. On the one hand, language and wording of Hellenistic votive inscriptions seem to reflect a rather personal and emotional way of addressing the divinity, and at the same time the gods often seem to become apparent to their worshippers directly, for example by epiphany and in dreams1. On the other hand, visual representations of Hellenistic gods show them somewhat dissociated from men. This process had its starting point already in the IVth century B.C. On votive reliefs of this period from Attica, we see divinities clearly distinguished from men by position and scale (fig. 1)2. Still, both are acting on the same level, within the same architectural frame and are interrelated by rituals of prayer and sacrifice, in which the deity takes active part through the gesture of libation. Other reliefs, mostly of later date, disjoin deities and worshippers more neatly. A votive stele from Northwestern Asia Minor may serve as an example. In the upper field of this stele appears the Mother Goddess, sitting on her throne flanked by lions. Separated from her image, in the lower field is represented a group of worshippers, approaching an altar with hands raised for prayer (fig. 2)3.

2Among the most interesting visual perceptions of spatial relationship between men and divinities is another well-known votive-relief, from the Asklepieion at Athens, already of mid or late IVth century-date (fig. 3)4. One goddess, Epione, is sitting on a stool while Asklepios and Hygieia are standing behind her. They are all enclosed by a small naiskos which is shaped as a three-dimensional architectural element at the left end of the sculptural work. This building is clearly conceived as the gods’ space proper, even though Epione’s figure is represented in front of the column which marks the front of the naiskos. Furthermore, the gods’ space is distinguished from that of the worshippers, who appear within the frame of a stoa-like structure in much lower relief on the right5.

3Even the divine images, which served as objects of cult in ancient Greek religion, often appeared isolated from men by means of their location within “real” temples. Nevertheless, a whole series of more recent studies has refuted the former communis opinio, according to which temples were reserved for the cult images alone, thus would have been generally inaccessible or accessible only for a limited circle of priests and cult servants6. From an archaeological point of view, it is precisely the existence of barriers within temple cellas, arranged in front of or around the cult image, which suggests a widespread accessibility of temples, in social as well as in temporal terms. Obviously, those barriers were designed to limit the radius of action of frequent visitors. Hence, it must have been a common practice to enter the temple, to pray or make an offering before the god’s image.

4As Torsten Mattern and Joannis Mylonopoulos have recently demonstrated, barriers of the above mentioned type existed already within temples and naiskoi of Classical and even Archaic age7. In Late Classical and Hellenistic times, however, a new concept of proportions and spatial array of cult images and, moreover, a somewhat more diversified accessibility of temple interiors seem to emerge.

5A large proportion of Hellenistic cult images were of impressive dimensions, particularly when seen in relation to the rather small sizes of temple buildings8. Statues like the Zeus Sosipolis at Magnesia (fig. 4)9 seem to generalize an effect that probably was experienced for the first time in confrontation with the Zeus of Phidias at Olympia. Even if the Magnesian work is much smaller with regard to its absolute measures, it must have provoked almost the same impression as the one described by Strabo for the Olympian Zeus: that the enthroned god, if he decided to stand up, would unroof the temple10.

6Not only dimensions and proportions helped to stress the overwhelming, but in a certain way also distant divine presence in the guise of the god’s image. The position within the temple was another crucial factor. Many Hellenistic cult images, like the one at Magnesia, were placed in the rear part of the cella; the bases were often set immediately against the cella’s back wall. Consequently, the statues were calculated to be seen only from the front; visitors could look at, but not walk around the image. Thus, the relatively small temples appeared like mere show-cases for the colossal sculptures11.

7Accessibility of the cult image in an architectural context of that kind often was graduated, i. e. regulated by a sequence of different barriers. A famous example for such an arrangement is the temple of Despoina at Lykosoura in Arcadia (fig. 5). The double door was without doubt the strongest barrier; the rails for its inwardly opening valves are still clearly to be seen on the pavement. Yet, even when the door stood open, most people probably were not able to approach the image beyond the limit of the threshold: other rails and sockets, sunken into the pronaos pavement, betray the existence of railings in front of the door that could be opened outwards. The third and last barrier was a fence immediately in front of the high base of the cult images12.

8The functions that such multiple, pluriform barriers had to fulfill become clearer when we take into consideration two literary sources of the IInd century A.D. One is Pausanias, who mentions that the virgin priestess of Aphrodite at Sikyon was the only person allowed to enter the temple. “All others”, he continues, “are wont to behold the goddess from the entrance, and to pray from that place13”. We may imagine thus that ordinary visitors to the temple were able to see the statue from the pronaos, at least when the cella-door stood open, through a transparent grid or across a low gate installed in correspondence to the threshold. Similar provisions could be made also for temporarily restricting accessibility, as the other quotation, from Aelius Aristides’ Hieroi logoi, proves. Aristides describes a visit to the temple of Asklepios at Pergamon, at a time of day, when the temple was closed. Nevertheless, there was some kind of entrance to the temple through which its interior remained visible, since Aristides looked inside and saw the agalma, as he himself states14. Hence, eye contact with the divinity, individual prayers and offers in view of the god’s images were possible at all times.

9In sum, spatial dispositions as well as specific installations of Hellenistic temples seem to provide evidence that on the one hand the religious authorities made efforts to regulate visibility and access to the cult image whereas on the other hand a majority of visitors wished to get as near as possible to the divine images. One feels to detect an underlying, fundamental conflict: the conflict between individual needs for closeness – closeness to the god, in the guise of his image – and the collective practice and control of religion in Greek society. This preliminary observation may serve as a starting point for further investigation, by which I will finally arrive at my proper issue: the placing of votive donations within the temples, in relation to the cult image.

Placing individual votive donations

10Highly informative for our knowledge and understanding of the Hellenistic votive practice are the temple inventories from sanctuaries at Athens, Delos, Didyma and some other places. The inscriptions regarding the Asklepieion at Athens have been studied in an exemplary way by Sara Aleshire. From her book I have taken the reconstruction drawing (fig. 6), which tries to convey an idea of how the temple’s interior looked like during the IIIrd century B.C. Not so much as reconstructions of ancient temples by modern scholars in the field of architectural history, but like “the most jumbled and crowded antique store or museum storeroom that most of us can imagine15”. Quite certainly, the temple was even more crowded than the drawing suggests. The inventory, on which it is based, is fragmentary; still there are mentioned at least three hundred items of gold and silver on display, though the list passes over objects of less precious materials16.

11The aforementioned inventory, dated by Aleshire to the year 274/73 B.C.17, is exceptional since it includes a rather complete register (ἐξετασμός), arranged in a topical fashion18. Thus, it gives indications for the placement of the single items within the temple. Most objects are registered according to their locations19: first come the objects attached to the cult statue itself, second those fixed to the rear wall of the cella, then donations fastened to the ceiling beams, thereafter the ones on the side walls, and finally those on the entrance wall. From the sequence of the inventory no strict principles of ordering can be deduced. There might have been preferred locations for certain classes of ex-voto (for example, small silver-reliefs, so called typoi, on the left wall). Other objects are grouped according to their dedications under the patronages of certain priests. The order of the inventory assumes, by and large, the point of view of a visitor to the temple. Thus, a wall is designated as “on the right, for the one who enters the temple20”. Nevertheless, the rear wall and the dedications stored there are labeled in a different way: “On the wall, where the god is”, πρὸς τῶι τοίχωι οὗ θεό[ς]21. Obviously, the cult statue stood in front of the rear wall. Occasionally other objects are also located in relation to the divine image: for example, the position of one silver relief (typos) is described as being placed “to the right of the god”, ]ν δέξια τοῦ θεοῦ22. The fact betrays, I suppose, a certain kind of hierarchy: ornaments fixed directly to the cult statue, listed at the beginning of the inventory, probably were considered the most privileged dedications23, followed by those placed in immediate vicinity to the god.

12A couple of entries in the Delian inventories seem to support this hypothesis: They mention objects placed upon fences or railings, that is in front of the cult images of Artemis and Isis in their respective temples24. The dedicators may well have wished that their votive offerings were placed in sight of the respective goddesses.

13But why was it important to have one’s dedication attached to or placed near the cult statue, in the innermost part of the temple? A general motivation might have been that thus the effect of the ex-voto would be strengthened and the communication with the divine sphere intensified. Such ideas are relatively well attested for Roman imperial times. Authors of the Ist and IInd century A.D. frequently mention the wish to approach, touch or kiss venerated images of gods; somehow related seems the custom of fixing tablets, inscribed with prayers, wreaths, and curls of hair to the statues25. My purpose is to investigate the prehistory of these concepts and the communicative functions of individual dedications in their relation to the public.

14Firstly, I will deal with dressing and adorning of the cult image. It is a practice well known already for the earlier days of Greek civilization. Then garments and jewellery for the deities were usually collective donations. Suffice it to recall the peplos of Athena Polias at Athens26. Handing over such a precious robe was a priestly duty. Accordingly, the Ilias tells us that it was Theano, the Trojan priestess of Athena, who placed a peplos, that had been brought by Hekabe and a group of Trojan women, upon the knees of the goddess27.

15With regards to the Hellenistic age, the Delian inventories register some elements of wardrobe without indicating though whether they served for the clothing of the cult statues. Only for the marble statue of Aphrodite that was located in the small temple donated by Stesileos the case is clear: the image had golden earrings weighing two Drachmas, dedicated by a certain Demetria (ἀνάθεμα Δημητρίας)28. A similar practice of adorning cult images can be illustrated from the archaeological record: some Hellenistic marble sculptures, examples coming from sanctuaries at Messene and Rome (fig. 7), have their ear lobes pierced so that pieces of jewellery could be attached29.

16But let’s return for a moment to Delos and Demetria: the woman is otherwise unknown. She could have served as a priestess to Aphrodite, since her dedication was substituted, shortly before 156 B.C., by gilded silver earrings donated by an ex-priestess, Pleistarche. The earrings of Demetria were stored under the supervision of the priestess currently in charge30. Perhaps the adornment of the cult statue from one’s own resources was among the goods and services which, according to a practice common since the IVth century B.C., were expected from persons who assumed a priestly office31. But that does not necessarily mean that it was considered only an annoying duty. On the contrary, it could be performed as an act of personal devotion. This may be demonstrated by the case of Aischylis, who served as a hydrophoros to Artemis at Didyma in 271/70 B.C. She decorated the goddess’statue with a golden flower (ὑπομηλὶς χρυσῆ), such as also other hydrophorai did. Nevertheless, it is explicitly – and exceptionally – mentioned in the temple inventory that Aischylis herself had fixed the ornament to the statue: “αὕτη προσεκοσμήθη πρὸς τὸ ἄγαλμα32”. I therefore presume that she made her priestly obligation a personal concern. The fulfillment of official duties offered her an occasion to encounter the divinity not only in her role as a prominent member of a cult community, but as a distinguished individual within the same community. Moreover, the dedicated object helped to commemorate Aischylis’ personal gesture for posterity.

17To the same context of highly individualised and somewhat privileged donations belong votive portraits, be they paintings or statues. These, from the IVth century B.C. onwards, were set up in increasing number inside the temple buildings. One quite famous example for the late IVth century is the pinax, which Habron dedicated as a descendant of the Eteoboutades-family in the Erechtheion at Athens. It depicted the handing over of the hereditary priestly office of Poseidon from generation to generation between members of that family33. While this painting is known only through the literary record, archaeological evidence from the Hellenistic period has survived in larger numbers. The statue of Aristonoe from the smaller temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous (fig. 8) is but one relatively early example. It is not sure, however, whether this statue was placed originally within the building or outside, at least for a certain amount of time34. A highly interesting combination of epigraphic and archaeological information exists for the late Hellenistic or early Imperial statue of a young girl named Mego found within the House of Artemis Ortheia at the Asklepieion of Messene. It was placed on a base immediately to the left of the cult statue. Mego’s image was dedicated by her parents, Damonikos and Timarchis, both holders of priestly offices. Thus they recalled the girl’s most prominent ritual performances, for example her carrying the bretas, i. e. a small-scale, transportable image of Artemis35. The very act, which gave occasion for personal contact with the goddess through her image, was represented probably also by the votive portrait. At least, Petros Themelis seems to be convinced that the fragment of a left arm with a divine idol is part of Mego’s portrait statue.

18We may presume that a priestess could gain the privilege of having her image set up next to that of the divinity by generously carrying out her duties. A case in point is the decree for Satyra, a priestess of the Thesmophoroi at Athens during the early decades of the IInd century B. C. She had made contributions to the furnishing of the sanctuary beyond her obligations – by restoring the temple of Demeter and Kore, for example. Hence her native district, the Demos of Melite, allowed Satyra to hang up her portrait on pinax in the very temple (δοῦναι δὲ αὐτῆι καὶ εἰκόνος ]νάθεσιν ἐν πίνακι), as other priestesses had been allowed to do before36.

19But certainly it was not only the priestesses and priests who wanted their portraits to be put up in immediate vicinity of the cult image. Thus an honorary inscription from the IInd century B. C., by the people of Tanagra to a Macedonian governor, Balakros, was found within the temple of Artemis at Aulis37, as were portrait statues of Hellenistic and Roman Imperial date38.

20Not political ambition, but demonstration of traditional family values seems, at a first glance, to have motivated another portrait dedication in the interior of a temple: from the pronaos of the Demeter-temple at Pergamon comes an inscribed statue base for a certain Philotera, a rich benefactress of the IInd to Ist centuries B. C., attested also by inscriptions from other finding-spots at Pergamon. As far as we know, however, Philotera was no priestess of Demeter, nor does the inscription make any specific reference to the cult. Instead, the dedicators – the sons of Philotera – praise her motherly affection ([φιλ]οστοργίας ἕνεκεν τῆς εἰς ἑαυτούς). The statue served then as a monument to the personal and emotional bonds within the family39. Interestingly enough, another statue base, that was discovered not far away from the temple proper, was dedicated by the people of Pergamon to Philotera, honouring in this way her πρός τε θεοὺς εὐσέβειαν and, again, her πρὸς τὰτέκνα φιλοστοργίαν. Thus, everything seems to interlock and fit perfectly: “private” virtues and euergetism, their public recognition and exploitation for self representation, votive statues within and honorary statues without the temple.

21Private piety and public commemoration appear inseparably intermingled also in the endowment of a woman named Agasigratis. This lady gave funds to the sanctuary of Poseidon at Kalaureia in the IIIrd century B.C., so that a bull could be sacrificed every three years in memory of her husband and herself. During the performance of these rituals, the cult community was obliged to erect a portrait statue of Agasigrate within the temple and to decorate it “as nice as possible” with a wreath (στεφανοῦν ὡς ὅτι χαριέστατα)40. The latter practice, known also from other inscriptions, obviously aimed at almost equating cult images and honorific or votive statues41.

22People less rich than Philotera and Agasigratis may have adopted other strategies to approach visually the divinity. Among the dedications mentioned in the Athenian and Delian inventories there are hundreds of pinakes eikonikoi, small silver reliefs with representations of the dedicators. Only few of them are known through the archaeological record, since the greatest part has been molten down, certainly already in antiquity42.

23The example illustrated here comes from a sanctuary of Demeter at Mesembria, in Thrace; it shows a highly standardized representation of a group performing gestures of prayer in front of the enthroned goddess (fig. 9)43. It is not by chance, I think, that this pinakion so closely resembles iconographic types and schemes of votive reliefs made of stone from the IVth century B.C. (cf. fig. 1). Following a current hypothesis, the production of such stone reliefs ceased at Athens as a collateral effect to the suppression of lavish tomb monuments under Demetrius of Phaleron in the late IVth century44. But perhaps we can also hypothesize that the small silver reliefs replaced the stone reliefs precisely because their small size and comparatively high material value guaranteed a placement inside the temple itself and thus in immediate vicinity to the cult image. That this may have been the main intention of the dedicators can be deduced from an inscription of the IInd century B.C. It gives an enumeration of duties which Asklepios’priest at Athens had to obey: among these there is one entry, stating that the priest had to prevent the cult-statue from being covered by portrait tablets45.

*

24Resuming my short outline of the Hellenistic votive practice, two major motivations for placing a dedicated object within the temple become apparent, which, however, seem rather closely interrelated.

25Many dedicators demonstrate a need for closeness to the divinity, which can be interpreted as one possible answer to the somewhat problematic dissociation between human and divine sphere that the Late Classical and Hellenistic votive reliefs seem to attest. The dedicators use the cult image as a medium to bridge the divide, and the votive object as an instrument to keep in touch with that medium.

26Others seem to care more for the effect the dedication would have on the public, which means: on the visitors of the temple. With regards to individual votive portraits, for example, the interior of a temple, be it cella or pronaos, was classed among the most prominent sites, the ἐπιφανεστάτοι τόποι. Obviously enough, this assumption proves true only on condition that many people felt the desire to enter the temple building and to see the cult image. Thus we are referred back to the first proposition.

27Common to both phenomena is the emphasis which is often given to the personal character of the donation. The dedicators are anxious to be recognizable as individuals – in confrontation with the deities, but also in respect of the public. This effort is strongest with incumbents of important cult offices and other members of the civic elites. They clearly tried to use dedications as a tool for self-representation and self-promotion in the context of the “régime des notables” (as it was baptized by Paul Veyne)46. Vice versa, a high position in the hierarchies of social life and cult community apparently made communication with the divine sphere easier. But at the same time we have noticed that all these individualistic efforts were still subject to a collective control47. The priestly boards and political institutions of the Hellenistic poleis supervised the placement of votive objects and defined the rules of the game: through material barriers as well as written regulations.

Figures

Image 100000000000034A0000026DCFF05D07.jpg

Figure 1. – Relief Athens, National Museum 1431. Photo D-DAI-ATH-NM 6329.

Image 1000000000000298000003BAB6C96E96.jpg

Figure 2. – Relief Istanbul, Archaeological Museum 676. Photo D-DAI-IST-R7726.

Image 10000000000003A000000267B459A5CF.jpg

Figure 3. – Relief Athens, National Museum 1377; Photo D-DAI-ATH-NM 6248.

Image 100000000000041D0000024FEF2B887E.jpg

Figure 4. – Reconstructed Section of Temple of Zeus Sosipolis, after Carl Humann, Magnesia am Maender. Bericht über die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen der Jahre 1891-1893, Berlin, Reimer, 1904, fig. 165.

Image 10000000000002690000040BA9D5BA10.jpg

Figure 5. – Ground Plan of Temple of Despoina, after V. Leonardos, “Ἀνασκαφαὶ τοῦ ἐν Λυκοσούρα Ἱεροῦ Δεσποίνης”, in Πρακτικὰτῆς ἐν Ἀθη̃ναις Ἀρχαιολογικὴ Ἑταιρείας, Ἀθη̃ναι, 1896 [1897], pl. 2.

Image 1000000000000294000002D39BC41BBB.jpg

Figure 6. – Reconstruction of the Temple of Asklepios, after S. B. Aleshire, Asklepios at Athens. Epigraphic and Prosopographic Essays on the Athenian Healing Cults, Amsterdam, Gieben, 1991, pl. 11.

Image 1000000000000297000003C7159D2602.jpg

Figure 7. – Head of Statue of Fortuna Huiusce Dei, Rome, Musei Capitolini, Centrale di Montemartini, II 66, 2779-2782; Photo D-DAI-Rom 2000.0034.

Image 100000000000019400000420ED6AD20B.jpg

Figure 8. – Statue of Aristonoe from Rhamnous, Athens, National Museum 232; Photo: D-DAI-ATH NM 5211.

Image 10000000000003F4000002332F3E5157.jpg

Figure 9. – Votive Tablet from Mesembria, after Treasures of Ancient Macedonia. Archaeological Miseum of Thessalonike (ed. Kate Ninou), Athens Archaeological Receipts Fund (T.A. Π.) [ca. 1978], pl. 60.

Notes de bas de page

1 See, for example, Angelos Chaniotis, “Religion und Mythos”, in Gregor Weber (ed.), Kulturgeschichte des Hellenismus, Stuttgart, Klett-Cotta, 2007, p. 139-157; on the language of votive inscriptions Maria Letizia Lazzarini, “Iscrizioni votive greche”, Scienze dell’Antichità 3-4, Roma, 1989-1990, p. 845-859, part. p. 858-859.

2 Votive-Relief dedicated by Aristarche (IG II24618) to Zeus Meilichios, from Piraeus, mid-IVth century B.C.: Athens, National Mus. 1431; Eugenia Vikela, Die Weihreliefs aus dem Athener Pankrates-Heiligtum am Ilissos, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Athen, Beiheft 16, Berlin, Mann, 1994, p. 73 n. 128 pl. 35, 1; Nikolaos Kaltsas, Sculpture in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens, Athens, Kapon, 2002, p. 213 n° 435.

3 Votive-relief for Meter Tolypiané, from Doğruca (near Bandırma), Ist century B. C.: Istanbul, Archaeological Mus. 676; Johannes H. Mordtmann, “Zur Epigraphik von Kyzikos”, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Athen 10, Athen, 1885, p. 200-211, part. p. 203-204 n° 29 (IMT Kyzikene Lacus Dascylitis n° 2019); Friederike Naumann, Die Ikonographie der Kybele in der phrygischen und in der griechischen Kunst, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Istanbul, Beiheft 28, Tübingen, Wasmuth, 1983, p. 254. 363 n° 581 pl. 44, 1; Folkert T. van Straten, “Images of Gods and Men in a Changing Society. Self-Identity in Hellenistic Religion”, in Anthony W. Bulloch et al. (ed.) Images and Ideologies. Self-Definition in the Hellenistic World Berkeley-Los Angeles-London, University of California Press 1993, p. 248-264, part. p. 255 fig. 16.

4 Athens, National Mus. 1377: N. Kaltsas, op. cit., p. 215 n° 442; Iphigeneia Leventi, Hygieia in Classical Greek Art, Archaiognosia Suppl. 2, Athens, Kardamitsas, 2003, p. 143 R 37 pl. 27.

5 Whether this arrangement reflects a real topographical situation within the Athenian sanctuary is a matter of debate, see for example Gerhard Neumann, Probleme des griechischen Weihreliefs, Tübinger Studien zur Archäologie und Kunstgeschichte 3, Tübingen, Wasmuth, 1979, p. 51 pl. 29; Sara B. Aleshire, The Athenian Asklepieion. The People, their Dedications, and the Inventories, Amsterdam, Gieben, 1989, p. 25-26.

6 The former opinion for example in Joseph William Hewitt, “The Major Restrictions of Access to Greek Temples”, Transactions of the American Philological Association, 40, Lancaster, 1909, p. 83-92; Martin Nilsson, Griechische Religion I3, München, Beck, 1967, p. 75-76; contested, for example, by Peter E. Corbett, “Greek temples and Greek worshippers. The literary and archaeological evidence”, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, 17, London, 1970, p. 149-158; Stephanos Paliompeis, Studien zur Innenausstattung griechischer Tempel. Skulptur und Malerei, PhD Mainz 1996, p. 443-447; Joannis Mylonopoulos, “Divine images behind bars. The semantics of barriers in Greek Temples”, in Matthew Haysom, Jenny Wallensten (ed.), Current Approaches to Religion in Ancient Greece. Papers presented at a Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 17-19 April 2008, Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae 8°, 21, Stockholm, Svenska Institutet i Athen, 2011, p. 269-291, part. p. 270. 287-288. I am grateful to Joannis Mylonopoulos for sending me an offprint of his recently published article.

7 Torsten Mattern, “Griechische Kultbildschranken”, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Athen, 122, Berlin, 2007, p. 139-159; J. Mylonopoulos, loc. cit.

8 Hans-Peter Laubscher, Hellenistische Tempelkultbilder, PhD Heidelberg 1960, part. p. 149; Dimitris Damaskos, Untersuchungen zu hellenistischen Kultbildern, Stuttgart, Steiner, 1999, part. p. 202.

9 Berlin, Staatliche Mus. Sk 1927: H.-P. Laubscher, op. cit., p. 6-9; D. Damaskos, op. cit., p. 179-185.

10 Strabo VIII 3, 30 (p. 354 C).

11 Hans-Ulrich Cain, “Hellenistische Kultbilder. Religiöse Präsenz und museale Repräsentation der Götter im Heiligtum und beim Fest”, in Michael Wörrle, Paul Zanker (ed.), Stadtbild und Bürgerbild im Hellenismus, Kolloquium München, 24. bis 26. Juni 1993, Vestigia 47, München, Beck, 1995, p. 115-130, part. p. 123-125; D. Damaskos, op. cit., p. 208-213; Cain’s concept of “museum-like presentation” has been questioned e. g. by T. Mattern, loc. cit., p. 156-157.

12 Vassilios Leonardos,Ἀνασκαφαὶ τοῦ ἐν Λυκοσούρα Ἱεροῦ Δεσποίνης”, in Πρακτικὰτῆς ἐν Ἀθη̃ναις ἈρχαιολογικὴἙταιρείας, Ἀθη̃ναι, 1896 [1897], p. 95-121, part. p. 108-109. 111; T. Mattern, loc. cit., p. 148-149, Marie-Françoise Billot, “Le temple de Despoina”, Ktema 33, Strasbourg, 2008, p. 135-180, part. p. 145-146; J. Mylonopoulos, loc. cit., p. 278. A similar arrangement, with a double barrier (door and grid or railings) between pronaos and cella is attested for the IInd century B.C.-temple on the theater’s terrace at Pergamon, see Richard Bohn, Die Theater-Terrasse, Altertümer von Pergamon IV, 1, Berlin, Spemann, 1896, p. 46-47; IV, 2, pl. 36.

13 Pausanias, II, 10, 4: τοῖς δὲ ἄλλοις κατὰ ταὐτὰ καὶ ὁρᾶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐσόδου τὴν θεὸν καὶ αὐτόθεν προσεύχεσθαι (English translation: W.H.S. Jones, D. Litt, H.A. Ormerod, Cambridge/Mass., Loeb, 1918).

14 Aristeides, Hieros logos 1 (=XLVII), 11 (… εἴσοδόν τέτινα λείπεσθαι καὶ τὰἔνδον ὁρᾶσθαι. προσῆλθόν τε δὴταῖς θύραις καὶ ὁρῶ ἄγαλμα…).

15 Sara B. Aleshire, Asklepios at Athens. Epigraphic and Prosopographic Essays on the Athenian Healing Cults, Amsterdam, Gieben, 1991, p. 46.

16 Ibid., 42.

17 S. B. Aleshire, The Athenian Asklepieion …, op. cit., p. 177 n° IV = IG II2 1534 A.

18 On the character of the inventory see S. B. Aleshire, The Athenian Asklepieion…, op. cit., p. 217-218. 220-223.

19 For this and the following aspects S. B. Aleshire, Asklepios at Athens…, op. cit., p. 43-45.

20 IG II2 1534 A. e. g. l. 77: δεξιᾶς εἰσιόντι.

21 Ibid. l. 133 (the same location is to be supplemented filled in the lacuna between ll. 32 and 53); cf. Eric Lucien Brulotte, The Placement of Votive Offerings and Dedications in the Peloponnesian Sanctuaries of Artemis, Ann Arbor, UMI Dissertation Services, 1994, vol. II, p. 263.

22 IG II2 1534 A. l. 145.

23 Cf. S. B. Aleshire, The Athenian Asklepieion …, op. cit., p. 224-225; E. L. Brulotte, op. cit., p. 283-284.

24 Felix Dürrbach, Pierre Roussel, Inscriptions de Délos. Actes des fonctionnaires athéniens préposés à l’administration des sanctuaires (nos. 1400-1479). Fragments d’actes divers (nos 1480-1496), Paris, Champion, 1935, n° 1417 B II l. 56-57; n° 1443 C II 1, l. 9-11 (inventories of the Artemision ἐν νήσωι); n° 1416 A I, l. 9; n° 1417 B I, l. 4; n° 1452 A, l. 9-10 (inventories of the Iseion).

25 See, for example, Dion Chrysostomos, Or. 12 (Olympian), 60: “on account of our belief in the divine all men have a strong yearning to honour and worship the deity from close at hand, approaching and laying hold of him with persuasion by offering sacrifice and crowning him with garlands” (English translation: J. W. Cohoon, Cambridge/Mass., Loeb 1939); cf. Hendrik S. Versnel, “Religious Mentality in Ancient Prayer”, in Hendrik. S. Versnel (ed.), Faith, Hope and Worship. Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World, Leiden, Brill, 1981, p. 1-64, part. p. 32-34; Michael Blech, Studien zum Kranz bei den Griechen, Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 38, Berlin-New York, De Gruyter, 1982, p. 270-271; Burkhard Gladigow, “Zur Ikonographie und Pragmatik römischer Kultbilder”, in Hagen Keller, Nikolaus Staubach (ed.), Iconologia sacra. Mythos, Bildkunst und Dichtung in der Religions-und Sozialgeschichte Alteuropas. Festschrift für Karl Hauck, Berlin-New York, De Gruyter, 1994, p. 9-24, part. p. 17-18; S. Paliompeis, op. cit., p. 444 n. 1878; Tanja Scheer, Die Gottheit und ihr Bild. Untersuchungen zur Funktion griechischer Kultbilder in Religion und Politik, Zetemata 105, München, Beck, 2000, p. 73.

26 Cf., among others, T. Scheer, op. cit., p. 55-57; Jennifer Neils, “Textile Dedications to Female Deities: The Case of the Peplos”, in Clarisse Prêtre (ed.), Le donateur, l’offrande et la déesse. Systèmes votifs dans les sanctuaires de déesses du monde grec. Actes du 31e colloque international organisé par l’UMR Halma-Ipel, Lille 2007, Kernos Suppl. 23, Liège, Centre international d’étude de la religion grecque antique, 2009, p. 135-147.

27 Ilias 6, 301-311.

28 F. Dürrbach, P. Roussel, op. cit., n° 1417 A II, ll. 1-3.

29 Rome, Mus. Capitolini (Centrale Montemartini) II 66, 2779-2782, from temple B of the Area Sacra di Largo di Torre Argentina: Hanz-Günther Martin, Römische Tempelkultbilder. Eine archäologische Untersuchung zur späten Republik, Roma, “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 1987, p. 213-215 pl. 13-14. – Mavromati, Archaeological Mus., from Oikos K of the Asklepieion at Messene: Petros G. Themelis, “Artemis Ortheia at Messene. The Epigraphical and Archaeological Evidence”, in Ancient Greek Cult Practice from the Epigraphical Evidence. Proceedings of the Second International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult organized by the Swedish Institute at Athens, 22-24 november 1991, Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae 8°, 13 (ed. Robin Hägg), Stockholm, Åströms, 1994, p. 101-122, part. p. 111 fig. 13, 14 a.

30 F. Dürrbach, P. Roussel, op. cit., n° 1423 Ba II l. 18-19. Cf. Philippe Bruneau, Recherches sur les cultes de Délos à l’époque hellénistique et à l’époque impériale, Bibliothèque des Ecoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 217, Paris, De Boccard, 1970, p. 336; Cécile Durvye, “Évolution fonctionnelle d’une divinité à l’échelle locale: les offrandes à l’Aphrodite de Stèsileôs à Délos”, in Le donateur, l’offrande et la déesse, op. cit., p. 149-167, part. p. 155. 161. 163-164.

31 Cf. e. g. Friedemann Quass, Die Honoratiorenschicht in den Städten des griechischen Ostens. Untersuchungen zur politischen und sozialen Entwicklung in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit, Stuttgart, Steiner, 1993, p. 294-295 with n. 1243.

32 Albert Rehm, Didyma, 2. Die Inschriften, Berlin, Gebr. Mann, 1958, n° 432 ll. 17-19.

33 [Pseudo-] Plutarchos, Moralia. p. 843 E-F (vitae X oratorum); cf. S. Paliompeis, op. cit., p. 203-205, 342-245. 490-492 Kat. Athen X. 5-7; Christoph Löhr, Griechische Familienweihungen, Untersuchungen zu einer Repräsentationsform von ihren Anfängen bis zum Ende des 4. Jhs. v. Chr., Rahden/Westf., Leidorf, 2000, p. 147 n° 167, p. 160, 198; Ralf von den Hoff, “Image and Prestige of Cult Personnel in Athens between the Sixth and First Centuries B.C.” in Beate Dignas, Kai Trampedach (ed.), Practitioners of the Divine. Greek Priests and Religious Officials from Homer to Heliodorus, Hellenic Studies Series 30, Cambrige/Mass., Center of Hellenic Studies, 2008, p. 107-151, part. p. 125.

34 Athens, National Mus. 232: N. Kaltsas, op. cit., p. 274 n° 54; see also Alexandros G. Mantis, Προβλήματα της εικονογραφίας των ιερειών καί των ιερέων στην αρχαία ελληνική τέχνη, Δημοσιεύματα του Αρχαιολογικού Δελτίου 42, Aθήνα, Τ.Α.Π.Α, 1990, part. p. 104-105, 109-110 pl. 46 β. 47 β; Uta Kron, “Priesthoods, Dedications and Euergetism. What Part Did Religion Play in the Political and Social Status of Greek Women?”, in Pontus Hellström, Brita Alroth (ed.), Religion and Power in the Ancient Greek World. Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1993, Boreas 24, Stockholm Almqvist & Wiksell, 1996, p. 139-182; Nikolaus Himmelmann, Die private Bildnisweihung bei den Griechen, Nordrhein-Westfälische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vorträge G 373, Wiesbaden, Westdeutscher Verlag, 2001, p. 7-8 fig. 2; Joan B. Connelly, Portrait of a Priestess. Women and Ritual in Ancient Greece, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2007, p. 130-163, part. p. 146 fig. 5.14; R. von den Hoff, loc. cit., p. 129-131 fig. 10.

35 Mavromati, Archaeological Mus. 245 (statue). 247 (left Arm): P. G. Themelis, Artemis Ortheia …, loc. cit., p. 115-117 figg. 19-20; idem, Αρχαία Μεσσήνη, Aθήνα, Τ.Α.Π.Α, 1999, p. 75-76 fig. 59-60; U. Kron, loc. cit., p. 145-146; J. Connelly, op. cit., p. 147-155; Karen Schoch, Die doppelte Aphrodite – alt und neu bei griechischen Kultbildern, Göttingen, Universitätsverlag, 2009, p. 242-244; for the inscribed base of Mego, its location and its debated date see also Eleni-Anna Chlepa, Μεσσήνη: To Aρτεμίσιo και oι oίκoι της δυτικής πτέρυγας τoυ Aσκληπιείoυ, Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 211, Αθῆναι 2001, p. 22-23 figg. 11-12; p. 33. 62. For the tendency to commemorate even the services of minor figures of the cult personnel at Athens see R. von den Hoff, loc. cit., p. 133-137.

36 SEG 42, 116; S. Paliompeis, op. cit., p. 365-366. 484-485 Kat. Athen VI. 1; Arthur G. Woodhead, Inscriptions. The Decrees, Agora 16, Princeton, American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1997, p. 390-391 n° 277; Margret M. Miles, The City Eleusinion, Agora 31, Princeton, American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1998, p. 66. 84. 193, n° I 35 (I5156) pl. 28; J. B. Connelly, op. cit., p. 133. – Similar formulas are known e. g. from decrees passed by the assembly of the orgeones, an association dedicated to the cult of Kybele at Piraeus: IG II2 1314 (213/2 B.C.). 1329 (175/4 B.C.) (ll. 27-28: δοῦναι δὲ αὐτῶι καὶ ἰκόνος ἀνάθεσιν ἐν τῶι ναῶι).

37 SEG 25, 540: δᾶμος Ταναγρείων Βάλακρον Βαλάκρου τῦς θιῦς ἀρετᾶς ἕνεκα κὴεὐνοιίας ἃς ἔχων διετέλι ἐν τὰν πόλιν.

38 Dirk Steuernagel, “Wozu brauchen Griechen Tempel? Fragen und Perspektiven”, in Hubert Cancik, Jörg Rüpke (ed.), Die Religion des Imperium Romanum. Koine und Konfrontationen, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2009, p. 115-138, part. p. 128-130.

39 Hugo Hepding, “Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon 1908-1909. 2., Die Inschriften”, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Athen, Berlin, 35, 1910, p. 401-493, part. 465-466 n° 47-48; cf. Albert Ippel, “Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon 1910-1911, 2. Die Inschriften”, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Athen, Berlin, 37, 1912, p. 277-303, part. p. 278-281 n° 2; S. Paliompeis, op. cit., p. 610 Kat. Pergamon III. 2; J. Cordelia Eule, Hellenistische Bürgerinnen aus Kleinasien, Weibliche Gewandstatuen in ihrem antiken Kontext, Istanbul, TASK Vakfi, 2001, p. 120. 139.

40 IG IV 840, part. ll. 13-14; Bernhard Laum, Stiftungen in der griechischen und römischen Antike, 2. Urkunden, Leipzig-Berlin, Teubner, 1914, p. 66 n° 57; S. Paliompeis, op. cit., p. 554-555 Kat. Kalaureia I. 1; Joannis Mylonopoulos, Πελοπόννησος οἰκητήριον Ποσειδῶνος. Heiligtümer und Kulte des Poseidon auf der Peloponnes, Kernos Suppl. 13, Liège, Centre International d’Étude de la Religion Grecque Antique, 2003, p. 327-328; for the general character of such endowments cf. Andreas Wittenburg, “Grandes familles et associations cultuelles à l’époque hellénistique”, Ktema 23, Strasbourg, 1998, p. 451-456.

41 Cf. Fritz Graf, Nordionische Kulte. Religionsgeschichtliche und epigraphische Untersuchungen zu den Kulten von Chios, Erythrai, Klazomenai und Phokaia, Bibliotheca Helvetica Romana 21, Rom, Schweizerisches Institut, 1985, p. 168-170. Besides, also the use of certain materials helped to level categorical differences between cult statues and iconic votive statues, s. R. von den Hoff, loc. cit., p. 126.

42 Cf. Paola Lombardi,Ἀναθέτο ἐν τὸ ἱερόν, Esempi di regolamentazioni della dedica votiva nel mondo greco”, in John P. Bodel, Mika Kajava (ed.), Dediche sacre nel mondo greco-romano: diffusione, funzioni, tipologie: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, American Academy in Rome, 19-20 aprile, 2006, Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae 35, Roma, Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, 2009, p. 95-126, part. p. 104-107 E 10-12.

43 Treasures of Ancient Macedonia. Archaeological Museum of Thessalonike (ed. Kate Ninou), Athens, Archaeological Receipts Fund (Τ.Α.Π.) [ca. 1978] p. 106 n° 452 pl. 60; cf. Folkert T. van Straten, “Gifts for the Gods” in Hendrik S. Versnel, op. cit., p. 65-151, part. p. 82-83.

44 G. Neumann, op. cit., p. 74-75; cf. S. B. Aleshire, The Athenian Asklepieion …, op. cit., p. 40-42.

45 IG II2 995; Franciszek Sokolowski, Lois sacrées des cités grecques, École Française d’Athènes. Travaux et mémoires des anciens membres étrangers de l’École et de divers savants, Paris, De Boccard, p. 79-80 n° 43; cf. Adolf Wilhelm, “Zwei griechische Inschriften”, in Karl Masner (ed.), Festschrift für Otto Benndorf, Wien, Hölder, 1898, p. 243-249, with proposal for restoration of ll. 6-8: μηκέτι ἐπισκοπτῆται τ] ὸ ἄγαλμα τοῦ θεοῦ ὑπὸ τῶ[ν ἀνακειμένων ἐν τῶι ἱερ] ῶι εἰκονικῶν πινάκων; furthermore S. Paliompeis, op. cit., p. 442 n. 1860; p. 483 Kat. V.3.

46 Cf. Stefan Krauter, Bürgerrecht und Kultteilnahme. Politische und kultische Rechte und Pflichten in griechischen Poleis, Rom und antikem Judentum, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 127, Berlin-New York, De Gruyter, 2004, p. 53-55; R. von den Hoff, loc. cit., passim.

47 Cf. Philippe Gauthier, Les cités grecques et leur bienfaiteurs, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, Suppl. 12, Paris, De Boccard 1985, part. p. 66-69, 72-73.


Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.