Military Leaders and Sacred Space in Classical Greek Warfare

Temples, Sanctuaries and Conflict in Antiquity

Sonya Nevin

• Publisher: I.B. Tauris
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781786720672
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Architecture
• Subtopic: Religious Architecture

The ancient Greeks attributed great importance to the sacred during war and campaigning, as demonstrated from their earliest texts. Among the first four lines of the Iliad, for example, is a declaration that Apollo began the feud between Achilles and Agamemnon and sent a plague upon the Greek army because its leader, Agamemnon, had mistreated Apollo's priest. In this first in-depth study of the attitude of military commanders towards holy ground, Sonya Nevin addresses the customs and conduct of these leaders in relation to sanctuaries, precincts, shrines, temples and sacral objects. Focusing on a variety of Greek kings and captains, the author shows how military leaders were expected to react to the sacred sites of their foes. She further explores how they were likely to respond, and how their responses shaped the way such generals were viewed by their communities, by their troops, by their enemies and also by those like Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenophon who were writing their lives. This is a groundbreaking study of the significance of the sacred in warfare and the wider culture of antiquity.

PART I

Boundaries of Culture and Space

WHAT IS SACRED SPACE? THE SACRED LANDSCAPE

Godlike Nausithous took them and settled them in Scherie, far from ordinary hard-working people. There he laid out the walls of a new city, built cities, put up temples for the gods, and divided up the land for cultivation.

(Od. 6.7–10, trans. Rieu)

As this Homeric passage demonstrates, ancient Greeks were conscious that sacred places could be defined by human demarcation. While attributing the foundation of very ancient sites to mythical heroes close to the gods, they continued to designate new sacred sites consciously as well as maintaining the old. Awareness of the human origin of the distinction between sacred (ἁγνός) and profane (βέβηλoς) space did not make it less meaningful. These were places dedicated to the worship of supernatural powers, ranging from the major Olympian and chthonic gods through minor deities, nymphs and similar immortals, and heroes and heroines with localised powers.¹ The communities of the archaic and classical eras had inherited and newly established a wide variety of sacred sites. Landscape features such as groves might be held sacred, presided over by particular heroes or heroines.² These might contain structures, such as an altar or tomb, although this was not always the case. Other sacred spaces were demarcated by clearings, boundary-stones, or walls. Monumentalised hero-shrines (heroons) could be found in urban or rural locations. Some sat within larger sanctuaries, such as the tomb of Pelops at Olympia, others stood in isolation. They might or might not contain relics.³ Anonymous figures might also be the focus of cult at Bronze Age tombs.⁴

Sanctuaries of deities were clearly identifiable as sacred sites, whether they were located within a city, outside city walls, or in the countryside. There was huge variety to the forms that they took and the environments in which they stood, yet enough similarities remain to be able to form some general guidelines.⁵ The extent of a sanctuary was marked by boundary indictors, such as a wall or boundary stones. The boundary perimeter, or peribolos, marked the division of sacred from profane land.⁶ A gateway, or propylon, might mark the entrance in grand style. The land inside the boundary was the temenos, or sacred precinct. Temenos land was sacred, but the area closest to the most sacred features, especially the altar, might be regarded as more sacred, and might even be surrounded by a further wall. At the sanctuary of Zeus at Nemea, for example, distinct flooring indicted an inner-precinct surrounding the altar and temple, distinguishing that area from the rest of the space within the sanctuary.⁷ Temenos and hieron are the most common terms for sanctuaries. Greek authors sometimes used them interchangeably, although the hieron is the special bit. Robert Parker notes an Athenian decree which illustrates this tidily, in which the hieron of a sanctuary is to be fenced off and the rest of the temenos leased to become an olive orchard. Both areas are part of the sanctuary, but the hieron is the most special area.⁸

The altars (one or more) were the primary sacred feature of a sanctuary, being the site of sacrifice, the central act of communication with the divine.⁹ Temples, where they were present, typically stood in line with an altar. While some temples had a single main interior room, housing the cult statue, many had an additional inner-room of restricted access. These spaces could be the site of ritual, although their typical function was to serve as repositories of sanctuaries' most valued items and, often, state funds.¹⁰

Beyond the hieron, a sanctuary might have a grove (alsos), which could offer visitors shelter from wind, rain, and sun, or which might be used for cutting or gathering wood.¹¹ Some sanctuaries contained special individual trees, which were typically associated with myth.¹² Sanctuaries might also feature fields and meadows as well as further buildings associated with ritual, festival, and the accommodation of visitors, such as springs, wells, cisterns, and fountain-houses, dining rooms for post-sacrifice meals, treasuries, theatres, stadiums and gymnasiums, stoas, and hostels.

THE CONTENT OF SANCTUARIES

Items dedicated to a Greek sanctuary garnered a sacred aspect by virtue of belonging to the deity that presided there. Most sanctuaries contained a main statue or statues, which represented a bond with the deity and acted as a focal point for some rituals. Old statues, typically xoana, made from carved wood, had a privileged sanctity, often derived from association with myth. Several were said to have fallen from the heavens, while others were said to have been dedicated by mythical founding figures. These ancient statues retained their status even when new ones joined them; much as Pheidias' Athena impressed the Athenians, the old, wooden Athena remained preeminent.¹³ The strength of a religious experience was increased as the petitioner got closer to the phenomena they honoured, making the ability to see or even touch a statue or other particularly sacred item a potentially profound experience.¹⁴

Implements used in sacrifice, post-sacrifice dining, and other rituals were distinct from similar items used for profane acts. They would remain within the sanctuary or at least they could not be removed for profane use without diminishing their privileged status, a practice that seems to have been well-established by the Early Iron Age.¹⁵ Skulls and other remains of sacrifices were sometimes retained and displayed at sanctuaries. Those items used in mystery cults and other restricted rituals such as those of the Thesmophoria held an exceptionally sacred status and access to them was frequently limited to a privileged group. Among the most prominent contents of sanctuaries were the votive offerings dedicated by individuals, groups, and states. These took all manner of forms, from the modest to the opulent, large and small, utensils, bowls, tripods, statuettes, statues, arms and armour, masks, crowns, furniture, clothing, and an almost limitless further range of items. Once dedicated, these items also accrued a sacred nature and were typically intended to stay permanently within the sanctuary. One of the tasks of sanctuary life was the management of the goods within the sanctuary, and inventories as well as excavation have provided insight into what these items were and what happened to them.¹⁶

Some objects would be held particularly sacred by the entire community. Items at the heart of community rituals, such as the altar and cult statue, were held in special regard. Dedications by the state or by individuals could be regarded as having particular value for the whole community, especially if, for instance, they were particularly old, beautiful, or valuable, or if they commemorated an important event. Taken together, the contents of a sanctuary constituted much of the financial wealth of a community, but also much of its cultural wealth and identity. Josephine Shaya highlights how a temple in antiquity acted not only as a treasure house, but also as a sort of museum:

Within this domain, objects were invested with meanings that were very much dependent on their status as gifts and divine possessions, on the very place in which they were kept, on their relationship to other treasures, and on the narratives to which they were made to attest.¹⁷

These items were a manifestation of a city's relationship with its deities, of its past, and of its wealth. Their presence was a cause for pride, their loss a blow to wealth, prestige, and identity.

HOW TO BEHAVE IN A SANCTUARY

Sacred spaces required a set of heightened behavioural standards that recognised that sacredness. Herodotus regarded Egypt as the origin of this practice and considered it a sign of their early sophistication (Hdt. 2.64). The distinction between sacred and profane space was maintained by a variety of proscriptions which determined access to sacred space and regulated conduct within it; this maintained the purity of the site by excluding and preventing pollution (miasma). This creation of a purified space acted as its own offering to a deity (or deities) and created a particularly appropriate space in which to honour and communicate with the divine, even though both of those acts could also take place outside the boundaries of a sacred space.¹⁸

The citizens of Greek poleis determined these rules themselves without the existence of a separate priestly class. The organisation of sanctuary life, its calendar, festivals, and building projects, was an important part of what a polis government did. The allocation of priesthoods and determination of sanctuary rules was part of that organisation.¹⁹ Sanctuary rules were increasingly formalised in the classical period. As the epigraphic habit became more pronounced, regulations for sanctuary life were frequently inscribed for public viewing. These inscriptions belong to a class of epigraphy now referred to as sacred law.²⁰ The collation and study of this class of material has demonstrated the fundamental significance in ancient Greek culture of establishing and maintaining a distinction between sacred and profane space, and the manner in which that distinction was expressed by demanding a standard of behaviour within sacred space that exceeded what was permissible in profane space and everyday life.

Sacred laws fall into two related but distinct groups.²¹ Some concerned fiscal matters. These were important because sanctuaries could be responsible for a great deal of wealth and income. Sanctuaries and the states that ran them ‘codified the ways in which goods and resources which formed part of divine service could properly be used’; what constituted proper use was determined by a fluid interplay of ancestral practice and communal decision-making.²² Entrance fees and prerequisites from sacrifices were regulated through these laws, so too was the management of income and land. Income might be generated through renting out sanctuary land, the proceeds of land (such as quarried material, crops, animals reared there, or their dung), or even from loans made to individuals from sanctuary funds. The potential for income from sacred land meant that arguments over ownership could be resource disputes not purely symbolic disagreements.²³ Lending generated income via interest; accounts from sites such as Rhamnous, Eleusis, Delos, and perhaps Calapodhi in Phocis, detail names, sums lent, and amounts paid back.²⁴ These deals were typically managed by the sacrifice overseers (hieropoioi) and publically proclaimed in a manner that demonstrated that they were approved by gods and mortals alike. Eleusinian decrees announce that the Athenians might dispose of certain wealth on the acropolis as they see fit.²⁵ Spending met sanctuary expenses such as animals, incense, and building projects.²⁶ The sacred wealth contained in dedications and sacred funds was distinct from state wealth obtained by other means but stored within a sanctuary. Sacred wealth might still be spent on civic endeavours in challenging circumstances, particularly military emergencies.²⁷ This practice seems to have increased in the fifth century, with the costs of navies and the increasing use of mercenaries putting pressure on finances.²⁸

The laws for spending varied from sanctuary to sanctuary and reflected the nature of the sanctuary and the dynamic between its users. Each community exercised its own judgement on what was or was not available. At Delphi, a Panhellenic site, while income was spent on the sanctuary, wealth from dedications accumulated as a testament to piety and was not available for other uses, a structure that reflects the multitude of communities behind the dedications.²⁹ The legitimacy of spending decisions came from the legitimacy of the bodies that took the decisions. Most of the time, that was self-evident, but when conflict brought doubt over the ownership of territory, that included ambiguity over the administration of sanctuaries and their funds, something we will see more about below.

Theft from sanctuaries was punishable by severe methods. At Athens that meant exile or execution followed by denial of burial within Attica (Xen. Hell. 1.7.22; Mem. 1.2.62; Isoc. 22.6).³⁰ Prosecutions could be brought within individual poleis for further forms of religious misconduct committed outside as well as inside sanctuaries, such as offences concerning festivals, atheism, or impiety. In terms of form, these laws were not essentially different from other civic laws. They are often recorded with reference to legal penalties; where breaches of conduct were deemed punishable, some offences would be disciplined within the sanctuary, while those of a more serious nature would be referred to the courts.³¹

In theory, citizens, metics (resident foreigners), and xenoi (non-resident foreigners) could be tried for offences committed within sanctuary grounds, although in practice this may have been difficult to implement for xenoi.³²

A second group of sacred laws reflect traditions intended to protect sanctuaries from mistakes in ritual. Specified punishments usually have a ritual rather than secular nature, such as an order to purify the sanctuary or denial of the right to sacrifice.³³ Robert Parker has described these laws as instructive guidelines, which ‘explain, above all, how to sacrifice in a given sanctuary and what conditions of purity are required for access to it’.³⁴ Contact with birth, death, or sex for example, required designated periods of time to have elapsed before it was permissible to enter a sacred site. In some sanctuaries, although not all, prohibitions existed against certain people or further activities considered polluting. Some excluded on the basis of gender or status (such as excluding slaves), others excluded according to ethnicity, refusing persons of a particular ethnic group or all xenoi altogether.³⁵ These restrictions might apply to the entire site or to the right to sacrifice or to enter specific buildings. Excretion and the disposal of waste within the sanctuary itself, copulation, parturiency, and non-sacrificial dea...