The Hero Cults of Sparta provides a comprehensive investigation of the connection between hero shrines and votives from the Archaic to the Roman period to highlight. This monograph, based on a 2016 dissertation from the University of Edinburgh, follows the current trend in Spartan scholarship to (re)contextualize both literary and material evidence of the Archaic and Classical periods. Furthermore, it analyzes heroes and cult as examples of localism in practice, whereby “local idiosyncrasies of a Panhellenic phenomenon can help us understand the place and function of heroes in Sparta and more generally in Greek religion” (3). Pavlides’ exploration of hero shrines and votives is framed as an investigation of cultural memory, following the work of Cohen (1985), Nora (1989), Assmann (2011), and Papakonstantinou (2018). She utilizes artifacts as symbols of the past which have the capacity to define and unify regions, particularly in the late-Archaic and Classical periods.[1]
The monograph is divided into six chapters, beginning with an important discussion of terminology in both the introduction and chapter one, followed in chapters two and three by a comprehensive description and analysis of identifiable cult sites, votives, and shrines in Sparta. In the second half of the monograph, Pavlides embarks on contextualizing these objects and sites, focusing on the Menelaion, the Amyklaion, and the cult to the Dioskouroi in chapter four and examining the heroization of historical individuals such as the Spartan basileis, with some focus on Leonidas, and other Spartan figures such as Chilon and Brasidas in chapter five. The monograph concludes with three case studies (the Geometric burial from Stauffert street, the Ergatikes Katoikies, and the Stavropoulos plot, which provide three examples in support of Pavlides’ concluding argument, namely that hero cult in Sparta often developed from grave ritual.
In the introduction, Pavlides defines for the reader the terms ‘cult’ and ‘cult place,’ definitions which she returns to regularly throughout the monograph.[2] Utilizing these definitions, Pavlides sheds light on the existence of a dynamic process of heroization in Sparta in the Archaic and Classical periods, a process that she argues in chapter one is entirely dependent on local circumstances and remains flexible from the Archaic to the Roman period. This emphasis on dynamic processes is explicitly contrasted with the “need to create categories of cult beings” (24), which, according to Pavlides, are incongruent with the malleability of the belief system. Pavlides’ strongest example of this need for malleability comes in chapters four and five, where she discusses the mortal/divine duality of ritual at sites such as the Menelaion, the Amyklaion, and the cult of the Dioskouroi, and the blurred parameters for the heroization and commemoration of the Spartan basileis.
Chapter two lays the foundation for Pavlides’ study, providing a detailed catalogue of stone and terracotta reliefs from Spartan sites. Pavlides asserts that “it is impossible to ascertain with confidence that the votives and sites [described] below belonged to heroes only” (39), leaving room for further research and discussion as more material becomes available. This thoroughly researched chapter includes a detailed description of the identifiable heroic shrines, including Pavlides’ criteria for such sites and a breakdown of each. Pavlides discusses both well-known and less studied cult sites in Sparta, making this chapter particularly important for future research on the subject. When possible, Pavlides makes conclusive remarks after a description of the archaeological data, concluding that the terracotta reliefs are heroic and, especially when combined with stone reliefs and architectural features, are indicative of hero cult. Of particular note are the sites that become “the locus for cult” (49), originating from burials (e.g., the Heroon by the Eurotas Valley, Ergatikes Katoikies, the cult site on Stauffert Street) and sites where there is evidence of sacrifice (e.g., the cult site on Stauffert Street and the so-called ‘Achilleion’). The most extensive discussion centers on the cult site for Agamemnon and Alexandra/Kassandra, which concludes with a brief discussion of whether or not the site features in Sparta’s ‘Achaian policy.’ The author encourages a cautious approach, providing both textual and archaeological evidence that supports activity at the site in the early seventh century BCE, which “predates any hegemonic aspirations that Sparta may have had in the Peloponnese or against Argos similar to those seen in the sixth century” (42).
Chapter three analyzes the finds from the sites discussed in chapter two with emphasis on the votive patterns, architecture, and topography of the various sites, concluding that many of the hero shrines were small, residential, and received inexpensive dedications. This chapter includes a detailed chart (Table 3.1), which serves as an excellent resource for the reader, but could have been referenced or interacted with more throughout the monograph. There is need in the latter portion of this chapter for an additional map or more direct references to and engagement with the map provided on p. xiv (Figure 0.1). The discussion of votives is divided by type, which includes stone and terracotta reliefs, terracotta figurines, pottery and drinking shapes, lead figurines (which receive minimal treatment), and other metal objects. The investigation of pottery and drinking shapes is robust, exploring the potential implications of finding such wares (both regular sized and in miniature) at sites that might be associated with hero cult. This investigation focuses on whether or not these artifacts are intended to be commemorative or practical in their association with ritual activity at the sites. There is also a discussion of the place of such activities in Spartan dining/commensality practices, adding significant archaeological evidence to the argument for diverse dining practices, in contrast to the outmoded notion of Spartan austerity. Pavlides utilizes a comparative approach to explore the patterns of dedication and architectural decorative trends because of the lack of published or excavated materials. She focuses on the terracotta models from, for example, the temple of Artemis Orthia and comparators from the Greek world more broadly (e.g., naiskoi such as the mid-fifth century naiskos of Athena Nike on the Athenian Acropolis). Importantly, this investigation concludes that the Menelaion was likely exceptional, and not the rule by which we ought to determine votive typology.
The remainder of the monograph focuses on contextualizing the votives and sites discussed in chapters two and three by bringing in textual sources. Chapter four features a discussion of the Menelaion, the Amyklaion, and the cult to the Dioskouroi. Pavlides pays particular attention to Helen, Hyakinthos, and the Dioskouroi, through an exploration of the archaeological and textual evidence of their cults. She concludes that the nature of these heroes “depends on and responds to the community as it changes over time,” exemplifying the “permeable boundaries of mortality, immortality and divinity” (134). The chapter is divided into three sections, with the least attention given to the Dioskouroi. The investigation of Helen (and Menelaos) and Hyakinthos (and Apollo) includes a detailed description and summary of the excavation history of the Menelaion and Amyklaion respectively, and discusses the textual evidence for the cult sites, ranging from Archaic to Roman sources. Pavlides focuses broadly on the dynamic nature of the cults, and their similarity to, and difference from, divine cult in Sparta. A highlight of this chapter is Pavlides’ comprehensive outline of the history of the debate concerning the nature and worship of the figure of Hyakinthos at the site of the Amyklaion from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age. Her discussion of the cult of the Dioskouroi is unique in this chapter, as there is no identifiable place or space of worship for these figures, which means she must rely on the textual evidence and their depictions on various archaeological remains. This somewhat descriptive survey of the Dioskouroi is presented to bolster the chapter’s argument that the cults of Helen and Hyakinthos are not problematic in their representation of figures who have a mixed mortal and divine nature.
Chapter five investigates “the Spartan tradition of the heroization of historical individuals,” exploring the position of the Spartan basileis, in particular Leonidas, and other prominent Spartan figures such as Chilon and Brasidas. This chapter lacks the level of detail and critical examination of the textual evidence found in the previous chapters. For example, there is little distinction made between Classical, late-Classical, or Roman sources in the discussion of athleticism as a means for gaining esteem in Archaic and Classical Sparta. Furthermore, when discussing Tyrtaios fr.12 West2, Pavlides (140) problematizes Fuqua’s interpretation of the fragment as evidence for heroization of Spartan war-dead in the seventh century but does not address the problematic association between Tyrtaios’ fragmentary poetry and the spurious Second Messenian War.[3] Finally, Pavlides’ discussion of Chilon lacks a careful and nuanced analysis of the traditions of both Chilon and Lykourgos, especially with respect to examining Herodotus 1.65-66.1.[4] Ultimately, Pavlides argues that it was “within Sparta’s cultural norms” to heroize Spartan individuals who had communal significance, and that the unique treatment of the Spartan basileis “should be viewed within the blurred parameters of the heroization and commemoration of the dead as expressed by ritual behaviour” (147). Pavlides’ conclusion that the limits of these rituals were not fixed, and neither was the status of the individual, opens avenues for further research and discussion of the heroization of specific Spartans and, in particular, the Spartan basileis.
The final chapter presents three case studies to demonstrate that hero cult typically developed from grave ritual, emphasizing that burial was integral to the development of a heroic nature. While “the interpretation of cult sites in connection with burials varies” (159), Pavlides emphatically states that “cults, with or without a burial, that honour individuals who lived in the past, exhibit a want to connect the present to an older era,” providing “a physical link to the past” and creating “a certain cultural memory of the area” (160). The three case studies exemplify how diverse types of burials became the focus of ritual and building activity, especially in Limnai. Pavlides links the antiquity of such sites to their longstanding use and development, highlighting connections between familial burial, ancestor cults, hero cults, and grave cults. She concludes that all three case studies demonstrate how cult develops from grave ritual in a variety of contexts including in Hellenistic and Roman Sparta.
Overall, the book is well produced, containing a handful of minor typographical errors, and some inconsistencies.[5] The bibliography is comprehensive, and the index is useful. Overall, Pavlides’ focus on the relationship between burial, hero cult, and the larger, established communal sanctuary sites through a consideration of how the Spartan cultic landscape operated from the participant’s point of view, makes a significant contribution to the study of hero cult in Sparta. The monograph’s greatest strength is its comprehensive examination of the available archaeological material and the links it draws between identifiable patterns in the archaeological data and the textual sources. In doing so, Pavlides provides a nuanced and dynamic picture of hero cult within the Lakonian religious landscape in Archaic and Classical Sparta.
Notes
[1] A. P. Cohen (1985) The Symbolic Construction of Community, Chichester; P. Nora (1989) “Between Memory and History: Les lieux de mémoire,” Representations 26: 7-24; J. Assman (2011) Cultural Memory and Early Civilization: Writing, Remembrances, and Political Imagining, Cambridge; Z. Papakonstantinou (2018) “Athletics, Memory, and Community in Hellenistic and Roman Messene,” BICS 61.1: 64-78.
[2] Here Pavlides follows the definitions of Schmitt Pantel and Bruit Zaidman (1994, 9), defining cult as “a complex of religious activities concentrated on one or more deities or heroes and including prayer, ritual sacrifice and dedication” (8). Expanding Renfrews’ definition (1985, 24; 1994, 51), she defines cult place as “a natural spot, built structure or sacred zone that creates a boundary zone between the mortal and the ‘supernatural’ world” (8), including the presence of a god or hero-figure and involving the participation of either an individual or a group.
[3] See e.g., Hans van Wees (2009) “Tyrtaeus’ Eunomia: Nothing to Do with the Great Rhetra,” in Sparta: New Perspectives, A. Powell and S. Hodkinson (eds.), 1-42, Swansea; J. Grethlein (2010) The Greeks and Their Past: Poetry, Oratory, and History in the Fifth Century BCE, Cambridge; J. Romney (2017) “Let Us Obey: The Rhetoric of Spartan Identity in Tyrtaeus 2W,” Mnemos. 555-73.
[4] See e.g., M. Nafissi (2018) “Lykourgos the Spartan “Lawgiver”: Ancient Beliefs and Modern Scholarship,” in A Companion to Sparta, Vol. 1, A. Powell (ed.), 93-123, Hoboken, NJ.
[5] e.g., on p. xiii instead of “der Antik”, read “der Antike” and instead of “Altertumwissenschaft”, read “Altertumswissenschaft”, on p.15 the sentence “the earliest reference to the term ‘hero’ as a religious may come from Mimnermos,” is missing something following “religious”, and on p.22 instead of “the site at that of a shrine of”, read “the site as that of a shrine of”. The abbreviation system is inconsistent throughout the monograph.