Greek religion, cult practices, and sacred landscapes are topics of keen academic interest, and there have been many studies which approach these topics through various lenses or frameworks, often sticking to a particular territory, deity, or type of sanctuary or cult in order to focus on one category of data. In the Peloponnese, there is an abundance of research and information to consider when approaching religious questions, especially for cross-regional comparisons. Not every region has been investigated to the same extent, or in the same manner, and there are decades of discoveries from survey, excavation (including rescue excavation), and chance finds to consider.
This slim and useful volume organizes a large amount of this information in a straightforward way. Marantou does not attempt to wrangle the entire Peloponnese but leaves out Achaia, the Argolid, and the Corinthia. The book is divided into two parts: Part One has four chapters organized by region (Arcadia, Elis, Messenia, Laconia), and Part Two (chapters 5–7) is an analysis, organized thematically. Tables and maps at the end of the book provide further aids to complement the text. The chronological focus is Geometric through Roman, with early material noted when relevant, as well as information concerning when ancient temples were supplanted by Christian churches.
Each of the first four chapters begins with a mythological and historical overview of the region and a catalogue of sites. The catalogue is divided between sites with the ability to be dated and those “of questionable dating,” and then within these categories, the type of site: sanctuaries found or excavated, those suggested only from surface finds, and those known only from written sources. Each chapter finishes with a discussion of the survival of ancient sanctuaries in the region into the Christian era. Each site in the catalogue, as presented in the chapters of Part One, contains information on dating, primary sources, references in secondary scholarship, and a summary description. Much of this information is also repeated in table form at the end of the book. While this general arrangement seems quite organized, it can also be confusing if a reader is looking for something specific, as toponyms appear in multiple sections throughout the book (e.g. “Pheneos” appears in at least five places). T he book would have benefited from an index and/or a list of page numbers associated with each site, perhaps added to the tables.
Part Two begins with Chapter 5, which describes “Special Characteristics” of the cult buildings (relationships to water and groves, functions for asylum, healing, or oracles). The chapter then turns to the relationship of the sanctuaries to chthonian cults, and a discussion of characteristics that the author considers to be chthonic (e.g. caves, eschara, adyta). Chapter 6, “Deities Worshipped,” covers a long list of divinities divided by type, again with a slight focus on chthonian attributes. The volume concludes with Chapter 7, “Religious, Economic, and Social Context,” a brief overview of what seem to be the religious patterns and preferences for the regions under study, a consideration of economic growth and inter-regional communication, and an overview of the “social framework” of the sanctuaries. This latter framework is taken to mean the division of sanctuaries by location as defined by François de Polignac (1984, 1995) into countryside and city sanctuaries, with the former further subdivided into “suburban,” “extra-urban,” and “neutral border” sanctuaries. Decades of scholarship wrestling with these terms and categories, including recent publications and conferences debating their usefulness, show the enduring relevance of this framework.[1]
While the site summaries within the catalogue of Part One are concise and straightforward, they often leave out any debates or issues with site or cult identification. This can create the impression that the identity of a site is conclusively agreed to be one mentioned by Pausanias, even when the identity is uncertain. For example, the main description of the “Sanctuary of Aphrodite Erikyne” in Arcadia (A54, p. 9) follows the excavator’s original interpretation, which identifies this sanctuary complex on the borders of Thelpousa and Psophis with Pausanias’s temple of Aphrodite Erykine. More recent scholarship that disputes this identification (convincingly, in my opinion) and proposes other resident deities, as well as identifying Pausanias’ temple within Psophis itself (Pikoulas 2005), is relegated to a footnote which does not engage with the debate. Marantou returns to this temple in an analytical chapter (132), providing some further details about cult practices without sharing what evidence exists for them. Similar reinterpretations of the identification of other sanctuaries are excluded, or mentioned but dismissed, elsewhere throughout the volume.[2] Perhaps it would be tedious to begin each description with “according to Pausanias,” but the way the information is often presented without a clear source can make it seem as if some knowledge is more definitive or archaeologically attested than it may be. A similar problem is the tendency to make generalizing comments without citation or elaboration. For example, a reference to the legendary Spartan lawgiver Lykourgos (116), a figure whose very historicity is debated, is presented as factual without reference or source. The author could have made their point stronger with a slight change in framing; for instance, the significance of there being a tradition of Lykourgos seeking asylum at Athena Chalkioikos is notable, whether or not he ever actually did so.[3]
While this book includes a large number of sites, a few are missing.[4] I note the excavated cave shrine near Phigaleia at the area of Kato Vryssi (see Schoinas 1989; Jost 2018:115 has a summary) and the sanctuary of Zeus Skotitas on Mt Parnon, which is only briefly mentioned in this volume (109) in a section on sacred places known only from written sources, but without noting the three possible candidates for its location as suggested by archaeological finds in the area.[5]
It is clear that much work has been done, even simply by compiling this number of sites with varying types and extents of evidence and scholarship. It is an excellent guidebook to the areas included and should prove a useful and consultable volume for those interested in the religious life of the four study regions. Like other catalogues of cult sites (e.g., Jost 1985, Mylonopoulos 2003, Baumer 2004), this volume should serve as a quick resource, which may prompt readers towards further research. The large scope has come at the expense of some detail and analysis, but the flaws that are noted here do not diminish the accomplishment of this volume or the usefulness it should provide for others interested in southern Peloponnesian religious systems.
Works Cited
Baumer, L.E. 2004. Kult im Kleinen: ländliche Heiligtümer spätarchaischer bis hellenistischer Zeit: Attika, Arkadien, Argolis, Kynouria. Internationale Archäologie Bd. 81. Rahden/Westf: Verlag Marie Leidorf.
Cooper, F.A. 1978. The Temple of Apollo at Bassai: A Preliminary Study. New York: Garland Pub.
_____. 1996. The Temple of Apollo Bassitas I: The Architecture. Vol. 1. 4 vols. Princeton: ASCSA.
Jost, M. 1985. Sanctuaires et cultes d’Arcadie. Études péloponnésiennes 9. Paris: Vrin.
______. 2014. “Déméter, Athéna, et Néda à Phigalie. Complémentarité et disparité des sources.” In Institutions, sociétés et cultes de la Méditerranée antique: mélanges d’histoire ancienne rassemblés en l’honneur de Claude Vial, edited by Claire Balandier and Christophe Chandezon, 147–58. Scripta antiqua 58. Bordeaux Pessac Paris: Ausonius éd. diff. de Boccard
_____. 2018. “Sanctuaires d’Arcadie trente ans après: bilan des recherches.” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 142.1:97–143. doi:10.4000/bch.288.
Mylonopoulos, J. 2003. Peloponnisos oichitiriou Poseidonos = Heiligtümer und Kulte des Poseidon auf der Peloponnes. Liège: Université de Liège.
Pavlides, N. 2018. “The Sanctuaries of Apollo Maleatas and Apollo Tyritas in Laconia: Religion in Spartan-Perioikic Relations.” The Annual of the British School at Athens 113:279–305.
Pikoulas, G.A. 2005. “‘Aphrodite Erykina,’ 25 Years After: The Interpretation of the Sanctuary Revised.” In Ancient Arcadia. Papers from the Third International Seminar on Ancient Arcadia, Held at the Norwegian Institute at Athens, 7–10 May 2002, edited by Erik Østby, 377–9. Papers from the Norwegian Institute at Athens 8. Athens: Astrom.
Pilz, O. 2020. Kulte und Heiligtümer in Elis und Triphylien: Untersuchungen zur Sakraltopographie der westlichen Peloponnes. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Polignac, F. de. 1984. La Naissance de la cité grecque: cultes, espace et société VIIIe–VIIe siècles avant J.-C. Textes à l’appui. Paris: Découverte.
_____. 1995. Cults, Territory, and the Origins of the Greek City-State. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Roy, J. 2010. “Arkadian Religion without Pausanias: The Sanctuary at Berekla.” In Paysage et religion en Grèce antique. Mélanges offerts à Madeleine Jost, edited by P. Carlier and C. Lerouge-Cohen, 55–65. Travaux de la Maison Rene-Ginouves 10. Paris: De Boccard.
Schoinas, C. 1989. “Φιγάλεια.” ArchDelt 44 (Β’1):107, Plate 68γ.
Snodgrass, A.M. 1974. “Cretans in Arcadia.” In Antichità Cretesi: Studi in onore di Doro Levi II, 196–200. Cronache di Archeologia 13. Catania: University of Catania.
Notes
[1] E.g. the April 2023 conference of the Swedish Institute at Athens, “Distant Deities, Central Places. Reconsidering the “Extra-urban” sanctuary.”
[2] Such as for the sanctuary of Pan near the village of Neda below Mt Lykaion, (A73, p. 26–27) the author names it as that of Pan Nomios, mentioned by Pausanias, although general academic consensus is that these are not the same sanctuary (see Roy 2010). Apollo’s epithet of Epikourios at Bassae (p. 170) is presented uncritically as having to do with a supposed aversion of a cholera epidemic in the area, although other etymologies have been proposed, such as an association with mercenaries (epikouroi; see Cooper 1978, 20–21; 1996, 73, 75–79 and Snodgrass 1974).
[3] A more startling example of ascribing action to a legendary character, and without source, can be found on p. 162: “…his statue was erected by Odysseus at Pheneos.”
[4] A few important sources are also missing from the bibliography, such as Pavlides 2018 on Laconian sanctuaries and Jost 2014 on a few Arcadian cults.
[5] Similarly, the temple of Apollo at Zarakas is in this section, even though the site has been fully excavated for some time. Another example is Lepreon, where the author seems to conflate two different temples, and omits other nearby finds (see Pilz 2020).