Arkadien im Altertum Ancient Arcadia

Geschichte und Kultur einer antiken Gebirgslandschaft History and Culture of a Mountainous Region

Beiträge des Internationalen Symposiums in Graz, Österreich, 11. bis 13. Februar 2016 Proceedings of the International Conference held at Graz, Austria, 11th to 13th February, 2016

herausgegeben von Klaus Tausend

Graz 2018

Vorderseite: Der Apollon-Tempel von Bassai, aus: C. Frommel, Ansichten aus Griechenland. Gestochen unter der Leitung von C. Frommel. Vues de la Grèce. Gravées sous la direction de C. Frommel (Karlsruhe 1830)

Die Publikation wurde dankenswerterweise unterstützt von:

Covergestaltung: Andreas Kolli. Satz: Regina Klöckl. Druck von Servicebetrieb ÖH-Uni Graz GmbH.

Der Inhalt der Beiträge sowie die Beschaffung der Abbildungen liegen in der Verantwortung der AutorInnen.

ISBN 978-3-902666-56-7 www.unipress-graz.at

Copyright 2018 by Unipress Graz Verlag GmbH. Kein Teil des Werkes darf ohne schriftliche Genehmigung des Verlages in irgendeiner Form verarbeitet, reproduziert oder zur Verfügung gestellt werden. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Vorwort des Herausgebers ...... 8 Verzeichnis der Abkürzungen ...... 9 KYLE MAHONEY Mycenaean Mt. Lykaion and the Linear B Documents ...... 11 MARY E. VOYATZIS How Ancient is Arcadia? What the Archaeology Tells Us ...... 37 JAMES ROY On adopting Arkadian ancestors ...... 57 TANJA S. SCHEER Kinder des Zeus und der Erde. Die Arkader zwischen Frömmigkeit und Frevel ...... 67 ANNA BERTELLI Arkadische Heroenkultstätten: Typologie, Topographie und Kultpraxis ...... 87 AIKATERINI MANDALAKI Religious and political aspects of the cult of Zeus in ancient Arcadia and ancient Crete: A comparative approach ...... 113 ALAYA PALAMIDIS The Sanctuary of Despoina at Lykosoura: A Megalopolitan Creation? ...... 127 ELISABETH RATHMAYR Mysterien und Kult der Despoina in Lykosura im Licht der archäologischen und epigraphischen Befunde und Funde ...... 153 VASSILIS TSIOLIS Arkadian religious matters: Further considerations on the τελετή of the Great Goddesses at Megalopolis and on the κορειτῆαι at Despoina’s Sanctuary at Lykosura ...... 175 With an appendix on the so called Sanctuary of Zeus Homarios and Hestia at Megalopolis MARÍA CRUZ CARDETE Liminal Landscapes of Ancient Arkadia: The God Pan and Panic Sanctuaries ...... 197

MADELEINE JOST La religion arcadienne ...... 213 ROBERT POROD Hellenistische Konstruktionen eines arkadischen Rom ...... 229 NORMAN AUSTIN The Invention of Arcadia ...... 251 REBECCA HÜMMER-KOZIK Et in arcadia pastor? Bukolische Darstellungen auf Sarkophagen als Rezeption der Eklogen ...... 263 KNUT ØDEGÅRD State formation and urbanization at Tegea ...... 273 HECTOR WILLIAMS Survey and Excavation at Ancient Stymphalos, 1982–2015 ...... 289 PANAGIOTIS GALANIS Der Bronzeschmuck aus der Grabung von Blum – Plassart (EFA, 1913) im arkadischen Orchomenos ...... 295 YANIS PIKOULAS The “twins” of Arkadia: The homonymous settlements ...... Fehler! Textmarke nicht definiert. MATTHEW P. MAHER Archaeology of the Arkadian League: The Fortifications of Ancient Alea ...... 327 TORSTEN MATTERN Theisoa am Lykaion ...... 345 MARIA PRETZLER Arkadians and Peloponnesians: Collaboration and Conflict with Sparta in the sixth and fifth century BC ...... 363 SIMONE KILLEN Parasema in Arkadien. Staatssymbole von Kleitor, Pheneos und Mantineia ...... 379 MARGIT LINDER Kunst von und für Arkadien – zur „Kunstpolitik“ dieser Landschaft in archaischer und klassischer Zeit ...... 393 THOMAS HEINE NIELSEN Athletics in late-archaic and classical Arkadia ...... 407

MARI MALMER The Norwegian Arcadia Survey III: Preliminary Results from the 2016 Season ...... 441 KLAUS TAUSEND Festungskrieg im Gebirge. Formen und Möglichkeiten der Poliorketik im arkadischen Raum...... 455

Alaya Palamidis The Sanctuary of Despoina at Lykosoura: A Megalopolitan Creation?*

Map of the mentioned Arcadian cities and sanctuaries: 1. Pheneos 2. Thelpousa 3. Kaphyai 4. Methydrion 5. Mantinea 6. Phigaleia 7. Mt. Lykaion 8. Sanctuary of Pan at Berekla 9. Lykosoura 10. Trapezus 11. Megalopolis 12. Sanctuary of Artemis Lykoatis 13. Asea 14. Pallantion 15. Tegea Map made using the Ancient World‘s Mapping Center's À-la-carte application (http://awmc.unc.edu/ awmc/applications/alacarte/) and the basemap “Peloponnese, Attica, and Southwestern Aegean” provided by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens (http://www.ascsa.edu.gr/index.php/excavationcorinth/ maps-and-gis-data-for-corinth-and-greece), both licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.

* I am very indebted to all the participants of the symposium in Graz, my colleagues at the University of Liège and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge for their helpful comments and suggestions. I would also like to thank Matthew Peebles for his help, and the Onassis Foundation for funding my research.

In Book 8 of his Description of Greece, Pausanias writes that “Lykosoura is the oldest of all the cities the earth and its islands have produced: it was the first city the sun ever saw. It was from here that the rest of mankind learnt to build cities.”1 It was supposedly founded by Lykaon, the mythical ancestor of all Arcadians, at the same time as the sanctuary of Zeus on Mount Lykaion.2 Pausanias also recounts that “Arkesilaos […] is said by the Arcadians to have seen, when dwelling in Lykosoura, the sacred deer, enfeebled with age, of the goddess called Despoina. This deer, they say, had a collar round its neck, with writing on the collar: — I was a fawn when captured, at the time when Agapenor went to Troy.”3 This story implies that the fawn was dedicated to Despoina just before the Trojan War and therefore, that her sanctuary at Lykosoura already existed at that time. Thus, the origins of both the city and its sanctuary are set in a mythical past. But another story told by Pausanias seemingly sets a historical terminus ante quem for the foundation of the cult place and suggests its great importance in the Classical period. At the time of the foundation of Megalopolis by synoecism, around 370 BC,4 the inhabitants of Lykosoura refused to relocate to the newly founded city. Unlike the inhabitants of Trapezus, who were massacred, or the people of other cities that were brought to Megalopolis by force, “the Lykosourians, although they had disobeyed, were nevertheless spared by the Arcadians because of Demeter and Despoina, in whose sanctuary they had taken refuge.”5 It is the purpose of this paper to verify the historicity of this episode. I. The sanctuary before the foundation of Megalopolis The sanctuary has yielded very little Archaic and Classical material.6 Among the objects dated before the synoecism one or two statuettes represent Athena, who, according to Pausanias, had a precinct and a xoanon in the sanctuary.7 Two statuettes depicting shepherds or hunters are very similar to those found in the sanctuary of Berekla on Mount Lykaion, about 10 km away from Lykosoura, where Pan was honoured alongside Hermes and possibly Apollo.8 In Lykosoura, the statuettes may also have been dedicated to Pan or Hermes. According to Pausanias, the former had a precinct and used to give oracles.9 As for Hermes, his presence

1 Paus. 8, 38, 1 (transl. P. Levi). 2 Paus. 8, 2, 1. 3 Paus. 8, 10, 10. Unless otherwise indicated, all translations of Pausanias’ text are by W. H. S. Jones. 4 For the exact date of the synoecism, see for instance Hornblower 1990. 5 Paus. 8, 27, 1–6. 6 See Kourouniotis 1912, 155–161. The museum catalogue (Kourouniotis 1911, 19–72) does not contain any object earlier than the foundation of Megalopolis. According to Loucas – Loucas-Durie 1991, 318f. at least one Geometric pottery fragment was found, and several Hellenistic and Classical and a few Archaic fragments were discovered in trial trenches. However, it is not clear if these trenches were made inside the sanctuary or in the surroundings. For a presentation of the sanctuary’s history and cults, see also E. Rathmayr’s contribution in this volume. 7 See Jost 1975, 345–355; Paus. 8, 37, 12. 8 See Jost 1975, 339–345 for the statuettes from Lykosoura; Hübinger 1992 and Roy 2010 for the sanctuary of Berekla and its finds. 9 Paus. 9, 37, 11. The scholiast to Theocritus (1, 123), who writes that Pan had an oracle on Mount Lykaion, might refer to the same oracle.

128

in Lykosoura is attested by a series of undated tablets depicting a kerykeion.10 The other offerings are not specific enough to indicate which, or if, other deities were also present in the sanctuary. For instance, a bronze hoplite could be a dedication to Athena11 and horses are too widespread to be connected to Poseidon Hippios, who, according to Pausanias, was honoured as Despoina’s father in the sanctuary.12 Not a single dedication can be attributed to Despoina, whose name is first attested in Lykosoura at the end of the third century BC.13 The dozens of statuettes representing persons wearing animal masks, found in the so-called megaron, are probably not earlier than the Hellenistic period.14 Moreover, a few decades or a century after the foundation of Megalopolis, the sanctuary underwent major transformation. According to the studies collected in a special issue of the journal Ktema in 2008, the progressive construction of the temple, its mosaic and the so- called megaron, where the mysteries were supposed to be held, started in the last third of the fourth or the first quarter of the third century BC.15 The building technique of a fountain, situated uphill from the temple, suggests that it was part of the same architectural program.16 The statuary group by the sculptor Damophon is now mostly thought to have been created in the late third or early second century BC, due to epigraphical evidence concerning the artist.17 A column found in Messene and inscribed with decrees of seven poleis honouring Damophon, possibly after his death, is dated by paleographical criteria to the end of the third or the first half of the second century.18 One of the inscriptions indicates that Lykosoura paid the sculptor using tetradrachms, which suggests that he worked in the sanctuary prior to the 180s.19 On the basis of some of the other decrees, M. MELFI has recently shown20 that the sculptor’s work on the Ionian coast of Greece can be better understood in the context of the 160s. Such a dating would provide a terminus post quem for the engraving of the Messenian column and indicate that Damophon’s presence in Lykosoura cannot be earlier than the end

10 Kourouniotis 1911, 67–70, cat. 74–80. Thirty-six of these tablets were found; they were studied at the beginning of the 1990s (see Loucas – Loucas-Durie 1991, 317f.) but results were never published. 11 Jost 1975, 355–363. 12 Kourouniotis 1912, 159; Paus. 8, 37, 10. 13 IG V 2, 514, l. 11–12 (for the date, see Voutiras 1999, 233f.). Another decree of the polis Lykosoura, found in Messene and honouring the sculptor Damophon for his work in the sanctuary of Despoina, is not earlier than the late third century BC (Themelis 1993b), and an inscription from Lykosoura, in which Despoina’s name can be reconstructed, probably dates to the second century (Matthaiou – Pikoulas 1986). 14 Paus. 8, 37, 8. Kourouniotis 1912, 156 considered that the statuettes were made in the second or first century BC but dated the origin of the type in the fourth century. On paleographical grounds, Perdizet 1899 supposed that some of them, which bear the coroplast’s signature, were Imperial. Only a thorough study of the series could confirm their dating (such a study was planned and never realised: see Loucas – Loucas-Durie 1991, 317). However, even if we suppose the existence of unpreserved or undiscovered fourth-century pieces, these would not indicate the existence of the mysteries before the foundation of Megalopolis, in the first third of the century. For the interpretation of these statuettes and their association with the mysteries of Despoina, see for instance Jost 2008, 105–107. 15 See Billot 2008 for the temple; Guimier-Sorbets – Panagiotopoulou 2008 for its mosaic and Hellmann 2008 for the so-called megaron. 16 Orlandos 1911, 202 and 206. 17 See for instance Themelis 1993a, 35–37 and Sève 2008, 123f. The stylistic dating of his work has provided mixed results. Marcadé 2008 dates it to the late fourth or the first half of the third century, but Morizot 2008, who studies Despoina’s drapery, prefers a dating in the third or the early second century, which is more consistent with the epigraphical evidence about the sculptor. 18 According to D. Knoepfler, cited by Grandjean – Nicolet-Pierre 2008, 130. The inscription was first published by Themelis 1993b. 19 See Grandjean – Nicolet-Pierre 2008. 20 Melfi 2016.

129

of the third century, if we suppose a very long career. The monumentalisation of the sanctuary thus spanned about a century, approximately from the early third to the early second century BC. The appearance of the sanctuary before the third century is unknown. A trial trench outside the north-west corner of the temple has revealed the existence of an earlier wall, but only further research could date it or ascertain whether it belonged to a temple.21 The series of ten steps immediately south of the temple as well as the stoa on its northern side may also have existed earlier. The stratigraphy does not allow a relative chronology for the building of the temple and the steps to be reconstructed.22 The function of these steps is also a matter of debate: if they primarily had a retaining purpose, they could have been built contemporaneously with the temple in order to protect it from rock slides. On the other hand, the steps could have been earlier than the temple and have provided seats for spectators watching ritual activities that took place at the location where the temple was later built.23 Likewise, the north stoa has been considered either earlier or later than the temple.24 Since the temple may only have been built a century after the foundation of Megalopolis, a post-synoecism date is possible for the building to which the earlier wall belonged; the same can be said about the stoa and the stairway, if they are older than the temple. Although some buildings mentioned by Pausanias have not been found, including the temples of Artemis Hegemone and Aphrodite,25 there is no indication that the sanctuary contained any important

21 Lévy 1967, 542f. Orlandos 1911, 200f. also mentions a wall which may have been built earlier than the fountain which it is next to. 22 According to Becker 2003, 234 the fact that the euthynteria of the south door of the temple is above the level of the lower step indicates that the steps existed before the construction of the temple; however, Billot 2008, 136, n. 5 notes that, in a first phase, the level of the euthynteria of the door was lower. 23 Leonardos 1896, 115 writes that it was not possible to clear the whole stairway lest rocks should fall on the temple. Becker 2003, 234 rules out the possibility that the steps were used as a retaining wall (contra Billot 2008, 136 and Hollinshead 2015, 55) and supposes, on stratigraphical and functional grounds, that they were earlier than the temple. If the stairs were built for practical reasons, the side door of the temple in front of them suggests that they were also used during rituals. However, Becker 2003, 234 notes the low visibility of this door from the lower east end of the steps, which suggests that this was not their primary function. 24 Leonardos 1896, 118 considers that the stoa was earlier because the foundation of its south wall was at a lower level than the temple’s euthynteria. But the level of the temple could have been raised because of the presence of earlier structures beneath it. Coulton 1976, 253 considers that the stoa is later than the temple, but does not provide any argument for such a dating. See also Billot 2008, 136f. In a second building phase, the stoa was either doubled or moved to the north. Pausanias (8, 37, 2) writes that the building’s decoration included a representation of Polybius, which might indicate that one of the two building phases took place in the second century BC. It could either be the initial building phase – if we suppose that the intervention only consisted in an enlargement of the building – or the second building phase, if we assume a more thorough reconstruction. 25 Paus. 8, 37, 1–12. The stoa in Pan’s precinct may have been located (Kourouniotis 1907, 122). The Megalopolitan decree IG V 2, 515B found in the sanctuary and honouring Xenarchos mentions the fact that this citizen repaired the temple of Despoina and that of Kore, and that he built a temple for the Imperial cult (l. 26–29). Because of the absence of further topographical indications, M. Kantirea (2016, 32–35) suggests that the sanctuary also possessed two further temples not mentioned in the Periegesis. However, Pausanias, in his description of the sanctuary (8, 37, 9) is interested in establishing a distinction between Despoina and Kore; it would therefore be surprising if he did not mention the existence of a temple dedicated to Kore. Furthermore, the decree IG V 2, 517, also found in Lykosoura, honours the Megalopolitan Saon who was a hierophant of the Great Goddesses and a descendant of the first men who introduced the telete of theses deities to Arcadia (l. 3. 8–9. 18). The location of the sanctuary of the Great Goddesses is not indicated, but they possessed a precinct in Megalopolis, where Pausanias (8, 31, 7) saw the statues of the founders of their telete. It seems therefore that the Great Goddesses of which Saon was the hierophant were those of Megalopolis. In both inscriptions, topographical indications were probably not necessary because confusion was impossible. Therefore, nothing indicates the presence of temples of Kore and the imperial cult in Lykosoura.

130

Archaic and Classical buildings, and therefore that it could accommodate the Lykourasian supplicants which reportedly refused to relocate to Megalopolis.26 II. The polis of Lykosoura It is not even certain that a polis named Lykosoura existed before the Hellenistic period. It does not appear in the Iliad’s Catalogue of Ships or in any Archaic or Classical document.27 The site of the acropolis has not been investigated and the city wall is not precisely dated.28 Several other settlements which, according to Pausanias, participated in the synoecism29 are also unattested by earlier sources. However, the Periegetes’ text seems to imply that the city was rather important, in which case we could expect at least an epigraphical or literary mention. The polis is first attested in a decree in honour of the sculptor Damophon found in Messene and probably dated to the second century BC, and, in the Imperial period, twice in inscriptions from the sanctuary. 30 In the Imperial period, two of the three inscriptions naming the polis of Lykosoura were issued jointly with Megalopolis and the latter made two further dedications in the sanctuary.31 Probably under Augustus, both the city of Megalopolis and that of Lykosoura honoured the wealthy citizen who repaired Despoina’s temple when it was about to collapse,32 and the decree issued by Lykosoura, as well as a similar decree honouring a priest and a priestess who took on the financing of the mysteries, were also to be placed in the grammatophylakion of Megalopolis.33 Finally, a unique coin from Megalopolis, depicting Julia Domna on the obverse, bears a representation of the sculptural group by Damophon on the reverse.34 It has therefore been suggested that Lykosoura was a dependent polis within the territory of Megalopolis.35 A few elements may indicate that this was already the case in the Hellenistic period. The fact that all the inscriptions from Lykosoura concern the sanctuary36 could be explained by the history of excavations, since only the sanctuary has been investigated. However, outside Lykosoura, the only document mentioning the polis is the honorary decree for Damophon found in Messene which also deals with the sanctuary.37 There are no indications of any relationship between Lykosoura and other poleis, or of its membership in the Achaean League unlike many of its Arcadian counterparts. If Lykosoura was primarily considered an extra- urban sanctuary of Megalopolis, this could explain why the city of Kaphyai chose it as a location for an honorary statue of Lydiadas, son of Eudamos, tyrant of Megalopolis; the

26 Paus. 8, 27, 6. Sinn 1993, 94–97 has demonstrated the need for lodging facilities in sanctuaries in which supplicants sought refuge. 27 There is no indication that the name Παρρασίη in the Catalogue of Ships (Hom. Il. 2, 608) refers to Lykosoura (see Meyer 1927, 2431 and Visser 1997, 546f.). Likewise, a fifth-century Parrhasian coin issue, previously ascribed to Lykosoura, could have been minted by Trapezus (see Pikoulas 2009). 28 Meyer 1927, 2426 dates the wall to the fifth or fourth century BC, which is either before or after the synoecism, but the dating of walls using typological criteria is problematic. 29 Paus. 8, 27, 3–4. 30 Messenian inscription: Themelis 1993b, l. 3, 10, 22, 28; IG V 2, 516 (l. 10; 22; 24; 28) and 544. IG V 2, 515C is also issued by the Lykourasians, but the word polis is not used. 31 IG V 2, 515B–C; 544. IG V 2, 533; 541–542. 32 IG V 2, 515B and C. For the date of the inscription, see Kantirea 2016, 38. 33 IG V 2, 515C, l. 3–4; 516, l. 31–32. 34 See Stais 1912. 35 See for instance Meyer 1927, 2431f.; Tsiolis 1999, 127f.; Nielsen 2004, 517. See also Jost 1985, 172. 36 Also noted by Tsiolis 1999, 128. 37 Themelis 1993b. The name of Lykosoura appears in one other inscription, IG V 2, 444, l. 11, in which the city is used as a topographical landmark.

131

latter was a strategos of the Achaean League, of which Kaphyai was also a member but apparently not Lykosoura.38 Finally, an inscription probably dated to the second century BC indicates that the mother of a priestess was a Megalopolitan,39 which might suggest that the sanctuary was controlled by this polis. It is possible, as some scholars have suggested, that Lykosoura was originally a kome of Megalopolis, and that it only acquired a polis status in the last quarter of the third or the first quarter of the second century BC,40 while still remaining in the Megalopolitan sphere of influence. Thus, Megalopolis was probably responsible for the sanctuary’s important building programme in the early Hellenistic period. Pausanias does not state that Lykosoura remained independent, but only that its citizens were allowed to remain in their city.41 If we accept that Lykosoura was a dependent polis in the Hellenistic period, it does not necessarily mean that the author is wrong. Nevertheless, there is no indication that Lykosoura already existed as a polis before the synoecism, and the fact that very few traces of earlier religious activity were found suggests that, if there were indeed inhabitants exempted from relocation, it was probably not because of their sanctuary. Accordingly, it is not possible to accept Pausanias’ allegation about the sanctuary’s antiquity without trying to challenge it.42 We will now see if it is possible to reconstruct a different history of Despoina’s cult place. III. Cults and myths in the sanctuary In his description of the sanctuary, Pausanias mentions a great number of deities.43 The statuary group by Damophon represents Despoina and her mother together with Artemis and the Titan Anytos; the goddesses’ stool and the basis of the group bear representations of the Kouretes and the Korybantes. Artemis Hegemone, the Great Mother, Poseidon Hippios, Pan, Ares, Athena and other gods were also honoured in the sanctuary, and Pausanias also saw statues of Aphrodite and Apollo. Representations of kerykeia from the sanctuary suggest a cult of Hermes,44 and an altar of Sarapis was also recovered.45 Finally, reliefs in the stoa depicted Zeus and the Moirai, Apollo and Herakles as well as nymphs. I will argue that this large number of cults could be explained by a Megalopolitan attempt to create a sanctuary of pan-Arcadian importance by gathering together cults characteristic of various regions of Arcadia. To that effect, I will focus on some of the deities and iconographical themes that were present in the sanctuary. By examining their link to other Arcadian traditions, I want to test the hypothesis that they were introduced into the sanctuary because of their preexistence in other cities.

38 IG V 2, 534. An exedra found in Megalopolis bearing representations of Eudamos and Lydiadas, seems to confirm the identification with the tyrant (see Stravrianopoulou 2002, 117–122 and 131). 39 IG V 2, 536. 40 See for instance Tsiolis 2002, 22f.; Nielsen 2002, 433. 41 Paus. 8, 27, 5–6. 42 Zingg 2016, 181 also supposes that the importance of the sanctuary that reportedly allowed the inhabitants of Lykosoura to remain in their city was a later aetiological invention. I would like to thank E. Zingg for providing me with a copy of his book before its publication. 43 Paus. 8, 37, 1–12. This unusual concentration of numerous cults and traditions in a single sanctuary has already been noted by scholars (see for instance Pirenne-Delforge 2008, 339; 345f.). 44 Kourouniotis 1911, 67–70, cat. 74–80. 45 IG V 2, 531.

132

IV. Poseidon Hippios Of the two gods whose epiklesis is transmitted by Pausanias, Poseidon Hippios is the most characteristic of the region, where he had a special significance, although he was also worshipped throughout the Peloponnese and the Greek world.46 His most famous cult could be found in Mantinea.47 There, his epiklesis is only attested by Pausanias and an undated inscription.48 However, his sanctuary, identified in particular through inscriptions, has yielded Archaic material, including architectural fragments from a temple.49 A few elements suggest that Poseidon was a major deity in the Classical period. In the fourth century BC, he or his trident are depicted on Mantinean coins50 and a tribe is named after him;51 moreover, a fragment from the fifth-century poet Bacchylides indicates that a trident was represented on Mantinean shields,52 suggesting the god’s importance in the Classical period. According to J. MYLONOPOULOS’ hypothesis, his sanctuary was originally used in common by all settlements which were later synoecised to form Mantinea in the beginning of the Classical period.53 Pausanias also mentions Poseidon Hippios’ presence elsewhere in Arcadia. The fact that, according to the author, his statue at Pheneos was dedicated by Odysseus54 is not a sufficient indication of the cult’s antiquity. However, the sanctuary mentioned by the Periegetes near Methydrion might have already existed in the Archaic period, since a sanctuary corresponding to his vague topographical indications has yielded Archaic material and architectural fragments besides the ruins of a Hellenistic temple.55 Finally, at Thelpousa and Phigaleia, Poseidon Hippios is thought to be Despoina’s father, 56 and his presence at Thelpousa is likely to be ancient.57 V. Artemis Hegemone Damophon’s sculptural group represents Artemis next to Despoina and Demeter; moreover, at the entrance of the sanctuary of Despoina, Pausanias mentions a temple and a statue of Artemis Hegemone.58 This deity was honoured throughout Greece59 but her only other known Arcadian cult could be found in Tegea, where, according to Pausanias, it was founded at the time of the otherwise unattested tyrant Aristomelidas.60 However, an Archaic statue of a seated female figure named Agemo has also been found near Asea, which is situated about

46 See Jost 1985, 281–292 and Mylonopoulos 2003, 381f. 47 See for instance Mylonopoulos 2003, 107–111. 48 Paus. 8, 10, 2; IG V 2, 276. 49 Fougères 1898, 103–106. See Konstantaki 2000, 95 and Mylonopoulos 2003, 109, n. 62 for the unpublished results of excavations conducted between 1985 and 1995 and the discovery of inscriptions naming Poseidon Hippios, whose date is unfortunately unknown. 50 BMC Peloponnesus, 186. A further coin, also dated to the fourth century BC, represents a horse, possibly an allusion to the god’s epiklesis (Babelon 1914, 639). 51 IG V 2, 271 and Dubois 1988, 122f. 52 Bakchyl. Frg. Epin. 1 (ed. Les Belles Lettres) apud Schol. Pind. O. 10, 83a. 53 Mylonopoulos 2003, 111. 54 Paus. 8, 14, 5. 55 Paus. 8, 36, 2. Hiller von Gaertringen – Lattermann 1911, 32–37. 41. See also Mylonopoulos 2003, 115–118. 56 Paus. 8, 25, 4–11. 42. 57 See below. Several scholars have postulated the existence of a sanctuary of Poseidon Hippios in Pallantion, a hypothesis which has been contested by M. Jost (Jost 2012, especially 117–121). 58 Paus. 8, 37, 1. 4. 59 See the Banque de Données des Épiclèses Grecques (https://epiclesesgrecques.univ-rennes1.fr). 60 Paus. 8, 47, 6.

133

15 km from Tegea. The figure has been interpreted either as a deceased person or as a goddess.61 The discovery of another seated female figure also found near Asea in what seems to be a sanctuary may indicate that Agemo was indeed a goddess.62 If this hypothesis is correct, the fact that she seems to be caressing a small animal, maybe a lion cub, and that the throne was decorated with lion paws might suggest an association with wild animals which would have lead to an identification with Artemis in nearby Tegea. The Lykosourian decree in honour of Damophon found in Messene mentions the creation by the sculptor of a statue of the goddess Hagemona (τὸ ἄγαλμα τᾶς θεοῦ τᾶς Ἁγεμόνας), and not Artemis Hegemone.63 Its height was eight cubits, which is between 3.20 and 4 m, while Pausanias mentions a life-size statue measuring six feet, which is between 1.60 and 2.10 m.64 It seems therefore that the bronze statue seen by Pausanias was not the work of Damophon,65 and it is not impossible that a local goddess Hagemona was first worshipped in the sanctuary and later identified with Artemis. In Messene too, the joint dedication of statues of Hagemon and Triops by the descendants of Damophon suggests that the goddess should not be identified with Artemis, but with the founding heroine Messene, daughter of Triops.66 VI. The childhood of Despoina and the birth of Zeus in Arcadia Anytos is unattested elsewhere in Arcadia, but a parallel can be found in the figure of Hopladamos. 67 According to Pausanias, Damophon represented Anytos “as a man in armour. Those about the sanctuary sa[id] that Despoina was brought up by Anytos, who was one of the Titans”68. In Methydrion, Hopladamos and other Giants were thought to have protected Rhea from Kronos while she was giving birth to Zeus.69 A recently published Archaic tablet from Arcadia seems to confirm the antiquity of part of this myth since it attests the existence of a festival called Hoplodmia, perhaps connected with the birth of Zeus and during which weapons were seemingly worn or offered to the god.70 Moreover, according to a fourth-century inscription, a Mantinean tribe was called Hoplodmia,71 which suggests a broader diffusion of the myth. Hesiod’s Theogony describes “the great Giants, shining in their armour, holding long spears in their hands”72, a description matching that of Anytos in

61 See for instance de La Genière 1986, 33–35. The statue, reused in an ancient tower of Asea, has been thought to come from a sanctuary of the Mother of the Gods which, according to Pausanias (8, 44, 3), was situated near the springs of the Alpheius, five stades, that is about 3.5 km, from Asea. The exact origin of the statue is unknown (see Forsén – Forsén 2003, 27f.), so it is possible but by no means certain that it had been brought from the sanctuary seen by Pausanias. The author describes a temple without a roof and two lions made out of stone, so the sanctuary may have been abandoned, in which case Pausanias could have only identified the deity through the presence of lions. Moreover, even if the iconography of Agemo’s statue is close to that of the Mother of Gods, and if she may have come from a sanctuary later known as a sanctuary dedicated to the Mother of Gods, the possibility that she was a distinct goddess is not excluded. 62 Spyropoulos 1993, 257f. 63 Themelis 1993b, l. 17–21. 64 Paus. 8, 37, 1. For the estimated measures of a cubit and a foot, see BNP s. v. Pechys and Pous. 65 As noted by Sève 1995, 443 (contra Themelis 1993a, 38f.). 66 Themelis 1992, 110–112 (SEG 41, 352). 67 See for instance Jost 1985, 335f. 68 Paus. 8, 37, 5. 69 Paus. 8, 36, 2–3. 70 Carbon – Clackson 2016, 128–131. 155. I would like to thank M. Carbon who kindly allowed me to read the article before its publication. 71 IG V 2, 271, l. 10. 72 Hes. theog. 185–186 (transl. G. W. Most).

134

Lykosoura. Thus, it is not excluded that the figure of Anytos was inspired by another armed figure which was known for its protection of divine children. Admittedly, according to Pausanias, Anytos was a Titan and not a Giant. However, Giants and Titans have been confused at least since the fifth century BC.73 The base of Damophon’s statuary group depicts the Kouretes and the Korybantes, who, according to Pausanias, should not be confused and whose story was probably told during the mysteries, since the author does not dare to reveal it.74 It is thus probable that they played some part in Despoina’s birth, just as they are involved in Zeus’ birth outside Arcadia, where their role is similar to that of Hopladamos. Already in Euripides, 75 the earliest source associating the Kouretes with the Cretan cave on Mount Ida thought to be the god’s birth place, these figures are confused with the Korybantes who had an Anatolian origin and were linked to the Great Mother.76 The Messenians, who claimed that Zeus was born in their city and saved by the Kouretes, had a megaron dedicated to them.77 In Lykosoura, part of the figures linked to Zeus’ birth, the Giants and the Kouretes, could have been associated with Despoina. Nevertheless, their presence also implicitly recalls the god’s birth in Arcadia,78 while the existence of an altar of the Great Mother in front of the temple, distinct from that of Despoina’s mother Demeter,79 may indicate a more direct allusion to Zeus and to his birth in Arcadia.80 Indeed, Rhea, mother of Zeus and of several major gods, is confused with the Great Mother since the fifth century BC at least, and her representations borrow the Anatolian features of the iconography of the Mother.81 This might partly explain the presence of elements such as the lions on the temple’s mosaic82 or the lions and tympanon on the stool which supported the feet of Damophon’s statues of Demeter and Despoina.83 Mentions of the Great Mother or Mother of Gods in the Peloponnese in the Periegesis are relatively rare. In Arcadia, besides a precinct in Megalopolis,84 which probably shared the same ritual background as the cult of the goddess in Lykosoura, Pausanias only names a temple near Asea.85 The existence of the cult there may be connected with the vicinity of the springs of the Eurotas, since Pausanias also indicates the existence of a temple dedicated to the Mother of Gods in Laconian Akriai, near the mouth of the river, as well as another in Sparta, also situated on the banks of the

73 See Vian 1952, 29. It is possible that this confusion is only due to Pausanias or his local source. Bremmer 2014, 84 suggests that the choice to make him a Titan rather than a Giant might be explained by the fact that Titans played a role in the mysteries of Imbros and Lesbos. This is not impossible, even though the role of Titans in those mysteries is not attested before the Imperial period (see Bremmer 2014, 37. 39). 74 Paus. 8, 37, 6. See for instance Jost 1985, 336. 75 Eur. Bacch. 120–129. 76 See Roller 1999, 170–172, and Bremmer 2014, 49 and 85, who writes that in Lykosoura, the “differentiation [of the Kouretes and the Korybantes], after centuries of amalgamation, looks very like someone’s pedantic innovation”. 77 Paus. 4, 33, 1. 31. 78 A relief of the stoa depicts nymphs next to Pan (Paus. 8, 37, 2), who, according to one of many different versions of his childhood, was raised by nymphs (Paus. 8, 30, 3; see Jost 1985, 460f.). In this case too, we could suppose that this relief indirectly hints at the most famous myth concerning nymphs, their upbringing of Zeus on Mount Lykaion (part of the tradition attested by Pausanias [8, 38, 3] is already present in Kall. h. 1, 32–36). 79 Paus. 8, 37, 2. 80 This has already been suggested by Pirenne-Delforge 2008, 339. 81 See Roller 1999, 170–174. 82 See Guimier-Sorbets – Panagiotopoulou 2008, 193. 83 Kourouniotis 1991, 58–61; Lévy – Marcadé 1972, 1000–1002. 84 Paus. 8, 30, 4. 85 Paus. 8, 44, 3.

135

river.86 The Mother of Gods had a statue by Damophon on the agora of Messene, where the Kouretes also had a precinct, probably on account of their role in the birth of Zeus in the city.87 Thus, while it is not possible to explain all the Peloponnesian cults of the Great Mother as a reference to Rhea, the three altars in front of the temple of Lykosoura may have been dedicated to three generations of goddesses, the Great Mother, Demeter and Despoina. But the Great Mother, the Kouretes and the Korybantes may have had a double function in the sanctuary. At least since the fifth century BC, mysteries in their honour were celebrated in the Greek world,88 and the Korybantes were at some point thought to have brought Kore back from the Underworld,89 so that these figures may have been introduced in the sanctuary partly in order to increase its mysteric atmosphere. VII. Mixanthropic figures in the sanctuary The aforementioned statuettes of anthropomorphic figures with animal heads found in the megaron find a close parallel in the dancing figures on Despoina’s garment. They are usually thought to represent initiates wearing animal masks and dancing during the mysteries,90 even though they could also be interpreted as “imaginary beings dancing in honour of the goddesses”91. Mixanthropic figures are known throughout the Greek world, and E. ASTON has shown that they are not as characteristic of Arcadia as they are thought to be; however, according to this scholar, they often emerged near boundaries of Arcadia with other regions, probably in order to underline the uniqueness and antiquity of Arcadian religion in the eyes of its neighbours.92 In such a context, their depiction on Despoina’s garment would be coherent with Megalopolis’ will to create a sanctuary of pan-Arcadian influence and of alleged antiquity. Ancient representations of humans with animal head masks are rare.93 However, an Archaic bronze group found near Methydrion shows four dancing figures with animal heads,94 which indicates the antiquity of this iconographical theme in Arcadia. Moreover, Pausanias writes that, in Pheneos, the priest of Demeter Kidaria wore a mask depicting the goddess and hit the ground with a stick.95 Since the epiklesis of the goddess may come from the name of the Arcadian dance kidaris, mentioned by Athenaeus,96 it may suggest the existence of masked dances in Pheneos, even if the mask does not depict an animal. Unfortunately Pausanias’ text gives no clues to date this sanctuary and these rites. In any case, the bronze group from Methydrion indicates that the iconographical theme was already present in Arcadia and may suggest that masked dances were considered as characteristic of the region.

86 Paus. 3, 22, 4. 3, 12, 9. Such a connection with the Eurotas has been suggested by J. de La Genière (see for instance de La Genière 2005, 5–8). 87 Paus. 4, 31, 6. 9. 33, 1. 88 See for instance Bremmer 2014, 48–53, for mysteries of the Korybantes, who were also confused with the Kouretes, and Roller 1999, 149–151 for mysteries of the Great Mother. 89 Etym. m. s.v. Κορύβαντες (see Sfameni Gasparro 2003, 360, n. 132). 90 See for instance Jost 2008, 105–107. 91 Aston 2011, 300f. 92 Aston 2011, 235–251. 93 See Jost 2008, 105 f. for parallels in Brauron and Cyprus. 94 According to Hiller von Gaertringen – Lattermann 1911, 41 the figures are depicted with ram heads, while M. Voyatzis (1990, 45) interprets them as horses. 95 Paus. 8, 15, 3. 96 Athen. 14, 631d. See Jost 1985, 320–322.

136

VIII. Despoina in Arcadia So far, we have only examined “secondary” deities in the sanctuary. But what about Despoina? If we assume that the absence of any attestation of her presence at Lykosoura before the synoecism is indeed an indication of her absence before that date, should we suppose that her figure was also a loan from another sanctuary? Outside Lykosoura, Despoina is unattested before the Hellenistic period. The female figure represented on the reverse of some fifth-century Arcadian coins has sometimes been understood as Despoina,97 although her iconography – a pearl necklace and a hair band – does not allow for any identification. Such a hypothesis is only supported by the alleged prominence of the goddess in the whole region, for which Pausanias’ statement that “the Arcadians worship [Despoina] more than any other god”98 is the only evidence. The newly discovered bronze tablet from Arcadia, dated around 500 BC, contains a list of sacrifices to be offered to a variety of deities. J. HEINRICHS, who first published this pinax, suggests that three of these sacrifices were intended for Despoina, named Kachila once (“she in bloom”) and associated with her mother Demeter on two further occasions.99 However, Despoina is never named in the tablet and the hypothesis according to which she was the recipient of these three sacrifices is based mainly on the assumption that she had the same function as Kore. In fact, Despoina is never associated with the Underworld or with seasons and agriculture and the evidence rather indicates that she was perceived as a divinity linked to wild animals and that she was thus closer to Artemis.100 Moreover, the new reading of the tablet by J.-M. CARBON and J. CLACKSON does not support the hypothesis of sacrifices offered to Despoina.101 Elsewhere in Arcadia, Despoina’s cult is only known from the sanctuary of Artemis Lykoatis in Lykoa, where tiles from a Hellenistic building bear her name next to Artemis’,102 while Pausanias sees statues of Despoina and Demeter on the border between Arcadia and Messenia.103 But according to the Periegetes, Despoina also played a part in Demeter’s myth in Thelpousa and Phigaleia. According to the Thelpousan version,104 while Demeter Erinys was looking for her daughter Kore she was pursued by Poseidon and turned into a mare in order to escape him. But Poseidon, noticing her trick, also turned into a horse in order to mate with her. Together they had a son, the horse Arion, and a daughter, whose name was secret but who cannot be Kore-Persephone since this episode takes place after her disappearance. The comparison with the Phigaleian myth suggests that she was Despoina.105 Pausanias cites the poet Antimachos as a source for the sanctuary of Demeter Erinys and for the myth of Arion, indicating that they were known in Thelpousa at least since the late fifth or early fourth century BC.106 Moreover, fourth-century coins showing on the obverse what is probably Demeter, wearing a horse pendant on one specimen, and Arion on the reverse107

97 See lately Heinrichs 2015, 37. 75. 98 Paus. 8, 37, 9. 99 Heinrichs 2015, particularly 34–38. 40f. 50–52. 62. 100 See below. 101 Carbon – Clackson 2016. 102 See Forsén 2016, 53–55. Some stamps read Ἀρτέμιτος Λυκοάτιδος while the inscription Δέσποινας ΑΚ can be reconstructed on other stamps. It is therefore unlikely that Despoina was a cult title applied to Artemis. 103 Paus. 8, 35, 2. 104 Paus. 8, 25, 4–11. 105 See below. 106 For the date of this poet, see Matthews 1996, 15–18. 107 See Imhoof-Blumer – Gardner 1886, 106; Grandjean 1986, 145.

137

may suggest that they were already associated at that time.108 Nothing, however, indicates that Despoina was already part of the myth in the fourth century or even before Pausanias’ time; the fact that, in an ancient parallel myth set in Boiotia, Arion is Poseidon’s and Erinys’ only offspring109 might suggest that, in Thelpousa, Despoina was a later addition to a myth primarily concerning Demeter Erinys, Poseidon Hippios and Arion.110 On the occasion of his visit to the cave sanctuary of Demeter Melaina in the chora of Phigaleia, Pausanias tells a similar myth but indicates that Poseidon and Demeter had only a daughter, Despoina.111 According to the Periegetes, a cult statue made by the sculptor Onatas of Aegina two generations after the Persian Wars replaced an even older statue that represented Demeter; the goddess had a horse head with snakes and other animals extending from it, and was holding a dolphin and a dove. If we are to believe the attribution of a statue that had allegedly disappeared three generations before Pausanias’ visit,112 the cult of Demeter and maybe part of her myth already existed by the fifth century BC. But, once again, nothing indicates the presence of Despoina at that time. Moreover, although Pausanias writes that Arion was not held to be Poseidon’s and Demeter’s son by the Phigaleians, he cites an oracle, supposedly from the fifth century, which suggests otherwise, since it refers to “Deo who bare a horse” (ἱππολεχής, a hapax). The explicit mention of Phigaleia and a cave – a feature absent from Thelpousa – indicates that it was Demeter Melaina who was thought to have given birth to Arion. It was probably at Phigaleia that Pausanias heard about the local version according to which Despoina was the offspring of Demeter and Poseidon, while he seems to know the oracle from an independent, written source.113 Furthermore, since Demeter was partly a horse and since she mated with Poseidon, probably thought to be Poseidon Hippios like in Thelpousa, it seems likely that their union originally produced a horse, Arion, rather

108 Antimachos, cited by Pausanias, writes about “Areion of Thelpousa, whom near the grove of Oncean Apollo Gaia herself sent up”. Pausanias also mentions a sanctuary of Apollo Onkaiatos in Onkeion, where Demeter’s sanctuary was also situated. The story according to which the eponymous hero Onkos, a son of Apollo, gave the horse Arion to Herakles also seems to be taken from Antimachos. The poet thus seems to only associate Arion with Apollo and to give a different version of his birth. However, according to a scholion to the Iliad (Schol. Hom. Il. 23, 346), the Archaic Epic Cycle (M. Davies, Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, frg. 6C) mentioned the union of Poseidon and Erinys in the shape of horses by the spring Tilphoussa in Boiotia, and the birth of Areion which followed. Whatever the explanation for the similarity in myth and toponyms may be (see for instance Jost 1985, 304f.; Nielsen – Roy 1998, 22f.), it suggests that, in Arcadia too, Demeter Erinys and Arion were already associated in Antimachos’ days and that two different versions of the horse’s myth coexisted. 109 See previous note. 110 See also Jost 1985, 309 who suggests that Erinys, mother of Arion, was a goddess before the name became Demeter’s epiklesis and that, as a result, Despoina, as Demeter’s daughter, could not have been part of the original myth but was probably added under the influence of Eleusis. 111 Paus. 8, 42. According to the Phigaleian myth, Demeter, because she was raped by Poseidon and she had lost her daughter, withdrew in grief into a cave, causing a famine among the humans. Zeus therefore sent the Moirai to persuade Demeter to leave her cave. It is possible that the representation of Zeus Moiragetes with the Moirai seen by Pausanias (8, 37, 1) on a relief of the stoa of Lykosoura alludes to this episode. 112 Aston 2011, 100f. is right to note that the story of the statue as told by Pausanias is surrounded by mythical elements and therefore cannot be used as a proof of the existence of the cult image. However, the fact that the name of a sculptor was transmitted may suggest that it was an actual statue, around which myths later developed. 113 See Pretzler 2005a, 245.

138

than a human daughter. Accordingly, although the oracle mentioned might not be earlier than the late Hellenistic period,114 it is possible that Despoina replaced Arion at a later date.115 How are we to understand the fact that nothing hints at the existence of Arcadia’s most venerated goddess116 until her first epigraphical mention at the end of the third century BC?117 Was she a minor figure in Thelpousa and Phigaleia raised to a major position by Megalopolis? Or is it possible that the goddess was first created at Lykosoura and that her popularity explains why she was later integrated into the myths of these two poleis? IX. Despoina, Kore and Artemis Several parallel features in the figures of Despoina and Kore may suggest that the former was modelled after the latter. The influence of the sanctuary of Eleusis on that of Lykosoura has already been noticed, especially because of the presence of the sceptre and kiste held by Damophon’s cult statue of Despoina.118 Moreover, the fact that the pomegranate could not be given as an offering in the sanctuary119 has been understood as an allusion to the fact that Hades made Persephone join him in the underworld by giving her pomegranate seeds.120 But Despoina herself is also very close to Kore. Both are daughters of Demeter, and both are known by their common name but also have a proper name, which in Despoina’s case could not be revealed by Pausanias.121 However, unlike other Arcadian sanctuaries where, in Pausanias’ time, the influence of Eleusis is openly visible in the choice of Demeter’s epiklesis, Eleusinia,122 the influence of the Eleusinian model seems to have been disguised. As underlined by Pausanias,123 Despoina and Kore are two different goddesses, by two different fathers. The masked dances which may have taken place in the megaron 124 as well as the unusual sacrifice described by Pausanias125 distinguish Lykosoura’s sanctuary as a typical Arcadian cult place. Moreover, unlike Kore, Despoina is not linked to agriculture. Very little is known about her functions, but the decoration of her garment and the figurines from the megaron suggest that she was connected to animals. Moreover, according to a myth told by Pausanias, a deer was sacred to her.126 Although nothing more is known about the goddess, these elements suggest that she was similar to Artemis.127 In a region known for the richness of its flocks, rather than agriculture,128 and where mixanthropic deities were probably chosen as a means of self-

114 This is H. W. Parke and D. E. W. Wormell’s hypothesis (Parke – Wormell 1956, 323f.). 115 This hypothesis has also been ventured by Aston 2011, 102. Borgeaud 2015, 291 also supposes that the myths involving Demeter and Despoina in Thelpousa and Phigaleia as they are known by Pausanias are the result of a relatively late rewriting. 116 According to Paus. 8, 37, 9. 117 IG V 2, 514, l. 11–12. 118 See for instance Jost 2008, 102f. 119 Paus. 8, 37, 7. 120 Hom. h. Dem. 372. See for instance Jost 1985, 330 and Pirenne-Delforge 2008, 221. 121 Paus. 8, 37, 9. Bowden 2015, 37-38, suggests that unlike Kore, Despoina did not have a proper name, despite Pausanias’ allegation. 122 Pheneos: 8, 15, 1; border between Psophis and Thelpousa: 8, 25, 2-3; Basilis: 8, 29, 5. 123 Paus. 8, 37, 9. 124 See above. 125 Paus. 8, 37, 8. 126 Paus. 8, 10, 10. 127 Loucas 1987/1988 considers that Artemis is the secret name of Despoina, but Jost 2008, 103 and 107, has rightly argued against such an identification. 128 See Roy 1999, 328–333. 349–356.

139

representation in the eyes of the neighbouring regions,129 it is not a surprising choice for a goddess intended to be characteristic of Arcadia. Thus, Despoina seems to be an Artemis made in Kore’s mysteric mould. X. Despoina’s cult title Before the Hellenistic period, the word δέσποινα, “mistress”, can only be found in a single, Archaic inscription from Didyma, where it seems to qualify Hecate.130 However, the word is much more frequent in literary texts. It can apply to mortal women, especially queens and mistresses of slaves,131 but it is also frequently used to refer to various goddesses. It can be used with a genitive: thus, Anacreon calls Artemis the “mistress of wild beasts” (ἀγρίων δέσποιν’ Ἄρτεμι θηρῶν),132 while, according to Pindar, Aphrodite is “the mistress of Cyprus” (Κύπρου δέσποινα)133 and, in Euripides, Persephone is the “mistress of fire” (πυρὸς δέσποινα Δήμητρος κόρη).134 The word δέσποινα can also be used in apposition to the name of the deity: for instance, Aeschylus refers to δέσποιν’ Ἑκάτη,135 Euripides’ Theseus calls Athena δέσποιν’ Ἀθάνα136 and Aristophanes mentions δέσποινα Κυβέλη.137 Finally, the word δέσποινα can be used alone: in Euripides, Hecate is “the mistress [Medea] worships most of all” (τὴν δέσποιναν ἣν ἐγὼ σέβω μάλιστα πάντων)138 and Aphrodite is addressed to as δέσποινα (ὦ δέσποιν’).139 Starting in the Hellenistic period, the habit of referring to goddesses as δέσποινα appears in the epigraphical evidence. In Thessalian Melitaia, it designates Ino, nurse of Dionysos.140 In Cnidian curse tablets, it refers to Demeter.141 A Lydian inscription also mentions δέσποινα κόρα πολύοπλος Ἀθάν[α].142 The use of the word δέσποινα to refer to various deities is much more frequent in the Imperial period, with examples coming from Attica,143 Ionia144 and other regions. Α marble table bearing a dedication to [Δ]έσποιναι Ἀρτέμιτι has been found in the temple of Lykosoura,145 which has also yielded an Imperial dedication to the Δεσποίναις ἐπηκόοις.146 Contemporaneous dedications to anonymous Δεσποίναις also come from other

129 See Aston 2011, 235–251. 130 I.Didyma 16, l. 2–3. G. Marginesu also proposes that the word or name δέσποινα is inscribed on a seventh- or sixth-century ceramic fragment from the acropolis sanctuary of Cretan Gortyn (Marginesu 2002, 69). However, the reading is very uncertain as the sherd is broken (--]π̣οινα̣[--). 131 See for instance Hom. Od. 7, 53 (Arete, queen of the Phaeacians) and 23, 2 (Penelope). 132 Anacreon, frg. 348 (Campbell, Greek Lyric II). 133 Frg. 122 (Race, Loeb Classical Library), l. 17. 134 Eur. frg. Phaethon 268. 135 TrGF 378. 136 Eur. Suppl. 1227. 137 Aristoph. Av. 877. 138 Eur. Med. 395–396 (transl. adapted from D. Kovacs). 139 Eur. Med. 632. 140 SEG 26, 683 (l. 7: ὦ δέσποινα). 141 SGDI 3537b, l. 5–6: Δέσπο[ι]|να Δάματερ. See also SGDI 3541, l. 9 and 3545, l. 16. 142 TAM V 1, 468b, l. 9. 143 See for instance IG II2, 4347 and 4791. 144 I.Smyrna 743, l. 7; I.Ephesos 967, l. 7; 1066, l. 5. In the inscriptions I.Leukopetra 109, 112, 113, the Mother of Gods is designated with the word δέσποινα, but the inscriptions were written by hierodouloi. In this case, δέσποινα is the goddess but in her function of mistress of slaves. 145 IG V 2, 522. See below for its interpretation. 146 IG V 2, 525.

140

regions of the Peloponnese: Sparta, Gytheion, Epidauros and, according to Pausanias, an altar was dedicated to them at Olympia.147 The data presented here allows us to venture the hypothesis that Despoina’s cult title had a literary origin. 148 The fact that it is found in inscriptions from distant regions contemporaneous to its first attestation in Lykosoura indicates that the Arcadian sanctuary did not have a direct influence on votive practices. We must rather suppose that the word that was used in poetry and theatre was slowly beginning to appear in cultic inscriptions, and that the erudite choice to use it as a cult title for the new Arcadian goddess was made in this context. In different regions of the Greek world in the Imperial period, it continues to apply to named deities. However, in the Peloponnese, it refers to Δέσποιναι, mostly in the plural form, whose identity is not made explicit, which seems to indicate an influence of the sanctuary of Lykosoura. Just as the success of the cult may have led to its diffusion or at least to the diffusion of Despoina’s myth in other Arcadian localities (the border with Messenia, Lykoa, Thelpousa and Phigaleia), the cult title may have spread to other regions of the Peloponnese, where it may have referred to different deities.149 In Lykosoura, the Δεσποίναι ἐπηκόοι may be identified with Despoina and Demeter;150 the use of the word δέσποινα to refer to both of them is not surprising given that it applies to any female deity in Classical literary texts and Hellenistic and Imperial inscriptions. Perhaps this is also how the difficult inscription IG V 2, 522 should be understood. Because of the juxtaposition of the names of Despoina and Artemis ([Δ]έσποιναι Ἀρτέμιτι), the inscription has been understood either as a joint dedication to Despoina and Artemis,151 or as an indication that Despoina was in fact Artemis.152 But it could be a simple dedication to Artemis, even though Despoina would be a more fitting recipient for the dedication of this marble table found within her temple. If the cult title of Despoina is indeed an erudite invention paralleling the cult title of Kore, it seems a perfect fit for a goddess whose sanctuary was perhaps deliberately created to concentrate the religious traditions of the whole region. Like Artemis in Anacreon’s fragment, she could be seen as a Mistress of Animals, δέσποινα θηρῶν, a role which corresponds to the image that other parts of the Greek world had of Arcadia.153 But at the same time, Despoina may have been perceived as the Mistress of Arcadia, just like Aphrodite was called the Mistress of Cyprus by Pindar. In that case, the cult succeeded in meeting the ambitious expectations of the inventors of the cult title, since Pausanias writes that “the Arcadians worship Despoina more than any other god”.154

147 Sparta: IG V 1, 230. 363, l. 13–14. Gytheion: IG V 1, 1151. Epidauros: IG IV2 1, 396 (dedication to Δέσποινα in the singular form). Olympia: Paus. 5, 15, 4. 148 Contra Henrichs 1976, 261. 264f., who suggests that the literary use of the word in the Classical period comes from the cultic practice, where it was in usage in the earlier periods, for which we do not have any written texts. 149 Pausanias’ assumption that the Δέσποιναι of Olympia are connected to the goddess of Lykosoura (5, 15, 4) may only originate in the similarity of the name and the author did not necessarily possess further information about the identity of these deities. 150 IG V 2, 525. 151 See for instance Pirenne-Delforge 2008, 341, n. 271. 152 Loucas 1987/1988, 410–412. 153 See above. That Despoina is a δέσποινα θηρῶν has already been hypothesised by scholars (see for instance Jost 2008, 107). 154 Paus. 8, 37, 9.

141

XI. From innovation to tradition If the cult of Despoina was indeed a Megalopolitan creation, when and how did it start to be perceived as a particularly ancient cult? Between the reliefs of the stoa depicting Zeus and the Moirai, Apollo and Herakles, Pan and the nymphs as well as Polybius, Pausanias sees an “inscribed tablet concerning the mysteries” (πινάκιόν ἐστι γεγραμμένον, ἔχον τὰ ἐς τὴν τελετήν).155 This tablet has puzzled scholars. The author’s detailed and accurate description of the sanctuary and the surroundings indicates that he visited Lykosoura. Moreover, the fact that he knows but does not dare to reveal either the name of Despoina or the myths concerning the Kouretes and Korybantes156 suggests that these were secret, but that he was initiated into the mysteries. Therefore, he must have seen the tablet, yet it seems improbable that the contents of the mysteries were really exposed to the eye of any visitor. Thus, the pinakion cannot be “a tablet with descriptions of the mysteries”157. M. JOST has suggested that the word pinakion should be translated as painting and not tablet, or that it was in fact a regulation concerning the mysteries.158 However, in the latter case, Pausanias’ interest for the inscription would be hard to explain. Perhaps we can find another explanation for the presence of the pinakion in the stoa, if it is indeed a tablet. Scholars have already noticed that written texts play a role in the foundation of new cults.159 One of the most famous cases is the miraculous discovery of inscribed lamellae containing the mysteries of the Great Goddesses at Andania (ἐνταῦθα τῶν Μεγάλων θεῶν ἐγέγραπτο ἡ τελετή) following a vision in a dream. According to Pausanias, the sanctuary had been abandoned because of the Messenian wars against Sparta and this discovery happened at the time of the refoundation of Messene – contemporary to the foundation of Megalopolis.160 In fact, the mysteries may have been created at a later time since they are not attested before the first century BC or AD,161 but we have other examples which indicate that the discovery of texts could be staged in order to justify the creation of new cults. Lucian reports that, when Alexander of Abonouteichos founded the cult of Glykon, he hid bronze tablets in the sanctuary of Apollo at Chalcedon, which, after their discovery, allowed the cult to grow in popularity very quickly.162 Most of these examples are Imperial and we may wonder, if the tablet’s miraculous discovery indeed led to the creation of mysteries, why Pausanias does not mention this story like he did in the case of Andania. Perhaps an explanation would be that the tablet, possibly created in the third century BC, was no longer readable a few centuries later, and that Pausanias was only told about its general content. Whatever the pinakion may be, Pausanias provides another piece of information which may date back to the origins of Despoina’s cult. According to the Periegetes, “in obedience to a dream, they dug up the earth within the enclosure and so found” the stone that was used for the statuary group by Damophon.163 This account is obviously wrong since the group was not made of one single block of marble.164 But at the time of the cult’s foundation, such a

155 Paus. 8, 37, 2. 156 Paus. 8, 37, 6. 9. 157 This is W. H. S. Jones’ translation. 158 Jost 1985, 329f.; Jost 2008, 94, n. 8. 159 See for instance Busine 2012, 241–244; Chaniotis 2002, 70. 160 Paus. 4, especially 14, 1. 20, 3. 26, 6–8. 27, 5. 161 However, V. Pirenne-Delforge’s hypothesis that the mysteries were created in the first century AD (Pirenne- Delforge 2010) has been challenged (see for instance Gawlinski 2012, 12–16). 162 Lukian. Alex. 10. On the creation of this cult, see for instance Chaniotis 2002. 163 Paus. 8, 37, 3. 164 About this account, see Platt 2011, 220–222.

142

claim may have been used to stress the natural sacrality of the place which justified the creation of a cult, even if Damophon only worked in the sanctuary a few decades later. Evidence for such cult foundations allegedly demanded by gods in dreams goes back to the Classical period.165 It may thus be possible to distinguish two stages in the alleged history of the sanctuary. At first, Despoina’s cult was possibly considered a contemporary creation, allowed by the discovery of written texts or by instructions given in a dream. Later, when the memory of the creation was forgotten by all, myths and pseudo-historical stories were created in order to anchor the sanctuary into a remote past.166 The antiquity of the cult must have been particularly important for a polis that seems to have existed only through its sanctuary.167 Moreover, at a time when financing the mysteries or the reconstruction of the temple was difficult,168 the importance that the sanctuary acquired through the high antiquity of its major cult would have attracted the euergetism not only of rich Megalopolitans, but also of wealthy citizens of other regions.169 The sacrifices in the megaron may also have been modified at a later date. According to Pausanias, the animals dedicated during the mysteries were not sacrificed in the normal manner.170 “Each man chop[ped] off a limb” of the animal but did not cut its throat, which suggests that the victims were dismembered while they were still alive. 171 The savage character of the sacrifice in the megaron described by Pausanias cannot be seen as an indication of its old age. As V. PIRENNE-DELFORGE has demonstrated in the case of the Laphria of Patrae where animals were thrown alive into a fire,172 such spectacular rituals could be created in the Imperial period “in accordance with the violent Roman shows and the taste for presumed antiquity”.173 Moreover, Pausanias’ testimony that each person sacrificed what they possessed has been understood by J. BREMMER as an indication that the ritual was adapted to the financially difficult context of the Imperial period.174 Accordingly, it seems preferable to identify different historical layers in Pausanias’ account about the sanctuary rather than to suppose that his entire information is older than the foundation of Megalopolis. XII. Conclusion We started from the hypothesis that the sanctuary of Lykosoura and its cults could be more recent than generally thought and have been created through the combination of different traditions. Indeed, connections to different cities of the southern half of Arcadia can be identified: Phigaleia, Thelpousa, Methydrion, Mantinea, and perhaps Asea and Tegea. By the second century BC, the sanctuary had also integrated panhellenic cult figures and traditions:

165 See for instance I.Priene2 195; Plat. leg. 909e–910a. For a summary of the Classical, epigraphical evidence, see Hemingway 2008, 158–166. 166 If we accept that the tablet seen by Pausanias in the stoa was miraculously discovered and thus allowed the creation of the mysteries, the presence of such a text did not necessarily contradict the claim to antiquity. The tablet may have been considered evidence for a much more ancient creation of the mysteries, or it may have been unreadable by that time. 167 See above. 168 See above. 169 For dedications from citizens of Sparta or Athens, see Kantirea 2016, 37. 170 Paus. 8, 37, 8. 171 About this sacrifice, see Pirenne-Delforge 2008, 222. 172 Paus. 7, 18, 11–13. 173 Pirenne-Delforge 2006, 114–129. 174 Bremmer 2014, 84.

143

besides the Eleusinian influence, we can list the Kouretes and Korybantes, as well as the fight between Apollo and Herakles for the god’s tripod depicted in the stoa, which Pausanias connects to Delphi,175 indicating that he did not know any local version of this myth. It is not possible to prove that the cults mentioned were necessarily imported from other Arkadian cities – especially in the case of Agemo/Artemis Hegemone which is very uncertain. Like Pan and Athena, other deities might have been present in the sanctuary before the synoecism, perhaps even Despoina. But what this study shows is that the Megalopolitan elite and intellectuals had all the ingredients necessary in order to create a seemingly ancient and pan-Arcadian articulation of cults like the one presented by Pausanias. Such a scholarly creation would not be surprising, as several recent studies focusing on ritual dynamics have shown.176 The creation of a new cult by combination of “tradition (recursion to existing rituals) and innovation (a new and unique combination of cultic elements and a new ritual performance)” is not only conceivable in the late, Imperial context which saw the cult of Glykon, founded by Alexander of Abonouteichos, become a huge success.177 A much more famous example is more or less contemporary with the possible creation of Despoina as a new cult figure: the cult of Sarapis was founded by combining aspects of an Egyptian god, Osiris-Apis, and of Greek deities such as Zeus, Pluto, Dionysos or Asklepios.178 Regarding Pausanias’ claim that the sanctuary was very ancient, we have to bear in mind that the author might be reliable when his knowledge derives from autopsy, but, for events which occurred five centuries before his time, he has to rely on sources which sometimes present a pseudo-historical account of the events they relate. For instance, M. PRETZLER has shown that Mantinean history, as told by Pausanias, was probably rewritten by the local elite in order to claim a continuity between the Hellenistic and Imperial Antigoneia and its predecessor, the Classical Mantinea, although its population was probably exterminated in 222 BC;179 some traditions, including perhaps the name of the founding heroine, Antinoe, may also have been created on the occasion of Hadrian’s visit a few decades before that of Pausanias. Similarly, the events of the 360s to which the foundation of Megalopolis is connected led to a re-writing of the early history of different regions of the Peloponnese, including Arcadia.180 In this context, the creation of a new cult, which through its connection with other sanctuaries of the region was seemingly intended for a pan-Arcadian audience, had two different functions. First, it asserted Megalopolis’ position as a leader within the region, at a time when there were perhaps two rival Arcadian Confederacies, one centered around Mantinea and one around Megalopolis. 181 This rivalry also took a religious form, as Megalopolis’ application for membership in the Pylaeo-Delphic Amphictyony suggests.182 Secondly, the synoecism of Megalopolis was a union of different communities that probably shared only a few common cults before, those of Zeus Lykaios and of Apollo Parrhasios mentioned by Pausanias.183 The sanctuary of Lykosoura thus contributed to federate the

175 Paus. 8, 37, 1. 176 For instance Piérart 1998; Chaniotis 2002; Pirenne-Delforge 2006; Belayche 2009. 177 See for instance Chaniotis 2002, from which this citation is taken. 178 See for instance Pfeiffer 2008, 389–394. 179 Pretzler 2005b. 180 See now Zingg 2016. 181 See Nielsen 2002, 493–497. However, the fact that the exact date of the hypothetical foundation of the cult is unknown does not allow us to identify a more specific historical context. 182 See Nielsen 2008. 183 For Zeus Lykaios’ role within the region, see for instance Nielsen 2013, 235–240. For Apollo Parrhasios, see Paus. 8, 38, 2 and 8.

144

members of the new community, as citizens of Megalopolis, around common cults. 184 Despite the importance of the reference to the past in ancient Greece, the creation of a completely new cult rather than the development of an existing one did not favour any community over the others, which was probably the key to the success of the synoecism process. That being said, it is possible that future excavations will produce more Archaic and early Classical material and will prove Pausanias right. But for now, nothing supports the writer’s claim that Despoina’s cult was very ancient.

Alaya Palamidis Université de Liège/Onassis Foundation [email protected]

184 For the creation of new cults in cities founded by synoecism see Parker 2009, 192–195.

145

Bibliography Aston 2011 E. Aston, Mixanthrôpoi. Animal-Human Hybrid Deities in Greek Religion (Liège 2011) Babelon 1914 E. Babelon, Traité des monnaies grecques et romaines II 3 (Paris 1914) Becker 2003 T. Becker, Griechische Stufenanlagen. Untersuchungen zur Architektur, Entwicklungsgeschichte, Funktion und Repräsentation (Münster 2003) Belayche 2009 N. Belayche, «Un dieu est né...» à Stratonicée de Carie (I Stratonikeia 10), in: C. Batsch – M. Vârtejanu-Joubert (eds.), Manières de penser dans l’Antiquité méditerranéenne et orientale. Mélanges offerts à Francis Schmidt par ses élèves, ses collègues et ses amis (Leiden 2009) 193–212 Billot 2008 M.-F. Billot, Le temple de Despoina, Ktema 33, 2008, 135–180 Borgeaud 2015 P. Borgeaud, La Mère des dieux. Colère et repentir, in: J.-M. Durand – L. Marti – T. Römer (eds.), Colères et repentirs divins (Fribourg 2015) 285–295 Bowden 2015 H. Bowden, Nameless Gods: Mystery Cults, Myth, Ritual and Greek Polis Religion, Kodai. Journal of Ancient History 16, 2015, 31–42 Bremmer 2014 J. N. Bremmer, Initiation into the Mysteries of the Ancient World (Berlin 2014) Busine 2012 A. Busine, The Discovery of Inscriptions and the Legitimation of New Cults, in: B. Dignas – R. R. R. Smith (eds.), Historical and Religious Memory in the Ancient World (Oxford 2012) 241–256 Carbon – Clackson 2016 J.-M. Carbon – J. P. T. Clackson, Arms and the Boy: On the New Festival Calendar from Arkadia, Kernos 29, 2016, 119–158 Chaniotis 2002 A. Chaniotis, Old Wine in a New Skin. Tradition and Innovation in the Cult Foundation of Alexander of Abonouteichos, in: E. Dabrowa (ed.), Tradition and Innovation in the Ancient World (Kraków 2002) 67–85 Coulton 1976 J. J. Coulton, The Architectural Development of the Greek Stoa (Oxford 1976) Dubois 1988 L. Dubois, Recherches sur le dialecte arcadien. I. Grammaire. II. Corpus dialectal. III. Notes – index – bibliographie (Louvain-la-Neuve 1988) Forsén 2016 B. Forsén, Artemis Lykoatis and the Bones of Arkas. Sanctuaries and territoriality, in: M. Melfi – O. Bobou (eds.), Hellenistic Sanctuaries. Between Greece and Rome (Oxford 2016) 40–62 Forsén – Forsén 2003 J. Forsén – B. Forsén, The Asea Valley Survey. An Arcadian Mountain Valley from the Palaeolithic Period until Modern Times (Stockholm 2003) Fougères 1898 G. Fougères, Mantinée et l’Arcadie orientale (Paris 1898)

146

Gawlinski 2012 L. Gawlinski, The Sacred Law of Andania. A New Text with Commentary (Berlin 2012) Grandjean 1986 C. Grandjean, Le culte de Déméter dans le Péloponnèse (Diss. Université Paris X, Nanterre 1986) Grandjean – Nicolet-Pierre 2008 C. Grandjean – H. Nicolet-Pierre, Le décret de Lykosoura en l’honneur de Damophon et la circulation monétaire dans le Péloponnèse aux IIIe-IIe siècles avant notre ère, Ktema 33, 2008, 129–134 Guimier-Sorbets – Panagiotopoulou 2008 A.-M. Guimier-Sorbets – A. Panagiotopoulou, La mosaïque du temple de Despoina à Lykosoura, Ktema 33, 2008, 191–200 Heinrichs 2015 J. Heinrichs, Military Integration in Late Archaic Arkadia: New Evidence from a Bronze Pinax (ca. 500 BC) of the Lykaion, in: W. Heckel – S. Müller – G. Wrightson (eds.), The Many Faces of War in the Ancient World (Newcastle upon Tyne 2015) 1–89 Henrichs 1976 A. Henrichs, Despoina Kybele: ein Beitrag zur religiösen Namenkunde, HarvStClPhil 80, 1976, 253–286 Hellmann 2008 M.-C. Hellmann, Le Mégaron de Lykosoura, Ktema 33, 2008, 181–190 Hemingway 2008 B. Hemingway, The Dream in Classical Greece: Debates and Practices (Diss. Queen’s College, Oxford 2008) Hiller von Gaertringen – Lattermann 1911 F. Hiller von Gaertringen – H. Lattermann, Arkadische Forschungen (Berlin 1911) Hollinshead 2015 M. B. Hollinshead, Shaping Ceremony. Monumental Steps and Greek Architecture (Madison 2015) Hornblower 1990 S. Hornblower, When Was Megalopolis Founded?, BSA 85, 1990, 71-77 Hübinger 1992 U. Hübinger, On Pan’s Iconography and the Cult in the Sanctuary of Pan on the Slopes of Mount Lykaion, in: R. Hägg (ed.), The Iconography of Greek Cult in the Archaic and Classical Period. Proceedings of the First International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, organised by the Swedish Institut at Athens and the European Cultural Centre of Delphi, Delphi, 16–18 November 1990 (Athens 1992) 189–212 Imhoof-Blumer – Gardner 1886 F. Imhoof-Blumer – P. Gardner, Numismatic Commentary on Pausanias II, JHS 7, 1886, 57–113 Jost 1975 M. Jost, Statuettes de bronze provenant de Lykosoura, BCH 99, 1, 1975, 339–364 Jost 1985 M. Jost, Sanctuaires et cultes d’Arcadie, Études Péloponnesiennes 9 (Paris 1985) Jost 2008 M. Jost, La vie religieuse à Lykosoura, Ktema 33, 2008, 93–110

147

Jost 2012 M. Jost, De Pallantion d’Arcadie à Pallantium du Latium : fêtes « arcadiennes » et fêtes romaines (Denys d’Halicarnasse, I, 32, 3-33, 3), Kernos 25, 2012, 103–123 Kantirea 2016 M. Kantirea, Re-shaping the Sacred Landscape Through Benefaction. The Sanctuary of Lykosoura in the Peloponnese, in: M. Melfi – O. Bobou (eds.), Hellenistic Sanctuaries. Between Greece and Rome (Oxford 2016) 27–39 Konstantaki 2000 C. Konstantaki (ed.), Το έργο του υπουργείου πολιτισμού στον τομέα της πολιτιστικής κληρονομιάς 1999 (Athens 2000) Kourouniotis 1907 K. Kourouniotis, Αἱ ἐν Λυκοσούρᾳ ἐργασίαι, Πρακτικά τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἐταιρείας 1906, 1907, 120–123 Kourouniotis 1911 K. Kourouniotis, Κατάλογος του Μουσείου Λυκοσούρας (Athens 1911) Kourouniotis 1912 K. Kourouniotis, Τὸ ἐν Λυκοσούρᾳ Μέγαρον τῆς Δεσποίνης, Αρχαιολογική Εφημερίς 1912, 142–161 de La Genière 1986 J. de La Genière, Le culte de la Mère des dieux dans le Péloponnèse, CRAI 130, 1986, 29– 48 de La Genière 2005 J. de La Genière, Kastraki. Un sanctuaire en Laconie (Athens 2005) Leonardos 1897 V. Leonardos, Ἀνασκαφαὶ τοῦ ἐν Λυκοσούρᾳ ἱεροῦ τῆς Δεσποίνης, Πρακτικά τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἐταιρείας 1896, 1897, 95–126 Lévy 1967 E. Lévy, Sondages à Lykosoura et date de Damophon, BCH 91, 2, 1967, 518–545 Lévy – Marcadé 1972 E. Lévy – J. Marcadé, Au musée de Lycosoura, BCH 96, 2, 1972, 967–1004 Loucas 1987–1988 E. Loucas, Le nom de la Théa Despoina (Tatien, Ad Graec. 29 – Paus. VIII, 37, 6 et 9), in: Πρακτικά Γ’ διεθνούς συνεδρίου πελοποννησιακών σπουδών. Καλαμάτα, 8-15 Σεπτεμβρίου 1985 (Athens 1987–1988) 401–419 Loucas – Loucas-Durie 1991 I. Loucas – É. Loucas-Durie, Recherches scientifiques du C.E.R.G.A., Kernos 4, 1991, 317– 322 Marcadé 2008 J. Marcadé, À propos du groupe cultuel de Lykosoura, Ktema 33, 2008, 111–116 Marginesu 2002 G. Marginesu, Due frammenti di iscrizioni vascolari dal santuario sull’Acropoli di Gortina, ZPE 140, 2002, 67–70 Matthaious – Pikoulas 2016 A. P. Matthaiou – Y. A. Pikoulas, Ἱερὸς νόμος ἀπὸ τὴ Λυκόσουρα, Horos 4, 1986, 75–78 Matthews 1996 V. J. Matthews, Antimachus of Colophon. Text and Commentary (Leiden 1996)

148

Melfi 2016 M. Melfi, Damophon of Messene in the Ionian coast of Greece. Making, re-making, and updating cult statues in the second century BC, in: M. Melfi – O. Bobou (eds.), Hellenistic Sanctuaries. Between Greece and Rome (Oxford 2016) 82–105 Meyer 1927 RE XIII, 2 (1927) 2417–2432 s. v. Lykosura (E. Meyer) Morizot 2008 Y. Morizot, La draperie de Despoina, Ktema 33, 2008, 201–209 Mylonopoulos 2003 J. Mylonopoulos, Πελοπόννησος οἰκητήριον Ποσειδῶνος. Heiligtümer und Kulte des Poseidon auf der Peloponnes (Liège 2003) Nielsen 2002 T. H. Nielsen, Arkadia and its Poleis in the Archaic and Classical Period (Göttingen 2002) Nielsen 2004 T. H. Nielsen, Arkadia, in: M. H. Hansen – T. H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis. An Investigation Conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation (Oxford 2004) 505–539 Nielsen 2008 T. H. Nielsen, Why did Megalopolis Apply for Membership in the Pylian Amphictyony? Some Speculative Answers, in: Y. A. Pikoulas (ed.), Ιστορίες για την αρχαία Αρκαδία. Πρακτικά/Proceedings of the International Symposium in Honour of James Roy. 50 χρόνια Αρκάς (1958–2008) (Stemnitsa 2008) 189–210 Nielsen 2013 T. H. Nielsen, Can “Federal Sanctuaries” be Identified in Triphylia and Arkadia?, in: P. Funke – M. Haake (eds.), Greek Federal States and their Sanctuaries. Identity and Integration. Proceedings of an International Conference of the Cluster of Excellence “Religion and Politics” held in Münster, 17.06.–19.06.2010 (Stuttgart 2013) 227–244 Nielsen – Roy 1998 T. H. Nielsen – J. Roy, The Azanians of Northern Arkadia, Classica et Mediaevalia 49, 1998, 5–44 Orlandos 1911 A. Orlandos, Ἡ κρήνη τῆς Λυκοσούρας, Ἀρχαιολογική ἐφημερίς 1911, 200–206 Parke – Wormell 1956 H. W. Parke – D. E. W. Wormell, The Delphic Oracle I. The History (Oxford 1956) Parker 2009 R. Parker, Subjection, Synoecism and Religious Life, in: P. Funke – N. Luraghi (eds.), The Politics of Ethnicity and the Crisis of the Peloponnesian League (Cambridge, MA 2009) 183– 214 Perdizet 1899 P. Perdizet, Terres-cuites de Lycosoura, et mythologie arcadienne, BCH 23, 1899, 635–638 Pfeiffer 2008 S. Pfeiffer, The God Serapis, his Cult and the Beginnings of the Ruler Cult in Ptolemaic Egypt, in: P. McKechnie – P. Guillaume (eds.), Ptolemy II Philadelphus and his World (Leiden 2008) 387–408 Piérart 1998 M. Piérart, Panthéon et hellénisation dans la colonie romaine de Corinthe: la redécouverte du culte de Palaimon à l’Isthme, Kernos 11, 1998, 85–109

149

Pikoulas 2009 Y. A. Pikoulas, Ένα νόμισμα και κάποιες ιστορίες, in: Κέρματα φιλίας. Τιμητικός τόμος για τον Ιωάννη Τουράτσογλου Α. Νομισματική-σφραγιστική (Athens 2009) 45–53 Pirenne-Delforge 2006 V. Pirenne-Delforge, Ritual Dynamics in Pausanias: The Laphria, in: E. Stavrianopoulou (ed.), Ritual and Communication in the Graeco-Roman World (Liège 2006) 111–129 Pirenne-Delforge 2008 V. Pirenne-Delforge, Retour à la source. Pausanias et la religion grecque (Liège 2008) Pirenne-Delforge 2010 V. Pirenne-Delforge, Mnasistratos, the “Hierophant” at Andania (IG 5.1.1390 and Syll.3 735), in: J. Dijkstra – J. Kroesen – Y. Kuiper (eds.), Myths, Martyrs, and Modernity. Studies in the History of Religions in Honour of Jan N. Bremmer (Leiden 2010) 219–235 Platt 2011 V. Platt, Facing the Gods. Epiphany and Representation in Graeco-Roman Art, Literature and Religion (Cambridge 2011) Pretzler 2005 M. Pretzler, Pausanias at Mantinea: Invention and Manipulation of Local History, The Cambridge Classical Journal 51, 2005, 21–34 Pretzler 2005a M. Pretzler, Pausanias and Oral Tradition, ClQ 55, 1, 2005, 235–249 Roller 1999 L. Roller, In Search of God the Mother. The Cult of Anatolian Cybele (Berkeley 1999) Roy 1990 J. Roy, The Economies of Arkadia, in: T. H. Nielsen – J. Roy (eds.), Defining Ancient Arkadia. Symposium, April 1–4 1998 (Copenhagen 1999) 320–381 Roy 2010 J. Roy, Arkadian Religion Without Pausanias: the Sanctuary at Berekla, in: P. Carlier – Ch. Lerouge-Cohen (eds.), Paysage et religion en Grèce antique. Mélanges offerts à Madeleine Jost (Paris 2010) 55–65 Sève 1995 M. Sève, Bulletin épigraphique. Rapports avec l’archéologie, REG 108, 1995, 438–450 Sève 2008 M. Sève, Le dossier épigraphique du sculpteur Damophon de Messène, Ktema 33, 2008, 117–128 Sfameni Gasparro 2003 G. Sfameni Gasparro, Misteri e teologie. Per la storia dei culti mistici e misterici nel mondo antico (Cosenza 2003) Sinn 1993 U. Sinn, Greek Sanctuaries as Places of Refuge, in: N. Marinatos – R. Hägg (eds.), Greek Sanctuaries. New Approaches (London 1993) 88–109 Spyropoulos 1993 T. Spyropoulos, Νέα γλυπτά αποκτήματα του Αρχαιολογικού Μουσείου Τριπόλεως, in: O. Palagia – W. Coulson (eds.), Sculpture from Arcadia and Laconia (Oxford 1993) 257–267 Stais 1912 V. Stais, Τὰ ἐν Λυκόσουρᾳ ἀγάλματα τοῦ Δαμοφώντος. Ἐπὶ ἀνεκδότου χαλκοῦ νομίσματος Μεγαλοπολιτῶν, Journal International d'Archéologie Numismatique 14, 1912, 45–47

150

Stavrianopoulou 2002 E. Stavrianopoulou, Die Familienexedra von Eudamos und Lydiadas in Megalopolis, Τεκμήρια 7, 2002, 117–156 Themelis 1992 P. Themelis, Ανασκαφή Μεσσήνης, Πρακτικά της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας του έτους 1989, 1992, 62–122 Themelis 1993a P. Themelis, Damophon von Messene — sein Werk im Lichte der neuen Ausgrabungen, AntK 36, 1, 1993, 24–40 Themelis 1993b P. Themelis, Ο Δαμοφών και η δραστηριότητά του στην Αρκαδία, in: O. Palagia – W. Coulson (eds.), Sculpture from Arcadia and Laconia (Oxford 1993) 99–109 Tsiolis 1999 V. Tsiolis, Devoción, economía y política. A propósito de dos inscripciones de Licosura (Acaya), Antigüedad, Religiones y Sociedades 2, 1999, 121–132 Tsiolis 2002 V. Tsiolis, Damofón, Sosígenes y la introducción de los misterios eleusinos en Megalópolis, Eutopia (N.S.) 2, 1, 2002, 7–32 Vian 1952 F. Vian, La guerre des Géants. Le mythe avant l’époque hellénistique (Paris 1952) Visser 1997 E. Visser, Homers Katalog der Schiffe (Stuttgart 1997) Voutiras 1999 E. Voutiras, Opfer für Despoina: Zur Kultsatzung des Heiligtums von Lykosura IG V 2, 514, Chiron 29, 1999, 233–249 Voyatzis 1990 M. E. Voyatzis, The Early Sanctuary of Athena Alea at Tegea. And Other Archaic Sanctuaries in Arcadia (Gothenburg 1990) Zingg 2016 E. Zingg, Die Schöpfung der pseudohistorischen westpeloponnesischen Frühgeschichte. Ein Rekonstruktionsversuch (Munich 2016)

151