BETWEEN ADOPTING AND ADAPTING An analysis of the glocalizing identities of early Greek Asklepieia (600-300 BCE) In fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Research Master in Ancient Studies Thesis under the supervision of Dr. Floris van den Eijnde and Prof. Dr. Teun Tieleman Anne de Hoop Utrecht University 2020 i Cover image: Epidaurian coin depicting Thrasymedes’ cult statue of Asklepios (350-330 BCE), drawing by Sheila Bewley (after Stafford 2008, 4). ii Abstract Because of the great influence ascribed to the Asklepieion of Epidauros both in Antiquity and modern times, scholars generally characterize the development and spread of the cult of Asklepios as directed from Epidauros. Therefore, the debate has hitherto left little room for the local and Panhellenic dimensions of early Greek Asklepieia. This thesis will challenge this as of yet rarely disputed communis opinio by analyzing to what extent early Greek Asklepieia resulted from local interests and Panhellenic processes of social and cultural change. It will do so by means of a comparative analysis of the geographical placement, layouts and structures, and religious practices of early sanctuaries of Asklepios, using the material and textual evidence of Asklepieia that were founded between the late sixth- and fourth centuries BCE. As such, this study will demonstrate that the cult of Asklepios was shaped by a combination of local and global tendencies. Panhellenic elements were adopted by sanctuaries of Asklepios and subsequently adapted to serve the local needs of the sanctuary and its associated polis. Therefore, every early Greek Asklepieion was to some extent a glocalizing sanctuary. iii Contents Abstract iii Abbreviations v Acknowledgements vii Introduction 8 Eminent Epidauros: the unilateral debate on the spread of the Asklepios-cult 8 Methodology 15 Epidaurian, local, Panhellenic and glocalizing 17 Boundaries and terminology 20 Chapter 1: Sanctuary Location 24 Interpreting the placement of Asklepieia within the ancient Greek landscape 24 1.1 The borders of the city: defining “extra-urban” 25 1.2 The sanatorium hypothesis 28 1.3 A good night’s rest: incubation and extra-urban sanctuaries 30 1.4 A proper place for a new cult 32 1.5 Joining his father: Asklepios and the cult of Apollo 34 1.6 Asklepios and the cult of the nymphs 41 1.7 The “exceptions”: intramural and urban Asklepieia 45 1.8 Conclusions 47 Chapter 2: Layouts and Structures 51 A comparison of the plans and structures of early Greek Asklepieia 51 2.1 The layout and development of the Asklepieion of Epidauros 54 2.2 Common cultic activity? The early Asklepieion of Corinth 57 2.3 Well-watered Corinth: the Classical and early Hellenistic Asklepieion 61 2.4 The central area of the early Asklepieion at Athens 67 2.5 The stork in the tree: along the edges of the early Athenian Asklepieion 74 2.6 The Asklepieion of Athens after the fourth-century renovations 80 2.7 Conclusions 83 Chapter 3: Religious Practices 87 The divergent religious identities of early Greek Asklepieia 87 3.1 Cocks and goats: sacrifices for Asklepios 88 3.2 A helping hand: anatomical votives 92 3.3 Monumentalizing miracles: the iamata 95 3.4 Conclusions 102 Conclusion 105 Bibliography 109 Primary sources 109 Modern works 110 iv Abbreviations Aristid. Or. Aristides, Orationes Aesch. Aeschylus Pers. Persae Apollod. Apollodorus Bibl. Bibliotheca Ar. Aristophanes Plut. Plutus Arist. Aristotle [Ath. Pol.] Ἀθηναίων πολιτεία Cic. Cicero Leg. De legibus Eur. Euripides Bacch. Bacchae Herod. Herodas Hippoc. Hippocrates Epid. Epidemiae Morb. sacr. De morbo sacro Nat. hom. De natura hominis Hom. Homer Il. Iliad IC I Inscriptiones Creticae, Vol. 1, M. Guarducci (ed.) (Rome 1935). IG I3 Inscriptiones Graecae I: Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno anterior, 3rd ed. fasc. 2, D. Lewis and L. Jeffery (eds) (Berlin 1994). IG II/III2 Inscriptiones Graecae II and III: Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores, 2nd ed. part 3, fasc. 1, J. Kirchner (ed.) (Berlin 1935). IG II/III3 Inscriptiones Graecae II and III: Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores, 3rd ed. part 4, fasc. 2, J. Curbera (ed.) (Berlin 2017). IG IV2 1 Inscriptiones Argolidis IV: Inscriptiones Epidauri, 2nd ed. fasc. 1, F. Hiller von Gaertringen (ed.) (Berlin 1929). Isae. Isaeus Isoc. Isocrates Ad. Phil. Ad Philippum Paus. Pausanias Pind. Pindar Ol. Olympian Odes Pyth. Pythian Odes Pl. Plato Phd. Phaedo Phdr. Phaedrus Prt. Protagoras Plut. Plutarch v Mor. De Herod. Moralia, De Herodoti malignate Mor. Quaest. Rom. Moralia, Quaestiones Romanae SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum Strab. Strabo Thuc. Thucydides Vitr. Vitruvius De arch. De architectura vi Acknowledgements Although it might seem somewhat pretentious to write a word of thanks in a mere Master’s thesis, it would be even more pretentious not to. This work is not mine alone, and I would therefore like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the many people who have helped me write this thesis. First and foremost, I want to thank my supervisors: Dr. Floris van den Eijnde and Prof. Dr. Teun Tieleman. During the last six months, Floris has sacrificed a great deal of his time to guide not only me, but all of his students through this period of solitary research. Throughout my entire career in Utrecht, he has encouraged me to pursue my academic interests and kept believing in my abilities – even when I did not. Teun unhesitatingly took me under his wing when I came knocking at his door and ultimately gave me his trust and the opportunity to deviate from our initial research plan when my work took an unexpected turn. I also wish to express my gratitude towards Prof. Dr. Josine Blok, who taught me to never tell anyone that there are things I cannot do and helped me to formulate ideas for this thesis in a very early stage. I also want to thank Dr. Jean Vanden Broeck-Parant, Dr. Janric van Rookhuijzen, Alma Kant and Manon van der Maas for the many productive, interesting and fun conversations we have shared during our weekly meetings. Moreover, I owe the quality of this thesis and my remaining sanity to Fabienne Maraite, Eline Veldman, Rogier van der Heijden and Hélène van de Ven, who are some of the most eloquent writers, unconditional supporters, ruthless critics and courageous go-getters I know. My heartfelt appreciation goes out to Eduard de Winter, a modern-day ιατρος who was always able to cheer me up and calm me down, and kept reminding me that a human being can only take one step at a time whenever I tried to take twenty steps at once – obviously without any success. I also wish to thank Kees Dullaart for his infinite interest and open-minded insights. Lastly, I would like to thank my parents for encouraging and enabling me to do what I love for as long as I can remember. Any errors in this thesis are of course entirely mine, and likely because I ignored their advice. vii Introduction ‘Leave anyone to do so who has not learnt the history of Epidaurus. The most famous sanctuary of Asclepius at Argos.’1 Eminent Epidauros: the unilateral debate on the spread of the Asklepios-cult Already in Antiquity, the widespread fame of the Asklepieion of Epidauros – a healing sanctuary of Asklepios, located on the Argolid peninsula – could not be doubted. First of all, the reputation of the Epidaurian Asklepieion in ancient times is evidenced by the many iamata (healing reports) that were inscribed on six steles that stood within the precinct of the Asklepieion of Epidauros.2 The iamata include tales about men, women and even children from twenty-four different places all over the Greek world, who had travelled far in order to be miraculously healed at Epidauros (fig. 1).3 Another example of the renown of the Asklepieion of Epidauros in ancient times can be found in Athens. Here, a festival named the Epidauria was celebrated in honor of Asklepios on Boedromion 17 or 18, in the middle of the Eleusinian Mysteries.4 The cult of Asklepios arrived in Athens in 420 BCE: approximately one century after the installment of the cult in Epidauros, which is generally accepted to be one of the first cult places of Asklepios.5 1 Paus. 2.23.4 (transl. Jones). 2 Of these six original steles that were witnessed by Pausanias (2.27.3-4), only four remain; see also Solin 2013, 7; see LiDonnici (1989, 45-130) for translations of the Epidaurian iamata. 3 Cf. Dillon 1994, 243. 4 For a discussion on the date of the Epidauria, see Parker 2005, 348, n. 88; Parke 1977, 65. 5 We know the precise moment of the arrival of the cult of Asklepios in Athens from the Telemachos monument (Lambert 2010, 156-157; Lefantzis and Jensen 2009, 101; Wickkiser 2009a). The inscription describes how the god arrives and is welcomed by Telemachos, who founded the sanctuary in honor of Asklepios and Hygieia during the archonship of Astyphilos (420/419 BCE) (see IG II3 4 665; Parke 1977, 64). The monument was inscribed not long after. Stephen Tracy (2016, 149-151, 154) attributes the hand of the text to the Cutter of IG II2 17, who was active between ca. 414 and 385 BCE; it is moreover hard to identify the location of the first cult of Asklepios because in some cases, the archaeological and literary sources are contradicting. Strabo mentions that it is Trikka, ‘where is the earliest and most famous temple of Asclepius’, not Epidauros (Strabo 9.5.17 (transl. Jones). However, the famous temple Strabo speaks of has as of yet never been found (see Perrot 2016, 210). His statement can therefore not be corroborated through the material record.