ABSTRACT

LANDSCAPES, TEMPLES, AND COLONIZATION IN SICILY: A STUDY OF GREEK SACRED ARCHITECTURE AND COLONIZATION IN SICILY TO BETTER UNDERSTAND CULTURAL ETHNICITY

Cassandra C. Tobin, M.A. Department of Anthropology Northern Illinois University, 2015 Dr. Michael Kolb, Director

The focus of this study is to better understand cultural ethnicity and colonization in

Sicily. The objective is fourfold: (1) identify and note all Greek temples in Sicily, (2) identify and better understand the landscape relationships of Greek temples, (3) understand what literary sources and archaeological data say about Greek colonization in Sicily, and (4) using that information, determine how “Greek” Greek temple sites are in Sicily. The project

seeks to determine whether Greek sacred architecture can be used to determine the cultural

heritage of a site and, if so, apply the hypothesis to all Greek temple sites in Sicily. This study asks questions specific to Sicily as well as general questions about colonization and cultural expansion. The significance of economic influences is central to this study.

Employed in this research is a comparative approach by applying Vincent Scully's model for

Athens, Greece, to nineteen sites in Sicily (Agrigento, Akrai, Camarina, Cefalu, Erice,

Helorus, Heraclea Minoa, Himera, Megara Hyblea, Monte Adranone, Monte Jato, Monte

Polizzo, Morgantina, Naxos, Palike, Segesta, Selinus, Solunto, and Syracuse). This research is vital to colonization studies in the Mediterranean because it addresses major questions regarding the colonization of Sicily, Greek economy and trade, issues of insularity, and topics of the Mediterranean as a whole. This research was conducted in a twofold process: (1) identification of temples and relevant sites using library research and computer models and

(2) visiting the sites directly and taking relevant measurements to test the proposed model. In (3) this study, sites with close economic relations with Greece have temples that generally have an eastern orientation. Sites that do not have close economic ties with Greece have other orientations. The data in this study are analyzed statistically and found to be significant. This project seeks to fill a gap in the knowledge base and chronology of Sicily and the island's relationship with mainland Greece.

NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY DEKALB, ILLINOIS

MAY 2015

LANDSCAPES, TEMPLES, AND COLONIZATION IN SICILY: A STUDY OF GREEK

SACRED ARCHITECTURE AND COLONIZATION IN SICILY TO

BETTER UNDERSTAND CULTURAL ETHNICITY

BY CASSANDRA C. TOBIN © 2015 CASSANDRA C. TOBIN

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE MASTER OF ARTS

DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY

Thesis Advisor: Dr. Michael Kolb

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I want to thank my thesis advisor, Dr. Michael Kolb, who inspired my undergraduate studies and whose gentle guidance led me through this process. His style

of leadership allowed me to explore my interests in archaeology without boundaries in order to find something I was truly passionate about. His quiet, behind-the-scenes style allowed me

to come to conclusions on my own with gentle nudges in the right directions. He tolerated incessant emails from me in my most panicked states with kindness and enthusiasm when we

edited draft after draft. Most importantly, he has taught me perseverance and how to fight for a meaningful accomplishment.

I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Winifred Creamer and Dr.

Mark Mehrer, who tailored their schedules to fit my needs, even if that meant working on vacation and after retirement. Dr. Creamer serves as an inspiration to me as a woman in science, and her enthusiasm for my thesis is humbling and gratifying. Dr. Mehrer was also instrumental in helping an overloaded graduate student cope with living up to expectations.

His kind words were more helpful than he knows.

I thank my colleague Sean McConnell, who started out as an unlikely friend in field school and has become one of the closest people in my life. His willingness to travel with

me throughout Sicily and endure grueling work days and often extreme environmental

conditions with grace and humor made the data gathering for this thesis memorable and I cherish our friendship more for the experience. He also has been a sounding board for ideas and helped heavily with editing. I look forward to working together in the future.

I would thank my family, specifically my step-mother (“bonus mom”), Michelle

Steele, who chooses daily to be my biggest fan, who spent days helping me edit this thesis for clarity, and who always inspires me as a professional woman who seamlessly balances her

iii family and passion for her career; my father, who always believes in my highest capabilities

and who pushes me to set the bar high and demand the best from myself; and my mother, who

always allowed me the freedom to choose the career I want with the greatest enthusiasm.

Finally, I thank my husband, Jason Tobin, who, aside from being one of the greatest things in my life, patiently picked up the slack where I lacked, tolerated my long absences

and high stress levels, shared enthusiasm for a field he was not familiar with, and helped me achieve my goals even in the smallest ways. He earned this with as many hours as I did, even without participating in the project itself.

DEDICATION

For Nick

Who embraced adventure and lead by example.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES ...... vi

LIST OF FIGURES …...... vii

LIST OF APPENDICES ...... viii

CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND …...... 1

Introduction …...... 1

Model …...... 2

A Definition of Greek Architecture …...... 5

Historical Background …...... 8

Recent Work on Alignments and Orientations in Sicily …...... 12

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY …...... …. 13

Field Techniques …...... 16

CHAPTER 3: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS …...... 17

Chi-Square Tests …...... 17

Site Descriptions ...... 21

CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION …...... 24

Conclusions ...... 38

Future Research …...... 39

BIBLIOGRAPHY …...... 40

APPENDICES ...... 45

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Structures Surveyed at Each Site …...... 14

2. Site Analysis Using Scully's Greek-Style Temple Landscape Model ...... 26

3. New Sicilian Greek-Style Temple Model and Condition Descriptions …...... 27

4. Site Analysis Using the Scully’s Greek-Style Landscape Model …...... 29

5. Sicilian Indigenous-Style Temple Model …...... 31

6. Site Analysis Using Sicilian Indigenous-Style Temple Model …...... 33

7. Site Analysis of Akrai Using Sicilian-Greek and Sicilian-Indigenous

Models...... …. 35

8. Site Analysis of Akrai Using Scully's Greek-style Temple Landscape

Model...... …. 35

9. Site Analysis of Morgantina Using Sicilian-Greek and Sicilian-Indigenous

Models ...... 35

10. Site Analysis of Morgantina Using Scully's Greek-Style Temple Landscape

Model ...... 36

11. Site Analysis of Himera Using Sicilian-Greek and Sicilian-Indigenous

Models ...... 36

12. Site Analysis of Himera Using Scully's Greek-Style Temple Landscape

Model ...... 36

13. Sicilian-Greek Model and Sicilian-Indigenous Model Compared ...... 38

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page 1. Visual depiction of the model for Greek-style landscape relationships proposed by Vincent Scully ...... …...... 4

2. Compass depicting the groupings of orientations ...... 15

3. Circle diagram composite of all azimuths taken in this study . …...... 22

4. Four circle diagram composites of azimuths broken down by period. …...... 23

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A – TABLE OF AZIMUTH RESULTS …...... …45

Appendix B – AZIMUTH COMPARISON WITH A. SALT AND A. AVENI…...... …48

Appendix C – DATA COLLECTION SHEET …...... …53

Appendix D – GOOGLE EARTH IMAGES …...... …55

Appendix E – SITE DESCRIPTIONS …...... …61

Appendix F – AZIMUTH DEVIATION FROM 90° ...... 101

Appendix G – TEMPLE NAME, CENTURY, AND PERIOD …...... 105

Appendix H – FOUNDER GROUPING …...... 108

Appendix I – CHI-SQUARE TESTS …...... 112

Appendix J – TABLE CLEFT MOUNTAIN AND CONICAL HILL VALUES …...... 120

Appendix K – TEMPLE DATABASE LEGEND …...... 122

Appendix L – AZIMUTH AND DEVIATION FROM 90° BY CENTURY AND PERIOD ...... 124

CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND

Introduction

“The mother art is architecture. Without an architecture of our own we have no soul of our own civilization.” - Frank Lloyd Wright.

Architecture, as Frank Lloyd Wright so astutely stated, does indeed bear traces of culture.

It is easy for anyone to recognize that a unique style of sacred architecture exposes specific

hallmark characteristics of cultural groups. For example, the pyramids are recognizable as distinguishably Egyptian, pagodas distinctly Asian, and in this case, Greek temples are, well,

Greek. Egyptian pyramids were built as tombs, Asian pagodas were built as houses of worship, and Greek temples were divine sanctuaries, developed to be functional as well as aesthetically pleasing. Greek sacred architecture, or architecture for religious purposes, follows a pattern that

is specific to and present in all Greek sacred architecture. This means that the “model” of that style of sacred architecture is perfectly and purely functional. Even the impressive nature of

these mega-structures was made to be part of their function. With that in mind, sacred architecture of that type would have a style fitting the model. To be perfectly functional, ideology influences the planning and construction of sacred architecture. A pattern indicating

“ritual architecture” resulted that was widely followed and therefore a cultural indicator.

Culture then influences art and architecture, and therefore, architecture represents aspects of culture.

The Greek temple is a form of sacred architecture that is a voice of culture: timeless and 2 permanent. As a form of monumental art, it not only represents a collective effort of construction but also speaks about collective values. For the Greeks, it was natural to build temples in their expanding colonies, such as Sicily, where the indigenous people employed the

Greek style of temple architecture.

The goal of this research is to examine how Sicilian-built Greek-style temples served as a

tool of shared cultural values for both Greek colonies and indigenous sites. I specifically analyze

the layout and orientation of temples in the Greek style to determine if these variables can be

used to measure cultural hybridity in Sicily. Traditional models dictate that Greek-style sacred

architecture is oriented to the east, toward the rising sun. Specifically, 63 sacred structures at

19 sites were surveyed for their azimuth to see if they deviate from traditional models of Greek sacred architecture. Results indicate that these 63 structures varied in their cultural identity -- a

mix of Greek, Punic, and indigenous.

Model

A critical review of Alun Salt's article (2009) on the orientations of ancient Greek temples in Sicily provides some necessary context for the genesis of this thesis. Salt's goal in the

article was to reach a consensus on whether or not the alignments of ancient Greek temples are

astronomical and to what astronomical body they are aligned. Using a binomial test, he shows evidence of a preference for solar orientations. He then uses the patterns in his results to argue

the ethnic identity of each site's inhabitants. A problem with his analysis arises when he fails to

consider what other orientations may be present. He considers a valid data point "east" as long as the temple is facing some direction in the eastern 180 symbol half of the horizon. This is not a fair assessment because temples that clearly face predominantly south or north will be

3 considered as east if they are in that half of the horizon. Simply because a temple orientation falls within the eastern horizon does not mean that “east” is the only alignment present or that it is the primary alignment. The presence of landscape alignments does affect the “ethnic identity”

that Salt tries to prove. This thesis shows that landscape alignments in Sicily are usually

synonymous with an indigenous cultural identity, which will be discussed in more detail. It is important to note that landscape alignments are between two or more features on the earth's surface, natural or manmade, and are not the same as solar alignments, which are between a

feature on the earth's surface at the position of the sun on a given date and time.

A narrowing of the scope of "east" is absolutely necessary to determine whether temples have an easterly orientation. This study will use narrow parameters listed in detail to evaluate whether a temple can be considered east-facing. There is a disconnect with Salt's idea, as he only acknowledges the relationships between temples and celestial bodies and ignores any possible relationships between Greek sacred architecture and the natural landscape except for a casual mention that they may align to palatial complexes.

There is a lesser known relationship between Greek-style sacred architecture and the

landscape. Based on the work of art historian Vincent Scully, who studied Greek sacred architecture at length, I have identified a landscape relationship that will apply to my study.

Scully argues that Greek temples are typically co-aligned with east as well as the natural

landscape, rather than east alone. Vincent Scully lays out a model for Greek sacred architecture

and its relationship to the landscape in his book The Earth, The Temple, and the Gods:

4

...[F]irst, an enclosed valley of varying size in which the palace is set; I should like to call this the “Natural Megaron”; second, a gently mounded or conical hill on axis with the palace to north or south; and lastly, a higher double-peaked or cleft mountain some distance beyond the hill but on the same axis. (Figure 1; Scully 1979: 11).

Figure 1: Visual depiction of the model for Greek-style landscape relationships proposed by Vincent Scully.

The “harmonious valley to mountain” relationship is iconic of Greek-style in terms of palace and temple construction (9). Scully uses the word “megaron” to refer to a palace complex and the relationship of the palace to the temples at the site. The imaginary and invisible axis created by the arrangement of the hills, mountains, and the placement of the palace complex in many occasions is on the east-west axis. Salt argues, however, if the palace complex has all the

5 characteristics that make it “Greek,” then the temples will be aligned to the palace complex, and therefore the primary alignment is clearly not to the sun rising in the east. This differs with what is generally accepted in the academic community: that all Greek temples face east. I plan to keep

Salt's analysis in mind while using a majority of Scully's model to analyze the “Greek-ness” of temple complexes in Sicily and their relationship to the agora, which is the open-air marketplace and often center of civic activity in a town.

Based on the shortcomings of Salt's analysis, the literary works of ancient Greek writers, the writings of Vincent Scully, site reports, and articles of landscape orientations, I present the

following model that defines four specific conditions for identifying a temple that was sited to create a Greek-style landscape. These four conditions are:

1. Agora situated in a natural megaron.

2. Cleft mountain on the north or south axis.

3. Temples located on conical hills.

4. Temple alignment between 45° and 135°.

A Definition of Greek Architecture

In order to use Greek sacred architecture as a way to measure cultural ethnicity in Sicily, what constitutes sacred Greek architecture must be defined. Greek temples represent places of ritual practice and, in conjunction with other material culture, are reflective of the religious ideology of the culture in which they are present. The presence of these temples in Sicily is suggestive that indigenous people were adopting Greek religion and elements of Greek culture, or that Greek colonizers from Greece and Magna Graecia (southern Italy) were forcing indigenous

6 groups out of their previously occupied lands and building Greek-style temples to mark the

change in cultural occupation. It is also possible that the Greek colonizers were forcing these changes on the indigenous populations. Both of these seem to be plausible explanations of the indigenous relations with Greeks. The nature of these relations seems to vary based on the

region, which will also be discussed.

In Greek sacred architecture, three temple orders, or styles, are present: Doric, Ionic, and

Corinthian. Only the Doric style caught on in Sicily, since the Corinthian and Ionic styles came

later and were not a significant part of Greek culture when Sicily was colonized beginning in the

7th century B.C.E. The presence of the early Greek Doric style in Sicily shows that the island was easily accessible to mainland Greeks at an early date. The Doric order is characterized by the phrase “heavy simplicity” and, like the other two major styles, is most recognizable by its column style. The Doric style sets the precedent for all Greek sacred architecture, with only minor changes to the style at later dates which lead to the two other column orders (Curl 1992:

22).

An indigenous model has not been defined for landscapes in Sicily at this time. An indigenous model should include a temple or religious structure aligned to a specific landscape

feature of spiritual significance and possibly a settlement with an agora located on a

mountaintop or hilltop for defense purposes. This expectation is based on data collected for this

study as from Leighton's book, Sicily Before History (1999), where he identifies Bronze Age

sites belonging to indigenous groups on lower hilltops and indigenous Iron Age sites on higher hill tops (likely due to increased violence between groups). Archaeological evidence supports that violent encounters between indigenous groups in Sicily during the Bronze Age were

common, and therefore settlements on hilltops would be easier to defend (Leighton 1999). This

7 is evidenced in the site of Mokarta, where human remains showing violent trauma were found dating to when the village violently burned in the Bronze Age (Leighton 1999, Morris et al.

2004).

In order to compare the temples in Sicily to evaluate cultural ethnicity, a “control” must

be developed with which to test. For this, I use Athens, Greece, so that the center of Greek society can represent what is ultimately “Greek.” The model of Athens will then be compared with temple sites in Sicily to determine how closely they fit the Greek-style model or mirror

Athens.

Athens

I provide the example of Athens in Greece, applying the Greek-Temple model to real

data. I chose this example for the simple reason that it is considered the center of Greek culture.

Interestingly, it does not fit Scully's model as completely as expected. This disconnect is also mentioned by Aveni and Romano (2000), as well as in Salt's article. Salt argues that the strict

adherence to Greek-style architecture in Sicily could be due to a desire to demonstrate the

community's Greek heritage, since they were so far away from Greece. However, Salt does acknowledge that this is speculation.

Athens does have a natural megaron in which the agora is situated. The natural megaron is a valley in the heart of ancient Athens. There is not a palace in this natural megaron, but it is instead the city center and a forum (agora). The agora is surrounded by temples on and off conical hills as well as the Acropolis on a high hill to the southeast. There are also two other conical hills, one directly to the south, one to the southwest, and a mountain to the far south.

There is a conical hill to the north as well. Directly west of the agora is a small conical hill

8 where the Temple of Hephaestus resides. There is also a small Temple of Apollo between it and the agora. Southeast of the Acropolis is the Temple of Zeus Olympios. See Appendix D for a

Google Earth image identifying these sites as well as an elevation profile, which illustrates the

conical hills as well as the natural megaron.

This site does not follow the model laid out by Scully perfectly; however, this is only in

the case of the agora. According to Scully, in the natural megaron should be a palace. In this

case, the agora filled the natural megaron. The agora is a public space and therefore would be

an optimal viewing area for the landscape relationship, unlike the private space of a palace. If the palace is replaced with civic buildings, Athens fits the model flawlessly, and therefore, it is this civic space model that will be used in this study.

Sicily

Salt uses a dataset made up of 41 temples throughout Sicily. He measured temples in the

most complete manner possible at each site, taking multiple angle measurements to determine

the exact alignments of the temples. However, he did not use an appropriate sample set, as the

temples he analyzed do not include all of the available temples in Sicily, especially those that

could contradict his theory. Salt consulted the published archaeological plans for each temple

site and calibrated the north arrow using local observations. All measurements were taken with a

magnetic compass and a clinometer. In these ways, I plan to reconstruct his analysis as the

methods he used are effective, but this study uses added analysis. Salt also used a binomial

statistical test called binomial distribution to determine the likelihood of temples facing east

unintentionally and found that the chances are slim to none for the easterly orientation to be

accidental.

9

Historical Background

“Greek architecture is the flowering of geometry.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Colonization is a process that is different from orientalization. Peter Van Dommelin defines orientalization as culture contact where “exposure to a 'higher' culture somehow naturally triggers social change” (2006: 135). Orientalization is therefore an unintentional side effect of colonization. “ Hellenization” is a term that is similar to orientalization and refers to the complete adoption of Greek culture by the indigenous people. Hybridization, then, is the synthesis of elements of Greek culture with pre-existing indigenous customs. This is most evident in the spread of Greek architecture styles and, to a lesser extent, the Greek language.

For the research in this project, Hellenization will be synonymous with colonization.

Antonaccio, citing Hall and Sewell, notes a common shared cultural framework is accepted for Greek culture; cultural identity is “contested, permeable, contradictory, and loosely integrated” (Antonaccio 2003: 58). The sharing of cultural values seems inevitable if this is true.

Antonaccio cites Bhabha to define hybridity as something that “comprises a space between two extremes of colonizer and colonized, indeed a 'third space' of communication and negotiation”

(Antonaccio 2003: 59). Cultural hybridity needs a more specific definition, which Antonaccio offers by explaining that it describes a relationship between the colonizer's culture and the

colonized people's culture where both are transformed by the necessity of communication between the groups – or “in-between-ness” (Antonaccio 2003: 59). In Greek-style material

culture, the production of hybrid objects seems to be more characteristic of frontier regions, such as indigenous sites of Sicily, than of Greek colonies (Antonaccio 2003: 71). Therefore, hybridity

10 in Sicily seems to be an indigenous response to Greek colonization.

Sicily provides a rare opportunity for archaeologists to study cultural change and hybridity. In the 8th century B.C.E., profound changes occurred in Sicily.

Leighton marks this time period as the transition from “pre-history” to “history” (Antonaccio

2003: 57, Leighton 1999: 219). The 8th century B.C.E. is particularly interesting because it falls into a period of transition between the two. Writing became more prevalent, which allowed for better and more thorough record keeping literacy was also more common. Writing coincides with other innovations and increases in social complexity, such as the expansion of trade routes and a growing economy (Leighton 1999).

Before the arrival of Greeks and Phoenicians, in the Iron Age (900-743 B.C.E.), the

island of Sicily was occupied by the indigenous Sicani of south-central Sicily, the Siculi of eastern Sicily, and the Elymi of western Sicily. This rapid shift to written records is visible in the archaeological record, but less so in the literary record. It was caused in large part by Greek and Phoenician settlers as they set up trading posts and founded towns in Sicily. The Greeks initially settled eastern Sicily and the Phoenicians in the west. This complicated relationship between the indigenous groups in Sicily and the Greeks was the driving force that shaped the

cultural development of pre-Roman Sicily (Leighton 1999: 219-221).

According to Thucydides, the first Greek colony in Sicily was that of Naxos in 734

B.C.E. The colonies of Syracuse (733 B.C.E.), Lentini (729 B.C.E.), Catania (729 B.C.E.), and

Megara Hyblaea (728 B.C.E.) were established shortly after. Gela was established some time

later in 688 B.C.E., and while no exact date exists, Messina was thought to be founded shortly

after Naxos. The rapid rate of colonization makes it impossible to date using pottery chronology

on its own. Due to this, archaeologists rely on literary sources to date colonies, but uncertainties

11 still exist, largely due to the fact that other literary sources from the same time period contradict

Thucydides. The works of Strabo, Ephorus, Polyaenua, and Eusebius have called Thucydides' work into question (Leighton 1999: 222). However, Thucydides remains the most accepted source for this time period and is used in this project.

Thucydides also wrote that when Greeks arrived in large numbers on the island of Sicily with colonization as their purpose, there were already Greeks living on Sicily. These Greeks were most likely traders and merchants who had found a trading niche in the western

Mediterranean and settled there (Leighton 1999: 225). Throughout the next two centuries, Greek influence spread to western Sicily; however, it was not as prominent due to stronger resistance

from the indigenous Elymi and already-established Phoenician colonies (Leighton 1999: 227).

The Phoenician presence in Sicily was more prevalent on the island of Motya, off the

western coast of Sicily. Phoenician settlements as a whole were more prevalent in northern

Africa and the Iberian peninsula (Spain) as larger territories were available. Parts of Sicily,

Sardinia, Corsica, and other smaller western Mediterranean islands were also under Phoenician control. It is difficult to discuss the beginnings of the Phoenician presence in Sicily.

Archaeologists suggest Punic traders initiated contact before the 10th century B.C.E. The first

proven appearance of Phoenicians in Sicily coincides with Thucydides' writings. This comes

from a necropolis on the western side of the island in the form of pre-Corinthian pottery styles dating to 720-710 B.C.E. The archaeological record shows expansion of the Punic colony of

Motya in the 7th century B.C.E. Thucydides also points out that relations between the

Phoenicians and the indigenous Elymi in western Sicily seem to be more peaceful than those

between the Greeks and the indigenous people in eastern Sicily. This suggests that the Elymi did not see the Phoenician presence to be as great a threat as the Greek presence on the island, likely

12 because the Phoenicians seemed to place more emphasis on economic gain through trade rather than taking over land (Leighton 1999: 219, 225, 227-230).

Recent Work on Alignments and Orientations in Sicily

Modern archaeologists and astronomers have also examined Sicily. In particular, Greek colonial sites have been examined in terms of their temple orientations. Anthony Aveni and

Guliano Romano's article on temple alignments in Magna Graecia and Sicily (2000) has become

the standard work on the topic (see Appendix B to compare their data with the data gathered in

this study). Aveni and Romano credit Dinsmoor (1939) as the first to study possible

astronomical orientations of temples on islands in the Aegean Sea. According to them, it is generally accepted that there is an easterly orientation of Greek temples, contrary to Salt's argument, and that these temples were required to face the direction of the rising sun in the

proper season. H. Nissen's work, done at an earlier date (1869), corroborates Dinsmoor's analysis and concludes that this is the case 75% of the time (Aveni and Romano 2000, Dinsmoor

1939). The prevailing orientations in Greece were noted by S. Herbert to have, other than eastward, no other clear orientations and no apparent connection between the temple god and the

orientation. They also argue that the deviation from eastern orientations is in the Hellenistic era, when integrating space seemed to be more important than eastern orientations. Interestingly,

Aveni and Romano (2000) hint at a possible orientation to a feature in the landscape, by saying that temples were arranged to organize the entire space in an integrated manner for the visitor.

Comparing the work of Salt, Aveni, Dinsmoor, and Nissen, gaps in the sample sizes and theory are observed. To fill in the gaps in question, it is necessary to examine more sites in

Sicily from the perspective of the Greeks and the indigenous people of Sicily. It is my question to understand the nature of the cultural relationship between the Greeks and indigenous people

13 during this time of colonization and how that relationship is expressed in sacred architecture and

landscape relationships.

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY

In order to test my model, I examined all sacred architecture in Sicily from the 9th to 3rd

centuries B.C.E. I identified 59 sacred structures from 17 sites using electronic and library resources. It is notable that I have not found an undertaking like this on record. Leighton

(1999) identified 61 sites and noted the Phoenician and Greek settlements in the 8th-6th centuries B.C.E. He did not document temples, so an examination of each of the sites was necessary to estimate if temples were present at those sites. Spawforth (2006) lists 24 temples by site in Sicily and provided the starting point for my data collection (Appendix K). Scully

(1979) discusses specific temples and their relationship to the landscape and provided landscape

relationship data for the models discussed above. Salt's article (2009) that inspired this thesis was also used to cross-reference the 41 temples at the 11 sites he documents. I then used

Leighton's notes on Iron Age sites in Sicily cross referenced with Spawforth, Salt, and Aveni and Romano to determine whether there were temples at those sites (Leighton 1999). Google

boolean searches also confirmed what published sources already claimed about the presence of temples at specific sites.

Upon visiting Sicily, the site list was edited to 63 structures with six additional altars (for comparison) and 19 sites. Two sites and four structures were added to the list after discussions with local archaeologists. Figure 2 is a map of Sicily from Google Earth showing each site that

was surveyed. Table 1 lists the number of temples recorded at every archaeological site. The

table identifies the site in the first column; the number of temples that were surveyed in this study for azimuth; the other structures that were surveyed in this study for azimuth, such as altars 15 and other identifiable landscape features; and the final column offers the total for each structure surveyed at each site.

Figure 2: Compass depicting the groupings of orientations North, South, East, and West.

Table 1: Structures Surveyed at Each Site

Other Total Number Temples Sacred of Structures Site Surveyed Structures Surveyed Agrigento 10 0 10 Akrai 3 0 3 Camarina 1 5 6 Cefalu 0 0 0 Erice 1 0 1 Helorus 1 0 1 Heraclea Minoa 0 0 0 Himera 5 0 5 Megara Hyblea 4 0 4 Monte Adrinone 2 1 3 Monte Jato 1 0 1 Monte Polizzo 0 1 1 Morgantina 1 1 2 Naxos 3 1 4 Palike 0 0 0 Segesta 1 0 1 Selinunte 12 0 12 Solunto 0 0 0 Syracuse 3 0 3

16

Based on the temple database, I then created a second table detailing the temples' relationship to the landscape in an attempt to quantify this type of data. It is understood that it was not possible to get landscape relationship data for all of the temples in the catalog because of modern interference, such as modern construction over some of the collapsed temples; data were only collected in all areas where it was possible to do so. The exceptions are noted. It was determined that it was far more useful to create simple, handdrawn maps from this data to comprehend then discuss the landscape layout with Scully's model (Appendix C). Azimuth was recorded from the decided natural megaron at each site to each notable feature on the landscape, including mountains, water sources, the sea, conical hills, valleys, a theater if it was present, and sacred structures. It was from the azimuth data that the circular charts showing azimuths were drawn (Appendix E).

Determining cardinal direction orientation, i.e., azimuth, of the temples required a

redefinition of Salt's "east," by narrowing it to include only the 90 degrees between northeast

and southeast. In my opinion, this area is more definitively "east" than the entire 180 degrees of the horizon. Orientation will be determined with the following definitions: (1) a temple will be

considered east-facing if the azimuth reads between 46° and 135°, (2) south-facing if between

136° and 225°, (3) west-facing if between 226° and 314°, and (4) north-facing between 315° and

45°.

I also compared the orientations of the temples to the topography and investigated the other

possible alignments that may be present, as per Scully's model discussed earlier, by personally visiting the sites. The time period and associated indigenous culture was also considered. After these data were gathered and analyzed, chi-square statistical analysis was use to assess the significance of the data.

17

Field Techniques

I field inspected each of the sites in this study during the summer of 2012. Azimuth data

in temples were gathered with a Brunton magnetic compass. All the azimuths recorded were

using magnetic north, and for this thesis converted to true north using the +2° East declination for Sicily. Photographs and 360° view videos were taken with an Apple iPad 2 on a specially mounted tripod with a wide-angle lens. The iPad 2 was mounted in the Delkin iPad 2 mounting kit and mounted on a standard 18” camera tripod. The wide angle lens was a LE detachable

0.67X wide-angle macro lens that magnetically attached to the iPad. Declination was measured

using “Clinometer – level and slope finder,” a special application for the iPad by application designer Peter Breitling.

The analysis of my data used Google Earth to check the cardinal direction orientation of the temples against what I recorded and also was useful to map the landscape of the sites.

Google Earth was also useful to check elevation profiles for view shed analysis and to view conical hills and cleft mountains as well as other landscape features. It was also possible to see

which sites were in view of each other through the use of this program.

Aside from the landscape relationship between the temples and natural megaron, I also

used various maps of the temples, such as tourist maps, archaeology maps, and books about the

sites. From these maps, I compiled the data and wrote descriptions for each site as a synthesis of all of the available maps so the accuracy of the map should be precise as possible. Hoskin

(2001) was also instrumental in the development of the field methods I utilized.

CHAPTER 3: ANALYSIS

Chi-Square Tests

It is possible to determine whether the eastern azimuths of Greek-style temples simply occurred by chance or if there is a significant trend in the orientation of these temples. The chi- square test is a statistical method for the analysis of categorical data. This test can be used here

to test azimuth deviations from 90° East by century to show changes in the deviations over time.

The intention of the chi-square and the resulting test statistic, x2, is to test whether or not the

observed frequencies within a dataset conform to a model of expected frequencies for that set

(Kuebler and Smith 1976: 236). A probability of less than 5% (p < 0.05) is judged as statistically significant. This means that there is a 95% confidence level that the trend did not occur by accident or chance.

Six chi-square comparisons were performed with the data collected in this study. The

chi-square test compares observed data to expected data in a specific hypothesis. All the tables for each of the chi-square tests are in Appendix I. Each comparison examines an aspect of the

model used in this study: (1) temple alignments of 90° East or between 45° and 135°, (2) presence of cleft mountains on a north or south axis, and (3) the presence of conical hills. I chose not to include the agora location in the natural megaron because there was only one site in the entirety of the study (Agrigento) that had a definite agora in a natural megaron.

Therefore, chi-square tests on this aspect of the hypothesis would not yield useful results. Some

of these tests also took the site founders' cultural group (i.e., Greek or indigenous) into

consideration, which can be used to support or deny the theory of hybridization. 19

The first chi-square test examines the deviations of azimuth data from 90° East. The raw azimuth degree data were converted to absolute value deviation data by looking at each temple azimuth, subtracting 90° and then taking the absolute value of each answer. Appendix F lists all

the values for this process. This test analyzed the distribution of the absolute value of the

azimuth deviations by century in order to show the distribution over time. Previous assessments of Greek temples suggest that all Greek-style temples have an eastern orientation. This test noted that 8 out of 56 temples had an exact 90° orientation. The resultant x2 = .120 (df = 168) is

not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The null hypothesis for this chi-square test states that

temple orientation does not deviate from 90° East. This result suggests the null hypothesis must

be accepted and that the Sicilian temples were built using the Greek-style of an eastern orientation. However, upon examination of these results, it appears that exactly 90° may be too constrained to convey the data properly. There were nine other temples that varied by only 2°, which is minimal enough to consider human error and therefore should also be included in the

exact 90° count. This decision is based on the 2° measurement increments of the Brunton compass used in this study. Further examination of the data was necessary in order for the

statistics to be useful in the study.

The second chi-square test (Appendix I) built on the data of the first test, using the

absolute value of azimuth and subtracting 90° for the deviation, and examined the issue

regarding azimuth deviation from 90° (due east). This test also examined the distribution of changes in azimuth deviation frequencies over time. Instead of using the absolute degrees, temples that deviated by less than 45° from 90° East were given a value of 0, and those that

deviated by more than 45° from 90° East were given a value of 1 (Appendix F). The limit of 45°

is discussed earlier as part of the model in this study. The chi-square test found that the changes

20 in the frequency of deviations greater than 45° from 90° East is statistically significant. A statistic of x2 = 0.026 (df = 6) is statistically significant (p < 0.05). The null hypothesis for this chi-square test states that the temple orientation does not deviate from 90° by more than 45° over time by century. Upon examination of the residuals (observed minus expected frequencies) in

Appendix I, it's clear that the majority of changes in azimuth deviation from 90° by more than

45° occurred in earlier centuries from the 9th-8th centuries B.C.E., with the majority temples oriented to 90° with less than 45° deviation after the 8th century B.C.E. This test suggests that

over time, temples increasingly followed the Greek-style of east orientation.

A third chi-square test was applied to this same data, azimuth deviation frequencies grouped into categories, and looked to condense the century data into periods (Appendix I). This test still examined the distribution of changes in azimuth deviation frequencies over time, with the deviation identification being less or greater than 45°. Using the actual century year caused the chi-square table to list the centuries in numerical order, which is inverted from the actual

order of their occurrence, as this study is examining B.C.E. This made the chi- square tables

difficult to read, so in order to ease confusion and condense the time data in this test, the century data were changed to periods (Appendix L). Period 1 refers to the 9th - 8th centuries; Period 2

refers to the 7th - 6th centuries; Period 3 refers to 5th - 4th centuries; and Period 4 refers to the 3rd -

2nd centuries. The chi-square test found the changes over periods to also be statistically

significant. A statistic of x2 = 0.007 (df = 3) is statistically significant (p < 0.05).

The null hypothesis for this chi-square test states that the temple orientation does not deviate

from 90° over time by century. Upon examination of the residuals (observed minus expected frequencies) in Appendix I, it's clear that the changes in azimuth deviation from 90° occurred primary during the 9th-8th centuries B.C.E., with the majority of temples oriented to 90° after the

21

8th century B.C.E. This test suggests that over time, temples increasingly followed the Greek- style of east orientation.

The fourth chi-square test uses a different set of data and examines the distribution of cleft mountains in a north or south axis by the founder of the site (see Appendix H and Appendix

J). Sites that had a cleft mountain present and on a north or south axis were given a categorical

value of 0; sites that had a cleft mountain present but not on a north or south axis were given a

categorical value of 1; and sites that did not have a cleft mountain present at all were given a

categorical value of 2. Sites that were founded by Greek colonizers were given a categorical

value of 1; sites founded by indigenous peoples such as Elymi, Sicali, or Sicil were given a

categorical value of 2; and sites founded by Punic settlers were given a categorical value of 3.

The chi-square test found that the distribution of these landscape features' relationship to founder was not statistically significant. The statistic of x2 = 0.216 (df = 4) is not statistically

significant (p > 0.05). The null hypothesis for this chi-square test states that landscape features are distributed randomly. These results suggest the null hypothesis must be accepted and that the Sicilian temples were not placed in direct relation to cleft mountains.

The fifth chi-square test examines the distribution of conical hills present at a site by the

founder of the site (see Appendix H and Appendix J). Conical hills were tested based on presence or absence, not the amount of hills present. Sites with conical hills present at all were

given a categorical value of 0; sites without the presence of any conical hills were given a

categorical value of 1. The chi-square test found that the distribution of these landscape features

present or not present at a site was not statistically significant. The statistic of x2 = 0.521 (df =

2) is not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The null hypothesis for this chi-square test states that

temple placement in relation to conical hills is random. These results suggest the null hypothesis

22

must be accepted and that the Sicilian temples were not placed in direct relation to conical hills.

The final chi-square test returned to the azimuth deviation data and examined the distribution of

temples that deviate from 90° East by more than 45° in either direction by founder of each site.

(See Appendix F and Appendix H). Again, those temples that deviated from 90° East by less

than 45° were given a categorical value of 0, and those that deviated by more than 45° were given

a categorical value of 1. Sites that were founded by Greek colonizers were given a categorical

value of 1; sites founded by indigenous peoples such as Elymi, Sicani, or Sicil were given a

categorical value of 2; and sites founded by Punic settlers were given a categorical value of 3. A

x2 value of 0.038 (df = 2) is statistically significant (p < 0.05). This test was the most significant

and the most telling in this study. It represents the findings of this study that there was a change

over time in the orientation of the temples that was influenced by the indigenous contact with

Greek colonizers. The null hypothesis for this chi-square test states that temple orientation does

not deviate from 90° are over time. Upon examination of the residuals (observed minus expected

frequencies) in Appendix I, it is clear that the changes in azimuth deviation from 90° based upon

settler ethnic group. This test confirms that over time, temples increasingly followed the Greek-

style of eastern orientation.

Site Descriptions

To supplement the statistical analysis provided by this study, a site-by-site analysis is also offered in Appendix E. This appendix discusses each site surveyed in terms of the overall

landscape and the orientation of the temples and sacred structures in the site. The overall

landscape of each site is analyzed according to the model set by Scully, as laid out earlier. Each site section includes an analysis of the agora landscape in terms of orientation and surrounding

23 structures. The temples are discussed in their landscape and surroundings and possible landscape

orientations are identified. A brief discussion of how each site fits Scully's model follows. At the end of each section, the individual temple orientations is identified and graphed to show the trend for the site. Figure 3 is a circular diagram useful for visually illustrating the trend in east- facing orientations. This diagram is a composite of all the azimuths taken in this study; the trend towards east-facing temples is easily identifiable in this figure.

Figure 3: Circle diagram composite of all azimuths taken in this study.

Figure 4 is a series of four circular diagrams that visually illustrate the trend in east-facing orientations over time. Azimuths from altars were removed from this figure because they do not

appear to have any relevance to any of the models discussed in this thesis and do not qualify as temples. Visual study of temple orientations indicate that east-facing temples were constructed more often after the 8th century B.C.E. and even more so after the 6th century B.C.E. This diagram shows the data used in chi-square test 3 and clearly illustrates a trend towards east-

24 facing temples over time.

Figure 4: Four circle diagram composites of azimuths broken down by period. Altar data were removed from these diagrams.

CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION

The results of this study indicate that a model for landscape relationships based solely on

Vincent Scully's work is not sufficient for understanding the nature of cultural relations between the indigenous Sicilians and the Greeks. The four conditions used in this study to model a

Greek-style temple landscape as proposed by Vincent Scully are reiterated here:

1. Agora situated in a natural megaron.

2. Cleft mountain on the north or south axis.

3. Temples located on conical hills.

4. Temple alignment between 45° and 135°.

This study found that these are criteria are too constrained for Sicilian temple locations and layouts. Of the nineteen sites examined in this study, not a single site conforms to Scully's

Greek model completely. Almost every site fit two or more components of Scully's model, which would indicate an alternative model may better fit those sites constructed by the

indigenous cultures of Sicily.

The most important condition of Scully's model, and the one which was most often met

by the sites, is that temples are located on conical hills. This appears to be a Greek characteristic

that became paramount in Sicily. Thirty-two percent of the sites surveyed (six of nineteen) were built on conical hills: Agrigento, Akrai, Camarina, Himera, Selinus, and Syracuse. These sites are also considered more “Greek” than other sites based on additional archaeological data associated with the sites such as city layout and artifacts such as diagnostic pottery and metals

(Leighton 1999). 26

The condition least satisfied for the Greek-style temple landscape model was the presence

of cleft mountains. Many sites had cleft mountains, but only one site (5%), Himera, had cleft

mountains on the north-south axis that the model required. This lack of an island-wide trend argues that the presence of cleft mountains on a north-south axis was not significant to those

building temples in Sicilian landscapes. Perhaps cleft mountains (or ridge lines) are not as common to mountainous regions in Sicily, or perhaps they were not considered as ritually significant among the indigenous cultures of Sicily.

The condition of an agora location in a natural megaron was only met at three sites:

Agrigento, Morgantina, and Selinunte. The natural megaron criteria is the most difficult to analyze because at nine sites the agora location is not yet known. Ten sites can be analyzed using this criteria of the model, however. Three had the agora located in the natural megaron, which is the Greek pattern. The seven remaining sites have an agora that is not located in a

natural megaron. The rate of compliance to the model is low enough to suggest that the natural

megaron is was significant to Sicilian cultures, and the the 30% correlation is probably coincidental.

The final condition of the Scully's Greek-style landscape model is the presence of eastern- facing temples. Fifty-six percent of the sites studied fit this condition of the model: Agrigento,

Akrai, Helorus, Himera, Megara Hyblea, Segesta, Selinunte, and Syracuse.

Three other sites, Camarina, Morgantina, and Naxos, had altars included in their analysis that were not east-facing. The major temples at these three sites also had orientations that fell

within the eastern parameters, but the altars and “tempiettos” did not. For the purpose of this study, I have decided to include them in the sites that fit within the eastern parameters, increasing the site count to twelve.

27

Temples have not been located at Heraclea Minoa and Monte Iato. Finally, at Cefalu,

Erice, Monte Adranone, Monte Polizzo, and Palike, sacred architecture was not oriented within the eastern parameters. These five sites are also not traditionally considered “Greek” sites since their founders were not Greek, so their failure to meet the model supports the orientalization hypothesis.

Using the average of the best-of-fit percentages for each of the four conditions in Scully's model, Sicilian temples and their settlements fit Scully's model only 29% of the time. This is insufficient to argue that Scully's model is appropriate for Sicily, and therefore a new model for

Sicily is necessary.

Table 2 illustrates Scully's Greek-style temple landscape model, a site-by-site analysis that includes best fit percentages for each of the four conditions. Each condition for each site is marked with “Yes” for sites where the specific condition is met and “No” for sites where the

specific condition is not met. On the far right of the table, the percentage of conditions met for each site is listed. Sites in this column marked with an asterisk denote that there is missing information from that site and that condition was not counted in the best fit percentage. At the

bottom of the table, the percentage of sites that meet each condition is listed. In the lower right

corner, the percentage of sites that fit the model as a whole is listed.

An alternative model, which I call the Sicilian Greek-Style Temple Model, or simply the

Sicilian-Greek Model, slightly alters the Greek-style temple landscape model criteria developed by Scully but retains four basic conditions (Table 3).

28

Table 2: Site analysis using the Scully's Greek-style landscape model

Site Analysis Using Scully's Greek-style Temple Landscape Model Site Name Agora in Cleft Temples Temple Best Fit by Natural Mountain located on Alignment Site Megaron on the conical hills between 45° and north or 135° south axis Agrigento Yes No Yes Yes 75% Akrai No No Yes Yes 50% Camarina No No Yes No 25% Cefalu N/A No No No 0%* Erice N/A No No No 0%* Helorus No No No Yes 25% Heraclea Minoa N/A No No N/A 0%* Himera N/A Yes Yes Yes 100%* Megara Hyblea N/A No No Yes 33%* Monte Jato No No No N/A 0%* Molte Polizzo N/A No No No 0%* Morgantina Yes No No No 25% Naxos N/A No No No 0%* Palike N/A No No No 0%* Segesta No No No Yes 25% Selinus Yes No Yes Yes 75% Siracusa N/A No Yes Yes 33% Best-Fit by 3 / 10 1/19 6 / 19 8 / 17 29% Condition 30% 5% 32% 47% Best-Fit

Asterisk (*) indicates missing data

29

Table 3: New Sicilian-Greek Style Temple Model and Condition Descriptions.

Sicilian Greek-Style Temple Model Criteria Condition that Identifies the Site as being Greek Topographical Settlement has port access. Location/Port Access Temple Orientation Temples face east (between 45° and 135°) and do not have a landscape orientation. Agora Location Relative to The agora is easily accessible in the center of the settlement. Settlement Temple Elevation Relative Temples are on elevated ground relative to the settlement. to Settlement

Two sites, Solunto and Monte Adranone, were removed from the analysis in this model because they are known Punic sites and while data were collected for these sites as a control, being

Punic in origin they would not contribute to the Sicilian-Greek Model or any other models in this study.

In order for the site to be considered Greek by this model, it must have port access. This is a criterion added after observing that most known Greek colonies were coastal. Upon closer examination, it was determined that a settlement's location on the coast or inland was not sufficient to differentiate between Greek colonies and indigenous settlements, as known indigenous settlements were near the coast as well as inland but may not have port access. Sites that comply with this condition will have access to a water source used for exchange. Eight of seventeen sites (Agrigento, Camarina, Helorus, Heraclea Minoa, Megara Hyblea, Naxos,

Selinus, Syracusa) meet this condition, for a 47% best fit.

Eastern-facing is the most important criterion for this model, as the orientation of the 30 temple to the rising sun on a specific day is the canonical feature of a Greek settlement.

However, since landscape orientations are also vital in Sicily, it must be determined that each temple with an orientation between the eastern parameters does not also have a landscape alignment. Sites that comply with this condition will have an easterly orientation between 45° and 135° and no landscape alignment. Seven of seventeen sites (Agrigento, Camarina, Helorus,

Megara Hyblea, Naxos, Selinus, Syracusa) comply with this condition, for a 47% best fit.

Third, the agora in the settlement must be easily accessible to the general occupants of the settlement, not in a secluded and, therefore, easily defensible area. Initial data analysis showed that a natural megaron, or valley, has no bearing on the location of the agora. Sites that meet this condition will have an agora with open access. In this study, eight of the seventeen sites did not have locatable agoras; therefore, those sites were not counted in the statistics. Five of nine sites (Agrigento, Camarina, Morgantina, Naxos, and Selinus) comply with this condition, for a 56% best fit.

The fourth and final criterion of the new model is that the temple would be located on elevated ground relative to the settlement as a whole, whether or not on a conical hill. It was determined upon analysis that temples were often located on geographically higher ground than the rest of the settlement, but the additional elevation may or may not be from conical shaped hills; therefore, this shape requirement was discarded. It was noted that “conical hills” are not a typical geographic feature in Sicily. Sites that comply with this condition will have temples that are elevated relative to the rest of the settlement. In this study, two of seventeen sites did not have locatable temples; therefore, those sites were not included in the statistics. Nine of fifteen sites

(Agrigento, Akrai, Camarina, Helorus, Himera, Megara Hyblea, Naxos, Selinus, Syracusa) comply with this condition, for a 56% best fit.

31

Table 4 is a site-by-site analysis that includes best fit percentages for each model criterion.

Each criterion is marked with “Yes” for sites where the specific condition is met and “No” for sites where the specific condition is not met. On the far right of the table, the percentage of conditions

met for each site is listed. Sites in this column marked with an asterisk denote that there is missing

information from that site, and that condition was not counted in the best fit percentage. At the bottom of the table, the percentage of sites that meet each condition is listed. In the lower right corner, the percentage of sites that fit the model as a whole is listed.

It is clear that the Sicilian-Greek Model, even with the missing data for certain sites, is a

better fit (52%) for the Sicilian temples and landscape relationships than Scully's Greek model

(29%). Four sites fit the new model at 100% efficacy using all four criteria; four more sites fit the model at 100% with some data missing. Three more sites meet one component of the model and may be candidates for hybridity upon further investigation. While 52% compliance with the model

is a significant improvement from Scully's Greek-style landscape model, it is still not a complete explanation of the landscape relationships in Sicily. Six sites of the seventeen in this analysis did not meet any of the Sicilian-Greek Model criteria; therefore, even this new model is insufficient for explaining temple variability. An additional model is therefore required to account for those sites that did not meet the Sicilian-Greek Model, particularly those appear to be of indigenous occupation.

This new model also has four criteria (Table 5).

32

Table 4: Site Analysis Using the New Model for Greek-Style Temples and Landscape

Relationships

Site Analysis Using the Sicilian Greek-Style Temple Mode Site Name Topographic Orientation Agora Temple Elevation Best Fit by Location / Location Relative to Site Port Access Relative to Settlement Settlement Agrigento Yes Yes Yes Yes 100% Akrai No No No Yes 25% Camarina Yes Yes Yes Yes 100% Cefalu No No N/A No 0%* Erice No No N/A No 0%* Helorus Yes Yes N/A Yes 100%* Heraclea Minoa Yes N/A N/A N/A 100%* Himera No No N/A Yes 33% Megara Hyblea Yes Yes N/A Yes 100%* Monte Jato No N/A No N/A 0%* Molte Polizzo No N/A N/A No 0%* Morgantina No No Yes No 25% Naxos Yes Yes Yes Yes 100% Palike No No No No 0% Segesta No No No No 0% Selinus Yes Yes Yes Yes 100% Siracusa Yes Yes N/A Yes 100%* Best Fit by 8 / 17 7 / 14 5 / 9 9 / 15 52% Condition 47% 50% 56% 60% Best Fit Asterisk (*) indicates missing data.

33

Sicilian Indigenous-Style Temple Model Criteria Condition that Identifies the Site as being Indigenous Topographical Settlement does not have port access and is likely on a mountaintop. Location/Port Access Temple Orientation Temples always orientate to landscape features. Agora Location Agora is or can be easily secluded and is in an easily defensible location. Relative to Settlement Temple Elevation Temples are not on hills. Relative to Settlement

Table 5: New Sicilian Indigenous-Style Temple Model and Condition Descriptions

As previously, Solunto and Monte Adranone were not analyzed since they are Punic and

would not contribute to the analysis. It is important to note that the indigenous model applies to all three indigenous groups, Elymi, Sicani, Siculi, and their use of landscape in site layout among the three groups is startlingly similar.

The first criterion states that the settlement must not have access to a body of water for means of exchange. Settlements will also likely be on an easily defensible location such as a

mountaintop. This is clarification of previous models that stated indigenous occupations are only found inland. Observations during data collections noted that known indigenous settlements with close proximity to the coast could be considered coastal but could also be on a mountaintop and in an easily defensible location. To account for this, the condition was clarified as port access rather than inland versus coastal. Nine of seventeen sites (Akrai, Cefalu, Erice, Himera, Monte

Jato, Monte Polizzo, Morgantina, Palike, and Segesta) comply with this condition of the new indigenous model for a 52% best of fit, meaning that 52% of the sites survey fit this model

34

completely.

The second criterion is that temples must be oriented to landscape features. It is likely that the temples will align with other indigenous settlements, mountaintops or hilltops, or bodies of water (lakes, river crossings, or springs). It is important to note that temples with an eastern alignment (between 45° and 135°) meet this condition as long as they are also aligned to a

feature of the landscape within their eastern orientation. Seven of fourteen sites (Akrai, Cefalu,

Erice, Himera, Morgantina, Palike, and Segesta) comply with this condition of the new indigenous model for a 50% best of fit.

The third criterion is that the agora is secluded or is in an easily defensible location in case

of siege. In indigenous sites, this is often apparent when the agora is located higher in elevation on the mountaintop than the rest of the settlement, even higher in elevation than temples. This component was the most difficult to satisfy, as the agora locations are not known for many of the

sites in this study. Four of nine sites (Akrai, Monte Jato, Palike, and Segesta) comply with to this condition of the new indigenous model for a 44% best of fit.

The fourth and final criterion of the new model for indigenous-style temples and landscape relationships is that the temple is located equal to or lower in elevation to the rest of the settlement, i.e., not located on a hill. In Scully's Greek model, the temples had to be located

on conical hills; in the Sicilian-Greek Model, the shape of the hill is irrelevant, but a hill is still

necessary for temple location. In the indigenous model, the temples are not located on any hill.

Six of fifteen sites (Cefalu, Erice, Monte Polizzo, Morgantina, Palike, and Segesta) comply with this condition of the new indigenous model for a 40% best of fit.

As was the case for the Sicilian-Greek Model, Table 6 shows the analysis of the sites

35

using the model, including best fit percentages by component and by site. Each condition for

each site is marked with “Yes” for sites where the specific condition is met and “No” for sites

where the specific condition is not met. On the far right of the table, the percentage of

conditions met for each site is listed. Sites in this column marked with an asterisk denote that

there is missing information from that site and that condition was not counted in the best fit percentage. At the bottom of the table, the percentage of sites that meet each condition is listed.

In the lower right corner, the percentage of sites that fit the model as a whole is listed.

The Sicilian Indigenous-Style Temple Model, or the Sicilian-Indigenous Model, better accounts for those sites that do not fit the Sicilian-Greek Model, with a 47% best fit. Two sites comply with the new model 100% with complete data, and four more sites comply with the

model 100% with unavailable data. Three more sites comply with two or more components of the model and may be candidates for hybridity upon further investigation. Forty-seven percent of the sites in this survey comply with the model as a whole, which is higher than the compliance to Scully's model (29%). The same problem presents itself in this model as in the

Sicilian-Greek Model, in which eight of the sites in this study did not meet any of the conditions in the Sicilian-Indigenous M odel, and therefore this model is not sufficient on its own.

36

Table 6: Site analysis using the New Model for Indigenous Style Temples and Landscape Relationships Site Analysis Using Sicilian Indigenous-Style Temple Model Site Name Topographic Orientation Agora Temple Elevation Best Fit by Location / No to Location Relative to Site Port Access Landscape Relative to Settlement Features Settlement Agrigento No No No No 0% Akrai Yes Yes Yes No 75% Camarina No No No No 0% Cefalu Yes Yes N/A Yes 100%* Erice Yes Yes N/A Yes 100%* Helorus No No N/A No 0%* Heraclea Minoa No N/A N/A N/A 0%* Himera Yes Yes N/A No 66% Megara Hyblea No No N/A No 0%* Monte Jato Yes N/A Yes N/A 100%* Monte Polizzo Yes N/A N/A Yes 100%* Morgantina Yes Yes No Yes 75% Naxos No No No No 0% Palike Yes Yes Yes Yes 100% Segesta Yes Yes Yes Yes 100% Selinus No No No No 0% Siracusa No No N/A No 0%* Best-Fit by 9 / 17 7 / 14 4 / 9 6 /15 47% Condition 52% 50% 44% 40% Best-Fit Asterisk indicates missing data.

37

Using these two models, two patterns become apparent: 82% of sites show a 100% compliance to one model or the other, which is absolutely significant in terms of understanding the nature of the landscape relationships with Greek and indigenous settlements. Three sites remain as distinctive outliers, not adhering to either model. Those sites are Akrai, Morgantina, and Himera. Tables 7-12 illustrate exactly which criteria of each model that the three outlier sites meet and do not meet, as well as how each site relates to Scully's Greek-style temple

landscape model.

Table 7: Site Analysis of Akrai Using Sicilian-Greek and Sicilian-Indigenous Models

Analysis of Akrai using Sicilian-Greek and Sicilian-Indigenous Models Akrai Topographic Orientation to Agora Location Temple Elevation Location / Port Landscape Relative to Relative to Access Features Settlement Settlement Model Fit Sicilian-Indigenous Sicilian-Indigenous Sicilian-Indigenous Sicilian-Greek Description No Port Access Temples align with Agora on the Temples elevated (inland) and on the ancient acropolis. relative to mountain top. settlement of settlement. Siracusa.

Table 8: Site Analysis of Akrai Using Scully's Greek-Style Temple Landscape Model

Analysis of Akrai using Scully's Greek-style Temple Landscape Model Agora in Natural Cleft Mountain on Temples located on Temple Alignment Megaron North or South axis Conical Hills between 45° and 135°. Does not comply. Does not comply. No Complies. Temples Complies (Disputed: Agora located on mountains present. located on Acropolis. possible landscape Acropolis. alignment with Siracusa).

38

Table 9: Site Analysis of Morgantina Using Sicilian-Greek and Sicilian-Indigenous Models

Analysis of Morgantina using Sicilian-Greek and Sicilian-Indigenous Models Morgantina Topographic Orientation to Agora Location Temple Location / No Landscape Features Relative to Elevation Port Access Settlement Relative to Settlement Model Fit Sicilian- Sicilian-Indigenous Sicilian-Greek Sicilian- Indigenous Indigenous Description No Port Access Temple of Zeus aligns Agora is easily Temples are (inland) and on with inland lake (Lago di accessible at the located in the mountain top. Ogliastro), and the center of the site. shallow modern settlement of valley. Catania. Temple of Demeter and Korre aligns with Monterosso Almo.

Table 10: Site Analysis of Morgantina Using Scully’s Greek-Style Temple Landscape Model Analysis of Morgantina using Scully's Greek-style Temple Landscape Model Agora in Natural Cleft Mountain on Temples located on Temple Alignment Megaron North or South axis Conical Hills between 45° and 135°. Complies. Agora Does not comply. No Does not comply. Complies (Disputed: located in a natural cleft mountains Temples located in the possible landscape shallow valley. present in the line of shallow valley. alignment various sight. landscape features).

39

Table 11: Site Analysis of Himera Using Sicilian-Greek and Sicilian-Indigenous Models

Analysis of Himera using Sicilian-Greek and Sicilian-Indigenous Models Himera Topographic Orientation to Agora Location Temple Elevation Location / No Landscape Relative to Relative to Port Access Features Settlement Settlement Model Fit Sicilian- Sicilian- N/A Sicilian-Greek Indigenous Indigenous Description No port access, Temple of Agora was not Temples elevated on mountaintop. Victory and located. relative to settlement. (Disputed: Temples A, B, Exception being the Temple of and C align with Temple of Victory, Victory would the temple at which is below the have easy port Cefalu. Temple mountain. access. D aligns with Gibilmanna.

Table 12: Site Analysis of Himera Using Scully's Greek-Style Temple Landscape Model.

Analysis of Himera using Scully's Greek-style Temple Landscape Model Agora in Natural Cleft Mountain on Temples located on Temple Alignment Megaron North or South axis Conical Hills between 45° and 135°. Agora was not Complies. Cleft Does not comply. Complies (Disputed: located. mountain on south Temples are not on possible landscape axis. conical hills, even alignment with the thought they are temple at Cefalu and located on the Gibilmanna). mountaintop.

These three sites, rather than being exclusively Greek or indigenous style, are

hybridized because they do not fit either of the two new models proposed in this study. All

three sites meet the criteria from both the Sicilian-Greek Model and the Sicilian-Indigenous

Model, but neither meets one or the other criteria. These sites may appear hybrid because

they were built and/or modified by both Greek colonists and indigenous peoples. Akrai is an

inland site with no port access, does not have temples that align directly with the ancient 40

settlement of Siracusa, and has the agora located on the acropolis, all criteria associated with

indigenous settlements; however, the site has temples that are on elevated ground relative to

the settlement, a criterion that is Greek. Morgantina is also an inland site that does not have

port access, the temples align with modern Sicilian towns that may have archaeological

foundations, and the temples are not located on elevated ground relative to the site, but in a

shallow valley; again, indigenous criteria. The agora, however, is centered at the site, which

is a criterion of the Sicilian-Greek Model. Finally, Himera is a coastal site on a high hilltop

where the actual settlement does not appear to have easy port access. However, the Temple of

Victory is located in the coastal plain separate from the settlement and may have had port

access. No port has been identified at this site. The temples at Himera align exactly with the

temple at Cefalu and with the modern settlement of Gibilmanna, meaning that both the criteria

of port access and temple alignments are clearly indigenous. Without the presence of an agora

at the site, it is impossible to tell which model best fits this criteria. With the exception of the

Temple of Victory, the temples at Himera are on elevated ground, which meets Greek criteria.

Conclusions

This analysis surveyed 19 sites and 63 sacred structures in Sicily to assess their cultural identity through the landscape. The sacred structures were measured for their azimuth orientation and possible landscape orientations. The sites agoras, if present, were also examined for their landscape relationship. From the data collected in this analysis, measure of cultural orientalization is inconclusive with a 29% best fit. With the introduction of the two new models, the nature of cultural orientalization becomes clearer, meaning that we can more

41

easily identify which sites adopted the “higher” culture after Greek contact and, if so, to what degree.

Two new models for temple and landscape relationships in Sicily were introduced, and

by analyzing the dataset from this study with the new models, sites with high potential for

hybridity were clearly revealed. The two new models are summarized in Table 13.

Table 13: Sicilian-Greek Model and Sicilian-Indigenous Model Compared Criteria Sicilian-Greek Model Sicilian-Indigenous Model Topographic Settlement has port access. Settlement does not have port access and Location / is likely on a mountaintop. Port Access Temple Temples face east (between 45° and Temples always oriented to landscape Orientation 135°) and do not have a landscape features. orientation. Agora The agora is easily accessible in the Agora is or can be easily secluded and is Location center of the settlement. in an easily defensible location. Relative to Settlement Temple Temples are on elevated ground Temples are not on hills. Elevation relative to the settlement. Relative to Settlement

Of all of the sites surveyed, 82% have a perfect correlation to either one or the other of

the new models. This demonstrates clearly which sites were culturally indigenous and which

were Greek by design. This is a substantial improvement on Scully's Greek model, originally

developed using temple layouts from mainland Greece, clarifying the nature and degree of

cultural hybridity in Sicily. Specifically, three sites (18%) have been identified as being

architectural hybrids of indigenous and Greek traditions.

42

Future Research

Despite the limitations of these data, this research provides a foundation for future study.

It is my desire to see these new models for landscape relationships tested at other sites in Sicily.

Expansion of the sample size would increase the degree of confidence with which these models can accurately explain Greek-and indigenous-style sacred structures. Although indigenous sacred structures are rare in the archaeological record, as more are discovered and described, their landscape relationships can be tested using these models. In particular, I would like to see this model applied to the city of Salemi, if indigenous sacred structures are ever discovered, and to Monte Polizzo, as the sacred structure on the acropolis is further explored. I would like to see continued exploration at Akrai, Morgantina, and Himera to fully understand the nature of the hybridity present there. Finally, I would argue that these new models have great potential to

predict the locations of previously undiscovered sites. If we are able to use landscape

orientations to discover archaeological sites, we may be able to fill more gaps in the

archaeological record. When considering the nature of cultural orientalization in Sicily, my advice for future research would be to prepare for the unexpected.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Antonaccio, Carla. 2003 Hybridity and the Cultures within Greek Culture. In The Cultures within Ancient Greek Culture:Contact, conflict, collaboration, edited by Carol Dougherty and Leslie Kurke, pp.57-74. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Aveni, Anthony and Giuliano Romano. 2000 Temple Orientations in Magna Graecia and Sicily. Archaeoastronomy. 31(25): S51–S57.

Balco, William Michael. 2007 A Material Culture Analysis of Eighth to Fourth Century B.C. Loomweights Recovered in Western Sicily. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Northern Illinois University.

Cerchiai, Luca, Lorena Jannelli, and Fausto Longo. 2002 The Greek Cities of Magna Gracia and Sicily. J. Paul Getty Publications, Los Angeles.

Copani, Fabio. 2005 ALLE ORIGINI DI ELORO. L’espansione meridionale di Siracusa arcaica. ACME - Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell'Università degli Studi di Milano LVIII(II): 245-263.

Curl, James Stevens. 1992 Classical Architecture: An introduction to its vocabulary and essentials, with a select glossary of terms.Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

Dinsmoor, W.B. 1939 Archaeology and astronomy. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 80: 95-173.

Doughterty, Carol, and Leslie Kurke. (editors) 2003 The Cultures within Ancient Greek Culture: Contact, Conflict, Collaboration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Ftizjohn, Matthew. 2007 Equality in the Colonies: Concepts of Equality in Sicily during the Eighth to Six Centuries BC. World Archaeology. 39(2): 215-228.

44 Frederiksen, M. W. 1977 Archaeology in South Italy and Sicily, 1973-76. Archaeological Reports. 23: 43- 76.

Hall, Jonathan M. 2002 Helenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture. University of Chicago Press, London.

Hoskin, Michael. 2001 Tombs, Temples, and Their Orientations: A new perspective on Mediterranean prehistory. Ocarina Books, W Sussex, United Kingdom.

Kolb, Michael J. 1992 Diachronic Design changes in Heiau Temple Architecture on the Island of Maui, Hawai'i. Asian Perspectives. 31(1): 9-37.

2005 The Genesis of Monuments among the Mediterranean Islands. In The Archaeology of Mediterranean Prehistory, edited by Emma Blake and A. Bernard Knapp, pp. 156 – 179. Blackwell Publishing, Malden Massachusetts.

Kolb, Michael J., and Sebastiano Tusa. 2001 The Late Bronze-Age and Early Iron-Age Landscape of Interior Western Sicily. Antiquity. 75(289):503- 504.

Krea 2011 The Valley of the Temples of Agrigento: Discovering Ancient Akragas. Tourism Guide. Krea, Agrigento, Italy.

Kuebler, Roy R., and Harry Smith Jr. 1976 Statistics: A beginning. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Leighton, Robert. 1999 Sicily Before History. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.

Maniscalco, Laura. (editor) 2008 Il Sanctuario Dei Palici: Un centro di culto nella Valle del Margi. Regione siciliano, Assessorato dei beni culturali, ambientali e della pubblica istruzione, Dipartimento dei beni culturali, ambientali e dell’educazione permanente, Palermo.

McConnel, Sean. 2012 Forces of Change: An event archaeological analysis of Iron-Age western Sicily. Master's Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Northern Illinois University.

La Medusa Editrice. 2006 Segesta. Tourism Guide. La Medusa Editrice, Marsala, Italy.

2009 Eryx: The Town of Love and Science. Tourism Guide. La Medusa Editrice, Marsala, Italy.

45

2012 Selinus. Tourism Guide. La Medusa Editrice, Marsala, Italy.

Morris, Ian, Trinity Jackman, Brien Gernand, Emma Blake, Sebantiano Tusa Pasquale Agozzino, Tara Hnatiuk, Gail Mahood, Lynn Meskell, Robert Schoon, and Hans-Peter Stika. 2004 Stanford University Excavations on the Acropolis of Monte Polizzo, Sicily, IV: Preliminary report on the 2003 season. Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome. 49, 197-279.

Nissen, H., and Bernhard Tiele. 1869 Das Templum: Antiquarische untersuchungen. Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, Berlin.

Piale, L. (editor) 1853 New guide to Naples, Sicily, and the environs carefully compiled and enlarged according to Galanti and Mrs. Power: In two parts, Parts 1-2. L. Piale, Rome, Italy.

Salt, Alun. 2009 The Astronomical Orientation of Ancient Greek Temples. PLoS ONE. 4(11): e7903. Electronic document, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007903

2009 Creating collective identities through astronomy? A study of Greek temples in Sicily. Ph.D dissertation, Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Leicester.

Scully, Vincent. 1979 The Earth, the Temple, and the Gods: Greek Sacred Architecture. Yale University.

1993 Architecture: The natural and manmade. St. Martin's Press, New York.

Spawforth, Tony. 2006 The Complete Greek Temples. Thames & Hudson, Ltd., London.

Van Dommelen, Peter. 2006 The Orientalizing Phenomenon: Hybridity and material culture in the western mediterranean. In Debating Orientalization: Multidisaplinary Approaches to Change in the Ancient Mediterranean (Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 10), edited by Corinna Riva & Nicholas C. Vella, pp. 135-152. Equinox, London.

Wilson, R. J. A. 1982 Archaeology in Sicily, 1977-81. Archaeological Reports. 28: 84-105.

APPENDIX A:

TABLE OF AZIMUTH RESULTS 47

Appendix A - Table of Azimuth Results Site & Temple Name Azimuth (True North +2°) Agrigento- Ancient Shrine to Vulcan 90 Agrigento- Sanctuary of Cthonic Deities 92 Agrigento- Temple of Aesclepius 92 Agrigento- Temple of Concord 80 Agrigento- Temple of Demeter/Church of San Biagio 128 Agrigento- Temple of Dioscuri 84 Agrigento- Temple of Hercules 94 Agrigento- Temple of Juno 106 Agrigento- Temple of Vulcan 88 Agrigento- Temple of Zeus 80 Akrai- Temple of Aphrodite 90 Akrai- Temple of Persephone 90 Camarina- Altar 1 288 Camarina- Altar 2 282 Camarina- Altar 3 282 Camarina- Altar 4 280 Camarina- Altar 5 278 Camarina- Temple of Athena 106 Cefalu 266 Erice- Temple to Venus 144 Helorus- Unknown 1 120 Helorus- Unknown 2 N/A Himera- Temple A 66 Himera- Temple B 68 Himera- Temple C 66 Himera- Temple D 84 Himera- Temple of Victory 68 Megara Hyblea- South-Eastern Temple (T4) 90 Megara Hyblea- Northern Temple (T1) 98 Megara Hyblea- Temple Sud (T3) 94 48

Site & Temple Name Azimuth (True North +2°) Megara Hyblea- Western temple (T2) 104 Monte Adranone- Punic Sanctuary Under Acropolis 332 Monte Adranone- Punic Temple on Acropolis 26 Monte Adranone- Sanctuary of Cthonic Deities 176 Morgantina- Temple of Zeus 80 Morgantina- Demeter and Kore 146 Naxos- Temple B (T3) of Aphrodite 62 Naxos- Altar near T3&T2 260 Naxos- Temple A (T2) 40 Naxos- Temple C (T1) 220 Naxos- Western Sanctuary N/A Segesta- Temple 78 Selinus- Demeter Malophoros 64 Selinus- Temple A 92 Selinus- Temple B 92 Selinus- Temple C to Apollo 92 Selinus- Temple D 92 Selinus- Temple E of Hera 90 Selinus- Temple F 90 Selinus- Temple G of Zeus 90 Selinus- Temple M 82 Selinus- Temple O 92 Selinus- Temple of Hera 90 Selinus- Temple of Zeus Meilíchios 54 Solunto- 3 Betili 112 Solunto- Holy building w/ 2 aisles 112 Syracuse- Temple of Apollo 90 Syracuse- Temple of Athena 92 Syracuse- Temple of Olympian Zeus 96 Syracuse- Ionic Temple N/A

APPENDIX B:

AZIMUTH COMPARISON WITH A. SALT AND A. AVENI 50

Appendix B – Azimuth Comparison with A. Salt and A. Aveni Site & Temple Name Azimuth Salt Azimuth Aveni Azimuth Agrigento- Ancient Shrine to Vulcan 90 N/A N/A Agrigento- Sanctuary of Cthonic Deities 92 81 82 Agrigento- Temple of Aesclepius 92 90 N/A Agrigento- Temple of Concord 80 87 89.2 Agrigento- Temple of Demeter/Church of San 128 80 N/A Biagio Agrigento- Temple of Dioscuri 84 N/A N/A Agrigento- Temple of Hercules 94 90 90.5 Agrigento- Temple of Juno 106 82 80.6 Agrigento- Temple of Vulcan 88 87 86.5 Agrigento- Temple of Zeus 80 80 78.3 Akrai- Temple of Aphrodite 90 67 N/A Akrai- Temple of Persephone 90 N/A N/A Camarina- Altar 1 288 N/A N/A Camarina- Altar 2 282 N/A N/A Camarina- Altar 3 282 N/A N/A Camarina- Altar 4 280 N/A N/A Camarina- Altar 5 278 N/A N/A Camarina- Temple of Athena 106 107 N/A Cefalu 266 N/A 84 Erice- Temple to Venus 144 N/A N/A Gela N/A 111 111.5 Helorus- Unknown 1 120 99 101.1 Helorus- Unknown 2 N/A N/A 222 Himera- Temple A 66 67 71 Himera- Temple B 68 67 N/A Himera- Temple C 66 67 N/A Himera- Temple D 84 N/A N/A Himera- Temple of Victory 68 71 N/A Megara Hyblea- South-Eastern Temple (T4) 90 86 N/A 51

Site & Temple Name Azimuth Salt Azimuth Aveni Azimuth Megara Hyblea- Northern Temple (T1) 98 95 N/A Megara Hyblea- Temple Sud (T3) 94 91 92.3 Megara Hyblea- Western temple (T2) 104 92 N/A Megara Hyblea- Un-Found Temple (T5) N/A N/A 182 Monte Adranone- Punic Sanctuary Under Acropolis 332 N/A N/A Monte Adranone- Punic Temple on Acropolis 26 N/A N/A Monte Adranone- Sanctuary of Cthonic Deities 176 N/A N/A Morgantina- Temple of Zeus 80 N/A N/A Morgantina- Demeter and Kore 146 N/A N/A Naxos- Temple B (T3) of Aphrodite 62 61 64 Naxos- Altar near T3&T2 260 N/A 75.7 Naxos- Temple A (T2) 40 44 N/A Naxos- Temple C (T1) 220 113 N/A Naxos- Western Sanctuary N/A N/A N/A Segesta- Temple 78 N/A 83.5 Selinus- Demeter Malophoros 64 N/A N/A Selinus- Temple A 92 96 96.5 Selinus- Temple B 92 N/A 95.7 Selinus- Temple C to Apollo 92 96 93.5 Selinus- Temple D 92 96 94.7 Selinus- Temple E of Hera 90 96 93.6 Selinus- Temple F 90 96 93.7 Selinus- Temple G of Zeus 90 96 94.5 Selinus- Temple M 82 76 N/A Selinus- Temple O 92 96 96.3 Selinus- Temple of Hera 90 N/A N/A Selinus- Temple of Zeus Meilíchios 54 80 N/A Solunto- 3 Betili 112 N/A N/A Solunto- Holy building w/ 2 aisles 112 N/A N/A Syracuse- Temple of Apollo 90 94 94.3 Syracuse- Temple of Athena 92 92 91.8 52 Site & Temple Name Azimuth Salt Azimuth Aveni Azimuth

Syracuse- Temple of Olympian Zeus 96 103 103.5 Syracuse- Ionic Temple N/A N/A 91

APPENDIX C:

DATA COLLECTION SHEET 54

Appendix C – Data Collection Sheet

Site Name:

Date: Time:

Weather:

Important notes:

Natural Megaron/Agora 360° Video Taken? Yes No

Azimuth and Declinations Az° Dec Agora Orientation Stoa Hill Altar(s) Temple(s) Sea

Temple Azimuths

Subject Az° Photos Taken? 360° Video Taken?

Remarks:

Site Diagram: APPENDIX D:

GOOGLE EARTH IMAGES 56

Appendix D – Google Earth Images

Google Earth image showing the landscape of Athens, Greece. The red line signifies the area used to the elevation profile at the bottom of the image. In the elevation profile, the agora in the natural megaron is recognizable in the valley on the left-hand side, the acropolis in the center, and the subtle elevated conical hill where the Temple of Olympian Zeus is located. 57

Google Earth image showing the temple orientation of Erice 144° that aligns with Salemi. 58

Google Earth image showing the shrine orientation of Monte Polizzo 172° that aligns with Salemi. 59

Google Earth image showing the orientation of Palike 182° that aligns with the spring (modern construction obstructing). 60

Google Earth image showing the temple orientation of Segesta with the spring under the theater. APPENDIX E:

SITE DESCRIPTIONS 62

Appendix E – Site Descriptions

Agrigento

The second largest of the sites surveyed in terms of temples to survey, Agrigento also posed a particular difficulty because of the modern city on top of the ancient site. On tourist maps, two agoras are identified; however, modern construction makes it impossible to complete direct line-of-sight surveys. Ten temples were surveyed for their azimuths and examined for possible landscape orientations. The ten temples include one high on the city hill in a modern church, Tempio di Demetra e Chiesa di San Biagio; six on the ridge misnamed as the Valley of the Temples, Tempio di Giunone, Tempio della Concordia, Tempio di Ercole,

Tempio di Giove, Sanctuario delle divintà ctonie,and Tempio dei Dioscuri; two across the

Kolybetra garden, Tempio di Vulcano and the ancient shrine to Vulcan within it; and one in the valley below the city, Tempio di Esculapio.

The Agora Superiore or Higher Agora resided adjacent to the Bouleuterion and the

Ekklesiasterion, as well as the modern Museo Archaeologico. It is located roughly halfway up the hill the city rests on and just to the west of Bouleuterion. Modern construction made line-of- sight impossible and modern excavations made direct examination of the agora also impossible due to restricted access; 360° video was taken from the adjacent parking lot. The only identified sacred structure higher on the hill from the Agora Superiore is the Tempio di Demetra (Temple of Demeter) in the modern Chiesa di San Biagio.

The Agora Infereore or Lower Agora is located in a tiny, shallow valley just north of the

Tempio di Ercole and directly south of the Agora Superiore. The stoa in the agora appears to oriented to the north. There was not much in the way of open space in this agora with the gymnasium adjacent on the northeastern side. The agora is located close enough to the ridge 63 with the six temples to argue that this space was central to the community of Agrigento. The goods sold in the Agora Infereore could very well have been offerings given in the temples.

The temples on the ridge misnamed as the Valley of the Temples seem to all have one overarching orientation: east, and since they are all nearly in a line they can also be considered oriented to each other. The Tempio di Giunone could have another possible easterly orientation on a hilltop of similar elevation directly to the east of the temple hilltop. This makes little difference in Scully's landscape model. The Sanctuario della divintà ctonie is also oriented to the hilltop although it is not in the line of sight from the temple. The earliest temple built is the

Tempio di Ercole (500 B.C.E.) and is closer to the Tempio di Giunone but predates it, so it is possible that the original orientation to the easterly hilltop originates with this temple.

There appears to be nothing of archaeological significance marked on any tourist maps including the eastern hilltop; however, this orientation suggests further investigation may reveal interesting results (The Valley of the Temples of Agrigento 2011).

The Tempio di Vulcano is an interesting case in Agrigento because it contains a temple contemporaneous with the others on the ridge and an ancient shrine beneath it. The 5th -century temple has a similar orientation to the temples on the ridge and is in rough alignment with the rest of the temples that form the long line on the ridge. Interestingly, there is another smaller temple underneath the 5th-century temple. This ancient temple has a slightly more northern alignment than the 5th -century temple. The estimated date for the earlier temple beneath the

Tempio di Vulcano is the 6th-century B.C.E., which begs the question of why the alignment was changed when the new temple was built in the 5th-century. For whatever reason, the alignment of the temples during the 5th-century was important.

Another temple not located on the ridge is the Tempio di Demetra e Chiesa di San 64

Biagio. This temple is located higher on the main slope of Agrigento and on a small hillock to the northeast of the ridge. This temple was incorporated into the medieval Church of San Biagio, named for the nearby stream (formerly called the river Akragas) and the foundation of the original temple is still visible in the apse of the church. This temple has a southeast orientation that is radically different from the other temples on the ridge even though it has a contemporaneous build date. There are also two round altars along the side of the temple, one of which was filled with processional oil lamps at the time of discovery (The Valley of the Temples of Agrigento 2011). These were likely used for chthonic rituals which commonly took place at night (The Valley of the Temples of Agrigento 2011).

The last temple not associated with the ridge is the Tempio di Esculapio. This temple is still oriented easterly and aligns with a low flat (not conical) hill. The reasons for this temple being separated from the others is speculation. Since Aesculapius was a god of health and medicine, a majority of devotees were sick people, and it is possible that this temple was located away from the agora and other temples to keep the sick away from healthy people (Cerchiai et al.., 2002, The Valley of the Temples of Agrigento 2011). This is not to say that the ancient people of Agrigento had an understanding of germs, but could be more of a social action or ostracizing of the ill. Also at this temple, there are a series of smaller buildings containing rooms for medical treatment. It is possible that there was not enough space on the ridge for an establishment of this size.

Scully's model fits well to the site of Agrigento. The two agoras are near enough to each other for this site that I consider the natural megaron large enough to encompass both agoras in one megaron for this site. Both of the agoras are located adjacent to civic buildings in order to serve the people using the civic buildings. It is my estimation then that the temples were built on 65 the ridge because of the topography. The ridge acts as several conical hills lumped together and fits with the model. To the north, the modern city continues up the mountain that has a barely decipherable cleft to the west. All of the temples but one are located on ridges and hillocks on the great hill where the site of Agrigento is located. The Tempio di Esculapio is clearly located away from all the other temples and sacred sites in the valley below the ridge and the only exception to Scully's model.

Temple Azimuth – True North (+2°) Tempio di Giunone – Temple of Juno (Hera) 106° Tempio della Concordia – Temple of Concord 80° Tempio di Ercole – Temple of Hercules 94° Tempio di Giove – Temple of Zeus 80° Tempio dei Dioscuri – Temple of Dioscuri 84° Sanctuario della divintà ctonie – Sanctuary of Cthonic Deities 92° Tempio di Demetra e Chiesa di San Biagio – Temple of 128° Demeter

Tempio di Vulcano – Temple of Vulcan (Hephaestus) 88° Ancient Temple to Vulcan (Hephaestus) 90° Tempio di Esculapio – Temple of Asclepius 92° 66

Orientations of 10 temples at Agrigento.

Akrai

The ancient site of Akrai was occupied almost without gap from the Paleolithic to the modern age (Cerchiai et al.. 2002, Spawforth 2006). Its hilltop location makes it a prime placement for a settlement that is easy to defend and, interestingly, the site is the direct linkage between Agrigento and Syracuse. The site contains a well-defined agora and three sacred structures. The temple of Aphrodite, the Aphrodision, was built in the 6th Century B.C.E.

(Cerchiai, et al.. 2002, Spawforth 2006) is the largest at the site, and is located at the highest point of the acropolis. Even so, it was not as large at the temples found at Syracuse. It has a direct 90° axis of orientation that aligns with the ancient settlement of Siracusa (Syracuse), but no other discernible landscape orientations. The small temple of Persephone, the Koreion, is a circular altar that is adjacent to the temple. The Koreion is similar to the altars at the Tempio di Demeter at Agrigento, in that they are round and likely for Chthonic deities, as Persephone is one of them. 67

Finally, the Templi Ferali is a sacred structure that is oriented to the south. It is the last of three quarries at Akrai and contains hundreds of small niches where devotees placed offerings for the dead. The tradition of using a quarry as a sacred area dates to the 3rd century B.C.E., so it is after the Greek occupation of the area.

The agora at Akrai does not show any specific orientations to features in the landscape.

It is located near the Aphrodision and is actually on the acropolis, which does not fit Scully's model. There are also no other mountains or conical hills in direct line of sight from the agora or anywhere else on the acropolis. The only way Akrai could remotely fit Scully's model is if the agora was relocated off the acropolis to just south of the theater (an unexcavated area) so the temple would be located on a hill. There are still no cleft mountains to the north or south in the immediate viewshed. The lack of landscape orientations as well as the direct 90° East orientation of the Aphrodision more than suggests that the temple itself has a strong Greek identity. However, the rest of the site does not fit the model, so the reasons for this deviation must be considered. The most likely reason for this is that the site was simply too exceptional for defense purposes to forgo in order to follow a prescribed style of settlement layout.

Temple Azimuth – True North (+2°) Aphrodision - Temple of Aphrodite 90° Koreion – Temple of Persephone 90° (same orientation, structures are connected) Templi Ferali 145° 68

Orientation of the Temple of Aphrodite at Akrai.

Camarina

Founded by Syracuse in the 6th century B.C.E., Camarina is a coastal site and even with its strategic location on the coast and just south of an ancient marsh, it was destroyed by its mother-city only fifty years after its founding (Cerchiai, et al.. 2002, Spawforth 2006). Gela founded it anew in the 5th century, and it was again destroyed fifty years later, but this time by the Carthaginians. This cycle continued until it's final destruction in 853 C.E. (Cerchiai, et al..

2002, Spawforth 2006). Due to the sandy nature of the soil, there is not much stone in the area, which led to many of the ancient structures being looted for their stone. The archaeological remains are scant, but one temple, five altars, and an agora have been identified.

The agora is located on a flat area of land only about one hundred yards from the water on its south end. It is surrounded by three stoa on the north, west, and south sides and has five altars on the eastern side of the agora. The three stoa have clear orientations: the north stoa faces 69 south, the the west stoa faces east, and the south stoa faces north. The shore is close enough to the agora that it is reasonable to assume that there was maritime trade taking place at this site.

This way, goods coming off ships would be easily brought to the agora where they would be sold and traded. The five altars on the eastern side of the agora are not as clearly oriented as the stoa.

The altars have a southwestern orientation instead of pointing directly to the interior of the agora as do the stoa.

The temple is dedicated to Athena and is located up a shallow hill to the east of the agora

(Cerchiai, et al.. 2002, Spawforth 2006). The few remains make it difficult to decipher from the other archaeological structures. The temple has an easterly orientation based on measurements taken on the few remaining stone alignments that make up the temple remains. It's also located partially inside a building, so the exact shape of the temple is difficult to discern without a site map.

Camarina does not fit Scully's model completely, as there is no cleft mountains in view from the agora, much less on a northern or southern axis. The sea is visible to the north and south and is extremely close. The temple does reside on a hill, but the hill itself is too shallow to determine if its actual shape is conical. The agora itself could be oriented to the east and therefore to the temple as the temple is exactly 94° from the center of the agora.

The eastern area outside the agora appears to be unexcavated. Further exploration could yield interesting results. 70

Temple/Altar Azimuth – True North (+2°) Temple of Athena 106° Altar 1 288° Altar 2 282° Altar 3 282° Altar 4 280° Altar 5 278°

Orientations of the Temple of Athena and 5 altars at Camarina.

Cefalu

Home to earliest temple in Sicily, Cefalu is a coastal site with the modern city built nearly on the beach and the ancient city on the peak of the vast mountain that shoots upward in a 71 sheer cliff from the beach. The mountain, known as “the rock” to locals, hosts the megalithic structure known as the Temple of Diana. At the highest point, remains of a Byzantine castle are visible. The town was founded by Carthaginians but colonized by Greeks. The theory is tha the indigenous people of Cefalu, the Sicans, built the megalithic structure around the 9th century

B.C.E. and it later became the temple (Andrews & Brown 2008). The interlocking stones that make up the walls of the structure are similar to those at Pantalica and make up the lower sections of the building. The larger, flat stones above them are from the Greek period and are almost identical to other greek temples (Andrews & Brown 2008). There are also a few other elements of classical styling found throughout the temple. The medieval period made the temple into a chapel. The remains of the apse are still visible today.

The orientation of the temple was taken from the only external doorway to the temple which was on the western side of the building. This reading marked the temple as having a western orientation of 266°, but due to the state of the remains of the temple it is difficult to discern which way the temple was actually oriented. It could also be that the temple entrance was at the rear of this temple (which is not a typical Greek-style) and that the orientation could be 180° in the opposite direction, giving the temple an 86° easterly orientation, which would fall into a greek layout style.

No agora was identified at Cefalu, so it is hard to say whether or not it fits Scully's model. Just from looking at the temple, it is unlikely that this site will fit Scully's model, and more likely that it will fit an indigenous model for the landscape. The temple is on the mountain, near the peak but not on it, not on a conical hill with a cleft mountain on the northern or southern axis. To the north of the temple is the sea; to the south, the valley. In indigenous sites throughout Sicily, such as Monte Polizzo, Erice, and Segesta, the settlements during the 72

Iron Age were located on mountaintops for defense, and due to the age of Cefalu, it is likely the same case there.

Temple Azimuth – True North (+2°) Temple of Diana 266° (or 86°?)

Orientation of the Temple of Diana at Cefalu.

Erice

Erice's origins are with the Elymians and the city bears the marks of the culture in its landscape. The temple was already dedicated to the goddess of love before it was dedicated as such by the Greeks (Eryx 2009) and was an important religious place for passing sailors into late antiquity when the site fell out of use. During the Middle Ages the temple stone was looted for other buildings and a small chapel was built in its place. No trace of the chapel remains on the site. A castle was later built on the mountaintop and surrounds the site of the temple. 73

The only remains of the temple are a few stone alignments and the remains of Doric-style columns. Excavations in the 1930s discovered ancient steps leading to the entrance (Eryx 2008).

These blocks also line up with the stone alignment that would be an outer foundation wall of the temple. Azimuth readings were taken at the stone steps and the stone alignment and were found to have an identical southerly alignment of 144°. Due to Erice being on one of the highest mountaintops in western Sicily, and clouds covering the mountain, a landscape orientation was not able to be determined by line of sight. Google Earth was also limited due to a cloud being pictured over the entire mountain. An extremely interesting find, when using a protractor over a map of sicily, using Erice as the vector, 144° lines up almost perfectly with Salemi Castle, in

Salemi. Salemi is another indigenous site founded by the Elymi. It is possible that the alignment to Salemi is an acknowledgment of their shared heritage. See Appendix D for Google

Earth images showing this alignment.

There has been no agora identified at Erice; it is likely the modern architecture is on top of what few remains would be present if one existed. With the temple located at the peak of the mountain and not on a conical hill with mountains in the background, it does not appear to fit

Scully's model and seems to fit a more indigenous settlement layout. The landscape relationship between the Temple of Venus and Salemi seems to follow another indigenous pattern of alignment to landscape features and not east.

Temple Azimuth – True North (+2°) Temple of Venus 144° 74

Orientation of the Temple of Venus at Erice

Helorus

Helorus, or Eloro, was the most difficult site to survey out of all nineteen sites as there were no marked structures, museum, tour guide, or tourist map to reference and the site was in very poor condition. I was able to identify one large temple due to its large, specific foundation stones, but according to Copani (2005: 252-253) and Aveni (2000), there is another temple to

Asclepius that I was unable to locate. Helorus was founded by Syracuse around the 7th century

B.C.E. (Cerchiai et al.. 2002, Frederiksen 1976).

According to site reports, Dr. Voza's excavations dated the temple to the later part of the

4th century B.C.E. but was not the sacred area in classical times, as houses have been found beneath the temple foundation (Copani 2005, Wilson 1981). The temple is outside of the walls of the town (Frederiksen 1976). The temple is dedicated to Demeter and Kore (Persephone) and has a large semi-circular cistern outside the temple, as has been found in other temples dedicated 75 to Demeter and Kore. The temple itself has an azimuth of 120°, which is more southerly than the Greek temples found at other Greek temple sites but still within the east parameters set in this study. Also the temple does not appear to line up with any landscape features.

The second temple mentioned in site reports is a large sanctuary laid out in the 3rd century B.C.E., which likely served the same deities as the large temple and possibly was meant to replace it (Copani 2005, Wilson 1981). It had a large stoa dated to the 2nd century

B.C.E. with small rooms and chapels surrounding the the temple. Frederiksen (1976) states that this is a curious plan, but also have been spotted elsewhere in Doric Sicily. Copani (2005) and

Aveni (2000) claim the second temple at Helorus is to Asclepius, and I believe this is likely true, as the curious layout Frederiksen notices is similar to the temple of Asclepius found at

Agrigento.

Two agora are mentioned in the site report: one trapezoidal shaped on top of the hill and another ancient one that appears to be directly beneath the trapezoidal one due to the 7th -century artifacts found in conjunction with it (Wilson 1981). The agora was unable to be located in person.

Temple Azimuth – True North (+2°) Temple of Demeter and Kore 120° 76

Temple of Demeter and Kore alignment at Helorus

Heraclea Minoa

Originally an outpost of the Greek colony Selinus (modern Selinunte) founded in the 6th

century B.C.E., Heraclea Minoa was fought over by the Carthegenians, then the people of

Agrigento, and the Greeks again before the Romans (Cerchiai et al.. 2002). While the city-states fighting over the site are of similar cultural backgrounds, the ever-changing leadership at

Heraclea Minoa makes it a candidate for hybridization. However, the modern conditions at the

site make decoding cultural hybridity difficult.

Literary sources tell about two temples at this site (Cerchiai et al.. 2002), but neither was

locatable within the large spans of the archaeological park open to the public. Therefore no

temple alignments were able to be taken at Heraclea Minoa. Present and well marked at the site

were private living quarters and a theater. The theater backs up to a natural ridge that is a

possible candidate for a temple or sanctuary, but neither was present. Out in the parking lot and 77 unmarked was a structure that resembled a Greek-style stoa that could border a Greek-style

agora. It is difficult to say, however, that an agora is under the parking lot, as it has not been excavated.

Scully's model does not fit well here as Heraclea Minoa is a coastal site. There is a small

ridge in the middle of the site running east to west that does not qualify as a conical hill. There is

no cleft mountain to the north, and the sea is to the south. The agora is also not officially

located, but the modern parking lot appears to have a stoa-like building running along one side and could resemble a natural megaron.

Himera

Himera also posed an interesting challenge due to the misinformation about the site in

published resources. Many of the writers used in this research only mention one temple at

Himera, the Temple of Victory, which is actually only one of five temples at the site (Cerachiai

et al.. 2002, Spawforth 2006). The Temple of Victory is the most easily accessible as it is not

located on top of the hill at the site, where the other four temples are located. The legend of the

battle of Himera tells that the Temple of Victory is actually located on the battleground and was

the trophy of the victory for Theron, the Greek tyrant, for the defeat of the Carthaginians

(Cerchiai et al.. 2002).

The temples located up on the hill at Himera are considered one large complex dedicated to Athena, but each has some interesting orientations. Temple C as well as the Temple A & B complex (combined temples) all face roughly in the same direction, lined up with a mountain to

the west. Temple D on the hill faces nearly direct east and does not share the orientation of the other temples on the hill. Interestingly, the Temple of Victory at the foot of the hill also shares 78 the alignment of Temple C and the Temple A & B complex.

No agora has yet been identified at Himera, so a thorough examination with Scully's model is not possible at this site. However, what is available of the site could be loosely argued to follow Scully's model. To the north of the site is the sea, and to the south, what can be loosely considered a cleft mountain, so the axis component remains true at Himera. A majority of the

temples are located on a high hill that does not appear to be conical, and therefore this

component is false. The Temple of Victory is not located on a conical hill, although the reason for this may be accounted for in the legend of the battle of Himera.

Temple Azimuth – True North (+2°) Temple A 66° Temple B 68° Temple C 66° Temple D 84° Tempio della Vittoria (Temple of Victory) 68°

Alignment of five temples at Himera 79

Megara Hyblea

Yet another problematic site, Megara Hyblea is an unfortunate victim of poor maintenance at archaeological sites. Stories of its foundation vary, but the general consensus is that it was founded around the same time as Naxos and later flourished enough to found a

colony city at the other end of Sicily: Selinus, a site that would be far greater than its mother-city

(Cerchiai et al.. 2002, Salt 2008).

Four temples were surveyed at this site, and one more was not able to be located but was cited by other archaeologists. Due to the poor marking of the temples at the site, I notated each temple as T1 for “Temple 1” through T4 for “Temple 4.” I later was able to determine the

official names of these temples from site maps, noted as such in the azimuth table. Each of the temples surveyed falls into the category of east-facing and none appear to have any landscape orientations.

An agora was not officially located at the site; however, in the narrow main street that ran east to west through the site, there appeared to be stoa on either side. This being a coastal site, the site is relatively flat with no conical hills or cleft mountains in view. Classicists argue that this site is undoubtedly a Greek site, yet it does not appear to fit with Scully's model for a Greek site landscape.

Temple Azimuth – True North (+2°) T1 – Northern Temple 96° T2 – Western Temple 102° T3 – Temple Sud 92° T4 – Southeastern Temple 88° 80

Orientations of temples at Megara Hyblea

Monte Adranone

This site was not originally included in the plan of sites to survey, but by a happy

accident from map misreading, it was added to the representations of Punic sites. The site on

Monte Adranone's foundation is unclear; however, the Punic influence is unmistakable and the

site is surrounded by other known indigenous sites, most of them Elymi. Conquered by the

Greeks in the 6th century, the site then became a colony of Selinus (Leighton 1999). The

archaeological record for the area shows a mixture of indigenous artifacts and Punic artifacts

(Leighton 1999). While the presence of both types at the site suggests the presence of both

cultures, this can be true without the site being a hybrid site, as no artifacts of mixed styles have

been found. However, re-examining the architecture at the site may change this idea.

The temples at Monte Adranone are located in and around relevant structures. The

Sanctuario della divintà ctonie (Sanctuary to Cthonic Deities) is located at the southernmost 81 point in the settlement, adjacent to the “fattoria” or “farm,” which is a rectangular structure with an open yard in the center. The Sanctuario della divintà ctonie is rectangular with an entrance on the southern side. It resembles many other sanctuaries of this type found throughout Sicily. The relationship to the fattoria has possibly to do with food storage for offerings at the sanctuary or having to do with the small private rites performed in the small rooms that form one of the boundaries of the fattoria. The Punic temple below the acropolis has a footprint that looks remarkably like a Greek temple with a northeasterly orientation; however, the entrances to the rooms are situated on the northern longer side, which is completely different than the Greek model. It is also adjacent to a large rectangular cistern that provided water to the community off the acropolis. The last temple present is the Punic temple on top of the acropolis. This temple is larger than the temple under the acropolis and has corners oriented east to west, as was the tradition of sacred Punic architecture. The temple has three rooms, all of which open only to the outside on the southern wall, and not to each other. The most important area of the temple was the central open-air enclosure, which is again different from a Greek model of temple structures.

Since this is a predominantly a Punic site, I don't expect Scully's model to fit here. No

Greek-style agora was identified here; however, below the acropolis and east of the temple below

the acropolis, there is a magazzini or magazine that served as shops and could be similar to a

stoa, but there is no certain documentation. The largest temple is on the acropolis, which is on a

mountaintop and not on a conical hill; however, the acropolis itself could be considered a conical

hill if the magazine is considered the natural megaron and agora. A very shallow cleft mountain appears on the south axis of the magazine which is in accordance with Scully's model. The

orientations of the three temples at the site do not fit the model. Overall, if the magazine acts as an agora, there is some argument for the model fitting this site. 82 Last, there is another structure on the site that is unlike any other structure on Monte

Adranone or any I have seen in Sicily. This structure, known as the large rectangular-planned

building, may not be a sacred structure, but its uniqueness and similarity to a Sicilian-style tholos tomb warrants mentioning here. The tholos-style building style predates any Greek presence in

Sicily (Kolb 2005) and its presence at this site seems to date to the Greek occupation. Votive

offerings were found in the circular chamber, and the floors in the northeast rooms are similar to

public food storage rooms at other Greek sites.

Temple Azimuth – True North (+2°) Sanctuario della divintà ctonie – Sanctuary to Cthonic Deities 176° Tempio punico sotto l' acropoli – Punic temple below 332° acropolis Tempio punico sull' acropoli – Punic temple on acropolis 26°

Orientations of three Punic Sacred Structures at Monte Adranone 83

Monte Jato

Monte Jato is another site that may be a hybrid site. Like Heraclea Minoa, no temples were identified in the ruin at this site and no other sacred structures identified. There is an agora

at the top of the hill near the theater at the site. The inland site is most notable as the last holdout

for rebel Muslims during the Medieval era (Leighton 1999).

The site struggles with Scully's model in that there is a cleft mountain to the north and

south of the agora even though the site is located on the ridge of a mountain range. There does

not appear to be any conical hills at the site and the temple remains listed at the site were unable

to be located. Therefore, the conditions of a Greek site were unable to be met due to the lack of

evidence available at the site.

Monte Polizzo

An Iron Age Elymi site, Monte Polizzo was never Hellenized and therefore there are no

Greek-style sacred structures at the site. There is, however, a very curious shrine-like feature at

the highest point on the mountain. Archaeological finds at the site point to a ritual use. The

shrine is circular in shape and has stones inside that make up interior divisions which could

either be wall divisions or subfloor. Subfloor seems more likely, as the rooms would be barely

large enough for one person standing up. The interior division stones are still of interest,

particularly the southern stone alignment, as it aligns the likely entrance of the shrine and with

Salemi, the same place as the Erice stone alignment. It is the southerly stone alignment and the

appearance of entrance steps at the circular shrine that lead me to believe the entrance to the

shrine was from the south. The alignments in the direction of Salemi argue that this is an 84 important site. See Appendix D for the Google Earth image showing this alignment.

Scully's model does not apply to the site because there is no identifiable agora and the sacred shrine is outside the eastern parameters. A cleft mountain is present but is not located on the north or south axis from the shrine. Monte Grande is on the northwestern side and the cleft in the mountain is 317° from the shrine. The acropolis that the shrine is located on is not a conical hill because there is no discernible difference from the would-be conical hill and the continuation of the mountaintop.

Temple Azimuth – True North (+2°) Shrine southern alignment 172°

Orientation of the shrine at Monte Polizzo

Morgantina

In my opinion, the most scenic of the sites, the civic buildings at Morgantina, lay in a small inland valley with two ridges: one along the southwestern valley edge and one along the 85 northeastern valley edge. The first major settlement period at Morgantina was on the northeastern ridge known as Cittadella and the second settlement period was on the southwestern ridge known as Serra Orlando (Cerchiai et al.. 2002). Morgantina was dominated by the Greeks in the 6th century and remained under Greek control until the Roman era

(Cerchiai et al.. 2002).

A small temple and a sacred area were located at the site. The temple is dedicated to

Zeus and has an eastern orientation that falls within the Greek model. It is located in the center of the agora and not on a conical hill, which does not fall within Scully's model. The sacred area at the site is dedicated to Demeter and Kore and has a southerly orientation that does not fit the model. The sacred area is also an irregular-shaped building with what appears to be a water cistern. The older section of the sacred area structure has an orientation of 146°, and the newer addition of the building has an orientation of 154°. The newer construction houses the cistern.

The sacred area is also not on a conical hill and does not fit the model.

The agora is located in a quintessential natural megaron, as are the rest of the civic spaces at Morgantina. It is interesting that the private residences are located on the ridges, perhaps for defense. Scully's model states the opposite, that while the agora will be located in the natural megaron, the temples and sacred spaces will be on conical hills, or in this case, the ridges. At

Morgantina, this is simply not the case. The two ridges also eliminate views of any cleft mountains in the area.

Temple Azimuth – True North (+2°) Small Temple of Zeus 80° Sacred Area of Demeter and Kore (Original) 146° Sacred Area (Addition) 154° 86

Orientations of temples at Morgantina

Naxos

Founded in the 8th century B.C.E., Naxos was the very first Greek settlement in Sicily

(Cerchiai et al. 2002). The coastal site has four temples within the archaeological park and another temple that is located outside the park that was unable for survey. Most of these temples date to the 7th century B.C.E. with the rest of the settlement (Cerchiai et al. 2002). An altar was also included in the analysis that was found near Temples A and B.

Temples A and B are located in the south west corner of the archaeological park. Temple

B is built over the remains of Temple A and has a dramatically different orientation than Temple

A. The altar near Temples A and B has a western orientation. Temple C is located in the eastern section of the site and has a western orientation. Different sources regard Temple C as a tempietto, which is a small temple, so it is possible that tempiettos are not held to the same orientation standards as standard temples. Depicted in site plans is also western sanctuary that is 87 unfortunately under modern architecture and was therefore unable to survey.

Site plans identify an agora, but modern architecture covers any remains and restricts access, making it unavailable for survey. There is a cleft mountain 315° from the where the agora would be located, and it is not located on a north or south axis. Since this is a coastal site, the topography is relatively flat and therefore no conical hills are present. The temples are not located on any hills. In order for Scully's model to apply, the agora much be further researched.

Only Temple B has an orientation within the eastern parameters.

Temple Azimuth – True North (+2°) Temple A 40° Temple B 62° Temple C 220° Altar 260°

Orientations of Sacred Structures at Naxos 88

Palike

The indigenous site of Palike is located in a concave rock formation near Mineo.

Archaeological finds show that this site was occupied almost continuously since the Paleolithic, and reached its most prosperous during the occupation of the Hellenized Sicels (Maniscalco

2008). Since this site is an indigenous site, in many ways it is radically different from other

Greek sites in Sicily. The site layout does not have a cleft mountain, conical hills, or a natural megaron. There does appear to be a stoa structure below the sanctuary and it has the same orientation as the sanctuary. The sanctuary is oriented directly south, away from the rock outcrop, and aligns with a natural lake in the open plain that was of ritual significance. The lake was circular in shape, had greenish water, and a “bitumenous” odor (New Guide to Naples and the Environs1853), meaning it was probably toxic. This alignment is similar to others at indigenous sites in Sicily and may be representative of the need for an indigenous landscape model. See Appendix D for a Google Earth image of this alignment.

Temple Azimuth – True North (+2°) Sanctuary 182° 89

Orientation of Sanctuary at Palike

Segesta

Segesta is yet another indigenous site with interesting landscape orientations. There is one temple at the site and it has a surprising origin. Segesta was occupied by the Elymians and was never fully Hellenized (Andrews & Brown 2008, Cerchiai et al. 2002, Segesta 2006). This is interesting because the temple at the site is built in the Greek style but was never finished.

The temple at Segesta is the only Greek-style temple in the world that has never collapsed. It has an orientation that is within the eastern parameters but has a curious landscape placement. Instead of on a hill, the temple was built in a shallow valley. On the hill at Segesta, an agora and Greek-style theater are found. The eastern side of the theater is built over a sacred spring that is still accessible through a gated corridor in the theater. The temple at

Segesta is oriented exactly with the natural spring. Since the temple has no identified cult, it is possible that the Elymi built the temple in the Greek style but used it in an indigenous way. See 90 Appendix D for a Google Earth image of this alignment.

The agora on the hilltop has two stoa: one on the northern side and one on the western side. Near the agora is the Greek-style theater and a mosque and castle from the Medieval era.

Other than the alignment between the temple and the theater, no other landscape or cosmological orientation appears to be present at the site.

In terms of Scully's model, Segesta only fits a few components. The agora is not in a natural megaron, but instead on a hilltop. The temple is within the eastern parameters but looks to align with the spring under the theater and not simply east. There are two unarguable cleft mountains in the line of sight but neither are on the north or south axis of the agora. The first cleft mountain is 126° off north from the agora, and the second is 238° off north from the agora.

There are no features that qualify as conical hills in view. This is yet another site that argues for the construction of an indigenous landscape model.

Temple Azimuth – True North (+2°) Temple 78° 91

Orientation of the temple at Segesta

Selinus

The generally accepted history at Selinus tells that it was a colony founded in the 7th century B.C.E. by Greeks and Sikels from Megara Hyblea seeking a place to occupy with less pressure from Syracuse and Chalcidian colonies (Andrews & Brown 2008, , Cerchiai et al.

2002, Salt 2008, Selinus 2012, Spawforth 2006). They founded Selinus along the ancient river

Sélinos (modern Modione), which also got its name from the wild celery that grew in the area.

Selinus enjoyed prosperity through a friendly relationship with the other Greek colonies as well as Carthage (Andrews & Brown 2008, Cerchiai et al. 2002, Selinus 2012). Selinus had repeated conflicts with Segesta over port territory at Castellammare, which eventually escalated into full- scale war and the site being completely sacked in the 5th-century by Hannibal of Carthage, who, with the Athenians, sided with Segesta (Andrews & Brown 2008, Cerchiai et al. 2002, Selinus

2012). The site was mostly abandoned until the 4th century when it fell under Punic control and 92 remained so until the Roman era (Andrews & Brown 2008, Cerchiai et al. 2002, Selinus 2012).

The largest site geographically and by the number of temples surveyed in this entire project, Selinus is also the most accessible site. The site has 13 sacred structures in three separate areas: the Eastern Hill, Acropolis, and Gaggera Valley. The Eastern Hill has three temples, the Acropolis has six temples, and the Gaggera Valley has four temples.

The Eastern Hill hosts the three magnificent temples known today as Temple E, Temple

F, and Temple G. These temples were on the opposite side of the ancient port, but high enough on the hill that they were still within view past the Acropolis from the ancient port. The youngest of the three temples on the hill, Temple E dates to the 5th-century, is dedicated to Hera, and was reconstructed in the 1950s. Remains of two small ancient temples from different periods have been found underneath the foundation of Temple E. It has an orientation of exactly 90° and therefore faces due east. Temple F also has an orientation of due east at 90° but is dated earlier from the 6th-century B.C.E. It is similar in style to Temple C on the Acropolis but smaller in dimension. The last temple on the Eastern Hill is Temple G that dates from the end of the 6th- century. Because of its massive dimensions and size of the columns, it is the largest at Selinus and one of the largest in the Greek world. There is some debate as to its dedicated deity; the size suggests Olympian Zeus, but others suggest the temple is dedicated to Apollo. It too has an orientation of exactly 90°, making all the temples on the Eastern Hill of the same orientation.

The Acropolis was the site of civic buildings and includes five temples (Temple A,

Temple B, Temple C to Apollo, Temple D and Temple O) and the ancient Megaron. The orthogonal city planning has influenced the orientations of these temples as they match the east- west roads of the Acropolis. The southernmost temple in the Acropolis is Temple O and is similar enough in style and close enough in proximity to Temple A that they are often 93 considered together in analysis. Both Temple A and Temple O share an orientation of 92°.

Temple A is situated directly north of Temple O and is exactly the same dimensions. Both temples were built at the same time at the beginning of the 5th-century B.C.E. Temple C is the largest principal temple on the Acropolis and is dedicated to Apollo, who seems to have deep roots in Selinus. The temple was built at the beginning of the 6th-century B.C.E and has an orientation of 92°. Just south of Temple C is a small scared structure known as the Megaron

(sometimes called Temple R), although not a megaron in the way this study knows it. This sacred structure is built in the temple style, is one of the most ancient structures in town, and has an unknown date. Temple D is the northernmost temple at the site and also has a 6th-century construction. The temple runs parallel to Temple C and shares the same orientation as Temple

C. The last temple on the Acropolis is Temple B. This temple was not constructed until the 3rd century B.C.E. and constructed on a small hillock within the Acropolis. It also shares the same orientation as Temple C.

Finally, the Gaggera Valley hosts four temples: the Shrine of Demeter Malophòros, the

Temple of Hera, the Temple of Zeus Meilìchios, and Temple M. The Shrine of Demeter

Malophòros is a wide sacred area of an irregular shape with a main temple in the center. The main temple has an orientation of 64°, which is radically different from the other temples on the

Acropolis and Eastern Hill. It is believed that this was a funerary shrine, as it is located on the route to the necropolis west of the city. Just to the south of the Shrine of Demeter Malophòros is the Temple of Hera. This is technically a tempietto, as it is smaller in size than the other Temple of Hera (Temple E) on the Eastern Hill and not much is written about this temple in published works. The temple has an orientation of exactly 90° and is the only due east-facing temple in the valley. North of the Temple of Hera and the Shrine of Demeter Malophòros is the Temple of 94 Zeus Meilíchios. This temple shares the sacred area with the Shrine of Demeter Malophòros but has a more northern orientation of 54°. Finally, Temple M resides even farther north from the sacred area, near the Gaggera Fountain. Dating to the 6th century B.C.E., this is also an archaic megaron remade into a temple, similar to the one found on the Acropolis. It has an orientation of 82°.

Of all the temples at Selinus, none seem to have an orientation to anything other than east. Firsthand line-of-sight analysis and computer models using Google Earth do not show any landscape orientations present. It is likely that smaller temples existed in the Manuzza, or flat land north of the Acropolis, as this was the central mercantile area of the settlement, but the remains of those temples have not yet been found.

In the Manuzza, the main agora of the site has been located. Modern plant life has crept over the ancient site enough to make identifying every inch of the agora difficult, so its exact location was estimated. The agora does fall into a natural megaron as it is in a shallow valley.

The site itself is extremely flat and absolutely no cleft mountains were identified in the view of the site. The sea was on the southern axis and the northern axis has a steady rise that is hardly noticeable by the naked eye and does not qualify as a cleft mountain. The only hills in the area are the Eastern Hill and the Acropolis. All of the temples at the site fall within the eastern orientation parameters. Without the cleft mountain, the site struggles with Scully's model but meets every other criteria. It seems that the site was selected for the natural port and located away from pressure on Sicily's east coast so that the lack of a cleft mountain was overlooked by the original founders. 95

Temple Azimuth – True North (+2°) Demeter Malophoros – Gaggera Valley 64° Temple A – Acropolis 92° Temple B – Acropolis 92° Temple C to Apollo – Acropolis 92° Temple D – Acropolis 92° Temple E of Hera – Eastern Hill 90° Temple F – Eastern Hill 90° Temple G of Zeus – Eastern Hill 90° Temple M – Gaggera Valley 82° Temple O – Acropolis 92° Temple of Hera – Gaggera Valley 90° Temple of Zeus Meilíchios – Gaggera Valley 54° Megaron – Acropolis 92°

Orientations of temples at Selinus 96 Solunto

This Punic site was settled in the 8th century B.C.E. The site received prosperity when trading peacefully with the Elymi and existed in such until it fell into Carthaginian hands, where it stayed until its abandonment (Andrews & Brown 2008). The site is located on top of Monte

Catalfano and has two Punic temples that were surveyed.

Both sacred structures are located along the main road and near the agora. The first temple is known as Three Betili Altar and it consists of three rooms open to the outside of the structure: one with an altar, one with what could be a low seat around the wall, and one that is an open-air sacrificial area. All three rooms in this temple have the same orientation of 112° that lines up on the northern Sicilian coast north of Himera. This alignment does not appear to be significant. The second temple is the Building with Two Aisles. The sacred area of this structure is at the far east end and consists of two long narrow rooms with altars at the end of each. The altar in the western room may have held a statue of Zeus. The Building with Two

Aisles also has the same orientation of 112°. The reason both structures have the same orientation could be because all the structures on this road share walls, so the orientation is really the orientation of the entire structure – even the entire site.

The agora is similar to a Greek agora in that it has a stoa, is the central area of the town, and is surrounded by other public buildings. This agora is very similar to the one found at

Morgantina: the large, brick-paved open space that is the main agora space, the surrounding stoa, and the civic buildings in close proximity. There is a cleft mountain at the site, but it is not on axis with the agora, nor is it on any north or south axis at the site. The major mountain in view is

335° off north from the agora. The site itself is located on a hilltop that does not have a conical shape, and there are no surrounding conical hills. The two sacred places are incorporated into 97 the rest of the city structures and not separated freestanding buildings. Even though the sacred structures' orientation is within the eastern parameters, an eastern orientation does not appear to be intentional or significant. Based on the circumstances listed above, Solunto does not fit

Scully's model.

Temple Azimuth – True North (+2°) 3 Betili 112° Holy building w/ 2 aisles 112°

Orientation of sacred structures at Solunto

Syracuse Literary sources mark the foundation of Syracuse in the 8th century B.C.E. and the siteeventually became the largest and arguably most powerful Greek colony in Sicily. The heart 98 of the city still is the island of Ortygia, what was then a peninsula, where Greek settlers moved in over earlier Sicel dwellings. The modern city retraces the layout of the ancient one with the nucleus of the city near the Piazza Duomo, where the cathedral built over a Doric temple dominates the landscape (Andrews & Brown 2008, Cerchiai et al. 2002, Spawforth 2006). The modern occupation of the site makes archaeology difficult in the city (Cerchiai et al. 2002).

Four temples were located at the site of Syracuse, and only three of them were available for survey. Constructed at the height of the Doric order, in the 5th-century B.C.E., the temple of

Athena is located in the center of the island of Ortygia and is now a modern cathedral. Evidence of the Doric-style temple remains and the columns are still visible on the outside and inside of the cathedral walls where they were built directly into the modern structure. It has an orientation of

92° and fits within the eastern parameters for a Greek-style layout. The second temple at

Syracuse is the Ionic temple which is located (supposedly -- it was unable to be verified) on the highest point on the island. The Ionic temple was built in the Ionic style around the end of the 6th century B.C.E. and was never finished. It is located underneath the Plazzo Vermixio, was closed to the public, and therefore inaccessible to survey. Site plans, however, show the temple to have the same orientation as the Temple of Athena, which would have been directly next door. The third temple at Syracuse is the Temple of Apollo, which is located farther north than the Temple of Athena and the Ionic temple on the island of Ortygia. The temple has an uncertain date of the mid- 6th century. Remains of the temple still exist, are visible from the main public walkways, and are surrounded by modern public buildings. This temple may be the oldest of all the Greek

Doric-style temples in Sicily. It has an orientation of 90° and fits within the eastern parameters.

The fourth and final temple in Syracuse is the temple of Olympian Zeus on the Sicilian mainland.

Built on a low hill outside the ancient city, it overlooks the island of Ortygia. Only two columns 99 and a foundation remain of this temple, built in the early 6th century B.C.E. It has an orientation of 96° and fits within the eastern parameters.

No agora has been located at the site, so this component of the Greek-style model is unverified. The four temples are built on shallow hills as reported by firsthand observations and site reports (Spawforth 2006). There are shallow mountains inland to the northeast and southeast, but they do not qualify as cleft mountains. This site, being coastal, is mostly flat with only small hills and minimal changes in elevation. Scully's model does not seem to qualify at this site due to the lack of cleft mountains. All of the temples fall within the eastern parameters and therefore meet the conditions of that component of the model.

Temple Azimuth – True North (+2°) Temple of Apollo 90° Temple of Athena 92° Temple of Olympian Zeus 96° Ionic Temple N/A 100

Orientations of temples at Syracuse APPENDIX F:

AZIMUTH DEVIATION FROM 90° 102 Appendix F – Azimuth and Deviation from 90°. Those that deviate by less than 45° absolute value are given a deviation value of 0, and those that deviate by more than 45° absolute value are given a value of 1.

Site & Temple Name Azimuth (True Deviation Absolute Value Deviation North +2°) from 90° of Deviation of 45° Agrigento- Ancient Shrine to 90 0 0 0 Vulcan Agrigento- Sanctuary of Cthonic 92 2 2 0 Deities Agrigento- Temple of Aesclepius 92 2 2 0 Agrigento- Temple of Concord 80 -10 10 0 Agrigento- Temple of 128 38 38 0 Demeter/Church of San Biagio Agrigento- Temple of Dioscuri 84 -6 6 0 Agrigento- Temple of Hercules 94 4 4 0 Agrigento- Temple of Juno 106 16 16 0 Agrigento- Temple of Vulcan 88 -2 2 0 Agrigento- Temple of Zeus 80 -10 10 0 Akrai- Temple of Aphrodite 90 0 0 0 Akrai- Temple of Persephone 90 0 0 0 Camarina- Altar 1 288 198 198 1 Camarina- Altar 2 282 192 192 1 Camarina- Altar 3 282 192 192 1 Camarina- Altar 4 280 109 109 1 Camarina- Altar 5 278 188 188 1 Camarina- Temple of Athena 106 16 15 0 Cefalu 266 176 176 1 Erice- Temple to Venus 144 54 54 1 Helorus- Unknown 1 120 30 30 0 Helorus- Unknown 2 N/A N/A N/A 1 Himera- Temple A 66 -24 24 0 Himera- Temple B 68 -26 26 0 Himera- Temple C 66 -24 24 0 103 Site & Temple Name Azimuth (True Deviation Absolute Value Deviation North +2°) from 90° of Deviation of 45° Himera- Temple D 84 -6 6 0 Himera- Temple of Victory 68 -26 26 0 Megara Hyblea- South-Eastern 90 0 0 0 Temple (T4) Megara Hyblea- Northern Temple 98 8 8 0 (T1) Megara Hyblea- Temple Sud (T3) 94 4 4 0 Megara Hyblea- Western temple 104 14 14 0 (T2) Monte Adranone- Punic Sanctuary 332 242 242 1 Under Acropolis Monte Adranone- Punic Temple on 26 -64 64 1 Acropolis Monte Adranone- Sanctuary of 176 86 86 1 Cthonic Deities Morgantina- Temple of Zeus 80 -10 10 0 Morgantina- Demeter and Kore 146 56 56 1 Naxos- Temple B (T3) of Aphrodite 62 -28 28 1 Naxos- Altar near T3&T2 260 170 170 1 Naxos- Temple A (T2) 40 -50 50 0 Naxos- Temple C (T1) 220 130 130 1 Naxos- Western Sanctuary N/A N/A N/A 0 Segesta- Temple 78 -12 12 0 Selinus- Demeter Malophoros 64 -26 26 0 Selinus- Temple A 92 2 2 0 Selinus- Temple B 92 2 2 0 Selinus- Temple C to Apollo 92 2 2 0 Selinus- Temple D 92 2 2 0 Selinus- Temple E of Hera 90 0 0 0 Selinus- Temple F 90 0 0 0 Selinus- Temple G of Zeus 90 0 0 0 Selinus- Temple M 82 -8 8 0 Selinus- Temple O 92 2 2 0 104 Site & Temple Name Azimuth (True Deviation Absolute Value Deviation North +2°) from 90° of Deviation of 45° Selinus- Temple of Hera 90 0 0 0 Selinus- Temple of Zeus Meilíchios 54 -36 36 0 Solunto- 3 Betili 112 22 22 0 Solunto- Holy building w/ 2 aisles 112 22 22 0 Syracuse- Temple of Apollo 90 0 0 0 Syracuse- Temple of Athena 92 2 2 0 Syracuse- Temple of Olympian 96 6 6 0 Zeus Syracuse- Ionic Temple N/A N/A N/A 0 APPENDIX G:

TEMPLE NAME, CENTURY, AND PERIOD 106 Appendix G – Temple Name, Century, and Period

Site & Temple Name Century B.C.E. Period Agrigento- Ancient Shrine to Vulcan 6 2 Agrigento- Sanctuary of Cthonic Deities 5 3 Agrigento- Temple of Aesclepius 5 3 Agrigento- Temple of Concord 5 3 Agrigento- Temple of Demeter/Church of San 5 3 Biagio Agrigento- Temple of Dioscuri 5 3 Agrigento- Temple of Hercules 6 2 Agrigento- Temple of Juno 5 3 Agrigento- Temple of Vulcan 5 3 Agrigento- Temple of Zeus 5 3 Akrai- Temple of Aphrodite 6 2 Akrai- Temple of Persephone 6 2 Camarina- Altar 1 5 3 Camarina- Altar 2 5 3 Camarina- Altar 3 5 3 Camarina- Altar 4 5 3 Camarina- Altar 5 5 3 Camarina- Temple of Athena 5 3 Cefalu 9 1 Erice- Temple to Venus 6? 2 Helorus- Unknown 1 4 3 Helorus- Unknown 2 4 3 Himera- Temple A 7 2 Himera- Temple B 4 3 Himera- Temple C 6 2 Himera- Temple D 6 2 Himera- Temple of Victory 5 2 Megara Hyblea- South-Eastern Temple (T4) 7 2 Megara Hyblea- Northern Temple (T1) 7 2 107 Site & Temple Name Century B.C.E. Period Megara Hyblea- Temple Sud (T3) 7 2 Megara Hyblea- Western temple (T2) 6 2 Monte Adranone- Punic Sanctuary Under 6 2 Acropolis Monte Adranone- Punic Temple on Acropolis 6 2 Monte Adranone- Sanctuary of Cthonic Deities 6 2 Morgantina- Temple of Zeus 6 2 Morgantina- Demeter and Kore 6 2 Naxos- Temple B (T3) of Aphrodite 6 2 Naxos- Altar near T3&T2 7 2 Naxos- Temple A (T2) 7 2 Naxos- Temple C (T1) 7 2 Naxos- Western Sanctuary 7 2 Segesta- Temple 5 3 Selinus- Demeter Malophoros 6 2 Selinus- Temple A 5 3 Selinus- Temple B 3 4 Selinus- Temple C to Apollo 6 2 Selinus- Temple D 6 2 Selinus- Temple E of Hera 5 3 Selinus- Temple F 6 2 Selinus- Temple G of Zeus 6 2 Selinus- Temple M 6 2 Selinus- Temple O 5 3 Selinus- Temple of Hera 6 2 Selinus- Temple of Zeus Meilíchios 6 2 Solunto- 3 Betili 7 2 Solunto- Holy building w/ 2 aisles 7 2 Syracuse- Temple of Apollo 6 2 Syracuse- Temple of Athena 5 3 Syracuse- Temple of Olympian Zeus 6 2 Syracuse- Ionic Temple 6 2 APPENDIX H:

FOUNDER GROUPING 109 Appendix H – Founder Grouping.

This appendix groups founders into three groups: Group 1 for Greek founders, Group 2 for indigenous founders (meaning Elymi, Sicil, or Sicani), and Group 3 for Punic.

Site & Temple Name Founder Founder Group Agrigento- Ancient Shrine to Vulcan Greek 1 Agrigento- Sanctuary of Cthonic Deities Greek 1 Agrigento- Temple of Aesclepius Greek 1 Agrigento- Temple of Concord Greek 1 Agrigento- Temple of Demeter/Church of San Greek 1 Biagio Agrigento- Temple of Dioscuri Greek 1 Agrigento- Temple of Hercules Greek 1 Agrigento- Temple of Juno Greek 1 Agrigento- Temple of Vulcan Greek 1 Agrigento- Temple of Zeus Greek 1 Akrai- Temple of Aphrodite Greek 1 Akrai- Temple of Persephone Greek 1 Camarina- Altar 1 Greek 1 Camarina- Altar 2 Greek 1 Camarina- Altar 3 Greek 1 Camarina- Altar 4 Greek 1 Camarina- Altar 5 Greek 1 Camarina- Temple of Athena Greek 1 Cefalu Indigenous 2 Erice- Temple to Venus Indigenous 2 Helorus- Unknown 1 Greek 1 Helorus- Unknown 2 Greek 1 Himera- Temple A Greek 1 Himera- Temple B Greek 1 Himera- Temple C Greek 1 110 Site & Temple Name Founder Founder Group Himera- Temple D Greek 1 Himera- Temple of Victory Greek 1 Megara Hyblea- South-Eastern Temple (T4) Greek 1 Megara Hyblea- Northern Temple (T1) Greek 1 Megara Hyblea- Temple Sud (T3) Greek 1 Megara Hyblea- Western temple (T2) Greek 1 Monte Adranone- Punic Sanctuary Under Acropolis Punic 3 Monte Adranone- Punic Temple on Acropolis Punic 3 Monte Adranone- Sanctuary of Cthonic Deities Punic 3 Morgantina- Temple of Zeus Greek 1 Morgantina- Demeter and Kore Greek 1 Naxos- Temple B (T3) of Aphrodite Greek 1 Naxos- Altar near T3&T2 Greek 1 Naxos- Temple A (T2) Greek 1 Naxos- Temple C (T1) Greek 1 Naxos- Western Sanctuary Greek 1 Segesta- Temple Indigenous 2 Selinus- Demeter Malophoros Greek 1 Selinus- Temple A Greek 1 Selinus- Temple B Greek 1 Selinus- Temple C to Apollo Greek 1 Selinus- Temple D Greek 1 Selinus- Temple E of Hera Greek 1 Selinus- Temple F Greek 1 Selinus- Temple G of Zeus Greek 1 Selinus- Temple M Greek 1 Selinus- Temple O Greek 1 Selinus- Temple of Hera Greek 1 Selinus- Temple of Zeus Meilíchios Greek 1 Solunto- 3 Betili Punic 3 Solunto- Holy building w/ 2 aisles Punic 3 Syracuse- Temple of Apollo Greek 1 111 Site & Temple Name Founder Founder Group Syracuse- Temple of Athena Greek 1 Syracuse- Temple of Olympian Zeus Greek 1 Syracuse- Ionic Temple Greek 1 APPENDIX I:

CHI-SQUARE TESTS 113 Appendix I – Chi-square Tests

Chi-square Test 1: Distribution of absolute value of degrees deviation from 90° by century.

Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent ABS deviation * Century 56 90.3% 6 9.7% 62 100.0% 114 ABS deviation * Century Crosstabulation Count Century Total 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ABS 0 0 0 1 5 2 0 0 8 deviatio 2 1 1 4 3 0 0 0 9 n 4 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 6 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 10 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 14 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 16 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 22 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 24 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 26 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 28 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 30 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 36 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 38 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 50 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 54 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 56 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 64 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 86 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 130 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 170 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 176 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 188 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 190 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 192 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 198 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 242 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Total 1 3 19 22 5 5 1 56 115 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 189.703a 168 .120 Likelihood Ratio 118.528 168 .999 Linear-by-Linear Association 2.312 1 .128 N of Valid Cases 56 a. 203 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .02.

Chi-square Test 2: Distribution of temples that deviate from 90° by more than 45° by century.

Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent DEV/45 * Century 56 90.3% 6 9.7% 62 100.0%

DEV/45 * Century Crosstabulation Century 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total DEV/45 0 Count 1 3 13 18 5 1 0 41 Expected .7 2.2 13.9 16.1 3.7 3.7 .7 41.0 Count 1 Count 0 0 6 4 0 4 1 15 Expected .3 .8 5.1 5.9 1.3 1.3 .3 15.0 Count Total Count 1 3 19 22 5 5 1 56 Expected 1.0 3.0 19.0 22.0 5.0 5.0 1.0 56.0 Count 116 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 14.299a 6 .026 Likelihood Ratio 15.520 6 .017 Linear-by-Linear Association 4.089 1 .043 N of Valid Cases 56 a. 10 cells (71.4%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .27.

Chi-square Test 3: Distribution of temples that deviate from 90° by more than 45° by period. Period 1 refers to the 9th - 8th centuries, Period 2 refers to the 7th - 6th centuries, Period 3 refers to 5th - 4th centuries, and Period 4 refers to the 3rd - 2nd centuries.

Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent DEV/45 * Period 56 90.3% 6 9.7% 62 100.0%

DEV/45 * Period Crosstabulation Period 1 2 3 4 Total DEV/45 0 Count 1 23 16 1 41 Expected Count 4.4 19.8 16.1 .7 41.0 1 Count 5 4 6 0 15 Expected Count 1.6 7.2 5.9 .3 15.0 Total Count 6 27 22 1 56 Expected Count 6.0 27.0 22.0 1.0 56.0 117 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 12.125a 3 .007 Likelihood Ratio 11.244 3 .010 Linear-by-Linear Association 2.790 1 .095 N of Valid Cases 56 a. 4 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is . 27.

Chi-square Test 4: Distribution of cleft mountains on a north or south axis by the founder of the site. (See Appendix H.)

Cleft Mountains on Axis * Founder Crosstabulation Count Founder 1.00 2.00 3.00 Total Cleft Mountains on Axis 0 2 0 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 2 9 4 0 13 Total 12 5 2 19

Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 5.781a 4 .216 Likelihood Ratio 6.925 4 .140 Linear-by-Linear Association 1.437 1 .231 N of Valid Cases 19 a. 8 cells (88.9%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .32. 118 Chi-square Test 5: Distribution of conical hills present at a site by founder of the site. (See Appendix H.)

Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent Conical Hills Present * Founder 19 100.0% 0 .0% 19 100.0%

Conical Hills Present * Founder Crosstabulation Count 119 Founder 1.00 2.00 3.00 Total Conical Hills Present 0 2 0 0 2 1 10 5 2 17 Total 12 5 2 19

Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1.304a 2 .521 Likelihood Ratio 1.973 2 .373 Linear-by-Linear Association 1.033 1 .309 N of Valid Cases 19 a. 5 cells (83.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .21. 120

Chi-square Test 6: Distribution of temples that deviate from 90° by more than 45° by founder of the site. (See Appendix H.)

Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent DEV/45 * Founder 58 93.5% 4 6.5% 62 100.0%

DEV/45 * Founder Crosstabulation Founder 1.00 2.00 3.00 Total DEV/45 0 Count 40 1 2 43 Expected Count 37.1 2.2 3.7 43.0 1 Count 10 2 3 15 Expected Count 12.9 .8 1.3 15.0 Total Count 50 3 5 58 Expected Count 50.0 3.0 5.0 58.0

Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 6.540a 2 .038 Likelihood Ratio 5.717 2 .057 Linear-by-Linear Association 5.489 1 .019 N of Valid Cases 58 a. 4 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .78. APPENDIX J:

TABLE OF CLEFT MOUNTAIN AND CONICAL HILL VALUES 122 Appendix J – Table of Cleft Mountain and Conical Hill Values.

Site Cleft Mountains on Axis Conical Hills Present Agrigento 1 0 Akrai 2 1 Camarina 2 1 Cefalu 2 1 Erice 2 1 Helorus 2 1 Heraclea Minoa 2 1 Himera 0 1 Megara Hyblea 2 1 Monte Adranone 0 1 Monte Jato 0 1 Molte Polizzo 2 1 Morgantina 2 1 Naxos 2 1 Palike 2 1 Segesta 1 1 Selinus 2 0 Solunto 1 1 Siracusa 2 1 APPENDIX K:

TEMPLE DATABASE LEGEND 124 For each temple surveyed, each of these variables were recorded with the intent to be used in future studies on Greek sacred architecture. The data for each variable were entered into a

Microsoft Excel sheet and saved electronically.

Country Political location of temple. For comparison with temples of other counties. Site Name Name of site where temple is located. Temple Name Name given to temple to differentiate from other temples. Coastal or Inland Notes if the temple is at a coastal or inland site. Associated Date/Founding Date Date the temple was built. If there is no known date, the date the site was founded is used. Latitude and Longitude To mark exact location of temple. Associated Cultures(s) Greeks, Punics, or Indigenous peoples. Dedicated General Deity God or Goddess of temple. Dedicated Local Deity Local God or Goddess, usually as a second name of the dedicated deity. Temple column Style Doric, Ionic, or Corinthian. Azimuth Degrees off North. Orientation of temple. Declination Orientation declination. Elevation Elevation of temple above sea level. Specific location at site A description of where the temple is located within the site. Other remarks Notable observations that don't fit in the above categories. APPENDIX L:

AZIMUTH AND DEVIATION FROM 90° BY CENTURY AND PERIOD 126 Appendix L - Azimuth and Deviation from 90° by Century and Period.

Temple orientations that deviate by less than 45° absolute value are given a deviation value of 0, and those that deviate by more than 45° absolute value are given a value of 1. Distribution of temples that deviate from 90° by more than 45° were categorized by period. Period 1 refers to the 9th - 8th centuries, Period 2 refers to the 7th - 6th centuries, Period 3 refers to 5th - 4th centuries,

and Period 4 refers to the 3rd - 2nd centuries.

Site & Temple Name Azimuth Deviation Absolute Deviation Century Period (True from 90° Value of of 45° B.C.E. North +2°) Deviation Agrigento- Ancient Shrine 90 0 0 0 6 2 to Vulcan Agrigento- Sanctuary of 92 2 2 0 5 3 Cthonic Deities Agrigento- Temple of 92 2 2 0 5 3 Aesclepius Agrigento- Temple of 80 -10 10 0 5 3 Concord Agrigento- Temple of 128 38 38 0 5 3 Demeter/Church of San Biagio Agrigento- Temple of 84 -6 6 0 5 3 Dioscuri Agrigento- Temple of 94 4 4 0 6 2 Hercules Agrigento- Temple of Juno 106 16 16 0 5 3 Agrigento- Temple of 88 -2 2 0 5 3 Vulcan Agrigento- Temple of Zeus 80 -10 10 0 5 3 Akrai- Temple of Aphrodite 90 0 0 0 6 2 Akrai- Temple of 90 0 0 0 6 2 Persephone Camarina- Altar 1 288 198 198 1 5 3 127 Site & Temple Name Azimuth Deviation Absolute Deviation Century Period (True from 90° Value of of 45° B.C.E. North +2°) Deviation Camarina- Altar 2 282 192 192 1 5 3 Camarina- Altar 3 282 192 192 1 5 3 Camarina- Altar 4 280 109 109 1 5 3 Camarina- Altar 5 278 188 188 1 5 3 Camarina- Temple of 106 16 15 0 5 3 Athena Cefalu 266 176 176 1 9 1 Erice- Temple to Venus 144 54 54 1 6? 2 Helorus- Unknown 1 120 30 30 0 4 3 Helorus- Unknown 2 N/A N/A N/A 1 4 3 Himera- Temple A 66 -24 24 0 7 2 Himera- Temple B 68 -26 26 0 4 3 Himera- Temple C 66 -24 24 0 6 2 Himera- Temple D 84 -6 6 0 6 2 Himera- Temple of Victory 68 -26 26 0 5 2 Megara Hyblea- South- 90 0 0 0 7 2 Eastern Temple (T4) Megara Hyblea- Northern 98 8 8 0 7 2 Temple (T1) Megara Hyblea- Temple 94 4 4 0 7 2 Sud (T3) Megara Hyblea- Western 104 14 14 0 6 2 temple (T2) Monte Adranone- Punic 332 242 242 1 6 2 Sanctuary Under Acropolis Monte Adranone- Punic 26 -64 64 1 6 2 Temple on Acropolis Monte Adranone- Sanctuary 176 86 86 1 6 2 of Cthonic Deities Morgantina- Temple of 80 -10 10 0 6 2 Zeus Morgantina- Demeter and 146 56 56 1 6 2 Kore 128 Site & Temple Name Azimuth Deviation Absolute Deviation Century Period (True from 90° Value of of 45° B.C.E. North +2°) Deviation Naxos- Temple B (T3) of 62 -28 28 1 6 2 Aphrodite Naxos- Altar near T3&T2 260 170 170 1 7 2 Naxos- Temple A (T2) 40 -50 50 0 7 2 Naxos- Temple C (T1) 220 130 130 1 7 2 Naxos- Western Sanctuary N/A N/A N/A 0 7 2 Segesta- Temple 78 -12 12 0 5 3 Selinus- Demeter 64 -26 26 0 6 2 Malophoros Selinus- Temple A 92 2 2 0 5 3 Selinus- Temple B 92 2 2 0 3 4 Selinus- Temple C to 92 2 2 0 6 2 Apollo Selinus- Temple D 92 2 2 0 6 2 Selinus- Temple E of Hera 90 0 0 0 5 3 Selinus- Temple F 90 0 0 0 6 2 Selinus- Temple G of Zeus 90 0 0 0 6 2 Selinus- Temple M 82 -8 8 0 6 2 Selinus- Temple O 92 2 2 0 5 3 Selinus- Temple of Hera 90 0 0 0 6 2 Selinus- Temple of Zeus 54 -36 36 0 6 2 Meilíchios Solunto- 3 Betili 112 22 22 0 7 2 Solunto- Holy building w/ 2 112 22 22 0 7 2 aisles Syracuse- Temple of Apollo 90 0 0 0 6 2 Syracuse- Temple of Athena 92 2 2 0 5 3 Syracuse- Temple of 96 6 6 0 6 2 Olympian Zeus Syracuse- Ionic Temple N/A N/A N/A 0 6 2