Gifts Given to Delian Apollo During the Greek Archaic Period

Home , Adamant, Aegean Sea, Ancient Greek boxing, Andros (city), Apaturia, Archaic Greece

Spectacular Gifts:

Dissertation

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

Bonnie McCutcheon

Graduate Program in History

The Ohio State University

2018

Dissertation Committee

Greg Anderson, Advisor

Nathan Rosenstein

Timothy E. Gregory

Copyrighted by

Bonnie McCutcheon

2018

Abstract

Delos, birthplace to the gods Apollo and Artemis, was home to a significant sanctuary to Apollo in the Greek Archaic Period. Apollo and his sanctuary received many spectacular gifts which stand out in the historical record, including world-premiere works of art, such as the Nikandre kore. The turannos of Samos, Polycrates, notably gave to

Apollo the neighboring island of Rheneia, which he attached to Delos with a chain. These and other gifts include elements of the spectacular which make them stand out. To understand the role played by elements of spectacle in gifts at Delos, we must examine these gifts as a discourse. Only by putting them in context with one another can we fully understand the messages that each gift was meant to communicate. Ultimately, I will argue that this is a discourse about establishing and performing identity as xenoi (guest- friends) of the gods and as megaloprepes (magnificent or great men).

iii

Dedication

For Russ, who always believed in me, even when I did not.

Acknowledgments

The composition of this dissertation has spanned over a decade of my life, and could not have been completed without the support of my family and mentors at the Ohio

State University.

First, I would like to extend my enduring thanks to the members of my committee

– Dr. Greg Anderson, Dr. Nathan Rosenstein, and Dr. Timothy Gregory – for their continued encouragement and support over what has been a very long road. I would like to especially express my gratitude to Dr. Greg Anderson for his guidance, patience, and constructive criticism of my work. Thanks also to Dr. Nathan Rosenstein and Dr.

Timothy Gregory, who nurtured my mind as a young graduate student and helped me to develop into the scholar that I am today. I also extend my deepest gratitude to Dr. Mark

Fullerton, who was willing to participate in my supplemental candidacy exam.

I am deeply grateful for the support of my parents throughout my graduate school career. I could not have done this without their love and support.

Finally, this dissertation would not have been completed without the support of my husband, Russ, who never stopped believing in my abilities. He has been supportive in countless ways, and continually encouraged me to continue along this journey.

Vita

Ohio State University, 2002 – 2018 Graduate Interdisciplinary Specialization: Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean M.A., History, 2005

The College of New Jersey, 1998 - 2002 B.A., History with Departmental Honors Magna cum Laude

American University of Rome, Fall 2000

Fields of Study

Major Field: History

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... iii Dedication ...... iv Acknowledgments...... v Vita ...... vi List of Figures ...... ix Introduction ...... 1 Analyzing the Spectacular ...... 3 Political Culture in the Archaic Period ...... 7 Xenia, Reciprocity, and Spectacle ...... 13 Xenoi of the Gods ...... 21 Methodology and Organization ...... 25 Chapter 1. The Development of Delos in the Archaic Period ...... 32 The Sacred Landscape ...... 32 The Development of Apollo’s Sanctuary ...... 41 Financing the Development of the Sanctuary ...... 66 Chapter 2. The Aegean Islands ...... 75 Euboia: Karystos ...... 75 The Cyclades ...... 77 Naxos ...... 79 Paros ...... 88 Ionia ...... 91 Chios ...... 94 Samos ...... 98 Chapter 3: Athens ...... 116 Athens and Delos in the Classical Era ...... 116 vii

Earliest Evidence for Athenian Contacts ...... 122 Peisistratus and Athens ...... 124 Peisistratus and Delos ...... 129 Peisistratus and Theseus ...... 137 The Delian Triad and Cultural Politics ...... 143 Chapter 4. Beyond the Greek World...... 149 The Hyperboreans ...... 153 The Persians ...... 163 Chapter 5. Identity and Spectacle ...... 166 Conclusion ...... 188 Bibliography ...... 192

viii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Map of Greece Indicating the Location of Those Who Made Religious Dedications at Delos ...... 30 Figure 2: The Cyclades ...... 34 Figure 3: Delos ...... 35 Figure 4: Delos and Rheneia ...... 36 Figure 5 Habitation During the Mycenaean Period ...... 42 Figure 6: Building Activity in or near the Sanctuary of Apollo, 700 - 500 BCE ...... 48 Figure 7: Sanctuary of Apollo, c. 500 BCE ...... 49 Figure 9: Sanctuary of Apollo: The area enclosed by the dashed line indicates Phase1 of the sanctuary...... 51 Figure 10: Area of the Sacred Lake ...... 64

Introduction

The island of Delos, legendary birthplace of twin gods Apollo and Artemis, was

the recipient of many gifts that stand out in the literary and archaeological record.1 The

earliest of these were given by the hero Theseus, who stopped at the island on his way

home from Crete, where he had killed the Minotaur (Plutarch, Life of Theseus 21). The

Athenian turannos Peisistratus allegedly dedicated a temple to Apollo2 and performed a purification of the island that involved moving graves from the sanctuary of Apollo to neighboring Rheneia (Herodotus 1.64, Thucydides 3.104). The Samian turannos

Polycrates dedicated the neighboring island of Rheneia to Delian Apollo and attached the island to Delos with a chain (Thucydides 3.104). The Naxians are credited with the construction of a colossal status so large that it has defied attempts to move it and remains in two pieces amongst the ruins of the Temple to Artemis today.3 Even the

Persians could not ignore Delian Apollo. Datis sacrificed three hundred talents worth of

frankincense at Apollo’s altar – an expensive gift (Herodotus 6.97)! The volume and

lavishness of the dedications to Delian Apollo and his birthplace led Robert Parker to

1 For an overview of the archaeological excavations at Delos, see Phillipe Bruneau and Jean Ducat, Guide de Délos, 4th ed. (Paris: École Française D’Athènes, 2005).

2 The Porinos Naos; The temple is first referred to as the “Porinos Oikos” in an inscription of 282. Bruneau and Ducat, Guide de Délos, 182; IG XI 2 158 A l.60-61

3 Hubert Gallet de Santerre, Délos primitive et archaïque (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1958), 290-292

1 conclude that the island functioned as a competitive arena for Ionian tyrants to aggrandize themselves.4 The metaphor of Delos as an arena illuminates these rather spectacular acts of religious dedication and points to fresh ways of understanding their significance in the construction of the power of the elites in the Archaic Period.

The aim of this dissertation is to analyze the discourse created by the dedications to Delian Apollo (whether specifically to Delian Apollo or generally to the island of

Delos) in the Archaic Period and to interrogate the role played in that discourse by elements of spectacle. According to the commonly accepted theoretical use of the term, as elaborated by Michel Foucault, a discourse is like an ongoing semiotic conversation, a series of symbolically meaningful statements or propositions that aims to determine what is ultimately thinkable and/or sayable about experience at any given time.5 In the case of

Delos, those statements are the gifts given to Delian Apollo. Each gift represents a symbolic statement that is made in relation to the other gifts given at Delos. The participants in this discourse were elites, and it was dominated by those who had the resources to travel and make dedications beyond their own poleis. Elements of the spectacular played a significant role in this discourse, as we can see in the summary of dedications above; what did these elements contribute to this discourse? Ultimately, I will argue that this is a discourse about establishing and performing identity as xenoi

(guest-friends) of the gods and as megaloprepes (magnificent or great men).

4 Robert Parker, Athenian Religion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 88

5 Michel Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge (New York: Pantheon Books, 1972), 21-76

Analyzing the Spectacular

One characteristic shared by these dedicatory acts is that they all contain elements

of the spectacular. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the spectacle as “a specially

prepared or arranged display of a more or less public nature (esp. one on a large scale),

forming an impressive or interesting show for those viewing it.” The spectacle is a public

display; without an audience, there is no spectacle. According to Léger, the spectacle has

a dynamic rhythm, it is the unexpected. The spectacle is characterized by the interplay of

diverse elements and contrasts. The goal is “the shock of the surprise effect”.6 To retain

the attention of the audience, spectacles must go bigger and further than previous

spectacles. The spectacle is more than just an impressive and shocking display, however.

Bergmann asserts that “Societies and people define themselves through spectacle.”7

Debord writes of the spectacle that it is a representation of reality. This representation,

however, goes beyond a mere collection of images; the spectacle is the social relation

among people, mediated by images. The spectacle, while at one time in a sense false, is

also real; it tells us who a society is.8

The image that the ancient spectacle brings to mind is one of athletic contests and

theatrical productions. This, however, is a rather limited view of ancient spectacle.

6 Fernand Léger, Functions of Painting, The Documents of 20th-Century Art, trans Alexandra Anderson, ed. Edward F. Fry (New York: The Viking Press, 1973), 35. For Léger’s discussion of spectacle, see especially “The Spectacle: Light, Color, Moving Image, Object-Spectacle”, 35-47, “The Ballet- Spectacle, the Object-Spectacle”, 71-73, and “The Street: Objects, Spectacles”, 78-80.

7 Bettina Bergmann, “Introduction: The Art of Ancient Spectacle,” in The Art of Ancient Spectacle, eds. Bettina Bergmann and Christine Kondoleon (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), 9

8 Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, trans. Ken Knabb (Berkeley: Bureau of Public Secrets, 2014)

Bergmann suggests that we “distort the image of a society by minimizing the range and

power of its spectacles” and argues for a broader definition of spectacle, including

spectacle as a generative force in the creation of monuments.9 This dissertation will

define the spectacle broadly. In essence, the spectacle is anything that produces “the

shock of the surprise effect” and demands the attention of its audience. This includes not

just athletic contests and theatrical productions, but the construction of buildings, the

dedication of statues and other art objects, the sponsorship of religious festivals, “favors”

done for the god, sacrifices, and any other “gifts” to the god.

By taking such spectacle essentially at face value in this way and trying to understand it on its own contemporary ancient terms, this dissertation cuts against the grain of a powerful strand in western thought, which insists on rationalizing such spectacles and associating them with theater and deception. What is presented on stage at the theatre is seen as a deception, made possible by the use of spectacle. The use of the

spectacle in other forms, then, is perceived as having the intention to deceive the

audience, to unwittingly make them the viewers of a piece of theatre. Plato likewise saw

such deceptions as a sort of theater, meant to manipulate and suppress the masses. In

Plato’s allegory of the cave the prisoners are only able to see the shadows created by the

fire behind them (Republic 514A-518D). They are imprisoned in a false world, which,

like the shadows, lacks substance. All their experiences are shadow experiences, false.

They can only see the production on stage, and they do not even know that it is a

9 Bergmann, “Introduction: The Art of Ancient Spectacle,” 9

4 production. To Plato, this is an unequivocally negative thing – it only through understanding his theory of forms that an individual can become enlightened and escape from the cave. There is no question that in Plato’s view the cave is a prison, meant to be escaped. The spectacle is perceived to be the shadow world, devoid of substance, distracting us from reality. Elsewhere in the Republic, Plato likens pleasure from sources other than intellect to a scene-painting, and says that that pleasure is neither real nor pure

(Republic 583b). The pleasures of the multitude, according to Plato, are like the illusions created by scene paintings – they are lies, phantoms, shadows. What is the point of these theatrics? They allow the manipulation of the masses, who are so blinded by the spectacle that they do not realize the truth of the world around them.

In this view, the goal of the spectacle is “power over” the audience through deception and theatrics. Those in the cave are kept imprisoned not by their chains, but because they believe the shadows on the wall of the cave to be reality, rather than a lie.

For Debord, ultimately the spectacle is about power; about the virtual enslavement of the masses to the spectacle. 10 He argued that the spectacle acts as a type of capital; it is an asset that can be used as an input in the production of power. The spectacular use of power, the use of theatrics to deceive and impose the will of an individual or group on the masses are succinctly captured in what Bell refers to as the “staginess of power”.11

10 Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 1.34

11 Andrew Bell, Spectacular Power in the Greek and Roman City (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 6

While Plato may have had reservations about the deceptions created in the theatre,

he also cites the characteristic megaloprepeia as one of the virtues of the philosophical

man, separating the base from the true born (Plato, Republic 6.494b). It is the

magnificence of the gift, the spectacle entailed, that establishes a man as a megaloprepes.

Gifts must be given for the good of the community, and with no expense spared

(Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics 1122b19 – 1123b4). They must further exceed other gifts in magnificence – or in spectacle. Clearly, spectacle is not just “sequins in our eyes”, but rather has a constructive role to play.

The perception that elements of the spectacular are meant to manipulate and deceive is not only one illustrated by Plato, but has also affected the way that modern scholars see episodes that include spectacular display. Parker poses the question:

“Spectacular festivals: but are they religion?”12 Parker does not provide a satisfactory

answer to this question, pointing out only that the ancient Greeks did not draw the same

distinction between the religious and the secular that we do today. That he asks the

question at all, however, points to the hostility of scholars towards acts of spectacular

display. Acts of religious piety on the part of the powerful are routinely dismissed as

political acts, barren of any religious motivations or belief all; religion is a tool used by

elites to manipulate the masses.

Connor compellingly argues against this interpretation, and has suggested a new

way to consider spectacle in pointing to the similarities between Archaic politics and

12 Parker, Athenian Religion, 79

6 drama. He has proposed moving away from understanding these spectacles purely as manipulative, and argues for interaction between the actors and their audience – an intriguing idea that sets on its head most of the assumptions made about the use of the spectacular in politics.13 In his analysis of Peisistratus’s second accession to power, where he was driven into Athens in a chariot accompanied by a woman named Phye, who was dressed as Athena, Connor comments: “The leader seems not to stand at a great distance from the attitudes and behavior of his fellow countrymen. Rather, both appear to be linked by shared patterns of thought and united in a communal drama… The episode… cannot then be dismissed as a fabrication of ancient story tellers or as mere manipulation by a cynical politician.” Connor suggests that we see in religion a merging of interests and values between elites and non-elites, in contrast to the notion that elites saw religion only a tool of manipulation, and the masses were their unsuspecting victims.

In other words, he has proposed not seeing spectacle as only generating “power over”, but rather as a more complex interaction between individuals and groups of people.

Political Culture in the Archaic Period

Those who dedicated at Delos took part in a symbolically charged nonverbal conversation, where each gift constitutes a statement or series of statements. This discourse was composed of elite actors, communicating with an elite audience. A full understanding of this discourse requires, first, that we set it in the context of the political

13 W.R. Connor, “Tribes, Festivals, and Processions: Civic Ceremonial and Political Manipulation in Archaic Greece,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 107 no.40 (1987): 40-50

7 culture of the Archaic Period, which has been poorly understood by modern scholars, a situation that stems from the poor sources available for its study. The primary narrative historical sources for the Archaic Period are Herodotus (c. 484 – 425 BCE), Thucydides

(c. 460 – 400), and Aristotle (c. 384 – 322), all of whom lived and wrote later than the period in question. Contemporary literary sources consist primarily of lyric poetry, which presents its own problems of interpretation. We also have contemporary material evidence, but it can sometimes be difficult to use to answer the sort of broad questions that we have about political culture.14 Herodotus, Thucydides, and Aristotle try to fit their information about the Archaic Period into a framework that describes the political culture of their own time, and this confused frame for the information frustrates our understanding of politics in the Archaic Period. 15

A particular problem has been understanding the prevalence of “tyrants” in the governments of Archaic communities. The modern view of the Archaic turannos has been molded by that of Aristotle, despite the fact that he lived long after the turannoi of

Archaic Greece were dead and gone. Aristotle saw tyranny as the deviant form of monarchy; “for tyranny is a kind of monarchy which has in view the interest of the monarch only”, whereas the true form of one man rule (monarchy) is characterized by governing with a view to the common interest (Politics 1279a-b). He writes of what he

14 Johannes Boersma, “Peisistratos’ Building Activity Reconsidered,” in Peisistratos and the Tyranny: A Reappraisal of the Evidence, ed. Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg (Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 2000), 49-56

15 Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg, “The Tyranny of Peisistratus,” in Peisistratos and the Tyranny: A Reappraisal of the Evidence, ed. Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg (Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 2000), 1-15, 8-10

8 calls the most typical form of tyranny “This tyranny is just that arbitrary power of an individual which is responsible to no one, and governs all alike; whether equals or betters, to a view of its own advantage; not to that of its subjects, and therefore against their will.” (Politics 1295a). In other words, tyrants are despots, who care only about what is in their own self-interest. While they may rule with only their own self-interest in mind, they come to power through allying themselves with “the People”, they are “set up from among the people and the multitude to oppose the notables, in order that the people may suffer no injustice from them” (Politics 1311b). Many tyrants, in Aristotle’s view, were demagogues who curried favor with the people by attacking the community’s elites.

The tyrant, then, has come to be seen as an illegitimate ruler, whose rule is often characterized by a concern with self-interest and the abuse of power. He is an outsider, who attacks the power of the traditional elites by means of rallying the people.16 Recent scholarship has moved away from this Aristotelian view. Cawkwell has demonstrated that the Peisistratids in Athens were not popular rulers who came to power through the support of the faction of “the People” and that the people probably little benefited from or even noticed the tyranny.17 He points to Herodotus’ narrative of the Peisistratid tyranny, which depicts it essentially as a dynastic struggle, and says that the tyranny was in essence “a domination of aristocrats by one of their own kind.”18 Anderson has

16 See, for example, Antony Andrewes, The Greek Tyrants (New York: Harper and Row, 1963)

17 G. L. Cawkwell, “Early Greek Tyranny and the People,” The Classical Quarterly. Vol. 45, No. 1 (1995): 73-86

18 Cawkwell, “Early Greek Tyranny and the People,” 78

suggested that the term “tyrant” should be discarded with regards to Archaic Greece

altogether; that “With its implicit suggestions of monarchy and illegitimacy, the term

fundamentally misrepresents the men the archaic Greeks called turannoi.”19

How, then, should we characterize the political culture of the Archaic Period?

Political instability was a core aspect of the polis. Lewis describes “political flux” as the

“normal condition for the Greek polis.20 It is for this reason that Aristotle, in his Politics,

focused on the way that one constitution transformed into another – the landscape of the

polis was one that was always changing. This instability existed alongside another core

characteristic of political culture of the Archaic Period: competition between elites for

wealth, honor, and prestige. The goal of most aristocrats appears to have been to achieve

power over their peers, and to potentially ascend to the position of turannos. Lewis

writes: “There is a case for seeing the internal history of every Greek state between

would-be rulers and the opponents of being ruled.”21 The elites of the period were

“ruggedly individualistic,”22 concerned primarily with the interests of themselves and

their families. Their goal? The accumulation of arête in its many forms, which could

potentially elevate an individual or family above the status of ordinary humans and

19 Greg Anderson, “Before Turannoi Were Tyrants: Rethinking a Chapter of Early Greek History,” Classical Antiquity 24, No. 2 (2005): 173-222

20 Sian Lewis, Greek Tyranny (Exeter: Bristol University Press, 2009)

21 Lewis, Greek Tyranny, 5

22 Anderson, “Before Turannoi Were Tyrants,” 210

designate him as qualified to rule.23 Those individuals who rose to the position of

turannos were not outsiders who worked to destroy the existing political system, rather,

they were insiders who wanted to win the game and achieve wealth, honor, and prestige

above that of their peers. New readings of Greek texts, including archaic poetry – our

only contemporary literary sources – support this view.

Archaic poetry alludes to the impacts of inter-elite competition on the community.

Van Wees argues that Theognis’ poetry illustrates a society with a shifting ruling class,

“characterized by violent competition for power and property, and drastic changes of fortune, which made it impossible to sustain any kind of closed elite.”24 Alcaeus, who

writes about the struggle for power in Lesbos which resulted in the accession of Pittacus

to power, writes of “spirit gnawing strife” (70). Elsewhere, he describes political conflicts

as stormy weather (208, 6). Theognis says of Megara that the town’s in labor (39). Solon also uses the metaphor of a storm to describe the political strife in Athens when he was archon. “As from the cloudbank comes the storm of snow or hail, and thunder follows the lightning flash, exalted men portend the city’s death” (9). He also makes frequent

references to the fact that both sides were not entirely happy with his reforms: “I took my

stand with strong shield covering both sides, allowing neither unjust dominance” (5).

23 Lynette G. Mitchell, The Heroic Rulers of Archaic and Classical Greece (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013)

24 Hans Van Wees, “Megara’s Mafiosi: Timocracy and Violence in Theognis,” in Alternatives to Athens: varieties of political organization and community in ancient Greece, ed. Roger Brock and Steven Hodkinson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 52-67, 52-53

“After those vain calculations now they’re furious with me, and they all look sideways at

me, just as if I were their foe – wrongly” (34).

Turannoi and traditional elites were all members of the same club, competing for

dominance over one another. Anderson compares the actions of the turannoi to those of

a traditional elite family, the Alkmeonids, and concludes that both groups make use of the

same array of methods. “The two groups conformed to much the same general standards

of public conduct, favored much the same overall style of self-representation, and pursed the same de facto species of political power. The difference between them lay in the quantity rather than the quality of the power attained.”25

How does this all relate to the group of people who committed acts of religious

dedication on Delos during this period? It has been suggested the Delos was a sort of

international showcase for competition between tyrants26 – that here we see tyrants as

somehow apart from other traditional elites. This is not the case. Rather, all the men and

women who made dedications at Delos make up one pool. By definition, members of

this pool will almost all be elites, as Delos could only support a small population, and few

people would have had the resources to visit the island even to make a small dedication.

This dissertation, then, will consider the turannoi Peisistratus and Polycrates simply as

members of a larger pool of elites engaging in intra-elite competition through their

religious dedications at Delos.

25 Anderson, “Before Turannoi Were Tyrants,” 202

26 Parker, Athenian Religion, 88

Xenia, Reciprocity, and Spectacle

Relationships of ritualized friendship were a significant factor in the interactions

of elites during the Archaic Period. Herman writes that during the eighth and seventh

centuries “the ancient world was criss-crossed with an extensive network of personal alliances linking together all sort of apolitical bodies (households, tribes, bands, etc.)”27

Ritualized friendship was “a bond of solidarity manifesting itself in an exchange of goods

and services between individuals originating from separate social units.”28 Such

relationships between individuals from different social units were called xenia. The xenos

was, by definition, a friend from outside – outside one’s family and one’s polis. A core

element of the relationship of xenia was that of reciprocity, the exchange of gifts, which

was a way to create a moral obligation between the two individuals. Von Reden says of

gifts that they act as signs, tokens of recognitions, and “are similar to physical properties

of the heroes.”29 Gift giving is a form of reciprocity that has been the subject of

significant study by anthropologists. Gifts are a “a vehicle of social obligation and

27 Gabriel Herman, Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 6

28 Herman, Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City, 10

29 Sitta von Reden, Exchange in Ancient Greece (London: Duckworth, 1995), 27

political maneuver” with a clear symbolic dimension.30 Gift giving has important

functions concerning communication, social exchange, and socialization.31

It is clear from the mythic world of the Odyssey as well as the world of Archaic

Greece described in Herodotus that relationships of xenia and the exchange of gifts

between xenoi were a significant manner of interaction between individuals of different

social units.32 Hospitality, the guidelines for an individual for interacting with outsiders,

is a dominant theme in the Odyssey. It is the abuse of hospitality by Penelope’s suitors

that is at the core of the narrative of the Odyssey; Penelope’s suitors take advantage of her

hospitality and do not reciprocate. Penelope describes her suitors as a nuisance, a drain on

the household’s resources, and interfering with the household’s function. This is

especially egregious, she goes on to say, because Odysseus has acted fairly towards both

them and their parents. (Homer, Odyssey 4.770-782). Here, Penelope clearly considers

that the suitors have transgressed against their relationship of xenia with Odysseus by

abusing his hospitality and refusing to reciprocate.

The Odyssey also illustrates many other examples of interactions between

individuals from different social groups, some with established ties of xenia, some

30 Edward Schieffelin, “Reciprocity and the Structure of Reality,” Man. 15 no.3 (1980): 502-517; Beate Wagner-Hasel, “Gift Exchange: Modern Theories and Ancient Attitudes,” in Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer ed. Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy and Irene S. Lemos (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006), 257-270

31 Russell Belk, "Gift-Giving Behavior," in Research in Marketing, Volume 2. ed. Jagdish Sheth (Greenwich CT: JAI Press, 1979), 95-126.

32 On gift exchange in the Odyssey, see von Reden, Exchange in Ancient Greece, especially Chapters 1-3 and Deborah Lyons, Dangerous gifts: gender and exchange in ancient Greece (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2012).

without. Every interaction is accompanied by the exchange (or the attempted exchange)

of gifts. When Telemachus visits Menelaus, Menelaus gives him a silver mixing bowl

with a gold lip, made by Hephaestus, and hosts a banquet in Telemachus’ honor (Homer,

Odyssey 4.659-666). In this example, we can observe that once established, the exchange

of gifts and hospitality reinforces the moral obligations of the relationship of xenia.

Menelaus, as host, articulates a concern to ensure that his guest receives an appropriate

gift, enjoys a meal, and receives whatever else he might need. While the recipients need

not immediately reciprocate this hospitality, he has a moral obligation to reciprocate in

the future.

The episode between Odysseus and the Cyclops illustrates both an attempt to

create this relationship as well as what happens when an individual refuses to give a gift

or reciprocate appropriately. When Odysseus prepares to explore the island of the

Cyclops, he chooses a gift to take with him: a skin of wine, given to him by Maron

(Homer, Odyssey 9.218-240). This gift is an attempt on the part of Odysseus to create a

relationship of xenia between himself and the Cyclops, thus creating a moral obligation

on the part of the Cyclops to reciprocate Odysseus’ gift with one of equal value. This

expectation is made explicit when Odysseus addresses the Cyclops in his cave:

But since we’ve chanced on you, we’re at your knees In hopes of a warm welcome, even a guest gift, The sort that hosts give strangers. That’s the custom. Odyssey 9.291-305

While the Cyclops fails to reciprocate appropriately, the above speech makes clear the expectation of hospitality between strangers. Odysseus invokes “Zeus of the Strangers”

and expects “a warm welcome, even a guest gift.” He himself is prepared to reciprocate

appropriately with his gift of wine.33

The significance of xenia and the attendant exchange of gifts in the non-mythical

world is illustrated in the History of Herodotus. In the period preceding the fall of

Croesus, Herodotus says that the Lacedaemonians attempted to establish relationships of xenia with both Amasis and Croesus; both potential relationships were interrupted when their gifts were stolen by Samian pirates (Herodotus 3.47). The relationship between

Croesus and the Lacedaimonians again provides a valuable example of the relationship of xenia (Herodotus 1.69-70). Croesus initiated the friendship, sending messengers with an invitation to the Lacedaimonians. While this gesture may have made the relationship

“official”, Herodotus tells us that the Lacedaimonians already felt bound to Croesus

because of a gift that he had given them, gold for a statue of Apollo (Herodotus 1.69).

This gift had already established for the Lacedaimonians a reciprocal relationship with

Croesus. Upon accepting Croesus’ offer, the Lacedaimonians sent a gift to him: “they

made a bronze mixing bowl, filling it on the outside, around the rim, with little figures

(the mixing bowl itself was of a capacity of three hundred amphorae)” (Herodotus 1.70).

The mixing bowl never made it to Sardis, however, and was said by the Lacedaimonians

to have been stolen by Samian pirates. The failure of the Lacedaimonians to reciprocate

Croesus’s gift severed the agreed to relationship, rendering the xenia between Croesus

33 Von Reden, Exchange in Ancient Greece, 32-34

16 and the Lacedaimonians null and void. Without the receipt of the gift, the relationship and attendant moral obligation could not be established.

From this brief survey of the exchange of gifts between xenoi in the Odyssey and in Herodotus, we can observe the significance of the gift as the force that imposes obligations. The establishment of a relationship of xenia requires the exchange of gifts: each party must give a gift, and neither may refuse a gift. To fail to give or refuse to receive would negate the relationship. Going forward, there is an ongoing obligation to reciprocate gifts that are given. In his seminal work on gift exchange, Marcel Mauss identifies these same obligations in the exchange systems that he describes as systems of

“total services.”34 Mauss argues that in order to understand the Polynesian potlatch

(which means to feed or consume, and is further classified as a system of “total services of the agonistic type”) all three obligations are key.

It is also clear in these examples that in reciprocating a previous gift, it was important to give a gift that was equal to or better than the gift received. The mixing bowl meant for Croesus was an expensive and spectacular gift – a bronze bowl that would hold three hundred amphorae of wine! Herodotus tells us that the Lacedaimonians wished to match Croesus’s gift to them of the gold for the statue of Apollo (Herodotus 1.70). The grandiose nature of Croesus’ gift to the Lacedaimonians demanded an equally spectacular gift be reciprocated.

34 Marcel Mauss, The Gift (London: Routledge Classics, 2004), 10-23

Gifts given to one’s xenoi often included elements of the “spectacular”, as we can see in Homer’s Odyssey and the example of the Lacedaimonians’ gift to Croesus. The conversation between Telemachus and Athena (masquerading as Mentor) in Book 1 illustrates the importance of spectacle in these gifts. Telemachus says “But come, stay longer, keen as you are to sail, so you can bathe and rest and lift your spirits, then go back to your ship, delighted with a gift, a prize of honor, something rare and fine as a keepsake from myself. The kind of gift a host will give a stranger, friend to friend (Homer,

Odyssey 1.356-360).” Athena declines the gift, saying “As for the gift – whatever you’d give in kindness – save it for my return so I can take it home. Choose something rare and fine, and a good reward that gift is going to bring you (Homer, Odyssey 1.361-366).”

Gifts, then, should be a prize of honor, something “rare and fine”. Both Telemachus and

Athena use the same phrase to describe the gift – mala kalon – which means exceptionally beautiful or fine.

The provenance of the gift given matters can also add to its spectacular value. The bard frequently describes the gift and gives its backstory to his audience. For example, when Odysseus prepares to explore the island of the Cyclops, he takes with him as a gift a skin of wine, given to him by Maron. The wine was part of a larger gift, given in thanks for Odysseus rescuing him and his family. “He handed me seven bars of well-wrought gold, a mixing bowl of solid silver, then this wine… He drew it off in generous wine-jars, twelve in all, all unmixed – and such a bouquet, a drink fit for the gods” (Homer, Odyssey

9.218-240). Menelaus tells Telemachus that he will give him “a princely send-off – shining gifts, three stallions and a chariot burnished bright – and I’ll add a gorgeous cup

so you can pour libations out to the deathless gods on high and remember Menelaus all

your days” (Homer, Odyssey 4.660-666). Here the cup is kalon, like the gifts described

by Telemachus and Athena above. Menelaus goes on to say “Of all the treasures lying

heaped in my palace, you shall have the finest, most esteemed. Why, I’ll give you a

mixing-bowl, forged to perfection – it’s solid silver finished off with a lip of gold.

Hephaestus made it himself. And a royal friend, Phaedimus, king of Sidon, lavished it on

me when his palace welcomed me on passage home” (Homer, Odyssey 4.689-696).

These are of course only a few of the examples of gifts given and received in the

Odyssey, but as examples they are instructive. Gifts should be beautiful and fine. They

should be mala kalon – not just beautiful, but exceptionally beautiful. They should

clearly be exceptional in some way, and it is this exceptionality that creates “the shock of

the surprise effect.” Gifts may be exceptional because of their materials, as they are

made of precious metals such as gold and silver, or other rare materials like ivory. In an

odd reversal of modern practice, “regifting” in the Odyssey appears to contribute to a

gift’s exceptionality – a gift that was originally given by a hero or king has extra cachet.

A gift might also be crafted by a well-known craftsman or even a god, such as the mixing bowl made by Hephaestus. All of these elements contribute to exceptionally beautiful gifts that are fit for the gods.

Debord observes in The Society of the Spectacle that spectacle is “the other side of money”. Spectacle is a type of capital; it is an asset that can be used as an input in

19 production.35 In the Odyssey, we see gifts acting as capital, and that capital is increased because of their spectacular nature. As gifts circulate amongst the rich and the powerful

(from king to hero to king) they gain value; Odysseus’ gift of wine is more valuable because it came from Maron and because of its association with other gifts, otherwise why bother to include the gift’s backstory? Gift-giving was a kind of quid pro quo competition – gifts should be in some way commensurate, but they also made a clear statement about the generosity and hospitality of the giver. In that sense, spectacular gifts had a competitive edge – those gifts that stood out in some way, that were clearly exceptionally beautiful and fit for the gods, would not just result in grander gifts from the recipient in return, but also enhance the reputation of the giver. Those gifts that were truly spectacular might be further talked about and recorded in the poems of the bards, allowing the spectacle to pay further dividends in terms of the reputation of the giver for being generous and hospitable. If we think of gifts as an input of production, they are used to create, enhance, and build reputations, images. It was fame that was of the utmost importance in the Odyssey; how individuals were to be remembered and commemorated for future generations. For Odysseus to be lost at sea was to lose his fame, as illustrated by Telemachus:

I would never have grieved so much about his death if he’d gone down with comrades off in Troy or died in the arms of loved ones once he had wound down the long coil of war. Then all united Achaea would have raised his tomb and he’s have won his son great fame for years to come. But now the whirlwinds have ripped him away, no fame for him! Homer, Odyssey 1.272-280

35 Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 1.34, 2.49

Xenoi of the Gods

Guest-friendship mediated by the exchange of gifts was the dominant paradigm

for relationships in the Archaic Period, and that paradigm extended to relationships with

the gods.36 The construct of xenia encompassed relationships of ritualized friendship

with individuals outside one’s family group or polis. It appears that this relationship also

defined friendships between men and the gods, which were – like those with other

humans – based on gift giving and reciprocity. Like relationships with other humans,

giving gifts to a particular deity established the perception of a relationship of xenia

between the individual and the god. As Odysseus attempted to establish a relationship of

xenia with the Cyclops, the initial gift to a god establishes a reciprocal relationship

between man and god, one in which the human expects the god to reciprocate

accordingly, providing gifts that are equivalent to those given to him or her.

The perception of this relationship is expressed in the dedicatory epigram

inscribed on a bronze votive statuette of Apollo, ca. 700-675 BCE:37

Mantiklos dedicated me to the far-shooter, silver-bowed god as a tithe. Phoebos, provide charis in return!

In this epigram, the statuette declares that it has been dedicated to Apollo as a

tithe, a dekatas. Suk Fong Jim writes of aparachai and deketai that they “entailed

36 See Walter Burkert, Greek Religion, trans. John Raffan (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985), 66-73; James Whitley, The Archaeology of Ancient Greece (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 140-146; Joannis Mylonopoulos, “Greek sanctuaries as places of communication through rituals,” in Ritual and Communication in the Graeco-Roman World, ed. Eftychia Stavrianopoulou (Liège : Centre international d'étude de la religion grecque antique, 2006), 69-110; and Theodora Suk Fong Jim, Sharing with the Gods: Aparche and Dekatai in Ancient Greece (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014)

37 CEG 326; Joseph W. Day, “Interactive Offerings: Early Greek Dedicatory Epigrams and Ritual,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 96 (1994): 37-74

offering the gods a share of the proceeds from a variety of activities… What

distinguishes aparchai and dekatai from other gifts is their strongly retrospective character. These were typically presented to the gods after some success or benefit was obtained, and not in anticipation of divine favours to come.”38 Here,

Mantiklos celebrates his athletic victory by dedicating this statuette to Apollo,

acknowledging the role played by the god in his victory. Mantiklos goes further,

however, articulating the expectation of further future returns: “Phoebos, provide

charis in return!”

As Mantiklos indicates here, he expected charis in return for his gift.

Charis means charm or delight.39 It is the word used to name the graces; the charites. The concept of charis also entails the expectation of reciprocity. Suk

Fong Jim writes that “the essence of charis lies less in the economic value of the

gift reciprocated than in the kindly feeling it evoked and the emotional charge it

carried.”40 Parker elaborates on the use of the char- root:41

Kharis, we saw, is the word central to our subject, and most of the Homeric passages cited so far have contained a word from the khar- root. Kharis words are in fact applied to both sides of the relationship. Mortals seek to bring gifts or sacrifices which are kharienta of kekharismena to the gods, and request a return which is itself khariessa; in later texts the

38 Suk Fong Jim, Sharing with the Gods 1-2

39 On charis, see Robert Parker, “Pleasing Thighs: Reciprocity in Greek Religion,” in Reciprocity in Ancient Greece, eds. Christopher Gill, Norman Postlethwaite, and Richard Seaford (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 105-126; Theodora Suk Fong Jim, Sharing with the Gods; Bonnie MacLachlan, The Age of Grace: Charis in Early Greek Poetry (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014)

40 Theodora Suk Fong Jim, Sharing with the Gods, 23

41 Robert Parker, “Pleasing Thighs: Reciprocity in Greek Religion,” 108-109

relation can be presented quite explicitly as one in which kharites are exchanged.

Mantiklos, like other ancient Greeks, saw his statuette as a single gift in a series of gifts

exchanged between him and Apollo. The statuette, given to thank Apollo for his athletic

victory, in turn makes explicit the expectation of further charis in the future.

This relationship has been reduced to the formulary do ut des, a type of quid pro

quo exchange by some scholars. Some recent scholarship, however, has moved away

from this understanding of the reciprocal relationship between men and gods. Rather than a relationship of direct reciprocity, these relationships are better understood as involving a spectrum of reciprocities.42 Suk Fong Jim emphasizes the unpredictable nature of this

reciprocal relationship. After all, the gods could not be seen or touched, and it was surely

somewhat difficult to determine exactly how and in what manner they were

reciprocating.

The fact that today we dismiss the existence of the gods of the ancient Greeks,

however, does not mean that the ancient Greeks did not believe in their existence; even if

they could not see or touch them, they surely perceived events within their lives to be the

result of these relationships of xenia with the gods.43 Individuals would have seen the

good things that happened in their lives as gifts from the gods with whom they had

established relationships of reciprocity. To refuse to reciprocate a gift was to negate the

42 Suk Fong Jim, Sharing with the Gods; Robert Parker, On Greek Religion (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2011), x

43 Greg Anderson, “Retrieving the Lost Worlds of the Past: The Case for an Ontological Turn,” American Historical Review 120, no. 3 (2015): 787-810, 794-795

relationship completely; thus, individuals were compelled to give gifts to the gods who

they saw as their xenoi – to fail to do so was to invite divine retribution and to embody

the characteristic of hubris, the danger of which is a theme throughout ancient Greek

thought and literature. For example, the turannos Polycrates of Samos was known for his

good fortune (Herodotus 3.39). Polycrates surely believed that his exceedingly good fortune was evidence that he was a valued xenos of the gods; this is one reason that he

may have given so lavishly to Delian Apollo when he gifted Apollo with the island of

Rheneia.

It is not surprising that the ancient Greeks would perceive their relationships with

the gods as in many ways similar to their relationships with their peers. Just as gifts

exchanged between xenoi had purposes beyond the actual act of exchange, gifts to the

gods also many purposes and multiple audiences. Gifts were also given, as Mantiklos

attests above, with the expectation of a return at some point. Mantiklos requests charis from Apollo, something pleasing. In her study of first fruit offerings, Suk Fong Jim delves into the religious mentality of the ancient Greek worshipper, and considers a range of motivations on the part of the dedicator, which all have one common thread: “namely, a sense of dependence on the gods.”44 She cites as motivations for gift giving to give

thanks and honor, to repay a debt, to establish bonds with the gods, to seek divine

protection, to pray for further benefits, and to avoid the gods’ wrath. Giving gifts to the

gods was a way for the ancient Greeks to acknowledge the role played by the gods in

44 Suk Fong Jim, Sharing with the Gods, 96

their lives and to attempt to exert some control over what was, ultimately, an

unpredictable and unknowable unseen force.

Methodology and Organization

Why did Delos attract such an array of spectacular gifts in the Archaic Period?

How should we understand individual gifts, such as Peisistratus’ purification of the island

or Polycrates’ dedication of Rheneia? What about the three hundred talents worth of

incense given by Datis, or the many “world-premiere” statues, such as the kore given by

Nikandre? No single gift on Delos can be understood in a vacuum; rather, they must be considered in the context of the other gifts given at the site. These gifts are best understood in relation to one another, and by looking at them as a group, we will be better able to understand the multiple messages that such gifts were used to communicate.

These gifts collectively illustrate a discourse, each individual gift a statement by its dedicator, made in relation to other gifts, or statements.

This aim of this dissertation is to analyze the discourse created by the dedications to

Delian Apollo (whether specifically to Delian Apollo or generally to the island of Delos) in the Archaic Period and the role played in that discourse by elements of the spectacular.

Morris has suggested that rituals create social structure; they are not merely a reflection of an already existing phenomena.45 In the same way, power only exists when it is

exercised. Power can, of course, be exercised in any number of ways, including the use

45 Ian Morris, Death Ritual and Social Structure in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 2

25 of force and through legal action. In the Archaic Period, as today, grandiose public dedications were one way of exercising power.

First, these dedications must be examined together and in context. These dedications were themselves the result of ritual and we must understand them as such. Ritual is “an action divorced from its primary practical context which bears a semiotic character.” It is a language used by the community for the purpose constituting the group, of reinforcing the unity and the group but also of negotiating relationships and power dynamics between members of the group.46 Each gift is a deliberate message about who the dedicator is, or rather, wants to present themselves as to the community. This message is communicated to multiple audiences, from the god who gazes down on the dedication from Mt.

Olympus to other members of the community and visitors to the sanctuary. Gifts to the gods are given as part of religious rituals, whether the ritual of sacrifice, an offering of first fruits, the spoils of victory, or a votive offering as part of a vow. It is also important not to divorce these dedications from their religious context; while we may not believe that the Greek gods existed, the vast majority of the Greeks surely did. As such, the gods were an important audience for these messages.47

Second, I will treat these acts of religious dedications as texts or objects, interrogating them about both their creators and their audience. Gifts to the gods were acts of public display, which have multiple audiences. I will focus on how the dedicators meant these

46 Burkert, Greek Religion, 54-55

47 Anderson, “Retrieving the Lost Worlds of the Past: The Case for an Ontological Turn,” 794-795

26 gifts to be seen and how different audiences “saw” those gifts.48 A focus on how these gifts were seen will illuminate the role of the spectacular in many of these gifts (an element which is often little understood and seemed incomprehensible to some in antiquity, let alone today) and what benefit the dedicators might have expected to receive.

An essential element of spectacle was the spectator, the audience. The spectacle was produced to be seen, otherwise there would be no point. Vision, viewing, and modes of perception have been the subject of much research in recent decades, as has consideration of the active or passive role of the audience. Who were the judges of this competition in this arena? Who “saw” these acts of religious dedication, whether first, second, or third hand? Was the audience of these spectacles a passive one, caught in the mindless consumption of and manipulation by these images of the power of the turannoi, or was the relationship between audience and spectacle more interactive?

Finally, we must situate these gifts firmly in time and space at Delos. We must understand the development of the sanctuary and its status in the Archaic Period. We must also examine what we know about the individuals who constitute the community that patronized Delian Apollo.

Chapter One will attempt to place these dedications in time and space through a survey of the development of the sanctuary of Delian Apollo and the status of the sanctuary during the Archaic Period. This survey will necessarily rely heavily on material evidence, as there are few literary sources that document the sanctuary in the Archaic

48 For a recent overview of scholarship concerning vision and viewing in ancient Greece, see the introduction of the recent special issue of Helios “Vision and Viewing in Ancient Greece” ed. Sue Blundell, Douglas Cairns, and Nancy Rabinowitz, 40, 1-2 (2013)

Period, and none that describe its earlier development. There is a rich material record to

draw on, however, including buildings, remnants of statues, inscriptions, and recovered

pottery and other artifacts.

Chapters Two through Four will survey what we know about individuals and

groups who acted as patrons to Apollo. On the one hand, all these individuals and groups

collectively form a community that dedicated at Delos; on the other hand, these

communities and groups must themselves be understood in their individual contexts and

not just as a part of that larger group. These elites were drawn from across the Greek

world and even beyond it, as Callimachus makes clear in his Hymn to Delos. Apollo (and

Delos, by extension) was the recipient of gifts from across the world – gifts and choirs

were sent by cities to the East, the West, and the South. Gifts were even sent from the

North by the Hyperboreans, a people who lived at the edge of the world in a location

beyond the reach of the mortal world. The archaeological and literary evidence support

the contention of Callimachus that Delos was patronized by communities from across the

Greek world and beyond. Before we can move on to analyze the discourse constituted by

this group of gifts on Delos, we must consider the sources of these many gifts. In other

words, who were the givers, the participants in this discourse?

Callimachus situates Delos in the very center of the world. When describing the

Cyclades, he says that they are like a choir encircling Delos – again pointing to Delos at the center, this time of the Cyclades. This central location is, of course, one reason for the broad geographic scope of visitors to Delos. Desborough suggests that Delos – central island of the Cyclades, home of men who were “successful and adventurous traders” –

must have been the busiest port in the Aegean at this time.49 As a port, Delos would have

provided a point for trading between mainland Greece to the west, Ionia and Asia Minor

to the East, and Crete and Egypt to the South. Pottery from across the Greek world and

beyond – from Samos, Rhodes, Melos, Naxos, Paros, Athens, Corinth, Crete, and even

Egypt – found its way to Delos.50 In the assertion of Callimachus that Delos is at the

center – the center of the Cyclades, and further, the center of the world – it is hard not to

see a comparison with Delphi, the ompahalos or navel of the world. Both these

significant sanctuaries to Apollo act as central places for the Greek world – and, like

Apollo himself, are both central and remote.

There are four distinct regions associated with Delos. At the center lie the

Cyclades, encircling Delos. Of these, there is considerable evidence for Naxian and

Parian givers (both named and unnamed), as well as other islands such as Andros, which had an oikos, or treasury, on the island. On the western edge of the Aegean, there is evidence of interaction with Athens and Karystos (on Eubeoia), and with the

Hyperboreans to the extreme north. On the Eastern edge of the Aegean lie the region of

Ionia and the Persian Empire. The Ionians in particular are closely associated with Delos in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo, and here we see them bookending Delos – with Athens to the west and Ionia to the East. Finally, there is a clear association of Delos with Crete, which is the third point of the triangle that enmeshes Delos in the map below. Theseus was on his way home from Crete when he stopped on Delos to celebrate – and give gifts

49 V. R. Desborough, ProtoGeometric Pottery (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952), 154, 303

50 De Santerre, Délos primitive et archaïque, 289

to Delian Apollo in thanks for his escape from Crete. Mapping these places creates a

clear sense of Delos as a place between, on the way. Theseus stops on his way from

Crete to Athens; the Persian Datis stops on his way to invade mainland Greece; it is a

meeting place for the Ionians of Athens and of Ionia. Further, it is entrenched in the

middle of the Aegean Sea. In myth, Delos had supposedly been floating until Leto came

to give birth there; then, it was secured in place never to be moved (Strabo, Geography

10.5.2; Callimachus, Hymn to Delos). This in between place in the center of the sea,

remote yet central (like Apollo himself) is an appropriate meeting place for those poleis

who looked to the Aegean rather than to the mainland.

Figure 1: Map of Greece Indicating the Location of Those Who Made Religious Dedications at Delos

I will divide my survey of these regions into three chapters: Chapter 2: the

Aegean Islands, Chapter 3: Athens, and Chapter 4: Beyond the Greek World. In each chapter, I will examine the evidence for givers from within each of those regions. It is sometimes possible to identify individuals and families as givers, and in those cases we will explore what is known about them from inscriptions and literary sources. Even when we can not identify a specific individual or family, however, it is assumed that this was a discourse dominated by elite participants. Those who were able to travel to Delos are, by definition, elites with relation to the rest of the population. This group, then, constitutes a particular pool of competitors, which this section can help us to characterize and profile. As elites, they belonged to an international community beyond their individual poleis or nation.

Chapter Five, the final chapter, will look at this grouping of gifts as a discourse, and explicate the messages communicated in this discourse. It is my argument that this discourse is about self-representation, about communicating one’s identity through gifts to Delian Apollo. By dedicating to Delian Apollo, individuals both declare themselves a part of this community, and set out to define their superiority and subordination to other members of the community. One particular identity that is embraced by many elites at

Delos is that of the megaloprepes, or the “magnificent” man. Dedicators at Delos competed to outdo one another and demonstrate their superiority and megaloprepeia

(magnificence befitting a great man). This competition explains the prevalence of elements of the spectacular in gifts to Delian Apollo; spectacle acted as a type of “value added”, to differentiate the gifts of the megaloprepes from those of ordinary individuals.

Chapter 1. The Development of Delos in the Archaic Period

The Sacred Landscape

The island of Delos, made prominent in antiquity by its status as the birthplace of

Apollo and Artemis, was a significant sanctuary from the late Geometric and early

Archaic periods through the Classical and Hellenistic periods. Archaeological evidence

indicates a significant increase in human activity and religious dedications in the eighth

century BCE, and the site acquired its first monumental buildings a good century before

the PanHellenic sanctuaries of Olympia and Delphi.51 Contemporary literary sources also

point to the significance of Delos and its sanctuary – the earliest mention of Delos comes

in the Odyssey (6.162-3) when Odysseus compares Nausicaa to the palm tree on Delos, which Leto grasped while she gave birth, saying:

For never yet have mine eyes looked upon a mortal such as thou, whether man or woman; amazement holds me as I look on thee. Of a truth in Delos I saw such a thing, a young shoot of a palm springing up beside the altar of Apollo… when I saw that, I marveled long at heart, for never did such a tree spring up from the earth. And in a like manner, lady, do I marvel at thee…

51 For an overview of the archaeological evidence for Delos in the Geometric and Archaic Periods, see Bruneau and Ducat, Guide de Délos; Gallet de Santerre, Délos primitive et archäique; J.N. Coldstream, Geometric Greece: 900-700 BC (London: Routledge, 2003), 213-216

Delos is also made prominent by the Hymn to Apollo (HH3), which depicts the island as

a sanctuary patronized by the Ionians: “for there [Delos] the long robed Ionians gather in

your honor with their children and shy wives” (lines 145-150).

To understand the cult of Delian Apollo, we must first unpack what Whitley calls

“the spatial dimension of cult”.52 Sanctuaries existed in a particular time and space; they

inhabited a sacred landscape but also one that has been shaped by natural and human

activity. Cole has further articulated this spatial dimension of cult with her argument that

communities in ancient Greece occupied three intertwined landscapes – the natural, the

human, and the imagined.53 In my preliminary examination of the sanctuary of Apollo in the Archaic Period, I will survey each of these landscapes of Delos in turn. The ancient

Greeks, of course, did not see three distinct landscapes – they saw one with all of these

elements overlapping and interacting with one another. This tripartite construct of the

natural, human, and imagined landscapes, however, is an effective tool to help us better

understand the layers of meaning in the landscape of Delos.

52 Whitley, The Archaeology of Ancient Greece

53 Susan Guettel Cole, Landscapes, Gender, and Ritual Space: The Ancient Greek Experience. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004)

Figure 2: The Cyclades

Delos is located in the Aegean Sea, at the center of a group of islands known as the Cyclades. They are so known because they “circle around” Delos. Delos is one of the smallest and the most central of the Cyclades – from north to south the island stretches approximately 5km, while the island is no more than 1300m at any point from east to west.54 The island can be divided into three regions: the area of the peninsulas which is characterized by gneiss rock, the central plain, and Mount Cynthus, which reaches a height of 112m and is the site of the earliest documented human activity. A small and irregular river – the Inopus – cuts through the island and fed the lake. The lake

54 Bruneau and Ducat, Guide de Délos, 28-30; William Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography (London: Walton and Maberly, 1854).

34 has since been filled in for sanitary reasons. The island, then, is small and rocky, with little potential to support a thriving human population.

Figure 3: Delos

In his description of the island, Strabo also calls attention to the island’s small size and meagre resources:

“Now the city which belongs to Delos, as also the temple of Apollo, and the Letöum, are situated in a plain; and above the city lies Cynthus, a bare and rugged mountain; and a river named Inopus flows through the island—not a large river, for the island itself is small. From olden times, beginning with the times of the heroes, Delos has been revered because of its gods, for the myth is told that there Leto was delivered of her travail by the birth of Apollo and Artemis: “for aforetime, ”says Pindar, “it was tossed by the billows, by the blasts of all manner of winds, but when the daughter of Coeüs in the frenzied pangs of childbirth set foot upon it, then did four pillars, resting on adamant, rise perpendicular from the roots of the earth, and on their capitals sustain the rock. And there she gave birth to, and beheld, her blessed offspring.” The neighboring islands, called the Cyclades, made it famous, since in its honor they 35

would send at public expense sacred envoys, sacrifices, and choruses composed of virgins, and would celebrate great general festivals there.”

Geography 10.5.2

Strabo elsewhere attests to the tradition that held that the Inopus stretched from the Nile

in Egypt to Delos, though he says that it is impossible (Strabo, Geography 6.2.4). The

closest island is neighboring Rheneia, of which Strabo says: “Rheneia is a desert isle four

stadia from Delos, and there the Delians bury their dead; for it is unlawful to bury or even

burn a corpse in Delos itself, and it is unlawful even to keep a dog there. In earlier times it was called Ortygia.” (Strabo, Geography 6.5.6)

Figure 4: Delos and Rheneia

Apollo’s sanctuary on Delos, like many sanctuaries, sits on land that was

previously shaped by human activity. The Delos of the Archaic Period was not a pristine

landscape, untouched by prior generations. The earliest evidence of human activity on

the island, dating to the third millennium BCE, has been found on Mt. Cynthus.55

Subsequently, archaeological evidence indicates human presence on Delos during LHIII

(1400 – 1200 BCE).56 There appears to have been a Mycenaean settlement in the area

that was later to become the Sanctuary to Apollo, in the area between the Artemision,

Treasuries 4 and 5, the Porinos Naos, and the Temple of the Athenians (See Figure 5).

A group of remains have been found which appear to belong to the same structure. In the

past, this complex was thought to be a palace, but that interpretation has been dismissed

as it is missing the signature megaron. Rather, the remains today are thought to indicate

a small fortified village.57

Whitley has suggested that the location of earlier remains was a factor in choosing

the location of sanctuaries.58 These remains were then reinterpreted or reinvented as part

of the new sanctuary. In the case of Delos, two Mycenaean structures in particular

survived into the Archaic Period and were reinvented as part of Apollo’s sanctuary: the

Theke of Opis and Arge (GD #32) and the Sema of Laodice and Hyperoche (GD #41).

55 Bruneau and Ducat, Guide de Délos, 31

56 On Delos in the Mycenaean Period, see Bruneau and Ducat, Guide de Délos, 32; Gallet de Santerre, Délos primitive et archaïque

57 Bruneau and Ducat, Guide de Délos, 187

58 Whitley, The Archaeology of Ancient Greece, 151

Both structures were later associated with the Hyperborean Maidens. There was also a

Mycenaean structure on the site of the Artemision and of Temple G, a small building to the southeast of the Artemision. The Hyperboreans were a people who lived to the far north (Herodotus 4.13). According to Herodotus, the Hyperboreans sent offerings to

Delos. The first offering was sent with two girls, Hyperoche and Laodice, along with an escort of five men. They did not return, and so from that point forward they would leave the offerings at their border, to be transported to Delos in a series of exchanges – to the

Scythians, then Dodona, then Euboea, Carystus, Tenos, and finally Delos. Arge and Opis were two other girls who traveled to Delos as Hyperoche and Laodice had, although allegedly in the company of the gods Apollo and Artemis. Herodotus also testifies to many rituals at Delos associated with Hyperboreans – girls and boys cut their hair in honor of the girls who died at Delos and left it on the tomb, choruses sang in honor of

Opis and Arge, and gifts were collected for them (Herodotus 4.32-36). The myth of the

Hyperborean maidens was overlaid on the human landscape of Mycenaean remains, giving them new significance in Delian ritual and cult.

Delos was not just the sum of natural and human activity, however, it played a significant role in Greek memory as the birthplace of Apollo. The imagined landscape where this primordial drama plays out is clearly closely associated with the physical landscape of Delos. The physical features of the island feature prominently in the stories told about Apollo’s birth. The characteristic inhospitality of the island for human settlement is highlighted in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo (HH3). Delos is described in the hymn as “rocky” and “sea-girt”. When Leto, searching for a place to give birth,

38 addresses Delos, she stresses the island’s lack of suitability for human settlement, promising that as Apollo’s birthplace the island will increase in status, bringing visitors with rich sacrifices:

For no other will touch you, as you will find: and I think that you will never be rich in oxen and sheep, nor bear vintage nor yet produce plants abundantly. But if you have the temple of far shooting Apollo, all men will bring you hecatombs and gather here, and incessant savour of rich sacrifice will always arise, and you will feed those who dwell in you from the hand of strangers; for truly your own soil is not rich.” Delos responds to Leto that she is afraid that Apollo will find her unsatisfactory, as “truly I have a hard, rocky soil. Homeric Hymn to Apollo lines 50-75

According to the Hymn to Apollo, Leto “rested against the great mass of the

Cynthian hill hard by a palm tree by the streams of Inopus” as she gave birth (lines 15 –

20). Leto later “cast her arms about a palm tree and kneeled on the soft meadow (HH3 lines 115 – 120).” A passage in the anonymous Theognidea states “Lord Phoebus, when the lady Leto gave you birth, gripping the palm tree in her slender arms, you loveliest of the immortals, by the circle-lake, fair Delos was pervaded end to end by an ambrosial fragrance, and the vast earth smiled, and the deep salty white-flecked main rejoiced”

(lines 5-10).

The combined impact of the physical, human, and imagined landscapes of Delos likely influenced the choice of the island as the location of what would become a significant sanctuary in the Greek world. Apollo is a god whose major sanctuaries are in wild, untamed areas, even as he is a god whose blessing is crucial for the city, and to whom many cities sent representatives seeking advice and guidance. His sanctuaries are

most often outside human settlements,59 as is appropriate for the god that Burkert calls

“the god from afar.”60 Sanctuaries are also often in liminal places – at the edge of one

thing and another thing. Apollo is often associated with mountaintops, such as Mt.

Cynthus.61 Delos is explicitly described in sources as rocky and unsuitable for human

habitation – like those environments in which Apollo is found. As an island, Delos is

also remote, isolated. While remote, however, Delos is also central – it is situated in the

center of the Cyclades, the islands which seem to have most concerned themselves with

Delos in the Archaic Period, and even occupies a relatively central position in the Aegean

Sea, between Ionia and mainland Greece.

The concept of insularity, as applied by Constantakopoulou to the islands of the

Aegean Sea, captures the tension between centrality and remoteness that characterizes

Delos. Constantakolou’s application of insualarity, or what it means to be an island,

highlights the tension between isolation and interaction as core characteristics of islands.

Insularity has two aspects – it is both an expression of connectivity as well as an

indication of isolation. Constantakopoulou describes the tension expressed by the concept

of insularity with respect to the islands of the Aegean Sea: “islands were understood as

distinct ‘closed’ worlds, ideal locations for the extraordinary and the bizarre, but at the same time they were also perceived as part of a complex reality of interaction in the

59 Fritz Graf, Apollo (London: Routledge, 2009)

60 Walter Burkert, Greek Religion, 143-149

61 Vincent Scully, The Earth, the Temple, and the Gods: Greek Sacred Architecture Revised Edition (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 2013), on Apollo see especially 100 – 131.

Aegean Sea.”62 Delos exemplifies this tension – it is in the center of the Cyclades and

occupies a relatively central position between Ionia and mainland Greece, while it is also

remote, largely uninhabited, a place of myth. It is an appropriate sanctuary for Apollo,

as, like the god who is worshipped from afar, Delos is at the same time remote and

central.

The Development of Apollo’s Sanctuary

Delos in the Mycenaean and Dark Ages

Delos was occupied during the Mycenaean (LH III) Period, and it seems that the

site was never completely forgotten. There is evidence of religious activity throughout

the Bronze and Dark Ages, which has led the excavators to suggest that the site may have

remained continuously in use.63 The focal point of this activity is the Artemision, which

was the site of a structure of the Mycenaean Period; likely a temple based on the

foundation deposit of the subsequent structure, Artemision E. A collection of votive

offerings found in a foundation deposit for Artmeision E (constructed about 700 BCE)

includes objects from a range of dates throughout the Bronze and Dark Ages. These

included Mycenaean gold ornaments, Mycenaean ivory plaques, many bronze

62 Christy Constantakopoulou, The Dance of the Islands, (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010), 1-11

63 Coldstream, Geometric Greece, 213-216; Gallet de Santerre, Délos primitive and archäique, 127

41 arrowheads, and potsherds from the Mycenaean, Late Protogeometric, and LG Periods.64

While visitors clearly continued to come to the island, there is no other material evidence from the early Dark Ages that would allow us to assume the continuity of habitation or worship on the island.65

Figure 5 Habitation During the Mycenaean Period

64 R. Vallois, L’architecture hellénique et hellénistique à Délos: jusqu'à l'éviction des Déliens (166 Av. J.C.) (Paris: Éditions E. de Boccard, 1966), 10.

65 Coldstream, Geometric Greece, 213-216

Votive offerings in the island’s plain, located near the harbor - the area that

would later become Apollo’s sanctuary - increased throughout the Geometric Period. The foundation deposit of Artemision E, which was constructed ca. 700 BCE, includes continuous votive offerings. The Early and Middle Geometric periods are represented by a thin scatter of pottery in a religious context, while in the Late Geometric Period pottery is found in greater volume in a religious context, especially in the area of the Artemision.

Many fragments of bronze tripods dating to the eighth century have been found, and by

the end of the eighth century new buildings were constructed – a large Artemision (E, GD

#46) in the main sanctuary, Temple G (GD #41), Temple Γ (GD #7), and a small roughly

square Heraion (GD #101) on Mount Cynthos. This early activity places Delos among a

small number of sanctuaries in the Geometric Period – only about twelve sanctuaries

received offerings in the ninth century. The construction of these structures around 700

BCE means that it acquired its first monumental buildings a good century before either of

the Panhellenic sanctuaries of Delphi or Olympia.66

A key question about the sanctuary in the Geometric Period is precisely who was

worshiped there. The area of the Artemision (GD #46) was clearly one of great religious

significance. It was this area that saw the largest volume of dedications in the Geometric

Period, and when building activity resumed on the island, it was the first structure in the

area of Apollo’s sanctuary to be rebuilt. The foundation deposit of Artemision E, which

66 On the development of the panhellenic sanctuaries of Olympia and Delphi, see John Pedley, Sanctuaries and the Sacred in the Ancient Greek World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 119-153; R.A. Tomlinson, Greek Sanctuaries (London: The Anchor Press Ltd, 1976); Catherine Morgan, “The Origins of Panhellenism” in Greek Sanctuaries: New Approaches, eds. Nanno Marinatos and Robin Hägg (London: Routledge, 1993), 14-33

includes objects from the period between LHIII and 700, when the new temple was built,

contains objects that appear to be appropriate to an archer goddess, leading to some

consensus that the area was sacred to Artemis or a Mycenaean equivalent. One

significant clue is the bronze arrowheads found in the deposit. It appears that originally

Delos belonged to an archer goddess who was at some point conflated with Artemis, who

then was later supplanted in importance by her twin brother, Apollo.67 Memory of

Artemis’s superiority at Delos appears to preserved in the tradition that Artemis was born before Apollo (Apollodous, Library 1.4). The sanctuary appears to have developed in two stages – an early stage focused on the area around the Artemision (ca. 700 BCE), and a subsequent expansion of the sanctuary that included structures devoted to Apollo and

Leto (ca. 550 BCE).

Delos in the Archaic Period

The Eighth century, called “the Greek Renaissance”, was a period of economic, religious, political, and social change. A significant element of change was the development of religious sanctuaries, where a sanctuary constitutes a defined piece of territory with an altar and (usually) a temple. While there are elements of religious continuity from the Mycenaean Period (such as the act of animal sacrifice) there are also clear elements of discontinuity.68 One important element of discontinuity is spatial – the

67 Coldstream, Geometric Greece, 320; Tomlinson, Greek Sanctuaries, 71

68 Much has been written about the development of religious practices between the Mycenaean Period and the Archaic Period. See Christine Sourvinou-Inwood, “Early sanctuaries, the eighth century, and ritual space: fragments of a discourse,” in Greek Sanctuaries: New Approaches, eds. Nanno Marinatos and Robin Hägg (London: Routledge, 1993), 1-13; Alexander Mazarakis Ainian, From Rulers' Dwellings 44 location of the god’s territory in relation to that of humans. In the Mycenaean Period there certainly seem to have been sacred spaces in the landscape, but they were not delineated from profane space in the same way that later sanctuaries would be. The significant religious change of the eighth century, then, was the development of this particular spatial relationship between gods and humans.

A sanctuary, often called a hieron (a sacred thing) or temenos (a piece of land set aside for the god), was a sacred area set apart from the profane world of humans.69

Special rules applied to the area within the sanctuary, particularly regarding religious purity.70 A basic prohibition was that one could neither give birth nor die within a sacred space; both of these actions were anathema to the immortal gods and required purification of the sacred space to be performed. While we think of the temple as the iconic and defining element of the sanctuary, a temple was not a requirement; temples

to Temples: Architecture, Religion and Society in Early Iron Age Greece (1100-700 B.C.) (Jonsered: P. Åströms förlag, 1997), Ian Morris, Burial and ancient society: the rise of the Greek city-state (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987), François de Polignac, Cults, territory, and the origins of the Greek city state (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995)

69 On the development of religious sanctuaries and defining the sanctuary and sacred space, see John Pedley, Sanctuaries and the Sacred in the Ancient Greek World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) esp. 29; Christine Sourvinou-Inwood, “Early Sanctuaries, the Eighth Century, and Ritual Space: Fragments of a Discourse” in Greek Sanctuaries: New Approaches, eds. Nanno Marinatos and Robin Hägg (London: Routledge, 1993) 1-13; R.A. Tomlinson, Greek Sanctuaries (London: The Anchor Press Ltd, 1976); James Whitley, The Archaeology of Ancient Greece, Chapter 7; Christopher G. Simon, “The Archaeology of Cult in Geometric Greece: Ionian Temples, Altars, and Dedications” in New Light on a Dark Age: Exploring the Culture of Geometric Greece. ed. Susan Langdon (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1997), 125-143; 128; Coldstream, Geometric Greece; Mazarakis Ainian, From Rulers' Dwellings to Temples; and Susan Guettel Cole, Landscapes, Gender, and Ritual Space: The Ancient Greek Experience. On the development of altars in the eighth century, see David W. Rupp, “Reflections on the development of altars in the eighth century B.C.” in The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century B.C: Tradition and Innovation, ed. Robin Hägg (Stockholm: Paul Astroms Forlag, 1983), 101-107

70 On the issue of religious purity, see Robert Parker, Miasma: pollution and purification in early Greek Religion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983) and Susan Guettel Cole, Landscapes, Gender, and Ritual Space: The Ancient Greek Experience, 30-65

45 were later additions to some sanctuaries and others never acquired a temple at all. The temple functioned as the house of the god; it held offerings to the god, such as the cult statue. Rituals, such as animal sacrifice, took place outside the temple at the god’s altar.

In many cases, the altar was situated to provide a clear line of sight from the temple, a good view for the god, so to speak.

There are two essential features that every sanctuary possesses: a boundary of some sort differentiating sacred from profane space and an altar on which sacrifices

(particularly animal sacrifices) were given to the god or goddess. Simon, based on his observations of Ionian sanctuaries, has even suggested that perhaps there was a stage in the development of sanctuaries where votive offerings were presented to the god, but there was not yet an altar. “First, there are dedications but no buildings. Later, an altar is built. Finally, at an even later date, temples are constructed.”71 In later periods, boundaries were often marked by walls and structures, and altars too were often permanent installations. During the Archaic Period, however, sanctuaries were in their formative stages, they were very much works in progress. A boundary did not need to be marked by a wall or a building to exist – it might have been marked by marker stones or imaginary lines. Likewise, an altar might be little more than the ashes of previous sacrifices – which means, significantly, that there may be little physical evidence that remains to indicate an altar’s presence. The first concerns of the sanctuary, then, were to delineate sacred versus profane space (and thus to determine which rules apply where)

71 Simon, “The Archaeology of Cult in Geometric Greece,” 128

46 and to provide a space to communicate with the god or goddess via animal sacrifice.

Only then did sanctuaries acquire temples and other buildings that served the various and sundry needs of the sanctuary. As we will see, the earliest building in the area of

Apollo’s sanctuary of the Archaic Period was very much concerned with establishing these sacred boundaries.

In her analysis of the sanctuary at Delos, Birgitta Bergquist has identified two phases in the development of the sanctuary of Apollo.72 The first phase starts around 700

BCE, with the construction of buildings on sites previously occupied by Mycenaean structures. The second phase, which starts around 550 BCE, is a phase of the expansion of the boundaries of the sanctuary. In the following analysis of the development of the sanctuary at Delos, I will follow Bergquist in splitting the Archaic Period into these two phases.

72 Birgitta Bergquist, The Archaic Greek Temenos: A Study of Structure and Function. (Lund: Swedish Institute at Athens, 1967), 26-30

Building Activity in or near the Sanctuary of Apollo, 700 – 500 BCE

Phase 1, ca. 700 BCE

Artemision E

Temple G

Temple Γ

Phase 2, ca. 550 BCE

First half of the sixth c. Second half of the sixth c.

600 – 575 575 – 550 550 – 525 ca. 500

Oikos of the Treasury of the Portico of the Naxians (~550) Naxians Carystians Propylaea Porinos Naos Monument of the Hexagons Building ∆ Minoa Fountain Ekklesiasterion

Letoon (~ 540)

Figure 6: Building Activity in or near the Sanctuary of Apollo, 700 - 500 BCE

Figure 7: Sanctuary of Apollo, c. 500 BCE Numbering for buildings and other structures within the Sanctuary to Apollo is taken from Bruneau and Ducat, Guide de Délos #5 Propylaea #30 Minoa Fountain #6 Oikos of the Naxians #32 Theke of Opis and Arge #7 Temple Γ #36 Portico of the Naxians #9 Colossus of the Naxians #39 Keraton (Altar of Horns / Altar of #11 Porinos Naos Delos) #16 Treasury of Carystos #40 Temple G #21 Building ∆ #41 Seme of Laodice and Hyperoche #23 A Anonymous Altar #43 Oikos of the Andrians #23 B Anonymous Altar #44 Monument aux Hexagones #23 E Altar to Zeus #46 Artemision Polieus and Athena Polias #47 Ekklesiasterion

Phase 1, ca. 700 BCE

During the first phase of its development, Bergquist identifies Delos as a simple temenos. A simple temenos is one in which the area is homogenous; all elements have the same status and character. 73 The area of the temenos was the small area surrounding the Artemision, the northwest corner of the sanctuary of later periods. (See Figure 8.) The temenos included the Artemision and an altar in the center, as well as another structure, called Temple G, which was located near the entrance to the temenos in the southeast.

Both the Artemision (GD #46) and Temple G (GD #40) were built ca. 700 BCE on the site of previous Mycenaean structures.

73 Bergquist, The Archaic Greek Temenos, 58-61

Figure 8: Sanctuary of Apollo: The area enclosed by the dashed line indicates Phase1 of the sanctuary.

The Artemision is in the oldest part of Apollo’s sanctuary, on the site of a previous Mycenaean structure.74 The structure of the Archaic Period is known as

Artemision E. Vallois proposed a date at the beginning of the seventh century BCE, but a

later date during the seventh century is more accepted today. The temple is large for the

74 Bruneau and Ducat, Guide de Délos, 207-209; Vallois, L'architecture hellénique et hellénistique à Délos Volume 1, 48 #1; Roland Étienne and Philippe Fraisse, “L’autel archäique de l’Artémision de Délos,” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 113, no. 2 (1989): 451-466

period, with a cella of 8.6 by 9.6 m. Epigraphic evidence suggests the presence of a

pronaos, but no material evidence has survived to indicate its presence. There is

evidence of an Archaic altar on the site.

Temple G is one of the more controversially identified buildings in the sanctuary.

It has been identified as a temple by the excavators, built on the site of a previous

Mycenaean structure known as Megaron H.75 Bruneau and Ducat argue that it is

“indubitablement” a temple, and point to the plan and to the presence of a cultuelle, a

bench along the back wall. Bergquist convincingly argues against this interpretation,

stating that “altogether it appears impossible to base any definite conclusions on such

scare and confused remains”.76 She points out that the remains of H have been arbitrarily

separated from similar remains on the basis of the identification of G as a temple.

Bergquist does not see the plan of G as pointing to its identification as a temple, and

points out that a bench may be found in other types of buildings, such as oikoi or

treasuries. Further, she identifies the location of G at the entrance to the early temenos.

This location, she argues, is more appropriate to an oikos or treasury (as the Oikos of the

Naxians would be situated in the later temenos) than to a temple. Bergquist argues that

Temple G is, in fact, not a temple, but a (possibly Archaic) oikos at the entrance to the

temenos. She suggests that two of demolished walls of Temple G may have belonged to

the temenos enclosure of this phase.

75 Brueneau and Ducat, Guide de Délos, 202-203

76 Bergquist, The Archaic Greek Temenos, 27-28

At approximately 700 BCE, then, Delos saw the construction of two structures in

the area of the sanctuary, both on the site of previous Mycenaean structures: the

Artemesion and so-called Temple G. Based on the evidence of the Artemision, it seems

that the sanctuary was dedicated to Artemis, who was possibly worshipped with her

brother and mother.

At the same time, the impressive and imposing Naxian Lions77 (GD # 55) were set up on a terrace overlooking the lake where Leto supposedly gave birth to Apollo and

Artemis. The heads of the lions are turned to the east, looking in the direction of the lake.

There were between nine and sixteen lions standing on the terrace in antiquity. The lions were made from Naxian marble, indicating their Naxian origin and the artistic presence of Naxian sculpture on the island in the Archaic Period. Perhaps the large and imposing lions, symbolizing courage and protection, provide protection to Leto during her travails?

The site of the Naxian lions overlooking the lake makes reference to the myth of the birth of Apollo and Artemis.

Also dating to this period, although outside of the bounds of Phase 1 of the sanctuary, is the poorly understood Temple Γ (GD #7). Temple Γ is located to the east of the Oikos of the Naxians, at some distance from the Artemision and Temple G. The area between the buildings was covered with a settlement; it was occupied during Mycenaean times and it is not clear whether it was occupied again during the Dark Age and

Geometric Period, but it appears that the buildings were not demolished until the mid-

77 Bruneau and Ducat, Guide de Délos, 224-227; Hubert Gallet de Santerre, La Terrasse des lions, le Létoon, le Monument de granit, Exploration archéologique de Délos 24 (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1959), 23- 36

sixth century when the sanctuary was expanded. It was originally thought to date to the

Mycenaean Period, but that dating is not accepted today. Bruneau and Ducat suggest that

the plan indicates that it is a temple, and that it probably dates to the Geometric Period.

Vallois and de Santerre have argued that this was the first temple to Apollo and served as

an oikos after 550 when the Porinos Naos was built. Bergquist points to the difficulties

of making any of these conclusions about the building based on the evidence, and argues

that the building was probably no longer standing at the time that the nearby Oikos of the

Naxians was expanded with a new façade and porch in the east. She argues that it was

not an early temple to Apollo, pointing out that a temple would likely have been rebuilt

(as other early structures were) and that the structure is at a distance from and the wrong

orientation to view the Keraton, Apollo’s altar. The evidence does not appear to allow us

to say anything conclusive about Temple Γ, except that it was not a Mycenaean structure

and not a temple to Apollo.78

Phase 2, ca. 550 BCE

In the second phase of its development, the sanctuary expanded into what

Bergquist calls a composite temenos. A “composite” temenos has an area of

heterogeneous character, with different elements having varying status and character.

This typically results from the expansion of an earlier “simple” temenos. The “simple”

temenos is the basic area, while the expansion is termed the secondary area. The

78 Bergquist, The Archaic Greek Temenos, 28-29

“composite” temenos consists of the basic area and the secondary area, with the secondary area located between the basic area and the entrance of the newly enlarged temenos. In approximately 550 the sanctuary was expanded to the east and the south, resulting in the creation of a rectangular composite temenos. It was also in the sixth century that temples were built to Apollo and Leto, clearly expanding the focus of cult to the Apollonian Triad.

One of the most important elements of a god’s sanctuary, as we discussed above, was the altar. The altar was the place where the ritual of animal sacrifice took place, allowing for communication between humans and the gods. The most sacred altar to

Apollo at Delos was clearly the celebrated Altar of Horns, or the Keraton. In his Hymn to Apollo (2) Callimachus says that at four years of age Phoebus “framed his first foundations in fair Ortygia near the round lake.” Apollo built the foundation with horns, framed the altar with horns, and built the wall surrounding the altar with horns (lines 53 –

64). In the Hymn to Delos (4), Callimachus says that Theseus led the round dance around

Apollo’s altar (lines 308 - 313). Plutarch provides a more elaborate description of

Theseus’ visit, which identifies that altar as the Keraton:

“On his voyage from Crete, Theseus put in at Delos, and having sacrificed to the god and dedicated in his temple the image of Aphrodite which he had received from Ariadne, he danced with his youths a dance which they say is still performed by the Delians, being an imitation of the circling passages in the Labyrinth, and consisting of certain rhythmic involutions and evolutions. This kind of dance, as Dicaearchus tells us, is called by the Delians The Crane, and Theseus danced it round the altar called Keraton, which is constructed of horns (“kerata”) taken entirely from the left side of the head. They say that he also instituted athletic

contests in Delos, and that the custom was then begun by him of giving a palm to the victors.” Life of Theseus, 21.1

The Keraton is not just an element of myth; it is clearly a physical structure that existed on Delos, as indicated by references to it in many inscriptions and inventories from

Delos.79 Bruneau and Fraisse have argued that the Altar of Delos mentioned in literary sources is the Keraton.

The location of the Keraton was a mystery until recently, when Bruneau and

Fraisse identified it with the apsidal monument (GD #39).80 The apsidal monument is a monumental altar facing to the west. The first phase of construction of this monumental altar dates to the first half of the fifth century BCE. A podium faced to the east. The podium was accessible from a staircase on either side and also from a central ramp. The altar is located approximately 20 m from the façades of the temples to Apollo, which are oriented to the west, allowing a view of the altar from the temples. There do not appear to have been any bases or small monuments in the space that separates the altar from the temples, indicating the presence of the Sacred Way, which led from the Propylaea to the temples and altar.

The monumental altar identified as the apsidal monument was presumably built on the site of a much older altar. In this sense, although the first phases of the structure

79 For a complete list of literary sources, inscriptions, and inventories making reference to the Keraton, see Ph. Bruneau and Ph. Fraisse, Le Monument à abside et la question de l’Autel de cornes, Exploration archéologique de Délos 40 (Paris: E. de Boccard, 2002), 59-67.

80 Bruneau and Fraisse, Le Monument à abside et la question de l’Autel de cornes; Bruneau and Ducat, Guide de Délos

56 date to the early fifth century, the structure marks the location of an older altar. This appears to have been typical of the development of altars in ancient Greece.81 In most cases, the earliest altars were not built altars. Occasionally altars are identified around an outcropping of bedrock a pile of stones. Some ash altars, such as the altar to Zeus at

Olympia, were never replaced with a built altar, signifying that a built altar was not necessary even for major cults. The apsidal monument, then, was likely built on the site of the earlier Keraton, because of the sanctity and significance of that altar.

The location of the Keraton in the southwest quarter of the sanctuary to Apollo indicates the significance of that area of the sanctuary. It is located in the oldest section of the expanded sanctuary, just at the edge of the oldest section of the sanctuary. It sits in close proximity to some of the oldest structures in the sanctuary – the Artemision, the

Sema of Laodice and Hyperoche, and Temple G. This significant location is reflected in the significant nature of the activities that took place at the Keraton. The altar was the site of some of the most ancient and important rituals to Delian Apollo, including the crane dance, which Theseus danced around the altar at Delos during his stay there according to myth (Plutarch, Life of Theseus; Callimachus, Hymn to Delos).

Upon entering the sanctuary from the Propylaea, a paved courtyard extended from underneath the Propylaea (GD #5) and the Oikos of the Naxians (GD #6) to the

Keraton. The southwestern corner is marked by the Portico of the Naxians (GD #36).

These three structures, built between 600 and 550 BCE, act at least in part to define the

81 David Rupp, “Reflections on the Development of Altars in the 8th c. BC”

boundaries of the sanctuary to the southwest.82 All are of Naxian construction, creating

what Bruneau and Ducat call “a Naxian quarter”. This series of construction projects,

defining the new entry and boundaries of the sanctuary, would have been a rather

ambitious project for the Naxians, and would have clearly established the Naxian

presence within the sanctuary and on the island, a presence that was to dominate the

island for much of the sixth century.

The current Propylaea (GD #5)83 was put up by the Athenians in the middle of the second century BCE, but it was preceded by an Archaic structure. The earliest stage dates to approximately the first half of the sixth century, although there has been considerable debate about the exact date.84 The building was modified again in the late

Archaic or early Classical period to align and attach the Propylaea with the Oikos. The

Propylaea defines the entrance to the sanctuary, while the Portico of the Naxians,85 built

at the end of the sixth century based on the style of the capitals, defines the southwest

82 Vallois (L'architecture hellénique et hellénistique à Délos Volume 1) hypothesized that the development of this area connected the area of the Artemision with that of Temple G, which he saw as two sacred areas on either side of the Mycenaean settlement. The function of Temple G is debatable, however, and Bergquist argues that it was likely in ruins by the time of the construction of the Oikos of the Naxians.

83 Bruneau and Ducat, Guide de Délos, p.169; Vallois, L'architecture hellénique et hellénistique à Délos Volume 1, 238-242, P. Courbin, L’Oikos des Naxiens, Exploration archéologique de Délos 33 (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1980)

84 There is some debate about the date of the Propylaea – Vallois proposed a date of 550 – 540, Courbin proposed an earlier date of 600 – 575, and Gruben has proposed a date of approximately 570. Regardless of the exact date, it is clear that the Propylaia was one of the early structures of the sanctuary, built during the first half of the sixth century BCE.

85 Bruneau and Ducat, Guide de Délos, 199-200

boundary of the sanctuary. The Portico of the Naxians is built entirely of Naxian marble,

and is of Naxian craftsmanship.

The Oikos of the Naxians86 (GD #6) is described by Bruneau and Ducat as “un des monuments les plus remarquable de Délos.” A number of indicators point to its

Naxians origin – the nature of the marble, the technique, and the style of the capitals and bases. Like the Portico, the Oikos is built entirely of marble. The Oikos was built in two stages:87 the first dating to the first quarter of the sixth century BCE. Shortly before 550,

a porch of Naxian marble was added. It has been hypothesized that the Oikos was the

first temple to Apollo at Delos, which later became the Oikos of the Naxians.88 This

seems doubtful, however, as there is no apparent relationship with the Keraton. In

addition, Bergquist has argued based on her study of archaic Greek temenoi that temples

are not likely to be located so close to the entrance of the sanctuary. The down-dated

chronology of the Oikos also makes it less likely – if it did indeed act as a temple of

Apollo, it was replaced after mere decades of use by the Porinos Naos. The impressively massive Naxian Colossus (GD #9) stood just outside the building.

Also built during the first half of the sixth century was Building ∆ (GD #21)89.

The building marks the limits of the sanctuary to the southeast. This building is

86 Bruneau and Ducat, Guide de Délos, 171-176; Paul Corbin, L’Oikos des Naxiens; “Le temple archäique de Délos,” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 111, no. 1 (1987): 63-78

87 Dugas proposed the existence of an earlier stage, called the Pre-Oikos, which dated to the second half of the seventh c. BCE, but this theory has been dismissed by most scholars today.

88 Corbin, L’Oikos des Naxiens

89 Bruneau and Ducat, Guide de Délos, 189; Vallois, L'architecture hellénique et hellénistique à Délos Volume 1, 25-26

59 associated with a trio of archaic altars, two of which are anonymous, the third of which is dedicated to Zeus Polieus and Athena Polias. The building has an oblong plan with two doors that open on the west side. A column dedicated to Athena Polias has been found against the north-east corner of the building.90 The building, associated with the altar of

Zeus Polieus and Athena Polias – gods of the polis – has been assumed to have some civic function. Vallois suggests that it should be identified as the Bouleuterion91, but

Bruneau and Ducat are reticent to identify the building as such.92 Building ∆ and the associated Archaic altars appear to have constituted an area within the sanctuary dedicated to the cult of the polis. They were to be joined by a Prytaneion (GD #48) in the middle of the fourth century.

The third quarter of the sixth century saw the construction of two more buildings that expanded the functionality of the sanctuary: the Minoa Fountain (GD #30) and the

Porinos Naos (GD #11). The identification of the Minoa Fountain is indicated by an inscription designating it as such. Ritual purity, as discussed above, was an important concern of any sanctuary, and as such, as sanctuaries grew, it became necessary to provide an accessible source of clean water for purification rituals. The Minoa Fountain, then, performs the necessary function of providing a water supply to the sanctuary.93

90 ID 15

91 Vallois, L'architecture hellénique et hellénistique à Délos Volume 1, 25, 119-121, 249

92 Bruneau and Ducat, Guide de Délos, 189

93 R. A. Tomlinson, Greek Sanctuaries, 41

The Porinos Naos94 (GD #11) is the oldest of the three temples to Apollo in the

sanctuary, built in the third quarter of the sixth c. BCE. It is called the Porinos Naos

because the temple is built of poros stone; the name was given to the temple later to

differentiate it from the subsequent two temples dedicated to Apollo (the Temple of the

Athenians and the Grand Temple). The temple is first referred to as the Porinos Oikos in

an inscription of 282.95 The temple is generally attributed to the Athenian turannos

Peisistratos for circumstantial historical reasons; Athens was under his control during the period when the temple was built and Peisistratus had clearly taken an interest in the

Cyclades and Delos. There is no literary evidence that directly credits Peisistratus with the construction of the Porinos Naos, however. The Porinos Naos was built in such a position that the opening provided a view of the Keraton.

The plan of the Porinos Naos is a simple one – it is a rectangle divided into two rooms of unequal size (a cella and a porch), the smaller of which looks to the west. The dimensions of the temple are 9m 84cm by 15m 74cm. The foundations of the temple are primarily granite, while the temple walls are constructed of a tufa stone which is yellowish and sandy. Vallois has noted the similarity of the stone to the poros stone of

Athens, although the stone has not been confirmed to come from Athens.96

94 Bruneau and Ducat, Guide de Délos, 182-183; F. Courby, Les Temples d’Apollon, Exploration archéologique de Délos 12 (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1931), 207-215

95 IG XI 2 158 A l.60-61

96 F. Courby, Les Temples d’Apollon, 207-215

The beginning of the fifth century saw the construction of a series of structures meant to accommodate the needs of visitors to the sanctuary: Treasury 5 (GD #16), the anonymous south edifice (GD #43), and the Monument of the Hexagons (GD #44). Of the five treasuries within the sanctuary of Apollo (GD #16-20), Treasury 5 is the earliest and the only one which dates to the Archaic Period. It is dated to the Archaic Period based on the nature of the granite and gneiss foundations. The structure has a prodomos with four columns in antis. The cella contains a middle colonnade of five columns. A

Doric capital found in the remains of the Porinos Naos is thought to belong to Treasury

5. Treasury 5 has been identified as the Oikos of Karystos.

Two other structures meant to accommodate the needs of visitors to the sanctuary were built alongside the Portico of the Naxians, extending it to the north. The identity of the anonymous south edifice and the Monument of the Hexagons (so named because of the hexagonal panes of marble decorating the west, north, and east walls) have been the subject of considerable debate, and no consensus has yet been reached. Vallois and

Gruben have proposed that the anonymous south edifice is the Oikos of the Andrians, but

Bruneau and Ducat consider this identification doubtful. Bruneau and Ducat suggest that the building served as a place for meals. Such structures were found in sanctuaries and are sometimes seen as part of stoas.97

The final building that lies within the boundaries of Apollo’s sanctuary that was built during the period under investigation was an early version of the Ekklesiasterion,

97 Tomlinson, Greek Sanctuaries, 42

built at the beginning of the fifth c. BCE. This first building was a small oblong room. It

lies at the northern extent of the sanctuary, marking the boundary to the north.

The area just to the north of the sanctuary of Apollo is the area of the lake, an area

replete with mythological significance for the Apollonian Triad. As the mother of Apollo

and Artemis, Leto was a significant goddess on Delos. During the mid- sixth century a

Letoon would be built under the gaze of the Naxian Lions. The Letoon98 (GD #53) was

constructed of veined white marble with large quartz crystals. The temple was built in

approximately 540 BCE, a date confirmed by ceramic finds.

98 Bruneau and Ducat, Guide de Délos, 222-224; Gallet de Santerre, La Terrasse des lions, le Létoon, le Monument de granit, 23-36

Figure 9: Area of the Sacred Lake

While we are considering the state of the sanctuary in the Archaic Period, it is important to consider not just the permanent structures but also the impact of votive offerings on the sanctuary. Sanctuaries were filled with gifts to the gods. Some were on a large scale – life size sculptures, bronze tripods, and other items set up on pillars, sometimes accompanied by an inscription memorializing the dedicator. Alongside these more expensive dedications, however, would have been a much vaster collection of smaller dedications. The volume of dedications was often so great that they exceeded the

available space, and had to be cleaned out (appropriately, of course, as they remained the

property of the god).

The development of Delos in the Archaic Period illustrates a sanctuary in its

formative stages; each building project or gift contributed in some way to the

development of the sanctuary. The primary concerns of the sanctuary in this period

appear to have been establishing the boundaries of the hieron, purifying the sacred area,

and the construction of buildings that provided other essential functions for the sanctuary.

The boundaries of the sanctuary were extended during this period, and the focus of cult

shifted from Artemis (or a Mycenaean equivalent) to the Apollonian Triad, with Apollo

at the forefront. By the middle of the sixth century, each member of the Apollonian Triad

had their own temple. The construction of many structures during the Archaic Period

also made reference to the mythic landscape of Delos, such as the Naxian Lions

overlooking the lake where Leto gave birth. Here we can see the increasing significance

of the myth of the birth of Apollo for religious cult on Delos.

The construction of many of the buildings of Phase 2 of the sanctuary defined the

sanctuary’s extended boundaries. The Propylaea, Oikos of the Naxians, and Portico of

the Naxians crucially defined the entrance and southwest corner of the sanctuary,

presenting the visitor entering from the waterfront with a visually imposing “Naxian

Quarter”. Buildings devoted to the cult of the polis (Building ∆) and administration (the

Ekklesiasterion) further defined the boundaries of the sanctuary.

The purification of the sanctuary was another significant concern. Of note here is the building of the Minoa Fountain, which provided the sanctuary with a source of clean

water for purification rituals. The purification of the island by Peisistratus (which will be

discussed in greater detail later) also contributed to the development of this expanded

sanctuary by removing graves from the sacred area.

Other buildings aside from the Minoa Fountain expanded the functionality of the sanctuary. Perhaps most important, the construction of the Porinos Naos provided Delos

with the temple to Apollo that it was promised by Leto in the Homeric Hymn. Building ∆

and the Ekklesiasterion provided spaces for administration and the cult of the polis. A

constellation of other buildings – Treasury 5, the Monument of the Hexagons, the anonymous south building, the Portico of the Naxians, and the Oikos of the Naxians also expanded on the functionality of the sanctuary by providing spaces for visitors.

Financing the Development of the Sanctuary

The development of Apollo’s sanctuary on Delos must have entailed a significant

amount of resources, which had to be transported to the island, along, presumably, with a

certain amount of labor. We do not know the permanent population of the island in this

early period, but it can not have been very large, as the island does not provide any means

to support a population aside from the business generated by the sanctuary. How was this

development paid for? Delos has long been thought to have been administered by an

amphictiony, a group of states responsible for the sanctuary. The evidence for this

amphictiony in the Archaic Period is weak, however; as is the evidence for the

sponsorship of building projects by “states” or poleis as they were defined in the

Classical Period. Rather, most of the development projects on the island must have been

66 financed by elite individuals and families, who were engaged in a contest for power and prestige.

Delos has been labeled a religious center for the Ionians, and some scholars hypothesize that there was an “amphictyony” of various powers that administered the cult of Delian Apollo.99 The Greek word amphictyony has both a general and a technical meaning. Generally, it means a union of “dwellers around”, or neighbors. Technically, amphictyony has come to refer to a religious union of a number of states who are usually neighbors.100 An amphictyony is defined in Greek constitutional handbooks as “a body of representatives of different tribes or cities meeting at stated intervals round some common religious centre.”101 The center of the amphictyony was the shrine of a particular deity, and this “federal center” was not a polis. The goal of such a group was to preserve the temple and its worship and to defend the god’s territory against aggression, as well as to guarantee certain behaviors on an international stage, such as a common peace associated with the festival. Despite the fact that the amphictyony was a

“purely religious” organization, amphictyonies often became involved in politics in the

99 For general information on amphictyonies, including the Delian amphictyony, see A.H. Greenidge, Handbook of Greek Constitutional History (London: Macmillan and Co., 1911), 48-53, Victor Ehrenberg, The Greek State (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1960), 108-112, Klaus Tausend, Amphiktyonie und Symmachie (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1992), 8-63. On the arguments specifically for the Delian amphictyony, see Greenidge, Handbook of Greek Constitutional History, 49-50, Ehrenberg, The Greek State, 109, Tausend, Amphiktyonie und Symmachie, 47-55, Laidlaw, History of Delos, 58, Gallet de Santerre, Délos primitive et archaïque, 296, Bruneau and Ducat, Guide de Delos, 35, Parker, Athenian Religion, 88 fn87.

100 Greenidge, Handbook of Greek Constitutional History, 48-53, Ehrenberg, The Greek State, 108-112, Tausend, Amphictyonie und Symmachie, 8-63

101 Greenidge, Handbook of Greek Constitutional History, 48

course of their administration of the sanctuary and cult. These groups are hypothesized

to have originated at the same time as the great religious festivals; presumably,

amphictyonies formed to administer the religious festivals. The best documented

amphictyony is certainly that of Delphi, 102 but it is generally accepted that there were

also amphictyonies at Delos, Onchestus in Boeotia, at Mycale, at Calauria and at

Triopium.103

There are four arguments made to support the hypothesis that Delos was

administered by an amphictyony in the Archaic Period. First, scholars point to the clear existence of a Delian amphictyony of the Classical Period. That there was a Delian

amphictyony in the Classical period is beyond dispute – inscriptions attest to its existence.

An amphictyony of the Archaic period, however, seems less likely, and is supported by

neither contemporary epigraphic or literary evidence nor archaeological evidence. While

the amphictyony and the amphictions (members of the amphictyony) appear in

inscriptions both at Delos, the first reference to a Delian amphictyony does not come until

an inscription of the fifth century.104

Second, Bruneau and Ducat contend that Thucydides refers to the Delian

amphictyony in his discussion of Delos (3.104). When he discusses Delos, Thucydides

says that a long time ago, there was “a great assemblage of the Ionians and the

102 For a good discussion of the Pyleo-Delphic amphictyony, see Francois Lefevre, L’Amphictionie Pyleo-Delphique: Histoire et Institutions (Paris: De Boccard, 1998) and Pierre Sanchez, L’Amphictionie des Pyles et de Delphes (Stuttgart: Franz Weiner Verlag, 2001).

103 Greenidge, Handbook of Greek Constitutional History, 48

104 IG I3 1459-61 (ID 92-94), Parker, Athenian Religion, 88

neighboring islands of Delos” who came to the festival (3.104). He supports this with reference to the Homeric Hymn to Apollo, arguing that “Homer thus attests that there was anciently a great assembly and festival at Delos.” Bruneau and Ducat suggest that the amphictyony was made up of the poleis of the neighboring islands, including Mykonos,

Naxos, Paros, Andros, and Keos, as well as Karystos in Euboea and possibly Athens.105

Constantakopoulou has argued in favor of the existence of the amphictyony, but points

out that it appears to have had a strong nesiotic character rather than an Ionian one.106

Thucydides uses two words to refer to the group gathered in this passage: sunodos and

periktiones. The word periktiones is associated with amphictyony, and taken to possibly

indicate the presence of an amphictyony.107 While both are used synonymously with the

same general meaning as amphictyony (a gathering, neighbors), there is no evidence that

we should see them as having the same technical meaning. The periktiones do not appear

in inscriptions, while the amphictyones are well documented in the epigraphic record.

Thucydides’ use of the word sunodos rather than amphictyony to describe the gathering

implies that he either did not know of an amphictyony at Delos in the Archaic period or

chose not to mention it specifically.

Third, the Homeric Hymn to Apollo is cited as evidence for the existence of a

Delian amphictyony. The Homeric Hymn to Apollo, believed by many scholars to date to

105 Bruneau and Ducat, Guide de Délos, 35

106 Constantakopoulou, Dance of the Islands, 53-58

107 Greenidge, Handbook of Greek Constitutional History, 48 fn3, Parker, Athenian Religion, 88, fn87: Parker argues that these periktiones are the “true” amphictyons, whom the “false” amphictyons of the Classical period are descended from.

the eighth century, is thought to provide evidence for the existence of a festival to Apollo

at the time that the Hymn was written.108 If the amphictyony formed to administer the

festival and if the festival existed when the Hymn was written, the amphictyony should

also have existed at that time. In addition, some scholars argue that the Hymn

demonstrates the presence of “amphictyonic activities”, which are themselves evidence of

the existence of the amphictyony. A serious problem with the use of the Homeric Hymn

to Apollo here is that the date of poem, however, has been a subject of scholarly debate

and is somewhat controversial.109 The Delos described in the Hymn best fits that at the

time of Polycrates, which Burkert proposed as a revised date for the hymn.110

Burkert argues that the Delian part of the poem should be given a date during the

reign of Polycrates, and was possibly written specifically for the joint Delian-Pythian festival sponsored by Polycrates.111 The historical circumstances surrounding this period

also fit well with the Hymn. The Hymn claims that Delos is the meeting place of the

Ionians, but in fact the Ionians had a major sanctuary at Mykale, the PanIonian. During

the time of Polycrates, Mycale had fallen under Persian rule. This would be a good

108 Laidlaw, History of Delos, 13

109 See Walter Burkert, “Kynaithos, Polycrates, and the Homeric Hymn to Apollo” In Arktouros: Hellenic Studies presented to Bernard M.W. Knox on the occasion of his 65th birthday, ed. Glen W., Walter Burkert, and Michael C.J. Putnam Bowerstock (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1979), 52-62, fn 1 for more bibliography.

110 Burkert, “Kynaithos, Polycrates, and the Homeric Hymn to Apollo”, 62; Alternatively, Janko supports the prevailing view that the Hymn was written in approximately the 8th c. (Richard Janko, Homer, Hesiod, and the Hymns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982). West, like Burkert, supports a later date, but suggests a terminus ante quem of 547 (M.L. West, “Cynaethus’ Hymn to Apollo” Classical Quarterly (1975): 161-170)

111 Burkert, “Kynaithos, Polycrates, and the Homeric Hymn to Apollo,” 62

reason for the prominence of Delos to the Ionians. In addition, the Hymn specifically

refers to a temple, which Leto promises Delos will be built. The earliest temple to

Apollo, however, was not built until the second half of the sixth century, in about 540/30

BCE. The oldest temple on the island, dated to about 600 BCE, is dedicated to Artemis.

The description of Delos and its festival in the Homeric Hymn does not seem to

accurately describe Delos at about 700 BCE, rather it appears to be a more accurate

description of Delos in the second half of the sixth century. The Homeric Hymn cannot be dated securely, but the historical circumstances of the late sixth century appear to fit the image of Delos that the Hymn presents more closely. If we cannot securely date the

Hymn to the seventh or early sixth centuries, it is poor evidence of an amphictyony on

Delos in about 700 BCE.

Finally, some scholars suggest that the Homeric Hymn and Thucydides describe

“amphictyonic” activities, which are themselves evidence of the existence of an amphictyony. These “amphictyonic” activities are connected to a festival or games, which is appropriate as Greenidge hypothesizes that the two formed together. The

Hymn and Thucydides may describe “amphictyonic” activities, but it is doubtful that either provides real insight into the situation of Delos in the eighth or seventh, or even the early sixth, centuries. Thucydides says that there used to be games a long time ago. It appears that the festival (and by extension, the amphictyony?) has been neglected for a long time, although the islanders and Athenians sent choruses. This does not necessarily prove the existence of either games or an amphictyony in a much earlier period, however.

It is likely that a “new” festival would be projected back in time to increase its prestige

71 by increasing its antiquity. In fact, Thucydides actually says that the Athenians first celebrated the quinquennial Delian games after the island was purified (presumably after the first purification by Peisistratus). This date corresponds with the construction of the first temple to Apollo, the Porinos Naos (also probably attributable to Peisistratus).

Recently, Tausend has argued that although there is no textual or epigraphical evidence for the presence of an amphictyony on Delos in the Archaic period, the activities depicted on Delos in the Hymn to Apollo are of an amphictyonic nature and indicate the presence of an amphictyony.112 So, if there is a festival, then there must have been an amphictyony to administer that festival. This correlation, however, appears weak as evidence for the existence of the amphictyony. Surely we cannot assume every time we see games or a festival that a formal religious organization with specific characteristics has sprung up around it.

The concept of the “amphictyony” was one developed in antiquity on the model of

Delphi. It appears that later authors in antiquity, such as Pausanias, affixed the label of

“amphictyony” to structures that appeared similar to the Delphic amphictyiony. A series of similar cases were grouped together because of their similarities. The thought that

Pausanias knew anything about the classification or intricacies of religious alliances between various poleis seven to nine hundred years earlier, however, is untenable. In his discussion of amphictyonies, Ehrenberg even admits that it is possible that many of the so-called amphictyonies were so labeled much later than the Archaic period, based on

112 Tausend, Amphiktyonie und Symmachie, 47-55

their similarity to well-known amphictyonies such as Delphi.113 Modern scholars have

latched onto this late label of amphictyony, and around it has grown the construct of the amphictyony – a construct there does not appear to be enough evidence to sustain in the

case of Delos in the Archaic period. In addition, the basic criteria are vague enough that

any number of other groups could potentially be labeled amphictyonies. If the basic

criteria for an amphictyony is that a group of poleis are mutually concerned with the

administration of a certain god’s sanctuary, why are there not more than a handful?

Aside from the problems presented by the amphictyony construct, there is simply

not sufficient evidence of such a group on Delos to sustain the argument that an

amphictyony existed there in the Archaic period. The term amphictyony does not appear

in inscriptions from Delos until the Classical period. The archaeological evidence attests

to the presence of numerous peoples on the island, but does not allow us to argue that that

presence took a specific form. Moreover, the Homeric Hymn to Apollo is a key piece of

evidence for the early existence of the amphictyony, because it allegedly demonstrates the

existence of a festival. The Delian part of the Homeric Hymn should almost certainly be

down dated to the sixth century, however, which leaves little evidence of a festival early

in the Archaic Period. The argument that the Homeric Hymn and Thucydides describe

“amphictyonic activities” is also weak. If amphictyony is a technical term, then we

cannot ascribe it to any instance of a festival patronized by a number of different poleis.

113 Ehrenberg, The Greek State, 109: Ehrenberg comments that many of these amphictyonies were renewed around 200 BCE, and that “it is not impossible that it was only then, under the influence of the Delphic amphictyony, that some of them received the name of amphictyony.”

In addition, Thucydides does not use the term amphictyony when he refers to the

assembly on Delos.

It is possible to talk of the financing of sanctuaries, their building projects, and festivals in great detail in the Classical and later periods. At Delos, detailed records have survived which illuminate many of the practices of the sanctuary. We do not have such information for the Archaic Period, however, and the social and economic differences of the Archaic Period make it impossible to project the procedures of later periods back to that period. This is what has happened with the Delian amphictyony – a construct of the

Classical and later periods has been projected back onto the Archaic Period, obscuring attempts to understand the development of the sanctuary. It is most likely that building projects and festivals were sponsored by powerful individuals and families, not formal alliances of participating poleis. For example, it is Polycrates who sponsored the joint

Pythio-Delian festival, and possibly commissioned a new version of the Homeric Hymn to Apollo for the occasion. Here, no amphictyony is needed to organize the festival – it is

credited to a single individual. At Delphi, the Alkmeonid family was credited with

building a new temple. Again, the Alkmeonids acted not as representatives of any state

or polis, but rather as a family acting on its own behalf. This model of financing for the

sanctuary is much more in line with what we understand of the socio-political

environment of the Archaic Period, when powerful men and families competed for

wealth and prestige.

Chapter 2. The Aegean Islands

Euboia: Karystos

Karystos is located on the island of Euboia, a long island located on the western

edge of the Aegean Sea, which was home to a number of poleis and other

communities.114 Karystos is one of seven cities in Euboia mentioned in the Homeric

Catalogue of Ships (Iliad 2.536-539). Karystos was also involved in the network that

brought the offerings of the Hyperboreans to Delos, who refused to travel personally after

Hyperoche, Laodice, and their escort failed to return (Herodotus 4.32-36). After this,

according to Herodotus, the holy offerings would be wrapped in straw and then carried

from border to border by the people who lived there: from Hyperborea to Scythia and so

on until they reached Dodona, the first of the Greeks to receive them. From Dodona they

go to Euboia, where they are carried from city to city until they reach Karystos; they go

from Karystos to Tenos and ultimately to Delos. Interestingly, Herodotus specifically

mentions that Andros is excluded from this chain.115 After leaving Delos, Datis and his

114 Pierre Ducrey, “Eubeoa,” in An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, eds. Mogens Herman Hansen and Thomas Heine Nielson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 643-663; Karystos 638-639

115 Pausanias (1.31.2) offers an alternate route for the Hyperborean offerings, which excludes and Karystos and Tenos and includes Athens. According to Pausanias, the Athenians escort the offerings 75 army stopped at Karystos, where they besieged the polis and ravaged their land, ultimately forcing the people of Karystos to change their allegiances to the Persians

(Herodotus 6.22). They later joined Xerxes’ fleet in the invasion of 480 (Herodotus 8.66).

The involvement of Karystos with the shipment of the gifts of the Hyperboreans links them with Delos. A small structure located in the Sanctuary of Apollo (Treasury

#5) has been identified as the Treasury of the Karystians. Treasuries, sometimes called oikoi, are structures built by individual communities to provide services for visiting members of that community, store dedications to the god, and advertise their piety.

Treasury #5 is the earliest of the five structures explicitly identified as treasuries, and the only clearly dating to the Archaic Period. There were other oikoi on the island during the

Archaic Period, including the Oikos of the Naxians. Some scholars have hypothesized that some of the unidentified structures of the sanctuary in the Archaic Period should be identified as oikoi. The only structure that has been securely identified and associated with a specific community aside from the Oikos of the Naxians, however, is the Treasury of the Karystians. This suggests a significant presence of visitors from Karystos on the island.

directly to Delos. This seems altogether like later Athenian propaganda, meant to highlight their relationship with Delos above all others.

The Cyclades

“Surely all the Cyclades most holy of the isles that lie in the sea, are goodly theme of song. But Delos would win the foremost guerdon from the Muses, since she it was that bathed Apollo, the lord of minstrels, and swaddled him, and was the first to accept him for a god.”

“Asteria, island of incense, around and about thee the isles have made a circle and set themselves about thee as a choir.”

Callimachus, Hymn to Delos

The Cyclades are a group of islands in the Aegean Sea, which are said to “circle”

Delos in the center, as Callimachus write above in his Hymn to Delos. Strictly speaking,

this description is inaccurate, as Delos is certainly not in the center of the grouping of

island, and sits closer to the northern part of the grouping. The image of Delos at the

center of a circle of islands – “set about thee as a choir” – may not be an accurate

geographic description, but it does capture the significance of Delos to the region. Delos,

the birthplace of Apollo, was the most holy and sacred of the islands; it sat at the spiritual

center of the Cyclades. The metaphor of the islands as a choir encircling Delos makes

reference to the tradition of sending choirs to the festival to Apollo; presumably all

islands of the Cyclades sent a chorus to the festival (Thucydides 3.104, Homeric Hymn to

Apollo).

The existence of the Cyclades as a region is attested in many Classical sources

(Euripides, Ion, 1583; Herodotus 5.31.2; Thucydides 1.4; Isocrates 4.136). The islands which were members of the group vary from author to author, however. Herodotus specifically mentions the islands of Naxos, Paros, and Andros (5.31.2). Strabo says that

77 there were originally twelve islands which were considered to belong to the Cyclades, but that more were added later. He cites Artemidorus, who claimed the Cyclades began with the island Helena (although Strabo excludes Helena). Strabo’s list included Ceos,

Cythnus, Seriphus, Melos, Siphnus, Cimolus, Prepesinthus, Oliarus, Paros,

Naxos, Syros, Mykonos, Tenos, Andros, and Gyarus (Strabo, Geography, 10.5.3).

The Homeric Hymn to Apollo describes an ancient festival honoring Apollo, which was attended by the “long robed Ionians”. Thucydides, in his digression about

Delos in Book 3, tells us that while the festival originally included contests and games, in later times “the islanders and the Athenians continued to send the choirs of dancers with sacrifice (3.104).” Presumably most of the islands of the Cyclades sent a theoria and chorus to the festival. They would have made dedications while there, and some likely would have had designated structures to honor Apollo and cater to the needs of their residents while visiting Delos. Further, the neighboring island of Tenos was a member of the network through which gifts to Apollo travelled from the land of the Hyerboreans to

Delos. Herodotus tells us explicitly that Andros was not a member of this network

(Herodotus 4.33). As mentioned in the first chapter, there are a number of structures thought to be oikoi or treasuries, or perhaps dining spaces, but not all have been identified. For example, attempts have been made to identify Archaic structures as the yet to be identified Oikos of the Andrians. While we can assume that many members of the communities of the neighboring Cycladic islands visited Delos and gave gifts to

Delian Apollo, little evidence remains of those gifts, and there is little that we can say with any surety further about their relationship with Delian Apollo. Two islands of the

Cyclades, however, were clearly great patrons of Delos. It is evident from material and

epigraphic evidence that members of their communities gave considerable gifts to Delian

Apollo: Naxos and Paros. Additionally, these two poleis were also rivals for regional

influence. The remainder of this chapter will discuss the evidence for gifts to Apollo

from members of the Naxian and Parian communities.

Naxos

Naxos is the largest island in the Cyclades. During the Archaic Period, it was a

polis in both the territorial and the political sense, which appears to have been ruled by an

oligarchy.116 The polis was dominated for a period by the turannos Lygdamis, who was

an ally of the Athenian Peisistratus (Herodotus 1.61.4). The oligarchic government of

Naxos was overthrown by the demos by about 500 BCE. Naxos was one of the dominant

powers within the Cyclades and central Aegean during this period. In 499, Naxos

appears to have controlled the neighboring islands of Paros and Andros, as well as “the

rest of what are called the Cyclades” (Herodotus 5.31). Naxos came to the attention of

Darius when the exiled oligarchs fled to Miletus. They asked Aristagoras to help restore

them to power, and he in turn asked Artaphernes, who asked Darius (Herodotus 5.30-32).

At this point, according to Herodotus, none of the Cyclades was under Persian control.

Naxos was a desirable acquisition, however, as Aristagoras makes clear in his pitch to

Artaphernes: “Furthermore, you will win, for the King, Naxos itself and those islands that

116 Gary Reger, “The Aegean” in An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, eds. Mogens Herman Hansen and Thomas Heine Nielson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), #507: Naxos 760 – 763

79 depend upon it: Paros, Andros, and the rest of what are called the Cyclades. If you start out from there, you will easily be able to attack Euboea, which is a big, rich island, not less than Cyprus, and very easy to take.” (Herodotus 5.31) This attack failed, but the island came under Persian control in 490 BCE during the first Persian Invasion

(Herodotus 5.34, 6.96).

The dominant role played by Naxos in the Cyclades is reflected in the overwhelming evidence of the Naxians on Delos. The architectural, sculptural, and epigraphic evidence has led many scholars to conclude that there was a period of Naxian domination of the island during the seventh and the first half of the sixth centuries.117

The Naxians have been credited with building the Oikos of the Naxians, the Propylaia, and the Portico of the Naxians, which defined the entry to the enlarged sanctuary and formed a sort of “Naxian Quarter”. Naxian sculpture was also prevalent on the island, including the massive Naxian Colossus and the Naxian Lions. The buildings and much of the sculpture were carved from Naxian marble by Naxian workers, advertising the

Naxian presence on the island. Moreover, Naxian marble was easy to identify. Naxian marble had large crystals, which were sometimes blue or pink, while Parian marble typically was white with fine crystals.118

A large number of the inscriptions dating to the Archaic Period can also be credited to Naxian sources. The Naxian script of the Archaic Period is quite

117 Bruneau and Ducat, Guide de Délos

118 Bruneau and Ducat, Guide de Délos, 86

distinctive.119 This facilitates the identification of particular inscriptions – and by

association the dedications that they are associated with – as being of Naxian origin. It

also certainly made a statement in antiquity – the script used by the Naxians has

significant differences from the one used by the Parians and the Delians, and presumably

viewers would have been able to differentiate them. Just as the use of Naxian marble and

sculptors is an advertisement of the Naxian presence on the island, the use of the Naxian

script in inscriptions works in the same way. A number of the surviving inscriptions on

Delos use the distinctive Naxian script, allowing their identification as Naxian even when

it is not explicitly stated in the inscription. Of thirty-one surviving inscriptions that appear to have been religious dedications, six exhibit features of the distinctive Naxian script.120

It is possible that others are of the Naxian script as well, but unfortunately many of the

inscriptions have only been partially preserved, providing a single word or even just a

few letters.

Inscriptions, and particularly epigrams, are a significant source of information

about those who made dedications to Apollo and Artemis in the Archaic Period. Giving a

gift to the gods was an act that had both private and public aspects. It was on display, for

all to see, in perpetuity. An inscription informed the viewer, or passerby (one potential

audience for these gifts) who it was that gave the gift. Sometimes other information is

119 L.H. Jeffrey, The Local Scripts of Greece (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), 290 - 292

120 Despite the volume of material evidence from Delos, there are relatively few inscriptions from the Archaic Period as compared to other PanHellenic sanctuaries such as Olympia or Delphi. Of ID 1-35, three are collections of inscriptions found on Mt. Cynthus, and thus outside the scope of this inquiry. Of the thirty-two remaining inscriptions, thirty-one appear to have been religious dedications.

given as well. Epigrams were inscribed on objects; they were in a very real sense

situated in a particular time and place, nearly inseparable from the object that they

accompany. I say nearly as we have many dedicatory epigrams on statue bases, which

have lamentably been separated from their statues. Epigrams are the beginning of a

conversation between the viewer and the object. They are meant to be read, and probably

were read out loud – constituting a performance that recalls the original ritual dedicatory

act.121 Furley writes that “A dedicatory epigram represents a symbolic caption to the act

of worship which takes place momentarily but which extends both backwards and

forwards in time so as to render the worshiper’s act at least of ‘longue duree’, and,

ideally, timeless.”122 Further, an individual epigram did not stand alone; it always stood

in the context of other dedications and epigrams surrounding it.123 A common type of

dedicatory epigram, and one which describes most of the epigrams found on Delos during

the Archaic Period, is the speaking object epigram.124 In these epigrams, it is not the

dedicator who speaks, but the object. Sometimes, in a multi-line epigram, the object imagines a question that might be posed by the passerby, and proffers a response.

121 Thomas A. Schmitz, “Speaker and Address in Early Greek Epigram and Lyric” in Archaic and Classical Greek Epigrams, eds. Manuel Baumbach, Andrej Petrovic, and Ivana Petrovic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 25 - 41

122 William Furley, “Life in a Line: a reading of dedicatory epigrams from the Archaic and Classical Periods” in Archaic and Classical Greek Epigrams, 151-166

123 Manuel Baumbach, Andrej Petrovic, and Ivana Petrovic, “Archaic and classical Greek epigram: an introduction” in Archaic and Classical Greek Epigrams, 13; Guide de Délos, 177-181

124 Schmitz, “Speaker and Address in Early Greek Epigram and Lyric,” 29-30

One goal of the Naxians certainly seems to have been to make a statement about their presence on the island. This is made clear by the inscription on the Colossus of the

Naxians, a colossal statue that stood outside the Oikos of the Naxians, near the entrance to Apollo’s sanctuary.125 Although the statue is in pieces around the sanctuary today, the base stands where it did in antiquity. The inscription reads “I am of the same stone, statue and plinth.” This inscription has generated considerable scholarly discussion. It is possible that what we have is the second line of the inscription, and the first line was on the now missing part of the statue base.126 This part of the inscription, however, reads as a boast. Clearly the statue and the base are two separate pieces. The reference, however, is to the monolithic nature of each of those pieces – the statue was of only one piece of stone, without joints holding separate pieces together, as was the base. The restored height of the statue is between 8.5 and 10 meters, making the sculpting and transport of the piece particularly exceptional. The base is 3.5 by 5.15 meters; Jeffrey comments that the transport of a single stone of this size from Naxos “deserves some admiration”.

Clearly the Naxians wanted to make their presence known. It is also noteworthy that, in their effort to advertise their presence, they did not apparently feel the need to explicitly state that this was a Naxian dedication – it seems that viewers were expected to know that already, based on its location, stone, and script. The location of the statue also makes a statement, set at the entrance to Apollo’s sanctuary. At least one other colossal statue stood at the entrance to a sanctuary – the Ischus Colossus, found near the entrance to the

125 ID 4

126 Jeffrey, The Local Scripts of Greece, 292

sanctuary of Hera on Samos. Hurwit suggests that the statue may have served as a marker

guiding visitors entering the sanctuary.127

Another example of the speaking object epigram is the inscription of Nikandre on

a kore statue dating to the mid-seventh century: “Nikandre dedicated me to the far- shooter, pourer of arrows, The excellent daughter of Deinodikes of Naxos, the sister of

Deionomenes, And [now?] the wife of Phraxos.”128 The speaker here is the statue – the

statue tells us that it was dedicated by Nikandre to Artemis, and then provides some

information about Nikandre’s natal and marital families. This epigram, like most

dedicatory epigrams, uses the formulaic m’anetheke (from anatithemi) to refer to the

object.129 As Nikandre’s kore statue says, “Nikandre set me up…” There is no need to

include information about the dedication itself in the epigram, as it is virtually unable to

be separated from the object.

This is the earliest complete kore statue, dated to the mid seventh century.130 It is

larger than life size, at 5’9” tall. It is a planklike statue in the Daedalic style,

characterized by a flat-topped, u-shaped face which was framed by triangles of hair. The

surface was once incised and painted, and the three-line inscription is inscribed on the left

127 Jeffrey Hurwit, “The Human Figure in Early Greek Sculpture and Vase Painting” in The Cambridge Companion to archaic Greece, ed. H.A. Shapiro (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 267

128 ID 2; Bruneau and Ducat, Guide de Délos, 86

129 Baumbach, Petrovic, and Petrovic, “Archaic and classical Greek epigram: an introduction,” 13; Whitley, Archaeology in Ancient Greece, 140 – 146

130 Jeffrey Hurwit, “The Human Figure in Early Greek Sculpture and Vase Painting”; John Boardman, Greek Sculpture: The Archaic Period (New York, N.Y.: Thames and Hudson, 1996), 25, fig. 71

84 side of her skirt. The statue could possibly represent either Artemis (to whom it was dedicated), Nikandre herself, or a “Generic Woman”, which Hurwit describes as “a fitting adornment and gift for the precinct of a goddess, an agalma (“delight,” “pleasing gift,” hence “statue”).”131

The inscription allows us to identify Nikandre as one of the participants in this discourse. The inscription identifies Nikandre as Naxian, but we could do this regardless, as the inscription also includes nearly all the characteristic features of the Naxian script.

From the inscription, we know something about Nikandre’s family: She was the daughter of Deinodikes and the sister of Deinomenes. The statue was dedicated on the occasion of her marriage to Phraxos, and possibly on that of her release from service as a priest of

Artemis. The statue was found in the precinct of Artemis on Delos.

The Naxian sculptor Euthykartides dedicated a statue towards the end of the seventh century which stood on a triangular base of white marble.132 The inscription reads: “Euthykartides the Naxian set me up and made me.” The inscription includes a typical formulation for a dedication – the name of the dedicator, followed by the verb meaning “to set up” (anetheke) and the name of the god to whom it was dedicated.133

Dating to the second half of the seventh century, this is one of the earliest known master’s signatures outside Attica. The dedication was originally a kouros statue supported by a triangular base. The first kouroi appear to have come from Naxos, which

131 Hurwit, “The Human Figure in Early Greek Sculpture and Vase Painting,” 271

132 ID 1

133 Whitley, Archaeology of Ancient Greece, 140-146

dominated the production of kouroi until about 540 both stylistically and in the use of

Naxian marble.134 The base featured a mask at each corner – the heads of a lion, ram, and

gorgon. The dedication functions as alternatively thanks to the god, a boast about the

sculptor’s skill in a (then) small field, and advertisement for future customers.

Three other inscriptions appear to be written in the distinctive Naxian script. Four

partial lines, containing a dedication and part of a sculptor’s inscription, have been found

on a fragment of a statue.135 Another is a fragmentary verse inscribed along a spiral guide

line on a flat marble disc.136 Jeffrey suggests that this may be some sort of unofficial

athletic record. From this inscription we have what appears to be the name Pentephonta.

Finally, the last inscription is from a fragment of a marble statue base and includes only

the name of the dedicator – Theomelides – and that of Apollo.137

The use of the distinctive Naxian script allows us to identify some dedications as

originating with members of the Naxian population. As was mentioned above, however,

their particular script is not the only distinctive characteristic of Naxian dedications.

Naxian marble was also easily identified, and viewers could most likely have

differentiated it from other types of marble used in dedications on the island, primarily

Parian. Delos has also yielded an impressive assemblage of sculpture, one of the most

134 Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway, The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture (Chicago: Ares, 1993), 81- 2

135 ID 3, Jeffrey, The Local Scripts of Greece, 292

136 ID 5, Jeffrey, The Local Scripts of Greece, 292

137 ID 6

significant in Greece.138 Many of these sculptures are of Naxian marble, and indicate

characteristics of the unique Naxian style. Naxian kouroi tend to be thin and flat,

angular, with smooth surfaces and curves. The style is harmonious and decorative, rather

than naturalistic. They also frequently made use of metal attachments.139 Eleven kouros

statues of Naxian origin are cited in the Guide de Delos. The Naxian Lions, discussed

above in the first chapter, are also impressive sculptures of Naxian origin. It is difficult

to quantify the total number of Naxian kouroi of the Archaic Period, however, as the

collection of statuary from the Archaic Period has not yet been published.140

What can we say about Naxian sculpture then, if we cannot quantify what has

been found? Many of the examples of Naxian sculture that we have found are very early

for their types; Nikandre’s kore is the earliest known kore in Greece. Likewise, the base

of Euthykartides contains the earliest known master’s signature outside of Attica. It is

also among the earliest marble kouros sculptures. It appears that Delos – located close to

Naxos and dominated by Naxian influences in the first half of the sixth century – was the

recipient of many significant dedications. Some of these, such as the Naxian Lions and

the Colossus were imposing and grand on an inhuman scale; others, like that of

Nikandre’s were “world premieres” – some of the earliest examples of new statue types.

138 Bruneau and Ducat, Guide de Délos, 85-97

139 Ridgway, The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture, 81

140 Bruneau and Ducat, Guide de Délos, 85 fn 2: Bruneau and Ducat indicate that a volume of the Exploration archéologique de Délos surveying the entire corpus of sculpture in the Archaic Period is forthcoming; as of 2018 it has yet to be published.

Paros

The nearby island of Paros, also one of the islands of the Cyclades, had a significant presence on the island as well.141 Paros and Naxos were often at odds with one another, and Delos certainly served as one arena to articulate that conflict. Paros and

Naxos fought a series of wars with one another during the Archaic Period. Herodotus says that Paros was dependent upon Naxos in 499 (5.31), but Reger asserts that it is doubtful that Paros was actually under Naxian control at that time. Paros, like Naxos, came under Persian control during the reign of Darius.

The Parian script, like that of Naxians, was distinctive. Two inscriptions with the distinctive Parian script mention the name “Therseleos”.142 The first is on six fragments of a statue base of fine white marble.143 It appears to be a portion of a longer inscription, but from the extant portion we can identify three personal names – Therseleos, Philarkos, and Karmophon, as well as “to Anios”, indicating that the dedication was to Anios, a heroized former king of Delos.144 The second inscription comes from a fragment of a rectangular statue base and bears only the letters of the name “Therseleos”.145 The interesting thing about Therseleos and his companions from the first inscription is that

141 Reger, “The Aegean,” Paros

142 ID 10, 12

143 ID 10

144 There is some debate about how to restore the last word in the extant portion of the inscription. Here, I follow Marcade in attributing the inscription as a dedication “to Anios”.

145 ID 10

their names appear in other inscriptions across the Aegean, indicating that they belonged

to a network of elites who made dedications in multiple sanctuaries at different poleis.

First, Therseleos reappears in an inscription from Paros, made by his daughter:

“Artemis, to you Telestodike dedicated me, this statue, mother of Asphalios, daughter of

Therseleos, I boast that I am the work of Kritonides of Paros.”146 Telestodike also appears

in another extant inscription, this time jointly with her husband: Demokydes and

Telestodike having made a vow together erected this statue to the virgin Artemis on her

sacred ground, the daughter of Aegis-bearing Zeus; to their family and livelihood give

increase in safety.”147 Both dedications by Telestodike come from Paros and date to around 500 BCE. Philarkos appears in an inscription from Tenos148 and Karmophon in an

inscription from Iasos.149

Paros, like Naxos, was well known for its sculpture. In the second half of the

sixth century BCE, sculpture of Parian origin becomes more numerous on the island.

Parian marble contains fine white crystals, compared to the large blue and pink crystals

of Naxian marble. The Parian style was also different from that of the Naxians – Parian

kouroi have more athletic bodies, with long torsos and thick waists. The hips are narrow,

with the arms and shoulders pulled back and the chest thrust forward.150Again, it is

146 IG XII 5, 216

147 CEG 414

148 IG XII 5, 872

149 SGDI, 5515

150 Ridgeway, The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture, 82

89 difficult to assess the exact number of sculpture fragments that survive, as the entire corpus of Delian sculpture have not yet been published. Four kouros statues are firmly attributed to Parian origin in the Guide de Delos. A sphinx statue of about 550 BCE has previously been identified as Naxian, but is of Parian marble. Finally, the Nike of

Archermos is of Parian marble and is inscribed using the Parian script. This is discussed in the section of this chapter concerning Ionia, as the sculptor, Archermos, was originally from Chios. He relocated to Paros and had a workshop there, however, which explains his use of Parian marble and script.

It is also possible that the Parians, like the Naxians, built some of the structures on the island. Bruneau and Ducat suggest that the Monument of the Hexagons (GD #44) was of Parian origin because of the similarity of the decorative pattern to that on structures at Paros and at Thasos, a Parian colony; Treheux goes further and suggests that the structure acted as a Parian oikos.151 The monument of the Hexagons is one of two small structures (both of which appear likely to have functioned as oikoi or dining rooms) built onto the end of the Portico of the Naxians. If the structure is indeed a Parian oikos, building it on to the end of a Naxian structure makes an interesting statement about the relation or Paros vis à vis Naxos. The Letoon (GD #53) also uses this distinctive decorative pattern, so it is also possibly of Parian origin.

151 Bruneau and Ducat, Guide de Délos

Ionia

Ionia is a geographic region on the eastern edge of the Aegean Sea, the coast of

Asia Minor.152 Many of these poleis were connected to Athens in myth, which claimed to be the mother city of “the Ionians”, who were united by common cult practices and ancestry. Herodotus claims that all Ionians were of Athenian descent and celebrated the feast of the Apaturia (Herodotus 1.147). When the Ionians left the Peloponnesus and settled in Asia Minor (the region of Ionia), they founded twelve cities, which Herodotus suggests preserve twelve divisions that existed when they lived in the Peloponnesus

(1.145) The twelve cities collectively set up the Panionium, a sacred place at Mycale. “It is to this place that the Ionians from the Twelve Cities resorted when they celebrated the festival to which they gave the name Panionia (1.148).”

The “Ionians” are singled out as participants in the great festival to Apollo at

Delos in the Homeric Hymn to Delian Apollo:

“Many are your temples and wooded groves, and all peaks and towering bluffs of lofty mountains and rivers flowing to the sea are dear to you, Phoebus, yet in Delos do you most delight your heart; for there the long robed Ionians gather in your honor with their children and shy wives: with boxing and dancing and song, mindful, they delight you so often as they hold their gathering. A man would say that they were deathless and unageing if he should then come upon the Ionians so met together. For he would see the graces of them all, and would be pleased in heart gazing at the men and well-girded women with their swift ships and great wealth (lines 144 – 156).”

152 Lene Rubinstein, “Ionia”, in An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, ed. Mogens Herman Hansen and Thomas Heine Nielsen, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 1053 - 1107

Thucydides says that the Athenians of the Classical Period celebrated the

“quinquennial celebration of the Delian games” after performing their purification of the island. He then comments that “Once upon a time, indeed, there was a great assemblage of the Ionians and the neighboring islanders at Delos, who used to come to the festival, as

the Ionians now do to that of Ephesus, and athletic and poetical contests took place there,

and the cities brought choirs of dancers.” (Thucydides 3.104) As evidence of this, he cites

the above section of the Hymn to Apollo.

Clearly, in myth, “the Ionians” were seen to have a close relationship with Delos.

Constantakopoulou has argued that, contrary to Thucydides, we should see the network

of communities most concerned with Delos as a nesiotic one, comprised of neighboring

islands from the Cyclades, rather than as an Ionian one.153 This does not, however, negate

the close association of the island with “the Ionians”. It is also important to note that the

designation “the Ionians” could have a range of meanings – referring on the one hand to

the geographical region of Ionia and on the other to a group of people sharing a common

ancestry and cult practices. Rubinstein’s extensive discussion makes it clear that there is

not one simple manner in which the designation was used, and demonstrates that the

broad definition of Ionian as a “wider ethnic identity” was used much more than a

designation referring specifically to the twelve cities of Ionia.154 This wider definition

included the Athenians, from whom the Ionians were supposedly descended.

153 Christy Constantakopoulou, The Dance of the Islands

154 Rubinstein, “Ionia”, 1053

Citizens of two of the twelve cities of Ionia had significant further interactions

with Delos: those of Chios and Samos. There were many similarities between the two

islands: they both lie on the coast of Ionia near to one another, both belonged to the same

Ionian tribal and cultural region, both were among the most prosperous poleis in Greece,

both engaged in trade with the outside world, and both were sea powers, island poleis as

opposed to those on the mainland – which allowed them to resist Persian domination for

a longer period of time. 155 Despite the similarities between the two islands, there were

also significant divides. While the islands lay within sight of one another, they spoke

different dialects (Herodotus 1.142). Chios appears to have had more intense connections

with northern Ionia, while Samos had stronger links with Miletus and southern Ionia.

They also appear to have belonged to different trading networks – Laconian, Attic, and

Corinthian pottery are all found in considerable amounts on Samos, while they are rare

on Chios. While Chian pottery is commonly found at other Ionian sites, it is strikingly

absent from Samos. Stylistically, the pottery and sculpture produced by Samos and

Chios were also different, and there is little evidence for influence between the two

islands.

Both, however, have left evidence of significant interactions with Delos. The

Chian sculptor Archermos sculpted the running Nike statue – thought to be the first of its type – which was dedicated by his father, Mikkiades, in a dedication that proclaims their

Chian ancestry. The infamous turannos of Samos, Polycrates, dedicated the island of

155 H. Kyrieleis, “Chios and Samos in the Archaic Period”, in Chios: A Conference at the Homerion in Chios, ed. John Boardman and C.E. Vaphopoulou-Richardson (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), 187 - 204

Rheneia to Delian Apollo, and in a spectacular bit of showmanship, supposedly attached it to Delos with a chain. This section will explore what we know about Samos and Chios in this period, and their interactions with Delos.

Chios

Chios is an island located on the coast of Ionia.156 It is one of the Twelve Cities of

Ionia who collectively founded PanIonium. In Thucydides, the Chians describe themselves as “the greatest of their confederate cities in all Ionia (Thucydides 8.40). They also participated in the Ionian revolt against Persian rule. At that point, they already were a significant naval power, as Herodotus attests that they had 100 ships with forty men each (Herodotus 6.15). That Chios could support such a large naval force is indicative of the strength enjoyed by Chios in the sixth century – including wealth, manpower, and the will to oppose Persia until the last possible moment.157 Chios in this period, then, was a large polis (Roebuck estimates 60 – 80 thousand free men, women, and children) that enjoyed considerable prosperity.

A Chian presence on Delos is indicated by an inscription found on two fragments of a white marble base for a statue were found in the sanctuary of Apollo bearing an inscription:158 "Farshooter [Apollo, receive this] fine figure [...worked by] the skills of

156On Chios see Rubinstein, “Ionia,” in An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, 1064 - 1069

157 Roebuck, C. “Chios in the Sixth Century BC,” in Chios: A Conference at the Homerion in Chios, eds. John Boardman and C. E. Vaphopoulou-Richardson (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), 81 - 88

158 ID 9

Archermos, from the Chian Mikkiades, ... the paternal city of Melas."159 Both Micciades

and Archermos dedicated the statue jointly to “the Far Shooter”. This epithet was used to

refer to both Apollo and Artemis, making it unclear which deity was meant to be the

recipient of the gift. For example, Artemis is referred to as the Far Shooter in the

inscription on the Nikandre statue. Artemis had a prominent presence in the sanctuary of

Delian Apollo; the area surrounding her temple is home to some of the oldest finds on

Delos. It is thought that Delos was originally her sanctuary, rather than that of Apollo.

The base – the exact shape and orientation of which has itself been a matter of

considerable discussion – has been associated with a freestanding statue of a winged

woman, depicted in a kneeling running pose, found nearby.160 The statue has long been

labeled a running Nike, but may possibly be a statue of a winged Artemis. The

identification of the statue with the base has been made partially based on the fact that

Archermos was said by a Hellenistic scholiast to be the first sculptor to make a Nike with

wings. Ridgeway argues that the statue depicts Artemis “as a winged goddess in her

fearful aspect.”161

The inscription on the statue base emphasizes the Chian origins of the dedicator,

Micciades. Both Micciades and Archermos were from Chios, which was founded by the

159 There has been considerable debate about the restoration of this inscription, but here I have chosen to follow the translation provided in Boardman, Greek Sculpture: The Archaic Period.

160 There is much literature studying this statue. For more information, see B. S. Ridgeway, “The Nike of Archermos and Her Attire” in Chios: A Conference at the Homerion in Chios, eds. John Boardman and C. E. Vaphopoulou-Richardson (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), 259 – 274 and John Boardman, Greek Sculpture: The Archaic Period, 71 – 72, fig. 103.

161 Ridgway, “The Nike of Archermos and her Attire,” 173

mythical Melas, son of Poseidon. Pliny, who evidently saw this inscription, appears to

have misread it and maintains that Melas is the father of Micciades: “Before these artists

were in existence, there had already appeared Melas, a sculptor of the Isle of Chios; and,

in succession to him, his son Micciades, and his grandson Archermus; whose sons,

Bupalus and Athenis, afterwards attained the highest eminence in the art.” (Pliny, Natural

History 36.4) While Pliny is probably confused about Melas here, there is no reason to

doubt that Micciades was the father of Archermos. There is no evidence, however, that

Micciades was also a sculptor. Micciades is also known from another inscription on

Paros, a dedication to Apollo. 162 The characters of that inscription, like the one of the

Delian inscription, are carved in the Parian script.163

Archermos was a prominent sculptor of the Archaic Period; hence his inclusion

by Pliny in his discussion of the first great sculptors. Pliny suggests that Chios owes its

fame to the works of Archermos and his sons: “these artists executed a number of statues

in the neighboring islands; at Delos for example, with an inscription subjoined to the

effect, that Chios was rendered famous not only by its vines but by the works of the sons

of Archermos as well.” Pliny says that Archermos and his sons were responsible for a

number of statues in the neighboring islands. He specifically mentions the inscription on

Delos, and says that Archermos had statues on Lesbos. Archermos’ signature has also

162 IG XII 5 147

163 Why the Parian script? Jeffrey (reluctantly) includes ID 9 as an example of the Parian script, because it resembles the Parian script in its use of o-vowels, though they are inconsistent. He suggests that the Parian script was used because the inscription was carved by a local sculptor. Boardman suggests that Archermus’ studio was on Paros.

been found on the Acropolis in Athens. Two dedications on the Acropolis in Athens

have been associated with Archermos: a column with his signature and a dedication from

Iphidike and another signature of an unnamed Chian.164

Here we can observe the strength of the “in between” location of Delos and the

Cyclades. Archermos, although originally from Chios, is thought to have had his

workshop on the island of Paros.165 Archermos was known as a prominent sculptor

across the Aegean Sea; this is indicated by his inclusion in Pliny’s list of the first great

sculptors and by evidence of his work on the Acropolis at Athens. Like many of the other

dedications on Delos, the Running Nike statue is a “world premiere”, the first of its kind.

Delos here is a central location between Chios and Athens, one where the advertisement

of his sculpting abilities could resonate to both coasts of the Aegean Sea.

164Boardman, Greek Sculpture: The Archaic Period, 88

165 Boardman, Greek Sculpture: The Archaic Period

Samos

Samos is located in Ionia, on the eastern edge of the Aegean Sea. Samos is one of

the two island members of the Twelve Cities of Ionia (the other being Chios). Herodotus

maintains that they had a dialect of Greek entirely their own and distinct from the other

three Ionian dialects (Herodotus 1.142). Herodotus also says of the Samians that “of all

the Greeks, they have made the three greatest works of construction”: an underground

channel that brought spring water into the city designed by Eupalinus, a harbor mole, and

the Rhoecus temple, which Herodotus says was “the greatest temple that I have ever

seen” (3.60).

Barron and Shipley have argued that Samos was ruled by a monarchy until about

700 BCE, when an oligarchy was established by the Geomoroi (landsharers). A tyranny

was established in early sixth century by an ancestor of Polycrates, Syloson. Syloson was

succeeded by Polycrates’ father Aietes; after a period of stasis, Polycrates succeeded his

father to the position of turannos.166 Carty argues that this entire history should be revised; in particular that it was Polycrates who first established the tyranny and that he did not inherit the position of turannos. She posits that Syloson should be assigned to the

fifth century, and that only after the reign of Polycrates did the leadership of Samos

become a family affair. This is not to say that Polycrates’ father, Aietes, did not hold a

position of power and wealth in Samos, however; the evidence Carty brings together

166 Graham Shipley, A History of Samos: 800 – 188 BCE, (Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1987); John Barron, “The Sixth-Century Tyranny at Samos,” Classical Quarterly 14, No. 2 (1964): 210 - 229

paints a picture of a powerful man, who indulged his son and groomed him for a position

of power.167

Polycrates, then, arose as turannos out of an environment of factional competition

– not unlike most of his contemporary turannoi across Greece. Herodotus says of

Polycrates’ accession to power that he came to power with his two brothers, Pantagnotus

and Syloson, and the three divided the island into three parts. Not long after coming to

power, however, he killed Pantagnotus and banished Syloson, making himself the sole

ruler of Samos (Herodotus 3.39). The dates of his tyranny have traditionally been given as 532-522 BCE. The date at which he seized power – the fourth year of the 61st

Olympiad according to the Christian chronographer Eusebius – has been a matter of some

debate. Consensus has accepted an earlier date of c. 540 for Polycrates’ accession to

power; Carty argues for an even earlier date in the early 540s BCE, around the time that

Croesus was defeated by Persia.168 Consequently, it appears that Polycrates ruled as

turannos for perhaps twice as long as previously thought.

Polyaenus, in one of his stratagems, describes Polycrates’s accession to power

(1.23). He say that Polycrates took power during a procession to dedicate weapons to

Hera; his brothers, who were in charge of the procession, attacked the other participants

during the prayer, after they had deposited their weapons (dedications to the goddess) on

the altar. Meanwhile, Polycrates fortified himself in the citadel called Astypaleia, where

167 Aideen Carty, Polycrates, tyrant of Samos: new light on Archaic Greece, (Franz Steiner Verlag: Stuttgart, 2015)

168 Carty, Polycrates, tyrant of Samos, 12-13, Chapter 3

he waited for reinforcements from Lygdamis, turannos of Naxos, which then enabled him

to seize the tyranny of Samos. This account of Polycrates’ coup paints Polycrates’

character as impious and disrespectful to the gods; he and his brothers seized power by

taking advantage of the helplessness of others during a religious ritual. Like the account of Herodotus, Polyaenus points to both a violent coup and the involvement of Polycrates’ bothers. He also testifies to the involvement of Lygdamis of Naxos as an ally of

Polycrates; this is especially interesting as Lygdamis – before he was turnannos of Naxos

– helped Peisitratus of Athens come to power as turannos for the third time.

Additionally, while there is no direct evidence that Lygdamis himself dedicated to Apollo

at Delos, Naxos was a significant presence on the island, suggesting that Lygdamis

almost certainly had interactions with the island. All three of these turannoi, then, allied

with each other in their accessions to power and were associated with Delos.

Polycrates and Samos were at the center of a vast network of international ties of

xenia. The time during which Polycrates ruled was also a period of geopolitical

instability, as regional powers were consolidated into the Persian Empire. Polycrates,

then, had the task of maintaining Samian sovereignty during a period of precarious and

shifting alliances. The Samians had been xenoi with Croesus and the Lydians; the

relationship with Croesus was severed when Lydia was conquered by the Persians in 547.

Polycrates’ relationship with the Egyptian Amasis also reflects this turmoil. The

relationship between Samos and other Greek poleis also reflects this, as we can see in the

break between Polycrates and the traditional xenoi of Samos in Sparta.

100

The conquest of Lydia by Cyrus was the cause of great concern for the city-states of Ionia, who had remained loyal to Croesus during the conflict (Herodotus 1.141-143).

According to Herodotus, the cities of Ionia approached Cyrus after his victory, but were

rebuffed with a story about a flute-player and fish; the flute-player said to the fish who danced only when they had been captured by a net “Stop your dancing now, for when I piped to you, you would not come shoreward to dance.” Like the fish, the cities of Ionia were willing to dance to Cyrus’s tune only after being captured and given no alternative.

Only Miletus had previously made an agreement with Cyrus; the remaining city-states gathered at Panionium and sent messengers to Sparta to request help.

At this point, Herodotus puts forth that the islands were not in any danger, “for the Phoenicians were not yet subjects of Persia, and the Persians were no sailors (1.143).”

Despite the fact that Samos may not have faced an immediate threat from Persia, the shifting geopolitical landscape must have been of considerable concern; it was this unstable situation that Polycrates inherited when he came to power. Carty has compellingly argued that the date of Polycrates’ accession to power should be revised upward, to c. 550 or the early 540s, likely a year or two before the fall of Lydia.169 Based

on the timeline that she has reconstructed for the life of Polycrates, he would have come

to power in his twenties, and been only briefly in power when Samos’ traditional xenos

Croesus fell to Cyrus. For the rest of his life, Polycrates had to contend with the growing

169 Carty, Polycrates, tyrant of Samos, 88

101

and encroaching power of the Persian Empire, attempting to preserve Samian

sovereignty.

Polycrates’ friendship with Amasis of Egypt, in this context, appears to be an

attempt to court a powerful ally to aid him in resisting Persian control. Amasis, king of

Egypt, is perhaps Polycrates’ most powerful xenos in the literary sources, and Herodotus

devotes considerable text to describing their relationship and its dissolution. According

to Herotodus, Polycrates established an agreement of xenia with Amasis following his seizure of sole rule of Samos in about 550 BCE. The revision of this date upward again puts Polycrates’ relationship with Amasis in a significantly different context. Rather than occurring a decade or more after the defeat of Croesus, this friendship was formed at the time of that defeat, a period during which Herodotus describes the Ionian city-states as being anxious about their future (Herodotus 1.141-143). Polycrates sent gifts to Amasis, and Amasis sent gifts to him in return (3.39). As well, we are told elsewhere by

Herodotus that Amasis sent gifts to Hera on Samos; two wooden statues of himself

(2.182). It is significant here that Amasis cements this relationship of xenia not just by exchanging gifts with Polycrates, but also by giving a gift to Hera at the Heraion.

Amasis features in the first of the Samian logoi, about Polycrates’ ring.

According to the story related by Herodotus, Polycrates had such great fortune that this worried Amasis, who feared the jealousy of the gods. Amasis recommended to

Polycrates that he dispose of the item that was most precious to him. On this advice,

Polycrates threw his most treasured possession, a ring, into the middle of the sea. Soon thereafter, a fisherman presented Polycrates with a large and beautiful fish as a gift; when

102 the fish was cut open, the ring was inside. On hearing this, Amasis dissolved his xenia with Polycrates, realizing that “it was impossible for one man to deliver his fellow man from what is by fate to happen to him, and that Polycrates, despite his entire success, would not end well, since he had also found what he had cast away.” (Herodotus 3.39-43)

This story is interesting in that it forecasts Polycrates’ bad end at the hands of the

Persian satrap Oreotes, and also that it lays the responsibility for the dissolution of the bond of xenia between Polycrates and Amasis on Amasis. In fact, it seems likely that

Polycrates severed ties with Amasis when Cambyses was preparing to attack Egypt, after he had forged a bond of xenia with Cambyses. Immediately after the story about the ring,

Herodotus tells us that “Polycrates, in secret from the people of Samos, sent a message to

Cambyses, who was at that time collecting an army against Egypt, asking him to send to himself in Samos and request help for the expedition.” On receiving this message,

Cambyses asked Polycrates to send a fleet against the Egyptians. Polycrates did so, choosing his political enemies, and told Cambyses not to send them home again (3.44). In an about face from the story about the ring, Polycrates is depicted as an opportunistic turncoat, who betrays his xenos Amasis and even offers help to Cambyses in his invasion of Egypt. He keeps these things secret from the people of Samos, taking advantage of the opportunity to dispose of some political enemies in what must have seemed a covert way

– they would all presumably be lost at sea or in the battle.

This image of Polycrates, of a ruthless despot who could not be trusted, even by his friends, is illustrated by the relationship between Samos and Sparta during this period.

There were significant links of xenia between Samos and Sparta in the early sixth

103

century, which Cartledge has called “a special relationship”.170 The evidence of

Laconian pottery and bronze finds on Samos supports this contention. A considerable

proportion of the corpus of Laconian pottery has been found on Samos; leading Carty to

conclude that it “strongly suggests the importance of Samian links with Sparta in the

sixth century BC.”171 A considerable number of Laconian bronzes have also been found on Samos; Rolley describes the Samian collection of Laconian bronzes as “the richest accumulation in Ionia.”172 Nafissi has argued that Laconian ware almost disappeared

from Samos in about 550 BCE; a claim disputed by Carty, who points to Laconian ware

finds that extend the Laconian ware sequence in Samos down to the 520’s. Both agree,

however, that at about 550 there was a significant change in the Samian-Spartan relationship, coinciding with the alleged acts of Samian piracy against the Spartans.

It was at about this time that Samos allegedly committed two acts of piracy

against Sparta, according to the Herodotus, both of which targeted valuable gifts to their

xenoi: a bronze mixing bowl meant for Croesus and a breastplate meant for Amasis. The

Spartans had established a relationship of xenia with Croesus, and as a gift they sent a

large bronze mixing bowl, which Herodotus says had a capacity of three hundred

amphoras. The mixing bowl was decorated on the outside with little figures around the

170 Carty, Polycrates, tyrant of Samos, 93; P. Cartledge, "Sparta and Samos: A Special Relationship?" Classical Quarterly. 32, no. 2 (1982): 243-265; 253

171 Carty, Polycrates, tyrant of Samos, 94; 313 pieces of Laconian pottery have been found on Samos, out of a total corpus of 1300 pieces, 24% of the current corpus. In contrast, only 131 pieces have been found in Laconia up to the 1989 season.

172 Claude Rolley, Greek Bronzes (London: Sotheby's Publications/Chesterman Publications, 1986), 122

104

rim - it was, Herodotus says, a gift meant to match Croesus’ gift of gold for the statue of

Apollo (1.69-70). The mixing bowl never reached Croesus, however; the Spartans

claimed that it was stolen by Samian pirates. The Samians laid the blame at the feet of the

Spartans, saying that they had heard of Croesus’ defeat and sold the bowl on Samos. If

the mixing bowl was in transit at the time of Croesus’ defeat in 547 BCE, this would have

been shortly after Polycrates seized power. One of his early acts as turannos, then, was

to raid the traditional xenoi with Samos. This act was to have long ranging implications;

the Spartans later attacked Samos when asked for their help by some Samian exiles.

Herodotus says that they did so because “they themselves wanted to take revenge for the

theft of the bowl that the Samians stole from them when they were taking it up to

Croesus, and also the theft of the breastplate that Amasis, king of Egypt, had sent to

them, the Spartans as a gift.” (3.45-47) The breastplate was evidently stolen the year before the bowl, and, like the bowl, was a spectacular and valuable gift: “The breastplate was of linen and with many figures woven into it, and decorated with gold and cotton embroidery. The greatest wonder of it is that each single fine thread of the fabric has in itself three hundred and sixty strands, and they can all be seen to be there.” The alleged theft of the mixing bowl, then, was not an isolated incident – in the years immediately after Polycrates came to power, two valuable guest gifts were stolen from the Spartans while they were transported across the Aegean, acts of piracy against traditional Samian xenoi.

The find locations of Laconian pottery on Samos also appear to point to a shift in this relationship, as Spartan dedications shift from the Heraion – associated with

105

Polycrates – to the Artemision. Carty points to an interesting pattern in the find locations

of Laconian ware on Samos – in the beginning of the sixth century, the majority of the

finds are at the Heraion. Finds at the Heraion start to drop off in the second quarter of the

sixth century, while finds at the Artemision sharply increase. The peak period at the

Heraion is in the second quarter of the sixth century BCE, while the peak period at the

Artemision was in the third quarter of the sixth century BCE. Finds at both locations

drop sharply after the third quarter of the sixth century BCE, and completely drop off in

the 520’s, a date corresponding with the drop-off in finds of Laconian bronzes in about

530 BCE.

Carty points out that the quality of the Laconian ware found in the Artemision between 550 and 525 is comparable to that found in the Heraion before 550; both collections include some rare shapes like the chalice and the two handed mug. While the

Artemision seems to have been the recipient of high quality dedications following 550

BCE, at the same time, the quality of the finds at the Heraion between 550 and 540 is described by Carty as “mediocre”. Carty summarizes the implications of these trends: 173

Overall, in the case of Laconian ware, the period c. 550 would seem to suggest that Spartans were no longer visiting the Samian Heraion, after Laconian worshops’ links with Sparta become tenuous or are broken. Meanwhile there was an attempt at self-definition and distinction through taste and preferences at Samian cult centres, with Spartan art evident only at the Artemision from this time, when the Laconian workshops appear to be deracinated, their artists having become itinerants.

173 Carty, Polycrates, tyrant of Samos, 100

106

Carty suggests that the Samian relationship with Sparta “had gone sour” by 547

BCE; this is indicated by both the alleged acts of Samian piracy against Sparta and the

Ionians’ choice of a Phocaean to plead for assistance from Sparta against Cyrus. She suggests that if the Heraion was controlled by the ruler of Samos, the shift of Laconian ware from the Heraion to the Artemision is an indication of “some political disconnection between the Spartan and Samian ruling groups.” Spartan relationships of xenia were not with Polycrates, the ruler of Samos, but with his political enemies; they not only dedicated to the Artemision rather than to the Heraion, spurning the “official” cult of

Samos, but dedicated Laconian ware as evidence of their pro-Laconian leanings, and to mark out their status and identity in opposition to Polycrates. This is further supported by the fact that in 525 BCE Sparta launched an attack on Samos in support of some Samian exiles (Herodotus 3.44-46, 54-59).

Polycrates was at the head of a powerful navy, a thalassacracy said to be second only to that of Minos. In his archaeology, Thucydides says that the Corinthians were the first of the Greeks to make galleys, and that Ameinocles, a Corinthian shipwright, made four ships for Samos.

“Subsequently the Ionians attained to great naval strength in the reign of Cyrus, the first king of the Persians, and of his son Cambyses, and while they were at war with the former commanded for a while the Ionian Sea. Polycrates also, the tyrant of Samos, had a powerful navy in the reign of Cambyses with which he reduced many of the islands, and among them Rhenea, which he consecrated to the Delian Apollo.” Thucydides 1.13

Thucydides returns to the subject of Polycrates’ naval power again when he describes the island of Rheneia in a digression during his discussion of Peisistratus’ 107

purification of Delos: “Rhenea, which is so near to Delos that Polycrates, tyrant

of Samos, having added Rhenea to his other island conquests during his period of naval

ascendancy, dedicated it to the Delian Apollo by binding it to Delos with a chain”

(3.104).

Herodotus gives us greater detail about the nature of Polycrates’ thalassacracy; namely, that it was built on piracy, and that Polycrates was willing to raid both friend and foe – sometimes with consequences for his relationships of xenia. Herodotus says that:

He got himself one hundred pentaconters and a thousand archers, and he harried and plundered every state without distinction. He said that he would win more gratitude by giving back to a friend what he had taken than never having seized it in the first place. He captured a great number of the islands and many of the towns on the mainland. Among his conquests were the Lesbians. They had come in full force to the rescue of the Milesians, but he beat them in a sea battle, and it was they who in chains dug the whole of the trench around the fortification of Samos. (3.39)

Diodorus points to the ruthlessness of Polycrates’ rule over the sea, as well as his willingness to harass anyone – friend or foe – to assert that dominance:

Polycrates the tyrant of the Samians, used to dispatch triremes to the most suitable places and plunder all who were on the seas, and he would return the booty which he had taken only to those who were allies of his. And to those of his companions who criticized this practice he used to say that all his friends would feel more grateful to him by getting back what they had lost than by having lost nothing in the first place. (10.16.1) Here Polycrates cares only about profit and plunder; he has no respect for his friends or allies.

108

Piracy, and the wealth accrued through such actions (possibly through supplying

Greek captives to serve in the Egyptian military, as suggested by Carty174) clearly were

central elements in the construction of Polycrates’ authority as turannos. Piracy also

acted as a mediating factor in Polycrates’ relationships with his xenoi – as seen above,

even the xenoi of Polycrates were not immune from being raided. It is the support of his

navy that Polycrates extends to Cambyses, and it was through piracy and naval power

that Polycrates was able to supply Amasis of Egypt with slaves. Piracy was not just a

way for Polycrates to demonstrate his dominance over the Aegean, or to acquire wealth

which he could use for conspicuous display on Samos – to fund such impressive public

works projects as the underground channel and harbor mole mentioned by Herodotus –

piracy and naval power were integral in cementing Polycrates’ relationship of xenia with certain xenoi. In the traditional exchange of “gifts”, Polycrates’ gift was his navy and the spoils that it produced.

The dedication of Rheneia and the attachment of the island to Delos by means of a chain are clearly set in the context of Polycrates’ naval power in our sources, and are generally seen as a display of Polycrates’ dominance over the Aegean by many scholars.

Thucydides mentions the dedication of Rheneia twice, and both times, he places it in the context of Polycrates’ naval power.

Polycrates also, the tyrant of Samos, had a powerful navy in the reign of Cambyses with which he reduced many of the islands, and among them Rhenea, which he consecrated to the Delian Apollo. Thucydides 1.13

174 Carty, Polycrates, tyrant of Samos, Chapter 7

109

All the sepulchres of those that had died in Delos were taken up, and for the future it was commanded that no one should be allowed either to die or to give birth to a child in the island; but that they should be carried over to Rhenea, which is so near to Delos that Polycrates, tyrant of Samos, having added Rhenea to his other island conquests during his period of naval ascendancy, dedicated it to the Delian Apollo by binding it to Delos with a chain. Thucydides 3.104

Piracy, then, was not just the vehicle that allowed Polycrates to cement his relationship of xenia with other powerful men such as Amasis and Cambyses, it also was instrumental in his relationship with Delian Apollo. Modern scholars have followed

Thucydides in associating the dedication of Rheneia with Samian power.

Polycrates’ intervention at Delos is usually placed just before his death, ca. 522

BCE, because of the connection drawn between his death and Delos by the explanation given of the saying “Both Pythia and Delia are [the same] to you.” recorded in the Suda and Photius.175 Mitchell suggests that the acquisition of a Persian navy in the years before

Polycrates’ death would have prevented Polycrates from attacking the coast of Ionia, and that he instead turned his attention to the western part of the Aegean Sea.176 Parke

concurs that Polycrates’ motivations were primarily strategic, pointing to the similar

intervention of Peisistratus on Delos, and suggesting that when a turannos forcibly intervenes in the Cyclades, a gesture of ritual dedication to Apollo on Delos is necessary.177 Carty agrees that the dedication is a demonstration of political dominance,

175 Suda sv. Tauta soi kai pythia kai delia

176 B. M. Mitchell, “Herodotus and Samos,” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 95 (1975): 75-91.

177 H. W. Parke, “Polycrates and Delos,” The Classical Quarterly 40 (1946): 105-108.

110 but suggests that the events should not be seen as linked so closely chronologically to

Polycrates’ death.178 Carty argues that we should take a more cautious approach to the historicity of this account, and that it would have made more sense for Polycrates to have intervened in either 528 BCE (on the death of Peisistratus) or in 525 BCE (when

Lygdamis of Naxos was deposed by the Spartans).179 Despite debate over the exact timing of the dedication, it is clear that it was a politically strategic move, allowing

Polycrates to take advantage of the absence of Delian Apollo’s powerful patrons and establish himself as the premiere patron of Delian Apollo.

The location of Delos lends itself to such a statement. Delos was the recipient of gifts from across and even beyond the Greek world, as Callimachus makes clear in his

Hymn to Delos. Callimachus situates Delos in the very center of the world. When describing the Cyclades, he says that they are like a choir encircling Delos – again pointing to Delos at the center, this time of the Cyclades. In the assertion of Callimachus that Delos is at the center – the center of the Cyclades, and further, the center of the world

– it is hard not to see a comparison with Delphi, the ompahalos or navel of the world.

Both these significant sanctuaries to Apollo act as central places for the Greek world – and, like Apollo himself, are both central and remote. Delos was not just a central point within the Cyclades; rather, as is evidenced by the range of peoples who visited Delos, they were at a central point in the Aegean Sea, at the center of an imaginary triangle

178 Carty, Polycrates of Samos, Chapter 5

179 Carty, Polycrates of Samos, 202

111 created by mainland Greece, Ionia, and Crete. The centrality of Delos made it an appropriate place for Polycrates to demonstrate his power.

On the face of it, the dedication itself seems fantastical and ludicrous – he dedicated an entire island and attached it with a chain. What seems outrageous to us in the twenty first century often hides practical concerns for the ancient Greeks. In fact, behind the spectacular nature of the gift, there are two practical concerns: first, to establish a source of income for the expanding sanctuary of Apollo, and second, to fix

Delos in place and prevent it from floating away.

The point at which Polycrates made his dedication – in the second half of the sixth century, sometime between 528 and 522 BCE – was one of growth for the sanctuary of Apollo at Delos.180 One problem faced by the sanctuary was that of money – Delos is a rocky, barren island that has little to attract people to it, or to produce goods with which to support those people. This characteristic of Delos is emphasized in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo (HH3), where Delos is described as “rocky” and “sea-girt”. Delos expresses fear that Apollo will find her unsatisfactory, as “truly I have a hard, rocky soil” (HH3 50-

75). Delos provided few resources to support a human settlement, let alone a major sanctuary. The dedication of Rheneia by Polycrates provided a solution to that problem by creating the temple estate of Delos. Basically, the dedication of Rheneia is a land grant, providing the cult of Apollo with income from renting out the land. Many sanctuaries in Greece received income from real estate holdings, called temple estates;

180 Birgitta Bergquist, The Archaic Greek Temenos, 26-30

112

only at Delos have sufficient records survived to examine those estates in detail over

several centuries.181 While the date at which the sanctuary began to lease farm land is

unknown, such leases appear to be among the earliest of the sources of temple income. It

is likely that the dedication of Rheneia was the earliest of the real estate holdings in the

temple estate of Delos.182

The dedication of the island itself, then, had a practical purpose. What of the

detail added by Thucydides about the chain: Polycrates “dedicated it to the Delian Apollo

by binding it to Delos with a chain” (3.104)? This comes off initially as pure spectacle, an element included to ensure the memorialization of the gift. Again, however, there appears to be more than the desire to stand out behind this element of the story. There are other religious rituals which fixed one object to another, such as the Tonia at Samos. In the

Tonia, the cult statue of Hera was brought to the Imbrasos River, bathed, and bound to a lygos tree.183 This peculiar ritual appears to be a response to a myth about the theft of

Hera’s statue by Tyrrhenian pirates. Atheneus says that after the statue was taken, and

found, those who found it bound it so that it could not run off again: “And they, like

Carian barbarians, as they were, thinking that the statue had run away of its own accord,

bound it to a fence made of osiers, and took all the longest branches on each side and

181 John Harvey Kent, “The Temple Estates of Delos, Rheneia, and Mykonos,” Hesperia 17, no. 4 (1948): 243-338.

182 Kent, “The Temple Estates of Delos, Rheneia, and Mykonos,” 245

183 Aideen Carty, Polycrates, Tyrant of Samos, 203 fn2; Joan O’Brien, The Transformation of Hera: A Study of Ritual, Hero, and the Goddess in the Iliad (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 1993), 54-62

113

twined them round the body of the statue, so as to envelop it all round.” (15.672 a-e) The

Tonia recreated this ritual of loss and recovery, as well as the binding of the statue so that it could not wander off on its own. In other words, there existed rituals (including one in

Samos itself) where objects were bound to prevent them from wandering off, or from loss or theft.

The statue of Hera was bound to a lygos tree – an immobile object - so that it could not wander off on its own. According to the version of the story told by Atheneus, the statue was bound to the tree after it was found, to prevent it from wandering off again.

Delos was also said in myth to wander; it floated, and was not fixed in a set place.

Callimachus makes reference to this tradition in his Hymn to Delos, writing: “But no constraint afflicted thee, but free upon the open sea thou didst float; and thy name of old was Asteria, since like a star thou didst leap from heaven into the deep moat, fleeing wedlock with Zeus (Hymn IV to Delos lines 28-51).” It is likely that the attachment of

Rheneia to Delos by the chain was a religious ritual, meant to prevent Delos from continuing to wander, just as the ritual in the Tonia prevented the cult statue of Hera from wandering.

While we should certainly see this gift as a demonstration of Polycrates’ authority over the Cyclades and the Aegean, that does not mean that this was the only motivation.

In addition to a demonstration of authority and dominance, Polycrates’ gift signifies his

Greekness, and links him more closely with the Greeks of the mainland – an identity that would have needed to be strengthened, given his actions across the Cyclades and the

Aegean. While Samos was one of the twelve poleis of Ionia, Samos was in some ways

114

set apart from their Ionian peers. They spoke a dialect of Greek distinct from the other

Ionian poleis and had strong relationships with non-Greeks, such as Amasis and

Cambyses. Polycrates also showed himself willing to attack the ships of other Greeks as

well as to attack other Greek poleis. Polycrates broke with the traditional Samian xenoi the Spartans, ultimately provoking a failed invasion by Sparta with the help of Corinth and Samian exiles. Polycrates was known to be a ruthless pirate, who raided friend and foe alike. According to Herodotus, “He said that he would win more gratitude by giving back to a friend what he had taken than never having seized it in the first place” (3.39).

Polycrates alienated many Greek poleis in Ionia, on the mainland, and throughout the

Aegean Sea in between the two, which would have led to a need to reestablish his

Greekness through association with Delian Apollo. By making such a spectacular statement at Delos, Polycrates could achieve multiple goals – to demonstrate his power over the Cyclades, to reinforce his wealth and magnificence, to illustrate his Greekness, and to further strengthen his relationship with a powerful xenos, the god Apollo.

115

Chapter 3: Athens

Athens and Delos in the Classical Era

Delos played a significant role in Athenian affairs of state in the Classical Period

as the center of their interpolis alliance, the Delian League. Significant state resources

were spent on Delos during this period: the Athenians performed a second purification of the island where all graves on Delos were moved to Rheneia (Thucydides 3.104) and built a second temple to Apollo (later known as the Temple of the Athenians).184 To the

Athenians of the Classical Period, it was clear that Athens had a special relationship with

the island of Delos and Delian Apollo from an early period in their history. This

relationship extended back to the Athenian hero and founding father, Theseus, who was

credited as the founder of many of the important rituals of Apollo’s cult (Plutarch, Life of

Theseus 21). The perceived antiquity of this relationship is also indicated by the association of Delos with Solon, who called Athens the “oldest land of Ionia” in one of his poetry fragments (Solon fragment 28; Aristotle, Athenian Constitution 5.2). Officials related to the festivals on Delos, known as the deliastes, were also mentioned in a purported “law of Solon.” There appears to have been a Delion in Athens where rituals to

Delian Apollo were undertaken on an annual basis,185 as well as Delions at Marathon and

184 Bruneau and Ducat, Guide de Délos, 183-184 (#12); Courby, Les Temples d’Apollon, 107-205

185 Robert Parker, Polytheism and Society at Athens, 82

116

Praesiae. The Athenians also sent theoriai to festivals at Delos, which they saw as an

imitation of the voyage of Theseus.

The legendary king and hero of Athens, Theseus, was the earliest of the Athenians to be associated with Delos. He stopped at Delos on his voyage home from Crete, after successfully slaying the Minotaur. Plutarch tells us that prior to leaving for Crete,

Theseus had sacrificed to Apollo at the Delphinium in Athens on behalf of the youths selected to go with him (Plutarch, Life of Theseus 18.1). It seems, then, to be appropriate for them to stop on their journey home to thank Apollo for their well-being. Here Delos benefits from location – Delos is midway between Athens and Crete, while a dedication at Delphi would have required an additional trip after arriving home at Athens. If we are to believe the testimony of Plato, this was a planned stop on the way home, and while at the Delphinium in Athens, Theseus had vowed that if he and his companions returned safely, Athens would send an annual delegation to Delos (Plato, Phaedo 58a-c).

While on Delos, Theseus sacrificed to Apollo. Theseus also dedicated to Apollo the image of Aphrodite that Ariadne had given him. He and the youths accompanying him also danced the Crane Dance, “a dance which they say is still performed by the

Delians, being an imitation of the circling passages in the Labyrinth, and consisting of certain rhythmic involutions and evolutions” (Plutarch, Life of Theseus 21). They danced the Crane Dance around the Keraton, or the Altar of Horns. Theseus is also credited with starting athletic contests on Delos, as well as starting the tradition of giving a palm to the victors of those contests.

117

Callimachus says that

“Then, too, is the holy image laden with garlands, the famous image of ancient Cypris whom of old Theseus with the youths established when he was sailing back from Crete. Having escaped the cruel bellowing and the wild son of Pasiphaë and the coiled habitation of the crooked labyrinth, about thine altar, O lady, they raised the music of the lute and danced the round dance, and Theseus led the choir. Hence the ever-living offerings of the Pilgrim Ship do the sons of Cecrops send to Phoebus, the gear of that vessel.” Hymn to Delos

Here we see many of the same associations that we saw in Plutarch – Theseus, after leaving Crete, stopped on Delos and brought with him a statue of Aphrodite. He and his companions sang and danced the “round dance” around Apollo’s altar, with Theseus leading the choir. Finally, Callimachus makes reference to the yearly pilgrimage sent to

Delos in celebration of their victory. The metaphor here is interesting – because Theseus has defeated the Minotaur (who wanted to devour the Athenian youths), Athens will send an annual “ever living” offering to Delos; the youths are transformed from an offering to the Minotaur to one to Apollo.

Theseus thus acts here as the heroic ancestor par excellence, establishing some of most significant and persistent aspects of ritual at Delos. While Theseus was a mythical figure, this situates Athens as involved with Delos from their earliest time in their imagination. The Athenians saw themselves as the “Mother City of the Ionians”, responsible for the very creation of the cult of Delian Apollo (or at least the ritual acts associated with it), itself (according to the Hymn to Apollo) a central gathering place for the Ionians. These were powerful ideas, which would surely inspire individuals and

118

groups to participate in this tradition, as they too, could symbolically become Theseus or

one of the youths who traveled to Crete with him.

One significant way that Athens engaged with Delos in the Classical Period was

through participation in festivals and other activities at Delos. Sending an annual

delegation, or theoria, was seen to have its roots in a vow made by Theseus before he

went to Crete to slay the Minotaur. In Plato’s Phaedo, he indicates that the journey to

Delos by the theoria is meant to be seen as an imitation of the one by Theseus and his

companions. The subject comes up because Socrates’ execution was delayed, as no one

could be executed until the ship had left and returned. Plato is explicit here, saying that

the Athenians vowed that if Theseus and his companions returned safely they would send

a mission each year to Delos. Delos, then, appears to have been an intentionally chosen

stop on the return journey of Theseus. Presumably this vow was made when Theseus

visited the Delphinium in Athens before the journey. Plato also tells us that the journey begins when the priest of Apollo crowns the ship. (58a-c).

Literary evidence of these theoriai and religious officials charged with dealing with Delos again indicates the perceived antiquity of Athens’ relationship with Delos.

The deliasts were supposedly mentioned in the laws of Solon, which specified that “two members of the genos of Kerykes were to ‘serve as fellow diners in the Delion for a year.’”186 Parker argues that the deliasts played a role in the theoria to Delos, and were

assisted by the two members of the Kerykes. He further postulates the existence of a

186 Parker, Polytheism and Society at Athens, 82

119

Delion in Athens which would presumably be the site of such meals. He suggests that

this Delion could also have served as a rehearsal hall for the dancers who would dance at

Delos. The theoria to Delos also merited mention in the Athenian Constitution, which

notes the election of ten “Yearly Sacrificial Officers” who administer all quadrennial

festivals with the exception of the Panatheneia. One of these festivals was the mission to

Delos, which the Athenian Constitution notes was also celebrated on every sixth year

(Aristotle, Athenian Constitution 54.7). The theoria for the quadrennial festival to Apollo consisted of both a theoria and a chorus. It was one of the jobs of the Archon to appoint

“choregoi for Delos, and a chief of the sacred embassy to take the young people on the thirty-oared vessel. (Aristotle, Athenian Constitution 56.3)” Here the word used for the youths is a word frequently used to describe the youths who accompanied Theseus to

Crete. Sending a chorus was seen as a reenactment of the voyage of Theseus. The

Athenian Constitution also mentions that the sacred commissioners to Delos were paid one drachma a day for their service (62.2).

Another theoria was sent on behalf of the Marathonian Tetrapolis – a religious organization composed of the demes of Marathon, Tricorytnthus, Oinoe, and

Probalinthus.187 The Tetrapolis was said to have been founded by Xouthos, the father of

Ion (Strabo 8.7.1). It sent independent theoriai to both Delphi and Delos. There appears to have been a Delion in Marathon, from which the theoria would have set out after

187 On the Marathonian Tetrapolis, see Robert Parker, Athenian Religion¸ 111, 331-2; Polytheism and Society at Athens, 82

120 observation of the omens there. There was also possibly a Delion at Prasiae, which may have been the starting point for one of the theoriai, based on the testimony of Pausanias:

At Prasiae is a temple of Apollo. Hither they say are sent the first-fruits of the Hyperboreans, and the Hyperboreans are said to hand them over to the Arimaspi, the Arimaspi to the Issedones, from these the Scythians bring them to Sinope, thence they are carried by Greeks to Prasiae, and the Athenians take them to Delos. The first-fruits are hidden in wheat straw, and they are known of none. There is at Prasiae a monument to Erysichthon, who died on the voyage home from Delos, after the sacred mission thither. Pausanias 1.31.2

Here, the Athenians have gained a part in the shipment of the first offerings of the

Hyperboreans, bypassing Karystos and Tenos. The Athenians escorted the offerings to

Delos, elevating themselves above the other participants in the network, who simply escorted them to the next point in their journey. The presence of a monument to

Erysichton, who died on the way home from Delos, has led some scholars to argue that this was the point from which the Athenian theoria set out, but it is not clear that we can state this with any certainty, particularly for the Archaic or Classical Periods.188 This certainly points to the significance of Delos to Athens by the time of Pausanias, but it is difficult to say what it means for earlier periods. Why did Herodotus not know of the inclusion of Athens in the network of the Hyperborean offerings? Is this simply later propaganda meant to insert Athens into yet another significant element of Delian cult and elevate themselves above the other cities who worshiped Delian Apollo?

188 Parker, Athenian Religion, 224-225

121

Earliest Evidence for Athenian Contacts

Clearly, Athenians of the Classical Period imagined a glorious past in which, starting with Theseus, they were dedicated followers of Delian Apollo, participating in festivals and sending offerings. The literary evidence for the antiquity of Athens’ relationship with Delos, however, either comes from the Classical Period or, in the case of the “law of Solon”, is of suspect date. What light can the material record shed on

Athenian contact with Delos?

The pottery of Athens is the only non-Cycladic pottery found on the island that dates to before 750 BCE, indicating that Athens was the earliest non-Cycladic

community to interact with Delos. 189 The island lacks clay beds, so there is no pottery

local to the island. The commonest pottery fabrics are those of Naxos and Paros, who, as

we saw in the previous chapter, played a significant role on Delos in the Archaic Period.

The presence of Athenian pottery on the island before 750 BCE heralds the international

future of the island and its sanctuary, but also points to a potential early Athenian interest

in the island.190 By 700 BCE, there is evidence of pottery from Corinth, Euboea, Crete, and Cyprus, indicating increasing non-Cycladic interest in the island.

The earliest Athenian pottery is of the Geometric Period. Athenian pottery is

found in considerably smaller quantities than pottery from the neighboring Cycladic

islands. Attic Pottery of the Geometric Period has been found in two primary places – the

area of the Artemision (the oldest part of the sanctuary to Apollo) and the purification

189 Coldstream, Geometric Greece, 213 - 216

190 Coldstream, Geometric Greece, 213 - 216

122

trench on Rheneia. Eighteen partial vases have been identified as Attic, although the

identification of six of these is in some doubt. There has been some disagreement among

scholars about the identification of the Cycladic pottery, and some vases present further

problems, as they are not clearly Attic or Cycladic. It is clear, however, that Attic pottery

is represented in numerous pieces. These pieces represent a number of types of vases,

both large and small, including amphoras, oinochoai, pyxides, and skyphoi.191

A considerably larger number of fragments of Attic pottery have been found at the Heraion (over 100 fragments have been identified as Athenian), the majority of which are of the black figure type. A small number of fragments of red figure Attic pottery have also been recovered from the Heraion, Again, Attic pottery is represented in a variety of vase types and sizes.192 The finds at the Heraion indicate the continuing presence of Attic pottery on the island after the earliest finds of the Geometric Period, through the Archaic

Period and into the Classical Period. Corinthian pottery appears throughout the Archaic

Period, but was surpassed by Attic pottery by the sixth century.193

There is presumably more black figure Attic pottery that has been found on the

island, but it has yet to be published systematically in the Exploration archéologique de

Délos series. Regardless, the evidence of the pottery fragments recovered from the area

of the Artemision, the purification trench on Rheneia, and the Heraion indicate the

191 Charles Dugas, Les vases préhelléniques et géométriques, Exploration archéologique de Délos 15 (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1934), 89-93; Gallet de Santerre, Délos primitive et archäique, 227.

192 Charles Dugas, Les Vases de l’Héraion, Exploration archéologique de Délos 10 (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1928), 157-190

193 Bruneau and Ducat, Guide de Délos, 132-133

123

increasing presence of Attic pottery on the island. The presence of Attic pottery suggests

interaction between Delos and Athenians.

Peisistratus and Athens

The Athenian turannos Peisistratus was known for his grand dedications to Delian

Apollo. These included, as mentioned above, purifying the area in the sanctuary within

sight of Apollo’s temple by removing all graves to Rheneia, the construction of the

temple known as the Porinos Naos, and a revival of the ancient festival to Apollo. On the

one hand, we know far more about Peisistratus than we do about most of the dedicators at

Delos. Despite this, however, there is much about Peisistrtaus and his tyranny that is

poorly understood.

The sources for the study of Peisistratus are all of the Classical Period and later;

even Herodotus did not write his Histories until nearly 50 years after the dissolution of

the Peisistratid tyranny in Athens. Sancisi-Weerdenburg writes of Herodotus’ portrayal of how the tyranny worked as “unconvincing”.194 Herodotus – like Thucydides and

Aristotle – may have access to some correct information, but he is trying to fit it into the

framework that describes the political culture of his own time, and this confused frame

for the information frustrates our understanding of politics in the Archaic Period.

Likewise, Thucydides and Aristotle want to insert Peisistratus into a constitutional

framework that reflects the poleis of the Classical Period, but is certainly not an accurate reflection of the early poleis of the Archaic Period.

194 Sancisi-Weerdenburg, “The Tyranny of Peisistratos”, 8-10 124

Herodotus tells us that Peisistratus came to power three times – losing it the first

two after brief periods of rule, and being able to sustain power only with the third

attempt. Attempts to firmly assign dates to each of these attempts are fraught with

difficulty, and present many problems.195

According to Herodotus and Aristotle, Peisistratus was the son of Hippocrates,

and a member of an old Eupatrid family in Attica (Aristotle, Athenian Constitution 28.2)

which claimed descent from the Neleids of Pylos (Herodotus 5.65).196 Plutarch relates

that he was a kinsman of Solon (Plutarch, Life of Solon 1) and may possibly have been a

relation of some sort to the rival Alkmeonid family, as his father’s name (Hippocrates) is

one attested in the Alkmeonid family.197 The earliest known member of the family was

also named Peisistratus, and served as an archon in 669/8 (Pausanias 2.24.7). According

to Plutarch, the family at one point lived on the east coast near Brauron, near the later

deme of Philaidai (Plutarch, Life of Solon 3). Peisistratus himself was a well-known

general, who had led a campaign against the Megarians and captured Nisaea, in addition

to other unnamed “great deeds” (Herodotus 1.59). According to Herodotus, Peisistratus

was the leader of the “Hill Folk” faction in Athens. He was opposed by two other

powerful Athenian aristocratic families, each of which led a faction of their own:

195 The chronology of Peisistratus’s reign has been the subject of considerable scholarship and debate. See Sancisi-Weerdenburg, “The Tyranny of Peisistratus”, 8-10 and “Cultural Politics and Chronology”; B. M. Lavelle, Fame, Money, and Power: The Rise of Peisistratos and “Democratic” Tyranny at Athens (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2005), especially pages 9-13, and Shapiro, Art and Cult Under the Tyrants in Athens, 2

196 Peisistratus’s rise to power is extensively discussed by Lavelle, Fame, Money, and Power, 17- 65.

197 Shapiro, Art and Cult Under the Tyrants in Athens, 2

125

Megacles of the Alkmeonid family led the Coast faction, and Lycurgus, son of

Aristolaides the Plain faction (Herodotus 1.59). These three factions likely did not correspond to geographic areas in Attica, as they have been remembered in the sources.

Rather, each was led by the representative of a powerful family in Athens, each competing with the others for power.198

The many rises and falls of Peisistratus from power are illustrative of the competitive nature of politics in the Archaic Period. He first came to power, according to

Herodotus, by deceiving the people of Athens into giving him a body guard of club- bearers, with whom he seized the Acropolis. This first seizure of power occurred in the archonship of Komeas, 561/0 BCE (Aristotle, the Athenian Constitution 14.1). This tyranny was short-lived, however, as Lycurgus and Megacles allied to drive Peisistratus out of Athens (Herodotus 1.59-60). This alliance was also short-lived, however, and next

Megacles and Peisistratus cooperated in an attempt to seize power. Peisistratus married the daughter of Megacles, and Megacles supported Peisistratus’ return to power. This return was accompanied by a public relations stunt, as Herodotus saw it, and which

Herodotus expresses considerable incredulity about:199

In order to bring about the restoration, they contrived between them by far the most simple-minded thing, in my judgement, that has ever been; for the Greek stock from the most ancient times has been distinguished from the barbarians for its cleverness; yet these men perpetrated the following trick on the Athenians. There was in the deme of Paeania a woman called Phya, and in stature she was but three fingers short of four cubits, and

198 Greg Anderson, The Athenian Experiment: Building an Imagined Political Community in Ancient Attica, 508-490 B.C. (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003), 27-34

199 On this episode in Peisistratid history, see especially Connor, “Phye’s Procession: Culture, Politics, and Peisistratid Rule”

126

beautiful besides. They fitted her with full armor, put her on a chariot, arranged her pose so that she would appear most striking, and drove her into the city. They sent heralds to run ahead of them, and these, when they arrived, spoke as they had been ordered: “Men of Athens, receive with good will Peisistratus, whom Athena herself, having honored him above all mankind, is bringing back from exile to her own Acropolis.” So the heralds went about, saying these things, and the word immediately spread through the demes that Athena was bringing Peisistratus back. The people in the city believed that this woman was the goddess herself and offered prayers to her, for all that she was only human, and they welcomed Peisistratus. Herodotus 1.60

According to Herodotus, this alliance broke up – and Peisistratus’ sovereignty over Athens dissolved with it – when the marriage with Megacles’ daughter ended, as

Peisistratus did not wish to have children with his new wife and lay with her “not after the customary manner” (Herodotus 1.61). Megacles was predictably angry, allied himself once again with Lycurgus, and Peisistratus –again – was cast out of Athens.

Anderson points out the logical inconsistency in this explanation, that it makes little sense for Peisistratus to enter into the marriage without intending to have children, and suggest that this was rather an Alkmeonid pretext to remove Peisistratus from the marriage and from power in Athens.200

These explanations do not fully explain how Peisistratus came to acquire power

over the Athenian state. In her critique of the primary sources for the study of

Peisistratus, Sancisi-Weerdenburg calls Herodotus’ explaination “unconvincing.” 201

Rather, the evidence best appears to fit the informal alliances and competition between

200Anderson, The Athenian Experiment, 69

201 Sancisi-Weerdenburg, “The Tyranny of Peisistratos, 8-10

127 powerful elites, each jockeying for informal (rather than institutional) power over the polis.

Peisistratus’ third rise to power is the only one in Herodotus’ narrative that appears to offer a convincing explanation of how he could have come to dominate the machinery of the Athenian polis. Peisistratus and his sons made their base at Eretria, where they prepared for ten years to retake Athens. During this time, they gathered money from any cities that owed them obligations. Herodotus tells us that while many cities furnished large sums, the Thebans gave the most. Along with money, they gathered allies – Argive mercenaries and Lygdamis, from Naxos (Herodotus 1.61). After a decade of raising money and gathering men, Peisistratus returned to Attica, where they first took Marathon. Allies of Peisistratus from Athens came out to join their force, as well as allies from throughout Attica. From Marathon, he was able to march on Athens.

The Athenians mustered a force which met with that of Peisistratus at the temple of

Pallenian Athena (Herodotus 1.62). The forces of Peisistratus were victorious, and

Peisistratus established his third tyranny in 546 BCE, which was to last until 510 BCE, when his sons were expelled from Athens.

While in power, Peisistratus does not appear to have behaved as the typical

Aristotelian tyrant. In fact, Aristotle characterizes the period of his rule as an “Age of

Kronos” (Aristotle, Athenian Constitution 16.7). Negative views of Peisistratus’ rule come from later authors, of the late fifth and fourth centuries, reflecting the anti- tyrannical sentiment of democratic Athens. It was once assumed that all rival elites must have gone into exile during his rule, but that theory has been abandoned, as it is apparent

128 that some – such as the Alkmeonid Cleisthenes in the 520’s – held public office during the period of Peisistratid rule.202

Peisistratus and Delos

Peisistratus is seen to be closely associated with Delos, and almost at odds with the equally important Apollonian sanctuary of Delphi. This association is often taken to be evidence of his manipulation of religion for political goals, and a key part of what

Shapiro terms Peisistratus’ “Ionian Policy”.203 The political rivals of Peisistratus, the

Alkmeonid family, were associated closely with Delphi. It was evidently to Delphi that they retreated during their exile from Athens. During this time, there is no evidence of public consultation by the Athenians with the Pythia at Delphi, and it appears that it was the hostility of Delphi that incited the Spartans to oust the Peisistratids from Athens.204

Peisistratus appears to have turned to Delos, another significant international sanctuary to

Apollo, while his political enemies turned to Delphi. That said, it is important to emphasize that Athens quite possibly had a significant preexisting relationship with

Delos before Peisistratus, as is signified by the mention of the Deliasts in Solon’s code and Solon’s reference to Athens as the “most ancient land of Ionia”. The evidence of

Athenian pottery from 750 BCE onward also indicates ongoing interaction between

Athens and Delos. Peisistratus was not creating something new here, but rather tapping

202 Shapiro, Art and Cult Under the Tyrants, 2-3; Anderson, The Athenian Experiment, 72

203 Shapiro, Art and Cult Under the Tyrants, 48; For an overview of the cultural politics thesis, see Parker, Athenian Religion, 67-88 and Connor, “Phye’s Procession: Culture, Politics, and Peisistratid Rule”

204 Parker, Athenian Religion, 87

129 into and exploiting a preexisting relationship in a way that must have seemed quite normal to his elite peers – in fact, the Alkmeonids did essentially the same thing through their exile at Delphi.

Following his third accession to power, Peisistratus turned his attention to the

Cyclades – in particular to Naxos and Delos. One of those who had supported

Peisistratus in his third bid for power was a man from Naxos called Lygdamis, who

Herodotus says, “came as a volunteer and displayed the greatest zeal in collecting money and men” (Herodotus 1.61). According to Herodotus, once Peisistratus had taken power, he returned the favor and installed Lygdamis as the turannos of Naxos. The children of those Athenians who had resisted Peisistratus were sent to Naxos as political hostages.

Directly after this, Herodotus gives an account of Peisistratus’ actions on Delos

(Herodotus 1.63). There is clearly a connection between the two, and Peisistratus’ actions on Delos should likely be dated to just after the Battle of Pallene, between 545 and 540 BCE.205 Naxos had declared their preeminence over their neighbors through grandiose and spectacular display on Delos, and Peisistratus would likewise demonstrate his superiority to Naxos with similarly grandiose and spectacular display on Delos. This is not to say, however, that only political motives lay behind Peisistratus’ actions on

Delos. Human motivations are often complex, consisting of several intertwined factors –

205 This is in accordance with the pottery finds from the purification trench on Rheneia, which suggest a terminus post quem of 545-540 BCE. Shapiro, Art and Cult Under the Tyrants, 48; Charlotte Long, “Greeks, Carians, and the Purification of Delos,” American Journal of Archaeology 62 no. 3 (1958): 297-306; Lavelle, Fame, Money, and Power, 228-230

130

to say that Peisistratus had no religious motivations at all is to ignore this, and to fail to

see Peisistratus as a man of his own time and culture.

Peisistratus was a significant sponsor of the cult of Delian Apollo. According to

Herodotus and Thucydides, he performed a purification of the island, where graves were removed from the expanded area of the sanctuary and moved to the neighboring island of

Rheneia, making the new sanctuary a fit home for Apollo. Peisistratus is also generally credited with the construction of the first temple to Apollo, the Porinos Naos, although there is no literary evidence associating him with the temple. Both these actions performed on behalf of Apollo – the construction of a temple and the purification of the newly expanded temenos – were grandiose gestures with elements of spectacle. While spectacular, they also catered to core needs of the cult of Delian Apollo – the need for the temenos to be religiously purified, and the need for Apollo to have an appropriate home on Delos. Following the purification of the temple, Thucydides tells us that “The

Athenians… celebrated, for the first time, the quinquennial festival of the Delian games.”

(Thucydides 3.104) This festival, according to Thucydides, is a revival of the ancient festival on Delos, which had ceased to be celebrated as it was in the time of Homer:

In later times, although the islanders and the Athenians continued to send the choirs of dancers with sacrifices, the contests and most of the ceremonies were abolished, probably through adversity, until the Athenians celebrated the games upon this occasion with the novelty of horse-races.

These three acts of religious dedication contributed significantly to the development of the cult of Delian Apollo, and cast Peisistratus in the role of a founding figure of the cult

131 and its rituals, not unlike the role played by Theseus, and not unlike the role to be played the radical Athenian demokratia a century later.

As we saw in a previous chapter, during the sixth century, the temenos of Delian

Apollo was expanded to encompass a previously residential area that lay just outside the original temenos. The purification of the island – and by extension Peisistratus – played a key role in this expansion. The purification of the island performed by Peisistratus was an important step in establishing the sanctuary as an appropriate home for the god. The expansion of the temenos incorporated territory that had previously been profane, and in particular, had been used for human burial. Why was there a need to purify the temenos, however? On a very basic level, a sanctuary consisted of an altar and a temenos, or a sacred space. This space was usually delineated in some way – it marked the god’s space

(with its own special rules) and normal space. Graves could not exist within the sanctuary of a god; to expand the sanctuary, it was necessary to move them.

Both Thucydides and Herodotus mention the purification:

The same winter the Athenians purified Delos, in compliance, it appears, with a certain oracle. It had been purified before by Pisistratus the tyrant; not indeed the whole island, but as much of it as could be seen from the temple. All of it was, however, now purified in the following way. All the sepulchres of those that had died in Delos were taken up, and for the future it was commanded that no one should be allowed either to die or to give birth to a child in the island; but that they should be carried over to Rhenea… Thucydides 3.104

And besides this, he purified the island of Delos as a result of oracles, and this is how he did it: he removed all the dead that were buried in ground within sight of the temple and conveyed them to another part of Delos.” Herodotus 1.64

132

Peisistratus, according to both Herodotus and Thucydides, purified the island by moving graves within sight of “the temple”. This purification was repeated a century later by the Athenian polis, when the entire island was purified. The act may seem somewhat outrageous, but the logic behind both acts traces back to the concern of the ancient Greeks with religious purity – certain fluids, actions, or events were deemed to be impure and could not exist within the temenos of a god or goddess without transferring that impurity to them.206 The act itself, then, was clearly intended to insure the purity of the temenos of Delian Apollo.

The second purification by the Athenian polis in the fifth century BCE clearly indicates a further expansion of the sacred space – the entire island has been engulfed by the temenos since it is Apollo’s birthplace, thus necessitating the removal of all graves as well as forbidding the acts of birth and death on the island. Both Herodotus’ and

Thucydides’ descriptions of Peisistratus’ purification also point to a certain lack of clarity in boundaries – they say that Peisistratus purified as much of the island as could be seen from the temple. As boundaries go, this is somewhat unclear.

Neither Thucydides nor Herodotus specifies exactly which temple marks the center of this sacred space. The logical answer is the Porinos Naos. There was no need for either to specify which temple was the starting point, because at this point there was only one temple to Apollo – the so-called Porinos Naos. Neither would have referred to it by this name; it was only later when it was one of three temples to Apollo that a name

206 On religious purity, see Robert Parker, Miasma.

133

was needed to differentiate it. Some scholars have made arguments for seeing the Oikos

of the Naxians or Temple G as acting a temple to Apollo, but there is no evidence to

support either of these contentions. Rather, they seem to rely more on a present-day focus on temples as a perceived integral element of the sanctuary. In fact, the only elements required of a sanctuary were an altar and a sacred boundary. A temple was not needed, so there is no need for us to continually look for an earlier temple than the

Porinos Naos. Further, since the Porinos Naos is associated with Peisistratus, it would be appropriate for him to use that structure as the center of the area to be purified.

Neither Herodotus nor Thucydides mention the construction of the Porinos Naos, but its construction is generally attributed to Peisistratus for historical reasons.207 The temple has been dated to the third quarter of the sixth century BCE, during which

Peisistratus was in control of Athens and had evidently taken an interest in the Cyclades.

It should be noted that there is no mention of the temple in either Thucydides’ or

Herodotus’s account of the purification and Peisistratus’s other actions on Delos; the association with Peisistrtus is entirely circumstantial.

The temple was small (approximately 10 by 16 meters) with a simple plan. It consisted of a rectangle divided into two rooms of unequal size, the smaller of which looks to the west. Likely the back room was a cella, preceded by a prostoon. The walls appear to have had windows. The façade included two columns in antis. The columns

were likely of the Ionic order – an Ionic capital found near the Propylaea is likely

207 On the Porinos Naos, see Bruneau and Ducat, Guide de Délos, 182; Courby, Les Temples d’Apollon, 207-215, Vallois, L’architecture hellénique et hellénistique à Délos, 21-22, Gallet de Santerre, Délos primitive et archäique, 239-251

134

associated with the temple, as the dimensions are wrong for where it was found. A

fragment of molding depicting leaves was found in the same place, which may possibly

be associated with the Porinos Naos. The temple itself was oriented towards the west,

with a view of Apollo’s altar, the Keraton. It gained its name from the poros stone used

to construct the temple. When it was one of three temples to Apollo, it came to be

signified in inscriptions as the Porinos Naos, or the “poros temple”.208 The method of

construction of the foundations is indicative of the age of the temple, which the

excavators have dated to the mid sixth century BCE, the time period during which

Peisistratus was active on the island.

The significance of the temple is without doubt; Courby concluded that it was

clearly a very old temple of Apollo. He observes that it is situated in the most sacred area

of the temenos, as well as being in the center of the temenos topographically. This is an

interesting observation, as the temple was also in the newly expanded section of the

temenos – the center clearly had shifted from the Artemision to the Porinos Naos, as the

boundaries of the newly enlarged sanctuary were established by other structures. This, of

course, also reflects the shift from Artemis to Apollo as the primary deity worshipped

there. The two subsequent temples of Apollo – the Temple of the Athenians and the

Grand Temple – were constructed in alignment with the Porinos Naos, again emphasizing its significance. If there had been a previous structure that functioned as a temple of Apollo, clearly the Porinos Naos superseded it. If “the temple” referred to in

208 The first reference to the temple as the Porinos Naos is in an inscription of 282: IG XI 4, 1105

135 reference to the purification is indeed the Porinos Naos (and there do not seem to be any good reasons to think otherwise) this again situates the Porinos Naos at the center of the expanded sanctuary.

While there is no mention of the construction of the temple in the literary sources, the temple is generally associated with Peisistratus on the basis of historical reasons – namely, that it dates to the period of Peisistratus’ involvement on the island. There are also elements of the temple’s construction that point to an Athenian origin. The poros stone used in the temple is similar to that found in Attica, and Courby even suggested that the stone could possibly be of Athenian origin. Sadly, no tests have confirmed or disproved this theory. The fasteners form a double T, which was an Athenian building technique. Finally, Courby suggests that a stone from the Porinos Naos was transferred to the Temple of the Athenians during its construction, which seems a symbolic act indicating the temple’s Athenian origin. Little is known of the cult statue, but it is generally presumed to also have been dedicated by Peisistratus.

Finally, Thucydides credits Peisistratus with a revival of the ancient festival to

Apollo on Delos, the quinquennial festival. The festival apparently had fallen out of favor over the years, with fewer events and fewer participants – although Thucydides is sure to tell us that the Athenians and the islanders continued to send theoriai. The revival of the festival, paired with the expansion of the temenos and the construction of a new temple, all point to a “relaunch” of Apollo’s sanctuary, meant to raise Delian Apollo’s profile in the Hellenic world.

136

Peisistratus and Theseus

The actions of Peisistratus on Delos appear to deliberately echo those of Theseus.

Theseus, when he stopped on Delos, was responsible for the creation of core elements of the Delian cult – most notably the geranos (the crane dance) and the first athletic contests, which probably refer to a festival. Peisistratus, likewise, made significant contributions to the newly expanded temenos: the removal of graves within site of the temple insured the purity of the sanctuary, he contributed the first temple to Apollo, and revived a festival to Delian Apollo. Both were “founding fathers” of the cult of Apollo on

Delos. To what extent should we see Peisistratus as deliberately taking advantage of this parallel, and, in a sense, symbolically becoming Theseus in his actions on Delos?

Peisistratus and his family have long been acknowledged by scholars to have engaged in the manipulation of mythic images and religious cults to achieve their goals.

The family has been associated with both the emergence of Theseus as an Athenian national hero, as well as his much better known rival, Herakles. 209 Many ancient historians have argued that the Peisistratids “decided to promote Theseus as the great hero of Athens.”210 Walker divides the arguments supporting this thesis into three groups: the Peisistratids patronized literary works about Theseus, stories about him were used to justify their foreign policies, and they gave Theseus the credit for founding institutions in

Athens that they themselves had founded.211 As Walker points out, there are significant

209 John Boardman, “Herakles, Peisistratus, and Sons,” Revue Archaeologique no.1 (1972): 57-72

210 Henry J. Walker, Theseus and Athens (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 35

211 Walker, Theseus and Athens, 35

137

evidentiary problems with connecting the Peisistratids directly to the promotion of

Theseus as a prominent Athenian hero. There is little literary evidence to corroborate this

connection, and attempts to see vase paintings as making references to specific

contemporary events are difficult to argue compellingly.

While it may be impossible to make direct correlations between vase paintings of

the deeds of Theseus and specific events during the hegemony of the Peisistratids, we can

observe that Theseus grew in fame during the sixth century, emerging as an Athenian

national hero. Theseus appears in art from the late Archaic Period onward. His most

famous episode is of course his defeat of the Minotaur, a myth that appears to be of great

antiquity.212 The inclusion of Theseus on the Francois Vase (ca. 570 BCE) marks a

significant point in the development of Theseus as a panhellenic hero to rival Herakles.

On the Francois Vase, the exploits of Theseus are set in opposition to those of Achilles,

which must have been well known at the time. At this time, it does not appear that any

epic poems about the deeds of Theseus yet existed, but clearly Theseus was well enough

known to be paired with Achilles. The Francois Vase includes two images featuring

Theseus: one illustrating Theseus leading a number of youths in a dance before Ariadne

and her nurse, and a second depicting the battle between the Lapiths and the Centaurs.

The image of Theseus leading youths in a dance has drawn particular attention

and debate, as Theseus is also associated with the crane dance, which he is said to have

danced around the keraton at Delos. The participants in this scene – Theseus, the youths

212 Karl Schefold, Gods and Heroes in Late Archaic Greek Art (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 163-182

138

who accompanied him to Crete, Ariadne, and her nurse – are not a matter of debate.

What it debated, however, is the location of this dance. Because of the association with

the crane dance on Delos, some scholars have assumed that the scene depicts the dance

on Delos, where Theseus and the youths dance in celebration of their victory over the

Minotaur.213 Others have argued against the identification of the location as Delos,

pointing to the presence of Ariadne, who had already been abandoned by Theseus and

would not have been present on Delos. The dance depicted on the vase also depicts the

youths in a processional, a line leading from one place to another, rather than a circle as

one would expect from literary descriptions of the geranos. The current consensus is that

the dance should be located on Crete, although that interpretation also presents some

problems. Scholars have alternatively argued that the dance takes place upon the arrival

of Theseus and the Athenian youths on Crete and on their victorious departure after

killing the Minotaur.214

Recent scholarship compellingly argues that the dance takes place upon the

arrival of Theseus and the Athenian youths on Crete. Seven girls and seven boys process

in a line from a beached ship toward Ariadne and her nurse. They are led by Theseus,

who plays the lyre as he conducts the chorus. Ariadne holds a round object in an

213 Schefold, Gods and Heroes in Late Archaic Greek Art, 62; Gallet de Santerre, Délos primitive et archäique, 272 fn 3

214 Shapiro, Art and Cult Under the Tyrants, 146-147; Guy Hedreen, “BILD, MYTHOS, AND RITUAL: Choral Dance in Theseus’s Cretan Adventure on the François Vase,” Hesperia 80 no. 3 (July – September 2011): 491-510, 494-497

139

outstretched hand, most likely the ball of thread that she gave Theseus to help him out of

the labyrinth safely. Ariadne greets Theseus “who stands facing her as if he has just

arrived at her home.”215 The ship also appears to have just arrived at its destination, rather

than to be preparing for its departure. Hedreen argues that the moment depicted here is

“that in which he first wins Ariadne’s affections.” Giuliani suggests that here Kleitias has

chosen to depict the way in which Theseus seduces Ariadne, causing her to transfer her

loyalties from her family to him.216 Kleitias employs “a traditional image of the suitor as a seductive, richly-dressed, lyre-playing singer”, giving “visual form to the idea that

Theseus was irresistible to the Cretan princess.”217 Giuliani sees the lyre as a generic attribute of the suitor, but Hedreen argues that the lyre has far greater significance, and that dance plays a significant role in the narrative of Theseus slaying the Minotaur.

The depiction of Theseus on the Francois Vase is also indicative of his emerging

status as a local Athenian hero. Kleitias’s depiction of Theseus diverged significantly

from previous non-Attic depictions of Theseus in his choice of the dance episode, which

portrayed Theseus as the leader and savior of the Athenian youths, rather than simply as

the killer of the Minotaur.218 Half of the names of the youths indicated on the Francois

Vase have a place in early Attic genealogy, further signifying that this is a local Athenian

version of the story. Clearly these are not just meant to be a group of youths, but a

215 Hedreen, “BILD, MYTHOS, AND RITUAL,” 496

216 Hedreen, “BILD, MYTHOS, AND RITUAL,” 498

217 Hedreen, “BILD, MYTHOS, AND RITUAL,” 499

218 Shapiro, Art and Cult Under the Tyrants, 146-7

140

specifically Athenian group of youths. While it appears that the Francois Vase points to

an Athenian heritage for Theseus, it does not appear to signify an association between the

Minotaur episode and Delos.

Between 550 and 510 BCE, images of Theseus’s deeds were produced on

Athenian vases with more frequency. Anderson suggests that here we can see the first

signs of a conscious effort among Athenian artists to assert Theseus’s Athenian

identity.219 Anderson further argues that the Peisistratids marketed Theseus as an

Athenian competitor to Herakles (who, it should be noted, remained far more popular in

this period, even in Athens) and that they seem to have promoted the creation of a

number of new stories about Theseus.

The way that Theseus was depicted underwent another shift after 510, when he was transformed from a local hero to the founding father of Athens, responsible for the unification of Attica. This crucial shift from local hero to founding father appears to have occurred at the behest of the Alkmeonid Cleisthenes, as part of an attempt to retroject the new Athenian form of government into the ancient past.220 Clesithenes and the

Alkmeonids were also closely associated with Theseus; an epic poem about the deeds of

Theseus was likely composed within their circle while they were in exile at Delphi, and

one of the earliest visual depiction of these deeds occurred on the Athenian Treasury at

219 Anderson, The Athenian Experiment, 134-146

220 Anderson, The Athenian Experiment

141

Delphi. 221 Schefold sees the Alkmeonids using Theseus, a local hero, as a way to show a

contrast between themselves and the Peisistratids, who were oriented towards Ionia.

Attempts to see Theseus as exclusively claimed by one party – whether the

Peisistratids, Cleisthenes, or the Athenian demokratia – may be missing the point. Elites

in the Archaic Period traditionally promoted themselves as exceptional members of the

community by calling attention to their descent from gods, heroes, and men of

exceptional abilities.222 The growing tradition of Theseus as a local Athenian hero, and later, as the Athenian founding father par excellence was one that was clearly fostered and developed by the Peisistratids, Cleisthenes, and the Athenian demokratia, as all

benefited from Theseus’s newly acquired reputation on the panhellenic stage.

Let us return to the original question. To what extent should we see Peisistratus as

deliberately taking advantage of this parallel, and, in a sense, symbolically becoming

Theseus in his actions on Delos? Peisistratus, like many of his peers, engaged in the

perpetuation of certain stories to achieve his goals. One of the stories that he fostered

appears to have been that of Theseus as a local Athenian hero. It is not a stretch to

suggest that in his actions at Delos – which are in some ways, very reminiscent of those

of Theseus – Peisistratus saw himself as acting as a second founder of the Athenian cult,

symbolically becoming Theseus. In the same way, the later Athenian demokratia took on

the role of Theseus with the further purification of the island. Why imitate the actions of

a hated “tyrant”? Theseus was not just associated with the Peisistratids; his story

221 Schefold, Gods and Heroes in Late Archaic Greek Art, 172-175

222 Mitchell, The Heroic Rulers of Archaic and Classical Greece

142

extended back in time long before they were in power. Shapiro aptly assesses the

situation, writing that “Theseus is apolitical and transcends petty power struggles of

tyrants, oligarchs, and democrats.”223 Of course, this is a tentative claim as it relates to

Delos, as we can not be sure at which point Theseus came to be associated with Delos.

The earliest literary evidence supporting the association of Theseus is Delos is Plato’s

Phaedo, which dates to a century following the life and rule of Peisistratus.

The Delian Triad and Cultural Politics

We are left with one final question. What were the motivations of Peisistratus and

his family in their development of the story of Theseus as an Athenian hero, and in

Peisistratus’s actions at Delos? This question of motivations has driven considerable

debate among scholars – were these actions true pious gestures to Apollo, or simply

attempts to exert power? Peisistratus and his successors, like many turannoi, have long been seen as exceptional among elites of the Archaic Period in their manipulation of religion and art to further their own goals. The “cultural politics” thesis sees Peisistratus and his sons creating a certain image through the manipulation of religious cult, art, and literature. In other words, they manipulated the masses through the use of propaganda, which they inserted into religion, art, and literature. Proponents of this “cultural politics” thesis look to archaeological and other material evidence to point to cases where

Peisistratus favored certain religious cults, or encouraged the popularity of certain images

223 Shapiro, Art and Cult Under the Tyrants, 149

143

in vase paintings. Frost writes that “I believe one of those processes was a Peisistratid

policy of honoring or otherwise “nationalizing” rural cults by building equivalent shrines

or other memorials in the center of the city of Athens.”224 According to Frost,

Peisistratus manipulates religious cults “for some deliberate purpose.” “One obvious

goal would have been to spread the idea that all Athenians had common religious roots,

whether they did, in fact, or not.”225 Shapiro likewise concurs with Frost, writing that

“the establishment of new cults, as well as the elaboration of old ones, was probably a principal concern of both Peisistratus and his sons.”226 This methodological approach

emphasizes the links between political movements or leaders and the development of cult

or festivals. It likewise emphasizes the distance between the leader and his followers and

the manipulation of myth and religion for propaganda purposes.

One example of the “cultural politics” thesis is the assertion that Peisistratus was

responsible for the increased popularity of the Delian Triad in vase painting. Vase

paintings depicting Apollo, Artemis, and Leto – known as the Delian Triad – and often

set explicitly on Delos, became important in Attic art in the latter half of the sixth century

BCE.227 A group of paintings dated ca. 540 BCE (the earliest not before ca. 545 BCE)

show the Delian Triad and explicitly set them on Delos. The location on Delos is

224 Frank Frost, “Peisistratos, the Cults, and the Unification of Attica,” in Politics and the Athenians: essays on Athenian history and historiography (Toronto: E. Kent, 2005), 120-132, 6

225 Frost, “Peisistratos, the Cults, and the Unification of Attica,” 7

226 Shapiro, Art and Cult Under the Tyrants, 13

227 H.A. Shapiro, Art and Cult Under the Tyrants in Athens (Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern, 1995), 56-58

144 signified by a palm tree – a symbol of Delos referring to the palm tree where Leto was said to have given birth. Sometimes a deer – an animal associated with both Apollo and

Artemis – is present, and some feature an altar, further specifying the location as Apollo’s sanctuary. Shapiro comments that “painters are careful to observe a distinction which can be noted on these early examples: the palm tree, denoting Delos, occurs only in scenes limited to what we may henceforth call the Delian Triad, and not in those where additional divinities are present.”228 Shapiro argues that this new focus on Apollo as the

Delian god “is surely to be sought in Athenian activity on Delos, initiated by Peisistratos’ purification of the island, and the reestablishment of the Delian festival.”229 Shapiro dates Peisistratus’ activity on Delos to between 546 and 540 BCE, and points out that vase paintings depicting the Delian Triad on Delos appeared shortly thereafter. While the dates are certainly a tantalizing piece of evidence, there is no other evidence to connect

Peisistratus to the popularity of the Delian Triad on vase paintings.

Peisistratus’ gifts to Delian Apollo are also seen as an example of cultural politics in action. Shapiro sees Peisistratus’ actions on Delos as part of an “Ionian Policy”, the primary purpose of which was to “assert Athens’ position as the leading city among the

Ionian Greeks.” Shapiro has even gone so far as to say that the building of temples by tyrants (such as the Porinos Naos on Delos, presumably) “has nothing to do with piety.”

Rather, all of his actions on Delos –including those which purported to be gifts of devotion to Delian Apollo – were cold political acts, performed only for their political

228 Shapiro, Art and Cult Under the Tyrants, 57

229 Shapiro, Art and Cult Under the Tyrants, 58

145 benefit.230 Other scholars likewise see Peisistus’s motivations as solely political. Lavelle see four purposes as “discernable in the act”, and all are political.231 For Lavelle,

Peisistratus’s piety was a demonstration for the Athenian public, rather than a gesture aimed at the gods. In his discussion of the episode, Parker focuses only on the political aspects – Delos is not a sanctuary dedicated to Apollo, it is a “showcase for the pious magnificence of the Ionian tyrants” and piety there was a “a competitive sport… among those who sought to control the waters in which his birthplace lay.”232

The “cultural politics” thesis is a deceptive trap, blending elements of truth with false assumptions about Archaic political culture. There is no doubt that Peisistratus and his family encouraged the development of stories, such as that of Theseus as a local

Athenian hero, and fostered the development of certain religious cults, as they did at

Delos. To reduce their motivations to cold political calculus, however – to deny any religious motivations at all! – is to see them as men outside of their time and culture, immune to the socio-cultural ideas that effect all humans. It is also to ignore the fact that what Peisistratus and his family did was not peculiar to them – in fact, it was standard operating procedure for elites in their constant jockeying for power. The Alkmeonid family did much the same thing in their patronage of Delphi and their own development of the myth of Theseus. Like many other elites, the Peisistratids tapped into the common

230 See, for example, Shapiro, Art and Cult Under the Tyrants in Athens, 6, 48

231 Lavelle, Fame, Money, and Power, 228-230

232 Parker, Athenian Religion, 87-88

146 pool of mythological images to enhance their own status through connections to the divine.

Further, the image of Peisistratus as a master manipulator, a puppet master pulling the strings, prevents us from fully understanding the way that others interacted with these stories and cults. In his analysis of the Phye episode, Connor writes “’Manipulation’, then, is an inadequate formulation of the relationship between leader and follower.”233

The idea that the Peisistratids were somehow exceptional at this “manipulation” has also led to their being assigned credit for the stimulation of religious cults when there is little evidence to support it. For example, Anderson discusses the development of links between Athens and the peripheral cults of Eleusis, Brauron, and Eleutherae – all of which have previously been credited to the Peisistratids – and compellingly argues that these cultic links between center and periphery were developed between 510 and 500, after the reorganization of the Athenian polis. 234

Ultimately, Peisistratus – like all humans – was probably motivated by a constellation of concerns in his actions at Delos. One was certainly a show of power over

Naxos, in the very arena where Naxos previously demonstrated their power over the

Cyclades. Another was likely to imitate the Athenian hero Theseus, whose story was promoted by Peisistratus and his family, and gained popularity during their domination of the Athenian state. In addition, Peisistratus likely wanted to show himself as the xenos of the powerful god Apollo, who was crucial for the success of any community. His political

233 Connor, “Tribes, Festivals, and Processions,” 50

234 Anderson, The Athenian Experiment, 178-196

147 rivals, the Alkmeonids, had successfully blocked any links between the Peisistratus and

Delphi, and so, he turned to Delos, which, in myth, was an equally powerful home to

Apollo. Finally, we can not dismiss the fact that Peisistratus probably was in some way motivated by feelings of piety.

148

Chapter 4. Beyond the Greek World

On the one hand, Delos was a remote yet central sanctuary, significant for the

Greek worship of Apollo. On the other hand, Delos was connected, both in myth and

historically, with peoples beyond the Greek world. As the Odyssey proclaims, the world

beyond Greece was dangerous and unpredictable, both potentially hostile and home to the

most devout of peoples. Romm notes two opposing tendencies in ancient Greek thought

about the world, which he describes as “an ethnocentric impulse and its inverse.”235 On the one hand, the center of the world is the “best or most advanced location”, and distant peoples are considered “unworthy savages.” The inversion of this impulse “privileges the edges of the earth over the center.” “The inverse or negative ethnocentric scheme envisions foreigners growing not less but more virtuous in proportion to their distance from the Greek center, which is here depicted as the most morally degenerate spot on earth.” The mythological and historical associations of Delos illustrate this tension; on the one hand, Apollo’s most devoted worshippers were the Hyperboreans, a people from the far north. On the other hand, Delos was also connected in myth to Crete, home of the

235 James Romm, The edges of the earth in ancient thought: geography, exploration, and fiction (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 46-47

149

Minotaur, and the sanctuary was visited by the Persians while they were en route to

Marathon to make war on the Greeks.

Crete is associated with Delos both mythically and historically. The Athenian

hero Theseus stopped on Delos to honor Delian Apollo on his return voyage to Athens

after killing the Minotaur (Plutarch, Life of Theseus). Picard has also noted similarities between Cretan myths and myths concerning the Hyperboreans, and suggests that in many legends the county of the Hyperboreans is a double of Crete or the region to the south east of Greece.236 The association of Delos with Crete in myth may reflect the fact that it appears that Delos was under the influence of Crete in the Middle Bronze Age.

Long suggests that there was a Cretan presence or influence on the island in the Middle

Bronze Age.237 This is indicated by the tombs of the Hyperborean Maidens (themselves

earlier burials which were coopted later in the sanctuary’s history), which are similar to

Minoan tombs on Crete. A Middle Minoan spouted, hole-mouthed vase was also found in one tomb. Some contact clearly continued between Delos and Crete in the Archaic

Period, as thirty-seven Cretan pots were discovered in the purification trench on Rheneia, which date from the eighth to the fifth centuries.238

The island was even thought to have had a substantial population of non-Greeks

at one time, based on the contents of the graves dug up during the purifications of the

236 Ch. Picard, “La Crete et les legendes hyperboreennes,” Revue Archéologique 25 (1927): 349- 360

237 Long, “Greeks, Carians, and the Purification of Delos,” 300

238 Long, “Greeks, Carians, and the Purification of Delos,” 299

150

island. Thucydides cites the contents of the graves as evidence of the fact that the islands

were colonized by Phoenicans and Carians: “During the purification of Delos by Athens

in this war all the graves in the island were taken up, and it was found that above half

their inmates were Carians: they were identified by the fashion of the arms buried with

them, and by the method of interment, which was the same as the Carians still follow”

(1.8.1). The identification of the inhabitants of the graves as Carian was likely false,239 but the associations of the island with the east were such that it evidently was not a surprise that over half the burials should be found to be Carian.

Delos is connected to Egypt through the tradition that the Inopus on Delos was connected to the Nile. Strabo makes reference to this tradition, but it is clear that he does not believe it: “Marvellous tales of this sort are stretched still further by those who make

the Inopus cross over from the Nile to Delos (6.4.2).” Pausanias says that he heard a similar story from the Delians, that the Inopus came to them from the Nile. Further, he relates that he has heard another story that the Nile actually springs from the Euphrates

(2.5.3). Pliny the Elder also associates the Inopus with the Nile, although he does not say that the two are connected: “The fountain Inopus, in the island of Delos, decreases and increases in the same manner as the Nile, and also at the same periods (Natural History,

2.106).” Callimachus calls the Inopus “Egyptian Inopus” in his Hymn to Artemis (line

170). Callimachus makes an even more explicit connection between the Inopus and the

Nile in his Hymn to Delos: “So didst thou speak, and she gladly ceased from her grievous

239 For a discussion of the evidence from the purification trench on Rheneia, see Charlotte Long, “Greeks, Carians, and the Purification of Delos.”

151

wandering and sat by the stream of Inopus, which the earth sends forth in deepest flood at

the season when the Nile comes down in full torrent from the Aethiopian steep” (line

205).

Delos was also visited by individuals from across and beyond the Greek world; the community constituted by the patrons of Delian Apollo was not restricted to individuals within Greece but included peoples and individuals, both quasi-mythical and historical, from outside the Greek world. It was not unusual for foreign leaders and elites to make dedications at prominent Greek sanctuaries, either to show respect for the gods of their xenoi or to establish themselves as the xenos of the Greek god. For example,

Amasis dedicated two statues to Hera at Samos (Herodotus 2.182). Croesus is well

known for his gifts to Delphi (Herodotus 1.50-52).

“After that, Croesus set about propitiating the god at Delphi with great sacrifices; in all, of sacrificial animals he offered up three thousand of each kind, and couches overlaid with gold and silver, and golden goblets and purple cloaks and chitons – he made a great heap of all of these and burned them, expecting that thereby he would be likelier to win the favor of the god…” Herodotus, 1.50

Delos had many connections from beyond the Greek world, but there are two that stand out as deserving of further attention: the gifts of the Hyperboreans, the quasi- mythical people who lived to the far north, and the patronage of the Persian general

Datis, who stopped at the sanctuary while en route with the Persian fleet to Marathon.

152

The Hyperboreans

Wherefore from that day thou art famed as the most holy of islands, nurse of Apollo’s youth. On thee treads not Enyo nor Hades nor the horses of Ares; but every year tithes of first-fruits are sent to thee: to thee all cities lead up choirs, both those cities which have cast their lots toward the East and those toward the West and those in the South, and the peoples which have their homes above the northern shore, a very long-lived race.

Callimachus, Hymn to Delos lines 275-280

In his Hymn to Delos, Callimachus presents the Hypberboreans as the ideal

followers of Apollo. The Hyperboreans were a mythical people who lived to the far

north, beyond where Boreus, the north wind, blew. They are perceived to be at the very

edge of the world; in a location that no human could reach (Pindar, Pythian Ode 10.27ff).

They were known to be especially devoted to Apollo. They were supposedly long lived,

prosperous, and peaceful (Callimachus, Hymn to Delos; Herodotus 4.13, Diodorus

Siculus, Library of History 2.47.1-6). The Hyberboreans are associated with Delos both in myth and ritual. They are associated with the cult at Delos through ritual first fruits offerings that were sent to Delos. Two shrines at Delos honor two pairs of maidens who came with gifts and could not return to the north. As well, first fruits offerings wrapped in straw made their way through a network of peoples to travel each year from the

Hyperboreans to Delos (Herodotus 4.33). The Hyperboreans, then, are a mystery – on the one hand, they seem to inhabit the realm of myth; on the other hand, these offerings presumably had to come from real people somewhere. Farnell writes of the matter “Now

153

in all these facts, there is something definite and tangible, and they cannot simply be

ignored.”240

The Hyperboreans were clearly known to Herodotus and to Pindar. Herodotus

tells us that Hesiod and Homer wrote about the Hyperboreans, but all that survives is a

fragment attributed to Hesiod which describes the Hyperboreans as being “well-horsed

(Frag. 49T).” Bridgeman argues that Homer and Hesiod were familiar with the

Hyperborean myth.241 Pindar makes many references to the Hyperboreans which indicate that they were thought to be at a remote and inaccessible location. In Isthmian 6 he writes: “Countless continuous roads have been cut a hundred feet wide for your fine

deeds, both beyond the springs of the Nile and through the land of the Hyperboreans.”

The land of the Hyperboreans , like the springs of the Nile, is very remote; this allusion

emphasizes the extent to which word of Phylacidas’ deeds will travel. Likewise, he

emphasizes their remoteness in Pythian 10: “Neither by ship nor on foot could you find

the marvelous road to the meeting-place of the Hyperboreans.” Pindar makes reference to

the Hyperboreans again in Olympian 3, when he references a myth about Hercules:

Hercules persuaded the Hyperboreans to allow him to take an olive tree from the springs

of the Danube and bring it to Olympia. Here Pindar explicitly refers to the Hyperborean

people as the servants of Apollo.

240 Lewis Richard Farnell, Cults of the Greek States Volume 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896- 1909), 102

241 Timothy Bridgeman, Hyperboreans: Myth and History in Celtic Hellenic Contacts (New York: Routledge, 2005)

154

For Herotodus, the Hyperboreans are one of a small group of peoples and places

that can not be observed or studied; others are the river Ocean, the river Eridanus and the

Tin Islands, and the headwaters of the Nile.242 This again emphasizes their remoteness, although it is not clear where Herodotus falls on the question of their existence. He says in his account that the Scythians have nothing to say about them, and that most of what is said about them comes from the Delians (Herodotus 4.32-33). Herodotus also does not

include any of the more fantastical details included in other later authors, who describe

the land of the Hyperboreans as a utopia, where peace reigns and men do not have to

work. For example, Diodorus Siculus says of the island that it is fertile, every crop can

grow there, and there are two harvests a year (Library of History 2.47.1-6). This freedom from labor allowed the people there to spend their days worshipping Apollo:

“…the inhabitants are looked upon as priests of Apollon, after a manner, since daily they praise this god continuously in song and honour him exceedingly. And there is also on the island both a magnificent sacred precinct of Apollon and a notable temple which is adorned with many votive offerings and is spherical in shape. Furthermore, a city is there which is sacred to this god, and the majority of its inhabitants are players on the cithara; and these continually play on this instrument in the temple and sing hymns of praise to the god, glorifying his deeds.”

The Hyperboreans are closely associated with Apollo in myth, and have close associations with his major sanctuaries at Delos and Delphi. Diodorus Siculus relates that the reason for the devotion of the Hyperboreans was that Leto, mother of Apollo and

Artemis, was born there. Likewise, Eileithyia, the goddess of childbirth who aided Leto

242 James Romm, “Herodotus and Mythic Geography: The Case of the Hyperboreans,” Transactions of the American Philological Association 119 (1989): 97-113

155

in her labor, was also said to be from the land of the Hyperboreans (Pausanias,

Description of Greece 1.31.2). The relationship between Delos and the Hyperboreans

illustrates this extreme devotion – twice, groups were sent with offerings and failed to

return. The Hyperboreans “made a great outcry that it should always be their lot to send

out men who never came back”, but nonetheless, continued to send their offerings to

Delos. The only change was that now the offerings were sent without a Hyperborean

escort, through a network of communities that ended with Delos (Herodotus 3.33).

The Hyperboreans play an important role in the mythology associated with Delos,

but they also play an important role in the ritual of the sanctuary. Two pairs of

Hyperborean maidens are honored at Delos; each pair is honored with a tomb, as legend

had it that they came to Delos and did not return north. Both sites were tombs of the

Mycenaean period reinvented as part of Apollo’s sanctuary: the Theke of Opis and Arge

(GD #32) and the Sema of Laodice and Hyperoche (GD #41). In the ritual at Delos, the

Hyperborean maidens play the role of the devoted worshipers of Apollo par excellence.

According to Herodotus, girls and boys at Delos cut their hair in honor of Hyperoche and

Laodice and left their locks of hair as offerings at the tomb. Arge and Opis were honored

at another grave; gifts were collected for them and a Lycian bard by the name of Olen

wrote a hymn for them (Herodotus 4.33-36).

The similarity between the two accounts has led some scholars to argue that there

was in fact only one pair of maidens, who have been duplicated in these two stories. Sale

argues forcefully against this hypothesis, pointing to the significant differences in the two

cults: the nature of the cult, the purpose of the offerings, the group which worshipped

156

them, and even the goddess to which each is subordinate.243 Two separate graves have

also been identified which correlate with the directions given by Herodotus.

The Hyperboreans were also closely associated with Delphic Apollo in myth.

According to Pausanias, a hymn composed about Delphi credited the Hyperboreans with

the foundation of the oracle and with the construction of the second temple to Apollo,

which was made by bees from beeswax and feathers (10.5.7-9). Alcaeus’ Hymn to Apollo

(preserved in summary form in a passage of the fourteenth oration of the sophist

Himerius) provides a variant tradition of the foundation of the cult of Delphic Apollo

which places the Hyperboreans front and center. According to the summary by Himerius,

Zeus told Apollo to go to Delphi after giving him a chariot with swans. Apollo went to

the land of the Hyperboreans instead, where he delivered the law as he was to do at

Delphi. The Delphians, when they heard this, tried to lure Apollo back with songs and

dances around the tripod. After a year with the Hyperboreans, Apollo made his way to

Delphi and delivered the law there.244

There are some significant differences between Apollo’s associations with the

Hyperboreans in the contexts of the Delian and Delphic cults. The Delphic association belongs to the realm of myth, the Hyperboreans are a remote and fantastical people to the north whom Apollo visits in a retreat from the real world. At Delos, the Hyperboreans come to Delos multiple times, and gifts supposedly from the Hyperboreans continued to

243 William Sale, “The Hyperborean Maidens on Delos.” The Harvard Theological Review 54 no.2 (1961): 75-89, 78-79

244 Denys Page, Sappho and Alcaeus: An Introduction to the Poetry of Lesbian Society. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955), 244-252

157

come in historical times, which are attested by Herodotus and Pausanias. In the traditions

about the Hyperboreans, we can observe a tension between the center (alternatively

Delphi and Delos) and the periphery – the land of the Hyperboreans. This tension is

reflected in Apollo, who himself is a god who is both remote and central, who is the

source of law and justice, but also favors those places that are difficult to get to. In the

Delian tradition, we see the repeated movement of people from the land of the

Hyperboreans to Delos: the goddess of childbirth, Eileithyia, who was probably

accompanied by Arge and Opis, Hyperoche and Laodice, and finally the continual flow

of the gifts wrapped in straw from the land of the Hyperboreans to Delos. While Apollo

moves back and forth, the movement otherwise is all in one direction – from the land of

the Hyperboreans to Delos. The Delphic variant of the myth presents a more complicated

relationship between center and periphery. Here, there is competition between Delphi and

the people of the Hyperboreans – Apollo chooses to go north rather than to go to Delphi,

and to give the Hyperboreans the laws which he should have delivered at Delphi. The

Delphians, at the center, must then convince Apollo to return. Seltman further observes a

competition between the Delian and Delphic traditions, and suggests that Delphi, jealous

of Delos, “proceeded to construct Hyperborean myths for its own glory.”245 While

interesting, this argument has not found favor with other scholars.

Since antiquity, scholars both ancient and modern have struggled with the problem of the location of the Hyperboreans, and had little success in their attempts to

245 C.T. Seltman, “The Offerings of the Hyperboreans,” The Classical Quarterly 22 no. 3/4 (1928): 155-159

158 firmly situate them in space. The name Hyperborean was assumed by Pindar, Herodotus, and some modern scholars to refer to “those who live beyond the north wind (i.e.

Boreus).246 Some modern scholars have made other suggestions based on the etymology of the word; Farnell refers to it as a “false etymology.”247 Ahrens proposes that it is a variant of Hyperpheretai, “a name for the sacred ministrants who carry the cereal offerings from one community to another.”248 Marcudy, following Schroeder, argues that the name refers to the “Bora”, or the Balkans.249 In other words, the Hyperboreans are those who live above the Balkans. This etymology, according to Schroeder, was “entirely unknown the Greeks of historic times.”250

This is not just a philological question since, as Farnell points out, the offerings wrapped in straw actually existed and had to have come from somewhere. Where, then, should we look for the Hyperboreans and the source of these offerings? Clearly the ancient Greeks located them to the far north. The route taken by the offerings is described in Herodotus and Pausanias.

“These [the Delians] say that holy offerings come wrapped in wheat straw from the Hyperboreans into Scythis, and, after the Scythians, each of their neighbors successively forwards these offerings to the point furthest west, at the Adriatic, and, as they are then conveyed to the south, the people of Dodona are the first Greeks to receive them, and from there they come

246 Farnell, Cults of the Greek States Vol 4, 100

247 Farnell, Cults of the Greek States Vol 4, 103

248 Farnell, Cults of the Greek States Vol 4, 102-103

249 Grace Harriet Marcudy, “The Hyperboreans” The Classical Review 30 no.7 (1916): 180-183

159

down to the Melian Gulf and are carried across Euboea and, again from city to city, as far as Carystus; after that, Andros is omitted from the chain, because the people of Carystus carry them to Tenos, and the Tenians carry them to Delos.” Herodotus 4.33

Over time, the perceived location of the Hyperboreans appears to have shifted from the Black Sea and the source of the Danube to Celtic lands in the west.251 Early authors – among them Hesiod, Homer, and Pindar – appear to have placed the

Hyperboreans near the Black Sea and the source of the Danube. Boreas, the north wind, was thought to live in Thrace, suggesting that the Hyperborea ns lived to the north of

Thrace. Some sources note that the Hyperboreans lived above the Rhipean Mountains

(Alcam refers to the mountains of Rhipe, which some scholars associate with the Rhipean mountains). These mountains, according to Damastes of Sigeum, were to the north of the

Scythian people; Herodotus likewise says that the Scythians were the neighbors of the

Hyperboreans, although he also said that when questioned, they said that they did not know anything about the Hyperboreans. The Rhipean Mountains were thought to form a boundary between the world of the gods and the world of humans. Dionysus of Miletus

251Bridgeman, Hyperboreans: Myth and History in Celtic Hellenic Contacts

160

reports that the Hyperboreans lived above the Rhipean Mountains (which ran east west

far above the Tanais River and Black Sea areas) and that their lands stretched to the

“other sea”. Protarchus says that he called the Alps the Rhipean Mountains, and that the

people living to the north of them were Hyperboreans.

Bridgeman argues compellingly that for the ancient Greeks, the location of the

Hyperboreans shifted as their geographical knowledge expanded. “The land of the

Hyperboreans had thus been transposed from mainland Greece to the sources of the

Danube on the eastern coast of the Black Sea, and then to the zone north of the Black Sea as Greek geographical knowledge and the area of Greek colonization expanded.”252

Bridgeman also comments that any people who lived to the north may potentially have

been “Hyperborean”.253

Where did the offerings originate, then? Seltman suggests that the offerings

originated with “semi-barbarized” communities along the Danube that were of Greek

descent.254 He suggests that they might have wished to keep in some contact “with the

great Ionian sanctuary in Delos, of which Greek sailors coming to the Danube mouths

would have something to tell?”255 He suggests that this would also explain the different

routes described by Herodotus and Pausanias; trade routes shifted from the region

according to historical circumstances.

252 Bridgeman, Hyperboreans: Myth and History in Celtic Hellenic Contacts, 34

253 Bridgeman, Hyperboreans: Myth and History in Celtic Hellenic Contacts, 21

254 Seltman, “The Offerings of the Hyperboreans”

255 Seltman, “The Offerings of the Hyperboreans,” 157

161

It is clear that the route taken by the Hyperborean offerings changed over time; at the very least there was a change between the time of Herodotus and Pausanias, as they give different stops on the route as transfer points. Herodotus says that Scythia, Dodona,

Karystos, and Tenos are the transfer points. Pausanias says that the transfer points are the

Aremaspi, the Issedones, Scythia, Sinope, and Praesiae (in Attica). The Aremaspi and the

Issedones are also mythical peoples, and here their addition to the change appears to further remove the land of the Hyperboreans from that of humans. They agree, then, on

Scythia as a starting point, but disagree on the subsequent transfer points. It is notable that in the later account of Pausanias the offerings are transferred to Delos from Athens; it would certainly have fit with Athenian propaganda of the Classical Period to insert themselves into this chain. Seltman’s suggestion that the route shifted because of changing trade routes also explains the changes.256

The Hyperboreans are thus associated with Delos in myth and ritual. As

worshipers of Apollo par excellence, they are involved in the foundation of the sanctuary

(through Eileithyia) as well as continually sending gifts of first fruits. The connection

with the Hyperboreans also emphasizes Apollo’s remoteness; just as Apollo is a remote

god, who must be approached at the edge of civilization, the Hyperboreans live at the

very edge of the world, in a place no human can visit. Like Apollo, however, they come

into the human world to foster the worship of the gods, such as at Delos.

256 Seltman, “The Offerings of the Hyperboreans”

162

The Persians

It was not only Greeks who sought the goodwill of Apollo and Artemis at Delos.

Datis, one of the generals of the Persian army sent to invade Greece and subjugate the

Athenians in 490, gave many gifts to Delian Apollo. Little is known about Datis: he was a Mede (Herodotus 6.94), two of his sons, Harmamithres and Tithaeus, commanded the cavalry during the Persian invasion of 480 (Herodotus 7.88), and he demonstrated great

piety and respect for the gods in his dealings with Delos (Herodotus 6.96-97). Datis has

been identified with Datiya of the Persepolis Fortification Tablets. The reference in the

tablets indicates Datis’ prominent position; he is returning to visit with the Persian King

and also is given a large beer or wine ration – both of which signify his importance.257

After subduing Naxos, the fleet headed towards Delos, where the residents were

fleeing to Tenos (Herodotus 6.96-97). According to Herodotus, Datis treated the island as

a sacred space, respectful of its role as the birthplace of Apollo and Artemis. His ships

anchored at Rheneia, not at Delos. He sent a message to the Delians on Tenos:

“Holy men, why do you flee away, having put a misconception on my intentions, far from the truth? For my own thoughts go with the King’s command to me, in addition, that in this land the two gods were born, and this land must therefore suffer no mischief, whatever, neither the land itself nor those who live in it. Now, then, come back to your own places and dwell again in your island.”

Datis did more than afford respect to Delos and her residents – he made a lavish

offering of three hundred talents’ weight of frankincense on the altar of Apollo. The

257 David M. Lewis, “Datis the Mede” in Selected Papers in Greek and Near Eastern History ed. P.J. Rhodes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 1997), 342-344

163

Attic talent is thought to have weighed approximately 60 pounds – this dedication then evidently included 18000 pounds of frankincense! The sheer weight is mind-boggling, not to mention the expense, as frankincense was an expensive item. According to

Herodotus, frankincense came from Arabia, the furthest region to the south in the world.

The bushes that grew frankincense were guarded by many tiny, winged snakes – requiring harvesters to cover their bodies in leather in order to harvest the frankincense

(Herodotus 3.107, 3.110). Frankincense, then, was expensive not just because it was rare, but also because it was difficult – and even dangerous – to acquire. To burn that much frankincense is a clear statement.

On his return to Asia after the battle of Marathon, Datis had a prophetic dream.

The next morning, he searched the ships and found in one an image of Apollo. He made inquiries, and determined that it was from the Theban Delium. He took the image to

Delos and charged the Delians with its return. The Delians were not very conscientious in carrying out this duty; the Thebans themselves came to get the statue some twenty years later (Herodotus 6.118).

Both these episodes call attention to the piety of Datis and his respect for (at least)

Apollo. In both he also plays a crucial role in mediating the actions of the army and ensuring their piety as well – both by dictating that the fleet should dock at Rheneia, and by locating and returning the image of Apollo stolen by the fleet. He left Delos unmolested, and made a lavish and spectacular dedication of his own to Apollo. Why might he have done these things? Delos, at the center of the Cyclades, is roughly halfway between the coast of Asia Minor and mainland Greece. Delos was patronized by visitors

164 from both directions. By showing respect to Apollo, Datis made a statement to Greeks on both sides of the Aegean. If Datis wished to preface the invasion of Greece with an appeal to the Greek gods, Delos was an appropriate place to do it. The other two likely prospects – Olympia and Delphi – were located in mainland Greece, while Delos was a panhellenic sanctuary in the middle of the Cyclades, conveniently located between the

Persian Empire and mainland Greece. Further, it is the sanctuary at Delos which is most closely associated with Athens and the Peisistratids, and Athens was of course the target of the invasion in 490. The invading force was also accompanied by the Peisistratid

Hippias, who may have influenced Datis’ actions towards Delos. By appealing to Delian

Apollo, Datis could potentially sway a powerful Athenian ally and make a statement about Persian power in relation to that of Athens and the other Greek poleis.

165

Chapter 5. Identity and Spectacle

The aim of this dissertation is to analyze the discourse created by the dedications to Delian Apollo (whether specifically to Delian Apollo or generally to the island of

Delos) in the Archaic Period and to interrogate the role played in that discourse by elements of spectacle. As we have seen in the previous sections, Delian Apollo and his sanctuary received many gifts from patrons across the Greek world and beyond, many of which included elements of spectacle. Each of these gifts is a symbol, an attempt to communicate some sort of nonverbal message (or multiple nonverbal messages), creating a nonverbal discourse of gifts. In the previous chapters, we have considered a number of these gifts individually. To fully understand this discourse, however, we must consider these gifts as a group, in relation to one another – to do otherwise limits our ability to understand the messages expressed by these gifts. We can not fully recover this discourse, of course, as we can not fully recover Delos as it existed in the past. As historians, the puzzle that we attempt to put together is always missing pieces. We can, however, use what remains of that discourse to better our imperfect understanding of the

Archaic Greek world. It should also be noted here that we are primarily concerned with the gifts given by the upper tiers of elites who visited the island. Larger, more spectacular gifts were more likely to survive or be recorded in the literary record. In addition, this dissertation is especially interested in elite constructions of power in the Archaic Period,

166

and the element that spectacle plays in gifts. Further, we should perceive the messages

communicated by these gifts as deliberate and carefully chosen, as they are all the

product of ritual. Ritual is intentional – it is thought out and planned ahead of time.258

None of these gifts came about on the spur of the moment because their benefactor just

happened to be on Delos. Further, many of the gifts themselves – statues, temples,

islands – are not last minute gifts.

Audience

First, we must consider the audience of this discourse. Whose gaze rested upon

these gifts, receiving their message? These gifts, like most acts, had multiple audiences

that we must consider. First, there is the god to whom the dedication is directed.259 We

often dismiss the power of religious belief in ancient Greece, as we easily dismiss their

gods as fictional flights of fancy, but this is a mistake. We have no reason to believe that

their devotion was completely false, and the volume of societal resources that was

accumulated in religious sanctuaries certainly suggests that some, if not most, people

dedicated to the gods at least in part because of their religious devotion. This does not

negate the fact that giving a gift to a god in ancient Greece was a public act, and had a

public aspect – it was a religious act that was on display for all within a community to

see.

258 Walter Burkert, Greek Religion, See especially Chapter 2: Ritual and Sanctuary, 54-118.

259 Anderson, “Retrieving the Lost Worlds of the Past: The Case for an Ontological Turn,” 794- 795

167

The second audience, then, is the community constructed by dedicating at Delos.

This is of necessity a community of elites; few people lived on the island of Delos, which

had scanty resources and depended on the sanctuary for its livelihood. As travel to Delos

was surely expensive, particularly once one got further than the neighboring Cyclades, it

stands to reason that few non-elites would have had the opportunity to travel to Delos.

The majority of those individuals that are identifiable from literary and epigraphic

sources are also clearly elites. For example, Nikandre dedicated one of the earliest kore

statues, a statue which is larger than life, at 5’9’’ tall.260 The name Therseleos appears in two inscriptions of Parian script;261 these inscriptions are fragmentary and are no longer associated with their dedications, but are intriguing because the name Therseleos, as well as the other individuals named in one of the inscriptions, are identifiable in other

dedicatory inscriptions in the Cyclades, giving us some insight into their dedications

beyond those on Delos. It appears that they belonged to a network of elites who made

dedications in multiple sanctuaries at different poleis. The daughter of Therseleos,

Telestodike, made two dedications to Artemis on Paros; one by herself and one jointly

with her husband.262 The inscription indicating that Telestodike was the sole dedicator gives the name of her father, Therseleos. The inscription also names the sculptor of the

statue: “I boast that I am the work of Kritonides of Paros.” Here, clearly the audience is

meant to recognize the name of Kritonides as a well-known sculptor. Both of the

260 Bruneau and Ducat, Guide de Delos, 86

261 ID 10, 12

262 IG XII 5, 216; CEG 414

168

inscriptions indicate that the dedication was a statue. Clearly, Telestodike and her

husband had sufficient resources to dedicate two statues, one by a well-known artist. In one of the inscriptions on Delos, two names other than Therseleos have been identified –

Philarkos and Karmophon. Each of these names appears on one other known inscription, one from Tenos and one from Iasos.263 Without the complete original inscription, it is

impossible to know the relationship between these three individuals, but we can say that

they had some sort of connection, despite being members of different poleis in the

Cyclades, and that this connection was close enough to result in their being named in the

same inscription on Delos.

The turannoi Peisistratus and Polycrates are identified as benefactors of Delian

Apollo in the literary sources, Herodotus (1.64) and Thucydides (3.104). Because of this

Robert Parker has assumed that the community here was one of turannoi, but this is

unlikely.264 Rather, as recent scholarship has argued, turannoi themselves were typical

elites, competing within that community and acting as such – although often with more

resources and more success, and at Delos, they would likely have seen themselves as part

of this panhellenic group of elites.265

Since few people lived on Delos, this community was made up of elites from

across the Greek world. The material evidence of the Archaic Period illustrates that Delos

was visited by elites from across – and even beyond – the Greek world. Further, while the

263 IG XII 5, 872; SGDI, 5515

264 Parker, Athenian Religion, 88

265 Anderson, “Before Turannoi Were Tyrants”

169

Naxian influence on the island is clear in the early part of the Archaic Period, in the later

part of the Archaic Period the turannoi of Athens and Samos demonstrated substantial

influence over the island and gave gifts that were instrumental in the sanctuary’s ability

to grow and function.

The third audience is the wider Greek world. Because Delos was a sanctuary of

considerable renown, it attracted tourists from across the Greek world, who might visit

the great birthplace of Apollo and Artemis. The dedicatory acts performed there were

also so great that they were talked about, and many of them, like the purification of

Peisistratus and the dedication of Rheneia by Polycrates, were later recorded by authors

such as Herodotus (1.64) and Thucydides (1.13, 3.104).

THE DISCOURSE

What messages, then, were these gifts being used to communicate? First, we

must consider the common function of both ritual and gift giving: the formation of the

group and the negotiation of the individual’s role in the group. Both are types of

communication with a social function, allowing givers to both define their relationship

with the god and also within their own community, and through this, to establish their

own identity.266 Giving gifts to the gods allowed the givers to establish themselves as

members of a community, but also to differentiate themselves from other members of that

same community, to express relationships of superiority and subordination. The gifts on

266 On the functions of ritual, see Burkert, Greek Religion, Chapter 2 (p.54-119). See p.66-75 on the exchange of gifts with the gods. See also Whitley, The Archaeology of Ancient Greece. On the functions of reciprocity from an anthropological standpoint, see Marcel Mauss, The Gift.

170

Delos communicate many different messages – they cement relationships of xenia with

Apollo and Artemis, they construct and reinforce elite identities, they are messages of

power and domination.

The Xenoi of the Gods

By giving gifts to a god, individuals attempted to create relationships of xenia

with the gods. They attempted to establish a relationship of ritualized friendship that

would compel the god or goddess to reciprocate the gifts that they were given. The

relationship between gods and humans was never as simple as “do ut des”, but a gift

could not be refused, and it demanded to be reciprocated in some form.267 Thus, an

individual such as Polycrates could look at his enormous good fortune and see it as the

result of gifts from the gods, even if he could not make an exact tit for tat accounting of

his gifts and theirs. The religious belief – particularly of powerful individuals such as

Polycrates – in the gods is often dismissed; elite actors are assumed to be cynically using

religion to manipulate while they themselves do not believe in the gods. There is no

reason, however, to doubt their belief in their own gods, save our own dismissal of those

gods as flights of fancy.268

Gifts to the gods demanded to be reciprocated – and gifts from the gods

demanded reciprocity as well. In The Gift, Mauss argues that in the Polynesian potlach

267 Robert Parker, On Greek Religion, x; Mauss, The Gift, 10-23

268 Anderson, “Retrieving the Lost Worlds of the Past: The Case for an Ontological Turn,” 794- 795

171

there are three obligations concerning gifts: an obligation to give gifts, to receive them,

and to reciprocate when gifts are received.269 It was impossible to refuse a gift from the

gods; thus these gifts demanded reciprocity from their beneficiaries. Polycrates was

known for his good fortune, excessive to such a degree that his friends worried for him.

Herodotus writes: “In a very short space indeed, Polycrates’ fortunes rose so high that

they were cried up throughout Ionia and the rest of the Greece. Wherever he decided to

strike in a campaign, everything went well for him (3.39).” In fact, it was this excessively

good fortune that compelled Amasis to ask Polycrates to give up the thing worth the most

to him, lest he be punished by some jealous god and come to a bad end. While the story

of the ring may be a fiction, it demonstrates the perception that Polycrates was blessed,

that he had enormously good fortune. This good fortune demanded that Polycrates

reciprocate on a similar scale with gifts to the gods. Hospitality was a core principal of ancient Greek myth and society; in the society of the Iliad and the Odyssey, failure to

reciprocate a gift leads to death and destruction. In all likelihood, Polycrates saw his good

fortune as the result of gifts from the gods, and felt compelled to reciprocate these gifts in

like fashion.

The exchange of gifts established a relationship of xenia between an individual

and the god. Perhaps equally as important, the conspicuous public display of gifts to the

gods presents the individual to others as a xenos of the god; this is part of his public

269 Mauss, The Gift, 10-23

172

identity. Putting one forth as a xenos of the gods also contributed to establishing one’s

megaloprepeia, or the magnificence befitting a great man.

Megaloprepeia

One function of gift exchange is the establishment of identity. Here,

elements of spectacle allow the giver to establish his megaloprepeia, and himself

as a megaloprepes. Aristotle and Plato both identify megaloprepeia as one of the

virtues of the philosophical man, which differentiates, as Plato puts it, the base

from the true born (Plato, Republic 6.494b). Xenophon and Aristotle both provide

descriptions of megaloprepeia in the Classical Period. In Xenophon’s

Oeconomicus, Socrates instructs Kritoboulos on the requirements of

megaloprepeia: sacrifices to the gods, lavish entertainment of both foreign guests

and fellow citizens, and liturgies demanded by the polis, such as the raising of

horses, the production of choruses, accepting presidencies, and trierarchies. This

is in addition to the payment of high taxes in times of war (2.5-7). Aristotle discusses the characteristics of the megaloprepes in the Nichomachean Ethics. His spending must be “suitable as well as great” and his motive the nobility of the action. Cost is of no consequence to the megaloprepes. Aristotle goes on to identify two categories of expenditures that are appropriate: those in the service of the gods and those in the service of the polis. In the service of the gods, the megaloprepes should spend money on such things as votive offerings, public buildings, sacrifices, and the offices of religion. The service of the polis may include liturgies such as sponsoring a chorus, a trireme, or a public meal. A

173 man’s megaloprepeia may also be demonstrated on “one time only” occasions, such as a wedding or entertaining foreign guests (1122b19 – 1123b4).

Both Xenophon and Aristotle were writing during the Classical Period for a Classical audience – well over a century after the close of the Archaic Period.

What did megaloprepeia mean in the Archaic Period? Kurke suggests that the origins of megaloprepreia lie in aristocratic gift exchange, indicated by the inclusion of acts of religious dedication, hospitality, and the raising of horses

(which was especially prestigious in the Archaic Period and continued to be a prestigious liturgy in the Classical polis).270 As megaloprepeia was transformed into a civic virtue, then, additional obligations were added for the megaloprepes.

Some of the earliest usage of the terms megaloprepeia and megaloprepes appears in the writings of Herodotus. Herodotus uses megaloprepeia primarily in the context of the entertainment of guests. When Amyntas of Macedon received the emissaries of the Persian King Darius, he prepared a “magnificent” meal

(5.18). When Cleisthenes, tyrannos of Sicyon, entertained the suitors for his daughter’s hand in marriage for a year, he did it “with magnificence” (6.128). A

“magnificent meal” was also prepared at the camp of Mardonius on the orders of

Pausanias, who invited the generals of the Greeks to dine (9.82). Megaloprepeia is also used in some other contexts: to describe religious celebrations, the movement of armies, and names. Anarcharsis of Scythia, when he observed the

270 Leslie Kurke, The Traffic in Praise: Pindar and the Poetics of the Social Economy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991), 147

174

Cyzicenes celebrating the feast of the Mother of the Gods with “great

magnificence”, vowed to do the same should he safely return to his own country

(4.76). Megaloprepeia is also used to describe Xerxes’ army as he marched it to

Greece (7.57) and Persian names (1.39).271 Herodotus’s usage of megaloprepeia

is almost wholly positive – a compliment. All the references above, with the

exception of the comment on Persian names, also refer to the consumption of

resources. Those acts described as megaloprepeia entail the use of resources on

behalf of others, whether those others are guests or the gods.

Herodotus uses the words megaloprepeia and megaloprepes in a positive

sense, as we can see from his reference to the megaloprepeia of Polycrates.

“So Polycrates came to Magnesia, and there he died in a way that dishonored himself and all his ambitions; for except the tyrants of Sicily alone, there is not one of the rest of the Greek despots who is worthy to be compared with Polycrates for megaloprepeia.”

Herodotus 3.125

Here, Herodotus is giving Polycrates a complement, and does not appear to see

Polycrates’ megaloprepeia as a negative thing. Rather, Kurke suggests that here

Herodotus gives Polycrates a compliment that certainly did not originate with his

Samian sources.272 While later Classical authors such as Plato, Xenophon, and

271 There is an additional use of megaloprepeia, where Herodotus describes Callias (a political opponent of Peisistratus) as being worthy of remembrance in part because he gave his daughters a “magnificent” gift; that each could wed the Athenian of her choice (6.122). Chapter 122 is thought to be an interpolation, however, and consequently is not included in the survey above.

272 Leslie Kurke, Coins, Bodies, Games, and Gold: The Politics of Meaning in Archaic Greece. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999), 119

175

Aristotle may have felt the need to qualify the virtue of megaloprepeia, lest it turn

into tyranny, there is no sense in Herodotus’ use of the word that there is a dark

side of megaloprepeia. Like the word tyranny itself, it appears that it was a word

without negative connotations in the Archaic Period, which later in the Classical

Period came to be seen negatively through its associations with tyranny.273

By giving gifts to Delian Apollo, individuals could present themselves in

the role of megaloprepes: a magnificent man or woman. Using one’s resources on

behalf of the gods by giving a gift to the gods falls within the discussions of the

obligations of the megaloprepes above. But what distinguishes a gift from the rest

of the pack, and denotes its giver a megaloprepes? After all, gifts to the gods were

ubiquitous; sanctuaries were littered with votive offerings and statues. Plato

complained of the clutter in sanctuaries (Laws 909e-910a). Some sanctuaries had rules for the placement of votive offerings, and it is likely that many offerings were moved at some point.274 In other words, there was significant competition

for the attention of both the god and fellow visitors. So how did a megaloprepes

differentiate their gift from the rest of the pack? One way was clearly the

resources expended on a gift; Aristotle says in the Nichomachean Ethics that cost

273 Kurt Raaflaub, “Stick and glue: the function of tyranny in fifth-century Athenian democracy,” in Popular Tyranny: Sovereignty and its Discontents in Ancient Greece, ed. Kathryn Morgan (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2003), 59-93

274 Folkert van Straten, “Votives and Votaries in Greek Sanctuaries” in Oxford Readings in Greek Religion, ed. Richard Buxton (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 191-223; Brita Alroth, “The Positioning of Greek Votive Figurines” in Early Greek cult practice: proceedings of the fifth international symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 26-29, June, 1986, eds. Robin Hägg, Nanno Marinatos, and Gullög C. Nordquist. (Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen, 1988), 195-203

176

should be of no consequence for the megaloprepes. It was clearly elements of

spectacle, however, that allowed a gift to rise to the level of “magnificent” rather

than just a gift.

Spectacle is meant to be noticed. It is unexpected. The goal, as Leger said, is “the

shock of the surprise effect.”275 Here, it is elements of spectacle that draw the attention of

the audience – whether it is Apollo or other visitors to the sanctuary – to a particular

dedication. The Naxian Colossus is spectacular in many ways; it is imposingly large, so

large that it has defied attempts to move it over the centuries.276 This massive statue – of

distinctive Naxian marble and style – met visitors at the Propylaea of the Sanctuary with

the boastful inscription: “I am of the same stone, statue and plinth.”277 Here, the Naxian

Colossus appears to be bragging, to be pointing to its rather impressive size, and saying

“And I’m made from one stone!” Likewise, the purification of the island by the Athenian

turannos Peisistratus clearly caught the attention of its audience – it was recorded by both

Herodotus (1.64) and Thucydides (3.104), and the act later repeated and expanded upon by the Athenian demokratia of the fifth century.

Identity as Members of a Group

Giving gifts at Delos established the giver as a member of the community of elites who dominated the discourse in the sanctuary of Delian Apollo. This community was

275 Fernand Leger, Functions of Painting, 35

276 Jeffrey, The Local Scripts of Greece, 292

277 ID 4

177 made up of elites from across the Greek world, from the mythical Hyperboreans, to Ionia, to Athens, and beyond. Individuals at Delos – simply by traveling there and giving a gift to the god – marked themselves as elites, with the resources to travel beyond their own territory, and to expend resources on behalf of Delian Apollo, on behalf of a sanctuary and community that was not the one in which they held citizenship.

At the same time, gift giving on Delos was a competitive sport. By giving gifts to Apollo, individuals differentiated themselves from the group and attempted to measure themselves in relation to one other, to establish who was superior and who was inferior. In inscriptions, individuals identify themselves as members of competing subgroups; two prominent subgroups are family groups and different poleis. In inscriptions which provide additional information about the dedicator, it is most likely that they will provide information about their family – both the natal and marital families – and about their polis of origin. The inscription on the Nikandre statue emphasizes Nikandre’s family. “Nikandre dedicated me to the far-shooter, pourer of arrows, the excellent daughter of

Deinodikes of Naxos, the sister of Deionomenes, And [now?] the wife of

Phraxos.”278 The inscription gives detailed information about her family connections – her father, brother, and husband are all mentioned by name. This emphasizes the significance of membership in a family group.

278 ID 2

178

Inscriptions also often indicate membership in a polis. In a short inscription, this is more likely to be specified than any family information. Above, Nikandre emphasizes that she is from Naxos. It was likely easily apparent that the statue – the earliest known kore statue, in the Daedalic style – was of Naxian origin, given the use of Naxian marble and a Naxian script for the inscription. Despite this, the inscription – like many inscriptions – still makes a point of explicitly stating that Nikandre and her family are from Naxos. Another inscription records a dedication by the famed sculptor Archermos and his father Micciades; while Archermos was at that time living on Paros, where it is probably his workshop was located, they emphasize their Chian origins: “from the Chian

Micciades, … the paternal city of Melas.”279 Chios was founded by the mythical Melas referenced in the inscription, who was the son of Poseidon. Here, it is evidently important that the dedication not be mistaken for one from Paros – which, given the distinctiveness of Parian marble and the Parian script used in the inscription, was not entirely unreasonable. In the inscription, then, Micciades and Archermos twice make reference to

Chios as their polis of origin; Micciades is described as Chian, and we see a reference to

“the paternal city of Melas”. Micciades and Archermos are clearly declaring that they are members of the subgroups of Ionia and Chios – not the Cyclades and Paros.

Delos is situated in close proximity to the Cycladic islands of Naxos and Paros, which competed for influence in the Archaic Period. It is possible to observe this inter- island competition within the dedications on Delos. Both the Naxian and Parian presence

279 ID 9

179

are easily recognizable on Delos, although the Naxian presence is more dominant by far.

The sheer number of buildings, the “Naxian Quarter”, the Colossus, the imposing Naxian

lions – this is before we mention inscriptions or the wealth of kouros statues that by their

style and stone indicate their origins in Naxian workshops. Despite the rather

overwhelming Naxian presence, it is clear that the Parians did not simply cede

domination of Delos to the Naxians. Parian sculpture – like Naxian sculpture – is easily

identified by stone and style. Both islands were well known for the early production of

kouros statues (a considerable number of which have made their way to Delos) but each

produces a distinct marble and has a distinct sculptural style. The Parian script is also

easily distinguished from the Naxian script.280

Although the Parian presence on the island does not equal the Naxian presence, it is clearly felt. The Monument of the Hexagons and the Letoon both feature a decorative pattern thought to indicate their Parian origin.281 This speculation about the Parian origin of the Monument of the Hexagons is intriguing, given the placement of the structure. The

Monument of the Hexagons is one of two small structures built onto the end of the

Portico of the Naxians, which is part of the so-called “Naxian Quarter”. If this is indeed a

Parian structure then, possibly a Parian oikos, it has been built attached to a structure that

is clearly of Naxian origin, in what almost appears to be a challenge to Naxian

domination of the island. Paros is here not just adjacent to the Naxian quarter, but part of

280 On the Naxian and Parian scripts, see Jeffrey, The Local Scripts of Greece, 290-292; On Naxian and Parian stone and styles, see Ridgway, The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture, 81-82

281 Bruneau and Ducat, Guide de Delos, #44 (Monument of the Hexagons) and #53 (Letoon)

180

the “Naxian quarter”. On the other hand, it could signify Parian subordination to Naxos,

with a Parian structure becoming part of the larger Naxian complex. The other possibly

Parian structure, the Letoon, is located outside of the main area of the sanctuary to

Apollo, near the lake where Leto gave birth. Overlooking the lake – and now the Letoon - are the Naxian Lions. Again, is this structure a challenge to Naxian dominance or a statement of submission? While it is impossible to clearly understand the placement of the Monument of the Hexagons and the Letoon (if the buildings are indeed of Parian origin), it is clear that Paros made its presence known on Delos. In addition to the two buildings of Parian origin, there are a number of sculptures from Parian workshops.

Another identifiable subgroup on Delos is that of artists. It appears that sculptors with workshops on the neighboring islands used the sanctuary of Delian Apollo as a showroom for their work. As such, Delos would have been an excellent location; it drew elites from across the Aegean Sea, from not just Cyclades but the Greek mainland and

Ionia, and even sometimes beyond the Greek world. Those elites, while they were visiting, might happen upon a statute that they admired – and could commission easily on nearby Naxos or Paros. Two inscriptions on Delos indicate that artists “signed” their work there. The Naxian sculptor Euthykartides dedicated a statue towards the end of the seventh century on a base of white marble.282 The dedication was an early kouros statue

on a triangular base. The base featured a mask at each corner – the heads of a lion, a ram,

and a gorgon. While we do not have all of the base or the kouros statue, it is clear that

282 ID 3, Jeffrey, The Local Scripts of Greece, 292

181

Euthykartides meant this piece to advertise his skill. The inscription reads:

“Euthykartides the Naxian set up and made me.” The inscription is one of the earliest

known master’s signatures outside of Attica. The inscription also makes clear that

Euthykartides is from Naxos; a potential patron knows how to locate him. Hurwit

characterizes the message: “But it is about self-promotion; it is about mastery of material

and form, and it is also about Euthykartides’ rivalry both with other sculptors for

commissions and with other dedicants for the favor of Apollo.”283 Another, later, dedication is attributed in the inscription to the famous sculptor Archermos, originally of

Chios, but who probably had a workshop on Paros. Archermos was included in Pliny’s accounting of the first great sculptors (Pliny, Natural History 36.4). Like the statue of

Euthykartides, which must had been spectacular – one of the earliest kouros statues, with an intricately carved based which illustrated the range of his ability – the dedication of

Archermos is a running Nike statue, thought to be the first of the type. The inscription says that the statue is “[… worked by] the skills of Archermos.”284

Delos was an optimal location for a sculptor to advertise his work and the work of

his workshop. On the one hand, it attracted elite visitors – who presumably would

purchase sculptures at some point; on the other hand, it was a central location in the

Aegean Sea, which, in part because of this central location, drew its visitors from both

283 Jeffrey Hurwit, Artists and signatures in ancient Greece (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 6; On artist signatures see also Jeffrey Hurwit, “Response: Reflections on Identity, Personality, and Originality” in Artists and Artistic Production in Ancient Greece, eds. Kristen Seaman and Peter Schultz (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 177-206 and Robin Osborne, “The Art of Signing in Ancient Greece,” Arethusa 43 (2010): 231-251.

284 ID 9

182 sides of the Aegean and beyond. It was an optimal location for a sculptor such as

Archermos, who was originally from Chios but probably had his workshop on Paros in the Cyclades, in proximity to Delos.285 Archermos’ work appears across the Aegean Sea; we have the Running Nike on Delos and a column on the Athenian Acropolis that bears his signature.286 Another dedication bears the signature of an unnamed Chian who may be

Archermos. Pliny also testifies to the vast geographic area through which Archermos’ work was spread – he mentions statues in the islands neighboring Chios, and specifically

Lesbos. He emphasizes his Chian origin in the inscription on Delos, indicating a wide range of potential customers. Clearly, it benefited sculptors to dedicate examples of their work with their signatures. Further, here spectacle – still a significant element in advertising today – was needed to convince the prospective buyer that this artist was the best for their needs, to draw their attention. As well, elite gifts to the gods clearly have elements of spectacle (at least on Delos), so the elements of spectacle act as proof that they produce an appropriate dedication for even the most competitive environments.

Competitive Gift Exchange

Greece was a competitive society, and clearly this agonistic spirit extended to gift exchange. Elements of spectacle at Delos appear to have gotten out of hand because of the element of one-upmanship between elites – to demonstrate their superiority, elites needed to make grander gestures than those made by their peers. In The Gift, Mauss

285 Boardman, 88

286 Boardman, 88

183

extensively discusses the potlach, or what he terms “total services of an agonistic

type.”287 He notes the principles of rivalry and hostility that prevail in the potlach as

practiced by the Tlingit and Haida clans of the American Northwest: “They go as far as to fight and kill chiefs and nobles. Moreover, they even go as far as the purely sumptuary destruction of wealth that has been accumulated in order to outdo the rival chief as well as his associate.” This is, Mauss says, a struggle between elites to establish a hierarchy.

The agonistic exchange described here by Mauss has many elements in common with the ever-increasing scale and spectacle of gifts given at Delos.

This type of competitive one-upmanship is nowhere more clear than in the gifts of those groups or individuals who wanted to establish their influence over the Cyclades.

Delos in the early part of the Archaic Period appears to have been dominated by Naxos, which was one of the powers in the region. Naxian influence on Delos is immediately apparent – they were responsible for building the structures in what has been called the

“Naxian Quarter” at the entrance to the expanded sanctuary, consisting of the Oikos of the Naxians, the Portico of the Naxians, and the Propylaea. A colossal statue known as the Naxian Colossus stands near the entrance to the sanctuary, while the imposing grouping of Naxian Lions watches over the lake where Leto gave birth. These structures were constructed of Naxian marble, advertising Naxian power on Delos.

The Naxian presence on Delos is overwhelming – which would have presented a problem for other groups and individuals wishing to use gifts to Delian Apollo to

287 Mauss, The Gift, 7-8

184

establish their dominance over the Cyclades. When the Athenian turannos Peisistratus

acted on Delos, it was shortly after he came to power for the third and final time at the

Battle of Pallene. He had the support of other elites beyond Athens, including Lygdamis

of Naxos. After he established himself in Athens, he established Lygdamis as turannos of

Naxos. Peisistratus, then, surely wished to establish his own dominance over Naxos.

Peisistratus built what was probably the first temple for Apollo, the Porinos

Naos.288 The position of the temple is interesting in that it sits on the edge of the so called

Naxian Quarter, one of the first non-Naxian structures encountered by visitors to the

sanctuary. Perhaps the placement of the temple was meant to challenge Naxian

dominance? This temple also sat at the center of the newly expanded sanctuary, a position that was reinforced by the purification of the temenos performed by Peisistratus

– according to both Herodotus and Thucydides, graves were removed within the site of

the temple (Herodotus 1.64, Thucydides 3.104). With the construction of the temple and

the purification of the island, Peisistratus claimed for his gifts the central point in the

sanctuary. Further elements of spectacle were still needed, however, to rival the Naxian

influence in the sanctuary. The purification, which entailed the removal of graves to

neighboring Rheneia, was in fact a practical act which ensured the purity of the

sanctuary. It was also an act of spectacle, however, which surely attracted awe and

admiration; after all, he had had numerous graves removed to a different island. This was

presumably no small undertaking. The way that the purification was presented attracted

288 Bruneau and Ducat, Guide de Delos, 182

185 enough attention for the act to be repeated by the Athenian demokratia of the fifth century BCE, when they removed all graves from the entire island, and for the act to be recorded by Herodotus and Thucydides (Thucydides 3.104).

Polycrates faced the same problem, when he wished to make a statement of his hegemony over the Cyclades. How to stand out? The Naxians had practically built half the sanctuary and dedicated many imposing statues; Peisistratus built a temple and purified the sanctuary. How could Polycrates give a gift that would stand out and appear even to exceed those of the Naxians and Peisistratus? The answer, again, was spectacle.

The dedication of Rheneia was, in a sense, eminently practical – it provided the sanctuary with a consistent revenue stream from land rentals (Thucydides 1.116, 3.104). The chain, as well, solved a practical problem – it ensured that Delos would not wander off, as it was said to do in myth. That Polycrates dedicated an entire island to Apollo and attached it to

Delos with a chain, however, suggests the image of an over the top dedication. The framing of this dedication of Rheneia highlights the spectacular elements over the practical ones.

The dedication of incense by the Persian general Datis provides yet another example of one-upmanship as well as a contrast with the preceding dedications. While en route to attack Athens in the first Persian invasion, he subdued many islands in the

Cyclades and stopped at Delos. While at Delos, he showed himself as respectful towards

Apollo and his sanctuary; he invited the islanders who had fled back to the island and promised them no harm. He also made a dedication to Delian Apollo of three hundred talents worth of incense (Herodotus 6.97, 6.118). This would have been an enormous

186 amount of incense, which was a valuable commodity. Like other gifts given on Delos, there was presumably a certain amount of premeditation here – it seems rather unlikely that Datis just happened to have three hundred talents of incense on hand. Delos would be a strategic spot to make a statement as the Persian army crossed the Aegean Sea. The gift given by Datis illustrates the vast resources of the Persian Empire; overwhelming when compared with those of Greece. This sends the message that Persia can easily win this competition for the grandest and most extravagant gifts to the gods. In addition, in contrast to the gifts discussed above, the wealth discussed here was destroyed rather than contributing to the future well-being of the sanctuary.

187

Conclusion

Spectacle played two important roles in the gifts given to Delian Apollo.

First, elements of spectacle ensured that gifts were noticed both by the gods and by other visitors to the sanctuary. In fact, elements of the spectacular were an essential and practical element of any gift dedicated on Delos, as so many of the gifts given to Apollo were of such a high caliber. It is clear that gifts to Delian

Apollo had to meet a high standard if they were to stand out, and standing out was one of the goals of many religious gifts. Giving a gift to the gods was an act that had both private and public aspects. It was on display, for all to see, in perpetuity.

It is clear that those who gave gifts to the gods were concerned that those gifts were noticed; that they stand out from the rest of the gifts in the sanctuary. It is likely that visitors chose the location of their dedication with care, although due to the large volume of small dedications, they were likely moved at some point and even melted down to make other offerings.289 In this situation, however, the

names of original dedicators were preserved, as in an inscription from Attica

dictating that the names of the original dedicators and the weight of the

289 van Straten, “Votives and Votaries in Greek Sanctuaries,” Alroth, “The Positioning of Greek Votive Figurines”

188

dedications must be inscribed on a marble stele to be set up in the sanctuary.290

Some were accompanied by inscriptions which informed the viewer, or passerby

(one potential audience for these gifts) who it was that gave the gift. When a visitor to the sanctuary read the epigram out loud, this reenacted the original act of dedication. Dedications, then, competed for the attention of visitors to the sanctuary – only by being noticed could they continue to perpetuate the dedicatory act.

One function of the elements of spectacular in the dedications to Apollo on Delos is that it enabled an individual gift to stand out against others in the sanctuary and continue to be noticed. Gifts that were excessively outrageous might eventually be recorded in literary sources, such as the purification of the sanctuary by Peisistratus and the dedication of Rheneia by Polycrates. The scale of the gifts of Peisistratus and Polycrates was such that their gifts were memorialized beyond the sanctuary of Apollo, making it possible for people who never visited Delos to know of them, and rememorialize them by repeating

accounts of them. In this sense, the preservation of these gifts by Herodotus and

Thucydides in their writings serve the same purpose as an inscription on an

object. The dedication becomes a story to be told and retold, and ultimately

written down, to continue to be told and retold. Of course, only those dedications

290 IG II2 839, LSCG 41 221/0 BCE

189

that truly stand out would be retold to the extent that they were recorded in the

histories of Herodotus and Thucydides.

This is not to say that Polycrates, when he dedicated Rheneia, expected

that Herodotus or Thucydides would write of the dedication. Rather, the elements

of spectacle in the dedication – the size of the dedication, and the detail about the

chain – themselves invite the audience to retell the story. That they were later

recorded is evidence of the success of these spectacular elements. Polycrates, in

dedicating at Delos, was also not just making a statement within the sanctuary at

Delos. Rather, Delos was the site of a dedication that was meant to send a

message to communities and elites throughout the Aegean Sea. Only with a grand

gesture that would invite being retold beyond those who visited the sanctuary

could an elite such as Polycrates ensure the reception of his message.

The second role of spectacle in these gifts is that it is a type of “added value”.

Spectacle is the value added that transforms an ordinary gift into a magnificent one,

worthy of the megaloprepes. To understand the role played by spectacle in gifts, we must move away from seeing elements of spectacle as wholly manipulative, deceptive, and with the purpose of asserting “power over.” Connor has proposed moving away from understanding spectacles such as the Phye procession as purely manipulative, and argues

for interaction between the actors and their audience – an intriguing idea that sets on its

head most of the assumptions made about the use of the spectacular in politics.291 The

291 Connor, “Tribes, Festivals, and Processions”

190 role of elements of spectacle in gifts on Delos can not be understood as purely manipulative. Rather, as Connor suggests, the audience here are not passive receptors.

They have a role to play in noticing gifts and in giving further gifts that continue this discourse.

In the gifts that we have discussed here, however, spectacle does not conceal; rather, elements of spectacle in gifts, as Debord says, “tell us who a society is.”292 Our examination of this grouping of gifts on Delos reveals much about elites within ancient Greek society. Above all, they were competitive, and this competition demanded that they add value in some way to their gifts, which they did through elements of spectacle. They were concerned with both establishing their membership within this group of panhellenic elites, but also with establishing their superiority and subordination to other members of that same group. They wanted to establish their identities as xenoi of the gods, and megaloprepes. It was being noticed, being heard, that was most important to them

– and it was through spectacle that they ensured that exhibitions of public display grabbed the attention of their audience, whether it was the gods or fellow elites.

292 Debord, The Society of the Spectacle

191

Bibliography

Alroth, Brita. “The Positioning of Greek Votive Figurines.” In Early Greek cult practice: proceedings of the fifth international symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 26-29, June, 1986, Edited by Robin Hägg, Nanno Marinatos, and Gullög C. Nordquist, 195-203. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen, 1988.

Anderson, Greg. “Before Turannoi Were Tyrants: Rethinking a Chapter of Early Greek History.” Classical Antiquity 24, no. 2. (2005): 173-222

-----, “Retrieving the Lost Worlds of the Past: The Case for an Ontological Turn.” American Historical Review 120, no. 3. (2015): 787-810.

-----. The Athenian Experiment: Building an Imagined Political Community in Ancient Attica, 508-490 B.C. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003.

Andrewes, Antony. The Greek Tyrants. New York: Harper and Row, 1963.

Barron, John. “The Sixth-Century Tyranny at Samos.” Classical Quarterly 14, No.2 (1964): 210-229.

Baumbach, Mauel, Andrej Petrovic, and Ivana Petrovic. “Archaic and classical Greek epigram: an introduction.” In Archaic and Classical Greek Epigrams. Edited by Manuel Baumbach, Andrej Petrovic, and Ivana Petrovic, 1-24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Belk, Russell. “Gift-Giving Behavior.” Research in Marketing, Volume 2. Edited by Jagdish Sheth, 95-126. Greenwich CT: JAI Press, 1979.

Bell, Andrew. Spectacular Power in the Greek and Roman City. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Bergmann, Bettina. “Introduction: The Art of Ancient Spectacle.” In The Art of Ancient Spectacle, Edited by Bettina Bergmann and Christine Kondoleon. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999, 9-35.

Bergquist, Birgitta. The Archaic Greek Temenos: A Study of Structure and Function. Lund: Swedish Institute at Athens, 1967.

192

Blundell, Susan, Elizabeth Craik, Douglas Cairns, and Nancy Rabinowitz. “Introduction.” Helios 40, no. 1. (2013): 3-37

Boardman, John. Greek Sculpture: The Archaic Period: a Handbook. New York, N.Y.: Thames and Hudson, 1996.

-----. “Herakles, Peisistratus, and Sons.” Revue Archaeologique no.1 (1972): 57-72.

Boersma, Johannes. “Peisistratos’ Building Activity Reconsidered.” In Peisistratos and the Tyranny: A Reappraisal of the Evidence. Edited by Heleen Sancisi- Weerdenburg, 49-56. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 2000.

Bridgeman, Timothy. Hyperboreans: Myth and History in Celtic Hellenic Contacts. New York: Routledge, 2005.

Bruneau, Philippe and Jean Ducat. Guide de Délos. Paris: École Française D’Athénes, 2005.

Bruneau, Philippe and Philippe Fraisse. Le Monument à abside et la question de l’Autel de cornes. Exploration archéologique de Délos 40. Paris: E. de Boccard, 2002.

Burkert, Walter. Greek Religion. Translated by John Raffan. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985.

-----. “Kynaithos, Polycrates, and the Homeric Hymn to Apollo” In Arktouros: Hellenic Studies presented to Bernard M.W. Knox on the occasion of his 65th birthday, Edited by Glen W., Walter Burkert, and Michael C.J. Putnam Bowerstock, 52-62. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1979.

Cartledge, P. "Sparta and Samos: A Special Relationship?" Classical Quarterly. 32, no. 2 (1982): 243-265

Carty, Aideen. Polycrates, tyrant of Samos: new light on Archaic Greece. Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart: 2015.

Cawkwell, G. L. “Early Greek Tyranny and the People.” The Classical Quarterly 45, no. 1 (1995): 73-86

Coldstream, J.N. Geometric Greece: 900-700 BC. London: Routledge, 2003.

Cole, Susan Guettel. Landscapes, Gender, and Ritual Space: The Ancient Greek Experience. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004.

193

Connor. W. R. “Tribes, Festivals, and Processions: Civic Ceremonial and Political Manipulation in Archaic Greece.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 107, no. 40 (1987): 40-50.

Constantakopoulou, Christy. The Dance of the Islands. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Courbin, P. “Le temple archäique de Délos.” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 111, no. 1 (1987): 63-78

-----. L’Oikos des Naxiens. Exploration archéologique de Délos 33. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1980.

Courby, F. Les Temples d’Apollon, Exploration archéologique de Délos 12. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1931.

Day, Joseph W. “Interactive Offerings: Early Greek Dedicatory Epigrams and Ritual.” Harvard studies in Classical Philology 96. (1994): 37-74

Debord, Guy. The Society of the Spectacle. Translated by Ken Knabb. Berkeley: Bureau of Public Secrets, 2014.

Desborough, V. R. d'A. Protogeometric Pottery. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952.

Ducrey, Pierre. “Eubeoa.” In An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis. Edited by Mogens Herman Hansen and Thomas Heine Nielson, 643-663. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Dugas, Charles. Les Vases de l’Héraion. Exploration archéologique de Délos 10. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1928.

-----, Les vases préhelléniques et géométriques. Exploration archéologique de Délos 15. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1934.

Dürrbach, Félix, Pierre Roussel, Marcel Launey, André Plassart, and Jacques Coupry. Inscriptions de Délos. Paris: H. Champion, 1926.

Étienne, Roland and Philippe Fraisse. “L’autel archäique de l’Artémision de Délos,” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 113, no. 2 (1989): 451-466

Ehrenberg, Victor. The Greek State. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1960.

Farnell, Lewis Richard. Cults of the Greek States Volume 4. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896-1909.

194

Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality: An Introduction Vol. 1. Translated by Robert Hurley. New York: Vintage Books, 1990.

-----, The Archaeology of Knowledge. Translated by A.M. Sheridan Smith. New York: Pantheon Books, 1972.

Frost, Frank. “Peisistratos, the Cults, and the Unification of Attica.” In Politics and the Athenians: essays on Athenian history and historiography, 120-132. Toronto: E. Kent, 2005.

Furley, William. “Life in a Line: a reading of dedicatory epigrams from the Archaic and Classical Periods.” In Archaic and Classical Greek Epigrams. Edited by Manuel Baumbach, Andrej Petrovic, and Ivana Petrovic, 151-166. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Gallet de Santerre, Hubert. Délos primitive et archäique. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1958.

-----. La Terrasse des lions, le Létoon, le Monument de granit, Exploration archéologique de Délos 24. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1959

Graf, Fritz. Apollo. London: Routledge, 2009.

Greenidge, A.H. Handbook of Greek Constitutional History. London: Macmillan and Co., 1911.

Hansen, Mogens Herman, and Thomas Heine Nielsen. An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Hedreen, Guy. “BILD, MYTHOS, AND RITUAL: Choral Dance in Theseus’s Cretan Adventure on the François Vase.” Hesperia, 80 no. 3. (July – September 2011): 491-510

Herman, Gabriel. Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

Hurwit, Jeffrey. Artists and signatures in ancient Greece. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

-----. “Response: Reflections on Identity, Personality, and Originality” in Artists and Artistic Production in Ancient Greece, Edited by Kristen Seaman and Peter Schultz, 177-206. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.

-----. “The Human Figure in Early Greek Sculpture and Vase Painting” In The Cambridge Companion to archaic Greece, Edited by H.A. Shapiro. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. 195

Janko, Richard. Homer, Hesiod, and the Hymns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Jeffrey, L.H. The Local Scripts of Greece. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961.

Kent, John Harvey. “The Temple Estates of Delos, Rheneia, and Mykonos.” Hesperia 17, no. 4 (1948): 243-338.

Kurke, Leslie. Coins, Bodies, Games, and Gold: The Politics of Meaning in Archaic Greece. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999.

-----. “The Politics of ἁβροσύνη in Archaic Greece,” Classical Antiquity 11 (1992): 91– 120.

-----. The Traffic in Praise: Pindar and the Poetics of Social Economy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991.

Kyrieleis, H. “Chios and Samos in the Archaic Period.” In Chios: A Conference at the Homerion in Chios, Edited by John Boardman and C.E. Vaphopoulou- Richardson, 187-204. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986.

Laidlaw, William Allison. A History of Delos. Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1933.

Lavelle, B. M. Fame, Money, and Power: The Rise of Peisistratos and “Democratic” Tyranny at Athens. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2005.

Lefevre, Francois. L’Amphictionie Pyleo-Delphique: Histoire et Institutions. Paris: De Boccard, 1998.

Léger, Fernand. Functions of Painting: The Documents of 20th Century Art. Translated by Alexandra Anderson, Edited by Edward F. Fry. New York: The Viking Press, 1973.

Lewis, David M. “Datis the Mede.” In Selected Papers in Greek and Near Eastern History. Edited by P.J. Rhodes, 342-344. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 1997.

Lewis, Sian. Greek Tyranny. Exeter: Bristol University Press, 2009.

Long, Charlotte. “Greeks, Carians, and the Purification of Delos.” American Journal of Archaeology. 62 no.3 (1958): 297-306

Lyons, Deborah. Dangerous gifts: gender and exchange in ancient Greece. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2012.

196

MacLachlan, Bonnie. The Age of Grace: Charis in Early Greek Poetry. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014.

Marcudy, Grace Harriet. “The Hyperboreans.” The Classical Review 30 no.7 (1916): 180-183

Mazarakis Ainian, Alexander. From Rulers’ Dwellings to Temples: Architecture, Religion, and Society in Early Iron Age Greece (1100-700 B.C.) Jonsered: P Åströms förlag, 1997.

Mauss, Marcel. The Gift. Translated by W.D. Halls. London: Routledge Classics, 2004.

Mitchell, B. M. “Herodotus and Samos.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 95 (1975): 75- 91.

Mitchell, Lynette G. The Heroic Rulers of Archaic and Classical Greece. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013.

Morgan, Catherine. “The Origins of Panhellenism.” In Greek Sanctuaries: New Approaches. Edited by Nanno Marinatos and Robin Hägg, 14-33. London: Routledge, 1993.

Morris, Ian. Burial and ancient society: the rise of the Greek city-state. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

-----. Death Ritual and Social Structure in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Mylonopoulos, Joannis. “Greek Sanctuaries as places of communication through rituals.” In Ritual and Communnidcation in the Graeco-Roman World. Edited by Eftychia Stavrianopoulou, 69-110. Liège: Centre international d’étude de la religion grecque antique, 2006.

O’Brien, Joan. The Transformations of Hera: A Study of Ritual, Hero, and the Goddess in the Iliad. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 1993.

Osborne, Robin. “The Art of Signing in Ancient Greece.” Arethusa 43 (2010): 231-251.

Page, Denys. Sappho and Alcaeus: An Introduction to the Poetry of Lesbian Society. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955.

Parke, H. W. “Polycrates and Delos.” The Classical Quarterly 40 (1946): 105-108.

Parker, Robert. Athenian Religion. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.

197

-----. Miasma: pollution and purification in early Greek Religion. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983.

------. “Pleasing Thighs: Reciprocity in Greek Religion.” In Reciprocity in Ancient Greece. Edited by Christopher Gill, Norman Postlethwaite, and Richard Seaford, 105-126. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

------. On Greek Religion. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2011.

Pedley, John. Sanctuaries and the Sacred in the Ancient Greek World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Picard, Ch. “La Crete et les legendes hyperboreennes.” Revue Archéologique 25 (1927): 349-360

Polignanc, François de. Cults, territory, and the origins of the Greek city state. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.

Raaflaub, Kurt. “Stick and glue: the function of tyranny in fifth-century Athenian democracy.” in Popular Tyranny: Sovereignty and its Discontents in Ancient Greece, Edited by Kathryn Morgan, 59-93. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2003.

Reger, Gary. “The Aegean.” In An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis. Edited by Mogens Herman Hansen and Thomas Heine Nielson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Ridgway, Brunilde Sismondo. The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture. Chicago: Ares, 1993.

-----. “The Nike of Archermos and her Attire.” In Chios: A Conference at the Homerion in Chios, Edited by John Boardman and C.E. Vaphopoulou-Richardson, 259-274. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986.

Roebuck, C. “Chios in the Sixth Century BC.” In Chios: A Conference at the Homerion in Chios, Edited by John Boardman and C.E. Vaphopoulou-Richardson, 81-88. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986.

Rolley, Claude. Greek Bronzes. London: Sotheby's Publications/Chesterman Publications, 1986.

Romm, James. “Herodotus and Mythic Geography: The Case of the Hyperboreans,” Transactions of the American Philological Association 119 (1989): 97-113

198

-----. The edges of the earth in ancient thought: geography, exploration, and fiction. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.

Rubinstein, Lene. “Ionia.” In An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis. Edited by Mogens Herman Hansen and Thomas Heine Nielson, 1053-1107. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Rupp, David W. “Reflections on the development of altars in the eighth century B.C.” In The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century B.C.: Tradition and Innovation. Edited by Robin Hägg, 101-107. Stockholm. Paul Astroms Forlag, 1983.

Sale, William. “The Hyperborean Maidens on Delos.” The Harvard Theological Review 54 no.2 (1961): 75-89.

Salmon, John. “Lopping Off the Heads? Tyrants, politics, and the polis.” In The Development of the Polis in archaic Greece. Edited by Lynette G. Mitchell and P.J. Rhodes, 60-73. London: Routledge, 1997.

Sanchez, Pierre. L’Amphictionie des Pyles et de Delphes. Stuttgart: Franz Weiner Verlag, 2001.

Sancisi-Weerdeburg, Heleen. “Culture Politics and Chronology.” In Peisistratos and the Tyranny: A Reappraisal of the Evidence. Edited by Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg, 79-106. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 2000.

------. “The Tyranny of Peisistratus.” In Peisistratos and the Tyranny: A Reappraisal of the Evidence. Edited by Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg, 1-15. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 2000.

Schefold, Karl. Gods and Heroes in Late Archaic Greek Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Schieffelin, Edward. “Reciprocity and the Structure of Reality.” Man 15, no. 3. (1980): 502-517

Schmitz, Thomas A. “Speaker and Address in Early Greek Epigram and Lyric.” In Archaic and Classical Greek Epigrams. Edited by Manuel Baumbach, Andrej Petrovic, and Ivana Petrovic, 25-41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Scully, Vincent. The Earth, the Temple, and the Gods: Greek Sacred Architecture Revised Edition. San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 2013.

Seltman, C.T. “The Offerings of the Hyperboreans.” The Classical Quarterly 22 no.3/4 (1928): 155-159 199

Shapiro, H.A. Art and Cult Under the Tyrants in Athens. Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern, 1995.

Shipley, Graham. A History of Samos: 800-188 BCE. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.

Simon, Christopher G. “The Archaeology of Cult in Geometric Greece: Ionian Temples, Altars, and Dedications.” In New Light on a Dark Age: Exploring the Culture of Geometric Greece. Edited by Susan Langdon, 125-143. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1997.

Smith, William. Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography. London: Walton and Maberly, 1854.

Sourvinou-Inwood, Christine. “Early sanctuaries, the eighth century, and ritual space: fragments of a discourse.” In Greek Sanctuaries: New Approaches. Edited by Nanno Marinatos and Robin Hägg, 1-13. London: Routledge, 1993.

Suk Fong Jim, Theodora. Sharing with the Gods: Aparche and Dekatai in Ancient Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Tausend, Klaus. Amphiktyonie und Symmachie. Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1992.

Tomlinson, R.A. Greek Sanctuaries. London: The Anchor Press Ltd, 1976.

Vallois, R. Vallois, L’architecture hellénique et hellénistique à Délos: jusqu'à l'éviction des Déliens (166 Av. J.C.). Paris: Éditions E. de Boccard, 1966.

Van Straten, Folkert. “Votives and Votaries in Greek Sanctuaries.” In Oxford Readings in Greek Religion, Edited by Richard Buxton, 191-223. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Van Wees, Hans. “Megara’s Mafiosi: Timocracy and Violence in Theognis.” In Alternatives to Athens: varieties of political organization and community in ancient Greece, Edited by Roger Brock and Steven Hodkinson, 52-67. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Von Reden, Sitta. Exchange in Ancient Greece. London: Duckworth, 1995.

Wagner-Hasel, Beate. “Gift Exchange: modern theories and ancient attitudes.” In Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer. Edited by Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy and Irene S. Lemos, 257-270. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006.

Walker, Henry J. Theseus and Athens. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

200

West, M.L. “Cynaethus’ Hymn to Apollo.” Classical Quarterly (1975):161-170.

Whitley, James. The Archaeology of Ancient Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

201