University of Cincinnati

Home , Agora, Amphidromia, Ancient Greek cuisine, Athenaeus, Halieis, Homer

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

Date: 3 February 2006

I, Katherine M. Swinford , hereby submit this as part of the requirements for the degree of: Master of Arts in: Department of Classics of the College of Arts and Sciences It is entitled: The Semi-Fixed Nature of Greek Domestic Religion

This work and its defense approved by:

Chair: Kathleen M. Lynch Jack L. Davis

The Semi-Fixed Nature of Greek Domestic Religion

A thesis submitted to the

Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

in the Department of Classics of the College of Arts and Sciences

2006

Katherine M. Swinford B.A., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2002

Committee: Kathleen M. Lynch, Chair Jack L. Davis

ABSTRACT

The present thesis is concerned with household religion practiced during the Classical period in ancient Greece. In the past, the study of domestic cult was overlooked, and instead scholars focused on the public religion of the Greeks. These studies used literary evidence in order to describe civic religion. However, ancient texts also provide evidence for rituals practiced and gods revered in the Greek household. Literary sources indicate that domestic rituals did not require specialized equipment, and therefore, such equipment is difficult to identify in the archaeological record. This study attempts to identify such implements and examines material excavated from domestic contexts in three cities: Olynthus, Halieis, and Athens. The integration of literary sources and archaeological evidence demonstrates that common household items were used as the implements of domestic ritual. Thus, it seems that everyday, household objects assumed religious significance in certain contexts.

The Semi-Fixed Nature of Greek Domestic Religion

Katherine M. Swinford, M. A.

University of Cincinnati, 2006

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My sincerest thanks go to Kathleen Lynch, not only for her practical advice and direction, but also for offering the brilliant seminar, “Greek Houses and Households,” whence this paper originated. Her encouragement has been invaluable. I especially thank Barbara Breitenberger for her guidance and knowledge in all aspects of ancient Greek religion.

Thanks are due to the wonderful staff of the Classics Library, as well as to the patient Graduate

Committee.

Without the confidence of the ladies on the metal side and the steady smiles of Joel and Lula, I would never have accomplished this task - thank you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ______i

Acknowledgements ______iii

Table of Contents ______1

List of Tables ______3

List of Plates ______4

Chapter 1. Introduction ______5

Previous Scholarship______6 Methodology______10 Literary Evidence ______11 Iconographic Evidence ______12

Chapter 2. Household Gods ______14

Domestic Deities______14 Hestia ______14 The Hearth in Public______17 Zeus Ktesios ______18 Zeus Herkeios ______21 Doorway Gods ______22

Chapter 3. Domestic Rituals ______25

The Sacred Hearth______25 Amphidromia______25 Gamos ______26 Last Rites______28

Miasma ______30 Birth Pollution ______31 Death Pollution______33 Ritual Pyres______33

Ritual Washing ______34

Chapter 4. Domestic Religion in Practice______37

Three Cities______40 Olynthus ______40

Halieis______42 Athens ______43

Artifact Analysis ______44 The Hearth-Altar______44 Louters ______48 Thuribles ______49

Ritual Implements______49 Domestic Sacrifice ______49 Ritual Washing ______50 The Apparatus of Ritual Washing______51

Chapter 5. Conclusions______53

Tables ______55

Works Cited______60

Plates ______65

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Comparison of built and portable hearths and altars in Athens, Halieis, and Olynthus ______55

Table 2. Olynthus: Distribution of ritually significant artifacts by house name ______56

Table 3. Halieis: Distribution of ritually significant artifacts by house name ______58

Table 4. Athens: Distribution of ritually significant artifacts by house name ______59

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 1. Map of Greece______65

Plate 2. Attic red-figure loutrophoros (Oakley and Sinos 1993, fig. 18). Jerusalem, Bible Lands Museum 4641; ARV2 1102, no. 2; Add2 329______66

Plate 3. Attic red-figure loutrophoros (Oakley and Sinos 1993, fig. 19). Jerusalem, Bible Lands Museum 4641; ARV2 1102, no. 2; Add2 329______67

Plate 4. Attic red-figure cup by the Amphitrite Painter (Oakley and Sinos 1993, fig. 91). Berlin, Antikensammlung F2530; ARV2 831, no. 20, 1702; Add2 295______68

Plate 5.1. White-ground pyxis by the Splanchnopt Painter (Oakley and Sinos, fig. 97). London, British Museum D11; ARV2 899, no. 146; Add2 303 ______69

Plate 5.2. White-ground pyxis by the Splanchnopt Painter (Oakley and Sinos, fig. 98). London, British Museum D11; ARV2 899, no. 146; Add2 303 ______69

Plate 6. Marble louter from the Villa of the Bronzes at Olynthus (Olynthus XII, pl. 218) _____70

Plate 7. Plan of Olynthus (Cahill 2002, fig. 6)______70

Plate 8. Plan of Halieis after Boyd and Jameson 1981, fig. 2 ______72

Plate 9. Plan of the Agora Excavations in Athens after Agora XXIV, pl. 3 ______73

Plate 10. Plan of the Late Archaic Athenian Agora, showing the distribution of wells and debris pits after Shear 1993, fig. 1______74

Plate 11.1. Built hearth in House A vi 10 (Olynthus VIII, pl. 52.2) ______75

Plate 11.2. Restoration of the built altar in House A vi 5 (Olynthus VIII, pl. 73) ______75

Plate 12.1. Brazier from House A xi 10 (Olynthus VIII, pl. 52:1)______76

Plate 12.2. Altars from from the House of the Tiled Prothyron; left: red clay, right: stone (Olynthus XII, pl. 188:1-2) ______76

Plate 13.1. Red-figure column krater (Ginouvès 1962, pl. 18:53). Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum 2166; ARV2 1111, no. 1; Add2 330______77

Plate 13.2. Red-figure lekanis by the Eleusinian Painter (Oakley and Sinos 1993, fig. 44). St. Petersburg, State Hermitage Museum ST1791; ARV2 1476, no. 3; Add2 381 ______77

Plate 14. Plan of House A iv 9 at Olynthus after Cahill 2002, fig. 24______78

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

(Sophocles, Oedipus at Colonus, 1604)

They bathed him and dressed him in the way which was customary.1

Much of ancient Greek religion comprised ephemeral aspects, such things as burnt sacrifices and

spoken prayers, and of these two, little archaeological evidence survives.2 These features of

ancient religion were apparently so well known in ancient Greece that contemporary authors

rarely describe every component of the rite and instead note that ritual progressed according to what was customary, just as Oedipus’ daughters prepare him for his death in the quote above.

Heretofore, the study of ancient Greek religion has focused upon the remains of public sanctuaries and extant literature and inscriptions which describe the rituals of the ancient Greeks.

By analyzing these references, scholars focus on the festivals and rites that defined the public religion of the ancients. These studies often overlook cultic activity that took place in the ancient

household, or oikos. Some ancient texts, however, do portray rituals taking place in the home, and archaeological evidence exists that might support some of these literary references. At times, the literary and archaeological evidence are in agreement about household ritual practice, while at others, there is disjunction. For example, the literature might embellish the character of a ritual to suit the dramatic context, while the archaeological evidence indicates that the ritual occurred, but in a more attenuated or ad hoc manner. In other cases, archaeological evidence

documents rituals on which literature is silent. Thus, it is my intent to examine and synthesize

1 All translations are my own. 2 Some ancient prayers are documented. See Pulleyn 1997.

both types of evidence, ancient literature and archaeological material, in order to describe more

clearly aspects of ancient Greek domestic religion. In particular, this synthetic view of ancient

evidence reveals an important temporal component to household religion. My analyses will

show that the implements within a house were both multi-functional and often portable. The

multi-functional household objects in this study served at least one ritual use beyond their other

functions. Domestic spaces – including the entire structure – also bore ritual specific meaning,

but only at certain times.3 It is important to note that these implements and space assumed their

religious significance as necessary, that is, they were ritually significant only when household

ritual required them to function as sacred objects or environments.

Previous Scholarship

There is a plethora of scholarship concerning the study of ancient Greek civic religion. Walter

Burkert’s Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche, first published in 1977

and in English in 1985, is a popular, accessible handbook for any student of Greek religion.4 The

1999 book Religions of the Ancient Greeks, by Simon D. Price, uses literary, epigraphical and

archaeological evidence to explore ancient Greek religious practices from the eighth century

B.C.E. to the fifth century C.E.5 While books like these contain ample information regarding

Greek civic religion, they often lack sections devoted exclusively to domestic cult.6

3 The concepts of multi-functionality and portability will be discussed further in Chapter 4. They refer to an individual household object being used for various activities and assuming a unique identity for each activity. 4 Burkert 1985. 5 Price 1999, pp. 89-99. In his chapter entitled, “Girls and Boys, Women and Men,” Price does mention a few domestic rites in the context of coming of age rituals. 6 Burkert discusses small cult chambers in Minoan houses and palaces. In the section of the book devoted to individual gods, he mentions briefly the domestic epithets of these gods: Zeus, p. 130; Hestia, p. 170; Hekate, p. 171.

Early studies of household religion focused primarily on literary sources. In 1940, Martin P.

Nilsson published Greek Popular Religion, a volume which explores the beliefs and religious

practices of whom he calls the “commoner or rural peasant.”7 Nilsson dedicates one chapter of his book to “The House and the Family.” In a review based largely on literary evidence, Nilsson examined the gods which occurred in household religion. In 1954, Nilsson wrote an article entitled “Roman and Greek Domestic Cult” which compares and contrasts Roman and Greek household religion.8 While both his book and article are based largely on literary evidence, they

do employ some epigraphical and archaeological evidence. Three years later, Heidrun Rose

expanded Nilsson’s article, in “The Religion of a Greek Household.”9 The literary examples

employed by Burkert and Nilsson demonstrate the broad range of sources available for this type

of study, from Homer’s epic poetry to the speeches of fifth-century B.C.E. orators.

In the more recent decades, scholars have focused less on the grand public festivals and more on

the everyday religion practiced by the ancient Greeks. In his 1983 volume, Athenian Popular

Religion, Jon D. Mikalson discusses the religion of the city, defining “popular religion” as public

or civic religion. He separates the sources for ancient Greek religion into two types: the poetic

and philosophic and the scholastic and archaeological.10 While he does not specifically discuss

domestic religion in Athens, his methods of employing different types of evidence helped to

shape my own. Like Mikalson, Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood seeks to define polis religion.11

7 Nilsson 1940 [1961]. 8 Nilsson 1954. 9 Rose 1957. 10 Mikalson 1983, p. 1. 11 Sourvinou-Inwood 1988 and 1990.

Unlike Mikalson, she discusses oikos religion, although, it is entirely within the framework of

describing the interconnected subdivisions of polis religion.12 The present study focuses

specifically on the religion practiced in the oikos, and will incorporate not only literary sources,

but also archaeological evidence.

Excavations in the Athenian Agora and in the ancient cities of Olynthus and Halieis, among

others, provide archaeological evidence for the oikos. These undertakings primarily focused on

typologies and analyses of domestic architecture. Artifact assemblages were reported in site

summaries and excavation reports. However, in these early publications, household assemblages

were not rigorously examined. In 1981, Charles K. Williams II, director of the excavations at

Corinth, published a paper in the journal Hesperia in which he discussed the domestic religion of ancient Corinth.13 This article was the first archaeology-based, rather than text-based, discussion

of household cult.

David M. Robinson and J. Walter Graham, in the eighth volume of the Olynthus publication, titled “The Hellenic House,” report the results of archaeological investigation of the many houses at the site with limited reference to relevant literary evidence.14 The authors briefly mention

household religion when describing the altars found in Olynthian households.15

12 Sourvinou-Inwood 1988, pp. 271-273. 13 Williams 1981. 14 Robinson does include an appendix of testimonia relevant to the Greek house in Olynthus XII, pp. 399-452. 15 Olynthus VIII, pp. 321-325.

Nicholas Cahill restudies the artifacts from Olynthian houses in his 2002 book, “Household and

City Organization at Olynthus,” based on his 1991 dissertation.16 This groundbreaking study

looked specifically at the household assemblages, in each room, in each house. Within his study,

Cahill noted a few assemblages that may be indicative of domestic religion.

The Olynthus volumes, along with Cahill’s books, provide the bulk of the archaeological

evidence used in my research of Olynthian households.17 I will expand on Robinson and

Graham’s archaeological descriptions and analyze the ritually significant artifacts in light of

literary evidence.

Like Cahill, Bradley Ault also studies household assemblages. He tackles household religion at

Halieis in his 1994 dissertation, “Classical Houses and Households: an architectural and artifactual case study from Halieis, Greece.”18 Both Cahill and Ault examine household

assemblages in order to determine their cultural functions. Their methods have influenced my

study of domestic religion in Greek houses.

To this trend of oikos-based scholarship, this paper will contribute a discussion of household

religion in ancient Greece specifically, and more generally, a model for analyzing the multi-

functionality of domestic artifacts. Unlike objects that seem to have been purpose-made, such as

pinakia (voting ballots) found in the agora, household artifacts often serve more than one

purpose. It is not intuitive to assume, for instance, a grill or brazier would be used as an altar in

16 Cahill 2002. 17 Olynthus II 1930, VII 1933, VIII 1938, XII 1946, XIV 1952; Cahill 1991 and 2002. 18 Ault 1994.

10 religious rites, or that a washbasin before an oikos door meant the house was polluted. Thus, the ritual function of domestic artifacts is not immediately apparent. Instead, it is necessary to analyze the literary evidence for domestic ritual and ritually significant artifacts in order to determine these less than obvious religious functions.

Methodology

It is my intent to draw upon both types of evidence, literary and archaeological, to produce a coherent synthesis of domestic cult in ancient Greece as well as to substantiate the idea that domestic religion had an aspect of multi-functionality and portability. Nevertheless, such an undertaking is replete with problems. In aiming to describe the domestic religion of ancient

Greece, I would be assuming that there existed a pan-hellenic concept of religion which permeated every ancient community in a country which did not exist until the nineteenth century.19 If literature indicates that a ritual or belief existed in one city-state, it does not mean that the practice was the same in all city-states. Because most of the literary evidence that I utilize in this study originated in Athens, where the complementary archaeological evidence does not survive, the picture of domestic religion I propose will largely be that of Classical Athens.

Therefore, in order to present a broader view of domestic cult and to look for trends and shared characteristics, I have included archaeological case studies of three cities: Athens, Halieis and

Olynthus (Plate 1). These three Classical and Hellenistic cities represent mainland sites that have been well-excavated and well-published. The two non-Athenian cities will provide a supplement to the Athenocentric view of domestic religion illustrated in ancient literature.

19 Price 1999, p. 3.

Literary Evidence

In this study, I have employed references from comedy, tragedy, oratory, lyric poetry and

historical writings. Each of these genres can provide valuable clues about the daily life of the ancients, but it is essential to consider the context in which the work originated; all authors have their own biases and assumptions which may not be explicitly stated in their work. I have attempted to limit my use of sources to those from the 6th to the 4th centuries B.C.E. At times,

the dearth of evidence has forced me to use examples beyond these limits.20 In these

circumstances, they are used to illustrate a point which I have already demonstrated with evidence from within these chronological boundaries. A few of the later sources, such as

Pausanias, a mid-second century C.E. periegetic writer, and Athenaeus, who wrote in the late second century C.E., preserve fragments of earlier writers, and therefore, preserve remnants of daily life in an earlier time.

Oratory, comedy and tragedy share one characteristic: they were written for public delivery and performance. Kenneth Dover further subdivides these into four genres, one of which, forensic oratory, Jon Mikalson, in Athenian Popular Religion, asserts is the “best evidence available for popular religious beliefs.”21 Speakers in law courts, who surely had property or rights at stake,

would attempt to appeal to as much of the jury as possible by making familiar and indicative

political, moral or religious statements. Political oratory may be just as informative as forensic

oratory, if treated with slightly more skepticism. Demosthenes, for example, probably used

20 I have also made use of scholia to these literary genres. Scholia were later copyists or scholars who wrote comments, usually explanatory, in the margins of earlier texts. Sometimes, later scholia were commenting on the comments of earlier scholia. 21 Dover 1994, pp. 5-8; Mikalson 1983, p. 7.

religious references as persuasive devices rather than as mechanisms to influence religious

beliefs.22

Comedy, on the one hand, parodies daily life and is an exaggeration of itself. However, it can be

used to create a vision, albeit a skewed one, of some aspects of ancient Greek life. Like oratory,

comedy was was meant to appeal to the average audience member. Tragedy, on the other hand,

comprises fictional characters in fictional situations.23 Tragedy cannot be used without a more

individual interpretation, given its often mythological framework and enigmatic dialogue.24

While ancient literary sources carry their own set of limitations, the evidence they provide is

invaluable. Ancient authors provide significant clues about the daily lives of their contemporaries, and I have confidently incorporated their texts while allowing for the aforementioned caveats.

Iconographic Evidence

Vase-painting provides another important source for domestic religion, but not without its own interpretive challenges. The only extant evidence for several of the household rituals described in ancient literature comes from vase-painting imagery. Due to the restricted space available on vase shapes, vase-painters employed a wide range of iconographic conventions in order to convey extended meaning in a very compressed image, and it must be remembered that these shorthand representations are not snapshots of daily Greek life. Some types of pots had very

22 Mikalson 1983, p. 8. 23 Parker 1997, p. 148. 24 Dover 1994, pp. 18-19.

specific functions, such as funerary vases which were decorated and then interred with the dead.

It is also important to consider where Greek vases were painted. Attic vase-painting most likely

reflects Athenian ritual practices, and therefore, does not reflect practices throughout all the cities of ancient Greece.25 With these limitations in mind, it is possible to use vase-painting

iconography cautiously as evidence for some of the rituals portrayed in ancient literature.

In the following chapters, I attempt to synthesize literary and archaeological evidence in order to

clarify some aspects of ancient Greek domestic religion. I first address the mostly literary

evidence for the presence of specific gods in the household. I examine the literary and

archaeological evidence for rituals occurring in the home, a study which also draws upon vase-

painting iconography. I then present case studies of the three Classical/Hellenistic, mainland

Greek sites: Athens, Halieis and Olynthus. Finally, I analyze the archaeological data in light of

the aforementioned caveats and present concluding remarks.

25 Sparkes 1996, p. 10.

CHAPTER 2. HOUSEHOLD GODS

In this chapter, which is primarily based on literary evidence, I will consider the gods whose household cult is mentioned prominently in ancient sources. These gods include Hestia, Zeus,

Hermes, Hekate and Apollo Agyieus. Hestia is also the central focus of many household rituals which will be discussed in Chapter 3.

Domestic Deities

Hestia

$% ! $& # ". (Homeric hymn to Hestia, 29.4-6)

For mortals have no feasts without you where the libation-pourer does not begin by offering honey-sweet wine to Hestia in first place and last.

In literature, Hestia is the Greek goddess of the hearth and is the metonymic symbol for an entire household. Diodorus Siculus, a historian writing in the first century B.C.E., recounts that Hestia invented the building of houses, thus she has a shrine in every home and receives her share of worship and sacrifices within these homes (Diodorus Siculus 5.68.1). The hearth not only serves as the locus for domestic activities such as cooking and heating, but also as the sacred center of the household, or oikos. Because the hearth is an altar within the oikos, Hesiod instructs household members to act accordingly around the hearth, saying,

! " . (Hesiod, Op. 734)

Do not expose yourself befouled by the fireside in your house, but avoid this.

Hestia is often invoked first among the gods, in private as well as public rituals.26 Socrates

suggests to Hermogenes that in making an announcement to the gods, they shall start with

Hestia, according to the custom (Plato, Cra. 401b). A priest, when beginning his sacrifices to the

gods, calls first upon Hestia (Aristophanes, Av. 865ff).27 “To begin from Hestia” became a proverb due to its indication of a prosperous or well-omened beginning.28 These examples

demonstrate the prominent position Hestia held among the gods.

Ancient literature provides further evidence for the sanctity of the hearth. Sacrifices took place

at the hearth of the household, which is corroborated by different genres of literature.

Klytaemnestra mentions the victims awaiting sacrifice at the central hearth (Aeschylus, A. 1055-

1057).29 Oaths sworn upon the hearth or to Hestia were powerful. Herodotus writes that the

Scythians’ mightiest oaths were sworn at the king’s hearth. They believed that if the king fell ill,

the cause was a falsely sworn oath made at the king’s hearth.30 In Aristophanes’ Plutos,

26 Demosthenes, 2.45f.; Aristophanes Av. 865-868; Vesp. 846-847 and schol. ad 846, pp. 134-135 (ed. Koster); schol. ad Ar. Thesm. 299, p. 266 (ed. Dübner); Euripides TGrF 5.2 F781.35; Homeric Hymn to Hestia 29.4-6; Pausanias 175; Plato Cra. 401b; Leg. 745b. 27 See also Aristophanes, Vesp. 846 and schol. ad 846, pp. 134-135 (ed. Koster); schol. ad Ar. Thesm. 299, p. 266 (ed. Dübner); Euripides, F781.35; Homeric hymn 29. 28 Pausanias 175. 29 See also Plato, Resp. 328c. 30 Herodotus 4.68.1ff.

Blepsidemos makes Chremylos swear by Hestia that he is telling the truth (Aristophanes, Pl.

395). It is clear, from these examples, that oaths sworn to Hestia were held in the highest regard.

Hestia, as the guardian of the hearth, served as the protector of the household and its occupants.

Euripides’ Alkestis, before she sacrifices her life in exchange for her husband’s, invokes Hestia to protect and provide for her children (Euripides, Alc. 158ff). According to references in

Aristophanes and Plato, symbols of Hestia’s protection of the oikos, in the form of idols, were placed on or near the hearth in order to protect the household and keep its members safe and healthy.31 Hestia provides shelter not only for the members of a household, but also for

outsiders. The hearth, as an altar of the goddess, functions as a refuge for suppliants, and those

who seek refuge at the hearth are protected, just as those who seek haven at altars within temples

are inviolable.32 Themistokles sits at the hearth of Admetus as a suppliant, though the two were

not on friendly terms, and is thus safe from Admetus’ wrath when he returns home.33 Euphiletos,

while trying to convince the jury that he has justly killed Eratosthenes, states that the perpetrator

never took refuge at the hearth.34 These examples from ancient literature demonstrate that the hearth and its protector, Hestia, were the sacred focus of the household. The hearth, and by extension, Hestia, was a safeguard for members of an oikos, and even for individuals outside the oikos. Gustave Glotz discusses how the hearth is symbolically sacred to an extended household:

31 Aristophanes, Av. 435; Plato, Leg. 931a. It is unclear if terracotta figurines recovered from domestic contexts were used as idols, but this function might provide one interpretation. 32 See also Aeschylus, Ag. 1587; Supp. 77; and Sophocles, OC. 629. 33 Thucydides 1.136.1ff. 34 Lysias 1.27.

To overthrow this house, to demolish the altar (within it), is a punishment which strikes at the same time at the living generation and at all the line of dead ancestors and of descendants yet to be born.35

Thus, the hearth, as an altar of Hestia, represents and preserves households past, present and

future.

The Hearth in Public

Not only was the hearth the ritual center of the ancient Greek oikos, but it also served to represent the home to the rest of the community. When Kleomenes banishes from Athens the

Kleisthenic faction, which consisted of Kleisthenes and seven hundred Athenian households,

Herodotus refers to the banished households by using the word epistia.36 Literally, epistia means

“those at the hearth,” i.e. the household members. Thus, in Herodotus, epistia indicates the

households. This demonstrates that in Athens, oikoi were referred to by their hearth and that the

hearth, indeed, metonymically represented the oikos.

As an extension of the private hearth, Greek communities had a public hearth, which represented

the center of the polis. When Mantitheus and Apsephion were accused of involvement in the

mutilation of the herms in Athens, they took sanctuary upon the hearth of the Council in order to

avoid punishment.37 Hestia was also the guardian of the public hearth, which was housed in the

Prytaneion.38 The hearth in the Prytaneion was considered a symbol of the city, just as the

household hearth symbolized the entire household.39 When founding a colony, colonists brought

35 Glotz 1904, p. 477. 36 Herodotus 5.73.1-2. 37 Andokides 1.44.2. 38 Pindar Nem. 11; Aeschines 2.45. 39 Miller 1978, pp. 13-16.

a spark from the hearth of their metropolis’ Prytaneion in order to kindle the public hearth in

their new city.40 The public hearth would represent and preserve the city, just as the private

hearth did the oikos.

While Hestia occupied the central focus of domestic ritual, there were other gods who played a

role in household religion. Zeus appears in the Greek home in two different epithets, Ktesios and

Herkeios. In addition, a representation of Hermes in the form of an ithyphallic post with an

attached head may have stood before the doors of private dwellings, alongside or instead of an

altar to Apollo Agyieus or a shrine to Hekate, in order to protect the members of the household.

Zeus Ktesios

Zeus Ktesios, or Zeus of the property,41 guards and increases the provisions and wealth of the

Greek house.42 This seems to be reflected in early tragedy, where the king in Aeschylus’

Suppliant Women states that when property is plundered from a home, other goods may be

provided by the grace of Zeus Ktesios (Aeschylus, Supp. 443-445). Lexicographers wrote that

the ancients used to install Zeus Ktesios in their storerooms.43 Philemon, a late third, early

second century author, states that the kadiskos is the vessel in which they set up Ktesian Zeus.44

40 schol. ad Aelius Aristides 103.16, pp. 47-48 (ed. Dindorf). 41 A.B. Cook dedicates an appendix (H) of his monumental 1964-1965 work, Zeus: A Study in Ancient Religion, to Zeus Ktesios. 42 LSJ2 defines , “I. belonging to property…II. domestic, . the protector of house and property.” For further etymology, see Pierre Chantraine, Dictionnaire Étymologique de la Langue Grecque, Paris, 1999. 43 Harpokration K85, pp. 156-157 (ed. Keaney); Suda, s.v. . 44 Philemon apud Athenaeus 11.473.b-c. See RE XXXVIII, col. 2137 (13), s.v. Philemon (J. Sieveking).

A fragment of the Exegetikon from Antikleides, a 3rd century B.C.E. historian, describes or

prescribes how one should make the installation of a kadiskos to Zeus Ktesios.

/ * ., 1 '7 */ * % 3$ 6%*8 9+ %353 3+%3 43 *+% .0# 2)+ -$! *( ! *2 !$& *" & (Antikleides 140 F22 FGrH)

It is necessary to set up the symbol of Ktesian Zeus: a new, two-eared kadiskos, wreath the ears with white wool, a saffron-thread from its right shoulder to its front and put into it whatever you find and pour into it ambrosia. Ambrosia is pure water and oil and pankarpia. Pour in these.

While this vessel must have represented the cult of Zeus Ktesios in the household, there is no explicit archaeological evidence to support this identification. The vessel itself (kados, or its diminutive form kadiskos) often shows up in archaeological excavations and is even listed on the

Attic Stelai.45 The Attic Stelai record the sale of the personal property of those who mutilated

the herms on the eve of the Sicilian expedition in 415 B.C.E. The kados is a coarse-ware

container with no painted decoration. It seems to have been an all-purpose vessel with an

ergonomic shape and light weight.46 The appearance of the kadoi on the Attic Stelai and also in

the fill of many of the wells around the Athenian Agora demonstrates that they were a common

household item.47 Because the kados is an ordinary domestic vessel, it is appropriate that the

form becomes the locus for Zeus Ktesios, who protects the stores of the house, and

sympathetically ensures the protection of all household items.

45 Amyx 1958, pp. 186-190. 46 Agora XII, pp. 201-203. 47 Amyx 1958, pp. 189-190; Agora XII, p. 201.

There is textual evidence for the worship of Zeus Ktesios in the household. A reference from

Aeschylus indicates that Zeus Ktesios had an altar within the home. In the Agamemnon, he has

Klytaemnestra order Kassandra to stand inside the house at the side of the altar of Zeus Ktesios

(Aeschylus, A. 1035-1038). Furthermore, there is evidence that sacrifices, libations and incense were dedicated to Zeus Ktesios. In a fifth century B.C.E. oration by Antiphon, Philoneos and his companion make a sacrifice to Zeus Ktesios, pouring out libations and placing incense on an

altar.48 In a mid-fifth to mid-fourth century B.C.E. speech by Isaeus, two granddaughters,

describing their relationship with their grandfather, state that whenever he sacrificed to Zeus

Ktesios, they went to his house and participated in the ritual, placing their offerings side by side

with his.49 To complement these literary examples for worship of Zeus Ktesios in the home,

there are a few inscribed dedications to Zeus Ktesios found on altars and relief sculptures. There

is an inscription from the Asklepion in Athens that names Zeus Ktesios.50 A small, Hellenistic altar from Thera is dedicated to Zeus Ktesios,51 and a stele from Thespiai in Boeotia, dating from

the 3rd century B.C.E., contains a relief of a snake and is inscribed as belonging to Zeus

Ktesios.52 Nilsson posited that Zeus Ktesios is represented by a snake as a remnant of an earlier

belief that the storeroom and its contents were protected by the “house snake.” The Greeks did

not condone the worship of theriomorphous gods, and so transferred to Zeus the responsibilities

of the house snake, that is to protect the stores of the house.53

48 Antiphon 1.16-19. 49 Isaeus 8.16. 50 IG III ii 3854. 51 IG XII iii Suppl. 1361; Thera III, p. 154. 52 Nilsson 1908, pp. 279-288; Harrison 1927, p. 297. 53 Nilsson 1954, p. 79.

Zeus Ktesios seems to have been an important domestic deity. The literary, archaeological, and

epigraphical evidence indicates that Zeus Ktesios and his rituals occupied a key role in

household religion.

Zeus Herkeios

Zeus Herkeios is the god of the enclosure or courtyard. This epithet must indicate another domestic aspect of the same god, Zeus, that is different from his other household guise. The scholia to Plato say that the Athenians called their homes herkos,54 the enclosed area or

courtyard, and so they have a Zeus Herkeios, whom they installed in their houses for

protection.55 A fragment from Aristophanes might describe an offering to this aspect of Zeus,

where it is recommended that the head of a squill be buried by the courtyard door (PCG 3.2

F266).56 It seems that Zeus Herkeios was another household god whose worship demanded certain rites and shrines; when men returned from military service or war, they paid honor to their Zeus Herkeios,57 and during the examination of officials who wished to hold office, the potential official was asked if he had a Zeus Herkeios and where his shrine was.58 This latter

reference suggests that a shrine to Zeus Herkeios was commonly found in the home of Athenian

citizens.

54 LSJ2 p. 690, defines “fence, enclosure; also, the place enclosed, court-yard.” 55 schol. ad Pl. Euthyd. 302d, pp. 124-125 (ed. Greene). 56 Perhaps another indication that Zeus Herkeios protected an enclosed area is the boundary stone found at Caria, in Asia Minor, which was dedicated to Zeus Herkeios, along with Zeus Ktesios and Zeus Patroos (SEG2 576). 57 Cratinus Jr. CAF 2 F9. 58 Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 55.3.

The better-known guise of the god, Zeus the Olympian, does not appear in the Greek household.

Instead, his domestic cult is rather homely. There are no extant temples or statues for the Zeus

Ktesios or Herkeios, rather, there are the simple kadiskoi shrines of Zeus Ktesios, or small altars

dedicated to the domestic Zeus.

Doorway Gods

While Hestia and Zeus were venerated within the house, a few gods, such as Hermes, Apollo

Agyieus, “Apollo of the streets” and Hekate, received their due directly outside the Greek home.

Literature describes the shrines or altars to these gods, who were guardians of the pathways and

of traveling, as standing before the doorways of private dwellings.59 These shrines functioned as

protection against illness, enemies and other types of evil.60

Doorway gods were significant to the ancient Greeks, judging from the outrage caused in Athens by the mutilation of the hermai at the end of the 5th century B.C.E.61 Another example of the

sanctity of doorway shrines is that Klearchos of Methydrion, a pious man, took care to garland

and clean his Hermes and Hekate each month.62 This reference indicates that individuals may

have had more than one doorway shrine which may have been dedicated to more than one god.

The herm, the embodiment of the god Hermes, was a square shaft topped with a head and was

always ithyphallic. Herms were often used as boundary markers and stood outside of public

59 Aristophanes Plut. 1152-1154; Vesp. 804 and 875; schol. ad Eur. Phoen. 631, pp. 175-176 (ed. Dindorf); Sophocles TGF 4 F370; Thucydides, below n. 61. 60 Faraone 1992, p. 8. 61 Thucydides 6.27.1 ff. and Andokides 1.37 ff. 62 Theopompous FGrH 140 F22.

sanctuaries, between the city and the country, as well as before the doors of private dwellings.63

In Aristophanes’ Plutos, Hermes requests that Kario set him up before the door (Aristophanes,

Pl. 1152-1154). An Attic red-figure loutrophoros depicts a procession coming home from the

fountainhouse (Plates 2-3).64 Standing before the doorway of the house is an altar and a bearded

herm (Plate 2). The altar may have been an altar to Hermes, or perhaps it functioned to represent

one of the two other doorway gods. In Wasps, Philokleon mentions the altars of Hekate, set up

before the doors of every citizen (Aristophanes, V. 804). The scholia to Aristophanes note that the altars erected to Apollo Agyieus were square in shape.65

While these doorway gods are mentioned in literature and depicted in vase painting, there is little

archaeological evidence which corroborates the existence of doorway shrines. While herms have

been found inside the Late Hellenistic houses at Delos, no remains of doorway shrines, nor their bases, have been found in situ before the doors of houses in the three cities which comprise this study.66 Michael Jameson posits that a shallow recess near the street-side door, which he

identifies as a feature common to many Classical houses, may have served as the locus for such

shrines.67 It is plausible that such installations were made of perishable materials and therefore

nothing is extant, or that they were small figurines set into niches near the doorway.68

63 Thucydides 6.27.1 ff. and Plato, Hipparch. 228. 64 Jerusalem, Bible Lands Museum 4641; ARV2 1102, no. 2; Oakley and Sinos 1993, figs. 16-19. 65 schol. ad Ar. Thesm. 489, p. 267 (ed. Dübner). 66 Sanders 2001, pp. 90-93. Herms are also found as dedications in public spaces; see Agora XI, pp. 108-124. 67 Jameson 1990a, p. 105. 68 Faraone 1992, p. 8; Charitonides 1960; Maier 1961. Apotropaic figurines were set into niches found in the city walls near gates, such as the fourth-century B.C.E. niche in the city wall near the main gate at Messenian Megaopolis (Faraone 1992, note 40). Perhaps houses had similar niches for apotropaic figurines.

The contents of this chapter have indicated that numerous gods were honored in the ancient

Greek household. There may have been other deities who played a role in domestic religion, for which neither literary nor archaeological evidence survives. The gods mentioned here have been included in the discussion because their presence was documented in some way, and it seems as though they might have enjoyed more prominence than other gods in the home. While literature has provided evidence that the oikos took care to worship and revere its domestic deities, they also describe several household rituals which are discussed in the following chapter.

CHAPTER 3. DOMESTIC RITUALS

This chapter considers the different rites known to have occurred within the oikos and superstitions associated with the oikos. It begins with the rituals which focus upon the hearth of a household and continues with others which take place in the home, though not necessarily at the hearthside. There follows a discussion of the ancient Greek conception of ritual pollution, or miasma, which is often directly linked with several household rites.

The Sacred Hearth

Hestia, as observed in the previous chapter, stands both literally and figuratively at the center of household religion. It seems that her cult occupied an important position in domestic worship and was manifest in rituals which focused upon the physical embodiment of Hestia, the hearth.

Three hearth-centered rituals are associated with transitional stages of life: birth, marriage, and death.

Amphidromia

In many homes, both ancient and modern, a newborn baby must pass through a rite of initiation for acceptance into the household, rites such as a baptism, naming, or some other ritual. In ancient Athens, if a baby survived through its first few days of life, the household performed the amphidromia, a ceremony which welcomed the child into the oikos and introduced it to the deities of the oikos. On the fifth or tenth day after its birth (there is an “unhappy tangle of conflicting and deficient lexicographical evidence” concerning on which day the amphidromia

occurred),69 the child was carried at a run around the family hearth.70 Heidrun Rose suggests that

this exposed the child to the “beneficent radiation of Hestia,” and emphasized the connection

between the baby and the adults who were to be his kin.71 On this day, too, those who were

involved in any way with the birth performed ritual washing. This was to eradicate the birth-

pollution. Robert Parker states that the amphidromia probably served to unite symbolically the

newborn with the sacred center of the house, much like the katachysmata, a ritual which served

to join brides and newly-bought slaves to their new homes.72 Later in a male child’s life, he

would gain membership in other social units outside the oikos, such as the deme and phratry.

The amphidromia, a domestic ritual, mirrors the public rites which accompany acceptance into these extra-oikos social groups.73

Gamos

The wedding procession, or gamos, began and ended with the hearth and marked the bride’s

transition into her new oikos. Vase paintings often show both mothers; the bride’s mother

carried torches lit from her home-hearth, which protected her daughter during the procession,

while her mother-in-law, who held torches lit from her respective hearth, received the bride into

her new husband’s home.74 An Attic red-figure cup by the Amphitrite Painter, depicts both of

the mothers flanking the newlywed couple (Plate 4).75 John Oakley and Rebecca Sinos conclude

69 Parker 1983, p. 51; schol. ad Pl, Tht. 160e, p. 240 (ed. Hermann); schol. ad Ar. Lys. 757, p. 258 (ed. Dübner). 70 Plato, Tht. 160e. 71 Rose 1957, p. 110. 72 Parker 1983, p. 51. The katachysmata is discussed below. 73 Golden 1990, pp. 25-29. 74 Oakley and Sinos 1993, p. 26. 75 Berlin, Antikensammlung, F2530; ARV2 831, no. 20, 1702; Add2 295; Oakley and Sinos 1993, fig. 91.

that the mothers of the bride and groom direct the transfer of the bride to her new home.76

Carrying the wedding torches was a significant role for Greek mothers. For example, in

Euripides’ Phoenissae, Jocasta laments that she was unable to raise the wedding torches at her son’s wedding.77

After the bride left her mother, and thus, the protection of her household hearth, she joined her

new oikos in the rituals of incorporation. The first ritual, the katachysmata, is mentioned in a

fragment of the 5th century B.C.E. comedian Theopompous,

(Theopompus, F15 PCG VII=F14 CAF I)

Bring the katachysmata; quickly pour them over the groom and the bride!

According to Hesychius and the scholia to Aristophanes’ Ploutos, this ritual took place at the

hearth.78 There is a depiction of this rite on a red-figure loutrophoros by the Phiale Painter, 450-

425 B.C.E.79 This painting is fragmentary and does not depict the ritual taking place at the

hearth, though Hesychius describes it as such. The katachysmata was also poured over the heads

of another category of household inductees, newly-bought slaves. This mixture contained dates,

coins, dried fruits, figs, and nuts and was meant to represent good seasons, and thus good

auspices for the new member of the household.80

76 Oakley and Sinos 1993, p. 26. 77 Euripides, Phoen. 344-346. 78 Hesychius s.v. ; schol. ad Ar. Plut. 768a, p. 366 (ed. Dübner). 79 Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 10.223; ARV2 1017, no. 44; Add2 315; Oakley and Sinos 1993, figs. 60-61. 80 schol. ad Ar. Pl. 768a, p. 366 (ed. Dübner); Suda s.v. ; Sutton 1989, pp. 353-354.

There is vase-painting evidence for an introduction ritual occurring at the hearthside; a white-

ground pyxis, by the Splanchnopt Painter, 470-60 B.C.E., depicts a groom leading his bride

toward a flaming altar (Plate 5.1-2).81 In this instance, the flaming altar must represent the

hearth of the groom’s household.82 A female figure holding a scepter stands behind the altar

(Plate 5.2). She is also distinguished by her himation, or cloak, of deep purple. Some scholars

interpret this figure as the goddess Hestia.83 In the same way that the image of the elaborate, built altar is conceptual, so too is the presence of the goddess. This image, then, probably refers to the groom leading his new wife to the sacred hearth of her new oikos. Perhaps this scene portrays an introduction rite which parallels the amphidromia for newborn children. The bride, like the newborn or slave, is a new member in the oikos, a transition which demands the proper hearthside rites for acceptance into the oikos.

Last Rites

Several rituals associated with death and burial preparations occur in the ancient Greek home.

First, when a family member dies, the home is polluted. This pollution requires its own cathartic rituals, which I will discuss below. Second, the washing and laying out of the corpse takes place within the oikos. Third, after the funeral, the oikos must be cleansed of the death pollution, and the sweepings of the home are offered to Hestia in the hearth-fire.

81 London, British Museum D11; ARV2 899, no. 146; Add2 303. 82 Built altars are comparatively rare in classical Greek houses. In Chapter 4, I discuss other alternatives to built altars for domestic rituals. 83 Oakley and Sinos 1993, pp. 34-35.

Several tragic characters have prior knowledge of their deaths and carry out some of the

necessary rituals beforehand. In Euripides’ Alkestis, the title character knows that she is going to

sacrifice her own life for her husband’s.84 Sophocles’ Oedipus, too, has foreknowledge of his

death. Both of these characters perform their own last rites: they bathe in ritual water, array

themselves in the proper funereal attire, say a prayer to the goddess of the hearth, Hestia, and bid

farewell to their loved ones.85 These characters’ actions are dramatic because they perform for

themselves the rites customarily performed for the deceased.86

After a member of the oikos died, the surviving members of the household washed the body.87

Often, women were charged with this task.88 Most likely, this was considered a woman’s duty because it fell within the domestic sphere, and thus, within the sphere of the women of the household. The prothesis, or the laying out of the body, also occurred within the house.89 The

body was laid on a kline, or couch, and lekythoi, or other small jars of oil, were placed around

it.90

After the funeral took place, it was necessary to cleanse the house where the death had occurred.

For example, an inscription from Keos, dating to the second half of the fifth century B.C.E.,

states that the house was purified the day after the funeral with seawater and the ceremony

84 Euripides, Alc. 158ff. 85 Above note 84; Sophocles, OC 1586 ff. 86 Garland 2001, p. 24. 87 Euripides, Phoen. 1667. 88 Plato, Phdr. 115a; Kurtz and Boardman 1971, pp. 143-144. 89 Pseudo-Demosthenes 43.56-62; Plutarch, Vit. Sol. 21. 90 Aristophanes, Eccl. 538 and 996; Berlin, Antikensammlung, F2684; ARV2 1390, no. 3; Add2 373; Kurtz 1975, pl. 54:2.

terminated with offerings to Hestia at the hearth.91 This final rite, the offering to Hestia, must have concluded an ancient Greek’s “circle of life.” From the first rite of life, the amphidromia,

which centered around the hearth, to the last, the final cleansing of one’s soul from the house in

which it died, returned back to Hestia. These rituals emphasize the importance of the household

hearth as the focus of the domestic cult practiced in ancient Greek oikoi.

Miasma

Pollution, or miasma, wholly occupies the thoughts of Theophrastus’ Superstitious Man.92 He is

an extreme example and goes to incredible lengths to protect himself from incurring pollution.

The Superstitious Man is constantly calling out curses, performing anti-pollution rituals, and

cleansing himself and his household in order to protect them from pollution. If this is the routine

which the overly Superstitious Man lived by, his contemporaries probably performed similar

rituals, though in a less compulsive manner.93

Ancient Greek houses were considered polluted when a death or birth occurred within. In order

to avoid these types of pollution, the Greeks created cleansing rituals. Water is the most

widespread agent of purification in Greek cathartic rituals. It was required that a person was ritually clean before sacrificing or pouring libations, and by extension, this requirement probably

applied to other religious activities.94 One prescription for purification was to wash one’s hands

91 LSG 97 A15-18. 92 Theophrastus, Char. 16. 93 Rose 1957, p. 109. 94 Homer, Il. 6.266-268.

or bathe. The water for ritual washing often had to be drawn from a specific source, most often a source from outside the house. For example, Thucydides tells us that in Athens, the source for water for religious ceremonies is the Enneakrounos, the fountainhouse for the spring

Kallirrhoe.95

Outside of homes where a birth or death had occurred, the household set up a perirranterion, a basin which stood on a pedestal, filled with water (Fig. 6).96 Not only did this basin serve as

water for the purification of those entering and leaving the house, but it also served as a token of

warning to those who wished to avoid coming into contact with impure, or polluted, households.

Perirranteria have been found in the excavations of Greek houses as well as in sanctuaries,

which is indicative of their sacred associations.97 In the inventories of these excavations, the

basins are sometimes called louters and can be made of stone or terracotta.98 The broad basin is

usually supported by a stand of the same material.

Birth Pollution

While the birth of a child temporarily polluted the ancient Greek household, pregnant women

were sometimes the cause of, and also subject to, miasma. During the first forty days of

pregnancy, a pregnant woman was not allowed to enter a shrine. However, in the later stages of

95 Thucydides, 2.15.5. 96 Burkert 1985, p. 77. 97 Louters have been found in the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore in Ancient Corinth, Corinth XVIII, part 3; on the Athenian acropolis, Raubitschek 1949, pp. 370-413. 98 Amyx 1958, pp. 221-225, discusses the terms and . He presents that in domestic

contexts the basin have be called , and in sanctuaries , but that such a distinction is unnecessary.

pregnancy, women were urged to visit the sanctuaries of those deities who oversee childbirth.99

When outside of her oikos, a pregnant woman was not a source of pollution to others, but instead

must be wary of incurring the pollution of others.100 Iphigenia, while leading the polluted

Orestes through the streets, calls out a warning to three types of people: priests, pregnant women,

and those about to marry.101 Pregnant women and those who are about to marry are two classes

of people who stand on the cusp of an important transition and are thus susceptible to pollution.

There is a cathartic law from Cyrene, dating from the end of the fourth century B.C.E., which

specifies that those who came into the house where a pregnant woman lay were polluted for three

days.102 This birth-pollution could not be passed on and after three days the impure person was cleansed of the miasma. Other purificatory measures were taken in order to eradicate the household of birth-pollution. A baby’s naming ceremony and its amphidromia took place on either the fifth or the tenth day after birth.103 Each of these initiation rites for the newborn was

accompanied by rituals and sacrifices. These rites, which probably took place in the courtyard of

the house,104 might have served not only to introduce the child to the oikos, but also to purify

anyone involved in the birth, as well as the entire oikos.

99 Aristotle, Pol. 1335b 13-17. 100 Parker 1983, p. 49. 101 Euripides, IT 1226-1229. 102 SEG ix 72 A16-20 = LSS 115 A16-20 103 Above note 69. 104 Plato, Resp. 328c.

Death Pollution

The ancient household was polluted when a death occurred within. Similar to childbirth, at this

time a basin of water, drawn from a specific source, was placed before the door of the house as a

token of warning to those who wished to avoid miasma. It also functioned as water with which

visitors could purify themselves after having encountered the pollution within the house. In

Euripides’ Alkestis, the chorus exclaims:

# ! # " # (Euripides, Alc., 97-99)

I do not see before the gates the basin for hand-washing which is customary at the doors of those who have died.

As aforementioned, water was the primary cathartic element in purificatory rites. In order to eliminate the pollution incurred after coming into contact with a polluted household, one needed only wash his or her hands with purifying water. This was similarly true for the house which was polluted by death. After their family member was buried, the family cleansed the house with seawater.105 This rite served to purify the house of residual miasma.

Ritual Pyres

David Jordan and Susan Rotroff have recently re-examined an unusual class of mostly fourth and

third centuries B.C.E. deposits from the houses and workshops around the Athenian Agora.106

The deposits show evidence of burning and contain a range of shattered, usually miniature,

105 Above note 91. 106 Agora XXIX, pp. 212-217; Jordan and Rotroff 1999, pp. 147-154. Such deposits have also been found in the Kerameikos, indicating some funerary significance, as well. See Knigge and Kovacsovics 1981, pp. 385-396.

vessels and sometimes tiny fragments of calcined bone.107 Originally interpreted as infant

cremations, the bones have been identified since as animal bones, not human.108 The evidence

indicates that the associated ritual may have involved sacrifice, burning, the smashing of pottery,

and perhaps a libation.109 Rotroff posits that the deposits might represent a ritual associated with

the remodeling of a building after a death within it, a commemoration of one’s ancestors, or the new construction of a building.110 Perhaps such deposits, especially those that are dug through

the original floors of the building,111 serve to purify or cleanse the space from some type of

miasma.

Ritual Washing

Several domestic rites have a component of ceremonial bathing or hand-washing. During her

wedding preparations, the bride’s ritual bath required elaborate ceremony. The loutrophoros,

which literally means “one who carries bathwater,” was a vessel used specifically for

transporting the water for prenuptial baths from the source prescribed for religious

ceremonies.112 Vase-painting preserves many scenes of these processions, which are more

common than scenes of the actual bath. Furthermore, because of the loutrophoros’s unique function, unlike the all-purpose hydria or amphora, it came to indicate marriage-related scenes in vase-painting iconography. The women of the family joined the bride to parade to the fountainhouse, usually with a young girl carrying the vase; a red-figure loutrophoros, depicts this

107 Agora XIV, p. 16; Agora XXIX, p. 212. 108 See Young 1951, pp. 111-112 for the original interpretation. Agora XIV, p. 16, re-interprets the pyres. 109 Agora XXIX, p. 212. Rotroff notes that the pyres frequently contained drinking cups. 110 Agora XXIX, p. 213; Jordan and Rotroff 1999, p. 147. 111 Agora XXIX, p. 213. 112 Thucydides 2.15.5.

procession (Plates 2-3). After the procession, the bride would bathe in preparation for her

upcoming nuptials. The loutrophoros, which symbolized the ritual prenuptial bath, became

synonymous with ancient Greek marriage. For this reason, the vessel shape, either ceramic or

stone, came to be used as a grave marker or funerary offering for someone who died before he or

she was married.113

The death of a family member also necessitated ritual washing. The corpse was given a ritual

bath by the women of the oikos.114 Seawater was the primary cathartic element in funerary rites, and so, it was the type of water used for washing the body.115 This rite could be compared to the

ritual bathing of the bride and groom before their marriage. While the latter bath serves as a

ritual in the transition from one stage of life to the next, the bathing of the corpse marked the end

of a life, itself a transition.116

This chapter has outlined the different rites which occurred within the ancient Greek oikos, based

on literary sources. However, it has not addressed how archaeologists can discern ritual

behaviors in the archaeological record. Ancient texts are not explicit about what implements

were used during domestic rituals. They give the impression that sacred implements were

113 Pseudo-Demosthenes 44.18; Harpokration, s.v. ; Pollux 8.66. Travlos 1971, p. 361 mentions that loutrophoroi were often dedicated by unwed girls, and also by a bride after her wedding, to “The Nymph” or Artemis Brauronia, two goddesses who preside over young girls and their maidenhood. Kurtz and Boardman 1971, pp. 111, 241, 315. Kurtz and Boardman note that loutrophoroi commonly appear in funerary relief sculpture, pp. 127, 134, 167-168. Beyond wedding imagery, funerary scenes are also a common iconographic style of loutrophoroi, Kurtz and Boardman 1971, pp. 129, 149. 114 Discussed above, p. 28. 115 Euripides, Hec. 610 and 780; IT 1193. 116 Garland 1985, p. 24.

everyday, household objects which took on religious significance when they were being used for domestic ritual. Chapter 4 will examine the multi-functionality of sacred objects and how they served domestic functions beyond their religious role.

CHAPTER 4. DOMESTIC RELIGION IN PRACTICE

Ancient literature provides extensive evidence for the gods worshipped and the rituals performed

in the oikos. However, these texts do not always detail the implements required for domestic

rites. How then, are we to identify what artifacts in the archaeological record were used for

household ritual? By integrating evidence for domestic deities from Chapter 2 with the evidence

for household rituals from Chapter 3, it is possible to identify the tools of household cult

excavated from domestic contexts.

Through the examination of ancient texts which detail household ritual, the following types of

artifacts have been determined to be ritually significant: altars, hearths, louters, vessels which

hold, transport and pour liquid, and thymiateria (also called thuribles).117 There is little literary evidence for the use of figurines and miniature vessels in domestic ritual.118 Aristophanes and

Plato both mention idols being placed near the hearth in order to protect the oikos (Aristophanes,

Av. 435; Plato, Leg. 931a). This might suggest at least one ritual use of figurines in the house.

Ancient literature is also ambiguous about the use of miniature vessels in domestic rites. Some

ancient texts refer to a ritual implement in its diminutive form. The vessel associated with the

worship of Zeus Ktesios is called kadiskos, which is the diminutive form of kados.119 It is

dubious if this refers to a miniature vessel, or simply a smaller form of the usual kados.120

117 Thuribles have not yet been discussed; they are not specifically referred to in ancient sources. There are literary references to burning incense, but it is unclear if the ritual occurs in a domestic setting. 118 Although both types are associated with ritual in public sanctuaries. 119 Antikleides 140 F22 FGrH. 120 For a discussion of the kados, see Amyx 1958, pp. 186-189.

Many of the artifacts which served a ritual function may have served an ordinary day-to-day

function, as well. Lisa Nevett, in her 1999 book House and Society in Ancient Greece, analyzed

a sample of artifact types that appear in various iconographic contexts on vases. She

demonstrated that the same objects were depicted in different contexts and that some objects

seemed “to have had a wider range of potential uses.”121 While these objects are depicted in

vase-painting, by extension such objects might correspond to archaeologically recovered artifacts. Objects like louters, hearths, and pouring vessels must have had multiple uses. Thus, because of their multi-functionality, it is limiting to define these objects in terms of a single use.

Amos Rapoport, in his 1990 article entitled, “Systems of Activities and Systems of Settings,”

describes a type of analysis which looks at the many functions of a single artifact in order to

determine the different human behaviors attending those functions.122 He conceptualizes the past environment as consisting of different feature elements: fixed, semi-fixed, and non-fixed.

The fixed-feature, or built, elements include floors and walls. The semi-fixed-feature elements consist of interior and exterior furnishings of all sorts, such as tables, dishware and drapery.

Non-fixed-feature elements denote people and their behavior. He notes that within the built environment, the semi-fixed-feature elements act as cues for human behavior. In the study of past society, unavoidably, people and their behavior are absent. Thus, the analysis of semi-fixed- feature elements is crucial for understanding human behavior in the past.123 The ritually

significant artifacts in the following discussion are semi-fixed-feature elements. Furthermore,

the cultural function of an artifact at a given time determines the behavior of its users and the

121 Nevett 1999, pp. 43-49. 122 Rapoport 1990. 123 Rapoport 1990, p. 13.

reverse is also true. For example, on the one hand, the household hearth may be used for

cooking, in which instance the occupants of the house will attend to the hearth in its function as

the place for food preparation. On the other hand, if the same hearth is being used for ritual, the

occupants will interact with the hearth in its function as the religious center of the home. This

multi-functionality is indicative of situations where a semi-fixed-feature element had no single,

fixed function or meaning, but modulated between meanings defined by the culturally significant

purposes it served.

The theoretical approaches in the research of Nevett and Rapoport have inspired the framework

for this thesis.124 The concept of multi-functionality and the analysis of semi-fixed-feature

elements are crucial for recognizing different ancient behaviors. While textual and iconographic

sources help to shape the picture of ancient Greek behavior they do not include many of the

incidental details relating to domestic life.125 Therefore, the following analysis will explore how the multi-functionality of semi-fixed-feature elements in the archaeological record might reflect ritual behavior in domestic settings.

After identifying the implements of household ritual in ancient literature (see Chapter 3), I then

isolated them in the published excavation reports of Classical and Hellenistic houses in three

cities - Athens, Halieis and Olynthus, and then analyzed. In total, artifacts from sixty-seven

houses, and twenty-one pits and wells, are examined in this study. Athens provides a wealth of

124 Nevett 1999; Rapoport 1990. 125 Nevett 1999, pp. 34-35.

ancient source material for domestic religion, but the archaeological evidence is scanty.126

Alternatively, Halieis and Olynthus supply more archaeological evidence than literary sources,

due to the larger numbers of houses excavated in these cities.127

The different methods of deposition and subsequent disturbance at each site have influenced the

context of ritually significant, as well as all other, artifacts. On the one hand, at Olynthus and

Halieis, household artifacts can be studied as from near primary contexts, since these cities were

abruptly abandoned and their inhabitants left behind their household possessions just as they

were. On the other hand, Athens has been continuously inhabited, and houses of the earlier

periods were reused, remodeled, or destroyed to make way for later construction. Thus, most of

the domestic material from ancient Athenian houses is not in its primary use context. In order to

clarify the different depositional processes at work in these three cities, a short description of

each site and its state of preservation follows, preceding the artifact analysis.

Three Cities

Olynthus (Plate 7)

The Classical city of Olynthus, on the Chalcidic peninsula in northern Greece, was occupied

from the later fifth to fourth centuries B.C.E.128 In 348 B.C.E. the polis was violently destroyed by Philip II of Macedon. Olynthus was largely abandoned at this time. The Olynthians left their

126 Only two houses from Athens provided relevant data for this thesis, while the twenty-one wells and pits which contain material from the Persian destruction of Athens contributed the bulk of Athenian data considered in the present study. See Table 4. 127 Material from fifty-eight houses at Olynthus (Table 2) and seven houses at Halieis (Table 3) has been considered in this study. 128 There was a settlement on the south hill at Olynthus for the first half of the first millennium B.C.E.

41 homes nearly intact, leaving behind objects which they would have brought along if the city had been peacefully abandoned.

Between 1928 and 1938, much of the city was excavated by David M. Robinson. The results of these campaigns were published in fourteen volumes.129 Nicholas Cahill restudied and analyzed many of the household assemblages in his 2002 volume Household and City Organization at

Olynthus, which was based on his 1991 dissertation.130 The thorough excavation and publication of Olynthus, its sudden destruction and abandonment in 348, and the good preservation of house plans makes the site exceptional for the study of the Classical Greek house.

I have already mentioned that Olynthian houses contain unique assemblages due to the fact that these houses were quite suddenly abandoned. Nevertheless, there are many human and natural processes that have disturbed the preservation of artifact assemblages in these houses. The citizens of Olynthus must have lived for a time under pressure from Philip II which must have affected what constituted their household property. Perhaps expensive or more useful implements were sent away to relatives’ homes. Citizens may have abandoned their houses before the siege and taken with them their most valuable items. Another human influence on the context of the household assemblages is looting. After the capture in 348, the city was looted to a large extent, not only by Philip’s soldiers, but also by later foragers. The northwest corner of the city seems to have suffered the most disruption from later occupation.131 Plowing, erosion

129 Olynthus I-XIV (1929-1952). 130 Cahill 1991 and 2002. 131 Olynthus IX, p. 370. Prior to 1934, Robinson argued that Olynthus was never reoccupied after 348 B.C.E. However, after the season of 1934, the excavators found coins dating to the reigns of Alexander the Great and his successors in the “Northwest Quarter,” which forced them to admit that this area of the city saw later activity.

and other natural disturbances have affected the archaeological context. Generally, houses buried under a deeper layer of fill (greater than 20 cm to 2 m) than others have preserved a larger

number of artifacts.132 Cahill demonstrates that household deposits buried deeper than half a

meter were not significantly affected by erosion, plowing or looting. Those that were closer to

the modern ground surface were more affected by such processes and thus must be interpreted

with care.133

Halieis (Plate 8)

The city of Halieis sits on the southern side of a harbor at the southern end of the Argolic

peninsula.134 The water in the harbor was 3-5 meters shallower in antiquity, and at present the

northern section of the site lies underwater.135 While there are unstratified finds from earlier

periods at Halieis, the first architectural remains of a settlement are from the Archaic period.

Shortly after the destruction of the Archaic settlement in the early sixth century B.C.E., the

Classical city was planned on an orthogonal grid and was occupied until the late fourth or early

third century B.C.E., when it was thoroughly abandoned. Scholars associate the abandonment

with Demetrios Poliorketes; however, there is little evidence of a widespread destruction in the city.136 An alternate theory for the abandonment of the city is one of natural, rather than cultural,

agency. John McK. Camp suggests that much of Greece suffered a severe drought in the late

fourth century B.C.E., which caused the abandonment of Halieis, and the southern Argolid, in

132 Cahill 2002, pp. 68-70, fig. 11. 133 Cahill 2002, pp. 68-69. 134 Rudolph 1984, p. 144. 135 Ault 1994, pp. 32-33. 136 There is some destruction on the acropolis, see Jameson 1969, pp. 320-321.

43 general. He bases this theory upon evidence from Athenian houses; in the late fourth century

B.C.E., household wells were replaced with cisterns.137

The artifactual assemblages at Halieis share the unique fortune of those at Olynthus of being quite suddenly abandoned. However, like those at Olynthus, the artifacts at Halieis have endured cultural and natural processes that have disrupted the primary context of their deposition.

Specifically, there was a late Roman presence at the site, and an early Byzantine bath was built over the now submerged Hermione gate.138

Athens (Plate 9)

The state of preservation of the Late Archaic/Early Classical city of Athens is quite different from that of Olynthus and Halieis. The city has been continuously inhabited since prehistoric times and presents interpretive difficulties for archaeologists. Houses were reused and remodeled, or simply demolished to make way for ancient buildings and modern structures.

However, in the area of the Classical Athenian Agora it is possible to investigate Late

Archaic/Early Classical Athenian houses. The houses have been excavated and published over the last seventy-five years by the American School of Classical Studies in Athens.139 Due to the different cultural processes in and around the Agora, houses are preserved to varying degrees.

For example, the houses at the north foot of the Areopagus hill are better preserved toward the south, where hillslope erosion silted them over more quickly and deeply than those to the north,

137 Camp 1977, pp. 145-159; 1982, pp. 15ff. 138 Jameson 1969, p. 325. 139 Young 1951a, 1951b; Thompson 1954, 1959; Shear 1969, 1973, 1993; Agora XIV.

44 which have been almost totally destroyed by modern building activity.140 Houses atop the

Areopagus were nearly obliterated by the construction of a Roman Basilica.141 Just southwest of the Agora, the plans of two Classical houses were recovered, though the area is much disturbed by later construction and pit digging.142

While the preservation of Athenian houses is not as ideal as at Olynthus and Halieis, it does have its own unique source of evidence for Late Archaic/Early Classical houses. In and around the

Agora there are a series of twenty-two wells and pits which contain closed deposits dating from just after the Persian destruction of Athens in 480 B.C.E. (Plate 10).143 It seems that after the attack, the Athenians swept up the debris from their wrecked homes and dumped it into well- shafts which they no longer considered a suitable source of water. T. Leslie Shear Jr. explains that these deposits contain “absolutely homogenous material, plainly thrown into the open well shaft at one time,” and that the majority of the material “undoubtedly originated in the china cupboards of Athenian households.”144 These deposits provide scholars of Athenian houses with a quantity of evidence for domestic ceramic assemblages in Late Archaic/Early Classical Athens.

Artifact Analysis

The Hearth-Altar

Chapter 3 outlined the different rituals practiced in the ancient Greek home according to literary sources. Many of these rites focus around the hearth of the household and others require the use

140 Thompson 1959, p. 99. 141 Shear 1973, p. 138. 142 Young 1951b, p. 187; Agora XIV, pp. 174-177. 143 This paper considers only the twenty-one deposits examined in Shear 1993. 144 Shear 1993, p. 393.

of an altar. Today, we tend to think of the hearths and altars mentioned in ancient literature as

built or fixed-feature elements in a setting. The extant built hearths at Olynthus, Halieis and

Athens are usually curbed by stone or earth and are often filled with layers of ash, potsherds,

bones and other household debris (Plate 11.1).145 Built altars, which have been found at

Olynthus, are classified as ceremonial altars by Yavis (Plate 11.2).146 In most Olynthian houses, the position of the built, or ceremonial, altar is indicated by a base of stone, or a rectangular or square-shaped gap in the pavement of the room.147 Many of the houses in Athens, Halieis, and

Olynthus did not contain evidence for a fixed-feature altar nor hearth (Tables 2-4). However,

portable, or semi-fixed-feature, hearths and altars have been found during the excavations of

these three cities (Table 1).148

An alternative to built hearths are portable ones, called braziers or eschara (Plate 12.1).

Aristophanes illustrates the portability of the hearth, having Dikaeopolis request,

(Aristophanes, Ach. 887-888)

Servants, fetch me forth the brazier and the fan.

Both terracotta and metal braziers have been found in archaeological investigations. In House A

xi 10, at Olynthus, a brazier was buried in the floor of room i, presumably to protect it from

145 Olynthus VIII, p. 187; Ault 1994, pp. 99 and 167. 146 Yavis 1949, pp. 177-183. 147 Olynthus VIII, p. 159. 148 However, each city does not contain every category of hearth and altar. See Tables 1-4.

being looted.149 This example demonstrates that the portable hearth must have been valuable

object.

Small altars, or arulae, are more common than built altars at Olynthus, Halieis and Athens.

Arulae can be of stone or terracotta, painted or plain, the stone worked or unworked (Plate 12.2).

The shape and size varies as well; those found in houses are usually shorter than half a meter

high,150 as opposed to the fixed-feature altar found in House A 10 at Olynthus.151 Arulae,

regardless of their exact dimensions and material, are moveable and light enough that a capable person could lift them. The portability of the arula and the brazier would facilitate the interchangeable ritual relationship that I suggest below.

Not every house in this study contains both an altar and a hearth, a fact that might indicate that in household ritual the hearth or altar may have been used instead of, or substituted for, the other.

Constantine Yavis defines an altar as any object or structure, temporary or permanent, which served the purpose of receiving the fire in which flesh offerings for the god were burned.152

According to Yavis’ definition, the hearth is a type of altar. Therefore, it could have functioned as an altar in the rituals described in ancient literature. However, if a house contained a proper altar, preference might have been given to this object in domestic ritual. Nonetheless, it seems that the hearth and altar may have enjoyed an interchangeable relationship. Perhaps then, their meaning and function in household ritual can be shared, or even substituted for one another.

149 Olynthus VIII, p. 129. 150 The portable altars at Olynthus range from 12 to 25 centimeters in width, and from 10 to 30 centimeters in height. See the table in Olynthus VIII, pp. 322-323. 151 Approximate dimensions: 1.02 meters long, 0.74 meters wide, 0.61 meters high, Olynthus VIII, p. 320. 152 Yavis 1949, p. 54.

Assuming this reciprocal religious relationship, hereafter I use the term “hearth-altar” to indicate

the transposable ritual use of the hearth and altar.

When a ritual required the use of the hearth-altar, the portable form, either brazier or arula, could

be used instead of a built version. Furthermore, if these semi-fixed feature elements share this

interchangeable characteristic, then their ritual meaning and function can be shared, or even

substituted for one another. The portability and interchangeability of the hearth-altar affords

more spatial flexibility within the house, as well as efficient use of domestic space. In light of

the above, we can envision rituals such as the amphidromia, which ancient literature describes as family members carrying a newborn baby around the hearth at a run, occurring around one type of the hearth-altar, either a built hearth, a built altar, a brazier or an arula! The portable and

interchangeable nature of the hearth-altar allows us to form new and varied pictures of hearth-

centered household cult (see Chapter 3 for other examples of rituals focused around the hearth).

The evidence from the houses indicates that not every house had a hearth or altar, though some

had both.153 Ten of the fifty-eight houses examined at Olynthus contain a combination of built and portable hearths and altars (Table 1). Some houses contain both the built and portable

versions of an altar or hearth.154 Domestic rituals in these households may have occurred around

a hearth-altar which did not share its function with other household activities. Perhaps their

hearth had one function and their altar quite another, unlike the multi-functional hearth-altars I

propose here.

153 See tables 2-4 for the number of hearths and altars found in each house, in each city. 154 Houses A 10, A viii 3, A viii 5, A viii 8, the House of Many Colors, the House of the Comedian, the House of the Tiled Prothyron, and the Villa of the Bronzes.

Louters

The louter, like the household hearth, probably served functions beyond its ritual use (discussed

in Chapter 3). The louter could also be used in food preparation and other day-to-day

washing.155 Vase-painting preserves scenes of both men and women using the louter for sponge baths (Plate 13.1), and hand-washing (Plate 13.2). In domestic cult, the louter is associated with ritual washing and miasma. As discussed in Chapter 3, a louter was set up in front of houses which were polluted by birth or death in order to warn passersby that the house was polluted. It also served to hold water for ritual baths as well as for the purification of those who entered or exited an impure house.

Thuribles

Thuribles, or thymiateria, were used to burn incense. Incense was sprinkled onto the thurible, which held hot coals.156 There are a few vase-paintings that depict a winged figure holding a

thurible.157 In one, smoke billows out of the perforations in the top of the thurible.158 These

openings allowed the burning incense fumes to escape, once it was sprinkled onto the smoldering

coals. Thuribles were recovered in the excavations of all three of the cities which comprise this

study (see Tables 2-4) and are often found in the sacred context of sanctuaries, which is

155 Pease 1937, pp. 296-297; Amyx 1958, pp. 222-226. 156 Agora XII, p. 182. 157 Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, 1879.172; ARV2 560, no. 6; Para 388; CVA Oxford 1 [Great Britain 26], pl. 33 [125]: 4; Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, 1879.173; ARV2 560 no. 7; Para 388; CVA Oxford 1 [Great Britain 26], pl. 33 [125]: 3. 158 Paris, Louvre G119A, G119; ARV2 199, no. 35; Add2 191; Oakley et al. 1997, fig. 13A.

indicative of their ritual significance.159 Their use in domestic cult, or public cult, is not well-

documented in ancient literature. However, there are numerous references to ritual incense-

burning.160 Antiphon, in the reference made in Chapter 2, mentions two men sprinkling incense during a household sacrifice to Zeus Ktesios.161

Ritual Implements

Domestic Sacrifice

Household sacrifices formed one aspect of domestic cult and accompanied many of the rituals

discussed in Chapter 3. For example, in Plato’s Republic, the elderly Kephalos sits on a couch with a wreath on his head, for he had just finished sacrificing in the courtyard of his house.162

Xenophon’s Oeconomicus reports that the implements for sacrifice were stored in the home.

Isomachus describes that he and his wife set about separating their household possessions by

category, and that they began by collecting together the vessels they used for sacrificing.163 A

reference from Aeschylus’ Agamemnon provides evidence that household sacrifice occurred in the house. Klytaemnestra speaks of victims awaiting sacrifice at the central hearth.164 This

indicates that domestic sacrifice took place at the hearth in its role as the hearth-altar. Thus,

household sacrifice would take place upon a hearth-altar capable of receiving the flesh offerings

for the gods. As previously determined, there are several varieties of hearth-altars, built or

portable, and any of these types could have been used for domestic sacrifices (Table 1). This

159 Corinth XVIII, part 3, note 4 and pp. 130-131. 160 Herodotus 1.183.2, 2.40.3; Aristophanes Nub. 426, Vesp. 96, Ran. 871. 161 Antiphon 1.18. 162 Plato Resp. 328c. 163 Xenophon, Oec. 9.7 164 Aeschylus, Ag. 1055-57.

range of possibilities indicates the flexibility of domestic cult. Once an oikos finished sacrificing

at its hearth-altar, it would be transformed from its ritual function into its cooking function, much

like the sacrifices at large public festivals. At civic religious festivals, a large quantity of

livestock was sacrificed. The choicest bits were sacrificed to the gods and afterwards the

remaining meat was given to the public for feasting. In this way, the public altar upon which the

animals were sacrificed, like the hearth-altar in domestic ritual, first served its function as the

sacrificial altar and then its function as a place for cooking.

Ritual Washing

As discussed in Chapter 3, ritual washing played an important role in domestic rituals such as the

Greek marriage. In vase-painting iconography, the presence of the loutrophoros, due to its

distinctive function as a vessel used for prenuptial baths, denotes a scene associated with

prenuptial baths and by extension, marriage itself.165 Vase-paintings depict the procession of the

bride and her family to fetch the bathwater, and in these paintings, the loutrophoros is used

(Plates 2-3).166 This evidence, therefore, illustrates that the ritual washing which preceded

marriage rites required a loutrophoros for transporting and pouring the bathwater.

Two loutrophoroi were recorded from the closed deposits around the Athenian Agora. Unlike

the hearth and louter, the function of the loutrophoros was limited to ritual circumstance

although its form is based on the more practical shape of a household neck amphora.167 Few

165 Oakley and Sinos 1993, p. 15. 166 Jerusalem, Bible Lands Museum 4641; ARV2 1102, no. 2; Oakley and Sinos 1993, figs. 16-19. Athens, National Museum 1453; ARV2 1127, no. 18; Add2 332; Para 453; Oakley and Sinos 1993, figs. 14-15. 167 Kanowski 1984, pp. 100-103.

survive from household contexts, perhaps because in ancient Athens, it was common practice to

place a loutrophoros upon the grave of one who died unmarried.168 Thus, funerary use might

limit the number of loutrophoroi which remain in domestic contexts. Loutrophoroi were also

dedicated by unwed girls, and those who had recently married, to “The Nymph” or Artemis

Brauronia, goddesses who were the guardians of girls’ youth and maidenhood.169

Funerary rites also required ritual washing. It was customary for the women of the oikos to bath the corpse before the prothesis. Aristophanes, in the Ekklesiazusae, prescribes that lekythoi be

placed around the couch upon which the corpse lie.170 Perhaps the lekythoi and other small

pitchers excavated from Greek houses are those that were on hand to be used in funeral rites.

Several Olynthian houses and the closed deposits in the Athenian Agora contained lekythoi.171

Lekythoi, like amphorai and louters, also had non-ritual functions. The iconography of lekythoi ranged from funerary scenes to Dionysiac scenes, which demonstrate that the vessels might also have sympotic connections. The lekythos, then, is yet another household vessel form with a variety of contextual uses.

The Apparatus of Ritual Washing

Nicholas Cahill suggests that room c in House A iv 9, at Olynthus, which contained a louter along with a portable altar, was a domestic shrine (Plate 14). In the southeast corner of the room was a rectangle made of mudbrick and stone, plastered in some places and drained by a channel

168 Above note 113. 169 Travlos 1971, p. 361. 170 Aristophanes, Ecc. 1030ff. This is also depicted in a vase-painting, see Berlin, Antikensammlung, F2684; ARV2 1390, no. 3; Add2 373; Kurtz 1975, pl. 54:2. 171 Cahill 2002, pp. 88-147; Shear 1993, pp. 389-391.

52 made of rooftiles. The space contained an upright, marble louter stand and a portable terracotta altar. Cahill suggests that this louter was used specifically for ritual washing.172 Furthermore, in the court of the House of Many Colors at Olynthus, a marble louter was found with a storage amphora. Perhaps these two objects, or variations on them, would function together as the most basic implements for ritual washing in the home, such as for prenuptial baths and the bathing of corpses. The evidence from Olynthus indicates that an altar might be another item used for ritual bathing, alongside the louter and pouring vessel.

Tables 2-4 demonstrate that not every house in every city contained each or any of these ritually significant objects. However, due to the multi-functionality of many household items, it is possible that non-specific forms could have been used in the place of or in conjunction with a specifically sacred object. The flexibility of domestic implements allows for household cult to be similarly flexible.

172 Cahill 2002, pp. 108-111.

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS

Hestia and the household hearth have rightfully stood at the center of this discussion of domestic

religion in ancient Greek households. While domestic cult may be focused upon the hearth,

specifically, the actual hearth can be interpreted much more loosely. Much as Hestia, herself, is

a metonym for the household hearth and by extension, the entire household, so is the term

“hearth” for its many archaeological manifestations.

The synthesis of ancient literary sources and archaeological evidence helps to clarify our

conception of ancient domestic cult. Although there is literary evidence for the worship of gods

in the house, such as Hestia, Zeus, Hermes, Apollo and Hekate, the rituals associated with these

gods did not require specialized equipment, and thus are difficult to identify in the archaeological

record. The reality seems to be that common household items were used for domestic rituals,

and assumed religious importance only at certain times. Therefore, for indoor sacrifices, or an

offering to Hestia, any form of the hearth-altar could be used, due to the reciprocal ritual

relationship shared between the hearth and altar. This flexibility allowed one form to be

substituted for the other during sacred rites. Ritual washing, such as that which occurs before a

wedding and after a birth, may have required a louter together with a vessel capable of holding

and pouring water, such as an amphora or hydria.173 These artifacts can serve multiple functions

within the household. A basin like the louter was used not only for rituals, but also for more

mundane household tasks. Similarly, hydriae and amphorae served daily functions other than their ritual role. It seems that categorizing an artifact according to a single function might

173 Prenuptial baths would require a loutrophoros, as well.

diminish its varied role.174 It is this multi-functionality that characterizes household objects and

might offer the most insight into the daily life of the Greek oikos.

Ancient sources for domestic cult integrated with archaeological material from excavated houses seem to demonstrate that everyday, household objects were used as the implements for household ritual. Thus, depending on the behavioral context of their user, such objects modulated between different uses, taking on religious significance as necessary.

174 The loutrophoros, however, had a limited range of functions.

Table 1. Comparison of built and portable hearths and altars.

Built Hearth Portable Hearth Built Altar Portable Altar (brazier) (arula) Athens 1 7 0 0 Halieis 2 2 0 1 Olynthus 11 11 16 34

OLYNTHUS

Table 2. Distribution of ritually significant artifacts by house name Brazier Built Built Portable Louter Thurible T/C Figurine Miniature Hearth Altar Altar Vessel A 1 1 4 A 3 1 A 5 Unknown Unknown quantity quantity A 8 4 A 10 1 4 1 2 A 11 2 2 A iv 1 1 A iv 3 2 A iv 5 2 1 A iv 7 1 10 1 A iv 9 1 4 1 1 A v 1 1 7 A v 6 1 1 A v 9 2 1 3 A v 10 2 2 A vi 2 1 A vi 3 1 A vi 5 1 A vi 6 1 A vi 10 1 1 A vii 2 1 A vii 4 4 A vii 6 1 A vii 9 3 1 Unknown quantity A viii 1 1 A viii 3 1 1 4 1 A viii 4 2 1 A viii 5 1 3 1 A viii 6 1 A viii 7 4 Unknown quantity A viii 8 2 2 4 A viii 9 1 A viii 10 1 3 2 3

56 OLYNTHUS

Table 2. Distribution of ritually significant objects by house name Brazier Built Built Portable Louter Thurible T/C Figurine Miniature Hearth Altar Altar Vessel A xi 10 1 Unknown quantity B i 5 1 Unknown quantity B vi 2 1 B vi 3 1 B vi 4 3 B vi 5 1 5 B vi 6 4 B vi 7 1 7 B vi 8 1 1 B vi 9 1 5 C-x5 2 C-x7 2 D v 6 4 House of Many Colors 1 1 2 1 1 12 House of the Comedian 1 1 27 House of the Tiled 1 2 6 4 2 2 Prothyron SE House with Triangle 4 1 Front South Villa 6 Villa CC 1 Unknown quantity Villa of Good Fortune 1 Villa of the Bronzes 1 2 1 25 Villa of the Twin Erotes 1 1 2 Building A 2 15 East Spur Hill 1 1 East Spur Hill 4 1 Unknown quantity

57 HALIEIS

Table 3. Distribution of ritually significant artifacts by house name Brazier Built Built Portable Louter Thurible T/C Figurine Miniature Vessel Hearth Altar Altar House A 1 1 10 House C 1 12 House D 1 2 1 6 House E (NE) 1 1 1 17 House E (SE) 1 1 House E (SW) 1 4 3 House 7 1 2 17

ATHENS

Table 4. Distribution of ritually significant artifacts by house name Brazier Built Built Portable Louter Thurible T/C Figurine Miniature Loutrophoros Lekythos Hearth Altar Altar Vessel House D 1 Houses on the North Foot of the 1 Areopagus B 18:6 1 1 B 19:10 1 1 D 15:1 (15:2) 1 3 3 1 D 17:10 2 3 1 7 D 17:2 1 1 8 E 14:5 1 3 E 15:6 1 1 1 6 E 19:5 1 10 4 G 3:1 1 2 10 G 6:3 1 1 9 1 10 G 11:3 1 3 1 G 11:8 1 3 H 12:15 4 1 2 H 13:5 1 3 3 5 3 59 L 5:2 2 2 3 M 17:4 1 5 16 1 42 Q 12:3 1 4 258 Q 20:1 1 8 Q 21:3 1 1 R 12:1 3 3 8 R 12:4 5 1

59 60

WORKS CITED

Agora XI = E. B. Harrison, Archaic and Archaistic Sculpture, Princeton 1965.

Agora XII = B. A. Sparkes and L. Talcott, Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th, and 4th centuries B.C. Part 1, Princeton 1970.

Agora XIV = H. A. Thompson and R. E. Wycherley, The History, Shape and Uses of an Ancient City Center, Princeton 1972.

Agora XXIV = A. Frantz, Late Antiquity, A.D. 267-700, Princeton 1988.

Agora XXIX = S. I. Rotroff, Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and Imported Wheelmade Tableware and Related Material, Princeton 1997.

Amyx, D. A. 1958. “The Attic Stelai: Part III. Vases and Other Containers,” Hesperia 27, pp. 163-254.

Ault, B. 1994. “Classical Houses and Households: An Architectural and Artifactual Case Study from Halieis, Greece” (diss. Indiana University).

Boyd, T. D. and M. H. Jameson. 1981. “Urban and Rural Land Division in Ancient Greece,” Hesperia 50, pp. 327-342.

Burkert, W. 1985. Greek Religion, J. Raffan, trans., Cambridge, Mass.

Cahill, N. 1991. “Olynthus: Social and Spatial Planning in a Greek City” (diss. University of California – Berkeley).

———. 2002. Household and City Organization at Olynthus, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Camp, J. McK. 1977. “The Water Supply of Ancient Athens from 3000 to 86 B.C.,” (diss. Princeton University).

———. 1982. “Drought and Famine in the Fourth Century B.C.,” in Studies in Athenian Architecture, Sculpture, and Topography: Presented to Homer A. Thompson, Princeton, pp. 9-17.

Charitonides, S. 1960. “ ,” MDAI(A) 75, pp. 1-3.

Corinth XII = G. R. Davidson, The Minor Objects, Princeton 1952.

Corinth XVIII, pt. III = N. Bookidis and R. S. Stroud, The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: Topography and Architecture, Princeton 1997.

Dover, K. J. [1974] 1994. Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle, Indianapolis.

Faraone, C. A. 1992. Talismans and Trojan Horses: Guardian Statues in Ancient Greek Myth and Ritual, Oxford.

Garland, R. 2001. The Greek Way of Death, 2nd ed., Ithaca, N.Y.

Ginouvès, R. 1962. Balaneutikè: Recherches sur le bain dans l’antiquité grecque, Paris.

Glotz, G. 1904. La solidarité de la famille dans le droit criminel en Grèce, Paris.

Golden, M. 1990. Children and Childhood in Classical Athens, Baltimore.

Hägg, R., ed. 1994. Ancient Greek Cult Practice from the Epigraphical Evidence (Proceedings of the Second International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult organized by the Swedish Institute at Athens, 22-24 November 1991), Stockholm.

Jameson, M. 1969. “Excavations at Porto Cheli and Vicinity, Preliminary Report, I: Halieis: 1962-1968,” Hesperia 38, pp. 311-342.

———. 1990a. “Domestic Space in the Greek City-State,” in Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: An Interdisciplinary Cross-cultural Study, S. Kent, ed., Cambridge, pp. 92-113.

———. 1990b. “Private Space and the Greek City,” in The Greek City: From Homer to Alexander, O. Murray and S. Price, eds., Oxford, pp. 171-195.

Kanowski, M. G. 1983. Containers of Classical Greece: A Handbook of Shapes, St. Lucia.

Knigge, U. and W. Kovacsovics. 1981. “Kerameikos: Tätigkeitsbericht 1979,” AA (JdI 96), pp. 385-396.

Kurtz, D. C. 1975. Athenian White Lekythoi: Patterns and Painters, Oxford.

Kurtz, D. C. and J. Boardman. 1971. Greek Burial Customs, London.

LSG = F. Sokolowski. Lois sacrées des cités grecques (École Française D’Athènes. Travaux et mémoires 18), Paris, 1969.

LSJ2 = H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, rev. ed. by H. S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1925.

LSS = F. Sokolowski. Lois sacrées des cités grecques (École Française D’Athènes. Travaux et mémoires 11. Supplément), Paris 1962.

Maier, F. G. 1961. “Torgötter,” in Eranion: Festschrift für H. Hommel, Tübingen, pp. 93-104.

Mikalson, J. D. 1983. Athenian Popular Religion, Chapel Hill.

———. 2005. Ancient Greek Religion, Malden, Mass.

Miller, S. G. 1978. The Prytaneion: Its Function and Architectural Form, Berkeley.

Morgan, C. H., II. 1937. “Excavations at Corinth, 1936-37,” AJA 41, pp. 539-552.

Murray, O. and S. Price, eds., 1990. The Greek city: from Homer to Alexander, Oxford.

Nilsson, M. P. [1940] 1961. Greek Folk Religion, repr. New York.

——. 1949. A History of Greek Religion, F. J. Fielden, trans., 2nd ed., Oxford.

——. 1954A. “Roman and Greek Domestic Cult,” OpRom 1, pp. 77-85.

——. 1954B. “Griechische Hausaltäre,” in Neue Beiträge zur Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft. Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Bernhard Schweitzer, R. Lullies, ed., Stuttgart, pp. 218-221.

——. 1986. Cults, Myths, Oracles, and Politics in Ancient Greece, Göteborg.

Oakley, J. H., W. D.E. Coulson and O. Palagia. 1997. Athenian Potters and Painters: the Conference Proceedings, Oxford.

Oakley, J. H. and R. H. Sinos. 1993. The Wedding in Ancient Athens, Madison, Wisc.

Olynthus, II = D. M. Robinson, Architecture and Sculpture (Johns Hopkins University Studies in Archaeology 9), Baltimore 1930.

Olynthus IV = D. M. Robinson, The Terra-Cottas of Olynthus Found in 1928 (Johns Hopkins University Studies in Archaeology 12), Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press 1931.

Olynthus VII = D. M. Robinson, The Terra-Cottas of Olynthus Found in 1931 (Johns Hopkins University Studies in Archaeology 20), Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press 1933.

Olynthus VIII = D. M. Robinson and J. W. Graham, The Hellenic House (Johns Hopkins University Studies in Archaeology 25), Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press 1938.

Olynthus XII = D. M. Robinson, Domestic and Public Architecture (Johns Hopkins University Studies in Archaeology 36), Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press 1946.

Olynthus XIV = D. M. Robinson, Terracottas, Lamps and Coins Found in 1934 and 1938 (Johns Hopkins University Studies in Archaeology 39), Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press 1952.

Parker, R. 1983. Miasma. Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion, Oxford.

———. 1997. “Gods Cruel and Kind: Tragic and Civic Theology,” in Greek Tragedy and the Historian, C. Pelling, ed., Oxford, pp. 145-160.

Pelling, C. 1997. Greek Tragedy and the Historian, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Price, S. 1999. Religions of the Ancient Greeks, Cambridge.

Pulleyn, S. 1997. Prayer in Greek Religion, Oxford.

Rapoport, A. 1969. House Form and Culture, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

———. 1990. “Systems of Activities and Systems of Settings,” in Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space, S. Kent, ed., Cambridge, pp. 9-20.

Raubitschek, A. E. 1949. Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis, Cambridge, Mass.

Rice, D. G. and J. E. Stambaugh. 1979. Sources for the Study of Greek Religion, Missoula, Mont.

Rose, H. J. 1957. “The Religion of a Greek Household,” Euphrosyne 1, pp. 95-116.

Rotroff, S. and D. Jordan. 1999. “A Curse in Chytridion: A Contribution to the Study of Athenian Pyres,” Hesperia 68.2, pp. 147-154.

Rudolph, W. W. 1975. “Final Report: Halieis,” ArchDelt 30 Chronika, pp. 64-73.

———. 1984. “Excavations at Porto Cheli and Vicinity, Preliminary Report VI: Halieis, the Stratigraphy of the Streets in the Northeast Quarter of the Lower Town,” Hesperia 53, pp. 123-170.

Rupp, D. W. 1974. “Greek Altars of the Northeastern Peloponnese c. 750/725 B.C. to c. 300/275 B.C.” (diss. Bryn Mawr College).

Sanders, H. M. 2001. “Sculptural Patronage and the Houses of Late Hellenistic Delos” (diss. University of Michigan).

Shear, T. L. Jr. 1969. “The Athenian Agora: Excavations of 1968,” Hesperia 38, pp. 382-417.

———. 1973. “The Athenian Agora: Excavations of 1971,” Hesperia 42, pp. 121-179.

———. 1993. “The Persian Destruction of Athens: Evidence from Agora Deposits,” Hesperia 62, pp. 383-482.

Sieveking, J., RE XXXVIII, 1938, col. 2137 (Philemon).

Sjövall, H. 1931. “Zeus im altgriechischen Hauskult” (diss. Lund).

Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 1988. “Further Aspects of Polis Religion,” AION 10, pp. 259-274.

———. 1990. “What is Polis Religion?” in The Greek City: From Homer to Alexander, O. Murray and S. Price, eds., Oxford, pp. 295-322.

———. 1995. ‘Reading’ Greek Death: To the End of the Classical Period, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Sparkes, B. A. 1996. The Red and the Black: Studies in Greek Pottery, Routledge: London.

Sutton, R. F., Jr. 1989. “Two Red-Figured Loutrophoroi in Boston,” in Daidalikon: Studies in Memory of Raymond V. Schoder, S.J., R. F. Sutton Jr., ed., Wauconda, Ill., pp. 331-360.

Thera III = F. F. Hiller von Gaertringen and P. Wilski, Stadtgeschichte von Thera, Berlin: Reimer 1904.

Thompson, H. A. 1954. “Excavations in the Athenian Agora: 1953,” Hesperia 23, pp. 31-67.

———. 1959. “Activities in the Athenian Agora: 1958,” Hesperia 28, pp. 91-108.

———. 1966. “Activity in the Athenian Agora: 1960-1965,” Hesperia 35, pp. 37-54.

Travlos, J. 1971. Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens, New York.

Williams, C. K., II. 1981. “The City of Corinth and its Domestic Religion.” Hesperia 50, pp. 408-421.

Yavis, C. G. 1949. Greek Altars. Origins and Typology, Saint Louis University Studies (Monograph Series: Humanities, I), Saint Louis, Mo.

Young, R. S. 1951a. “Sepulturae Intra Urbem,” Hesperia 20, pp. 67-134.

———. 1951b. “An Industrial District of Ancient Athens,” Hesperia 20, pp. 135-288.

PLATES

Plate 1. Map of Greece.

Plate 2. Attic red-figure loutrophoros (Oakley and Sinos 1993, figs. 18). Jerusalem, Bible Lands Museum 4641; ARV2 1102, no. 2; Add2 329.

Plate 3. Attic red-figure loutrophoros (Oakley and Sinos 1993, fig. 19). Jerusalem, Bible Lands Museum 4641; ARV2 1102, no. 2; Add2 329.

Plate 4. Attic red-figure cup by the Amphitrite Painter (Oakley and Sinos, fig. 91). Berlin, Antikensammlung F2530; ARV2 831, no. 20, 1702; Add2 295.

Plates 5.1-2. White-ground pyxis by the Splanchnopt Painter (Oakley and Sinos, fig. 97-98). London, British Museum D11; ARV2 899, no. 146; Add2 303.

Plate 6. Marble louter from the Villa of the Bronzes at Olynthus (Olynthus XII, pl. 218).

Plate 7. Plan of Olynthus (Cahill 2002, fig. 6).

Plate 8. Plan of Halieis after Boyd and Jameson 1981, fig. 2.

Plate 9. Plan of the Agora Excavations in Athens after Agora XXIV, pl. 3.

Plate 10. Plan of the Late Archaic Athenian Agora, showing the distribution of wells and debris pits after Shear 1993, fig. 1.

Plate 11.1. Built hearth in House A vi 10 (Olynthus VIII, pl. 52.2).

Plate 11.2. Restoration of the built altar in House A vi 5 (Olynthus VIII, pl. 73).

Plate 12.1. Brazier from House A xi 10 (Olynthus VIII, pl. 52.1).

Plate 12.2. Altars from from the House of the Tiled Prothyron; left: red clay, right: stone (Olynthus XII, pl. 188:1-2).

Plate 13.1. Using the louter for bathing. Red-figure column krater (Ginouvès 1962, pl. 18:53). Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum 2166; ARV2 1111, no. 1; Add2 330.

Plate 13.2. Using the louter for handwashing. Red-figure lekanis by the Eleusinian Painter (Oakley and Sinos 1993, fig. 44). St. Petersburg, State Hermitage Museum ST1791; ARV2 1476, no. 3; Add2 381.

Plate 14 Plan of House A iv 9 at Olynthus after Cahill 2002, fig. 24.