THE FRONTIERS OF GRAECO-ROMAN RELIGIONS: GREEKS AND NON-GREEKS FROM A RELIGIOUS POINT OF VIEW E!"#$ M%&'( G)'*$!+, Ancient Greeks seemed to be very concerned about who was Greek and who was not. At least, this is what we can infer from the great number of literary sources which dealt with the topic in one way or another. From Herodotus’ Histories to, say, Tatian’s Address to the Greeks (to give just one example of extremely opposite genres and aims), the frontier of Greekness was an important issue not only to the Greek mind, but also to the minds of other intellectuals from all over the oikouméne.However, Greekness was rarely systematically de-ned. .e features of Greekness could be found in all forms of art, and covered areas from descent and language to more general ways of life.1 In this general picture religion played a key role, or, to be more precise, some religious aspects did. In the -/h century 01 Herodotus wrote “so that things done by man not be forgotten in time, and that great and marvellous deeds, some displayed by the Hellenes, some by the barbarians, not lose their glory” (.). His approach to these two large groups, “Hellenes” and “barbarians”, set a kind of agenda for those intending to describe new peoples. Among the categories that could be explored when dealing with a foreign people, religion occupied a privileged position. Herodotus focused on a handful of religious aspects to explain the distance between they-barbarians and we-Greeks. .e result was not a clear picture of what Greek religion actually was, nor even of what religion meant for Herodotus. It was more a way of establishing the limits of Greek religion with respect to non-Greek peoples, in order to make the intellectual frontiers of the Greek world explicit. As we will see, the ethnographical categories drawn by Herodotus proved to be lasting. Authors repeatedly tried to set the limits of the Greek world by focusing on quite similar subjects to describe other peoples. However, this continuity in the ethnographical religious approach did 1 Well-known de-nitions of Greekness are Herodotus ..; Isocrates, Panegyricus ; Dionysius of Halicarnassus ..; Dio Chrysostom .. "!"#$ :%&'( ;)'*$!+, not mean that Greek religion was always the same, nor (and this is my point here) that the frontier of Greek religion was always set at the same place. .e aim of this paper is to analyse how religion was used as a way of constructing di<erent limits for the conceptof Greekness.A/er a brief sketch of Herodotus’ work as a starting point, I will focus on Strabo’s Geography,-rstlytoshowhowhebroadenedthelimitsofGreekreligion, so that it could be understood as “Graeco-Roman religion” instead, and secondly to show how the device was intended to set frontiers not only between Greeks and barbarians, but also between Greeks (or Graeco- Romans) and non-Greeks within the Roman Empire. Analysis of religion in Herodotus is becoming increasingly frequent in studies of his work.2 .is is not surprising as the amount of religious data concerning not only the foreign peoples Herodotus describes, but also the Greeks themselves, is indeed remarkable. However, what we read in Herodotus is not an accurate picture of what Greek religion was actually like. No matter how much we read into it,3 he had no intention of doing so. As we have seen, he was merely trying to o<er his audience an account of the deeds of Greeks and barbarians alike, and of the causes which led to the Persian wars. To achieve his goal, he considered it necessary to digress, focusing on the di<erent peoples which had to do with either the barbarians (i.e. Persians) or the Greeks. .e result is, as has been pointed out, a “patterned display provided by the range of cultures”, in which Greece is not to be understood without barbarians, and vice versa.4 2 Works including analysis of religion in Herodotus are: G. Lachenaud, Mythologies, religion et philosophie de l’histoire dans Herodote (Lille ); E. Hall, Inventing the Barbarian (Oxford ); S. Scullion, “Herodotus and Greek Religion”, in C. Dewald— J. Marincola (eds.), !e Cambridge Companion to Herodotus (Cambridge ),– ; W. Burkert, “Herodot als Historiker fremder Religionen”,in G. Nenci—O. Reverdin (eds.), Hérodote et les peuples non-Grecs (Genève ),–; P. Cartledge, “Ancient and modern contestations of Hellenism”, Bulletin Institute Classical Studies (),–; J. Red-eld, “Herodotus the tourist”, Classical Philology (), –. Speci-cally about religion in Herodotus: F. Mora, Religione e religioni nelle Storie di Erodoto (Milano ); J. Gould, “Herodotus and religion”, in S. Hornblower (ed.), Greek Historiography (Oxford ),–; T. Harrison, Divinity and History. !e religion of Herodotus (Oxford ); J.D. Mikalson, “Religion in Herodotus”, in E.J. Bakker—I.J.F. de Jong— H. van Wees (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Herodotus (Leiden-Boston ); J.D. Mikalson, Herodotus and Religion in the Persian Wars (Chapel Hill ). 3 And no matter how optimistic one chooses to be, as is the case with Mikalson , op. cit. (n. ),, who claims that “his Histories (. .) may reasonably be claimed to be the best and richest single source for Greek religion as it was practised in the classical period”. 4 Red-eld , op.cit (n.),. ?@" A),#?'")B ,A ;)$"1,-),:$# )"!';',#B Herodotus conceived the world as a system formed by the combination of peoples who were di<erent from each other. A conscious e<ort to describe the constituents of his system can be found in his work, although he always focuses on what made the di<erence between them. .is is probably why Herodotus concentrated on certain matters and not on others, including when referring to religion. One of the easiest ways to underline the di<erences between two peoples is to describe what is patently obvious: their customs, what they do, especially what they do as a people and in public, and in the religious domain this means rituals. Herodotus’ concern about ritual probably had a lot to do with this.5 In addition, of all the rituals, sacri-ce is what he commented on most extensively. .e two richest descriptions of sacri-ce are those of Persians and Egyptians. In both cases, but especially in Persian sacri-ces, he chooses to center on what was de-nitely non-Greek. And thus he says explicitly that Persians “do not build altars or kindle -re, employ libations, or music, or -llets, or barley meal” (..), and continues to explain how “to pray for blessings for (oneself)alone is not lawful for the sacri-cer” (..); or that “no sacri-ce can be o<ered without a Magus” (..). .ere is also a similarity in his description of Egyptian sacri-ces. A/er dwelling at large on how “they instituted customs and laws contrary for the most part to those of the rest of mankind” (..), he gives examples of some bizarre Egyptian habits. Finally, he gets to religion, where special attention is paid to sacri-ce and the way of killing and preparing the animal to be consumed: “they cut its throat, and having done so sever the head from the body. .eyCay the carcass of the victim, then invoke many curses on its head, which they carry away. Where there is a market, and Greek traders in it, the head is taken to the market and sold; where there are no Greeks, it is thrown into the river” (..–). As a rule, it seems that when Herodotus commented on a ritual, it was because there was o/en a Greek reference that was clearly di<erent from the foreign one.6 .e opposite may also be true: it seems that he 5 We will probably never know to whatextent his real concept of religious things had to do only with ritual. .is is an important issue, which will not to be dealt with here. But IthinkthatweshouldbeabitmorecautiousthanGould,op.cit.(n.),,when he observes “how strikingly it (Herodotus’ work) underlines for us the extent to which he and, one might guess, the majority of Greeks, de-ned their own religion to themselves and understood its signi-cance largely in ritual terms”. 6 .is is what may explain that, in his descriptions of other sacri-ces, Herodotus stresses such things as the way of slaughtering the victims. When he describes Scythian "!"#$ :%&'( ;)'*$!+, brings up details about Greek religion because they explicitly show the di<erences between two peoples (every piece of information about Greek religion, therefore, should be considered in this light). But essentially the di<erence was not so great. To his mind, what characterised the Greeks or any other people was not that they had di<erent customs, but that they went about them in di<erent ways. As Scheid has observed, ancient authors thought that “everywhere people made sacri-ces, prayers, and vows, celebrated sacred games, and built sanctuaries (...) But one thing made the di<erence between the religions of the world: the governing rules, those small details, choices, and postures which gave each system its originality”.7 Herodotus was therefore prepared to admit that the realm of religion was common to all civilised people:8 in his words “I believe that all men are equally knowledgeable about (the gods)” (..). Consequently, no signs of superiority will be found in Herodotus regarding Greek religion. Admittedly, his work shows his deep pride in being Greek: “from old times the Hellenic stock has always been distinguished from foreign by its greater cleverness and its freedom from silly foolishness” (..). But religion had little to do with this. As has been observed, Herodotus’ implicit aim “was to promote not Greek ethnic triumphalism but Greek ethno-political solidarity”.9 To achieve this, it was not necessary for Greek rituals to be older or better than the others: they just had to be felt as Greek.