CHAPTER 13
Attic Sanctuaries

Jessica Paga

The extensive territory of Athens, the area referred to as Attica, contained numerous sanctuaries, shrines, and sacred precincts. These sacred areas varied in size, layout, popularity, and location, but all functioned to incorporate ritual practices into the everyday lives of Athenian citizens outside of the Acropolis and urban center of the asty. These sanctuaries can be considered extra‐urban to the polis center, but they often served as important urban centers within their specific demes, or villages. As a mixture of extra‐urban, or peripheral, and urban spaces, these sanctuaries served multiple purposes for the population of Attica (Map 13.1). This chapter presents six examples of Attic sanctuaries of the late Archaic and Classical periods, divided into two categories based on their principal ritual purposes. The first group, including Eleusis, Sounion, and Brauron, were sites of Panathenian festivals and, in many respects, can be considered under the rubric of polis religious activity. The second group, encompassing Rhamnous, Cape Zoster, and Ikaria, are more properly evaluated as deme‐specific sanctuaries that, while certainly accessible to other demesmen and Athenians, nevertheless catered to their immediate populations.

Photo displaying Telesterion view in Eleusis.

Map 13.1 Map of Attica, with demes discussed in this article indicated.

Modified from Camp 2001, fig. 248. © Michael Djordjevitch.

Geography and Politico‐Spatial Organization

Attica is defined by three major mountain ranges: Parnes in the northern region, which separated Attica from the territory of Boeotia; Pentelikon to the northeast, whose exploitation provided the Athenians with a seemingly unquenchable supply of fine marble; and Hymettos to the southeast, known for its abundant honey and peak Sanctuary to Zeus. In addition, the smaller range of Aigaleos stretches to the west, through which the Sacred Way originally wove from Athens to Eleusis. These mountain ranges also served to contain (and restrict) the principal plain regions of Attica. The Thriasian plain near Eleusis was particularly arable, and the relatively flat areas to the east of Mt. Hymettos, stretching towards the sea, were also used for extensive farming (Osborne 1985: 47–63). In general, Attic soils did not produce a high yield of grain but olives and grapes were plentiful. Perhaps to a greater extent than the mountains, the area of Attica was delimited by its coastal regions, including a variety of natural harbors and sheer cliffs. These coasts, encircling approximately three‐quarters of Attic territory, informed Athens’ maritime perspective and functioned as both a weakness and power during the Archaic and Classical periods. The coasts facilitated trade and communication, and contributed to the high level of prosperity that would come to characterize Athens in the fifth century.

These discrete geographic regions played a significant role in Athenian social and political developments. During the Archaic period, the population of Attica seems to have been roughly divided into three factions – the Hill, Plain, and Coast – that mirror the main topographic areas of Attic territory (Hdt. 1.59; Ath. pol. 13; Hopper 1961). This tripartite division was extended with modifications into the Classical period through the Kleisthenic reforms. Under the new democracy, the population of Attica was divided into 10 phylai (tribes), which were further subdivided into three trittyes (thirds) each, labeled according to geographic location – coastal, inland, and city – for a total of 30 trittyes. Each individual deme (village), of which there were 139, belonged to one of the three trittyes within its particular phyle. According to pseudo‐Aristotle, the goal of these divisions was to “mix up” the population of Attica, loosening the bonds of the aristocracy and emphasizing location, rather than birth or wealth, as the most important classification for citizenship (Ath. pol. 21).

In addition to the reorganization of the countryside, Kleisthenes also emphasized the use of the demotic in place of the patronymic as a form of self‐identification (Ath. pol. 21.4). The use of the demotic rather than the patronymic underscores this transformation of Athenian social identity by creating an immediate link between citizen and topographic location, in place of an association between citizen and family. Citizenship was now dependent on belonging to a specific deme in Attica. The demes, frequently described as the “building blocks” of the democracy, were thus invested with a power or authority that seems to have been previously understated or not acknowledged by the centralized government (such as it existed in the Archaic period): it now mattered precisely where you were from, rather than who your father was. This level of specificity instantly and integrally linked every citizen with a single deme – a type of individual site specificity – and was a measure that granted demes a form of recognition that conveyed a sense of autonomy. This autonomy, however, did not mean independence from the new political system of Athens. Rather, it was an autonomy contained within a larger matrix of inclusion: the demes belonged to the Athenian polis, but the polis was made up of the individual demes and could not exist without them.

For the purposes of the current study, a sanctuary can be defined as a sacred space delineated by a temenos (boundary line or wall), and containing an altar and a temple or shrine. There were, of course, many sanctuaries in the Greek world that lacked temples – the altar being the sine qua non of a sanctuary – but the temple, owing to its size and materiality, is here retained as a qualifier of monumentality. The temenos could be articulated with fortification walls, as at Eleusis, or a simple fence or parapet, or a series of horoi (boundary stones). The significance of the temenos was to delimit (literally to “cut off”) the area of the sacred precinct from profane space. The altar functioned as the site of sacrifice and libation, and therefore as the point of communication between the mortal worshippers and the divine recipients. The temple housed the cult statue of the god and could also serve as a repository for offerings.

Panathenian sanctuaries form an identifiable category of sanctuaries in Attic, because they have specific administrative, financial, or ritual ties to the polis. These sanctuaries may be recognized by the presence of state festivals or rituals that united or included the broader population of Athens. The principal religious festival of the Athenian polis was the Panathenaia, but several other annual festivals occurred in sanctuaries outside the asty, frequently articulated with centrifugal processions (pompai) from the city center to the deme (see Graf 1996 for the role of processions). In addition to what might be referred to as “state festivals,” it is also possible to identify sanctuaries that appealed to and included broader segments of the Athenian populace via specific ritual practices and events. Sanctuaries connected with rites of passage, for example, including marriage and maturation rituals, would fall under this rubric.

The other principal category of Attic sanctuaries is deme‐specific ones. These sanctuaries are highlighted by the presence of festivals that focus on a specific deme, or small group of demes within a common area. These sanctuaries may be open to worship from non‐demesmen and other Athenians, but such extra‐deme participation is often not frequent or leaves few traces in the literary and archaeological evidence. An example of this type of deme specificity can be seen in the celebrations of the Rural Dionysia. This festival, as a counterpart to the Greater or City Dionysia, which occurred in the asty, seems to have occurred in specific demes based on their trittys affiliation (Paga 2010). Only the demes within a particular trittys, or possibly those in the immediate vicinity of the theatral area, would participate in these celebrations. Local deities and site‐specific heroes should also be included in this designation of deme‐specific sanctuaries, such as the grove of the Eumenides at Colonos (Soph. OC 42–75).

In what follows, examples of both Panathenian and deme‐specific sanctuaries are presented, in order to elucidate the salient features of each and draw comparisons in terms of ritual practice and architectural articulation. Although the Panathenian sanctuaries, in most cases, are more lavishly appointed and tend to have larger and more impressive structures, the deme sanctuaries do not lack for temples, altars, inscriptions, votive dedications, and other features, nor is the fundamental ritual practice of honoring the gods through sacrifice, libations, prayers, and offerings noticeably different between the two types of sanctuaries. All of the Attic sanctuaries – small and large, Panathenian and deme‐specific – can be interpreted as physical manifestations of the practice of euergetism, whereby mortals enter into a social contract of positive reciprocity with the gods, as well as nodes of communication and interaction between fellow demesmen, neighbor demesmen, and the broader Athenian populace.

Panathenian Sanctuaries

We turn first to the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Eleusis (Figure 13.1). The deme of Eleusis is located in the southwest corner of Attica, approximately 14 miles from the asty of Athens (Map 13.1). Eleusis lies within the Thriasian plain, which forms part of the western extent of Attica, stretching between the Bay of Eleusis to the south and Mt. Parnes to the north. Eleusis is the largest deme in this area, in the coastal trittys of phyle VIII, Hippothontis. The deme has a bouleutic quota of perhaps 11, which puts it on par with several of the larger demes (e.g., Piraeus, Euonymon, and Marathon; see Traill 1975 (67–70) for the bouleutic quotas). The relatively large size of Eleusis was due in part to the renown of its sanctuary but also to its function as a border site: the area of the Thriasian plain acted as the border with the territory of Megara. Several of the features of Eleusis betray this dual function of cult center and border guard, and its intrinsic military and territorial role likely contributed to the Panathenian nature of the sanctuary.

Sketch of the state plan of the Telesterion and surrounding area.

Figure 13.1 Eleusis, view of the Telesterion.

Source: J. Paga.

The principal features of the sanctuary at Eleusis include the main cult building, often referred to as the Telesterion, the massive fortification walls that encompass the sanctuary and serve as a type of temenos, and the Kallichoron well, which occupies an important role in the mythology of the site and the festival of the Mysteries. The walls were expanded at several points during the history of the sanctuary and effectively delineated the sanctuary and part of the deme itself with gates and towers. These walls stress the military function of the border site, but they also emphasize the secrecy of the Mysteries and rituals that occurred within the sanctuary. The Kallichoron well was located immediately outside the walls, immovable despite the various enlargements of the walls over time. This location, like the Telesterion itself, stresses the site specificity of the sanctuary and emphasizes the overall role of the well within the rituals of the Mysteries. This is likely the well where Demeter sat and mourned the loss of her daughter (Hom. Hymn Dem. 98–99), and it functioned as a place for dance at the end of the pompe (procession) from Athens to Eleusis during the festival.

For its entire history, the Telesterion was an unusual temple: it is non‐peripteral, lacks lavish sculptural decoration in the form of metopes or pedimental figures, and is inward‐facing, in contrast to the typically outward‐looking peripteral temples common in Greek sanctuaries (Figure 13.2). Although the precise form of the earliest cult building remains speculative, it serves as the starting point from which some five cult buildings succeeded each other in the same location and persisted for over eight centuries. This venerable history attests to the continuing importance of the Mysteries and, moreover, the continuing importance of Eleusis. With each successive Telesterion, the structure grew in size and capacity, an expansion that indicates the growing and continued popularity of the cult (Noack 1927: 48; Mylonas 1961: 77–78; Shear 1982: 128; Clinton 1994: 162).

Photo displaying temple of Poseidon in Sounion.

Figure 13.2 Eleusis, state plan of the Telesterion and surrounding area.

From Travlos 1988, fig. 172. © The Archaeological Society at Athens.

One crucial aspect of the Telesterion is the fact that it is partially cut into the bedrock of the site itself. This construction process, like the Kallichoron well, physically roots the sanctuary in the specific area of Eleusis, creating a tangible bond between site and ritual. The Mysteries cannot occur anywhere other than Eleusis and the Telesterion cannot be moved. Within the Telesterion, there is also an outcrop of bedrock that was preserved throughout the successive rebuildings. This outcrop is contained within the structure often referred to as the “Anaktoron.” This structure is controversial: some scholars believe that it functioned as an interior room for the storage of the holy objects (hiera) and was thus a sort of “Holy of Holies” (Travlos 1950/1951: 1–16; Mylonas 1961: 83–87), while others argue that it was more of a platform and that the term “Anaktoron” should instead be applied to the building as a whole (Clinton 1992: 126–132). Regardless of its function, however, it further emphasizes the site specificity of the structure.

Cult activity of some form seems to have occurred at Eleusis since at least the Geometric period, and the site was inhabited throughout the Protogeometric and Geometric periods (Mylonas 1961: 55; Travlos 1960/1962). The earliest cult building that can be securely identified, however, dates from the end of the seventh century or early sixth century. In the early Archaic period, the terrace to the southeast of the acropolis was enlarged and provided with a new retaining wall. This terrace in turn served to support a monumental building, often referred to as the “Solonian Telesterion” (Noack 1927: 16–30; Mylonas 1961: 64–70). The construction of this building, with grey‐blue Eleusinian limestone, may be an indication of an increasingly important political role for Eleusis within Attica, but it more likely represents the demands of the growing cult. As the cult of the Mysteries became more popular and spread not just throughout Attica but the Greek world as a whole, the sanctuary would have been forced to keep pace with this expansion. The monumental cult building, erected in the late seventh or early sixth century, reflects the increasing popularity of the Mysteries while simultaneously emphasizing the crucial role that the cult served in the religious life of its citizens.

The remains of the late Archaic Telesterion are preserved to a greater extent than the early sixth‐century building. The south wall foundations, in addition to bedrock cuttings for the western wall, indicate a structure with nearly double the capacity of the early Archaic building: the new Telesterion measured 25.30 × 27.10 m, not including the porch, which would add an additional 4.55 m to the east–west length (resulting in the overall building dimensions of 27.10 × 29.85 m). The nearly square interior space of the building was supported by 22 columns arranged in five rows of five or four columns each, an early example of a hypostyle hall plan that would become characteristic of the Telesterion at Eleusis. The entire structure is likely to have been fronted by a porch of nine or ten Doric columns, perforated by one or three doors to permit access to the inner naos. The date for this building was initially placed in the third or early fourth quarter of the sixth century and it has thus long been considered “Peisistraid” (Noack 1927: 68–70, with contributions by Orlandos, 63–68). Recent investigations, however, reveal that it is better dated to the end of the sixth century, or circa 500 BCE (Clinton 1994: 162; Lippolis 2006: 163–164, 177–180; Miles 1988: 27–28; Paga 2015: 111–112).

At some point after the Persian destruction of Attica in 479 BCE – an activity that included Eleusis (Hdt. 9.65) – the Telesterion was rebuilt. There are traces of at least one, if not two, attempted rebuildings prior to the final construction in the later fifth century. The first phase is often referred to as the “Kimonian” Telesterion, but there is no evidence that this building was ever completed (Shear 1982, where the building is considered a pre‐480 construction). There is then a possible second unfinished phase, often associated with Iktinos, the architect of the Parthenon. The “Kimonian” and “Iktinian” phases, though, could be a single phase; the chronology is complicated and there is little general consensus. Ultimately, the Telesterion was entirely rebuilt by Koroibos in the 440s–430s. Its completed form is, in essence, an enlargement of the late Archaic Telesterion: a square plan (approximately 52 × 54 m), hypostyle form (42 columns), and a colonnaded porch. The interior Anaktoron is preserved, and the enlarged size again reflects the increasing popularity of the cult, as well as the importance of the sanctuary to the polis of Athens. The successive rebuildings at Eleusis illustrate the status of the cult for the Athenian polis, making it one of the most prominent Panathenian Attic sanctuaries.

At the other end of the Attic peninsula, the site of Sounion also serves as a representation of a monumental Panathenian sanctuary (Figure 13.3). The sanctuary area of Sounion is located on two adjacent promontories, one dedicated to Poseidon and the other to Athena. Cult activity in the Poseidon sanctuary can be traced back to the second half of the seventh century, if not earlier (W.B. Dinsmoor, Jr. 1971: 2–4). The earliest monumental building activity, however, is the late Archaic poros Temple of Poseidon, built soon after 490 and destroyed by the Persians in 480/79, while still unfinished. It was rebuilt in the mid‐fifth century in local Agrileza marble, and it is this incarnation that currently graces the windswept cape.

Sketch plan of the sanctuary in Brauron.

Figure 13.3 Sounion, view of the Temple of Poseidon.

Source: J. Paga.

The Archaic temple was the first monumental peripteral temple built outside the asty (13.06 × 30.20 m, 6 × 13 columns) and has an innovative plan for its time. The traces of the limestone foundations visible underneath the later marble temple demonstrate that the two temples had remarkably similar plans, dimensions, and proportions. Based on analogy with the marble temple (measuring 13.47 × 31.24 m), it is possible to reconstruct the limestone temple as a hexastyle peripteral temple with 13 columns along the flanks, and with a pronaos and opisthodomos with two columns in antis. The columns of the pronaos on the marble temple align with the third flank columns from the front, but it is not clear if this was also the case for the limestone temple. The long, rectangular cella of the marble temple was open and did not have a colonnade. The exposed foundations of the limestone temple, on the hand, indicate that the earlier temple was intended to have an internal colonnade, with perhaps as many as five columns per side. In most aspects, then, the two temples share a remarkable similarity and demonstrate the resources of the deme of Sounion and the overall importance of the sanctuary.

The Poseidon sanctuary at Sounion can be considered Panathenian because of the regular occurrence of a festival there, as well as the integral importance of the navy to Athenian affairs in the Classical period. Throughout the fifth century, the Athenian navy expanded and continued to grow in importance; this increased prominence was, at first, necessitated by continuous problems with Aigina. During much of the sixth century, the Aiginetans held the upper hand against the Athenians and frequently raided the Attic coastline (Hdt. 5.89). In the last decade of the sixth century, these problems came to a head when the Thebans recruited the Aiginetans in their war against Athens. According to Herodotus (5.89–90), the Thebans attacked Attica from the west, while the Aiginetans ravaged the coastline, destroying the port at Phaleron and inflicting significant damage on the coastal demes. The Aiginetans continued to be a problem for the Athenians in the early fifth century. Herodotus recounts an episode where the Aiginetans seized several prominent Athenian men on a state vessel during a quadrennial festival at Sounion (Hdt. 6.87). Herodotus places this event close to the time when the Persian army advanced to Euboea and burned Eretria (Hdt. 6.101), so we can postulate that it took place between 499 and 490. By the first decade of the fifth century, then, the sanctuary at Sounion was the site of a quadrennial festival attended by important magistrates and Athenian citizens, it involved boats and it would be fitting that the Sanctuary of Poseidon be embellished with a monumental stone temple at the very time the Athenian navy was expanded. A deme calendar from Thorikos also includes a sacrifice to Poseidon at Sounion, indicating that demes in the vicinity of Sounion participated in ritual practices here on a regular basis (SEG 33.147; Lupu 2009 [NGSL2]: no. 1).

On the hill opposite the Poseidon sanctuary is a small Sanctuary of Athena Sounias. This is the home of the temple mentioned by Pausanias (1.1.1) and discussed by Vitruvius (De arch. 4.8.4). Although there is evidence that the Athena hill received votive dedications earlier, a stone temple was not built until the middle of the fifth century (Camp 2001: 307). The interior and exterior columns were of the Ionic order, an architectural choice that was somewhat unusual for Attica and Athens at this time. The form of the temple is also unusual, consisting of a relatively squat rectangular cella surrounded with a portico only on its east (10 columns) and south (12 columns) sides. Internally, the roof was supported by four columns, and a large base for the cult statue is preserved in the rear of the single room. The Athena sanctuary is smaller than the Poseidon sanctuary, but both are integrally connected to the topography of Sounion and both augmented the importance of this deme within Attica.

North of Sounion is the Sanctuary of Artemis at Brauron, located along the eastern coast of Attica, approximately 38 km from the asty. Although Brauron itself was not a deme, there are several settlements in the nearby vicinity (Philaidai, Steiria, Angele, and Myrrhinous, to name the closest ones). Regardless of its bureaucratic status, the Sanctuary of Artemis was an important cult center for Attica throughout the seventh century, if not earlier, and continued to function as such during the late Archaic and Classical periods. Not much is known about the state festival of the Brauronia, but it does seem clear that it played an important role in the cult calendar of Athens and is attested by Herodotus (6.138), as well as Philochoros (FGH 328 F 101), Aristophanes (Peace, 872–876), the Athenaion Politeia (54.7–8), a scholiast to Theocritus (2.6), and Hesychius (s.v. Brauronios). The major festival occurred very four years, although it is possible than a smaller festival occurred annually. In addition, the Arkteia festival for young girls provided a rite of passage ritual within a liminal and rural setting, separated from the asty.

Despite material evidence dating from the Bronze Age, it was not until the sixth century that the site received notable attention in the form of monumental architecture (Figure 13.4). At the end of the sixth century, a retaining wall and terrace were constructed above the Sacred Spring in order to create a level area. The site’s earliest identifiable temple is also dated to this period, circa 500 BCE, and the retaining wall, terrace, and temple all seem to belong to the same building project (Themelis 2002: 104). This construction is closely connected with the activity around the Sacred Spring, an indication that the spring itself was considered one of the most sacred areas within the sanctuary (Alavanou 1972: 17). The temple is only preserved in its foundations, which show a small Doric building (19.90 × 10.35 m), likely non‐peripteral, with two columns in antis giving access to a narrow porch and four interior columns in the cella; the temple has also been restored by some with a small adyton at the rear and seems to have followed the same plan when it was rebuilt later in the fifth century (Papadimitriou 1963: 113; Themelis 2002: 104).

Sketch plan of the sanctuary of Themis and Nemesis in Rhamnous.

Figure 13.4 Brauron, plan of the sanctuary.

From Travlos 1988, fig. 58. © The Archaeological Society at Athens.

The sanctuary also included a stoa with rooms for dining and sleeping, built in the 420s, but never finished. The structure takes the form of a pi‐shaped stoa with a wide intercolumniation, such that three metopes appear between each column, rather than the standard two. The stoa was also a principal area for the storage and display of votive objects, many of which were dedicated by women from all areas of Attica (Camp 2001: 279). Other built structures within the sanctuary include a heroön or naiskos within a cave, often said to be the tomb of Iphigenia, and a stone bridge that crosses the nearby stream. Although these structures are relatively modest, they speak to the general importance of the sanctuary and its rituals for the broad territory of Attica: Brauron did not belong to a single deme but was an integral part of the polis itself. The presence of a Brauroneion on the Acropolis would have further elevated the place of the cult of Artemis Brauronia for the Athenians (Dobbins and Rhodes 1979).

The three examples of Eleusis, Sounion, and Brauron demonstrate the flexibility of sanctuary architecture and the sacred built environment within Attica, while simultaneously emphasizing the geographic and ritual extent of Panathenian cults. The variation within the built environment of these sites also underlines the flexibility of sanctuary architecture and draws attention to the overall multiplicity of structures, ornamentation, and function: the hypostyle hall of Eleusis, the peripteral monumental Temple of Poseidon, the Ionic Temple of Athena at Sounion, and the unfinished Doric stoa at Brauron all speak to variable needs within the Athenian population but also to the unifying nature of Greek cult practice.

Deme Sanctuaries

In contrast to these prominent Panathenian sanctuaries, we can consider the role of deme‐specific sanctuaries, which are often – although not always – smaller and more locally based. Deme sanctuaries principally differ from Panathenian sanctuaries in that the target audience is typically the demesmen in the immediate vicinity, rather than the broader populace of Athens. In many ways, however, these deme sanctuaries function as the central religious spaces for their individual demes. As such, they can be considered both urban and extra‐urban – urban for their surrounding populations and extra‐urban for the asty (see de Polignac 1995 for the role of urban and extra‐urban sanctuaries). These overlapping categories again highlight the flexibility of deme sanctuaries and the multiplicity of functions these areas served.

The deme of Rhamnous can be favorably compared to the three Panathenian cases studied in the previous section: it is located along both a coastal and terrestrial border and it helped to delineate Attic territory. Its geographic siting, however, made it more remote and isolated than Eleusis, Sounion, or Brauron: it lies in the northeast corner of Attica, approximately 53 km from the city center. The site is well situated, elevated above the coast and has a view north over the gulf to Euboea and south towards Marathon. These natural advantages led to the fortification of the deme in the Classical period, when it was used as a garrison (Pouilloux 1954: 23–92; Petrakos 1999: vol. 1, 51–184). In the late Archaic and early Classical periods, although the deme lacked walls, it still would have served as an important lookout spot for approaching enemies from the north. The geographical isolation of Rhamnous made the deme similar to an enclave like Ikaria, discussed later in this section, but it is possible that it had some association with the nearby Marathonian Tetrapolis, consisting of the demes of Marathon, Probalinthos, Oinoe, and Trikorynthos. If this were the case, Rhamnous would have shared some level of communication and extra‐deme ties with the broader area of Northeast Attica (Ismard 2010: 239–251). Rhamnous, then, was both a singular border deme, remote and secluded, as well as a deme that possibly shared ties with an association with strong cultic bonds along the northeastern coast of Attica.

The deme was home to two important cults: those of Nemesis and Themis. Their joint sanctuary was located outside of the deme center, approximately 500 m to the south, and was approached via a long processional way lined with tombs and funerary monuments (Figure 13.5). Votive evidence from the area of the sanctuary indicates cult activity from the beginning of the sixth century, and there is also evidence of occupation during the Bronze Age (Petrakos 1983: 7). At some point in the first half of the sixth century, a small temple, likely to have been dedicated to Nemesis, was constructed, although the evidence for its reconstruction is limited (Petrakos 1982: 136; 1999: vol. 1, 192–193). At the close of the sixth century, another limestone temple was built, possibly as a replacement for the earlier structure, or possibly as an additional elaboration of the sanctuary (Petrakos 1999: vol. 1, 194). In the early fifth century, a small temple‐like structure was erected on the southern part of the terrace. This building was small and non‐peripteral, approximately 9.90 × 6.15 m, possibly with a distyle in antis façade (A.N. Dinsmoor 1972: 19; Petrakos 1983: 11; cf., Petrakos 1999: vol. 1, 199). The interior space was divided into a narrow pronaos and cella. The exterior wall faces were constructed in polygonal Lesbian masonry and the interior walls were formed with irregular courses of small stacked stones. The building has been dated to the first decades of the fifth century on the basis of its masonry and ceramics, although it is unclear if it should be placed prior to or after the Persian destruction (A.N. Dinsmoor 1972: 19; Petrakos 1999: vol. 1, 198–199). This structure has been postulated to be a temple of Themis or an oikema (treasury building), although there is no consensus (Temple to Themis: A.N. Dinsmoor 1972 (19–22), although she believes it is more likely an older temple to Nemesis, Miles 1989 (139), Goette 1993 (248), Camp 2001 (301); oikema: Petrakos1983 (12) and 1999 (Vol. 1, 200–203).

Sketch plan of the site in Ikaria.

Figure 13.5 Rhamnous, plan of the Sanctuary of Themis and Nemesis.

From Petrakos 1999, fig. 105. © The Archaeological Society at Athens.

In the second half of the fifth century, the sanctuary terrace was expanded and a new monumental temple to Nemesis was constructed in circa 430–420 BCE (Miles 1989: 226–227). This temple contained the famous cult statue by Agorakritos, said to have been carved from a block of Parian stone originally brought to Attica by the Persians and deliberately repurposed by the Rhamnousians after the Athenian victories at Marathon and Salamis (Paus. 1.33). The temple itself was monumental, peripteral, and built of local marble (9.96 × 21.43 m, 6 × 12 columns). The Classical temples at Rhamnous and Sounion share many similarities, and it was once believed that they were designed by the same architect (W.B. Dinsmoor 1950: 181–182; cf., Miles 1989: 221–226). The Temple of Nemesis, however, was not the site of an annual Athenian‐wide festival, and Nemesis herself seems to be more of a local deity connected to Rhamnous itself (Miles 1989: 138–139). The principal users of the sanctuary here, are the Rhamnousians themselves.

Nemesis is closely related to Themis, both mythologically and physically, in this sanctuary. The two temples are mere inches apart, and the south krepidoma of the Temple of Nemesis even takes the earlier and smaller temple into account (Miles 1989: 150–153). This arrangement speaks to an element of site specificity at Rhamnous, similar to that seen at Eleusis. The cult activity here is deme‐specific in multiple senses: the primary worshippers are those from Rhamnous and possibly other nearby demes, and the goddesses themselves are rooted to the land. It is important to emphasize, however, that although the sanctuary was not Panathenian in the same degree as Eleusis, Sounion, or Brauron; the Temple of Nemesis nevertheless received monumental treatment and functioned as an important landmark for this area, linking the demesmen of Rhamnous with the ultimate Athenian triumph over the Persians.

The small sanctuary on Cape Zoster makes for an illuminating comparison with Rhamnous. Here, on a promontory projecting from the southwestern coast of Attica, and near the demes of Aixone, Halai Aixonides, and Anagyrous, was the Temple of Apollo, Artemis, and Leto. There is some debate about which deme had oversight over the cult space: Strabo (9.1.21) lists Cape Zoster as the first Cape after Aixone and says that Halai Aixonides is the next deme down the coast from Aixone; Stephanus of Byzantium (s.v. Zoster) reports that the Halaeis worshipped Apollo Zoster, Artemis, and Leto there. In terms of geography, the overall remoteness of the Cape and limited access supports an association with Halai Aixonides, rather than Aixone (Eliot 1962: 25). Nevertheless, as an extra‐urban sanctuary, the cult space was most likely frequented by demesmen from throughout the area, as well as sailors and merchants, who might dock at the nearby bays. Fundamentally, however, it remains a deme‐specific, rather than a Panathenian, sanctuary.

The sanctuary on Cape Zoster was dedicated to the Delian triad of Apollo, Artemis, and Leto, as well as Athena (Paus. 1.31.1), and it was initially elaborated at the end of the sixth century and then expanded during the Classical period. The remains at the sanctuary include a small temple and a large altar (see Figure 15.4). The form of the temple is a simple cella with a single doorway for access, a narrow adyton in the back, and overall dimensions of 10.8 × 6.0 m; three bases for cult statues were found in the adyton. All of the bases carry inscriptions dated to the late sixth or early fifth century, and each reads: Halies anethesan, the Halaies dedicated [it] (Kourouniotes 1927/1928: 23–25). These bases, integrated with the paving slabs of the cella, indicate that the temple was in use by circa 500 BCE. The inscriptions also make it clear that the primary worshippers at the sanctuary were the residents of Halai Aixonides. One section of Cycladic polygonal masonry in the north wall of the temple has also been dated to the late sixth century (Kourouniotes 1927/1928: 16, 49–51). Although it is not certain that the temple in the sixth century assumed the same form as the Classical structure, the presence of the in situ statue bases and section of the north wall indicate that the form of the earlier temple would have been remarkably similar. The temple is oriented east–west, and the altar is in line with the entrance to the cella. A peristyle of 4 × 6 monolithic, unfluted columns was added in the second half of the fourth century, each column standing on its own base, rather than a continuous stylobate (Kourouniotes 1927/1928: 30–31). Before the columns were added, the temple had the appearance of a small naiskos, or shrine, similar to the Temple of Themis at Rhamnous or the Temple of Pythian Apollo at Ikaria. The added columns increased the overall monumental quality of the temple and put it more on par with the peripteral temples of Nemesis at Rhamnous and Poseidon at Sounion, despite its continued small size.

The sanctuary at Zoster does not appear to have had any Panathenian rituals associated with it: the focus of worship is the immediate locale and the nearby inhabitants. Despite its small size and relative isolation, however, it is possible to understand the sanctuary’s function within the broader framework of Attic cult activity and sacred spaces. Like Eleusis, Rhamnous, Brauron, and Sounion, the sanctuary at Zoster is located along a border area, serving to delimit the territory of Attica. The cult also has connections to sailing and maritime activities, which were of utmost importance to the Athenians in the Classical period. Moreover, the links between the Delian Triad worshipped at Zoster and the Athenian expropriation of Delos in the mid‐fifth century may indicate that this small, local sanctuary increased in prominence and significance in the wake of Athenian involvement in the Delian League. At Zoster, then, it is possible detect both the local import of the sanctuary and cult, as well as its integration into the Panathenian ritual‐architectural matrix.

In contrast to the five sites already discussed, the deme of Ikaria is a small, inland enclave, located just north of Mt. Pentelikon. It belongs to the inland trittys of phyle II, Aigeis but is separated from almost all of the other members of the trittys by the mountain. The coastal trittys of Aigeis, however, is contiguous with the inland trittys, so the demesmen of Ikaria would have been close to other members of the phyle, such as those from Probalinthos and Phegaia, and we might imagine that these nearby demes participated in some of the rituals and activities at Ikaria, particularly the Rural Dionysia (Paga 2010: 354, 377–378). Ikaria also served an important mythological function for Athens: it is the place where Dionysos first appeared in Attica and where he, with notorious results, introduced the art of viticulture to the eponymous Ikarios (Hyg. Poet. astr. 2.4, Fab. 130; Eratosth. Epigone fr. 22–27 Powell; Apollod. Bibl. Epit. 2.14; Arist. fr. 515 Rose; Ael. NA 7.28).

The deme had two important cults, to Dionysos and to Pythian Apollo, both of which provide evidence for settlement and occupation of the area from the late Archaic period at the latest (Figure 13.6). The cult of Apollo is firmly established on an epigraphic basis by the fourth‐century inscription carved into the threshold block of Building H, which identifies the structure as the temple to Pythian Apollo (IG II2 4976; Biers and Boyd 1982: 15). An earlier inscription attests to the functioning of this cult by the last quarter of the sixth century (IG I3 1015), and it is possible that the fourth century Pytheion replaced an earlier structure (Biers and Boyd 1982: 17–18). The building itself is relatively small and non‐peripteral, with a shallow porch and possible adyton; the cella contained a possible hearth or altar (Camp 2001: 289).

image

Figure 13.6 Ikaria, plan of the site.

From Biers and Boyd 1982, fig. 1. © The American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

The cult of Dionysos is also attested by an inscription (IG I3 1015), where reference is made to an agalma, or statue, of the god. The inscription, which was carved on a slab of Pentelic marble and found near the Pytheion, appears to be a dedication (the first line is missing, although plausibly restored with anetheken), and it secures the identification of the two cults at Ikaria from the late Archaic period at the latest. Further evidence for the cult of Dionysos was provided by the discovery of several fragments of a seated image of the god, bearded, wearing a chiton and himation, and holding a kantharos in his right hand (Romano 1982; Despinis 2007). The statue is dated to the late Archaic period, circa 530–520 BCE, and, like IG I3 1015, was carved from Pentelic marble. The structure which housed the cult of Dionysos may be Building D, although his temple has not been identified with certainty. The general proximity of the theatral area may be taken as additional support for locating the Temple of Dionysos somewhere in the immediate vicinity.

The three cases of Rhamnous, Cape Zoster, and Ikaria demonstrate that the flexibility seen in the Panathenian sanctuaries extends to the deme‐specific ones as well. All of the Attic sanctuaries have variable sizes, include a range of structures, and were used by a diversity of people. Ultimately, some sanctuaries were more connected to the asty and activities of the polis than others, but all served integral functions in ritual activity for Athenians throughout the broad territory of Attica. These deme sanctuaries, both Panathenian and deme‐specific, illustrate the concept of polis‐religion and provide a framework for considering architectural dialogues outside of the main urban center (for polis religion, see Sourvinou‐Inwood 1990).

Conclusions

In total, there are 139 Attic demes and the majority are located outside of the asty, in the countryside, mountainous areas, and coastal regions. We must imagine that each of these demes had its own sacred areas, with or without monumental definition, with or without large‐scale annual festivals, but all fulfilling the basic need of providing a space to worship the gods. The sites discussed in this chapter merely represent six examples of the variability and flexibility of these extra‐urban sanctuaries. Although it is possible to indicate distinctions in use – broad Panathenian participation and patronage versus local or restricted operation – these sanctuaries nevertheless represent a constant and visible presence in Attic topography. The overall size and elaboration of the sanctuaries depended on the demes’ own sizes and resources, although it may be possible to detect state financing or support in the Panathenian sanctuaries, such as Eleusis. The lack of state support, however, did not necessitate a non‐monumental sanctuary: the Sanctuary of Nemesis and Themis at Rhamnous is just one example of a local deme‐specific sanctuary with large‐scale sacred structures. Further examination into deme finances and possible levels of polis support represents one avenue for future research that has the potential to shed light on how these deme sanctuaries functioned and how they were (or were not) linked to the asty.

Both the Panathenian and locally focused sanctuaries functioned primarily as sites of sacrifice and worship; these were places where the community could come together to thank the gods or ask for divine favor. Yet, just as large‐scale festivals like the Panathenaia can be seen to foster, reaffirm, and challenge notions of civic and religious identity (Maurizio 1998), so too do the deme sanctuaries represent places where local identities, both civic and religious, could be formed and maintained. These sanctuaries were not merely static areas of religious devotion but instead dynamic spaces of action and interaction. The role of the phratries, genoi, and local associations like the Marathonian Tetrapolis and the Genoi of the Salaminioi provide even more avenues for considering the multiplicity of identities within these extra‐urban spaces. In many ways, these sanctuaries functioned as loci of communication and facilitated the spread of information outside the asty and throughout the territory of Attica (cf., Ober 2008: 135–141).

Ultimately, these case studies demonstrate how visible the topography of Attica became during the Classical period. The geographic and political extent of Athenian power was, in many ways, made manifest by these extra‐urban sanctuaries, particularly those along the terrestrial and sea borders. The deme sanctuaries illustrate the vibrancy of the demes in the Archaic and Classical period: their resources, their site specificity, their connections with local communities, neighboring areas, and the polis at large. Although the Acropolis may always stand as the pinnacle of Athenian sacred building activity, the deme sanctuaries provide a glimpse into the possibilities of studying Athenian architecture and sacred space outside of the asty. Attic sanctuaries are flexible, multifarious, independent, and interconnected, and they fundamentally enrich our understanding of the role of the built environment in Classical Athens.

FURTHER READING

There are no comprehensive overviews of Attic sanctuaries, but general guides to Attica and individual site reports constitute the bulk of available information. Good starting points remain Camp 2001 and Goette 2001, as well as Travlos 1988. All three publications provide specialized site bibliographies and numerous plans and images. More attention has recently turned to studies of Athenian associations, especially Ismard 2010 and Jones 1999 and 2004. The general area of Attica has received more attention than sanctuaries in particular, and the work of Osborne (1985) and Whitehead (1986) remain fundamental. The general diversity of Attica and large extent of its territory has led to some more specialized studies, such as the work of Munn in the northwest region of Attica (1993), recently investigated anew by Fachard, The Border Demes of Attica: Settlement Patterns and Economy (www.bordersofattica.org). Although attention to Attica flourished in the mid‐twentieth century, it has only recently reappeared in the spotlight. Work by Kellogg (2007), Paga (2010), Taylor (2011), and Bultrighini (2014) stands as a new wave of investigation and renewed interest in the areas outside of the asty. For Athenian religion and the individual components of sanctuary space, see Burkert 1985 and, more recently, Parker 2005.

REFERENCES

  1. Alavanou, A. 1972. Brauron and Halai Araphenides, Athens.
  2. Biers, W.R. and T.D. Boyd. 1982. “Ikarion in Attica: 1888–1981.” Hesperia 51: 1–18.
  3. Bodel, J. and N. Dimitrova, eds. 2014. Ancient Documents and their Contexts: First North American Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy. Leiden and Boston.
  4. Boedeker, D. and K.A. Raaflaub, eds. 1998. Democracy, Empire, and the Arts in Fifth‐century Athens. Cambridge, MA.
  5. Bultrighini, I. 2014. “From Coast to Coast: epigraphic evidence for cult and religion in coastal demes of Attica.” In Bodel and Dimitrova, eds.
  6. Burkert, W. 1985. Greek Religion. Cambridge, MA.
  7. Camp, J.M. 2001. The Archaeology of Athens. New Haven.
  8. Clinton, K. 1992. Myth and Cult: The Iconography of the Eleusinian Mysteries. Göteborg.Clinton, K. 1994. “The Eleusinian Mysteries and Panhellenism in Democratic Athens.” In Coulson, Palagia, and Shear et al., eds, 161–172.
  9. Coulson, W.D.E., O. Palagia, T.L. Shear et al., eds. 1994. The Archaeology of Athens and Attica under the Democracy. Oxford.
  10. de Polignac, F. 1995. Cults, Territory and the Origins of the Greek City‐State. Trans. J. Lloyd. Chicago.
  11. Despinis, G. 2007. “Neues zu der spätarchaische Statue des Dionysos aus Ikaria.” MDAI(A)122: 103–137.
  12. Dinsmoor, A.N. 1972. Rhamnous. Athens.
  13. Dinsmoor, W.B. 1950. Architecture of Ancient Greece: An Account of Historic Development. 3rd ed. New York.
  14. Dinsmoor, W.B., Jr. 1971. Sounion. Athens.
  15. Dobbins, J.J. and R.F. Rhodes. 1979. “The Sanctuary of Artemis Brauronia on the Athenian Acropolis.” Hesperia 48: 325–341.
  16. Eliot, C.W.J. 1962. Coastal Demes of Attika: A Study of the Policy of Kleisthenes. Phoenix Supplement 5. Toronto.
  17. Fachard, S. The Border Demes of Attica: Settlement Patterns and Economy. www.bordersofattica.org (accessed November 20, 2015).
  18. Gentili, B. and F. Perusino, eds. 2002. Le orse di Brauron. Pisa.
  19. Goette, H.R. 1993. Athen‐Attika‐Megaris: Reiseführer zu den Kunstschätzen und Kulturdenkmälern im Zentrum Griechenlands. Berlin.
  20. Goette, H.R. 2001. Athens, Attica and the Megarid: An Archaeological Guide. London.
  21. Graf, F. 1996. “Pompai in Greece: Some Considerations about Space and Ritual and the Greek Polis.” In Hägg, ed., 55–65.
  22. Hägg, R., ed. 1996. The Role of Religion in the Early Greek Polis. Stockholm.
  23. Hendrickson, K.E. and N.C.J. Pappas, eds. 2007. Interpreting the Past: Essays from the 4th International Conference on European History. Athens.
  24. Holleran, C. and A. Pudsey, eds. 2011. Demography and the Graeco‐Roman World. Cambridge.
  25. Hopper, R.J. 1961. “‘Plain,’ ‘Shore,’ and ‘Hill’ in Early Athens.” ABSA 56: 189–219.
  26. Ismard, P. 2010. La Cité des réseaux: Athènes et ses associations VIe–Ie siècle av. J.‐C. Paris.
  27. Jones, N.F. 1999. The Associations of Classical Athens: the Response to Democracy. Oxford.
  28. Jones, N.F. 2004. Rural Athens Under the Democracy. Philadelphia.
  29. Kellogg, D. 2007. “Local Identities in Classical Athens.” In Hendrickson and Pappas, eds., 63–74.
  30. Kourouniotes, K. 1927/1928. “Tὸ Ἱερὸν τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος τοῦ Ζωστῆρος.” Archaiologikon Deltion 11: 9–53.
  31. Lippolis, E. 2006. Mysteria: archeologia e culto del santuario di Demetra a Eleusi. Milan.
  32. Lupu, E. 2009. Greek Sacred Law: A Collection of New Documents (NGSL2). 2nd ed. Leiden.
  33. Maurizio, L. 1998. “The Panathenaic Procession: Athens’ Participatory Democracy on Display?” In Boedeker and Raaflaub, eds., 297–317.
  34. Miles, M.M. 1998. The Athenian Agora XXXI: The City Eleusinion. Princeton.
  35. Miles, M.M., ed. 2015. Autopsy in Athens: Recent Archaeological Research on Athens and Attica. Oxford.
  36. Miles, M.M. 1989. “A Reconstruction of the Temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous.” Hesperia 58: 133–249.
  37. Munn, M. 1993. The Defense of Attica: The Dema Wall and the Boiotian War of 378–375 B.C. Berkeley.
  38. Murray, O. and S. Price, eds. 1990. The Greek City from Homer to Alexander. Oxford.
  39. Mylonas, G.E. 1961. Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries. Princeton.
  40. Noack, F. 1927. Eleusis: Die Baugeschichtliche Entwicklung des Heiligtums. Berlin.
  41. Ober, J. 2008. Democracy and Knowledge: Innovation and Learning in Classical Athens. Princeton.
  42. Osborne, R. 1985. Demos: The Discovery of Classical Attika. Cambridge.
  43. Paga, J. 2010. “Deme Theaters in Attica and the Trittys System.” Hesperia 79: 351–384.
  44. Paga, J. 2015. “The Monumental Definition of Attica in the Early Democratic Period.” In Miles, M.M., ed., 108–125.
  45. Papadimitriou, J. 1963. “The Sanctuary of Artemis at Brauron.” Scientific American, 208 (6): 110–120.
  46. Parker, R. 2005. Polytheism and Society at Athens. Oxford.
  47. Petrakos, B. 1982. “Ἀνασκαϕὴ Pαμνοῦντος.” Prakt, 127–162.
  48. Petrakos, B. 1983. Rhamnous. Athens.
  49. Petrakos, B. 1999. O δήμος του Pαμνούντος. 2 vols. Athens.
  50. Pouilloux, J. 1954. La Forteresse de Rhamnonte: Etude de topographie et d’histoire. Paris.
  51. Romano, I. 1982. “The Archaic Statue of Dionysos from Ikarion.” Hesperia, 51: 398–409.
  52. Shear, T.L., Jr. 1982. “The Demolished Temple at Eleusis.” In Studies in Athenian Architecture, Sculpture, and Topography Presented to Homer A. Thompson. Hesperia, Suppl. 20: 128–140.
  53. Sourvinou‐Inwood, C. 1990. “What is Polis Religion?” In Murray and Price, eds., 295–322.
  54. Taylor, C. 2011. “Migration and the demes of Attica.” In Holleran and Pudsey, eds., 117–134.
  55. Themelis, P.G. 2002. “Contribution to the Topography of the Sanctuary at Brauron.” In Gentili and Perusino, eds., 103–116.
  56. Traill, J.S. 1975. The Political Organization of Attica. Hesperia, Suppl. 14.
  57. Travlos, J. 1950/1951. “Tὸ Ἀνάκτορον τῆς Ἐλευσῖνος,” Archaiologike Ephemeris, 1–16.
  58. Travlos, J. 1960/1962. “Eλευσις,” Archaiologikon Deltion, 16: 43–60.
  59. Travlos, J. 1988. Bildlexicon zur Topographie des antiken Attika. Tübingen.
  60. Whitehead, D. 1986. The Demes of Attica, 508/7–ca. 250 B.C. Princeton.