kernos 1765 22 polis religion a critical appreciation

7/28/2019 Kernos 1765 22 Polis Religion a Critical Appreciation

1/27

Kernos22 (2009)

Varia

................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Julia Kindt

Polis Religion A Critical Appreciation

................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Avertissement

Le contenu de ce site relve de la lgislation franaise sur la proprit intellectuelle et est la proprit exclusive del'diteur.Les uvres figurant sur ce site peuvent tre consultes et reproduites sur un support papier ou numrique sousrserve qu'elles soient strictement rserves un usage soit personnel, soit scientifique ou pdagogique excluanttoute exploitation commerciale. La reproduction devra obligatoirement mentionner l'diteur, le nom de la revue,l'auteur et la rfrence du document.

Toute autre reproduction est interdite sauf accord pralable de l'diteur, en dehors des cas prvus par la lgislationen vigueur en France.

Revues.org est un portail de revues en sciences humaines et sociales dvelopp par le Clo, Centre pour l'ditionlectronique ouverte (CNRS, EHESS, UP, UAPV).

................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Rfrence lectroniqueJulia Kindt, Polis Religion A Critical Appreciation , Kernos [En ligne], 22 | 2009, mis en ligne le 26 octobre 2012,consult le 26 octobre 2012. URL : http://kernos.revues.org/1765 ; DOI : 10.4000/kernos.1765

diteur : Centre International dEtude de la religion grecque antiquehttp://kernos.revues.orghttp://www.revues.org

Document accessible en ligne sur : http://kernos.revues.org/1765Ce document est le fac-simil de l'dition papier.Tous droits rservs


2/27

Kernos22(2009),p.9-34.

Polis Religion A Critical Appreciation

Abstract:Thisarticleexploresthescopeandlimitsofthemodelofpolisreligionasone of the most powerful interpretative concepts in current scholarship in the field. ItexaminesthenotionoftheembeddednessofancientGreekreligioninthepolisaswellas

theunityanddiversityofGreekreligiousbeliefsandpractices,anddiscussesinhowfarthemodel is able to capture developments beyond the Classical period. The article looksatreligiousphenomenaandformsofreligiousorganizationaboveandbelowthepolislevel.Iarguethatthestrengthsofthemodelliein itscapacitytoexplainanimportantstructuringprincipleofancientGreekreligion.TheweaknessesofthemodelareduetothefactthatitisfocusedtoonarrowlyonthepolisastheprimarydiscourseofpowerrelevantforthestudyofancientGreekreligion.

Rsum:Cetarticletudieltendueetleslimitesdumodledelapolis religiondanslamesureoilsagitdundesconceptsinterprtatifslesplusfortsdelarechercheactuelledansledomaine.Ilsagitdesepenchersurlanotiondembeddednessdelareligiongrecqueancienne

lintrieurdelapolis,demmequesurlunitetladiversitdescroyancesetpratiquesreligieusesdesGrecs.Ondiscuteragalementdelapertinencedumodlepourapprhenderlesdveloppementsquivontau-deldelapriodeclassique.Larticleprteattentionauxphnomnesreligieuxetauxformesdorganisationreligieusequiexcdentleniveaudelacit.Jesuggrequelaforcedecemodlersidedanssacapacitexpliquerunimportantprincipedestructurationdelareligiongrecqueancienne.Lafaiblessedumodlevientdufait quil se concentre troptroitement sur lapolis comme principal discours depouvoiradaptltudedelareligiongrecqueancienne.

. Introduction

Incurrentscholarship,particularlyintheAnglo-AmericanandFrancophoneworlds, polis religion has become a powerful interpretative model for thestudyofGreekreligion.1Themodelisnowsufficientlywellestablishedforustoneedtoexploreitsimplicationsaswellasthealternativesthatcomplementormovebeyondit.Surprisingly,however,andincontrasttoscholarshiponRomanreligion,theimplicationsofthemodelarerarelydiscussedinthestudy

1Earlierversionsandaspectsofthisarticlewerepresentedattheannualconventionofthe

American Philological Association (APA) in San Diego in 2007 and at a conference in honour ofChristianeSourvinou-InwoodatReadingUniversityin2008.Iwouldliketothanktheaudiencesat both conferences as well as Robin Osborne, Richard Gordon, Jan Bremmer, and BruceLincolnandtheanonymousrefereesofKernosforcommentingonearlierdraftsofthisarticle.


3/27

10 J.K INDT

ofancientGreekreligion.Thereisnosingleaccountthatdirectlyandcompre-hensivelyrespondstoSourvinou-Inwoodstwomethodologicalarticlesonpolis

religionthemostexplicitconceptualformulationofthemodel.2

This articleoffers a critical evaluation of wherewestand. It identifies keyproblems in the scholarlyuse of the polis religion model and examines howindividual scholars working with it have positioned their work in regard tothem.Adistinctfocuswillbeonthewaythemodelisusedintheanglophone

world(althoughFrenchscholars,mostnotablyFranoisdePolignacswork,arealso occasionally brought into the picture).3 Rather than rejecting the modeloutright, the article aims to move current debates forward by exploring itsscopeandlimits.Itexaminespolisreligioninitsdifferentformsandformula-

tionsanddiscussesthewaysinwhichsomescholarshaverecentlysoughttoovercomethepolis-orientationimplicitinlargepartsoftheworkdoneinthisfield.

2. What is Polis Religion?

Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood coined the term polis religion todescribetheembeddednessofGreekreligionin thepolisas thebasicunitofGreeksocialandpoliticallife.4 Significantly,however,herdefinitionofpolisreligiontranscends the level of the individual polis. Polis religion operates on threelevels of Greek society: the polis, the world-of-the-polis system, and thepanhellenic dimension.5 The definition of Greek religion as polis religionfollowsthis tripartitestructure ofGreeksocietyandrunsalongthe followinglines.

During the Archaic and Classical periods, Greece was a conglomerate oflargely autonomous city-states with no overall political or administrative

2WhilemanyworksinthefieldareimplicitlybasedonacharacterisationofGreekreligionas

polisreligion,thestrengthsandweaknessesofthismodelarerarelydiscussed.Exceptions(whichwillbediscussedbelow)arethecontributionsofCOLE(1994),BURKERT(1995),JAMESON(1997).In the field of Roman religion, however, the debate concerning the implications and theapplicabilityofthepolismodelismuchmoreadvanced:seeWOOLF(1997),BENDLIN(2000),p.115-135,RPKE(2004),SCHEID(2005),p.125-128.Interestingly,thereisnoseparateentryonpolisreligioninrecentreferenceworks,suchasPRICE&KEARNS(2003);JONES(2005).

3TheFrenchscholarlydiscourseattributestothemediationofthecityamoreinclusiveandconstrictive role than the anglophone literature; in French scholarship polis religion is notnecessarily and not always synonymous with civic religion or religion of the polis. ByfocusingonthearguablymorecloselyformulatedAnglophonemodel,Ihopetocastlightonthestrengths and weaknesses of the model in its most succinct formulation. The anglophoneformulationsofpolisreligion(andindirectlymydiscussionofthem)arehencegroundedinacertain historiographicalmodelofthe city asa relativelyclosed and horizontally layered socialsystemembracingthedemos,phratries,etc.(moreonthisbelow).

4SOURVINOU-INWOOD(2000a[1990]),SOURVINOU-INWOOD(2000b[1988]).5SeeSOURVINOU-INWOOD(2000a[1990]),p.13.


4/27

PolisReligionACriticalAppreciation 11

structure. In the sphere of religion the polis provided the major context forreligiousbeliefsandpractices.ThereachofGreekreligiouscultsandfestivals

with their public processions and communal forms of sacrifice and prayermappedontothereachofpolisinstitutions,suchasthedemes,thephratriesandthegen.

At the same time, the religious inventories of the individual city-statesresembledeachotherbecauseoftheirsharedpastandthespreadofepicpoetrythroughouttheGreekworld.6InparticularthepoemsofHomerandHesiodhad unified and structured the Greek pantheon. Religion thus offered acommon set of ideologies and values, such as shared notions of purity andpollution,sacredandprofane,humananddivine,whichwereareferencepoint

throughouttheGreekworld.HerodotushastheAtheniansrefertothetemplesofthegodsandthesacrificesaspartofasharedfeelingofGreekness. 7Greekreligious beliefs and practices provided a strong link between the individualpolisandtherestoftheGreekworld.

AsthepolisconstitutedthebasicunitofGreeklife, thepanhellenicdimen-sion of Greek religion the religious institutions situated beyond the polislevel, suchasthe largepanhellenicsanctuariesoramphictyoniesandreligiousleagueswasaccessedthroughconstantreferencetothepolisanditssymbolicorder. Whenever a delegation visited the oracle of Apollo at Delphi, or an

athleteparticipatedintheOlympicGamesinhonourofZeus,theydidsoasmembers of a specific polis. Sourvinou-Inwood thus concludes that polisreligion embodies, negotiates, and informs all religious discourse, includingreligiouspracticesabovetheleveloftheindividualpoleis.8

Initsgeneralformulation,themodelofpolisreligionreflectsDurkheimianandstructuralisteffortstomakesenseofGreekreligionasasymbolicsystem.In particular, the assumption of polis religion as the foundation of a moralcommunity(inthesenseofacommunitysharingacommonsetofnormsandconventions) is Durkheimian in origin. The explicitly structuralist imagefrequentlyevokedtodescribethesymbolicnatureofGreekreligionisthatofreligionasasharedlanguagewhichenabledtheGreekstocommunicatetheirexperiencesoftheexternalworldtoeachother.9Atthesametime,themodelofpolisreligionattemptstoovercometheahistoricityofthestrictlystructuralist(orevenformalist)perspective.ItconceptualizesthesystemicqualityofGreekreligion as that of a meaningful structure grounded in the specific culturalsettingofArchaicandClassicalGreece.Theconceptofpolisreligioncanhencebe understood as an attempt to overcome the weakness inherent in its

6SOURVINOU-INWOOD(2000b[1988]),p.47.7Hdt.,VIII,144,2.SeePARKER(1998),p.10-11foradiscussionofthispassage.8SOURVINOU-INWOOD(2000a[1990]),p.20.9SeeindetailGOULD(2001[1985]).SeealsoB URKERT(1985),p.119,BOWERSOCK(1990),

p.7,DEPOLIGNAC(1991),p.152.OnGreekreligionasalanguageseealsoKINDT(2009).


5/27

12 J.K INDT

structuralistrootsbygroundingreligioninthespecificculturalsettingoftheArchaicandClassicalpolisastheculturalcontextofitssymbolicmeaning.

3. Polis Religion A Critical Evaluation

3.. The Embeddedness of Greek Religion

Focus on the polis as the basic unit of Greek life gave rise to a crucialassumptionwhichunderliesmanyworksinthefield:thatoftheembedded-nessofGreekreligioninthepolis.Scholarshavemadeoverlapping,butnotfullycongruentclaimsaboutthis.Whatdowemeanifwesaythatreligionis

embeddedinthepolis?Andtowhatextentisthisclaimcorrect?The idea thatGreekreligionwasembedded in thepolis acted inpartas a

checkontheintrusionofconceptsderivedfromthestudyofmodernreligions,inparticularChristianity.Greekreligiondifferedfromitsmoderncounterpartsinthatithadnodogma,noofficialcreed,noBible,nopriesthoodintheformofaspeciallytrainedandentitledgroupofpeople.Intheabsenceofachurch,religionwas organised alongside the socio-political structuresofthe polis. Atthe same time, Greek religion was not seen as an abstract category, largelydistinctandseparatefromotherspheresoflife.Greekreligionwasreligion-in-

practice and Greek religious practices permeated all spheres of life. Theembeddedness of Greek religion in the polis means that religious practiceformedanintegralpartofthelargernetworkofrelationshipswithinthepolis. 10

Asaconsequence,itisnotpossibletoreflectuponGreekreligionasacategoryinandofitself.11

WalterBurkerthasidentifiedthreeclaimsconcerningthequalityof thelinkbetweenGreekreligionandthepolisinherentinthemodelofpolisreligion. 12

According toBurkert, theconceptencompasses, firstly, self-representationof

thecommunitythroughreligiouscults.Secondly,itsuggestscontrolofreligiouspracticesbythepolisthroughitsdecision-makingorgans.Thirdly,accordingtoBurkert,polisreligionsometimesimpliesthatthepoliscreatedandtransformeditsreligiousinstitutions,thatthepolisactuallymakesreligion.13

10ThesamekindofembeddednessisusuallyassumedinstudiesofRomanreligion.Jrg

Rpkes article Kult jenseits der Polisreligion [RPKE (2004)] is based on a formalized and spatialdefinition ofpolisreligiontoo simple tooffera persuasive account ofreligious practices thattranscendthepolismodel.

11 The idea thatsingle areasofsocial interactionareunavailableforconceptualization wasperhapsmoststronglypropagatedbyMosesFinley,whoarguedthattherewasnosuchthingasthe ancient Greek economy [FINLEY (1973)]. On the notion of embeddedness see alsoBREMMER(1994),p.2-4,SCHEID(2005),p.126(inthefieldofRomanreligion).

12BURKERT(1995),p.202.13BURKERT(1995),p.202.DEPOLIGNAC(1991),p.78-79emphasisesthatthisshouldnotbe

seenasaprogrammaticpolicyoftheindividualpoleis.


6/27


ThequalitativedifferencebetweenBurkertssecondandthirdclaims isthatwhilebothstresstheaspectofcontrol,thethirdassignsanevenlargerdegree

ofagencytothepolisbypresentingreligionasactivelyshapedbyitaccordingtoitsinterests.Incontrasttothisdefinition,however,mostscholarsworkingwith the model of polis religion prefer a more subtle formulation of the linkbetweenpolisandreligion,largelyby-passingthequestionofdirectcontrol.Inparticular, the Oxford version of polis religion presents religion as merelymappedontotheinstitutionallandscapeofthepolis,thusde-emphasisingtheaspectofagency.IntheworksofscholarslikeRobertParkerandChristianeSourvinou-Inwood, the distinction between Burkerts first and second claimthusbecomesfluidasthesocio-politicalstructuresofthepolisarereformulated

andmaintainedthroughtheirrepresentationinreligiousritual.Butcanthecommunalself-representationofsocialgroupingsinthepolisthrough religious cults serve as the ultimate proof that the polis and Greekreligion were congruent? From the point of view of the polis, it is certainlycorrect that each significant grouping within the polis was articulated andgivenidentitythroughcult,asSourvinou-Inwoodhasargued. 14Theimportantsubdivisionsofthepolis,suchasthedemesandphratries,wereallrepresentedinspecific cults and even politically marginalized groups, such as women, hadtheirownfestivalsandreligiousservicesspecificallyreservedforthem.15

The representation of the social groupings of the polis in Greek religion,however,doesnotallowustoconcludethereverse:thatGreekreligionwasentirelyabsorbedbythepolis.Thereisplentyofevidenceforreligiouspracticesunmediatedbyandwithoutanyobviouslinktothepolis.Takeforexampletheconsultationoforacles,suchasthoseatDelphi,DodonaandDidymaoranyoftheless-knownoracularshrines.Insupportofthepolis-modelonecould,ofcourse,pointoutthatthefee(pelanos)thathadtobepaidbeforetheconsulta-tionwasnegotiatedbetweentheofficialsoftheoracleandthepolisfromwhichtheconsultantcame.16Whiletheeconomicsideoforacleconsultationsthusfitsintotheframeworkofpolisreligionthisisnotalwaystruefortheresponsesreceivedthere.Oursourcestellus,forexample,oforacleconsultationsofa

verypersonalnature, thesignificanceofwhich ismoreembedded inpersonalcircumstances than in polis concerns. In particular the corpus of responsesfromDodonaatteststoavarietyofpersonalissuesonwhichdivineadvicewas

14SOURVINOU-INWOOD(2000a[1990]),p.27.15 SOURVINOU-INWOOD (2000a [1990]), p.27-37, SOURVINOU-INWOOD (2000b (1988]),

p.38-44.AsimilarpointismadebyJanBremmerwhostates:InancientGreece,religionwastotallyembeddedinsocietynosphereoflifelackedareligiousaspect.BREMMER(1994),p.2.OnthereligionofthedemesandothersubunitsofthepolisseeindetailJAMESON(1997).

16OntheeconomicsideoforacleconsultationsseeROSENBERGER(1999).


7/27

14 J.K INDT

sought.17QuestionsatDodonaweretypicallyscratchedonleadtablets,someofwhich classical archaeology has brought to light. Callicratess question of

whetherhewillreceiveachildfromhiswifeNike,forinstance,hardlyreflectsapolisconcern.18Likewise,Thrasyboulossdesiretoknowwhichgodheshouldsacrificetoinordertoimprovehiseyesightexpressesapersonalhealthissueand hence a private concern. The same is true when Agis consults Zeusregarding the whereabouts of certain lost blankets and whether or not they

were stolen.19 The polis model is of little help to us in understanding themotivations, intentions and dynamics of these private oracle consultations.

Another example of Greek religion beyond the polis is the festival calendar,whichisembeddedintheagriculturalyearratherthanintheinstitutionsofthe

polis. Greek religion transcends the polis. Even though his attitude towardsreligion is not straightforward, Aristotles perspective seems to support thisview: in Politics, he imagined a polis from which religion was more or lessentirelyabsent.20

Such examples reveal another dimension of the embeddedness of Greekreligion,whichisnotincludedinBurkertslist:theembeddednessofGreekreligion in what could be called the symbolic order of the polis.21 Althoughprivate concerns behind oracle consultations and the Greek festive calendarmayfalloutsidethescopeofaninstitutionalizeddefinitionofthepolis,they

remain within the limits of the shared beliefs, ideas and ideals of the poliscommunity.

Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood, in particular, inspired perhaps by work inculturalanthropology(notablybyCliffordGeertz), 22hasfocusedonreligionaspartofamoregeneralsemanticsofGreekculture.Severalofherworksexplorereligious phenomena as forms of collective representation, which must bestudiedinthecontextofthelargerculturalsystemthatgeneratedandreceivedthem.23 To read such religious symbols we must place them back in theiroriginalculture.Readingasanactofdecodingculturalsymbols isacentral

17OntheOracleofZeusatDodonaseethestill authoritative (butconceptuallyoutdated)accountbyPARKE(1967).Itispreciselythoseoraclesthatdonotfitintothematrixofpolisreligionwhichhavereceivedrelativelylittlescholarlyattention.However,seerecentlyE.L HTE,Les lamelles oraculaires de Dodone,Geneva,2006.

18BCH80(1956),p.300;SEG 19(1963),p.149;LHTE(2006),p.118-119,no.48.SeealsoPARKE(1967),p.265.

19 CARPANOS (1878), p.10 (Plate 36.1); PARKE (1967), p.272; LHTE (2006), p.249-250,no.121.

20Thissomewhatstrangeomission,inthelightoftheimportanceofreligioninandforthepolis,isputincontextinhisMetaphysics,whichdoeshavea god,butonethat isremovedfromhumaninterestsandconcerns.

21OnpoliticalpowerandreligioussymbolsseeKINDT(forthcoming2009).22GeertzsnotionofreligionisbestformulatedinG EERTZ(1966),reprintedinGEERTZ

(1973).23SeeSOURVINOU-INWOOD(1991),(1995),(2003).


8/27


concept running through all of her monographs. Sourvinou-Inwoods maingoal,then,istoreconstructtheancientperceptualfilterswhichhaveshaped

thesesymbolsandthroughwhichtheywereperceivedintheirowntime.This is notably different from, and more powerful than, the simple claimthatthepoliscontrolledreligiousservicesandinstitutions.Itisalsoamoreall-encompassingconceptthantheviewthatGreekreligionwasprojectedontothesocio-political landscape of the polis, an idea which Sourvinou-Inwood hassuggestedelsewhere.24Yetthequestionariseswhetherthelabelofpolisreligionisstillvalid.Whataspectsofthiskindofembeddednessarepolis-specific?Arethe perceptual filters situated first and foremost in the institutions and theideologyofthepolis?Assoonaswemoveawayfrommattersofagencyand

lookatlargerreligiousconcepts,suchasdeath,pollutionandpiety,wefindthatthe symbolic order of the polis coincides with the symbolic order of Greekcultureandsocietymoregenerally.Takingthisintoaccount,isitstillcorrecttospeak of polis religion, or should we rather say that Greek religion wasembedded in Greek culture with the polis as its paradigmatic worshippinggroup?

To conclude this line of argument: the relationshipbetween the polis andGreek religion is more complex than has been assumed. As Burkert rightlyremarked: Polis religion is a characteristic and representative part of Greek

religion,butonlypartofit.Thereisreligionwithoutthepolis,evenifthereisnopoliswithoutreligion.25Inotherwords:thepolisisnolessembeddedinGreekreligionthanGreekreligioninthepolis.ThepolisprovidesanessentialframeworkforassessingGreekreligionbutitshouldbynomeansbetheonlyone.

3.2. Inconsistencies

ThesystemicperspectiveonGreekreligionhasbeencriticisedforassumingtoo much coherence and internal consistency in Greek religious beliefs andpractices.Inparticular,JohnGouldhaspointedtothelimitsoftheassumptionofinternalcoherencewithinthesystemofGreekreligion:Greekreligionremains fundamentally improvisatory. there is always room for newimprovisation,for the introductionofnewcultsandnewobservances:Greekreligionisnottheologicallyfixedandstable,andithasnotraditionofexclusionorfinality:itisanopen,notaclosedsystem.26

24SOURVINOU-INWOOD(2000a[1990]),(2000b[1988]).25BURKERT(1995),p.203.26GOULD(2001[1985]),p.7-8.SeealsoJAMESON(1997),p.184.


9/27

16 J.K INDT

Unfortunately, in the historiographic practiceofworksonGreekreligion,such concessions have all too frequently remained mere programmatic

statements,madeintheintroductioninordertosilencepotentialdisagreementbefore thewriterproducesyet anotheraccountofpolisreligionwhichmakesperfect sense in all its aspects. According to such views, ideally, all groupspresentinthepolisareperfectlyproficientinthelanguageofreligion, thuscreating a consensual, internally consistent and mono-vocal symbolic order.

Althoughscholarsworkingwiththemodelreadilyadmitthatthepolisconsistsof different individuals with different, even diverging attitudes, there is littlespaceintheirworksforpersonalreligion,thefault-linesbetweencontradictoryreligious beliefs and practices, and the internal frictions, inconsistencies and

tensions springing from them. Structurally speaking, deviance from thecommon Greek language of religion is conceivable only as a consciousinversionoftherulessetbythepolis,thusstayingwithinthesamesymbolicorder.27

Against such tendencies, Henk S. Versnel dedicated two volumes to therevelation of inconsistencies within the system ofGreek religion.28Asimilarpoint is made by Paul Veyne concerning the coexistence of divergent, evencontradictory formsofbelief inancientGreece.29Veynemakesastrongcasefortheneedtolookatbeliefsinthecontextofvaryingconceptsoftruth.These

concepts of truth, Veyne argues, are inherent in different epistemologicaldiscourses (such as mythology and historiography) and much of Veynesinterpretativeeffortisspentonuncoveringtheirhiddenrules.Moreover,Veynereminds us about variations in religious beliefs over time, which changetogetherwiththeconceptsoftruthwhichunderliethem.AgoodexampleisperhapsthechangingGreekattitudetowardsmythologyandthesupernatural.

WhatwasforHomerandothersaspecialrealmofknowledgeauthenticatedbytheMuses,towhichthedistinctionbetweentruthandfalsehooddidnotapply,increasinglybecamesubjecttocriticismandintellectualscrutiny.Intheworks

of Herodotus, Thucydides and other fifth-century thinkers, for example,narrativesaboutthegodsweresubjectedtocriticalinquiry;intheirwritings,thesupernaturalisnolongeronaseparateplanebuthastofitinwiththerestofrealitytoreassertitsplaceintheculturalandhistoricalmemoryofGreece. 30It

27 Structuralism allows for the constant generation of novel variants, arising against the

background ofearlier attempts that worked with the same symbolicconstructs and structuralpatterns. See also Bendlins point that versatility of religious ritual should be seen not as asymptomofitsdeclinebutasafeatureofitsvigour:BENDLIN(2000),p.119.

28VERSNEL(1990),(1993).Versnelusessuchinconsistenciesandambiguitiesprincipallyasentrypointstoanalternativereadingofreligiousphenomena,suchashenocentrismandmythandritual.

29VEYNE(1988).30 VEYNE (1988), p.32. See also the critical discussion of Veynes position by BUXTON

(1994),p.155-158.


10/27


followsfromVeynesworkthatGreekreligionwasnotmono-vocaldiscourseandthatitsdifferentaspectsandtheirrelationshiptoeachotherchangedover

time.Theconstructionof thepolisas an internallyandchronologicallymoreorlessconsistentandmonolithicsymbolicorderisasimplification,whichdoesnotdojusticetotheinternaldynamicsofthesestates.Recentworkinsocialanthropology suggests that we should replace the concept of culture as aconsensualsphereofinteractionwithamoreflexibleandfluidunderstandingofitasopentotheinternalfrictionsresultingfromchangeandsocialtransfor-mation.31JosiahOberhasborrowedconceptsofculturefromsocialanthropol-ogy and introduced them into the field of Classics.32 Appropriating Sewells

modelofathinlycoherentcultureOberemphasizestheneedtoallowformultiple, even divergent identities within Greek society (the cultures withinGreekculture).33

Incontrasttoathickcoherence,theassumptionofthincoherencede-emphasiseshighlevelsofconnectednessbetweenindividualswithinoneculturezone, thus allowing space for cultural contestation and transformation.

Accordingly,Oberenvisagesa studyofHellenismwitha strongfocuson thedialecticaltensionsbetweenvariouslevelsandmicrocosmsofGreekculture.Greek, in particular Athenian society, thus appears as a space of internal

contestationanddebate,withthepolitical(thatisthepolis)atitscentrebutbynomeanslimitedtoit.34

Themodelofa thinlycoherentGreekculturehasyettobeappliedtothestudyofGreekreligion,butamoreflexibleconceptofcultureascontestedandchangingwouldcertainlybeproductive.Thin coherence would, for example,allow us to bring in religious movements such as Orphism and the use ofmagical practices, which have so far been marginalised in the study of polisreligion.Ultimately,wewillhavetoconsiderthelinkbetweeneachoneofthemand the polis separately, for they relate differently to the structures andinstitutionsofpolisreligion.Butdespitethedifferencesbetweenthesereligiousmovementsandpracticestheydonotfitallintotheconventionalmodelofpolisreligion.

Discussing the power of the polis-model to explain religious beliefs andpractices above the polis level, Sourvinou-Inwood states that polis religionembraces,contains,andmediatesallreligiousdiscoursewiththeambiguous

31SeeforexampleJeanandJohnComaroffswork:C OMAROFF&COMAROFF(1991),(1997).

SeealsothereviewsectionoftheAHR108/2(April,2003),p.434-478forageneralassessmentoftherelevanceoftheirworkforculturalhistorymoregenerally.

32OBER(2005).33SeethebookwiththesametitleinwhichObersarticleappearedfirst:DOUGHERTY &

KURKE(2003).34OBER(2005),p.77-82.


11/27

18 J.K INDT

anduncertainexceptionofsomesectariandiscourse. 35Hercautiousambiva-lencetowardssectarianreligiousbeliefsandpracticesissymptomaticofthe

general approach to these cults of scholars working with the polis model.Religiousbeliefsandpracticesthatdonotconformtothepolismodel,thatisthosepracticesthatarenotadministeredbythepolisandthatdonotrepresentthesocio-politicalorderofthepolis,arefrequentlyseenasbeingby definitionnotreligionproper.Theongoingdebateofwhatseparatesmagicfromreligion,forexample, is frequently supported by a definition of Greek religion as civicreligion.36Themuch-debatedquestionofthenatureandqualityofthereligiousphenomenon referred to as Orphism, in particular of whether Orphismconstitutesaseparatereligiousmovement,likewisereflectsthedifficultieswe

face when we try to position these cults as distinct from mainstream Greekreligion.37 To situate such cults and practices strictly outside Greek religionnarrowlydefinedaspolisreligionhowever,asSourvinou-Inwoodsuggests,runsthe risk of circularity. It marginalises exactly those areas of religious activity

whichthemodelcannotsufficientlyexplain.The relationship between phenomena like magic, Orphism and Bacchic

cultsontheonehandandtraditionalreligiousbeliefsandpracticesontheotherismuchmorecomplicatedthanasimpleseparationofthereligionofthepolisfromsectarianmovementsmighttemptustoassume.Tostartwith,despite

theirdistinctfeaturesOrphism,BacchiccultsandmagicalpracticesrespondtoandinteractwithmorewidelyheldbeliefsandpracticesofmainstreamGreekreligion. The Orphic Theogony, for example, is an extension of the Hesiodicgenealogyofthegods.ItexpandsHesiodstheogonybyaddingtwopredeces-sors,NightandProtogonos,tothefirstkingOuranosandextendsitsendwiththereignofDionysos.38TheresultisareorganisationoftheGreekpantheon,butareorganisationthattakesthetraditionalmodelasitspointofdeparture.39

35SOURVINOU-INWOOD(2000a),(1990),p.20.36Theliteratureonthisquestionisvast.ThedebategoesallthewaybacktoJamesFrazers

(nowrefuted)distinctionbetweenmagicandreligionasoneofcoercionandsubmission.SomeofthemoreproductiverecentcontributionstothisdebatecanbefoundinF ARAONE&OBBINK(1991),VERSNEL(1991),BREMMER(1999).AcomprehensiveintroductiontoancientmagicandthedebatessurroundingitcanbefoundinGRAF(1997).

37TheliteratureonthisandotheraspectsofOrphismisconsiderable.TheoldpositionthatseesOrphismasaseparatereligiousmovementoriginatedwithROHDE(1894)andwasfurtheradvocated by GUTHRIE (1935) and NILSSON (1935) amongst others. This position wassuccessfullyrefutedbyL INFORTH(1941),ZUNTZ(1971),BURKERT(1977),p.1-10.WEST(1983),p.1referstoitasthepseudo-problemofthesupposedOrphicreligion.ThedebateisnicelysummarizedbyPARKER(1995),whoadvocatesthecautiousmiddle-positionprevailingincurrentscholarship and who concludes that the question about the unity of Orphism must be leftunanswered.(p.487).

38PARKER(1995),p.487-496.39OntherelationshipbetweenOrphictoHesiodictheogonyseeGUTHRIE(1935),p.83-84.

SeealsoEDMONDS(2004),p.75-80amongstothers.


12/27


Recent research has stressed that Greek magical practices also overlappedsignificantlywithtraditionalreligion.AlookatthePapyri Graecae Magicae, for

examplerevealstheclosenessofmagicalformulaetoGreekprayer.40

Andbothconcepts refer to similar notions of the supernatural. In particular, if weconsiderreligiousbeliefsastheycometogetherinthemindsofthoseinvolvedinthem,astrictdistinctionbetweensectarianmovements,magicandtraditionalreligionbecomesproblematic.

Strict distinction between both types of religious activity becomes evenmoreuntenableifweconsiderthatthoseinvolvedinmagic,Orphismandotherunauthorizedorelectivecultswerenotrecruitedfromsociallyorpoliticallymarginalgroups.AsStephenHalliwellhasrecentlypointedoutmembershipin

somekindsofseparatereligiousgroupscouldcoexistwithinvolvementinmoremainstreamformsofGreekreligion, and stillmorewithfullparticipation incommunallife.41Toequatereligiousmarginalitywithsocialmarginalityisasimplificationofthenatureof(Greek)religionitself.42SomeoftheOrphicgoldtabletswerefoundinthetombsofrelativelyaffluentandhencesociallyacceptedmembersofsociety.43Likewise, thoseengaged inpolisreligionwerethe same people who would in specific circumstances resort to magic.44Religiousphenomena,suchasmagic,OrphismandBacchiccultsremaindeeplyembeddedinthecitiessocio-politicalandnormativestructures.

Someofthemostproductivecurrentworkthereforefocusesontherela-tionship between unauthorised religious beliefs and practices and the city

withoutsimplifyingeitherentityasclosedandmonolithic.45Forexample,inanarticle exploring the relationship between representations of maenadism inGreek tragedy and art, particularly on vases, Robin Osborne has arguedconvincingly that during the fifth century BC, ecstatic female worship ofDionysos was an accepted part of Athenian religious experience and not auniqueandunusualfeature.46Fromthispointofview,theBacchaeofEuripidesisnothelpingAthenianstocometotermswiththealienbuthelpingthemtoseejusthowshockingweretheritualstowhichtheyweresoaccustomed.47

Thenotionofthincoherencemightprovideaninvaluableframeworkforthis and other areas of study investigating the unity and diversity of Greekreligiousdiscourse.ItisthediversityofGreekreligiousbeliefsandpracticesinparticularthatcomposethefabricofGreekpolytheism.Thincoherencemight

40OntheoverlapbetweenprayerandmagicseeGRAF(1991).41HALLIWELL(2005).

42HALLIWELL(2005).43SeePARKER(1995),p.496.44SeeGRAF(1999),p.1-2.45SeeforexampleEDMONDS(2004).46OSBORNE(1997).SeealsoVERNANT(1990),HENRICHS(1990).47OSBORNE(1997),p.115.


13/27

20 J.K INDT

therefore offer conceptual guidance in further developing a framework forresearching religious identities that both are and are not like polis religion

withoutoveremphasisingsimilaritiesordifferencesbetweenreligiousphenom-ena.Toexplainawayexistinginconsistenciesismoredogmaticthanthereligionweseektoexplain.

However,atthisstage,wemustincludeacaveat:thestudyofinconsisten-ciesisfruitfulonlywhenit isitselfembedded(along the linessuggestedbyOber,forexample)inawiderframeworkofperspectivesexploringthenatureofdifferentevendivergentbeliefsystemswithinthewider,generalculture.

Thesimplepresentationof inconsistenciescannotbeheuristicallysatisfyingaswecannotbesurethatwhatwearedealingwithismorethanjustourfailureto

seecoherence.Theonlywaytodistinguish,tosomeextentatleast,ourownfailuretounderstandfromtruepluralityofbeliefistoplacesuchdissonanceswithinalargerframeworkofculturalcontestation.

3.3. Greek Religion: the Local and the General

Classicalscholarshaveextendedthenotionofthepolisasaclosedherme-neuticsystemfromtheindividualpolis,totheworldofthepolissystemandbeyond, to the panhellenic dimension of Greek religion. As a result, manygeneralintroductionstoancientGreekreligionshowanintrinsicandultimatelyunresolvable tension between local religious beliefs and practices and Greekreligion more broadly. In such works the local is always implied as theconceptualantipodetoamoregeneral,moretypical,lessidiosyncraticlayerofGreekreligionandviceversa.Unfortunately,however,despitetheheavyweightthey are made to carry, both concepts remain largely undefined in currentscholarship.48

Take forexampleWalterBurkertsdescriptionof theGreekgods inGreek

Religion.HisaccountofAphroditeisadescriptionofhertypicalrepresentationsandareasofcompetenceasthegoddessofloveandsexuality.49Localvariationsaremostlyusedtoilluminatesuchgeneralfeatures.TheappearanceofpictorialrepresentationsofAphroditedressedinwiderobesandwearingthepolosinthefirsthalfoftheseventhcenturyBCiswelcomedbyBurkertasthenormalrepresentationofthegoddessthatsupersededtheorientalizingnudefigure.50

Whatmotivated thischange?Inwhatpictorialandreligious local contextsdothesenormalrepresentationsofthegoddessappear,henceassigningthemaspecialmeaning?SuchquestionsdonotfeatureinBurkertsaccount.Likewise,

48SeeforexampleSOURVINOU-INWOOD(1978).49 BURKERT (1985), p.152-156. See PIRONTI (2007) for a strong argument against the

monolithicvisionofAphroditeasgoddessoflove.50BURKERT(1985),p.155.


14/27


thedepictionofthenudeAphroditeabouttotakeabath,craftedbyPraxitelesaround 340 BC for the sanctuaryatCnidos, is mentionedonly in passing to

introducethegeneralpopularityofthisthemeinlatertimes:forcenturiesthisfigureremainedthemostrenownedrepresentationofthegoddessoflove,theembodimentofallwomanlycharms.51Thecircumstances,whichexplainthischangeinrepresentationaswellasthecontextsinwhichthisstatuefeaturesatCnidos,remainunexplored.BurkertsaccountisdrivenbytheoverallaimtobringsinglelocalaspectsoftheGreekpantheontogetherintoonemoreorlesscoherent narrative of ancient Greek religion.52 Similar observations could bemadeconcerningthewayinwhichBurkertandotherscholarsdealwithformsof epikleseis, divinatory rituals and initiation procedures that are specific to a

given polis. The rituals that do not conform to a standard model of Greekreligionaresidelinedinsuchaccounts.TheconsistencyofGreekreligionseemsto be merely an observation of the similarity evident once sufficient local

variationsarestrippedaway.InReligions of the Ancient Greeks,SimonPriceaddressesthisproblemdirectly:

IhavetriedtoexaminelocalpracticesandmythsandtheirrelationshiptothecommonGreeksystem.53HischapteronGods, Myths and Festivalsistypicalofhisoverallapproach.54Thechapterattemptstodistinguishpanhellenicfromlocalmyths;botharedealtwithintwoseparatesubsections.Thereis,however,

atensionbetweenbothconcepts(whichareneverdefined)thatrunsdeeplythroughbothsections.InhisaccountofPanhellenicmyth,forexample,Pricestressesthat,despitethepreferenceofHomerandHesiod,therewasnosingleauthoritativeversionofamyth.Headvocatestheneedtorespectindividualtellings:GiventhattheGreekmythswerenotrigid,itismethodologicallyveryimportantthatwerespecttheindividualtellingorrepresentationofthemyths.It is absurd to weave together a compendium of Greek mythology fromextracts in different authors.55 This is certainly correct. At the same time,however,wemustaskinhowfaritthenmakessenseatalltostrictlydistinguish

between both categories. If individual tellings of myth are paramount whatjustifiesthedistinctionofageneralPanhelleniclayerofGreekmythology?

Curiously,forexample,theiconographyofthealtarofZeusandHeraatPergamon in Asia Minor features as an example for panhellenic myth,

51BURKERT(1985),p.155.52SeeBurkertsjustificationofthisapproachinB URKERT(1985),p.8:Woulditnotbe

correcttospeakinthepluralofGreekreligions?Againstthismustbesetthebondofcommonlanguageand,fromtheeighthcenturyonwardsthecommonHomericliteratureinspiteofanemphasis on local or sectarian peculiarities, the Greeks themselves regarded the variousmanifestationsoftheirreligiouslifeasessentiallycompatible,asadiversityofpracticeindevotiontothesamegods,withintheframeworkofasingleworld.

53PRICE(1999),p.IX.54PRICE(1999),p.11-46,seeinparticularp.11-25.55PRICE(1999),p.15.


15/27

22 J.K INDT

apparentlybecauseithighlightsHesiodicthought.56Hereandelsewhere,Pricesuseofbothcategoriesissomewhatconfusing.Apanhellenicmythseemsto

meanmerelyastorythatfeatures intheauthoritativeaccountsofHomerandHesiodand/orhasno immediate localreferences.But thisdistinctionprovesever more troubling and it is not always clear why his examples should besubsumedineithersection.Inhisconcludingsectionhestates:SomelocalmythsdidnotsimplyinvokePanhellenicdeitiesinactionsaffectingparticularcommunities,theyofferedarefractionofthePanhellenicdeitythroughthelensoflocalconcerns.ForGreekgodsexistedatboth,thePanhellenicandthelocallevel,andthePanhellenicstructuresofthepantheonvariedwithdifferentlocalselections and emphases.57 This point is of course well taken. Yet in his

endeavourtohighlightbothdiversity andconformity,thereisarealrisktoendup doing justice to neither the local nor the general. Until we find a morecomplexconceptualisationofthefabricofGreekreligiousbeliefsandpractices,Greekreligion,atleastinourgeneralaccountsofit,willappeartobelessthanthesumofitsparts.

Inthisareaofscholarlyactivity,thepolismodelcanprovideaviablewayaround such problems. If fully embraced, the polis model can provide aframeworkwithsufficientflexibilitytodojusticetothediverseandparticularis-tic nature of the Greek world. In particular, the focus on the specificity of

individualpoleis,acentraltenetofthemodelofpolisreligion,canhelpcorrectsimplifyingassumptionsconcerningtheunityofancientGreekreligion.ItisthusoneofthemodelsstrengthsthatitisabletoembracethepluralityofGreek religious beliefs and practices in a manner that moves significantlybeyondtheimpassebetweenlocalandgenerallayersofancientGreekreligion.

Robert Parkers comprehensive account of the religious life of just oneindividualpolisprovidesagoodexampleofaproductiveuseofthepolismodelin this way.58 Two of his works are entirely devoted to Athens and offer athoroughinvestigationofreligiouspracticesofdifferentsocialgroupssuchasthedemesandphratriesbythemselvesandintheirinteractionwitheachother.InParkersworkthelocalisnotconceptualisedasthe(alwaysimplied)conceptualantipode of Greek religion as such, but functions rather as its own self-contained unit of investigation. It may be inferred from Parkers study of

AthenianreligionthatinsomewaysallofGreekreligionislocalreligion.StartingfromParkerswork,thereis,however,arealneedtomovebeyond

thewell-knowncaseofAthens.Afterall,theGreekworldconsisted,accordingtoarecentcountbyHansen,ofatleast1035individualpoleis.59Fromthepoint

56PRICE(1999),p.13.57PRICE(1999),p.23-24.58SeePARKER(1996),(2005).59HANSEN&NIELSEN(2004).


16/27


ofviewoflocalcultsandtheirsometimesproblematicrelationshiptothelargersystemofGreekpolisreligion,itisunfortunatethatthe Copenhagen Polis Centre

haslargelyexcludedthereligiousdimensionfromitsinventoryofthepoleis.60

The Centres recently published account includes selective and uneveninformationaboutreligiouspracticeintheindividualpoleisandlargelyignoresreligious institutions situated above or below the polis level.61 A morecomprehensive assessment of cults and sanctuaries would have provided aninvaluablewayintothestudyofthereligionofindividualpoleis.

Themodelofpolisreligioncanandshouldlocateeachlocalcultwithinthereligioussystemofitsownpolis.This,inturn,opensupavarietyofdirectionsforfutureresearch.Otherquestionscanandhavebeenasked.BeateDignas,

for example, has investigated the relationship of polis religion to the localeconomy.62 The debate surrounding de Polignacs controversial thesisconcerningtheroleofreligionintheformationofthepolisduringtheArchaicperiod has also inspired a variety of studies investigating the role of polisreligionincommunityandstate-buildingindifferentpartsoftheGreekworld(moreonthisbelow).63

3.4. Developments Beyond the Classical Period

DuringtheHellenisticandRomanperiods,theworld-of-the-polissystemunderwent profound changes and was gradually subsumed under newadministrativeandpoliticalstructures.Thesestructureswerenotrootedinthepolis.Inaddition,newformsofreligiousbeliefsandpracticeswereintroduced,suchasworshipoftheemperor,andexoticcultslikethoseofIsisandSarapis.

Thesenewformsofworshiptooktheirlegitimacyandtheirbindingforcefromcontextsofsocialandpoliticallifebeyondthepolis.

Withsuchdifferences inmind,mostworksonGreekreligionbasedonthe

model of polis religion have focused on the Archaic and Classical periods.64

Despitethefundamentalchangesinthereligiouslandscapebetweenthe8 thand

60InhisoriginaloutlineoftheCentresaimsandobjectives,Hansenhadexplicitlystatedthat

itwastheCentresgoaltogiveasecularratherthanareligiousaccountofthepoleis(seeHANSEN[1994], p.13-14). Given that the Greeks made no strict differentiation between sacred andprofaneatleastnotinthewayinwhichthisdichotomyisconceptualisedinmodernsociety,seeBREMMER(1998),thisself-imposedlimitationseemsartificial.

61 These omissions reflect both publishing restrictions and the disagreement of its maineditorswiththeclaim,madebydePolignacandothers,thatreligion(ratherthanpolitics)wasatthecentreofthepolis.SeeHANSEN&NIELSEN(2004),p.130-134.

62DIGNAS(2002).63DEPOLIGNAC(1991).Agoodcollectionofarticlesrepresentingthemajordebatesinthe

receptionofdePolignacisinALCOCK&OSBORNE(1994).64SeeforexampleBURKERT(1985),BRUITZAIDMAN&SCHMITTPANTEL(1992),BREMMER

(1994).


17/27

24 J.K INDT

4thcenturiesBC,theseperiodsarefrequentlyconstructedasauniformepochinwhich time can be ignored in favour of a mutually sustaining universe of

unchanging meaning.65

But the model of polis religion has become sopowerful that even works covering later periods frequently rely implicitly orexplicitly on the definition of Greek religion as polis religion. The result iseitheranoveremphasisoncontinuitiesinreligiousbeliefsandpracticesortheacknowledgement of differences without, however, attempting to groundthesedifferencesinamorecomprehensiveaccountofGreekreligionduringtheHellenisticandRomanperiods.66Westilllack,forexample,acomprehen-sive work on Hellenistic religion which strikes a subtle balance betweencontinuityandchange.67

InthisrespectParkerstwo-volumeworkonAthenianreligioncanserveasanexampleofthedifficultyofnavigatingaroundtheanti-historicisttendenciesthat are so widespread in studies based on the model of polis religion. IncontrasttotheworkofBruitZaidmanandSchmittPantel,whichisstructuredentirely thematically, Parkers recognizes the need to include both perspec-tives.68HisfirstvolumeisexplicitlyentitledAthenian Religion: A History.69ThischronologicalstudyofthepolisreligionofAthensissupplementedbyasecond

volume,whichisthematicallyorganised.70However, Parkers decision to split his account into separate volumes

reflects and ultimately embodies the difficulty of the model to combinesynchronicanddiachronicperspectives.Therealchallengewouldhavebeento

65SeeSewellsbrilliantdefinitionofsynchronicanalysis,whichaccordingtoSewell,rather

thanofferingaseriesofsnapshots,constructsitsreferentasauniformmomentorepochinwhichdifferenttimesarepresentinacontinuousmoment.SEWELL(1997),p.40.

66AgoodexampleisGRIFFITH(2005)whodescribestheelementsofHellenisticReligionbutfails to ground them in a more comprehensive account of Greek religion of the Hellenisticperiod.AnoutlineoftheguidingprinciplesofsuchanaccountcanbefoundinG ORDON(1972).Gordon introduces the term selective continuity as a programmatic term for his nuanceddiscussionofHellenisticreligiousbeliefsandpracticesbetweencontinuityandchange.Seealsothe dualistic categories of locative vs. utopian cultures that JonathanZ.Smithdeveloped inordertodifferentiateHellenisticfromearlierstylesofreligion:seeSMITH(1993),p.88-3,p.129-147.

67Despiteitsstrongchronologicalfocus,MIKALSON(1998)providesaworthwhilecase-studyforHellenisticAthens,payingparticularattentiontothebalancingoftheneedsoftheindividualand society. A comprehensive study of Hellenistic religion, however, should integrate theevidenceforAthenswiththatforotherareasoftheHellenisticworld,asthereligiousoutlookofthe time varied significantly and dependedonfactors suchasgeographical locationand socialclass: see GORDON(1972).PAKKANEN (1996) offers a re-evaluation of four key concepts ofHellenistic religion(syncretism,thetrendtowardsmonotheism,individualismandcosmopolita-nism)byinvestigatingthemysteriesofDemeterandthecultofIsisinearlyHellenisticAthens.On select aspects of Hellenistic religion see also CORRINGTON (1986), SRENSEN (1989),MENDELS(1998).

68BRUITZAIDMAN&SCHMITTPANTEL(1992),PARKER(1996).69PARKER(1996).70PARKER(2005).


18/27


combinebothperspectivesinadialectical,mutuallyreinforcingfashion.Justasthesynchronicperspectiveisattheheartofculturalanalysis,itneedstobein

directcommunicationwiththediachronicperspective,sinceitrevealstheveryprocesseswhichshapeandareshapedbyit.71Foradiachronicaccounttogobeyondprovidingonlyathinnarrationoftheparticularsofchangeovertimeitmustbegroundedsimultaneouslyinthicksynchronicanalysis.Toachievesuchanactiveoscillationbetweenthetwoperspectives,however,wouldhaverequiredParkertoestablishmoreexplicitlinksbetweenthematerialpresentedin both volumesby giving up the two-volume structure in favourof a moredialecticalaccountofcontinuityandchange.Thearbitrarinesswithwhichmuchofthematerialisdistributedbetweenthetwobooksrevealshowartificialand

foreignthetwo-volumestructureadoptedistothedatadiscussed.Asaresult,Parkerisultimatelyunabletoconnectstructurewithagencydespitethedetailandanalyticalrigorthatdistinguishhiswork.72

3.5. Religious Ideas vs. Religious Practice

ScholarsworkingwiththemodelofpolisreligionfocusstronglyonreligiousagencywhilelargelyexcludingreligiousbeliefsfromtheiraccountsofGreekreligion.73 Although Sourvinou-Inwood hoped to have proposed certain

reconstructions of ancient religious perceptions pertaining especially to thearticulationofpolisreligion,beliefsdonotfeatureinherdefinitionofpolisreligion.74

The model of polis religion was successful in helping us analyse religiouspractice,becauseofitsembeddednessinthepolis,sincehumanagency(atleastduringArchaicandClassicaltimes)alwaysrefersinonewayortheothertothepolis.PaulineSchmittPantels La cit au banquetmayserveasanexampleofthekindofquestionsaskedwithintheframeworkofpolisreligion:herbookisacomprehensiveinvestigationoftheroleofconvivialityasareligious,socialandpoliticalinstitutionintheformulationofidentitieswithintheArchaicandClassical Greek poleis.75 Other works demonstrate the close link between

71 See William Sewellsexcellentobservationsonthe relationship between synchronic and

diachronicperspectivesinthewritingofsocialhistory.SEWELL(1997),inparticularp.39-42.72AgoodexampleofhowdiachronicchangecouldfitintothereligiouslandscapeofGreece

ischaracteristicoftheworkofanothereminentscholarofGreekreligionMichaelJameson.Hesketchesasubtleandmulti-facettedframeworkofreligiousinnovation,thusgivingabalancedaccountofcontinuityandchangeinAthenianreligiouspracticeduringthetransitionfromtheArchaictotheClassicalperiod(seeforexampleJAMESON[1997]).

73SeeforexampleJAMESON (1997),who focusesmainly onritualand leaves out religiousbeliefsalmostentirely.ThanksagaintoJanBremmerforpointingthisouttome.

74SOURVINOU-INWOOD(2000a[1990]),p.37.75SCHMITTPANTEL(1992).


19/27

26 J.K INDT

religionandpowerinpaganpriesthoodordepicttheintroductionofnewgodsasapowerfultooltoachievesocialandpoliticalchange.76

Theneglectofreligiousbeliefscameatahighprice,however.Inanattempttodistinguishonesownworkasmuchaspossiblefromtheearlierassociativestudies of Greek religious beliefs, it became desirable to draw a somewhatartificial line between religious beliefs on the one hand and polis-orientedreligious practice on the other. Walter Burkert, for example, concludes hisargumentabouttheexistenceofaGreekreligionbeyondthepolisbypointingoutthattherewerenoattemptsofapolistoinfluencebelief,aconcept

whichhardlyexists inpracticalGreekreligion. Itwas WilamowitzwhowroteDer Glaube der Hellenen.77

However,itwasBurkertwhowrote Homo Necans,aworkthatassignedacentral role to the deep-seated meaning of blood sacrifice. Against thisbackgrounditiscuriousthathemakessostrictadistinctionbetweenreligiousbeliefsandpractices.Inthestatementquotedabove,religiousbeliefisdivorcedfromreligiouspracticeandbecomesaproductofmodernratherthanancientimagination. While this might have been true for the earlier unreflectedtheologyofHarrison,CornfordorMurray,itiscertainlylesscorrectforthereconstructionofGreekreligiousbeliefsandpracticesthatcarefullyreflectsonits own premises. In addition, to note that thepolis didnot try to influence

beliefandthatbeliefwasabsentfrompracticalGreekreligionistostatethatto believe and to act are two fundamentally separate activities. Belief andpracticemayintheorybeseparate;buttheymayalsobecausallyrelated.Beliefinformspracticejustasmuchaspracticeinformsbelief.ToreturntoBurkertsexample:thepracticeofGreekbloodsacrificecannotproperlybeunderstood

without taking into account a variety of beliefs that feed into this practice.Theseinclude,butarenotlimitedto,Greeknotionsaboutthegodsandtheirreciprocal relationshipwith humanityand Greek ideasaboutsacrificialpurityand the special status of blood. Even if Burkert himself did not cast theproblem in this way, there is now a growing scholarly trend to bring thecategoryofbeliefmorefirmlyintothepicture.78

3.6. Beyond the Polis in the Other Direction The Look from the

Polis Level Up

Finally, in discussing the potential and the limits of the polis model, it isimportantnotonlytolookdownfromthelevelofthepolisandtofocuson

thereluctanceofthemodeltoaddressissuesofpersonalbelief,etc.,asIhave

76BEARD&NORTH(1990),GARLAND(1992).77BURKERT(1995),p.205.78SeeforexampleDIORGANO-ZECHARYA(2005)withfurtherbibliography.


20/27


doneinthesectionsabove.Itisequallypressingandvalidtolookupfromthelevelofthepolistoreligiouspracticesnotcontainedbyorarticulatedwithinthe

poliscontext.Whenitwasfirstpublishedin1984FrancoisdePolignacsinfluentialstudyNaissance de la cit grecque(publishedinEnglishasCults, Territory and the Origin ofthe Greek City State)triggeredawidespreaddebateconcerningthelinksbetweenreligiousidentityandpolisidentity.DePolignacsclaimthatthecitycametodefine itself firstandforemostasareligiouscommunity inspiredvariouscasestudies further exploring the religious landscape of Greece as a bipolargeometricalplane,inwhichthecitywasshapedinadynamictensionbetweencentreandperiphery.InthelargerpictureofstudiesonancientGreekreligion,

dePolignacspointedformulationrepresentedabroader trendthat tended tooveremphasizetheroleofthepolisasthemainorganisingprincipleofGreekcultural practices including, but not limited to, religion. Other socio-politicalunits besides the polis, such as the ethne, were seen as remnants in a largerevolutionaryschemethatculminatedinthepolis.79Asaresult,theexistenceofalternativeworshippingcommunitiesandindividualreligiouspracticesoutsidetheframeworkofthepolishasbeenneglectedbythemodelofpolisreligionjust as much aspersonal issues of belief during the Classical and Hellenisticperiods.

In response to de Polignacs simplifying yet through-provoking claim,classical scholarshaverecentlysought todrawamorecomplicatedpictureofreligious transformation. The critical discussion of his work induced dePolignachimselftogiveupstrictlybipolarsynchronicityinfavourofamorechronologicallyandgeographicallynuancedpicture. 80HismostrecentworkonGreek sanctuaries and festivals during the archaic period, emphasizes thenecessity toworkwithmultipleframeworks ifwewanttounderstandancientGreekreligion:

TheroleofsanctuariesandfestivalsinarchaicGreececannotbeanalyzedeitherby isolating one element, or be general categorizations determined by rigid andconstantparametersItshouldratherbeseenasasysteminwhichthemeaningofeach element is determined by complex interactions with other components,combing long-lasting religious conceptions and rapid shifts in cult practices andorganization. Sanctuaries are certainly among the places where the extraordinaryvitalityandinventivenessofarchaicGreeceareattheirmostvisible.81

79SeeforexampleMCINNERY(1999),p.1-7,whoarguesthatthefocusonthepolishaslead

tothescholarlyneglectofethnicidentity.80DEPOLIGNAC(2009).SeealsothechangesdePolignacmadeintheEnglisheditionofhis

workandinDEPOLIGNAC(1995).81DEPOLIGNAC(2009),442.


21/27

28 J.K INDT

PoststructuralistnotionsofreligioussignificationseemtohavesupersededthestructuralistconceptionoftheGreeksacredlandscape.

The larger significance of this debate for scholarship on Greek religioncertainlyliesinitsre-evaluationoftheroleofthepolisinrelationtootherunitsofcollectiveidentity.Theprevailingviewnowseemstobethatthepolisdidnot so much replace older identities as offer an alternative model, whichcontinuedtoco-existwithotherformsofidentityandorganization.Accord-ingly,recentworksinthefieldstressthatthecomingofthepolis(initselfbynomeans a chronologically identifiable event) is just one episode in a muchlongerhistoryofreligioustransformation.Thischangeoffocusenablesamoredifferentiated perspective, which takes into account alternative worshipping

communitiesthatcontinuedtoexistbesidesthepolisduringtheIronAge,theArchaicandlaterperiods.Catherine Morgan, for example, has suggested that we complicate our

picture of Early Iron Age and Archaic cult practice in various ways.82 Sheadvocatesamorenuancedchronologicalinvestigationofhowthedevelopmentof the polis did and did not affect early Greek cult activity. Drawing inparticularonmaterialremainsfromthemarginsoftheemergingpolis-world(Thessaly,Phokis,EastLokris,AchaiaandArcadia),Morganreviseswidespreadnotions in scholarship that were primarily based on the cases of large and

centralpoleis,suchasAthens,SpartaandArgoswhichwereatypicalinmanyways.83 For the region of Thessaly, for example, Morgan has traced aninteresting development in which a local Early Iron Age cult of Enodiagraduallyturnedintoapan-ThessaliandeityidentifiedwiththeOlympicdivinityofZeusThaulios.84Pointinginparticularattheexistenceofethnossanctuariesinthisandotherterritories,Morganconcludesthatthepriorityaccordedtothepolis as the most dynamic, creative and influential form of politicalorganizationisnolongersustainable. 85Inseveralarchaeologicalcasestudies

AlexandrosMazarakisAinianhascometoasimilarconclusion.86Mostnotably,perhaps, in his rich and comprehensive investigation of the genesis of theGreektemplebetweenthe11thandthe8thcenturiesBC,MazarakisAinianhas

variouslypointedtotheexistenceofotherworshippingcommunitiesaboveandbelowthepolislevel:Theworshipofthegodscouldbecarriedoutonvariouslevelsofthesocietysstructure:itcouldbeamatteroftheinitiativeofasingleindividual,ofahousehold,ofoneormorekinshipgroups,ofthepolisorevenof a confederation of poleis. Before the creation of the polis, however, cult

82SeeforexampleMORGAN(1994),(2003).83SeeMORGAN(2003).84MORGAN(2003),p.135-155.85MORGAN(2003),p.6.86SeeforexampleMAZARAKISAINIAN(1985),(1988).


22/27


practicewouldhavebeeneitheramatterofprivateinitiativeofanindividualorahousehold,orthatofakinshipgroup.87

Thepicturethatemergesfromsuchresearchsuggeststhatfromabout700BC onwards, the polis provided an important organising principle of Greekreligious beliefs and practices. At the same time Greek religion remained a

vehicleforthecommunicationofother, largeridentities,mostnotablythatofethnicidentity.88ForthelateArchaic,ClassicalandHellenisticperiods,thereisplentyofevidenceofritualactivityadministeredbythe ethne,notthepoleis.Aninscriptiondatingfromaround216BC,forexample,testifiesthetransferofasanctuary with an important festival from the city of Anactorium in North-

westernGreecetotheAcarnanianleague.89DuringtheHellenisticPeriodthen,

this sanctuary served as a symbolic centre of the league, distinct from itspoliticalcentre,whichremainedonLeucas.90Atreatydatingfromaround300BC, likewise attests to religious practices administered by the ethne: thesanctuary of Athena Itonia served as the centre of the Boeotian ethnos; thePamboiotia,specialBoeotiangamesheldinhonourofAthenaItonia,wereheldin Koroneia even before that time.91 As well as ethnos cults, there were, ofcourse, also several religious institutions, in particular large and importantsanctuaries,thatwereadministeredbyamphictionies.Theseleaguesofseveralpoleis (such as the Panionian amphictiony which looked after a common

Poseidon sanctuary located on the semi-island of Mycale) provide anotherexampleofGreekreligiousstructuressituatedbeyondthepolis.92

4. Conclusion

Thereis,ofcourse,nosingleapproach,thateithercanorshouldsupersedethe polis model. The models strength lies in its capacity to explain animportant structuring principle of ancient Greek religion. For a religion thatlacked the organizational structures characteristic of most modern religions,such as a church, a creed and a dogma, it offers an alternative concept ofreligious administration and signification. Most notably, perhaps, if fullyembraced,themodelofpolisreligionhelpsustomoveawayfromgeneralizingassumptionsaboutthenatureofGreekreligionassuchandencouragesustopay closer attention to the fabric of Greek religion as an agglomeration oflocalvariants.

87MAZARAKISAINIAN(1997),p.393.

88SeeforexampleHALL(1997),MORGAN(2003),FREITAG,FUNKE&HAAKE(2006).89IGIX21,3;207.90SeePARKER(1998),p.27.Parkerincludesaspecialappendix,listingevidenceforvarious

religiouspracticesamongtheethne.91SeePARKER(1997),p.30,BUCK(1979),p.88-90,SCHACHTER(1981),p.117-127.92OnthisandotheramphictioniesseeTAUSEND(1992),inparticularp.55-57.


23/27

30 J.K INDT

The weaknesses of the model, however, spring from its too narrow andproblematicpromotiononthepolisastheprimarydiscourseofpowerrelevant

for the study of ancient Greek religion. To start with, the model of polisreligioninsomeformsand formulations rendersGreekreligion lesscompre-hensible than it ought to be. There is, for example, a certain conceptual

vagueness in works based on the polis model concerning the nature of theembeddednessofGreekreligioninthepolis.Theexactqualityoftherelation-shipbetweenreligiousstructuresandsocio-politicalstructuresremainsunder-theorizedinmanyworksbasedonthemodel.Divergingclaimsrangefromthesymbolic (or ideological) embeddedness to a more practice-oriented em-beddednessofGreekreligioninthepolis(seeabove).Oneresultofthisisthat

scholarly accounts oscillate between the depiction of religion as a mainlypassiveforcewithinsociety(mappingontothereachofpolisinstitutions)tothedepictionofamoreactiveroleofreligionattheother.Bothperspectives,however, assume that the structured (systematic) character of Greek religionranparallelto thepoliticalandsocialstructuresof thepolis.Thisassumptionfrequentlyresultsinafocusonsynchroniccoherenceandconsistency.Undersuchaparadigmlocaldifferencesanddiachronicchangeareconceivedmerelyasaninversionofexistingstructuresor,worse,asdeviationanddeclinefromproperGreekreligion.

Inaddition,themodeldoesnotaskallthequestionsonemightwishaboutGreekreligion.Whilethepolismodelisabletoexplaintheofficialresponsetoreligious activity it does not necessarily provide a key to understanding theappealofthisactivityfromthepointofviewofthoseinvolvedinit. 93Nordoesthe focuson themediation of thepolishelp us to appreciate thereligionofalternativesocio-politicalunitsaboveandbelowthepolislevel. 94Inparticularthestrongfocusonreligiouspracticescombinedwiththerelativeneglectofreligiousbeliefsisaseriouslimitationofcurrentscholarshipinthefield.

JuliaKINDTDepartmentofClassicsandAncientHistoryTheUniversityofSydneyE-mail: [email protected]

93TouseanexamplefromRomanreligion:scholarsworkingwiththepolismodelwould

pointoutthattheBacchanaliascandalof186demonstratesthepowerofthepolis(ofRome)tosuppressreligiousactivitythatitperceivedtobeagainstitsinterests.Thisoffersanexplanationofthepoliticaldimensionofthisscandal.Itdoesnot,however,explaintheappealofthismysteryreligiontotheindividualbelieverbothmaleandfemale.

94SeeWOOLF(1997),p.77-82.


24/27


Bibliography

ALCOCK,S.&OSBORNE,R.(eds.),Placing the Gods. Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece,Oxford,1994.

BEARD,M.&NORTH,J.(eds.),Pagan Priests. Religion and Power in the Ancient World,Ithaca,1990.

BEARD,M.,NORTH,J.&PRICE,S.(eds.),Religions of Rome,2vols.Cambridge,1998.

BECK, R., The Religion of the Mithras Cult in the Roman Empire. Mysteries of the Unconquered Sun,Oxford,2006.

BENDLIN,A.,LookingBeyondtheCivicCompromise.ReligiousPluralisminLateRepublicanRome,inE.BISPHAM&C.SMITH(eds.), Religion in Archaic and Republican Rome and Italy.Edinburgh,2006,p.115-135.

BOWERSOCK,G.W.,Hellenism in Late Antiquity,AnnArbor,1990.

BREMMER,J.,Greek Religion,Oxford,1994.BREMMER,J.N.,Religion,,RitualandtheOppositionSacredvs.Profane:NotesTowardsa

Terminological Genealogy, in F. GRAF (ed.), Ansichten griechischer Rituale: Geburtstags-Symposium fr Walter Burkert,Stuttgart,1998,p.9-32.

BRUITZAIDMAN,L.&SCHMITTPANTEL,P., Religion in the Ancient Greek City,transl.P.Cartledge,Cambridge,1992(Frenchorig.La Religion grecque,Paris,1989).

BUCK,R.J.,A History of Boeotia,Alberta,1979.

BURKERT,W., Homo Necans. Interpretation altgriechischer Opferriten und Mythen,Berlin,1972(Engl.transl. P. Bing. Homo Necans. The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth,

Berkeley,1983).BURKERT,W.,Greek Religion,transl.J.Raffan,Oxford,1985(Germanorig.Griechische Religion derarchaischen und klassischen Epoche,Stuttgart,1977).

BURKERT,W.,GreekPoleisandCivicCults:SomeFurtherThoughts,inM.H.HANSEN&K.RAAFLAUB(eds.),Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis,Stuttgart,1995,p.201-210.

BURKERT, W., Orphism and Bacchic Mysteries. New Evidence and Old Problems ofInterpretation,inW.WUELLNER(ed.),Protocol of the Twenty-Eighth Colloquy.13March1977(TheCenterforHermeneuticalStudies),Berkeley,1977(reprintedinF.G RAF(ed.), KleineSchriften III. Mystica Orphica, Pythagorica,Gttingen,2006).

BUXTON,R.,Imaginary Greece. The Contexts of Mythology,Cambridge,1994.

CARPANOS,C.,Dodone et ses ruines. Planches & texte,Paris,1878.COLE,S.G.,CivicCultandCivicIdentity, inM.H.HANSEN(ed.),Sources for the Ancient Greek

City State,Copenhagen,1994,p.292-325.

COMAROFF,J.L.&COMAROFFJ.,Of Revelation and Revolution,2vols.Chicago,1991,1997(athirdvolumeisinproduction).

CORRINGTON,G.P., The Divine Man. His Origin and Function in Hellenistic Popular Religion,NewYork,1986.

DIGNAS,B.,Economy of the Sacred in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor,Oxford,2002.

DOUGHERTY,C.&KURKE,L.(eds.),The Cultures within Ancient Greek Culture,Cambridge,2003.

DURKHEIM,E.,Les Formes lmentaires de la vie religieuse. Le systme totmique en Australie,Paris,1912(Engl.transl.K.FieldsThe Elementary Forms of Religious Life,NewYork,1995).

EDMONDS,R.E.,Myths of the Underworld Journey. Plato, Aristophanes, and the Orphic Gold Tablets,Cambridge,2004.


25/27

32 J.K INDT

FARAONE,C.A.&OBBINK, D. (eds.),Magika Hiera. Ancient Greek Magic and Religion, Oxford,2001.

FESTUGIRE,A.-J.,Personal Religion among the Greeks,Berkeley,1954.

FINLEY,M.I.The Ancient Economy,Berkeley,1973.

FREITAG,K.,FUNKE,P.&HAAKE,M.(eds.), Kult Politik Ethnos: berregionale Heiligtmer imSpannungsfeld von Kult und Politik,Stuttgart,2006.

FUSTELDECOULANGES,N.D.,La Cit antique,Paris,1864.

GARLAND,R.,Introducing New Gods: The Politics of Athenian Religion,Ithaca,1992.

GEERTZ, A., Cognitive Approaches to the Study of Religion, in P. ANTES, A.GEERTZ &R.WARNE(eds.),New Approaches to the Study of Religion,vol.2,Textual, Comparative, Sociological,and Cognitive Approaches,Berlin,2004,p.347-399.

GEERTZ,C.,ReligionasaCulturalSystem,in The Interpretation of Cultures,NewYork,1973,

p.87-125,firstpublishedinM.BANTON(ed.),Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion,Edinburgh,1966,p.1-46.

GLADIGOW,B.,DerSinnederGtter:ZumkognitivenPotentialderpersnlichenGottesvors-tellung,inP.EICHNER(ed.),Gottesvorstellung und Gesellschaftsentwicklung,Munich,1979,p.41-62.

GORDON, R.L., Fear or Freedom? Selective Continuity in Religion during the HellenisticPeriod,Didaskalos4(1972),p.48-60.

GOULD,J.,OnMakingSenseofGreekReligion,inMyth, Ritual, Memory, and Exchange. Essays inGreek Literature and Culture,Oxford,2001,p.203-234,firstpublishedinP.E ASTERLING&J.MUIR(eds.), Greek Religion and Society,Cambridge,1985,p.1-33.

GRAF,F.,PrayerinMagicandReligiousRitual,inFARAONEOBBINK(2001),p.188-213.

GRAF,F.,Magic in the Ancient World,transl.F.Philip,Cambridge/Mass,1997(Frenchorig. LaMagie dans lAntiquit grco-romaine,Paris,1994).

GRAF, F . &JOHNSTON, S.I., Ritual Texts for the Afterlife. Orpheus and the Bacchic Gold Tablets,London,2007.

GRIFFITH,J.G.,HellenisticReligions,inL.JONES(ed.),Encyclopaedia of Religion,secondedition,Detroit,2005,p.3900-3913.

GUTHRIE,W.K.C.,Orpheus and Greek Religion. A Study of the Orphic Movement, London,1935.

HALL,J.,Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity,Cambridge,1997.

HALLIWELL,S., ReviewofR. G.Edmonds: Mythsof the UnderworldJourney:Plato,Aristo-phanesandtheOrphicGoldTablets,NDPR,2005(seehttp://ndpr.nd.edu).

HANSEN,M.H.,PoleisandCity-States,600-323B.C.AComprehensiveResearchProgramme,inD.WHITEHEAD(ed.),From Political Architecture to Stephanus Byzantius. Sources for the AncientGreek Polis,Stuttgart,1994,p.9-17.

HANSEN,M.H.&NIELSEN,T.H.(eds.),An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford,2004.

HENRICHS, A., Between City and Country. Cultic Dimensions of Dionysus in Athens andAttica, inM.GRIFFITH&D.MASTRONARDE(eds.),Cabinet of the Muses: Essays on Classicaland Comparative Literature in Honor of Thomas G. Rosenmeyer,Atlanta,1990,p.257-277.

JAMESON,M.H.,ReligionintheAthenianDemocracy,inI.MORRIS&K.RAAFLAUB(eds.),Democracy 2500? Questions and Challenges,Dubuque/Iowa,1997,p.171-195.

JONES,L.(ed.),Encyclopedia of Religion,Secondediton,15vols.Detroit,2005.

KINDT, J., On TyrantPropertyTurnedRitual Object.SacredSymbolsand Political Power inAncientGreece,Arethusa,forthcoming2009.


26/27


LINFORTH,I.M.,The Arts of Orpheus,Berkeley,1941.

LHTE,.,Les lamelles oraculaires de Dodone,Geneva,2006.

LORAUX,N., The Children of Athena. Athenians Ideas about Citizenship and the Division of the Sexes,transl.C.Devine.Princeton,1993(Frenchorig. Les enfants dAthna. Ides athniennes sur lacitoyennet et la division des sexes,Paris,1984).

LORAUX,N.,The Divided City. On Memory and Forgetting in Ancient Athens,transl.C.Pache&J.Fort,NewYork,2001(Frenchorig.La Cit divise,Paris,1997).

MAZARAKISAINIAN, A., Contribution ltude de larchitecture religieuse grecque des gesobscurs,AC54(1985),p.5-48.

MAZARAKISAINIAN, A., Early Greek Temples. Their Origin and Function, in R.HGG,N.MARINATOS & G . NORDQUIST (eds.),Early Greek Cult Practice. Proceedings of the FifthInternational Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 26.-29. June 1986,Stockholm,1988,

p.105-119.MAZARAKISAINIAN,A.,From Rulers Dwellings to Temples. Architecture, Religion and Society in Early

Iron Age Greece(1100-700 BC),Jonsered,1997(SIMA,121).

MENDELS,D.,Identity, Religion and Historiography. Studies in Hellenistic History, Sheffield,1998.

MIKALSON,J.D.,Religion in Hellenistic Athens,Berkeley,1998.

MORGAN, C., The Evolution of a Sacral Landscape: Isthmia, Perachora and the EarlyCorinthianState,inALCOCKOSBORNE(1994),p.105-142.

MORGAN,C.,Early Greek States Beyond the Polis,London,2003.

NILSSON,M.P.,EarlyOrphismandKindredReligiousMovements,HThR28(1935),p.181-

230,reprintedinOpuscula Selecta,vol.2,Lund,1952,p.628-683.OBER,J.,Culture,ThinCoherence,andthePersistenceofPolitics,inAthenian Legacies. Essayson the Politics of Going on Together,Princeton,2005,p.69-91.

OSBORNE,R.,TheEcstasyandtheTragedy.VarietiesofReligiousExperienceinArt,Drama,andSociety,inC.PELLING(ed.),Greek Tragedy and the Historian,Oxford,1997,p.187-220.

PAKKANEN,P.,Interpreting Early Hellenistic Religion. A Study Based on the Mystery Cult of Demeter andthe Cult of Isis,Helsinki,1996.

PARKE,H.W.,The Oracles of Zeus. Dodona, Olympia, Ammon,Oxford,1967.

PARKER,R.,EarlyOrphism,inA.POWELL(ed.),The Greek World, London, 1995,p.483-510.

PARKER,R.,Athenian Religion. A History,Oxford,1996.

PARKER,R.,Cleomenes on the Acropolis. An Inaugural Lecture Delivered before the University of Oxford on12 May 1997,Oxford,1998.

PARKER,R.,Polytheism and Society at Athens,Oxford,2005.

PIRONTI,G.,Entre ciel et guerre. Figures dAphrodite en Grce ancienne,Lige,2007(Kernos,suppl.18).

DE POLIGNAC,F., Cults, Territory, and the Origin of the Greek City State,transl.J. Lloyd, Chicago,1991(Frenchorig.La Naissance de la cit grecque : cultes, espace et socit,Paris,1984).

DEPOLIGNAC,F.,Repenserlacit?RituelsetsocitenGrcearchaque,inM.H.HANSEN&K.RAAFLAUB(eds.),Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis,Stuttgart,1995,p.7-19.

DEPOLIGNAC,F.,SanctuariesandFestivals,inH.VANWEES&K.RAAFLAUB(eds.),BlackwellCompanion to Archaic Greece,Oxford,forthcoming2009,p.427-443.

PRICE,S.&KEARNS,E.(eds.),Oxford Dictionary of Classical Myth and Religion,Oxford,2003.

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

ROHDE, E., Psyche. Seelencult und Unsterblichkeitsglaube der Griechen, Freiburg, 1894 (Engl. transl.Psyche. The Cult of Souls and Belief in Immortality among the Greeks,London,1925).


27/27

34 J.K INDT

ROSENBERGER, V., Die konomie der Pythia oder: wirtschaftliche Aspekte griechischerOrakel,Laverna10(1999),p.153-164.

RPKE,J.,KultjenseitsderPolisreligion.PolemikenundPerspektiven,Jahrbuch fr Antike undChristentum47(2004),p.5-15.

SCHACHTER,A.,The Cults of Boeotia,vol.1,London,1981.

SCHEID,J.,Quand faire cest croire : les rites sacrificiels des Romains,Paris,2005.

SCHMITTPANTEL,P.,La cit au banquet. Histoire des repas publics dans les cits grecques,Rome,1992.

SEWELL,W.,TheConcept(s)ofCulture,inV.BONNELL&L.HUNT(eds.),Beyond the CulturalTurn. New Directions in the Study of Society and Culture,Berkeley,1999,p.35-61.

SINN,U.,GreekSanctuariesasPlacesofRefuge,inN.MARINATOS&R.HGG(eds.),GreekSanctuaries. New Approaches,London,1993,p.8-109,reprintedinR.BUXTON(ed.), OxfordReadings in Greek Religion,Oxford,2000,p.155-179.

SMITH,J.Z.,Map is not Territory. Studies in the History of Religions,Chicago,1993.SRENSEN,J.P.(ed.),Rethinking Religion. Studies in the Hellenistic Process,Copenhagen,1989.

SOURVINOU-INWOOD, C., Persephone and Aphrodite at Locri. A Model for PersonalityDefinitionsinGreekReligion,JHS98(1978),p.101-121.

SOURVINOU-INWOOD,C., Reading Greek Culture. Text and Images, Rituals and Myths, Oxford,1991.

SOURVINOU-INWOOD,C., Reading Greek Death. To the End of the Classical Period, Oxford,1995.

SOURVINOU-INWOOD,C.,WhatisPolisReligion?,inR.B UXTON(ed.),Oxford Readings in GreekReligion,Oxford,2000a,p.13-37,firstpublishedinO.M URRAY&S.PRICE(eds.),The GreekCity from Homer to Alexander,Oxford,1990,p.295-322.

SOURVINOU-INWOOD, C., Further Aspects of Polis Religion, in R. BUXTON (ed.), OxfordReadings in Greek Religion,Oxford,2000b,p.38-55,firstpublishedinAION(Arch) 10(1988),p.259-274.

SOURVINOU-INWOOD,C.,Tragedy and Athenian Religion,Lanham,2003.

TAUSEND, K.,Amphiktyonie und Symmachie. Formen zwischenstaatlicher Beziehungen im archaischenGriechenland,Stuttgart,1992.

VERNANT,J.-P.,Mythe et religion en Grce ancienne,Paris,1990.

VERSNEL,H.S.,Inconsistencies of Greek and Roman Religion,2vols.Leiden,1990,1993.

VERSNEL, H.S., Some Reflections on the Relationship Magic-Religion,Numen 38 (1991),

p.177-197.VEYNE, P., Did the Greeks Believe in Their Myths? An Essay on Constitutive Imagination, transl.P.Wissing,Chicago,1988(Frenchorig.Les Grecs ont-ils cru leurs mythes ?,Paris,1983).

WEST,M.,The Orphic Poems,Oxford,1983.

WOOLF, G., Polis-Religion and its Alternatives in the Roman Provinces, in H.CANCIK &J.RPKE(eds.),Rmische Reichsreligion und Provinzialreligion,Tbingen,1997,p.71-84.

ZUNTZ,G.,Persephone. Three Essays in Religion and Thought in Magna Graecia,Oxford,1971.

kernos 1765 22 polis religion a critical appreciation

Documents