Irad Malkin Territorial Domination and the Greek Sanctuary Abstract “The paper responds to an influential modern approach (F. de Polignacs), according to which the act of founding Greck (mostly extra-urban) sanctuaries expressed notions and inten- tions of territorial domination and sovereignty. There is no explicit ancient evidence for this. The variety of extra-urban sinctuaries defies @ “heavy-symbolism”, “intentionalist” ap- proach. Often they cannot be viewed synchronically with the foundation of the ity; sometimes our view of their extra-urban position is simply anachronistic: what started as central or “ocal” could become “extra-urban” much later. Ourassessment of what was centre and what was periphery is {00 relative end must be subject to knowledge of historical and social develop- ‘ments, such as the expansion of a particular state or the arrival ‘of anew group of settlers. The term “territory” seems doubtful Greck colonies, especially, had expanding frontiers, not bor- ders. I suggest, rather, that the question should be answered in Greek religious terms: the “division of the same” between the Greeks and their gods. As with sacrifice, in which the gods got the fat and bones and man received the meat, the gods got fat lands, revenuesbearing temené, which were, however, danger cous and distant plots. That is why they were extra-urban. Finally, with the example of Cyrenaica, Ttry toshow that E.de Polignac’s thesis is of enormous value when we shift its historical context: at the end of the road, at the limits of expansion, extra-urban sanctuaries could indeed signify the limits of territory. But this ‘process went on for centuries; time, especially in discussing his- torical phenomena, can make all the difference. “Tell me, what's on your mind?” This question, familiar from everyday speech, has been declared illegitimate with regard to the past, No empathy is possible; the past is alien territory, we cannot know intentions, only ac- tions, functions, and systems. Jean Rudhardt’s call for empathy with the Greek religious mind, for example, has lost ground.' However, interest in the meaning, signific- ance, and symbolic value of religious acts has not disap- peared and is being discussed by students of Greek reli- gion, especially those of the present generation, with in- creasing vigour. Empathy has given way to various kinds of systems analysis (structuralist or other) and, in what will concern us here, toa kind of “geometric” framework of mind. In essence, a “geometry of religion” means that the interrelationship of religious elements on the ground—more visible than social and political struc- tures—is imbued with ascertainable symbolic values. “Centre” and “periphery” are supposedly easily defined, For example, following an idea of Nilsson, a religious procession physically moves between two points and the space between them is endowed by the modern scholar with special political significance. The “geometry of re- Jigion” does not perceive Greek religion in terms of points, but of space. A temple is not a temple, a sacred point, alocus, Itis part ofa temenos, aclemarcated space, that fundamental historical processes, contradicting a synchronic concept of a geometry of religion, have been overlooked; and that the search for an implied “geometry of religion” has brought about the neglect of explicit values in Greek religion which provide much better ex- planations. I shall offer an explanation in Greek religious terms, and in terms of the historical processes of city foundations; I shall end by analysing some examples and by concluding that Greek sanctuaries could indeed de- note territorial sovereignty, but only centuries after their foundation. In other words, since time is of the essence for historical significance, the import of modern claims regarding Greek sanctuaries vanishes for one period, to re-emerge in another. Extra-urban sanctuaries provide the best test ease for examining ideas of sovereignty and domination. Since no ancient source ever tells us that a sanctuary was founded to stake territorial claims, the search for implications must begin with the extra-urban sanctuaries, as these pro- the only spatial dimension we can hope to find, con- necting some centre with some periphery. Since the publi- cation of Francois de Polignac’s influential book, La nais- sance de la cité grecque (1984), extra-urban sanctuaries have become a matter for common reference and discus- sion. De Polignac’s point of departure is brilliant; al- ‘though I initially censured it,® the basic geometrical com- bination of religion and territory has remained with me and helped me see territoriality in a different way. That my conclusion will prove to be diametrically opposed to his is due, to a significant extent, to de Polignac himself. froreas 24 Basically, de Polignac argues that (a) the city was a “bi- polar” entity, with a territorial definition of unity be- ‘tween central sanctuaries and extra-urban ones at the ex- tremities of the territory; (b) the foundation of extra- urban sanctuaries, because of their (implied) encompass- ing, comprehensive territorial vision, Was tantamount to the foundation of the potis; (¢) central and extra-urban sanctuaries were founded “at once”, that is, usually within a single generation; (d) the situation of the extra- urban sanctuaries at the limits of territory signified both a claim to that territory and a point of both separation and meeting with the “Other” and the “Beyond” outside it, The Heraion at Argos and the colonial extra-urban sanctuaries are de Polignac’s best test cases, although by no means the only one: Extra-urban sanctuaries are, in fact, a mystery: with no text at our disposal to clarify why great precincts (remené) and monumental temples were created so far from urban centres, the field is wide open for speculation. Some have suggested that native cult-sites were adopted by col- onists, a theory which no longer seems tenable (except for some rural shrines). Others have advanced that Mycenaean vestiges, discovered by colonists, provided indications of the siting of sacred precincts, a theory which has scant archaeological support and little likeli hood in its assumption of continuity throughout the Dark Ages. Archaeology also seems to disprove “pre-colonial contacts” of the early eighth century, although here the case is less certain. Finally, romantic or aesthetic modern impressions about “natural ambiance” have also been put forward with very little basis.” Since most extra- urban sanctuaries seem to have been either contempor- ary with or later than colonial foundations, theories relat- ing to their newness as being their essential quality started to emerge, with a seminal article by Georges Val- TT. Malkin, ‘Land ownership, territorial possession, hero cults and scholarly theory’, in Nomodeiktes: Greek studies in honor of ‘Martin Ostwald, eds. R.M. Rosen & J. Farrel, Ann Arbor 1993, 225-234 5°CE.R. Osborne, Classical landscapes with figures: The ancient Greek city and its countryside, London 1987, 169.3 A. Schach- ter, ‘Policy, cult, and the placing of Greek sanctuaries’, in Le santctuaire grec (Fondation Hardt, Entretiens 37), 1992, 1-37, ©. Malkin, Review of F. de Polignae, La naissance de la cité greeque:cultes, espace et société vii-vit si¢cles avant J.C, Paris 1984, JS 107, 1987, 2278. The revised version, Cults, teritors, and the origins of the Greek city-state (trans. J. Lioyd), Chicago 1995, has appeared after the submission of ths article, 7 Foran excellent review of the theories, see D. Asheri, ‘A pro- pos des sanctuaites extraurbains en Sicile et Grande-Gréce: théories et témoignages’, in Melanges Plerre Lévéque 1, Besan- gon 1988, 1-15, esp. 1-7.let discussing extra-urban sanctuaries in terms of defence and territorial sovereignty.* How are we to evaluate the foundation of extra-urban sanctuaries? How are we to understand their a priori sig- nificance? The matter of intention now becomes one of paramount importance. The first question becomes not what the extra-urban sanctuaries came to symbolize over the course of centuries but rather why they were estab- lished in the first place. Thus, we must raise the question which some historians frown upon: how to judge inten- tions and attitudes? Our evaluation of the intentions in- volved in the establishment of sacred space, especially when we can be fairly certain that such space was the re- sult of deliberate demarcation and decision, may be per- formed by means of two basic approaches. First, there is the “matter-of-fact-approach”, often used in modem town-planning: “That is a ‘good’ site for a church, for a city hall, for a cemetery, for the main intersection, ete. “The river is over there; let’s start by parcelling the land up to that point”. No “bi-polarity”, no religious abstrac- tion of territoriality is implied. Was this the Greek way? ‘The second, “heavy-symbolism” approach, argues against this. The original demarcation of the sacred pre~ ‘einct “must have signified” so much more, it contends, and it must have done so a priori, at the moment of foun- dation. In other words, it is a symbolism of which the founder of a colony such as Poseidonia was aware. Is that 50? With central sacred areas, such as those at Megara Hyblaia (a colony in Sicily founded in 728), we are at least able to compare the apparent criteria of spatial or ganization of the sanctuaries with other elements of the town-planning. They are al in the same physical and tem- poral context, Such contextual evaluations, however, ‘cannot be made in the case of extra-urban sanctuaries. With regard to “Old Greece”, for example, we are totally in the dark as to the political and social origins of places like the “extra-urban” sanctuary of Hera at Perachora in the territory of Corinth. What we consider “extra-urban” from the perspective ofa fully developed Corinth may be anachronistic. Originally, Perachora could have been either a central sanctuary for the inhabitants of its im- mediate locality or a common sanctuary to a few localities, perhaps even from neighbouring Megara, and soon? With political entities which are the result not of ex novo foundation, such as colonies, but of various kinds of synoikismos or simply territorial expansion and annexa- tion, the term “extra-urban” is relative and often simply wrong if our concem is the original circumstances. It is clear, for example, that the numerous extra-urban Territorial Domination and the Greek Sanctuary 77 sanctuaries of Megalopolis were the result of its synoikis- mos.}° Apollo’ famous temple at Amyklai, clearly acent- ral temple for the community of that town, was in an extra-urban position in relation to the other four towns of Sparta.!" The extra-urban temple of Asklepios at Dyme in Achaia used to be the central temple of Olenos, before it was swallowed up by Dyme.? Similarly, the temple of Larisaian Apolio of Ephesos once belonged to Larisa, a village in the territory of Ephesos, which was annexed through Ephesian territorial expansion.!> Finally, a major example for de Polignac is the so-called Argive Heraion, located at the end of the Argive plain towards Mycenae and Tiryns, which may not have been at all Ar- give in its origins (see below). Because too many factors are at play in the synoikistic city and too many points of chronology are obscure in their relation to assumed (but in fact unknown) political developments, we are unable to support claims for symbolic values as proven or even likely, Some have argued, for example, that the chronological relations between the elements of the Ar give Heraion are in nced of revision and that the site was perhaps chosen, like the Menelaion in Sparta, in order to establish links with Bronze-Age heroes." Even if true, the question of who was interested in such links is ‘obscure; it is not at all clear that it was the polis of Argos. I nced not develop this in detail, since de Polignac him- self, in an admirable chapter which he wrote, perhaps paradoxically, for a book dedicated to a discussion of his . © G, Valle, “La cité et son territoire dans les colonies greeques Sloccident’, in La cite ilsuoterriorio. Ati del VI convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia. Taranto 8-12 Ottobre 1967, Napoli 1968, 67-142, CI. F de Polignac, La naissance deta ctégrecque (Gee supra n, 6); Osborne (supra n. 5), 169; CA. Morgan, Athletes and oracles: the transformation of Delphi and Olympia in the eighth century BC, Cambridge 1990, 2-12; A.M. Snod- grass, ‘Archacology and the study of the Greek city’ in J. Rich & A. Wallace-Hadrill (eds.), City and country in the ancient world, London 1991, 1-23, esp. 18; Sehachter (supra n. 5) R.A, Tomlinson, ‘Perachora!, in Le sanctuaire grec (supra n. 5), 321-346, © Paus. 8.36.5-10 1p Cartledge, Sparta and Lakonia: a regional history 1300-362 B.C.,London 1979, 106-108, Strabo 8.7.4 (C 380) * Strabo 13.3.2 (C620). J.C, Weight, ‘The OM Temple terrace at the Argive Heracum and the early cul of Hera inthe Argolid’, JHS 102, 1982, 186 201, esp. 194-200; ef. J. Whitley, ‘Early states and hero cults: a reappraisal’, JH1S' 108, 1988, 173-182, esp. 179. A thorough analysis may be found in C. Antonaccio, “Terraces, tombs, and the early Argive Heraion’, Hesperia 61, 1992, 85-109. J. Hall, “How “Argive” was the Argive Heraion? The political and cultic geography of the Argive plain, 900-400", AJA 99, 1995, S77— 63. Boreas 24