THE COMPLEXITY OF
ANCIENT HEALING
SANCTUARIES
Multi-scalar networks and multi-vocality in the
Asklepieia of Epidauros and Kos during the fourth
century BC until the first century AD.
Pim Schievink (s2696975).
p.schievink@student.rug.nl /
pimschievink@gmail.com
ReMa-thesis of Classical, Medieval and Early Modern Studies, University of Groningen
Supervisor: dr. Christina Williamson Second reader: prof. dr. Onno van Nijf
1
Abstract
Within the study of Greek sanctuaries in general and Asklepieia in particular, an integrative approach of the many different users, their agency and the different levels on which the sanctuary functioned is missing. This research will focus on the variety of people who used the sanctuary and their impact on the Asklepieia of Epidauros and Kos, because it is important to analyse how different audiences used the sanctuaries in different ways.
Current research, by preferring the Panhellenic function above the local and regional ones and the healing aspect of Asklepieia above other functions (political, social and economic for example) gives one piece of a large and complex aspect of the ancient Greek world. The Asklepieia are particularly interesting case studies of sanctuaries that served multiple purposes for multiple audiences, and at widely ranging scales. But how did this work? Who used them, at which moments, and what can we say about their scope and multi-vocality based on the extant sources? With the use of Network theory, the framework ‘lived religion’ and by utilising the many inscriptions, votives and in combination with literary sources such as Herondas’ fourth mime, my research analyses the full complexity of the Asklepieia. From this research, it becomes visible how many different agents use the sanctuaries in different ways, but all help to shape the sanctuaries as prominent places in the ancient world.
This multi-vocality and multi-scalar levels of the sanctuaries of Epidauros and Kos deserve more attention and will benefit our understanding of Greek sanctuaries and Asklepieia in general, and Epidauros and Kos in particular.
2
Preface
I started researching the healing god Asklepios during my first year in the Research Master. This fascinating god and the quite personal contact his worshippers had (or perceived to have) with Asklepios are what makes this god so fun to research. More so than other divinities, he provides glimpses into the personal religious life of the ancient Greeks and Romans. As a result, the study presented here tries to gain an understanding into how different layers of society use the sanctuaries of Asklepios of Epidauros and Kos.
I used Palladio, a tool from Stanford University (http://hdlab.stanford.edu/palladio/), for the maps that I created myself (with in the appendix the used data). This is an easy to use application for creating maps that visualise networks. For most of the Greek text of inscriptions I used the website of the Packard Humanities Institute (https://inscriptions.packhum.org/), last updated on July 13, 2020. I also used Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (SEG), Collection of Greek Ritual Norms (CGRN) (http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be/), the website of the
Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaffen (http://ig.bbaw.de/ and
http://pom.bbaw.de/ig/index.html), Attic Inscriptions Online (https://www.atticinscriptions.com/) and Attalus (http://www.attalus.org) for providing me with text, metadata and references to books and articles with translations and discussions on the inscriptions. Due to Covid-19 I could not go to the library and see the physical books of IG (and others that were only in the library), as most of my research was done before the libraries re-opened. The translations I used come from other publications (like LiDonnici’s translation of the iamata inscriptions) or are my own when stated. My starting point for Classical texts was mostly LOEB Classical Library and the work of Ludwig and Emma Edelstein.
Lastly, I have to thank several people. In particular, I have to thank my fellow CMEMS students Karst Schuil for proofreading my essays during my Research Master and Teddy Delwiche for reading and commenting on this thesis. Furthermore, my gratitude to Sjoukje Kamphorst for providing me with a general bibliography for Kos to get things started. Moreover, thanks to Prof. Dr. Onno van Nijf who helped me during the preliminary stages of the thesis, through discussing and suggesting some topics. Dr. Christina Williamson, from the Bachelor’s degree onwards, was my supervisor for most of my work. I specifically have to thank her for all her supervision, including for this thesis. All errors that remain are my own.
3 Content Abstract ... 1 Preface... 2 Abbreviations ... 5 Introduction ... 8 Historiography ... 8 Methodology ... 14 Source material ... 17 Thesis structure ... 18
Chapter 1: Theoretical framework ... 20
1.1: Multi-vocality ... 20
1.2: Network theory ... 24
1.3: Lived religion ... 29
Chapter 2: a short history of Asklepios and the sites studied ... 35
2.1: From hero to god ... 35
2.2: Sacred space and ritual: some general notes ... 36
2.3: Epidauros ... 39
2.4: Kos ... 44
Chapter 3: Network agents and multiscalar networks ... 53
3.1 Epidauros ... 53
3.1.1: Builders & sculptors ... 53
3.1.2: Theorodokoi, theoroi and proxenoi ... 55
3.1.3: Athletes and festival ... 60
3.1.4: Patients ... 63
3.1.5: Travelling snakes ... 65
3.1.6: Leagues, kings and Romans ... 67
3.1.7: The multiscalar network of the Epidaurian Asklepieion ... 69
3.2 Kos ... 71
3.2.1: Proxenoi ... 71
3.2.2: Theoroi and asylia ... 72
3.2.3: Athletes and festival ... 74
3.2.4: Doctors ... 76
3.2.5: Judges ... 78
3.2.6: Kings and Romans ... 79
3.2.7: The multiscalar network of the Koan Asklepieion ... 80
Chapter 4: multivocality of the Asklepieia ... 82
4.1 Epidauros ... 82
4
4.1.2: Priests and cult personnel ... 84
4.1.3: Ritual activity and participants ... 86
4.1.4: Gods and animals ... 99
4.1.5: Isyllos and local elite ... 102
4.1.6: Civic: political use of the site, honours and memory ... 105
4.1.7: Athletes and the festival ... 110
4.2: Kos ... 114
4.2.1: Priest and cult personnel ... 115
4.2.2: Ritual activity and participants ... 118
4.2.3: Gods and animals ... 128
4.2.4: Asylia ... 130
4.2.5: Civic: honours, memory and political use of the site ... 132
4.2.6: Athletes and people at the festival ... 135
4.3: Multi-vocality of the Asklepieia... 137
Conclusion ... 140
Appendix 1: Builders with a place of origin and heralds with a target polis mentioned in Prignitz and IG IV2 1, 102, used for figure 8. ... 143
Appendix 2: Theorodokoi mentioned in IG IV²,1 94 and IG IV²,1 95, used for figure 9. ... 145
Appendix 3: Known victors of the Epidaurian Asklepieia, after Sève (1993), pp. 327-8, used for figure 11 ... 149
Appendix 4: Patients and their place of origin as mentioned in the iamata (IG IV2 1, 121- IG IV2 1, 123), used for figure 12. ... 151
Appendix 5: List of victors of the Koan Asklepieia, used for figure 15. ... 154
List of used primary sources ... 163
Literary ... 163 Epigraphy ... 165 CGRN ... 165 IG IV2 1 ... 165 IG XII,4 ... 167 SEG ... 168 Others ... 168
List of used literature ... 169
5
Abbreviations
CGRN = J.-M. Carbon, S. Peels and V. Pirenne-Delforge, A Collection of Greek Ritual
Norms (CGRN), Liège 2016- (http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be, consulted in 2020)
FD III = Fouilles de Delphes, III. Épigraphie. Paris 1929- . Fasc. 1, Inscriptions de l'entrée
du sanctuaire au trésor des Athéniens, ed. Émile Bourguet. Paris 1929. — Fasc. 2, Inscriptions du trésor des Athéniens, ed. Gaston Colin. Paris 1909-1913. — Fasc. 3, Inscriptions depuis le trésor des Athéniens jusqu'aux bases de Gélon. 2 vols. Paris 1932-1943. Vol. 1, ed. Georges Daux and Antoine Salać (1932); vol. 2, Georges Daux (1943). — Fasc. 4, Inscriptions de la terrasse du temple et la région nord du sanctuaire. 4 vols. Paris 1930-1976. Vol. 1, ed. Gaston Colin (1930); vol. 2, ed. Robert Flacelière (1954); vol. 3, ed. André Plassart (1970); vol. 4, ed. Jean Pouilloux (1976). — Fasc. 5, Les Comptes du IVe siècle, ed. Émile Bourguet. Paris 1932. [Replaced by CID II (1989).] — Fasc. 6, Inscriptions du théâtre, ed. Natan Valmin. Paris 1939. — Chron. Delph., Chronologie delphique, by Georges Daux. Paris 1943.
Epigr. tou Oropou = Petrakos, Vasileios Ch. Hoi Epigraphes tou Oropou. Vivliothēkē tēs en
Athēnais Archaiologikēs Hetaireias, 170. Athens 1997.
IC I = Inscriptiones Creticae, ed. Margherita Guarducci. 4 vols. Rome 1935-1950. Vol. 1,
Tituli Cretae mediae praeter Gortynios (1935).
IC IV = Inscriptiones Creticae, ed. Margherita Guarducci. 4 vols. Rome 1935-1950. Vol. 4,
Tituli Gortynii (1950).
IG II² = Inscriptiones Graecae II et III: Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores, 2nd
edn., Parts I-III, ed. Johannes Kirchner. Berlin 1913-1940. — Part I, 1-2 (1913-1916) = Decrees and Sacred Laws (Nos. 1-1369); Part II, 1-2 (1927-1931) = Records of Magistrates and Catalogues (Nos. 1370-2788); Part III, 1 (1935) = Dedications and Honorary Inscriptions (Nos. 2789-5219); Part III, 2 (1940) = Funerary Inscriptions (Nos. 5220-13247). — Part V, Inscriptiones Atticae aetatis quae est inter Herulorum incursionem et Imp. Mauricii tempora, ed. Ericus Sironen. Berlin 2008. (Nos. 13248-13690)
IG II³,1 = Inscriptiones Graecae II et III: Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores, 3rd
6
Stephen D. Lambert. Berlin 2012. (Nos. 292-386); fasc. 4, Leges et decreta annorum 300/299-230/29, ed. Michael J. Osborne and Sean G. Byrne. Berlin 2015. (Nos. 844-1134); fasc. 5, Leges et decreta annorum 229/8-168/7, ed. Voula N. Bardani and Stephen V. Tracy. Berlin 2012. (Nos. 1135-1461)
IG IV = Inscriptiones graecae Aeginae, Pityonesi, Cecryphaliae, Argolidis, ed. Max
Fraenkel. «Corpus inscriptionum graecarum Peloponnesi et insularum vicinarum», 1. Berlin 1902.
IG IV²,1 = Inscriptiones Graecae, IV. Inscriptiones Argolidis. 2nd edn. Fasc. 1, Inscriptiones
Epidauri, ed. Friedrich Hiller von Gaertringen. Berlin 1929.
IG V,1 = Inscriptiones Graecae, V,1. Inscriptiones Laconiae et Messeniae, ed. Walter Kolbe.
Berlin 1913.
IG XII,4 = Inscriptiones Graecae, XII. Inscriptiones insularum maris Aegaei praeter Delum,
4. Inscriptiones Coi, Calymnae, Insularum Milesiarum. — Pars I. Inscriptiones Coi insulae: decreta, epistulae, edicta, tituli sacri (nos. 1-423), ed. Dimitris Bosnakis, Klaus Hallof, Kent Rigsby. Berlin and New York 2010. — Pars II. Inscriptiones Coi insulae: catalogi,
dedicationes, tituli honorarii, termini (nos. 424-1239), ed. Dimitris Bosnakis and Klaus Hallof. Berlin and New York 2012
IG XII,6 = Inscriptiones Graecae, XII. Inscriptiones insularum maris Aegaei praeter Delum,
6. Inscriptiones Chii et Sami cum Corassiis Icariaque. — Pars I. Inscriptiones Sami insulae: decreta, epistulae, sententiae, edicta imperatoria, leges, catalogi, tituli Atheniensium, tituli honorarii, tituli operum publicorum, inscriptiones ararum (nos. 1-536), ed. Klaus Hallof. Berlin and New York 2000. — Pars II. Inscriptiones Sami insulae: dedicationes, tituli
sepulcrales, tituli Christiani, Byzantini, Iudaei, varia, tituli graphio incisi, incerta, tituli alieni. Inscriptiones Corassiarum (nos. 537-1216), ed. Klaus Hallof. Inscriptiones Icariae insulae (nos. 1217-1292), ed. Angelos P. Matthaiou. Berlin and New York 2003.
IGUR = Moretti, Luigi. Inscriptiones Graecae urbis Romae. 4 vols. in 5 parts. Rome
7
Iscr. di Cos = Segre, Mario. Iscrizioni di Cos. Monografie della Scuola Archeologica di
Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente, 6. Rome 1993.
Klee, Geschichte = Klee, Theophil. Zur Geschichte der gymnischen Agone an griechischen
Festen. Leipzig and Berlin 1918.
SEG = Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Vols. 1-11, ed. Jacob E. Hondius, Leiden
1923-1954. Vols. 12-25, ed. Arthur G. Woodhead. Leiden 1955-1971. Vols. 26-41, eds. Henry W. Pleket and Ronald S. Stroud. Amsterdam 1979-1994. Vols. 42-44, eds. Henry W. Pleket, Ronald S. Stroud and Johan H.M. Strubbe. Amsterdam 1995-1997. Vols. 45-49, eds. Henry W. Pleket, Ronald S. Stroud, Angelos Chaniotis and Johan H.M. Strubbe. Amsterdam 1998-2002. Vols. 50- , eds. Angelos Chaniotis, Ronald S. Stroud and Johan H.M. Strubbe. Amsterdam 2003-
8
Introduction
Classical history is dominated by the male-elite, who left most sources and are thus studied the most. Recent events (for example the toppling of the statue of Edward Colston in Bristol) has lucidly shown that portraying history from mainly the perspective of the elite clouds our understanding of the complexity of history, because it neglects the many other voices of that specific time period. These events strengthen the importance of analysing multi-vocality. Essentially, multi-vocality includes the different layers, stories and people interacting with the, in this research, sacred space, who all contribute to the space in their own way. In antiquity giving the neglected people a voice is rather difficult. However, that does not mean that we cannot attempt to reconstruct behaviour and experiences of the non-elite in antiquity.
This thesis studies the different scales on which the sanctuaries of Asklepios in Epidauros and Kos operated and how they were experienced by different layers of society (i.e. the multi-vocality of the site). The healing god Asklepios provides a good case-study for analysing these two topics because illness was a danger for everyone and the two sanctuaries were seen as two of the most important sanctuaries for the god (of the many categorised by Riethmüller).1 However, not all people who visited these sanctuaries experienced nor used them in the same way.
The difficulty lies in how to analyse the lower strata of society. Within the elite sources, there are traces of ‘normal’ people and analysing structural behaviour within the sanctuary gives insights into the way many people used the sanctuary. The Asklepieia are particularly interesting case studies of sanctuaries that served multiple purposes for multiple audiences, and at widely ranging scales. How did this work? Who used them, at which moments, and what can we say about their scope and multi-vocality based on the extant sources?
Historiography
Asklepios in general has received much attention from scholars since the Edelsteins in 1945.2
Their work is fundamental for studying Asklepieia, even if some of their views are now outdated. They collected the majority of known literary sources (and some epigraphical) related to Asklepios. By now, Asklepios is a well-studied god, but this thesis adds to the historiography
1 See: Jürgen W. Riethmüller Asklepios: Heiligtümer und Kulte. Studien zu Antiken Heiligtümern, Bd. 2
(Heidelberg: Verlag Archäologie und Geschichte, 2005); Florian Steger, Asclepius: Medicine and Cult. Translated by Margot M Saar. Medizingeschichte. (Stuttgart, Germany: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2018), 40-47.
2 Emma J. Edelstein and Ludwig Edelstein, Asclepius: A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies.
9
by highlighting the scales on which the sanctuaries of Epidauros and Kos operated and how they were used by a pluriform audience.
For the scales on which the sanctuaries operated, a network approach applied to Asklepieia has not been done sufficiently for the Asklepieia of Epidauros and Kos. First of all, many studies in general deal with networks in antiquity, but they mostly focus on a particular aspect of the network, such as sacred delegations, athletes, proxenoi (a honorific title bestowed on a foreigner by a polis for his good deeds) and inviolability decrees.3 In van der Ploeg’s recent discussion on Asklepios, little mention is made of the importance of networks in the pre-Roman era. Her focus is the Roman period, but she downplays the importance of networks in the Greek world and their influence of Asklepieia.4 Melfi argues that Rome actively used the pre-existing networks of communication to be successful, however no mention is given of what this (pre-existing) network actually was, how it was established or how it functioned.5 That the cult
spread from Epidauros to other places, of course, implies networks. And yet, it must be kept in mind that many people are involved in establishing the networks in the first place. Rather than rushing to chart the spread of Asklepieia, we must first understand how and for whom the networks functioned.
Most evidence for networks come from Epidauros’ largest Panhellenic activity in the fourth and third century BC, when they started their building programme, sent out theoroi (sacred envoys) to many cities in Greece and during this time the iamata inscriptions (healing testimonies) were recorded.6 Moreover, most of the proxenoi recorded date to the third century
3 For some research on networks in antiquity see: I. Malkin, A Small Greek World: Networks in the Ancient
Mediterranean (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011); Kent J. Rigsby, Asylia: Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World. Hellenistic Culture and Society, 22. (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1996); Paula Perlman, City and Sanctuary in Ancient Greece: The "Theorodokia" in the Peloponnese.
Hypomnemata, H. 121. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000); Ian Rutherford. State Pilgrims and Sacred Observers in Ancient Greece: A Study of Theōriā and Theōroi (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013); O.M. van Nijf and C.G. Williamson, “Connecting the Greeks. Festival networks in the Hellenistic
world”, Athletics in the Hellenistic world, eds. C. Mann, S. Remijsen and S. SCharff, (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2016).
4 Ghislaine E. van der Ploeg, The Impact of the Roman Empire on the Cult of Asclepius. Impact of Empire,
Volume 30 (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 23, 46-82.
5 Milena Melfi, “Religion and Communication in the sanctuaries of Early Roman Greece: Epidauros and
Athens,” in Roman power and Greek sanctuaries: Forms of interaction and communication, ed. M.Galli (Athens: Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene, 2013), 143-4. In her conclusion on page 157 she shifts more to local context than the actual networks implied in her introduction.
6 For a list to which Epidauros at least sent theoroi, these two inscriptions list the theorodokoi of the cities: IG
IV²,1 94 IG IV²,1 95; iamata: IG IV2 1, 121, IG IV2 1, 122; IG IV2 1, 123. A good translation is given in Lynn R.
LiDonnici, The Epidaurian Miracle Inscriptions. Texts and Translations; Graeco-Roman Religion Series, 36. 11. (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995); Building programme: IG IV²,1 102-4; Alison Burford, The Greek Temple Builders at Epidauros: A Social and Economic Study of Building in the Asklepian Sanctuary, during the Fourth and Early Third Centuries B.c. Liverpool Monographs in Archaeology and Oriental Studies. (Liverpool: Liverpool Univ. Press, 1969); Sebastian Prignitz, Bauurkunden Und Bauprogramm Von Epidauros (400-350): Asklepiostempel, Tholos, Kultbild, Brunnenhaus. Vestigia, Band 67. (München: Verlag C.H. Beck, 2014).
10
BC.7 The Asklepieion of Kos thrived from the third century BC onwards. In 242 BC the city sent out theoroi to ask for asylia (inviolability) and the recognition of stephanitic (crowned) games.8 Many Hellenistic victors of these games are collected in the Database of Hellenistic Athletes from the University of Mannheim.9 In contrast, we have little evidence for victors of the games in Epidauros.10
The networks not only operated through human agents, but also through stories. Several stories attest to cities importing the Epidaurian Asklepios by bringing one of his sacred snakes from Epidauros to their own city.11 Apparently these stories were important enough to still be told by Pausanias in the second century AD.12 However, this does not necessarily mean that the cult is similar everywhere. Riethmüller stresses that there is no uniform nature of Asklepieia, although there are some structural similarities: sacred springs, a sleeping quarter and some form of a sacred grove. Several rituals, such as incubation (sleeping in the sanctuary in hope to receive a healing dream), were important to most Asklepieia as well.13
The idea of a unity in Asklepieia comes from the tendency to interpret the main centres (Epidauros, Kos and Pergamon) primarily as Panhellenic healing sites. However, by doing so, the local and regional importance of these sanctuaries are overlooked in favour of this Panhellenic point of view. Emerson, in her book Greek sanctuaries: an introduction maintains this hard distinction by arguing that a sanctuary was either local or Panhellenic.14 Van der Ploeg acknowledges local elements in the cult during the Classical and Hellenistic age, but also
7 See Paula Perlman, City and Sanctuary in Ancient Greece; William Mack, Proxeny and Polis: Institutional
Networks in the Ancient Greek World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015); Proxeny Networks of the Ancient World, search parameters: “Granting Authority: Epidauros (IACP no. 348)”, last seen on 30-6-2020http://proxenies.csad.ox.ac.uk/; Proxeny Networks of the Ancient World, search parameters: “Context of proxenos: Epidauros (IACP no. 348)”, last seen on 30-6-2020http://proxenies.csad.ox.ac.uk/
8 See: Dimitrios Bosnakis, “Asklepieion and Physicians. A Preferential Tool of Koan Diplomacy,” In Hygieia:
Health, Illness, Treatment. From Homer to Galen, eds. Nicholas Chr. Stampolidis and Yorgos Tassoulas, (Athens: Museum of Cycladic Art, 2014), 63; Kent J. Rigsby, Asylia, 22, 106-153. The replies to these requests were inscribed and placed in the Asklepieion.
9 For the inscriptions of asylia see Rigsby 106-153, nos. 8-46. For the athletes see: Database of Hellenistic
Athletes, last seen 13-2-2020 Search parameters Polis=Kos http://mafas.geschichte.uni-mannheim.de/athletes/index.php?page=list&action=search
10 This might be due to the survival rate of source material. Another reason might be that in contrast to Kos, the
polis of Epidauros did not inscribe large victory lists including foreign victors. For the prosopography see: Michel Sève, “Les concours d’Épidaure,” Revue des Études Grecques 106, no. 506/508 (1993): 303-328.
11 For example: IG IV2, 1 122, l. 69-82; Pausanias, Description of Greece 1.26.9; Pausanias, Description of
Greece 3.23.7-8.
12 Pausanias, Description of Greece 1.26.9; Pausanias, Description of Greece 3.23.7-8. 13 Jürgen W. Riethmüller Asklepios bd. 1, 378-379.
14 Mary Emerson, Greek Sanctuaries: An Introduction (London: Bristol Classical Press, 2007), 5-6. While she
says that the Panhellenic sanctuaries were open to all (thus also locals), this distinction creates a bias towards viewing sanctuaries that attracted a Panhellenic audience mainly as such, neglecting to some extent the local visitors.
11
concludes somewhat simplified that “It is logical to assume that if two sanctuaries shared the same place of origin, they then would also have rites and rituals in common”.15
However, new Asklepieia have to incorporate some form of local aspects within the cult instead of simply taking over all rituals. Mythology is in many cases inherent to a specific geographical area in ancient Greece, thus networks alone are not enough to spread a cult from one place to another. Asklepios was, in the predominant myth approved by Delpi, raised in Epidauros and not in Kos, for example.16 Cults have to adapt to the new locality and incorporate some form of local traditions to be accepted.17 This implies choice: agents involved adopt the main elements of the cult, but adapt them to fit their situation. An example is inserting local heroes in the throne on which Asklepios was seated in Epidauros.18 In the same manner, the local hero Telephos was included in the Asklepieion in Pergamon and in Messene the mother of Asklepios is not Koronis but the local woman Arsinoë, in an attempt to anchor Asklepios in Messene.19 On Kos, there was the local tradition of a procession and ritual of presenting a new
staff to Asklepios by the Asklepiad physicians.20 This procession was not intended for all
visitors and Panhellenic visitors going to Epidauros might not experience the local heroes similarly as the local and regional visitors.
Moreover, by focussing on the concept of Panhellenism, misleading conclusions on the sanctuary can occur: for example, when evidence for Panhellenic visitors decline in Epidauros (from the Roman period onwards, after 146 BC), the sanctuary is interpreted as in decline as well.21 Due to some damaged buildings and a lack of healing tales and dedications Melfi concludes that in the first century BC “Asklepios might have stopped healing for a while.”22
15 Ghislaine E. van der Ploeg, The Impact of the Roman Empire on the Cult of Asclepius, 25, 51.
16 Emma J. Edelstein, and Ludwig Edelstein Asclepius, 70; Antje Krug, Heilkunst und Heilkult: Medizin in Der
Antike (München: Beck, 1993), 129.
17 I.e. Anchored. See Ineke Sluiter, “Anchoring Innovation: A Classical Research Agenda.” European Review
25, no. 1 (2017): 20–38. Innovations in the broadest sense include religion and cult.
18 Pausanias, 2.27.2-3 τῷ θρόνῳ δὲ ἡρώων ἐπειργασμένα Ἀργείων ἐστὶν ἔργα
19 Riethmüller, 339-340; Milena Melfi, “Sanctuaries and the Hellenistic polis: an architectural approach,” in
Greek art in motion: studies in honour of Sir John Boardman on the occasion of his 90th birthday, eds. Rui
Morais, Delfim Leão, Diana Rodríquez Pérez and Daniela Ferreira (Oxford: Archeopress publishing LTD., 2019), 15.
20 Dimitrios Bosnakis, “Asklepieion and Physicians,” 61-62
21 Milena Melfi, ‘Rebuilding the myth of Asklepios at the sanctuary of Epidauros in the Roman period,’ in
Roman Peloponnese: Roman Personal Names in Their Social Context. Vol. Iii, Society, Economy and Culture Under the Roman Empire: Continuity and Innovation. Meletēmata, 63, eds. A.D. Rizakis & Claudia Lepenioti (Athens: Research Institute for Greek and Roman Antiquity, National Hellenic Research Foundation, 2010), 329.
22 Milena Melfi, ‘Rebuilding the myth of Asklepios at the sanctuary of Epidauros in the Roman period,’
12
The end of this decline is placed in the second century AD.23 However, for local and regional people, more continuity can be found in sacred activities (see chapter 4).24
Besides the attention to the Panhellenic aspects of the Epidaurian and Koan Asklepieia, most literature deals with healing in Asklepieia, which happened mainly through healing dreams.25 Renberg wrote two major volumes on incubation rituals in the ancient world in 2017, where he also deals with Asklepios.26 Asklepios is generally sought out individually: an ill travelled to the sanctuary for healing. Within the sanctuary, Asklepios healed everyone who was worthy (who did the preliminary rituals and was pure). No class or gender distinction is made, making the cult of Asklepios interesting for a study on multi-vocality.27
Another aspect within the study of Asklepios that receives much attention is the relationship between Asklepios and physicians. The Edelsteins wrote in 1945 that the relationship between physicians and Asklelpios, by calling themselves Asklepiads, is a claim with a lot of practical significance.28 Wickkiser argues that the way Asklepios healed is
reminiscent to rational medical science. For example, Asklepios performed surgery and applied drugs.29 Others argue that the priests were doctors or that the priests at least learned basic
medical procedures.30 According to the Edelsteins, the medicine of Asklepios became more
23 Mainly because of the reorganisation of the sanctuary of Asklepios in Epidauros and expansion of the
Asklepieion in Pergamon under Hadrian, Caracalla’s treatment in Pergamon and further renovation of the Asklepieion of Epidauros by the senator Antoninus. Florian Steger, Asclepius, 59, 90; Adolf Hoffmann, “The Roman remodelling of the Asklepieion,” in Pergamon, citadel of the gods: archaeological record, literary description, and religious development, ed. Helmut Koester (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1998), 41; Van der Ploeg, 107.
24 IG IV²,1 170. This first century BC inscription records a sacred secretary “hiaromnamones”, suggesting that
such religious functions relating to the sanctuary were continuing even in this period where there are no healing dedications. Many other inscriptions record dedications made to Apollo and Asklepios in this period. While not mentioning healing explicitly, they do reflect on continuation in dedications to Asklepios. See for example: IG IV²,1 221-IG IV²,1 225. For further information see chapter 4.
25 Louise Cilliers & Francois Pieter Retief. “Dream healing in Asklepieia in the Mediterranean,” in Dreams,
Healing, and Medicine in Greece: From Antiquity to the Present, ed. Steven M. Oberhelman. (Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2013); Stanley W. Jackson, Care of the Psyche: A History of Psychological Healing (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999); William V. Harris, Dreams and Experience in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2009); Vivian Nutton, Ancient Medicine. 2nd ed. Sciences of Antiquity Series. (Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2012), especially chapter 7; Antje Krug, Heilkunst und Heilkult: Medizin in Der Antike; Emma J. Edelstein, and Ludwig Edelstein Asclepius, 112. They saw the personal contact established through dreams as one of the major reasons why the cult was so popular.
26 Gil H. Renberg, Where Dreams May Come: Incubation Sanctuaries in the Greco-Roman World. Religions in
the Graeco-Roman World, Volume 184 (Leiden: Brill, 2017).
27 For the inclusion of both genders see: IG IV²,1 121 and Herondas, Mime 4. In other healing sanctuaries
distinction was sometimes made between genders, for example in Oropos where they incubated in separate spaces. See: CGRN 75
28 Edelstein & Edelstein, 59.
29 Bronwen L. Wickkiser, Asklepios, medicine, and the politics of healing in fifth-century Greece: between craft
and cult (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008), 47.
30 Louise Cilliers & Francois Pieter Retief. “Dream healing in Asklepieia in the Mediterranean”, 88; Stanley W.
13
rational as time progressed.31 This assertion is untenable: the iamata inscriptions are not less rational than counter-intuitive prescriptions as we know from Aelius Aristides’ second century AD Hieroi logoi.32 Moreover, during both time periods, ‘rational’ medicine was available.33 For Kos, Sherwin-White argues that, although we do not have any healing inscriptions left, it is safe to assume that this sanctuary did not function any less miraculously than Epidauros.34 By trying to establish a functional link, one of medical exchange, between Asklepieia and medical practice, historians try to rationalise something which is inherently irrational to the modern viewer. The miraculous cures of the iamata or counter-intuitive prescriptions could very well be rational to the believers.35 The strong link between medicine and Asklepios is mainly supplementary: when doctors could not cure, Asklepios might be able to.36
Besides, Asklepios was the tutelar deity of physicians. This explains the ritual of the staff on Kos, honorific decrees for Koan doctors recorded in the Asklepieion and offers made by Athenian physicians.37 This fits the argument of Dillon, who contends that even on Kos we
can rule out a close relationship with priests and doctors, although I do think that a close relationship on a religious level existed.38 Medical instruments found at the site or the offers
made by Athenian doctors do not necessarily mean that doctors practiced medicine in Asklepieia.39 As Riethmüller argues, most priests in Athens, Epidauros and probably other sanctuaries switched yearly. At most they had some very rudimentary medical knowledge and even the hereditary priests did not profess the medical profession.40
Understandably enough, the predominant scholarly focus on the Panhellenic or elite interactions with the sanctuaries is due to the survival-bias towards the elite in our sources. This, however, does not have to be case: there is source material from those lower in societal standing. By incorporating these other voices, we can better account for the full complexity of cult. Moreover, most of our epigraphical or architectural evidence would also have impacted
31 Bronwen L. Wickkiser, Asklepios, 46-47; Edelstein & Edelstein, 144. 32 Aristides, Hieroi Logoi; IG IV²,1 121-123.
33 Véronique Boudon-Millot, “Galen’s Hippocrates,” in The Cambridge companion to Hippocrates, ed. Peter E.
Pormann (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 292-314.
34 Susan M. Sherwin-White, Ancient Cos: An Historical Study from the Dorian Settlement to the Imperial
Period. Hypomnemata, H. 51. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1978), 276.
35 R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1963). 36 Wickkiser, 58; for the role of misdiagnoses see Hippocrates, Prorrhetic 2.1.
37 IG II3 1 914; for Koan doctors see chapter 4.
38 M. P. J. Dillon, “The Didactic Nature of the Epidaurian Iamata,” Zeitschrift Für Papyrologie Und Epigraphik
101 (1994): 256.
39 IG II3 1 914. For the medical instruments see: Theodōros Papadakēs, Spyros Meletzēs and Helenē A.
Papadakē, Epidauros: The Sanctuary of Asclepios. 3rd ed. Grosse Kunstführer, V. 59. (München: Verlag Schnell & Steiner, 1973), fig. 20-21.
40 Riethmüller, 389. On Kos, the first doctor and priest to Asklepios was Xenophon, who served as the imperial
14
the non-elite and local visitors, even if they were erected by kings or local elite, as all visitors of the Asklepieia used the same space.
Lastly, it is important to note that one function of a sanctuary does not exclude another. Both in Epidauros and on Kos, the Asklepieion was the main sanctuary of the polis. It seems therefore strange that the focus seems to be concentrated on their role within the entire Greek world and as mainly healing shrines. This research will bypass these hard distinctions by highlighting the different functions the Asklepieia served.41 To do so, a methodology is needed to analyse structures in behaviour (when primary sources are limited) and analysing how the elite-sources impact all visitors. This is discussed in the next part.
Methodology
Greek sanctuaries operated on different levels that coexisted simultaneously. They served local, regional and Panhellenic people, elite and non-elite and included animals and a large variety of gods that, when all combined, create a composite meaning of sacred space.42 An elite bias is not strange given the costs of leaving lasting traces like epigraphical sources.43 Elite agency helped to shape the sanctuary, for example the inscribing of the iamata by the priest or building the sanctuary itself impact many other visitors as well. Small archaeological finds, cult regulations and a combination of different points of view on elite sources (for example: who visited and from where? Were the inscriptions read or part of the cult? How did people move through sacred space and what does that tell us about how people used the space?) can increase our understanding on the different scales on which the sanctuary operated and how the different voices (i.e. people) used and experienced the Asklepieia of Epidauros and Kos.
Natural features of sacred space itself can change how the space was used. For example, the presence of water is necessary before rituals with water can occur. This in turn can lead to
41 The same problem arises in more Asklepieia. For example, the Messenian Asklepieion is interpreted as a
healing sanctuary or as only a political sanctuary (due to the inclusion of some political structures). More illustrating is Melfi saying that there is a problem in choosing the function, while we do not necessarily have to choose: one sanctuary can fulfil both functions. See: Francesco Camia, “The imperial cult in the Peloponnese,” in Roman Peloponnese: Roman Personal Names in Their Social Context. Vol. Iii, Society, Economy and Culture Under the Roman Empire: Continuity and Innovation. Meletēmata, 63, eds. A.D. Rizakis & Claudia Lepenioti (Athens: Research Institute for Greek and Roman Antiquity, National Hellenic Research Foundation, 2010), 380; Van der Ploeg, 50; Milena Melfi, “Ritual spaces and performances in the Asklepieia of Roman Greece”, The annual of the British school at Athens no.105 (2010): 325, footnote 6.
42 Michael Scott, Space and Society in the Greek and Roman Worlds. Key Themes in Ancient History.
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 1-9 for an introduction on space.
43 Angelos Chaniotis, “Moving Stones: the study of emotions in Greek Inscriptions,” in Unveiling Emotions:
Sources and Methods for the Study of Emotions in the Greek World, ed. Angelos Chaniotis (Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag 2012) 102; Bradley H. McLean, An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods from Alexander the Great Down to the Reign of Constantine (323 B.c.-A.d. 337). (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002), 13-14.
15
more buildings being constructed for water-related purposes and in turn create more emphasis on water rituals. Moreover, water is not only used for rituals but during festivals it is a requisite for people staying on the site.44 The presence of snakes living in the area of the sanctuary of Epidauros possibly also influenced their active role withing the curative process of the sanctuary, and subsequently the snake becomes important in iconography as well.45
It is, however, not only natural features that can be used or experienced differently by different people. For a king, a sanctuary could be a place for enhancing prestige – for example by writing down political alliances at a place where many people visited and where the alliance is supervised by the god.46 Simultaneously, for the local elite it could be important to honor kings as a way of adapting to the changing political structures in the Hellenistic world.47 For many other visitors (both male and females, adults and children), the experience could be simply religious, implied by many inscriptions for Asklepios, or athletic.48 Strong connections
between god and individuals are attested in the later Imperial period for Aelius Aristides.49
While this is a later literary work, the personal and intimate contact Asklepios facilitates may have been important for the spread of religion, besides the element of cure.50
Only by incorporating the multi-scalar levels and the multi-vocality of the Asklepieia, is it possible to understand the role of these sanctuaries in ancient Greece. Two theoretical frameworks are utilised for this research: network theory and lived religion. These will be supplemented with other approaches where relevant, such as identity studies or place-making.
44 Hedvig von Ehrenheim Patrik Klingborg, Axel Frejman, and Uppsala universitet
Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet. “Water at Ancient Greek Sanctuaries: Medium of Divine Presence or Commodity for Mortal Visitors?” Journal of Archaeology and Ancient History 26, 1-31 (2019).
45 Pausanias, 2.28.
46 IG IV²,1 68, συνεδρίου φιλίαν εἶναι καὶ [συμμαχίαν εἰς ἅπαντα τὸν χρόνον πρὸς τοὺς] βασιλεῖς Ἀντίγονον καὶ
Δημήτριον. This inscription goes both ways: it is a recognition of the king Antigonos and Demetrios, but also reflects some form of independence by stressing friendship and alliances (if the text within the brackets is correctly restored, which seems very plausible. Kos balances well between different Hellenistic kings. See Rigsby nos. 8-13.
47 IG IV²,1 589, a honorific inscription for Antigonus of Macedonia in Epidauros. Kos, for example, manoeuvred
strategically by interacting with Hellenistic kings and supported Rome from early on, which led to large support from these powers. Louise Wells, The Greek Language of Healing from Homer to New Testament Times. Beihefte Zur Zeitschrift Für Die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Und Die Kunde Der Älteren Kirche, Bd. 83. (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1998), 65; Kostas Buraselis, Kos between Hellenism and Rome. Studies on the Political, Institutional and Social History of Kos from ca. the Middle Second Century B.C. Until Late Antiquity
(Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 2000), 5, 14.
48 Dedication: IG IV²,1 256 (for more see chapter 4); Victory list: IG XII,4 2:453-454
49 Aristides, Hieroi Logoi. See: C. A. Behr, Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1968) 50 See Edelstein & Edelstein 112, where they argue that personal contact was important for Asklepios. For spread
of religion in general: Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries. (San Francisco, Calif.: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997), 3-16. He argues that people convert due to existing personal ties instead of only through belief; Anna Collar, Religious Networks in the Roman Empire: The Spread of New Ideas. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 3.
16
These heuristic tools will help to better understand the multiple functions of the sanctuaries and how they shape or are shaped by the many interactions.
In order to analyse the scales on which the sanctuaries operated, I utilise a network theoretical approach. Network theory focusses on the analysis of contact (ties) between places and persons (the nodes). The ties between places and persons could result into the transmission of ideas from one to another, or through brokers that serve as a shortcut linking networks together.51 Network agents are important within network theory, as these construct, intensify and maintain the network of Epidauros and Kos.52 These agents are, for example, civic elite, athletes and patients found in a variety of source material. I use network theory as a metaphorical framework, instead of statistical analyses due to the fragmentary nature of my evidence.53A multi-scalar approach helps us to understand how the sanctuaries developed and became important through human agency on different scales (local, regional and Panhellenic). To analyse the sanctuaries and their many functions, the framework “lived religion” is chosen. Rüpke’s book On Roman religion: lived religion and the individual in ancient Rome serves as my starting point. He argues that religion is a constant negotiation and performance between people that can alter rituals or experiences, instead of something static that is created by the elite.54 Lived religion, however, tends to focus more on the Roman period than on the Greek world, in part, probably, due to the amount of evidence.55 However, that does not mean that the framework is less useful for the Hellenistic period.
I will incorporate this approach by looking at the ways different people use the Asklepieia. The practice of dedicating, inscribing political alliances or honorific inscriptions all imply a form of strategic choice made by people. By using this framework on the local importance of the sanctuary, the differences in sacred space and ritual between Asklepieia can
51 Network theory: Peregrine Horden and Nicholas Purcell. The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean
History. (Oxford U.K.: Blackwell, 2000); I. Malkin, Christy Constantakopolou & Katerina Panagopoulou, "Preface: Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean", Mediterranean Historical Review 22.1 (2007), 1-9; G. Woolf, ‘Only Connect? Networks and religious change in the ancient Roman world,” Hélade 2 (2016): 43-58.; I. Rutherford, “Network Theory and Theoric Networks”, Mediterranean Historical Review 22 (2007): 23-37; O.M. van Nijf and C.G. Williamson, “Connecting the Greeks. Festival networks in the Hellenistic world”; E. Eidinow, “Networks and Narratives: A Model for Ancient Greek Religion” Kernos 24, no. 24 (2011): 9-38; M.S. Granovetter, “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78, no. 6 (1973): 1360-1380.
52 I. Malkin, A Small Greek World, 16.
53 In line with G. Woolf, “Only Connect?, 43-58.
54 Jörg Rüpke, On Roman Religion: Lived Religion and the Individual in Ancient Rome. Townsend
Lectures/cornell Studies in Classical Philology (London: Cornell University Press, 2016), 4.
55 See: Jörg Rüpke and Greg Woolf (eds.), Religious Dimensions of the Self in the Second Century Ce.
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013); Jörg Rüpke ed. The Individual in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014); Georgia Petridou, "Becoming a Doctor, Becoming a God: Religion and Medicine in Aelius Aristides' Hieroi Logoi", in Religion and Illness, edited by Annette Weissenrieder, Gregor Etzelmüller (Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books) 306-335.
17
be better placed in context: local rituals are, in this sense, an end product of appropriation of the cult. Lived religion also incorporates “experiences, actions, beliefs, and communications”.56
All these interactions are also, possibly, an explanation of the decline of votive offers in Epidauros during the second century BC; different interactions and choices are made instead of continuously reproducing a set of established practices.57
Both network theory and lived religion can be combined to analyse the multi-vocality of the Asklepieia. A multi-vocal approach tries to give credit to all the people that are involved or used the sanctuary in whatever way. What motivated people to go to these sanctuaries (both from afar and local)? What did they do and leave at the site? How did the poorer part of society interact with the space and how does that differ from the richer and the elite? How and why did other cities specifically link themselves with Epidauros and Kos? What are the different meanings ascribed to the Asklepieia?
Source material
The most relevant sources left are inscriptions. Inscribing stones or other durable material was costly, and thus likely placed by people with more wealth.58 However, for example, within the iamata inscriptions, however, some non-elite local people are attested – a local boy without money is striking.59 Moreover, several inscriptions were part of the ritual process or were read
out loud.60 Cautiously, even though they were set up by the elite, it will be possible to overcome
the elite-bias.
The inscriptions vary in content: they range from victory lists of the festival to cult regulations, but also include political alliances, manumissions and honorific inscriptions. They are all included to give an overview on the other functions and agents involved with the sites. On Kos there are no healing inscriptions left, but many inscriptions relating to the grant of asylia in 242 BC. These reflect on the political world of the Hellenistic period and the interplay of religious and political functions of a sanctuary in general. Moreover, Kos has a group of sacred regulations that illustrates certain behaviour at the site.61
Literary sources will be included as well. Many of the literary references to Asklepios are collected by Edelstein & Edelstein and this work is my starting point for further literary
56 Jörg Rüpke (2016), 42-43.
57 This does, however, not mean that they completely disappeared. 58 Angelos Chaniotis, “Moving Stones” 102.
59 IG IV²,1 121.
60 Chaniotis (2012b), 100-103.
18
references.62 Among them are also many Roman sources, some of which reflect on older practice and are thus valuable for my current study. For example: while we do not have any treatment records of Kos left63, Strabo informs us “also of the votive tablets on which the treatments are recorded, just as at Kos and Tricca”.64 Pausanias’s second century AD
Description of Greece is a good starting point for his description of Epidauros, although he has to be used with caution for earlier periods.65 For Kos and the cult on Kos, our main source is Herondas’ fourth mime.66
Archaeological records are mainly incorporated in relation to the lay-out of the sanctuaries, as evidence for the interplay between space and religious practice.67 Votive offers found at the Asklepieia will also be used to analyse the cultic function of the sites. Small votives, for example, can give some insights in who visited the sanctuary and will contribute towards how non-elite impacted the site.68
Thesis structure
The historiography has shown that for the Asklepieia of Epidauros and Kos the focus is mainly on one function or audience of the sanctuary, while essentially all functions and audiences are interconnected. Thus, the research question posed in the beginning is an urgent one to ask: How did the Asklepieia serve multiple purposes for multiple audiences at multiple scales? Who used them, at which moments, and what can we say about their scope and multi-vocality based on the extant sources?
To answer these large questions, some other questions have to be addressed. What is the mythology of Asklepios? How did Epidauros and Kos become large centres of Asklepios worship? How did the sanctuaries establish their networks? How did they develop and who were the network agents? And what was their function? In order to give credit to the many ‘voices’ within the sanctuary, several questions will be addressed: how was the sanctuary used by different people? How was the site experienced by different people? What is the interplay between elite material and sacred space?
62 Edelstein & Edelstein. 63 Bosnakis, 64.
64 Strabo 8. 6.15. Translation from Edelstein & Edelstein, T.382. Trikka in Thessaly was supposedly the
birthplace of Asklepios (see chapter 2).
65 Pausanias, 2.27.1-2. His description of the cult statue, for example, is our only knowledge on the statue. 66 Herondas 4. It is argued by Wells that “mimes” reflect on normal practice. Louise Wells, The Greek Language
of Healing from Homer to New Testament Time, 66.
67 Riethmüller. His second volume is a list of every source for the Asklepieia; Elisabetta Interdonato,
L'asklepieion Di Kos: Archeologia Del Culto. Supplementi E Monografie Della Rivista "Archeologia Classica" (Roma: "L'Erma" di Bretschneider, 2013).
19
The structure of the thesis is as follows: I will first discuss the theoretical framework more in-depth. Next is a brief introduction on Asklepios and the Asklepieia of Epidauros and Kos. Chapter three deals with the multi-scalar networks of the Asklepieia. Lastly, I will analyse the multi-vocality of the site by discussing the many functions of the Asklepieia and the many people involved in chapter 4.
20
Chapter 1: Theoretical framework
This chapter focusses on the different theoretical approaches that in combination are used as the interpretative approach to ancient Greek sanctuaries. They are supplementary theoretical approaches, as the human agents of the network also have agency that contribute to the multi-vocality of the site (see below). Lived religion will give more insight in how the site was used and what importance people gave to the site through action and choice. I start with multi-vocality and will then move into approaches that will develop this concept regarding the Asklepieia, namely network theory and lived religion, respectively.
1.1: Multi-vocality
Multi-vocality is an abstract concept that can most easily be explained by using a music metaphor of a choir: different singers all contribute their part to the song as a whole. Without one of these voices, the song will be different. In a sense, this is what multi-vocality is for an ancient religious site as well. These sites have many different layers, stories and people interacting with the sacred space. All contribute in their own way: travellers like Pausanias write about the place, people dedicated to gods, athletes competed with each other during festivals and kings and later emperors interacted with sanctuaries and the sanctuaries interacted with the kings. Multi-vocality will be used to research the different uses of the site, the different agents that interacted with the site and, importantly, how combined they can give an integrative view of the Asklepieia of Epidauros and Kos in its entirety, not preferring one function or group of people above the others.
The definition of multi-vocality given in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology is: “Literally, ‘many voices’; an approach to archaeological reasoning, explanation, and understanding that accepts a high degree of relativism and thus encourages the contemporaneous articulation of numerous different narratives or parallel discourses.”69 This
definition, however, adopts the view that it is modern people that adopt different positions to interpret the past, i.e. the archaeologists. What is left out is that people in antiquity also interacted in different ways with, in my case, Asklepieia and adopted different positions and attitudes towards the site. As Alcock argues, that while sacred space can be seen as “bulwarks of continuity”, the activities done at the site or the interpretations given to them are subject to change.70
69 Oxford Reference, “Multivocality” last seen 19-6-2020
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.201108031002162325
70 Susan E. Alcock, Archaeologies of the Greek Past: Landscape, Monuments, and Memories. (W.b. Stanford
21
Hodder lists some dangers that occur with multivocality in "Multivocality and Social Archaeology".71 They mostly relate to modern problems, but some are relevant for the approach of this thesis. He writes “that multivocality has to be seen as part of a wider political, social, and economic context. It is not enough just to allow different stories about the past to be heard. We have to engage with the realities behind the stories.”72 This engagement is somewhat
problematic: our evidence obscures the view of the voices that did not leave clear marks on the site. A wooden votive – or an edible offer – is less durable than a stone inscription, for example. By overcoming this problem through combined theoretical approaches and close-reading of our sources, multi-vocality enriches our understanding of the ancient world.73 Taking this further, Scott argues that space itself is a fluid construct, articulating practices of behaviour. The meaning attributed to space is dynamic and interaction with space is subject to change depending on the user.74 Essentially, this means that a multi-vocal approach gives more insight
into the sacred space in this study, due to the inclusion of more layers of society and a variety of uses and meanings.
What contributes to multi-vocality are discussions on place-making. Different people interact differently with the same place, because “Guided by various motives, people enact place for many reasons: to disseminate propaganda; to reveal the politics of context; to perpetuate tradition; to instill beliefs and values; and to rebel against these patterns. Places whose outward form may thus appear permanent and universal are founded on the experiential, associational, and ephemeral nature of dwelling and being.”75 Important in this process, but also with networks and lived religion, is agency: humans are the agents that create networks, attribute meaning to place, use places in a way that in turn can alter the meaning ascribed to the place and try to make the sanctuaries under study part of their own lives by interacting with them in various ways. What motivated them is important. While looking for these motivations in ancient sources is difficult, it is a very good starting point for analysing multi-vocality.
Close reading and reading between the lines provides an outcome to some problems regarding the evidence. For example, in the iamata inscriptions, compiled by priests, there are three different groups of people that interacted with these inscriptions: the patient, the priest
71 Ian Hodder, "Multivocality and Social Archaeology," in Evaluating multiple narratives: beyond nationalist,
colonialist, imperialist archaeologies, ed. Junko Habu (Dordrecht: Springer Science Business Media, LLC, 2008).
72 Ian Hodder, "Multivocality and Social Archaeology,” 197.
73 Lisa-Marie Shillito, “Multivocality and Multiproxy Approaches to the Use of Space: Lessons from 25 Years of
Research at Çatalhöyük.” World Archaeology 49, no. 2 (2017): 248.
74 Michael Scott, Space and Society, 1.
22
and the visitor.76 The reality is that these inscriptions were made by the priests, but the stories reflect on older votives and sometimes even explain certain landscape anomalies, such as a large stone in the sanctuary of Epidauros.77 The patient is in some cases a female, giving agency to a group that has been given limited agency so far. Friese’s research on the gender aspect is valuable as it suggests that within the innermost part of the sanctuary of Epidauros gender became secondary, with women participating in the same rituals as men.78 Moreover, placing inscriptions of manumission, for example, gives a voice to the slaves that were freed, but also create the idea of a sacred promise by placing these in proximity to the sanctuary.
Due to the antiquity of the Asklepieion of Epidauros, the Asklepieion had to be given meaning by a variety of people in the past as well. In chapter 2 we will discuss the history of the sites further, but it is important that there seems to have been a competition between Trikka, Messene and Epidauros as to where Asklepios was born – and thus which place should be seen as the most important Asklepieion.79 It was when the Oracle of Delphi proclaimed Epidauros
as the birthplace, that the Epidaurian story became dominant.80 In Late Antiquity, the emperor
Julian the Apostate (r.361-363 AD) even had to defend the dissemination of the cult to other places against Christian attacks.81
Whatever their status, all visitors left their traces (directly or indirectly) on the Asklepieia through their agency. They invest in the site by leaving inscriptions, small votives or creating stories. They claim (part of) the space by doing so and these spaces in turn help to shape the identity of the sanctuary and of the people interacting with it. Moreover, people also experienced the space by doing rituals, by competing– sometimes cheating82 – or spectating in athletic competitions at site.
Some examples might help to conceptualise the premise that all the different layers and voices combined reveals complexity of ancient Greek sacred space, specifically Asklepieia. On
76 Clarisse Prêtre, “Diaphonie et symphonie La propagande polyphonique du sanctuaire d’Asklépios à Épidaure”
in Griechische Heiligtümer als Handlungsorte: Zur Multifunktionalität supralokaler Heiligtümer von der frühen Archaik bis in die römische Kaiserzeit, eds. Klaus Freitag and Matthias Haake (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2019), 177.
77 LiDonnici, 40. She argues that there are deliberate redactorial hints found within the iamata which imply that
the iamata were redacted by cult personnel, probably priests.
78 See Wiebke Friese, “Of piety, gender and ritual space: An archaeological approach to women’s sacred travel
in Greece,” in Excavating pilgrimage archaeological approaches to sacred travel and movement in the ancient world, eds. Wiebke Friese and Troels Myrup Kristensen (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2017), 49-50, 58-59. In some healing sanctuaries there were separate spaces for women and men, for example in Oropos where men and women incubated apart. See CGRN 75.
79 Alexia Petsalis-Diomidis, Truly Beyond Wonders: Aelius Aristides and the Cult of Asklepios. Oxford Studies
in Ancient Culture and Representation. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 35-37.
80 Van der Ploeg, 46.
81 Julian, Against the Galileans 200A-B. 82 IG IV²,1 99II; IG IV²,1 99III.
23
the highest level, several Hellenistic kings supported Kos, among them Ptolemy Philadelphos who was born there.83 Cities recognised the request of Koan asylia, helping Kos to navigate through a period of political instability.84 The answers given to these requests are inscribed on the island, serving as examples and reaffirmation for many generations.85 Moreover, Kos itself inscribed a law that prohibited the cutting of wood from the sacred grove – a law that was upheld by the Romans when Turullius, a general of Mark Anthony, felled trees in the grove.86 The last example for Kos is Herondas’ fourth mime. He describes the sanctuary and two women going there. What is important to take from this story is that it reveals gender inclusion. Moreover, the sacrifice was a relatively cheap cock, which was not a problem according to the priest. This implies that the sanctuary was accessible for poorer people as well.87
Epidauros’ main sources are the healing inscriptions. Close-reading them reveals a lot about the visitors of the site, why they came, how they should behave (and sometimes how they did not behave), how they experienced the site and what they left. Within the inscriptions, there were people who at first do not believe the miraculous healings. We encounter a scared girl, a poor boy and a man going to the sanctuary not for healing but for finding his son.88 These
inscriptions also ascribe an active role to the snakes and dogs in cult practice.89 Many stories of Epidauros include the migration of an Epidaurian sacred snake to another city, where subsequently a sanctuary was set up to the god. All these stories try to claim Epidaurian origins, their stories highlighting past connectivity.90 These stories are part of the multi-vocality of the space; they help to shape the importance given to the site by Pausanias and the communities claiming Epidaurian origins.
Activity at the Asklepieion continued well beyond the Hellenistic period. During the early stages of the Roman Empire, there is a large increase in statues of the Roman imperial
83 Rigsby, 106. 84 Bosnakis, 66-73.
85 Aleida Assmann & Linda Shortt, Memory and Political Change. Palgrave Macmillan Memory Series. (New
York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 4-6. They argue that individual stories are often preserved orally over at most three generations, while those who are community-related survive. Inscribing them (see Rigsby nos. 8-46 for Kos) makes them survive for the community. Paul Connerton argues that memory of the past legitimises the present social order, making inscribing the asylia decrees important for later generations as well. Paul Connerton How Societies Remember. Themes in the Social Sciences. (Cambridge England: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 3.
86 IG XII,4 1:284; van der Ploeg, 89. 87 Herondas 4.
88 IG IV²,1 121 (nos. 3-4); IG IV²,1 121 (no. 5); IG IV²,1 122 (no. 24); IG IV²,1 123 (no. 44). 89 IG IV²,1 121 (no. 17 and 20) for example.
90 See Pausanias 3.23.6-7; Livy, Epitomes 11; Ovid, Metamorphoses 15.640-745; IG II2 4960a; IG IV²,1 122, no.
24
family, the sons of Augustus as patrons of the site and the new added festival Kaisarea.91 For Epidaurians this was a way of connecting to the new political order; for the Romans, it served as affirmation of their rule, anchored in existing traditions.
Only by taking in all the different uses and users of the sanctuaries, the complexity of the Asklepieia can be understood. Many of the people involved in the sanctuary were also fundamental in establishing Panhellenic and regional networks, thus network theory can help to understand the sanctuaries from a multi-scalar point of view and lived religion helps to understand how the sanctuaries functioned in different ways for different groups of people.
1.2: Network theory
Networks, unlike the cures of Epidauros, are not established miraculously. It required many human agents and time to make the Asklepieia of Epidauros and Kos Panhellenic places in the Mediterranean world. In this part, I will discuss network theory, which serves as the basis of the third chapter. How these specific networks are established, the agents involved, their function and role within the history of the Asklepieia of Epidauros and Kos are further discussed there. There are essentially two ways network theory can be used: quantitatively or qualitatively, i.e. by analysing the networks with large datasets or as a metaphor useful as a cognitive framework.92 I opt for the second option: as a tool to think with, which is due to the
fragmented nature of some of my evidence as well as the complexity of different network agents involved over time.
Network theory comes from sociology and was later incorporated in computer studies.93
One of the main and most important functions of networks is that ideas can spread from one side to another through different ties.94 These flows of information between nodes that are tied with each other in the network can be split into two: direct and indirect flows of information through strong and weak ties. Strong ties are a direct link from place A to B. A weak tie is a friend (C) of person A that is not linked to person B directly. However, due to the common ties
91 IG IV²,1 101; IG IV²,1 593; IG IV²,1 594; IG IV²,1 600; IG IV²,1 604; IG IV²,1 596; IG IV²,1 597; Peek,
Asklepieion 260; Van der Ploeg, 126.
92 For more in depth explanations on networks for ancient history see: T. Brughmans, "Thinking through
networks: a review of formal network methods in archaeology", JArchMethTh 20, (2013): 623-662; A. Collar et al., "Networks in Archaeology: Phenomena, Abstraction, Representation", JArchMethTh 22, (2015): 1-32; B. Mills, "Social Network Analysis in Archaeology", AnnRevAnthr 46, (2017): 379–97.
93 Two fundamental studies are: Stanley Milgram, “The Small World Problem”, Psychology Today (1967):
60-67; Duncan J. Watts, Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age. (New York: Norton, 2003).
25
with A, information from person C can travel to person B as well without a direct link (and the other way around).95
Figure 1: Networks with a weak tie as a shortcut within two otherwise unconnected networks. From M.S. Granovetter, “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78, no. 6 (1973):1365, fig. 2.
Granovetter argues that the weak ties are shortcuts within the network; the information has to travel through fewer nodes than if the network consisted of strong ties only (see figure 1).96 In a network that includes weak ties, information can also come from outside the
strong-tie network, through random connections. Brokers are important in this regard, as they serve as the connector between two strong tie networks (they become the weak tie). These can be human agents, for example those who travelled from a polis to the sanctuary and brought back knowledge or experience on the cult to his home community.97 Stories can, however, fulfil a role as well: they transmit knowledge, combine networks and are vital in maintaining networks.98 These ties can create information cascades: “What all information cascades have in
95 Fundamental in the study of weak ties is: M.S. Granovetter, “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal
of Sociology 78, no. 6 (1973): 1360, 1362, 1372.
96 M.S. Granovetter, “The Strength of Weak Ties.” 1360, 1362, 1372; Malkin, 27; O.M. van Nijf and C.G.
Williamson, 45.
97 Malkin, 16.
