Ritual Usage of Water in Greek Sanctuaries

Klio 2023; 105(1): 1–50 Patrik Klingborg – Hedvig von Ehrenheim – Axel Frejman* Ritual Usage of Water in Greek Sanctuaries https://doi.org/10.1515/klio-2021-0059 Summary: Scholars have long highlighted the importance of water for rituals in Greek sanctuaries, but little is known about when and how it was used in practice. Considering the importance attributed to water in rituals at Greek sanctuaries, this article aims to explore water as a purificatory agent for humans and things and as an offering, pure or water mixed with wine, to the gods in the form of libations. Throughout the paper we argue that these activities were located on a spectrum from mundane to religious and can be viewed within a “spatio-temporal” framework where they functioned as visual cues in order to structure activities. To achieve this, we closely and critically examine the empirical material, epigraphic and literary, supported by archaeological and iconographic evidence. Keywords: Greek Religion, Water, Purifications, Washing, Libations 1. Introduction Scholars have long highlighted the importance of water for rituals in Greek sanctuaries,1 in particular for ritual purifications and healing.2 While water was certainly important for such rituals, previous studies have been based on limited data, and in-depth analyses of the material are mostly lacking. Moreover, several other ritual activities could also require water. This article explores how, where, and when water was used for ritual purposes in Archaic-Hellenistic Greek sanctuaries, focusing on the purification of humans and things as well as libations. It is argued that these activities were located on a spectrum from mundane to religious. Purification of worshippers further adhered to a “spatio-temporal” framework, progressing from the domestic to the divine sphere. For cleaning things and keeping good order in sanctuaries, the concept of eukosmia added a religious dimension to otherwise 1 Ritual is in this article understood as religious ritual and sanctuary is used to denote the sacred precinct and adjacent areas in its close surroundings. 2 Ginouvès 1962, 234–396; Parker 1983, 19, 226; Cole 1988; Kerschner 1996, 98; Cole 2004, 36; Dunant 2009, 277; Burkert 2011, 122; Horster 2019, 207; Kobusch 2020, 69, 77–78; Zimmermann 2020, 90. *Kontakt: Patrik Klingborg, E-Mail: patrik.klingborg@antiken.uu.se; Hedvig von Ehrenheim, E-Mail: hedvig.vonehrenheim@antiken.uu.se; Axel Frejman, E-Mail: axel.frejman@antiken.uu.se Open Access. © 2023 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. This work is licensed under the 2 Patrik Klingborg – Hedvig von Ehrenheim – Axel Frejman mundane acts. Purifications and libations could further constitute visual cues to structure ritual enactment and participation by onlookers at the sanctuary. These insights are the result of a close and critical examination of the empirical material, focusing mainly on epigraphy and literature. It is, however, important to acknowledge that water was not only used in ritual activities.3 In fact, current evidence suggests that the vast majority of water resources at sanctuaries were needed for visitors and animals, to drink, prepare food, wash, clean buildings and items, as well as water plants. Construction would also require large volumes of water, often for extended periods of time.4 Such uses are important to note as there is little evidence that the Greeks differentiated between “sacred” and “profane” water, and only rarely was water from a specific source reserved for ritual or utilitarian usage.5 Furthermore, activities that we perceive as ritual or utilitarian from our etic perspective were integrated in a range of tasks at sanctuaries and physically interwoven through the water infrastructure. Thus, while ritual and utilitarian activities can be perceptually separated, it is impossible to ignore how they affected each other. We therefore hold that there was a spectrum from mundane to religious usage of water, rather than a dichotomy of sacred and not sacred. In this article we explore the sacred end of the spectrum. 2. Method and Methodological Concerns Studying the ritual use of water in Greek sanctuaries presents a number of challenges, from what evidence has shaped our knowledge, to how modern perceptions have influenced interpretations. These challenges span a wide range of fields. Importantly, this study differs from previous works through its emphasis on the evidence, here based on up-to-date and extensive searches of testimonia in order to form a large body of material, which could be used to identify what evidence we actually have, rather than reconstructing practices based on limited testimonies.6 Furthermore, we have approached activities using water without notions of an embodied sacredness of water in itself, rather seeing water as a medium for different activities at the sanctuary. One important concept we apply is that of eukosmia, where a clean and appealing sanctuary constituted a physical mirror of good world 3 Ehrenheim – Klingborg – Frejman 2019; Frejman 2020, 71–78; Klingborg accepted. 4 Klingborg accepted. 5 For an exception, see Thuc. 4.97.3; Klingborg accepted. 6 In order to do this, extensive searches were performed using Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) and the Packard Humanities Institute inscription database (PHI). Ritual Usage of Water in Greek Sanctuaries 3 order.7 Because of this, even though individual acts of cleaning were not necessarily religiously charged in themselves, they can be viewed as religiously significant within their greater context. One consequence of our critical review is that some evidence, often viewed as central, takes a subordinate role. For example, in vase depictions showing water usage in a religious setting it is usually impossible to ascertain the media used or spatially locate events in a specific type of context, or ritual zone at a sanctuary, making them unreliable sources for specifically studying the use of water at sanctuaries.8 The literary and epigraphic material offers numerous challenges, in terms of chronology, what was intended to be communicated by the texts, and how scholars have used them. In this article the material from the Archaic to Hellenistic period is considered together rather than in shorter time spans. While this is problematic since practices changed over time,9 looking at the material in more focused periods creates other issues due to the small number of testimonies. The literary material is also Athenocentric, making it easy to misinterpret regional practices as applicable to the wider Greek world. Moreover, tragedies have often been given primacy because of their interest in pollution and miasma.10 We follow Ian Ruffell’s view of Greek tragedies as a form of fiction.11 Similarly to how vase paintings are viewed, he argues, tragedies are not making truth claims about the real world.12 Comparable issues exist with other genres. In any fictive work, though, enough of the setting of the story must be intelligible to the viewers for the imaginative plot to make sense. The here relevant epigraphic evidence is dominated by ritual norms, as defined by Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge.13 While uniquely informative in terms of ritual practices, they offer highly localized, often fragmentary evidence. They contain specific instructions while simultaneously presupposing a profound understanding of the practices at the specific site, often leaving hints about 7 This concept has been studied by Horster 2019 among others. 8 Kerschner (1996, 110) notes this specific problem for exploring where perirrhanteria were located in relation to altars. Trinkl (2009, 164) holds that some features in a depiction, such as a perirrhanterion, altar, or single column signify a sanctuary, while other symbols are associated with sacrifices. This seems somewhat simplistic as all these elements could be found in other contexts. 9 Ekroth 2012b, 96. 10 E.g. Fabian Meinels’ recent book “Pollution and crisis in Greek tragedy” (2015). 11 Ruffell 2017, 32. 12 Ruffell 2017, 34. For the interpretation of vase paintings, see e.g. von Reden 2003, 202–203. Beard (1991, 20) notes that an image in a Greek vase painting of a domestic scene is not a “picture of, but a statement about domestic life” (italics in original). 13 Carbon – Pirenne-Delforge 2012, 163, 171–172. 4 Patrik Klingborg – Hedvig von Ehrenheim – Axel Frejman rituals without providing central information.14 Inventories form another important source as they list ritual paraphernalia, providing indirect evidence about practices including those using water utensils. It has been proposed that inventories existed in all Greek cults, but that inscribing them on stone occurred primarily at Attica, Delos, and Didyma.15 The extant lists could be organized in different ways. Tullia Linders has shown that the Brauronia inventories follow the material from which the objects are made.16 In other cases, the order reflects spatial distribution in the sanctuary, for example per building and room.17 Importantly for our purpose, in some cases, objects stored together seem to reflect functional assemblages.18 The use of things registered in inventories is less discussed. Often lists have been viewed as enumerating objects stored or on display.19 However, there is evidence to the contrary as gifts and rites could be intertwined.20 Other objects are listed as broken or in need of repair, presumably because they have been in use,21 14 E.g. in the dossier of regulations concerning the cult of the Goddess at Marmarini (CGRN 225) it is stated that “If anyone touches it [an altar], let him make a purification (καθαίρω) according to the public notice of the precinct”, but we do not know what this notice said. 15 For inventories, see Aleshire 1989, 103. Generally, the principal question in scholarship has been establishing the purpose of inventories. This includes debates on the types of objects, their donors, and the functional and symbolic values of listing these, see Scott 2011, 239–241. 16 Linders 1972, 35, n. 16; 1988. Of course, each inventory has its own context and history to be taken into account when analysing its content. See for instance the many relocations of objects documented through the Acropolis inventories as well as thematic groupings according to value (silver, gold), or the almost cultic display of inventory lists at Lindos (Shaya 2014). 17 Linders 1988, 38; Scott 2011, 242. 18 In some records it could be argued that, as enumeration of objects was done from one place of storage to the next, objects amassed together belonged to a set activity and could in theory have been used with each other, or at least have been conceptually linked. Such groups of associated objects can e.g. be seen in IG I3 1456 = IG IV2 2, 1037, lines 13–20, where, in the house of the temple attendants a bronze kettle, a χερόνιπτρον, a phiale, an axe, a lever or bar, a machaira, a kline, a bronze wash basin, a ladle and a strainer were enumerated. In this case one area of usage could be sacrifice and handling of the meat. In the Delian inventories, the sheer size of the sanctuary and its many visitors made for numerous votive objects and cult paraphernalia, and among these practical items. Record keeping of broken objects also suggests they were indeed used in sanctuary activities. 19 See for example Linders 1972; 1975; 1988; 1992; 2007; Günter 1988; Aleshire 1989; Harris 1994; 1995; Brosius 2001; Hamilton 2000; 2003; Harris-Cline 2005; Pébarthe 2006, 278; Scott 2011, 243; Shaya 2014. 20 E.g. at the mid-third-century BCE Asklepieion on Kos where the monarchos and the hieropoioi should donate two silver phialai for the libation during each festival, see IG XII 4 286 = CGRN 139. Note that the restorations are partly based on a second copy (IG XII 4 287). 21 Objects in use: e.g. gold phiale used for libation in the pronaos of the Parthenon, IG I3 292, lines 6–7. Broken objects: Günter 1988, 230 esp. n. 85. Objects in need of repair: e.g. IG II2 840, lines 18–28. It should be noted that ageing and decay without use is also evident. On Delos the lists for example mention gold that has fallen off statues, see Linders 1988, 40. Legs of statues are also noted as miss- Ritual Usage of Water in Greek Sanctuaries 5 and some items, such as oil, can hardly have been intended for perpetual display.22 Finally, the use of objects in inventories would contribute to the need for these records. In terms of archaeological material, perirrhanteria and louteria form a particularly important yet complicated body of evidence due to the centrality of purification. The primary methodological challenge is how to archaeologically distinguish between these types of vessels, both of which resemble flat bird baths on pedestals or stands. Overall, it is held that perirrhanteria were used for ritual activities, purification in particular, while louteria were used for utilitarian tasks.23 The shape of the two is, however, simultaneously so varied within the types and so similar between the two categories that a convincing physical differentiation cannot be found, especially for fragments. Overall, it is better to think about these objects as defined by their function and context, not their shape. Finally, the lack of, for example, perirrhanteria at a sanctuary does not mean that purifications were not performed, as other vessels could have been used. Overall, we assume that similar basic cultic needs existed at all sanctuaries. Another issue is the degree to which the same practices were observed in sanctuaries as domestic contexts, as much of the literary evidence portrays household settings. Christine Sourvinou-Inwood argued in 1988 that private religion was differentiated from state cults only in scale, with the individual being the basic cult unit.24 This would indicate that domestic and sanctuary contexts were similar in a religious sense. In contrast to this, Christopher Faraone argued in 2009 that family and household worship was “both quantitatively smaller than and qualitatively different from the cult of the city or the neighborhood”, e.g., through the replacement of animal sacrifices with vegetarian ones.25 Janett Morgan held that in domestic contexts boundaries could be created by ritual behaviour rather than physical demarcations.26 Whichever view one takes, there were important differences between rituals at sanctuaries and other contexts, in particular for purification. The lack of a precinct at houses ensured that purification at a set border could ing, see, e.g. IG XI 2 199, Face B, line 59; ID 1417, Face B, col. i.i. line 3. Presumably parts falling off was a result of the objects being on display outside. Moths have furthermore been suggested to be responsible for the deterioration of textiles, see Günter 1988, 230. 22 A rare instance, IG XI 2 144A, line 32 (Account of the Hieropoioi, ca. 304 BCE, see also SEG 26:857), mentions oil and linen cloth for the χέρνιβον. If objects were in regular use, the oil and linen cloth could be explained as anointing oil for the hands after the wash, and towels, or as consumables used to clean and polish the vessel before use. 23 Fullerton 1986; Kerschner 1996, 117; Pimpl 1997, 5. 24 Sourvinou-Inwood 1988, 264–268. 25 Faraone 2009, 211, 223. 26 Morgan 2007, 116. 6 Patrik Klingborg – Hedvig von Ehrenheim – Axel Frejman not be performed in the same sense as at a sanctuary.27 It is also unclear to which degree other rules, e.g. abstinences, periods of waiting, and more specific cult regulations were relevant in domestic cult. 3. Terminology The terminology, or rather words,28 relevant for religiously significant water usage at Greek sanctuaries can primarily be divided into three categories: acts, types of water, and implements. These words, in turn, were used in various settings. Firstly, worshippers and sacrificial animals had to be pure when approaching and entering a sanctuary. Secondly, various purifications inside the sanctuary required water, for example during sacrifices. Thirdly, water was used for some activities not connected to purity, such as libations. However, water was not the only means to purify in Greek sanctuaries, and other media such as fire, animal blood and sulphur are also attested.29 Below follows a brief overview of the most relevant terms from texts dating from before the first century CE, in order to make the following analysis more comprehensible. The necessity of worshippers to be clean or pure when interacting with the divine, or entering the sacred precinct, is well attested in the textual evidence.30 In general worshippers were expected to be clean, or pure, expressed as being καθαρός,31 or ἁγνός.32 The need for purity could also be phrased in a negative sense 27 In tragedy these spheres may blend, such as in the case of Eur. El. 790–796. 28 Most terms used in connection with religious use of water in sanctuaries are also used in other meanings in secular contexts, thus, there is no specific terminology. Ἁγνεύω, though, is usually limited to religious purity or sanctity, while verbs such as καθαίρω and λούω are often used outside the religious sphere. The basin for washing hands, χειρόνιπτρον, is likewise often used outside religious contexts, while the περιρραντήριον is not used outside ritual contexts. Χέρνιψ, when used in plural, designates the religious washing of hands, but can generally just mean water for washing the hands. As a rule, Greek terms that occur frequently in this article have been transcribed after the first use. 29 Ekroth 2002, 251. Sulphur was also used for purifications not performed at sanctuaries, e.g. Hom. Il. 16.228. 30 Note that the requirement may be described rather than spelled out with a simple verb, as in one case when worshippers are stepping in the waters in order to become pure, καθαρός (Eur. Ion 94–97). 31 Eur. El. 794; the adjective is used as ritually pure (though less in sacred norms connected with sanctuaries), see e.g. IG XII 5 593 = CGRN 35, face A, line 31 and face B, lines 6–7 (pure from funeral); IG XII 4 332 = CGRN 85, face A, line 20. 32 Eur. Iph. T. 1191; e.g. IG XII 3 183 = CGRN 224, line 3. Ritual Usage of Water in Greek Sanctuaries 7 as avoiding to be unwashed, ἄνιπτος.33 In most cases the requirements for being clean or pure was implicit, but sometimes the cause of impurity is spelled out34 (e.g. murder,35 sex36 and death37), as well as the method needed to rectify this.38 Overall, the ways in which purity was achieved, and the associated terminology, is complex and the terms are often combined.39 For general purification, ἁγνεύω,40 ἁγνίζω,41 and καθαίρω42 were often used. The regulations found at sanctuaries stating that the worshipper must be pure from various miasmata are numerous, but a limited number date to before the second century BCE.43 Common words used for purifications with water are λούω44 33 Hom. Il. 6.266; Hes. erg. 725. However, neither example is from a sanctuary context. 34 E.g. Plat. leg. 881e.3. In the epigraphical habit, the cause of impurity is spelled out in the majority of cases, as different miasmata required different periods of abstinence before entering the sanctuary. 35 Plat. leg. 865b.1. In the epigraphical material, this called for an intricate ritual of purification, involving ritual expertise, see e.g. Dobias-Lalou 2000 = CGRN 99, face A, lines 33–39. 36 Aristoph. Lys. 904–913; ID 2376 = CGRN 203, line 5. 37 Anonymus Alexandri frg. 236.25–237.2 (Thesleff); IG XII.Suppl. 126 = CGRN 181, line 2. The Pythagorean fragment in Anonymus Alexandri frg. 236.25–237.2 (Thesleff) can also be found in Alex. Polyh. frg. 140.128–137 (Müller) and Diog. Laert. Pythagoras 8.33. Note that it has also been given as an Aristotle fragment in the past (5.30.195.1–9, Rose). In this article, Anonymus Alexandri frg. 236.25–237.2 (Thesleff) will be used to refer to the passage. 38 Anonymus Alexandri frg. 236.25–237.2 (Thesleff, see note 37 above). 39 In particular Hippokr. morb. sacr. 148.55–57/4.55–60 and Anonymus Alexandri frg. 236.25–237.2 (Thesleff, see note 37 above). 40 E.g. Anonymus Alexandri frg. 236.25–237.2 (Thesleff, see note 37 above); I.Ephesos 3401 = LSAM 29 = CGRN 71, line 1; IG IX,2 1109, line 40; IG XII.4 332 = LSCG 156–157 = CGRN 85, face A, line 11. 41 E.g. Eur. El. 793. Also used for purification with fire, see Eur. Herc. 1145; Eur. Supp. 1211. 42 E.g. Plat. Krat. 396e.4; Plat. leg. 881e.3; IG IV 1607 = CGRN 3, lines 13–14. In epigraphy, καθαίρω, however, often denotes the purification of a whole sanctuary (without the use of water, e.g. NGSL 20 = CGRN 38, line A11). Also used for purification with sulphur (Hom. Il. 16.228). See also e.g. καθαρίζω (NGSL 7 = CGRN 155, line 5) and καθαρεύω (Plat. leg. 759c.3; Demosth. or. 59.78.9; Anonymus Alexandri frg. 236.25–237.2 (Thesleff, see note 37 above). 43 E.g. Parker 2018, 29; Petrovic – Petrovic 2018, Table 2. See Petrovic – Petrovic Table 1 for norms concerning purity, but with no periods of abstentions. Petrovic – Petrovic conclude that the cults prescribing abstentions had Eastern origins, or were influenced by traditions from Egypt or Asia Minor. Additionally, other types of information on regulations concerning cultic activity also tend to be more specific in Late Hellenistic and Roman times, e.g. the use of a particular type of cake or libation, and purity regulations may also conform to this development. 44 E.g. Aristoph. Plut. 657–658. 8 Patrik Klingborg – Hedvig von Ehrenheim – Axel Frejman and νίζω,45 while χερνίπτομαι46 and περιρραίνω47 as well as ἐπιρραίνω48 and περιαγνίζω49 have more specialized meanings. The first general term, ἁγνεύω, is found in a Pythagorean fragment regarding how to approach the gods, specifying various forms of purification presumably using water: καθαρμός, λουτρόν, περιρραντήριον.50 Epigraphically, ἁγνεύω is in some cases attested with the specification λούω (to wash), strengthening the connection to water.51 Ἁγνίζω occurs in Euripides’ Electra as Orestes ascertains that he had been cleansed through a bath in a river, making further purification unnecessary.52 Finally, καθαίρω is used for purifications, generally in the broader sense to purify the sanctuary or on an occasion out of the ordinary, whereas to be καθαρός is used for the rules applying to all those wanting to enter the sanctuary.53 To purify could also be expressed as “to perform a” καθαρμός.54 For example, in an exchange in “Iphigenia in Tauris” the protagonist is asked if she should use water from the spring (πηγή) or sea for the καθαρμός.55 The terms connected directly to water are of greater interest here. Given the meaning of λούω, to wash, or in medium diathesis, to bathe or to wash oneself, it is assumed to have been performed with water even when the medium is unspeci- 45 E.g. Eur. Iph. T. 1191. Water specified for nizô e.g. in Hom. Il. 16.229. 46 E.g. Lys. 6.52.5. 47 E.g. Aristoph. Lys. 1130. 48 E.g. Theokr. eid. 24.98. 49 TAM V,1 530 = CGRN 211, line 14, cf. line 6: the ordinary worshipper is to hagneuô. 50 Anonymus Alexandri frg. 236.25–237.2 (Thesleff, see note 37 above). 51 Use of hagneuô concerning purification of worshippers from miasmata such as sex, birth, or death, upon entry into a sanctuary: e.g. I.Ephesos 3401 = LSAM 29 = CGRN 71, line 1; LSCG Suppl. 119 = CGRN 144, line 2; IG XII 4 330 = LSCG 163 = CGRN 163, line 12 (concerning a priest). In these instances the concept of being pure, hagneuô, or entering being εὐσεβής (or similar expression) is explicitly linked to washing off (λούω) the said miasmata: IG XII Suppl. 126 = LSCG 124 = CGRN 181, line 4 and 11; TAM V 530 = LSAM 18 = CGRN 211, line 12; LSCG, Suppl. 54 = CGRN 217, lines 3–4. 52 Eur. El. 793. 53 To purify a temple or precinct, using the verb καθάιρω, though not with water: LSCG Suppl. 33 A, line 10; CGRN 38, Decree A, line 11; CGRN 90, lines 28–29; CGRN 157, line 36. To purify a person, using καθαίρω: e.g. IG XII 4 332A = CGRN 85, face A, line 1 (emend.) (a priest); LSCG 154 = CGRN 148, face B, lines 52 and 73. To be καθαρός, as in to be pure, can be seen in e.g. Milet. VI.1 202 = LSAM 51 = CGRN 214 (with the specification of after having washed off said miasmata, using louô). 54 TAM V 3 1539, line 13 = CGRN 191, line 13. Note that καθαρμός can also have the meaning of κάθαρμα, that which is thrown away following the purification. 55 Eur. Iph. T. 1191. For the use of καθαρμός in the epigraphical record, see e.g. IG V 1 1390 = CGRN 222, face A, line 67, but not denoting a purification with water here. For further epigraphical examples, see e.g. CGRN 99, face A, line 2, καθαρμοῖς καὶ ἁγνηίαις; IG XII 1 72 = CGRN 148, line 5, ἁγνεῖαι καὶ τοὶ κα[θαρμοὶ. Ritual Usage of Water in Greek Sanctuaries 9 fied.56 Moreover, the verb is above all used in the aorist participle, λουσάμεν-, indicating that the action was completed.57 In some instances, λούω was also used for initiations.58 The word νίζω, and the variant ἀπονίζω,59 are also connected to the use of water when denoting purifications. Yet νίζω could also use blood, usually in purifications after a murder.60 In the “Iliad”, the word is used for washing cups and hands with water before libations and prayers.61 The form ἀπονίζω, used in the medium, could signify to wash off from oneself, a graphic description of how a miasma might have been perceived.62 Several of these actions could also be used to wash or purify objects. For buildings we find κατανίζω, to wash well.63 For statues, the word λούω seems to have been used, and possibly also πλύνω as suggested by the Plynteria festival.64 Additionally, the verb πλύνω (or fortified, ἐκπλύνω or ἀποπλύνω) could be used for the cleaning of the entrails of sacrificial animals, or the altar after the wrong sacrifice had been offered.65 In these cases, however, the acts seem to have been more utilitarian in character. The more specialized terms for purification were usually reserved for human 66 use. Χερνίπτομαι is attested only a small number of times and usually interpreted as purifying the hands, based on its etymology. Yet, at least in one instance, a tragedy, χερνίπτομαι is used for the hair on an intended human sacrifice.67 In this case the act probably symbolized the dedication of the victim to the god. Further- 56 Ginouvès 1962, e.g. 235–238, on purificatory washing after birth. Other media such as blood are never mentioned for louô. 57 E.g. IG II2 1365; IG II2 1366; ID 2530 = CGRN 217, lines 3–4; IG XII 5 593 = CGRN 35, face A, line 30; Miletos 13 = LSAM 51 = CGRN 214, lines 12–13; TAM V 1 530 = LSAM 18 = CGRN 211, line 12; IvP II 255, line 6. 58 Dignas 2002 = CGRN 98, face A, line 8. 59 Jameson – Jordan – Kotansky 1993 = CGRN 13, face B, line 4. 60 Eur. frg. 16.18 (Page); Herac. frg. B.5 (Diels – Kranz). For other terms describe the purification from murder with water see, e.g. hagnizô (Dion. Hal. ant. 1.39.4.7) and possibly καθαρμός and louô (Aischyl. Sept. 737–738) assuming that blood could not be the medium for the second term. 61 Hom. Il. 16.228–232; 24.302–313; Od. 2.260–266. 62 CGRN 99, face A, line 30. Cf., somewhat differently used, IG IV2 1 121, line 63. In this Asclepian cure a slave is told by the god to wash off a slave mark on his forehead in the sanctuary fountain. 63 IG XI 2 219, line 33. 64 IG II3 879 = CGRN 136, line 26 (λοῦσαι τὰ ἕδη). Cf. IG XII 4 348 = CGRN 96, face A, line 20, with καθαίρω supplanted, translated by Carbon in CGRN 96 as wash. 65 Probably in Men. Dysk. 548. See also IG XII 4 278, line 35, ἐκπλύνω; Dobias-Lalou 2000, 297–309 = CGRN 99, lines A 27–30, ἀποπλύνω (clean the altar). 66 See Dion. Hal. ant. 7.72.15.4–6 for an exception as περιαγνίζω is used for the sacrificial animals. 67 Eur. Iph. T 622. 10 Patrik Klingborg – Hedvig von Ehrenheim – Axel Frejman more, περιρραίνω68 was the term used for sprinkling, together with related terms such as ἐπιρραίνω69 and περιαγνίζω.70 Importantly, as has been noted by Cole, the Hippocratic author of De Morbo Sacro uses the middle voice, περιρραίνεσθαι, indicating that the worshipper sprinkle him- or herself around.71 These words are often connected with sanctuaries72 and sacrifices,73 and twice water (ὕδωρ) is specified as the medium.74 In other cases the water can be referred to as χέρνιψ75 and ἀπόβαμμα.76 Notably, χέρνιψ occurs as the medium for περιρραίνω, showing that it was not limited to the washing of hands but could also be used in other contexts.77 Several objects for containing water were connected to purifications. Of these περιρραντήρια (related to περιρραίνω) are well attested, in particular in inscriptions.78 Overall, the object is associated with borders, both for sanctuaries79 and semi-sacred spaces such as agorai.80 Corresponding terms also existed for 68 E.g. Aristoph. Lys. 1130. The verb itself, perirrhainô, is rare in inscriptions (e.g. IvP II 255 = LSAM 12 = CGRN 212, line 8). 69 E.g. Theokr. eid. 24.98. 70 TAM V,1 530 = CGRN 211, lines 13–15 for the purification of hetairai. All other worshippers in the inscription should hagneuô and louô. The only literary example is from a Roman context (Dion. Hal. ant. 7.72.15.5). 71 Cole 2004, 45–46, also with references to iconography showing worshippers reaching for a perirrhanterion with their right hand (LIMC II [1984]) s.v. Apollo, no. 469. A simple whisk made out of e.g. twigs could have been used according to LSJ. s.v. περιρραντήριον, although the examples given do not support this. See also Ginouvès 1962, 299–301, who, based on primarily vase paintings, explores both the use of a whisk as well as the right hand in the sprinkling. 72 Aristoph. Lys. 1129–1132; Hippokr. morb. sacr. 148.55–57/4.55–60; Theophr. char. 16.2. 73 Aristoph. Lys. 1129–1132; Men. Sam. 157–159; Theokr. eid. 24.96–100. 74 Men. Phasma 55S–56S; Theokr. eid. 24.98. See also Theophr. char. 16.12 where the act is done by the sea, as well as De Mirabilibus Auscultationibus 833a.26 (previously attributed to Aristotle, see Barnes 1984) where water is specified but in a non-religious industrial context. 75 E.g. Thuk. 4.97.3–4. This term is not attested in the epigraphic material. 76 IG IV 1607 = CGRN 3, line 2. This term is not attested in the literature. 77 Aristoph. Lys. 1129–1132. 78 E.g. Hdt. 1.51.14–20; Aischin. Tim. 21.7–8; Ctes. 176.1–4; Anonymus Alexandri frg. 236.25–237.2 (Thesleff, see note 37 above); Theoph. De pietate 13.22–26 (Pötscher); IG II2 1544 = I.Eleusis 158, line 67; FD III 5:48, line 24; IG XI 2 161 face B, line 126. In one sacred norm, perirrhanterion is substituted by hagisteria (IvP II 255 = CGRN 212, line 9, cf. Kerschner 1996, 107). For one later case, see a sacred norm from Lindos, LSS 91 = Petrovic – Petrovic 2018, 232–233, line 2, dated to the third century CE (Petrovic – Petrovic 2018, 233). For the variant περιρραντής, see I.Sardis 7 (1).117. For the variant ἀπορραντήριον, see Eur. Ion 435; IG I3 317, line 5, ἀπ̣[ορ]ραντέριον ἀργυρõν. See further, on the archaeological evidence, Pimpl 1997. 79 Theoph. De pietate 13.22–26 (Pötscher). 80 Aischin. Tim. 21.7–8; Ctes. 176.1–4. Ritual Usage of Water in Greek Sanctuaries 11 χερνίπτομαι and χέρνιψ: χειρόνιπτρον81 χερνιβεῖον82 and χέρνιβον.83 Pimpl argued that this was a term associated with a function and spatial location in the sanctuary rather than a physical form.84 For the washing of the feet, a vessel known as ποδανιπτήρ (or ποδάνιπτρον) existed.85 Χέρνιβον and ποδανιπτήρ, and to some degree περιρραντήρια, occur close to each other in inventory lists, possibly implying that they were physically stored close to each other, and thereby used together, either at sacrifices or at dining; in any case objects recorded as broken suggest that these gifts had been put to use.86 But importantly, not only specialized vessels were used in the cult. Ὑδρίαι are frequently depicted in procession and sacrificial scenes on vases, as well as attested in sanctuary inventories, although they did not necessarily contain water, despite their name.87 The same can be said about οἰνοχόαι which may have contained wine or wine mixed with water.88 Λέβητες holding 81 E.g. IG II2 1469, line 91. 82 E.g. IG I3 1459, lines 12–13; IG II2 1400, line 41 (made of silver), 1638, line 54. 83 E.g. IG XI 2 164, face B, line 28. See also πρόχοος, a vessel sometimes used for pouring water over the hands, which also appears in inventories and donors’ lists (e.g. IG XII 4 278, line 25 = CGRN 86 stele D, line 25, a sacrificial calendar at Kos; IG XII 6 1:261, line 54, accounts of the treasurer at the Heraion on Samos; IG XI 2 199, face B, lines 82–83, an inventory from Delos). It is attested as holding chernips in a recurring phrase connecting to dining in the “Odyssey” (Hom. Od. 1.136; 4.52; 7.172; 10.368; 15.135; 17.91) but also alongside a χέρνιβον during prayer in one case (Hom. Il. 24.304). In one occurrence a πρόχοος was used for wine during dining. In Euripides (Ion 435) an ἀπορραντήριον is filled from a golden πρόχοος, and in Sophocles (Ant. 430) one of bronze is used for libations over a corpse. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (ant. 2.23.5) mentions libations from a πρόχοος in a Roman context. 84 Pimpl 1997, 61–65, see p. 63 in particular. 85 These occur repeatedly in temple inventories, see e.g. IG II2 1425, line 393; IG XI 2 161, face B, line 127. See Kerschner 1996, 97. Trinkl (2009, 168) suggested that water in these vessels was used to encourage animals to bow their heads before the sacrifice. Additionally, Philetas (see Athen. 467f) wrote that in Cyrene they used the word δῖνος for ποδανιπτήρ. 86 Among inventories objects without base or bottom are found (e.g. πυθμήν οὐκ ἔχων), broken (κατεαγώς or other forms of κατάγνυμι), without ears (ὦτα οὐκ ἔχων), or broken in a general sense (οὐχ ὑγιής). E.g. IG II2 1469, lines 91–100 (many broken items, Athens, Inventory of the treasurers of Athena and other gods); IG XI 2 161, face B, lines 126–127 (hand basins which had been pierced through, two broken foot basins). 87 Trinkl 2009. In inventories, e.g. IG II2 1372, lines 7–10; IG II2 1400, lines 23–32. On contents other than water, see Trinkl 2009, 159–161. Note that the term hydrophoros is only attested twice in a religious context (Theophr. De pietate frg. 18, lines 20 and 28 [Pötscher]; SEG 30:1286 from Didyma). See also Trinkl 2009, 169. 88 Inventories, e.g. IG I3 386–388. For depictions on vases, see e.g. Beazley Archive 2944, 24242 and 202618, as well as wooden panel A, dated to the second half of the sixth century BCE, found in a cave near Ano Pitsa in Corinthia. 12 Patrik Klingborg – Hedvig von Ehrenheim – Axel Frejman χέρνιψ are attested.89 Furthermore, λουτήρια (including associated variations)90 and ὑδράνᾱ also appear in the epigraphic material.91 Finally, libations were primarily described with two terms: σπένδω (with the noun σπονδή)92 and χέω (and the noun χοή),93 although other words, such as ἐγχέω,94 λείβω,95 and προχέω96 were also used. Scholars have argued for a distinction between σπένδω and χέω, where for the former a small amount, usually wine, was poured in the name of the Olympians, while a full vessel of e.g. milk or honey for the latter in the name of chthonian deities and tomb cult.97 Occasionally the terms are combined.98 The terms for religiously charged usages of water in association with Greek sanctuaries are thus numerous, diverse, and partly overlapping. Notably, they did not form a set ritual terminology with specific, technical, meanings and most of the terms were used in non-sanctuary contexts as well. We have therefore been closely concerned with the context of each text in our interpretation. 4. Ritual Uses of Water at Sanctuaries Having established that a contextual reading is essential, the empirical material can be approached. Starting with purification of humans, we move from preliminary rituals at home, to rituals upon arriving at the sanctuary and finally inside the sacred precinct. After this we turn to the purification of animals and things such as altars, images, and structures. In doing so we focus on the different ways water 89 Hom. Od. 3.440–442. 90 ID 1442, line B 20, λουτήριον (Delos); IG IV 39, line 19, ἐγλοτήριον (Aegina). 91 IG V 1 1390 = CGRN 222, line 37. 92 Beeks 2010, s.v. σπένδω. The former term was also used for peace treaties as forming these entailed the symbolic pouring of libations together (Burkert 2011, 115. See e.g. Hdt. 3.144; Thuk. 1.18.3; Aristoph. Pax 1082). The word carried the same meaning in private life, see Eur. Med. 1140. The story about how the noun came to mean treaty or peace is related in Diod. 3.71.6. 93 Beeks 2010, s.v. χέωομαι. See further Casabona 1966, 231–297; Ekroth 2012a, s.v. Libations, Greek; Gaifman 2018a, 1. 94 LSJ: pour in; Antiph. In novercam 1.19; LSCG 87 = CGRN 123, line 5. Ἐγχέω has a broad use, otherwise designating e.g. to pour wine in your own cup, to drink. When it is used in the context of a libation, it is specified with e.g. ἐγχεῖν σπονδήν. 95 LSJ: pour, pour forth, e.g. Aischyl. Suppl. 981. See also with the noun λοιβή, e.g. Eur. Ion 1201. 96 LSJ: pour forth or forward, e.g. Hdt. 7.192. 97 Graf 1980, 217; Naiden 2015, 464; Ekroth 2012a, s.v. Libations, Greek. However, this distinction is not absolute (see Burkert 2011, 114). 98 In Eur. Or. 1322 σπένδω is used with χοή. Ritual Usage of Water in Greek Sanctuaries 13 was used for cleansing with regard to space, time, and purpose, including where on the spectrum from mundane to religious this took place. Following purifications, we turn to another ritual use of water: libations. Throughout, we investigate how water was used to structure ritual activity by involving the participants and creating visual cues. 4.1 Purifying Humans Scholars have long stressed that purifications were performed before entering a sacred precinct or performing religious rituals.99 In the words of Andrej and Ivana Petrovic, purity “was perceived as an elementary prerequisite for successful communication with the divine”.100 How and where this was done has, however, received less attention. In our material the specifics of the purification are rarely mentioned, while in a number of cases the actions can be spatially anchored in, and in relation to, sanctuaries, particularly at the entrance of a sacred space and at altars, but also at temples.101 A number of passages are informative concerning how purifications were performed in general, without providing a temporal or spatial fix. For example, in a Pythagorean fragment it is said that “Purity [ἁγνεία] is obtained by purifications [καθαρμοί], ablutions [λουτρά], lustrations [περιρραντήρια], and by remaining uncontaminated [καθαρεύω] by death, birth, and all pollution”.102 In another case, a passage by Plato concerning popular healings and purifications, we read that baths [λουτρά] and sprinklings [περιρράνσεις] make a man pure in body [σῶμα] and soul [ψυχή].103 This points to a notion that purity of body, i.e. physical cleanli- 99 E.g. Burkert 2011, 117, 125; Parker 1983, 19–20. 100 Petrovic – Petrovic 2016, 27. 101 The conceptual and practical specifics of purifications are not as well known. Empedocles’ lost work “Purifications”, D4–D40 (Laks – Most) may have treated the topic, but there is no consensus regarding the nature of this text. See also Pollux (Onomasticon 1.8, 25, 32), discussed in Kerschner 1996, 107. 102 Anonymus Alexandri frg. 236.25–237.2 (Thesleff, see note 37 above). Translated by Laks – Most (LCL 527). 103 Plat. Krat. 405a–b. The passage can be identified as concerning popular healing as it mentions medical practitioners, soothsayers etc, rather than priests as would be expected in a sanctuary (see Lloyd 1979, 37–49, on popular as well medical healings of the time). Kerschner (1996, 97) took the passage at face value, holding that Plato meant that the two acts had the same purpose. Cole (2004, 46, n. 81) argues that Plato’s argument is that λουτρά and περιρράνσεις had the same effect, and that this suggests that “they were in fact separate acts, even if differing only in degree”. 14 Patrik Klingborg – Hedvig von Ehrenheim – Axel Frejman ness, and purity of the soul were connected in ancient Greece.104 If this notion is correct, it would fit the spatio-temporal framework, as shown below, moving from washing at home to sprinkling at the entrance of the sacred precinct, while simultaneously moving along the spectrum of activities from mundane to ritual as one approached the sanctuary, being increasingly concerned with purity as a cognitive notion and less with the physical aspect of it. As will be shown below, achieving the purity needed to visit a sanctuary was a process rather than a single event. How to purify varied geographically, chronologically, and according to different miasmata, as well as what type of communication with the deity was sought. Certain forms of miasma, e.g. from death, sex and birth, required both a period of waiting and purification before arriving.105 For instance, from the first century BCE, at the Metroon at Maionia, worshippers were required to keep pure (ἁγνεύω) from different pollutions for a varying number of days, as well as to wash off (λούω) from these.106 The aorist form λουσάμενον suggests that the washing was to be made well before entering the precinct. Similar instructions are known from, for example, the sanctuary of Athena Nikephoros in Pergamon where worshippers were to be pure, using the term hagneuô, from contact with various sources of pollution or miasma, including sex, birth, and death before entering – either by avoiding them, washing them off, or waiting for a time period before entering in addition to washing them off. In this case two actions involving water are mentioned: louô and perirrhainô, where the former entails the washing off before approaching the sanctuary, and the latter is the sprinkling at the gate of the sanctuary.107 The place where the worshippers were to wash (λούω) is not stated, but the time to wait and the washing are given as a set action before 104 Petrovic – Petrovic 2016. 105 E.g. LSCG 171 = CGRN 162; ID 2529 = LSS 59; IvP II 255 = LSAM 12 = CGRN 212; Miletos 13 = LSAM 51 = CGRN 214; TAM V,1 530 = LSAM 18 = CGRN 211. 106 TAM V 1 530 = LSAM 18 = CGRN 211. 107 IvP II 255 = LSAM 12 = CGRN 212. In this inscription, it is stipulated that all who enter the sanctuary of the goddess shall be pure, ἁγνευέτωσαν (aorist imperative, third person plural). Various miasmata are enumerated from which the worshipper must be pure, by a combination of, for some miasmata, abstinence and having washed off the miasma, λουσάμενοι. The aorist use of louô suggests that the action is made before approaching the sanctuary. Interestingly, and unusually, the act of sprinkling by perirrhanteria (or, as they are called here, hagisteria) before entering the sanctuary is also mentioned in the inscription (lines 8–9, περιρασάμενοι καὶ διελθόντες τὴν πύλην, καθ’ ἣν τὰ ἁγιστήρια τίθεται), interpreted by the CGRN as an additional washing before entering for those having come into contact with a corpse. It might also be another way of saying that all those who have followed the correct entry requirements as concerns contact with various miasmata, are pure to enter after also the public sprinkling by the entrance. Ritual Usage of Water in Greek Sanctuaries 15 which they may not enter the area, emendated as ἱερόν.108 This suggests that it was done before leaving the home. Several other inscriptions testify to similar practices.109 For a parallel in the literature, as early as 430 BCE Herodotus stipulated that worshippers should not enter sanctuaries unwashed (ἄλουτος) from sexual activities.110 Comparably, in Aristophanes’ Lysistrata Myrrhine rejects her husband’s sexual invitations saying that she would no longer be pure (ἁγνή), preventing her from going back to the Acropolis. He then promptly answers that she could wash (λούω) at the Klepsydra fountain. Here the act of washing after sex follows the patterns seen in ritual norms.111 Overall, the passing of time, usually a number of days, is often combined with louô. The word furthermore suggests that the act involved a thorough washing rather than a symbolic act.112 This is supported by some inscriptions where louô is specified as over the head (κατὰ κεφαλῆς), or on the head (κατὰ κεφαλήν or λουσάμενοι κατακέφαλα), indicating a more thorough cleansing or purification.113 Notably, in cases where a period of waiting was required, it is not specified if the washing marked the beginning or the end of the abstinence. Furthermore, the compact nature of the inscriptions leaves it to us to interpret if the washing pertained to all the mentioned miasmata or just the last one in the row. For some examples it is not clear whether some miasmata would require only an abstinence 108 IvP II 255, line 3 (note, though, Fränkel, emend. ναός) = LSAM 12 = CGRN 212 (emend. ἱερόν), with commentary. 109 An inscription dating to the end of the second century BCE in the sanctuary of Syrian deities on Delos instructs visitors to be pure (λούω) from a number of foods such as fish and swine, and also from usual miasmata such as birth and miscarriage (ID 2530 = CGRN 217). See further Wächter 1910, for different categories which required washing off or waiting periods, or which were strictly forbidden when entering the defined precinct of the god. In the text, λουσάμενον is placed after the mention of swine, but it is apparent that all the listed miasmatic activities are to be washed off in combination with varying waiting periods, following which the sanctuary may be approached. For similar instances of hagneuô and louô used together in this sense (being pure by having washed): e.g. TAM V 530 = LSAM 18 = CGRN 211. Enter being pious/religious, εὐσεβής (not using ἁγνεύω): LSCG 124 = CGRN 181. See further Wächter 1910, as well as the examples and discussion in Petrovic – Petrovic 2018. 110 Hdt. 2.64, in which the author states that the Egyptians and Greeks are more careful in avoiding intercourse in sanctuaries, or to enter these unwashed after sexual relations, than other peoples. 111 Aristoph. Lys. 912–914. Cole (2004, 58) makes a literal interpretation of the passage, suggesting that sex was allowed in the sanctuary of Pan. We prefer to read this as part of the joke – it was as ridiculous to have sex in the cave of Pan as it was to purify, louô, in the Klepsydra. 112 Beeks 2010, s.v. λούωομαι. 113 E.g. Müller 2010; LSCG Suppl. 65 = CGRN 68; NGSL 7 = CGRN 155. See Ehrenheim 2022. Ritual purification over the head is further described, once, with cherniptomai (Eur. Iph. T. 622) although the specific setting makes this particular passage difficult to interpret. 16 Patrik Klingborg – Hedvig von Ehrenheim – Axel Frejman of a certain number of days, or both a washing off and the period of abstinence.114 In some cases, a chronological order can be suggested, assuming that the miasma is connected to the removal of bodily fluids. Based on this it could be argued that the purificatory washing took place immediately after contact with the miasmata (e.g. sex) or later, e.g. after birth, as the mother bleeds for some time following this.115 While the purification performed at home was part of a ritual preparation, it was also concerned with physical matter, including dirt, e.g. dust, mud and sweat. This connects to the concept of eukosmia, the need to keep sanctuaries in good order,116 114 The norms vary, there was no one set way on how to purify. For instance, in the second century BCE norm from the sanctuary of Syrian deities at Delos (ID 2530 = LSS 54 = CGRN 217, lines 3–4) the worshipper is prescribed to be pure from fish on the third day, that is not eat fish for three days before entering the sanctuary. The text continues, that the worshipper could enter the sanctuary on the same day after having eaten swine, but after having washed (λούω). Then follows instructions on waiting periods for other miasmata: sexual contact with a woman, three days, contact with a woman who had given birth, seven days, after miscarriage, 40 days, after menstruation, nine days. Presumably louô was a minimum requirement intended to be understood for the other cases as well. Many sacred norms only mention the number of days, e.g. NGSL 8 = CGRN 189, Lykosoura; IEphesos 3401 = LSAM 29 = CGRN 71, lines 1–6, Metropolis. A short purity regulation from Maionia may be helpful (TAM V 530 = LSAM 18 = CGRN 211). In order to enter the precinct, the worshipper must have waited (be pure from, ἁγνεύω) for five days after having participated in the funeral of a relative, three days if it was not a relative. The worshipper could enter on the same day after having had intercourse with his wife, after having washed (λούω). The standard, though disputed opinion, is that participants in a funeral washed themselves in connection with the participation (Parker 1983, 36 n. 15). In the funerary law from Iulis on Keos they certainly wash (λούω) with water (IG XII 5 593 = CGRN 35, line 30, 425–400 BCE). In a purity regulation from an unknown sanctuary at Eresos (turn second/first century BCE, LSCG 124 = CGRN 181, lines 1–10), it is made explicit that funeral participants should both wash (λούω), and wait for a number of days before entering the sanctuary. Then, miscarriage and birth are given different days of abstinence, but after sex with a wife, the worshipper may enter on the same day after washing (λούω). Given the compact nature of inscriptions, it is thus likely, that things which were done habitually were not explicitly mentioned. 115 In the case of contact with death there is evidence suggesting that the purification was immediate for those visiting the house of the deceased or taking part in the funeral. For the mourners, still living in the house of the deceased person, different periods of waiting were required before being able to enter a sanctuary. In drama it was customary to place vessels outside the house of a deceased individual for those who attended the wake, to purify themselves after leaving the house. See Aristoph. Eccl. 1033 where λήκυθοι with water is mentioned and Eur. Alc. 98–100 for χέρνιβες. Parker (1983, 35) suggests that water for these vessels was collected from a neighbouring house, as the house of the deceased individual was considered polluted. 116 Many sacred norms attest to cult personnel responsible for maintaining the physical tidiness of their sanctuaries (see e.g. Georgoudi et al. 2005, 56–60). Eukosmia is not very often mentioned in inscriptions concerning sacred matters, but it can be seen, for instance in IG II2 950, line 11, as the responsibility of the priest to keep eukosmia of the sanctuary (cult of Asklepios, Athens, 165/4 BCE or 150/49 BCE). The concept of eukosmia in a physical sense has recently been studied by Horster (2019, 212–214), as she analyses Euripides’ Ion in its socio-religious context. She connects good order, Ritual Usage of Water in Greek Sanctuaries 17 or for humans to keep clean and tidy. As such, the purification at home commenced the spatio-temporal movement from the domestic sphere towards the sanctuary. In a city, wealthy people may have had access to water for the louô at home. Less well-off individuals, probably the vast majority, would have had to rely on the public water supply. In these cases, they may have brought water to a private setting, or tried to wash at the fountains. Iconographic evidence strengthens the notion that some washing was done at home. On one vase, a young boy is shown cleaning using a basin with the traditional wreath of the Anthesteria lying beside him; the scene has therefore been interpreted as the ritual washing before partaking in the festival.117 Ritual purification before the sanctuary could also be performed without the presence of a specific pre-existing miasma. There are several examples of this from domestic contexts and presumably the same logic could be applied for sanctuaries. In Euripides Electra (790–796), Orestes had to be purified through a bath (λουτρόν) without any specific miasma being mentioned, in order to approach the altar and the chernips there. However, he claimed that this was not needed because he had already cleaned (ἁγνίζω) himself through a pure bath (καθαρὸν λουτρόν) in a river. The purification before setting out for ritual activities had thus already been performed. This is also the case in the Argonautica, where Artemis bathes (λούω) in a river before travelling to a sacrifice, despite being unable to be impure in terms of miasmata.118 She must therefore be removing physical dirt and this presumably mirrors regular human behaviour before religious activities. Overall, washing without specific pre-existing miasmata strengthens the notion that the removal of physical dirt was as important as ritual purity at the beginning of the spatio-temporal framework. This is further supported by the use of fresh clothes in tandem with the cleaning. For example, in the “Odyssey”, Penelope is to bathe and put on clean clothes before praying to the gods, and Alcestis in Euripides’ homonymous play first washes (λούω), then dresses, and finally prays at the goddess’s altar.119 Thus, the initial washing was performed outside the sanctuary, and involved both becoming physically clean and pure as in removing miasmata. If applying the concept of a spectrum of ritual impact, the water usage at home was a starting point for approaching the divine, the physical washing being an important component of it. The evidence suggests that this first purification constituted a relatively thorough cleaning, to rid oneself of any specific miasma or to ensure general purity, eukosmia, upheld by Ion in the sanctuary where he served, with the more ideological concept of divine order. 117 Beazley Archive 15975 (National Museum of Athens no. 1264); Ginouvès (1962, 305) interprets the setting as at a house due to the absence of a column in the image. 118 Apoll. Rhod. 3.876–884. 119 Hom. Od. 17.48–51; Eur. Alc. 158–162, although this is a complicated case. 18 Patrik Klingborg – Hedvig von Ehrenheim – Axel Frejman while also aiming to ensure physical cleanliness. Since this was done before leaving the home it was performed in private, as a personal act of piety, and up to the conscience of the individual. On the way to the sanctuary, further, previously unrecognized, intermediate purifications could be performed.120 These were carried out after the washing at home, but before purifications at the entrance of a sanctuary, and without replacing these. In Euripides’ Ion the verb ἀφυδραίνω was used to describe how the inhabitants of Delphi should purify in the Kastalia before approaching the temple.121 Notably, this spring is located ca. 270 metres from the precinct of Apollo. This purification therefore appears to be distinct from both the thorough washing (λούω) before setting out and the purification immediately by the entrance of the sacred precinct. Another example of a spatially and conceptually intermediate purification may be attested in Aristophanes, where a man is washed (λούω) in the sea on the way to the sanctuary of Asklepios in Piraeus.122 Intermediate cleanings could perhaps also take place in close proximity to the precinct. At the sanctuary of Asklepios at Epidauros, an iama from ca. 350 BCE testifies to the presence of a fountain (κράνα) just outside the sacred precinct (ἱερόν), in which a newborn child miraculously washed (λούω) himself.123 Similar water supply structures are known close to a number of other sacred precincts.124 In contrast to this, a few cases are known where washing (λούω and πλύνω) at fountains in or near a sacred precinct was explicitly forbidden,125 although these prohibitions are more likely 120 The washing in the sea, either in Phaleron or Piraeus, in connection to the Eleusinian mysteries (Plut. Phok. 28; Parker 2005, 347; Burkert 2011, 428; Cosmopoulos 2015, 18), is not treated in further detail here as it is in a highly specific context. 121 Eur. Ion 94–97. Here we follow Parke’s interpretation of servants (θέραψ) as the inhabitants of Delphi. Notably, this is the only mention of the Kastalia being used for purifications (Parke 1978, 202–203, 215). The purification may have been performed through a foot bath, since the text can be read either as the participants stepping in the water of the fountain (presumably its overflow) and washing before proceeding, or as walking to the fountain in order to wash. In the former case this would be a rare example of a foot bath as part of the ritual purification before entering a sanctuary. 122 Aristoph. Plut. 657–658. The chernips in Aristoph. Av. 850 is also located spatially in such an intermediate location. However, the presence of the sacrificial basket suggests that the water was intended to be used at the altar, not on the way there. For a later potential example, see Paus. 5.16.8 where it is noted that the Sixteen Women and the Elean umpires purified (ἀποκαθαίρω) in the Piera fountain (κρήνη) located along the road from Elis to Olympia. 123 IG IV2 1, 121.1–7, iama A1; for the date see LiDonnici 1995, 76–82. Here the Doric form of κρήνη is used. 124 Instances include the fountain at the entrance of the sanctuary of Artemis at Lousoi (Glaser 1983, 58–59, no. 43, fig. 107) and the Minoia fountain at Delos (Glaser 1983, 15–16, no. 8, figs. 23–29). 125 Λούω: IG XII 5 569. Πλύνω: ID 69; IG XII 5 569. The second term suggests the washing of things, not humans. Ritual Usage of Water in Greek Sanctuaries 19 an indication of the ubiquity of this occurrence than a general practice not to wash in fountains. These intermediate purifications are important as they differed both from those at home and those performed at the entrance of a precinct before going in. Spatially, they take place in a public sphere, but usually away from the eyes of worshippers and officials in the sanctuary. As such they were located in a zone belonging neither to the private, nor to the god. Functionally intermediate purifications may primarily have been aimed to remove physical dirt that had accumulated on the way to the sanctuary.126 This may explain why in some cases they seem to have taken place near the sanctuary entrance, ensuring that little or no more dirt would be accumulated before entering the site. At the same time, in terms of religious needs, intermediate purifications presumably also contributed to further ensuring ritual purity. There is thus both a spatial and conceptual difference between intermediate purifications and those taking place at home or at the entrance of the sacred precinct. Upon crossing the limits of the sacred precinct, further purifications were performed. It has repeatedly been argued that the most frequent rite involving water at Greek sanctuaries was sprinkling from a perirrhanterion at the entrance.127 This sprinkling was performed in full sight of all about to enter, and thus comprised a clear visual marker of who was pure enough to step in, and thereby who belonged to the group, as noted by Susan Cole.128 The amount of water needed was presumably small and, besides the purificatory function, the importance lay in the visual enactment of sprinkling.129 The most common perception of how this act was performed is that worshippers dipped their right hand in the basin and then sprinkled water around his or her body, but no source describes the act.130 In fact, ritual norms rarely specify how or where sprinkling would have been conducted, and in literary sources it occurs only a handful of times.131 126 While the cleanliness, or lack thereof, in Greek society is still a debated topic, we hold that it would usually be difficult to move around in urban landscapes without accumulating dirt of various kinds, see Wilson 2000; Gränzer et al. 2011; Liebeschuetz 2015, 3–18. See also Scobie 1986 for a (hair-raising) Roman perspective based on more extensively preserved primary sources. During longer trips to sanctuaries outside urban societies there can be little doubt that it was impossible to avoid getting dirty regardless of season. 127 Ginouvès 1962, 299–310; Cole 1988, 162; 2004, 44–47. 128 Cole 2004, 45–46. 129 Parker 1983, 227; Cole 2004, 45. 130 Cole 2004, 43–45, with further references. See Beazley Archive 204601 and 210164 for potential depictions. 131 Cole 2004, 44. 20 Patrik Klingborg – Hedvig von Ehrenheim – Axel Frejman Ginouvès has argued that a whisk was occasionally used, based on iconographic evidence.132 In further support of this, a branch is visible in a perirrhanterion on a funerary wall painting at the entrance of the Hellenistic tomb of Lyson and Kallikes north-west of Pella.133 Comparably, in Theocritus’ “Idylls” a young branch (θαλλός) is used for sprinkling in a domestic context.134 The use of a branch would have made it easier to sprinkle, and could have highlighted the visual impression. This would have been especially important at larger sanctuaries and during festivals, when plenty of onlookers would have been present. The most commonly cited evidence for purification at the entrance is the Hippocratic text De Morbo Sacro (4.55–60).135 In this it is stated that “we ourselves fix boundaries to the sanctuaries [ἱερά] and precincts [τεμένη] of the gods, so that nobody may cross them unless he be pure [ἁγνεύω]; and when we enter we sprinkle [περιρραίνω] ourselves, not as defiling ourselves thereby, but to wash [ἀφαγνίζω] away any pollution we may have already contracted”.136 The location of perirrhanteria is also suggested by a Delian decree where it is stipulated that “[- - - Whoever] leads [- - -] or pigs or cattle within the lustral basins not for the purpose of sacrifice, they shall be liable to imprecations and shall be fined […]”.137 As these perirrhanteria apparently formed a demarcation, it seems likely that they were located at the entrance or limit of the sacred precinct, rather than further in towards the altar or temple. The same notion of perirrhanteria as representing the border of the sacred precinct may be seen in a passage by Theoprastus, who writes that at the cult of Zeus at Lykaion those “responsible for the blood of a friend” were kept out from the sacrifices by being excluded from using perirrhanteria. This suggests that the perirrhanteria designated the demarcation.138 Occasionally other terms were used for these vessels. A ritual norm from the sanctuary of Athena Nikephoros at Pergamon 132 Ginouvès 1962, 315. See Beazley Archive 13427 and 206402 for possible examples of a whisk being used. For perirrhanterion meaning whisk, see also LSJ s.v. περιρραντήριον. 133 Makaronas – Miller 1974, 253. 134 Theokr. eid. 24.98. 135 For examples of authors highlighting this passage in their studies, see e.g. Ussher 1960, 137; Kerschner 1996, 107; Pimpl 1997, 5; Cole 2004, 44; Kobusch 2020, 77. 136 Translation by Jones, Loeb Classical Library 148. αὐτοί τε ὅρους τοῖσι θεοῖσι τῶν ἱερῶν καὶ τῶν τεμενέων ἀποδείκνυμεν, ὡς ἂν μηδεὶς ὑπερβαίνῃ ἢν μὴ ἁγνεύῃ, ἐσιόντες τε ἡμεῖς περιρραινόμεθα οὐχ ὡς μιαινόμενοι, ἀλλ᾿ εἴ τι καὶ πρότερον ἔχομεν μύσος, τοῦτο ἀφαγνιούμενοι. 137 Delian decree, SEG 48:1037, face B, lines 2–4 (180–166 BCE). Translation by Lupu 2005, 23–24. Later examples supporting the notion of perirrhanteria demarcating borders are supplied in Lukian. Peri Thysion 13 and Poll. Onomasticon 1.8–10. 138 Theop. De pietate 13.26 (Pötscher). We interpret the formulation τοῖς περιρραντηρίοις (line 26) as an instrumental dative. Perirrhanteria were also for demarcating borders of e.g. agoras (Aischin. Tim. 21; Ctes. 176). Ritual Usage of Water in Greek Sanctuaries 21 records hagisteria in the gateway (πύλη), presumably connected to the perirrhainô mentioned earlier in the same text.139 It has also been suggested by scholars that other forms of vessels and features could be used for sprinkling at the entrance of a sanctuary, such as female figures carrying bowls.140 The importance here was the act of purification, not the particular objects used to achieve this. There is also archaeological evidence to draw on, though no perirrhanteria have been preserved in situ at the entrance of a sanctuary according to the detailed studies of Kerschner and Pimpl.141 Yet, both authors interpret bases found in these areas as used for perirrhanteria.142 In particular, Pimpl highlights fragments of a sixth-century BCE perirrhanterion found in the area of the late fourth-century BCE upper Propylon at the Sanctuary of Athena at Lindos, and fragments from one dated to the fourth century BCE found outside the Amyneion in Athens, which she connects to a base at the entrance of the sanctuary.143 The purifications by perirrhanteria at the entrance, ritually sprinkling a small amount of water, were not intended to ensure a respectful appearance or supply a more thorough cleansing of pollution. That should already have been ensured at this point. Now, the worshippers’ ritual purity was further ensured and augmented, while also being visually expressed for all to see by the sprinkling from perirrhanteria. Spatially, the placement of perirrhanteria at entrances served as a demarcation. In cases where the sacred precinct was not clearly indicated, individuals would have noticed both the sometimes-elaborate perirrhanteria and the commotion around them, showing where one was expected to enter the precinct. The same mechanisms may have been extra important during large festivals, as visitors unfamiliar with the site had to find their way, in particular if portable perirrhanteria had been placed to create temporary entrances. Finally, sprinkling at perirrhanteria constituted a visual cue communicating to others that one was pure enough to enter, thus signifying group affiliation; the persons who had passed the 139 IvP II 255.7–9 = CGRN 212, “From contact with the tomb and the carrying out of the body, those who washed [περιρραίνω] themselves and have passed through the gate where the vessels for lustrations [ἁγιστήρια] are placed, they shall be pure on the same day” (translation by CGRN). Here we follow the emendation ἱερόν by CGRN (see comment for CGRN 212) rather than ναόν in previous editions. 140 Kerschner 1996, 112; Pimpl 1997, 56–58. 141 Kerschner 1996, 110; Pimpl 1997, 49; see also Kobusch 2020. However, Pimpl (1997, 49, following Robert 1952, 20, 11) mentions a potential perirrhanteria (Becken) at the west entrance of the sanctuary of the Dioskouroi on Delos although she interprets this as used specifically by priests and cult officials, in contrast to the main east entrance. Similarly, Kerschner (1996, 107, 109) notes that perirrhanteria are best known from literary sources and that material traces are often indirect. 142 Kerschner 1996, 108–110; Pimpl 1997, 49–58. See also Kobusch 2020. 143 Pimpl 1997, 49. 22 Patrik Klingborg – Hedvig von Ehrenheim – Axel Frejman perirrhanteria at the entrance were part of the worshippers at the sanctuary, while those outside it were not. Perirrhanteria were, however, not only used to delimit the precinct and mark out the group entering. Overall, it is notable how many perirrhanteria are found in sanctuaries.144 In the precinct of Asklepios and Apollo Maleatas at Epidaurus up to 40 have been found.145 At Aegina, in the sanctuary of Apollo, 35 perirrhanteria in terracotta as well as 14 in stone have been discovered.146 In the sanctuary of Poseidon at Isthmia fragments from approximately 90 Archaic and Classical perirrhanteria have been found, at least 63 of them in the centre of the precinct and the large well south-west of the temple.147 Numerous stands for perirrhanteria, but also the basins themselves, are attested without any spatial context in inventories and lists of donors, e.g. at the Parthenon on the Athenian Acropolis,148 at Eleusis,149 Delphi,150 and on Delos.151 Stands were presumably recorded as they were made of metal, usually iron, whereas the less valuable vessels on top, perhaps ceramic, were not listed.152 Given the great number of perirrhanteria mentioned, it seems likely that some were movable and used at semi-regular intervals, e.g. for large sacrifices and festivals, or to create temporary demarcations and sacred zones.153 Such a mobile perirrhanterion may be depicted on a fourth-century BCE Apulian volute krater showing the funeral of Patrocles.154 The notion of movable perirrhanteria 144 Kerschner (1996, 115), furthermore, noted that perirrhanteria were dedicated to a broad range of deities rather than concentrated to a small number. 145 Hoot (2014, 91) mentions “about 35”, Pimpl (1997, 106) “mehr als 40 Kalksteinbecken aus dem 4. Jh. v. Chr”. 146 Kerschner 1996, 115. 147 French 1991, 16. 148 E.g. Acropolis inventories: IG I3 317, 328–331, 333–334, 336, 339–340 (early to late fifth century BCE, ἀπορραντήριον in silver). 149 E.g. Eleusis 158, line 67 = IG II2 1544 (333/2 BCE), a stand for a perirrhanterion. 150 E.g. Delphi, building accounts: FD 3:5.48; FD 3:5:62. See also Hdt. 1.51. 151 E.g. Delos: ID 1406; 1416, face A, line 91; ID 104 (26), line B5. In contrast to perirrhanteria, only two louteria are known from sanctuary inventories, see IG II2 1425, line 371, ὑπόστατον λοτηρίο (The Parthenon Acropolis treasury) and IG IV 39, lines 18–19, χαλκίον ἐγλοτήριον (Sanctuary of Aphaia, Aegina). 152 Bases/stands for perirrhanteria from Delos: IG XI 2 161, face B, line 125; ID 104, line 139; ID 104(10), line 7; ID 104 (12), line 109 (all made of iron). 153 However, at least some stands were made of stone, and placed permanently in the sanctuary, for instance bases for perirrhanteria with inscriptions (IG XI 2 161, face B, line 126). Kerschner (1996, 111) has previously suggested that some perirrhanteria were movable, but in connection to altars. Furthermore, he held that most of the perirrhanteria in sanctuaries were votive gifts the only purpose of which was to belong to the god (Kerschner 1996, 115). 154 Beazley Archive 9036833. Ritual Usage of Water in Greek Sanctuaries 23 opens up for both the varying usage of this vessel, and the possibility to renew and augment purity at key points or during different ritual activities in the sanctuary. This suggests a cognitive spectrum in the perception of purity for both spatial and ritual purposes. Priests perhaps received different kinds of purifications, when entering the office, or after having incurred miasma. In one instance from Kos, the priest was purified (καθαίρω) with the blood of a piglet and seawater upon instalment, and purified by a gold cup, presumably using water, in addition to prospermia (seeds) after having eaten polluted foods.155 The use of a golden cup singled out the purification of the priest as special, in comparison to the other worshippers. No doubt these rituals were performed differently in different cults. Purification through sprinkling or washing of the hands also took place at the altar, often in connection with prayers and sacrifices, as attested both in and outside sanctuaries.156 A number of terms were used for the purification of participants before the sacrifice, such as cherniptomai with related terms suggesting a connection to the hands,157 perirrhainô158 and vessels such as lebetes.159 Despite this, exactly how water was used around the altars is poorly understood. For example, Athenaeus explained the word chernips in a Eupolis fragment as “the water [ὕδωρ] 155 IG XII 4, 332, line 1 = CGRN 85 (Kos, ca. 350 BCE), lines 1–2 on the instalment, and line 19 (καθαράσθω ἀπὸ χρυσίου καὶ προσπερμεί]ας) on the purification from polluted foods. On the use of water from a gold cup, cf. IG XII 4, 72 = LSCG 154 = CGRN 148 (Asklepieion of Kos, 240 BCE), lines 43–44, 62 (περιρανάτω χρυσίωι), 73 (περιρανάντω ἀπὸ χρυσίου). To note, Klaus Hallof (in: Inscriptiones Graecae online, http://telota.bbaw.de/ig/) translates all instances of ἀπὸ χρυσίου as sprinkling with gold powder, but this would be an expensive as well as impractical rite. There are also rare cases where the cult personnel was sprinkled at the altar with a particular type of water, e.g. a sacrificial calendar from Kos (ca. 350 BCE) stating that the “priestess sacrifices and is sprinkled about with seawater” (E.g. IG XII 4 274–278, lines D.23–24 = CGRN 86, lines D.23–24). For an extensive coverage on sources on Greek priest and priestesses, see Georgoudi et al. 2005, e.g. p. 11, testimonium 35 on purity, though not on water. 156 Trinkl (2009, 165) considers the washing of the hands an essential preliminary rite in the context of sacrifices. See also Kerschner 1996, 97–99; Burkert 2011, 117. 157 This interpretation fits well with the context in many cases, such as a passage in the “Iliad” where the participants presumably washed their hands when the term cherniptomai was used before a sacrifice. This act was followed by taking up barley grains, the priest saying a prayer, sprinkling of the grain, and finally the killing of the victim (Hom. Il. 1.446–450). In a spatially more ambiguous context, chernips is brought in a lebes to Nestor and used for cherniptomai before praying and sacrificing (Hom. Od. 3. 436–446). In isolated cases cherniptomai could be used for other body parts than the hands; in Iphigenia in Tauris it is Orestes’ hair that is the object of the cherniptomai, although the described human sacrifice should not be presumed to reflect real ritual practices (Eur. Iph. T. 622). See also Eur. Iph. T. 857–861; Aristoph. Lys. 1129–1131. 158 Aristoph. Lys. 1129–1131, in combination with chernips. 159 Hom. Od. 3. 436–446, in combination with chernips. 24 Patrik Klingborg – Hedvig von Ehrenheim – Axel Frejman into which they dipped a burning piece of wood [δαλός], after they removed it from the altar where they were making a sacrifice; they sprinkled [περιρραίνω] the individuals present with it to sanctify [ἁγνίζω] them”.160 Similarly to sprinkling by perirrhanteria, a whisk may have been used for this purpose. At the altar, there is epigraphic evidence suggesting the use of olive and laurel.161 The hands could also be dipped or washed, an act which seems to be illustrated in depictions of sacrifices presumably taking place in sanctuaries.162 This difference between sprinkling and washing may have marked different roles in the rite, where those washing their hands had a more active role and needed to ensure both ritual and physical cleanliness of the hands that were to touch sacrificial animals or paraphernalia. Furthermore, those who washed their hands in chernips, or were sprinkled with it at the sacrifice, signalled that they belonged to the sacrificial group. In the case of a sacrifice with a large number of participants the sprinkling of a selected few could presumably symbolize the action for the whole group. We view this as rather than demarcating sacrificial space, here water was used to mark out a select group as participants. This would have united the group in the killing and eating, in the same way as the joint oulochytai and regulated sharing of the meat.163 This notion is strengthened by how the shared sprinkling of altars was used to signify peace, symbolically uniting former enemies.164 Another important question is to what degree set paraphernalia were used for specific actions, such as the washing or dipping of hands in water before sacrifice. While the method used for the purification is rarely spelled out, in literary sources vessels (χέρνιβον and λέβητες) and water (χέρνιψ) are often described as located close to altars, suggesting usage there.165 Many vessels strongly connected with the ritual sprinkling and washing of hands of the participants around the altar also 160 Eup. frg. 15 (Kock); Athen. 409b. Translation by Douglas Olson, LCL 235. Cf. Aristoph. Pax 959– 962. 161 IG XII 4 274–8 = CGRN 86, line A.33, n.b. for sprinkling the sacrificial animals. For an iconographic example, see Makaronas – Miller 1974, 253. For perirrhanterion meaning whisk, see also LSJ s.v. περιρραντήριον. 162 E.g. Beazley Archive 7508, 215220 and 30321. See also Cole 2004, 45–46, n. 79. 163 The sharing of roasted innards was such an important part of the sacrificial ritual that Aristophanes uses a special verb for it: συσπλαγχνεύω, Aristoph. Pax 1115. To share in the roasted innards showed to all (if onlookers were present) that you were part of the inner group of sacrificers (Ekroth 2019, 229). 164 E.g. Aristoph. Lys. 1129–1131; cf. Parker 2011, 151. The throwing of grains, also done as a commencement of the sacrifice, may have had a purifying aspect, but as it seems it was also included in the preliminary sacrifice, this act even more strongly than the sprinkling of water marked the commencement of the act of sacrifice itself. See Stengel 1910, 42–47 with discussion. 165 Eur. Iph. T. 857–861; El. 790–796; Aristoph. Pax. 956–962; Apoll. Rhod. 1.407–409. Ritual Usage of Water in Greek Sanctuaries 25 occur in inventories, such as χερνιβεῖα and χειρόνιπτρα.166 As noted above, objects listed in inventories may be understood as having been used for different activities in the sanctuary. One interesting category of phialai and χερνιβεῖα in the sanctuary inventories from Delos are labelled as perforated (τετρυπημένος).167 The collection of several such objects, and that they were kept, suggests that they had some function. This could either have been utilitarian, for example removing dirt from perirrhanteria, or for sprinkling, either of humans, animals, or objects. In this case, the piercing could have altered the visual effect of sprinkling in a ritual context. There is also evidence for purifications by altars in the form of perirrhante168 ria. Remains of a perirrhanterion in terracotta have been found near a sacrificial area in the Sanctuary of the Great Gods at Samothrace.169 Pimpl also found bases near altars, similar to those she identified as intended for perirrhanteria, at two sanctuaries on Delos; however, due to their location she interpreted them as used for χερνιβεῖα.170 This follows her view that it was the function, not the form that determined a vessel’s designation. However, the epigraphic material suggests that perirrhanteria and χερνιβεῖα usually were physically different, as stands are never recorded for the latter. Therefore, if the bases were for perirrhanteria, it follows that these could be used for chernips, without making them χερνιβεῖα. Sacrifices were regularly followed by dining in or close to the sacred precinct.171 In many cases, this may also have required water not only for cooking and mixing with wine, but also for cleaning the hands and feet of the participants though feasts specifically after sacrifice are seldom mentioned by ancient authors. Descriptions and depictions of dining in other contexts, however, suggest that washing of hands and feet was a regular practice, for hands perhaps both before and after the dining.172 In a rare literary testimony found in Euripides’ Ion, during 166 Passim in inventories, χειρόνιπτρον: IG II2 1425, line 355; IG II2 1427, lines 23–24; IG II2 1469, line 91. Χερόνιπτρον: IG I3 405, line 5; IG I3 1456 (= IG IV2 2, 1037), lines 15–16; IG II2 1416, line 7; IG IV 39, line 15–16. Last, χερνιβεῖον IG II2 1400, line 51; IG II2 1640, line 24 = I.Eleusis 137. 167 E.g. Delos: IG XI 2 161, face B, lines 25, 31, 32, 126, 127. 168 For a later literary testimony mentioning perirrhanteria in association with altars, see Lukian. Peri Thysion 12. 169 Ilieva 2012, 492. 170 Pimpl 1997, 61–65, in particular p. 63. 171 Goldstein 1978, 1–5; Leypold 2008; Frejman 2020, 187–188; Ekroth accepted. 172 General washing before and after dining, see Athen. 408f–409a. General washing before dining, see Dromo, “The Female Harp-Player”, frg. 2 (Kock). Hands before dining, see e.g. the “Odyssey” where chernips is used for this six times as a recurring line (1.136; 4.52; 7.172; 10.368; 15.135; 17.91), but never in the “Iliad”. For another example of handwashing before dining see Aristoph. Vesp. 1216–1217. Feet before dining: suggested by Plat. symp. 175a and 213b; Plut. Phok. 20. Foot basins are also attested underneath dining couches on Attic vases (sometimes used for vomiting), e.g. Beazley Archive 15922, 200931 and 201063. See further Milne 1944. 26 Patrik Klingborg – Hedvig von Ehrenheim – Axel Frejman a banquet in a tent following a mountaintop sacrifice, the participants wash their hands after dining but before drinking.173 Overall, in sanctuaries, this otherwise secular washing seems to have had a religious flavour, as objects associated with chernips occur with dining implements in inventories. In one case from the Delian inventories, as many as 23 χερνιβεῖα are enumerated together with several krateres, hydriai, lampstands, thymiateria and oinochoai.174 In another inventory, several χερνιβεῖα are mentioned together with krateres, foot basins, psykteres, and lampstands.175 Moreover, since χερνιβεῖα were used for washing both during dining and sacrifices, perhaps the same vessel could be used for both acts, in particular in small sanctuaries with fewer resources. Further attesting to the cleanliness required at dining, there were ποδανιπτήρες (or ποδάνιπτρα) to wash the feet. In an inventory of the Athenian amphictyones at Delos, one broken ποδανιπτήρ, as well as three whole ones are enumerated together with utensils for dining.176 Overall ποδανιπτήρες, presumably in metal,177 are found in inventories from large sanctuaries, above all Eleusis and Delos.178 Some evidence of louteria and perirrhanteria have also been found in buildings that can be associated with dining at sanctuaries, for example the Xenon at Nemea, the so-called Prytaneion in Lato, and the gymnasium at Epidauros (now identified as a banqueting hall).179 Yet, the material is not sufficient to secure the location and function of these objects with confidence.180 Louteria and perirrhanteria could 173 Eur. Ion 1122–1212. 174 ID 104, lines 125–140, esp. 127. 175 IG XI 2 161, face B, lines 122–129. 176 IG II2 1639: krateres, a big pykter, a fleshhook for taking meat out of the pot, a vessel for cooking sausages (γαστρόπτης) two copper tables (as well as several small and large trapezai, presumably made out of wood), eight whole lampstands, a bent stand for incense, a kottabos game, and numerous klinai. Also, in the context, an iron stand for a perirrhanterion as well as basins for washing the feet. 177 For foot basins made in metal, see Milne 1944. 178 E.g. Eleusis: IG I3 386, line 137; Acropolis of Athens: IG I3 405, lines 7–8; IG II2 1424a, col. II, line 258; Delos: IG XI 2 161, face B, line 127. See further Milne 1944, 29, nn. 9, 12, 14. 179 Pimpl 1997, 72–78; Hoot 2014, 70, 91. 180 Ten examples are provided by Pimpl (1997, 72–75) from Perachora (“Beckenfragment” in the West Court), the sanctuary of Aphaia on Aegina (“Einige Marmorbecken und Ständer” South-west buildings), Kabiareion on Samothrace (“Ein Beckanfragment”, Hall of Votive Gifts), Sanctuary of Artemis and Pan near Lykochia (“Becken-und Ständerfragmente” from a bathroom in a rectangular building), Sanctuary of Dionysos in Maroneia (“gut erhaltenes Becken mit Ständer”, building with uncertain function), Asklepieion in Troizen (“Marmorbecken” from the annexe of the main building), near the agora of Lato (“Becken”, in Prytaneion), Epidauros (“Kalksteinbecken”, in the so-called Gymnasium), Nemea (“Kalksteinbecken”, in the Xenon) and the Pompeion in Athens (“Ständer”, one of them in a banqueting room). Overall, this evidence does not seem to be easily fixed spatially or functionally. Ritual Usage of Water in Greek Sanctuaries 27 therefore have been set up in such places, but the current evidence should be treated with caution. Finally, purifications similar to those at the entrance of the sacred precinct may also have taken place before entering the temple, based primarily on bases found in and around these.181 At Isthmia, a base interpreted as used for a perirrhanterion has been found in the immediate vicinity of the temple.182 An early Roman inscription there may also allude to a perirrhanterion standing in front of this.183 Further bases for perirrhanteria have been documented at the temples of Asklepios and Artemis at Epidauros, and in front of the Athena temple at Stymphalos.184 Another perirrhanterion may have been found in the Dörpfeld foundation on the Athenian Acropolis.185 The use of perirrhanteria at the temple may have created an observable focus inside the sacred precinct, similar to that at the entrance, indicating when someone was about to enter the structure, as well as a visual marker for the commencement of ritual activity such as prayer at the statue of the god.186 181 Kerschner 1996, 111–113; Pimpl 1997, 59–60; Trinkl 2009, 164; Kobusch 2020, 78–79. The muchdebated inscription from Epidaurus preserved in Porphyrios: “Pure must one be to enter the incense-fragrant temple, and purity is thinking in holy terms” (see Edelstein – Edelstein 1945, 148–150 and 186–187; Chaniotis 1997, 154–155; 2012, 130–131; Bremmer 2002; Ehrenheim 2015, 15; Petrovic – Petrovic 2016, 6; Kobusch 2020, 79, n. 60) is not discussed here. Purifications at the temple may also be described in the Hippocratic text. Hippokr. morb. sacr. 4.55–60: αὐτοί τε ὅρους τοῖσι θεοῖσι τῶν ἱερῶν καὶ τῶν τεμενέων ἀποδείκνυμεν if ἱερόν is to be understood as a temple in this case, as seen e.g. in Hdt 2.112 where the precinct is labelled temenos whereas the temple is hieron; cf. however Hdt. 5.119, where hieron is best translated as precinct. However, overall the word seems to denote sanctuaries rather than temples in De Morbo Sacro, see e.g. Hippokr. morb. sacr. 4.49. See also a later inscription from Lindos, ca. 225 CE, meticulously regulating days of abstinences and washing off from various miasmata before entering the temple, starting with “Visitors may proceed as pure [καθαρός] according to the regulations within the lustral basins [περιρραντήριον] and the gates of the temple [ναός]” (Lindos II 487, lines 1–2 = LSCG Suppl. 91), translation by Petrovic and Petrovic (2018, 235) as well as a detailed discussion. 182 Fragments of an Archaic perirrhanterion, destroyed when the temple burned in 480–470 BCE and found in the so-called North Temenos Dump and scattered over the east end of the temple (Sturgeon 1987, 15), have been connected to a circular base of suitable size just to the north side of the pronaos of the Archaic temple and below the floor of the Classical temple (Broneer 1971, 3–12, pls. 2–4; Sturgeon 1987, 27–28). Cf. Kerschner 1996, 113. 183 Broneer 1959, 324–326. 184 Temples of Asklepios and Artemis at Epidauros: Kerschner 1996, 111–112; Pimpl 1997, 59, 106– 110, 113–114; Kobusch 2020, 78. Temple of Athena at Stymphalos: Kobusch 2020, 79, with further references. 185 van Rookhuijzen 2021, 108. 186 Also see, Julia Kindt (2010, 261) who discussed how Greek worshippers would have experienced sacred cult objects in the religious rituals, using the term “religious visuality”. 28 Patrik Klingborg – Hedvig von Ehrenheim – Axel Frejman Overall, a spectrum of how water was used and perceived emerges, from cleaning to purifying. In most cases, the same water seems to have been used for both ritual and utilitarian purposes as texts almost never suggest differentiation of sources, and only rarely is the quality of water (e.g. sea- or river water) mentioned. Moreover, it seems likely that only small quantities were used for ritual purposes. Despite this, such acts were made conspicuous through the use of specific vessels as well as other paraphernalia, for instance branches for sprinkling. In this way, the use of a transparent and everyday liquid became a visual and ritual focal point. 4.2 Purifying Things Though less commonly attested, sacrificial animals, altars, images, and other objects could also be purified in sanctuaries.187 Turning first to sacrificial victims, these were a gift to the gods. In this capacity they may have been cleaned already before entering the sanctuary.188 However, the only attested example concerns the mysteries at Eleusis where the so-called “mystic piglets” were washed (λούω) in the sea and this can hardly be viewed as common cult practice.189 There is also some evidence for the purification of victims at the altar with two literary passages being particularly important. The first comes from Dionysius Hallicarnassus who describes how the victims during a public Roman sacrifice were purified, using the term περιαγνίζω, before being sprinkled with corn and killed. Notably, the author explicitly states that this was the same manner in which the Greeks sacrificed.190 The second testimony describes a domestic sacrifice in Aristophanes’ Pax.191 Here the protagonist, Trygaeus, is instructing his slave to dip a firebrand (δαλός) in the chernips. Presumably the soaked firebrand would have produced both sound and smoke that likely played a part in the ritual. Following this the victim is admonished to shake its head, a motion interpreted by scholars as a reaction to the water 187 For the purification of things, καθαίρω seems to be used (although this verb is also used for cleaning, as in CGRN 96 on the familial cult of Diomedon at Kos). More commonly, the whole precinct was purified, e.g. LSS 33 = CGRN 127, line 10 (purify ἱερόν). 188 Klingborg accepted. 189 Plut. Phok. 28, but this is a complicated case. See note 120 above. 190 For the rite see Dion. Hal. ant. 7.72.15–17. Περιαγνίζω is mentioned on 7.72.15.5. This example may, however, be more complicated than it appears due to the Roman use of so-called Roman and Greek rites for sacrifices and other religious rituals, see Scheid 1995, esp. 28. 191 Aristoph. Pax 959–962. Cf. Eup. frg. 15 (Kock); Ath. 409b. Translation by Douglas Olson, LCL 235. See discussion for note 160 above. Ritual Usage of Water in Greek Sanctuaries 29 being sprinkled on it.192 A further example is found in the already mentioned passage from “Iphigenia in Tauris”, where Orestes has taken on the role of sacrificial victim and a purification, described with the verb cherniptomai, over his hair is required, presumably reflecting practice for sacrificial animals.193 This passage is interesting but more difficult to interpret within the framework of regular cult practices. This practice may also be attested in the epigraphical material, following scholars who have interpreted the term to begin, κατάρχομαι, as synonymous with ritual sprinkling of the animal before the sacrifice (and/or the burning of locks of the hair of the animal).194 For example, in a sacrificial calendar from Kos, κατάρχω is described as performed with branches of olive and laurel trees, strongly suggesting sprinkling using water.195 If correct, the sprinkling of the animal signified the start of this part of the ritual and, beyond a purificatory function, constituted a visual cue for all present to focus their attention on what was to follow. The use of branches for sprinkling would also have produced a more visible shower of water than using only one’s hand, as well as further involving the participants visually. Altars could also be cleaned or purified. One example of this is a ritual norm from Cyrene where it is stated that an altar should be washed (ἀποπλύνω) and the fat removed if the wrong type of animal had been sacrificed there. In this case the method used is not mentioned but the verb πλύνω is otherwise used in utilitarian contexts for cleaning objects with water.196 However, it is unlikely that the cleaning in this example could be done completely without religious connotations, as the inscriptions also required the sanctuary to be made pure (καθαρός). In Lysistrata, the protagonist mentions the sprinkling (περιρραίνω) of altars, in this case as a sign of peace.197 It is also notable that the act is being described as performed by enemies using the same chernips, something which would signify that they belonged to the same group – or in this case that the two enemies were now reconciled. These testimonia from comedy confer with the Archaic ritual norm of 192 This has previously been interpreted as signalling its willingness to be sacrificed, but is now viewed as expressing the animal’s vitality and suitability as a victim. See Naiden (2007) and Ekroth (2014, 325–326), disproving the notion that the animal was sprinkled in order to nod its approval of the sacrifice. 193 Eur. Iph. T. 622. Later in the play Iphigenia argues that further purification in the sea, using the words hagnizô and nizô, is necessary before this because Orestes’ hands were polluted by the blood of his mother. Clearly, in this case, one purification could not replace another (Eur. Iph. T. 1039; 1191). 194 Burkert 2011, 94; Parker 2011, 161. 195 IG XII 4 1:278 = CGRN 86, stele A, lines 32–33: κ[ατ]ά̣ρχονται θαλλῶι καὶ δά̣φ̣ναι. ̣ 196 CGRN 99, lines 26–32. 197 Aristoph. Lys. 1129–1131. 30 Patrik Klingborg – Hedvig von Ehrenheim – Axel Frejman Selinous where sprinkling (περιρραίνω) around the altar is prescribed, and that the altar should be anointed before sacrifice.198 In two further cases, Aristophanes’ Pax and Aves, slaves make circuits around the altar with the water, albeit without specifying sprinkling or purification.199 Overall, there is little evidence for the sprinkling of altars with water, but as for the use of perirrhanteria this may be due to the practice being so common that it hardly required mentioning. Moreover, there seems to be a strong religious component when it is done. Moving away from the deity’s altar, washing its image is also attested, albeit more rarely than commonly conveyed in the modern literature200 where myths are occasionally conflated with rituals.201 There can, however, be little doubt that the washing of cult statues was a religiously significant act when it occurred, as deities were dangerous beings demanding awe and respect. The best attested example is from the early third-century BCE cult of Aphrodite Pandemos at Athens. There the preparations for a procession included anointing the 198 Selinous, unclear cult, possibly to Zeus Meilichios, 500–450 BCE: Jameson – Jordan – Kotansky 1993 = NGSL 27 = CGRN 13, face A, lines 12–13. 199 Aristoph. Pax 955–956; Aristoph. Av. 958–959. 200 Heberday (1904, 213) stated in the early twentieth century that “Die Sitte, besonders hölzerne Kultbilder alljährlich durch ein Bad im Meere oder einem heiligen Flusse zu reinigen und zu entsühnen, ist mehrfach und für verschiedene Gottheiten bezeug”. Ginouvès (1962, 283–298) acknowledges utilitarian cleanings of statues at sanctuaries, but singles out some examples where statues allegedly emerged in the sea or a river (1962, 284–286; see also Parker 1983, 27), then adding Roman examples. Simon (1983, 48) stated that “The bathing of cult images – male and female – was an old custom in many sanctuaries in Greece and elsewhere”, but only gives four examples (Athena in Athens, Aphrodite in Athens, Hera at Samos, and Athena and Aphrodite at Ankyra). Scheer (2000, 57–60) stresses the utilitarian needs for washing. Polly (2010, 52) highlights that we know little about how images were bathed or washed in practice. Romano (1988, 127, 129, 133) notes that the evidence regarding bathing is less complete but tantalizing and that this type of ritual was probably not widespread. It can also be noted that Picard (1922, 315–316) and Seiterle (1979, 16) both believed that the statue of Artemis was bathed and purified in the sea during the Daitis festival, but there is no evidence for this (Romano 1988, 129). Another possible example of the washing of an image is found in the regulation concerning the cult of goddesses at Marmarini, 225–150 BCE, see CGRN 225, face A, lines 4–8, where the sacred things around the goddess are prescribed to be washed. However, if we assume that the statue was painted, it was surely tidied but perhaps not washed with water. See also a ritual norm from Tymnos in Asia Minor (151/50 BCE, Bresson 102) where it is stated that the images, presumably of Zeus and Hera, should be kept intact and clean (καθαρά). 201 E.g. Warford (2015, 119, n. 438) who, based on Pausanias (2.38.2), argues that the statue of Hera at Argos was bathed, although the passage in question relates a myth where Hera bathed (λούω) in a spring in order to recover her maidenhood. See also Horster 2019, 206. In tragedy, Iphigenia (Eur. Iph.T. 1041) pretends that she will wash (νίζω) the image of Artemis in the sea in order to clean it from Orestes’ blood-polluted touch. Ritual Usage of Water in Greek Sanctuaries 31 altar, blackening the doors with tar,202 and washing (λούω) the statues.203 Nothing is stated about how this was performed, but the verb used may imply both a ritual and a utilitarian washing. Whichever was more important, both were probably achieved. There is also good reason to believe that images at Eleusis were washed as there was an individual called the “Brightener” (φαιδυντής), a title attested during Roman times for those cleaning (καθαίρω) the statue of Zeus at Olympia.204 Furthermore, the Delian inventories attest to the act of κόσμησις ἀγαλμάτων, presumably including cleaning of the images.205 Some instances list what to use when cleaning: sponges (σφόγγοι), oil (ἔλαιον χοῦς ἡμίχουν), and sodium carbonate (νίτρον) presumably mixed with water.206 Quite often the washing of images is discussed within the framework of two Athenian festivals, the Plynteria and the Kallynteria.207 The first is better known, with a common view holding that it included a ritual where the image of Athena Polias was taken to the sea at Phaleron and washed.208 Yet, the evidence for this is circumstantial and subject to interpretation, as shown by John Herington and, later, 202 Pitching may have had ritual relevance considering that the Athenians smeared black pitch on their doors during the Anthesteria in order to keep ghosts away (Robertson 1993, 207; Burkert 2011, 359). 203 IG II3 879 = CGRN 136, line 26 (Aphrodite Pandemos, 283/2 BCE); Romano 1980, 10. 204 IG I3 231 = LSCG Suppl. 1 (510–500 BCE). See Pausanias (5.14.5) for the statue of Zeus of Olympia which descendants of Pheidias were appointed to clean (καθαίρω) from that which settled on it, presumably dirt and dust. How the cleaning of such an old and perhaps partly fragile chryselephantine image was performed is not known. See also a priestess called the λουτροφόρον who attended the chryselephantine image of Aphrodite in Sikyon (Paus. 2.10.4). The priestess’s title suggests bathing, although such a treatment appears unlikely considering the fragile material of the statue. It seems more reasonable to suppose that some sort of washing, ritual or utilitarian, of the image was performed, which involved less risk of damage. 205 E.g. IG XI 2 199, face A, line 38. 206 IG XI 2 144, lines 36–37; cf. IG XI 2 161, face A, line 92. 207 For an extensive recent discussion on these festivals, see Sourvinou-Inwood 2011, 135–224. 208 Deubner 1932; Herington 1955, 29–30; Parke 1977, 152–155; Jordan 1979, 35; Romano 1980, 47–50; Dillon 2002, 133; Sourvinou-Inwood 2011, 158–160; Horster 2019, 206. Cf. Hollinshead 2015. Besides Athens the Plynteria is attested as a festival only at Thorikos: NGSL 1 = CGRN 32, Main Face, lines 52–53, see also Trümpy 1997, 70. It may also have been celebrated in the Attic deme of Erchia based on victims listed in LSCG 18, see Sourvinou-Inwood 2011, 138–139. Scholars have assumed that similar festivals took place on Paros, Thasos, and Chios where months called Plynterion are attested (Romano 1980, 10, 277–278; 1988, 131; Larson 2007, 45). However, Larson has correctly noted that the name of the month does not necessarily mean that similar ritual took place, let alone how such a ritual would look (Larson 2007, 45). Paros, see IG XI 4, 1065, line 25, cf. Trümpy 1997, 65; Chios, see Hassoullier 1879, 49, lines 10–11, cf. Trümpy 1997, 102; Thasos, see IG XII suppl. 347.I, line 2; Trümpy 1997, 65, 71–72. Cf. CGRN 225, face A, line 4, where πλυντήρια is used in the sense of washing of the sacred objects surrounding the statue. 32 Patrik Klingborg – Hedvig von Ehrenheim – Axel Frejman Irene Romano.209 The argument connects two known processions, one during the Plynteria where a fig cake was carried, and one where a xoanon was carried down to Phaleron and then back to Athens by torch-light, mentioned by the ninth-century CE patriarch and lexicographer Photios in the Suda. Based on the name, Plynteria, it has then been assumed that in Phaleron the image was washed in the sea. As a whole, the evidence does not give sufficient support for the washing of the image.210 In contrast to this, it is well attested that rituals involving the dress of the image were performed during the Plynteria.211 This, in combination with the name of the event and the direct mention of the cleaning of the garment by Photios, makes it likely that it was the image’s garment that was washed.212 Based primarily on the archaeological evidence, Mary Hollinshead has suggested that the ritual took place in the North Court of the Karyatid temple.213 This washing, in turn, has been connected to two girls, called λουτρίδες or πλυντρίδες, who attended to the image of Athena.214 The first term suggests bathing or washing of the image, the second the clothes, but neither offers conclusive evidence for either position. Furthermore, the participation of a priest called the κατανίπτης is suggested by Bekker.215 The Kallynteria is less well attested.216 Photios writes that during it the image was dressed and made brilliant, but does not mention washing.217 In modern scholarship Parke assumed, based on the name of the festival, “to beautify”, that during this the temple of Athena received a special annual clean-up.218 However, there is no good evidence for the washing of either the image or its dress at this occasion. Overall, little is known about what took place during this festival and even less about how it was done. 209 Herington 1955, 29–30, in particular n. 2 on p. 30; Romano 1980, 47–50; 1988, 131. 210 For a contrary view, see Sourvinou-Inwood 2011, 135–224. 211 Hollinshead 2015, 184, with references in n. 32. 212 See also Photios s.v. Καλλυντήρια καὶ Πλυντήρια: τὰ μὲν Πλυντήριά φησι διὰ <τὸ μετὰ> τὸν θάνατον τῆς Ἀγραύλου ἐντὸς ἐνιαυτοῦ μὴ πλυθῆναι <τὰς ἱερὰς> ἐσθῆτας, εἶθ’ οὕτω πλυθείσας τὴν ὀνομασίαν λαβεῖν ταύτην. Hesychius (s.v. Πλυντήρια) mentions the same aetiology, but no further details. 213 Hollinshead 2015. On the identification of the temple, see van Rookhuijzen 2020, 20–27. 214 Photios, s.v. Λουτρίδες: δύο κόραι περὶ τὸ ἕδος τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς· ἐκαλοῦντο δὲ αὗται καὶ πλυντρίδες. οὕτως Ἀριστοφάνης. Hesychius, s.v. λουτρίδες: αἱ περὶ τὸ ἕδος <τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς> δύο παρθένοι, αἳ καὶ πλυντρίδες λέγονται. 215 Bekker 1814, 269; Romano 1980, 49. 216 Parke 1977, 152; Romano 1980, 48. 217 Photios s.v. Καλλυντήρια καὶ Πλυντήρια; Romano 1980, 48–49. 218 Parke 1977, 152. Ritual Usage of Water in Greek Sanctuaries 33 Some examples of bathing images are more ambiguous.219 It has been suggested that the bathing of an image of Athena in Callimachus’ “Hymns 5” reflects a real ritual.220 However, there is no further evidence for the ritual which is reason to be cautious.221 Throughout the text, actions that could be interpreted as ritual include mythical or fictional elements, e.g. when it is stated that the goddess herself will comb her hair with a golden comb brought to her. Possibly the described ritual was fictional but drew on actual events. The image of Hera at Samos is another well-known example of the bathing of images, supposedly being washed in the sea during the Tonaia festival.222 According to Menodotos, probably active in the third century BCE, this festival had its origins in an attempt by pirates to steal the image.223 Failing, they left the statue on the beach where it was recovered and in due course purified (ἁγνίζω). The festival recreated the story by bringing the statue to the beach each year, purifying it (ἀφαγνίζω). How the purification was performed is however not mentioned, and there is nothing to say that the rite even included water.224 Moreover, despite often figuring as an example, the bathing of the image of Aphrodite at Paphos is even more doubtful, as observed by Anthony Bulloch in 1985.225 It appears that this 219 In addition to the examples below, the image of the goddess at Marmarini may have been washed or, if painted, cleaned without water, in connection with other sacred objects in its vicinity being washed (πλυντήρια τῶμ περὶ τὴν θεὸν ἱερῶν, CGRN 225, lines 4–5). See also the image in Eur. Iph. T. 1199 which was to be ἁγνιστέος, although there is no indication that water was used. 220 Romano 1980, 10; 1988, 129; Bulloch 1985, 4, 8. A similar ritual for the images of Athena and Aphrodite at Ankyra is sometimes cited (Bulloch 1985, 9, n. 4; Simon 1983, 48, n. 28), but this is only attested in a fifth-century CE Christian text. For the ritual in Callimachus, Hymni 5 see also Bulloch 1985, 8; Heath 1988, 72, n. 1. According to scholia 1 the ritual concerned both an image of Athena and one of Diomedes (see Bulloch 1985, 104). On line 35 the shield of Diomedes is included in the procession. 221 Hunter 1992, 13–14. 222 Romano, 1980, 9, 251–252; 1988, 129; Horster 2019, 206 argues that it was cleaned, but does not mention seawater. 223 Menodotus frg. 1.49 (Müller). 224 The medium for ἀφαγνίζω is not certain, nor does the myth of the pirates include any event where the image touches the sea. 225 Bulloch 1985, 9–10, with n. 1. Romano (1988, 129) argued for the bathing of a statue of Aphrodite at Paphos based on passages in Epistle 10 by pseudo-Aschines, and further supported by Hom. H. 6 to Aphrodite, Athenaeus, Strabo, and Ovid (met. and fast.). Of these the epistle, dated to the second century CE or later, relates a story of how young women at Troy got ready to be married by bathing in the Scamander; Aphrodite is only mentioned in a procession four days later (Hodkinson 2013, 323). The Homeric Hymn mentions neither a cult image nor bathing (see however, Hom. H. 5.61). The passage in Athenaeus (84c) concerns neither image nor bathing and may be a mistake. The Strabo passage (14.683) does not mention bathing of any sort. In Ovid’s Metamorphoses (10.270) the goddess brings alive an ivory sculpture made by Pygmalion. In Fasti (4.133) he describes in general 34 Patrik Klingborg – Hedvig von Ehrenheim – Axel Frejman ritual is a modern construct, based largely on the goddess’s association with the sea, sculptures showing her in bathing contexts, and the description of her bathing in her temple at Paphos in the Homeric Hymn.226 The washing of statues portraying mortals in sanctuaries is also attested. But in contrast to the case of divinities above, this should not be taken as automatically or directly religiously significant. Instead it should be viewed as part of the upkeep of the sanctuary and thereby connected to the concept of eukosmia. For example, in the familial cult of Diomedon at Kos, dated to ca. 325 BCE, it is specified that the portraits of Diomedon’s ancestors should be washed (καθαιρόντω), possibly on a monthly basis. But in contrast to Diomedon and Heracles these images did not receive sacrifices, placing them further away from the divine on the ritual spectrum.227 In a similar case, a statue of Agasigratis in the temple as well as unspecified other images on an exedra in the sanctuary of Poseidon at Kalaureia were cleaned (ποιέω καθαρός) and wreathed before a biannual sacrifice.228 Interestingly, in no case, regardless of whether the statue depicted a god or mortal, does it seem like the cleaning involved water in a purificatory capacity. For images of the divinities this seems perfectly reasonable; the gods only exceptionally acquire miasma, as they did not involve themselves with birth, sex, or death.229 Instead, the washing of these acquired religious significance through the need to respect the divinities they manifested. In addition to this, the washing of statues depicting both gods and mortals gained a ritual dimension through the concept of eukosmia, and further elevated the statues and their clothes in a public show of respect and display of the divinity’s power. As argued by Ian Rutherford, the sanctuary as a spectacular attraction was an essential part of Greek religion.230 terms how the goddess, presumably the cult image, must be washed from head to toe on the first of April, but this refers to a Roman ritual and not rituals in Paphos. Weddle Polly later repeated the argument, citing most of Romano’s references (Polly 2010, 52–53). 226 Hom. H. 5.61, using the term louô. 227 IG XII 4 1.348 = CGRN 96. See Klingborg accepted. CGRN suggests that these images were used in a theoxenia, possibly adding a ritual component. 228 IG IV 840 = CGRN 106, lines 12–13, third century BCE: τάς τε εἰκόνας καθαρὰς ποιεῖν τὰς ἐ̣πὶ τᾶς ἐξέδρας καὶ τὰν ἐν τῶι ναῶι. Papazarkadas – Wallensten (2020, 158) argued that “the cleansing and crowning of the statues of Sophanes and Agasigratis [… was …] arguably aimed at pleasing the gods, and should not be understood as a religious act vis-à-vis the portrayed humans”. 229 There are however exceptions concerning a god’s statue. For example, in Eur. Iph. T. 1041, Iphigenia states that she will wash the statue of Artemis in the sea as it has been polluted by the touch of Orestes, laden with blood guilt. However, within the framework of the play the desire to wash it in the sea is driven by a need to leave the sanctuary without raising suspicion, not strictly ritual necessity. 230 Rutherford 2013, 142. Cf. Otto 1929; Elsner 1995; 2007. See Kowalzig 2008 on the performative, audio-visual, side of Greek religion. Ritual Usage of Water in Greek Sanctuaries 35 Concerning other objects and structures, cleaning filled a similar function as for images, while simultaneously serving more specific ritual functions. In Homer, Achilles washes a cup (albeit not in a sanctuary context) from which he alone drank and poured libations only to Zeus. The washing was done with sulphur (ἐκάθηρε θεείῳ, καθαίρω used) and running water (ὕδατος καλῇσι ῥοῇσι, νίζω used) from a stream.231 Here it may be suggested, based on the vocabulary, that sulphur was the primary purificatory agent and water used to clean this away so that the cup could be used. In a unique example, the sacred law of The Mysteries of the Goddess of Marmarini, dated to 225–150 BCE, it is mentioned that the sacred things around the goddess, the temple and possibly the peristyle should be washed (πλυντήριος) before a sacrifice.232 This leads into another category of washing in sanctuaries: that of buildings. In Athens Parke has suggested that during the Plynteria and Kallynteria, in particular the latter, the temple of Athena was cleaned.233 The washing of buildings is also known from Delos where a fragmentary inscription states that the Pythion should be cleaned with a sponge (σπογγίζω) and washed well (κατανίζω).234 In an inscription from Eleusis, amphorae with water are mentioned in connection with “cleaning out” (ἀνακαθαίρω, emendated) of the sacred precinct (ἱερόν), possibly suggesting washing.235 Similar washing of buildings is reflected in Euripides’ Ion, where the slave boy (unknowingly the son of Apollo) says he will purify (καθαρὸν τίθημι) the entrances to Phoebus’ house and sprinkle the floor with water (ῥανίς ὑγρός) with wreaths of sacred laurel sprigs.236 In this case we see both 231 Hom. Il. 16.225–229. 232 CGRN 225, face A, lines 4–5. Note that the syntax is awkward at this point of the inscription, making the text somewhat difficult to interpret. The text has been restored in several different ways and earlier versions included door panels and a propylon. Decourt – Tziaphalias 2015: τρεισκαιδεκάτηι, πλύντηθι [τ]ὰ τῶμ περὶ τὴν θεὸν ἱερῶν, ναὸν καὶ περ[ι]στ[ύ]λιον καὶ τύμπανα καὶ πρόπυλον, see Parker – Scullion 2016 for an English translation and commentary. Bouchon – Decourt 2017 read the lines as Τρεισκαιδεκάτηι, πλυντήρια τῶμ περὶ τὴν θεὸν ἱερῶ̣ ν̣ π̣άν̣των ? [- - - - 11 - - - -]I κα̣ὶ τύμπανα καὶ πρὸς αὔλον, leaving a gap in the section that is of interest here. Following the study of new and much improved photographs using Reflectance Transformation Imaging, Carbon – Crowther (CGRN 225) establish the reading: τρεισκαιδεκάτηι, πλυντήρια τῶμ περὶ τὴν θεὸν ἱερῶν, ναὸν καὶ Π̣ Ε̣Ρ̣[......]Α̣ Ν καὶ τύμπανα καὶ πρόσαυλον. Finally, it is stated on lines B80–81 that the peristyle should be purified (καθαίρω) if anyone urinated or spilled blood there, in accordance with now lost instructions. It is unknown if this purification involved water, but it can be assumed that some sort of regular washing was performed, see Ehrenheim – Klingborg – Frejman 2019, 13; Klingborg accepted. 233 Parke 1977, 152. 234 IG XI 2 219, face A, line 33. 235 IG I3 386, line 154. Hallof (in: Inscriptiones Graecae online, http://telota.bbaw.de/ig/) translates the passage as “Amphoren für Wasser: - - -; um das Heiligtum zu säubern und - - -”. 236 Eur. Ion 103–106. Translation by Kovacs, LCL 10. See also, Horster 2019, 207–212. 36 Patrik Klingborg – Hedvig von Ehrenheim – Axel Frejman strong ritual elements and a contribution to the general cleanliness of the site, following the notion that ritual and physical purity were interconnected. Overall, the cleaning of things and structures in sacred precincts can be framed within the concept of eukosmia and respect for the gods.237 Consequently, even though the individual acts of cleaning were not in themselves religiously charged, they gained religious significance. The importance ascribed to this is evident through sacred norms and honours bestowed on personnel keeping eukosmia.238 Connected to eukosmia is the visual impression received by worshippers entering the sanctuary, generating emotions of awe and respect for the gods, as well as setting a stage for the rituals to be enacted inside. 4.3 Libations Beyond purifications, water was also used for other activities,239 such as libations. These occur frequently in the sources from Homer onwards,240 and Herodotus portrays libations as a characteristic part of sacrificial rituals.241 Beside sacrifices, libations were also performed during acts such as prayers,242 consumption of food,243 237 Cf. Horster 2019 on eukosmia. On keeping the sanctuary clean as a sign of respect for the gods, see Ekroth accepted. 238 Mikalson 2016, 262–263; Horster 2019, 212–214. 239 An unusual, but clearly ritual, usage of water can be seen in the cult at Marmarini (CGRN 225, face A, lines 13–14), where water is drawn from a spring at night for the cult of Pan. The rite of enclosing water within a jug appears to be a Near Eastern influence (see the commentary at CGRN 225, cf. Lukian. De Syria Dea 48) and should therefore be seen as extraordinary in a Greek context. 240 In the literature references to libations specifically in sanctuaries are rare. In contrast to this they are fairly common in ritual norms, and implements that could be used for this purpose, e.g. phialai, occur frequently in temple inventories. These vessels may also have been donated, used and re-used. For donations of phialai prescribed at a sacrifice, see IG XII 4 286 = LSCG 159 = CGRN 139, lines 10–11 (largely emendated), a sacrificial regulation for the Asklepieia festival on Kos. There is also ample iconographic evidence in connection to sacrifices in depictions on red- and black-figure vases, although it is often impossible to ascertain whether these depict sanctuaries. Cf. Ekroth 2009, 94–97. 241 Hdt. 1.132. See also in ritual norms (CGRN 156, lines 7–8; CGRN 86, stele A, lines 29–30, 34, 36, 38–39, 41, 49) and iconography (Beazley Archive 1064); Graf 1980, 219. 242 Burkert 2011, 114. For instance, libations for protection before a sea voyage: Thuk. 6.32.1–2, Pind. P. 4.193–200, or before a battle: Hom. Il. 16.220–252. For the use of a libation during prayer in the context of initiation, see CGRN 225, face B, line 12. 243 According to Tolles (1943), libations were made in early times at the conclusion of a symposium, whereas they later came to be made before and during the symposium, in any case not before mixing the wine. Ritual Usage of Water in Greek Sanctuaries 37 and independent rituals,244 both in temene and in other contexts.245 During the sacrifice, libations were made on the altar, using different liquids.246 The medium used for libations is rarely specified.247 Wine is most frequently mentioned, referring to it simply as such, or as wine mixed with water.248 Other fluids were also used and a special term, νηφάλιος, existed for wine-less libations.249 Libations could also use water alone, either unspecified,250 or of a specific kind.251 Theophrastus, in a historical exposé, purported νηφάλιοι, presumably using water, to have come first, followed by honey, and then oil. Libations with wine he labels as evolutionarily the last in human history.252 In sacred norms water is not explicitly mentioned for libations, although νηφάλια and libations without wine occur.253 Often the media were mixed, e.g., honey with water.254 244 Oath-taking rituals being one example: Graf 2004, 237–246. 245 Ekroth 2012a, s.v. Libations, Greek; Burkert 2011, 114, 117. For libations at tombs, see e.g. Aischyl. Choeph. 90–91; Soph. El. 894. 246 Stengel 1882. Sometimes several libations were performed during a sacrifice, e.g. a large-scale sacrifice including both the holocaust of a piglet and an ox at Kos, performed with repeated libations of mixed wine and melikraton (CGRN 86, stele A, lines 29–30, 34, 36, 38–39, 41, 49). 247 Graf (1980, 218) has connected the choice of medium with a wish to signal what kind of rite or sacrifice is to take place. 248 Unmixed: Hekate, LSAM 50 = CGRN 201, line 26. Wine in krateres (and thus presumably mixed): IG XII 4 274–278 = LSCG 151 A–D = CGRN 86, face A, lines 49–50 and IG XII 4 332 = LSCG 156–157 = CGRN 85, line 29 (suppl.). Mixed with water: CID I 3 = CGRN 12, line 3, regulation concerning the carrying of wine from the stadium at Delphi, 530–500 BCE; LSAM 50 = CGRN 201, line 11 (κρητῆρες κιρνέαται). 249 Graf 1980, 212. Νηφάλια in the context of Greek sacrificial ritual, see e.g. IG II2 4962 = IG II3 4 3 1773, face B (cult of Asklepios, associated deities, Piraeus, early fourth century BCE, usually interpreted as any wineless libation). Libation of milk and honey: e.g. to Hemithea at Kastabos, Diod. 5.62.5. Libation of oil: Burkert 2011, 116, referring to LSCG Suppl. 2, face B, line 4; LSCG Suppl. 10, face A, line 2 (suppl.) and LSS 124, line 10. Cf. the sacrifice in Paus. 8.42.11. Milk: Theokr. eid. 1.144. Libations of blood: Ekroth 2012a, s.v. Libations, Greek. Melikraton has in previous literature been associated with libation to “Chthonian deities” (Stengel 1920, 104, 120, see also LSJ). It is however used together with σπένδω / ἐπισπένδω in the epigraphical habit. E.g. IG II2 1367, line 6 (possibly first century CE); IG XI 4 2.178, face A, lines 34 and 36 = HGK 1 = CGRN 86. 250 Hom. Od. 10.520; 11.28; 12.363. 251 Aischyl. Choeph. 129; Soph. OT 466–492. 252 Porph. abst. 2.20, used in a work about sobriety. Notably, Theophrastus does not write about a Chthonian/Olympian dichotomy concerning choice of liquid. 253 E.g. LSCG 18 = CGRN 52, column A, line 41, νηφάλιος; IG XII 4 274–278 = CGRN 86, stele A, line 38, σπονδὰς ἄ[οιν]ον. 254 E.g. honey and water as in Soph. Oid. T. 466–492; Eur. Erechtheus 65.85; honey and milk (μελίκρατον, interpreted as with milk or water by Graf 1980, 211): IG XII 4 274–278 = CGRN 86, stele A, lines 34, 36, μελίκρατον. 38 Patrik Klingborg – Hedvig von Ehrenheim – Axel Frejman Turning first to water as the sole offering, in one case in the “Odyssey”, water (ὕδωρ) is used instead of wine, for a sponde, as wine was lacking. However, this sacrifice is abnormal in several ways and seems rather to highlight how to not proceed.255 Though not during a sacrifice, in Euripides’ Hypsipyle, Amphiaraos asks for running water (ῥυτὸν ὕδωρ) to pour a libation (χέω) of chernips to the gods.256 Interestingly, here it seems that chernips, usually denoting lustral water, was used for a libation, attesting to the versatility of how this could be used. Looking at wine mixed with water, the practice is attested in the “Odyssey” where it is explicitly stated that diluted wine was to be used during a sacrifice to Poseidon.257 In another case, an Archaic inscription from the stadium at Delphi, the wine destined for a god is specifically mentioned to have been mixed.258 In later inscriptions, wine mixed with water can be seen at e.g. Kos and Miletos, as the liquid is drawn from krateres, or explicitly stated to be mixed.259 Herodotus mentions two krateres in Delphi, one of gold and one of silver, placed on either side of the temple in Delphi, potentially used for libations at the altar.260 Later the golden one was moved to a treasury and the silver one to the πρόναος where it was used for mixing wine during a θεοφάνια.261 The term wine alone could further indicate that the drink was diluted with water. For example, in the “Odyssey” a cup with the wine used for libation during a sacrifice is returned to Odysseus, presumably for drinking, suggesting that the liquid was mixed.262 In other cases, the wine is mentioned to be pure. A dossier of regulations from Miletus from ca. 200 BCE explicitly mentions the use of unmixed (ἄκρατος) wine.263 The same term is used for the libation during a 255 Hom. Od. 12.363. A sacrificial regulation from Chios, CGRN 51, forbids bringing wine to the altar, presumably for libations, although this does not necessarily mean that water was used. 256 Eur. Hypsipyle 752h lines 29–30 (~335) (ed. Collard and Cropp); ὕδωρ χ]έρνιβα θεοῖσιν ὅ[σιον] ὡς χεαίμεθα. Cf. in a funerary context where Electra pours a libation of water on her father’s tomb (χέουσα τάσδε χέρνιβας, Aischyl. Choeph. 129). 257 Hom. Od. 3.332. Stengel (1882, 329) furthermore argued, reasonably, presumably to drink. 258 CID I 3 = LSCG 76 = CGRN 12, line 3 (Delphi, 530–500 BCE). 259 LSAM 50 = CGRN 201, line 11 (κρητῆρες κιρνέαται). Drawn from krateres: CGRN 85, face A, line 29; CGRN 86, stele A, line 50; CGRN 201, line 39 (see also supra). Explicitly mixed (κεράννυμι): LSCG 151A = CGRN 86, stele A, lines 30 and 38. 260 Perhaps the participants at sacrifices would be able to drink some wine from these krateres during the rituals. 261 Hdt. 1.51. 262 Hom. Od. 14.447. 263 LSAM 50 = CGRN 201, lines 25–27 (Miletos, libations to Hecate at the gates, ca. 200 BCE), ἀκρήτω κατασπένδετε. Ritual Usage of Water in Greek Sanctuaries 39 sacrifice to Apollo in the Argonautica.264 In a less secure case, a scholia to Aristophanes’ Plutus explains that mixed wine was only libated to Hermes.265 Overall, explicit mentions of mixed or unmixed wine are few. We believe, however, that in most cases when libations only mention wine it can be assumed that it was mixed, as in many other contexts.266 This is important as libations are assumed to have been part of all sacrifices.267 Hence, the most basic ritual expressions of Greek religion, assuring ritual purity before a ritual act, and offering gifts to the gods among which libations had an important place, required water. A number of vessels could be used for libations, most commonly phialai,268 but also forms such as oinochoai269 and δέπατα.270 There was also a special libation vessel called σπονδοχόη.271 There are further a small number of depictions showing hydriai used to pour over the altar.272 In the iconographic evidence several vessels are occasionally used in combination, for example when the liquid is poured from oinochoai to phialai.273 Display seems to have been important for libations. Often the objects used are made of gold or silver and the act is prominently shown in depictions.274 A shining metal phiale would have augmented the 264 Apoll. Rhod. 1.435. Stengel (1882, 330–331) dismisses this passage as a changed echo of Hom. Il. 1.462. 265 See Stengel 1882, 329. 266 The general assumption is that, since Greeks mixed wine with water themselves (e.g. Athen. 10.426B–F, further Dalby 1995), and considered it to be barbaric to drink unmixed wine, they would have assumed the gods to prefer mixed wine. 267 Ekroth 2012a, s.v. Libations, Greek; Graf 1980, 211. 268 Aristoph. Pax 431. PHI gives 4585 matches for φιάλη, although many are repeated texts. 269 Use of a pitcher to pour the libation into the phiale as seen in libation scenes in Attic vase paintings: e.g. Gaifman 2018a, 4–5, with figs. 0.4–0.6. Noted in inventories, e.g. I.Eleusis 52 = IG I3 386–387, line 46–47 (silver); I.Eleusis 156 = IG II2 1543, line 12 (copper); IG II3 1 1010, line 45 (material not given, Asklepieion in Athens); IG II3 1 1154, line 46–48 (votive of great value, Heros iatros in Athens). 270 Aristoph. Pax 1093. 271 E.g. IG XI 2 161, 164, 175 and 211. The diminutive form σπονδοχοΐδιον can be seen at ID 439, 444 and 461. 272 Beazley Archive 330996 and 352068. Hydriai are also shown in depictions of Heracles and Bursis, where they are carried by servants fleeing the scene, but this is difficult to interpret in relation to Greek cults. 273 Gaifman 2018a; 2018b. Seen on libation scenes in Attic vase paintings, e.g. Gaifman 2018a: figs 0.4–0.6 (Beazley Archive 201960, 214100 and 216460). 274 Phialai in gold, also silver: IG I3 292–309 (Akropolis, pronaos). Silver: IG I3 310 (Akropolis, pronaos). Οἰνοχόαι in gold: e.g. IG II2 1412, 1413, 1415, 1443 (1443 is broken, possibly indicating use, and not only function as a votive gift). Silver: e.g. IG II2 1378, 1392, 1396, 1400, 1401, 1404, 1407. Ὑδρίαι in gold: IG II2 1415, 1424a, 1425, 1429a, 1463, 1465, 1492: all of these instances come from inventories from the Temple of Athena on the Acropolis of Athens. Unknown material, presumably elaborate ceramics, e.g. IG II2 1432, 1437, 1541, 1638. 40 Patrik Klingborg – Hedvig von Ehrenheim – Axel Frejman visual impact of the pouring itself and therefore the importance of the libations. Furthermore, Milette Gaifman has explored the theatrical display of libations, and how the phiale was adapted to a steady flow of liquid.275 Following Rutherford’s interpretation, the viewing in itself was as much part of the religious act as the prayer.276 Notably, it was not only the value of the items in themselves, but their role in enhancing the act and its visibility that was important. We even know of the existence of a φιαληφόρος in an inscription concerning the cult of Magna Mater in Piraeus – appointing a special officiant to carry the phiale no doubt highlighted the visual performance of the ritual.277 One important effect of pouring liquid on a burning altar was the production of vapour and a larger volume of smoke as the efficiency of the fire was reduced. This would create a visual marker, indicating to anyone in the sanctuary that a sacrifice was ongoing, even if it was difficult to see the details. It would also have produced an initial hissing noise when poured over the fire and hot altar.278 Possibly, libations were made several times during the sacrifice,279 as additional elements of ritual display.280 However, there is no evidence that sacrificial fires were habitually put out using libations.281 After the sacrifice, further libations were made during dining. In these cases, mixed wine can be presumed although explicit examples are rare. In a complex passage in Euripides’ Ion, mixed wine is however libated during dining.282 Krateres are also known from inventories, for example an inventory from the Athenian 275 Gaifman 2018a; 2018b. Burkert (1997, 14) suggests that the libating of wine would have made the alcohol flame up, but this is unlikely considering the low alcohol content of wine. 276 Rutherford 2013, 143. 277 IG II2 1328. 278 Religiously significant visual events have been noted also in the rising tail or intense fire when the thigh bones and fat burn (tails: Jameson 2008; Ekroth 2009, 142–145, esp. fig. 7. Thigh bones and fat: Ekroth 2019, 229). The sensory experience by touch has been explored by Gaifman 2018b. One way to strengthen the visuality of acts using water at the altar was to use large branches when purifying victims (CGRN 86). The perforated phialai, noted above, might also have facilitated an even spread of liquid over the fire, thus maximizing the effect while not quenching the fire. 279 Aristoph. Pax 1101–1110 features repeated libations, though this cannot be taken at face value as Aristophanes is using the word σπονδή (meaning both libation and truce) as part of the comic scheme. 280 Altars were sometimes deliberately stained with blood during the sacrifice, see Ekroth 2005, 19. This, taken in combination with an inscription from Eleusis where it is mentioned that the altar should be whitewashed in preparation for a festival (IG I3 386, line 155 τὸμ βομὸν] περι[αλεῖφσαι) could perhaps suggest that a contrast between the white altar and the red blood had a similar visual reverberation in the ritual, again adding to the ritual display in the sacrifice. 281 As claimed by e.g. Graf 1980, 211; Burkert 2011, 115; Ekroth 2009, 94. 282 Eur. Ion 1122–1208. Ritual Usage of Water in Greek Sanctuaries 41 amphictyones of Delos where several krateres might have been part of a dining setup.283 Libations also took place in connection to other acts, for example during games and theatrical displays.284 In the evidence, the making of libations is also often done in association with prayers away from sacrifices, in particular in Homer, but the medium is not specified further than wine and it is not done within the context of sanctuaries.285 However, it seems reasonable to assume that individuals could and did perform libations in sanctuaries without sacrificing.286 5. Concluding Remarks Water played an important, and from an emic perspective often self-evident, role in the religious life at sanctuaries. Our analysis has corroborated previous scholars’ view that the primary religious need of water was for purifications, but it has also explored its use for the cleaning of images, and libations. Notably, ritual usage of water in connection with sanctuaries appears to have conformed to a spatio-temporal framework, moving from the home to the sanctuary, and taking place on a spectrum from mundane to ritual, where cleaning gradually moved from more physical or utilitarian washing to more ritual and religiously significant purification. Through the desire for eukosmia, good order, at the sanctuary, even some otherwise seemingly utilitarian tasks gained a religious flavour, for example the washing of statues of mortals. In line with this, the washing of the hands constituted an important sign of respect for the gods when actively communicating with them.287 The spatio-temporal framework began before leaving the home, where a first purification was often performed. We suggest that this cleaning, often described with the term louô, was more physically thorough, while both ritual and utilitarian in nature. As this was done in private, visually expressing the purification was less important than the individual act of piety. An intermediate purification could be done on the way to the sanctuary, or just outside the temenos. This would have been more symbolic than the first cleaning, but could still have served to clean 283 IG II2 1638. In the same group of objects baskets, incensers, two large bowls (ὁλκεῖα), lampstands, and oinochoai are also found. 284 E.g. CGRN 176, lines 17–18; 164, line 10; 147, line 8. 285 E.g. Hom. Il. 6.266; 16.228–250; 24.286–314; 24.305; Od. 15.256–259. 286 In the following sacred norms, different types of libations are mentioned, either as being offered alone, or it being unclear if they were offered in combination with other offerings: IG XII 5 1027 = CGRN 9, lines 3–4; CGRN 119, line 17. Libations connected with oaths: e.g. IG IV 841 = CGRN 107, lines 31–32. 287 Hes. erg. 724–726. 42 Patrik Klingborg – Hedvig von Ehrenheim – Axel Frejman up the individual’s physical appearance, especially if travelling far to the sanctuary. Arriving at the temenos, a symbolic washing was done by the entrance, often using perirrhanteria, although this is less commonly attested than often assumed. Once inside the sanctuary, further symbolic purifications were performed. By the altar, the hands of the primary ritual enactors were purified and the group was sprinkled, marking out who had a part in the killing and eating. The altar itself may also have been purified. Likewise, there are cases where perirrhanteria are attested at the entrance of temples, suggesting that further purifications could be needed before entering the house of the god. Notably, once the sacrifice was over, or an individual had left the temple, no further purifications were needed, suggesting that this part of the ritual purpose of the visit, i.e. the communication with the god, had been concluded. Outside this spatio-temporal framework, hands and feet could be washed before dining in association with sacrifices. What is striking concerning the ritual use of water at sanctuaries is that all of these activities would have required relatively small volumes of water, in contrast to the more thorough washing (λούω) performed at home before leaving for the sanctuary. The practices at Greek sanctuaries are particularly interesting as they highlight the difference between ritual and physical cleaning. It is difficult to argue that physical cleanliness was a central component of religious purity, as defilement was tied to impure acts. However, eukosmia was important, and included cleanliness of people, places, and items, as a way to show respect for the gods288 especially before festivals.289 Through this, cleaning gained a religious significance. While water is the natural medium for physical cleaning it also has the important advantage of being the most readily available fluid, even in the warm and dry Greek climate. Consequently, it was a convenient choice for ritual needs. The fact that most symbolic purifications were performed with water may therefore partly have been an expression of practical considerations. One aspect that has seldom been considered in the discourse on water and religion is the visual element. When done, studies have focused on how this increased the experience of a religious act for the worshippers.290 Based on the evidence presented above we argue that the visual, when using water, also played an important 288 Horster 2019; Ekroth accepted, on a notion of keeping the temenos clean as a way of showing the divine owner respect. Cf. Wächter 1910, 6–24, where some of his examples arguably denote a physically clean body and clean clothes. 289 Petrovic – Petrovic 2016, chapter 5. 290 The visual and auditative aspects of ritual was recognized earlier but has recently come to the fore within the study of religion, see Otto 1929, 201; Kerényi 1942, 116; Elsner 1995; Kowalzig 2008; Melfi 2010; Platt 2011; Gaifman 2018a and 2018b. Following Rutherford 2013 this aspect of Greek ritual has become one of the central conceptions/categories used to interpret Greek ritual. Ritual Usage of Water in Greek Sanctuaries 43 role in marking spaces and strengthening select groups, for example through the use of perirrhanteria at the limit of the sanctuary or the sprinkling of the sacrificial group. Similarly, at the altar this was performed for a smaller group either by sprinkling or washing of the hands. During sacrifices, libations would also have augmented the ceremony by the creation of smoke, perhaps at select and well-known points. Through this, even individuals who could not see the altar itself would immediately know that a sacrifice was taking place. Because of the need for water in most libations it is also notable that the liquid was a requirement for two of the pillars of Greek cult: the assertion of purity and the act of sacrificing. The visual perspective is central because it shows how action was of primary importance when using water in ritual contexts, not the exact nature of the medium or objects used. As we have shown above, it is rarely specified from what source the water came. Only in a small number of cases is it specified that the water should be from the sea, or from a spring. Exactly how the water was used in ritual is often difficult to ascertain, but there are good reasons to assume that it was rarely formally regulated as no specific instructions are preserved in our material. Therefore it seems that in most cases exactly what type of water was used, how it was used, and with what implements was of less importance than the performance of the necessary acts. Acknowledgements: This article is a result of the project “Water at ancient Greek sanctuaries: medium of divine presence or commodity for mortal visitors?” funded by the Swedish Research Council. For a presentation of the project, see Ehrenheim – Klingborg – Frejman 2019. We would like to thank Lin Foxhall for her valuable comments on a draft version of this paper, as well as the members of the Higher Seminar at the Department of Archaeology and Ancient History at Uppsala University, in particular Gunnel Ekroth, Dominic Ingemark, Marianne Wifstrand Schiebe and Erika Weiberg, for their much-appreciated feedback. We are also grateful for the work of the peer reviewers. Funding: Funder Name: Vetenskapsrådet, Funder Id: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/ 501100004359, Grant Number: 2018-01414 6. Bibliography Aleshire 1989: S. B. Aleshire, The Athenian Asklepieion. The People, Their Dedications and the Inventories, Amsterdam 1989. Barnes 1984: J. Barnes, The Complete Works of Aristotle. The Revised Oxford Translation, Princeton 1984. 44 Patrik Klingborg – Hedvig von Ehrenheim – Axel Frejman Beard 1991: M. Beard, Adopting an Approach II, in: T. Rasmussen – N. Spivey (eds.), Looking at Greek Vases, Cambridge 1991, 12–35. Beeks 2010: R. Beeks, Etymological Dictionary of Greek, Leiden – Boston 2010. Bekker 1814: I. Bekker, Anecdota Graeca I, Berlin 1814. Bouchon – Decourt 2017: R. Bouchon – J.-C. Decourt, Le règlement religieux de Marmarini (Thessalie). Nouvelles lectures, nouvelles interpretations, Kernos 30, 2017, 1–25. Bremmer 2002: J. Bremmer, How Old is the Ideal of Holiness (of Mind) in the Epidaurian Temple Inscriptions and the Hippocratic Oath?, ZPE 141, 2002, 106–108. Broneer 1959: O. Broneer, Excavations at Isthmia. Fourth Campaign, 1957–1958, Hesperia 28, 1959, 298–343. Broneer 1971: O. Broneer, Isthmia, I: Temple of Poseidon, Princeton 1971. Brosius 2001: M. Brosius (ed.), Ancient Archives and Archival Traditions. Concepts of Record-Keeping in the Ancient World, Oxford 2001. Bulloch 1985: A. W. Bulloch, Callimachus. The Fifth Hymn. Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Cambridge 1985. Burkert 1997: W. Burkert, Homo Necans. Interpretationen altgriechischer Opferriten und Mythen, Berlin – New York 19972. Burkert 2011: W. Burkert, Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche (Die Religionen der Menschheit 15), Stuttgart 20112. Carbon – Pirenne-Delforge 2012: M. Carbon – V. Pirenne-Delforge, Beyond Greek ‘Sacred Laws’, Kernos 25, 2012, 163–182. Casabona 1966: J. Casabona, Recherches sur le vocabulaire des sacrifices en grec des origines à la fin de l’époque Classique (Publication des Annales de la Faculté des lettres, Aix-en-Provence nouv. série 56), Aix-en-Provence 1966. CGRN = J.-M. Carbon – S. Peels – V. Pirenne-Delforge, A Collection of Greek Ritual Norms (CGRN), Liège 2016 (http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be, consulted in 23.05.2021). Chaniotis 1997: A. Chaniotis, Reinheit des Körpers. Reinheit des Sinnes in den griechischen Kultgesetzen, in: J. Assmann – T. Sundermeier (eds.), Schuld, Gewissen und Person, Gütersloh 1997, 142–179. Chaniotis 2012: A. Chaniotis, Greek Ritual Purity. From Automatisms to Moral Distinctions, in: P. Roesch – U. Simon (eds.), How Purity is Made, Wiesbaden 2012, 123–139. Cole 1988: S. G. Cole, The Uses of Water in Greek Sanctuaries, in: R. Hägg – N. Marinatos – G. C. Nordquist (eds.), Early Greek Cult Practice. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 26–29 June, 1986 (Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae IV.38), Stockholm 1988, 161–165. Cole 2004: S. Cole, Landscapes, Gender, and Ritual Space. The Ancient Greek Experience, Berkeley – Los Angeles – London 2004. Collard – Cropp 2009: C. Collard – M. Cropp, Euripides. Fragments: Oedipus-Chrysippus. Other Fragments (Loeb Classical Library 506), Cambridge (MA) 2009. Cosmopoulos 2015: M. B. Cosmopoulos, Bronze Age Eleusis and the Origins of the Eleusinian Mysteries, New York 2015. Dalby 1995: A. Dalby, Siren Feasts. A History of Food and Gastronomy in Ancient Greece, London 1995. Decourt – Tziafalias 2015: J.-C. Decourt – A. Tziafalias, Un règlement religieux de la région de Larissa. Cultes grecs et « orientaux », Kernos 28, 2015, 13–51. Deubner 1932: L. Deubner, Attische Feste, Berlin 1932. Diels – Kranz 1951: P. H. Diels – W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker I, Berlin 19516. Ritual Usage of Water in Greek Sanctuaries 45 Dignas 2002: B. Dignas, ‘Inventories’ or ‘Offering Lists’? Assessing the Wealth of Apollo Didymaeus, ZPE 138, 2002, 234–244. Dillon 2002: M. Dillon, Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion, London – New York 2002. Dobias-Lalou 2000: C. Dobias-Lalou, Le dialecte des inscriptions grecques de Cyrène (Karthago 25), Paris 2000. Dunant 2009: E. Dunant, Natural Water Resources and the Sacred in Attica, in: C. Kosso – A. Scott (eds.), The Nature and Function of Water, Baths, Bathing and Hygiene from Antiquity Through the Renaissance (Technology and Change in History 11), Leiden – Boston 2009, 277–301. Edelstein – Edelstein 1945: E. J. Edelstein – L. Edelstein, Asclepius. A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies, II: Interpretation (Publications of the Institute of the History of Medicine, the Johns Hopkins University, Second Series, Texts and Documents 2), Baltimore 1945. Ehrenheim 2015: H. von Ehrenheim, Greek Incubation Rituals in Classical and Hellenistic Times (Kernos: Revue internationale et pluridisciplinaire de religion grecque antique, Supplément 29), Liège 2015. Ehrenheim 2022: H. von Ehrenheim, To Purify from the Head Down in Greek Sacred Norms. Mind and Body?, ZPE 223, 2022, 41–48. Ehrenheim – Klingborg – Frejman 2019: H. von Ehrenheim – P. Klingborg – A. Frejman, Water at Ancient Greek Sanctuaries. Medium of Divine Presence or Commodity for Mortal Visitors, Journal of Archaeology and Ancient History 26, 2019, 1–31. Ekroth 2002: G. Ekroth, The Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Hero-Cults in the Archaic to the Early Hellenistic Periods (Kernos: Revue internationale et pluridisciplinaire de religion grecque antique, Supplément 12), Liège 2002. Ekroth 2005: G. Ekroth, Blood on the Altars? On the Treatment of Blood at Greek Sacrifices and the Iconographical Evidence, AK 48, 2005, 9–29. Ekroth 2009: G. Ekroth, Thighs or Tails? The Osteological Evidence as a Source for Greek Ritual Norms, in: P. Brulé (ed.), La norme en matière religieuse dans la Grèce antique, Liège 2009, 125–151. Ekroth 2012a: G. Ekroth, Libations, Greek, in: R. S. Bagnall – K. Brodersen – C. B. Champion – A. Erskine (eds.), The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, Online resource 2012, 4051–4052, (https://doi. org/10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17240, accessed 05.02.2023). Ekroth 2012b: G. Ekroth, Pelops Joins the Party. Transformations of a Hero Cult within the Festival at Olympia, in: J. R. Brandt – J. W. Iddeng (eds.), Greek and Roman Festivals. Content, Meaning, and Practice, Oxford 2012, 95–137. Ekroth 2014: G. Ekroth, Animal Sacrifice in Antiquity, in: G. L. Campbell (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Animals in Classical Thought and Life, Oxford 2014, 324–354. Ekroth 2019: G. Ekroth, Why Does Zeus Care About Burnt Thighbones from Sheep? Defining the Divine and Structuring the World Through Animal Sacrifice in Ancient Greece, HR 58, 2019, 225–250. Ekroth accepted: G. Ekroth, A Room of One’s Own? Exploring the Temenos Concept as Divine Property, in: J. Wallensten – M. Haysom – M. Mili (eds.), Stuff of the Gods. The Material Aspects of Religion in Ancient Greece (Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae), accepted. Elsner 1995: J. Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer. The Transformation of Art from the Pagan World to Christianity, Cambridge 1995. Elsner 2007: J. Elsner, Roman Eyes. Visuality & Subjectivity in Art & Text, Princeton 2007. Faraone 2009: C. A. Faraone, Household Religion in Ancient Greece, in: J. Bodel – S. M. Olyan (eds.), Household and Family Religion in Antiquity, Malden (MA) – Oxford – Carlton 2009, 210–228. Frejman 2020: A. Frejman, With Gods as Neighbours. Extra-Temenal Activity at Greek Rural Sanctuaries, 700–200 BCE, Diss. Uppsala University 2020. French 1991: E. B. French, Archaeology in Greece 1990–91, Archaeological Reports 37, 1991, 3–78. 46 Patrik Klingborg – Hedvig von Ehrenheim – Axel Frejman Fullerton 1986: M. D. Fullerton, The Archaistic Perirrhanteria of Attica, Hesperia 55, 1986, 207–217. Gaifman 2018a: M. Gaifman, The Art of Libation in Classical Athens, New Haven – London 2018. Gaifman 2018b: M. Gaifman, The Greek Libation Bowl as Embodied Object, Art History: Journal of the Association for Art History 41, 2018, 445–465. Georgoudi et al. 2005: S. Georgoudi – V. Pirenne-Delforge – K. B. Connelly – C. Sourvinou-Inwood, Personnel de culte: monde grec (Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum 5), Los Angeles 2005, 1–65. Ginouvès 1962: R. Ginouvès, Balaneutikè. Recherches sur le bain dans l’antiquité grecque (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 200), Paris 1962. Glaser 1983: F. Glaser, Antike Brunnenbauten (KRHNAI) in Griechenland (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Denkschriften 161), Vienna 1983. Goldstein 1978: M. S. Goldstein, The Setting of the Ritual Meal in Greek Sanctuaries: 600–300 B.C., Diss. University of California 1978. Graf 1980: F. Graf, Milch, Honig und Wein. Zum Verständnis der Libation im griechischen Ritual, in: A. Brelich – Å. Hultkranz (eds.), Perennitas. Studi in onore di Angelo Brelich, Rome 1980, 209–221. Graf 2004: F. Graf, s.v. Eid, in: Thesaurus cultus et rituum antiquorum II, Basel 2004, 237–246. Gränzer et al. 2011: A. Gränzer – S. Hoss – E. Owens – G. Zuchtriegel – M. Trümper 2011, Non-Roman Forerunners, in: G.C.M. Jansen – A. O. Koloski-Ostrow – E. M. Moormann (eds.), Roman Toilets. Their Archaeology and Cultural History (Babesch suppl 19), Paris – Walpole 2011, 21–24. Günter 1988: W. Günter, «Vieux et inutilisable» dans un inventaire inédit de Milet, in: D. Knoepfler (ed.), Comptes et inventaires dans la cité Grecque. Actes du colloque international d’épigraphie tenu à Neuchâtel du 23 au 26 septembre 1986 en l’honneur de Jacques Tréheux, Genève 1988, 215–237. Hamilton 2000: R. Hamilton, Treasure Map. A Guide to the Delian Inventories, Ann Arbor 2000. Hamilton 2003: R. Hamilton, The Prytaneion Treasure and the Paradox of Delian Inventories, Tekmeria 8, 2003, 7–25. Harris 1994: D. Harris, Freedom of Information and Accountability. The Inventory Lists of the Parthenon, in: R. Osborne – S. Hornblower (eds.), Ritual, Finance, Politics. Athenian Democratic Accounts Presented to David Lewis, Oxford 1994, 213–225. Harris 1995: D. Harris, The Treasures of the Parthenon and the Erechtheion, Oxford 1995. Harris-Cline 2005: D. Harris-Cline, Women and Sacred Property. The Evidence from Greek Inscriptions, in: D. Lyons – R. Westbrook (eds.), Conference Paper Centre for Hellenic Studies, Women and Property, Online resource 2005, 1–11 (consulted https://www.academia.edu/4520428/Women_ and_Sacred_Property_The_Evidence_from_Greek_Inscriptions, 15.05.2020). Hassoullier 1879: B. Hassoullier, Inscriptiones de Chios, BCH 3, 1879, 45–58. Heath 1988: J. R. Heath, The Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachus’ Bath of Pallas, ClAnt 7, 1988, 72–90. Heberdey 1904: R. Heberday, Δαιτίς. Ein Beitrag zum ephesischen Artemiscult, JÖAI 7, 1904, 210–215. Herington 1955: C. J. Herington, Athena Parthenos and Athena Polias. A Study in the Religion of Periclean Athens (Publications of the Faculty of Arts of the University of Manchester 7), Manchester 1955. Hodkinson 2013: O. Hodkinson, Epistolarity and Narrative in Ps.-Aeschines Epistle 10, in: O. Hodkinson – P. A. Rosen-Meyer – E. Bracke (eds.), Epistolary Narratives in Ancient Greek literature, Leiden – Boston 2013, 323–345. Hollinshead 2015: M. B. Hollinshead, The North Court of the Erechtheion and the Ritual of the Plynteria, AJA 119, 2015, 177–190. Hoot 2014: D. R. Hoot, The Sanctuary of Asclepius at Epidaurus in Roman Times, Diss. University of Florida 2014. Ritual Usage of Water in Greek Sanctuaries 47 Horster 2019: M. Horster, Apollo’s Servants – Cleaning the Sanctuary and Keeping Things in Order, in: T. S. Scheer (ed.), Natur – Mythos – Religion im antiken Griechenland. Nature – Myth – Religion in Ancient Greece (Potsdamer Altertumswissenschaftlichen Beiträge 67), Stuttgart 2019, 201–217. Hunter 1992: R. Hunter, Writing the God. Form and Meaning in Callimachus, Hymn to Athena, MD 29, 1992, 9–34. Ilieva 2012: P. Ilieva, Altar or Perirrhanterion. Were There Water Purification Rites in the Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace?, in: K. Rabadjiev et al. (eds.), Изкуство и идеология. Art & Ideology: Studia in Honorem Prof. Ivani Marazov, Sofia 2012, 487–502. Jameson 2008: M. H. Jameson, Sacrifice and Animal Husbandry in Classical Greece, in: C. R. Whittaker (ed.), Pastoral Economies in Classical Antiquity, 87–119, Cambridge 2008. Jameson – Jordan – Kotansky 1993: M. H. Jameson – D. R. Jordan – R. D. Kotansky, A Lex Sacra from Selinous (GRBS Monographs 11), Durham (NC) 1993. Jordan 1979: B. Jordan, Servants of the Gods. A Study in the Religion, History and Literature of Fifth-Century Athens (Hypomnemata: Untersuchungen zur Antike und zu ihrem Nachleben 55), Göttingen 1979. Kerényi 1942: K. Kerényi, Die antike Religion. Eine Grundlegung, Amsterdam 1942. Kerschner 1996: M. Kerschner, Perirrhanterien und Becken, in K. Hoffelner – M. Kerschner, Alt-Ägina, II.4: Die Sphinxsäule. Votivträger, Altäre, Steingeräte. Perirrhanterien und Becken, Mainz am Rhein 1996, 59–132. Kindt 2010: J. Kindt, Parmeniscus’ Journey. Tracing Religious Visuality in Word and Wood, CJ 105, 2010, 252–264. Klingborg accepted: P. Klingborg, Utilitarian Uses of Water at Greek Sanctuaries, in: J. Barringer – G. Ekroth – D. Scahill (eds.), Logistics at Greek Sanctuaries, accepted. Kobusch 2020: P. Kobusch, Fountains and Basins in Greek Sanctuaries. On the Relationship between Ritual Performance and Architecture, in: N. Chiarenza – A. Haug – U. Müller (eds.), The Power of Urban Water. Studies in Premodern Urbanism, Leck 2020, 69–84. Kock 1880: T. Kock, Comicorum Atticorum fragmenta I, Leipzig 1880. Kowalzig 2008: B. Kowalzig, Singing for the Gods, Oxford 2008. Larson 2007: J. Larsson, Ancient Greek Cults. A Guide, New York 2007. Leypold 2008: C. Leypold, Bankettgebäude in griechischen Heiligtümern, Wiesbaden 2008. LiDonnici 1995: L. R. LiDonnici, The Epidaurian Miracle Inscriptions. Text, Translation and Commentary, Atlanta 1995. Liebeschuetz 2015: W. Liebeschuetz, East and West in Late Antiquity. Invasion, Settlement, Ethnogenesis and Conflicts of Religion, Leiden – Boston 2015. Linders 1972: T. Linders, Studies in the Treasure Records of Artemis Brauronia Found in Athens (Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae IV, 19), Stockholm 1972. Linders 1975: T. Linders, The Treasurers of the Other Gods in Athens and Their Functions (Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 62), Meisenheim am Glan 1975. Linders 1988: T. Linders, The Purpose of Inventories. A Close Reading of the Delian Inventories of the Independence, in: D. Knoepfler – N. Quellet (eds.), Comptes et inventaires dans la cité grecque. Actes du colloque d’épigraphie tenu à Neuchâtel du 23 au 26 septembre 1986 en honneur de Jacques Tréheux (Recueil de Travaux publiés par la Faculté des Lettres 40), Neuchâtel 1988, 37–47. Linders 1992: T. Linders, The Delian Temple Accounts. Some Observations, OAth 19, 1992, 69–73. Linders 2007: T. Linders, The Location of the Opisthodomos. Evidence from the Temple of Athena Parthenos Inventories, AJA 111, 2007, 777–782. 48 Patrik Klingborg – Hedvig von Ehrenheim – Axel Frejman Lloyd 1979: G.E.R. Lloyd, Magic, Experience, and Reason. Studies in the Origin and Development of Greek Science, Cambridge 1979. Lupu 2005: E. Lupu, Greek Sacred Law. A Collection of New Documents (NGSL) (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 152), Leiden – Boston 2005. Makaronas – Miller 1974: C. I. Makaronas – S. G. Miller, The Tomb of Lyson and Kallikles. A Painted Hellenistic Tomb, Archaeology 27, 1974, 248–259. Meinel 2015: F. Meinel, Pollution and Crisis in Greek Tragedy, Cambridge 2015. Melfi 2010: M. Melfi, Ritual Spaces and Performances in the Asklepieia of Roman Greece, ABSA 105, 2010, 317–338. Mikalson 2016: J. Mikalson, New Aspects of Religion in Ancient Athens. Honors, Authorities, Esthetics, and Society, Leiden 2016. Milne 1944: M. J. Milne, A Greek Footbath in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, AJA 48, 1944, 26–63. Morgan 2007: J. E. Morgan, Space and the Notion of Final Frontier. Searching for Ritual Boundaries in the Classical Athenian Home, Kernos 20, 2007, 113–129. Müller 2010: H. Müller, Ein Kultverein von Asklepiasten bei einem attalidischen Phrourion im Yüntdağ, Chiron 40, 2010, 427–457. Naiden 2007: F. Naiden, The Fallacy of the Willing Victim, JHS 127, 2007, 61–73. Naiden 2015: F. Naiden, Sacrifice, in: E. Eidinow – J. Kindt (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Religion, Oxford 2015, 463–476. Otto 1929: W. F. Otto, Die Götter Griechenlands. Das Bild des Göttlichen im Spiegel des griechischen Geistes, Bonn 1929. Page 1941: D. L. Page, Select Papyri, III: Poetry (Loeb Classical Library 360), Cambridge (MA) 1941. Papazarkadas – Wallensten 2020: N. Papazarkadas – J. Wallensten, Religion and Family Politics in Hellenistic Kalaureia. Three New Inscriptions from the Sanctuary of Poseidon, Opuscula: Annual of the Swedish Institutes at Athens and Rome 13, 2020, 139–164. Parke 1977: H. W. Parke, Festivals of the Athenians, London 1977. Parke 1978: H. W. Parke, Castalia, BCH 102, 1978, 199–219. Parker 1983: R. Parker, Miasma. Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion, Oxford 1983. Parker 2005: R. Parker, Polytheism and Society at Athens, Oxford 2005. Parker 2011: R. Parker, On Greek Religion, Ithaca – London 2011. Parker 2018: R. Parker, Miasma. Old and New Problems, in: J.-M. Carbon – S. Peels-Matthey (eds.), Purity and Purification in the Ancient Greek World. Texts, Rituals, and Norms (Kernos: Revue internationale et pluridisciplinaire de religion grecque antique, Supplément 32), Liège 2018, 23–33. Parker – Scullion 2016: R. Parker – S. Scullion, The Mysteries of the Goddess of Marmarini, Kernos 29, 2016, 209–266. Pébarthe 2006: C. Pébarthe, Cité, démocratie et écriture. Histoire de l’alphabétisation d’Athènes à l’époque Classique, Paris 2006. Petrovic – Petrovic 2016: A. Petrovic – I. Petrovic, Inner Purity and Pollution in Greek Religion, Oxford 2016. Petrovic – Petrovic 2018: A. Petrovic – I. Petrovic, Purity of Body and Soul in the Cult of Athena Lindia. On the Eastern Background of Greek Abstentions, in: J.-M. Carbon – S. Peels-Matthey (eds.), Purity and Purification in the Ancient Greek World. Texts, Rituals, and Norms (Kernos: Revue internationale et pluridisciplinaire de religion grecque antique, Supplément 32), Liège 2018, 225–258. Picard 1922: C. Picard, Ephèse et Claros. Recherches sur les sanctuaires et les cultes de l’Ionie du nord, Paris 1922. Ritual Usage of Water in Greek Sanctuaries 49 Pimpl 1997: H. Pimpl, Perirrhanteria und Louteria. Entwicklung und Verwendung grosser Marmorund Kalksteinbecken auf figürlichem und säulenartigem Untersatz in Griechenland, Berlin 1997. Platt 2011: V. Platt, Facing the Gods. Epiphany and Representation in Graeco-Roman Art, Literature and Religion, Cambridge 2011. Polly 2010: W. Polly, Touching the Gods. Physical Interaction with Cult Statues in the Roman World, Diss. Durham University 2010. Pötscher 1964: W. Pötscher, Theophrastos. Περὶ εὐσεβείας (Philosophia Antiqua 11), Leiden 1964. Robert 1952: F. Robert, Exploration Archéologique de Délos XX. Trois sanctuaires sur le rivage occidental: Dioscourion, Asclépieion, sanctuaire anonyme (Leucothion?), Paris 1952. Robertson 1993: N. Robertson, Athens’ Festival of the New Wine, HSPh 95, 1993, 197–250. Robinson 2019: B. A. Robinson, The Prospect from the Watershed. Places and Poetics, Figures and Narrative, in: B. A. Robinson – S. Bouffier – I. F. Ortega (eds.), Ancient Waterlands, Aix-enProvence 2019, 15–34. Romano 1980: I. B. Romano, Early Greek Cult Images, Diss. University of Pennsylvania 1980. Romano 1988: I. B. Romano, Early Greek Cult Images and Cult Practices, in: R. Hägg – N. Marinatos – G. C. Nordquist (eds.), Early Greek Cult Practice. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 26–29 June, 1986 (Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae IV.38), Stockholm 1988, 127–133. Rose 1886: V. Rose, Aristotelis qui Ferebantur Librorum Fragmenta, Leipzig 1886. Ruffel 2017: I. Ruffel, Tragedy and Fictionality, in: I. Ruffell – L. Hau (eds.), Truth and History in the Ancient World, Pluralising the Past, New York 2017, 32–54. Rutherford 2013: I. Rutherford, State Pilgrims and Sacred Observers in Ancient Greece. A Study of Theōriā and Theōroi, Cambridge 2013. Scheer 2000: T. S. Scheer, Die Gottheit und ihr Bild. Untersuchungen zur Funktion griechischer Kultbilder in Religion und Politik, Zetemata (Monographien zur Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 105), Munich 2000. Scheid 1995: J. Scheid, Graeco Ritu: A Typical Roman Way of Honoring the Gods, HSPh 97, 1995, 15–31. Scobie 1986: A. Scobie, Slums, Sanitation, and Mortality in the Roman World, Klio 68, 1986, 399–433. Scott 2011: M. Scott, Displaying Lists of What is (Not) on Display. The Uses of Inventories in Greek Sanctuaries, in: M. Haysom – J. Wallensten (eds.), Current Approaches to Religion in Ancient Greece, Papers Presented at a Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 17–19 April 2008 (Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae VIII.21), Stockholm 2011, 239–252. Seiterle 1979: G. Seiterle, Artemis. Die grosse Göttin von Ephesos. Eine neue Deutung der Vielbrüstigkeit eröffnet einen Zugang zum bisher unbekannten Kult der Göttin, AW 10, 1979, 3–16. Shaya 2014: J. Shaya, Greek Temple Treasures and the Invention of Collecting, in: M. W. Gahtan – D. Pegazzano (eds.), Museum Archetypes and Collecting in the Ancient World, Leiden 2014, 24–32. Simon 1983: E. Simon, Festivals of Attica. An Archaeological Commentary, Madison 1983. Sourvinou-Inwood 1988: C. Sourvinou-Inwood, Further Aspects of Polis Religion, AION(archeol) 10, 1988, 259–274. Sourvinou-Inwood 2011: C. Sourvinou-Inwood, Athenian Myths and Festivals. Aglauros, Erechtheus, Plynteria, Panathenaia, Dionysia, Oxford 2011. Stengel 1882: P. Stengel, Weinspenden bei Brandopfern, Hermes 17, 1882, 329–332. Stengel 1910: P. Stengel, Opferbräuche der Griechen, Leipzig – Berlin 1910. Stengel 1920: P. Stengel, Die griechischen Kultusaltertümer (Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 5.3), München 1920. 50 Patrik Klingborg – Hedvig von Ehrenheim – Axel Frejman Sturgeon 1987: C. M. Sturgeon, Sculpture, I: 1952–1967 (Isthmia IV), Princeton 1987. Thesleff 1965: H. Thesleff, The Pythagorean Texts of the Hellenistic Period, Åbo 1965. Tolles 1943: D. Tolles, The Banquet-Libations of the Greeks, Diss. Bryn Mawr College 1943. Trinkl 2009: E. Trinkl, Sacrificial and Profane Use of Greek Hydria, in: A. Tsingarida (ed.), Shapes and Uses of Greek Vases (7th–4th centuries B.C.). Proceedings of the Symposium Held at the Université Libre de Bruxelles, 27–29 April 2006, Bruxelles 2009, 153–171. Trümpy 1997: C. Trümpy, Untersuchungen zu den altgriechischen Monatsnamen und Monatsfolgen, Heidelberg 1997. Ussher 1960: R. G. Ussher, The Characters of Theophrastus, edited with Commentary and Index by R. G. Ussher, London 1960. van Rookhuijzen 2020: J. van Rookhuijzen, The Parthenon Treasury on the Acropolis of Athens, AJA 124, 2020, 3–35. van Rookhuijzen 2021: J. van Rookhuijzen, The Erechtheion on the Acropolis of Athens, Kernos 34, 2021, 69–121. von Reden 2003: S. von Reden, Exchange in Ancient Greece, London 2003. Wächter 1910: T. Wächter, Reinheitsvorschriften im griechischen Kult (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 9.1), Gießen 1910. Warford 2015: E. Warford, The Multipolar Polis. A Study of Processions in Classical Athens and the Attica Countryside, Diss. University at Buffalo 2015. Wilson 2000: A. Wilson, Drainage and Sanitation, in: Ö. Wikander (ed.), Handbook of Ancient Water Technology (Technology and Change in History 2), Leiden – Boston – Köln 2000, 151–179. Zimmerman 2020: C. Zimmerman, Water in Early Christian Ritual. Baptism and Baptisteries in Corinth, in: N. Chiarenza – A. Haug – U. Müller (eds.), The Power of Urban Water. Studies in Premodern Urbanism, Leck 2020, 85–104.