• *  I am grateful to Barbara Borg, Angelos Chaniotis, and Alexander Herda for many useful discussions (...)
• 1 1 Maccabees I, 41-50 (all translations from The New English Bible With the Apocrypha, Oxford/ Cambr (...)
• 2 1 Maccabees, I, 54. 59-60: καὶ πεντεκαιδεκάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ Χασελεὺ τῷ πέμπτῳ καὶ τεσσαρακοστῷ ἔτει ᾠκοδόμη (...)
• 3 2 Maccabees VI, 2: μολῦναι δὲ καὶ τὸν ἐν Ἰεροσολύμοις νεὼ καὶ προσονομάσαι Διὸς Ὀλυμπίου. At the sa (...)

1Around 167 BC, Antiochos IV attempted to violently impose a dramatic change in religious attitude and practices upon Judaea. The accounts in the first and second books of the Maccabees inform us that the Seleucid king had issued a decree throughout his empire, according to which all his subjects were to become one people and abandon their ancestral laws and religion. In Judaea “ways and customs foreign to the country were to be introduced. Burnt offerings, sacrifices, and libations in the temple were forbidden; Sabbaths and feast-days were to be profaned […]. Altars, idols, and sacred precincts were to be established; swine and other unclean animals to be offered in sacrifice […]. The penalty for disobedience was death”.1 Apparently, the profanation of the existing religious traditions and the establishment of a different sacrificial practice fundamentally opposed to the Jewish laws of religious purity combined with newly founded sacred places was not enough, since the central sanctuary of Judaism, the temple in Jerusalem, experienced alterations regarding both the architectural setting for the ritual practices at the altar and, more importantly, its overall dedication: “On the fifteenth day of the month Kislev in the year 145 [= 167 BC], ‘the abomination of desolation’ was set up on the altar […]. On the twenty-fifth day of the month they offered sacrifice on the pagan altar, which was on top of the altar of the Lord.”2 Furthermore, the temple at Jerusalem was to be re-dedicated to the Olympian Zeus.3

• 4  A. Chaniotis, “Ritual Dynamics in the Eastern Mediterranean: Case Studies in Ancient Greece and As (...)
• 5 R. Langeret al., “Transfer of Ritual”, Journal of Ritual Studies 20.1 (2006), p. 1-10. The destruct (...)
• 6 Chaniotis, l.c. (n. 4), p. 146-149. Very interesting cases of charismatic individuals transferring (...)
• 7 W. Held, Das Heiligtum der Athena in Milet, Mainz, 2000 (Milesische Forschungen, 2), p. 85-88 expla (...)
• 8  The literature on this subject is vast. See more recently: A. Hoffmann (ed.), Ägyptische Kulte und (...)
• 9 J. Riethmüller, Asklepios. Heiligtümer und Kulte, Heidelberg, 2005, passim.

2Such an example of ritual dynamics born out of and based on enforcement can demonstrate how important sacred space and its modification were in order to suit the performative ‘backstage’ to new or changed rituals.4 And yet, rituals often present and are represented in scholarly publications as an aspect of worship that seems to be least related to geography, physical environment and landscape. Nevertheless, sacred space in a more abstract perception of the term acquired a profound significance, whenever single rituals or entire cults were peacefully transferred into or violently imposed upon a different cultural and sometimes religious context.5 Some of the factors that generated a transfer of rituals were for example considerable movements of population in form of invasion, migration or colonization, the settlement of small groups of foreigners such as merchants, soldiers or exiles, the religious initiatives of a central administrative power, and the missionary activity of individuals or organized groups.6 Rivalries between cities or sanctuaries could also lead to transformations of sacred space, but sometimes such remodellings mainly aimed at an increase of pomp, and are not closely connected to the transfer of ritual practices.7 The numerous foundations of sanctuaries for the so-called Oriental and Egyptian cults8 and the establishment of dependencies of the Epidaurian cult of Asklepios9 are probably the best-known and most illustrative examples for the transfer of entirely new, alien ritual forms in the context of acculturation processes (Oriental, Egyptian cults) and the dissemination of traditional cults within their own cultural settings (Asklepios).

• 10  D. Knibbe, “Private Evergetism in the Service of the City-Goddess: The Most Wealthy Ephesian Famil (...)
• 11  For dedications of Hellenistic rulers at Greek sanctuaries see B. Schmidt-Dounas, Geschenke erhalt (...)

3The stronger presence of specific architectural forms, especially in the Hellenistic and Roman Imperial periods, most probably reflects changes in the performative aspects of cults. The countless porticos, which decisively shaped the architectural image of sanctuaries and cities in this period, best illustrate an intensification of performance. Even in rain, worshippers standing in a portico could still observe a procession or sacrifice and participate at least in a passive way in the religious action.10 At the same time, porticos more than any other architectural form created a monumental visual frame either leading the attention of the visitor directly to, or surrounding the very centre of the sanctuary (temple and altar). Innumerous Greek sanctuaries are visually shaped by stoas. The Asklepieion on Kos and the sanctuary of Athana on the acropolis of Lindos certainly belong to the most impressive examples. Sanctuaries like the one at Mamurt Kale or the sanctuary of Artemis Leukophryene in Magnesia on the Maeander also demonstrate how stoas can magnify the impression of sacred space. Dodona and Delos are good cases for time-honoured sanctuaries, which receive a higher spatial accentuation through the erection of stoas. The Asklepieion of Messene, the sanctuary of Zeus at Megalopolis, and again Dodona exemplify the function of stoas as impressive barriers that create a more intimate sacred space around the temple. Delphi, on the other hand, is indeed an interesting exception, since apart from the stoa of the Athenians and partly the one of Attallos no other stoa inside the temenos is really worth mentioning. Nevertheless, for visitors coming from the south the stoa of the Aetolians, the temple of Apollon, and the Attalid stoa must have created an interesting visual axis of columns marking the very centre of the sanctuary. The numerous donations of edifices by Hellenistic rulers and Roman emperors are a manifestation of the increased instrumentalisation of religion.11 The foundation of new festivals or the extension of old ones required adequate facilities, which naturally also changed the religious topography of an already existing sacred place. All these aspects, here only epigrammatically listed, demonstrate the intensity of the interaction between cults or rituals and their architectural setting.

• 12 N. Marinatos, “Public Festivals in the West Courts of the Palaces”, in R. Hägg, N. Marinatos (eds.) (...)
• 13 D. Panagiotopoulos, “Das minoische Stierspringen. Zur Performanz und Darstellung eines altägäischen (...)

5A remodelling of space due to ritual changes can already be assumed for Minoan Crete. Apparently, ritual dances played an important role in the religious life of the island. The old palace of Knossos, for example, had at its northwest side an open space, some sort of courtyard.12 During the New Palace period, this courtyard was changed architecturally into a theatral area by means of two monumental staircases. Here, most probably ritual dances and other performances took place, while people standing on the steps could watch. Fragments of a wall painting (known as the Sacred Grove and Dance Fresco), found during the British excavations in Knossos, depict such a ritual act in a very similar architectural context.13

• 14  Pausanias, III, 16, 9-11 (transl. W.H.S. Jones): τοῦτο δὲ οἱ Λιμνᾶται Σπαρτιατῶν καὶ Κυνοσουρεῖς κ (...)

6The Spartan Artemision allows with a certain degree of doubt to interconnect modifications of the religious topography of a cult place to dynamic changes in ritual activities. In the second century AD Pausanias visited Sparta and heard of a curious ritual at the famous sanctuary of Artemis Orthia: “The Spartan Limnatians, the Cynosurians, and the people of Mesoa and Pitane, while sacrificing to Artemis, fell to quarreling, which led also to bloodshed; many were killed at the altar and the rest died of disease. Whereat an oracle was delivered to them, that they should stain the altar with human blood. He used to be sacrificed upon whomever the lot fell, but Lycurgus changed the custom to a scourging of the lads, and so in this way the altar is stained with human blood. By them stands the priestess, holding the wooden image. Now it is small and light, but if ever the scourgers spare the lash because of a lad’s beauty or high rank, then at once the priestess finds the image grow so heavy that she can hardly carry it.”14 Pausanias is apparently describing some kind of a rite de passage and offers an explanation for the primary form of the ritual (a human sacrifice) dictated by the divine will expressed through an oracle in immemorial times, and its modification for unknown reasons by Lycurgus: In a few sentences, the reader is informed about the transformation of a ritual act (perhaps some sort of a scapegoat ritual) – imposed on the Spartans by the gods – into a rite de passage conceived as an alternative to human sacrifice by a powerful and wise person without any apparent divine interference. No one but Artemis herself, represented by her cult statue, oversees in a miraculous way the correct realisation of the ritual act.

• 15  Plutarch, Mor., 239d: ἁμιλλώμενοι περὶ νίκης πρὸς ἀλλήλους. Lucian, Anacharsis, 38: πολλοὶ γοῦν κα (...)
• 16 A.M. Woodward, “Inscriptions”, in R.M. Dawkins (ed.), The sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta, JH (...)
• 17 I. Nielsen, Cultic Theatres and Ritual Drama, Aarhus, 2002, p. 89.
• 18 R.M. Dawkins, “The History of the Sanctuary”, in Dawkins (ed.), o.c. (n. 16), p. 37-47.
• 19 A. Chaniotis, “Theatre Rituals”, in P. Wilson (ed.), The Greek Theatre and Festivals. Documentary S (...)

7While Pausanias does not even attempt to characterize the ritual in any form, Plutarch and Lucian who also refer to the same ritual, describe it as a contest.15 At least two Roman inscriptions found in the sanctuary attest to the existence of the so-called “victor at the altar” (βωμον[ε]ίκης) and, thus, confirm the characterization offered by the two ancient authors.16 The archaeological excavations at the sanctuary of Artemis give us significant information about the changes in its religious topography, which should be connected with the transformation of the ritual in form and content: For centuries, the sanctuary appears to have consisted exclusively of a small temple and an altar. Two marble prohedria thrones connected with some sort of a theatral area dating to the late Hellenistic period demonstrate, however, that the old ritual was becoming more and more of a spectacle, in which obviously not only those directly participating were involved.17 The semantic swift in both the internal conception and the external visualisation and presentation of the ritual becomes evident in Roman Imperial times, and especially after the erection of a stone theatre for the numerous visitors around the altar at the beginning of the third century AD.18 Despite the well-known fact that theatres were important stages for ritual activity of almost any kind – especially from the Hellenistic period onwards –,19 there is a clear difference between the use of an already existing structure and the erection of a new edifice for a very specific ritual, as in the case of the theatre around the altar of Artemis Orthia.

• 20  Paus., II, 3, 7, referring to the cult of Medea’s children in Corinth, describes an interesting ca (...)
• 21 V. Pirenne-Delforge, “Ritual Dynamics in Pausanias: The Laphria”, in E. Stavrianopoulou (ed.), Ritu (...)
• 22  Paus., VII, 18, 8 (transl. W.H.S. Jones): Πατρεῦσι δὲ ἐν ἄκρᾳ τῇ πόλει Λαφρίας ἱερόν ἐστιν Ἀρτέμιδ (...)
• 23  Paus., VII, 18, 11 (transl. W.H.S. Jones): περὶ μὲν τὸν βωμὸν ἐν κύκλῳ ξύλα ἱστᾶσιν ἔτι χλωρὰ καὶ (...)

8The most remarkable changes in ritual activity are normally connected with severe historical breaks. Despite the significant social, political, and nonetheless cultural developments of the Hellenistic era, it is mainly during the first century BC and the early Imperial period, with the foundation of Roman colonies in West Greece, Macedonia, and the Peloponnese, that Greek religion is permanently confronted with a similar, yet nevertheless conceptually different religious system.20 Recently, V. Pirenne-Delforge has convincingly shown that the intriguing sacrifice for Artemis Laphria in Patrai is a Roman invention within the context of a preexisting Greek cult transferred from Kalydon to Patrai under Augustus after the foundation of the Roman colony.21 Unlike the detailed description of the ritual itself, Pausanias’ information concerning the sanctuary of Artemis Laphria on the acropolis of Patrai is extremely superficial, and even ambiguous. The perieget informs us about the existence of a sanctuary on the acropolis adding that the name (the epiclesis) is foreign and that the cult statue was brought to Patrai from Kalydon.22 We cannot be sure, whether we are dealing with a new foundation or a rededication of an older sacred area. And yet, when Pausanias comes to the description of the sacrificial ritual, he refers in detail to the altar and the ephemeral wooden structures surrounding it during the sacrifice: “Round the altar in a circle they set up logs of wood still green, each of them sixteen cubits long. On the altar within the circle is placed the driest of their wood. Just before the time of the festival they construct a smooth ascent to the altar, piling earth upon the altar steps.”23 The sacrifice took place at the altar, which must have been on the acropolis. If we take into consideration the number and diversity of the sacrificial animals thrown alive into the flames (edible birds, wild boars, deer, gazelles, wolf-cubs, bear-cubs), we must conclude that the altar was indeed huge. Even if the temple of Artemis Laphria was an older edifice rededicated to the new goddess under Augustus, the altar was presumably created anew for the needs of the strange sacrificial ritual and certainly presented a big permanent change in the architectural and topographical layout of the acropolis. Every year, at the celebration of the Laphria the sacred space around the altar was temporarily modified through the logs of wood. They obviously had a practical purpose, keeping the wild sacrificial animals inside the ephemeral precinct, but, at the same time, they almost created a sacrificial arena as it were combining the idea of θύειν with a Roman venatio, which was normally not conceived as a form of sacrifice.

• 24 N. Bookidis, R.S Stroud, Corinth XVIII, 3: The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore. Topography and Archit (...)
• 25 N. Bookidis, “The Sanctuaries of Corinth”, in C.K. Williams II, N. Bookidis (eds.), Corinth XX: Cor (...)
• 26  Paus., II, 4, 7 (transl. W.H.S. Jones): ὁ δὲ τῶν Μοιρῶν καὶ οἱ Δήμητρος καὶ Κόρης οὐ φανερὰ ἔχουσι (...)
• 27 J. Mylonopoulos, “Greek Sanctuaries as Places of Communication through Rituals: An Archaeological P (...)

9The changes in the religious topography of sanctuaries after the foundation of a Roman colony on the Peloponnese are even more striking in two of the most important sanctuaries of Corinth: the sanctuary of Poseidon at Isthmia and the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore on Acrocorinth. According to the scarce evidence, the sacrificial meal was the most important ritual action in the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore, for numerous banqueting rooms impressively dominated the architectural design of the cult area.24 The archaeological finds seem to indicate that the communal meal following the sacrifice gained enormous importance in the course of the sixth century BC, displaying an almost institutional character; it remained the dominant ritual activity as regards the architectural layout of the sanctuary until the destruction of Corinth in 146 BC and the subsequent abandonment of the cult place, which was, however, spared by the destructive rage of the Romans. Soon after the foundation of the Roman colony Laus Iulia Corinthiensis in 44 BC, the sanctuary was put into use again. Both the religious topography of the sanctuary and the character of the cult obviously underwent severe changes. Communal cult feasting clearly no longer played any role, since only one of the banquet buildings survived in a modified form serving a much different cause. The most striking novelty was, however, the erection of three small temples with identical floorplans on the upper terrace of the sanctuary during the second half of the first century AD.25 Very probably, the three cult buildings may be identified as the temples of Demeter, Kore and the Fates seen by Pausanias in the second century AD (Fig. 1 above p. 1).26 It is intriguing that after a period of more than 700 years, during which the sanctuary had no need of a temple complex, the layout of the sanctuary became more canonical upon the arrival of the Roman colonists. The important differences between the Greek and Roman conceptions of the sacrificial meal most probably led to a fundamental shift of importance between the different ritual activities in the sanctuary, and in consequence to the radical remodelling of the architectural layout of the precinct.27

• 28  In the most recent, extensive study of the cult of Palaimon, mainly based on the literary sources (...)
• 29  Pindar, fr 6 (ed. B. Snell, H. Maehler).
• 30  In my own book on the sanctuaries of Poseidon on the Peloponnese, I expressed the hypothesis of Me (...)
• 31 E. Will, Korinthiaka. Recherches sur l’histoire et la civilisation de Corinthe des origines aux gue (...)
• 32 J.G. Hawthorne, “The myth of Palaimon”, TAPhA 89 (1958), p. 92-98.
• 33 M. Piérart, “Panthéon et hellénisation dans la colonie romaine de Corinthe: la «redécouverte» du cu (...)
• 34 G. Ekroth, The Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Hero-cults in the Archaic to the early Hellenistic Peri (...)

10The Panhellenic sanctuary of Poseidon at Isthmia experienced the same fate of an almost total negligence after the destruction of Corinth, with its altar being partially destroyed and roads bypassing the area just to the north of the temple, thus, profanating an important part of the inner temenos. Just as in Olympia or Nemea, the cult of the main divinity, Poseidon, was complemented by the cult of a hero, the heroised child Melikertes/Palaimon.28 Despite the fact that the earliest explicit reference to a cultic “honour to be seen from afar” (τηλέφαντον γέρας) – established by Sisyphos for Melikertes – appears in a fragmentary Isthmian Epinician poem of Pindar from the early fifth century BC,29 there is no secure evidence whatsoever for the existence of a cult precinct for the child hero within the sanctuary of Isthmia before the first century AD.30 Furthermore, the Pindaric poem most probably refers to a tomb or a precinct like the Pelopion or the Ophelteion, near the sea. All the information concerning the actual cult practices in honour of Melikertes/Palaimon is of Imperial date. The first Palaimonion, a simple sacrificial pit for the holokaust, dates according to the relevant pottery to the mid-first century AD. While most scholars either tried to discover the Greek origins of the Melikertes/Palaimon cult at Isthmia based solely on literary and epigraphic sources of Roman date31 or even dated the emergence of the cult in the Imperial period based on the same evidence,32M. Piérart convincingly argued that the cult of Melikertes/Palaimon was certainly Greek but, in the form in which we can grasp it on the basis of the archaeological remains and written sources, it was actually reinvented by the Roman colonists of Corinth.33 The reinvented cult needed the adequate facilities, so that between the mid-first and the late second century AD three sacrificial pits and two monopteroi were established to the east and later to the south of Poseidon’s temple, in order to accommodate the cult of the child hero. It is not at all certain, that the holocaust for Palaimon – “the only osteologically demonstrated case”34 – had its counterpart in the Greek cult of the hero. It is more probable that the sacrifice to Melikertes/Palaimon in the Classical to Hellenistic periods was quite different. Fact is, that the new facilities for the Roman cult of Palaimon dramatically changed the image of the sanctuary, and especially the area in the immediate vicinity of the temple for the main divinity, an area, which apparently remained untouched by any building activity worth telling for centuries (Fig. 2).

• 35 L. Beschi, “Il monumento di Telemachos, fondatore dell’Asklepieion Ateniese”, ASAtene 45/46 (1967/6 (...)
• 36  According to R. Mitchell-Boyask, Plague and the Athenian Imagination. Drama, History, and the Cult (...)

11During the fifth century BC a certain number of new cults entered the Athenian pantheon. At first glance, for none of them is the literary, archaeological and epigraphic evidence as rich as that concerning the case of the introduction of the Asklepios cult in the last quarter of the fifth century. For no other cult foundation do we possess such an invaluable document as the fragmentary so-called stele of Telemachos, pieces of which are kept in Athens, London, Padua, and Verona.35 The text gives most important and detailed information about the procedures regarding the ritual introduction of the new god into Athens via Piraeus by the Athenian Telemachos in 420/19 BC and the foundation of the sanctuary at the south slope of the Acropolis after the great plague.36

• 37  Riethmüller, o.c. (n. 9), p. 241-278. See also S.B. Aleshire, The Athenian Asklepieion. The People (...)
• 38  Paus., I, 22, 1-3.
• 39 IG II² 1046.

12The remains of the sanctuary were excavated in 1876 and 1877, but the architecture has never received the publication it certainly deserves. Moreover, the preconceived opinion that we are dealing with an absolutely private foundation created the idea of a sanctuary with a modest architectural setting. The reference to a wooden gate in the aforementioned inscription supported the idea of a precinct with temporary wooden architecture, if any, replaced after the middle of the fourth century by stone structures. J. Riethmüller most convincingly reconstructed the architectural and topographical development of the Asklepieion in his doctoral thesis.37 The sanctuary seems to have been limited to the so-called east terrace, as the existence of an easily recognisable peribolos wall demonstrates. Attempts to attribute the banquet house also known as ‘West’ or ‘Ionic’ stoa to the Asklepios sanctuary are unfounded. We know from Pausanias that a number of sanctuaries lay to the west of the Asklepieion,38 and visitors to these could have used the banquet house. The sanctuary seems to have at least three construction phases. In the first phase, attributed by Riethmüller to the Telemachian foundation, poros stone was used almost exclusively. Part of the peribolos wall, the cella of the temple, the west part of the altar, and the lower part of the so-called bothros belonged to this phase. It remains uncertain whether the spring in the Acropolis rock, normally identified with the Hallirhotis spring seen by Pausanias (I, 21, 4), predates the foundation of the sanctuary or not. In the late fourth or early thirdcentury the large stoa was built and the so-called bothros received a roof supported by four columns (Fig. 3). It remains unclear, when the temple and the altar were enlarged, the East stoa remodelled and the South stoa added. At any case, the south stoa is a Roman construction. An inscription dating to 52/51 BC refers to the petition of Diokles, a priest of Asklepios and Hygieia, to finance restorations to the temple and the propylon.39 It is tempting to connect this restoration to an overall remodelling of the sanctuary, but there is no evidence to support or reject such a hypothesis.

• 40 J. Riethmüller, “Bothros and Tetrastyle: The Heroon of Asclepius in Athens”, in R. Hägg (ed.), Anci (...)
• 41 IG II² 4960: Κλε]όκριτος· ἐπ[ὶ τού|το] ἐφύτευσε καὶ [κατέσ]|τησε κοσμήσας τ[ὸ τέμε]|νος ἅπαν τέλε[ι (...)
• 42 F. Graf, “Heiligtum und Ritual. Das Beispiel der griechisch-römischen Asklepieia”, in A. Schachter (...)
• 43  Paus., II, 27, 1.
• 44 IG IV 1² 128, lines 20f.: ποὶ δ᾿ Ἀσκλαπιὸν ἔρνεσι ἐλαίας ἡμεροφύλλου | ἁγνῶς πομπεύειν.
• 45  Paus., III, 23, 7.
• 46 M. Wörrle, “Die Lex sacra aus der Hallenstraße (Inv. 1965, 20)”, in Chr. Habicht, Die Inschriften d (...)

13The architectural layout of the Athenian Asklepieion with its temple, altar, spring, and bothros covered by a tetrastylon was certainly not an incidental development, but seems to be a very conscious functional and organisational measure modelled after the Epidaurian sanctuary. It was again Riethmüller who demonstrated that the tholos for the cult of Asklepios as a hero and the temple for his cult as a god in Epidauros find their Athenian counterparts in the bothros and small temple respectively.40 The interconnections between the Athenian and the Epidaurian Asklepieion apparently go beyond these central cult edifices. A fragment of the aforementioned Telemachos stele documents for the year 413/12 BC (under the archonship of Kleokritos) the creation of a (sacred?) grove and further decoration in the temenos.41 As F. Graf has pointed out, sacred groves seem to be a constitutive element of Greek Aklepieia,42 and in Epidauros there was certainly one,43 perhaps of olive trees, as suggested by an inscription referring to a procession, during which the participants were holding olive branches.44 A sacred grove of olive trees and olive wreaths are documented for the Asklepieia in Epidauros Limera45 and Pergamon46 respectively. It becomes apparent that several important elements of the Epidaurian cult topography were introduced into the Athenian branch, and yet the procedure of the transmission did not end up with a slavish copy of the sanctuary in Epidauros, but, rather, with a dynamic adjustment of the architectural elements in their new topographical context.

• 47 B. Gessler-Löhr, Die heiligen Seen ägyptischer Tempel: Ein Beitrag zur Deutung sakraler Baukunst im (...)
• 48 Cf. Apuleius, Metamorphoses XI, 20: et per dispositas aras circumiens sacerdos, rem divinam procura (...)
• 49  Ph. Bruneau, Recherches sur les cultes de Délos à l’époque hellénistique et à l’époque imperiale, (...)

15Perhaps the most illustrative example for the transmission of elements of the original sacred place into a new environment is the imaginative recreation of Nilotic landscapes in sanctuaries of the Egyptian deities outside Egypt. In the cults of Isis and Sarapis water had an important role. Many of the Egyptian ceremonies were tightly connected with the river Nile. Participants at numerous festivals in Egypt drank the holy water of this river, which was in many cases identified with Osiris.47 Such rituals concerning holy water were transmitted together with the cult of the Egyptian deities and required an adequate architectural setting. Most of the sanctuaries for the Egyptian deities have water facilities in some form.48 Best documented are such constructions in the sanctuary at Gortyn on Crete, in the Sarapeia on Delos, and in the sanctuary of Isis at Pompei.49 The literary sources attest to the firm belief of the cult participants that the water in such sacred places was indeed water from the river Nile.

• 50 K. Lembke, “Kolossalität und Monumentalität: Zur Größe und Ausdehnung der Roten Halle”, in Hoffmann(...)
• 51  Despite the fact that there is absolutely no historical evidence, the idea of Hadrian being the in (...)
• 52 W. Radt, Pergamon. Geschichte und Bauten einer antiken Metropole, Darmstadt, 1999, p. 200-209.
• 53 U. Mania, “Neue Ausgrabungen – neue Aspekte in der Erforschung der Roten Halle”, in Hoffmann, o.c. (...)

16In Pergamon, German archaeologists are currently studying a huge sanctuary (ca 270  100 m) dedicated in all likelihood to the Egyptian deities.50 The sanctuary was most probably constructed during the reign of Hadrian.51 The temple building is a brick construction that consists of three shrines and a big courtyard. The middle shrine, the so-called Red Hall, dominates the central part of the modern city of Bergama. The space in front of the East wall of the temple’s middle part is occupied by a big platform; the podium for the cult statue is situated on it. In front of the platform, there is an oblong trench and a water basin with three marble troughs. The underground space beneath the platform was used as a cistern. In front of the side-shrines, there were also water facilities in the form of twin basins (Fig. 4). It is most probable that the water in the temple of Pergamon was understood as the Nile and was used for rituals concerning the cult statue (for example bathing), while the cistern could be a substitute for the headwaters of the Nile.52 The Egyptianizing sculpture certainly emphasized the impression of a Nilotic environment.53

• 54 D. Pantermalis, “Ein neues Heiligtum in Dion”, AA (1982), p. 727-735; id., Discovering Dion, Athens (...)

17A further example of the virtual presence of the Nile in a sanctuary outside Egypt was excavated at the city of Dion in Macedonia. Here, the cult of Isis seems to have replaced an older cult of Artemis already in the second century BC, but the architectural remains of the Isis sanctuary date to the second and third centuries AD. The topography of the sanctuary presents a combination of different cults (Isis Lochia, Isis Tyche, Aphrodite Hypolympia) with apparently various water facilities. The central podium temple is dedicated to Isis Lochia with an altar in front of the temple, and just behind it to the east, the beginning of a long trench flanked by parapet walls with columns on their top. The trench is connected to the water reservoir underneath the temple of Aphrodite Hypolympia to the north of the temple of Isis Lochia and symbolizes the Nile. In Dion the concept of a ‘man made’ Nile is even better realized than in Pergamon in form of this trench. To the south of the central building stands the temple in honour of Isis Tyche with her cult statue found in situ in the apsis during the excavations. An oval shaped water basin was found in front of the statue.54 In the Isis sanctuary of Dion water was literally omnipresent.

• 55 Bruneau, o.c. (n. 49), p. 480-493; A.Th. Kraabel, “The Diaspora Synagogue: Archaeological and Epigr (...)

19The numerous Diaspora synagogues represent an entirely different paradigm. A Diaspora synagogue fulfils the wish of a firmly defined group of people to perform their own rituals in adequate architectural settings in a geographically, culturally, and religiously alien context. The oldest and perhaps one of the most problematic Diaspora synagogues was excavated in 1912 on the small island of Delos, one of the most important ports of the Hellenistic world.55 The building stands today at 15.5 m long and 28.15 m wide, but it must have been larger in antiquity, since possible annexes remain unexcavated or have been destroyed by the intruding sea.

• 56 M. Trümper, “The Oldest Original Synagogue Building in the Diaspora. The Delos Synagogue Reconsider (...)
• 57 E. Gruen, Diaspora: Jews Amidst Greeks and Romans, Cambridge Mass., 2002, p. 113-118. See on the ar (...)
• 58  Ph. Bruneau, “Les Israélites de Délos et la juiverie délienne”, BCH 106 (1982), p. 467-485; SEG 32 (...)
• 59  Note the critical remarks in D. Urman, “The House of Assembly and the House of Study Are They One (...)
• 60  After a brief survey of six Diaspora synagogues, A. Th. Kraabel, “Social Systems of Six Diaspora S (...)

20The synagogue was originally founded in the late second century BC. In a model study of the edifice, M. Trümper was able to demonstrate that the building was conceived and used as a synagogue from the very beginning and had six architectural phases of use (Fig. 5).56 It is extremely difficult to develop a typology of the Diaspora synagogues, mostly because it is the specific functionality and not the strictly defined architectural design that characterizes these build­ings.57 There are, however, some important aspects shared by most Diaspora synagogues. Archaeological discoveries from Ostia, Delos, Priene, Dura Europos, Gerasa, and Sardeis strongly suggest that water facilities (cisterns or fountains) and gathering halls were common features of Diaspora synagogues. In some cases the entrance area was occupied by colonnaded structures, precisely as in Delos. A further interpretive problem concerning the Delian synagogue is its actual attribution to a particular Israelitic religious group. For a long time the building was considered as the earliest example of a Jewish Diaspora synagogue. In 1980, however, two Samaritan synagogue inscriptions were found just 90 m north of the building, suggesting that the structure could have been a Samaritan, rather than a Jewish synagogue.58 In any case the Delian building is a good example of how the implantation of Near Eastern religious beliefs shaped sacred space in a new context because of the specific needs dictated by religious practices (especially physical purity, study, gathering, and perhaps prayer59), without a slavish imitation of architectural design. In the case of the Diaspora synagogues, the sacred space is defined by the practical needs of the cult, and not by the blind orientation towards the place of religious origin.60

• 61  Herodot, II, 178 (transl. A.D. Godley): χωρὶς δὲ Αἰγινῆται ἐπὶ ἑωυτῶν ἱδρύσαντο τέμενος Διός, καί (...)
• 62  Athenaios, XV, 675f-676c: The dedication of an Aphrodite’s statue to the precinct of the goddess i (...)
• 63  On the Naukratian sanctuaries see most recently A. Möller, Naukratis. Trade in Archaic Greece, Oxf (...)
• 64 U. Schlotzhauer, “Griechen in der Fremde: wer weihte in den Filialheilgtümern der Samier und Milesi (...)
• 65 U. Kron, “Kultmahle im Heraion von Samos archaischer Zeit. Versuch einer Rekonstruktion”, in R. Häg (...)

21Polytheistic systems are of course less exclusive, and yet the profound need to transfer cults, rituals, and elements or concepts of the religious architecture from one’s homecountry is also apparent among Greek merchants, colonists, and mercenaries. Naukratis, the “Greek” city in the Nile delta, is perhaps the most perspicuous case for the transfer of cults in the course of trade contacts, which led to the permanent presence of Greeks on Egyptian soil. According to Herodotos nine Greek cities (Chios, Teos, Phokaia, Klazomenai, Rhodos, Knidos, Halikarnassos, Phaselis, and Mytilene) founded a common sanctuary under the name Hellenion, while “the Aeginetans made a precinct of their own, sacred to Zeus; and so did the Samians for Hera, and the Milesians for Apollo.”61 Two more sanctuaries not mentioned by Herodotos were identified, which were dedicated to the Dioskouroi and to Aphrodite, the latter also known through later literary sources.62 There is nothing special about Greeks arriving in a foreign country and founding sanctuaries for their deities.63 Nevertheless, the discovery of so-called Hera cups produced on Samos and imported to Naukratis demonstrates the strong connections between the main sanctuary of Samos and the Samian sanctuary of Hera in Naukratis.64 These plain cups with Hera-dipinti were produced only on Samos and were used exclusively in the cult of Hera.65 Their discovery in Naukratis means that the Samian inhabitants of Naukratis not only introduced their general religious concepts, but, moreover, that ritual practices were apparently reproduced in great detail abroad, so that the vessels used in the cult were directly imported in order to avoid potential ritual failures. The excavated remains at the Hera temenos in Naukratis do not allow any conclusions about possible interrelations between the Samian and Naukratian sanctuaries of Hera as regards spatial organisation and architectural design.

• 66 L. Hannestad, “The Greeks in the region of the Arabian gulf”, in Ο Ελληνισμός στην Ανατολή. Πρακτικ (...)
• 67 K. Jeppesen, The Sacred Enclosure in the Early Hellenstic Period, Aarhus, 1989 (Ikaros. The Helleni (...)
• 68 Jeppesen, o.c. (n. 67), p. 53-67.
• 69 A. Caubet, J.-F. Salles, “Le sanctuaire hellénistique, B6”, in J.-F. Salles (ed.), Failaka: Fouille (...)

22Ikaros (modern Failaka), a small island in the Arabian Gulf, is an excellent example for the transfer of Greek religious ideas and architectural forms through mercenaries, soldiers or immigrants. Danish archaeologists discovered in 1958 a Seleucid fortress, which according to the numismatic evidence was founded around the mid-third century BC.66 Within the fortress two temples dating to the third century were excavated.67 Almost nothing remains of the so-called temple B, apparently a Doric structure. Temple A is a typical small Greek Ionic temple in antis without a peristasis (Fig. 6). While concept and design are Greek, the masonry techniques (for example the use of the pointed chisel) point to local traditions.68 In 1982 French archaeologists discovered directly by the sea to the southeast of the fortress a small temple of a quite unusual plan consisting of a small naos, a wider pronaos and an open courtyard (almost half of the building is now lost). A painted dedication on an altar identifies the divine owner of the sanctuary as Artemis (Fig. 7). It seems that the temple was founded during the rule of Antiochos III at the very beginning of the second century BC.69

• 70  For Potts, o.c. (n. 69), p. 183-186 all three alternative explanations appear possible. Ch. Rouech (...)

23Two important, but nonetheless problematic epigraphic finds refer to religious aspects concerning the temples of Soter and Soteira, most probably those of Zeus and Artemis. The older one is a dedication of Soteles an Athenian (or Soteles and Athenaios or Soteles son of Athenaios) and other soldiers to Zeus Soter, Poseidon and Artemis Soteira. The exact dating of the inscription cannot be determined: The fourth and the early third century are the most often suggested datings. This makes three interpretations possible: Greek cults were implanted on the island either through mercenaries of the Achaemenid emperors or through soldiers of Alexander the Great, or after colonizing activities of the Seleucid rulers.70

• 71 Roueché – Sherwin-White, l.c. (n. 70), p. 13-39; Potts, o.c. (n. 69), p. 186-193. In a stimulating (...)
• 72 Jeppesen, o.c. (n. 67), p. 73.

24The suggestions about the dating of the second inscription vary between the mid-third and the first half of the second century. In this epigraphic document an unknown Seleucid king demands among other things the transfer of the temple of the Saviour Goddess (Artemis Soteira) into the precinct of the Saviour God (Zeus Soter), a demand that had been ignored at least once in the past. According to D.T. Potts the inscription refers to the transfer of the temple by the sea into the fortress, where the temple of Zeus Soter stood.71 K. Jeppesen suggested, however, that the temple to be transferred has not been excavated yet, and that the new temple of Soteira demanded by the Seleucid king should be identified with temple B.72

• 73  In the most recent study of the inscription, M.-Z. Petropoulou, “A Seleucid Settlement on Failaka” (...)

25The archaeological material and the epigraphic evidence attest to the intense presence of Greek elements on the island. The foundation of the temples inside the fortress has an apparent general cultic background (mercenaries or soldiers wished to see their own religious beliefs implanted on the island and in the adequate architectural setting), but the demand of the unknown Seleucid king to transfer the indigenous cult place of Artemis into the Greek enclosure obviously demonstrates a conscious policy to reinforce the Greek elements by means of religion.73 An older, pre-Greek cult was to be transferred to a new environment and this automatically implies changes of both the original and the new sacred space. In this case sacred time was also to be changed, since an agon was part of the new arrangement.

• 74  Fl. Joseph., Bellum Iudaicum VII, 434-436.
• 75  Fl. Joseph., Bellum Iudaicum VII, 431 (transl. H.S.J. Thackeray): ἀλλ᾿ ἦν αὐτῷ φιλονεικία πρὸς τοὺ (...)

26The synagogue on Delos presents an example for the creation of sacred space by a religious group desiring to remain exclusive and self-sufficient after its voluntary migration to an alien cultural, religious, and social context. Ikaros, on the other side, is certainly a representative example for a cult transfer due to military expansion accompanied and followed by migration waves. However, in the case of Ikaros we are not dealing with clearly defined, closed religious groups, and the attempts to mix indigenous and Greek religious elements are an obvious demonstration of that. But what happens, if individuals or groups are forced to migrate, in some cases due to religiously motivated tensions? The erection of a Jewish temple in Ptolemaic Egypt in the first half of the second century BC is an interesting case for the transfer of rituals and partially of concepts of sacred space because of tensions, banishment, and rivalry. Shortly after 162 BC, a Jewish temple was built in Leontopolis,74 which was destroyed some time after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by Titus. Onias, the exiled son of the high priest Onias, had asked for permission to do so, and Ptolemaios VI not only allowed the erection of the temple, but also granted the land needed in the nome of Heliopolis. According to the literary tradition Onias’ temple “was rather to rival the Jews at Jerusalem, against whom he harboured resentment for his exile, and he hoped by erecting this temple to attract the multitude away from them to it.”75

• 76  Fl. Joseph., Antiquitates Iudaicae XII, 388 (transl. R. Marcus): καὶ τιμῆς ἀξιωθεὶς ὑπό τε αὐτοῦ κ (...)
• 77  Fl. Joseph., Bellum Iudaicum VII, 426-430 (transl. H.S.J. Thackeray): φρούριον ἔνθα κατασκευασάμεν (...)
• 78 A. Kasher, “Synagogues as ‘Houses of Prayer’ and ‘Holy Places’ in the Jewish Communities of Helleni (...)

27No archaeological remains have been traced so far, and our main literary source, Flavius Josephus, delivers invaluable, but nonetheless contradictory information about the appearance of the temple. In his Jewish Antiquities, Josephus stresses at least twice that the temple in Leontopolis was built in dependence on the temple in Jerusalem: “and being treated with honour by him and his wife Cleopatra, he received a place in the nome of Heliopolis, where he built a temple similar to that in Jerusalem;” “wherefore I beg you to permit me to cleanse this temple, which belongs to no one and is in ruins, and to build a temple to the Most High God in the likeness of that at Jerusalem and with the same dimensions.”76 But in the most detailed description of the Leontopolitan temple in his work on the Jewish war, Josephus states exactly the opposite: “Here Onias erected a fortress and built his temple, which was not like that in Jerusalem, but resembled a tower of huge stones and sixty cubits in altitude. The altar, however, he designed on the model of that in the home country, and adorned the building with similar offerings, the fashion of the lampstand excepted; for, instead of making a stand, he had a lamp wrought of gold which shed a brilliant light and was suspended by a golden chain. The sacred precincts were wholly surrounded by a wall of baked brick, the doorways being of stone.”77 It seems more probable that the temple in Leontopolis had some architectural similarities to the temple in Jerusalem, but in its overall spatial design must have been quite independent. However, in one very significant detail Onias consciously orientated himself towards Jerusalem: the altar. Apparently, the altar, the most important architectural part in the ritual spatial organisation of the Leontopolitan temple had indeed to copy (ἐξεμιμήσατο) the one standing in Jerusalem, since there were no innovations or alterations of the sacrificial rituals in the temple of Leontopolis.78

• 79  Konon’s foundation of a sanctuary for Aphrodite at Piraeus, Alexander’s dedication of the Olympiei (...)
• 80 P. Hellström, “The Architectural Layout of Hecatomnid Labraunda”, RA (1991), p. 297-308. The existe (...)
• 81 P. Hellström, “The Andrones at Labraynda. Dining Halls for Protohellenistic Kings”, in W. Hoepfner, (...)
• 82 P. Hellström, “Hecatomnid Display of Power at the Labraynda Sanctuary”, in P. Hellström, B. Alroth (...)
• 83 Hellström, l.c. (n. 78), p. 308.

28During the fourth century BC dedications of temples in sanctuaries became rare,79 and yet it is exactly in this period that the Karian sanctuary of Zeus at Labraunda experienced an unprecedented and extravagant building activity financed by the dynastic house of Halikarnassos. Until the last quarter of the fourth century the sanctuary apparently consisted only of a sacred grove and an altar.80 Between 377 and 352 BC, under Mausolos, Andron B, a lavish banqueting house with a marble facade in a mixed style (Ionic columns with a Doric entablature), was erected. With a dedicatory inscription in Greek on the architrave, the proud benefactor immortalised his action (Fig. 8). A stoa and the temple – the latter remained, however, unfinished – completed the programme of Mausolos. His brother and successor, Idrieus, continued the building programme between 351 and 344 BC. The temple received its peristasis and a second banqueting house, Andron A, was erected, resembling in style, material used, and even dedicatory inscription Andron B.81 With the erection of two further oikoi and a propylon, the sanctuary of Zeus acquired an overall Greek appearance. Within four decades the Karian dynastic house had transformed a local sacred place into an important sanctuary with a Greek outlook.82 The desire for a Greek cultural identity was expressed in a religious context by means of architecture and language in the prominently positioned dedicatory inscriptions. Because of the similar zigzag approach from the propylon to the temple, P. Hellström went as far as to express the intriguing hypothesis that the Hekatomnids had the “ambitions to create a new Delphi in a new Hecatomnid East-Greek empire,” – a hypothesis, which is, however, impossible to prove.83

• 84 K. Erim, Aphrodisias, New York, 1986, p. 106-123.
• 85 R.R.R. Smith, “The Imperial Reliefs from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias”, JRS 77 (1987), p. 92-95; C (...)

29The wish to create virtual bonds between a cultural and/or political centre and a city in the periphery using religious architecture was fulfilled in a more subtle way by the Aphrodisians. In 1979 a large sanctuary complex was excavated in the Karian city of Aphrodite. The dedicatory inscriptions inform us that it was erected in honour of Aphrodite, the Theoi Sebastoi and the Demos. The complex con­sists of a propylon, two long and extremely elaborated porticoes, and a podium temple (Fig. 9). Construction most probably started under Tiberius and was completed under Nero. A major re-building took place under Claudius, as stated in an inscription.84 The complex has an east-west orientation. One entered at the West end through the aforementioned propylon and stood on a very long and very narrow paved area, flanked by tall three-storeyed porticoes lavishly decorated with large relief panels in the upper two storeys. At the East end of the complex the temple for the imperial cult was set up on a terrace. R.R.R. Smith demonstrated that the layout, not the architectural details, of the Aphrodisian Sebasteion is reminiscent of the two imperial fora that existed at the time in Rome, the Forum Iulium and the Forum Augusti. The complex at Aphrodisias is in terms of its concept even closer to the Forum Iulium in the separate placing of the temple at the end of the colonnades.85 The Sebasteion seems to have been a part of a conscious attempt of the Aphrodisians to demonstrate their tight links to Rome and especially to the Julian family. Despite the Hellenistic forerunners in Asia Minor, the worship of a sovereign must have been new to the city of Aphrodisias.

• 86  An imitatio of the Forum Augusti – at least as regards the sculptural programme – also existed in (...)

30The Aphrodisian Sebasteion is an exquisite example for both adapting architectural models from the capital of the Roman Empire and at the same time creating an entirely new concept of the sacred space. The city apparently used Roman imperial models, while simultaneously introducing innovative details. After establishing the cult of the Theoi Sebastoi, the Aphrodisians had to create a totally new architectural setting. The solution found is ingenious: A structure reminiscent of the imperial fora, but without slavishly copying them, concentrated totally on the cult of the emperor, since every conceptual detail served the intensification of the aesthetic effect of the imperial temple. The whole complex with its three storeyed colonnades, its extremely narrow paved area, and the temple elevated reminds us of the cella of a Greek temple with a temple instead of a cult statue at the end of the ‘cella’. In this ingenious way the city could demonstrate its affiliation to the Julian family.86

• 87  Chr. Auffarth, “Sind heilige Stätten transportabel? Axis mundi und soziales Gedächtnis”, in A. Mic (...)

31The examples for the transmission, adjustment, or even radical change of religious architectural settings that were presented are only a very small selection of evidence provided by the archaeological and textual sources for a phenomenon, which I would like to subsume under the term ‘dynamics of ritual space’.87 Examples have been intentionally selected, which indeed appear to have very little in common, except for the fact that each one of them illuminates a different aspect of this very complex phenomenon.

• 88  One of the most often recurring interpretive pitfalls appears to be the assumption that Christian (...)

38Violent interaction, social transformation, peaceful cultural communication, migrational waves, the introduction of new cults, the mobility of ethnic and religious groups, ideological and political factors, and rivalry between cult places are only some of the parameters that one needs to take into account, when studying the dynamic relation between rituals and their architectural and geographical setting. A sacred space continuously used between the eleventh century BC and the fourth century AD (e.g. Isthmia) does not by all means presuppose the same cult, the same ritual practices, or even the same architectural design for this whole vast period of time. The assumption of continuity in ritual practice is increasingly considered an illusion. But also the concept of a fixed and unchanged sacred space can be proven to be a methodological and interpretive pitfall.88 Sacred space, in general, is an anthropogenic concept and a socio-cultural construct. Despite the conservative nature of religious practices, the mortals responsible for administration and cult in Greek sanctuaries sensitively reacted to changes occurring in the religious, social, political, and cultural context, dynamically adjusting the architectural outlook of sanctuaries to the development of ritual practices.