Conclusion: Heroes between the Gods and the Dead

Greek religion can be imagined as being based on three major components: gods, heroes, and the dead, all linked to each other. There is a distinction between them as to their degree of mortality but also as to their power, the immortal gods being the highest and most universal while the departed are confined to their graves and possess little power. Oscillating between these two poles are the heroes, dead but still divine. The importance of the heroes lies in their dual nature, which renders them adaptable to different conditions and needs at all levels of Greek religion and society.

The conceptualization of heroes as distinct from the gods, particularly the gods of the sky, and instead as more akin to the dead and the gods of the underworld, has its theoretical underpinning in the division of Greek religion into an Olympian and a chthonian sphere, with the two spheres being viewed as the opposites of each other. This model is, however, in many ways too restricted and does not capture the full potential of heroes and hero-cults (Ekroth 2002:310-25; Schlesier 1991-2; but see also Scullion 1994). Moreover, from the archaic period onwards, when hero-cults began to be a prominent feature of Greek religion, the heroes and the dead gradually became more separated, conceptually as well as in reality. The ordinary dead began to be perceived as dangerous and as having to be averted, and funerary legislation suppressed the traits of tomb cult that overlapped with those of hero-cult, such as animal sacrifice, while burials of the ordinary dead were kept distinctly apart from the areas of the living and of the gods (Johnston 1999a; Sourvinou-Inwood 1995a). Though they were dead, the heroes moved closer to the gods, but they always remained closest to the worshipers.

GUIDE TO FURTHER READING

A number of aspects of Greek heroes and their cults are covered in Hagg 1999. On the origins of hero-cults, the diversity of the evidence, and its complexities, see Antonaccio 1995 and Boehringer 2001, who basically include all relevant sites. The oikists and their roles as recipients of religious attention are discussed in Malkin 1987. The different kinds of heroes are laid out in Farnell 1921, though Farnell’s classification also illustrates the difficulties of dividing heroes in to such groups. Some categories have been treated separately, such as athletes (Bohringer 1979 and Fontenrose 1968), enemies (Visser 1982) and heroines (Larson 1995 and Lyons 1997). The cults of Heracles and his religious status are treated, on the basis of written as well as archaeological evidence, by Bergquist (1973, 2005), Verbanck-Pi{;rard (1989 and 1992), and Leveque and Verbanck-Pi{;rard (1992).

Owing to the rich epigraphical evidence, local heroes from Attica are especially well known: see Kearns 1989, as well as Kron 1976, for the eponymous heroes of the Cleisthenic tribes. The sacrificial rituals, including the ritual terminology, are discussed in Ekroth 2002, who also relates the cults of heroes to those of the gods and the ordinary dead. There is no really comprehensive overview of the archaic, classical and hellenistic cult-places of heroes, partly owing to the complexity of the evidence. A collection of many of the principal sites, though with little analysis, is given in Abramson 1978; see also Pariente 1992. The written evidence for relics and bones is to be found in Pfister 1909-12. Hughes 1999 discusses the main developments of hero-cults in the post-classical period; see also Wcirrle and Zanker 1995.

PART III

Communicating with the Divine