In any examination of the evolution of Greek self-consciousness, it is insufficient merely to consider how Greeks differentiated themselves from outsiders. Equally important are the similarities and commonalities that were thought to link different Greek groups to one another. The term normally employed to describe this phenomenon is “Panhellenism” and there has been near consensus in recent decades that it first becomes apparent in the eighth century with the emergence of interregional sanctuaries and the dissemination of the Homeric epics. There is, however, some reason to doubt so early a date for the selfconscious profession of Hellenic identity.
By the end of the Archaic period, a number of sanctuaries hosted athletic and musical festivals that attracted competitors from far afield, but the most prestigious games were those for which the prizes were of symbolic, rather than monetary, value. “Stephanitic” games, named after the wreath (Stephanos') with which victors were crowned, were held every four years at the sanctuary of Zeus at Olympia and the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi and every two years at the sanctuary of Poseidon at Isthmia and the sanctuary of Zeus at Nemea. At Delphi and Nemea, cultic activity does seem to commence in the eighth century but at Isthmia the earliest indications of ritual go back to the mid-eleventh century, while at Olympia there is an uninterrupted pottery sequence that stretches back even earlier. And while it is true that, at both sites, the eighth century witnesses a sharp increase in the number of dedications as well as a greater variety of provenance, this is a phenomenon attested at sanctuaries throughout Greece, including those that catered for a more local constituency.
In fact, three phases can be distinguished in the archaeological evidence from the great interregional sanctuaries. In the first phase, attested only at Olympia and Isthmia and commencing in the eleventh or tenth centuries, quantities of ceramic drinking vessels suggest the practice of ritual dining. Analysis of early offerings such as terracotta and bronze figurines and, from the ninth century, bronze tripods indicates that the participants in these activities did not travel from very far. The earliest activity at Olympia, for example, is indicative of a rural festival attended by chieftains from Messenia and Arcadia. In the second phase, beginning in the eighth century, the larger variety and volume of dedications at all four sanctuaries probably reflects the participation of a more diverse personnel from further afield, though it is important to remember that the provenance of an item may often say more about its manufacturer than about its dedicant. Although there is no firm archaeological evidence for the construction of temples in this phase, it is quite likely that simple cult structures first appeared in the sanctuaries at this time. It is, however, with the third phase, commencing in the later seventh and sixth centuries, that monumental investment in the architectural embellishment of these interregional sanctuaries first becomes apparent. To the seventh century belong the first stone temples of Apollo at Delphi and Poseidon at Isthmia along with the earliest Delphic treasuries; to the sixth belong the temples of Hera at Olympia (Figure 11.1) and of Zeus at Nemea and the treasuries of Sybaris, Metapontum, Gela, Sicyon, Epi-
Figure 11.1 Temple of Hera, Olympia. Source: photo by author
Damnus, Selinus, Cyrene, and Megara at Olympia. The fact that monumental religious architecture appears in these sanctuaries a century or two later than in polis sanctuaries calls for an explanation, and a reasonable conjecture would be that investment in local, civic sanctuaries was considered a more important priority.
Nor can it be coincidental that it is in the early sixth century that many of the great Panhellenic festivals were formalized - the Greeks talked in terms of “refoundation” since the origins of all the most important competitions were attributed to heroic figures of myth. The Pythian and Isthmian Games were (re) instituted in 582 and the Nemean Games nine years later. Traditionally, the Olympic Games were said to have begun in 776 but this figure derives from the calculations of Hippias of Elis towards the end of the fifth century (p. 31) and, since there is nothing in the archaeological record at Olympia that suggests any reorganization of the sanctuary in the third quarter of the eighth century, it is often suspected that Hippias exaggerated the antiquity of the Olympic Games. Some believe that they too may be a creation of the early sixth century. For what it is worth, the earliest statue of an Olympic victor that was shown to Pausanias (6.18.7) dates to the fifty-ninth Olympiad of 544 - a date that falls well after the beginnings of monumental sculpture.
When set against the background of social and political developments sketched out in earlier chapters, the fit is very satisfying. The earliest frequenters of sanctuaries such as Olympia or Isthmia would have been “big men” or chieftains - more local in the case of Isthmia and perhaps from a little further afield in the case of Olympia, whose remote location may have marked it out as an ideal neutral meeting-place. The chieftains would establish relations among themselves through commensality but, increasingly, also through competitive display in the offerings they would dedicate. Competition in what the anthropologist Arjun Appadurai has termed “tournaments of value” not only guaranteed the donor’s right to participate in rivalry with his peers but also enhanced his authority and status in his home community. By the seventh century, the great interregional sanctuaries became the regular arenas for communication and competition between aristocrats from various parts of Greece; although there has been some controversy on the subject of “amateurism” in the Olympic Games, it is patently clear that the earliest athletic victors in the stephanitic games were those who possessed the resources and the leisure to train and travel.
It would, however, be mistaken to confuse the emergence of a transregional aristocracy with the crystallization of Hellenic self-consciousness. Firstly, the elites grounded their identity in the fact that they were not the same as the demos in their home communities: social and cultural considerations outranked ethnic or civic ones. Secondly, with the practice of guest friendship, gift exchange, and intermarriage, the borders between Greek and non-Greek aristocrats were, as we have seen, very porous. By the early fifth century, the Olympic Games were restricted to those who could prove Hellenic descent (Herodotus 5.22.1-2), but we do not know how old this restriction was and it is not clear that similar
Figure 11.2 Delphi. Source: photo by author
World History
