Quinn, Amy. The Hero Cult And The Tomb Cult In Early Greek Society.pdf

The ‘Hero Cult’ and the ‘Tomb Cult’ in Early Greek Society AMY QUINN

In ancient Greece, heroic figures were known for performing magnificent feats of skill and bravery and while they were not gods, the fact that they lived and died as mortals only made their achievements all the greater. After death they were bestowed with honours such as sacrifices and prayers as well as shrines and altars established in their name and they were commemorated in athletic games and works of literature. Several different types of hero existed including local, epic and mythic heroes, warriors, city founders and healers. By the Late Classical period (c.400-336 BCE) athletes and the ordinary dead were heroized (Antonaccio 1995, 1). Cults developed devoted to the worship of these heroes and are of much interest to us today, with scholars undertaking valuable research into the subject and contributing their ideas to the discussion, some of which I will detail here. How the practice of these so-called ‘hero cults’ (and the closely related ‘tomb cult’) came into being is one of the most elusive factors that archaeologists and historians are still considering. Following the collapse of the Mycenaean civilization in c. 1100 BCE, there was a notable change in the material culture of the Early Iron Age, often characterized as an era of decline and sometimes referred to as the ‘Dark Age’ (c. 1100-750 BCE). There was a decrease in the wealth, quality and quantity of materials and many sites were abandoned. Tombs are our best source of Iron Age information alongside evidence collected from sanctuaries. In most regions there was a shift from traditional group burials in chamber and tholos tombs to individual graves and a certain aspect of Mycenaean culture lingered in the secondary use of some Mycenaean tombs (Antonaccio 1995, 2-3). In later Iron Age society (9th and 8th centuries BCE), pan-hellenism became a unifying force amongst the various regions with the Olympic games, Delphi oracle and common artistic styles becoming familiar to most around Greece. Along with a distinct rise in population and nucleated settlements being favored, the development of poleis and ethnoi forms of political organization began. At this important stage in Greek history there was yet another great advancement with the spread of the Homeric myths. This is significant especially in regards to the rise of hero cults as these myths spoke of the great

figures of the ‘glorious’ Mycenaean and Bronze Age, reviving people’s interest in the heroic past. Their fascination can be seen in the archaeological evidence of heroic burial customs such as dedications of weapons and animal sacrifice and the depictions of epic scenes on Geometric art (c.900-700 BCE). Some scholars have identified Homeric poetry as spurring the creation of hero shrines and the abundance of votive offerings (such as figurines and pottery) at Bronze Age tombs (Antonaccio 1995, 3-5). Formal hero cults (worshipping a named hero/heroine at shrines constructed for such a purpose) saw an increase in the 8th century and were at first considered similar to the placing of contemporary votive offerings in Mycenaean tombs, but the practices are rather different. Tomb deposits are now given their own category under the title of ‘tomb cult’. This term had originally been used to describe occasional family tomb visits in the Classical period but now also applies to people from the Iron Age onwards visiting Mycenaean tombs. Hero shrines differ from those of tomb cults in several ways; hero shrines can be found at Mycenaean settlement sites but not at tombs and tomb shrines are anonymous, modest in their offerings and there is no construction of a permanent installation. Tomb cults are also usually one-time visits (though there is evidence of visits over longer periods of time) while the hero cults constituted an ongoing practice. (Antonaccio 1995, 6) The theory that Homeric inspiration was the stimulant behind tomb cults will be looked at alongside another theory that claims their development as a continuation of Bronze Age veneration of ancestors or ‘tendance’ (Whitley 1988, 173), which occurred at certain tombs even during the Dark Age. It is now generally thought that the eighth century brought on an ancestral yearning which can be seen in ritual, art and literature. Rather than simply being mere nostalgia for past times, some scholars believe this interest in their ancestors served to cement the positions of elite individuals and families threatened by the emerging polis. Archaeologists have been trying to discern the effect the epics had on the attitudes and behavior of the Iron Age people and if their influence has been overestimated. At Lefkandi on the island of Euboea for example, burials have been uncovered in the style of Homeric heroic practice but they date from the 10th century BCE, well before the diffusion of Homeric poetry (Antonaccio 1995, 6). The question still stands of why local

inhabitants would associate tholos and chamber tombs with epic Homeric figures when the burial practices described in Homer more greatly resemble contemporary customs? (Whitley 1988, 174) Some would conclude from this that people were not trying to recreate epic burials but simply adhering to their own traditional practices. However, J.M Cook strongly believes that Homer was the catalyst in the spread of tomb cult and that the previous memories of the tombs had been lost and were later reawakened with the renewed interest in epic heroes (Antonaccio 1994, 394). There are some exciting parallels between hero worship and the epics, such as the finds at a cult of Odysseus in a cave at Polis Bay on Ithaca where thirteen bronze tripods were discovered within, along with an inscribed dedication to Odysseus on a female mask. The thirteen tripods are mentioned in the epic poem when Odysseus is presented with them by thirteen kings. However, Odysseus’ name is mentioned only once at the shrine and dates to a later period than expected. His name was found along with other dedications to Hera, Athena and nymphs. Without the presence of the tripods no-one would think it was a shrine to the hero and it appears he was most likely a later addition to an already existing shrine to other deities (Antonaccio 1995, 153). It is clear that scholars are finding it difficult to harmonize the literary hero and later hero cult. Apart from the epics the earliest source mentioning hero cult is from the 7th century, when Drakon the Athenian lawgiver prescribes that all local gods and heroes be honoured in accordance with ancestral custom (which indicates a well established practice). E. Rhode maintained that the Homeric poems represented the beliefs of Ionian Greeks and not mainland Greeks and therefore did not play a big role in relation to hero cult. He argues that Homer knew nothing of hero cult, but of course this can’t be proven and cannot be assumed because he did not write about it. Rhode thinks that hero cult was a revival and amplification of ancestor veneration. The worship of the ancestors of noble families over time broadened into hero worship, with heroes names fabricated when familial names had been lost (Antonaccio 1994, 390). The emergence of hero cults is sometimes associated with a loss of stable power in the Late Iron Age as land struggles were occurring between different groups as they transitioned from grazing cattle to growing crops. According to Anthony Snodgrass, heroes became of great use in these situations when people could draw on past greatness

to emphasize their own. As the tomb cult offerings are rather modest, he sees them as a private dedication to ancestors. The hero cults however ensured the protection of a farmer’s land. Snodgrass point to the scarcity of tomb cults in places like Thessaly and Crete where a serf-like population dominates and so local heroes would not be as useful. He believes that the Messenian tomb cults grew out of resistance against Lakonian invasion until the 5th century, while Archaic and Classical cults were used to support the territorial expansion of the polis (Antonaccio 1995, 7). It is true that the possession of heroic relics, especially a hero’s bones, was the subject of constant dispute between competing poleis who exploited them to stimulate propaganda and solidify territorial claim (McCauley 1995, 97). Snodgrass responds to the question of why so many cults are dedicated to anonymous figures (especially when the Iliad and Odyssey were full of heroic names) by concluding that the heroes must have been anonymous at the time their cults were instituted (Whitley 1988, 174-175). James Whitely also looked into the rise of tomb cults while focusing on the regions of Attica and the Argolid. He draws attention to a rise in settlements in Attica from the 9th century to the Late Geometric, which some scholars interpret as not simply a re-settlement of fallow land but as part of an internal re-colonization of the Attic countryside by Athens itself. It is probable that the re-settlement and Bronze Age tomb offerings are related but if this was to be attributed to free peasants cementing a title to their new land then these offerings would be expected to be made by new, small communities of the 8th century, which is not the case. In at least three sites (Menidhi, Eleusis and Thorikos) offerings found in tombs and hero veneration is found in areas occupied from Protogeometric times. Only at Aliki Glyphada do the patterns of offerings fit into Snodgrass’s model. In other areas offerings in Mycenaean tombs appear to be the work of older communities within the Attic region. Whitley agrees that this is connected with landholdings but not in the way Snodgrass suggests. Whitley believes that the institution of cults was a reaction by settled, rich communities to the founding of small settlements around them. By doing this they were making an ideological claim to be of greater antiquity (and of more importance) than the newcomers as the indigenous inhabitants of Attica. These actions were directed as much towards Athens as the new communities as they wished to emphasize their local autochthony. The offerings may

have been performed by elites rather than free peasants, attested by rich Geometric burials at Anavyssos and Eleusis (Whitley 1988, 177-178). In the Argolid, unlike Attica where they are more dispersed, votives are concentrated at the three major sites of Mycenae, Argos and Prosymna. The Argolid had a different political climate to Athens with the region divided into several sovereign poleis. In the Archaic and Classical periods Argos had tried to exert hegemony over the region. De Polignac argues for the crucial role played by extra-urban sanctuaries in territorial claims of early city states (the Perachora Temple was placed on a boundary) and that the establishment of cult practices on these sites helped to define territory and unite less settled regions of the polis. Offerings are mostly found at urban sites which indicate that they were a political act by elites and if not performed by the state, at least encouraged by them. In the Argolid, hero cult related to the city states ideological needs which they used to symbolically define themselves. Whitley concludes that hero cult offerings were highly political, more so than other scholars have allowed for (Whitley 1988, 178-182). While it is useful to look for regional patterns, the main problem with Whitley’s investigation is that by selecting two regions he has not used the evidence from those outside his study and so his range is too narrow. However, he is correct that the historical and social aspects surrounding hero cult are important to our study and should be considered alongside the archaeological evidence. J. N. Coldstream has put forward his own views regarding the development of tomb and hero cult by responding to L.R. Farnell who in 1921 stated “We so often hear how saga reflects cult that we are in danger of ignoring the reverse truth, that cult may reflect saga”(Coldstream 1976, 8). Coldstream admits that the subject of Greek heroworship is an untidy one. He looks at the estimated ‘Age of Homer’, dating between c. 750-650 BCE, when the Homeric myths were being diffused throughout Greece. If hero cult was something inspired by Homer then no votive offerings should have dated to before this period (Coldstream 1976, 8), but some do. He believes in the power of the Homeric myths in the development of hero cult. He claims that the currency of epic explains votives left by Dorian Greeks in Mycenaean tombs who, as an immigrant population, would not have otherwise paid any respect to their Mycenaean predecessors.

He defends his theory against hero cults preceding the Age of Homer by arguing that they represent racial continuity (Antonaccio 1994, 395). Coldstream points out that there must be a distinction between offerings given in hero worship and those given in family affection. Immediately after death, offerings are left for the deceased to ease their journey into the afterlife, but this does not mean the person is thought of as superhuman. He states that only after several generations have passed and offerings are left away from any contemporary buildings or burials that it can be considered hero cult (Coldstream 1979, 8). He explains the absence of votives in one region and their presence in another to the existing burial practices in each area. In Mycenae for instance, the current settlers may have been coming across former Mycenaean burials quite frequently and would not have found any novelty in them; hence no votives. People used to simpler graves on the other hand would have been amazed at such tombs and were more likely to leave offerings in reverence (Coldstream 1976, 1316). This would be especially so if the people’s imaginations had been stirred by Homer. He also suggests that the Greeks may have known where the tombs were but did not always feel obliged to visit and leave offerings. However, he has been criticized for including accidental intrusion into tombs in his analysis (Antonaccio 1994, 396). The scholar Carl Blegen, writing in the 1930s, thought that the tomb cults were never lost in the memory of the Greeks but this does not fit with all regional evidence (Antonaccio 1994, 192). There is evidence to show that Greeks did respect older burials such as the example of the Late Geometric gravedigger who, while searching for a place to bury a child’s remains, accidentally dug into a Middle Helladic (c. 2000-1550 BCE) burial, damaging the skull. It appears that he tried to reassemble the broken cranium and left a piece of oinochoe pottery as an apology before covering over the burial. However, not all Greeks showed such deference towards the dead. During the Dark Age old burials were frequently cut by new ones in the Kerameikos Cemetery and the Mycenaeans were constantly sweeping out old burials and tombs to make room for the newly deceased. In contrast, when they extended their fortification walls in the 13th century BCE they specifically included the Grave Circle within their citadel, perhaps to reinforce ancestral links, but it is always possible that they were thinking of reusing the burial ground. The archaeologist Spyridon Marinatos reckoned that grave robbers would sometimes leave

offerings to those whose tomb they pilfered as an apology and because they were fascinated with the splendor of unfamiliar burial practices. This may be slightly romanticized thinking but it is interesting to consider. Many votives simply seem to be the private offerings of ordinary people who, hearing of past heroic feats, paid homage to men of an age more glorious than their own. This carries an implication that they felt a sense of inferiority compared with their ancestors (Coldstream 1976, 11-14). It seems evident that there were several reasons for the rise of hero cult and many scholars do believe that its origins can be found in ancestral veneration. The major difference between the two is that ancestors only pertained to one’s own predecessors while hero cults were the concern of the entire community. However, this is our modern view of the practice and we cannot know if this distinction was considered by the early Greeks. Archaeologists are looking into one potential origin of heroic cult development dating to as early as the Late Geometric period, when some burial grounds had certain buildings and structures possibly used for recurring ritual. Such ceremonies may have been dedicated to long-dead family members as well as those recently deceased. A few special cases in the Argolid and on Naxos indicate that proper heroic cults were performed as a continuation at these installations which were originally burial grounds (Hägg 1995, 37). This is another interesting step forward in the argument in favour of ancestral veneration as the ancestor of tomb cult. The wide-ranging and differing scholarly opinion on the subject of tomb and hero cult is almost never-ending. However, each scholar has something to contribute to the research into such practices and highlight the need for a diachronic perspective. It is clear that Greek ancestor and hero worship was dynamic and changing and so our theories must be open to this fact. What is evident from the ongoing investigation into Greek tomb and hero cult practices is that they served very important and varied purposes, whether it was to infuse an identity onto the land or as pawns of political powers. Whatever the intention, these cults succeeded in strengthening the ancient Greeks’ ties with their past.

Bibliography

Antonaccio, C. An Archaeology of Ancestors: Tomb and Hero Cult in Early Greece (Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham, 1995) Antonaccio, C “Contesting the Past: Hero Cult, Tomb Cult and Epic in Early Greece” American Journal of Archaeology Vol.98 (1994) pp. 389-410 Coldstream J.N “Hero-Cults in the Age of Homer” Journal of Hellenic Studies Vol. 96 (1976) pp. 8-17 Hägg, R “Funerary Ritual, Veneration of Ancestors and the Cult of Heroes in Geometric Greece” (Abstract) in R. Hägg’s (ed.) Ancient Greek Hero Cult: Proceedings of Fifth International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult 25-27 (Göteborg, 1995) p. 37 McCauley, B “Heroes and Power: The Politics of Bone Transferal” in R. Hägg’s (ed.) Ancient Greek Hero Cult: Proceedings of Fifth International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult 25-27 (Göteborg, 1995) pp. 85-98 Whitley, J “Early States and Greek Heroes: A Re-appraisal” Journal of Hellenic Studies Vol. 108 (1988) pp. 173-182