Ritual Usage of Water in Greek Sanctuaries

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 cleanliness, 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 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 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] 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, 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 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]

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 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 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 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] perirrhainô^[158] 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] 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 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 perirrhanteria.^[168] 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 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 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]

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 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 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 literature^[200] 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 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, 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.

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 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]

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 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] 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]

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 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 oinochoai^[269] 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 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 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]