Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:54:52.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Toumba building at Lefkandi: some methodological reflections on its plan and function1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

Jari Pakkanen  and
Petra Pakkanen
Jari Pakkanen
Affiliation:
Royal Holloway, University of London
Petra Pakkanen
Affiliation:
Finnish Institute at Athens
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It has been argued that a foot of c. 0.30 m was used in the design of the Early Iron Age building at Lefkandi. However, deriving the foot-unit length from the preserved measurements is not statistically valid; in this case, proportional analysis is more likely to advance understanding of the building design rather than foot-standard studies. Attempts to determine the building function using direct analogical reasoning are problematic because of the exceptional character of the Toumba building. Based on the archaeological evidence of ritualised collective gatherings, however, a transformation in the communal meaning of the monument is proposed.

Type
Articles
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 95 , November 2000 , pp. 239 - 252
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 See Rulers' Dwellings, 48–57 for a full bibliography.

3 Lejkandi, ii. 2. 1, 101.

4 Layout, 379.

5 For the recent discussion, see e.g. Antonaccio, C., ‘Contesting the past: hero cult, tomb cult, and epic in early Greece’, AJA 98 (1994), 395–6, 401–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar (=1994a); ead., ‘Placing the past: the Bronze Age in the cultic topography of early Greece’, in Alcock, S. E. and Osborne, R. (eds), Placing the Gods: Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece (Oxford, 1994), 90–100Google Scholar (=1994b); ead., Archaeology of Ancestors: Tomb Cult and Hero Cult in Ancient Greece (Boston and London, 1995)Google Scholar (1995a); Schachter, A., ‘Policy, cult, and the placing of Greek sanctuaries’, in Schachter, A. and Bingen, J. (eds), Le Sanctuaire grec (Entretiens sur l'antiquité classique, 37; Vandœuvres and Geneva, 1992), 52–6Google Scholar; E. Kearns, ‘Between god and man: status and function of heroes and their sanctuaries’, in the same volume, 65–8; Whitley, J., ‘The monuments that stood before Marathon: tomb cult and hero cult in Archaic Attica’, AJA 98 (1994), 213–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rulers' Dwellings, esp. chapters 3 and 5; also n. 7 below.

6 See e.g. Coulton's, J. and Popham's, M. R. discussions in Lefkandi, ii.2. 49–52, 97–101Google Scholar; see also Fagerström, K, Greek Iron Age Architecture: Developments through Changing Times (SIMA 81; Göteborg, 1988), esp. 81, 160–3, 166Google Scholar; Whitley, J., ‘Social diversity in Dark Age Greece’, BSA 86 (1991), 350Google Scholar; Crielaard, J. P. and Driessen, J., ‘The hero's home: some reflections on the building at Toumba, Lefkandi’, Topoi, 4 (1994), 254–67Google Scholar; Lawrence, A. W. and Tomlinson, R. A., Greek Architecture (5th edn; New Haven and London, 1996), 62Google Scholar; Rulers' Dwellings, 48–56, 276–86, 381–92; Antonaccio 1995a (n. 5), esp. 236–42; ead., ‘Lefkandi and Homer’ in Ø. Andersen, and Dickie, M. (eds), Homer's World: Fiction, Tradition, Reality (Papers from the Norwegian Institute at Athens 3; Bergen, 1995), 10–15Google Scholar (=1995b); also n. 43 below.

7 Since de Polignac's, F.La Naissance de la cité grecque (Paris, 1984Google Scholar) there has been particular discussion on whether the Dark Age religious space was spatially determined or undetermined and on whether an ‘extraurban’ sanctuary preceded an ‘urban’ one. Polignac argued for the spatial indeterminacy of Dark Age cult (see esp. 13, 15–17, 20 in the revised English version of the book Cult, Territory, and the Origins of the Greek City-State (Chicago and London, 1995Google Scholar)); the argument is supported by Morris, I., Burial and Ancient Society; The Rise of the Greek State (Cambridge, 1987), 187–92Google Scholar; id., ‘Attitudes towards death in Archaic Greece’, Classical Antiquity, 8 (1989), 317–32, and by Schachter (n. 5), 9–10. Studies arguing for the existence of spatially determined Dark Age sanctuaries include V. R. d'Desborough, A., The Greek Dark Ages (London, 1972), 281Google Scholar; Sourvinou-Inwood, C., ‘Early sanctuaries, the eighth century and ritual space: fragments of discourse’ in Marinatos, N. and Hägg, R. (eds), Greek Sanctuaries: New Approaches (London and New York, 1993), 2–7, 10–1Google Scholar; and Rulers' Dwellings, esp. 383. See also Antonaccio 1994b, (n. 5), 80–6, 101–4; C. Morgan, ‘The evolution of the sacral “landscape”: Isthmia, Perachora, and the early Corinthian state’, in Alcock, S. E. and Osborne, R. (eds), Placing the Gods: Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece (Oxford, 1994), 105–8Google Scholar; ead., ‘From palace to polish? Religious developments on the Greek mainland during the Bronze Age / Iron Age transition’ in Hellström, P. and Alroth, B. (eds), Religion and Power in the Ancient Greek World: Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium (Boreas, 24' Uppsala, 1996), 55Google Scholar; Malkin, I., ‘Territorial domination and the Greek sanctuary’ in the same volume, 75–81Google Scholar.

8 See e.g. Gould, R. A. and Watson, P. J., ‘A dialogue on the meaning and use of analogy in ethnoarchaeological reasoning’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 1 (1982), 363–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wylic, A., ‘The reaction against analogy’ in Schiffer, M. B. (ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 8 (Tucson, 1985), 69, 91, 94–8Google Scholar. Analogy is strongly criticized by Freeman, L. G., ‘A theoretical framework for interpreting archaeological materials’ in Lee, R. B. and de Vore, I. (eds), Man, the Hunter (Chicago, 1968), 262Google Scholar.

9 Wylie, A., ‘An analogy by any other name is just as analogical’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 1 (1982), 393CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Fischer, D. H., Historian's Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York, 1970), 247Google Scholar.

10 Gould and Watson (n. 8), 373.

11 Concepts and conceptual systems are commensurable if they frame situations in the same way and if there is one-to-one correspondence between concepts in different systems; see Lakoff, G., Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind (Chicago and London. 1987), 322–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 For examples, see e.g. Lawrence and Tomlinson (n. 6), 34 6.

13 Xeropolis, the settlement near Lefkandi, is a Bronze Age site; the burials cease at c. 700 BC. Beneath the foundations of the Toumba building was located a Bronze Age chamber tomb, but otherwise there is no evidence for a Mycenaean cemetery in the area; see Popham, M. et al. , Lefkandi, i: The Iron Age: the Settlement and the Cemeteries (BSA supp. vol. 11; London, 1979–1980), 368–9, 423–7Google Scholar; Popham, M. R., Touloupa, E. and Sackett, L. H., ‘The hero of Lefkandi’. Antiquity, 56 (1982), 170, 174CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lefkandi, ii. 1. 91; Antonaccio 1995a (n. 5). 237–9. The Bronze Age sherds (mostly of LH III date) and 15 fragments of Mycenaean figurines (none earlier than LH III C) from the west end of the building are in a poor state of preservation and the scattered findspots make it highly unlikely that these were brought deliberately as offerings to the site; rather they came there with the fill, not deriving from any Mycenaean tomb or shrine on the Toumba hill, but more probably from the Mycenaean habitation at Xeropolis. See Lefkandi, ii. 1, 91; Crielaard and Driessen (n. 6), 262–4; Antonaecio 1995b (n. 6), 12. For the finds, see Lefkandi, ii. 2. 73 pl. 32, nos. 12–24 (figurine fragments) and Lefkandi, ii. 1. 86, 135 pl. 13 (Bronze Age sherds). For the later continuity (throughout the 9th c. BC) of the Toumba cemetery, see Popham, M. R., Sackett, L. H., and Touloupa, E., ‘Further excavations at the Toumba cemetery at Lefkandi’, BSA 77 (1982), 213–48Google Scholar; Lefkandi, ii. 1. 105, 168–96.

14 The question of the relationship between continuity and change in Early Iron Age religion is the subject of a forthcoming study by P. Pakkanen.

15 The emergence of the Greek temple has most often been viewed as an 8th-c phenomenon; see e.g. Coulton, J. J., Ancient Greek Architects at Work: Problems of Structure and Design (New York, 1977), 2, 35–6Google Scholar; Snodgrass, A. M., Archaeology and the Rise of Greek State (Cambridge, 1977), 26Google Scholar; Burkert, W., ‘Offerings in perspective: surrender, distribution, exchange’ in Linders, T. and Nordquist, G. (eds), Gifts to the Gods: Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1985 (Uppsala, 1987), 49Google Scholar; Fagerström (n. 6), 163; Jost, M., ‘Sanctuaires ruraux et sanctuaires urbains en Arcadie’, in Schahter, A. and Bingen, J. (eds), Le Sanctuaire grec (Vandœuvres and Geneva, 1992), 205–6Google Scholar; Schachtcr (n. 5), 9–10; Sourvinou-Inwood (n. 7), 8–10; Polignac 1995 (n. 7), 17–8; Lawrence and Tomlinson (n. 6), 61–5; Morris (n. 7), 189–92; id., ‘The art of citizenship’, in Langdon, S. (ed.), New Light on a Dark Age: Exploring the Culture of Geometric Greece (Missouri, 1997), 20Google Scholar; C. G. Simon, ‘The archaeology of cult in Geometric Greece. Ionian temples, altars, and dedications’, ibid. 129; Morgan, C., Athletes and Oracles: The Transformation of Olympia and Delphi in the Eighth Century BC (Cambridge, 1990), 5, 16Google Scholar; Rulers' Dwellings, 389, 392–4. Discussions on the role and development of ‘urban’, ‘periurban’, and ‘rural’ sanctuaries, as well as the rise of the polis, are closely connected with this theme.

16 These changes have been widely discussed in e.g. Hägg, R. (ed.), The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century BC: Tradition and Innovation. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 1–5 June, 1981 (Stockholm, 1983Google Scholar); cf. S. Langdon (cd.) (n. 15), and in it esp. the articles by M. Langdon, ‘Cult in Iron Age Attica’, 113–24 and by C. G. Simon (n. 15), 125–43; Coldstream, J. N., Geometric Greece (Cambridge, 1977), 317–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Snodgrass, A. M., The Dark Age of Greece: An Archaeological Survey of the Eleventh to the Eighth Centuries BC (Edinburgh, 1971), esp. 416–36Google Scholar; id., (n. 15), 26; Morris (n. 7). 190–7; Morgan (n. 15), esp. 2–16 and ead. (1994, n. 7), 105–9; Whitley, J., Style and Society in Dark Age Greece: the Changing Face of the Pre-literate Society 1100–700 BC (Cambridge, 1991), 39–45Google Scholar; Polignac (1995, n. 7), 17–22.

17 R. Osborne discusses the reason behind and the impact of power manifested in the Toumba building in Greece in the Making 1200–479 BC (London and New York, 1996), 43–4Google Scholar.

18 On the peristyle in Early Iron Age architecture, see Ainian, A. Mazarakis, ‘Contribution a l'étude de l'architecture religieuse grecque des Ages Obscurs’, Ant. Cl. 54 (1985), 18Google Scholar and Rulers' Dwellings, 278–9.

19 Dunnel, R. C., Systematics in Prehistory (New York, 1971), 176–9Google Scholar.

20 Cf. e.g. Jacobson, R., Fundamentals of Language (The Hague, 1958), 89Google Scholar; Comstock, W. R., ‘Toward open definitions of religion’, Journal of American Academy of Religion, 52.3 (1984), 310–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tilley, C., Material Culture and Text: The Art of Ambiguity (London and New York, 1990), 22, 96Google Scholar.

21 Layout, 379–80.

22 H. Bankel, ‘Moduli an den Tempeln von Tegea und Stratos? Grenzen der Fußmaßbestimmung’, AA 1984, 413–20; in general, Bankel's study demonstrates admirably the difficulties of ascertaining Greek foot-standards.

23 Sonntagbauer, W., ‘Zum Grundriß des Parthenon’, ÖJh 67 (1998), 136Google Scholar.

24 Dinsmoor, W. B., ‘The basis of Greek temple design: Asia Minor, Greece, Italy’, Atti del settimo congresso internazionale di archeologia classica, i (Rome, 1961), 355–68Google Scholar.

25 Coulton, J. J., ‘Towards understanding Greek temple design: the stylobate and intercolumniations,’ BSA 69 (1974), 62Google Scholar. See also id., ‘Towards understanding Greek temple design: general considerations,’ BSA 70 (1975), 85–9.

26 For the measurements, see Lefkandi, ii. 2. 33–49; Layout, 380–3

27 De Waele (Layout, 380) arbitrarily uses the wall thickness and doorway dimensions to assess a unit of c. 0.30 m.

28 Korres, M. has demonstrated that deriving the foot-standard from measurements of small building details, such as mouldings, is probably possible for marble architecture (‘Der Plan des Parthenon’, AM 109 (1994), 62–5Google Scholar), but the method is not applicable to Protogeometric buildings.

29 Layout, 380–3. In TABLES 1–2 we have retained de Waele's measurements in order to make comparisons between his suggestions and those of this paper as feasible as possible.

30 Layout, 383. In general, referring to ‘intended’ dimensions presupposes information which is not available: the original intentions of the builders.

31 One-quarter of a 0.30 m foot is 7.5 cm, and the majority of measurements in TABLES 1–2 have a range of 5 cm. It should perhaps be noted that fractions might occur more easily in connection with smaller measurements than large ones and that some major dimensions might be restricted to a round number of feet (cf. the question of hekatompedon temples in later Greek architecture; on hekatompeda, see e.g. Tomlinson, R. A., Greek Sanctuaries (London, 1976), 29–30Google Scholar; Tölle-Kastenbein, R., ‘Das Hekatompedon auf der Athener Akropolis’, JdI 108 (1993), 43–8Google Scholar).

32 Cf. Coulton, J. J., ‘The columns and roof of the South Stoa at the Argive Heraion’, BSA 68 (1973), 81–3Google Scholar; Pakkanen, J., The Temple of Athena Alea at Tegea: A Reconstruction of the Peristyle Column (Publications of the Department of Art History at the University of Helsinki, 18; Helsinki, 1998), 67–8Google Scholar.

33 Layout, 379.

34 Cf. Coulton (1975, n. 25), 85–9.

35 It might be easier to build a wall to the line when the line corresponds to the interior or exterior face of the wall, but since Protogeometric building practice is unknown to us, the centre-line measurements can be regarded as a necessary compromise.

36 c. 9 m + 2 × c. 0.3 m (wall thickness from centre to face) = 9.6 m; for the apse length, sec Lefkandi, ii. 2. 36.

37 Mustonen, S., SURVO: An Integrated Environment for Statistical Computing and Related Areas (Helsinki, 1992), 62–4Google Scholar. In proportional analysis of buildings the value of c may reasonably vary from 3 (poor) to 5 (very accurate).

38 Minimum: OW: OL = 9.2 / 47.7 ≈ 0.1929 ≈ 1:5

(discrep. –0.0071 × 47.7 m ≈ 0.34 m);

maximum: OW: OL = 9.5 / 47.7 ≈ 0.1992 ≈ 1:5

(discrep. 0.0008 × 47.7 m ≈ –0.04 m).

39 PL: OL = 2.7 / 47.7 ≈ 0.0566 ≈ 1: 18

(discrep. 0.0010 × 47.7 m ≈ 0.05 m);

EL: OL = 8.9 / 47.7 ≈ 0.1866 ≈ 3: 16

(discrep. 0.0009 × 47.7 m ≈ –0.04 m);

CL: OL = 22.6 / 47.7 ≈ 0.4738 ≈ 7: 15

(discrcp. 0.0071 × 47.7 m ≈ 0.34 m);

WL: OL = 3.9 / 47.7 ≈ 0.0818 ≈ 1: 12

(discrep. 0.0016 × 47.7 m ≈ –0.07 m);

AL: OL = 9.6 / 47.7 ≈ 0.2013 ≈ 1: 5

(discrep. 0.0013 × 47.7 m ≈ –0.06 m).

40 EL: (OL–PL) = 8.9 / 45 ≈ 0.1978 ≈ 1: 5

(discrep. 0.0022 × 45 m ≈ –0.10 m);

CL: (OL–PL) = 22.6 / 45 = 0.5022 ≈ 1: 2

(discrep. 0.0022 × 45 m ≈ 0.10 m);

WL: (OL–PL) = 3.9 / 45 ≈ 0.0867 ≈ 2: 23

(discrep. –0.0003 × 45 m ≈ 0.01 m);

AL: (OL–PL) = 9.6 / 45 ≈ 0.2133 ≈ 3: 14

(discrep. 0.0010 × 45 m ≈ –0.04 m);

(WL+AL): (OL–PL) = 13.5 / 45 = 0.3 = 3: 10

(discrep. 0).

41 Minimum: OW: (OL–PL) = 9.2 / 45 ≈ 0.2044 ≈ 1: 5 (discrep. 0.0044 × 45 m ≈ 0.20 m); maximum: OW: (OL–PL) = 9.5 / 45 ≈ 0.2111 ≈ 3: 14 (discrep. –0.0032 × 45 m ≈ –0.14 m). In the latter case the discrepancy between the fraction 0.2111 and the proportion 1: 5 is 0.50 m.

42 Discovering simple proportions in other Protogeometric buildings might indicate that they were indeed used in their design; however, due to lack of contemporary monumental buildings, such a study is not feasible.

43 Several scholars have suggested that the building served as a dwelling of an important man and his family, functioned as a ‘heroon’ for a short time after his death, and afterwards became a grave monument; see Calligas, P. G., ‘Ανασκαφἐς στο Λευκαντἰ Ευβοἰας 1981-1984’, Αρχεἰον Ευβοϊκὠν Μελετὠν, 26 (1984–1985), 260–8Google Scholar; id., ‘Hero-cult in Early Iron Age Greece’, in R. Hägg, N. Marinatos and G. C. Nordquist (eds), Early Greek Cult Practice: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 26–29 June, 1986 (Stockholm, 1988) 230–2; Whitley (n. 6), 350; J. P. Crielaard and J. Driessen (n. 6), 254, 264, 267; Rulers' Dwellings, 55–7; Layout, 384. Coulton, J. (Lefkandi, ii. 2. 49Google Scholar) suggests that the Toumba building was erected either as a princely residence for the deceased before his death, or in imitation of such a residence for his use after death. Thus, the building could have been a heroon in the wider sense, as Popham, M. R. writes (Lefkandi, ii. 2. 100Google Scholar): ‘its purpose could have gone beyond merely providing a palatial kind of structure to house the tomb of the dead warrior who is likely to have been a king himself.’ C. Antonaccio 1995a (n. 5), 241 regards the Toumba simply as a funerary building, being ‘neither heroon, nor sepulcher, temple nor house’; see also ead. 1995b (n. 6), 10–15.

44 Lefkandi, ii. 1. 3–4 with the list of the Middle Protogeometric items all cooking, storing, or feasting equipment—associated with the use of the building; see also Crielaard and Driessen (n. 6), 106; Antonaccio 1995 a (n. 5), 236. Ainian, Mazarakis (Rulers' Dwellings, 53, 301Google Scholar) includes in the list some other small finds from among the ashes in the clay box, e.g. clay buttons, weights, a lragment of figurine foot, stone tools, and some metal items.

45 Lefkandi, ii. 2. 11, 50, 99; Antonaccio 1995 a (n. 5), 236; Rulers' Dwellings, 50–1.

46 Lefkandi, ii. 2. 16–25. The burials date to no later than 950 BC; for the description of the burial shaft, see ibid, 17–22 and pls. 9, 12–22; Rulers' Dwellings, 51–4. The chronological relationship between the construction of the building and the burials is not clear, Lefkandi, ii. 2. 99–101. For a summary of differing opinions, see Crielaard and Driessen (n. 6), 254–9.

47 Lefkandi, ii. 1. 25–6, 29, pls. 17–8, 54–6; Lefkandi, ii. 2. 16, 50, 100; Rulers' Dwellings, 55–7, 301.

48 On relational connections in archaeological explanation, see also Wylie (n. 8), 94–101.

49 Popham, Touloupa, and Sackett (n. 13), 174.

50 Antonaccio 1995a (n. 5), 241–2; for a survey of the Iron Age and Archaic funerary features and practices occurring also in Bronze Age graves (feasting, ‘heroic’ burials, enclosures or grouping of graves) ibid. 199–201. See also an overview on the Geometric and Archaic deposits in Mycenaean tombs by Coldstream, J. N., ‘Hero cults in the age of Homer’, JHS 96 (1976), 8–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar, comments by Whitley, J., ‘Early states and hero cults: a re-appraisal’, JHS 108 (1988), 173–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Antonaccio 1995 b (n. 6), 19.

51 Snodgrass (n. 16), 388–94; Finley, M. I., The World of Odyssey (2nd edn; Harmondsworth, 1979), esp. 68–73, 134–7Google Scholar; Blome, P., ‘Lefkandi and Homer’, Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Alterlumswissensckaft, 10 (1984), 9–22Google Scholar; Dickinson, O. T. P. K., ‘Homer: the poet of the Dark Age’, G&R 33 (1986), 20–37Google Scholar; Langdon, S., ‘Gift exchange in the geometric sanctuaries’ in Linders, T. and Nordquist, G. (eds), Gifts to the Gods: Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1985 (Uppsala, 1987), 109–10Google Scholar; Morris, I., ‘The use and abuse of Homer’, Classical Antiquity, 5 (1986), esp. 81–3, 103–6, 120–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; id. 1987, (n. 7), 194; and 1989 (n. 7), 304–10; Whitley (n. 5), 342–4; Antonaccio 1995b (n. 6), 5–6, 16–20. Contrary to e.g. Finley and Dickinson, Snodgrass argues that the way of life described in the Homeric epics (rich heroic banquets, extensive gift exchanges) cannot be derived from Dark Age societies.

52 Calligas 1988, (n. 43), 232–3; see also Snodgrass (n. 16), 387–8; Desborough (n. 7), 329–33, 336–9.

53 Whitley (n. 6), 342.

54 Durkheim regarded a group of which an individual is part as the only conceivable religious authority, and thus religion originates in states of the collective mind (états de l'âme collective). From this it follows that religion involves formation of communities bound together by a common attitude to certain ‘sacred’ objects. See Durkheim, E., ‘De la définition des phénomènes religieux’, L'Année sociologique, 2 (1898), 15, 21Google Scholar, and id., The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (New York, 1915), 47, 295, 299–309 (French original Les Formes ėlémentaires de la vie réligieuse 1912). See also Sharpe, E. J., Comparative Religion: A History (Trowbridge, 1975 [1994]), 83–6Google Scholar and Pals, D. L., Seven Theories of Religion (New York and Oxford, 1996), 107–9Google Scholar. For more recent methodological study on the formation of social and religious values, see e.g. the so-called ‘grid/group analysis’ proposed by M. Douglas for studying change in moral and value judgements in social groups in her ‘Introduction to the Grid/Group Analysis’ in Douglas, M. (ed.), Essays in the Sociology of Perception, 1–15 (London, 1982Google Scholar); ead., Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology (London, 1970), esp. 55–7Google Scholar; see also Pakkanen, P., Interpreting Hellenistic Religion: A Study Based on the Mystery Cult of Demeter and the Cult of Isis (Papers and Monographs of the Finnish Institute at Athens, 3; Helsinki, 1996), 20–1, 48Google Scholar (for an adaptation to the religious groups of Hellenistic Athens).

55 See e.g. Burkert (n. 15), 47–9.

56 See n. 7 above.

57 See nn. 43 and 46 above.