The “New” Sanctuary of Despotiko (Paros): Interdisciplinarity at Work

In the last decades, an intense archaeological activity has thrown new light on the sanctuaries and the religious cults of Paros, on their chronology, characteristics and spatial distribution. [1] We are now in a position to reconstruct, to a large extent, the cultic system of Paros and to map the urban and extra-urban renewal program that the polis implemented in order to re-define its religious identity. [2] In the Archaic and Late Archaic period, starting from the middle of the sixth century BCE and increasingly in the following decades, Paros invested an impressive amount of resources in a very ambitious building plan: new temples were built and ancient places of worship were reorganized. [3]

This was a period of prosperity and political stability: the conditions were therefore ideal for launching large-scale projects. From the seventh century BCE up to the Persian Wars, Paros was one of the richest city-states of the Aegean Sea, its prosperity being granted by the systematic exploitation of its marble quarries (the famous lychnites was widely exported) [4] and by its geographic location: being at the very center of the Cyclades, Paros was a seafaring and trading power of paramount importance. [5] The Parian overseas expansionism, whose best testimony is the colonization of Thasos around 680–670 BCE, led to a rivalry with the neighboring island of Naxos. Their competition, both economic and military, went on for the whole Archaic age, one core point being the control of the Delian sanctuary of Apollo. Paros’ politics crucially aimed to control, or at least have an impact on the religious life of Delos, which in the seventh century BCE was seemingly under the influence of Naxos. [6]

In the Geometric age, the island’s most important deity was Athena, who was worshipped at the site of Koukounaries, in northern Paros. [7] After the so-called “synoecism,” Paroikia became the central settlement and acquired the dimension and the role of a city-state. It was on the acropolis of Paroikia, on the hill of Kastro, within the city walls, that a new temple of Athena was built around 530–520 BCE. This temple no doubt belongs to the religious renewal program, because it incorporates into the space of the polis a worship which the Parians perceived as an essential part of their religious identity. [8] Athena’s temple had imposing dimensions and exquisite refinements; it was probably the most important cultic venue of the old fortified city. [9]

The greatest financial effort, however, was put into the enhancement of the cult of Apollo and Artemis. On the crest of a hill to the north of Paroikia, in a sacred space which probably was already hosting the cult of the Delian twins, the Parians erected a new Doric temple in 500–490 BCE. It was dedicated to Artemis, whose colossal statue stood in the cella; [10] but Apollo was associated in worship with his sister. [11] The sanctuary was a “Delion,” as many others in the Cyclades: [12] it was oriented towards Delos, and its west façade, which offered an independent access to the venue, was surrounded by a balcony with a direct view on Apollo’s island. [13] All these elements make clear that the Parians intended this sanctuary as a mark of their connection with Delos: it was the monumental expression of both a topographic and a cultural link.

The most impressive product of Paros’ religious program was the sanctuary of Despotiko, a small island (called Prepesinthos in ancient times) facing the west coast of Antiparos. Systematic excavations have been carried out since 1997 by the “Ephorate of Antiquities of the Cyclades” under the supervision of Yannos Kourayos. What has emerged is an important temenos to Apollo, which was clearly part of the sacred system of Paros, but was visited by people coming from the whole Aegean Sea. [14] The sanctuary developed in three successive phases. The original core consisted simply of a temple with two rooms (around 550 BCE); the structure reached its peak in the following decades (around 540–530 BCE), with a temenos enclosed by a peribolos: the temple was enlarged with the construction of an adjacent hestiatorion, an altar was built in front of the temple and other buildings were erected, also related to cultic activities. Finally, the sanctuary was renovated and significantly enlarged in the first years of the fifth century BCE, when a new monumental marble Doric façade was added to the temple.

Although no historical source mentions it, [15] the sanctuary of Despotiko, because of its size and the richness of offerings found, turns out to have been the most important in the Aegean after Delos. If the Parian Delion can be seen as an ideal extension of the Delian cult onto the territory of Paros (a sod of Delos, so to say, transplanted into another island), [16] the sanctuary of Despotiko was inspired by a more ambitious program: by founding and richly furnishing a great temenos to Apollo on an islet which was part of the Paros’ archipelago, the Parians aimed at creating a pan-Ionian sanctuary that could rival Delos’ and challenge their historical competitors, the Naxians. [17]

In any case, the almost simultaneous building interventions at the Delion and at Despotiko must be interpreted in the light of a precise program of religious and cultural nature. With the erection of the new temple to the north of Paroikia and the foundation of the new sanctuary on the southwestern fringe of the island, the Parian community intended to mark the territory of the polis, from north to south of the city center, as a unified center of Apollonian cult. On the eve of events enhancing the role of Delos in Greek history (that is, the foundation of the Delian League and the promotion of Delos as a symbol of Greek resistance against the Persian threat), Paros fostered a common religious identity across its territory in the name of Apollo and of Apollonian religion. [18]

It is certainly no coincidence that the earliest evidence of the heroic cult of the poet Archilochus dates from this same period (late sixth century BCE). A sanctuary was erected in his honor, probably at the site which is now called Treis Ekklesies (“Three Churches”), east of Paroikia, along the road to Naousa. [19] This “Archilocheion” possibly consisted of a shrine, altars and a temenos. [20] Two marble reliefs were reused in the cloister of the Hekatontapyliani and discovered in the 1960s. [21] One of them depicts a Totenmahl, with the main figure reclining on a couch: on the wall above his head hang the various parts of an armor and an upside-down lyre. [22] This scene pictures Archilochus being worshipped in terms of a hero cult: the presence of both the weapons and the musical instrument corresponds strikingly to the poet’s self-presentation in fr. 1 West (“I am the servant of lord Enyalius and skilled in the lovely gift of the Muses”).

By granting Archilochus a heroic cult, the Parians recognized him as an identity figure; heroization was an award for the double role he had played: as a citizen who bravely fought on the battlefield, and as a poet who composed songs celebrating the religious and mythical traditions of the island. The process of heroization was accompanied by the creation of a myth: Archilochus became the subject of a narrative, largely inspired by the poet’s own songs; his life was re-written so as to match his public image. Of course, the creation of a mythical bios was not a unidimensional process. To the extent that Archilochus’ fame and work spread and acquired a Panhellenic dimension, his myth was adapted to different scenarios and needs.

The Parian cult of the hero Archilochus obviously included sacrifices and rituals. [23] In addition, poetic contests and rhapsodic recitations were possibly part of the picture as well. In any case, there can hardly be any doubt that the cult of the poet was the context for the performance and transmission of his poetry and for the creation of myths about his life. [24] The heroon possibly also hosted a collection of written texts. Such a scenario is very likely for the Hellenistic age, when the sanctuary was re-founded and renovated, but cannot be ruled out for the Late Archaic “proto-Archilocheion” either. [25]

Various elements suggest that, from the outset, Apollo played a crucial role in Archilochus’ mythical bios. In fact, our earliest written evidence is the tale reported in the “Mnesiepes inscription”—discovered by Greek archaeologist Nikolaos Kondoleon in 1949—which was carved around the middle of the third century BCE by a citizen of Paros, Mnesiepes, on the occasion of the re-consecration of the Archilocheion. [26] In the opening part of the inscription, Mnesiepes refers to three Delphic oracles, which ordered him to construct a precinct, to make sacrifices to various deities, and to pay due honors to Archilochus. [27] This is followed by the account of Archilochus’ poetic initiation. A very young Archilochus was sent by his father to sell a cow at the market. He set off before dawn, and when he came to the place called “Slippery Rocks,” he saw a crowd of women who welcomed him playfully and asked him if he was bringing the cow in order to sell it. When he gave a positive answer, they assured him that they would pay him the right price; soon afterwards, both the women and the cow disappeared, and the boy saw a lyre at his feet. Archilochus’ father Telesicles had the cow searched all over the island, to no avail. Shortly afterwards, he was sent by the city to Delphi, where he received an oracle promising poetic glory to the one of his sons who would greet him first on his return to Paros. Telesicles returned during the festival of Artemisia and was met by Archilochus. This is the text of the Delphic oracle, as found on the inscription:

Through this narrative both aspects of the hero, the one of the poet and that of the colonist, are assigned to the patronage of Delphic Apollo. The Muses’ gift of the lyre and the promise of eternal poetic glory correspond to Archilochus’ role as a divinely inspired singer, conveying the official voice of the Parian community. The mention of Telesicles, on the other hand, clearly alludes to the foundation of Thasos, because a Parian tradition ascribed to Archilochus’ family, the Tellids, a paramount role in this colonial adventure. [28] In another Delphic oracle Archilochus’ father is explicitly assigned the task of founder: [29]

In a third oracle the poet himself is invited to go to Thasos and settle there:

Many sources have transmitted an anecdote that presents Archilochus as a protégé of Apollo even after his death. According to this tradition, the poet died in battle, fighting against the Naxians, the traditional enemies of the Parians. The one who killed him was called Calondas, but bore the nickname Korax, that is, “the Raven.” When he went to Delphi to consult the oracle, he was at first harshly rejected by Pythia on the ground that he had killed a man sacred to the Muses. He tried to justify himself, saying that he had killed him in fair combat; he was then ordered to perform prayers and sacrifices to appease the soul of Archilochus. [30]

The sources that convey these oracles are late: they date to the Hellenistic or post-Hellenistic age, at a time when Archilochus’ life—like that of other ancient poets—took on fictional contours. The ancient biographers, drawing on the poet’s own texts, gave life to the cliché of the poète maudit, afflicted by poverty and consumed by envy. [31] But the cow tale, as narrated in the Mnesiepes inscription, certainly dates back to the Late Archaic period, because it inspired the painter of an Attic white-ground pyxis (the “Hesiod Painter”), dated to ca. 460 BCE. [32] On the pyxis a man is represented standing next to a cow, in the presence of six Muses. The element that makes it almost certain that it is the initiation of Archilochus, and not of some other poet (an identification with Hesiod’s encounter with the Muses had also been proposed), is the presence of the cow. [33]

As he introduces the tale of the poet’s encounter with the Muses, Mnesiepes himself explains that what he decided to write is indeed the result of his own reworking, but is based on a time-honored tradition:

These words suggest that the tale of the lost cow was part of the “original saga,” contemporary with the establishment of the heroic cult.

Let us return to late sixth century BCE Paros and to the vast building program that the Parians implemented to enhance Apollo’s cult and reorientate the religious identity of their island. We may think that the erection of the Archilocheion, the foundation of the heroic cult and the primitive core of the mythical bios were part of one and the same initiative. The sources enable us to reconstruct an entire “oracular system” that narrates Archilochus (his life and career) under the sign of Apollo. Of course, they favored Apollo’s Delphic epithet over its Delian one. [34] The god of Delphi, as protector of poetic art (Mousagetas) and traditional promoter of colonial enterprises, was the obvious point of reference for the poet and colonist Archilochus. [35]

Yet, it would be wrong to think that the Delphic sanctuary took over the figure of Archilochus. A deep connection with Apollo was probably part of the poet’s image already in the local Parian traditions that found their way into the myth. [36] On the other hand, it is certainly possible that Delphic elements ended up coloring these tales: indeed, the oracles included in the bios conform to the verbal forms and narrative patterns that characterize Delphic texts. [37] Delphic coloring also undoubtedly helped the Panhellenic diffusion of the poet’s image.

The heroic cult of Archilochus was also the context for the preservation and transmission of his poetry. [38] We know that his poems spread rapidly all over Greece soon after his death. They were certainly performed in symposia, probably on the basis of oral transmission. But they certainly also had a written circulation. Ancient sources tell us of rhapsodic performances in which Archilochus’ poems were recited along with Homer’s and Hesiod’s. [39] The inclusion in the rhapsodic repertoire is proof that Archilochus was counted among the great poets of the past and that his authority was widely recognized.

On the other hand, in the case of Archilochus the poems and the biographical traditions are closely interrelated, since the episodes of the bios feed on the poet’s verses and can be seen as a kind of commentary on, or interpretation of, his songs. Thus, the success and the circulation of the poems also fostered the dissemination of the myth, in a process of mutual influence: insofar as the songs were admired and performed, the image of the poet was subject to continuous reinterpretation and re-narration. [40]

In this perspective, Athens is a very telling case study. In the fifth century BCE Athenian scenario, the figure of Archilochus undergoes contradictory developments corresponding to different readings of his bios. [41] In the first half of the century, the poet seems to play an important role in Cimon’s political propaganda. After the death of Miltiades, which followed the failed attack on Paros (489 BCE), Cimon took charge of continuing his father’s policy through a series of actions in the northern Aegean. His plan aimed at a progressive expansion of Athens in this area, which was of strategic interest to the polis, as well as at drastically reducing the Persian influence once and for all. [42] Relevant to Cimon’s ambitions were the conquest of Eion (476 BCE), at the mouth of the Strymon (an ancient colony of Paros, founded—together with Thasos—as an outpost for the control of the Pangaion), the capture of Skyros (475 BCE), the subjugation of Naxos (471 BCE) and Thasos (463 BCE), which had rebelled against Athens, [43] as well the great victory over the Persians in the battle of Eurymedon. [44]

Many clues suggest that Cimon, in presenting these actions (in accordance with the line traditionally adopted by the genos of the Philaids) as the completion of Athens’ patriotic struggle against the Persians, used Archilochus as a paradigm. Within this strategy, Archilochus could work as the archetypical model of the warrior and colonist, [45] as well as the embodiment of the military and political action against the “barbarians.” The Parian colonists had fought the Thracians. Turning the latter into the Thracian-Persian enemies of Cimon’s campaigns was no difficult move. [46] Belonging to the illustrious family of the Tellids of Paros (friends of the Philaids), who had inaugurated the conquest of Thasos and the struggles against the Thracians, Archilochus could thus be viewed as a sort of Cimon ante litteram.

Two main arguments can be put forward in support of this reconstruction. The first is Polygnotus’ fresco of the Nekyia in the Lesche of the Cnidians at Delphi. The building was erected by the polis of Cnidos thanks to the spoils collected from the Persians in the Eurymedon battle, and the decision to entrust the pictorial decoration to the Thasian painter is almost certainly to be ascribed to Cimon’s influence. [47] Polygnotus painted the frescoes of the Iliou Persis and the Battle of Marathon in the Stoa Poikile, whose construction was financed by Cimon’s brother-in-law Peisianax: his closeness to the Philaids and to their political agenda is clear.

As we know from Pausanias, [48] Polygnotus included in the Nekyia composition Tellis, Archilochus’ great-grandfather, and Cleoboea, the maiden who first brought the mysteries of Demeter from Paros to Thasos. [49] The choice to portray Tellis and Cleoboea, the “missionaries” who implanted the Parian cult into the newly founded colony, was certainly intended to recall the role of the Tellids of Paros as champions of the Greek expansion in the northern Aegean. [50]

We then have a number of fragments from a play by Cratinus, entitled Archilochoi. [51] This was formerly considered one of Cratinus’ earliest comedies: on the basis of fr. 1 Kassel-Austin, in which Metrobius laments the death of Cimon (who died in Cyprus in 450/449 BCE), it was dated to 449 BCE. Based on other elements, scholars now believe that the play was produced at a later time. [52]

There is a scholarly consensus that the Archilochoi featured two semi-choruses, namely the supporters of Archilochus opposed by the supporters of the epic poets Homer and Hesiod; after the agon, the two semi-choruses merged into one and the same chorus, whose members became “the Archilochians,” that is the followers of the poet from Paros, emerging as the winner. [53] Fr. 6 Kassel-Austin is part of the agon and refers to Archilochus’ reply (he evidently spoke second):

The “blind man” is of course Homer, who had spoken first. As this passage makes clear, in this play Archilochus was assigned traits that fully conformed to his bios. He is a “brine of Thasos,” as piquant as the bitingness of his iambic poetry; aggressive and pungent, he does not speak but “barks,” and knows how to promptly take revenge on those who attack him. The coloring of the character reflects Archilochus’ self-presentation, as he speaks of his poetry as a retaliation against his enemies (cf. fr. 126 West “One great thing I know, to repay with terrible harm one who does me harm”). [54]

The Archilochoi can be interpreted as the manifesto of Cratinus’ poetics, and in particular as a vindication of the mordacity and aggressiveness intrinsic, at least in Cratinus’ view, to the comic genre. The playwright is a kind of Archilochus redivivus, as useful to the city as Archilochus was to the political and civic action of his fellow citizens. [55]

Literary criticism (and the poet’s self-exaltation as the inventor or of a “new” comedy inspired by ancient iambography) was probably the core issue of the Archilochoi. But it is likely that, as is typical of Cratinus at his best, the play was also informed by political topicality. This is suggested by fr. 1 Kassel-Austin, in which the speaking character (one otherwise unknown Metrobius) grieves over the death of Cimon. We do not know what role Metrobius played in the plot (perhaps he introduced the agon between the poets), [56] but his presence in the opening lines, [57] and his praise of Cimon, seem to be important for the overall interpretation of the play.

From Cimon, who is called “a godlike and most hospitable man, by far the best of all Greeks” (ἀνδρὶ θείῳ καὶ φιλοξενωτάτῳ καὶ πάντ᾿ ἀρίστῳ τῶν Πανελλήνων), Metrobius expected for himself a “splendid old age” (λιπαρὸν γῆρας). In Metrobius’ view (but most likely also in the playwright’s) Cimon was the champion of a political project that would have had a splendid outcome for the city, but unfortunately did not come to fruition. [58] Cimon’s death handed Athens over to quite different rulers, who brought about decay in the management of public affairs and in the field of the arts (theatre, music, poetry). [59]

Cratinus must have had in mind the proverbial generosity of Cimon, always ready to help the less well-off but also respectful of their dignity, [60] as well as his attitude as a defender of Greekness against the Persian “barbarians.” The “myth” of Cimon survived his death, and Cratinus kept nourishing it, decades later, as a positive foil designed to convey his hatred for Pericles. We do not know whether Cratinus’ Archilochus was given any lines evoking Cimon and praising his policy. But the very intonation of the Archilochoi, with Metrobius’ laudatory words, suggests that the civilizing mission of the “Archilochian poets” included the recovery of a glorious past. [61]

In late fifth century BCE Athens we also find evidence of a quite different reading of Archilochus. A famous fragment by Critias presents him with the typical traits of a poète maudit: [62] a son of a slave, he left Paros because of poverty and desperation and, once in Thasos, he made himself hated for his slanderous attacks; he was an adulterer, lecherous, arrogant, shameless. It is evident that Critias attributes to the real Archilochus the traits of the mimetic “I” that in the iambic poetry is adopted to give voice to the characters blamed for their behaviour, at a time when the distinction between the speaking “I” of a character and the biographical “I” of the poet is no longer clear. [63] Yet, in Critias’ case, such a biographical fallacy is probably intentional, insofar as he wants to create a negative portrait of Archilochus, [64] designed to counter the poet’s positive image promoted in some Athenian quarters. [65]

Our starting point was the cultic landscape of Paros between the sixth and fifth centuries BCE, which can be reconstructed thanks to the archaeological excavations conducted in the last few decades. The recent discovery of the sanctuary of Despotiko sheds new light on the religious and political program that led the polis to emphasize the presence of Apollo on the island. The heroic cult of Archilochus, too, can be traced back to this perspective: the Archilocheion, which was erected in the same years, was connected with Apollo’s patronage right from the beginning. The biographical traditions linking the poet to Delphi are part of the original core of his mythical bios. The poet’s heroon becomes the center of the Panhellenic dissemination of Archilochus’ poetry and legend. The poet-hero is a strongly colored, potentially provocative icon, liable to laudatory or denigrating readings, as is clear from the telling example provided by fifth century BCE Athens.