.widget.ContactForm { display: none; }

Επικοινωνία

Όνομα

Ηλεκτρονικό ταχυδρομείο *

Μήνυμα *

Τρίτη, 15 Ιανουαρίου 2019

Andania: The Messenian Eleusis


The Eleusinian Mysteries of Demeter were revered as the most important and oldest of all the Mysteries in the ancient world. Even the Roman orator Cicero considered the Eleusinian Mysteries to be the greatest contribution Athens had ever made to human existence (Leg. 2.14.36). The city of Athens made an effort to connect herself to these Mysteries in order to raise her standing, and then, in turn, promoted them to further increase her own greatness through them. The success of this popularization of the Mysteries is evident in the traditions which connect local mystery cults to Eleusis. Tapping into the importance of the Eleusinian Mysteries created credibility and an antique pedigree for these local cults. In addition, similarities in ritual practice also existed between Eleusis and other Mysteries. Both kinds of associations with Eleusis -propagandistic and cultic- were found in the Messenian Mysteries of Andania.
There are only two sources for these Mysteries: the history of Messenia related in the fourth book of Pausanias’s Periegesis and the inscribed festival regulations, IGV.l, 1390 (figs.2-3). An examination of these two sources will uncover the connections between the Andaman and Eleusinian Mysteries, both those related in mythical traditions and experienced in actual cultic practice.
In his writings about his travels through Greece, Pausanias notes that four mystery cults which he described had direct connections to Eleusis: those at Phlious (2.14.1-4), Andania (4.1.5-8, 4.14.1, 4.15.7, 4.26.6-8, 4.27.7,4.33.4-5), Pheneos (8.15.1-4), and Megalopolis (8.31.1-8). Although the author had a personal interest in Eleusis and all things old, it is unlikely that these connections were simply invented by him.1 At least in some cases, the claim of Eleusinian influence must have made by the local people with whom he spoke, perhaps to impress their visitor.2* At Phlious, Pausanias describes the differences between the organization of the Eleusinian Mysteries and the local Mysteries of Demeter, but says he was told by the Phliasians themselves that their rite was an imitation of the Eleusinian: μιμείσθαι.,.τά έυ Έλευσίνι δρώμενα (2.14.1). Pausanias was therefore repeating a propagandists tradition; he was not the only one who wished to see links between Eleusis and these local cults.



The Andaman Mysteries, called “second only to Eleusis in solemnity” by Pausanias (4.33.5), fit into this overall context of cubic connections with Eleusis. In book 4 of the Periegesis, Pausanias relates the history of the Andanian Mysteries starting from their foundation in the city of Andania, the original capital of Messenia before the Spartan conquest. This authors story of Messenia has often been referred to as “pseudo-history” since it is the history of a people who had to create their own past after centuries of Spartan rule.3 This inventing of history does not force us to dismiss what Pausanias says about the Mysteries, but instead puts what he says into a different light; the likelihood that the associations between the Mysteries of Andania and Eleusis were invented as propaganda at some point underlines the power of the image of Eleusis and the desire for local cults to emphasize or create connections to it.
In Pausaniass narrative, Andania is connected to Eleusis at three different moments in time: the foundation and early history of the mystery cult, the wars with Sparta, and the foundation of the city of Messene. Pausanias relates the foundation of the Mysteries of Andania in the first chapter of his Messenian history, placing it just after the settling of the region of Messenia, thereby linking the origins of the people with the origins of the Mysteries (4.1.5-9).4 The connection to Eleusis is established at the foundation of the Mysteries through Kaukon, the eponymous father of the Kaukonians, who along with the descendents of Athenian kings went on to found Ionia.5 It was this Kaukon who brought the Mysteries from Eleusis and revealed them to Messene, the first (and eponymous) queen of Messenia (4.1.5). During the early history of both Messenia and its Mysteries, Pausanias continues, the rite was brought to greater eminence by the intervention of two more men from Athens, Lykos and, later, Methapos (4.1.6-9; more on Lykos, 4.2.6). From the beginning, a direct link was made with the Eleusinian Mysteries which was then continued and enforced by the involvement of later Athenian figures.
The association with Eleusis is emphasized again during the period of the wars with Sparta. In the mass exodus that followed the First Messenian War, many people took advantage of special ties (προξενίαι) and fled to Sikyon, Argos, or elsewhere in Arkadia (4.14.1). The priestly family who celebrated the Mysteries of the Great Goddesses, however, went to Eleusis, returning later to fight in the Second Messenian War (4.14.1, 4.15.7). Because of the link with the Eleusinian Mysteries established at the foundation of the Andanian Mysteries -creating a sort of proxenia between cults- Eleusis is the place where the priests find refuge.
The final moment of connection occurs at the next great moment in Messenian history, the foundation of the new capital, Messene. After the defeat of the Spartans at the battle of Leuktra (-371), Messenia was finally free and began to rebuild with encouragement from the Thebans. In the colorful story presented by Pausanias, the plans to build Messene are marked by two dreams in which an old man dressed as a hierophant appears in order to guide Epaminondas and Epiteles, the Theban and Argive commanders, respectively (4.26.6-8). This old man told Epiteles to find where yew (σμίλαξ) and myrtle (μυρσίνη) grew together on Mt. Ithome and rescue the old woman from her bronze chamber (4.26.7). When he found the place and dug there, he uncovered a bronze hydria containing the scrolls inscribed with the Mysteries of the Great Goddesses; they had been hidden there by Aristomenes, the great leader of the Messenians during the wars with Sparta (4.26.8).6 The presence of myrtle is perhaps a small reference to the Eleusinian Mysteries, since it was that plant which was used for the wreaths worn by initiates.



A more obvious connection is also made to Eleusis: at the conclusion of the story of the dreams, Pausanias notes that some people said that the old hierophant was none other than Kaukon himself, the one who first brought the Mysteries to Andania (4.26.8). The original Athenian founder was therefore believed to be participating in the refounding.
In addition to these references to the Andanian Mysteries in his historical account, Pausanias also discusses the Mysteries themselves when he visits the site where they were held in his time, the Karnasian grove, a sanctuary not far from the ruins of the ancient capital of Andania (4.33.4-6)7 There he sees statues of Karneian Apollo, Hagna, and Hermes Kriophoros. He says that the Mysteries of the Great Goddesses are celebrated there, though he of course can not speak of them (4.33.4). In his description, he explicitly connects Andania to Eleusis in two important details. First, he says the Mysteries are those of the Great Goddesses, which is how he often refers to Demeter and Kore.8 This would not be a cause for concern except for the fact that the inscription concerning the Mysteries does not mention Great Goddesses, but Great Gods (lines 34, 68-69, 91). Demeter is present in the inscription, but called directly by her name (lines 30, 31, 33, 68). Pausanias presumably ignores the presence of the male gods, perhaps conflating their title with Demeter. Next, Pausanias also says that Hagna is the title of Demeters daughter (4.33.4). Kore is absent from the inscription, and Hagna does not seem to be directly associated with Kore or Demeter in any way; in fact, Demeter and Hagna are separated from each other in the lists of sacrifices to be performed, indicating it is unlikely they should be viewed as a pair (lines 33-34, 68-69). Hagna is almost certainly not to be equated with Kore, but rather is identified with the sanctuary fountain as a local water nymph. The inscription makes this association clear: τάς δέ κράνας τάς ώνο{ι}μασμένας διά των άρχαίων έγγραφων Άγνας (“the fountain called Hagna in the ancient writings,” line 84).
This attempt by Pausanias to practically force a link between the two cults brings up an important point: the Andanian Mysteries, and the others like them which claimed an association with Eleusis, did not exactly parallel the Eleusinian Mysteries. The Andania Mysteries in particular were affected by their relationships with other cults too.9 The Mysteries took place in the Karnasian grove, certainly related to the popular Dorian god Apollo Karneios, and deities other than Demeter appear as the object of worship.10
An inscription from Argos that gives the text of an oracle concerning the reformation of the Mysteries reveals that the influence of the city of Argos is just as important as the influence of Athens (Syll.3 735). The Andanian Mysteries were a complicated conglomeration; although certain similarities with Eleusis were emphasized (perhaps as propaganda), their celebration can not be viewed as a mere shadow of the Athenian cult.11 On the other hand, some real similarities in cult must have existed to prompt these mythical connections and make the traditional tales believable.
In most cases, little is known about these Mysteries which were related to Eleusis beyond the claims made by Pausanias. For the Andanian Mysteries, however, an inscription detailing the regulations of the mystery festival provides an opportunity to explore possible ritual similarities.
In 1858, the large inscribed stele relating to the Andanian Mysteries (IGV.l, 1390) was discovered about 16 km north of ancient Messene in the village of Polichne, most certainly the location of the Karnasian grove (figs.1-3).12 As the longest of the extant so-called sacred laws, it offers insight into cult and sanctuary administration in general in addition to providing information about this cult in particular.13 A wide range of subjects are covered in its text, separated into twenty-six paragraphs: oaths of the sacred men and women, transferal, wreaths, clothes, oath of the gynaikonomos, the procession, tents, things one must not have in the tents, those who are disorderly, rhabdophoroi, funds, supplying sacrificial victims, artists for the dances, crimes, cutting wood in the sanctuary, slave refuge, the fountain, construction of treasuries, the sacred meal, the market, water, ointments and the bath, the report, the copy of the diagramma, appointment of the Ten, and unwritten matters. It is clear that like most other sacred laws, the focus is on administration, but some information about the actual ritual and its participants can be found within these rules for running the mystery festival.
In Pausanias’s narrative, he claims that the Andanian Mysteries were reorganized several times after their initial foundation by Kaukon. This inscription represents direct evidence for a reformation of these Mysteries in the historical period. It is unclear what prompted this reorganization, but the new structure is detailed in this lengthy sacred law. This inscription, and hence the reorganization of the Mysteries, can be dated based on the reference in its text to forthcoming Mysteries to be held in the year 55. The year 55 traditionally has been calculated from -146, the dissolution of the Achaean League and the beginning of Roman rule, giving a date of -93 for the publication of the inscription.14
Before this Hellenistic reorganization, the Mysteries may have been run by the priestly families mentioned by Pausanias (4.14.1, 4.15.7). The inscription several times refers to an important man named Mnasistratos. An inscription from Argos reveals that this same man consulted the oracle of Apollo there concerning the reformation of the Mysteries; in it, he is called the hierophant (Syll.3 735, lines 21-22). In the sacred law of Andania, it is noted that Mnasistratos has turned over the sacred books and implements, presumably giving more control of the festival to the polis (lines 11-12). He is, however, allowed to retain certain responsibilities and is presented with new honors: he walks first in the procession (line 28), attends the sacred meal with his family (line 97), receives an expensive crown paid for by the city (lines 52-53), takes care of the sanctuary fountain and its statue of Hagna (lines 85-88), and receives a share of the food and money offerings made at that fountain (line 94). This Mnasistratos, then, is rewarded for his major role in the reformations of the cult at this time, consulting the oracle as the hierophant on behalf of the Messenians.
Authority for running the Mysteries was delegated to several groups and officials, some specially chosen just for this purpose, others already at work in the city of Messene. Three groups were formed to oversee the Mysteries: the Ten, the Five, and the sacred men and women. The Ten acted as a small managing committee, chosen out of a group who had already been sacred men (lines 126-132). The Five was a sort of financial board (lines 45-59).
The most prominent officials with direct responsibility for carrying out the Mysteries were the sacred men and women, the hieroi and hierai. The sacred men were given a variety of administrative responsibilities in the law, including sending out proclamations for acquiring the necessary sacrificial animals (lines 64-65) and hiring artists for the dances (line 73); designating space in the sanctuary for asylum (lines 80-81) and a market (line 99); regulating the size, content, and placement of the pilgrims’ tents (line 34); and holding the keys for the two treasuries which they were to open yearly (lines 92-94).
They also had the additional duty of sitting in judgment over trials held for those who commit any of the crimes mentioned in the law (lines 44, 76, 79, 102-103, 106, 111). Their total number is unknown, but it is clear that they were chosen by lot according to tribe and had to have been previously initiated (lines 6-7,130-132). The sacred women, their female counterparts, were broken into two categories by age: women {gynaikes) and girls (referred to as both parthenoi, lines 29, 32, 96, and paides, lines 17, [20], 21). Their responsibilities were more honorary than administrative. The sacred women prepared the sacred meal along with the sacred men (lines 95-96), and the sacred parthenoi led the sacred items in the procession (lines 29-30). Both the sacred men and women were a major presence in all facets of the festival.



The law does not just give us the organizational structure of the Mysteries, but, almost by chance, reveals details of the ritual as well; these details, in turn, can be compared with what is known to have happened at the Eleusinian Mysteries. These comparisons do not necessarily imply direct influence from Eleusis, but rather may show a sort of mystery cult “canon” throughout Greece, with certain aspects found in all or most Mysteries. This examination may not only elucidate the connections among mystery cults, and specifically the connections to Eleusis, but can also help to highlight regional differences and local influence.
The first connection between the two cults appears to be the deities who were the object of worship. As discussed above, Pausanias says that the Mysteries of Andania were the Mysteries of the Great Goddesses and conflates the water nymph Hagna with Kore (4.33.4-5). This reference to Great Goddesses by Pausanias, added to the inclusion of Demeter in the inscription, has led to the identification of the Andanian Mysteries as a Demeter cult, despite the presence of the Great Gods and several other deities in the inscription. This long-standing identification has recently come under fire, and a greater emphasis has been placed on both the Great Gods and even Apollo.15 There are, in fact, a number of deities mentioned in both the description of Pausanias and the sacred law: Demeter, the Great Gods, Apollo Karneios, Hermes, and Hagna. Pausanias saw statues of Apollo, Hermes, and Hagna in the Karnasian grove (4.33.4). In the inscription, there is evidence for at least two cult spots in the sanctuary, the Hagna fountain (lines 84-90) and the temple of the Great Gods (line 91). In the lists of sacrifices to be performed during the Mysteries, sacrificial victims are allocated to these same deities; in addition to Hagna and the Great Gods, Hermes and Apollo Karneios are also included (lines 33-34, 68-69). Demeter, though, is first in this list, receiving a pregnant pig.
It is clear both from the presence of the temple to the Great Gods (line 91) and the evidence from the Argos oracle inscription which also mentions them (Syll.3 735, lines 24-25) that the Great Gods were certainly included among the mystery gods. But are we to conclude that these gods were the only focus of the Mysteries? Twice in the inscription a similar yet unspecific designation is given for the mystery cult deities, “the gods for whom the Mysteries are celebrated”: τούς θεούς οίς τά μυστήρια έπιτελ[ε]ίται (lines 2-3) and των θεών οίς τά μυστήρια γίνεται (lines 28-29).
Although the designation is plural and masculine in gender, this does not necessarily mean that the Great Gods were the only mystery deities, but could rather be taken as indicating multiple deities of both genders.
This group of deities most certainly included Demeter. In addition to the placement of Demeter first in the list of sacrifices (lines 33, 68), there are further ways in which Demeter is emphasized. The law mentions a group of priestesses invited to participate in the procession, all associated with Demeter cults: the thoinarmostria (mistress of the banquet) for Demeter, the priestess of Demeter of Hippodrome, and the priestess of Demeter in Aigila (lines 30-31).16 Their presence must have been intended as an honor to the greatest Demeter cult in the area. The rules also state the following: όσα<ς> δέ δει διασκευάζεσθαι εις θεών διάθεσιν, έχόντων τόν ειματισμόν, καθ’ ο α οι ίεροι διατάξωντι (“whichever women are to dress themselves in representation of the goddesses must wear the clothes which the sacred men order,” lines 24-25). Here θεών is genitive plural, and therefore indeterminate gender, but it should be translated as “goddesses” since it is the sacred women who are chosen to be dressed. This costuming is certainly to be related to the performance of a myth, an activity known in many mystery cults.17 Many of these myths involved a search in which initiates participated in some way, such as the search for Osiris associated with the cult of Isis and the search for Harmonia at Samothrace. The priestesses of the Eleusinian Mysteries imitated the suffering of the goddess during the torch-lit quest for her daughter. Although details are lacking, a similar performance must have been carried out during the Andanian Mysteries, most likely concerning the story of Demeter and Kore, just as at Eleusis. Here, then, we have evidence for two connections with Eleusis, the presence of Demeter and the use of a performance as part of the ritual.
The priestly hierarchy of the Mysteries also shows some similarities to that at Eleusis. We learn from the inscription from Argos that the title of Mnasistratos was hierophant {Syll? 735, lines 21-22). The hierophant was the most important priest in a mystery cult, charged with the important duty (as his title indicates) of showing the sacred objects during initiation. If Pausanias’s story of the fleeing priestly family contains any grain of truth (4.14.1, 4.15.7), Mnasistratos must have been a part of a family tradition, just like the Eleusinian families of the Eumolpidai and Kerykes. From the Eumolpidai was drawn the hierophant, and from the Kerykes, the daduch and herald. In the Andania inscription, Mnasistratos is given the responsibility of taking care of the Hagna fountain for life (lines 84-85). This may be nothing more than a privilege given to him because of his leading role in the reformations, but it could perhaps indicate that his position as hierophant was for life, the same as at Eleusis.18
The highlight of any mystery ritual was initiation, and the Andanian Mysteries were no different. The law includes a lengthy section regulating clothing (lines 15-26); in discussing what the different participants were allowed to wear, the law reveals who those participants could be. The initiates (oι τελούμενοι τά μυστήρια, line 15) included men, women, and slaves, just as at Eleusis.19 The use of the term paides (lines 17, [20]) in the Andanian law for some of the participants brings up the question of whether children could be initiated there. The term is only used in the section on clothing when classes of females are being differentiated, and it is difficult to determine what age is intended, whether a child or young, unmarried woman.
Elsewhere in the law, sacred parthenoi are mentioned (in the procession, lines 29 and 32; at the sacred meal, line 96); these are certainly the same as the sacredpaides, making it probable that they are indeed young, unmarried women, and not children. At Eleusis, only one child was known for certain to have been initiated, the so-called “Child from the Hearth.”20 This one child had a special status at the ceremony and the holding of this position was worthy of being commemorated by statues and other votives.
These participants in the Mysteries can be further classified based on their stage of initiation. Several times in the law (lines 14, 50, 68), a group called theprotomystai, the first-time initiates, are mentioned. These first-timers had to pay a fee (line 50), similar to the situation at Eleusis, but there it seems likely that all had an entrance fee.21 In one case the first-timers are called τών...τελούμενων οί πρωτομύσται, “the first-time initiates among the initiates,” line 14. This phrase clearly indicates that individuals could be initiated more than once. This was certainly the case at Eleusis as well, where after a year initiates could participate in the Mysteries again as an epoptes. Although there does not seem to be a special, similar title for those being initiated at the Andanian Mysteries more than once, the terminology used in the law does stand out. In the phrase here, tele- is used as the root for the term for all initiates and mystai as the root for the term for first-time initiates.
This can be compared to the use of the terms in an inscription about the Eleusinian Mysteries found at the City Eleusinion; in that case, mystai appears to refer to lower grade initiates and teloumenoi to all grades (LSS 15, lines 19-21).22 However, it is significant that in the Andania law the prefix proto- was felt to be necessary, and that mystai could not stand on its own to mean first-stage initiates. In addition to individuals being initiated multiple times at Andania, it is also clear that those who took on official duties in the Mysteries would have been initiates. The sacred men, for example, must have been previously initiated in order to take on their administrative duties. From them is drawn the group of mystagogues, leaders of initiates (lines 149-50), a role also found at Eleusis.
Although few details are known about what actually happened during initiation rites, it is clear that most involved some kind of preliminary purification.
A pre-telete purification called μύησις is attested for the Eleusinian Mysteries, the participants being those going through the Mysteries for the first time. At Eleusis, the victim slaughtered for the myesis was a sheep, οΐς (IG II2 1673, line 62). The rules for purchasing animals for use in the sacrifices and Mysteries of Andania include a list of several animals to be used specifically for purifications. Both the ram (line 67) and the three piglets (line 68) which were purchased had purificatory purposes; it is unclear whether they made up two parts of one ritual, or two separate rituals. It is specified, however, that the piglets were needed for a purification which took place in a theater and were probably used to purify that space. One-hundred lambs were also purchased for the protomystai, the first-time initiates. It is likely that the ritual involving these victims was a kind of purification as well, likely the Andanian myesis.
In addition to these functional connections between the Mysteries, there are symbolic links too, such as in the wearing of a wreath to indicate an individual’s initiate status.23 At the initiation into the Andanian Mysteries, the sacred men and women wore white felt caps, and the protomystai wore a stlengis, a tiara-like crown (lines 13-15). When the sacred men gave a signal, the protomystai were then wreathed in laurel. This brief description of the wreathing ceremony is one of the few clues the law gives about the details of the mystery rite. The process of initiation, a rite of passage, is here marked physically by the change to wearing a wreath. Plutarch’s comparison of the experience of a dying soul to the initiate at a mystery rite refers to the initiate as έστεφανωμένος as he, now initiated, stands with the rest of the initiates (Plut. de An. fr. 178). This image of wreathing was so familiar that it came to be a method of indicating initiate status in art. Statues of the Eleusinian Initiate from the Hearth, for example, were marked by a wreath, either wornor hung nearby.24
Although the wreath was used as symbol of initiation in both the Andanian and Eleusinian Mysteries, it is notable that each used a different plant to make this headdress, showing that the cultic similarities between the two can only be taken so far. The wreath worn by initiates at the Eleusinian Mysteries was made of myrtle. The meaning of the use of laurel at Andania does not seem to have been related to the presence of Demeter. The laurel tree was most extensively associated with Apollo. In addition to its use at his oracle and games at Delphi, laurel was also found with Apollo cults at Delos, Didyma and even Athens.25 Because of the strong Apollonian connotation of laurel, it is likely that it is used in the cult here because the Mysteries take place in the Karnasian grove -a name reflecting its connection with the cult of Apollo Karneios.26
Other items worn by the participants may have created a visual link between the Mysteries. The hierophant and other officials were visually set apart through the outfits they donned during the Eleusinian Mysteries.27 The hierophant in particular stood out for wearing his phoinikides -red or purple cloaks. The Andanian law does not indicate what Mnasistratos wore, but it does show that the hierarchy of participants was emphasized through their dress. The clothing of the sacred women, for example, was more expensive and decorative than that of the other female participants (lines 16-20). More significantly, a special headband called the strophion was worn by the hierophant at Eleusis.28 It was occasionally worn by priests in other cults too, so it was not exclusively Eleusinian, but it was an important symbol of the hierophants investiture as priest. At the Andanian Mysteries, the group called the Ten -the committee of men who had previously been sacred men, chosen yearly to oversee the Mysteries- were to wear a purple strophion during the time of the Mysteries (line 179). The only other mention of the color purple used at these Mysteries is in a rule forbidding the use of the color on the pillows of the sacred women (line 24). This rule enforced the hierarchy visually by placing the main officials of the Mysteries on display, while ensuring that the women would fade into the background. Was this use of the strophion with its special color intended to echo the costume of the hierophant at Eleusis? It is not certain, but perhaps people familiar with both made the connection, even if the connection had not been consciously intended.
Many of the general similarities between the Andanian and Eleusinian Mysteries were simply a reflection of the fact that both were large religious festivals which drew many pilgrims. These aspects include events like sacrifices and dining (lines 64-70, 95-99), the use of music (lines 73-75), and the needs of the pilgrims being met through services like baths and markets (lines 106-111, 99-103). One of these common ritual events -the procession- is worth considering more specifically in light of potential similarities. One of the major events of the Eleusinian Mysteries was the procession.
Though some details are disputed, there seems to have been two processions, one carrying the hiera (the sacred things) from Eleusis to the City Eleusinion, escorted by the ephebes, and then a second, greater procession of initiates taking the hiera back to Eleusis, accompanied by Iakchos.29
The Andanian Mysteries also began with a procession. The law describes some of the details of this procession, indicating the participants, their order, what some of them wore, and what they led in this procession (lines 20-22, 28-34). In addition to the hierophant Mnasistratos, leading the way, priests and priestesses and the sacred men and women also marched. But a highlight of the procession was surely the sacred parthenoi leading the carts which carried the kistai holding the hiera mystica, the sacred items to be revealed later in the mystery rite (lines 29-30). It is unclear how the Andanian carts, the armata, were moved; we should expect yoked animals rather than the sacred virgins actually pulling them. Again some general similarities to Eleusis are apparent. Although the male ephebes escorted the Eleusinian hiera, it was priestesses who carried the hiera at least part way to Eleusis (IGΙ3 79, line 10).
This may even be reflected in the kistephoroi statues in the Lesser Propylaia of Eleusis. In addition, an Eleusinian inscription mentions a ζεύγος, a chariot, used to aid in carrying the hiera (IGII2 874, lines 17 and 19).
Although the Andanian law does not explicitly say so, the route of the procession without a doubt began at the city of Messene and ended at the site of the Karnasian grove sanctuary near the old city of Andania, about 16 km to the north in the upper Messenian plain. The law does not indicate where the hiera were actually stored. It does mention that books and other items needed for the Mysteries had been handed over by Mnasistratos (lines 9-13), and Pausanias claimed to have seen in the sanctuary the bronze hydria containing the mystery writings that had been uncovered at the founding of Messene (4.33.5). It is possible, perhaps even likely, that the hiera were stored in the Karnasian grove. In the inscription, an oikos in the sanctuary is mentioned as the building where a list of offenses and their fines was to be published- perhaps this oikos was also the place used for storing the hiera (line113). If the hiera were kept somewhere in the grove, they would have had to have been taken to Messene before the great procession back to the sanctuary, necessitating a double procession just as at Eleusis.
For the Eleusinian Mysteries, processions between Athens and Eleusis united the city center with its outlying deme, underscoring the city’s control over both the deme and its most famous cult.30 For the Andaman Mysteries, procession(s) between Messene and the Karnasian grove asserted Messene’s control of the festival, and served to physically connect the new and the old, the past and the present. Messenia had an opportunity and a need to reexamine and even recreate its own history upon independence from Sparta. To assert its legitimacy as a community, it needed to assert its antiquity. By forming this tangible link between the new political center on the slopes of Mt. Ithome with the venerated region of their mythical past, Messene reaffirmed its own history for its people.

Mystery cults in far-away towns tapped into the fame of the Eleusinian Mysteries, but that fame was also a tool used by the very city which controlled the cult; the connection of Athens to the Mysteries strengthened that city’s prestige. Messene exploited the Andanian Mysteries in the same way; perhaps this is actually the greatest similarity between the two cults. The Eleusinian Mysteries contributed to building an image for Athens. Likewise, the Andanian Mysteries were tied to Messenia’s struggle under Spartan domination and then to her independence, and thus had a major role to play in Messenian self-worth and presentation. Messene took on administrative responsibility in the reforms lead by Mnasistratos because that city and all Messenia had a stake in the Mysteries. The city had good reason to take control of Mysteries which Pausanias considered second only to Eleusis in solemnity, and attempt to create their own Messenian Eleusis.

Laura Gawlinski
ANDANIA: THE MESSENIAN ELEUSIS

* I am grateful to Dr. Leventi and Dr. Mitsopoulou for the opportunity to participate in the enlightening symposium which lead to this article.
1. Bowden 2007, 78 notes that at least some of Pausaniass information about the Andanian Mysteries came from sources outside Messenia, however. For Pausanias as an Eleusinian initiate, see 1.14.3, 1.38.7.
2. Graf 2003, 245, points to a “propagandistic move by the local priesthood” behind the stories Pausanias gives. Bowden 2007, 78-80, suggests that Pausanias, as a “religious expert,” may have also contributed to how local cults understood their connections to Eleusis. Cole 2008,69-71, discusses the story told by Pausanias as part of an examination of cultic legitimacy, emphasizing the role of the hereditary priesthood in the connection with Eleusis. She also discusses the evidence for Eleusinian connections claimed during the consultation of an oracle at Didyma in the second century AD (IDidyma 496a and b), 55-57, 71. Pirenne-Delforge 2008, 310-312, discusses the origins of the “Eleusinian reading” of the Andanian Mysteries and argues that local informants played a large role in the connections reported by Pausanias.
3. For Messenian pseudo-history, see Alcock 1999,2001, and 2002. Miiller 1993 looks at the role of the Mysteries in the story of the foundation of Messene, and Piolot 1999, 208-211, even suggests that the identification of Andania as the original capital should be ascribed to Pausanias himself.
4. The role of the Mysteries in the early history of Messenia and the foundation of Messene as given by Pausanias is also briefly presented by Graf 2003 and Pirenne-Delforge 2008, 304-312; Robertson 1988 looks at the role of Athenians in the story.
5. For Kaukon, see Robertson 1988,241-247.
6.See Ogden 2004 on Aristomenes, especially 89-104, for his connection with the Mysteries.
7. For the identification of the site of the Karnasian grove with the Divari spring near the village of Polichne (about 16 km north of ancient Messene), see Valmin 1930, 89-99 and Pritchett 1985,46-51.
8. He makes this identification clear at Megalopolis (8.31.1).
9. Graf 2003,245-246, outlines some of the connections to other Mysteries, such as those of the Kabeiroi at Thebes.
10. For Karneian Apollo, see Pettersson 1992 and Dengate 1988. Themelis 2007, 509-517, discusses the Karneia in light of recent finds at Messene. It is unclear whether the presence of this god in Messenia was due to a general Dorian background or specific Spartan influence.
11. Bowden 2007 collects the evidence for cults of Demeter Eleusinia and shows that the various sources for each cult do not match exactly.
12. A new text and commentary of this inscription was the subject of my 2006 dissertation, The Sacred Law of Andania: Sanctuary and Cult (Cornell University). See also Sauppe 1860 and Deshours 2006. For the location of the sanctuary, see note 7 above.
13. For a discussion of the nature of the inscriptions referred to by the problematic modern term leges sacrae, see Lupu 2005, 3-112, and Parker 2004, 57-70.
14. Themelis 2001, 75-79, has recently suggested a date calculated by the Actium era. Themelis 2007, 522-523 reiterates his arguments.
15. For example, see Robertson 1988 and Piolot 1999. Themelis 2007, 517-522, argues for connections between the Mysteries and the Karneia, citing factors such as the name of the grove, the title of the sacred men, and the reference to the Karneia in the oracle from Argos.
16. These were surely local cults. Aigila was somewhere in Lakonia (Paus. 4.17.1), but the exact site of the others is unknown.
17. For the performance of a myth at Eleusis, see Clinton 1992, 84-90; for Eleusis and other Mysteries, see Sourvinou-Inwood 2003,29-37. For the relationship of this passage to the use of clothing in mystery cults, see Gawlinski 2008, 155-156.
18. Clinton 1974, 44-45.
19. The evidence for slaves as initiates at Eleusis comes from two inscriptions: IG P 6, before 460 B.C.; IG Will2 1672,1673,329/8.
20. For the Initiate from Hearth, see Clinton 1974, 98-114; Cf. Leventi in this volume.
21. Clinton 1974, 10-13, 26 discusses the evidence for initiate fees at Eleusis.
22. Clinton 2003, 57, discusses what this inscription indicates for initiation levels at Eleusis.
23. The wreath was more generally used as a sign of festivity, but took on special associations with mystery cults, Gawlinski 2008, 161-164.
24. For images of the Initiate from Hearth, see Clinton 1974,101-108.
25. Blech 1982, 216-246.
26. Dickie 1995, 85 comes to this same conclusion.
27. For the use of clothing to mark ritual status in mystery cults, see Gawlinski 2008, 161-164.
28. Clinton 1974, 33.
29. Clinton 1988,70.
30. Graf 1996 examines processions and their meanings based on their origin and direction of travel
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alcock S.E., 1999. The Pseudo-History of Messenia Unplugged, ΤΑΡΑ 129, 333-341.
Alcock S.E., 2001. The Peculiar Book IV and the Problem of the Messenian Past, in Alcock S.E.- Cherry J.F. - Eisner J., eds., Pausanias: Travel and Memory in Roman Greece, Oxford,142-153.
Alcock S.E., 2002. Archaeologies of the Greek Past: Landscape, Monuments, and Memories, Cambridge.
Blech M„ 1982. Studien zum Kranz hei den Griechen, Berlin.
Bowden H„ 2007. Cults of Demeter Eleusinia and the Transmission of Religious Ideas, Mediterranean Historical Review 22, 71-83.
Clinton K., 1974. The Sacred Officials of the Eleusinian Mysteries (TAPS 64.3), Philadelphia.
Clinton K., 1988. Sacrifice at the Eleusinian Mysteries, in Hagg R. - Marinatos N. -Nordquist G., eds., Early Greek Cult Practice. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 26-29 June 1986 (Acta Instituti Athenienis Regni Sueciae, Series in 4°, XXXVIII), Stockholm, 69-80.
Clinton K„ 1992. Myth and Cult: The Iconography of the Eleusinian Mysteries. The Martin P. Nilsson Lectures on Greek Religion Delivered 19-21 November 1990 at the Swedish Institute at Athens (Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae, Series in 8°, XI), Stockholm.
Clinton K., 2003. Stages of Initiation in the Eleusinian and Samothracian Mysteries, in Cosmopoulos 2003, 50-78.
Cole S.G., 2008. Professionals, Volunteers, and Amateurs Serving the Gods kata ta patria, in Dignas B. and Trampedach K„ eds.. Practitioners of the Divine: Greek Priests and Religious Officials from Homer to Heliodorus, Cambridge, Mass., 55-72.
Cosmopoulos M.B., ed., 2003. Greek Mysteries: The Archaeology and Ritual of Ancient Greek Secret Cults, London.
Dengate C.F., 1988. The Sanctuaries of Apollo in the Peloponnesos, diss. University of Chicago.
Deshours N„ 2006. Les mysteres dAndania: Etude depigraphie et d’histoire religieuse (Scripta Antiqua 16), Pessac.
Dickie M.W., 1995. The Dionysiac Mysteries in Pella, ZPE 109, 81-86.
Graf E, 1996. Pompai in Greece: Some Considerations about Space and Ritual in the Greek Polis, in Hagg R., ed.. The Role of Religion in the Early Greek Polis. Proceedings of the Third International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, Organized by the Swedish Institute at Athens, 16-18 October 1992, Stockholm, 55-65.
Graf E, 2003. Lesser Mysteries - Not Less Mysterious, in Cosmopoulos 2003, 241-262.
Gawlinski L., 2008. “Fashioning” Initiates: Dress at the Mysteries, in Colburn C. and Heyn M., eds., Reading a Dynamic Canvas: Adornment in the Ancient Mediterranean World, Newcastle, 146-169.
Lupu E„ 2005. Greek Sacred Law: A Collection of New Documents (NGSL), (Religions in the Greco-Roman World 152), Leiden and Boston.
Muller R.J., 1993. Tradierung religiosen Wissens in den Mysterienkulten am Beispiel von Andania, in Kullmann W. and AlthoffJ., eds., Vermittlung und Tradierung von Wissen in der griechischen Kultur (Script Oralia 61), Tubingen, 307-316.
Ogden D„ 2004. Aristomenes ofMessene: Legends of Sparta’s Nemesis, Swansea.
Parker R., 2004. What Are Sacred Laws?, in Harris E.M. and Rubinstein L., eds., The Law and the Courts in Ancient Greece, London, 57-70.
Pettersson M„ 1992. Cults of Apollo at Sparta: The Hyakinthia, the Gymnopaidiai and the Karneia (Acta Instituti Athenienis Regni Sueciae, Series in 8°, XII), Stockholm.
Pirenne-Delforge V., 2008. Retour ά la source. Pausanias et la religion grecque (Kernos Suppl.20), Liege 2008.
Piolot L., 1999. Pausaniasetles Mysteresd’Andania: Histoireduneaporie, in Renard ).,ed„ Le Peloponnese: archeologie et histoire. Actes de la rencontre internationale de Lorient (12-15 mai 1998J, Rennes, 195-228.
Pritchett W.K., 1985. Studies in Ancient Greek Topography 5, Berkeley.
Robertson N., 1988. Melanthus, Codrus, Neleus, Caucon: Ritual Myth as Athenian History, GRBS 29, 201-261.
Sauppe H., 1860. Die Mysterieninschrift aus Andania, AbhGott 8, 217-274.
Sourvinou-Inwood C„ 2003. Festival and Mysteries: Aspects of the Eleusinian Cult, in Cosmopoulos 2003,25-49.
Themelis P., 2001. Ανασκαφή Μεσσήνης, Prakt, 63-96.
Themelis P., 2007. Τα Κάρνεια και η Ανδανία, στο Αμύμονα Έργα: Τιμητικός τόμος για τον καθηγητή Βασίλη Κ. Λαμπρινουδάκη, Αθήνα, 509-528.
Valmin Μ.Ν., 1930. Btudes topographiques sur la Messenie ancienne, Lund.




Printfriendly