Securing the Sacred: The Accessibility and Control of Attic Sanctuaries

Who could not enter a Greek sanctuary and why is discussed in almost every handbook of Greek religion, but the means and methods of sanctuary restriction has not received the same attention. It is clear, however, that the fear of divine punishment was not always thought to be a sufficient deterrent, and various architectural and legal resources were available to keep out sacrilege and guard against theft. In this paper I use a combination of archaeological and epigraphic evidence to examine the issue of sanctuary security for the different types of sacred sites in Attica. This regional study brings the following questions into focus: in what situations were secure boundaries made, what was used to secure them, and who had the authority to secure and control them.

The types of sites can be divided into two general categories based on the presence of fortifications. The Acropolis is the best known of the fortified sanctuaries, since its walls, doors, locks, and the officials involved with its property are well documented (Hurwit 1999). Other sanctuaries like those at Eleusis, Rhamnous, and Sounion are also either fortified or associated with fortifications, but the functions of those strong walls are not always understood; the walls at Eleusis, for example, have been variously interpreted as intended to keep out the uninitiated or protect the grain. These sanctuaries must be examined as a unit so that the reasons for their extra protection can become clear. In addition, the architectural history of each site should be taken into account. Changes in the size or form of fortifications are usually related to other sanctuary refurbishments or embellishments and so must be explained as a part of this larger story. Finally, the contrast made by adding unfortified sites into the picture allows the full range of security measures and the reasons behind them to emerge. Why are most sacred sites left unfortified? Are other security methods used in place of fortifications, and what form do they take? What role did priests and other sacred staff play, and what happened when they were not present? This method of evaluating the sanctuaries of Attica reveal that location, size, use, and content were all factors in the decisions made about how to protect them.

Varying levels of security within individual sites is another fundamental issue. Even sanctuaries without imposing external walls contained restricted areas, and temples in most sites were more secure than the sites themselves. Special locking mechanisms were sometimes built into the small treasuries used to collect money offerings, such as the one from the precinct of Aphrodite on the slopes of the Acropolis. The fact that keys become an iconographic symbol for priestesses (Connelly 2007) underscores the importance of security and indicates which officials were employed in its enforcement.

Sacred laws supply the best evidence for who controlled the protection of sacred sites. The regulation for the sanctuary of Codrus, Neleus and Basile, for example, demonstrates that well-defined boundaries were a concern for the polis. In some cases, as seen in decrees of the Salaminioi, smaller political units and families had the rights over a site. Sacred space played a role in the definition of community, so the community took on the responsibilities of safeguarding that space and choosing the most appropriate means to do so.