This study aims to examine how Rome understood 'the Other' in the context of Roman plundering of sacred sites. It analyses specifically the Temple of Poseidon at Isthmia, and how it was affected by the destruction of Corinth in 146 BCE, and the second Jewish temple at Jerusalem, and how the Romans went about destroying it in 70 CE. This study combines archaeological and written sources with iconography, to get as full an image as possible of Roman pillaging. For Isthmia the sources are mainly archaeological, from the excavations made by the University of Chicago. For Jerusalem the source is the ancient text Bellum Judaicum, by Flavius Josephus. The theory is that of 'the Other', as presented by Erich Gruen in his work Rethinking the other in antiquity, which is applied to the many questions in the discussion. The result of this study shows that Romans frequently sacked sacred sites of other peoples and used the artworks from them to beautify their own cities. They used the history and tradition of the Other for their own gain, to create a certain image of themselves. Further, this study finds that Rom considered itself the main power in the Mediterranean during these periods of antiquity.

The study of early Greek sacrificial rituals is an under-researched field, as previous scholarship has focused in Late Archaic and Classical Greece to understand and reconstruct Greek sacrifice. This thesis is an attempt to complement our knowledge of early Greek sacrificial practices, which are defined here as thysia, holocaust and moirocaust, focusing in the 8th and 7th century Peloponnese. To achieve this goal, all available archaeological and zooarchaeological evidence from the sanctuaries at Olympia, Isthmia, Nikoleika, Mt. Lykaion and Asea, is incorporated. It is argued that the reconstructed sacrificial norm of thysia is not reflected in the early Peloponnesian evidence and a re-evaluation of Greek sacrifice, at least for the Late Geometric–Early Archaic period, is suggested. The second aspect this thesis is to explore social competition in the given chronological and geographical framework through Greek sacrificial rituals. A new theory based on the notion of visibility is applied, according to which the sacrificer aims to promote themself and earn social capital through direct and indirect visibility achieved from the regular performance of sacrificial rites. It is suggested that the level of visibility in sacrifice is dependent on four parameters: sacrificial ritual and meals, sacrificial investment, sacrificial installation and the status of the sanctuary. / Tidig grekisk offerritual är ett understuderat område, då forskare framför allt fokuserat på det senarkaiska och klassiska Grekland för att förstå och rekonstruera grekisk offerpraktik. Denna uppsats är ett försök att utöka vår kunskap om tidiga grekiska offer, som här definieras som thysia, holokauster och moirokauster, med fokus på 700- och 600-talen på Peloponnesos. För att uppfylla detta syfte studeras all tillgängligt arkeologiskt och animalosteologiskt material från helgedomarna i Olympia, Isthmia, Nikoleika, Lykaionberget och Asea. Uppsatsen hävdar att den antagna normen för djuroffer i form av thysia inte återspeglas i det tidiga materialet från Peloponnesos och att det därför bör det ske en omvärdering av grekiskt offerbruk, åtminstone vad gäller den sengeometriska och tidigarkaiska perioden. Vidare utforskar uppsatsen hur social konkurrens uttrycktes genom offerritual inom samma period och geografiska område. Här appliceras en ny teori baserad på visibilitet. Enligt denna strävar den som offrar att framhäva sig själv och förvärva socialt kapital genom den direkta eller indirekta visibilitet som erhålls från att regelbundet genomföra offerritualer. Fyra parametrar avgör visibilitetens genomslagskraft: ritualen och de efterföljande måltiderna, investeringen i själva offret, installationer för offrets praktiska genomförande och helgedomens status.

No description available.

Malgré leurs divisions politiques, les Grecs reconnaissaient l’existence de sanctuaires qui leur étaient communs. Or, à côté de leurs fonctions religieuses, ces grands sanctuaires jouèrent aussi un rôle indéniable dans la politique internationale aux Ve et IVe siècles avant notre ère. En effet, les quatre plus grands, les sanctuaires de Delphes, de l’Isthme, de Némée et d’Olympie, organisaient des concours panhelléniques et recevaient des offrandes venues de tout le monde grec. Certes, les sanctuaires communs pouvaient aussi rassembler tout ou partie des Hellènes, dans le cadre de koina ou d’alliances militaires, mais ils étaient avant tout des lieux de mise en scène des rivalités entre les États grecs. C’est pourquoi ceux-ci cherchèrent à exercer un contrôle plus ou moins direct sur eux. Ainsi, lorsque le caractère commun du lieu sacré s’était traduit par la mise en place d’institutions, celles-ci pouvaient voir s’exprimer des rapports de force entre les différents membres. Surtout, en particulier dans le cas des sanctuaires se situant sur des confins, la volonté de maîtriser des sanctuaires communs pouvait donner lieu à des conflits mêlant politique et religion, le contrôle d’un sanctuaire étant alors la clé de l’hégémonie sur la région dont il était le centre cultuel. Néanmoins, les grands sanctuaires ne furent pas que des enjeux entre puissances  : les oracles et les familles sacerdotales qui y étaient responsables du culte pouvaient incontestablement prendre position dans les luttes pour l’hégémonie en Grèce. De plus, ces sanctuaires pouvaient parfois servir d’interfaces entre la civilisation hellénique et les cultures voisines (Perses, Étrusques, Libyens…). / Despite their political divisions, Greeks knew the existence of sanctuaries who were common to them. However, in addition to their religious functions, these great sanctuaries played too an undeniable in international policy in the 5th and 4th centuries BC. The four greatest sanctuaries (Delphi, Isthmia, Nemea and Olympia) organized panhellenic games and received consecrations from all the Greek world. Moreover, common sanctuaries could gather all the Hellenes or a part of them in koina or military alliances, but they were above all places for rivalries between Greek states. That is why these tried to control them more or less directly. Thus, when the common characteristics of the sacred place had resulted in specific institutions, these could be the scene of conflicts between different protagonists. Above all, particularly with sanctuaries on the borders, the will of control of great sanctuaries coul result in both political and religious wars. The control of a sanctuary was then the key of the hegemony on the country of which it was the religious center. Nevertheless, great sanctuaries were not only stakes between powers: oracles and priestly families who were in charge of the temple could unquestionably intervene in struggles for hegemony in Greece. Moreover, these sanctuaries could sometimes be places of contact between Hellenic civilization and neighbouring cultures (Persians, Etruscans, Libyans, etc.).