Pim Schievink
NWO-Funded Promoties in de geesteswetenschappen PhD position at the University of Groningen. Project website: https://complexasklepieia.org/
Research: Creating complex sacred spaces: experience, agency and multivocality in Hellenistic Asklepieia (4th century BC – 1st century BC).
Staffpage: https://www.rug.nl/staff/p.schievink/
Research: Creating complex sacred spaces: experience, agency and multivocality in Hellenistic Asklepieia (4th century BC – 1st century BC).
Staffpage: https://www.rug.nl/staff/p.schievink/
less
InterestsView All (16)
Uploads
Reviews
Articles
After Rome defeated the Achaean League in 146 BC, Rome’s interactions in Greece changed, with more direct contact with Greek poleis and their sanctuaries. For Epidauros, a polis in the Argolid with a famous sanctuary to Asklepios, it has been argued that this was a period of decline. The sanctuary was in decay, according to some scholars, until the second century AD, when it was saved from decline with the intervention of the emperor Hadrian. This article argues for continuity in cult practice and significant activity in the first centuries BC and AD, without ignoring the evidence commonly presented for decline. It thereby offers a more nuanced picture of the Epidaurian Asklepieion in this period.
Research introductions
Conference Presentations
Epidauros and its sanctuary of the healing god Asklepios was home to snakes. These snakes were tame and considered sacred to the god and embodied Asklepios in certain moments as well. When the cult of Asklepios spread from Epidauros to other cities, one of the ways in which he moved was as a snake. This became a (semi-) mythological trope of cultic transfer.
The spread of Asklepios to other sanctuaries has been widely discussed. Most discussions, however, focus on the specific reasoning behind the import of the god Asklepios at that specific point in time and sometimes are used as evidence for similarities in practices. While discussions on the reasoning behind the import are fruitful and overarching similarities between sanctuaries were (sometimes) there, I want to specifically focus on the importance of the stories about the migration of Asklepios to other poleis themselves: What can we gain from closereading the narratives of travelling snakes themselves and what roles did they serve?
One of the most important aspects to take from these stories is that they create a shared history between different sites. Thus, communities were created through myth and snakes. This works on different scales, but also in different times. The narratives reflect on the past, are important in the present (the time when they were retold) and are a lasting monument for the future. However, even when there was an Epidaurian connection, not all sanctuaries copied everything. Choice in what to adapt and what not to adapt is reflected in some stories and is of great importance
After Rome defeated the Achaean League in 146 BC, Rome’s interactions in Greece changed, with more direct contact with Greek poleis and their sanctuaries. For Epidauros, a polis in the Argolid with a famous sanctuary to Asklepios, it has been argued that this was a period of decline. The sanctuary was in decay, according to some scholars, until the second century AD, when it was saved from decline with the intervention of the emperor Hadrian. This article argues for continuity in cult practice and significant activity in the first centuries BC and AD, without ignoring the evidence commonly presented for decline. It thereby offers a more nuanced picture of the Epidaurian Asklepieion in this period.
Epidauros and its sanctuary of the healing god Asklepios was home to snakes. These snakes were tame and considered sacred to the god and embodied Asklepios in certain moments as well. When the cult of Asklepios spread from Epidauros to other cities, one of the ways in which he moved was as a snake. This became a (semi-) mythological trope of cultic transfer.
The spread of Asklepios to other sanctuaries has been widely discussed. Most discussions, however, focus on the specific reasoning behind the import of the god Asklepios at that specific point in time and sometimes are used as evidence for similarities in practices. While discussions on the reasoning behind the import are fruitful and overarching similarities between sanctuaries were (sometimes) there, I want to specifically focus on the importance of the stories about the migration of Asklepios to other poleis themselves: What can we gain from closereading the narratives of travelling snakes themselves and what roles did they serve?
One of the most important aspects to take from these stories is that they create a shared history between different sites. Thus, communities were created through myth and snakes. This works on different scales, but also in different times. The narratives reflect on the past, are important in the present (the time when they were retold) and are a lasting monument for the future. However, even when there was an Epidaurian connection, not all sanctuaries copied everything. Choice in what to adapt and what not to adapt is reflected in some stories and is of great importance