This volume contains seven papers that were originally presented at a conference entitled ‘Aspects of Ancient Greek Cult’ that took place at the University of Aarhus in 2004, plus the solicited paper of V. Papaefthymiou, the contents of which intersect with several others in the volume. J., the conference organiser, notes that the conference was designed ‘to bring together innovative and diverse approaches to the study of ancient Greek cult, particularly those that combine the study of material culture with both textual and epigraphical evidence’ (p. 9); such intent is well represented in these proceedings.

L.B. Christensen's meandering opening essay, ‘“Cult” in the Study of Religion and Archaeology’, explores how the term cult has been used by scholars from a range of disciplines in the humanities and social sciences, with special focus on the disciplines of prehistoric archaeology and classics (comprising both philology and archaeology). While prehistorians tend to use cult as synonymous with ‘ritual’ and in preference to religion, because there is no implied claim on belief, classicists use cult as the equivalent of ‘religion’. R. Hamilton, the designated ‘Nestor’ of this group of scholars, follows with a brief statistical analysis of the iconography of baskets in Classical Attic votive reliefs. He demonstrates that there is no meaningful relationship between the kistai and the presence of sacrificial animals, altars or gods, and concludes, ‘the kiste … is a grace note, an attractive visual complement to the animal but in no way essential to the offering that is represented by the votive. We always find the divinity and usually find the worshipper, often with family, sometimes with offering, rarely with kiste’ (p. 35).

In the first of a cluster of three papers that focus on Asclepius cult in Athens, W. persuasively argues that the import of Asclepius to Athens in 420/19 b.c.e. was not primarily motivated by recent Athenian experience of the plague. Asclepius tended to be perceived as a helper against chronic physical ailments rather than fatal ones like plague, and in any case his arrival in Athens some years after the appearance and peak of the plague suggests that political and military factors may have been more influential. In ‘Der Altar des Asklepieions von Athen’, V. Papaefthymiou, after reviewing evidence for the establishment of the cult in Athens and the early architectural development of the sanctuary, presents in detail the results of recent excavations in the area of the so-called altar. In particular, Papaefthymiou notes the presence of pits, which seem to precede the building of the altar, and suggests that trees were planted in them; the area may have been a grove before Asclepius' arrival. In ‘The Athenian Asklepieion on the South Slope of the Akropolis: Early Development, ca. 420–360 b.c.’, M. Lefantzis and J. provide a detailed architectural study of several built features of Asclepius' ‘first’ sanctuary in Athens. This research as presented is still inchoate, although their most significant preliminary conclusions may be summarised. A puzzling feature in the sanctuary traditionally described as an ‘altar’, vel sim. (Lefantzis and J. prefer ‘structure’), is most probably the first temple of Asclepius in the sanctuary. The authors believe that construction of a temple would have been mentioned in one of the lacunae in the Telemachus monument covering the archon years 418/7–416/5 b.c.e. Material evidence for the initial construction date of the temple, slight as it is, does not contradict such a date. Modular analysis of the spatial relationship among the three key built features of the early sanctuary – bothros, peribolos and temple – suggests the existence of a unified sanctuary plan that was implemented at least from the time of the construction of the peribolos, if not earlier. Lefantzis and J. regard the early stone peribolos currently preserved on site as identical with that mentioned in the Telemachus monument and dated there to 415/4 b.c.e. This plan continued to influence later construction in the sanctuary.

In S.'s ‘Divine Images and Royal Ideology in the Philippeion at Olympia’, Pausanias' description of the Philippeion (5.17.4, 20–9–10), that curious, Argead family portrait, housed in a tholos and allegedly dedicated at Olympia by Philip II after Chaeronea, is balanced by S.'s architectural analysis of the statue base. His study of the plinth cuttings shows conclusively that the statues were marble and hence Pausanias' description of them as chryselephantine is incorrect; the statues were most likely painted or gilded. S. sees no physical evidence for two construction phases of the monument: the quality of marble, character of tooling and use of clamps are consistent throughout the statue base; and so he compelling argues that the monument was completed before Philip's assassination at Aegae in 336 b.c.e. S. speculates that the semicircular statue base may have been influenced by the semicircular Argive dedications at Delphi that commemorate that city's Heraclid ancestry; Argead claims on Argive origins and descent from Heracles seem to have been perpetuated by Philip and may be echoed in the Philippeion. The presence of such a statue group in an enclosed architectural space, as opposed to the open air, like all previous dedications at Olympia, accorded elect status to Philip and his family. The frame of the tholos may have been suggestive of a heroon, with implications for the divine descent of the family. S. notes that the semicircular arrangement draws heavily on spatial conventions of the theatre, eliding present with heroic past and effectively drawing the viewer into the narrative space of the monument. This is a rich and suggestive paper that will repay close reading.

T.T. Lind, ‘Music and Cult in Ancient Greece: Ethnomusicological Perspectives’, a prescriptive rather than analytical paper, draws attention to how scholarly understanding of ancient Greek music is conditioned by modern norms and how an ethnomusicological approach to the topic may help researchers shed these limiting assumptions. H.'s concluding paper explores the cultic context of Alcman's partheneia. In an extension of G. Nagy's analysis of Agesichora and Agido, the two most prominent figures in the Louvre Partheneion, as generic rather than personal names indicating the roles of ‘chorus-leader’ and ‘female Agiad’ necessary during choral performance, H. argues that the remaining names in this partheneion function similarly. Some of these names may have had specific relevance for family or other social groups within the polis and would presumably have been performed by them.

Each paper is followed by its own endnotes and bibliography. The volume concludes with a full and helpful subject index. Those more explicitly archaeological or art historical chapters are supported by dozens of high quality black-and-white and colour images and technical drawings.

All students and scholars of Greek religion will find much of interest here. The model of international, intergenerational and interdisciplinary collaborative inquiry on display in this volume is admirable and, one suspects, vital to the continued good health of the discipline.