ABSTRACT
Second, and more seriously, the clarity with which distinctions between ethne and poleis are sometimes drawn may foster simplistic perceptions of the role of shrines within each. It is often noted that many sanctuaries become archaeologically visible from the eighth century onwards, supposedly coincident with the emergence of the polis.10 An increase in sanctuary numbers is indisputable, although one should not pass over earlier evidence, much of which comes from ethne, nor ignore the impact of previous practice upon eighth-century innovation.11 Nonetheless, in developing this link, emphasis has been placed on historical ties between poleis and their territories, with the implication that the gods of the political community are also tied to the spot.12 The developing social and political geography of the polis thus offers a direct lead into the material development of shrines. The observation that every sanctuary belonged to a community is unexceptionable; more problematic is the fact that the idea of community tends, implicitly or explicitly, to be conceived in polis terms as a community of citizens. If one couches this more broadly, in terms of the development of interest enactment through time, the results may be relevant to a wider range of political communities. The contribution made by polis-based studies is, of course, considerable, but it must be understood in a broader political context, recognising that ethnos data can also produce observations of general relevance.
