8/16/2019 Lupu (2003)

1/20

HESPERIA

72 (2003)

Pages

2I-340

1. I amgratefulo the

Greek

Ministry

f Culture,he2nd Ephoreia

of PrehistoricndClassical ntiqui-

ties,andGeorgios teinhauer,

phor,

forpermissiono study

he stoneand

to publish

he results f my study

and he photographsf the squeeze.

For criticism

and suggestionsI am

grateful o Kevin Clinton,

Catherine

Keesling,

and the anonymousHesperia

referees.

OC

EXCygO=?ES TOV Qsorov is

referred o throughout

as I. Oropos.

I wouldalso ike o thank

Yannis

Samantas f the Peiraieus

Museum or

his expedient elp.Forassistancen

obtaining

he necessary ermits am

grateful

o the American choolof

Classical

tudies t Athens, specially

Maria

PilaliandVenetiaBarbopoulou.

S CRI

FICE T

TH

M H

R O

N N

F R G

NT Y

S C

L W

F R O M

O RO POS

AB STRACT

The rules ndnorms ffectinghe

pre-incubationacrifice t

e Amphiareion

at Oropos

arereexaminedere nlightof a new

ragment,. Oropos78.

The

studyof this fragmentogetherwlth

otherevidence or sacrifice

t the sanc-

tuary uggests

hat the rulesgoverninghe pre-incubation

acrifice t

the

Amphiareion

eremore lexible

uring he4th century .C. than heyappear

from Pausanias'sater

descriptionof incubation

on a ram's kin. I.Oro-

pos278 s shownhere o incorporate

sacrificialariff.Representative

acrifi-

cial ariffs isted n anappendixurther

upport his nterpretation.

Amonghe neditan

hismonumentalC £21CypOC£f

IOV Qprov, Vasileios

Petrakosncludedwofragmentaryacredaws.1One of these,

.Oropos

279, is

preservedn a transcriptionadeby

IoannisPapadimitriou

nd

appears ow o be lost.The other,

. Oropos78 (=SEG

XLVII 88), s a

small ragment

owhoused t the

PeiraieusMuseum inv.

08),where

studied

t inJuly 001.

Despite ts fragmentarytate,

he new awcontributes

o ourknowl-

edgeof sacrificialracticet the

Amphiareiont Oropos

uring he 4th

century

.C. Previously,videnceor hispractice

erivedrimarilyrom

passagen the great odeof the

sanctuary,SCG69 (I.

Oropos77), and

Pausanias's

iscussion1.34.5) f

ncubationntheskinofsacrificedams.

I discusshese wo

sources elow, swellas

three otive eliefs rom he

Amphiareion,

n anattempto interpret

henew ragment

ndexplaints

significanceor ourunderstandingf sacrificialulesandnormsat the

sanctuary.

urther vidence upporting

my interpretationf the

new

fragmentanbe found

n theexamples f

sacrificialariffsisted n the

appendix.

American School of Classical Studies at Athens

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to

Hesperia www.jstor.org

®

8/16/2019 Lupu (2003)

2/20

322 ERAN LUPU

25 [ * *

9 * *

D azuXs0at

z

@v zvoxv

at

zz-

\ \ n \ n c - \ e ,

t t 9 p@09 z6Ttz697 0TaV at0z6, t9 tt0zt

oToevz ,uNwoetozt,ovHuovToe.oet t Huszt oe-

28

uTov zoCuTot

zoeTzuxzsHoet

zoesTov, TXv

8z 8N-

\ e - A \ \ e

,uotov Tov ttOzOt,V v og uvo,uzvxv zv Tot tz-

tootwavv To8zto,uoeCzto[ovtwoe] Huztvz zi-

LV zAV 0Ty AV D°X TaL zzas°S T@V 8g ZD0zZ

32 v ,urItwoetz(potoNvix Touz,usvzog.t'Tot z

e A A - \ a w r \ - e , e

tzD0zy OLOOUV °S 0°9TaS as° T°D tz£°N°D gZ

asT0 TOV (1) UOV Gli(V OTO(V N g0t0T gy T0Tz 8g 0t1T-

o v 8N,uotov Ra,uDoevXxuov oe(p'z0CoTou

36 -v t) ztoNoo :)<

When he is present, he priestshallprayover he divineportions

and place(them) on the altar;when he is not present, hose who

offerthe sacrifice shalldo so), and at the festival X Hvoz), each

shallpray or himself,while the priest shallpray)over he public

(victims)The skin of all victimsoffered n the sanctuary[shallbe]

sacred3;4achperson hallbe allowed o offeranythinghe wishes

but meat shallnot be carried ut of the sacredprecinct.Those

offering acrifice hallgive the priest he shoulder f the victims

exceptwhen the festival akesplace,on which occasion he priest

shallreceive he shoulder f eachone of the publicvictims.

LSCG69 distinguishes etween wo typesof sacrifice, amelyprivate nd

public,anddetermines he rolesof the worshippers ndthe priest. t does

not for the most partspecify he occasions or sacrifice, robably ecause

these were regarded s self-evident.Only one occasion s mentioneddi-

rectly, .e., the festival5 t which the priestwouldprayover he publicvic-

tims (those providedby the state),while privatepersonswould prayover

theirownvictims.Otheroccasions or sacrifice renot named; vensacri-

fice related o the sanctuary'smain activity,ncubation,s not mentioned

directly, lthough ncubation tself is discussed n relativedetail.6 n re-

spect o occasion,we learnonly thatworshippers ughtto handle he sac-

rifice hemselveswhenever he priest s not present.

The law is morespecific n respect o priestlyprerogatives,he treat-

ment of the skins, he consumption f the sacrificialmeat,and the choice

2. Petropoulou981,pp.60-63.

3. Petropoulou1981,p. 44) sug-

gests hat he

vacat

at the beginning

of line 36 (andperhapshe one at the

endof line 35) resultedrom he stone-

cutter's ttempt o avoid laws n the

marble. or he useof vacant paces

forpunctuationn thisdocument,

see Petropoulou981,pp.43-44. In

line26, Petropoulourints o; Petra-

kos OV. The photographsn bothpub-

lications hownu.

4. I.e., t wouldbelong o the

sanctuary.

5. Twoapobateseliefs ating o the

late5th-early th century.C. seem o

be the earliest ttestationsoran ago-

nistic estivaln honorof Amphiaraos.

The earliest ictor ataloguerom

Oropos,. Oropos 20, datingbefore

338B.C., mentions he Greater mphi-

areia, pentaetericestival o be distin-

guished rom he postulatedearly

LesserAmphiareiaPetrakos968,

p. 94;cf. Durrbach 890,p. 128).See

Petrakos 968,pp. 194-198;Petropou-

lou 1981,p.56, n.54; forthe reliefs ee

Petrakos 968,pp.121-122,nos.16,

17,pls.38,39.

6. Lines20-24, 36-52.

SACRIFICE IN LSCG 69

LSCG 69,

whichprobably atesbetween 87 and377

B.C.

(seebelow,

note73), regulateshe rights ndduties f the priest nd heneokorost

theAmphiareionnd hebehaviorf worshippers,evotes nentire ara-

grapho sacrifice.hisparagrapheems o havebeen egardedsunsatis-

factoryn antiquitynd hestone nderwentrasures,erhaps,sAngeliki

Petropoulouuggested,2n threedifferent ccasions.t is insertedn the

middle f the section f the law hatregulatesncubation,istinguished

from t bytherasuran line25 andbythesacatin line36.

Petropoulou'sextrunsasfollows:3

Stoich. 5

8/16/2019 Lupu (2003)

3/20

SACRIFICE AT

THE AMPHIAREION

323

of victims.

hestipulationn lines

30-31 thatreferso

privateacrifice,s

the

wording t oevDokoet zzototos

whateverach

ersonmaywish)

suggests,eaveshe choice f victimso thediscretionf theworshippers,

allowinghem

o sacrificeictims

heychoose.This stipulation

s some-

whatpeculiar.n

certainultic ontexts

ne inds equirements

osacrifice

particularnimals

r prohibitions

gainst acrificingthers.7

prohibi-

tionmightbe expressed

ndirectlyy stipulating

hatcanbe

sacrificed,8

butanall-embracingositive

tipulationuch

asthat n thepresent

aw s

exceptional.

Furthermore,he icense o sacrifice

hateverne

wishesmay ontra-

dictwhatwe

knowaboutpre-incubation

acrifice t

the Amphiareion,

which eems o

havedemandedhesacrifice

f a specificnimal.

Wemight

askourselves

hy hesanctuary's

uthorities

nformworshippershat hey

canoffer

whateverhey

wishwithoutmaking nyexception

or he most

common acrificet theAmphiareionf it allowednlya specific nimal.

Forananswer

e need oconsiderhe evidence

f Pausaniasnd

hevo-

tivereliefsrom

heAmphiareion.

PAUSANIAS

AND VOTIVE RELIEFS

In thecourse f

hisdescriptionf theAmphiareion,

ausanias

nforms s

(1.34.5) hatprior

o incubation,

he worshipperst the sanctuary

ust

purifyhemselves.

hispurification

asobtainedy offering

acrificeo

Amphiaraos

nd"toall hosewhose

names ppearn

thealtar." hile he

specifics

f thepracticere

notclearrom he

description,hepurification

offeringeemso have akenplaceat the great ltar f theAmphiareion.

In 1.34.3Pausaniasescribes

healtar sconsisting

ffiveparts

elonging

respectively

ofivegroups

f divinities:he

first ncludesHerakles, eus,

and

Apollo heHealer

Iloetxv);he second,

eroes nd heirwives; he

third,

Hestia,Hermes,Amphiaraos,

nd,ofAmphiaraos's

hildren, m-

philochos;9he

fourth,Aphrodite, anakeia,

aso,Hygieia, nd

Athena

theHealer Ilottxvtot);

nd he ifth,

henymphs,an, nd herivers

che-

loosandKephisos.

ausanias'sestimony

asbeenat east

partiallyorrob-

orated y hediscovery

f two4th-century

telail°tatinghat hey

belong

to Amphiaraos

ndAmphilochosperhapsogether

ithHermes:

. Oropos

280, A,u(ptotpoto

A,u(ptRoXo'Ep,uo])

nd oHestiaI.

Oropos81).Pausa-

nias

adds hatonce hepurification

iteshavebeen ompleted,

rospective

incubantsmayproceed o the nextstage:hey mustsacrifice ramon

whose kin hey

will iedown o sleep.l1

7.Forexample,

he sacrificef birds

pp.416-417, ines4-5. LSCG

161 here).

See n generalRobert

966,

"or nything

nemightwish

except (Iscr.

osED 62),A, lines2-3,5-7,

pp. 196-197.

he-goats

ndshe-goats"s prescribedn

whichmentions

ustomaryictims

9. Or "the hildrenf Amphilo-

POxy.XXXE 2797.6

seeRobert

(C£t0£C0t TA VOMC4O£V[a]), notes

hat chos,"

which s less ikely onsidering

1966,

pp. 192-210);LSCG114A

sacrificef a certain

theranimals

I. Oropos80 (discussedmmediately

allows

acrifice f anything

newishes, permitted,vidently

ecausehis ani-

below);ee Petrakos's

omments,

butsheep

andpigsare orbidden.

More malwasnot considered

ustomarySo-

I.Oropos,. 185;

alsoSchachter 981,

examples re istedbelow, s.

8,21-22; kolowski's

ockocMcov,.e., chicken,

p.26, n. 3; Durrbach

890,p. 111.

cf. n. 78.

makes

oodsensebutthe exact

estora- 10. Petrakos

968,p. 96.

8. See Parker

ndObbink 000, tion s

uncertain;f. M. Segre's

ote 11.

Cf. Durrbach890,pp. 131-132.

8/16/2019 Lupu (2003)

4/20

324

ERAN LUPU

.*H t , ' f _ F f

Figure1. Fragmentary th-century

B.C.

votiverelief rom he Amphia-

reionat Oroposshowinga pig and a

sheepbeing ed to sacrifice.Athens,

NationalArchaeologicalMuseum,

inv. 1395.Courtesy ationalArchaeologi-

calMuseum, thens

's z+Lirme*S 'A Xk ,t o) ;t z 0i5 aju - ,, r, _ ., - - K ,, - ^ ..... ,> _ .. .

Pausanias'sestimonyasagain een orroboratedy urtherrchaeo-

logical iscoveries. fragmentaryth-century.C. votive elief rom he

Amphiareionl2epictshe ncubantn what s clearlyheep leece.l3 n-

other th-century.C. relief rom hesite(Fig.1) portraysfamily man,

woman, hild)with woattendantseading sheep nda pig o sacrifice.l4

As Folkert anStraten otes,l5hepigorpigletwould e offeredorpuri-

fication;he sheep, r rather,am,wouldbe offeredor ts skin.Whatwe

havehereand n Pausanias'sescriptions, in fact,a double acrifice:he

first s offeredo a group f concernedivinities;heseconds likely o go

to the maindivinity.l6ogetherheycomprise preliminarytep eading

to the main vent, ncubation.

Despite he evidence f these eliefs ndof Pausanias,here s reason

to believe hatwhilea ramwas he offering f choice or hepre-incuba-

tion acrifice,t wasnotalwaysmandatory,orwas leeping n tsskin.As

bothPetropouloundvan Straten avenoticed,l7n additiono the li-

cense rantednLSCG69,lines30-31, oworshipperst heAmphiareion

12. Petrakos 968,p. 123,no.21,

pl. 41:b.

13. See Petropoulou985,pp. 170-

171.

14.Athens,NationalArchaeo-

logicalMuseum,nv.1395;Petrakos

1968,p. 123,no.20, withp. 133,

pl.41:a;I.Oropos,p.182.

15. SeevanStraten 995,pp.73-74.

16.A similar rocesss seen not

. . . . >

wltnout arlants ln sanctuarlest

Asklepios. eePetropoulou991,

esp.pp.26-27. Despite he consider-

ablemerits f thework, he discussion

in Edelstein ndEdelstein 945

[1998], I, pp.186-187(testimonia

in I, pp.290-294,nos.511-517) s

outdated.

17. Petropoulou985,pp.175-176;

vanStraten 995,pp.73-74.

8/16/2019 Lupu (2003)

5/20

SACRIFICE AT THE AMPHIAREION 325

Figure2. Relief rom he Amphia-

reionat Oroposdedicated o Amphi-

araosbyArchinos 400-350 B.C.).

Athens,NationalArchaeological

Museum, nv.3369.Courtesy ational

Archaeological useum,Athens

to sacrifice hateverheywish,no animal kin s evidentn theArchinos

relief rom heAmphiareion;he ncubants lyingon a sheetof cloth hat

alsocovers im as his upper ody estsagainst pillow Fig.

2; I. Oropos

344,400-350s.c.).18

I assumehat hesacrificialelief n Figure depictswhatwasorwas

becominghe norm;n reality nd n agreement ith the stipulationn

LSCG69,lines30-31,worshippersould hoose heir nimals.19hether

thiswoulddepend n financial20rother easonss noteasy o determine.

Onemust,however,istinguishetween ules ndnorms.Greek acrifi-

cialregulationsre n generaless concerned ith normal ractice nd

what anbeconsideredommon nowledgehanwithmodificationsf or

deviationsromnormal ractice. orexample, ormal racticencluded

thesacrificef goats rpigsand here s no need ora law o state his.For

cases n which he sacrificef suchanimals asundesirable,t wouldbe

explicitlyorbidden,21n the samewayas the sacrificef a particularni-

malmightbe explicitlyrescribed.22hismayhelp o explainhestipula-

tion n

LSCG69,

lines30-31.At theAmphiareion,he sacrifice epicted

in thesacrificialelief nddescribedyPausaniasasorbecamehenorm.

It wasnot herule, owever,t eastnotwhileLSCG69was n effect, nd

thepossibilityf departingrom henorm s thereason hy he aw tates

thisrule o explicitly.

An indicationhat n the4thcenturyherules llowedacrificialree-

domcanbe found n the new ragment,. Oropos78,which ncorporates

a section ddressinghegeneralicense o sacrificenythingnewishes n

a more pecificway,by providing list of animals. efore roceedingo

the interpretationf thisfragment, present eremy textbased n au-

topsy, ithrestorations,pigraphicalommentary,nda discussionf pre-

vious cholarship.

18. Athens, National Archaeolog-

ical Museum, inv. 3369. Note Georg

Kaibel's omment on the linen cushion

and pillow in Ar.Amphiaraos,r. 18,

quoted n PCG III 2, p. 43.

19. It is not inevitable hat at one

time or anotheronly one sacrifice

would be offeredor that bloodless

offeringswere employed n the sacri-

ficial process; ee Petropoulou1985,

p.l75.

20. So Petropoulou1985, p. 176.

But Archinos,who had not slept on a

ram's kin, was wealthy enough to

afforda high-qualityrelief.

21. For prohibitions ee, e.g., LSCG

126, line 7 (no pig);LSCG Suppl.57,

line 12 (no goat);LSCG 14 B (neither

goat nor pig).

22. For such requirements ee, e.g.,

LSCG 140, line 4 (pig); 170, line 1

(goat).

8/16/2019 Lupu (2003)

6/20

326

E

R

P

U

THE

EW

FRAGMENT

I. Oropos

78

Fig.

3

H.

.27,

W.

0.071

top)-0.08

bottom),

h.

0.08

m

L.H.

.007-0.008;

O,

(),

and

Q

0.005

m;

nterlinear

pace

.009

m

Surviving

ninscribed

urface

bove

he

first

ine

ca.

0.023-0.028

m

A

mall,

eathered

ragment

f

a

white

marble

tele

broken

n

all

sides.

The

riginal

ough-picked

ack

urvives.

Discovered

ehind

north

f]

the

urio

onument."23

he

etters

re

not

deeply

ut

and

he

inscribed

face

s

ather

worn.

The

lower

part

of

the

last

etter

n

line

7

is

covered

by

a

rop

f

what

appears

o

be

cement

nd

he

left

side,

which

may

be

cut

ather

han

broken,

s

covered

y

rough,

orroded

atter.

bove

he

first

ine,

here

s

vacant

pace

hat

may

establish

t

as

the

original

irst

line,r,ess ikely,may epresent

space

etween

aragraphs

r

different

documents.

saec.

Va.

Non-stoich.

vacat

[

]aC,

£-[

]

[-

-

]

TR°az£4[

]

[-

-]

rYlv

8£,[Lav

ZXfV

-

-

-]

4

-

-

-

to]tzo86

X[-

-

-

]

[-

-

-

-]

a

vvvvv

£

[-

-

-

-

-

-

-]

[-

-

£,UDa]XA£69

(?)[-

-]

[--

oVo]vtHog

D[oRov

-

-]

8

-

-

-]og

Avo

oD[oRovs/, - -]

[-

-

-]

D00s

8£[-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

]

[-

-

-]V

Xt°£ta

[-

]

[

]

FLO0XFt

]

2

[

]

oxtE[v

]

[

]

[

]

Line

1:

[-

-

-]ac,

[-

-

-]

Petrakos;

T]ag

£[oL8ag?]

Chaniotis

|

Line

3:

8£i[Lav]

supplied

y

Petrakos;

XXNv

-

-?]

Chaniotis

Line

4.

Petrakos

|

Line

6:

[£FDa]X£LV

T[O

aVoyvVoLov?]

Chaniotis

Line

7:

[-

-

oVo]vt0og

Petrakos;

U[oRov,

-

-]

Lupu

Line8:

oD[oR--]Petrakos;

[OXOVg/X7

-

-

-]

Lupu

Line

9:

D00G

£

[-

-

-]

Chaniotis

I

Line

12.

Petrakos

EPIGRAPHICAL

OMMENTARY

The

etters

re,

n

the

whole,

icely

xecuted

hough

with

a

few

rregulari-

ties.

They

are

more

rowded

nd

at

times

relatively

maller

n

the

lower

part

f

the

fragment.

Line

1.

What

ook

ike

he

upper

eft

and

bottom

ips

of

T

appear

n

23.

B.

Leonardos,

n

I.

Oropos,

the

stone,

lthough

he

upper

eft

tip

s

closer

o

the

preceding

etter

han

p.

183,

no.

278.

For

he

monument

T

is

elsewhere

n

the

stone

and

might

be

a

scratch.

see

no.

444

and

pl.

E,

no.

15.

8/16/2019 Lupu (2003)

7/20

SACRIFICE AT THE AMPHIAREION

327

Figure3. I. Oropos78. Photographs

of squeezes, aken n different ight.

Photosauthor

Line 6. The last racemightbe taken ora lower ip of a somewhat

slanting troke. he closestparallels the left lower troke f the Q in

line 10 buta scratchs likely.

Line 7. : The ower art f the etter s concealedywhat ooks ikea

dropof cement nd he rightpart s damaged y the break. he letterP

(so Petrakos)s possible.

Line 9. Before he B there s a trace, ery ikely scratch, hichmay

be themiddle art f a verticaltroke.

COMMENTARY

Petrakos ated he inscriptiono the 4th century

.C.,

identifyingt as a

sacredaw isting fferingsnd acrificeso a divinity.24e referredo this

inscriptionn his comment nLSCG69, lines30-31,noting hat eaving

thechoice f victimso theworshippersasa result f thebroaderolicy

of the sanctuaryndadding referenceo the sacrificialeliefdiscussed

aboveFig.1) and o Pausanias'sescriptionf ncubationna ram'skin.25

The nscription asalsodiscussedwicebyAngelosChaniotis.nEBGR

1997

he observedhat he fragmenteemed o concernacrifices,ecog-

nizing hemention f a table f offerings,nimals,namount f twoobols,

anda leaseof an temreferredo by ua0x,un line 11.26nSEGXLVII

488he suggestedX]oegu£[otdoeg?]n line1; £i[LAV M@XNV - -?] in line3;

24. I. Oropos, . 183.

25. I.Oropos, . 182.

26. Chaniotis ndMylonopoulos

2000,p. 206.

8/16/2019 Lupu (2003)

8/20

328

ERAN LUPU

and£Mp]X£LV T[0 atoyvtoLov?] n line6.27n line2 he recognizedform

of Tt0aZ£4A, noting hatTt0aZ£4X and t0aZ£40@ werealsopossible.

In line 9 he recognized

8£

afterDoog. n line 11 he noted hatCo0Xy

suggestedhat hisdocumentmayoncernheduties nd ights f a per-

sonwho eased priesthood."n ine12he recognized"provisionor he

supply f wood orsacrifices."

Despite he extremelyragmentarytateof the document,t seems

possibleo distinguish,f only or he sakeof discussion,etweenwo or

perhapshree ections,he first wo divided y thevacat n line 5. The

senseof lines6-9 is clear:his s a sacrificialariff numeratingequire-

ments orprivate ersonswho offer acrifice t the Amphiareion.t re-

lates, sPetrakosinted, o the stipulationf sacrificialreedomnLSCG

69, ines30-31. Sacrificialontexts evidentn lines1-5 andprobablen

lines10-13,although rticulationf the atter ines s considerablyore

difficult.

In line2 thepresencef a cult able s enough o suggest sacrificial

context nd,moreprecisely,clause ealingwithdistributionf theparts

of a victim.Culttablesarenormallymentionedn sacredaws n such

clausesor he simple easonhatparts f thevictimwouldbe placed n

them.28n practice,heseparts re ikely o havegone o the priest.29s

Chaniotis oted,botha verbalorm30nd perhaps ore ikely) noun

arepossible ere. f a noun s correct, ne mightrestore£116 (8£?) TNV]

TtOz£4[V] as nLSCG28 (SEGXLE 173)3-4, 9, 10-11,14-15,18, 23

(wherehe restorationsre ecure).

In ine

3, 8£i[LAV] iS

most ikely referenceo a part f avictim.KXN

(thigh,ham) uggested y Chaniotiss veryprobable.32hena distinc-

tionbetween ight nd eft egs s made, ight egsusually o to thepriest.33

It is thereforeery ikely hat heright high s mentioned ereandwould

be assignedo a priest s a prerogativeor he sacrifice.

In line4 thepossible eferenceo a tripod ouldmake ense n a sac-

rificial ontext incea tripod an simplybe a three-leggedtand or a

cauldronsed o cook he meatof thevictims.34hisuse s evident n a

table, . Oropos 08 (3rdcentury.C.).

29.Theseparts hould, f course,

be distinguishedromdivineportions

puton the altar, onsisting f inedible

organs uchas thighbones rapped

in fat.On priestly rerogativesnd

portions ndcult ables, ee Putt-

kammer 912,pp.1-16; Gill 1991,

pp.15-19;Le Guen-Pollet 991;

vanStraten 995,pp. 154-155.

30. Forverbal orms restoredn-

stancesn brackets),eeLSCG[64,

lines13-14];65, line 86; 125, ines2,

[7, 9];I.Perg.III 161A, lines1, 7.

31.Therearemany xamples. or

a few representativeases eeLSCG

28 (SEGXLVI173), ines3-4, 9,

10-11, 14-15, 18, 23; 163, ine 17;

LSAM24 A, lines15-20; .Kallatis47,

line 3 (LSCG 90, line 5).

32. Another ossibilitys ,utztoattoa

(half he head): SCG28, lines4, 9,

[11, 15], 19, [23];29, line8;SEG

V 113, ines16, 17;cf. also

Amipsias,Connus,r.7

(PCG).

33. Left egs maygo to the divinity

(whomighthave o settle oronly he

bones); o,too, as may he eft halfof

the head,as s mentionedn Amipsias,

Connus,r.7 (PCG).See Puttkammer

1912,pp.23-25; or he right highsee

alsoJameson t al. 1993,p. 38.

34.Tripodswerededicated t

Oropos t the sanctuaryf the nymph

Halia Petrakos 968,pp.54-58; or

inscribedripod ases rom hissite,

somenowat the Amphiareion,ee

I.Oropos,os.511-516).

27. For ine 3, Chaniotis ites he

zMv 8Lavr[X] rEtav eceived y the

priestsnIG II21361 LSCG45),

line 5 (seeappendix:). For ine 6,

he cites

. Oropos

76

(LSCGSuppl.

35),

lines4-5, and

G

VII 235

(I. Oropos

277,

LSCG

69), ines13 and40, all of

whichprescribe eposition f money n

the Amphiareion's

hesauros.

28.The tableof Amphiaraoss

mentionedn the ate-3rd-century.C.

I. Oropos 24 (LSCG70), ines4-5

(cf. ine 10).It stood nside he great

templebuiltaroundhe second

quarter f the 4th century .C. (see

Petrakos 968,p. 69),wherea base

possibly elongingo it hasbeen

discoveredPetrakos968,p. 99).

Cf. also he inscribed otive ult

8/16/2019 Lupu (2003)

9/20

8/16/2019 Lupu (2003)

10/20

33o

E RAN LU PU

incubationLSCG69, lines23, 40; LSCGSuppl.5 [I.Oropos76], line4)

noras a penaltyLSCG69, line13)but,as examples-8 in the appendix

suggest, elatedirectlyo the animalsmentionedhereafter.hesesums

are ees hatworshippersere o pay or he sacrificef theseanimals.

The firstanimalmentionedline7) maybe a chicken:he general

otovegefersmainly,hough otexclusively,o chickens.43n thebeginning

of ine8, ]ogought o betaken sa genitive nding eferringo ananimal44

largerhan heotoveg,ince ariffsend o listanimals ccordingo size.45

numberf animalsuch share i.e.,doeovzovg,doeovzo8]og),46oat oe'eX,

[oety]og),47r, f thebird s not a chicken, hicken rrooster0t£XTt0V@V,

0t£XT0V@V]0g; ZXtg [XXt8]og;48 X£XT@t0, [aR£Xt0t0]0g)49repossible.

Evidenceanbe cited orandagainst achof thesepossibilities.

The nextanimalhatappearsn thetext line9) is a bovine. ince he

line'sength annot e restored ithanydegree f probability,t is impos-

sible o knowwhichanimals if any)werementionedn between nd

whetherheywerenamed pecifically50r referredo generallyn classes

such s"quadrupeds"r"adult/youngictims.''5l£ (suggestedyChaniotis)

following oogwould deally istinguishhebovinerom maller nimals,

but

V

would rdinarilye required,ndas early s after oto]veHog.52

Littleelsecanbe saidwith anycertainty.he senseof lines6-9 is,

however, uite lear. t is a sacrificialariff. he originalmighthave aid

somethingike [tg 8£ TOV HYlaautoovMDa]X£LV T[OVg HvovTaglacuna?)

oto]veHogD[oRov,lacuna)[- -]og dvo oD[oRovg/, (lacuna)]Doog

8£[- - -] (Those whooffer acrificehallput n thethesauros- - -] anobol

fora bird - - -], twoobols ora [- - -] fora bovine - - -]).

In line10 compareor [- - -]v XtO£tA [ - - - -] SEG 1119, ines

28-29 (Nakone;a.early o mid-3rd entury

.C.):

zoee oe oe Toev votoevoxvXtO£tA £aTt

° TaMeas wat°rX£T@- ZR

The treasurerhallprovide nythinglseneeded orsacrifice.

The resemblance ightbe coincidental,ut a similar hrase, ssigning

the provisionf"anythinglse hatmightbe needed orthe sacrifice"o

someone be it worshippersr the sanctuary'suthoritieswouldmake

sensehere.

43. See Robert 1966, p. 196, n. 127.

Cf. LSJ s.v. opvLSII.

44. See appendix:1-4, 7, and com-

ment 4.

45. See appendix: omment 1.

46. See appendix:6.

47. A common victim but perhaps

too large f it is to follow the bird

directly.

48. For the accent see LSJ s.v.

xaRatS,he identificationof which as a

chicken may not be entirelysecure.

49. See appendix:7; cf. Ar.jqmphia-

raos,r. 17 (PCG), iscussedbelow

(pp. 332-333). Outside of private

sacrifice,hickensend o be offered

withothervictims:he rooster aR£x-

[puova])

in

LSAM 67

B, line 3, is of-

fered ogetherwitha number f other,

larger nimals;he chickens/roosters

(xaRatg) inLSCG 60, lines5,6, 23, are

offeredn connection ithcattle acri-

fice; nLSCG172, ine 4, xaRa8ta are

offered ogetherwitha goat.Three

chickens/roostersppearnLSCG 51:

the first aR£xTpuxv,ine 5) is probably

whollyburnt;he others aR£xTop£g,

line27) areoffered ogether.

50. As in examples and3 in the

appendix.

51. As in 4 and7 (cf.8) in the

appendix. oth4 and7 specifically

name he smallest nimal bird,

rooster and he argest bovine;

note he similarityo the present

tariff; nimals etween he smallest

and argest rereferredo in general

terms.

52. See appendix:, 3, and4. A

number,.e., 8£[xa], s unlikely ere

since he sumof ten obols s not a

fraction f a drachmasixobolsper

drachma)nd he sumof ten drachmas

wouldbe much oo high.

8/16/2019 Lupu (2003)

11/20

SACRIFICE

AT

THE AMPHIAREION

33I

In

line11,

utoOct)uL

aypreserveart

ofeither

nominal

,utoOct),uoe)

or verbal

orm

perfect

middle/passive

f 1ltoOoct)).

lease

of a priest-

hood53eemsunlikely. uring heHellenistic eriodhesaleof priest-

hoods

became

ommon

nparts f

AsiaMinor

ndadjacent

slands

ut t

is

rarely ttested

lsewhere.

n mainland

Greece

he practice

ppears

o

have

beenalmost

ntirely

voided.54

heoneallusion

o it

in asacred

aw

from

he

mainland

omes rom he

early-2nd-century

.C. document

f

anAthenian

ultic

ssociation,

EGXXXI

122, ines

17-18.Considering

this,

otherpossibilities,

uch

as easing

f sacred

roperty55

r contracting

services

ssential

or he

performancef

cult,56eem

more

probable.

Inline

12,qc4X[v]

i.e., irewood;

vXa

andppoyava

arecommon)

is,as Chaniotis

uggested,

likely

eference

o theprovision

f

wood or

sacrifice.57

THE

NEW

FRAGMENT,

LSCG

69,

AND

PRE-INCUBATION

SACRIFICE

It

should

ynowbe

clearhat ines

1-5 of the

new ragment

elateo

sac-

rifice;

hesame s

probableor

ines10-13.

It is difficult

o

determine,

however,

hether

heseareself-contained

ections

ndwhat

heirrela-

tionship,f

any,s to

eachother.

imilarly,heir

elations

othe

tariff rea

matteror

conjecture

nd t is not

clearwhether

he entire

ocument

as

general,.e., ntended

o

consider

ifferentspects

fsacrificial

ctivity

t

the

Amphiareion

like

LSCG69, lines

25-36),

or specific,

egulating

.

. .

parecu r

actlv1ty.

Moreprecisions possiblendefininghetarifftself lines6-9) be-

cause f its obvious

elationship

o

thestipulation

fLSCG

69, ines

30-

31. Like

LSCG

69,the tariff

dealswith

offerings

madeby private

ndi-

viduals.

Bothallow

hese ndividuals

choiceof animal.

Whereas

he

sacrificial

reedom

husenvisioned

s expressed

nLSCG

69 in a general

way,t is given

a more oncrete

orm

nthe

tariff ythe isting

f possible

victims.As we

have een,

hestipulation

f

LSCG69affects

re-incuba-

tion

acrifice;

suggesthesame

was rue

or he ariff.

hesums

fmoney

mentioned

n the

tariff re ees

paidbefore

ncubation

or he

sacrificef

the animals

isted.

These ees

neednot have

anceled

heincubation

ee:

53.Suggested

y Chaniotis,

EG

XLVII488,citing

LSCG Suppl.

47;

Andros, st century

.C.

54.The

customs first

documented

in

thelate4th

century

.C.

See

GGR

II2,

pp.77-78, cf.

I2,p.732;

Debord

1982,pp.63-71;

Parker

ndObbink

2000,

pp.421-422,

n. 16.Most

evi-

dence omes rom

onia,Caria,

nd

Cos.ForChiossee

LSCGSuppl.

77-78.

The customs also

documented

n

Egypt Debord

982,p. 338,

n. 117).

Otherwiseee

Thasos:

SCGSuppl.

71

(2ndcentury

.C.;

saleof theeponymic

titleof

an association

f Sarapists);

Tomi a colony fMiletos):LSCG 7

(3rdcentury

.C.). A recently

ublished

fragment

romSamos,

GXII6 I

170,

is likely

o have

originatedn

the

Ionianmainland

Klaus

Hallof,pers.

comm.,

August 002).

55. Perhapsncluding,

y

analogyo

the charter

f theshopkeepers

t

the

SamianHeraion

IGXtI

6 I 169;

SEGXXVII

545), easing

f shops

such

as thosementioned

nI.Oropos

290, ine 18(see

appendix:

omment ).

56.If ,utcef3x,u

line11) pertains

o

"contractrice,"

s n the4th-century

B.C.

regulationsor heLesserPan-

athenaia,

SCG

3 B,line28.

57.See

axcZ,a:SCG 5,

line11;

LSCG uppl. 2,

line7 (discussed

e-

low,

p.332)._vXa:

LSCG

B, line25;

17 A b, line

6; 96, ine18;177,

ine39

LSCGSuppl.

, line 5;19, ines

86-92

passim;

EGXXXV

13, ines

21-22.

@puyava:SCG

A,lines

2,8-9; B,

line 6;

D, lines5-6;

28 (SEGXLVI

173),

ines2-8 passim,

2;

151 C,

lines13-14.

8/16/2019 Lupu (2003)

12/20

332

ERAN LUPU

incubationeeswould e paidatthevery utset f theprocess;58acrificial

feeswouldbe paidupon acrifice.59

Pre-incubationacrificemayhavebeen he mostcommon ccasion

for sacrifice t the Amphiareion,ut otheroccasionsmusthaveexisted,

including erhaps thanksgivingfferingorthe cure60r evensacrifice

to otherdivinities, articularlyhosewhosenameswere nscribedn the

great ltar.61he tariffmaybe as concerned ithsuchoccasions swith

pre-incubationacrifice. et, n oracularndhealing anctuarieseesare

predominantlyonnectedo consultation.62he fragmenthares eyele-

mentswithpre-incubationocumentsrom anctuariesf Asklepios nd

a comparisonuggestshat t is not impossibleor the documento be

concernedn its entirety ithpre-incubationacrifice. rovisionf fire-

wood GCat) s mentionedlongsidether tems barley roats, reaths)

needed orthe pre-incubationacrificet the Epidauriansklepicionn

LSCG Suppl.

22 (4th century .c.).63 rospectivencubants recharged

halfan obolforwood or the sacrifice f a suckling ictimandan obol

forwood or hesacrificef a full-grownictim.64 I.Perg. II 161 2nd en-

turyA.C.)65rescribesableofferingsA, ines7-8) and hree bols o be

put n thethesaurosA 8, lines22-23) at pre-incubationacrificest the

Pergamenesklepicion.hevery ragmentaryacrificialegulationser-

taining o the cultof AsklepiosromAmphipolis,EGXLIV505 (ca.

35S300 B.C.), mentionncubationlines , 8),onedrachmaline ),money

(line11), andpossibly aymentline15);evenwithout he restorations,

pre-incubationacrifices very ikely.Onecanpursueuchanalogiesur-

ther6but avoid oing o since he ragmentarytate f thepresent ocu-

mentcalls orcaution.

Sheep fleece is known o have been ascribedparticular urifi-

catory alue.67ubstituting chicken or a ramwould eemridiculous.

Yet, he notionof substitution aywell be anachronistic,ndone also

mightwonderwhatrole he chicken Yl R£Xovxv) lays t theAmphi-

areionn Aristophanes'mphiaraos.68erhapst wouldbe sacrificeds a

58. LSCG 9, ines20-22, zzaplxrlv

8z 8C8ouvoXuuzABovTa3zpaszvzcef3at

vlso Tov 3zou X: Whoeverntends o

be healed y the god shallpayas a fee,

etc.Cf.LSCG uppl.35, ines3-5.

59. The sequence f payment-sacri-

fice-incubations in factevident n the

arrangementf LSCG 9.

60. Cf.LSAM24, ines30-36

(Erythrai,380-360.C.). In Pausanias's

timepersons ured t the Amphiareion

expressedheirgratitude y throwing

money nto the god's acred pring

(1.30.4). nI.Perg.III 161 A, lines31-

33 onephokais orApolloandone for

Asklepios re o be put ntothethesau-

rosas paymentor he cureat the Per-

gameneAsklepieion.

61. On thesedivinities ee Petrakos

1968,p. 96; Schachter 981,p.26. For

othergodsat the Amphiareionee

also . Oropos 82-283,336(?),345(?),

347(?),357,392, 63. On sanctuaries

of othergodsat Oropos ee Petrakos

1968,pp.54-55. Sacrifices,bviously

public, oth o Amphiaraosnd he

othergodsof the Amphiareionre

referredo in the honorific ecree,

I. Oropos

97, ines14-15 (332/1

B.C.).

62. See Sokolowski 954,pp.153-

154, 158 (Petropoulou's1991,pp.25-

26] interpretationf the fees nLSCG

Suppl.22 seemsmore orrect) ndadd

SEGXLIV505 and .Perg.III 161A,

lines8, 22-23.

63. Fuller ext n Peek1969,no.

336;see,on this nscription, etropou-

lou 1991.

64. Cf. n thisrespect SCG Suppl.7

(IGI3129)where irewood eems o

be providedperhaps ith a payment)

for he sacrifice f a suckling ig.It is

a purificatoryffering utthe cult n

qUeStlOn 1S un nown.

65.The law tself s probably uite

a bit earlier. ee M. Worrle'sommen-

tary, .Perg. II,pp.169-170.

66. Forexample, nalogyo LSCG

Suppl. 2 could uggest hat [- - -]v

xpa [- - -] (line10) mighthave ome-

thing o do withprovision f otherpre-

incubationtems uchas the barley

groats ndwreathsmentionedhere.

67. SeeJameson t al.1993,pp.83,

95. For he use of fleece n the purifi-

cation f a murderer,ddLSCGSuppl.

115B,line52.

68. Fr.17;note,on the roleof the

chicken,Kaibel'somment uoted n

PCG II 2, p. 42.The playwaspro-

duced n 414B.C.; seePetropoulou

1981,pp.57-58.

8/16/2019 Lupu (2003)

13/20

SACRIFICE

AT THE AMPHIAREION

333

thanksgiving69

r otheroffering. erhaps

hosewho

wouldbeincubants

brought

t to offerbefore ncubation.

fterall, they

mighthaveknown

thatattheAmphiareioneach ersonhall eallowedo offer nythinge

wishes."70

CONCLUSIONS

TheAmphiareion,

oundedn the ate5th

century,ecamen

the course

ofthe4thcentury prosperous

ndpopular

ealing anctuary.hese

ears,

duringwhich he powers

ontrollinghe

Amphiareionhanged

epeat-

edly,7l

remarkedy ntensive uilding

ctivity,72ndoubtedly

rompted

bythegrowing

opularityf the cult.With

thegain npopularity

amea

growingeed o

codify ultic ctivity.t was

necessaryo update

heearli-

estknownacredaw romheAmphiareion,

SCG

Suppl.35,hichprob-

ablyprecedeshe

King's eace 387/6

B.C.) andhasunfortunately

eached

us in an extremely

ragmentarytate.

The updatedaw,

LSCG69, dating

frombetween 87 and

377 B.C., regulates

he dutiesof the

priest, he

neokoros,

nd heconduct

f worshippers;ets

down ules or ncubation;

anddeals

n a general ay

with acrificetthesanctuary.73

t is sufficiently

well

preservedo be identified sa

generalawcode or

heAmphiareion,

summarizinghe

policies overning

ifferentspects f the

sanctuary's

. .

.

actvltles.

But actorsuchasthe

growing opularity

f thesanctuary,wish o

takeadvantage

f this situation,74

ncreasinguilding ndmaintenance

costs, nd hechange

frulers esultedn a

continuingeed o

reworkhe

regulationsvenafter hepublicationf thecode evidentn theerasures

it underwent.

he incubation

eechanged:SCG Suppl.

35, line6, had

required

t eastoneBoiotian rachma;

nLSCG69, ines

22-23,thesum

of nolessthan

nineobols,payable

n any egalcurrency,s inscribed

na

rasura.75

The stipulationnLSCG

69, line30, which

hadoriginallyro-

nounced

ll skinsof sacrificial

ictims acred

roperty,asat one point

erasedhough

o new nformationasgiven.76

nLSCG69, ines

24-25,

69.Cf. the "Rooster

o Asklepios"

(P1.Phdr.

118a); eeEdelstein

nd

Edelstein 945[1998],

, nos.482,

523-531; I, pp.

188-190.

70.

Healingat the Amphiareion

cannoturther oncern s here. t

did notnecessarily

ndwith ncuba-

tion,but

ittlecanbe saidwith any

certaintyxcept hat he fragments

of Aristophanes'Amphiaraos

nd

anecdotal

ommentsn latesources

(Philostr.

VA .37: hree-days'

bsten-

tion fromwine and

a one-day bsten-

tionfrom oodprior

o incubation;

Geoponica

I 35.8:abstentionrom

beansn the cult

of Amphiaraos)

suggest

complex rocess. ordietary

practices

ee n generalDeubner

900,

pp. 14-17.

71.

Forchronologyee Petrakos's

testimonia

n I. Oropos95-502,up-

dating

Petrakos968,pp.22-32.

72.Especially

etween 77and

338B.C.

Fora summaryeePetrakos

1968,pp.68-70.

73.For he relations

etweenhe

two documents

nd heirdates, ee

Petropoulou

981,pp.55-63

(esp.

pp.58-59),where

he argueshat

LSCG

uppl. 5,whichrequires

o

lessthan

one Boiotian rachma

s an

incubation

ee, ought o antedate

he

King's eaceand

he dissolution f the

Boiotianeague.

ShedatesLSCG 9

between

87 and377B.C., whenOro-

poswas

autonomousndaccepted

paymentn any egal

currencyrom

the incubants.

hesedatesareaccepted

by Petrakos

n I.Oropos, . 439;

cf.,

however,

noepfler'seservations,

sp.

1988,

p.233; 1992,p. 452;1998,p. 105,

n.28.

74."Greediness

esides t

Oropos"

_ 7

qv Xuzvtoxoocav xaTotxv zv

'Qtoz) [Dicaearchus]

GMI 104.25,

cf.100-101.7

(=FHG II 259-260.25,

cf. 256-257.7);

Durrbach 890,

pp.83-

84.

75.

See Petropoulou981,

pp.62-

63;cf. p. 54, suggestinghat

he raise

wasdue

o inflation.

76.

Petropoulou1981,pp.60-63)

suggestshat he

erasureeflectshe

inclusion f the

pentaeteric reater

Amphiareiamonghe Athenian

esti-

vals ubject

o Lykourgos's

ermatikon

tax(for he festival ee above,

.5).

8/16/2019 Lupu (2003)

14/20

334

ERAN

UPU

an

rasure

ffected

ither

he

preceding

iscussion

f

incubation

r

the

following

ection

n

sacrifice;

n

lines

37-38

two

more

rasures

ffected

theiscussionfincubationesumedn

line

36.77

The

exigencies

hat

brought

bout

hese

changes

mighthaveocca-

sioned

urther

egislation,

nd

he

extant

acred

aws,

LSCG

Suppl.

5

and

LSCG

9,

may

represent

nly

a

part

of

a

larger

roup

f

related

ocu-

ments.

he

new

fragment

s

likely

o

belong

o

this

group.

As

we

have

seen,

close

relationship

etween

he

sacrificial

ariff

nd

he

stipulation

in

SCG

69,

ines

30-31,

s

obvious.

esides

ntroducing

new

source

f

income

assuming

hat

he

sacrificial

ee

did

not

abolish

he

incubation

fee),

he

tariff

may

epresent

wish

o

elaborate

pon

he

general

tipula-

tion

f

LSCG

69,

ines

30-31,

or

state

t

in

more

precise

erms.78

hether

a

omparable

ish

o

elaborate

pon

he

sacrificial

olicies

f

the

sanctu-

ary

egarding

single

vent

or

multiple

vents

motivated

he

publication

ofhe awI cannotaywithanycertainty.

ikewise,

he

variables

re

oo

many

o

determine

hen

exactly

t

was

published,

ywhom, nd orhow

long

t

was

n

effect.

The

importance

f

this

fragment

oes

beyond

ndicating

hat

cult

administration

as

a

dynamic

matter

t

he

Amphiareion

t

Oropos

n

the

4th

entury

.C.

Studied

n

the

ight

of

other

available

vidence

or

sacri-

fice

at

the

sanctuary,

he

fragment

nforms

s

about

he

cult

tself

by

sup-

porting

he

notion

hat

he

rules

ffecting

he

pre-incubation

acrifice

t

the

Amphiareion

ere

more

lexible

han

hey

appear

rom

Pausanias's

account.

his

is

by

no

means

o

discredit

ausanias,

ho

no

doubt

pro-

vides

an

accurate

escription

f

the

norms

revailing

t

the

Amphiareion

in

his

time.

t

is

only

o

suggest

hat

hese

norms

were

not

necessarily

he

rule, t eastnotsome400years arlier.

77.

Cf.

Petropoulou's

iscussion

(1981,

.

61).

78. Various easonsmayunderlie

the

eed

for

precision.

For

example,

providing

list

of

animals

would

make

it

lear

that

the

choice

of

victim

was

not

imited

to

animals

commonly

offered,

ut

also

included

some

not

commonly

ffered

such

as

a

bird/

chicken.

Permission

o

sacrifice

a

spe-

cific

animal,

perhaps

a

chicken

(see

n.

8

above),

s

explicitly

given

in

LSCG

161

A,

lines

2-3,

5-7,

because

hat

animal

was

not

a

customary

victim

(C£o£a

Ta

vo,uCo,u£v[a]

ine

2)

and

the

permission

was

not

self-evident.

8/16/2019 Lupu (2003)

15/20

A P P EN D IX

SAGRI FlGIAL

TARI FFS

The term acrificial

ariff susedhere efers

nly o listsprescribing

ay-

ment n cash

withorwithout aymentn kind

or hesacrificef

victims

listed longside.hebest

examplef sucha list

s theca. ate-4th o early-

3rd-century.C. Punic

nscriptionnown s the Marseilles

ariffCIS I

165;EdI69;COS1.98), omprising

wenty-oneartially

reservedines.

Comparablereek ariffs re horter

ndusuallyorm

ectionsnlonger

documents.

append erea list

of select epresentative

xamples ith a

few

technicalommentso support

mydiscussionbove.79

1 LSCG

45, ines2-7 (Peiraieus,th century

.C.). Thesacrificial

ee s

accompaniedy quite

xtensive rerogatives

n kind:

£aV 8£ TL5 Hvt

t 0£Xt T@V Op£@V@V

065 £X£aTt TOV

t£00V aT£X£65 aDToUg

HV£LV

[£]av 8£ t86Xv5 TL5Hvut t

H£XttaovaL Tft t£p£aL

yaXaHNvov £V:

IC:

[X]aL To

8£pMa MaL MXV 8Lav£[X]f

8£6Lav7 Tov 8£

T£X£0V: 1ll: MaL

8£pMa MaL

[X]XXYIV MaTa TavTa, 005 8£:

IC:MaL To 8£pMa-

8taovaL 8£ Ta

c

,

t£p£XAVVa

T@-

[V £]V

0N[£]t@V Tt t£p£aL,

T@V 8£ pp£V@V T@t t£p£t

Whenoneof the

orgeoneswhoshare he

sanctuaryacrificeso the

goddess,80hey hall

acrificereeof tax.

Whena privateerson

sacrifices

o thegoddess, e

shallpay hepriestessora suckling

victim

neandahalfobolsand he skin

and he righteg n its

entirety;ora full-grown

ictimhree bols

and heskinand he

thigh nthe sameway; ora

bovine neanda half

obolsand he

skin.Priestly

rerogativesrom

emale ictims hallbe given

o the

priestess;

hose rommale ictims o the

priest.

2 Iscr.CosED 216 B,

ines4-8 (Cos, a.225

orca.175s.c.).81

woman

who sacrificeso Dionysos

Thyllophoroshallgivethe

priestesss pre-

rogatives

T£p):

79.

Fora general iscussionee

Sokolowski

954; f. Parker nd

Obbink 000,pp.437-438.

80.Bendis.

81.

Cf. the ater aleof thispriest-

hood,

LSCG166, ines62-65. The

date

is according

o ParkerndObbink

2000,p.422.

8/16/2019 Lupu (2003)

16/20

8/16/2019 Lupu (2003)

17/20

SACRIFICE

AT THE AMPHIAREION

337

collected,

hecouncilnd

hepeoplewoulddeliberate

nthededicationr

construction

orTheo(a)genes

nwhich t should e

spent:

TovsOvovocac: @£0y£VN L

[E)a]cw[t]t

asatoX£aOaL65TOV

H-

cwavtoov

£Rassov ODOXOV-

Thoseoffering

acrificeo Thasian

heogeneshallpay o

the

thesauros

ot ess hananobol.

The

verb£u,BaBA£vs used

n thefollowing

xamples:

6 LSCG125(Mytilene,

ndcentury.C.)

enumeratesictims,hedistri-

butionftheir

arts, nd ums f money

nowlost)obeput nto

athesauros,

obviouslys a fee for he

sacrifice. pecific

arts hatare o be

placed n

the cult ableprobablyo to the priest.Thephrase

£VDa]X£TO £65 TOV

HNcwa[vtoov]ccursn line

5 and anbe securely

estoredn lines

7-8. Lines

6-8 read:

vac.o dj£ %£

aaaVZO[8a oUtl voa]-

[s£4X]sHx

£V tav[a, £65 8£

TOV H]-

[cwavto]ov

VpaX£[TO-

- -]

Whoeveracrifices

hare hallplace n

the cult able he sameparts

(describedn lines2-3)

andput nto he

thesauros- - -].

7

LSCGSuppl.108, ines8-12

(Rhodes,stcentury

.C.):

%a0' dtTovs Hvovta

£VDaX£LV

£65 TOV H-

ceavtoovDoos

Aa', X[v]

aBAxv

T£TtoaZo8Ov

[.]

a£%TOtOOS

£ .

Whoever

acrificesnthe adyton

hallput ntothe

thesaurosne

drachmaora bovine,

halfadrachma?]orother

quadrupeds,

fifth(?)87

fa drachma

ora rooster.

8 LSAM 73,

lines29-32 (Halikarnassos,

rd century .C.),

stipulates

the preparationf a

0Ncwavtoosor he goddess

Artemis ergaia)

ndre-

quires

lines30-35)that:88

£V,8aX£TOAaV 8£

06

HVOVT£5 £zt

£V TO T£X£LOt OOXOV5

aV0, £zt

8£ yaRaH£tvt

OpOXOV avotyovv

8£ 06 £6£-

Tacwtat

%aT' £vGavTv Tov

HNcwavtoovat8tAd>o[v]-

- c

o oo \ v o ff

\ r

TOV t t£t0£LaL

65 T£ zV £st%0V0LaV

1 %t £65 }

{[t]uatoRuov} at65

tRuatoRuovaLt5

[- - -].

Thoseofferingacrifice

hallput n two

obols ora full-grown

victim nd

anobol ora suckling

ictim.Theexetastai

hallopen he

thesaurosnnually

ndgive o

thepriestessor heepikouria

acrifice,

for

clothing nd or

[- - -].

87.In line 12,

E maydenote"a ifth"

(seeLSCG

Suppl., . 177);Kaminski

(1991,p. 180)understands

iveobols,

whichmakes hefee onlyone

obol

shortof the drachma aid or

a bovine.

88.I correct okolowski's

exton

the basisof notes

n Syll.31015.

8/16/2019 Lupu (2003)

18/20

338

ERAN LUPU

COMMENTS

1.Animals re isted, ysize,accordingo species2,3, 7),age 8),orboth

(1, 4). Sometimes nly he largest ndsmallest renamed 4, 7). When

classificationccordingo species s used, ubclassificationccordingo

age maybe employed2, cf. 4). The order s eitherascending1, 2) or

descending3,4, 7, 8). Similar rinciplesanbeobservedn theMarseilles

Tariff, hich s arrangedn a descendingrder.

2. The feegenerallyncreasesccordingo the sizeof animal3, 4, 7, 8).

3. In 1 andprobably, where hemoneys explicitlyaid o be a part f the

priestly rerogatives,nequal ubtotalalue f cashand n-kind reroga-

tives eems o be intended.n 1 the differencesetweenhe prerogatives

in cashand n kindbetweenhe full-grownnon-bovine)nd he bovine

victimsmaybe dueto an equalityn the combined alueof the prerog-

atives,.e., heskinof a bovine lusoneanda halfobols qualedhevalue

of the skin and the leg of a non-bovineull-grown ictimplus three

obols.Comparehe differencesn prerogativesn the adult/yearlingat-

. *

egorles ln z.

A similar rinciple ightbe observedn thefragmentaryatin ariff

Kfromome,CILVl 820.The following oints hould, owever,e noted:

1) Even n 1 theyearling oesnot conformo thisprinciple. he reason

maybe a wish to allowa moreaffordableffering.Significantly,he

Marseilles ariff asa special ategoryor the poor line15):"For ach

sacrificehata person oor n cattle r n bird acrifices,he priests hall

not receive a thing]." ) The cashplus n-kind alueof the bovine n 2

seems reaterhan hatof the full-grownon-bovineictims.

4. The animal sually ppearsn the genitive.Ewtwith he datives also

possible s n 4 and8. Example employs n entirely ifferentonstruc-

* * * r

hon constseng t twoc auses.

5. Privateacrifices evidentwhere he contexts clear 3 is not clear). n

the moredetailedMarseilles ariff,ines16-17 consideracrificeffered

bygroups: Any ssociation,nyclan,any ellow-drinkers'ssociationin

honor) f a god,andanymenwhosacrifice- - -] thesemen shall ay]a

fee for eachsacrifice ccordingo what s set in the writtendocument

[- - -]."Even t doesnotdiscuss ublic acrifice.he Delphictelanosar-

iffs,prescribingultic eespaidby particularitiesand heir nhabitants,

area differentase; eeLSCGSuppl. 9 (CIDI 8) and41, ines8-12(CID

I 13);cf.38 A (CID I 7), lines25-32; CID I 1.

6. Awapx£aOats.£,BaBA£v.oth erbs rescribehedepositionf money

in the

hesauros.

hereas,ulaV£v imply eferso theaction,

wapx£sHat

definest as anoffering.89

7.Money ormallyncludedn priestly rerogativess givendirectlyo the 89. See LSJ .v. I 2, III;cf. Parker

priest 1,2). andObbink 000,p. 436.

8/16/2019 Lupu (2003)

19/20

SACRIFICE AT THE AMPHIAREION

339

8.Whenathesauros

s involved, hoeverascontrol ver t is in control f

the money obviously

, consideringhe list of those

n chargenscribed

above he tariff; lso4, S, 8). The moneymaybe divided etween he

priestess nd he divinity 4). In

8, money iven o thepriestesss to be

used orcult-relatedxpenses.n

4 and5, sacredmoneys used orsacred

expenses.

The treatment

f money rom heAmphiareion's

hesauross known

in twocases,.

Oropos90, ines13-25and324(LSCG

0),lines33-39.In

thefirst ase, he

decree f Pandios369/8B.C.),90 thepriests requiredo

use wenty rachmasrom hemoney

ollectedn the hesaurosor nscrib-

ing a stelewith hesyngraphaiescribing

he repair orks f thefountain

and heconditions

ccordingo which heyhavebeen eased ut.Therest

ofthe money rom

he hesaurosndmoney rom heshops

hould eused

foran ap£orr tov9l nd orreimbursing

heneokoros;he remainders to

be handed vero those n chargef sacred orkswhoare o transfert to

the contractor.

n the late-3rd-century.C. ex-voto

decree. Oropos24,

lines33-39(LSCG

70 contains nly ines1-52 of the

nscription), oney

from hethesauross spent n the

course f melting lddedications.

90. See Knoepfler986.

91. A special acrifice

madeupon

the occasion f alterations

o divine

property.ee Stengel1920,p. 134;

Rudhardt 992,p. 269.

REFERENCES

Chaniotis, ., andJ. Mylonopoulos.

2000."Epigraphiculletin f

GreekReligion 997 EGBR

1997),"Kernos13,pp. 127-237.

COS = W. W. Hallo,ed.,The Context

of Scripture :

CanonicalComposi-

tionspromhe BiblicalWorld,

Leiden1997.

Debord,P. 1982.

Aspects ociaux t

economiquese a vie religieuse ans

IAnatoliegreco-romain, eiden.

Deubner, . 1900.

De incubatione

T . .

capzta uatuor,

elpzlg.

Durrbach, . 1890.

De Oropo t

Amphiarai acro,

Paris.

Edelstein, .J., andL. Edelstein.

1945 [1998]

Asclepius: ollection

and Interpretation

f the Testimo-

nies

I-II, repr., altimore.

Gill,D. 1991.Greek

Cult Tables,New

York.

I. Oropos V. C. Petrakos, c zc-

y,oorEfrov Q,orov, Athens

1997.

Iscr.Cos=M. Segre,

scrizionidi Cos

I-II (MonographieellaScuola

archeologicai AteneVl), Rome

1994.

Jameson,M. H., D. R.Jordan, nd

R. D. Kotanski.

993.A lex sacra

from SelinousGRBM11),Durham,

N.C.

KAI = H. DonnerandW. Rollig,

Kanaanaischend aramaisch

Inschriften,nd

ed.,Wiesbaden

1966.

Kaminski, . 1991."Thesauros:

Untersuchungenumantiken

Opferstock,"JdI

06,pp.63-181.

Knoepfler, . 1986."Undocument

attique reconsiderer:

e decret e

Pandios ur 'Amphiareion'Oro-

pos,"Chiron

16, pp.71-98.

. 1988.Rev.of SEGXXXI,

XXXII, ndXII, in Gnomon 0,

pp.222-235.

. 1992."Sept

nnees e re-

cherchesur

'epigraphiee Beotie

(1985-1991),"

hiron

22, pp.

411-

503.

. 1998."Le

ronca offrandes

d'unneocoreretrien,"AntK41,

pp. 101-115.

Le

Guen-Pollet,

. 1991."Espace

sacrificielt corpsdes betes mmo-

lees:Remarquesur e vocabu-

lairedesignant

apart du pretre

dans la Grece

antique,e l'epoque

classique l'epoque

mperiale,"n

L'espaceacrificiel

ans es civilisations

8/16/2019 Lupu (2003)

20/20

E

RAN LU

PU

34°

mediterraneennes

e

'antiquite,

R.

Etienne

nd

M.-T.Le

Dinahet,

eds.,

Paris,

p.3-23.

LSAM

= F.

Sokolowski,ois

sacrees e

IAsie

Mineure,

Paris

1955.

LSCG= F.

Sokolowski,ois

sacrees

es

citesgresques,aris

969.

LSCG

Suppl.= F.

Sokolowski,ois

sacrees es

cites

resques

Supplement),

Paris1962.

Parker, .,

andD.

Obbink.2000."Sales

of

Priesthoods

n

CosI,"

Chiron 0,

pp.

415-449.

Peek,

W.

1969.

nschriftenus

dem

Asklepieionon

Epidauros

AbhLeip

60.2),

Berlin.

Petrakos, .

C.1968. 'O

QgOCt)ZOf

XAC 10

CEpOV

OV

HvCpAOV,

Athens.

Petropoulou,. B.

1981.

"The

Eparche

Documents

nd he

Early

Oracle t

Oropus,"

RBS 2,

pp.39-63.

.1985."Pausanias.34.5: ncu-

bation n a

Ram

Skin,"n

La Beotie

antique.Actes

du

Colloque

nterna-

tional,

Lyon,

Saint-Etienne,

16-20

mai

1983, P.

Roesch

nd

G.Argoud,

eds.,

Paris, p.

169-177.

.

1991.

"Prothysisnd

Altar:

A

Case

Study,"n

L'espace

acrifi-

ciel

dans es

civilisations

mediterra-

ne'ennese

'antiquiteo, .

Etienne

and

M.-T.Le

Dinahet,

ds.,

Paris,

pp.

25-31.

Puttkammer,

.

1912."Quo

modo

Graeci

ictimarum

arnes

istri-

buerint"diss.

Konigsberg).

Robert,L. 1966.

"Sur n

decret

'Ilion

et sur

papyrus

oncernantes

cultes

royaux,"

merican

Studiesn

Papy-

rology

, pp.

175-211 (=

Opera

MinoraSelectaVII, Amsterdam

1990,

pp.

599-635).

Rudhardt, .

1992.

Notionsfondamen-

talesde la

pensee

eligieuse

tactes

constitutifs

uculte

dans a

Grece

classique,

nd ed.,

Paris.

Schachter,

A. 1981.

Cultsof

Boiotia

1

(BICS

Suppl.38.1),

London.

Sokolowski,F.

1954.

"Feesand

Taxes

in

the

Greek

Cults,"

HThR 47,

pp.

153-164.

Stengel,

P.

1920.

Diegriechischen

Kultusaltertumer,

rded.,

Munich.

van

Straten,

F.T. 1995.

Hiera

kala:

Images f

Animal

Sacrificen

Archaic

and

Classical

Greece,

eiden.

Eran

Lupu

TEL

AVIV

UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT

F

CLASSICS

P.O

BOX3

9040

RAMAT

AVIV,

TEL

AVIV

69978

ISR

AEL

e

lup u@

hotm

ai 1.co m