HESPERIA

72 (2003)

Pages32I-340

AM
F RAG

LAW

F ROM

E I O

I AR

P H

TH

AT

FICE

SACRI

AN
SAC

RY

E NTA

RO

A
R E D

POS

AB STRACT
sacrificeatie Amphiareion
Therulesandnormsaffectingthepre-incubation
278.The
herein lightof a newfragment,I.Oropos
at Oroposarereexamined
studyof thisfragmenttogetherwlthotherevidenceforsacrificeat the sanctuarysuggeststhat the rulesgoverningthe pre-incubationsacrificeat the
weremoreflexibleduringthe4thcenturyB.C. thantheyappear
Amphiareion
from Pausanias'slater descriptionof incubationon a ram'sskin. I.Orosacrifitariff.Representative
a sacrificial
pos278is shownhereto incorporate
cialtariffslistedin an appendixfurthersupportthisinterpretation.
OC 21CypOCf IOV Qprov, Vasileios
Amongtheineditainhismonumental
sacredlaws.1One of these,I.Oropos
Petrakosincludedtwo fragmentary
and
madeby IoannisPapadimitriou
in a transcription
279, is preserved
nowto be lost.The other,I. Oropos278 (= SEGXLVII488),is a
appears
Museum(inv.408),whereI
smallfragmentnowhousedat the Peiraieus
studiedit inJuly2001.
to ourknowlstate,thenewlawcontributes
Despiteits fragmentary
at Oroposduringthe 4th
practiceat theAmphiareion
edgeof sacrificial
froma
derivedprimarily
evidenceforthispractice
centuryB.C. Previously,
LSCG69 (I.Oropos277),and
passagein the greatcodeof the sanctuary,
rams.
ontheskinof sacrificed
(1.34.5)ofincubation
discussion
Pausanias's
I discussthesetwosourcesbelow,aswellas threevotivereliefsfromthe
andexplainits
thenewfragment
in anattemptto interpret
Amphiareion,
rulesandnormsat the
of sacrificial
for ourunderstanding
significance
of the new
Furtherevidencesupportingmy interpretation
sanctuary.
tariffslistedin the
fragmentcanbe foundin the examplesof sacrificial
appendix.

1. I amgratefulto the Greek

Ministryof Culture,the 2nd Ephoreia
andClassicalAntiquiof Prehistoric
Ephor,
ties,andGeorgiosSteinhauer,
to studythe stoneand
forpermission
to publishthe resultsof mystudy
of the squeeze.
andthe photographs

I wouldalsoliketo thankYannis
Museumfor
Samantasof the Peiraieus
in
his expedienthelp.Forassistance
permitsI am
obtainingthe necessary
gratefulto theAmericanSchoolof
ClassicalStudiesatAthens,especially
MariaPilaliandVenetiaBarbopoulou.

For criticismand suggestionsI am

gratefulto Kevin Clinton, Catherine
Keesling,and the anonymousHesperia
referees.
OC EXCygO=?ES TOV Qsorov is
referredto throughoutas I. Oropos.

American School of Classical Studies at Athens

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

www.jstor.org

n \

\e

ERAN LUPU

322

SACRIFICE IN LSCG 69
LSCG 69, whichprobably
datesbetween387 and377 B.C. (seebelow,
note73),regulates
the rightsanddutiesof thepriestandthe neokoros
at

theAmphiareion
andthebehavior
ofworshippers,
devotesanentireparagraphto sacrifice.
Thisparagraph
seemsto havebeenregarded
asunsatisfactoryinantiquity
andthestoneunderwent
erasures,
perhaps,
asAngeliki
Petropoulou
suggested,2
on threedifferentoccasions.
It is insertedin the
middleof the sectionof the lawthatregulates
incubation,
distinguished
fromit bythe rasurain line25 andbythe sacatin line36.
Petropoulou's
textrunsasfollows:3
Stoich.35
25 [ * * 9
t

28

p@09

t09

DzazuXs0at8z @vtzvoxv
zat zz-

z6Ttz697

0TaV

at0z6,

tt0zt

t09

oToev
8z ,uNwoetozt,
TovHuovToe.
zoetzt Huszt oeuTov zoCuTot zoeTzuxzsHoet
zzoesTov,
TXv 8z 8N,uotov

Tov

ttOzOt,V

og

uvo,uzvxv

zv Tot

tz-

tootwavv To8zto,uoe
[Czto[ov
ztwoe]
, Huztv8z ziLV

zAV

0Ty

AV

DX!TaL

zzasSt

T@V

8g

ZD0zZ

32 v ,urIztwoet
zz(potoNv
zix Touz,usvzog.t'Tot8z
e

asT0

TOV

tzD0zy OLOOUV S
(1),UOV,

09TaS
Gli(V

as
OTO(V

g0t0T!

TD

tzND
gy

T0Tz

gZ
8g

0t1T-

o v 8N,uotov Ra,uDoevXx
,uov oe(p'
zz0CoTou
U
36 -v0t) ztoNoov :)<
When he is present,the priestshallprayoverthe divineportions
andplace(them)on the altar;when he is not present,thosewho
offerthe sacrifice(shalldo so), and at the festival(X Hvoz), each
shallprayfor himself,while the priest(shallpray)overthe public
(victims). The skin of allvictimsofferedin the sanctuary[[shallbe]
sacred3;4
eachpersonshallbe allowedto offeranythinghe wishes
but meatshallnot be carriedout of the sacredprecinct.Those
offeringsacrificeshallgive the priestthe shoulderof the victims
exceptwhen the festivaltakesplace,on which occasionthe priest
shallreceivethe shoulderof eachone of the publicvictims.
LSCG69 distinguishesbetweentwo typesof sacrifice,namelyprivateand
public,anddeterminesthe rolesof the worshippersandthe priest.It does
not for the most partspecifythe occasionsfor sacrifice,probablybecause
these were regardedas self-evident.Only one occasionis mentioneddirectly,i.e., the festival5at which the priestwouldprayoverthe publicvictims (thoseprovidedby the state),while privatepersonswouldprayover
theirownvictims.Otheroccasionsfor sacrificearenot named;evensacrifice relatedto the sanctuary's
main activity,incubation,is not mentioned
directly,althoughincubationitself is discussedin relativedetail.6In respectto occasion,we learnonlythatworshippersoughtto handlethe sacrificethemselveswheneverthe priestis not present.
The law is morespecificin respectto priestlyprerogatives,
the treatment of the skins,the consumptionof the sacrificialmeat,andthe choice

2. Petropoulou
1981,pp.60-63.
3. Petropoulou
(1981,p. 44) suggeststhatthe vacatat the beginning
of line36 (andperhapsthe one at the
endof line35) resultedfromthe stonecutter'sattemptto avoidflawsin the
marble.Forthe useof vacantspaces
forpunctuation
in thisdocument,
seePetropoulou
1981,pp.43-44. In
line26, Petropoulou
printslo; PetrakosIOV. The photographs
in bothpublicationsshownu.
4. I.e.,it wouldbelongto the
sanctuary.
5. Twoapobatesreliefsdatingto the
late5th-early4th centuryB.C. seemto
be the earliestattestations
foran agonisticfestivalin honorof Amphiaraos.
The earliestvictorcataloguefrom
Oropos,I. Oropos520,datingbefore
338 B.C., mentionsthe GreaterAmphiareia,a pentaeteric
festivalto be distinguishedfromthe postulated
yearly
LesserAmphiareia
(Petrakos
1968,
p. 94;cf.Durrbach1890,p. 128).See
Petrakos1968,pp.194-198;Petropoulou 1981,p.56, n.54; forthe reliefssee
Petrakos1968,pp.121-122,nos.16,
17,pls.38,39.
6. Lines20-24, 36-52.

SACRIFICE

323

AT THE AMPHIAREION

as
in lines30-31 thatrefersto privatesacrifice,
ofvictims.The stipulation
the wordingot oevDokoet zzototos(whatevereachpersonmaywish)
of theworshippers,
leavesthechoiceof victimsto thediscretion
suggests,
is somevictimstheychoose.This stipulation
allowingthemto sacrifice
to sacrifice
In certainculticcontextsonefindsrequirements
whatpeculiar.
A prohibiothers.7
againstsacrificing
animalsor prohibitions
particular
whatcanbe sacrificed,8
by stipulating
indirectly
tionmightbe expressed
suchasthatin thepresentlawis
positivestipulation
butanall-embracing
exceptional.
onewishesmaycontrawhatever
thelicenseto sacrifice
Furthermore,
sacrificeat the Amphiareion,
dictwhatwe knowaboutpre-incubation
Wemight
of a specificanimal.
thesacrifice
whichseemsto havedemanded
thatthey
informworshippers
authorities
whythesanctuary's
askourselves
canofferwhatevertheywishwithoutmakinganyexceptionforthemost
if it allowedonlya specificanimal.
attheAmphiareion
commonsacrifice
andthevoForananswerwe needto considertheevidenceof Pausanias
tivereliefsfromtheAmphiareion.
PAUSANIAS AND VOTIVE RELIEFS
informsus
Pausanias
of theAmphiareion,
In thecourseof hisdescription
must
at the sanctuary
theworshippers
(1.34.5)thatpriorto incubation,
wasobtainedby offeringsacrificeto
Thispurification
purifythemselves.
Whilethe
onthealtar."
and"toallthosewhosenamesappear
Amphiaraos
thepurification
arenotclearfromthedescription,
specificsof thepractice
offeringseemsto havetakenplaceat thegreataltarof theAmphiareion.
of fivepartsbelonging
thealtarasconsisting
describes
In 1.34.3Pausanias
Zeus,
thefirstincludesHerakles,
to fivegroupsof divinities:
respectively
the second,heroesandtheirwives;the
andApollothe Healer(Iloetxv);
Amchildren,
and,of Amphiaraos's
third,Hestia,Hermes,Amphiaraos,
laso,Hygieia,andAthena
the fourth,Aphrodite,Panakeia,
philochos;9
Pan,andtheriversAcheandthefifth,thenymphs,
theHealer(Ilottxvtot);
corrobhasbeenatleastpartially
testimony
Pausanias's
loosandKephisos.
stelailstatingthattheybelong
of two4th-century
oratedbythediscovery
I. Oropos
withHermes:
(perhaps
together
andAmphilochos
toAmphiaraos
281).Pausaandto Hestia(I.Oropos
I['Ep,uo])
I'A,u(ptRoXo
280,'A,u(ptotpoto
prospective
riteshavebeencompleted,
niasaddsthatoncethepurification
incubantsmayproceedto the nextstage:theymustsacrificea ramon
whoseskintheywilllie downto sleep.l1
7. Forexample,the sacrificeof birds
"oranythingone mightwishexcept
in
is prescribed
he-goatsandshe-goats"
POxy.XXXE 2797.6(seeRobert
1966,pp. 192-210);LSCG114A
allowssacrificeof anythingonewishes,
More
butsheepandpigsareforbidden.
examplesarelistedbelow,ns.8,21-22;
cf.n. 78.
8. SeeParkerandObbink2000,

pp.416-417,lines4-5. LSCG161
CosED 62),A, lines2-3,5-7,
(Iscr.
victims
whichmentionscustomary
notesthat
(Ct0C0t TA VOMC4OV[a]),
sacrificeof a certainotheranimalis
permitted,evidentlybecausethisani(Socustomary
malwasnot considered
i.e., chicken,
xockocMcov,
kolowski's
makesgoodsensebutthe exactrestoracf.M. Segre'snote
tionis uncertain;

here).Seein generalRobert1966,
pp.196-197.
9. Or"thechildrenof Amphilochos,"whichis lesslikelyconsidering
280 (discussedimmediately
I.Oropos
comments,
below);seePetrakos's
p. 185;alsoSchachter1981,
I.Oropos,
p.26, n. 3; Durrbach1890,p. 111.
10. Petrakos1968,p. 96.
11. Cf. Durrbach1890,pp.131-132.

.*H

's
li5;aju
t0

z+Lirme*S
,,'
,

r, '

.,

'A-

Xk
K
_

,t--

,,

^,

o)
.....

;t

,>

....

ERAN LUPU

324

Figure1. Fragmentary4th-century
B.C. votiverelieffromthe Amphiareionat Oroposshowinga pig anda
sheepbeingled to sacrifice.Athens,
NationalArchaeologicalMuseum,
inv.1395. CourtesyNationalArchaeologicalMuseum,Athens

Pausanias's
testimony
hasagainbeencorroborated
byfurther
archaeologicaldiscoveries.
A fragmentary
4th-century
B.C. votiverelieffromthe
Amphiareionl2
depictstheincubant
onwhatis clearlysheepfleece.l3
Another4th-century
B.C. relieffromthesite(Fig.1) portrays
a family(man,
woman,child)withtwoattendants
leadinga sheepandapigto sacrifice.l4
As FolkertvanStratennotes,l5thepigorpigletwouldbeofferedforpurification;
thesheep,orrather,
ram,wouldbe offeredforits skin.Whatwe
havehereandin Pausanias's
description
is, in fact,a doublesacrifice:
the
firstis offeredto a groupof concerned
divinities;
thesecondis likelyto go
to themaindivinity.l6
Togethertheycomprisea preliminary
stepleading
to themainevent,incubation.
Despitetheevidenceof thesereliefsandof Pausanias,
thereis reason
to believethatwhilea ramwastheofferingof choiceforthepre-incubationsacrifice,
it wasnotalwaysmandatory,
norwassleepingonitsskin.As
bothPetropoulou
andvanStratenhavenoticed,l7
in additionto the licensegranted
inLSCG69, lines30-31,toworshippers
attheAmphiareion
12.Petrakos1968,p. 123,no.21,
pl. 41:b.
13. SeePetropoulou
1985,pp.170171.
14.Athens,NationalArchaeologicalMuseum,inv.1395;Petrakos
1968,p. 123,no.20, withp. 133,

pl.41:a;I.Oropos,p.182.
15. SeevanStraten1995,pp.73-74.
16.A similarprocessis seen not
wltnoutvarlants ln sanctuarles
ot
Asklepios.SeePetropoulou
1991,
esp.pp.26-27. Despitethe considerablemeritsof thework,the discussion
.

>

in EdelsteinandEdelstein1945
[1998],II, pp.186-187(testimonia
in I, pp.290-294,nos.511-517)is
outdated.
17.Petropoulou
1985,pp.175-176;
vanStraten1995,pp.73-74.

SACRIFICE

AT THE AMPHIAREION

325

Figure2. Relieffromthe Amphiareionat Oroposdedicatedto AmphiaraosbyArchinos(400-350 B.C.).

Athens,NationalArchaeological
Museum,inv.3369. CourtesyNational
Archaeological
Museum,Athens

18. Athens, National Archaeological Museum, inv. 3369. Note Georg

Kaibel'scomment on the linen cushion
and pillow in Ar.Amphiaraos,fr. 18,
quoted in PCG III 2, p. 43.
19. It is not inevitablethat at one
time or anotheronly one sacrifice
would be offeredor that bloodless
offeringswere employedin the sacrificial process;see Petropoulou1985,
p.l75.
20. So Petropoulou1985, p. 176.
But Archinos,who had not slept on a
ram'sskin,was wealthyenough to
afforda high-qualityrelief.
21. For prohibitionssee, 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 requirementssee, e.g.,
LSCG 140, line 4 (pig); 170, line 1
(goat).

to sacrifice
whatever
theywish,no animalskinis evidentin theArchinos
relieffromtheAmphiareion;
theincubant
is lyingon a sheetof cloththat
alsocovershimas his upperbodyrestsagainsta pillow(Fig.2; I. Oropos
344,400-350s.c.).18
I assumethatthesacrificial
reliefin Figure1 depictswhatwasorwas
becomingthe norm;in realityandin agreement
withthe stipulation
in
LSCG69, lines30-31,worshippers
couldchoosetheiranimals.19
Whether
thiswoulddependonfinancial20
orotherreasonsis noteasyto determine.
Onemust,however,
distinguish
betweenrulesandnorms.Greeksacrificialregulations
arein generalless concerned
with normalpracticeand
whatcanbeconsidered
commonknowledge
thanwithmodifications
of or
deviations
fromnormalpractice.
Forexample,normalpracticeincluded
thesacrifice
of goatsorpigsandthereis noneedfora lawto statethis.For
casesin whichthe sacrifice
of suchanimalswasundesirable,
it wouldbe
explicitly
forbidden,21
in thesamewayasthesacrifice
of a particular
animalmightbeexplicitly
prescribed.22
Thismayhelpto explainthestipulationin LSCG69, lines30-31.At theAmphiareion,
thesacrifice
depicted
inthesacrificial
reliefanddescribed
byPausanias
wasorbecamethenorm.
It wasnottherule,however,
atleastnotwhileLSCG69 wasin effect,and
thepossibility
of departing
fromthenormis thereasonwhythelawstates
thisruleso explicitly.
An indication
thatin the4thcentury
therulesallowedsacrificial
freedomcanbe foundin thenewfragment,
I. Oropos
278, whichincorporates
a sectionaddressing
thegenerallicenseto sacrifice
anything
onewishesin
a morespecificway,byproviding
a list of animals.Beforeproceeding
to
the interpretation
of thisfragment,
I presentheremytextbasedon autopsy,withrestorations,
epigraphical
commentary,
anda discussion
ofpreviousscholarship.

PLU
URAN
E

326

NEWFRAGMENT
THE
I.278

Fig.3

Oropos

Th. 0.08m
(bottom),
0.27,W. 0.071(top)-0.08
H.
space0.009m
0.005m;interlinear
0.007-0.008;O,(), andQ
L.H.
ca.0.023-0.028m
surfaceabovethe firstline
uninscribed
Surviving
on allsides.
of a whitemarblestelebroken [northof]
fragment
weathered
small,
A
behind
"Discovered
backsurvives.
rough-picked
original
The
andthe inscribed
cut
Thelettersarenot deeply
monument."23
7 is covered
Curio
the
in
partof the lastletter line
maybe
rather
is worn.The lower
which
face
side,
to be cementandthe left
the
Above
drop
a of whatappears
by
matter.
rough,corroded
thanbroken,is coveredby establishit as the originalfirst
rather
cut
thatmay
line,thereis vacantspace
ordifferent
first
a spacebetweenparagraphs
represent
may
likely,
less
or,
line,
documents.
Non-stoich.
IVa.
saec.

vacat

ZXfV

8,[Lav

rYlv

-]

[-

] TRaz4[

[-

-[

]aC,

4[- - - to]tzo86X[- - - - -] a

[-

- - -]

[- - - - - - -]

vvvvv

. (?)[-- -]
[- - ,UDa]XA69
- - -]
oD[oRov
oVo]vtHog
[- - -]
8[- - -]ogAvooD[oRovs/,
- -]

[-

[-

-]V

[-

Xtta

2[
[

] FLO0XFt

- - - - - - - ]

8[-

D00s

] oxtE[v
] [

]
]

Chaniotis| |

Petrakos;
Line1: [- - -]ac,[- - -]
[XXNv- - -?]Chaniotisl
Petrakos;
by
supplied
8i[Lav]
3:
Line
Chaniotisl
T[O aVoyvVoLov?]
[FDa]XLV
6:
Line
|
|
Petrakos
Line4.
- - -] Lupu
oU[oRov,
Petrakos;
Line 7: [- Lupu
- -] Petrakos;
Line8: oD[oR12. Petrakos
8 [- - -] Chaniotis Line
Line9: D00G
[T]ag

[oL8ag?]

oVo]vt0og

O[OXOVg/X7

-]

1 I

COMMENTARY
EPIGRAPHICAL
thoughwitha fewirregularinicelyexecuted
Thelettersare,onthewhole,andat timesrelatively
smallerin the lower
ties.Theyaremorecrowded
in I.Oropos,
23. B. Leonardos,
of T appearon
partof thefragment.
tips
bottom
monument
and
the
left
For
upper
letterthan p.183,no.278. E, no. 15.
Line1. Whatlooklikethe
preceding
the
to
closer
is
pl.
tip
left
see no.444 and
thestone,althoughtheupper mightbe a scratch.
and
stone
the
on
T is elsewhere

SACRIFICE

AT THE AMPHIAREION

327

Figure3. I. Oropos278. Photographs

of squeezes,takenin differentlight.
Photosauthor

Line 6. The lasttracemightbe takenfora lowertip of a somewhat

slantingstroke.The closestparallelis the left lowerstrokeof the Q in
line10 buta scratchis likely.
Line 7. : Thelowerpartof theletteris concealed
bywhatlookslikea
dropof cementandtherightpartis damaged
bythebreak.The letterP
(soPetrakos)
is possible.
Line 9. Beforethe B thereis a trace,verylikelya scratch,
whichmay
be themiddlepartof a verticalstroke.

COMMENTARY

24. I. Oropos,p. 183.

25. I.Oropos,p. 182.

26. ChaniotisandMylonopoulos
2000,p. 206.

Petrakos
datedthe inscription
to the 4th centuryB.C., identifying
it as a
sacredlawlistingofferings
andsacrifices
to a divinity.24
He referred
to this
inscription
in hiscommentonLSCG69, lines30-31,notingthatleaving
thechoiceof victimsto theworshippers
wasa resultof thebroader
policy
of the sanctuary
andaddinga reference
to the sacrificial
reliefdiscussed
above(Fig.1)andtoPausanias's
description
ofincubation
onaram's
skin.25
Theinscription
wasalsodiscussed
twicebyAngelosChaniotis.
InEBGR
1997 he observed
thatthefragment
seemedto concernsacrifices,
recognizingthementionof atableofofferings,
animals,
anamountoftwoobols,
anda leaseof anitemreferred
to by ,ua0x,uin line 11.26In SEGXLVII
488he suggested
[X]oeg
,u[otdoeg?]
in line1;8i[LAV M@XNV- - -?] in line3;

328

ERAN LUPU

and[Mp]XLV
T[0 atoyvtoLov?]in line6.27
In line2 he recognized
a form
of Tt0aZ4A, notingthatTt0aZ4X
andTt0aZ40@ werealsopossible.
In line9 he recognized
a 8 afterDoog.In line 11 he notedthatCo0Xy
suggested
thatthisdocument
"mayconcernthedutiesandrightsof a personwholeaseda priesthood."
Inline12 he recognized
a "provision
forthe
supplyof woodforsacrifices."
Despitethe extremely
fragmentary
stateof the document,it seems
possibleto distinguish,
if onlyforthe sakeof discussion,
betweentwoor
perhapsthreesections,the firsttwo dividedby the vacatin line 5. The
senseof lines6-9 is clear:thisis a sacrificial
tariffenumerating
requirementsforprivatepersonswho offersacrificeat the Amphiareion.
It relates,asPetrakos
hinted,to thestipulation
of sacrificial
freedomin LSCG
69,lines30-31. Sacrificial
contextis evidentin lines1-5 andprobable
in
lines10-13,althougharticulation
of thelatterlinesis considerably
more
difficult.
In line2 thepresenceof a culttableis enoughto suggesta sacrificial
contextand,moreprecisely,
a clausedealingwithdistribution
of theparts
of a victim.Culttablesarenormallymentionedin sacredlawsin such
clausesforthe simplereasonthatpartsof thevictimwouldbe placedon
them.28
In practice,
thesepartsarelikelyto havegoneto thepriest.29
As
Chaniotisnoted,botha verbalform30
and(perhaps
morelikely)a noun
arepossiblehere.If a nounis correct,one mightrestore[116 (8?) TNV]
TtOz4[V]
asin LSCG28 (SEGXLE 173) 3-4, 9, 10-11,14-15,18, 23
(wheretherestorations
aresecure).
Inline3, 8i[LAV] iS mostlikelya reference
to a partof avictim.KXN
(thigh,ham)suggestedby Chaniotisis veryprobable.32
Whena distinctionbetweenrightandleftlegsis made,rightlegsusuallygoto thepriest.33
It is therefore
verylikelythattherightthighis mentioned
hereandwould
be assignedto a priestasa prerogative
forthe sacrifice.
In line4 thepossiblereference
to a tripodcouldmakesensein a sacrificialcontextsincea tripodcan simplybe a three-legged
standfor a
cauldron
usedto cookthe meatof thevictims.34
Thisuseis evidenton a
27. Forline3, Chaniotiscitesthe
zMv 8Lavr[X]!
8rEtavreceivedby the
priestsin IG II21361(LSCG45),
line5 (seeappendix:
1). Forline6,
he citesI. Oropos276 (LSCGSuppl.35),
lines4-5, andIG VII235 (I.Oropos
277,LSCG 69),lines13 and40, allof
whichprescribe
depositionof moneyin
theAmphiareion's
thesauros.
28.The tableof Amphiaraos
is
mentionedin thelate-3rd-century
B.C.
I. Oropos324 (LSCG 70),lines4-5
(cf.line 10).It stoodinsidethe great
templebuiltaroundthe second
quarterof the 4th centuryB.C. (see
Petrakos1968,p. 69),wherea base
possiblybelongingto it hasbeen
discovered
(Petrakos1968,p. 99).
Cf. alsothe inscribedvotivecult

table,I. Oropos408 (3rdcenturyB.C.).

29.Thesepartsshould,of course,
be distinguished
fromdivineportions
puton the altar,consistingof inedible
organssuchasthighboneswrapped
in fat.On priestlyprerogatives
and
portionsandculttables,seePuttkammer1912,pp.1-16;Gill 1991,
pp.15-19;Le Guen-Pollet1991;
vanStraten1995,pp.154-155.
30. Forverbalforms(restored
instancesin brackets),
seeLSCG [64,
lines13-14];65, line86;125,lines2,
[7, 9];I.Perg.III 161A, lines1, 7.
31.Therearemanyexamples.
For
a fewrepresentative
casesseeLSCG
28 (SEG XLVI173),lines3-4, 9,
10-11, 14-15, 18,23; 163,line17;
LSAM24 A, lines15-20;I.Kallatis47,

line3 (LSCG90, line5).

32. Anotherpossibilityis ,utztoattoa
(halfthe head):LSCG28, lines4, 9,
[11, 15], 19, [23];29, line8; SEG
V
113,lines16, 17;cf.also
Amipsias,Connus,
fr.7 (PCG).
33. Leftlegsmaygo to the divinity
(whomighthaveto settleforonlythe
bones);so,too,as maythe left halfof
the head,asis mentionedin Amipsias,
Connus,
fr.7 (PCG). SeePuttkammer
1912,pp.23-25;forthe rightthighsee
alsoJamesonet al. 1993,p. 38.
34.Tripodswerededicatedat
Oroposat the sanctuary
of the nymph
Halia(Petrakos1968,pp.54-58;for
inscribedtripodbasesfromthissite,
somenowat theAmphiareion,
see
I.Oropos,
nos.511-516).

SACRIFICE

AT THE AMPHIAREION

329

Figure4. Fragmentof an Athenian

black-figurevolutecratershowinga
sacrificialscene.Athens,National
ArchaeologicalMuseum,inv.Akr
654. CourtesyNationalArchaeological
Museum,Athens

scene
volutecraterwitha sacrificial
fragment
of anAthenianblack-figure
meatin a lebeson
(Fig.4),35depictinginteralia thecookingof sacrificial
stands
Theoriginaluseof tripodsascauldron
topof a tripodovera fire.36
in sanctuaries.37
mayaccountforsometripoddedications
duringsacrifice
thenature
of lines5-9 isverydifficult,
Althoughtheexactrestoration
of theoriginaltextis hintedatbytheusein line7 of thegenitivecasefor
to a monetary
value;
tobeareference
theanimal,
followedbywhatappears
endingin line 8, followedagainby a possible
the possiblegenitive-case
value;andtheanimalin thegenitivecasein line9.
reference
to monetary
valueoccursin a
The formulaof animalin the genitiveplusmonetary
forthe
feesto bepaidbyworshippers
number
of sacredlawsthatprescribe
victims,withorwithoutlistingspecificpartsof the
sacrifice
of particular
privatesacrifice,38
tendto regulate
As thesedocuments
respective
animals.
thatarelesslikelyto appearin docutheymaymentionsmallanimals39
of meataredispublicsacrifice
inwhichlargequantities
mentsregulating
of thiskindmaybe retributed.40
Documents(orsectionsin documents)
examples
listof representative
tariffs.An annotated
ferredto assacrificial
is presented
in theappendix.
theto moneyputinthesanctuary's
[M5a]XLV,
referring
Chaniotis's
ofwhichattheAmphiareion
box),4l
theexistence
sauros(treasury/offertory
oD[oRov]
in line7
correct.
Restoring
is undoubtedly
iswelldocumented,42
inline8 seemsequallysecureto me.Thesumsof money
andoD[oRovg/X]
arelikelyto havebeenpaidneitherfor
here,however,
putin thethesauros
35. Athens,NationalArchaeological
Museum,inv.Akr654. Seefurthervan
Straten1995, pp.147-148, fig. 154.
vase
36. Cf.anAthenianred-figure
in the BritishMuseum(E 163) showingJasonandMedeaflankinga threeleggedcauldronovera firewitha live
raminsideandanothervasein Leiden,
Rijksmuseum
PC 32 (exCanino1345),
showingtwomennextto a similar
apparatus
witha boyinside;LIMCV,
1999, p.634, pls.59,62, s.v.Iason
(J.Neils).Fora pot,obviouslyfor
context,
cookingmeat,in a sacrificial
113, lines21-22,
seeSEGADU(V
[E]loBa
g16 TOV XUTpoV "woodforthe
pot"(cf.LSCG7 B, line25, andLSCG
Suppl.19, line92: ioBag16 TOV XpOV
"woodforthe altar").

37.Theiroriginaluseascultimplementscertainlyaccountsfordedicationsof culttablesandaltarsthathave
littleotheruse,butdoesnot necessarily
meanthatallsuchobjectswereusedor
intendedto be used;somemightbe
onlythe
representations
preserving
originalidea.Smalltripods(pso8Coxo)arementionedin the list of exvotosthatfollowsthe decreeconcerning old ex-votosin theAmphiareion
(late3rdcenturyB.C.; I. Oropos324,
lines65, 66 [LSCG70 hasonlylines14th52]) andin the fragmentary
list,I. Oropos19,
centuryB.C. inventory
line 10.A tripodis depictedon a votive
reliefof Apollo(secondhalfof the4th
centuryB.C.) fromtheAmphiareion:
Petrakos1968,p. 124,no.26, pl. 43:b.

38. See appendix:comment 5.

39. See appendix:6 (hare)and 7
(rooster).The bird in 4 may have a
cultic significancedue to its special
relationshipwith Aphrodite;see Parker
and Obbink 2000, p. 438.
40. See, e.g., LSCG 33 B; LSCG
Suppl.11; SEGXLV 1508 A.
41. For a study of which see Kaminski 1991; cf. Knoepfler1998; Parker
and Obbink 2000, pp. 436-438.
42. For the depositionof money in
the thesauros
of the Amphiareion,see
LSCG 69, lines 13,23,40; LSCG Suppl.
35, line 4. For the allocationof money
collected,see I. Oropos324 (LSCG70),
lines 33-39, and I. Oropos290, lines 1625, which are discussedin the appendix:comment 8.

33o

E RAN LU PU

incubation
(LSCG69, lines23, 40; LSCGSuppl.
35 [I.Oropos
276], line4)
norasa penalty(LSCG69, line13) but,asexamples
3-8 in theappendix
suggest,relatedirectlyto the animalsmentionedthereafter.
Thesesums
arefeesthatworshippers
wereto payforthesacrifice
of theseanimals.
The firstanimalmentioned(line7) maybe a chicken:the general
otoveg
refersmainly,
thoughnotexclusively,
to chickens.43
In thebeginning
ofline8, ]ogoughtto betakenasagenitiveendingreferring
to ananimal44
largerthantheotoveg,
sincetariffstendto listanimalsaccording
to size.45
A
number
of animals
suchashare(i.e.,doeovzovg,
[doeovzo8]og),46
goat(oe'eX,
[oety]og),47
or,if thebirdis nota chicken,chickenorrooster(0tXTt0V@V,
0tXT0V@V]0g;
ZXtg
[XXt8]og;48
XXT@t0,
[aRXt0t0]0g)49
arepossible.
Evidencecanbe citedforandagainsteachof thesepossibilities.
The nextanimalthatappears
in thetext(line9) is a bovine.Sincethe
line'slengthcannotberestored
withanydegreeof probability,
it is impossibleto knowwhichanimals(if any)werementionedin betweenand
whethertheywerenamedspecifically50
or referred
to generally
in classes
suchas"quadrupeds"
or"adult/young
victims.''5l
\ (suggested
byChaniotis)
followingDoogwouldideallydistinguish
thebovinefromsmalleranimals,
butV wouldordinarily
be required,
andasearlyasafter[oto]veHog.52
Littleelsecanbe saidwith anycertainty.
The senseof lines6-9 is,
however,
quiteclear.It is a sacrificial
tariff.The originalmighthavesaid
somethinglike[tg 8 TOV HYlaautoov
MDa]XLV
T[OVg HvovTag
(lacuna?)
oto]veHog
oD[oRov,(lacuna)[-- -]og dvo oD[oRovg/,(lacuna)]Doog
8[- -] (Those
whooffersacrifice
shallputin thethesauros
[- - -] anobol
fora bird[- - -], twoobolsfora [- - -] fora bovine[- - -]).
In line10 compare
for[- - -]v XtOtA [- - - -] SEG
1119,lines
28-29 (Nakone;
ca.earlyto mid-3rdcenturyB.C.):
zoeeToewoe Toev
Hvotoev
ooxvXtOtA

TaMeas

watrXT@-

aTt

ZR

The treasurer
shallprovideanythingelseneededforsacrifice.
The resemblance
mightbe coincidental,
but a similarphrase,assigning
the provision
of"anything
elsethatmightbe neededforthe sacrifice"
to
someone be it worshippers
or thesanctuary's
authoritieswouldmake
sensehere.
43. See Robert 1966, p. 196, n. 127.
Cf. LSJ s.v. opvLS
III.
44. See appendix:1-4, 7, and comment 4.
45. See appendix:comment 1.
46. See appendix:6.
47. A common victim but perhaps
too largeif it is to follow the bird
directly.
48. For the accent see LSJ s.v.
xaRatS,the identificationof which as a
chicken may not be entirelysecure.
49. See appendix:7; cf. Ar.jqmphiaraos,fr. 17 (PCG),discussedbelow
(pp. 332-333). Outside of private

sacrifice,
chickenstendto be offered
withothervictims:the rooster(aRx[puova])
in LSAM 67 B, line3, is offeredtogetherwitha numberof other,
largeranimals;the chickens/roosters
(xaRatg)
in LSCG 60, lines5, 6, 23, are
offeredin connectionwithcattlesacrifice;in LSCG 172,line4, xaRa8ta are
offeredtogetherwitha goat.Three
chickens/roosters
appearin LSCG51:
thefirst(aRxTpuxv,
line5) is probably
whollyburnt;theothers(aRxTopg,
line27) areofferedtogether.
50. As in examples2 and3 in the
appendix.

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

appendix.
Both4 and7 specifically
namethe smallestanimal bird,
rooster andthelargest bovine;
notethe similarity
to thepresent
tariff;animalsbetweenthe smallest
andlargestarereferred
to in general
terms.
52. See appendix:
1, 3, and4. A
number,i.e.,8[xa],is unlikelyhere
sincethe sumof ten obolsis not a
fractionof a drachma(sixobolsper
drachma)
andthe sumof ten drachmas
wouldbe muchtoo high.

SACRIFICE

33I

AT THE AMPHIAREION

partof eithera nominal(,utoOct),uoe)

maypreserve
In line11, ,utoOct)uL
A leaseof a priestof 1ltoOoct)).
or verbalform(perfectmiddle/passive
hood53seemsunlikely.Duringthe Hellenisticperiodthe saleof priestislandsbutit
hoodsbecamecommonin partsof AsiaMinorandadjacent
In mainlandGreecethe practiceappearsto
is rarelyattestedelsewhere.
The oneallusionto it in a sacredlaw
havebeenalmostentirelyavoided.54
of
A.C. document
fromthe mainlandcomesfromthe early-2nd-century
SEGXXXI122,lines17-18.Considering
anAthenianculticassociation,
orcontracting
suchasleasingof sacredproperty55
this,otherpossibilities,
seemmoreprobable.
of cult,56
servicesessentialfortheperformance
arecommon)
,vXa and(ppoyava
In line 12,qc4X[v](i.e.,firewood;
of woodfor
to the provision
a likelyreference
is, as Chaniotissuggested,
sacrifice.57
THE NEW FRAGMENT, LSCG 69, AND
PRE-INCUBATION SACRIFICE
relateto sacIt shouldbynowbe clearthatlines1-5 of thenewfragment
determine,
to
difficult
rifice;the sameis probableforlines10-13. It is
sectionsandwhattheirrelawhethertheseareself-contained
however,
to thetariffarea
theirrelations
tionship,if any,is to eachother.Similarly,
was
andit is notclearwhethertheentiredocument
matterforconjecture
activityat
general,i.e.,intendedto considerdifferentaspectsof sacrificial
a
(likeLSCG 69, lines25-36), or specific,regulating
the Amphiareion
parecuaractlv1ty.
Moreprecisionis possiblein definingthe tariffitself(lines6-9) beof LSCG69,lines30to the stipulation
causeof its obviousrelationship
madeby privateindiofferings
with
deals
tariff
the
31. LikeLSCG69,
a choiceof animal.Whereasthe
viduals.Both allowtheseindividuals
in LSCG69 in a general
is expressed
freedomthusenvisioned
sacrificial
way,it is givena moreconcreteformin thetariffbythelistingof possible
of LSCG69 affectspre-incubavictims.As we haveseen,the stipulation
I suggestthesamewastrueforthetariff.Thesumsof money
tionsacrifice;
of
forthe sacrifice
in thetariffarefeespaidbeforeincubation
mentioned
fee:
the animalslisted.Thesefeesneednothavecanceledthe incubation
.

53. Suggestedby Chaniotis,SEG

XLVII488,citingLSCG Suppl.47;
Andros,1stcenturyB.C.
54.The customis firstdocumented
in the late4th centuryB.C. See GGR
II2,pp.77-78, cf.I2,p. 732;Debord
1982,pp.63-71;ParkerandObbink
2000,pp.421-422,n. 16.MostevidencecomesfromIonia,Caria,and
Cos.ForChiosseeLSCG Suppl.77-78.
in
The customis alsodocumented
Egypt(Debord1982,p. 338,n. 117).
OtherwiseseeThasos:LSCG Suppl.71
(2ndcenturyB.C.; saleof the eponymic

of Sarapists);
titleof an association
Tomi(a colonyof Miletos):LSCG87
(3rdcenturyB.C.). A recentlypublished
fragmentfromSamos,IGXII 6 I 170,
is likelyto haveoriginatedon the
Ionianmainland(KlausHallof,pers.
comm.,August2002).
55. Perhapsincluding,by analogyto
at the
the charterof the shopkeepers
SamianHeraion(IGXtI 6 I 169;
SEGXXVII545),leasingof shops
suchasthosementionedin I.Oropos
comment8).
290, line 18 (seeappendix:
(line11) pertainsto
56. If ,utcef3x,u

price,"as in the 4th-century

"contract
forthe LesserPanB.C. regulations
LSCG33 B, line28.
athenaia,
LSCG55, line 11;
57. SeeaxcZ,a:
beLSCGSuppl.22, line7 (discussed
low,p.332). _vXa:LSCG7 B, line25;
17 A b, line6; 96, line 18;177,line39
LSCGSuppl.7, line5; 19,lines86-92
passim;SEGXXXV113,lines21-22.
LSCG2 A, lines2,8-9; B,
@puyava:
line6; D, lines5-6; 28 (SEGXLVI
173),lines2-8 passim,22; 151 C,
lines13-14.

332

ERAN LUPU

incubation
feeswouldbepaidattheveryoutsetof theprocess;58
sacrificial
feeswouldbe paiduponsacrifice.59
Pre-incubation
sacrificemayhavebeenthe mostcommonoccasion
forsacrificeat the Amphiareion,
butotheroccasionsmusthaveexisted,
includingperhapsa thanksgiving
offeringforthe cure60
or evensacrifice
to otherdivinities,
particularly
thosewhosenameswereinscribed
on the
greataltar.61
The tariffmaybe as concerned
withsuchoccasionsaswith
pre-incubation
sacrifice.
Yet,in oracular
andhealingsanctuaries
feesare
predominantly
connected
to consultation.62
The fragment
shareskeyelementswithpre-incubation
documents
fromsanctuaries
of Asklepiosand
a comparison
suggeststhatit is not impossiblefor the documentto be
concerned
in its entiretywithpre-incubation
sacrifice.
Provision
of firewood(GCat)is mentioned
alongside
otheritems(barleygroats,wreaths)
neededforthepre-incubation
sacrificeat the Epidaurian
Asklepicion
in
LSCGSuppl.22 (4th centurys.c.).63Prospective
incubantsarecharged
halfan obolforwoodforthe sacrificeof a sucklingvictimandan obol
forwoodforthesacrifice
of afull-grown
victim.64 I.Perg.III 161(2ndcenturyA.C.)65
prescribes
tableofferings(A,lines7-8) andthreeobolsto be
putin the thesauros
(A 8, lines22-23) at pre-incubation
sacrifices
at the
Pergamene
Asklepicion.
Theveryfragmentary
sacrificial
regulations
pertainingto the cultof AsklepiosfromAmphipolis,
SEG XLIV505 (ca.
35S300 B.C.), mentionincubation
(lines3, 8),onedrachma
(line4),money
(line11),andpossiblypayment(line15);evenwithoutthe restorations,
pre-incubation
sacrifice
is verylikely.Onecanpursuesuchanalogies
further66 butI avoiddoingsosincethefragmentary
stateof thepresentdocumentcallsforcaution.
Sheep fleece is knownto havebeen ascribedparticularpurificatoryvalue.67
Substituting
a chickenfor a ramwouldseemridiculous.
Yet,the notionof substitution
maywellbe anachronistic,
andone also
mightwonderwhatrolethechicken(YlaRXovxv)playsat theAmphiareionin Aristophanes'
Amphiaraos.68
Perhapsit wouldbe sacrificed
as a
58. LSCG69, lines20-22, zzaplxrlv
8C8ouv
ToXu
,uzABovTa
(3zpaszvzcef3at
vlso Tov(3zouxX:Whoeverintendsto
be healedby thegod shallpayasa fee,
etc.Cf.LSCGSuppl.35, lines3-5.
59.The sequenceof payment-sacrifice-incubation
is in factevidentin the
arrangement
of LSCG69.
60. Cf.LSAM24,lines30-36
(Erythrai,380-360B.C.). In Pausanias's
timepersonscuredat theAmphiareion
expressed
theirgratitudeby throwing
moneyintothe god'ssacredspring
(1.30.4).In I.Perg.III 161A, lines3133 onephokaisforApolloandone for
Asklepiosareto be putintothe thesaurosaspaymentforthe cureat the PergameneAsklepieion.
61. On thesedivinitiesseePetrakos
1968,p. 96;Schachter1981,p.26. For
othergodsat theAmphiareion
see
8z

alsoI. Oropos282-283,336(?),345(?),
347(?),357,392,463.On sanctuaries
of othergodsat OroposseePetrakos
1968,pp.54-55. Sacrifices,
obviously
public,bothto Amphiaraos
andthe
othergodsof theAmphiareion
are
referred
to in the honorificdecree,
I. Oropos297,lines14-15 (332/1B.C.).
62. See Sokolowski1954,pp.153154,158 (Petropoulou's
[1991,pp.2526] interpretation
of the feesin LSCG
Suppl.22 seemsmorecorrect)andadd
SEG XLIV505 andI.Perg.III 161A,
lines8, 22-23.
63. Fullertextin Peek1969,no.
336;see,on thisinscription,
Petropoulou 1991.
64. Cf.in thisrespectLSCG Suppl.7
(IGI3129)wherefirewoodseemsto
be provided(perhaps
witha payment)
forthe sacrificeof a sucklingpig.It is

a purificatory
offeringbutthe cultin
1S uninown.
65.The lawitselfis probably
quite
a bit earlier.SeeM. Worrle'scommentary,I.Perg.III,pp.169-170.
66. Forexample,analogyto LSCG
Suppl.22 couldsuggestthat[- - -]v
xpa [- - -] (line10) mighthavesomethingto do withprovisionof otherpreincubation
itemssuchasthebarley
groatsandwreathsmentionedthere.
67. SeeJamesonet al.1993,pp.83,
95. Fortheuse of fleecein the purificationof a murderer,
addLSCGSuppl.
115B,line52.
68. Fr.17;note,on the roleof the
chicken,Kaibel's
commentquotedin
PCGIII 2, p. 42.The playwasproducedin 414 B.C.; seePetropoulou
1981,pp.57-58.
qUeStlOn

SACRIFICE

AT THE AMPHIAREION

333

or otheroffering.Perhapsthosewhowouldbe incubants
thanksgiving69
Afterall,theymighthaveknown
broughtit to offerbeforeincubation.
he
"eachpersonshallbeallowedto offeranything
thatattheAmphiareion
wishes."70

CONCLUSIONS
becamein the course
foundedin thelate5thcentury,
TheAmphiareion,
Theseyears,
healingsanctuary.
andpopular
aprosperous
ofthe4thcentury
changedrepeatthe Amphiareion
duringwhichthe powerscontrolling
prompted
undoubtedly
byintensivebuildingactivity,72
edly,7laremarked
camea
of thecult.Withthegainin popularity
bythegrowingpopularity
to updatetheearliIt wasnecessary
growingneedto codifyculticactivity.
whichprobLSCGSuppl.35,
estknownsacredlawfromtheAmphiareion,
reached
theKing'sPeace(387/6B.C.) andhasunfortunately
ablyprecedes
state.The updatedlaw,LSCG69, dating
fragmentary
us in anextremely
frombetween387 and377 B.C., regulatesthe dutiesof the priest,the
setsdownrulesforincubation;
andthe conductof worshippers;
neokoros,
It is sufficiently
atthesanctuary.73
anddealsin a generalwaywithsacrifice
to beidentifiedasa generallawcodefortheAmphiareion,
wellpreserved
the policiesgoverningdifferentaspectsof the sanctuary's
summarizing
.

actvltles.

a wishto
of thesanctuary,
Butfactorssuchasthegrowingpopularity
buildingandmaintenance
increasing
of this situation,74
takeadvantage
needto reworkthe
in a continuing
costs,andthechangeof rulersresulted
of thecode evidentin theerasures
evenafterthepublication
regulations
LSCGSuppl.35, line 6, had
fee changed:
The incubation
it underwent.
69,lines22-23,thesum
in
LSCG
drachma;
one
Boiotian
atleast
required
in a
is inscribed
of no lessthannineobols,payablein anylegalcurrency,
proin LSCG69, line30,whichhadoriginally
The stipulation
rasura.75
wasat one point
victimssacredproperty,
nouncedall skinsof sacrificial
In LSCG69,lines24-25,
wasgiven.76
erasedthoughno newinformation
to Asklepios"
69. Cf.the"Rooster
(P1.Phdr.118a);see Edelsteinand
Edelstein1945[1998],I, nos.482,
523-531;II, pp.188-190.
70. Healingat theAmphiareion
cannotfurtherconcernus here.It
endwithincubadidnot necessarily
tion,butlittlecanbe saidwith any
certaintyexceptthatthe fragments
and
of Aristophanes'Amphiaraos
anecdotalcommentsin latesources
absten(Philostr.VA2.37:three-days'
tionfromwineanda one-dayabstentionfromfoodpriorto incubation;
II 35.8:abstentionfrom
Geoponica
beansin the cultof Amphiaraos)
suggesta complexprocess.Fordietary
practicessee in generalDeubner1900,
pp.14-17.

71. Forchronologysee Petrakos's

495-502,uptestimoniain I.Oropos
datingPetrakos1968,pp.22-32.
72. Especiallybetween377 and
338 B.C. Fora summaryseePetrakos
1968,pp.68-70.
73. Forthe relationsbetweenthe
two documentsandtheirdates,see
1981,pp.55-63 (esp.
Petropoulou
pp.58-59),whereshearguesthat
LSCGSuppl.35, whichrequiresno
lessthanone Boiotiandrachmaas an
fee,oughtto antedatethe
incubation
King'sPeaceandthe dissolutionof the
Boiotianleague.ShedatesLSCG69
between387 and377 B.C., whenOroandaccepted
poswasautonomous
from
paymentin anylegalcurrency
Thesedatesareaccepted
the incubants.

by Petrakosin I.Oropos,p. 439;cf.,

esp.
reservations,
however,Knoepfler's
1988,p.233; 1992,p. 452;1998,p. 105,
n.28.
residesat Oropos"
74."Greediness
atoxoocav xaTotxv zv
qv Xuzv
GGMI 104.25,
'Qtoz) [Dicaearchus]
cf.100-101.7(=FHG II 259-260.25,
cf.256-257.7);Durrbach1890,pp.8384.
1981,pp.6275. See Petropoulou
63;cf.p. 54, suggestingthatthe raise
wasdueto inflation.
(1981,pp.60-63)
76. Petropoulou
suggeststhatthe erasurereflectsthe
Greater
inclusionof the pentaeteric
amongtheAthenianfestiAmphiareia
dermatikon
valssubjectto Lykourgos's
tax(forthe festivalsee above,n.5).
_

LUPU
ERAN

334

or the
discussionof incubation
erasureaffectedeitherthe preceding two moreerasures
an
affected
in lines37-38
sectionon sacrifice;
following
resumedin line36.77
of incubation
discussion
the
thesechangesmighthaveoccaThe exigenciesthatbroughtabout
Suppl.35 and
andtheextantsacredlaws,LSCG
legislation,
further
sioned
docurelated
onlya partof a largergroupof
69, mayrepresent
LSCG
have
we
As
to thisgroup.
The newfragmentis likelyto belong tariffandthe stipulation
ments.
betweenthe sacrificial
a closerelationship
seen,
a newsourceof
is obvious.Besidesintroducing
30-31,
LSCG69,lines
in
fee did not abolishthe incubation
thatthe sacrificial
(assuming
income
uponthegeneralstipulaa wishto elaborate
thetariffmayrepresent
fee),
Whether
it in morepreciseterms.78
of LSCG69,lines30-31,orstate
tion
sanctuthe
of
policies
uponthesacrificial
wishto elaborate
acomparable
publication
the
motivated
a singleeventormultipleevents
regarding
ary
aretoo
thevariables
Likewise,
certainty.
ofthelawI cannotsaywithany
how
for
and
bywhom,
whenexactlyit waspublished,
to determine
many
longit wasin effect.
thatcult
of this fragmentgoesbeyondindicating inthe
The importance
atOropos
matterattheAmphiareion
wasa dynamic
administration
forsacrievidence
available
of other
4thcenturyB.C. Studiedin thelight
supinformsus aboutthecultitselfby
thefragment
ficeatthesanctuary,
sacrificeat
affectingthepre-incubation
portingthe notionthatthe rules
fromPausanias's
weremoreflexiblethantheyappear no doubtprothe Amphiareion
who
Pausanias,
Thisis by no meansto discredit
account.
attheAmphiareion
prevailing
norms
the
of
description
the
videsanaccurate
thatthesenormswerenotnecessarily
in histime.It is onlyto suggest
earlier.
rule,atleastnotsome400years

77. Cf. Petropoulou'sdiscussion

p. 61).
(1981,
78. Variousreasonsmay underlie
theneed for precision.For example,
a list of animalswould make
providing
was
itclearthat the choice of victim
commonly
animals
notlimited to
not
offered,but also included some
bird/
a
as
such
commonlyoffered
a spechicken.Permissionto sacrifice
(see
cificanimal,perhapsa chicken
in LSCG
n. 8 above),is explicitlygiven
that
because
5-7,
2-3,
lines
A,
161
victim
animalwas not a customary
line 2) and
(CoaTa vo,uCo,uv[a]
the permissionwas not self-evident.

A P P EN D IX
SAGRI FlGIAL TARI FFS

paytariffasusedhererefersonlyto listsprescribing
Thetermsacrificial
of victims
mentin cashwithorwithoutpaymentin kindforthesacrifice
Thebestexampleof suchalistis theca.late-4thto earlylistedalongside.
Tariff(CIS I
knownas the Marseilles
B.C. Punicinscription
3rd-century
lines.
preserved
partially
twenty-one
165;EdI69; COS 1.98),comprising
Greektariffsareshorterandusuallyformsectionsin longer
Comparable
witha
examples
I appendherea list of selectrepresentative
documents.
above.79
fewtechnicalcommentsto supportmydiscussion
feeis
4th centuryB.C.). The sacrificial
1 LSCG 45,lines2-7 (Peiraieus,
in kind:
prerogatives
byquiteextensive
accompanied
aV 8 TL5
t

065 XaTt

0Xt T@V Op@V@V

8 t86Xv5

[]av

TL5

TOV t00V

8taovaL
Hvut
Nt HXt

Tft

aTX65 aDToUg
tpaL

Hvt

HVLV
V:

yaXaHNvov

IC:
MaL MXV

To 8pMa

[X]aL

8pMa
[X]XXYIV
c

MaTa

79. Fora generaldiscussionsee

Sokolowski1954;cf.Parkerand
Obbink2000,pp.437-438.
80. Bendis.
81. Cf. the latersaleof thispriesthood,LSCG 166,lines62-65.The date
to ParkerandObbink
is according
2000,p. 422.

86Lav7

Tov

8 TX0V:

8pMa-

8taovaL

1ll: MaL

TavTa,

005

8:

IC:MaL To

8 Ta

tpXAVVa

[V ]V

8Lav[X]f

MaL

0N[]t@V

T@-

Tt

tpaL,

T@V 8 ppV@V

T@t tpt

sacrifices
to the
Whenoneof theorgeoneswhosharethesanctuary
freeof tax.Whena privateperson
theyshallsacrifice
goddess,80
to thegoddess,he shallpaythepriestessfora suckling
sacrifices
victimoneanda halfobolsandtheskinandtherightlegin its
victimthreeobolsandtheskinandthe
fora full-grown
entirety;
thighin thesameway;fora bovineoneanda halfobolsandthe
fromfemalevictimsshallbe givento the
skin.Priestlyprerogatives
thosefrommalevictimsto thepriest.
priestess;
A woman
2 Iscr.CosED 216 B,lines4-8 (Cos,ca.225 orca.175s.c.).81
shallgivethe priestessas preto DionysosThyllophoros
who sacrifices
rogatives
(Tp):

336

ERAN LUPU

TOV V
[a]%X05
[X]av

%aL
%aL

woaas

tt0tOV %aL TXtO[V]

NXa[TO]v

8O,Ua

%aL

%aL

TtoLO8oXovS

8oQua

%aL

[TtO]tODOXOV, XoLtoLoU 8 %9aXAV

[[8]oo5

o%X05

%aL

8oa

8 TXXV %9a-

TOV
o8oXov!

%aL

vog

%aL ZO8a5

o%X05

%aL

%[aL] ODOXOV,

8toaFav

Forfull-grown
sheepvictimstheleg,skin,andthreeobols;for
yearlings
thehead,skin,trotters,
andanobol;fora pigthelegand
threeobols;fora pigletthehead,trotters,
andanobol;fora bovine
theleg,skin,anda drachma.
In a numberof casesthemoneyis to beputintoa thesauros.
TheverbawatoXsHatis employed
in thefollowingexamples:
LSCG88, lines11-15 (Olbia,around230 s.c.).82The lawis written
underalistof themembers
of theboardof sevenin chargeof thethesauros.
3

Thelargesumsareexplained
astheactualpricesof thevictimsratherthan
assacrificial
fees.83
tovs HvovTasawatoxsHat
[]t5Tov Hsavtoov
,SoogV XttoV5 8La%0aL0V5
tt060V 8 %atatyos ota%ootovs
. . . ovs 0 G%ovTa.
N

c sS,

Thoseofferingsacrifice
shallfirstpayto thethesauros:
fora bovine
1,200;fora sheep84
andfora goat300;for- - -(?)60.
4 ParkerandObbink2000,pp.416-417,lines10-12;saleof a priesthoodof AphroditePandamos
andPontia(Cos,late2nd centuryB.C.).
Lines16-22postulate
thatthekeysofthethesauroi85
bekeptbytheprostatai,
whowouldopenthemin thepresence
of thepriestess,
whowouldreceive
halfthe sumcollectedtherein.The otherhalfwouldbe depositedin the
goddess's
accountin thepublicbankandbe usedforsanctuary
constructionandrepairs
asdetermined
bytheassembly:86
awatoxsHxv8 %atTot
ta[t]

06z06

A(ptoodatzt

8toaFaq dvo,zt

tOV

8toaXMav,
TOv

06

ZaVT5

8 aTXtOV

T06

Hvovg 5 Tov Hsavtoov

8

T060DO<O>V,

TotsaRBots
TOv
o0V6{aL}005

T-

ODOXOV-

All therestof thoseofferingsacrifice

shallpayto the thesauros
for
Aphrodite
fora bovinetwodrachmas,
fortheresta drachma
for
full-grown
victims,threeobolsfornon-full-grown
victims,andan
obolfora bird.
5 LSCGSuppl.72 A, lines1-3 (Thasos,1stcentury
B.C.), inscribed
ona
thesauros,
prescribes
a flatfee andsentencestransgressors
to a badconscience;eachyearthe thesaurosmoneywouldbe handedoverto the
hieromnemon
forsafekeeping.
Oncethesumof 1,000drachmas
hadbeen

82. Forthe date,Kaminski1991,

p. 178.
83. See Sokolowski's
commentary,
LSCG 88;in line 15,he prints[. .], but
the earliesteditorshe citesprinttraces.
84. Literally"victim";
seeEtym.
Magn., s.v. tp60V, andcommentaries.
85. ParkerandObbink(2000,
pp.436-437)suggestthatthesauroiare
referred
to in the pluralbecauseeach
Aphroditehadone.
86. Cf.the similarstipulations
in
an oldersaleof thispriesthood,
Iscr.Cos
ED 178b (A),lines12-16;seefurther
ParkerandObbink2000,pp.437-439.

TovsOvovocac: @0yVN

AT THE AMPHIAREION

SACRIFICE

337

or
onthededication
thecouncilandthepeoplewoulddeliberate
collected,
onwhichit shouldbe spent:
forTheo(a)genes
construction
[E)a]cw[t]tasatoXaOaL65TOV H! Rassov ODOXOVcwavtoov

to ThasianTheogenesshallpayto the
Thoseofferingsacrifice
notlessthananobol.
thesauros
is usedin thefollowingexamples:
Theverbu,BaBAv
victims,thedistri2ndcenturyB.C.) enumerates
LSCG125 (Mytilene,
put
intoathesauros,
to
be
(nowlost)
butionoftheirparts,andsumsofmoney
6

Specificpartsthatareto be placedon
as a fee forthe sacrifice.
obviously
go to the priest.The phrase[VDa]XTO 65 TOV
the culttableprobably
in lines7-8. Lines
restored
occursin line5 andcanbesecurely
HNcwa[vtoov]
6-8 read:
vac.o dj % aaaVZO[8a oUtl voa]65 8 TOV H]-

[s4X]sHx V tav[a,
VpaX[TO[cwavto]ov

- -]

a hareshallplaceon theculttablethesameparts
Whoeversacrifices
[- - -].
in lines2-3) andputintothethesauros
(described
7

LSCGSuppl.108,lines8-12 (Rhodes,1stcenturyA.C.):
%a0'adtTovs Hvovta
VDaXLV 65 TOV HceavtoovDoos Aa', X[v]
[.]
aBAxvTTtoaZo8Ov
a%TOtOOS

one
in theadytonshallputintothethesauros
Whoeversacrifices
a
forotherquadrupeds,
drachma
fora bovine,[halfa drachma?]
fora rooster.
of a drachma
fifth(?)87
3rdcenturyB.C.), stipulates
8 LSAM 73, lines29-32 (Halikarnassos,
andreforthegoddess(ArtemisPergaia)
of a 0Ncwavtoos
thepreparation
quires(lines30-35)that:88
8 06

V,8aXTOAaV
HVOVT5 zt

TO<L> TXLOt OOXOV5

aV0,

zt

yaRaHtvt OpOXOV avotyovv 8 06 6%at8tAd>o[v]Tov HNcwavtoov

Tacwtat%aT' vGavT<o>v
8

87. In line 12,E maydenote"afifth"

(seeLSCG Suppl.,p. 177);Kaminski
fiveobols,
(1991,p. 180)understands
whichmakesthe fee onlyone obol
shortof the drachmapaidfora bovine.
texton
88. I correctSokolowski's
the basisof notesin Syll.31015.

TOV t

oo

tt0LaL 65 T zV

st%0V0LaV

ff

1 %<a>t

%aL
Ct5 [%at65tRuatoRuov
{[t]uatoRuov}

65 }

- -].

shallputin twoobolsfora full-grown

Thoseofferingsacrifice
victimandanobolfora sucklingvictim.The exetastaishallopenthe
andgiveto thepriestessfortheepikouriasacrifice,
annually
thesauros
forclothingandfor[- - -].

338

ERAN LUPU

COMMENTS
1.Animalsarelisted,bysize,according
to species(2,3, 7),age(8),orboth
(1, 4). Sometimesonlythe largestandsmallestarenamed(4, 7). When
classification
according
to speciesis used,subclassification
according
to
age maybe employed(2, cf. 4). The orderis eitherascending(1, 2) or
descending
(3,4, 7, 8).Similarprinciples
canbeobserved
intheMarseilles
Tariff,whichis arranged
in a descending
order.
2. The feegenerally
increases
according
to thesizeof animal(3,4, 7, 8).
3.In 1 andprobably
2,wherethemoneyis explicitly
saidtobeapartof the
priestlyprerogatives,
anequalsubtotal
valueof cashandin-kindprerogativesseemsto be intended.In 1 the differences
betweentheprerogatives
in cashandin kindbetweenthe full-grown
(non-bovine)
andthebovine
victimsmaybe dueto an equalityin the combinedvalueof the prerogatives,i.e.,theskinof a bovineplusoneanda halfobolsequaledthevalue
of the skin andthe leg of a non-bovinefull-grownvictimplusthree
obols.Comparethe differences
in prerogatives
in the adult/yearling
cat.

egorles

ln z.

A similarprinciple
mightbe observed
in thefragmentary
Latintariff
Kfrom
Rome,CILVl 820.Thefollowingpointsshould,however,
benoted:
1) Evenin 1 theyearlingdoesnot conformto thisprinciple.
The reason
maybe a wish to allowa moreaffordable
offering.Significantly,
the
Marseilles
Tariffhasa specialcategoryforthe poor(line15):"Foreach
sacrifice
thata personpoorin cattleorin birdsacrifices,
thepriestsshall
not receive[a thing]."2) The cashplusin-kindvalueof the bovinein 2
seemsgreaterthanthatof thefull-grown
non-bovine
victims.
4. The animalusuallyappears
in thegenitive.'Ewtwiththe dativeis also
possibleasin 4 and8. Example6 employsanentirelydifferentconstruchonconstsengot twoc auses.
*

5. Privatesacrifice
is evidentwherethecontextis clear(3 is notclear).In
themoredetailedMarseilles
Tariff,lines16-17 considersacrifice
offered
bygroups:
"Anyassociation,
anyclan,anyfellow-drinkers'
association
(in
honor)of a god,andanymenwhosacrifice[- - -] thesemen[shallpay]a
fee for eachsacrificeaccording
to whatis set in the writtendocument
[- - -]."Evenit doesnotdiscusspublicsacrifice.
The Delphictelanos
tariffs,prescribing
culticfeespaidbyparticular
citiesandtheirinhabitants,
area different
case;seeLSCGSuppl.39 (CID I 8) and41,lines8-12 (CID
I 13);cf.38 A (CID I 7), lines25-32; CID I 1.
6.'AwapxaOat
vs.,BaBAv.
Bothverbsprescribe
thedeposition
ofmoney
inthethesauros.
Whereas
,ulaVvsimplyrefersto theaction,awapxsHat
definesit asanoffering.89
7. Moneyformally
includedin priestlyprerogatives
is givendirectlyto the
priest(1,2).

89. See LSJs.v.II 2, III;cf.Parker

andObbink2000,p. 436.

SACRIFICE

90. See Knoepfler1986.

91. A specialsacrificemadeupon
to divine
the occasionof alterations
property.
See Stengel1920,p. 134;
Rudhardt1992,p. 269.

AT THE AMPHIAREION

339

is involved,
whoeverhascontroloverit is in controlof
8.Whena thesauros
the list of thosein chargeinscribed
3, considering
the money(obviously
abovethe tariff;also4, S, 8). The moneymaybe dividedbetweenthe
priestessandthe divinity(4).In 8, moneygivento the priestessis to be
expenses.
In 4 and5, sacredmoneyis usedforsacred
usedforcult-related
expenses.
thesauros
is known
of moneyfromtheAmphiareion's
The treatment
290,lines13-25and324(LSCG70), lines33-39.In
in twocases,I. Oropos
to
thefirstcase,thedecreeof Pandios(369/8B.C.),90 thepriestis required
forinscribfromthemoneycollectedin thethesauros
usetwentydrachmas
therepairworksof thefountain
describing
inga stelewiththesyngraphai
according
to whichtheyhavebeenleasedout.Therest
andtheconditions
andmoneyfromtheshopsshouldbeused
ofthe moneyfromthethesauros
theremainder
is to
the neokoros;
foranaporrptov9landforreimbursing
it to
behandedoverto thosein chargeof sacredworkswhoareto transfer
I. Oropos324,
B.C. ex-votodecree
In the late-3rd-century
the contractor.
money
lines33-39 (LSCG70 containsonlylines1-52 of theinscription),
is spentin thecourseof meltingolddedications.
fromthethesauros

REFERENCES
Chaniotis,A., andJ.Mylonopoulos.
Bulletinof
2000."Epigraphic
GreekReligion1997(EGBR
1997),"Kernos13,pp. 127-237.
COS= W. W. Hallo,ed., TheContext
of Scripture1: CanonicalCompositionspromtheBiblicalWorld,

Leiden1997.
Debord,P.1982.Aspectssociauxet
economiques
de la vie religieusedans
Leiden.
IAnatoliegreco-romain,
Deubner,L. 1900.De incubatione
capztaquatuor,Lelpzlg.
Durrbach,
F. 1890.De Oropoet
Amphiaraisacro,Paris.
T

Edelstein,E.J., andL. Edelstein.

1945[1998]. Asclepius:Collection
andInterpretationof the TestimoniesI-II, repr.,Baltimore.
Gill,D. 1991.GreekCultTables,New

York.
I. Oropos= V. C. Petrakos,Ocszcy,oorEfrov Q,orov, Athens

1997.
Iscr.Cos= M. Segre,Iscrizionidi Cos

dellaScuola
I-II (Monographie
di AteneVl), Rome
archeologica
1994.
Jameson,M. H., D. R.Jordan,and
R. D. Kotanski.1993.A lexsacra

from Selinous(GRBM 11),Durham,

N.C.
KAI = H. DonnerandW. Rollig,
Kanaanaischeundaramaisch
Inschriften,2nd ed.,Wiesbaden

1966.
Kaminski,
G. 1991."Thesauros:
zumantiken
Untersuchungen
106,pp.63-181.
Opferstock,"JdI
Knoepfler,
D. 1986."Undocument
Le decretde
attiquea reconsiderer:
d'OroPandiossurl'Amphiareion
pos,"Chiron16,pp.71-98.
. 1988.Rev.of SEGXXXI,
in Gnomon60,
XXXII,andXII,
pp.222-235.
. 1992."Septanneesde rede Beotie
cherchessurl'epigraphie
(1985-1991),"Chiron22, pp.411503.
. 1998."Letronca offrandes
d'unneocoreeretrien,"AntK41,
pp.101-115.
B. 1991."Espace
Le Guen-Pollet,
sacrificiel
et corpsdesbetesimmosurle vocabulees:Remarques
lairedesignantla part du pretre
dans la Greceantique,de l'epoque
in
classiquea l'epoqueimperiale,"
L'espace
sacrificieldansles civilisations

34
mediterraneennes
del'antiquite,

R. EtienneandM.-T.Le Dinahet,
eds.,Paris,pp.3-23.
LSAM = F. Sokolowski,
Loissacreesde
IAsieMineure,Paris1955.
LSCG = F. Sokolowski,
Loissacreesdes
citesgresques,
Paris1969.
LSCG Suppl.= F.Sokolowski,
Lois
sacreesdescitesgresques(Supplement),

Paris1962.
Parker,
R., andD. Obbink.2000."Sales
of Priesthoods
on Cos I," Chiron30,
pp.415-449.
Peek,W. 1969.Inschriftenausdem
Asklepieionvon Epidauros(AbhLeip

60.2),Berlin.
Petrakos,
V.C.1968. 'O'QgOCt)ZOfXAC 10
CEpOVIOV HvCpAOV,
Athens.
Petropoulou,
A. B. 1981."TheEparche

Eran Lupu
TEL AVIVUNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT
OF CLASSICS
P.O. BOX39 040
RAMATAVIV,TEL AVIV69978
I SRAEL
e lup u@hotm ai 1.co m

E RAN LU PU

Documentsandthe EarlyOracleat
Oropus,"
GRBS22, pp.39-63.
.1985."Pausanias
1.34.5:Incubationon a RamSkin,"in La Beotie
antique.Actesdu Colloqueinternational,Lyon,Saint-Etienne,16-20
mai 1983, P. RoeschandG. Argoud,

eds.,Paris,pp.169-177.
. 1991."Prothysis
andAltar:
A CaseStudy,"
in L'espacesacrificieldanslescivilisationsmediterrane'ennes
de l'antiquiteo,
R. Etienne

andM.-T.Le Dinahet,eds.,Paris,
pp.25-31.
Puttkammer,
F. 1912."Quomodo
Graecivictimarum
carnesdistribuerint"
(diss.Konigsberg).
Robert,L. 1966."Surun decretd'Ilion
et surpapyrusconcernant
descultes

royaux,"AmericanStudiesin Papyrology1, pp. 175-211 (= Opera

MinoraSelectaVII, Amsterdam
1990, pp. 599-635).
Rudhardt,J. 1992. Notionsfondamentalesde lapenseereligieuseet actes
constitutifsdu cultedansla Grece
classique,2nd ed., Paris.
Schachter,A. 1981. Cultsof Boiotia1
(BICS Suppl. 38.1), London.
Sokolowski,F. 1954. "FeesandTaxes
in the Greek Cults,"HThR 47,
pp. 153-164.
Stengel, P. 1920. Diegriechischen
Kultusaltertumer,
3rd ed., Munich.
van Straten,F.T. 1995. Hierakala:
ImagesofAnimal Sacrificein Archaic
and ClassicalGreece,Leiden.