Cities and Priests: Cult Personnel in Asia Minor and the Aegean Islands from the Hellenistic to the Imperial Period (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten Book 64) [1 ed.] 9783110318371, 9783110318487

Citation preview

Cities and Priests

Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten

Herausgegeben von Jörg Rüpke und Christoph Uehlinger

Band 64

Cities and Priests

Cult personnel in Asia Minor and the Aegean islands from the Hellenistic to the Imperial period

Edited by Marietta Horster and Anja Klöckner

DE GRUYTER

ISBN 978-3-11-031837-1 e-ISBN 978-3-11-031848-7 ISSN 0939-2580 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar. © 2013 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Druck: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ♾ Gedruckt auf säurefreiem Papier Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Contents Acknowledgements | VII Abbreviations | IX Marietta Horster, Anja Klöckner (Mainz/Gießen) Introduction | 1 Delphine Ackermann (Poitiers) Les prêtrises mixtes : genre, religion et société | 7 Ludwig Meier (Heidelberg) Priests and Funding of Public Buildings on Cos and Elsewhere | 41 Isabelle Pafford (San Francisco) Priestly Portion vs. Cult Fee – The Finances of Greek Sanctuaries | 49 Jan-Mathieu Carbon, Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge (Liège) Priests and Cult Personnel in Three Hellenistic Families | 65 Joannis Mylonopoulos (New York) Commemorating Pious Service: Images in Honour of Male and Female Priestly Officers in Asia Minor and the Eastern Aegean in Hellenistic and Roman Times | 121 Oliver Pilz (Mainz) The Profits of Self-Representation: Statues of Female Cult Personnel in the Late Classical and Hellenistic Periods | 155 Marietta Horster (Mainz) Priene: Civic priests and Koinon-priesthoods in the Hellenistic Period | 177 Christina R. Williamson (Groningen) Civic Producers at Stratonikeia. The Priesthoods of Hekate at Lagina and Zeus at Panamara | 209

VI | Contents

Stéphanie Paul (Liège) Roles of Civic Priests in Hellenistic Cos | 247 Peter Kató (Heidelberg) Elite und Priestertümer im hellenistischen Kos | 279 Anja Klöckner (Gießen) Dienerinnen der Demeter? Zu einer Gruppe von Grabreliefs aus Smyrna | 303 Indices | 355

Acknowledgements We are very grateful that many excellent scholars of all generations participated in our workshop in May/June 2012 at the Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum in Mainz as speaker and respondents. As well as the authors who have contributed to the present volume, the following colleagues contributed to our workshop with critical comments, helpful inputs and many interesting aspects, which helped us all to become more focused and more sensitive to the many facets of the subject (of which only a few are treated in this book): Jochen Griesbach, Pierre Fröhlich, Sarah Hitch, Ann-Françoise Jaccottet, MarieChristine Marcellesi, Gary Reger, Ana Isabel Jiménez San Cristóbal, Ivana Savalli-Lestrade, Eftychia Stavrianopoulou, Hans Taeuber, Hilke Thür, Ralf von den Hoff, Derk von Moock, Victor Walser. We are greatly indebted to all of them and to the authors of the papers in this volume. Thanks to the lively workshop and the papers in this volume, we, the editors, were given a chance to reflect on our own research and question our assumptions on the subject. For this and for the resulting present volume, we thank all the participants named above, and of course also the ones who have contributed to this volume. The workshop was hosted by the Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Forschungsinstitut für Archäologie at Mainz, and we were warmly welcomed by the director of the Roman department, Barbara Pferdehirt and her collaborator Markus Scholz. We are also indebted to the editors of the series Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten and the publishing house De Gruyter, Berlin, for accepting our second volume for publication. We were financially supported for the workshop and the publication by the German Science Foundation (dfg) as part of the dfg-funded Schwerpunktprogramm (SPP 1209) Die hellenistische Polis als Lebensform. Our editorial duties were supported over many hours by the students Franziska Weise and Isidor Brodersen. Orla Mulholland’s thoughtful language editing of most of the non-native English texts in this volume has improved its readability. Anika Strobach did an excellent job diligently and patiently proofreading and copyediting and, in the end, putting the whole book together.

Brought to you by | University of Toronto-Ocul Authenticated Download Date | 3/7/15 10:23 AM

Brought to you by | University of Toronto-Ocul Authenticated Download Date | 3/7/15 10:23 AM

Abbreviations CID CIG CIRB DGAA FD GHI GIBM 4 Herzog 1899 Herzog 1928 HGK I. Aph. I. Cos I. Didyma I. Ephesos I. Erythrai I. Histria I. Iasos

I. Ilion I. Kaunos I. Kyme I. Kyzikos I. Labraunda I. Lampsakos I. Lindos

I. Milet

Rougemont, G., Corpus des inscriptions de Delphes, Tome I: Lois sacrées et règlements religieux. Paris 1977. Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. 4 vols. Berlin 1828−1877. Struve, V. V., Corpus inscriptionum regni Bosporani. Moskau 1965. Velissaropoulos-Karakostas, J., Droit grec d’Alexandre à Auguste (323 av. J.−C.−14 ap. J.−C.). Personnes-Biens-Justice. (Meletemata, 66.2). Athens 2011. Fouilles de Delphes III: Épigraphie. Paris 1929−1976. Meiggs, R., Lewis, D., A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B.C. Oxford 1969 (and revised later editions). Hirschfeld, G., The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum, Part IV.1: Knidos, Halikarnassos, and Branchidae. Oxford 1893. Herzog, R., Koische Forschungen und Funde. Leipzig 1899. Herzog, R., Heilige Gesetze von Kos. Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 6. Berlin 1928. Herzog 1928 Reynolds, J., Rouché, Ch., Bodard, G. (2007). Inscriptions of Aphrodisias, available at http://insaph.kcl.ac.uk./iaph2007. Segre, M. Iscrizioni di Cos. Monografie della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente, 6. 3 vols. (ED, EV, EF). Rome 1993−2007. Rehm, A. (1958).Didyma. T. 2. Die Inschriften. Berlin/Mainz. Börker, C., Engelmann, H., Merkelbach, R. et al., Die Inschriften von Ephesos. (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien, 11−17). Bonn 1979−1984. Engelmann, H., Die Inschriften von Erythrai und Klazomenai. (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien, 1−2). Bonn 1972. IScM I Blümel, W., Die Inschriften von lasos. Mit einem Anhang von W. Weiser: Zur Münzprägung von lasos und Bargylia, (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien, 28). Bonn 1985. Frisch, P., Die Inschriften von Ilion (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien, 3), Bonn 1975. Marek, Chr. Die Inschriften von Kaunos (Vestigia, 55). München 2006. Engelmann, H., Die Inschriften von Kyme. (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 5), Bonn 1976. Schwertheim, E., Die Inschriften von Kyzikos und Umgebung (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien, 18; 26). Bonn 1980−1983. Crampa, J., Labraunda. Swedish Excavations and Researches, Vol. III, The Greek Inscriptions. 2 parts. Lund 1969−1972. Frisch, P., Die Inschriften von Lampsakos (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien, 6). Bonn 1978. Blinkenberg, Chr. (1941). Lindos. Fouilles de l’Acropole 1902−1914, Tome II: Inscriptions publiées en grande partie d’après les copies de K.F. Kinch avec une appendice contenant diverses autres inscriptions rhodiennes, 2 vols. Berlin. Herrmann, P., Rehm, A., et al. Milet: 6, Inschriften von Milet. 3 Vols. Berlin 1997−2006.

Brought to you by | University of Toronto-Ocul Authenticated Download Date | 3/7/15 10:23 AM

X | Abbreviations

Blümel, W., Die Inschriften von Mylasa. (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien, 34−35). Bonn 1987−1988. I. Oropos Petrakos, B. Ch., Ὁι επιγραφές τoυ Ωρωπoύ, Athens 1997. I. Pergamon Fränkel, M., Die Inschriften von Pergamon. (Altertümer von Pergamon VIII 1−2). Berlin 1890−1895. I. Pergamon III Habicht, Chr. Die Inschriften des Asklepieions. (Altertümer von Pergamon VIII 3). Berlin 1969. I. Priene Hiller von Gaertringen, F., Inschriften von Priene. Berlin 1906. I. Priene² Blümel, W., Merkelbach R., Die Inschriften von Priene (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien). Bonn (forthcoming). I. Prusias ad Ameling, W., Die Inschriften von Prusias ad Hypium. (Inschriften griechischer Hypium Städte aus Kleinasien, 27). Bonn 1985. I. Sestos Krauss, J. Die Inschriften von Sestos und der thrakischen Chersones. (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien, 19). Bonn 1980. I. Smyrna Petzl, G. Die Inschriften von Smyrna. (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien, 23−24). Bonn 1982−1990. I. Stratonikeia Şahin, M. Ç., Die Inschriften von Stratonikeia, (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien, 21−22; 68). Bonn 1981−1990; 2010. IACGP Hansen, M.H., Nielsen, T.H.(eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Greek Poleis. Oxford 2004. ID Inscriptions de Délos. 7 vols. Paris 1926−1972. IG Inscriptiones Graecae, Berlin 1873− IGR Cagnat, R. u.a., Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes. Paris 1906−1927 IScM I Pippidi, Dionisie M., Inscriptiones Daciae et Scythiae Minoris antiquae. Series altera: Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris graecae et latinae. Vol. 1. Inscriptiones Histriae et vicinia. Bucharest 1983. LGPN Fraser, P. M., E. Matthews, E. et al., A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names. Oxford 1987− LGS von Prott, H., Ziehen, L., Leges graecorum sacrae e titulis collectae. 2 vols. Leipzig 1896−1906. LSAM Sokolowski, F., Lois sacrées de l’Asie Mineure. Paris 1955. LSCG id., Lois sacrées des cités grecques, Paris 1969. LSS id., Lois sacrées des cités grecques, Supplément, Paris 62. MAMA Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua, Manchester/London 1928− Meiggs/Lewis GHI Merkelbach/ Merkelbach, R., Stauber, J., Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten, Stauber 1998 Bd. 1: Die Westküste Kleinasiens von Knidos bis Ilion, Stuttgart 1998. Milet I 2 Knackfuß, H., Milet. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahre 1899. Heft II. Das Rathaus von Milet. Berlin 1908. Milet I 3 Kawerau, G., Rehm, A., Milet. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahr 1899, Heft III: Das Delphinion in Milet. Berlin 1914. Milet I 7 Knackfuß, H., Milet. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahre 1899. Heft VII: Der Südmarkt und die benachbarten Bauanlagen. Berlin 1924. Milet I 9 Gerkan, A. v., Krischen, F., Milet. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahre 1899. Heft IX: Thermen und Paläste. Berlin 1928. I. Mylasa

Brought to you by | University of Toronto-Ocul Authenticated Download Date | 3/7/15 10:23 AM

Abbreviations | XI

NGSL OGIS PCG RC RICIS

RIJG SEG SNG Cop. Syll.2 Syll.3 TAM Tit. Cal. Tit. Cam. Vidman Syll.

Lupu, E., Greek Sacred Law: A Collection of New Documents. 2nd ed. Leiden/ Boston 2009. Dittenberger, W., Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae. Supplementum sylloges inscriptionum graecarum, 2 vols. Leipzig 1893−1895. Kassel, R., Austin, C., Poetae Comici Graeci. 8 vols. Berlin 1983−2001. Welles, C. B. Royal Correspondence of the Hellenistic Period, a Study in Greek Epigraphy. New Haven 1934. Bricault, L., Recueil des Inscriptions concernant les Cultes Isiaques (hors d’Égypte), Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 31. Paris 2005. Dareste, R., Haussoulier, B., Reinach, T., Recueil des inscriptions juridiques grecques. 2 vols. Paris 1898−1904. Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, Leiden/Amsterdam 1923− Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum Copenhagen. Copenhagen 1942− Dittenberger, W., Sylloge inscriptionum Graecarum (second edition), 3 vols. Leipzig 1898−1901. Dittenberger, W., Sylloge inscriptionum Graecarum (third edition), 4 vols. Leipzig 1915−1924. Tituli Asiae Minoris, Vienna 1901− Segre, M., Tituli Calymnii, ASAA 22−23, n.s. 6−7, (1944−1945 [1952]), 1−248. Pugliese Carratelli, G., Segre M., Tituli Camirenses, ASAA 30−32, n.s. 14−16, (1952−1954), 211−246. Vidman, l., Sylloge inscriptionum religionis Isiacae et Sarapiacae, Berlin 1969.

Brought to you by | University of Toronto-Ocul Authenticated Download Date | 3/7/15 10:23 AM

Brought to you by | University of Toronto-Ocul Authenticated Download Date | 3/7/15 10:23 AM

Marietta Horster, Anja Klöckner

Introduction From the Hellenistic period onwards, the political – and hence also religious – agents of communities had to deal with a new international framework: the Hellenistic kingdoms, global players like Rhodes, the Aitolian and Achaian league and, from the second century BC, the Romans. New cities were founded and both they and the existing cities and other communal groups tried to sharpen and strengthen their respective (and multi-layered) identities within these new contexts. Collective and corporate structures developed that were either novel or, if ‘old’, had not played a major role prior to the late fourth century BC, such as arbitration by foreign judges to curtail local conflicts,1 or the embassies between cities or to kings, religious events and festivals, which seem to have become a ‘mass phenomenon’ in this period. In addition, the civic settlement, as a place to live, to participate in communal politics and in various civic, sacred and social rituals, a place to communicate and do business, was also adapted to the changing overall political environment. Singling out the benefactors of the community – the donors of meals, grain and money or the sponsors of buildings – through honours decreed by the political bodies came to be one of the major tasks of communal politics. The perception of public and sacred space as a site for the display of honours and the selfpresentation of the rich and influential elite, political allies and economic partners had a strong influence on the composition of that space.2 The increasing number of stoai and exedrai in the city-centres can be explained not only by changing aesthetics but also because they were excellent means for the presentation of inscribed honours, individual statues or family-monuments. This new polis, which retained so many of its traditional institutions, rituals, political and social concepts, architectural forms and existing buildings, is – again – the main frame of reference for this study. However, it is hard to compare Athens to the many cities that play a role in this book. Since the publication of our first volume, Civic Priests. Cult personnel in Athens from the Hellenistic period to late antiquity (RGVV 58) in 2012, we have discussed how to place the focus on the cult personnel beyond Athens, with its rich documentation and

|| 1 One such conflict took place between Lebadeia and an unknown city and concerned a priesthood of the Ionian koinon, see Horster’s article. 2 Gauthier 1985, Quaß 1993, Habicht 1995, van Bremen 1996. This is a strong point of discussion in Pilz and Mylonopoulos and it plays a major role in nearly all other articles in this volume.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:45 PM

2 | Marietta Horster, Anja Klöckner

artefacts, and to transfer our questions and topics to another region with another and differing cult-topography and many diverse cult-traditions. We also had to resist the temptation to focus on the increasing importance of the cults and festivals for the Hellenistic kings and Roman emperors, and instead to provide an opportunity to deal with the development of individual priesthoods from the Hellenistic into the Roman period.3 We are convinced that our concept works. The present book is not a continuation of our first volume, but offers a different, contrastive but also complementary perspective on the subject of cult agents in a civic setting. Geographically – Athens versus Asia Minor and the Aegean islands – but also factually and methodologically, the two volumes deal with strikingly divergent political, social, cultural and cultic frameworks. Furthermore, the research traditions on these regions differ from those on Athens. Especially the impressive nineteenth- and early twentieth-century reports of journeys and archaeological campaigns in Lydia, Ionia, Karia and the islands, so closely tied to single eminent (and often adventurous) personalities, make research on the area a challenge and a reward. Since then, many distinguished authors have written important studies with a focus on cult, religion, regional history or the development of the architectural, cultural, social or political framework of the poleis in Asia Minor and the islands. These different research traditions, compared to those focused on Athens, also diverge in the different number and content of their written sources as well as in architectural traditions and influences, stylistic elements and a language of forms and iconography that differ from the Athenian ones. An obvious example of cult-related Hellenistic traditions in the East, and unknown to Athens and mainland Greece, is the sale of priesthoods, which is treated in the papers on Kos (Kató, Paul) and Priene (Horster). Another such example are the truly grand donations, which do exist in Athens, but there they are less ‘intrusive’ than they are in the cities of the Eastern Mediterranean within the mass of the inscribed evidence of honorific decrees and deeds of foundation (Stiftungsurkunden). Donations, the growing pressure of financial commitments on office-holders, as well as the sometimes flowery presentation of the ‘beneficent’ aspect of financing, are a subject present throughout the papers of Carbon and Pirenne-Delforge, Horster, Meier, Mylonopoulos, Paul and Williamson, whereas some general aspects of the economic side of cults are treated in the study of the chests by Pafford. However, what seems most important to us is that the discussion at the workshop and the contributions to this volume reflect a shift in viewpoint: our || 3 E.g. as in Williamson’s contribution.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:45 PM

Introduction | 3

focus is centred not on the priest’s behaviour or on his or her individual social standing,4 but on that of the elite (and sometimes “sub-elite”). To what extent do the priesthood and the rituals and performances of a priest or priestess offer an attractive opportunity for a member of a given society to engage with this society or on its behalf? To what extent are priesthoods an opportunity for family-members (including female ones) of the wealthy elite to present themselves in the city or a smaller community?5 We have not answered the question of why becoming a priest might, at a given time for a given person, have been “the” best choice, rather than becoming, say, an eponymous prytanis or stephanephoros, a gymnasiarch or grammateus of an institution. The material presented (and the mass of the remaining material from Asia Minor and the Aegean islands) does allow the -- perhaps naïve but probably realistic -- answer that, aside from social pressure and demands, the personal aspects of the decision were family traditions; the few available alternatives for those of a given (young) age and (female) gender to be socially present in public; the fascination and/or the personal religious conviction of the relevance and power of a certain deity; and the potential for an individual to take on a social role through the significance and importance that a specific cult and its rituals held for the society that is home to the individual in question. In spite of its probable importance, the aspect of ‘personal religion’ is not treated in the volume – how could it be? Even the votives and gravestones, as well as their inscriptions, follow regional trends and standards.6 Expression of private and individualised religious feelings by a priestess or a priest is absent on these monuments. One might presume that, in consequence, we will here present one more contribution to the tradition of habitus studies à la Bourdieu, but in fact we present something different, and the reader will find the term habitus only rarely in the next 330 pages. Instead, we here follow up some of the lines indicated by our first volume: the dichotomy of public versus private cults (Carbon and Pirenne-Delforge, Pilz); the role of priests and priestesses in a polis or a community’s culture (Ackermann, Kató, Meier, Horster, Klöckner, Mylonopoulos, Pilz, Williamson, Paul); and the study of elites (in almost all papers), who did indeed hold priesthoods, as we know from a few inscriptions and literary sources, though they are rarely cited in the honorific decrees or funerary

|| 4 This was the main focus of many contributions in Dignas and Trampedach 2008. 5 The familial aspects are treated in several papers, but receive a special focus in those of Ackermann, Carbon and Pirenne-Delforge, Pilz. 6 For the conspicuous stelai from Smyrna that were formerly interpreted as images of priestesses, see the contribution of Klöckner.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:45 PM

4 | Marietta Horster, Anja Klöckner

inscriptions or in the iconography of the statues and reliefs (Klöckner, Mylonopoulos). Therefore we do not present a specific treatment of the unquestionably important topic of religious landscapes, although the priests constitute such a space by their rituals and performance during festivals and processions (Williamson), or by wearing a special garment and headband while walking through the city (Horster). With our focus on the visual and verbal communicative structures within the elites and the presence of priests and priestesses in public, it is the polis, the political community, that forms the setting for the male and female priests’ rituals, actions and presence, as a social landscape, though one that is, of course, also shaped by religious actions and images. Even the phenomenon of the sale of priesthoods is not investigated as an economic issue but as an issue within the religious aspects of this social landscape (Kató, Paul, Horster). Perhaps most astonishing is the transformation and adaptation of traditions and habits from one social level of society (civic community) into another (private, family), as the studies of Ackermann, Pilz, Carbon and Pirenne-Delforge illustrate. The aspect of transition, here in the context of gender and space, is also treated by Ackermann and Mylonopoulos. The reader will note that, apart from Pafford and Klöckner, in all the studies the honorific decrees take the leading role in the argumentation on the various issues concerning the civic (and a few non-civic) priests and priestesses in the cults of the Hellenistic period, and to a certain degree the early and high imperial period, that are treated in this volume. Benefactions and donations, such as providing the lavish sacrificial meal, the banquet for the lucky few or for the masses during a religious festival, offering more that the required number of sacrificial animals, embellishing the temple and adorning the cult place -- all this drowns out the praise of the good citizen and office-holder. Even the fulfilment of the ‘standards’ required of a male or female priest, as formulated in the sacrificial calendars and diagraphai for the priesthoods, comes to be seen as a benefaction. The honours for benefactors (prohedria, ateleia, a crown etc.) are the same ones the priests could buy with the contract. This is not ‘euergetism’, even if the rewards look alike and the social grammar is the same. This issue is discussed more or less explicitly in most papers, and is treated together with its socio-economic aspects in Meier and, with an important political stress on the integrative function of this Hellenistic and Roman grammar of public communication, in Williamson. The visual part of this communication comes as an essential complement. Portrait statues in general have received increasing interest in recent years; often they comprise, implicitly and explicitly, images of priests and priestesses. Only recently, in his book on honorific portraits and civic identity in the Helle-

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:45 PM

Introduction | 5

nistic world, John Ma has discussed the habit of having private priestly portraits dedicated by relatives and friends across the Eastern Mediterranean.7 Throughout our volume, honorific portraits are a recurrent theme. Two contributions, complementing one another, are dedicated to this topic. Pilz sets his focus on female cult personnel and shows that the familial orientation of these monuments is essential to their social function. Mylonopoulos analyses the spatial context of the statue’s setting and reflects on the agents responsible for it as well as on the reasons behind the erection of statues. In the following pages, one may miss aspects that are important for the study of the social, political and cultic role of priests in the political society of a polis.8 These other topics, not treated here, may yet suggest approaches for further studies: the ritual dynamics of priestly actions and non-priestly actions that are relevant to cult; the methodological issue of personal religion; the presence of ‘religion’ in the everyday culture of social communities in the Hellenistic and Roman periods; the priest’s behaviour and dealings in the sanctuary (although some of the papers do address this subject); ritual iconography. Nicole Deshours has recently characterised the late Hellenistic period as the ‘Indian summer’ of civic religion in the Aegean World.9 This is a beautiful metaphor that seems to fit perfectly: it implies a biological circle, a hot summer of Classical Greek religion and a Roman winter, with Christianity becoming the renewal in spring. The contributions in this volume, however, take another perspective. Transformations, new inputs and novelties will come to the fore. Undeniably, the eastern poleis and their citizens had a strong consciousness of tradition and they articulated this consciousness extensively, in textual as well as in visual media. The references to this tradition were often rhetorical but, as they were a part of the social grammar mentioned above, they were, in consequence, necessary; they were of social relevance and therefore ‘real’. In a changing political world, social behaviour, and with it its expression in the field of religion and cult, were subject to permanent change. Not only might forms of expression (‘grammar’) change, their content could change as well – in one city, or in one generation, of which the reader will find examples in this volume.

|| 7 Ma 2013. Ma’s book came out while this volume was going to press. It was not possible to refer to it in the contributions to this volume. 8 For an overview of recent trends in the field of priests and cult personnel, see Horster 2012. 9 Deshours 2011.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:45 PM

6 | Marietta Horster, Anja Klöckner

Bibliography Deshours, N. (2011). L’été indien de la religion civique: étude sur les cultes civiques dans le monde égéen à l’époque hellénistique tardive. Bordeaux/Paris. Dignas, B./Trampedach, K. (eds.) (2008). Practitioners of the Divine. Greek Priests and Religious Officials from Homer to Heliodorus. Cambridge Mass., London. Gauthier, Ph. (1985). Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs. Paris Habicht, Chr. (1995). ‘Ist ein “Honoratiorenregime” das Kennzeichen der Stadt im späteren Hellenismus?,’ in M. Wöhrle, P. Zanker (eds.), Stadtbild und Bürgerbild im Hellenismus. Kolloquium, München 24.−26. Juni 1993. (Vestigia 46). Munich, 87−92 Horster, M. (2012). ‘Priest, Priesthoods, Cult Personnel – traditional and new approaches,’ in: M. Horster, A. Klöckner, (eds.), Civic Priests. Cult Personnel in Athens from the Hellenistic Period to Late Antiquity. (RGVV 58), Berlin/Boston, 5−26. Ma, J. (2013). Statues and Cities. Honorific Portraits and Civic Identity in the Hellenistic World. Oxford. Quaß, F. (1993). Die Honoratiorenschicht in den Städten des griechischen Ostens. van Bremen, R. (1996). The limits of Participation. Women and civic life in the Greek East in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Amsterdam.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:45 PM

Delphine Ackermann

Les prêtrises mixtes : genre, religion et société1 Abstract: This short study is concerned with mixed priesthoods, that is, priesthoods held jointly by a man and a woman. This phenomenon is not common: usually the Greeks awarded each priestly office to a single priest or priestess. How then can we explain the instances where a priesthood is exercised by a man and a woman together? Through four case studies, on the cults of the Corybantes at Erythrai, of Dionysos at Miletos, of Zeus and Hera at Panamara and of Hecate at Lagina, of Atargatis at Delos, I attempt to discover the causes that prompted the choice of a mixed priesthood. From this initial investigation – of necessity not exhaustive – three main reasons emerge that explain why a man and a woman would exercise a priesthood jointly: an initiatory ritual practice requiring that the participants take a full bath and the Greeks’ attitude to the naked body of the opposite sex; the existence of a cult practised by mixed thiasoi, coupled with the city’s wish that a priesthood for sale be made attractive; and finally the ideology of the euergetism of the couple (or, more broadly, of the family). Il convient de préciser pour commencer ce que j’entends par « prêtrise mixte » : c’est une prêtrise exercée à la fois par un homme et une femme conjointement. Mon intérêt pour ce sujet remonte à ma thèse de doctorat, où j’ai rencontré une telle prêtrise dans un règlement religieux du dème attique d’Aixônè datant de la première moitié du IVe siècle av. J.-C.2 Cherchant alors des parallèles, je me suis aperçue qu’il s’agissait là d’un phénomène plutôt rare dans le monde grec. Pourtant, à ma connaissance, jamais ce thème n’a fait l’objet d’une étude de fond. Bien sûr, des prêtrises mixtes (sans qu’elles soient appelées ainsi) sont mentionnées ici et là, mais sans tentative d’explication ou recherche de comparaisons. Ce sujet n’a donc été abordé ni par les historiens de la religion grecque3,

|| 1 Je tiens à remercier chaleureusement les organisatrices du colloque, M. Horster et A. Klöckner, pour leur aimable invitation. Ma gratitude va également aux participants, avec lesquels j’ai eu des échanges fructueux, et surtout à ma référante, E. Stavrianopoulou, dont les remarques m’ont été précieuses. 2 SEG 54.214. Sur la prêtrise mixte de la déesse Hagnè Theos à Aixônè, voir Ackermann 2010: 117−118. 3 E.g. Bremmer 19992, qui consacre pourtant tout un chapitre au genre (chap. VI p. 69−83).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

8 | Delphine Ackermann

ni, et cela est peut-être plus surprenant, par les historiens du genre4. Une exception dans la bibliographie est l’ouvrage de Riet van Bremen5, mais ses réflexions très stimulantes concernent surtout l’Asie Mineure d’époque impériale et particulièrement les prêtrises exercées en couple, j’y reviendrai. Les Grecs confiaient d’habitude chaque sacerdoce à un seul prêtre, homme ou femme. Comment expliquer alors les cas où la prêtrise est exercée par un homme et une femme ensemble ? Plusieurs hypothèses viennent à l’esprit : une pratique rituelle particulière qui exigerait la présence d’un prêtre et d’une prêtresse ; l’identité sexuelle des divinités desservies (un dieu et une déesse ou un héros et une héroïne) à laquelle devrait correspondre celle des prêtres ; une évolution sociale qui aurait modifié la manière d’exercer la prêtrise. Dans cette enquête, il faut aussi tenter de savoir si la prêtrise en question est mixte de manière régulière ou seulement ponctuelle, car dans le second cas, il serait difficile d’y voir une exigence cultuelle ancrée dans la tradition. On s’en doute, l’explication des prêtrises mixtes n’est pas unique, c’est pourquoi il importe de procéder au cas par cas. Mon projet consiste à recenser les cas de prêtrises mixtes connus dans le monde grec, toutes zones géographiques et toutes périodes confondues, et à tenter d’en connaître les causes. Je compulse donc les occurrences de prêtrises mixtes dans les sources antiques, essentiellement littéraires et épigraphiques, en veillant à les mettre en contexte dans les pratiques sociales et religieuses propres à chaque région et à chaque époque. Pour rester dans le cadre chronologique et géographique retenu dans ce volume, et pour conserver à cet article des limites raisonnables, seuls seront

|| 4 E.g. Cole 1992 (spéc. p. 111−113) et 2004: 122−136, qui s’est intéressée au rôle du genre dans la prêtrise, mais s’attache surtout à expliquer pourquoi les hommes desservent plus souvent des dieux et les femmes des déesses et à démontrer que les prêtresses sont moins bien traitées que les hommes. Par exemple, elle constate que dans les ventes de prêtrises, les prêtrises masculines coûtent presque cinq fois plus cher que les prêtrises féminines, ce qui indique le statut supérieur des hommes dans la société selon elle (même idée résumée dans Cole 2004: 125: « Disparities in costs resulted from unequal status ») ; mais le prix des prêtrises dépend en fait de l’importance du culte desservi et des bénéfices (revenus en nature ou en argent, exemptions de liturgies, etc.) qu’il était susceptible de rapporter au prêtre, cf. infra p. 15. 5 Van Bremen 1996: 133−136. Quelques prêtrises mixtes apparaissent dans la liste de prêtrises établie par Holderman 1913: 32−53, mais dans son commentaire l’auteur ne les mentionne qu’en passant (p. 8, 13−16) ; elle voit dans certaines d’entre elles un vestige d’une très ancienne époque à laquelle un grand seigneur tenait un culte local sous son patronage et avait désigné sa femme ou sa fille comme prêtresse : « The priest represented the patriarchal claim upon the shrine, while the priestess was the regular attendant of the goddess » (p. 13). Cette hypothèse ne se vérifie pas dans les cas retenus ici.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Les prêtrises mixtes : genre, religion et société | 9

traités ici quelques cas issus de l’Asie Mineure et des îles égéennes aux époques hellénistique et romaine, mais il y a encore au moins autant d’exemples en Grèce propre, dont les plus anciens datent du début du IVe siècle av. J.-C. C’est donc un tableau incomplet des prêtrises mixtes qui sera peint ; je réserve pour une étude ultérieure les autres cas, et la synthèse qui résultera de leur confrontation avec les exemples traités dans ces pages. Avant d’aborder les études de cas, je commencerai par poser la question du genre dans la pratique religieuse grecque. Comprendre l’exercice partagé d’une prêtrise par un homme et une femme implique en effet de mesurer le rôle que la différence entre les sexes jouait dans les activités rituelles6.

Le genre dans la pratique religieuse grecque La pratique religieuse joue un rôle considérable dans la définition de l’identité d’un groupe ou d’un individu. Ainsi, la fête dans les cités grecques est, on le sait, l’occasion de rassembler et de souder une communauté, mais elle est aussi un facteur d’exclusion, exclusion de ceux qui ne font pas partie de cette communauté. C’est pourquoi la participation ou non à une fête ainsi que le degré de cette participation – du simple spectateur au bénéficiaire des parts d’honneur du sacrifice – nous révèlent quelle place les différentes composantes de la société occupent au sein de la communauté concernée par le rite7. Ces exclusions sont diverses, et dépendent largement du caractère de la fête et du moment de la cérémonie. On constate par exemple que lors des Petites Panathénées, l’une des principales fêtes civiques d’Athènes, les parts de viande sacrificielle étaient réservées aux citoyens, alors que des non citoyens étaient présents, certains participant même à la procession8. C’est le cas notamment des femmes, qui sont exclues ici des distributions de viande non pas en tant que || 6 Sur ce thème, on trouvera une bibliographie récente dans Bruit Zaidman et Schmitt Pantel 2007: 32−38. 7 Pour Athènes, cité la mieux documentée sur ce sujet, cf. Parker 2005, chap. 8 sur les fêtes et leurs participants, notamment p. 165−171. Sur les différents aspects d’ouverture ou de fermeture des cultes civiques en général, cf. Sourvinou-Inwood 1988, spéc. p. 267−270. 8 Cf. le décret sur les Petites Panathénées (IG II3 447.36−42 et 50−53, vers 335−330 av. J.-C.), avec le commentaire de Parker 2005: 261 et 265−268. Il faut peut-être ajouter les canéphores parmi les bénéficiaires de la viande sacrificielle (le mot est restitué), cf. Brulé 1996: 47−50 ; ce seraient les seules femmes à recevoir une part de viande à cette occasion, un honneur insigne fait par la cité à ces futures épouses de citoyens sélectionnées parmi les meilleures familles athéniennes.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

10 | Delphine Ackermann

femmes, mais en tant que non citoyennes, pour la même raison que les esclaves et les étrangers ; cela ne les empêchait évidemment pas de banqueter en d’autres occasions9. Plus intéressant pour la problématique qui m’occupe, on sait que certains rites sont sexuellement marqués, c’est-à-dire réservés aux hommes ou aux femmes, l’exemple le plus connu étant celui des Thesmophories, la fête des femmes par excellence. Il n’est pas toujours aisé d’expliquer l’exclusion de l’un ou l’autre sexe dans certaines cérémonies religieuses. Les historiens modernes ont observé que les cultes interdits aux femmes sont généralement voués à des dieux ou des héros qui célèbrent des activités ou des qualités masculines, comme la pêche, l’athlétisme, la guerre ; dans la même logique, les cultes féminins sont souvent liés à la fertilité agricole et humaine, un domaine dans lequel les femmes sont naturellement compétentes étant donné leur capacité à enfanter. Une explication étiologique est parfois donnée par la mythologie ou un épisode historique10. Dans la plupart des cérémonies religieuses cependant, les hommes et les femmes sont réunis. Mais même dans ces cas, on observe souvent une séparation entre les hommes et les femmes à certains moments du rite, par exemple lorsque vient le moment du banquet, ou encore lors du sommeil d’incubation dans les cultes de dieux guérisseurs11. Cette séparation hommes-femmes dans la

|| 9 Sur l’autorisation faite aux femmes athéniennes (à l’exclusion de la femme adultère), aux esclaves et aux étrangères, d’assister aux cérémonies publiques à Athènes, voir [D.] C. Nééra (59).85−86 et Aeschin. 1.183. En revanche, les distributions de viande dans le cadre d’un sacrifice civique sont en principe réservées aux citoyens, ou à un petit groupe d’entre eux, cf. Rosivach 1994: 9−67. Sur la présence active ou passive des femmes dans les sacrifices, cf. Dillon 2002: 241−249 et Osborne 1993, qui corrigent la thèse de l’exclusion générale des femmes des moments sanglants du sacrifice développée par Detienne 1979 ; voir encore Horster 2010: 182−185. Sur les femmes au banquet, par ex. dans le cadre de fêtes qui leur sont réservées, cf. Schmitt Pantel 2009: 123−161, infra n. 11; sur les femmes comme citoyennes ‘inactives’ dans l’Athènes archaïque et classique cf. Blok 2005. 10 Sur les Thesmophories, célébrées plus spécifiquement par les épouses de citoyens, cf. Parker 2005: 270−271. On trouvera d’autres exemples de fêtes exclusivement féminines dans Dillon 2002, chap. 4 (p. 109−138). Réserver certaines fêtes aux femmes était reconnu comme une nécessité, cf. Pl. Lg. 8, 828 c. A l’inverse, à Mykonos, les femmes sont exclues du sacrifice à Poséidon Phykios (LSCG 96.9). Au Nymphôn du bois sacré de Pyraia près de Sicyone, le culte de Déméter et Corè est célébré indépendamment par les hommes et par les femmes (Paus. 2.11.3). Chaque sexe exerce une fonction différente lors des Haloa d’Eleusis (cf. Parker 2005: 167 et 200). D’autres exemples d’exclusion ou de séparation des sexes dans les cérémonies religieuses figurent chez Cole 1992 et Dillon 2002: 237−239. 11 Pour l’incubation, cf. I. Oropos 277.43−47 (GHI 27, Amphiaraion d’Oropos, 386−374 av. J.C.) ; les bains pour la purification des fidèles avant l’incubation sont évidemment non mixtes

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Les prêtrises mixtes : genre, religion et société | 11

sphère religieuse se retrouve dans de nombreux domaines de la vie publique et privée12 : s’il est incorrect de parler d’une opposition nette entre un espace public masculin et un espace domestique féminin, puisque les deux sexes sont évidemment présents dans les deux espaces et que ces derniers se recoupent en partie, on constate cependant une séparation des rôles dans certaines activités en fonction du sexe. On touche là à un aspect fondamental des relations hommes-femmes dans les cités grecques : dans nos sources domine l’idée selon laquelle les hommes et les femmes ont chacun leur propre domaine d’activité, à la maison comme dans la cité13. Bien sûr, ces sphères d’activité attribuées à l’un

|| (I. Oropos 292.2−3 et 8 [IG VII 4255], 335−322 av. J.-C.). Pour les banquets publics, cf. Schmitt Pantel 2009: 123−161 et 1992: 397−399, selon laquelle les femmes en sont exclues, sauf cas exceptionnels ; van Bremen 1996: 150−155 préfère mettre l’accent sur la séparation des hommes et des femmes dans les banquets publics plutôt que sur l’exclusion, car en bien des occasions, hommes et femmes participent à la même fête. C’est le cas en effet lors des fêtes locales de Panamara, où hommes et femmes bénéficient d’un banquet mais dans deux endroits différents (cf. infra n. 49 et le traitement du sujet par Christina Williamson dans ce volume). Dans la cité idéale des Magnètes, si le législateur prévoit de manière novatrice l’instauration de repas publics communs pour les femmes à l’image de ceux des hommes, il est bien précisé que ces repas se feront séparément, les hommes d’un côté, les femmes dans un autre lieu situé à proximité (Pl. Lg. 8, 806 e). 12 Pour la vie publique, voir par ex. van Bremen 1996: 155−156 sur le théâtre et le stade, où les femmes sont séparées des hommes, reléguées aux places du fond, sauf les femmes détenant une charge publique ou honorées comme bienfaitrices. Il semble en revanche que la séparation des hommes et des femmes dans l’espace domestique était moins stricte que ce que l’on a cru, en tout cas pour les membres d’un même oikos, cf. Schmitt-Pantel 2009: 107−109. 13 Cf. Zoepffel 1989 (qui traite surtout d’Athènes par les sources littéraires) ; Sourvinou-Inwood 1995. Sur la séparation des tâches entre hommes et femmes et la complémentarité entre les deux sexes qui en découle, cf. par ex. X. Oec. 7.16−43 (témoignage dont il faut avoir conscience de la valeur théorique), et Ath. 13, 612 a−b, citant Phérékratès (= PCG 7 F 70). L’explication de ces différences d’aptitude entre les deux sexes est recherchée dans la volonté divine, ou dans la nature, comme on le voit dans les traités médicaux dits « hippocratiques » et les traités biologiques d’Aristote (par ex. Arist. HA 7, 3 [= 583 b], où la différence entre hommes et femmes est perceptible déjà sur les embryons). La comparaison est toujours au désavantage des femmes (par ex. Pl. Lg. 6, 781 a et b ; 7, 802 e). Dans la cité idéale des Magnètes est prônée une identité des activités entre les hommes et les femmes, mais il est significatif que les charges publiques exercées par ces dernières concernent seulement la famille, la reproduction et l’éducation des plus jeunes, domaines de compétence typiquement féminins chez les anciens Grecs (cf. Bruit Zaidman 2009, spéc. p. 122−124). Cette manière de concevoir les hommes et les femmes est valable dans le cadre de la cité athénienne à l’époque classique essentiellement, environnement duquel émanent la majorité des sources (littéraires) utilisées couramment dans les études de genre, mais elle ne saurait rendre compte de l’ensemble des modes de pensées sur le genre dans l’Antiquité grecque (cf. les conseils méthodologiques de Boehringer et Sébillotte Cuchet 2011: 34).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

12 | Delphine Ackermann

ou l’autre sexe peuvent varier en fonction du temps, du lieu et de la classe sociale considérée, comme le montre l’exemple de l’évergétisme14. On peut donc admettre que l’identité sexuelle des individus est bien souvent un facteur de séparation, et parfois d’exclusion, dans les rites religieux grecs. Jusqu’à présent il a été question du rôle du genre dans la pratique religieuse des fidèles, mais qu’en est-il des prêtres ? Dans la très grande majorité des cas, les cultes des dieux et héros sont desservis par des hommes et les cultes des déesses et héroïnes par des femmes. Certes, les cas inverses sont bien attestés, mais la tendance générale est bien celle qui voit correspondre le sexe du prêtre avec celui de la divinité qu’il dessert15. Que se passe-t-il alors quand un dieu et une déesse sont vénérés ensemble ? Susan G. Cole relève qu’ils sont presque toujours desservis par un prêtre16, ce qui est intéressant : cela signifie que les couples de divinités n’entraînent pas d’habitude une prêtrise mixte. Je relève au passage que cette correspondance entre l’identité sexuelle d’un dieu et celle de son prêtre peut se retrouver à un autre niveau : dans certains documents, le sexe de la victime correspond systématiquement à celui de la divinité, ainsi

|| 14 Sur l’évergétisme féminin, cf. Kron 1996: 171−182 ; Bielman 2002: 289−291 ; Savalli-Lestrade 2003. 15 Cf. Cole 2004: 126−130 et 133 ; Turner 1983: 1, qui parle de « gender-determined division of sacerdotal persons » ; Holderman 1913 consacre son ouvrage entier à démontrer la validité de cette thèse. Cette tendance n’est valable que pour les prêtrises, elle ne concerne pas les simples particuliers qui accomplissent des sacrifices eux-mêmes. Pour des exemples d’exceptions, sans tentative d’explication, cf. Connelly 2007: 283 n. 4 ; Burkert 20112: 155−156. Pour le cas particulier de Dionysos, cf. infra p. 19 et n. 39. Les exceptions trouvent souvent leur explication dans un mythe étiologique (par ex. Paus. 9.27.6. pour la prêtrise féminine d’Héraclès à Thespies) ou par la nécessité d’une pureté absolue, y compris sexuelle, du desservant, ce qui pouvait semble-t-il être plus facilement exigé d’une femme que d’un homme. Ainsi, les cultes oraculaires sont souvent accomplis par une parthenos ou une femme chaste, comme à Delphes ou à Dodone. Dans bien des cas aussi, il s’agit de prêtres-paides ou de prêtresses-parthenoi, des êtres qui n’ont pas encore entamé leur vie sexuelle. 16 Cole 2004: 127. Selon Holderman 1913: 8−11, dans la majorité des cas, le sexe du prêtre correspond à celui de la divinité principale du couple. La prêtrise du culte impérial est un cas particulier : on admet généralement que le rôle de la grande-prêtresse était de s’occuper du culte des membres féminins de la famille impériale (e.g. Wörrle 1988: 101−102; même constat pour les flaminiques du culte impérial, en Occident donc, chez Hemelrijk 2006: 186−187), mais Frija 2012: 65 note que « la règle qui veut que les hommes assurent le culte des divinités masculines et les femmes celui des divinités féminines semble moins stricte, dans le culte impérial, au niveau civique qu’au niveau provincial » (voir aussi p. 86).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Les prêtrises mixtes : genre, religion et société | 13

pour les ovins dans les calendriers sacrificiels attiques17. On ne sait expliquer ces phénomènes autrement que par la tradition ou l’habitude religieuse des anciens Grecs, qui conçoivent la relation entre un dieu et son prêtre (et la victime sacrifiée) comme très étroite et pouvant aller jusqu’au mimétisme18. Il faut préciser enfin que les rôles d’un prêtre et d’une prêtresse dans le cadre de leurs activités religieuses sont généralement identiques, à savoir fondamentalement prier, recevoir les offrandes et accomplir le sacrifice (la partie préliminaire du moins, le boucher s’occupant du reste) ; de plus, ils sont rémunérés et, le cas échéant, honorés de la même manière19. Cette égalité des hommes et des femmes dans le domaine de la prêtrise contraste avec la place limitée de ces dernières dans les cultes civiques, et dans la vie publique en général20. Venons-en maintenant à quelques études de cas, trois d’Asie Mineure et un de Délos, et essayons de voir ce qui a conduit à l’exercice d’une prêtrise mixte.

Le culte des Corybantes à Erythrées Un règlement sur la vente de la prêtrise des Corybantes à Erythrées en Ionie, datant de la seconde moitié du IVe siècle av. J.-C., montre clairement qu’une prêtrise mixte était requise pour ce culte (texte 1)21. En plusieurs endroits du document sont en effet mentionnés l’acheteur et l’acheteuse de la prêtrise

|| 17 C’est ce qui ressort de l’étude de Kadletz 1981, qui préfère parler de préférences plutôt que de règles. Cela est sage en effet, car le choix du sexe de l’animal dépend également de considérations économiques, cf. Jameson 1988 ; Kadletz en a conscience (p. 291). 18 Cf. Holderman 1913: 25−31, qui attribue cette conception à un « sentiment instinctif » (« instinctive feeling »). « Back of this custom lay the idea, often revealed in Greek religion, that the divinity was best pleased with that which was most like itself » (p. 31). Sur la relation étroite entre une divinité et son prêtre, menant parfois à une identification entre les deux, voir Georgoudi 2009. 19 Cf. Aeschin. 3.18, avec le commentaire de Georgoudi 2005: 78−81 ; Lambert 2012: 77−81. 20 Ce contraste a été souvent relevé, par ex. Connelly 2007 dans son introduction ; Bruit Zaidman 2002 ; Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, avec les avances apportées par Horster 2010. 21 Aux éléments bibliographiques qui figurent sous le texte 1, j’ajouterai encore Herrmann 2002: 164−169, où on trouve un commentaire et une traduction allemande de l’inscription. On ne sait pas grand-chose sur les Corybantes. Leur personnalité n’était déjà pas claire dans l’Antiquité : ils sont volontiers assimilés avec d’autres personnages, comme les Cabires ou les Courètes, ou encore avec les Telchines, les Dactyles et même les Dioscures, cf. Graf 1985: 328−332 ; Lindner 1997.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

14 | Delphine Ackermann

(A l. 1), ou les acheteurs (A l. 6 ; B l. 8 et 14). Mieux encore, le texte nous révèle la raison d’être de cette prêtrise mixte (A l. 6−10) : « Les acheteurs des prêtrises accompliront les cérémonies d’initiation, feront le rite du cratère (κρατηρίζειν) et laveront ceux qui reçoivent l’initiation, l’homme [s’occupant] des hommes, la femme des femmes ». Nous sommes dans le cadre d’un rite à mystères, l’initiation constituait donc l’une des tâches des prêtres. Cette initiation comportait notamment une lustration, purification à laquelle tout candidat devait se soumettre. Puisque l’inscription stipule que le prêtre doit s’occuper des hommes et la prêtresse des femmes, on peut conjecturer que la lustration consistait en un bain total impliquant la nudité du candidat22. La pureté physique et morale était de mise pour toute participation à un culte, comme en témoignent de nombreuses lois sacrées, et on a trouvé souvent dans les sanctuaires des installations pour le bain ou les ablutions23. Il semble, et c’est bien compréhensible, que l’on mettait spécialement l’accent sur la pureté lors des cérémonies où le fidèle entrait en contact étroit avec la divinité, c’est-à-dire lors des initiations, des incubations, des consultations d’oracles24. Le nouveau fragment de l’inscription nous apprend qu’outre les prêtres officiels, c’est-à-dire ceux qui ont acheté la prêtrise auprès de la cité, d’autres prêtres pouvaient procéder aux initiations, moyennant le partage de la moitié des revenus avec ceux-là (B. l. 11−16). Le culte des Corybantes à Erythrées était donc exercé à deux niveaux : un culte civique, géré par deux acheteurs de la prêtrise, et une multitude de célébrations privées, entre les mains de divers

|| 22 Cf. Ackermann 2010: 117 pour le détail de l’argumentation. C’était déjà l’interprétation de Graf 1985: 319−325 (l’auteur a quelque peu modifié son analyse de l’inscription dans Graf 2010, mais pas sur ce point). 23 Les règlements religieux exigent souvent la pureté du fidèle avant qu’il ne pénètre dans un sanctuaire, cf. Parker 1983: 19−20 et 226−227 (sur l’eau comme agent de purification). L’usage de vasques ou de bassins pour des purifications dans les sanctuaires est bien connu, cf. Ginouvès 1962: 299−318. L’eau dans les sanctuaires avait de multiples utilités, pour le culte bien sûr mais aussi pour des raisons pratiques, cf. Cole 1988: 161−162. 24 Aux exemples donnés dans Ackermann 2010: 117−118 n. 107, j’ajoute quelques occurrences pour les cultes à mystères : Pausanias parle de purification par l’eau à propos de l’Héraion d’Argos, dans le cadre de rites secrets (2.17.1) ; on sait que la purification par l’eau faisait partie du rituel préliminaire des mystères éleusiniens (Mylonas 1961: 236 et 241−242). Une épigramme dédicatoire d’une association dionysiaque à Halicarnasse mentionne peut-être un bain sacré dans le cadre de rites mystériques, mais la lecture est loin d’être sûre (SEG 28.841, IIe ou Ier s. av. J.-C. ; cf. Jaccottet 2003, II, n°152).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Les prêtrises mixtes : genre, religion et société | 15

prêtres et prêtresses non officiels25. On verra une organisation semblable à Milet pour le culte de Dionysos. Une autre inscription d’Erythrées, un peu plus tardive, mentionne la prêtrise des Corybantes, cette fois dans une liste de plusieurs prêtrises vendues par la cité (texte 2)26. On voit que la prêtrise est toujours mixte à cette époque : la prêtrise féminine est achetée par Antipatros fils d’Agasiklès et la prêtrise masculine par Aristoklès fils d’Adeimantos ; plus loin, il est question à nouveau de la prêtrise masculine, achetée par Hèniochos fils d’Hèniochos27. On remarque que la prêtrise féminine est achetée par un homme, ce qui n’est pas surprenant dans une société et à une époque où, sauf rares exceptions, les femmes ne disposaient pas librement de leurs propres biens. La prêtrise féminine des Corybantes est trois fois plus onéreuse que la prêtrise masculine28 : cela s’explique probablement par une plus forte participation des femmes que des hommes aux rites corybantiques, ce qui rend la prêtrise féminine plus rémunératrice. Dans cette longue liste, la prêtrise des Corybantes est la seule à être mixte ; on relève que les prêtrises de couples divins (par ex. Zeus Phèmios et Athéna

|| 25 Rappelons l’exemple de la mère d’Eschine, prêtresse de Sabazios, raillée par Démosthène (Sur la couronne [18]. 259−260), qui montre la pratique d’un culte initiatique en privé. Un sanctuaire domestique voué au culte des Corybantes est peut-être attesté archéologiquement dans une maison du IVe s. av. J.-C. à Toumba, dans les environs de Thessalonique, cf. Voutiras 1996. 26 Sur la vente des sacerdoces d’Erythrées, cf. Debord 1982, appendice II p. 101−116 et p. 63−68 sur la vente des sacerdoces en général, ainsi que Dignas 2002 b: 251−271. Debord exagère quelque peu quand il déclare : « il existe d’assez nombreux sacerdoces doubles, en particulier dans les cas où un culte nécessite un prêtre et une prêtresse » (p. 66), ne citant que les exemples de Dionysos à Milet et des Corybantes à Erythrées. L’inscription révèle en outre l’existence de deux types de Corybantes, les Euphronisioi et les Thaleioi, termes énigmatiques mais qui se réfèrent peut-être à la gaieté et à la bonne humeur lors du banquet, cf. Graf 1985: 325−328 et 2010: 306. La fête des Thaleioi est attestée à Cos dans la vente des prêtrises des Corybantes (IG XII 4.299.12, cf. n. 30). Sur l’épithaléôsis, terme qui désigne probablement la fête mystérique des Corybantes, laquelle incluait un banquet abondant, cf. Dignas 2002: 34 ; Graf 1985: 328 et 2010: 306. 27 Turner 1983: 158 interprète mal l’achat de la prêtrise par Antipatros : elle pense que cet homme l’achète dans le but de la séparer ensuite en deux, une prêtrise féminine et une prêtrise masculine, et de les vendre ensuite individuellement ; elle ajoute : « It is interesting to note that this type of splitting of priestly offices was permissible ». L’épiprasis, procédure accomplie notamment aux lignes 72−73, a donné lieu à des interprétations très diverses, cf. Debord 1982: 102−108 ; Graf 1985: 150−153 ; Dignas 2002 b: 253−254. 28 Le prix de la prêtrise féminine est donné à la ligne 63 comme étant de 601 dr., mais Graf 1985: 320 n. 10 dit que 511 est la lecture correcte ; il revient au chiffre de 601 dans Graf 2010: 304, sans explication.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

16 | Delphine Ackermann

Phèmia, Zeus Apotropaios et Athéna Apotropaia, Apollon Kaukaseus et Artémis Kaukasis) échoient à une seule personne, ce qui signifie qu’un seul prêtre (homme ou femme) officiait pour chaque couple de divinités. Cela confirme ce que nous avons déjà vu plus haut : les prêtrises mixtes ne s’expliquent d’ordinaire pas parce qu’elles sont au service d’un couple divin. Enfin, il est probable qu’une « pierre errante » de Samos soit à attribuer à Erythrées29. Le texte est lacunaire, mais on comprend qu’il s’agit d’un règlement concernant le culte des Corybantes, dans lequel il est question notamment d’un prêtre et d’une prêtresse, d’initiations, de rite du cratère. On est au IIe siècle av. J.-C., ce qui montre la constance et la longévité de la prêtrise mixte dans le culte des Corybantes à Erythrées ; il ne s’agit donc pas d’une pratique ponctuelle, mais d’une nécessité exigée par le rite initiatique lui-même. Dans les autres cultes des Corybantes attestés dans le monde grec, et autant que les sources permettent d’en juger, il n’est jamais question d’une prêtrise mixte30. Pourquoi est-elle si fortement ancrée à Erythrées ? Selon toute vraisemblance, la prêtrise mixte est liée au rite particulier du bain purificateur pratiqué lors des initiations corybantiques. Dans la religion grecque, il existait bien sûr une grande variété de rites initiatiques, lesquels ne comportaient pas forcément le bain total des candidats ; c’est pourquoi il n’était pas nécessaire de disposer d’une prêtrise mixte dans tous les rites initiatiques31.

|| 29 IG XII 6.1197, avec le commentaire de Herrmann 2002, qui établit le rapprochement avec notre texte 1. 30 Par ex. dans la vente des prêtrises des Corybantes à Cos (IG XII 4.299, fin IIIe s. av. J.-C.), il n’est question que de « l’acheteur », « le prêtre » ; cf. Graf 1985: 329−330 pour d’autres exemples. Certains chercheurs ont posé l’hypothèse de l’existence d’une prêtrise mixte dans le culte des Corybantes/Courètes à Milet (par ex. Graf 1985: 319 n. 7), car un prêtre et une prêtresse sont mentionnés dans des inscriptions du IIe−IIIe s. ap. J.-C. : un prêtre dans I. Didyma 277.9 (rest.), une prêtresse dans 182.11−12, 243.11−12 (il s’agit de la même personne dans ces deux inscriptions), 388.3−4 (rest.), 370.16 (rest.). Notons que le prêtre et la prêtresse ne sont jamais mentionnés ensemble, il est donc possible qu’ils aient officié alternativement et non simultanément. De plus, la restitution du prêtre dans I. Didyma 277.9 n’est pas assurée (ε̣|[ρε]ὺ̣ς Rehm ; γ̣[ένο]υ̣ς ? Harder). Nous sommes de toute manière dans le contexte d’une prêtrise de type évergétique, que peuvent exercer ensemble ou successivement des hommes et des femmes d’une même famille, cf. infra à propos des prêtrises de Lagina et Panamara. 31 Ainsi, le rite initiatique des Corybantes à Athènes semble bien différent de celui d’Erythrées, même si, comme d’habitude, nous manquons de détails sur le déroulement du rite (cf. Pl. Euthd. 277 d, et Linforth 1946) : l’initié est assis et les Corybantes dansent autour de lui, en chantant et en frappant sur leurs tambourins. On ignore la composition de la prêtrise à Athènes. D’après Aristophane (V. 119 et scholie), être initié aux mystères des Corybantes était censé guérir de la folie, cf. Jeanmaire 1951: 131−138.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Les prêtrises mixtes : genre, religion et société | 17

Le culte de Dionysos à Milet Un règlement sur la vente du sacerdoce de Dionysos datant de 276/5 av. J.-C. (texte 3)32 révèle l’existence d’une prêtrise mixte pour le culte civique de ce dieu à Milet. Il s’agit là clairement d’un rite initiatique, mais l’inscription est difficile à comprendre en raison de ses nombreuses lacunes. Selon Fritz Graf, l’initiation était partagée entre un prêtre et une prêtresse, comme à Erythrées33. Mais à y regarder de plus près, l’inscription ne mentionne que la prêtresse dans le cadre des initiations (l. 13−15 et 18−20) ; le prêtre ne semble partager avec elle que la présidence des sacrifices accomplis dans le sanctuaire civique, ici par des particuliers (l. 5−7), et il conduit avec elle la procession des Katagôgia (l. 21−23), fête annuelle de la cité en l’honneur de Dionysos. Ce rôle particulier de la prêtresse n’a rien de surprenant, car dans le cadre bachique, ce sont d’habitude les femmes qui président aux rites initiatiques, même si cette tendance s’atténue au fil du temps34. Dans notre inscription, on voit d’ailleurs que d’autres femmes que la prêtresse civique ont le droit d’initier aux mystères du dieu, moyennant le versement d’une compensation en argent à cette dernière (l. 18−20). Les femmes semblent donc avoir seules le droit de dispenser l’initiation, que ce soit la prêtresse civique ou les prêtresses privées, ce qui n’empêche bien sûr pas les hommes d’en avoir bénéficié35. || 32 Le texte est connu par deux exemplaires différents : l’un est composé de deux blocs d’antes et l’autre d’un fragment de colonne. L’interprétation n’est pas aisée, car il manque le début et la fin, et une ligne au milieu. La bibliographie est pléthorique ; on se reportera en priorité à I. Milet 3, 1222 (N. Ehrhardt) (nouvelle édition et traduction allemande) ; Jaccottet 2003, II, n°150 (pour la traduction française et le commentaire). Selon Rehm-Harder 1958: 211, cette inscription contient de nouvelles dispositions sur la prêtresse civique de Dionysos, si ce n’est sur la création de ce poste à côté de celui de prêtre déjà existant. Dans I. Milet 3, 1223 b (début IIIe s. av. J.C.) sont mentionnés aussi un prêtre et une prêtresse, probablement ceux du culte civique de Dionysos selon N. Ehrhardt : [- - - - - - - - λαμβανέτω ? ὁ ἱ]|έρεως, τὰ̣ δ’ ἡ̣μ̣ίση ἡ ἱ[ερῆ - - - - -]|τὰ γινόμενα, τὰ λοιπ̣[ὰ δὲ - - -, τὰ δ’ἡμί]|ση ἡ ἱερῆ καὶ διαδόν[των ? - - - -]. 33 Graf 1985: 319. 34 Jaccottet 2003, I: 138−139. Pour un exemple d’initiation bachique dispensée par un prêtre, cf. ead. II, n°62 (thiase de Pasô à Tomis, Ier s. av. J.-C. ?). Sur la question de la répartition fonctionnelle et rituelle entre hommes et femmes dans le cadre des associations dionysiaques, cf. Jaccottet 2003, I: 65−100. 35 Cf. Jaccottet 2003, I: 136−138, avec des documents qui montrent la présence d’hommes dans des rites initiatiques bachiques. Contra Ehrhardt I. Milet 3, 1222 ; Henrichs 1969: 237. Il est vrai que nous ne connaissons pas la composition des thiases privés milésiens (hommes ou femmes, ou groupes mixtes), mais selon Jaccottet 2003, I: 78 « à Milet, à côté du thiase officiel incontestablement féminin que dirige Alkméonis, les autres thiases, non officiels, et n’ayant, à ce titre, aucun compte à rendre face à l’idéologie de la cité, présentaient des compositions variables

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

18 | Delphine Ackermann

Comme pour le culte des Corybantes à Erythrées, on a affaire à un culte célébré à deux échelons : des prêtres et prêtresses officient au niveau privé, mais seuls un prêtre et une prêtresse exercent au niveau civique, après avoir acheté la prêtrise. Les deux catégories sont réunies lors de la procession des Katagôgia (l. 21−23)36. Par ce règlement, la cité veille à assurer un certain nombre de prérogatives à « ses » prêtres37. La partie du texte que nous avons concerne surtout la prêtresse officielle : dans les cérémonies sacrées qu’elle est chargée d’accomplir au nom de la cité tout entière, elle a la préséance sur le rituel de l’omophagie et rassemble le thiase qu’elle dirige en premier (l. 1−4)38 ; ses parts d’honneur dans les sacrifices sont précisées (l. 15−18) ; elle reçoit une compensation de la part de toute autre prêtresse qui pratiquerait l’initiation aux mystères de Dionysos où que ce soit sur le territoire de la cité (l. 18−20).

|| allant de la réplique du thiase de la cité à des formules mixtes, tout en conservant aux femmes le privilège exclusif de la pratique de l’initiation ». Jaccottet s’inscrit dans le courant de recherches récent qui vise à accorder aux hommes un rôle plus large dans les rituels bachiques, et ce dès l’origine, et à assouplir le système de cloisonnement hommes-femmes que l’on apposait traditionnellement sur ce type de rituel. 36 Ehrhardt I. Milet 3, 1222, à propos des l. 22−23, pense que par « le prêtre et la prêtresse » on entend l’acheteur de la prêtrise et une prêtresse de Dionysos, peut-être désignée par ce dernier. L’exemple d’Erythrées montre pourtant qu’il pouvait y avoir deux acheteurs différents pour une prêtrise mixte. 37 Ce type de document est souvent interprété comme un signe que la cité cherche à placer sous son contrôle un culte jusque-là exercé en privé ; contra Dignas 2002, suivie par A. Chaniotis, EBGR 2002 [2005]: 442 n°32. Jaccottet 2003, I: 75, n. 41 remarque que la prêtresse officielle n’exerce pas de contrôle sur les initiations pratiquées par d’autres prêtresses : elle se contente de prélever sa redevance, alors que le cas semble différent à Cos (IG XII 4.304 A.18−21, 1ère moitié IIe s. av. J.-C., vente du sacerdoce de Dionysos Thyllophoros; même clause un siècle plus tard dans IG XII 4.326.23−26): seules la prêtresse civique et les prêtresses adjointes désignées par elle ont le droit d’endosser la prêtrise du dieu et de pratiquer l’initiation. Voir encore Jaccottet 2005, qui insiste sur la complémentarité entre les cultes publics et les initiations pratiquées au sein d’associations. 38 Un parallèle établi de longue date avec l’épigramme funéraire de la prêtresse Alkméonis (Jaccottet 2003, II, n°149, fin IIIe ou IIe s. av. J.-C.) permet de savoir que ce thiase était composé uniquement de « bacchantes citoyennes » ; l’épigramme montre que la prêtresse officielle prenait la tête du thiase des femmes de la cité et les menait dans la montagne (oribasie), conduisait la procession lors des Katagôgia, et faisait office de cistaphore. Cf. en dernier lieu Jaccottet 2003, I: 74−77 pour l’analyse et la mise en parallèle de ces deux inscriptions. Sur les thiases uniquement féminins, cf. ead. I: 73−80.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Les prêtrises mixtes : genre, religion et société | 19

On constate enfin que Dionysos tolère à Milet tant des hommes que des femmes comme prêtres, ce qui n’étonne pas de la part d’un dieu particulièrement enclin au mélange des genres39. Contrairement à Erythrées, la prêtrise mixte ne semble pas s’expliquer ici par la pratique de l’initiation, puisqu’elle paraît relever de la seule responsabilité des femmes. Et autant que nos sources permettent d’en juger, les rites initiatiques accomplis dans le cadre d’un culte bachique ne comportent pas de bain total des participants40. La prêtrise mixte ne s’explique pas non plus par l’exigence que la prêtresse s’occupe strictement des sacrifices offerts par des femmes et le prêtre des sacrifices offerts par les hommes, puisque dans le sanctuaire civique, on laisse le sacrifiant choisir l’un ou l’autre41. Comment expliquer alors le choix d’une prêtrise mixte pour le culte civique de Dionysos à Milet ? Peut-être par la volonté de la cité de donner la préséance à cette prêtrise sur tous les thiases, qu’ils soient féminins ou masculins, dirigés par un prêtre ou une prêtresse. La prêtrise mixte civique de Dionysos à Milet serait donc le reflet des thiases dionysiaques, lesquels comprenaient des hommes et des femmes dans leurs rangs42. Il ne faut pas oublier qu’en mettant || 39 Dans l’imaginaire grec, Dionysos ressemble souvent à une femme (par ex. E. Ba. 353, où il est dit thèlumorphos ; cf. 233−238). On trouvera d’autres références chez Jaccottet 2003, I: 68 et Cole 2004: 128 n. 229 et 230. Sur la mixité des thiases du dieu, cf. Jaccottet 2003, I: 88−94. Le rôle essentiel des femmes dans la diffusion de son culte et la connaissance des mystères est par ailleurs bien connu. 40 Sur les mystères et les initiations bachiques dans le cadre des associations dionysiaques (donc pas avant l’époque hellénistique), cf. Jaccottet 2003, I: 123−146, avec de nombreuses références bibliographiques en note 2 p. 123. Elle ajoute que l’on n’a pas grande idée des rites pratiqués par les mystes dionysiaques ; nos rares documents montrent que les initiations bachiques pouvaient être assez variées : révélation orale ou visuelle, mise en scène de l’enfance du dieu, catabase dans un antre souterrain, rites de type ménadique comme l’omophagie et l’oribasie ou la transe et la danse orgiaques. 41 Cette hypothèse m’avait été suggérée par les lignes 15−18, où il est question de parts d’honneur à donner à la prêtresse quand une femme offre un sacrifice à Dionysos, et par la lecture d’un décret des orgéons de Bendis au Pirée (IG II2 1361.6−7, vers 330−324 av. J.-C.): quand un particulier sacrifie, il doit donner la rémunération à la prêtresse pour des victimes femelles, et au prêtre pour des victimes mâles (διδόναι δὲ τὰ ἱερεώσυνα τῶ[ν μὲ]ν θηλ[ε]ιῶν τῆι ἱερέαι, τῶν δὲ ἀρρένων τῶι ἱερεῖ). Les lignes 15−18 ne sont pas aisées à comprendre ; peut-être sommes-nous dans le cadre des cérémonies initiatiques accomplies par le thiase officiel, uniquement féminin (cf. n. 38) ; dans les lignes précédentes il semble être question de matériel servant pour les initiations à fournir par la prêtresse aux femmes. 42 Selon Cole 2004: 126−130, la nature du rite et le sexe des fidèles semblent avoir déterminé le sexe des prêtres de Dionysos, car où le dieu est vénéré par des hommes et des femmes ensemble, il nécessite un prêtre et une prêtresse (comme à Milet) ; mais quand il est associé à une clientèle mâle (dans le cadre du théâtre par ex.), c’est toujours un prêtre qui le dessert, et là où

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

20 | Delphine Ackermann

les prêtrises en vente, la cité cherchait à gagner de l’argent, ou plus exactement à en économiser, et pour cela, il fallait qu’elle les rende attractives, en promettant aux acheteurs des revenus importants et réguliers, et en leur assurant qu’ils ne seraient pas lésés par la concurrence des prêtres privés43.

Les cultes d’Hécate à Lagina et de Zeus Panamaros et Héra à Panamara (Stratonicée, Carie) Deux sanctuaires majeurs, celui de Zeus Panamaros et Héra à Panamara, et celui d’Hécate à Lagina, ont été intégrés au territoire de la cité de Stratonicée quelque part entre le IIIe et le IIe siècle av. J.-C.44. Ces deux cultes sont bien documentés par de très nombreuses inscriptions, datant surtout entre le Ier et le IIIe siècle ap. J.-C. Il s’agit essentiellement d’inscriptions honorifiques, des commémorations établies par un couple qui a exercé conjointement une ou plusieurs prêtrises (textes 4−6)45. Si l’on veut chercher du côté du culte l’explication de ces prêtrises mixtes, un obstacle chronologique se présente immédiatement : il ressort en effet de l’étude de Riet van Bremen qu’en Asie Mineure, ce n’est que dans le courant du Ier siècle ap. J.-C. que des épouses commencent à être associées à ce qui était

|| sa clientèle est exclusivement féminine, Dionysos a une prêtresse. Cette interprétation manque de nuance: il est rare qu’une divinité ait une clientèle uniquement féminine ou masculine (cf. p. 10), et Cole remarque elle-même que les prêtresses de Dionysos ne sont pas seulement au service de groupes uniquement féminins, cf. la liste de Holderman 1913: 51. 43 Contra Ustinova 1992−8: 519: « Competition between different thiasoi and their priests, as well as some disturbances during the festival of Dionysos, may have urged the city to issue the new sacred law. (…) The fierce character of the rites may have been behind the introduction of the state control upon the mass ceremonies and their preparation ». Sur les motivations qui poussent certaines cités à vendre des prêtrises, comme le déclare Dignas 2002 b: 268−269: « Asian cities introduced the sale of priesthoods as a means to strengthen and improve sacred finances and via these the economic situation of the city. Precautions guaranteeing the payments and the priests’ revenues in turn clearly prevailed over other details ». 44 La date de la fondation de Stratonicée et celle de l’intégration des sanctuaires de Lagina et de Panamara au territoire de la cité sont problématiques, cf. en dernier lieu Williamson 2012 et ead. dans ce volume. 45 Laumonier 1958, chap. V sur Panamara, et particulièrement p. 227−234 sur le clergé ; chap. VI sur Lagina, et particulièrement p. 366−372 sur le clergé.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Les prêtrises mixtes : genre, religion et société | 21

jusque-là des prêtrises individuelles46. Il en est de même à Lagina et à Panamara. Commençons par ce dernier sanctuaire. A Panamara, à partir du Ier siècle ap. J.-C., le prêtre de Zeus est accompagné d’une prêtresse, qui est généralement sa femme ou, beaucoup plus rarement, une membre de sa famille au sens large. Avant cette date, on ne connaît que des prêtres masculins47. Là encore, la prêtrise mixte ne s’explique pas par l’identité sexuelle des divinités desservies (Zeus était associé à Héra dans le sanctuaire de Panamara), car autant que l’on sache, jamais l’Héra de Panamara n’a eu sa propre prêtresse ; d’ailleurs, la femme du prêtre de Zeus n’est pas désignée dans nos sources comme la prêtresse d’Héra, mais de Zeus ou des dieux48. Le couple de prêtres était donc attaché aux deux divinités ensemble. Faut-il alors chercher l’explication de la prêtrise mixte par une séparation des hommes et des femmes dans le culte ? Une telle séparation est en effet bien attestée dans ce sanctuaire : la fête des Komyria était réservée aux hommes, la fête des Héraia aux femmes49. Mais outre le fait qu’une raison d’ordre cultuel semble peu probable comme on l’a vu, les inscriptions montrent que le couple de prêtres menait ensemble ces deux fêtes (les verbes sont au pluriel). Si les

|| 46 Van Bremen 1996: 133−136, qui consacre une partie de ces pages aux cultes de Lagina et de Panamara. 47 Selon Laumonier, le silence des inscriptions antérieures à l’Empire ne prouve pas l’absence de prêtresse à cette époque: « dans un culte double comme celui de Panamara, cette absence est invraisemblable, et rien ne permet de croire que le prêtre a exercé seul » (1958: 228) (contra Oppermann 1924: 41 et 72, qui pense qu’au début la prêtrise était uniquement masculine). Nous avons vu que la prêtrise d’un couple divin était au contraire le plus souvent exercée par une seule personne, mais il reste vrai que notre connaissance du culte à Panamara est très maigre avant la basse époque hellénistique. 48 Oppermann 1924: 43−44 ; Laumonier 1958: 228 ; van Bremen 1996: 134. 49 Textes 5 l. 27−34 (Komyria) et 6 l. 24−27 (Héraia). Cf. Laumonier 1958: 292−333 sur les fêtes de Panamara et Williamson dans ce volume. La fête des Komyria était en principe célébrée uniquement par les hommes, dans le Komyrion (e.g. I. Stratonikeia 203 ; I. Stratonikeia 311 et 312). Mais les femmes ont été souvent associées aux généreuses distributions des prêtres, ailleurs dans le sanctuaire (e.g. texte 5 l. 32−34 ; I. Stratonikeia 172), tout comme aux Héraia les hommes. Cf. Oppermann 1924: 72 et 76. Laumonier 1958: 331−332 s’interroge sur cette séparation rigoureuse des sexes lors des fêtes périodiques locales : « il y avait là plutôt une commodité » selon lui, mais « pour Panamara, on peut croire que le caractère mystique du culte et la vraisemblable hiérogamie, comme au Nymphôn de Sicyone, ne sont pas étrangers à la séparation des sexes » (p. 332). Je doute cependant que les mystères expliquent la séparation des fidèles selon leur sexe, car celle-ci est antérieure à la première attestation des mystères de Panamara (cf. note suivante).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

22 | Delphine Ackermann

fidèles se séparaient donc en deux groupes suivant leur sexe lors de ces deux cérémonies, le couple de prêtres restait uni. La prêtrise mixte n’a pas de lien non plus avec la pratique de mystères, car ces derniers semblent être une création tardive à Panamara, bien postérieure à l’apparition de la prêtrise mixte de Zeus et Héra50. A Lagina, la déesse principale du sanctuaire, Hécate, était originellement desservie par un prêtre seulement. La première attestation d’une épouse qui lui soit associée date de la fin du Ier siècle ap. J.-C.51. Le culte d’Hécate comportait des mystères, mais là encore, leur première attestation est bien plus tardive que celle de la prêtrise mixte, en conséquence il semble qu’il n’y ait pas de rapport entre les deux52. Les prêtrises mixtes de Stratonicée ne paraissent donc pas liées aux actes rituels eux-mêmes, ni à l’identité sexuelle des divinités. Comment les expliquer ? On peut trouver une réponse si l’on considère qu’il s’agit de prêtrises de type évergétique, détenues par les plus riches familles de Stratonicée, dont les membres exercent aussi d’autres fonctions cultuelles comme clidophore, cosmophore, mystagogue, etc.53 Les recoupements prosopographiques qui ont pu être établis grâce à la riche documentation épigraphique de Stratonicée et de ces deux sanctuaires montrent que les couples de prêtres sont engagés au cours de

|| 50 Laumonier 1958: 322−326 sur les mystères de Panamara. On entend parler des mystères pour la première fois seulement sous Marc-Aurèle, à propos des Komyria (I. Stratonikeia 203.16−17 et texte 5, l. 26−27). La première attestation des mystères dans les Héraia remonte au premier quart du IIIe s. ap. J.-C. (I. Stratonikeia 248.8−13). Il semble de toute manière que la célébration des mystères dans les Héraia était du ressort du prêtre essentiellement, cf. I. Stratonikeia 248.8−13 : le prêtre fournit aux femmes, outre tout ce qui est nécessaire aux mystères, une somme de trois drachmes à chacune. Cela n’est pas étonnant, car c’est lui aussi qui régalait les femmes lors des Héraia. 51 I. Stratonikeia 662. On aura beaucoup d’autres exemples par la suite, cf. Laumonier 1958: 375−391. Mais pour certains prêtres du Ier s. ap. J.-C. qui apparaissent encore seuls à Lagina, on sait qu’ils avaient exercé en couple la prêtrise de Zeus à Panamara (cf. Laumonier 1958: 372−375). Il est donc possible que la prêtresse d’Hécate apparaisse dans nos sources un peu plus tardivement que dans la réalité. Un couple de prêtres figure dans une inscription datée « probablement du dernier quart du Ier s. av. J.-C. » trouvée à Lagina (I. Stratonikeia 1438), mais on ne sait quelle divinité ils desservaient. 52 Cf. Laumonier 1958: 404−405 sur les mystères de Lagina. Le service des mystères paraît s’être développé, comme à Panamara, à partir du milieu du IIe s. ap. J.-C. (mention d’un mystagogue dans I. Stratonikeia 675). 53 E.g. texte 4: Dionysios fils d’Eumollôn exerce la prêtrise d’Hécate avec sa femme. Sa fille Epainétis est clidophore, et leur fils Dionysios est parapompos. Pour les aspects familiaux et évergétiques des prêtrises de Lagina et de Panamara, voir la contribution de Christina Williamson dans ce volume.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Les prêtrises mixtes : genre, religion et société | 23

leur vie dans de multiples charges et liturgies, dont la prêtrise de Zeus ou d’Hécate, qui comporte une dimension évergétique importante (textes 5−6) : distributions d’argent, de nourriture et de vin, d’huile et d’onguents à toute la ville ou à une partie de la population, à l’occasion de la réception de la couronne sacerdotale ou des fêtes locales (Généthlia et Triakades à Lagina ; Panamaréia, Héraia et Komyria à Panamara) ; réception générale de tous ceux qui viennent au sanctuaire, remise aux fidèles des dîners qu’ils avaient apportés, remise aux sacrifiants des parts du prêtre ; réception au moment des banquets publics non seulement des autorités mais aussi de tout le peuple, avec don à chacun d’un repas à emporter. Cet exercice mixte de la prêtrise est donc à analyser dans le contexte plus général de la mixité des charges publiques en Asie Mineure à l’époque impériale54. A cette époque, on constate en effet la tendance au sein de couples issus de riches familles d’accaparer les charges publiques. Riet van Bremen observe que les titres civiques doubles sont, dans l’immense majorité des cas, associés à une prêtrise impériale conjointe, et en déduit que c’est l’introduction du culte impérial dans les cités de l’Orient grec qui a, en beaucoup d’endroits, servi de modèle pour les charges civiques, à partir du milieu du Ier siècle ap. J.-C., date des premières prêtrises du culte impérial assumées en couple55. Elle met en relation ce phénomène avec l’idéologie du couple prônée à l’époque augustéenne : les efforts d’Auguste pour créer l’image d’une famille impériale unie et harmo|| 54 Très bien traité par van Bremen 1996, chap. 5 p. 114−141. 55 Van Bremen 1996, loc. cit. note précédente, ne connaît aucun cas de magistratures ou liturgies partagées par un homme et sa femme dans l’Orient grec avant le Ier s. ap. J.-C. Elle souligne qu’il n’y a pas de lien impératif entre la prêtrise impériale (civique ou provinciale) et le partage de charges civiques, et donne p. 129 des exemples de couples exerçant des charges civiques ensemble et qui ne semblent pas avoir été prêtres du culte impérial. De plus, il arrive que le prêtre et la prêtresse du culte impérial soient unis par un lien familial et non conjugal (Campanile 1994: 22−25 et Wörrle 1992: 368−370 pour le niveau provincial; Frija 2012: 84 pour le niveau civique dans la province d’Asie). Van Bremen 1996: 123−124 relève même, au niveau civique, des cas possibles où la prêtresse aurait exercé seule, mais elle a conscience que ce n’est peut-être qu’en apparence que certaines femmes semblent agir de manière indépendante dans les inscriptions ; Frija 2012: 82−88 se montre sceptique sur la possibilité qu’une femme ait exercé la grande-prêtrise seule (que ce soit au niveau provincial ou civique), mais elle envisage cette possibilité pour les prêtresses du culte impérial. Pour la partie occidentale de l’Empire, cf. n. 58. Il faut cependant être prudent avec les documents épigraphiques: d’une part on connaît bien plus d’archiereus que d’archiereia, car le premier fait souvent office d’éponyme dans les inscriptions ; la mention d’un grand-prêtre éponyme seul ne signifie donc pas qu’il n’avait pas de contrepartie féminine. D’autre part, posséder une inscription honorifique ne concernant qu’un homme ou une femme ne permet pas de conclure qu’il ou elle a exercé seul (cf. les mises en garde de Wörrle 1988: 102−103 et de Frija 2012: 84−87).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

24 | Delphine Ackermann

nieuse et promouvoir le mariage auraient eu un effet quasiment immédiat sur les cités de son empire, du moins dans la partie orientale, où les familles de l’élite auraient imité le modèle impérial et commencé à se présenter en public comme des couples heureux dans le mariage, soucieux ensemble du bien-être de leurs concitoyens. Dans le cas des prêtrises mixtes des sanctuaires de Lagina et de Panamara, Riet van Bremen doute cependant qu’elles aient suivi le mouvement initié par les doubles prêtrises du culte impérial, sans donner la raison de son scepticisme ; elle conclut qu’il vaut peut-être mieux chercher une autre explication, sans en proposer une. Elle semble en tout cas gênée par la prêtrise mixte d’Athéna Lindia à Lindos sur l’île de Rhodes, attestée avant l’époque augustéenne56. Ainsi qu’elle le souligne pourtant, cette idéologie du couple de bienfaiteurs était déjà en germe dans les cités grecques de Méditerranée orientale avant l’époque augustéenne : ainsi, à partir du IIe siècle av. J.-C., on connaît plusieurs exemples de couples de bienfaiteurs, auxquels ont parfois été accordés des honneurs publics57. Par ailleurs, cela explique peut-être pourquoi on observe une évolution différente de la prêtrise du culte impérial en Occident, où les couples de prêtres sont nettement moins fréquents58. Je ne vois donc aucun obstacle à accepter cette explication par l’idéologie du couple de bienfaiteurs pour les prêtrises mixtes de Lagina et de Panamara. J’ai évoqué dans la première partie de cette étude un principe fondamental des relations hommes-femmes dans les cités grecques, celui de la séparation || 56 Au départ, il n’y avait qu’un prêtre d’Athéna Lindia. Après les années 40 av. J.-C. environ, sa femme est honorée avec lui dans les dédicaces officielles (le premier exemple est I. Lindos 347, 42 av. J.-C.), et à partir de 9 av. J.-C. au moins apparaît une prêtresse aux côtés du prêtre (I. Lindos 384 e, la mère du prêtre), qui est une membre de sa famille, le plus souvent sa femme. 57 Van Bremen 1996: 136−141, exemples à l’appui. Sur l’archis de Ténos (dès fin IIe s. av. J.-C.) et l’archeinè de Syros (dès fin Ier s. ap. J.-C.), qui remplissaient des fonctions religieuses et surtout évergétiques, cf. van Bremen 1996: 130−131 et Stavrianopoulou 2002: 204−219. Si l’archis de Ténos n’est pas forcément l’épouse de l’archonte, en revanche l’archeinè semble toujours l’être. Van Bremen se demande si ces archontesses ne pourraient pas être issues d’une tradition ancienne dans ces îles, où elles auraient été une figure publique depuis très longtemps, sans avoir été mentionnées dans les documents officiels jusque-là. Cela rappelle la basilinna d’Athènes, épouse de l’archonte-roi, dont le rôle paraît restreint aux Anthestéries, où elle devait notamment s’unir à Dionysos et pratiquer des rites spéciaux dans le Limnaion (cf. Parker 2005: 303−305). On peut mentionner encore le cas des couples de souverains dans les monarchies hellénistiques, où l’ambition dynastique entraîne une visibilité de la femme dans la sphère publique en tant qu’épouse et mère selon Wikander 1996. 58 Dans la partie occidentale de l’Empire, « priestly couples formed only a small minority among imperial priests », Hemelrijk 2006: 185, laquelle relève là une différence importante avec les provinces orientales (p. 186 n. 27).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Les prêtrises mixtes : genre, religion et société | 25

des rôles entre les deux sexes dans les sphères publique et privée et la complémentarité qui en découle. Cette complémentarité se retrouve parmi les couples de prêtres-évergètes de Lagina et de Panamara : dans certaines de leurs activités, ils ont en effet tendance à différencier les sexes ; c’est souvent le cas dans les distributions, l’homme donnant de l’huile, de la nourriture, du vin ou de l’argent aux hommes, et son épouse faisant de même pour les femmes59. On constate le même phénomène pour les prêtrises du culte impérial60, et plus largement, dans des distributions qui n’ont pas pour cadre une prêtrise61. Les bienfaitrices ont donc davantage tendance à inclure les femmes dans leurs distributions que les bienfaiteurs, ce qui n’empêche bien sûr pas ces derniers d’agir parfois en faveur des femmes62. Ce qu’il m’importe de constater dans le cadre de cette étude, c’est que cette séparation des activités du couple de prêtres ne concerne jamais le sacrifice des victimes, ou l’initiation aux mystères, bref, jamais le culte lui-même. Cela me confirme dans l’idée que l’explication de la prêtrise mixte des sanctuaires de Lagina et de Panamara ne se trouve pas dans les activités cultuelles. Pour résumer, à l’époque impériale on assiste à une multiplication des prêtrises mixtes dans la partie orientale de l’empire, généralement assumées par un couple ou plus rarement par de proches parents, dans le cadre d’un sacerdoce

|| 59 E.g. texte 6, l. 18−21 lors des Panamaréia. Dans I. Stratonikeia 666, aux Généthlia (fête pour Hécate à Lagina), le prêtre fait des distributions d’argent seul aux citoyens, aux Romains, aux étrangers; avec la clidophore, aux citoyennes et aux étrangères domiciliées. A Stratonicée, il existait deux gymnases et des bains féminins; c’est là que se faisaient les distributions d’huile lors des Panamaréia, aux deux sexes séparément, chacun dans son bâtiment (texte 5, l. 14−19). 60 Par ex. à Dorylaion en Phrygie, à l’époque d’Hadrien (OGIS 479): lors des fêtes impériales, le couple fait une distribution d’huile, où l’homme agit pour les hommes libres et les esclaves à ses propres frais, et sa femme agit pour les femmes, à ses propres frais aussi. 61 Pour la gymnasiarchie civique « ordinaire », c’est-à-dire non rattachée à une prêtrise, cf. van Bremen 1996: 68−73. A Héraclée de la Salbakè, au IIe s. ap. J.-C., au sein d’un couple de stéphanéphores et prytanes, la femme a fait des distributions aux épouses de bouleutes et de citoyens (MAMA 6.119). A Akraiphia en Béotie, l’épouse d’Epaminondas se charge de nourrir les femmes de citoyens, les jeunes filles et les esclaves, en exact parallèle avec les générosités de son mari (IG VII 2712.70−71, Ier s. ap. J.-C. Voir la nouvelle édition par Müller 1995: 462−467). Dans une série de trois inscriptions de Sillyon en Pamphylie (IGR 3.800−802, avec les commentaires de Nollé 1994: 245−247 et van Bremen 1994) honorant une femme, Ménodora, et son fils Mégaklès, celle-ci, dans ses distributions, a inclus les femmes des membres des trois assemblées de la cité (boulè, gérousia, ekklèsia), tandis que son fils non. Ces exemples montrent que, même s’il est possible que les épouses aient dû demander l’accord de leur tuteur pour ces dépenses, elles pouvaient avoir une fortune séparée considérable (cf. van Bremen 1996, chap. 9 [p. 273−296] sur ces questions, et supra n. 14 sur l’évergétisme féminin). 62 E.g. Syll3 890, Syros, 251 ap. J.-C.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

26 | Delphine Ackermann

de type évergétique63. Ces exemples relativement nombreux de prêtrises assumées par un couple dans l’Asie Mineure impériale m’incitent à penser que les exigences cultuelles ne sont pas la cause de cette mixité, d’autant plus que les prêtrises concernées ne sont pas mixtes à l’origine, et que dans la plupart des cas, on constate que la prêtrise est seulement l’une des nombreuses charges assumées conjointement par le couple. Ces prêtrises mixtes découlent probablement d’une certaine idéologie du couple de bienfaiteurs, perceptible déjà à l’époque hellénistique, qui ne cessera de croître et recevra une impulsion décisive à l’époque augustéenne. Il faut peut-être aussi compter avec un changement, dans le courant du Ier siècle av. J.-C. et du Ier siècle ap. J.-C., de l’autoreprésentation des hommes politiques et des bienfaiteurs, conséquence de l’aristocratisation des cités, les individus se présentant de plus en plus comme membres d’une famille appartenant à l’élite64. J’ajouterai pour terminer que certaines prêtrises mixtes, issues des mêmes phénomènes sociaux et dont je n’ai pas parlé ici, étaient des occurrences isolées, générées par exemple par une situation de détresse économique65. Mais à || 63 Sur l’évolution des sacerdoces sous l’Empire, cf. Debord 1982: 71−75, qui relève l’accumulation de nombreux sacerdoces, ainsi que de charges civiles importantes, par une seule personne ou en tout cas dans une même famille. Selon lui, le sacerdoce n’est plus, au même titre que les autres charges municipales, qu’un moyen pour des familles riches et influentes de manifester leur philanthrôpa à l’égard de leurs concitoyens moins favorisés. 64 Van Bremen 1996: 297−302, qui met en garde à ne pas tomber dans le féminisme: l’idéologie de la famille ne cherche pas à accroître l’indépendance et le pouvoir de la femme, mais à présenter la générosité civique conjointe et l’harmonie du couple uni. Si parfois les femmes débordent sur le monde des hommes, c’est en raison du besoin de familles de l’élite de maintenir leur visibilité même en l’absence d’héritiers mâles, et en raison de la nécessité des cités d’exploiter toutes les sources de revenus possibles. 65 Un exemple de prêtrise mixte ponctuelle provient de Sidè en Pamphylie, où un bienfaiteur local est dit avoir exercé la prêtrise d’Athéna avec sa femme pendant 5 ans; or les autres occurrences de l’exercice de cette prêtrise concernent un homme ou une femme (I. Side vol. I, TEp 1, vers 220−240 ap. J.-C., avec le commentaire de J. Nollé p. 200). Voir encore à Lycosoura en Arcadie pour la prêtrise de Despoina exercée par le bienfaiteur Nikasippos et sa femme Timasistrata (Syll3 800, 42 ap. J.-C.), dans un contexte de disette, alors que l’on connaît d’autres cas antérieurs et postérieurs où la prêtrise de Despoina est exercée par un homme ou une femme. Les historiens voient parfois trop rapidement la cause des prêtrises assumées en couple dans une pression économique, par ex. Veyne 1962: 59, à propos des couples exerçant la prêtrise du culte impérial (un phénomène qu’il croit à tort surtout fréquent en Lycie): « Les prêtrises simultanées doublaient les frais des sacrifices et des inévitables banquets qui suivaient et étaient ruineuses pour un ménage; seuls des couples d’évergètes s’y risquaient et s’en vantaient. Comme souvent dans les problèmes d’institutions municipales, on retrouve finalement la question d’argent, ou plutôt la question des libéralités ». Mais à ce moment, pourquoi ne pas se partager ces prêtrises entre les membres mâles de la famille ? Les rôles civiques des indi-

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Les prêtrises mixtes : genre, religion et société | 27

Lagina et à Panamara, les exemples de prêtrises mixtes sont tellement nombreux que cette forme d’exercice de la prêtrise a dû devenir la norme avec le temps.

Le culte d’Hagnè Thea (Atargatis) à Délos Je terminerai ces études de cas par un exemple égéen, qui ne concerne pas une prêtrise civique contrairement aux cas que l’on a vus jusqu’à maintenant. Il s’agit en effet d’une prêtrise exercée dans le cadre d’une association religieuse de Syriens établis à Délos. Une dédicace à Hagnè Thea (autre nom de la déesse syrienne Atargatis) a été faite au début du IIe siècle av. J.-C. par un prêtre et sa femme, elle aussi prêtresse (texte 7)66. A cette époque, le culte syrien d’Atargatis avait été fraîchement introduit à Délos, sans doute par des Syriens établis comme commerçants dans l’île67, et il était sous le contrôle de prêtres hiérapolitains. Plus tard, il sera pris en charge par des prêtres athéniens ; il deviendra donc civique, et son organisation sera bien différente68. L’inscription révèle que le couple de prêtres a reconstruit l’oikos à ses frais et à ceux des thiasites syriens, suite à un « prélèvement » qui avait été fait sur le sanctuaire de la déesse ; on comprend généralement qu’une partie du terrain consacré à Atargatis avait été prélevé au profit du sanctuaire de Sarapis voisin. C’est la première et la dernière fois qu’il est fait mention d’un couple de prêtres pour le culte syrien. Faut-il voir dans cette mixité une coutume importée de l’Orient ? Cela est peu probable, car en Syrie même, la déesse Atargatis n’est desservie que par des prêtres69. Le premier éditeur de l’inscription, Gerard Siebert, ne voit pas quelle raison alléguer pour cette exception, « si ce n’est la con-

|| vidus ne sont pas uniquement le résultat d’une obligation basée sur la fortune: comme le rappelle van Bremen 1996: 299, d’autres facteurs entrent en jeu: « Family tradition, the preservation of status, political ambitions, and even ideological developments all played a part ». 66 Siebert 1968. Sur Hagnè Thea comme synonyme de la Déesse syrienne, cf. Ackermann 2010: 88−89. 67 Cf. Baslez 1977: 95, et ead. 2001. 68 Cf. Bruneau 1970: 466−473 sur le sanctuaire des dieux syriens. Notre inscription est la plus ancienne pour le culte syrien de Délos, les autres sont postérieures de plusieurs décennies (la suivante est ID 2226, une dédicace de 128/7). L’officialisation du culte, perceptible dans le remplacement des prêtres hiérapolitains par des prêtres athéniens, se place entre 128/7 et 112/1 selon Bruneau. 69 Goossens 1943: 98. Sur la rareté des femmes dans le personnel cultuel au Proche-Orient, voir Yon 2009, 197−214 (p. 205−206 sur la Déesse syrienne à Délos).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

28 | Delphine Ackermann

tamination des cultes non syriens ». Godefroy Goossens explique en effet les innovations de cette sorte par la nécessité pour le culte qui se propage hors de Syrie de s’adapter à son nouvel environnement culturel70. Mais je ne vois pas quel culte non syrien ou quel environnement culturel aurait pu influencer les Syriens dans le sens d’une prêtrise mixte. Les Grecs, on l’a vu, ont tendance à confier la prêtrise des divinités féminines à des femmes ; au Pirée d’ailleurs, c’est une prêtresse qui endosse la responsabilité du culte de la Déesse syrienne71. De plus, il semble plutôt que les communautés sémitiques établies à l’étranger ont la volonté de préserver leurs rituels ancestraux, ce qui se traduit souvent par le maintien de charges cultuelles indigènes, et par des règlements cultuels spécifiques72. Est-il possible de trouver une explication plus satisfaisante ? En tout cas, là encore, la prêtrise mixte n’a pas de lien avec le sexe des dieux desservis (Atargatis est en effet couplée avec Hadad), car la prêtrise n’est plus jamais mixte par la suite, mais uniquement masculine73. Dans l’inscription de Délos, le couple s’affirme clairement comme tel (l. 2), et fait la dédicace en son nom et au nom de ses enfants (l. 5−6)74. De plus, la prêtrise qu’il exerce comporte une dimension évergétique, comme le montre la mention de la reconstruction de l’oikos. L’accent mis sur le couple et sur la famille, ainsi que l’action évergétique accomplie par les prêtres, me font penser qu’il s’agit d’une prêtrise mixte proche de celles pratiquées à Lagina et à Panamara, lesquelles s’expliquent plutôt par des phénomènes de société que par des impératifs cultuels75. || 70 Siebert 1968: 373 n. 2; Goossens 1943: 98. 71 IG II2 1337 (décret des orgéons de la Déesse syrienne, 95/4 av. J.-C.). D’autres exemples de prêtresses de la Déesse syrienne en Grèce se trouvent chez Yon, loc. cit. n. 69, p. 206. 72 Baslez 2001. 73 Hadad tient de toute manière un rôle mineur par rapport à Atargatis, et le prêtre porte le nom de la déesse, jamais du dieu. 74 Siebert se demandait si on n’avait pas affaire là à « l’indication d’une organisation plus ancienne, peut-être familiale de ce culte, au moment de son implantation à Délos » (1968: 373). Bruneau lui emboîte le pas: « la mention, unique pour l’instant, d’une prêtresse peut correspondre à un état de l’organisation sacerdotale plus ancien que celui révélé par les autres inscriptions » (1970: 468). Baslez 1977: 226 observe que « le couple sacerdotal apparaît fréquemment lorsque des cultes orientaux se diffusent à l’étranger et que se créent les premières associations cultuelles; c’est caractéristique d’une organisation originelle de type familial », mais les parallèles manquent. Elle ajoute que le titre de prêtresse porté par l’épouse « ne nous paraît pas correspondre à un sacerdoce effectivement assumé, mais rappeler seulement la fonction de son mari » (p. 226 n. 6), mais cette hypothèse est difficile à démontrer. 75 Une dimension évergétique et familiale est présente aussi dans ID 2226 (128/7av. J.-C.), où le prêtre Achaios de Hiérapolis dédie à Hadad et Atargatis, de sa part et de celle de sa famille, un temple, un oikos, des autels.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Les prêtrises mixtes : genre, religion et société | 29

Conclusions Les prêtrises mixtes sélectionnées ici en Asie Mineure et dans les îles égéennes ont, comme on pouvait s’y attendre, des causes multiples, d’où l’importance de procéder au cas par cas et de tenir compte à chaque fois du cadre chronologique, social, politique et religieux duquel émanent nos sources. De cette petite étude, nécessairement incomplète, se dégagent trois raisons principales expliquant qu’un homme et une femme aient exercé un sacerdoce conjointement : la pratique d’un rite initiatique exigeant un bain total des participants et le rapport des Grecs au corps dénudé de l’autre sexe (les Corybantes à Erythrées), l’existence d’un culte pratiqué par des thiases mixtes couplée à la volonté de la cité de rendre attractive une prêtrise mise en vente (Dionysos à Milet), et enfin l’idéologie du couple (ou de la famille) évergète (Zeus et Héra à Panamara et Hécate à Lagina, peut-être Atargatis à Délos). On le voit, les raisons sociales, religieuses, économiques s’imbriquent, et toutes contribuent à construire les rapports entre masculin et féminin. En revanche, à ce stade de ma recherche, il ne semble pas que les prêtrises mixtes puissent s’expliquer par un souci de faire correspondre l’identité sexuelle des deux prêtres à celle des divinités desservies, à part peut-être le cas particulier des prêtrises du culte impérial. Bien sûr, ces conclusions ne sont pas définitives et le sujet est loin d’être épuisé. Il faudrait se tourner maintenant vers la Grèce propre, qui recèle au moins autant d’occurrences de prêtrises mixtes, parfois plus anciennes que les cas retenus ici. Cette étude en préparation me conduira certainement à nuancer mon propos. Etudier les prêtrises mixtes permet donc de poser sous un angle nouveau la question de la différence entre les sexes dans la mentalité grecque, tout en mesurant à quel point la perception des rapports hommes-femmes varie d’une époque à l’autre, d’une cité à l’autre et d’une catégorie sociale à une autre. Cela nous fait voir aussi comment une prêtrise peut être modifiée, passant de l’exercice simple à l’exercice double et mixte, pour s’adapter à de nouvelles exigences sociales, religieuses ou économiques. La religion grecque fait la preuve une nouvelle fois de sa souplesse et de sa capacité d’adaptation.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

30 | Delphine Ackermann

Appendice Texte 1 : règlement sur la vente de la prêtrise des Corybantes Erythrées, 2e moitié du IVe siècle av. J.-C. Fragment A : Engelmann et Merkelbach, I.Erythrai 2.206. Fragment B : Himmelmann 1997 (avec des restitutions de E. Voutiras) (= SEG 47.1628). Quelques restitutions ont été proposées par Dignas 2002 (= SEG 52.1147), en partie critiquées par A. Chaniotis, EBGR 2002 (2005) p. 442 n°32. Stoichedon 28 Fragment A

4

8

12

16

Ὁ πριάμενος καὶ ἡ πρι[αμένη τὴν ἱερ]ητείην τῶγ Κυρβάντων [ἱερήσεται κ]αὶ τῶι ὀργίωι τῶι Ἕρσης̣ [καὶ . . .6. . .]όρης καὶ Φανίδος, ἢμ μὲν [δυνατὸν ἦι] πᾶσι, εἰ δὲ μή, οἷς θέληι κα[ὶ . . .7. . . .]ηι, κατὰ τὸ ψήφισμα· οἱ δὲ π[ριάμενοι] τὰς ἱερητείας τελεῦσι κ[αὶ κρητηρ]ιεῦσι καὶ λούσουσι τοὺς̣ [τελευμέν]ους, ὁ μὲν ἀνὴρ ἄνδρας, ἡ δ[ὲ γυνὴ γυνα]ῖκας· γέρα δὲ λάψεται λ[ουτροῦ τρεῖ]ς ὀβολούς, κρητηρισμο̣[ῦ δύο ὀβολοὺ]ς καὶ τὸμ πόκογ καὶ τὸ [σκέλος· ξένων] δὲ τελευμένων ἀπ’ ἑκ̣[άστης τῶν ἁγν]ειῶν τρεῖς δραχμὰς [καὶ τὸμ πόκογ] καὶ τὸ σκέλος τὸ πα[ρὰ τὸν βωμὸν πα]ρατιθέμενον κα[ὶ – – – –]

L. 5−6 : κα[ὶ ἕως ἂν ζώ]ηι Dignas ; l. 8−9 : [βουλομέν]ους Dignas ; l. 13−14 : ἀπεν̣[εγκάτω τῶν ἱερ]ειῶν Dignas. Fragment B 1

4

8

[. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .]ἐμ μέρε[ι. . . . .] [. . . . . . . . . . . . .] ἢμ μή τι πόλι[ς ἄλλο] [προθύητ]αι· γέ[ρ]α δὲ λάψονται [κατὰ τ][άδε· ἑκ]άτερος τῶν δημοσίων γ[έρα λά][ψετ]αι τὰ κώιδια καὶ τὰ σκέλη· [ἢν δέ τ][ι]ς ξενίζηι τοὺς θεοὺς ἢ θύηι [ἐπὶ τῶ]μ βωμῶν τῶν δημοσίων, γέρα ἀπ[οδιδό]τω τοῖς πριαμένοις τῶμ παρ[ατεθέν]-

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Les prêtrises mixtes : genre, religion et société | 31

12

16

20

24

των τοῖς θεοῖς βρωτῶν ἑκ[τημόριον] καὶ τῶγ κρεῶμ μερίδα κ[αὶ τελέου ἱε]ρείου ὀβολόν, τέσσερα[ς δὲ βοιός· ἢν] δέ τις ἄλλος ἱέρεως τε[λέσηι ἢ ἄλλη] ἱερῆ ἢ λούσηι ἢ κρητη[ρίσηι, ἀποδότ] ω τοῖς πριαμένοις π[άντων ὧν ἂν λάβ]ηι τὰ ἡμίσεα μὴ ἐξελ[ὼμ μηδέν, τιμὴν] δοὺς ἣ ἐν τῆι στήληι [γέγραπται· ἐξε]ῖναι δὲ τοῖς πριαμ[ένοις παρὰ (?) τῆς π]όλεως τοὺς ἱερεῖς κ[αὶ τὰς ἱερείας] καὶ τοὺς τελεσθέντα[ς ἢ κρητηρισθ]έντας ἢ λουθέντας ὑπ[ὸ τούτων καὶ τ]ὰς τελεσθείσας ἢ κρητ[ηρισθείσας] ἢ λουθείσας ἀπορκῶσα[ι, ἕνα δὲ κριτ(?)]έον, ὃς καὶ ὑπὲρ πάντων [τὸν ὅρκον ἀ][π]όμνυσι, ἢν δὲ [μὴ ἐθέλωσιν ἀπομνύν][α]ι, δίκας [διδόναι, ὀφείλειν δὲ πεντ][ή]κοντ[α δραχμὰς ἕκαστον . . . . . . . .]

L. 2 : πόλι[ς αὐτὴ] Dignas ; Chaniotis verrait plutôt une forme de πολίτης, par opposition à ξένος (A 12) ; l. 15−16 : ἐξελ[ὼν ἄλλο τι ἢ ἀπο]δοὺς Dignas ; l. 22−23 : ἀπορκῶσα[ι ἢ ἀποδεικτ]έον Dignas. Texte 2 : liste de prêtrises vendues par la cité Erythrées, 300−260 av. J.-C. (extraits) I. Erythrai 2.201 αἵδε ἱερητεῖαι ἐπράθησαν ἐφ’ ἱεροποιοῦ Ἀπατουρίου, μηνὸς Ληναιῶνος· Κορυβάντων Εὐφρονισ̣ίων ⟦καὶ Θαλείων ἐπιθαλεώσεως ἕ⟧62a [ν]εκεν, τὴν γυναικείαν ἠγόρασεν Ἀντίπατρος Ἀγασικλείους ­ Η­ , ἐπώνιον Δ· ἐγγυητὴς 64 Ἡρόδοτος Ἀρκέοντος· τῶν ἀνδρείων ἠγόρασεν Ἀριστοκλῆς Ἀδε[ι]μάντου δραχμῶν Η­ ΔΔΔ, ἐπώνιον­ · ἐγγυητὴς Σώισιμος Ἀριστοκλείους (…) ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ 61

72

(…) Κορυβάντων Θαλείων ἀνδρείων· Η­ ΔΔ­ , ἐπώνιον [­ ]· Ἡνίοχος Ἡνιόχου, ἐγγυητὴς Μητρόδωρος Μητροδώρου· (…)

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

32 | Delphine Ackermann

Texte 3 : règlement sur la vente de la prêtrise de Dionysos Milet, 276/5 av. J.-C. I. Milet 3.1222

4

8

12

16

20

24

--------------------------------------------[- - -]Ν. ὅταν δὲ ἡ ἱέρεια ἐπι[τελέσ]ηι τὰ ἱερὰ ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλ[εω]ς [πάσης] μὴ ἐξεῖναι ὠμοφάγιον ἐμβαλεῖν μηθενὶ πρότερον [ἢ ἡ ἱέ]ρεια ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεως ἐμβάληι, μὴ ἐξεῖναι δὲ μηδὲ [συν]α̣γαγεῖν τὸν θίασον μηθενὶ πρότερον τοῦ δημοσίου· [ἐὰ]ν δέ τις ἀνὴρ ἢ γυνὴ βούληται θύειν τῶι Διονύσωι, [πρ]οϊεράσθω ὁπότερον ἂν βούληται ὁ θύων καὶ λαμβανέτω τὰ γέρη ὁ προϊερώμενος· τὴν δὲ τιμὴν καταβάλλειν ἐν ἔτεσιν [δέ]κα, δέκατομ μέρος ἔτους ἐκάστου, τὴμ μὲν πρώτην κατα[βολὴν] ἐμ μηνὶ Ἀπατουριῶνι τῶι ἐπὶ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ μετὰ [Πο]σείδιππον τῆι τετράδι ἱσταμένου, τὰς δὲ λοιπὰς ἐν τοῖς [ἐχο]μ̣ένοις ἔτεσιν μηνὸς Ἀρτεμισιῶνος τετράδι ἱσταμένου [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] [- -] δὲ τὴν ἱέρειαν γυναῖκας διδόναι ΔΙ̣Ι̣ΙΝΛ[- - - - -] [- - - τ]ὰ̣ δὲ τέλεστρα {καὶ τελεστ} παρέ̣χ[ειν ταῖς] [γυναιξὶν] ἐν τοῖς ὀργί[οις πᾶ]σιν· ἐὰν δέ τις θύειν βούλ̣[ηται] [τῶ]ι Διονύ[σω]ι γυνή, διδότω γέρη τῆι ἱερείαι σπλάγχνα, νεφ[ρόν], σκολιόν, ἱερὰμ μοῖραν, γλῶσσαν, σκέλος εἰς κοτυληδόνα [ἐκ][τ]ετμημένον· καὶ ἐάν τις γυνὴ βούληται τελεῖν τῶι Διονύσωι τῶι Βακχίωι ἐν τῆι πόλει ἢ ἐν τῆι χώραι ἢ ἐν ταῖς νήσοις, [ἀπο]διδότω τῆι ἱερείαι στατῆρα κατ’ ἑκάστην τριετηρίδα· τοῖς δὲ Καταγωγίοις κατάγειν τὸν Διόνυσον τοὺς ἱερεῖ[ς] καὶ τὰς ἱερείας τοῦ [Διονύ]σου τοῦ Βακχίου μετὰ τοῦ [ἱερέως] [κ]αὶ τῆς ἱερείας πρ[ωῒ τ]ῆ[ς] ἡμέρας μέχρι τῶν [- - - - - - -] [- - - τ]ῆς πόλεως [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] α συντελῶσι - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -vest. litt. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Texte 4 : commémoration de Dionysios fils d’Eumollôn Lagina (Stratonicée), 2e moitié du IIe siècle ap. J.-C. I. Stratonikeia 683

4

Ἱερεὺς ἐπανγειλάμενος Διονύσιος Εὐμόλλοντο[ς] τοῦ Παπίωνος Κ(ωρα)ζ(εύς)· ἱέρεια ἡ γυνὴ α[ὐ]τοῦ Ἀρτεμεὶς Ἀργύρου Κ(ωρα)ζ(ίς)· κλειδοφόρος ἐπανγειλαμένη ἡ θυγάτηρ αὐτοῦ

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Les prêtrises mixtes : genre, religion et société | 33

8

Ἐπαινετὶς Διονυσίου Κ(ωρα)ζ(ίς), ὁ υἱὸς αὐτῶν ὁ καὶ παραπομπὸς Διονύσιος Διονυσίο[υ] Παπίων Κ(ωρα)ζ(εύς)

Texte 5 : commémoration de Tib. Flavius Iasôn et Ailia Statilia Pythianè Panamara (Stratonicée), règne de Marc-Aurèle (161−180 ap. J.-C.) I. Stratonikeia 205 + II p. VIII

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

Ἱερεὺς ἐξ ἱερέων καὶ προγόνων ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας ἐν Κομυρίοις Τ(ι)β(έριος) Φλ(άουιος), Τ(ι)β(ερίου) Φλ(αουίου) Αἰνείου υἱός, Κυρείνα, Ἰάσων Ἱε(ροκωμήτης), ἱέρεια Αἰλ(ία) Στατιλία, Αἰλ(ίου) Παπίου θυγάτηρ, Πυθιανὴ Ἱε(ροκωμῆτις), ἱερατεύσαντες εὐσεβῶς μὲν πρὸς τοὺς θεούς, τὸν Δία καὶ τὴν Ἥραν, φιλοτείμως δὲ πρὸς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, παραλαμβάνοντες μὲν τὸν στέφανον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐγυμνασιάρχησαν, ἤλειψαν δὲ καὶ τῇ ἀνόδῳ τοῦ θεοῦ πανδημεὶ τὴν πόλιν ἐν τῷ ἄστει πρῶτοι, καὶ τὰς τῆς ἑορτῆς δὲ τῶν Παναμαρείων ἡμέρας δέκα ἔθεσαν ἐν τοῖς γυμνασίοις ἔλαιον δρακτῷ πάσῃ ἡλικίᾳ καὶ τύχῃ ἀδιαλείπτως καὶ νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας καὶ ἐπαλείμματα, καὶ ταῖς γυναιξὶ δὲ πάσαις ἔδοσαν ἔλαιον ἐν τοῖς γυναικείοις βαλανείοις, ἑστίασαν δὲ πάντας τοὺς ἀνιόντας ἰς τὸ ἱερὸν διὰ παντὸς τοῦ ἔτους, ἀπέδοσαν δὲ καὶ τὰ δεῖπνα καὶ τὰ ἱερὰ καὶ τὰ τῆς τραπέζης δίκαια διὰ τὴν ἑαυτῶν μεγαλοφροσύνην, ἐπετέλεσαν δὲ καὶ τὰ μυστήρια τοῦ Κομυρίου εὐσεβῶς, καὶ τοῖς μὲν ἀνδράσιν ἐν τῷ Κομυρίῳ δεῖπνα παρέσχον κατὰ τρικλειναρχίας καὶ τὸν οἶνον ἔδοσαν ἀφθόνως πολείταις, ξένοις, δούλοις,

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

34 | Delphine Ackermann

32

36

ταῖς γυναιξὶ δὲ ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ καὶ αὐταῖς παρέσχον οἶνον πλεῖστον ταῖς δυσὶν ἡμέραις, καὶ τὰ ξύλα ἐν τοῖς δυσὶ τόποις, ἔθεσαν δὲ καὶ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ πάσῃ ἡλικίᾳ γλυκύν τε καὶ οἶνον ἀφθόνως, ἔδοσαν δὲ καὶ τοῖς πολείταις ✳ μύρια.

Texte 6 : commémoration d’Aristippos fils d’Alexandros et d’Hègémonis Apphion Panamara (Stratonicée), vers 120 ap. J.-C. I. Stratonikeia 242

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

Ἱερεὺς ἐξ ἱερέων ἐν Ἡραίοις κατὰ πενταετηρίδα Ἀρίστιππος Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Λέο[ν]τος Κο(λιοργεὺς) μετὰ ἀρχιερωσύνην τελείαν καθό[τι] δ̣ηλοῦται διὰ τῶν ψηφισμάτων τῆς βουλῆς κα[ὶ] [τ]οῦ δήμου· ἱέρεια Ἡγεμονὶς Πυ̣θέου τοῦ Μουσαίου Ἄπφιον Κω(ραιῒς) ἐξ ἐπανγελίας, αὐξήσαντε[ς] τὸ μέγεθος τῆς ἱερωσύνης εὐσεβῶς καὶ φ[ι]λοτείμως πρὸς τὴν πάντων ὑποδοχὴν ο[ὐ] μόνον ταῖς καθ’ ἡμέραν δαπάναις καὶ ἀναλ[ώ]μασιν διὰ παντὸς τοῦ ἔτους πρὸς τὰς ἑστι[ά]σεις, ἀλείψαντες δὲ καὶ τῇ τοῦ στεφάνου π[α][ραλ]ήψει καὶ τοὺς ἄνδρας καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας, γ[υ][μ]νασιαρχήσαντες δὲ καὶ τῇ ἑορτῇ καὶ πανηγύρει τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπιρρύτῳ ἐλαίῳ ἀπὸ τῆ[ς] εἰκάδος μέχρι τῆς τριακάδος ἐν τοῖς δυσ[ὶ] βαλανείοις παντὶ τῷ χρόνῳ τῆς ἐπιδημίας τοῦ θεοῦ πάσῃ τύχῃ καὶ ἡλικίᾳ τῶν ἐπιδημούντων ἀνθρώπων· ἐγυμνασιάρχησεν δὲ καὶ ἡ ἱέρεια ταῖς γυναιξὶν τό τ[ε] ἔλαιον καὶ μύρα καὶ τὰ τ[ελε]ιότατα τῶν ἀλειμμάτων α[. . . .c.8. . . .]ι̣[.]ου σα[.] ἐμισθώσαντο δὲ καὶ το[ὺς] ἐπ[ιδη]μήσαντας παρ’ ἑκάστ[ῳ] τῶν θ[υμελι][κ]ῶν, ἐν δὲ τοῖς Ἡραίοις μετὰ τ[ῶν ἄ]λλων παρέσχον τ[αῖς γυναιξ]ὶ̣ν̣ καὶ δούλαις καὶ ἐλευθέραις μετὰ τῆς ἄλλης χο[ρη]γίας καὶ ἀργυρίου ἑκάστῃ ἀνὰ ✳ γʹ, ἀπέδοσαν δὲ καὶ τὰ δεῖπνα τοῖς

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Les prêtrises mixtes : genre, religion et société | 35

32

36

40

ἀνακομίσασιν πᾶσιν, ἐχαρίσαντο δὲ καὶ τὰ ἱερὰ τοῖς θύσασι διὰ προγράμματος παρακαλέσαντες ἐπὶ τὰς θυσίας, ἔδοσαν δὲ καὶ ταῖς δημοθυνίαις πᾶσιν τοῖς ἀνελθοῦσιν ἀποφόρητα δεῖπνα· συνφιλοδοξούντων αὐτοῖς τοῦ τε πατρὸς τοῦ ἱερέως Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Λέοντος, καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς τῆς ἱερείας Πυθέου τοῦ Μουσαίου, καὶ τῶν τέκνων αὐτῶν Ἡγεμονίδος τῆς Ἀριστίππου Ἀπ[φ]ίου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου καὶ Πυθέου τῶν Ἀρι[σ]τίππου.

Texte 7 : dédicace des prêtres syriens à Hagnè Thea Délos, début du IIe siècle av. J.-C. SEG 52.761 (d’après Siebert 1968)

4

8

Ὁ ἱερεὺς Νίκων Ἀπολλωνίου καὶ ἡ ἱέρεια ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ Ὀνησακὼ Ξένωνος τὸν προϋπάρχοντα οἶκον, ἐξ οὗ ἀφειρέθη εἰς τὸν τοῦ Σαράπιδος ναόν, κατεσκεύασαν ὑπὲρ αὑτῶν καὶ τῶν τέκνων Ἁγνεῖ Θεᾶι χαριστήριο[ν] · καὶ οἵδε συμβέβληνται εἰς τὴν ἐπισκευὴν τοῦ οἴκου · τὸ κοινὸν τῶν θιασιτῶ[ν] τῶν Σύρων τῶν εἰκαδιστῶν οὓς συνήγαγε ἡ θεός ⟦- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -⟧ δ̣[ραχ]μ̣ὰς Δηλίας πεντήκοντα ------------------------------

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

36 | Delphine Ackermann

Bibliographie Ackermann, D. (2010). « L’Hagnè Theos du dème d’Aixônè en Attique: réflexions sur l’anonymat divin dans la religion grecque antique ». ARG 12: 83−118. Baslez, M.-Fr. (1977). Recherches sur les conditions de pénétration et de diffusion des religions orientales à Délos: IIe−Ier s. avant notre ère. Paris. ― (2001). « Entre traditions nationales et intégration : les associations sémitiques du monde grec ». In: Ribichini, S., Rocchi, M., Xella, P. (eds.), La questione delle influenze vicinoorientali sulla religione greca. Rome. 235−247. Bielman, A. (2002). Femmes en public dans le monde hellénistique: IVe−Ier s. av. J.-C. Paris. Blok, J. (2005). « Becoming Citizens. Some Notes on the Semantics of « Citizen » in Archaic Greece and Classical Athens ». Klio 87: 7−40. Boehringer, S., Sébillotte Cuchet, V. (eds.) (2011). Hommes et femmes dans l’Antiquité grecque et romaine: le genre: méthode et documents. Paris. van Bremen, R. (1994). « A family from Sillyon ». ZPE 104: 43−56. ― (1996). The limits of participation: women and civic life in the Greek East in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Amsterdam. Bremmer, J.N. (19992). Greek Religion. Oxford. Bruit Zaidman, L., Schmitt Pantel, P. (2007). « L’historiographie du genre: état des lieux ». In: Sébillotte Cuchet, V., Ernoult, N. (eds.), Problèmes du genre en Grèce ancienne. Paris. 27−48. Bruit Zaidman, L. (2002) [1991]. « Les filles de Pandore. Femmes et rituels dans les cités grecques ». In: Duby, G., Perrot, M. (eds.), Histoire des femmes en Occident 1. L’Antiquité (dir. P. Schmitt Pantel). Paris. 441−493. ― (2009). « Les femmes et le religieux dans les Lois de Platon ». In: Bodiou, L., et al. (eds.), Chemin faisant: mythes, cultes et sociétés en Grèce ancienne. Mélanges en l’honneur de Pierre Brulé. Rennes. 115−124. Brulé, P. (1996). « La cité et ses composantes: remarques sur les sacrifices et la procession des Panathénées ». Kernos 9: 37−63. Bruneau, Ph. (1970). Recherches sur les cultes de Délos à l’époque hellénistique et à l’époque impériale. Paris. Burkert, W. (20112). Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche. Stuttgart. Campanile, M.D. (1994). I sacerdoti del Koinon d’Asia (I sec. a.C.-III sec. d.C.): contributo allo studio della romanizzazione delle élites provinciali nell’Oriente Greco. Pise. Cole, S.G. (1988). « The use of water in Greek sanctuaries ». In: Hägg, R., Marinatos, N., Nordquist, G.C. (eds.), Early Greek Cult Practice. Stockholm. 161−165. ― (1992). « Gunaiki ou themis: Gender Difference in the Greek Leges Sacrae ». Helios 19: 104−122. ― (2004). Landscapes, Gender, and Ritual Space: The Ancient Greek Experience. Berkeley/Londres. Connelly, J.B. (2007). Portrait of a priestess: women and ritual in ancient Greece. Princeton/Oxford. Debord, P. (1982). Aspects sociaux et économiques de la vie religieuse dans l’Anatolie grécoromaine. Leyde.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Les prêtrises mixtes : genre, religion et société | 37

Detienne, M. (1979). « Violentes « eugénies ». En pleines Thesmophories: des femmes couvertes de sang ». In: Detienne, M., Vernant, J.-P. (eds.), La cuisine du sacrifice en pays grec. Paris. 183−214. Dignas, B. (2002). « Priestly Authority in the Cult of the Corybantes at Erythrae ». EA 34: 29−40. ― (2002 b). Economy of the sacred in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor. Oxford/New York. Dillon, M. (2002). Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion. Londres/New York. Frija, G. (2012). Les prêtres des empereurs: le culte impérial civique dans la province romaine d’Asie. Rennes. Georgoudi, S. (2005). « Athanatous therapeuein. Réflexions sur des femmes au service des dieux ». In: Dasen, V., Piérart, M. (eds.), Idia kai demosia: les cadres « publics » et « privés » de la religion grecque antique. Liège. 69−82. ― (2009). « Côtoyer le divin, devenir l’autre : les agents cultuels et leurs dieux en pays grec ». In : N. Belayche et S.C. Mimouni (éd.), Entre lignes de partage et territoires de passage. Les identités religieuses dans les mondes grec et romain, Paris/Louvain. 275−294. Ginouvès, R. (1962). Balaneutikè. Recherches sur le bain dans l’antiquité grecque. Paris. Goossens, G. (1943). Hiérapolis de Syrie: essai de monographie historique. Louvain. Graf, F. (1985). Nordionische Kulte: Religionsgeschichtliche und epigraphische Untersuchungen zu den Kulten von Chios, Erythrai, Klazomenai und Phokaia. Rome. ― (2010). « The Kyrbantes of Erythrai ». In: Reger, G., Ryan, F.X., Winters, T.F. (eds.), Studies in Greek Epigraphy and History in Honor of Stephen V. Tracy. Bordeaux/Paris. 301−309. Hemelrijk, E.A. (2006). « Imperial priestesses, a preliminary survey ». In: de Blois, L., Funke, P., Hahn, J. (eds.), The impact of imperial Rome on religions, ritual, and religious life in the Roman Empire. Leyde/Boston. 179−193. Henrichs, A. (1969). « Die Mänaden von Milet ». ZPE 4: 223−241. Herrmann, P. (2002). « Eine ’pierre errante, in Samos: Kultgesetz der Korybanten ». Chiron 32: 157−172. Himmelmann, N. (1997). « Die Priesterschaft der Kyrbantes in Erythrai (Neues Fragment von I.K. 2, 206) », EA 29: 117−122 (repris dans id., Tieropfer in der griechischen Kunst, Opladen, 1997, 75−82). Holderman, E.S. (1913). A Study of the Greek Priestess. Chicago. Horster, M. (2010). « Lysimache and the others. Some notes on the position of women in athenian religion ». In: Reger, G., Ryan, F.X., Winters, T.F. (eds.), Studies in Greek Epigraphy and History in Honor of Stephen V. Tracy. Bordeaux/Paris. 177−192. Jaccottet, A.-F. (2003). Choisir Dionysos: les associations dionysiaques ou la face cachée du dionysisme. Zürich. 2 vol. ― (2005). « Du thiase aux mystères. Dionysos entre le « privé » et « l’officiel » ». In: Dasen, V., Piérart, M. (eds.), Idia kai demosia: les cadres « publics » et « privés » de la religion grecque antique. Liège. 191−202. Jameson, M.H. (1988). « Sacrifice and Animal Husbandry in Classical Greece ». In: C.R. Whittaker (ed.), Pastoral Economies in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge. 87−119. Jeanmaire, H. (1951). Dionysos. Histoire du culte de Bacchus. Paris. Kadletz, E. (1981). Animal Sacrifice in Greek and Roman Religion. Ann Arbor Mich./Londres. Kron, U. (1996). « Priesthoods, Dedications and Euergetism. What Part Did Religion Play in the Political and Social Status of Greek Women ? ». In: Hellström, P., Alroth, B. (eds.), Religion and Power in the Ancient Greek World. Uppsala. 139−182.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

38 | Delphine Ackermann

Lambert, S.D. (2012). « The Social Construction of Priests and Priestesses in Athenian Honorific Decrees from the Fourth Century BC to the Augustan Period ». In: Horster, M., Klöckner, A. (eds.), Civic Priests: Cult Personnel in Athens from the Hellenistic Period to Late Antiquity. Berlin/Boston. 67−134. Laumonier, A. (1958). Les cultes indigènes en Carie. Paris. Lindner, R. (1997). « Kouretes, Korybantes ». LIMC 8/1: 736−741. Linforth, I.M. (1946). « The Corybantic rites in Plato ». UCP Classical Philology (Berkeley) 13/5: 121−162. Müller, Chr. (1995). « Epaminondas et les évegètes de la cité d’Akraiphia au Ier s. de notre ère », In: Christodoulou, A.Ch. (ed.), Epeteris tes Hetaireias Boiotikon Meleton 2. Athènes. 455−467. Mylonas, G.E. (1961). Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries. Princeton. Nollé, J. (1994). « Frauen wie Omphale ? Überlegungen zu ‘politischen’ Ämtern von Frauen in kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien ». In: Dettenhofer, M.H. (ed.), Reine Männersache ? Frauen in Männerdomänen der antiken Welt. Cologne/Weimar/Vienne. 229−259. Oppermann, H. (1924). Zeus Panamaros. Giessen. Osborne, R. (1993). « Women and Sacrifice in Classical Greece ». CQ 43: 392−405. (réimpr. Buxton, R. (ed.), Oxford Readings in Greek Religion. Oxford. 2000. 294−313). Parker, R. (1983). Miasma: pollution and purification in early Greek religion. Oxford. ― (2005). Polytheism and Society at Athens. Oxford. Rehm, A., Harder, R. (1958). Didyma 2. Die Inschriften. Berlin. Rosivach, V.J. (1994). The system of public sacrifice in fourth-century Athens. Atlanta Ga. Savalli-Lestrade, I. (2003). « Archippè de Kymè, la bienfaitrice ». In: Loraux, N. (ed.), La Grèce au féminin. Paris. 247−295. Schmitt Pantel, P. (1992). La cité au banquet : histoire des repas publics dans les cités grecques. Rome. ― (2009). Aithra et Pandora: femmes, genre et cité dans la Grèce antique. Paris. Siebert, G. (1968). « Sur l’histoire du sanctuaire des dieux syriens à Délos ». BCH 92/2: 359−374. Sourvinou-Inwood, Chr. (1988). « Further aspects of polis religion ». AION (archeol) 10: 259−274. ― (1995). « Male and Female, Public and Private, Ancient and Modern ». In: Reeder, E.D. (ed.), Pandora. Women in Classical Greece. Baltimore/Princeton. 111−120. Stavrianopoulou, E. (2002). ‘Gruppenbild mit Dame’. Untersuchungen zur rechtlichen und sozialen Stellung der Frau auf den Kykladen im Hellenismus und in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Stuttgart. Turner, J.A. (1983). Hiereiai. Acquisition of Feminine Priesthoods in Ancient Greece. Ann Arbor Mich. Ustinova, Y. (1992−8). « Corybantism: the Nature and Role of an Ecstatic Cult in the Greek Polis », Horos 10−12: 503−520. Veyne, P. (1962). « Les honneurs posthumes de Flavia Domitilla et les dédicaces grecques et latines ». Latomus 21: 49−98. Voutiras, E. (1996). « Un culte domestique des Corybantes ». Kernos 9: 243−256. Wikander, Ch. (1996). « Religion, Political Power and Gender – the Building of a Cult-Image ». In: Hellström, P., Alroth, B. (eds.), Religion and Power in the Ancient Greek World. Uppsala. 183−188.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Les prêtrises mixtes : genre, religion et société | 39

Williamson, Chr. (2012). « Sanctuaries as turning points in territorial formation. Lagina, Panamara and the development of Stratonikeia ». In: Pirson, F. (ed.), Manifestationen von Macht und Hierarchien in Stadtraum und Landschaft. Istamboul. 113−150. Wörrle, M. (1988). Stadt und Fest im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien: Studien zu einer agonistischen Stiftung aus Oinoanda. Munich. ― (1992). « Neue Inschriftenfunde aus Aizanoi I ». Chiron 22: 337−376. Yon, J.-B. (2009). « Personnel religieux féminin au Proche-Orient hellénistique et romain ». In: Briquel-Chatonnet, Fr. et al. (éds.), Femmes, cultures et sociétés dans les civilisations méditérranénnes et proche-orientales de l‘Antiquité, Lyon-Paris. Topoi suppl. 10, 197−214. Zoepffel, R. (1989). « Aufgaben, Rollen und Räume von Mann und Frau im archaischen und klassischen Griechenland ». In: Martin, J., Zoepffel, R. (eds.), Aufgaben, Rollen und Räume von Frau und Mann, Fribourg-en-Brisgau/Munich. Vol. 2, 443-500.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Ludwig Meier

Priests and Funding of Public Buildings on Cos and Elsewhere1 Abstract: Hellenistic Cos provides us with an excellent and, in some respects, unique documentation of the involvement of priests in the financial system of a Hellenistic polis. The records of purchasable priesthoods (a practice found especially in western Asia Minor and on the adjacent islands) from Cos outnumber those from other cities in their entirety. These documents, called diagraphai, are advertisements for priesthoods of thirteen different cults altogether. They regulate the modalities of auction and sale, and prescribe the performance of sacrifices and the future priest’s duties and privileges, such as collecting the revenue from cult practice. Only on Cos do we know, from this unique evidence, that revenue from the sale of priesthoods was used to fund public buildings. Financing public buildings was surely one of the central functions of a civic community from Hellenistic times onwards. This era brought a range of architectural innovations, for example the change from wood to stone construction in theatres, the growing importance of peristyle architecture in structuring urban space, and the evolution of bouleuteria into multi-storey, multi-use buildings. A range of architectural forms that were developed and used in classical times now spread and were introduced into smaller towns beyond the main urban centres. In order to create a high standard of urban infrastructure, communities not only needed the corresponding logistical, technical and artistic skills, but also, and primarily, sufficient money and economic resources, which had to be acquired, administered and distributed. In his work Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener, still essential even today, August Boeckh emphasised that the civic conditions of ancient cities cannot be understood without a grasp of their financial system; understanding the financial system, on the other hand, requires knowledge of social and public life.2

|| 1 I wish to thank Marietta Horster cordially for the friendly invitation to present this paper in Mainz and to contribute to this volume. I am indebted to Isidor Brodersen and Orla Mulholland for the English translation and linguistic fine-tuning respectively. – The form of an oral presentation has largely been kept; the citations given are limited to ancient sources. For extensive documentation of modern scholarly literature, I refer to my dissertation, especially the chapters on which this contribution is based: Meier 2012, 89−95. 114f. 145−151. 163−165. 2 Boeckh 1817/1886, 2.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

42 | Ludwig Meier

Especially for the Hellenistic period, a correlation between the health of public finances and the inner condition of the cities is often assumed: chronic lack of income, due to limited potential for direct taxation, is said to have rendered the popular assembly incapable of acting. Especially expensive projects, which building plans undoubtedly were, made the community dependent on the benevolence of rich fellow citizens. Whether and to what extent these phenomena contributed to the establishment already in late Hellenistic times of the regime of honoratiores, typical of the Roman imperial period, is one of the central problems of Hellenistic history. The present author has addressed these phenomena extensively elsewhere – not only with the aim of identifying the origin of public money for buildings and the forms of its administration, but especially in order to give both a qualitative assessment of the euergetic activity of urban elites in this context and a more precise account of their importance for urban development. Generous gifts for the construction, maintenance and refurbishing of public buildings were often made in connection with holding a public office or a priesthood. This prompts us to return to the diagraphai from Cos mentioned above and to examine them more thoroughly. We aim to inquire how priests and religious practice were integrated into the funding of public buildings. In doing this, we shall also inquire what mechanisms are known outside Cos and how we should evaluate the role of priests in the general context of funding public construction. The earliest evidence for the sale of a priestly office on Cos is a fragmentary advertisement for a priesthood of an unknown god.3 The find spot suggests that it may be Asclepius/Asklapios. The document shows that plans were made to build civic office space in the early third century BC. The proceeds of the auction were invested in the purchase of a plot of land and in the construction itself; any surplus was to be used for a theatre. It remains unclear whether this meant a new building, reconstruction or maintenance. No conclusion can be drawn about the architectural appearance of the offices, but one should probably imagine a contiguous complex of buildings, e.g. a portico, with rooms for different civic office-holders. It is noteworthy that the proceeds of the sale were to be invested in non-sacred buildings; the Asklapieion itself does not seem to have profited. This procedure can be found described in more detail in an older advertisement for the priesthood of Aphrodita Pandamos and Pontia.4 The document

|| 3 IG XII 4, 1, 296b (Meier 2012, 284f., Nr. 30). 4 IG XII 4, 1, 302 (Meier 2012, 288−292, Nr. 32).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

Priests and Funding of Public Buildings on Cos and Elsewhere | 43

is the work of a committee of three men elected by the popular assembly. They were charged with expanding the existing regulations about the advertisement of the office, which was intended for a woman, by adding extra rules. In addition to the date of the auction and the personal qualifications that the buyer had to fulfill, for the most part these rules were about the payment of the purchase price and the sacrificial regulations. The buyer was to pay the price agreed at auction in four twice-yearly instalments, starting within the month of the date of auction. The sanctuary of Aphrodita Pandamos and Pontia, situated in the harbour of Cos, had been damaged rather badly in an earthquake (probably in 198 BC). Some buildings had collapsed, and banqueting halls and sites of oracles had been damaged. Faced with the destruction, the citizens of Cos needed money at short notice. They used the first payment instalment immediately, to fund a paroikodomia in the harbour. The meaning of the word implies that this was an extension that flanked, supported or blocked an existing building. The condition of the inscription does not permit a definite conclusion, but it seems that a passageway to shipyard facilities had been rendered unusable by the earthquake and was to be better protected against natural disasters in the future. The responsible overseers (epistatai) were given the money to cover the construction costs after the architect (architektôn) had rendered accounts. We find similar regulations in the advertisement for the priesthood of the cult of Homonoia (second half of the second century BC), which stated that 10 percent of the purchase price was to be invested in the production of silverware for cult practice,5 and in the advertisement for the priestly office of Asklapios, Hygieia and Epione, the proceeds of which were probably used to buy two silver cauldrons, worth 10,000 drachmas, and a couch.6 It is noteworthy that in all these documents, provisions about the use of the proceeds were made before a bidder had been awarded the contract. It is impossible to assess how high the proceeds actually were, but the only sum known from Cos is the highest documented in this context in the Greek world: in the first century BC, the auction of a priesthood of Adrasteia and Nemesis yielded a sum of 19,800 drachmas.7 Perhaps this was an exceptionally high amount, but in general the sale of priesthoods seems to have promised enough revenue to, for example, buy a plot of land, start new construction of offices and even to expect a surplus. Substantial reconstruction works in the harbour were to be

|| 5 IG XII 4, 1, 315, lines 35−37. 6 IG XII 4, 1, 311, lines 34−39. 7 IG XII 4, 1, 325, line 30.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

44 | Ludwig Meier

funded with just the first instalment of the sale price. The sale of priesthoods was thus an important source of revenue for the polis of Cos. If an office was to be reassigned, provisions about the use of the proceeds were made in the advertisement, reflecting the current financial needs of the community. Let us now turn to another aspect of public finances and return to the older advertisement of the priestly office of Aphrodita Pandamos and Pontia. Proceeds from the execution of ritual acts also played an important role. These were largely fees that had to be paid at a sacrifice of livestock and small animals. They depended on the species and size of the animal and were usually mandatory. If the believer did not fulfil this duty, the animal was not considered sacrificed and therefore the duty toward the god was not considered to have been fulfilled. Sacrificial fees were usually kept in offertory boxes called thesauroi. For the issues addressed in this paper it is noteworthy that resources accumulated in them within one administrative year were also used for construction funding. This practice is first attested in Oropos, where there were plans in 369/8 BC to refurbish a well and an ablutions-block in the sanctuary of Amphiaraos. The advertisement for undertaking the work shows that leasehold revenue from the shopping booths around the sanctuary and the contents of the offertory boxes were used to meet construction costs.8 This practice is well documented on Cos as well, as shown by the two advertisements for the priesthood of Aphrodita Pandamos and Pontia. As usual in this kind of document, they contained provisions about the use of the fees deposited in the offertory box. The stewardship of the offertory boxes, which were opened twice a year, was shared between the priestess and the senior civic office-holders of Cos (prostatai). The priestess and the goddess were each entitled to half of the contents. The goddess’s share – i.e. the sanctuary’s revenue – was collected by the polis, stored in her own financial account and always tied to the purpose of construction funding. The documents state that it had to be used for maintenance of the sanctuary. In the later document (late second century BC), additional provisions were made to ensure that the money was used for all construction plans approved by the assembly.9 The older advertisement for a priesthood of Dionysos Thyllophoros (first half of the second century BC) contains a remarkable provision. The future priestess was required to pay an annual fee of 100 drachmas. This fee was

|| 8 I. Oropos 290. 9 IG XII 4, 1, 302 b, lines 9−20 (Meier 2012, 288−292, Nr. 32); IG XII 4, 1, 319, lines 16−24 (Meier 2012, 293f., Nr. 33).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

Priests and Funding of Public Buildings on Cos and Elsewhere | 45

collected by a committee of construction overseers (epistatai) and served the purpose of maintaining a building called the Antigoneion.10 This was probably a ritual building for the Macedonian ruler Antigonos Doson, which may have been situated in the sanctuary of Dionysos and would therefore fall within the responsibility of the priestess. The inscription does not, however, specify the resources from which the priestess was to draw the money. She probably contributed it from her private wealth or from the proceeds of her office. These proceeds were sacrificial fees in the form of money and joints of meat that she collected herself, a right that was established in the advertisement for the office. How high this income was is impossible to assess, but one may suppose that it covered a large part of the fee the priestess had to pay for the maintenance of the Antigoneion. According to the later advertisement of the priesthood of Dionysos Thyllophoros, the cult for Antigonos was still active in the late second or early first century BC. As far as we can tell from the badly damaged inscription, the priestess of Dionysos was required to take care of the maintenance of the Antigoneion much in the same way as her predecessor several generations earlier. Penalties were put in place in case she did not pay.11 To demand an annual payment for maintenance of a public building from a priestess for life, as is the case here, is unique in the transmitted evidence. A case that is remotely comparable can be found in Halicarnassos. When the priesthood of Artemis Pergaia was auctioned there in the third century BC, the future priestess was required to refurbish the sanctuary at her own discretion and to build an offertory box.12 In the following, we shall leave Cos in order to set the texts we have examined so far into the context of the other evidence for priests and construction funding. To begin, let us look at Gytheion in Laconia. Here an unusual provision was made at the turn of the second to the first century BC. As a reward for the refurbishment of the sanctuary of Apollo, the citizens awarded the associated priesthood to a wealthy family for life and made it hereditary in the male line. All of this can be seen in a law transmitted in an inscription (late second / early first century BC).13 The city was suffering an economic crisis, which is especially evident in two honorary decrees of the late 70s of the first century BC. The Spartan physician

|| 10 11 12 13

IG XII 4, 1, 304 b, lines 47−52 (Meier 2012, 286−288, Nr. 31). IG XII 4, 1, 326, lines 68−71. GIBM 4 895, lines 29f. (LSAM 73; Syll.3 1015). IG V 1, 1144 (LSCG 61; Meier 2012, 212–215, Nr. 11).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

46 | Ludwig Meier

Damiadas was awarded the privilege of proxenia, because he had promised in the spring of 72 BC to work without recompense for the rest of the year; the reason was the burdensome tribute payments that the city had to pay.14 The brothers Numerius and Marcus Cloatii supported the city for several years with loans and partial debt cancellations and imposed interest of 48% on a loan of 4,200 drachmas, outrageous even in ancient terms, but they later reduced this to 24% – under the circumstances, apparently, an meritorious service to the city.15 Since our law describes the sanctuary as having deteriorated for a long time, one may suppose there were long-term and structural financial difficulties that were only exacerbated by the effects of the Mithridatic wars, the presence of pirates in the Aegean, and the deployment of Roman troops under M. Antonius Creticus’ command and the resulting demands for financial contributions. Public finances were under such pressure that the polis of Gytheion was no longer capable of sustaining one of its central sanctuaries on the market square and its ritual practice. This gave Philemon and his son Theoxenos a strong negotiating position. Prior to their public announcement that they would pay for the reconstruction of the sanctuary with their private wealth, they probably secured in advance the privileges they could expect. In return, they were not only given the priesthood of Apollo, but also the sanctuary itself as a heritable family possession. Apart from the power of control over the buildings (exousia), they also held a corresponding duty of care (epimeleia), i.e. the regular maintenance of the complex. Public funds were relieved of these costs, while the family of the priests had the earnings at their disposal after cult practice resumed and they could invest in the sanctuary. This procedure is similar to sale of a priesthood in some respects. Of course, this act was unique in this form, due to a probably extraordinary state of emergency, for which we know no parallels in the transmitted evidence, and which can be termed ‘privatization’, if an anachronistic term may be permitted. The citizens of Gytheion may have kept certain privileges, but ultimately they gave up public control over the sanctuary to a large extent. In Cos and Gytheion, we find explicit terms in the form of advertisements and laws stating which services were demanded in return for an extraordinary privilege like a priesthood. We can, of course, find such exchanges in many other cities as well. However, the expectation that a priest should contribute to

|| 14 IG V 1, 1145, lines 28−31. 15 IG V 1, 1146 (Syll.3 748; Migeotte 1984, 90−96, Nr. 24).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

Priests and Funding of Public Buildings on Cos and Elsewhere | 47

the funding of public buildings or make other gifts was expressed and presented in inscriptions in different terms. It is surely not a coincidence that in Tlos in Lycia, a priest of Dionysos comes first, with the highest amount of 3.,000 drachmas, on a list that, in the late first century BC, documents and honours the contributors to a fundraising campaign for construction of a theatre.16 The initiative to fund a public building or its restoration with private money could also be taken by the priests themselves. This is clear from the honorary decrees for Diokles, a designated priest of Asklapios in Athens,17 Eubotios, a former priest of Amphiaraos from Oropos,18 and Epie from Thasos, who served as caretaker of the temple and held several priesthoods.19 All three had the gates of their sanctuaries and the temples refurbished. The texts show significant analogies. Diokles and Eubiotos alerted the council to structural damage, declared their willingness to repair the damage using their own wealth, and asked for formal permission to do so. Epie of Thasos probably acted similarly. In the documents, the persons undertaking the construction work are expressly permitted to affix a dedicatory inscription to the buildings, for which the standard form was regularly cited. In Oropos, for example, we find the following: “Eubiotos, son of Demogenes, former priest, and Demogenes, son of Eubiotos, who served as presenter of the libation (spondophorêsas), (dedicate this) to Amphiaraos and to Hygieia”.20 Self-representation by means of a dedicatory inscription on a public building was not a matter of course! This privilege had to be especially applied for by the person undertaking the work and was the subject of negotiations in the committees of the polis. The priests executed grand restoration works in order to present themselves as generous and pious priests to the public of the polis. In their desire for self-representation, however, they were no different from other holders of office who erected buildings from their own money and, in return, were given the right to immortalise themselves in a dedicatory inscription. We will limit ourselves to the two random examples: Aratokritos, Stephanephoros on Kalymnos,21 and Menos, gymnasiarch of Sestos.22 To summarise: as with other holders of offices, when taking office priests could be expected to care for the buildings in their sphere of responsibility on || 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

TAM II, 550−551 (Migeotte 1992, 259−261, Nr. 81). IG II2 1046 (Syll.3 756; LSCG 44; Meier 2012, 191−194, Nr. 3). I. Oropos 294 (Meier 2012, 224−226, Nr. 15). Salviat 1959, 363f. (Meier 2012, 311–313, Nr. 39). IG VII 412, lines 9−11 = I. Oropos 294 (Meier 2012, 224−226, Nr. 15). Tit. Cam. 52, lines 11−14. 16−18 (Bielman 1994, 132−134, Nr. 34). I. Sestos 1, lines 31. 40.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

48 | Ludwig Meier

an extraordinary scale. By offering the opportunity for distinction, public selfrepresentation and revenue from cult practice, the cities were able to take advantage of these people’s wealth. On the island of Cos, however, informal mechanisms seem not to have sufficed. Here the sale of priesthoods was a regular source of public revenue that was used to fund public buildings. The density of material seems to imply that, in Hellenistic times, this was a phenomenon typical of the island – or at least that it was here deemed necessary to regulate the use of revenue in detail and to seek publicity for the process. However, evidence from Prusias ad Hypium (202−211 AD)23 and Ephesos (about 140 AD)24 implies that this mode of funding public buildings continued into imperial times and was prevalent beyond Cos.

Literature Bielman, A. (1994). Retour à la liberté. Libération et sauvetage des prisonniers en Grèce ancienne. Lausanne. Boeckh, A. (1817/1886). Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener. (Dritte Auflage herausgegeben und mit Anmerkungen begleitet von Max Fränkel). Berlin. Meier, L. (2012). Die Finanzierung öffentlicher Bauten in der hellenistischen Polis. Mainz. Migeotte, L. (1984). L’emprunt public dans les cités grecques. Recueil des documents et analyse critique. Québec – Paris. ― (1992). Les souscriptions publiques dans les cités grecques. Geneva – Québec. Salviat, F. (1959). « Décrets pour Épié fille de Dionysios. Déesses et sanctuaires Thasiens », BCH 83, 1959, 362−397.

|| 23 I. Prusias ad Hypium 20, lines 16−18. 24 I. Ephesos 618, lines 7−11.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

Isabelle Pafford

Priestly Portion vs. Cult Fees − The Finances of Greek Sanctuaries1 Abstract: A number of Greek sacred laws provide for the use of coins as preliminary offerings, often with the stipulation that the worshiper must insert a specific amount of coined money into a stone offering box or thesauros before participating in a cult activity. Sanctuary personnel, especially priests and priestesses, were charged in these inscriptions with regulating such income. Special care was taken to separate coined money intended for the divinity from any money which could be claimed by the priest or priestess as a portion or honorarium. This paper explores the details of how sanctuary personnel carried out this “sacred accounting,” perhaps incorporating coins into more traditional methods for carrying out preliminary offerings. Inscriptions from Athens, Delos, Oropos, Thasos, Minoa at Amorgos and Kos are discussed. As they enter the first gallery of the new Acropolis museum in Athens, visitors come upon a curious stone contraption − two limestone blocks, set one on top of the other.2 The bottom stone has a hollowed depression, which corresponds to an egg-shaped hollowing on the upper stone. This upper block also has a narrow opening at the top, though which coins could be inserted. There is a cutting for a metal locking mechanism, and most importantly, there is an inscription, which explains exactly how this object is to be used. Θησαυ̣ρὸ̣ς ἀπαρχς ὁ Ἀφροδίτει Οὐρανίαι· Προτέλεια γάμο ⁝ A thesauros of the aparche / dedicated to Aphrodite Ourania. / Proteleia at marriage − One drachma. The offering box seems, at least to the casual museum visitor, to be very straightforward. “It’s just like with us” a tourist might say. “We have to pay the priest when we get married too − everything costs money!”

|| 1 A version of this paper was presented at the conference Cities and Priests in Asia Minor and the Aegean Islands from the Hellenistic to the early Imperial Period, held at the Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum in Mainz, organized by Drs. Marietta Horster and Anja Klöckner, May, 2012. 2 SEG 41, 182; Tsakos 1990−91 dates the thesauros to the early fourth century B.C. on the basis of the letter forms; cf. Kazamiakes 1990−1991.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

50 | Isabelle Pafford

Even for scholars familiar with the complexity and idiosyncrasy of ancient Greek religion, this artifact seems to present itself with perfect clarity. We have a very short sacred law dictating a cult fee. The fee is conceptualized by a traditional term for a preliminary sacrifice − proteleia, and is ritually performed through the payment of a specific denomination of coin. The instructions for payment are conveniently inscribed on the face of the ritual object, the divinity is specified, and the object is referred to with a technical term − thesauros − a term which is attested for other objects of similar typology.3 The sacred law requiring the cult fee is short, but similar to other clauses of the same type. Therefore, the thesauros of Aphrodite Ourania, might be said to do no more than refine our understanding of a standard ritual practice. However, the brevity of this inscription leaves many details open for interpretation. SEG 41, 182 tells us nothing about priests, sacred officials, or the use of the proteleia funds, once the thesauros filled. Nor do we know exactly where the Sanctuary of Aphrodite Ourania was located, nor how this particular thesauros was oriented within the sanctuary.4 To consider such issues, we must introduce comparative material, such as another thesauros found in the agora at Thasos, dated to the first c. B.C. It is inscribed with a much more extensive sacred law than the Aphrodite Ourania thesauros, and provides detailed instructions for sanctuary visitors. Τοὺς θύοντας τῷ Θεογένηι [Θα]σ[ίω]ι ἀπάρχεσθαι εἰς τὸν θησαυρὸν μὴ ἔλασσον ὀβολοῦ· τῶι δὲ μὴ ἀπαρξαμένωι καθότι προγέγραπται ἐνθυμιστὸν εἶναι· τὸ δὲ πεσούμενον χρῆμα ῾κάστου ἐνιαυτοῦ δοθῆναι τῶι ἱερομνήμονι. τὸν δὲ φυλάσσειν ἓως ἂν συνάΧθωσιν δραχμαὶ χιλίαι· ὅταν δὲ τὸ προγεγραμμένον πλῆθος συναχθῆι. Βουλεύσασθαι τὴν βουλὴν καὶ τὸν δῆμον- εἰς τί ανάθημα ἢ κατασκεύασμα ἀναλωθήσεται τῶι Θεογένι.5-|| 3 For the typology of thesauroi, see Kaminski, 1990, 63−181. 4 The two blocks were found in the demolition of a house in the Plaka, at 19 Epicharmou Street. See Kazamiakis 1990-91, 29. The site is approximately half a kilometer from the foundations of an altar excavated by the American School in 1984, close to a structure now identified as the Stoa Poikile. Excavators associated the altar with the sanctuary of Aphrodite Ourania mentioned by Pausanias I.14−15. See Shear 1984, 24−40; Reese 1989, 73−94; Osanna 1988−1989, 73−95; Camp 2001, 261. 5 SEG 21, 774 = LSS 72 = BCH 64−65 (1940−1941) 163−200.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Priestly Portion vs. Cult Fees − The Finances of Greek Sanctuaries | 51

Let those sacrificing to Theogenes of Thasos make a first-fruits offering into the thesauros of not less than an obol. For the one not making a first fruit offering, (aparchesthai) let it be taken to heart according to the previously posted notice. The money collected for each year is to be given to the hieronomon. He is to guard it until 1,000 drachmae have been collected. When the prescribed sum has been collected, let the boule and demos decide on what dedication or furnishing for Theogenes to expend the money. Here, the ritual act is again conceptualized not so much as a payment, but as an offering, with the verb, aparchesthai, sanctifying the act. However, the proposers of the law were also deeply concerned with what would happen to the money after it left the thesauros, and gave specific instructions to the sanctuary personal for collection, accounting and re-consultation with the boule and demos before that money could be spent. Thesauroi, and the cult regulations which govern them, seem to exist for the purpose of keeping coins, which have been used for religious purposes, separated from other kinds of money. In particular, there is a desire to distinguish between money which might go for salary (misthos) or priestly perquisite (hierosuna) as opposed to money which ought to belong to the divinity because it is associated with a previously developed cult activity such as an aparche, a proteleia, a pelanos, or some other ritual which must be performed kata ta patria, in accordance with the customs of the ancestors. For this reason, cult fee regulations give us a quite a bit of evidence for certain practical problems which sacred officials, priests, and priestesses faced in the administration of a sanctuary, as well as indirect evidence for the local political organization of the cities where thesauroi were installed. Cult fee regulations and thesauroi provided methods for seeming to accommodate the use of impersonal coins within older traditions of religious practice, and for integrating those coins into traditional systems of ethics. This hypothesis, if correct, would rebut the previous modern interpretation of the cult fee, which was proposed by Sokolowski when he examined similar inscriptions in his short 1955 article, “Fees and Taxes in the Greek Cults.”6 Sokolowski believed that sanctuary officials imposed cult fees and other types of financial regulations to make up for a temporary shortfall in revenue. In this model, sanctuaries operate within a monetized economy in which priests and sanctuary officials maximize profits not only for the god, but for themselves. Taxes and fees are “imposed” by officials, while worshipers are “compelled” to pay. Additionally, fees or rates of taxation are set in accordance with projected

|| 6 Sokolowski 1954, 153−164.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

52 | Isabelle Pafford

financial liability, and are meant to be repealed once the sanctuary’s endowment has recovered from its financial difficulties. Sokolowski was not an economist. He was a Swiss Jesuit scholar engaged in producing an epigraphic corpus of Greek sacred law. Although his economic model seems to have been produced almost unconsciously, and quickly breaks down when the evidence is examined, nevertheless the inscriptions he was discussing, as well as many new finds, can indeed be used to refine our understanding of economic activity and changing (or not changing) cultural attitudes toward money in antiquity. Sokolowski, of course, was writing in the shadow of Rostovtzeff, who envisioned the ancient economy as similar in structure and monetization to the economies of early modern Europe, although smaller in scale. Shortly thereafter, however, Moses Finley rejected this view, insisting that the ancient economy was primitive, in the sense that all economic activity was embedded within culturally bound economic structures, especially structures which relied on agricultural wealth and slave labor. Although Finley did not systematically address the evidence of cult fees, or, for that matter, the major issues of sanctuary finance, he would undoubtedly have preferred to see thesauroi and the sacred laws regulating them as evidence of the culturally embedded practices which held the ancient economy, and the ancient worshiper, in check. With these inscriptions we are confronted with the extraordinarily varied and complicated evidence for the use of money in sanctuaries7 and therefore we naturally ask why so many sanctuaries produce such complicated rules and regulations to keep track of all the different kinds of money flowing in and out of the temenos. It is not sufficient to dismiss the question on the grounds that since money is valuable and convenient, it is obvious that it would have been good to use in the shrines of the gods. Cult fee regulations, and other financial documents relating to sanctuaries provide us with a distinctly Greek response to apparent changes in sanctuary activity.

Sacred Accounting in Classical Greece The earliest example of religious personnel involved in what we are investigating, a behavior which may be called ritual accounting, comes from the

|| 7 For the various uses of money in the economy of sanctuaries and the administration of sacred property in classical Athens, see Davies (2001), Horster (2004), Papazarkadas (2011).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Priestly Portion vs. Cult Fees − The Finances of Greek Sanctuaries | 53

Athenian Decree regulating the Mysteries, IG I3 6, dated to around 460 B.C.8 According to this regulation, during the festival, the hieropoioi, the priestess of Demeter, the Eumolpidai, and the Kerykes are all instructed to take (λαμβάνεν)obols from the initiates at various moments during the rite. There is to be a euthuna, or audit of the funds, and apparently the priestess of Demeter is to reserve 1600 drachmae from her collection for expenses, and, perhaps, for her portion. From a religious point of view, the money contributed by the initiates at Eleusis constituted a prescribed offering, just as in another context the participant might be required to offer a piglet or a cake. As such, the obols belonged to the divinity, and this is made explicit in IG I3 6 at lines 14−16.9 Normally an item of commerce, the coins became sacred offerings, and had to be dealt with accordingly.10 Just as other sacred laws and sacrificial calendars provide rules for eating, selling, or taking home food offerings, IG I3 6 gives instructions for dealing with tiny, easily lost obols in as orderly a manner as possible. At this early stage at Eleusis, the method for collecting the coins is not clear, apart from the stipulation that the priestess of Demeter, the Eumolpidai, and the Kerykes are to take charge of the money. Later inscriptions show that there were at least two stone thesauroi at Eleusis, with the revenue from these receptacles included in the general financial accounts of the sanctuary.11 The earliest evidence for the placement of coin fees into a stone offering box comes from the Amphiareion in Oropos, a sanctuary alternately controlled by the Athenians and the Boitians in the late fourth and early third centuries. At least three, if not five inscriptions refer to a thesauros into which coin fees were placed or from which money was taken.12 I. Oropos 277 (386−377 B.C.) states that “the one about to seek a cure from the god should give a first fruits offering of not less than nine obols approved silver and insert it into the thesauros in the presence of the neokoros.” Further down, it reads: “The neokoros is to write down the name of the incubant as soon as he has put in his money, and his city, ||

8 Important editions include Syll3 42; IG I3 6; LSS 3; Clinton 2005, 19. 9 Frg. c lines 14-16: σ[ύμπαντας ὀβο]λὸς τοῖν θεο[ῖ]ν [εἶναι πλὲν] hεχσακοσίον κα[ὶ χιλίον δρ]αχμ̣ν. 10 For discussion of the distinction between things which are hosia or acceptable to the gods, vs. things which are hiera or sacred in the sense that they belong to the gods, see Connor 1988, pp. 172−174 and Samons 2000, 325−329. The coins which the initiates bring into the sanctuary change from hosia to hiera through the religious rite, and are therefore referred to as τὰ̣ δὲ h[ι]ερὰ̣ ἀρ̣γυρί[ο] in line 32. 11 IG I3 386−7, dated 408/7, new text and commentary by Cavanaugh 1996, 99-216; IG I3 392, dated about 420, which is quite fragmentary; and IG II2 1672 dated 329. 12 I. Oropos 277; 290; 324, and probably 278. For I. Oropos 277, see also Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 27, 128−134. For I. Oropos 278, see Lupu 2003, 326−331.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

54 | Isabelle Pafford

and the notice is to be put up in the sanctuary on a notice board for anyone to examine who wishes.” An additional fragmentary inscription, I. Oropos 276 (first half of the fourth c. B.C.) refers to the same fee, which is to be placed in the thesauros.13 I. Oropos 324,14 a decree ordering the melting down of old votives to make new ones, stipulates that the thesauros should be opened, and the proceeds used to pay the silversmiths who make the new dedications. ὀ δὲ συλλογεὺς ἀνοί[ξας] τὸν θησαυρόν, ὡς νομίζεται, ἐξελέτω τὸ γινό[μενον] ἀνάλωμα καὶ διδότω τὰς δόσεις τῶι ἐργώνηι [πασας κα]τ[ὰ τὰ]ς προ[-]ῥήσεις, ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἦι ἐν τῶι θησαυρῶι τὸ [κεφάλαιον τοῦ ἀ]ναλώματος, προσθέτω ὁ ταμίας ὁ προάρχων τὸ ἐ[λλεῖπ]ον καὶ ἀπολογισὰσθω πρ[ὸς] κατὸπτας· Let the syllogeus open the thesauros, as prescribed by law, let him take out expenses incurred and give the whole payment to the workman as previously agreed. If the total of the expenses is not in the thesauros let the treasurer who is first in office provide the remainder and make an accounting before the overseers.15 This is the most detailed model we possess for how a thesauros might be opened, and how administrative officials could use money from the box. In this case they decided that the money inside was to be used only for expenses connected with precious metal dedications within the sanctuary.16 But the decree stipulated that if funds in the offering box should run short, the polis must cover the expenses, because it was ultimately responsible for the upkeep of any sanctuaries under its control. The long list of precious metal objects to be melted down, which follows the bureaucratic instructions for opening the thesauros, testifies to a very well-endowed sanctuary with sufficient resources to pay for almost anything it might need from its own funds.17 This evidence stands in direct opposition to the suggestion that coin fees are meant to generate revenue for a sanctuary short on funds.18 On the contrary, the money from the thesauros, which is earmarked in both a political and religious sense for use

|| 13 I. Oropos 276, 4−5, ἐμβαλ⟨λ⟩οντα εἰς τὸ[ν θησαυρὸν μὴ ἔλαττον δρα]χμῆς βοιωτίης. 14 Around 200 B.C., cf. Étienne 1976, 315 and 350; Knoepfler 2002, 121 15 According to I. Oropos, p. 237, n. 33, at Oropos, the ταμίαι were a board of three men, serving for four months each. 16 This situation is parallel with the provisions for τἀναλόματα found in IG I3 6,19. 17 The inventory runs from lines 53 to 102. 18 Contra Sokolowski 1954, 153. “When the cult becomes self-sufficient by endowments or by subsidies, fees and taxes do not play a great rôle. But in times of financial difficulties the state or the cult authorities levied taxes on all or some persons to meet the emergency.”

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Priestly Portion vs. Cult Fees − The Finances of Greek Sanctuaries | 55

within the shrine, does not reflect financial difficulties. In fact, if financial difficulties existed, it would be illogical for the sanctuary to commission new and expensive votive offerings from the temple treasures. We may consider another example. I. Oropos 290 is a decree requiring an accounting of expenses associated with the refurbishment of a fountain house within the sanctuary.19 A certain amount of work had already been accomplished, and these expenses were to be inscribed on a stele. Money from the thesauros was to be used for setting up the stele, just as in I. Oropos 324 where those funds were to pay workmen for making votive dedications, and twenty drachmae were to be paid for an ἀρεστήριον for the god.20 The ἀρεστήριον sacrifice is known from Attic inscriptions and is primarily associated with the reorganization of cult objects. The use of the term to denote a preliminary or propitiatory sacrifice perhaps stems from reforms of the Lykourgan period at Athens. The most important are the accounts of the Athenian epistatai, IG II2 1672. As at Oropos, the epistatai had arranged for the opening of the two thesauroi belonging to Demeter and Kore. The money from the two boxes was audited, and the workman was paid for opening the box. Before the remainder of the money was turned over to the next administration, an ἀρεστηρία sacrifice, with the victim costing seventy drachmae, was paid for “according to the psephisma of the boule as Lykourgos proposed.”21 The sacrifice, which Lykourgos apparently referred to as “acceptable,” was to be made when precious metal dedications were transferred or modified. At Eleusis, the actual expenses of opening the thesauroi were insignificant, costing only a four drachmae misthos for the workman. The sacrifice, however, cost a respectable seventy drachmae, and may be said to compensate the goddesses for any disturbance caused by the invasion of the sanctuary by workmen. The use of a significant percentage of the money collected from the thesauros for a sacrifice which was only necessary when that money was spent, does not speak to an economic need for the money generated by fees or fines, but rather to a strong emphasis on leaving as much as possible of the original votive offering within the sanctuary. The unifying element for these examples is the use of sacrifice to, in a sense, move the coined money out of the sanctuary and back into circulation while preserving the sacred nature of the original offering. The opening of the || 19 I. Oropos dates this inscription 338−322 B.C. Knoepfler 1986, 71−98 dates it to a period of Athenian control of Oropos from 371−366 B.C. 20 Line 19. 21 See line 302. ἀρεστηρίαν θῦσαι ἱερεῖον ἑκατέραι τοῖν θεοῖν κατὰ ψήφισμα βουλής ὃ Λυκοῦργος εἶπεν.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

56 | Isabelle Pafford

thesauros or the melting of the typoi represented a liminal stage for the money or precious metal, and therefore the requirement for a sacrifice of sufficient worth allows for a suitable mediation between sacred and not-sacred. The ἀρεστήριον sacrifice, though not a coin fee, points directly at one of the central questions about coin fees and thesauroi. Should coined money within the sanctuary be viewed as a conversion or substitution for offerings which were primarily meant for the use or consumption of the divinity? Were sanctuary officials converting or transferring precious metal and coins out of the religious sphere from which it was collected, into the profane realm of money and goods, and then finally back into the sacred sphere again through the purchase of a victim and the performance of the sacrifice? The thesauros, which lends a hand in this process, preserves the votives and fines in the same way a temple housed silver cups, mixing bowls, and statuary.22 It is not surprising, therefore, that the opening of a thesauros might be accompanied by certain rituals to ensure the favor of the divinity.

Cult Fees, Public Performance, and Sanctuary Personnel If the accounts of the Eleusinian epistatai of the classical period, suggest that the transfer of money in a sanctuary context was made through a subtle public performance, the instructions included in Hellenistic cult fee regulations are far more theatrical. The language emphasizes the traditional nature of the ritual activity, highlighting aparche, or proteleia, for example. And the placement of the instructions through inscriptions set up in proximity to the ritual activity removes anxiety for those visiting the sanctuary. The old fashioned rules of offering first fruits to the gods still apply, even if those offerings are made in coin. Priests and priestesses facilitated the use of coins in the sanctuary in association with rituals that incorporated those coins into more traditional forms of offering. One rich source of evidence for coin fees is the island of Kos, where a number of inscriptions survive detailing the financial administration of the island’s sanctuaries from the third to first centuries B.C. The so-called diagraphai recording the sale of priesthoods on the island dictate a number of

|| 22 This was also the purpose of the treasury buildings at Olympia and Delphi. See Neer 2001.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Priestly Portion vs. Cult Fees − The Finances of Greek Sanctuaries | 57

fees to be paid by individual worshipers.23 In one important inscription relating to the priesthood of Aphrodite Pandamos and Pontia, certain types of sacrifice require the payment in coin of an aparche.24 Freed slaves are required to offer an aparche to Aphrodite (25−27). Fishermen and ship-owners also pay an aparche, apparently on a yearly basis (27−29). And in fact, all those sacrificing as private individuals are required to pay an aparche of coins into the thesauros (10−11). The proceeds of the aparche offerings were earmarked for the embellishment of the sanctuary. Each year the thesauros was opened, and after the priestess had received her portion, the rest of the proceeds were sent to the goddess’ bank account, to be used for construction and repair of the sanctuary.25 These examples seem to show that aparche offerings were primarily intended for dedications or repairs and construction in the sanctuary. It would be going too far to suggest that all coin payments were meant exclusively for votive dedications. But especially in cases where the sacrificial or ritual coin offering had been designated by the term aparche, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the inscription makes it clear that the money was to be used for a tangible, relatively permanent dedication within the sanctuary. This suggests that an offering designated as an aparche was conceived of fundamentally as a permanent votive, so that even if it consisted of perishable material, such as foodstuffs, it remained divine property, even after suffering consumption or decomposition. At Kos during the Hellenistic period, for reasons probably associated with the growth and popularity of the cult sites, coins stood in for more traditional offerings on a fairly large scale. The priestess did indeed receive a portion from these funds. But I would argue that when she purchased her priestly office, she essentially funded her portion ahead of time, in a form of euergetism, since it was quite possible that she might never recoup those funds from the proceeds of the thesauros. Cult fees are expressed in a different way than other sacred laws or sacrificial calendars in that they involve activity that will be impromptu and worshiper driven. A good example of this comes already from a sacrificial calendar

|| 23 The practice of selling priesthoods seems to be a phenomenon of Asia Minor and the islands, and dates after 400 B.C. See Parker and Obbink 2000, 420−421 and n. 16. 24 IG XII 4, 302. See also Parker and Obbink 2000, 415−419 for the text and translation, for this and other examples for the use of sacred money for construction see L. Meier in this volume. For the specific Kos-context of this inscription, see S. Paul and P. Kató in this volume. 25 ἐς κατασκευάσματα ἃ κα δόξῃ τᾶι ἐκ⟨κ⟩λησίαι καὶ ἐς ἐπισκευὰν τοῦ ἱεροῦ, lines 21−22. It is possible that the terminology ἐς κατασκευάσματα ἃ κα δόξῃ τᾶι ἐκ⟨κ⟩λησίαι ἐς could refer to the construction of secular buildings, but it is more likely that in this case, new building in the sanctuary is meant, since the following clause mentions repair of the sanctuary.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

58 | Isabelle Pafford

of the early fourth c. B.C. from Axione.26 Consider the instructions to the priestess of Dionysus An[thius] and the priestess of Hera (lines 9−14). Διονύσ[ο] Ἀν[θίο] ἱερείαι ἱερεώσυνα ∶𐅃∶ τ[ὸ δέρμα το̑ τελέ]ο· ἐπ[ὶ δ]ὲ τὴν τράπεζαν κωλῆν, πλε̣υρὸν [ἰσχίο, ἡμίκραιραν] χορδῆς v Ἥρας ἱερείαι ἱερεώσυν[α ∶𐅃∶ τὸ δέρμα?, ἅπαντ]ος εὑστο̑ τελέο ∶𐅂𐅂𐅂∶ δεισίας κρεῶν, [πυρῶν ἡμιέκτεω ∶ΙΙΙ∶] μέλιτος κοτύλης ∶ΙΙΙ∶ To the priestess of Dionysus An[thius] hierosuna, five drachmae, the skin of a perfect victim. Upon the table a thigh bone, a side of the hip, half a head of the gut. To the priestess of Hera, hierosuna, five drachmae, the skin of a perfect victim, three drachmae, a portion of the meat. For a half-hekteus of wheat, three obols; for a kotyle of honey, three obols. This inscription is set out in an orderly way, with the instructions expressed with the minimum of detail. It is a list, with a number of different priestesses receiving honoraria and expense money. The different cults are dealt with together, on one stele, and we should assume that the various priestesses knew exactly where they were supposed to conduct their rituals, and what they were supposed to do with their honey and wheat. There are two separate financial provisions in each clause of the regulation. The honorarium of the priestess was proclaimed first, at a standard rate of five drachmae.27 In certain cults she was awarded the skin from the animal sacrifice, although in the rites for Demeter Chloe she received only portions of the meat and her monetary ἱερεώσυνα.28 For the cult of Dionysus, however, she received the skin, but not the meat.29 In contrast, at the end of each clause, a stipulation for the divinity’s portion is expressed by the phrase ἐπὶ δὲ τὴν τράπεζαν.30 The offerings placed on the table consisted entirely of portions from the animal sacrifice, such as the thigh, the side of the hip, and some portion of the head. These cuts of meat were all

||

26 IG II2 1356 and SEG 46, 173. Matthaiou, Horos 10−12 (1992−98) 135−139, printed in SEG 46, which incorporates new fragments, and see Ackermann 2007 for detailed commentary. 27 Of the six references to ἱερεώσυνα, four are preserved on the stone with the symbol 𐅃. 28 Line 16 Reference to animal sacrifice is preserved in six of the seven clauses. 29 References to the priestess receiving portions of meat (δεισίας) are preserved at lines 6, 13, 17, and probably at line 20, although the term is restored on the basis of the genitive plural modifier κρεῶν in line 21. For the sale of sacrificial skin and meat as well as skins as sacrificial ‘tariff’, see e.g. Lupu 2005, 59-65 and 71-72 with further references. 30 The phrase is preserved or restorable in six out of seven clauses. In comparison, see AvP VIII, 3, 161, 7−8 (late third or early second c. B.C. dated on the basis of letter forms): τ̣ρα̣πεζούσθω σκέλος δεξ[ιὸν καὶ σπ]λάγχνα.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Priestly Portion vs. Cult Fees − The Finances of Greek Sanctuaries | 59

expressed in the accusative case, just as the priestesses’ portions and the skins were referred to at the beginning of the clause. Between the stipulations for the priestess’ perquisites and the divinity’s table, each clause contained references to measures of bloodless offerings such as wheat, honey and oil. These measures were expressed in the genitive, and followed by the acrophonic monetary signs for obol or half obol. The use of the genitive here can only be interpreted as a genitive of price, especially in light of the fact that each item was followed by its price literally expressed in monetary terms. The two scholars who have commented on this issue, Sokolowski and Le Guen-Pollet, have interpreted these payments as additional compensation to the priestess for preparation of the sacrificial meal.31 Certainly the priestess would have been responsible for obtaining these items and using them in the sacrifice according to ancestral custom. And clearly the deme provided funds for this purpose, just as the deme probably provided the sacrificial victims, or the money to purchase the victims.32 But the priestess could not have received the money for oil, honey and wheat as a perquisite, in the same way that she received the five drachmae hierosuna, the skins, or the portions of meat. The issue hinges on whether she was allowed to remove the wheat, honey and oil from the sanctuary, as she could the drachmae, skins and portions of meat. It has been suggested that generally the priest or priestess could consume or remove the foodstuffs placed on the sacrificial tables.33 Of course this is possible, although it is not expressed in this inscription and a distinction is made between the portion of meat allotted to the priestess, and the meat set on the table. In fact, it is more in keeping with the logic of Greek sacred law to argue that unless there was a stipulation to the contrary, the god’s portion was for the sanctuary, and could be sold to provide funds, burned whole, or used for some other purpose. A decision on the deposition of any offering would be made on the basis of what seemed best to the officials in charge, in conformity with local custom. In Artistophanes’ Plutus, priests were suspected of illicitly taking the god’s portions from the altars, and this may have happened occasionally, alt-

|| 31 Sokolowski at LSCG p. 56 called the sums “les indemnities pour la fourniture du miel” and Le Guen-Pollet 1991, 154 comments that frequently the priests and priestesses paid for such extras from their own funds. 32 The provision of the animals is not addressed in the preserved text. It may have been understood, or expressed in a separate regulation, such as the deme calendar from Erchia, SEG 21, 541. 33 Lupu 2005, 164−165, who suggests as parallel SEG 35, 113, a fragmentary sacrificial regulation from Phrearrhioi, ca. 300−250 B.C. See also Gill 1991,15−19; LeGuen-Pollet 1991, 16−17; Van Straten 1995, 154−155.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

60 | Isabelle Pafford

hough it would have been punished if discovered.34 But the pilfered portion still belonged to the divinity, whether it consisted of meat, or of a coin substitute, and it must logically be considered as separate from the priest’s portion − even if the priest consumed or spent the god’s portion, in reality. Another example, which takes us back to the Aegean in the Hellenistic period, bolsters the view that sacred funds were carefully segregated. In an honorary decree of Minoa at Amorgos, dating to the first c. B.C., Epinomides son of Theogenes was praised for paying for the customary sacrifices to Athena Itonia from his own funds, and transferring the funds available for that purpose to the koinon of the hierourgoi for repair of the temenos.35 It seemed best to the hierourgoi of Athena Itonia that since Epinomides son of Theogenes, having completed his office concerning the sacrifice and procession for Itonia, exercised all zeal so that it was as splendid as possible for the goddess, and since with regards to the people who made their way to the festival he made good and honorable preparations, and since on the one hand, there was interest arising for him from the existing pelanos for the goddess, from which previously the sacrifice had been accomplished, nevertheless he gave it to the koinon of the hierourgoi for the upkeep of the temenos, but he discharged the expenses arising from the ox sacrifice and the rest of the feast from his own resources…36 According to this inscription, funds had accrued from the pelanos offering, although we do not know exactly how, whether through coin fees or through the sale of dedicated grain. But we do know that the pelanos fund existed to pay for a sacrifice of an ox with an accompanying feast, and that if the money was not used for that purpose, it had to be used for the embellishment of the sanctuary. Epinomides was not paid a fee called a pelanos − but he did have the responsibility of properly administering the pelanos fund. His portion is not mentioned in this honorary inscription, owing to the emphasis on praising his generosity to the sanctuary. But if he had received an honorarium in the course of his duties as a sacred official, that payment would almost certainly have been || 34 Plutus 676−681. 35 IG XII 7, 241, lines 3−16: ἔδοξεν τοῖς ἱερουργοῖς / τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς τῆς Ἰτωνίας· ἐπειδὴ Ἐπινομίδης / Θεογένου ἄρξας τὴν ἀρχὴν τὴν εἰς Ἰτώνια / τῆς τε θυσίας καὶ τῆς πομπῆς ὅπως γένητα[ι] / τῆι θεῶι ὡς καλλίστη πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ἐποή/σατο, καὶ τῶμ πορευομένων εἰς τὴν ἑορτὴν / καλῶς καὶ φιλοτίμως ἐπεμελήθη, τοὺς μὲν / τόκους τοὺς γινομένους αὐτῶι ἀπὸ τοῦ ὑπάρ/χοντος πελάνου τῆι θεῶι, ἀφ’ ὧμ πρότερον ἡ θυ/σία συνετελεῖτο, ἐπιδοὺς τῶι κοινῶι τῶν ἱερουρ/γῶν εἰς κατασκευὴν τοῦ τεμένους, τὸ δὲ ἀνά/λωμα τὸ γενόμενον εἰς τὴμ βοῦν τὴν θυθεῖσα[ν] / καὶ τὴν ἄλλην δαπάνην ἅπασαν ἀναλώσ[ας] / ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων, ... 36 Epinomides received his praise at lines 24−25 of the decree; ἐπαινέσαι Ἐπινομίδην Θεογένου ἀρετῆς ἓνεκα.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Priestly Portion vs. Cult Fees − The Finances of Greek Sanctuaries | 61

expressed separately and not commingled with any money he administered from the pelanos fund.

The Thesauroi of Delos The sacred island Delos is famous for its rich trove of financial documents pertaining to the regulation of sanctuaries.37 These provide invaluable information about the use of thesauroi, and, one assumes, the use of cult fees as well. Five sanctuaries with thesauroi were mentioned in the yearly accounts of the hieropoioi there, and four offering boxes were found in excavation.38 Unfortunately, we can only tentatively associate one of those boxes with the thesauroi mentioned in the accounts, the thesauros from Serapeion A.39 That offering box has an interesting inscription which suggests that the receptacle was dedicated to receive impromptu offerings, rather than the prescribed fees for proteleia and aparche which we have been discussing.40 But there might very well have been a separate stele with instructions now lost to us. And we are left wondering if differences in procedure should be attributed to the private and foreign nature of this cult, or if we are dealing with a simple variation in practice. In 166 B.C., Delos was returned to Athenian control, the local population was removed from the island, and Athenian cleruchs took over the yearly priesthoods and sanctuary administration. This was the context for reorganizing a relatively minor sanctuary referred to in the archaeological literature as GD 93, which had been dedicated in earlier phases to the Kabeiroi, the Dioskouroi, the Great Gods and finally, to the Great gods of Samothrace.41 In 159/8, as part of

|| 37 See Bruneau 1970, and more recently, Hamilton, 2000. 38 The accounts mention thesauroi in the sanctuaries of Apollo, Asclepius, Aphrodite, Artemis on the Island, and in the Serapeion, presumably Serapeion A. For a convenient chart listing the relevant inscriptions, see Bruneau 1970, 366−367.The four excavated thesauroi come from Serapeion A (E 722), the Sanctuary of the Samothracian gods (E 486), The Agora of the Competaliastes (E 236), and the Granite Palaistra (A 2933). See Kaminski 1991, 161−164 for detailed descriptions and measurements. 39 Bruneau 2005, 267-270, figs. 83-84. 40 IG XI 4 1247. Σαράπιδι, Ἴσιδι, Ἀνούβιδι / Κτησίας Ἀπολλοδώρου Τήνιος / τὸν θησαυρὸν καὶ τὸ στρῶμα / κατὰ πρόσταγμα τοῦ θεοῦ/ ἀνέθηκεν. / μήτι με θαμβήσεις ἐσιδών, ξένε, γοργὸν ἐόντα· / τόνδε γὰρ ἡμέριος καὶ πάννυχος ἀμφιβεβηκὼς. / θησαυρὸν φρουρῶ θεῖον, ἄυπνος ἐών· / ἀλλὰ χαρεὶς ἔνβαλλε ὅ τί σο φίλον ἐστὶ ἀπὸ θυμοῦ / εἰς ἐμὸν εὔδεκτον σῶμα διὰ στόματος. See also Knoepfler 1998, p. 106. 41 Bruneau 1970, pp. 365−367; Cole 1984, pp. 77−80; Kaminski 1991, pp. 161.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

62 | Isabelle Pafford

that reorganization, a thesauros was installed, and inscribed with a dating formula. “Heraios, son of Apollodorus, of Sounium being priest of the Great Gods, and of the Dioskouroi and the Kabeiroi, when Hegesias son of Philostratos of Thumaitadai was overseer of the island, and those appointed for overseeing the sacred things were Hestios son of Hestios of Sphettos and Archikleos son of Archikleos of Lakiadai, and the priest of Apollo was Ares son of Ares of Kephisia.”42 So, we know the date, and we know how the divinities in the sanctuary were styled at this precise moment. But more to our purpose, we also know that the sanctuary has a yearly, eponymous priesthood, and the new religious administrators have made a point of incorporating the sanctuary within the framework of polis religion, involving five different men in the oversight of the sanctuary and the administration of its finances. We know that coined money is being used in the sanctuary on a regular basis, making the thesauros a useful item of sanctuary furnishing, just as the couches installed in this sanctuary show that some of kind of ritual dining took place. We may suspect, but we can’t prove, that coins had been incorporated into a religious activity, such as a preliminary offering. And we should expect, on analogy with inscriptional evidence from other sanctuaries, that the priest and other sacred officials recognized an obligation to spend any money collected within the sanctuary for votive offerings, repairs, and sacrifices. Without additional information, anything further must be speculation, in this sanctuary, at this time. But that said, we are much further along than the original excavators, in understanding this object within a larger context of sanctuary finance and priestly obligation.

Conclusions The evidence for cult fees and the use of offering boxes within Greek sanctuaries throughout the Mediterranean during the late Classical and early to midHellenistic periods shows that coined money was used, under certain circumstances, in lieu of older, more traditional types of offerings. Sanctuary personnel, including priests, were under obligation to handle that money with care

|| 42 ID 1898. Ἡραῖος Ἀπολλοδώρου Σουνιεύς, ἱερεὺς / γενόμενος Θεῶν Μεγάλων καὶ Διοσκόρων / καὶ Καβείρων, / ἐπὶ ἐπιμελητοῦ vvvv τῆς νήσου Ἡγησίου τοῦ Φιλοστράτου Θυμαιτάδου / καὶ τῶν ἐπὶ τὰ ἱερὰ Ἑστιάου τοῦ Ἑστιάου Σφηττίου καὶ / Ἀρχικλέους τοῦ Ἀρχικλέους Λακιάδου / καὶ ἱερέως τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος vvvv Ἀρέως τοῦ Ἀρέως Κηφισι[έως].

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Priestly Portion vs. Cult Fees − The Finances of Greek Sanctuaries | 63

and most importantly, priests in certain circumstances were subjected to special scrutiny to avoid any appearance of comingling money intended for their traditional portion or hierosuna, with money earmarked for the sanctuary. Inscriptions are useful for understanding the customs at individual sanctuaries, but the presence of a thesauros, with or without inscription in a sanctuary, indicates that coins have been incorporated into ritual activity by the cult.

Bibliography Ackermann, Delphine. 2007. “Rémuneration des prêtres et déroulement des cultes dans le règlement religieux d’Yixônè (Attique),” LEC 75, 111−136. Bruneau, Philip. 1970. Recherches sur les cultes de Délos à l’epoque hellénistique et à l’époque impériale, Paris. Cole, Susan Guettel. 1984. Theoi Megaloi: The Cult of the Great Gods at Samothrace, Leiden. Camp, John M. 2001. The Archaeology of Athens, New Haven. Cavanaugh, Maureen B. 1996. Eleusis and Athens. Documents in Finance, Religion and Politics in the Fifth Century B.C., Atlanta GA. Clinton, Kevin. 2005. Eleusis: The Inscriptions on Stone, I, A Text, Athens. Connor, Walter R. 1988. “‘Sacred’ and ‘Secular’: Ἱερά καί ὃσια and the Classical Athenian Concept of the State,” Anc. Soc. 19, 161−188. Davies, John K. 2001. “Temples, Credit, and the Circulation of Money,” in A. Meadows, K. Shipton (edd.) Money and its uses in the Ancient Greek World. Oxford, 117−128. Étienne, Roland and Knoepfler, Denis. 1976. “Hyettos de Béotie et la chronologie des archontes fédéraux entre 250 et 171 avant J.-C.,” BCH Suppl. 3. Gill, David. 1991. Greek Cult Tables, New York. Hamilton, Richard. 2000. Treasure Map: A Guide to the Delian Inventories. Ann Arbor. Horster Marietta. 2004. Landbesitz griechischer Heiligtümer in archaischer und klassischer Zeit. Berlin/New York. I. Oropos = Petrakos, Vasileios. 1997. Οἱ Ἐπιγραφὲς τοῦ ᾿Ωρωποῦ, Athens. Kaminski, Gabriele. 1991. “Thesauros: Untersuchungen zum Antiken Opferstock,” JdI 106, 63−181 and Pls. 27−34. Kazamiakes, Kostes. 1990−91. “Θησαυρός Αφροδίτης Ουρανίας· η κατασκευή,” Horos, 8−9, 29−44. Knoepfler, Denis. 1986. “Un document attique à reconsidérer: le décret de Pandios sur l’Amphiaraion d’Oropos,” Chiron 16, 71−98. ― 1998. “Le Tronc à offrandes d’un néocore Érétrien,” AK 41, 101−116. ― 2002. “Oropos et la Conféderation béotienne,” Chiron 32, 119−155. Le Guen-Pollet, Brigitte. 1991. La vie religieuse dans le monde grec du Vème au IIIème siècle avant notre ère : Coix de documents épigraphiques traduits et commentés, Toulouse. Lupu, Eran. 2003. “Sacrifice at the Amphiareion and a Fragmentary Sacred Law from Oropos,” Hesperia 72, pp. 321−340. ― 2005. Greek Sacred Law: A Collection of New Documents (NGSL), Leiden. Matthaiou, Angelos. 1992−1998. “Αἰξωνικά,” Horos 10−12 (1992−98), 133−169.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

64 | Isabelle Pafford

Neer, Richard. 2001. “Framing the Gift: The Politics of the Siphnian Treasury at Delphi,” Classical Antiquity 20, 273−336. Osanna, Massimo. 1993. “Il problema topografico del Santuario di Afrodite Urania ad Atene,” ASAtene 66−67 n.s., 50−51 (1988−1989), 73−95. Papazarkadas, Nikolaos. 2011. Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens. Oxford. Parker, Robert, and Obbink, Dirk Dirk. 2000. “Aus der Arbeit der ‘Inscriptiones Graecae’ VI. Sales of Priesthoods on Cos I,” Chiron 30, 415−449. Reese, David S. 1989. “Faunal Remains from the Altar of Aphrodite Ourania, Athens,” Hesperia 58,1, 63−70. Rhodes, Peter J. and Robin Osborne. 2003. Greek Historical Inscriptions: 404−323. Oxford. Samons, Loren J II. 2000. Empire of the Owl: Athenian Imperial Finance, (Historia Einzelschriften 142), Stuttgart. 2000 Shear, T. Leslie Jr. 1984. “The Athenian Agora: Excavations of 1980−1982,” Hesperia 53, 1−57. Sokolowski, Franciszek. 1954. “Fees and Taxes in the Greek Cults,” HthR 47, 53−164. Tsakos, Konstantinos. 1990−91. “Θησαυρός Αφροδίτης Ουρανίας· η επιγραφή,” Horos 8−9, 17−28. Van Straten, Folkert. 1995. Hierà kalá: Images of Animal Sacrifice in Archaic and Classical Greece, Leiden.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge

Priests and Cult Personnel in Three Hellenistic Families* Abstract: This paper offers an examination of three significant familial inscriptions from the Hellenistic period. The texts are detailed cultic dossiers initiated by three individuals—Diomedon on Cos, Poseidonios in Halicarnassus, and Epikteta on Thera. Though they are often very briefly grouped together, these inscriptions are discussed here in greater textual and contextual detail. In particular, the analysis focusses on the cult personnel which is appointed in these families, demonstrating that it remains independent from the polis, but is organised with reference to a civic framework. By setting these inscriptions in parallel, the discussion opens up productive perspectives on the evolutions of familial cults in the Hellenistic period. The inscription of Poseidonios is reedited in an Appendix by Jan-Mathieu Carbon.

Religious authority takes different forms in Greek cities. Priests and priestesses represent only one aspect of a multifarious system of responsibilities where sacred business is concerned.1 Even though magistrates can be in charge of some sacrificial duties, the handling of sacred offerings, hiera—which is of course closely related to the Greek name for a priest, hiereus, or a priestess, hiereia—is at the very core of priesthood. On an official level, when a sacrifice is put on by a civic community, this essential connection between priests and public rites is manifest.2 For instance, at the sanctuary of Oropos during the fourth century BC, the priest prays and put down the hiera on the altar if the sacrifice belongs to a public performance, but only optionally when the sacrifice is outside the official scope of the city.3 In the latter context, the individual offering a sacrifice may

|| * We are very grateful to Marietta Horster and Anja Klöckner for inviting us to contribute to this volume. We also wish to warmly thank Eftychia Stravrianopoulou for reading this paper and providing many valuable comments and clarifications, as well as for her sometimes different but fruitful perspectives on the texts discussed here. 1 Parker 2011: 40−63. 2 Epigraphic evidence is particularly clear on this point. For example, this is the case in Cos after the synoecism of 366 BC: cf. e.g. IG XII 4, 298, lines 10−11; 304, lines 39−40; 307, lines 13−14, etc. 3 LSCG 69.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

66 | Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge

proceed by himself with his own hiera.4 In the same vein, a passage from Porphyry’s De Abstinentia (4.22.7), written in the third century AD, makes a useful distinction, known elsewhere in similar terms, between offerings ἐν κοινῷ following ancestral tradition (ἑπομένοις νόμοις πατρίοις) and private offerings made according to one’s means (ἰδίᾳ κατὰ δύναμιν).5 As often, the priest or the priestess is conceived as the guarantor of traditional ritual performance (kata ta patria).6 In much the same way, when a civic community wants to communicate with its gods, a mediation sanctioned by the whole civic body is usually necessary.7 Transposing such oppositions in modern terms of ‘public’ or ‘official’ and ‘private’ or ‘individual’ is not completely accurate, but one does sense a difference of scale and context which is apparent in these distinct categories of ritual performance.8 Yet a ‘private’ (kat’ idion) offering, resulting from an individual initiative and which falls to some degree outside the scope of official life, is surely not independent from tradition. And the same can no doubt be said for the sort of household cult which must have been a part of everyday life in Greek cities.9 Indeed, this form of ‘private’ worship was an integral part of the wider ‘public’ context, the so-called ‘polis-religion’ framework, which maintains that “the polis provided the fundamental framework in which Greek religion operated” and that it “anchored, legitimated and mediated all religious activity”.10 As has been recently underlined, this model, far from denying “the role of individuals and of groups, of private sacrifices and dedications”, encompasses that role, and suggests a wider framework for its function and development.11 This paper, by assessing some connections between specific religious initiatives in a small group of Greek communities, aims at contributing to the discussion about ‘polis-religion’. In particular, we will attempt to compare what we know about

|| 4 Cf. also LSS 129, lines 8−13; LSCG 119, lines 10−14 (both from Chios, fifth century-early fourth century BC). 5 This is not only a philosopher’s view but reflects existing traditions, compare e.g. SEG 28.887, lines 24−26, cultic honours for Antiochos III at Teos (204/3 BC): θύειν δὲ καὶ ἑορτάζειν καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους πάντας τοὺς ο[ἰκοῦν|τας] τὴμ πόλιν ἡμῶν ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις οἴκοις ἑκάστους κατὰ δύν[αμιν·] | [στε]φανηφορεῖν πάντας τοὺς ἐν τῇ πόλει ἐν ἡμέραι ταύτ[ῃ]. 6 Similarly, in his ideal city, Plato (Leg. 909d−e) emphasises the status of priests and priestesses by making their intervention absolutely necessary when any sacrifice is to be performed. 7 Cf. Pirenne-Delforge 2010. 8 de Polignac/Schmitt Pantel 1998; Dasen/Piérart 2005. 9 Cf. Faraone 2012 and Boedeker 2012. 10 Sourvinou-Inwood 1990: 15, 20. 11 Parker 2011: 58.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

Priests and Cult Personnel in Three Hellenistic Families | 67

civic priesthoods with the specific forms of cult personnel associated with ‘private’ initiatives.

Three Individuals and their Inscribed Dossiers The evidence we wish to examine here consists of three substantial Hellenistic inscriptions, belonging or attributed to specific individuals: Diomedon, Poseidonios and Epikteta. These texts, along with others, are often called ‘foundations’, a term which implies the establishment of new cults and places of worship as a part of their enactment.12 They are also usually included as an important subset of the corpus of ‘sacred laws’, under the same category of ‘private foundations, family cult.’13 Both of these modern designations are problematic, with ‘sacred laws’ being by-and-large a misnomer and ‘foundation’ being insufficiently precise in some cases, to which we shall return.14 But what is striking is that the three inscriptions we propose to look at here are often taken together as the prime examples of these categories. This need not necessarily be the case, since individual acts of founding cults are well-attested in earlier periods.15 Though one might be tempted to underline the fact that these three significant inscriptions all come from the area of the southern Aegean and date to the early Hellenistic period, that may well reflect a bias in our present documentation. And while we would not wish to affirm categorically that one is dealing with a greater level of individuality in these documents, a feature sometimes associated with the Hellenistic period, these documents likely do point to a certain recrudescence and an enhancement of private initiatives compared to those

|| 12 Laum 1914 for the fundamental work on this topic. For the texts in Laum, cf. Diomedon: 52−56 no. 45; Poseidonios: 111−112 no. 117; Epikteta: 43−52 no. 43. They are similarly reprised in RIJG 24A and 24B, for Epikteta and Diomedon respectively, as “Fondations Testamentaires”; in the case of Poseidonios, no. 25D, as part of “Donations entre vifs”. For acceptance of this terminology, see also Kamps 1937: 145−170, Wittenburg 1990: 91−96, and Wittenburg 1998. Cf. also recently Gherchanoc 2012: 148−168. 13 Diomedon: LGS II 144, HGK 10, LSCG 177, IG XII 4, 348; Poseidonios: LSAM 72; Epikteta: IG XII 3, 330, LGS II 129, LSCG 135. Cf. now Lupu NGSL: 86−87; Parker 2010: 118−120. 14 On ‘sacred laws’ as problematic terminology, cf. most recently Carbon/Pirenne-Delforge 2012. For some terminological precisions concerning ‘foundations’, see Modrzejewski 1963: 90−91. 15 See the valuable work of Purvis 2003, who discusses three noteworthy examples from the Classical period; cf. now more briefly, Hupfloher 2012.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

68 | Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge

witnessed in earlier eras.16 What has certainly made our three texts stand out is their length, their relatively good state of preservation, and the corresponding wealth of detail that they contain concerning cults. Indeed, as well shall see, all three inscriptions may perhaps best be called ‘family dossiers’ because, in all cases, they contain multiple texts of varying complexity, all of which relate to cults belonging to these different individuals and their families. These inscriptions are often grouped together, but seldom analysed in parallel. Though we cannot do complete justice to all the ramifications of these lengthy inscriptions, particularly those of Diomedon and Epikteta, a brief description of their general characteristics and content will help to introduce and clarify our subject matter. The earliest of the three is the inscription of Diomedon found on the island of Cos.17 Forming a composite dossier, three texts were inscribed in different hands but continuously on the four vertical sides of a relatively short rectangular pillar—65 cm in height—eventually filling up most of its available surface.18 Found in the nineteenth century in the suburb of the town of Cos, the marble monument’s original disposition as well as its precise context are now lost. A first text was inscribed on the stele, probably during the last decade of the fourth century BC (no. I, on face A and half of B). This presents itself as the record of an act of dedication or consecration: an individual called Diomedon apparently dedicated (anetheke, lines 1−5) a sacred precinct (temenos) to a Heracles called Diomedonteios, along with a series of properties and a slave (Libys, “the Libyan”), to take care of it all.19 The striking epithet Diomedonteios appears

|| 16 A good discussion of these points by Mikalson 2006. 17 The newest edition, consistently followed here, is by D. Bosnakis and K. Hallof in IG XII 4, 348; for some useful commentary, cf. still Herzog 1928, HGK 10, p. 28−32. 18 It is called a “pila” by Hallof and Bosnakis. Though pillar-like in shape, the support was actually called a stele, lines 134−136: ὑπὲρ ὧ[ν | γέ]γραπται ἐν τῶι βωμῶι καὶ ἐ[ν | τ]ῆ̣ι στήληι… One might have expected an explicit reference to the obligation of inscribing the documents on these material supports, as one finds in the case of Poseidonios and Epikteta. Whatever text was inscribed on the altar is now lost. 19 Lines 1−5: Δ̣[ιομέδων ἀνέθηκ]ε τὸ τ̣έμ̣ε̣νος [τόδε] | Ἡρα̣κλεῖ Δ̣[ιομε]δ̣οντείωι, ἀνέθηκε δ[ὲ] | καὶ τοὺς ξενῶνας τοὺς ἐν τῶι κάπωι | καὶ τὰ οἰκημάτια καὶ Λίβυν καὶ τὰ ἔγγο|να αὐτοῦ… It is worth noting that the construction ἀνέθηκε… ἀνέθηκε δὲ καὶ, while of course quite plausible, is by no means assured given the lacunae in the first 2 lines of the text. The act of dedicating is not the most usual verb associated with the consecration of a temenos (rare cases, as far as we can tell, e.g. SEG 28.969, Pergamon). Some element of subtlety in the background of Diomedon’s offering may have been lost and one could equally well think of restoring a verb such as καθίδρυσε (compare I. Smyrna 724) or ἀφορίσε (compare OGIS 6, lines 20−21), among other possibilities for the definition of this temenos. The photographs in I. Cos ED 149 pl. 44, show how hopeless much of side A of the stele is. The editors of the new IG at XII 4, 348, Hallof and

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

Priests and Cult Personnel in Three Hellenistic Families | 69

to imply a new and direct association of this Diomedon with Heracles: the god literally belongs to Diomedon or is “Diomedon-like”. It is worth noting right away how such an epithet is nearly unparalleled during this time.20 After that short preamble, the text proceeds to enumerate various regulations concerning the consecrated cult and its practice, using third-person imperatives to formulate these directives (starting in line 5, ἐόντω δὲ …). A little later, two additional texts were written on the pillar-stele (II and III). The first of these, inscribed in ca. 300 BC, or in other words a few years to a decade later, only takes up a small part of face B, appending a few further regulations to the text using the same sort of construction (third-person imperatives and infinitives). A final text, inscribed approximately in the first decade of the third century, fills up the remainder of side B and the other sides of the pillar (C and D). This sizeable supplementary text is largely concerned with the question of marriages within the family and their relationship to the cults codified by Diomedon (side C), again using a similar prescriptive style. The final side of the stele (D), however, surprises us both by its character and its formulation. It apparently contains a variety of different regulations or excerpts: one which refers to children and perhaps relates to the preceding side (παρασκευᾶτε, lines 114−155); a blessing (εὖ εἴη …, lines 115−119); a list of dedications provided by Diomedon (ἀνέθηκα, lines 120−130); a penalising curse which implicitly refers to the earlier blessing (εἰ ἂ[ν] | δέ τις …, lines 130−140); supplementary regulations in the infinitive (lines || Bosnakis, have made good but understandably limited progress in confirming and improving the readings. 20 The only other case of such an adjectival construction in the Hellenistic period is apparently the Zeus Philippios attested at Eresos, IG XII 2, 526, lines 4−5 (ca. third century BC; cf. Wallensten 1998: 88−90); this is surely an exceptional case and it is perhaps significant that the altars mentioned there had been uprooted. Cf. more generally Wallensten 1998: 84−85 on Diomedon, with critical remarks by A. Chaniotis, Kernos 25 (2012) 231 no. 173. The more common formulation is a genitival rather than adjectival formulation. On the founder’s genitive, cf. Gschitzner 1986, van Bremen 2010. The epithet does not recur in the stele and is so unusual that one may reasonably wonder about the precise character of this appellation (cf. n. above and compare the surprising lines 25−26: θυόντω δὲ | [τῶι Ἡρακλεῖ καὶ Διομέδ]ο̣[ν]τι μόσχον [ἢ] …; perhaps conjecture [ἥρωι Διομέδ]ο̣[ν]τι instead?). Indeed, the designation “Diomedonteios” may not be a cultic epithet as much as an attribution of this Heracles to Diomedon’s family, whose eponymous hero he might prospectively become. The adjectival formulation is in fact much more common when applied to families or groups, sanctuaries or festivals. Compare e.g. the contemporaneous consecration of properties to a hero Charmylos of the Charmyle(i)oi at Haleis on Cos (IG XII 4, 355, end of fourth century BC): ἱερὰ ἁ γᾶ καὶ ἁ οἰκία | ἁ ἐπὶ τᾶι γᾶι καὶ τοὶ κᾶ|ποι καὶ ταὶ οἰκίαι ταὶ | ἐπὶ τῶν κάπων Θεῶν | Δυώδεκα καὶ Χαρμύλου | ἥρω vac. τῶν Χαρμυλέων. Sherwin-White 1977: 212, speaks of “foreshadowing” but also of a stronger sense for the Diomedonteios epithet. Cf. also Paul 2013 on these inscriptions.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

70 | Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge

141−149); and still further ones that alternate between various forms (λαμβάνετε, line 149; θυόντω, line 153; ἀνέθηκα again at line 155; finally διδόναι at line 157). The use of the first-person perfect as well as second-person imperatives indicates that this part of the document is not merely a record of consecration; instead, it appears to cite Diomedon himself. Though the context is far from clear, a few hypotheses may perhaps be suggested. In the first case, though this final text was inscribed several years to two decades later than the first one, it might perhaps be surmised that Diomedon was still alive and active during the whole process of consecration, providing the source for these addenda and clarifications. Alternatively, the rather composite character of these supplementary regulations may instead suggest that one is dealing with citations from documents on other material supports, perhaps a testament written by Diomedon which is only excerpted here in a relatively haphazard manner in order to make the regulations on the stele more exhaustive. At Halicarnassus, not far from Cos on the coast of Caria, we find another inscription which describes the cultic initiative of a specific individual, Poseidonios.21 This second dossier, though, is much shorter (52 lines compared to the 159 or so on Diomedon’s pillar), and probably belongs to the first half of the third century, a few decades afterwards. As with Diomedon, the findspot of the inscription is known but its precise context remains somewhat obscure. In Poseidonios’ case, one finds a group of three texts inscribed on a small stele, but all on the same face and apparently all in the same hand. Though a few lines may be missing at the top of the stele, it appears to be relatively intact. Nevertheless, the inscription itself makes its composite character quite clear: it is clearly segmented into the three distinct components using paragraphoi and punctuation, and the paenultimate lines stipulate that these must be inscribed on a stone stele.22 The three constituent parts of the dossier are as follows: first, an oracle (χρησμός) sought by Poseidonios which prescribes the worship of specific deities that are ancestral as well as the Good Daemon of Poseidonios and Gorgis, who is presumably his wife (lines 1−12); second, a pledge (ὑποθήκη) of properties by Poseidonios to his descendants, prescribing the financing and organisation of the sacrifices motivated by the oracle (lines 13−23);23 and finally,

|| 21 The lack of a suitable edition for this inscription has prompted Jan-Mathieu Carbon to offer a new one in the Appendix which follows the present paper. 22 Cf. Appendix, lines 49−51: ἀναγράψαι δὲ καὶ τὸν χρησμὸν καὶ τὴν ὑποθήκην | κ[αὶ] τὸ δόγμα ἐν στήληι λιθίνηι καὶ στῆσαι ἐν τῶι v | τεμένε̣[ι]. 23 On the technical vocabulary of the hypotheke, involving here a form of “trust-fund” in perpetuity more than “mortgage” perhaps, cf. most recently DGAA 2: 141−189, variously calling

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

Priests and Cult Personnel in Three Hellenistic Families | 71

a decree (δόγμα) passed by Poseidonios and his descendants providing further regulations concerning the financing and the modalities of the cult, as well the inscribing of the stele (lines 23−52). Again, the background is not completely clear, though here one can reasonably establish a chronological order for the constitution of this dossier (whether this apparently logical order was actually historical or reconstructed ex post facto cannot be determined, however). Poseidonios first sought an oracle which prompted a pledge, a perpetual bequest of land to his descendants. Somewhat later perhaps, but while Poseidonios was presumably still alive, he and his descendants passed a decree inscribing these documents and adding further precisions on the cults. The last of these three dossiers is by far the most extensive and celebrated: the ‘foundation’ of Epikteta on the island of Thera.24 This inscription, running to a total of 288 lines, was inscribed in eight columns on four contiguous marble panels which likely formed the facing part of a base for three statues (for a hypothetical reconstruction of the monument, cf. Fig. 1).25 These statues are identified by larger labels immediately below where they may stood: on the lefthand side is Andragoras the son of Phoinix and Epikteta, on the right is Kratesilochos their other son, and in the center is a statue of Epikteta herself, daughter of Grinnos. The following dossier in this case consists of two texts, both dating to the final decades of the third century BC, or perhaps more precisely ca. 210/193 BC.26 Yet the exact time span between the two texts is unclear: both are headed by a dating formula, as with other texts from Thera, but citing different groups of ephors of the island (text 1 is headed ἐπὶ ἐφόρων τῶν σὺν Φοιβοτέλει, columns I−III, lines 1−108; text 2, ἐπὶ ἐφόρων τῶν σὺν Ἱμέρτωι, Διοσθύου, columns IV−VIII, lines 109−288). While the first text is therefore indeterminately older, it would appear that both texts are in the same hand and were inscribed at the same time, around the time of the second date. Among other similarities, the sequence from a bequest to an organisational section is relatively analogous || this procedure a “fond réservé, dépôt, capital”, and discussing the subject in many of its vicissitudes (though not including Poseidonios’ stele in this context). 24 The text followed consistently here is the one in Wittenburg 1990: 21−37, which itself is based on that of Ricci, 1981: 72−81, no. 31 with photo; the edition in IG XII 3, 330 is somewhat outdated. The inscribed text is virtually completely preserved, but cf. Gauthier BE 1990: 507−508 no. 426 for some remarks on the readings and interpretation. 25 For a more detailed description of the monument, cf. Wittenburg 1990: 11−13. 26 On the letterforms and the dating, cf. Wittenburg 1990: 13−15 and esp. 18. Two inscriptions from Delos honour a member of Epikteta’s family, Archinikos son of Gorgoppas (cf. lines 86−87 of Epikteta’s testament, where his son is also listed): these are IG XI 4, 709−710 (both dating to the end of the third century BC). But this only provides a rough chronological bracket for the association created by Epikteta.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

72 | Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge

to what one finds in the dossier of Poseidonios. It is unclear if Epikteta was still alive at the time of inscribing, though one might surmise from the perfect tense employed in the second text (ἐπιδέδωκε, line 113, etc.) that Epikteta’s testament had now entered into effect after her passing. That might then also parallel the dossier of Diomedon, depending on one’s reconstruction of its chronology. The first text is clearly a direct citation of the testament of Epikteta (beginning τάδε διέθετο, line 2), and continues to some extent in the first-person singular expected of such a document (ἀπολείπω, line 7, etc.), while gradually also adopting more prescriptive infinitival and third-person imperative forms.27 The testatrix quite clearly explains the motivations for her bequest: her husband Phoinix began construction on a temple of the Muses (Mouseion) gathering in it reliefs, statues and monuments of himself and his already deceased son Kratesilochos; he then (at his death) asked his wife to complete the construction of the Mouseion; two years later, this wish was echoed by her other son Andragoras upon his death (lines 8−22, etc).28 Epikteta, ill-fated in having survived her husband and both her sons, therefore followed their exhortations and composed a testament which established financing for the cult of the Muses, her heroised husband and herself, and for her heroised sons (lines 66−69, among others). The family which inherits according to this testament is thereby constituted as a cultic community, and the members of this association are even listed (lines 81−108). The second text, as eventually becomes clear, adopts the appearance of a decree of the familial association (after the dating formula, it begins with ἐπειδὴ and a preamble in line 110, and its enactments then commence in line 126 with the formula ἀγαθᾶι τύχαι, δεδόχθαι). Still later, this second text is apparently called a law or regulation (nomos) passed by the cultic association. Indeed, a final, clearer reference to the monumental presentation of the inscription is found within the text itself, which, again much like that of Poseidonios, concludes with prescriptions concerning its inscribing.29 Here, one

|| 27 On the vocabulary of testaments, cf. Wittenburg 1990: 71−84 and most recently, DGAA 2, Chapter 15, with p. 497−500 on testament of Epikteta in particular. 28 The statue of Phoinix, those of the Muses, or other reliefs, have not been found. It is therefore quite probable that no other labels are to be restored as part of the extant monument, and that these other elements have been lost. On these statues and other cultic materials, cf. Wittenburg 1990: 144−147. 29 Lines 274−286: οὗτος δὲ ἐγγραφέτω τά τε κατὰ τὸν | νόμον πάντα, προνοειθήτω δὲ καὶ ὅ|πως ὁ νόμος ἀναγραφῇ καὶ ἁ διαθήκα ἔς | τε τὰν ὑπόβασιν τῶν ἀγαλμάτων τῶν | ἐν τῶι Μουσείωι, καὶ ἐς δέλτον ξυλογρα|φηθεῖ, κατασκευωθῇ δὲ καὶ γλωσσοκό|μον ἐς ὃ ἐμβαλοῦμες τὰ τοῦ κοινοῦ γράμματα· καὶ ὅπως αἱρεθεῖ ἀνὴρ γραμ|ματοφύλαξ, ὅστις παραλαβὼν διὰ λοι|[π]οῦ παρὰ τοῦ ἐπισσόφου τὰν τε δέλτον | ἔχουσαν τὸν νόμον καὶ τάν διαθήκαν ἐ|ξυλογραφημέναν καὶ τὸ

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

Priests and Cult Personnel in Three Hellenistic Families | 73

finds the expected prescription that the law or regulation and the testament (διαθήκα) are to be inscribed on the base of the statues in the Mouseion (ὑπόβασις τῶν ἀγαλμάτων τῶν ἐν τῶι Μουσείωι). But we also read that these documents are copied on a wooden tablet, and that a casket (γλωσσοκόμον) contains other writings belonging to the family, probably in the form of papyri and including an original version of Epikteta’s testament (τὰ τοῦ κοινοῦ γράμματα; τὰ βυβλία). These documents, part of this wider dossier, have vanished. Indeed, despite the considerable amount of description provided in the inscription concerning the temenos of Muses and the various cultic materials, the precise context of this dossier is, here too, lost.30 We do not know where Epikteta’s Mouseion would have been situated on Thera or how it would have formed a part of the wider civic context in the island at the turn of the third century BC. One can thus readily witness several ways in which these three relatively unique inscriptions yield productive comparisons and contrasts. While different in terms of material support, all of the inscriptions, as we remarked, are collections of texts. None of the texts explicitly embodies an act of cultic foundation, which one expects in Greek to be identified by the use of the verb hidruein or the like.31 However, all of them refer to varying acts of private initiative: dedication in Diomedon’s case; oracular consultation followed by a pledge in that of Poseidonios; and a testament which points to the completed construction of a sanctuary by Epikteta. All of the cults established in the inscriptions pertain to gods alongside whom one also seemingly finds the worship of the individuals concerned, whether in a heroic guise or otherwise. Moreover, we may also remark from the outset that none of these family dossiers makes an explicit appeal to the polis: they do not seem to have been directly sanctioned and supported by

|| γλωσσοκόμον | καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῶι βυβλία φυλαξεῖ, ἐς ὅ κα | δόξει τῶι κοινῶι, καὶ οἰσεῖ ἐπὶ τὸς συλ|λόγος. 30 For a history of the discovery of the inscription, cf. Wittenburg 1990: 16−19. The four stone panels were brought to Italy around 1586 AD and any archaeological context is probably lost. Wittenburg attempts to make a comparison between the Mouseion of the inscription and other heroa, notably one found on Thera (139−143; at Evangelismos, ca. 100−200 meters outside the main city). 31 For use of this verb already since the Classical period, see e.g. IG I3 987 (ca. 405−400 BC, Echelidai – Neon Phaleron): Ξενοκράτεια Κηφισο̑ ἱερ|ὸν ἱδρύσατο καὶ ἀνέθηκεν… (Purvis 2003: 15−16, etc.); compare SEG 15.517 (ca. 250 BC, Paros): col. II: Μνησιέπει ὁ θεὸς ἔχρησε λῶιον καὶ ἄμεινον εἶμεν | ἐν τῶι τεμένει, ὃ κατασκευάζει, ἱδρυσαμένωι | βωμὸν… For an alternative point of view on the concept of ‘foundation’, more rooted in the notion of civic ‘donation’, see Stavrianopoulou 2006: 226−227.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

74 | Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge

these local city-states.32 At any rate, they must have remained to some degree under the wider authority of their local city-states: for example, their revenues were probably taxable.33 Moreover, the dossiers, particularly those of Poseidonios and Epikteta, were consciously modelled on a common ‘polis-framework’ by adopting the formulation of civic decrees.34

Male Priests and Kinship Groups One particularly fertile area for comparison among these three dossiers, and one which will be our main focus here, is the personnel involved in the cults. The first parts of the three dossiers, as different as they may be, all establish or restructure familial cults, which aim towards a wide but fairly traditional degree of inclusivity. Furthermore, in all three instances, as we shall see, priests are appointed according to a principle of male primogeniture. These two interrelated aspects of the dossiers ought surely not to be surprising. Without any doubt, the organisation of sub-polis groups with hereditary priesthoods is based on long-standing kinship traditions, since the Archaic period or even earlier.35 The familial root of this practice is perhaps even clearer: in the Greek household (oikos), the father of the family is the one who officiates in the context of domestic cult, and the emphasis on male primogeniture is strong.36 But the moment this sort of familial cult steps out of an unwritten context and becomes to some extent ‘monumentalised’ or codified, a more explicit definition of how the family is constituted and of who is responsible for its rituals becomes necessary. The crystallisation of priesthoods in early periods of Greek political history is a || 32 In this regard, an interesting psychological phenomenon is that previous editors of the stele of Poseidonios had all read the phrase πρὸ τοῦ δήμου in line 46, no doubt wishfully thinking that the thiasos of Poseidonios was financially accountable to the city of Halikarnassos (cf. Appendix, ad loc.). In fact, the stone clearly shows that one must instead read πρὸ τοῦ δείπνου, “before the dinner”. In Poseidonios’ family, as in many committees today, one read and balanced the financial accounts, getting rid of this necessary business before partaking in a communal feast. Cf. Hirschfeld GIBM 4, 896 (= SEG 15.637), ad loc., who already considered that the reading δήμου entailed “a curious proviso”. 33 See below, Appendix, at lines 21−22 and commentary ad loc. 34 See Stavrianopoulou 2006: 226−249 on individual bequests which are intended to fall under the management of the Hellenistic polis (and are accordingly codified by official civic decrees). Cf. also Gherchanoc 2012: 167. 35 For a recent overview of these questions, with further bibliography, see Horster 2012: esp. 9 and n. 19. 36 Cf. Faraone 2012: 212−213.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

Priests and Cult Personnel in Three Hellenistic Families | 75

relatively obscure matter in which we cannot enter here, but a similar kind of transformative process is remarkably what is in evidence in our three Hellenistic dossiers.37 What we hope to show is that while the polis does not explicitly factor into these inscriptions, the conceptual background of the familial cults is nonetheless firmly anchored in ‘polis-religion’, as notably exemplified by its subgroups. As we have seen, several enigmas about the context of the dossiers remain. The inscription from Cos, contrary to Poseidonios’ endowment based on an oracle and Epikteta’s testamentary dispositions to honour herself and the dead members of her family with a Mouseion, does not say anything about the origin of Diomedon’s decision to consecrate a cult-place, to finance and to organise familial rituals. We are told that Diomedon consecrated a temenos, along with guest-houses ‘in the garden’, some small buildings, and a slave with his descendants. The latter will be free if they perform what is prescribed. At the first stage of the foundation, slaves are clearly established as the permanent caretakers of the sanctuary and its properties.38 However, the responsibility for the various sacrifices performed in the sanctuary depends on Diomedon’s children (lines 9−10: τοὶ ἐγ̣ [Δι|ο]μέδον[[δον]]τος) and their descendants (lines 10−11: καὶ ἀεὶ τοὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν̣ γε|ν[ό]μενοι), even though the slave oversees the funding of the rituals through rental proceeds. The next section, referring to the details of these rituals and the identity of the recipients is heavily mutilated. Sacrifices were itemised after the mention of the festival (πανάγυρις), which seems to be certain (line 22). The priesthood is then discussed, in a heavily but plausibly restored passage: [… ἱεράσθω δὲ τοῦ] Ἡρακλεῦς νῦν | [μὲν – – – –, τὸ δὲ λοιπ]ὸ̣ν̣ ἀεὶ ὁ πρεσύτ|[ατος τῶν Διομέδοντος ἐγγό]ν̣ω̣ν (lines 23−25). A distinction is clearly made between the present and the future: Diomedon could be the first and current priest, if his name is to be restored in the lacuna; in the future, the priest will be “the eldest of Diomedon’s descendants”.39

|| 37 Some preliminary reflections in Georgoudi/Pirenne-Delforge 2005. 38 A similar situation can also be observed in the dedication of a temenos by a certain Pythion son of Stasilas in the deme of Isthmos, also on Cos but at later date (IG XII 4, 349, ca. 200−150 BC). This much shorter text offers a good parallel to Diomedon’s stele on several levels: a slave called Makarinos is dedicated to the logistical running of the sanctuary (lines 4−11), and this sanctuary is common to all of the sons of Pythion (lines 15−16). However, a priestess, who could be Pythion’s wife, but whose name has likely been erased (line 4), seems to lead the ritual practice, and the main gods are an Artemis, Zeus Hikesios and the Theoi Patrooi (all equally appropriate to a deme context on Cos). 39 The extant of the lacuna in these lines (23−25) is not given by Hallof and Bosnakis but can be calculated as ca. 9 letters in this case, which would well match the possibility of a single

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

76 | Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge

Though Epikteta’s testament directly appoints a priest, it adopts a language that is much like that which one would expect from other evidence concerning priesthoods, which could be defined as kata genos, literally “by descent” or hereditary (lines 57−61): τὰν δὲ ἱερατείαν τᾶν Μουσᾶν καὶ τῶν ἡρώιων ἐχέτω ὁ τᾶς θυγατρός μου υἱὸς Ἀνδραγόρας· εἰ δέ τί κα πάθῃ οὗτος, ἀεὶ ὁ πρεσβύτατος ἐκ τοῦ γένους τοῦ Ἐπιτελείας.40 Epikteta does, however, stress that the eldest man, ἀεὶ ὁ πρεσβύτατος, is always to serve as priest, presumably for his lifetime, until he is succeeded by the next male descendant in the line of her genos. Both the dossiers of Diomedon and Poseidonios, for their part, use a more distinctive expression in this context, perhaps providing an even more emphatic affirmation of the masculine primogeniture which was the sole condition for being priest. In Poseidonios’ stele, the appointment of a priest is defined as follows: ἱερατευέτω τῶν ἐκγόνων τῶν ἐκ Ποσει|δωνίου ὁ πρεσβύτατον ὢν ἀεὶ κατ’ ἀνδρογένειαν (lines 20−21). As much as the appointment of the priest is clear in Poseidonios’ case and more or less comparable to Epikteta’s definition of the priesthood, Diomedon’s is more complex, given the lacunae found earlier in the text: a current priest has been appointed and future ones will be chosen according to who is eldest among the male descendants. The wider male lineage, however, is referred to a few times using the expression οἱ κατ’ ἀνδρογένε[ι|α]ν. Near the very end of the extant text, one finds this succinct phrase (lines 153−155): θυόντω δὲ τῶι Πασίωι κα̣[ὶ] | ταῖς Μοίραις οἱ κατ’ ἀνδρογένε[ι|α]ν (cf. also lines 86−87). This is a shorthand for designating the male members in their order of seniority, literally “those according to male lineage.” The priest, as the eldest man, is of course included in this group and must lead the sacrifice. It is not by chance that the sacrifices which this male part of the family makes are offered to Pasios and the Moirai. These deities are related to the protection of the family, whether its patrimony (Zeus Pasios is a local form of Zeus Ktesios) or its human components (the Moirai notably protect the well|| name, probably without patronymic. Diomedon himself may therefore seem the likeliest candidate: [… ἱεράσθω δὲ τοῦ] Ἡρακλεῦς νῦν | [μὲν Διομέδων, τὸ δὲ λοιπ]ὸ̣ν… 40 Compare e.g. at Halicarnassus, where one inscribes a list of civic priests, constructed as namely τοὺς γεγ[ενημένους] | ἀπὸ τῆς κτίσεως κατὰ γένος ἱερεῖς τοῦ Πο[σειδῶ]|νος τοῦ κατιδρυθέντος ὑπὸ τῶν τὴν ἀποικί[αν ἐκ] | Τροιῆνος ἀγαγόντων Ποσειδῶνι καὶ Ἀπόλλω̣[νι] (A. Wilhelm 1908: 64−69, no. 5, Hellenistic?). On hereditary priesthoods, see generally Georgoudi/ Pirenne-Delforge 2005: 13−15; in Athens: Parker 1996: 56−66, 125−126, 284−327.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

Priests and Cult Personnel in Three Hellenistic Families | 77

balanced renewal of generations). A sacrifice to the patrimonial Zeus and to the Moirai thus defines the identity of the family, a point to which we will return.41 The concept of ἀνδρογένεια, apparently here replacing the more simple genos, is rather particular.42 As some have observed, this compound word is found nearly only in inscriptions from Cos and nearby towns.43 In fact, it is found along the Halicarnassian peninsula, or the western coast of Caria more generally. We are therefore probably dealing with a vocabulary which has a strong local dissemination.44 The case of Cos is perhaps the most instructive, since the earliest evidence pertains to the Asclepiadai, a cult group from Cos and Cnidus who traced their descent from the god, and who would become prominent during the Hellenistic period for their role as doctors. In the first half of the fourth century BC, they inscribed a stele at Delphi stipulating that visitors to the oracle “who wished to consult it or sacrifice were to swear that they were Asclepiadai by line of male ancestry (κατὰ ἀνδρο̣[γέν]|ειαν)”.45 This emphasis on male ancestry as a qualification for membership in a genos agrees particularly well with the appointment of priests specified by Poseidonios and with Diomedon’s familial structure. Similarly, other instances of this word tend to confirm

|| 41 Pirenne-Delforge/Pironti 2011, with further bibliography. 42 See now DGAA 1: 340−342, albeit quite cursorily, on this subject. 43 Cf. already Bousquet, 1956: esp. 587 (“villes voisines”), and Rougemont CID I 12, but they do not exhaustively note all of the examples briefly cited here. 44 New evidence disturbs that picture of such a local horizon. An oracular lamella from Dodona, as yet not officially published, preserves a question from two women of unknown origin, likely sisters: Θιὸς, τύχα ἀγαθὰ ︙Βο̅κόλο̅ κὴ Πολυμνάστη | τί κα δράοντοιν hυγία κὴ γενία κ᾽ ἀνδρογένεια | γινύο[ι]το κ̣ὴ παραμόνιμος ἰοιὸ[ς] κ̣ὴ χρε̅μάτων | ἐπιγγ[ύ]ασις κ̣ὴ τῶν ἰοντῶν ὄνασις. Translation: “God, good fortune: Bokolo and Polymnaste (ask) what the two of them should do for there to be health and offspring and male offspring and a male child that will survive and security of properties and enjoyment of future things” (450−425 BC; cf. Eidinow 2007: 92 no. 13, from Christidis; SEG 57.536 no. 4 of the inedita). 45 Rougemont, CID I 12 (compare LSS 42, ca. 360 BC or earlier?), lines 3−11: τὸν ἀφ|ικνεύμενον Ἀσκλα|πιάδαν ἐς Δελφούς, | αἴ κα χρῄζηι τῶι μα|ντείωι χρῆσθαι ἢ θ|ύεν, ὀμόσαντα χρῆσ|θαι ἐ̑μεν Ἀσκλαπ[ιά]|δας κατὰ ἀνδρο̣[γέν]|ειαν. As was well noted by Bousquet (n. 43 above), this language is echoed almost directly in a claim made in the supposed speech of Thessalos, the son of Hippocrates, to the Athenian assembly. This is the so-called Presbeutikos Logos, Hp. Ep. 27, lines 138−144: ὁ μὲν γὰρ Κάδμος, ὃς τὴν βουλὴν αὐτὴν ἤρτυσεν, ἔστι τῆς ἐμῆς μητρὸς, ὁ δ᾽ Ἱππόλοχος ἐξ Ἀσκληπιαδέων τέταρτος ἀπὸ Νέβρου τοῦ Κρισαίους συγκαθελόντος, ἡμεῖς δ᾽ Ἀσκληπιάδαι κατ᾽ ἀνδρογένειαν (see also Smith 1990: 4−18, for discussion). Whatever its authenticity—various sections of the lengthy speech appear cobbled together from different sources—this passage of the text surely provides a confirmation that the Asclepiadai used this (local?) expression to rhetorically affirm their line of male ancestry, swearing: “we are Asclepiadai by line of male descent.”

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

78 | Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge

both the local specificity and the significance of the word. An inscription from the small Carian town of Olymos prescribes the inscribing of a list of those persons who could partake in the sacrifices for Apollo and Leto, probably a necessary consequence of its recent sympoliteia with the larger town of Mylasa to its south. The considerations of the decree begin: “since it seems fitting to affirm participation in the rituals held in common by the Olymeis according to male ancestry (κατ’ ἀνδρογένειαν) …”.46 Finally, perhaps the latest instance of the expression is a funerary inscription from Myndus, which, though fragmentary, assigns the rights for burial in hypostai to specific persons as well as to a few others “according to the line of male descent.”47 In all these cases, then, the line of male ancestry or descent is stressed with this distinctive form of vocabulary. To return to the priests, the inscriptions of Diomedon and Poseidonios give details concerning their duties and emoluments, while Epikteta’s testament does not mention the priest after stipulating his appointment. In Diomedon’s text, the injunction θυόντω that comes just after the possible mention of the priest (line 25) opens the most degraded part of the stone, but its content must have closely adopted the form that we know in some official sacrificial regulations from Cos: sacrifices to various gods involving specific animals, libations, and the provision of complementary hiera by the priest.48 Then, on the better preserved face B of the stone, comes his priestly prerogative (geras): “let him take a leg and the skin from each sacrificial animal” (lines 39−41: γ[έ]|ρη δὲ λαμβανέτω τοῦ ἱερέ[υ]ς | ἑκάστου σκέλος καὶ τὸ δέρμα). This is the priestly perquisite which is found in virtually every priesthood document on Cos.49 The last prescription concerns the performance of τὰν ἀποπυρίδα κατὰ τὰ πάτρια (lines 42−43), a hapax legomenon which has been interpreted as a sacrifice of fish.50 The second part of the inscription (II) is brief and stipulates that the || 46 I. Mylasa 861 (cf. LSAM 68; ca. 150 BC?), lines 2−3: ἐπειδὴ καθήκει ὑπάρχειν τ[ὴν μετουσίαν τῶν παρ’ | Ὀλυμ]ε̣ῦσιν κοινῶν ἱερῶν κατ’ ἀνδρογένειαν… 47 SEG 16.696, lines 2−11 (first-second century AD?): Η̣Ν κ̣α̣ὶ̣ [- - - c.11- - -] αὐτὴν κατ’ ἀ[νδ]|ρογενίαν [κα]ὶ Πῶλ̣λ̣α̣ Ἀθηναίου, Δ|ρακοντὶ[ς - -]ω̣του, Ζωσάριν Ἔρω|τος, Ἀττέ̣λ̣ιν, Ἀμφινόη μόναι | καὶ Κάρπος Σωζομένου, Ἑρμᾶ|ς Εὐτυχᾶ, Κόϊντος Γλαύκωνος | ἀρχαιρέσιοι καὶ τούτων τῶν | τριῶν αἰ[ε]ὶ κατ’ ἀνδρογένιαν | καὶ Λούκιον Σπέδιον Διό|τειμον μόνον. 48 Compare further on, lines 36−39: ἱερ[ὰ | δέ παρεχέτω ἄρτον ποτὶ τ]ὰν ἀρ̣τ̣οφαγ[ί|αν καὶ οἶνον καὶ μέλι ποτὶ τὰ]ν̣ σ̣πονδ[ὰν | κ]αὶ ξύλα ποτὶ τὰν θυσίαν. Elsewhere on Cos see: IG XII 4, 274, lines 4−10, 60−62; 275, lines 20−21; 276, lines 3−8; 278, lines 45−47, 58−60. 49 Cf. S. Paul and P. Kató in this volume. 50 Cf. esp. Ekroth 2002: 88 and 179 n. 209. A maritime context, with a scene of fishing, is represented on a mosaic found in situ in the harbour sanctuary of Heracles Kallinikos. Could this evidence reflect, like the apopuris, a broader connexion between Heracles and the sea in Cos? See De Matteis 2004: 105−106, n° 35, pl. XXXIX and Paul 2013.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

Priests and Cult Personnel in Three Hellenistic Families | 79

statues and offerings must be kept at the same place inside “the house” (lines 56−59), implying that some of this material has probably been dis- or misplaced. It also gives some information about the two phases of the annual panegyris of the month Petageitnos already mentioned in the first part of the text (lines 60−66). These sacrifices are performed by the priest, assisted by three epimenioi, who are discussed in the next section. At Halicarnassus, the priest appointed in Poseidonios’s inscription is also assisted by epimenioi and his geras is mentioned: “let the priest get from each sacrificial animal a thigh and a quarter of the entrails and let him have an equal share of the other parts” (lines 38−40: ὁ δὲ ἱε[ρε]ὺς λαμβανέτω ἑκάστου | ἱερείου κωλῆν καὶ τεταρτη[μο]ρίδα σπλάγχνων, | καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἰσόμοιρος ἔ[στω]). The priestly geras is a sine qua non in texts concerning priests. On the one hand, the parallel between Diomedon and Poseidonios is striking and their content on these issues is very close to other Hellenistic inscriptions concerning sales of priesthood or civic sacrifices. On the other hand, it is possible that the domestic framework, which is little understood, may also be present in the attribution of a geras, literally the “prerogative of age,” to the eldest in the male line. In Epikteta’s case, there is no explicit mention of a priestly geras: perhaps this was simply conventional and did not need to be spelled out? The third part of Diomedon’s inscription, which refers to a variety of regulations planned by the founder, stipulates the necessary funds in case of damage to be repaired as well as for the sacrifices. To this are added prohibitions regarding the exploitation of the temenos and the cultic house, as well as concerning the use of the buildings he consecrated. During the month when the festival of Heracles is to be held, weddings of impoverished male members of the family (τ̣ῶν [κα]τ᾿ ἀν̣|δρογένειαν, lines 86−87) can be organised in conjunction with the usual sacrifices. For this occasion, the priest gives his perquisites to the bridegroom and receives eight drachmas as compensation (lines 101−103: ἐ̣[φιέτω | δὲ] καὶ ὁ ἱερεὺς εἰς τοὺς γάμους τὰ γέρ̣[η τῶι | τὸ]ν γάμον ποιοῦντι λαβὼν ὀκτὼ δραχ[μὰς]). Moreover, the meat that is not placed on the sacred table and that can be taken away is available for the nuptials. It may be underlined that the family can give its male members the opportunity to counterbalance their financial difficulties in the context of marriage. This is the best way to preserve the continuity of the family and the legitimacy of children on the male side. Diomedon’s organisation thus aims to provide its members with the best conditions for starting a new part of the family. Though Diomedon’s ancestry and past are quite nebulous, and perhaps deliberately so, his text is quite explicit on the structural organisation of his present and future family. On a first level, we are told that τοὺ[ς] | [ἐ]γ̣ Διομέδοντος [[— — — — —ω]] | γεγενημένους καὶ τοὺς ἐγγ[ό]|[ν]ους αὐτῶν (lines 136−137)

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

80 | Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge

have to defend the cult and the ancestors.51 The expression used is relatively generic: “those who are born from Diomedon and their descendants.” Even if this is not stipulated, we can presume that this is a form of inclusive language, denoting all male and female descendants. In order to defend Diomedon’s dispositions, the whole family is concerned, whatever the precise relationship of its members with the founder. On a second level, when cult personnel must be selected or appointed, those chosen must have a perfect family pedigree on both paternal and maternal sides. In fact, as far as bastards (nothoi) are concerned, their cult attendance is submitted to an evaluation but their actual participation cannot involve any responsibility over the rituals.52 The inscription uses the expression μ̣ὴ ἐξέστω αὐτῶι μετέχειν τῶν | [ἱ]ε̣ρωσυνῶν (lines 148−149): the plural implies more than the priesthood and probably also includes the office of epimenioi.53 At the civic level, where citizenship is concerned, a nothos can be an extramarital child of a citizen, a child born from a citizen who married an alien woman or the reverse. The latter status is closely connected with a twofold civic ancestry requirement, a prerequiste for citizenship that one finds in Athens after 451/0, and probably also in Cos.54 In our text, the reference to nothoi implies more a question of legitimacy within the family than of citizenship itself.55 Even though a nothos may partake in the rituals, he cannot assume ritual responsibilities because of his illegitimate descent.56 Let us simply remark that only male

|| 51 It is striking that the name of Diomedon’s father is unknown. One would probably have expected it to appear in the first extant line of the stele, and its absence contrasts with the dossiers of Poseidonios and Epikteta. Moreover, the rasura line 136 perhaps suggests a deliberate erasure of Diomedon’s patronymic (compare the possibly similar case in lines 12−14 and see below). 52 Cf. now DGAA 1: 306−311 on nothoi at Cos, notably in the stele of Diomedon. 53 There is some controversy as to whether τῶν | [ἱ]ε̣ρωσυνῶν here means “the priestly share of sacrificial victims”, as attested in Attic inscriptions (so argued in RIJG 24B), or merely “priesthoods” (cf. Dittenberger, Syll.2 265 n. 46, cited by Ogden 1996: 315 n.122; DGAA 1: 308 n.79). This seems rather pointless, since both interpretations amount to the same thing: priestly shares are only given to priests or cultic officials. The phrase μετέχειν τῶν ἱερωσυνῶν, or “partake in the priesthoods”, is a little unusual, but cf. perhaps FD III 4: 442, lines 10−11 (ca. 20−46 AD). See also below, with n. 73. 54 Discussion in Ogden 1996: 310−316. 55 Contrast the modalities of introducing nothoi into civic phratries: e.g. LSS 48 (Tenos, fourth century BC). 56 A nothos must be vetted to participate in the family and the rites, lines 146−147: ἂν δέ τις νόθος ὢν κρ[ι|θ]εὶς γνωσθῆι μετέχειν τῶν ἱερῶ[ν]). For this vocabulary, with an adequate French translation, cf. DGAA 1: 308 and n. 79.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

Priests and Cult Personnel in Three Hellenistic Families | 81

bastards are concerned by the regulation. If there were nothai in the family, they are as evanescent as the other females, whatever their legitimacy. The case of Poseidonios presents some analogous language which aims at a maximal inclusivity of family members in the cult group (thiasos). It would seem likely that this comprehensiveness was either part of original wording of Poseidonios’ question to the oracle or derived from the typical pleonastic language of oracles themselves. Indeed, the oracle (lines 1−12), forming the first part of the dossier, preserves the following request sent by Poseidonios: “what would be better and more good for him and for his descendants, who will be born and are living, both from males and females, to do and to endeavour…” Compared to the more male-centric aspects of the foundation of Diomedon, Poseidonios does not apparently wish to exclude his female descendants from what the oracle prescribes, and a person who is presumed to be his wife, Gorgis, is also included in the cult (lines 11 and 36). The priesthood is attributed to males only, as we have seen, but the familial structure explicitly includes both male and female offspring. Indeed, later on in the text, the pledge and the decree enacted by Poseidonios both reprise this language, with some further modifications and elaborations. In the first case, we find the heading: “Poseidonios pledged to his own descendants and those born from them, both from males and females, and those who take from them…” (lines 13−15). In the second, the decree begins: “it seemed good to Poseidonios and the descendants of Poseidonios and those who have taken from them ...” (lines 23−24). The phrases τοῖς λαμβάνουσιν ἐξ αὐτῶν, “those who take from them” in line 15, and the perfect formulation τοῖς εἰληφόσιν ἐξ αὐτῶν in line 24, warrant some explanation. The object of the verb “to take/receive” remains unspecified but the suggestions of some of the previous editors of text have provided a convincing explanation for the ellipsis.57 One ought probably to supply an implied object such as “women” or “wives” (γυναῖκας).58 The phrase would accordingly refer to men who “have taken from among Poseidonios’ descendants” and therefore imply “in-laws” or other relatives by marriage.59 Once again, it would appear that the familial

||

57 E. Ziebarth apud F. Hiller von Gärtringen, Syll.3 1044, n. 8; followed by G. Hirschfeld, GIBM 4, 896 (SEG 15.637) ad loc. Cf. Parker 2010: 119 n. 68. 58 Cf. also the acceptance of this meaning in LSJ s.v. λαμβάνειν ΙΙ.1.c, “receive wives”. 59 An alternative, though far less assured, would be to think that the missing object was something such as Poseidonios’ endowment itself, τὴν ὑποθήκην. The phrase would in this case mean “those who receive / have received from them (i.e. the other descendants, children and grandchildren).” This would be an odd way of describing a further generation, but perhaps not completely unsuitable in the context of the pleonastically

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

82 | Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge

structure described by the dossier of Poseidonios is broadly defined. This familial thiasos includes not only all the direct male and female descendants of Poseidonios—a first generation of mixed gender, a second generation born from these, and so on—but also in-laws, males who married into the family. Beyond its emphasis on the continuity of male descent for the priesthood (androgeneia), Poseidonios’ thiasos was a group which embraced the cult of his ancestors and which welcomed all of his first-generation descendants as well as all of their direct relatives. The members of the group constituted by Epikteta are, at first glance, centred on the male side of the family. Its name is “the association of the men’s group of the relatives” (κοινόν τοῦ ἀνδρείου τῶν συγγενῶν, with some variations throughout the document), which tentatively refers to a Doric background of common dinners between male citizens.60 The list of members which concludes the testament (lines 80−108) opens with twenty-five male names accompanied by their patronymic. Their relationship with Epikteta, her father Grinnos or her husband Phoinix is not entirely clear in each case but one can suppose that all these people belong to the wider family (the sungenoi) on the male side. However, the andreion is probably a formal expression which does not imply an exclusion of women, insofar as the document refers to the participation of men and “their wives, living together with them, and their children, the female children as long as they are under their father’s authority, the male as well when they are of age, and their issue under the same conditions” (lines 94−97).61 Also mentioned are the heiresses (epikleroi), their husbands and their children, under the same conditions (lines 97−100).62 Wives and epikleroi remain anonymous for the most part, but at the end of the list, some women are explicitly named, who probably do not belong to the categories previously mentioned (except Epiteleia who is the daughter and heir of the testatrix): a homonymous Epikteta whose place in the family is unknown, five daughters of male members and their husbands, as well as three others females, who were perhaps not yet

|| oracular and encompassing language of Poseidonios’ stele. Not so differently, W. Dittenberger, Syll.2 641, reckoned that this phrase designated a group of persons who had received the right to participate in the cult through a decision of the descendants (scil. ?). Cf. Laum 1914: 111−112. 60 For the koinon: lines 22−23, 26−27, 56, 76−77, 132, 144−145. See Wittenburg 1990: 97−99, though one may be sceptical about the extent to which ‘male dining groups’ are more Doric than Ionic, or a general feature of Greek communities. 61 The forms πορευέσθωσαν (line 94), πορευέσθων (97−98), πορευέσθω (100, 105), are used for the attendance and participation of women and children. 62 See now DGAA 1: 250−252 for a brief discussion of the “épiclérat” here.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

Priests and Cult Personnel in Three Hellenistic Families | 83

married or who were widows. The children of all these women are also evoked (lines 100−108).63 The three dossiers thus place variously nuanced emphases on the participation of family members. Different forms of inclusivity can be observed: the desire to control marriages and incorporate male bastards in Diomedon’s dossier, and the membership of female descendants and in-laws in both Poseidonios’ and Epikteta’s communities. Several other Hellenistic examples of familial hierarchies within cults could be adduced, some of which parallel what one finds in the cases of Diomedon, Poseidonios and Epikteta.64 Amid these complex family structures and dynamics, the constant feature was the appointment of a male priest following a principle of primogeniture. Beyond priests, other forms of ‘private cult personnel’ found in these three Hellenistic dossiers can be seen, in much the same way, to mirror the forms of ‘public priesthoods’ which are evidenced in wider civic frameworks.

Elusive Contexts and Epimenioi As we have seen, our three dossiers all exhibit relatively common structures though their contexts are far from clear. One might suppose that they were constituted in a carefully considered manner, first establishing a private initiative which next needed to be elaborated through an administrative act (viz. a decree). This is almost certainly the case with Epikteta’s testament, but in the other two, that is not so readily apparent. In particular, Diomedon’s stele presents a rather haphazard accumulation of inscribed texts and does not invoke such an administrative act. Poseidonios’ dossier was perhaps elaborated in a methodical way, but his hypotheke does not demonstrate the same level of detail and foresight as Epikteta’s testament. Instead, one might suggest that the || 63 On the family of Epikteta, cf. the excellent analysis of Stavrianopolou 2006: 141−142, 290−302. 64 A fruitful comparison could notably be made with the remarkable recent example of the koinon honouring Symmasis and his wife at Tlos in Lycia, cf. Parker 2010. The assignment of sacrificial prerogatives is defined as follows, with a particular emphasis on male participation (side A, lines 11−28): ὡς ἂν δὲ μεταλλά|ξῃ Συμμασις τὸν βίον δώσου|σιν τῇ γυναικὶ αὐτοῦ Μαμμᾳ | ἀμφοτέρας, ὡς ἂν δὲ καὶ αὕ|τη μεταλλάξῃ τὸν βίον δώ|σουσιν τοῖς ὑοῖς μου, ὁμοίω δὲ καὶ | ἀεὶ τοῖς ἐπιγεινομένοις ἐκ τού|των. παρέσονται δὲ ἐπὶ τὰς | εὐωιχίας οἱ υἱοί μου Σύμμα|χος καὶ Ἑρμάφιλος καὶ Κλεῖ|νος καὶ οἱ γαμβροὶ μοι Ερμα|κτυβελις καὶ Ἑρμόλυκος οἱ | Τινζασιος Βελλεροφόντει|οι καὶ οἱ των ἐπιγεινόμενοι | οἱ πρῶτοι πρῶτοι ἕως ἂν γέ|νωνται δέκα. ὅταν δέ τις τού|των ἀποθάνῃ παρέσται ὁ πρε[σ]|βύτατος ἐκ τούτων.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

84 | Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge

dossiers, especially those of Diomedon and Poseidonios, reflect what seem to be gradual modifications and developments. What might have led the original consecrations and testaments to become complex dossiers rather than retaining an originally more simple form? We cannot be absolutely sure, since we are not explicitly told the reason for further inscribing. But both the resemblances and the points of contrast between the three dossiers are instructive in this regard. In the case of Diomedon, it has been insightfully remarked that the slave Libys, originally prominent in the consecration of the temenos as its primary caretaker, is no longer mentioned in the following texts.65 Perhaps he had simply died or was without any progeny, hence the need for further definition of the cult personnel involved in Diomedon’s family. According to the original dedication, Diomedon had probably only foreseen the need for a priest and a servile helper, and this aspect of the cult may itself have initially caused some problems. What is more, the first inscription (I) shows consistently that the name Libys has been added at a later date as part of a revision, perhaps indicating that the servile personnel, probably another male slave and his family, had already needed to be replaced, perhaps soon after the initial act of consecration.66 Quite similarly, Poseidonios had only stipulated the appointment of a priest, as quoted in his hypotheke (II). The decree (part III) appended to this is perhaps the clearest instance of an explanation for why such a complement was added: we read that this dogma anticipates or acknowledges the fact that the priest may not hand over the money necessary for the sacrifices or “wish to do so”, in which case, the bequests of Poseidonios are to be held in common by the family.67 Might one presume that this had perhaps been the case, soon after the endowment itself? The eldest male descendant of Poseidonios, appointed as priest while Poseidonios was probably still alive, had perhaps already shown some delinquency in his duties. As in the case of Poseidonios, the testament of Epikteta is followed by an additional inscription (column C, lines 109 ff.), which contrasts with her original document by adopting the language of a decree (line 110: ἐπειδὴ… ; line 126: ἀγαθᾶι τύχαι, δεδόχθαι). We are not told which body passed this resolution, but it is almost certainly the koinon formed by Epikteta’s male family (first mentioned at lines 22−23 and recurring repeatedly thereafter). || 65 Cf. Paul 2013. 66 Read with IG XII 1, 348, lines 4−5: καὶ [[Λίβυν]] καὶ τὰ ἔγγο|να αὐτοῦ… Lines 11−13 show even further instances of revision, perhaps related to this servile personnel as well as controversial properties (namely those that have been erased following the grove mentioned here): ἐχέτω δὲ [[Λίβυς καὶ τοὶ ἐγ Λίβυο]]|ς̣ μ̣ισ ̣ θοῦ τὸν κᾶπον [[Μ̣— — — — — — — — | — — — — — —]]. 67 See Appendix, lines 27−28: ἂν δ[ὲ] μὴ ἀπο|διδῷ, ἢ μὴ θέληι καρπεύειν, εἶναι τὰ ὑποκείμενα κ[οι]νά…

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

Priests and Cult Personnel in Three Hellenistic Families | 85

At any rate, it is clear that we are in a later context which aims at confirming and augmenting the cult founded by Epikteta. The vocabulary of the regulations notably diverges from her testament, mentioning for the first time an artuter (probably a Dorian word for the president of this koinon) and other nomoi.68 The most noteworthy element of these revisions, and one which they all have in common, is the selection and appointment of cult personnel called epimenioi. These officials, derived probably in all cases from male members of the family, are clearly meant to complement or to replace the priest in some of his functions. The case of Poseidonios is perhaps the most straightforward. One reads in the first part of the decree of the thiasos that three epimenioi are to be chosen annually from members of the family and that these are to receive money from the bequest which is administered by the priest; this money is then to be used to put on and pay for the sacrifices. In the case of a default by the priest, the family as a whole administers the endowments and also rents out the cult precinct (temenos), thus providing sufficient funds for the rituals. The essential functions of these epimenioi, it would appear, are twofold but closely related: financial administration of the bequests if necessary and provision of animals and materials for the sacrifices, but also supervision (epimeleia) of the rites in addition to the priest (ἐπιμελεί|τωσαν ἐπὶ δύο ἡμέρας, τῶι ἱερεῖ τὰ νομιζόμε[να] | παρέχοντες, lines 31−33). Finally, while the priest retains in all cases his honorific shares from the sacrifice (lines 38−40), namely a thigh and a quarter of the entrails, the epimenioi also receive priestly portions: heads and feet of the sacrificial animals.69 In the dossier of Diomedon, the essential portion of the second text (II, lines 63−68), prescribes the selection of three epimenioi. After a short complement affirming the present arrangement of statues and dedications in the cultic ‘house’ or room (the oikia), we read:70 60

… θύεν δὲ ἑκκαιδεκάται μηνὸς Πεταγειτνύου κα[ὶ] τὸν ξενισμὸν ποιεῖν τῶ[ι] Ἡρακλεῖ, τὰν δ᾿ ἀποπυρίδα ἑπτακαιδεκάται· ἐπιμηνί– ους δ᾿ αἱρεῖσθαι τρεῖς κατ᾿ ἐ–

|| 68 Lines 144−146: πρασσέσθω ὑπὸ τοῦ [κατα]τυγχάνοντος ἀρτυ|τῆρος κατὰ [τὸς] νόμος καὶ μὴ μετεχέτω τοῦ | κοινοῦ ἐς ὅ [κα ἐκ]τείση. 69 Appendix, line 44: τὰς δὲ κεφαλὰς καὶ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοὶ ἐχόντων. 70 For the former, cf. lines 56−59: τὰ δὲ ἀγάλματα καὶ τὰ ἀνα|θήματα ἔστω ἐν τᾶι οἰκία[ι] | κ̣ατὰ χώραν ὥσπερ καὶ νῦν̣ | ἔχει.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

86 | Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge

65

νιαυτόν, οἵτινες ἐχθυσεῦν̣– ται τὰ ἱερὰ μετὰ τοῦ ἱερέως, ἐπιμελέσθων δὲ τοὶ ἐπιμήνιοι ὧγ κα δέηι ποτὶ τὰν δέξι[ν].

This concludes the text inscribed in the second hand. In other words, it is almost exclusively concerned with a series of dated rituals and with these epimenioi. The order of the rituals takes place over two days: on the 16th of Pedageitnyos a sacrifice and a xenismos for Heracles, and an apopyris on the 17th. As with Poseidonios, three epimenioi are to be chosen annually which are to assist the priest in his sacrificial duties. The expression given for their primary function is rather unusual: ἐχθυσεῦν̣|ται τὰ ἱερὰ μετὰ τοῦ ἱερέως. The verb exthuein, usually implying an expiatory or destruction sacrifice (so LSJ), probably cannot have the same significance here. Though one might envisage rites to Heracles and the fish sacrifice (ἀποπυρίς) involving partial burning, it may well be that the verb here conveys something rather different.71 Most probably, the middle form of the verb, which is comparatively rarer than the active, signifies that the epimenioi are simply to assist the priest in his duties. In other words, the phrase emphasises that “they themselves fulfill the sacrifices and rituals along with the priest”.72 In addition, the epimenioi are to provide the necessary items for a ritual called the dexis (ἐπι|μελέσθων δὲ τοὶ ἐπιμήνιοι | ὧγ κα δέηι …). What is contextually meant by this particular ritual largely escapes our understanding, since the variety of ritual vocabulary in this text is somewhat mystifying. The xenismos of Heracles almost certainly implies something akin to a theoxenia, where the statue of the god was present on a couch and the figure of the god was hosted with a meal, while the dexis, literally a sort of “reception”, may well be closely connected with this xenismos or even be a term encompassing the result of the two sacrificial occasions (compare perhaps the result-

|| 71 Total, or ‘holocaustic’, burning is plausible only for the fish sacrifice, since the other sacrifices must provide the necessary perquisites for the priest and meat for the family. 72 Two contrasting examples may illustrate this quite adequately. On the one hand, one finds sacrifices defined as an ἐχθυσίαν in Delian inventories which clearly contrast with the more normal θυσίαν often listed in these same texts: e.g. ID 372, line 105 (200 BC, here: to Demeter and Zeus Eubouleus). In such cases, one might reasonably presume a reference to destruction sacrifices (cf. Ekroth 2002). On the other hand, a list of tribal officials from Cos is headed as follows (IG XII 4, 456, late third century BC): τοίδε ἐστεφανώθην ἀρχεύσαν̣|τες καὶ τὰ ἱερὰ ἐχθύσαντες κατὰ τὰ | {[τ]ὰ} πάτρια ταῖς Νύμφαις καὶ δεξά|μενοι τὸς φυλέτας ἀξίως τᾶν | θεᾶν. Here, no such ‘destructive’ connotation need be implied and the emphasis is probably on the fulfilment of ancestral rites to the Nymphs (another ‘innocuous’ case may also be found in an honorific decree from Telos, IG XII 3, 30, line 14: τἆλλα ἱερὰ τὰ ἐχθυόμεν[α]).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

Priests and Cult Personnel in Three Hellenistic Families | 87

ing deipnon in Poseidonios’ case).73 In any case, the epimenioi surely acted in a financial capacity with regard to the dexis, providing the necessities for this event, but their duty here may also involve supervision or management (epimeleia) of the ritual procedure, as we found in Poseidonios’ case. This is even clearer in their association with the priest during the two days of sacrifices. In contrast to the case of Poseidonios, the rationale for the appointment of three epimenioi is not as explicitly stated in this addendum, but their functions appear to be for the most part analogous: some degree of financial administration and provision for the rituals, along with control of or assistance in their performance. The final, much longer addition to the dossier of Diomedon contains further precisions concerning these epimenioi (III). Amid a miscellany of regulations on a variety of topics, including the lengthy excursus on marriages, one finds, aside from some speculative restorations, a new responsibility for these epimenioi.74 They are apparently to gather also on the day following both the celebrations for Heracles and the apopyris, and are allowed to bring along other persons of their choice.75 While this excerpt appears relatively out of context, following what is essentially a curse or a similar injunction (lines 130−140), it may to some extent parallel Poseidonios’ decree. There, the epimenioi’s supervisory responsibility continues well beyond the rites (lines 40−48): after providing sufficient and equal portions for men dining and for women, as well || 73 Cf. on this subject Jameson 1994, as well as Paul 2013 for a suggestive elucidation of this ritual within a Coan context. Though the dexis does not recur in the text, the xenismos is clearly attached to Heracles, as one might expect, and recurs later in the text in the context of the precisions concerning the celebration of marriages, line 110: [κα]ὶ τὸν ξενισμὸν τοῦ Ἡρακλ̣[εῦς]. In a related instance, one apparently finds a xenismos of members of a kinship group put on by the one performing the marriage, lines 108−101 (though the restoration is not completely assured): ἀφαιρεῖν δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ἱερε[ίων, ἃ ἂν | δοκ]ῆι καλῶς ἔχειν ἐπὶ τὴν τράπεζ[αν τῶι | θεῶ]ι, τοῖς δὲ λοιποῖς πᾶσι, ὅσα ἐς ξε̣[νισμὸν | οἰκ]ε̣ίων, χράσθω ὁ τὸν γάμον ποιῶν. 74 The restoration offered at the end of side C and the link with the beginning of column D is substantial and appears gratuitous. It may sincerely be doubted (lines 111−115): {C} τούτων δὲ [ἐπιμελέσθων οἱ | ἐπιμήνιοι ὅπως οἵ τε γάμοι μετὰ πάσης | εὐκοσμίας συντελεσθήσονται καὶ ὅπως?] | [vacat?] | {D} το]ῖς τέκνοις πάντ̣α̣ τ̣ὰ δέον|[τ]α̣ παρασκευᾶτε. Not only is the epimeleia of the epimenioi with regard to the marriages quite uncertain, but the significant switch from third-person imperatives in column C and earlier, to what appear to be quotations of Diomedon’s original enactment or testament—involving second-person imperatives such as παρασκευᾶτε (compare λαμβάνετε, line 149) and direct citation of his personal dedication (ἀνέθηκα, lines 120 and 115)—ought to make one doubt that the lacuna between sides C and D can be adequately restored. 75 Lines 141−144: [σ]υνάγε̣ι̣ν δὲ τοὺς ἐπιμηνί̣|[ου]ς καὶ εἰς τὴν αὔριον, παρα|[λ]αμβάνοντας οὓς ἂν αὐ|[τ]οῖς δοκῆι.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

88 | Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge

as for family members who are absent, they are to sell the skins of the sacrificial animals in the thiasos, and, on the second day before the dinner, they are finally to give an account of receipts and expenditures, using any profit for dedications. Might we presume that the assembly of the epimenioi of Diomedon, which could seemingly also take place on the day following the rites (καὶ εἰς τὴν αὔριον), also involved a similar procedure of selling for profit, financial accounting, and further dining? Another short clause is appended to this brief regulation, whose aim appears to make expressly clear that the epimenioi are to be appointed from family members only.76 The earlier, very pithy regulation of part II of the dossier, had only stipulated that three epimenioi were to be chosen, and perhaps this had also caused some anxieties: the epimenioi could bring others to the assembly, but they had to be family members themselves. The decree of the thiasos of Poseidonios had obviated this potential issue by immediately making it clear that epimenioi were to be chosen from (probably male) members of the extended family (ἐξ ἑαυτῶν, line 25). Furthermore, as we have already seen above, an additional regulation immediately follows in Diomedon’s stele, which discusses the participation of bastards (lines 146−149). After undergoing official scrutiny, these are allowed to participate in the rites (hiera), but not in priesthoods (hierosynai), a rubric which also apparently includes the epimenieia.77 This additional clause was probably also motivated by the potential problem of epimenioi who did not belong to the male family in its strictest sense. Though the epimenioi differed from the priest by not needing to be the eldest males as subsidiary priests, they nevertheless, as subsidiary priests, had to be members of the male family stricto sensu. Why was this additional cult personnel called epimenios? Though a full treatment of epimenioi is naturally not possible here, and substantial but uneven evidence may not even make it advisable, some general observations and interpretations can perhaps be made. The concept was certainly older than these Hellenistic dossiers, deriving probably from an adjectival construction meaning “for the month” or “monthly” (etymologically ἐπί + μείς). In this way, one finds a series of civic officials, already in the Classical period, who are sometimes called epimenioi and occasionally attested in the dating formulae of decrees. Some of these appear to have had financial responsibilities as their

|| 76 Lines 144−146: ἐπιμηνίους δὲ αἱρεῖσθ[αι | τ]ο̣ὺς ἐγ Διομέδοντος καὶ τοὺς ἐγγ[ό|ν]ους αὐτῶν. 77 There may have been other priesthoods involved in Diomedon’s family, but only one is clearly mentioned. Therefore, as we argued above (p. 80 n. 53), hierosynai probably includes the officials known as epimenioi. Perhaps the term hierosyna was simply meant here as a (rather unique) shorthand for any form of cultic office.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

Priests and Cult Personnel in Three Hellenistic Families | 89

primary vocation, being appointed from treasurers (tamiai) or the like.78 The term epimenios could also be used to qualify members of various boards, such the prytaneis or presidents of the civic council, or other officials who held a monthly chairmanship in a civic body.79 Particularly noteworthy for our purposes is the fact that this sort of official could be responsible for the reception (xenia or xenismos) of honoured strangers and guests in the prytaneion.80 It might reasonably be presumed that officials called epimenioi were responsible for monthly rituals connected with their chairmanship and with the sacred duties of tending to the civic hearth. In much the same manner, the term epimenia was also used, particularly at Athens, to designate monthly rites which may have been performed in connection with the new moon at the beginning of each month (noumenia).81 It is also perhaps in the context of monthly or specific festival sacrifices that one is to interpret several regulations which concern epimenioi who are not prominent civic officials but rather may be some form of cult personnel. For example, a regulation from Samos concerns the appointment of epimenioi by civic subdivisions for the presumed purpose of administering the rites at the Helikonion,

|| 78 Probably at the earliest in Miletos, where the epimenioi are to pay a reward to those who kill exiles: Meiggs/Lewis 43 (470−440 BC). Inscriptions from Delphi reveal that the financial administrators of the sanctuary, the exetastai, appointed monthly officials: cf. FD III 3, 214 compare also 215 (third century BC). Bargylia has epimenioi of its tamiai, presumably referring to monthly chairmen of these financial administrators: I. Iasos 608 (270/261 BC), 607 (ca. 200 BC), I. Kyme 2 (ca. 200 BC?). 79 Cf. e.g. at Chios: RPh 1937: 321−325, no. 4 + 5; Erythrai: Varınlıoğlu, ZPE 44 (1981) 45−47, no. 1 = SEG 31.969 (ca. 351−344 BC); Kolophon: AJPh 1935: 379−380, no. IV (ca. 350 BC?) et al. Compare somewhat later epimenioi of the boule at Smyrna: I. Smyrna 573 I + II2 p. 376 (245/243 BC); epimenios as a main civic official at I. Ilion 32 (ca. 279−274?); in Milesian colonies from the fourth century to the Hellenistic period: e.g. IScM I 1 (Istros); of the strategoi at Priene: I. Priene 83; also at Eretria: IG XII Suppl. 555, p. 181 (ca. 300 BC?), etc. For the epimenioi of tribes on Cos, see at Halasarna SEG 51.1050, SEG 54.748 etc. 80 Cf. a decree honouring judges set up by Kolophon at Klaros, REG 1999: 2 no. 1, lines 7−9: [… δόμεν]αι δὲ καὶ ξένια τοῖς δι|[κάσταις τὰ ἐκ τῶ νόμω καὶ (?) ἐπιμ]εληθῆναι τὸν ἐπιμήνιον | [— — ca. 12 — —] (we could think of restoring τοῦ δείπνου vel sim.). 81 Hdt. 8.41, concerning the snake in the temple of Athena Polias: τὰ δ’ ἐπιμήνια μελιτόεσσά ἐστι. Compare the decree proposed by Alcibiades, cited by Athenaeus as attested on a tablet in the temple of Heracles at Cynosarges (Athen. 6.234e), which apparently said: “τὰ δὲ ἐπιμήνια θυέτω ὁ ἱερεὺς μετὰ τῶν παρασιτῶν.” Hesych. s.v. ἐμιμήνιοι equates them with ἱεροποιοί or calls them a form of these “ritual-makers”, adding that the epimenia was a type of sacrifice performed at the beginning of each month: ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ καὶ θυσία τις ἐπιμήνια, ἡ κατὰ μῆνα τῇ νουμηνίᾳ συντελουμένη. This sort of ritual practice may also be what is alluded to in a very fragmentary inscription from Archaic Ephesos: SEG 41.958.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

90 | Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge

which would take place on regular basis or during a festival.82 At a much later date, near the beginning of the Roman period, the epimenieia seems even to have become a form of liturgy in some cities, presumably involving monthly duties and expenses, from which one could become exempt.83 The financial connotation of such officials is also noteworthy when they appear in the context of civic subgroups and private associations.84 Yet there too, their sacrificial function was regularly highlighted. At Antimacheia on Cos, for example, one finds epimenioi of a koinon devoted to Zeus Hyetios who were honoured, among other things, for having admirably fulfilled their sacrificial duties and hosted their demesmen.85 In an honorific decree of the association (koinon) of a tribe at Methymna on Lesbos, a sacrifice was to be performed on a specific day to Athena in the presence of the honoured individual, probably by the epimenios who was appointed for that month or perhaps by all of the epimenioi of that year.86 In most if not all of these civic cases, one is probably dealing with monthly financial and ritual responsibilities which define an office. While one can readily see how this definition matches the two basic aspects of the epimenioi appointed by Poseidonios and Diomedon, it is perhaps not fully coherent in its monthly connotation. Our Hellenistic dossiers do appear, to some extent, to be dealing with rites and finances specific to a given month of celebrations. Yet, if we turn finally to the inscription of Epikteta, with its two different sections, we can possibly find a key to tracing the adapted function of epimenioi in these family cults. The testament of Epikteta, in contrast to Diomedon and Posei|| 82 IG XII 6.1, 168; LSCG 122 (after 322 BC), which begins, lines 1−4: [τάδε] εἰσήνεγκαν οἱ αἱρεθέν[τες νομο]γράφοι περὶ τῆς ἐν Ἑλικωνίωι | [θυσίας· τοὺ]ς ἀποδεικνυμένους ὑπὸ τῶν χιλιαστήρων ἐπιμηνίους τῆς | [θυσίας καὶ τ]ῆς συνόδου τῆς ἐν Ἑλικωνίωι γινομένης ἐπιμηνιεύειν ἐὰν | [ἐνδημῶσι… Cf. Nilsson 1906: 78 with n. 2−3, for the idea that, despite their name, these officials were “yearly”, but actually the text makes clear that their responsibility was tied to specific festival occasions. 83 Cf. IG XII 4, 320 (Cos, first century BC); SEG 8.529 (Psenamosis in the Delta, 67−64 BC), lines 39−41. 84 Compare also e.g. a decree of Poseidoniastai from Thasos in honour of one their epimenioi for a certain year, IG XII Suppl. 366 (second/first century BC; see also 367); or the structure of a brabeutes and epimenioi appointed by the koinon of Lagnokeis at Kys: BCH 1887: 308−309, no. 2. 85 IG XII 4, 121 (ca. 200 BC); see also Paul 2013 on this inscription, and P. Kató in this volume p. 286 and 296f. on these “Monatspriester”. Compare also the fragmentary IG XII 1, 891 (Netteia on Rhodes, third-second century BC), line 3: [οἱ ἐπιμ]ή̣νιοι ἀεὶ τοὶ αἱρ̣εθέ[ντες Ἱκ]ε̣σίωι [φ]θόϊς̣. Perhaps this involved the sacrifice of cakes to the Zeus Hikesios of a deme by its elected monthly officials. 86 IG XII 2, 505 (Hellenistic), lines 15−18: τοὺς δὲ ἐπιμηνίους τοὺς ἀεὶ γινομέ|νους παριστάναι αὐτῶ ἀπὸ τῶν μισθουμένων ἱερεί|ων ἄρνα θηλεῖαν, τὸν δὲ θύειν τῆι Ἀθηνᾶ ὑπὲρ ὑγιείας | [κ]αὶ σωτηρία[ς] τῶν συμφυλετῶν.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

Priests and Cult Personnel in Three Hellenistic Families | 91

donios at the beginning of third century BC, anticipates straightaway the need for epimenioi. In the first part of the inscription, immediately after the appointment of the priest (cf. lines 57−61, above), we find that the male group or reunion of the family (koinon) is to meet in the Mouseion during the month of Delphinios, and to receive from Epikteta’s successors (diadochoi) the sum of two hundred and ten drachmas, designating an epimenios from their ranks for three days of sacrifices.87 This formulation is not particularly clear, but it becomes much more apparent in the second part of the dossier—in fact in the preamble of the decree—that what is meant is the designation of an epimenios for a given day of sacrifices (lines 122−126): καὶ θύεν τὸ[ν μὲ]ν τὰν πράταν ἐπιμηνιεύοντα ταῖς Μούσαι[ς, τὸ]ν δὲ τὰν δευτέραν τοῖς ἥρωσι Φοίνικι καὶ [Ἐπικ]τήται, τὸν δὲ τὰν τρίταν τοῖς ἥρωσι Κρατ[ησ]ιλόχωι καὶ Ἀνδραγόραι… In other words, a total of three epimenioi were to be designated by the koinon, one for each of the sacrificial days in the month Delphinios. Not only were these officials responsible for the provision of the offerings, but also it would seem for the sacrificial act itself.88 Moreover, these men who were designated as epimenioi fall under the authority of the artuter, an (annually elected?) administrator or president of the koinon whose relationship to the earlier mentioned priest is unclear.89 At any rate, a substantial portion of the remaining regulations prescribed by the decree seek to define the responsibilities of this artuter and the epimenioi, among others. Here, there is literally a wealth of bureaucratic

|| 87 Lines 61−69: ὁ δὲ ἀνδρεῖος τῶν συγγενῶν συν|αγέσθω ἐν τῶι Μουσείωι καθ’ ἕκαστον ἔτος | ἐμ μηνὶ Δελφινίωι, λαμβάνων παρὰ τῶν δι|αδόχων μου τὰς διακοσίας δέκα δραχμάς,| ἁμέρας τρεῖς, ἀποδείξας ἐπιμηνίος ἐξ αὐ|τῶν, καὶ θυέτω τᾶι μὲν ἐννεακαιδεκάται | ταῖς Μούσαις, τᾶι δὲ εἰκάδι τοῖς ἥρωσιν {Φοί} | Φοίνικι καὶ Ἐπικτήται, τᾶι δὲ ἀμφεικάδι | Κρατησιλόχωι καὶ Ἀνδραγόραι. 88 The continued involvement of the priest is likely to be presumed. But in fact, no other mention is made of him after the lines concerning his appointment (lines 57−61, cf. above p. 76; 78). 89 If an individual does not wish to officiate as an epimenios, he is to be fined and excluded from the koinon: εἰ δέ κά τις μὴ ἐπιμηνιεύσηι κατὰ τὰ γεγραμμέ|να, ἀποτεισάτω τῶι κοινῶι δραχμὰς ἑκατὸν καὶ | πρασσέσθω ὑπὸ τοῦ [κατα]τυγχάνοντος ἀρτυ|τῆρος κατὰ [τὸς] νόμος καὶ μὴ μετεχέτω τοῦ | κοινοῦ ἐς ὅ [κα ἐκ]τείση (lines 142−146). Note that the artuter is called “elected” (αἱρεθεὶς) in line 221, though no earlier mention is made of this procedure. The association also elected an (annual?) epissophos, or “supervisor”, whose duties involve a substantial amount of notekeeping and accounting (lines 202−221). Cf. Wittenburg for some elucidation of these officials, 1990: 103−111, with 112−114 (on the assembly, syllogos, which appoints them).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

92 | Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge

detail and forethought concerning these officials and their duties. Though they would be given the necessary funds for the sacrifices, they would also be expected to provide a substantial amount out of their own pocket as a form of liturgy (compare also lines 169−177, 198−202). We learn, for example, that those leaving the ephebeia were expected to pay for their first office as epimenios.90 If there were no epimenioi serving at their own expense, members of the male association would take turns serving in this role according to their age (lines 155−160). Those who still resisted this “liturgy” were to be punished and the artuter would serve in their place as epimenios (lines 165−167). Some of what the sacrifices and elaborate supplementary offerings involved is then listed in the following lines (177−199, again reprising the definitional style θυ|έτω δὲ ὁ [μὲ]ν τὰν πράταν ἐπιμηνιεύων ἁμέ|ραν…). And the epimenioi were also to be granted priestly perquisites, much like in Poseidonios’ dossier.91 Despite these rather arcane ramifications, the fundamental notion is clearly that the epimenieia in Epikteta’s koinon was tied to a specific sacrificial day: somewhat paradoxically a “monthly” official “for the day”.92 The notion of ephemeria, which one might expect in relation to such a form of daily cult or ritual, is in fact more or less foreign to Greek religion, except in specific contexts such as the opening of temples by priests and neokoroi, and usually only found in much later Greek sources, primarily those pertaining to Egyptian or Jewish religion (cf. LSJ s.v.). It would seem likely and fairly natural, therefore, that in certain cases and by the Hellenistic period, the role of an epimenios, in both a financial and ritual capacity, had come to be associated with a temporal pur-

|| 90 Lines 136−139: καὶ παρα|γινομένος ἐς τὸ κοινεῖον λειτουργὲν γενο|μένος ἐκ τῶν ἐφήβων τὰν πράταν ἐπιμηνιεί|αν δωρεάν. This probably anticipates the idea of epimenieia as a civic (?) liturgy, found later (cf. p. 90 n. 83). 91 Whether the epimenioi were granted all of the sacrificial perquisites except cakes and half of the entrails, or more probably the remaining half of the entrails, is a bit unclear in the complex formulation of lines 194−199: οἱ δὲ ἐπιμήν[ιοι] οἱ θύον|τες τὰς θυσίας ταύτας ἀποδωσο[ῦ]ντι τῶι | κοινῶι τός τε [ἐ]λλύτας πάντας κ[α]ὶ τῶν | σπλάγχνων τὰ ἡμίση· τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ [ἑ]ξοῦντι | αὐτοί· ὁ{ι} δὲ ἀρτυτὴρ διελεῖ τὰ ἱερὰ τ[ο]ῖς παροῦ|σι. 92 Wittenburg in fact goes so far as to translate epimenioi as “sacerdoti sacrificali” or “sacrificial priests”, but cf. id. 1990: 100−103, for a useful discussion of their liturgical and financial aspects. Although Hesych. (cf. n. 81) calls epimenioi hieropoioi, this equation is perhaps meant more to qualify their sacrificial function than to present an identity between the two. In fact, we know that hieropoioi were important officials at both Halicarnassus (cf. Wilhelm 1908: 53−56, no. 1, ca. 275−250 BC) and Cos (HGK 1; IG XII 4, 278, HGK 4; IG XII 4, 275 and HGK 5; IG XII 4, 332 etc.); they are absent on Thera. Epimenioi could thus be distinguished from these civic sacrificial agents, though their functions were largely comparable: see Georgoudi/PirenneDelforge 2005: 32−36.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

Priests and Cult Personnel in Three Hellenistic Families | 93

view which could extend to only a day or to a series of days, hence also its connotation as an ad hoc form of liturgy. Are the epimenioi therefore also to be translated as a form of per diem cult personnel in the dossiers of Poseidonios and Diomedon? It is striking that there too one finds that they are three in number. If these officials were also appointed for a specific duration, then one could imply that the epimeleia of the epimenioi in Diomedon’s case took place over the course of three days. Regrettably, the order of the sacrifices offered in the cults prescribed by Diomedon is not particularly clear in all of its details. Funds are to be provided by Libys or the servile personnel in the month Theudaisios for the sacrifices on the 16th and 17th of the following month, Pedageitnyos (lines 14−17, which matches the order one finds at lines 59−63 of text II, above).93 The following list of offerings and recipients of sacrifices is extremely fragmentary, particularly in lines 25−38, and may have taken place during the course of these two days.94 However, the events later invoked during the celebration of marriages, as fragmentary as these might be, clearly take place over three days and beyond (lines 89−95:) … ποείτω τὸγ [γά]μ̣ον̣ ̣ [μηνὸς] [Π]ε̣ταγειτνύου, ἑκκαιδεκάτηι μ̣ὲ̣[ν συν]αιγλίαν, ἑπτακαιδεκάτηι δὲ διαν̣[ομήν?], ἵνα ἡ θυσία τῶι Ἡρακλεῖ συντελ[ῆται κα]τὰ τὰ πάτρια, ὀκτωκαιδεκάτηι δ[ὲ ἡ συνα]γωγή, καὶ ἐν ταῖς λοιπαῖς ἡμέρ[αις συντε]λ̣είσθω ὁ γάμος· … In other words, a synaiglian (a Doric form of feast), perhaps accompanying the sacrifice to Heracles with xenismos, takes place on the 16th as usual, and is then followed by another celebration on the 17th.95 On the 18th, however, one explicitly finds a meeting (synagoge) of the family association. This recalls the small clause looked at earlier, but which occurs later in the text, namely that the epimenioi are to gather (synagein) on the following day, bringing along those

|| 93 Hypothetical reconstruction of the Coan calendar with Theudaisios and Pedageitnyos as the first and second months respectively in Bosnakis and Hallof 2005: 233−240. 94 One should be even more cautious than Hallof and Bosnakis in restoring that portion of text (lines 25−38). Few of the recipient deities are assured, except Dionysos and Aphrodite, in addition to Heracles and perhaps Diomedon himself. 95 The idea of a distribution (dianome), probably of meat, makes little sense here, since it occurs rather implausibly after the synaiglia. It may need to be reconsidered. The traces in Segre’s photograph (at I. Cos ED 149, pl. 44 C) appear to read as δὲ ΛΑ̣[…] at the end of line 91, though Hallof and Bosnakis have apparently confirmed the readings that they give. One might expect the apopyris, or some variant thereof, to make another appearance here.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

94 | Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge

they wish (lines 141−144, above). Accordingly, one might reasonably suppose that, though this is not as explicitly stated as in the case of Epikteta, the number of epimenioi closely matched the daily structure of the celebrations. The first two might have provided the necessities and assisted the priest during the rites on the 16th and the 17th, while the third may have presided over the synagoge itself on the next day, that is to say on the 18th.96 In the dossier of Poseidonios, the number of epimenioi is less easy to reconcile with a precise temporal function since there are, again, apparently only two main days of sacrifices. Their significance may therefore be closest to officials who are appointed “for the month” of the celebration, that is to say for the provision of the animals on the previous month (Eleutherios) and then for the two days, which are consecutively numbered (“first” and “second” in Hermaios) but surprisingly not assigned to specific dates within the month.97 It is perhaps more likely that here, in contrast to the case of Epikteta and possibly Diomedon as well, the three epimenioi may have acted as a group, simply assisting the priest in the rites “for the month” of Hermaios.98 Though much is lost in the background of these dossiers and other texts, it will nevertheless be clear that the term epimenios was a temporary appointment that designated at the same time a financial and sacrificial office. The epimenioi were certainly appointed on annual basis (kat’ eniauton), but their function is hardly invoked for the duration of a whole year. The office, retaining “monthly” connotations depending on the context, appears to have evolved to some degree during the Hellenistic period and particularly in the context of these familial

|| 96 Yet it is worth noting that monthly rites of some sort were implied in Diomedon’s consecration, though the context is not completely certain. Libys or other slaves were to provide (new?) bed coverings for Heracles and his divine consort at each new moon, lines 17−19: [σ]τ̣ρώματα δὲ παρε|[χόντω ἐπὶ τὰγ κλίναν? τῶι] Ἡρακλεῖ καὶ τᾶ[ι | .. ca. 16? .. ἐν τα]ῖ̣ς̣ νευμηνίαις. Compare also perhaps another inscription from Cos where, in a very fragmentary context concerning the rites at the Asclepieion, an epimenios was apparently chosen from each deme at the beginning of the month, perhaps for the purposes of putting on the sacrifices funded by the tamiai (IG XII 4, 286 lines 16−19, ca. 250 BC; compare 287 for a later copy): [τ]ο̣ὶ δὲ προστάται καὶ τῶν δά|[μων ὁ ἀεὶ δαμαρχῶν τοῦ μηνὸς - - - νευμ]ηνίαι αἱρείσθων ἐπιμηνίος ἐξ ἑ|[κάστου δάμου… 97 A tentative and very conjectural alternative would be to relate these floating “first” and “second” days with a noumenia at the beginning of the month. 98 The epimenioi were also to rent out the temenos (line 30), probably for a year, yet presumably they would have had limited but sufficient time to do so, for example to obtain the income from rent and to collect the other revenues. They thus likely remained ad hoc officials, confined to the months of Eleutherios and Hermaion, rather than annual ones.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

Priests and Cult Personnel in Three Hellenistic Families | 95

cults, to refer to something much more ad hoc.99 As familial cult personnel, these epimenioi continued to have significant financial responsibilities but also complemented the male priest, becoming responsible for the provision, supervision and performance of rituals on specific occasions.100 Why were these monthly, or even “daily”, officials introduced in the case of Poseidonios and Diomedon, and already anticipated by Epikteta? The root of the matter was presumably the difficulty inherent in familial organisations. As today, of course, families inevitably have their own problems. The system of male primogeniture for designating priests undoubtedly caused some frictions within these families. And this root lay even deeper: these three dossiers were all relatively new at the time they were originally inscribed; they all attempted to codify familial cults or to innovate in some way. It was perhaps to a degree inevitable, then, that such testaments and endowments, especially ones who fell substantially outside the purview of the polis, would leave various considerations unanticipated and unexplained. Accordingly, the need for revision and supplementary regulation were necessary “hiccups”, in the development of these ‘foundations’.

|| 99 For intriguing parallels with the daily function of the epimenioi, compare e.g. the later foundation of Kritolaos for his son Aleximachos in the context of the gymnasium at Aigiale on Amorgos: LSS 61; IG XII 7, 515 ca. second century BC). Two epimeletai are appointed in this inscription, who are to act as epimenioi in certain circumstances. They are to serve as hosts and, it would seem, provide a feast at their own liturgical expense (lines 49−55). In addition, a contest in honour of Aleximachos is to be celebrated, beginning with the sacrifice of a ram at his statue on the noumenia, which is then followed by the contest on the second day (lines 75−79), an order which possibly mirrors their number as well as affirms the link between the epimenia and the noumenia. Cf. Gauthier 1980: 210−218, and Helmis 2003 on this text, and compare a contemporaneous endowment from Minoa on Amorgos, IG XII 7, 237, where the epimenioi appear to have relatively analogous functions. 100 The correlation between epimenioi and ritual performance on specific days is in other cases seldom as clear as in the dossier of Epikteta. For instance, at Lampsakos, as a result of a private bequest to the city which aims to augment the local Asklepieia, one finds epimenioi who are concerned not only with the financial administration of this endowment, but also with sacrificial duties. They may have performed these as a group, and perhaps within a clearly defined temporal framework (I. Lampsakos 9, compare LSAM 8 for an excerpt, second century BC, lines 5−14; lines 28−29; cf. line 41: [τοὺς δὲ ἐπι]μηνίους ἀρξαμένους ἀπὸ μηνὸς Ἀρτεμισιῶνος ἕως τῆς ὀ[γδόης?…]). Cf. also in the same text the mention of οἱ δὲ ἐπιμήνιοι τῆς βουλῆς (line 85) which perhaps provided the model for the festival epimenioi. Further, a tamias who was epimenios for a single month is also attested in an earlier inscription (I. Lampsakos 8, end of fourth century BC). For foundations or endowments administered particularly by epimeletai rather than epimenioi, cf. Harter-Uibopuu 2011.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

96 | Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge

Pantheons and Further Evolutions Poseidonios, Diomedon and Epikteta were wealthy members of civic elites, who decided to devote a part or the totality of their possessions to found or augment a familial cult. They therefore represent instances of a kind of transformation in Greek familial cult from the household (oikos) to something both more textually and physically permanent (e.g. a stele and a temenos). This evolution, if we may call it as such, also necessitated the loose adoption of a civic framework, since it involved choosing a priest and other functionaries, namely the epimenioi, to fulfill the requirements of cult performance. It also entailed a kind of ‘publicity’ through the display of inscribed monuments within new constructions which moved beyond the household. Though the material context of the dossiers remains for the most part elusive, further developments may perhaps still be glimpsed in how these familial cults range from the relatively modest bequests and structures of Diomedon and Poseidonios to the greater monumentalisation implied by Epikteta’s testament, with its Mouseion, statues and other accoutrements. Indeed, analogous developments can perhaps be witnessed in the deities which are the focus of these familial cults. Following the oracle, Poseidonios augmented and ensured the continuity of his ancestral cults, which involved a Paternal Zeus, a local Apollo, the Moirai and the Mother of the Gods.101 Diomedon dedicated a sanctuary to his “own” Heracles as the epithet Diomedonteios attests. Others deities were associated, but the exact configuration is impossible to restore given the current state of the stele. At the very least, the conclusion of Diomedon’s stele suggests the involvement of a (Zeus) Pasios and the Moirai.102 In both of these dossiers, therefore, one finds a Zeus related to the family, its ancestry and its property (Patroos in one case, Pasios in the other). And in both cases, this god is also accompanied by the Moirai, goddesses whose vocation was to define the duration of the life of an individual and, more generally, to perpetuate the continuity of a lineage.103 Yet another commonality between the three dossiers is the association of individuals to the worship of deities, which therefore forms an integral part of the cultic configurations. Here, despite apparent similarities, the mechanisms of heroisation adopted probably reflect stark local and chronological differences. This is the least clear in Diomedon’s case, since Heracles’ epithet does not || 101 See the Appendix below, lines 7−8: καθάπερ | καὶ οἱ πρόγονοι. 102 See lines 7−8, 149−155. 103 Cf. Parker 2008 on Theoi Patrooi; for the Moirai, Pirenne-Delforge/Pironti 2011.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

Priests and Cult Personnel in Three Hellenistic Families | 97

necessarily imply his “heroisation”.104 In the case of Poseidonios, the process takes a form which is particular to Caria and which one might call ‘daemonisation’, the cult of the Good Daemon of Poseidonios and his wife Gorgis. In addition to this, sacrifices are prescribed the Good Fortune (Agathe Tyche) of Poseidonios’ parents at the familial tomb. This appears to reflect a cult of the ‘divinised’ spirit of the individual, and the similar spirit of his parents, who are probably deceased.105 While Poseidonios pays due respect to his ancestors, emphasis on the previous generation is conspicuously absent from Diomedon’s dispositions, and his focus is apparently on a Heracles who is qualified by an adjective based on his own name.106 Approximately a century later than these other two dossiers, the initiative taken by Epikteta is also unconcerned with ancestors, but instead focussed on honours to be paid to the dead members of her immediate family. In this context, the Muses, who are the sole deities concerned by the cult, appear as goddesses closely related to memory and renown, granting their divine sanction for the ‘heroic’ survival of Epikteta’s sons and husband within the family. Various explanations for this divergent elaboration of Epikteta’s testament can plausibly be offered. For one thing, and without of course denying earlier antecedents, the explicit heroisation of the dead becomes much more firmly grounded in Greek polytheism during the course of the Hellenistic period.107 Moreover, the choice of deities made by a father and mother who lost their sons prematurely could very well have been motivated by the close connection between the Muses and the education of young men.108 Likewise, during the time of Epikteta, or soon after on Thera, the gymnasium was gradually becoming a fundamental institution of Hellenistic cities, and one where the cult of the Muses—among others—and the worship of heroised young men—but also their elders—would become crystallised.109 || 104 See above p. 69 with n. 20 on the Diomedonteios epithet. 105 For an argument that this does not merely reflect a “founder’s genitive”, cf. already Carbon 2005. 106 Cf. n. 51 above on the rasurae in Diomedon’s inscription, implying perhaps an occultation of his ancestry. Cf. also n. 20 above for the possibly heroic nature of the cult in honour of Diomedon: he probably received a sacrificial animal, but under which guise is extremely unclear. 107 See recently Jones 2010: 48−65. 108 Boyancé 1937: 329−344, with a discussion of the case of Epikteta; cf. now Clay 2004. 109 As briefly seen above, male descendants are accepted as a part of Epikteta’s association after having matured and graduated from the ranks of the ephebes (lines 135−140, in particular the phrase γενομένος ἐκ τῶν ἐφήβων). Cf. Chankowski 2002 for the emergence of the gymnasial institutions on Thera, and esp. p. 8−9 on the contribution of the inscription of Epikteta, which he thinks provides an approximate terminus ante quem for the development of a more institutionalised ephebeia on Thera (probably around the mid third century BC).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

98 | Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge

The inscriptions of Diomedon, Poseidonios and Epikteta allow us to perceive how a cult is founded or expanded on a ‘sub-civic’ level, how a ‘micropantheon’ can be variously structured within a familial context, and how these developments are modelled on a parallel civic framework.110 Yet these sketches of evolutions also raise the wider question of the uniqueness of these three dossiers. Were they successful ‘foundational’ experiments or did they rapidly fall into desuetude? We do not know, though the relative silence concerning them in our other sources may be eloquent.111 And without succumbing to a circular argument, it may well be thought that our three dossiers are so unique in their detailed characteristics precisely because they represent relatively unusual familial initiatives in the early Hellenistic period. Indeed, one significant point of contrast between these inscriptions and earlier foundations of the Classical period is that the latter all involve foreigners who have immigrated or imported cults.112 Conversely, the three individuals we have discussed here all seem to be firmly rooted in their local contexts. An alternative solution for individuals or families wishing to augment their cults was, of course, to delegate full responsibility to the city itself.113 This sort of private initiative, which was more directly anchored in the polis, perhaps grew gradually more prominent during the Hellenistic period. The foundation of Pythokles for Zeus Soter and Athena Soteira on Cos is a case in point: he gave money, perhaps as part of a testament, for celebrations and for priesthoods of both deities related to his genos, but the administration of his bequest, the organisation of the rites and the participation to the cult all depended on the

|| 110 A wider civic context may perhaps be glimpsed in the final miscellaneous lines of Diomedon’s stele, 157−159: διδόναι δὲ τοῖς Ἡ|[ρακλ]έοις μερίδας τοῖς συ[μ|πομπε]ύ̣ουσι. Though a reference to the main festival of the Herakleia is apparent, the precise connection of this sacrifice to Diomedon’s dedication remains obscure. Does it merely imply the participation of the family in this civic festival and procession with additional animal offerings or something more? 111 Epikteta’s Mouseion is perhaps the best candidate for some form of survival, since the inscribed panels were found intact and in good condition. The stelai of Diomedon and Poseidonios were reused at an unknown date, and the latter rather carelessly broken up. In this regard, an intriguing point of comparison may be the foundation of a cult for the (Agathos?) Daimon of Leros and Kosina at Koranza in Caria (SEG 52.1064, ca. 350−300 BC; cf. Carbon 2005: 5 with n. 28, Rigsby 2009: 75−77). The stele in this case was broken up into at least three segments (one of which is missing at the top) and reused in the fill of the cella in the temple of Hekate at Lagina during the second or early first century BC, thus indicating that the cult had almost certainly been forgotten by this time. 112 Cf. again Purvis 2003 and Hupfloher 2012 for these earlier cases. 113 Cf. recently Harter-Uibopuu 2011 for a good discussion of this part of the documentation.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

Priests and Cult Personnel in Three Hellenistic Families | 99

city.114 Problems could still arise, with the city sometimes viewed as predatory on the financial interests of an endowment or a founded cult.115 But a more direct basis in the civic framework doubtless insured a greater degree of continuity for those familial cults that wished to move beyond the oikos.

Appendix: The Stele of Poseidonios by Jan-Mathieu Carbon N.B. This is a re-edition of the inscription which aims at providing a readily accessible and accurate text along with essential commentary. A full discussion of the context of the inscription, in all its geographical and religious details, will form a part of my forthcoming monograph, The Carians: Essays on Deities and Rituals. An online version of this edition will also appear in 2015 as part of the Collection of Greek Ritual Norms (CGRN) project, introduced in Carbon and Pirenne-Delforge 2012. Date: ca. 280−240 BC. This hopefully cautious dating is based on an approximate comparison of the letterforms with those of other inscriptions from the early Ptolemaic period at Halicarnassus. Though the chronology of these inscriptions is far from well understood, we may tentatively accept the following exempli gratia reconstruction, using likely but not absolutely certain dates (Tab. 1). The letterforms of the stele of Poseidonios, though often surprisingly variable both in size and shape, on the whole match fairly well those of the period ca. 280−240 BC, in other words the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphos (ca. 285−246 BC), or perhaps the following decade.116

|| 114 IG XII 4, 350 (ca. 200−150 BC), though it is heavily fragmentary and the nature of the inscription is not clear (a decree?). If we may accept the restorations in lines 8−10, then Pythokles had specified that his donation would ensure the relevant priesthoods for his descendants: [– – – – – – – – – ἱερᾶσθαι δὲ νῦν τοῦ] μὲν Διὸς τῶν τοῦ υἱο[ῦ τοῦ Πυθοκλεῦς υἱῶν τὸν πρεσβύτερον – – | – – – – – – – – – – – καὶ ἐς τὸν λοιπ]ὸν χρόνον τὸν πρεσβύ[τατον ἀεί, τᾶς δὲ Ἀθάνας νῦν μὲν τούτων |τῶν υἱῶν τὸν νεώτερον, καὶ ἐς τὸν μέλλον]τ̣α χρόνον ἀεὶ τῶν ἐγγό[νων αὐτοῦ τὸν πρεσβύτατον – – – –]. 115 Even the notion epimenieia could be viewed as one potential source, among others, for distortion or corruption of a bequest administered by the polis: cf. IG XII 2, 645, side B (Hecatonnesos, 319−317 BC); IScM I 58, lines 27−28 (Istros, second century BC). 116 For the date of GIBM 4, 908 (Vidman Syll. 269), cf. P.M. Fraser, “Two Studies on the Cult of Sarapis in the Hellenistic World.” OAth 3 (1960) 1−54 here: 34, n. 1, accepted by Vidman, Sylloge 269 and, to some degree, Bricault RICIS 305/1701. For the Halicarnassian peninsula as a

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

100 | Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge

Date (BC)

Text

ca. 310−290

GIMP 908

ca. 281−266

SEG 28 837

ca. 281−266

Wilhelm 1908: no.1

ca.260 or ca. 240?

GIMP 897

Compare

Poseidonios

Α

Θ

Μ

Ξ

Π

Σ

Υ

Ω

Tab. 1 Comparison of some letterforms from early Hellenistic Halicarnassus

Serifs are present but not particularly pronounced. One may note the following examples: xi has four bars; omega is usually a bit squat and almost always open at the bottom, sometimes with flat projecting ends, sometimes with these flaring up (but cf. πρ̣ώτηι in line 33 for a closed variant); upsilon is rather tall and usually forms a wide angle at the very top; sigma can be a bit open but most often with nearly parallel top and bottom bars. The latter letterform may be thought particularly indicative of a date in the decades after ca. 290 BC, while all of the former probably suggest the middle of the third century BC or earlier. This may be corroborated by some traces in the text of Ionian forms (see below), since that dialect is found in earlier centuries at Halicarnassus but gradually disappears in the Hellenistic period. Yet it must be admitted that the letterforms of the third century are not well known at Halicarnassus, and the chronology of Ptolemaic-era inscriptions needs to be established more definitively. Revision: Based on autopsy and a recent squeeze, kindly made by R. Pitt in 2006. The photograph included here (Fig. 2) is a digital version provided by the British Museum with permission for limited printed reproduction. Notes made in preparation of an edition of the text by Jeanne and Louis Robert (Fonds Louis

|| Ptolemaic possession during the third century, up to probably 195 BC, cf. R. Bagnall, The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions Outside Egypt. Leiden 1976: 94−98. A recent attempt at analysing a few Ptolemaic-era inscriptions from Halicarnassus can be found in S. Isager, “Halikarnassos and the Ptolemies I: Inscriptions on Public Buildings.” In: Isager/Pedersen 2004: 133−144, who appears to opt for a later dating of GIBM 4, 897, namely under the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes, 246−222 BC. If that were the case, and it does seem a plausible one, then that inscription could perhaps be seen as providing a rough terminus ante quem for the stele of Poseidonios.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

Priests and Cult Personnel in Three Hellenistic Families | 101

Robert dossier 100, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Paris) were also consulted, for which I sincerely thank G.W. Bowersock. Bibliography: Editions based on autopsy: Hirschfeld, GIBM 4, 896, editio princeps (1893), with a facsimile and a commentary, p. 68−72; Paton/Myres 1896: 234−236 no. 36, a more accurate revision of the stone after thorough cleaning. Editions with text reprinted, based on that of Paton and Myres: Dareste et al., RIJG (1898) vol. 2,1 p. 128−133 no. 25 D, with French translation, commentary at p. 145; Michel, RIG 854 (1900); Dittenberger, Syll.2 641 (1900); Laum 1914: vol. 2, 111−112 no.117; Hiller von Gärtringen, Syll.3 1044 (1920); Sokolowski LSAM 72 (1955), with further bibliography. Cf. also SEG 15.637, Daux 1941: 11−18. Provenance: The many fragments of the stele were found at Halicarnassus, built into the house of Hadji Captan, whose land lay a few hundred meters west of the Maussolleion terrace, towards the Myndus gate. The discovery by Sir Alfred Biliotti is now reported in the convenient facsimile of his journals in P. Pedersen, The Maussolleion at Halikarnassos, vol. 3: The Maussolleion Terrace and Accessory Structures. Aarhus 1991: 168 Appendix no. 9 (see further also W. Blümel, “Kopien A. Biliottis von Inschriften aus Halikarnassos, Bargylia, Keramos und Kos.” Arkeoloji dergisi 2 (1994) 99−117: esp. 108, item no. 38, with a sketch of lines 9−38). The stone brought to England was acquired by the British Museum in 1876 and is now in its storerooms, inv. no. 4−896 (registration no. 1876,0701.1).117 Description: Height 95.57 cm; Length 33.66 cm (at the top) − 36.6 cm (at the bottom); Width/Thickness 12 cm (top) − 12.7 cm (bottom). Hirschfeld reported that the stele showed signs of reuse and damage by fire, though this is no longer clearly visible. The stone was reconstructed from at least 20 substantial fragments and smaller pieces, resulting in a nearly intact stele of blueish marble, which tapers towards the top. This is clearly what is mentioned in the text itself: ἀναγράψαι … ἐν στήληι λιθίνηι (lines 49−50). The marble is probably local, as other small stelai from Halicarnassus and this part of Caria appear to be made out of a similar material (e.g. LSAM 73; GIBM 4, 895; SEG 16.701, for which I am also preparing a revised edition). All the sides are preserved, except for the top, where an indeterminate section is broken off. The other sides are worn in some places, resulting in unclear left and right margins in some lines of the text. The rough back of the stele, which is preserved to a greater height at the top, as

|| 117 An online record can easily be found by searching on the website of the British Museum, with the object ID: 1876, 0701.1, at: http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/search_the_collection_database/ museum_number_search.aspx. See here Fig. 2.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

102 | Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge

visible in the photograph, possibly shows that only a small amount of the front face is missing. Other small stelai from Halicarnassus (compare again LSAM 73) show traces of substantial decorative mouldings at the top, above the prepared and inscribed surface. It is possible that this is what has been broken off here, not to mention perhaps preceding lines of text if the inscribed surface went any higher. There are a few differences in the polished front surface, notably between lines 8−9, 34−35, and 37−38. These are shallow grooves in the prepared face of the stone rather than indications of any erasures; they may perhaps be faint traces of registers for the inscribed lines. The overall appearance of this small stele is nonetheless rather elegant. Letters: Height variable from 5 mm (the diameter of omicron or theta) to 10 mm (taller letters like tau or upsilon); Width similarly variable; Interlinear spacing 5−7 mm. The letters appear to be cut in the same hand, though their shape is remarkably inconsistent. In this, along with a number of errors and overstruck letters indicated in the apparatus, the stonecutter perhaps betrays some degree of inexperience or rather hurried workmanship. An attractive effort has been made to respect word or syllabic division at the end of the lines, and this was almost consistently achieved (cf. the end of line 3). The letters in the first part of stele, the oracle in lines 1−11, are a slightly more expansive and widely spaced (cf. the number of letters in those lines, e.g. 33 letters in line 1 compared to 51 in line 28, the longest line). Text: ———————x?———————— I

5

10 II

15

ἀποσ̣[τ]είλαντος Πο̣[σ]ε̣ιδω̣[νίο]υ̣ χ̣ρ̣ησάσ̣[θα]ι̣ τῶι Ἀπόλλωνι, τί ἂν αὐτῶι τε καὶ τοῖς ἐξ αὐτοῦ γινομένοις καὶ οὖσιν, ἔκ τε τῶν ἀρσένων καὶ τῶν θηλειῶν, εἴη λώϊον καὶ ἄμεινον ποιοῦσιν καὶ πράσ- v σουσιν, ἔχρησεν ὁ θεὸς ἔσεσθαι λώϊον καὶ ἄμει- v νον αὐτοῖς ἱλασκομένοις καὶ τιμῶσιν, καθάπερ καὶ οἱ πρόγονοι, Δία Πατρώϊον καὶ Ἀπόλλωνα Τελε- v μεσσοῦ μεδέοντα καὶ Μοίρας καὶ Θεῶν Μητέρα· v τιμᾶν δὲ καὶ ἱλάσκεσθαι καὶ Ἀγαθὸν Δαίμονα Ποσει- v δωνίου καὶ Γοργίδος· τοῖς δὲ ταῦτα διαφυλάσσουσιν καὶ ποιοῦσιν ἄμεινον ἔσεσθαι. vacat Ποσειδώνιος Ἰατροκλέους ὑπέθηκεν τοῖς ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τοῖς ἐκ τούτων γινομένοις, ἔκ τε τῶν ἀρσένων v καὶ τῶν θηλειῶν, καὶ τοῖς λαμβάνουσιν ἐξ αὐτῶν, [εἰ]ς θυσίαν οἷς ὁ θεὸς ἔχρησεν, ἀγρὸν τὸν ἐν Ἀστυπ̣α̣λαίαι ὁμου̣ροῦντα τὸν Ἄνθει καὶ Δαμαγήτωι

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

Priests and Cult Personnel in Three Hellenistic Families | 103

20 III

25

30

35

40

45

50

[κ]αὶ τὴν αὐλὴν καὶ τὸν κῆπον καὶ τὰ περὶ τὸ μνημεῖον [κ]αὶ τοῦ ἐν Ταρά[[μπ]]τωι ἐνηροσίου τὸ ἥμυσυ· καρπευ[έ]τω δὲ καὶ ἱερατευέτω τῶν ἐκγόνων τῶν ἐκ Ποσειδωνίου ὁ πρεσβύτατος ὢν ἀεὶ κατ’ ἀνδρογένειαν, v ἀποδιδοὺς κατ’ ἐνιαυτὸν χρυσοῦς τέσσαρας ἀτελέας ⫍ ἔδοξεν | Ποσ[[ει]]δωνίωι καὶ τοῖς ἐκγόνοις τοῖς ἐκ Ποσειδωνίου καὶ τοῖς εἰληφόσιν ἐξ αὐτῶν αἱρεῖ- v σθαι ἐπιμηνίους ἐξ ἑαυτῶν τρεῖς κατ’ ἐνιαυτό[ν,] vv οἵτινες ἀπολαμβάνοντες τῆς ὑποθήκης π[αρ]ὰ [τοῦ] ἱ̣ερέως ἑκάστου ἐνιαυτοῦ μηνὸς Ἐλευθερίου [χ]ρυσ[οῦς] τέσσ[α]ρας συντελέσουσιν τὰς θυσίας· ἂν δ[ὲ] μὴ ἀποδιδῶι ἢ μὴ θέληι καρπεύειν, εἶναι τὰ ὑποκείμενα κ[οι]νά, καὶ τοὺς ἐπι[μ]ηνίους ἐγδιδόναι· τὸ δὲ τέμενος εἶναι [κο]ι̣νὸν [κ]αὶ v τ[οὺ]ς̣ ἐ̣πιμηνίους ἐγμισθοῦν, καὶ τὸ μίσθωμα καὶ τὸ ἐνη[ρό]σιον κομιζόμενοι v μηνὸς Ἑρμαιῶνος ἐπιμελεί̣- v τωσαν ἐπὶ δύο ἡμέρας, τῶι ἱερεῖ τὰ νομιζόμε[ν]α̣ vv παρέχον[[τε]]ς εἰς τὰς θυσίας πάντα, τῆι μὲν πρ̣ώτηι θύειν Τύχηι Ἀγαθῆι πατρὸς καὶ μητρὸς Ποσει̣[δ]ω̣νίου κ̣ριὸν καὶ Δαίμονι Ἀγαθῶι Ποσειδωνίου καὶ Γοργίδο̣ς κριόν, τῆι δὲ δευτέραι Διῒ Πατρώϊωι κριὸν καὶ Ἀπόλλωνι̣ Τελεμεσσοῦ μεδέοντι κρ[ιὸν] καὶ Μοίραις κριὸν vvvv καὶ Θεῶν Μητρὶ αἶγα· ὁ δὲ ἱερ̣[ε]ὺς αμβανέτω ἑκάστου ἱ̣ερείου κωλῆν καὶ τεταρτημ̣[o]ρ̣ίδα σπλάγχνων, v καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἰσόμοιρος ἔσ̣τ̣ω̣· τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ κρέα οἱ̣ ἐπιμήνιοι, ἀφελόντες ἱκανὰ τοῖς δειπνοῦσιν καὶ v γυναιξίν, μερίδας ποησάντωσαν ἴσας καὶ ἀποδόντωσαν ἑκάστωι μερίδα τῶν τε παρόντων καὶ τῶν ἀπόντων· τὰς δὲ κεφαλὰς καὶ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοὶ ἐχόντων· τὰ δὲ κώιδια πωλούντων ἐν τῶι θιάσωι, καὶ τῆι δευτέραι λόγον ἀποόντωσαν πρὸ τοῦ δείπνου ἀνα- v γράψαντες εἰς ὃ ἕκαστον ἀνήλωται, καὶ τὸ v περιγινόμενον ἀναλίσκειν εἰς ἀναθήματα̣· v ἀναγράψαι δὲ καὶ τὸν χρησμὸν καὶ τὴν ὑποθήκην κ[αὶ] τὸ δόγμα ἐν στήληι λιθίνηι καὶ στῆσαι ἐν τῶι v τεμένε̣[ι·] τοῖς δὲ ταῦτα διαφυλάσσουσιν καὶ ποιοῦ- v σιν ἄμεινον γίνοιτο ὑπὸ θεὸν καὶ ἄνθρωπον. vvvv vacat

There are clear paragraphoi in the left margin between lines 11−12 and 22−23, originally probably measuring ca. 1 cm or more in length, or about 2 letters

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

104 | Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge wide. These marks, along with the unusual punctuation in line 22, clearly distinguish the three sections of the inscription. Several errors and revisions went unremarked or were inconsistently noted in previous editions. Where traces of letters are concerned, minor variae lectiones and small improvements are not noted here, particularly with regard to the readings of Hirschfeld before the cleaning of the stone (and which for the most part were already noted in Paton and Myres). 1: [χρ]ησά[μεν]ου Hirschfeld etc., [χρ]ησά[σθα]ι̣ Daux and Sokolowski, the final traces are perhaps the lower half of ỊỊ or Λ̣Ι̣. | 2: τῷ Ἀπόλλωνι, τί ἂν αὐτῷ Hirschfeld, Paton and Myres, presenting the text with iota subscriptum passim, but in fact one consistently finds iota adscriptum in this inscription, as most later copies have correctly printed. | 9: a small omicron inscribed over ΑΓΑΘΝ, between theta and nu, as a correction. | 16: ὁμορροῦντα Hirschfeld etc. | 18: ΜΠ inscribed over [[ΤΝ]] as a correction; traces after καρπευ-, perhaps the lower half of Α̣, though these must be either illusory or erroneous. | 19: ἥμισυ Paton and Myres etc. | 21: A probably original gash in the stone, about a letter wide, has intervened, causing the letters to be inscribed as E v NIAΥΤΟΝ. | 22: Faint markings in the margin before -ΑΣ, though not an iota; elements of punctuation framing ἔδοξεν already noted in Paton and Myres, but as IΓ and I respectively, more correctly in Hirschfeld, the first element of punctuation being almost like gamma but with a small horizontal lower bar, the other is a vertical bar as tall as iota but without serifs and squeezed into the usual space between letters; ΕΙ inscribed over the error [[IT]]. | 25: [παρὰ τοῦ ἱ]- Hirschfeld etc. | 26: In ἱ̣ερέως, the trace of an iota is faint and at very edge of the left margin, perhaps squeezed closely together with the epsilon much like in line 39; [χ]ρυσ[οῦς] Hirschfeld etc. | 33: ΤΕ over [[ΞΙ]]. | 38: ΔΑΜΒΑΝΕΤΩ lapis, αμβανέτω Hirschfeld. | 39: τεταρτὴ[ν με]ρίδα, Hirschfeld, τεταρτη[με]ρίδα Paton and Myres etc. | 46: ΑΠΟΛΟΝΤΩΣΑΝ lapis, ἀποόντωσαν Paton and Myres etc.; ΔΕΙΠΝΟΥ lapis, δήμου Paton and Myres etc. | 52: γένοιτο Hirschfeld etc.; ὑπὸ θεν καὶ ἄνθρωπν Dareste et al., Dittenberger etc. Translation: I: When Poseidonios sent away to make an oracular enquiry to Apollo, (asking) what would be better and more good for him and his descendants who are and who will be born, both from male and female offspring, to do and to attempt, the god replied that it would better and more good for them to propitiate and to honour, as their ancestors did, Paternal Zeus, and Apollo who rules over Telemessos, and the Fates and the Mother of the Gods. And they are also to honour and propitiate the Good Daemon of Poseidonios and of Gorgis. And may it be better for those who maintain and enact these (commands). II: Poseidonios the son of Iatrokles gave as a pledge to his own descendants, to their descendants both from male and female offspring, and to those who take (wives?) from them, for the sacrifice to the gods whom the god prescribed: the field in the Ancient-Town (Astypalaia) which borders with (the land of) Anthes and Damagetos, and the courtyard, and the garden, and the land

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

Priests and Cult Personnel in Three Hellenistic Families | 105

surrounding the tomb, as well as half of the rights of tillage at Taramptos. Let the one who is the oldest among the descendants of Poseidonios, according to the line of male descent, always exploit (these endowments) and serve as priest, handing over four gold pieces net each year. III: It was decided by Poseidonios, the descendants of Poseidonios and those who have taken (wives?) from them to select three ‘monthly officials’ (epimenioi) each year from their ranks, who, when they have received the four gold pieces, (derived) each year from the pledge, from the priest during the month of Eleutherios, will put on the sacrifices. And if he (the priest) fails to pay or refuses to exploit (the endowments), then the pledged properties are to be (held in) common and leased out by the monthly officials; the sacred precinct is also to become common property and to be leased out by the monthly officials. And having obtained the rent money and the money from the rights of tillage … let them supervise the rites for two days in the month of Hermaion, providing all the customary necessities for the sacrifices to the priest: on the first day, sacrifice a ram to the Good Fortune of the father and mother of Poseidonios as well as a ram to the Good Daemon of Poseidonios and Gorgis; on the second day, a ram is to be sacrificed to Paternal Zeus, a ram to Apollo who rules over Telemessos, a ram to the Fates and a goat to the Mother of the Gods. Let the priest obtain from each animal a thigh and a quarter-portion of the entrails, and he is to have an equal share of the other parts. The monthly officials, having extracted sufficient quantities of the remaining meat for the banqueters and the wives, let them make equal portions and give such a portion to each of those present and absent. But let them reserve the heads and the feet for themselves. And they must sell the fleeces in the cult group (thiasos) and give an account on the second day before the dinner, writing up for what each sum was spent, and the remainder (i.e. the profit) is to be spent on votive offerings. The oracle, the pledge and the decree are to be written up on a marble stele and set up in the sacred precinct. May it be better under god and man for those who observe and enact these (commands). Commentary: The dossier of Poseidonios is introduced in the preceding article, and some elements are discussed in detail there, particularly the clauses concerning the priest (lines 18−20), and the epimenioi (23−32, etc.). However, a brief commentary can be offered here on specific lines and noteworthy topics. Line 1. This is perhaps the first line of the stele, beginning with a genitive absolute construction. The phrase is a fairly common expression for sending a delegation or a messenger to consult an oracle: compare e.g. IG IV2 1, 122, line 77 (Epidauros, fourth c. BC), IScM I 5 (Istros, third c. BC), or somewhat later I. Kaunos 56 (second−first c. BC, lines 5−6: ἀποσταλεὶς εἰς Γρύνειον | ἀνήνεγκεν χρησμόν). Despite the best conjectural efforts of different scholars, it is not

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

106 | Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge

possible to be certain about which oracle Poseidonios consulted. Parke and Wormell (1956: II, 136 no. 335), along with Fontenrose (1978: 256 H36), presume that this oracle comes from Delphi, claiming to follow Daux (and cf. recently also Eidinow 2007: 50−51); but Daux (1941), with commendable caution, only argued that a major oracle, like Delphi, was more plausible than a strictly local one. Indeed, Telemessos itself is unlikely (see below on lines 8−9), and any information about the source of the oracle, perhaps contained in earlier lines, is now lost. Lines 2−6. The oracular question and the reply given by Apollo follow rather standard formulae, but employ pleonastic formulations perhaps to even greater extent than elsewhere. On the typical phrasing of oracular consultation and response, cf. most recently Lhôte 2006: 336−349. The expression λώϊον καὶ ἄμεινον is quite standard, but here we find other exhaustive pairings, ποιοῦσιν καὶ πράσσουσιν, ἱλασκομένοις καὶ τιμῶσιν, etc, in greater concentration than what appears to be normal. Compare perhaps again the oracle from Gryneion at I. Kaunos 56, lines 8−12: ὁ δῆμος ὁ Καυνίων | ἐπερωτᾶι τίνας θεῶν | ἱλασκομένου αὐτοῦ καρπο[ὶ] | καλοὶ καὶ ὀνησιφόροι γίνοιντο̣. | vacat θεὸς ἔχρησεν· | τιμῶσιν Λητοῦς Φοῖβον … Lines 8−9. On the composition of the ancestral pantheon, see p. 96−98 of our article above and my forthcoming monograph. Here, it is the epiklesis of Apollo, Τελε|μεσσοῦ μεδέοντα, which warrants further comment. It need not indicate the source of Poseidonios’ oracle, since Poseidonios sent a consultation to a probably relatively distant sanctuary (line 1), and since it is unlikely that Telemessos was much more than a community known for its interpreters (exegetai), whether diviners or seers (see Daux 1941 and Harvey 1991, who collect the relevant sources). However, it perhaps suggests an explanation for Poseidonios’ oracular inquiry, since he had a degree of kinship with the Telemessians, or the oracle’s response, which invoked an ancestral Apollo in the neighbourhood of the inquirer. Telemessos is an epichoric name whose spelling varies and is regularly confused with its Lycian homonym (lyc. Telebehi), which may also have had exegetes (though in later sources one finds a somewhat consistent distinction between the spellings Τελμίσ(σ)ος for the Carian, and Τελμήσσος for the Lycian). The Carian Telmessos is still not definitively located: traditionally a site in the western Halicarnassus peninsula is given (Bean/Cook 1955: 151−155 for the site at Gürice, west of Halicarnassus; see also IACGP no. 936, with Barrington Atlas pl. 61; compare SEG 29.1087, ca. 200−150 BC, a decree of the koinon of the Telmissians, invoking their Archegetes Apollo Telmisseus, found at nearby Belen). However, a location in the eastern peninsula, whether at the site identified as Syangela or nearby, may be envisaged (on the basis of SEG 40.991, Sekköy ca. 350 BC, line 14, an Ἀρτεμίδωρος ἐς

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

Priests and Cult Personnel in Three Hellenistic Families | 107

Τεμοεσσου among the delegates of the Syangeleis; if it was the site now identified as Syangela [Alazeytin], then that community should probably be located at the same site as the later Theangela, i.e. Etrim [cf. IACGP no. 931]; this might therefore involve a Hellenistic evolution into a nom parlant that was appropriate for the larger community of exegetes: “divine messages”). For recent work on the site of Alazeytin, also suggesting an identification with Carian Telemessos, cf. Descat 2013. The designation location + μεδέων is poetic in origin (cf. already Hirschfeld). Cf. e.g. SEG 30.869B (Leuke, ca. 500−450 BC) for the metrical characteristics: Γλαῦκός με ἀνέθηκεν Ἀχιλλῆι Λευκῆ μεδέοντι, παῖ{ε}ς Ποσιδήο̅, and for an explicitly oracular character, cf. I. Cos EV 232 = IG XII 4, 532 (first c. BC): Ἀπόλλωνι Δ̣[α]λίῳ Καλύμνας | μεδέοντι, κατ̣ὰ̣ χρησζμὸν | Διδυμέως κτλ. Compare also IG I3 1491 and 1495 (fifth c. BC, boundary stones of Athena set up by the Athenians on Cos and at the Samian Heraion, probably sanctioned by oracles). Lines 9−10. The Daimon Agathos, or Good Daemon, of Poseidonios and Gorgis is an intriguing inclusion among the oracle’s prescriptions. The idea of worshipping a daimon tied to an individual warrants further discussion than is possible here. It is doubtless a notion that already had some dissemination among the Presocratic philosophers, whether Ionian or Dorian (cf. e.g. Epicharmos of Cos, ca. 540−450 BC, fr. 17: τρόπος, ὁ τρόπος ἀνθρώποις δαίμων ἀγαθός, οἳς δὲ καὶ κακός). In Caria, however, the worship of the (Agathos) Daimon, or Agathoi Daimones, usually followed by a series of individuals in the genitive can be traced back to the Hekatomnid period (cf. I. Mylasa 350 and Descat 2011), and it remains prevalent into the Roman era. This particularity is enigmatic and cannot yet be linked with inscriptions in the Carian language, but it might be epichoric to some extent (cf. already von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1932, vol. 2: 307−308: “Karischer Glaube kann sich einmischen”). Though some connotation of the “founder’s genitive” is perhaps involved in this appellation (cf. above p. 69 with n. 20), the idea of a daimon belonging to an individual must to a degree imply the worship of his divinised soul or of his personal protecting spirit. One might accordingly but also tentatively speak of a process of “daimonisation” not unlike the forms of heroisation found outside of Caria (cf. already Carbon 2005). Yet it is striking that other early instances of this form of worship also appear to involve couples; compare SEG 52.1064 (Koranza, ca. 350−300 BC), which at lines 5−6 should likely read: ἰδρύσασθαι δὲ βω[μὸν τοῦ Ἀγαθοῦ] | Δαίμονος Λερω καὶ̣ [Κοσινας] (compare lines 8−9: κριὸν ἑκάστου ἐνιαυτοῦ̣ [Δαίμονι | Λερω] καὶ | Κοσινας). Just like Gorgis, Kosina can be a male or a female name (for the latter, cf. I. Mylasa 336 and also SEG 49.812, Thermi; contra, Rigsby 2009: 75−77). We may thus be dealing here with a form of heroisation involving the Good Daemon of married couples, eventually encom-

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

108 | Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge

passing the kindly spirits of whole families or communities (cf. I. Mylasa II s.v., notably for a priest of Agathoi Daimones at Olymos in ca. 200−150 BC). Lines 10−11. The oracle concludes with a somewhat unusual injunction, which is echoed in fine, lines 51−52. Such oracular language appears to be based on a twofold formulation: a blessing if the commands are obeyed and respected: τοῖς δὲ ταῦτα διαφυλάσσουσιν | καὶ ποιοῦσιν ἄμεινον ἔσεσθαι; and a correspondingly implicit curse if they are disregarded. This curse is only rarely explicitly stated, as far as I can tell, but compare possibly an early example from Didyma, Milet I 3, 178, lines 3−5 (ca. 600−550 BC): καὶ [τῶι μὲν πειθομέ|νωι λῶιον καὶ ἄ]μ̣εινον ἔσται, τῶι | vacat δὲ μὴ πειθομένω[ι τοὐναντίον]. This formulation readily parallels the twofold optative statements found much prominently in oaths. In the analogous foundation of a cult of the (Agathos) Daimon of Leros and Kosina at Koranza (SEG 52.1064, above), the text concludes similarly, lines 14−15: καὶ εἶν̣α̣ι̣ ταῦτα συντελοῦσι{σι}ν αὐ|τοῖς λώϊον καὶ ἄμεινον, perhaps indicating there too an oracular source for the prescriptions. Line 12. The second document on the stele, marked by a paragraphos, is a list of lands which Poseidonios has pledged (ὑπέθηκεν) to his descendants. While the concept of hypotheke involves something like the etymological sense of ‘mortgage’, here it probably does not refer to properties which are mortgaged for a specific surety or sum of money, whether under the supervision of the polis or a creditor. Rather these represent pledges or endowments (compare τὰ ὑποκείμενα, line 28), made during Poseidonios’ lifetime, which are to serve as a sort of perpetual ‘trust fund’ for his family and which are to be administered directly or rented out. If the main ‘trustee’, i.e. the eldest among his male descendants who serves as priest, is otherwise indisposed or does not wish to administer the bequest, then this is to be held in common among the descendants and exploited by their monthly officials, notably through renting (cf. lines 27−31). Line 14. For a discussion of the implied object of the phrase τοῖς λαμβάνουσιν ἐξ αὐτῶν, see above p. 81 with n. 58 and p. 97 with n. 105; compare τοῖς εἰληφόσιν ἐξ αὐτῶν at line 23. Lines 15−16. The arable land or field pledged by Poseidonios raises several questions about the topography of his properties (see also below on lines 17−18). It is not clear which Astypalaia (Ancient-Town) or what territory is meant here. The island of that name, over 100 km from the Halicarnassus peninsula, and the Astypalaia found on Cos (cf. IACGP no. 498) may both be thought unlikely candidates. Indeed, the land is described as neighbouring Anthes and Damagetos. The first of these names matches that of the purported founder of Halicarnassus, as well as perhaps Myndus and Theangela, a colonist who led a group from Argos and Troizen. This Anthes and his descendants, the cultic

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

Priests and Cult Personnel in Three Hellenistic Families | 109

family of the Antheadai, form an integral part of the mythical landscape of the peninsula (cf. now Jameson 2004, who omits Poseidonios’ stele however). Taken together with the resonant name Damagetos (‘Leader-of-the-People’), which is found most frequently in the Dorian Peloponnese as well as on Rhodes and in its Peraia, the individual Anthes in this inscription can be seen either as a possible member of the Antheadai or, much more conjecturally, as the hero Anthes himself, whose tomb might be adjacent to the field, a connection that would of course be particularly appropriate in Poseidonios’ case. In any case, this Astypalaia must therefore be sought in the peninsula. The likeliest candidate is the ancient city of Myndus, before it was relocated as a result of the synoikism ordered by Mausolus, though this is normally called Palaemyndus (cf. IACGP no. 914; but Strabo 14.2.20 describes it as a citadel or promontory below the Myndia; for the Mausolan synoikism of the peninsula, cf. still the seminal discussion of Hornblower 1982: 81−99, invoking several of the sites mentioned here). An alternative would be to think of an ancient city site at Halicarnassus itself, or perhaps in connection with Telemessos and other sites on the peninsula, though evidence is lacking. For the unusual spelling ὁμου̣ροῦντα, probably a local or Ionian variant, compare: SEG 43.713, line 61 (Halicarnassus ca. 425−350 BC); I. Stratonikeia 502, line 7 (Koranza, ca. 350 BC); I. Labraunda 8B, line 19 (ca. 235 BC), and 69, line 22 (ca. 150−100 BC). Line 17. The list of pledged properties continues, but it is again unclear where these are located. Probably they are not situated in Astypalaia like the field, but rather constitute what is later referred to as the sacred precinct or temenos (line 29). A courtyard and a grove are particularly apposite to a sacred precinct, as in Diomedon’s dedication, IG XII 4, 368 lines 2−3 and 70; cf. also 80−86. The phrase τὰ περὶ τὸ μνημεῖον refers to land or properties surrounding a tomb, most likely that of Poseidonios’ parents (his father Iatrokles and his mother, lines 12 and 34). Where this was located is problematic. If we assume that the findspot of the fragments west of the Maussolleion is indicative of the location of this temenos (where the stele was erected, lines 50−51), then we might be able to situate this property within Halicarnassus itself. The context of a memorial set up in the shadow of the famous Maussolleion, half a century later, might also provide a suggestive image. But it might also be thought that such a burial within the city walls is comparatively unlikely in the case of Poseidonios and that we might instead have a pierre errante. In this light, compare two rock-cut tomb cult complexes on Göktepe Hill just north of Halicarnassus in Carstens 2010: 344−352. Line 18. The last of Poseidonios’ bequests is perhaps the most unusual and intriguing, granting a monetary share of the ‘rights of tillage’ at a specific site. The ἐνηροσίον appears to be etymologically related to the act of cultivating and

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

110 | Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge

plowing soil, and must mean the proceeds which could be made by renting out or farming land that was arable and probably sacred (cf. LSJ s.v.). It is only found here outside of Delos, where this sense is well-attested in the sacred accounts: cf. e.g. ID 290 (246 BC, line 14: [καὶ τάδε] ἐνηρόσια εἰσήκει παρὰ τῶν μεμισθωμένων τὰ ἱερὰ τεμένη); ID 314 (ca. 235/4 BC, line 168: [τὸ] δὲ ἐνηρόσιον τῶν ἱερῶν χωρίω[ν]). For the spelling ἥμυσυ instead of ἥμισυ, possibly an Ionic variant, cf. already I. Erythrai 17 (ca. 500−350 BC) lines 14−15. Does the fact that Poseidonios attribute only half of this ‘tillage’ money imply that the land was sacred and that the other half of the proceeds belonged to a sanctuary? Perhaps, but the location and status of this land is unclear. The site of Taramptos or Tarampton was perhaps problematic even for the stonecutter, who made a mistake here. In fact, there is only a single other possible mention of this site, namely in the Athenian Tribute Lists (cf. IG I3 71, line 115, 425/4 BC). If the restoration is correct there, it might be thought to have been an independent community for some time before the Hecatomnid period, and it plausibly occurs among other sites in the eastern Halicarnassus peninsula: perhaps Amunanda (IACGP no. 873), the Syangeleis, and the Ouranietai (cf. no. 920). Yet, as elsewhere in this text, the topography of the Halicarnassus peninsula is not well known and the precise site of Taramptos/Tarampton is far from established. The current identification is with the island north of the peninsula, in the gulf of Iasos and Bargylia, once called by modern Greeks Tarandos and now by the Turks Salih Ada (Barrington Atlas pl. 61 and IACGP no. 933). The name Tarandos might not be etymologically related to this site, however, since the island was probably once known for a breed of deer, which were perhaps identified with reindeer (Rangifer tarandus).118 Furthermore, the island is often thought to be the original site of Karyanda, which was later relocated on the mainland and eventually renamed Neapolis (cf. Bean/Cook 1955: 155−160). The ancient site of Taramptos/Tarampton, probably a name of Carian origin, should probably be sought elsewhere on the Halicarnassus peninsula, likely on its eastern and western halves rather than in the gulf of Iasos and Bargylia to the North. Lines 20−21. The notion of what is involved behind καρπευ|[έ]τω may not be fully clear. It is a standard verb for ‘exploiting’ or reaping financial benefits from property, particularly a sanctuary: compare e.g. IG XII 4, 310 (Cos, ca. 170 BC), lines 9−10, κ[α]ρ̣πε̣ υ ̣ έτω δὲ καὶ τὸ τέ|[μενο]ς̣. In Roman Law, this is known

|| 118 Deer were still to be seen on the island when Gertrude Bell visited it in 1907 (diary for the 17th of April, Bell Archive no. 1474, University of Newcastle; cf. http://www.gerty.ncl.ac.uk/ diary_details.php?diary_id=530). Compare also Bean/Cook 1955: 159 with n. 310.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

Priests and Cult Personnel in Three Hellenistic Families | 111

as ‘usufruct’ (cf. already Hirschfeld, Paton and Myres). In the context of Poseidonios’ agricultural lands, involving a field, a grove, and the ‘rights of tillage’, a connotation of ‘cultivate for profit’ may also be implied, much like in our modern ‘harvest’ or ‘farm out’. Lines 21−22. The phrase specifies that the priest must annually pay or provide four gold pieces or an equivalent sum in lesser denominations, after tax, from the money he makes off of the pledged lands. On first glance, one might think that a word such as στατῆρας is to be implied here (so already Hirschfeld, Dareste et al.), but in this case perhaps an explicit mention of gold staters of Philip or Alexander or of another standard would have been expected. In fact, these chrysoi are likely to be seen as Ptolemaic staters, which were usually minted at Alexandria and could to some degree have been in circulation at Halicarnassus (cf. de Callataÿ and Le Rider 2006: esp. 36−37, 136−138; see however Konuk 2004, for Ptolemaic coins minted at Halicarnassus, which do not include any gold issues). At any rate, one could presume a weight of smaller denominations equal to four chrysoi. Assuming an equivalence of 20 silver drachmai for each chrysos, this would yield a total value of 80 drachmai which had to be given annually by the priest or by the appointed monthly officials. That would probably constitute an adequate amount to purchase the six sacrificial animals involved in both days of rituals. Since rams vary between 10−17 drachmai at Athens in the preceding century (cf. Rosivach 1994: 97−98), and the lower range of this price would be expected for the goat, a total of ca. 60−85 drachmai could thus be expended on animals, leaving remaining funds, if any, for other accoutrements and supplies. The finances of the cult would therefore be relatively healthy and the sale of hides would have probably resulted in a good system of accounting, recouping unforeseen costs or producing some profit which could then be turned into votive offerings to honour the gods (cf. lines 44−48). However, it is possible that Poseidonios left the precise standard of measurement of these gold pieces deliberately vague or unspecified, wishing to take into account monetary fluctuations. For ἀτελής meaning a ‘net’ sum, cf. Gauthier 1976: 138. Line 22. ⫍ ἔδοξεν | Ποσ[[ει]]δωνίωι. What appear to be elements of punctuation are inserted before and after ἔδοξεν, singling out this word, as well as drawing attention to the paragraphos between this line and the following. Line 26. The month names mentioned in the text here (μηνὸς Ἐλευθερίου) and at lines 31−32 (μηνὸς Ἑρμαιῶνος ἐπιμελεί|τωσαν ἐπὶ δύο ἡμέρας) are likely consecutive (so already Paton and Myres) or at any rate in close succession (perhaps allowing some time to purchase and fatten the sacrificial animals). The whole chronology of the rituals in Poseidonios’ stele remains intriguingly loose. Likewise, the calendar of Halicarnassus is not well understood, cf. Trümpy 1997:

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

112 | Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge

113−114 (compare 278, for Theangela). The month Hermaion is already found at Meiggs and Lewis no. 32, line 4 (ca. 450 BC), while Eleutherios/Eleutherion occurs perhaps at the earliest here (cf. Raaflaub 1985: 133 n. 288 for the hypothesis of a festival of Eleutheria in this context; this might then be tied to an important event at Halicarnassus in the early Hellenistic period). Line 27. For συντελέσουσιν meaning to “put on”, cf. the application of this verb to festivals and other events larger than sacrifices: e.g. I. Lampsakos 9 (second c. BC) line 73, ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐν αἷς ἂν αἱ ἑορταὶ συντελῶνται. Line 30. The verb ἐγμισθοῶ appears to mean “put out to rent” or “farm out”, and is perhaps not much different from μισθοῶ. Line 31. The small vacat in this line κομιζόμενοι v μηνὸς Ἑρμαιῶνος ἐπιμελεί|τωσαν appears to indicate a short pause, and perhaps more strongly, that the imperative reprises the obligations of the epimenioi, whether the conditional statements begun in lines 27−28 are realised or not. In other words, one is probably to infer that, whatever their financial responsibilities in the case of a default by the priest, the monthly officials are to assist the priest during the rites (cf. already a version of this explanation in Paton and Myres). For further discussion of the temporal scope of these nominally ‘monthly’ officials, see above p. 85−95. Line 32. The phrase τὰ νομιζόμενα is often found in sacrificial provisions and may denote, in addition to the sacrificial animals, a variety of supplementary offerings, in the form of cakes, liquids for libations, etc. Compare for example the extensive lists of ἱερά associated with the offerings of sheep (ἱερεῖον) in the testament of Epikteta (Wittenburg 1990: lines 177−194). Lines 33−38. In this list of sacrifices, one finds on the first day a sacrifice to the Tyche Agathe of the mother and father of Poseidonios which was perhaps inserted by decree, but was not apparently sanctioned in the oracle cited at the beginning of the text on the stele. This almost certainly refers to a wish by Poseidonios to honour his parents, and this form of ancestor-cult may already have existed at their tomb. The cult of the Good Fortune of individuals or cities is a prevalent concept, cf. now Meyer 2006: 342−348. Here, the relationship between this Agathe Tyche of the parents and the Agathos Daimon of Poseidonios and his wife, remains difficult to understand: it may be that there was a distinction between the Good Fortune of deceased individuals and the worship of the tutelary daimon of living ones, or perhaps the Agathe Tyche implied a lesser degree of divinisation and Poseidonios thus felt he could safely worship it without the sanction of the oracle. The ram is an animal often sacrificed in rural and heroic cults, much like sheep (compare also the ram in the cult of Leros and Kosinas at Koranza, above: SEG 52.1064, line 8; oxen are normally found in more important civic rituals or in ruler-cult). A goat is offered to the Mother of the Gods, but a

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

Priests and Cult Personnel in Three Hellenistic Families | 113

ram is sacrificed to the Moirai, contrary to the usual expectation that female deities received female animals (on the sacrifices to these deities, see recently Pirenne-Delforge/Pironti 2011: 103−109 and D. Ackermann in this volume). The meat from the first day of sacrifices was reserved for the dinner on the next day. It was probably kept raw, and the carcasses hung in a dry area, or butchered and perhaps even salted as a means of preservation for a distribution of meat on the day after the sacrifice (cf. lines 45−46; compare SEG 45.1508A, Bargylia ca. 120−100 BC, lines 10−13, for a distribution of meat on the next day). Lines 38−40. The priest receives a thigh and a fourth of the entrails, which are standard perquisites not only at Halicarnassus but all over Caria. The restoration τεταρτημ̣[o]ρ̣ίδα is based on parallels of this priestly perquisite at LSAM 73, lines 9−14 (Halicarnassus, perhaps ca. 200 BC or later), and SEG 29.1088 (Theangela, ca. 275−225 BC), lines 6−12. In both of those civic cases, the priest or priestess is also ἰσόμοιρος during a festival or a dinner. These priests also receive the hides of animals sacrificed at public expense (τὰ δημόσια), but not from those sacrificed privately (τὰ ἰδιωτικά). Again, these parallels demonstrate how Poseidonios’ familial decree is modelled on a polis framework, assigning priestly perquisites which are comparable to those of civic priests in the case of private sacrifices. A similar case may probably be found in the fragmentary ‘foundation’ of a certain Epikrates, probably later in the Hellenistic or Roman period at Halicarnassus, cf. Robert 1937: 466−468 (the γέρα there too likely involved, lines 8−9, a [τεταρτημορίδα σ]|πλάγχνων). Lines 40−43. As elsewhere in the text, a wish to include all of the family members is manifest. Equal portions are distributed both to men who dine after the sacrifices and to women, whether these people are present in the thiasos or not. Though realistically there is no such thing as an equal portion of meat, a principle of fair and equitable division is prevalent in a vast majority of Greek sacrifices: cf. Ekroth 2008: 270−272. The verb ἀφαιρεῖν, much like ἐξαιρεῖν, is often found in reference to the act of extracting and cutting out meat from an animal carcass: compare e.g. LSAM 70, Chalketor (ca. 300 BC?), lines 4−8, ἐ[ξ]αιρεθέντων δὲ τῶν | [κρε]ῶν καὶ τὰ γέρα τῆι ἱερείαι ἀποδόντε[ς | τ]ὰ λοιπὰ διαιρείτωσαν τῶι δήμωι, ἀφ[αι|ρ]οῦντες ἑαυτοῖς τάς τε κεφαλὰς καὶ [τὰ | ἐ]νδόσθια (this text probably referred to neopoioi of a local Artemis, officials who act in a subsidiary capacity with regard to the priest much like the epimenioi of Poseidonios). Lines 44. The ‘monthly’ officials are to reserve the head and feet for themselves. These portions of the sacrificial animals are sometimes part of the regular priestly portions (compare LSAM 59, Iasos ca. 450−400 BC, also with σπλ[άγχνων] τέταρτομ μέρος); at other times the head and the feet constitute the whole of the priestly portion (e.g. in the sales at Hyllarima, SEG 55.1113, ca.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

114 | Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge

197 BC, col. B lines 16−18; col. C, lines 17−21). However, they are also attributed to officials acting in an ancillary capacity to the priest (see LSAM 70, above, for the head). Lines 44−45. A thiasos appears for the first time here, probably not as the whole familial body who passed the decree, but presumably as shorthand for referring to those members of the family or community of the cult group who actively participate in the rites on a given occasion, excluding those who are absent (compare already the thiasotai of the Demotionidai at Athens, IG II2 1237, 396/5 BC). The sale of the hides of sacrificial animals, here the fleeces of rams and goats, is a well-documented practice, e.g. at Athens (among others, cf. Rosivach 1994: 48−49), but not at Halicarnassus itself. Lines 51−52. The text is still part of the decree, but concludes with the prescription to obey it, a form of blessing and an implied curse which partly repeats the phrases of the oracle: the pleonastic datives διαφυλάσσουσιν καὶ ποιοῦσιν and the comparative ἆμεινον. The spelling of the optative as γίνοιτο may be similarly paralleled to (usually) later prescriptions taking the form of blessings (LSAM 17, Smyrna, first c. AD?, lines 11−16: τοῖς δὲ συμφυλάσσουσιν | καὶ ἐπαύξουσιν τὰ τῆς | θεοῦ τίμια καὶ τὸ ἰχθυο|τρόφιον αὐτῆς βίου καὶ | ἐργασίας καλῆς γίνοιτο | παρὰ τῆς θεοῦ ὄνησις), and perhaps to the language of oaths (cf. Milet I 3, 37, ca. 223 BC, lines 87−8, if the restoration is correct: [καί μοι εὐορ|κοῦν]τι γ̣[ί]νοιτο ἆμεινον). The final phrase ὑπὸ θεὸν καὶ ἄνθρωπον (though earlier editors have been tempted to correct it as genitives) probably should be retained as it is and interpreted as “under both god and man” (cf. LSJ s.v. ὑπὸ, C.II. for “under” + accusative in the sense “of subjection, control, dependence”). This formula seems again to take up phrasings found in oaths, for example the shorthand expression ὑπὸ Δία, Γῆν, Ἥλιον found in records of manumission (e.g. CIRB 1123, Gorgippia, 41 AD).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

Priests and Cult Personnel in Three Hellenistic Families | 115

Bibliography Bean, G.E., Cook, J.M. (1955). “The Halicarnassus Peninsula.” ABSA 50: 85−171. Boedeker, D. (2008). “Family Matters: Domestic Religion in Classical Greece.” In: Bodel, J., S.M. Olyan, S.M., (eds.). Household and Family Religion in Antiquity. Oxford. 229−247. Bosnakis, D., Hallof, K. (2005). “Alte und neue Inschriften aus Kos II.” Chiron 35: 219−272. Bousquet, E. (1956). “Inscriptions de Delphes.” BCH 80: 579−590. Boyancé, P. (1937). Le culte de Muses chez les philosophes grecs. (BEFAR, 141). Paris. van Bremen, R. (2010). “Adrastos at Aphrodisias.” In: Catling, R.W.V., Marchand, F. (eds.), Onomatologos: Studies in Greek personal names presented to Elaine Matthews. Oxford. 440−455. Callataÿ (de), Fr., Le Rider, G. (2006). Les Séleucides et les Ptolémées. L’héritage monétaire et financier d’Alexandrie. Paris. Carbon, J.-M. (2005). “Δάρρων and Δαίμων: A New Inscription from Mylasa.” EA 38: 1−6. Carbon, J.-M., Pirenne-Delforge, V. (2012). “Beyond Greek Sacred Laws.” Kernos 25: 163−182. Carstens, A.M. (2010). “The Sepulchral Landscape of the Halikarnassos Peninsula in Hellenistic Times.” In: van Bremen, R., Carbon, J.-M. (eds.), Hellenistic Karia. Bordeaux. 331−352. Chankowski, A.S. (2002). “ΟΙΦΕΙΝ: Remarques sur les inscriptions rupestres de Théra et sur la théorie de la pérastie initiatique en Grèce ancienne.” In: Derda, T., Urbanik, J., Węcowski, M. (eds.), Εὐεργεσίας χάριν, Studies Presented to Benedetto Bravo and Ewa Wipszycka by their Disciples, Warsaw. 3−35. Clay, D. (2004). Archilochos Heros: The Cult of Poets in the Greek Polis. Cambridge, MA. Dasen, V., Piérart, M. (eds.) (2005). Ἰδίᾳ καὶ δημοσίᾳ. Les cadres « privés » et « publics » de la religion grecque antique. (Kernos suppl. 15). Liège. Daux, G. (1941). “Y a-t-il un oracle à Telmessos de Carie?” RPh 15: 11−18. De Matteis, L.M. (2004). Mosaici di Cos, dagli scavi delle missioni italiane e tedesche (1900−1945), (Monografie della Scuola archeologica di Atene e delle missioni italiane in Oriente, 17). Athens. Descat, R. (2011). “Autour de la Tombe d’Hékatomnos. Nouvelle lecture d’une inscription de Mylasa.” ZPE 178: 195−202. ― (2013). “Tombes de fondateurs en Carie. Les exemples de Telmessos et de Syangela.” In: Henry, O. (ed.), La mort dans la ville. Pratiques, contextes et impacts des inhumations intra muros en Anatolie du début de l’Âge du Bronze à l’époque romaine. 2èmes Rencontres d’Archéologie de l’IFÉA. Istanbul. 135−141. Ekroth, G. (2002). The Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Hero-Cults in the Archaic to the early Hellenistic Periods. (Kernos suppl. 12). Liège. ― (2008). “Meat, man and god. On the division of the animal victim at Greek sacrifice.” In: A.P. Matthaiou and I. Polinskaya (eds.), Μικρός Ιερομνήμων. Μελέτες εις μνήμην Michael H. Jameson. Athens. 259−290. Eidinow, E. (2007). Oracles, Curses, and Risk among the Ancient Greeks. Oxford. Faraone, C. (2008). “Household Religion in Ancient Greece.” In: Bodel, J., Olyan, S.M. (eds.), Household and Family Religion in Antiquity. Oxford. 210−228. Fontenrose, J. (1978). The Delphic Oracle: Its Responses and Operations, with a Catalogue of Responses. Berkeley-London-Los Angeles. Gauthier, P. (1976). Un commentaire historique des Poroi de Xénophon. Geneva/Paris. ― (1980). “Études sur des inscriptions d’Amorgos.” BCH 104: 197−220.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

116 | Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge

Georgoudi, S., Pirenne-Delforge, V. (2005). “Personnel du culte (Grèce).” ThesCRA 5: 1−65. Gherchanoc, F. (2012). L’oikos en fête. Célébrations familiales et sociabilité en Grèce ancienne. (Histoire ancienne et médiévale, 111. Université Paris 1 − Panthéon Sorbonne). Paris. Gschnitzer, F. (1986). “Eine persische Kultstiftung in Sardes und die ‘Sippengötter’ Kleinasiens.” In: Meid, W., Trenkwalder, H. (eds.), Im Bannkreis des Alten Orients, Studien zur Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte des Alten Orients und seines Ausstrahlungsraumes: Karl Oberhuber zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet. (Innsbrücker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft, 24). Innsbruck. 45−54. Harter-Uibopuu, K. (2011), “Money for the polis. Public administration of private donations in Hellenistic Greece.” In: van Nijf, O.M., Alston, R. (eds.), Political culture in the Greek city after the Classical age. (Groningen-Royal Holloway studies on the Greek city after the Classical age, 2). Leuven. 119−139. Harvey, D. (1991). “Herodotos, I, 78 and 84: Which Telmessos?” Kernos 4: 245−258. Horster, M. (2012). “Priests, priesthoods, cult personnel – traditional and new approaches.” In: Horster, M., Klöckner, A. (eds.), Civic Priests: Cult-personnel in Athens from the Hellenistic Period to Late Antiquity. (RGVV, 58). Berlin. 5−26. Hupfloher, A. (2012). “Kultgründungen durch Individuen im klassischen Griechenland.” In: Rüpke, J., Spickermann, W. (eds.), Reflections on Religious Individuality: Graeco-Roman and Judaeo-Christian Texts and Practices. (RGVV, 62). Berlin/Boston. 11−41. Helmis, A. (2003). “Entre les vivants et les morts, La fondation à la mémoire d’Aleximachos fils de Critolaos (IG XII.7, 515; IIe siècle av. J.-C.).” In: Thür, G., Fernández Nieto, F.J. (eds.), Symposion 1999: Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte. Köln. 463−480. Hornblower, S. (1982). Mausolus. Oxford. Isager, S., Pedersen, P. (eds.) (2004). The Salmakis Inscription and Hellenistic Halikarnassos, Halikarnassian Studies, 4, Odense. Jameson, M.H. (1994). “Theoxenia.” In: Hägg, R. (ed.), Ancient Greek Cult Practice from the Epigraphical Evidence. Stockholm. 35−57. ― (2004). “Troizen and Halikarnassos in the Hellenistic Era.” In: Isager/Pedersen 2004: 93−107. Jones, C.P. (2010). New Heroes in Antiquity: From Achilles to Antinoos, Cambridge MA/London. Kamps, W. (1937). “Les origines de la fondation cultuelle.” Archives d’Histoire de Droit Oriental 1: 145−179. Konuk, K. (2004). “The Ptolemaic Coins in the Bodrum Underwater Archaeology Museum.” In: Isager/Pedresen 2004: 165−175. Laum, B. (1914). Stiftungen in der griechischen und römischen Antike. Leipzig (2 vols. reprinted as 1, Stuttgart 1964). Lhôte, E. (2006), Les lamelles oraculaires de Dodone. Geneva. Meyer, M. (2006). Die Personifikation der Stadt Antiocheia: ein neues Bild für eine neue Gottheit. Berlin/New York. Mikalson, J.D. (2006). “Greek Religion: Continuity and Change in the Hellenistic Period.” In: Bugh, G.R. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Hellenistic World. Cambridge. 208−222. Modrzejewski, J. (1963). “À propos des fondations en droit grec.” RD 41: 82−92. Nilsson, M.P. (1906). Griechische Feste von religiöser Bedeutung mit Ausschluss der Attischen. Leipzig/Stuttgart (reprinted 1995).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

Priests and Cult Personnel in Three Hellenistic Families | 117

Parke, H.W., Wormell, D.E.W. (1956). The Delphic Oracle. 2 vols. I: The History, II: The Oracular Responses. Oxford. Parker, R.C.T. (1996). Athenian Religion. A History. Oxford. ― (2008). “πατρῷοι θεοί: the Cults of Sub-Groups and Identity in the Greek World.” In: Rasmussen, A.H., Rasmussen, S.W. (eds.), Religion and Society: Rituals, Resources and Identity in the Ancient Graeco-Roman World, BOMOS conferences 2002−2005, (Analecta Romana Instituti Danici, Suppl. 40). Rome. 202−214. ― (2010). “A Funerary Foundation from Hellenistic Lycia.” Chiron 40: 103−121. ― (2011). On Greek Religion. Ithaca/London. Paton, W., Myres, J.L. (1896). “Karian Sites and Inscriptions.” JHS 16: 188−271. Paul, S. (2013). Cultes et sanctuaires de l’île de Cos. Liège (Kernos, suppl. 28). Pirenne-Delforge, V. (2010). “Greek Priests and ‘Cult-Statues’: In How Far are they Unnecessary?” In: Mylonopoulos, J. (ed.), Divine Images and Human Imaginations in Ancient Greece and Rome. (RGRW, 170). Leiden/Boston. 121−141. Pirenne-Delforge, V., Pironti, G. (2011), “Les Moires entre la naissance et la mort : de la représentation au culte.” In: Hennard Dutheil de la Rochère, M., Dasen, V. (eds), Des Fata aux fées, Regards croisés de l’Antiquité à nos jours. (Études de Lettres, 289). Lausanne. 93−113. de Polignac, F., Schmitt-Pantel, P. (eds.) (1998). Public et privé en Grèce ancienne : lieux, conduites, pratiques, Ktèma 23. Strasburg. Purvis, A. (2003). Singular Dedications: Founders and Innovators of Private Cults in Classical Greece. New York/London. Raaflaub, K. (1985). Die Entdeckung der Freiheit. Munich. Ricci, T. (1981). Iscrizioni e rilievi greci nel Museo Maffeiano di Verona. Rome. Rigsby, K. (2009). “Notes on Sacred Laws.” ZPE 170: 73−80. Robert, L. (1937). Études anatoliennes. Paris. Rosivach, V. (1994). The System of Public Sacrifice in Fourth-Century Athens. Atlanta. Sourvinou-Inwood, C. (1990). “What is Polis Religion?” In Murray, O., Price, S. (eds.), The Greek City from Homer to Alexander. Oxford. 295−322 (reprinted in R. Buxton (ed.) Oxford Readings in Greek Religion. Oxford. 13−37). Sherwin-White, S. (1977). “Inscriptions from Cos.” ZPE 24: 205−217. Smith, W.D. (1990). Hippocrates, Pseudepigraphic Writings. Leiden/New York. Stravrianopoulou, E. (2006). “Gruppenbild mit Dame”, Untersuchungen zur rechtlichen und sozialen Stellung der Frau auf den Kykladen im Hellenismus und in der römischen Kaiserzeit. (HABES, 42). Stuttgart. Trümpy, C. (1997). Untersuchungen zu den altgriechischen Monatsnamen und Monatsfolgen. Heidelberg. Wallensten, J. (2008), “Personal Protection and Tailor-Made Deities: The Use of Individual Epithets.” Kernos 21: 81−95. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. (1932). Der Glaube der Hellenen. 2 vols. Wilhelm, A. (1908), “Inschriften aus Halikarnassos und Theangela.” JÖAI 11: 53−75. Wittenburg, A. (1990). Il testamento di Epikteta. Trieste. ― (1998). “Grandes familles et associations cultuelles à l’époque hellénistique.” Ktema 23: 451−456.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

118 | Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge

Fig. 1 Hypothetical reconstruction of the monument displaying the inscribed testament of Epikteta (from Wittenburg 1990: plate 2). Reproduced with kind permission of the author.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

Priests and Cult Personnel in Three Hellenistic Families | 119

Fig. 2 Stele of Poseidonios from Halicarnassus (© Trustees of the British Museum, inv. no. 1876,0701.1)

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:46 PM

Joannis Mylonopoulos

Commemorating Pious Service: Images in Honour of Male and Female Priestly Officers in Asia Minor and the Eastern Aegean in Hellenistic and Roman Times* Abstract: The paper addresses questions associated with images erected in honour of priestly officials in the Greek cities of the eastern Aegean and Asia Minor in the Hellenistic and Roman Imperial times. More concretely, it deals with the agents responsible for this specific type of tribute, the reasons behind the erection of priestly imagery, and its placement in public civic spaces and sanctuaries. Although there can be no doubt about the importance of priestly officers in Greek antiquity, an analysis of the honours, especially of those in the form of sculpted or painted images, that priests and priestesses received will lead to a necessary re-evaluation of the ways in which we understand their exact status within the social, political, and religious hierarchy of any given city. Compared to successful athletes, international mediators, or wealthy benefactors, Greek priests and priestesses were not as highly celebrated as we have always presupposed them to be. In the past fifty years, archaeological and historical scholarship on cult personnel has demonstrated a noticeable bias for priestesses, which reflects to a certain extent the imbalance in the preserved evidence. Both J.A. Turner’s doctoral dissertation at the University of California, Santa Barbara and J.B. Connelly’s recent monograph, for example, deal exclusively with imagery and social as well as religious functions of female priestly officers.1 R. van Bremen’s book, on the other hand, examines female civic participation.2 U. Kron’s influential arti|| * I am very grateful to Marietta Horster and Anja Klöckner for inviting me to such an intellectually stimulating and productive conference at the University of Mainz. The present paper owes a great deal to all the colleagues and friends with whom I enjoyed an intensive exchange of ideas during the conference, but I would specifically like to thank Jochen Griesbach, Uta Kron, Stéphanie Paul, Oliver Pilz, Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge, and Eftychia Stavrianopoulou for their time and constructive criticism. I am deeply thankful to Irina Oryshkevich for improving my English. All mistakes – linguistic and otherwise – remain mine. 1 Turner 1983; Connelly 2007. 2 Van Bremen 1996, esp. part 1.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

122 | Joannis Mylonopoulos

cle on priestly officers, dedications and euergetism, and J.C. Eule’s Heidelberg dissertation on civic imagery in Hellenistic Asia Minor focus solely on women.3 Although A. Mantis’ dissertation at the University of Thessaloniki and R. von den Hoff’s article on Athenian cult personnel discuss both priestesses and priests, both place a clear emphasis on female imagery.4 All the same, a book on the portrait of a priest – to paraphrase the title of Connelly’s seminal book – still needs to be written, despite some rather specialized studies such as the one by M.D. Campanile on the priestly personnel of the koinon of Asia with its logical emphasis on priests and male priestly officers.5 In addition, and for obvious reasons, scholarship has far too extensively used evidence from Attica to examine the tributes paid to priests and priestesses in other areas of the Greek world. Turner, for example, assumes that priestesses were often honoured by an offer of a golden crown but builds her argument solely on Attic evidence.6 The aim of this paper, in contrast, is to address questions associated with statues erected in honour of priestly officials in the Greek cities of the eastern Aegean and Asia Minor in the Hellenistic and Roman Imperial times.7 It will thus briefly deal with the agents responsible for this specific type of tribute, the reasons behind the erection of priestly imagery, and the placement of statues honouring priests and priestesses in public spaces and sanctuaries. For the purpose of comparison, the case of the Messenian Artemision will be incorporated into the analysis.8 Any discussion of these issues, however, must begin with a brief but important terminological parenthesis. The term “honorary” or “honorific,” as applied to statues, will be used cautiously, as it has increasingly come to imply an honour in the form of an image initiated by state authorities. Here, however, reference will be made to statues honouring priests and priestesses in a more general way, though with no intention of denying the important difference between statues erected by family members and those instituted by public initia-

|| 3 Kron 1996, 140−155; Eule 2001, passim, esp. 125−127. 4 Mantis 1990, passim, on priests, see p. 82−96; von den Hoff 2008. 5 Campanile 1994. 6 Turner 1983, 396 f. 7 The rather special case of the Lindian priests will not be addressed here. 8 With respect to the placement of priestly officers’ statues within a temple, scholarship has often considered the Messenian Artemision a paradigmatic example, see Connelly 2011, 324−329. Thanks to the abundant archaeological, epigraphic, and architectural data, the Artemision in Messene is undeniably an excellent case-study for the problems associated with the subject this article is interested in. Nevertheless, it will be demonstrated that the evidence is not as clear as previously assumed, see below.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Commemorating Pious Service | 123

tive. Yet, even private dedications, especially those predestined to change the very fabric of civic and sacred space, had at least to be sanctioned by official authorities before they could be placed in public view.9 The terms “priest” and “priestess” will also not be understood narrowly as the exact equivalents of the ancient Greek “hiereus” and “hiereia,” but will instead be used to signify cult personnel in a more general sense. The present paper differentiates between civic and religious space,10 despite the fact that such a clear distinction did not exist in antiquity.11 Greek agorai – civic spaces par excellence – were political, judicial, economic, and religious nuclei, while sanctuaries – religious spaces par excellence – were often the most appropriate settings for the ‘war’ of political monuments.12 As to whether civic and religious spaces can be deemed public, it must be emphasized that though some restrictions regarding access to the agora of a city are known,13 there were many more controlling access to and use of sanctuaries.14 Consequently, the agora seems to have been more public than the sanctuary.

|| 9 Decrees dealing with the act of dedication reveal that the demos (LSCG 43; LSS 107, 123) and occasionally the boule (LSCG 50) were the political bodies with the right to sanction the erection of votive offerings in sanctuaries. A late Hellenistic decree from Athens regulating the affairs of the Isis cult is particularly interesting, because it stipulates that dedications without authorization were forbidden, LSCG 50 A 12−14: ὁμοίως [i.e. κωλυέτωσαν] δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἀνατιθ[έναι τι / θέλοντ]α[ς] χωρίς τοῦ αἰτήσασθαι. According to the epigraphic evidence, the architekton or the architekton epi ta hiera was in many cities responsible for finding the appropriate spot for the placement of votive offerings after the political body had sanctioned the dedication, see, for example, I.Didyma 479 and IG V.1 4. In Andania, the hiereus and the hieroi were apparently responsible for the dedications, see IG V.1 1390. In Attica, the architekton could occasionally be joined by the hiereus, the strategos epi ten paraskeuen, and members of the Areios Pagos, see IG II2 839. In Halikarnassos, the architekton was joined at least once by strategoi and the grammateus, GIBM 4 893. Although there is plenty of epigraphic evidence, the subject has not been studied in a monograph yet. See, however, Sosin 2005 and Lombardi 2009. 10 Although bibliographically not up-to-date, especially with respect to German scholarship, the most recent study on space is Scott 2013. 11 On the interplay of the political, religious, and sepulchral realms within the fabric of ancient Greek cities, see Hölscher 1999. On the dynamic relationship between political dedications and religious space in the case of Olympia, see Hölscher 2002, 331−345. On the interplay between space and architecture in Greek sanctuaries, see most recently Mylonopoulos 2011, 43−78. 12 Mylonopoulos 2006, 84−92. 13 For example, atimoi were not allowed to enter the agora, see Hansen 1976, 61−70. On female seclusion and access to public spaces, such as the agora, see Just 1989, 105−125. 14 Butz 1996, 75−95; Lupu 2005, 18−21. See also Mylonopoulos 2011, 269−291.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

124 | Joannis Mylonopoulos

Two Allegedly Clear Case Studies: Messene and Priene In the summer of 1962, the Greek archaeologist A.K. Orlandos made a significant discovery at a site that was to become one of the most important excavations in Greece in the second half of the twentieth century: Messene. While excavating the immediate surroundings of the Asklepieion, Orlandos came across a small tripartite shrine dedicated to Artemis.15 According to Pausanias, the celebrated Hellenistic sculptor Damophon, a native of Messene, made the shrine’s cult statue that most probably showed the goddess as a torchbearer, a phosphoros.16 Although the architectural design and the history of the shrine are remarkable per se,17 it was the finds within the edifice that were immediately recognized as consequential for understanding the placement of statues of priestly officials in the spatial context of sanctuaries.18 Eleven statue bases were found neatly arranged in a circle around the centrally positioned base of the cult statue (fig. 1). Three of them in the shape of a short column bore dedicatory inscriptions explicitly identifying the dedications as statues of priestesses that had been offered to the deity by a priestly association called the holy elders of Oupesia, a cult epithet of Artemis.19 The holy elders saw themselves as the descendants of the hero Kresphontes. One rectangular base had an inscription referring to the dedication of a statue depicting a young girl, Mego, who had served as a theophoros and a torchbearer.20 Another bore only the name of the artist from

|| 15 Orlandos 1962 [1966], 99−112θ. 16 Paus. 4.31.10. Based on Pausanias’ very brief reference to the statue of Artemis Phosphoros made by Damophon, most scholars presuppose the existence of a cult of Artemis Phosphoros next to one of Artemis Ortheia, see most recently Solima 2011, 198−203 esp. 201 f. In my view, Piolot 2005, 113−140 is certainly right in suggesting that there was only one cult for Artemis Ortheia, and Pausanias described her image using the term “phosphoros” in a descriptive way and not as a cult epithet. 17 See, in general, Chlepa 2001. 18 Most recently, Connelly 2011, 324−329. 19 SEG 23.215 (Eirana); 23.216 (Kallis); 23.217 (Claudia). All inscriptions date to the second/third century CE. 20 SEG 23.220, first century CE. Mego is not explicitly referred to as a theophoros or lampadophoros. Her service is referenced rather descriptively in terms of her bearing the image of the goddess in her hand and holding a torch at the altar of Artemis (l. 4: τεὸν χερὶ κρατεύσασαν, Ἄρτεμι, βρέτας / ἅν τε πρὸ βωμῶν σῶν ἔτεινα λαμπάδα). Orlandos 1962 [1966], 112στ and Despinis 1966, 233 associated a fragmentary left arm of a female statue with a small dressed herm in the hand found in the small edifice with the base inscription’s description of Mego’s

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Commemorating Pious Service | 125

Alexandreia who had created the statue, Demetrios son of Apollonios,21 while the text on another one was too fragmentary to be fully deciphered, though it certainly referred to the dedication of a statue to Artemis.22 Two additional bases set against the north and east walls of the northern aisle of the shrine referred to dedications to Artemis of a girl’s statue by her parents23 and a woman’s statue by her husband.24 Eight female statues in various degrees of preservation, as well as the left arm of a female statue bearing a herm, one female head, two left hands bearing a pyxis or an incense box, a fragment of a left hand, and the fragment of a small herm found within the shrine were associated with the bases and the images dedicated to Artemis as indicated by their inscriptions.25 Following Orlandos and G.I. Despinis, P. Themelis cautiously linked some of the statues to a ritual similar to that of the girls’ choruses associated with the performances of Alkman’s partheneia.26 More recently, Connelly has developed this connection further, claiming that the arrangement of the statues in the Artemision was meant to imitate and eternalize choral dances: “Within the cella of the new Artemiseion, known as Cult House K, were found bases for eleven marble statues of girls, deliberately set in a circle in front of Artemis’ image. I believe that the purposeful placement of these statues was intended to evoke the ring dances that the girls, with hands joined, once performed for Artemis. This configuration would render their circle everlasting, a perpetual gift of sacred kinesis ever pleasing to the goddess.”27 What needs to be taken into consideration, however, is that only one base, B 5 (fig. 1), within this spatial arrangement can be explicitly associated with the statue of a girl who held any kind of priestly office, the theophoros Mego.28 Three images certainly depicted

|| service. The existence of a further small fragment of a herm suggests that the theophoros-related imagery was used to portray women and girls in Artemis’ attendance in Messene. 21 SEG 23.225, Roman Imperial Period. 22 SEG 23.222, Roman Imperial Period. 23 SEG 23.221, first/second century CE. Themelis 1994, 115 dates the inscription to the first century BCE without giving any reasons for his dating. 24 SEG 23.219, first century BCE/first century CE. 25 Orlandos 1962 [1966], 112δ−112θ pl. 114−118. 26 Themelis 1994, 116. On Alkman’s partheneia and choral dances, see Calame 1997, passim, esp. 20−43. 27 Connelly 2011, 325. 28 Themelis 1994, 115 f. is certainly right in differentiating between mature priestesses of Artemis in Messene and girls who served in the sanctuary. Following Calame 1997, 258−263, he suggests, however, that the service of young girls, such as Mego, involved some sort of initiation rituals similar to those at the sanctuary of the goddess in Brauron, a practice unattested for the Messenian sanctuary of Artemis.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

126 | Joannis Mylonopoulos

mature women, the priestesses of Artemis. The second base associated with a girl’s statue does not belong to the circular arrangement.29 In addition, it is important to stress that the archaeological remains do not point to a chronologically closed ensemble, but rather to a slow accumulation of images that started, according to the epigraphic evidence, in the first century BCE and ended in the second or third century CE.30 The heterogeneity of the dedicators makes the interpretation of the evidence even more problematic. Interestingly, while parents offered the statues of the girls, the images of the priestesses exhibit an official concern, and finally a husband dedicated the image of his wife who was not explicitly identified as a priestly officer. The placement of statues of priestly officers near a cult statue is rather unusual,31 and, in the case of Messene, it probably represents a later rearrangement of the dedicated imagery.32 An equally significant but less problematic case is that of the statues of two priestesses erected next to the entrance to the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore in Priene.33 In the late fourth or early third century BCE, a bronze statue of a woman was set up on a round base, base A, to the north of the sanctuary’s entrance (fig. 2).34 According to the inscription, the lost image depicted Timonassa, daughter of Euthydemos, wife of Eupolis, and priestess of Demeter and Kore.35 Some decades later, the marble statue of another priestess – now in Berlin –

|| 29 The brief text of the dedicatory inscription (SEG 23.221: Θιώτας καὶ Σοφαρχὶς Τιμαρέταν / τὰν θυγατέραν Ἀρτέμιδι) makes no reference to either the reason of the dedication or Timareta’s exact association with the cult of Artemis. 30 The earliest relevant epigraphic evidence seems to be the inscription on the base of Theophaneia’s statue which Damophon, her husband, dedicated to Artemis (see n. 24), while the statues honouring the three priestesses, dedications of the holy elders of Oupesia (see n. 19), are the latest monuments. Chlepa 2001, 62 explicitly refers to the dedication of the statues as a process that took place gradually. In addition, she notes (p. 33) that some of the pedestals were slightly moved on their bases. 31 See also the famous Hellenistic statue of the priestess Aristonoe that was found inside the so-called small temple or temple of Themis in Rhamnous, Kaltsas 2002, 274 no. 574 with previous bibliography. 32 At the conference, Nicole Belayche suggested that the lists of priests inscribed on the temple of Hekate in Lagina might express the close proximity of the officials to the worshipped divinity, hence the importance of the priesthood, but might also be some sort of honour paid to the mentioned priests. Though an attractive hypothesis, I hesitate to accept it because there is nothing in the material inscribed on the temple’s antae to indicate that the lists of priests had honorific connotations over and beyond their ‘archival’ character. On these lists, see recently van Bremen 2010, 488−493. 33 Rumscheid 1998, 151−154. 34 Wiegand/Schrader 1904, 149. 35 I.Priene 172 + p. 311.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Commemorating Pious Service | 127

was erected on a large rectangular base, base B, even closer to the sanctuary’s entrance (fig. 2).36 The inscription on the base identified the woman as Nikeso, daughter of Hipposthenes, wife of Eukritos, and priestess of Demeter and Kore.37 The location of the statues suggests that they were meant to welcome visitors to the sanctuary that they served. Mantis reconstructed the statue of Nikeso as that of a hydriaphoros, a woman bearing a hydria on her head,38 and, based on this reconstructed iconography, A. Lindenlauf associated it with its placement near the water basin.39 Nikeso is portrayed as a peacefully standing female figure dressed in a chiton and a long himation, which leaves her right shoulder and arm uncovered as it drapes almost horizontally across the front of her body and covers both breasts (fig. 3). Since her arms are lost, the inscription on the statue base is the only element that clearly points to the priestly function of the depicted woman. Nikeso’s long hair, which falls in strands down her neck to the front, links the image to depictions of female divinities. Along with the inscription and the now lost attributes in the hands and adorning the head of the statue, the long hair must have underscored Nikeso’s function as a priestess of Demeter and Kore. Eule argues that the general iconography of Nikeso is bound to that of several other Hellenistic statues of women – not all of them depicting priestesses – in the eastern Mediterranean. Nikeso’s exact statuary type, however, had no parallels in contemporary or later statues, images in relief, or terracotta figurines.40 On the contrary, Connelly sees in Nikeso’s image “a standard type used for representations of Hellenistic priestesses in the centuries to come.”41 The inscriptions on the bases of the two statues have often been interpreted as dedicatory texts that identify Timonassa and Nikeso, the women represented, as the dedicators of the images.42 Interestingly, both texts follow the same formula with the nominative form of the depicted person’s name first, followed by the father’s name, the husband’s name, and the priestly function of the subject at the very end. The use of the nominative and the lack of a reference to either the honoured deities in the dative case or the reason for the dedication might indicate that we are dealing with some sort of a caption meant to identify the

|| 36 Kron 1996, 147 f. 37 I.Priene 173. 38 Mantis 1990, 98 f. 39 Lindenlauf 1995, 204. 40 Eule 2001, p. 41−49. 41 Connelly 2007, 138. 42 One should exclude the possibility that the statue originally depicted not Nikeso but Demeter, as has been suggested by Ridgway 1990, 211.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

128 | Joannis Mylonopoulos

images.43 If so, the images may have been dedicated by the women themselves, their relatives, or even the city. Thus we cannot assume a priori that the two images were private dedications.44 To my best knowledge, no additional epigraphic evidence for the erection of statues representing priestesses has come to light at the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore. Eule’s reconstruction of another dedication of statues in honour of two priestesses, Tyrinno and Phrattis,45 is based on an erroneous reading of an inscription, which explicitly refers to the offering of something (perhaps a statue) by Tyrinno, a priestess (of Demeter and Kore?) and her husband Phrattis for their son Epameinon, in accordance with a vow.46 However one prefers to interpret the cases of priestly statues in Messene and Priene, both the Artemision and the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore are exceptional cases when it comes to the strategies and decision-making processes behind the precise placement of statues honouring cult personnel within the fabric of an ancient city. From the point of view of archaeology, statues and statue bases are rarely found in situ. From the point of view of epigraphy, texts often refer to the exact placement of statues in a far too general way or not at all. Furthermore, the case of Dometeinus in Aphrodisias demonstrates that the priestly iconography of a statue does not always reflect the text of the dedicatory or honorific inscription on its base, and vice versa (fig. 4 and 5).47

The Agents As noted, scholars have often inferred that the statues of Timonassa and Nikeso in Priene were ones that the two women themselves had dedicated.48 This is not the only way that the inscriptions on the bases can be interpreted. Epigraphic evidence from Asia Minor makes it clear that there are only a few instances in which a female dedicator and the priestess honoured through a statue or a painting are one and the same person. Indeed it seems that it was extremely || 43 The most obvious parallel is the inscription on the base of the funerary Kouros Aristodikos stating only the name of the deceased in the nominative, see Karusos 1961, 35−39. 44 Kron 1996, 147 suggests that Nikeso dedicated her own image, cf similar arguments by O. Pilz and M. Horster in this volume. 45 Eule 2001, 207 no. 70. 46 I.Priene 170, second century BCE: ἱερῆ Τυριννὼ Ἐπαμείνονος καὶ Φράττις Πυθοτίμου / ὑπὲρ τοῦ υἱοῦ Ἐπαμείνονος εὐχὴν. 47 Smith 2006, 170−176 (C.H. Hallett). See below. 48 See n. 44; Lindenlauf 1995, 203.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Commemorating Pious Service | 129

rare for a priestess to dedicate her own image. One exception is the case of Simo (or Timo), wife of Zoilos, who dedicated her own image to Dionysos in Erythrai in the late fourth or early third century BCE.49 In light of the evidence, one should probably exclude the possibility that Nikeso and Timonassa dedicated their own images to Demeter and Kore, especially, as they, unlike the proud Simo, their exact contemporary, did not emphasize the fact that they had done so. S. Dillon is most probably correct when she suggests that the statues for the two priestesses were set up by the demos of Priene, though one cannot defend this hypothesis exclusively on the basis of the use of the nominative, as Dillon does.50 Oddly enough, in Messene the statues of the priestesses (and I exclude here the statue of the young theophoros) were not dedicated by family members. In Asia Minor and the neighbouring Aegean islands, there are few epigraphically attested cases of family members erecting statues in honour of a priestess or a priest. One of these occurs on the island of Kos, where Kallistrate the daughter of Kleumachos was honoured with a statue erected in the sanctuary of Asklepios in the first half of the second century BCE.51 Her husband, her two children, her daughter-in-law, and her two foster children were responsible for the dedication of the image. According to the inscription, Kallistrate was the priestess of Asklepios, Hygieia, Epione, Leto, Apollon Delios, and the deified king Eumenes. Another example of such a family dedication is the statue of Hageso, a priestess of Artemis Pergaia, which was erected in an unknown place in Rhodes, most probably the sanctuary of Artemis, in the first century BCE.52 Her son, her two foster children, and three grandchildren acted as dedicators. Similarly, in Priene, the two children of Apollodoros, son of Poseidonios, a priest of Zeus and the Kouretes, honoured their father with a bronze statue (fig. 6).53

|| 49 I.Erythrai 210a, cf with text and discussion in O. Pilz, p. 163 with note 50. 50 Dillon 2010, 41. Ma 2007, 207 f. recognizes in the use of the nominative a possible means to textually emphasize the status of the honoured person. 51 IG XII.4.2 978 (SEG 55.929), mid-second century BCE: Παρμενίσκος Ἱέρωνος / Καλλιστράτην Κλευμάχου τὰν / γυναῖκα, καὶ Ἱέρων καὶ Ἀρισταγόρη τὰν / ματέρα, καὶ Νάννακις Ἱέρωνος / τὰν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ματέρα / καὶ Παρμενίσκος Ἱέρωνος καὶ Παρμενίσκος / Σωστράτου τὰν μαῖαν / ἱερείαν Ἀσκλαπιοῦ Ὑγιείας Ἠπιόνας / Ἀπόλλωνος Δαλίου Λατοῦς / βασιλέως Εὐμένους. 52 IG XII.1 66, first century BCE: Ἁγησὼ Ἀρχεμβρότου / ἱέρεια Ἀρτάμιτος Πε̣ργ[αί]ας / Ἀρχέμβροτος Ὀνοσάνδρου / τὰν ματέρα / Διογένης καὶ Ἁγησὼ Πολυαράτου / τὰν μαῖαν / Πολυάρατος καὶ Καλλίστρατος / καὶ Δαμαρέτα Κλεωνύμου / τὰν τᾶς ματρὸς μαῖαν / θεοῖς. / Ἐπίχαρμος Σολεὺς ὧι ἁ ἐπιδ[αμία δέδοται] / καὶ Ἐπίχαρμος Ἐπιχάρμου [Ῥόδιος ἐποίησαν]. 53 I.Priene 186, early second century BCE: Βασιλείδης καί Καλλινίκη / τὸν αὑτῶν πατέρα / Ἀπολλόδωρον Ποσειδωνίου / ἱερητεύοντα Βασιλεῖ / καὶ Κούρησιν.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

130 | Joannis Mylonopoulos

Of course, it was not only children who honoured their parents’ priestly functions with statues, but also the other way around. In Priene, for example, a woman whose name is not preserved dedicated the statue of her son, Kydimos, a priest of Dionysos Phleios in the second or rather first century BCE.54 It is rather paradoxical that women who had served as priestesses rarely dedicated their own images,55 but were ‘allowed’ to honour their sons with statues if they happened to have served as priests. Kydimos’ wife, Philinna Habrotera, a priestess of Athena Polias was also honoured with a statue, though it is not clear who exactly was responsible for the dedication,56 as either her parents or her husband could have initiated it. Based on the epigraphic evidence, Kydimos’ family must have been one of the most prominent ones in Hellenistic Priene. His father or son, Athenopolis, was also a priest of Dionysos Phleios and received an honorary statue or set one up for himself in the theatre.57 As early as the late fourth century BCE, Menedemos celebrated his daughter Niko, a priestess of Athena Polias in Priene, by dedicating a statue of her to the sanctuary of the goddess.58 Compared to the number of family-funded statues for priests and priestesses, those that originated from public initiative are far more common. In this respect, the case of Pergamon is outstanding, since sixteen of its statues honouring priestesses from the second and first centuries BCE name the demos as dedicator.59 In one case, that of a priestess of Meter Basileia whose name is not preserved, the statue was probably dedicated by the gerousia.60 Eule rightly suggests that the high number of statuary honours for priestesses of Athena and the fact that the Pergamene demos initiated these dedications reveal the significance of this specific priestly office in the religious and, more importantly, political life of Pergamon.61 Nevertheless, because statues, especially those honouring female religious officials in other cities of Asia Minor such as Ery|| 54 I.Priene 162B, first century BCE (?): [. ca 3 .ι?]ννα Κύδιμον τὸν υἱὸν τὸν αὑτῆς / καὶ Ἀθηνοπ[όλ]ιος, ἱερητεύοντα / Δι[ο]νύ[σ]ου [Φ]λείου. 55 The aforementioned statue of the priestess Aristonoe from Rhmanous was also dedicated by her son Hierokles, see IG II2 3462. 56 I.Priene 162A, first century BCE (?): [Φίλιννα? Ἁ]βροτέραν? Πυθοτίμου / [καὶ —]δος θυγατέρα, γυναῖκα δὲ / [Κυ]δί[μ]ου, [ἱερη]τεύσασαν Ἀθηνᾶς / [Πο]λιάδος. 57 I.Priene 177. See also I.Priene 174 that deals with the sale of the priesthood to Athenopolis. 58 I.Priene 160, late fourth century BCE: [Μ]ενέδημος Εὐμένου[ς] / Νικοῦν τῆν θυγατέρα / [ἱ]ερησαμένην Ἀθηνᾷ / Πολιάδι. 59 Eule 2001, 204−207 nos 41−43. 45. 47. 49. 51. 53−58. 62−64. 60 I.Pergamon II 484. One should note that the word “gerousia” is not preserved; it is part of the missing text that was reconstructed in this way in the ed.pr. 61 Eule 2001, 95 f.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Commemorating Pious Service | 131

thrai and Ilion, were also state rather than private dedications, the situation at Pergamon appears less unusual. It seems as though the demos in Pergamon, the boule and demos in Erythrai,62 and the entire city in Ilion63 were the primary dedicators of statues meant to honour priestly personnel, particularly priestesses, while family members played a secondary or no role at all. One can observe a similar attitude in other communities as well. In the midsecond century BCE, people from other phylai who owned land and lived in the territory of the deme Koraza of Stratonikeia honoured the kleidophoros Demetria, wife of Herakleitos, by dedicating her statue to the sanctuary of Hekate in Lagina.64 Of course, if compared to the demos, the boule, or the polis in Pergamon, Erythrai, and Ilion, “the people from other phylai” in Stratonikeia were not an official instrument of the state; all the same, they did constitute a group of people beyond the family members of the honoured kleidophoros. Those dedications that originated from the wish of a group of priestly officials to honour a priestess or a priest represent a rather special case. In this context, images that were erected within the gathering spaces of religious associations and did not require – strictly speaking – any form of official sanction should be excluded from this category. The fact that all three statues of the priestesses in the small Messenian sanctuary of Artemis were dedicated by a group of priestly officers, the holy elders, is rather atypical. Priestly associations were, in fact, involved in honouring either other priests or simple citizens through various means, but there is only one other case – of which I am aware – of a priestess honoured specifically with images by priestly collegia. At the end of the first century BCE, various priestly associations honoured Kleidike, daughter of Asklepiades, an apparently exceptionally gifted priestess of multiple female cults in Kyzikos twice. In the first honorary decree, three female priestly associations jointly demanded the right to add a bronze statue of Kleidike near her brother’s image on a monument honouring her family. The entire compound stood in a civic space known as the “men’s agora” (ἐν τῇ ἀνδρήᾳ ἀγορᾷ). The text addresses Kleidike as priestess of Meter Plakiane and deputy priestess of Artemis Mounichia.65 The second decree documents the request of a group of ten male “watchers of the ornaments” – all individually named – to have a painted image, a pinax eikonikos (and not a statue as suggested by Connelly66) placed in

|| 62 63 64 65 66

I.Erythrai 69, second century BCE (?). I.Ilion 15−17, first century BCE. All three statues honour young kanephoroi. I.Stratonikeia 1433(SEG 49.1438). I.Kyzikos 1432. Connelly 2007, 141.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

132 | Joannis Mylonopoulos

a space called the parthenon in the sanctuary of Meter Plakiane.67 What exactly is meant by the term “parthenon”68 and whether it refers to the temple, a part of the temple, or a separate building is unclear. In this case, Kleidike is addressed as the priestess of Meter Plakiane, Demeter and Kore, and Artemis Mounichia.

The Reasons Admittedly, the process of identifying and understanding the specific reasons that led to the erection of a statue for a priest or priestess in a civic or sacred space is frustrating. In most cases, the preserved inscriptions – if they state reasons for the dedication at all – are generic and refer merely to the piety, the eusebeia, of the honoured persons69 or, more rarely, to their proficiency in performing priestly duties.70 Compared to the countless honorific inscriptions for athletes, judges, international mediators, or benefactors, those praising priests and priestesses specifically for the way in which they performed their duties offer no concrete details on the precise nature of their responsibilities or the manner in which they executed them. Even the aforementioned Kleidike is praised solely for her piety towards all gods and goddesses.71 Indeed sometimes the dedicatory inscriptions do not even reveal whether the person was honoured because he or she was a priest or priestess. For methodological reasons, one needs at least to consider the possibility that some of these individuals, especially male priestly officers, were honoured for other reasons and simply happened to be priests at the time of their celebratory commemoration.72 The few exceptions that contain more detailed appreci-

|| 67 I.Kyzikos 1433. 68 Epigraphically, the term “parthenon” as designating a building or a specific part of a building is attested in Athens (IG II2 1407), Brauron (SEG 46.133), Magnesia on the Maeander (SEG 15.668), and Kyzikos. While in the first three cases the association of the term with cult sites of virginal deities, such as Athena and Artemis, seems rather obvious, the existence of a parthenon in the sanctuary of Meter in Kyzikos cannot be satisfactorily explained. 69 On the similar situation in Athens, see Lambert 2012, 76. 70 See, for example, I.Ilion 15, l. 5−6: καλῶς καὶ φιλοδόξως κανηφορήσασαν / εὐσεβείας ἔνεκεν τῆς πρὸς τὴν θεάν. 71 I.Kyzikos 1432, l. 14−15: εὐσεβείας ἔνεκεν τῆς πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς καὶ φιλοστορ/γίας καὶ εὐνοίας τῆς εἰς ἑαυτὰς θεοῖς πᾶσι καὶ πάσαις. 72 For example, Mathys 2012, 268 with note 44 suggests that Philotera and Menestrate were honoured because of their priestly service with statues erected in front of the temple of Demeter in Pergamon. The inscriptions on the bases, however, do not refer to them as priestesses.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Commemorating Pious Service | 133

ation of the honoured person are associated with priests, not priestesses. For example, according to the preserved honorary inscription, Phaidros, son of Moschion, the priest of the Agathoi Daimones in Olymos, received a golden crown and a painted image not merely on account of his general piety, but more specifically because of his proper performance of sacrifices and more importantly because of the impartiality with which he distributed sacrificial meat among the participants.73 The rather elaborate decree honouring Moschion, son of Kydimos in Priene refers not only to his duties as stephanephoros, theoros, and priest but in concrete terms to the vast amounts of money that he spent on public services in the city. Accordingly, he was to receive inter alia a golden crown as well as two statues – one of gold and one of marble – that were to be set up ἐν τῷ ἐπιφανεστάτῳ τόπῳ τῆς πόλεως.74 Moschion, however, was not being honoured exclusively in his capacity as a priestly officer, but also as an important benefactor of the city.75 Interesting is also the case of Megabyxos’ honorific statue in Priene: In the early third century BCE, the boule and the demos decided to honour Megabyxos, son of Megabyxos, from Ephesos for supporting the completion of the temple of Athena. Among other tributes, a bronze statue of him was erected before the temple’s façade.76 The honorific decree does not refer to Megabyxos’ function as neokoros of the Ephesian Artemis. His priestly office is revealed only by the caption-like inscription on the statue’s base that was found during the German excavations at the site.77 Obviously, Megabyxos was not honoured in his role as an Ephesian priest, but as an important benefactor of Priene.

The Spaces Archaeologically speaking, the situation is extremely problematic, as most statues and statue bases were not found in situ but rather as spolia, more often

|| 73 I.Mylasa 869, late Hellenistic (?). 74 I.Priene 108 + p. 310, late second century BCE. 75 Similarly, Diodoros Pasparos received an honorific statue in Pergamon, the base of which was found during the German excavations. Although the text refers to his office as archiereus and priest διὰ γένους of Zeus, the Pergamene demos honoured Diodoros for organizing the festival of the Nikephoria in his function as gymnasiarchos, see Hepding 1907, 313 no. 36. 76 I.Priene 3. Traditionally dated to 334/33 BCE, the decree has been recently dated to the summer of 295, see Crowther 1996, 219−221. 77 I.Priene 231, early third century BCE.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

134 | Joannis Mylonopoulos

than not incorporated into Byzantine or even later structures.78 In Pergamon, the majority of statue bases were found either within the boundaries of the sanctuary of Athena or in the site’s immediate vicinity.79 Particularly interesting is the case of an unknown priestess whose statue was erected in the cella of the temple of Hera Basileia in the second century CE. The fragmentary text of the inscription reveals that the priestess served for twenty-two years εὐσεβῶς καὶ φιλοτίμως, but offers no information as to who dedicated the statue. A female statue found in the pronaos could have been associated with the base.80 In Priene the images of the priestesses of Demeter and Kore stood at the entrance to the sanctuary of the two deities (fig. 2). The find-spot of the base of the statue of Niko, the priestess of Athena Polias, remains unknown.81 Nevertheless, it is safe to assume that it originally stood in Athena’s sanctuary, probably either to the north or to the south of the temple, where further statue bases have been unearthed (fig. 7).82 Slightly different is the case of a priest in Priene who received both public and private honours. Shortly after 200 BCE, the demos of Priene honoured Apollodoros, son of Poseidonios, ἀρετῆς ἔνεκεν καὶ εὐνοίας τῆς εἰς αὐτόν with a bronze statue, the round base of which was found in situ at the northwest corner of the city’s agora (fig. 8).83 A second bronze image of Apollodoros was set up in the theatre; its base, with an inscription identical to the one found in the agora, was discovered in situ before the proskenion.84 Probably soon after the aforementioned public honours, Basileides and Kallinike, Apollodoros’ children, honoured their father with a bronze statue, the round base of which was found in situ in the agora next to the base of the publicly funded image (fig. 6). Apollodoros’ offspring chose to honour him as a priest of Zeus and the Kouretes.85 Interesting too is that while the public honour addresses Apollodoros and his actions in favour of his home-city in a rather general way, the privately || 78 Eule 2001; Griesbach (forthcoming). I suspect that objects with inscriptions related to priests and priestesses that are referred to as “blocks” in epigraphic corpora, are, in fact, quite often statue bases. 79 Eule 2001, 92−102. 80 Mathys 2012, 267−269 fig. 4. 81 Carter 1983, 251. Carter’s hypothesis that the head of a young girl (276−278 pl. 40c−e), now in the British Museum (BM 1153), can be associated with the statue base cannot be proven. Indeed, since the inscription is dated to the late fourth century BCE and the head to the later Hellenistic or even Roman Imperial period, they do not seem to belong together. 82 Carter 1983, 17. 83 I.Priene 236, early second century BCE. 84 I.Priene 237, early second century BCE. 85 I.Priene 186, early second century BCE.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Commemorating Pious Service | 135

funded image and its inscription specifically highlight his priestly office.86 In my view, the location in the agora chosen by the demos of Priene for the image of Apollodoros legitimized the placement of his privately funded image in the agora as well (fig. 9). In terms of incorporating priestly images into the spatial fabric of a city, the case of Kleidike from Kyzikos is telling. The painted image of the priestess was to be placed in the parthenon of the sanctuary of Meter Plakiane, where Kleidike served as a priestess.87 Her bronze statue, on the other hand, was to be set up in the “men’s agora” – a unique honour indeed.88 Kleidike’s bronze statue would not have stood alone, however, but complemented an already existing family monument near her brother’s image. Most likely only the pre-existent family monument honouring the male members of Kleidike’s family made the erection of her statue in the “men’s agora” possible. It is rather ironic that female collegia requested the right to erect Kleidike’s statue in the public space reserved for men. An intriguing parallel to this differentiation between male and female places of honour occurs in Messene where all honorary inscriptions and statues of priestesses and girls in the service of Artemis were found packed within the relatively small shrine of the goddess. Interestingly, in the year 42 CE the holy elders of Oupesia honoured the state secretary Mnasistratos, son of Philoxenidas, for his benevolent actions towards both the deity and the collegium of the holy elders. The decree was found in situ – not inside but directly before the shrine.89 Among other things, Mnasistratos was supposed to receive a painted image. The decree explicitly states that the document should be publicized right next to the temple of Artemis. On the other hand, Mnasistratos is defined as the one who will decide where precisely his painted portrait is to be placed, while the collegium is to dictate the text to be inscribed on its base.90 Although the statues of the three priestesses stood much closer to the deity, the inscription and most probably the painted image celebrating Mnasistratos definitely received much greater publicity.

|| 86 See, in general, Raeck 1995, 231−240. 87 I.Kyzikos 1433, l. 4−6: πίνακος [εἰκονικοῦ Κλειδίκης τῆς Ἀσκληπ]ιάδου ἀξιοῦν δοθῆ/να[ι τ]όπον εἰς ἀ[νάστασιν αὐτοῦ] ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ [τ]ῆς Μητρὸς τῆς Πλακι/ανῆς ἐν τῷ παρθενῶνι. 88 I.Kyzikos 1432, l. 5−8: ἀναθεῖναι εἰκόνα χαλκῆν Κλειδίκης τῆς Ἀσκληπιάδου ἀξιοῦν / συνχωρηθῆναι ἑαυταῖς τόπον ἐν τῇ ἀνδρήᾳ ἀγορᾷ ἐπὶ τοῦ προγονικοῦ αὐτῆς συνε/δρίου τὸν ἀπὸ δύσεως τοῦ ἀνδριάντος τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτῆς Διονυσίου τοῦ Ἀσκληπι/άδου. 89 SEG 23.208, 42 CE. See also Themelis 1994, 115. 90 Deshours 2004, 117−120.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

136 | Joannis Mylonopoulos

The Hellenistic period saw the rise of a highly specific and quite prestigious honour that was to continue into the Roman Imperial era. Civic honorific decrees and statues dedicated by authorities began to be erected in the most prominent places within a city or sanctuary. The formula used in these texts refers either to the ἐπιφανέστατος or less often the ἐπισημότατος τόπος.91 Unfortunately, the exact nature of “the most prominent places” is never revealed, so we do not know with certainty whether the ἐπιφανέστατος τόπος within a sanctuary was next to the (cult) statue, the entrance to the temple, or the gates to the sanctuary.92 It is unclear whether ἐπιφανέστατος or ἐπισημότατος should be associated with the most meaningful (next to the statue of the deity, as in Messene) or the most visible (next to the entrance, as in Priene) place. Be that as it may, out of the approximately 150−180 inscriptions from Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor and the Aegean islands that refer to the placement of something, such as an image (usually a statue, but occasionally a painting as well) or in most cases an honorific decree, at the ἐπιφανέστατος or ἐπισημότατος τόπος, only three can be associated with priests. The clearest one seems to be that of the erection of a portrait painting of Phaidros, son of Moschion, priest of the Agathoi Daimones at Olymos, in the most prominent place in the sanctuary of Apollon.93 Especially noteworthy is the addition that the honoured priest be asked what he considered the most prominent place to be.94 Thus, the definition of an ἐπιφανέστατος or ἐπισημότατος τόπος was clearly a highly subjective affair. Along similar lines is the honorific decree of the koinon of the Panamareis for Leon, son of Chrysaor, whom it addresses as a priest only in a general sense, because it was probably self-evident that Leon was the priest of Zeus Karios.95 While the honorific bronze statue was to be erected where Leon wished, the honorific decree was to be set up in the most prominent place in the sanctuary || 91 Griesbach (forthcoming); Ma 2013. 92 Occasionally, we get more specific information about the nature of the epiphanestatos topos. A Hellenistic decree from Stratonikeia, for example, records the decision of the koinon of the Chrysaoreis to honour Aristonidas, son of Aristeides, a native of Stratonikeia, for his role in the second Macedonian war between the Rhodians and their allies against the Macedonians. In the text, the epiphanestatos topos is explicitly associated with the temple and the altar, I.Stratonikeia 1418, around 190 BCE, l. 60−62: στῆ]/σαι δ[ὲ αὐτοῦ] καὶ εἰκό[να] χαλκῆν ἐν τ[ῷ ἱερῷ τ]οῦ Διὸς Χρυ[σαορίου] / ἐν τῷ ἐπιφανεσ[τάτῳ] τόπῳ παρὰ [τῷ ναῷ? πέρ]αν του βωμ[οῦ. 93 I.Mylasa 869, l. 10−11, second/first century BCE: στῆσαι δὲ γραπτὴν αὐ]τοῦ εἰκόνα [ἐν / τῷ ἱερῷ τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος ἐν τῷ ἐπιφανεστάτῳ] τόπῳ. 94 L. 11−13: αὐ[τοῦ / ὑφηγησαμένου, οὗπερ ἂν αὐτῷ ἐπιτηδειό]τατον [εἶναι / φαίνηται]. 95 I.Stratonikeia 7, second century BCE. On Leon, see most recently, van Bremen 2004, 207−244, cf. also Chr. Williamson in this volume, p. 226.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Commemorating Pious Service | 137

of Zeus.96 Although we might assume that the bronze statue was also set up in a prominent place in this sanctuary, the decree offers no evidence to support such a hypothesis. Just like Phaidros, Leon got to choose the place where his honorific statue was to stand. In Priene, the decree honouring Moschion, son of Kydimos, is very clear about the fact that both his statues were to be placed in the most prominent place of the city.97 Unclear in the decree is whether or not the statues were to be set up side by side, like the two bronze statues honouring Moschion’s fellow citizen, Apollodoros, son of Poseidonios (fig. 9). Furthermore, based on the text, it is impossible to conclude that Moschion was to receive two statues, one of them in gold, thanks to his priestly office. Although the decree praises Moschion’s pious character several times, it is rather obvious that the honours were meant for Moschion, the benefactor, and not so much for Moschion, the priest. Having one’s statue set up in the most prominent or visible point in a city or sanctuary was clearly exceptional, as demonstrated by the small number of inscriptions documenting this form of honour. Nonetheless, the fact that only three out of these ca 150−180 inscriptions relate to priests is rather striking, especially if we consider that most of the cases refer to honours for international mediators and rich benefactors. Even more puzzling is the fact that not a single priestess is honoured in this way.

Text versus Image? The Case of Priestly Imagery in Aphrodisias The archaeological evidence from Aphrodisias in Karia is especially critical because it is here that several images of priestly officials from between the early first and the early third century CE have thus far been identified as such. Nine statues appear to portray male religious officers wearing a specific kind of priestly costume consisting of a chiton, a himation, and more importantly a crown usually adorned with busts representing deities and/or members of the imperial family.98 In addition, a bust of a male figure was found bearing in his || 96 L. 18−19: στῆσαι δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰκόνα χαλκὴν ἐν ᾧ ἂν αὐτὸς βούλη/ται τόπῳ; l. 23−25: ἀναγράψαι δὲ {δὲ} τόδε τὸ ψήφισμα εἰς / στήλην λιθίνην καὶ ἀναθεῖναι ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τοῦ Δι/ὸς τοῦ Καρίου ἐν τῷ ἐπιφανεστάτῳ τόπῳ. 97 I.Priene 108, l. 316−318: τετιμῆσθαι δὲ αὐτὸν / καὶ εἰκόνι χρυσῇ τε καὶ μαρμαρίνῃ ὡς καλλίσταις καὶ σταθῆναι / τὰς εἰκόνας ἐν τῷ ἐπιφανεστάτῳ τόπῳ τῆς πόλεως. 98 Smith 2006, 154−156 (C. Hallett).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

138 | Joannis Mylonopoulos

left hand a miniaturized version of the cult statue of Aphrodite of Aphrodisias.99 A second-century-CE statue depicting a priestess with a crown of busts was found in the bouleuterion.100 The other statues were found in the bouleuterion, the theatre, the south agora, and at the agora gate.101 Only the bust was found in a private setting, in the important so-called Atrium House to the north of the Sebasteion. Worth noting is that not a single one of these images can be associated with a strictly religious context. More significant is the fact that the only statue here that can be securely linked to an inscribed base reveals no connection between the rendering of the honoured person as a priest and the reason behind the erection of the honorific statue. The early third-century statue of Lucius Antonius Claudius Dometeinus shows a man in chiton and himation with a very elaborate crown decorated with the bust of Aphrodite at its centre and four additional busts – usually identified as members of the Antonine and Severan imperial families – on each side (fig. 4).102 Still, the honorary inscription says not a word about the priestly functions of Dometeinus who is addressed as lawgiver as well as father and grandfather of Roman senators (fig. 5).103 Dometeinus’ priestly attire is comprehensible only when seen within the broader context of the entire epigraphic dossier on his career as stephanephoros, gymnasiarchos for life, and above all high priest of Asia.104 It is in this last function that Dometeinus is portrayed,105 despite the fact that he is not being honoured as a priest. Image and text appear as complements conveying a holistic iconotextual message about the character, life, and achievements of the honoured person.106 Yet at the same time they lead to a discrepancy,107 because, if read separately, the messages of the honorific inscription and statue seem to point in different directions: towards the civic officer (text) and towards the priest (image). The discrepancy – not only from the perspective of a modern viewer – between the message conveyed by the text of the honorific inscription and the impression transmitted by the statue raises || 99 Smith 2006, 238−240 (J. Lenaghan). 100 Smith 2006, 214−216 (J. Lenaghan – C. Hallett). 101 Smith 2006, 322−325, a very helpful list of the portraits arranged according to their findspots. 102 Smith 2006, 174 (C. Hallett). 103 Smith 2006, 71 (I.Aph.2.17). 104 Campanile 1994, 60; Smith 2006, 175 (C. Hallett). 105 On the contrary, Rumscheid 2000, 32−34 argues that Dometeinus is depicted as a stephanephoros. 106 Smith 1998, 66−68. 107 In the words of Blanshard 2007, 21 “art and text serve to extend, complicate, negate and consolidate each other.”

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Commemorating Pious Service | 139

the more general question as to whether statues meant to honour priests and priestesses always showed them in a way that precisely conveyed their religious office.108 Of course, it is important to keep in mind that it is not known whether all the preserved statues of priests and priestesses were meant to celebrate them exclusively because of their priestly functions.

Pausanias The value of Pausanias’ description of Greece is rather limited for the geographical scope of this paper. Nevertheless, scholars often use Pausanias’ text either to support interpretations of evidence from Asia Minor or to over-generalize. For example, Turner claims that according to Pausanias “statues of priestesses stood before the entrances to several goddesses’ sanctuaries.”109 Yet, if one excludes the statues of manteis, Pausanias appears fairly uninterested in priestly imagery. Only five times does he mention statues of priestesses, and never does he refer to statues of priests.110 In four of these cases, the statues he mentions were not at the entrance to the sanctuary, as Turner claims, but at the entrance to the temple.111 Only when Pausanias describes the sanctuary of the Eumenids in Keryneia, does he refer to several statues of priestesses at the entrance to the sanctuary,112 a spatial situation comparable to the placement of the statues of Timonassa and Nikeso in Priene. Moreover, Pausanias never uses the term agalma in order to describe the image of a priestly officer, since he seems to reserve this term for divine images.113 Three times he uses the term eikon and once andrias.114 In his description of the statue of Syeris, helper of the famous priestess Lysimache, which he saw on the Athenian Acropolis by the temple of Athena, he refers to the image by using the name of the honoured διάκονος in nominative.115

|| 108 Eule 2001, 58−65. 109 Turner 1983, 396. Followed by Kron 1996, 142. 110 Paus. 1.27.4; 2.17.3; 2.17.7; 2.35.8; 7.25.7. 111 Paus. 1.27.4; 2.17.3; 2.17.7; 2.35.8. 112 Paus. 7.25.7. 113 Pirenne-Delforge 2008, 271−278. On the use of the term agalma in ancient Greek sources in general, see Scheer 2000, 8−18; Bettinetti 2001, 27−37. 114 Andrias: Paus. 2.17.3; eikon: Paus. 2.17.7; 2.35.8; 7.25.7. 115 Paus. 1.27.4. The base that Pausanias saw has been identified with IG II2 3464. See also, Keesling 2012, 467−505.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

140 | Joannis Mylonopoulos

One therefore needs to be more cautious about including in Pausanias’ list of priestly images the alleged gallery of painted portraits of the priests of Poseidon from the clan of the Eteoboutadai in the Erechtheion.116 Pausanias refers solely to painted portraits of members of the clan in general and not specifically to those of priests.117 In the life of Lykourgos, Plutarch speaks of a single painting in the Erechtheion depicting two brothers, Habron and Lykophron, as priests of Poseidon.118 Thus one may presuppose that among the members of the Eteoboutadai portrayed in the Erechtheion were also some who had served as priests and were depicted as such. The portraits of the Eteoboutadai, however, were probably placed in the Erechtheion, in order to underscore the connection between the cult of Poseidon Erechtheus and the entire clan rather than as an honour solely to those members of the powerful Athenian family who had served as priests.

Conclusions No doubt exists about the significance of priestly offices in the religious, social, and even political life of any given city. Nevertheless, the honours that priests and priestesses received – especially when assuming the form of sculpted or painted images – can force us at least to re-evaluate the way in which we understand the exact status of priestly officers. Priests and priestesses received a plethora of honours. They were crowned with golden wreaths while their portraits were cast in bronze, sculpted in marble, or painted. Yet compared to the gargantuan piles of honours bestowed upon benefactors, athletes, or mediators, the honours for priestly officers appear somewhat different. Inscriptions from Asia Minor and the Aegean islands seem to contain no references to golden or

|| 116 Mantis 1990, 95; von den Hoff 2008, 125. 117 Paus. 1.26.5: γραφαὶ δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν τοίχων τοῦ γένους εἰσὶ τοῦ Βουταδῶν. 118 Plut. mor. 843E−F: κατῆγον δὲ τὸ γένος ἀπὸ Βούτου καὶ Ἐρεχθέως τοῦ Γῆς καὶ Ἡφαίστου, τὰ δ’ ἐγγυτάτω ἀπὸ Λυκομήδους καὶ Λυκούργου, οὓς ὁ δῆμος ταφαῖς ἐτίμησε δημοσίᾳ· καὶ ἔστιν αὕτη ἡ καταγωγὴ τοῦ γένους τῶν ἱερασαμένων τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος ἐν πίνακι τελείῳ, ὃς ἀνάκειται ἐν Ἐρεχθείῳ, γεγραμμένος ὑπ’ Ἰσμηνίου τοῦ Χαλκιδέως· καὶ εἰκόνες ξύλιναι τοῦ τε Λυκούργου καὶ τῶν υἱῶν αὐτοῦ, Ἅβρωνος Λυκούργου Λυκόφρονος, ἃς εἰργάσαντο Τίμαρχος καὶ Κηφισόδοτος, οἱ Πραξιτέλους υἱεῖς· τὸν δὲ πίνακα ἀνέθηκεν Ἅβρων ὁ παῖς αὐτοῦ, λαχὼν ἐκ τοῦ γένους τὴν ἱερωσύνην καὶ παραχωρήσας τῷ ἀδελφῷ Λυκόφρονι· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πεποίηται ὁ Ἅβρων προσδιδοὺς αὐτῷ τὴν τρίαιναν.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Commemorating Pious Service | 141

silver statues.119 Moreover, a priest or a priestess generally received only one statue at a time. Benefactors, on the contrary, often received multiple honorific images in all kinds of material, including gold and silver.120 When the reason for honouring a priestly officer is stated in a dedicatory or honorific text, then the inscription usually contains a brief reference to the piety of the priest or priestess. Rarely does it explain in detail what this piety may have consisted in, as it does, for example, in the case of Phaidros, son of Moschion, from Olymos, who apparently did a good job of distributing sacrificial meat fairly.121 But being honoured for one’s piety was never a priestly privilege, since one of the most common reasons for honours addressed to citizens was, in fact, their piety. In any case – at least logically speaking – priestly officers are expected to be pious towards the city’s gods. So why honour them specifically for something integral to their ‘job description’? In the case of other honourees, the lists of their praiseworthy actions and virtues are often endless.122 Perhaps the most crucial factor for understanding the status of priestly officers is the placement of their statues in public or sacred spatial contexts. There is an obvious tendency to keep images of female priestly personnel within or in the immediate vicinity of a sanctuary. Setting one’s statue as near as possible to the image of the god was a great honour, and as D. Steuernagel has recently pointed out, in many cases Roman emperors had their statues placed close or even next to a cult statue.123 To close the circle with which I began – the case of the Messenian Artemision – I propose that the arrangement of the statues around the image of Artemis Ortheia (fig. 1) was the result of a third-century-CE initiative inspired by and reflected in the trend to place imperial imagery close to cult statues. In any case, Messene does not represent the rule for staging and placing statues of priestesses in a sanctuary.

|| 119 The case of Moschion, son of Kydimos, from Priene who was honoured with a golden statue (see p. 133 with n. 73 and p. 137 with n. 97) is not clear, since Moschion, I believe, was primarily honoured as a benefactor rather than as a priest. 120 The case of the Pergamene Diodoros Pasparos who was presented with several honorific images, one of which certainly received cultic honours, is rather exceptional, see Chankowski 1998, 159−199. A similar case is Aulos Aimilios Zosimos who in the first century BCE was honoured with twelve images in Priene, which were to be erected in the most prominent places of the city, see Raeck 1995, 233 with n. 10. 121 I.Mylasa 869, l. 18−22. 122 Gauthier 1985, 56−59. See, for example, the late Hellenistic honorary decree for Melanion son of Theodoros from Iasos , which lists in 34 lines Melanion’s virtues and benevolent actions towards his city and its gods, his family, and his fellow citizens, I.Iasos 98, first century BCE. 123 Steuernagel 2010, 241−255.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

142 | Joannis Mylonopoulos

With the exception of the problematic case of the pinax eikonikos of Kleidike from Kyzikos, which stood in the parthenon of the sanctuary of Meter Plakiane and the image of the unknown priestess in the Pergamene temple of Hera Basileia, images of priests and especially priestesses were usually not placed within the temple but at the entrance to the temple, near the temple, or at the entrance to the entire sanctuary, as in the case of Nikeso and Timonassa in Priene. Never is an image of a priestess and only once is the image of a priest (or twice, if we choose to include Moschion) placed in the epiphanestatos topos of a sanctuary or a city, although the spot in which the two bronze statues honouring Apollodoros were set up in Priene, that is, in the agora right before the steps leading up to the sanctuary of Athena, certainly deserves to be called epiphanestatos (fig. 9). Images of priests were, in fact, set in areas outside the sanctuary, and individuals such as the Aphrodisian Dometeinus could be shown in priestly attire, even though the inscription on the base of his statue made no reference to his function as high priest of Asia (fig. 4 and 5). Of course, Kleidike’s statue was ‘allowed’ to enter the men’s agora in Kyzikos, but only in order to join a previously erected family monument. If female priestly images were intended primarily for sanctuaries rather than agorai, then why did civic groups or even the city itself, as in the case of Ilion, Erythrai, and Pergamon, initiate most dedications of priestesses’ statues? Is this a genuine indication of the importance of honouring a priestess with a statue or instead a sign that city officials were trying to control the dedication of such statues and, even more so, their exact positioning in the city? Priests and priestesses were important functionaries in every city, and honouring them in various ways was always part of the game. Given that people were willing to pay a great deal of money to buy priestly offices,124 holding a priesthood must have had the potential to enhance the prestige of an individual and of his or her family. All the same, the precise nature of the honours offered to priestly personnel and more importantly their contextualisation within and in comparison to those granted to other members of the same societies would probably reveal that priests and priestesses were – hierarchically speaking – not as highly regarded or at least not as highly celebrated as we have always presupposed them to have been.

|| 124 On the sale of priesthoods, in general, see most recently Buraselis 2008, 125−131 with previous bibliography.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Commemorating Pious Service | 143

Bibliography Bettinetti, S. (2001), La statua di culto nella pratica rituale greca, Bari. Blanshard, A.J.L. (2007), “An Athenian document relief,” in: Z. Newby – R. Leader-Newby (eds.), Art and Inscriptions in the Ancient World, Cambridge, 19−37. Buraselis, K. (2008), “Priesthoods for Sale. Comments on Ideological and Financial Aspects of the Sale of Priesthoods in the Greek Cities of the Hellenistic and Roman periods,” in: A.H. Rasmussen – S.W. Rasmussen (eds.), Religion and Society. Rituals, Resources, and Identity in the Ancient Graeco-Roman World, Rome, 125−131. Butz, P.A. (1996), “Phohibitionary inscriptions, ξένοι, and the influence of the early Greek polis,” in: R. Hägg (ed.), The Role of Religion in the Early Greek Polis, Stockholm, 75−95. Calame, C. (1997), Choruses of Young Women in Ancient Greece. Their Morphology, Religious Role, and Social Function, Lanham. Campanile, M.D. (1994), I sacerdoti del koinon d’Asia (I sec. a.C. – III sec. d.C.). Contributo allo studio della romanizzazione delle élites provinciali nell’Oriente greco, Pisa. Carter, J.C. (1983), The Sculpture of the Sanctuary of Athena Polias at Priene, London. Chankowski, A.S. (1998), “La procédure législative à Pergame au Ier siècle av. J.-C.: à propos de la chronologie relative des décrets en l’honneur de Diorodos Pasparos,” BCH 122, 159−199. Chlepa, E.A. (2001), Τὸ Ἀρτεμίσιο καὶ οἱ οἶκοι τῆς δυτικῆς πτέρυγας τοῦ Ἀσκληπιείου, Athens. Connelly, J.B. (2007), Portrait of a Priestess: Women and Ritual in Ancient Greece, Princeton. ― (2011), “Ritual Movement in Sacred Space: Towards an Archaeology of Performance,” in: A. Chaniotis (ed.), Ritual Dynamics in the Ancient Mediterranean. Agency, Emotion, Gender, Representation, Stuttgart 2011, 313−346. Crowther, C.V. (1996), “I.Priene 8 and the History of Priene in the Early Hellenistic Period,” Chiron 26, 195−250. Deshours, N. (2004), “Cultes de Déméter, d’Artémis Ortheia et culte imperial à Messènne (Ier s. av. notre ère – Ier s. de notre ère),” ZPE 146, 115−127. Despinis, G.I. (1966), “Ἀνδριὰς Ἱερείας ἐκ Μεσσήνης,” in: Χαριστήριον εἰς Ἀναστάσιον Κ. Ὀρλάνδον, vol. 2, Athens, 233. Dillon, S. (2010), The Female Portrait Statue in the Greek World, Cambridge. Eule, J.C. (2001), Hellenistische Bürgerinnen aus Kleinasien, Istanbul. Gauthier, P. (1985), Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs, BCH Suppl. 12, Paris. Griesbach, J. (forthcoming), Ἐπιφανέστατος τόπος. Untersuchungen zur Topographie antiker Ehrenstatuen im hellenistischen Osten. Hansen, M.H. (1976), Apagoge, Endeixis and Ephegesis against Kakourgoi, Atimoi and Pheugontes. A Study in the Athenian Administration of Justice in the Fourth Century B.C., Odense. Hepding, H. (1907), “Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon 1904−1905. II. Die Inschriften,” MDAI(A) 32, 241−377. Hölscher, T. (1999), Öffentliche Räume in frühen griechischen Städten, second edition, Heidelberg. ― (2002), “Rituelle Räume und politische Denkmäler im Heiligtum von Olympia,” in: H. Kyrieleis (ed.), Olympia 1875−2000. 125 Jahre Deutsche Ausgrabungen, Mainz, 331−345. Just, R. (1989), Women in Athenian Law and Life, London. Kaltsas, N. (2002), Sculpture in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens, Los Angeles.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

144 | Joannis Mylonopoulos

Karusos, C. (1961), Aristodikos. Zur Geschichte der spätarchaisch-attischen Plastik und der Grabstatue, Stuttgart. Keesling, C.M. (2012), “Syeris, diakonos of the Priestess Lysimache on the Athenian Acropolis (IG II2 3464),” Hesperia 81, 467−505. Kron, U. (1996), “Priesthoods, Dedications and Euergetism. What Part Did Religion Play in the Political and Social Status of Greek Women?,” in: P. Hellström – B. Alroth (eds.), Religion and Power in the Ancient Greek World, Uppsala, 139−182. Lambert, S.D. (2012), “The Social Construction of Priests and Priestesses in Athenian Honorific Decrees from the Fourth Century BC to the Augustan Period,” in: M. Horster – A. Klöckner (eds.), Civic Priests. Cult Personnel in Athens from the Hellenistic Period to Late Antiquity, Berlin, 67−134. Lindenlauf, A. (1995), “B57. Statue der Nikeso von Priene,” in: K. Stemmer (ed.), Standorte. Kontext und Funktion antiker Skulptur, Berlin, 204. Lombardi, P. (2009), “Αναθέτω ἐν τὸ ἱερόν. Esempi di regolamento della dedica votiva nel mondo greco,” in: J. Bodel – M. Kajava (eds.), Dediche sacre nel mondo greco-romano: diffusione, funzione, tipologie, Rome, 95−126. Lupu, E. (2005), Greek Sacred Law. A Collection of New Documents, Leiden. Ma, J. (2007), “Hellenistic honorific statues and their inscriptions,” in: Z. Newby – R. LeaderNewby (eds.), Art and Inscriptions in the Ancient World, Cambridge, 203−220. ― (2013), Statues and Cities. Honorific Portraits and Civic Identity in the Hellenistic World, Oxford. Mantis, A.G. (1990), Προβλήματα της εικονογραφίας των ιερειών και των ιερέων στην αρχαία ελληνική τέχνη, Athens. Mathys, M. (2012), “Im Glanz der Attaliden. Aspekte der bürgerlichen Repräsentation im späthellenistischen Pergamon,” in: F. Pirson (ed.), Manifestation von Macht und Hierarchie in Stadtraum und Umland, Istanbul, 261−276. Mylonopoulos, J. (2006), “Greek Sanctuaries as Places of Commuication through Rituals. An Archaeological Perspective,” in: E. Stavrianopoulou (ed.), Ritual and Communication in the Graeco-Roman World, Kernos Suppl. 16, Liège, 69−110. ― (2011a), “Das griechische Heiligtum als räumlicher Kontext antiker Feste und Agone,” in: ThesCRA VII. Festivals and Contests, Los Angeles, 43−78. ― (2011b) “Divine Images Behind Bars. The Semantics of Barriers in Greek Temples,” in: M. Haysom – J. Wallensten (eds.), Current Approaches to Religion in Ancient Greece, Stockholm, 269−291. Orlandos, A.K. (1962 [1966]), “Ἀνασκαφὴ Μεσσήνης,” Prakt, 99−112θ. Piolot, L. (2005), “Nom d’une Artémis! À propos de l’Artémis Phôsphoros de Messène,” Kernos 18, 113−140. Pirenne-Delforge, V. (2008), Retour à la source. Pausanias et la religion grecque, Kernos Suppl. 20, Liège. Raeck, W. (1995), “Der mehrfache Apollodoros. Zur Präsenz des Bürgers im hellenistischen Stadtbild am Beispiel von Priene,” in: M. Wörrle – P. Zanker (eds.), Stadtbild und Bürgerbild im Hellenismus, München, 231−240. Ridgway, B.S. (1990), Hellenistic Sculpture I. The Styles of ca. 331−200 B.C., Bristol. Rumscheid, F. (1998), Priene. Führer durch das Pompeji Kleinasiens, Istanbul. Rumscheid, J. (2000), Kranz und Krone. Zu Insignien, Siegespreisen und Ehrenzeichen der römischen Kaiserzeit, Tübingen.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Commemorating Pious Service | 145

Scheer, T.S. (2000), Die Gottheit und ihr Bild. Untersuchungen zur Funktion griechischer Kultbilder in Religion und Politik, München. Scott, M. (2013), Space and Society in the Greek and Roman Worlds, Cambridge. Smith, R.R.R. (1998), “Cultural Choice and Political Identity in Honorific Portrait Statues in the Greek East in the Second Century A.D.,” JRS 88, 56−93. ― (2006), Aphrodisias II. Roman Portrait Statuary from Aphrodisias, Mainz. Solima, I. (2011), Heiligtümer der Artemis auf der Peloponnes, Heidelberg. Sosin, J. (2005), “Unwelcome Dedications: Public Law and Private Religion in Hellenistic Laodicea by the Sea,” CQ 55, 130−139. Steuernagel, D. (2010), “Synnaos theos. Images of Roman emperors in Greek temples,” in: J. Mylonopoulos (ed.), Divine Images and Human Imaginations in Ancient Greece and Rome, Leiden, 241−255. Themelis, P.G. (1994), “Artemis Ortheia at Messene. The Epigraphical and Archaeological Evidence,” in: R. Hägg (ed.), Ancient Greek Cult Practice from the Epigraphical Evidence, Stockholm, 101−122. Turner, J.A. (1983), Hiereiai: Acquisition of Feminine Priesthoods in Ancient Greece, PhD UC Santa Barbara. Van Bremen, R. (1996), The Limits of Participation. Women and Civic Life in the Greek East in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, Amsterdam. ― (2004), “Leon son of Chrysaor and the religious identity of Stratonikeia in Caria,” in: S. Colvin (ed.), The Greco-Roman East. Politics, Culture, Society, Cambridge, 207−244. ― (2010), “The Inscribed Documents on the Temple of Hekate at Lagina and the Date and Meaning of the Temple Frieze,” in: R. van Bremen – J.M. Carbon (eds.), Hellenistic Karia, Paris, 483−504. Von den Hoff, R. (2008), “Images and Prestige of Cult Personnel in Athens between the Sixth and First Century B.C.E.,” in: K. Trampedach – B. Dignas (eds.), Practitioners of the Divine: Greek Priests and Religious Officials from Homer to Heliodorus, Washington D.C., 107−141. Wiegand, T., Schrader, H. (1904), Priene. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen in den Jahren 1895−1898, Berlin.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

146 | Joannis Mylonopoulos

Fig. 1 Floor plan of the Messenian Artemision © Athens Archaeological Society

Fig. 2 Floor plan of the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore in Priene © Foundation of the Hellenic World

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Commemorating Pious Service | 147

Fig. 3 Hellenistic statue of Nikeso, Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin © bpk / Antikensammlung, SMB / Johannes Laurentius

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

148 | Joannis Mylonopoulos

Fig. 4 Roman honorific statue of Lucius Antonius Claudius Dometeinus © New York University Excavations at Aphrodisias

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Commemorating Pious Service | 149

Fig. 5 Base of the statue of Lucius Antonius Claudius Dometeinus © New York University Excavations at Aphrodisias

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

150 | Joannis Mylonopoulos

Fig. 6 Statue base for a bronze statue honouring Apollodoros in Priene, after F. Hiller von Gaertringen, Inschriften von Priene, Berlin 1906, 136 no. 186

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Commemorating Pious Service | 151

Fig. 7 Floor plan of the sanctuary of Athena Polias in Priene © Foundation of the Hellenic World

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

152 | Joannis Mylonopoulos

Fig. 8 Statue base for a bronze statue honouring Apollodoros in Priene, after F. Hiller von Gaertringen, Inschriften von Priene, Berlin 1906, 148 no. 236

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Commemorating Pious Service | 153

Fig. 9 Plan of the agora of Priene © Foundation of the Hellenic World

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:52 PM

Oliver Pilz

The Profits of Self-Representation: Statues of Female Cult Personnel in the Late Classical and Hellenistic Periods* Abstract: From the fourth century BCE onward, portrait statues were privately erected by women holding religious office themselves or by a family member. Publicly decreed honorary statues of female cult personnel, however, seem unattested before the second century BCE. Drawing on a number of significant examples, this paper examines both phenomena with particular focus on the women’s family affiliation. The final part of the paper investigates the social function of the practice of setting up honorary statues.

Introduction The prominent role women played in many realms of Greek religion is largely undisputed, and women acting in the religious field may indeed have often enjoyed considerable personal freedom. Recent scholarship has highlighted the various tasks carried out by female cult agents, the continuous activity of women as dedicators of sometimes costly votive offerings as well as their presence as euergetai in the sphere of cult.1 What is problematic, however, is the notion occasionally conveyed in the archaeological research that women, especially female cult officials, acted completely on their own account and expressed their individual pride and self-confidence by means of expensive dedications or generous funding of festivals and sacred buildings.2 All too often, as in this case, our interpretation of the ancient sources is shaped by what we are acquainted with through our own social experience. Yet, the social fabric of a Greek polis is only partially comparable to that of our predominately individu|| * I wish to thank Ralf van den Hoff, Anja Klöckner, Uta Kron, Gary Reger and especially Marietta Horster for their helpful comments. Of course, all shortcomings remain my own. Finally, I am grateful to Lisa Yager for improving my English text. 1 van Bremen 1996; Kron 1996; M. Dillon 2002; Connelly 2007; Horster 2010. 2 E.g. Connelly 2007: 163: “[…] women made expensive offerings as signs of their own wealth, status, and religious responsibilities, with the intent of making lasting memorials for themselves and for their families.” For a more balanced view mainly based on the epigraphic evidence, see van Bremen 1996; Horster 2010: esp. 191.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

156 | Oliver Pilz

alistic Western society. It is unquestionable that it is not the individual, but the social group in its various manifestations, which is at the center of Greek social life. On that account, both the dedicatory and euergetic activity of Greek women should be examined, inasmuch as possible, against the backdrop of the women’s affiliation with the most important social group in this context, the family.3 Needless to say that the same applies to honors granted by Greek poleis to women in recognition of euergetism or the exemplary fulfillment of religious duties. To prevent any misunderstanding, this is not to deny individual agency to women acting in the religious field, but to underscore that their activity is consistently tied to family interest. Generally, the practice of setting up portraits of cult officials involves both privately dedicated and publicly decreed statues as well as, occasionally, painted images. Discussing some significant examples of portrait statues of priestly women and other female cult personnel, this contribution aims to make the family orientation of these monuments more apparent. Moreover, an attempt is made to elucidate the objective social function of the practice of erecting portrait statues in the public sphere, inasmuch as portraits of female cult personnel are merely a special case of this general phenomenon. By objective social function I mean the significance of this practice in the context of a general economy of practices as conceptualized by Pierre Bourdieu.4 According to Bourdieu, even practices which at first sight give the appearance of being disinterested ultimately comply with an economic logic directed towards the accumulation of capital in its different forms, such as economic, symbolic, social and cultural capital. What concerns us here most is symbolic capital, for instance honor, prestige or reputation, but it must be clear that all forms of capital are in principle mutually convertible. By the same token it becomes clear that symbolic capital is an essential source of power.

Early Public Honors for Female Cult Personnel Before engaging in a detailed examination of the statuary honors, a few remarks on the origin of public honors for cult personnel might provide a backdrop against which the practice of erecting public honorary statues can be better understood.

|| 3 Exemplary in this respect is van Bremen’s (1996) study. 4 Bourdieu 1990: esp. 112–134.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

The Profits of Self-Representation | 157

Honors other than statues, for instance exemption from liturgies and crowns, were awarded by civic bodies to cult personnel from the fourth century BCE onwards. Interestingly, the earliest honorary degree for an Athenian cult official we know of is issued not by the council or assembly but by a phylē, Pandionis, honoring the priest of its eponymous hero with ateleia.5 One of the earliest extant Greek state decrees honoring a woman holding religious office is dated to the mid-third century.6 Timokrite, priestess of Aglauros, was awarded a wreath of olive leaves (stephanos thallou) for fulfilling her duties in an exemplary manner.7 Found virtually in situ in a cave on the east slope of the Athenian Acropolis, the decree locates the sanctuary of Aglauros since the decision taken by the council and assembly stipulated that a stone stele with the text of the degree shall be set up in her shrine.8 The proposal for honoring Timokrite was made by Demostratos, son of Aristophanes of Paiania, who was probably her husband.9 What is more, the decision was based on the report of the son of the priestess, Aristophanes. The public crowning of Timokrite was thus actively pursued by her male family members. Awards of crowns might indeed have been the earliest honor bestowed by Athenian civic bodies on female cult officials.10 In 325/4 BCE, the Attic deme Aixone honored the priestess of Hebe and Alkmene with an olive crown.11 A contemporary relief from Athens shows Nike resting on Athena’s outstretched

||

5 IG II2 1140 (386/5 BCE). 6 Dontas 1983; SEG 33.115; Lambert 2012: 101–103 no. 8. 7 Horster (2012: 193) seems to believe that the priesthood of Aglauros had an annual tenure, but according to the regulation concerning the priesthood of Aglauros, Pandrosos and Kourotrophos in the Salaminioi inscription it was a genos priesthood held for life (cf. Lambert 2012: 70, 77, but contrast Lambert 1999: 114–115). Note that we do not hear any more of a joint priesthood of Aglauros and Pandrosos in the Timokrite decree and later documents. Most likely, the priesthood had become split up by the the mid-third century, but was still supplied by the Salaminioi genos. For further discussion, see Parker 1996: 311; Lambert 1999: 114–115; Sourvinou-Inwood, Parker 2011: 153. 8 Dontas 1983, esp. 50, 57–62. 9 Lewis 1983. Cf. Lambert 2012: 77. 10 For the public crowning of priestesses, see Connelly 2007: 203–205. Generally on the honor of crowning, see Scafuro 2009. 11 IG II2 1199, ll. 24–25. Not with a gold crown, a much more prestigious honor, as Turner (1983: 396–397) believes. There is, in fact, no evidence for Athenian female cult officials awarded with gold crowns in the Late Classical and Hellenistic periods, pace Turner 1983: 396– 397; Kron 1996: 142; Eule 2002: 212.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

158 | Oliver Pilz

right hand and crowning a smaller woman.12 The woman holds a large temple key in her left hand and can thus be identified as a priestess.13 A similar scene is depicted on an earlier relief found near the Erechtheion and dated to the second quarter of the fourth century BCE.14 Athena, wearing a helmet, is seated in the center and is crowning a much smaller woman in front of her. Even though this woman is dressed identically to the priestess crowned by Nike, it is far from certain that she is also holding, as Joan Connelly recently suggested, a temple key.15 It is generally believed that both reliefs originally belonged to document stelai. Crowning is indeed the most common motif in the reliefs decorating honorary decrees issued by the Athenian boulē and dēmos.16 However, especially in the case of the earlier relief, it would be rash to conclude from the crowning scene that the respective honorary decrees necessarily included a stephanōsis. As Marion Meyer has rightly emphasized, crowning scenes on honorary decrees should be regarded as formulaic expressions of honors in general.17

|| 12 Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Antikensammlung Sk 882. Meyer 1989: 301–302 no. A129 pl. 33, 1; Μάντης 1990: 41–42 pl. 12; Lawton 1995: 151–152 no. 164 pl. 86; Pirenne-Delforge, Georgoudi 2005: 29 no. 124 pl. 3; Connelly 2007: 95, 204 fig. 4.7 pl. 13. 13 Challenging the communis opinio that the honored woman is the priestess of Athena Polias, Lambert (2007: 130; 2010: 232 n. 35; 2012: 92 n. 94) has recently interpreted her as the priestess of Athena Nike – apparently because she is being crowned by Nike. The image of Athena on the relief, however, clearly reproduces Pheidias’s famous chryselephantine statue in the Parthenon holding Nike on her outstretched right hand. As Meyer (1989: 166–169, 244) has shown, the so-called Athena Parthenos became the dominant model for representations of Athena on Attic document reliefs just before the middle of the fourth century BCE. In addition, on a roughly contemporary relief (Meyer 1989: 292 no. A93 pl. 25, 2), a similar scene shows Nike crowning a male figure. Consequently, it would be unwise to infer from the fact that the kleidouchos is being crowned by Nike that she was a priestess of Athena Nike. 14 Athens, Acropolis Museum AM 2758 and 2427. Meyer 1989: 287 no. A76 pl. 27, 1; Μάντης 1990: 41–42; Lawton 1995: 125 no. 91 pl. 48; Connelly 2007: 96–97, 204 fig. 4.8; von den Hoff 2008: 118–120 fig. 5. 15 Connelly 2007: 96–97. Nevertheless, she is most likely a priestess; see Meyer 1989: 212 with n. 1490. 16 Lawton 1995: 31. It is therefore unlikely that the two reliefs belonged to a non-state decree or a dedication without inscribed decree, as suggested by Lambert (2007: 130 n. 158; 2010: 232 n. 35; 2012: 92 n. 94). As Horster (2010: 188 n. 52) rightly notes, the reliefs are unlikely to have been associated with deme decrees because Athena is absent from scenes decorating such stelai. 17 Meyer 1989: 136: “Die Bekränzung ist offenbar eine Bildformel für Ehrungen schlechthin […].” For honorary decrees in which crowning is not included, see Henry 1983: 23–24.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

The Profits of Self-Representation | 159

Publicly Decreed Statues of Priestly Women Among the various honors bestowed by Greek cities on their cult officials, including (gold) crowns and front seats at public festivals (proedria), a portrait statue in the public sphere of the polis was certainly not the least.18 This is, as we will see, even more true in the case of women holding religious office. Portrait statues of living individuals other than victors are first surely attested at the very end of the fifth century BCE. We hear of military leaders such as Alkibiades and Lysandros who were honored by the Samians with portrait statues dedicated in the Samian Heraion and at Olympia respectively.19 After 394, bronze statues of Konon and Euagoras, king of Cypriot Salamis, were set up in the Athenian agora.20 However, statuary honors for both male and female cult personnel granted by civic bodies, typically dēmos and/or boulē, are largely a phenomenon of the Hellenistic and Roman periods. At Athens, the earliest extant base of a public honorary statue of a priestess is dated to the mid-second century BCE.21 The inscription on the preserved statue base from the Acropolis clearly mentions the dēmos as dedicator of Philistion’s portrait.22 Philistion, daughter of Demochares of the deme Aithalidai, served as priestess of Pandrosos, and, even though the precise find spot of the base was not recorded, we may assume that her statue stood in the sanctuary of Pandrosos located immediately to the west of the Erechtheion.23 From the second century BCE onward, council and assembly of Pergamon regularly honored priestesses of Athena Nikephoros with a statue.24 Several bases of such statues, usually found nearby the sanctuary of Athena, have survived.25 One of the earliest bases also bears, along with the dedicatory inscription, the lengthy honorary decree.26 The priestess Metris, daughter of Artemi-

|| 18 Public sphere is meant here to include both civic sanctuaries and genuine civic space such as the agora. Generally on honors conferred on religious office-holders, see Georgoudi, Pirenne-Delforge 2005: 27–29. 19 Paus. 6.3.15. 20 See most recently Shear 2007. 21 IG II2 3481; Raubitschek 1945; SEG 39.218; Lambert 1999: 115; Eule 2002: 213 n. 32, 224 no. A 16; von den Hoff 2008: 138; S. Dillon 2010: 39, 56, 177 no. 10. 22 ὁ δ[ῆ]­μ̣ος Φιλίστιον Δημοχάρου Αἰθαλίδο[υ] ­θ̣υγατέρα ἱέρει[αν Παν]δρόσου. 23 Hurwit 1999: 204. 24 Cf. Eule 2001: 92–96, 205–207 nos. 42, 43, 45, 47, 51, 53–57, 62, 63; Connelly 2007: 140–141; Mathys 2009: 232–234; S. Dillon 2010: 38–39. 25 Cf. Mathys 2009: 232–233 n. 35. 26 IPergamon 167; Eule 2001: 93, 95, 125, 206 no. 53. Cf. Jones 1974: 186–188, 205 (149 BCE).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

160 | Oliver Pilz

doros, is honored by dēmos, boulē and stratēgoi with a gold crown and a bronze portrait statue to be set up in the sanctuary of Athena Nikephoros.27 In addition, the decree stipulates the text for the base of the statue, which is indeed identical with the first part of the inscription on the base.28 The fact that the dedicatory inscriptions in several instances include both parents in the honors has led to the assumption that the priestesses were still unmarried when they served their four-year tenure.29 In the case of Metris, the allusion to the penteteric Nikephoria, a stephanitēs agōn, in the dedicatory inscription,30 probably implies that the family of the young priestess substantially contributed to the organization of the festival from its own resources. Prosopographical evidence in fact shows in some cases that the priestesses belonged to elite families.31 A publicly decreed statue of a priestess of Demeter is attested at Erythrai in the second century BCE. Council and assembly honored Zosima, priestess of Demeter Thesmophoros, with a portrait:32 Ἡ βουλὴ καὶ ὁ δῆμ[ος ἐτεί-] μησεν Ζωσίμ[ην ---] γόνης ἱέρειαν Δ[ήμη-] τρος θεσμοφόρ[ου --] [Κ]οης ἱερασαμέ[νην ἔτη] τεσσαράκοντα [εὐσε-] βείας ἕνεκεν τ[ῆς] [πρ]ὸς τὰς θεάς. The fact that Zosima served as priestess for 40 years does not by any means indicate how the priesthood was appointed.33 In any case, the cult of Demeter Thesmophoros became increasingly important at Erythrai from the later Hellenistic period onward.34 Therefore, the priesthood of the goddess was probably supplied by women of the leading families of Erythrai.

|| 27 ll. 13–14. It would by hasty to infer from a single decree that all priestesses were equally honored with both gold crown and bronze statue (so van Bremen 1996: 183); cf. the careful remarks by Mathys 2009: 234. 28 ll. 1–4: ὁ δῆμος Μῆτριν Ἀρτεμιδώρου ἱρητεύσασαν τὰ ἔνατα Νικηφόρια τοῦ στεφανίτου ἀγώνος. 29 Fränkel, IPergamon p. 327; van Bremen 1996: 248 n. 37; Eule 2001: 125. Four-year tenure: Jones 1974: 188 n. 26. 30 See n. 28 above. Penteteric festival: Jones 1974: 184–188, 205. 31 Mathys 2009: 232 n. 34. 32 Pottier, Hauvette-Besnault 1880: 160–161 no. 11; IErythrai 69. Cf. Graf 1985: 278–279. 33 Eule 2001: 126 thinks of a genos priesthood. 34 Graf 1985: 273–280, esp. 273, 278.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

The Profits of Self-Representation | 161

Out of our current practice, one would certainly assume that the civic bodies bore the expenses of making and erecting these honorary statues. However, as in the case of Metris, honorary decrees of the Late Classical and Hellenistic periods only occasionally include any provisions regarding the costs of the statues. It could thus be argued that such provisions would only have been necessary if the civic body decreeing the statue had also taken on the expenses. Consequently, publicly decreed statues were, save a few exceptions with detailed regulations, paid for by the honorand or his/her family.35 On the other hand, one could claim that the civic bodies normally assumed the costs, but the corresponding provisions were not included in the inscribed version of the decree.36 Neither explanation is entirely satisfactory, and it seems more likely that both possibilities occurred equally as often. From the beginning of the second century BCE onward, there is an increasing number of decrees explicitly mentioning that the honorand or a family member bears the expenses for the statue.37 A Late Hellenistic inscription from Athens preserved in a sketchbook from the early nineteenth century provides a striking example. The fragmentary text records a decree of the Theoinidai genos38 apparently honoring a priestess of Nymphe with a portrait statue in the sanctuary “at her own expense.”39

Privately Dedicated Portraits of Female Cult Officials Already from the fourth century BCE onward, portrait statues were privately erected by male and female cult officials themselves or by family members. An early example is the statue of Chairippe, priestess of Demeter and Kore.40 The inscription on the preserved base found at Athens near the City Eleusinion reveals that the statue, a work by Praxiteles, was set up by Chairippe’s brothers Aristodemos and Philophronos. One of the few extant portraits of a female cult official is the marble statue of Aristonoe, priestess of Nemesis, dedicated by her son Hierokles in the sanctu-

|| 35 36 37 38 39 40

Lazzarini 1984/85: 94–95. Gauthier 2005: 49. Gauthier 2005: 49–62 discusses several instances. SEG 29.135; Vanderpool 1979. ll. 10–11: ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων. Cf. Connelly 2007: 144. Ορφανού-Φλωράκη 2002/03; SEG 51.215; Ajootian 2007, 25–27; S. Dillon 2010, 57, 170 no. 14.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

162 | Oliver Pilz

ary of Nemesis at Rhamnous.41 The inscription on the rectangular base designates the statue as a dedication to Themis and Nemesis. Like the priestess on the document relief in Berlin, Aristonoe is dressed in a chiton and a himation, but unlike the woman on the relief she is not equipped with a temple key. Her right forearm, found in the excavation but now lost, showed that she was originally pouring out a libation from a phialē. The base and statue were found, along with the well-known statue of Themis dedicated by Megakles, in situ in the southwest corner of the cella of the smaller temple of the sanctuary. By the time the portrait of Aristonoe was erected, this building was merely used as a treasury.42 The recent re-dating of the inscription to the mid-second century BCE by Stephen Tracy43 does not sit easily with the Early Hellenistic date established on stylistic grounds for the statue but could be explained by a later re-use of the portrait. From the mid-third century BCE onward, bronze statues of arrhēphoroi were dedicated by the parents or other relatives of the young girls at the Athenian Acropolis.44 Roughly in the same period, the first portrait statues of kanēphoroi also appear. The earliest extant base is dated to ca. 300 BCE and shows, in addition to the fragmentary inscription, four crowns.45 It has recently been argued that these crowns point to an honorary statue set up by boulē and dēmos.46 Crowns, however, occasionally occur on privately dedicated monuments and most probably allude to some official honor bestowed on the dedicant.47 Consequently, the portrait of the girl was a private dedication rather than a publicly decreed honorary statue. The first statue of a kanēphoros set up by boulē and dēmos is dated, according to the extant statue base, to the second half of the second century.48 This fits well with the fact that the earliest extant public

||

41 Athens, National Museum 232. IG II2 3462; Μάντης 1990: 103, 109–110 pl. 46 β, 47 β; Πετράκος 1999: I 288 fig. 201; II 108–109 no. 133; Eule 2001: 42, 142, 185 no. 57, 215 fig. 63; Kaltsas 2002: 274 no. 574 fig.; Pirenne-Delforge, Georgoudi 2005: 29 no. 126 pl. 3; Connelly 2007: 146 fig. 5.14; von den Hoff 2007, 24 fig. 28; von den Hoff 2008: 129–131 fig. 10. 42 Πετράκος 1999: I 200–202. 43 Tracy 1990: 165. 44 von den Hoff 2008: 131–137; Schmidt 2010. 45 IG II2 3457. See also Aleshire 1989: 90. 46 von den Hoff 2008: 133. 47 A mid-fourth century votive relief from the Athenian Asklepieion apparently dedicated by the group of six men depicted in front of Asklepios, Demeter and Kore (IG II2 4359; Neumann 1979: 73 pl. 47 a; Aleshire 1989: 94–95) shows five crowns with the names and patronymics of the honorands in the lower part. It is likely that the men privately dedicated the relief in order to commemorate a public honoring. 48 IG II2 3477.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

The Profits of Self-Representation | 163

honorary statue of an Athenian priestess was set up in the mid-second century.49 Indeed, even considering all the uncertainties of preservation, it would have been remarkable if public statuary honors were awarded to minor cult officials such as kanēphoroi much earlier than to polis priestesses. A dedicatory inscription from Erythrai dated to the fourth or early third century BCE shows that a portrait statue could also be established by a priestly woman herself:50 [Σ]ιμὼ τήν [δ’ ἔστη]σ[α] γ̣υνὴ Ζωίλου Δι­ο̣νύσωι [ἱ]ρέα πρὸ πόλεως Παγκρατίδεω θυγάτηρ, [εἰ]κ[ό]να μὲ[μ] ­μ̣ορφῆς, ἀρετῆς δ’ ἐπίδειγμα καὶ ὄλβου, [ἀθ]άνατον μνήμην παισί τε καὶ προγόνοις. The text, in particular the expression [ἱ]ρέα πρὸ πόλεως, has caused considerable confusion. Like many others, Merkelbach and Stauber in their recent edition of the epigram, probably correctly assume that Simo was a priestess of Dionysos. In addition, interpreting πρὸ πόλεως in a purely spatial sense, they think of Simo as “Leiterin der dionysischen Ausflüge und Picknicks auf dem Lande”, thus in charge of the Dionysiac excursions and picnics in the countryside.51 However, as Jeanne and Louis Robert have convincingly shown, the formula ἱερεὺς πρὸ πόλεως rarely has a spatial meaning, but usually refers to priesthood in a public cult financed by the polis.52 In this latter, figurative sense, πρὸ πόλεως designates Simo as priestess in a civic cult in contrast to cults established and run by other groups or individuals. In connection with a theonym, the expression πρὸ πόλεως frequently refers to the patron deity of the polis,53 but this is clearly not the case here.54 A translation of the epigram could thus run as follows: “I [S]imo, wife of Zoilos, priestess of the city, daughter of Pankratides, have erected this image of beauty and example of excellence and wealth, for Dionysos as an eternal memento for my children and children’s children.” As a priestess of Dionysos, Simo did not serve one of the patron deities of Erythrai.55 Still, due to the dramatic, comic or musical agones linked to the cult of the god, Dionysiac festivals enjoyed enormous popularity in many Greek || 49 See above n. 21. 50 CIG 2.858; IErythrai 210 a; Merkelbach, Stauber 1998: 378. See also Kron 1996: 149; Connelly 2007: 139. 51 Merkelbach, Stauber 1998: 378. 52 Robert, Robert 1983: 171–176. See also Schuller 2010: 74–79. 53 Robert, Robert 1983: 171–172. 54 Pace Guettel Cole 2007: 336: “priestess of Dionysus ‘Protector of the Polis’.” 55 Graf 198: 283–295.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

164 | Oliver Pilz

cities. That this was the case in Erythrai, too, is indicated by the fact that the sanctuary of Dionysos was equipped with a stone theater in the late fourth century BCE.56 In addition, during the third century, Dionysos prominently appears on the coins of Erythrai.57 During the same period, the festival of the Seleukeia was celebrated in the theater in connection with the Dionysia. The Seleukeia, honoring king Seleukos I, probably commemorated the liberation of Erythrai from the rule of Lysimachos after the battle of Kouropedion in 281 BCE.58 Furthermore, as Christian Habicht has shown, newly established festivals or agones honoring Hellenistic rulers were usually attached to the most prominent existing festival of a given city.59 All this suggests that the Dionysia already played an eminent role at Erythrai at least from the later fourth century onward, and there can be no doubt that the association with the Seleukeia further contributed to the importance of the festival. It is highly probable that Simo, as priestess of the civic cult of Dionysos, acted in this context. In later fourth-century Priene, Menedemos erected a statue of his daughter Niko, priestess of Athena Polias.60 Although its exact provenance has not been recorded, the well-preserved base is usually believed to come from the sanctuary of Athena Polias, the patron deity of Priene. The only priestesses of Athena Polias we hear of later are Habrotera, daughter of Pythotimos, and, probably, Zoillis, daughter of Athenopolis.61 Portraits of both women were included in a family group monument of the second century BCE along with statues of Kydimos, Zoillis’ brother, and other relatives.62 The inscribed base fragments found in the Westtorstraße immediately to the east of the Market Gate have tentatively been assigned to a foundation in front of the East Stoa of the market place (Mylonopoulos, p. 153 Fig. 9).63 The fathers of the priestesses, Pythotimos and Athenopolis, were almost certainly brothers, and we learn from the inscription that Kydimos, Zoillis’s brother, married his paternal cousin, Habrotera, who served as priestess of Athena Polias.64 Whereas the statues of Kydimos and

|| 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

Mellink 1980: 513; Sear 2006: 336–337. SNG Cop. 655. Habicht 1970: 85–87. Habicht 1970: 149–150. IPriene 160; Carter 1983: 251; Eule 2001: 104, 207 no. 67; S. Dillon 2010: 42, 53. IPriene 162. Eule 2001: 104–105, 207–208 no. 71. Raeck 1995: 235. For the stemma, see Hiller von Gaertringen, IPriene p. 154.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

The Profits of Self-Representation | 165

Zoillis were set up by their mother,65 the name of the dedicator of Habrotera’s portrait is not preserved.66 The statue group showing the children of Pythotimos and Athenopolis is one of the earliest family monuments, which was not set up in a sanctuary, but in the agora, the civic core of the polis. It is hard to imagine that such a conspicuous monument could have been erected without formal approval by council and assembly.67 At Kyzikos, in the early first century BCE, boulē and dēmos approved the request by three groups of female cult officials to set up a bronze statue of Kleidike Asklepiadou, priestess of Meter Plakiane and Artemis Mounychia.68 The place where the portrait statue was to be erected is precisely defined as “in the men’s agora by the synedrion of her ancestors, beside the statue of her brother.”69 In addition, the decree stipulates a lengthy text for the base of Kleidike’s statue.70 As the reason for honoring Kleidike, the decree mentions that she made a donation of 700 staters for organizing the festival of Meter Plakiane. Interestingly, here, the role of the dedicator is not assumed by the dēmos but by three groups of female cult officials: syntelousai to the adorment of Meter Plakiane, female hieropoioi known as thalassiai and hiereiai that are not further specified. As customary, the women could not directly appeal to the civic bodies. Instead, the initiative for the decree was taken by one Aristandros, son of Apollophanes. Another citizen, Apollonios Apollophanou, in all likelihood Aristandros’s brother, made the proposal for a second decree honoring Kleidike with a painted portrait to be set up in the parthenōn of the sanctuary of Meter Plakiane.71 The two brothers belonged to a prominent family of Kyzikos,72 and it can be assumed that Kleidike was somehow related to them.

|| 65 Eule 2001: 104 and Connelly 2007: 139 erroneously think that the statues were dedicated by both parents. 66 In contrast to Kydimos, Harbotera is not mentioned as a child of the dedicant, but as daughter of Pythotimos and his wife whose name is lost. It is therefore unlikely that her statue, as Eule (2001: 104 n. 304) argues, was erected by one or both parents. 67 Cf. van Bremen 1996: 179 n. 132. 68 CIG 2.3657; Michel 1900: 403–404 no. 537. Cf. van Bremen 1996: 171, 187 n. 157; Connelly 2007: 141. 69 ll. 7–8: ἐν τῇ ἀνδρῄᾳ ἀγορᾷ ἐπὶ τοῦ προγονικοῦ αὐτῆς συνεδρίου τὸν ἀπὸ δύσεως τοῦ ἀνδριάντος τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτῆς. It is not clear whether synedrion refers to a building (Lolling 1882: 154) or a family group monument (van Bremen 1996: 187). 70 ll. 10–16. 71 Lolling 1882: 154–159; Michel 1900: 404 no. 538. Cf. van Bremen 1996: 171 n. 132, 187. Connelly 2007: 141 erroneously states that the priestess was honored with a statue. 72 Habicht 2005: 94–95.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

166 | Oliver Pilz

Returning to Priene, the family of Pythotimos, in addition to supplying the priestess of Athena Polias at least twice, was also associated with the cult of Dionysos. The example of Erythrai has already elucidated the important role Dionysiac festivals played in the Hellenistic period. In the early second century BCE, Pythotimos, serving as agōnothetēs, dedicated an altar in the theater of Priene.73 The fact that the agōnothesia usually involved substantial contributions from their own financial resources74 is a further indication of the family’s elite status. Pythotimos’s nephew Kydimos appeared as priest of Dionysos Phleos in the family monument discussed above.75 In the later second century, Kydimos’ son Athenopolis acquired the same priesthood for the exceptional sum of 12,002 drachmas.76 Two decrees inscribed on the walls of the North Stoa honor the same Athenopolis and his brother Moschion for their civic generosity.77 The sanctuary of Demeter at Priene provides further evidence for portrait statues of female cult officials dedicated by the women themselves. Just outside the entrance to the temenos (Mylonopoulos, p. 146 Fig. 2), an inscribed statue base was found along with a marble statue whose plinth exactly fits in the cutting on the upper side of the base (Mylonopoulos, p. 147 Fig. 3).78 It is usually assumed that the inscription identifies the portrayed women as Nikeso, priestess of Demeter and Kore:79 Νι[κ]ησὼ Ἱπποσθένους Ẹὐκρίτου δὲ γυνή ἱερῆ Δήμητρος καὶ Κόρης Based on the letter forms of the inscription, the headless statue has been dated to the first half of the third century BCE. Nikeso’s left arm is tightly wrapped in the himation, while her right arm, which is now lost, was probably raised to about shoulder height. Challenging earlier reconstructions,80 Uta Kron has con-

|| 73 IPriene 175. 74 Quaß 1993: 275–285. 75 IPriene 162 B. 76 IPriene 174. 77 IPriene 107, 108. For Athenopolis and Moschion, see Quaß 1993: 111, 197–198, 244. 78 Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Antikensammlung Sk 1928. Μάντης 1990: 98–99 pl. 44 β; Ridgway 1990: 210–212; Kron 1996: 146–148 fig. 4; Eule 2001: 43–44, 105–107, 120, 179–180 no. 43 fig. 71; Connelly 2007: 137–139 fig. 5.12; von den Hoff 2007: 23–24 fig. 27; S. Dillon 2010: 77–78 figs. 2, 65. 79 IPriene 173. Because of the unusual long hair, the statue has been occasionally identified as an image of the goddess Demeter. For further discussion of this issue, see Ridgway 1990: 210– 211 and Kron 1996: 147. 80 Μάντης 1990: 98–99.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

The Profits of Self-Representation | 167

vincingly argued that the statue held a torch in her right hand.81 Near the statue of Nikeso, the excavators found a cylindrical base for the bronze statue of a further priestess of Demeter and Kore, Timonassa.82 According to the letter forms of the dedicatory inscription on the base, the statue of Timonassa was erected in the fourth or third century BCE. It is open to question whether or not both statues originally stood inside the enclosure and were moved to the entrance at a later time.83 Be that as it may, a location immediately in front of the entrance is fairly prominent, since every visitor to the sanctuary had to pass the statues. Stressing the absence of the name of the dedicator in the inscriptions, Sheila Dillon has recently argued that the statues of Nikeso and Timonassa were “set up by the people of Priene rather than by members of the women’s families.”84 In order to strengthen her argument, Dillon points to a roughly contemporary inscription on the base of the publicly decreed statue of Megabyxos, neokoros of Artemis at Ephesos, showing a similar nominative formula.85 This is indeed one of the rare instances in which both honorary decree and statue base can be studied together.86 Boulē and dēmos of Priene honored Megabyxos with a gold crown and a bronze statue to be erected in front of the temple of Athena Polias. Given the fact that in third-century Priene even foreign benefactors were only rarely granted a portrait statue,87 it seems quite unlikely that two otherwise unattested local priestesses received this honor in the fourth or third centuries. In addition, not a single decree honoring a female cult official and not a single base of a publicly erected statue for a woman is known from Hellenistic Priene.88 Even though an explicit dedicatory element is missing, the two inscriptions mentioning Nikeso and Timonassa correspond to the dedicatory formula of the type ὁ δεῖνα (ἀνέθεκε).89 A comparison with two dedicatory inscriptions from || 81 Kron 1996: 148. See also S. Dillon 2010: 77–78. 82 IPriene 172, p. 311; Eule 2001: 105, 106, 207 no. 69; S. Dillon 2010: 41. 83 Cf. Kron 1996: 148 n. 48. Paus. 7.25.7 mentions marble statues of women, reportedly portraits of former priestesses, standing κατὰ τὴν ἔσοδον ἐς τὸ ἱερὸν (of the Eumenids at Keryneia). 84 S. Dillon 2010: 41. 85 IPriene 231: [Μεγάβυξος] Μεγαβύξου νεωκόρος τῆς Ἀρτέμιδος τῆς ἐν Ἐφέσωι. Cf. Ma 2007: 208. For the cult officials bearing the priestly title Megabyxos, see Bremmer 2008: 38–42. 86 Decree: IPriene 3, now dated to the 290s by Crowther 1996. 87 van Bremen 1996: 180. 88 van Bremen 1996: 182: “Even if we allow for the relative scarcity of female benefactors and liturgist at this time, it is still significant that here even priestesses were not (yet) deemed worthy of public statuary honors.”; Eule 2001: 125. 89 Cf. the inscription on the base of Simo’s portrait statue discussed above.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

168 | Oliver Pilz

the sanctuary of Athena at Lindos on Rhodos will further clarify the case. Riet van Bremen has observed that all statues set up in this sanctuary in the fourth century were explicitly dedicated to the goddess.90 As an example, van Bremen mentions a base which originally carried a male bronze statue, presumably showing the priest Pythokles.91 Subsequently, the dedicatory element was occasionally replaced by a genitive construction depending on ἱερατεύσας as the inscription on a base of the mid-third century indicates.92 It was apparently customary for the priests of Athena, after their term of service, to dedicate their portraits in the sanctuary, and there is no evidence that these statues were anything other than privately erected anathēmata. Consequently, the individual mentioned in the nominative case is the dedicant himself. Most likely, the same is true for the two dedicatory inscriptions from Priene. Similar to Simo’s portrait, the statues of Nikeso and Timonassa were thus privately set up by the priestesses themselves.93 Another inscription in the nominative case found inside the same precinct of Demeter and Kore needs further explanation.94 The short text, which mentions the priestess Tyrinno, daughter of Epameinon, and her husband Phrattis, son of Pythotimos, in the nominative, has been misinterpreted by referring to a dedication of portrait statues of two priestesses, Tyrinno and Phrattis, by Tyrinno’s brother.95 However, as the formula ὁ δεῖνα (ἀνέθηκε) ὑπὲρ τοῦ δεῖνος εὐχήν clearly indicates, Tyrinno and Phrattis made a dedication in fulfillment of a vow to the benefit of their son, Epameinon.96 Since the rather narrow block, showing seven dowel holes in the top, is hardly suitable for one or more life-size bronze statues, the character of the dedication remains unclear. Interestingly, based on their patronymics, we may associate Phrattis and Tyrinno with the family of Pythotimos, father of Habrotera.97 Among the descendants of Diokles, son of Pythotimos, who set up a bronze statue of their progenitor on the agora in the second half of the second century BCE, the name Epameinon appears.98 In || 90 For the following, see van Bremen 1996: 177. 91 ILindos 58 (ca. 311): Πυθοκλῆς Παυσία ἱερατεύσας Ἀθαναίαι Λίνδιαι. 92 ILindos 91, l. 2: ἱερατεύσας Ἀθανᾶς Λινδίας. Again the base carried a male bronze statue. 93 So already Kron 1996: 146. 94 IPriene 170: ἱερῆ Τυριννὼ Ἐπαμείνονος καὶ Φράττις Πυθοτίμου ὑπὲρ τοῦ υἱοῦ Ἐπαμείνονος ­ε̣ὐχήν. (second century BCE). 95 Eule 2001: 106, 121, 207 no. 70; Connelly 2007: 139. 96 Cf. Lazzarini 1989/90: 849–850, 855. For the name Phrattis, see LGPN V.A 458. 97 See above n. 61. 98 IPriene 268 I B. The monument included a statue of Diokles’s brother Athenopolis who is honored for his athletic victories in two epigrams inscribed on the base: Merkelbach, Stauber 1998: 291–292.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

The Profits of Self-Representation | 169

fact, it would be tempting to see in Phrattis’s father Pythotimos, the son of Diokles. Whatever the exact relation might have been, the idea is intriguing that the family of Pythotimos also supplied, with Phrattis’s wife Tyrinno, the polis priestess of Demeter and Kore.

Some Conclusions Overall, the evidence considered so far shows that female cult officials were only reluctantly honored with portrait statues by civic bodies. In Hellenistic Athens, the usual and rather modest form of honoring both male and female cult officials was crowning them with a wreath of leaves (stephanos thallou). Publicly decreed honorary statues of female cult personnel first appeared in Athens and elsewhere during the second century BCE.99 It is probably not coincidental that this happened at the same time when, as we have seen, the honorands themselves or family members increasingly assumed the expenses for the statues.100 On the contrary, it rather seems that the latter development made it possible to bestow honorary statues to women in the first place. Even though dēmos and boulē appeared as dedicators in the inscriptions on the bases of these statues, it would be misleading to conclude that the civic bodies were “taking over the role of the relatives.”101 In many cases, the civic bodies might have merely provided an official text for the dedicatory inscription, while the statue was privately funded by the family of the honorand. Privately erected statues of priestly women are attested as early as the first half of the fourth century. However, the fact that these statues are private dedications does not preclude that they might have occasionally commemorated other public honors awarded by civic bodies. It has become clear that it was customary to set up honorary decrees for cult officials in the relevant sanctuaries. The same applies to portrait statues of cult personnel regardless of whether these were privately erected or publicly decreed statues. To set up portraits of priests and priestesses at their place of activity is paralleled by the common practice of associating honorary statues of benefactors with their building projects. In the early third century, Megabyxos was granted a portrait statue to be erected not in the market place but in front of

|| 99 Cf. van Bremen 1996: 183–185 on honorary statues for women in general. 100 See above n. 37. 101 van Bremen 1996: 183.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

170 | Oliver Pilz

the temple of Athena Polias at Priene completed with his financial assistance.102 At Kyme, in the last decades of the second century BCE, the benefactress Archippe was honored by the dēmos with a bronze statue group including her portrait crowned by Demos.103 On the same base as a portrait of Archippe’s father, this statue group was placed in front of the newly-built bouleutērion funded by her.104 It is therefore not surprising that honorary statues of cult personnel are largely absent from the agorai of Greek cities.105 Nevertheless, in the context of family group monuments, as the example of Pythotimos’s privately erected family monument in the market place of Priene shows, reference could be made to religious offices held by both male and female family members.

The Economic Logic of Statuary Honors To set up a life-size bronze or marble statue means spending a considerable sum of money, probably several thousand drachmas.106 One could now, as Sheila Dillon did, wonder why somebody would expend significant funds on “[...] an object that was in essence useless.”107 But this would mean applying a capitalist logic of economic interest to a pre-capitalist society; according to this, any investment would have to pay off with a material profit. Even though practices oriented toward non-material gains frequently seem to escape our own narrow logic of economic interest, each and every practice complies with an economic logic.108 If this is true, how can the economic logic of privately dedicating a portrait statue be described? Here, as is the case with most euergetic activity, an invest-

|| 102 See above n. 86. Cf. Carter 1983: 36–37. 103 SEG 33.1035, ll. 1–3. Cf. Eule 2001: 202–203 no. 29. Generally on Archippe, see van Bremen 1996: 13–19. 104 SEG 33.1037, ll. 12–15. Cf. Meier 2012: 342–353, esp. 349. 105 What is intriguing is the case of a privately erected statue of Apollodoros, priest of Zeus Basileus and the Kouretes (IPriene 186, second century BCE). The base of his portrait (Mylonopoulos, p. 150 Fig. 6) was found in situ in the northwest corner of the agora near the stairs leading to the sanctuary of Athena Polias. One can only speculate whether a sanctuary or altar of Zeus Basileus and the Kouretes was situated nearby or a particularly prominent location was chosen for the statue. 106 On prices of statues, see Gauthier 2000: 48 with n. 31. 107 S. Dillon 2010: 9. 108 Bourdieu 1990: 122.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

The Profits of Self-Representation | 171

ment of economic capital is made in order to appropriate not material, but symbolic profit.109 As in our own culture, this process of converting economic capital into symbolic capital is usually disguised by giving it the appearance of generous disinterestedness. In fact, what social actors tell us about the reasons they pursue certain practices frequently obscures the underlying objective social function these practices fulfill. Simo, by contrast, is remarkably explicit about the motivation to set up her statue: it is aimed to serve as an example of ἀρετή (excellence) and ὄλβος (wealth) for her descendants. As a socially recognized and officially approved way for the publicly visible display of wealth, the practice of erecting a costly statue for oneself or a family member is a means of exhibiting power in the first place. Thereby, the practice not only contributes to the legitimation, but, to a certain extent, also to the reproduction of the prevailing social hierarchies in so far as the acquired symbolic capital allows the family to assert future claims to public offices, priesthoods or other privileges. This is not to deny that aspects such as commemoration, recognition for pious service, etc., were important and have provided the conscious motivation to erect a statue in several cases.110 But it would be fallacious, by exclusively drawing on these factors, to neglect the objective social function of the practice, that is, ultimately, to legitimize and perpetuate existing relations of domination. The self-representation of members of the dominant social groups is never an end in itself but an essential means of transforming de facto differences in the distribution of power into socially recognized distinctions. As a matter of fact, the majority of the portrait statues of female cult officials were set up by male family members such as fathers, husbands or sons, and only occasionally do mothers alone appear as dedicators. Furthermore, in the few cases in which priestesses dedicate the statues themselves, the father and husband are consistently mentioned. All these monuments are therefore better understood in the context of the family affiliation of the portrayed women. Especially among the elite, strong family ties were a sine qua non for the preservation of the social and economic status that the group had achieved. This is in accordance with the fact that honors for female cult personnel, as the cases of Timokrite, and possibly Kleidike, indicate, were actively pursued by their male family members in various cases. The example of Kleidike, priestess of Meter Plakiane, who was honored with a bronze statue for funding the festival of the

|| 109 For the following, see Bourdieu 1990: 112–134. 110 In both decrees honoring female cult personnel and dedicatory inscriptions of statues showing priestly women eusebeia is repeatedly praised as the women’s key virtue.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

172 | Oliver Pilz

goddess, points to the crucial importance of personal financial contributions in this context. If a larger number of honorary decrees were preserved, we would probably see that women holding religious office were frequently awarded with public statuary honors in recognition of their role as “cultic” benefactors. Here, ultimately, it becomes clear that only families that already control significant accumulations of economic, symbolic and social capital could aim for a publicly decreed portrait of a family member. Whenever the costs are assumed by the honorand or a family member, the establishment of a publicly decreed honorary statue can be seen as a conversion of economic capital into symbolic capital which might, in turn, be employed in order to appropriate future profits. Yet, it would be simplistic to reduce the whole process to this aspect. In a truly structuralist manner, euergetism is, by analogy with gift exchange, frequently conceived of as a cycle of reciprocity. In this abstract model, acts of benefaction and their recognition are, so to speak, mechanically linked: euergetism automatically results in recognition that again elicits further benefactions, and so on. In reality, however, there is no automatism in this process.111 Acts of benefaction may, for any number of reasons, be rejected altogether by the recipients. In other instances, for whatever reasons, benefactors may be denied an appropriate recognition. Even though such cases are largely undocumented during the period in question, they must have occurred with some frequency. In brief, a certain degree of uncertainty always remains with respect to the recognition of euergetic activity. As a result, benefactors are likely to adopt strategies in order to achieve the desired outcome. This is all the more true as soon as appropriate recognition of beneficence essentially contributes to legitimizing relations of domination. In the specific case of honorary statues decreed by civic bodies, families might have had to expend, under certain conditions, considerable social capital to obtain a positive decision by dēmos and boulē.

|| 111 Bourdieu 1990: 98–111.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

The Profits of Self-Representation | 173

Bibliography Ajootian, A. (2007). “Praxiteles and Fourth-Century Athenian Portraiture.” In: Schulz, P, R. von den Hoff (eds.), Early Hellenistic Portraiture: Image, Style, Context. Cambridge. 13–33. Aleshire, S. B. (1989). The Athenian Asklepieion: The People, Their Dedications, and the Inventories. Amsterdam. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Translated by R. Nice. Stanford. van Bremen, Riet (1996). The Limits of Participation: Women and Civic Life in the Greek East in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Amsterdam. Bremmer, J. (2008). “Priestly Personnel of the Ephesian Artemision: Anatolian, Persian, Greek, and Roman Aspects.” In: Dignas, Trampedach 2008: 37–53. Carter, J. C. (1983). The Sculpture of the Sanctuary of Athena Polias at Priene. London. Connelly, J. B. (2007). Portrait of a Priestess: Woman and Ritual in Ancient Greece. Princeton. Crowther, C. V. (1996). “I.Priene 8 and the History of Priene in the Early Hellenistic Period.” Chiron: 195–250. Dignas, B., K. Trampedach (eds.) (2008). Practitioners of the Divine: Greek Priests and Religious Officials from Homer to Heliodorus. Washington, D.C. Dillon, M. (2002). Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion. London. Dillon, S. (2010). The Female Portrait Statue in the Greek World. Cambridge. Dontas, G. S. (1983). “The True Aglaurion.”. Hesperia 52: 48–63. Eule, J. C. (2001). Hellenistische Bürgerinnen aus Kleinasien. Weibliche Gewandstatuen in ihrem antiken Kontext. Istanbul. ― (2002). “Die statuarische Darstellung von Frauen in Athen im 4. und frühen 3. Jh. v. Chr.” In: Blum, H. (ed.), Brückenland Anatolien? Ursachen, Extensität und Modi des Kulturaustausches zwischen Anatolien und seinen Nachbarn. Tübingen. 205–229 Gauthier, P. (2000). “Le décret de Thessalonique pour Parnassos: l’évergète et la dépense pour se statue à la basse époque hellénistique.” Tekmeria 5: 39–62. Graf, F. (1985). Nordionische Kulte. Religionsgeschichtliche und epigraphische Untersuchungen zu den Kulten von Chios, Erythrai, Klazomenai und Phokaia. Rome. Guettel Cole, S. (2007). “Finding Dionysos.” In: Ogden, D. (ed.), Companion to Greek Religion. Malden, Mass. 327–341 Habicht, Ch. (1970). Gottmenschentum und griechische Städte. 2nd ed. Munich. ― (2005). “Notes on Inscriptions from Cyzikus.” EA 38: 93–100. Henry, A. S. (1983). Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees: The Principal Formulae of Athenian Honorary Decrees. Hildesheim. Horster, M. (2010). “Lysimache and the Others: Some Notes on the Position of Women in Athenian Religion.” In: Reger, G., F. X. Ryan, T. F. Winters (eds.), Studies in Greek Epigraphy and History in Honor of Stephen V. Tracy. Paris. 177–192. ― (2012). “The Tenure, Appointment and Eponymy of Priesthoods and Their (Debatable) Ideological and Political Implications.” In: Horster, Klöckner 2012: 161–208. Horster, M., A. Klöckner (eds.) (2012). Civic Priests: Cult Personnel in Athens from the Hellenistic Period to Late Antiquity. RGVV 58. Berlin. Hurwit, J. M. (1999). The Athenian Acropolis: History, Mythology, and Archaeology from the Neolithic Era to the Present. Cambridge. Jones, C. P. (1974). “Diodoros Pasparos and the Nikephoria of Pergamon.” Chiron 4: 183–205. Kaltsas, N. (2002). Sculpture in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens. Los Angeles.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

174 | Oliver Pilz

Kron, U. (1996). “Priesthoods, Dedications and Euergetism. What Part Did Religion Play in the Political and Social Status of Greek Women?” In: Hellström, P., B. Alroth (eds.), Religion and Power in the Ancient World. Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1993. BoreasUpps 24. Stockholm. 139–182. Lambert, S. D. (1999). “IG II2 2345, Thiasoi of Herakles and the Salaminioi Again.” ZPE 125: 93– 130. ― (2007). “Athenian State Laws and Decrees, 352/1–322/1: III Decrees Honouring Foreigners. B. Other Awards”. ZPE 159: 101–154. ― (2010). “Connecting with the Past in Lykourgan Athens: An Epigraphic Perspective.” In: Foxhall, L., H.-J. Gehrke, N. Luraghi (eds.), Intentional History: Spinning Time in Ancient Greece. Stuttgart. 225–238. ― (2012). “The Social Construction of Priest and Priestesses.” In: Horster, Klöckner 2012: 67–133. Lawton, C. L. (1995). Attic Document Reliefs. Oxford. Lazzarini, M. L. (1984/85). “Epigrafia e statua ritratto: alcuni problemi.” Atti e memorie dell’Accademia Patavina di scienze, lettere ed arti. Memorie della classe di scienze morali, lettere ed arti 98: 83–103. ― (1989/90). “Iscrizioni votive greche.” In: Bartoloni, G., G. Colonna, C. Grottanelli (eds.), Anathema. Regime delle offerte e vita dei santuari nel Mediterraneo antico. Atti del Convegno internazionale, Roma 15–18 giugno 1989. ScAnt 3/4: 843–860. Lewis, D. M. (1983). “A Loyal Husband?” ZPE 52: 48. Lolling, H. G. (1882). “Mitteilungen aus Kleinasien IV. Der Kult der Kybele aus Plakia.” AM 7: 151–159. Ma, J. (2007). “Hellenistic Honorific Statues and Their Inscriptions.” In: Newby, Z., R. LeaderNewby (eds.), Art and Inscriptions in the Ancient World. Cambridge. 203–220. Μάντης, Α. Γ. (1990). Προβλήματα της εικονογραφίας των ιερειών και των ιερέων στην αρχαία ελληνική τέχνη. Αθήνα. Mathys, M. (2009). “Der Anfang vom Ende oder das Ende des Anfangs. Strategien visueller Repräsentation im späthellenistischen Pergamon.” In: Matthaei, A., M. Zimmermann (eds.), Stadtbilder im Hellenismus. Berlin. 227–242. Meier, L. (2012). Die Finanzierung öffentlicher Bauten in der hellenistischen Polis. Mainz. Mellink, M. J. (1980). “Archaeology in Asia Minor.” AJA 84: 501–518. Merkelbach, R., J. Stauber (1998). Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten I. Stuttgart 1998. Meyer, M. (1989). Die griechischen Urkundenreliefs. AM Suppl. 13. Berlin. Michel, C. (1900). Recueil d’inscriptions grecques. Brussels. Neumann, G. (1979). Probleme des griechischen Weihreliefs. Tübingen. Ορφανού-Φλωράκη, Β. (2002/03). “Πραξιτέλης ἐποίησεν.” Horos 14–16: 113–117. Πετράκος, Β. Χ. (1999). Ο δήμος του Ραμνούντος Ι–ΙΙ. Αθήνα. Pirenne-Delforge, V., S. Georgoudi (2005). “Personnel de culte.” ThesCRA 5, 1–65. Pottier, E., A. Hauvette-Besnault (1880). “Inscriptions d’Érythrées et de Téos.” BCH 4: 153–182. Quaß, F. (1993). Die Honoratiorenschicht in den Städten des griechischen Ostens. Untersuchungen zur politischen und sozialen Entwicklung in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit. Stuttgart. Raeck, W. (1995). “Der mehrfache Apollodoros. Zur Präsenz des Bürgers im hellenistischen Stadtbild am Beispiel von Priene.” In: Wörrle, M., P. Zanker (eds.), Stadtbild und Bürgerbild im Hellenismus. Kolloquium, München, 24. bis 26. Juni 1993. München. 231–240.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

The Profits of Self-Representation | 175

Raubitschek, A. E. (1945). “The Priestess of Pandrosos.” AJA 49: 434–435. Ridgway, B. S. (1990). Hellenistic Sculpture I: The Styles of ca. 331–200 B.C. Bristol. Robert, J., L. Robert (1983). Fouilles d’Amyzon en Carie I. Paris. Scafuro, A. C. (2009). “The Crowning of Amphiaraos.” In: Mitchell, L. G., L. Rubinstein (eds.), Greek History and Epigraphy: Essays in Honour of P. J. Rhodes. Swansea. 59–86. Schmidt, R. (2010). “Mädchen im Heiligtum. Die Arrhephoren auf der Akropolis im Hellenismus und in der Kaiserzeit.” In: Krumeich, R., C. Witschel (eds.), Die Akropolis von Athen im Hellenismus und in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Wiesbaden. 219–232. Schuller, C. (2010). “Priester πρὸ πόλεως in Lykien. Eine neue Inschrift aus dem Territorium von Patara.” ZPE 17: 69–86. Sear, F. (2006). Roman Theaters: An Architectural Study. Oxford. Shear, J. L. (2007). “Cultural Change, Space, and the Politics of Commemoration.” In: Osborne, R. (ed.), Debating the Athenian Cultural Revolution: Art, Literature, Philosophy, and Politics 430–380 BC. Cambridge. 91–115. Sourvinou-Inwood, C., R. Parker (2011). Athenian Myths and Festivals: Aglauros, Erechtheus, Plynteria, Panathenaia, Dionysia. Oxford. Tracy, S. V. (1990). Attic Letter-Cutters of 229 to 86 B.C. Berkeley. Turner, J. A. (1983). Hiereiai: Acquisition of Feminine Priesthoods in Ancient Greece. Ph.D. thesis University of California, Santa Barbara. Vanderpool, E. (1979). “The Genos Theonidai Honors a Priestess of Nymphe.” AJP 100: 213– 216. von den Hoff, R. (2007). “Die Plastik der Diadochenzeit.” In: Bol, P. C. (ed.), Die Geschichte der antiken Bildhauerkunst III. Mainz. 1–40. ― (2008). “Images and Prestige of Cult Personnel in Athens Between the Sixth and the First Centuries BC.” In: Dignas, Trampedach 2008: 107–141.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

Marietta Horster

Priene: Civic Priests and KoinonPriesthoods in the Hellenistic Period1 Abstract: This study presents an overview of the attested priesthoods, and the known individual priests and priestesses, in Priene. Added are the priesthoods that fell within the responsibility of Priene, especially those in which Prieneans served as priests in the Panionion and for the festivals of the Ionian league. The paper focuses on the interaction of the various cultic duties of Prieneans and their presentation and commemoration before the Prienean public.

Introduction The city of Priene is an early Ionian foundation. Probably in the eighth century BC, some Ionian cities, including Miletos, Samos and Priene, formed a league. Its main aim is debated: it was perhaps to reinforce an Ionian identity through a few common institutions and, especially, a common festival and cult. The Hymn to Delian Apollo mentions the league and later Herodotus refers to the Ionian league and its sanctuary, the Panionion.2 The Panionion of the archaic period at

|| 1 I would like to thank Peter Probst for handing over to me his material on the priesthoods of Priene. He worked on this topic in the context of my DFG-funded project on Hellenistic priests and priesthoods from 2008−2010 but was unable to continue his research for personal reasons. During and after the workshop in May/June 2012, I received substantial comments on the paper presented, especially from Ivana Savalli-Lestrade and Daniel Kah, to whom I am very much indebted. Wolfgang Blümel kindly sent me the list of the numbering of his forthcoming Priene corpus. These numbers will be cited as I. Priene². As I have not seen the new edition, some of the texts of the inscriptions discussed in the following paper may differ in detail from Blümel’s revised edition. Most of the cited Greek texts in this paper are taken entirely or in larger parts of the Packard Humanitites Institute – Greek Epigraphy Project available at http://epigraphy. packhum.org/inscriptions/. 2 For the history of the Ionian league in the archaic and classical period see Caspari 1915 (outdated but with a thorough discussion of all written sources), Lenschau 1944, Kleiner, in: Kleiner/Hommel/Müller-Wiener 1967, 6−18, but see also Herda 2006 for the earliest times up to the archaic period, Lohmann 2005 (contra Kleiner ibid. and Herda 2006) with another identification of the archaic sanctuary. See Herrmann 2002 for the late Hellenistic and the Imperial period of the Ionian league, Billows 2007, 33−44 for the revival and promotion of Ionia and the Ionian league in the late fourth and third centuries BC, and Metcalfe 2005, 86−121 for the

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:53 PM

178 | Marietta Horster

Mount Mykale was destroyed in 494 BC during the Persian wars and was refounded at some time after 373/2 BC. Its remains of the classical to Roman periods are identified with building structures at Otomatik Tepe, including an altar, a ‘natural’ sanctuary and a theatre-bouleuterion next to Güzelçamli.3 In Strabo’s lifetime, in the Augustan period, during the festival of the Panionia a Prienean priest sacrificed for Poseidon Helikonios, the Panionic god (8.7.2). In the mid- or late fourth century, for an unknown reason, the old Ionian city of Priene was refounded (and perhaps also relocated) on the slope of a hill near Mount Mykale.4 It was 5 to 6 kilometers from the sea, but it had its own port, a small settlement called Naulochos. In 334 BC, Alexander the Great sup-

|| Koinon, and id. passim for the political development of Ionia as a region from the King’s Peace (286 BC) to the beginning of Asia as a Roman province (129 BC). 3 The Panionion of the late classical to Roman period is uncontroversial, but the location of the archaic Panionion is disputed: see Kleiner/Hommel/Müller-Wiener 1967 and Herda 2006 contra H. Lohmann’s identification of the archaic Panionion at Çatallar Tepe, on which see Lohmann 2002, 234−235, and id. 2005; however, the final publication in the ‘Mykale series’ by Lohmann and others will be published soon and will perhaps convince remaining sceptics. The first such publication (vol. III 2) is limited to the publication and interpretation of all remains connected with the roof of the archaic temple. Near to the archaic Panionion (at Çatallar Tepe, or at Otomatik Tepe?), the small settlement of ‘Melia‘ was once located; it was destroyed and its land apportioned to Priene, Miletos and Samos ca. 700 BC. One lost mid- to late fourth-century inscription found in the 17th century at Güzelçamli (Panionion) mentioned the boule of the Ionians and the choros (Herda 2006, 51 interprets it as ’dancing-place‘ – orchestra) as the place where the federation of the Ionians sacrificed to Zeus Boulaios. Another inscription from that site was found in the late 1950s, see Hommel, in Kleiner/Hommel/Müller-Wiener 1967, 45−63, edited with a few different additions and interpretations by Sokolowski 1970; I. Priene² 399 with Kowalzig 2005, 46−57, especially for the interpretation of the choral performance of the theoria-pilgrims to the Panionion. 4 On the various suggestions for the location of the old city of Priene and a discussion of Naulochon/Naulochos, see Debord 1999, 439−440, with a new but not very convincing proposition, Höpfner 2005, cf. Lohmann 2002, 229−230 and Thonemann 2012, 25 who both prefer a location west of Priene “on the north flank of the Maeander delta plain”. Priene and the Panionion were not the only refoundations of the second half of the fourth century: cities such as Kolophon, Teos and Magnesia Sipylos were also refounded or substantially rebuilt (like Ephesos). See Billows 2007, 35−37 with a short discussion of the respective reasons for moving and rebuilding cities in the age of Alexander and his successors. For the history of Priene, its main institutions and urban development, see Asboeck 1905 (institutions), Hubbe 1950 (stephanephoroi), Crowther 1996 and Rubinstein 2004 (very briefly on the main institutions), Raeck 1995 and Fröhlich 2005 (elites, benefactions, portrait statues with inscribed statue bases); less useful is Grandinetti 2010, 82−92), more informative are Dimitriev 2005, 76−88 (institutions and civic life), Rumscheid 2002 and Dontas 2005 (archaeology and urban development of Priene), cf. Naerebout 1994 with a short list of the religious institutions and cult places.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:53 PM

Priene: Civic Priests and Koinon-Priesthoods in the Hellenistic Period | 179

ported this re-foundation and contributed to the financing of its main temple.5 Regulations concerning the citizenship, territory and city of both Priene and Naulochos are mentioned in the so-called ‘Edict of Alexander’ of the late 330s, though the inscription was probably engraved onto the so-called archive-wall of the sanctuary of Athena Polias only in the mid-280s BC.6 In the course of centuries, the city of rather modest dimensions came to be well-equipped with public buildings and sanctuaries. The city’s elite and a few foreign benefactors invested in buildings and architecture, but only a few buildings seem to have matched the impressive size, architectural ambition and costly decoration of those in Ionian cities like Miletos or Ephesos. In the Hellenistic period, new cults and new festivals were added, such as the Soteria festival or the festival in cultic honour of Lysimachos.7 The city had the standard political institutions, such as a council and demos-assembly, and had several political and financial magistrates, who were responsible for the implementation of decisions. In the Hellenistic period, these magistrates sometimes acted as more than just judges or executives of government: some paid the expenses connected to their office, and others financed additional benefactions in money or kind for citizens and residents and did their best to enhance the city’s public infrastructure.8 The members of the social and economic elite were present in the city not only in person during their lifetime, but also ‘eternally’ through their inscribed monuments, their votives and by the display of honours in stone and bronze with statues or small architectural ensembles such as exedrae on the agora. The first monuments seem to have been set up there in the late fourth/early third century, as “ungeordnete Strukturen” in front of the

|| 5 I. Priene 156 (I. Priene² 149), see Sherwin-White 1985, 220−21 and Crowther 1996, 199. The temple may have been completed only later (at the beginning of the third century BC). 6 I. Priene 1 (I. Priene² 1), for which see now Thonemann 2012. On the date and location of the inscriptions attached to the temple-walls, see Sherwin-White 1985, Crowther 1996. For the place of publication of decrees and other (e.g. honorific) texts throughout Priene, see Raeck 1995, von Kienlin 2004, and – probably – also Blümel’s forthcoming corpus of the Prienean inscriptions. 7 Lysimachos: sacrifices and procession of all priests, priestesses, magistrates and citizens, I. Priene 14 (I. Priene² 2). Soteria: I. Priene 11 (I. Priene² 6) celebrating the expulsion of the tyrant Hieron with the regained freedom of the city in 298/7 BC, cf. Crowther 1996, 209−213 who comments also on I. Priene 37 (I. Priene² 132). Deshours 2011, 37 with references to similar festivals in other cities. 8 E.g. I. Priene 124 (I. Priene² 77) of the first century BC (?). The expenditures and benefactions by Prieneans are discussed by Raeck 1995, von Kienlin 2004, Fröhlich 2005. For examples of personal engagement in financing necessities and events connected with an office or priesthood outside Priene, see also Savalli-Lestrade 2003 and Chr. Williamson in this volume.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:53 PM

180 | Marietta Horster

stoai and in the middle of the agora.9 In the late second century BC, some of the smaller monuments on the agora were re-arranged, and some families’ monuments were now displayed concentrated at one spot.10 One part of the agora was separated from the rest by a set of monuments; small assemblies and festivities may have taken place in this area, but nothing is known of them, just as we know nothing of the specific ‘sacred’ function of the hiera stoa at the agora. Apart from the sanctuary of Athena and perhaps a few other cult places, the agora remained ‘the’ place where elite dominance was visible over the centuries, at least in the long lasting material of its monuments and inscriptions.11

Focus of the Present Study At some time in the late fourth or early third century the city decided that some priesthoods should be put up for auction so that the highest price possible would be paid by the future priest, who thus bought the priesthood either for a fixed period of time or for life and profited in return from certain privileges and the prestige of a specific priesthood, or at least this is the standard explanation of the phenomenon of priesthood-auctions.12 The priests of and at Priene, and the privileges connected to the priesthoods in Priene and to the sanctuary of the Panionion and its priesthood will be discussed next under the following two aspects:

|| 9 Von Kienlin 2004, 114 on planning and the first structures, 116 on uncontrolled placement of smaller monuments. 10 Thrasyboulos, I. Priene 99−104 (I. Priene² 42; 56−60) and perhaps Athenopolis, cf. von Kienlin 2004, 117. On the importance of familial representation, see also Raeck 1995, 231−234 on Apollodoros (I. Priene 186; 236, I. Priene² 201; 229), Ma 2012, 171−174 with an example of a family-exedra in the sanctuary of Apollo Karneios at Knidos, and the papers of O. Pilz and J. Mylonopoulos in the present volume with examples of various cities. 11 Ca. 20 or 21 inscribed decrees of the Hellenistic period include regulations for the publication at the sanctuary of Athena I. Priene 3, 4, 6−8, 9 (= 31), 17, 18, 20 etc. (I. Priene² 16, 17, 19−21, 28−31, 37, 107 etc.); since the mid-second century BC, ca. 8 for a publication on the walls of the Sacred Hall of the Agora (e.g. I. Priene 107, 108, 111 (I. Priene² 63, 64, 67); few at other public or sacred places in Priene, e.g. I. Priene 19, 49 (I. Priene² 25, 117). Raeck 1995 underlines the structured ensembles of the mid- to late Hellenistic period in Priene and the hierarchy of representativeness and visibility of places in which statues and other monuments were set up. 12 Cf. e.g. Parker/Obbink 2000 and 2001, Wiemer 2000 and Wiemer/Kah 2011, 1 note 2 with an up-to-date bibliography. See in the present volume P. Kató on diagraphai in Kos, and I. Pafford for a more general approach to the economy of sanctuaries and priesthoods.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:53 PM

Priene: Civic Priests and Koinon-Priesthoods in the Hellenistic Period | 181

Firstly, if the differences in privileges and honours (in honorific decrees and in diagraphe regulations for the sale or auction of a priesthood) represent a hierarchy of priesthoods and of cults; and secondly, the role of the Panionion for the city of Priene: a) at least one priesthood of the Ionian league connected to the Panionion and its institutions, and especially the Panionia festival at Mount Mykale near Priene, was at the disposal of the citizens of Priene. They decided who was going to hold the priesthood, performed regular rituals in the Panionion and made allowance for sitesis in the Panionion on these special occasions. However, apart from the documents for the sale or auction of this priesthood, neither individual priests nor the priesthood seems to play a major role in Priene or in other Ionian cities; b) it was not just priests, but also benefactors and magistrates who received honours from the boule and demos of Priene that concern not only the city and its territory (ateleia, sitesis in the Prytaneion etc.) but also the Ionian league with its Panionion-building (through sitesis).13 What kind of prestige and public recognition does this Panionic context add to civic life in Priene? The paper’s aim is to evaluate how far the wide range of documents from Priene permits us to get an insight into the social role of priesthoods and of individual priests, and to identify the Prienean context of and supra-regional function for the Panionion as the cult-centre of the Ionian league.

The Quantity and Quality of the few Attested (Civic) Priesthoods14 This overview will begin with a short catalogue of the attested priesthoods in Priene, followed by a presentation of the honours, perquisites and privileges conferred upon individual priests and priestesses. We must allow that there was an unknown number of unattested priesthoods for non-privately organised cults in Priene, such as those of the kings and generals who we know received

|| 13 Metcalfe’s theory (Metcalfe 2005, 69) that the Panionion was on the territory of Samos, but administered by Prieneans, and a kind of exempt and inviolable, „neutral“ territory does not convince. 14 The use of the word ‘civic’ in this context follows the general outline defined by Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood, and often repeated since, with all necessary caution regarding the (modern) difficulty in distinguishing and separating cults into civic and – mainly – private cults, cf. Sourvinou-Inwood 1990, Horster 2011, 63−67 and the discussion of J.-M. Carbon and V. Pirenne-Delforge in this volume p. 66 with note 11.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:53 PM

182 | Marietta Horster

cultic honours in Priene, for example Lysimachos,15 or those for most of the many deities and heroes who were worshipped by individual vows, dedications and votives, as well as those gods and heroes in the publicly organised and financed sacrifices and festivals in Priene of which we have reports.16 The stephanephoros who had replaced the prytanis as the highest office in Priene by the end of the fourth century, wore the crown of Zeus Olympios, but was not a priest in the narrow sense of the Greek concept, viz. a priest connected to one or more deities, responsible for their cult, but not always connected to a specific cult place or sanctuary. The stephanephoros’ main and expensive duties were connected to the conduct of festivals and distributions to the citizens.17 The attested priesthoods in the Hellenistic Period from the late fourth century BC to the early first century AD are: 1. The female priesthood of Athena Polias, the main and tutelary deity of Priene. Three inscriptions honouring a priestess are known from the sanctuary on a terrace of the acropolis.18 One is dated to the late fourth century (331 BC); || 15 The fragmentary I. Priene 14 (I. Priene² 2) attests the installation of the cult in honour of Lysimachos in the late fourth or more likely the early third century BC (c. 286/5, cf. Crowther 1996, 233 for the date of the embassy). The cult consists inter alia of the sacrifices by the priests and priestesses (of Priene). The costs of the sacrificial victims are to be equal to that of the Athena festival, lines 25−26. The sacrifices are connected to a solemn procession (lines 20−23) of priests, priestesses, magistrates and citizens at the anniversary of Lysimachos. Lysimachos was praised because he had sent “a force against the Magnesians and the other Pedieis”, Thonemann 2011, 15 and id. 2012, 34 translates pedieis as ‘plain-dwellers’ 16 E.g. one votive to Aphrodite, of which only the short, imperial-period inscription on a column drum survives, I. Priene 169 (I. Priene² 203), or the dedications to Hermes from the late Classical to Hellenistic period, I. Priene 179−183 (I. Priene² 186−190). It is unclear whether there existed a priesthood for the veneration of Mykale, the Nymphs and other deities (see note 34), a cult that belonged to the settlement of Thebes, next to and perhaps loosely connected with the territory of Priene, I. Priene 362 (I. Priene² 416). For Thebes see below the arguments in notes 32−37 and 82. 17 By contrast, Fröhlich 2005, 233 explicitly calls it “la prêtrise eponyme” and qualifies it as a liturgy or a function of liturgical quality (“à caractère liturgique”). Cf. Hubbe 1950, 61−87 with a detailed discussion of the inscriptional evidence of the stephanephoroi of the Hellenistic and Roman imperial periods, and Crowther 1996, 205−06 for the date of the change from prytanis to stephanephoros for the eponymous official at Priene in the years of its refoundation (ca. 334/324). Van Bremen 1996, 32, and 59 note 74 (who follows J. Vanseveren 1937) explicates the frequently attested phenomenon of changes of prytanis, prytanis stephanephoros to the term of stephanephoros with the (shortened) designation of a civic office in Asia Minor during the Hellenistic period, e.g. in Chios, Priene and Magnesia. 18 For the sanctuary of Athena Polias, see Hennemeyer 2006, 12−14 with an up-to-date bibliography.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:53 PM

Priene: Civic Priests and Koinon-Priesthoods in the Hellenistic Period | 183

the other two, on a single stone, were inscribed in the second century BC, all three were set up on the orders of the priestesses’ family members.19 2. Similar to the priesthood of Athena, the female priesthood of Demeter and Kore is mentioned only on two inscribed statue bases.20 Both Timonassa and Nikeso are inscribed with their name and function in the nominative case. The statue-base and statue of Nikeso date to the third century (Mylonopoulos, p. 147 Fig. 3). The monuments stood at the entrance to the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore and were probably set up by the priestesses themselves with a votive character, after their period of office.21 A third inscription found at the site of the sanctuary mentions the priestess Tyrinno and her husband, who published a vow they had made on behalf of their son.22 3. Several of Dionysos’ manifestations were worshipped in Priene. The male priesthood of Dionysos Phleios is attested by three inscriptions. One or two of the known priests were also responsible for the sacrifices to Dionysos Katagogios and Dionysos Melpomenos. The first inscription that attests this priesthood is a diagraphe on a stele connected to the sale of the priesthood, dated to the second half of the second or late second century.23 Another text which was found in the theatre of Priene concerns the priest Athenopolis (probably the

|| 19 I. Priene 160 (I. Priene² 167): [Μ]ενέδημος Εὐμένου[ς] / Νικοῦν τῆν θυγατέρα / [ἱ]ερησαμένην Ἀθηνᾶι / Πολιάδι. I. Priene 162 (I. Priene² 168), parts A and C concern the priestess of Athena, part B the priest of Dionysos Phleios: part A: […ιννα? Ἁβ̣ρ̣?]οτέρα̣ν Πυθοτίμου / [καὶ —]δος θυ̣γατέρα, γυναῖκα δὲ / [Κυ]δ̣ί[μ]ου, [ἱερη]τ̣εύσα̣σαν Ἀθηνᾶς / [Πο]λιάδος. part B: [… ι?]ννα Κ̣ύδιμ̣ον τὸν υἱὸν τὸν αὑτῆς / κ̣α̣ὶ Ἀ̣θ̣η̣νοπ[όλ]ιος, ἱερη̣τεύοντα / Δ̣ι̣[ο]νύ[σ]ου [Φ]λε̣ίου; part C: [… ινν]α̣ Ζ̣οϊλλίδα̣ [τὴν θυγατέρα τὴν αὑτῆς] / κα̣ὶ Ἀ̣θη ̣ ̣νοπόλιος, γυ[ναῖκα δὲ —] / ἱε̣ρη̣τεύσασαν [Ἀθηνᾶς Πολιάδος]. For a date in the first century BC, see J. Mylonopoulos, p. 130 in this volume. 20 I. Priene 172 (I. Priene² 191): Τ̣ιμώνασ[σα Ε]ὐ[θυ]δή̣[μ]ο[υ], / Ε̣ὐ̣πόλιο[ς δὲ] γ̣υ̣νή, / [ἱερ]ῆ Δήμητρος καὶ Κόρης. I. Priene 173: (I. Priene² 192) Νι[κ]ησὼ Ἱπποσθένους, / Ε̣ὐκρίτου δὲ γ̣υνή, / ἱερῆ Δήμητρος καὶ Κόρης. 21 Other possible interpretations are presented by J. Mylonopoulos in this volume. The importance of these anathemata set up probably at the end of office, are votives in which the dedicatory object was replaced by a likeness of the priestess, cf. van Bremen 1996, 178. She interprets this as a “significant gesture which emphasized the individual at the cost of the principle of serving the deity”. 22 I. Priene 170 (I. Priene² 193): ἱερῆ Τυριννὼ Ἐπαμείνονος καὶ Φράττις Πυθοτίμου / ὑπὲρ τοῦ υἱοῦ Ἐπαμείνονος ε̣ὐχήν. 23 For the date, see the discussion in Wiemer/Kah 2011, 37 who argue for a date between 165 and 125 BC. I. Priene 174 (I. Priene² 144), lines 1−5 (out of 38; for the major part of the text, see footnote 76): διαγραφὴ Διονύσου Φλέου. / ἀγ[α]θῆι τύχηι· ἐπὶ τοῖσδε πωλοῦμεν τὴν ἱε̣/ρ̣ω̣σύνην τοῦ Διονύσου τοῦ Φλέου· ὁ πριά̣μ̣ε̣/ν̣ο̣ς̣ ἱερήσεται χρόνον ὅσον ἂμ βιοῖ, ἱερήσε/ 5 [τ]α̣ι δὲ καὶ τοῦ Διονύσου τοῦ Καταγωγίου·

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:53 PM

184 | Marietta Horster

same person who bought the priesthood) who is the donor of a clock in honour of Dionysos.24 Another individual priest of Dionysos is attested by I. Priene 162 B, the large statue-base already mentioned on which three priests -- two sisters and one brother -- are commemorated by a family member.25 Priesthoods of Athena for the two women and the priesthood of Dionysos Phleios for the man are the only public duties mentioned in these three-line inscriptions, which date to the second century BC. 4. The male priesthood of Zeus Basileus and the Kouretes is known to us only from one inscription on a base for a bronze statue in honour of the priest Apollodoros, son of Poseidonios, set up by his two children. The monument dates to the second century BC.26 5. In Priene, the Egyptian cults of Sarapis, Isis and Apis had a single, common priest who had at his side an Egyptian responsible for the sacrifices. The lex sacra with regulations for this cult is mutilated and fragmentary. Little is known of the cult, although the sanctuary of Sarapis and Isis located on a terrace in the east of the city is known.27 The inscribed marble block, which was

|| 24 I. Priene 177 (I. Priene² 183): Ἀθηνόπολις Κυδίμου / ἱερητεύων Διονύσωι. 25 See the text in note 19. 26 I. Priene 186 (I. Priene² 201): Βασιλείδης καὶ Καλλινίκη / τὸν αὑτῶν πατέρα / Ἀπολλόδωρον Ποσειδωνίου / ἱερητεύοντα Βασιλεῖ /5 καὶ Κούρησιν. Mylonopoulos’ Fig. 6 presents the reprint of Hiller von Gaertringen’s drawing of this statue base. 27 I. Priene 195 (I. Priene² 196): [— τῶι Σαράπιδι καὶ] / [τῆι Ἴσιδι κ]α̣ὶ τοῖς θε[οῖς τοῖς συννάοις? μηνὸς Ἀπατου]/[ριῶνος ε]ἰκάδι συντ̣[ελ—] / [․c.5․ ὁ νεω]π̣όης εἰς τὴν θ̣[υσίαν? —] /5 [․c.4․ δίδ]οσθ̣αι εἰς [․․c.8․․․] τὸ ἱ[ερὸν? —] / [․c.4․]Ε̣․․?ῶι δραχμὰς τέσ̣σερ[ας —] / [․c.6․․ κ]α̣ὶ εἰς θ̣υσίαν τῶι Σα̣ρά[πιδι καὶ τῆι Ἴσιδι καθ’ ἕ]/[κ]α̣στον ἐ[νι]αυτὸμ μηνὸς Ἀπατουριῶ[νος — δρα]/[χμ]ὰς δύο· θύσει δὲ ὁ ἱερεὺς τῶι Σαρά[πιδι —] /10 [κ]αὶ τῆ̣ι Ἴσιδι τῶν νομιζομένων νοσ[σῶν τὰ σκέλη ἐπὶ] / [τ]ραπέζ̣[η]ς· συντελ[έσ]ε̣ι δὲ καὶ τὰς ἄλλ[ας θυσίας τῶι] / Σαράπιδι καὶ τῆι Ἴσιδι καὶ τοῖς θεοῖς το[ῖς συννάοις?] / καὶ τὴν λαμπαδείαν τῆι θεᾶι καθότ[ι προσήκει· δώσει] / δὲ ὁ ἱερεὺς καὶ τῆι λαμπαδείαι τὸν [—] /15 ως [λ]α̣μ[π]άδας ταλαντιαίας δύο· θ̣ύ[σει δὲ ὁ ἱερεὺς] / καὶ τῶι [Ἄ]πιδι ἐν τοῖς χρόνοις τοῖς νο[μιζομένοις —] / Σ̣Ε̣ΙΜ̣ΩΛ[․c.1․]ΔΙ [κ]α̣θότι νομίζεται ὁ κ[α]θιστ[άμενος νόμος?·] / θήσει [δὲ] ὁ νεωπόης ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐξαιρουμ̣[ένου μέρους κρι]/θῶν̣ τε[τ]αρτῆ πυρῶν [τε]ταρτας δ̣ύο Υ[—] /20 ΛΗ̣Ν χ̣αλκῶν ἑ̣πτ’ ὀβολούς· παρε[χ]έ[τω δὲ ὁ νεωπόης καὶ] / τ̣ὸν Αἰγύπτιον τὸν συντελέσοντα τὴ[ν θυσίαν ἐμπείρως·] / μὴ ἐξέστω δὲ μηθενὶ ἄλλωι ἀπείρως τὴ[ν θυσίαν ποεῖν τῆι] / θεᾶ̣ι ἢ̣ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἱερέως. ε̣ἰ δέ τις ἄλλος ἀπ̣[είρως ποῆι, ζημιούσ]/[θ]ω δραχμὰς χιλίας κ̣αὶ ἔστω φάσις̣ α̣ὐ̣[τοῦ πρὸς τοὺς ἄρ]/25 χ̣ον[τα]ς. [γ]έ[ρ]ε̣α̣ λήψεται τῶν θ̣υ̣ο̣[μέ]ν[ων ἱερῶν —] / τ̣ου καὶ ἐπίσπονδον οἴνου κ[αὶ ․c.1․]Λ[․c.3․]․[․c.2․]․[—] / μέ̣νωγ καὶ τραπεζῶν τῶγ κοσμουμένων [— τεταρ]/τῆ, ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν τραπεζ̣ῶν ὧν ἂν δ̣ῆμ̣[ος κοσμῆι δεδόσθω] / [τ]οῖς κατεχομένοις ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ· τέ̣[λεα δὲ λήψεται] /30 ὁ ἱερεὺς παρὰ τοῦ νεωποίου καὶ τ[ὸ ἀργύριον? —] / τὸ τεταγμένον κατὰ τὸ ψήφισ[μα τὸ περὶ τῆς λογείας?,] / ἥτ̣ις μηνὶ Ἀπατ̣ουριῶνι τῆι εἰκά[δι γίνεται — οἴ]/ν̣ου [δ’] αὐτῶι ἐξαι[ρ]εσθαι εʹ? χό[ας — λήψε]/[τ]αι δὲ ὁ ἱερεὺς καὶ παρὰ τῶν [—] /35 [․c.3․]σαντα ΣΙΟΙΑ? ἔσ̣τ̣ωσαν [—] / [τὸ ἱερ]ὸν καθ̣α̣ιρέτω νοσσ[ῶι —] / [․c.3․]․ τὰ

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:53 PM

Priene: Civic Priests and Koinon-Priesthoods in the Hellenistic Period | 185

found near the altar of Isis, is dated on palaeographic grounds to around 200 BC. No individual priest of the cult is attested to date. 6. A recently discovered stele with an inscribed diagraphe of the second century BC concerns the female priesthood of Meter Phrygie.28 The priestess is appointed for life. Her duties and privileges are described in detail. Philitis, of an otherwise unknown family, bought the priesthood at the low price of 430 drachmas. 7. In addition, one priest of Nikomedes II Epiphanes, king of Bithynia from the 140s to 128 BC, is attested.29 This priest, Dionysios son of Ameinas, was elected by his fellow citizens as priest of the cult of Nikomedes. His duties were to sacrifice and lead a procession. A list with quite extraordinary responsibilities follows, but these are not part of his priestly office for the Prieneans: in the early 120s, he was chosen to deliver the message of the honours bestowed on the king by the Ionian league.30 Without being asked, he invited the Romans to his home and the Romans were able to take part in the sacrifices and festivals of the Ionians.31 He financed all sacrifices and banquets mentioned in the text. It seems likely that he was the only priest Nikomedes ever had in Priene. 8. The regulations for the installation of the priest, as a lifetime appointment, in the priesthood of Zeus (the epiklesis of Zeus or the name of a second god is lost) and Poseidon are inscribed on a rather small stele and are dated to the third century BC.32 It was found in the southwestern part of Mount Mykale, at a small settlement called Thebes (Thebai).33 Wilamowitz and Hiller von Gaertringen proposed that the priesthood does not refer to Priene with its territory but may date to the time when the territory of Thebes was no longer part of Samos and had become attached to Miletos, e.g. as a phrourion.34 Attested

|| δὲ ἐκ τοῦ θησ[αυροῦ γενόμενα δεδόσθω ὑπὸ τοῦ] / [ἱερέ]ως τοῖς θεοῖς [—]. See the commentary by Stavrianopoulou 2005. 28 Wiemer/Kah 2011 (I. Priene² 145). 29 I. Priene 55 (I. Priene² 43); commentary and German translation by Kotsidu 2000, no. 201. 30 In addition, he was to sacrifice an ox on behalf of the Ionians. 31 “Those bound by syngeneia”. 32 I. Priene 364 (I. Priene² 417), for the text see footnote 37. 33 For Thebai at Mykale, see the description of the site with references to sources and literature by Lohmann 2002, 247−248 and 271 with fig. 25. 34 Von Wilamowitz 1906, 42 and Hiller von Gaertringen at I. Priene 364 (the inscribed text is below, note 37). Hiller von Gaertringen dated the letter forms to the late fourth or third century which would not match an earlier date (e.g. in connection with Lysander’s involvement in the area at the end of the fifth century). The main argument for Milesian domination was the stephanephoros Autokles as eponymous official, who (they thought) could be the same as an attested Milesian stephanephoros of that name; however Autokles of Miletos is dated to 189/88

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:53 PM

186 | Marietta Horster

territorial claims in the area of Mount Mykale were made by Samos, Priene and Miletos, and perhaps also Ephesos.35 The unclear political situation of the area over the centuries and the few texts found at the site of Thebes do not permit us to establish without doubt at which period of time the community was part of which of the neighbouring stronger and larger cities. In any case, Samos and Priene owned the area around Thebes and there is no proof that Miletos dominated just this one small place on the Mykale during all or parts of the Hellenistic period. The mention of a “sanctuary of Athena” at the end of the inscribed text indicates a place of publication: the temple of Athena Polias at the altar of Zeus Polieus. This is either a hitherto unknown sanctuary of Athena Polias in Thebes at which the priest of Zeus and Poseidon was to officiate,36 or else is a fragmentary example of the often documented rule of twofold publication: one copy on site (in Thebes, at the site of the cult of Zeus and Poseidon) and a second one, often at a major sanctuary – in this case that of Athena Polias in the locally dominant city at the time of publication.37 The text was found at Thebes, so the sanctuary of Athena in Priene would be a possible candidate or perhaps the one

|| BC, the Theban one to the fourth or third century BC. Another argument is the cult of (the nymph) Mykale, the Nymphs, Hermes and Maiandros at Thebes. This inscription (I. Priene 362 = LSAM 39 = I. Priene² 416, mid-fourth century?) has cult regulations for the duties of the hieropoioi in the context of sacrifices. The text mentions the residents of Thebes together with politai (line 26). The names of the months in the inscription could be connected to Miletos (thus von Wilamowitz and Hiller von Gaertringen), but also to Samos, see Ehrhardt ²1988, 14, and to Priene, see Trümpy 1997, 94−96. The fourth-century date (before 350 BC, Hiller von Gaertringen at I. Priene 362) probably does not take into account the rural setting of the text, with its consequences for language and palaeography, and it does not take into account the content of the regulation which would, rather, fit the late fourth century at the earliest. A good argument for the connection to Miletos is offered by Herda 2006, 82−83, who argues for Miletos’ demands on Thebes via the myth and cult of the nymph Mykale. 35 See e.g. the allusion to more than 500 years of dispute between Samos and Priene for the Mykale region in Thonemann 2011, 282. A common border between Ephesos and Priene in the early third century seems likely from I. Ephesos 2001 (protection of a phrourion by Prieneans and Ephesians), cf. Magnetto 2008, 195−196. 36 Sanctuary of Athena in Thebes: Rubinstein 2004, 1103. 37 I. Priene 364 (LSAM 40, I. Priene² 417): ἐπὶ στεφανηφόρου Αὐτοκλείους / [ἱ]ερὰ ἐ․․ωσαν τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ [Ἡλί]ου / καὶ τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος. ἱερήσθω διὰ̣ β[ίου] / κατὰ τάδε, λα̣μβάνων γλῶσσαν, /5 σκολιόν, νεφρό[ν, ἱε]ρὴν μοῖραν, κωλῆν / καὶ τὰ̣ κώιδια τῶν θυομένων· / εἶναι δὲ α̣ὐτῶι καὶ ἀτέλ[ε]ιαν / ἐ̣ν τῶι δήμωι, λ[α]χεῖν δ̣ὲ / [αὐ]τ̣ὸν ὅσα κα̣ὶ ὁ ἐμ πόλει ἔ[χ]ε[ι] /10 σ̣θα ̣ ̣[․c.1․]ολ[․c.1․]ο[․c.3․]ο̣υ̣· [ἀ]ναγράψαι / δὲ εἰς στήλην λιθίνην [κ]α[ὶ] / ἀνα̣θεῖνα̣ι εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν τῆς Ἀ̣θη̣νᾶς / παρὰ τὸμ βωμὸν τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ / Π̣ολιέως, προσκεῖσθαι δ̣ὲ /15 αὐτῶι καὶ τὴν στρυπτηρίαν / [π]ᾶσαν.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:53 PM

Priene: Civic Priests and Koinon-Priesthoods in the Hellenistic Period | 187

of Athena in Samos who has a cult place on (or bordering) the territory of Thebes is possible as well.38 The Prienean sanctuary was the main and most prestigious place to publish documents related to Prienean public affairs, especially those connected with its territory and boundaries.39 Therefore, the stephanephoros in the inscription could be the Prienean one, and Thebes at the time of the regulation would be (according to my interpretation) either independent or associated with Priene.40 Although Miletos had made the most outspoken claims to Mount Mykale since ‘Homeric’ times, the little evidence that we have demonstrates that Miletos’ influence and territorial access and control was very restricted in the area already in the Classical period.41 There is no hint of its attach-

|| 38 I. Priene 363 (I. Priene² 415). Less likely is the identification with the sanctuary of Athena at Miletos, at least if the text dates to the end of the fourth or third century). 39 Sherwin-White 1985, 81−82, Thonemann 2012, 26. 40 It is improbable that Thebes had been an integral part of the Prienean territory and polis. However, any argument based on parallels with Miletos, Samos or Priene, must take into account the narrow range of use of several institutions and names of offices in the Ionian cities. Thebes’ degree of dependence or independence is disputed. There existed a distinct Theban territory (cf. I. Priene 361 and 363, dates disputed; Hiller von Gaertringen, commentary at I. Priene 362 line 5, dates it by its language to the mid-fourth century at the earliest: “Übergangszeit ... um 350 zu ertragen”) and a “communal identity” of the citizens of Thebes, on which see Rubinstein 2004, 1102−03. She argues for the status of the city as a Milesian deme during the classical period (probably based on line 8 of our inscription). For Priene, demes are not attested, but ten phylai are attested from the third century BC, of which 3, and probably 4 more, are known by name, see Jones 1987, 317−320 and Kunnert 2012, 96 with note 350: I. Priene 11 (I. Priene² 6), c. 297 BC, the panegyris of the Soteria is organised by phylai; I. Priene 14 (I. Priene² 2) lines 14−31, 286 BC, similarly to the regulation at Thebes in I. Priene 364 (I. Priene² 417) for the cult of Mykale and others, the hieropoioi are responsible for sacrifices; I. Priene 111 (I. Priene² 67) l. 113−114 (first century BC), the banquet and food distribution is organised kata phylas; cf. Kunnert 2012, 297−300 for the religious role of the phylai (and their hieropoioi) in the imperial period. Similarities between the cult-regulation of Thebes and regulations concerning the phylai for the cult of Priene is not proof of, but is a good argument for, the organisational connection of Thebes to Priene. 41 Compare the arguments concerning Miletos’ early claims to the Mykale area and the Panionion. Whether the archaic “Panionion” sanctuary belonged to Melia (Lohmann 2005 and id. with others 2013) or whether this sanctuary should be identified as part of the Mykalessos on Mount Mykale is of no relevance for the fact that Miletos was far from controlling Mount Mykale in the seventh and sixth century BC. No longer valid, however, is Herda 2006, 101−102, who argues for Prienean domination of the archaic sanctuary at Melia (or Mykalessos) based on one of the flat tiles (stroter) of the sanctuary of the sixth century, which was supposed to bear the inscription ΠΡ]ΙΗΝΕ[ΩΝ, but on which see now Ehrhardt in: Lohmann, Busching, Ehrhardt 2013, 188 (on IS 2) with arguments against reading it as an ethnikon (or name of the city).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:53 PM

188 | Marietta Horster

ment to this city after the mid-fourth century BC,42 consequently, the discussion about whether the cult of Poseidon and the priesthood were part of a Milesian tradition or an adaptation of new Prienean rules (sales of priesthood) should – at the least – be left open.43 9. A short second-century text inscribed on the door pillar of a house (“Heiliges Haus”) in the city of Priene, presents the priest Anaxidemos.44 The priest was appointed by lot for an unknown deity. Inside the house, a number of terracottas of Kybele and Eros and marble figurines, including a bust of Alexander the Great have been discovered, therefore this house with its associated cult is sometimes designated the “Alexandreion”. It is far from certain that the priesthood was connected to Alexander, regardless of whether it was part of an official cult or belonged to a private cult-association.45 10. Of the 732 topoi-inscriptions from the lower Gymnasium, two present the names of ephebes as hieroi, but this should probably not be understood as “priests” of the late Hellenistic or early imperial period, but e.g. victors in a specific sacred context or something of that kind.46 || 42 Ehrhardt ²1988, 14 with note 19 comments on the interpretation of the fourth-century (?) boundary-rules found at Thebes, I. Priene 363 (I. Priene² 415), in which neighbouring Samos and Priene are mentioned. The horoi of Thebes and the territorial extension are discussed by Metcalfe 2005, 140−150. He observes the specific character of I. Priene 363 which might be an itinerary in connection with a sacred procession. See also the new edition and extensive commentary by Magnetto 2008 on I. Priene 38 (I. Priene² 133, c. 196−191 BC), the boundary dispute between Samos and Priene connected to the small fortress of Karion not that far from Thebes, but nearer the Panionion, by Magnetto 2008. 43 In this sense also Magnetto 2008, 89. Although the cult of Poseidon Helikonios is likely to have been of some importance in all city-members of the Ionian league, Thebes itself was not a member of the Ionian league, and never more than a small settlement. For a ‘Ionian identity’ (if this was of relevance which I doubt) of such settlements and their interactions with the larger Ionian cities, see Metcalfe 2005, 122−192. In Thebes, the Poseidon worshipped was not ‘Helikonios’. To me, a connection to Priene at that time seems to make a little more sense, even if it does not explain all problems raised by the content of the inscribed text. 44 I. Priene 205 (I. Priene² 205): ἔλαχε τὴν ἱερωσύν[ην·] / Ἀναξίδημος Ἀπολλων[ίου·] / εἰσίναι εἰς [τὸ] / ἱερὸν ἁγνὸν ἐ[ν] /5 ἐσθῆτι λευκ[ῆι.] 45 Wiemer/Kah 2011, 27 with note 89 evidently take this priesthood as one of a civic cult. 46 I. Priene 313 (I. Priene² 354), no. 243 and 578. See Ziebarth 1914, 99−101 for the topoi-inscriptions in the gymnasia of Priene and Pergamon, most often inscribed by the ephebes or pupils. Errors in spelling and grammar are common. It should be noted, that titles, names and offices in such topoi-inscriptions of gymnasia are not always the official designations, cf. Chankowski 2010 503 number 266. See id., 498 for the discussion of the Prienean inscriptions and 449 with number 30 for topoi-inscriptions at other cities. Hieroneikos, often in combination with stephanetos, as a characterisation of international competitions of the late Hellenistical and the Roman period are well attested, eg. I. Kaunos 139, IIIc l. 13 (first century AD); the hierea men-

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:53 PM

Priene: Civic Priests and Koinon-Priesthoods in the Hellenistic Period | 189

Selection Method and Duration of Priesthoods The selection, appointment and duration of office of the few attested individual priests and priestesses, as well as of those priesthoods known by diagraphai or other fragmentary inscribed texts, are as follows: The men and women who paid for the priesthoods received them for life (Poseidon Helikonios of the Panionion, Dionysos Phleios, the Phrygian Meter, as well as probably Sarapis, Isis and Apis). For the priest of Zeus Basileus and the Kouretes the term of office is unclear. It has been said that the use of the participle ἱερητεύων indicates more than just being in office at a certain time (i.e. when the inscription was set up), which would then have the consequence for the interpretation of this priesthood of implying a longer duration.47 The character of the mystery-cult for which the priestess of Demeter and Kore was responsible makes it likely that the priestesses were in office for a long (probably lifelong) term. Apart from the sale of some priesthoods, the election of the priesthood of Nikomedes II Epiphanes is explicitly mentioned (cheirotonetheis) in the decree of the Ionian koinon honouring the (probably one and only) priest of Nikomedes in Priene. The term of office was in all likelyhood limited.48

|| tioned in I. Ephesos 836 (from the parodos of the theatre, Imperial period) concern the ephebes; the function of the object or person concerned is unclear. In the stadium of Roman Aphrodisias two of the topos-inscriptions on steps have ἱερῶν ἐφήβων̣, I. Aph., 10.26 U, V. The uniqueness of the ‘sacred ephebes’ was noted by the editor Charlotte Roueché and repeated by Chankowski 2010, 512 number 310; however, the Prienian inscriptions might be a second example. I owe to discussion with Daniel Kah the fact that my interpretation will not be taken further. However, an ephebe-priest is probably attested at least once in the Imperial period and outside Asia Minor: in Euboia, a priest of the Imperial cult was elected amongst the ephebes (rather than “priest of the emperors and the ephebes”) [ἱε]ρεὺς τῶν Αὐτοκρατόρων καὶ τῶν ἐφήβων, IG XII Suppl. 646, cf. Chankowski 2010, 473 number 127 with references esp. to Louis Robert’s commentaries and corrections. I. Priene 313 (I. Priene² 354), no. 243 and 578. 47 For Wiemer/Kah 2011, 26 the use of the present participle for dedications by the priest of Dionysos Phleos, I. Priene 162 B l. 2−3 (I. Priene² 168) and 177 l. 2 (I. Priene² 183), similarly to the sole dedication by the priest of Zeus Basileus and the Kouretes, is a clear indication that the priest held a lifelong priesthood, I. Priene 186 (I. Priene² 201) l. 4−5. 48 I. Priene 55 (I. Priene² 43), see also above note 29. Wiemer/Kah 2011, 26 with note 87 argue for an annual office. They suppose that the honours bestowed on the priest for his ritual acts immediately after the election are an indicator of an annual election. I would rather argue as above that the honours had a different focus and were not in the first place an award and distinction for what Dionysios had done as a priest for the Prieneans in Priene.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:53 PM

190 | Marietta Horster

The selection-mode for the priestess of Athena Polias, the tutelary goddess of Priene and the main civic sanctuary in the city, is unknown. Election is the most probable, but it is unclear how this was done and whether it was necessary to make a pre-selection of these girls or women (e.g. from the phyle?) or whether preconditions existed, such as belonging to the social and financial elite of the city, or by age or status (virgin, married, widow etc.). The duration of office was limited, evidently to one year. Selection by lot was perhaps not a feature of priesthoods within the responsibility of Prienean civic bodies.49

Panionion-Priesthoods for Prienean Citizens It is not known if both the Panionion-priesthoods, one for Zeus Boulaios and Hera and the other for Poseidon, were regularly appointed priesthoods during the existence of the Ionian league.50 At least since the late third and second century BC and again in Augustan times, the priest of the Ionian deity Poseidon Helikonios was a citizen of Priene. Later the concept behind the festival and the idea of the league evidently changed as the Panionia took place in different cities and the priest, if there was one, was then probably appointed only for that year or that very festival in the city where it would take place. No such attestation of Prienean citizenship exists for the male priesthood of Zeus Boulaios and Hera. Two regulations of the Ionian league deal with the priesthood. The first is an inscribed decree of the Ionian league that was found near Priene, probably at a place connected to the Panionion, I. Priene 139 (I. Priene² 398). It concerns the dispute between two members of the Ionian league, Lebadeia and another, unknown city, over the right to appoint the priest. The presumable date of the dispute, judgment (dike) in favour of Lebadeia and || 49 Until some other such text or new evidence appears, I prefer to interpret Anaxidemos’s duties and the context of the building (“Alexandreion”) as that of a (private) cult association of Kybele or another deity. See above p. 188 with notes 44−45. 50 There are only a few attestations of priesthoods of cults of other leagues. See e.g. Knoepfler 2003 who discusses a proxenia decree published in the Zeus Homarios sanctuary of the Achaian league. A priesthood for the cult is not attested, and in none of the many cities of the league is an individual priest of this or another league’s cult known. E.g. neither is a priesthood known of Poseidon Helikonios for the federal sanctuary of the Achaian amphiktiony in Helike, see Mylonopoulos 2003, 424−427, nor of the cult of Zeus Lykaios with a sanctuary and the festival Lykaia near Megalopolis as a cult-centre of the Arcadian league in the fourth century BC, see Kreutz 2007, 123−130.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:53 PM

Priene: Civic Priests and Koinon-Priesthoods in the Hellenistic Period | 191

inscription of it on stone is probably the mid- to late fourth century.51 A second inscribed decision of the Ionian league, which may date between the 350s and 323, concerns the Panionia, the main festival of the Ionian league; probably the decision was made shortly after the revival of the festival and the refoundation of the Panionion.52 The fragmentary state of the inscription does not allow us to draw many conclusions about the details, duration or focus of the festival.53 In the parts of the text that have survived, Zeus Boulaios is mentioned and the priest’s share of the sacrificed animals is specified. “If [any of the cities] does not bring [victims, they must write up] the defau[lting] city [on a stele outside the Pani]onion, where victims [must be produced by the cities who] owe. If any of them fails [to produce them, it must be prevented from] making sacrifices at the next Panionia. [Sacrifice must be made] to Zeus Boulai[os and the other gods, to whom] sacrifice must be made in the khoros in accordance with the sacred law. [Each city must pro]duce victims. [Leg, ton]gue, hide, part (?), and [rib go to the priest and the rest (is divided)], equally. The parts [put on the table] and the altar go to the one who [makes a prayer] for himself. (l. 4−15, tentatively translated by Kowalzig 2005, 47.) Comparable sanctions are known from the Ilian league.54 In this fragmentary inscription the priest seems to be the one of Zeus Boulaios. For the male priesthood of Poseidon Helikonios, there are two, probably even three, fragmentary diagraphai. They document the privileges, perquisites and duties of the priests of Poseidon Helikonios following successful purchase of the priesthood. One is dated to ca. 200 BC, the other two to the second century. In the third text the name of the god and the part of the text in which the lonian league would have been mentioned are lost, so the attribution to the || 51 Dated to before 335 by Hiller von Gaertringen ad I. Priene 139. This date depends on the eponym-dating by prytanis (of Priene). According to Hiller’s chronology the eponymous office was renamed as stephanephoros after Alexander freed the city in 334. Crowther has 1996 has argued that the change in eponymous dating and the change in the name of the office should be dated to 334−324, see above note 17. The first sentence of the shortened judgement and decree ἐπὶ πρυτάνεως Ἀμύντορος ἔδο/ξεν Ἰώνων τῆ βουλῆ documents the combination of Ionian and Prienean institutions. 52 For the history of the Panionion, see the references in note 2 (Koinon) and 3 (Panionion). Some, like Metcalfe 2005, 78−81 (with references and literature), argue for a revival of the Panionion with the Panionia-festival near Priene immediately after 373 BC. 53 I. Priene² 399 with comments of Hommel, in: Kleiner/Hommel/Müller-Wiener 1967, 45−63, Sokolowski 1970 and, with new aspects on the interaction of the member states by choroi and thysia, Kowalzig 2005, 47−55. 54 Three such regulations with sanctions for the members of the Ilian league are known, see below p. 200−201 with note 88.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:53 PM

192 | Marietta Horster

Ionian cult is likely but not certain.55 This short overview of the priesthoods will now be followed by a summary of the honours and privileges attested in Priene for the holders of these priestly offices.

Honorific Decrees and Cited Honours In Priene, there is a well-attested tradition of honouring citizens and foreigners for their benefactions.56 In general, citizens of Priene, especially benefactors and magistrates who received the honour of having an inscription set up to record the marks of distinction granted to them had most often been awarded one or more of the following set of marks and types of honour: public praise epainos, a crown stephanos, proclamation anangelia of the crowning at the Dionysia,57 prominent seating in the theatre proedria,58 dining at public expense sitesis in either the Prytaneion, the unidentified Bianteion,59 the Timoucheion or the Panionion,60 tax-exemption ateleia of various degrees, participation (metousia)

|| 55 I. Priene 201 a−d, 202 and probably 203 (I. Priene² 146−148). 56 Some of the many known honorific decrees from the late fourth century BC to the early imperial period were on display in an ensemble arranged in the sanctuary of Athena Polias, or on the walls or in front of one of the stoai in Priene, especially the one north of the market gate or those near or on the agora. 57 In many such decrees: ἀναγγεῖλαι δὲ τὸν στέφανον Διονυσίοις or ἀναγγεῖλαι τοῖς Διονυσίοις or similar. 58 In many such decrees: καὶ προεδρίαι ἐμ πᾶσι τοῖς ἀγῶσιν or similiar. 59 Mentioned only once: I. Priene 113 (I. Priene² 69) l. 88, the second honorific decree for Aulus Aemilius Zosimus, first century BC. This house of a certain Biantos may be the name of a heroon (but of an unknown heros). 60 On σίτησις ἐν πρυτανείωι καὶ ἐν Πανιωνίωι (or similar wording), see Hubbe 1950, 99−101, Dmitriev 2005, 85−86, Metcalfe 2005, 51−59 and 199−201. A few of the texts for citizens name only the Prytaneion: I. Priene 13 l. 4 (I. Priene² 33) third century BC; 26 l. 13 (I. Priene² 32) third century BC; 108 (I. Priene² 64) ca. 129 BC – Hiller’s restoration of the Panionion here is not convincing. Ten have the sitesis in the Prytaneion and the Panionion: I. Priene 4 l. 35−36 (I. Priene² 19), 332/26 BC; 103 l. 11 (I. Priene² 56) c. 100 BC; 109 l. 7−8 (I. Priene² 65), c. 120 BC; 110 l. 3−4 (I. Priene² 66) beginning of the first century BC; 111 (I. Priene² 67) beginning of first century BC; 113 l. 6−7 (I. Priene² 69) after 84 BC; 117 A I l. 4−5 (I. Priene² 71) first century BC; 201a−d l. 10−11 (I. Priene² 146), ca. 200 BC or little later; 202 l. 10−11 (I. Priene² 147), early second century BC; 203 l. 6−7 (I. Priene² 148), early second century BC; one honoured has received the rights for the Panionion and the “Timoucheion”, I. Priene 12 ll. 3−4, 28−29 (I. Priene² 27, shortly after 300 BC?). However, as all the other inscribed honours that mention the sitesis bestowed as a privilege for citizens make no reference to the building, this was in all likelihood the Prytaneion: I.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:53 PM

Priene: Civic Priests and Koinon-Priesthoods in the Hellenistic Period | 193

at the council’s sacrifices,61 a portrait statue, a public funeral62 and the continuation of honours onto the honorand’s offspring.63 The honours bestowed on foreigners had a slightly different and even wider range.64 Compared to these men, most priests were not very distinguished. The diversity and quantity of honours they receive are clearly small. And it seems that only those priests who had received their priesthood by election, and perhaps lot65 or birth, but not by auction or sale, were honoured with portrait-statues on inscribed statue-bases. Priests who had taken over priesthoods that they had paid for and for which, in the text of the diagrapha, the privileges and perquisites were fixed, seem to fall outwith the elite consensus with all its euergetic behaviour and gestures.66 The existing statue-bases and the few portrait-statues for the priestesses of Athena and for the priestesses of Demeter and Kore do not refer to honorific decrees but were either set up by the priestesses themselves, like Timonassa and Nikeso in the case of the Demeter sanctuary (I. Priene 172, 173), or by a family-member, as in the case of the sanctuary of Athena Polias (I. Priene 160, 162), for Niko in the late fourth century and, a little later, for Zoilis and [Habr?]otera. Their brother Kydimos, a priest of Dionysos Phleios, a priesthood which in all likelihood was bought by him, was honoured on the same large statue-base as the two Athena-priestesses by a family member (I. Priene 162 B), but the context is the family-priesthoods and the Athena-Polias sanctuary. Thus, this extraordinary occurrence of a portrait statue for a priest who had bought his priesthood may have a special explanation. Similarly, the honorific statue with inscribed statue-base for the priest Apollodoros of Zeus Basileus was

|| Priene 103 (I. Priene² 56); 108−111 (I. Priene² 64−67); 113 (I. Priene² 69); 117 (I. Priene² 71); 133 restored by Hiller von Gaertringen in I. Priene 82, c. 200 BC (I. Priene² 93). 61 Often μετουσία τῶν συντελουμένων ἱερῶν καὶ θυσιῶν ἐν τῆι βουλῆι. 62 Only once: I. Priene 99 (I. Priene² 57), honours decreed for Thrasyboulos son of Demetrios, first half? of the second century BC. 63 Asboeck 1913, 51 presents a chronological table (late fourth to first century BC) with the combinations of honours in the 28 inscribed texts published in I. Priene. See Hubbe 1950, 88−140 for a detailed discussion of the following honours in Priene: publication of the decree, sitesis, proedria and ateleia, epimeleia, the crown, statues, funeral honours. 64 See the list of fourteen components of honours in Asboeck 1913, 48−49 attested in eleven inscriptions published in I. Priene, late fourth to second century BC. 65 See above note 49. 66 For the far from ‘streamlined‘ behaviour and ideals of the civic elites in the Hellenistic period, see the different appraisals and interpretations of the known texts by Quaß 1993, Gauthier 1985, van Bremen 1996 (not only on women and families), Savalli-Lestrade 2003 and Fröhlich 2005, both presenting stimulating aspects and overviews of the literature and the recent discussions of the subject.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:53 PM

194 | Marietta Horster

set up by his son and daughter.67 Family-members set up these statues; not a single inscribed statue-base in honour of a priest or priestess set up by the demos and boule of Priene is known to date.68 At least one honorific text should be mentioned which concerned a priest. However, neither services nor offices held in Priene nor the priesthood seem to have been decisive in the decision to grant honours to this citizen of Priene. Although Dionysios son of Ameinas was priest of Nikomedes II, he was praised by the koinon of the Ionians (not before 128/7 BC) especially for his embassy to the king, for his benefactions and for the banquets for the Ionians and the Romans – in this case, the honour and duties of the priest went hand in hand with his personal, political and financial investments as a citizen of Priene and representative of the Ionian league.69

Diagraphai As is usual for this kind of document, the Prienean diagraphai included descriptions of the duties and privileges of the priesthood in combination with an individual contract for the priest who bought the office. Most of these cult-relevant documents were published in at least one exemplar in the main temple of the tutelary goddess, Athena Polias.70 Five or six of these regulations with contracts from Priene are extant, published on stelai during the second century BC: I. Priene 174 (with a height of 1.77m) of the priesthood of Dionysos Phleios,71 three fragmentary documents of the Ionian priesthood of Poseidon Helikonios,72 one for the priesthood of Meter Phrygie (with a height of only 0.87m)73 and the very

|| 67 I. Priene 186 (I. Priene² 201). 68 For the familial context of such honorific and commemorative statues see also the contributions by O. Pilz and J. Mylonopoulos to this volume with opposed conclusions. 69 I. Priene 55 (I. Priene² 43), see also Kotsidu 2000, 297−298, no. 201 with text, translation and commentary. 70 Inter alia, with reference to the finds of most of the fragments of the three diagraphai of Poseidon Helikonios, Wiemer/Kah 2011, 15 argue for the probability of publication of the Phrygian Meter diagraphe in the sanctuary of Athena. 71 I. Priene² 144. 72 I. Priene 201−203 (I. Priene² 146−148). 73 Edited by Wiemer/Kah 2011, 3−16 (I. Priene² 145) with an extensive commentary.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:53 PM

Priene: Civic Priests and Koinon-Priesthoods in the Hellenistic Period | 195

fragmentary document for the priest of Sarapis (I. Priene 195, I. Priene² 196), if this part of a lex sacra was indeed a diagraphe at all.74 The male or female (only in the case of the Meter priesthood) buyer would receive the office of the priesthood for life. All such regulations from Priene are connected with a fairly brief list of the perquisites of the priest or priestess. The minimum seems to be the hide of the sacrificed animal, its tongue and a limb; the more elaborate privileges include more parts of the sacrifices, tax-exemption etc., which will be described next, together with the duties of office. 75 The regulation of duties and privileges concerning the sale of the priesthood of Dionysos Phleios in the mid-second century sets out the following distinctions and privileges (and some more, like the already mentioned sitesis):76 in the theatre, the priest will enjoy prohedria and is allowed to wear the clothing of his choice and to wear a crown of golden ivy-leaves (l. 19−20); throughout the two months of Lenaion and Artemision he may wear the golden crown and a garment of his choice (l. 20−21) as he is also allowed to do at the Dionysos festival Katagogia (ll. 21−24), at which he will lead the procession together with the cult-statue of Dionysos. The extent of all other privileges was || 74 Cf. also above the presentation of the inscribed stele of Poseidon Helikonios from Thebes. In any case, the instrument of sale and the wording of the diagraphe of Thebes is perhaps based on this kind of document as issued by the Prienean assembly (though the latter are only attested at a later date). There are no such texts known from Samos or Miletos, where the selling of priesthoods was probably not common. 75 See also the overview given by Wiemer/Kah 2011. 76 For the first five lines of I. Priene 174 (I. Priene² 144) see above note 23. Line 6ff.: ἀ[τ]ελὴς δὲ ἔσται καὶ τοῦ σώματος· εἶναι̣ / δὲ αὐτῶι καὶ ἐμ πρυτανείωι καὶ ἐμ Πανιωνί/ωι σίτησιν πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας· λήψεται δὲ ὧν̣ / πόλις θύει σκέλος γλῶσσαν δέρμα παρὰ βω /10 μ̣οῦ μοίρας· vacat παρέξεται δὲ θύα οὐλὰς λιβανω / τὸν ἔλατρα βοῒ μὲν ἐκ τεταρτέως, προβάτωι δὲ / ἐξ ἡμιέκτου, γαλαθηνῶι δὲ ἐγ δύο χοινίκων· / εἶναι δὲ αὐτῶι καὶ ἐν τῶι θεάτρῳ ἐμ προεδρίαι / καθ̣ῆσθαι καὶ στολὴν ἔχειν ἣν ἂμ βούληται καὶ /15 στέφανον κισσοῦ χρυσοῦν· vacat θύσει δὲ καὶ τὰς θυ/σίας τὰς ἐν τῶι θεάτρωι τῶι Διονύσωι τῶι Μελ/πομ̣ένωι καὶ λιβανωτὸν ἐπιθήσει καὶ σπονδαρ/χήσει καὶ τὰς εὐχὰς εὔξεται ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεως / τῆς Πριηνέων· ἐχέτω δὲ καὶ στολὴν ἣν ἂμ βού/20 ληται καὶ στέφανον χρυσοῦν μῆνα Ληναιῶνα / καὶ Ἀνθεστηριῶνα, καὶ τοῖς Καταγωγίοις καθη̣ / γήσεται τῶν συγκαταγόντων τὸν Διόνυσον, / στολὴν ἔχων ἣν ἂν θέληι καὶ στέφανον χρυ/σοῦν· vacat ἐὰν δὲ ὑπὲρ ἐξακισχιλίας δραχμὰς /25 εὕρηι ἡ ἱερωσύνη καὶ ἀτελὴς ἔσται ὁ πριάμενος / λαμπαδαρχίας vacat ἀγωνοθεσίας vacat ἱπποτροφίας / ἀρχιθεωρίας vacat γυμνασιαρχίας· vacat ἐὰν δὲ ὑπὲρ μυ/ρίας καὶ δισχιλίας δραχμὰς ἀγοράσηι, ἀτελὴς ἔσ/ται καὶ τριηραρχίας καὶ οἰκονομίας καὶ νεωποΐας /30 καὶ προεισφορᾶς χρημάτων· vacat καταβαλεῖ δὲ ὁ πριά/μενος τῶι νεωπόηι τὸ μὲν ἐπιδέκατον παραχρῆ/μα, τῆς δὲ λοιπῆς τιμῆς τὸ μὲν ἥμυσυ μηνὸς̣ Με/ταγειτνιῶνος ἔτους τοῦ αὐτοῦ, τὸ δὲ ἥμυσυ μη̣/νὸς Ἀνθεστηριῶνος ἐπὶ στεφανηφόρου Κλεο/35 μένου· ἐπρίατο Ἀθηνόπολις Κυδίμου δραχμῶν / μυρίων δισχιλίων δύο καὶ τοῦ ἐπιδεκάτου δρα/χμῶν vacat χιλίων διακοσίων vacat ὀβολοῦ χαλκῶν / τριῶν. Cf. Wiemer/Kah 2011, 35−38, and for comments and interpretations with a focus on cults of Dionysos, see Horster 2011, 75−76.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:53 PM

196 | Marietta Horster

interdependent with the price of the priesthood (ll. 24−29): in the case of a high price (like the one paid by Athenopolis son of Kleomenes) the priest was released from the liturgies of lampadarchia, agonothesia, hippotrophia, architheoria, gymnasiarchia, trierachia, oikonomia, neopoiia and the proeisphora chrematon. We may sum up that the 12002 drachmas (2 talents) paid in the middle of the second century by the purchaser of this Dionysos priesthood for life were substantially rewarded with visible signs of honour at all major events and during a large part of the year in the city of Priene. In sharp contrast to this priesthood, the female buyer of the priesthood of Meter Phrygie paid only 430 drachmas.77 She received in return only the – strange enough for a woman – privilege of tax-exemption ateleia tou somatos for her personal fortune and exemption from tax-payment for one servant (andrapodos).78 We hear nothing of visible signs of honour like a golden crown,

|| 77 Wiemer/Kah 2011, 3−5 (I. Priene² 145) text and translation, followed by an excellent epigraphical and historical commentary (Wiemer/Kah 2011, 6−33). ἡ πρι̣α̣μ̣έ̣νη τὴν ἱερεωσύνην τῆς Μητρὸς τῆς / Φρυγίης ἱερήσεται τὸν βίον τὸν αὑτῆς ἀτελὴς / οὔσα̣ τοῦ σώματος καὶ ἀνδραπόδου ἑνός. παρέξε/ται δὲ ἡ πόλις ἱερεῖον τῆι μὲν Μητρὶ πρόβατον, /5 [Παν]ὶ δὲ ἀλέκτορα, Ἑρμῇ δὲ καὶ Ζανὶ ἄρνας δύο. / λ̣ή̣ψεται δὲ παρὰ τῆς πόλεως εἰς τὰ ἱερεῖα ἡ ἱερῆ / δραχμὰς τεσσεράκοντα τοῦ μηνὸς τοῦ Ἀρτε/μισιῶν̣ος τῆι νουμηνίαι. λήψεται δὲ τῶν θυομέ/ν̣ων̣ δ̣έ̣ρμ̣ατα καὶ τῶν γερῶν τὰ ἡμίση· τὰ δὲ ἡμί/10 σ̣η̣ τ̣ῶν̣ γ̣ερῶν καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ κρέα διανεῖμαι ταῖς πα/[ρ]α̣γ̣ε[νο]μ̣έναις. παρέξεται δὲ προβάτωι ἔλατρα ἐξ ἡ/μ̣ι̣έκ̣τ̣ου, γαλαθην⟨ῶ⟩ι χοινίκων δύο, τ⟨ῶ⟩ι ἀλέκτορι χοί/νικος, θύα, οὐλάς, λιβανωτόν. ὧν δ’ ἂν οἱ ἰδιῶται θύω/σ̣ι̣ν̣, λ̣ή̣ψεται̣ τῶν γερῶν τῶν παρατιθεμένων τρί/15 τον μέρος. ὅσαι δ’ ἂν θέλωσιν τελεῖσθαι, τελείσθ[ω]/σαν παρὰ τῇ ἱερῇ τῆι δημοσίῃ ἱερείωι τελείωι. διδό/τ̣ω δὲ̣ ἡ̣ τε̣λουμ̣ένη τῇ ἱερῇ τῶν γερῶν τῶν παρα/τι̣θεμέν̣ων̣ τρίτον μέρος καὶ δέρμα· ἄλ̣λ̣ο δὲ μηθὲν / διδόσθ̣[ω, μή]δε ἡ ἱερῆ λαμβανέτω. τὴν δὲ θυσίην εἶνα̣ι /20 τοῦ μη̣νὸς τοῦ Ἀρτεμισιῶνος τῆι δωδεκάτῃ, καὶ συν̣τ̣ελείτω ἡ ἱερῆ, καθότι γέγραπται. τέμενος̣ / ὑ̣πά̣ρ̣χειν τῆι θεῶι τὸ πρὸς τῶι λευκῶι καὶ μέλαν̣ι̣. / ἀποκ̣α̣τ̣α̣στῆσαι δ̣ὲ τὰς θαλάμας τοὺς ἰδιώτας εἰς̣ / τὸ ἀποδεδειγμένον τέμενος. ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἀποκαταστ̣[ή]/25 σωσιν ἐπὶ Λ̣υκωνίδου, ὀ̣φείλειν ἕκαστον τῆι πόλει̣ δ̣[ρα]/χμὰς ἑκατόν. φαινέτω δὲ ὁ βουλόμενος ἐπὶ τῶι ἡ̣[μί]/σ̣ει πρὸς τοὺς νομοφύλακας. ἀγειρέτω δὲ ἡ ἱερῆ, [καὶ] / αἱ λοιπαὶ συναγειρέτωσαν, τετράδι ἱσταμένο[υ τοῦ] / μηνὸς τοῦ Ἀρτεμισιῶνος· ἑτέρῃ δὲ ἡμέρῃ μὴ ἀ̣[γει]/ρέτω μηθείς. ἢν δέ τις ἀγείρῃ, κωλυέτωσαν οἱ τ̣[ι]/30 μ̣οῦχοι ἢ̣ ἀ̣π̣οτινέτωσαν δραχμὰς ἑκατόν· ἢν̣ [δέ] / τ̣ις ἀγεί̣ρῃ, ὀφειλέτω δραχμὰς ἑκατόν. εἰσαγέ[τω] / δὲ ἡ ἱερῆ εἰς τὸ πρυτανεῖον· τιθέτω δὲ ἡ πόλις [ἀναλώ]/ματα πυρῶν μέδιμνον, κριθῶν μέδιμνον, μέλ[ιτος] /35 κοτύλην, ἐλαίου κοτύλην, τυρὸν ἁγνόν· ταῦτ̣[α μὴ] / λ̣αμβαν̣έτω ἡ ⟨ἱ⟩ερῆ. τελεσθήσεται τέλεσι τοῖς α[ὑτῆς]. / τὴν τιμὴν καταβαλεῖ μηνὸς Μεταγειτνιῶνο[ς ἕκτῃ (?)] / ἱσταμένου. τὴν δὲ διαγραφὴν ἀναγραψάτωσα[ν οἱ ἀν]/αγραφεῖς τέλεςι τοῖς τῆς ἱερῆς· στήλην δὲ δό[τω ὁ ἐπὶ] /40 τῆς διοικ̣ήσεως τῶν ὑπαρχουσῶν ἐν τῶι ἱερῶ[ι]. / ἐπρίατο Φιλιτὶς Ἀριστέα δραχμῶν σὺν̣ [τῶι δε] / κάτωι τετρακοσιῶν τριάκοντα. 78 For the ateleia tou somatos see Wiemer/Kah 2011, 20 who follow the arguments of Gauthier 1991. According to Gauthier this phrase designates neither military service nor the eisphora as personal and exceptional payment. In addition to Priene, in the Carian cities of Theangelia and Mylasa this honour designates the exemption from tax-payment per person on his or her

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:53 PM

Priene: Civic Priests and Koinon-Priesthoods in the Hellenistic Period | 197

a specific garment or proedria – all of which are privileges that not only men but also women, especially priestesses, could receive, at least outside the city of Priene. The Prienean priestess was to receive the hide and half of all the sacrificed gera, while the rest of the gera and of the meat was to be apportioned to / divided among the female participants of this exclusive mystery-cult. She herself had to add sacrificial cakes of various size, incense, frankincense and barley grains, depending on the size and sort of the sacrificed animal, the status of the sacrificing person, and the occasion, i.e. a public context or private participants (idiotai) in the ritual. Similar to the rule laid out for the female priest of the Dionysos cult in Miletos, she also received the exclusive right to conduct initiations.79 Financial sanctions and surcharges for misbehaviour by cultparticipants were supported and organised by Prienean (male) office-holders; the money was to go to the public treasury.80 The priesthood itself is explicitly stated as being demosia (l. 16), ‘public’, perhaps to mark its difference from private cult associations venerating Meter. Less is known about the regulations concerning the cult of Sarapis, Isis and Apis. Eftychia Stavrianopoulou has discussed the cult organisation and the relation between the professional Egyptian sacred official and the Greek priest.81 The beginning of the long text containing the main regulations is no longer extant; however, nearly 25 lines are more-or-less visible, in which the duties of the priest and of the neopoies of the sanctuary are set out explicitly, as are the rewards for their/his service, with a detailed account of the parts of the sacrificed animals received as perquisites and the penalty of 1000 drachmas if sacrifice is performed by someone other than the priest represented by the Egyptian cult assistant. At or below the broken end of the stone, additional privileges may have been mentioned, but nothing further has survived. The honours and privileges for the priest of Poseidon and Zeus at Thebes shall be left out of consideration here, as its connection to Priene is too vague and is only one of several possible explanations.82

|| personal fortune, including, as in our case of the priest, on one dependent worker (cf. Gauthier, p. 66). 79 I. Milet VI 3, 1222 (LSAM 48), cf. Horster (forthcoming) with reference to earlier literature. For these inscriptions and with an annotation on demosie, see D. Ackermann in this volume, p. 17 with note 44. 80 For the details of the sanctions, with references to similar rules in other cities, see the comments of Wiemer/Kah 2011, 9−12. 81 Stavrianopoulou 2005. 82 See above the text in note 37 with a discussion on Thebai/Thebes and the possibilities concerning the community’s dependence on Miletos or connection to Priene, cf. also Wiemer/Kah

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:53 PM

198 | Marietta Horster

The decree of the Prieneans confirming sale of the Koinon priesthood of Poseidon Helikonios to the son of Sosibios, who is evidently a citizen of Priene, specifies the following arrangements:83 the priesthood, appointed for life, should follow the rules laid down by the nomoi of the Ionians (l. 7) and it earns every honour and privilege according to the Ionian tradition (l. 8). What follows in the text seems to be a concrete listing of these Ionian regulations. All listed || 2011, 38−45. However the similarities to the rules known in Priene (and unknown in Miletos) should be noted: L. 7−11: εἶναι δὲ α̣ὐτῶι καὶ ἀτέλ[ε]ιαν / ἐ̣ν τῶι δήμωι, λ[α]χεῖν δ̣ὲ / [αὐ]τ̣ὸν ὅσα κα̣ὶ ὁ ἐμ πόλει ἔ[χ]ε[ι] /10 σ̣θ̣α̣[․c.1․]ολ[․c.1․]ο[․c.3․]ο̣υ̣· [ἀ]ναγράψαι / δὲ εἰς στήλην λιθίνην [κ]α[ὶ] ... For the cult at Thebes of Poseidon and Zeus the demos of Thebes decided that the lifelong priesthood should not only receive a large part of the sacrificed animal (l. 4−6) but as a privilege also ateleia, and the priest was to be ranked equal to (the other priests?) of the polis, perhaps not only in the small settlement of Thebes, but in the larger structure to which Thebes was connected. The last words of the fragmentary text are usually interpreted as a regulation concerning the (economically important) privilege of the monopoly on the use of alum: προσκεῖσθαι δ̣ὲ / 15 αὐτῶι καὶ τὴν στρυπτηρίαν /[π]ᾶσαν. Although I do not have a better solution and cannot explain why a sentence like this follows the publication-clause, it seems likely that, if the text is not corrupt and it is not the start of another regulation inscribed on the same stele, its contents rather refer to the financing of the cult and thus to the income of the sanctuary or the deme and not to that of the priest; however, the reported text does not match that interpretation. 83 See also the fragments of the nearly identical text of I. Priene 201 a−d (I. Priene² 146, ca. 200 BC from the terrace of the sanctuary of Athena in Priene; and of I. Priene 203 (I. Priene² 148), second century BC on the basis of which I. Priene 202 is restored. I. Priene 202 (I. Priene² 147) consists of 10 fragments. Lines 1−34 (the first seven fragments; l. 35−54 are too fragmentary): [—]ς Σωσιβίου ἐπρία[το τὴν ἱερωσύ]/[νην τοῦ Ποσ]ειδῶνος τοῦ Ἑλι[κωνίου διὰ] / [βίου ἐπὶ στεφα]ν̣ηφόρου τοῦ [θεοῦ τοῦ μετὰ] / [— δευτέ]ραι μη̣νὸ̣[ς —] /5 [—] / [ἱερήσεται δ]ὲ τὸμ βίο̣[ν τὸν αὑ]τοῦ καὶ τὴν θυσίαν̣ / [τῶι Ποσειδῶ]νι συντελε[ῖ κατὰ] τ̣οὺς νόμους τοὺς Ἰώνω[ν·] / [ἀτελὴς δὲ ἔ]σται πάντωγ καθ]άπερ Ἴωνες δεδώκασιν / [καὶ ἐν τῆι στ]ήλ γέγραπ[τα]ι καὶ τἄλλα ὅσα δέδοται /10 [ὑπὸ Ἰώνων] πάντα· ἐξεῖναι δὲ αὐτῶι καὶ ἐμ πρυτανείωι / [καὶ ἐμ Πανιω]ν̣ίωι σίτησιν, [ὅτ]αμ πόλις ἱερὰ ποιῆι, / [καὶ προεδρίαν ἐν] τοῖς ἀγ[ῶσι πᾶ]σι στέφανον ἔχοντι χρύσεο[ν·] / [ἐξεῖναι δὲ αὐτῶι ἐμ Πανιωνί]ωι καὶ στροφίσκομ φ[ορεῖν χρύσεον,] / [ὅταμ πόλις ἱερὰ ποιῆι ἐμ Πανι]ωνίωι· τά τε παρὰ Ἰώ[νων] /15 [παρασταθέντα ἱερεῖα θύσει, ἐ]πιπέμματά τε παρέ[ξει τῶι τε] / [βοῒ καὶ τῶι προβάτωι ἐκ τεταρτέως ἑκα]τέρωι ἱερείωι καὶ δ̣[ύο] / ἡμιτεσσέρια οἴνου· τὸν δὲ ἐωνηκό]τα μήτε ἀφελέσθ[αι μήτε ἐνεχυρά]/[σαι τὴν ἱερωσύνην μήτε τὰ διδ]όμενα γέρα ἀφαι[ρεῖσθαι μηχανῆι] / [μηδεμιᾶι· ἐὰν δέ τις παρὰ ταῦ]τα προθείη καί [τι τῶν δεδογμένων] /20 [λύοι, ἐξώ]λη[ς εἴη καὶ τὰ ἐκ]είνου πάντα· ἀτ[ελῆ δὲ ἔστω] / [καὶ τὰ το]ῦ πατρὸς ἕως ἂν ζ̣[ῆι.] vacat / [ἔδοξε τῶι δήμ]ωι̣, γνώ̣μη στρα[τ]ηγῶν· νεωποίη[ν —] / [․c.6․․ μηνὸς Τα]υρεῶνος ἐν τ[ῆ]ι νομαίαι ἐκκλησία̣[ι πωλεῖν] / [τὴν ἱερωσύνην] τοῦ Ποσειδ[ῶν]ο̣ς τοῦ Ἑλικωνίου [—] /25 [․․․c.10․․․ τὸ] χρυσίον, λο̣[γιζό]μενον τὸγ χρυ[σ—] / [․․․c.10․․․ ἐ]φ’ ὅτωι ὁ π[ριάμεν]ο̣ς ἱερήσε[ται —] / [—] / [—]Ε̣Ι̣Λ․̣ ΘΕΙ․[—] / [— καθάπερ] ὑπὸ Ἰώνων δέδ̣[οται —] /30 / [— καὶ ἐν] τῆι στήληι ἀναγ[έγραπται· ἀτελὴς] / [δὲ ἔστω] καὶ λητουργιῶμ π[ασῶν πλὴν —] / [— μεταδοῦναι] δὲ αὐτῶι τῆς ἀ[τελείας —] / [καὶ τῶν ἄλλων λ]ητουργι[ῶν, ἐὰν ὑπὲρ —] / [δραχμὰς εὕρηι ἡ ἱερωσύνη —] / ...

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:53 PM

Priene: Civic Priests and Koinon-Priesthoods in the Hellenistic Period | 199

details are confirmed as part of the contract with the Prienean demos: whenever (and whatsoever) the city celebrates, the priest has the right of sitesis in the Prytaneion and the Panionion (l. 10−12). He has prohedria at all contests and the right to wear the golden crown at these events. He has the right to wear the priestly headband (strophion) in the Panionion sanctuary every time the city of Priene has to fulfil sacrificial duties and ceremonies there (l. 13−14). A likely supplement for the damaged lines 20−21 is that not only the priest (l. 30ff) but also the priest’s father is granted ateleia − according to the Ionian nomoi the priest will be tax-exempt, and it seems clear that this rule concerns Priene and probably also all property that the priest may owe in or transfer to other Ionian cities.84 In Priene, he will also be granted exemption from many liturgies; the quantity and quality of the liturgy exemption depends on the sum paid for the priesthood. Apart from the regulations concerning payment in instalments, obligations connected with the auction-sale are few, at least such as are mentioned explicitly. He is to undertake the sacrifices; connected with this are the non-monetary perquisites of parts of the animals and a certain amount of wine. The explicit affirmation that neither the priesthood nor the honours and privileges are to be questioned or taken away seems to be a reaction to litigation about this Ionian, or another Prienean, priesthood in the past. The main differences of the koinon priesthood and the various Prienean priesthoods are obvious. Although this Prienean priest of the Ionian koinon is granted as many or even more exemptions and economic privileges than those men responsible for a cult in Priene, his visible honours are restricted to specific actions and rituals in the context of the Panionion. He does not belong to the group of priests and magistrates who are mentioned in other decrees of the boule and people of Priene concerning the conduct of civic sacrifices, festivals and processions. One of the few distinguishing marks in the outward appearance of a priest is the strophion, or headband, but the koinon priest is allowed to wear it only at times when the city of Priene has sacred duties to fulfil at the Panionion. Even in the context of sitesis in the Panionion, it is made clear that in this case he has no priority over the priests of the cults in Priene. The Panionion was a building that was evidently open to citizens of Priene, including the benefactors and priests who had received the privilege and honour of a meal in the Panionion on days in which the city with its magistrates

|| 84 It seems likely that this should encourage a rather young man to buy the priesthood so that the privilege for the father is of relevance for the family. It has been speculated that these or some of these Ionian nomoi may be in the inscription found in the Panionion, Hommel 1967, 45−63 in: Kleiner/Hommel/Müller-Wiener 1967 (I. Priene² 399).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:53 PM

200 | Marietta Horster

had to conduct sacred business.85 Even the koinon-priest of Poseidon had no entitlement to sitesis at more than these − probably quite few − occasions. The publication of the Inschriften von Priene by Hiller von Gaertringen, and especially Strabo’s lines,86 have led scholars to conclude that the Panionian sanctuary of Poseidon Helikonios and its priesthood were delegated to the Prieneans and that the meetings of the Ionian league, with the Panionia festival, took place at the Panionion near Priene. However, it seems that, at least in the second century BC, there were restrictions for both the city and the priest. The priest of Poseidon was allowed to enter the Panionion and fulfil his priestly duties only in the context of public and official sacred services by the Prieneans. It is even unclear whether the priest was to fulfil and be present at all sacrifices at meetings of the Ionian koinon. Strabo attests for the late Republican / early Augustan period that it is a Prienean priest who sacrifices to Poseidon Helikonios during the Panionia. The other koinon-priesthood, the priest of Zeus Boulaios and Hera, who had specific duties at the Panionia, is attested only for the fourth century. In addition, it was the priest of Zeus Boulaios, and not the priest of Poseidon, who officiated at the Panionia in the fourth century (see above p. 191 with note 53); this priesthood was not administered by the Prieneans. We have no information about whether the second-century Prienean priest of Poseidon Helikonios was already involved in the meetings of the koinon or at the Panionia before the second century BC, nor do we have information about whether the priest of Zeus Boulaios still existed after the fourth century BC. It is possible that the Panionia festival and the priesthood connected with the sanctuary at Mykale near Priene may have lost their standing for a certain period of time. The history and the importance of the cults and festivals connected to the Panionion near Priene are thus far from clear. Federal festivals are known from other federations,87 such as the quite near-by festival of the Panathenaia in

|| 85 See the list of sitesis grants for the Panionion, note 60. 86 Strabo 8.7.2 and 14.1.20, see note 90. 87 Funke 2007 has a short but excellent introduction to the subject of the function of koina and ethne in Greece within the political world of changing Hellenistic power configurations; see ibid. p. 92−94 for the integrating function of a common festival. Some of the Hellenistic federations chose alternating or rotating venues for their main festival, others had a main and common sanctuary. For the role of the Panhellenic festivals in the Hellenistic period see also Christina Williamson in this volume, p. 213 note 16 with further references. For a discussion of individual members of the cities’ elites during the Roman period, who also play a role in the koina and often also in the provincial assemblies, their festivals and priesthoods (Asiarch, Boiotarch etc.), see Lewartowski 2003.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:53 PM

Priene: Civic Priests and Koinon-Priesthoods in the Hellenistic Period | 201

Ilion. The decrees of the “Ilians and the cities who come together for the sacrifice, the agon and the festival” document financial difficulties in paying for and providing the standard equipment of the agon, the panegyris and, above all, the sacrificial animals – and this already in the third, but as well as in the first century BC.88 Other leagues combined more than one festival of the same kind at the time of their gathering. The koinon of the Ionians attached the day of the Eumeneia (RC 52, l. 27−29) in honour of Eumenes II as a one-day prolongation to the Alexandreia, a pan-Ionic festival whose venue was perhaps rotated annually and only later fixed at Chalkis (between Teos and Klazomenai).89 This example may help us understand the two known large common festivals of the Ionian league. Of these festivals, one, the Alexandreia, did not take place in the Prienean Mykale-Panionion but rotated between the members of the league, during the Hellenistic period. Likewise, one of the two attested priesthoods connected to the Panionia, that of Zeus Boulaios, was not under the authority of the Prieneans. In addition, we know of Panionia which took place outside the Mykale-Panionion, e.g. in Ephesos and Miletos.90 In the letter of Eumenes to the || 88 I. Ilion 5; 6 (both of the last third of the third century); 11 (77 BC) and 12 (first century BC?), all dates given according to P. Frisch in his commented edition, but see Ma 2007 on the date of these and other decrees of this confederation. 89 The Alexandreia festival was established not later than the mid-third century BC and is attested as a regular meeting in the Augustan period near Erythrai, and later in Smyrna. RC 52, Milet I 9, 306 (169/68 BC) was found at Miletos; it is a letter of Eumenes II to the Ionian league in which he promises to pay for his festival, cf. the text with commentary by Piejko 1991 (especially p. 134−135 on the Panionia/Alexandreia being prolonged by the Eumeneia). Chalkideis on the Erythrean peninsula is mentioned by Strabo 14.1.31. Metcalf 1995, 112 mistook the koina/koinon sacrifices in honour of Antiochos, the kings and Roma (and of Athena, Herakles, Helios etc. – which Metcalfe does not mention in his discussion of the text), which are celebrated monthly in Erythrai and are mentioned in a sacrificial calendar (I. Erythrai 207) , as sacrifices Erythrai undertook for the koinon of the Ionians. For a concise discussion of these parts of the sacrificial calendar, see Graf 1985, 166−167: they mark the common sacrifices of the polis Erythrai and the smaller poleis (Butheia, Elaiusa etc.) of the peninsula, which were part of a synteleia, attested as such in the Athenian tribute lists of the mid-fifth century. Most of these settlements became dependant of Erythrai already by 425/4, see e.g. on Polichne, Rubinstein 2005, 1091 number 860. 90 During the fifth and early fourth century, the Panionia were probably held outside Priene, perhaps (at least once) in Ephesos, see Debord 1999, 176−178 and above with note 2. In the Augustan period the Panionia were held at the Panionion near Priene, Strab. 14.1.20 (639) “... near Mt. Mycale ... on the seaboard is the Panionion, lying three stadia above the sea where the Panionia, the common festival of the Ionians, are celebrated, and where sacrifices are performed in honour of Poseidon Helikonios. The Prieneans serve as priests at this sacrifice, but I have spoken of them in my account of the Peloponnesus,” (cf. Strab. 8.7.2). Panionia in the first century AD are probably attested in Smyrna, Philostrat, VApoll. 4. 5, if this is a reliable

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:53 PM

202 | Marietta Horster

Ionian league, the Panionia were held that year at Miletos, the city in which the inscription was found: “In order that for the future, by celebrating a day in my honor in the Panionian Festival, you may make the whole occasion more illustrious, I shall present you with an adequate income from which you will be able to remember us suitably. I shall myself make the gold statue, because I desire that the honor should cost the League nothing, and I wish to have it set up in the precinct voted us by Miletus. Since it was when you were celebrating the festival in this city that you voted us the honor, and since this city only of the Ionians up to now has set aside a precinct for us, and since it counts itself our relation through the Cyzicenes and since it has done many glorious and memorable deeds for the Ionians, I thought that the erection of the statue would there be most suitable.”91 In addition to the attestation of Panionia held outside the Panionion, whether that was for a longer period of time or rotating like the Alexandreia, most of the few decrees and other inscribed texts that mention the Ionian league in the Hellenistic period down to the early first century AD come from outside Priene.92 || testimony. For the Alexandreia, see Strabo 14.1.31 (644): the agon of the Ionian league takes place in a sacred grove at an Isthmos near Erythrai. The earliest attestation of the Alexandreia is the decree of the Ionian league in honour of Antiochos I (ca. 268−262), found at Klazomenai OGIS 222 = I. Erythrai 504, cf. Piejko 1991 with additions, comments and a translation. A victorinscription in Messene (second or first century BC, SEG 46, 422), records Alexandreia in Smyrna, on which see Herrmann 2002: 231 with a detailed discussion and further literature. 91 Welles’ translation of the last part of the letter at RC 52 (OGIS 763 and I. Milet I 9, 306, cf. I. Milet VI 1 p. 209 and SEG 36, 1049). Lines 50−67: ὅπως δὲ καὶ εἰς τὸ λοιπὸν ἐν τῆι πανηγύρει / τῶν Πανιωνίων ἡμέραν ἐπώνυμον ἄγοντες / ἡμῖν ἐπιφανέστερον τὴν ὅλην ἑορτὴν συν/τελῆτε, προσόδους ὑμῖν τὰς ἱκανὰς ἀνα/55 [θήσω], ἀ̣φ’ ὧν ἕξετε τὴν καθήκουσαν ἡμῖν / [ἀνατιθ]έ̣ναι μνήμην. τὸν δὲ χρυσοῦν ἀνδρι/[άντα ποιή]σ̣ω μὲν ἐγὼ προαιρούμενος ἀδά/[πανον πάν]τ̣ως [τὴν] χ̣ά̣ρ̣ιν ε̣ἶ̣ν̣αι τῶι κο[ινῶι]. IIb.59 / ἀν̣ατεθῆναι δ’ αὐτὴ̣[ν βούλομαι] ἐν τῶι ἐψη/60 φισμένωι ἡμῖν ὑπὸ Μιλησ[ίων τε]μένε[ι· ὅ]/τε γὰρ ἐν ταύτηι τῆι πόλει συντελοῦντε[ς] / τὴν πανήγυριν ἐψήφισθε τὴν τιμὴν ἡμῖν, / τῆς πόλεως μόνης τῶν Ἰάδων μέχρι τοῦ / παρόντος τέμενος ἀναδεδειχοίας ἡμῖν /65 καὶ συγγενοῦς κρινομένης διὰ Κυζικηνούς, / ἔνδοξα δὲ πολλὰ καὶ ἄξια μνήμης ὑπὲρ τῶν / Ἰώνων πεπραχυίας, οἰκειοτάτην ἐλογιζόμη[ν] / τὴν ἀνάθεσιν ἔσεσθαι ἐν ταύτηι. 92 Klazomenai: OGIS 222 (I. Erythrai 504), decree in honour of Antiochos I, ca. 267−262 BC, cf. Piejko 1991. Miletos: Milet I 9, 306 with comments in I. Milet VI 1, p. 209 decree in honour of Eumenes II 167/66 BC. Miletos: the Milesian Menippos son of Tauriskos is honoured by the Ionian league in the late second/early first century BC, Milet I 3, 170 (cf. probably the same person in Milet I 7, 250 and comments in I. Milet VI 1, p. 195). Miletos, Smyrna and Chios: a decree in several examples in honour of Hippostratos, strategos of Lysimachos: Milet I 2, 10, I. Smyrna 577, SEG 35, 929 (cf. I. Milet VI 1 p. 157). The decree included a publication clause which obliged all cities of the league to publish the honours for Hippostratos. Miletos: honours decreed for the Milesian musician and artist Moirias son of Aristodemos in elegiacs, second

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:53 PM

Priene: Civic Priests and Koinon-Priesthoods in the Hellenistic Period | 203

Therefore I conclude that Strabo probably mentioned the Panionion, with its festival and the priest of Poseidon Helikonios, because it added a little splendour to the small town of Priene at a time when the Roman province of Asia existed and Rome had already become the focus of elite behaviour in that region. The offices and priesthoods of Asiarch and archiereus at the provincial council of Asia in Ephesos had become the main supraregional offices, and the provincial council with its festival in honour of Roma and Augustus had become the focal point of the Ionian cities and its elites, not the meetings of the Ionian league.

Concluding Remarks Of the few women and many men honoured, both citizens and foreigners, the priests are not very prominent in the extant inscriptions of Priene. As demonstrated by Wulf Raeck (1995) and Pierre Fröhlich (2005), the dominant magistrates were often rich benefactors, of whom anyone admiring the agora and the so-called archives of the sacred hall, or the hall at the market, with the statues set up in front of them, would get an excellent impression. Most of these men either never held priesthoods or, if they did, they themselves or at least the initiators of the inscribed honours did not think it worth citing a priestly office in the honorific decrees and honorific inscribed statue-bases. Apart from the rich second-century priests Athenopolis and his family and Dionysios, priest of Nikomedes, it seems that the male and female bearers of the Prienean priesthoods did not play a major role in the civic life of Priene beyond the sacrifices and festivals they were obliged to undertake. In the case of the female priesthood of the tutelary goddess Athena Polias, such occasions for performances and rituals may have been frequent, and in || century BC, I. Milet VI 3, 1085. Priene: I. Priene 55 (I. Priene² 43) decree of the last third of the second century BC (after the creation of the Roman province) in honour of a citizen of Priene, Dionysios son of Ameinias. Claros: the Ionian league honours Pompey (in the 60s BC, after his victory over the pirates), the overseer of land and sea, as a benefactor and patron of the Ionians, J.-L. Ferrary, BCH 124, 2000, 341 n. 4 and Eilers 2002: 235 no. C 92; Miletos: a decree of the Ionian league in honour of C. Iulius Epikrates is dated to the Augustan period, I. Milet VI 3, 1045. Sardeis: Later, between AD 141 and 145, a festival of the provincial koinon of Asia took place in Sardeis, on which occasion it seems that the koinon of the 13 Ionian cities was invited. It probably held a festival on its own and sacrifices. At the least, commemorative coins on behalf of the federation of the Ionian cities were minted, cf. Kampmann 1997.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:53 PM

204 | Marietta Horster

other cases, too, depending on the price of the auction sale, the visibility of an individual priest may have been quite high, as in the case of Athenopolis, who paid more than 12000 drachmas and received inter alia not only exemptions from nearly all liturgies but also the right to wear a golden crown during two months of the year. For a man from Priene, the Panionion presented opportunities to show off his wealth and demonstrate his piety towards the Ionian deity Poseidon as his priest, in the context of the other basileis (the envoys of the Ionian cities) and so the members of the elites of the Ionian cities. However, this competitive aspect and the Panionia-context seem to have been of less importance and was perhaps less attractive than modern research has concluded from Strabo and a few inscribed texts and other sources. The presumed importance of the traditional regional koina and Panhellenic festivals in the Hellenistic and Imperial periods, not only for the economy and culture of communication and networking by the elites, but also for the ‘identity’ of the cities and elites in the context of changing regional supra-structures (Hellenistic kings and Roman rule), may well have been overstated.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:53 PM

Priene: Civic Priests and Koinon-Priesthoods in the Hellenistic Period | 205

Bibliography Asboeck, A. (1913). Das Staatswesen von Priene in hellenistischer Zeit, München, Phil. Dissertation (6. März 1912). Billows, R. A. (2007). ‘Rebirth of a Region: Ionia in the Early Hellenistic Period,’ in: Elton, Hugh, Reger, Gary (ed.). Regionalism in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor. Acts of the Conference Hartford, Connecticut (USA). 22−24 August 1997. (Ausonius Éditions. Études 20.). Paris, 33−44. van Bremen, R. (1996). The limits of Participation. Women and civic life in the Greek East in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Amsterdam. Caspari, M. O. B. (1915). ‘The Ionian Confederacy,’ JHS 35, 173−188. Chankowski, A. (2010). L’éphébie hellénistique : étude d’une institution civique dans les cités grecques des îles de la Mer Égée et de l’Asie Mineure. Paris. Crowther, Ch. V. (1996). ‘Priene and the history of Priene in the early Hellenistic period,’ Chiron 26, 195−250. Debord, P. (1999). L ́Asie Mineure au IVe siècle (412−323 a. C.) Pouvoir et jeux politiques. Bordeaux Deshours, N. (2011). L’été indien de la religion civique. Étude sur les cultes civiques dans le monde égéem à l’époque hellénistique tardive. (Ausonius Éditions. Scripta Antiqua 30). Bordeaux. Dignas, B. (2003a). ‘“Auf seine Kosten kommen” − ein Kriterium für Priester? Zum Verkauf von Priestertümer im hellenistischen Kleinasien,’ in: G. H. E. Winter (ed.), Neue Forschungen zur Religionsgeschichte Kleinasiens. Elmar Schwertheim zum 60. Geburtstag gewidmet. Bonn (Asia Minor Studien, 49). 27−40. Dmitriev, S. (2005). City Government in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor, Oxford. Dontas, N.A. (ed.) (²2005), Priene, Athens. Ehrhardt, N. (²1988). Milet und seine Kolonien. Vergleichende Untersuchung der kultischen und politischen Einrichtungen. Munich. Eilers, C. (2002). Roman Patrons of Greek Cities. Oxford. Ferrary, J.-L. (2000). ‘Les inscriptions du sanctuaire de Claros en l’honneur de Romains,’ BCH 124, 331−376. Fröhlich, P. (2005). ‘Dépenses publiques et évergétisme des citoyens dans l’exercice des charges publiques à Priène à la basse époque hellénistique,’ in P. Fröhlich, C. Müller, Citoyenneté et participation à la basse époque hellénistique, Paris 2005, 225−256. Funke, P. (2007). ‘Die staatliche Neuformierung Griechenlands. Staatenbünde und Bundesstaaten,’ in: G. Weber (ed.). Kulturgeschichte des Hellenismus. Von Alexander dem Großen bis Kleopatra, Stuttgart, 78−98. Gauthier, P. (1985). Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs. Paris. — (1991). ‘Ἁτέλεια τοῦ σώματος,’ Chiron 21, 49−68. Graf, F. (1985). Nordionische Kulte. Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den Kulten von Chios, Erythrai, Klazomenai und Phokaia. Rom. Grandinetti, P. (2010). ‘Les élites cittadine di Mileto, Priene e Kyme all’ età ellenistica,’ in: L. Capdetrey, Y. Lafond (edd.). La Cité et ses Élites. Pratiques et représentation des formes de domination et de contrôle social dans les cités grecque. Actes du colloque de Poitiers, 19 – 20 octobre 2006. (Ausonius Éditions. Études 25.). Bordeaux/Paris, 81−102.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:53 PM

206 | Marietta Horster

Hennemeyer, A. (2006). Athenaheiligtum von Priene. Die Nebenbauten − Altar, Halle und Propylon − und die bauliche Entwicklung des Heiligtums. Diss. TU München. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:91-diss-20070727-625569-1-8. Herda, A. (2006). ‘Panionion–Melia, Mykalessos–Mykale, Perseus und Medusa. Überlegungen zur Besiedlungsgeschichte der Mykale in der frühen Eisenzeit,’ IstMitt 56, 43−102. Herrmann, P. (2002). ‘Das koinon ton Ionon unter römischer Herrschaft,’ in: N. Ehrhardt, L.-M. Günther, (edd.). Widerstand − Anpassung − Integration. Die griechische Staatenwelt und Rom. Festschrift für Jürgen Deininger zum 65. Geburtstag, Stuttgart, 223−240. Höpfner, W. (2005). ‘Old and new Priene – Pythius and Aristotle,’ in: N. A. Dontas (ed.). Priene, 2nd edition, Athens, 29−49. Horster, M. (2011). ‘Cult of Dionysos: Economic Aspects,’ in: R. Schlesier (ed.) A Different God? Dionysos and Ancient Polytheism, Berlin, 61−84. — (forthcoming). ‘Dionysos-Thiasoi und Bakchoi in “öffentlichen” und “privaten” Kulten,’ in: M. Zimmermann, A. Matthaei (edd.), Stadtkultur im Hellenismus, Mainz, 108−120 Hubbe, R. O. (1950). Public service in Miletus and Priene in Hellenistic and Roman imperial times, Princeton. Jones, N. F. (1987). Public Organization in Ancient Greece: A Documentary Study. Philadelphia. Kampmann, U. (1997). ‘Eine gemeinsame Emission der Städte Pergamon und Ephesos für das Koinon der 13 Ionischen Städte. Beiträge des Münzhandels zur Imperialforschung,’ in: J. Nollé, B. Overbeck, P. Weiss (edd.). Nomismata. Historisch-numismatische Forschungen 1. Internationales Kolloquium zur kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung Kleinasiens, 27.−30. April 1994 in der Staatlichen Münzsammlung, München. Mailand, 83−91. von Kienlin, A. (2004). ‘Das Stadtzentrum von Priene als Monument bürgerlicher Selbstdarstellung,’ in: E. L. Schwander, K. Rheidt (edd.), Macht der Architektur − Architektur der Macht. Bauforschungskolloquium in Berlin vom 30. Oktober bis 2. November 2002. Mainz, 114−120. Kleiner, G., Hommel, P., Müller-Wiener, W. (1967) (edd.). Panionion und Melie (JdI Ergänzungsheft 21) Berlin. Knoepfler, D. (2003). ‘Huit otages Béotiens Proxénes de l’Achaie: Une image de l`élite sociale et des institutions du Koinon Boiôtôn hellénistique (Syll.3, 519),’ in: M. Cébeillac-Gervasoni, L. Lamoine (Hrsg.), Les élites et leurs facettes. Les élites locales dans le monde hellénistique et romain, Rom, 85−106. Kotsidu, H. (2000). TIMH KAI DOXA. Ehrungen für hellenistische Herrscher im griechischen Mutterland und in Kleinasien unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der archäologischen Denkmäler, Berlin. Kowalzig, B. (2005). ‘Mapping out Communitas: Performances of Theôria in their Sacred and Political Context,’ in J. Elsner, I. Rutherford (edd.). Pilgrimage in Graeco-Roman & Early Christian Antiquity. Seeing the Gods. Oxford/New York, 41−72. Kreutz, N. (2007). Zeus und die griechischen Poleis. Topographische und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen von archaischer bis in hellenistischer Zeit, Rahden. Kunnert, U. (2012). Bürger unter sich. Phylen in den Städten des kaiserzeitlichen Ostens. Basel. Lenschau, T. (1944). ‘Die Gründung Ioniens und der Bund am Panionion,’ Klio 36, 201−237. Lewartowski, Élise (2003). ‘Les membres des Koina sous le principat (Ie−IIIe siècles): Quelques exemples d`integration dans la vie locale,’ in: M. Cébeillac-Gervasoni, L. Lamoine (edd.). Les élites et leurs facettes. Les élites locales dans le monde hellémistique et romain, Rom, 207−221.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:53 PM

Priene: Civic Priests and Koinon-Priesthoods in the Hellenistic Period | 207

Lohmann, H. (2002). ‘Zur historischen Topographie des südlichen Ionien,’ Orbis Terrarum 8, 163−272. — (2005). ‘Media. Das Panionion und der Kult des Poseidon Helikonios,’ in: E. Schwertheim, E. Winter (edd.), Neue Forschungen zu Ionien. (Asia Minor Studien, vol. 54). Bonn, 57−91. Lohmann, H., Busching, A., Ehrhardt, N. (2013). ‘Stroterfragmente mit Inschriftenresten,’ in: H. Lohmann, G. Kalaitzoglou, G. Lüdorf (edd.), Forschungen zur Mykale III, 2. Das Dach des arachischen Panionion. (Asia Minor Studien, vol. 70) Bonn, 185−189. Ma, J. (2007), ‘Dating the new decree of the confederation of Athena Ilias,’ EA 40, 55−57. — (2012). ‘The History of Hellenistic Honorific Statues,’ in: N. Papazarkadas, P. Martzavou (edd.). Epigraphical Approaches to the Post-Classical Polis: Fourth century BC to Second Century AD. Oxford, 165−180. Magnetto, A. (2008). L’arbitrato di Rodi fra Samo e Priene, edizione critica, commento e indici. Pisa. Metcalfe, M. J. (2005). Reaffirming regional identity: cohesive institutions and local interactions in Ionia 386−129 BC, PhD thesis, University College, London. Mylonopoulos, J. (2003). Πελοποννησός οικητήριον Ποσειδῶνος. Heiligtümer und Kulte des Poseidon auf der Peloponnes. Liège. Naerebout, F. G. (1994). ‘Priene en het Panionion. Religie in hellenistisch Klein-Azie,’ Hermeneus 66, 117−124. Quaß, F. (1993). Die Honoratiorenschicht in den Städten des griechischen Ostens. Untersuchungen zur politischen und sozialen Entwicklung in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit. Stuttgart. Parker, R., Obbink, D. (2000). ‘Aus der Arbeit der “Inscriptiones Graecae” VI. Sales of Priesthoods on Cos I,’ Chiron 30, 415−449. — (2001). ‘Aus der Arbeit der “Inscriptiones Graecae” VII. Sales of Priesthoods on Cos II,’ Chiron 31, 229−252. Piejko, F. (1991). ‘Decree of the Ionian League in honor of Antiochus I, ca. 267−262 B.C.,’ Phoenix 45, 126−147. Raeck, W. (1995). ‘Der mehrfache Apollodoros. Zur Präsenz des Bürgers im hellenistischen Stadtbild am Beispiel Priene,’ in: M. Wörrle, P. Zanker (edd.). Stadtbild und Bürgerbild im Hellenismus. Kolloquium München, 24. bis 26. Juni 1993, München, 231−240. Rubinstein, L. (2004). ‘Ionia. II. The Poleis: 861 Priene; 869 Thebai,’ in: M. H. Hansen, Th. H. Nielsen, (edd.) An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis. An Investigation Conducted by The Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation, Oxford, 1091−1093; 1102−1103. Rumscheid, F. (2002). ‘Den Anschluß verpaßt: Priene in der (frühen) Kaiserzeit,’ in: Ch. Berns et al. (edd.). Patris und Imperium. Kulturelle und politische Identität in den Städten der römischen Provinzen Kleinasiens in der frühen Kaiserzeit. Kolloquium Köln, November 1998, Leuven/Paris/Dudley, 77−87. Savalli-Lestrade, I. (2003). ‘Remarques sur les élites dans les poleis hellénistiques,’ in: M. Cébeillac-Gervasoni, L. Lamoine (edd.). Les élites et leurs facettes. Les élites locales dans le monde hellénistique et romain. Rome/Clermont-Ferrand, 51−64. Sherwin-White, S.M. (1985). ‘Ancient Archives: The Edict of Alexander to Priene, A Reappraisal,’ JHS 105, 69−89. Sokolowski, F. (1970). ‘Règlement relatif à la célébration des Panionia,’ BCH 94, 109−112.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:53 PM

208 | Marietta Horster

Sourvinou-Inwood, C. (1990). ‘What is Polis Religion?’ in: O. Murray, S. Price (edd.), The Greek City from Homer to Alexander. Oxford. 295−322 (reprinted in R. Buxton (ed.) Oxford Readings in Greek Religion. Oxford. 13−37). Stavrianopoulou, E. (2005). ‘Priester gesucht, “Erfahrung” erwünscht!,’ in: C. Ambos, G. Schwedler, St. Weinfurter (ed). Die Welt der Rituale: von der Antike bis heute, Darmstadt, 90−95. Thonemann, P. (2011). The Maeander Valley. A Historical Geography From Antiquity to Byzantium. Cambridge. — (2012). ‘Alexander, Priene and Naulochon,’ in: N. Papazarkadas, P. Martzavou (edd.). Epigraphical Approaches to the Post-Classical Polis: Fourth century BC to Second Century AD. Oxford, 23−36. Trümpy, C. (1997). Untersuchungen zu den altgriechischen Monatsnamen und Monatsfolgen, Heidelberg. Vanseveren, J. (1937). ‘Inscriptions d’Amorgos et de Chios’, RPhil. 63, 313−347. Wiemer, H.-U. (2003). ‘Käufliche Priestertümer im hellenistischen Kos,’ Chiron 33: 263−310. Wiemer, H.-U., Kah, D. (2011). ‘Die Phrygische Mutter im hellenistischen Priene: eine neue Diagraphe und verwandte Texte,’ EA 44, 1−54. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. (1906). ‘Panionion,’ in: Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 1906, 59−79. Ziebarth, E. (1914²). Aus dem griechischen Schulwesen. Eudemos von Milet und Verwandtes. Leipzig/Berlin. (repr. Groningen 1971).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:53 PM

Christina G. Williamson

Civic Producers at Stratonikeia The Priesthoods of Hekate at Lagina and Zeus at Panamara Abstract: Stratonikeia developed as a polis from the mid-second century BC to become one of the major cities in Karia by the early imperial period. Two cults from the surrounding communities were drawn into orbit to become core factors in this process, that of Hekate at Lagina, and Zeus at Panamara, both of which were located at roughly opposite ends of Stratonikeian territory. While priests of civic cults in the Hellenistic and imperial periods were typically financial benefactors of their cities, a number of individuals at these sanctuaries show particular resourcefulness in strengthening the ties between cult, community and polis. Using theory drawn from studies in regional identity, this paper examines the role of priests as civic producers through the case studies at Lagina and Panamara.

Priests of major civic cults are known to have occupied a more and more prominent position on the horizon of the civic landscape in the later Hellenistic and imperial periods.1 Their increasing euergetism is well recorded, but the question is that as they invested their time and resources into community-building activities were they primarily responding to the rising expectations of office, or were they acting as true civic leaders? Stratonikeia in Karia provides a good case study to observe this phenomenon in closer detail, as certain priests may be seen to have played a central or even pivotal role in the development of the polis and its community. Founded in the third century BC, Stratonikeia absorbed several of the surrounding communities as it expanded. Social integration among this disparate population base would have been a paramount issue which the emerging polis had to face. A common denominator was found in the local gods, who were drawn into the orbit of the polis. The two deities who be-

|| 1 I would like to thank Marietta Horster and Anja Klöckner for their kind invitation to participate in this conference and to the other participants for their helpful comments, particularly Andreas Victor Walser. This paper derives for a large part from my PhD dissertation, City and sanctuary in Hellenistic Asia Minor. Constructing civic identity in the sacred landscapes of Mylasa and Stratonikeia in Karia, Williamson 2012a. See also Williamson 2012b. On priests, see among many others: Veyne 1976; Gordon 1990; van den Hoff 2008: Guettel Cole 2008; Lambert 2012.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

210 | Christina G. Williamson

came the patron gods of Stratonikeia were Hekate and Zeus Karios, whose shrines at Lagina and Panamara, respectively, were located at opposite ends of the territory (Fig. 1). By the second century BC both cult places had been transformed into prime political sanctuaries with major civic festivals. It follows that their priesthoods were among the principal institutions of the polis, but what role did priests actually play in channelling the native power of local cults towards Stratonikeia? In geographer Anssi Paasi’s model of regional identity, the ‘economic, political and cultural/media elites’ are the linchpins of region-building, which includes territorial and symbolic shaping, institutionalism, and external recognition.2 In the ancient city, priests were typically among this category and I will argue that at Stratonikeia they clearly acted as region-builders, or rather civic producers, as they turned the polis into a common focus and a source of pride for the scattered communities while putting it on the larger map of the Greek world.3 Some 390 inscriptions from the sanctuaries of Hekate at Lagina and Zeus at Panamara, ranging mostly from the second century BC to the third century AD, provide rich data on the function and development of the priesthood at these shrines as it became one of the most prestigious offices in Stratonikeia. These documents have been studied among others by their discoverers Georges Cousin and Gaston Deschamp in the late nineteenth century, Alfred Laumonier in the 1930’s, who established a rough chronology, and much more recently by Riet van Bremen and Pierre Debord who consider them in their social and political contexts.4 In this article I draw on the findings of these scholars as I discuss the

|| 2 See especially Paasi 2009, 133: “Regions are institutional structures that are perpetually ‘becoming’ instead of just ‘being’… social institutions such as culture, media and administration are crucial in these processes and in the production and reproduction of certain ‘structures of expectations’… [which] are the basis for the narratives of identity, mobilisation of collective memory, and they also constitute the visible and invisible social ‘gel’ based on values, norms and ideologies. Region-building can only be understood in a framework of social division of labour and this accentuates particularly the role of (regional) economic, political and cultural/media elites in the production of regions and identity narratives.” The four developmental phases of regional identity are discussed on p.134−136. 3 On the city as a region, see Scott 2001 and Sassen 2002. 4 On Panamara: Cousin and Deschamps 1888 ‘Inscriptions de temple de Zeus Panamaros’ and Cousin 1904 ‘Inscriptions du sanctuaire de Zeus Panamaros’ (now incorporated in Inschriften von Stratonikeia, vol. 1.); Hatzfeld 1927; Laumonier 1937 and Laumonier 1938a; van Bremen 2004. On Lagina: Cousin and Diehl 1887 ‘Inscriptions de Lagina’ (in Inschriften von Stratonikeia, vol. 2); Hatzfeld 1920; Laumonier 1938b; van Bremen 2003, and more recently van Bremen 2010 on the context of the inscriptions on the temple walls. Debord discusses the priests at both sanctuaries in Debord 2007.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

Civic Producers at Stratonikeia | 211

developing role of the priesthood at each sanctuary with regard to the production of civic identity. These inscriptions form an important source of information, not just on the nature of the priesthood, but also on the development of Stratonikeia. Inscriptions and archaeological fieldwork have shown that Stratonikeia, a Seleukid colony from the early third century BC,5 was founded in a landscape already socially articulated with which it evolved as it drew several of the surrounding communities into its constituency as demes.6 Foremost among these were the five communities of Hiera Kome, Koranza, Koliorga, Koraia and Lobolda (Fig. 2).7 At least two of these communities, Koranza and Koliorga, had once been independent poleis in their own right.8 The early development of Stratonikeia is unclear, but it seems to have fallen under Rhodian rule. In any event, after 167/6 BC, when Rhodes was expelled from the area by Rome, the epigraphic record both increases and reflects the growing involvement of the polis in the wider region. The sanctuaries at Lagina and Panamara began to take up prominent positions on the horizon, and by the mid-second century both Zeus and Hekate appeared on the first coins minted by liberated Stratonikeia.9 In the turbulent times of the first century BC, the gods of both sanctuaries became even more critical for the self-representation of the polis, its political network and its display of loyalty to Rome. The various crises served to strengthen the

|| 5 Strabo still calls Stratonikeia a ‘settlement of Macedonians’, Strabo 14.2.25. 6 The names of older places later appear in onomastics of Stratonikeians in the demotic, discussed in Şahin 1976, and more recently van Bremen 2000 and Debord 2001. The rich archaeological discoveries from the area between Stratonikeia and Koranza, or Lagina, to the north is regularly reported in the Kazı sonuçları toplantısı by Prof. Ahmet Tırpın of the University of Konya, to whom I am indebted for allowing me to make an extended visit to Lagina and the depot in Turgut in the spring of 2009. 7 The frequency of the appearance of the demotics in the inscriptions of Stratonikeia have been listed by Şahin in I. Stratonikeia III, 2: Koliorga − 179 times; Hiera Kome − 150 times; Koraia − 130 times; Koranza − 106 times; and Lobolda − 54 times. Hiera Kome is believed to be roughly at the site of Stratonikeia, probably named after the sacred village belonging to the sanctuary of Zeus Chrysaoreus, Şahin 1976, 1−15 although the sanctuary for Zeus Chrysaoreus has not yet been identified. Koranza is located about eight km to the north, whereas Koliorga, Koraia and Lobolda have not yet been identified with any certainty. 8 Blümel 1990, no.12 is a fourth century inscription from Sekköy listing Koranza and Koliorga as poleis. Şahin believes that by analogy the other communities may also have been referred to as poleis, I. Stratonikeia III, p, 2−3. The name Koranza generally appears as Koraza when it is a deme of Stratonikeia, Şahin 1976, 1 n.6 and Şahin 1973, 188. For the sake of clarity, however, I will simply use the name Koranza in this study to refer to this community. 9 The chronology for the Hellenistic coinage of Stratonikeia is analyzed in Meadows 2002, see Group 1 for the earliest issues showing Hekate and Zeus.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

212 | Christina G. Williamson

bond between polis and cult more and more; the priests at each sanctuary will be seen to have been principal actors in the creation and growing manifestation of this relationship.

The Priests of the Sanctuary of Hekate at Lagina Hekate’s sanctuary at Lagina initially belonged to the community of Koranza, some eight kilometers north of Stratonikeia and one of the local settlements that was absorbed by Stratonikeia as it expanded. Located at the eastern rim of the Koranza plateau and looking out over the Marsyas plain, the cult place appears to reflect the goddess’ traditional realm as guardian of roads and waysides. Exactly when the sanctuary was absorbed by the polis is unclear but the earliest mention of a priest of Hekate, Menophilos, son of Leon, is dated to the early second century BC, and indicates a Stratonikeian political context in relation to Rhodes.10 By the end of the second century BC the shrine of Hekate was transformed into a major civic complex that encompassed over a hectare of the countryside and was formally enclosed by stoai (Fig. 3). Near the center of her sanctuary stood the altar for Hekate and an innovative Corinthian temple, crowned with a series of remarkable friezes for which the sanctuary is now best known.11 In this context, however, it is the temple itself, and especially its walls, which deserve our attention. Temple walls often served as an important public archive, recording sacred inventories as well as major events and memorials. One document marking a vital turning point in the life of both the sanctuary and the city was the Senatus

|| 10 Menophilos is charged with the priesthood of Rhodes and Helios, besides Hekate, by the council, presumably of Stratonikeia; I. Stratonikeia 504. During this period the area was still part of the Rhodian Peraia, and points to the political relevance of the sanctuary at this time. 11 One of the founding pieces of the Istanbul Archaeological Museum, the Lagina frieze has been studied among others by Schober 1933; Junghölter 1989; Baumeister 2007 and van Bremen 2010; interpretations on the date of the frieze and hence the temple generally vary from 150−130 BC (van Bremen) to after the Mithridatic wars in the 80’s BC (Junghölter). While acknowledging the various arguments for these standpoints, for the purposes of this study I will accept Baumeister’s proposal of a date for the temple towards the end of the second century BC, i.e. after the Aristonikos revolt of 133−129 BC. This also corresponds the best with the coinage as dated in Meadows 2002 (Group 2). On the interpretation of the frieze see further below.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

Civic Producers at Stratonikeia | 213

consultum de Stratonicensibus from 81 BC,12 the decree in which Stratonikeia was granted a number of privileges for her exceptional loyalty to Rome during the Mithridatic wars.13 Foremost among these was the confirmation of asylia for Lagina, but also a significant grant of territory for Stratonikeia, including the area down to Keramos on the coast, over 30 km away (Fig. 2), turning it into one of the largest poleis in the area at this time.14 Stratonikeia responded to this by reorganizing Hekate’s festivals to include the celebrations of Thea Roma, now designated as the Hekatesia-Romaia. Through this she publicly announced her alliance with the superpower, and what better way to do this than to create a panhellenic festival? Several cities were invited to participate in the pentaeteria, which included games, and to acknowledge the asylia of Lagina and by implication the power coalition between Stratonikeia and Rome. At least 57 cities from across the Greek world, from Elis in the west to Damascus in the east, positively responded, as the lists in the inscriptions of I. Stratonikeia 507−508 demonstrate.15 This list furthermore served to establish Stratonikeia’s place in the world, creating in the minds of those who read it a mental map of the connections of the polis with her peers.16

Function of Hekate’s Priests The question is what effect did this have on the priesthood, and more importantly what role might the priests have had in bringing ‘world fame’ directly

|| 12 I. Stratonikeia 505 is the Senatus consultum de Stratonicensibus of 81 BC; according to van Bremen 2010, 493−495, this document and the following list of cities recognizing the ayslia (I. Stratonikeia 507−508) were inscribed on the southwest anta of the temple of Hekate. 13 See also Rigsby 1996, 418−423; Sherk and Viereck 1969, no.18, 105−111. Tacitus Annales III, 62 mentions Stratonikeia as one of the cities that appeared before the tribune of Tiberias for renewed recognition of asylia. 14 The grant of territorial concessions and asylia for Hekate’s sanctuary is summed up in I. Stratonikeia 505, lines 53−59: [Πήδασόν τε?,] Θεμησσόν, Κέραμον, χωρία κώμας λιμένας προσό]-|[δους τε τῶν] πόλεων, ὧν Λεύκιος Κορν[ήλιος Σύλλας αὐτοκράτωρ] | [τῆς τούτων] ἀρετῆς καταλογῆς τε ἕ[νεκεν προσώρισεν συνεχώρη]-|[σεν, ὅπως τ]αῦτα αὐτοῖς ἔχειν ἐξ[ῆι·] | [τὸ ἱερὸν τῆς] Ἑκάτης ἐπιφανεστά[της καὶ μεγίστης θεᾶς, ἐκ πολ]-|[λοῦ τε τι]μώμενον καὶ πολλα[—] | [τό τε τέμεν]ος, ὅπως τοῦτο ἄσυ[λον ὑπάρχηι·]. 15 I. Stratonikeia 507−508. 16 On lists of cities recognizing asylia as a kind of political map, see Ma 2003. Polis-initiated panhellenic festivals were a rising phenomenon in the Hellenistic period, with a well-known case being that organized by Magnesia on the Maeander, Rigsby 1996, 179−279; Thonemann 2007. For a nuanced view of the rise of panhellenic festivals, see Parker 2004.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

214 | Christina G. Williamson

to the doorstep of Lagina and indirectly to the polis? Since most of our sources date from after this period, we can only speculate, but given their overall role it is likely that the priests had a major role in these international dealings. The lists of priests, most of which date to the late Hellenistic period, further indicate that the office was annual and was dated by the pentaeteria.17 More information is provided by many of the honorific monuments, and especially the hiereus inscriptions, in which the priests record their accomplishments and deeds of benefaction performed while in office.18 The bulk of the last two categories appears to belong to the imperial period, making up by far the largest category of documentation found at Lagina (Fig. 4). Most were inscribed on the walls of the temple, wherever space allowed, and apparently not in any particular order.19 Thanks to the naming convention common to Stratonikeia, name-patronymic-demotic (usually abbreviated),20 one can observe that priests came from all across the territory of Stratonikeia, since Koranza, Koraia, Koliorga, Lobolda, and Hiera Kome all appear in the demotics of their names.21 Also, this convention allows for the identification of many of the individuals and their relations with a considerable degree of precision. Alfred Laumonier was able to use this information to draw up a prosopography of the priesthood of Hekate at Lagina which at the same time gives a sequence for a rough chronology.22 He was thus able to discern 265 individual names, 200 of which were priests prior to the time of Trajan, and 75 before Augustus. Of all these indivi|| 17 Hence a date after the initiation of the Hekatesia-Romaia; I. Stratonikeia 601−622, with fragmented lists in 729, 740−741. Only two of these, I. Stratonikeia 613 and 615, are known to date from the imperial period. 18 I. Stratonikeia 623−739, 1438. These 115 inscriptions make up nearly half of the 233 inscriptions found at Lagina. 19 Inscriptions from different periods thus appear almost criss-cross between each other, as observed by Laumonier 1958, 372; see also van Bremen 2010. 20 That the demotics referred to pre-existing communities was first observed by Cousin and Diehl 1887, 33 and later developed by Mehmet Çetin Şahin in Şahin 1976, 1−15 and more recently in I. Stratonikeia III, p. 1−8. The demes are further discussed in Debord 1994 and van Bremen 2000. The demotics are typically abbreviated as IE (Hiera Kome), KZ (Korazna), KO (Koliorga), KΩ (Koraia), ΛΟ (Lobolda); Laumonier 1958, 197−198; Debord 1994, 117−118; van Bremen 2004, 214−215. 21 Koranza seems to appear the most often, but too many demotics are unknown or not given (probably in the second or early first century BC, before this was as commonplace) to warrant a statistical quantification or comparison. 22 Laumonier 1938b, and again in Laumonier 1958, 372−391; he performed a similar study on Panamara, Laumonier 1937, Laumonier 1938b; see below. His work on this topic is based in part on the initial findings of Cousin and Diehl 1887, Cousin and Deschamps 1888, and Hatzfeld 1920.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

Civic Producers at Stratonikeia | 215

duals, 120 names are known only from the lists, while 86 priests provided a summary of their accomplishments in the hiereus inscriptions.23 These 86 priests cover a period of roughly the first two centuries AD. The set of hiereus inscriptions best reflects the increasingly high public profile of the position in Stratonikeia, in the imperial period. The priesthood was centralized, and although priests could come from a variety of demes of the polis, they were clearly drawn from the elite, and from those who had the best access to public media. Some individuals occupied successive priesthoods in Stratonikeia, with those of Hekate and Zeus Panamaros being the most prominent. By tracing their careers, Laumonier was able to show that at least by this time the priesthood of Hekate had become one of the most important civic offices in Stratonikeia.24 Laumonier further observed a shift in the information level of the documents; the earliest inscriptions in the Hellenistic period just record the announcement, or epangelia, of the office,25 yet over time the hiereus inscriptions begin to describe in more and more detail the deeds and benefactions made by the priest, including distributions of money and oil among the population, hosting banquets, and putting on shows.26 Ritual feasting was an important part of Hekate’s festivals, although most of the epigraphic evidence that we have for this derives from the imperial period; by the later second and third centuries AD banqueting had become a main outlet of euergetism on an increasing scale of expenditure.27 These were often paid for by the priests; several of the hiereus inscriptions show the priest performing the role of hestiasas, and hosting banquets at various locations, and for various groups, i.e. sometimes all of the population or a part, often at the sanctuary, but

|| 23 Summed up in Laumonier 1958, 372. 24 Laumonier 1958, 367: “La prêtrise d’Hekate était la plus importante dans la série des grandes prêtrises stratonicéenses; elle couronnait généralement la carrière; on exerçait d’abord à Panamara, puis à Lagina; le cas inverse se présente, mais beaucoup moins souvent, et surtout chez des prêtres qui renouvellent à Panamara.” 25 E.g. I. Stratonikeia 658: ἱε]ρ̣ε̣ὺ̣ς̣ | [ἐπ]ανγειλάμενο[ς] | Παμμένης Ἀριστο-|κλέους Κω(ραιεύς), dated to the first century BC. 26 Laumonier 1958, 366 and 372. 27 Hekate’s banquets were of course part of a wider practice in the city which included the banquets of Zeus Panamaros, but also those of the sanctuaries in town. Lauminer believes that feeding the city in this way was also an act of charity, “… ainsi le majorité pauvre de la population est entretenue littéralement (car les fêtes numeraux), par la minorité riche,” Laumonier 1958, 397. Although charity was certainly not always the objective behind priestly euergetism (e.g. Veyne 1976; Gordon 1990; von den Hoff 2008; Zuiderhoek 2011), the distributions during the festivals of Lagina and Panamara are explicitly meant for the entire population (and not for a select group).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

216 | Christina G. Williamson

also in town.28 Spectacles complemented the feasting and the contests, and were also provided by priests; a few of the priests at Lagina list among their accomplishments their hiring of professional performers, akroamata, for the festivals.29 The increasing use of such entertainment reveals the competitive element among the priests themselves, the one priest providing even more splendid festivals than the previous. Laumonier sees these expenditures as the prime reason that the priesthood occurred in smaller and smaller circles, especially towards the later second and third centuries AD.30 The financial burdens that came with the office could be shouldered only by the wealthiest families of Stratonikeia, and these were apparently few in number. Debord, on the other hand, sees this as an active effort on the part of certain elite families to secure their own position in the civic landscape by monopolizing the prestigious priesthood, although this behavior mostly pertains to the later periods.31 In any event, the process of appointment or recruitment is unclear, as well as whether this was an elective or voluntary position.32 While not hereditary, the priesthood of Hekate in later years was often occupied by different generations of the same family,33 and repeatedly by the same individuals on separate occasions.34 Moreover, several individuals occupied both the priesthoods of Hekate at Lagina and Zeus at Panamara, as

|| 28 Laumonier 1958, 395 n.4. Often times these were combined with the position of gymnasiarch during the festival, e.g. I. Stratonikeia 684, from the later second century AD. On a few occasions meals were specifically arranged for foreigners, e.g. the Nyseans, I. Stratonikeia 664 and 697. 29 I. Stratonikeia 530 (lines 9−10) and 668 (line 5), 672 (lines 10−11), and 706 (lines 10−11); all presumably from the second century AD. See also Slater 2004 on the role of akroamata and theatrical performers in general in Stratonikeia. 30 Laumonier 1958, 366−368. 31 Debord 2007; see also Lampeter 2012. 32 Laumonier 1958, 368. A parallel situation may be found for council members in Egypt, where some of the elite were literally forced to assume the position while others could simply not afford it, see Tacoma 2011. This financial burden may also explain some Mylasa’s problems in recruiting priests, as Dignas noticed, Dignas 2002, 209−210; here she further observes that at Athena sanctuary in Herakleia under Latmos, “…the goddess herself appears as priestess several times during the first half of the first century AD.” 33 I. Stratonikeia 310 is the priestly inscription of Marcus Sempronius Aruncius Theodotos, son of Arrianos, who set up a statue of his grandfather or great-grandfather (ἐπιπάππος) (Marcus) Sempronius Claudius, who was one of the most active priests of Zeus and Hekate in the later second century AD, see below. 34 E.g. Theodoros, son of Theophilos, was priest of Hekate five different times, with the fifth one falling in the pentaeteria, I. Stratonikeia 669 (broadly dated to the second century AD), Laumonier 1958, 367 and n.2.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

Civic Producers at Stratonikeia | 217

will be discussed below.35 By the third century AD, the commencement of the priesthood is announced as being the will of the goddess; of course, the goddess chose those who could afford it.36 The office was then occupied by members of the elite of Stratonikeia, and ritual and institution both ensured that the focus was not only on the individual priests themselves, but also on their families. At Lagina the priest was occasionally accompanied by a priestess, as at Panamara. Typically she was the wife or a female relative of the priest, but her specific tasks are unclear and the office may well have been a kind of derivative of the more delineated position at Panamara; Laumonier believes her role at Lagina to have been much more subordinate to the priest.37 There was, however, another highly visible female role in the cult of Hekate: that of the kleidophoros, the key-bearer. The procession of the key, the kleidophoria, or kleidos agoge, was actually the main festival at Lagina and was often referred to as the ‘general gathering’ (panegyris), the ‘sacred month’ (hieromenia), or more commonly just the ‘festival’ (heorte) or ‘festival days of the goddess’.38 It lasted for several days and included feasting and perhaps games, but the climactic event was the kleidos pompe, the procession of

|| 35 I. Stratonikeia 289 (second half of the second century AD) gives the epangelia of Marcus Sempronius Claudius at Panamara in the Heraia, while being priest of Hekate. He had been priest at Panamara on five separate occasions, Laumonier 1958, 367; also Nilsson 1927, 400. On the career of Marcus Sempronius Claudius in general, see Cousin and Deschamps 1888. 36 I. Stratonikeia 704, line 4: ἐπανγιλάμενοι κατὰ τὴν τῆς θεοῦ βούλησιν; although it must be said that Tiberius Flavius Aeneas from Hierokome was a highly active priest. Laumonier 1958, 366 observes that this phrase is more frequently used at Panamara, where Aeneas was twice priest; his wife Ulpia Leaena, who joined him as priestess at Lagina, had also been the priestess of Artemis at Koranza, see Laumonier 1958, 385. This way of expressing ‘divine will’ is of course in contrast with random selection as its manifestation, see further Horster 2012. 37 Laumonier 1958, 368. At Panamara the priestess was clearly responsible for the cult of Hera (see below), yet her duties at Lagina were not specified and the position seems to have been optional, perhaps even more of an accessory to the priest. The name of the priestess in some cases only appears at the end of the inscription (ironically often better preserved than the top part). Laumonier 1958, 227−228, on the role of the priestess at Panamara. See also Debord 2007 and Delphine Ackermann’s contribution to this volume, p. 20−27. 38 See Laumonier 1958, 392. The ‘festival days’, or ταῖς ἑορτασίμοις, is the most frequent, appearing in I. Stratonikeia 530 (lines 7−8), 668 (line 4), 682 (lines 7−8), 685 (line 8), 705 (lines 8−9), and 735 (line 5). I. Stratonikeia 663, lines 9−10 speak of ‘the days of the panegyris’ (τῆς πανηγύ|[ρ]εως ἡμέρας); I. Stratonikeia 704, lines 8−9 mention the kleidos agoge as ‘the key-bringing on the unsurmountable day of the goddess in the sacred month’ (τῆς ἱερομηνίας ἐν τῇ κλιδαγωγίᾳ τῆς θεοῦ ἡμέρας ἀνυπερβλήτως); I. Stratonikeia 678, line 8 speaks of the ‘festival days’ (τῆς ἑορτῆς ἡμέρας) and I. Stratonikeia 706, line 3 mentions the Genethlia heorte (τῶν γενεθλίων ἑορτῇ). All of these references are from the imperial period.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

218 | Christina G. Williamson

Hekate’s key as it was brought from Lagina to Stratonikeia.39 The exact nature of this key is unknown, and it may well have had several layers of meaning, e.g. the key to the temple, or to the gates of the city, or the key to life and death.40 The earliest mention of a kleidophoros is in an inscription from the second or first century BC that praises the girl Klodiane, daughter of the priest (name not preserved) and his wife Moschion, for carrying the key in her hands during the procession.41 Klodiane may have been one of the first in a long line of kleidophoroi, girls or maidens who carried Hekate’s sacred key during the procession, presumably all the way, eight kilometers, from Lagina to Stratonikeia.42 The position of kleidophoros was usually fulfilled by the daughter of the priest or priestly couple who served Hekate in that year; she was sometimes accompanied by her brother, the parapompos or kosmophoros.43 Being the kleidophoros brought not only honors but especially prestige, and it seems that one retained the title for life, as did Triphaina, who later, as priestess at Panamara, was referred to as ‘daughter of the city and Hekate’s kleidophoros’.44 The sacred key processions are particularly noteworthy. Beginning at the sanctuary, the procession traveled along the sacred road through some of the older villages, no doubt collecting followers along the way as it progressed towards its goal.45 Presumably there was a corresponding procession out towards the sanctuary, but it is this ‘centripetal’ movement, as Graf calls it,46 that is intriguing as it brought the cult from the outer region into town. This ensured that the urban center of Stratonikeia remained the primary focus of Hekate’s festivals, drawing in the citizen body from the older surrounding communities

|| 39 The kleidos pompe is mentioned for example in I. Stratonikeia 1048 II.2 (fragment), and moves ‘into town’ (ἐν τῇ πόλει) as in I. Stratonikeia 701, lines 8−9; it is sometimes called ‘the key-bringing into town’, τῇ κλειδαγωγ̣ῇ ἐν τῇ πόλει, e.g. I. Stratonikeia 685, lines 8−9, and 735, lines 3−4. 40 See above, also Nilsson 1995 [1906], 400−401; Laumonier 1958, 398; Kraus 1960, 48−50; Johnston 1990, 41−42. 41 I. Stratonikeia 543 lines 11−12: Κλωδιανὴν δ’ ἐπὶ οἷ κληδοῦχον, παῖδ’ ἐρατεινήν,| κληΐδος ῥαδινῆις χερσὶν ἐφαπτομένην; widely dated to the second or first century BC. 42 I. Stratonikeia 538−543, 676, 683, 690, 701, 707−713 either mention the role of kleidophoros, or honor the girl or woman who had assumed that role; these inscriptions continue into the second or third centuries AD. 43 At least on two occasions, I. Stratonikeia 683 and 690, both from the imperial period. 44 I. Stratonikeia 235, lines 4−6: θυγάτηρ πόλεως, καὶ τῆς Ἑκάτης κλε[ι]-|[δ]οφόρο[ς —], dated to the first half of the second century AD. Other references to adult women, often priestesses, who had been Hekate’s kleidophoros include I. Stratonikeia 17, 256, 326, 327, 1028, and 1048. 45 Laumonier 1958, 398. 46 Graf 1996, 57−59.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

Civic Producers at Stratonikeia | 219

to the heart of the young polis, perhaps even in a ritual re-enactment of the foundation under the watchful eye of the goddess and in any event under the guidance of the priest and his family. In sum, the priests at Lagina had a principal role in shaping the festivals and rituals at one of the most prominent civic sanctuaries, thereby ensuring its continued and even rising prominence in the media and in the public eye well into the imperial period. The flair which they added through their personal benefactions not only increased their own social capital, but also created a common focus for the dispersed and hybrid community, thus generating social cohesion.47 Their performance as a family in the festivals and processions would have further provided a role model for the population, while reinforcing the social structure and hierarchy of society.48 Does this qualify the priests of Hekate at Lagina as civic producers of Stratonikeia? What they did was also in keeping with general attitudes and expectations of the office of the time. Yet the priesthood of Hekate at Lagina also became increasingly entangled with that of Zeus at Panamara, which had a very different history with the polis, much of which was shaped by the involvement of Stratonikeian priests.

The Priests of the Sanctuary of Zeus at Panamara The sanctuary of Zeus Karios at Panamara, some ten kilometers south of Stratonikeia, was a regional sanctuary which seems to have come under Stratonikeian control at some time in the second century BC (Fig. 5).49 Unlike Lagina, this majestic hilltop sanctuary has never been systematically exca-

|| 47 On ritual and ritual spectacle as a joint communal focus, see McCauley and Lawson 2002, 38−88; also Connerton 1989, 41−71 on ceremony as a determinant of collective memory. 48 See especially Debord 2007. Also Chaniotis 1995, 160 “die Prozession ist das Spiegelbild der Polis;” also with political overtones, Chaniotis 2013 (in press). See also Chankowski 2005 on the emphasis on harmony and order. 49 The beginnings of Stratonikeian involvement at Panamara are obscure. Laumonier 1958, 234−235 believes that the polis controlled Panamara (and Lagina) early in its colonial history, basing this on I. Stratonikeia 1, which Riet van Bremen has now dated to second or even first century BC, see van Bremen 2004, 222−227. Hans Oppermann understood the sanctuary and especially the koinon of the Panamareis to be much more autonomous, though perhaps not entirely independent from Stratonikeia; Oppermann 1924, 25−30; see also Debord 1994, 114 and Gabrielsen 2000, 163−167. Riet van Bremen suggests that Stratonikeian involvement began when both sanctuary and polis were controlled by Philip V, van Bremen 2004, 234.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

220 | Christina G. Williamson

vated.50 Nonetheless, over 400 inscriptions have been found so far; in fact these inscriptions are the source of virtually everything we know about this sanctuary.51 They speak of at least two temples and several other structures here, including stoas, dining halls, reception areas, and even sleeping facilities – most of these were dedicated by priests in the first century AD (Fig. 6). The visible sections of the walls, the marble architectural fragments and the inscriptions still scattered across the surface hint at the splendor that once crowned this isolated hill. Inscriptions found here and in the village of Bağyaka below show that at the end of the third and early second century, when Philip V garrisoned his troops here, the shrine was administered by the koinon of the Panamareis, probably a local community who resided nearby. Stratonikeia’s first clear involvement at Panamara is known to us principally through a man named Leon, son of Chrysaor, who was appointed by Stratonikeia as priest at the sanctuary.52 This was at some point in the first half of the second century, i.e. while the sanctuary was still being administered by the local koinon of the Panamareis. The Panamareis in fact praised Leon for reviving the cult of Zeus and expanding its network. By the mid-second century, however, the koinon of the Panamareis had disappeared as the sanctuary and cult were entirely taken over by the expanding polis, with Zeus appearing on her early coinage, often with Hekate on the opposite side. Panamara gradually became a second target for civic festivals and a focus for the entire population of Stratonikeia. It was probably during the later Hellenistic period that the cult of Hera was added to that of Zeus Karios, and that the Heraia, the festivals for the women of the polis, were alternated with the Komyria for the men. These took place in and around the sanctuary and were explicitly inclusive, open to the entire population, whether citizen, foreigner or

|| 50 Alfred Laumonier sketched the general layout of the hilltop, Laumonier 1936, Pl.41; more recently Walter Voigtländer included a sketch and description of the platform in his volume on Teichiussa, Voigtländer 2004, Appendix A (although the sanctuary is much more SW-NE aligned than his sketch indicates). Predatory excavations have in the meantime revealed several more walls and tombs which need to be documented before they disappear altogether. One structure, with a fine marble doorway, located beneath the electricity mast on the west side of the summit, may well belong to a tomb of one of the prominent priests, see Williamson 2012a, 299−300 and Figs. 3.53a−b. 51 Comprising the first volume of I. Stratonikeia. 52 Riet van Bremen has done an extensive study of this priest and I gratefully draw on her work here; see van Bremen 2004.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

Civic Producers at Stratonikeia | 221

slave, from the city or the countryside.53 The priests apparently played a principal role in organizing the festivals, and in escorting the population out to the sanctuary and later back to town again. During the Heraia, the priestess led the women into the Heraion; this could include a delegation, or theorias, with expensive and beautiful things.54 Another inscription shows how the priests called on the women throughout the town and the countryside to join in the festival and receive gifts.55 The festival was biennial, but a number of inscriptions in the imperial period also speak of a pentaeteria for Hera.56 The earliest mention is in a dedication to Zeus, Hera and the demos by a Leon and Myrtale, a brother and sister priestly couple who held office during the pentaeteria.57 The Komyria, the festivals for the men, went in a similar vein, where only men were allowed into the temenos with the priest; it is probably during this ceremony that locks of hair were dedicated in the second and third century BC, with simple inscriptions on the coffers naming the dedicant and the priest at the time.58 In both festivals the entire population was brought to the sanctuary, and those who waited outside, male or female, were tended to by the priest or priestess with gifts of wine, olive oil and money.59 || 53 I. Stratonikeia 256, lines 8−10: ὁμοίως καὶ πρῶτοι καὶ μόνοι καὶ παλαιοὺς οἴνους διέπενψαν καὶ | [τοῖς πολίταις καὶ ξένοις καὶ ἐλευθέ]ροις καὶ δού[λοι]ς πᾶσι, καὶ τῷ Ἡραίῳ πάσαις ταῖς κατοικού[σαις κ]αὶ τὴν πόλιν καὶ τὴν χώραν | [γυναιξὶ ταῖς τε πολίτισιν καὶ ξέναις ἐν τῷ ἱε]ρῷ ἔδοσαν [ἀν]ὰ. 54 I. Stratonikeia 174, lines 1−5: καὶ πολυδαπάνως ε̣[—]|[․α]ὐτῷ κοσμῆσαι τὰ προαγό[μενα πάντα, ὑποδεξάμεν]ος μὲν πάντας ἔν | τε τῶι ἱερῶι καὶ ἐν τῇ πόλει, ὑπ[οδεξ]άμενος δὲ καὶ τὸ πολείτευμα | τῶν γυναικῶν ἐν τοῖς Ἡραίοις, θεω[ρί]ας δὲ ποιήσας πολυτελεστάτας | καὶ καλλίστας; dated to the first century AD. See Chankowski 2005 on processions as consolidating the ideal social order of the community; also Chaniotis 1995, 160. The context of the theorias at Panamara is unclear; theoroi are typically delegates to festivals of other cities, see e.g. Perlman 2000; Dimitrova 2008; and especially Rutherford 2007 in the context of network building. 55 I. Stratonikeia 256, dated to the second century AD, discussed below. 56 Laumonier 1958, 240. 57 I. Stratonikeia 108, from the late first century BC or early first century AD. They apparently dedicated a house with a place to lie down, with a stuccoed or stained entrance and paintings. The bulk of the 23 inscriptions mentioning the pentaeteria are dated to the first or second century AD. 58 Deschamps and Cousin 1888, nos. 60−120 and p. 480. This practice spilled over to Lagina, where two dedications of hair were also made, I. Stratonikeia 545 (to Demeter?) and 1422.. 59 An extensive description of both festivals, based mostly on inscriptions from the imperial period, is given in Hanslik-Andrée 1949, much of which may be read in I. Stratonikeia 202−203, and 205, and the dedication of hair during the Komyria in I. Stratonikeia 401−500. On the Heraia, see also Lozano 1991−92. Nearly all the priestly inscriptions from the imperial period show that the annual priesthood was held by a couple, with the male priest presiding over both festivals.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

222 | Christina G. Williamson

As with Lagina, a major crisis led to the second transformation of the sanctuary at Panamara – this time it was the onslaught of Labienus and his Parthian troops in 40/39 BC and the miraculous epiphany of Zeus at the sanctuary who warded off the attacks and thus saved the people of Stratonikeia.60 This event was used to send an embassy to Rome to gain another grant of asylia, highly unusual, but successful nonetheless as it resulted in the Senatus Consultum de Panamara of 15 August, 39 BC.61 The turning point in the life of the cult is marked by the change in Zeus’ epiklesis of Karios to Panamaros, as he is repeatedly invoked in the narrative recalling the miracle.62 It was also most likely the occasion to add another major festival to the calendar of Stratonikeia, that of the Panamareia. This festival is associated with Zeus’ epiphany and was of great significance for the polis; Oppermann observes the ritual of the ‘succession of the crown’, implying some kind of solemn public ritual.63 By the imperial period, the festival was a major event, lasting ten days, with intensive banqueting and distributions of oil by the priests among the population.64 Of equal significance is the fact that, like Hekate’s festival and the kleidophoria, the Panamareia was centripetal, celebrated in the city rather than out at the sanctuary. The image of Zeus was brought by horseback in a procession from Panamara into town to reside in the bouleuterion during the festival; afterwards it was returned to the sanctuary in another festive procession.65 The entire

|| 60 I. Stratonikeia 10. 61 I. Stratonikeia 11−12, heavily fragmented. See also Sherk and Viereck 1969, no.27, 158−162; Rigsby 1996, 423−427. The embassy of 10 or 12 men is discussed in Laumonier 1958, 239; priests or their family members probably were part of the embassy, as he suggests, yet this information is lost. 62 I. Stratonikeia 10, line 13. In this way the Stratonikeians were emphasizing the specific locality of the cult above its older Karian appeal, thereby annexing it; contra Oppermann 1924, 85, followed by Magie 1950, 997−998, n.34, and Laumonier 1958, 241, who believe the epiklesis switch was a resurgence of the indigenous cult, with ‘Karios’ initially used in Macedonian contexts to distinguish him from Greek Zeus. Laumonier further believes that the epiklesis reflects a desire to emphasize locality above ethnicity, downplaying the ethnic connotations of Karios, Laumonier 1958, 241. 63 I. Stratonikeia 266, a priestly dedication from the second or third century AD, highlights Zeus’ manifest power as cause (τοῦ θεοῦ ἐνεργίαν φαν[ε]ρωτάτην, lines 16−17). Oppermann 1924, 58 discusses the ‘succession of the crown’ or παραλήψι τοῦ στεφάνου, mentioned among many others in I. Stratonikeia 247, 312, 341, all from the imperial period. 64 I. Stratonikeia 242, lines 11−14: … ἀλείψαντες δὲ καὶ τῇ τοῦ στεφάνου π[α]- | [ραλ]ήψει καὶ τοὺς ἄνδρας καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας, γ[υ]- | [μ]νασιαρχήσαντες δὲ καὶ τῇ ἑορτῇ καὶ πα- | νηγύρει τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπιρρύτῳ ἐλαίῳ …, roughly dated to the second century AD. 65 I. Stratonikeia 266 II shows the procession into town lines 18−22: … ὅστις | πρῶτον ἐλθὼν τότε ἰς τὴν πόλιν ἐν τῇ | ἀγομένῃ πομπῇ ὡδήγησεν τὸν ἱε-|ρέα ἰς τὸ βουλευτήριον καὶ μετὰ τὰς |

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

Civic Producers at Stratonikeia | 223

‘happening’ in this annexed territory was orchestrated by the priests and priestesses of Zeus and Hera, who escorted the population out to the sanctuary and back.66

The Role of the Priests at Panamara With such grand spectacles, it is clear that the office of priest of Zeus at Panamara was another position in Stratonikeia with a high public profile, next to the priesthood of Hekate. As at Lagina, the priestly documents, including specific dedications and their achievements, make up the larger part of the over 400 inscriptions that were found here, most of which date from the imperial period (Fig. 6). From these we learn several of the tasks of the priests. Even more pronounced than in Hekate’s festivals was their role in the ritual feasting during the festivals of Zeus Panamaros. A later inscription for an unnamed priest shows how he welcomed and generously fed the entire community at the sanctuary, apparently for two days in a row.67 Sometime in the early imperial period, the ‘priest of the letters’, who is discussed in more detail below, invited entire cities to come and join in the sacrificial banquet.68 Priests also dedicated a number of architectural structures at the sanctuary that facilitated communal participation and comfort, such as the stoas and perhaps the psalida built by Posittos in the early imperial period, which would have provided at least shelter or even a formal reception area,69 and especially the philotrophion and the aristeterion, articulated banqueting facilities in the second or third centuries AD.70 During

|| θυσίας εὐθὺς ἐχωρίσθη …; I. Stratonikeia 309 mentions the horse in the procession, and the return, or ‘ἀναβάσις τοῦ θεοῦ’ is mentioned in I. Stratonikeia 295a/b, and 341. While these inscriptions are roughly dated to the later imperial period, Stratonikeian coins begin to depict Zeus on horseback from the second half of the first century BC and onwards, indicating an early date for the ritual, Meadows 2002, Group 4a. 66 I. Stratonikeia 174, lines 1−5; I. Stratonikeia 256. 67 I. Stratonikeia 344, lines 1−4: ἐδέξ]ατο [τὸν συμπάν]-|τα δῆμον καὶ ἐδε̣[ίπνισεν ἀφειδῶς] | ἐπὶ ἡμέρας δύο [—] | τοῦ ἱεροῦ. This inscription is tentatively dated to the imperial period, although the phrase ἐπὶ ἡμέρας δύο is also used in I. Stratonikeia 1409, dated to the Hellenistic period. 68 E.g. I. Stratonikeia 22, the letter to the Rhodians. See also I. Stratonikeia 23 (unknown city); 25 (to Alinda); 29 (unknown city); 33 (unknown city); and 35 (unknown city). 69 I. Stratonikeia 112. 70 The philotrophion was built by the priest Drakon, son of Leon of Koranza, I. Stratonikeia 267, dated to the later second or third century AD; in the same period the aristeterion is mentioned in I. Stratonikeia 17, an honorific decree for an unnamed priest who made improve-

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

224 | Christina G. Williamson

the Panamareia the cityscape provided the venue for the feasts, in particular Stratonikeia’s magnificent gymnasium,71 but other places served as well.72 The countryside was also included; one inscription even mentions the sanctuary of Hekate at Lagina as a scene of festivities during the Panamareia, showing the intense collaboration of the two tutelary deities during this major civic event.73 The festivals of Zeus Panamaros and Hera, the Komyria and Heraia were furthermore great community-building moments, cutting across the regular social boundaries. While ritual feasting was part of the festivals from the Hellenistic period on, the intentional aim of community integration seems to have increasingly become the responsibility of the priests, judging from the hiereus inscriptions of especially the imperial period in which banquets were hosted explicitly for men and women, citizens, foreigners, freedmen and slaves.74 Romans are occasionally mentioned separately among the other ‘minorities’, indicating their special status.75 Especially in the later imperial period we also see that priests hosted certain banquets for specific sectors, such as the gerousia which was exclusively entertained by the priest Theophilos in a banquet held in

|| ments, perhaps expansions, to the aristeterion, and who also provided for places to sleep in the psalida. 71 The gymnasium was also a general scene for receptions, e.g. for women in I. Stratonikeia 181, lines 14−17: καὶ δεξιωσάμε-|[ν]οι ἐν τῷ γυμνασίῳ πᾶσαν | [τ]ύχην καὶ ἡλικίαν γυναι-|[κῶν, and everyone in I. Stratonikeia 254, lines 4−6: καὶ ἐδεξιώσαντο ἐν] | [τῷ γυμνασίῳ πάντας τούς τε πολείτας καὶ ξένους καὶ δούλο]υς δείπνῳ τελείῳ καὶ τοὺς [—] | [—]αν, ἐδείπνισαν δὲ ὁμοίως [—]; and in I. Stratonikeia 1025, lines 17−20: ἐν δὲ τῷ γυ-|μνασίῳ πάντας τοὺς πο-|λείτας μιᾷ ἡμέρᾳ δειπνε[ί]-|[σ]αντος, an honorific decree for the priest Titus Flavius Aeneas (by his brother Titus Flavius Aristolaos). The architectural development of the gymnasium is described in Mert 2008, 16−20, and 156−166. 72 E.g. the sanctuary for Dionysos, I. Stratonikeia 309, lines 13−15: ἑστ[ι]άσ[αντ]ες | [δ]ὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖς Διον[υσί]οις τοὺς πλ[ί]στους | τῶν πολειτῶν. Inscriptions concerning the gymnasium: I. Stratonikeia 170, lines 6−7: ἐποίησαν ἐδείπνισαν καὶ τὴν πό-|λιν ἐν τῷ γυμνασίῳ μιᾷ ἡμέρᾳ. 73 I. Stratonikeia 266 II, lines 11−14: …τῶν ἑορταζόν- | τῶν ἔν τε τῇ πόλι καὶ ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τῆς Ἑ- | κάτης καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς λοιπῆς χώρας…, dated to the second or third century AD. 74 Communal feasting at Panamara in the Hellenistic period is indicated in I. Stratonikeia 1, a sacrificial calendar, but may also be presumed to be part of the regular civic festivals. Banquets hosted by priests for the entire population are mentioned in I. Stratonikeia 172, dated to the first century AD, and in I. Stratonikeia 203, 205, 210, 242, 252, 255, 256, 318, most of which are dated to the second century AD. 75 At least according to the restoration of I. Stratonikeia 210, lines 7−8: διπνίσας δὲ [κ]αὶ τοὺς πολείτα[ς πάντας καὶ τοὺς Ῥωμαίους] | [καὶ τοὺς ξένους καὶ παροίκους καὶ δ]ούλους, The inclusion is by analogy with I. Stratonikeia 186 and 1325A, where Romans and other foreigners are mentioned as living in the countryside; see also Gordon 1990, 226−228. On the position and identity of Romans in Asia Minor, see van Nijf forthcoming.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

Civic Producers at Stratonikeia | 225

town.76 While the festival banquets of Zeus and Hera, but also Hekate, clearly served to draw the community together, providing a shared focus and a common bond, at the same time they could also be used to create or confirm social distinctions and establish civic hierarchies.77 As part of a ritual and social meal, banquets such as these were excellent ‘rational rituals’, in Michael Chwe’s terminology:78 they created both joint attention, and common knowledge, i.e. everyone knew about the banquets, wherever they took place, and everyone was expected to participate. Banqueting throughout civic territory moreover served as a way of ‘shaping the territory’,79 creating an indelible link between the chora, the ritual which included the fellow banqueters, the god, and the polis. It thereby not only created social cohesion, but was also critical in establishing or maintaining the territorial identity of the polis via cult. With their organization of the banquets, the priests clearly had a critical role in engineering the effectiveness of these rituals towards building community.

Individual Priests at Panamara – Some Cases As at Lagina, Laumonier also used the epigraphic data to construct a prosopography for the individual priests at Panamara and their careers.80 He was able to identify fewer individuals than at Lagina, and only seven from the time prior to Augustus; the bulk, 108 individuals, held office during the period between Augustus and Hadrian, with another 57 individuals for the remainder of the cult. From this record a few individuals clearly stand out for their display of creativity, initiative and other qualities of civic leaders, even acting as statesmen. In this context I will discuss three specific examples: that of Leon, son of Chrysaor, who was priest in the first half of the second century BC; the priest whom I designate as ‘the priest of the letters’, probably in the later first century || 76 I. Stratonikeia 270, 11−13: ἐδεξιώσαντο δὲ | [κ]αὶ τὴν γερουσίαν ἐν τ[ῇ] | [π]όλι δ[ί]πνῳ ἀποφορήτῳ. 77 See also Debord 2007; Chaniotis 2013 (in press); and Chankowski 2005, discussed above. Scheid discusses this aspect in sacrifices in the imperial period with respect to the division of the victim in unequal parts, corresponding to social distinction, Scheid 1985. 78 See Chwe 2001 on ‘rational rituals’ as an effective means towards creating common knowledge. Also McCauley and Lawson 2002, 39−88, on spectacle creating indelible ‘flashbulb’ memories, which enhance the accuracy of the memory and Connerton 1989, 41−71 on commemorative ceremonies and collective memory. 79 The first of four stages in Paasi’s model of building regional identity, along with symbolic shaping, institutionalism, and external recognition, Paasi 2009. 80 Laumonier 1937; Laumonier 1938a, and Laumonier 1958, 227−293.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

226 | Christina G. Williamson

BC or early imperial period; and finally the priest Marcus Sempronius Clemens, who prominently figures in Stratonikeia in the later imperial period. The priesthood of Leon, son of Chrysaor has been examined in detail by Riet van Bremen, who traced several aspects of the way in which Leon fulfilled his role that are highly illuminating in the context of this present study.81 The fact that he is honored at the end of his term shows in itself that the priesthood at the sanctuary was not life-long, but was probably annual, even while under the administration of the Panamareis.82 Leon was honored not only by the Panamareis, but also by the Laodikeis and the city of Kallipolis (Figs. 2 and 7) for being a good arbiter, as he settled a dispute about an oath that was to be taken.83 Leon was obviously a good diplomat. Furthermore, he undertook the expansion of the cult by reinvigorating its network, personally engaging various communities in the vicinity and persuading them to be more involved in the sanctuary. His work is summarized by the koinon of Panamara as follows: “having reconstructed that the above-mentioned honours and (grants of) asylia adhered to Zeus and to the Panamareis, he persuaded the entire people to make the sacrifices more splendid and better, and going to certain demoi he persuaded them, too, to participate in sacrificing; (in all this) he zealously promoted the cause of the god and of the koinon of the Panamareis, not sparing danger or cost or suffering.”84 Leon was clearly a principal actor at Panamara, changing the course of the cult by studying its history and making use of an ancient grant of asylia to revive and expand its current social network. Riet van Bremen makes a convincing argument that he did this on behalf of Stratonikeia, who appointed him priest at Panamara.85 Panamara was at the northern edge of the area still controlled by

|| 81 van Bremen 2004. 82 Leon is honoured by the Panamareis in I. Stratonikeia 7, as well as by the community of the Laodikeis in I. Stratonikeia 1402 (= EA 25 (1995), 85−86, no.2), and the polis of Kallipolis in I. Stratonikeia 1401 (= EA 25 (1995), 83−85, no.1), who also praise Stratonikeia for having appointed such an ‘excellent man as priest in the most prominent sanctuary’ (lines 29−31, transl. R. van Bremen). 83 I. Stratonikeia 1401, lines 12−13, and I. Stratonikeia 1402, lines 7−8. 84 I. Stratonikeia 7, lines 4−11 (transl. R. van Bremen 2004): καὶ συστησά[με]|[νος τὰς ἄν]ωθεν τιμὰς καὶ ἀσυλίας ὑπαρχούσας τῶι Δι̣ῒ | καὶ Παναμαρεῦσιν ἔπεισεν τὸν σύνπαντα δῆμον εἰς τ̣[ὸ] | τὰς θυσίας ἐπιφανεστέρας καὶ μείζονας συντελεῖν, ἐ|πελθών τε ἐπί τινας δήμους ἔπεισε καὶ ἐκείνους συνθύ-|ειν, καθόλου τε ἔσπευδεν ὑπέρ τε τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ κοινοῦ | τοῦ Παναμαρέων, οὔτε κίνδυνον οὔτε δαπάνην οὔτε [κα]|[κοπ]αθίαν οὐδεμίαν ὑφορώμενος. 85 van Bremen 2004. But see also Chaniotis 2008, 25, who considers that such revivals by an annually appointed priest could be “motivated by a deep religiosity and a vivid interest in ancestral customs,” as appears to be the case with Damas at Miletos who reinstated some of the

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

Civic Producers at Stratonikeia | 227

Rhodes, which was not on friendly terms with Stratonikeia at this time; since a number of communities in southern Karia held this sanctuary of Zeus in common, using it to create goodwill towards the rising polis may have been a way for Stratonikeia to ensure a corridor of safe passage down to the sea (Fig. 7).86 If this is the case then Leon certainly acted as a politician and a statesman, with the interests of Stratonikeia at heart. Leon may well be an extreme example of the measures that a priest could take on behalf of his polis, but was he an exception? Fragments from a tantalizing set of documents show that there was another priest, whose name is unfortunately lost, who also wrote letters to several cities inviting them to participate in the cult at Panamara.87 These letters are highly unusual, not only because they were recorded here at Panamara, but also because they were personally sent by the priest – neither Stratonikeia nor the koinon of the Panamareis are named. Rather than being formulaic, the invitations were individually tailored, often based on an underlying claim of syngeneia, or kinship, and implying a personal history between the sanctuary and each invited community. Also, the invitations were explicitly extended to the entire population, not just to envoys, theoroi, or other individual forms of representation. It appears that this priest took it upon himself to actively expand the cult network of the sanctuary, but equally important that he had the personal knowledge, influence, and the resources to do so. The question is, was the ‘priest of the letters’ acting on behalf of Stratonikeia, since the polis was not explicitly mentioned in his letters? The letters are too fragmentary to rule anything out, yet if they in fact were written in the first century BC, or at least after the takeover of the sanctuary by Stratonikeia, then we may presume that the connection between the sanctuary and the polis would have been self-evident, even more so if they post-date the Senatus consultum de Panamara.88 The geographical scope of the invitations may provide a further clue, although of the 18 letters only six names have been preserved: the

|| old rituals at Didyma in the first century AD. Political undertones in Leon’s case, however, seem likely since the link between Panamara and Stratonikeia was not yet crystallized. 86 van Bremen 2004 further interprets Leon’s risk of incurring ‘danger’, ‘cost’ or ‘suffering’ as evidence for the Rhodian control of the area at the time and the hostility towards Stratonikeia. See also Ager 1996, no.161. 87 I. Stratonikeia 22 through 39b, discussed in Hatzfeld 1927, 71−73, and Curty 1995, 167−175. No particular festival is mentioned in these letters, only mysteries and banqueting. 88 Hatzfeld 1927, 71−73; Curty 1995, 173−175, places the letters after the epiphany of Zeus during the attacks by Labienus and the following grant of asylia in the Senatus consultum of 39 BC (I. Stratonikeia 11−12).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

228 | Christina G. Williamson

Rhodians (including those living in Karia), Alinda, Iasos, Miletos, Smyrna, and Nysa (which also participated in the festivities of Hekate). Excepting for the letter to the Rhodians, these indicate areas which roughly border on the wider region of Karia and Stratonikeia in particular to the north and west, representing an opposite directional focus than when the sanctuary was administered by the Panamareis (Fig. 7). Interestingly, the letters claim a mutual ancestral bond, i.e. syngeneia, referring to the sacred things which they held in common.89 The shared heritage was presumably stressed in order to strengthen the ties with these communities, obliging them to take part in the cult. Although the events leading to this correspondence are unknown, a broader base for the cult would have not only given a heightened profile of the sanctuary in the region, but also a boost to the local economy as well as the creation of a friendly buffer zone around Stratonikeian territory. Curty suggests as much, and goes even further by stating that it was through the sanctuary at Panamara that Stratonikeia was able to expand its orbit.90 Whenever they were written, these letters were critical in creating ties between the polis and the wider region through the sanctuary of Zeus. John Ma, in fact, speaks of the discourse of syngeneia, or kinship ties, as another way of establishing co-dependency with communities in distant regions.91 It would seem that at Panamara, as at Lagina, another mental map of the places important to the polis at this time was visualized through the inscription of these letters at the sanctuary. Asylia had already been used at Panamara in a similar fashion, after the Senatus consultum de Panamara of 39 BC, to draw in the surrounding communities (Fig. 7), much as it had been done at Lagina in the early first century BC. Both sanctuaries clearly played pivotal roles as major hubs in the wider political network of Stratonikeia, and it is little wonder that their cults became more and more intertwined. The authority and latitude of priests such as Leon and the ‘priest of the letters’ would in a sense seem to underscore the view of the priesthood as a semiautonomous authority in itself, a legacy of the ancient theocratic system in Asia

|| 89 E.g. I. Stratonikeia 22, the letter to the Rhodians, refers to their cities as πρὸς ἀλλήλας συγγέ-|νιαν καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν κοινωνίαν (lines 6−7). The claim of syngeneia was surely invented or mythical, but no less significant. On using syngeneia as the base for establishing ties in a network, see esp. Curty 1995; Jones 1999; Lücke 2000; Ma 2003; and Erskine 2003. 90 Curty 1995, 175: “Ce sont les légendes de cette Confédération [the ieron koinon in the text] qui permettent de rattacher à Stratonicée des cités dont les mythes ressortissent à des systèmes fort différentes.” 91 Ma 2003, 9−12, 20; see above.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

Civic Producers at Stratonikeia | 229

Minor, as Beate Dignas maintains.92 Clearly the priesthood was fulfilled by those who were wealthy and powerful enough to organize and sponsor the festivals. Through their generosity, they actively maintained an asymmetric relationship with the population, with themselves at the top.93 Still, it should be observed that the priesthoods were annual and that they were not restricted to a particular family, at least not until the later periods. Also the priesthood was in principle fulfilled by citizens from all across the territory of Stratonikeia, as all five of the major demes are represented in the demotic of their names, just as with the priests at Lagina.94 Other priests at Panamara are known to have included the governing body of the polis in the object of cult, through dedications made to ‘Zeus and Hera and the demos’,95 while in first century BC, the priest Chairemon, son of Hekataios of Koraia, presents an offering of thanks (charisterion) to Zeus Panamaros ‘by vote of the demos’.96 Chairemon is clearly an operative of the polis towards the god. Because of all of this, I believe that our unknown ‘priest of the letters’ was not only corresponding to other communities on behalf of the cult and the sanctuary, but also on behalf of the polis – whether he actually in-

|| 92 Beate Dignas tends to view the priesthoods of sanctuaries in Asia Minor across the board as a continuation of theocratic power in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, parallel to the city but not necessarily subordinate to it, Dignas 2002, esp. 243 regarding Panamara and Dignas 2003; see also Laumonier 1958, 417 on Hekate’s key as a symbolic remnant of a theocratic system. Dignas is right to point out that the priesthood was not just any civic office, but one with distinct honors and privileges. In Stratonikeia, however, I see the position of priest as wholly integrated with the fabric of the polis, rather than as a separate entity. 93 Debord 2007 stresses this point in observing how the priestly offices of the later imperial periods were restricted to the elite families of Stratonikeia, and this was probably part of their overall agenda. 94 van Bremen 2004, 239 observes that the earliest priests came from Koraia and Koliorga; these communities have not yet been identified, and she suggests that these villages were located close to Panamara, and were used to incorporate the Panamareis. She then goes further to state “instead of a takeover of the periphery by the centre, we see a very slow transition, within the wider polis context, from a domination of the priesthoods by those who lived in the sanctuary’s vicinity, to a more evenly distributed participation across the whole territory later in the Roman period.” This idea is attractive but must remain hypothetical until the locations of Koliorga and Koraia are known; none of the suggested locations presented until now are particularly close to Panamara, even on Debord’s map in Debord 1994, which van Bremen endorses on p. 215. 95 The priest Hekaton, son of Leon of Koraia made such a dedication, I. Stratonikeia 102; two priests make a similar dedication via a statue of Hermes, I. Stratonikeia 332. See also the dedication by the brother-sister priests, Leon and Myrtale, I. Stratonikeia 108, discussed above p. 221. 96 I. Stratonikeia 105, line 8: [κατὰ] ψήφ[ισμ]α τοῦ δήμου.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

230 | Christina G. Williamson

cluded the name of Stratonikeia or not is of less importance at least in the documentation exposed in Stratonikeia, the connection would have been obvious. It is true that over the course of time the nature of the priesthood changed somewhat. The euergetic dimension was certainly evident in the Hellenistic period,97 but would become much more pronounced in the imperial period. At this time the priests often occupied the role of gymnasiarch, at least during the Panamareia.98 This was probably a way to ensure the smooth running of the festival, with mass events such as the distribution of oil taking place in the gymnasium and other places in and around town, but it also gave them added control over one of the other central institutions of the polis. The priests of Zeus Panamaros were effectively the media moguls of the polis, a function which kept expanding as each new festival was more extravagant and sumptuous than the last. Laumonier had observed that by the late second century AD only a small circle of people could actually afford to be priest, even though it remained an elective position.99 This explains why certain individuals, such as Marcus Sempronius Clemens, held the office on five separate occasions, even combining it with the priesthood of Hekate in one year (which was impressive, bearing in mind the distance of 20 kilometers between the two sanctuaries).100 He furthermore dedicated a shrine next to the bouleuterion in town which included statues of Zeus Panamaros and Hekate, clearly marking the urban landscape with constant reminders of the two protective deities whose sanctuaries were far away and hidden by hills.101 This statue group was no doubt the same one before || 97 Demonstrated by a fragment dated to the Hellenistic period describing a priest distributing olive oil and wine to the population during one of the festivals, I. Stratonikeia 1409: -]ο[- | θέντες ἔλα-]ιον καὶ ἔδ[ωκαν | ἐπὶ ἡ]μέρας δύο [- | -]ρου καὶ το[- | παρέσχον οἶνο]ν πλε[ῖστον. 98 E.g. I. Stratonikeia 171, lines 7−8: ἱερατευκὼς ἐν Κομυ|[ρίοις καὶ γε]γυμνασι[α]ρχηκώς, from the later first or second century AD; and I. Stratonikeia 15, lines 9−10: καὶ γυμνασιαρχίαν | τελεῖν μεγαλοπρεπῶς] εἰς τὰ [Παναμά]ρεια, τιθέντα τὸ ἔλαιον ἑλκυστὸν ἐγ λουτ[ή]ρων, from the second century AD. See also Hatzfeld 1927, 67 n.3. Arjan Zuiderhoek has especially pointed out how common this phenomenon was in the imperial period, drawing a link with the general culture of the gymnasium, Zuiderhoek 2009, 89−92. 99 This may also explain why on occasion young boys or very old men were elected as priests, see Laumonier 1958, 227−228. 100 I. Stratonikeia 289 (second half of the second century AD) gives the epangelia of Marcus Sempronius Claudius at Panamara in the Heraia, while being priest of Hekate. His priesthood is discussed in Laumonier 1958, 367; Nilsson 1927, 400; and especially Cousin and Deschamps 1888. 101 I. Stratonikeia 289, lines 10−11. The statue group also included images of Artemis, Asklepios and Hygeia. In my dissertation I further discuss how Stratonikeia is situated between two mountain ranges (see also Fig. 2), and how both sanctuaries served to extend the visual scope of the polis to the north and south, see Williamson 2012a, Chapter 3.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

Civic Producers at Stratonikeia | 231

which the choir boys were later instructed to stand as they sang their hymns to both the gods during their festivals.102 Yet Marcus Sempronius Clemens is not the only person to have held both offices;103 the fact that both priesthoods were on several occasions fulfilled by the same individuals, who were thus central figures in the shaping of polis cult, may well explain why the rituals of the two main gods of Stratonikeia began to resemble each other more and more.

Conclusion – Priests as Civic Producers The image that arises of the priests at Stratonikeia may be summarized as one in which they had an active role in the development and expansion of Stratonikeia as well as with the ‘foreign affairs’ of state, as the political-relations campaigns of Leon to the south of Panamara, and the ‘priest of the letters’ to northern Karia (and beyond) demonstrate. The latitude which they had makes it likely that priests would have been part of the embassies to Rome to acquire the grants of asylia for Lagina and for Panamara in the first century BC, and at least part of the mastermind behind the reorganization of the festivals and the expansion of the social network of the polis through the ‘international’ recognition of asylia and participation in the games, even though we lack concrete evidence for this. With regard to the internal social composition of the polis, we know that especially in the imperial period priests played a major role in organizing the festivals, putting on grand spectacles, hosting banquets for the polis but also for distinguished groups, and escorting the entire population out to the sanctuaries and back again. In doing so the civic ideal was always the focus, sometimes literally, through the processions and activities in the urban landscape. Priests therefore played a critical role in building the polis by uniting the various communities across the large territory of Stratonikeia, and giving them a shared focus which balanced a common civic identity with their native deme identity. They thus engineered the human fabric of the polis by engaging the entire population while at the same time reinforcing social structures (e.g. ‘foreigners’ and ‘slaves’ etc were explicitly welcomed to the festivities along with ‘citizens’,

|| 102 As prescribed by Sosandros, son of Diomedos, in I. Stratonikeia 1101, line 5 dated to the imperial period; see also Chaniotis 2003. 103 Some individuals also held the priesthood of other cults at Stratonikeia, e.g. in I. Stratonikeia 249 (roughly dated to the second century AD) Herakleitos, son of Apollonidos (etc) and his wife Tatarion, daughter of Myonidos had also held the priesthoods of Hekate as well as Zeus Chrysaoreus, besides the priesthood of Zeus Panamaros.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

232 | Christina G. Williamson

thereby validating all of these categories). Their magnanimous gifts of money and oil may well have maintained an asymmetrical balance, in which large parts of the population depended on them, all under the ‘veil of sacrifice’, as Richard Gordon puts it.104 Interpreting the euergetic system as a balance of power within the empire, Gordon shows how priests personally made heavy investments in the community, and in return received a high degree of social capital, thus perpetuating an “unequal and steeply stratified society.”105 As one of the main institutions of the polis, the priesthood occupied a central node in the dynamic network that horizontally integrated the population while vertically maintaining the social hierarchy of the polis. In fact, the civic performances staged by the priests, the euergetism exhibited by the generous distributions and building dedications, their statesmanship and political networking through the festivals would have resulted in a great deal of social capital for the priests themselves, proving them as resourceful, creative and well-connected citizens: a significant return on investment which would have sealed their position at the top of Stratonikeian society (Fig. 8).106 This must have been one of the reasons that they were so careful to publically enumerate their achievements at the end of their term in the hiereus inscriptions from the imperial period. In short, while some of the priests of Hekate at Lagina and Zeus at Panamara may have been fulfilling a prescribed role and simply doing what was expected of them at the time, there are enough instances from the Hellenistic period and especially in imperial times of priestly initiative, ingenuity, and resourcefulness in linking together cult, community and polis that show the priesthood as a central operator in the development of Stratonikeia. In Paasi’s

|| 104 Gordon 1990. Gordon interprets priesthoods in the empire as a repetition of the pattern of dominance at various scales, beginning with the emperor and working down to the local “peripheral” level. His example on p. 226−228 of Kleanax, son of Serapion of Kyme, is a striking parallel: Kleanax, as prytanis, spent lavish sums on feasts for a highly diversified community – citizens, Romans, paroikoi, and foreigners– whose divisions “are repeatedly rehearsed, in an almost incantory manner,” p. 228 (SEG 32, 1243). On social capital, Bourdieu 1986, and more recently, van der Gaag 2005, Osborne and Sankey, et al. 2007, Moore and Bockenholt, et al. 2011. 105 Gordon 1990, 208. Gordon sees the priesthood further as a critical hinge between the polis and imperial rule; although it extends beyond the focus of this present research to examine this at length, the adjectives ‘loving the emperor’, ‘loving the fatherland’, and sometimes even ‘loving the Romans’, as well as ‘son of the polis’, are liberally applied in the hiereus inscriptions of especially the second century AD, e.g. I. Stratonikeia 189 describes Flavius Diomedes as φιλόπατρις καὶ φιλο|σέβαστος καὶ φιλο|ρώμαιος, υἱὸς τῆς |πόλεος (lines 2−5). 106 See especially von den Hoff 2008, who shows the shift in priestly authority in Athens, from familial ties to individual power, status, and connections, leading to their role as civic donors. On the need for more research into the social construction of priests, see Horster 2012.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

Civic Producers at Stratonikeia | 233

model they would be the ‘economic, political and cultural/media elites’ who constructed the regional identity of the expanding polis, enabling its territorial and symbolic shaping, solidifying its institutions, and gaining external recognition through their continued efforts of directing the focus towards both cult and civic center.107 Whatever their personal motives were, priests were in every sense civic producers, promoting the identity of the polis both internally to the hybrid and scattered constituent communities, and externally to the wider region, securing Stratonikeia’s place on the map of the Greek world.

Bibliography Ager, S.L. (1996). Interstate arbitrations in the Greek world, 337−90 B.C., Hellenistic culture and society 18. Berkeley. Baumeister, P. (2007). Der Fries des Hekateions von Lagina. Neue Untersuchungen zu Monument und Kontext, Byzas. Veröffentlichungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Istanbul 6. Istanbul. Bourdieu, P. (1986). ‘The forms of capital.’ in: J.C. Richard (ed.) Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. New York: 241−258. Chaniotis, A. (1995). ‘Sich selbst feiern? Städtische Feste des Hellenismus im Spannungsfeld von Religion und Politik.’ in: M. Wörrle and P. Zanker (eds.), Stadtbild und Bürgerbild im Hellenismus. Kolloquium, München, 24. bis 26. Juni 1993, Vestigia 47. München: 147−172. ― (2003). ‘Negotiating religion in the cities of the Eastern Roman Empire.’ Kernos 16: 177−190. ― (2008). ‘Priests as ritual experts in the Greek world.’ in: B. Dignas and K. Trampedach (eds.), Practitioners of the divine. Greek priests and religious officials from Homer to Heliodorus, Hellenic studies 30. Washington DC: 17−34. ― (2013, in press). ‘Processions in Hellenistic cities. Contemporary discourses and ritual dynamics.’ in: R. Alston, O.M. van Nijf and C.G. Williamson (eds.), Cults, creeds and contests in the Greek city after the Classical age, Groningen-Royal Holloway studies on the Greek city after the Classical age, Vol. 3. Leuven. Chankowski, A.S. (2005). ‘Processions et cérémonies d'accueil. Une image de la cité de la basse époque hellénistique?’ in: P. Fröhlich and C. Müller (eds.), Citoyenneté et participation à la basse époque hellénistique. Actes de la table ronde des 22 et 23 mai 2004, Paris, BNF, organisée par le groupe de recherche dirigé par Philippe Gauthier, de l’UMR 8585 (Centre Gustave Glotz), École Pratique des Hautes Études, IVe section. 3, Hautes études du monde gréco-romain; 35. Geneve: 185−206. Chwe, M.S.−Y. (2001). Rational ritual. Culture, coordination, and common knowledge. Princeton, NJ. Connerton, P. (1989). How societies remember, Themes in the social sciences. Cambridge; New York.

|| 107 Paasi 2009.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

234 | Christina G. Williamson

Cousin, G. and G. Deschamps (1888). ‘Inscriptions de temple de Zeus Panamaros.’ BCH 12: 82−104. Cousin, G. and C. Diehl (1887). ‘Inscriptions de Lagina.’ BCH 11: 5−39. Curty, O. (1995). Les parentés légendaires entre cités grecques. Catalogue raisonné des inscriptions contenant le terme syngeneia et analyse critique, Hautes études du monde gréco-romain, 20. Genève. Debord, P. (1994). ‘Essai sur la géographie historique de la région de Stratonicée.’ in: M.−M.M.É. Geny (ed.) Mélanges Pierre Lévêque. 8, Religion, anthropologie et société, Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besançon; 499. Centre de recherche d’histoire ancienne; 124. Paris: 107−121 carte. ― (2001). ‘Questions stratonicéennes.’ in: A. Bresson and R. Descat (eds.), Les cités d’Asie mineure occidentale au IIe siècle a.C., Études / Ausonius 8. Paris: 157−172. ― (2007). ‘Religion et société. Les fêtes d'Hécate et de Zeus à Stratonicée de Carie.’ in: J. Dalaison (ed.) Espaces et pouvoirs dans l’Antiquité de l’Anatolie à la Gaule: hommage à Bernard Rémy. Grenoble: 239−250. Deschamps, G. and G. Cousin (1888). ‘Inscriptions du temple de Zeus Panamaros.’ BCH 12: 479−490. Dignas, B. (2002). Economy of the sacred in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor, Oxford classical monographs. Oxford, New York. ― (2003). ‘Urban centres, rural centres, religious centres in the Greek East. Worlds apart?’ in: E. Schwertheim and E. Winter (eds.), Religion und Region. Götter und Kulte aus dem östlichen Mittelmeerraum, Asia Minor Studien; 45. Bonn: 77−91. Dimitrova, N.M. (2008). Theoroi and initiates in Samothrace. The epigraphical evidence, Hesperia Supplement 37. Princeton, NJ. Erskine, A. (2003). ‘Distant cousins and international relations: “syngeneia” in the Hellenistic world.’ in: K. Buraselis, K. Zoumboulakis and e. al.] (eds.), The idea of European community in history. Conference proceedings. Vol. 2. Aspects of connecting "poleis" and "ethne" in Ancient Greece. Athens: 205−216. Gabrielsen, V. (2000). ‘The Rhodian Peraia in the third and second centuries B.C.’ ClMediaev 51: 129−183. Gordon, R. (1990). ‘The veil of power. Emperors, sacrificers and benefactors.’ in: M. Beard and J. North (eds.), Pagan priests. Religion and power in the ancient world Ithaca NY: 199−231. Graf, F. (1996). ‘‘Pompai’ in Greece. Some considerations about space and ritual in the Greek polis.’ in: R. Hägg (ed.) The role of religion in the early Greek polis. Proceedings of the third international seminar on ancient Greek cult, organized by the Swedish Institute at Athens, 16−18 October 1992, Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen. 8°; 14. Jonsered: 55−65. Guettel Cole, S. (2008). ‘Professionals, volunteers, and amateurs. Serving the gods kata ta patria.’ in: B. Dignas and K. Trampedach (eds.), Practitioners of the divine. Greek priests and religious officials from Homer to Heliodorus, Hellenic studies 30. Washington DC: 55−72. Hanslik-Andrée, J. (1949). ‘s.v. Panamaros.’ in: G. Wissowa, W. Kroll and K. Mittelhaus (eds.), Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Neue Bearbeitung. Stuttgart: 450−455. Hatzfeld, J. (1920). ‘Inscriptions de Lagina.’ BCH 44: 70−100. ― (1927). ‘Inscriptions de Panamara.’ BCH 51: 57−122.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

Civic Producers at Stratonikeia | 235

Horster, M. (2012). ‘Priests, priesthoods, cult personnel. Traditional and new approaches.’ in: M. Horster and A. Klöckner (eds.), Civic priests. Cult personnel in Athens from the Hellenistic period to Late Antiquity. Berlin: 5−26. Johnston, S.I. (1990). Hekate Soteira. A study of Hekate’s roles in the Chaldaean oracles and related literature, American Classical Studies, 21. Atlanta. Jones, C.P. (1999). Kinship diplomacy in the ancient world, Revealing Antiquity 12. Cambridge, MA. Junghölter, U. (1989). Zur Komposition der Lagina-Friese und zur Deutung des Nordfrieses, Europ. Hochschulschr. R. 38 ; 29. Frankfurt. Kraus, T. (1960). Hekate. Studie zu Wesen und Bild der Göttin in Kleinasien und Griechenland, Heidelberger Kunstgesch. Abh. N.F. V. Heidelberg. Lambert, S. (2012). ‘The social construction of priests and priestesses in Athenian honorific decrees from the fourth century BC to the Augustan period.’ in: M. Horster and A. Klöckner (eds.), Civic Priests. Cult Personnel in Athens from the Hellenistic Period to Late Antiquity. Berlin: 67−134. Laumonier, A. (1936). ‘Archéologie carienne.’ BCH 60: 286−335. ― (1937). ‘Recherches sur la chronologie des prêtres de Panamara.’ BCH 61: 236−298. ― (1938a). ‘Complément aux recherches sur la chronologie des prêtres de Panamara’ BCH 62: 167−179. ― (1938b). ‘Recherches sur la chronologie des prêtres de Lagina.’ BCH 62: 251−284. ― (1958). Les cultes indigènes en Carie. Paris. Lozano, A. (1991−92). ‘Las mujeres y su participación en las festividades religiosas de Panamara (Estratonicea, Caria).’ Veleia 8−9: 139−144. Lücke, S. (2000). Syngeneia. Epigraphisch-historische Studien zu einem Phänomen der antiken griechischen Diplomatie, Frankfurter althistorische Beiträge 5. Frankfurt am Main. Ma, J. (2003). ‘Peer polity and interaction in the Hellenistic age.’ Past and Present 180: 9−39. Magie, D. (1950). Roman rule in Asia Minor, to the end of the third century after Christ. Princeton. McCauley, R.N. and E.T. Lawson (2002). Bringing ritual to mind. Psychological foundations of cultural forms. Cambridge. Meadows, A.R. (2002). ‘Stratonikeia in Caria. The Hellenistic city and its coinage.’ Numismatic Chronicle 162: 79−134. Mert, İ.H. (2008). Untersuchungen zur hellenistischen und kaiserzeitlichen Bauornamentik von Stratonikeia, Istanbuler Forschungen 50. Tübingen. Moore, S., U. Bockenholt, M. Daniel, K. Frohlich, Y. Kestens and L. Richard (2011). ‘Social capital and core network ties. A validation study of individual-level social capital measures and their association with extra- and intra-neighborhood ties, and self-rated health.’ Health & Place 17: 536−544. Nilsson, M.P. (1927). Die Religion der Griechen. Tübingen. ― (1995 [1906]). Griechische Feste von religiöser Bedeutung. Mit Ausschluss der Attischen. Stuttgart. Oppermann, H. (1924). Zeus Panamaros, Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 19. Bd., H. 3. Gießen. Osborne, M., K. Sankey and B. Wilson (2007). Social capital, lifelong learning and the management of place. An international perspective. London.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

236 | Christina G. Williamson

Paasi, A. (2009). ‘The resurgence of the ‘Region’ and ‘Regional Identity’. Theoretical perspectives and empirical observations on regional dynamics in Europe.’ Review of International Studies 35: 121−146. Parker, R. (2004). ‘New ‘Panhellenic’ festivals in Hellenistic Greece.’ in: R. Schlesier and U. Zellmann (eds.), Mobility and travel in the Mediterranean from Antiquity to the Middle Ages. Münster: 9−22. Perlman, P.J. (2000). City and sanctuary in ancient Greece. The Theorodokia in the Peloponnese, Hypomnemata, Heft 121. Göttingen. Rigsby, K.J. (1996). Asylia. Territorial inviolability in the Hellenistic world, Hellenistic culture and society 22. Berkeley. Rutherford, I. (2007). ‘Network theory and theoric networks.’ Mediterranean Historical Review 22: 23−37. Şahin, M.Ç. (1976). The political and religious structure in the territory of Stratonikeia in Caria. Ankara. Sassen, S. (2002). Global networks, linked cities. New York. Scheid, J. (1985). ‘Sacrifice et banquet à Rome. Quelques problèmes.’ MEFRA 97: 193−206. Schober, A. (1933). Der Fries des Hekateions von Lagina, Istanbuler Forschungen 2. Baden bei Wien. Scott, A.J. (2001). Global city-regions. Trends, theory, policy. Cambridge, UK; New York. Sherk, R.K. and P. Viereck (1969). Roman documents from the Greek East. Senatus consulta and epistulae to the age of Augustus. Baltimore. Slater, W.J. (2004). ‘Where are the actors?’ in: C. Hugoniot, F. Hurlet and S. Milanezi (eds.), Le statut de l’acteur dans l’Antiquité grecque et romaine. Actes du colloque qui s’est tenu à Tours les 3 et 4 mai 2002. Tours: 143−160. Tacoma, R. (2011). ‘The councillor’s dilemma. Political culture in third-century Roman Egypt.’ in: O.M. van Nijf and R. Alston (eds.), Political culture in the Greek city after the Classical age, Groningen-Royal Holloway Studies on the Greek City after the Classical Age, 2: 243−262. Thonemann, P.J. (2007). ‘Magnesia and the Greeks of Asia (I.Magnesia 16.16).’ GRBS 47: 151−160. van Bremen, R. (2000). ‘The demes and phylai of Stratonikeia in Karia.’ Chiron 30: 389−401. ― (2003). ‘Notes on some new inscriptions from Lagina.’ EA 35: 15−19. ― (2004). ‘Leon son of Chrysaor and the religious identity of Stratonikeia in Caria.’ in: S. Colvin (ed.) The Greco-Roman East, Yale Classical Studies 31. Cambridge: 207−244. ― (2010). ‘The inscribed documents on the temple of Hekate at Lagina and the date and meaning of the temple frieze.’ in: R. van Bremen and J.−M. Carbon (eds.), Hellenistic Karia. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Hellenistic Karia − Oxford, 29 June − 2 July 2006. Bordeaux: 483−503. van der Gaag, M.P.J. (2005). Measurement of individual social capital. PhD Diss diss. University of Groningen, Groningen. van Nijf, O.M. (forthcoming). ‘Staying Roman, becoming Greek. Associations of Romaioi in Greek cities.’ in: A. Cazemier and S. Skaltsa (eds.), Associations in context. Rethinking associations and religion in the post-classical polis. Proceedings from the Copenhagen Associations Project symposium 11−13 October 2012. Copenhagen. Veyne, P. (1976). Le pain et le cirque. Sociologie historique d’un pluralisme politique. Paris. Voigtländer, W. (2004). Teichiussa. Näherung und Wirklichkeit. Rahden in Westfalen.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

Civic Producers at Stratonikeia | 237

von den Hoff, R. (2008). ‘Images and prestige of cult personnel in Athens between the sixth and first centuries BC.’ in: B. Dignas and K. Trampedach (eds.), Practitioners of the divine. Greek priests and religious officials from Homer to Heliodorus, Hellenic studies 30. Washington DC: 107−141. Williamson, C.G. (2012a). City and sanctuary in Hellenistic Asia Minor. Constructing civic identity in the sacred landscapes of Mylasa and Stratonikeia in Karia. PhD diss. University of Groningen, Groningen. ― (2012b). ‘Sanctuaries as turning points in territorial formation. Lagina, Panamara and the development of Stratonikeia.’ in: F. Pirson (ed.) Manifestationen von Macht und Hierarchien in Stadtraum und Landschaft, Byzas 13. Veröffentlichungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Istanbul. Istanbul: 113−150. Zuiderhoek, A. (2009). The politics of munificence in the Roman Empire. Citizens, elites, and benefactors in Asia Minor. Cambridge. ― (2011). ‘Oligarchs and benefactors. Elite demography and euergetism in the Greek east of the Roman Empire.’ in: O.M. van Nijf and R. Alston (eds.), Political culture in the Greek city after the Classical age, Groningen-Royal Holloway Studies on the Greek City after the Classical Age, 2. with the assistance of C.G. Williamson, Leuven: 185−196.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

238 | Christina G. Williamson

Fig. 1 Map of Stratonikeian territory in Karia (map drawn by author, based on the Russian General’nyi shtab maps 1:500,000 and the SRTM Elevation Data available with ESRI).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

Civic Producers at Stratonikeia | 239

Fig. 2 Map of Stratonikeian territory with a rough indication of the communities that were incorporated into Stratonikeia as demes, indicated by the light circles with the dark cross-bars (the suggested locations for Lobolda/Koraia and Londarga are derived from Debord 1994; map based on the Russian General’nyi shtab maps 1:200,000 and the SRTM Elevation Data available with ESRI).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

240 | Christina G. Williamson

Fig. 3 The sanctuary of Hekate at Lagina, seen from the west corner of the stoa complex, with the temple in the middle (photo author).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

Civic Producers at Stratonikeia | 241

Fig. 4 Chart showing the breakdown of inscriptions at Lagina according to type and period.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

242 | Christina G. Williamson

Fig. 5 The hilltop of the sanctuary of Zeus Panamaros, from the southwest, with the Oyuklu mountains in the background (photo author).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

Civic Producers at Stratonikeia | 243

Fig. 6 Chart showing the breakdown of inscriptions at Panamara according to type and period.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

244 | Christina G. Williamson

Fig. 7 Map showing the networks of the sanctuary of Zeus at Panamara, based on the (fragmentary) epigraphic evidence. The white circles with black dots (south) represent the cities involved in the early network of Panamara, under the koinon of the Panamareis and in Rhodian territory (I. Stratonikeia 7−8, 1401−1402); the white circles with the dark stars at the center (northeast) represent the cities recognizing the asylia of 39 BC (I. Stratonikeia 21); the black circles with white stars (mostly north and west) represent the communities known to be invited by the ‘priest of the letters’ (I. Stratonikeia 22−39b) (map drawn by author, based on the Russian General’nyi shtab maps 1:500,000 and the SRTM Elevation Data available with ESRI).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

Civic Producers at Stratonikeia | 245

Fig. 8 Diagram of return on investments of priests at Stratonikeia.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:47 PM

Stéphanie Paul

Roles of Civic Priests in Hellenistic Cos1 Abstract: The abundance and interest of the epigraphic evidence from the island of Cos after the synoecism of 366 BC makes it a very valuable case-study for understanding how the religious life of a polis was organized in the Hellenistic period. The topic of civic priesthoods is particularly well documented by various types of inscriptions, such as priesthood regulations, sacrificial calendars and contracts of sales. Based on a close study of this evidence, this paper will examine the roles played by priests in the cults of the gods of the civic pantheon, as well as the relationship between these officials and the polis which appointed them. It will address as its main question how the priest’s position as mediator between the polis community and the divine sphere was manifested. In the year 366 BC, a number of settlements on the island of Cos united to form a single polis, as a result of a synoecism that also constitutes the terminus post quem for any epigraphical evidence on Coan religious life.2 Such a political reform necessarily led to a reorganization of the older cults, aiming at building a religious identity shared by all the members of the newly established polis.3 A small number of inscriptions palaeographically dated from the mid-fourth century are generally considered as a part of the written outcome of this process. Unfortunately the almost nonexistent evidence prior to the synoecism makes it extremely difficult to evaluate continuities and changes with regard to this reform. These inscriptions are nevertheless very instructive as regards religious identity and cult practice in general and, when confronted with other types of inscriptions such as sales of priesthoods, provide valuable insights for understanding the roles played by priests in the cults of the gods of the civic pantheon, as well as into the relationship between these officials and the polis

|| 1 This paper is an extension of my forthcoming book on the cults of the island of Cos in the Hellenistic period (Paul 2013). I am grateful to Marietta Horster and Anja Klöckner for their invitation to present an oral version of this paper in Mainz, and to my respondent, Pierre Fröhlich, for his insightful comments. I would also like to thank Robert Parker, Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge for commenting on earlier drafts. All remaining errors are, of course, my own. 2 The date and the nature of the Coan synoecism have been much debated, but scholarship seems to have recently reached a consensus. See especially Sherwin-White 1978: 43−75 and Reger 2001: 171−174. 3 On cult reorganizations resulting from synoecisms, see Parker 2009a: esp. 202−204 on Cos.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

248 | Stéphanie Paul

which appointed them. It is on these two aspects of Coan priesthoods that my paper will focus. The first of these documents of the mid-fourth century is a cult calendar, of which four partly preserved stelai, each corresponding to a month of the year, are extant.4 Priests and priestesses are mentioned there mostly for their role as sacrificers and recipients of honorary shares. More directly related to the matter at hand is a second inscription, roughly contemporary with the cult calendar and likewise fragmentary, which presumably codified the tenure and appointment of Coan civic priesthoods.5 Among these, we note the priesthood of Zeus Polieus, Athena Polias and the Twelve Gods, one of the most important in Cos, and perhaps rules that may concern priesthoods associated with various cults of Apollo.6 Behind the gaps, we can catch a glimpse of the structure of the document which comprises (1) the attribution of the priesthood to specific groups; (2) regulations concerning the consecration (teleta) of the priest; (3) rules of purity and purification; and (4) various sacrificial and ritual duties. I would argue that these four items were essential characteristics of the definition of the civic priest in the post-synoecistic Cos.

Definition, Status and Appointment of Civic Priesthoods on Cos The Appointment of Priests The Coan evidence relays various modes of appointments to priesthood, depending on the period and the type of cult. In the fourth-century priesthood regulation, the appointment of the priest is addressed at the end of a section concerning an unidentified priesthood7 in the following terms: “This priesthood

|| 4 IG XII 4, 274−278. 5 IG XII 4, 332. 6 As the end of the text (l. 68−77), although very fragmentary, tends to show, mentioning the word ἱαρεωσύναν and what seems to be purity rules intended for priests. Apollo’s epithet Dalios is attested in the preserved part of the text, but the theoria sent to Delphi may indicate that the cult of Apollo Pythios, well attested on Cos, was also involved. 7 These regulations had previously been associated with the priesthood of Zeus Polieus, Athena Polias and the Twelve Gods, which is the object of the immediately following section, see notably Sherwin-White 1978: 156. However, the vacat that follows, as well as the compari-

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Roles of Civic Priests in Hellenistic Cos | 249

[shall belong] to the triakas of [—, and the pentekostys] of the Hippiadai.”8 Although this passage is fragmentary, the supplements are corroborated by another, later, cult regulation from Cos. Around 240, the polis decided to inscribe on new stelai a series of regulations about purity and purification, which had been codified in previous sacred laws (hieroi nomoi). Among prescriptions concerning the priestess of Demeter Olympia, we read, with a phrasing so similar as to suggest that this section had been directly copied from our inscription or that both inscriptions were referring to a single reference document: “This priesthood [shall belong to the triakas of —, and the pentekos]tys of the Pollondai.”9 The triakas and the pentekostys are subdivisions of the three Dorian tribes (Pamphyloi, Hylleis, Dymanes) that organized the Coan civic community. According to citizenship decrees, each new citizen had to be enrolled in a tribe, a triakas and a pentekostys.10 Etymologically, both names point to a numerical basis for the division, but a shift of meaning cannot be excluded and the terms might not be understood stricto sensu.11 Moreover, our knowledge of Coan social organization is still highly uncertain, and the articulation of the sub-levels within the phylai, especially, eludes us.12 Since the whole political system presumably underwent a reform when the new polis constituted itself, the attribution of some civic priesthoods to particular civic groups may have been an innovation of the synoecism.13 The mode of appointment to the priesthoods within the individual groups was apparently not stipulated in the regulations, nor was the term, but a comparison with one of the demes may be useful in this case. In Halasarna, participation in the cult of Apollo was restricted to members of the local tribes, and the priest was appointed annually by lot by the naopoioi from a list of volunteers belonging to these tribes.14 It is conceivable, though not certain, that this procedure echoed a similar one used in the polis.

|| son with IG XII 4, 72 (see below n. 9), where the same prescription is found likewise at the end of a section, prove otherwise. 8 IG XII 4, 332 l. 20−21: Αὕτα [ἁ ἱαρε]|ωσύνα τριακάδ[ος ἔστω - - -δᾶν, πεντηκοστύος Ἱ]ππιαδᾶν. 9 IG XII 4, 72 l. 34−35: Ἁ ἱερωσύνα ταύτ̣[α ἔστω τριακάδος - - -, πεντηκοσ]|τύος Πολλωνδᾶν. 10 IG XII 4, 26 l. 16−18 (first half of the third century BC); 41 l. 8−10 (late third century BC); 52 l. 1−3 (first half of the second century BC); Tit.Cal. 74 l. 21−22 (c. 227 BC). 11 See Ackermann 2011: esp. 41−44. 12 On the social organization of Cos, see Sherwin-White 1978: 153−174; Jones 1987: 236−242; more recently, Grieb 2008: 147−150 and Carlsson 2010: 218−221. 13 The question of the antiquity of the three Dorian tribes can however be raised, see Parker 2009a: 203. 14 IG XII 4, 103−104 (c. 180 BC).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

250 | Stéphanie Paul

Particular relationships between groups and cults are made obvious in other ways by the mid-fourth-century cult calendar. The Nestoridai are listed among the recipients of choice portions from the sacrifice to Zeus Polieus in Batromios, suggesting that they were somehow involved in this cult.15 For the ritual to Zeus Machaneus in the month Karneios, the Phyleomachidai were required to provide preliminary bloodless offerings to be burnt on the altar, and received choice portions in exchange.16 Furthermore, an ensemble of stones from the Asklepieion, either altars or horoi, dating from the second half of the fourth to the first century BC, attests to the worship of a number of similar groups, although it is uncertain for the most part whether they were civic subdivisions such as triakades or pentekostyes, or familial groups such as gene.17 A few Coan priesthoods were held by specific gene, like plenty of examples we have from Athens.18 The priesthood of Apollo Karneios is said to be kata genos in an honorific inscription from the first century AD, but the cult is attested as early as the mid-fourth century BC19, even if we know nothing of the appointment to this priesthood in the Hellenistic period. Another inscription, dated from the first half of the second century BC, regulates the foundation of a festival in honor of Zeus Soter and Athena Soteira, financed by the donation by a certain Pythokles. This festival, the Pythokleia, included the performance of a great number of sacrifices by magistrates and civic groups “on behalf of the safety of the polis”, as well as athletic contests.20 Although the festival was originally financed with private funds, it is clear that the cult of Zeus Soter and Athena Soteira is of a public kind, as is also proven by the mention of the Py-

|| 15 IG XII 4, 278 l. 53−54. The Nestoridai also appear in relation to the cult of Zeus Phatrios and Zeus Hikesios in horoi found in the Asklepieion: IG XII 4, 1221 (third century BC); 1225 (second half of the third to first half of the second century BC). 16 IG XII 4, 274 l. 17−19. 17 IG XII 4, 1210−1236. The inscriptions always follow the same pattern, i.e. the name of the god in the genitive case, with the name of the group, also in the genitive. On this ensemble, see Parker 2008: 202−203. 18 See Aleshire 1994; and more recently Blok/Lambert 2009; Aleshire/Lambert 2011. For family-priesthoods in Cos and elsewhere, see in the present volume Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge and Jan-Mathieu Carbon, and with the focus on female priests Oliver Pilz. 19 IG XII 4, 951, in honor of C. Stertinius Xenophon, distinguished citizen of Cos and physician of the emperor Claudius (cf. below note 29). The cult is already attested in the cult calendar (IG XII 4, 275 l. 17) as well as the Karneia (IG XII 4, 274 lines 11, 15, 22, 26). 20 IG XII 4, 350. The inscription is unfortunately very fragmentary, but we read l. 18−19, with the supplements: [τὰς] θυσίας γίνεσθαι κατὰ τ[ὰ γεγραμμένα τῶι τε Διὶ τῶι Σωτῆρι καὶ τᾶι | Ἀθάναι τᾶι Σωτείραι ὑπὲρ τᾶς σωτη]ρίας τᾶς πόλιος μηνὸς Ἀρτ[αμιτίου τᾶι δεκάται].

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Roles of Civic Priests in Hellenistic Cos | 251

thokleia in an entry in the calendar of the gymnasium.21 According to the same inscription, both priesthoods of Zeus and of Athena were to be held by descendants of Pythokles, apparently on the latter’s request.22 The priesthood kata genos Pythokleiōn is still attested in the first century AD, when it was held by L. Nonius Aristodamos.23 Similar attributions of priesthoods as a way of thanking euergetai who had contributed to the prosperity of the cult, by donating money for the performance of sacrifices or for the repair of sacred buildings, seem to be fairly common.24 Another example of priesthood kata genos can be found in a “private” context. The foundation by a certain Diomedon of the familial cult of Heracles Diomedonteios, dated from the end of the fourth century BC, stipulates that the priesthood was to be held by the oldest (presbutatos) of the descendants. Interestingly, a later amendment to this document makes it clear that, although illegitimate sons could be given the right to participate in the cult, under no circumstances were they allowed to hold the priesthood. Presumably there had been some disputes on the matter and the need had been felt for a more definite rule.25 The priesthood of the Symmachidai sold by the polis during the second century BC may belong to the same type.26 It is generally agreed that the name,

|| 21 IG XII 4, 281 l. 33−34 (c. 158−138 BC): Πυθόκλεια Διὶ | Σωτῆρι. On private donations and their public administration, see recently Harter-Uibopuu 2011. 22 IG XII 4, 350 l. 7−10: [ἦμεν δὲ τὰς ἱερωσύνας κατ]ὰ γένευς καθὰ αἰτ[εῖται Πυθοκλῆς - - - | - - ἱερᾶσθαι δὲ νῦν τοῦ] μὲν Διὸς τῶν τοῦ υἱο[ῦ τοῦ Πυθοκλεῦς υἱῶν τὸν πρεσβύτερον - - - | - - - καὶ ἐς τὸν λοιπ]ὸν χρόνον τὸν πρεσβύ[τατον ἀεί, τᾶς δὲ Ἀθάνας νῦν μὲν τούτων | τῶν υἱῶν τὸν νεώτερον, καὶ ἐς τὸν μέλλον]τ̣α χρόνον ἀεὶ τῶν ἐγγό[νων αὐτοῦ τὸν πρεσβύτατον - - -]. Again, the text is very fragmentary, but the overall meaning is quite clear. 23 IG XII 4, 822 l. 11−12: ἱερέα κατὰ γένος Πυθο|[κ]λείων (after AD 54). Contra Robert 1933: 527 (n. 2) and Robert 1966: 426−427 (n. 2) according to whom Πυθοκλείων referred to games. See also IG XII 4, 1053 (first half of the first century AD). 24 See for example LSCG 61 (Gythion, first century BC), attributing the priesthood of Apollo to Philemon, his son Theoxenos and their descendants for their participation in the repair of the temple, for which they also gained ownership of the sanctuary; I.Histriae 1 (c. mid-third century BC), granting a certain Diogenes the priesthood of the Muses in a similar way. On Cos, during the second century BC, Phanomachos had donated lands and buildings (and probably money) to found a public cult of Zeus and the Damos and was the first priest (IG XII 4, 79−80). In this case, however, the priesthood was not held by his descendants afterwards. 25 IG XII 4, 348 l. 23−25: [ἱεράσθω δὲ τοῦ] Ἡρακλεῦς νῦν | [μὲν - - -, τὸ δὲ λοιπ]ὸ̣ν̣ ἀεὶ ὁ πρεσύτ|[ατος τῶν Διομέδοντος ἐγγό]ν̣ω̣ν. 146−149: ἄν δέ τις νόθος ὢν κρ[ι|θ]εὶς γνωσθῆι μετέχειν τῶν ἱερῶ[ν], | μ̣ὴ ἐξέστω αὐτῶι μετέχειν τῶν | [ἱ]ερωσυνῶν. For family-priesthoods, see in the present volume the paper of Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge and Jan-Mathieu Carbon. 26 IG XII 4, 310.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

252 | Stéphanie Paul

which does not fit very well with deities, refers to a genos-like group.27 According to R. Parker and D. Obbink’s hypothesis, it would be an old designation going back to a time well before the polis decided to put the priesthood on sale and open it to all the Coan citizens.28 The accumulation of priesthoods by single individuals in the Roman period tends indeed to show that some priesthoods once restricted to particular groups became, at some point, more broadly open.29 B. Dignas, however, thinks rather that the priesthood was sold within the genos itself, as is paralleled in Mylasa and Chios.30 Provided that the latter interpretation is correct, this contract would attest the combination of two different modes of appointment, hereditary transmission and a sale that would have been performed within the group. Some time at the beginning of the third century, the polis of Cos introduced the practice of selling civic priesthoods. This practice, developed in the Hellenistic period on the western coast of Asia Minor and on the Aegean islands, has been well studied during the past few years and does not need to be extensively addressed here.31 The sale involved the drawing up of a contract (diagrapha) between the purchaser and the polis, listing the description of the position and the privileges attached to it. This contract was not valid once and for all, but subject to renewal every time the priesthood was put up for sale, which explains the occasional existence of several contracts for a single priesthood and the overall abundance of documents.32 Although scholars have particularly highlighted the financial character of these contracts, their religious significance

|| 27 Sherwin-White 1978: 156 (n. 19); Parker/Obbink 2001: 230; Péter Kató p. 289−290 in the present volume. 28 Parker/Obbink 2001: 230. 29 During the first century AD, Minnis was priestess of Zeus Polieus, Athena Polias and the Twelve Gods, of Apollo Karneios, of Rhea, of Asklepios, Hygieia and Epione (IG XII 4, 838). C. Stertinius Xenophon was priest of the Emperors, of Asklepios, Hygieia and Epione, of Apollo Karneios (see above note 19), of Rhea, of Hestia, of Zeus Polieus, Athena Polias and the Twelve Gods, of Hera Argeia Heleia Basileia, etc.: IG XII 4, 951 (AD 48−54); 952 (shortly after AD 54). On Xenophon, see Buraselis 2000: 66−110. 30 Dignas 2002: 252. Chios: LSCG 119 (Heracles, fourth century BC); Mylasa: LSAM 63 (Zeus). 31 Parker/Obbink 2000; Parker/Obbink 2001; Dignas 2002: 419−429; Dignas 2003a; Wiemer 2003; Buraselis 2008. 32 The practice of selling priesthoods is particularly well represented for Cos: no less than thirty-five diagraphai were published in IG XII 4, 296−331, dated from the first quarter of the third century to the first century BC.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Roles of Civic Priests in Hellenistic Cos | 253

and interest must not be underestimated, as the sale of a priesthood represented for the polis a convenient opportunity to introduce modifications in cults.33 An inscription, discovered in the deme of Antimachia and dated from the first half of the third century BC, provides evidence for the transition between two different modes of appointment to a priesthood. This document is generally interpreted as an amendment to a previous, unknown regulation concerning the priesthood of Demeter. While the beginning of the text seems to add further details concerning the appointment by lot, the rest alludes to some prescription enacted “before the priesthood was put up for sale.”34 To explain the apparent inconsistency, it has been suggested that this was the result of a combination of two different modes of appointment: the allotment would decide between several candidates who were willing to purchase the priesthood.35 Finally, particular requirements for the tenure of priesthoods other than membership of a specific group are only made explicit in diagraphai.36 The purchaser must always be “healthy (ὑγιής) and physically whole (ὁλόκλαρος)”, a requirement that has been interpreted as a means to be as close as possible to the gods.37 Occasionally, contracts also mention an age limitation, which is usually rather low, with two exceptions: the priest of the Corybantes must be at least 20, and the priestess of Aphrodite Pandamos and Pontia must be an adult (telea).38 Priesthoods are usually intended for either a man or a woman, but not both, as it is made clear by the use of the word priamenos or priamena to designate the purchaser, even though feminine priesthoods were actually purchased by the woman’s guardian.39 We know, however, of at least two cases where a woman held male priesthoods. In the first half of the second century BC, Kallistrate had been priestess of Asklepios, Hygieia and Epione, of Apollo Dalios and Leto, and of Eumenes. Similarly, in the first century AD, Minnis held the priesthoods of Asklepios, of Rhea, of Zeus Polieus, Athena Polias and the Twelve || 33 One of the most significant examples comes from the long sale of the priesthood of Hermes Enagonios (IG XII 4, 298, second half of the third century BC), regulating the organization of two different festivals related to the gymnasium: Gauthier 1995. 34 IG XII 4, 356 l. 6−7: καθάπερ καὶ πρὶν πωλητὰν γενέσθαι | τὰν ἱερωσύναν συνετάχθη. 35 This hypothesis was first suggested by Paton/Hicks 1891: 277. Contra Sokolowski 1969: 306, who thought that methods varied according to the different cults of Demeter, but the text of the inscription does not allow confirmation of this possibility. On this document, see also Dignas 2002: 262−263. 36 On the requirements stipulated in the Coan diagraphai, see Wiemer 2003: 282−283. 37 Wilgaux 2009. 38 IG XII 4, 299 l. 6 (late third century BC); 302 l. 7 (after 198 BC). 39 The regulation concerning the priesthood of Demeter in Antimachia stipulates that the guardians of the female candidates be drawn by lot: IG XII 4, 356 l. 1−4.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

254 | Stéphanie Paul

Gods, and of Apollo Karneios. In both cases, these were women who undoubtedly belonged to a very high social background, which could explain what seems to be an exception.40

Upon Introduction into Office: the Teleta Sales of priesthoods on Cos regularly mention a procedure known as the teleta, which can be defined as the “consecration” of the priest or priestess upon his/her introduction to office. For example, we read in the sale of the priesthood of Dionysos Thyllophoros: Let the polis consecrate (τελεσάτω) the priestess, the tamiai shall give the expense for the consecration. In order for the priestess to be consecrated according to customary practices, the poletai shall contract it out.41 The procedure is conducted under the authority of the polis, even if, eventually, the cost is reimbursed to the tamiai by the purchaser.42 This suggests that the teleta formed an essential part of the definition of a civic priest. Given their particular character, the diagraphai never describe in detail the ritual aspects of the teleta, which they consider from an administrative and financial point of view only, but merely refer to previous customs (κατὰ τὰ νομιζόμενα).43 The mid-fourth-century regulation on priesthoods, despite its fragmentary state, includes a somewhat more detailed description of the consecration of the priest,

|| 40 Kallistrate: IG XII 4, 978; Wiemer 2003: 291−292. Minnis: IG XII 4, 838. 41 IG XII 4, 304 l. 15−17 (first half of the second century BC): τὰν δὲ ἱερῆ τε̣[λε|σά]τω ἁ πόλις, τὸ δὲ ἀνάλωμα τὸ ἐς τὰν τελετὰν [τοὶ τα|μία]ι διδόντω· ὅπως δὲ τελεσθῇ ἁ ἱερῆ κατὰ τὰ ν̣[ομιζό|μεν]α τοὶ πωληταὶ ἀπομισθωσάντω. Preserved mentions of the teleta can also be found in IG XII 4, 311: Asklepios, Hygieia and Epione (c. 170−150 BC); 315: Homonoia (second half of the second century BC); 318: Adrasteia and Nemesis (second half of the second century BC); 319: Aphrodite Pandamos and Pontia (late second century BC); 326: Dionysos Thyllophoros (first half of the first century BC); 327: unknown deity (first half of the first century BC); 328: Zeus Alseios (first century BC). On the teleta, see Parker/Obbink 2000: 446−447; Wiemer 2003: 280; Pirenne-Delforge 2005: 58−59. 42 This is generally the case: the polis only lends the money and the purchaser pays it back along with the first installment. See IG XII 4, 315 l. 58 (second half of the second century BC); 326 l. 74 (first half of the first century BC); 328 l. 76 (first century BC). 43 The sale of the priesthood of the Corybantes (IG XII 4, 299 l. 10−11, late third century BC) stipulates that the priest received an honorary share from the animal sacrificed ἐπὶ τᾶι τελετᾶι. However, the teleta more probably refers here to the initiation of the worshippers in the mystery cult of the Corybantes, as already noticed by Pirenne-Delforge 2005: 59 (n. 47), contra Parker/Obbink 2000: 447.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Roles of Civic Priests in Hellenistic Cos | 255

and thus could well have been the “customs” to which the sales of priesthoods regularly allude. The section concerning the priesthood of Zeus Polieus, Athena Polias and the Twelve Gods reads: The priest [of Zeus Polieus and the] Twelve Gods is consecrated in the following manner: he is purified with a piglet, [in addition to sea water. He sacrifices to Zeus] Polieus an ox [and to Athena] Polias a [full-grown and pregnant] female sheep [on the - - -] hill. The priest provides the offerings for these sacrifices.44 From this passage, we can conclude that the teleta was composed of two main parts. First, the priest submitted himself to a purification ritual, aimed at conferring upon him a state of purity which he had to maintain throughout his office. As a matter of fact, the very same inscription includes some purity rules that were intended for the priests, and similar rules are again found in relation to priestesses of Demeter in the mid-third-century regulation concerning purity and purification.45 They express concerns about risks of pollution coming from death or birth in a broad sense: the priests were forbidden to eat meat from sacrifices to heroes or to Hecate, to enter a heroon, to go near dead or wounded animals, and they had to wait several days before entering a house where there had been a death, birth or miscarriage. Whenever priests happened to commit some impure action, they had to submit themselves to purification rituals in order to recover their integrity. A piglet was sacrificed and taken in circles around the person who had to be purified, and the purification “by gold and prospermia” was made, perhaps involving sprinkling of water (perirrhainein) from a gold vessel and the use of grain.46 Interestingly, the sale of the priesthood of Nike, dated from the first century BC, requires the priest to “keep pure from whatever is prescribed to the other priests concerning purity,” clearly referring to the same kind of regulations.47

|| 44 IG XII 4, 332 l. 21−25: τοῖσ[δε τε]|λέζεται ὁ ἱαρεὺς τ[οῦ Ζηνὸς τοῦ Πολιέως καὶ τῶ]ν̣ Θεῶν τῶν Δυώ̣[δεκα· κ]|αθαίρεται χοίρωι ἐ[πὶ θαλάσσαι· θύει δὲ καὶ Ζην]ὶ̣ Πολιῆι βοῦ[ν καὶ Ἀθάν]|αι Πολιάδι οἶν τε[λέαν κυέοσαν ἐν τῶι – – – – – –]ς ὄρει· ἱερ[ὰ ἐπὶ τού]|τοις ἱαρεὺς παρ[έχει]. 45 IG XII 4, 72 l. 22−45. 46 IG XII 4, 332 l. 18; IG XII 4, 72 l. 28−30 and 43−44 (see also lines 52−53; 62; 73): περιταμέσθω χοίρωι − περιρανάτω χρυσίωι καὶ προσπερμείαι. On the meaning of peritamesthai, see Clinton 2005: 169. On the phrase χρυσίωι καὶ προσπερμείαι, see Parker 1983: 231 (n. 141) and 228 (n. 118). 47 IG XII 4, 330 l. 12−14: ἁγνευέσθω | [ὅσ]ω̣ν καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς ἱερεῦσι ποτιτέτακται ἁ|[γν]εύεσθαι. It is curious that this is the only reference of this type that we find in the preserved diagraphai.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

256 | Stéphanie Paul

Secondly, the priest was required to perform a sacrifice. This sacrifice has a strong symbolic significance, as it is the first ritual act he performed as a priest, and thus appears to be the core of the teleta. It perhaps also took on an initiatory function, allowing the newly installed priests to familiarize themselves with the ritual procedures customary to a particular cult. Remarkable in this respect are the prescriptions for the sacrifice pertaining to the consecration of the priest of Zeus Polieus, Athena Polias and the Twelve Gods, which appear to have been directly excerpted from the section concerning the festival of Zeus Polieus in the cult calendar.48 Clearly, the teleta is all about “accomplishing, consummating” (telein) the priest in his role, under the authority of the polis. Finally worth mentioning is the oath that the priestess of Demeter in Antimachia had to take after being selected, which may also be part of the teleta, although it is never mentioned elsewhere on Cos.49 The terms of this oath are not further developed either, but it is safe to assume that it involved matters of purity, proper performance of rituals and perhaps requirements relating to the tenure of office.

The Damoteleis Hiereis: an Equivalent to the “Civic Priests”? It is in relation to the teleta that, according to V. Pirenne-Delforge, the qualification of some priests as damoteleis in two inscriptions from the second century BC has to be understood, implying that the suffix -τελής referred to this particular meaning of telein found in Coan diagraphai.50 It is true that the primary meaning of the word damoteles, “financed by the damos”, which often occurs in relation to feasts or sacrifices, would make much less sense when applied to priests. Unfortunately, both inscriptions are fragmentary and the context of the mentions of these priests is unclear. The first one comes from the above-mentioned foundation by Pythokles of a festival in honor of Zeus Soter and Athena Soteira. The damoteleis hiereis ([τοὶ ἄλλοι πάντες ἱερ]εῖς τοὶ δαμοτελεῖς) are mentioned next to the priests kata genos of Zeus and Athena and some magistrates in a section too fragmentary to be fully understood. According to the proposed supplements, it would have concerned the proedria at the contest celebrated in honor of both gods. The damoteleis hiereis are furthermore restored || 48 IG XII 4, 332 l. 26−36; IG XII 4, 278 l. 47−56. 49 IG XII 4, 356 l. 4 (first half of the third century BC). On this oath, see Krob 1997: 448−450. 50 Pirenne-Delforge 2005: part. 59−60. The word damoteles is again found in a sacred context in two honorific decrees of Cos for dikastagogoi where it qualifies ἑορταί and assumes its primary meaning “financed by the damos”: IG XII 4, 57; 59 (mid-second century BC).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Roles of Civic Priests in Hellenistic Cos | 257

twice among the sacrificants, but nothing can support these supplements with certainty.51 It is not clear either whether the qualification of damoteleis is to be understood as a contrast to the priests kata genos, or as simply referring to priests of other cults who had the same status with respect to the polis, as is assumed by the supplement [ἄλλοι]. If we follow the former hypothesis, we are forced to consider that the priests kata genos were not officially consecrated by the polis, even when attached to public cults, which seems unlikely. The second occurrence of damoteleis hiereis comes from an honorific decree of the deme of Antimachia for two hierotamiai who administrated the sacred money in a good manner, and who contributed at their own expense so that the sacrifices and the reception of the demotai could be performed according to ancient customs. The end of the preserved text mentions “the other priests and priestess (or priestesses), who are damoteleis.”52 Again, the lacuna does not allow us to know the reason behind this mention. It was suggested by the first editors that the hierotamiai perhaps made a donation so that these priests could receive perquisites from the sacrifices as well, but this cannot be confirmed in any way by the text.53 Furthermore, given the context of the inscription, we can ask whether the damoteleis hiereis are priests from the polis or from the deme of Antimachia. Some difficulty arises from the singular ἱερείαι, which cannot be easily reconciled with the former hypothesis and would therefore have to be emended to ἱερείαι54 – unless we should assume that, for some reason, not all the priests from the polis were involved in this particular deme festival, but this seems unlikely. However, a serious argument against the second option comes from the definition by lexicographers of the word demoteles, which is always applied to sacrificial animals that are financed by the polis, as opposed to the demotika hiereia, which are financed by the demes.55 This distinction, as well as the parallel from the first inscription which undoubtedly refers to the priests of the polis, leads us to conclude that damoteleis also refers to those priests in the inscription from the deme Antimachia.

|| 51 IG XII 4, 350 l. 46 (late second century BC). They are supplemented in l. 21 and 38. 52 IG XII 4, 102 l. 15−18 (c. 190 BC): τοῖς τε ἄ̣[λ]|λοις ἱερεῦσι καὶ ἱερείαι, τοί ἐντι δαμοτελ̣[εῖς], | καὶ ἐς ταῦτα̣ αὑτοὺς ἐπέδωκαν ὅπως ἁ δι[α|γραφὰ ---], “for the other priests and priestess (or priestesses?), who are damoteleis, in this respect also they devoted themselves so that the diagrapha…”. 53 Paton/Hicks 1891: 272. 54 The first editor (Dubois 1883: 481−482, n. 4) read ἱερείαις but this reading was corrected by Paton/Hicks 1891, nr. 383. 55 Hsch., s.v. δημοτελῆ ἱερά· καὶ δημοτελῆ μέν, εἰς ἃ θύματα διδῷ ἡ πόλις· δημοτικὰ δέ, εἰς ἅ οἱ δῆμοι. See also Bekker, Anecdota Graeca I 240.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

258 | Stéphanie Paul

Another phrase from a Coan inscription should be taken into consideration at this point. The sale of the priesthood of Heracles Kallinikos, dated from the end of the second century BC, grants the priest the privileges of proedria and of pouring libations at every choric contest μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων ἱερέων τῶν δα̣μ[ω]δῶν.56 Despite the frequency of this clause in diagraphai, this is the only occurrence where the priests are qualified as such, as they are usually simply referred to as οἱ ἄλλοι ἱερεῖς.57 The translation of the adjective δημωδής both by the dictionary Liddell-Scott-Jones and the etymological dictionary of Chantraine as “popular” would be peculiar in this context, and “public” seems more appropriate. It is not clear whether the adjective agrees with the priests, or if we have to supply the word hiera, which the translation in IG XII 4’s online edition, “mit den anderen Priestern öffentlicher Kulte” seems to suggest.58 This last interpretation would explain why we do not find damoteleis here as in the other inscriptions. Be that as it may, it looks as if both expressions have a similar meaning: these are the priests who serve the public cults and have been consecrated by the polis. From these observations, we can conclude that the Coans established a clear distinction between what we would call “public” or “civic” priests and other kinds of priests, who were attached to “private” or familial cults. The scarcity of the occurrences of the damoteleis hiereis shows however that this qualification was far from systematic, but was probably due to the specific contexts of the two inscriptions. In Pythokles’ foundation, the aim was perhaps to underline even more the public nature of a festival financed by the donation of a private individual. In the inscription from Antimachia, the damoteleis hiereis are opposed to the priest of the deme cult. These priests represented the religious authority of the polis and were qualified to perform rituals on its behalf. This special position within the polis is granted to them by the procedure of the teleta, which “consecrates” them, independently from the mode of appointment to the priesthood, and this possibly explains why the civic priests are notably qualified as damoteleis. According to V. Pirenne-Delforge’s hypothesis, this qualification underlined the relation between the priest and the polis, at a time when the practice of selling the priesthoods could have resulted in a certain “privatization” of priesthoods, which would have escaped the control of the polis.59 Nevertheless, it is clear that the procedure of consecration was not lim-

|| 56 57 58 59

IG XII 4, 320 l. 20−22. IG XII 4, 296; 298; 299; 306; 328 and the phrase is again supplemented in 307. http://pom.bbaw.de/ig/IG%20XII%204,%201,%20320 (last consultation 18. 01. 2013). Pirenne-Delforge 2005: 59−60.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Roles of Civic Priests in Hellenistic Cos | 259

ited to priests who purchased their office, but was extended to priesthoods attributed to civic subdivisions, such as the one of Zeus Polieus, Athena Polias and the Twelve Gods, and, presumably, priesthoods kata genos. Outside Cos, damoteleis hiereis occur in Paros, where they were required to pronounce imprecations against offenders, and Chios, where they had to pray and perform sacrifices on behalf of the success of a treaty.60 Interestingly, the practice of selling the priesthoods was also in use in the latter.61 From Ephesus, a cult regulation inscribed in the third century AD – although reproducing prescriptions of an ancestral law – requires a demoteles hierophantes to teach the prytanis the proper manner to perform the customary rites for all the gods, thus acting as an exegetes.62 In this case, the suffix -τελής would refer to the meaning of the verb telein as “initiate”, rather that “pay”. Elsewhere, “public” priests were qualified not as demoteleis, but as demosioi, a term more commonly used to express the notion of “public”. The newly published sale of the priesthood of the Phrygian Meter from Priene stipulates that the women who wish to be initiated should be so by the public (demosie) priestess only.63 This prescription, also found in the cult of Dionysos Thyllophoros on Cos, reveals an attempt by the polis to gain control over private initiations, and, thus, to guarantee to the official priestess the related perquisites, which was even more important if the priesthood had been purchased.64 Finally, the question of the status of priests of civic subdivisions and of deme cults should be addressed. Even though a few deme priesthoods are at-

|| 60 Paros, SEG 33. 679 (c. 175−150 BC): a reform of the archives requires the archons and the demoteleis priests to pronounce imprecations against anyone damaging their organization. Chios, RPh 1937: 337−344, nr. 10: prayer of the prytanis, the demoteleis priests and the priestesses on behalf of a treaty. Chios, BCH 1933: 518−529: the demoteleis priests and the priestesses open the temples of the gods and prepare the sacrifices. In both Chian inscriptions, the text is incomplete but the supplement [τοὺς δὲ ἱερεῖς τοὺς δημο]τελεῖς, first suggested by L. Robert, is fairly secure. 61 See Parker 2006: 69−70. 62 I.Ephesos 10. On this inscription, see also Suys 1998: 173−175. 63 Kah/Wiemer 2011: 16. The text is presented in Marietta Horster p. 196 note 77. Other examples of demosioi hiereis include LSS 15 l. 21 (Eleusis, first century BC); LSS 38 l. 14 (Delphi, c. 425 BC) but ἱερέων is of doubtful interpretation (see the discussion in Rougemont 1977: 39−41). See also I.Histriae 19 l. 20−22 (third century BC) for a priesthood attributed “on public account” (δημοσίαι). 64 IG XII 4, 304 l. 19−25 (first half of the second century BC); 326 l. 24−34 (first half of the first century BC). Interestingly, the inscription stipulates that any woman breaking the rule would be considered to have done wrong to the polis.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

260 | Stéphanie Paul

tested65, they are not very well known, with the notable exception of the priest of Apollo in Halasarna. The importance of this cult and by extension of its priest in the religious life of the deme is altogether remarkable. His functions went well beyond the scope of the cult of the god, as he also performed sacrifices to a number of other deities who presumably did not have their own priesthoods.66 Tribes, on the other hand, whether belonging to the polis or the deme, did not have priests strictly speaking, but regularly elected archeuontes who had a similar function.67 These officials only appear in religious contexts and their main role was to perform sacrifices and organize banquets for the phyletai.68 At Isthmos, one of the three archeuontes was elected to be responsible for the organization of a festival shared by the local tribes.69 Even though all these cult officials did not exactly belong to the polis, they cannot be considered as “private” either, and probably stand in an intermediate position. Unfortunately, the current state of the evidence prevents us from sketching a more detailed picture of the “sub-civic” priesthoods.

|| 65 At Isthmos, a priest or priestess is mentioned in the cult calendar of the deme (IG XII 4, 280 l. 13−14, first half of the second century BC). At Phyxa, the deme calendar includes mention of a priest, but the context is not clear, nor the reading certain (IG XII 4, 279 l. 38−39, second half of the third century BC). At Haleis, we know of a priestess of Demeter (IG XII 4, 512, second half of the third century BC) and of a priest of Apollo (Herzog 1899: nr. 217, third/second century BC), although the latter inscription possibly came from Halasarna. At Antimachia, a priest of Heracles (Plu., Quaest. Graec. 304c−e) and a priestess of Demeter (IG XII 4, 356, first half of third century BC) are attested. 66 As shows the recently discovered calendar of sacrifices to be performed by the priest of Apollo: IG XII 4, 358 (late third century BC). 67 As a matter of fact, the newly-published sacred law of a local tribe of Halasarna, unfortunately very fragmentary, seems to prescribe the archeuon to “be priest” (ἱεράσθω): IG XII 4, 357 l. 3 (second half of the third century BC). 68 As shown by a few honorific decrees: IG XII 4, 110 (Antimachia, after 150 BC); IG XII 4, 93 (Halasarna, second half of the third century BC) and 95 (Halasarna, late third century BC); and a list of crowned archeuontes by way of thanks for their good service: IG XII 4, 456 (Cos, late third century BC). The archeuontes of the Dorian tribes are also involved in the process of selecting the sacrificial ox in the ritual for Zeus Polieus in the month Batromios (IG XII 4, 278 l. 4−5). 69 IG XII 4, 100 (early second century BC). On the local tribes of Isthmos, see Pugliese Carratelli 1963−1964: 153−154.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Roles of Civic Priests in Hellenistic Cos | 261

The Cult Profile of the Coan Civic Priest After attempting to define the Coan civic priest, the second part of this paper will focus on the description of his cult profile. Contracts of sale for priesthoods list a number of duties to be performed by the priest that may not be exhaustive. Some of them did not pertain to the cult practice of the god served by the priest, but rather to the general activities of the polis, even if they are nevertheless part of a religious context. For instance, some priests, male only, were granted the privilege of proedria or seating in the front row, and of spondarcheia, the pouring of first libations, at certain contests70, where they represented the religious authority of the polis. Another aspect of the priestly profile was material contribution to the cult and to the sanctuary, as proven by dedications of statues, altars or vessels.71 During the first century AD, the priest of Asklepios C. Stertinius Xenophon famously contributed to the embellishment of the sanctuary by improving the thermal installations and building a library.72 Along the same lines, the diagraphai could include among the priestly duties mandatory financial contributions to the repair of public buildings: the priestess of Dionysos Thyllophoros was thus required to pay a certain amount every year for the repair of the sanctuary of Antigonos, but she certainly was not the only one.73

|| 70 IG XII 4, 296 (Asklepios?); 298 (Hermes Enagonios); 299 (Corybantes); 306 (Eumenes II); 307 (unknown deity); 320 (Heracles Kallinikos); 323 (Theoi Megaloi); 328 (Zeus Alseios). Cf. Wiemer 2003: 285. 71 It is to be noted that most of the evidence comes from the Imperial period. Cos: IG XII 4, 898 (102−117 AD): dedication to the Emperor Trajan of a statue by his priest; IG XII 4, 614 (first century AD): dedication of an altar and other buildings by a priest of Apollo; IG XII 4, 607 (first century AD): dedication of xoana of the gods, sanctuary and buildings to the Moirai by the father of a priestess; IG XII 4, 621 (second century AD): dedication of a statue of a goddess by her priest; IG XII 4, 622 (second century AD): dedication of an altar to Poseidon Asphaleios by his priest; IG XII 4, 623 (second century AD): dedication of a spring by the priest of the Kyparissiotai. Halasarna: series of dedications to Hecate Stratia by the priest of Apollo and the hieropoioi: IG XII 4, 624−632 (c. AD 200); dedications by the priest of Apollo: IG XII 4, 609 (first century BC) concerning the offering of a vessel by the priest of Apollo; IG XII 4, 458 (c. 200 BC): list of dedications by priests of Apollo. Haleis: IG XII 4, 512 (second half of the third century BC): dedication of a statue of Kore to the goddess by the priestess Leirio (cf. Kabus-Preisshofen 1975: 50−52, E, pl. 19−21); Herzog 1899: nr. 217 (third/second century BC): dedication of a sanctuary of a marine goddess by a priest of Apollo. Antimachia: IG XII 4, 675 (AD 14−37): dedication by a priest of Augustus and Tiberius. 72 See Sherwin-White 1978: 283−284; Herzog 1903: 193−194. 73 This clause was first suggested by Panamyas, son of Theudotos, as an amendment to the sale of priesthood from the first half of the second century BC (IG XII 4, 304 l. 47−52), then it

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

262 | Stéphanie Paul

There is no evidence for priests of the polis maintaining religious activity after their term in office, but a college of former priests (hierateukotes) of Apollo is well attested in the deme of Halasarna.74 As has been suggested, the use of the perfect tense rather than the aorist in their denomination underlines the fact that their involvement in the deme’s religious life outlasted the term of their priesthood.75 In particular, these former priests were in charge of the awarding of honorific crowns at the deme festival in honor of Apollo, the Pythaia76, and were also involved in decision-making processes concerning matters such as the construction or repair of buildings in the sanctuary of Apollo, probably on account of their authority and experience in cultic matters.77

Clothing Regulations for Civic Priests On specific occasions, the priests were required and/or allowed to wear a ceremonial garment, which could vary from one cult to another.78 Although clothing regulations are mainly documented by sales of priesthoods, the fourth-century cult calendar already stipulated that the priest of Zeus Polieus should sit at the table to preside over the selection of the sacrificial ox wearing his “sacred garment” (hiera stola).79 As for diagraphai, two preliminary remarks should be made. First, not all contracts include such a clause, but only a few. Secondly, those only seem to concern male priests, never priestesses. Given the fragmentary state of our evidence, it is difficult to draw any conclusion from this statement, but it may be no coincidence that clothing regulations always follow the section about proedria and spondarcheia in contests, privileges that never concern feminine priesthoods.80 || apparently became a regular clause of the contracts (IG XII 4, 326 l. 68−70). See also Segre 1940−1941: 32. 74 IG XII 4, 365 (AD 21) is a decree prescribing the creation of a list of former priests of Apollo. 75 Dignas 2003b: 43−44. A college of hierateukotes is similarly attested in Lindos in the second half of the first century BC: Blinkenberg 1941 (I. Lindos): nr. 346; 350; 378; 419. 76 IG XII 4, 364 (second half of the second century BC). 77 IG XII 4, 363 (mid-second century BC). 78 On the general topic of clothing regulations, see Mills 1984; Culham 1986. On the priestly garment, see Pirenne-Delforge/Georgoudi 2005: 29−30. 79 IG XII 4, 278 l. 9−10. 80 To my knowledge, no such regulations for priestesses occur in the epigraphic evidence outside Cos. Significantly, one of the most famous and elaborate examples of clothing regulations for women, the sacred law of Andania (Gawlinski 2012: 107−133), does not concern priestesses, but only initiates. Purity regulation forbidding priestesses to wear clothes made

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Roles of Civic Priests in Hellenistic Cos | 263

The priest of Heracles Kallinikos is required to wear a white chiton, a wreath made with white poplar, a golden brooch and rings.81 This outfit contrasts remarkably with the purple chiton worn by the priest of Zeus Alseios at contests, in addition to an olive wreath attached with a golden strap, and golden ornaments.82 The exact same outfit is worn also by the priest of Nike at the festival performed in honor of the goddess in the month Petageitnyos, at all sacrifices, and whenever he is in the sanctuary. The rest of the time, the priest has to wear white.83 Occasionally, diagraphai only regulate the wearing of crowns: a golden crown for the priest of the Theoi Boulaioi84, a laurel wreath for the priest of the Theoi Megaloi85, and a wreath of unknown material for the priest of Eumenes at sacrifices, honors and games organized for the king.86 The social significance of these regulations, which were for the priest as much a duty as a display of prestige, has been argued elsewhere.87 The variations observed from one priesthood to another tend however to indicate that there was a religious meaning as well. First and foremost, the dress granted the priest a particular place at festivals within the worshipping community, setting him apart from the other participants and underlining his function as a ritual agent. Secondly, the composing elements of the priestly outfit per se may be of significance. Particularly relevant in this respect is the testimony of Plutarch in his Quaestiones Graecae (304c−e). As an answer to the question of why the priest of Heracles at Antimachia wears a feminine garment and a veil when he sacrifices, he narrates the etiological myth of the hero’s arrival on the island of Cos, and his escape from the hostility of the inhabitants by dressing up as a woman with the help of a Thracian slave. Plutarch, then, establishes a close link between a particular feature of the dress worn by the priest at a sacrifice and a mythic event associated with the divine recipient of this sacrifice.88

|| from dead animals, as was perhaps the case for priestesses of Demeter on Cos (IG XII 4, 72: 26; 41: θνασ[ιδίων], c. 240; cf. Parker 1983: 52−53) should be considered separately. On women’s dress in public life, see also van Bremen 1996: 142−144. 81 IG XII 4, 320 l. 22−24 (late second century BC). 82 IG XII 4, 328 l. 15−18 (first century BC). On the meaning of στέφανος θάλλινος, see Chantraine et al. 1999, s.v. θάλλω: “θαλλός ‘jeune pousse’, notamment branche d’olivier”. 83 IG XII 4, 330 l. 8−10 (first century BC). 84 IG XII 4, 321 l. 9 (late second century BC). Cf. Hamon 2006: 160−161. 85 IG XII 4, 323 l. 13 (c. 100 BC). 86 IG XII 4, 306 l. 9−10 (first half of the second century BC). 87 On the social meaning of this clause, see Wiemer 2003: 285−286. 88 A similar link can be observed in Lucian, Dea Syria 27, about the feminine dress worn by the Galloi.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

264 | Stéphanie Paul

As concerns the color of the dress and the ornaments, however, it is extremely difficult to propose an interpretation with regard to the cult. The white chiton that the priest of Nike is required to wear in everyday life might be understood in relation to the purity rule that follows89, but it is uncertain whether the same is true for the priest of Heracles Kallinikos, who wore white at festivals. As for purple, it should probably be interpreted as signifying the social status of the priest, rather than as associated with a particular cult.90 On the other hand, the meaning behind the various types of crowns seems easier to understand. Crowns act as a symbol of the sacerdotal figure91 and the plant out of which they were made can indicate a particular connexion with the god. For instance, the crown of the priest of Heracles Kallinikos was woven out of white poplar, a plant which, according to Pausanias, the hero had brought back from the shores of the Acheron and which was thus associated with him.92 As for the olive crown worn by the priests of Zeus Alseios and of Nike, its connexion both to the god and to victory was emphasized in Phidias’ chryselephantine statue of Zeus at Olympia, crowned with olive and holding a small Victory; olive was also used to weave the crowns handed out as prizes to the winners of the Olympic games.93 It should be noted, however, that parallels to sustain these links come from diverse types of sources and from various geographical and chronological contexts. On the other hand, the laurel crown worn by the priest of the Theoi Megaloi of Samothrace is somewhat puzzling: the plant is more naturally associated with Apollo, although similar crowns appear in contexts of mystery cults elsewhere.94 Parallels outside of Cos can furthermore strengthen the link between priestly crowns and deities: in Priene and Skepsis, priests of Dionysos were required to wear crowns made of ivy, a plant that is famously and closely related to the god.95 || 89 IG XII 4, 330 l. 12−14 (first century BC). 90 Purple was often associated with gods and priests. See Artemid. 2.3. On the purple color and its meaning, see Blum 1998: 86−122, and recently Grand-Clément 2011: 328−337. 91 On sacerdotal crowns, see Blech 1982: 302−312; Chaniotis 2005: 52−57; Pirenne-Delforge/ Georgoudi 2005: 29. 92 Paus. 5.14. 1−2. See also Theoc. Id. 2. 121−122. 93 Heracles supposedly brought the olive back to Olympia from the land of the Hyperboreans: Paus. 5.7.7; Pi., O. 3. On the olive crown handed out as prizes at the Olympics, see Blech 1982: 127−131, and 141−142 about the Panathenaea. 94 At Andania: LSCG 65 l. 15 (early first century BC), where it has however been put in relation with Apollo Karneios and the Karneiasion where the festival takes place. Cf. Dickie 1995: 85; Gawlinski 2012: 112−113. 95 Priene: LSAM 37 l. 14−15 (second century BC); Skepsis: SEG 26.1334 l. 11−12 (second century BC). On the link between ivy and Dionysos, see Blech 1982: 213−216.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Roles of Civic Priests in Hellenistic Cos | 265

The priestly dress was then indicative of the social status of the priest as well as of his function within the cult, but was also perhaps, in certain particular cases, part of an identification process between the god and the priest.

Ritual Functions of the Civic Priests It is now time to turn to the priest’s ritual functions within the cult of the god whom he serves. A number of the priest’s duties concerned the administration of the sanctuary. A priestess of Artemis had to open the sanctuary at dawn, on every day when it was permitted to enter the sacred place. She also had to make sure that incense was burnt in the temple and that fire was lit on the altar.96 At festivals, the priest of Hermes Enagonios crowned the god’s statues that were set up in the sanctuary.97 The priest, together with magistrates, usually the prostatai, periodically opened the thesauros and divided the money, half of which he received as a perquisite.98 As further remuneration, the priest was sometimes granted a personal use of the temenos, or parts of it, and could thus benefit by renting it out.99 As regards actual cult practice, the priest performed an important and prestigious role during festivals, leading all processions and crowning the winners of agonistic contests.100 In order to ensure that rituals were conducted properly, the priest was sometimes allowed to appoint one or several assistants. The priestess of Dionysos Thyllophoros, for instance, was required to designate several hyphiereiai among the female citizens to perform initiations in the demes.101 Similarly, the priest of an unknown deity chose a nakoros, “templewarden”, to help him in his job.102 The occasional appointment of people to take || 96 IG XII 4, 346 l. 8−12 (first century BC). Similar duties were assigned to the priest of Asklepios at the beginning of the first century BC: IG XII 4, 294 l. 25−27; 295 l. 11−13. 97 IG XII 4, 298 l. 132 (second half of the third century BC). 98 IG XII 4, 294 l. 18−25 and 295 l. 9−11 (early first century BC); 302 l. 51−55 (after 198 BC); 319 l. 16−20 (late second century BC); 330 l. 21−24 (first century BC); 342 l. 7−11 (second half of the second century BC). IG XII 4, 71 (c. 242 BC) concerns the construction of a thesauros in the Asklepieion, of which the priest keeps one of the four keys. 99 IG XII 4, 310 l. 9−10 (c. 170 BC); 319 l. 43−45 (late second century BC); 328 l. 18−20 (first century BC). 100 Processions: IG XII 4, 298 l. 18−20 (second half of the third century BC); 328 l. 35−36 (first century BC); 330 l. 4−10 (first century BC). Crowning: IG XII 4, 298 lines 78−79 and 127−129; 328 l. 13−15. 101 IG XII 4, 304 l. 18−21; 23−26 (first half of the second century BC). 102 IG XII 4, 327 l. 3−5 (first half of the first century BC).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

266 | Stéphanie Paul

care of some aspects of the ritual performance seems to have been the priest’s responsibility and can also be observed in the cult of Hermes Enagonios, where the priest, together with the gymnasiarch, had to designate five epimenioi among the neoi who would sacrifice at the Hermaia103, as well as in the cult of Zeus Polieus, where the priest chose one of the two sacrificers (sphageis) among the hieropoioi.104 Finally, the priest sometimes played a part in the financing of rituals through the organization of ritual begging, as attested in two cults of Artemis, and perhaps of Aphrodite, even though we do not have any information with regard to the role of the priestess in this case.105 It is the involvement of the priest in sacrificial rituals that is, however, most emphasized in the evidence. The cult calendar succinctly and normally describes his role in this matter as follows: “The priest sacrifices (thuei) and provides the offerings (hiera), he receives as honorary share (gere) the skin and a back-leg.”106 Those three priestly functions in sacrificial rituals deserve a closer look.

“The priest performs the sacrifice” In order to understand the exact role of the priest, the meaning of the phrase ἱαρεὺς θύει has first to be addressed. As a result of a new codification after the synoecism of the island, the mid-fourth-century cult calendar contains a long and detailed description of the two-day festival celebrated in honor of Zeus Polieus in the month Batromios.107 The level of detail in this section of the calendar is quite exceptional and is probably due to the fact that this ritual constituted, at least partially, an innovation resulting from the synoecism. It consequently represents a most valuable piece of evidence for the study of ancient Greek sacrificial rituals in general. However, what is particularly relevant to the question at hand is a specific organizational aspect of the ritual. At the end of the first day, after the selection of the sacrificial ox and the performance of several preliminary rites, a reception was held by the hieropoioi || 103 IG XII 4, 298 l. 93−106 (second half of the third century BC). 104 IG XII 4, 278 l. 41−43 (mid-fourth century BC). 105 Artemis: IG XII 4, 346 l. 5−8 (first century BC); Aphrodite: IG XII 4, 302 l. 29−31 (after 198 BC). 106 θύει ἱαρεὺς καὶ ἱερὰ παρέχει· γέρη λαμβάνει δέρμα καὶ σκέλος, with slight variations: IG XII 4, 274 lines 1−2, 4−5, 7−8, 16−17; 275 lines 2−3, 4−5, 18−19; 278 lines 46−47, 57−60, 62, 63−64. 107 IG XII 4, 278 l. 1−58.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Roles of Civic Priests in Hellenistic Cos | 267

in the public building with the priest and the heralds. This meeting aimed at designating two sacrificers (sphageis) for the ox; the first was chosen among the hieropoioi by the priest, the other was democratically elected among the heralds.108 The recruitment of sacrificers is a little-known aspect of epigraphical codifications of sacrificial rituals and the fact that it is mentioned here perhaps results from the detail in the ritual’s description as a whole. Is it then to be presumed that sacrificers usually worked alongside the priests, even if it is not explicit in the texts?109 And if so, what was the exact role of the priest? Interestingly, the description of the sacrifice to Zeus Polieus does not include the usual expression ἱαρεὺς θύει, but the passive form βοῦς θύεται is used instead, which perhaps accounts for a number of participants.110 On the other hand, the following lines require the priest to pour libations (ἐπισπένδει ὁ ἱερεύς). The change of phrasing, far from a simple variatio sermonis, leads us to believe that this case was indeed an exception. In other words, as a consequence of the ritual’s complexity as a whole, representatives of the two main colleges involved in the festival were to be included in its culminating point, which is the sacrifice. In other, simpler, rituals, the priest alone could take on the sacrificial performance on his own. Not completely unrelated to this question is the significance of the so-called “θυόντω rules” in sales of priesthoods. Those require various groups – whether civic or professional – and private individuals to sacrifice on specific occasions to the deity whose priesthood is put on sale.111 The verb used in this context is always thuein and the “sacrificants” (a more accurate translation than “sacrificers”, to follow the distinction established by Hubert and Mauss112) are qualified as thuontes. Another recurrent prescription of these contracts should be taken into account in any attempt to clarify the exact meaning of thuein and, consequently, the function of the priest. It stipulates, as we read for instance in the sale of the priesthood of Hermes Enagonios, that “the priest should place || 108 IG XII 4, 278 l. 39−45. 109 Other than butchers whose function was not strictly speaking a ritual one. On the role of butchers, see Berthiaume 1982. 110 IG XII 4, 278 l. 47. Compare the passive form τούτοις προθύεται πὰρ τὸγ κοινόν, ἃ φέροντι Φυλεομαχίδαι (IG XII 4, 274 l. 17−18), about the sacrifice of additional offerings provided by the Phyleomachidai; [θύ]ονται κατὰ φυλ[άς] (IG XII 4, 276 l. 2−3), about the sacrifice of three sheep to the eponymous heroes (?) of the Dorian tribes; and the passive form of the verb κρίνω for the selection of the sacrificial ox for Zeus Polieus and Zeus Machaneus (IG XII 4, 274 l. 12 and 278 l. 12−16). All these procedures involved a number of agents. 111 On the θυόντω rules, see Parker/Obbink 2000: 427−429; Wiemer 2003: 293−300; Krauter 2004: 251−256. 112 Hubert/Mauss 1899. On the question of “who sacrifices”, see recently Parker 2009b.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

268 | Stéphanie Paul

the sacred portions (hiera) upon the altar for all the sacrificants.”113 Significantly, the diagraphai seem to establish a clear distinction between the placing of meat portions upon the table for the god, which is left to the sacrificants, and the placing of the god’s share upon the altar, which can only be done by the priest or the priestess, or his/her assistant.114 It entails that the priest was the only person entitled and qualified to approach the altar, the sacred place par excellence, that most symbolized the connection with the god and where every action had to be made with utmost caution. Therefore, in “θυόντω rules” as well, the priest was in charge of the sacrifice on behalf of the sacrificants, as is also proven by the fact that he received choice portions.115 The priest acted here as a mediator, an intermediary, between the god and the sacrificants who were required to supply the sacrificial animals, either at their own expense or from the amount of money given to them by the tamiai, depending on the occasion. As such, the priest guaranteed that the ritual was performed according to customary rules and his role should not be underestimated. What then is there to say of the much-debated issue of the relationship between priests and magistrates as regards sacrificial practice?116 The clause mentioned above requiring the priest to handle sacred portions on the altar does not seem to differentiate between magistrates and private individuals, as in the case of Homonoia, who received sacrifices from the gymnasiarch, the agonothetes and the hierophylakes upon their introduction into office, and from the prostatai at the Asklepieia.117 But was it always the case? We know that priests sometimes acted as guarantees of the validity of certain civic procedures involving a sacrifice. For instance, election of new citizens into the civic subdivisions happened only after the priest of Homonoia confirmed that the related sacrifice had actually been performed.118 Similarly, the handing out of manumission records depended on confirmation by the priest of Adrasteia and Nemesis || 113 IG XII 4, 298 l. 10−11: ἐπιτιθέτω δὲ καὶ τὰ ἱερὰ ἐπὶ τὸμ βωμὸν πᾶσι τοῖς θύουσι ὁ ἱερεύς. We find this prescription also in the sale of the priesthood of Dionysos Thyllophoros: IG XII 4, 304 l. 39−40 (first half of the second century); 326: 67−68 (first half of the first century BC); of an unknown god: IG XII 4, 307 l. 13−14 (first half of the second century BC); of Homonoia: IG XII 4, 315 l. 17−18 (second half of the second century BC). 114 On the placing of offerings upon a table in the first century BC, see IG XII 4, 330 l. 16−17; 346 l. 2−3. 115 IG XII 4, 298 l. 11−12 (second half of the third century BC); IG XII 4, 304 l. 30−36 (first half of the second century); 307 l. 13−14 (first half of the second century BC); IG XII 4, 326 l. 61−64 (first half of the first century BC). 116 On this issue, see Gschnitzer 1989 and recently Parker 2011: 54−57. 117 IG XII 4, 315 l. 8−17 (second half of the second century BC). 118 IG XII 4, 315 l. 4−8.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Roles of Civic Priests in Hellenistic Cos | 269

that the sacrifice had been properly performed by the freedmen.119 Evidence fails us as far as interactions between priests and magistrates are concerned, but these examples seem to suggest a close collaboration between them.

“The priest provides the offerings” A second function of the priest is to provide the offerings (hiera) for the sacrifice. As opposed to the diagraphai where hiera are meat portions to be burnt on the altar, in the cult calendar the word always refers to various additional, bloodless offerings, such as grain, honey, cheese probably used for the baking of cakes, wine and oil for libations, and even vessels for the cult or wood for the fire.120 The provision of these offerings does not fall exclusively to the priest, but to the one who actually performs the sacrifice. For instance, the gereaphoros basileōn who makes a sacrifice to Hestia is also required to provide the hiera.121 It is uncertain whether the priest received from the polis a sum of money in exchange, as is observed in a cult regulation from the Attic deme of Aixone122, or if he provided the hiera at his own expense. As a matter of fact, the provision of hiera appears to be correlated to the acceptance of an honorary share (gere), which may be a form of compensation in kind. In the sacrifice to Zeus Machaneus, for instance, the Phyleomachidai were in charge of providing a part of the offerings, and thus received choice portions alongside the priest.123 Another example comes from the awkward intercalation of the phrase ἱερὰ ἱαρεὺς παρέχει in the enumeration of choice portions attributed to the priest after the sacrifice to Zeus Polieus.124 This is probably due to an oversight by the stonecutter, who omitted to inscribe it earlier, but it is nevertheless significant of the link between the two elements. It is therefore surprising that the Coan sales of priesthoods never mention the provision of hiera among the priestly duties, as opposed, for instance, to the sale of the priesthood of Dionysos Phleos and of the Phrygian Meter at Priene.125

|| 119 IG XII 4, 318 l. 4−9 (second half of the second century BC). It is interesting to note that both sacrifices marked a change of status. 120 IG XII 4, 274 l. 24−26; 276 lines 5−7 and 10−15. 121 IG XII 4, 278 l. 19−24. 122 Ackermann 2007. 123 IG XII 4, 274 l. 17−20. 124 IG XII 4, 278 l. 51. 125 LSAM 37 l. 10−12 (second century BC); Kah/Wiemer 2011: 3 with lines 11−13 (second century BC).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

270 | Stéphanie Paul

The only prescription that comes close compels the priestesses of Dionysos Thyllophoros and Demeter to provide “all the necessary items for the initiants”, but what those were exactly, the inscription does not say.126 Either the custom underwent some changes in the meantime, or was too routine to be explicitly stipulated in sales of priesthoods.

“The priest receives the honorary share” The honorary share attributed to the priest on Cos consisted almost invariably of the skin and the back-leg (δέρμα καὶ σκέλος). When a deviation from the norm is observed, there is usually a good reason for it. For example, pigs did not provide skin because they were singed, nor did birds, which were plucked. Choice portions could also vary depending on the animal’s age – and thus value127 –, or on the type of sacrifice: when the meat had to be consumed on the spot (ouk apophora), or when pregnant animals were sacrificed, the priests received sometimes the skin only128, sometimes the ears129, or nothing at all130, but these were exceptions. This local norm is far from unique, as the skin and the back-leg primarily constituted the priestly share in other parts of the Greek world. If there is a Coan specificity, it would rather lie in the constant association of the two portions.131 The attribution of honorary shares to the priest exemplifies his importance in the performance of sacrifice, sets him apart from the other participants, and, first and foremost, underlines his special relationship with the god. Thus, it has been argued that the back-leg which is often given to the priest as geras was in

|| 126 IG XII 4, 304 l. 29−30 (first half of the second century BC); 326: 60−61 (first half of the first century BC). The priestess of Demeter at Antimachia had to provide “what is customary”: IG XII 4, 356 l. 9−10 (first half of the third century BC). 127 The sale of the priesthood of Dionysos Thyllophoros provides a good example of the variations in the honorary share according to the type of sacrificial animals: IG XII 4, 304 l. 30−36. 128 IG XII 4, 274 l. 3−5: sacrifice of a pregnant ewe to Rhea. 129 IG XII 4, 278 l. 60−62: sacrifice to Demeter of a male adult sheep and of a pregnant ewe; the meat of both animals could not be removed. Ears, an extremely rare but nevertheless edible portion handed out as honorary share, are only found once in Athens (LSCG 19, and supplemented in LSCG 17C). 130 IG XII 4, 278 lines 45−47, 58−60 and 62−64: Dionysos Skyllitas received a piglet, from which the meat could not be removed, and a kid. Choice portions, the skin and the back-leg, were only taken from the latter. IG XII 4, 274 l. 21−26: honorary shares are not mentioned for the sacrifice to Athena Machanis, from which the meat was eaten on the spot. 131 On the priestly share, see Le Guen-Pollet 1991; Ekroth 2008.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Roles of Civic Priests in Hellenistic Cos | 271

fact the meat portion from which the femur was removed to be burnt on the altar. The fact that the priest was granted this particularly significant portion would establish an even closer association between him and the god.132 In Coan inscriptions, the word skelos is not usually accompanied by an article, which could imply an ambiguity as to which back-leg was given to the priest. However, a prescription from the cult calendar concerning the attribution of honorary shares after the sacrifice of an ox to Hestia suggests otherwise: γέρη δὲ λαμβάνει τὸ δέρμα καὶ τὸ σκέλος, ἱεροπο[ιοὶ] δ̣ὲ σκέλος, “As honorary share, he (sc. the gereaphoros basileon) receives the skin and the back-leg, and the hieropoioi a back-leg.”133 In this case, both back-legs were attributed as choice portions, one to the gereaphoros, who performs the sacrifice, and the other to the hieropoioi; the first skelos is accompanied by an article while the other is not. It is tempting to conclude that the back-leg given to the sacrificer was indeed the one from which the god’s share was removed, and that the article was here necessary to prevent confusion with the other one given to the hieropoioi. It might also be assumed that the skelos was specified in this case precisely because it is not a priest who performs the sacrifice, and that the attribution of this specific back-leg would be less obvious. The link between divine and priestly share is conspicuous in two further inscriptions. Let us first come back to the sacrifice to Zeus Machaneus and the Phyleomachidai, who were required to provide hiera and were granted gere in compensation: Γέρη̣ δ̣ὲ Φυλεομ|αχίδαις δίδοται τοῦ βοὸς ὁπλά, τ̣α̣[ρ]σ̣ό̣ς, τῶν δὲ οἴων̣ τ̣ὸ ὠμ̣όν̣, | ἐξ οὗ ἁ θεομοιρία τάμνετα̣ι̣ καὶ τ̣…..ο̣ς· γέρ̣η λαμβάνει ὁ ἱα|ρεὺς σκέλη καὶ δέρματα. “As honorary share, the Phyleomachidai are given, from the ox, a hoof and (the meat of) the tarsus, from the sheep, the omōn from which the god’s portion is cut. As honorary share, the priest receives the back-legs and the skins.”134 A few difficulties emerge from this passage.135 The first arises from the understanding of omōn: depending on its accentuation, it could either mean “shoulder” (ὦμον) or “raw portion” (ὠμόν), and neither can categorically be excluded. Second, the interpretation of theomoiria has been subject to debate. Contrary to

|| 132 133 134 135

Durand 1979: 157; Ekroth 2008: 269. IG XII 4, 278 l. 22−23. IG XII 4, 274 l. 18−21. For an extensive commentary on this passage, see Paul 2013.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

272 | Stéphanie Paul

what has been argued, I do not think that the theomoiria meant the priestly share136, which would not make any sense here, nor that it was equal to the trapezomata, meat portions placed on a table for the god.137 In my opinion, it more probably referred to the god’s share destined to be burnt on the altar, either bone or flesh. The fact that the Phyleomachidai were assigned this portion, which they share with the god, is therefore extremely significant, as it underlines their importance in the ritual and their relationship with the cult of Zeus Machaneus. A second occurrence of the theomoiria is found in a secondcentury regulation for the cult of Artemis: Τ[ᾶς δὲ] | δαμάλιος ἇς κα θύσων̣[τι διδό]|μεν γέρη τᾶι ἱερῆι τὸ [σκέλος], | ἐξ οὗ ἁ θευμορία̣ [τάμνεται], | ταῖς γεραίραι[ς — τὰ δὲ] | λοιπὰ κρ[έατα —]. “Of the heifer that they will sacrifice, let be given as perquisites to the priestess the [back-leg], from which the god’s portion [is cut], to the gerairai [—], the rest of the [meat —].”138 The text underlines once more the link between the priestess’s share and the portion burnt for the god. The identification of this part is however uncertain and the lacuna very unfortunate. If it is indeed the skelos that they share, it would confirm the interpretation proposed earlier. On the other hand, we should then wonder why this was made explicit in this particular case, while it seems to go without saying everywhere else. This problem would be easily resolved if we suppose that the gerairai were also recipients of the other skelos, in a similar way as the hieropoioi after the sacrifice to Hestia mentioned above, but of course this remains highly hypothetical. Sales of priesthoods, which attest the enforcement of strict rules for the completion of sacrifices and the attribution of honorary shares, further emphasize the importance of this aspect in defining civic priests. Occasionally, fines were imposed when sacrificants failed to leave the proper perquisites to the priests139, or when the prescribed sacrifices had not been accomplished.140 Interestingly, these prescriptions concerned mostly individuals rather than magistrates, perhaps more easily inclined to break the rules. The fact that priests col-

|| 136 So Hicks 1888: 333, based on a definition of Hsch., s.v. θευμορία. 137 So Sokolowski 1955: 58; Gill 1974: 124; Bruit Zaidman 2005: 39; Berthiaume 2005: 243. 138 IG XII 4, 339 l. 19−24. I slightly emended the text by suggesting the supplement [τάμνεται] on the parallel of the previous passage, instead of [διανειμάσθω] proposed by the editors of the IG. This has an impact on the understanding of the sentence: the gerairai would not be sharing the theomoiria, but would be the recipient of further perquisites, lost in the following lacuna. 139 IG XII 4, 325 l. 20−23 (first half of the first century BC). 140 IG XII 4, 302 l. 24−26 (after 198 BC); 315 l. 18−23 (second half of the second century BC; 319 l. 29−32 (late second century BC).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Roles of Civic Priests in Hellenistic Cos | 273

lected a fine in the latter case as well is indicative of the reason behind this clause.141 The proper attribution of gere was an even more sensitive subject when the priesthood was purchased sometimes for a considerable amount of money and the priest expected a return on investment. The sale of the priesthood of Dionysos Thyllophoros goes so far as to declare the sacrifice invalid (hiera athuta) if the priestess is not given her perquisites as prescribed, emphasizing the importance of the priest in the process of communication with the gods.142

Conclusion The essential characteristic of the Coan civic priest, as of most other priests and priestesses in the Greek world, is undoubtedly his or her position as mediator between the polis and the divine sphere. This intermediary position finds its most conspicuous expression in the sacrificial ritual, where the priest stands at the centre of the process of communicating with the divine. First of all, he or she is in charge of handling the sacred portion to be burnt on the altar, the place that most embodies the connection with the gods and which he appears to be the only person entitled to approach. In this respect, the role of the priest can absolutely not be qualified as incidental, as opposed to what has sometimes been argued.143 Secondly, receiving gere is an important component of the definition of a priest on Cos, as the strict regulations in sales of priesthoods prove. The priestly share expresses a close relationship with the god, inasmuch as it often included a meat portion from which the divine share had been cut. Thus, it defines his or her place both in relation to the divine, on a vertical level, and to the sacrificial community, on a horizontal level, inasmuch as the attribution of an honorary share sets the priest apart from most of them, who enjoyed an equal division.144 The outstanding position from which the priest benefited within the polis is also defined by the ceremonial dress that he was required to || 141 The fine goes to the priest or the priestess only: IG XII 4, 302 l. 25−26; 319 l. 29−32; to the priest and the goddess: 315 l. 18−23. 142 IG XII 4, 304 l. 38−39 (first half of the second century BC); 326 l. 66−67 (first half of the first century BC). On this expression, see Pirenne-Delforge 2010: 135. 143 On the notion of “mediation” as a characteristic of the priest’s role and his importance in sacrificial performance, see recently Pirenne-Delforge 2010. 144 The division of meat portions after the sacrifice to Zeus Polieus (IG XII 4, 278 l. 50−56, mid-fourth century BC) shows however that the priest was not always the only one enjoying this special position.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

274 | Stéphanie Paul

wear on festive occasions and by the state of purity which he had to maintain. All this indicates, if not an identification between the priest and the god whom she or he serves, at least a close connection with the divine. But the priests enjoyed such a position only because the polis gave it to them via the procedure of the teleta, which invested them in their roles. Consequently, they represented the religious authority of the polis, not only in the cults of the gods associated with the priesthood, but also in other, public religious occasions when they were allowed to sit in the first rank and perform the first libations. These privileges were only granted to male priests, along with special clothing requirements. Otherwise, the difference between male and female priesthoods seems to lie more in social status than in ritual duties. This paper has attempted to define the status and the functions of the Coan civic priests, but what can we say of priests attached to “private” cults? The question proves difficult to handle, as the Coan evidence, mainly constituted by decrees and other regulations issued by the polis, does not allow an in-depth comparison between public and private priesthoods. This “public” trend of the documentation is perhaps a mere coincidence, but it may also be the result of an attempt by the polis to centralize religious matters as much as possible after the synoecism. Secondly, the strict opposition “public” vs “private” is in itself problematic and has been much questioned recently.145 Diagraphai show that the intervention of the priest was essential in the proper conduct of sacrificial rituals in a public context, but also in sacrifices made by individuals, which could be qualified as “private”, but took place within the scope of a public cult and in a public sanctuary.146 Deme and tribal priesthoods, as we saw, did not belong to the polis but cannot be defined as private either; rather, they fall inbetween. Finally, the only substantial evidence concerning a private priesthood comes from the foundation of the familial cult of Heracles Diomedonteios, which describes the function of the priest in a similar way to the roughly contemporary public cult calendar, as the priest is required to provide offerings for the sacrifice and receives perquisites composed of the skin and the back-leg.147 The line between the two extremes appears, as so often, to be flexible.

|| 145 de Polignac/Schmitt Pantel 1998; Dasen/Piérart 2005. 146 As we see for instance in the sale of the priesthood of Aphrodite Pandamos and Pontia (IG XII 4, 302; 319). 147 IG XII 4, 348 l. 36−41.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Roles of Civic Priests in Hellenistic Cos | 275

Bibliography Ackermann, D. (2007). “Rémunération des prêtres et déroulement des cultes dans un dème de l’Attique. Le règlement religieux d’Aixonè.” LEC 75: 111−136. ― (2011). “Un nouveau type de communauté en Attique. Les pentékostyes du dème d’Aixônè.” In: Badoud, N. (ed.), Philologos Dionysios. Mélanges offerts au professeur Denis Knoepfler. Genève (Recueil de travaux publiés par la Faculté des Lettres et Sciences humaines de l’Université de Neuchâtel, 56). 39−78. Aleshire, S.B. (1994). “The Demos and the Priests. The Selection of Sacred Officials at Athens from Cleisthenes to Augustus.” In: Osborne, R., Hornblower, S. (eds.), Ritual, Finance, Politics. Athenian Democratic Accounts presented to David Lewis. Oxford. 325−337. Aleshire, S.B., Lambert, S.D. (2011). “The Attic gene and the Athenian Religious Reform of 21 BC.” In: Richardson, J.H., Santangelo, F. (eds.), Priests and State in the Roman World. Stuttgart (Potsdamer Altertumswissenschaftliche Beiträge, 33). 553−575. Berthiaume, G. (1982). Les rôles du mágeiros. Étude sur la boucherie, la cuisine et le sacrifice dans la Grèce ancienne. Leiden (Mnemosyne, suppl. 70). ― (2005). “L’aile ou les mêria. Sur la nourriture carnée des dieux grecs.” In: Georgoudi, S. et al. (eds.), La cuisine et l’autel. Les sacrifices en questions dans les sociétés de la Méditerranée ancienne. Turnhout (Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études, Sciences Religieuses, 124). 241−251. Blech, M. (1982). Studien zum Kranz bei den Griechen. Berlin/New York (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten, 38). Blinkenberg, C. (1941). Lindos. Fouilles et recherches II. Fouilles de l’acropole. Inscriptions. Berlin. Blok, J.H., Lambert, S. (2009). “The Appointment of Priests in Attic gene.” ZPE 169: 95−121. Blum, H. (1998). Purpur als Statussymbol in der griechischen Welt. Bonn. Bruit Zaidman, L. (2005). “Offrandes et nourritures : repas des dieux et repas des hommes en Grèce ancienne.” In: Georgoudi, S. et al. (eds.), La cuisine et l’autel. Les sacrifices en questions dans les sociétés de la Méditerranée ancienne. Turnhout (Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études, Sciences Religieuses, 124). 31−46. Buraselis, K. (2000). Kos between Hellenism and Rome. Studies on the Political, Institutional and Social History of Kos from ca. the Middle Second Century B.C. until Late Antiquity. Philadelphia. ― (2008). “Priesthoods for Sale. Comments on Ideological and Financial Aspects of the Sale of Priesthoods in the Greek Cities of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods.” In: Rasmussen, A.H., Rasmussen, S.W. (eds.), Religion and Society. Rituals, Resources and Identity in the Ancient Graeco-Roman World. The BOMOS-Conferences 2002−2005. Roma (Analecta Romana Instituti Danici, suppl. 40). 125−131. Carlsson, S. (2010). Hellenistic Democracies: Freedom, Independence and political Procedure in some east Greek City-States. Stuttgart (Historia Einzelschriften, 206). Chaniotis, A. (2005). “Griechische Rituale der Statusänderung und ihre Dynamik.” In: Steinicke, M., Weinfurter, S. (eds.), Investitur- und Krönungsrituale. Köln/Weimar. 43−61. Chantraine, P. et al. (1999). Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque : histoire des mots. Paris. Clinton, K. (2005). “Pigs in Greek Rituals.” In: Hägg, R., Alroth, B. (eds.), Greek Sacrificial Ritual, Olympian and Chthonian. Proceedings of the Sixth International Seminar on

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

276 | Stéphanie Paul

Ancient Greek Cult, organized by the Department of Classical Archaeology and Ancient History, Göteborg University, 25−27 April 1997. Stockholm (Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae, Series in 8°, 18). 167−179. Culham, P. (1986). “Again, what Meaning Lies in Colour.” ZPE 64: 235−45. Dasen, V., Piérart, M. (eds.) (2005). Ἰδίᾳ καὶ δημοσίᾳ. Les cadres “privés” et “publics” de la religion grecque antique. Liège (Kernos, suppl. 15). de Polignac, F., Schmitt Pantel, P. (eds.) (1998). “Public et privé en Grèce ancienne : lieux, conduites, pratiques.” Ktèma 23, Strasbourg. Dickie, M.W. (1995). “The Dionysiac Mysteries in Pella.” ZPE 109: 81−86. Dignas, B. (2002). Economy of the Sacred in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor. Oxford/New York. ― (2003a). “‘Auf seine Kosten kommen’ − ein Kriterium für Priester? Zum Verkauf von Priestertümer im hellenistischen Kleinasien.” In: Winter, G.H.-E. (ed.), Neue Forschungen zur Religionsgeschichte Kleinasiens. Elmar Schwertheim zum 60. Geburtstag gewidmet. Bonn (Asia Minor Studien, 49). 27−40. ― (2003b). “Rhodian Priests after the Synoecism.” AncSoc 33: 35−51. Dubois, M. (1883). “Inscriptions des Sporades.” BCH 7: 477−485. Durand, J.-L. (1979). “Bêtes grecques. Propositions pour une topologie des corps à manger.” In: Detienne, M., Vernant, J.-P. (eds.), La cuisine du sacrifice en pays grec. Paris. 133−166. Ekroth, G. (2008). “Meat, Man and God. On the Division of the Animal Victim at Greek Sacrifices.” In: Matthaiou, A.P., Polinskaya, I. (eds.), Μικρός Ιερομνήμων. Μελέτες εις μνήμην Michael H. Jameson. Athina. 259−290. Gauthier, P. (1995). “Du nouveau sur les courses aux flambeaux d’après deux inscriptions de Kos.” REG 108: 576−585. Gawlinski, L. (2012). The Sacred Law of Andania. A new Text with Commentary. Berlin/Boston (Sozomena, 11). Gill, D. (1974). “Trapezomata: A Neglected Aspect of Greek Sacrifice.” HThR 67: 117−137. Grand-Clément, A. (2011). La fabrique des couleurs. Histoire du paysage sensible des Grecs anciens (VIIIe − début du Ve s. av. n.è.). Paris (De l’archéologie à l’histoire). Grieb, V. (2008). Hellenistische Demokratie, Politische Organisation und Struktur in freien griechischen Poleis nach Alexander dem Großen. Stuttgart (Historia Einzelschriften, 199). Gschnitzer, F. (1989). “Bemerkungen zum Zusammenwirken von Magistraten und Priestern in der griechischen Welt.” Ktèma 14: 31−38. Hamon, P. (2006). “Un prêtre des dieux boulaioi dans le bâtiment du Conseil de Cos (I.Cos ED 32).” Chiron 36: 151−168. Harter-Uibopuu, K. (2011). “Money for the polis. Public administration of private donations in Hellenistic Greece.” In: van Nijf, O.M., Alston, R. (eds.), Political culture in the Greek city after the Classical age. Leuven (Groningen-Royal Holloway studies on the Greek city after the Classical age, 2). 119−139. Herzog, R. (1899). Koische Forschungen und Funde. Leipzig. ― (1903). “Vorläufiger Bericht über die koische Expedition im Jahre 1903.” AA 18: 186−199. Hicks, E.L. (1888). “A Sacrificial Calendar from Cos.” JHS 9: 323−337. Hubert, H., Mauss, M. (1899). “Essai sur la nature et la fonction du sacrifice.” L’Année sociologique 2: 29−138. Jones, N.F. (1987). Public Organization in Ancient Greece: A Documentary Study. Philadelphia (Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society, 176).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Roles of Civic Priests in Hellenistic Cos | 277

Kabus-Preisshofen, R. (1975). “Statuettengruppe aus dem Demeterheiligtum bei Kyparissi auf Kos.” Antike Plastik 15: 31−64. Kah, D., Wiemer, H.-U. (2011). “Die Phrygische Mutter im hellenistischen Priene: Eine neue diagraphe und verwandte Texte.” EA 44: 1−54. Krauter, S. (2004). Bürgerrecht und Kultteilnahme. Politische und kultische Rechte und Pflichten in griechischen Poleis, Rom and antikem Judentum. Berlin/New York (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche, 127). Krob, E. (1997). “Serments et institutions civiques à Cos à l’époque hellénistique.” REG 110: 434−453. Le Guen-Pollet, B. (1991). “Espace sacrificiel et corps des bêtes immolées. Remarques sur le vocabulaire désignant la part du prêtre dans la Grèce antique, de l’époque classique à l’époque impériale.” In: Étienne, R., Le Dinahet, M.-T. (eds.), L’espace sacrificiel dans les civilisations méditerranéennes de l’Antiquité. Actes du Colloque tenu à la Maison de l’Orient, Lyon, 4−7 juin 1988. Lyon/Paris (Publications de la bibliothèque SalomonReinach, 5). 13−31. Mills, H. (1984). “Greek Clothing Regulations: Sacred and Profane?” ZPE 55: 255−265. Parker, R. (1983). Miasma. Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion. Oxford. ― (2006). “Sale of a Priesthood on Chios.” In: Malouchou, G.A., Matthaiou, A.P. (eds.), Χιακόν συμπόσιον εἰς μνήμην W.G. Forrest. Athinai. 67−79. ― (2008). “πατρῷοι θεοί: The Cults of Sub-Groups and Identity in the Greek World.” In: Rasmussen, A.H., Rasmussen, S.W. (eds.), Religion and Society. Rituals, Resources and Identity in the Ancient Graeco-Roman World. The BOMOS-Conferences 2002−2005. Rome. 201−214. ― (2009a). “Subjection, Synoecism and Religious Life.” In: Funke, P., Luraghi, N. (eds.), The Politics of Ethnicity and the Crisis of the Peloponnesian League. Washington, DC. 183−214. ― (2009b). “τίς ὁ θύων.” In: Bodiou, L. (ed.), Chemin faisant. Mythes, cultes et société en Grèce ancienne. Mélanges en l’honneur de Pierre Brulé. Rennes (Collection « Histoire »). 167−171. ― (2011). On Greek Religion. Ithaca/London (Townsend Lectures/Cornell Studies in Classical Philology, 40). Parker, R., Obbink, D. (2000). “Aus der Arbeit der ‘Inscriptiones Graecae’ VI. Sales of Priesthoods on Cos I.” Chiron 30: 415−449. ― (2001). “Aus der Arbeit der ‘Inscriptiones Graecae’ VII. Sales of Priesthoods on Cos II.” Chiron 31: 229−252. Paton, W.R., Hicks, E.L. (1891). The Inscriptions of Cos. Oxford. Paul, S. (2013). Cultes et sanctuaires de l’île de Cos. Liège (Kernos, suppl. 28). Pirenne-Delforge, V. (2005). “La cité, les dèmotelè hiera et les prêtres.” In: Dasen, V., Piérart, M. (eds.), Ἰδίᾳ καὶ δημοσίᾳ. Les cadres “privés” et “publics” de la religion grecque antique. Liège (Kernos, suppl. 15). 55−68. ― (2010). “Greek Priests and ‘Cult-Statues’: In How Far are they Unnecessary?” In: Mylonopoulos, J. (ed.), Divine Images and Human Imaginations in Ancient Greece and Rome. Leiden/Boston (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World, 170). 121−141. Pirenne-Delforge, V., Georgoudi, S. (2005). “Personnel de culte : monde grec.” In: ThesCRA V: 2−65. Pugliese Carratelli, G. (1963−1964). “Il damos Coo di Isthmos.” ASAA 25−26: 147−202. Reger, G. (2001). “The Mykonian Synoikismos.” REA 103: 157−181. Robert, L. (1933). “Sur des inscriptions de Chios.” BCH 57: 505−543.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

278 | Stéphanie Paul ― (1966). “Inscriptions d’Aphrodisias, I.” AC 35: 377−432. Rougemont, G. (1977). “Les théores d’Andros à Delphes.” In: Études delphiques. Athènes (BCH, suppl. 4). 37−47. Segre, M. (1940−1941). “Documenti di storia ellenistica.” RAPP 27: 21−38. Sherwin-White, S.M. (1978). Ancient Cos. An Historical Study from the Dorian Settlement to the Imperial Period. Göttingen (Hypomnemata 51). Sokolowski, F. (1955). Lois sacrées de l’Asie Mineure. Paris (École française d’Athènes. Travaux et mémoires, 9). ― (1969). Lois sacrées des cités grecques. Paris (École française d’Athènes. Travaux et mémoires, 18). Suys, V. (1998). “Déméter et le prytanée d’Éphèse.” Kernos 11: 173−188. Van Bremen, R. (1996). The Limits of Participation: Women and Civic Life in the Greek East in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Amsterdam. Wiemer, H.-U. (2003). “Käufliche Priestertümer im hellenistischen Kos.” Chiron 33: 263−310. Wilgaux, J. (2009). “Ὑγιὴς καὶ ὁλόκλαρος. Le corps du prêtre en Grèce ancienne.” In: Brulé, P. (ed.), La norme en matière religieuse en Grèce ancienne. Actes du XIe colloque du CIERGA (Rennes, septembre 2007). Liège (Kernos, suppl. 21). 231−242.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Péter Kató

Elite und Priestertümer im hellenistischen Kos1 Abstract: This paper addresses the question of which Coan priesthoods or cult offices show evidence of a strong commitment by the local elite, and the forms that this took. In the demes the most important priesthoods were assigned by lot and so, at least in theory, they were accessible to all. Consequently, it cannot be demonstrated that they were monopolised by the wealthy upper class. The local elites raised their profiles more by occupying cult offices, and they often received honours for contributing from their private wealth. In the town of Cos, the frequent sale of priesthoods and the – less frequently attested – foundation of family cults can be interpreted as showing that the local elite had a high level of interest in priesthoods that offered numerous opportunities for publicising high social status. The rivalry between elite families reached a climax in the second century BC, which is regarded in general as a highpoint in the prosperity of the Aegean world and western Asia Minor, and it created the conditions for regular auctions of priesthoods. In this period the occupation of the priesthoods of prominent civic cults probably made demands on the resources of the elite.

Einleitung Laut der communis opinio der Forschung hingen Priestertümer eng mit den Eliten der hellenistischen Städte zusammen. Da in den Poleis wegen der häufigen finanziellen Schwierigkeiten nicht alle religiösen Handlungen und Feste für und von der jeweiligen Stadt aus staatlichen Mitteln finanziert werden konnten,2 mussten die wohlhabenden Mitglieder der lokalen Eliten für die Kosten aufkommen. Wegen dieser finanziellen Anforderungen im Zusammenhang mit der Wahrnehmung der städtischen Aufgaben in Religion und Kult, beschränkte

|| 1 Dieser Aufsatz ist im Rahmen des Mainzer Teilprojektes des SPP 1209 „Die hellenistische Polis als Lebensform“ entstanden. Ich bedanke mich allen Teilnehmern der Mainzer Tagung für ihre Diskussionsbeiträge, insbesondere Herrn Dr. Victor Walser für sein substantielles Korreferat und den Gutachtern für ihre kritischen Bemerkungen. Selbstverständlich trage ich die Verantwortung für alle Fehler und Mängel. 2 Nach Habicht 2006 wurden solche finanziellen Schwierigkeiten häufig von Kriegen verursacht.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

280 | Péter Kató dies den Kreis der potentiellen Kandidaten für die Priestertümer häufig auf die Oberschicht.3 Die Priestertümer waren auf der anderen Seite wegen des hohen Prestiges und der Einkünfte unter den Mitgliedern der Elite aber auch begehrt: Dies lässt sich daraus ableiten, dass – wie Beate Dignas gezeigt hat – vornehme Bürger häufig hohe Kosten und viele Mühen auf sich nahmen, um Priestertümer zu bekleiden.4 Das hellenistische Kos hat wegen der guten Quellenlage eine besondere Bedeutung für die Untersuchung des Verhältnisses zwischen Elite und Priestertümern. Für den im gesamten ägäisch-westkleinasiatischen Bereich verbreiteten Verkauf von Priesterstellen liefert Kos die meisten und aussagekräftigsten Zeugnisse, die bislang am intensivsten erforscht wurden.5 Auch andere Priestertümer sind verhältnismäßig gut bekannt,6 und das sehr reiche und leicht zugängliche epigraphische Material ermöglicht die sozio-politische Kontextualisierung des Engagements der Elite im Bereich der Priestertümer. Im vorliegenden Aufsatz soll der Frage nachgegangen werden, wie bestimmte Merkmale der Priestertümer (Prestige, Dauer des Amtes, Art der Besetzung) und das Engagement der Elite in diesem Bereich (Euergetismus, Rivalisierung um die Priesterstellen) mit sozialen, politischen und ökonomischen Gegebenheiten der Gemeinden zusammenhängen. Lässt sich für alle koischen Priestertümer nachweisen, dass sie de facto von den Mitgliedern der Elite monopolisiert wurden? Die Analyse dieser Themen soll auf der Ebene der koischen Gemeinden, der einzelnen Demen und der Stadt ansetzen. Mit dem Synoikismos von 366 wurde eine eigenartige politische Struktur geschaffen, in der die Demen – im Gegensatz zur Nachbarinsel Rhodos – ihre Bedeutung im politischen System des Inselstaates verloren hatten, aber nach wie vor als Gemeinden mit gewisser Selbstverwaltung und als Kristallisationspunkte lokaler Identität existierten.7 Neben dem Unterschied zwischen der Situation der Demen und der zentralen Stadt Kos soll auch der zeitlichen Dimension Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt werden. Lassen sich historische Veränderungen im Engagement der koischen Elite im Bereich der Priestertümer beobachten? In diesem Hinblick gilt es insbesondere, die

|| 3 S. z. B. Chaniotis 2007, 243f.; Chaniotis 2008, 20−22. 4 Dignas 2006. Zur Rolle der Elite in der Bekleidung von Priestertümern in Rhodos s. Dignas 2003a. 5 Grundlegend zu den käuflichen Priestertümern in Kos ist Wiemer 2003. S. auch Dignas 2003b, Parker – Obbink 2000, Bosnakis – Hallof 2005. 6 Zu den Kulten und Priestertümern der Demen sind diejenige von Halasarna am besten bekannt, s. Kokkorou-Alevras 2004a; 2004b. 7 Zum politischen System des koischen Staates s. Sherwin-White 1978, 153−174.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

Elite und Priestertümer im hellenistischen Kos | 281

Gültigkeit der erstmals von Philip Gauthier formulierten These zu prüfen, dass sich die prominente Position und der Einfluss der lokalen Oberschichten im 2. Jh. verstärkt worden ist.8 Da umfangreiche und detaillierte Ehrendekrete für koische Bürger aus dieser Zeit kaum bekannt sind, spielte Kos in der Erforschung der Oberschichten keine wichtige Rolle. Es soll deswegen geprüft werden, ob die Zeugnisse über die Priestertümer ein stärkeres Hervortreten der Elite in Kos ab dem 2. Jh. bestätigen.

Priestertümer und kultische Ämter in den Demen Priestertümer Über die Art der Besetzung der Priestertümer in den koischen Demen verfügen wir über keine flächendeckenden Kenntnisse. Einige Priestertümer wurden durch Los vergeben, wie im Kult der Demeter in Antimachia9 und im Kult des Apollon und Herakles in Halasarna. Das Dekret von Halasarna ist von besonderem Interesse, weil es bei der Beschreibung der Auslosung der Priester, die das Verfahren leitenden napoiai verpflichtet, anhand der Liste der Phylen-Mitglieder zu prüfen, ob der Ausgeloste tatsächlich zum Priestertum berechtigt ist.10 Im Hintergrund dieser Vorschrift steht möglicherweise, dass die Priestertümer auch Mitglieder anderer Phylen und Demen, und unter ihnen auch wohl die Wohlhabenden, anstrebten. Einen solchen Fall bezeugt ein Ehrendekret von || 8 Gauthier 1985, vgl. Hamon 2007. 9 IG XII 4, 356, Z. 1−4 sprechen für die Besetzung der Priestertümer durch Los. Es ist allerdings problematisch, dass in Z. 6−7 auch der Verkauf des Priestertums angesprochen wird. Laut der allgemein verbreiteten Forschungsmeinung gehörte die Auslosung einer früheren Phase an, und wurde zur Zeit der Verfassung der lex sacra durch den Verkauf ersetzt, s. dazu Dignas 2002, 262 mit älterer Literatur. 10 Dies geht aus einem Beschluss von Halasarna über die Aufzeichnung der Teilnehmer des Kultes von Apollon und Herakles hervor (um 180), s. IG XII 4, 103, Z. 91−95: καὶ τοὶ ναποῖαι τὸς ἐπ[ι]β̣αλλομένος ἐς τὰν ἱ̣ε̣ρ̣ατείαν τὸν κλᾶρον ἑλ̣κ̣όντω ἀντεφορῶντε[ς] ἐκ τοῦ λευκώματος. Wiemer 2003, 302f. nimmt anhand der Inschrift LSCG 172 (IG XII 4, 303) an, dass das Priestertum des Apollon in Halasarna grundsätzlich verkauft worden sei, aber das Verfahren auch Elemente des Loses enthalten habe. Die herangezogene fragmentarische Inschrift über den Verkauf eines Priestertums dürfte jedoch zum Kult der Aphrodite gehören. Die Tatsache, dass im Fragment der Apollonpriester zum Opfern für Aphrodite verpflichtet wird, könnte daran liegen, dass der Apollonkult der wichtigste Kult in Halasarna war und, wie es aus IG XII 4, 358 hervorgeht, der Apollonpriester auch für andere Götter opferte. Zur Bedeutung des Apollonkultes in Halasarna vgl. Sherwin-White 1978, 300.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

282 | Péter Kató Lindos für epistatai (3. Jh.), die in einem Rechtsstreit die Beschränkung des Rechts der Lindier auf die Priestertümer und andere kultische Ämter verteidigt hatten.11 An den Auslosungen nahmen nur diejenigen Bürger teil, die sich im Voraus angemeldet haben (τοὶ ἐπιβαλλόμενοι). Um beurteilen zu können, inwieweit die Demos-Priestertümer das Privileg der Oberschicht waren, sollten wir wissen, wie viele Bürger sich tatsächlich anmeldeten, und ob es Kriterien für die Anmeldung gab, die den Kreis der potentiellen Priester beschränkten. Für das Priestertum der Demeter in Antimachia – solange es durch den Verkauf vergeben wurde – konnten sich im Prinzip alle Frauen, die wollten, durch ihren Kyrios für die Auslosung anmelden.12 Der Verkauf, der in der Polis Kos sehr häufig belegt wird, hat sich in den Demen offensichtlich nicht verbreitet: er wird lediglich von einer Diagraphe aus Halasarna und einer lex sacra aus Antimachia bezeugt.13 Es gibt schließlich zahlreiche Kulte, von denen sich nicht ermitteln lässt, auf welche Art ihre Priestertümer besetzt wurden.14 Es ist sehr wahrscheinlich, aber nicht mit Sicherheit zu beweisen, dass viele von ihnen, insbesondere die auf kurze Zeit, meistens wohl auf ein Jahr begrenzten Priestertümer durch Wahl besetzt wurden. Die Quellen ermöglichen einige Einblicke in die Tätigkeit der Demos-Priester. So war der Priester des Apollon in Halasarna laut einer lex sacra vom Ende des 3. Jh. auch an anderen Kulten beteiligt.15 Die Inschrift liefert damit einen deutlichen Beweis für die überragende Bedeutung des Apollon-Kultes in Halasarna, die auch von anderen Quellen belegt wird. Der Wohlstand der Priester wird am selben Beispiel deutlich: Die Apollonpriester weihten nach ihrer Ausscheidung Gefäße, von denen einige einen beachtlichen Wert von über 100

|| 11 IG XII 1, 761, s. dazu Dignas 2003a, 45f. Sie hält für möglich, dass die Regelung nicht nur die Bürger der anderen rhodischen Poleis, sondern auch die Mitglieder der neuen lindischen Demen in der Peraia von den kultischen Ämtern ausgrenzen und dadurch den unbegrenzten Zugang den alten lindischen Familien sichern sollte. 12 IG XII 4, 356, Z. 1−4: ἐξῆμ̣εν δὲ τοῖς κυρίοις καὶ τᾶμ μὴ παρευσᾶν γυναικῶ[ν] τῶι χρήζοντι ἐμβάλλεσθαι, αἴ κα ἐν τᾶι χώραι ἔωντι. 13 Priestertum der Aphrodite in Halasarna, s. IG XII 4, 303, 3/2. Jh. Priestertümer der Demeter sind vor der 1. Hälfte des 3. Jhs. käuflich geworden, IG XII 4, 356, Z. 6f.: πρὶν πωλητὰν γενέσθαι τὰν ἱερωσύναν. In Z. 1−4 wird aber eine Prozedur für die Auslosung der Priesterinnen beschrieben. Für diesen offensichtlichen Widerspruch gibt es unterschiedliche Erklärungen, s. Dignas 2002, 262−265. 14 S. die zahlreichen Kulte, die in den Opferkalendern von Phyxa (IG XII 4, 279) und Isthmos (280) erwähnt werden. Es ist auch nicht sicher, dass alle Kulte von einem eigenen Priester betrieben wurden. 15 IG XII 4, 358, s. auch oben Anm. 10.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

Elite und Priestertümer im hellenistischen Kos | 283

Drachmen hatten.16 Eine ebenfalls aus Halasarna stammende Liste von Ehrungen, die an den Pythien ausgerufen werden sollen, bezeugt darüber hinaus, dass die Priester auch nach dem Ausscheiden aus ihren Ämtern ihre kollektive Identität bewahrt und eine Rolle in der lokalen Politik gespielt haben, denn die ehemaligen Priester (ἱερατευκότες) haben die Geehrten bekränzt.17 Die Bekleidung des Priestertums des Apollon war demnach ein sehr wichtiger Abschnitt im Leben der wohlhabenden Bürger von Halasarna. Ein im frühen 2. Jh. entstandenes Ehrendekret von Antimachia für die Hierotamiai Philippos und Nikias ermöglicht einen seltenen Einblick in die Finanzierung der lokalen Kulte: durch gute Verwaltung und Einsatz ihres eigenen Vermögens haben die beiden Geehrten dafür gesorgt, dass „die Einkünfte des Demos vergrößert werden, die Opfer den Göttern und die jährlichen Empfänge der Demos-Mitgliedern veranstaltet werden, und der Priester und die Hieropoioi die Opfer gemäß des Sakral-Reglements (ἱερὰ διαγραφά) vollziehen. Auch den anderen Priestern und Priesterinnen, die öffentlich sind, widmeten sich in dieser Sache, damit das Reglement (erfüllt wird).“18 Die Diagraphe über den Verkauf des Priestertums der Aphrodite in Halasarna deutet ebenfalls darauf hin, dass die Kosten der Opfer grundsätzlich vom Staat getragen werden sollten.19 Die Quellen enthalten weitere Hinweise dafür, dass die Heiligtümer trotz gelegentlicher Engpässe selbst finanzstarke Institutionen waren. In Halasarna wurden heilige Gärten verpachtet,20 und über einige Heiligtümer wird überliefert, dass sie der Stadt, aber auch Privatleuten Darlehen gewährten. So haben die Verwalter eines Heiligtums in Antimachia sowohl der Polis Kos als auch

|| 16 IG XII 4, 458 (um 200). Expliziert wird der Zweck solcher Weihungen in Bargylia, wo im späten 2. Jh. v. Chr. die Priester des Apollon, die Stephanephoren, durch einen vom Euergeten Poseidonios vorgeschlagenen Beschluss dazu verpflichtet wurden, eine Phiale von mindestens 100 Drachmen Wert zu weihen, damit die Einkünfte des Volkes vermehrt würden, I. Iasos 612, Z. 10−13. 17 IG XII 4, 364. 18 IG XII 4, 102, Z. 10−18. 19 IG XII 4, 303, Z. 5−8: διαγραφόντω δὲ τοὶ ναποῖαι τῶ[ι ἀεὶ πρι]αμένωι τὰν ἱερωσύναν ἐν τῶι μην[ὶ ---]-ωι καὶ ἄλλας δραχμὰς εἴκοσι ὥστε θύε[ν τᾶι Ἀ]φροδίται αἶγα. Die Anweisung (διαγραφή) der Gelder für die Opfertiere wird auch in den koischen Diagraphai belegt, s. IG XII 4, 315, Z. 23−25. 20 Dies wird von der Diagraphe über den Verkauf des Priestertums der Aphrodite bezeugt, s. IG XII 4, 303, Z. 10−13: θυόντω δὲ καὶ τοὶ μεμισθωμένοι τὸς ἱερὸ[ς κά]πος καὶ τὸ βαλανεῖον ἕκαστος αὐτῶν ἔριφ[ον ἀ]πὸ δραχμᾶν δεκαπέντε.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

284 | Péter Kató Privatleuten Darlehen gegeben,21 und auch das Heiligtum des Apollon in Halasarna war in Kreditgeschäfte eingebunden. Ein Dekret des Demos Halasarna verbietet nämlich, dass der Priester oder die Amtsträger die Kultgeräte des Apollon-Heiligtums verpfänden oder auf sie Darlehen geben.22 Damit wurden lediglich die Darlehen verboten, die die Kulthandlungen gefährden, nicht die Gewährung der Kredite im Allgemeinen. Obwohl das Vorhandensein von ‚Tempelbanken‘ in diesen Heiligtümern nicht bezeugt wird,23 deuten diese Belege darauf hin, dass Kreditgeschäfte zu ihren normalen Funktionen gehörten. Der einzige sichere Hinweis auf finanzielle Probleme im Kontext der Heiligtümer und Kulte, stammt aus Halasarna, wo die Fertigstellung von Bauarbeiten am Tempel des Apollon wegen Geldmangels gefährdet war. Die nötigen Gelder sollten daher aus den Mitteln des Heiligtums selbst und durch eine Subskription beschafft werden.24 Die Einkünfte der Heiligtümer, wie z.B. aus Kreditgeschäften, stellten jedoch keine Einkünfte für die Priester dar. Anders sieht es mit Einkünften der Heiligtümer aus, die sich aus Abgaben für die Opfer und andere Dienstleistungen speisten. Beispielsweise durften im Heiligtum der Demeter in Antimachia die frisch verheirateten Frauen die bei verpflichtenden Ritualen anfallenden Kosten durch eine einmalige Zahlung von lediglich 5 Obolen an die Priesterin ersetzen. Auch die Ehrenteile der Opfertiere konnten in Antimachia durch eine Geldzahlung ersetzt werden, die allerdings selbst bei den ausgewachsenen Tieren nur den äußerst niedrigen Wert von einem Obolos betrug.25 Dies stellte eine im Vergleich mit den Ersatzzahlungen im Kult der Aphrodite Pontia in der Polis Kos doch sehr niedrige Entschädigung dar.26

|| 21 IG XII 4, 102, Z. 7−15: τῶν τε χρημάτων ὧν ὤφειλε ἁ πόλις ἀποδοθέντων ἐπὶ τᾶς αὐτῶν ἀρχᾶς προενοήθ̣η̣σαν ὅπως δανεισθῇ ἐπὶ ὑποθέμασιν ἀξιοχρέοι[ς], χρήματα τε ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων προεισήνεγκαν, ὅπω[ς] ταὶ πόθοδοι ἐπαυξηθῶντι τῶι δάμωι καὶ ταὶ θυσίαι συντελῶνται τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ ταὶ ὑποδοχα[ὶ] τῶν δαμοτᾶν ταὶ γινομέναι κατ᾿ ἐνιαυτὸν [καὶ] ὅ τε ἱερεὺς καὶ τοὶ ἱεροποιοὶ συντελῶντι τὰ[ς] θυσίας κατὰ τὰν ἱερὰν διαγραφάν. 22 IG XII 4, 91 (Mitte des 3. Jh.), Z. 2−8: μὴ ἐξέστω τῶι ἱερεῖ μηδὲ τοῖς τιμάχοις δανείσασθαι ἐπὶ τοῖς ποτηρίοις μηδὲ τοῖς ἄλλοις σκεύεσι τοῖς ὑπάρχουσι ἐν τῶι ἱερῶι τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος, μηδὲ δανείζειν μηθένα ἐπὶ τούτοις παρευρέσει μηδεμιᾶι. S. dazu Kokkorou-Alevras 2004a, 119−121. 23 In der Polis Kos ist dagegen eine ‚Tempelbank‘ mit eigenen Verwaltern (τραπεζῖται) belegt, die vielleicht zum Heiligtum des Asklepios gehörte, s. IG XII 4, 294, Z. 21f. 24 IG XII 4, 94. 25 IG XII 4, 356, Z. 4−12. 26 IG XII 4, 319, Z. 2−9. Selbst die Opfergebühren, die in die Kasse (θησαυρός) des Heiligtums eingezahlt werden sollten, waren im Heiligtum der Aphrodite Pontia in der Stadt wesentlich höher, s. Z. 10−13.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

Elite und Priestertümer im hellenistischen Kos | 285

Die Quellen über die Priester der koischen Demen sprechen demnach nicht eindeutig für eine Dominanz der Elite. Die in zumindest zwei Demen verwendete Auslosung sicherte vielmehr, dass Freiwillige aus allen sozialen Schichten die gleichen Chancen für die Bekleidung eines Priestertums hatten. Es ist zwar möglich, dass unter denen, die sich für die Auslosung anmeldeten (ἐπιβαλλόμενοι), die Mitglieder der Oberschicht die Mehrheit darstellten, aber dieser Mechanismus hat zumindest im Prinzip die Möglichkeit auch für die weniger Betuchten garantiert, das Priestertum zu erhalten. Ebenso hat die Befristung der Priesterstellen dafür gesorgt, dass (reiche) Demen-Bürger die Priestertümer nicht für lange Zeit besetzen. Das prosopographische Material über die Priester spricht auch nicht für eine Dominanz der Elite. In den Weihungen, die Priester von Halasarna um die Wende des 3. zum 2. Jh. für Hekate Strateia aufgestellt haben, gibt es einen, Simias S. des Hekataios, der als Priester des Apollon gedient hat, der mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit als Mitglied der Elite eingestuft werden kann, weil wohl sein Sohn, Hekataios 200 Drachmen für eine Bibliothek in Kos geschenkt hat27 und von den ehemaligen Priestern von Halasarna mit einem goldenen Kranz geehrt wurde.28 Sein Wohlstand konnte ihn allerdings nicht zum Priestertum des Apollon verhelfen, weil es durch den Los vergeben wurde.

Kultische Ämter In den Quellen über einige Demos-Kulte erscheinen die „Amtsträger“ (ἀρχεύοντες) als Leiter des Kultes, die mit den Vollzug der Opfer und die Veranstaltung der Empfänge (ὑποδοχαί) betraut waren. Deren Aufgabenbereich weist somit Überschneidungen mit dem der Priester anderer Kulte auf.29 Der Name des Amtes deutet jedoch darauf hin, dass die Demos-Mitglieder sie nicht als Priester betrachteten, sondern von diesen eindeutig unterschieden, vielleicht weil sie auch weitere, nicht religiöse Aufgaben hatten.30 Unsere Quellen erklären nicht eindeutig, warum in diesen Kulten nicht die Priester, sondern die „Amtsträger“ die Opfer und die Empfänge veranstalteten. Eine naheliegende Antwort auf diese Frage wäre, dass es in diesen Kulten keine Priester gab, und die || 27 Robert 1935, 421−424, Migeotte 1992, 52. 28 IG XII 4, 364, Z. 19−21. 29 Chaniotis im „Epigr. Bullet. of Greek Religion“, Kernos 17 (2004) Nr. 141 übersetzt ἀρχεύοντες παρ᾿ ῾Ηρακλῆ als „priests of Herakles.“ 30 Nach Sherwin-White 1978, 170, 214 hätten die archeuontes die Leiturgie der phylarchia ausgeführt. Dies kann jedoch keineswegs für alle archeuontes zutreffen.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

286 | Péter Kató wichtigsten kultischen Aufgaben Magistraten zugeordnet wurden, die einen breiteren Kompetenzbereich hatten. Die spärliche Quellenlage ermöglicht jedoch keine endgültige Antwort auf diese Frage. Die archeuontes wurden von den Versammlungen der Demen (σύνοδοι) gewählt.31 Zwei Ehrendekrete aus den Demen erhellen besondere Züge dieser Wahlen. Das Ehrendekret eines Perikles aus Antimachia lobt ihn dafür, dass er „selber“ den Posten des archeuon im Kult des Herakles übernommen habe,32 und ein Ehrendekret des Kultvereins des Zeus Hyetios in Antimachia lobt zwei „Monatspriester“ dafür, dass sie sich selber für ihr Amt gemeldet hätten.33 Diese beiden Dekrete verweisen deutlich auf Schwierigkeiten bei der Besetzung der kultischen Ämter, die entweder durch das Fehlen oder durch die Verweigerung geeigneter Kandidaten verursacht wurden. Diese Beispiele zeigen aber auch, dass (reichen) engagierten Bürgern der Weg zu den kultischen Ämtern ohne Einschränkungen und Vorgaben offen stand. Der Demos Isthmos fand im frühen 2. Jh. eine andere, besondere Lösung für Schwierigkeiten bei der Besetzung der kultischen Ämter.34 Aus dem fragmentarisch erhaltenen Beginn eines Dekrets lässt sich entnehmen, dass ein gewisser Aristokreon den Phylen des Demos Geld für die Veranstaltung von Opfern (für eine unbekannte Gottheit) und für die Empfänge der Demos-Mitglieder „geweiht“ hatte (ἀνέθηκε). Das verwendete Verb deutet darauf hin, dass es sich um eine Stiftung handelte, von deren Zinsen die künftigen Ausgaben gedeckt werden sollten. Die Versammlung des Demos hat dann für die Erfüllung der konkreten, schon vorfinanzierten Aufgaben einen archeuon aus allen Bürgern des Demos gewählt. Seine Nachfolger sollten allerdings nicht mehr vom Demos gewählt, sondern vom ausscheidenden archeuon ernannt werden. Dem ausgewählten Nachfolger wurde zwar das Recht eingeräumt, die Ernennung abzulehnen. In diesem Fall sollte der Demarchos eine Abstimmung einleiten, und der in diesem Nachverfahren von der Versammlung gewählte Bürger war ver-

|| 31 S. z. B. IG XII 4, 95, Z. 2f.: ἐπειδὴ Διοκλῆς Ἀλεξάνδρου αἱρεθείς ἀρχεύων παρ᾿ Ἡρακλῆ... 32 IG XII 4, 110, 2f.: Περικλῆς Νικάρχου αὐτ[ὸς] ὑ̣π[ομ]είνας ἀρχεύειν. Zum Verb υπομένω im Sinne von „ertragen, erdulden“ vgl. das Ehrendekret von Priene für Zosimos (entstanden nach 84), wo das Amt des Grammateus mit einer Leiturgie gleichgesetzt wird, I. Priene 112, Z. 20−22: γραμματεὺς μὲν γὰρ χειροτονηθεὶς τῆς βουλῆς καὶ τοῦ δήμου ἐπὶ στεφανηφόρου Δημέου μηνὸς Βοηδρομιῶνος διὰ τὸ τὸν μὲν προκεχειροτονημένον ἐν ἀρχαιρεσίαις γραμματέα μεταλλάξαι, μηδένα δὲ τὴν χρείαν ὑπομένειν ἐκ τοῦ καιροῦ διὰ τὸ τῆς λειτουργίας βάρος. 33 IG XII 4, 121, Z. 6−10: Χάρμιππος Παρμενίσκου καὶ Λύκαιθος Λευκίππου, γενόμενοι ἐπιμήνιοι αὐτεπάγγελτοι. Zum historischen Kontext der Inschrift s. Habicht 2006, 159. 34 IG XII 4, 100.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

Elite und Priestertümer im hellenistischen Kos | 287

pflichtet, das Amt auszuführen.35 Obwohl durch Aristokreons Stiftung die Amtsträger finanziell entlastet wurden, konnte der Wechsel des Bestimmungsmodus von der Wahl zur Ernennung durch den ausscheidenden archeuon dazu führen, dass das Amt überwiegend von Mitgliedern derselben Familie oder derselben sozialen Gruppe besetzt wurden. Das Dekret verrät zwar nicht, wer nach Aristokreons Stiftung zum archeuon gewählt wurde, aber Aristokreon selbst und seine Verwandten hatten bestimmt gute Chancen. Ähnliche Auswahlverfahren eines archeuon wie in Isthmos sind in anderen Demen nicht belegt. Diese wählten möglicherweise andere Motivationsmethoden, um Mitglieder der Oberschicht zur Übernahme der Ämter zu bewegen. Konkrete Hinweise aber fehlen, abgesehen von der Äußerung von Dankbarkeit, wie sie aus einem koischen Demos, vielleicht aus Antimachia, bezeugt ist. Es handelt sich um eine Liste der mit Kränzen geehrten archeuontes, die die Opfer für die Nymphen und die Empfänge der Demos-Mitglieder veranstaltet haben.36 Die Inschrift stellt ein deutliches Zeugnis dar für die öffentliche Dokumentation der Dankbarkeit der Gemeinde gegenüber ihren vermutlich wohlhabenden Bürger, die diese kultischen Aufgaben übernahmen. Wahrscheinlich war es zumeist informeller sozialer Druck den die Gemeinden auf die Wohlhabenden zur Übernahme der kultischen Ämter ausübten, um sie zur Übernahme von kultischen Ämtern zu bewegen. Das allerdings findet in den Inschriften keinen oder kaum Niederschlag. Die Ehrendekrete zeigen ferner, dass einige Amtsträger die kultischen Aufgaben auf besondere Weise ausführten, indem sie die Opfer und die Empfänge der Demos-Mitglieder großzügiger als üblich ausrichteten.37 Einige Wohltäter luden sogar andere Koer ein, die nicht zum Demos gehörten, und legten da-

|| 35 IG XII 4, 100, Z. 15−21: αἱρεῖσθαι] ἀρχεύοντα ἕνα ἐκ πάντων, τὸ δὲ λο[ιπὸν ἀεὶ] αἱρείσθω ὁ ἀρχεύων τὸν ἀρχεύοντα, [τῶι δὲ αἱρεθ]έντι ἐξουσία ἔστω ἀνθελέσθαι, εἴ [κα δήληται·] εἰ δέ κα ἀνθέληται ὁ δάμαρχος δια[χειροτονη]σάτω, ὧι δέ κα πλέους [---] ἔστω ἀρχεύων. 36 IG XII 4, 456 (Ende 3. Jh.): τοίδε ἐστεφανώθην ἀρχεύσαντες καὶ τὰ ἱερὰ ἐχθύσαντες κατὰ {τὰ} [τ]ὰ πάτρια ταῖς Νύμφαις καὶ δεξάμενοι τὸς φυλέτας ἀξίως τᾶν θεᾶν. Die Inschrift wurde zwar in der Stadt Kos gefunden, aber die Erwähnung der phyletai, die immer die Mitglieder eines Demos bezeichnen, zeigen eindeutig, dass die Inschrift aus einem Demos stammt. Die Prosopographie weist auf Antimachia als möglichen Entstehungsort hin, denn zwei Personen in der Liste, Lykaithos, Sohn des Parmeniskos (Z. 18) und Charmippos, Sohn des Parmeniskos (Z. 26), vielleicht zwei Brüder, waren auch Antragsteller eines Ehrendekrets des in Antimachia ansässigen Kultvereins des Zeus Hyetios, IG XII 4, 121, Z. 4, 6. 37 Möglicherweise beziehen sich IG XII 4, 103, Z. 86−90 auf die Verteilung des Opferfleisches ausschließlich unter den auf Leukoma-Tafeln aufgelisteten Demosmitgliedern an einem solchen Empfang: τοὶ δὲ ἀρχεύοντες καὶ τοὶ ἐπιμήνιοι διδόντω τὰς μερίδας ἀντεφορῶντες ἐκ τοῦ λευκώματος.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

288 | Péter Kató durch ihr Interesse an Selbstdarstellung vor der Gesellschaft der zentralen Polis an den Tag.38 Die Demen finanzierten zwar grundsätzlich die Opfer und die Empfänge, ähnlich wie dies für die Opfer der Priester galt. Sie konnten jedoch wohl nicht immer genug Geld bereitstellen,39 vor allem aber trugen sie sicherlich nicht die Kosten für die Erweiterung und aufwändige Ausgestaltung der Veranstaltungen. Dies ist vergleichbar mit den Regelungen für die Opfer, die in der von der Polis Kos erlassenen Diagraphe für Hermes Enagonios festgelegt werden. Die Urkunde setzt lediglich die jeweiligen Mindestwerte der Opfertiere fest, für die der Staat den Magistraten das Geld bereitzustellen hatte. Die Formulierung der Urkunden deutet darauf hin, dass die Magistraten die staatliche Finanzierung aus ihrem Privatvermögen nicht nur aufstocken konnten, sondern dass dies von ihnen vielleicht sogar erwartet wurde.40 Die Amtsträger, die mit ihren Ausgaben über das Minimum hinausgingen, stellten vermutlich eine Minderheit unter den archeuontes dar: sie verdeutlichten dadurch ihr besonderes Engagement und den hohen Status ihrer Familien.41 Diese außerordentlichen Verdienste wurden von den Gemeinden mit entsprechenden Ehrungen, zusätzlichen Kränzen und mit Ehrendekreten honoriert. Die Priestertümer der Demen wurden anscheinend nicht von den Mitgliedern der Elite dominiert. Hierfür sprechen die mehrfach bezeugte Auslosung der Priestertümer und die grundsätzliche Finanzierung der Kulthandlungen durch die Demen, die es allen Schichten der Bürgerschaft prinzipiell ermöglichte, ein Priesteramt zu übernehmen. Es fehlen auch die in den hellenistischen Städten überaus häufigen Ehrendekrete für Priester, in denen die vorbildhafte Ausführung kultischer Aufgaben und den Einsatz des eigenen Vermögens hervorgehoben wird. Die Quellen über die Kulte, die nicht von Priestern, sondern von archeuontes geleitet wurden, ergeben daher ein anderes Bild, das stärkere Parallelen

|| 38 IG XII 4, 95, Z. 2−9; 105, Z. 4−6; 110, Z. 3−7. IG XII 4, 93, Z. 6−8: καὶ τοὺς παραγενομένους ἐν̣ [τῶι ὑ]πηρετικῶι ἐδέξατο μετὰ τῶν δ[αμοτᾶν] οὐδεμίαν ὑποστελλόμενος δα̣[πάναν]. 39 Auf Schwierigkeiten in der Finanzierung der Opfer deutet das Ehrendekret von Antimachia für zwei Hierotamiai hin, s. IG XII 4, 102. 40 S. z. B. IG XII 4, 298, Z. 12−18: ὁ μόναρχος ὁ γενόμενος μετὰ Μενοίτιον καὶ τοὶ ἱεροπο⟨ι⟩οὶ τοὶ ἀεὶ γινόμενοι ἀπὸ τοῦ διατεταγμένου αὐτοῖς ἐς κατὰ τὰς θυσίας θυόντω ... ἑκάστου μηνὸς οἶν ἀρσένα μὴ ἐλάσσονος ἄξιον δραχμᾶν ΔΔ⟨Δ⟩. Zur Aufstockung der staatlichen Finanzierung aus eigenen Mitteln als euergetische Leistung s. I. Priene 118, Z. 11.: προσεδαπάνησεν μετὰ τῶν συναγ[ωνοθετῶν δαρχμὰς---. 41 IG XII 4, 93, Z. 2−5: ἐπειδὴ Ἡρόδοτο[ς Ἡρα]κλείτου ἀρχεύσας παρ᾿ Ἡρακ[λῆ τά τε] ἱ̣ερὰ ἐξέθυσε τῶι θεῶι ὑπὲρ τ[ῶν πολι]τᾶν ἀξίως καὶ αὑτοῦ καὶ τῶν π[ρογόνων]; 95, Z. 5f.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

Elite und Priestertümer im hellenistischen Kos | 289

mit dem aus anderen Städten Bekannten aufweist. So besteht das Quellenmaterial zum größten Teil aus Ehrendekreten für besonderes Engagement und finanzielle Zuwendungen für den Kult und die Kultteilnehmer. Es lassen sich ferner Schwierigkeiten bei der Besetzung der Ämter nachweisen. Die häufigen Ehrungen dienten offensichtlich dem Zweck, Demos-Mitglieder zur Übernahme dieser Ämter zu motivieren. Die aus den Ehrendekreten bekannten archeuontes gehörten zu den vornehmen Familien der Demen. Der finanzielle Wert der Beiträge zur Veranstaltung der Opfer und der Empfänge war aber nicht so hoch, dass dadurch der Kreis der potentiellen Amtsinhaber auf eine sehr schmale Oberschicht beschränkt worden sei.42

Priestertümer der Polis Kos Käufliche Priestertümer Das Bild in den Quellen über Priestertümer und kultische Ämter der Polis Kos unterscheidet sich grundsätzlich von dem, was für die einzelnen koischen Demen beobachtet wurde. Anders als in den Demen die Priester und archeuontes wurden die wichtigen Priestertümer der Stadt nicht durch Los oder Wahl, sondern durch Verkauf vergeben. Die Zahl der Priestertümer, für die der Verkauf zumindest einmal belegt ist, ist relativ hoch, insgesamt 16, und die meisten gehörten zu den wichtigsten Kulten der Stadt. So finden wir unter den käuflichen Priestertümern Kulte, die mit dem Gymnasion,43 mit Innenpolitik und politischen Institutionen,44 mit Herrschern45 oder auch der Seefahrt46 assoziiert sind, ebenso wie für den die Außendarstellung von Kos prägenden Kult des Asklepios.47 Nur das Priestertum der Symmachidai wird nicht verkauft. Obwohl es von einer näher nicht bestimmbaren Abstammungsgruppe übernommen und weitergegeben wird, hatte selbst bei diesem Kult und seinen Priestern die Polis || 42 Die Ehrendekrete von Halasarna für Diokles (IG XII 4, 98) und Theukles (IG XII 4, 99) aus der Zeit des kretischen Krieges können als Vergleichsbeispiele dienen. Beider Geehrten waren einflussreich in der koischen Politik und sehr reich. So konnte Diokles einen sehr großen Beitrag in der „Großen Supskription“ spenden (IG XII 4, 75, Z. 37f.) und Theukles kostspielige Verteidigungsmaßnahmen für Halasarna finanzieren 43 IG XII 4, 298, Hermes Enagonios; 305, 320, Herakles Kallinikos; 328, Zeus Alseios. 44 IG XII 4, 315; 324, Homonoia; 321, Theoi Boulaioi. 45 IG XII 4, 306; 309, Eumenes II. 46 IG XII 4, 302, Aphrodite Pandamos; 319, Aphrodite Pontia. 47 IG XII 4, 311.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

290 | Péter Kató das Recht, den grundsätzlichen Betrieb des Kultes und die Vergabe des Priestertums zu regulieren.48 Ein weiterer Unterschied zu den Priestertümern der Demen besteht darin, dass hier die meisten Stellen unbefristet (διὰ βίου) vergeben wurden. Dies galt nicht nur für die käuflichen Priestertümer, sondern auch für das wegen der Dionysien sehr prominenten Priestertums des Dionysos. Abgesehen von den Kosten, waren damit vor allem Vorteile verbunden: Die Entfristung der Amtszeit ermöglichte es den Priestern ihre mit dem Amt verbundenen Privilegien länger zu genießen, und auf Dauer eine starke Präsenz im öffentlichen Leben zu haben.49 Zu den Privilegien gehörte, dass alle Priester in der ersten Reihe an den von der Stadt veranstalteten Agonen (προεδρία) saßen und die Trankopfer (σπονδή) darbrachten.50 Der Priester oder die Priesterin genoss die wichtigste Position im Heiligtum, erhielt die Ehrenteile (γέρη) aus den Opfertieren,51 kontrollierte die Durchführung der Pflichtopfer und hatte das Recht, für das Versäumnis der Opfer Strafen zu verhängen und ihre Eintreibung (πρᾶξις) zu veranlassen.52 Die Priester sollten ferner an den Opfern der Magistrate bei den städtischen Festen mitwirken,53 und zwar manchmal in besonders prächtiger || 48 IG XII 4, 310, s. dazu Dignas 2002, 252, Parker – Obbink, 2001, 229−233. 49 S. ausführlicher Wiemer 2003, 285−287. 50 IG XII 4, 298, Z. 8−10: σπενδέτω δὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀγῶσιν, καὶ ἐμ προεδρίαι καθήσθω καθὰ καὶ τοὶ ἄλλοι ἱερεῖς. 51 Die Haut und ein Schenkel stellten die häufigsten Ehrenteile der Priester dar, s. z. B. IG XII 4, 298, Z. 11f.: γέρη δὲ λαμβανέτω τῶν θυομένων τῶι Ἑρμᾶι τῶι Ἐναγωνίωι δέρμα καὶ σκέλος, ähnlich 307 (für ein unbekanntes Priestertum), Z. 15−17. Die Regelungen konnten jedoch je nach Kult unterschiedlich sein. In einigen Kulten waren die Ehrenteile geringer: 306 (Eumenes II.), Z. 7.f.: der Priester erhielt nur aus den „einjährigen“ Tieren die Haut und einen Schenkel, sonst nur die Haut; 330 (Nike), Z. 14−16: Der Priester erhielt die Haut und einen Schenkel nur von Rindern und Schafen, von anderen Tieren jedoch nur einen Schenkel. Die Ehrenteile konnten aber auch größer sein: 299 (Korybantes), Z. 10−13 Haut und Schenkel mit weiteren Ehrenteilen von nicht blutigen Opfern; 304 (Dionysos Thyllophoros), Haut, Schenkel und eine je nach Art des Opfertiers variierende bescheidene Opfergebühr; ähnlich die spätere Diagraphe 326, Z. 61−66. Im Kult der Aphrodite Pontia stand den Opfernden die Möglichkeit zu, die Opfertiere und die Ehrenteile der Priesterin durch eine Geldzahlung zu ersetzen, s. 319, Z. 2−9. 52 S. die Urkunde über Aphrodite Pandamos, IG XII 4, 302, Z. 24−26: ὅσσοι κα μὴ θύσωντι ὡς γέγραπται, ἐπιτιμιόν τε αὐτοῖς ἔστω καὶ ὀφειλόντω ἐπιτίμιον τᾷ ἱερείαι δραχμὰς δέκα, ἁ δὲ πρᾶξις ἔστω αὐτᾶι καθάπερ ἐγ δίκας. Die Diagraphe für Aphrodite Pontia, 319, Z. 1f. ermöglicht der Priesterin die Eintreibung einer Strafe, die Höhe der Strafe ist jedoch nicht erhalten. 315, Z. 18−23: Die Amtsträger, die bei ihrem Amtsantritt nicht opfern, sollen dem Priester 30 Drachmen und der Göttin Homonoia 50 Drachmen zahlen. Diese höheren Strafzahlungen erklären sich daraus, dass die Opfertiere der Magistrate vom Staat bezahlt wurden. 53 IG XII 4, 298, Z. 18−20: ὁ ἱερεὺς ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὰν θυσίαν ἃν θύει τῶι Ἑρμᾶι εἷ ὁ μόναρχος καὶ τοὶ ἱεροποιοὶ συμπομπευέτω; 315, Z. 17f.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

Elite und Priestertümer im hellenistischen Kos | 291

Tracht und mit goldenen Schmuckstücken.54 Die Urkunde über den Verkauf des Priestertums der Nike, die die prächtigste Kleidung, purpurfarbigen kiton und Schmuckstücke aus Gold für die religiösen Handlungen erlaubt, fordert jedoch gleichzeitig vom Priester, dass er ansonsten während seines ganzen Lebens ein weißes Gewand trägt.55 Ein Teil der käuflichen Priestertümer war auch für Minderjährige erreichbar. Das Priestertum des Asklepios, der Hygieia und der Epiona konnte mit 14,56 ein unbekanntes Priestertum und sowie diejenigen des Herakles Kallinikos und Dionysos Thyllophoros mit 10,57 und das Priestertum des Zeus Alseios sogar bereits mit 8 Jahren besetzt werden.58 Da Kindern nur käufliche Priestertümer offen standen, macht deutlich, dass die Übernahme eines solchen käuflichen Priestertums ausschließlich oder zumindest in der Regel für die Mitglieder der lokalen Elite von Interesse war, weil sie dadurch ihren Kindern bereits im jungen Alter eine herausragende Position in der Gesellschaft sichern konnten.59 Es spricht schließlich für die hohe soziale Stellung der Priester, dass die Versteigerungen in der Volksversammlung, in einem Fall sogar gemeinsam mit den Beamtenwahlen, wohl an der meist besuchten Sitzung der koischen Volksversammlung stattfanden.60 Die Versteigerungen wurden von Opfern begleitet, die von den höchsten Beamten des Staates, den Prostatai, vollzogen wurden.61 In einigen Fällen zeichnen sich diese Opfer durch den hohen Wert der Tiere aus:

|| 54 IG XII 4, 306, Z. 9f.: Bekränzung des Priesters bei den Kulthandlungen für Eumenes II.; 320, Z. 22−24: Kranz aus Pappellaub, Kette, Ring aus Gold; 328, Z. 16−18: Kranz aus Ölzweigen, goldene Kette und goldener Schmuck; 330, Z. 8−10: purpurfarbiger Gewand, goldene Ringe und Kranz aus Ölzweigen. 55 IG XII 4, 330, Z. 12: λ]ευχιμονίτω δὲ διὰ βίου. 56 IG XII 4, 311, Z. 14f. 57 IG XII 4, 314, Z. 9f.; 320, Z. 15f.; 326, Z. 8−10. 58 IG XII 4, 328, Z. 8f. 59 Vgl. van Bremen 1996, 82−100. 60 IG XII 4, 302, Z. 5f.: τοὶ πωληταὶ ἀποδόσθων τὰν ἱερωσύναν μηνὸς Ἀλσείου ἐν ἀρχαιρεσίαις. Ausführlicher zu den Versteigerungen der Priestertümer s. Wiemer 2003, 277−280. Die Opfer beim Verkauf sind von den sicherlich auch bei der Priesterweihe (τελετά) vollzogenen Opfern zu unterscheiden, die gemäß den Traditionen (κατὰ τὰ νομιζόμενα) vollzogen werden sollte. Über den Ablauf der Priesterweihe sagen die Urkunden nichts aus. Da mit der Durchführung der Weihe besondere Unternehmer beauftragt werden sollten (IG XII 4, 326, Z. 21−23: ὅπως δ[ὲ] τελεσθῆι ἁ ἱέρεια κ̣α̣τὰ τὰ νομιζόμενα, τοὶ πωληταί ἀπομισθωσάντω. Vgl. 319, Z. 47f.; 327, Z. 6f.; Z. 69−71.), dürfte auf ein recht komplexes und aufwändiges Ritual hinweisen. Am Beginn einer sehr fragmentarisch erhaltenen lex sacra aus dem 4. Jh. standen wahrscheinlich Vorschriften über die Priesterweihe, die Rekonstruktion des Rituals ist allerdings nicht möglich, s. IG XII 4, 332, Z. 1−5. 61 IG XII 4, 311, Z. 9−11; 328, Z. 73−76.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

292 | Péter Kató nach dem Verkauf des Priestertums der Aphrodite Pontia hatten die Prostatai eine junge Kuh für 600 Drachmen,62 und nach dem Verkauf des Priestertums des Herakles Kallinikos auf der Agora und im Hafen zwei Tiere von insgesamt 200 Drachmen zu opfern.63 Derart wertvolle Tiere wurden in Kos nur an den größten städtischen Festen geopfert.64 Der Zeitpunkt während der Volksversammlung und die anschließenden Opfer, zeugen von der Bedeutung dieser öffentlichen Ereignisse. Die Teilnahme an der Versteigerung und insbesondere der Kauf eines Priestertums haben folglich einem großen Publikum den direkten Zusammenhang zwischen Priestertum und Wohlstand des Amtsträgers vor Augen geführt. Obwohl die Quellen nur spärliche Informationen über die Priester der Stadt Kos enthalten, deuten sowohl die erhaltenen personenbezogenen Angaben65 als auch die einzige erhaltene, sehr hohe Preisangabe (19800 Drachmen für das Priestertum der Adrasteia und Nemesis, gezahlt von Kleoneikos Sohn des Eukarpos)66 darauf hin, dass diese Priestertümer der Polis Kos überwiegend von sehr reichen Bürgern gekauft wurden. Wohlhabende Bürger werden aber auch in Priestertümern bezeugt, die nicht verkauft wurden. Zwei Dionysos-Priester, die nach Ausweis der Siegerlisten der städtischen Dionysien im späten 3. Jh. und in der ersten Hälfte des 2. Jhs. nacheinander das Priestertum bekleideten, waren wohl prominente Koer. Der erste ist Diokles, Sohn des Leodamas, der die „Große Subskription“ vorgeschlagen und zugleich die höchste Summe von 7000 Drachmen beigesteuert hatte.67 Sein Nachfolger war Diokles, Sohn des Alexandros,68 der sich früher in Halasarna als archeuon im Kult des Herakles besondere Verdienste erworben hatte.69 Aufgrund der Überlieferungslage ist allerdings nicht zu bestimmen, ob alle diese Priestertümer während der ganzen hellenistischen Zeit wiederholt ver|| 62 IG XII 4, 319, Z. 35−37. 63 IG XII 4, 320, Z. 9−12: τοὶ προστάται ἐπεί κα μέ⟨λ⟩λωντι πωλεῖν τὰν ἱερωσύναν, θυσάντω ἑκατέρωι τῶν θεῶν ἱερεῖον ἀπὸ δραχμᾶν ἑκατὸν ὑπὲρ ὑγιείας τῶν τε πολ[ιτᾶ]ν̣ κ̣αὶ πο⟨λ⟩ιτίδων καὶ τῶν κατοικεύντων ἐν τᾶι πόλει. 64 Die drei Opfertiere (wohl Schafe) am Fest nach dem griechischen Sieg über die Kelten bei Delphi kosteten insgesamt 160 Drachmen, s. IG XII 4, 68, Z. 30−46. Für Hermes Enagonios sollten wohl im Rahmen städtischer Feste Rinder für 250 Drachmen geopfert werden, s. 298, Z. 93−106. Der Monarchos und die Hieropoioi sollten an den Alseia für Zeus Alseios ein Rind im Wert von 500 Drachmen opfern, s. 328, Z. 24−26. 65 S. dazu ausführlicher Wiemer 2003, 291−293. 66 IG XII 4, 325, Z. 29f. 67 IG XII 4, 451 Z. 3 (206/5), Z. 15. (204/3). 68 IG XII 4, 452, Z. 19f., Z. 26f. 69 IG XII 4, 95, Ende 3. Jh.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

Elite und Priestertümer im hellenistischen Kos | 293

kauft wurden. Es bleibt daher unklar, ob die aus den erhaltenen Diagraphai ablesbare hohe soziale Stellung der Priesteramtsinhaber in der Stadt Kos die gesamte Periode kennzeichnet. Die zeitliche Verteilung der Diagraphai deutet allerdings darauf hin, dass Priestertümer in der frühhellenistischen Zeit eher vereinzelt verkauft worden sind. Interessanterweise schreiben eben die frühen Urkunden die Verwendung des Kaufpreises für Zwecke vor, die nicht mit den Kulten verbunden sind. Die Vorgabe zur Bezahlung der Schulden der Stadt in der Diagraphe über Hermes Enagonios spricht eindeutig für finanzielle Schwierigkeiten der Stadt, und in Analogie könnte auch die früheste Urkunde über die Verwendung des Geldes für den Kauf eines Grundstücks für die Amtslokale und die Erbauung des Theaters für einen ähnlichen Engpass sprechen.70 Die meisten epigraphischen Zeugnisse konzentrieren sich im 2. und 1. Jh.71 In diesen Zeugnissen sind kaum Hinweise auf akuten Geldmangel zu finden,72 vielmehr wird mehrfach ein Teil des Kaufpreises für ästhetische Verbesserungen der Heiligtümer und der Kultgeräte angewiesen.73 Diese Periode wurde bis auf die Zeit der mithridatischen Kriege in der ganzen ägäischen-westkleinasiatischen Region von Frieden und Prosperität geprägt.74 Diese günstigen Rahmen|| 70 IG XII 4, 298, Z. 140−151: τὸ ἀργύριον τὸ περιττὸν ἀπὸ τᾶς ἱερατείας διαγραψάντω τοὶ λογισταὶ ἀποδοῦσαν τὰν πόλιν τῶι Ἑρμᾶι· ἐπεὶ δέ κα ἁ πόλις ἐλευθέρα γένηται τῶν χρεῶν, ἃ ἐΕΛ.... ἐπιστέλαι ἐπὶ Μενοίτιον μόναρχον, βουλεύσασθαι τὰν δᾶμον ἃ δεῖ συντελέσθαι τῶι θεῶι ἀπὸ τῶν χρημάτων τούτων ἔστε κα τῶι ἐπιστάται δίδοντες τοὶ προστάται καὶ τοὶ ταμίαι τὸν λόγον. Αἴ κα τοὶ ταμίαι τὰ [χ]ρήματα τὰ ποτιπορευόμενα τῶι θεῶι κατὰ τὰνδε τὰν διαγραφὰν ἢ τούτων τι δανείζωνται ἢ μὴ δίδωντι [τὰ] ἐς τὰς θυσίας κατα[γρ]α[φ]έ[ν]τα αὐτοῖς ὡς γέγραπται, [ἀ]ποτεισάντω ἐπ[ιτίμιον] δ[ρα]χμὰς τρισχιλίας ἱερὰς τοῦ Ἑρμᾶ. Vgl. hierzu auch den Beitrag von Ludwig Meier in diesem Band. 71 Obwohl die Datierungen der Inschriften häufig auf Buchstabenformen basieren, dürfen sie aufgrund der dichten epigraphischen Überlieferung als relativ zuverlässig gelten. Allgemein zu Problemen der Datierung koischer Inschriften s. Crowther 2004. In den Zeitraum zwischen dem frühen 2. und dem späten 1. Jh. werden 25 von den insgesamt 33 Diagraphai datiert: IG XII 4, 302 (Aphrodite Pandamos); 304 (Dionysos Thyllophoros); 305 (Herakles Kallinikos); 307 (unbekannte Gottheit); 309 (Eumenes II.); 310 (Symmachidai); 311 (Asklepios, Hygieia, Epiona); 312 (unbekannte Gottheit); 313 (unbekannte Gottheit); 314 (unbekannte Gottheit); 315 (Homonoia); 316 (unbekannte Gottheit); 317 (Antigonos?); 318 (Adrasteia und Nemesis); 319 (Aphrodite Pontia); 320 (Herakles Kallinikos auf der Agora und im Hafen); 321 (Theoi Boulaioi); 323 (Theoi Megaloi); 324 (Homonoia); 325 (Adrasteia und Nemesis); 326 (Dionysos Thyllophoros); 327 (unbekanntes Priestertum); 328 (Zeus Alseios); 329 (unbekanntes Priestertum); 330 (Nike). 72 Die Wiederherstellung der im Erdbeben von 198 zerstörten Bauten des Heiligtums der Aphrodite Pontia sollte aus der ersten Rate des eingezahlten Kaufpreises finanziert werden, s. IG XII 4, 302, Z. 31−48. 73 IG XII 4, 311, Z. 29−41, Diagraphe über Asklepios; 315, Z. 32−54, Homonoia; 321, Z. 14f., Theoi Boulaioi. 74 S. dazu zuletzt Bresson – Descat 2001.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

294 | Péter Kató bedingungen hatten offenbar auch einen Anteil an der Steigerung des Volumens des koischen Weinexports,75 offensichtlich wurde auch die gesamte ökonomische Situation der Polis verbessert.76 Die Quellen erhalten keine expliziten Informationen darüber, ob in dieser Zeit oder auch zuvor die Vergabe der Priestertümer problematisch war, oder die Ämter von vielen Kandidaten begehrt waren. Wiemer folgert aus dem in bestimmten Fällen geringen Mindestalters für die Priester, aus den Zeugnissen für die Übernahme mehrerer Priestertümer durch ein und dieselbe Person, und aus der (u. a. durch die „Große Subskription“ bezeugten) geringen Anzahl wohlhabender Bürger der Polis Kos, dass es an Bewerbern um die Priestertümer gemangelt haben dürfte. Allerdings deutet der hohe Kaufpreis des Priestertums der Adrasteia und der Nemesis darauf, dass es zumindest einige wohlhabende Anbieter an den Versteigerungen gab, die den Preis hoch getrieben haben. Auch lässt sich wie oben gezeigt der Verkauf als ein Mechanismus auffassen, der die ärmeren Schichten der Gesellschaft vom Kreis der Priester ausschloss. Die Ersteigerung eines Priestertums hat also die Zugehörigkeit zur wohlhabenden Oberschicht von Kos nicht nur vorausgesetzt, sondern sie wurde auch vor den Einwohnern der Insel durch Volksversammlung und Opfer in Szene gesetzt und durch den Erlös für die Auktion in bestimmten Fällen nochmals verstärkt. Der Kauf eines Priestertums für einen Sohn oder eine Tochter konnte dazu beitragen, dass der einmal erworbene Status weiter ‚vererbt‘ wurde.

Stiftungen für Kulte, Familienpriestertümer77 Stiftungen für Heiligtümer und Kulte eigneten sich wegen der Dauerhaftigkeit der Schenkungen besonders gut zur Darstellung des Elite-Status. Schenkungen konnten von Priestern vorgenommen werden, wie beispielsweise durch den offensichtlich sehr reichen Grundbesitzer Phanomachos, der am Anfang des 2. Jh. als erster Priester des neuen gemeinsamen Kultes des Zeus und des Damos amtierte. Er schenkte zur Finanzierung des Kultes Ländereien in verschiedenen

|| 75 Johnsson 2004 kommt in seiner Analyse der koischen Weinamphoren im südöstlichen Mittelmeerraum zum vorsichtig formulierten Schluss, dass der größte Teil der koischen Amphoren in die letzten 150 Jahre vor der Zeitwende zu datieren ist, s. insb. Johnsson 2004, 144. 76 Groß angelegte Bauprojekte im Hafen und auf der Agora von Kos datieren in die Zeit nach dem großen Erdbebens von 198, s. Malacrino 2006. Die Erweiterung des Asklepieions außerhalb der Stadt fällt ebenfalls in diese Periode, s. Senseney 2011, 555f. 77 Zu Familienpriestertümern und Familientraditionen in Kulten siehe im vorliegenden Band die Beiträge von Jan-Mathieu Carbon und Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge sowie von Oliver Pilz.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

Elite und Priestertümer im hellenistischen Kos | 295

Teilen der Insel.78 Als Erwiderung für die Schenkungen sollten in der Zukunft seine Nachkommen an einem Fest bekränzt werden. Auf demselben Stein wie das Dekret über die Schenkung ist aber auch die Priesterliste verzeichnet aus der hervorgeht, dass das Priestertum nicht in den Besitz der Familie des Stifters überging.79 Die Priester dieses neuen Kultes hatten ihre Ämter vermutlich lebenslang inne. In anderen Fällen dienten die Schenkungen dazu, dem Wohltäter und seinen Nachkommen das Priestertum zu sichern.80 Zwei der Priestertümer, die durch die Kultstiftung auch zum Privileg einer Familie wurden, gehören eindeutig zu Kulten, die keine staatlichen, sondern von einem Verein verantworteten und durchgeführten ‚privaten‘ Kulte waren.81 Lediglich einmal wird die tradierte Übernahme des Priestertums in einem prominenten staatlichen Kult, dem von Zeus Polieus und Athena Polias, durch eine Familie bezeugt.82 Offensichtlich war es in Kos nur durch hochwertige Stiftungen möglich, ein Priestertum für mehrere Generationen einer wohlhabenden Familie zu sichern. Diese Stiftungspraxis war allerdings selten. Dies mag daran gelegen haben, dass die Kosten hierfür so hoch waren, dass es sich nur ein kleiner Kreis der koischen Familien leisten konnte. Diomedons Stiftung vom Beginn des 3. Jhs. erhellt den komplexen Zusammenhang zwischen Eliten-Status und Familienpriestertum.83 Diomedon hatte einen heiligen Bezirk, Nebenbauten und einen Sklaven namens Libys und dessen Nachkommen für den Kult des Herakles Diomedonteios gestiftet. Die Stiftungsinschrift bietet keine umfängliche Beschreibung des Kultes. So lässt sich nicht mit Sicherheit ermitteln, wie sich die Teilnehmer des Kultes zusammensetzten. Diese Frage ist ausschlaggebend für die Bestimmung der Stellung des Kultes im religiösen Leben der Stadt und daher auch für die soziale Stellung der Priester. Die Inschrift nennt sie einfach „diejenigen, die an den hiera teilha|| 78 IG XII 4, 79, Z. 8−19 Anfang 2. Jh. 79 IG XII 4, 80. 80 IG XII 4, 355, möglicherweise der Grenzstein eines Heiligtums der Zwölfgötter und des Heros Charmylos. Das Priestertum wurde vermutlich von den Nachkommen des Charmylos bekleidet; 348, Stiftung des Diomedon für den Kult des Herakles Diomedonteios, Ende 4. Jh.; 349, Stiftung des Pythion und seiner Frau für den Kult der Artemis, 1. Hälfte des 2. Jhs.; 350, Stiftung des Pythokles für den Kult des Zeus Soter und der Athena Soteira, Ende 2. Jh. 81 Die für den Teilnehmerkreis der Kulte verwendeten Ausdrücke (Herakles Diomedonteios: τοὶ κοινονοῦντες τῶν ἱερῶν; Artemis-Kult gegründet von Pythion: συνθύοντες) deuten auf private Kultvereine hin. 82 Zum Kult des Zeus Polieus und der Athena Polias s. Paul 2011, 66−77. 83 S. dazu Dignas 2006, 79−81 und in diesem Band J.-M. Carbon, V. Pirenne-Delforge, S. 68−70, 75−83.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

296 | Péter Kató ben.“84 Der Zugang zum Kult war an die Entscheidung (κρίσις) der Gemeinde geknüpft, die Kinder der Kultmitglieder wurden jedoch gegen eine Eintrittsgebühr (εἰσαγώγιον) aufgenommen.85 Die Tatsachen, dass das Programm des Heraklesfestes auch eine panegyris beinhaltete, und auf dem Temenos mehrere Gebäude zum rituellen Gebrauch standen86, deuten darauf hin, dass ein relativ breiter Teilnehmerkreis angestrebt wurde, und sich so die herausgehobene Stellung innerhalb des Kultes des Herakles Diomedonteios sich auch auf die gesellschaftliche Stellung auswirkte. Der jeweils älteste männliche Nachkomme des Diomedon sollte das Priestertum bekleiden und die Opfer darbringen. Auch die Monatspriester (ἐπιμήνιοι) durften nur Nachkommen des Diomedon sein, vorausgesetzt, dass sie über das volle Bürgerrecht verfügten, und keine nothoi waren.87 Die Verbindung des Kultes zur Familie des Diomedon kam auch darin zum Ausdruck, dass im Heiligtum die Statuen der Vorfahren des Diomedon standen, die während der panegyris bekränzt werden sollten.88 Diomedon war zur Zeit der Gründung des Kultes, im späten 4. Jh. offensichtlich sehr reich. Interessanterweise rechnete er bei seiner Stiftung mit der Möglichkeit, dass seine Nachkommen weniger wohlhabend sein werden, denn die Stiftungsinschrift ordnete für den Fall an, dass die Kultteilnehmer meinen, einer der männlichen Nachkommen des Diomedon sei nicht hinreichend wohlhabend, diesem gestattet sein solle, im Monat Petageitnyos seine Hochzeit im Heiligtum während des Heraklesfestes zu veranstalten, unter Verwendung der Opfertiere, die Herakles dargebracht werden sollten.89 Der Priester sollte dabei zugunsten des Bräutigams auf die Ehrengaben (γέρη) für eine einmalige Entschädigung von 8 Drachmen verzichten, die nicht vom heiratenden Verwandten, sondern aus der Einkunft (πρόσοδος) des Heiligtum bestritten werden sollte.90 Die Nachfahren des Diomedon sollten also ihre privilegierte Stellung im Kult behalten, solange sie Bürgerinnen heirateten, und sie konnten selbst wenn sie verarmt waren mithilfe der vorarrangierten Finanzhilfe aufwändige, große Hochzeiten veranstalten. Lediglich der Verlust

|| 84 IG XII 4, 348, Z. 7.: το̣ὶ̣ τῶν ἱερῶν κοινωνεῦντες. auch Z. 81, 87f. 85 IG XII 4, 348, Z. 146−149, Z. 51−55 86 IG XII 4, 348 Z. 104−108. 87 IG XII 4, 348, Z. 8−10; 23−25. Die männlichen Nachkommen des Diomedon werden auch τοὶ κατ᾿ ἀνδρογένειαν genannt, s. Z. 86f.; 154f. 88 IG XII 4, 348, Z. 20−23. 89 IG XII 4, 348, Z. 86−113. 90 Dies stellte eine sehr geringe Entschädigung dar. Die Diagraphe über Aphrodite Pontia erlaubt ein Schaf, das 30 Drachmen kostete, als Ehrengabe zu ersetzen durch die Zahlung von 15 Drachmen, s. IG XII 4, 319, Z. 5−9.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

Elite und Priestertümer im hellenistischen Kos | 297

des rechtlichen Bürgerstatus führte zum Ausschluss aus diesem privilegierten Kreis: Monatspriester (und selbstverständlich auch Priester) durften nur die über das volle Bürgerrecht verfügenden Nachkommen des Diomedon werden, die Söhne aus Mischehen (νόθοι) waren aber von allen Priestertümern ausgeschlossen.91 Die Stiftung des Diomedon steht also in einer vielfältigen Beziehung zum Elite-Status. Die Stiftung wurde offensichtlich durch das große Vermögen des Gründers Diomedon ermöglicht, der selbst auf eine Reihe von bekannten, wohlhabenden Vorfahren verweisen konnte. Das Priestertum und die anderen kultischen Ämter sollten das Privileg seiner männlichen Nachkommen bleiben, Kult und Priesteramt damit auch zum Erhalt des Ansehens und des hohen sozialen Status der Familie beitragen. Die Regelungen für spätere Nachkommen deuten aber auch auf die Angst des Gründers vor dem Verlust des Elite-Status hin. Während jedoch den verarmten Mitglieder für ihre Hochzeit eine finanzielle Hilfe gewährt und der Zugang zu den auch Einkünfte implizierenden Priestertümern offen gehalten wurde, führte der Verlust des Bürgerrechts zum Ausschluss, damit nicht nur zum Verlust von Prestige, sondern auch von finanziellen Vorteilen. Insgesamt lässt sich jedoch ein wachsendes Bedürfnis der koischen Elite, ihren hohen Status durch die Übernahme von Priestertümern dazustellen und zu bekräftigen, feststellen. Damit fallen diese Phänomene in eine relativ friedliche und in ökonomischer Hinsicht von Prosperität gekennzeichnete Periode, von der eben die koische Elite am stärksten profitiert haben muss.

Zusammenfassung Aus den vier unterschiedlichen Arten Priestertümer und kultische Ämter zu besetzen: Los, Wahl, Kauf, Vererbung, bot in Kos anscheinend allen Schichten der Gesellschaft nur das in den Demen verwendete Los zumindest die theoretische Möglichkeit, ein Priestertum zu erlangen. Die Wahl, die vornehmlich für die kultischen Ämter der Demos-Kulte praktiziert wurde, hat wegen der mit dem Amt verbundenen Kosten zur Dominanz der Elite geführt. Da diese Ämter auf ein Jahr begrenzt waren, traten häufig Schwierigkeiten bei ihrer Besetzung auf, die entweder durch die Opferbereitschaft der reichen Bürger oder – wie der vereinzelte Fall von Isthmos zeigt – durch den Verzicht des Volkes auf das

|| 91 IG XII 4, 348, Z. 144−149.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

298 | Péter Kató Recht der Ernennung der Amtsträger zugunsten der Benennung durch Mitglieder der Elite gelöst wurden. Der Verkauf der Priestertümer grenzte die Ärmeren grundsätzlich vom Kreis der potentiellen Priester aus. Im Falle der erblichen Priestertümer stellte der hohe Preis der Schenkungen eine Schwelle dar, die den Kreis der potentiellen Priester auf die Oberschicht reduzierte. Im Hinblick auf die Frage, ob es unter den Mitgliedern der koischen Elite Konkurrenz um Priestertümer und kultischen Ämter gab, lässt sich keine eindeutige Antwort formulieren. In den koischen Demen hat man offensichtlich versucht, die Priestertümer für möglichst breite Schichten zugänglich zu machen, und bei der Bestzung des Amtes der archeuontes hören wir sogar von Schwierigkeiten, einen geeigneten Kandidaten zu finden. Das Interesse der Oberschichten an den Demos-Priesterschaften hat sich anscheinend in Grenzen gehalten. Begehrter waren hingegen die Priestertümer der Stadt. Dass der Verkauf hier gerade bei den wichtigsten Kulten weit verbreitet war, lässt sich als Zeichen des starken Interesses der koischen Oberschicht an diesen Priestertümern verstehen. Das Vorhandensein der Familienpriestertümer deutet auch auf die Attraktivität der Priesterstellen hin. Das hohe Interesse der Elite lässt sich damit erklären, dass die mit den Priestertümern verbundenen Privilegien die Zugehörigkeit seines Inhabers zur Elite verdeutlichen konnten. Besonders deutlich wurde der Elite-Status beim Verkauf der Priestertümer, ein öffentliches Ereignis durch die Versteigerung. Die Erweiterung der möglichen Interessenten durch die Herabsetzung des Mindestalters bei bestimmten Priestertümern trug ebenfalls dazu bei, den Wohlstand einer ganzen Familie öffentlich zu machen. In der Stadt Kos, wo – zumindest in der späthellenistischen Zeit – die meisten Priestertümer der Stadt käuflich waren, bedeutete das Priester-Sein daher beinahe automatisch die Zugehörigkeit zur Elite. Zuwendungen aus dem privaten Vermögen vor dem Antritt der Priestertümer sind außer bei den käuflichen Priestertümern nur bei Gründungen von Familienpriestertümern belegt. Von den Kultgemeinden mit Ehrungen honorierte Schenkungen und andere besondere Verdienste, die von Ehrendekreten aus anderen Städten vielfach bezeugt werden, wurden anscheinend nur von den Amtsträgern der Demos-Kulte erbracht. Bei den käuflichen und den in den Familien vererbten Priestertümern waren die Priester offensichtlich weniger geneigt, ihr privates Vermögen einzusetzen, und die Gemeinden haben solche, falls sie dennoch erbracht wurden, nicht mit auf Inschriften aufgeschriebenen Ehrungen anerkannt. Einer der wichtigen Gründe für diesen Unterschied dürfte darin liegen, dass die Ehrungen u. a. die Funktion hatten, andere potentielle Wohltäter zu solchen Verdiensten zu motivieren: bei den lebenslang oder sogar

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

Elite und Priestertümer im hellenistischen Kos | 299

über mehrere Generationen hinweg bekleideten Priestertümern war dies nicht vonnöten. Diese Funktion war jedoch sehr wichtig beim Amt der archeuontes, das eine niedriger als die Priester gestellte Position darstellte, und mit chronischen Schwierigkeiten der Besetzung beladen war. Wohl nicht von ungefähr sind diese Amtsträger die einzigen unter den religiösen Funktionären des hellenistischen Kos, die mit Ehrendekreten ausgezeichnet wurden. Der Einfluss der spezifischen politischen Struktur des koischen Staates auf die Priestertümer lässt sich ebenfalls beobachten. Die größere Attraktivität der Priestertümer in der Stadt Kos dürfte sowohl an dem höheren ökonomischen Profit als auch am größeren Prestige der Stellen gelegen haben. Die Probleme in der Besetzung der kultischen Ämter in den Demen mag auch daran gelegen haben, dass die wohlhabenden Mitglieder der Demen lieber um Priestertümer in der Stadt warben, bzw. dorthin übersiedelten. Ein Hinweis auf dieses Phänomen liefert die Laufbahn des Diokles, Sohn des Alexandros, der nach der Ausführung des Amtes des archeuon im Kult des Herakles in seinem Heimatort Halasarna, die mit einem Ehrendekret honoriert wurde, in der Polis das prestigereiche und lebenslange Priestertum des Dionysos innehatte.92 Die Konzentration der Ressourcen und des Interesses der Oberschichten auf die Stadt Kos ist nicht ohne Parallele in weiteren koischen Quellen als den schon genannten Inschriften. Die Ehrendekrete der Demen für Ärzte bezeugen beispielsweise, dass die Ärzte zwar am Beginn ihrer Karrieren gerne in den Demen arbeiteten, später aber eine private oder staatliche Praxis in der Stadt Kos anstrebten.93 Die Ehrendekrete für Diokles und Theukles aus Halasarna während der Zeit des kretischen Krieges deuten darauf hin, dass die Stadt den ländlichen Gemeinden nicht genügend Aufmerksamkeit und Ressourcen für die Verteidigung widmen konnte oder wollte. Außerdem wäre es denkbar, dass die Einwohner der Demen von den Beamten der Stadt häufiger benachteiligt wurden.94 || 92 IG XII 4, 93. 93 Dies wird deutlich von der Laufbahn des Onasandros veranschaulicht, der zunächst Assistenz seines Lehrers Antipatros in Halasarna, und dann nach der Umsiedlung des Antipatros in Kos war, und schließlich eine eigene Praxis in der Stadt eröffnen konnte, s. sein von Halasarna beschlossenes Ehrendekret (Mitte 2. Jh.) IG XII 4, 109. Die Ehrung des Antipatros durch Halasarna s. 108. 94 Sowohl Diokles als auch Theukles, die beiden von Halasarna geehrten wichtigen Persönlichkeiten der koischen Politik haben dafür gesorgt, dass während des kretischen Krieges Resourcen für die Verteidigung des Demos gerichtet werden, s. insb. IG XII 4, 98, Z. 2−30, 99, Z. 20−26. Zur Benachteiligung der Demos-Mitglieder durch die Beamten der Stadt, s. 98, Z. 32−35: καθ᾿ ἰδίαν [τε τοῖς ἐντυγχάνο]υ̣σι τῶν δαμοτᾶν βοαθεῖ φροντίδα ποιεύμενος, οὐ [μόνον ὅπως ἐπίοντε]ς̣ τοῖς ἀρχήιοις ἐς μηθὲν δυσχερὲς ἐμπίπτωντ[ι ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅπως μη]θ̣ένος καθυστερῶντι κατὰ δύναμιν τὰν αὑτοῦ.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

300 | Péter Kató Die erhaltenen Quellen ermöglichen es auch, die zugegebenermaßen groben Tendenzen einer historischen Entwicklung aufzuzeigen. Die Zeugnisse aus den Demen über die Priester und die archeuontes weisen einen deutlichen Schwerpunkt im 3. und im frühen 2. Jh. auf. Damit spiegeln sie sowohl Schwierigkeiten bei der Besetzung der kultischen Ämter und als auch den Einsatz der lokalen Oberschicht für ihre Lösung wider. Insgesamt sprechen diese Inschriften für ein starkes Interesse der Gemeinden an ihren Priestertümer und ihren eigenen lokalen Kulten. Der Schwerpunkt der inschriftlichen Quellen über die Priestertümer verlagert sich in späthellenistischer Zeit dann aber eindeutig in die Stadt Kos. Hier sind es vermehrt Diagraphai über den Verkauf der Priestertümer und die Regelungen über die Familienkulte, die die Monopolisierung der Priestertümer durch die städtische Elite verdeutlichen. Diese Ämter trugen darüber hinaus auch zur Stärkung der Präsenz der Elitenmitglieder in der Öffentlichkeit bei. Diese Entwicklung weist parallele Züge mit dem in der späthellenistischen Zeit an vielen Orten beobachteten Aufstieg der lokalen Eliten auf. Die Gründe hierfür lagen in Kos allerdings nicht im Rückgang des königlichen Euergetismus, den Gauthier insbesondere mit Blick auf westkleinasiatische Städte postuliert hat. Vielmehr gab es offensichtlich einen allgemeinen Aufschwung der koischen Wirtschaft und des Handels in den Friedenszeiten, die dank der Ausweitung des römischen Einflusses möglich waren. Diese Umstände dürften zur Stärkung der Stellung der koischen Elite beigetragen haben. Ein wesentlicher Unterschied zu anderen hellenistischen Städten besteht jedoch darin, dass in der Stadt Kos nicht der Euergetismus an sich den wichtigsten Mechanismus für den Aufstieg der Eliten darstellte, und dementsprechend seinen Niederschlag auch nicht in den für die Zeit typischen großen Ehrendekreten für die Wohltäter fand.95 Anstelle von Wohltaten im innenpolitischen Bereich investierte die koische Elite vielmehr in die lebenslange Bekleidung von Priestertümern der Stadt.

|| 95 Die Mehrzahl der späthellenistischen Ehrendekrete, die koische Bürger lobten, wurden nicht von der Polis Kos, sondern von auswärtigen Städten verabschiedet.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

Elite und Priestertümer im hellenistischen Kos | 301

Literatur Bosnakis, D., Hallof, K. (2005). „Alte und neue Inschriften aus Kos, II.“ Chiron 35: 219−272. Bresson, A., Descat, R. (Hg.) (2001). Les cités d’Asie Mineure occidentale au IIe siècle a. C. Paris. Ceccarelli, P. (1995). „La dithyrambe et la pyrrhique. À propos de la nouvelle liste de vainqueurs aux Dionysies de Cos (Segre, ED 234).“ ZPE 108 : 287−305. Chaniotis, A. (2007). „Religion und Mythos.“ In: Weber, G. (Hg.): Kulturgeschichte des Hellenismus. Von Alexander dem Großen bis Kleopatra. Stuttgart. 139−157. ― (2008). „Priests as Ritual Experts in the Greek World.“ In: Dignas, B., Trampedach, K. (Hg.): Practitioners of the Divine: Greek priests and religious officials from Homer to Heliodorus. Washington. 17−34. Dignas, B. (2002). Economy of the Sacred in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor. Oxford. ― (2003a). „Rhodian Priests after the Synoecism.“ AncSoc 33: 35−51. ― (2003b). „,Auf seine Kosten kommen‘ – ein Kriterium für Priester? Zum Verkauf von Priestertümern im hellenistischen Kleinasien.“ In: Heedemann, H., Winter, E. (Hg.): Neue Forschungen zur Religionsgeschichte Kleinasiens. Elmar Schwertheim zum 60. Geburtstag gewidmet. (Asia Minor Studien 49). Bonn. 27−40. ― (2006): „Benefitting benefactors: Greek priests and euergetism.“ AC 75: 71−84. Gauthier, Ph. (1985): Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs. Paris. Habicht, Ch. (2006): „Versäumter Gottesdienst.“ Historia 55/2: 153−166. Hamon, P. (2007): „Élites dirigeantes et processus d’aristocratisation à l’époque hellénistique.“ In: Fernoux, H.-L., Stein, Chr. (Hg.): Aristocratie antique: modèles et exemplarité sociale. Actes de la Journée d’étude de Dijon, 25 novembre 2005. Dijon . 77−98. Kokkorou-Alevras, G. (2004a): „New Epigraphical Evidence on the Cults of Ancient Halasarna in Cos.“ In: Höghammar, K. (Hg.): The Hellenistic polis of Kos: State, Economy and Culture. Proceedings of an International Seminar organized by the Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University, 111-13 May 2000. Uppsala. 119−127. ― (2004b): Ἁλάσαρνα Ι. Οἱ ἐπίγραφες. Athen. Malacrino, C. G. (2006): „Il santuario die Eracle Kallinikos epi limeni e lo sviluppo del porto di Kos in età ellenistica.“ Numismatica e antichità classiche 35: 181−219. Migeotte, L. (1992): Les souscriptions publiques dans les cités grecques. Genève. Parker, R. – Obbink, D. (2000): „Aus der Arbeit der «Inscriptiones Graecae» VI. Sales of Priesthoods on Cos I.“ Chiron 30: 415−449. ― (2001): „Aus der Arbeit der «Inscriptiones Graecae» VI. Sales of Priesthoods on Cos II.“ Chiron 31: 229−252. Senseney, J. R. (2007): „Idea and Visuality in Hellenistic Architecture. A Geometric Analysis of the Temple A of the Asklepieion at Kos.“ Hesperia 76: 555−595. Paul, St. (2010): „À propos d’épiclèses «trans-divines»: le cas de Zeus et d’Athéna à Cos.“ ARG 12: 65−81. Sherwin-White, S. (1978): Ancient Cos: An historical study from the Dorian settlement to the Imperial period. Göttingen. Robert, L. (1935). „Notes d’épigraphie hellénistique.“ BCH 59: 421−437. Van Bremen, R. (1996). The Limits of Participation. Women and civic life in the Greek East in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Amsterdam. Wiemer, H.-U. (2003). „Käufliche Priestertümer im hellenistischen Kos.“ Chiron 3: 263−310.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

Anja Klöckner

Dienerinnen der Demeter? Zu einer Gruppe von Grabreliefs aus Smyrna* Abstract: Grave monuments that can be securely assigned to religious functionaries are extremely rare in the Greek East. This can be explained by the differing regulations for setting up statues in civic and sacred space, on the one hand, and for furnishing cemetery areas, on the other. Against this background, the production of grave reliefs in Smyrna stands out notably. Here in the late Hellenistic period there is an exceptional frequency of stelai for women which show attributes from the cult of Demeter and on which the persons represented are characterised by unusual clothing and body language. A detailed analysis of these reliefs reveals that these are not grave monuments of priestesses but that, rather, the images may allude to the deceased’s membership in a cult association. The distinction that these images aim to win is thus not achieved by reference to a certain cultic office but by reference to cultic activities in general. However, the grave reliefs of these women do not stand entirely under the sign of these cults. They also draw, to different degrees of intensity, on the otherwise usual repertoire of images. It is telling that it is the role model of wife which supplements that of the actor in cult, and in part even overrides it. Für die bürgerliche Repräsentation in den hellenistischen Poleis besitzt der Bereich von Kult und Religion eine große Bedeutung. Dies wurde für die Heiligtümer und die öffentlichen Platzanlagen bereits umfassend beleuchtet. Gerade die Beiträge des vorliegenden Bandes zeigen, dass dabei jedoch der Stellenwert von Kult- und Priesterämtern durchaus differenziert zu sehen ist. Ein anderer Teil des öffentlichen Raumes fand in diesem Zusammenhang bislang weniger Berücksichtigung: die Nekropolen. Dieser Beitrag wird sich deswegen auf die Grabdenkmäler konzentrieren und sich am Beispiel der Grabreliefs aus dem griechischen Osten der Frage widmen, ob und inwieweit in der Sepulchralkultur religiöse Ämter und der visuelle Verweis darauf zum Distinktionsgewinn benutzt werden. In den Poleis des griechischen Ostens stellte ein beträchtlicher Teil der in den Heiligtümern und auf den Agorai aufgestellten Statuen Personen dar, die

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

304 | Anja Klöckner

Priesterämter innehatten1. Gesicherte Grabdenkmäler von religiösen Funktionsträgern sind dagegen wesentlich seltener. Nur wenige Inschriften kennzeichnen die Verstorbenen als Inhaber religiöser Ämter2. Noch spärlicher sind entsprechende Bildzeugnisse. Für spezifische ikonographische Elemente wie Opfermesser und Tempelschlüssel, die in Attika seit klassischer Zeit bezeugt sind3, gibt es auf den ägäischen Inseln und in Kleinasien bislang keine Belege. So wird die Demeterpriesterin Aischra auf einer Grabstele des zweiten Jahrhunderts v. Chr. von der milesischen Insel Lepsia ganz konventionell als bürgerliche Ehefrau wiedergegeben. In der üblichen Kleidung, Chiton und Himation, steht sie ihrem sitzenden Mann gegenüber und vollzieht mit ihm die dexiosis. Dies entspricht in jeder Hinsicht den gängigen Standards für Paardarstellungen. Würde die Inschrift Aischra nicht als θυηπόλον με Δάματρος κλυτάν bezeichnen, besäßen wir keinerlei Hinweise darauf, dass sie ein Kultamt ausgeübt hatte4.

|| * Den Teilnehmern des Kolloquiums, besonders Derk von Moock und Ralf von den Hoff, danke ich für rege Diskussion und vielfältige Anregungen. Für Hinweise, Unterstützung und Überlassung von Photos bedanke ich mich bei Vasiliki Barlou, Hans Rupprecht Goette, Laurent Gorgerat, Eric Keiner, Johannes Laurentius, David Saunders, Reinhard Senff und Mischa Steidl. Die im Text und in den Fußnoten zu den Reliefs angegebenen Nummern beziehen sich auf die Denkmälerliste im Anhang. 1 So weist z. B. Eule 2001: 125 darauf hin, dass ein Viertel der von ihr behandelten Ehrenstatuen einer Frau galt, die als Priesterin tätig gewesen war. Das Kultamt muss dabei keineswegs ausschlaggebend für die Statuenaufstellung gewesen sein, s. hierzu den Beitrag von Joannis Mylonopoulos in diesem Band. 2 Eine Grabinschrift des 1. Jhs. v. Chr. aus Notion nennt einen gewissen Gorgos, τὸν Κλαρίου τριπόδων Λητοΐδεω θέραπα, s. Peek 1955: 203 Nr. 764; Peek 1960: 96−97 Nr. 134; Merkelbach − Stauber 1998: 03/05/02. Eine milesische Basis des 3./2. Jhs. v. Chr. rühmt Alkmeionis, τὴν ὁσίην ἱρείην, die den Zug der Bakchen angeführt habe, s. Peek 1955: 401 Nr. 1344; Peek 1960: 124−5 Nr. 178; Merkelbach − Stauber 1998: 01/20/21. Aus Smyrna stammt ein Grabepigramm für Dionysios, Βάκχου κυδίστοιο νεωκόρον, s. I. Smyrna 515; Merkelbach − Stauber 1998: 05/01/38. Aus Mylasa stammt eine Grabinschrift für Aba, ἱέρεια Δήμητρος εὐσεβής, s. I. Mylasa 426. Vgl. Vérilhac 1985; Breuer 1995. Vgl. auch die Epigramme Anth. Graec. 7.728 und 7.733. Die öffentlichen Begräbnisse für Frauen, die Priesterämter innehatten (Connelly 2007: 224), können in diesem Zusammenhang nicht herangezogen werden. Die Verstorbenen erhalten diese außerordentlichen Ehrungen, weil sie sich in mehrfacher Hinsicht für die Polis verdient gemacht hatten; dass sie Priesterinnen waren, ist dabei nur ein Punkt unter anderen. 3 Zur Ikonographie von Priesterinnen und Priestern Mantis 1990; Pirenne-Delforge, Georgoudi 2005; Connelly 2007. 4 Merkelbach – Stauber 1998: 01/22/01 m. Abb.; Schipporeit 2013: 134−135 R 1 (mit weiterer Literatur). Ein Grabrelief, das eine Priesterin bei einer Kulthandlung zeigt, stammt aus Beroia und kann deswegen in unserem Zusammenhang nur als Vergleich angeführt werden. Auf der Grabstele der ἱερία Nike aus dem 2. Jh. Chr. wird sie zusammen mit ihrem Mann Strenos, der

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Dienerinnen der Demeter? Zu einer Gruppe von Grabreliefs aus Smyrna | 305

Eine Ausnahme hiervon bildet der communis opinio zufolge lediglich Smyrna. Aus dieser Stadt beziehungsweise aus ihrer Umgebung stammt eine Gruppe von mindestens 17 Stelen, die als Grabdenkmäler von Demeterpriesterinnen gelten, die für ihre Amtsausübung vom Demos geehrt wurden (Nr. 1−17 Abb. 1−15). Eindeutige Priesterinnenattribute fehlen allerdings und in den Inschriften werden auch keine Ämter genannt5. Sofern es sich bei den Frauen, für die diese Denkmäler errichtet wurden, tatsächlich um Priesterinnen handelt, hätten wir einen ganz außerordentlichen Befund vor uns. Aus Smyrna sind insgesamt rund 140 Grabreliefs erhalten6. Damit machen die Vertreter dieser Gruppe mehr als 10 Prozent des überlieferten Gesamtbestandes aus. In der hellenistischen Grabkultur, in der Bezüge auf Kultämter sowohl in den Inschriften als auch in den Bildern ausgesprochen selten sind, gibt es nichts Vergleichbares. Hatte man also in Smyrna ein besonderes Bedürfnis, Frauen als Inhaberinnen von Priesterämtern zu memorieren – ein Bedürfnis, das es anderswo nicht gab oder das man nicht im Medium der Grabreliefs zum Ausdruck brachte? Dies ist erklärungsbedürftig, auch wenn es angesichts der stark regional geprägten Bildsprache der hellenistischen Grabreliefs in den einzelnen || ebenfalls ein Priesteramt innehatte, im oberen Register bei der Libation am Altar dargestellt, s. Bielman Sánchez 2006: 362 Nr. 9 Taf. 28, 4. 5 Zu der Gruppe s. u.a. Walter 1922−24: 248−9; Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: 136−138; Schmaltz 1983, 134−6. 230−2; Känel 1989: 54; Mantis 1990: 99−101; Schmidt 1991: 14−5. 138 mit Tabelle II; Zanker 1993: 226; Ridgway 2000: 194; Stemmer 1995: 65−66; Eule 2001: 143−4; Bielman Sánchez 2006: 359−361; Rumscheid 2006: 244−5; Connelly 2007: 246−253; Puddu 2007; Laugier 2009; Schipporeit 2013: 196. 198 R 2−15. Skeptisch hinsichtlich der Interpretation der Dargestellten als Demeterpriesterinnen Wrede 1981: 27; Mantis 1990: 100; Filges 1997: 195 mit Anm. 933−4; Reinsberg 2005: 305−6. Nicht zugänglich war mir die unpublizierte Habilitationsschrift von A. Yaylalɪ, Hellenistik Devir Izmir Kökenli Figürlü Mezarstelleri (Erzurum 1979). Zu den einzelnen Reliefs s. die Denkmälerliste im Anhang (Nr. 1−17). Vgl. auch ein angeblich aus Mylasa stammendes Fragment in Izmir, Archäologisches Museum (ehemals Basmahane Museum) Inv. Nr. 122 (Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: 145 Nr. 438 Taf. 73). Erhalten sind die Beine einer frontal stehenden Frau von der Mitte der Oberschenkel abwärts, die zu beiden Seiten von einer Dienerin gerahmt wird. Haltung und Gewanddrapierung zeigen große Übereinstimmungen mit den Reliefs Nr. 3. 11. 13. 14. Attribute sind allerdings nicht erhalten und auch die Armhaltung ist nicht zu erschließen. Die Dienerin am rechten Bildrand hält kein Gefäß, Reste einer Fackel sind auf dem Bruchstück nicht zu erkennen. Die Zuweisung zu unserer Gruppe ist deswegen nicht gesichert. Wie eine Stele auf dem Grinzinger Friedhof in Wien (Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: 160 Nr. 524 Taf. 80; Zanker 1993: 226−7 Abb. 26) zeigt, wurde der Figurentypus auf kleinasiatischen Grabreliefs auch für Darstellungen verwendet, die ansonsten keinerlei ikonographische Bezüge zum Demeterkult aufweisen. 6 Die Grundlage der Zählung bilden die bei Pfuhl – Möbius 1977 publizierten Stücke, s. Zanker 1993: 13. Selbst wenn man bei den Reliefs unserer Gruppe die nach 1977 bekanntgewordenen Beispiele herausrechnet, ändert sich das Zahlenverhältnis nicht wesentlich.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

306 | Anja Klöckner

Poleis immer wieder zu spezifischen Medialisierungen grundsätzlich ähnlicher Werte beziehungsweise zu Akzentverschiebungen innerhalb eines allgemein als verbindlich akzeptierten Kanons kam7. Bevor wir diesen Fragen nachgehen, wird zunächst die bislang schon oft besprochene, aber noch nicht systematisch untersuchte Gruppe genauer vorgestellt. Die Bildfelder der Stelen zeigen stehende Frauen in charakteristischer Tracht und Haltung sowie mit spezifischen Attributen. Die vollständig erhaltenen Reliefs tragen meist eine Namensinschrift; über dem Bildfeld ist der für Smyrna typische Kranz mit Demosinschrift angebracht. Die Darstellungen der vermeintlichen Demeterpriesterinnen stimmen untereinander jeweils eng überein. Von den anderen geradezu statuenhaft stilisierten Frauendarstellungen auf den smyrnäischen Grabreliefs setzen sie sich in Körperhaltung und Gewanddrapierung deutlich ab. Erstere folgen meist dem sogenannten Pudicitiatypus8. Sie sind fest in ihr Himation eingehüllt und halten die Arme eng am Körper, ihre ganze Haltung ist in sich geschlossen. Im Kontrast dazu steht die raumgreifende Haltung der Frauen unserer Gruppe. Ihre Hände verschwinden nicht unter dem Mantelstoff und mit ihrer Rechten vollziehen sie eine ausholende Geste. Das Relief in Ketteringham Hall (Nr. 6 Abb. 15), auf dem beide Typen vorkommen, zeigt dies besonders deutlich. Während die Vertreterin des Pudicitiatypus in züchtiger, geschlossener Haltung dargestellt ist, greift die sogenannte Demeterpriesterin weit zur Seite aus. Auffällig ist die charakteristische Tracht, die aus mindestens zwei Gewändern besteht. Das stoffreiche Himation ist vor dem Leib dreiecksförmig drapiert, von der rechten Taille zum linken Unterarm verläuft ein in sich gedrehter Stoffwulst. Der Hinterkopf ist stets verhüllt, entweder wie üblich durch den hochgezogenen Himationsaum oder aber durch ein spezielles Tuch, eine Art dünner Schleier, der die Kalotte weitgehend freilässt9. In ihrer linken Hand halten die Frauen Mohnstängel mit großen Kapseln, zum Teil auch Getreideähren. Diese Attribute kommen ansonsten auf den Grabreliefs höchst selten vor10.

|| 7 Hierzu z. B. Schmidt 1991; Zanker 1993; Fabricius 1999. 8 Zum Pudicitiatypus Schmidt 1991: 12−14; Zanker 1993, 222−227; Eule 2001: 15−25; Dillon 2010. 9 Himationsaum: Nr. 1. 7. Schleier: Nr. 2−4. 6 (?). 8−11. 13. 16. Die Zeichnung des verschollenen, ehemals in Marseille befindlichen Reliefs Nr. 12 zeigt keine Kopfbedeckung, was aber angesichts der summarischen Ausführung nicht überbewertet werden sollte. 10 Mohnstängel: Nr. 2−4. 7. 11−12. Mohnstängel und Ähren: Nr. 6. 9−10. 14. Ähre ohne Mohn: Nr. 8. 13. Kein Attribut: Nr. 1. Wegen Beschädigung nicht mehr zu bestimmen: Nr. 5. 16. Einen Strauß aus Mohn oder Ähren hält auch eine Sitzende auf einem späthellenistisch-frühkaiser-

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Dienerinnen der Demeter? Zu einer Gruppe von Grabreliefs aus Smyrna | 307

Die Frauen werden fast immer von einer kleinen Dienerin begleitet, die mit ausgreifender Bewegung das Unterteil einer großen, brennenden Fackel umfängt. Häufig ist noch eine zweite Dienerin an ihrer Seite, die dem Betrachter ein Gefäß präsentiert11. Dienerinnenfiguren an sich gehören zum ikonographischen Standardrepertoire der smyrnäischen Stelen12. Sehr ungewöhnlich sind in diesem Kontext dagegen die beiden von ihnen gehaltenen Gegenstände, worauf unten noch näher eingegangen wird.

Aufstellungskontexte Sofern die Stücke nicht in Smyrna und Umgebung gefunden wurden, erfolgt die Zuschreibung aufgrund typologischer und stilistischer Kriterien. Angesichts der formal sehr einheitlichen Grabreliefproduktion dieser Polis ist dies gut zu begründen13. Die genauen Fundumstände sind für keines der Reliefs zu ermitteln. Wir wissen demzufolge nichts über die ursprünglichen Aufstellungsorte und kontexte14. Da über die Nekropolen der heute komplett überbauten antiken Stadt kaum etwas bekannt ist, sind auch die Funktionszusammenhänge der Reliefs nicht mehr zu rekonstruieren. Anscheinend gab es Familiengrabbezirke, in denen mehrere Verstorbene bestattet werden konnten. Bei etlichen Stelen ist noch zu erkennen, dass sie zum Einlassen in eine Basis zugerichtet waren. Die

|| zeitlichen Grabrelief in Pesaro, s. Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: 232 Nr. 896 Taf. 133. Auf dem Grabrelief des Archippos hält der Diener am rechten Bildrand zwei dünne Gebilde, bei denen es sich um Ähren oder Zweige handeln könnte: Pfuhl – Möbius 88 Nr. 149 Taf. 33; Pfanner 1989: 181 Abb. 6; Schmidt 1990: 138 Anm. 615. 11 Zwei Dienerinnen: Nr. 1−4. 6. 9−10. 12. 14. Eine Dienerin: Nr. 7−8. 13. 16. Die fackelhaltende Dienerin fehlt nur auf Nr. 7. Dienerin mit Gefäß: Nr. 1−4. 9−10. 12. 14. Dienerin mit Pyxis: Nr. 7. Auf dem Relief Nr. 6 hält die Dienerin am linken Bildrand einen blattförmigen Fächer. Sie ist jedoch nicht der Frau mit dem Mohnstängel am rechten Bildrand, sondern der direkt neben ihr Stehenden im Pudicitiatypus zuzuordnen. 12 Zu diesem Standard gehört auch der deutliche Größenunterschied zwischen Herrin und Dienerin. Die Annahme, hierdurch solle die göttinnengleiche Erscheinung der vermeintlichen Priesterinnen betont werden (Ridgway 2000: 194), ist deswegen nicht haltbar. 13 Aus Smyrna und Umgebung: Nr. 2−5. 8. 13−14. 16. Fundort unbekannt, Herkunft aus Smyrna anzunehmen: Nr. 1. 6−7. 9−12. 15. Aus Notion: Nr. 17. 14 Zur topographischen Einordnung der Fundorte s. I. Smyrna I Karte 1−2. Das Relief in Berlin (Nr. 2) wurde z. B. vor dem östlichen Stadttor gefunden, wo Bestattungen nachgewiesen sind; Nr. 14 stammt vom Pagos, in dessen Süden ebenfalls Bestattungen gefunden wurden. Zur Lage der Nekropolen Cadoux 1938: 175; Laugier 2009. Zur problematischen Kontextualisierung hellenistischer Grabreliefs im Allgemeinen Pfanner 1989: 183−196.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

308 | Anja Klöckner

auf diese Weise zusammengesetzten Grabdenkmäler waren dann unter Umständen noch um einiges höher als die Reliefs selbst. Außerdem könnten sie auch in oder an größeren Grabbauten angebracht gewesen sein15.

Formen und Formate Bei dem überwiegenden Teil der fraglichen Reliefs handelt es sich um Schaftstelen mit eingetieftem Bildfeld und Giebel16. Fünf Exemplare sind der Gruppe der Naiskosstelen zuzuordnen, bei denen die Bildzone von korinthischen Säulen beziehungsweise Pfeilern gerahmt wird17. Die Maße der Reliefs reichen von mindestens 60 cm bis zu 170 cm in der Höhe und von 40 cm bis über 70 cm in der Breite. Das Gros der Stücke misst über 90 cm in der Höhe und 50 cm in der Breite, was im Vergleich zu den anderen Grabreliefs aus Smyrna im oberen Durchschnitt liegt. Die größten Exemplare gehören sogar zu den größten Reliefs aus Smyrna überhaupt; das Gleiche gilt auch in qualitativer Hinsicht. Die Aufstellung der meisten Stelen unserer Gruppe war also mit einem beachtlichem materiellen Aufwand verbunden18. Dies ist für den Stellenwert der Denkmäler innerhalb der smyrnäischen Grabreliefproduktion durchaus relevant, auch wenn sich Größe und Qualität eines Objektes nicht eins zu eins mit der sozialen Stellung seines Auftraggebers korrelieren lassen.

|| 15 Känel 1989: 52−53; Pfanner 1989: 194−5. Zur Aufstellung hellenistischer Grabreliefs s.a. Fabricius 1999. 16 Nr. 1. 3−4. 7−10. Oben unvollständig, ursprünglich wohl mit Giebel: Nr. 11. 14. Giebel?: Nr. 6 (eingemauert). 17 Säulen: Nr. 2. 5. 16. Pfeiler: Nr. 12−13 (oben jeweils unvollständig). 18 Breite Ca. 40 cm: Nr. 3−4. 6−7. 11. Ca. 50 cm: Nr. 1. 9−10. Ca. 60 cm: Nr. 8. 14. Ca. 70 cm: Nr. 2. 13. Von Nr. 5 ist nur die rechte untere Ecke erhalten. Das Relief wird ehemals deutlich breiter gewesen sein als das immerhin noch 48 cm messende Fragment. Höhe Mindestens 60 cm: Nr. 6 (falls das eingemauerte Relief einen Giebel hatte, wäre es deutlich höher als 60 cm gewesen). Ca. 80 cm: Nr. 7. Ca. 90 cm: Nr. 1. 4. Mehr als 90 cm: Nr. 11. Ca. 100 cm: Nr. 9−10. Ca. 110 cm: Nr. 3. Mindestens 150 cm: Nr. 2. 8. 13. Ca. 170 cm: Nr. 16. Nur unvollständig erhalten, aber ehemals deutlich größer als 90 cm: Nr. 14. Deutlich größer als 110 cm: Nr. 5. Grabreliefs, die in der Höhe mehr als 150 cm messen, sind in Smyrna ansonsten selten, s. Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: 91 Nr. 158 Taf. 35. 144−5 Nr. 435 Taf. 72. 235 Nr. 907 Taf. 136. Zu der Spannbreite in Größe und Qualität s.a. Zanker 1993: 226. 228.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Dienerinnen der Demeter? Zu einer Gruppe von Grabreliefs aus Smyrna | 309

Zeitliche Abfolge Die Datierung der Reliefs ist nur durch eine stilistische Einordnung möglich, außerstilistische Anhaltspunkte liegen bislang nicht vor. Die Laufzeit der Reliefs reicht von der Mitte des zweiten bis zum Beginn des ersten Jahrhunderts v. Chr.19 Wir besitzen also aus einem Zeitraum von 50−75 Jahren insgesamt 17 Reliefs. Wenn wir annehmen, dass damit der komplette ehemalige Bestand überliefert ist, wäre in Smyrna alle drei bis vier Jahre ein solches Relief aufgestellt worden. Da aber davon auszugehen ist, dass der ursprüngliche Bestand wesentlich größer war, müssen die Abstände deutlich enger gewesen sein. Falls die Stelen für Priesterinnen errichtet wurden, ließe sich dieses gehäufte Auftreten innerhalb einer begrenzten Zeitspanne nur damit erklären, dass sie entweder Jahresämter ausgeübt hatten, dass sie innerhalb verschiedener Demeterkulte tätig waren oder dass sie innerhalb eines Kultes unterschiedliche Ämter auf verschiedenen Funktionsebenen ausgeübt hatten. Folgt man der gängigen Erklärung, wonach die Verstorbenen für ihre Amtsausübung vom Demos geehrt wurden, dann müssen sie Priesterinnen in einem von der Polis getragenen Kult gewesen sein. In Smyrna wurde Demeter als Thesmophoros τῆς μεγάλης θεᾶς πρὸ πόλεως verehrt20. In diesem Kult amtierten die Priesterinnen lebenslang21. Gehen wir von den geschilderten Prämissen aus, hätte ihre Restlebenszeit nach Amtsantritt im Durchschnitt nur noch eine kurze Spanne betragen. Dies ist recht unwahrscheinlich, selbst wenn lange Amtszeiten wie die der 64 Jahre lang tätigen Lysimache, der berühmten Priesterin der Athena Polias in Athen, sicher eine absolute Ausnahme darstellten. Für die Erklärung, mit den Darstellungen könnten Inhaberinnen unterschiedlicher Kultämter gemeint sein, also ‚Priesterinnen‘ im Sinne eines allgemein verwendeten Oberbegriffs, spricht ebenfalls wenig, da, wie noch zu zeigen sein wird, die Bilder keine Hinweise auf Hierarchisierungen geben und die durchaus zu beobachtenden Differenzierungen gerade nicht die Auswahl der sakral konno-

|| 19 Kurz nach 150 v. Chr.: Nr. 13. Um die Mitte des 2. Jhs. v. Chr.: Nr. 10. Zweite Hälfte des 2. Jhs. v. Chr.: Nr. 9. Drittel Viertel des 2. Jhs. v. Chr.: 3−4. 6. 8. 11. 14. Letztes Drittel des 2. Jhs. v. Chr.: Nr. 1−2. 16. Ende des 2. / Anfang des 1. Jhs. v. Chr.: Nr. 5. 7. Auf den engen zeitlichen Rahmen der Reliefs weisen bereits Mantis 1990: 100; Filges 1997: 195 Anm. 933; Schipporeit 2013: 196 hin. 20 Zum Demeterkult in Smyrna Schipporeit 2013: 193−202. Zum Kult der Thesmophoros τῆς μεγάλης θεᾶς πρὸ πόλεως ebenda 193−8. 21 Dies geht aus einer heute verschollenen, aber in Abschrift erhaltenen kaiserzeitlichen Inschrift hervor, s. I. Smyrna 727.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

310 | Anja Klöckner

tierten ikonographischen Elemente, sondern deren Einbindung in den Darstellungskontext betreffen.

Bildanalyse Figurenkonstellationen Auf gut der Hälfte der Reliefs sind die Frauen, abgesehen von ihren Dienerinnen, allein wiedergegeben, auf der anderen Hälfte werden sie zusammen mit einem sitzenden oder stehenden Mann und in einem Fall mit einer weiteren stehenden Frau dargestellt22. Diese Figurenkonstellationen haben maßgeblichen Einfluss auf die Zahl der Dienerinnen und damit auf die im Relief wiedergegebenen Attribute. Gilt die Stele der Frau allein, wird sie stets von zwei Dienerinnen begleitet23. Bei den für zwei Personen errichteten Reliefs wird die zweite Dienerfigur hingegen fast immer dieser anderen Person zugeordnet. Die Frau behält in diesen Fällen nur eine Dienerin24. Die Wahl fällt dann meist auf diejenige, die die bildprägende gewaltige Fackel hält; die Dienerin mit der kleinen Kanne ist im Zweifelsfall eher entbehrlich25. Sofern es sich bei der zweiten Person um einen Mann handelt, ist die ihm zugeordnete Dienerfigur stets als Knabe charakterisiert. Bei dem einzigen Beispiel mit zwei Frauen, dem Relief in Ketteringham Hall (Nr. 6 Abb. 15), bleibt es zwar bei zwei Mädchen, aber diese sind jeweils einer der beiden Hauptpersonen als eigene, auf sie bezogene Dienerin

|| 22 Allein: Nr. 2−4. 9−10. 12. 14. Zusammen mit einem sitzenden Mann: Nr. 1. 7. 11. 16. Zusammen mit einem stehenden Mann: Nr. 8. 13. Zusammen mit einer stehenden Frau: Nr. 6. 23 Hierzu s.o. Anm. 11. Aus diesem Grund liegt es nahe, dass das Fragment aus dem sogenannten Dianabad (Nr. 5) ursprünglich für zwei Personen gefertigt wurde. Die Frau steht hier direkt neben dem rechten Bildrand, ihr folgt eine Dienerin mit Fackel. Wäre auf dem Relief noch eine zweite Dienerin dargestellt gewesen, müsste sie zwischen der Frau und dem rechten Bildrand stehen. 24 Hierzu s.o. Anm. 11. Eine Ausnahme bildet lediglich das Relief in Basel (Nr. 1), bei dem sowohl zwei die Frau umgebende Dienerinnen als auch ein dem sitzenden Mann zugeordneter Diener wiedergegeben sind. Auf dem Relief in Winchester (Nr. 11) ist keine Dienerin mehr erhalten. Wahrscheinlich war hier ehemals nur eine Fackelhalterin am linken Bildrand zu sehen. Wäre noch eine zweite Dienerin dargestellt gewesen, müsste sie zwischen der stehenden Frau und dem sitzenden Mann stehen. 25 Auf dem Grabrelief der Metrion in London (Nr. 7) fehlt zwar die Fackelhalterin, aber die Dienerin hält hier auch kein Gefäß, sondern eine Pyxis.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Dienerinnen der Demeter? Zu einer Gruppe von Grabreliefs aus Smyrna | 311

zur Seite gestellt26. Die Dienerinnen bilden auf den Reliefs unserer Gruppe also kein festes Set, sondern sind je nach Figurenkonstellation austauschbar.

Figurenschema Obwohl sich das Figurenschema auf allen Reliefs wiederholt, gibt es im Einzelnen durchaus Unterschiede27. Eng zusammen schließen sich vier Reliefs, bei denen die linke, zur Körpermitte weisende Hand von dem dicken Stoffwulst des Himations wie eingeschnürt wirkt28. Gegenläufig, vom rechten Standbeinknie zur linken Hüfte, verläuft ein flacherer Faltenzug. Er gibt den Blick frei auf eine weitere Lage Stoff mit einer auffallenden Einkerbung über dem linken Knie, die wohl nicht zum mehrfach gefalteten Himation, sondern zum Kolpos eines darunter liegenden Gewandes gehört. Ob unter dem Himation ein oder zwei Gewänder liegen, ist nicht mehr eindeutig auszumachen. Es hat allerdings den Anschein, als würde über einem Chiton mit Knüpfärmeln ein weiteres, unter der Brust gegürtetes Kleidungsstück getragen, zu dem auch der von der rechten Schulter bis unter die linke Brust verlaufende Faltenstrang gehört. Ein Relief in London (Nr. 7 Abb. 11) setzt sich von den vier besprochenen Stelen dadurch ab, dass hier der charakteristische Himationwulst unter der linken Hand hindurch geführt wird. Dafür ist bei diesem Beispiel deutlich zu erkennen, dass außer dem Himation zwei weitere Gewänder getragen werden. Vom Halsausschnitt des Ärmelchitons klar abgesetzt ist der Saum des zweiten Kleidungsstückes, das in zwei schmalen Trägern auf den Schultern ausläuft. Dies betrifft jedoch nicht alle Exemplare unserer Gruppe. Ein Relief in Berlin (Nr. 2 Abb. 1) zeigt das gleiche Dreiecksmotiv vor der Hüfte, allerdings liegt hier das Himation in einem Bausch auf der linken Schulter auf. In diesem Fall wird unter dem Mantel eindeutig nur ein Chiton getragen. Im Unterschied zu allen anderen Beispielen handelt es sich hier allerdings um einen Chiton mit langen, bis zu den Handgelenken reichenden Ärmeln. Es fällt auf, dass dieses Relief auch das einzige ist, bei der die Dargestellte deutliche Alterszüge aufweist. Bei sieben weiteren Stelen weist die attributhaltende linke Hand vom Körper weg29. Stand- und Spielbein sind gegenüber den bereits besprochenen Reli|| 26 Hierzu s.o. Anm. 11. 27 Vgl. Schmidt 1991: 14−15; Schmaltz 1993: 230−2; Eule 2001: 143. In der Drapierung des Himations vergleichbar ist, wie schon oft gesehen wurde, die sogenannte Tragodia aus Pergamon. 28 Nr. 3. 11. 13−14. 29 Nr. 4−6. 9−10. 12. 16.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

312 | Anja Klöckner

efs vertauscht. Während auf vier Reliefs das rechte Spielbein deutlich zur Seite gesetzt wird30, verschwindet es bei drei Stelen hinter senkrecht nach unten geführten Falten31. Die Stücke unterschieden sich auch in der Ausführung des Gewandes. Bei den ersteren reicht der unterste Zipfel des Himations bis unter das rechte Knie, bei den letzteren ist das Stoffdreieck deutlich straffer gezogen. Besonders bei den Exemplaren in Oxford (Nr. 9 Abb. 5) und Verona (Nr. 10 Abb. 4) sind die beiden unter dem Himation getragenen Gewänder klar voneinander zu unterscheiden. Zwei weitere Reliefs in Basel (Nr. 1 Abb. 9) und Malibu (Nr. 8 Abb. 14) zeigen zwar dieselbe Verteilung von Stand- und Spielbein, setzen sich aber durch die jeweils unterschiedliche Drapierung des Himations und die Haltung der linken Hand von den anderen Beispielen ab. Angesichts dieser Ausgangslage ist es nicht verwunderlich, dass es bislang nicht gelang, ein gemeinsames Vorbild für die Reliefdarstellungen zu finden beziehungsweise zu rekonstruieren32. Wie Terrakotten aus Priene belegen, die bezeichnenderweise aus dem Heiligtum der Demeter und der Kore stammen, war das Bildschema auch über Smyrna hinaus bekannt. Die Statuetten zeigen Ähnlichkeiten in der Gewanddrapierung, aber keine klaren typologischen Parallelen33. Motivische Entsprechungen weisen auch rund 60 kaiserzeitliche Porträtstatuen auf, die dem sogenannten Ceres-Typus zugerechnet werden. Es lässt sich allerdings nicht nachweisen, dass der in der zweiten Hälfte des ersten Jahrhunderts n. Chr. entstandene Ceres-Typus auf eine Statue der Demeter zurückgeht34.

Attribute Die von den Frauen in ihrer Linken gehaltenen Attribute, Mohnstängel und Ähren, sowie die neben ihnen stehende große Fackel35 sind für den Kult der || 30 Nr. 4−6. 12. 31 Nr. 9−10. 16. 32 Eine Demeterstatue als Vorbild fordern z.B. Mantis 1990: 100; Rumscheid 2006: 245. Linfert 1976: 107 Anm. 395 verbindet den Typus mit Hygieia. Hierzu kritisch Senff 1985: 83 Anm. 14. Känel 1989: 54 nimmt an, als Vorbild liege den Grabreliefs eine Ehrenstatue einer Demeterpriesterin von Smyrna zugrunde. So auch Knittlmayer – Heilmeyer 1998: 185−6. Schmaltz 1983, 134−6; Eule 2001: 144; Schmidt 1991: 15 weisen auf die Schwierigkeiten hin, die mit der Herleitung des Figurentyps der Grabreliefs von einem festen statuarischen Vorbild verbunden sind. 33 Rumscheid 2006: 244−5. 448 Kat. Nr. 125−6 Taf. 55,1−2. 34 Alexandridis 2004: 229−231. 35 Auf dem beschädigten Relief in Winchester (Nr. 11) ist die Fackel nicht erhalten; sie wird im verlorenen Teil des Bildfeldes dargestellt gewesen sein.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Dienerinnen der Demeter? Zu einer Gruppe von Grabreliefs aus Smyrna | 313

Demeter und Kore charakteristisch, wenn auch keineswegs exklusiv36. In der hier vorliegenden signifikanten Kombination spielen sie aber unstrittig auf dieses semantische Feld an. Schwieriger ist es, die Bedeutung der Anspielung zu präzisieren. Es wurde vorgeschlagen, dass die Dargestellten auf diese Weise der Göttin angeglichen worden seien, um damit ihren priesterlichen Stand zum Ausdruck zu bringen37. Mit ähnlichen Argumenten hat man auch drei weitere Reliefs aus Smyrna als Darstellungen von Priesterinnen gedeutet. Zwei Frauen seien durch ihr charakteristisch drapiertes Fransengewand sowie durch eine situla beziehungsweise ein sistrum als Isispriesterinnen ausgewiesen (Nr. 18−19 Abb. 16). Akesteime wird wegen des Tympanons und der Schallbecken, die im oberen Bildfeld ihrer Stele auf dem Reliefgrund wiedergegeben sind, als Kybelepriesterin identifiziert (Nr. 20). Alle diese Attribute sind in der Tat eng mit dem Kult der jeweiligen Göttinnen beziehungsweise mit den Göttinnen selbst verbunden. Damit wird den Dargestellten zweifellos eine Beziehung zu diesen Göttinnen zugeschrieben, sie werden als Anhängerinnen der Demeter, der Isis und der Kybele charakterisiert. Diese Anhängerschaft mag wie auch immer geartet gewesen sein. Möglicherweise sollte auf eine besondere Verbindung der Verstorbenen zu den Gottheiten hingewiesen werden, auf ein Engagement in deren Kulten, auf eine Beteiligung an einer Mystengruppe oder Ähnlichem, was natürlich mit der Übernahme eines Kultamtes verbunden gewesen sein könnte. Methodisch problematisch wird es jedoch, wenn allein die Übernahme eines solchen Amtes als Interpretationsmuster für die Reliefs dient. Dass die Bilder die Verstorbenen als Priesterinnen zeigen, kann nicht als Prämisse gelten, sondern wäre erst zu beweisen. So tragen auf einigen Votiven auch Adorantinnen Attribute, die auf bestimmte Kulte und Gottheiten verweisen. Ein gutes, allerdings aus einer anderen Landschaft stammendes Beispiel ist das späthellenistische Weihrelief aus Gytheion38 an die eleusinischen Göttinnen. Gegenüber von Demeter, Kore und

|| 36 Zu Mohn im Themenspektrum von Votiven aus Demeterheiligtümern Schipporeit 2013: 223−4, zu Fackelträgerinnen ebenda 233−4. Zu Fackeln s.a. Palaiokrassa 2005. Für Ähren und Mohn bei Isis und Kybele s. z.B. Wrede 1981: 213 Anm. 4. 37 Die komplexe Frage, inwieweit in der griechischen Kultur Kultakteure und Gottheiten sowohl im Kultvollzug als auch in der Bilderwelt aneinander angeglichen wurden, verdient eine eingehende Behandlung, was an dieser Stelle aber nicht geleistet werden kann. Hierzu s. Sporn 2006: 155−160; Connelly 2007: 104−115. 38 Athen, NM Inv. Nr. 1453, s. Kaltsas 2002: 304 Kat. Nr. 638 m. Abb.; Schörner 2003: 190. 396 Kat. 656. 562 Kat. R 46 Taf. 7, 2. Inschrift: [Σ]ω̣σικράτη̣[ς] Ἀγαθοκλείαν τὰν ἰδίαν θυγατέρα / Δάματρι καὶ Κόραι χαριστήριον (IG 5.1.1152). Vgl. auch die Grab- oder Votivstatuette der

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

314 | Anja Klöckner

einer männlichen Figur, wohl Plouton, ist hier am linken Bildrand ein Mädchen wiedergegeben. Offensichtlich handelt es sich um Agathokleia, deren Vater Sosikrates das Votiv gestiftet hat. Agathokleia hält einen Granatapfel in ihrer Linken. Rechts stützt sie sich auf einen länglichen, oben auffächernden Gegenstand, womit anscheinend ein großer Strauß von Mohnstängeln gemeint ist. Agathokleia hält typische Attribute der eleusinischen Göttinnen und trägt auch eine ähnliche Frisur wie die neben ihr stehende Kore. Dies erklärt sich durch ihre Einbindung als Adorantin in das Kultgeschehen, nicht aber durch einen priesterlichen Status. Es ist methodisch aufschlussreich, wenn wir uns vergleichbare Darstellungen von Männern vor Augen rufen. Zwei Grabreliefs aus Smyrna zeigen jeweils einen männlichen Verstorbenen mit Attributen, die auf einen bestimmten Kult anspielen. In einem Fall handelt es sich um einen Efeukranz39, im anderen Fall trägt der Protagonist auf seinem kahlgeschorenen Kopf eine Wulstbinde40, was man mit dem Dionysos- beziehungsweise dem Isiskult in Verbindung gebracht hat. Grundsätzlich stellt sich hier die gleiche Frage wie bei den Grabreliefs für die Frauen: werden die Dargestellten damit als Priester oder generell als Anhänger eines Kultes charakterisiert? Bezeichnenderweise wird die Frage in diesem Fall meist genau umgekehrt beantwortet: man sieht in der spezifischen Ikonographie nicht unbedingt einen Hinweis auf ein Kultamt, sondern auf die enge Verbindung des Dargestellten mit einem spezifischen Kult. Während Männer mit rituell konnotierten Attributen also ganz allgemein als Anhänger des so bezeichneten Kultes gedeutet werden, sieht man in entsprechend charakteri|| Hagesarete aus Zaberda in Akarnanien, s. Picard 1919: 273−6 Taf. 5; Kabus-Jahn 1962: 31−2; Peschlow-Bindokat 1972: 138; Wrede 1981: 27. Die seit 1913 in Brüssel befindliche Statue zeigt eine junge Frau mit Zopffrisur in Chiton und Himation. Im gesenkten linken Arm hält sie eine lange, ehemals mit zum Boden reichende Fackel. Kabus-Jahn 1962: „Nach den Spuren quer über den rechten Oberschenkel zu urteilen, muss die rechte Hand auch eine solche gehalten haben“. Auch in diesem Fall ist es m.E. nicht zulässig, Hagesarete allein aufgrund dieser Attribute als Priesterin der Demeter oder der Kore zu erklären (anders Wrede 1981). 39 Basel, Antikenmuseum BS 243: Känel 1989: 50−58 Taf. 14, 1. Zu Efeukränzen im Dionysoskult Rumscheid 2006: 182−3. 40 Leiden, Rijksmuseum Inv. Pb. 27: Pfuhl – Möbius 93 Nr. 170 Taf. 37; Känel 1989: 56−57; Schmidt 1989: 83−84. 138; Zanker 1993: 218 Abb. 6−7; von den Hoff 1998: 139 m. Anm. 197. Kahlköpfigkeit und Wulstbinde sind für Isispriester charakteristisch, aber keineswegs exklusiv. Auch Isismysten rasierten sich den Kopf, s. Apul. met. 11.10.1, wo die kahlgeschorenen Initiierten den Tempelpriestern in der Prozession voranschreiten. Ein Strophion verweist nicht notwendigerweise auf ein Priesteramt, s. Rumscheid 2000: 2−4. Auffällig ist jedenfalls, wie schon von den Hoff 1998: 139 betont hat, dass der Verstorbene auf dem Leidener Relief im gewöhnlichen Himation dargestellt und damit seine Zugehörigkeit zur Gemeinschaft der Politen betont wird.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Dienerinnen der Demeter? Zu einer Gruppe von Grabreliefs aus Smyrna | 315

sierten Frauen meist Priesterinnen dargestellt41. Männern gesteht man zu, dass religiöse Bezüge nur einen unter mehreren Aspekten ihrer Grabrepräsentation darstellten, während bei Frauen der Verweis auf konkrete Ämter gleich die Hauptaussage der Darstellung ausmachen soll. Dies sagt aber m.E. mehr über implizite moderne Rollenvorstellungen als über die Verhältnisse im hellenistischen Smyrna aus. Auf mehreren Reliefs unserer Gruppe sind außer den auf den Demeterkult anspielenden Attributen Fackel, Ähren und Mohn noch weitere Gegenstände zu sehen. Die Dienerin am rechten Bildrand trägt, von einer Ausnahme abgesehen (Nr. 7 Abb. 11), stets ein Gefäß42. Sie hält es entweder direkt vor den Leib oder reckt es empor. Damit wird es dem Betrachter geradezu präsentiert und ist trotz seiner geringen Größe gut zu erkennen. Abgesehen von kleineren Unterschieden in der Ausführung ist die Form jeweils die gleiche. Sie zeichnet sich durch einen eiförmigen Körper aus, vom dem Fuß und Hals deutlich abgesetzt sind. Anscheinend ist damit eine Art Kanne gemeint. Solche auf den ersten Blick eher unspezifisch wirkenden Gefäße kommen auf smyrnäischen Stelen ansonsten nicht vor und sind auch auf Grabreliefs aus anderen Regionen ausgesprochen selten43. Offensichtlich handelt es sich um ein Bildelement, das nicht zu den lebensweltlichen Attributen, sondern zu den bereits besprochenen Kultrequisiten gehört. Dass Gefäße dieser Art in Smyrna nicht nur für allgemeine rituelle Zwecke verwendet wurden, sondern anscheinend charakteristisch für den Demeterkult waren, macht ein Vergleich mit einer kaiserzeitlichen Ehrenstatue deutlich (Abb. 17). Die Skulptur wurde von der Synodos der Mystai der Demeter Thesmophoros πρὸ πόλεως für den Stephanophoren Metrodoros Matreas gestiftet44. Heute ist die Statue, die auf unbekannten Wegen von Smyrna nach Venedig || 41 Vgl. z. B. Känel 1989: 54 Anm. 29 („Es handelt sich kaum nur um Bürgerinnen, welche in die Demetermysterien eingeweiht waren"); 56−7 („Anhänger des Dionysoskultes“; „Isismyste“). 42 Es könnte sich um Hydrien handeln, die im Kult der Demeter wie auch in anderen Kulten gut bezeugt sind, aber andere Kannenformen sind nicht auszuschließen. Mantis 1990: 100 bezeichnet die Gefäße als Oinochoen oder Alabastren. 43 Vgl. z. B. ein ostgriechisches Grabrelief in Verona, Museo Maffeiano Inv.-Nr. 28655, auf dem eine Dienerin mit Kanne die mit Adorationsgeste und Pyxis wiedergegebene Herakleia begleitet, s. Ritti 1981: 117 Kat. Nr. 58 m. Abb. Bezeichnenderweise handelt es sich hier um eine Darstellung, das durch die Gebetsgeste der Herakleia ebenfalls rituell konnotiert ist. 44 I. Smyrna 655 m. Abb.; Rumscheid 2000: 34. 145 Kat. Nr. 67 Taf. 31, 4; Schipporeit 2013: 198 E1. Die Herkunft aus Smyrna ist für diese Statue nicht gesichert, aber aus epigraphischen Gründen sehr wahrscheinlich; zu Recht wurde auf die Ähnlichkeit mit I. Smyrna 727 hingewiesen.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

316 | Anja Klöckner

gelangt war, leider verschollen, aber es existiert eine Zeichnung, die NicolasClaude Fabri de Peiresc von ihr angefertigt hat. Sie zeigt den Geehrten in Chiton und Himation. Er ist bartlos und trägt auf dem Kopf außer einem Kranz noch ein weiteres Gebilde, das wohl als Büstendiadem zu verstehen ist. Neben dem linken Fuß ist auf der Plinthe eine niedrige Statuenstütze zu sehen, die als Gefäß gestaltet ist und möglicherweise eine Art Hydria darstellt45. Der genaue Gefäßtyp lässt sich zwar anhand der Zeichnung nicht mehr bestimmen, aber der schlanke Fuß, der eiförmige Körper mit seitlichem Henkel und der schmale Hals sind gut zu erkennen, was den charakteristischen Formen der auf den Reliefs abgebildeten Gefäße entspricht. Statuenstützen dieser Art sind äußerst ungewöhnlich46; wir haben es hier also mit einer Sonderanfertigung zu tun. Die Stütze wurde in diesem Fall nicht zufällig verwendet, sondern bewusst gewählt. Allem Anschein nach war sie mit einer spezifischen Konnotation verbunden und Gefäße dieser Art besaßen entweder im Demeterkult von Smyrna allgemein oder sogar in diesem speziellen Kultverein eine bestimmte Funktion. Falls letzteres zutrifft, könnte in dem ikonographischen Element ein Schlüssel zur Deutung der Reliefs liegen. Wenn es sich um ein typisches Requisit des Kultvereins handelt, würden damit auch die Verstorbenen als dessen Angehörige ausgewiesen. Wie auf vielen anderen Stelen smyrnäischer Produktion sind auf einem hohen, profilierten Podest im Bildhintergrund noch weitere Gegenstände wiedergegeben. Neben typischen Attributen der weiblichen Lebenswelt wie Wollkorb und Kästchen sind auch Füllhörner dargestellt, die auf den Euergetismus der Verstorbenen hinweisen47. Typische Motivkombinationen gibt es dabei nicht.

|| 45 Rumscheid 2000: 34 („nicht weiter bestimmbares Gefäß“). 145 („Hydria“). Zu Hydrien im Demeterkult Diehl 1964: 187−193; Rumscheid 2006: 252−4; Schipporeit 2013: 225−6. Zur rituellen Verwendung von Hydrien im Allgemeinen Krauskopf 2005. 46 Mir sind nur zwei Parallelen bekannt, im Museum von Eskişehir (Çalık Ross 2003) und in Korinth (den Hinweis auf die in einem der Räume hinter der Südstoa befindliche Statue verdanke ich Hans Rupprecht Goette. Soweit ich sehe, ist sie in den Bänden der Grabungspublikation nicht abgebildet). Es handelt sich um Porträtstatuen von Männern im Himation; bei der Statue aus Korinth sind auch noch calcei angegeben. Die Köpfe sind verloren. Die Skulpturen sind typologisch deutlich voneinander unterschieden, aber die Form der als niedrige Gefäße mit eiförmigem Körper und Henkeln gestalteten Statuenstützen entspricht der des Metrodoros Matreas sehr gut. Zu Statuenstützen im Allgemeinen Muthmann 1951. 47 Wollkorb und Kästchen: Nr. 1. Wollkorb?: Nr. 14. Füllhorn: Nr. 2. Doppelfüllhorn: Nr. 7. Behälter: Nr. 11 (laut Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: 223 „eine runde Büchse “). Modius: Nr. 4. Unbestimmter Gegenstand: Nr. 12. Zanker 1993: 218; Ridgway 2000: 194−5; Fabricius 1999: 176.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Dienerinnen der Demeter? Zu einer Gruppe von Grabreliefs aus Smyrna | 317

Anscheinend konnte also die Bildaussage unserer Reliefs, je nach Bedarf, ergänzt und spezifiziert werden48. Dies gilt für die Paar- wie für die Einzelstelen gleichermaßen.

Bezug zur Fackel Die großen, den Bildraum in voller Höhe einnehmenden Fackeln sind ein eindrucksvolles Bildzeichen. Mit den Protagonistinnen stehen sie allerdings in recht unterschiedlicher Weise in Bezug. Auf ungefähr der Hälfte der Reliefs blicken die Frauen in Richtung der Fackel, bei der anderen Hälfte hingegen wenden sie sich klar in die andere Richtung. Auch gestisch wird nur bei einigen Beispielen durch Berühren oder Umfassen eine Verbindung zur Fackel hergestellt49. Gehalten werden die Fackeln jeweils von den Dienerinnen. Die Fackeln sind damit ein wichtiges Attribut, stehen aber keineswegs immer im Zentrum der Darstellung. Es ist bezeichnend, dass von den sechs Reliefs, auf denen die Frauen zusammen mit einem Mann wiedergegeben sind, bei der Hälfte der Exemplare die Fackel an den Rand rückt50. Stattdessen liegt hier der Fokus auf der Verbundenheit des Paares. Besonders deutlich wird dies bei der Stele des Exakestes und der Metrion (Nr. 7 Abb. 11). Die Darstellung ist ganz auf die dexiosis der beiden konzentriert, während die von Metrion in Teilen verdeckte und zudem recht dünne Fackel geradezu in den Hintergrund geschoben wird. Es mag kein Zufall sein, dass ausgerechnet bei diesem Stück die Dienerin auch nicht das sonst übliche Gefäß, sondern eine Pyxis hält.

|| 48 Zur typischen Erzählweise hellenistischer Grabreliefs mit ihrer Vermischung mehrerer Aussageebenen s. z. B. von Hesberg 1988; Pfanner 1989. 49 Zur Fackel hin gewandt: Nr. 1. 4. 6. 8−10. 16. Von der Fackel weg gewandt: Nr. 2−3. 7. 11−13. Fackel wird umfasst: Nr. 8. 10. Fackel wird berührt: Nr. 1. 9. Es fällt auf, dass die Beispiele für das Berühren bzw. Umfassen der Fackel nur unter bestimmten Varianten des Figurenschemas vorkommen; hierzu s.o. 50 Nr. 1.7−8. 11. 13. 16, davon mit Fackel im Hintergrund bzw. am Rand Nr. 7. 11. 13.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

318 | Anja Klöckner

Gestik Sofern die Dargestellten die Fackel nicht berühren, wenden sie sich entweder ganz von ihr ab oder vollziehen mit ihrer Rechten eine prononcierte Geste51. Der Arm ist im Ellenbogen angewinkelt, der mit der Innenseite nach außen gedrehte Unterarm weist nach oben. Der Betrachter blickt dabei auf die Handinnenfläche. Die Finger liegen recht locker aufeinander, ohne gespreizt zu sein. Die Bewegungsrichtung geht jeweils klar zur Seite, nicht nach vorn, was zum Teil durch die im Gelenk nach unten kippende Hand noch verstärkt wird. Die Geste führt nicht zur Fackel, sondern allenfalls in ihre Richtung, zum Teil sogar über sie hinaus. Man hat vorgeschlagen, dass damit eine Gebetsgeste gemeint sei52. Bei der Adoration wird der Unterarm allerdings nicht zur Seite geklappt wie hier, sondern nach vorn gerichtet, die Hand weist dann auch meist steiler nach oben. Überhaupt vollziehen Frauen auf Reliefs das Gebet üblicherweise in versammelter Haltung und nicht mit derart raumgreifenden Gebärden. Auch die Abwendung des restlichen Körpers von der erhobenen Hand, wie es bei einigen unserer Reliefs zu sehen ist, wäre eigenartig, falls es sich tatsächlich um eine Adorantin handeln sollte53. Leider fehlen bislang einschlägige Parallelen für die Interpretation dieser Aufmerksamkeit erregenden Geste. Auch hier lässt sich aber festhalten, dass die Wirkung dieses Motivs bei einigen Paarstelen reduziert wird; entweder dadurch, dass die Frau aus der Mitte des Reliefs an den Rand rückt und die Geste damit aus dem Bild heraus führt oder dadurch, dass zugunsten der dexiosis ganz auf sie verzichtet wird54.

|| 51 Dexiosis: Nr. 7. Geste mit nach außen gedrehter Handinnenfläche: Nr. 2−4. 6. 12−13. Davon mit im Gelenk leicht nach unten weisender Hand: Nr. 4. 13. Davon mit über die Fackel hinaus weisender Hand: Nr. 2. 13. 52 Pfuhl – Möbius 1977; Reinsberg 2005: 305; Rumscheid 2006: 244; Connelly 2007: 249. Einen Redegestus erkennen Knittlmayer – Heilmeyer 1998: 185. 53 Vgl. z. B. zwei Adorantinnen auf dem Münchner Weihrelief, s. Wünsche 2005: 118−9 m. Abb.; auf dem Weihrelief unbekannter Herkunft für Kydrogeneus, Leiden, Rijksmuseum Inv. Nr. Pb 46, s. Pfuhl – Möbius 1979: 375 Nr. 1521 Taf. 219. Vgl. auch das Grabrelief der Herakleia in Verona, Museo Maffeiano Inv. Nr. 28655, auf dem die Verstorbene im Adorationsgestus dargestellt wird, s. Ritti 1981: 117 Nr. 58 m. Abb. 54 Frau am Bildrand: Nr. 11. 13. Dexiosis: Nr. 7.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Dienerinnen der Demeter? Zu einer Gruppe von Grabreliefs aus Smyrna | 319

Inschriften und Kränze Wie die vollständiger erhaltenen Stelen belegen, trugen fast alle der hier zu besprechenden Reliefs ehemals eine Inschrift. Die meisten sind über dem Bildfeld angebracht, nur wenige darunter55. Sie nennen den Namen und das Patronymikon der Dargestellten, seltener auch den Namen des Ehemannes56. Darüber hinausgehende Informationen, etwa zu Ämtern oder Kultaktivitäten, geben die Inschriften nicht. Auf einem der früheren Stücke der Reihe trägt die Frau mit der Fackel den Namen Herophanta (Nr. 8 Abb. 14)57, worin jeder Zeitgenosse eine Anspielung auf das Amt des Hierophanten und damit auf den eleusinischen Kult gehört haben wird. Dieser ungewöhnliche, dem häufigeren männlichen Herophantos entsprechende Name, könnte den Anstoß dafür gegeben haben, die Dargestellte mit Attributen des Demeterkultes auszustatten und damit eine Art Wortspiel zu bilden58. Solche Anspielungen auf den Namen der Grabinhaber sind in der griechischen Sepulchralkultur seit dem 5. Jh. v. Chr. bezeugt59. Außerdem wäre es durchaus vorstellbar, dass die Attribute auf das durch den Namen evozierte semantische Feld anspielen und damit die Dargestellten charakterisieren beziehungsweise unter den Schutz der Gottheit stellen. Auch auf den beiden smyrnäischen Reliefs, die als Darstellungen von Isispriesterinnen gedeutet worden sind, tragen die beiden Frauen sprechende, in diesem Fall theophore

|| 55 Ohne Inschrift: Nr. 2. Auf der Zeichnung des heute verschollenen Reliefs in Marseille ist eine Demosinschrift, aber keine Grabinschrift wiedergegeben (Nr. 12). Inschrift über dem Bildfeld: Nr. 1. 3−4. 6−7. 9−11. 13 (Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: 161: „Auf dem Epistyl Spuren der alten Inschrift“). 15−16. Inschrift über dem Bildfeld: Nr. 8. 56 Patronymikon: Nr. 4. 6. 8−9. 11. Patronymikon und Name des Ehemannes: Nr. 3. 7. 10. 17. 57 Dieser Name kommt bei Pfuhl – Möbius 1977 nur einmal vor. Von Demeter abgeleitete Namen sind allerdings häufig, s. Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: 219−220 Nr. 844 Abb. 64; Pfuhl – Möbius 1979: 369 Nr. 1489, 381 Nr. 1549 Taf. 224, 388−389 Nr. 1579, 490 Nr. 2036 Taf. 295, 500−501 Nr. 2085 Taf. 300. 58 Zu solchen Wortspielen vgl. das kaiserzeitliche Grabrelief der Priesterin Nike aus Beroia, auf dem eine Nike im Tympanon dargestellt ist: Bielman Sánchez 2006: 362 Nr. 9 Taf. 28, 4. 59 Hierzu Hesberg 1988: 318−9: Grabinschrift, gedichtet von Alkaios von Messene auf eine Frau namens Pheidis, 3. Jh. (Anth. Graeca 7,429), deren Stele ein doppeltes Phi ziert; Kuh auf dem Grab einer Boidion, Mitte des 4. Jhs. (Anth. Graeca 7,169); Löwe auf Grabstele eines Leon in Athen (Woysch-Méautis 1982: 133 Nr. 358 Taf. 59; Vedder 1985: 116 Nr. T 9); Grabmonument des Pythagoras von Selymbria, 1. H. 5. Jh., das in seinem Aufbau mathematische Erkenntnisse des gleichnamigen Wissenschaftlers widerspiegelt (Hoepfner 1973: 145 ff.).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

320 | Anja Klöckner

Namen: Isias und Sarapias (Nr. 18−19 Abb. 16)60. Allerdings können diese Überlegungen nur die genannten Einzelfälle erklären, nicht die Gruppe als ganze. Die Inschriften sind erst vollständig, wenn man die Kränze hinzunimmt, die über dem Bildfeld in kreisförmigen Vertiefungen oder in quadratischen Feldern wiedergegeben sind61. Kränze gehören zum gängigen Repertoire hellenistischer Ehrungen und dienen auch als Schmuck von Grabdenkmälern. Auf hellenistischen Grabreliefs sind sie insgesamt gut belegt, in dieser Form aber besonders typisch für die smyrnäischen Stelen. In der Grabrepräsentation der Stadt spielen solche Verweise auf Ehrungen eine überragende Rolle. Häufig, aber nicht immer, ist innerhalb dieser Kränze ὁ δῆμος zu lesen62. Zu ergänzen ist ein ἐτίμησεν, was die Nennung der Namen im Akkusativ erklärt. Solche mit Inschriften versehenen Kränze verkünden also, dass der Demos die Dargestellten geehrt hat. Ob dies posthum oder zu Lebzeiten geschah, geht aus dem Befund nicht hervor. Auch die Gründe für die Ehrung werden selten genannt63. Auf den Grabreliefs aus Smyrna sind Demosinschriften enorm häufig. Hier werden sie geradezu ubiquitär verwendet und können deswegen nicht in allen Fällen

|| 60 Von Isis abgeleitete Namen sind häufig, vgl. Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: 238 Nr. 919 Taf. 138, 251 Nr. 989 Taf. 149, 267 Nr. 1074 Taf. 161 (?); Pfuhl – Möbius 1979: 443 Nr. 1845 Taf. 265, 452 Nr. 1880 Taf. 270. Von Sarapis abgeleitete Namen wie Sarapios: Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: 133 Nr. 392 Taf. 64, 180 Nr. 634 Taf. 97; Pfuhl – Möbius 1979: 289−290 Nr. 1179 Taf. 177, 335 Nr. 1405. 61 Zu den Kränzen auf den smyrnäischen Grabreliefs z.B. Senff 1985: 84−85; Känel 1989: 55; Fabricius 1999: 239−240; Laugier 2009. Nach Senff 1985 sollen die quadratischen Felder Holzrahmen zur Aufbewahrung wiedergeben. Zu Kränzen als Ehrungen für Priesterinnen und Priester Rumscheid 2000: passim; Connelly 2007: 203−5. Vgl. auch. den Beitrag von Oliver Pilz in diesem Band. Zu Kranzverleihungen und Totenehrungen Herrmann 1985. 62 Von den vollständig erhaltenen Reliefs unserer Gruppe tragen fast alle mindestens einen Kranz, davon mit Demosinschrift: Nr. 3−4. 7−12. 16. 18. Überhaupt keine Demosinschrift bzw. keine Demosinschrift in dem Kranz über der Frau: Nr. 1−2. 6. Weder Kranz noch Demosinschrift: Nr. 20. Für weitere Grabreliefs ohne Demosinschrift s. z. B. Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: 156−157 Nr. 505 Taf. 79 und Abb. 41, 162 Nr. 532 Taf. 82, 271 Nr. 1096 Taf. 164. Demosinschrift nur in einem von mehreren Kränzen: Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: 123−124 Nr. 341 Taf. 57. Senff 1985: 85 Anm. 29 weist auf ein weiteres Beispiel aus Erythrai hin, bei dem nur einer der beiden in Relief angegebenen Kränze eine Demosinschrift trägt, s. I. Erythrai 469−470 Nr. 427 m. Abb. 63 Vgl. I. Smyrna 515; Merkelbach − Stauber 1998: 05/01/38, wo die vorbildliche Amtsausübung des Tempelwartes des Bakchos, Dionysios, als Grund für die Verleihung eines goldenen Kranzes genannt wird. Vgl. ein Grabepigramm aus Kyme, in dem ebenfalls explizit auf die Bedeutung des Kranzes eingegangen wird. In diesem Fall geht es um eine Ehrung des Demos, die ohne Bezug auf ein konkretes Amt ist: Peek 1955: 588 Nr. 1917; I. Kyme 49; Schmidt 1991: 140 Anm. 625; Merkelbach − Stauber 1998: 05/03/05 m. Abb.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Dienerinnen der Demeter? Zu einer Gruppe von Grabreliefs aus Smyrna | 321

herausgehobene Auszeichnungen gemeint haben64. Vollkommen beliebig werden sie dennoch nicht eingesetzt. Anscheinend besteht ein gewisser Zusammenhang damit, ob Ehrungen auch tatsächlich erfolgt waren oder zumindest zu erwarten gewesen wären. So fehlt die Demosinschrift oder gar der Kranz selbst zum Beispiel bei Kinderreliefs recht häufig, was darauf hinweist, dass man die Inschrift nur dann anbrachte, wenn sie der jeweiligen Person auch zustand. Bei einer Stele für die beiden frühverstorbenen Knaben Metrodoros und Matreas hat man sogar die bereits eingetieften Demosinschriften nachträglich getilgt65. Wahrscheinlich war die Rahmung der Stele bereits auf Vorrat mit vorab eingemeißelter Demosinschrift gefertigt worden und musste dann der aktuellen Bestellung angepasst werden. Bei den Grabdenkmälern mit Demoskranz steht das Faktum der Ehrung gegenüber ihrer Begründung im Vordergrund. Davon ist m.E. auch bei den Reliefs unserer Gruppe ausgehen. Ganz im Gegensatz zu dieser allgemeinen Tendenz interpretiert man die Darstellungen unserer Reliefs bislang aber quasi als Erklärung zu den Inschriften, als visuellen Hinweis darauf, dass die Verstorbene für die Übernahme eines Priesteramtes geehrt worden sei. Als Referenz verweist man gern auf die bekannte Stele der Menophila aus Sardis66. Hier simuliert das Epigramm die Frage des Betrachters nach der Bedeutung der einzelnen Bildinhalte. Im Falle des Kranzes heißt es explizit, dass dieser ihr Amt anzeige67. Welche Art von Amt gemeint ist, wird aber nicht spezifiziert; von einer Tätigkeit als Priesterin ist nicht die Rede. Angesichts der geradezu standardmäßigen Verwendung dieser Inschriften in Smyrna fällt außerdem auf, dass bei einigen unserer Stelen über den vermeintlichen Priesterinnen zwar ein Kranz dargestellt ist, aber die Demosinschrift fehlt. Hinzu kommt, dass die Frau auch jeweils keine Namensinschrift trägt. Es handelt sich hierbei um die Reliefs in Basel (Nr. 1 Abb. 9), Berlin (Nr. 2

|| 64 Die Aussagekraft der Demosinschriften wird sehr unterschiedlich bewertet. Während manche in ihnen „nur noch formelhafte Chiffren“ erkennen (Känel 1989: 57; s.a. Senff 1985), sehen andere in ihnen einen eindeutigen Hinweis auf eine tatsächliche Ehrung durch die Polis (Schipporeit 2013: 196). 65 Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: 204−205 Nr. 766 Taf. 113; I. Smyrna 513; Merkelbach − Stauber 1998: 05/01/50. Weitere Beispiele für nachträglich getilgte Demosinschriften I. Smyrna 40 (?). 46. 90 (?). 66 Istanbul, AM I 403, s. Peek 1960: Nr. 433; von Hesberg 1988: 313−5 Abb. 1; Merkelbach − Stauber 1998: 04/02/11; Connelly 2007: 251−2 Abb. 8.23. 67 Z. 5−6: ὁ δ᾿αὖ περὶ κρατὶ φορηθείς ἀρχὰν μανύει. In der Übersetzung von Peek: „Gewiß zeigt … der Kranz, den sie einst auf dem Kopfe trug, ihr Amt“ an.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

322 | Anja Klöckner

Abb. 1) und Ketteringham Hall (Nr. 6 Abb. 15)68. Für jeden Einzelfall lassen sich durchaus plausible Erklärungen anführen. Möglicherweise war die Inschrift ehemals in Farbe aufgetragen worden. Möglicherweise wurde das Relief vor dem Tod der Dargestellten gefertigt und als sie starb, hat man es aus welchen Gründen auch immer unterlassen, die Inschrift anzubringen69. Auch ist zu bedenken, dass die Zuordnung der Stele zu einem Familiengrabbezirk die Identifikation der Dargestellten erleichtern konnte, auch wenn auf dem Relief ihr Name nicht angegeben war. In der Zusammenschau ist das Fehlen der Namens- beziehungsweise Demosinschriften jedoch durchaus signifikant. Bei drei von 17 Stelen haben wir keinen Hinweis auf eine wie auch immer geartete Ehrung der vermeintlichen Demeterpriesterin durch die Polis; außerdem verzichtete man darauf, den Namen der Dargestellten einzumeißeln und damit dem Betrachter mitzuteilen. Falls diese Frauen für ein öffentliches Amt geehrt worden sein sollten, wird dies zumindest nicht explizit kenntlich gemacht. Die Analyse der Grabreliefs hat also keine eindeutigen Hinweise darauf ergeben, dass die Verstorbenen als Priesterinnen zu verstehen sind. Allein aufgrund der Demosinschriften und der mit dem Demeterkult zu verbindenden Attribute Fackel, Mohn, Ähren lässt sich dies jedenfalls nicht begründen. Das populäre Darstellungsschema rekurriert zwar auf den sakralen Bereich, weist die dargestellten Frauen aber nicht als Inhaberin eines Kultamtes aus. Als Vergleich lässt sich ein ähnlich gelagerter Fall aus einer anderen Region anführen.

Die Isiaca aus Attika In Attika werden von der frühen Kaiserzeit bis in das ausgehende 3. Jh. n. Chr. auf zahlreichen Grabreliefs aus dem wohlhabenderen Freigelassenenmilieu Frauen in Isistracht beziehungsweise mit Isisattributen dargestellt70. Demosinschriften wie in Smyrna fehlen. Ähnliche Darstellungen gibt es außerhalb von Attika sonst nur noch vereinzelt.

|| 68 Vgl. die Stele der mit Kybeleattributen wiedergegebenen Akesteime (Nr. 20), bei der der Kranz sogar ganz fehlt. 69 Senff 1985: 85; Känel 1989: 56; Stemmer 1995: 66. 70 Walters 1988; Eingartner 1991; von Moock 1998; Bielman Sánchez 2006: 363−375; Martzavou 2011. Vgl. zu weiblichen Terrakottastatuetten im Isismantel aus Priene Rumscheid 2006: 243−4. 446−7 Kat. Nr. 121−4 Taf. 52−54.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Dienerinnen der Demeter? Zu einer Gruppe von Grabreliefs aus Smyrna | 323

Die frontal dem Betrachter zugewandten Frauen sind mit Chiton sowie auf der Brust geknotetem Fransenmantel, der sogenannten Knotenpalla, bekleidet. Bisweilen hängt von ihrer linken Schulter eine lange Girlande herab. Alle tragen eine charakteristische Mittelscheitelfrisur71. Waren schon die vermeintlichen Demeterpriesterinnen im Vergleich zur smyrnäischen Grabreliefproduktion insgesamt ausgesprochen häufig, so bildet dieses Schema im kaiserzeitlichen Attika den beliebtesten Darstellungstypus für Frauen überhaupt. Mehr als jede fünfte weibliche Figur ist auf diese Weise charakterisiert72. Da kaum davon auszugehen ist, dass über 20 Prozent der mit einer Grabstele memorierten Frauen im kaiserzeitlichen Athen Isispriesterinnen waren, werden sie meist nicht als Funktionsträgerinnen, sondern als Eingeweihte im Isiskult interpretiert. Einen wichtigen Hinweis in diese Richtung gibt auch der Umstand, dass auf drei Reliefs Männer in der typischen Tracht und mit den Attributen der Isiaca wiedergegeben sind73. Hieran ist deutlich zu erkennen, dass der Träger nicht als Inhaber eines Kultamtes ausgewiesen wird, sondern dass ihn diese für Isis charakteristischen Merkmale mit der Göttin und ihrem Kult in Beziehung setzen sollen. Angesichts der im kaiserzeitlichen Attika immer stärker werdenden Tendenz, in den Bilder der Grabdenkmäler auf die Lebensumstände der Verstorbenen zu verweisen, ist es durchaus möglich, dass hier auf biographische Elemente angespielt wird74.

|| 71 von Moock 1998: 38−40. 72 Von den insgesamt 577 Grabreliefs, die bei von Moock 1998 zusammengestellt sind, sind auf 76 Frauen in diesem Schema dargestellt. Dies entspricht einem Anteil von gut 13 Prozent. Berücksichtigt man nur die 360 Reliefs, auf denen Frauen dargestellt sind, beträgt der Anteil 21 Prozent. Mögliche Bezüge auf andere Gottheiten und Kulte finden sich nur ganz vereinzelt. Auf der Grabstele der Chara und des Herakleides (von Moock 1998: 104 Kat. Nr. 102 Taf. 6 c.) sind im Giebel tibia und fistula sowie Cymbeln wiedergegeben, auf der Stele der Tychike eine Mohnkapsel (von Moock 1998: 128 Kat. Nr. 235 Taf. 33 c). 73 Grabstele der Kallo und des Sympheron, s. Walters 1988: Taf. 13 a−d; von Moock 1998: 91 Kat. Nr. 12. Der Kopf des Smypheron ist heute abgeschlagen, auf einer alten Aufnahme (Walters Taf. 13 a) aber noch zu erkennen. Grabstele des Sosipatros und seiner Frau Epiteugma: Walters Taf. 29 b; von Moock 1998: 162 Kat. Nr. 410. Relief des Kleitomenes, Paros: Walters 1988: 56. 83 Anm. 101 Taf. 37. 74 von Moock 85 stellt die interessante Vermutung an, die besondere Beziehung der Verstorbenen zu der Göttin könnte darin begründet sein, dass in deren Namen die manumissio stattgefunden hatte. Dies könnte erklären, warum Männer, wenn auch selten, ebenfalls auf diese Weise dargestellt wurden, nämlich um ihre Dankbarkeit gegenüber Isis zu bekunden. Wie von Moock zu Recht festhält, fehlen für diese Hypothese bislang inschriftliche Nachweise aus Attika.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

324 | Anja Klöckner

Zusammenfassung und Ausblick Während bei den Ehren- und Votivstatuen in den Heiligtümern und auf den öffentlichen Plätzen des griechischen Ostens auf sakrale Ämter zumindest in den Inschriften häufig Bezug genommen wird, sind entsprechende Verweise in den Grabinschriften recht selten. Auch Bilder religiöser Funktionsträger sind im sepulchralen Kontext ausgesprochen spärlich überliefert. Offensichtlich bestand in der Grabrepräsentation keine besondere Veranlassung, auf Kultämter der Verstorbenen zu verweisen beziehungsweise diesen Ämtern einen hohen Stellenwert einzuräumen. Dies gilt für Männer wie für Frauen gleichermaßen. Eine Erklärung hierfür liegt in den unterschiedlichen Rahmenbedingungen für die Statuenaufstellung im städtischen und sakralen Raum einerseits und für die Ausstattung von Grabbezirken andererseits. Für ersteres benötigte man die Zustimmung der verantwortlichen Autoritäten. Als Legitimation diente oftmals der Hinweis auf Ämter, die die Dargestellten ausgeübt hatten. Diese konnten sowohl politischer als auch religiöser Natur sein, wobei bei Porträtstatuen von Frauen die Kultämter im Vordergrund standen. Dagegen war man bei der Errichtung von Grabdenkmälern zwar nicht vollkommen frei von kollektivem Druck, konnte aber letztendlich, abhängig von den eigenen finanziellen Möglichkeiten und vor dem Hintergrund eines als verbindlich geltenden Wertekanons, selbst über Form und Inhalt der Darstellungen entscheiden. Vorbildliches Verhalten und bürgerliche Tugenden wurden durch die Übernahme allgemein akzeptierter und regional differenzierter Rollenbilder zum Ausdruck gebracht. In der Nekropole war es deswegen zwar möglich, aber grundsätzlich nicht erforderlich, auf konkrete Ämter und Leistungen zu verweisen. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist die späthellenistische Grabreliefproduktion aus Smyrna sehr aufschlussreich. Hier kommt es zu einer exzeptionellen Häufung von Stelen, auf denen Attribute aus verschiedenen Kulten zu sehen sind und auf denen die Dargestellten durch ungewöhnliche Kleidung und Körpersprache charakterisiert werden. Man hat dies als Hinweis auf konkrete Priesterämter verstanden, die die Protagonisten zu Lebzeiten innegehabt hätten. Allein schon wegen der hohen Zahl der binnen recht kurzer Zeit entstandenen Reliefs ist dies allerdings wenig wahrscheinlich. Es stellt sich die Frage, was stattdessen über die Personen aussagt wird, für die man die Reliefs errichtet hat. Prinzipiell kommen mehrere Lesarten in Betracht: eine symbolisch-prospektive und eine im allgemeinen Sinne biographisch-retrospektive, die auf das Lebensumfeld der Verstorbenen Bezug

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Dienerinnen der Demeter? Zu einer Gruppe von Grabreliefs aus Smyrna | 325

nimmt und ihnen bestimmte Qualitäten zuschreibt. Für eine symbolischprospektive Lesart könnte man in Anschlag bringen, dass es sich bei den Gottheiten, auf die die Reliefs anspielen, um Mysteriengottheiten handelt. Die Kulte von Demeter, Isis und Kybele nahmen eine wichtige Stellung in der öffentlichen Repräsentation gerade von Frauen ein. Möglicherweise ist aber auch die in diesen Kulten vermittelte Heilserwartung oder gar eine Jenseitshoffnung Anlass gewesen, gerade auf den Grabreliefs hierauf Bezug zu nehmen. Hierfür haben wir jedoch in der hellenistischen Grabkultur ansonsten kaum Vergleiche75. Es wäre eigenartig, wenn man solche Heilserwartungen vor allem in Smyrna bildlich artikuliert hätte. Geht man davon aus, dass die Bilder nicht symbolisch-prospektiv zu verstehen sind, sondern den Verstorbenen bestimmte Qualitäten zuschreiben, so ist zunächst festzuhalten, dass diese durch die Bildsprache ganz allgemein mit dem Bereich von Kult und Gottheiten in Verbindung gebracht werden. Um diese Verbindung konkreter zu fassen, gibt es wiederum verschiedene Möglichkeiten. Es wäre zum Beispiel denkbar, dass die Bilder auf einer abstrakten Ebene an Werte wie εὐσέβεια anspielten und die Frauen auf diese Weise als auch in religiöser Hinsicht vorbildliche Mitglieder der Polis charakterisierten. Allerdings würde man hierfür eher eine Darstellung als Opfernde oder Adorierende erwarten. Die Frauen auf den Reliefs unserer Gruppe vollziehen aber keine rituelle Handlung und sind auch in Mehrfigurenkompositionen eingebunden, etwa durch dexiosis. Etwas konkreter könnte man die Reliefs auch dahingehend interpretieren, dass die Protagonistinnen als aktive Teilnehmerinnen an spezifischen Kulten charakterisiert werden. Damit würde auf einen wichtigen Aspekt der Poliskultur angespielt. Möglicherweise suchten die Auftraggeber auch eine Möglichkeit, durch die Bilder eine besondere Verbundenheit oder gar explizite Hinwendung der Verstorbenen zu den jeweiligen Gottheiten zum Ausdruck zu bringen, also als Bekenntnis einer Art persönlicher Frömmigkeit. Denkbar wäre zudem, dass die Bilder mit einem bestimmten biographischen Ereignis wie etwa einer Initiation in Verbindung stehen76. Letztendlich muss dies offen bleiben, da weder die Inschriften noch die Bilder oder die Kontexte hierzu Aufschluss vermitteln. Sucht man über solche allgemeinen Erklärungen hinaus nach Bezügen zu der sozialen und rituellen Praxis in Smyrna, geraten die Kultvereinigungen in

|| 75 Vgl. Wypustek 2013, der aus der Analyse der metrischen Grabinschriften nur geringe Hinweise auf konkrete Jenseitsvorstellungen gewinnt. 76 Dagegen Känel 1989: 54 Anm. 29.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

326 | Anja Klöckner

den Blick. Sie prägten das religiöse und soziale Leben in den hellenistischen und später auch in den kaiserzeitlichen Poleis ganz entscheidend und eröffneten auch für Frauen neue Felder gesellschaftlicher Aktivitäten77. Aus Smyrna besitzen wir zahlreiche Belege für solche Vereinigungen. Für Demeter sowie für Kore gab es dort jeweils mindestens einen Kultverein, die Synodos der Mystai der Demeter Thesmophoros πρὸ πόλεως und die Mystai der Kore78. Zumindest in ikonographischer Hinsicht gibt es eine Verbindung zwischen den Stelen und der Synodos, wie oben anhand des ungewöhnlichen Motivs des Gefäßes mit dem charakteristischen eiförmigen Körper gezeigt wurde. Möglicherweise lässt sich damit auch eine inhaltliche Verbindung herstellen. Falls, worauf die Ehrenstatue des Metrodoros Matreas (Abb. 17) mit ihrer außergewöhnlichen Stütze hinweist, Gefäße dieser Art für den Kultverein eine besondere Charakteristik besaßen, könnten auch die Verstorbenen in dieser Vereinigung Mitglied gewesen sein. Ob man diesem Vorschlag folgen möchte oder nicht, so lässt sich doch festhalten, dass die Stelen nicht die herausgehobene Stellung einer Amtsträgerin, sondern die Einbindung in eine Gruppierung zum Ausdruck bringen. Ganz offensichtlich unterstreichen die Reliefs den Status der Dargestellten durch einen besonderen Habitus, der sie von den anderen Frauenfiguren auf den Grabdenkmälern unterscheidet. Innerhalb der Gruppe ist keine Hierarchisierung, sondern Einheitlichkeit angestrebt. Es gibt zwar eine gewisse Bandbreite der Darstellungsmöglichkeiten, aber keine Unterschiede, die auf Statusabstufungen hinweisen könnten79. Distinktion erfolgt hier nicht durch die Betonung einer herausgehobenen kultischen Funktion, sondern durch eine prononciert vorgetragene, auf einen Kult bezogene Gruppenzugehörigkeit. Auf kaiserzeitlichen Grabreliefs aus Attika wird der Bezug auf einen bestimmten Kult, in diesem Fall dem der Isis, dann noch wichtiger. Die Darstellung als Isiaca wird zum beliebtesten weiblichen Figurenschema in dieser Gattung. || 77 Hirschmann 2004. Zu Handlungsspielräumen von Frauen in griechischen Poleis s. van Bremen 1996; zu Kultvereinen im Allgemeinen Nielsen 2006; zu Smyrna Hirschmann 2006. 78 Zu Kultvereinen der Demeter Schipporeit 2013: 440−443. Zur Synodos der Mystai der Demeter Thesmophoros πρὸ πόλεως I. Smyrna 653−5; Hirschmann 2004: 410−12; Schipporeit 2013: 198−199. Zu den Mystai der Kore I. Smyrna 726; Schipporeit 2013: 199−200. Vgl. Walter 1922−1924: 249; Mantis 1990: 100. Über die Ämter in den smyrnäischen Kultvereinen der Demeter und der Kore ist kaum etwas bekannt, s. Schipporeit 2013: 198−200. In Analogie zu anderen Orten, etwa den πρὸ πόλεως Δημητρασταί (ebenda 48−53), ist aber davon auszugehen, dass auch hier Ämter besetzt wurden, und zwar auch auf Lebenszeit. 79 Deswegen ist es auch unwahrscheinlich, dass die Bilder auf die verschiedenen Ämter, die es in solchen Vereinigungen gab (s.o. Anm. 78), anspielen sollten, auch wenn es natürlich durchaus vorstellbar ist, dass die Dargestellten solche Ämter innegehabt hatten.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Dienerinnen der Demeter? Zu einer Gruppe von Grabreliefs aus Smyrna | 327

Damit verliert sie aber schon wieder ihre statusdefinierende distinktive Funktion und erhält dafür einen geradezu affirmativen Charakter. Ziehen wir ein Fazit, dann sind gesicherte Grabdenkmäler für Priesterinnen und Priester auch im späthellenistischen Smyrna sehr selten. Allerdings nehmen hier, im Unterschied zu anderen Orten, viele Bilder in den Nekropolen Bezug auf bestimmte Kulte. Besonders der Kult der Demeter besaß eine herausgehobene Bedeutung und gerade für Frauen gehörte es anscheinend zum gesellschaftlichen Leitbild, ihre Verbundenheit zu dieser Göttin hervorzuheben. Dabei blieb allerdings noch Raum für weitere Akzentsetzungen. Die Grabreliefs dieser Frauen stehen nicht vollständig im Zeichen dieser Kulte, sondern schöpfen auch, in unterschiedlicher Intensität, aus dem sonst üblichen Bildrepertoire. Signifikant ist jedenfalls, dass das Rollenbild der Kultteilnehmerin nur eine unter mehreren Optionen ist und dass diese Option an Bedeutung verliert, sobald andere Rollenbilder wie das der Ehefrau ebenfalls visualisiert werden. Kultämter sind für die Grabrepräsentation anscheinend nicht von größerer Bedeutung, Kultaktivitäten dagegen schon. Doch so wichtig die Verbindung zur Göttin auch gewesen sein mag, so tritt sie doch gegenüber der Verbindung zum Ehemann im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes in den Hintergrund.

Denkmälerliste Die bibliographischen Belege streben keine Vollständigkeit an, sondern sind auf das Wesentliche beschränkt. Die Datierungen folgen, sofern nicht anders angegeben, Schmidt 1991: Tabelle II.

Smyrna Grabreliefs mit Demeterattributen 1)

Grabstele des Dionysios und des Amphilochos (Abb. 9) Basel, Antikenmuseum Inv. Nr. BS 244 Weiß-bläulicher, grobkristalliner Marmor H. 91 cm, Br. 51 cm, D. 9,5 cm. H. des Bildfeldes 46 cm, Br. 40,8 cm Letztes Drittel des 2. Jhs. v. Chr. Inschrift: Διονύσιον Διονύσιου; Ἀμφίλοχον Διονύσιου. Lit.: Känel 1989: 51−58 Taf. 15,1 (Erstpublikation).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

328 | Anja Klöckner

2)

Grabstele einer Frau (Abb. 1) Berlin, Staatliche Museen Inv. Nr. Sk 767 Aus Smyrna (Karawanenbrücke, vor dem östlichen Stadttor) Großkörniger, graubläulich-weißer Marmor H. 1,54 m, Br. 66 cm Letztes Drittel des 2. Jhs. v. Chr. Lit.: Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: 136−137 Nr. 405 Taf. 66; Mantis 1990: 100 Nr. Σ1 Taf. 45a; Zanker 1993: 226 Abb. 25; Stemmer 1995: 65−66 Kat. Nr. A 56 m. Abb.; Knittlmayer – Heilmeyer 1998: 185−6 Nr. 110 mit Farbabb.; Connelly 2007: 248−249 Abb. 8.19; Schipporeit 2013: R 2.

3) Grabstele der Dioskuris (Abb. 2) Izmir, AM Inv. 9506 Aus Görece Weißer Marmor H. 1,10 m, Br. 41 cm, D. 6,5 cm Um 130 v. Chr. Inschrift: Διοσκουρίδα Μητροδώρου, Κλινίου δὲ γυναῖκα.80 Lit.: Atalay – Malay 1984: 59−60 Taf. 4 a; Känel 1989: 54 Anm. 27; I. Smyrna 888; Schipporeit 2013: R 8. 4) Grabstele der Phila (Abb. 6) Izmir, AM Inv. Nr. 5843; ehem. Basmahane-Museum Aus Halka Pinar (1966 gefunden) Gelblicher Marmor H. 88 cm, Br. 45−35 cm, D. 10 cm 3. Viertel des 2. Jhs. v. Chr. Inschrift: Φίλαν Μενεκράτου. Lit.: Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: 137 Nr. 407 Taf. 66; I. Smyrna 29; Mantis 1990: 101 Nr. Σ3; Schipporeit 2013: R 4. 5) Untere rechte Ecke einer Grabstele (Abb. 8) Izmir, AM Inv. Nr. 513; ehem. Basmahane-Museum Aus Halka Pinar, sogenanntes Dianabad Hellgrauer, dunkel gestreifter Marmor H. 110 cm, Br. 48 cm, D. 27 cm

|| 80 Atalay – Malay 1984: 59 weisen darauf hin, dass die Namen Dioskurís und Kleinias, hier als Klinias geschrieben, in Kleinasien unüblich sind.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Dienerinnen der Demeter? Zu einer Gruppe von Grabreliefs aus Smyrna | 329

Ende des 2. / Anfang des 1. Jhs. v. Chr. Lit.: Walter 1922−1924: Beibl. 249 Abb. 138; Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: 162 Nr. 531 Taf. 82; Schipporeit 2013: R 12. 6) Grabstele der Menophila (Abb. 15) Ketteringham Hall; ehem. Venedig, Museum des Antonio Capelli Weißer Mamor H. ca. 58 cm, Br. ca. 39 cm Letztes Drittel des 2. Jhs. v. Chr. Inschrift: Μηνοφίλαν Ἀττάλου. Lit.: I. Smyrna 15; Senff 1985: 81−91 Taf. 6,2; Känel 1989: 54 Anm. 27. 7) Grabstele des Exakestes und der Metri(o)n (Abb. 11) London, BM, ex Townley Collection Weißer Marmor H. 77 cm, Br. 42 cm Ende des 2. / Anfang des 1. Jhs. v. Chr. Inschrift: Ἐξακέστην Ἀνδροβούλου; Μήτρειν Ἑρμίππου, Ἐξακέστου δὲ γυναῖκα. Lit.: Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: 227 Nr. 872 Taf. 129; I. Smyrna 81; Känel 1989: Taf. 15, 2; Bielman Sánchez 2006: 360 Nr. 8 Taf. 28, 3; Puddu 2007: 239−40 Abb. 9; Schipporeit 2013: R 14. 8) Grabstele des Posideos und der Herophanta (Abb. 14) Malibu, Getty Museum; ehem. Lowther Castle Aus Smyrna Weißer Marmor H. 152, 5 cm, Br. 56,5 cm 3. Viertel des 2. Jhs. v. Chr. Inschrift: Ποσίδεον Δημοκλείους; Ἡροφάνταν Τίμωνος. Lit.: Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: 161 Nr. 529 Taf. 82; I. Smyrna 103; Mantis 1990: 101 Nr. Σ7 Taf. 45b; Burnett Grossman 2001: 117−119 Kat. Nr. 43 m. Abb.; Bielman Sánchez 2006: 360 Nr. 7 Taf. 28, 2; Puddu 2007: 234 Abb. 7; Schipporeit 2013: R 10. 9) Grabstele der Apollonia (Abb. 5) Oxford, Ashmolean Museum Grauer Marmor H. 97 cm, Br. 51 cm Zweite Hälfte des 2. Jhs. v. Chr. (Pfuhl – Möbius 1977)

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

330 | Anja Klöckner

Inschrift: Ἀπολλωνίαν Κηφισοφῶντος. Lit.: Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: 137−138 Nr. 409 Taf. 67; I. Smyrna 9; Mantis 1990: 101 Nr. Σ5; Connelly 2007: 249 Abb. 8.20; Schipporeit 2013: R 6. 10) Grabstele der Demo (Abb. 4) Verona, Museo Maffeiano Inv. 28639 Weißer Marmor H. 99 cm, Br. 45 cm Wohl um die Mitte des 2. Jhs. v. Chr. (Pfuhl – Möbius 1977) Inschrift: Δημοῦν Διονυσίου, Εὐξένου δὲ γυναῖκα. Lit.: Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: 138 Nr. 410 Taf. 67; I. Smyrna 8; Mantis 1990: 101 Nr. Σ6; Bielman Sánchez 2006: 359 Nr. 6 Taf. 28, 1; Schipporeit 2013: R 7. 11) Stele der [ ]neis und des Nikandros (Abb. 12) Winchester (Hampshire), Memorial Building, East Gallery Marmor H. 90 cm, Br. 40 cm Um 130 v. Chr. Inschrift: [ ]νηΐδαν [ ]ανδος; Νίκαδρον Ἡρῴδου. Lit.: Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: 222−223 Nr. 855 Taf. 125; I. Smyrna 86; Zanker 1993: 219 Abb. 12; Schipporeit 2013: R 13. 12) Grabstele einer Frau (Abb. 7) Aufbewahrungsort unbekannt; ehem. Marseille Lit.: Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: 137 Nr. 408 Abb. 32; Mantis 1990: 101 Nr. Σ4; Schipporeit 2013: R 5. 13) Grabstele eines Paares (Abb. 13) Aufbewahrungsort unbekannt; ehem. Smyrna, an der Kirche auf dem armenischen Friedhof Aus Smyrna Weißer Marmor H. 1,53 m, B. 74 cm, D. 16 cm Kurz nach 150 v. Chr. Lit.: Walter 1922−1924: Beibl. 247−9 Abb. 137; Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: 161−162 Nr. 530 Taf. 82; I. Smyrna 106 Anm. 1; Schipporeit 2013: R 11. 14) Grabstele einer Frau (Abb. 3) Aufbewahrungsort unbekannt; ehem. Smyrna, Evangelische Schule Aus Smyrna, gefunden am Pagos (Kadife Kale)

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Dienerinnen der Demeter? Zu einer Gruppe von Grabreliefs aus Smyrna | 331

Weißer, grobkörniger Marmor H. 86 cm, Br. 56 cm, D. 11 cm Um 130 v. Chr. Lit.: Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: 137 Nr. 406 Taf. 66; Mantis 1990: 100 Nr. Σ2; Schipporeit 2013: R 3. 15) Grabstele einer Frau Aufbewahrungsort unbekannt; ehem. Smyrna, Slg. des holländischen Konsuls de Hochepied Von dem heute verschollenen Relief liegt eine Beschreibung aus dem frühen 18. Jh. vor, wonach die dargestellte Figur in ihrer ausgestreckten rechten Hand einen Stab halte. Hierbei handelt es sich wahrscheinlich um eine große Fackel. Inschrift: ]ΕΥΧ[ / ]ΡΩΕΥΜ[ Lit.: I. Smyrna 7; Känel 1989: 54 Anm. 27; Atalay – Malay 1984: 59 Anm. 1; Schipporeit 2013: R 9. 16) Grabstele des Apollonios und seiner Frau (?) (Abb. 10) Aufbewahrungsort unbekannt Aus Savanda köyü bei Kemalpaşa-Nymphaion, östlich von Izmir Weißer Marmor H. 170 cm Letztes Drittel des 2. Jhs. v. Chr. Inschrift: [Ἀ]πολλώνιον Ἑρμογένου τοῦ Ἀπολλωνίου; [τὴν δεῖνα τοῦ δεῖνος], [Ἀπολλωνίου ? δὲ γυ]ναῖκα. Lit.: I. Smyrna ad 888 Taf. 30; Schipporeit 2013: R 15. 17) Fragmentierte Grabstele Aufbewahrungsort unbekannt Aus Notion Bislang unpubliziert. Erwähnt von Känel 1989: 54 Anm. 27 („erst kürzlich entdecktes Relief aus Notion“). 30; Mantis 1990: 101 Nr. Σ8 (Frauenfigur und Dienerin mit großer Fackel).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

332 | Anja Klöckner

Grabreliefs mit Isisattributen 18) Grabstele der Isias (Abb. 16) London, BM 639 Aus Smyrna?81 Weißer Marmor H. 108 cm, Br. 59 cm, D. 10 cm Anfang des 2. Jhs. (Pfuhl – Möbius 1977) Inschrift: Ἰσιάδα Μητροδώρου Λαοδικίδα. Lit.: Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: 130 Nr. 376, 136 Taf. 61; I. Smyrna 10; Walters 1988: 53−54 Taf. 1 b; Eingartner 1991: 143 Kat. Nr. 98 Taf. 62; Känel 1989: 57; Bielman Sánchez 2006: 364−365 Nr. 10 Taf. 29, 1; Connelly 2007: 250−251 Abb. 8.22. 19) Grabstele des Demetrios und der Sarapias Oxford, Ashmolean Museum Aus Smyrna?82 Weißer, dunkel verfärbter, grobkörniger Marmor H. 34 cm, Br. 34,5 cm; D. 6 cm Um 100 v. Chr. (Pfuhl – Möbius 1977) Inschrift: ὁδῖτα, ἐπιστράφητι καὶ γνώσε̣[ι τάχα,], τίνων χάριν σ’ ὁ τύμβος ἀθρῆσαι λέγ[ω? —.] Δημήτριον κέκευθα καὶ ξυνάορον Σαραπιάδα· τὺ δ’ εἶπον ἀπταίστῳ [τέκνῳ·] Περῖτα, χαίροις εἰς γονεῖς τοῖος γ̣[εγώς.] Übersetzung nach Petzl: Wanderer, hab’ Acht, und du wirst [bald] erkennen, weshalb [ich], das Grab, dich hinzuschauen [heiße]; ich berge den Demetrios und seine Gattin Sarapias. Du aber sag’ dem [Kind], dem kein Unglück zustoßen möge: „Peritas, der du dich so gut gegenüber den Eltern gezeigt hast, lebe wohl!“ Lit.: Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: 227−228 Nr. 878 Taf. 131; I. Smyrna 514; Walters 1988: 20 Anm. 99. 22 Anm. 114. 31. 53 Anm. 179 Taf. 1 c; Eingartner 1991: 144 Kat. Nr. 99 Taf. 62; Merkelbach – Stauber 1998: 05/01/34; Bielman Sánchez 2006: 368−9 Kat. Nr. 99.

|| 81 Laut Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: 130 stammt die Stele aus Smyrna. I. Smyrna 5 weist darauf hin, dass sie nach van der Horst von einer Insel stamme. 82 Laut Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: 227 ist die Stele aus Smyrna nach England gelangt. Zum Fundort werden keine Angaben gemacht.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Dienerinnen der Demeter? Zu einer Gruppe von Grabreliefs aus Smyrna | 333

Grabrelief mit Kybeleattributen 20) Grabstele der Akesteime Oxford, Ashmolean Museum Weißer Marmor H. 44 cm, Br. 27 cm Erste Hälfte des 2. Jhs. v. Chr. (Pfuhl – Möbius 1977) Inschrift: Ἀκεστείμη Δημαγόρου, γυνὴ δὲ Ἀρτεμιδώρου, χαῖρε. Lit.: Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: 233 Nr. 898 Taf. 134; I. Smyrna 127; Mantis 1990: 51 Anm. 190; Connelly 2007: 250 Abb. 8.21.

Bibliographie Alexandridis, A. (2004). Die Frauen des römischen Kaiserhauses. Eine Untersuchung ihrer bildlichen Darstellung von Livia bis Iulia Domna. Mainz. Atalay, E., Malay, H. (1984). „A Funerary Stele from Smyrna.“ EA 3: 59−60. Bielman Sánchez, A. (2006). „Bilder (fast) ohne Worte. Die griechischen Grabstelen für Priesterinnen.“ in: S. Schroer (Hrsg.), Images and gender. Contributions to the hermeneutics of reading ancient art. Fribourg – Göttingen. 351−378. Bremen, R. van (1996). The Limits of Participation. Women and civic life in the Greek East in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Amsterdam. Breuer, C. (1995). Reliefs und Epigramme griechischer Privatgrabmäler. Zeugnisse bürgerlichen Selbstverständnisses vom 4. bis 2. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Köln – Weimar – Wien. Burnett Grossman, J. (2001). Greek Funerary Sculpture. Catalogue of the Collections at the Getty Villa. Malibu, California. Cadoux, C. J. (1938). Ancient Smyrna. A history of the city from the earliest times to 324 A.D. Oxford. Çalık Ross, A. (2003). „Eskişehir Arkeoloji Müzesinden Bir Erkek Portresi.“ Anadolu Üniversitesi, Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi: 307−312. Connelly, J. B. (2007). Portrait of a priestess. Women and ritual in ancient Greece. Princeton, New Jersey. Cumont, F. (1919). „Une statue praxitélienne d’ Acarnanie.“ RA 5. Ser., Bd. 10: 273−6. De Caro, S. (2006). Egittomania. Iside e il mistero. Napoli, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, 20. ottobre 2006 – 26. febbraio 2007. Mailand – Neapel. Diehl, E. (1984). Die Hydria. Formgeschichte und Verwendung im Kult des Altertums. Mainz. Dillon, S. (2010). The Female Portrait Statue in the Greek World. New York. Eingartner, J. (1991). Isis und ihre Dienerinnen in der Kunst der römischen Kaiserzeit. Leiden – New York – Kopenhagen – Köln. Eule, J. C. (2001). Hellenistische Bürgerinnen aus Kleinasien. Weibliche Gewandstatuen in ihrem antiken Kontext. Istanbul. Fabricius, J. (1999). Die hellenistischen Totenmahlreliefs. Grabrepräsentation und Wertvorstellungen in ostgriechischen Städten. München.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

334 | Anja Klöckner

Filges, A. (1997). Standbilder jugendlicher Göttinnen. Klassische und frühhellenistische Gewandstatuen mit Brustwulst und ihre kaiserzeitliche Rezeption. Köln – Weimar – Wien. Graf, F. (2003). „Lesser Mysteries, not less mysterious.“ in: M. B. Cosmopoulos (Hrsg.), Greek Mysteries. The Archeology and Ritual of Ancient Greek Secret Cults. London – New York. Herrmann, P. (1985). „Γέρας θανόντων.“ in: M. Wörrle, P. Zanker. Stadtbild und Bürgerbild im Hellenismus. Kolloquium, München, 24.−26. Juni 1983. München. 189−197. Hesberg, H. von (1988). „Bildsyntax und Erzählweise in der hellenistischen Flächenkunst.“ JDAI 103: 81−91. Hirschmann, V. E. (2004). „Methodische Überlegungen zu Frauen in antiken Vereinen.“ in: Roman rule and civic life. Local and regional perspectives. Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop of the International Network „Impact of Empire“ (Roman empire, c. 200 B.C. − A.D. 476), Leiden, June 25−28, 2003. Amsterdam. 401−414. — (2006). „Macht durch Integration? Aspekte einer gesellschaftlichen Wechselwirkung zwischen Verein und Stadt am Beispiel des Mysten und Techniten des Dionysos von Smyrna.“ in: A. Gutsfeld, D.-A. Koch (Hrsg.). Vereine, Synagogen und Gemeinden im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien. Tübingen. Hoepfner, W. (1973). „Das Grabmonument des Pythagoras aus Selymbria.“ MDAI(A) 88: 145−163. Hoff, R. von den (2008). „Images of Cult Personnel in Athens between the Sixth and the First Centuries B.C.“ in: B. Dignas, K. Trampedach (Hrsg.). Practitioners of the Divine: Greek priests and religious officials from Homer to Heliodorus. Washington, DC – Cambridge, Mass. 107−141. Kabus-Jahn, R. (1962). Studien zu Frauenfiguren des vierten Jahrhunderts vor Christus. Diss. Freiburg Kaltsas, N. (2002). Sculpture in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens. Los Angeles, California. Känel, R. (1989). „Drei hellenistische Grabreliefs aus Smyrna in Basel.“ AK 32: 50−58. Knittlmayer, B. – Heilmeyer, W.-D. (Hrsg.) (1998). Die Antikensammlung: Altes Museum, Pergamonmuseum. Mainz. Krauskopf, I. (2005). „Hydria und verwandte Gefäße zum Transport von Wasser.“ in: Thesaurus cultus et rituum antiquorum, Bd. 5. Los Angeles. 170−3. Laugier, L. (2009). „Les stèles funéraires et les nécropoles de Smyrne.“ in: I. Hasselin Rous u.a. (Hrsg.), D’ Izmir à Smyrne : découverte d' une cité antique. Ausstellungskatalog Paris, Musée du Louvre. Paris. 64−67. Linfert, A. (1976). Kunstzentren hellenistischer Zeit. Wiesbaden. Mantis, A. (1990). Πρoβλήματα της εικoνoγραφίας των ιερειών και των ιερέων στην αρχαία ελληνική τέχνη. Athen. Martzavou, P. (2011). „Priests and Priestly Roles in the Isiac Cults. Women as Agents in Religious Change in Late Hellenistic and Roman Athens.“ in: A. Chaniotis (Hrsg.). Ritual Dynamics in the Ancient Mediterranean. Agency, Emotion, Gender, Representation. Stuttgart. 61−84. Merkelbach, R., Stauber, J. (1998). Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten, Bd. 1. Stuttgart – Leipzig. Muthmann, F. (1951). Statuenstützen und dekoratives Beiwerk an griechischen und römischen Bildwerken: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der römischen Kopistentätigkeit. Heidelberg.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Dienerinnen der Demeter? Zu einer Gruppe von Grabreliefs aus Smyrna | 335

Nielsen, I. (Hrsg.) (2006). „Zwischen Kult und Gesellschaft: Kosmopolitische Zentren des antiken Mittelmeerraumes als Aktionsraum von Kultvereinen und Religionsgemeinschaften.“ Hephaistos 24, Themenband. Palaiokrassa, L. (2005). „Beleuchtungsgeräte.“ in: Thesaurus cultus et rituum antiquorum, Bd. 5. Los Angeles. 363−376. Peek, W. (1955). Griechische Versinschriften, Bd. 1. Grab-Epigramme. Berlin. — (1960). Griechische Grabgedichte. Griechisch und deutsch. Darmstadt. Peschlow-Bindokat, A. (1972). „Demeter und Persephone in der attischen Kunst des 6. bis 4. Jahrhunderts.“ JDAI 87: 60−157. Pfanner, M. (1989). „Ein Relief in der Münchner Glyptothek und Überlegungen zu einigen bemerkenswerten Aspekten hellenistischer Grabreliefs.“ MDAI(A) 88: 165−196. Pfuhl, E., Möbius, H. (1977−1979). Die ostgriechischen Grabreliefs I−II. Mainz. Pirenne-Delforge, V., Georgoudi, S. (2005). „Personnel de culte: monde grec.“ in: Thesaurus cultus et rituum antiquorum, Bd. 5. Los Angeles. 1−65. Puddu, M. (2007). „I ritratti delle stele funerarie di Smirne (II. sec. A. C.). Consapevole strumento di autopropaganda.“ in: A. Simonetta, M. Giuman, (Hrsg.), Imago: studi di iconografia antica. Cagliari. 221−262. Reinsberg, C. (2005). „Demeter, Artemisia und die pietas Augustae. Zur spätklassischen Statue der Orans.“ in: Ramazan Özgan’a Armağan. Festschrift für Ramazan Özgan. Istanbul. 297−316. Ridgway, B. S. (2000). Hellenistic Sculpture II: The Styles of ca. 200−100 B. C. Madison, Wisconsin. Ritti, T. (1981). Iscrizioni e rilievi greci nel Museo Maffeiano di Verona. Rom. Rosenbaum, E. (1960). A catalogue of Cyrenaican portrait sculpture. London. Rügler, A. (1989). „Das Grabmal des Philetos. Zu den attischen Grabstelen römischer Zeit.“ MDAI(A) 104: 219−234. Rumscheid, F. (2006). Die figürlichen Terrakotten von Priene. Fundkontexte, Ikonographie und Funktion in Wohnhäusern und Heiligtümern im Lichte antiker Parallelbefunde. Wiesbaden. — (2000). Kranz und Krone. Zu Insignien, Siegespreisen und Ehrenzeichen der römischen Kaiserzeit. Istanbuler Forschungen 43. Tübingen. Schipporeit, S. Th. (2013). Kulte und Heiligtümer der Demeter und Kore in Ionien. Byzas 16. Istanbul. Schmaltz, B. (1993). Griechische Grabreliefs. Darmstadt. Schmidt, St. (1991). Hellenistische Grabreliefs. Typologische und chronologische Betrachtungen. Köln – Wien. Schörner, G. (2003). Votive im römischen Griechenland. Untersuchungen zur späthellenistischen und kaiserzeitlichen Kunst- und Religionsgeschichte. Stuttgart. Senff, R. (1985). „Drei hellenistische Grabreliefs in Ketteringham Hall.“ Boreas 8: 81−91. Smith, A. H. (1892−1904). A catalogue of sculpture in the Departement of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum. London. Sporn, K. (2006). „Das Göttliche im Menschenbild. Religiöse Elemente im griechischen Grabrelief.“ in: J. Mylonopoulos, H. Roeder (Hrsg.), Archäologie und Ritual: auf der Suche nach der rituellen Handlung in den antiken Kulturen Ägyptens und Griechenlands. Wien. 153−166. Stemmer, K. (Hrsg.) (1995). Standorte. Kontext und Funktion antiker Skulptur. Ausstellung in der Abguss-Sammlung Antiker Plastik des Seminars für Klassische Archäologie an der Freien Universität Berlin. Berlin

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

336 | Anja Klöckner

Vedder, U. (1985). Untersuchungen zur plastischen Ausstattung attischer Grabanlagen des 4. Jhs. v. Chr. Frankfurt a. M. – Bern – New York. Vérilhac, A.-M. (1985). „L’ image de la femme dans les épigrammes funéraires grecques.“ in: La femme dans le monde méditerranéen, I. Antiquité. 85−112. von Moock, D. W. (1998). Die figürlichen Grabstelen Attikas in der Kaiserzeit. Studien zur Verbreitung, Chronologie, Typologie und Ikonographie. Mainz. Walter, O. (1922−1924) „Antikenbericht aus Smyrna.“ JÖAI 21/22 Beiblatt: Sp. 223−260. Walters, E. J. (1988). Attic Grave Reliefs that Represent Women in the Dress of Isis. Hesperia. Supplement 22. Princeton, New Jersey. Woysch-Méautis, D. (1982). La représentation des animaux des êtres fabuleux sur les monuments funéraires grecs de l’époque archaïque à la fin du Ive siècle av. J.-C. Lausanne. Wrede, H. (1981). Consecratio in formam deorum. Vergöttlichte Privatpersonen in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Mainz. Wünsche, R. (2005). Glyptothek München. Meisterwerke griechischer und römischer Skulptur. München.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Dienerinnen der Demeter? Zu einer Gruppe von Grabreliefs aus Smyrna | 337

Abb. 1 Grabstele einer Frau, Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Antikensammlung Sk 767, © Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Antikensammlung, Foto: Johannes Laurentius (Nr. 2).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

338 | Anja Klöckner

Abb. 2 Grabstele der Dioskuris, Izmir, AM Inv. 9506, nach Atalay – Malay 1984: Taf. 4 a (Nr. 3).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Dienerinnen der Demeter? Zu einer Gruppe von Grabreliefs aus Smyrna | 339

Abb. 3 Grabstele einer Frau, ehem. Smyrna, Evangelische Schule, © DAI Athen, Inst. Neg. D-DAI-ATH-Grabrelief 558 (Nr. 14).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

340 | Anja Klöckner

Abb. 4 Grabstele der Demo, Verona, Museo Maffeiano Inv. 28639, © DAI Rom, Inst. Neg. D-DAI-ROM 56.1423. Foto: Sansaini (Nr. 10).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Dienerinnen der Demeter? Zu einer Gruppe von Grabreliefs aus Smyrna | 341

Abb. 5 Grabstele der Apollonia, Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, nach Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: Taf. 67 (Nr. 9).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

342 | Anja Klöckner

Abb. 6 Grabstele der Phila, Izmir, AM Inv. Nr. 5843, nach Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: Taf. 66 (Nr. 4).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Dienerinnen der Demeter? Zu einer Gruppe von Grabreliefs aus Smyrna | 343

Abb. 7 Zeichnung einer verschollenen Grabstele, ehem. in Marseille, nach Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: 137 Abb. 32 (Nr. 12).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

344 | Anja Klöckner

Abb. 8 Fragment einer Grabstele, Izmir, AM Inv. Nr. 513, nach Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: Taf. 82 (Nr. 5).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Dienerinnen der Demeter? Zu einer Gruppe von Grabreliefs aus Smyrna | 345

Abb. 9 Grabstele des Dionysios und des Amphilochos, Basel, Antikenmuseum BS 244, © Antikenmuseum Basel und Sammlung Ludwig / A. Voegelin (Nr. 1).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

346 | Anja Klöckner

Abb. 10 Grabstele des Apollonios und seiner Frau, nach I. Smyrna 2,2 Taf. 30 (Nr. 16).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Dienerinnen der Demeter? Zu einer Gruppe von Grabreliefs aus Smyrna | 347

Abb. 11 Grabstele des Exakestes und der Metri(o)n, London, British Museum, ex Townley Collection, © Trustees of the British Museum (Nr. 7).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

348 | Anja Klöckner

Abb. 12 Grabstele eines Paares, Winchester (Hampshire), Memorial Building, East Gallery, nach Pfuhl – Möbius 1977: Taf. 125 (Nr. 11).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Dienerinnen der Demeter? Zu einer Gruppe von Grabreliefs aus Smyrna | 349

Abb. 13 Grabstele eines Paares, ehem. Smyrna, Armenischer Friedhof, © DAI Athen, Inst. Neg. D-DAI-ATH-Grabrelief 629 (Nr. 13).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

350 | Anja Klöckner

Abb. 14 Grabstele des Posideos und der Herophanta, Malibu, The J. Paul Getty Museum 71.AA.288, © The J. Paul Getty Museum, Villa Collection, Malibu, California (Nr. 8).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Dienerinnen der Demeter? Zu einer Gruppe von Grabreliefs aus Smyrna | 351

Abb. 15 Grabstele der Menophila, Ketteringham Hall, © Reinhard Senff (Nr. 6).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

352 | Anja Klöckner

Abb. 16 Grabstele der Isias, London, British Museum 639, © Trustees of the British Museum (Nr. 18).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Dienerinnen der Demeter? Zu einer Gruppe von Grabreliefs aus Smyrna | 353

Abb. 17 Verschollene Statue des Stephanephoren Metrodoros Matreas in einer Zeichnung von Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc, nach Rumscheid 2000: Taf. 31,4.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:54 PM

Indices Source Index AB 240 | 257 Aeschin. 1.183 | 10 3.18 | 13 AJPh 56 (1935) 379−380, no. IV | 89 Anth. Graec. 7.169 | 319 7.429 | 319 7.728 | 304 7.733 | 304 Apul. met. 11.10.1 | 314 Ar. Pl. 676−681 | 59−60 Ar. V. 119 | 16 Arist. HA 583b | 11 Artem. 2.3 | 264 Ath. 6.234e | 89 13.612a−b | 11 BCH 1887 308−309, no. 2 | 90 BCH 1933 518−529 | 259 BCH 1940−1941 163−200 | 50 BCH 1959 363−364 | 47 CID I 12 | 77 CIG 2.858 | 163 2.3657 | 165 CIRB 1123 | 114

D. 18.259−260 | 15 [D.] 59.85−86 | 10 EA 25 (1995) 83−85, no.1 | 226 85−86, no.2 | 226 FD III 3 214−215 | 89 FD III 4 442 | 80 GHI 27 | 10 GIBM 4 893 | 123 895 | 45, 101 896 | 74, 81, 101 897 | 100 908 | 99 Hdt. 8.41 | 89 Herzog 1899 217 | 260, 261 Herzog 1928 1 | 92 4−5 | 92 10 | 67, 68 Hsch. s.v. δημοτελῆ ἱερά | 257 s.v. ἐμιμήνιοι | 89 s.v. θευμορία | 272 I. Aph. 2.17 | 138 10.26 U, V | 189 I. Didyma 182 | 16 243 | 16 277 | 16 370 | 16 388 | 16 479 | 123

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

356 | Indices

I. Ephesos 10 | 259 618 | 48 836 | 189 2001 | 186 I. Erythrai 6 | 201 17 | 110 69 | 131, 160 201 | 31 206 | 30 210a | 129, 163 504 | 202 I. Iasos 98 | 141 607−608 | 89 612 | 283 I. Ilion 5−6 | 201 11−12 | 201 15 | 132 15−17 | 131 32 | 89 I. Kaunos 56 | 105, 106 139 | 188 I. Kyme 2 | 89 49 | 320 I. Kyzikos 1432−1433 | 131−132, 135 I. Labraunda 8 B | 109 69 | 109 I. Lampsakos 8−9 | 95, 112 I. Lindos 58 | 168 91 | 168 346 | 262 347 | 24 350 | 262 378 | 262 384e | 24 419 | 262 I. Milet VI 3 1045 | 203

1085 | 203 1222 | 17, 32, 197 1223b | 17 I. Mylasa 336 | 107 350 | 107 426 | 304 861 | 78 869 | 133, 136, 141 I. Oropos 276 | 54 277 | 10, 53 278 | 53 290 | 44, 53, 55 292 | 11 294 | 47 324 | 53−55 I. Pergamon 167 | 159 484 | 130 I. Pergamon III 161 | 58 I. Priene 1 | 179 3 | 133, 167, 180 4 | 180, 192 6 | 180 8−9 | 180 11 | 179, 187 12−13 | 192 14 | 179, 182, 187 17−20 | 180 26 | 192 37 | 179 38 | 188 49 | 180 55 | 185, 189, 194, 203 82 | 193 83 | 89 99 | 193 99−104 | 180 103 | 192, 193 107 | 166 108 | 133, 137, 166, 192 108−111 | 193 109−110 | 192 111 | 187, 192

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

Source Index | 357

112 | 286 113 | 192, 193 117 | 192−193 118 | 288 124 | 179 133 | 193 139 | 190 156 | 179 160 | 130, 164, 183, 193 162 | 130, 164, 166, 183, 184, 189, 193 169 | 182 170 | 128, 168, 183 172 | 126, 167, 183, 193 173 | 127, 166, 183, 193 174 | 130, 166, 183, 194, 195 175 | 166 177 | 130, 184, 189 179−183 | 182 186 | 129, 134, 170, 180, 184, 189, 194 195 | 195 201−203 | 192, 194, 198 205 | 188 231 | 133, 167 236 | 134, 180 237 | 134 268 I B | 168 313 | 188, 189 361 | 187 362 | 182, 186, 187 363 | 187, 188 364 | 185, 186, 187 I. Priene² 1 | 179 2 | 179, 182, 187 6 | 179, 187 16−17 | 180 19 | 180, 192 20−21 | 180 27 | 192 28−31 | 180 32−33 | 192 37 | 180 42 | 180 43 | 185, 189, 194, 203 56 | 192, 193

56−60 | 180 57 | 193 64−66 | 192, 193 67 | 187, 192 69 | 192, 193 71 | 192, 193 77 | 179 93 | 193 107 | 180 117 | 180 132 | 179 133 | 188 144 | 183, 194, 195 145 | 185, 194, 196 146 | 192, 198 146−148 | 192, 194 147−148 | 192, 198 149 | 179 167 | 183 168 | 183, 189 183 | 184, 189 186−190 | 182 191−193 | 183 196 | 195 201 | 180, 184, 189, 194 203 | 182 205 | 188 229 | 180 354 | 188, 189 398 | 190 399 | 178, 191 415 | 187, 188 416 | 182, 186 417 | 185, 186, 187 I. Prusias ad Hypium 20 | 48 I. Sestos 1 | 47 I. Smyrna 5 | 332 7 | 331 8−9 | 330 10 | 332 15 | 329 29 | 328 40 | 321 46 | 321

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

358 | Indices

81 | 329 86 | 330 90 | 321 103 | 329 106 | 330 127 | 333 513 | 321 514 | 332 515 | 304, 320 573 | 89 577 | 202 653−655 | 326 655 | 316 724 | 68 726 | 326 727 | 309, 316 888 | 328, 331 I. Stratonikeia 1 | 219 7 | 136, 226 7−8 | 244 10 | 222 11−12 | 222, 227 15 | 230 17 | 218, 223 21 | 244 22 | 223, 228 22−39b | 227, 244 23 | 223 25 | 223 29 | 223, 235 33 | 223 35 | 223 102 | 229 105 | 229 108 | 221, 229 112 | 223 170 | 224 171 | 230 172 | 21 174 | 221, 223 181 | 224 186 | 224 189 | 232 202 | 221 203 | 21, 22, 221, 224 205 | 33, 221, 224

210 | 224 235 | 218 242 | 34, 222, 224 248 | 22 249 | 231 252 | 224 254−255 | 224 256 | 218, 221, 223, 224 266 | 222, 224 267 | 223 270 | 225 289 | 217, 230 295a/b | 223 309 | 223, 224 310 | 216 311−312 | 21 318 | 224 326−327 | 218 332 | 229 341 | 222, 223 344 | 223 401−500 | 221 502 | 109 504 | 212 505 | 213 507−508 | 213 530 | 216, 217 538−543 | 218 545 | 221 601−741 | 214 658 | 215 662 | 22 663 | 217 664 | 216 666 | 25 668 | 216, 217 669 | 216 672 | 216 675 | 22 676 | 218 678 | 217 682 | 217 683 | 32, 218 684 | 216 685 | 217, 218 690 | 218 697 | 216

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

Source Index | 359

701 | 218 704−705 | 217 706 | 216, 217 707−713 | 218 735 | 217, 218 1025 | 224 1028 | 218 1048 | 218 1101 | 231 1325 A | 224 1401−1402 | 226, 244 1409 | 223, 230 1418 | 136 1422 | 221 1433 | 131 1438 | 22, 214 ID 290 | 110 314 | 110 372 | 86 1898 | 62 2226 | 27, 28 IG I3 6 | 53, 54 71 | 110 386−387 | 53 392 | 53 987 | 73 1491 | 107 1495 | 107 IG II2 839 | 123 1046 | 47 1140 | 157 1199 | 157 1237 | 114 1337 | 28 1356 | 58 1361 | 19 1407 | 132 1672 | 53, 55 3457 | 162 3462 | 130, 162 3464 | 139 3477 | 162 3481 | 159 4359 | 162

IG II3 447 | 9 IG IV2 1 122 | 105 IG V 1 4 | 123 1144 | 45 1145−1146 | 46 1152 | 314 1390 | 123 IG VII 412 | 47 2712 | 25 4255 | 11 IG XI 4 709−710 | 71 1247 | 61 IG XII 1 66 | 129 348 | 84 761 | 282 891 | 90 IG XII 2 505 | 90 526 | 69 645 | 99 IG XII 3 30 | 86 330 | 67, 71, 112 IG XII 4 26 | 249 41 | 263 57 | 256 59 | 256 68 | 292 71 | 265 72 | 249, 255, 263 75 | 289 79−80 | 251, 295 91 | 284 93 | 260, 288, 299 94 | 284 95 | 260, 286, 288, 292 98−99 | 289, 299 100 | 260, 286, 287 102 | 257, 283, 284, 288 103 | 249, 281, 287

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

360 | Indices

103−104 | 249 105 | 288 108−109 | 299 110 | 260, 286, 288 121 | 90, 286, 287 274 | 78, 250, 266−267, 269, 270−271 274−278 | 248 275 | 78, 92, 250, 266 276 | 78, 267, 269 278 | 78, 92, 250, 256, 260, 262, 266−267, 269−271, 273 279 | 260, 282 280 | 260 281 | 251 286 | 94 294 | 265, 284 295 | 265 296 | 258, 261 296−331 | 252 296b | 42 298 | 65, 258, 261, 265−266, 268, 288−290, 292−293 299 | 15−16, 253−254, 258, 261, 290 302 | 42, 44, 57, 253, 265−266, 272−274, 289−291, 293 303 | 281−283 304 | 18, 45, 65, 254, 259, 261, 265, 268, 270, 273, 290, 293 305 | 289, 293 306 | 258, 261, 263, 289−291 307 | 65, 258, 261, 268, 290, 293 309 | 289, 293 310 | 110, 251, 265, 290, 293 311 | 43, 254, 289, 291, 293 312−313 | 293 314 | 291, 293 315 | 43, 254, 268, 272−273, 283, 289−290, 293 316−317 | 293 318 | 254, 269, 293 319 | 44, 254, 265, 272−274, 284, 289, 290−293, 296 320 | 90, 258, 261, 263, 289, 291−293 321 | 263, 289, 293 323 | 261, 263, 293

324 325 326

289, 293 43, 272, 292−293 | 18, 45, 254, 259, 262, 268, 270, 273, 290−291, 293 327 | 254, 265, 291, 293 328 | 254, 258, 261, 263, 265, 289, 291−293 329 | 293 330 | 255, 263, 264, 265, 268, 290−291, 293 332 | 92, 248−249, 255−256, 291 339 | 272 342 | 265 346 | 265−266, 268 348 | 67−68, 80, 109, 251, 274, 295−297 349 | 75, 295 350 | 99, 250, 251, 257, 295 355 | 69, 295 356 | 253, 256, 260, 270, 281−282, 284 357 | 260 358 | 260, 282 363 | 262 364 | 262, 283, 285 365 | 262 451−452 | 292 456 | 86, 260, 287 458 | 261, 283 512 | 260, 261 532 | 107 607 | 261 609 | 261 614 | 261 621−632 | 261 675 | 261 822 | 251 838 | 252, 254 898 | 261 951 | 250 952 | 252 978 | 129, 254 1053 | 251−252 1210−1236 | 250 IG XII 6 168 | 90 1197 | 16 |

|

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

Source Index | 361

IG XII 7 237 | 95 241 | 60 515 | 95 IG XII Suppl. 366 | 90 555 | 89 646 | 189 IGR 3 | 25 IScM I 1 | 89, 251 5 | 105 19 | 259 58 | 99 JÖAI 11 (1908) 53−56, no. 1 | 92 64−69, no. 5 | 76 LGS II 129 | 67 144 | 67 LSAM 8 | 95 17 | 114 37 | 264, 269 39−40 | 186 48 | 197 59 | 113 63 | 252 68 | 78 70 | 113−114 72 | 67, 101 73 | 45, 101−102, 113 LSCG 17 C | 270 19 | 270 43 | 123 44 | 47 50 | 123 61 | 45, 251 65 | 264 69 | 65 96 | 10 119 | 66, 252 122 | 90 135 | 67 172 | 281

177 | 67 LSS 3 | 53 15 | 259 38 | 259 42 | 77 48 | 80 61 | 95 72 | 50 107 | 123 123 | 123 129 | 66 Luc. Dea Syria. 27 | 263 MAMA 6,119 | 25 Merkelbach/Stauber 1998 01/20/21 | 304 01/22/01 | 304 03/05/02 | 304 03/07/03 | 163 04/02/11 | 321 05/01/34 | 332 05/01/38 | 304, 320 05/01/50 | 321 05/03/05 | 320 Milet I 2 10 | 202 Milet I 3 37 | 114 170 | 202 178 | 108 Milet I 7 250 | 202 Milet I 9 306 | 201, 202 NGSL 86−87 | 67 OGIS 6 | 68 222 | 202 479 | 25 763 | 202 Paus. 1.14−14 | 50 1.26.5 | 140 1.27.4 | 139

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

362 | Indices

2.11.3 | 10 2.17.1 | 14 2.17.3 | 139 2.17.7 | 139 2.35.8 | 139 4.31.10 | 124 5.7.7 | 264 5.14 | 264 6.3.15 | 159 7.25.7 | 139, 167 9.27.6 | 12 PCG VII F 70 | 11 Philostrat. VApoll. 4. 5 | 201 Pi. O. 3 | 264 Pl. Euthd. 277d | 16 Pl. Lg. 6.781a−b | 11 7.802e | 11 8.806e | 11 8.828c | 10 Plu. mor. 843 E−F | 140 Plu. Quaest. Graec. 304c−e | 260, 263 Porph. De Abstin. 4.22.7 | 66 RC 52 | 201, 202 REG 112 (1999) 2, no. 1 | 89 RPh 1937 321−325, no. 4 + 5 | 89 337−344 | 259 SEG 8 529 | 90 SEG 15 517 | 73 637 | 74, 81, 101 668 | 132 SEG 16 696 | 78 701 | 101

SEG 21 541 | 59 SEG 23 208 | 135 215 | 124 219 | 125 220 | 124 221 | 125, 126 222 | 125 225 | 125 SEG 26 1334 | 264 SEG 28 841 | 14 887 | 66 969 | 68 SEG 29 135 | 161 1087 | 106 1088 | 113 SEG 30 869 B | 107 SEG 31 969 | 89 SEG 32 1243 | 232 SEG 33 115 | 157 679 | 259 1035 | 170 1037 | 170 SEG 35 113 | 59 929 | 202 SEG 36 1049 | 202 SEG 39 218 | 159 774 | 50 SEG 40 991 | 106 SEG 41 182 | 49, 50 958 | 89 SEG 43 713 | 109

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

Source Index | 363

14.1.20 | 200, 201 14.1.31 | 201, 202 14.2.20 | 109 Syll.2 265 | 80 641 | 82, 101 Syll.3 42 | 53 748 | 46 756 | 47 800 | 26 890 | 25 1015 | 45 1044 | 81, 101 Tac. Ann. 3.62 | 213 TAM II 550−551 | 47 Theoc. Id. 2.121−122 | 264 Tit. Cal. 74 | 249 Tit. Cam. 52 | 47 Vidman Syll. 269 | 99 X. Oec. 7.16−43 | 11

SEG 45 1508 A | 113 SEG 46 133 | 132 173 | 58 422 | 202 SEG 47 1628 | 30 SEG 49 812 | 107 1438 | 131 SEG 51 215 | 161 1050 | 89 SEG 52 761 | 35 1064 | 98, 107, 108, 112 1147 | 30 SEG 54 214 | 7 748 | 89 SEG 55 929 | 129 1113 | 113 SEG 57 536 | 77 SNG Cop. 655 | 164 Strab. 8.7.2 | 178, 200, 201

Places, Geographical Names Aigiale | 95 Akarnania | 314 Akraiphia | 25 Alexandreia | 111, 125 Alinda | 223, 228 Amorgos | 60, 95 Amunanda | 110 Andania | 262, 264 Anthes | 104, 108 Aphrodisias | 128, 137−138 agora | 138 bouleuterion | 138

Sebasteion | 138 theatre | 138 Argos | 14, 108 Astypalaia | 104, 108−109 Athens | 9−11, 16, 24, 47, 55, 76, 80, 89, 111, 114, 132, 157, 159, 161, 169, 232, 250, 270, 309, 323 agora | 159, 165, 168, 170 Asklepieion | 162 Cynosarges | 89 deme Aithalidai | 159 deme Aixone | 7, 58, 157, 269

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

364 | Indices

deme Erchia | 59 deme Kephisia | 62 deme Lakiadai | 62 deme Paiania | 157 deme Phrearrhioi | 59 deme Rhamnous | 162 deme Sounium | 62 deme Sphettos | 62 deme Thumaitadai | 62 Eleusinion | 161 Erechtheion | 140, 158−159 Parthenon | 158 phyle Pandionis | 157 Piraeus | 19, 28 Attica | 122, 304, 322, 323, 326 Bargylia | 89, 110, 113, 283 Brauron | 125, 132 Butheia | 201 Çatallar Tepe | 178 Chalketor | 113 Chalkis | 201 Chios | 66, 89, 202, 252, 259 Claros | 203 Clazomenae | 201−202 Cnidus | 77 Cos | 15−16, 18, 41−48, 56−57, 65, 68−70, 75, 77−78, 80, 86, 89−90, 92, 94, 98, 107−108, 110, 129, 180, 247−274, 279−300 agora | 292−294 Antigoneion | 45 Asklepieion | 42, 94, 250, 265, 294 deme Antimachia | 90, 253, 256−258, 260−261, 263, 270, 281, 282−284, 286−288 deme Halasarna | 89, 249, 260−262, 280−285, 289, 292, 299 deme Haleis | 69 deme Isthmos | 75 harbour | 292−294 Karneiasion | 264 Damagetos | 104, 108 Damascus | 213 Delos | 13, 27−28, 35, 61, 71, 110 Serapeion | 61 Delphi | 12, 56, 77, 89, 106, 248, 259, 292

Didyma | 108, 227 Dodona | 12, 77 Dorylaion | 25 Echelidai | 73 Egypt | 216 Elaiusa | 201 Eleusis | 10, 53, 55, 259 Elis | 213 Ephesos | 48, 89, 133, 167, 178−179, 186, 201, 203, 259 Epidauros | 105 Eresos | 69 Eretria | 89 Erythrai | 13−16, 29−31, 89, 129, 131, 142, 160, 163−164, 166, 201−202, 320 Gorgippia | 114 Güzelçamli | 178 Gytheion | 45−46, 314 Haleis | 260−261 Halicarnassus | 14, 45, 65, 70, 74, 76, 79, 92, 99, 100−102, 106, 108−114 Maussolleion | 101, 109 Halkapinar | 328 Hecatonnesos | 99 Helike | 190 Herakleia Salbake | 25 Herakleia under Latmos | 216 Hiera Kome | 211, 214, 217 Hierapolis | 28 Hyllarima | 113 Iasos | 110, 113, 141, 228 Ilion | 131, 142, 201 Ionia | 177−178 Istros | 89, 99, 105 Kallipolis | 226 Kalymnos | 47 Karion | 188 Keramos | 213 Keryneia | 139 Klaros | 89 Knidos | 180 Koliorga | 211, 214, 229 Kolophon | 89, 178 Koraia | 211, 214, 229 Koranza | 98, 107−109, 112, 211−212, 214, 217, 223

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

Places, Geographical Names | 365

Kos vide Cos Kyme | 170, 232 Kys | 90 Kyzikos | 131−132, 135, 142, 165 agora | 131, 135, 142 Laconia | 45 Lagina | 16, 20−29, 32, 98, 126, 131, 209−219, 221−225, 228−229, 231−232 Lagnokeis | 90 Lampsakos | 95 Lebadeia | 190 Lepsia | 304 Leros | 98, 108, 112 Lesbos | 90 Leuke | 107 Lindos | 24, 168, 262, 282 Lobolda | 211, 214 Lycia | 26, 47, 83 Lycosura | 26 Magnesia on the Maeander | 132, 213 Magnesia Sipylos | 178 Megalopolis | 190 Melia | 178, 187 Panionion | 187 Messene | 124−126, 128−129, 135−136, 141, 202, 319 Artemision | 122, 125, 128, 141 Asklepieion | 124 Methymna | 90 Miletos | 15−20, 29, 32, 89, 177−179, 185−187, 195, 197−198, 201−203, 226, 228 Panionion | 187 Minoa | 60, 95 Mount Mykale | 178, 181, 185, 187, 200−201 Mykalessos | 187 Mylasa | 78, 196, 216, 252, 304−305 Myndos | 78, 108, 109 Palaimyndos | 109 Naulochos | 178−179 Neon Phaleron | 73 Nysa | 228 Olymos | 78, 108, 133, 136, 141 Olympia | 56, 123, 159, 264 Oropos | 44, 47, 53−55, 65

Otomatik Tepe | 178 Ouranietai | 110 Panamara | 11, 16, 20−29, 33−34, 209−211, 214−223, 225−232 Aristeterion | 223−224 Heraion | 221 Komyrion | 21 Philotrophion | 223 Paros | 73, 259 Peloponnese | 109, 201 Peraia | 282 Pergamon | 68, 130−131, 133−134, 142, 159, 311 temple | 142 Phyxa | 260, 282 Polichne | 201 Priene | 89, 124, 126, 128−130, 133−137, 139, 141−142, 164, 166−168, 170, 177−204, 259, 264, 269, 286, 312, 322 agora | 134−135, 142, 179−180, 192 Alexandreion | 188 Bianteion | 192 gymnasium | 188 Panionion | 177−178, 180−181, 188−192, 199−203 Prytaneion | 181, 192, 199 Timoucheion | 192 Prusias ad Hypium | 48 Psenamosis | 90 Pyraia | 10 Rhodes | 24, 90, 109, 129, 168, 211−212, 280 Netteia | 90 Rome | 203, 211, 213, 222, 231 Salamis | 159 Samos | 16, 89, 178, 185−188, 195 Helikonion | 89 Heraion | 107, 159 Samothrace | 264 Sardeis | 203, 321 Selymbria | 319 Sestos | 47 Sicyon | 10, 21 Side | 26 Sillyon | 25 Skepsis | 264

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

366 | Indices

Smyrna | 89, 114, 201−202, 228, 303−333 Pagos | 307, 330 Stratonikeia | 20−27, 32−34, 131, 136, 209−233 bouleuterion | 222, 230 gymnasium | 224, 230 Syangela | 106−107 Syros 24−25 Taramptos | 105, 110 Tarandos | 110 Telemessos | 104−106, 109 Telmessos vide Telemessos Telos | 86 Tenos | 24, 80

Teos | 66, 178, 201 Thasos | 47, 50−51, 90 Theangela | 107−108, 112−113, 196 Thebes | 182, 185−188, 195, 197−198 Thera | 65, 71, 73, 92, 97 gymnasium | 97 Mouseion | 72−73, 75, 91, 96, 98 Thespies | 12 Tlos | 47, 83 Tomis | 17 Toumba | 15 Troizen | 108 Veria | 304, 319 Zaberda | 314

Deities and Heroes Adrasteia | 43, 254, 268, 292−294 Agathe Tyche | 97, 105, 112 Agathos Daimon | 70, 97−98, 104−105, 107−108, 112, 133, 136 Aglauros | 157 Alkmene | 157 Amphiaraos | 44, 47 Antigonos | 45, 261, 293 Aphrodite | 57, 61, 93, 138, 182, 266, 281−283 Aphrodite Ourania | 49−50 Aphrodite Pandamos | 42−44, 57, 253−254, 274, 289−290, 293 Aphrodite Pontia | 42−44, 57, 253−254, 274, 284, 289−290, 292−293, 296 Apis | 184, 189, 197 Apollo | 45−46, 61−62, 136, 177, 248−249, 260−262, 264, 281−285 Apollo (Telemessou medeon) | 78, 96, 104−106 Apollo Dalios | 248, 253 Apollo Delios | 129 Apollo Karneios | 180, 250, 252, 254, 264 Apollo Kaukaseos | 16 Apollo Kyparissos | 261

Apollo Pythios | 248 Artemis | 61, 75, 113, 124−126, 129, 131−133, 135, 167, 217, 230, 265−266, 272, 295 Artemis Kaukasis | 16 Artemis Mounichia | 131−132, 165 Artemis Ortheia | 124, 141 Artemis Pergaia | 45, 129 Artemis Phosphoros | 124 Asklepios | 42−43, 47, 61, 129, 162, 230, 252−254, 261, 265, 284, 289, 291, 293 Atargatis | 27−30 Athena | 26, 90, 107, 130, 132−134, 139, 142, 157−159, 168, 180, 182−184, 186−187, 193−194, 198, 216, 251, 256 Athena Apotropaia | 16 Athena Itonia | 60 Athena Lindia | 24 Athena Machanis | 270 Athena Nike | 158 Athena Nikephoros | 159−160 Athena Parthenos | 158 Athena Phemia | 16 Athena Polias | 89, 130, 134, 158, 164, 166−167, 170, 179, 182, 186, 190,

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

Deities and Heroes | 367

193−194, 203, 248, 252−253, 255−256, 259, 295, 309 Athena Soteira | 98, 250, 256, 295 Augustus | 261 Bakchos | 320 Bendis | 19 Corybantes | 13−16, 18, 29−30, 253−254, 261, 290 Dactyls | 13 Damos | 251, 294 Dea Syria | 27−28 Demeter | 53, 86, 127, 160, 166, 193, 221, 253, 255−256, 260, 263, 270, 281−282, 284, 303−306, 309, 312−316, 319, 322.323, 325−327 Demeter and Kore | 10, 55, 126−129, 132, 134, 161−162, 166−169, 183, 189, 193, 312−313, 326 Demeter Chloe | 58 Demeter Olympia | 249 Demeter Thesmophoros | 160, 309, 316, 326 Despoina | 26 Dionysos | 12, 15, 17−20, 24, 29, 32, 45, 47, 58, 93, 129, 163−164, 166, 184−185, 195−196, 224, 264, 290, 292, 299, 314 Dionysos Anthios | 58 Dionysos Katagogios | 183 Dionysos Melpomenos | 183 Dionysos Phleios | 130, 166, 183−184, 189, 193−195, 269 Dionysos Skyllitas | 270 Dionysos Thyllophoros | 18, 44, 45, 254, 259, 261, 265, 268, 270, 273, 290−291, 293 Dioskouroi | 13, 61−62 Epione | 43, 129, 252−254, 291, 293 Eros | 188 Eumenes II | 129, 201−202, 253, 261, 263, 289−291, 293 Hadad | 28 Hagne Thea | 27, 29−30, 35 Hagne Theos | 7 Hebe | 157

Hekate | 7, 20, 22−23, 25, 29, 98, 126, 131, 209−220, 222−225, 228−232, 255 Hekate Strateia | 261, 285 Helios | 212 Hera | 7, 20−22, 29, 58, 190, 200, 217, 220−221, 223, 225, 229 Hera Argeia Heleia Basileia | 252 Hera Basileia | 142 Herakles | 12, 78, 252, 260, 263−264, 281, 286, 292, 296, 299 Herakles Diomedonteios | 68−69, 79, 86−87, 89, 93−94, 96−97, 251, 274, 295−296 Herakles Kallinikos | 78, 258, 261, 263−264, 289, 291−293 Hermes | 186, 229 Hermes Enagonios | 253, 261, 265−267, 288−289, 292−293 Heros Charmylos | 295 Hestia | 252, 269, 271−272 Homonoia | 43, 254, 268, 289−290, 293 Hygieia | 43, 47, 129, 230, 252−254, 291, 293, 312 Isis | 184−185, 189, 197, 313−314, 319−320, 322−323, 325−326, 332 Kabeiroi | 13, 61−62 Kore | 314, 326 Korybantes vide Corybantes Kouretoi | 13, 16, 184, 189 Kourotrophos | 157 Kybele | 188, 190, 313, 322, 325, 333 Leto | 78, 129, 253 Lysimachus | 179, 182 Maiandros | 186 Meter | 132 Meter Basileia | 130 Meter Phrygia | 185, 189, 194, 196, 259, 269 Meter Plakiane | 131−132, 135, 142, 165, 171 Moirai | 76−77, 96, 104−105, 113, 261 Mother of the Gods | 96, 104−105, 112 Muses | 72−73, 97, 251 Mykale | 182, 186−187

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM

368 | Indices

Nemesis | 43, 161−162, 254, 268, 292−294 Nike | 157−158, 255, 263−264, 290−291, 293, 319 Nikomedes II Epiphanes | 185, 189, 194, 203 Nymphe | 161 Nymphs | 10, 21, 86, 182, 186−287 Pandrosos | 157, 159 Pluto | 314 Poseidon | 140, 185−186, 188, 190, 197−198, 200, 204 Poseidon Asphaleios | 261 Poseidon Erechtheus | 140 Poseidon Helikonius | 178, 188−191, 194−195, 198, 200−201, 203 Rhea | 252−253, 270 Roma and Augustus | 203 Sabazios | 15 Samothracian gods | 61 Sarapis | 27, 99, 184, 189, 195, 197, 320 Seleukos I | 164 Symmachidai | 251, 289, 293 Telchines | 13 Thea Roma | 213 Themis | 162 Theoi Boulaioi | 263, 289, 293 Theoi Megaloi | 61−62, 261, 263−264, 293 Theoi Patrooi | 75, 96 Tiberius | 261 Twelve Gods | 248, 252, 254−256, 259, 295

Zeus

| 77, 96, 133, 137, 185−186, 197−198, 209−211, 216, 219−229, 232, 251−252, 256, 264, 294 Zeus Alseios | 254, 261, 263−264, 289, 291−293 Zeus and the Kouretes | 129, 134, 170 Zeus Apotropaios | 16 Zeus Basileos | 170, 184, 189, 193 Zeus Boulaios | 178, 190−191, 200−201 Zeus Chrysaoreus | 211, 231 Zeus Eubouleus | 86 Zeus Hikesios | 75, 90, 250 Zeus Homarios | 190 Zeus Hyetios | 90, 286−287 Zeus Karios | 136, 219−220, 222 Zeus Ktesios | 76 Zeus Lykaios | 190 Zeus Machaneus | 250, 267, 269, 271−272 Zeus Olympios | 182 Zeus Panamaros | 7, 20−23, 29, 215, 222−223, 229−231 Zeus Pasios | 76, 96 Zeus Patroos | 96, 104−105 Zeus Phatrios | 250 Zeus Phemios | 15 Zeus Philippios | 69 Zeus Polieus | 248, 250, 252−253, 255−256, 259−260, 262, 266−267, 269, 273, 295 Zeus Soter | 98, 250, 256, 295

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 2/19/15 10:51 PM