HESPERIA 76 (2OO7) THE ATHENIAN Pages 37S5 CALENDAR OF SACRIFICES
A New Fragment from the Athenian Agora
abstract
a b.c. Presented here is the editioprinceps of newfragment of the late-5th-century Athenian calendar of sacrifices. The fragment, Agora 17577, was discovered during excavations conducted in the Athenian Agora by the American School of Classical Studies. Inscribed on both faces (Face A: 403-399 b.c., Face B: 410-404 b.c.), it is associated with, but does not join, the group of fragments of Athenian legal inscriptions often referred to as the Law Code of Nikomachos. The text provides important additional evidence for the form of the calendar and the manner of its publication, and casts new light on broader issues of Athenian cult and topography.
b.c. a In the late 5th century monumental change occurred in the presen tation of Athenian law, when the Athenians decided that it was time to scrutinize and reinscribe the laws of Solon.1 This work was commissioned b.c. in two stages, first from 410 to 404 under the democracy, and then to again from 403 399 b.c., after the fall of the Thirty and the restoration of the democracy. Although the Athenians continued to attribute their are laws to Solon, in modern scholarship the results of the republication as so usually referred to the "Law Code of Nikomachos," named for the one to on editor (anagrapheus) Nikomachos, of the officials chosen work was the project, who accused by Lysias of mishandling the publication.2 Included in the new code was a calendar of sacrifices. The purpose of was to such calendars record the deities and their intended offerings, the
to at 1.1 would first like thank John patiently read multiple drafts and of Classical Studies Athens entitled recommen Camp, director of the Agora Excava fered useful insights. The "New Studies inGreek Epigraphy." for me to sacred law dations of the I am for the comments of the tions, introducing anonymous Hesperia grateful me to and giving the opportunity referees also greatly improved this participants. this are 2. 30. an publish fragment. Thanks also work. Stephen Lambert kindly shared Lys. For examination of due to other of the an of on see more members Agora advance copy his work the this speech, Todd 1996. For staff who aided in the of with me. An version on in see completion calendar earlier the code general, Dow 1960 was in this article: Craig Mauzy, Jan Jordan, of this paper presented 2003 (with bibliography through 1959), Dow at a and Sylvie Dumont. John Camp, colloquium organized by James 1961, Fingarette 1971, Clinton 1982, Kevin Clinton, andMolly Richardson Sickinger at theAmerican School of Robertson 1990, and Lambert 2002.
? The American School of Classical Studies at Athens 38 LAURA GAWL1NSK1
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H Figure 1.Agora I 7577, preserved MHmij^^^^^^^^B s*dewith bandsof anathyrosis. FaceA (Ionic) left,Face B (Attic) ^l^^^^^? Photo l^^^^^^^m right. courtesyAmerican School of Classical Studies at ^^^^^KJr Athens, Agora ^^B^^ Excavations
to price be paid by the city for these offerings and other incidentals, and on was occur. the date which each sacrifice to This particular calendar is to was generally agreed have been displayed in the Athenian Agora, and most likely housed in the Stoa Basileios. At least part of the calendar was on a inscribed series of stelai provided with anathyrosis and joined by clamps to a form continuous wall. Both faces of these stelai originally carried the list of sacrifices inscribed between 410 and 404 in the Attic script; Face A, 3.1 follow Lambert's (2002) however, was later erased and then reinscribed between 403 and 399 in titling of Faces A (Ionic) and B (Attic), a the newly adopted Ionic script.3 The 13 known fragments of the calendar, sequence that reflects the original, in various states of have been reexamined in a new preservation, recently pre-erasure order of inscribing. Certain Lambert.4 study by Stephen features, in particular the decorative was that Face A was The most recent addition to this group of fragments discovered fascia, suggest always on intended to be the face and June 29,1993, during the American excavations in the Athenian Agora. primary was the first to be inscribed with the Found built into a Late Roman drain in section Br to the north of the mod calendar in the Attic For ern line elevation 51.96 it about 5 m to the west alphabet. railway (1/4-4/7, m), lay discussion of the erasure and the order of its location in the Stoa Basileios. see proposed original of inscribing, Dow 1961, pp. 63 The fragment, Agora I 7577 (p.H. 0.33, p.W. 0.135, Th. 0.116 m), is 65, 70-72; Lambert 2002, p. 355. inscribed on white "Pentelic" marble. On one side it is treated with two 4. Lambert 2002, with additional bibliography and full discussion of bands of anathyrosis, that it another stele 1). It is showing adjoined (Fig. the features of the calendar. broken on all other in a of general sides, resulting piece irregular triangular shape, to I refer the fragments throughout and has water and traces of mortar from its reuse in the drain. The damage by Lambert's numbering; the pres bottom of Face A Ionic is broken and the ent no. 5 B (the face) off, preserved height fragment is (L5). Face of m L3 contains text of of Face B (the Attic face) is 0.07 greater than that of Face A. Despite fragment (I 727) trierarchic law, not sacrificial calendar, this difference in the preserved height of the two faces, approximately the and is not included in this discussion. same number of lines are on each face. legible For that text, see IG V 236a. For the to the half of Face A has left much of the surface Damage upper quite relationship of IG F 236b on which friable. The and bottom are battered and a shallow has see right edge gouge only Face B is preserved, Lambert obliterated some letters in the center. The lower half is encrusted with a 2004a, no. 2, pp. 182-183. THE ATHENIAN CALENDAR OF SACRIFICES 39
ana thin, dark coating of mortar, which is also found between the bands of thyrosis. The encrustation generally does not affect the reading of the stone, cause even more to and its removal would probably damage the surface.5 worn The thin band of anathyrosis adjacent to this face is extraordinarily worn smooth. Face B is especially at the upper left, leaving only the lower some right portion of the surface legible. The left edge is battered, making of to the numerals difficult read. The preserved portion is very clear, however, no or wear. with large, deeply cut letters and significant encrustation as a Several features of the inscription mark it fragment of the late on one 5th-century law code. First, it is opisthographic, inscribed face in on the Attic alphabet and the other in the Ionic. Second, the Ionic face preserves part of an inscribed horizontal line, a feature also found on the Ionic face of other fragments of the calendar, where it appears either at the a or top of the stone, to separate the text from heading above, lower down, to distinguish different portions of the text.6 Finally, the preserved side is one treated with two bands of anathyrosis (Fig. 1). That it has two bands, to adjacent each of the faces, is significant, since of the other four fragments next to with anathyrosis, two have it only the Ionic face.7 On the present are next fragment the bands of different widths, that to the Ionic face being vs. thinner (0.021 0.035 m). This difference in width cannot be explained 5.1 thank conservators Agora Julie the fact that the Ionic face had been for the Unruh and Karen Abend for reexamin by previously erased, however, stone. of the erasure was estimated Dow to be 1 mm in the case ing the depth by only 6. with an in of L3 I The of the two bands cannot Other fragments fragment (Agora 727).8 projection scribed horizontal line on the Ionic are even be measured exactly, but they approximately and the stone lies face are LI (IG ll2 1357 a [EM 8001 on flat when placed the preserved side. This feature is in marked contrast and L2 I and L3 6721]), (Agora 4310), on to fragment L3, which the band of anathyrosis next to the Ionic face (Agora I 727). further than that next to the Attic face.9 with 7. Other fragments anathyrosis projects are LI (IG 1121357 a [EM 8001 and The existing fragments of the calendar have previously been divided, on 6721]; both faces), L2 (Agora I 4310; the basis of thickness and lettering styles, into two groups, described Ionic face L3 I both as as only), (Agora 727; separate walls by Dow and "stele-series" by Lambert.10 The thickness faces), and L8 1251; (Agora probably of the here (11.6 cm) seems to indicate that it should Ionic face fragment published only). be associated with the thicker series.11 it is about 3 mm thinner 8.Dow 1961, p. 63; Lambert 2002, Although than the thinnest in that a 8001 and pp. 361-362. fragment group (LI [/Gil21357 (EM 11.9 it ismore than 2 cm thicker than the thickest measurable 9. Dow 1961, p. 64. Fragment LI 6721)], cm), ll21357 a 8001 and (IG [EM 6721]) fragment in the thinner group (L8 [Agora I 251], 9.4 cm).12 The lettering also has to both anathyrosis adjacent style of the present fragment, however, is not completely consistent with but the next to faces, band the Attic are more that of the other fragments in the thicker group.13 These generally face is too worn to allow any conclusion inscribed than the thinner and stoichedon on about its original projection; Dow 1961, carefully fragments employ both while neither face of the thinner is stoichedon. On the pp. 60-61. faces, fragments on 10.Dow 1961, p. 58; Lambert 2002, present fragment, the Attic text Face B is stoichedon, but the Ionic text 355-356, with n. 17. on a manner more pp. Face A is inscribed in haphazard that resembles closely 11. Dow's "Thicker Wall" or "120 the Ionic face of the thinner Non-stoichedon text is, however, mm Lambert's A." fragments. Wall"; "Group once found at least among the thicker fragments, under the horizontal line Lambert's numbering of the present inscribed on Face A of LI. A line is also on the fragment (L5) tacitly implies that he fragment dividing present it to since Ionic face of the and if this line is used in the same believes belongs Group A, present fragment, way it the other A as on appears among Group that fragment LI (see below), then the fact that the text beneath it (Ll-3, 6, 7). fragments is not stoichedon is less problematic. 12. Measurements to according text on The printed here is based repeated examination of the stone Lambert 2002, pp. 358-360. in various Since the two faces of the were 13. a of the two the result of For description sep lights. inscription arate on two of in I the text of each face lettering styles found the frag processes publication antiquity, present see Lambert 355-356. ments, 2002, pp. separately. 40 LAURA GAWLINSKI
FACE A (IONIC)
Agora I 7577, Face A Fig. 2 m P.H. 0.26, p.W. 0.135 m. L.H. 0.007-0.009; omega 0.006 Average letter space 0.01 m. Inter m. linear spacing 0.002-0.003 Min. space between cols. I and II 0.019 m.
403-399 b.c. Non-stoich. m uninscribed vertical surface 0.075
Col. I Col. II
amounts amounts ca. 12? [ -] 2-4 [ArcoMxovi npoa?]axr|pic?i 2-4 [?] [iepov x??,eo]v 2-4 [Atc?AAcoviTrc?] MocKpa?? 2-4 [iep?v T8?,e]ov 2-4 [iepecbouva] 2-4 [?f|(xr|Tpi ?v] aaxei o?[?] [Oeppe(p?TT]r|i Kpio? r'[?3" [-c*--] ?n\ lluOicoi K-2-3 10 [iep?v x?]^?ov 2-4 [l?p?(?)0'?v] 2-4 [?0r|vaiai 'lT]cov?ai o?[?] 2-4 [l?p?C?O\)v]a 2-4 [?T|(ir|Tpl 'E]X?UOWl oj? 2-4 15 [?pp?(p?xT]ni 2-4 [?] ['Etauo?viKp]lO?
Epigraphical Commentary
mu Line 4. Of the dotted only the final diagonal stroke is visible. The sigma is represented only by the upper horizontal stroke and the angle where it meets the diagonal stroke. a Line 5. Of the dotted omicron only the right lower part of round letter survives. a Line 7. Of the dotted alpha only the bottom of diagonal stroke slop ing down from left to right remains. Of the dotted iota only the lower part of the vertical stroke is preserved. so Line 9. The upsilon is severely damaged, that the only deep traces are a remaining small dot at the bottom of the vertical stroke and another at the upper end of the right diagonal stroke. The central dot of the theta is either not or was never cut. preserved Line 10. The form of the lambda, with diagonal strokes bowed outward were cut so instead of straight, is unusual. The epsilon and omicron close one to another that they touch. was Line 11. The crossbar of the alpha omitted by the cutter, and the as diagonal strokes bow outward in the lambda of line 10. Line 12. Only the right half of the omega is preserved. Of the alpha area only the interior of the upper triangular survives. THE ATHENIAN CALENDAR OF SACRIFICES
Figure 2. Agora I 7577, Face A (Ionic). Photo courtesy American School at of Classical Studies Athens, Agora Excavations
a Line 14. Of the dotted lambda there remains only the bottom of di agonal stroke sloping down from left to right. Of the dotted omicron only the top of a round letter survives. Of the dotted iota most of the vertical stroke survives, but the surrounding surface is damaged. eta or was Line 15. The crossbar of the dotted either is not preserved never inscribed. a Line 16. Of the dotted iota only the very top of vertical stroke sur a vives. Of the dotted omicron only the top of round letter is visible above the break in the stone.
Translation
a Column I: For Apollo Prostaterios, full-grown offering, [amount]; a for Apollo Hupo Makrais, full-grown offering, [amount]; hierosyna, a a [amount]; for Demeter in the city, sheep, [amount]; for Pherrephatte, a ram, [amount]; for [deity] by the Pythion, full-grown offering, [amount]; for a hierosyna, [amount]; Athena Itonia, sheep, [amount]; hierosyna, at a [amount]; for Demeter Eleusis, sheep, [amount]; for Pherrephatte at Eleusis, a ram, [amount]
a amounts Column II: only partial list of for offerings preserved 42 LAURA GAWLINSKI
Commentary
The text of Face A, the Ionic face, is not very neatly inscribed. It is not are stoichedon, and the letters appear to be shallowly cut. Some letters so one as case close to another that they touch, in the of the epsilon and omicron in line 10. The variation in letter heights, interlinear spacing, and was spacing between letters suggests that the inscribing of this face carried out less conscientiously than that of the Attic face. are on a Portions of two columns preserved: the left, list with the ends names case of the of deities in the dative and their associated offerings in on a the nominative; and the right, partially preserved list of amounts be a now longing to second list of deities and offerings, missing. This second column would have extended onto the next stone to the right, the evidence on for which is provided by the anathyrosis the side of the fragment. The most noticeable feature of this face is the thin horizontal line
inscribed toward the top of the fragment (p.L. 0.051, W. 0.003 m). There are cm 7.5 of uninscribed surface above the line, but the stone is preserved a were to greater height behind the face, indicating that there originally at least 9.2 cm of stone above the line. This line, when found on the Ionic to face of other fragments, is used separate the main body of the calendar occurs near from other information. It in two places: the top of the stone, where it separates headings from the text beneath, and lower down, where it separates text above from different text below. Fragments L2 and L3 a case a (Agora I 4310 and I 727) carry heading above the line, in each on a biennial rubric. Below the line fragment LI (IG II21357 [EM 8001 a to and 6721]), list of items appears. Its relationship the calendar above the line is unclear; itmay have been set apart because it did not fit into a or regular annual biennial system.14 on Although the uninscribed space above the line the present fragment as is consistent with that found after the ends of headings, for example more above the first column of fragment L3, the line here is likely to a on represent lower dividing line. A fascia appears just above the heading an the fragments with upper dividing line (L2 and L3); its absence in the on seems uninscribed space above the line this fragment to indicate that a a this was not line for heading. Here the uninscribed space resembles on that found above the line at the end of the third column fragment LI, where uninscribed surface is found to the right of the final item of the text of the calendar itself. on Like the text below the line fragment LI, the text of the present not as one to fragment is stoichedon, would expect if it belongs the series of thicker stelai. Unlike the text below the line on LI, however, the format more as of this text is clearly calendrical, the list of deities and offerings in amounts at column I and the traces of preserved the beginning of column II on make clear. The spacing between the columns the present fragment on text appears similar to that other fragments of the calendar; in the be on low the line fragment LI, however, the distance between the columns 14. Lambert 2002, p. 370. is much larger, as if space had been left for the addition of amounts that 15. Lambert (2002, p. 358) gives were not needed in the end.15 The distinctive character of the text below the distance between the left edge of the line on LI shows that there was different about the clearly something column 2 and column 3 of fragment LI it from rest of as 0.20 m. information that required that be separated the the calendar; approximately THE ATHENIAN CALENDAR OF SACRIFICES 43
on reason in the present fragment, the other hand, the for setting apart this section of the text is not readily apparent. Beneath the horizontal line is 0.018 m of uninscribed space. Since the on text beneath the line fragment LI begins almost immediately below the on was line, it is reasonable to conclude that this fragment too something originally inscribed here, to the left of the break in the stone. Although the can text is not stoichedon, it be assumed that the left edge of the column was some an to lined up along kind of margin, assumption that helps de termine the approximate space available for restoration, in spite of the fact that the haphazard placement of the letters and the tendency to inscribe some means of them very close together that the precise number of letters ca. not to be restored is uncertain. The space (enough for 12 letters) is a long enough for recipient and epithet, but it could have accommodated an or a an either offering payment to officiant. Either restoration would was a one or indicate that the first column preserved here continuation of more was preceding columns. It is also possible that the column headed by a date, which would probably have extended into the left margin.16 names The restoration of the and epithets of the deities shows that the on are lines the present fragment much longer than the stoichedon texts on as as Face A of the other fragments in the group. Since many 20 letters cm could be inscribed (as in line 2), approximately 17 of space must have can been available for each line.Where it be determined, the other frag ments have lines with an average of 12 to 13 letters on the Ionic face; on are a the best-preserved fragment (L3 [Agora 1727]) the fines maximum of cm 12.5 in length. The length of the lines in the text below the horizontal line on fragment LI (IG IP 1357 a [EM 8001 and 6721]) is greater than these, however, containing up to 19 letters. In both LI and the present an fragment, then, the line length is additional factor that sets the portion of text inscribed below the line apart from that inscribed above. nor Unfortunately, neither dates any indication of the frequency of or some are on sacrifice (annual, biennial, other cycle) preserved this face. a can Nevertheless, few observations be made about the general context. more once Apollo is prominent, appearing than and under multiple epi thets, and the references to Eleusis may help to clarify the context and were perhaps identify the festival with which these sacrifices associated. The emphasis given to the place of sacrifice may also be important, especially are rare since indications of place in the other surviving fragments of the are on calendar: the only examples ?jn?fuG?o] (restored the Attic face of Lll [Agora I 945], line 5) and ?v ?t|?xdi (on the Ionic face of L8 [Agora I 251], line 6). are at two There least and probably three references to Apollo in the list of sacrifices. In line 2 he appears with the well-attested epithet Pro as staterios.17 Reflecting Apollo's role protector of the city, this title is found
16. For extension of date rubrics also consistent with the letters pre see on see into the left margin, below, p. 51 served the stone; Richard 1988 and n. 44. (SEG XXXIX 1845) for these epithets. 17.The epithets Apobaterios (used Prostaterios, however, best fits the date of context. Apollo, Zeus, orTheoi), Embaterios and the Athenian (Theoi), and Epibaterios (Theoi) are 44 LAURA GAWLINSKI
in several Greek cities in inscriptions of the Late Classical and Hellenistic are as as periods, and there literary references early Euripides, E/ektra.ls In Athens, Apollo Prostaterios is frequently found in prytany decrees begin ning fairly early in the 3rd century B.c., and, when paired with Artemis a Boulaia and ancestral deities, becomes part of formula of praise for the officials who conducted the customary pre-assembly sacrifices.19 The loca tion of his cult site in Athens is unknown. The present text is the earliest epigraphic attestation of the epithet, and shows that Apollo Prostaterios was already well established in Athens by the time the prytany decrees began recording the customary sacrifice offered by the Boule. cave Apollo Hupo Makrais (line 4) is best known from the sanctu on a ary the north slope of the Acropolis, where large number of plaques name to bearing his have been discovered, all dating the first three centu ries a.D.20 In addition, part of the foundation of what has been identi as a was cave fied rectangular altar found in front of the during the early a a excavations, discovery that establishes specific location for offerings to now this deity.21 Until the only evidence that the cult existed prior to the was a b.c. Roman period block of the 6th century found well below the name an cave, inscribed with the of Apollo but lacking epithet, together a with passages in Euripides' Ion indicating connection between the Long Rocks and Apollo.22 The appearance of the epithet in the text published here proves indisputably that the cult existed much earlier than the Roman now as material alone suggested. It is clear that Euripides' play reflects cult as was at well myth, and that Apollo Hupo Makrais worshipped by least the final quarter of the 5th century B.c. The mention of the Pythion in line 9 is clear, but the choice of prepo sition is unusual: normally ?v would be expected.23 The phrase is often name a seems an preceded by the of deity, and Apollo obvious candidate for restoration, considering his association with the Pythion and the pat tern of the offerings (see below). The space (ca. 10 letters) maybe slightly too long for Apollo, however, and the preposition remains problematic. to as a One possibility is take the words together form of the adjective a an 'EtcutuOio?, compound analagous to 'E7U7rupYi?ioc, epithet of Artemis.24 was Since the deity in question not in the Pythion, he might instead have a was been god whose sanctuary in the neighborhood of the Pythion and
18. Eur. El. 637. SeeThemelis inscriptions (2000, pp. 60-195; 2003, 10 C, line 20), ?v x?i udG?coi (LSS 124, cave eu, 1987, pp. 106-108, for further discus pp. 39-88) and the niches in the line 23), Anto?, II[\)]0io 'Ep^i?oi sion with a focus on of the epithet, (2000, pp. 196-204). Although the (LSCG18 A, lines 54-55), and Aexo?, new in Eretria. evidence the inscription pub ?jxn[o>8io] (LU [Agora I 945], line 5). 19. can in lished here the modification of The other attested is Many examples be found requires only preposition the of is no. 78 some of his his discussion ITuG?oin theThorikos sacrificial Agora XV, earliest which arguments, ?? (?? (273/2 b.c.); see also SEG XXXIX 132. of the cult in the Roman period (2003, calendar:Daux 1983, line 41), which is to have the same sense. For the practice of inscribing of such pp. 25-35) invaluable. appears see decrees, Lambert 2004b, pp. 86-87. 21. Kawadias 1897, col. 15, pis. l:?, 24. Artemis Epipurgidia: IG IP They begin before the 3rd century, but 3:1. 5050 (Athens, Roman-era inscription ones not mention no. 24 at theTheater of SEGXXK the earlier do Apollo 22.Meritt 1957, p. 79, (Agora Dionysos); Prostaterios. I 5577); Eur. Ion 8-19,283-288,492 93, lines 10-11 (Eleusis, 20/19 b.c.). see 20. For the cave, Travlos, A the ns, 506,936-938. The epithet is also attested for Hekate pp. 91-95, figs. 115-122. Nulton has 23. Examples include ?v ITooiot) (Paus. 2.30.2). eu. restudied and catalogued both the (Thuc. 6.54.6-7), iT\>e?o[i] (LSCG THE ATHENIAN CALENDAR OF SACRIFICES 45
on a who therefore took this epithet, although such phenomenon would to as a be unprecedented. If not be taken compound adjective, the words a presumably have a spatial significance, indicating a sacrifice to deity adjacent to the Pythion. An Athenian inscription related to the Thargelia (LSS14, SEGXX1469; 129/8 b.c.) may support this interpretation.25 The inscription twice mentions activities that take place not within the Pythion itself but in the immediate vicinity of the sanctuary. Games are held [np]bq xov HuO?ou (line 37), and sacrifices are made ?v [kt|7c]oi? etc! xo? ITuGiou use (lines 53-54). Perhaps the of mi in the fragment published here should as a to a be understood part of formula referring similar activity.26 There is some debate about the location or locations of the cult center
of Apollo Pythios inAthens. The findspot of fragments of the Pythian altar dedicated by Peisistratos the Younger (IG F 948), together with references a inThucydides (2.15.4,6.54.6-7), is generally believed to indicate that Py thion stood in the vicinity of the Ilissos River, southeast of the Acropolis.27 cave on The the north slope of the Acropolis associated with Apollo Hupo some Makrais also has considerable support, and have suggested that both were sites of the worship of Apollo Pythios.28 Since the present fragment a already mentions Apollo Hupo Makrais in line 4, reasonable conclusion near is that the reference in line 9 is to the Pythion the Ilissos. A full-grown victim (iep?v xeXeov) follows each reference to Apollo, in same lines 3,5, and 10.29The phrase also appears several times in another fragment of the code (L8 [Agora 1251], Face A, lines 5, 8,10, restored in seems line 3). This fragment is particularly interesting because it to refer to activity connected with Delos, and two of the victims go toApollo. A third goes to Leto, and the final recipient is not preserved. It is perhaps notable so that this particular offering is often designated for Apollo. a In line 12, Athena Itonia receives sheep. The Thessalian epithet a Itonia is attested in Athens in catalogue of the treasuries of the other a gods (IG I3 383, lines 151-152; 429/8 b.c.), and in regulation of cult c + objects (IG II2 333 e-f, lines 17-18; recently republished in Lambert no. 2005, pp. 137-144, 6; probably 335/4 b.c.).30 Athenaia, the form of Athena's name restored here, was common at the time and also appears a on Face A of other fragments of the calendar (LI [/GIF 1357 (EM 8001 and 6721)],1 line 25; L3 [Agora I 727], lines 12, 49; L6 [IG II2 1357 b (EM 286)], lines 1-2; L12 [IGF 845], line 10).31 Offerings toAthena else where in the calendar vary, but three separate sacrifices to Athena on Face A of fragment L3 require sheep (L3 [Agora I 727], lines 12-13, 14-15, 80), the third with the price of 12 drachmas preserved. This appears to be
a recent a in this area. 25. For discussion of Apollo of Pythion Parsons 1943, pp. 234-238. inAthens, focusing on Delian Apollo 28. Most of the discussion revolves 29. For a brief but useful discussion but including Apollo Pythios and his around Strabo 9.2.11 (C 404), Philostr. of this type of offering, see Lambert to see VS connection the Thargelia, Mat 2.550, the passages from Euripides' 2002, p. 396. thaiou 2003, esp. pp. 90-92. Ion (above, n. 22), and the association 30. For Athena with this epithet use 26.1 doubt that the of the dative of the Pythion with the Olympieion. in Attica, see Parker 1996, p. 28. For with the as to the For a of see Nulton in see preposition, opposed variety views, 2003, Itonia nearby Boiotia, Robertson more a concern. regular genitive, is pp. 15-23; Clinton 1973; Travlos, 2001, p. 52. 27. See Travlos, Athens, pp. 100 Athens, p. 91; Broneer 1965, pp. 54-62; 31. For the form, see Threatte 1980, 103, figs. 130-137, for the evidence Wycherley 1959, pp. 68-72; 1963; p. 271. 46 LAURA GAWLINSKI
to on the standard amount for offerings of sheep female deities Face A, no on but amount is preserved the present fragment.32 secure The restoration of hierosyna is fairly in lines 11 and 13, where the ending of the word is preserved, but it is possible that line 6 could have as a to held something else, such date rubric. Hierosyna, payments priests or priestesses, normally consisted of the parts of the victim that were the as are priests' perquisite, but here, in several other calendars, they expressed as a cash payment in lieu of part of the animal.33 Unfortunately, the amounts are on see on of the payments not preserved Face A, but below Face B, lines 13 and 15, for discussion of the typical amount. The reference to Eleusis in line 14 naturally calls for restoration of a a ram the Eleusinian deities. The offering of sheep followed by that of a (lines 7-8 and 14-16) finds parallel in other paired sacrifices to Demeter and Kore (Pherrephatte).34 This column contains repeated sacrifices to the Goddesses, first in the City Eleusinion (lines 7-8) and then at Eleusis ocgtu was as itself (lines 14-16). The term typically used to refer to the city case as opposed to the countryside, and even, in the of Athens, to the city as a opposed to Piraeus, shown, for example, by 3rd-century B.c. regulation of the cult of Bendis in Piraeus (LSCG 46, lines 8,12,14,22, restored in was B.c. to line 29). It also used in the 4th-century Erchia calendar denote sacrifices that took place in central Athens instead of in the deme center of Erchia (LSCG 18 A, line 38). 'Ev cxotei is somewhat unusual here: when denoting the sanctuary of the Eleusinian gods inAthens instead of Eleusis, tcoi acrc?i was the longer phrase ?v xah 'Ea-eugiv?cui ?v generally used (e.g., was a LSCG 32, lines 7,57). Perhaps it felt that the context, with mention of the Eleusinian deities and Eleusis itself in the following lines, made the over fuller expression unnecessary, and economy of space took precedence the usual formula. a It is possible that the list of sacrifices of which this column is part was concerned primarily with Apollo, and that it included offerings to to on Athena and the Eleusinian goddesses without, however, focusing them. A few other fragments of the calendar do mention Eleusinian fes a tivals, but in more obviously relevant context, inwhich other deities and officials specifically related to Eleusis appear in addition to Demeter and Kore.35 A possible parallel for the association of Apollo and Eleusis may be found in LSS 14 (SEGXXL 469), a lex sacra mentioned above in con nection with the Pythion. In it the Eleusinian priests, the hierophant and are daduch, included among participants in the procession for theThargelia was a occurrence at (lines 35-36). If this participation regular theThargelia or and did not happen only in, beginning in, 129/8 B.c., the date of the
see 32. See Lambert 2002, pp. 396-397, (1990, pp. 101-109) discusses the Healey 1990 for extensive discus for amounts. of a The a festival on offering perceived problem sacrificing sion). Epidauria, 33. For in and in a for Kore/ hierosyna general ram, male animal, the third day of theMysteries, is this calendar in see Lambert on a particular, Pherrephatte. mentioned partially published 2002, pp. 398-399. 35. Two festivals associated with fragment (L4 [Agora I 7471], Face B; see 34. IG IF 1673, Une 62 (Eleusis, Eleusis, the Eleusinia and the Mys Clinton 1994, pp. 18-21). Yet 333/2 for the see Clinton in extant another has b.c.; date, teria, appear the fragments fragment 'EXet>oiv[- -], I The of sac not associated with 1972, pp. 107-113); L3 (Agora 727), of the calendar. long list obviously any par con Face A, lines 62-64. The calendar rifices that makes up the third column ticular festival, but mentioned in of the Marathonian on iden Tetrapolis (Lam the largest fragment has been nection with the Kerykes (L12 [IG I2 bert 2000, col. 2, line 44) contains tified as possibly belonging to the 845], Face A, Une 3). an of a ram Kore. offering for Healey Eleusinia (L3 [Agora I 727], Face A; THE ATHENIAN CALENDAR OF SACRIFICES 47
inscription, it might explain the inclusion of sacrifices to the Goddesses a during celebration of Apollo. The date of the sacrifices recorded in this portion of the calendar might then be the seventh of Thargelion.36 One other fragment of the calendar (L3 [Agora 1727]), Face A, Unes 1 15, may also list sacrifices in the month of Thargelion, if Lambert is correct about the connection with the festival of the Plynteria.37 The sacrifices in a a question immediately precede column of sacrifices with biennial rubric, an or but it is unclear whether they represent the end of annual sequence one. were as another biennial If they biennial, Lambert argues, then perhaps on the list the fragment presented here (provided it is also rightly dated to was an Thargelion) part of annual sequence. It must, however, be kept in a was mind that this is only part of portion of the entire list, which carried over from the preceding column and continued below. What has been on preserved the surviving fragment may thus be quite misleading.
FACE B (ATTIC)
Agora I 7577, Face B Fig. 3 m PH. 0.33, p.W. 0.123 L.H. 0.009; omicron 0.006 m. Stoichos H. ca. 0.011, W. 0.014 m. m. Interlinear spacing 0.003 Space between the left edge of the stone and the text ca. 0.01 m.
410-404 b.c. Stoich.
m abraded vertical surface 0.068
[...7...M---]
[ 8.]8[---]
[...8.....]o[---]
[..A.]o[---] 5 [..?..]8[---] [amount *>] [?l?]p6[v T??l?Ov] [vvvv hep]cxKX[Ei hxep?v] [amount *] T?^?o[v] [..]h[...]o[.]EO[---] - - - - 10 [^mo.uPt]?[?]pocn [- epithet? offering -] m uninscribed verticalsurface 0.012 . 11 [. ?]v?Vc?i' fHpaic[-] lia %[.} - - - 12 rhhh TpiT07i[ocTp??>OT offering -] [.]\-\-vv ?i?p?[?auva] - AAr> IlayKoi[-offering -] 15 H-h ?l?p?[?GDVa] [v]vvv ?uaKiv[0icn] 36. SeeMikalson 1975, p. 153, for determination of the date of the [amount]* Ka0OCp|l[?v] to .7. Thargelia using Plutarch's references [. ...]NAIT[---] Plato's birthday (Mor. 717B, D). [..??.M---] 37. Lambert 2002, p. 374. LAURA GAWLINSKI
Figure 3. Agora I 7577, Face B (Attic). Photo courtesy American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Agora Excavations
Epigraphical Commentary
Lines 1-5. Faint traces of letters can be made out the waterworn throughout area or at the top, but not enough to distinguish them from stray marks allow the reading of any additional letters. Line 4. Most of a battered circular letter can be read in the sixth
stoichos. a Line 7. Of the dotted alpha the vague impression of triangular let ter a can seen. with faint diagonal stroke sloping up from left to right be two to Enough of the angle formed by diagonal strokes is clear make the reading of the kappa certain. The lambda has the Attic form. Line 8. Of the dotted tau the vertical stroke and the right half of the can seen crossing horizontal stroke be just beneath the damaged surface. a The Attic lambda has very clear vertical stroke; the returning upstroke is very damaged, but visible. Line 9.The remains of a horizontal stroke in the middle of the stoichos a and the lower half of vertical stroke to its left make the reading of the drachma symbol certain. THE ATHENIAN CALENDAR OF SACRIFICES 49
Line 10. In the fifth stoichos the faint traces of a crossbar in the center a of the stoichos and vertical stroke attached to its right make the read curve a ing of the Attic heta certain. Part of the upper of round letter is preserved in the eighth stoichos. nu Line 11. Of the dotted all that remains is the slightest bit of the very bottom of the right vertical stroke. can Beneath line 11a vertical stroke be clearly seen, inscribed partially within and partially beneath the space allotted to line 11, between stoichoi a ca. mm 9 and 10. It is followed by squarish gouge in the stone, 8 long mm and 7 high, which begins slightly lower than the top of the vertical stroke. From the bottom of the vertical stroke the faint impression of the a beginning of returning diagonal upstroke is visible, making the reading an of Attic lambda likely. The angle created by the upstroke is less than that of the lambda in line 7, but it is difficult to determine whether tighter to some spacing has led compression here. In lights, the faint impression of a center can horizontal mark extending from the of the vertical stroke be an seems no room discerned, but epsilon is impossible since there to be for the upper horizontal stroke. The symbol for drachma is perhaps possible, but much less likely than lambda. Since the gouge in the stone is followed no by uninscribed surface, it is clear that more than two letters could have a been inscribed here, and only with reduced size and spacing, unless the a inscription began again after blank space. The other surviving fragments no of the calendar offer parallel, and what might have been inscribed in an are such odd position remains unclear. The letters HPAK directly above raised slightly above the line, which implies that the stroke and the gouge were was already present when the line above inscribed. The vertical stroke to a appears have been deliberately inscribed, and lambda is the most likely was interpretation, although it remains uncertain whether it meant to be read as part of the text. a Line 13. The Attic heta is used to indicate rough breathing. Line 14. The gamma has the Attic form. a Lines 15-16. Both lines contain the Attic heta used to indicate rough breathing. mu a Line 17. Of the dotted only the bottom of diagonal stroke sloping down from right to left is preserved. nu Line 18. Of the in the eighth stoichos the reading of any other let a ter is precluded by the angle of the two diagonals and the top of vertical stroke coming from the left diagonal. Line 19. The top of a round letter is visible in the 11th stoichos.
Translation
on Sacrifices continuing unknown day a a [for deity], full-grown offering, [amount]; for Herakles, full-grown offering, [amount]; for the Heroes [epithet?], [offering], [amount] On the ninth
for Herakles, [offering and amount?]; for the Tritopatores, [offering], 8 drachmas; hierosyna, [at least 2] drachmas; for Pankoi[- -], [offering], 26 a drachmas; hierosyna, 3 drachmas; for the Hyakinthides, purification, [amount];for [deity?], [offering?], [amount?] 5? LAURA GAWLINSKI
Commentary
The spacing and overall organization are more careful on Face B, the Attic on face, than Face A. The text is generally stoichedon, although the let are ters not always well centered in their individual stoichoi.38 The best preserved section of the text, the sacrificial list beginning in line 12, a reveals high level of organization with clear indentations and deliberate spacing. Although other fragments of the calendar place headings in the no uses a left margin, other preserved fragment of Face B indentation in manner to one. names similar this Here the of the recipients begin imme as or diately after the amount column, while other items, such offerings are one payments to officiants, indented stoichos, aligned with the second name letter of the of the recipient above and below. A separation is in tended between lines 10 and 11, where the interlinear space is ca. 0.012 m, m more 0.009 than in the remainder of the preserved text. At line 11, the orderly appearance of the text is broken where HPAK[-] seems to have been added later. over can The amount of horizontal space given to this column be esti on mated the basis of the arrangement of the inscribed text. The offering x??,eo[v], partially restored in line 8, should be preceded by hiepov in the was too to line above. The two-word offering long fit completely into line 7 and so was divided at the word break, with x?Xtov indented in the line below.39 Since [vvvv ?ep]aK?,[e? hiepbv] x?A,eo[v] would have brought the line to the 24th stoichos, it is clear that no more than 23 stoichoi were were even available. That there in fact fewer is shown by lines 16 and 17, where Ka6ocp|i[?v], the offering, appears in the line following the recipients, the Hyakinthides. Enough is preserved of the three stoichoi before the name no was of the Hyakinthides to suggest that amount inscribed to the 38. are more left.40 The amount and the indented, follow the in the They significantly offering, recipient centered than the non-stoichedon texts line below because the could not be fitted into the available offering space on v v Face B of the thinner group of frag above. If had been on the same hvaKivQici KOtOapuov placed line, [v]v ments, however. to a Koc0apu{ov] would have extended 22nd stoichos. It follows, then, 39. It is unlikely that x?Xeov is used alone here as a substantive. that the longest line length deducible from the preserved text, amounts Although such a use does and sacrifices combined, was no more than 21 stoichoi. That there were appear quite frequendy in the calendar fromThorikos (e.g., at least 20 stoichoi is clear from line 12, where enough space must have Daux 1983, lines 22,24,26), it is not an or more been available for of three letters after TpiT07taxpeuai. extant offering found elsewhere in the frag The column therefore consisted of 20 or 21 a of under ments stoichoi, length just of this calendar. See L8 (Agora 30 cm. There were, of course, additional columns on the same stone, mak I 251), Face A, lines 11-12, for the division of the xekeov ing the full length of the line significantly greater. phrase ?lepov between two lines. Much less is understood about the organization of the calendar 40. can be said about the inscribed in the Attic because much less of it is the Nothing alphabet preserved; first stoichos of this line, however, and is therefore because so much of the amount present fragment especially important it is possible that the could face survives. It is the extant of the Attic text that in one Attic only fragment have been indicated only space on a one two L4 I Face lines preserves the day which sacrifice occurred, and of only that (cf. [Agora 7471], B, 16, a 18,19). preserve amounts in context.41 The surviving text includes portions of 41. L4 (Agora I 7471), Face B, sacrificial deities and to officiants, for two of list, including payments days also contains amounts with sacrifices an unknown month. Two are also and it can be inferred offerings preserved, (see Clinton 1994, pp. 18-21); on L8 that the other were inscribed to the of the names of the offerings right (Agora I 251), Face B, only a list of are a amounts remains. deities, since amounts given in column to the left. THE ATHENIAN CALENDAR OF SACRIFICES 51
a After the small uninscribed space following line 10, date rubric is given in line 11 for the list of sacrifices that follows. The spacing probably a one indicates break between day and the next in the calendar, and since must a only the day is indicated, the month have been included in longer a rubric that headed preceding list.42 It should be noted that the date is an a on not followed by authority rubric, feature often found Face A of the calendar but one for which there is as yet no evidence on Face B. This an may be important difference between the two programs of inscribing.43 one on The day, the only preserved this face of the calendar, is the ninth ([?]v?Vc?i). The use of an ordinal number in the dative is consistent with on the way in which the day iswritten the Ionic face of the calendar (e.g., LI [/Gil21357 a (EM 8001 and 6721)],line 3:7t?|i7rnii).Thedate extends into the left margin, taking up two of the spaces in the amount column. an as on Such extension is not unusual, the dates preserved Face A also extend three spaces to the left.44 Although for neither of the days is the list of sacrifices entirely preserved, can seen re similarities be both within and between the days. Most of the are are two cipients heroes and other venerated dead, and there references to Herakles. Several of the deities are known from other Attic calendars and some cases even are inscriptions, and in the locations for the cult known. are Only two recipients and their offerings preserved at the end of the as a a list for the first day. In line 7, Herakles is named recipient of hiepov T??,?0v (see p. 45, above, Face A, lines 3, 5, and 10, for discussion of this to are phrase). Too many festivals and sacrifices Herakles known from Attica to much about the context of this 42. Cf. L3 (Agora I 727), Face A, permit speculation particular offering.45 He have received sacrifices on the fourth of month with Unes 18-46, for this form of organiza may every along tion (month followed by days). Hermes and Aphrodite, although the very late evidence for this practice 43. Lambert 2002, 357. not A.D. p. may be valid for the Classical period.46 A lst-century Attic calendar 44. to the texts Examples, according includes a sacrifice to Herakles on the second of Mounichion (LSCG 52, printed by Lambert (2002), include LI lines 26-27), and the sacrificial list of the Salaminioi (Rhodes and Osborne (IG II21357 a [EM 8001 and 6721]), no. line records another on an unknown lines 3 and 23; and L2 (Agora I 4310), 2003, pp. 184-188, 37, 86) day two of the same month. Another related to the Salaminioi line 2. An extension of only spaces inscription (Lam appears in L3 (Agora I 727), Une 32, bert 1997, pp. 88-89, no. 2, fine 2) mentions a festival of Herakles inMouni but this seems to be an to the exception chion as well. The Thorikos calendar (Daux 1983, line 36) lists a sacrifice general rule. no a to him in Elaphebolion, but again date is specified. Finally, festival 45. For Herakles in Attica, see now of Herakles mentioned Demosthenes can be in 355-363. by (19.125) placed early Jourdain-Annequin 1998, pp. Hekatombaion. See also Lambert 2000-2003, pp. 79 a an are 82, for discussion of Attic inscrip Heroes the final recipients listed for the first day (line 10). Although tion to a Heraklean thiasos. a as an are relating precise parallels for sacrifice to the heroes anonymous group 46. For the fourth of the month, see difficult to find, a similar offering to a group of heroines is mentioned in Mikalson 16-17. 1975, pp. a B.c. enacted a association in Athens 47. CoUective references to heroes as 3rd-century regulation by private a as line In that case, the context to which category do exist, in the statement (LSS20y 14).47 however, helps clarify of heroines ismeant. In the same context or an no about proper sacrifice toi? Geo?? Kai group way, epithet longer found in the sacrificial list of was xo??f?pcoai preserved probably indicated that this sacrifice not to all the heroes, the Salaminioi (Rhodes and Osborne a but to specific group.48 no. line 2003, pp. 184-188, 37, 80). on are At least three recipients of sacrifice the following day pre 48. Parker (2005, p. 447) discusses served. The restoration of Herakles in line 11 seems of from certain, examples Attic inscriptions of although a the known Attic festivals and sacrifices to this none is anonymous heroes described only by hero, specifically reference to location. associated with the ninth of the month. The line is problematic because the 52 LAURA GAWLINSKI
space available for the offering and amount is severely limited. Although room an name on there may have been for offering inscribed after the the same line, especially with the reduced letter size and spacing, there does to to not appear be any space in which record the price. Also worthy of name note is the spelling of the (HPAK-), inwhich H is used in the Ionic as a an use fashion, vowel rather than aspirate.49 The of Ionic letters in an otherwise Attic document is not unusual, and Ionic eta is particularly common even in official documents before the change of alphabet in a as 403 b.c.50 It is unlikely that the H represents syllabic [HE] sound, it usually does in central Ionic dialects and occasionally in Attic dipinti: to one use an date, there is only other questionable example known of this in on a b.c. name Attic inscription, 4th-century hows, also in the Herakles.51 wrote to It is possible that the inscriber deliberately Herakles in this way save an eta an eta space, since requires less space than and epsilon. If so, it was a would suggest that he making conscious choice from the multiple at alphabets his disposal.52 (For discussion of the relationship between this see line and line 11a, the epigraphical commentary above.) an was In line 12 the Tritopatores receive offering, which most likely were inscribed just beyond the break in the stone. These ancestral figures a venerated throughout the Greek world, making notable appearance in the attest to sacred law from Selinous.53 Horoi local cults of the Tritopatores in many of the Attic demes, and sacrifices to them are recorded in a few local on calendars: in Erchia they were honored the 21st ofMounichion (LSCG 49. Elsewhere on this face (lines 10, 18 D, line 41-46), and the calendar lists both annual and bien Tetrapolis 13,15, and 16, restored in lines 6 and nial sacrifices in to be made at the Skira festival Skirophorion (Lambert 7) the H has its normal Attic value. at a 2000, col. 2, lines 32 and 53-54).54 Inscriptions identify their shrine 50. See Threatte 1980, pp. 41 and a for Ionic forms inAttic documents crossroads in the Kerameikos, placing them in prominent position among 49, before 403 b.c. the dead in the cemetery of Athens.55 51. See Threatte There is no known whose name fits the letters in line 14. 1980, pp. 45-47, deity preserved on H for [HE]. I thank Professor an One is to restore nayKoi[p?voi], from of Artemis, to possibility epithet Threatte for taking the time discuss rcayKoipavo? Gf^pri?, supreme ruler of beasts, found in Oppian's Cynegetica this issue with me. an 52. the mix of forms used (4.21). It would be unusual to find epithet standing alone, however, Compare name a in L9 I 687), Face B, without the of deity. The adjective najKOwoq, used by the tragedians fragment (Agora line 6 (mentioned by Lambert 2002, in euphemistic expressions for death (Aesch. Sept. 608, Soph. El. 138), and 381). are p. the similar rcayico?Tri?, used for the grave (Soph. Ant. 804), possibilities 53. Jameson, Jordan, and Kotansky that fit the character of this of the sacrificial list. Both words portion ap 1993, pp. 14-17, col. A, lines 9-10,13. use one as an a pear only in poetry, however, and the of of them here either 54. For discussion and list of evi or a not seems dence from the ancient Greek world, epithet personification, while impossible, unlikely. see are Jameson, Jordan, and Kotansky Hierosyna recorded in lines 13 and 15 (cf. Face A, lines 6,11,13). 1993, pp. 107-114. The indentation created by the blank space before the word indicates that 55. See Knigge 1991, pp. 103-105, sum as this ismeant to be associated with the listed in the line above, in deity for the Tritopatreion the Keramei over are payment for the priest who presided the sacrifice.56 Five hierosyna kos. on 56. In other sacrificial calendars recorded the Ionic face of two other fragments of the calendar: L3 (Agora follow the I 727), lines 4,23, 39, 52; and L6 (IG II21357 b [EM 286]), line 6.The hierosyna similarly sacrifices with which are associated. two are one is they Cf., amounts of of these preserved: (L3, line 39) four drachmas e.g., the calendar of the Marathonian and two and associated with the sacrifice of a at obols, sheep priced only col. Tetrapolis (Lambert 2000), esp. 2, four the other line is 16 and associated with are associ drachmas; (L3, 52) drachmas, line 32, where the hierosyna a of two bovines at 50 drachmas. On the ated with the larger sacrifice priced fragment Tritopatores. THE ATHENIAN CALENDAR OF SACRIFICES 53
one amount at published here only is fully preserved: three drachmas line 15. The differences among the three figures reflect the variation in the amount seems was of such payments. In general, it that the amount of the hierosyna often related to the type of victim offered.57 In line 14, the offering itself seems to was is not preserved, but its price of 26 drachmas indicate that it more substantial than the relatively small hierosyna would suggest. name are The final recipients of sacrifice whose is preserved the Hya sac kinthides (line 16). These sisters became the object of cult after being sources on rificed for the good of Athens, although disagree their number and their names.58 Two main versions of the story exist. According to the were fragments of Euripides' Erechtheus, the Hyakinthides the daughters of were Erechtheus, who became goddesses after their deaths required during the Eleusinian war.59 A similar story appears in [Apollodoros] 3.15.8, but are as a there they identified the daughters of Hyakinthos, Spartan living were a inAthens, who sacrificed during siege of the city byMinos. Face B of Agora I 7577 contains the only extant epigraphical reference to the Hyakinthides themselves, although their cult site, the Hyakinthion, is a a mentioned in document detailing restoration of shrines inAttica dur ing the Augustan period (IG IP 1035, line 52).60 The details about their concern cult given in the Erechtheus chiefly offerings and the nature of the sanctuary, but there is also a reference to annual sacrifice (?virxucriai?, fr. was 65, line 78). It is not entirely clear that the Attic face of the calendar as organized by frequency of sacrifice, the Ionic face was, but if so, this passage may suggest that the present fragment formed part of the list of a a annual sacrifices. Here they receive Ka9apjLi[?v], purificatory offering 57. Loomis (1998, pp. 76-87) lists (line 17). the Attic of both examples hierosyna Line 18 is difficult to restore with confidence. What one expects is an no and apometra and concludes that name a an amount followed by the of deity and offering. One possibility is definitive trends can be deduced. a kind of cake that as an in IG IP line 58. For discussion of the cult of vocoT?c, appears offering 1366, 23, are see and 1367, line 14 (both dated to the 1st A.D.). If four spaces the Hyakinthides, Larson 1995, century allowed for the this restoration would leave three pp. 102,122-123; Kearns 1989, pp. 59 amount, however, only name 63,201-202. spaces for the of the deity. Ali is possible, and is perhaps supported 59. Austin 1968, 30-40, frr. 60 pp. by the fact that Zeus is the recipient of the voccrc?c in IG IP 1367 (Ali and 65. line 12). 60. See 1975 for a new edi r?u)pycp, CuUey A less is tion of the text and a discussion of its second, attractive, possibility [?]v ?ccrc[?i] (cf. p. 46, above, Face line with This restoration does not fit the date. In his treatment of the topo A, 7, commentary). pat issues raised the tern of indentation set the lines above. it is not clear that graphical by inscrip by Although theHiU of the an tion, CuUey proposes indentation is absolute necessity here, especially since only a few lines Muses as the site of the Hyakinthion are preserved, the prepositional phrase "in the city" is unexpected and does (1977, p. 286, n. 14, with additional not make sense by itself; if correct, it must, therefore, be part of a longer bibUography). text. sentences 61. The text below the inscribed passage of Full do appear elsewhere in the calendar and it text was not horizontal line on the Ionic face con is possible that the in calendrical form at this point.61 tains at least one sentence IP nature (LI [IG The chthonic of the recipients of sacrifice in these two lists 1357 a (EM 8001 and 6721)], Face A, are on may explain why they grouped together two consecutive days. The lines and 26-27), the poorly preserved were a sacrifices perhaps part of celebration honoring heroes and other Attic face of another fragment (L9 dead and over a of several The second [Agora I 687], Face B) probably does as important extending period days. see on at was associated with a festival of and weU; Lambert's commentary L9 list, least, probably Herakles, gives (2002, p. 389). some idea of what that festival may have entailed. 54 LAURA GAWLINSKI
CONCLUSIONS
case new a As in the of any fragmentary text, each find makes welcome were contribution to the whole. Even if the fragment presented here not part an a of such important document, itwould still be significant inscription own in its right. The texts provide information about several little-known new on more ones. deities and epithets, and shed light familiar They contain the earliest epigraphic attestation for Apollo Prostaterios (Face A) and the one only for the Hyakinthides (Face B). Face A reveals concrete evidence for the worship of Apollo Hupo Makrais in the 5th century and contrib center utes to the debate about the location of the cult of Apollo Pythias. Furthermore, this fragment differs from the other extant fragments of the code in meaningful ways, complicating and enriching the picture of the a on whole. This is the only fragment whose Attic text preserves day which sacrifice occurred, and one of two that preserve amounts in context. It also displays interesting alphabetic, orthographic, and compositional features, as on on such the attention to spacing and indenting Face B not found any other published fragment of the code. to our must Despite these additions knowledge, it be remembered that a only small fraction of the calendar is preserved. The advances brought new by the publication of this fragment have revealed how little is known about the nature of the code as well as about certain aspects of Greek cult. as a as as a This text thus should be regarded caveat, well pleasant reminder, that much more remains to be discovered.
REFERENCES
XV = B. D. Meritt and S. Ancient Greek the Agora J. Traill, Cult, Organized by The Athenian Councillors Swedish Institute at 22-24 Inscriptions: Athens, (AgoraXV), Princeton 1974. November 1991 (SkrAth 8?, 13), ed. R. 17-34. Austin, O, ed. 1968. Nova Fragmenta H?gg, Stockholm, pp. in Berlin. G. R. 1975. "The Restoration Euripidea Papyris Reperta, CuUey, Broneer, 0.1965. "Notes on Three of Sanctuaries in Attica: I. G., IP, 207-223. Athenian Cult Places," ArchEph 1035," Hesperia 44, pp. -. 1960, pp. 54-67. 1977. "The Restoration of Clinton, K. 1972. from Sanctuaries in Attica, II: The Struc " "Inscriptions Eleusis 81-136. ture IG ArchEph 1971, pp. of IF, 1035 and theTopog -. of 1973. "Apollo, Pan, and Zeus, raphy Salamis," Hesperia 46, of Vultures: 282-298. Avengers Agamemnon, pp. 55-59,nAJP 94, pp. 282-288. Daux, G. 1983. "Le calendrier de -. au 1982. "The Nature of the Thorikos Mus?e J. Paul Getty," of AntCl Late Fifth-Century Revision the 52, pp. 150-174. Athenian Law Code," in Studies in Dow, S. 1960. "The Athenian Calendar Attic Epigraphy, History, and Topog of Sacrifices:The Chronology of Presented to Nikomachos' Second Histo raphy Eugene Vanderpool Term," (Hesperia Suppl. 19), Princeton, ria 9, pp. 270-293. -. pp. 27-37. 1961. "The WaUs Inscribed -. with Nikomakhos' Law 1994. "The Epidauria and the Code," in in 58-73. Arrival of Asclepius Athens," Hesperia 30, pp. Ancient Greek Cult Practice the A. 1971. "A New Look at from Fingarette, Evidence. theWaU of Epigraphical Proceedings of Nikomakhos," Hesperia the Second International Seminar on 40, pp. 330-335. THE ATHENIAN CALENDAR OF SACRIFICES 55
R. F. -. 2005. Healey, 1990. Eleusinian Sacrifices "Athenian State Laws Rhodes, P. J., and R. Osborne. 2003. in theAthenian Law New and Code, Decrees, 352/1-322/1: II. Greek Historical Inscriptions, 404 York. Religious Regulations," ZPE 154, 323 b.c., Oxford. Jameson, M., D. R.Jordan, and R. D. pp. 125-159. Richard, F. 1988. "Les souverains en 1993. A Lex Sacra 1995. Greek Heroine un Kotansky. from Larson, J. Cults, 'theoi epibaterioi.' Sur aspect Selinous Durham. Madison. du culte in (GRBM11), particulier imp?rial," C. 1998. "Public W.T. 1998. et commerces Jourdain-Annequin, Loomis, Wages, Welfare Navires de laM?diter ou ? de and in Classical ran?e ? priv?? propos quelques Costs, Inflation antique: Hommage Jean Roug? cultes d'H?racl?s dans la cit? Ann Arbor. d'histoire Athens, (Cahiers 33.3-4), Lyons, Ktema grecque," 23, pp. 345-364. Matthaiou, A. 2003. "?rco?Acov Ar|?,io? pp. 441-452. Kawadias, P. 1897. "ToTtoypocipiK?c ?v A9r|vai?," in Lettered Attica: Robertson, N. 1990. "The Laws of AOnvcov Kocx? x?? rcepi xrjv ?Kpo A Day ofAttic Epigraphy. Proceed Athens, 410-399 b.c.: The Evi TioAav ?vaaKOKpa?," ArchEph 1897, ings of theAthens Symposium,March dence for Review and Publication," cols. 1-32. 2000 (Publications of the Canadian JHS110, pp. 43-75. E. 1989. The Heroes Attica at -. Kearns, of Archaeological Institute Athens 3), 2001. "Athena asWeather London. ed. D. and (BICS Suppl. 57), Jordan J. TraiU, Athens, Goddess: The Aigis inMyth and Knigge, U. 1991. The Athenian Kera pp. 85-93. Ritual," in Athena in the Classical meikos: Exca B. D. 1957. "Greek ed. S. History, Monuments, Meritt, Inscrip World, Deacy and A. Villing, trans. vations, J. Binder, Athens. tions III: Decrees and Other Texts," Leiden, pp. 29-55. S. 1997. "The Attic Lambert, Genos Hesperia 36, pp. 51-97. Themelis, P. 1987. "'Epexpioeic?? Xa Salaminioi and the of Island Sala MikalsonJ. D. 1975. The Sacred and xpe?e?," in 0(Aia enr? ei? Tecopyiov ZPE 85-106. Calendar mis," 119, pp. Civil of the Athenian Year, E. Mv? v?v2, Athens, pp. 106 -. 2000. "The Sacrificial Calendar Princeton. 125. of theMarathonian A P. E. 2000. "The Cave Sanctu L. 1980. Grammar Attic Tetrapolis: Nulton, Threatte, The of Revised ZPE 43-70. of on the 1: Text," 130, pp. ary ApoUo Hypoakraios Inscriptions Phonology, Berlin. -. 2000-2003. "Two Documents North Politics S. 1996. AcropoUs Slope: and Todd, "Lysias against Niko of Attic Gene,n Horos 14-16, pp. 77 Religion in ImperialAge Athens" machos: The Fate of the Expert 82. (diss. Brown Univ.). in Athenian Law," in Greek Law -. 2002. "The Sacrificial Calen -. 2003. The in Its Sanctuary ofApollo Political Setting:Justifications, dar of BSA 353 and Athens," 97, pp. Hypoakraios Imperial Athens Not Justice, ed. L. Foxhall and 399. Transatl?ntica (Archaeologia 21), A. D. E. Lewis, Oxford, pp. 101 -. 2004a. "Greek in Inscriptions Providence. 131. the R. 1996. Athenian University Museum, Oxford, Parker, Religion: Wycherley, R.E. 1959. "Two Athenian ZPE 181 A Mississippi," 148, pp. History, Oxford. Shrines," AJA 63, pp. 67-72. 186. -. 2005. and at -. 1963. at Polytheism Society "The Pythion Athens: -. 2004b. "Athenian State Laws Oxford. Athens, Thucydides 2.15.4; Philostratos, and 352/1-322/1:1. A. W. 1943. Decrees, Parsons, "Klepsydra and Lives of the Sophists 2.1.7,n AJA 67, Decrees Honouring Athenians," the Paved Court of the Pythion," pp. 75-79. ZPE 85-120. 150, pp. Hesperia 12, pp. 191-267.
Laura Gawlinski
Wilfrid Laurier University
department of archaeology and classical studies
waterloo, ontario n2l 3c5 CANADA