Late Antique Symbols and Numerals on Altars in the Asklepieion at Epidauros Author(s): Christopher A. Pfaff Source: Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens , Vol. 87, No. 2 (April-June 2018), pp. 387-428 Published by: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2972/hesperia.87.2.0387

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms

The American School of Classical Studies at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms hesperia 87 (2018) Late Antique Symbols Pages 387–428 and Numerals on Altars in the Asklepieion at Epidauros

ABSTRACT

The Asklepieion at Epidauros has yielded numerous altars inscribed with symbols and alphabetic numerals in the 4th century a.d., but relatively little attention has been paid to these Late Antique markings in recent scholarship. This article reviews what is known about the symbols and numerals and explores how they may have been used. Since no similar usage of symbols and numerals is attested on altars elsewhere, it is suggested here that the marks on the Epidaurian altars responded to the specific liturgical requirements of the Asklepieion, which demanded the regular servicing of an unusually large number of altars.

Over the course of the large-scale excavations carried out in the late 19th cen- tury at the Asklepieion of Epidauros, many incribed blocks came to light with symbols and alphabetic numerals added in late antiquity (see Figs. 1–5).1 These marks were summarily reported by the site’s excavator, Panagiotis Kavvadias, and were soon thereafter documented and analyzed more fully by Blinkenberg.2 Much of the information provided by Blinkenberg was subsequently incorporated into Fraenkel’s discussion of the symbols and numerals in IG IV. 3 This publication also improved the documentation of the symbols by providing more accurate line drawings of all the symbols known at the time. Hiller von Gaertringen’s second edition of the Epidaurian corpus, IG IV2, generally repeated the documentation

1. Elements of this article were them for many helpful suggestions 156, nos. 12, 22, 24, 57; 1884, col. 25, first presented at the conference and corrections. I am also grateful to no. 66; 1885, col. 195, no. 98; 1894, “Texts, Non-Texts, and Contexts: Melina Melfi and the other anonymous cols. 16, 22, nos. 2, 17; 1918, pp. 192– On the Varieties of Writing Experi- reader for their comments on the first 193, fig. 37; Cavvadias 1891, pp. 43, ences in the Ancient Mediterranean,” submitted draft. For permission to 45–49, 51–54, 56–58, 60, 73, 108, 112, held February 25–26, 2011, at Florida publish photographs of the altars at nos. 35, 47, 50, 55, 63α, 67, 79, 82, 86, State University. I thank my colleague Epidauros, I thank the Ephoreia of 91, 93, 94, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 122, Nancy de Grummond for the invita- Antiquities of Argolida, and for per- 128, 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 157, 161, tion to speak on that occasion. Earlier mission to use the site plan of Epidau- 231, 258; Blinkenberg 1894–1895, drafts of this paper were read by Nancy ros that appears in Figure 7, I thank pp. 174–178; 1899. Bookidis, Francis Cairns, and Molly R. A. Tomlinson. 3. IG IV, pp. 186–190. Richardson, and I am indebted to 2. Kavvadias 1883, cols. 31, 87, 88,

© American School of Classical Studies at Athens

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 388 christopher a. pfaff of the symbols and numerals from the previous edition, but it offered a different and considerably briefer discussion of them.4 It also provided a convenient listing of all the inscribed numerals. These early publications of Kavvadias, Blinkenberg, Fraenkel, and Hiller von Gaertringen have continued to be the primary sources of information for the symbols and numerals at Epidauros. Some additional examples of symbols and numerals have been reported by Mitsos, Peek, Rupp, and Nichols and Wagman, and occasional, brief comments about these marks have been offered since the publication of IG IV2, but over the past 85 years, no attempt has been made to reexamine the context and significance of these marks.5 The purpose of this article is to do just that.

NATURE OF THE MARKED BLOCKS

A correct understanding of the symbols and numerals at Epidauros depends first and foremost on the proper identification of the blocks that received them. Undoubtedly influenced by the variation in the types of blocks that bear the marks, Kavvadias concluded very generally that the symbols and numerals appeared on dedications in the sanctuary. Blinkenberg also identified the marked blocks in very general terms as altars and bases for votives. As he noted, however, the idea that all of the blocks with symbols may have served as altars in late antiquity had been suggested to him by an unnamed source (“von befreundeter Seite”), and he had not had the opportunity to verify this theory in the field.6 Fraenkel, in his subsequent study of the Epidaurian inscriptions, em- phasized the fact that symbols are not associated with other well-represented categories of inscribed votives, such as lustral fonts (perirrhanteria), and concluded that all the marked blocks were indeed altars at the time they received their symbols (though some had previously served as statue bases).7 Fraenkel does not expand on this point, but it is clear that he thought that if the symbols and numerals had been intended for votives generally, these marks should be widespread through the full range of surviving votives from the site, which is clearly not the case at Epidauros. It must be admitted, of course, that the exclusion of other types of votives from the category of marked blocks does not quite constitute proof that all the marked blocks were altars, but since many certainly were altars, and many more provide no evidence of having been used for some other purpose (at least in their final state), the identification of all marked blocks as altars is accepted here.8 By my reckoning, as many as 156 such blocks are preserved (or at least partially preserved) out of an original total of at least 221.9 As indicated by the inscriptions they bear, these blocks were all dedications to a deity or hero, made over the course of many centuries (see the Appendix). Some

4. IG IV2, pp. 105, 173–176. 101–107, figs. 12, 27, 37, 57, pls. V, p. 187) generally accept the identi- 5. Mitsos 1935, p. 14, no. 7; 1936, XII, XVI, XXIII; Rupp 1974, pp. 201, fication of the marked blocks as p. 144, no. 3; 1947, p. 84, no. 2, pl. XIV; 246–249, nos. 91, 111; Nichols and altars. Peek 1969, pp. 71, 74, 96, 103, 105, Wagman 2006, p. 187. 9. The minimum total is based on 108, 112, 138, nos. 125, 134, 163, 204, 6. Blinkenberg 1899, p. 396. the inscribed numerals (see the discus- 212, 227, 242, 335; 1972, pp. 23–25, 31, 7. IG IV, p. 186. sion on pp. 398–399, below). 36–37, 51–52, nos. 25, 27, 29, 48, 61, 8. Nichols and Wagman (2006,

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms altars in the asklepieion at epidauros 389

of them betray by their form or location that they were certainly altars.10 Moreover, at least three blocks explicitly identify themselves as altars (βωμοί) through their inscriptions.11 Some of the blocks had been at one time something other than an altar. The block inscribed with IG IV2 613, for example, had once served as a statue base, and the block inscribed with IG IV2 415 had once served as a tripod base.12 Of the extant altars that preserve symbols and/or numerals, at least 34 of them bear only the name of one or more divinities or heroes written in the genitive or dative case. Most of these altars consist of only the single inscribed block, but some were constructed of multiple blocks. The simplicity of the dedicatory inscriptions of those altars that fail to mention a dedicant may indicate that they were set up anonymously by the state. Other altars, usually monolithic, with more expansive dedicatory formulas that provide the name of the dedicant, can reasonably be identified as votive altars set up by private individuals. Since most of the altars, whether set up by the state or by private individuals, are rather small and show no obvious signs of burning, it is likely that they were used for modest bloodless sacrifices, perhaps cakes and libations. The private individuals who were responsible for dedicating altars prior to the Roman period are identified in the inscriptions only by name, so it is now impossible to say much about them and their motives for making their dedications.13 From the 2nd century a.d. onward, however, those who set up altars are often further identified by the cult title they held ἱερεύς( , priest, or πυροφόρος/πυρφόρος, fire-bearer) or by the corresponding cult activity they performed (ἱεραπολήσας, one who has served as priest, or πυροφορήσας, one who has served as fire-bearer).14 Since the adult men and youths who held these offices were generally responsible for the sacrifices that took place in the sanctuary, it seems likely that they chose to dedicate altars as a way of commemorating their service to the sanctuary.15

10. E.g., the large built rectangular 13. In the Appendix, the designa- hierophant, which presumably relates to structure surrounded by a parapet tion “name only” or “names only” within his role in a local cult of Demeter and located directly in front of the Temple the “Dedicant” column indicates that Kore, perhaps located on Mt. Kynor- of Artemis can only have been an altar; no cult title or cult function accompa- tion; see Melfi 2007, pp. 131, 139. see Roux 1961, pp. 216–221, figs. 48– nies the name of the dedicant. Of the numerous altars dedicated by 50, pls. 53, 54; Rupp 1974, pp. 246– 14. In the Appendix, the designa- Diogenes, only two with the title 249, no. 111. Similarly, the large rect- tion “pyrophoros” is used in the “Dedi- hiereus (IG IV2 424, 425) and two with angular blocks of red or gray limestone cant” column regardless of whether hierophant (IG IV2 426, 427) were with rough tops and no provision for that cult title or the related participle marked with symbols and numbers. attaching sculpture can only have been appears in the inscription; the desig- Another unmarked altar from about the altars (Fig. 10, below, shows several of nation “hiereus” is used regardless of same period identifies its dedicant as a these altars in a series east of Building E); whether that priestly title or the related hierophant (IG IV2 551), while a late, see Roux 1961, p. 399, pl. 99:4; Rupp participle appears. There is no evidence unmarked altar to Asklepios Aigeotes 1974, pp. 172–175, 179–182, nos. 71, to suggest that there was a separate identifies its dedicant as both ahiero - 72, 76, 77. The identification of other office ofhierapolos, and IG IV2 424 con- phant and a hiereus of the savior (IG IV2 altars is not so obvious from the form firms that the activity to which 438). alone. Many are simple rectangular ἱεραπολήσας refers was carried out by 15. That the pyrophoroi were youths blocks of limestone or breccia with or the hiereus. On nine of 13 altars dedi- is suggested by the sanatio, IG IV2 121, without crowning and base moldings cated by a certain Diogenes at the end line 43, which refers to ὁ παῖς τῷ θεῷ (see Figs. 4, 5). of the 3rd century a.d. (IG IV2 418– πυρφορῶν (the boy who carries fire for 11. IG IV2 513, 550, 553. 425; Peek 1972, p. 38, no. 65), the dedi- the god). Epigraphic evidence confirms 12. Other likely statue bases: IG IV2 cant is identified with the titlehiereus; that on occasion the pyrophoros was the 441, 446, 471(?), 472, 473(?), 503, 512, however, on three others (IG IV2 417, son of the hiereus; see Peek 1972, p. 37, 516(?), 529, 568, 572(?), 586. 426, 427), he is identified by the title no. 62.

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 390 christopher a. pfaff

One 3rd-century a.d. altar was dedicated by an individual who identified himself as a doctor (ἰατρός);16 this exception is perhaps explained by the fact that the same individual seems also to have served as a priest.17 Some of the other altars, perhaps all of the 3rd century a.d., were dedicated by individuals who are identified as suppliants ἱκέται( ), probably in reference to the fact that they had come to the sanctuary seeking a cure. At least some of the other altars that bear dedications indicating that they were set up in response to a dream (κατ’ ὄναρ) were also probably dedicated by suppliants after they had undergone the ritual of incubation in the sanctuary.18 We learn from the 4th-century b.c. inscribed records of cures (sanationes) at Epidauros (IG IV2 121, 122) that suppliants who were cured through the intervention of Asklepios were obliged to make a thank offering appropriate to their circumstances (e.g., a headband from a man who had marks on his head or dice from a boy).19 Although there is no explicit reference to an altar as a kind of thank offering, it is very tempting to think that in the Roman period, if not also earlier, a small altar would have been seen as an appropriate offering to dedicate in response to an effective cure. Although some of the inscribed blocks dedicated by the sanctuary administrators known as the hiaromnamones might also have served as altars, in all but one case only those blocks that were later rededicated (anonymously or by a named individual) received symbols and numerals.20 For example, a block originally dedicated by two hiaromnamones (IG IV2 155) was later rededicated to Athena Kallierges by a pyrophoros and then marked with a symbol and numeral (IG IV2 485).21 It is worth noting that the one altar dedicated by an athlete (IG IV2 520) also failed to receive a symbol and numeral. This evidence might suggest that there was a policy of not marking some altars because of the nature of the dedicant, but we cannot be sure that this was the case. Among the blocks recognized here as altars marked with symbols and numerals there are several that exhibit clear signs of previous use.22 As Melfi has shown in her synthesis of the history of the Asklepieion, such a reuse of

16. IG IV2 577; Peek 1969, p. 112, base/altar dedicated in the 3rd cen- 22. This is most obvious in cases no. 242; SEG XXXII 387. tury a.d. by a man identified as both where the altars still retain evidence of 17. The name of the doctor, Epaph- hiereus and hieromnemon (IG IV2 415). an earlier inscription: cf. IG IV2 441, roditos, is at any rate the same as that 21. In three other cases, the original with an earlier dedication for a statue, of the man who, as a priest, dedicated block dedicated by one or more hiaro- IG IV2 460; IG IV2 446, with an earlier three altars to Isis, Sarapis, and the mnamones (IG IV2 156, 157, 168) was dedication for a statue, IG IV2 330; Muses; see IG IV2 534, 535, 540. rededicated anonymously as an altar— IG IV2 471, with an earlier dedication 18. It should be noted, however, that in one case to Hypnos (IG IV2 572), in for a statue, IG IV2 686; IG IV2 482, a dedication set up in response to a another to the Angeloi (IG IV2 482), with the earlier dedication of a hiarom- dream need not always be connected and in another to Pronoia (IG IV2 namon, IG IV2 157; IG IV2 485, with with a suppliant; see, e.g., IG IV2 430, 558)—and marked with a symbol and the earlier dedication of a hiaromna- which provides testimony for the fact numeral. Because the original dedica- mon, IG IV2 155; IG IV2 503, with an that a dedicant who set up an altar in tions of the hiaromnamones did not earlier dedication for a statue, IG IV2 response to a dream was a priest of refer to specific deities, perhaps the 626; IG IV2 512, with an earlier dedica- Asklepios. chief reason for the rededication was to tion for a statue, IG IV2 699; IG IV2 19. Texts and English translations specify the recipients of the offerings 516, with an earlier dedication for an for IG IV2 121 and 122 can be found in made at each altar. This may have been altar, IG IV2 489; IG IV2 529, with an Edelstein and Edelstein 1998, pp. 221– a precondition of their being marked. earlier signature of a sculptor, IG IV2 229, no. 423. In this regard, it is worth noting that 698; IG IV2 545, with only slight 20. The absence of symbols in asso- even the marble altar dedicated by a remains of a deleted earlier inscription; ciation with dedications of hiaromna- hiaromnamon (IG IV2 170), which lacks and IG IV2 568, with an earlier signa- mones was noted by Fraenkel (IG IV, a named recipient, did not receive a ture of two sculptors, IG IV2 698. p. 186). The exception here is a tripod symbol and numeral.

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms altars in the asklepieion at epidauros 391

material is probably related to the fact that the sanctuary suffered extensive damage in the 1st century b.c. and then experienced a prolonged period of neglect until it underwent a considerable revival beginning in the reign of Hadrian and continuing under the Antonines.23 Within the context of the 2nd-century a.d. revival, which involved both the construction of new buildings and the restoration of old ones, it is understandable that some earlier monuments, including altars and statue bases, would have been recycled to serve as new altars, often provided with a date based on the year of Hadrian’s visit to the sanctuary.24 Although it is relatively easy to sort out the phases of these reused monuments and to distinguish the earlier inscription and use from the later altar that was eventually marked with a symbol and numeral, the situation is not entirely clear in a few cases. One of these is the statue base associated with IG IV2 613. On the preserved portion of the original front of the block, there is only one inscription, which relates to its original use as the support for a bronze statue of Furia Sabinia Tranquillina, the wife of the emperor Gordian III. On the original top surface, there is a symbol like those associated with the altars.25 In this case, no secondary inscription is preserved to prove that the base was reused as an altar, but it seems best to imagine that the missing right end of the base did once have such an inscription. If the base had been set on its end in order to convert it to an altar, the dedicatory inscription might then have run across the top of the new front side (the original top) above the surviving symbol.26 This 23. Melfi 2013, pp. 145–150. For reconstruction would leave the original attachment holes for the statue fully discussion of the reuse or rededication exposed at the front of the altar, but that need not have been regarded as of votives, see Lupu 2009, pp. 32–33. a significant problem: there is, after all, an altar with a hole that had to be 2 24. See IG IV , p. XXXIII; Peek accommodated by the lettering of its dedicatory inscription, and another 1972, p. 37, no. 62. with remains of a lifting boss in the inscribed area of its front face.27 25. The position of the symbol was erroneously recorded as on the right Another similarly problematic example is the tripod base associated side of the block in Giamalides 1913, with IG IV2 415.28 This base, too, preserves only one inscription, a dedi- p. 125, no. θ′; this error was then re- cation to Homonoia, which seems to pertain to the original votive tripod. In peated by Hiller von Gaertringen in this case, it is not clear if the base was reused without its tripod as an altar, 2 IG IV 613. The symbol (type 28) is or if the tripod remained in place and served as a receptacle for offerings at similar to that used for Helios, but without the radiating lines connecting the time that its base was marked with a symbol and numeral. In any case, the central point with the eight sur- it appears that the original dedication to Homonoia remained unaltered rounding points. at the time that the symbol and numeral were added. 26. Giamalides (1913, pp. 125–126) Among the inscribed blocks from the Asklepieion that received added wondered whether the side of the block marks in late antiquity, there is one that has been described alternatively with the symbol was inscribed, but he as a lapis rectangulus (a retangular stone, IG IV 956) or stela cymatiis ornata was unable to examine that side fully 2 because another block rested on top of (i.e., a stele ornamented with moldings, IG IV 127) with a text that it. Now that that side of the block is has been categorized as a sanatio.29 This text does indeed refer to a cure fully visible, it is evident that no in- received by a certain Tiberius Claudius Severus of Sinope, but it includes scription is preserved. a dedication to Asklepios and Apollo with wording quite similar to that 27. For the altar with the hole, see of many of the votive altars: IG IV2 546; Peek 1969, p. 108, no. 227; 2 for the altar with the boss, see IG IV Τιβ · Κλ Σευῆρος | Σινωπεὺς Ἀπόλ|λωνι Μαλεάτᾳ καὶ | Σωτῆρι 489; Peek 1969, p. 102, no. 197. 28. See n. 20, above. Ἀσκληπιῷ | κατ’ ὄναρ 29. The stone does not have the It seems likely, therefore, that this inscribed stone was, in fact, an altar at thin, slab-like form typical of stelai; the dimensions reported in both edi- the time of its dedication and not simply a record of a cure. If so, the later tions of IG IV are: H. 85.0, L. 26.0, addition of a numeral and two symbols for Asklepios and Apollo does not W. 26.0 cm. represent a change of function of the original dedication.

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 392 christopher a. pfaff

Although it seems likely that all the blocks provided with symbols and numerals functioned as altars at the time they received their marks, symbols and numerals were not inscribed on all the altars of the sanctuary. The simplest explanation for this is that a considerable number of altars had fallen out of use by the time that the process of adding symbols and numerals was initiated, and so those altars were excluded. It should be noted, however, that the evidence does not support the notion that older altars tended to be excluded while more recent altars tended to be included in the marking process. Extant altars that bear symbols and numerals range widely in date from the 5th century b.c. to the early 4th century a.d., and early (5th– 4th century b.c.) altars appear to be well represented (see the Appendix). It should also be noted that some of the latest altars were not marked. As will be discussed below, some very late inscribed altars, including one from a.d. 355 (IG IV2 438) and one from a.d. 363 (Peek 1972, pp. 34–35, no. 55), may have been dedicated after the marking process had been completed and for that reason did not receive symbols and numerals. At the same time, IG IV2 429 was also passed over, even though it was dedicated in a.d. 304, which was before the marking process was carried out.30 The evidence considered above confirms that the age or date of an altar was not in itself a decisive factor for determining whether or not it was marked in late antiquity. The cultic significance of an altar may also have played some role in determining whether or not it was marked, but this is hard to assess. It is not difficult to imagine that the large altar aligned with the Temple of Artemis was thought to have greater cultic significance than many other more modest altars and that this significance could account for the fact that it received a symbol and numeral.31 In most cases, however, it is far less obvious why one altar would be judged more significant than another. It is not clear, for example, why two modest altars dedicated to Isis and Sarapis by a certain Epaphroditos received marks when another dedicated to the Muses by the same man did not.32 There is no obvious pattern to suggest that altars dedicated to certain gods were marked while those dedicated to others were not. Given the extraordinary range of divinities represented among the marked altars, it would seem that the authorities responsible for marking the altars intended to be as inclusive as possible. It is not likely, therefore, that they would have had an interest in editing out divinities from the rituals of the sanctuary. Another reason that some altars may not have been marked is that they were thought redundant. Because not all of the marked altars are preserved,33 it is now impossible to determine whether or not every unmarked altar dedicated to a particular god or hero had a marked counterpart,34 but the

30. That the marking process oc- 32. For the marked altars, see IG IV2 altars (or at least altars without pre- curred after a.d. 304 is proved by the 534, 535; for the unmarked altar, see served marks) that are not represented existence of a marked altar with a dat- IG IV2 540. Another altar originally by marked altars are: Agatha Tycha ing formula indicating the year a.d. dedicated by Epaphroditos to Isis was (IG IV2 269), Agathos Daimon (IG IV2 306; see IG IV2 432. IG IV2 430, which rededicated at some point to the Paides 269), Aphrodita (IG IV2 281), Aphro- is probably contemporary with the (Asklepiou) before it was marked; see dita Milichia (IG IV2 282), Apollon dated inscription IG IV2 429, also lacks Peek 1969, p. 112, no. 242. Amyklaios (IG IV2 445), Apollon a symbol and numeral. 33. By my reckoning, as many as Chresterios/Chrestereios (IG IV2 450, 31. For the altar of Artemis, see 156 marked altars are preserved (or at 452), Apollon Delios (IG IV2 403), Roux 1961, pp. 216–221, figs. 48–50, least partially preserved) out of an orig- [Apollon] Nomios (IG IV2 447), Apol- pls. 53, 54; Rupp 1974, pp. 246–249, inal total that likely surpassed 221. lon Pythios Patroos (IG IV2 429), no. 111. 34. Deities represented by unmarked Apollon Soter (IG IV2 449), Artemis

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms altars in the asklepieion at epidauros 393

fact that in several instances the same god is represented by two or more marked altars indicates that at least some redundancy was allowed by those responsible for adding the symbols and numerals. The original locations of the altars may also have been a factor in determining which of them would eventually be marked. The relatively few known findspots of the marked altars would suggest that most of them were originally set up within the central area of the sanctuary. As will be discussed further below (p. 418), this area underwent a major renovation in the 4th century a.d. that included the creation of a colonnade which enclosed the precinct.35 It is tempting to hypothesize that the altars within the area bounded by the colonnade were the ones that continued to be serviced and that they therefore were the ones to be marked with symbols and numerals in late antiquity.36 One problem with this hypothesis is that we do not yet have conclusive evidence to show that the enclosure of the precinct had occurred by the time the altars were marked. Another problem is that at least one of the marked altars is located outside the area enclosed by the Late Antique colonnade. This altar, dedicated to Hygieia (IG IV2 568), remains in situ to the south of the Late Antique colonnade directly in front of the propylon of the Hestiatorion (the building traditionally referred to as the “Gymnasion”).37 Three other altars (IG IV2 271, 534, 535) may also have stood outside (to the east of) the Late Antique colonnade near Building Π. Although it is not clear that these altars were discovered in situ,38 the fact that they have sequential numerals and are dedicated to related deities (Ammon, Isis, and Sarapis) may suggest that they had not strayed far from their original locations.

Agoraia (IG IV2 405), Artemis Lim- (IG IV2 491), Pan Hylinomos (Peek and Wagman (2006, p. 187, n. 2) that neatis (Peek 1972, p. 34, no. 55), Arta- 1969, p. 97, no. 167), Pantelie (IG IV2 these altars were discovered in situ, Kav- mis/Artemis Lysaia (IG IV2 275; Peek 551), Phersephoneie (IG IV2 551), vadias (1900, p. 161) reported only that 1969, p. 100, no. 183 [in this case, the [Podale]irios (Peek 1972, p. 24, no. 28), they were found by the west side of altar is marked for a later dedication to Selene Polyonymos (IG IV2 422), Building Π; his earlier publication of Asklepios]), Artemis Mounychia Telesphoros Epekoos (IG IV2 562), the inscriptions associated with these (IG IV2 404), Artamis Nomia (Peek Telesphoros Soter (IG IV2 421), Theoi three altars (Kavvadias 1894, cols. 16– 1972, p. 25, no. 30), Asklepios Aigeotes Soteroi (IG IV2 512), Zeus Apotropaios 17, 24, nos. 2, 3, 21) did not record (IG IV2 438), Asklapios Hypatos (IG (IG IV2 290), Zeus Kydistos Megistos their findspots. It is clear, however, that IV2 479), Asklepios Orthios (IG IV2 (IG IV2 520), Zeus Nemeios (IG IV2 Kavvadias thought that the altars were 459), Athena Hygieia (IG IV2 428), 417, 521), Zeus Ol[ympios] (IG IV2 originally set up near Building Π, since Athana Hypata (IG IV2 488), Athena 524), Zeus Our[ios] (Peek 1972, p. 23, he cites the altars in support of his iden- Polias (IG IV2 430), Athana Stoicheia no. 26), Zeus Tropaios (IG IV2 293). tification of BuildingΠ as a temple of (IG IV2 487), Bacchos (IG IV2 551), 35. See Kanellopoulos 1999, 2000. the Egyptian Asklepios and Apollo Despoina (IG IV2 396), Dionysos 36. It is worth noting that in the mentioned by Pausanias (2.27.6); see (IG IV2 509), Dionysos Saotas (IG IV2 sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas, which Kavvadias 1900, p. 161. Fraenkel (IG IV 286), Dioskoroin (IG IV2 510), Plote- lies outside the Asklepieion on the 1164), followed by Hiller von Gaertrin- roin Dioskouroin (IG IV2 511), Ga/Ge slopes of Mt. Kynortion, not a single gen (IG IV2 271), mistakenly identified (IG IV2 284, 285), Hebe (IG IV2 528), altar was marked with a numeral, and the findspot of the altar of Ammon as Hekate (Peek 1972, p. 38, no. 64), Hera only one altar (an altar of Nyx dedi- near the “latus meridionale” of Build- Argeia (IG IV2 417), Herakles (Peek cated in a.d. 111) received a symbol ing Π. Fraenkel (IG IV 1033, 1041) also 1969, p. 107, no. 221), Herakles Alexi- (a crown); see Lambrinoudakis 1988, gave the same incorrect findspot for the kakos (IG IV2 531), Hermes Logios pp. 28–29, pl. 22. altars of Isis and Sarapis; in the case of (Peek 1972, p. 38, no. 65), Hestia 37. Kavvadias (1900, pp. 148–149) IG IV 1033 (the altar of Isis), he erro- (IG IV2 289), Hygieia Soteira (IG IV2 thought that the propylon was con- neously cited Kavvadias (1900, p. 164) 419), Iater (IG IV2 533; Peek 1969, verted to a temple of Hygieia in the as his authority for the location. Hiller p. 106, no. 220), Kouretes (IG IV2 392), 2nd century a.d. and that the altar von Gaertringen (IG IV2 534, 535) Kronos (IG IV2 536), Lato/Leto belonged to it; see also Melfi 2007, adopted a more general findspot desig- (IG IV2 300, 301, 385), Moirai (IG IV2 pp. 111–113. nation, “prope aedificium Π,” for the 540), Nymphai (IG IV2 544), Oxyderka 38. Contrary to the claim of Nichols altars of Isis and Sarapis.

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 394 christopher a. pfaff

It is unfortunate that we do not have a complete report of the find Figure 1 (opposite). Drawings of contexts of all the altars to allow us to verify how many unmarked altars symbol types on altars in the Askle- might have continued to stand in accessible places within the sanctuary pieion at Epidauros. Symbols 1–55 after IG IV, pp. 187–190; symbols 56–58 through late antiquity. Although it is tempting to conclude that only marked C. A. Pfaff altars continued to be serviced after the time that the symbols and numerals were added, it is possible that at least some of the other altars may have continued to be available for use.39

NATURE OF THE SYMBOLS

The symbols normally consist of a relatively simple linear form inscribed in a single circle that ranges in diameter from about 6.0 to 10.5 centimeters. Figure 1 shows drawings of all the known symbol types; the numbering of symbols 1–55 maintains the sequence published in IG IV and IG IV2; symbols 56–58 are addenda. A list of the symbols with their associated recipients can be found in the Appendix. As early as 1891, Kavvadias recognized that the symbols on the Epidau- rian stones relate to well-known attributes of specific gods and heroes named in the accompanying inscriptions—for example, a bow and arrow for Arte- mis and a sistrum for Isis (symbols 11, 34).40 Others are rather more abstract but nonetheless distinctive, consisting of combinations of lines and points. In one case only, a word (Μουσῶν), written in typically Late Greek charac- ters, appears in place of a symbol in the circle (symbol 39); to accommodate the letters, the circle is somewhat larger, with a diameter of 15.5 cm.41 It is important to note, however, that not all markings should be considered as part of the symbol proper. On two altars of Poseidon, for in- stance, there is in addition to the usual encircled symbol an incised dolphin that should perhaps be regarded more as an ornament than a component of the symbol itself (symbol 44). On two altars, one certainly associated

39. Blinkenberg reported that in (including one with a symbol for Zeus weighing scales (symbol 23 [Dikaio- 1890, numerous marked altars re- and one with a symbol for Artemis) syne]); paired suppliant branches (sym- mained on the site, and he thought that were located about 25 m east of the bol 24 [Eleos]); single branch of by mapping their locations it would Abaton in what appeared to be a mod- olive(?) or oak(?) (symbol 25 [Zeus have been possible to determine the ern disposition of stones in a north– Asklepios, Zeus Teleios]); paired pine(?) original placement of at least a majority south line. It is possible that a few branches (symbol 36 [Megala Mater/ of the altars. He did not have enough other marked altars escaped my atten- Meter Theon]); single branch (symbol time, however, to tackle this problem; tion, but it is obvious that most have 26 [Ammon]); sun (symbol 28 [He- see Blinkenberg 1894–1895, p. 178. In now been taken off the site. lios]); bow(?) (symbol 31 [Herakles]); brief visits to the Asklepieion in 2014 40. Cavvadias 1891, p. 112. Other sistrum (symbol 34 [Isis]); forceps(?) and 2015, I could locate only 17 more-or-less recognizable symbols are (symbol 35 [Machaon]); shepherd’s marked altars still on the site (IG IV2 (as shown in Fig. 1): crown/wreath (sym- crook and syrinx (symbol 42 [Pan]); 270, 283, 288, 294, 298, 493, 495, 529, bol 1 [Agathe], symbols 13–16 [Askla- whip (and goad?) (symbol 45 [Poseidon 537, 543, 568; IG IV2 311 + Peek 1972, pios/Asklepios], symbol 21 [Demeter], Hippios]); cornucopia (symbol 50 p. 24, no. 29; SEG XI 443; the altar symbols 37, 38 [Mneia and Auxesia/ [Tyche]); snake and phiale (symbol 51 with three symbols mentioned under Mnia and Azosia]); spear and shield or [Hygieia, Tycha Nemesis]); kerykeion Peek 1972, p. 24, no. 28; and three spindle and distaff (symbols 5, 6: [Atha- (symbol 58 [Hermes]). For comments altars that I was unable to identify); the naia/Athena]); stars (symbol 7 [Anakes], on what the symbols represent, see locations of the identifiable altars are symbol 20 [Aphrodita Orania, Cha- Blinkenberg 1899, pp. 382–391; IG IV, noted in the Appendix. The three altars rites]); hammer and other tools (sym- pp. 186–190; IG IV2, pp. 173–175. I found but were unable to identify bols 18, 19 [Haphaistos/Hephaistos]); 41. IG IV2 543.

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms altars in the asklepieion at epidauros 395

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25

26 a 27 b 28 29 30

31 32 33 34 35

36 37 38 39 40

41 42 43 44 45

46 47 48 49 50

51 52 53 54 55

56 57 58

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 396 christopher a. pfaff with Hermes, a kerykeion (caduceus) appears with no circle around it (sym- bol 58).42 This, too, I would be inclined to treat as an ornament rather than a symbol were it not for the fact that in one case the symbol is accompanied by a numeral and no other symbol.43 On the altar inscribed with IG IV2 511, two piloi (hats) and stars typical of the Dioskouroi appear without a circle or numeral.44 These, I believe, can also be dismissed as ornaments unrelated to the other symbols presented here both because they are set in a position to balance a patently ornamental ivy leaf at the end of the inscription and because they are not accompanied by a numeral. Hiller von Gaertringen reported a “quasi πεμπώβολον” (quasi-five-pronged-fork) and ivy leaf at the bottom of IG IV2 689, but these are apparently illusory; Peek’s drawing shows that these elements are letters of a dating formula at the end of the text: ἔ(τος) ς′.45 Generally, a different symbol was used for each god, but a single symbol was used for at least six different heroes (symbol 32): Antinoos, Epidauros, Heros Klaikophoros, Linos, Oikles(?), and Telesphoros. In some cases, different aspects of a god received the same symbol; for example, eight or nine aspects of Zeus all received the same symbol (symbol 25).46 In other cases, different aspects of a god were distinguished with different symbols: Poseidon (without a qualifying epithet) received a different sign from Poseidon Hippios (symbols 44, 45).47 It appears that on occasion an error was made in assigning a symbol to an altar. On the altar of Demeter inscribed with IG IV2 507, the accompanying symbol is the one usually used for Asklepios (symbol 21). As Fraenkel first observed, the source of this error is immediately obvious: the name of the dedicant, Asklepas, which was evidently misread as the name of the god.48 This error—which may reflect the difficulty of reading the incised dedication or the limited literacy of the person charged with adding the symbol—sheds light on why one might want to use symbols and numerals to identify an altar rather than relying on the correct reading of an inscription carved into limestone. It is, of course, ironic that the very process of marking the altars that should have facilitated the identification of the altars resulted in this case in an error that may well have misled the sanctuary officials every time they tended the altar. Another possible error occurred in the marking of the altar of Tycha Nemesis. The symbol on this altar is not the cornucopia that one might have expected for Tyche (symbol 50), but, as Peek’s drawing of the symbol indicates, it is instead the snake and phiale normally associated with Hygieia (symbol 51).49 Peek also claimed that the symbol added to an altar of

42. IG IV2 514; Peek 1972, pp. 51– 44. For a drawing of the piloi and tion (IG IV 1326), but in his listing of 52, no. 105. stars, see IG IV 1279. the symbols (IG IV, p. 190), he errone- 43. It might be noted that a kery- 45. Peek 1969, p. 110, no. 232. ously included the symbol among ex- keion appears on a bilingual inscription 46. On the other hand, two differ- amples of the cornucopia (symbol 50). from the Sanctuary of the Great Gods ent symbols (25, 27) are found in asso- Hiller von Gaertringen similarly at Samothrace (Wescoat 2013, pp. 78– ciation with Zeus Soter (IG IV2 296, assigned the correct number designa- 80, fig. 16). It may simply be an orna- 294, respectively). tion in his entry for the inscription ment, but given the fact that the inscrip- 47. Cf. IG IV2 552, 553. (IG IV2 311), but he added the errone- tion is a terse prohibition that demands 48. See IG IV 1085. ous qualifier“Fortunae (cornu copiae).” attention, one wonders whether the 49. Fraenkel gave the correct Peek’s drawing confirms that the mark in this case was meant to convey number designation for this symbol symbol was the snake and phiale (sym- the idea of an official notice. (symbol 51) in his entry for the inscrip- bol 51); see Peek 1969, p. 74, no. 134.

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms altars in the asklepieion at epidauros 397

Danaa is the same symbol that was otherwise used for Zeus (symbol 27), but because his drawing indicates that the symbol is not entirely clear, I withhold judgment as to whether this symbol was added in error or not.50 It is hard to know what to make of the small, empty circle that appears with IG IV 1369 and IG IV2 236 (symbol 12). The fact that both circles are accompanied by a numeral suggests that they should be included with the other symbols discussed here; if so, however, the absence of symbolic motifs within the circles remains to be explained. Because these circles are appreciably smaller than those associated with the other symbols, it is not likely that symbolic motifs were simply omitted from them by mistake. It is perhaps more likely that the small circles were themselves symbolic motifs and that the usual enclosing circle was omitted to avoid redundancy. Interpretation of the symbol associated with IG IV2 236 is complicated by the fact that this inscription identifies the block as aμνάμα (monument) rather than an altar. Since, however, there is no sign of a second inscription or other evidence of reuse, the dedication to Asklepios should presumably relate to the symbol. Because a crown is the usual symbol that appears on altars dedicated to Asklepios (symbols 13–16), perhaps the small circle is merely a simplified version of that motif. The dedicatory inscription that once accompanied the small circle of IG IV 1369 (symbol 12) is unfortunately not preserved; consequently, it is not possible to confirm the association of this mark with Asklepios. In his discussion of the symbols at Epidauros, Blinkenberg cited Curtius for some isolated examples of symbols used elsewhere in the wider Greek world: a lyre on a marble phiale from the Sanctuary of Apollo Pythios at Knidos; a tripod on walls at Delphi; and a bull on a stone vase from Amathos.51 He also added some other examples: kerykeia on unspecified herms, another kerykeion on an inscription in Cilicia, and a trident on a “herm-like statue of Poseidon” at Megalopolis. With reference to these examples, Blinkenberg suggested that the symbols at Epidauros related to a more general practice of marking sacred property with the symbol of a god.52 It is worth emphasizing, however, that the extensive use of symbols at Epidauros is quite without parallel. To my knowledge, the evidence that best fits Blinkenberg’s idea of symbols used for marking sacred property is provided by roof tiles at Delphi and Isthmia that were stamped with divine symbols (tripod of Apollo at Delphi and dolphin and trident of Poseidon at Isthmia).53 In all likelihood, these symbols were applied in the tileworks to ensure that a particular order of tiles could be identified as fulfilling a contract for a particular sanctuary; for the same reason, other tiles were stamped with the name of a god in the genitive.54 Although these stamped tiles show that the idea of identifying sacred property with symbols was known to the ancient Greeks, the rarity of such marks in the archaeological record seems a fair indication that marking sacred property with symbols was not widely practiced. Certainly, no other sanctuary apart from the Asklepieion at Epidauros has yet yielded any quantity of finds that are marked with symbols.

50. Peek 1972, pp. 24–25, no. 29. Roman date; see Gebhard 1973, p. 109, series 116, fig. 9, pl. 85. 51. Blinkenberg 1899, p. 394. fig. 58. Those at Delphi have been 54. See Gebhard 1973, p. 109, 52. Blinkenberg 1899, p. 395. assigned to the Hellenistic or Roman fig. 57. 53. The tiles at Isthmia are of period; see FdD II.13, pp. 197–198,

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 398 christopher a. pfaff

a

b

Figure 2. Asklepieion at Epidauros, statue base reused as an altar of Helios (IG IV2 529): (left) east face of the altar; (above) detail of symbol 28b (a) and numeral ΞϚ/66 (b). Photos C. A. Pfaff; courtesy Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Archaeological Receipts Fund

NATURE OF THE NUMERALS

The numerals on the altars consist of incised letters of late (4th-century a.d.) form surmounted by a horizontal line (Fig. 2).55 They conform to the so- called Milesian alphabetic system that is attested from the second half of the 6th century b.c.56 The alphabetic numerals on the altars were first recognized as such by Kavvadias, and it was Blinkenberg who first noted that some numerals were repeated.57 After initially reporting that some numerals appeared on two different blocks, Blinkenberg later recognized that many of the numerals appeared twice and some thrice; he also reported that there were no numerals larger than 100.58 Although he expressed uncertainty about how to explain the repetitions of the numerals, Blinkenberg referred to the practice elsewhere of dividing inventories of sacred property into lots or loci; from this, the reader is left to surmise that the repetition of numerals at Epidauros might also reflect multiple lots, even though Blinkenberg does not quite say so.59

55. In at least two cases, the line Ϛ = 6, Ζ = 7, Η = 8, Θ = 9, Ι = 10, ΙΑ = 11, above the letter is omitted (IG IV2 152, ΙΒ = 12, ΙΓ = 13 . . . Κ = 20 . . . Λ = 30 . . . 557). The numeral associated with Μ = 40 . . . Ν = 50 . . . Ξ = 60 . . . Ο = 70 IG IV2 557 is also unusual in being . . . Π = 80 . . . ϙ = 90. turned on its side. To my knowledge, 57. Kavvadias 1884, cols. 25–26; only one other numeral is similarly Blinkenberg 1894–1895, p. 178. turned (IG IV2 236). 58. Blinkenberg 1899, p. 380. 56. See Jeffery 1990, p. 327. In this 59. Blinkenberg 1899, p. 382. system, Α = 1, Β = 2, Γ = 3, Δ = 4, Ε = 5,

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms altars in the asklepieion at epidauros 399

From the fact that no numeral higher than 98 is attested, while numer- als up to 97 are attested twice, Fraenkel concluded that the numbering of the altars was in a sense continuous, but that the officials responsible for the numbering started again with 1 each time they reached 100.60 This interpretation of the repetition of numerals seems rather more likely than Blinkenberg’s hypothesis, since it would be a remarkable coincidence that two separately numbered lots would happen to have almost exactly 100 altars. If the numerals do represent a continuous series, the fact that the numeral 21 is attested thrice should indicate that there were at least 221 numbered altars.61

RELATIONSHIP OF THE SYMBOLS AND NUMERALS

On the fully preserved altars, a numeral appears in every instance where one or more symbols are present, with only one exception.62 On damaged altars where one or more symbols appear but no numeral is present, it is likely that a numeral appeared on a portion of the altar that is now missing; likewise, where a numeral appears but no symbol is attested, it is very probable that a symbol appeared on a portion of the altar that is 60. See IG IV, p. 186. now missing. As Blinkenberg observed, the rather crude execution of the 61. The avoidance of numerals carving of the numerals is similar to that of the symbols, suggesting that higher than 100 is consistent with the they were made at the same time.63 tendency to avoid writing large alpha- In most instances, the numeral and symbol appear side by side, but the betic numerals for what Tod (1954, 64 p. 1) referred to as “letter-labels”; i.e., spatial relationship of one to the other is not consistent. The fact that the letters used “to identify different items, symbol is often positioned near the vertical axis of the inscribed face of the often similar in character and appear- stone, while the numeral is shunted off toward one side, suggests that the ance, with a view of facilitating refer- placement of the symbol had some priority (Figs. 3, 4). ence and simplifying inventories.” It is hard to make much of this, however, since in some cases the sym- 62. The exception is Peek 1972, p. 31, no. 48. On this stone, the symbol bols and numerals are positioned symmetrically on the face of the block is centered in the lower part of the (Fig. 5), while in others the symbol and numeral are both pushed off toward block, which is fully preserved, but one side. In a few cases, the marks are positioned one above the other; on Peek reports that he was unable to IG IV2 529, for example, the symbol appears directly above the numeral observe a numeral. (Fig. 2), while on IG IV2 526, the numeral appears directly above the 63. Blinkenberg 1894–1895, p. 174. symbol. In some cases, the symbol and numeral are well separated; on 64. In some cases, the numeral is to 2 the right of the symbol; in others, the IG IV 480 and 558, for instance, the numeral appears above the inscrip- positions are reversed. tion, while the symbol appears below it. As one would expect, the vast 65. See IG IV2 424, 425, 472, 516. majority of marks appear on the front faces of the altars, where they would The block inscribed with IG IV2 516 is presumably be most visible, but in at least four cases, the symbol(s) and rather difficult to interpret because it numeral appear on the side.65 Since these altars are no longer in situ, it is was reused three times, but the three symbols (types 11, 15, 25) on one side not clear what particular circumstances may have led to the placement of of the block (which also bears an erased symbols and numerals in areas that would generally seem less conspicuous. inscription) clearly relate to the three It should be noted that in nearly all cases it would have been possible divinities mentioned in the dedication for the symbols and numerals to have been properly centered below the on the adjacent side. associated dedicatory inscription in a standard pattern that varied only to 66. A comparable lack of consis- the extent that was required to accommodate multiple symbols when they tency and aesthetic sensibility charac- terizes the early numbering of the in- were needed for altars with multiple recipients. As we have seen, however, scriptions at Epidauros and elsewhere neither consistency nor aesthetics seems to have been given much consid- by archaeologists. eration in the process of marking the altars.66

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 400 christopher a. pfaff

a b

Figure 3. Asklepieion at Epidauros, altar of Asklepios Eukolos (IG IV2 469) with symbol 15 (a) and nu- meral ΙΔ/11 (b). Photo C. A. Pfaff; cour- tesy Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Archaeological Receipts Fund I briefly considered the possibility that variations in the positions of the symbols and numerals served to distinguish one run of numerals from another. That this was not the case is clearly demonstrated by the fact that in at least 13 instances the same numeral appears on two or more altars in roughly the same position relative to the symbol and inscription.67 The fact that similar symbols and numerals appear on altars that were inscribed over many centuries suggests that most, if not all, of the altars were marked as part of one large project. I am not confident in being able to judge how many stonecutters may have been involved, but the inconsistency in the placement of the marks would seem to suggest that several individuals had a hand in the work.68

67. This observation is based on the marks. It is worth noting that in at least ition) is that even an inconsistent information provided in IG IV, IG IV2, nine cases, the repeated numerals do not worker is likely to fall into a pattern of and Peek 1972; I have not had the oppor- appear in the same positions relative to inscribing that would produce a more tunity to inspect all of the stones in order their associated symbols and inscriptions. consistent placement of marks than one to personally verify the positions of the 68. My reasoning (or rather intu- observes on these altars.

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms altars in the asklepieion at epidauros 401

Figure 4. Asklepieion at Epidauros, altar of Tyche Aphthonos (IG IV2 409) with symbol 50 (a) and nu- meral ΠΖ/87 (b). Photo C. A. Pfaff; cour- tesy Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and a b Sports/Archaeological Receipts Fund

b a

Figure 5. Asklepieion at Epidauros, altar of Artamis Skopelia (IG IV2 505) with symbol 11 (a) and nu- meral ΞΗ/68 (b). Photo C. A. Pfaff; cour- tesy Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Archaeological Receipts Fund

In general, each symbol that appears on a particular altar refers to one of the gods or heroes (up to three) to whom the altar was dedicated in its final phase. Only in cases where gods or heroes were very closely associated does one symbol stand for a group: the Angeloi, the unnamed Herossai, the Mousai, the Paides Asklepiou, the Pantheios or Duodeka Theoi, the Theoi Soteres, and Asklepios and the Anakes (see the Appendix). For some reason,

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 402 christopher a. pfaff

a b

a Figure 6. Asklepieion at Epidauros, altar of Epidauros (IG IV2 288): (top) east face of the altar; (middle) detail of the central symbol 32 (a) and numeral ΟΑ/71 (b); (bottom) b detail of the second symbol 55 (a) and numeral ΟΒ/72 (b). Photos C. A. Pfaff; courtesy Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Archaeological Receipts Fund

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms altars in the asklepieion at epidauros 403

the pair of goddesses Mnia and Azosia (= Mneia and Auxesia) was provided with two symbols (type 37) on one altar but a single symbol (type 38) on another.69 The alphabetic numerals are almost entirely limited to one per altar. The single exception is on the altar associated with IG IV2 288 (Fig. 6, top), where one symbol (type 32) and one numeral (71) are located close to the inscribed dedication to the hero Epidauros at the center of the front face of the block (Fig. 6, middle), while a second symbol (type 55) and numeral (72) are located near the left end of the front of the block (Fig. 6, bottom), well away from the dedicatory inscription. This second pair of marks would seem to indicate that the left end of the block was treated as a separate altar—or that it supported a separate altar—for some other recipient of offerings whose identity remains unknown.

RELATIONSHIP OF THE MARKS TO THE TEXT

As Blinkenberg observed, it is obvious from their morphology that the letters used for the numerals are significantly later than those that appear in most of the inscriptions that they accompany. As was noted above, the marks are usually located below the accompanying inscription, but they can also appear in other positions. On the two altars inscribed with IG IV2 302 and 504, the layout of the inscription took the accompanying symbol into consideration.70 From this, it is reasonable to conclude that these altars were inscribed at the same time that the altars received their marks (for more on the chronology, see pp. 417–419, below). On nearly all other altars the marks respect the positions of the earlier inscription, confirming that the marks were added sometime after the altars were dedicated. There are four altars, however, on which the symbols actually obliter- ated part of the inscribed text.71 This relationship of symbol and text is again consistent with the fact that the altars were marked after their dedi- cation, but it reveals, as well, an obvious disregard for some particulars of the original dedication. On one of these altars, the symbol obscured part of the patronymic of the dedicant;72 on another, it obscured a portion of the name and patronymic of the dedicant;73 and on another, it obscured part of

69. The single symbol (very similar rare example of inconsistency in the coordinated with the text of the in- to the crown used for Asklepios) ap- assigning of symbols to the altars. scription. Hiller von Gaertringen’s pre- pears on the altar with IG IV2 410. The 70. Blinkenberg mentioned two sentation of the text of IG IV2 546 gives pair of symbols appears on the altar cases in which the inscription respected the false impression that the text and with IG IV2 398. Fraenkel (IG IV, the position of the symbol; one can be symbol were coordinated here, as well; p. 189) and Hiller von Gaertringen identified asIG IV2 504; the other, in fact, the lettering respects the posi- (IG IV2, p. 175) both assigned the pair referred to only as “eine unveröffentli- tion of a hole in the block, whereas the of symbols of the latter altar a single chte, schlecht erhaltene Inschrift” symbol and numeral were added below symbol number (type 37). One of the (Blinkenberg 1899, p. 381), cannot be the text; see Peek 1969, p. 108, no. 227. symbols is the same crown that appears identified; cf. Blinkenberg 1894–1895, 71. These are IG IV2 501, 507; Peek on the other altar, while the second is p. 174. Hiller von Gaertringen’s edition 1972, pp. 24–25, 36–37, nos. 29, 61. similar to the five-point symbol used for of the text of IG IV2 302 (in contrast to 72. IG IV2 507. heroes, but with connecting lines form- the earlier edition, IG IV 1307) shows 73. IG IV2 501. ing a cross. These two altars provide a that in this case, too, the symbol was

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 404 christopher a. pfaff the name of the dedicant and the reference to his role as pyrophoros.74 In all three cases, however, the name of the deity was left undisturbed. Surpris- ingly, on the fourth altar, the symbol was carved directly over the middle of the name of the heroine (Danaa) to whom the altar was dedicated.75 One wonders in this last case whether the symbol was meant to void the earlier dedication, but the situation is difficult to interpret since the altar is not complete and the symbol is difficult to read. If Peek is correct in reading the symbol as the one used for Zeus Soter (symbol 27), then there would be grounds for thinking that the altar was rededicated in the process of marking it. In all of these cases, there was adequate space elsewhere on the stone for the symbols, so the fact that the symbols were carved over lines of the inscriptions is indicative either of an intent to obscure the in- scriptions or of a blatant disregard for them.

RELATIONSHIP OF NUMERALS TO THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SITE

The theory that the numerals on the altars related to the original locations of the altars within the sanctuary was first suggested by Kavvadias, who observed that some altars in the area of Building K had sequential numerals that reflected their positions relative to one another.76 This evidence was presented in a more coherent way by Blinkenberg, who provided a sketch plan of these particular altars in situ.77 Although all but one of these altars has now been removed from the site, it is possible to create a reasonably accurate plan of the altars in their original context by combining the evidence of Blinkenberg’s sketch with the measured site plan prepared under Kavvadias (Figs. 7, 8).78 They were positioned along the west side of the sacred way leading south from the North Propylon. As can be seen from the plan, the altars were generally numbered from north to south, but because they were not positioned in a single line, there is a slight irregularity to the pattern in which sequential numerals appear.79 Another area of the Asklepieion that provides limited evidence for a relationship between the numerals and the positions of the altars is a zone east of Building E and south of the main altar of Asklepios, where a row of altars running north–south is preserved in situ (Figs. 9, 10). The 74. Peek 1972, pp. 36–37, no. 61, northernmost altar (IG IV2 270) is marked with the numeral 12, while its fig. 37, pl. XVI. The photograph pub- immediate neighbor to the south bears the numeral 11 (IG IV2 283). A lished here seems to show that part of the name of the dedicant that is located short distance farther south, another altar in the row (IG IV2 294) is marked above the symbol was also partially with the numeral 6. It appears, therefore, that the whole row of altars was rubbed out. numbered in order from south to north. 75. Peek 1972, pp. 24–25, no. 29. Additional but weaker evidence for the relationship of the numbering 76. Cavvadias 1891, pp. 52–54, 112. of the altars to the topography of the site is the fact that three altars with 77. Blinkenberg 1894–1895, sequential numerals, 38, 39, 40 (IG IV2 271, 535, 534), were all found in the pp. 177–178. 78. See Cavvadias 1891, pl. I. area of Building Π. Although they were not discovered in situ, the fact that all 79. E.g., see Cavvadias 1891, three were dedicated to Egyptian gods (Ammon, Sarapis, and Isis) strongly pp. 52–54, 112, nos. 91 (= IG IV2 505), suggests that they originally stood together in this part of the sanctuary. 97 (= IG IV2 441), 100 (= IG IV2 539).

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms altars in the asklepieion at epidauros 405

Figure 7. Plan of the central area of From the relationship of the numerals to the locations of the altars, we the Asklepieion at Epidauros. After might hope to be able to restore the overall pattern of the numbering of Tomlinson 1983, p. 42, fig. 5 the altars throughout the site, but this now seems to be impossible, because (1) Abaton; (2) Tholos; (3) Temple of too few altars have known locations to provide anchors for the pattern. Asklepios; (4) Building K; (5) altars east We might also hope to be able to use the numerals of the altars in a more of Building K; (6) Building E; (7) north– limited way to determine the locations of displaced altars with respect to one south series of altars east of Building E; another or to altars still in situ (to determine, e.g., here between altars with (8) main altar of Asklepios; (9) east–west higher and lower numerals), but even this cannot be done with confidence series of altars southeast of the main altar of Asklepios; (10) Temple of Artemis; because of the repetition of numerals, which generally prevents us from (11) Late Antique colonnade; (12) altar of being able to determine that the numeral of a particular altar belongs Hygieia; (13) Building Φ; (14) Building Π. within the same sequence from 1 to 100 as other extant altars. If the altars at Epidauros had been arranged in such a way that all altars of the same or related gods were consistently grouped together, it might have been possible to proceed further with the process of matching displaced altars with specific sequences of numerals, but such a consistent arrangement is not supported by the evidence.80

80. Although two altars of Artemis east of Building K. Similarly, at least (IG IV2 493; Rupp 1974, pp. 246–249, three altars of Zeus (IG IV2 294–296) no. 111) were set up in close proximity were set up east of Building E, but to her temple, a third (IG IV2 505) was another was set up in the series east of set up well to the north in the series Building K (IG IV2 526).

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 406 christopher a. pfaff

Because of the repetition of numerals used for the altars, there was Figure 8. Plan of the altars east of a potential that one altar could be confused with another with the same Building K. The numbers here cor- numeral. Fraenkel called attention to this issue and suggested that the respond to the inscribed numbers symbols were added to the numerals to solve this problem.81 It is, in fact, listed in the Appendix. After Cavvadias 1891, pl. I the case that among the extant altars, no two with the same numeral have the same symbol, but we cannot be sure that this held true for all altars originally marked. In any case, the risk of confusing one altar with another may not have been great if the numbering sequence followed a logical 81. See IG IV, p. 186. geographical course through the sanctuary and repeated numerals were 82. Limited evidence for this is the well separated from one another.82 Of course, the risk of confusion would fact that one altar with the numeral 6 have been considerably diminished if the altars were serviced in numerical was found in Building K, while another sequence one after the other throughout the sanctuary. is located some distance away near The numbering of the altars in the Asklepieion in a sequence that Building E. For the former altar, see IG IV2 472 (the findspot is noted under reflected their positions within the sanctuary is without an exact parallel IG IV2 213, which was carved on the anywhere in the Greek world, but it does correspond in some ways to same stone); for the latter, see IG IV2 other numbering practices that were employed by the ancient Greeks. One 294.

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms altars in the asklepieion at epidauros 407

Figure 9. Plan of the altars east and northeast of Building E. The num- bers here correspond to the inscribed numbers listed in the Appendix. After Kavvadias 1900, pl. on p. 304

Figure 10. Asklepieion at Epidauros, north–south series of altars east of Building E, from the northwest. Photo C. A. Pfaff; courtesy Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; © Hellenic Minis- try of Culture and Sports/Archaeological Receipts Fund

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 408 christopher a. pfaff of these was the use of alphabetic numerals as assembly marks on Greek architectural elements.83 As in the case of the numerals on the Epidaurian altars, these assembly marks were used to designate the relative positions of elements within a series. But whereas the numerals on the altars were apparently added to stones whose positions were already determined, the assembly marks were added in anticipation of the placement of elements in their intended positions.84 Closer to the numbering of the Epidaurian altars in referring to exist- ing positions is the numbering of the starting positions of some Greek racecourses, such as those at Corinth and Nemea.85 Fraenkel compared the numerals of the altars at Epidauros to inventory marks on a bronze horse and an inscribed base or altar found in Rome; the former is marked L-I-XXIIX, and the latter L-P-XXVI.86 In both cases, it is thought that the initial letters signify loco primo and that the following Roman numeral is a serial number. We now have no way of knowing the original context in which these numerals were used and whether they reflected the relative positions of the pieces within their designated locus. In the Greek world, there is indirect evidence for serial numbers applied to objects in sacred treasures, but it is not clear that they had any relationship to location; they seem to have functioned primarily to distinguish individual pieces of a uniform class or to distinguish combined lots of similar objects to simplify the process of accounting for them when inventories were taken. The D Inventories of the treasures of the Temple of Apollo at Delos provide particularly good examples of such serial numbers: among hundreds of entries appear ingots in a box numbered Α through Η; two series of combined lots of silver phialai numbered Γ through Η and Α through Ο; combined lots of silver vessels (as well as a few individual pieces) numbered Α through ΚΚΚΚΚ; and a series of stamnoi filled with coins numbered Α through ΝΝΝΝ.87 Despite the potential benefit of numbering objects as a way of identifying and locating them, no extant inventory provides evidence for a thorough system of numbering, and some inventories, such as those for the extensive treasure of the Athenian Asklepieion, made no use of numbers at all.88 Instead, descriptions (often quite cumbersome) were used to identify

83. For a general discussion of 85. See Williams and Russell 1981, Helbig4 II, p. 384, no. 1582. For the assembly marks, see Martin 1965, p. 17, fig. 2; Miller 2004, p. 44. The base/altar (found near S. Lorenzo fuori pp. 225–231. inventories of the Temple of Apollo le mura), see Helbig2 I, p. 269, no. 419; 84. One could argue that at least on Delos indicate that shelves for Helbig4 II, pp. 397–398, no. 1596. The conceptually the final positions of holding objects in the temple were latter, however, refers to the letter- blocks were already determined before thought of as having a numerical numeral combination on the base/altar they were numbered. It is also worth sequence, but there is nothing to show as “Wahrscheinlich ein Kennzeichen des adding that in rare cases where build- that they actually bore numerals. They Steinmetzen.” ings were dismantled and reassembled, are referred to by ordinal numbers, 87. See Hamilton 2000, Apollo such as the Temple of Ares in the e.g., ἐν τῶι τρίτωι [σ]τίχωι (ID 1420 Treasure D (compilation of ID 1409, Athenian Agora, the numbering of Acd, line 1), rather than by a phrase 1421, 1428, 1429, 1432, 1439, 1441, blocks for reassembly would presum- referring specifically to a numeral, 1443, 1449, 1450, 1451), lines 336–440, ably have taken place as the building such as ἐν τῷ στίχῳ ἐφ ̓οὗ τὸ Γ ἐπιγέ- 491–510, 658–743, on unnumbered was dismantled; therefore, the numerals γραπται (cf. the phrase ὑδρία ἀργυρᾶ pages preceding p. 183. associated with this practice do reflect a ἐφ’ ᾗ τὸ Γ ὲφ’ ᾗ ἐπιγέγραπται; IG II2 88. See Aleshire 1989, pp. 14–16, predetermined position. For the marks 1492, line 27). 122–124, 128–141, 176–205, 249–292, on the Temple of Ares, see McAllister 86. Blinkenberg 1899, p. 382. For 337–341, 351–352. 1959, pp. 47–54. the horse (found in Trastevere), see

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms altars in the asklepieion at epidauros 409

objects: for example, “phiale inlaid with gold which Pyrrhos Acherdousios dedicated in the priesthood of [Eudi]daktos on behalf of himself and his son.”89 It is worth noting that this evidence may help shed light on why numerals were not added to the Epidaurian altars prior to late antiquity; it suggests that there may have been some resistance to the idea of reducing the identities of specific objects (often named in terms of a donor) to mere numbers, even when a numerical designation might have facilitated the processes of finding them, accounting for them, or using them.

PURPOSE OF THE MARKINGS

Over the years, a number of hypotheses have been offered to explain the addition of symbols and numerals to the Epidaurian altars. Kavvadias seems initially to have regarded the symbols simply as ornaments,90 and even later, when he recognized them as religious symbols, he did not attempt to interpret their function.91 As for the accompanying numerals, he proposed that they were added in late antiquity in connection with an inventory of votives, but he made no attempt to explain the goal of such an inventory or interpret its possible context.92 Blinkenberg, who gave more consideration to the purpose of the markings, presented slightly different versions of his ideas in two suc- cessive publications. Like Kavvadias, he associated the numerals with an inventory of all the existing votives in the sanctuary.93 In his later treat- ment of the topic, he added the idea that this inventory could have served as a control when changes of administration occurred, but he did not elaborate further.94 As for the symbols, he suggested that they were added to mark and protect the property of the sanctuary.95 In his earlier treatment of the marks, Blinkenberg observed that it would have been advantageous in a sanctuary to which thousands of petit peuple flocked for the symbols to be understood even by those unable to read the accom- panying inscriptions.96 He also contended that in late antiquity such symbols would have been particularly effective in commanding respect because people in this period were accustomed through the use of all kinds of “προφυλάγματα” (protective devices) to respect and fear symbolic signs.97 In his later article, Blinkenberg again noted the importance of symbols in late antiquity and added a reference to the special impor- tance of symbols, such as the cross and monogram of Christ, to early Chris- tians.98 In light of this, he then raised the possibility that the addition of symbols to the altars at Epidauros might in part have been a reaction to the Christian use of symbols.99

89. Inventory IV (= IG II2 1534A), 92. Cavvadias 1891, p. 112. 99. It is, in fact, hard to find exam- line 47 (trans. Aleshire 1989, p. 199, 93. Blinkenberg 1894–1895, p. 174; ples of Christian symbols in Greece line 70). 1899, p. 381. that can be securely dated as early as 90. Kavvadias (1883, col. 27, no. 1) 94. Blinkenberg 1899, p. 381. the 4th century a.d., but Julian’s Against describes the circles on one altar simply 95. Blinkenberg 1894–1895, p. 174; the Galilaeans (194c–d = fr. 43) attests as “κύκλοι μετὰ γραμμῶν και 1899, pp. 381, 394. to the practice of engraving the cross on κοσμημάτων ἐντὸς αὐτῶν” (circles with 96. Blinkenberg 1894–1895, p. 174. the fronts of houses by the 360s. For lines and ornaments within them). 97. Blinkenberg 1894–1895, p. 174. the dating of Early Christian mono- 91. Cavvadias 1891, p. 112. 98. Blinkenberg 1899, p. 396. grams, see Frantz 1929, pp. 25–26.

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 410 christopher a. pfaff

A number of problems are raised by Blinkenberg’s interpretation of the function of the marks. Perhaps the most important is the fact that the marks were not added to the full range of votives that we would imagine still to be standing in the sanctuary in late antiquity.100 If the marks were associated with an inventory that aimed at protecting the property of the sanctuary, as Blinkenberg concluded, one would have expected many more types of monuments, such as bases of statues dedicated to the gods, to have been marked with symbols and numerals. Another problem with Blinkenberg’s interpretation is that it does not adduce a plausible threat to the inscribed votives on the site. It is hard to imagine that pagan visitors to the site (even the hordes of petit peuple that Blinkenberg imagined) would have been inclined to carry off or defame altars and other large votives from the site; even if they were, it is hard to imagine that the countermeasure to protect the sacred property would have been to inventory only those blocks that were most likely used as altars. There is good evidence to indicate that over time a fair number of altars and bases for other types of votives were reused in the sanctuary, but this presumably represents a process that was sanctioned by officials of the state, not rogue activity to be thwarted by adding symbols and numerals to the stones.101 Blinkenberg’s hinting at the possibility that the symbols on the altars may have been a response to Christian symbols suggests that he may have been imagining that the Christians were a possible threat to the ancient monuments. To my knowledge, however, there is no credible evidence of overt conflict between Christians and pagans at Epidauros prior to the marking of the altars. Eventually, a Christian basilica was built outside the Asklepieion, reusing material derived from the pagan sanctuary, including some of the marked altars,102 but its construction is dated to the end of the 4th century or early 5th century a.d., by which time the cult of Asklepios had presumably ceased to function, at least in any official way.103 At some point, Christian symbols were incised on two altars, but these effacements are quite limited when the total number of altars is taken into account.104

100. See IG IV2, p. 186, where Mitsos 1936, p. 144, no. 3. Since two refers to any sanctuary official; see Fraenkel calls attention to this. others were built into the small church Melfi 2007, p. 145. What effect, if any, 101. Examples of reuse: an altar of of Saint John the Faster, which occu- Alaric’s invasion of the Peloponnese Athena (IG IV2 489) reused as an altar pied the east end of the basilica, these (a.d. 395) or the comprehensive law of of Zeus, Artemis, and Asklepios set up blocks may have been used earlier in Theodosius I banning pagan sacrifice by a suppliant (IG IV2 516) and a base(?) the basilica; see Kavvadias 1918, (Cod. Theod. 16.10.12) in a.d. 392 may set up by two hiaromnamones (IG IV2 pp. 192–193, no. 9, fig. 37; IG IV2 518; have had on the sanctuary remains 155) reused as an altar to Athena set up Peek 1969, p. 105, no. 212; Nichols and unclear; see Melfi 2007, p. 145. A by a pyrophoros (IG IV2 485). Wagman 2006, p. 187. A fifth marked passage in Damaskios (Isid. fr. 266 102. One of the marked altars was altar was found in a pile of stones that Zintsered = fr. 101 Athanasiadi) allows used in the stylobate of the quadriporti- were removed in the course of excavat- for the possibility that as late as the cus of the atrium of the basilica; see ing the basilica; see Mitsos 1947, p. 84, end of the 5th century a.d., the Epi- Mitsos 1935, p. 14, no. 7; SEG XI 443; no. 2, pl. XIV; SEG XI 441. daurian Asklepieion continued to serve Peek 1969, p. 138, no. 335. In 2015, I 103. For the date of the basilica, see as an asylum for persecuted pagans; observed that this altar had been shifted Sodini 1970, p. 705; Spieser 1976, see Castrén 1989, p. 48. a short distance from its recorded posi- pp. 318–319; Katakis 2002, p. 328. That 104. One of these altars, which was tion in the stylobate. Another marked the sanctuary no longer functioned originally dedicated to Artemis Orthia, altar was built into the side of the door in an official way by the end of the has a roughly incised Greek cross with leading from the narthex into the side 4th century is supported by the fact short terminal strokes at the ends of the aisle immediately west of the nave; see that no inscription dated after a.d. 363 four arms and a small X (chi?) to either

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms altars in the asklepieion at epidauros 411

One of the symbols may, in fact, be modern, but the other was most likely added in late antiquity. There is no reason, however, to believe that this Christian symbol was made prior to the demise of the pagan sanctuary. Fraenkel and Hiller von Gaertringen both ignored Blinkenberg’s interpretation of the marks as having a proprietary/protective function and suggested instead that they were used as aids to help officials locate and identify the altars in order to make sacrifices at them.105 All the altars bore inscriptions on their front faces identifying the gods or heroes to whom they were dedicated. As Fraenkel first observed, though, the marks would have provided a more convenient way for the officials to identify them without having to read the dedicatory inscriptions, which in some cases may have been difficult to see.106 This interpretation is much more appealing than Blinkenberg’s, insofar as it explains why only altars were marked and does not require us to imagine that there was a concern with people vandalizing the Asklepieion while it was still functioning as a pagan sanctuary. As we will see in the following section, Fraenkel and Hiller von Gaertringen each imagined a different scenario for how the altars were serviced, but in either case the marks on the altars would likely have provided valuable assistance to officials tending to the extraordinary number of altars in the sanctuary.

SERVICING OF THE ALTARS

Fraenkel surmised that the marks on the altars facilitated the process of locating individual altars for sacrifices on specific days. In imagining this process, Fraenkel seems to have been influenced by sacred calendars elsewhere in the Greek world that stipulate specific sacrifices on particular days of the year.107 At Epidauros, however, the only attested sacrifices of this kind that are known are those connected with the Asklepeia, the main festival of Asklepios.108 side of one arm; the cross was incised of defacement is most likely to have oc- no. 40 [ca. 260–220 b.c.]), Tegea (Mo- on the same face as the original dedica- curred in the 4th or 5th centuries a.d. retti 1953, pp. 115–116, no. 44 [end of tory inscription and the pagan symbol 105. This idea is addressed more 3rd century b.c.]), Halikarnassos and numeral; the fact that the cross directly by Fraenkel (IG IV, p. 186); it is (Moretti 1953, pp. 144–145, no. 56 was not reported in the earliest publica- merely implied in Hiller von Gaertrin- [mid-1st century b.c.]), Adada (Pisidia) tions (Kavvadias 1885, col. 195, no. 98; gen’s briefer discussion (IG IV2, p. 105). (Moretti 1953, pp. 222–223, no. 76 Cavvadias 1891, p. 59, no. 147) and 106. IG IV, p. 186. [2nd century a.d.]), and Rome has not been mentioned subsequently 107. For sacred calendars, see Lupu (Moretti 1953, pp. 228–230, no. 79 (IG IV 1195; IG IV2 495) raises the 2009, pp. 65–71. [ca. a.d. 200]). Two agonistic inscrip- possibility that it is a recent addition, 108. The related terms Ἀσκλαπίεια/ tions of the 3rd century a.d. refer to but the carving of the symbol does Ἀσκληπίεια/Ἀσκλάπεια/Ἀσκλήπεια for the Ἀσκλήπεια Ὀλύμπια at Epidauros not seem fresh. The other altar with a the major festival with games at Epi- and the Ὀλύμπια at Epidauros (Moretti Christian symbol was originally dedi- dauros are attested in an agonistic in- 1953, pp. 257, 263–264, nos. 87, 90). cated to Asklepios; the original front scription from Epidauros (Moretti As Moretti (1953, pp. 258, 265) ob- face of this altar with its dedicatory 1953, p. 140, no. 53 = IG IV2 629 serves, the addition of Ὀλύμπια to inscription was purposely defaced, and [ca. 100 b.c.]), as well as others from Ἀσκλήπεια in the first case was prob- the Christian symbol, a staurogram in Delphi (Moretti 1953, p. 57, no. 23 ably intended to indicate the isolympic a circle, was added to the right side of [ca. 370–360 b.c.]; p. 165, no. 63 status of the games of the Asklepeia, the altar; see Peek 1972, p. 30, no. 44, [ca. a.d. 45]; pp. 237–238, no. 81 while the use of Ὀλύμπια alone in the fig. 27, pl. XII. Trombley (1993, [beginning of 3rd century a.d.]), second case was probably an abbrevia- pp. 119–120) suggests that this kind Sikyon (Moretti 1953, pp. 40–41, tion of Ἀσκλήπεια Ὀλύμπια.

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 412 christopher a. pfaff

The Asklepeia, with an accompanying program of games, was held nine days after the Isthmian festival every four years.109 It seems likely that the same festival was also celebrated on a smaller scale in intervening years, though evidence for this is slight.110 With this fixed festival, whether it be annual or quadrennial, we can reasonably associate sacrifices prescribed in two parallel leges sacrae of ca. 400 b.c. from Epidauros (IG IV2 40, 41). The first calls for sacrifices to Apollo and the gods who shared his temple, and the second calls for sacrifices to Asklepios and the gods and goddesses who shared his temple.111 The locations of these sacrifices are not speci- fied, but there can be no doubt that the first took place at the large altar in the sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas, while the second took place at the large altar to the east of Temple of Asklepios within the Asklepieion proper.112 Because there is no evidence to tie other sacrifices at Epidauros to specific days, there is nothing to confirm the hypothesis that the marks on the large number of altars of the Asklepieion functioned with a sacred calendar to help the officials find a particular altar on the day of its assigned sacrifice. Although it is not hard to imagine that some of the marked altars may have received a special sacrifice on a particular fixed day, it is rather harder to believe that so many altars would each have had a special day or days for sacrifices. Without ever addressing Fraenkel’s interpretation of the function of the marks on the altars, Hiller von Gaertringen related the marks to an entirely different pattern of sacrifice. Citing the testimony of Pausanias (5.15.10) for the fact that the Eleans sacrificed once a month at all of the altars at Olympia, Hiller von Gaertringen suggested in starkly abbreviated terms that the repetition of the numerals on the Epidaurian altars indicates that sacrifices were made in three annual circuits.113 Although Hiller von Gaertringen did not attempt to explain or justify his idea, it is possible to reconstruct some of his reasoning. He evidently accepted the prevailing idea that all the altars dedicated to the gods at Olympia (nearly 70 of them) were

109. A scholion to Pind. Nem. 3.145 144–145, 181, 191, nos. 23, 35, 40, 45, 111. The sacrifices prescribed in provides the evidence for the date of 51, 56, 66, 69, among others). Kavva- IG IV2 40 included one bull for Apollo, the games for Asklepios at Epidauros. dias, however, suggested that μεγάλα a second bull for the gods who shared 110. In one 3rd-century a.d. ago- was added to Ἀσκλαπίεια to distinguish his temple, a cock for Lato, and another nistic inscription from Epidauros this festival from another that was cock for Artamis. The sacrifices pre- (IG VI2 693), the festival with games is called the Ἀπολλώνεια καὶ Ἀσκλαπίεια scribed in IG IV2 41 included one bull referred to as the μεγάλα Ἀσκλαπίεια. in Epidaurian inscriptions of Roman for Asklapios, a second bull for the gods As in the case of the greater Panathe- date (IG IV2 652, 654); see Cavvadias who shared his temple, a cow for the naia in Athens, the qualifying term 1891, p. 111; Kavvadias 1900, pp. 221– goddesses who shared his temple, and a μεγάλα may have been used here to 222. It is perhaps more reasonable to cock. Both inscriptions also mention distinguish a major quadrennial festival imagine that the name Ἀσκλαπίεια barley, wheat, and wine, which may have (the one with games) from more mod- came to be expanded to Ἀπολλώνεια been used as prothymata (preliminary est celebrations of the same festival in καὶ Ἀσκλαπίεια in the 1st century a.d. sacrifices); see Kavvadias 1900, p. 208. intervening years; see Kavvadias 1900, in belated recognition of the fact that For English translations of these regu- pp. 218, 221–222. That other agonistic Apollo had played a major role in lations, see Tomlinson 1983, pp. 17–18. inscriptions (cited in n. 108, above) do Asklepios’s festival for centuries. Such a 112. For the main altar to Asklepios, not add the qualifying μεγάλα does change of name might explain why in see Rupp 1974, pp. 242–245, no. 110. not contradict this conclusion, since in- the original text of IG IV2 99 the phrase For the altar of Apollo Maleatas, see scriptions of this kind also usually fail ἐπὶ ἀγωνοθέτα τῶν Ἀσκλαπιείων was Rupp 1974, pp. 250–253; Mavromma- to qualify Panathenaia (e.g., see Moretti supplemented with καὶ Ἀπολλωνίων tidis 1999. 1953, pp. 57, 89, 103–104, 117, 131–132, written above the line. 113. IG IV2, p. 105.

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms altars in the asklepieion at epidauros 413

serviced together, according to a fixed order, one day each month.114 From this premise, he seems to have concluded that the sequential numbering of altars at Epidauros may reflect a similar procedure of sacrificing to multiple altars in a fixed order at particular intervals. That he thought the sacrifices at Epidauros occurred annually rather than once a month as at Olympia is perhaps explained by the much greater number of Epidaurian altars. Hiller von Gaertringen may have judged that the more than 200 altars were simply too many to service at intervals more frequent than once a year. There is, however, no direct evidence for a yearly repetition of sacrifices at these altars. Nor is there strong evidence to support the idea that the repetitions of the numerals relate to three distinct circuits of sacrifices; as noted above, it is more likely that the numerals all belong to a single sequence that simply repeats after reaching 100 and 200.115 Evidence that has generally been ignored for what it may reveal about the process of tending to the numerous small altars at Epidauros and for explaining the role of the symbols and numerals in this process is a very fragmentary lex sacra that dates to the 2nd or 3rd century a.d. (IG IV2 742).116 As restored, its heading reads ἡμερείσια [ἱερά]. The main text that follows appears to spell out what religious rituals (involving equipment such as lamps, a sacred lampstand, and an incense burner [thymiaterion]) should be carried out daily by the hiereus and pyrophoros (here spelled πυρφόρος),117 and the first line includes the tantalizing phrase περίεισιν πάντας τοὺς βω[μούς] (make the rounds of all the altars). Because of the lacuna at the beginning of this line, we do not know who made the rounds of these altars; Hiller von Gaertringen restored πυρφόρος, while Sokolowski restored ἱερεύς.118 Because of the lacuna at the end of this line and at the beginning of the next, it is also unclear whether “all the altars” was qualified in some way. Therefore, as Hiller von Gaertringen observed, we cannot be sure that the inscription refers to all altars in the entire sanctuary or all altars in some part of it.119 The latter seems more likely from a logistical perspective, since it is hard to imagine how more than 200 altars could have been serviced every day. That a more limited number of altars was involved in this daily service is also supported by the wording of the second line of the inscription, though interpretation of the text is complicated by the lacuna at the right end of the line. Depending upon the restoration, the line might indicate that the following rites, including the sacrifices at “all the altars” should take place “each hour” (ἐφ’ ἑκάστης ὥ[ρας]) or, more likely, that they should take place “each day at the first hour” (ἐφ’ ἑκάστης ὥ[ρα πρώτῃ]).120 Regardless

114. The idea that sacrifices were 115. For criticism of Hiller von continued after sunset; see Latte 1931, made to all these altars at Olympia on Gaertringen’s idea of three circuits, p. 133. one day was first proposed by Weniger see Latte 1931, p. 132. 118. IG IV2 742, line 3; Sokolowski (1884, p. 9; see also Weniger 1909, 116. Only Nilsson (1945, p. 68) 1962, p. 60, no. 25, line 3. p. 292, n. 5); for continued acceptance makes a passing reference to the fact 119. IG IV2, p. 143. of this idea, see Hölscher 2002, p. 336. that the marks on the altars might 120. The former restoration It should be noted that in the past some relate to the daily rituals mentioned in was proposed by Hiller von Gaertrin- other scholars concluded that the sacri- this inscription. gen (IG IV2 742); the latter was pro- fices were spread out through each 117. That ἡμερείσια means “daily” posed by Sokolowski (1962, p. 60, month; see Curtius 1882, p. 29; Hitzig as opposed to “during the day” is clear no. 25). and Blümner 1901, p. 383. from the fact that rites prescribed

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 414 christopher a. pfaff of which reading is accepted, however, it appears that the sacrificing at “all the altars” was to be done within an hour. If that is true, it would seem impossible for all the altars of the sanctuary to be involved. In any case, despite its ambiguities, this epigraphic evidence seems clearly to confirm that a considerable amount of daily ritual, including the servicing of multiple altars, was required of the hiereus or pyrophoros of the Asklepieion, at least in the Roman period.121 It seems to me quite reasonable to suppose that at least some of the altars marked with symbols and numerals were recipients of this kind of daily ritual. Since the lex sacra does not preserve any mention of animal sacrifice or other activity that would have required prolonged activity at an altar, we should probably think in terms of a fairly rapid process of making invocations, pouring libations, and burning lamps at many altars in succession. Given the long list of prescribed daily rituals mentioned in the lex sacra, it is easy to imagine that the officials would have benefited significantly from the symbols and numerals on the altars to help them find and service altars efficiently, especially early in their one-year tenure, when they were still literally learning the lay of the land.122 In addition to the daily sacrifices that are likely to have used some of the marked altars, sacrifices made throughout the year as preliminary offerings by suppliants seeking a cure might also have made use of some of the marked altars. These preliminary sacrifices are attested in the 4th- century b.c. sanationes,123 and some additional information about them is provided by an inscription, also of the 4th century b.c., that was found in the sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas; this is a regulation that required the priests of Asklepios and Apollo to provide suppliants making preliminary sacrifices (τοῖς προθυομένοις) with the things they would need to carry out the sacrifices.124 The inscription gives the price for both a full-grown and a suckling pig, and one or the other of these victims would presumably have served as the main sacrifice. As Petropoulou suggested, other unnamed things (τούτων in line 5) that needed to be provided to suppliants for three obols may have been secondary, bloodless offerings, such as cakes. Drawing from evidence provided by other sanctuaries of Asklepios, Petropoulou noted that such bloodless prothymata tended to be offered “to divinities other than Asklepios” and that they were given “not on the god’s

121. There is no evidence for daily played a special role in the inception of there is evidence of non-Epidaurian rites in the Asklepieion in earlier times, the practice” of servicing multiple altars priests (e.g., Mnaseas from Hermione and it is generally thought that this to multiple deities within the sanctuary. [IG IV2 438] and Ploutarchos from kind of daily service was introduced late This is indeed an idea that deserves Athens [IG IV2 436, 437]), who pre- into the Greek world; see Nilsson 1945, consideration, but I am unaware of any sumably had a steeper learning curve to pp. 64–69; Sokolowski 1962, p. 62; definite proof to substantiate it. overcome when they took up their Lupu 2009, pp. 74–75 (IG IV2 742 is 122. For general discussion of the duties. here mistakenly dated to the 3rd–2nd priest of Asklepios, see Kavvadias 1900, 123. IG IV2 121, line 42, refers to century b.c.). In her reader’s report on pp. 223–227. Initially, the priests of such a preliminary sacrifice with the this article, Melina Melfi raised the Asklepios may have been chosen from a verb προεθύσατο. possibility that the persistent practice of particular genos of the Epidaurians and 124. Sokolowski 1962, pp. 56–57, dating the altars with respect to the thus had local knowledge to draw on to no. 22 (incomplete text); Peek 1969, year of Hadrian’s visit might indicate help them navigate their way through pp. 138–139, no. 336; Petropoulou that “the emperor—and/or his visit— their duties, but in the 4th century a.d., 1991, pp. 25–26; Lupu 2009, p. 60.

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms altars in the asklepieion at epidauros 415

Figure 11. Asklepieion at Epidauros, main altar but on several smaller ones situated in the same area.”125 From east–west series of altars southeast of this, then, Petropoulou argued that three series of altars at Epidauros (some the main altar of Asklepios, from the of which were certainly marked with symbols and numerals) were used for north. Photo C. A. Pfaff; courtesy Epho- these offerings: (1) a series of six or seven altars aligned in an east–west row rate of Antiquities of Argolida; © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Archaeo- to the southeast of the main altar of Asklepios (Figs. 9, 11); (2) a series of logical Receipts Fund 12 altars aligned in a north–south row east of Building E and south of the main altar of Asklepios (see Figs. 9, 10); and (3) a series of 10 or 11 altars that she thought might originally have stood beside the sacred way near the Abaton (incubation hall).126 This last series can be set aside, since none of the altars Petropoulou assigned to it has a known findspot and none is marked, but the other two series deserve further attention.127 The first series (see Figs. 9, 11) included altars dated to the 5th and early 4th centuries b.c. that were dedicated to Podaleirios (Peek 1972, p. 24, no. 28), Tycha Nemesis/Danaa (Peek 1972, pp. 24–25, no. 29), and the sons of Asklepios (Peek 1972, p. 24, under no. 28),128 as well as probably Machaon (IG IV2 152), Herakles (Peek 1969, p. 107, no. 221), and Iater, a doctor-hero (IG IV2 533).129 The second series (see Figs. 9, 10) included altars dated to the 4th or early 3rd century b.c. that were dedicated to the Muses (IG IV2 543), Athanaia Ergana (IG IV2 270), Aphrodita Orania (IG IV2 283), and Zeus Soter (IG IV2 294).130

125. Petropoulou 1991, pp. 26–27. no. 28. Rupp (1974, p. 223) recorded blocks are associated with this particu- 126. Petropoulou 1991, pp. 27–28. only two symbols, and he illustrated lar series of altars because they belong 127. Melfi (2007, pp. 29, 38, 40–41; one of them (by mistake?) as an empty to the same type of built altar that 2010, p. 328) has accepted the connec- circle; from this, Petropoulou (1991, appears in the series. For this type of tion of the first two series of altars with p. 28) concluded that the altar was altar, see Roux 1961, pp. 398–400. preliminary sacrifices. dedicated to Asklepios on the analogy 130. Petropoulou also included an 128. This altar does not preserve its of the altar to Asklepios inscribed with altar to unnamed heroines (IG IV2 inscription, but it bears three symbols IG IV2 236 that has a small empty 298), but its association with the series (see Fig. 1): symbol 17 for the children circle (symbol 12). is not secure because its original find- of Asklepios (at right), symbol 32 for a 129. The last three are uncertain, spot is not known; see Rupp 1974, hero (at left), and an illegible symbol since the inscribed blocks of the altars p. 181. (at center); see Peek 1972, p. 106, under were not found in situ; the inscribed

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 416 christopher a. pfaff

Petropoulou observed that the divinities/heroes to whom these altars were dedicated are generally consistent with recipients of προθύματα in other sanctuaries of Asklepios and that nearly all of them have a demonstrable connection with healing.131 Although it seems entirely reasonable that these altars could have been used for preliminary sacrifices, there is nothing to confirm whether all or only some of the altars would been used on any one occasion. We might imagine that the sequential numbering of the altars of Petropoulou’s second series, which can in part be verified by in-situ altars, was used in a systematic process of sacrificing at all these altars, but we cannot be sure of this.132 Further uncertainty results from our lack of knowledge regarding the continuation of the ritual of incubation in late antiquity, the time when the altars were marked. Even if the two series of altars south and southeast of the main altar of Asklepios had been used earlier in connection with preliminary sacrifices linked to incubation, the assumption that they continued to be so used in late antiquity is open to question. In this context, I should note that Melfi has reminded me that the reuse of benches from the Abaton in Building Φ may indicate that the practice of incubation in the Abaton had ceased by the time the marks were added to the altars.133 At present, however, the date of Building Φ is not securely established; consequently, chronological conclusions about the terminal date of the practice of incubation that are based on the reuse of the Abaton benches in Building Φ remain problematic.134

131. The inclusion of Athanaia intellectual reflection (see further Melfi Ergana (rather than, say, Athanaia 2007, p. 144). Although some evidence Hygieia) is not easy to explain, but see points in this direction, I find it hard to Petropolou 1991, p. 29. imagine that the sanctuary’s popular 132. Unfortunately, the preserved appeal through healing was not main- portions of the altars of Petropoulou’s tained to the end of paganism. If the first series that remain in situ do not sanctuary did not still have a broad base preserve their numerals; therefore, it is of support in late antiquity, it is hard to not clear how their numbering related understand why Christians should have to the numbering of the second series. expended the effort to build a large The displaced block of the altar of basilica adjacent to the Asklepieion in Machaon (IG IV2 152), which has what seems an obvious attempt to sup- been tentatively associated with Petro- plant the pagan cult. poulou’s first series, bears the numeral 134. Roux (1961, p. 302) thought for 21, which is rather higher than the the building seemed too recent to be numeral of the last of the altars of the associated with Iulius Antoninus second series (12). If this altar of Pythodorus of Nysa, who carried out Machaon does, in fact, belong with the various projects in the sanctuary in the first series, it seems unlikely that the latter half of the 2nd century a.d. The numbering of that series followed fact that Roux (1961, p. 302, n. 1) directly in sequence from the second allowed for the possibility that the series. building served the Christian cult sug- 133. As conveyed to me in her read- gests that he thought it might date er’s report, she claims that in the second after the late 4th century a.d. Melfi half of the 3rd century a.d., the Askle- (2007, p. 140) concluded that the pieion changed from being a place of building cannot be earlier than the end popular salvation to a refuge for a select of the 3rd century a.d. few to participate in pagan ritual and

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms altars in the asklepieion at epidauros 417

DATE AND HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MARKS

The altar inscribed with IG IV2 432 (= IG IV 1005), which was dedicated in a.d. 306,135 is the latest securely dated altar that is marked with both a symbol and numeral. From this, it is safe to conclude with Blinkenberg and Fraenkel that the process of marking the altars occurred no earlier than that time.136 As noted earlier, the two altars inscribed with IG IV2 302 and 504 appear to have been dedicated at the same time that they were marked with symbols and numerals since the lettering of the inscriptions takes the symbols into account.137 If, therefore, IG IV2 302 and 504 could be dated by reliable objective criteria, they would provide a reasonably sound basis for dating the whole process of marking the altars. Unfortunately, neither altar provides evidence to yield a precise date.138 The fact that the altar inscribed with IG IV2 438 (= IG IV 1008) was dedi- cated in a.d. 355 and does not bear the characteristic marks was taken by Fraenkel to indicate that the practice of marking the altars had ended by that date.139 As Blinkenberg noted, however, this inscription does not, in fact, provide a secure terminus ante quem.140 Since some altars dedicated as late as the early 4th century a.d. did not receive marks for one reason or another,141 it is possible that the altar inscribed with IG IV2 438 could have been passed over in the process of marking the altars, even if that process occurred after the altar with IG IV2 438 had been dedicated. Having set aside the terminus ante quem of a.d. 355, Blinkenberg eventually came to the conclusion that symbols and numerals may have been added to the altars during the reign of Emperor Julian (a.d. 361–363),142 and in recent years this idea has been reiterated in passing by Kanellopoulos, Katakis, and Melfi.143 None of these scholars goes so far as to suggest that Julian was directly responsible for the marking of the altars, but Kanellopoulos comes close to doing so by suggesting that Julian may have played a role in a project to renovate the Asklepieion (discussed on p. 418, below). It is indeed tempting to think that Julian might have had a hand in projects aimed at reviving the cult of Asklepios at Epidauros. His writings show that he was an ardent polytheist who strongly defended the performance of traditional rituals,144 with a particular interest in promoting Asklepios as a pagan counterpart to the Christ.145 Julian is also known to have taken an active role in reopening and reviving ancient sanctuaries, and one of his main but unrealized goals was the restoration of a Temple

135. This altar, like many of the 4th- rather than 5th-century a.d. date. IG IV2 430 (a.d. 304?), IG IV2 432 altars at Epidauros, is provided with a 139. See IG IV, p. 186. Fraenkel (a.d. 306). year number (in this case, 183) that was thought that this was the latest dated 142. Weinreich 1913, p. 33; see also calculated from the year of Hadrian’s altar dedicated in the Asklepieion, IG IV2, p. xxxviii. visit to the sanctuary in a.d. 124/5; but Peek (1972, p. 34, no. 55) later 143. Kanellopoulos 2000, p. 31; see IG IV2, p. 105. published an altar dated to a.d. 363. Katakis 2002, p. 327; Melfi 2007, 136. Blinkenberg 1899, p. 381; This altar, too, is lacking a symbol and p. 145. IG IV, p. 186. numeral. 144. See Smith 1995, p. 105. 137. See n. 70, above. 140. Reported in Weinreich 1913, 145. For further discussion, see 138. Blinkenberg (1899, p. 381) p. 33. Athanassiadi 1992, pp. 167–168. surmised only that they were of 141. E.g., see IG IV2 429 (a.d. 304),

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 418 christopher a. pfaff of Asklepios at Aigeai in Cilicia, which is said to have been destroyed under Constantine in a.d. 330.146 Moreover, in light of the fact that his apologia Against the Galilaeans (200a–b = fr. 46) embraced the tradition of Asklepios’s initial appearance in human form at Epidauros, one can imagine that Julian would have been interested in the welfare of the site of the pagan savior’s birth. There is, however, no epigraphic or literary evidence whatsoever to confirm that Julian contributed directly to the welfare of the sanctuary.147 In two recent studies, Kanellopoulos and Katakis argued that the Asklepieion at Epidauros underwent a significant renovation in late antiquity that included the construction of a colonnade that bordered the central area of the sanctuary, including the Temples of Asklepios and Artemis, the Tholos, and the Abaton.148 Both scholars tentatively suggested that this renovation (as well as the marking of the altars) may have occurred during the reign of Julian,149 but the archaeological evidence for the date is rather weak. Pottery from one stratum located below the floor level of the so-called East Wing of the colonnade yielded only a vague date of the second half of the 3rd century or the 4th century a.d.150 The fact that the colonnade made use of a considerable amount of material from the Katagogeion, Hestiatorion (traditionally called the Gymnasion), and Building Z must indicate that its construction took place rather late in the history of the site, after those buildings had been destroyed or had at least fallen out of use, but there seems as yet to be no good evidence for dating the demise of those buildings.151 Kanellopoulos attempted to establish a terminus ante quem for the construction of the colonnade by associating damage to one part of the colonnade with the attested earthquake of a.d. 365,152 but this association cannot be verified. In an attempt to link Julian with the renovation of the Asklepieion, Kanellopoulos mistakenly referred to the involvement of the emperor in repairs to a basilica and breakwater at nearby Nauplion, which had sustained damage from an earthquake in a.d. 361. The only source of information for this intervention (not cited by Kanellopoulos) is, in fact, IG IV2 674, an inscription from Nauplio, which dates not to the reign of Julian but to that of Valentinian and Valens, and which refers to some kind of action taken by a certain σχολαστικός (scholar) during an earthquake (probably the better documented one in a.d. 365).

146. See Tomlinson 1983, pp. 32– 148. The remains of the colonnade the floor of the colonnade was not 33; Edelstein and Edelstein 1998, had formerly been interpreted as a for- entirely clear, even the vague date of pp. 255–257, with associated testimony: tification wall; see Kanellopoulos 2000, the pottery can only tentatively be nos. 818 (Euseb. Vit. Const. 3.56), 819 pp. 15–17; Katakis 2002, p. 327. associated with the date of the con- (Sozom. Hist. eccl. 2.5), 820 (Zonar. 149. Kanellopoulos 2000, pp. 30–31; struction of the colonnade. 13.12c–d). Presumably with the inten- Katakis 2002, p. 327. 151. For the earthquakes that af- tion of preserving the memory of the 150. The analysis of the pottery of fected the region in late antiquity and destroyed Asklepieion at Aigeai, a the stratum (only five fragments) was the difficulties associated with identify- priest dedicated an altar to Asklepios carried out by Kathleen Slane and ing and dating them, see Guidoboni, Aigeotes at Epidauros in a.d. 355; this reported in Kanellopoulos 2000, Comastri, and Traina 1994, pp. 261– is the unmarked altar discussed above pp. 103–104. Kanellopoulos (2000, 262; Rothaus 1996. that is inscribed with IG IV2 438. pp. 30, 52) admitted that since the 152. Kanellopoulos 2000, p. 30. 147. See Latte 1931, p. 134. exact relationship of this stratum to

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms altars in the asklepieion at epidauros 419

There is to my knowledge no reliable evidence of Julian’s involvement anywhere in the region. Mamertinus, praising Julian in the highly dubious language of a panegyric, credited Julian with the restoration of all the cities of Macedonia, Illyricum, and the Peloponnese, but the vagueness of the passage suggests that the author did not really know any details of specific works carried out under Julian.153 Even in Athens, where Julian briefly studied in his youth, Frantz has observed that “it is impossible to attribute a single building or public work to his initiative with any degree of certainty.”154 In the absence of evidence for any specific acts of euergetism carried out by Julian in Greece, there is no basis for the idea that Julian played a role in revitalizing the Asklepieion at Epidauros, either through the marking of altars or the construction of the surrounding colonnade. However sympathetic the apostate emperor might have been to Asklepios and his birthplace at Epidauros, the brevity of Julian’s reign and the focus of his attention on affairs in Asia Minor and Syria and on pursuit of war against the Persians probably allowed him no opportunity to concern himself with the welfare of the sanctuary at Epidauros. In the absence of evidence for Julian’s direct involvement in the Asklepieion at Epidauros, there appears to be nothing to support the idea that projects such as the building of the Late Antique colonnade or the marking of the altars occurred in his reign. Construction of the colonnade would certainly have required a substantial amount of money, but there is nothing to prove that this must have come from an imperial bequest. As in the 2nd century a.d., when the sanctuary benefitted substantially from the generosity of a private individual, in late antiquity a private benefactor interested in the survival of the declining sanctuary may have come forth with funding to revive the sanctuary with new construction. I am unable to name a likely candidate, but then again, such a person might not be obvious to us today. After all, the Roman senator Iulius Antoninus Pythodorus of Nysa, who was responsible for the 2nd-century a.d. restoration of the sanctuary, does not immediately strike one as a likely benefactor of the Asklepieion. While it is possible that the marking of the altars was part of the same revitalization project that resulted in the creation of the colonnade, there is no solid evidence to link the two projects. There is, for example, nothing to show that the altars were rearranged to suit a new organization of the sanctuary, even though that in theory could have provided an impetus for marking the altars. The fact that some of the marked altars were located outside the confines of the temenos defined by the colonnade might, in fact, support the idea that the altars were marked some time before the new limits of the sanctuary were established. Unlike the construction of the colonnade, the marking of the altars could have been carried out at minimal expense over a relatively short period of time. For that reason, one might imagine that it reflects a modest project, perhaps initiated by one enterprising priest and carried out within his one-year term of office.

153. Mamertinus, Gratiarum actio Frantz 1979, which convincingly dis- Iuliano 9; Galletier 1955, pp. 23–24. sociates Julian from the repairs to the 154. Agora XXIV, p. 23; see also Parthenon.

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 420 christopher a. pfaff

CONCLUSIONS

The symbols and numerals of the Epidaurian altars raise many questions that cannot be fully answered, but from the evidence surveyed in this study, we can derive the following conclusions. The symbols and numerals probably were added within a short period of time (a single year?) in late antiquity to altars ranging in date from the 5th century b.c. to the 4th cen- tury a.d. The latest dated altar with a mark provides a secure terminus post quem of a.d. 306 for the process of marking the altars, but there is no precise terminus ante quem before the end of the 4th century a.d., the time when official cult activity is likely to have been curtailed. Though it is tempting to associate the marking of the altars with Julian the Apostate and the Late Antique revitalization of the Asklepieion that included the construction of a colonnade around the center of the sanctuary, there is no secure evidence to support this association. The process of marking the altars was, in fact, a fairly modest project that could have been initiated by, and carried out under the supervision of, a single priest within his term of office. The symbols and numerals were added only to blocks that served as altars in late antiquity; therefore, the purpose of these marks must be specifically related to the process of sacrifice and not to some general inventory of sacred property or to some attempt to protect that property. In all likelihood, the marks on the altars were used to locate and identify the altars for the purpose of making sacrifices (in most cases simple bloodless offerings) at them. If this is correct, the marks on the altars confirm that there was an active interest in maintaining the rituals of the sanctuary into late antiquity and that there was an anticipation the cult activity would be regular enough to warrant the effort to mark the altars. The context and process for sacrifices made at the marked altars are not entirely clear. There is no evidence to support Hiller von Gaertringen’s suggestion that there were three annual cycles of sacrifices corresponding to the three series of numerals inscribed on the altars. Nor is there evidence to confirm that there was a sacred calendar prescribing sacrifices at specific altars on particular days of the year. Although one can easily imagine that special sacrifices were made at some particular altars on special days, it seems unlikely that each of the more than 200 marked altars would have had a special day for sacrifice that would have required locating each altar individually. It seems on the whole more likely that such a large number of altars was serviced in groups or series on different occasions and for different purposes. Some as yet undefined group of “all the altars” received daily sacrifices (as indicated by IG IV2 742), while another group (probably centered around the main altar of Asklepios) is likely to have received preliminary sacrifices required of suppliants who wished to be cured by Asklepios. In both cases, one can imagine that the process of sacrificing at multiple altars would have been facilitated by the addition of symbols and sequential numerals on the altars. They would have helped ensure that all the requisite altars were tended to and that the appropriate rituals were carried out. Because the marked altars at Epidauros seem to have been numbered in a single series (though with repeated runs of numerals up to 100), it is

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms altars in the asklepieion at epidauros 421

tempting to think that, as at Olympia, all altars were tended to in sequence at particular intervals (monthly or yearly?), but there is no solid evidence to confirm this idea. To be sure, the servicing of more than 200 altars on a single occasion would be no easy feat, but one imagines it could have been accomplished if the rituals were fairly simple and if the process was well organized as a procession that moved in an orderly fashion through the topography of the sanctuary. From a logistical perspective, it would, of course, have been helpful if the altars were very clearly marked and numbered to ensure that there were no delays in completing the process of sacrifice. Although the symbols on the Epidaurian altars generally conform to iconographic elements traditionally associated with the various divinities, their use as identifiers of altars is not really paralleled elsewhere. Likewise, although the alphabetic numerals on the altars follow a well-known system and their use as a way to indicate relative positions is not unprecedented, there are no parallels for their use on altars anywhere in the Greek world. It seems, then, that the symbols and numerals on the Epidaurian altars were a unique response to the ritual requirements of a sanctuary that had an extraordinary number of altars in need of servicing. One might imagine that the marking of the altars with symbols and numerals was motivated by a change in ritual practices or a revival of practices after a lapse of time, but that cannot be demonstrated. It is perhaps just as likely that the decision to add the symbols and numerals was a simple logistical response to a long- standing problem of dealing with so many altars. Although the hiereus and pyrophoros had somehow managed to tend to a large number of altars for centuries before the marks were added, it is not hard to imagine scenarios that may have led one of these officials to decide that the fulfillment of his ritual duties could be facilitated by marking the altars with symbols and numerals. For us today, accustomed as we are to inventory numbers on inscriptions and other museum objects, it is less surprising that the numerous altars of Epidauros were marked in late antiquity than that they did not receive marks of some kind much earlier for the purpose of identifying and locating them as needed. As we have seen, however, there is only limited evidence for the use of systems of marks or numerals for the purpose of identifying objects in the ancient Greek world. The marking of the altars at Epidauros—however natural it might seem to us as a logistical aid for identifying and tending the altars—should in the end be seen as a notable departure from normal ancient practice.

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Appendix Altars with symbols and numbers

The numbers in the first column correspond to the symbol types shown in Figure 1. The use of an asterisk in the column listing the location indicates that the altar was found in situ. Symbol Inscribed Type Recipient Publication(s) No. Date Dedicant Location 1 Agathe IG IV2 394 67 a.d. 186 hiereus – 1 Agathe Peek 1972, p. 23, no. 27 30 – none named – IG IV2 406; Peek 1969, 2 Agathos Theos 89 a.d. 224 pyrophoros – p. 96, no. 163 – Agathos Theos IG IV2 394 63 a.d. 186 hiereus – 3 Angeloi IG IV2 482 51 3rd c. a.d. none named – 4 Athana Archagetis IG IV2 484 63 – pyrophoros – 5 Athanaia Ergana IG IV2 270 12 3rd c. b.c. none named *east of Building E 6 Athena Kalliergos IG IV2 485 38 – pyrophoros – 7 Anakes IG IV2 480 8 2nd c. a.d. hiereus – 8 Theoi Soteres IG IV2 512 63 – pyrophoros – 9 Apollon IG IV2 432 85 a.d. 306 hiereus – 10 Apollon IG IV2 441 70 2nd c. a.d. pyrophoros *east of Building K 10 Apollon IG IV2 442 – – pyrophoros – 10 Apollon IG IV2 453 – 2nd/3rd c. a.d. name only – 10 Apollon Hekatebeletes IG IV2 426 21 a.d. 297 hierophant – 10 Apollon Hekatebeletes IG IV2 427 6 a.d. 297 hierophant – 10 Apollon Maleatas IG IV2 127 3 ca. a.d. 224 hiketes – 10 Apollon Maleatas IG IV2 446 74 – pyrophoros – 10 Apollon Hypataios IG IV2 451 77 3rd c. b.c. names (2) only – Rupp 1974, pp. 246– 11 (Artamis) 19 4th c. b.c. none named *east of Temple of Artemis 249, no. 111

11 Artamis IG IV2 493 46 – none named *east of Temple of Artemis

11 Artemis Tauropolos IG IV2 496 57 – name only(?) – 11 Artamis Enodia IG IV2 273 56 4th c. b.c. none named – 11 Artemis Ephesia IG IV2 501 24 1st c. a.d. name only –

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms altars in the asklepieion at epidauros 423

APPENDIX—Continued Symbol Inscribed Type Recipient Publication(s) No. Date Dedicant Location 11 Artemis Orthia IG IV2 495 82 3rd c. a.d. name only – IG IV2 502 + 580; Peek 11(?) (Artemis) Kynthia – – not preserved – 1969, p. 103, no. 204 11 Artemis Pamphylaia IG IV2 503 64 – pyrophoros – 11 Artamis Prothyraia IG IV2 276 2 3rd c. b.c. none named – 11 Artemis Saronia IG IV2 504 62 4th c. a.d. none named – 11 Artemis Skopelia IG IV2 505 68 – pyrophoros *east of Building K 11 Artemis Soteire IG IV2 516 57 3rd c. a.d. hiketes – 11 Artemis Soteira IG IV2 506 – 1st c. a.d. name only – Nichols and Wagman 11 (Artemis) 33 – not preserved in church of St. John 2006, p. 187 12 Asklapios IG IV2 236 1 early 4th c. b.c. name only – 12 (Asklapios) IG IV 1369 61 – not preserved – 13 Asklapios IG IV2 453 – 2nd/3rd c. a.d. name only – 14 Asklepios IG IV2 432 85 a.d. 306 hiereus – 14 Asklepios Epekoos IG IV2 458 – 3rd/4th c. a.d. hiereus – 15 Asklepios IG IV2 384 80 a.d. 133/4 pyrophoros *east of Building K 15 Asklepios IG IV2 413 83 a.d. 249 pyrophoros – 15 Asklepios IG IV2 462 8 3rd c. a.d. not preserved – 15 Asklapios IG IV 1267 16 – not preserved – 15 Asklapios IG IV 1268 – – not preserved – 15 Asklepios Eukolos IG IV2 469 11 1st/2nd c. a.d. name only – 15 Asklepios Zeus IG IV2 470 96 2nd/3rd c. a.d. hiereus – IG IV2 473; Peek 1969, 15 Asklepios Pergamenos – 3rd c. a.d.(?) none named – p. 101, no. 187 15 Asklepios Soter IG IV2 516 57 3rd c. a.d. hiketes – 15 Asklepios Soter IG IV2 435 65 after a.d. 306 hiereus – 15 Asklepios Soter Peek 1972, p. 31, no. 48 – – hiereus – 15 Zeus Asklepios Soter IG IV2 399 19 a.d. 204 hiereus – 15(?) Asklepios SEG XI 441 45 – proconsul in area of basilica 16 Soter Asklepios IG IV2 127 3 ca. a.d. 224 hiketes – 16 Asklepios Klytometis IG IV2 471 66 a.d. 225–250 hiereus in Building K 17 Asklepiou Paides IG IV2 397 5 a.d. 194 hiereus – IG IV2 546; Peek 1969, 17 (Asklepiou) Paides 20 3rd/4th c. a.d. none named – p. 108, no. 227 IG IV2 577; Peek 1969, 17 (Asklepiou) Paides – ca. a.d. 259(?) iatros – p. 112, no. 242 Peek 1972, p. 24, under 17 (Asklepiou Paides) – – none named(?) *northeast of Building E no. 28 18 Haphaistos IG IV2 279 36 3rd c. b.c. none named – 19 Hephaistos IG IV2 416 19 a.d. 259 pyrophoros – Continued on next page

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 424 christopher a. pfaff

APPENDIX—Continued Symbol Inscribed Type Recipient Publication(s) No. Date Dedicant Location 20 Aphrodita Orania IG IV2 283 11 4th c. b.c. none named *east of Building E SEG XI 443; Peek 20 Charites 7 3rd/4th c. a.d. none named in atrium of basilica 1969, p. 138, no. 335 21/14 Demeter IG IV2 507 21 – pyrophoros – 22 Demeter Karpophoros? IG IV2 575 32 3rd c. a.d. not preserved – 23 Dikaiosyne IG IV2 407 41 a.d. 226 pyrophoros – 24 Eleos IG IV2 513 9 – name only – 25 Zeus IG IV2 424 34 a.d. 297 hiereus – 25 Zeus IG IV2 425 58 a.d. 297 hiereus – IG IV2 296; Peek 1969, 25 Zeus – – none named east of Building E p. 71, no. 125 25 Zeus Boudiates IG IV2 516 57 3rd c. a.d. hiketes – 25 Zeus Kasios IG IV2 519 31 2nd c. a.d. name only – 25 Zeus Ktesios IG IV2 465 48 3rd/4th c. a.d. name only – 25 Zeus Xenios IG IV2 523 98 – pyrophoros – 25 Zeus Saotes IG IV2 526 73 – pyrophoros *east of Building K 25 Zeus Philios IG IV2 527 59 3rd c. a.d. name only – 25 Asklepios Zeus Teleios IG IV2 481 97 2nd c. a.d. pyrophoros – IG IV2 518; Peek 1969, 25(?) Zeus Euboulaos 25(?) 2nd c. a.d. name only in Church of St. John p. 105, no. 212 26 Ammon IG IV2 271 38 5th/4th c. b.c. none named west of Building Π 27 Zeus Soter IG IV2 294 6 3rd c. b.c. none named *east of Building E 27(?) Zeus Soter IG IV2 292 – – none named – IG IV2 522; Peek 1969, 27 Zeus Milichios – 3rd/4th c. a.d. pyrophoros – p. 106, no. 214 Peek 1972, pp. 24–25, 27 Danaa – 5th/4th c. b.c. none named – no. 29 Peek 1972, p. 52, 27 (Zeus) 36 – not preserved – no. 106 28a Helios IG IV2 424 34 a.d. 297 hiereus – 28a Helios IG IV2 425 58 a.d. 297 hiereus – southeast of Temple of 28b Helios Pangonos IG IV2 529 66 ca. a.d. 167 name only Asklepios 28(?) Helios? IG IV2 613 – after a.d. 244 not preserved(?) – 29 Epione IG IV2 384 80 a.d. 133/134 pyrophoros – 30 Hera IG IV2 382 97 ca. a.d. 128 none named – 31 Herakles IG IV2 530 48 – pyrophoros – 32 Antinoos IG IV2 492 35 after a.d. 130 not preserved – 32 Epidauros IG IV2 288 71 3rd c. b.c. none named *east of Building K 32 Heros Klaikophoros IG IV2 297 11 4th c. b.c. none named – 32 Linos Soter IG IV2 539 69 – pyrophoros *east of Building K

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms altars in the asklepieion at epidauros 425

APPENDIX—Continued Symbol Inscribed Type Recipient Publication(s) No. Date Dedicant Location 32 Oikles? IG IV2 545 60 – pyrophoros – 32 Telesphoros IG IV2 559 52 2nd c. a.d. none named – 32 Hygieia Peek 1972, p. 23, no. 25 – 4th c. b.c. none named west side of sacred way 32 unknown IG IV 1339 58 – not preserved – 32 unknown IG IV 1340 22 – not preserved – Peek 1972, p. 24, under 32 unknown – – none named *northeast of Building E no. 28 33 Herossai IG IV2 298 5 4th/3rd c. b.c. none named east of Abaton 33 Omonoia IG IV2 415 – a.d. 258 hiereus *east of Temple of Artemis 33 Panakeia IG IV2 388 33 a.d. 150 pyrophoros – 34 Isis IG IV2 534 40 ca. a.d. 259(?) hiereus west of Building Π Peek 1972, p. 51, west of main altar of 34(?) unknown 59 – not preserved no. 104 Asklepios 35 Machaon IG IV2 152 21 5th c. b.c. none named – 36 Megala Mater IG IV2 302 29 5th/4th c. b.c. none named – 36 Meter Theon IG IV2 537 10 – hiketes *southeast of Abaton 37 Mneia kai Auxesia IG IV2 398 – – hiereus – 38 Mnia kai Azosia IG IV2 410 40 a.d. 231 pyrophoros – 39 Mousai IG IV2 543 – 2nd/3rd c. a.d. none named *east of Building E 40 Oxyderka IG IV2 491 33 – pyrophoros – 41 Ourania IG IV2 446 74 – pyrophoros *east of Building K 42 Pan IG IV2 547 89 – none named – 42 Pan IG IV2 548 9 5th c. b.c. none named in Building E 43a Pantes (Theoi) IG IV2 424 34 a.d. 297 hiereus – 43a Pantes (Theoi) IG IV2 425 58 a.d. 297 hiereus – 43a (Pantes Theoi) IG IV2 307 91 – names only – 43a Pantes kai Pasai IG IV2 390 13 a.d. 166 hiereus – 43a Pantheios IG IV2 550 87 2nd c. a.d. hiereus – 43a Pantheios IG IV2 549 12 2nd/3rd c. a.d. hiereus – 43b Duodeka Theoi IG IV2 287 – 4th c. b.c. none named – 44 Posidon IG IV2 552 86 – pyrophoros – 44 Posidon IG IV2 411 42 before a.d. 231 pyrophoros – 44 (Poseidon) IG IV2 554 – 3rd c. a.d.(?) pyrophoros – 45 Poseidon Hippios IG IV2 553 77 3rd c. a.d. hiereus *east of Building K 46 Pronoia IG IV2 558 4 – none named – 47 Sarapis IG IV2 535 39 ca. a.d. 259(?) hiereus west of Building Π 48 Soteria IG IV2 310 19 – none named – 48(?) Zeus Sabazios Peek 1972, p. 36, no. 61 – after a.d. 128 pyrophoros – 49 Telesphoros IG IV2 472 6 a.d. 225–250 hiereus – Continued on next page

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 426 christopher a. pfaff

APPENDIX—Continued Symbol Inscribed Type Recipient Publication(s) No. Date Dedicant Location 49 Telesphoros IG IV2 477 28 3rd/4th c. a.d. hiereus – 49 Telesphoros IG IV2 563 61 3rd/4th c. a.d. none named – 49 Telesphoros IG IV2 564 31 3rd/4th c. a.d. none named – 49(?) unknown SEG XI 438 32 – not preserved in narthex of basilica IG IV2 409; Peek 1969, 50 Tyche Aphthonos 87 a.d. 230 hiereus – p. 96, no. 164 50 (Tyche) IG IV2 383 82 a.d. 132/133 pyrophoros – SEG XI 442; Peek 50 Tyche (Soteira) – 3rd c. a.d. hiereus – 1969, p. 138, no. 334 51 Hygieia IG IV2 477 28 3rd/4th c. a.d. hiereus – 51 Hygieia IG IV2 314 13 4th c. b.c. none named – 51 Hygieia IG IV2 568 88 2nd c. a.d.(?) none named *north of “Gymnasion” 51 Hygeia IG IV2 472 6 a.d. 225–250 hiereus in Building K 51 Hygieia Peek 1972, p. 23, no. 25 – – none named west side of sacred way 51(?) Hygeia IG IV2 313 13 3rd c. b.c. name only – Peek 1972, p. 51, west of main altar of 51(?) Hygieia? 61 – not preserved no. 103 Asklepios IG IV2 311; Peek 1969, 51 Tycha Nemesis – 4th c. b.c. none named *northeast of Building E p. 74, no. 134 52 Hypnos IG IV2 572 85 3rd/4th c. a.d. none named – 52 Hypnos IG IV2 573 51 3rd/4th c. a.d. none named – 53 Mousai? IG IV2 147 – 5th c. b.c. not preserved – 54 unknown IG IV2 586 62 3rd/4th c. a.d. pyrophoros(?) – 55 unknown IG IV2 288 72 3rd c. b.c. none named *east of Building K Peek 1972, p. 51, *north of ramp of Temple 56 unknown 17 – not preserved no. 101 of Asklepios Peek 1972, p. 51, 56 unknown 90+ – not preserved *east of sacred way no. 102 Peek 1972, p. 52, on south wall of 57 unknown – – not preserved no. 107 Building E Peek 1972, p. 51, 58 Hermes? 77(?) – not preserved north of Building E no. 105 IG IV2 514; Peek 1969, 58 Hermes Orthannes – – name only – p. 104, no. 209 Peek 1972, p. 24, under – unknown – – none named(?) *northeast of Building E no. 28 Rupp 1974 p. 201, – unknown – – not preserved *east of Building E no. 91

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms altars in the asklepieion at epidauros 427

REFERENCES

Agora XXIV = A. Frantz, Late Antiq- Griechenland 2.1: Messeniaca, Lupu, E. 2009. Greek Sacred Law: A uity: A.D. 267–700 (Agora XXIV), Eliaca I, Leipzig. Collection of New Documents (NGSL) Princeton 1988. Hölscher, T. 2002. “Rituelle Räume und (Religions in the Graeco-Roman Aleshire, S. B. 1989. The Athenian politische Denkmäler im Heiligtum World 152), 2nd ed., Leiden. Asklepieion: The People, Their Ded- von Olympia,” in Olympia, 1875– Martin, R. 1965. Manuel d’architecture ications, and the Inventories, 2000: 125 Jahre deutsche Ausgrabun- grecque 1: Matériaux et techniques, Amsterdam. gen. Internationales Symposion, Paris. Athanassiadi, P. 1992. Julian: An Intel- Berlin, 9.–11. November 2000, Mavrommatidis, I. 1999. “Ο κλασικός lectual Biography, 2nd ed., London. ed. H. Kyrieleis, Mainz, pp. 331– βωμός,” in Το Ασκληπιείο της Επι- Blinkenberg, C. 1894–1895. “Les ins- 345. δαύρου: Η έδρα του θεού γιατρού criptions d’Epidaure,” Nordisk Jeffery, L. H. 1990. The Local Scripts of της αρχαιότητας, ed. B. K. Lam- Tidsskrift for Filologi 3º, 3, pp. 153– Archaic Greece: A Study of the Origin brinoudakis, Athens, pp. 66–67. 178. of the Greek Alphabet and Its Devel- McAllister, M. H. 1959. “The Temple ———. 1899. “Epidaurische Weihge- opment from the Eighth to the Fifth of Ares at Athens: A Review of the schenke, IV,” AM 24, pp. 379–397. Centuries, rev. ed., Oxford. Evidence,” Hesperia 28, pp. 1–64. Castrén, P. 1989. “The Post-Herulian Kanellopoulos, C. 1999. “Το υστερορω- Melfi, M. 2007.I santuari di Asclepio in Revival of Athens,” in The Greek μαϊκό ‘τείχος’: Περιμετρική στοά,” Grecia 1 (Studia archaeologica 157), Renaissance in the Roman Empire. in Το Ασκληπιείο της Επιδαύρου: Rome. Papers from the Tenth British Mu- Η έδρα του θεού γιατρού της αρχαιό- ———. 2010. “Ritual Spaces and seum Classical Colloquium (BICS τητας, ed. B. K. Lambrinoudakis, Performances in the Asklepieia of Suppl. 55), ed. S. Walker and Athens, pp. 57–59. Roman Greece,” BSA 105, pp. 317– A. Cameron, London, pp. 45–49. ———. 2000. Το υστερορωμαϊκό “τεί- 338. Cavvadias, P. 1891. Fouilles d’Epidaure, χος”: Περίβολος τεμένους και περι- ———. 2013. “Religion and Commu- Athens. μετρική στοά στο Ασκληπιείο της nication in the Sanctuaries of Early Curtius, E. 1882. Die Altäre von Επιδαύρου, Athens. Roman Greece: Epidauros and Olympia, Berlin. Katakis, S. E. 2002. Επίδαυρος: Τα Athens,” in Roman Power and Greek Edelstein, E., and L. Edelstein. 1998. γλυπτά των ρωμαϊκών χρόνων απο Sanctuaries: Forms of Interaction and Asclepius: Collection and Interpre- το Ιερό του Απόλλωνος Μαλεάτα Communication (Tripodes 14), tation of the Testimonies, 2nd ed., και του Ασκληπιού (Βιβλιοθήκη ed. M. Galli, Athens, pp. 143–158. Baltimore. τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Miller, S. G. 2004. Nemea: A Guide to FdD II.13 = C. Le Roy, Les terres cuites Ἑταιρείας 223), Athens. the Site and Museum, Athens. architecturales: Topographie et archi- Kavvadias, P. 1883. “Ἐπιγραφαὶ ἐκ Mitsos, M. T. 1935. “Ἐπιγραφικὰ ἐξ tecture (FdD II.13), Paris 1967. τῶν ἐν Ἐπιδαυρίᾳ ἀνασκαφῶν,” Ἀργολίδας,” Ελληνικά 8, pp. 5–18. Frantz, M. A. 1929. “The Provenance ArchEph 22, cols. 26–31, 85–91, ———. 1936. “Ἐπιγραφαί ἐξ Ἀρκαδίας of the Open Rho in the Christian 147–158. Επιδαυρίας καὶ Κορινθίας,” ArchEph Monograms,” AJA 33, pp. 10–26. ———. 1884. “Ἐπιγραφαὶ ἐκ τῶν ἐν 75, pp. 136–146. ———. 1979. “Did Julian the Apostate Ἐπιδαυρίᾳ ἀνασκαφῶν,” ArchEph ———. 1947. “Greek Inscriptions,” Rebuild the Parthenon?” AJA 83, 23, cols. 22–32. Hesperia 16, pp. 82–88. pp. 395–401. ———. 1885. “Ἐπιγραφαὶ ἐκ τῶν ἐν Moretti, L., ed. 1953. Iscrizioni agonist- Galletier, E., ed. 1955. Panégyriques Ἐπιδαυρίᾳ ἀνασκαφῶν,” ArchEph ische greche (Studi pubblicati latin 3, Paris. 24, cols. 189–200. dall’Istituto italiano per la storia Gebhard, E. R. 1973. The Theater at ———. 1894. “Ἐπιγραφαὶ ἐξ Ἐπιδαύ- antica 12), Rome. Isthmia, Chicago. ρου,” ArchEph 33, cols. 15–24. Nichols, A., and R. Wagman. 2006. Giamalides, C. A. 1913. “Εἰς Ἐπιδαύ- ———. 1900. Τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦ Ἀσκληπιοὺ “Minima Epidaurica,” ZPE 158, ρου ἐπιγραφάς,” ArchEph 52, ἐν Ἐπιδαύρῳ καὶ ἡ θεραπεία τῶν pp. 187–189. pp. 125–129. ἀσθενῶν (Βιβλιοθήκη τῆς ἐν Ἀθή- Nilsson, M. P. 1945. “Pagan Divine Guidoboni, E., A. Comastri, and ναις Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας 2), Service in Late Antiquity,” HTR 38, G. Traina. 1994. Catalogue of Ancient Athens. pp. 63–69. Earthquakes in the Mediterranean ———. 1918. “Ἀνακαφαὶ ἐν Ἐπιδαύρω, Peek, W. 1969. Inschriften aus dem Area up to the 10th Century, Rome. 1918,” ArchEph 57, pp. 172–195. Asklepieion von Epidauros (AbhLeip Hamilton, R. 2000. Treasure Map: Lambrinoudakis, B. K. 1988. “Ανα- 60.2), Berlin. A Guide to the Delian Inventories, σκαφή ιερού Απόλλωνος Μαλεάτα ———. 1972. Neue Inschriften aus Ann Arbor. Επιδαύρου,” Prakt 143, pp. 21–29. Epidauros (AbhLeip 63.5), Berlin. Hitzig, H., and J. Blümner. 1901. Latte, K. 1931. Rev. of IG IV2, in Petropoulou, A. 1991. “Prothysis and Des Pausanias Beschreibung von Gnomon 7, pp. 113–135. Altar: A Case Study,” in L’espace

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 428 christopher a. pfaff

sacrificiel dans les civilizations médi- Thought and Action of Julian the and Christianization, c. 370–529 1 terranéennes de l’antiquité. Actes du Apostate, London. (Religions in the Graeco-Roman colloque tenu à la Maison de l’Orient, Sodini, J.-P. 1970. “Mosaïques paléo- World 115), Leiden. Lyon, 4–7 juin 1988 (Publications chrétiennes de Grèce,” BCH 94, Weinreich, O. 1913. Lykische Zwölfgötter- de la Bibliothèque Salomon- pp. 699–753. Reliefs: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Reinach 5), ed. R. Étienne and Sokolowski, F. 1962. Lois sacrées des cités des dreizehnten Gottes (SBHeid 5), M.-T. Le Dinahet, Paris, pp. 25– grecques: Supplément (TravMém 11), Heidelberg. 31. Paris. Weniger, L. 1884. Der Gottesdienst in Rothaus, R. 1996. “Earthquakes and Spieser, J.-M. 1976. “La christianisa- Olympia (Virchow ad Holtzendorff- Temples in Late Antique Corinth,” tion des sanctuaires païens en Vietmasdorf 29), Berlin. in Archaeoseismology (Fitch Labora- Grèce,” in Neue Forschungen in ———. 1909. “Die monatliche Opfe- tory Occasional Paper 7), ed. griechischen Heiligtümern. Internatio- rung in Olympia,” Klio 9, pp. 291– S. Stiros and R. E. Jones, Oxford, nales Symposion in Olympia vom 10. 303. pp. 105–112. bis 12. Oktober 1974, anlässlich der Wescoat, B. D. 2013. “Insula sacra: Roux, G. 1961. L’architecture de l’Argo- Hundertjahrfeier der Abteilung Athen Samothrace between Troy and lide aux IVe et IIIe siècles avant J.-C. und der deutschen Ausgrabungen in Rome,” in Roman Power and Greek (BÉFAR 199), Paris. Olympia, ed. U. Jantzen, Tübingen, Sanctuaries: Forms of Interaction and Rupp, D. W. 1974. “Greek Altars of pp. 309–320. Communication (Tripodes 14), ed. the Northeastern Peloponnesos, Tod, M. N. 1954. “Letter-Labels in M. Galli, Athens, pp. 45–81. ca. 750/725 b.c. to ca. 300/275 b.c.” Greek Inscriptions,” BSA 49, pp. 1–8. Williams, C. K., II, and P. Russell. (diss. Bryn Mawr College). Tomlinson, R. A. 1983. Epidauros 1981. “Corinth: Excavations of Smith, R. B. E. 1995. Julian’s Gods: (Archaeological Sites), London. 1980,” Hesperia 50, pp. 1–44. Religion and Philosophy in the Trombley, F. R. 1993. Hellenic Religion

Christopher A. Pfaff Florida State University department of classics 205a dodd hall tallahassee, florida 32306-1510 [email protected]

This content downloaded from 144.174.180.146 on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:03:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms