Current Epigraphy

Paper delivered at the British Epigraphy Society Spring Colloquium, May 2nd, 2009, Oxford.

In the first presentation of the day Benjamin Gray gave a very thorough and densely packed study of the recently published decree from the Eretrian colony of Dikaia, dated between 365-359 BCE in the reign of Perdikkas III (Voutiras/Sismanides 2008 = BE 2008:263, 339).

The decree attempts to effect a reconciliation of the citizen body of this polis after some kind of civil strife, largely by imposing an amnesty on prosecutions for wrongs committed before the archonship of Gorgythos (with the exception of murders, which can be prosecuted on a single day at the end of the month of Daphnephorion). This moratorium, and the heavy penalties imposed on anyone who should attempt to break it, was clearly meant to draw a close to troubles that were threatening to tear the city apart. It is not known whether this was the result of social struggles between Macedonian and Amphipolitan influences, for example, or whether it was a purely local stasis. Perdikkas III of Macedon is appealed to to enforce this decree.

As such amnesties go, allowing even murder trials at all is both unusual and risky, which tells us something about the unique situation in this polis. There was a particularly strong concern for justice and the rule of law (the choice of the city’s name, Δίκαια, may itself have been politically motivated), for contract and procedure above the usual political virtues of stability and concord that are behind amnesties such as those as Alipheira, at Athens in 403, for example.

Gray concluded with some remarks on Greek ideas about the polis, oaths and pledges, and purification. There was vigorous and rich discussion among the audience on the readings of the epigraphic text. (Charles Crowther pointed out that the restoration of γνώμη]ν at the end of line 1 was impossible on grammatical grounds; Angelos Chaniotis added that it was also legally impossible, since Lykios was not a member of the community that passed this decree until after it was passed. Robert Parker also pointed out that the difficult reading δ̣ικασάτω st the start of line 8, must in fact read ὁρκωσάτω. If this was indeed a case of calling in foreign judges to settle a dispute, it is the earliest precedent for what later became a relatively common Hellenistic practice; Chaniotis pointed out that the violation of the sacred law of ἀσυλία in lines 6-7 was a clear sign of desperation, that this amnesty was a last resort attempt at reconciliation.)

Paper delivered at the British Epigraphy Society Spring Colloquium, May 2nd, 2009, Oxford.

The third paper of the Spring Colloquium was an exploration of female voices and emotions in sanctuaries. Chaniotis began by examining the literary evidence for typical female ritual behaviour, noting that authors including Diogenes Laertius (Vit. Phil. VI, 37-38), Theocritus (Id. II, 66-74; XV, 84-86) and Herodas (IV, 1-13) tend to ascribe certain (often negative) characteristics to women’s ritual behaviour. Amongst these characteristics are the wearing of special garments and make-up; vanity; chattering and gossiping in loud voices; exaggerated gestures; pushing past one another; and disorderly behaviour in general. Such behaviour is not in fact exclusively feminine, but is presented as such in the literary sources.

Inscribed dedications provide us with a rich source of information on female ritual behaviour. The emotions expressed in these dedications cannot be ignored, but must be contextualised. Chaniotis chose two sites as case studies for examining female voices: the sanctuary of the Mother of the Gods at Leukopetra, and the sanctuary of Demeter at Knidos. In each case he identified the standard formulae used for these dedications and explored the nature and significance of each of the deviations from the stereotypical formulae.

At Leukopetra, three main deviations from the standard form of dedication occur: entreating an angry goddess; displaying affection; and displaying trust or faith in the deity. In the case of dedications entreating an angry goddess, the gender of the dedicator appears to be irrelevant. However the gender of the god is significant, as such mentions of anger of the deity are only found in sanctuaries of goddesses. Several of these dedications entrust a stolen or lost item (and even a missing slave: I.Leuk. 53) to the goddess, thus making the theft or loss in essence her problem, and forcing the deity to act to punish a wrongdoer through her own anger. Where dedications display affection, such as in dedications of slaves and children to the goddess, it it notable that those composed by women are considerably more emotional and verbose. In the case of dedications expressing faith, trust in the ability of the god to affect the lives of the dedicators in a positive way is shown: thanks are given for miracles and for helping in specific situations, for instance in the case of a woman having problems with her husband (I.Leuk. 20). Men’s voices are not absent in this sanctuary: a text which describes the delivery of a deed of sale into the arms of the goddess (I.Leuk. 3) expresses piety and emotionality, which is perhaps more common when men are dedicating to goddesses.

A space particularly dominated by female rituals is the sanctuary of Demeter at Knidos, at which strong expressions of piety take the form of deviations from the standard formulae, aiming to emphasise worshippers’ individual devotion as distinct from that of other dedicants. However, the expressions used in prayers for revenge reveal a certain amount of interaction amongst groups of women, and between female worshippers and priests, in discussing their grievances and composing these texts. Concerns include being the victims of injustice (I.Knidos 148B, ll.4-5; 154, l.6), particularly where conflicts cannot be resolved in court because of lack of evidence. In these cases, dedicators turn to prayers of revenge in which curses against perpetrators are common. Chaniotis noted that these texts would have been recited aloud, with women’s voices heard displaying strong emotions. Jealousy, hatred, suspicion, curses and theatrical gestures are all evident as types of female ritual behaviour at this sanctuary.

The dedications at Leukopetra and Knidos concern the displays of emotion that take place during communication with deities. This inevitably unequal conversation necessitates the use of a strategy of persuasion on the part of mortals, who interact with each other as well as with the deities in sanctuaries, particularly at times of festival. The dedications reveal how such gatherings can influence emotions: voices are loud, angry and sometimes sad. Where men are also present at sanctuaries, they express sentiments that they might not otherwise have displayed, an example of such ‘unmanly’ behaviour being their total surrender to the authority of the goddess (Arkesine curse tablet, IG XII.7, p.1). These texts show that religious practices are dynamic processes due to the real interaction among worshippers, including communication of personal experiences to others, and the believed interaction between deities and mortals.

Paper delivered at the BES Spring Colloquium.

The final contribution at the 2009 BES Spring Meeting was remarkable by its conciseness, clarity and interest. It was a striking example of how some of our preconceived ideas on ancient Greek practices can be swiftly turned on their head by inscriptions.

The inscription (SEG LIV 214), dated to the 4^th c. BC, is incomplete and fragmented. The stele fragments were actually discovered by different individuals over a long period of time. This led to some confusion about the original location of the inscription, with the Greek scholars’ hypothesis of its coastal origins being confirmed by the discovery of the most recent fragment in the deme of Aixone (modern Glyfada). The question of the exact location of the inscription is presumably answered by the last fragment. It was found near other inscriptions mentioning their being set up in the sanctuary of Herakleidai, Hebe and Alcmene. The text is stoichedon and beautifully inscribed. The bottom section still shows grid lines for the sculptor to follow.

The text presents several issues discussed by Parker and Scullion. To start with, the question of who had commissioned the inscription is raised by the location of the stone. The sanctuary of the Herakleidai is where the deme of Aixone displayed its decisions. This would hint at the deme as the commissioner, although the possibility of a sub-deme body, such as a genos, cannot be excluded. Indeed, line 26 mentions a hero Paralos and the only known sanctuary to Paralos is in Piraeus, outside of Aixone’s control. This leaves open the possibility of a genos dedicating the stele, or of an as yet unknown sanctuary of Paralos in the deme of Aixone.

The number of priesthoods present here amounts to ten (although some are lost with the top of the inscription) which, with two others known for Aixone, would total to twelve for the whole deme. The text notably features two priesthoods (one priestess and one priest) for the same ‘mystery deity’, the Reverend (ἁγνή) Goddess. This title is usually given to the Syrian goddess and is otherwise not attested before the 2^nd c. BC. This occurrence probably belongs here to a different deity, possibly Persephone. The multiple priesthoods for the same deity are in any case unusual.

Scullion then described the last part of the inscription as changing in nature, since the content of the lists no longer includes double portions (of meat), sausages or cuts to be put on the sacrificial table. There is therefore no spare meat from the sacrifice, which in turn would indicate holocausts. The possible objection to this is the fact that hides are still given to the priest/-ess. There are examples in the Greek world of ‘whole-sacrifices’ of an animal that has been cut open (see for example at Cos, 4^th c. BC, Sokolowski LSCG 151 A 32-5) but the case of Aixone is different. Here the skin is preserved. The only ancient parallels are found outside the Greek world with examples from Leviticus (1:3-9; 7:8), Philo Judaeus (De specialibus legibus 1.30 [151]) and Punic and Semitic inscriptions (CIS I 165.3-4; I 167). This could lead to the conclusion that cutting up the animal before burning it whole was a usual practice, thus explaining the otherwise silent sources on the matter. For one, it would require less wood than the whole un-skinned animal. This undoubtedly challenges the mental image of the holocaust as the act of putting an intact animal, albeit a dead one, into the fire. It is also noted that the deities at Aixone concerned by these sacrifices have a chthonic character.

Parker finally noted that the only deity for whom no sum to purchase kindling is mentioned is Dionysos (lines 9-11). This suggests the possibility of omophagia.