Navigation – Plan du site
Chronique des activités scientifiques

Epigraphic Bulletin for Greek Religion 2005 (EBGR 2005)

Angelos Chaniotis et Joannis Mylonopoulos

Texte intégral

1The 18th issue of the Epigraphic Bulletin for Greek Religion presents a selection of the epigraphic publications of 2005 and many additions to EBGR 2000-2004. Following the practice of the last issues, our emphasis was on the presentation of new corpora and editions of new texts. Various other obligations have prevented us from covering all the relevant publications. They will be summarized in next issues. We regret that for reasons of space and time we cannot present in the EBGR the many epigraphic contributions contained in ThesCRA I-III (2004-2005).

2In this issue we summarize the content of several corpora. In addition to the corpus of the Eleusinian inscriptions (39), which naturally is of the greatest importance for the study of Greek religion, the corpora of the cities of Aegean Thrace (95) and of Pessinous (153) contain significant material. The other corpora summarized in this issue assemble inscriptions from Sicily and Italy (6-7. 51), the Konya Museum (106), Caesarea Maritima (92), Gadara (167), Mesopotamia and the Far East (28), and Ptolemaic Alexandria (14). Among the thematic corpora we single out the important selection of documents treating ‘sacred law’ (97) as well as the corpora of inscriptions concerning the cults of Dionysos (73) and the Egyptian deities (22).

3Among the new finds, the most important is the archive of Argos (87-88). It contains more than 130 documents, which are still in the process of being cleaned and studied, but their editor (C. Kritzas) continually provides information on their content. These texts provide valuable information concerning the day-to-day financial transactions with the sacred money of Hera. Another very important new text is a golden lemella from Pherai (117). It bears some resemblance with the Orphic texts, since its owner, a woman, expected to reach the initiates in the underworld. However, the mystery cult, in which this woman had been initiated, was that of Demeter Chthonia and Meter Oreia, not that of Dionysos. Kos continues to deliver interesting ‘leges sacrae’; four new texts concern the sale of priesthoods (20). Another new find attests for the first time the festival of the Rhomaia in Thebes (79). New inscriptions provide information for hitherto unattested cults and sanctuaries, inter alia an important sanctuary of Apollon in Despotiko near Antiparos (84) and the cults of Zeus Melosios in Naxos (139), Hestia Isthmia in Despotiko (84), and Neikonemesis Soteira and possibly Hestia Pytheie in Maroneia (95). We also note a hitherto unattested sacrificial official in Argos, the κριθοχύτας (88). In addition to a corpus of the Selinuntian defixiones (16) there are several interesting new texts from the field of ancient magic (e.g. 4. 5. 99). We do not systematically collect information from papyri, but we have included in this issue information provided by an ostrakon from Egypt concerning the myth of Kyknos’ children, Tennes and Hemithea (71. 169).

4In the recent issues we have often drawn attention to the importance of religious voca­bulary for the study of interaction and competition among cult, especially in the Imperial period and in Late Antiquity. Among several examples mentioned in this issue (e.g., 15. 92. 112), we single out a Jewish epitaph designating the grave as a heroon (28), thus providing an interesting testimonium for the convergence of the vocabulary of different religious communities.

5The principles explained in Kernos 4 (1991), p. 287-288, and Kernos 7 (1994), p. 287, also apply to this issue. Abbreviations which are not included in the list of abbreviations are those of L’Année Philologique and J.H.M. Strubbe (ed.), Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Consolidated Index for Volumes XXXVI-XLV (1986-1995), Amsterdam, 1999, as well as of later volumes of the SEG. If not otherwise specified, dates are BC. We are very much obliged to Benjamin Gray (All Souls College, Oxford) for improving the English text. The remaining mistakes are ours. [AC]


6Autocélébration des élites M. Cébeillac-Gervasoniet al. (eds), Autocélébration des élites locales dans le monde romain. Contextes, images, textes (iie s. av. J.-C./iiie s. ap. J.-C.), Clermont-Ferrand, 2004.

7Creta romana e protobizantina M. Livadiotti – I. Simiakaki (eds), Creta romana e protobizantina. Atti del Congresso Internazionale (Iraklion, 23-30 settembre 2000), Padova, 2004 [2005].

8Furley-Bremer, Greek Hymns W.D. Furley – J.M. Bremer, Greek Hymns, Tübingen, 2001.

9Greek Mystery Cults M.B. Cosmopoulos (ed.), Greek Mystery Cults: The Archaeology of Ritual in Ancient Greek Secret Cults, London, 2003.

10PilgrimageJ. ElsnerI. Rutherford (eds), Pilgrimage in Graeco-Roman and EarlyChristian Antiquity. Seeing the Gods, Oxford, 2005.

11Prosopographie et histoire religieuse M.-F. Baslez – F. Prévot (eds), Prosopographie et histoire religieuse. Actes du Colloque Paris-XII octobre 2000, Paris, 2005.

Selected Topics [AC]

Geographical areas (in the sequence adopted by SEG)

12Attica, Athens: 23. 33. 54. 59. 70. 75-77. 81-83. 90. 93. 97. 108. 111. 118-119. 124. 144. 146. 149. 163; Brauron: 36. 63; Eleusis: 37-39. 51. 90. 97.118. Peloponnesos: Korinthia: Korinth: 19. Argolis: Argos: 87-88; Nauplion: 123; Tiryns: 97. Epidauria: Epidauros: 62. 81. 110. 122. 141. Lakonia: 40; Sparta: 75. Messenia: Andania: 37; Messene: 156. Arkadia: Lykosoura: 97; Megalopolis: 97. Elis: Olympia: 6-7. 35. 51. Megara: 170. Boiotia: 128; Haliartos: 97; Hyettos: 97; Oropos: 97; Thebes 52. 79; Thespiai: 33. 67. Delphi: 6-8. 33. 51. 76. 91. 95. 130. Thessaly: 1. 68; Azoros: 3; Larisa: 35. 161; Pelinna: 43; Pherai: 117. Epeiros: Dodona: 51.Illyria: Apollonia: 25. Dalmatia: 18. Macedonia: Amphipolis: 81. 97; Beroia: 97; Keletron: 159; Pella: 33; Thessalonike: 160. Thrace: 95. 129; Abdera: 95; Apollonia Pontica: 145; Maroneia: 33. 95; Philippopolis: 143; Plotinopolis: 95; Topeiros: 95; Traianoupolis: 95. Moesia: Histria: 10; Kallatis: 10. North Shore of the Black Sea: 138; Chersonesos: 97; Olbia: 65. Pannonia: 41. 47. Delos: 13. 39. 49. 75. 112. 158. 168. Rhodes: 57; Lindos: 97. Kos: 20. 72. 81. 97. Kalymna: 20. Naxos: 139.Paros: 85. Despotiko: 84. Andros: 155. Samos: 97. Chios: 97. Samothrake: 20. 86. 95. Thasos: 97. 142. Euboia: Chalkis: 75; Eretria: 21. 78. 116. Crete: Eleutherna: 97; Gortyn: 48. 133; Lebena: 27. 48. 62; Lissos: 97; Palaikastro: 33. 86. Italy: 6-7. 50. Elea: 7; Himera: 6; Kroton: 7. 51; Kyme: 6; Lokroi: 7; Metapontion: 50-51; Ostia: 94; Pithekousai: 6; Poseidonia: 50-51; Puteoli: 26; Rhegion: 6. 42; Rome: 4; Siris: 7; Sybaris: 51; Taras: 7; Thourioi: 7. Sicily: 6-7. 50. 100; Akragas: 50; Akrai: 100; Gela: 102. 105; Leontinoi: 6. 101. 132; Megara Hyblaia: 97; Nakone: 97; Selinous: 8. 16. 50. 97. 99. 163; Syracuse: 7. 50. 103. 130; Zankle: 6. Asia Minor: 97. 127. Karia: 45; Aphrodisias: 75; Panamara: 31; Stratonikeia: 30-31. 75. 113.Ionia: Didyma: 28; Ephesos: 154; Eryhrai: 33; Klaros: 56; Miletos: 104. Lydia: 98. 120; Hypaipa: 131; Maionia: 33. Aiolis: Kyme: 126. Mysia: Lampsakos: 129; Pergamon: 80. Pontos: Amaseia: 58; Amisos: 137; Herakleia: 75; Neokaisareia: 33; Sinope: 135. Phrygia: 98; Pessinous: 153. Lykia: 53. Lykaonia: 106; Ikonion: 106.Kappadokia: 46. Cyprus: Paphos: 89.Syria, Palaestina: 60; Antiocheia on the Orontes: 89; Caesarea Maritima: 92; Doura-Europos: 162; Gadara: 167; Gerasa: 3; Jaffa: 96; Jerusalem: 96. Laodikeia-by-the-Sea: 148; Palmyra: 162; Tiberias: 5; Zeugma: 11. Arabia: 2; Philippopolis: 44. Mesopotamia and the Far East: 28. Egypt: 24. 61. 157; Alexandria: 15; Philai: 33. North Africa: Thapsos: 12.

Subject Index

13acclamation: 11. 14. 154

14account: 39

15adoption: 107

16aesthetic in religion: 20. 39. 97

17afterlife: 23. 29. 92. 117. 121. 147; cf. death, funerary cult, Greek words

18agon: see festival

19altar: 7. 15. 28. 39. 60. 68. 95. 113. 122. 168

20amphictyony, Delian: 39; Delphic: 91; Ionian: 86

21amulet: 5. 41-42. 74. 105. 164; cf. phylactery

22anatomical dedication: 39. 77

23angel: 42. 98

24animals: eagle: 95; goat: 97; lion: 106; ox: 20; sheep: 20

25Apollonios of Tyana: 48

26apotropaic cult, text: 28. 102

27aretalogy: 22. 33. 95

28argoi lithoi: 50

29army: 28; dedications by soldiers: 13. 28. 34. 106. 167; sacrifices by officers: 39

30association, cult: 15. 20. 22. 39. 73. 85. 95. 97-98. 106. 112. 120. 126. 145. 153

31Asoka: 28

32asylia: 81

33baetyl: 167

34banquet: 88. 119; cf. feast

35benediction: 11

36birthday: 28. 55

37booty: 28

38burial, prohibition of: 6; grave precinct of association: 20; cf. funerary cult

39calendar: 20. 25. 28. 30. 87. 95

40cave: 28. 60; artificial: 73

41chorus, choral performance: 86

42Christianity: 2. 42. 92. 120 (Montanists). 127. 153

43chthonic cult: 57

44cippus: 7

45clothes: 36. 97

46communication, between mortals and gods: 69

47confession inscription: 96. 121

48crowning: 28

49cult, administration: 70; endowment: 39; foreign influence on: 45; founder: 45-46. 153; funding: 39. 90. 95. 97. 108; introduction: 20. 28. 81. 90; of mortals: 68 (Agrippa). 106; cf. chthonic cult, deification, emperor, ruler cult

50cult, objects: 7. 20. 39. 88. 90; funded with fines: 20; funded with sacred money: 138; cf. argoi lithoi, baetyl, statue

51cult personnel: agonothetes: 15. 20. 28. 39. 143. 153; archiereia, Hellenistic: 28; archiereus: 95; Hellenistic: 58; of Imperial cult, in city: 39; in province/koinon: 39. 53. 143. 153; archiereia: 28. 39; archigallos: 126. 153; athlophoros 15; athlothetes: 88; bouzyges: 39; dadouchos: 38-39; epimeletes pompes: 39; epistates: 39; exegetes: 39; exegetes pythochrestos: 39; hiereia: 95. 97; hiereus: 15. 20. 39. 45. 56. 60. 75. 95-97. 106. 146. 153-154; hierokeryx: 39. 95. 167; hieromnemon: 28. 39. 88. 91; hierophantes: 37. 39; hierophantis: 39; hierophylax: 20; hieropolos 15; hieros: 51; hydrophoros: 104; Iakchagogos: 39; kanephoros: 15; keryx: 39; kleidouchos: 39; krithochytes: 88; neokoros: 95; phaidyntes: 39; pontarches: 10; prophetes: 104; pyrphoros 39; sebastophantes: 153; sebastophoros: 153; spondophoros: 39; thytes: 95; trierarches: 95; zakoros: 39

52curse: 6. 39. 116; cf. defixio, funerary imprecation

53death: 29. 39. 147. 167; cf. afterlife, funerary cult

54decoration: 90

55dedication: 50. 77. 82. 95. 130; anatomical: 39. 77; argoi lithoi: 50; astragalos: 28; axe: 51; baetyl: 167; clothes: 36; coin: 7. 51; helmet: 7; mirror: 7; person: 107; slave: 28; statue: 15. 21. 49; thymiaterion 95; tithe of property: 6. 130; war booty: 6-7; cf. first-fruit

56dedication, control: 148; destruction: 39; in commemoration of athletic victory: 6. 39. 51. 85; taken as booty: 28; in accordnance with divine command: 113. 124; after a dream: 95. 112; in accordance with an oracle: 28; for the well-being of a king/emperor: 15. 28. 60. 167; for the well-being of an officer: 28

57dedication, by ephebes: 15; by family members: 51; by foreigners: 13; by kings: 15; by magistrates: 13. 165; by priests: 15. 39. 106. 146; by soldiers: 13. 28. 34. 106. 167; by women: 36

58defixio: 6. 8. 16. 33. 51. 74. 99. 125. 128; cf. curse

59deification: 106

60deities: Agathe Tyche: 90.Aion: 39. Alektrone : 81. Amphiaraos: 90. 97. Aphrodite: 2-3. 7. 15. 20. 39. 51. 67. 81. 90. 95. 100. 160. 165; Basilis 7; Epekoos 60; Epistasie 165; Euploia 165; Hagne 165; Hegemone 165; Hypakoos 165; Me(i)lichia 50-51; Nauarchis 165; Nomophylakis 165; Pandemos 165; Paphia 165; Stratagis 165; Strateia 165; Synarchis 165; Timouchos 165. Apollon: 3. 6-8. 13. 15. 19. 21. 28. 39-40. 49-51. 66. 78. 81. 84. 97. 101. 106. 130; Daittes28; Delios 20; Epekoos 106; Kerdoios 161; Kersenos 95; Lykaios 50; Lykeios 51; Patroios 39; Poenos 95; Pythios 143; Sirenos 95; Sozon 95. Ares: 2. 28. 106. 138. Artemis: 3. 21. 28. 36. 39. 90. 100. 106. 131. 156. 160. Agratera 7; Agrotera 39; Brauronia 90;Daitta 28; Limnatis 156; Mounichia 90; Pythie 104; Soteira 28. Asklepios: 3. 15. 20. 27. 33. 39. 62. 72. 77. 81. 90. 92. 95. 97. 160; Soter 153.Athena: 4. 6. 39. 41. 51. 95. 160; Aigidia 50; Basileia 28; Hippia 124; Hygieia 51. 93; Ilias 35; Itonia 90. 161; Nikephoros 80; Pallas 87-88; Parthenos 31; Polias 39. 80. 103; Promachos 166; Soteira 90. Charites: 39.Cheiron: 51. Daphne­phoros: 39. Demeter: 3. 15. 30. 37. 39. 51. 90. 95. 160; Chthonia 117; Karpophoros 153; Patroia 106.Demon: 6. Demos: 39. 168. Despoina: 97.Dikaiosyne: 15. 39. Dionysos: 6. 39. 51. 73. 81. 90. 95. 124. 134. 145. 160. 170; Eleuthereus 39; Lenaios 39. Dios­kouroi: 28. 101. 106. 132; Soteres 28. Eileithyia: 32. 97. En(n)odia: 15; Ilias 35; Patroa 35; Strogika 35. Epione: 20. Eros: 33. 67. Eubouleus: 39. Gaia/Ge: 7. 52; Meter Olybris 28; Despoina 28. Hebros: 95. Hekate: 74. Helios: 3. 28; Kathemerinos 113?. Hera: 3. 6. 50-51. 87-88. 132; Eleutheria 51; Lakinia 51; Teleia 15; Thelxine 7. Herakles: 3. 6-7. 15. 28. 39. 51. 66. 78. 97. 102. 140. 160. 167; Archegetes 66; Epekoos 124. 153; Kallinikos 28. Hermes: 15. 28. 51. 59. 66. 97. 142. 160; Enagonios 20; Megas 142?. Heron: 95. Hestia: 28. 75. 95. 103. 168; Boulaia 75; Isthmia 84; Kyllenios 154; Pantheos 15; Pytheie 95?.
Hygieia: 39. 93. 95.Homonoia: 20. Hosios (kai) Dikaios: 98. 106. Hygieia: 20. Iakchos: 39. Kabeiros: 160. Kore: 15. 39. 51-52. 90. 95. 100. 106; cf. Persephone. Korybantes: 160. Kourotrophos: 39.Leto: 3. 21; Meter 98. Ma: 28. 46. Machaon: 95. Mes: 106; Ouranios 106. Meter: 106; Leto 98; Megale 106. 156; Oreia 117; Theon 39. 106. 153; Theon Boiotia 39; cf. Ge. Moirai: 39. Muses: 12. 95. Neikonemesis: 95. Nemesis: 95. 153. 160. Nike: 95. Nymphs: 51. 81. 108. 167. Opaon: 89. Pan:97. Patris: 167. Periesto: 95. Persephone: 7. 16; cf. Kore. Plouton: 39. 41. 106. Podaleirios: 95.Pompaios: 7. Poseidon: 3. 28. 45. 95. 103. 106. 160; Asphaleios 7. 28; Erechtheus 39; Karpodotes 12. Priapos: 129. Rhoites: 95. Rhome (Dea Roma): 79. 95. 160. Synkletos Rhomaion: 39. Thea: 39; Hagne 16; Kale en Pandois 15; Neotera 39; Ourania 66. Theai: Megalai 7; Semnai 163. Theoi: 15; Athanatoi 106; Dodeka 90; Megaloi 20; Pantes 6. 15. 95. 106 (Pantheon). Theos: 39;apo Thymnason 46; Hypsistos: 14-15. 95. 106. 112. 133. 135. 153. 158. Triptolemos: 39. Tyche: 106. 160. Zephyros: 7. Zeus: 3. 11. 39. 45. 51. 80. 86. 95. 106. 155-156. 163; Agoraios 51; Athenaios 7; Basileus 28; Boulaios 39; Dolichenos 92; Eleutherios 95; Epekoos 95; Epouranios 66; Eubouleus 139; Hellenios 7; Hikesios 51; Hypatos 7; Hypsistos 95. 160; Idaios 48; Karios 45; Kataibates 94; Keraios 167; Labraundos 45. 113; Maimaktes 139; Megas 12; Megistos 28. 106; Meilichios 51. 57; Melosios 139; Olympios 6-7. 15. 28. 39. 51. 103. 139; Ourios 129; Paisoulenos 95; 28. 90; Phratrios 146; Soter 106. 13; Stratios 45. 139; Synomosios 15; Xeinos 50-51; Zbelthiourdos 95. Zenoposeidon: 45.

61deities, Anatolian: 46. 106; Agdistis: 106; Attis: 153; Kaion Mandros: 126; Kybele: 126. 153. 160; Egyptian: 15. 22. 24. 28. 33. 39. 61. 92. 95. 97. 148. 160; Iranian: Anahita: 46; Mes: 106; ZeusPharnaoua; Oriental: Atargatis: 28; Zeus Dolichenos: 64; Mithras: 66. 160; Oxos: 28; Thea Nanaia: 28; Thea Nesepteitis: 66; Theos Armenios: 64; Theos Aumou: 44; Zeus Marealles: 28; Roman: Epona: 160; Sol Invictus: 160

62deities, assimilation of Greek and indiginous: 28 (Zeus Olympios Marealles). 45 (Zeus Karios). 60 (Aphrodite); assimilation of Greek and Roman: 12; concept of: 28; impersonated by priests: 37; polyonymy: 28; priesthood occupied by d.: 95; tribes named after d.: 3

63deities, patrons of fertility: 133; of magistrates: 95. 165; of sailors: 84. 129; of shepherds: 139; of traders: 154; of young people: 139; of weather: 139

64Derveni papyrus: 65. 134

65devotion: 13

66Dionysiac artists: 39

67disease: 5. 39

68divination: 6; cf. oracle

69dramatic performances in cult: 37

70dream: 95. 112

71dress, of priest: 20; cf. clothes

72Eleusinian cult: 37. 39. 90. 118

73elite: 76. 91. 104. 118. 127. 162

74envy: 123

75emperor, cult: 10. 32. 39. 53. 92. 95. 106. 153; emperor identified with god: Augustus Zeus Boulaios: 39; Hadrian Helios: 3; cf. Iulia Eileithyia: 32

76ephebes, participation in festivals: 70

77Epicureans: 121. 147

78Epimenides: 48. 163

79eschatology: 65

80exaltation of deity: 14

81epiphany: 37

82exclusion: 54

83family traditions, in cultic services: 76. 91. 104. 118. 153. 162

84feast: 54; cf. banquet

85festival, agon: 28. 70. 100. 109. 150-152; of demes: 70; in gymnasion: 43; funding of 3; competition among: 150; pantomimes in: 151; thanksgiving: 28

86festivals, agons: in Thessaly 1; Agrionia: 79 (Thebes); agon Minervae: 166 (Rome); Aktia: 150; Aleaia: 156; Alexandreia: 55; Alexandria Pythia: 143 (Philippopolis); Anthesteria: 70 (Athens); Apatouria: 39; Asklepieia 20 (Kos). 39 (Athens); Aspis: 88 (Argos); Chloia: 39 (Athens); Delia: 39 (Athens); Dionysia: 39. 144 (Athens). 95 (Abdera); Dipolieia: 90 (Athens); Eleusinia: 39. 156 (Athens); Eleutheria: 1 (Larisa); Haloia: 39 (Athens); Hekatomboua: 88 (Argos); Hephaisteia: 144; Heraia: 88 (Argos); Herakleia: 79 (Thebes); Hermaia: 39 (Athens); Isthmia: 6; Kaisareia Sebasta 39 (Athens); Kalamaia: 39 (Athens); Kapitolia 26. 150 (Rome); Lykaia: 156; Nemea: 6. 39. 150; Neronia: 150; Nikephoria: 80. 109. 150 (Pergamon); Olympia: 6. 156 (Olympia). 39 (Athens). 152 (Alexandria). 150 (of Sulla); Panathenaia: 39. 90. 124. 144; Panathenaia Sebasta: 39; Prometheia: 144; Ptoa: 97; Pythais: 76. 90. 118; Pythia: 6 (Delphi); Rhomaia 20 (Kos). 79 (Thebes); Sarapieia 22 (Tanagra); Sebasta: 150-151 (Neapolis); Soteria: 95 (Delphi). 150 (Bithynia); Thargelia: 144; of Thracian Koinon: 143

87fine, paid to sanctuary: 7. 20. 39

88fire: 126

89first-fruit: 39

90fountain: 31

91funerary cult: 6. 29. 46. 95. 97. 106. 114. 120. 153; funerary foundation: 46; funeral games: 6; funerary imprecation: 33. 95. 106. 112. 153; protection of grave: 131. 153; cf. burial

92gem: 47. 164

93gestures: see hands

94gladiators: 1. 95

95grove: 28

96gymnasion: 1. 20. 28. 97

97hand, dedicatory: 64; raised: 28. 156

98healing: 5-6. 39. 62. 81. 95. 110

99heroic cult: 18 (Diomedes). 39 (Theseus). 95 (Heros Mesopolites Epenor). 95 (Maron). 129 (Ηeros Stomianos). 137 (Achilleus). 160 (Aineias, Heros Aulonites)

100Homer: 2. 12

101hymn: 28. 33. 81. 86. 95

102identity: 54

103impersonation of gods: 37

104inauguration in office: 20

105incense-burner: 39

106inclusion: 54

107initiation: 6. 20. 39; of Roman emperors: 39; cf. mystery

108integration, through religion: 13

109interaction between religious communities: 15

110inventory: 7. 13. 36. 39. 51. 82-83. 153

111invocation: 7. 42. 154

112Jews: 15. 28. 92. 95. 112. 158; participation in pagan cults: 112

113Julian: 48

114justice, divine: 121. 147; prayer for: 28. 153

115land, sacred: 39. 90. 156

116Late Antiquity: 66. 127

117laurel: 20

118‘lex sacra’: 6. 20. 22. 39. 69. 81. 90. 97. 108. 115. 163

119libation: 7

120light: 37

121magic: 4. 47. 61. 125; use of formularies: 74; magical papyri: 125; cf. amulet, curse, defixio, phylactery

122manumission, sacred: 22. 28. 51. 112

123metrical texts, as ‘voice’ of the dead and the gods: 29

124miracle, healing: 62

125Mithraic mysteries: 66

126money, sacred: used for the purchase of victim: 20

127monotheism: 14

128morality: 2

129Mycenaean religion: 52

130mysteries, Andania: 37; Dionysiac: 6. 134; Egyptian: 22; Eleusinian: 37. 39. 118; Kybele: 153; Mithras: 66; Samothrake: 86

131myth: 1-2. 11. 71 (Kyknos). 81. 132. 137. 156 (Amazonion). 169 (Kyknos); used by Christians: 92. 137

132name, secrecy of: 39 (hierophantes)

133number, symbolism: 46

134oath: 51. 96. 103. 116

135oracle: 8. 28. 51. 56. 97; cf. divination

136orality: 39

137Orpheus: 12

138Orphics: 65. 114. 134

139personification: 2. 7 (Olympios Kairos); cf. deities (Dikaiosyne, Homonoia, Patris, Syn­kletos)

140phallus, on altar: 95

141philosophy: 121. 147

142phylactery: 4. 63. 164

143piety: 39

144pilgrimage: 9. 48. 56. 76 (Pythais). 118 (Pyhais). 136. 141; cf. theoria

145Plato: 65

146politics and religion: 9. 20. 45. 49. 130. 153

147prayer: 33. 39. 116; p. for justice: 28. 33

148priests: 24. 39. 56. 162; age limit: 20; consecration: 20; couples of: 20; deity serving as priest: 95; dress: 20; duties: 20. 97; eponymous: 15. 95; families of: 38-39. 106; privileges: 20. 24. 97

149priesthood, lifetime: 20. 39. 106; sale of: 20. 55

150procession: 39. 76. 81. 119

151proskynema: 33; cf. pilgrimage

152punishment, divine: 46

153purification: 97. 163

154purity: 97

155Pythais: 76. 90

156reciprocity: 69

157rescue: 28

158rider god: 106. 160

159rituals: 14; nuptial: 31; Ploiaphesia: 95; reception of guest: 119; cf. aesthetic, banquet, burial, dramatic performance, exclusion, libation, oath, pilgrimage, procession, purification, sacrifice, supplication, wedding

160river god: see deities (Oxos, Hebros, Rhoites)

161ruler cult, Alexander: 55; Hellenistic: 15. 20. 28. 39. 81. 95-96; Philip II: 95?; cf. emperor

162sacrifice: 20. 39. 51. 81. 86. 97. 119; budget: 95; confirmation of: 20; thanksgiving: 28; upon inauguration in office: 20

163sacrificial animal: 20; examination: 20; price: 20; purchased with sacred money: 20; share in: 28. 39

164sacrificial cake: 43

165sacrificial calendar: 70. 97

166sacrificial table: 20

167sacrilege: 39. 82

168sanctuary: 39; access: 97; boundary stone: 39. 51. 95. 139; building activities: 39. 88; finances: 39. 87-88. 138; privileges: 153; recipient of fine: 131; relocation 28; sacred property: 6. 39; shops in s.: 97; social functions: 72; trees: 124; cf. account, asylia, fine, land

169society and religion; cf. army, elite, exclusion, identity, inclusion, integration, women

170statues, carrying of: 37. 153; cult statue: 88. 167; repairs of cult statue: 90

171supplication: 97. 110-111

172temple, conversion: 127; opening of: 119

173theogony: 134

174theological concepts: 39 (aion)

175theoria, theoros: 13. 20. 86. 110. 141. 149. 161; cf. pilgrimage

176theosebeis: 133

177virgin: 31

178vocabulary, religious: convergence of: 28. 92. 112

179vow: 6. 12. 28. 51. 106. 120. 143. 153

180water: 31. 108

181wedding: 106

182wine consumption: 97

183women: 67. 126; dedications: 36; Dionysiac cults: 73; girls as hydrophoroi: 104; in agons 1

184wreath: 20

185writing: 69

Greek words (a selection)

186acclamation, invocation: ἐνεύχομαι 106. 112; ἐπεύχομαι 106; εἷς Θεός 92. 112; εἷς Θεός, βοήθει 92; εὐτύχει 154; κύριος βοηθός 92

187afterlife: ἡρωΐς 39. 95. 106; ἥρως 95. 124. 153; θεοῖς καταχθονίοις 95; καταχθόνιοι 1056; νῆσος μακάρων 39; ἦλθε πρὸς ἀθανάτους 39

188associations: ἀρχιβουκόλος 95; θίασος 20. 73. 120; θεραπευταὶ τοῦ θεοῦ 95; θιασώτης 39; κοινόν 73. 85; Ὁμονοϊσταί 20; σπεῖρα 73; συνμύσται 95; σύνοδος 73. 95. 153; Σωτηριασταί 85; φράτρα 106

189cult personnel: παναγής 39; ἐπὶ βωμῷ 39

190curses: ἀπεστραμένα (γλῶσσα) 16; ἀτέλεστα 16; ἀφαιρετὸν αὐτοῦ τὸ μέρος τὸ ἐπουράνιον 120; γλῶσσα ἀπεστραμένα 16; δώσει λόγον τῷ θεῷ 106. 153; δώσει λόγον τῶν Θεῷ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως 153; ἐνορκίζω τοὺς καταχθονίους 106; ἐνορκῶ τρὶς ἐννέα Μῆνας καταχθονίους 106; ἕξει Μῆνα καταχθόνιον κεχωλομένον 106; ἐπ᾿ ἀτελείᾳ 16; ἐπ᾿ ἐξωλείᾳ 16; ἔσται αὐτῷ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν 120; ἔχει δὲ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν 153; καταγράφω 16; κατάραις ὑποκείσεται θεῷ Διί 106; κεχωλομένον ἔχοιτο Μῆνα καταχθόνιον 106; λοιμὸς αὐτὸν ἄροιτο 95; μὴ γίνεσθαι αὐτῶν ὄνηριν μηδὲ τέρψιν 116; ὀρφανὰ τέκνα λίποιτο 106; ὀρφανὰ τέκνα λίποιτο, χῆρον βίον, οἶκον ἔρημον 106; ὑποκείσεται τῷ ἔθει πρὸς τὸν Δία 153

191dedications: ἄγαλμα 39; ἀέθλων δεκάτα 51; ἀντ᾿ ἔργων 39; ἀναφέρω 106; ἀποδίδωμι εὐχήν 34; δεκάτη 28. 50-51. 130; δῶρον 18. 51; ἐξάγιστον 82; ἔργων δεκάτα 51; εὐξάμενος 39. 51. 92. 95; εὐτυχῶς 92; εὐχαριστήριον 95. 113; εὐχήν 12. 15. 28. 39. 95. 106. 153; εὐχῆς χάριν 64; εὐχολά 7; ἱερός/ά 7; καθιερόω 106; καθιέρωσις 39; κατὰ κέλευσιν 124; κατ᾿ ἐπιταγήν 106; κατ᾿ εὐχήν 28. 120; κατ᾿ ὄναρ 39. 95; κατὰ πρόσταγμα 15. 95. 113; κεχαρισμένα 28; κοσμέω 15; ὁμονοίας ἕνεκα 39; πελανός 130; σωθέντες 28; ὑπὲρ ἑαυτῆς καὶ τῶν τέκνων καὶ τῶν θρεμμάτων 39; ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ θρεμμάτων καὶ τῶν ἰδίων 95; ὑπὲρ τῆς ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίας 98; ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας 28. 34. 92; ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας Καίσαρος καὶ τῶν τὰ ἀληθῆ καὶ συμφέροντα λεγόντων καὶ ποιούντων τῇ πόλει 167; ὑπὲρ τέκνων 106; ὑπὲρ τῶν ἰδίων πάντων 106; ὑπὲρ τῶν τετραπόδων πάντων 106; φιλίας χάριν 39; χαριστήριον 39. 95

192epithets: ἀγλαός 51 (Zeus); ἁγνή 165 (Aphrodite); ἀγοραῖος 51 (Zeus); ἀθάνατος 106 (Theoi); αἰγιδία 50 (Athena); ἁγνή 16 (Thea); ἀγρατέρα 7 (Artemis); ἀγροτέρα 39 (Artemis); ἀρχηγέτης 66 (Herakles); ἀσφάλειος 7. 28 (Poseidon); βασίλεια 28 (Athena); βασιλεύς 28 (Zeus); βασιλίς 7 (Aphrodite?); δέσποινα 28 (Ge Meter Olybris); δεσπότης 92; ἐλευθερία 51 (Hera); ἐλευθέριος 95 (Ζeus); ἑλλήνιος 7; ἐναγώνιος 20 (Hermes); ἐνφανέστατος θεῶν 106 (Antoninus Pius); ἐξακεστήριος 7; ἐπήκοος 15. 28. 60 (Aphrodite). 106 (Apollon). 124. 153 (Herakles). 153 (Meter Theon). 64 (Theos Armenios). 95 (Theos Megas). 112 (Theos Hypsistos). 95 (Zeus); ἐπιστασίη 165 (Aphrodite); ἐπουράνιος 66 (Zeus); ἐρισθενής 28 (Zeus); εὐβουλεύς 139 (Zeus); εὐλογητός 112 (Theos Hypsistos); εὔπλοια 165 (Aphrodite); ἡγεμόνη 165 (Aphrodite); θελξίνη 7 (Hera); ἱκέσιος 51 (Zeus); ἱππία 124 (Athena); καθημερινός 113 (Helios?); καλή 15; καλλίνικος 28 (Herakles); καλλίτεκνος 32 (Iulia); καρποδότης 12 (Poseidon); καρποφόρος 153 (Demeter); κερδῷος 161 (Apollon); κύριος/κυρία 95 (Apollon, Hebros). 167 (Patris). 11 (Zeus). 15; μαιμάκτης 139 (Zeus); μέγας/μεγάλη 142 (Hermes). 153 (Kybele). 106. 156 (Meter). 7 (Theai). 153 (Theos Hypsistos). 12 (Zeus). 15. 20. 47. 92; μέγιστος/η 15 (Isis); 28. 106 (Zeus); μειλίχιος 51. 57 (Zeus); με(ι)λιχία 50-51 (Aphrodite); μηλώσιος 139 (Zeus); ναυαρχίς 165 (Aphrodite); νεωτέρα 39; νομοφυλακίς 165 (Aphrodite); ξεῖνος 50 (Zeus); ὄριος 7 (Zeus); οὐρανία 66; oὐράνιος 106 (Mes); οὔριος 129 (Zeus); πάνδημος 165 (Aphrodite); πάνθεος 15 (Hestia); παντοκράτωρ 112 (Τheos Hypsistos); παντόπτης 28 (Apollon); παρθένος 31 (Athena); πατρῴα 35 (Ennodia). 106 (Demeter); πατρῷος 39 (Apollon). 44 (Theos Aumou); στραταγίς 165 (Aphrodite); στρατία 165 (Aphrodite); στράτιος 45. 139 (Zeus); στρογικά 35 (Ennodia); συναρχίς 165 (Aphrodite); συνωμόσιος 15 (Zeus); σώζων / σώζουσα 15 (Isis). 95 (Apollon Kersenos). 106; σωτήρ / σώτειρα 28 (Artemis); 153 (Asklepios); 90 (Athena); 28 (Dioskouroi); 74 (Hekate); 6. 15. 28. 90. 106. 139 (Zeus); 39; 15. 28. 106; τανύπεπλος 39 (Demeter); τελεία 15 (Hera); τιμοῦχος 165 (Aphrodite); ὑπάκοος 165 (Aphrodite); ὕπατος 7 (Zeus). 28 (Apollon); ὕψιστος 95. 160 (Zeus); φράτριος 146 (Zeus); χθονία 117 (Demeter)

193funerary cult: ἆθλα 6; ἐνκτερίζω 153

194magic: Αβγαλμισακιακω 47; αβλαναθα­ναλβα 4. 41; Αβρασαξ 47; ἄγγελος 42; Ἀδωναϊ 4. 47. 74; γιγαντορεκτα 164; δαίμων 42; Δαμναμενεους 4; Ελοε 4; ελωαι 47; Ἰαω 4. 41. 47. 164; νικαροπληξ 164; οροριουθ 164; πληξ 47; Σαβαωθ 4. 47. 74; σεμεισυλαν 164; σεμεσιλαμ 74; σεμεσιλαψ 164; Φνεβεννουθ 61; Χνουβις 164; Χνουμις 164; Ψνεβεννου 61

195mystery cults: ἅλαδε ἔλευσις 39; ἀμύατος 20; ἀνάκτορον 39; ἄντρον 73; ἄρρητος θησαυρός 39; ἀρχιβασσάρα 145; ἄχραντα θέσμια 39; βάκχος 134; βεβαχχευμένος 6; βουκόλος 145; θίασος 117; κισταφόρος 145; κρατηρίαρχος 145; λικναφόρος 145; μάγαρον 95; μέγαρον 39; μυστήριον 39. 153; μύστης 39. 117; μυστιπόλος 47; μυστιπόλος δάς 39; μυχός 73; νεόβακχος 134; ὄργια 39. 117; πατήρ 66; στέμμα 39; συνμύσται 95. 153; τελετή 39. 66; τέλη 117; φαίνω ὄργια 39

196piety: ὁσιόω 28; σέβας 28

197prayer: λιτανεύω 28

198rituals: ἀντιφωνέω 20; ἀπαρχή 39; κόσμος 39; πανήγυρις 39; τελετὰ τοῦ ἱερέως καὶ τᾶς ἱερείας 20; χαριστήρια 28

199sacrifice: ἄρταμος 51; βοϊκόν 20; ἱερεῖον 20; ἱερόθυτον; 28; κριθοχύτας 88; προθύματα 39; σωτήρια, τά 39; τέλειον 20; τράπεζα 20

200sanctuaries, buildings: αὐλή 39; βῆμα 167; ἱερὸς τόπος 15; κρηπίς 44; μαγειρεῖον 106; οἶκος 39; πρόναον, τό 39; τέμενος 30

201varia: ἀρετή 95; γέρη 20; θέμις 6


2021) V. Adrymiet al., Ἀγῶνες καὶ ἀθλήματα στὴν ἀρχαία Θεσσαλία, Athens, 2004 [SEG LIV 546]: This volume was published in connection with an exhibition concerning sport and athletic games in Thessaly. The articles present an overview of these subjects (representation of contests in myths, Thessalian contests, Thessalian athletes in Panhellenic contests, gladiato­rial events, prizes, eating habits of athletes; p. 11-99). The catalogue of the exhibition includes several agonistic inscriptions and documents concerning agonistic festivals and the gymnasion. We only mention two unpublished texts, which are briefly presented by A. Tziafalias (photos, no texts). A catalogue of the victors at the Eleutheria in Larisa (26, 2nd cent.; SEG LIV 559) mentions competitions of heralds, bull-hunting, and an equestrian event. A similar catalogue (24, 1st cent.; SEG LIV 560) mentions competitions in pan­kration, armed-race, and equestrian events; the winners include a few foreigners and a woman. [Cf. infra no 43]. [AC]

2032) G. Agosti, “Due note sulla convenienza di Omero”, in A. Marcone (ed.), Società e cultura in età tardoantica. Atti dell’incontro di studi, Udine 29-30 maggio 2003, Florence, 2004, p. 38-57 [SEG LIV 1702, 1708]: A. studies a mosaic from Philippopolis in Arabia (325-350 CE) representing Ares, Aphrodite, and personifications alluding to the episode narrated at Odyssey VIII, 285-295. By adding a representation of Εὐπρέπεια, the educated owner of the house proposed a favourabe moral interpretation of this episode, perhaps in conscious opposition to its negative interpretation by the Christians. Euprepeia occurs in other late mosaics, e.g. in connection with Achilles (Madaba, c. 500 CE) and with Meleager and Atalante (Xanthos, 5th cent. CE). [AC]

2043) S. Agusta-Boularot – J. Seigne – A. Majalli, “‘La vie civique de Gerasa de la Décapole. L’apport des inscriptions du “théâtre” Nord de Jerash (Jordanie)”, MEFRA 116 (2004), p. 484-522 [BE 2006, 485; SEG LIV 1689, 1691]: Ed. pr. of a building inscription recording the dedication of the theatre of Gerasa (165/6 CE; p. 388-514 no 2). The construction was funded with endowed money as well as with funds described as ἀπὸ ἀγώνων καὶ ἄ[λλων?] δημοσίων χρημάτων. The editors interpret these funds as revenues from contests. [P.-L. Gatier, AE 2004, 1592 and BE 2006, 485, suspects the existence of a foundation created for the funding of contests. This is more probable. It is possible that the city used for this purpose money originally intended to be used for money prizes. This practice is castigated by Hadrian in his letters to the Dionysiac technitai (G. Petzl – E. Schwertheim, Hadrian und die dionysischen Künstler. Drei in Alexandria Troas neugefundene Briefe des Kaisers an die Künstler-Vereinigung, Bonn, 2006).] The authors also mention the names of tribes inscribed on the steps of the cavea of the theatre, as seat reservations (p. 523-536; late 2nd cent. CE). The twelve tribes were named after deities (Aphrodite, Apollon, Artemis, Asklepios, Athena, Demeter, Hadrian Helios, Hera, Herakles, Leto, Poseidon, Zeus; φυλὴ Διός et sim.) The association of Hadrian with Helios was based on word play (Ailios-Helios) or another symbolism. [AC]

2054) M.G. Amadasi – G. Bevilacqua, “Filatterio greco-aramaico da Roma”, Mediterraneo antico 7.2 (2004), p. 711-725 [SEG LIV 975]: Ed. pr. of a silver leaf from Rome (5th cent. CE) inscribed in Greek and Aramaic. Originally the leaf, a phylactery, was rolled up and kept in a bronze box. The Greek text is very similar to another Greek/Aramaic phylactery from Tell el-Amarna (SEG XLII 1582), and it may have been imported to Rome from abroad. The text consists of sequences of the seven vowels, magical characters, magical words (Αβλαναθα­ναλβα), and names (Δαμναμενεους, Ἀδωναϊ, Ελοε, Σαβαωθ, Ἰαω). [AC]

2065) N. Amitai-Preiss, “Glass and metal finds”, in Y. Hirschfeld, Excavations at Tiberias, 1989-1994, Jerusalem, 2004, p. 177-190 [SEG LIV 1681]: Ed. pr. of a hematite amulet believed to offer protection against lumbago (σχίων, sc. ἰσχίων; ‘for the hips’; Tiberias, 2nd/3rd cent.; p. 188). [AC]

2076) R. Arena, Iscrizioni greche ar­caiche di Sicilia e Magna GreciaIII. Iscrizioni delle colonie euboiche, Pisa, 1994 [SEG XLIV 740]: With great delay we summarize the content of this collection of Archaic inscriptions from the Euboian colonies in Italy and Sicily. Pithekousai: The famous ‘Nestor’s cup’ (2). Kyme: A ‘lex sacra’ forbids the burial of persons who have not been initiated in the Dionysiac mysteries in a specific burial ground (οὐ θέμις ἐνταῦθα κεῖσθαι μὲ τὸν βεβαχχευμένον; 15, c. 450). An inscription on a bronze disc forbids divina­tion (hέρε οὐκ ἐᾶι ἐπιμαντεύεσθαι; 26, c. 500). A graffito on a vase curses with blindness anyone who attempts to steel the vase (hος δ᾿ ἄν με κλέφσει θυφλὸς ἔσται; 16, c. 675-650). A graffito designates a vase as property of Hera (18, 6th cent.); another bronze vase is designated as property of Demon (28, c. 450). A bronze cauldron was set up as a prize in the funeral games of Onomastos (27, ἐπὶ τοῖ Ὀνομάστο τō Φειδίλεο ἄθλοις ἐθέθεν). A defixio was addressed against two men in the context of a lawsuit (29). Zankle: Dedication of war booty of the Zanklaioi and the Messenians to Zeus Olympios in Olympia (35-38, early 5th cent.). Himera: An epigram inscribed on a vase dedicated to Athena in fulfilment of a vow (45, late 6th cent., εὐξάμενος). A vase which had been given as a prize (ἆθλον) was dedicated to an anonymous deity (48, c. 450). A small ball was property of Zeus Soter (53). Ergoteles made a dedication to Zeus in Olympia, in order to commemorate his victories at the Pythia, Olympia, Isthmia, and Nemea (54, c. 450). Rhegion: Dedications to Apollon in Delphi (58), to Herakles (59), and to Zeus in Olympia (60-61, war booty). Two other dedications were made by citizens of Rhegion in Olympia (64-65), one of which is the metrical dedication of Mikythos to all gods and goddesses. He dedicated a tithe from his property in fulfilment of a vow, after his son was healed of a disease (64, c. 460-450). Leontinoi: A very fragmentary inscription refers to sacred property (84). [AC]

2087) R. Arena, Iscrizioni greche ar­caiche di Sicilia e Magna Grecia V. Iscrizioni di Taranto, Locri Epizefiri, Velia e Siracusa, Alessandria, 1998 [SEG XLVIII 1258]: This volume assembles the Archaic inscriptions of Taras, Siris, Thourioi, Elea, Lokroi, and Syracuse (mostly late 6th and early 5th cents.), with comments primarily on linguistic phenomena [for these texts see also the editions of L. Dubois, summarised in EBGR 1989, 29, and 1994/95, 112]. Taras: Dedications: Most dedicatory inscriptions from Taras were inscribed on vases. They were dedicated to a goddess with the epithet Basilis, probably Aphrodite (8, by a woman), Gaia (6, 9; see infra), an anonymous goddess (7), and anonymous deities (14-16, 30; 30 is characterised as εὐχολά); two of the vases were designated as sacred (15-16: hιαρά). [It is unlikely that the two graffiti with the name of Gaia were dedications. Gaia’s name is not in the genitive or the dative, but in the vocative (rather than in the nominative). Since these graffiti are on cups, we are probably dealing with invocations of the goddess during libations]. Dedications on other materials are addressed to Artemis Agratera (11) [the name is in the genitive; an altar?], Zeus Olympios (13, at Olympia, war booty), and anonymous deities (10, 12). We single out an inscribed stater of Kroton, dedicated to Apollon [or paid as a fine to the sanctuary of Apollon] (17: hιαρὸν τō Ἀπό(λλονος)) [cf. infra no 51]. Cult: For an inventory of cult objects (18) see EBGR 1992, 154. Elea: A series of cippi, probably markers of sacred space, are inscribed with the names of gods: [--]nie and Zeus [--]nios (Hellenie and Hellenios?, 34), Olympios Kairos (35), Zeus Orios (36), Zeus An[--] and Orios (37), Zeus Hypatos Athe(naios) (38), Pompaios (39), Hera Thelxine (40), Poseidon Asphaleios (41), Zephyros (42), and Exakesterios (43). Lokroi Epizephyrioi. Dedications: to Aphrodite (57), Persephone (47, a mirror by a woman; 48: [Π]εριφόναι, a helmet; 52), an anonymous goddess (Persephone?; 49, a helmet; 53), and an anonymous deity (56). Hipponion, Mesma, and Lokroi dedicated war booty in Olympia (58). Syracuse: Dedications to: Apollon (62), Herakles (95), and Theai Megalai (63); dedications of the Deinomenids in Olympia (64, 67a-b) [cf. infra no 130] and Delphi (65-66, 68-69). [AC]

2098) R. Arena, “Le ‘defixiones’ Selinuntine”, Acme 58 (2005), p. 35-39: A. discusses linguistic phenomena in the defixiones of Selinous (IGDS 29-40) [cf. EBGR 1989, 29 and infra no 99]. [AC]

2109) M. Arnush, “Pilgrimage to the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi: Patterns of Public and Private Consultation”, in Pilgrimage, p. 97-110: Both the literary sources and the epigraphic evidence strongly suggest a gradual decline of Delphic oracular prophecy in international and political affairs from the mid-4th century onwards. Two of the last epigraphically attested consultations of political character are those concerning the alliance between Philip II and the Chalkideis (Syll.3 633, 356 BC), and the leasing of the sacred orgas in Eleusis (LSCG 32, 352/1) [now I.Eleusis 144]. By contrast, oracular consultation on personal issues apparently continued to flourish. [JM]

21110) A. Avram – M. Bărbulescu – M. Ionescu, “À propos des pontarques du Pont gauche”, Ancient West and East 3 (2004.2), p. 354-364 [SEG LIV 666]: The authors plausibly argue that the expression πρῶτος ποντάρχης attested in Histria (I.Histriae 207, c. 140 CE) and Kallatis (I.Kallatis 99/100, 172 CE) designates the first ποντάρχης from a particular city, and not the first pontarches ever. The late attestation of πρῶτοι ποντάρχαι shows that the Pontic Koinon was a relatively recent institution, probably established during Hardian’s reign to organise the local imperial cult. [AC]

21211) A. Barbetet al., Zeugma II. Peintures murales romaines, Paris, 2005 [BE 2006, 441]: This publication presents a series of wall paintings found in houses at Zeugma (early 2nd cent. CE). Many graffiti and painted inscriptions are visible on the walls, read and discussed by J.-B. Yon. Most of the texts seem to be acclamations, including acclamations of Zeus: Ζεῦ, κύρει (p. 46 no. 12D), Ζεῦ κύρει· ἀὶ ζοὴν Γερμανῷ (p. 117 no. 6C). A few texts refer to mythological figures (p. 153 no. 26E-F: Δηιδάμεια, Πηνελόπη; 151 no. 26B: ὅμου μ[έ]γας Ἀγαμέμ[νων?]). [Most of the texts are difficult to read and fragmentary, and Y. has done admirable work in reading them. A few suggestions: The graffito 12E (p. 46; cf. the transcription and the drawing) seems to read: πᾶς ὁ λέγων εὐτυχείτω· εἷς Θεοδόσι[ς] (“good fortune to every one who says: there is no one like Theodosios”), not πᾶς ὁ λέγων εὐτύχει· εἷς Θεοδόσι[ος] (“tout le monde dit ‘bonne chance’. Théodosios l’unique”). The fragmentary texts nos. 13A-B (p. 60: [--]ΑΜΑΣΚΟ | [--Μ]ΗΤΡΟΠΟΛΙ[Σ]; [-]ΝΙΚΑΔΑΜΑΣΚ[--]) may be acclamations for Damascus: [Δ]αμασκῷ | [μ]ητροπόλι and Νίκα Δαμασκ[ῷ] (cf. P.-L. Gatier, BE 2006, 441). The text 9C (p. 87: ΑΚΑΚΙΖΗ|ΣΕΣ) is clearly an acclamation: Ἀκάκι ζήσες = Ἀκάκιε ζήσαις. The text 26A (p. 149 Α[.]ΗΘ[--] Ἀντω|νεῖνος) may be ἀ[λ]ηθῶ[ς | ---|] Ἀντω|[ν]εῖνος]. [AC]

21312) A. Baschaouch, “Aspects de l’hellénisme africo-romain”, CRAI (2004), p. 53-65: Ed. pr. of an interesting dedication to Zeus Megas (interpreted by B. as Jupiter Maximus) and Poseidon Karpodotes by M. Venuleius Victorinus, a poet or scholar, in fulfilment of a vow (εὐχὴν τελέσας; Thapsos, late 2nd cent. CE). The epithet Karpodotes for Poseidon is attested here for the first time, and B. interprets this deity as the Greek rendering of Neptunus (regarded as frugifer). The dedicated object was a statue of “the great prophet / interpreter of the Muses” (τὸν μέγαν Μουσῶν προφήτην), i.e. Homer or Orpheus. [AC]

21413) M.-F. Baslez, “Les dévots de l’Apollon de Délos : au delà du panhellénisme officiel”, in Prosopographie et histoire religieuse, p. 35-49: B. attempts to identify Delians among the dedicants in the Delian inventories. On the basis of these prosopographical observations she studies the importance of the sanctuary of Apollon in Delos for local society and the significance of personal devotion as a factor promoting the integration of foreign residents. Among the dedicants she identifies local sacred officials and other magistrates, Athenian magistrates, foreign residents, but also theoroi and architheoroi, artists, and soldiers. [AC]

21514) N. Belayche, “Hypsistos. Une voie de l’exaltation des dieux dans le polythéisme gréco-romain”, ARG 7 (2005), p. 34-55: The cult of Theos Hypsistos has attracted a lost of interesrt as part of a cultural process charecterised as ‘pagan monotheism’. In this article B. plausibly places the worship of Theos Hypsistos in the historical context of polytheism in the Roman Empire. She observes that the epithet ὕψιστος is used for many different divinities, usually associated with the sky or with heights, and is connected with a significant trend of the Imperial period: the exaltation of a deity, usually with acclamations and other oral manifestations of praise. It is misleading to associate all attestations of (Theos) Hypistos with the worship of a single god (‘monolatry’); the evidence at our disposal does not justify the assumption that the cult of Theos Hypsistos is connected with a rupture in ritual practices. [AC]

21615) É. Bernand, Inscriptions grecques d’Alexandrie ptolémaïque, Le Caire, 2001: B. assembles 79 inscriptions from Ptolemaic Alexandria (no new texts). Dedications: Most dedications were made to Egyptian gods (1-2, 4-5, 19-20, 24, 34, 50-55, 55 bis, 58). They include the dedication of a temple and temenos to Sarapis by Ptolemy III (13), and a dedication of Ptolemy IV to Isis Thea Megiste (17: τῆι α[ἰτίαι πολλῶν?] εὐεργεσιῶν εἰς [ἑαυτόν]) and to Harpokrates (21, κατὰ πρόσταγμα Σαράπιδος καὶ Ἴσιδος). We single out a few expressions: σωτῆρες (19); ἐκοσμήσατο τὸν ἱερὸν τόπον τοῖς κυρίοις θεοῖς μεγίστοις (34); Ἴσι καὶ ταῖς ἄ[λλαις θε]αῖς ταῖς σω[ζούσαις] (49); κατὰ πρόσταγμα (54); εὐχήν (54, 61). Other dedications were made to Apollon (57), Asklepios (60), Demeter, Kore, and Dikaiosyne (22), Enodia (23, by Ptolemy IV), Herakles (59, by an ephebe), Hermes and Herakles (?, 28, by an agonothetes), Pantes Theoi (6), Theoi (61), Thea Kale en Pandois (?) and her synnaoi (56), Zeus Soter and Hera Teleia (32), to synnaoi theoi (43), and to an anonymous god (67). Many dedications were made for the well-being of members of the Ptolemaic dynasty (1, 5-6, 19-20, 22, 24-25, 28, 34, 35, 38). A priest of Zeus dedicated altars, temene, and statues to Theoi Adelphoi, Zeus Olympios, and Zeus Synomosios for the well-being of Ptolemy III (14). Interesting evidence for interaction between Jews and pagans in Ptolemaic Alexandria is offered by two inscriptions recording the dedication of synagogues (προσευχή), for the well-being of Ptolemaic kings, to Theos Hypsistos (62, 3rd/2nd cent.) and to θεὸς μέγας ἐπήκοος (35, 37 BC). Ruler cult: We single out private dedications to Theoi Adelphoi (9) and to Arsinoe II (11-12); altars for the cult of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe (7-8); an altar and a temenos for Hestia Pantheos, Ptolemy III, and Berenike II (25); a temple [or altar] dedicated to Sarapis, Isis Theoi Soteres, Polemy IV, and Arsinoe IV (18); a priestly decree with a list of eponymous priesthoods (30: of Alexander and the Ptolemies, hieropolos of Isis, athlophoros of Berenike, kanephoros of Arsinoe, priestess of Arsinoe Philopator [--]). Associations: An inscription attests an association for the cult of Aphrodite (41) [cf. the review of J. Bingen, CE 77 (2002), p. 345f.]. [AC]

21716) L. Bettarini, Corpus delle defixiones di Selinunte, Alessandria, 2005 [BE 2005, 637]: B. presents the ed. pr. of nine very fragmentary defixiones from Selinous (5th-4th cent.), consisting of lists of names. Only the first text seems to invoke a goddess (θεά; Perse­phone?), and there is a reference to the tongue of the victim in no 3. In addition to the new texts, B. presents a useful collection of another 22 previously published defixiones from Selinous (9-14), the necropolis of Buffa (15-19), and the sanctuary of Malophoros (20-31). Again, these texts are usually lists of names, with rare references to deities (23: Hagne Thea) and a few more elaborate formulae: τὰν γλῶσσαν καταγράφω (13, 16); ἀτέλεστα καὶ ἔργα καὶ ἔπεα (15); ἐπέχω καὶ νόσου ῥοπᾷ ἐπ᾿ ἀτελείᾳ (17); γλῶσσα ἀπεστραμένα ἐπ᾿ ἀτελείᾳ (20-21); καταγράφω τὰν ψυχὰν καὶ τὰν δύνασιν (23); ἐπ᾿ ἐξωλείᾳ (24). [See also the remarks of L. Dubois, BE 2005, 637. For a review see G. Bevilacqua, ArchCl 56 (2005), p. 603-607; see also supra no 8 and infra no 99.] [AC]

21817) L. Bettarini, “Una nuova defixio di Selinunte?”, ZPE 151 (2005), p. 253-258 [BE 2005, 638]: See infra no 99.

21918) S. Bilić-Dujmušić, “Excavations at Cape Ploča Nera Sibenik, Croatia”, in L. Braccesi – M. Luni (eds), I Greci in Adriatico, 2 (Hesperìa,18), Rome, 2004, p. 123-140 [SEG LIV 592]: In a report on the excavations at the Hellenistic shrine of Diomedes in Promonturium Diomedis (at Ploča, Punta Planka) [cf. EBGR 1999, 128], B.-D. presents three further graffiti on pottery, dedicated to Diomedes (p. 134f.): Διομήδι δῶρον, [---] καὶ οἱ [---], andΤρῖτος Διομή[δει]. She also mentions a fragmentary Latin graffito. [AC]

22019) N. Bookidis – R.S. Stroud, “Apollo and the Archaic Temple at Corinth”, Hesperia 73 (2004), p. 401-426: After a reconsideration of the literary sources, the archaeological material, and the epigraphic evidence (IG IV 1597; SEG XXVI 393; SEG XXXII 359; CIG I 1102; CIL III 534), B.-S. argue in favour of the identification of the large Archaic Doric temple on the hill above the Roman forum of Corinth with the temple of Apollon. Although none of the sources is really conclusive, the combination of the existing data strongly supports the authors’ interpretation. B.-S. also present the ed. pr. of an inscription painted on a fragmentary pinax found in 1902 on the Temple Hill (now lost). Based on the excavation diaries, the authors reconstruct the following text: [---] πέλ[λονι]|[---]ν μ᾿
ἀ[έθεκε] (“[--]on dedicated me to Apollon”, c. 560-480). [JM]

22120) D. Bosnakis – K. Hallof, “Alte und neue Inschriften aus Kos II”, Chiron 35 (2005), p. 219-272 [BE 2006, 317]: This article continues the publication of Koan inscriptions, with the edd. pr. of four recent documents (diagraphai) which concern the sale of priesthoods. B.-H. present the texts with excellent commentaries. I) Sale of the priesthood of Homonoia (20, late 2nd cent.): The beginning of the text is not preserved; the preserved clauses concern sacrifices (lines 1-25), the payment of the priesthood’s price in three installments (lines 25-32), the making of silverware for the cult (lines 32-54), and the publication of the document and the announcement of the sale (lines 54-60). The preserved clauses begin with a detailed regulation concerning the offering of sacrifices by the prostatai on various occa­sions, by all the elected magistrates upon their inauguration in office (lines 13-14: ἐπεί κα ἐς τὰν ἀρχὰν ἐσπορεύωνται), by the gymnasiarchos and the agonothetai upon their election (line 9: ἐπεί κα αἱρεθέωντι), and by the two boards of hierophylakes, who served one semester each, on the 9th of Theudaisios and on the 44th of Hyakinthios. The prostatai offered a sacrifice during the assignment of new citizens to tribes by lot (ἐπικλαροῦσθαι ἐπὶ φυλάν) in the presence of the priest, who orally confirmed that the sacrifice had been performed (lines 5-6: αἴ κα ὁ ἱερεὺς ἀντιφωνῆι αὐτοῖς τὰν θυσ[ίαν ἐπιτε]λέσ[θαι]; “wenn ihnen der Priester bestätigt, daß das Opfer ausgeführt wurde”); if the casting of lots took place without the priest’s confirmation, the prostatai were liable to a fine. They also offered a sacrifice at the quadrennial Asklepieia. The document mentions a variety of sacrificial animals and their prices: the gymnasiarchos and the agonothetai sacrificed a full-grown animal (line 9: ἱερεῖον τέλειον) costing 25 drachmai; the hierophylakes a sheep costing 25 drachmai; the elected magistrates full-grown animals costing 25 drachmai each on separate sacrificial tables (line 14: καθ᾿ ἑκάσταν τράπεζαν ἱερεῖον τέλειον) [i.e., each magistrate or each board of magistrates offered a separate sacrifice); the prostatai an ox (line 16: ἱερεῖον βοϊκόν) costing 250 drachmai. The priest examined and approved the victims, together with the exegetai, and placed the sacrificial animal on the altar. If the sacrifices were not performed, the negligent magistrates paid fines both to the priest and to the goddess; the sacred money was then used to make silverware (line 23 ἐς κατασκευὰν ἀργυρωμάτων). Measures for the procurement of new silverware for the cult are described in great detail in the following clauses. These measures were designed to make the priesthood and the performance of sacrifices more glamorous (lines 32-34: ὅπως δὲ ἐπιφανεστέρα ἁ ἱερωσύνα γένηται ποτὰ πάντα, κατασκευασθέντων αὐτᾶι καὶ ἀργυρωμάτων ποτὶ τὰς θυσίας τὰς γινομένας). Ten per cent of the price of the priesthood was to be spent on the silverware under the supervision of the architect, the prostatai and the treasurers; the text πόλιος ἐκ Κῶ· ἱερὰ Ὁμονοίας (“from the polis of Kos; sacred to Homonoia”) together with the name of the priest was to be inscribed on the silver vases. Similar measures are also mentioned in the document concerning the sale of the priesthood of Asklepios, Hygieia, and Epione (c. 175-150, Iscr.Cos ED 2a/b), of which B.-K. present two new fragments (only mentioned in Iscr.Cos ED 224a/b). The document was to be inscribed next to the altar of Homonoia. As soon as the priesthood was sold, the herald was to announce the name of the purchaser and the price. The expenses for the sacrifice which took place during the sale of the priesthood, the consecration of the priest and the priestess (line 58: ἐς τὰν τελετάν τοῦ ἱερέως καὶ τᾶς ἱερείας), and the inscription were to be covered by the purchaser, payable together with the first installment of the price. The mention of a priestess suggests that women had the right to purchase this priesthood. [But it is strange that the rest of the text only refers to a priest and that a priestess is only mentioned in connection with the telete. Perhaps the priestess was the priest’s wife]. The editors collect seven inscriptions which attest the cult of Homonoia in Kos and Kalymna (p. 240-245); one of them is an ineditum from Kos, the boundary stone of the grave precinct of the cult association of worshippers of Homonoia (θίασος Ὁμονοϊστᾶν). They suggest the following reconstruction of the cult’s history. An old cult of Homonoia existed in Isthmos; in Kos the goddess was associated with Aphrodite. A priesthood of Homonoia was established in the city of Kos in the late 2nd cent., a temple was built (PH 61), a cult statue was constructed, and new silverware was procured. This priesthood had substantial political weight in connection with political relations between Kos and Kalymna. II) Sale of the priesthood of the Theoi Megaloi (22, 2nd/1st cent.). Only the first part of this document survives, mentioning the requirements for purchasing the priesthood (health, a certain age), the term (lifetime), the privileges (exemption from certain liturgies), the duties (offering of libations in all chorus contests as well as in the Asklepiaia and Rhomaia), and the garments of the priest (white tunic, laurel wreath, clothes decorated with gold). The name of the cult is not preserved, but from the reference to initiation (line 8: ἀμύατος) and the fact that the priest served more than one god (line 5: τῶ[ν]; cf. line 7: τοῖς θεοῖς), B.-H. infer that we are dealing with the cult of the Great Gods of Samothrake, to which Kos sent theoroi (IG XII 8, 170-171). The text provides for the possibility that the purchaser was not yet an initiate: [ἐπεί κα τὰν ἱερωσύναν] πρίαται, ἀμύητος, ἐξέστω α[ὐτῶι --] (or [αἴ κα etc.] ... ἐξέστω α[ὐτῶι μυῆσθαι + a deadline?]. III) Sale of the priesthood of Eumenes II (23, early 2nd cent.). This diagraphe is a few years older than another document concerning the same cult (Iscr.Cos ED 182, c. 180). The editors rightly assume that after the first purchaser had died, the diagraphe was issued again with small modifications. Only the beginning is preserved, mentioning the usual requirements for the purchase of the priesthood (health, a minimum age of 8 years), the duties and privileges of the priest, and the means of payment. The priest received an honorary portion (γέρη) from sacrifices (the skin and a leg of yearling victims), placed the sacrificial animals on the altar, wore a crown at all sacrifices, celebrations, and contests in honour of Eumenes, offered libations in all contests, had a place of honour, and was exempt from most liturgies. IV) Sale of the priesthood of an anonymous deity (24, c. 200-150). A fragmentary inscription probably joins Iscr.Cos ED 16, which concerns sacrifices in the gymnasion. If this assumption is correct, the priesthood was that of a patron of the gymnasion, probably Hermes Enagonios. B.-H. publish the complete text. The document prescribes the offering of a sacrifice upon the sale of the priesthood; the victim should cost at least 150 drachmai and should be bought from sacred money. The priest should be healthy and at least 10 years old. He should serve for life and be exempt from many liturgies. The text describes the usual duties and honours (libations during contests, seat of honour, white garment, placing of the sacrificial animals on the altar, honorary portion of the victims), adding that he was to place the crown on the head of the victor at the [Hermaia]. The rest of the text (Iscr.Cos ED 16) lists the sacrifices which should be offered in the gymnasion.

222In the same article, and taking into consideration the evidence provided by new epigraphic finds, B.-H. suggest the following reconstruction of the Koan calendar: Theudaisios (November/December), Petageitnyos, Kaphisios, Batromios, Gerastios, Artamitios, Agrianios, Hyakinthios, Panamos, Dalios, Alseios, Karneios (p. 233-240). They also publish an honorary decree of Kalymna for a man from Kos (21, late 3rd cent.), which was to be set up in the sanctuary of Apollon Delios in Kalymna and that of Asklepios in Kos; the honours were to be announced during the Dionysia and the athletic contests of the Great Asklepieia. [AC]

22321) C. Brélaz – S. Schmid, “Une nouvelle dédicace à la triade artémisiaque provenant d’Érétrie”, RA (2004), p. 227-258 [BE 2005, 80; SEG LIV 822]: Ed. pr. of an inscribed base which supported the statues of a father and his son, dedicated by other family members to Artemis, Apollon, and Leto (Eretria, 2nd/1st cent.). The dedication of honorific statues to this triad is attested in Amarynthos (IG XII 9, 97-99, 140-142, 276-278), but the statues mentioned in the new text must have been set up in an Artemision in Eretria (cf. SEG LI 1112). The cult of Artemis is attested in the city of Eretria (IG XII 9, 260-261, 1262; IG XII Suppl. 561; SEG XL 762). [JM]

22422) L. Bricault, Recueil des inscriptions concernant les cultes isiaques, Paris, 2005 [BE 2006, 437]: This valuable corpus, comprising two volumes of text and a volume of tables, assembles the Greek and Latin inscriptions (and also coins) concerning the cults of the Egyptian deities in Greece, Thrace, the Black Sea region, Asia Minor, the Near East, Italy, Western Europe, and North Africa (critical edition of texts, translations, brief commentaries). The relevant documents include decrees and cult regulations, dedications, manumission records from sanctuaries of Sarapis in Boiotia, Phokis, and Lokris (p. 63-118), lists of victors at the Sarapieia of Tanagra (p. 57-59), epitaphs of initiates in the Egyptian mysteries, aretalogies, and documents concerning cult associations of worshippers of Sarapis. [AC]

22523) C.G. Brown, “The Stele of Mnesagora and Nikochares (CEG 84)”, ZPE 152 (2005), p. 1-5: The phrase αὐτὼ δ(ὲ) οὐ πάρα δεῖξαι in a grave epigram for two children (Athens; CEG 84) has been interpreted as a reference either to a cenotaph (“but it is not possible to point the two of them out”) or to the fact that the parents cannot point out any living children in their home. B. prefers to see here a contrast between the appearance given by the funerary relief, which depicts the children, and the fact that “their essential selves are now in the Underworld” (cf. the contrast between Herakles’ eidolon and his presence among the gods in Od. XI, 602). Although the grave remains a focus of interest and commemoration, the soul has travelled elsewhere (βήτην δόμον Ἄιδος ἔσω). [AC]

22624) S. Bussi, “Le statut des prêtres dans l’Égypte romaine. Aspects économiques et sociaux”, RHDFE 83 (2005), p. 337-354: Based on documentary sources (papyri and inscriptions) and focusing on the temple of Isis at Philai, B. discusses the new administrative, social, and fiscal roles played by Egyptian priests (e.g. by the high priest) under the Roman administration, their privileges, the hierarchy of priesthoods, and the practice of endogamy. [JM]

22725) P. Cabanes, “Les affranchissements à Apollonia d’Illyrie”, in P. Cabanes – J.-L. Lamboley (eds), L’Illyrie méridionale et l’Épire dans l’Antiquité. IV. Actes du IVe colloque internationale de Grenoble (10-12 octobre 2002), Paris, 2004, p. 83-88 [SEG LIV 582]: C. reconstructs the calendar of Apollonia. The year started with Artemisios (February/March), Psydreus following upon Artemisios and Apellaios being the ninth month (October / November); Eukleios, also attested in Korkyra and Tauromenion, was the last month. Δευδεκατεύς/Δυωδεκατεύς was an intercalary month inserted between the 11th month and Eukleios. [AC]

22826) M.L. Caldelli, “Eusebeia e dintorni: su alcune nuove iscrizioni puteolane”, Epigraphica 67 (2005), p. 63-83: A funerary stele found in Puteoli, with two almost identical Greek texts inscribed on the front and back sides of the stone, is the first and only attestation of a grammateus xystou (secretary of an association of athletes). Bettinianos, probably from Kaisareia Panias in Palestine, died in Puteoli. He had attended numerous sacred contests in the Orient and – according to C. – also the Kapitolia in Rome. C. convincingly suggests that Bettinianos was based in Rome. [JM]

22927) F. Camia – M. Melfi, “Un nuovo frammento epigrafico dall’Asklepieion di Lebena”, Creta Antica 5 (2004), p. 295-302: Ed. pr. of a small fragment of an architrave from the Asklepieion of Lebena (Crete, early 2nd cent. CE). It mentions an emperor (Trajan or Hadrian; [Αὐτοκράτορος Τραϊανοῦ? Καίσαρος Σεβ]αστοῦ σωτ[ῆρος] or [ὑπὲρ τῆς --- Σεβ]αστοῦ σωτ[ηρίας]). C.-M. associate this text with the period of reconstruction of the sanctuary of Asklepios following the earthquake of 66 CE. [AC]

23028) F. Canali de Rossi, Iscrizioni dello estremo oriente greco. Un repertorio (IGSK, 65), Bonn, 2004 [BE 2005, 495, 497; 2006, 434; SEG LIV 1566]: C. assembles in this corpus Greek, Latin and Aramaic inscriptions found east of Asia Minor, and also inscriptions relevant to these areas but found in Greece and Asia Minor (e.g., letters of Achaemenid kings) and inscriptions quoted or simply alluded to in literary sources. The material is presented in the following geographical order: Iberia and Armenia (1-23), Mesopotamia (24-74), Babylonia (75-144), Messene (146-171), Susiana, Kissia, and Elymais (172-225), Persis (226-279), Hyrcania and Parthia (280-300), Bactria and Sogdiane (301-397), Panjab and India (398-413), the Persian Gulf (414-440), and texts of unknown provenance (441-448). This corpus is useful for study of the diffusion of Greek cults in the empire of Alexander and the Seleucids, in particular of cults connected with the army (e.g., Dioskouroi, Herakles, deities regarded as Soteres), and for study of cultural exchanges. We point to the prominence of dedications made ‘for the salvation’ of members of royal houses and officers. We present a selection of the texts (only inscriptions which were actually found in the East). Except for a few important sites, we do not give the provenance, which may be inferred from the number of the inscription.

231Dedications: An inscribed bronze astragalos had originally been dedicated in the sanctuary of Apollon in Didyma (6th cent.) to commemorate the dedication of ἀγάλματα as δεκάτη; it was found in Susa, where it was brought after the sack of Miletos as war booty (172 = Syll.3 3). For a statue of Herakles brought from Messene to Seleukeia (no 86), see EBGR 1990, 24. A group of dedications in Ikaros/Falaika was made by soldiers serving in the garrison (late 4th cent.-2nd cent., 416-420); they are addressed to Zeus Soter, Poseidon, and Artemis Soteira (416) and Poseidon Asphaleios (418) [for the identity of the officer Soteles, who is mentioned in these dedications, see P.-L. Gatier, in G. Gallian (ed.), L’île de Failaka. Archéologie du Kuweit, Lyon, 2005, p. 74]; one of the texts reports that the soldiers offered a thanksgiving sacrifice (417: [σωθέ]ντες ἔθυσαν -- [κε]χαρισμένα). Another dedication in the sanctuary of Artemis was made for the salvation of a certain Theokydres (419); an altar was dedicated by the soldiers of the garrison (420). The general of Tylos made a dedication to Dioskouroi Soteres for the well-being of king Hyspaosines and queen Thalassia (427, late 2nd cent.). An image of Herakles Kallinikos was dedicated for the salvation of Kleomenes, the governor of the upper satrapies (274, Bisutun, 148 BC); another statue of Herakles was dedicated in fulfilment of a vow (66, Niniveh, 1st/2nd cent.; κατ᾿ εὐχήν). Other dedications are addressedto: Dioskouroi Soteres (Tylos/Bahrain, 147, 2nd cent.), Ge Meter Olybris Thea Despoina (16, Areni), Hermes and Herakles (381, in the gymnasion of Ai Khanoum), Ma (180, Susa, 3rd/2nd cent.), the river-god Oxos (311, εὐχήν), Zeus ἐρισθενὴς βασιλεύς (33, Osroene; upon an oracle of Apollo: Φοίβου Ἀπόλλωνος μαντεύμασιν ἀθανάτοισιν), Theoi Epekooi (64, Niniveh, 1st cent. CE; for the well-being of a general), Zeus Olympios Μαρηαλλης (56, Tili, 2nd cent. CE; the epithet seems a transliteration of mare elahin).

232Cults: An example of the establishment of Greek cults is given by a group of altars set up in Persepolis (during Alexander’s reign) for Zeus Megistos (241), Apollon (242), Helios (243), Artemis (244), Athena Basileia (245); we also note an altar for Hestia in Nisaia (281). Sanctuaries: A letter of Ikadion from Ikaros/Falaika (cf. supra) refers to the relocation of the sanctuary of Artemis and the establishment of an athletic and musical contest (422, 3rd/2nd cent.). In Palmyra, honorific statues were erected in the sanctuaries of Zeus, Ares, and Atargatis, as well as in the ‘sacred grove’ (ἱερὸν ἄλσος; 89, 92). Festivals and contests: A thanks-giving agon (ἀγῶνι χαριστηρίοις) may be mentioned in a dedication to Antiochos IV (Babylon, 103 = OGIS 253). Rituals: The community of the Dollamenoi in Uruk honoured Artemidoros, who had donated a piece of land to the god Gar, by erecting his statue (ἀνδριάς) in the temple of Gar, crowning it on his birthday (στεφανοῦν τε αὐτὸν ἐν ἑκάστηι γενθλιακῆι αὐτοῦ), making a sacrifice and sending him a portion of the sacrificial animal (140, 110 BC: παρειστᾶν αὐτῶι ἱερόθυτον καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἱεροθύτου πέμπειν αὐτῶι Ἀρτεμιδώρωι ὀσφύν).

233Ruler cult: A document in Seleukeia on the Tigris is dated with reference to the priests of the Seleucid kings (Seleukos Nikator, Antiochos Soter, and Antiochos III), a hieromnemon, and an agonothetes (76, late 3rd cent.). The corpus includes copies of the edict of Antiochos III concerning the introduction of high priestesses for Laodike (193 BC, 271 and 278). Sacred manumissions: A group of inscriptions in Susa (190-200; cf. 205-206; c. 183-late 2nd cent.) records the dedication of slaves to various divinities ‘for the salvation’ (ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας) of kings and members of the royal family. The recipients were Thea Nanaia (192-193, 197, 200) and Apollon Daittes and Artemis Daitta (190).In Hyrkania, a slave was dedicated to Sarapis for the salvation of Antiochos I (280).

234Hymns: A very important, but fragmentary, hymn for Apollo, composed by Herodoros in Susa (1st cent. CE?, 221 = SEG VII 14), praises Apollo as a superior god and patron of many aspects of life (esp. lines 28-30: τοὶγὰρ ἔθν[εα] καὶ πόλεις πολ[υ]ώνυμο[ν ὄμ]μα | ὡσίωσαν, ἐπεὶ σέβας μ[οῦνο]ς ἔσκε[ς] ἁπάντων· | ναί, Μαρᾶ θεέ, πανταχ[οῦ ---],| παντόπτης,ὕπατος [θεῶν ---]. Prayer: An epitaph contains a prayer for justice for a murdered child (60: Ἥλιε, τὴν μοῖραν ζητῆση ἐμὴν λιτανεύω· νήπις ὢν ἀνόμοις χερσὶν φονέων διόλωλα [read ζητῆση (not ζητήσῃ) for ζητῆσαι]; area of Nisibis, 2nd/3rd cent.; with a representation of hands raised in prayer).

235Varia: The apotropaic inscription Ἡρακλῆς ἐνθάδε κατοικεῖ· μηθέν εἰσέλθοι κακόν was inscribed at the entrance of a cave (269, Mt. Karafto, Atropatene, 4th/3rd cent.). We single out the inscriptions concerning the religious decrees and maxims of the Mauryan king Asoka (290-292, from Alexandria Arachosia). Inscriptions in Armavir (13, 2nd cent.) and Niniveh (68, 3rd cent. CE) list the months of the Macedonian calendar [cf. a list of the months of the Egyptian calendar in Samos (IG XII 6, 218)]. An interesting testimonium for the convergence of the vocabulary of different religious communities is a Jewish epitaph that designates the grave as a heroon (26, Edessa, 2nd cent. CE). [AC]

23629) E. Casey, “Binding Speeches: Giving Voice to Deadly Thoughts in Greek Epitaphs”, in I. Sluiter – R.M. Rosen (eds), Free Speech in Classical Antiquity, Leiden-Boston, 2004, p. 63-90: C.’s excellent study of funerary epigrams, which give a voice to dead people, contains many important observations concerning not only the rhetoric of funerary epigrams (word-play, reversal, tragic irony), but also the relationship between the living and the dead. The most important remarks on this subject are that epigrams let the dead say only what the living want to hear, comforting and assuring the living that they have nothing to fear from the dead and their hostile emotions. In part, such epigrams were a response to the belief that the dead lost their voice. They sometimes allude to the separation of the eternal voice from the ephemeral body. An interesting phenomenon is also the juxtaposition of prose and verse in the same epitaph, with the words of the passer-by (or the name of the deceased person) in prose, and the words of the dead in meter. [The metrical words of the dead in part award them heroic status; this is closely connected with the practice of making transcendental beings speak in metre (cf. the voice of the gods in metrical oracles; see I. Petrovic – A. Petrovic, “Look Who is Talking Now!: Speaker and Communication in Metrical Sacred Regulations”, in E. Stavrianopoulou (ed.), Ritual and Communication in the Graeco-Roman World, Liège, 2006 (Kernos Suppl., 16), p. 151-179.] [AC]

23730) M. Çetin Sahin, “A Hellenistic List of Donors from Stratonikeia”, EA 38 (2005), p. 9-12 [BE 2006, 368]: Ed. pr. of a fragmentary and very enigmatic inscription from Stratonikeia (2nd cent.). It consists of entries following the same pattern: τοῖς ἔχουσι τὰ ΝΝ + δεδωκότος + amount, ἡμέρα καὶ νύξ [“to those, who have the property of NN, son of NN + ethnic, who has given + amount, day and night”]. One of the entries also mentions a contribution to a precinct of Demeter: τοῖς ἔχουσι τὰ Διοδώρου τοῦ Μυωνίδου Ῥο(δίου) δεδωκότος (amount) καὶ τὸ εἰς τὸ τέμενος τῆς Δήμητρος [“to those who have the property of Diodoros, son of Myonides of Rhodes, who had given the amount NN and (who had also given the contribution) pertaining to the precinct of Demeter.” It seems that the owners of property, which had previously belonged to individuals who had made contributions, received a privilege of some kind, valid both day and night.] The month names Artemision, Hekatesion, and Diostheon are mentioned in the last enigmatic entry. [AC]

23831) M. Çetin Sahin, “The So-Called Κρήνη Παρθενική at Stratonikeia”, EA 38 (2005), p.13-14 [BE 2006, 25]: C. republishes an inscription from Panamara (I.Stratonikeia 220a, ca. 100 CE) which refers to the construction of a Κρήνη Παρθενική by the priest Ti. Flavius Eudemos. C. argues that this fountain was not at Panamara and that it can be identified with a fountain excavated near the north gate of Stratonikeia. A colossal statue of Athena Parthenos and portraits (of the sponsors?) were found there; this would explain the fountain’s name. However, as C. points out, this identification requires a change of the date either of the portraits (dated to the 5th cent. CE), or of the inscription (dated to c. 96-98 CE) or of the krene, the construction of which seems to have taken place around 200 CE. [It is more reasonable to assume that the Κρήνη Παρθενική was not the fountain where Athena Parthenos was found, but a fountain which owed its name to the fact that it was visited by maidens or that its water was used for nuptial rites; cf. M. Sève, BE 2006, 25.] [AC]

23932) A. Chaniotis, “Livia Sebaste, Iulia Sebaste, Caius Caesar Parthikos, Domitian Anikeitos Theos: Inofficial Titles of Emperors in the Early Principate”, AAntHung 43 (2003), p. 341-344: For the Greeks, the titles of Roman emperors and members of their house were understood as having the same function as epithets of gods. For this reason emperors and female members of their family sometimes were awarded titles which they officially did not have (Caius Iulius Caesar Parthikos in Kos, Domitian Aniketos in Aphrodisias, Livia Sebaste, Sabina Augusta). Taking into consideration this practice, it is very probable that Iulia Sebaste, who was associated with Eileithyia in Apollonia (SEG XLVII 847), was not Livia, but Augustus’ daughter. Iulia was often associated with goddesses of childbirth in the East: Kalliteknia (SEG XLIII 71), Thea Kalliteknos (I.Priene 225), and Leto Kalliteknos (SEG LIV 765). [AC]

24033) F. Chapot – B. Laurot, Corpus de prières grecques et romaines. Textes réunis, traduits et commentés, Turnhout, 2001: After a very short introduction to Greek and Roman prayers, C.-L. present a selection of 101 Greek and 89 Latin prayers, primarily consisting of literary texts (text, translation, brief commentary). Fortunately, C.-L. have also included a few inscriptions which in some way indicate the wide thematic range of prayers. [However, the bibliography is poor, with no reference to recent editions or to recent studies of ‘prayers of justice’; we provide references to the standard epigraphic corpora.] Most epigraphic texts are metrical prayers (hymns and epigrams): the paean for Asklepios, of which copies have been found in Erythrai and elsewhere (G70 = LSAM 24; I.Erythrai 205) [Furley-Bremer, Greek Hymns, no 6.1], the hymn of the Kouretes from Palaikastro (G71 = I.Cret. II.ii.2) [Furley-Bremer, Greek Hymns, no 1.1], the hymn of Limenios in Delphi (G85 = CID III 1), [Furley-Bremer, Greek Hymns, no 2.6], an Athenian hymn to Asklepios (G93 = IG II2 4533) [Furley-Bremer, Greek Hymns, no 7.6], Hadrian’s epigram for Eros in Thespiai (G97 = IG VII 1828) [cf. EBGR 2004, 102], and the aretalogy of Isis from Maroneia (G86) [cf. infra no 95]. C.-L. have also included in their selection three proskynemata from the sanctuary of Isis at Philai (G87 = I.Philai 28, G88 = I.Philai 190, G89 = I.Philai 158.1), a love curse from Pella (G78 = SEG XLIII 434) [no reference to E. Voutiras, Διονυσοφῶντος γάμοι. Marital Life and Magic in Fourth Century Pella, Amsterdam, 1998], a ‘prayer for justice’ probably from Maionia (G91 = SEG XXVIII 1568; XL 1049), and a funerary imprecation from Neokaisareia (G92 = Pouilloux, Choix 52). [AC]

24134) Christie’s New York, The Morven Collection of Ancient Art, Tuesday, 8 June, 2004 [SEG LIV 1785]: The catalogue of a sale includes a Roman silver roundel (c. 4th cent. CE) decorated with the bust of a god (195 no 549). [The text is not easy to read on the ph., but together with R. Tybout (SEG) we read the text as a dedication by a veteran to Zeus for his salvation (--- βετρανὸς ἀπέδωκαι τῷ Διεὶ τὴν εὐχὴν ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας τῆς ἰδίας?). The bearded god must be Zeus.] [AC]

24235) P. Chrysostomou, “Νέα στοιχεῖα λατρείας γιὰ τὴ θεσσαλικὴ θεὰ Ἐν(ν)οδία ἢ Φεραία θεά”, in Ὑπέρεια 3. Πρακτικὰ Γ΄ Διεθνοῦς Συνεδρίου “Φεραί-Βελεστῖνο-Ρήγας”, Athens, 2002, p.203-228 [SEG LIV 552]: Ed. pr. of a dedication to Ennodia Ilias (Azoros in Thessaly, late 4th cent.). The goddess derives her epithet from Ilion in Thessaly (Stephanos Byz., s.v.). This epithet is also attested for Athena Ilias in Physkos in West Lokris (SEG XVI 354-361; 2nd cent.) and in Echinos in Thessaly (SEG LIV 554 bis). In the same article, C. presents an improved edition of a dedication to Ennodia Strogika Patroa from Larisa (EBGR 2000, 201; SEG XLIX 622). [AC]

24336) L. Cleland, The Brauron Clothing Catalogues. Text, Analysis, Glossary, and Translation, Oxford, 2005: Based on the copies of the Brauronian inventory lists from the Athenian Acropolis (IG II2 1514-1516, 1517B, 1518B, 1521B, 1522, 1523, 1524B, 1525, 1528-1530), C. offers a useful overview of the various garments (type, form, fabric, colour, decoration) dedicated to Artemis. The names of the dedicants demonstrate that women were the primary if not the only dedicants of the clothes recorded in the inventories. C. suggests that many of the garments were worn and probably also made by the female dedicants. As regards the dedication by women of men’s and children’s garments, C. suggests that the clothing of men and children was conceived as female property. [JM]

24437) K. Clinton, “Epiphany in the Eleusinian Mysteries”, ICS 29 (2004), p. 85-109 [SEG LIV 22]: C. attempts a reconstruction of the things seen and shown in the secret part of the Eleusinian Mysteries in order to evoke divine epiphany. Such elements may have included priests impersonating gods (cf. LSCG 65 lines 24-25, in the mysteries of Andania: “these women who must be dressed to represent gods are to have the dress that the Sacred Men prescribe”); the carrying of images (cf. IG I3 81 lines 5-14), dramatic displays and performances, in particular the dramatic emergence of the hierophantes at a climacic point in the celebration (cf. IG II2 3811 = I.Eleusis 637; IG II2 3709 = I.Eleusis 659; IG II2 3661 = I.Eleusis 646), the contrast of darkness and light (cf. IG II2 4058 = I.Eleusis 399; cf. the rays of light radiating from Demeter’s head in IG II2 4639; ph.), and the appearance of divine images. [JM]

24538) K. Clinton, “A Family of Eumolpidai and Kerykes Descended from Pericles”, Hesperia 73 (2004), p. 39-57 [SEG LIV 307]: Ed. pr. of a fragmentary honorific inscription for Flavia Menandra and her paents, members of a family of hierophantai and dadouchoi (Eleusis, c. 225-230). The mother, Kasiane, was a descendant of Perikles in the 21st generation; she was a granddaughter of the hierophantes Casianus Apollonios (cf. IG II2 3811; Philost., Vit. Soph. 2.20) and the dadouchos Claudius Philippos. The father, Flavius [--], may have been Flavius Philostratos, son of the famous homonymous sophist. C. discusses the prosopography of the noble Athenian families of the Casiani of Steiria (Eumolpidai) and the Claudii of Melite (Kerykes) and intermarriage between them. [JM]

24639) K. Clinton, Eleusis: The Inscriptions on Stone. Documents of the Sanctuary of the Two Goddesses and Public Documents of the Deme. Volume IA: Text. Volume IB: Plates, Athens, 2005: After forty years of work on the inscriptions of Eleusis, C. presents this valuable corpus, which will facilitate research on the cult of the Eleusinian goddesses. The corpus includes stone inscriptions set up in or in front of the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore in Eleusis, but also documents issued by the deme of Eleusis and set up in other sanctuaries. Volume I presents the texts, with elaborate (often with new readings, restorations, and joins of fragments), notes concerning the edition of the text, and bibliography, but with no translations and commentaries. The new texts are marked with an asterisk. [Unfortunately, this corpus lacks an index.]

247Sacred regulations: Most of the sacred regulations concerning the Eleusinian mysteries sacrifices, the sanctuary, its sacred land, and first-fruits have been included in LSCG and LSCG Suppl. We therefore provide only references with no further summary: LSCG 4 (13), 5 (28a), 7 (175), 8 (638), 32 (144); LSCG Suppl. 1 (7), 15 (250). Only a few texts should be added to the collections of ‘sacred laws’: a law concerning the Eleusinian sanctuary (19 = IG I3 6, c. 470-460); a fragmentary law or decree (22 = IG I3 251, c. 450 BC); a decree concerning the epistatai of Eleusis (30 = IG I3 32, c. 432); an important but very fragmentary decree concerning the mysteries (138 = SEG XXX 61, c. 367-348); an amendment to the law of Chairemonides concerning the aparche (142 = IG II2 130+add); and a letter of Gallienus concerning matters related to the mysteries of Eleusis (655) .

248Dedications: Naturally, most dedications are addressed to Demeter (3, 105; in no 3 Demeter is called τανύπεπλος) or Demeter and Kore (14, 55-59, 61, 84, 89-91, 97-98, 106, 113, *120, 121, 126, *131, 195, 212, *215, 226, 238, 241-242, *245, 251-253, 270, 273, 281, 285, 291, 298-299, 301-302, 307, *314, 317, *318, 319, 323, 342, 346, 357-358, 365-368, 370, 373, 389, 391, 397-398, 403-404, *416, 425, *429, 433, 518, 534, *567, 621, 624, 641, 663; cf. 433: Ἐλευσίνιαι Θεαί); even when the recipient of the dedication is not stated (e.g., 1, 4-6, 10-12, 16-18, 20, 26, 44, 49, 51, 53, 65-66, 73*, 86, 92, 94, 102, 108-112, 114, *115, 116-117, 125, 127, *128-*130, 132, *133-*134, *218-*219, 223, 254, *261, 262, 288, 305, 387), the finding place suggests that the addressees were these goddesses. Other Eleusinian deities receiving dedications included Eubouleus (88), Thea and Theos (83), Demeter, Kore, Thea, Theos, and Eubouleus (239), Demeter, Kore, Sebaste Dikaiosyne, and the Demos (341), Iakchos (400), and Kourotrophos (306, 328, 401, 668). Only a few dedications are addressed to other deities: Artemis (390, 530), Asklepios (680-681, 684; cf. 685-686), Asklepios and Hygieia (682-684), Dionysos (79, 103), and the Saviour Gods of the emperors (486: Σωτῆρσι Θεοῖς Φιλαδέλφων αὐτοκρατόρων). A statue of Asklepios was dedicated to Demeter by Herodes Atticus, after the god had saved him from disease (498: νοῦσον ἀλεξή[σ]αντ᾿ ἀντιχαρ[ι]ζό­μενος). One of the best known dedications is that of a statue of Aion (287 = IG II2 4705) for the preservation of the power of Rome and the mysteries; the text defines the nature of aion: αἰὼν ὁ αὐτὸς ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς αἰεὶ φύσει θείαι μένων κόσμος τε εἷς κατὰ τὰ αὐτά, ὁποῖος ἔστι καὶ ἦν καὶ ἔσται, ἀρχήν, μεσότητα, τέλος οὐκ ἔχων, μεταβολῆς ἀμέτοχος, θείας φύσεως ἐργάτης αἰωνίου πάντα. Among the dedications we single out dedications made from the first-fruit offerings (ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Δημητρείου καρποῦ ἀπαρχῆς: 504, 532), an anatomical votive plaque (105), and an altar of the Neotera Theos covered with silver and dedicated by her hierophantis (371: ἀργυρώσασαν τὸν βωμόν), dedications commemorating athletic victories (1, 54, 64), and dedications made by cult associations of thiasotai (*256, *682). A particular group are the statues of hearth-initiates dedicated by their relatives (238, 244, *245, 251-253, 269-270, 273, 282-283, 299, 302, 307, 317, *318, 319, 323, 329, 351, 357, 364-365, 370, 373-374, 391, 393, 395-396, *414, *416, 431, 441-442, 458-459, 464, 467, 474, 477, 480-481, 483, 485, 511, 520-522, 524, 535, 551, 568, 587, 591, 621, 635-636, 639-640, 642, 645, 648; cf. 470, 473, 628, 658; 511: τὸ πρὸ μυστῶν ἄλλων ἐν τελεταῖς στέμμα κόμαισι θέσαν). A dedicatory epigram written by a hierophantis who set up the statue of her granddaughter after she had been initiated reveals strong personal devotion (380: κούρην υἱῆος περιώνυμον Ἱερόφαντις θῆκε Θεαῖς ἰδίαις μύστιν, Ἀθηναΐδα). Vocabulary of dedications: καλὸν ἄγαλμα (12), ἀντ᾿ ἔργων (55), εὐξάμενος (56), εὐχήν (328, 400-401, 669, 684), καθιέρωσις (369), κατ᾿ ὄναρ (600), φιλίας χάριν (59), ὁμον[οίας ἕνεκα?] (110), χαριστήριον (239, 306), ὑπὲρ ἑαυτῆς καὶ τῶν τέκνων καὶ τῶν θρεμμάτων (*432) [in no 76, one should read [ἀνέ]θεσαν στε[φανωθέντες] rather than στε[φανώσαντες]].

249Sanctuaries: Most of the texts provide information concerning the sanctuary of the Eleusinian goddesses. The numerous fragments of accounts (23-25?, 27, 29?, 34-38, 42, 43?, 45-48, 50, 52, 140, 147-148, 150, 155, 159, 168-170, 172-173, 177, c. 450-c. 330) and the inventories (24?, 29?, 32-33, 43?, 46-48, 50, 52, 136-137, 149, 156, 158, 160-162, 171, 178-179, 240, 5th-2nd cent.) provide valuable information about the financial administration of the sanctuary, its revenues (from the leasing of property), its various expenses for construction, cult implements, and rituals, and its dedications. Other texts concern the architecture of the sanctuary, e.g. the construction of a bridge to improve access to the sanctuary (41), the bringing of water to the sanctuary by means of a new aqueduct (449), and various building projects, for which guidelines and contracts are preserved (141, 143, 145-146, 151-154, 157, 164-166, 174). The sanctuary of Demeter was the place where decrees were published (e.g., 68*, 99; in the αὐλή: 196 line 28; 201, 208-209, 229). Other sanctuaries mentioned in the inscriptions of Eleusis are the Theseion (85), the sanctuary of Herakles in Akris (85), the sanctuary of Plouton (93), the temenos of Demos and the Charites [in Athens] (221), the sanctuary of Asklepios, where a zakoros of Asklepios dedicated buildings (683: τὸ πρόναον [sic] καὶ τὸν οἶκον). We also mention boundary stones of the temenos of Demeter (676) and the sanctuary of Apollon (677), an inventory of the Delian amphiktyony (167), and the payment of fines to (the sanctuary of) Dionysos (101). A fragmentary endowment (489, 169/170 CE) was to be used for various cultic purposes under the supervision of the hierophantes and the dadouchos; one still recognizes a reference to the use of money for the construction of incense-burners (line 26); unauthorised use of the endowment was to be punished as sacrilege. Attached to the documents is a list of the cult personnel who profited from the endowment: various priests (of Daphnephoros, Theos and Thea, Triptolemos, Zeus) and priestesses (of Athena, Demeter and Kore, Kal[--], Moirai), the high priest, the personnel of the Eleusinian cult (hierophantes, two hierophantides, dadouchos, exegetes, three exegetai, hierokeryx, archon of the Eumolpidai, phaidyntes, Iakchagogos, bouzyges, the panages, ἐπὶ βωμῷ), and the altar-initiates.

250Festivals and rituals: Many texts, too numerous to be summarised here, provide information relevant to the Eleusinian cult. We present a small selection. The epigram for the hierophantes Apollonios vaguely refers to his duties (637: ὦ μύσται, τότε μ᾿ εἴδετ᾿ ἀνακτόρου ἐκ προφανέντα νυξὶν ἐν ἀργενναῖς) and to the prohibition against revealing his name before his death (οὔνομα δ᾿ ὅστις ἐγὼ μὴ δίζεο· θεσμὸς ἐκεῖνο μυστικὸς ᾤχετ᾿ ἄγων εἰς ἅλα πορφυρέην· ἀλλ᾿ ὅταν εἰς μακάρων ἔλθω καὶ μόρσιμον ἦμαρ, λέξουσιν τότε δὴ πάντες ὅσοις μέλομαι); his name was revealed by his sons. Four inscriptions honour hierophantides and hierophantai who initiated Roman emperors into the Eleusinian mysteries: the hierophantis, who initiated Hadrian (454: ἀμαιμακέτοις ἐγκατέκρυψα βυθοῖς· οὐκ ἐμύησα δ᾿ ἐγὼ Λακεδαιμονίης τέκνα Λήδης, ... τὸν χθονὸς εὐρυχόρου δὲ καὶ ἀτρυγέτης μεδέοντα ... Ἁδριανόν); the hierophantes who initiated Lucius Verus (453: δὶ ἐπὶ τῷ ἔτει ἀγαγόντα μυστήρια καὶ τοῦτο κατὰ τὸ θεμιτόν); the hierophantis and the ἐπὶ βωμῷ who initiated Marcus Aurelius and Commodus (502-503; cf. the letter of Commodus in which he mentions his initiation and his membership among the Eumolpids); and the hierophantes, who initiated Marcus Aurelius (516). The inscription on the statue base of an anonymous proconsul mentions that he was an initiate (661). Inscriptions honour the hierophantai who saved the sacred objects during the barbarian invasions of the 2nd cent. CE (494: ἀρρήτων θησ[αυρὸν -- ἐ]ς Ἀθήνας μυστικὸν ἠ[γαγόμην ἐμ π]ολέμωι στυγερῶι; 515: ἐσάωσεν ἄχραντα ἀρρήτων θέσμια; 516: ὄργια καὶ ψυχὴν ἐξεσάωσε πάτρηι). A dedicatory epigram records the prayer of two initiates (658: μύστας ... ὁμοῦ σώ[ζοιτε]) [an interesting reference to the oral component of the prayer: [ἀνέγραψαν] ἱκέσιον [φ]ωνὴν τήνδε προϊέμ[ενοι]]. The same text ends with a curse against anyone who should destroy the dedication (ὅστις χ[εῖ]ρ᾿ ὀλοὴν λώβης ἕνεκ᾿ ἔνθ᾿ [ἐπιβάλλῃ], ἔκδικον ἐκ μακάρων μῆνιν ἕλ[οιτο θεῶν]). Three other fragmentary epigrams refer to ritual matters (537: [ἀ]ριγνώτου θυ[--], [ἀν]ακτόρου, δειχθεν[--]; 585: μυστιπόλων δαΐδων, μεγάροις; 586: θηήσα[σθαι], πέμψαν Ἰάκχωι). A benefactor of the Eumolpidai received from them a share of sacrificial meat, equal to that of each Eumolpid, from the celebrations of the mysteries in Eleusis and in Agra (93: μ[ε]ρίδα ἐγ [μ]υστηρίων τῶν μεγάλ[ω]ν καὶ τῶν πρὸς Ἄγραν ὅσημπερ [Ε]ὐμολπιδῶν ἑκάστωι). The Eleusinians honoured a general with a share of sacrificial meat (99: μερίδα ἐκ τῶν ἱερῶν καθάπερ Ἐλευσινίοις). An important document is the decree of the Dionysiac artists referring to their participation in the cult of the Eleusinian goddesses (271, c. 76). Numerous honorary decrees and inscriptions refer to the cultic services of various officials, in particular to their contributions to aesthetically pleasing performances of rituals. An epimeletes of the sanctuary was honoured for taking care of the safe and beautiful conduct of the procession to Eleusis and for constructing a bridge (95) [cf. *185, which is a decree possibly for an epimeletes of the mysteries, who took care of the security of the participants in the cult (ἀσφάλεια: lines 1 and 7; in line 5 probably [μυστ]η̣ρίων)]. Damasias of Thebes was honoured for his contribution to a beautiful celebration of the Dionysiac festival (70, c. 350, ὡς κάλλιστα γένηται τὰ Διονύσια). The epimeletai of the mysteries are praised for performing the sacrifices during the mysteries of Agra and the great mysteries (181, 192), as well as for performing sacrifices for the salvation of the council and the people (181: τεθύκασι τὰ σωτήρια ταῖς θεαῖς; 202). No 208 gives more details about their services: the offering of sacrifices to Demeter and Kore and to the other gods, the offering of a sacrifice of προθύματα, the preparation of a pair of animals for the transportation of the hiera, the supervision of the ἅλαδε ἔλευσις and the reception of Iakchos, the celebration of the mysteries of Agra, and the sacrifice of a bull at the Eleusinia. The services of a demarchos included sacrifices to Demeter and Kore at the Haloia and the Chloia, a sacrifice at the Kalamaia, and a sacrifice to Dionysos at the Dionysia (229; cf. 101). A hoplite general was honored for taking care of the adornment of a panegyris (295: προνοηθέντα το[ῦ περ]ὶ τὴν πανήγυριν κόσμ[ου]). A decree concerns the leasing of quarries, the revenues of which were to be used for the performance of a beautiful sacrifice for Herakles in Akris (85, 332 BC, ὅπως ... ἡ θυσία θύητ[αι] ὡς καλλίστη). Military officials were also honoured by soldiers inter alia for performing sacrifices (187, 194, 196, 211), organising contests (194), and providing safety for the celebration of the mysteries (211). Inscriptions mention various festivals, especially festivals during which honours were awarded: the Dionysia at Eleusis (68*, 70, 72, 80, 84, 96, 99, 201), the Haloia (184, 196, 211), the Apatouria in Panakton (196; cf. 194), and the sacrifice to Artemis Agrotera in Phyle (196). Other agonistic festivals mentioned in victory lists or honorific inscriptions for agonothetai (356, 358, 455, 463, 478-479, 523, *541, 632), are the agon for Ptolemy IV (207), the Megala Asklepieia (455, 478-479), the Delia (195), the Eleusinia (195, 227-228, 450, 463, 527), the Hermaia (195), the Megala Kaisareia Sebasta (356, 358), the Olympia (523, 632), the Panathenaia (195, 463, 479, *541), the Panathenaia Sebasta (356), and the Nemeia (527).

251Sacred officials: We cannot list here all references to religious officials connected with the Eleusinian mysteries. Naturally, there are many references to the priestess of Demeter and Kore (266, 268, 317, 334-335, 341, 343, 358, 364, 368, 371-376, 379, 395, 433-437, 442, 458, 523, 549, 594, 651, 66); the priest of Triptolemos (482); the Kerykes (e.g. 15, 100, 358, 624) and the sacrifices performed by them (87); the Eumolpides (93, 350, 625); the dadouchos of Demeter and Kore (277-278, 285, 298, 301, 467, 472, 478-479, 492-493, 503, 511, 514, 520-521, 621-622, 632, 639, 653, 654); the hierophantai (72, 236, 242, 246, 465-466, 483, 487, 500, 514, 631, 644, 649, 659) and their duties (201, 233-234, 64); the hierophantides (288, 325, 380, 454, 487, 501-502, 659) and the hierophantis τῆς Νεωτέρας Θεοῦ (371, 433); the hieromnemon (85) and hierokeryx (459, 462, 626, 633, 645, 650); the spondophoroi (221), the exegetai ex Eumolpidon (241, 275, 324, 336-337, 359, 442, 455-456, 463-464, 476, 531, *544, 545, 550, 663), and the exegetes Pythochrestos (291, 474, 590); the ἐπὶ βωμῷ (503, 514, 653) and hiereus panages (656); the epimeletes of the sanctuary (95) and the mysteries (97-98, 202, *216, 226, *248). As regards other cults, the cult personnel includes: priests of Apollon Patroios (344, 531), Asklepios (331, for life; 685), the Demos (341), Dionysos Eleuthereus (524), Herakles in Akris (85), Sebaste Dikaiosyne (341), Synkletos Rhomaion, Demos and Charites (333) [for the cult of the senate see H. Kienast, “Der heilige Senat. Senatskult und kaiserlicher Senat”, Chiron 15 (1985), p. 253-282], Zeus ἐπὶ Παλλαδίου (443), and Zeus Olympios (523, 632); priests with no reference to a deity (334-335, 355; priests for life: 334-335); the priestess of Athena Polias (619); a high priestess of Meter Theon Boiotia (640); epimeletes pompes (the procession of the Dionysia, *225); kanephoroi of Meter Theon, Asklepios and Aphrodite (267), Dionysos Lenaios (394), Poseidon Erechtheus (463), Sarapis (282), Isis (283); a pyrphoros (530); a bouzyges (443); phaidyntes in Olympia (633); a zakoros of Asklepios and Hygieia (683); and a kleidouchos in the cult of Asklepios (685).

252Imperial cult: Several inscriptions refer to deified Roman emperors: Augustus, who was identified with Zeus Boulaios (297); Theos Hadrianos Panhellenios (453); Theos Antoninos (Marcus Aurelius, 505); and Thea Faustina (507, *508). There is also a dedication to Hadrian (446), and a joint dedication to the Eleusinian goddesses and Hadrian (448). The functionaries of the Imperial cult include high priests of the Sebastoi (e.g., 356, 361, 363, 523), a priest of Iulia Agrippina (354), and an archiereus of the Achaioi (471).

253Afterlife: A hierophantis was rewarded by Demeter for her piety with a sweet death and a place in the island of the blessed (502: ἣν καὶ ἀμειβομένη Δηὼ μακάρων ἐπὶ νήσσους ἤγαγε παντοίης ἐκτός ἐπωδυνίης· δῶκε δέ οἱ θάνατον γλυκερώτερον ἡδέο[ς] ὕπνου). The hierophant Glaukos, who served for nine years (ὄργια πᾶσιν ἔφαινε βροτοῖς φαεσίμβροτα Δηοῦς εἰνάετες), was believed to have joined the gods (ἦλθε πρὸς ἀθανάτους; cf. 649: ἱεροφαντήσας ὤιχετ᾿ ἐς ἀθανάτους); his epigram characterises a good death as “a good mystery given by the gods” (ἦ καλὸν ἐκ μακάρων μυστήριον, οὐ μόνον εἶναι τὸν θάνατον θνητοῖς οὐ κακὸν ἀλλ᾿ ἀγαθόν). A deceased woman is called a heroine (349). [AC]

25440) J. Crouwelet al., “Geraki, an Acropolis Site in Lakonia. Preliminary Report on the Eleventh Season (2005)”, Pharos 13 (2005), p. 3-28: A roof tile mentioning Apollo and Geronthrai was found in a Hellenistic building. The excavators assume that the tile was originally used for the temple of Apollo (cf. Paus. 3.22.6-7). [It is not certain if [--]λλων[--] is a reference to Apollo or a theophoric name (of a craftsman or a magistrate).] [AC]

25541) F. Daim – T. Kühtreiber (eds), Sein & Sinn, Burg und Mensch (catalogue of the Nieder­öster­rei­chi­sche Landesausstellung 2001 in Schloß Ottenstein und Schloß Waldreichs), St. Pölten, 2001 [SEG LII 1021]: C. Lang-Auinger (260 no. I 9.15) presents a lead tablet with the inscription Ἀθηνᾶ, αβαλαναοναλβα, Ιαώ, Πλ[ούτων?] τὸν Πόν[τιον] (Donnerskirchen in Pannonia, 4th cent. CE); non vidimus; see F. Beutler – M. Pesditschek – E. Weber, “Annona epigraphica Austriaca 2001-2002”, Tyche 17 (2002), p. 220 no 96, who regard it a curse tablet. [R. Tubout (SEG) rightly points out that it is an amulet (cf. EBGR 2001, 101) with a corrupt form of the palindromic phrase αβλαναθαναλβα; cf. supra no 4; we note that Pontios is the name of its owner).] [AC]

25642) L. D’Amore, “Un filatterio greco da Lazzàro (Reggio Calabria)”, ZPE 152 (2005), p. 157-160 [BE 2006, 65]: D. presents an improved edition of a phylactery inscribed on a clay tile (Lazzàro, Reggio Calabria; SEG XLV 1442, 6th cent. CE). According to the new reading the text consists of an invocation of God, an invocation of Michael, and an exorcism: Ὡ Θ(εὸ)ς Ἀλεξάνδρου, ὡ Θ(εὸ)ς Πολυδόρου καὶ ὁ ἄγγελος Μηχαὴλ, βοήθει. Ὑπήντησεν ὁ ἄγγελος τοῦ δέμον<ο>ς καὶ λέγη αὐτῷ δέμονι Βάρζων ΑΥΡΜ-- [“god of Alexandros, god of Polydoros! And angel Michael, help! The angel encountered the demon and said to him, to the demon Barzon --”]. D. provides parallels for the encounter between an angel and a demon from similar magical texts. [AC]

25743) L. Darmezin – A. Tziaphalias, “Deux inscriptions inédites de Pélinna (Thessaly)”, AncW 36.1 (2005), p. 54-75 [SEG LIV 566]: Ed. pr. of two inscriptions from Pelinna. A list contains the names of gymnasiarchoi and the winners in the race tristadion (a distance of three stadia) in at least 13 years (c. 190-170). A votive stele dedicated to an anonymous deity is decorated with three sacrificial cakes (4th/3rd cent.). A similar stele was found in Pharsalos (A. Tziaphalias, AD 43 B1 (1988) 283). [AC]

25844) N. Darrous – J. Rohmer, “Chahba-Philippopolis (Hauran) : essai de synthèse archéo­logi­que et historique”, Syria 81 (2004) [2006], p. 5-42 [SEG LIV 1707]: An unpublished building inscription from Philippopolis (Arabia, 3rd/4th cent.) refers to the construction of a κρηπὶς for θεὸς Αὔμου πατρῷος. This divinity was worshipped in the area around Shabha. [AC]

25945) P. Debord, “Sur quelques Zeus Cariens : religion et politique”, in B. Virgilio (ed.), Studi Ellenistici XIII, Pisa, 2001, p. 19-37 [SEG LII 1025]: P. reconstructs changes of the cult of Zeus Karios under the influence of political developments. The cult of Zeus was an adaptation of the cult of an indigenous Karian god of unknown name. He was worshipped with various epithets (Osogo, Labraundos, Karios). Zeus Osogo [Osogo seems to be the name of a cult founder in the genitive] was Mylasa’s divine patron. D. suspects that his association with Poseidon (cf. Zeus Osogollis Zenoposeidon) was the result of Koan influence (4th cent.). The cult of Zeus Labraundos was promoted by the Hekatomnids, and the god became one of the most important deities of Mylasa (3rd cent.). The priest of this deity lost its political power but the priesthood remained hereditary (I.Labraunda 5). D. locates the sanctuary of Zeus Stratios in Mylasa (not at Labraunda; cf. I.Mylasa 204, 301, 318, 405), that of Zeus Karios at Panamara (not at Mylasa). Zeus Karios was renamed Zeus Panamaros, possibly when Stratonikeia incorporated Panamara (cf. I.Stratonikeia 10). [AC]

26046) P. Debord, “La déesse Ma et les hirondelles blanches”, REG 118 (2005), p. 15-30 [BE 2006, 419]: D. returns to a recently published epitaph from Yehilova (EBGR 2002, 6; SEG LII 1464 ter). With this text, the owner of the grave threatens those who would disregard his will and violate his grave with terrible punishment. D. improves the reading of lines 11-12 (“neuf taureux blancs aux cornes dorées”) [the same correction in EBGR 2002, 6 and SEG LII 1464 ter], and rightly points out that the text is a funerary foundation. The mention of Ma, the goddess of Komana, as a recipient of the fine, does not justify the assumption that the owner of the grave was her priest. D. discusses in detail the atonement imposed on the violators of the will. The violator was expected to make offerings which consisted of groups of nine persons and animals; in some cases these offerings reflect the polarity of male and female (boys-girls, bulls-cows, he-goats-goats). The offering of nine white swallows is hard to explain. After rejecting the possibility that χελιδών is used as a metaphor for a she-sheep, D. argues that the nine swallows were meant to make the atonement impossible and thus to cause the anger of the gods. The gods invoked by the owner of the grave were Zeus ἀπὸ Θυμνάσων, a local patron of agriculture, the Iranian goddes Anahita (Anaitis), and Zeus Φαρναουα. Φαρναουα is either the Iranian name of the cult founder or an Iranian epithet. [AC]

26147) G. Dembski, “Die antiken Gemmen und Kameen aus Carnuntum”, in F. Humer (ed.), Archäologischer Park Carnuntum. Neue Forschungen 1, Vienna, 2005 [non vidimus; see K. Böhm – E. Weber, “Annona epigraphica Austriaca 2005”, Tyche 20 (2005), p. 236-237]: Ed. pr. of numerous inscribed gems found at Carnuntum. This material includes the following magical gems (with the improved readings provided by H. Taeuber): 1105 and 1107: Ιαω (obverse), Αβρασαξ (reverse); 1006: Ιαω (obverse), perhaps remains of the word μυστιπόλος (reverse); 1108a: θεσσθ ενοθεν θηροχελ υγειβιαμ πληξ; 1109: sequence of seven vowels (obverse), remains of letters (reverse); 1110: remains of letters (obverse), ..ΕΗΙΩ [probably a sequence of the seven vowels] Σαβαωτ Αδωναι ε ελωαι κ (reverse); on the rim: vowels; 1111: a mono­gram and letters (obverse), Ὁ μέγας θεὸς Αβγαλμισακιακω (reverse), ΑΙΟ (rim); 1112: Σαλκοιζ Ληγημιθκ; 1113: ΑΕΙΟΥ [incomplete series of the seven vowels]. [AC]

26248) M. Di Branco, “Pellerinaggi a Creta. Tradizioni e culti cretesi in epoca-tardoantica”, in Creta romana e protobizantina I, p. 7-16 [SEG LIV 808, 862]: The author presents an interesting collection of sources concerning pilgrimages to the cave of Zeus on Mt. Ida, to the Asklepieion of Lebena, and to the Diktynnaion of Crete, in the Roman period. In this context, D. briefly discusses traditions concerning the ‘holy men’ Epimenides and Apollonios of Tyana, whose statue seems to have been supported by an inscribed statue base in Gortyn (I.Cret. IV 444); by contrast, I.Cret. I, xvii, 34 does not necessarily refer to the famous Apollonios. D. also prefers to date a Samian epigram (IG XII 6, 584) commemorating the pilgrimage of Plutarch, governor of provincia Insularum, to the Idaean Cave, to the reign of Constantine [without addressing any of the arguments in favour of a date during the reign of Julian [see EBGR 1987, 17 and 1990, 54]. [AC]

26349) R. Di Cesare, “Sull’Apollo dei Nassii a Delo e le iscrizioni della base”, Eidola 1 (2004), p. 23-60 [SEG LIV 716]: D. discusses the famous inscription on the base of the colossal statue of Apollon in Delos, which asserts that statue and base were made from the same stone (I.Délos 4, c. 600). D. suspects that the metrical text [τ?]ō αϝυτō λίθο ἐμὶ ἀνδριὰς καὶ τὸ σφέλας is the second line of a boustrophedon inscription and that the inscription underlined the identity of material, thus making the base as important as the statue. In the late 4th cent. the statue was re-dedicated by the Naxians (I.Délos 49), as D. argues, in an effort to appropriate an Archaic monument (possibly a private dedication) after the liberation of Naxos from Athenian control. [AC]

26450) D. Doep­­ner, Steine und Pfeiler für die Götter. Weihgeschenkgattungen in westgriechischen Stadt­hei­lig­tümern, Wiesbaden, 2002 [SEG LII 955, 957, 974]: D. gives a panorama of the various types of dedications in Metapontion, Poseidonia, Syracuse, Akragas and Selinous: stelai, reliefs, argoi lithoi, pillars and columns, naiskoi, statues and statuettes, pinakes, vases, jewels, loom weights, etc. She discusses the relevant rituals, the deities which were worshipped in these cities, and the significance of dedications as a medium of religious and social communication. Her cata­logue (p. 195-253) includes a few inscriptions (the texts are usually not given; a new text is marked with an asterisk). Metapontion: Dedications to Aphrodite Melichia (209f. no 3), Apollon (p. 204 no 74?), Apollon Lykeios (p. 205 no *82), Athena Aigidia (207 no 1b). Poseidonia: Dedications to anonymous deities (226 nos 1-2; 230 no 2: δεκάτα[ν]), and to Hera (231 nos C7 and 5), a goddess (231 no 6a), Zeus Xeinos (231 no 6b). [AC]

26551) L. Dubois, Inscriptions grecques dialectales de Grande Grèce. Tome II. Colonies Achéennes, Geneva, 2002: The second volume of the collection of dialect inscriptions from Italy and Sicily (cf. EBGR 1994/95, 112) assembles the inscriptions of Sybaris, Poseidonia, Metapon­tion, and Kroton. Sybaris: Dedications: After his victory in Olympia, an athlete dedicated to Athena a statue in fulfilment of his vow (ἀέθλων δεκάταν, εὐξάμενος), probably his own image imitating his exact size (5). A sacrificial functionary (ἄρταμος, ‘sacrificateur’) [a μάγειρος?] dedicated to Hera (Ηερας τᾶς ἐν πεδίωι) a axe as a tithe (ἔργων δεκάτα; 9) Athena was also the recipient of vases (7-8). Other objects were dedicated to Dionysos (?11) and to an anonymous god (4). Oath: The treaty between the Sybaritans and the Serdaioi (12, Olympia) invoked as witnesses Zeus, Apollon, and the other gods (12). Poseidonia: Silver disks and tablets were dedicated to Hera (18), Demeter (19-20), Kore (21; τᾶς Θεō τᾶς παιδός), and Zeus Xeinos (22). A vase was dedicated to the Nymphs (24); a woman dedicated a bronze statuette to Athena as a tithe (δεκάτα; 25). We also mention the boundary stone of a cult place of Cheiron (23). Metapontion: Several cippi [markers of sacred space] were dedicated to Apollon Lykeios (37-40), Athena Hygieia (41), Zeus (42) [D. reads Διὸς ἀγορά (“place publique de Zeus”), withouth explaining, however, what an agora of Zeus is; an abbreviated epither, i.e. Διὸς ἀγορα(ίου), is more probable] and Zeus Aglaos (43-44). Family dedications are addressed to Herakles (50), Hermes (48), (Zeus) Hikesios (49). Other recipients of dedications were Apollon (67, δεκάτα), Aphrodite (45-46, vases), Aphrodite Meilichia (47, δῶρον), Hera (68), and Herakles (75, by a potter) [on this text see EBGR 2002, 154]. The corpus also includes dedications made by the Metapontinoi in Eleusis (77) and Delphi (78) and an oracular enquiry of a citizen of Metapontion in Dodona (79). We also mention a reference to a hieros (58), a defixio (60), an inventory of sacred property belonging to Θεὸς ἐπὶ Σίρι ἐπὶ δρόμῳ (Demeter?, 76) [“the goddess, whose sanctuary is on the river Siris, near the running track”]. Kroton: Dedications: to Apollon (91, a stater) [see supra no 7], to Apollon in Delphi (92, war booty), Hera (83), Hera Eleutheria (84-85), Zeus Melichios (90, an anchor), and Zeus Olympios in Olympia (110-113). There are two cases of sacred manumissions addressed to Apollon (86, in fulfilment of the vow of a mother) and Hera Lakinia (88). For a defixio (95) see EBGR 1997, 224. [AC]

26652) Y. Duhoux, “Les nouvelles tablettes en linéaire B de Thèbes et la religion grecque”, AC 74 (2005), p. 1-19: D. joins those who reject the interpretation of the names ma-ka (cf. SEG XLVI 535: Gaia Makaira in Thebes), o-po-re-i (cf. IG VII 2733: Zeus Oporeus in Akraiphia) and ko-wa (cf. Kore) in Linear-B tablets from Thebes as evidence for the existence of a divine triad in the Mycenaean period (see EBGR 1997, 155). [AC]

26753) H. Engelmann, “Archiereus und Lykiarch (zu TAM II 1, 175)”, ZPE 154 (2005), p. 181-182: A decree of Sidyma (TAM II 1, 175) has played an important part in discussions of the question whether the Lykiarches and the high priest of the Lykian Koinon were two different offices. The phrases ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως τῶν Σεβαστῶν and (later in the same text) ἐκομίσθη ἐπὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ Λυκιάρχου have been interpreted as referring to two officials serving in the same year: the high priest Diogenes and the Lykiarches Ti. Claudius Telemachos. E. argues that Telemachos served as Lykiarches in an earlier year and that ἐπὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ Λυκιάρχου does not mean “during his term in office as Lykiarches”, but “in the presence of the same Lykiarches.” Telemachos continued to have this (honorary) title after the end of his term. Consequently, this inscription does not prove that Lykiarches and Archiereus were separate offices. [JM]

26854) N.A. Evans, “Feasts, Citizens, and Cultic Democracy in Classical Athens”, AncSoc 34 (2004), p. 1-25: Based mainly on orations and tragedies, but also containing references to cult calendars and ‘sacred laws’, this article discusses Athenian public feasts and their significance for the creation of a common civic identity and the construction of the polis community. A recurring theme in E.’s study is the existence of various grades of exclusivity and inclusivity in Greek (Athenian) religion [cf. S. Krauter, Bürgerrecht und Kultteilnahme. Politische und kultische Rechte und Pflichten in griechischen Poleis, Rom und antikem Judentum, Berlin, 2004]. [JM]

26955) F. Ferrandini Troisi, “La divinizzazione di Alessandro Magno. Testimonianze epigraphiche”, Epigraphica 67 (2005), p. 23-34: F.T. assembles the evidence (literary sources, numismatic evidence, inscriptions) that refer to the Alexandreia, the festival celebrating Alexander’s birthday: Thasos: LSCG 69 (c. 325-300); Rhodes: IG XII 1, 57, 71; I.Lindos 233 (3rd-2nd cent.); Ankyra: SEG XXVII 843; Athens: SEG XXVI 184-189; Bargylia: OGIS 3; Xanthos: SEG XXXIV 1314-1317 (2nd-3rd cent.). On the basis of this evidence, F.T. suggests that Alexander was deified during his lifetime. F.T. also argues that the Erythraian inscription concerning the sale of Alexander’s priesthood (LSAM 25, c. 270) supports this assumption, because the price of twenty drachmai would be too high for a newly founded cult. [None of this changes the fact that none of the inscriptions mentioning the Alexandreia can be securely dated before Alexander’s death.] [JM]

27056) J.-L. Ferrary, “Les mémoriaux de délégations du sanctuaire oraculaire de Claros et leur chronologie”, CRAI (2005), p. 719-765: A large number of inscriptions found at Klaros commemorate the visits of delegations. F. discusses in detail the chronological criteria and concludes that 75% of the texts which can be dated belong to the period c. 125-186/7 CE. This was the period in which the oracle at Klaros was flourishing. In appendix I, F. establishes the absolute chronology of Klarian priests within this period. [AC]

27157) M. Filimonos-Tsopotou, Ἡ ἑλληνιστικὴ ὀχύρωση τῆς Ρόδου, Athens, 2004 [BE 2005, 106; SEG LIV 725]: In an appendix to her study of the Hellenistic fortifications of Rhodes, the author discusses two clusters of pyres excavated outside the south wall. The discovery of a cover tile mentioning (in the genitive) Zeus Meilichios (3rd cent.) suggests that these were not funerary pyres, but burnt offerings to this chthonic deity. [AC]

27258) R. Fleischer, “Zwei pontische Felsgräber des hohen Hellenismus mit monumentalen Inschriften’, Chiron 35 (2005), p. 273-284 [BE 2006, 417]: F. republishes an epitaph inscribed on a monumental rock-cut grave near Amaseia (CIG 8894): Τες, ἀρχιερεύς (not Γῆς ἀρχιερεύς). He dates the monument to the 2nd cent. The office of the high priest was introduced by Antiochos III and was probably taken over by the Pontic kingdom (p. 274f.). [JM]

27359) S. Follet, “Deux inscriptions attiques inédites copiées par l’abbé Michel Fourmont (Parisinus Suppl. gr. 854)”, REG 118 (2005), p. 1-14: Ed. pr. of a dedication to Hermes by a lampadarches (Athens, 35 BC). The text was copied by Michel Fourmont in 1729. [JM]

27460) P.-L. Gatier, “Inscriptions grecques et latines du Proche-Orient : questions de provenance”, ZPE 147 (2004), p. 139-144 [BE 2005, 517]: G. discusses a dedication of unknown provenance made to Aphrodite Epekoos. A priest dedicated to the goddess an altar for the well-being of king Demetrios I, queen Laodike, and their children (EBGR 2000, 78; SEG L 1462). G. points out that the name of the dedicant, the material from which the dedication is made (marble), and the royal names suggest that the provenance was a place on the Phoenician coast. Since the only attestation of Aphrodite Epekoos in the Near East is in an inscription found in her sacred cave at Wasta (between Tyros and Sidon; SEG XX 389), he attributes this dedication to that site and comments on the identification of Aphrodite with various Oriental goddesses [on the cult of Aphrodite at Wasta see also C. Bonnet, Studi epigrafici e lin­guistici sul Vicino Oriente 24 (2004), p. 125-140]. [AC]

27561) S. Giannobile, “Il dio egizio Ptah nella documentazione magica: amuleti e papiri”, ZPE 152 (2005), p. 161-167: G. presents a new gold tablet found in a grave (Rome, 2nd cent. CE) inscribed with charakteres and the magical name Φνεβεννουθ (‘lord of the gods’). In magical papyri, this name is associated with the Egyptian god Ptah (Φθᾶ; PGM XXXVI, 44 and 228). A very similar tablet was found in York (2nd/3rd cent.; R. Kotansky, Greek Magical Amulets: The Inscribed Gold, Silver, Copper, and Bronze Lamellae. Part I, Opladen, 1994, no 1). The prophylactic character of these tablets may be inferred from the use of the names Ψνεβεννου Φνεβεννυθ and Φνηβεννουθ in a silver phylactery (SEG XXXIII 1547). [AC]

27662) M. Girone, “Dediche votive cretesi”, in Creta romana e protobizantina I, p. 119-130: Overview of the healing miracles of the Asklepieion of Lebena and of the therapeutical methods mentioned in the healing miracles of Lebena and Epidauros. [AC]

27763) H.R. Goette, “Überlegungen zur Topothese von Gebäuden im antiken Brauron”, AA (2005), p. 25-38: G. rejects the reconstruction of the topography of the Artemis sanctuary in Brauron by F. Bubenheimer and J. Mylonopoulos (EBGR 1996, 194). G. disagrees with the interpretation of ἀρχαῖος νεώς and Παρθενών, mentioned in an inscription, as different parts of the same temple [cf. G.I. Despinis (EBGR 2004, 63)]. Instead, he identifies the ἀρχαῖος νεώς with a hypothetical Archaic temple underneath the chapel of St. George and the Παρθενών with the excavated temple. This reconstruction is based on the dating of beddings cut into the bedrock. [The dating of beddings is to say the least uncertain. Based on exactly the same evidence – archaeological and epigraphical – Despinis has cautiously suggested exactly the opposite identification, identifying the ἀρχαῖος νεώς with the excavated temple and the Παρθενών with a temple underneath the chapel of St. George. The problem is that the relevant inscription unequivocally refers to a single temple (ὁ νεώς) and then specifies: “both the ancient one and the Parthenon” (ὁ νεώς, ὅ τε ἀ[ρχαῖος καὶ ὁ Πα]ρθενών). The alternative restoration (ὁ νεώς ὅ τε ἀ[ρχαῖος Πα]ρθενών) is simply bad Greek; two separate temples would have been connected with καί, not τε. G.’s does not quote the text of this inscription and occasionally misrepresents the arguments of B.-M., referring, e.g., to a gymnasion in the sanctuary, where the authors refer to a gymnasion outside the sanctuary. His study is to be read with great caution.] [AC]

27864) Gorny & Mosch, Giessener Münzhandlung. Auktion 145, Munich, 2005: One of the objects sold in this auction is a bronze hand of unknown provenance (p. 47 no. 70, 3rd cent. CE). The same text is written twice, in the palm (with mistakes) and on the forearm. [The latter text reads: Βαρβηλος Σθαρίωνος, ἀγροῦ Ἀρμενίου, θεῷ ἐπηκόῳ Ἀρμενίῳ ἐξ ἰδίων ἀνέθηκεν εὐχῆς χάριν.] The author of the catalogue entry identifies the dedicant as a man of Armenian origin and associates this hand with the cult of Jupiter Dolichenus. [AC]

27965) F. Graf, “Text and Ritual: The Corpus Eschatologicum of the Orphics”, in G. Cerri (ed.), La letteratura pseudoepigrafa nella cultura greca e romana. Atti di un incontro di studi, Napoli, 15-17 gennaio 1998, Napoli, 2000(AION, 22), p. 59-77: G. presents an overview of the eschatological texts attributed to Orpheus, with emphasis on the testimonies of Plato and the Derveni papyrus. He briefly discusses the Orphic texts from Olbia. In IGDOP 94a he reads Διον(ύσου) Ὀρφικοῦ (rather than Διον(ύσωι) Ὀρφικῷ or Διόν(υσος) Ὀρφικοί). The text βίος θάνατος βίος | ἀλήθεια is an emphatic affirmation: “from life to death to life: this is the Truth.” [AC]

28066) É. Gu­bel (ed.), Art phénicien. La sculpture de tradition phénicienne, Paris, 2002 [BE 2003, 569; SEG LII 1538, 1586, 1591-1593]: This catalogue of Phoenician objects in the Louvre contains several dedications (no inedita; texts by F. Baratte, P. Bordreuil, F. Briquel-Chatonnet, A. Caubet, P.-L. Gatier, É. Gubel, and M. Yon). The most interesting group consists of statues dedicated by Flavius Gerontios, πατὴρ νόμιμος τῶν τελετῶν τοῦ θεοῦ, in the Mithraeum of Sidon in 390 CE (81, 83, 86) – the latest attested dedications in a Mithraeum [cf. EBGR 2001, 10; on the date see D. Feissel, An.Ép. 2002, 1529]. The other dedications are addressed to Hermes and Herakles (8, Arados, 1st cent.), Thea Ourania (56, Byblos, 1st cent. CE), Thea Nesepteitis (?, 58, Byblos, 1st cent. CE), Apollon (122, Tyros, CE 196), Herakles Archegetes (178, Melita, dedication by Tyrians, 2nd cent.). There is also an altar of Zeus Epouranios (63, Palaibyblos, 1st/2nd cent.). [AC]

28167) K. Gutzwiller, “Gender and Inscribed Epigram”, TAPhA 134 (2004), p. 383-418 [BE 2006, 205; SEG LIV 523]: G. republished the ecphrastic epigram of Herennia Procula for the famous statue of Eros made by Praxiteles in Thespiai (A. Plassart, “Fouilles de Thespies et l’hiéron des Muses de l’Hélicon”, BCH 50 (1926) 403 no 20: οὗτος Ἔρως ἐδίδαξε πόθους· αὐτὴ φάτο Κύπρις· | ποῦ σ᾿ ἄρα δὴ σὺν ἐμοὶ δέρξατο Πραξιτέλη[ς;]). Identify­ing the poetess with a member of a prominent family in Thessalonike (IG X 2.1, 70, 66/67 CE), G. provides a date. The epigram was probably written on a semicircular base support­ing a copy of the statue (brought to Rome by Nero and destroyed by fire in c. 80 CE) along with statues of Aphrodite and Phryne [but cf. D. Knoepfler, BE 2006, 205]. In her detailed analysis, G. adduces as pararallels the epigrams of Honestus in the Valley of the Muses in the early 1st cent. CE. (W. Peek, “Die Musen von Thespiai”, in Γέρας Ἀντωνίου Κεραμοπούλου, Thessalonike, 1953, p. 624-627). She recognizes allusions to epigrams dedicated to Praxiteles’ Eros (AP XVI, 204 and 206) and to epigrams referring to Aphrodite’s reaction when she gazed at Praxiteles’ Knidian Aphrodite (“where did Praxiteles see me naked?”; see AP XVI, 160, 162, 168; cf. XVI, 163-164). Such epigrams were known either through anthologies or because they accompanied minature statues. G. also detects a relationship between the poem’s theme and the roughly contemporary Amatorius by Plutarch. G. attempts to reconstruct how female worshippers may have responded to the statue of Eros. [AC]

28268) C. Habicht, “Marcus Agrippa Theos Soter”, Hyperboreus 11 (2005), p. 242-246: H. publishes a small altar dedicated to the cult of Marcus Agrippa from Thessaly (in the Museum of Larisa) and collects the evidence for the award of divine honours to Marcus Agrippa. [The same text was published independently as SEG LIII 567ter = EBGR 2004, 135, but it was not recognised as an altar.] [AC]

28369) A. Henrichs, “Writing Religion. Inscribed Texts, Ritual Authority, and the Religious Discourse of the Polis”, in H. Yunis (ed.), Written Texts and the Rise of Literate Culture in Ancient Greece, Cambridge, 2003 [SEG LIV 1905]: Although the performance of rituals relied heavily on oral tradition, writing was important for the practice of Greek religion. H. presents a panorama of the various types of inscriptions, which concern religious matters, focusing on graffiti which originate in celebrations (e.g., the Dipylon vase and the ‘cup of Nestor’ from Ischia: CEG 432 and 454); dedicatory epigrams (CEG 251; CEG 305: “Peisistratus and his political ambitions occupy the hexameter; Apollo and his temple inhabit the pentameter, while the mot propre for dedications, theken, is strategically positioned at the boundary between the two realms. After all, it is the act of dedicating the altar that brings god and mortal together in mutually beneficial self-interest”; CEG 326: the dedication of Mantiklos is the earliest attestation of the principle of do ut des in communication between men and gods outside epic literature); the vase inscriptions from the sanctuary of Zeus Semios on Mt. Hymettos (SEG XXVI 61); and texts emanating in ritual authorities (sacrificial calendars, purity regulations, hieroi logoi). [A small detail: H. follows the interpretation of the Nestor’s cup as “a love charm that promises immediate gratification” and good sex (p. 46-47) [cf. EBGR 1996, 82]; what the text actually says is that whoever drinks from the cup will be seized by desire for Aphrodite; unless each and every woman with whom one can have sex, is understood as Aphrodite, what the text promises is sexual desire, not its fulfilment; similarly, if “Aphrodite stands metonymically for the works of Aphrodite,” the text promises desire, not sex.] [AC]

28470) S.C. Humphreys, The Strangeness of Gods. Historical Perspectives on the Interpretation of Athenian Religion, Oxford, 2004 [SEG LIV 9, 19-20, 30, 36, 39, 42, 47, 51-52, 55-56, 58-61, 114, 129, 141, 153, 155, 203, 207, 215-216]: H. assembles in her book previously published studies (with long afterwords), but also two new studies. In “A Sense of Agency: Religion in the Attic Demes” (p. 130-196), she presents a panorama of religious activities in the demes of Attica (cults and festivals, rituals, administration, finances, and topography of sanctuaries, funding of cults, relations between the polis of Athens and the demes, sacred personnel of the deme cults, the participation of ephebes in religious ceremonies), primarily based on the epigraphic evidence (cult regulations, sacrificial calendars, decrees of the demes). We single out her discussion of the sacrificial calendars of Thorikos (IG I3 256 bis; p. 155-165), the Tetrapolis of Marathon (IG II2 1358; p. 165-177), and Erchia (SEG XXXIV 111; p. 177-188). In “Metamorphoses of Tradition: the Athenian Anthesteria” (p. 223-275), she demonstrates that the ritual of the Anthesteria and the function of this festival in Athenian religion underwent substantial changes in the Classical and Hellenistic periods [on such ‘ritual dynamics’ see A. Chaniotis, “Ritual Dynamics in the Eastern Mediterranean: Case Studies in Ancient Greece and Asia Minor”, in W.V. Harris (ed.), Rethinking the Mediterranean, Oxford, 2005, p. 141-166]. [AC]

28571) M. Huys, “Some Notes on a Kellis Ostracon with the Legend of Tennes and Hemithea (= LDAB 10306)”, ZPE 152 (2005), p. 203-208: H. presents an improved edition of an ostracon narrating the myth of Kyknos’ children, Tennes and Hemithea (see infra no 169), and provides a detailed commentary on this version in the light of other sources. [AC]

28672) E. Interdonato, “Evergetismo e dediche nei santuari greci in età romana: il caso dell’Asklepieion di Kos”, in Autocélébration des élites,p. 267-285: The honorary inscriptions set up in the sanctuary of Asklepios in Kos reflect the transformation of the Asklepieion as a stage for the local elite’s self-representation. While in the 3rd and 2nd centuries honorary inscriptions were set up by foreign communities in gratitude for the services of Koans as judges and doctors, in the 1st cent. Roman statesmen and members of their families dominate. After the mid-1st cent. prominent individuals (C. Iulius Theopompos of Knidos and C. Stertinius Xenophon) were honoured in the Asklepieion. [AC]

28773) A.-F. Jaccottet, Choisir Dionysos. Les associations dionysiaques ou la face cachée du Dionysisme, Zürich, 2003 [SEG LIII 2225]: J. studies the Dionysiac associations (θίασος, κοινόν, σύνοδος, σπεῖρα), focusing on initiatory rituals (τελετή, ὄργια, τριετηρίς), the significance or artificial grottos (ἄντρον, μυχός), other cult places, and the part played by women. J. discusses in detail an honorary inscription from Torre Nova for Agripinilla, which gives a long list of functionaries of a Dionysiac association (IGUR 160; p. 30-53). The second volume presents a corpus of c. 200 relevant Greek and Latin inscriptions, arranged geographically. [A weak point of this important study of many aspects of Dionysiac worship is that it lacks a clear chronological arrangement. It thus conveys a rather static image and somewhat obscures long-term developments.] [AC]

28874) D.R. Jordan, “Three Notes”, ZPE 152 (2005), p. 155-156 [BE 2006, 63]: J. comments on a defixio from Hadrumetum addressed against horses (Audollent, DefixTab 25); in normalized spelling the text reads: Αλιμβεου κολουμβευ πετελλιμβευ. Λέγει σοι Ἀδωνάϊ Σαβαωθ Σεμεσιλαμ, ἵνα βαρύνῃς τὸν ἵππον Λαυρεᾶτον (characters, drawing of a horse with the name Λαυρεᾶτος written within it) μηδὲ τρέχῃ μηδὲ τοὺς πόδας κινήσῃ, μὴ σταθῇ. Κατάβαλε αὐτὸν καὶ κάτεχε (?) αὐτοῦ πόδας (p. 155-156) [“magical words; Adonai, Sabaoth, Semesilam, commands you to make Lauretus, the horse, heavy, in order that he may not run, may not move his legs, may not stand. Subdue him and hold his legs”]. J. returns to an amulet, in which the scribe, erroneously, inserted instructions from a formulary (EBGR 2001, 91). He observes that also ὃν ἔτεκεν ἡ Λο is the result of a similar misunderstanding. Λο (the usual abbreviation for λόγος) must have been confused with the very similar abbreviation for δεῖνα; the scribe misunderstood it as a name (p. 156). Finally, J. wonders whether Hesychios’ glossa παγαίη· κύων may be related to the verse ἡ σωτεῖρα, πανγαίη, κυνώ in a magical hymn to the Moon (PGM IV 2243-2347; p. 156). [In both cases, this seems to be a reference to Hekate, who was associated with the moon and with the chthonic element (παγαίη/πανγαίη); she was the recipient of dog-sacrifices (κύων/κυνώ) and was often worshipped as σωτεῖρα.] [AC]

28975) M. Kajava, “Hestia. Hearth, Goddess, and Cult”, HSCPh 102 (2004), p. 1-20: K. provides a brief survey of the epigraphic evidence for priesthoods of Hestia. According to K., Agora XV 260 lines 14-17 (early 1st cent.) cannot be seen as secure evidence for the existence of a priesthood of Hestia, while IG II2 5096 most probably refers to the cult of the Roman Vesta in Athens in the early Imperial period. Priests of Hestia are known only from Delos (I.Délos 1877, 2605) and Stratonikeia in Karia (I.Stratonikeia 16) [a priest of Hestia Boulaia is mentioned in an unpublished inscription from Aphrodisias]; the only known priestess of the goddess is attested in Chalkis on Euboea (IG XII Suppl. 651). K. suggests that there could have been a privately supported sanctuary of Hestia in Chalkis, comparable to the one in Piraeus (IG II2 1214, 1229). A group of inscriptions (mid-2nd-early 3rd cent. CE) mainly from Sparta (IG V 1, 116, 583-584, 586, 589, 593, 598; SEG XXXVI 353; XLVIII 460) and two from Olympia (IvO 473) and Herakleia Pontike (I.Heraclea Pontica 1) refer to women with the title Ἑστία Πόλεως. K. plausibly rejects the interpretation of these women as priestesses in charge of the civic hearth. Instead, K. sees in hestia poleos an honorary title. In IG XII 5, 143 (Paros, 1st cent. CE), Hestia is not a personal name (LGPN I, 168), but a heading introducing four individuals responsible for the maintenance of the public hearth. [JM]

29076) K. Karila-Cohen, “Les pythaïstes athéniens et leurs familles : l’apport de la prosopo­graphie à la connaissance de la religion à Athènes au iie siècle avant notre ère”, in Prosopo­graphie et histoire religieuse, p. 69-83: After summarising the function of the Pythais in late Hellenistic Athens K.-C. studies the social and local origins of the Pythaists who participated in the procession from Athens to Delphi. The prosopographical evidence in some cases allows continuities of family and local backgroung to be recognised among the Pythaists. Religious as well as social and political motives explain the participation of individuals in the Pythais. [JM]

29177) C.M. Keesling, “Patrons of Athenian Votive Monuments of the Archaic and Classical Periods. Three Studies”, Hesperia 74 (2005), p. 395-426 [BE 2006, 47]: On the basis of the epigraphic evidence, K. demonstrates that the activity of non-Athenian sculptors and letter cutters in Archaic Athens does not necessarily correlate with non-Athenian patrons of votive offerings on the Athenian Acropolis. More importantly, K. clearly shows that several dedications by Athenian potters and vase painters have been mistakenly reconstructed as metal or stone vases. This indicates that the occupation of the dedicator was not an important parameter determining his choice of an object to dedicate. IG II2 4921a (4th cent.) was interpreted by A. Raubitschek as the lower part of a pedestal for a marble basin, while the dedicator, Kittos, was identified with a homonymous potter. K. convinsingly shows that the object dedicated by Kittos was a slightly under-lifesize human head, most probably an anatomical votive dedicated to Asklepios in his sanctuary on the South Slope of the Acropolis. [JM]

29278) A. Kenzelmann Pfyffer – T. Theurillat – S. Verdan, “Graffiti d’époque géomé­trique provenant du sanctuaire d’Apollon Daphnéphoros à Érétrie”, ZPE 151 (2005), p. 51-83 [BE 2005, 385]: Ed. pr. of 66 graffiti found in the sanctuary of Apollo Daphnephoros (late 8th cent.). Two texts possibly designate the vases as belonging to the god (5: hιερέ; 62: [--]ιερ[---]). In two appendices, the authors present the Archaic inscriptions from this sanctuary, which include a dedication to Herakles (C = LSAG285 no 10), and other Geometric inscriptions of Eretria, including a possibly magical graffito (SEG XXXIX 939; EBGR 1994/95, 377). [AC]

29379) D. Knoepfler, “Les Rômaia de Thèbes : un nouveau concours musical (et athlétique) en Béotie”, CRAI (2004), p. 1241-1279 [SEG LIV 516]: Ed. pr. of the beginning of a list of victors at the Rhomaia in Thebes. This is the first attestation of this contest, which included musical competitions (trumpeter, herald, epic poet, rhapsodos, auletes, kitharistes, kitharodos, poet of satyr plays). Athletic competitions may have been listed in the lost part of the inscription. The festival for Thea Rhome must have been established after 146 and abolished during the Mithridatic Wars (c. 88). The agonistic inscription IG VII 2448 (c. 110-100) may concern the same contest. In c. 130-120 Thebes was a center of the Isthmian branch of the Dionysiac artists, and this may have favored the foundation of the festival. However, Thebes was involved in the violent conflict between the branches of the Dionysiac artists (c. 128-112), and around 118 the branch in Thebes was split. This may explain the almost exclusive presence of Thebans among the victors. K. also discusses the other agonistic festivals of Thebes (Herakleia and Agrionia). [AC]

29480) M. Kohl, “Das Nikephorion von Pergamon”, RA (2002), p. 227-253: In a study of the evidence for the sanctuary of Athena Nikephoros in Pergamon, K. surveys the history of Athena’s cult in Pergamon (as Polias and Nikephoros), the association of Zeus with her cult, and the festival Nikephoria. K. locates the Nikephorion on the top of the acropolis, on the ‘theatre terrace’. [JM]

29581) A. Kolde, Politique et religion chez Isyllos d’Épidaure, Basel, 2003: K. presents a new critical edition of the famous hymn of Isyllos (IG IV2 128), with translation and detailed line-by-line commentary. In her commentary she discusses the metrical structure and language of the poem, the mythical allusions mentioned in it, and the ritual practices, making many original contributions to the interpretation of difficult passages (p. 16-222) [as regards her detailed discussion of θάρσει (line 20; p. 198-209) see EBGR 2004, 66]. In the systematic chapters of the book K. discusses the biographical information on Isyllos, whom she identifies as the poet and the boy that was healed by Asklepios (223-236), the relation of his work to local historiography (p. 237-253), the narrative motifs (p. 253-256), the date (p. 257-301), and the image of Asklepios (p. 302-333). K. makes a strong case for identifying King Philip who attacked Sparta during Isyllos’ youth with neither Philip II nor Philip V, but with Philip III Arridaios (c. 316), thus placing the composition of the hymn in the early 3rd cent., possibly in the period of the Galatian invasion. In an appendix (p. 338-352), K. presents a selection of cult regulations (text, translation): the Eretrian decree concerning a procession for Dionysos (IG XII 9, 192); a sacrificial regulation from Athens (LSCG 31); a decree concerning the foundation of the cult of Aphrodite in Piraeus (LSCG 34); cult regulations concerning the cult of Asklepios in Amphipolis (SEG XLIV 505), Athens (LSCG 40), Epidauros (LSCG 60), and Eretria (LSCG 93); a decree concerning the asylia of the Asklepieion of Kos (LSCG 158); privileges awarded by Epidauros to Astypalaia (IG IV2 47); and cult regulations concerning the cult of the Nymphs in Kos (LSCG 152), of Alektrone in Ialysos (LSCG 136), and of Apollon in Athens (IG I3 137). In other appendices K. collects the literary sources concerning the birth of Asklepios (p. 352-363) [to these legends one should now add the inscription from Xanthos which refers to the birth of Asklepios in Doris (SEG XXX 1476)] and discusses the similarity between the cultic honours awarded to Demetrios Poliorketes in Athens and Ptolemaios I in Rhodes (p. 364-398) [a small detail concerning the ithyphallic hymn for Demetrios (Douris, FGrHist 76 F 13): ἄλλοι θεοί does not mean “les autres dieux”, as it is usually translated, but “other gods”.] [AC]

29682) E. Kosmetatou, “‘Taboo’ Objects in Attic Inventory Lists”, Glotta 79 (2003), p. 66-82: Continuing her studies on the Greek temple inventories (cf. EBGR 2002, 79; 2003, 89; 2004, 145-149), K. compiles a catalogue of objects designated as ἐξάγιστα (‘banned’, ‘accursed’, ‘sacred’?) in Athenian inventories. She argues that these objects (often jewellery) may have been items which had been confiscated, probably as a result of sacrilege, and deposited in the temple treasuries. [AC]

29783) E. Kosmetatou, “Περιτραχήλιον/περιτραχηλίδιον in the Athenian Inventory Lists”, Epigraphica 67 (2005), p. 17-22: The earliest occurrences of the terms περιτραχήλιον and περιτραχηλίδιον are in four inventory lists from the Athenian Acropolis (IG II2 1407 line 9, 385/4 BC; 1424a lines 10f., 371/70 BC; 1428 line 31, 367/6 BC; 1492 A 54, 305/4 BC). Περιτραχήλια must have been synonymous with περιτραχηλίδια, despite the suffix -ίδιον indicating a miniature. At least in the early 4th cent., the two terms referred to a kind of necklace that differed from an ὅρμος or an ὑποδερίς, since the so-called ‘Nike J’ wore all three kinds of necklace. [JM]

29884) Y. Kourayos, “Δεσποτικό: ἕνα νέο ἱερὸ σὲ μιὰ ἀκατοίκητη νησίδα τῶν Κυκλάδων”, Eulimene 5 (2004), p. 27-89 [BE 2006, 84; SEG LIV 798-802]: K. presents a detailed report on the excavation of an important sanctuary at Despotiko (near Antiparos, ancient Prepesinthos) which was in use from the Archaic to the Imperial period [cf. id., “Δεσποτικό. Ἕνα νέο ἱερὸ τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνα”, AAA 34-38 (2002-2005), p. 37-88 and Y. Kourayos – B. Burns, “Exploration of the Archaic Sanctuary at Mandra on Despotiko”, BCH 128-129 (2004-05) [2006], p. 133-174]. As one may infer from the appearance of the name of Apollon in abbreviated form in many graffiti on vases, Apollon was the primary deity worshipped there. One of the Archaic dedications (a marble perirrhanterion) was made by Mardis, possibly a man of Eastern origin. An altar built from four plaques was dedicated to the cult of Hestia Isthmia. Hekate’s epithet, hitherto unattested, derives from the name of the cape (Isthmos) where the sanctuary is located; this isthmus connected in antiquity Antiparos and Despotiko. K. suspects that Hestia was worshipped as a patron of sailors. [AC]

29985) Y. Kourayos – S. Detorarou, “Πάρος”, AD 54 B2 (1999) [2006], p. 788-797 [SEG LIV 794-795]: Ed. pr. (p. 790 f.) of a boundary stone marking a piece of private land, on which a deed of sale has been recorded. This real estate was purchased by a cult association of Soteriastai (Paros, late 3rd cent.). [We may restore lines 2f. as follows: [Ἁγνόθεος?] Κριναγόρου καὶ κοινὸν Σωτηριαστῶν | [οὓς συν]ήγαγεν Ἁγνόθεος ... ἐπρίαντο; Hagnotheos was the founder of the association.] Ed. pr. of a dedication made to an anonymous deity by the winner in the stadion race in an agon (791, Paros, 4th/3rd cent.). [AC]

30086) B. Kowalzig, “Mapping out Communitas: Performances of Theoria in their Sacred and Political Context”, in Pilgrimage, p. 41-72: Based on three case studies – the Panionion and its Ionian amphictyony, the hymn to Zeus from Palaikastro [FurleyBremer, Greek Hymns, no 1.1] and the mystery cult in the sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrake, K. investigates the importance and significance of choral performances in the context of theoria. The author mainly focuses on theoriai as means of inter-state religious and political inter­action. In a cult regulation from the Panionion (F. Sokolowski, “Règlement relatif à la célébration des Panionia”, BCH 94 [1970], p. 109-112, 4th cent.), the members of the amphictyony of the Panionion were invited to sacrifice in the choros (ἐν χορῶι θύειν). According to K., the expression probably refers to choral songs that accompanied the sacrificial ritual and suggests that a choros was required for the sacrifice to be valid. The hymn from Palaikastro also refers to a chorus singing a μολπή while standing around an altar. The author considers the ‘Hall of the Choral Dancers’ in Samothrake as evidence that ‘chorality’ was a central part of the Samothrakian mysteries. According to K., the honorary decrees for the poets Herodes (I.Priene 68-69, 2nd cent.) and Dymas (I.Iasos 153, 2ndcent.) were issued in the context of theoriai to Samothrake and were then entrusted to theoroi from Priene and Iasos respectively, who brought them home and had them erected in the poets’ home cities. [JM]

30187) C.B. Kritzas, “Literacy and Society: The Case of Argos”, Kodai, Journal of Ancient History 13-14 (2003-04), p. 53-60 [SEG LIV 427]: One of the most important epigraphic finds of recent decades is the discovery of an archive of bronze and lead tablets in Argos in 2000 and 2001. More than 130 tablets record financial transactions in the early 4th cent. involving sacred money of Athena and Hera. The information contained in this archive, summarized by K. on the basis of initial study of those tablets which have been cleaned and read, will contribute significantly to our knowledge of the civic organisation and history of Argos. The transactions concern deposits in and withdrawals from the treasury of Athena Pallas by civic magistrates for various public tasks (κάθεν ἐνς τὸν πέτρον πὰρ Παλλάδι, hέλοντο ἐκ τοῦ πέτρου πὰρ Παλλάδος) [see infra no 88]. The new archive also contributes to our knowledge of the Argive calendar, attesting two new months (Artamitios, Erithaieos) [cf. infra no 88]. [AC]

30288) C.B. Kritzas, “Οἱ χαλκοὶ ἐνεπίγραφοι πίνακες τοῦ Ἄργους”, Ἀργειακὴ Γῆ 3 (2005), p. 13-26 [BE 2006, 187; SEG LIV 427]: We present here some information from the bronze tablets of Argos (supra no 87) concerning the cults and sanctuaries of Argos. The texts show that the sacred money of Hera was not deposited in the Heraion, but in the treasury of Athena Pallas, probably for reasons of security. Among the officials mentioned we note the four hiaromnamones (one from each tribe); the athlothetai (hαFεθλοθέται), responsible for the agons in honour of Hera (Hekatomboua, renamed later to Heraia and Aspis); the sacrificial assistants κριθοχῦται (cf. the Athenian οὐλοχῦται); boards of functionaries (ἀρτύναι) responsi­ble for various activities connected with the cult and the sanctuary of Hera, such as equestrian contests (ἀρτύνα τᾶς ἱππαφέσιος), the purchase of cups for ritual banquets (ἀρτύνα τῶν ποτηρίων), the construction of the temple (δωματοποιοὶ ἐνς ῞Ηραν), the door (ἀρτύνα τῶν θυρωμάτων), and the cult statue of the goddess (ἐδοποιοὶ ἐνς ῞Ηραν, ἀρτύνα τοῦ εὐξοϊδείου), probably the one made under the supervision of Polykleitos the Younger [for more information see supra no 87 and K.’s more recent report in CRAI (2006), p. 397-434]. [AC]

30389) A. Lajtar, “Two Stamps on Eastern Sigillata A Ware from Antioch on the Orontes: an Epigraphical Note”, in Ε΄ Ἐπιστημονικὴ Συνάντηση γιὰ τὴν ἑλληνιστικὴ κεραμική. Χρονολογικὰ προβλήματα, κλειστὰ σύνολα, ἐργαστήρια (Athens 2000), p. 245-247 [SEG LIV 1590]: L. republishes two sherds of stamped plates from Antiocheia on the Orontes (c. 100-50: Ὀπάωνος ἡ χάρις; “the grace of Opaon”), identifying Opaon as the homonymous god. The cult of Opaon Melanthios is known from Amargetti near Paphos. The plates were probably made by a Cypriote potter. [AC]

30490) S. Lambert, “Athenian State Laws and Decrees, 352/1-322/1. II. Religious Regulations”, ZPE 154 (2005), p. 125-159 [BE 2006, 181]: Continuing his important studies on Athenian inscriptions of the 4th cent., L. discusses religious regulations of the years c. 352-322 [wisely avoiding the term ‘sacred laws’]. After a brief survey of the physical features of the relevant inscriptions and their content (regulations concerning the cult in Eleusis; sacred land and property not in Eleusis; festivals; dubia), he presents an annotated list of the relevant documents [for the texts concerning Eleusis see now supra no 39, which was taken in to consideration by L.]: the regulations concerning the sacred orgas in Eleusis (1 = I.Eleusis 144); a cult regulation (2 = I.Eleusis 78); a decree concerning repairs of the statue of Athena Nike (3 = LSCG 35); a decree concerning the foundation of the temple of Aphrodite by the Kitians (4 = IG II2 337); a lease of sacred land (5 = IG II2 295); laws concerning cult objects (6 = IG II2 333); a document concerning the leasing of Nea for the funding of the Little Panathenaia (7 = Agora XIX L7); decrees concerning festivals (8 = SEG XVI 55; 9 = SEG XXXI 86); a document concerning the Dipolieia (?, 10 = LSCG 179); a regulation concerning a temenos (11 = IG II2 310); a decree relating to Artemis (IG II2 326); and a fragment mentioning the Pythaistai (IG II2 260). In all these cases L. proposes new readings and restorations. We single out a new edition of IG II2 333, which concerns the funding of cult objects and other decoration (kosmoi) in a series of cults (inter alia Zeus Soter, Athena Soteira, Zeus Olympios, Dionysos, Athena Itonia, Agathe Tyche, Artemis Mounichia, the Twelve Gods, Amphiaraos, Asklepios, Artemis Brauronia, Demeter, and Kore). [AC]

30591) F. Lefèvre, “Les hiéromnémons de l’Amphictionie pyléo-delphique : l’apport de la prosopographie à l’histoire religieuse et politique de la Grèce ancienne (ve siècle-ier siècle avant J.-C.)”, in Prosopographie et histoire religieuse, p. 9-34 [BE 2006, 220]: On the basis of a prosopography of hieromnemones of the Classical and Hellenistic periods, L. studies their ‘profiles’ (social origin, political role), and activities (occupation of religious offices, diplomatic missions, other functions in the Amphictyony). He also studies service in this office by members of the same family. L. rightly warns against generalisations. [AC]

30692) C.M. Lehmann – K.G. Holum, The Greek and Latin Inscriptions of Caesarea Maritima, Boston, 2000 [SEG L 1466]: After an introduction concerning the cults, social organisation and history of Caesarea Maritima, L.-H. present a corpus of the inscriptions, most of which are in Latin. The main interest of the inscriptions consists in the evidence they provide for a shared religious vocabulary used by Jews, Christians, and pagans. Jews used, e.g., the formulaic expressions εὐξάμενος (78) and ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας (84), which are more common in pagan texts. Only in one case can the invocation εἷς Θεός, βοήθει be attributed with certainty to a Jew (137; cf. 80: κύριος βοηθός); the religious beliefs of other users of this formula (138-139) and of the formula εἷς Θεός (140) cannot be determined. A Christian funerary epigram (156*, 4th cent. CE or later) alludes to Greek mythological motifs (φρένας Πενελοπ[είας], Ἁΐδου ἐν πύλαις). Dedications to: Asklepios (127*), Zeus Dolichenos (124, εὐξάμενος ἀνέθηκε κὲ ἠργάσετο), Theos Megas Despotes (125), and to anonymous deities (126: εὐξάμενος ἀνέθηκε; 128*: [εὐτυ]χῶς ἀνέ[θηκεν]). Imperial cult: There are several dedica­tions to emperors (only Latin texts: 6, 9, 13-14, 16-17, 19*, 28-29). Jews: A large number of inscriptions commemorate construction work in the synagogue (78-84, 4th-7th cent.). Jews (including proselytes: 165) are known from many dedications and epitaphs (137 and 165-196). Funerary cult, afterlife: The formula δοῖ σοι ὁ Ὀσεῖρις τὸ ψυχρὸν ὕδωρ is used in the epitaph of two (?) children whose parents were worshippers of the Egyptian gods (possibly of Egyptian origin; 158, Imperial period). We also mention the consolatory phrase οὐδεὶς ἀθάνατος (149-150). [AC]

30793) I. Leventi, Hygieia in Classical Greek Art, Athens, 2003 [SEG LIV 23, 71]: This study of the representation of Hygieia in sculpture and vase-painting includes a collection of testimonia (p. 35-38), among them two inscriptions: a dedication to Athena Hygieia on the Athenian Acropolis (IG I3 506 = T 4), a statue made by Pyrrhos, and a dedication of a statue of Hygieia in the Amphiareion of Oropos (I.Oropos 347 = T 10); her catalogue includes IG II2 171 (p. 152 R 68), IG II2 171 (152 R 68), 4356 (132/133 R 11), 4357 (147 R 50), 4402 (149 R 56), 4960/4961 (134/135 R 14. In her discussion of the cult of Athena Hygieia on the Acropolis, L. endorses the identification of the bronze statue made by Pyrrhos with the Athena Hope/Farnese, as originally proposed by F. Studniczka in 1899 (p. 39-45). [AC]

30894) S. Lorenzatti, “La domus di Giove fulminatore”, Bollettini di Archeologia 49-50 (1998) [2002], p. 79-98 [SEG LIII 1082]: Ed.of a cippus dedicated to Zeus Kataibates, found in a house in Ostia (undated). [R. Tybout (SEG LIII 1082), suspects that the stone was imported from Greece.] [AC]

30995) L.D. Loukopoulou – A. Zournatzi – M.G. Parisaki – S. Psoma, Ἐπιγραφὲς τῆς Θράκης τοῦ Αἰγαίου, μεταξὺ τῶν ποταμῶν Νέστου καὶ Ἕβρου (Νομοὶ Ξάνθης, Ροδόπης καὶ Ἕβρου), Athens, 2005 [BE 2005, 2; 2006, 256-258]: This corpus assembles the inscriptions (c. 500 texts) of a series of important cities in Thrace (within the borders of the modern Greek state), including decrees of these cities found abroad, as well as the literary testimonia for this region (p. 45-91) and relevant inscriptions found in other places (p. 93-119).

310Abdera and territory. Cults: A plaque, which probably covered the front of an altar, is inscribed with the names Ἱστίης | Πυθείης (E15*, 5th cent.). The stone is broken on all sides, and so it is not certain whether it is complete. The editors think it improbable that Pytheie (a common epithet of Artemis) is an epithet of Hestia and prefer to place a comma between the two names. [Hestia is usually given epithets deriving from localities (e.g. Isthmia, Boulaia, Prytania, Timacheia), but there are also epithets deriving from capacities (e.g., Hestia Phamia in Kos: EBGR 2004, 140); Hestia Pytheie could have had her altar in a Pythion.] Dedications: to Dionysos (E17), Heros Mesopolites Epenor (E16), Zeus Hypsistos (E19*, 4th cent. CE; see infra) and an anonymous deity (E15). The new dedication to Zeus Hypsistos is interesting both because of the Semitic name of the dedicant (Σαββαΐς) and because the object is a thymiaterion; the editors suspect Jewish influence. [On the controversy concerning Jewish influence on the cult of Theos Hypsistos see EBGR 2002, 13.] Two dedications were made in fulfilment of vows (εὐχήν: E17, 19). Festivals: A decree concerns the acceptance of the Soteria in Delphi (E4). The festival of the Dionysia is mentioned in Hellenistic honorary decrees; the honoured persons were to be crowned during its celebration (E5, E7-9). The city had a separate budget for sacrifices (E7 line 31-33: τὸ δὲ γενό[μ]ενον ἀνάλωμα ... δότωσαν ἀπὸ [τ]ῶν εἰς τὰς θυσίας). Gladiatorial games are mentioned in an epitaph (E68, 3rd cent. CE: φιλοτειμησαμένῳ δι᾿ ὅπ[λων] ἡμέραις γ΄). Sanctuaries: The sanctuary of Dionysos was the place where honorary decrees were set up (E7-8). Officials: Dionysos served as eponymous priest (E8 line 27: μετὰ ἱερέα Διόνυσον; line 31-32: ἐπὶ ἱερέως Διονύσου), probably in a year of economic difficulty (2nd cent.); the authors assume that this eponymous priesthood was the priesthood of Dionysos; [but from the text one may infer only that Dionysos served as a priest, i.e. that his sanctuary paid the relevant expenses; it does not necessarily follow that Dionysos served as his own priest; the cult of Dionysos was undoubtedly the most prominent in Abdera, but, in the Imperial period, the eponymous priest was that of Zeus Eleutherios and Rome (E21-22); it is more likely that the priesthood of Zeus Eleutherios and Rome became eponymous, when this cult was established (and not centuries later); and there are good reasons to assume that the cult was established when Abdera received its freedom from the Romans; cf. the contemporary decree for C. Apustius M. f., who was responsible for this grant (E0 lines 36f.: [παραίτιον γενόμενον τῆς] ἐλευθερίας τῆι πόλει ἡμῶν). It is quite possible that Dionysos served as priest of Zeus Eleutherios and Rome.] The hierokeryx (E7-9) is mentioned in connection with the announcement of honours at the Dionysia. Cult associations: A cult association of Dionysos is known from a dedication to this god (E18, 3rd cent. CE), which mentions the ἀρχιβουκόλος, the worshippers (συνμύσται) and a cult building (μάγαρον). Imperial cult: There is a dedication to Hadrian (E23). Funerary cult: We note the use of the designation ἥρως (E65, 1st cent.).

311Topeiros: Funerary cult: A deceased man is called ἥρως (E86, 1st cent. CE). The epitaph for Lollia Tycharous, a priestess of Dionysos, is dedicated to her and to the gods of the underworld (θεοῖς καταχθονίοις καὶ τῇ ἱερίῃ Βακχίου ; E93, Imperial period).

312Kalyva (Nestos valley): A dedication to an anonymous god with the epithet ἐπήκοος (E105*, Imperial period).

313Cap Molybote (22 km west of Maroneia): Sanctuaries: Boundary stones of the sanctuary of Athena and Zeus (E107, 5th cent.) and of a sanctuary of healing deities (Podaleirios, Machaon, Periesto = Iaso?, and Athena; E108, 5th cent.).

314Maroneia: For the important new decree from Maroneia (E180 = SEG LIII 659) see EBGR 2003, 28. Priesthoods: The priesthood of Dionysos was eponymous (E168, 179). Cults: An altar was set up for the combined worship of Zeus and Rome (E187, 2nd cent.). The priest of this cult and of Dionysos and Maron (the eponymous hero) regularly set up votive altars (E188*, 189, 190*-193*, 194, 195*, 196, 197*-198*, 2nd-3rd cent.). Dedications: Most of the dedications are connected with the cult of the Egyptian deities, for which the most famous piece of evidence is the hymn (‘aretalogy’) of Isis (E205, late 2nd cent.). A man (probably a slave teacher) made a thanksgiving dedication (χαριστήριον) to the Egyptian gods, Sarapis, Isis, Anoubis, and Harpokrates on behalf of his τρόφιμος (here, ‘disciple’) after the latter had fulfilled the religious duties of a trierarches (E199*, 2nd/1st cent.). These duties (also in E201) were probably connected with the ritual of the Πλοιαφέσια. Several other dedications are addressed to the same gods (E200-201, 203; E201: χαριστήριον; E203: κατὰ πρόσταγμα; no 202 may be a dedication to Isis). A man who had served in an office related to Poseidon (in charge of sacred property?) made a dedication to Neikonemesis Soteira (E204*, 1st cent. BC), i.e. a combination of Nemesis and Nike (cf. I.Ephesos 411: Νεικονεμέσειον). [The expression [Ν]εικονέμεισιν [Σώτει]ραν ἐπέγραψεν does not necessarily mean that Neikonemeisis was the recipient of the stele, but only that she was the subject of a (painted?) representation on the lost part of the stele.] Sanctuaries: The sanctuary of Dionysos was the place where public documents were set up (E168). Cult associations: A cult association of worshippers of Sarapis (οἱ θεραπευταὶ τοῦ θεοῦ) honoured a priest of Sarapis and Isis, elected by the popular assembly; he had performed some unspecified service for the sanctuary (E182, early 2nd cent.). [An interesting detail is that the man is characterised as Παράμονος Ἀτ[τ]άλου ὁ κτησάμενος ἀρετήν. In the context of Sarapis’ cult, it is tempting to suspect that ἀρετή does not designate virtue but divine favour (“because Paramonos, son of Attalos, who has received divine favour, has been elected by the people priest of Sarapis and Isis ...”] The same association also honoured a man after his term as priest (E183, 2nd cent.); his statue was to be erected in the sanctuary; every year, during the meetings of the association (σύνοδοι), he was to be honoured with a crown, announced by the neokoros. Two fragmentary lists contain the names of the θεραπευταὶ (E212*-213*, 2nd-1st cent.). The longer list contained more than 50 names, among them only one woman, and five Romans. All the members were of free status. The officials included the archiereus, the thytes, and the hierokeryx. A hieroneikes may possibly be a man who had won a contest organised by the association. The second stele is very fragmentary, but one recognises an epimeletes and an official who was serving in his office for a third year [the editors’ restoration [ἱερητεύ]ων is plausible but not certain]. Calendar: Only the month name Heraion is attested (E179). Ruler cult: It is not clear whether a dedication to Zeus and king Philip Soter is addressed to Philip II or V (E186). Several inscriptions are dedicated to emperors: Vespasian (E208*), Trajan (E209*), and Hadrian (E210). Funerary cult: In many epitaphs the designation ἥρως/ἡρωΐς is attributed to the deceased individuals (E286-287, 288*, 289*, 290-295, 296*, 297-299, 300*, 301*, 302, 3rd cent. BC-3rd cent. CE). An epitaph uses the expression θεοῖς καταχθονίοις (E296). We note the imprecation λοιμὸς αὐτὸν ἄροιτο against anyone who violated the grave (E216*, 2nd cent. CE). Varia: A funerary epigram for a gladiator refers to Samothrace: ἦλθον δὲ ἱερᾶς [νήσ]ου πέδον ἀρχαῖον, φίλον ᾧδ[ε] (E221*, 3rd/4th cent.).

315Various sites in the Prefectures Komotinis and Sapon: Cults: A small altar decorated with a phallus was dedicated to the cult of all the gods (E393, 3rd cent., πάντων θεῶν ὁ βωμός). Dedications to: Apollon Poenos (Fillyra, E399*, 2nd/3rd cent., εὐξάμενος), Zeus Zbelthiourdos Theos Epekoos (Agiasma, E384, 3rd cent. CE, as χαριστήριον), Zeus Paisoulenos (E389, 3rd cent. CE, ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ θρεμμάτων καὶ τῶν ἰδίων εὐχαριστήριον). Funerary cult: The designation ἥρους (ἥρως) is attested in an epitaph (Iasmos, E385, 1st cent.).

316Zone: Dedications: A dedication was made to Aphrodite by συντελῶναι (E401, late 5th cent.). [The editors plausibly reject the possibility that the syntelonai were civic magistrates and tentatively suggest that they were collectors of the Athenian tribute; but the name (τέλος + ὠνή) makes this improbable; they must be tax farmers. A dedication to Aphrodite by a board seems to be connected with the perception of this deity as a patron of concord within boards of functionaries.] A statuette of a female figure was dedicated by a man to a group of divinities worshipped in the same sanctuary to express his gratitude, after a dream; the identity of the divinities is not clear (Egyptian gods?, Demeter and her synnaoi?); the inscription also gives the name of the priest (E431*: [Τι.] Κλαύδ. Φιλόμ[ου]σος κατ᾿ ὄναρ ἀνέθηκεν τὴν κόρην χαριστήριον θεοῖς συ[ν]νάοις μετὰ τέκνω[ν κ]αὶ συ[μβ]ίων, ἱερητ[εύοντος ---]ράτου [τοῦ ---]). [The editors briefly consider the possibility that Philomousos dedicated a statuette of Kore/Persephone, which seems to me the most plausible interpretation. The editors wonder whether the reference to σύμβιοι in the plural is to be understood as an indication of polygamy, but it is quite clear that the σύμβιοι are those of his children (“together with his children and (their) wives’’).] Another dedication were addressed to Demeter (E403), and another to an anonymous deity by a group of magistrates after their term in office (E403*).

317Traianoupolis: Sanctuaries: A boundary stone with the text ὅρος ἱερᾶς χώρας refers according to the editors to the sacred land of a sanctuary of Asklepios rather than to sacred land belonging to Samothrace (E434) [but as I have pointed out in EBGR 2003, 190, the sacred land of a sanctuary is called ἱερὰ γῆ and not χώρα; cf. infra]; another boundary stone marks land belonging to the sanctuary of the Great Gods in Samothrace (E448: ὅρος ἱερᾶς χώρας θεῶν τῶν ἐν Σαμοθρᾴκῃ). Dedications: to Asklepios and Hygieia (E435, εὐχαριστήριον), the Muses (E436, a sundial), and Kyrios Apollon Sirenos (E457, εὐχαριστήριον, on behalf of a man and his family). Cults: A decree mentions a festival (πανήγυρις) celebrated in honour of Rhoi[--] and Asklepios, perhaps Ῥοΐτης, a river god (E451, late 3rd cent.).

318Plotinopolis: Dedications: An interesting new dedication to Theos Hypsistos (E461*, 3rd cent. CE) was made by a man for his son in expression of gratitude (εὐχαριστήριον, εὐχήν); the dedicant had a crude drawing of his son (οὗ τὸ [εἶδος]) carved on the stone [the epithet Hypsistos is plausibly restored because of the representation of an eagle]. Other dedications are addressed to Apollon Kersenos Sozon (E459, εὐξάμενος χαριστήριον ἀνέθηκεν), Kyrios Kersenos (E460*, εὐξάμενος), Kyrios Hebros (E477) [a river-god], Herakles Soter by king Rhaskouporis (E458, c. 42-31), and an anonymous deity (E476*, εὐχαριστήριον).

319Territory of Hadrianopolis: Two dedications to Kyrios Apollon (E478-479, 478: εὐξάμενος εὐχαριστήριον). Unknown provenance: Dedications to Apollon (E481) and Heron (E482, παρὰ Ἥρωνι εὐχήν). [AC]

32096) E. Lupu, “A New Look at Three Inscriptions from Jaffa, Jerusalem and Gaza”, SCI 22 (2003), p. 193-202 [SEG LIII 1846, 1852]: L. presents an improved edition of an honorary inscription for Ptolemy IV (SEG XX 467, Jaffa, 217 BC) which was set up by his priest. He also republishes a fragmentary text from Jerusalem (SEG XXX 1695, 3rd/2nd cent.), interpreting it as an oath taken by the flutist Ares. [This text has been republished by M. Ricl, “A Confession-inscription from Jerusalem?”, SCI 25 (2006), p. 51-56, who interprets it as a confession inscription.] [AC]

32197) E. Lupu, Greek Sacred Law. A Collection of New Documents, Leiden et al., 2005 [BE 2005, 8]: L.’s work (NGSL) is more than the title suggests. It presents a [rather small] selection of cult regulations published after the appearance of LSCG. But the author also offers a very informative introduction to cult regulations (p. 3-112), in which he discusses the content and form of ‘sacred law’ (regulations concerning sacred space and sanctuaries; purity regulations; regulations concerning cult officials; sacrifice; funerary laws; cult foundations; festivals, etc.). L. has selected 27 documents from mainland Greece (1-14), Chersonesos (15), the Aegean Islands (16-24), and Sicily (25-27), which he presents with elaborate critical apparatus, translations, and very detailed commentaries. Athens: The sacrificial calendar of Thorikos (1 = SEG XXXIII 147, 5th/4th cent.); two decrees of the Eleusinians concerning the cult of Herakles in Akris (2 = SEG XXVIII 103, 332 BC) [see now supra no 39, I.Eleusis 85]; a sacrificial regulation of the Phrearrhioi (3 = SEG XXXV 113, 3rd cent.); a prohibition concerning garments allowed in the cave of Pan in Marathon (4 = SEG XXXVI 267, 61 BC) [see EBGR 2001, 115]; the statutes of a cult association of Herakliastai (5 = SEG XXXI 122, 2nd cent. CE). Tiryns: A fragmentary regulation (6 = SEG XXX 380, 6th cent.). Megalopolis: A ‘lex sacra’ concerning purity and access to a sanctuary of the Egyptian deities (7 = SEG XXVIII 421, c. 200). Lykosoura: A ‘lex sacra’ concerning purity and sacrifices in the cult of Despoina (8 = SEG XXXVI 376, 2nd cent.). Oropos: Sacrificial regulations from the sanctuary of Amphiaraos (9-10 = I.Oropos 278-2679, 4th cent. and Imperial period) [EBGR 1997, 296]. Haliartos: A decree of Haliartos concerning participation in the Ptoa (11 = SEG XXXII 456, c. 235?). Hyettos: A regulation concerning access to an oracle (12 = SEG XXVI 524, Hellenistic). Amphipolis: A ‘lex sacra’ concerning the cult of Asklepios (13 = SEG XLIV 505, c. 350-300) [EBGR 1993/94, 258]. Beroia: The gymnasiarchical law (14 = I.Beroia 1, c. 180?) [EBGR 1993/94, 87]. Chersonesos in Tauris: A regulation concerning the cult of Hermes or the cults in a gymnasion (15 = SEG XLVI 923, 2nd cent.) [EBGR 2001, 117]. Lindos: A sacrificial regulation concerning the cult of Apollon (16 = SEG XXXVIII 786) [EBGR 1988, 87]; a ‘lex sacra’ concerning suppliants (17 = SEG XXXIX 729, 3rd cent.) [EBGR 1989, 60]. Samos: A law concerning shopkeepers in the sanctuary of Hera (18 = IG XII 6, 169, 3rd cent.); a document concerning the duties of a priest (19 = IG XII 6, 170, 2nd/1st cent.). Chios: Two decrees concerning the priestess of Eileithyia, the funding of sacrifices, and the privileges of the priestess (20 = SEG XXXV 923, c. 400 BC). Thasos: A sacrificial regulation (21 = SEG XXXVIII 853, c. 430-420). Eleutherna: A law concerning wine consumption by a priest (22 = SEG XLI 739, 6th cent.) [EBGR 1991, 252]; a sacrificial calendar (23 = SEG XLI 744) [EBGR 1991, 226]. Lissos: A sacrificial regulation concerning the cult of Asklepios (24 = SEG XXVIII 750, late Hellenistic?). Megara Hyblaia: A sacrificial regulation (25 = SEG XXVI 1084 = IGDS 20, 6th cent.). Nakone: A decree concerning rituals of reconciliation after a civil strife (26 = SEG XXX 1119). Selinous: A ‘lex sacra’ concerning purification (27 = SEG XLIII 630) [EBGR 1993/94, 121 and 2004, 69 and 74]. Of course, these 27 documents cannot be regarded as a supplement to F. Sokolowski’s volumes. L. meets up to a certain extent the urgent need for such a supplement by providing in an appendix (p. 396-404) a very useful checklist of relevant inscriptions from Asia Minor (38 texts) and Kos (42 texts). In another appendix he treats a Punic tariff from Massalia (p. 391-397). [Compared with F. Sokolowski’s corpora the NGSL is a real progress: the critical editions are better, it gives reliable translations, and the commentaries are thorough. The geographical limits (essentially mainland Greece) are very narrow, but in the introduction and in the commentaries L. has systematically exploited inscriptions from other areas as well. L. plausibly understands as ‘sacred law’ (p. 5-9) documents, which set out rules and regulations concerning recurrent cult practice. Wouldn’t this volume be a good opportunity to abandon the misleading concept of ‘sacred law’ alltogether? A few details. The phrase ὅπως ἂν ἡ θυσία γίγνηται ὡς καλλίστη in the Eleusinian decree for the cult of Herakles (2, lines 5f.; cf. line 20) expresses an interest in the aesthetic aspect of the sacrifice; this is lost in the translation “that the sacrifice might be performed in the best possible way” (p. 154). In the statutes of the Herakliastai (5), a clause prescribes fines for trouble makers (lines 8-9): ὁ δὲ ἐξακολου­θήσας δραχμὰς πέντε καὶ ἐξάνανκα πραττέσθω τῶν συ[υ]νερανιστῶν ψῆφον λαβόντων ἐκβιβάσαι. L. translates: “the one who joined it [the fight] (shall pay) five drachmas. Such a person shall on compulsion be subjected to expulsion from the association, following the votes of the fellow members.” But πράττεσθαι means “to exact a fine.” I would translate: “the one who continued it [the fight] (shall pay) five drachmas; and it shall be compulsory to exact the fine, if the fellow members decide upon vote his expulsion from the association.” The culprit should not escape the fine through his exclusion from the club. In the decree of Nakone (26), L. translates δοκιμάζω as ‘to inspect’ (p. 350), instead of ‘to find suitable’. For the choice of a goat for the sacrifice to the ancestors in this text (p. 354), see my remarks in “Gedenktage der Griechen: Ihre Bedeutung für das Geschichtsbewußtsein griechischer Poleis”, in J. Assmann (ed.), Das Fest und das Heilige. Religiöse Kontrapunkte zur Alltagswelt, Gütersloh, 1991, p. 123-145.] [AC]

32298) H. Malay, “Φιλάνπελοι in Phrygia and Lydia”, EA 38 (2005), p. 42-44 [BE 2006, 354]: M. demonstrates that a dedication to Hosios Dikaios from Lydia (SEG XXXI 1130) was not made by an association of worshippers of angel(s) (Φιλάγγελοι), but by an association of ‘lovers of vines’ (Φιλάνπελοι). This reading is confirmed by a new find from the territory of Philadelphia (AD 162): Νέοι φιλάνπελοι ὑπὲρ τῆς ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίας Μητρὶ Λητῷ εὐχὴν ἀνέθ[η]καν [“young lovers of vines dedicated this in fulfilment of a vow for their own salvation to Mother Leto”]. [JM]

32399) G. Manganaro, “Una defixio giudiziaria in alfabeto selinuntino”, REG 116 (2003), p. 685-689 [SEG LIII 1038]: Ed. pr. of a fragmentary curse tablet (Selinous?, c. 500-575 BC). A person curses a witness in a trial concerning adoption. [The Selinous provenance is rejected by Bettarini, supra no 17 who also proposes a different restoration.] [AC]

324100) G. Manganaro, “Affitto di spazi pubblici per le panegyreis ad Akrai”, ZPE 147 (2004), p. 115-122 [SEG LIV 878]: M. reprints the text of a list of persons, to whom entities abbreviated as θεμ. were allocated (Akrai, late 3rd cent.; IG XIV 217 = IGDS 109). M. interprets θεμ. as θεμέ­λια (“posteggi”, market-stalls) leased out to traders on the occasion of a festival (cf. the leasing of tents in Andania; IG V 1, 1390). The location of these θεμ. is determined through reference to buildings and other topographical features, which include sanctuaries (Artemition, Aphrodision, and Koreion). The festival may have been that of Artemis, Aphrodite, or Kore. In this context, M. briefly discusses the cults of Kore and Demeter in Sicily. [AC]

325101) G. Manganaro, “Anagrafe di Leontinoi nel V secolo”, ZPE 149 (2004), p. 55-68 [BE 2005, 636; SEG LIV 924]: M. republishes two dedications from Leontinoi (infra no 132; p. 62-64). He argues that the dedication to the Dioskouroi may be an expression of individual piety; consequently, the deposit in which it was found did not necessarily belong to a sanctuary of the Dioskouroi; M. briefly comments on their cult in Sicily. As regards a dedication of a certain Leukios, an ἐξελεύθερος, M. suspects that this man was a Samian captured in Sicily, perhaps while serving as a mercenary. Without providing any reasons, he assumes that the dedication was made to Apollon ([Λ]εύκιος μ᾿ [ἀνέθεκεν | τõι Ἀπόλλονι (?)] ὁ ἐχσ­ε­λ[ε|ύ]­­­­θε­­ρο[ς τοῦ δεῖνα]) [possibly because a homonymous Samian dedicated a kouros to Apollon in Samos (IG XII.6.586). The possibility that Leukias was a released captive is indirectly supported by the use of the term ἐξελεύθερος (‘completely liberated’) and not ἀπελεύθερος (manumitted slave).] [AC]

326102) G. Manganaro, “La mazza di Herakles”, Epigraphica 67 (2005), p. 9-16: There can be no doubt that Herakles was worshipped in Gela, since there is clear numismatic and epigraphic evidence (IGDS 159, 162). In his paper, M. focuses on the apotropaic aspects of Herakles’ cult in this city: A Hellenistic oscillatory found near Gela (IGDS 19) bears on its back side an apotropaic inscription (Ἡρακλῆς ἔνθα κατοικεῖ, μὴ ᾿σίτω μηθὲν κακόν) [cf. supra no 28]. M. suggests that bronze clubs dedicated to Herakles in Gela and in Apollonia could have had a similar significance. [JM]

327103) G. Manganaro, “La stele in pietra scura (IG XIV 7) col l’epistola di Gerone II ai Siracusani”, ZPE 152 (2005), p. 141-151: M. suggests a new restoration of the oath contained in an inscription from Syracuse (IG XIV 7, after 241) which concerns an agreement between Hieron II and the Syracusans. According to the new restoration, the gods invoked in the oath were Hestia, Zeus Olympios, Athena Polias and Poseidon. [AC]

328104) M.-C. Marcellesi, “Les hydrophores d’Artémis Pythie à Milet”, in Prosopographie et histoire religieuse, p. 85-112: M. presents a thorough study of the function of the hydrophoroi of Artemis Pythie in Didyma (participation in a mystery cult, offering of sacrifices). From the epigraphic evidence, we know 119 women who occupied this office from the 3rd cent. BC to the 3rd cent. CE. They assumed this office as part of the liturgic services of their elite families. Although most hydrophoroi were young girls, M. is reluctant to accept this as a strict rule. The hydrophoroi usually served for one year and sometimes occupied other sacred offices later. A close prosopographical study reveals family traditions (descent from persons who had also served as hydrophoroi or prophetai). [AC]

329105) A. Mastrocinque, “Amuleto per l’utero dal territorio di Gela”, ZPE 152 (2005), p. 168-170 [BE 2006, 64]: In an a amulet from the area of Gela (SEG XLIV 752 = LII 913, 5th cent. CE), M. recognizes an amulet for the protection of the womb (cf. [μελάν]η ἀ<μαυρ>ομένη) and presents an improved edition. [AC]

330106) B.H. McLean, Greek and Latin Inscriptions in the Konya Archaeological Museum, Ankara, 2002 (Regional Epigraphic Catalogues of Asia Minor, IV) [SEG LII 1456ter-1459bis]: M. presents a corpus of the inscriptions in the Museum of Konya, most of which are from Ikonion and its area, but many of which are of unknown provenance (Lykaonia). All the inscriptions date to the Imperial period; new texts are marked with an asterisk. [Not unlike many recent epigraphic publications, this edition contains many mistakes in accents; e.g., 26: Ἀπολλῶνει; 27: Ἀπολλῶ[νι]; 64: ἐρῆμον; 70: βῶμον, θωρακεῖοις, τοὶς τέκνοις; 81: κεχολώμενον; 100: ἀνδρά; 111: εὐφραινέσθαι; 158: τοπῷ, etc.] Dedications: Most dedications were made to mother goddesses with various local epithets: Meter Andeirene (*12, unkn. prov.; 13, Konya district), Meter Amlasenzene (*14, Cihanbeyli), Meter Kootadeia (*15, near Zizima) [M. restores Κοοταδει[ᾷ], but according to the common pattern observed in epithets deriving from place names in this area, the epithet is more likely to be Κοοταδει[νῇ]], Meter Zimene (Meydanli, between Tyriaion and Laodikeia Combusta: 3; Ikonion: 4; Zizima: 5; unkn. prov.: *7), Meter Theon Zizimene (*8) [according to the improved reading by P. Thonemann; see EBGR 2003, 170], Meter Koutrene (6, Ikonion; named after Quadrata, an estate near Laodikeia), Meter Boethene (*10, Ikonion), Meter Tymenene (*11, Tyriaion). Other dedications are addressed to Apollon Epekoos (*26, Meydanli; 43, Komitanasso), Apollon (*27, unkn. prov.), Ares (*36, unkn. prov.), Artemis (*21, unkn. prov.), Demeter Patroa (*40, unkn. prov.), the Dioskouroi (33), Hosios and Dikaios (*24, Tyriaion?; 25, Ikonion), Mes Kabikandreos (*22, unkn. prov.), Mes (*28, Ikonion), Mes Ouranios (*23, near Ikonion), Plouton (*29-*30, Ikonion; 31, Isaura Vetus), Plouton and Kore (*37, area of Ikonion), Poseidon (*41-*42, Ikonion; 42: ὑπὲρ τῶν τετραπόδων πάντων), Sozon (16, Ikonion, ὑπὲρ τέκνων), Theoi Athanatoi (32, Nigde), Theos Hypsistos (38, Ikonion; *39, unkn. prov.), Tyche (*17, Konya region, ὑπὲρ τῶν ἰδίων πάντων) [instead of Τυχή, read Τύχῃ], Zeus Megistos (*18, Zizima), Zeus Soter (19, Ikonion, τράπεζαν, στοάν, μαγειρεῖον, dedicated by a veteran), and anonymous gods (44, unkn. prov.; 45, Ikonion; 46, Oguzeli). Apollon, Mes, Plouton, the Athanatoi Theoi, and the Dioskouroi (26-34) are represented in reliefs as rider gods. In several cases the dedicated objects were lion statues (*11: λεοντάρια; *22-*23). A dedication by a priest (*35, Zizima: Λ(ούκιος) Καλπούρνιος ΑΡΗΙΦΙΛΟΣ ἱερεύς) is interpreted by M. as a dedication to Ares; M. wonders whether Ἀρηίφιλος is a personal name, an adjective, or a designation of a member of a cult association (Ἄρηι φίλος). [Ἀρηίφιλος is a personal name (see LGPN IV, s.v.), Calpurnius’ cognomen.] A relief representing a rider god was donated by a man to his association (φράτρα) in fulfilment of a vow (*34, Kotenna) [for the use of the word as a designation of a cult association in Mylasa see EBGR 2004, 26]. Some of the dedicants were priests: *7, *20 (a priest for life of Zeus, Artemis, and Pantheon, and his wife, priestess for life of deities whose names are not preserved), *35, *36. Vocabulary of dedications: ἀναφέρω (‘to dedicate’; *11), εὐχήν (3-4, 10-18, 25 [see EBGR 2003, 170], 28-34, 36-40, 44, 46), καθ᾿ ἐπιταγήν (7). One of the longer texts (9 = MAMA VIII 297, Ikonion, 2nd cent. CE) commemorates the dedication of a temple by an individual: [εὔχομαι θ]εοὺς σωτῆρας, τήν τε Ἄγγδιστιν καὶ τὴν Μ[ε|γάλην Μητ]έρα Βοηθηνὴν καὶ Θεῶν τὴν Μητέρα καὶ τὸν |[---] Ἀπόλλω καὶ τὴν Ἄρτεμιν, ἵλεως καὶ ε[ὔ|νους εἶναι τῆ]ι κολωνείαι Εἰκονίωι· καθιέρωσε Μ|[---] τῆι δὲ γλυκυτάτηι πατρίδι· |[--- ὁ] υἱὸς αὐτούς τε καὶ τὸν νεὼν σὺν [---] (“I pray to the saviour gods, Angdistis, and the great Meter Boethene, and Meter of the Gods, and ... Apollo, and Artemis, to be merciful and kindly to the colony of Iconium; [so-and-so] (dedicated this) for his beloved native city; [so-and-so], (his) son, [set] them (i.e., the statues of the gods) [up], and also [furnished] the shrine with [every decoration?]”). [In line 3 one may restore [--- καὶ] τὸν Ἀπόλλω; M (line 4) is the abbreviated praenomen of the dedicant (Marcus). In line 1 I suggest restoring [ἐνεύχομαι] (“I invoke”; cf. SEG LIV 606; EBGR 2004, 251: ἐνευχόμεθα τὴν τῶν Σεβαστῶν | τύχην etc.) or [ἐπεύχομαι] (cf. the paian of Isyllos, IG IV2 128 lines 21-23: ἐπεύχεσθαι πολιάταις πᾶσιν ἀεὶ διδόμεν τέκνοις τ᾿ ἐρατὰν ὑγιείαν etc.). Tῆι δὲ γλυκυτάτηι πατρίδι seems to be the beginning, not the end of a sentence (because of δέ): “and for the sweetest fatherland [---], his son, set these statues up, etc.”). This text reflects the invocations made during the inauguration ceremony.]

331Imperial cult: In an honorary inscription for Antoninus Pius written on a statue base, the emperor is called θεῶν ἐνφανέστατος (47, Klaudioderbe). Funerary cult, afterlife: There are numerous funerary imprecations against potential violators of graves using known formulae: ἐνορκίσζω τοὺς καταχθονίους (49); ὀρφανὰ τέκνα λίποιτο (49); ἕξει τὸν Μῆνα κεχολωμένον τὸν καταχθόνιον (60; cf. *74: ἕξει Μῆνα καταχθόνι[ον κεχωλομένον] [restored by P. Thonemann; see EBGR 2003, 170]; 81: κεχωλομένον ἔχοιτο Μῆνα καταχθόνιον); ὀρφανὰ τέκνα λίποιτο, χῆρον βίον, οἶκον ἔρημον (*146) [to be restored also in no 64: [λίποιτο ὀρφανὰ τέ]κνα, [χῆρον] βίον, οἶκον ἔρημον]; δώσει λόγον τῷ θεῷ (68; cf. the Christian epitaphs *219 and *223); [ἐνορκοῦμεν δὲ τ]ρὶς ἐννέα Μῆνας καταχθονίους (120; cf. 125: ἐνορκῶ τρὶς θ΄ Μῆνας ἀνεπιλύτους); κατάραις ὑποκείσεται θεῷ Διί (*194). Terminology of funerary monuments: λάρναξ (50, *51, 52-55, 57-58, 61-63, 66-67, 69-72, 76-78, 80, 83, 87-88, 120, 126, 138), βωμός (48, 50, 52-55, 58, 61-63, 65, 69-72, 74, 76, 78, 87, 125), θήκη (*51), πέλτον (59, 61, 65, 125), λέων (61; cf. nos 191-194, ‘funerary lion grave-covers’). The deceased person is called ἡρωΐς (53). An inscription from the area of Lystra seems to record the deification of the deceased person (*150): Μένανδρος Κάστορος Ἀπόλλωνι καὶ Μανίᾳ τῇ ἑαυτο<ῦ> ἀνυψιᾷ γενομένης θέας, ἀνέθηκεν <μνήμης> χάριν; M. regards θέας as the equivalent of θείας and assumes that Mania was deified. The stele is decorated with a puzzling scene in relief: “the shaft of the stele portrays a man walking beside an ox, holding the animal by one of its horns (?); the animal’s right front leg is raised; a second man and a woman stand before the ox; the man appears to be off-balance, and the woman seems to be holding the animal’s hoof with her right hand.” [The scene seems to represent an accident which resulted in Mania’s death (Mania was probably killed by the ox); for a similar scene see I.Épidamne 527 (a pig killed by a wagon). The deification of Mania is quite possible (but then one should read γενομένης θεᾶς), especially since Mania is together with Apollon the object of ἀνέθηκεν. But since <μνήμης> is not on the stone, I wonder whether we should read τῇ ἑαυτο<ῦ> ἀνυψιᾷ γενομένῃ <ς>, θέας ἀνέθηκεν χάριν (“Menadros, son of Kastor, dedicated this to Apollo and Mania, his deceased niece, for (others) to see”); γενόμενος / γενομένη is very common as a designation of deceased persons (e.g., I.Eleusis 377: τὴν γενομένην ἑαυτοῦ γ[υναῖκα].] Varia: A graffito on a stone slab commemorates a wedding celebration (224, Aydogmus): οἱ ἑορταζόμενοι ἐν τοῖς Γούλλου γάμους ἀνέθεντο νείκην αὐτῷ (“those who were feasting at the marriage-banquet of Goullas ascribed victory to him”); Neike could have been Goulas’ wife [or Goullas’ friends could have dedicated an image of Neike. We note in passing that the texts nos 227 and *228 (Ikonion and its area) are both Christian and refer to the construction of the altar of a church: θυηπόλ[ιον] (not θυηπόλ[ον]. No 228 reads (see photo): [--]ω τεύξαντα σὸν θυηπόλ[ιον] (not τεύξαντος <σ>όν).] [AC]

332107) J. MéndezDosuna, “Aríston adoptó tres hijas”, ZPE 151 (2005), p. 87-90 [BE 2005, 639]: The phrase θυγατέρας ἐθήκατο in a new inscription from Sicily (SEG LIII 1039; EBGR 2004, 180) was interpreted by R. Wachter as a reference to the dedication of three daughters by their father. Instead, M. interprets this phrase as referring to adoption under the protection of the divinity. [As I pointed out in SEG LIII 1039, if this were an adoption one would expect the name of the natural father, which is not given; the adoption of daughters is very rare, and the adoption of three girls at the same time is hard to explain.] [AC]

333108) G. Meyer, “Le prix de l’eau et le tarif du sanctuaire des Nymphes : IG, I3, 256”, REG 117 (2004), p. 321-325 [SEG LIV 59]: M. republishes and translates a cult regulation concerning the cult of the Nymphs (IG I3 256; LSCG 178; c. 430-420 BC). The first clauses of the text oblige those who drink water from Halykos to pay annually an obolos for the cult of the Nymphs. For the last clause, M. proposes a new restoration (ἐάν τις φέρη[ι] ἢ ἄγηι τō ὕδατος [καὶ] καταθει ὀβολόν, not [μὴ] καταθει ὀβολόν; “si quelqu’un transporte ou fait emporter de l’eau, même s’il dépose une obole”). The sale of water is also attested in the orgeones of Bendis (IG II2 1361; LSCG 45). [AC]

334109) D. Musti, “Isopythios, isolympios e dintorni”, RFIC 130 (2002) [2005], p. 130-148: M. defends his view on the trieteric character of the Nikephroria of Pergamon [cf. EBGR 1999, 32 and 169; 2000, 90; 2002, 106], argues that the terms ἰσοπύθιος and ἰσολύμπιος refer to the contemporaneity of a newly founded festival with the Pythian and Olympic festivals, and presents a list of newly founded festivals and their correspondence to the celebration of Panhellenic festivals. [AC]

335110) F. Naiden,Hiketai and Theoroi at Epidauros”, in Pilgrimage, p. 73-95: On the basis of the healing miracles of Epidauros (IG IV2 1, 121-122, late 4th cent.), N. compares the phenomena of supplication and theoria. N. concludes that the two phenomena overlap, if one defines theoria as ‘watching for a manifestation of a god’s power’; successful hiketeia in Epidauros also culminated in a manifestation of divine power: the healing. [JM]

336111) F.S. Naiden, “Supplication and the Law”, in E.M. Harris – L. Rubinstein (eds), The Law and the Courts in Ancient Greece, London, 2004, p. 71-91 [SEG LIV 1856]: Based on a review of the literary and epigraphic evidence, N. shows that supplication was more than a ritual: it culminated in an act of judgment by the supplicated party. Consequently, it had a very close relation with law. The literary sources refer to the occasional rejection of supplication on legal grounds, and Athenian inscriptions (e.g., IG II2 218) refer to acts of supplication which were examined by the council. The expression ἔδοξεν ἔννομα ἱκετεύειν shows that supplication was subject to scrutiny and legal consideration. [AC]

337112) D. Noy – A. Panayotov – H. Bloedhorn, Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis I. Eastern Europe Tübingen, 2004 [SEG LIV 502, 528, 545, 563-564, 567, 590, 594, 622, 658, 674, 712, 803, 820, 829, 835]: This volume collects the Jewish inscriptions from Pannonia, Dalmatia, Moesia, Thrace, Macedonia, the Greek mainland and islands, and the North Coast of the Black Sea. We note the expression εἷς θεός (Pan2; Mac17); an honorary inscription from Athens set up by a thiasos which included a Samaritan among its members (IG II2 2943; Ach41; 4th/3rd cent.); a dedication of his manumission record by Moschos, a Jew, to Amphiaraos (Oropos, c. 300-250; Ach45) in accordance with a dream, probably in order to secure his status as a freedman; a funerary imprecation from Argos (with the formula ἐνεύχομαι τὰς θείας καὶ μεγάλας δυνάμεις τὰς τοῦ Θεοῦ; Ach51); several dedications to Theos Hypsistos from Delos (Ach60-64 = I.Délos 2328, 2330-2333) [a connection with Judaism is anything but certain; cf. infra no 158]; a dedication by a Samaritan in the Serapeion of Delos (Ach68); Delian epitaphs with curses against murderers (Ach70/71); a dedication to Theos Hypsistos epekoos from Pantikapaion (BS4) and manumission records (BS5-9) relevant to the question of the identity of the theosebeis; Jewish manumissions in Gorgippia addressed to Theos Hypsistos Pantokrator Eulogetos (cf. BS21, 27); the pagan formula ὑπὸ Δία Γῆν Ἥλιον used by Jews (BS20 and BS22, 1st cent. CE). [AC]

338113) T. Özhan, “New Inscriptions from Stratonikeia”, EA 38 (2005), p. 15-19: Ed. pr. of inscriptions from Stratonikeia (Imperial period). An altar was dedicated to Zeus Labraundos in accordance with a divine command (κατὰ πρόσταγμα; Stratonikeia, Imperial period; 11). [We note that the name of the god is given as Ζεὺς Λαβραύνδου, not Λάβραυνδος.] Another altar was dedicated as an expression of gratitude (εὐχαριστήριον) to a divinity with the unique epithet Kathemerinos (“the daily one”). Ö. plausibly assumes that this divinity was Helios (12). [AC]

339114) S. Oikonomou, “Νεκρικὰ κοσμήματα. Τὰ ἐλάσματα κάλυψης τοῦ στόματος”, Eulimene 5 (2004), p. 91-133 [SEG LIV 1896]: O.’s comprehensive study of the use of mouth bands in funerary cult, from the Neolithic to the Roman period, includes a discussion of the Orphic lamellae (p. 97-98, 125-126 nos 229-239). [AC]

340115) R. Parker, “What are Sacred Laws?”, in E.M. Harris – L. Rubinstein (eds), The Law and the Courts in Ancient Greece, London, 2004, p. 57-70 [SEG LIV 1901]: Starting from the observation that LSAM, LSCG, and LSCG Suppl. were compiled without a clear definition of what a ‘sacred law’ is, P. proposes to distinguish between two groups of ‘sacred laws’: on the one hand, those laws which had their origin in the assembly, and, on the other, ‘exegetical laws’ which prescribed the proper way to do things. The first group did not differ from other laws (or decrees) which were validated by the assembly, except in their subject matter. Such laws concern the protection of sanctuaries, calendars of cult, festivals, the perquisites of priests, and funerary cult. Laws belonging to the second group, which generally warn worshippers to avoid wrong ritual actions, in particular as regards purity and sacrifice, derive from exegetical traditions. References to ἱεροὶ νόμοι in inscriptions show that the Greeks were aware of a distinct group of ‘sacred laws’. [AC]

341116) R. Parker, “Τέκνων ὄνησις”, ZPE 152 (2005), p. 152-154: Collecting numerous attestations of a wish for healthy children in prayers and oaths, and, accordingly, the opposite wish in curses, P. suggests restoring μὴ γίνεσθαι αὐτῶν [ὄ]νηρ[ιν μηδὲ τέρψιν] in the curse formula of the new Eretrian anti-tyranny law (SEG LI 1105; EBGR 2001, 97). [AC]

342117) R. Parker – M. Stamatopoulou, “A New Funerary Gold Leaf From Pherai”, AEphem 143 (2004) [2007], p. 1-32: Ed. pr. of a funerary gold leaf that was accidentally discovered in 1904 in Thessalian Pherai. It was found in a marble repository containing remains which suggest that the deceased was cremated. The strip preserves a text of two hexameters in two lines. The authors read: πέμπε με πρὸς μυστῶ<ν> θιάσους· ἔχω ὄργια <ἰδοῦσα> / Δήμητρος Χθονίας <τε> τέλη καὶ Μητρὸς Ὀρεί[ας (“send me to the groups of initiates; I have [seen] the rites and mysteries of Demeter Chthonia and Meter Oreia” [or perhaps: “I have seen the rites of Demeter Chthonia and the mysteries of Meter Oreia”]). The letterforms suggest a date in the late 4th or early 3rd cent. P.-S. suspect that the addressee of the tablet may have been Persephone. This is the first attestation of thiasoi in a gold tablet; this term should not be taken as evidence for Dionysiac rites. Despite the explicit mention of Demeter Chthonia and Meter – two goddesses not mentioned on any other gold leaf –, P.-S. suggest that the tablet had no direct relation to a fixed cult, such as the cult of Demeter Chthonia in Hermione, but rather had its origin in a thiasos led by a wandering priest. [JM]

343118) É. Perrin-Saminadayar, “Traditions religieuses et stratégies familiales sur quelques familles sacerdotales athéniennes de l’époque hellénistique”, in Prosopographie et histoire religieuse, p. 51-67: Studying certain families whose members occupied religious offices in Hellenistic Athens (with emphasis on the Eleusinian mysteries and the Pythais), the author argues that elite families demonstrated a strong attachment to traditional cults [cf. supra no 76]. [AC]

344119) É. Perrin-Saminadayar, “L’accueil officiel des souverains et des princes à Athènes à l’époque hellénistique”, BCH 128-129 (2004-05) [2006], p. 351-375: Based on literary sources (esp. Polyb. XVI, 25-26) and inscriptions (e.g. IG II2 1006; OGIS 332; Syll.3 798), the author proposes a reconstruction of a specific type of celebration in Hellenistic Athens: the reception of kings, members of their families, important foreign statesmen, and Romans. According to the reconstructed pattern, the celebration consisted of two parts: the apantesis, i.e. the reception of the honoured person by the ephebes and the magistrates, and his entrance into Athens in a procession; and the apodoche, i.e. the offering of hospitality, which included the opening of temples, sacrifices, banquets, and a public address to the citizens by the honoured person. [AC]

345120) G. Petzl, “Neue Inschriften aus Lydien (V)”, EA 38 (2005), p. 21-36 [BE 2006, 351]: Ed. pr. of a dedication to an anonymous deity in fulfilment of a vow (κατὰ εὐχήν; 1; North-east Lydia, 44 CE). Ed. pr. of an epitaph (9) set up by an association of musicians (θίασος τῶν μουσικῶν; 9; Lydia, Imperial period; cf. the association of ποδάριοι in Saittai: TAM V 1, 91-92). Ed. pr. of an epitaph from Phrygia (10; 252 CE) with the imprecation ἔσται αὐτῷ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν followed by a phrase which P. transcribes as follows: ΚΘ̣ΙΑΦ̣ΛΥΚ̣ΕΤΟΝ αὐτοῦ τὸ μέρος τὸ ἐπουράνιον. [I read on the photo: <κ>αὶ ἀφαιρετὸν αὐτοῦ τὸ μέρος τὸ ἐπουράνιον (“and let his share in heaven be taken away from him”). This seems to be the epitaph of a Christian (a Montanist?).] [AC]

346121) G. Petzl, “Furchterregende Götter? Eine Notiz zu Diogenes von Oinoanda NF 126”, ZPE 153 (2005), p. 103-107: After collecting references to the judges in the underworld in epitaphs, possibly reflections of Plato’s discussions of the judgment of the dead (Apologia 41a; Gorgias523a-b), P. discusses a passage in one of the new fragments of the philosophical inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda (NF 125-137 ed. Smith) [cf. infra no 147]. P. offers a new reading and translation: διὰ ποίους οὖν οἱ ἄνθρωποι θεοὺς ἔσονται δίκαιοι (διὰ γὰρ τοὺς ὄντας οὔκ εἰσιν); ἢ διὰ τοὺς Πλάτωνος καὶ Σωκράτους ἐν Ἅ(ι)δου δικαστάς; τοῦτο γὰρ λοιπόν, εἰ μή τι μέλλουσιν οἱ τῶν νόμων καταφρονοῦντες (οὐ πολὺ μᾶλλον;) καταγελᾶν μύθων [(‘for what kind of gods will men be just – they are certainly not just for the existing ones; perhaps for Plato’s and Socrates’ judges in Hades? For only this possibility remains, unless those who hold laws in contempt are not ready to make fun of myths (but isn’t this far more probable?)”]. After observing that belief in gods does not make mortals just, Diogenes implies that the Platonic judges of the underworld would be no more effective. P. plausibly argues that the idea that the just will be rewarded in the underworld is a response to Epicurean views; the ‘confession inscriptions’ should be placed in the context of this debate. [AC]

347122) C. Piteros, “Νομὸς Κορινθίας”, AD 51 B1 (1996) [2001], p. 95-96 [SEG LIV 441]: Ed. pr. of an altar dedicated to an anonymous deity (Epidauros, 3rd cent.). [AC]

348123) V. Piteros, “Ναύπλιο”, AD 51 B1 (1996) [2001], p. 92-94 [SEG LIV 435]: P. presents a very deficient transcription of a metrical text, misinterpreting it as an epigram referring to pain (line 2: [π]ο<οο>νοῦντας; line 3: [π]ό<οο>νος). [As N. Papazarkadas (SEG) recognised, this text is in fact a variant of the commonplace that envy causes the eyes of the envious person to melt (IG XIV 2533: ὁ φθόνος ὡς κακόν ἐστι· | ἔχει δέ τι καλὸν ἐν αὑτῷ· τήκι γὰρ φθονερῶν | ὄμματα καὶ κραδίην); a tentative restoration would be [ἄν]θρωπε, ὁ μὲν φθόνος ἀεὶ [ὡς κακόν ἐστι | ἔ]χει δέ τι καλὸν ἐν αὑτῷ ἄξιον] | [ἐπεὶ φθονερῶ]ν τήκει ὄμματα καὶ τὴν καρδίαν. I think that this is not an epitaph, but a roughly metrical text aiming at the protection of a monument from envy (cf. W. Dickie, “The Topic of Envy and Emulation in an Agonistic Inscription from Oenoanda”, in E. Csapo – M. Miller [eds], Poetry, Theory, Praxis: The Social Life of Myth, Word, and Image in Ancient Greece. Essays in Honour of William J. Slater, Oxford, 2003, p. 232-246). [AC]

349124) M. Platonos-Yiota, Ἀχαρναί. Ἱστορική καὶ τοπογραφικὴ ἐπισκόπηση τῶν ἀρχαίων Ἀχαρνῶν, τῶν γειτονικῶν δήμων καὶ τῶν ὀχυρώσεων τῆς Πάρνηθας, Acharnai, 2004 [SEG LIV 14, 301, 316, 322-323, 375]: This volume summarizes the evidence, provided primarily by archaeological material but also by inscriptions, for the history of the Athenian deme of Acharnai and its surrounding area (including the cave of Pan on Mt. Parnes). Since this book does not contribute to the interpretation of already published texts, we only briefly present new texts [see the comments in the relevant lemmata in SEG]. These new texts include a dedication made by a gymnasiarchos who served during the celebration of the Great Panathenaia (p. 274 no 7, 4th cent.), a dedication to Theos Herakles Epekoos in accordance with a divine command (κατὰ κέλευσιν; Imperial period; p. 37), and a epitaph which (as is common) calls the deceased child a ἥρως (Imperial period). An unpublished inscription found in a sanctuary of Dionysos (4th cent.) mentions the planting of trees in this sanctuary (p. 434f.). Another unpublished dedication reportedly mentions Athena Hippia and Dionysos (p. 322, Imperial period). [AC]

350125) P. Poccetti, “Manipolazione della realtà e manipolazione della lingua: alcuni aspetti dei testi magici dell’Antichità”, in R. Morresi, Linguaggio – Linguaggi. Invenzione – Scoperta. Atti del Convegno, Macerata-Fermo, 22-23 ottobre 1999, Rome, 2002, p. 11-59 [SEG LIV 1891]: In this excellent panorama of magical texts, formulas used in curse tablets and mentioned in magical papri, P. focuses on the various ways in which language is used and manipulated in magical texts. Inter alia he discusses how texts express the similarity between the treatment of an object and the sufferings of the individual, who is being cursed; long lists of body-parts; the use of script as an instrument of magic; figurae etymologicae and lists of magical words with similar sound; polyonymy of gods; inversion of script and language; divergence from the language of everyday communication; derformations of ordinary words; metronymics; the arrangement of the text; the use of charakteres; Latin words written in Greek letters; use of foreign (Egypian, Semitic, Coptic) words; arrangement of the text in geometrical patterns; palindromic texts. [AC]

351126) M. Polito, “I.K. 5.37: un δοῦμος a Cuma eolica?”, in A. Meleet al. (eds), Eoli ed Eolide tra madrepatria e colonie, Napoli, 2005, p. 525-532: An inscription from Kyme (I.Kyme 37, 1st cent. CE) records the purchase of real estate by the private cult association of “those who partake of the sanctuary of Kaion Mandros in front of the city” (μετέχοντες τοῦ πρὸ πόλεως ἱεροῦ Καίοντος Μάνδρου). Since the cult association was presided over by an archigallos and its members were mostly women, it has been plausibly argued that it was a doumos of worshippers of Kybele. P. observes that the association’s sanctuary was dedicated to the ‘burning’ Mandros. A connection between the cult of Kybele and fire would not be unique to this text. In Novae, dumopireti (δοῦμος and πύραιθοι, from πῦρ and αἴθω) are attested in the context of Kybele’s cult (CCCA no 385). Strabo (XV, 3, 15-16) designates the magi in Kappadokia as πύραιθοι. The connection between Kybele and fire provides additional support for the interpretation of the cult association at Kyme as a doumos for the cult of Kybele. [AC]

352127) A.-V. Pont, “Le paysage religieux grec traditionnel dans les cités d’Asie Mineure occidentale au ive et au début du ve siècle”, REG 117 (2004), p. 546-577 [BE 2006, 328]: P. shows that despite the conversion of temples to churches and the gradual disappearance of statues (e.g. at Ephesos and Sardeis), signs of pagan religion remained visible in urban centres of Asia Minor (e.g. Aphrodisias, Erythrai, Philadelphia, Hierapolis). Focusing on epigrams of the 4th and 5th cents. CE, which refer to pagan divinities, their images, and buildings, P. sketches the significant part played by governors and members of the elite in the preservation of a pagan sacred landscape in Late Antquity [for Aphrodisias see EBGR 2002, 20-21]. [AC]

353128) L. Prauscello, “A Note on Tabula Defixionis 22(a).5-7 Ziebarth: When a Musical Performance Enacts Love”, CQ 54 (2004), p. 333-339 [SEG LIV 524]: P. republishes a curse tablet from Boiotia (Audollent, DefixTab 86A), identifying it as a love defixio (cf. συνουσίη, ἡδονή) and arguing that the words κιθάρισμα and πάροδος, which appear in a clearly erotic context, are used here with sexual connotations. [AC]

354129) F. Prêteux, “Priapos Bébrykès dans la Propontide et les détroits : succès d’un mythe local”, REG 118 (2005), p. 245-265: P. collects the information on the nation of the Bebrykes in the area of the Hellespont, where the cult of Priapos originated. This cult was prominent in Lampsakos (I.Lampsakos 7). The perception of Priapos as a patron of fishermen and sailors contributed to the diffusion of his cult in the Aegean (Thasos: BE 1966, 37; Lesbos: IG XII 3, 422; Thera: SEG XLIV 987; Kos: SEG XLIII 549; Halikarnassos: SEG XXVIII 840). Zeus Ourios was also regarded as a patron of navigation in the area around the Bosporos, whereas this function was taken over by Heros Stomianos on the Thracian coast of the Black Sea. [AC]

355130) S. Privitera, “I tripodi dei Dinomenidi e la decima dei Siracusani”, ASAA 81 (2003), p. 391-423 [SEG LIV 537]: P. discusses the possible historical context of the dedications of tripods in Delphi by Gelon and Hieron (Syll.3 34-35), arguing that Gelon dedicated his tripod in c. 480-478, whereas Hieron’s dedication is later (469/8); a joint base was constructed for both votives. Gelon’s tripod probably weighed one Attic talent and four mnai, that of Hieron was heavier (one talent and seven mnai). For the dedication of Hieron, P. suggests the following restoration: [hιάρον ὁ Δεινομέ]νεος ἀνέθεκε [: π]ε[λ|ανὸς δὲ τάλαντον] hεπτὰ μναῖ; here, πελανός as the designation of a votive offering. A golden tripod dedicated by the Deinomenidai and mentioned in AP VI, 214 was probably dedicated in a sanctuary in Syracuse (Apollon’s sanctuary?). This dedication (δεκάτας δεκάταν) was a tithe from their private revenues. It may have been the origin of the proverbial expression Συρακουσίων δεκάτη (Demon, FGrHist 327 F 14; Steph. Byz., s.v. Συρακοῦσαι). [AC]

356131) M. Ricl – H. Malay, “Ἄνθρωποι θρεπτικοί in a new inscription from Hypaipa”, EA 38 (2005), p. p. 45-52 [BE 2006, 355]: Ed. pr. of an epitaph from Hypaipa (2nd cent. CE) which mentions a fine for violation of the grave, to be paid to the fiscus and to the sanctuary of Artemis in Hypaipa. [AC]

357132) G. Rizza, “Scoperta di un santuario dei Dioscuri a Leontini”, RAL 14 (2003), p. 537-567 [SEG LIII 1008]: Ed. pr. of three dedicatory inscriptions inscribed on vases, found in a votive deposit in Leontinoi (p. 546-548). One of them (3, c. 430 BC) is explicitly addressed to the Dioskouroi (on an Attic red-figure krater decorated with a scene interpreted as the liberation of Hera mentioned by Pausanias I, 20, 3; cf. id., “La liberazione di Hera in un vaso attici di Leontini”, in Archeologia del Mediterraneo. Studi in onore di Ernesto De Miro, Rome, 2003, p. 579-590) [L. Dubois, BE 2005, 636, dates the inscription to c. 400]. The other two vases (Etruscan kantharoi; 7th/6th cent.) were probably dedicated to the same deities. The particular interest of the earliest text (3: [Λ]εύκιος μ᾿ [ἀνέθεκε | --]ο ἐξελ[εύθερος --|--] | Θερο[--]) is the apparent reference to a manumitted slave (for ἐξελεύθερος cf. SEG XXII 509) [see supra no 101]. [AC]

358133) M.A. Rizzo, “L’altare di Gortina al Theos Hypsistos”, in Creta romana et protobizantina,II, p. 603-615: R. studies in detail a small limestone altar dedicated to Theos Hypsistos (Gortyn, late 1st cent. CE; SEG L 903). The small altar was found fallen on the lower steps of a monumental built altar. R. plausibly argues that the monumental altar must have also served the cult of Theos Hypsistos, which is rather unusual. The finds in this area include clay lamps, a common feature in the cult of Theos Hypsistos, as well as representations of agricultural implements and of a woman giving birth to a child, engraved on the monumental altar. Theos Hypsistos, whom R. associates with the theosebeis (following S. Mitchell) [but see supra no 14], was regarded in Gortyn as a patron of fertility. The cult of Theos Hypsistos was quite popular on Crete. [AC]

359134) N. Robertson, “Orphic Mysteries and Dionysiac Ritual”, in Greek Mystery Cults, p. 218-240 [SEG LIII 720 bis]: R. attempts a reconstruction of early Dionysiac rituals of fertility associated with Delphi primarily based on literary sources of Orphic theogonic myths, arguing that the Orphics appropriated early myths of Dionysos’ birth and public Dionysiac rituals. In this context he also exploits the information provided by the Derveni papyrus, the Orphic lamellae, and the Orphic bone plaques from Olbia (IGDOP 94). We summarize his remarks on the Orphic inscriptions. By describing himself as being of kindred race with the gods, a descendant of Earth and Sky, and by referring to a fatal lightning strike, the mystes situated himself within the Orphic creation story (p. 233 n. 4). In a formula in Orphic texts from Pelinna and Thourioi (“I/you, bull/kid/goat/ram, leapt into milk”; SEG XXXVII 497) the initiate was likened to the sacrificial victim of Dionysos’ public worship, i.e., to a vigorous male animal (kid, ram, bull; p. 219). In a sacred regulation from Kallatis (LSCG 90 = I.Kallatis 47 lines 8f.) [the reference to LSCG Suppl. should be corrected to LSCG], R. suggests restoring [οὔτε βάκχος οὔ]τε νεόβακχος (instead of [οὔτε μύστης]; p. 233 n. 8). [AC]

360135) L. Ruscu, “Two Pontic Notes”, EA 38 (2005), p. 125-130 [BE 2006, 416]: R. presents an improved edition of a dedication to Theos Hypsistos from Gerna (territory of Sinope, 2nd cent. CE; O. Doonan – D. Smart, “Gerna Dere. Roman and Byzantine Settlement in Sinop Province, Turkey”, Talanta 22-23, 2000-01, p. 22-23 = SEG LII 1240): Θεῷ Ὑψίστ[ῳ] Οὐαλερία Μαρκιανή. This is the fourth attestation of the cult of Theos Hypsistos in the area in and around Sinope. [AC]

361136) I. Rutherford, “Down-Stream to the Cat-Goddess: Herodotus on Egyptian Pilgrimage”, in Pilgrimage, p. 131-149: R. offers an interesting comparison between the Herodotean account of pilgrimage traditions in the context of various Egyptian festivals and later sources such as an important hieroglyphic stele from Buto (Cairo Museum 85932, 1st cent.) or a Greek decree referring to the Great and Lesser Boubastia (OGIS 56, 238 BC). The hieroglyphic stele from Buto distinguishes between pilgrims according to whether they came to make an oath, an adoration, or an appeal. R. suggests that the Egyptian text was originally modelled on a Greek historiographical one. [JM]

362137) D. Sahin, “The Amisos Mosaic of Achilles. Achilles Cult in the Black Sea Region”, in H. Morlier (ed.), La mosaïque gréco-romaine IX, Rome, 2005, I, p. 413-426 [BE 2006, 52]: S. presents a mosaic found in Amisos. It represents Achilles, holding a shield and a lance, and Thetis. Inscriptions identify the two figures. The other things represented are the four seasons, Nereids and tritons, and a sacrificial scene (3rd cent. CE). After collecting evidence for the cult of Achilles in the Black Sea region, S. argues that the mosaic attests the cult of Achilles in Amisos [this is far from certain]. [AC]

363138) S. Saprykin, “Greek Inscription on Bronze Cauldron from Sosnovka, Volgograd Region, Russia”, Thracia 15 (2003), p. 225-232 [SEG LIII 802]: S. republishes an inscription on a bronze cauldron dedicated to Theos Ares Blekouros (SEG XXXIV 775, Sosnovka, Kotovskij district, Volgograd, 2nd/3rd cent.). The personal names suggest that the cauldron was originally bought with funds from a sanctuary of Ares (ἐκ τῶν τοῦ θεοῦ) in Thrace or Lower Moesia and then brought to Sosnovka, probably as booty. [For the pourchase or making of cult objects with sacred funds see supra no 120.][AC]

364139) M.B. Savo, “Lo Zeus con Μηλωτη: una nuova iscrizione dal Monte Zas di Nasso” in E. Lanzillotta (ed.), Recerche di antichità e tradizione classica, Tivoli, 2004, p. 149-171 [SEG LIV 792]: Ed. pr. of a rock-cut boundary stone of the sanctuary of Zeus Melosios on Mt. Zas (Naxos, 4th cent.). This is the second boundary stone from this sanctuary which has been found (cf. IG XII 5, 48). The same cult is attested in Korkyra (IG IX 702) [not in IG IX2 1, 4, because it is considered a forgery]. This epithet (‘the one dressed in sheepskin’, μηλωτή) primarily characterizes the god as a patron of shepherds, but in her detailed commentary S. attempts to trace further aspects of this god (weather god, protector of fertility and of young men). S. gives an overview of the Naxian cults of Zeus (Eubouleus, Maimaktes, Olympios, Stratios, Soter). [AC]

365140) S. Scheuble, “Eine Weihung an Herakles zu Ehren Ptolemaios’ VI. Philometor”, AfP 51 (2005), p. 30-39: Ed. pr. of a dedication to Herakles (unknown provenance, 152/1). A Macedonian officer who served as gymnasiarchos from 154/3-152/1 dedicated to Herakles statues of Ptolemy VI and Kleopatra during his third term in office. [AC]

366141) S. Scullion, “Pilgrimage and Greek Religion: Sacred and Secular in the Pagan Polis”, in Pilgrimage, p. 111-130: S. argues that there was a clear distinction between sacred and secular in Greek culture. In this context, the author suggests that theoria had nothing to do with religious activity. The neutral use of the words θεωρῶν (IG IV2 1, 121 lines 25-23) and θεωρία (SEG XXII 280) in two healing miracles from Epidauros suggests that theoria is not a sacral term, but simply means ‘viewing’. Theoria in the sense of “state pilgrimage” should be translated as “festival junketing”. Since there is no single ancient term for pilgrimage under­taken by private individuals, the word “pilgrim” should be avoided. Visitors to Greek sanctuaries were ‘Menschen wie Du und ich’ (he quotes Wilamowitz) and that’s why they cannot possibly have considered themselves ‘pilgrims on a sacred mission’. [JM]

367142) M. Sgourou, “Θάσος. Λιμένας”, AD 54 B2 (1999) [2006], p. 685-689 [SEG LIV 817]: S. briefly presents a dedication from Thasos (p. 685). [The text (c. 2nd cent. CE) can be restored as a dedication to Hermes (lines 3f.: Ἑρμεῖ θε[ῷ] | μ[εγάλῳ] or μ[εγίστῳ?].] [AC]

368143) N. Sharankov, “Statue-bases with Honorific Inscriptions from Philippopolis”, Archaeologia Bulgarica 9.2 (2005), p. 55-71: S. publishes new inscribed statue bases from Philippopolis and discusses several already known texts. The inedita include an honorary inscription for an important statesman of Philippopolis (early 2nd cent. CE), who served three times as high priest of the Imperial cult in Thrace and contributed to the adornment of sanctuaries (1). Another new text is an honorific inscription for a Thrakarches and agonothetes of the pentaeteric contest of the Thracian Koinon (3a, 2nd/3rd cent.). S. proposes a new restoration of IGBulg III 1040): a certain Mucianus, who served as ephebarches during the first tetraeteris of the sacred agon (i.e., Alexandria Pythia, founded in 214 CE), dedicated a statue of Apollon Pythios. The text mentions the two agonothetai. S. shows that IGBulg III 1144 and 1170 belong to the same inscription, a dedication made by the Thrakarches P. Virdius Bassus to an anonymous divinity in fulfilment of a vow (3). [AC]

369144) J.L. Shear, “Atarbos’ Base and the Panathenaia”, JHS 123 (2003), p. 164-180 [BE 2004, 70; SEG LIII 202]: S. re-examines the well-known Atarbos’ base (IG II2 3025, 4th cent.), which commemorated Atarbos’ victory in the pyrrhiche at the Little Panathenaia. S. convincingly reconstructs νική[σας ἀνδρῶν χο]ρῶι, instead of νική[σας κυκλίωι χο]ρῶι, and suggests that the patronymic should be read as Ly[sias]. Because of the archon’s name (Kephisodoros) the base has been dated to either 366/5 or 323/2. On the basis of stylistic criteria, S. prefers the later date. She reconstructs two phases in the history of the monument: originally, it consisted of a pillar on the right block bearing the pyrrhichitai relief; within a year, the base was doubled in size, the pillar was removed, and three bronze statues were erected. S. suggests that Atarbos won his victories in the pyrrhiche and the chorus in the same year (323/2), but in different festivals. Whereas the pyrrhiche was held exclusively at the Panathenaia, S. suggests that the victory in the chorus could have been won at the Dionysia, Thargelia, Promethia, or Hephaisteia. Because of this second victory the original monument had to be remodelled. [But the inscription does not specify in which festivals Attarbos had won his victories. By contrast, specific festivals are named in SEG XLVII 202, adduced by S. as a parallel: while the first text refers to a victory in the pyrrhiche during a Great Panathenaia in the 370s, the second text records a victory in the Great Dionysia, probably of the same year. I suspect that both victories recorded on the Atarbos’ base occurred during the Lesser Panathenaia of 323/2; the reasons for the remodelling of the monument – convincingly reconstructed by S. – remain unknown.] [JM]

370145) I. Shopova, “A Note on the Thracian Orphism in Roman Thrace”, Thracia 15 (2003), p. 651-656 [SEG LIII 645 bis]: S. discusses the designations of cult functions in a list of the members of a Dionysiac association in Apollonia Pontica (IGBulg. I2 401, 2nd cent. CE: λικναφόρος, κισταφόρος, κρατηρίαρχος, βουκόλος, ἀρχιβασσάρα) and comments on the relation of these functions to Dionysiac rituals. [AC]

371146) M. Sklavos, in Ἀρχαιολογικὲς ἔρευνες στὴν Μερέντα Μαρκοπούλου, στὸν χῶρο κατασκευῆς τοῦ νέου ἱπποδρόμου καὶ τοῦ Ὀλυμπιακοῦ Ἱππικοῦ Κέντρου,Athens, 2003, p. 49 [SEG LIII 210]: Ed. pr. of a base inscribed with a dedication to Zeus Phratrios found in an ancient well outside a sanctuary, which can now be securely identified as that of Zeus Phratrios (Myrrhinous, Attica, 4th cent.). The dedication (of a statue) was made by the god’s priest: Ξενοφῶν ἱερεὺς ἀνέθηκε παῖς Φιλοξένο | μνημεῖον αὑτοῦ κἀμὲ Φρατρίωι Διί. [The text is misunderstood by the ed. as a dedication by Xenophon and his father; corrected by M. Richardson in SEG: “(dedicated) me as a memorial of his own (priesthood).” The words κἀμὲ indicate that this dedication was part of a series of objects (statues?) dedicated by Xenophon during his term in office.] [AC]

372147) M.F. Smith, Supplement to Diogenes of Oinoanda. The Epicurean Inscription, Napoli, 2003: In this volume S. summarizes the research of the past decade on the Epicurean inscription of Oinoanda and presents the new fragments. We single out Diogenes’ treatment of human fear of divine justice (NF 126-127) [cf. supra no 121], fear of death, and ideas about the afterlife (NF 123, 129). [AC]

373148) J. Sosin, “Unwelcome Dedications: Public Law and Private Religion in Hellenistic Laodicea by the Sea”, CQ 55 (2005), p. 130-139: S. discusses the background of a conflict reported in a decree from Laodikeia-by-the-Sea (IGLS IV 1261, 174 BC): “... Since Horus and Apollodorus and Antiochus, priests of Sarapis and Isis, declared that a block of houses, in which also stands the precinct of the gods, belongs to them and to the sons of Apollodorus, their grandpaternal cousins, as private property; and since a decree has been passed that those requesting from the city a place for the dedication of a statue shall pay a fixed fee, and some are seeking places in the precinct; being anxious lest their possessions be dismantled in such a manner, they asked that consideration be given concerning these matters: it is well that their possessions, which they have exhibited, may not be dismantled in such a way: it has been resolved by the peliganes: those who wish to erect (a statue) in the same place shall give the decreed sum, not for the place, but for the statue itself.” The problem which the decree attempts to resolve was the tendency for individuals to set up statues in the sanctuary of Sarapis, which was private property, in order to avoid paying fees for setting up statues in public space; as this caused damage to the sanctuary, the owners of the precinct (who were at the same time the priests) presented a list of the threatened objects. In order to restrain this practice, the city decided in this case to exact a fee for the erection of statues, stressing, however, that this was not a fee for the spot (which was private property), but a fee for the erection of the statue. What made this matter delicate was the fact that it not only concerned private interests and public fees, but also piety and fear of divine wrath. The priests could not forbid dedications, as they were addressed to the gods, but they also wanted to protect their property from extensive dedications. [One may suspect that dedications made out of piety were not affected by this regulation; only dedications made out of vanity (i.e. dedications of statues of individuals) were subject to the fee.] S. collects inscriptions containing regulations aimed at controlling dedicatory practices. [AC]

374149) J.M.S. Stager, “Let No One Wonder at this Image. A Phoenician Funerary Stele in Athens”, Hesperia 74 (2005), p. 427-449: After re-examination of the funerary stele of the Phoenician Antipatros, son of Aphrodisios from Ashkelon (IG II2 8388, 3rd/2nd cent.), S. suggests a new interpretation of the monument. The ship’s prow in the relief and the reference to a sacred ship in the epigram are clear indications that Antipatros died on a sacred journey (a Phoenician theoria?). According to S., the “hated lion” (εἰχθρολέων) – also shown in the relief – which attempted to destroy Antipatros, but was prevented from doing so by his friends, could be Astarte Shemayim/Aphrodite Ourania, who had refused to grant Antipatros a safe sea voyage. [Although artistic conventions in Greek and Phoenician cultures certainly differed, neither the representation of a goddess – not a daemon – as a lion about to swallow the deceased’s head nor her characterization as a ‘hated lion’ are convincing.] [JM]

375150) P. Stirpe, “Concomitanze di feste ellenistico-romane con grandi feste panelleniche tra III secolo A.C. e I secolo D.C.”, RFIC 130 (2002) [2005], p. 170-190: S. collects evidence for the contemporaneity of festivals in the Hellenistic and early Imperial period and recognizes three causes for this phenomenon: coincidence, competition/imitation, and hostility. She studies the following festivals: the Nikephoria in Pergamon and their competition with the Soteria of Bithynia, the Neronia organised as an isopythian festival, the Nemea organised at Kleonai by Aratos, the Olympia of Sulla (80 BC) and Nero (67 CE), and the Roman contests of Greek type (Kapitolia, Sebasta of Neapolis, Aktia). [S. tends to group together very heterogeneous phenomena.] [AC]

376151) J.-Y. Strasser, “Inscriptions grecques et latines en l’honneur de pantomimes”, Tyche 19 (2004), p. 175-212 [SEG LIV 417, 534 bis, 1184, 1197]: S. surveys the presence of pantomimes in festivals of the Imperial period, to which their performances were a very late addition. They were first added to the Sebasta in Neapolis, then to other agons (Leukophryena, Kapitolia, Olympia Asklepieia Kommodeia Sebasta Koina Asias in Pergamon, Kommodeia, Herakleia Dionysia in Thebes, Ephesia, etc.). He discusses in detail the career of Tib. Iulius Apolaustos (late 2nd cent. CE), probably the descendant of a freedman, who is known from many honorary inscriptions (Corinth VIII.3.370+693; F.Delphes III.1.551; I.Ephesos 2070-2071). S. argues that an honorary inscription for a pantomime from Magnesia (I.Magnesia 192, c. 176-180 CE) [EBGR 1997, 348] predates the introduction of a pantomime competition to the Kapitolia at Rome; consequently, the ἀγῶνες Ῥωμαίων refers to Roman ludi. Suspecting that the anonymous pantomime was a freeborn man, probably from Syria, S. observes that it was not only Imperial freedmen who performed as panto­mimes in the West. The pantomime Krispos in Herakleia Pontica (SEG XXXI 1072, 2nd/ 3rd cent.) was not the first pantomime ever to win a victory in a sacred agon (τῆς ἐνρύθμου τραγῳδίας στέφος λαβὼν τὸ πρῶτον), but a man who died after he had received a crown for the first time (τὸ πρῶτον) in his life. S. also briefly comment on the associations of ποδάριοι in Saittai (TAM V 1, 91-92: περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον ποδάριοι, σύνοδος τῶν νέων ποδαρίων), artists who wore wooden sandals with which the accompanied the instrumental music and kept the rhythm (p. 187f.). [AC]

377152) J.-Y. Strasser, “Les Olympia d’Alexandrie et le pancratiaste M. Aur. Asclèpiadès”, BCH 128-129 (2004-05), p. 421-468: Continuing his work on the agonistic culture of the Imperial period [cf. EBGR 2002, 140-142; 2003, 163-165; 2004, 259-262; supra no 151], S. collects the evidence concerning the Olympia of Alexandria. According to his reconstruction, the festival was founded under Marcus Aurelius (180 CE) and promoted to eiselastic status under Gallienus (268 CE). S. discusses the list of victories of the pancratiast Asklepiades (IGUR 240) and presents an improved edition of a dedication to Helios Megas Sarapis in Koptos by a man who served as hellanodikes at the 17th celebration of these Olympia (I.Portes 88). In an appendix, S. discusses an inscription which mentions the ἱερὸς εἰσελαστικὸς Ὀλύμπιος ἀγὼν Περσέως Οὐρανίου τῶν Πανείων (I.Pan 82), arguing that it is a modern forgery. [AC]

378153) J. Strubbe, The Inscriptions of Pessinous (IGSK 66), Bonn, 2005 [BE 2006, 401]: The corpus of the inscriptions of Pessinous consists of 192 texts from the city and its territory, and also many fragments, graffiti, masons’ marks, and inscriptions on vases. Priestshoods: The most important group of texts is the correspondence of the Attalids with the priest of Kybele at Pessinous; we do not summarize their content here, as they have often been discussed in connection with the privileges of the sanctuary of Kybele (1-7). In the Imperial period, the cult of Meter Theon Megale (17) was served by a board of 5 Galatian and 5 Phrygian priests under a high priest (17; cf. 18). The priests, who all had the name Attis, are occasionally mentioned in inscriptions (36, building inscription; cf. 170 for a priest of an unknown deity). An archigallos of Meter Theon is mentioned in an epitaph (64)*. Dedications to: Asklepios Soter (20), Attis (21), Demeter Karpophoros (22), Herakles Epekoos (174), Megas Theos Hypsistos (23), Meter Theon Satyreinaia Epekoos (24; her epithet derives from the name of the founder), Magna Mater (171: Μητρὶ Μάγνῃ), and Nemesis (25-26). Many of these dedications were made in fulfilment of a vow (εὐχήν: 23, 25-26, 171, 174). No 43 is a fragmentary inventory, probably of objects dedicated in a sanctuary. Imperial cult: The honorary inscriptions mention the religious officials of the Imperial cult. According to S.’s reconstruction, the highest official was the high priest of the Koinon of the Galatians (12, 14, 17, 18; cf. F5); from this office S. distinguishes those of the Galatarches (p. 24; cf. no. 19), of the sebastophantes, whom he regards as the magistrate responsible for carrying and showing the sacred images and symbols of the emperors (12, 14, 17, 18; see infra), and of the agonothetes (12, 14, 17). In no 17 (honorary inscription for Heras) the phrase σεβαστοφάντην τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ ἐν Πεσσινοῦντι ἱερασάμενον πρῶτον is understood as referring to a single office (‘sebastophant of the temple in Pessinous having been the first priest (in this function)”). S. argues that the addition τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ ἐν Πεσσινοῦντι was necessary to make clear that Heras served in Pessinous, in a municipal temple, and not in Ankyra; S. Mitchell had interpreted the temple in Pessinous as a branch of the provincial cult. Why did the ‘first’ priest (Heras) serve under Marcus Aurelius, when the temple had been completed much earlier, under Tiberius? S. suspects that new processions were introduced under Marcus Aurelius, and that the stebastophantes carried images of the emperors (like the sebastophoroi). There are cases of iteration in the office of high priest (12, 14); sometimes, it was occupied by members of the same family (12, 17+18). The high priestess seems to have served together with a male member of her family, not necessarily her husband (12, with comments). [All agonothetai (12, 14, 17) were also archiereis. Did the archiereus serve as agonothetes, if contests took place during his term? The relation of the Galatarches to the high priest of the Galatians seems to me similar to that of the Asiarches to the archiereus Asias (designations of two separate functions of the same office).] A letter of an anonymous emperor allowed an individual to dedicate to him a small treasure consisting of gold and precious stones (164 = EBGR 1992, 62). There are a few dedications to emperors (Titus: 30; Hadrian: 31; unknown emperors: 32-34) [no 29 is a dedication for the salvation of Vespasian and his sons, not a dedication to the emperor]. Cult associations: Inscriptions attest an association of the initiates of the mysteries of the Great Mother (18: οἱ τῶν τῆς θεοῦ μυστηρίων συνμύσται) and the association of the artists of the theatre (19: ἱερὰ μουσικὴ περιπολιστικὴ σύνοδος τῶν περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον τεχνιτῶν ἱερονικῶν στεφανιτῶν; 35: ἱερὰ μουσικὴ Σεουηριανὴ σύνοδος τῶν περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον τεχνιτῶν). Prayer for justice: An epitaph appeals to Helios to punish those who caused the death of a certain Menodoros (64 b, late 2nd cent. CE: ὃς ἂν ἐνεχίρησε Μηνοδώρῳ χωρὶς θεοῦ βίας, Ἥλι Κύρι, μή σ᾿ ἀρέσι; “whoever has laid hand on Menodoros, unless it was the force of a god, Helios Kyrios, may he not please you”). Funerary cult: In one instance, the deceased person is called a ἥρως (92). Several epitaphs use imprecation formulas: ὑποκείσεται τῷ ἔθει πρὸς τὸν Δία (93), ἔχει δὲ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν (50), δώσει θεῷ λόγον (69, 141) [neither of these texts is necessarily Christian], δώσει λόγον τῶν Θεῷ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως (85, Christian). We note the use of ἐνκτερίζω in an epitaph (91, 2nd/3rd cent.). An interesting piece of evidence for individuals’ anxiety to ensure that they would have a proper grave is an epitaph on a grave whose occupants (most probably Christians) declare: “they set up this resting place (κοιμητήριν) for themselves while alive, knowing the forgetfulness of their heirs” (τὴν ἐπιλη[σμοσύν]ην τῶν κλ[ηρονόμων], 127). [AC]

379154) H. Taeuber, “Graffiti”, in H. Thüret al., Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos. Die Wohneinheit 4. Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, Vienna, 2005, p. 132-143: Among the numerous graffiti scratched on the walls in ‘Hanghaus 2’ in Ephesos (Imperial period), we note an invocation of Hermes Kyllenios, perhaps invoked as god of traders (GR 48: Νὴ Κυλλ[ήνιον Ἑρμῆ]) and a good-luck acclamation for a priest (GR 122) [read εὐτύχει ἱερῆ, not εὐτυχεῖ ἱερῆ]. [AC]

380155) C. Televantou, “Ἄνδρος”, AD 54 B2 (1999) [2006] 817 [SEG LIV 804]: An unpublished inscription found in the area of the ancient agora of Andros (Imperial period) refers to the sanctuary of Zeus. [AC]

381156) P.G. Themelis, “Ἀνασκαφὴ Μεσσήνης”, PAAH (2004) [2007], p. 27-53 [SEG LIV 454, 457-460]: In his report on the results of the excavations at Messene, T. presents a series of interesting epigraphic finds. An inscription which seems to record the leasing of land (p. 38-40, 1st cent. CE) contains several place names (or designations of real estates) deriving from the names of gods and mythical figures: Ἀμαζώνιον, Λιμνᾶτις, ᾿Αρτεμιταῖον, Πυθαεῖον, ῾Υακίνθιον. A statue was dedicated to Megale Meter (28f., 3rd/2nd cent.); this is the first epigraphic attestation of her cult in Messene (cf. Paus. IV, 31, 6-7). Two pedestals decorated with a hand in relief were dedicated by the same person to Zeus and Artemis respectively (35, 3rd/2nd cent.) [the adorans gesture, not a representation of a sick body-part]. There are also two bases which supported statues of victorious athletes, one of them dedicated by the city. One of the athletes won contests at the Eleusinia, Lykaia, Aleaia (35, 1st cent.) [read Ἀλεαῖα (the agon for Athena Alea), not Ἁλεαῖα], the other won contests at the Olympic games (p. 48, 2nd/1st cent.). [AC]

382157) C. Tietze – E.R. Lange – K. Hallof, “Ein neues Exemplar des Kanopus-Dekrets aus Bubastis”, AfP 51 (2005), p. 1-29 [BE 2005, 580]: Ed. pr. of an inscription found at Bubastis in 2004 with the text of the decrees of the Egyptian priests in honour of Ptolemy III and his family (238 BC); the Greek text contains some slight differences from the other four copies. [AC]

383158) M. Trümper, “The Oldest Original Synagogue Building in the Diaspora. The Delos Synagogue Reconsidered”, Hesperia 73 (2004), p. 513-598: After a meticulous analysis of the architecture of the building GD 80 in Delos, T. convincingly demonstrates that it was erected as early as the 2nd cent. and functioned as a synagogue from its foundation. T. leaves open the important question of which owned the synagogue. The five small inscribed votives found within the building refer to Theos Hypsistos (I.Délos 2328, 2330-2333); they show that the edifice was used as a synagogue, but they do not clarify whether by Diaspora Jews or by Samaritans. For T., the two Samaritan inscriptions [SEG XXXII 809-810] found c. 90 m north of the building are not sufficient evidence to identify the building as a Samaritan synagogue, since it cannot be shown that they originally stood in or at the building. [Because of the dedications to Theos Hypsistos set up by individuals bearing Greek names, D. Noyet al., supra no 112, p. 218f., identify the building as a shrine used by a pagan cultic society under Jewish influence or by an association of Judaizers. However, the authors also suggest an alternative interpretation of the building as the house of “a Jewish association that borrowed from or assimilated to pagan practice”.] [JM]

384159) C. Tsoungaris, “Νομὸς Καστοριᾶς”, AD 54 B2 (1999) [2006], p. 644-645 [SEG LIV 607]: C. reports the discovery of tiles on which worshippers had inscribed their names in a sanctuary at Psalida (west of Kastoria, ancient Keletron). [AC]

385160) K. Tzanavari, “The Worship of Gods and Heroes in Thessaloniki”, in D.V. Grammenos, Roman Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, 2003, p. 177-262 [SEG LIV 618]: T. gives an overview of cults in Roman Thessalonike in the light of archaeological and epigraphic evidence. She discusses the cults of Aphrodite, Artemis, Asklepios, Athena, Demeter, Dionysos, Herakles, Hermes, Kabeiros, Korybantes, Nemesis, Poseidon, Tyche, Zeus Hypsistos, of heroes (Rider God, Heros Aulonites, Aineias), the Egyptian deities, Oriental deities (Kybele, Mithras, Sol Invictus), Dea Roma, and Epona. [AC]

386161) A. Tziafalias – B. Helly, “Deux décrets inédits de Larissa”, BCH 128-129 (2004-05) [2006], p. 379-420: Ed. pr. of an honorary decree of Larisa (1, early 2nd cent.) for Bakchios of Mytilene; the document was inscribed in the temple of Apollon Kerdoios (lines 23-24). In a fragmentary passage the text refers to the federal sanctuary at Itonos, probably in connection with the arrival of theoroi (line 25). [JM]

387162) J.-B. Yon, “Les prêtres et leurs familles : l’exemple de Doura-Europos et de Palmyre”, in Prosopographie et histoire religieuse, p. 169-180: Based on a prosopographical study of priests in Doura-Europos and Palmyra, Y. shows that many priests belonged to great elite families. This does not exclude considerable social complexity in the appointment to priestly functions. Oriental traditions played an important part in this process. [JM]

388163) M. Valdés Guía, “El culto a Zeus y a las Semnai en Atenas arcaica: exégesis eupátrida y purificación de Epiménides”, Ostraka 11 (2002), p. 223-242: In a discussion concerning the purification of Athens by Epimenides and the cult of Zeus and the Semnai Theai, V. briefly adduces the ‘lex sacra’ of Selinous (237-240). [AC]

389164) C. Wagner – J. Boardman, A Collection of Classical and East­ern Intaglios, Rings and Cameos, Oxford, 2003 [BE 2005, 92; SEG LIII 2101]: This volume presents a large private collection of intaglios and cameos, including several magical inscriptions on gems and amulets (unknown provenance, 2nd-4th cent.). [The texts were read by R. Tybout (SEG LIII 2101 nos 36-45).] We single out a few pieces. A ringstone (with a seated Zeus) has the invocation σῷζε με, Ιαω(263). Part of the inscription on an amulet can be tentatively read as Κάστωρ ὁ καλούμενος Ἀγρίππας, ὃν ἔτε­κε Καλ­λίκλεια καὶ ΜΕΤΑΤΟΥΝΟ Νικαροπλη[ξ](577). A ringstone is a further example of the well attested type of uterine magic (580; uterus with key locking it and the Οροριουθ) [cf. EBGR 1996, 109; 1997, 367; 2000, 143; supra no 105]. The other gems, as far as the texts can be read, are inscribed with names of gods (576: Θοῆρις), magical names (570: Χνουμις; 571: Χνουβις; 575: Ιαω) and words (568: γιγαντορεκτα, σεμεισυλαν; 578: Σαλαμ[ξα], Θα­με­α­[ζ]α, Ἀμοραχθ(ε)ι, σεμεσιλαψ). [AC]

390165) J. Wallensten, Ἀφροδίτηι ἀνέθηκεν ἄρξας. A Study of Dedications to Aphrodite from Greek Magistrates, Lund, 2003 [SEG LIV 1878]: W. collects the evidence for dedications made to Aphrodite by a large variety of magistrates after their term in office. She comments on Aphrodite’s epithets (Epistasie, Euploia, Hagne, Hegemone, Hypakoos, Nauarchis, Nomo­phylakis, Pandemos, Paphia, Stratagis, Strateia, Synarchis, Timouchos). Most dedications are from the Hellenistic period. Aphrodite was regarded as patron of magistrates (small groups and individual holders of offices) in the entire Greek world, but she was only one of many divine patrons of magistrates. The dedications were usually placed near seats of magistrates, not in sanctuaries of Aphrodite. W. argues that the preference of boards of magistrates for Aphrodite is a complex phenomenon which cannot be explained only in terms of Aphrodite’s association with concord; among other factors W. suspects the influence of the rise of individuality, the association of Aphrodite with Hermes, and the relations of the Greek cities with Rome. The book includes a catalogue of relevant inscriptions. [JM]

391166) C. Wallner, “Der Agon Minervae: eine Dokumentation”, Tyche 19 (2004), p. 223-235 [SEG LIV 1822]: The pentaeteric Agon Minervae was founded by Gordian III after his expedi­tion against the Parthians (242 CE). In order to associate his campaign with the Persian Wars, Gordian dedicated the agon to Athena Promachos. The festival was celebrated in Rome in June, after the Kapitolia; it probably also imitated the programme of the Kapitolia (with athletic, equestrian and musical competitions; cf. IG II2 3169-3170; IG VII 49; IvO 243; IGUR 246). The agon still took place in the 4th cent. CE. [AC]

392167) T.M. Weber, Gadara – Umm Qes. I. Gadara Decapolitana. Untersuchungen zur Topographie, Geschichte, Architektur und der bildenden Kunst einer “Polis Hellenis” im Ostjordanland, Wiesbaden, 2002 [BE 2003, 585; SEG LII 1620-1651]: W. gives a general survey of the history, urban development, and topography of Gadara in the Dekapolis, including a catalogue of inscriptions [new texts are marked with an asterisk; we incorporate here the remarks and readings of A. Martin, H. Pleket and R. Tybout in SEG; D. Feissel, AE 2002, 1544-1554; P.-L. Ga­tier, BE 2003, 585]. Dedications: A baetyl was dedicated to an anony­mous deity (IS 2*). A statue of Herakles was dedicated to the Fatherland (IS24, c. 150-200: τῇ κυρί[ᾳ πατρίδι]). A platform (βῆμα) for a cult statue (?) was dedicated by a village functionary to Zeus Keraios for the salvation of the emperors (IS 52*, 2nd/3rd cent.). A dedication to Trajan (IS 10*) was made in accordance with the testament of a primipilarius. Another primipilarius made a dedication for the well-being of the emperor and those who in words and deeds promoted what was true and advantageous to the city (IS 11*, c. 100 CE: ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας Καίσαρος καὶ τῶν τὰ ἀληθῆ καὶ συμφέροντα λεγόντων καὶ ποιούντων τῇ πόλει). A building inscription reports the construction of a Nymphaion with a marble statue (νυμφον σὺν ἀγάλματι μαρμαρίνῳ) by an astynomos (IS 14*, 3rd cent. CE).  Cult personnel: The epitaph of a sacred herald (IS 30*, 2nd/3rd cent.). Afterlife: An epitaph (IS 39, 356 CE) advises passers-by to realise that they are mortals and to conduct their life accordingly (σοὶ λέγω τῷ διερχομένῳ, οἷος εἶ ἤμεν, οἷός εἰμει ἔσε· χρῆσαι τῷ βίῳ ὡς θνητός) [“I am telling you, who pass by; as you are, I used to be; as I am, you shall be; conduct your life like a mortal man”]. [AC]

393168) D. Williams, “Captain Donnely’s Altar and the Delian Prytaneion”, RA (2004), p. 51-68 [BE 2005, 30; SEG LIV 717]: W. identifies an inscribed altar in the British Museum (GIBM 1154, 2nd cent.) as an altar taken by Lord Elgin and the British Captain Donnely from Delos in 1802. The text records the dedication of an oikos by Zopyros, probably a metic. W. identifies the oikos with the cult place of Hestia in the prytaneion of Delos. The text commemorated either a repair to the oikos of Hestia and the Demos or, more likely, the re-dedication of the building (οἶκος) after the addition of the cult of Demos. [AC]

394169) K.A. Worp, “A Mythological Ostrakon from Kellis”, in G. E. Bowen – C. A. Hope (eds), The Oasis Papers III. Proceedings of the Third International Conference of the Dakleh Project, Oxford, 2003, p. 379-382: Ed. pr. of an ostrakon from Kellis (Egypt) narrating the begin­ning of the myth of Kyknos’ son Tenes. His step-mother, who failed to seduce him, denounced him to his father sexually attacking her [cf. supra no 71; for an improved edition see P. Schubert, “Une brève note sur un nouveau texte mythographique”, ZPE 150 (2004), p. 63-65]. [AC]

395170) P. Zoridis, “Μέγαρα”, AD 51 B1 (1996) [2001], p. 58-64: Ed. pr. of a stele dedicated to Dionysos, which originally supported a bronze statuette of Dionysos (Megara, Hellenistic period). [AC]

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Angelos Chaniotis et Joannis Mylonopoulos, « Epigraphic Bulletin for Greek Religion 2005 (EBGR 2005) », Kernos [En ligne], 21 | 2008, mis en ligne le 01 octobre 2011, consulté le 24 mars 2017. URL :

Haut de page


Angelos Chaniotis

All Souls College – Oxford

Articles du même auteur

Joannis Mylonopoulos

Columbia University – Greek Art and Archaeology

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur


Haut de page
  • Logo Suppléments de Kernos – Revue internationale et pluridisciplinaire de religion grecque antique
  • Logo Université de Liège