Navigation – Plan du site
Chronique des activités scientifiques

Epigraphic Bulletin for Greek Religion 2012 (EBGR 2012)

Angelos Chaniotis
p. 175-254

Texte intégral

125 years ago I took the initiative to create the Epigraphic Bulletin for Greek Religion. Together with Eftychia Stavrianopoulou (EBGR 1990–1991 and 1993/94–1996) and Ioannis Mylonopoulos (EBGR 1996–2005), we have summarized ca. 5,650 epigraphic publications, corpora, and editions of inscriptions, as well as books and articles on Greek religion that heavily rely on the epigraphic evidence. In the most recent issues, I have been placing more emphasis on the presentation of new finds and new readings, restorations, and interpretations rather than on a comprehensive presentation of publications that are dedicated to religious phenomena and adduce inscriptions. I will continue this practice in the future issues, in order to make the timely presentation of new finds possible.

2The 25th issue of the EBGR presents a selection of epigraphic publications of 2012, with numerous additions to earlier issues (publications of 2006–2011). Publications that could not be considered here, for reasons of space, will be presented in EBGR 2013; they include inter alia two corpora from Asia Minor (S. Mitchell, D. French, The Greek and Latin Inscriptions of Ankara [Ancyra]. Volume I. From Augustus to the End of the Third Century AD, Munich, 2012; E. Lafli, E. Christof, M. Metcalfe, Hadrianopolis I: Inschriften aus Paphlagonia, Oxford, 2012) and an updated edition of the monumental collection of inscriptions with the acclamation εἷς θεός (E. Peterson, C. Markschies, Heis Theos. Epigraphische, formgeschichtliche und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur antiken “Ein Gott”-Akklamation, Würzburg, 2012). Thanks to the efforts of Professor Klaus Hallof (Berlin), who is co-ordinating the publication of the Inscriptiones Graecae, the oldest project in ancient studies that celebrated its 200th jubilee in August, three new volumes of the IG were published in 2012 and are presented here (Athens: 18 and 105; Kos: 25). This issue also summarizes the content of corpora for Stobi (14) and the Museum of Yozgat (209), a useful collection of Delphic inscriptions (80), and large groups of inscriptions from the Metroion in Dionysopolis (106) and Balboura (127).

3One of the most important texts in this issue is a lead tablet, possibly from Selinous (83), with hexametrical incantations which include an early version of the Ephesia grammata. Among the new inscriptions, I single out a new regulation concerning the sale of the priesthood of Meter Phrygie in Priene (211), an agonistic inscription from Messene (186), a senatus consultum dealing with the limits of sacred land belonging to a sanctuary of Zeus in Melitaia (χώρα Διὸς Ὀθρυίου, 177), a second copy of a cult regulation from Chios that prohibits the use of groves for pasture (114), a Cretan inscription that attests commemorative anniversaries in Lyttos (98), and a dedication made by Alexander to Ammon, ‘his own father’ in the Bahariya Oasis (23 bis). New evidence for the cult of Praxidika and Hermes Tychon comes from Dion (147); there is also important evidence for Egyptian cults from Rhodes (65) and Marathon (52).

4New inscriptions often add something new to Greek religious vocabulary, such as the word μηριοκαύσιον (‘altar on which the thighs of the victims are burned’) in a text from Asia Minor (55). I also note the expression θεοφίλητοι (3), unusual in a pagan context, the term ἱερὰ κόρα in Stobi (14), the office of the κοσμητὴς θεοῦ in Asia Minor (63; cf. 183), the expression Θεῷ ἥρωι in an epitaph from the area of Oinoanda (157, also with an unusual representation of the Thracian Rider), and an imaginative funerary imprecation that wishes the individual who opens a grave to incur leprosy or a skin disease (209: ἐλεφαντίασει ὁ ἀνοίξας). As in the past, there are numerous publications concerning magical practices, including an interesting defixio from Messene (187): the defigens invokes chthonic deities and heroes, using a laudatory attribute for Hippolytos (κλεινός). With regard to rituals, an inscription from Thouria (8) attests the enigmatic verb κοματεύω, possibly referring to the hair-offering in a rite of passage; two inscriptions from Dionysopolis refer to the ritual of ἀνθολογεῖν in honor of Meter Pontie (106). I also note three texts that provide information concerning the funeral of benefactors (27, 67, and 153).

5The principles explained in Kernos 4 (1991), p. 287–288, and Kernos 7 (1994), p. 287, also apply to this issue. Abbreviations that are not included in the list 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 BCE. Henry Heitmann-Gordon (University of Munich) has improved the English text.



Ἀρχαιολογικὸ Ἔργο Θεσσαλίας καὶ Στερεᾶς Ἑλλάδας 3 (2009). Πρακτικὰ Ἐπιστημονικῆς Συνάντησης, Βόλος 12.3.-15.3.2009, Volos, 2012.

Ancient Sacral Monuments

E.K. Petropoulos, A.A. Maslenikov (eds.), Ancient Sacral Monuments in the Black Sea, Thessaloniki, 2010.

Bibliotheca Isiaca II

L. Bricault, R. Veymiers, Bibliotheca Isiaca II, Bordeaux, 2011.

Current Approaches to Religion

M. Haysom, J. Wallensten (eds.), Current Approaches to Religion in Ancient Greece. Papers Presented at a Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 17–19 April 2008, Stockholm, 2011.

Des rois au Prince

I. Savalli-Lestrade, I. Cogitore (eds.), Des rois au Prince. Pratiques du pouvoir monarchique dans l’Orient hellénistique et romain (ive siècle avant J.-C. - iie siècle après J.-C.), Grenoble, 2010.

Dineessa – Romiopoulou

P. Adam-Veleni, K. Tzanavari (eds.), Δινήεσσα. Τιμητικὸς τόμος γιὰ τὴν Κατερίνα Ρωμιοπούλου, Thessaloniki, 2012.

Early Roman Thrace

I.P. Haynes (ed.), Early Roman Thrace: New Evidence from Bulgaria (JRA Suppl. 82), Portsmouth, RI, 2011.

Ἔπαινος Luigi Beschi

A. Delivorias, G. Despinis, A. Zarkadas (eds.), Ἔπαινος Luigi Beschi (ΜΟΥΣΕΙΟ ΜΠΕΝΑΚΗ, 7ο Παράρτημα), Athens, 2011.

Individus, groupes et politique

J.-C. Couvenhes, S. Milanezi (eds.), Individus, groupes et politique à Athènes de Solon à Mithridate. Actes du colloque international. Tour 7 et 8 mars 2005, Tours, 2007.

Labraunda and Karia

L. Karlsson, S. Carlsson (eds.), Labraunda and Karia. Proceedings of the International Symposium Commemorating Sixty Years of Swedish Archaeological Work in Labraunda. The Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities, Stockholm November 20–21, 2008. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis (Boreas 32), Uppsala, 2011.

More than Men, Less than Gods

P.P. Iossif, A.S. Chankowski, C.C. Lorber (eds.), More than Men, Less than Gods. Studies in Royal Cult and Imperial Worship. Proceedings of the International Colloquium Organized by the Belgian School at Athens (1–2 November 2007), Leuven, 2011.

Namata – Pandermalis

S. Pingiatoglou, T. Stefanidou-Tiveriou (eds.), Νάματα. Τιμητικὸς Τόμος γιὰ τὸν καθηγητὴ Δημήτριο Παντερμαλή, Thessaloniki, 2011.

Omaggio – Lombardi

G. Bevilacqua, S. Campanelli (eds.), Ἀρετῆς ἕνεκεν καὶ σοφίας. Un omaggio a Paola Lombardi. Giornata di studio — Roma, 28 Ottombre 2010, Rome, 2012.

One God

S. Mitchell, P. van Nuffelen (eds.), One God: Pagan Monotheism in the Roman Empire, Cambridge, 2010.


R.W.V. Catling, F. Marchand (eds.), Onomatologos: Studies in Greek Personal Names Presented to Elaine Matthews, Oxford, 2010.

Spazio ionico

C. Antonetti (ed.), Lo spazio ionico e le comunità della Grecia nord-occidentale. Territorio, società, istituzioni, Pisa, 2010.

Studies – Tracy

G. Reger, F.X. Ryan, T.F. Winters (eds.), Studies in Greek Epigraphy and History in Honor of Stephen V. Tracy, Bordeaux, 2010.

Symposion 2009

G. Thür (ed.), Symposion 2009. Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (Seggau, 25–30. August 2009), Vienna, 2010.

Unveiling Emotions

A. Chaniotis (ed.), Unveiling Emotions: Sources and Methods for the Study of Emotions in the Greek World, Stuttgart, 2012.

Selected Topics

Geographical areas (in the sequence adopted by SEG)

6Attica: Athens: 11. 18. 27. 50. 89. 90. 94. 105. 107. 112. 113. 122. 141. 145. 168. 172. 180. 195. 196. 205. 212; Brauron: 141; Eleusis: 145. 168. 175; Marathon: 52; Piraeus: 116. Peloponnese: Aigina: 175. Argolis: Agos: 180. 201; Lerna: 175. Epidauria: Epidauros: 42. 117. 174. Lakonia: Sparta: 191. Messenia: 7; Andania: 70; Messene: 67. 170. 184–187; Thouria: 6. 8. Arkadia: Lousoi: 22; Lykosoura: 84; Mantineia: 144; Megalopolis: 180. Elis: Olympia: 73. Boiotia: 97; Chaironeia: 110; Hyettos: 88; Koroneia: 23. 97; Lebadeia: 23; Onchestos: 97; Orchomenos: 23. 110; Oropos: 145; Tanagra: 174; Thebes: 110; Thespiai: 174. Delphi: 80. 90. 109. Doris: 158. Phokis: Boulis: 158; Hyampolis: 73; Tithorea: 159. Eastern Lokris: Daphnous: 143. Akarnania: 5. 15. 16; Astakos: 180; Palairos: 180; Thyrrheion: 15. Ionian Islands: 5. Korkyra: 15. 125. Thessaly: 51. 97. 123. 169; Azoros: 193; Demetrias: 32. 189; Doliche: 56. 194; Lamia: 18; Melitaia: 177; Pharsalos: 207; Pherai: 58. 142; Trikke: 27. Epeiros: 5. 15. 16; Ambrakia: 15. Illyria: 5. Dalmatia: Rhizon: 103. Macedonia: 13. 43. 137; Aigai: 161; Amphipolis: 93. 164; Dion: 45. 147; Edessa: 206; Kalindoia: 150; Philippi: 32. 135; Pydna: 190; Stobi: 14. Thrace: 46. 146. 171; Byzantion: 73; Dionysopolis: 106; Odessos: 126. Moesia: 119. 121. 146; Durostorum: 62; Histria: 26; Nikopolis ad Istrum: 140; Tomis: 17. 120. North Shore of the Black Sea: 21. 95. 138. 146; Olbia: 95. 96. 160; Pantikapaion: 166. 192; Tanais: 78. Delos: 68. 124. 162. Rhodes: 65. Lesbos: Mytilene: 44. Peparethos: 59. Kos: 24. 35. 36. Chios: 114. Samos: 108. Lemnos: 155. Euboia: 10; Chalkis: 174. Crete: Chersonesos: 98; Lyttos: 98; Olous: 98. Sicily: Selinous: 83; Syracuse: 142; Tauromenion: 132. Italy: 151; Bologna: 165; Centuriapae: 115; Kyme: 86; Lanuvium: 115; Lokroi Epizephyrioi: 53. 54; Rome: 151. 175. Spain: Celti: 178; Tarraco: 99. Asia Minor: Karia: 69; Amyzon: 167; Aphrodisias: 41; Attouda: 41; Euromos: 167; Halikarnassos: 77; Iasos: 210; Knidos: 40. 162; Labraunda: 76; Mylasa: 57. 167. 203; Stratonikeia: 197. Ionia: Didyma: 71. 72; Ephesos: 34. 89. 152. 181; Magnesia on the Maeander: 110; Miletos: 72; Priene: 85. 176. 211; Teos: 80. 210; Smyrna: 1. 80. Lydia: 152; Iulia Gordos: 153; Sardeis: 148. 210. Troas: Alexandria Troas: 162; Assos: 108; Ilion: 92. Mysia: 18. 182; Hadrianoi: 4. 55. 82; Kyzikos: 49. 80; Pergamon: 80. 89. 131. 179. Bithynia: Kalchedon: 80; Nikaia: 46. Pontos: 209; Amisos: 138. Paphlagonia: Phazimon: 108. Galatia: Tavium: 209. Phrygia: 3; Aizanoi: 82; Akmonia: 188; Hierapolis: 154; Apameia/Kelainai: 29; Kole: 60. Pisidia: 2. 101; Anaboura: 100; Apollonia Mordiaon: 102; Konane: 79; Sagalassos: 129. Lykia: Balboura: 127; Kaunos: 157; Kibyra: 48; Patara: 63; Termessos Minor: 157; Tlos: 157; Xanthos: 157. 167. 183. Kappadokia: 209. Cyprus: 108; Amathous: 19. 66; Kafizin: 81. Bactria: 61. 198. Syria: Apameia: 64; Byblos: 31; Daphne: 18; Zeugma: 64. Egypt: 23 bis. 74; Alexandria: 162. Kyrene: 32. 156

7acclamation: 3. 20. 39. 40. 129. 181. 202; see also Greek words

8accounts: 195

9aesthetic aspects in cult: 105

10afterlife: 29. 91. 213; see also s.v. underworld

11agermos: 211

12agonistic festival: 105; of Chrysaoreis: 69; Agrippeia 24 (Kos); Aktia 24. 99; Aleiaia 186 (Tegea); Apollonia 174 (Epidauros). 24 (Myndos); Apollonia Pythia 154; Archegesia 24 (Halikarnassos); Asklepieia 174 (Epidauros). 24 (Kos); Aspis 24 (Argos); Attaleia 80 (Delphi); Basileia 186 (Lebadeia); Chrysanthinos Agon 148 (Sardis); Delia 186 (Tanagra); Demetrieia 174 (Chalkis); Dionysia 18. 105 (Athens). 174 (Chalkis). 24 (Kos, Teos); Doreia 24 (Knidos); Eleusinia 18. 24; Eleutheria 186 (Larisa). 18. 80. 186 (Plataia); Eleutheria Kaisareia 24; Eumeneia 80 (Delphi, Sardis); Hadrianeia 173; Halieia 186 (Rhodes); Hekatesia 24 (Stratonikeia); Hephaisteia 195 (Athens); Heraia 186; Herakleia 24 (Iasos); Isthmia 24. 186; Kaisareia 102 (Apollonia Mordiaon). 24 (Halikarnassos, Kos, Metropolis, Patrai, Sardes); Kapitolia 24; Klaria 24; Klaudeia 24 (Rhodes); Koinos Asias 24. 148; Koinos Ionon 24; Koinos Makedonon 24; Koinos Thessalon 24; Kornouteia 102; Leukophryena 18; Lykaia 18. 24. 186; Mouseia 174 (Thespiai); Nemea 24. 99. 105. 186; Nemesia 18; Nikephoria 80 (Pergamon); Olympia 24. 52 (Alexandria). 181 (Ephesos). 186; Panathenaia 92 (Ilion). 8. 24. 105. 145. 172. 173. 186 (Athens); Panhellenia 173; Ptolemaia 18. 80; Pythia 80. 186 (Delphi). 186 (Megara); Rhomaia 24 (Kos, Pergamon). 186 (Aigion, Chalkis, Messene); Sarapieia 174 (Tanagra); Sebasta 24 (Neapolis); Soteria 80 (Delphi); Theogamia 24 (Nysa); Traianeia Diiphilia 131

13agonistic festival: musicians in: 174; hieronikai: 106; prizes: 149

14Alexander the Great: 23 bis

15altar: 4. 24. 46. 55. 82. 102. 106. 121; funerary: 157; funerary altar jointly dedicated to god and deceased individual: 4

16amphiktyony: Chrysaoreis: 69; Delphi: 80. 110; Ilion: 92

17amulet: 62. 202; see also s.v. phylactery

18anatomical votive: 65

19ancestral cult: 63

20angel: 39. 82. 128

21aniconic worship: 128

22animal: dog: 1; eagle: 128

23ant: 140

24apotropaic text: 54

25aretalogy: 40. 68. 118

26association, cult: 5. 12. 14. 24. 81. 101. 106. 135

27asylia: 22. 42. 80

28banquet: 15. 24. 81. 105. 106. 127. 144; banquet hall: 143

29bench: 106. 126

30benefactor: 24. 63. 88. 127. 144; cult of: 67

31birthday: 24

32cake, sacrificial: 211

33calendar: 167. 194

34cave, cult: 81. 158. 207

35childhood: 142

36chorus: 98

37confession inscription: 40

38Christians: 29. 129; destruction of inscription by C.: 41

39chthonic cult: 147

40commemorative anniversary: 98

41competition: 20; between demes for a cult: 24

42consolation: 102

43cry, ritual: 94

44crypt: 185

45cult, of gentilician group: 24; of mortal: 67 (benefactor). 76 (Olympichos); 80 (Memmius Nikandros). 102. 157. 172 (tyrannicides); see also s.vv. cave cult, chthonic cult, deme cult, hero cult, imperial cult, ruler cult

46cult, expenses: 63. 105. 125; foundation of cult: 35; funded through taxation: 50; introduction of: 68. 105. 110. 126. 142. 167; participation in: 80; reform: 70

47cult personnel: agonothetes 24. 92. 102. 149. 181. 184; aozos 15. 16; archeuon: 24; archiereia 188; of imperial cult in a city: 206; of Asia: 179; archiereus of Asia: 179; of Lykia: 63; archiereus of civic cult: 14. 24. 126. 184; archiereus of Seleucid ruler cult: 167; architheoros: 105; auletes 15; Bithyniarches: 55; chrysophoros 55; diakonos 15; epimeletes pompes 18; hestia 15; hestiarchos 15; hierapolos 15. 180; hiereia 1. 18. 24. 48. 80. 106. 127. 129. 144. 152. 206. 211; hiereus 18. 24. 32. 56. 60. 63. 93. 102. 105. 106. 127. 156. 180; hierodoulos 24. 106; hierokeryx 24; hieromnemon 18. 69; hieronomos 106; hierophoros 15. 16. 24; hierophylax 24; hieropoioi 24. 105; hieros 192; hierothytes 6. 15; hydrophoros 72; hyperetes 15; kanephoros 18; kosmetes 63. 183; Lykiarches 63; mageiros 15; mantis 15; neokoros 24. 52. 56; neopoios 24. 152; oinochoos 15; panegyriarchos/es 24. 152; prophetis 72; spondophoros: 18; synestai 15; theophoros 106; thoinarmostria: 187; see also s.v. priest, priesthood

48cult personnel: hereditary: 24. 102; selected by god: 72

49cult regulation: 18. 24. 38. 40. 42. 51. 53. 55. 70. 80. 84. 105. 114. 151. 168. 211

50curse: 40. 113. 147; see also s.vv. defixio, funerary imprecation, prayer for justice

51curse tablet: see s.v. defixio

52dance: 142

53death: 102. 176; caused by god: 11; caused by fate: 176; consolation: 27; metaphor for d.: 102. 153; see also s.v. afterlife

54decoration: 105

55dedication, motives for: after healing: 24; after trade trip: 45; after victory in war: 109; divine command: 3. 24. 55. 79; gratitude: 24, 49. 182; piety: 52; protection of agricultural production: 3; protection of the household: 3; protection of a village: 3; summa honoraria: 137; well-being of emperors: 24; well-being of family members: 3. 24. 58. 142. 182; well-being of a king/queen: 47. 78; well-being of a master: 46. 101; well-being of a statesman: 24; see also s.v. vow; see also Greek words

56dedication, agent of: magistrate: 24. 137; priest/priestess: 1. 102. 106. 127. 129. 156. 180; priest after exit from service: 24. 56; slave: 14; soldier: 24. 34. 103. 120; winner in contest: 24

57dedication, object of: dekate: 71; loomweight: 94; statue of a relative: 8. 71. 141; war booty: 73; see also s.v. anatomical votive, ears, footprint, tithe, trophy

58dedication: joint d. to Apollo and Artemis: 208; joint d. to god and a deceased individual: 3; label on d: 158; melting down of: 18; re-used as grave offering: 196

59defixio: 9. 160. 165. 166. 178. 186. 200. 212

60deities: Agathe Tyche: 105. Agathos Daimon: 24. 57. Aglauros: 18. Amphiaraos: 105. 145. Aphrodite: 14. 23. 24. 48. 96. 98. 105. 180. 189; Epiteleia: 80; Limenarchis: 170; Olbie: 96; Pontia: 24; Stratonikis 80. Apollo: 10. 18. 24. 63. 72. 78. 80. 83. 100. 123. 126. 146. 156. 157. 160. 208; Aiginaios: 160; Dalios: 24; Delphinios: 126; Didymeus: 24. 71; Kalymnas medeon: 24; Karneios: 24; Klarios: 14; Lykeios: 18. 50; Phoibos: 100; Prostaterios: 18; Pythios: 24. 80. 98. 122. 193; Soter: 24. 102. Ares: 18. 23. 30. 98. 105. 127. Artemis: 14. 22. 24. 36. 98. 152. 157. 160. 177. 180. 181. 184. 208; Akraia: 43; Blaganitis: 43; Bloireitis: 43; Boulaia: 18; Brauronia: 105; Digaia: 43; Ephesie: 160; Gazoria: 43; Gourasia: 43; Mounychia: 105. 141; Pergaia: 24; Pheraia: 142; Phosphoros: 18; Pythie: 72; Sibonnike: 43; Soteira: 186; Toxitis: 24. Asklepios: 6. 8. 14. 18. 24. 42. 59. 105. 117. 137. 143. 177. 179. Aspalis: 177. Athena: 18. 24. 98. 105. 106. 112. 126. 145. 180. 189; Alalkomenia: 97; Alseia: 24; Archegetis: 18; Athenon medeousa: 24; Ergane: 80; Hephastia: 105; Ilias: 92; Itonia: 80. 97. 105; Nike: 105; Nikephoros: 18. 80; Phatria: 24; Polias: 24; Skiras 94; Soteira: 105; Zosteria: 80. Boras: 177. Britomartis: 98 (Britomarpis). Charites: 18. 24. Demeter: 1. 18. 24. 83. 105. 153. 160. 175. 177. 187; Homaria: 10; Karpophoros: 24; Lemnia: 10; Soteira: 24; Thesmophoros: 153. Demokratia: 18. Demos: 18. Despoina: 84. 170. Diktynna: 167. Dionysos: 14. 24. 58. 98. 105. 106. 110. 116. 127. 160. 175. 184. 206; Kadmeios: 110; Phleos: 211; Sphaleotas: 80. Dioskouroi: 2. 160. 191. Dodeka Theoi: 24. 105. Eirene: 24. Eileithyia: 80. 184. 186. Ennodia: 142. 177. Epione: 24. Eros: 191. Euteria: 24. Ge: 105. Hekate: 2. 21. 83. 171. 175. 186; Soteira: 24; Stratia: 24. Helios: 2. 18. 24. 105. 106. Hephaistos: 105. 195. Hera: 86. 98. 180; Argeia: 24; Basileia: 24; Dirphia: 10; Olympia: 24; Ourania: 24. Herakles: 14. 24. 35. 106. 124. 126. 127. 132. 175. 186; Kynagidas: 56; Patroios: 161. Hermes: 18. 24. 98. 124. 132. 147. 157. 160. 171. 189. 211; Kyllanios: 24; Tychon: 147. Hestia: 98; Phamia: 24. Homonoia: 24. Horai: 18. Hygieia: 8. 14. 24. 80. 137. Ino: 177. Kephisos: 205. Keres: 186. Kore: 24. 105. 160. 185. 187; Soteira: 80. Kouretes: 98. Kybele: 85. 175. 211. Leto: 24. 98. 157. 183. 208. Merops: 24. Meter: 160; Adrastou: 41; Phrygie: 211. Meter Theon: 1. 64. 85. 189; Lykochoritike 4; Pontia: 106. Moirai: 24. Muses: 24. Nemesis: 14. Nike: 23. 24. Nymph: 81. Nymphs: 14. 17. 24. 98. 126. 158. 176. 207. Pan: 24. 158. 211. Parthenos: 13. Persephone: 83. 119? Plouton: 119? Poseidon: 24. 97. 98. 105. 126. 160. 177; Asphaleios: 24. 170; Asphaleus: 106; Geraistios: 24; Helikonios: 211; Nauklarios: 124; Pelagios: 105. Praxidika: 147. Priapos: 147. Rhea: 24. Selene: 2. 190. Telesphoros: 14. Thea Rhome: 126. 131. 150. 157. Theai: Hagnai: 129; Semnai: 18. Themis: 194. Theoi: Patrioi: 36. 120; Patroioi: 24. Theos: Hypsistos: 128. Tyche Agathe: 24. Tychon: 147. Zeus: 53. 80. 102. 128. 140. 150. 157. 177. 189. 211; Alseios: 24; Anabatenos: 82; Bronton: 3; Chrysaoreus: 69; Epidotas: 186; Epopsios: 24; Heliopolites: 101; Hikesios: 24. 36; Hypsistos: 24. Idaios: 98; Ithomatas: 184; Kasios: 47; Kretagenes: 98. 167; Ktesios: 18; Machaneus: 24; Monnitios: 98; Nikator: 101; Olbios: 49; Olympios: 24. 77. 82. 105; Othryios: 177; Ourios: 124; Patroios: 24; Philios: 127. 131; Polieus: 24; Soter: 105. 160; Soterios: 177; Tallaios: 98

61deities, Anatolian: Angdistis 129; Attis 106; Basileus of Kaunos 24; Hosios Dikaios 4; Hosios kai Dikaios 4. 82; Kakasbos 157; Tadenos 46; Thea Peismatene 182; Theoi Pisidikoi 2; Zeus Anabatenos 4; Galaktenos 79. 101; Kersoullos: 82; Kraouandaseon 28; Limnenos 3; Okonenos 4

62deities, Dalmatian: Medauros: 103

63deities, Egyptian: 16. 24. 30. 31. 32. 34. 45. 52. 65. 68. 124. 151. 164. 175. 201. 202; Ammon: 105; Anoubis: 164; Hermanoubis: 30. 45; Isis 14. 118. 185; Osiris 65; Sarapis: 12. 159. 164. 201. 202

64deities, Iranian deities: Mes: 79

65deities, Oriental deities: Belos: 24; Mithras: 126. 175; Oxos: 61. 198; Parthenos 13; Sabazios: 23. 41

66deities, Roman: Concordia 126; Iuppiter Capitolinus 186; Iuppiter Optimus Maximus 14. 135; Liber Pater 14; Mars 126; Minerva 24; Silvanus 126; Sol Invictus 126; Ultrix Augusta 14

67deities, Thracian: Daimones Antanoi 14; Darzalas 126; Heros Karabasmos 126; Heros Manibazos 120; Heros Phylax 106; Thracian Rider: 25. 106. 158

68deity, concept of: 20. 39. 117; council of gods: 39; dedicates statue of other deity: 82; emotions towards d.: 40; epithets: 40; epithets denoting separate hypostases: 82; hierarchy: 39; mediator between mortals and d.: 25; mortals compared with gods: 29; named after cult founder: 41; naming fortifications: 24; patron of birth: 80; patron of child: 205; patron of city: 39; patron of fertility: 45. 147; patron of justice: 147; patron of trade: 45; patron of travelers: 100; presence: 39; purity: 106; serving as priest: 106; superiority: 20; see also s.v. river god, snake god

69deme cult: 24

70disease, perceived as punishment: 42. 209

71divination: 18. 80. 86

72Dionysiac technitai: 80. 93?. 107. 149

73Dodekais: 80

74donations, collection of: 211

75dream: 151

76dress: see s.v. garments

77eagle: 128

78ears: 13. 45. 189

79earthquake: 24

80elite: 80

81emotion: 29. 40. 117. 118. 162

82encomium: 24

83endowment, for cult: 36; for festival: 106; funerary: 63. 135

84enthronization: 18

85ephebes: 18. 24. 27

86Ephesia grammata: 54. 83

87epithet, construction of: 39

88eschatology: 213

89evil eye: 24

90fear of gods: 40

91festival: 5. 18. 24. 80. 106. 107; endowment for: 106. 125; exemption from taxes: 131; expenses: 174; finances: 174; invitation of allied city: 98; performance (acrobatic) by a pig: 206; periodicity: 92; re-organization: 80; see also s.v. commemorative anniversary; see also Greek words (celebration, festival)

92festivals, selection: Agrionia 110; Chalkeia 18; Dipoleia 105; Epitaphia 18; Kalendae Ianuariae 136; Metroia 106; Oschophoria 94; Proerosia 18; Pythais 80. 90; Thargelia 105; Thesmophoria 24; Thiodaisia 98

93finances of cult: 24. 70. 105. 125. 131. 145. 174

94flower, collection: 106

95flutist: 106

96food offering: 211

97footprints: 14. 45

98founder, city: 115

99funeral: 27. 67. 102. 153

100funerary cult: 3. 4. 14. 18. 25. 57. 63. 67. 127. 135. 209; see also s.v. grave monument

101funerary imprecation: 2. 29. 63. 127. 153. 157. 209

102garments: 55. 70. 84

103gem: 202

104god-fearers: 128

105grave monument: 63; intra muros: 67

106grove: 63. 114

107gymnasion: 24. 132

108hair offering: 7

109healing god: 151

110healing miracle: 117

111hero, descent from: 24

112hero cult: 21?. 24. 90. 157; Achilles: 138. 160; Aias: 18; Amphiaraos: 11; Hippolytos: 186; Iatros: 18; tyrannicides: 172; heroization: 24

113historiola: 83

114Homer: 26

115hope in religion: 40. 117

116humans, origin of: 100

117hymn: 39. 80

118identity: 90. 97

119image, divine, carried: 16

120imperial cult: 14. 19. 24. 41. 44. 60. 63. 66. 77. 80. 89. 111. 126. 127. 131. 150. 179. 184. 204; emperor identified with god 24 (Agrippina-Demeter, Augustus-Apollo, Augustus-Zeus, Caligula-Asklepios, Claudius-Apollo, Claudius-Zeus, Drusilla-Aphrodite, Drusilla-Homonoia, Iulia-Leto, Nero-Asklepios, Tiberius-Zeus). 77 (Hadrian-Zeus Olympios, Sabina-Hera). 89 (Augustus-Apollo); era connected with emperor: 24; funded through fines: 41

121impurity: 40

122inauguration: 211

123incantation: 54. 83

124incubation: 143. 151

125incense burner: 18 (libanotis). 24

126initiation, initiate: 110. 118. 175. 211

127inventory: 112

128invocation: 3. 81. 159. 202

129Jews: 14. 29

130kinship, mythological: 115

131lamp: 1. 52

132land, sacred: 24. 145. 105. 177

133lex sacra: see s.v. cult regulation

134libation: 21. 84. 172

135loomweight: 94

136maenad: 110

137magic: 33. 54. 83. 84; magical figure: 165; magical signs: 165; magical words: 165; see also s.vv. amulet, apotropaic text, Ephesia grammata, gem, incantation, phylactery

138manumission, sacred: 5. 80. 155. 159

139migration and religion: 126

140miracle: 24. 185; healing m.: 117; narrative of m.: 40. 117

141monotheism: 20. 39. 128

142morality in religion: 42

143music in cult: 174

144mystery cult: 18. 24. 70. 84. 168; morality and initiation: 42; multiple initiation: 175

145myth: 26; 80 (Agamemnon). 97. 115. 140. 169. 186. 191

146name, deriving from festival: 136; inspired by myth: 169; theophoric: 139

147‘new’ god: 77

148Neoplatonists: 175

149nympholepsy: 81

150oath: 40; of loyalty: 108; treaty: 98. 105

151olive, sacred: 145

152oracle: 14. 18. 23. 39. 40. 72. 80. 110; belief in: 11; theosophical: 39

153Orphics: 91. 190. 192; Dionysiac-Orphic tablets: 83

154paganism in Late Antiquity: 175

155Panhellenion: 27. 77

156pelanos: 80

157personification: Demokratia: 18; Eueteria: 24; Homonoia: 24

158phallagogia: 206

159phylactery: 33; see also s.v. amulet

160piety: 39. 40. 52. 81; see also Greek words

161politics and religion: 12. 80

162pollution, development of concept: 42

163prayer: 24. 29. 58. 80; addressed to heroized mortal: 80; prayer for justisce: 42. 162. 200

164priesthood, accumulation of offices: 14. 24. 127; board of priests: 93. 180; couple serving as priests: 14. 127; god serving as p.: 106; honorific statue of: 80; iteration: 60; list of p.: 106; purity of: 14; sale of priesthood: 211; serving for 60 years: 14; serving for life: 24. 72. 106. 211; upon divine command: 24 (κατὰ θείαν κέλευσιν)

165priest: see s.v. cult personnel (hiereia, hiereus)

166procession: 18. 70. 105. 106. 206; propompeia: 18

167promanteia: 80

168propitiation: 106

169protective text: 83

170punishment, divine: 24. 40. 162

171purification: 85

172purity: 38. 42. 84. 106. 127. 151

173Pythais: 80. 90. 105

174rite of passage: 8. 142

175ritual, efficacy of: 42; joint ritual activity: 5; transformation of r.: 42; see also s.vv. agermos, banquet, Dodekais, enthronization, flower (collection), funeral, hair offering, inauguration, incubation, initiation, libation, oath, prayer, procession, purification, Pythais, rite of passage, rosalia, sacrifice, staging, wedding; see also Greek words

176river god: 61. 205

177Roman influence: 135. 136

178rosalia: 135

179ruler cult: 18. 23 bis. 24. 34. 66. 76. 74. 101. 167. 210; Arsinoe II: 66; Laodike IV: 210; association of ruler cult with cult of gods: 34. 101

180sacred money, used for dedication: 82

181sacrifice: 16. 18. 24. 38. 80. 81. 84. 98. 105. 211; bloodless: 211; commemorative: 80; offered by magistrates: 18; perquisites of priest: 211

182sacrilege: 160

183sanctuary: 24. 105. 203; behavior in: 86; building works in: 80; control of: 177; domestic: 95; exploitation of: 116; fine paid to s.: 159; sacred money used for constructions: 80; order in: 55; ownership of land: 80; ownership of livestock: 80; philosophical text in s.: 100; prohibited objects in s.: 84; protection of: 114; recipient of fine: 41; see also s.vv. account, inventory, land (sacred), temple

184simplicity: 84

185slave, assigned to funerary cult: 63; sacred: 24. 63. 106. 127. 203

186snake-god: 25

187society: 90

188soul: 91; immortality: 29

189staging in cult: 118

190statue, cult: 134. 195; of emperor: 87. 131; of god: 14. 24. 102. 106. 127. 170; carried in procession: 106. 110; dedicated to god: 24. 73. 88. 161. 183. 187; discovery of: 24. 110; placed near grave: 4; restoration: 105

191Stoics: 100

192superstition: 84

193table, cult: 24. 106. 159

194temple: 134; bars for statues: 134; opening of: 134; wooden: 157

195theater: 110

196theorodokos: 18. 80

197theosebeis: 128

198tithe: 81

199treasure: 6. 24

200tree, cutting of: 24

201Trophonios: 23

202trophy: 23

203youth: 8

204underworld: 91

205victory, attributed to god: 11

206vow: 1. 3. 4. 13. 24. 28. 46. 61. 64. 79. 157. 182

207wedding: 35

208wine, prohibition against: 80

209women: 5. 14. 24. 110. 142. 211; unmarried: 72

Greek words (a selection)

210acclamations: εἷς Ζεὺς Σάραπις 20. 202; εἷς θεός 20. 39. 129; εἷς θεὸς βοήθει/βοηθός 20; εἷς καὶ μόνος θεός 20; μέγα τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Σέραπις 202; μέγας θεός 20. 39

211afterlife: ἐν θεοῖς θεοί 29; κατὰ πάντα τοῖς θεοῖς ἴσος 29

212associations, cult: Ἀθηναϊσταὶ Λινδιασταὶ Διὶ Ἀταβυριασταί 24; ἀρχιμύστης 14; ἀρχισυνάγωγ- 14; Ἀσιανοί 106; Ἀττιασταὶ ἱερόδουλοι Μητρὸς θεᾶς Ποντίας 106; Βακχεῖον πρεσβύτερον 14; δεκατισταί 24; δοῦμος 14; ἐνατισταί 24; ἐρανισταὶ Ἰσιασταί 24; ἱερεὺς τῆς θοίνης (θύνης) 106; κοινωνία 81; νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς θεῶν Ποντίας 106; πατήρ 106; πατὴρ τῆς θοίνης (θύνης) 106; Σεραπιασταί 24; σπεῖρα 106; συμβιωταί 5; συνήθεις 14; σύνοδος Ὀσειριαστᾶν 24; φράτρα 101

213celebration: ἐθρήσκευσεν εὐσεβῶς 144; ἐπιφανῶς καὶ εὐσεβῶς 127; εὐσεβῶς καὶ φιλοδόξως καὶ δαπανηρῶς 63; μετὰ πάσης δαπάνης πολυτελοῦς 144; πομπαὶ ἐπίσημοι 106; ὡς καλλίστη 105

214cult cry: ἐληλεύ, ἰού, ἰού 94

215cult foundation: συνκαθιερόω 24

216cult objects: ἀφίδρυμα 24; θαλάμη 211; θρόνος πύξινος 24; ἱερώματα ἅγια 24; ξόανον 24; παραπέτασμα 24; τράπεζα 159; χλαμὺς Ἀννουβιακή 24

217cult personnel: ἱερεὺς τῆς θοίνης (θύνης) 106; κοσμητὴς τῶν θεῶν 183; πατὴρ τῆς θοίνης (θύνης) 106; συνέσται 15; ἀρχινοχοῦς 15; ἱερὰ κόρα 14; ἱερόδουλος 63; κοσμητὴς πατρῴου θεοῦ 63; συμβιωταί 15

218cult regulation: ἱερὰ διαγραφή 24; ἱερὰ δέλτος 36

219curses: ἐλεφαντίασει ὁ ἀνοίξας 209; ἐξάγιστοι θεοῖς οὐρανίοις, θαλασσίοις, ὑπὲρ γῆν, ὑπὸ γῆν, καὶ ἰχθύσιν, οἰωνοῖς 63; ἕξει θεοὺς κεχολωμένους Πισιδικούς 2; ἐξώλεις πανώλις 63; ἐπάρατοι ἔστωσαν 63; ἐπάρατος ἔστω θεοῖς καὶ θεαῖς πᾶσι 127; ἔσται αὐτῶι πρὸς τὸν ἐξουσιάζοντα πάσης ψυχῆς 29; ἔσται αὐτῶι πρὸς τὸν θεόν 29; ἔσται θεοῖς καταχθονίοις 127; ἔστω θεοῖς καταχθονίοις ἁμαρτωλός 63; ἤτω ἐπάρατος θεοῖς καὶ θεαῖς 157; θεῶν Πισιδικῶν κεχολωμένων τύχοιτο 2; κακῶς ἀπόλοιτο 127; μ̣ὴ τύχοιτο εἱλαίης Θεσμοφόροιο Θεᾶς 153; τὸν νόμον οἶδεν τῶν Ἰουδαίων 29

220dedication: ἀκροθίνιον 73; ἀνθ᾿ ὑγίης μισθός 24; διδασκαλίας δῶρον 205; δῶρον 14. 106. 160. 171; ἐπὶ εὐημερίαι 201; εὐξάμενος 24; εὐχαριστήριον 24. 49; εὐχαριστίας ἕνεκεν 24; εὐχῇ 24; εὐχήν/εὐχάν 3. 24. 41. 46. 65. 82. 182; εὐχῆς χάριν 3; εὐχόμενος 24; θεοῦ προστάξαντος 24; ἱλαστήριον 24; καθιερόω 60. 183; κατὰ κέλευσιν τοῦ θεοῦ 3; κατὰ πρόνοιαν 101; κατὰ πρόσταγμα 24; κατὰ χρηματισμόν 14; κατὰ χρησμόν 24; κατ᾿ ἐπιταγήν 14; κατ᾿ ἐπιταγὴν τοῦ θεοῦ 55; κατ᾿ εὐχήν 13. 14. 64. 79; κατ᾿ ὄψεις 24; κέλευσις 79; περὶ βοῶν 3; περὶ βοῶν καὶ ἀνθρώπων καὶ τῶν κυρίων 3; περὶ τῶν ἰδίων πάντων σωτηρίας καὶ τῆς κώμης 3; περὶ τῶν ἰδίων σωτηρίας 3; περὶ καρπῶν 3; περὶ τέκνων 3; περὶ τέκνων σωτηρίας 3; σωθεῖσα χαριστήριον 182; ὑπὲρ βοῶν καὶ καρπῶν σωτηρίας 3; ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ 3; ὑπὲρ γυναικὸς καὶ τῶν ἰδίων πάντων 3; ὑπὲρ τῶν ἰδίων 3; ὑπὲρ κυρίου 46; ὑπὲρ τῶν πλεόντων 24; ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας 24. 101; ὑπὲρ τοῦ υἱοῦ 24; φιλοστοργίας ἕνεκεν 106; χαριστεῖα 24; χαριστήριον 24. 41. 80. 106; χαριστήριον τῆς πλανητέας 45

221divine punishment: ἐνθύμιον τῆς ἀσεβείας 24

222epithets: ἀγαθός (Nero theos); ἁγναί 129 (theai); ἀρχηγέτης 24 (Apollo); ἀρχηγέτις 18 (Athena); ἀσφάλειος/ἀσφαλεύς 106. 170 (Poseidon); ἀχειροποίητος 128; ἀψευδής 128; βασίλεια 24 (Hera); βουλαία 18 (Artemis); βροντῶν 3 (Zeus); ἐπήκοος 46. 79 (Zeus). 129 (theai). 157 (Kakasbos). 171 (theoi); ἐπιδότας 186 (Zeus); ἐπιτέλεια 80 (Aphrodite); ἐπόψιος 24 (Zeus); ἐργάνη 80 (Athena); ζωστήρια 80 (Athena); ἱερά 41 (Aphrodite); ἵππιος 24 (Poseidon); ἱκέσιος 24. 36 (Zeus); καθαρή 106 (Meter Theon); καλλίτεκνος 24 (Leto); καρποφόρος 24 (Demeter); κτήσιος 18 (Zeus); κυναγίδας 56 (Herakles); κύριος 128; κυρία 152 (Artemis); λιμεναρχίς 170 (Aphrodite); λοχία 14 (Isis); μαχανεύς 24 (Zeus); μέγας 24 (theoi). 126 (Darzalas); μεδέουσα 24 (Athena); μεδέων 24 (Apollo); ναυκλάριος 124 (Poseidon); νέα 24 (Aphrodite). 77 (Hera); νέος 24 (theos). 77 (Zeus Olympios); νικάτωρ 101 (Zeus); νικηφόρος 18. 80 (Athena); ὀθρύιος 177 (Zeus); ὄλβιος 49 (Zeus); ὁμολώϊος 88 (Zeus); οὐρανία 24 (Hera); οὔριος 124 (Zeus); παρθένος 141 (Artemis Mounichia); πάτριος 206 (Dionysos). 36. 120 (theoi); πατρῷος 24 (Zeus, Theoi), 63 (Apollo). 64 (theoi). 161 (Herakles); πελάγιος 105 (Poseidon); πολιάς 24 (Athena); πολιεύς 24 (Zeus); ποντία 24 (Aphrodite). 106 (Meter Theon); προκαθηγεμών 24 (Asklepios); προστατήριος 18 (Apollo); σεμναί 18 (Theai); σώτειρα 24 (Demeter, Hekate, Isis). 24. 80 (Kore). (Athena). 186 (Artemis); σωτήρ 24 (Asklepios). 24. 102 (Apollo). 24 (theoi). 80 (Hadrian). 105. 160 (Zeus); σωτήριος 177 (Zeus); τοξῖτις 24 (Artemis); ὑπακόουσα 24 (Aphrodite); ὕψιστος 24 (Zeus). 24. 128 (theos); φαμία 24 (Hestia); φατρία 24 (Athena); φάτριος 24 (Zeus); φίλιος 127. 131 (Zeus); φύλαξ 106 (Heros); φωσφόρος 18 (Artemis)

223festival: ἑορτή 98; εὐάμερος 98; νεομηνίᾳ 106; πανήγυρις 24. 105

224funerary cult: ἡρῶιον 63; μνημόδουλος 63; ναός 63; ταφόδουλος 63

225heroization: κατεύχεσθαι ὡς ἥρωι 80; τειμαὶ ἡρωϊκαί 80

226initiation: τελέω 211

227magic: Αβρασαξ 62. 202; Ἰαω 62

228miracle: ἔργον Ἴσιδος 185

229piety: ἁγνῶς 114; ἁγνῶς καὶ καθαρῶς 127; ἐπ᾿ ἁγνείᾳ 14; ἐπιφανῶς καὶ εὐσεβῶς 127; ἴδιος θεός 24; νυμφόληπτος 81; ὁσιώτατα 14

230purification: καθαρμὸν καθαίρω 85

231rituals: ἀγερμός 211; δεκατηφόρος 81; δεκατισμός 81; δενδροκόπιον 24; εἰσάγειν εἰς το πρυτανεῖον 211; εἰσιτητήρια 18; ἐναγίσματα 172; ἐξειλασκεύομαι 106; ἐπιτραπεζόω 18; θίασον ἄγειν 98; θοίνη (θύνη): 106; κατεβάται 110; κοματεύω 8

232sacrifice: ἀγάλματα 84; βουθυτέω 18; γέρα 211; ἐκθύω 24; ἔλατρα 211; θύα 211; θῦμα τὸ νομιζόμενον 98; καλλιερέω 24; μηριοκαύσιον 55; οὐλαί 211; συνθύται: 5

233varia: ἄβατα Ἀφροδίτης 96; βέβηλος 36; θεοφίλητοι 3

2341) D. Akar Tanrıver, “Two Bronze Objects with Dedicatory Inscriptions in the Izmir Museum”, EA 45 (2012), p. 101–102 [BE 2013, 53]: Ed. pr. of two dedications of unknown provenance in the Izmir Museum (probably from Smyrna or its vicinity). 1) A bronze cast lamp; the filling hole has a lid in the form of a scallop shell with a flame guard in the form of an ivy leaf; a dedicatory inscription was incised on the leaf. The lamp was dedicated by Demetria, a priestess of Demeter (1st/2nd cent.). 2) A cast statuette of a standing dog. According to an inscription incised on the right side of the dog the object was dedicated by Louki(o)s to the Meter Theon in fulfillment of a vow (2nd cent. CE).

2352) E. Akıncı Öztürk, H. Malay, “Four Funerary Curses Recording the Pisidian Gods of the Acıpayam Plain”, EA 45 (2012), p. 89–92 [BE 2013, 408]: Ed. pr. of four epitaphs from Dodurgala in the Acıpayam Plain (near the ancient cities of Eriza and Themisonion, Imperial period). The graves are protected with funerary imprecations that invoke the Theoi Pisidikoi (variants of εἴ τις τοῦτο τὸ μνημεῖον ἀδικήσει, θεῶν Πισιδικῶν κεχολωμένων τύχοιτο/ἕξει θεοὺς κεχολωμένους Πισιδικούς). The identity of the Pisidian gods is unknown (Selene/Hekate, Helios, possibly the Dioskouroi).

2363) N.E. Akyürek Şahin, “Phrygia’dan yeni Zeus Bronton Adaklari”, Arkeoloji ve Sanat 122 (2006), p. 89–124: Ed. pr. of 60 new inscribed dedications to Zeus Bronton, an important weather and fertility god (north Phrygia, Imperial period). Some of the dedications (stelai and altars) had relief decoration (crown, eagle, bust, bucranium, etc.). Many monuments come from a major sanctuary near Yazidere (nos 34–57), where Zeus is known to have been worshipped with the epithet Limnenos. A peculiar feature of a significant number of monuments is that they were jointly dedicated to Zeus Bronton and a deceased individual. They, therefore, served as funerary monuments, placed under the god’s protection (nos 2–5, 8–9, 12–13, 17, 23, 27–29, 32). no 2 is a good example for this practice: three brothers dedicated a stele both to their parents for memory’s sake and to Zeus Bronton in fulfilment of a vow (πατρὶ… καὶ μητρὶ… μνήμης χάριν κὲ Διὶ Βροντῶντι εὐχήν). The inscription on a stele (7) combines a typical funerary formula (ζῶντες ἑατοῖς κατεσκεύασαν) with a dedicatory formula (κὲ Διὶ Βροντῶντι εὐχήν). In another case, the dedication was made to the god and to the parents, while the father was still alive (28: πατρὶ ζῶ[ν]τι κὲ μητρὶ κατοιχομένῃ). In a stele of this type, the names of the god and the deceased individual are in the dative (12: Διὶ Βροντῶντι κὲ Παπιανῷ τέκνῳ φιλτάτῳ). Two dedications were made by the heirs of a deceased person (20: οἱ Ἀπολλωνίου κληρονόμοι; cf. 4). The dedications were made in fulfilment of vows (εὐχήν: 1–11, 13–17, 21–59; εὐχῆς χάριν: 18, 20), in one case upon divine command (19: κατὰ κέλευσιν τοῦ θεοῦ); some of them are introduced with the invocation ἀγαθῇ τύχῃ (6, 11, 15–16, 18–20). Only one dedication was made by a community, a village (19); usually, the dedicants were private individuals, alone or together with family members. The purpose of the vows is often mentioned: the protection of household, property, animals, and agricultural produce (ὑπὲρ τῶν ἰδίων et sim.: 7, 13, 14, 26; ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τῶν ἰδίων πάντων et sim.: 15–16, 43, 47; περὶ τῶν ἰδίων πάντων σωτηρίας et sim.: 36, 59; περὶ βοῶν κὲ τῶν ἰδίων: 39; ὑπὲρ βοῶν καὶ καρπῶν σωτηρίας: 1; [περὶ
καρ]πῶν: 41). Sometimes the god is expected to protect family members (35: ὑπὲρ γυναικὸς κὲ τῶν ἰδ[ί]ων πάντων; 38: [περὶ τ]έκνων [κὲ τῶν ἰ]δίων πά[ντ]ων σωτηρίας; 42: [περὶ τέκ]νων σω[τ]ηρίας; cf. 18, 22, 25?, 44) and the village (31: περὶ τῶν [ἰ]δίων πάντων σωτηρίας κὲ τῆς κώμης; 58: ὑπὲρ τῆς σωτ[ηρ]ίας τῆς Ἑπ[τα]κωμίας). [In two cases the dedication was made for the well-being of large estates, i.e., the masters, the slaves, and the livestock. This is how one should restore n
o 37: [περὶ βο]ῶν κὲ ἀνθ[ρ]ώπων κὲ τῶν κυρίων; for the restoration cf. no 40: περὶ β]οῶ[ν κὲ ἀν]θρώπων. The contrast between ἄνθρωποι and κύριοι shows that here the term ἄνθρωπος designates the slave (cf. e.g. SEG LVII 536 [11])]. We note an epitaph dedicated to Zeus Bronton, in which the deceased individuals are designated as θεοφίλητοι (‘loved by the god’) [an unusual attribute in a pagan context].

2374) N.E. Akyürek Şahin, “Zwei neue Inschriften für Hosios kai Dikaios”, Olba 18 (2010), p. 267–280 [BE 2011, 496; SEG LIX 1418, 1419; XL 1366]: Ed. pr. of two inscribed altars from Derecik (territory of Hadrianoi, 3rd cent. CE) [see also M.E. Fuchs, S. Delbarre-Bärtschi, AK 52 (2009), p. 164–179 and infra no 82]. The first text reads: Ὁσίῳ Δικαίῳ | Ἀλεξάνδρῳ | παρὰ Μητρὶ | Θεῶν Λυκω|χωρειτικῇ [SEG LX 1366]. The name of the dedicant is partly preserved. The personal name in the dative (Ἀλεξάνδρῳ) shows that this is a funerary altar, dedicated both to Hosios Dikaios and to a deceased man. There are other examples of epitaphs jointly dedicated to gods, especially Zeus Bronton, and deceased persons [see supra no 3]. The epithet of the Mother of the Gods derives from a place name, Lykos being a local river. [The ed. does not offer any explanation for the expression παρὰ Μητρὶ | Θεῶν Λυκω|χωρειτικῇ (‘bei der lykosländischen Meter Theon’). Παρὰ + the name of a deity usually denotes proximity to a sanctuary, a temple, or a divine image (for the latter, cf. SGO II 09/06/19, which mentions a statue of Dionysos near the grave of a worshipper: νῦν δέ σε καὶ παρὰ σῆμ᾿ ἐσορᾶν ἵδρυσα παρά με ὄφρα καὶ ἂν φθίμενο[ς] κεισόμενός σε βλέπω). In this case, it is more likely that the cemetery, where Alexandros was buried, was near the sanctuary of Meter. Hosios Dikaios (or Hosios [and] Dikaios) is often regarded as an intermediary between mortals and gods]. The second dedication, inscribed on an altar, reads: Ἀσκλᾶς Ἀντ(ι)ό|χου [εὐ]χ̣ὴν <ἀ>νέ|θετο Δεὶ Ἀ|ναβατ||ηνῷ Ὁσ(ί)ου καὶ [Δ]ι̣κ̣|αίου [SEG LIX 1419]. The cult of Zeus Anabatenos was already attested in this area (I.Hadrianoi 9). The dedication was made in response to a command given by Hosios kai Dikaios in a dream; this is why the theonym is in the genitive [for a more convincing interpretation see infra no 82]. In an appendix, A.Ş. publishes, without comments, a dedication to Zeus Kersoullos [SEG LIX 1418; for text and comments, see infra no 82].

2385) C. Antonetti, “I diversi aspetti di una koine socio-culturale nella Grecia nord-occidentale di epoca ellenistica”, in Spazio ionico, p. 301–326 [SEG LX 2026]: In a study of a socio-cultural koine in northwestern Greece (Ionian Islands, Akarnania, Epeiros, south Illyria), Antonetti gives a panorama of cults, festivals, and cult associations, also discussing manumissions in the form of dedications to gods (p. 305–307) and the religious activities of women (p. 321–325). Terms composed with συν- (συνθύται, συνελέω, συμβιωταί) are used as evidence for the importance of joint ritual activities (p. 315f.).

2396) X. Arapoyianni, “Ἀνασκαφὴ στὴν ἀρχαία Θουρία”, PAAH 165 (2010) [2013], p. 27–31: Ed. pr. of an octagonal receptacle for offerings (θησαυρός) from a temple [of Asklepios; see infra no 8] in Thouria (late 4th/early 3rd cent., SEG LVIII 397; LX 447). The inscription names the 2 hierothytai and 3 damiourgoi, who were in office, when the thesauros was made, and the architect Theodoros.

2407) X. Arapoyianni, “Ἀνασκαφὴ στὴν Ἄνω Μέλπεια Μεσσηνίας”, AEph 149 (2010), p. 249–258 [SEG LXI 429]: Ed. pr. of a graffito in the interior of a phiale (ca. 500 BCE) found near a temple at Melpeia (near the border of Messenia and Arkadia). The vase was dedicated (ἀνέθεκε[ν?]) to a deity, of whom only the end of the name is preserved.

2418) X. Arapoyianni, “Ἀνασκαφὴ στὴν ἀρχαία Θουρία”, PAAH 166 (2011) [2014], p. 53–58: Ed. pr. of an inscribed statue base from Thouria (Hellenistic period; SEG LXI 309). A couple dedicated the statue of their son to Asklepios and Hygieia, after he had performed an action which is described with the participle κοματεύσαντα. [The verb κοματεύω may be related with κόμη/κόμα and designate a rite of passage for young men involving a hair-offering; for hair-offerings cf. EBGR 2003, 57; 2008, 138; 2010, 14].

2429) M. Arbabzadah, “The Disappearing Man: Λακινει/Λακίνει<ν> in a Greek Curse Tablet”, ZPE 180 (2012), p. 253–255: A. discusses a curse tablet directed against charioteers of the faction of the Blues (EBGR 2002, 68). A problem of the earlier reading is that two charioteers or owners of horses (Hilarinus and Flaccinus) are mentioned twice, whereas another person, Lacinius (line 2: Λακίνειν) is only mentioned once. A. proposes to read λακίνει, from the unattested verb λακινέω (cf. λακάω, ‘to break’). In this reading, the names of the cursed individuals are mentioned twice, first as objects of λακινέω, then as objects of καταδείνω.

24310) M. Arjona, “Ἕνα ἱερὸ στοὺς πρόποδες τῆς Δίρφης;”, in AEThStE 3, p. 823–832: Archaeological remains at Kato Steni near Psachna, on the foot of Mt. Dirphe (Euboia), and inscriptions (IG XII 9, 1172: [ἀ]νέθη[καν] | [Δ]ήμ[η]τρι [Ὁ]μαρί[αι] | Λη[μ]νίη[ι] | [Ἀρ]ιστοφῶν Παταίκ[ου] | [- -]αράτου | Πολ[ύ]κτου; IG XII 9, 1271: a rock-cut inscription with the letters ΑΠΟΛΛ[--]|[--]Ο[--], interpreted by Papavasileiou as a reference to Apollo) have been interpreted as evidence for the existence of a sanctuary. A. summarizes earlier research on this site and critically examines the possibility that there was a sanctuary of Demeter, Apollo, or Hera Dirphia (cf. Steph. Byz., s.v. Δίρφυς), without reaching a firm conclusion.

24411) N.T. Arrington, “The Form(s) and Date(s) of a Classical War Monument: Re-evaluating IG I3 1163 and the Case for Delion”, ZPE 181 (2012), p. 61–75: A. studies the fragments associated with a monument for Athenian war dead (IG I2 1163). The fragmentary epigram attributes the death of these Athenians to the intervention of a demi-god (‘it was one of the demi-gods who stood against you in godly strife and did you deliberate harm’; ἀλλά τις hυμᾶς hεμιθέον θείαν [ἐς ἔριν] ἀντιάσας ἔβλαφσεν πρόφρον) and advises mortals to believe in oracles (‘[- -] together with your misfortune he brought to completion, and for all mortals for the future made the fulfillment of oracles credible to observe’; [h]υμετέροι σὺν κακο͂ι ἐχσετέλεσσε, βροτοῖσι δὲ πᾶσι τὸ λοιπὸν φράζεσθαι λογίο̄ν πιστὸν ἔθεκε τέλος). The battle in which the Athenians fell is usually identified with that of Koroneia in 447/6, although identifications with the battle of Delion in 424/3 and the Sicilian expedition have been proposed. Raising doubts on whether the fragments of the stele (fr. a-c) belong together with the fragments of the base (fr. d-f), A. recognizes four phases in the history of the monument. First five stelai were erected over the base; then a second base with a stele was added to the right of the monument; the monument was repaired after it was damaged in the late 3rd cent.; finally, the blocks of the base were re-used in the Valerian wall. The form of the monument and the addition of a stele can best be reconciled with a date in 424/3. The first base was erected for the dead of the battle of Delion — in that case the demi-god is Amphiaraos —, the second for the casualties at the battle in Lekythos, later in that year; Brasidas attributed his victory at Lekythos to divine intervention (Thuc. IV, 116, 2).

24512) I. Arnaoutoglou, “Group and Individuals in I.Rhamnous 59 (SEG 49.161)”, in Individus, groupes et politique, p. 315–337: A. studies in detail the honorific decree of an association of Sarapiasts for a benefactor, who donated a piece of land. He tentatively attributes the foundation of this association to the close relations between Athens and Ptolemy III in 224 BCE.

24613) A. Arvanitaki “ Ἀρχαιότητες ρωμαϊκῶν χρόνων ἀπὸ τὴν κεντρική Πιερία”, ΑΕΜΘ 23 (2009) [2012], p. 173–182 [BE 2013, 263; SEG LX 637, 644]: of two dedications from the site Palekklisi, near Elatochori. For the dedication to Askepios and Hygieia see infra no 137. The second dedication (p. 178–180) is inscribed on a votive plaque with a representation of two pairs of ears in relief (2nd cent. CE). Sambatis made a dedication to Parthenos (i.e. the Syrian Goddess) for herself and for her daughter in fulfilment of a vow (κ<α>τ᾿ εὐχήν).

24714) S. Babamova, Inscriptiones Stoborum (Studies in the Antiquities of Stobi I), Stobi, 2012: The epigraphic corpus of Stobi includes 308 Greek and Latin inscriptions. New texts are marked with an asterisk. All the inscriptions date to the 1st-3rd cent. Dedications [in the section ‘Dedications’, B. does not distinguish between dedications to gods and the setting up of images of gods]: Dedications are addressed to Artemis (3–5; 3, an altar; 4, κατ᾿ εὐχήν), Asklepios, Hygieia, and Telesphoros (10), Dionysos (8*), Herakles (9), Liber Pater (6, on behalf of Trajan), Nemesis (13, κατ᾿ ἐπιταγήν; 14, κατ᾿ εὐχήν), and an anonymous deity (27, κατὰ χρημ[α]τισμόν, a relief plaque with footprints). There are several references to statues of gods and reliefs with no indication as to the addressee of the dedication. A statue of Aphrodite was dedicated as δῶρον (1); the label Venus is written on the base of a statuette (2*). A group of public slaves dedicated statues of the Nymphs (11). A relief with a crude representation of Dionysos and his thiasos (?) bears the label Δέμονες Ἀντανο[ί] (12). Associations: A dedication to Artemis mentions two θιάσου ἐπιμεληταί (3). [Two other inscriptions concerning associations are not recognized as such. A text interpreted as a dedication to Dionysos (7: Βακχεῖον πρεσβύτερον Πρέποντι τῷ ἀρχιμύστῃ; ‘(statue) of the older Dionysos to the archimystes Prepon’) is not a dedication but an honorific inscription. A Βακχεῖον, i.e. a cult association of worshippers of Dionysos (cf. IG X 2 1, 480) honors its president; the attribute πρεσβύτερον implies that there were at least two Dionysiac associations. Also no 120*, included among the epitaphs, is certainly an inscription concerning an association. B. correctly restores ἀρχισυ[νάγωγ-] in lines 1f.; this is a reference to the head of an association, possibly a woman, to judge from the ending of the name ([- -]λα). The chief synagogos presided over a δοῦμος (line 2: [τοῦ δ]ούμου or possibly [ἱεροῦ δ]ούμου; cf. IG X 2 1, 860; SEG XLII 625; IGBulg IV 1925). What follows is a reference to another official of the association (lines 2f.: Τέρτιος ὁ προνο[ητὴς] or προνο[ησάμενος/ούμενος τῶν] συνήθων; B. reads: προνο[- -]συνηθῶν). Συνήθεις are the members of the association (IG X 2 1, 288: οἱ συνήθεις οἱ Ἡρακλέους). It is not clear if this text is an epitaph, a dedication, or an honorific inscription]. Imperial cult: Individual augustales and groups of augustales made dedications to Deus Augustus (15, a statue of Ultrix Augusta; 16, a shrine of Isis; 17, a statue or shrine of Jupiter Liberator) and to Augustus and Iuppiter Optimus Maximus (18*). There is also a dedication to Hadrian (29). Honorific inscriptions and an invitatio ad munera attest the activities of high priests and high priestesses (34, 35*, 38*), some of whom belonged to the same prominent family of the Sentii (34, 35*). A priestess of Isis also served as priestess of the Augusti (37). Cult personnel: A priestess of Isis Lochia and the emperors was honored for serving for 60 years in a pious manner (ὁσιώτατα). An oracle of Apollo Klarios attested to her purity (μαρτυρηθεῖσαν τε ἐπ᾿ ἁγνείᾳ ὑπὸ τοῦ Κλαρίου Ἀπόλλωνος, 37). There are also references to a pontifex (34, 35*) and a ἱερὰ κόρα (39*). Funerary cult: The epitaph of Lykios (62) describes the actions to be taken after the burial of Lykios and his wife: the inner door of the heroon should be closed with a bar. The last clause of the epitaph refers to the continuation of the funerary cult: βούλομαι δὲ οὓς ἂν καταλίπω [ἐπι]μένειν τῷ ἡρῴῳ ἔχειν αὐτοῦ [τὰς ὁδ]οὺς τὰς ἐγγὺς τοῦ ἡρῴου [- -] (‘I want that those to whom I leave this heroon to have fast ways to it’). [B.’s translation is wrong, since the object of καταλίπω is not τὸ ἡρῷον but οὕς. This is an allusion to the testamentary manumission of slaves, under the condition that they take care of the funerary cult. The restoration [τὰς ὁδ]οὺς is possible (part of an oblique line is visible on the photo), but unlikely. We may restore ἔχειν αὐτοὺ[ς [ἀμπέ]λ̣ους. Vineyards are often associated with burial grounds (e.g. P. Herrmann, K.Z. Polatkan, Das Testament des Epikrates, Vienna, 1969, A line 4: συνκαθωσίωσα τῷ μνημείῳ ἀμπέλων πλέθρα πέντε); for the donation of vineyards to individuals with the obligation to take care of the funerary cult, cf. SEG XXXV 1285: λάβοντες… ἀμπέλους, ἵνα καθ’ ἔτο[ς ῥ]ο̣δίζωσι. The meaning is: ‘I wish that those, whom I leave in charge of taking care of the heroon, own the [vineyards] that are close to it [- -]’. I also note that the edition of no 66* requires corrections. The (partly metrical) text reads: μνῆμα τόδε μνηστὸν Ἀσιανὸς | δείματο ἠδὲ Σοκρατεικ[ὴ] [κ]αὶ τοῖς ἰδίοις τέκνοις (not μνῆμα τόδε μνῆστον Ἀσιανὸς | δείματοι ΙΔΕ Σοκράτει Κ[- -] | [κ]αὶ τοῖς ἰδίοις τέκνοις); for μνηστόν in an epigram cf. TAM III 1, 590 lines 4f.: σῆμα… μνηστόν]. Jews: There is a large number of Jewish inscriptions (19–26).

24815) D. Baldassara, “Le liste cultuali della Grecia nord-occidentale”, in Spazio ionico, p. 341–371 [BE 2011, 365; SEG LX 545, 567, 567 bis, 572, 608–610]: B. collects,
(re)publishes, and discusses dedications from Akarnania, Korkyra, and Epeiros that list the magistrates and other functionaries who participated in religious ceremonies [see also
infra no 180]. Her list includes two inedita from Ambrakia: two dedications to Hestia, Zeus, and Aphrodite (T1-T2, early 2nd cent.). These lists mention various religious offices and services: Astakos: ἱεραπόλοι, συνέσται (participants in a ritual banquet), μάγειρος. Thyrrheion: ἀρχινοχοῦς, αὐλητάς, διάκονος, ἑστία, ἑστίαρχος, ἱεροθύτας, ἱεροφόρος [see infra no 16], μάγειρος, μάντις, συμβιωταί and παῖδες (‘i commensali sacri e i loro figli’). Ambrakia: μάγειρος, ἄοζος (‘aiutante’) [see infra no 16], οἰνοχόοι, αὐλητάς, μάντις. Korkyra: μάγιρος, ὑπηρέτας, ἄοζος, οἰνοχόος.

24916) D. Baldassara, D. Ruggieri, “Intorno al sacrificio: aozos e hierophoros”, in Spazio ionico, p. 373–384 [SEG LX 545]: The authors discuss the meaning of the terms ἄοζος and ἱεραφόρος in dedications from Akarnania and Epirus (aozos: SEG XXIV 412; XXVI 694; LX 608–609; Cabanes, L’Épire no 19; Lhôte, Lamelles oraculaires no 123; hierophoros: IG IX2 1, 247, 250/251; SEG XXIX 469 and 478). Ἄοζος designates a servant assisting during a sacrifice (cf. Aeschylus, Agamemnon 228–231; Kallimachos, fr. 563 ed. Pfeiffer; Athenaios VI 267d; Hesychios, s.vv. ἀοζήσω, ἀόζεον). It probably means ‘the one who goes together’. Ἱεροφόρος designates an individual who carries sacred objects or the image of a deity, often in connection with the cult of Egyptian gods (cf. IG II2 4771; VII 2681, 3426; X 2 1, 16, 58; XII 5, 291; XII 6, 600; SEG LV 1659; I.Reggio Calabria 7).

25017) M. Bărbulescu, L. Bozoianu, “Inscriptions inédites et révisées de la collection du Musée d’Histoire Nationale et d’Archéologie de Constanza. II”, Pontica 43 (2010), p. 347–376 [BE 2011, 450; SEG LX 790]: Ed. pr. of a dedication found at Valea Seacă (area of Tomis), probably addressed to the Nymphs (p. 361–367, 2nd cent. CE).

25118) V.N. Bardani, S.V. Tracy, Inscriptiones Graecae. Voluminis II et III editio tertia. Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores. Pars I. Leges et decreta. Fasciculus V. Leges et decreta annorum 229/8–168/7, Berlin, 2012: This volume (IG II3) assembles the Athenian laws and decrees of the period from the liberation of Athens from the Antigonid garrison to the end of the Third Macedonian War (229–167 BCE). Most of these texts have been repeatedly published. New texts are marked with an asterisk. Cult regulations et sim.: A fragmentary decree (1220, ca. 210 BCE) concerns the offering of a sacrifice to Athena ([θύσαν]τες ἀ[ρ]εσ[τ]ήριον τῆι θ[εῶι]) and the preparation of votive offerings under the supervision of a committee, the general, the priest, and the architect. Festivals: Festivals are usually mentioned in the context of the announcement of honors: Dionysia (1147, 1150, 1176, 1178, 1185, 1215, 1218, 1256, 1258, 1278, 1281, 1283, 1290, 1292, 1348, 1362, 1390, 1392, 1448), Eleusinia (1150, 1176, 1178, 1185, 1218, 1256, 1258, 1278, 1281, 1290, 1292, 1348, 1362, 1448), Panathenaia (1147, 1150, 1176, 1178, 1185, 1218, 1256, 1258, 1278, 1281, 1290, 1292, 1348, 1362, 1448), and Ptolemaia (1150, 1178, 1258, 1278, 1281, 1290, 1292, 1362). The Prienians were honored for the participation in the Panathenaia (1239), the Milesians for the attendance of the Megala Mysteria (1372). A decree honors the father of a kanephoros and the epimeletai of the procession of the Dionysia for their conduct during the procession (1284). A fragmentary honorific decree for a cavalry officer refers to the service he rendered during the celebration of the Nemesia, probably by providing security (1281). Three decrees concern the acceptance by the Athenians of the agonistic festivals Leukophryena (1170), Lykaia (1184), and an undetermined contest (1183). A decree of Gonnoi concerns the appointment of a theorodokos (1145); an Athenian decree, inscribed on the same stele, provides for honors for the theorodokoi of the Eleusinia, the Panathenaia, and the Mysteries; their names should be reported by the spondophoroi (for spondophoroi, cf. 1331). An Athenian theorodokos for an Ephesian festival is mentioned in a fragmentary decree (1150). Foreign theoroi are honored with two decrees (1215, 1261). Rituals: A small fragment (1417, early 2nd cent.) mentions the festival Eleutheria of Plataia and the competition between Athens and Sparta for the privilege to lead the procession (προπομπεία); another fragment refers to a pannychis (1455). Many decrees honor prytaneis for the performance of sacrifices on behalf of the Athenian people, mostly sacrifices offered to Apollo Prostaterios and Artemis Boulaia (1139, 1144, 1149, 1153, 1155, 1162*, 1165, 1168, 1177, 1197, 1198, 1231, 1233, 1246, 1248, 1259, 1263, 1268, 1274, 1275, 1289, 1293, 1295, 1296, 1299, 1301, 1304, 1305, 1307, 1310, 1311, 1316, 1318, 1320, 1321, 1324, 1328, 1333, 1344, 1377, 1396, 1397, 1400, 1415, 1416); several decrees also mention Artemis Phosphoros (1295–1296, 1316, 1318, 1324, 1328, 1333, 1415, 1416), Athena Archegetis (1296), and Zeus Ktesios (1304). Honorific inscriptions also honor the ephebes for their conduct and the performance of religious activities, inter alia, the attendance of the mysteries, the Epitaphia, the Proerosia, and the Dionysia, the offering of a sacrifice to Aias in Salamis, Asklepios, Hermes, the Semnai Theai (1332), and the gods and benefactors (1313), the participation in a procession for the Demokratia, and the payment of a visit to the polyandreion in Marathon (1166, 1176, 1256, 1264, 1285, 1290, 1313, 1332; see esp. 1313). Other officials honored for offering sacrifices and performing religious duties include an archon (1298), magistrates who offered sacrifices at the Chalkeia (1388), the epimeletai of the Mysteries (1164, 1182, 1188, 1329), priests of Asklepios (1330: inter alia, he ἐπετραπεζώσατ[ο]; 1386), a priest (1339), a priestess (of Demeter?; she receives a myrtle crown: 1189; cf. 1209), a priestess of Aglauros who offered sacrifices to Aglauros, Ares, Helios, the Horai, Apollo, and other gods at the εἰσιτητήρια (1373), and the epimeletai and the kanephoros of the procession of the Dionysia (1284). [A small but interesting detail: the decree that honors Eumenes II and his brothers for placing Antiochos IV on the Seleucid throne (1323, 175 BCE), alludes to ritual actions of enthronization (lines 17–22): “having adorned him with the diadem and the other insignia (τῶι διαδήματι μετὰ τῆς ἄλλης κατασκευῆς κοσμήσαντες) as was proper, having offered the sacrifice of an ox (βουθυτήσαντες) and having exchanged promises of trust with all goodwill and affection, they jointly established King Antiochos to the ancestral rule in an illustrious manner (ἀξιολόγως)”]. Sanctuaries and sacred buildings: Many texts refer to the publication of decrees in sacred places, inter alia, near the altar of Artemis Boulaia (1150), near the temple of Demeter (1189), in the Eleusinion (1209, 1215), near the Hermai (1281), in the Lykeion (1290, 1362), and in the sanctuary of Dionysos (1284). Sanctuaries outside of Athens that are mentioned in Athenian decrees include the sanctuaries of Athena Nikephoros in Pergamon (1323), Apollo in Daphne (1323), and Dionysos in Lamia (1171). Several honorific decrees also include provisions for the erection of statues in sanctuaries, e.g. in that of the Demos and the Charites (1137, 1374, 1375). A decree concerns the construction of a structure, and the purchase of a libanotis and a phiale (1151) for an undetermined cult. A decree concerns the melting down of old silver and gold dedications in the sanctuary of Heros Iatros and the use of the metal for the making of a dedication (1154); the names of the original dedicants were inscribed on the stele. A small fragment seems to be concerned with dedications (1418). Divination: Elections held on 29 Mounychion in accordance with an oracle of Apollo (ἀρχαιρεσίαι κατὰ τὴν μαντείαν τοῦ θεοῦ) are mentioned in two decrees (1272 and 1276). A small fragment preserves the word μαντικοῖς in an unclear context (1449). Cult officials: In addition to priests and cult officials mentioned above, there are references to a hieromnemon (1288), priests of Ptolemy (1337) and Attalos (1337), and priests of tribal eponymous heroes (1367, 1396).

25219) J. Bartels, “Augustus in Amathus (Zypern)”, ZPE 181 (2012), p. 91–94: B. presents an improved edition of a dedication to an emperor from Amathous (infra no 66), recognizing the emperor as Augustus. Another dedication to Augustus from this city was already known: IGR III, 973. Inscriptions for the first princeps are rare in Cyprus.

25320) N. Belayche, “‘Deus deum… summorum maximus (Apuleius): Ritual Expressions of Distinction in the Divine World of the Imperial Period”, in One God, p. 141–166 [SEG LX 2005]: Drawing on the literary and epigraphic evidence (gems, amulets, dedications), B. examines the religious and ritual functions of acclamations in which ‘one god’ is invoked (εἷς θεός, εἷς καὶ μόνος θεός, μέγας ὁ θεός, εἷς Ζεὺς Σάραπις, εἷς θεὸς βοήθει/βοηθός). Such exaltations use ‘possibly monotheist language but always in an ambiance of a plural divine world’; they were used in order to underline the superiority of a divinity. The context in which they should be seen is that of the competitive spirit that governed social relations in the Roman Empire. ‘The term heis theos, “alone/unique”, signifies that the divinity was alone of his type, unmatched (praestans in Apuleius’ words), capable of achieving the impossible, but not one god as such’ (p. 166) [cf. infra no 39].

25421) S.S. Bessonova, “Finds of Greek Pottery with Graffiti in Skythian Tombs of the North Shore of the Black Sea”, Bosporskie issledovanija 10 (2005), p. 5–21 [Non vidimus; see A. Avram, BE 2009, 391]: The author assembles graffiti on vases found in Skythian tombs. We mention two with a religious interest: 20) Κλειτομάχου ἱερόν (cup found in a kurgan in Brannoe Pole, Crimea, 5th/4th cent.) [see SEG LVIII 744: dedication to an unknown hero or dedication by Kleitomachos]. 21) Ἑκάτης (kantharos found in a kurgan at Aktašski mogilnik, undated) [used for libations to Hekate; cf. EBGR 2007, 6 and 2010, 115].

25522) E. Bogin, “Asylia sotto gli occhi di Artemide: Considerazioni a partire da un decreto di Calidone”, in Spazio ionico, p. 395–407 [SEG LX 537]: A decree of the Aitolian koinon grants asylia to Lousoi (IG IX2 1, 135; Rigsby, Asylia, p. 91/92, Kalydon, ca. 225–200). B. argues that the asylia was not granted to the sanctuary of Artemis but to the citizens of Lousoi and associates this document with the Aitolian attack against Kleitor and Kynaitha in 220 BCE (Polybios IV, 18, 7–12 and IV, 19, 2–4).

25623) M. Bonanno Aravantinos, “Trofei di età romana della Beozia: una nase da Livadeia”, in T. Nogales, I. Rodà (eds.), Roma y las provincias: modelo y difusión I, Rome, 2011, p. 419–427: B.A. identifies a base from Lebadeia, decorated with Nikai crowning a trophy beneath which kneel two bound Eastern barbarians, as a monument commemorating Sulla’s victory at Chaironeia in 86 BCE. According to Plutarch (Sulla 17) the oracle of Trophonios predicted Sulla’s victories. Other monuments connected with this victory are a dedication from Chaironeia (SEG XLI 448) and a trophy erected by Sulla and found in 2004 east of Orchomenos. The unpublished inscription of this trophy reports that Sulla dedicated it to Ares, Nike, and Aphrodite (p. 423). B.A. attributes the base from Lebadeia to a local workshop. She argues that a votive relief from Koroneia, dedicated to Sabazios (SEG XL 410), is also the product of a local workshop and should be dated to the 1st cent. BCE (p. 425). [On the trophy of Sulla see now P. Assenmaker, “Les trophées sylaniens de Chéronée: une relecture de Plutarque, Vie de Sylla 19, 9–10 à la lumière des découvertes archéologiques”, Latomus 72 (2013), p. 946–955].

25723 bis) F. Bosch-Puche, “L’’autel’ du temple d’Alexandre le Grand à Bahariya”, BIFAO 108 (2008), p. 29–44 [SEG LIX 1764]: Ed. pr. of a very interesting bilingual hieroglyphic/Greek inscription on an altar found in the Bahariya Oasis in Egypt. The text is a dedication of Alexander the Great to Ammon, his father (Βασιλεὺς Ἀλέξ<α>νδρος Ἄμμωνι τ̣[ῶ]ι π̣ατρί). The hieroglyphic inscription gives Alexander’s complete Pharaohnic titulature. Altars dedicated by Alexander to ‘Ammon, his father’ are mentioned by Philostratos (Vita Apollonii II, 43).

25824) D. Bosnakis, K. Hallof, Inscriptiones Graecae. Volumen XII. Fasciculus IV. Pars II. Inscriptiones Coi Insulae. Catalogi, dedicationes, tituli honorarii, termini, Berlin, 2012 [BE 2013, 334]: The second fascicule of the Koan corpus contains catalogues of sponsors, victors, magistrates, citizens, and foreigners, dedications, honorific inscriptions, and boundary markers. Numerous texts are directly relevant to the religious life in Kos. New texts are marked with an asterisk. Sanctuaries and sacred buildings: Some of the lists of sponsors of public projects concern cult buildings and cult activities: a sanctuary of Demeter (430, ca. 200; all the contributors are women; cf. 431); a sanctuary of Aphrodite (434, ca. 200–180); the funding of sacrifices to Asklepios and the celebration of a panegyris (435*); the construction of a silver image of Augustus (449). A man dedicated to the Moirai the statues (ξόανα) of the gods, the sanctuary, and the adjacent buildings, that had been damaged during a war, during the priesthood of his daughter (607, 1st cent.). The services of an anonymous benefactor (1037) include the restoration of buildings, possibly after the earthquake of 47 CE; the earthquake had damaged the quadriga of Victory and Emperor Claudius and other statues near the sanctuary of Asklepios. Important information for the sacred property of sanctuaries is provided by boundary stones that mark the boundaries of property belonging to various gods or sanctuaries (1204: ὅρος ἱεροῦ): Apollo Pythios (1202; 1205 and 1209*: ἱερὸς ὁ χῶρος Ἀπόλλωνος Πυθίου), Herakles (1208: ὅρος θησαυροῦ Ἡρακλεῦς), Poseidon (1203: ἱαρὸν Ποτειδᾶνο[ς]), and shrines of gentilician groups: Apollo (1220*, 1228), Apollo Karneios of the Pasthemiadai and the Nostidai (1223), Artemis of the [--]andridai (1222*), Athena Phatria of the Otobalidai (1212) and anonymous groups (1218*, 1226), the Moirai of the Astyklidai (1216) and the Laistrapidai (1232), Poseidon Geraistios of the Orphikidai (1224), the Maionidai (1227), and the Kentreidai (1231*), Zeus Hikesios of the Simonidai (1215), the Laistrapidai (1219), the Nestoridai (1225), the [--]adia, and anonymous groups (1217, 1230), Zeus Machaneus of an anonymous group (1233), Zeus Patroios of the Kalinai (1210), the Pothelidai (1234), and the Etymobysiadai (1236), Zeus of the [--]eidai (1211) and the Plaxidai (1214), Zeus Phatrios of the Nestoridai (1221*), Zeus Phatrios and Athena of the Euryanaktidai (1213). Kos possessed public and sacred land in Cyprus (866), probably given to the Koans by the Ptolemies; a Roman proconsul was honored for restoring it to Kos. Several boundary markers designate the property of Athena in Athens (Ἀθενᾶ Ἀθενῶν μεδέοσα) during the period of the Athenian hegemony (1237, 1238, 1239?). An interesting group of boundary markers define parts of the fortifications (μοῖραι) named after deities: Zeus Olympios (1189), Apollo Karneios (1190), Hermas Kyllanios (1191), Hera Argeia (1192*), and Artemis Toxitis (1193).

259Rituals: An inscription of the deme of the Hippiotai (1146, 1st cent. CE) proudly reports that the deme was again granted by the city the right to organize the festival of the ritual cutting of a tree for Hera (ἡ πανήγυρις τοῦ σεβαστοῦ δενδροκοπίου τῆς Ἥρας ἀποκατεστάθηι τῶι δήμωι ὑπὸ τῆς πόλεως εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα), after it had taken place in another place for two years (διὰ τὸν ἐν ἑτέρωι τόπωι διετίαν ἐπιτελεσθῆναι). The deme voted a ἱερὰ διαγραφὴ περὶ τῆς πανηγύρεως, which however is not included in the inscription. In later times, the stone was used for the publication of an honorific inscription for a high priest, priest, and panegyriarches four times. Agonistic festivals: Numerous agonistic inscriptions list the names of victorious contestants at the Dionysia (451–452) and the Asklepieia (453–454) in Kos (late 3rd and early 2nd cent.) and provide information on athletes and artists who won victories at the following festivals: Aktia (938, 947, 1166*), Agrippeia (938) and Agrippeia Nea in Kos (938), Apollonia in Myndos (938), Archegesia in Halikarnassos (935), Asklepieia in Kos (938, 946*), Aspis in Argos (1166*), Kapitolia (950), Dionysia in Teos (938), Doreia in Knidos (938), Eleusinia (035), Hekatesia in Stratonikeia (935), Herakleia in Iasos (938), Isthmia (935, 939, 948*, 1166*), Klaudeia in Rhodes (1166*), Koinos Asias (1166*), Koinos Ionon (1166*), Koinos Makedonon (1166*), Koinos Thessalon (1166*), Lykaia (1166*), Nemea (938, 943, 1166*), Megala Kaisareia in Kos (935, 938), Kaisareia in honor of Caius Caesar in Kos (938), Eleutheria Kaisareia (935), Kaisareia in Halikarnassos (938), Metropolis (935), Patrai (938), and Sardeis (938), Klaria (935), Olympia (942), Panathenaia Megala (938), Rhomaia in Kos (935), Rhomaia Sebasta in Pergamon (938), Sebasta of Neapolis (?, 944*), and Theogamia in Nysa (935). We note several inscriptions referring to victories in competitions in encomiastic oration for Augustus in Kos (ἐγκώμιον τὸ εἰς τὸν Αὐτοκράτορα Καίσαρα Θεοῦ υἱὸν Σεβαστόν: 936–937 and 941). no 939 honors an orator who won the prizes in encomiastic orations for emperors and local gods in many festivals in Asia and Kos. The statue of the poetess Delphis was rededicated to honor a woman from Alexandria, who is designated as ποιήτριαν κωμῳ[δίας] | ἀρχαίας and was victorious at the Sebasta Olympia, the Koinos Asias in Pergamon and other sacred contests; the designation ποιήτριαν κωμῳ[δίας] | ἀρχαίας is puzzling: “fortasse comoedias veteras adaptavit” (845). A victorious athlete was ἀρχιερεὺς τῶν Σεβαστῶν ἐπί τε Ῥώμας καὶ Νέας Πόλεως (945), i.e. offered sacrifices on behalf of Kos in Rome and Neapolis.

260Dedications: A large group of dedications is connected with the gymnasion and its cults: the cults of Zeus Alseios and Athena Alseia (588, 590, 595–597, 599, 600), Herakles and Hermes (589, 594; cf. 591), the Muses (592–593), and Apollo (593). The dedications in the gymnasion were made by paidonomoi (588–589, 595–596, 598; cf. 597: a dedication in honor of paidonomoi), gymnasiarchoi (591), the priest of the Muses (599), and the winners of athletic and musical contests (590, 592–594). The most interesting text in this group is an epigram commemorating the dedication of a statue of Herakles, ‘the most trustworthy guardian of the children’ to Zeus Alseios and Athena Alseia (588, 2nd cent.); the dedication was made for the health and good behavior of the boys; Herakles is designated as ancestor of the dedicant, a paidonomos (ἀρχαγὸν γενεᾶς, γένους ἀρχαγέ); he is asked to avert the envious evil eye (τὸ βάσκανον ὄμμα κακούργων κοίμισον) from the boys and to protect the paidonomos, whose affection towards the boys is compared to that of a father. A second large group consists of dedications made by boards of magistrates. Dedications by the monarchos and the hieropoioi are addressed to Aphrodite and Homonoia (601), Asklepios and Hygieia (602), and the gods (606: dedication of a statue of Eueteria). The priest of Apollo and the hieropoioi in Halasarna made dedications to Hekate Stratia (624–628, 631; cf. 629, 630*, 631) and Hekate Stratia and Herakles (632*), as well as a dedication after offering a sacrifice (612, καλλιερήσαντες). The neokoroi made a thanks-giving dedication (χαριστήριον) on behalf of the city to gods, whose name is not preserved, and to the Divi Augusti, who were worshipped with them (611: [τοῖς] σ[υν]καθιε[ρωμέ]νοις θεοῖς Σ[εβασ]τοῖς). An inscription lists the former priests (ἱερατευκότες) and ἱεροποιοί who donated vases to Apollo (Halasarna, 458, ca. 200). Other dedications made by cult personnel include those by a female ἱερόδουλος (610), a priest of Apollo Karneios (614: an altar and a gate), and hierophylakes (615*, 617*, 618*-620*). A third group consists of dedications made for the well-being of the emperors (673–681; 673, 674: ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας… θεοῖς ἱλαστήριον, 676: ὑπὲρ ὑγείας καὶ νίκας… ἱλαστήριον); the dedicants include a priest (675) and a high priestess of the Sebastoi and Apollo (678*). In one case the dedicated object was a statue of Dionysos (677). A group of four inscriptions records dedications made by individuals (541), the gerousia and the citizens (543), and a professional association (544) to several gods in expression of gratitude for saving Kos, possibly from an earthquake (541: ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας τῆς πόλεως χαριστήριον; 542: εὐχα[ρι]στήριον; 543: ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας τῆς πόλεως εὐχαριστήριον; 544: εὐχαριστήριον ὑπὲρ τῆς Κώιων πόλεως). The dedications are addressed to Zeus Olympios, Serapis, Hera Ourania, and the other gods (541), Zeus Olympios, Hera Olympia, and the other gods who save the city (542), Zeus Hypsistos, Hera Ourania, Asklepios, Hygieia, and the other gods (543), and Zeus Hypsistos, Hera Ourania, Poseidon Asphaleios, Apollo, and all the other gods (544). A Koan specialty are the numerous altars that were dedicated to the Theoi Patroioi for the well-being of important Koan statesmen: Nikias, who ruled Kos as tyrant under Marc Antony (682–711; 685*, 686*, 688*, 691*, 694*, 704*, 706*, 707*, 710*, 711*); Emperor Claudius’ doctor C. Stertinius Xenophon (712–779; 715*, 735*, 748*-751*, 759*, 760*, 766*, 769*, 777*-779*); M. Aelius Sabinianus, an important political personality of the 2nd cent. CE (783–809; 796*, 800*, 803*, 809*); the otherwise unknown M’. Spedius Rufinus Phaedrus (810–813). Altars were dedicated to Apollo for the well-being of a certain Philios (814). Three altars were dedicated εὐχαριστίας ἕνεκεν by private individuals to the Theoi Patroioi and Apollo Archegetes for the health and well-being of M. Ulpus Traianus, the father of the future Emperor Trajan, governor of Asia in 79 CE (780–782). Finally, an altar was dedicated by Halasarna to Apollo as εἱλαστήριον on behalf of a man (816) and a statue as χαριστήριον on behalf of a victorious kitharode (1166*).

261There are dedications to the following deities: Aphrodite: 563 (by soldiers, Ἀφροδίται ὑπακοούσα[ι]); Aphrodite and Homonoia: 601 (by a monarchos and hieropoioi); Apollo: 525, 609, 613* (by priests, after leaving office); Apollo Dalios Καλύμνας μεδέων: 532 (κατὰ χρησζμὸν Διδυμέως) [for dedications to one hypostasis of a god instructed by a different hypostasis of the same god, see infra no 82]; Apollo Didymeus: 566–567 (by Milesian soldiers; in no 566, Apollo is called Soter); Apollo Kalymnios and other θεοὶ σωτῆρες: 537 (ὑπὲρ ὧν κατώρθωσεν ἔργων) [here, Apollo Kalymnios may be an emperor; cf. the dedication of a statue of Sebastos Apollon Kalymnios, i.e. an emperor identified as Apollo (894*). Could this emperor be Caligula, whose statue was dedicated in Kalymnos to Ἀπόλλων Δάλιος Καλύμνας μεδέων (Tit.Cal. 109, quoted by D. Bosnakis ad loc.)?]; Apollo Pythios: 529*; Apollo and Dionysos: 521 [nο 503 from Halasarna, which is placed among the dedications to Asklepios, more likely is a dedication to Apollo; when the stone was first used for a dedication, the name of the addressee was not mentioned; but the dedicated object was a statue of Artemis or of a female member of the imperial family who was identified with Artemis (line 2: Ἄρτεμιν); the stone was later re-used for a dedication to Apollo (line 5: Ἀπόλλωνι)]; Artemis: 520; Artemis Pergaia: 526 (a temple), 1003* (a statue of her priestess; ἱέρειαν Ἀρ̣[τάμιτος Περ]|γαίας, Ἀρτάμ̣[ιτι εὐχήν]) [the dedication of an honorific statue in fulfilment of a vow would be very unusual; perhaps instead of [εὐχήν] one should restore [Περγαίαι]]; Asklepios: 496*, 497 (ὑπὲρ τοῦ υἱοῦ), 498*, 499, 501*, 502* ([κατὰ] πρόσταγμα), 505 (by a doctor and his wife), 506, 507* (see below), 605 (a temple dedicated by a priest of Asklepios); Asklepios, Hygieia, and Epione: 500* (by a ὑπηρέτας of a doctor), 1050*; Asklepios and Hygieia: 504*; Athena: 517; Minerva: 531 (in Latin); Basileus of Kaunos: 547 (dedication upon divine command: τοῦ θεοῦ προστάξαντος); the Charites: 515 (Χαρίτεσσιν ἐϋπλοκάμοις), 519; Demeter: 508, 510, 513, 530*, 603 (by a priestess after leaving office); Demeter Karpophoros: 518*; Kore: 509, 511, 512 (by a priestess, ἱάρη); Demeter Soteira and Kore Soteira: 514 (see below); Eirene: 580 (by agoranomoi); Hekate Soteira: 564 (by an officer); Hera Ourania: 546; Herakles: 523*, 539* (by a former magistrate); Hermes: 522, 527, 528*; Hestia Phamia and the emperors: 540*; Hestia Phamia and the demos: 604 (an ἀφίδρυμα τᾶς Ἑστίας dedicated by a former neokoros); Homonoia: 585 (a temple and a statue dedicated by a magistrate), 586 (by a former magistrate); Leto (653*); Poseidon Asphaleios: 622 (by a priest for life); Poseidon Hippios: 565 (by soldiers); Theos Hypsistos: 556, 559; Tyche Agathe and Agathos Daimon: 533; Zeus: 665*. Dedications to the gods were made by magistrates after their term in office: 568–569, 570*, 571–579 (579: χαριστήριον), 581–582, 584. There are also several offerings to anonymous deities: 516* ([ἀμεμφ]ὲς ἄγαλμα), 583, 655, 657 (χαριστήρια), 658 ([κατ᾿] ὄψεις), 659, 660*, 661, 662* (κα[τὰ πρό]σταγμα), 664, 667*, 668*, 669* (εὐχῇ), 670, 671 ([εὐχαριστ]ήριον]), 672. Most of the dedications to foreign gods are addressed to the Egyptian gods: 548 (ὑπὲρ Εὐφράνορος), 550 (θεραπευθεὶς… χαριστεῖα), 551 (by ἐνατισταὶ καὶ δεκατισταί), 552 (κατὰ πρόσταγμα), 553 (by a σύνοδος Ὀσειριαστᾶν), 554 (to Ἶσις Σώτειρα by a νεωκόρος… κατὰ πρόσταγμα), 555, 560 (by a ἱεραφόρος as χαριστήριον), 561. Other foreign gods include Belos: 557; a Semitic version of Aphrodite: 546: [ὑπ]ὲρ τῶν πλεόντων); 559; and Helios of Gerasa and the σύνβωμοι θεοί: 549. We also note the dedication of honorific statues to the gods (974*, 976*, 977, 980, 984, 986, 987, 991, 992*, 996*, 998, 1029, 1056*) and dedications of statues of gods: Aphrodite (535), Asklepios (587), Eueteria (606), Nike (524*), Pan (536). We comment on a small selection of interesting dedications. An epigram commemorates the dedication of the statue of a boy by his father as expression of gratitude for the son’s cure: [ἀ]νθ᾿ ὑγίης τίθεμαι μισθὸν Παιήονι Δαμᾶς ἑρπηστῆρα Γλύκωνα ἑοῦ φίλον [ἄνθεμα πατρός] (507*, 2nd cent. CE). A dedicatory epigram commemorates a miracle attributed to Demeter and Kore (514): The prayers of the dedicant, Aischron, and other female worshippers during the performance of mysteries of Demeter and Kore (probably during the Thesmophoria) stopped an earthquake [on this text see EBGR 2011, 58]. A priest dedicated the statue of ‘his own goddess’ (τὴν ἰδίαν θεόν, 621*, 2nd cent. CE) [this is an interesting expression of devotion; for parallels see A. Chaniotis, “Emotional Community through Ritual. Initiates, Citizens, and Pilgrims as Emotional Communities in the Greek World”, in A. Chaniotis (ed.), Ritual Dynamics in the Ancient Mediterranean: Agency, Emotion, Gender, Representation, Stuttgart, 2011, p. 274 note 39]. An honorific inscription for a woman who was granted heroic honors (853*, 2nd cent. CE) lists all the objects that she had dedicated, inter alia a silver lamp, cult objects for the Egyptian cult (ἱερώματα ἅγια καὶ χλαμύδα Ἀννουβιακά), a bronze altar, a marble table, an incense burner, a tripod, a wooden throne (θρόνον πύξινον), three curtains (παραπετάσματα), 15 statuettes, and a glass krater. A dedicatory epigram for a statue of Dionysos, commemorating the victories of the flutist Ariston (519), presents the statue speaking: ‘a dedication to Phoibos and to myself’ (ἄνθεμα… Φοίβωι κἀμαυτῶι). An inscription on an altar narrates that M. Aelius Sabinianus, the most prominent Koan of the 2nd cent. CE, found an old image of Aphrodite, dedicated by Kallistrate, restored it and preserved it for the goddess: Μ (ᾶρκος) Αἴλιος Σαβεινιανὸς τὴν Ἀφροδίτην εὑρὼν ἀνάθημα Καλλιστράτης ἐπισκευάσας τῇ θεῶ συνεφύλαξα (538). The motivation behind a dedication is occasionally mentioned (see also supra): gratitue (χαριστήριον: 560, 579, 611; χαριστεῖα: 550; χαριστήρια: 657); fulfilment of a vow (εὐχήν/εὐχάν: 506, 556–558, 561; εὐχῇ: 669*; εὐξάμενος: 515); prayer (εὐχόμενος: 516*); divine command (κατὰ πρόσταγμα: 502*, 552, 554, 662*; τοῦ θεοῦ προστάξαντος: 547; [κατ᾿] ὄψεις: 658).

262Ruler cult: An agonothetes, possibly of the Ptolemaia of Kos, dedicated a statue of Arsinoe II Thea Philopator (971). The cult of King Eumenes is attested through its priesthood (978). Imperial cult: Evidence for the imperial cult is provided by dedications to emperors and references to a variety of priesthoods. A fragmentary inscription lists the priesthoods of an anonymous man (1053). In addition to serving as priest of Hestia and the Pythokleian cults and priest of Apollo, he was priest or high priest of members of the Julio-Claudian dynasty: priest of Iulius Caesar, Tiberius, and Caius Caesar, and high priest of Claudius (1053). no 822 mentions sacrifices to the emperors (ἑκθύσαντα το[ῖς] Σεβαστοῖς καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις θεοῖς). Dedications were made to emperors, often identified or assimilated with traditional gods: Augustus (633–635, 636*), Caius Caesar νέος θεός (637; dedication of a temple), Tiberius Zeus Capitolius Alseios (638, dedication as χαριστήριον), Tiberius and the Roman Senate (?, 639; dedication of a temple as χαριστήριον), Drusilla Ἀφροδείτα Νέα (640), Claudius (642; as [χαριστήριον τῆς ἀσυλία]ς; 643, a temple), Claudius Zeus Soter and Agrippina Demeter Karpophoros (643; cf. 1182), Nero Asklepios Agathos Theos (644–645, 646*; cf. 999 and 1055*), the emperors (650 and 1188: τὸ βᾶμα), an emperor identified with Zeus Stratios (648), a female member of the imperial family identified with Aphrodite (892), and anonymous emperors (647, 649*, 651, 652). As regards the identification of emperors with gods, we also mention a statue of Sebastos Apollo Kalymnios (i.e. Claudius, 894*), the identification of Augustus with Apollo Sebastos (1157), of Iulia with Leto (1155: Ἰουλίαν Σεβαστὰν Λατόϊν καλλίτεκνον), Drusilla with Sebasta Homonoia (1159), Caligula with Asklepios (676), and of an empresses with Nike and Tyche (1004*, Θεὰν Νείκην Σεβαστὴν Τύχην πόλεως) and another one with Rhea (1058; cf. ἐπιμελητεύσαντα τῶν τᾶς Σεβαστᾶς Ῥέας ἱερῶν). [An honorific inscription of Halasarna for Iulia may be relevant. The text reads (1154): ὁ δᾶμος ὁ Ἁλασαρνιτᾶν Ἰουλίαν γυναῖκα Ἀγρίππα, θυγατέρα δὲ Σεβαστοῦ Καίσαρος, εἰκόνι Ἀρτέμιδος. The deme honored Iulia with an image of Artemis, thus attributing to her Artemis’ properties. In the same way, a poetess was not honored with the erection of her own portrait statue but with the assignment of a statue of another famous poetess to her (845: ὁ δᾶμος ἐτείμασε ΝΝ·… ἡ εἰκὼν Δελφίδος]. Other inscriptions attest priests of Augustus (1142), Asklepios Caesar (Nero?, 999), Tiberius, (838), Tiberius, Claudius and the Demos (822), Trajan (898), and the emperors (638, 822, 1162), a high priestess of Claudius for life (844), and a high priestess of an empress for life (887). C. Stertinius Xenophon, the physician of Emperor Claudius served as the emperor’s priest for life (951, 952, 1143; for his other priesthoods, see infra). A Koan was designated as high priest of Thea Rhome and Caesar Augustus Zeus Patroios in Asia (951). An inscription from Antimacheia is dated with reference to Caligula’s ascension to the throne: [ἐ]νιαυτοῦ πρώτου τᾶς Γαΐου Καίσαρος Γερμανικοῦ… Σεβαστοῦ ἐπιφανείας (1171).

263Cult personnel: The diversity of cult officials and their duties is revealed by the various priesthoods, offices, and services that are mentioned in honorific inscriptions, lists of magistrates, and dedications. The responsibilities of ἀρχεύσαντες included the offering of sacrifices to the Nymphs and a banquet to the citizens (456, 3rd cent.; references to ἀρχεύσαντες also in 457). C. Stertinius Xenophon accumulated many priesthoods, serving as priest for life in the cults of the emperors, Asklepios, Hygieia, and Epione (951, 952, 1143), Kos and Merops (952), and Isis and Sarapis (952); he also held the hereditary (κατὰ γένος) priesthood of Apollo Karnios, Sebaste Rhea (951, 952), Apollo Pythios (952), Apollo Dalios (952), Zeus Polieus and Athena Polias (952), the Megaloi Theoi (952), Hera Elia Argia Basileia (952), the Nikomedeian gods (?, 952), and Aphrodite Pontia (952); he was also priest of an emperor, the Twelve Gods, Herakles, and Hestia (952), and is referred to in an inscription as high priest of the gods (1143; cf. 826 and 1146). Other Koans who accumulated priesthoods are a man who served as priest of Zeus Olympios and Zeus Epopsios (1054); a priestess of Asklepios, Hygieia and Epiona, Rhea, the Twelve Gods, Zeus Polieus and Athena Polias, Tiberius, Apollo Dalios, and Apollo Karneios (838); a priest of Asklepios, Asklepios Kaisar Sebastos, Hygieia and Epione (1055*); a priest for life of Tiberius, Claudius, and the Demos, hereditary priest (κατὰ γένος) of the Pythokleian cults, and agonothetes of the Megala Sebasta Asklepieia (822); a priestess of Asklepios, Hygieia, Epiona, Apollo Dalios, Lato, and king Eumenes (978); a priest of Apollo Dalios, Zeus Polieus, Athena (Polias), and the Twelve Gods (998); a priest of Apollo and the emperors (1162). There are also references to a priest of Asklepios and Hygieia (1057*), a priest of the ephebes (821), a priestess of Hera (1146), a priestess for life (1055*), a priest for life (1101, [ἱερέ]α ἐπὶ βίου), an eponymous priest who served in this office κατὰ θείαν κέλευσιν ἀπὸ γένους (932, 3rd cent. CE), a high priest and priest (1146), a priest (1148), and priestesses (846, 851*). Other cult officials: hierokaryx (1136*), hierotamias (665*, 1143), hierophylax (674), hieropoios (835), napoai in Halasarna (1159, 1161, 1163, 1164).

264Heroic cult: A woman was granted heroic honors (853*, 2nd cent. CE; ὁ δᾶμος ἐψαφίξατο χρηματίζειν αὐτὰν εὐσεβῆ, ἡρωΐδαν). Commemorative celebrations for C. Stertinius Xenophon, the ἥρως, were held generations after his death (1184). One of his descendants organized on his birthday (γενέσιον) money and food distributions near his statues (διανο[μὰς - - παρὰ τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ ἥρ]ωος καὶ ἀργυρικὴν [- -]) [the benefactor made distributions in money (διανομὴν ἀργυρικήν) and probably in food; one may restore καὶ ἀργυρικὴν [καὶ πυρῶν] or [καὶ ἐλαίου]. Cult associations: Serapiastai (605), Athenaistai Lindiastai and Dii Atabyriastai (654), eranistai Eisiastai (1027). Varia: Families of Kos claimed descent from Herakles (841) and Asklepios (841, 842, 1187: τὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ προκαθηγεμόνος καὶ σω[τῆ]ρος θεοῦ Ἀσκληπιοῦ). We note the expression [τῶι παραβαίνοντι ἐνθύ]μιον ἔστωι τῆς ἀσεβείας in a dedication to Claudius (642) [those who damaged the dedication would be liable to divine punishment for impiety; for ἐνθύμιον and ἐνθυμιστόν see EBGR 2010, 93].

26525) D. Boteva, “The ‘Thracian Horseman’ Reconsidered”, in Early Roman Thrace, p. 85–105: The author argues that the Thracian Rider figure should be interpreted as a messenger, as a mediator between the mortals and the immortals. The votive reliefs show the hero communicating with a snake-god through an altar. In her interpretation, the arched upper side of almost all relief plaques alludes to the shape of tumuli. This suggests a connection between the votive plaques of the Thracian Rider and the funerary cult (cf. IGBulg III 1422). B. also advocates making a distinction between dedicatory reliefs with the Thracian Rider and funerary reliefs with the hero equitans, found in Greek colonies of the Black Sea. The finds from a sanctuary near Sivnica show that the cult of the Thracian Rider continued well into the 4th cent. CE.

26626) V. Bottez, “Kebriones and Odysseus on a Graffito Discovered at Histria (Costanţa County, Romania)”, in M.V. Angelescu et al. (eds.), Antiquitas Istro-Pontica. Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne offerts à Alexandru Suceveanu, Cluj-Napoca, 2010, p. 43–49 [BE 2011, 451; SEG LX 782]: Ed. pr. of an ostrakon made from a fragment of an Ionian bowl; an inscription was engraved in poor calligraphy after firing (Histria, late 2nd/early 1st cent.). The text consists of the names of Homeric heroes involved in the Trojan attack on the Achaian camp in books XII and XIII of the Iliad: Κεβριόνης: Σα[ρπηδών:?] | Ὀδυσσεύς: Τ[εῦκρος:?]. B. identifies this text as a writing exercise. Other epigraphic finds from the Greek colonies of the west Pontic region show the importance of Homeric poetry in education and intellectual life (I.Tomis 386; IGDOP 42; SEG LIX 796). Ostraca with lists of divinities from Iliad XX and parts of the Catalogue of Ships (Iliad II) have been found in Egypt.

26727) R. Bouchon, A. Tziafalias, “Consolations anonymes à l’occasion de la mort du jeune Markellos de Trikke”, in AEThStE 3, p. 495–503: Ed. pr. of a very interesting but fragmentary letter from Trikke in Thessaly (early 2nd cent. CE). The letter is addressed to the Thessalian Koinon by an anonymous community (Athens?) offering consolation to the federation and to the relatives of a certain Markellos for the young man’s death. The text refers to a public funeral, during which his body was carried by the ephebes (line 13: [τὸ σ]ῶμα οἱ ἔφηβοι ἤνενκαν) and by another group (ἀρ[α]μένων καὶ τῶν παρ᾿ ἡμεῖν σφόδρα
ΕΝ[- -]) [on this practice see
EBGR 2006, 26]. The eds. argue that Markellos was a student of oratory, who died in Athens in the early years of the foundation of the Panhellenion (ἡνίκα ἐπεφοίτα τῇ πό[λει τῶ]ν Ἑ[λ]λήνων).

26828) S. Brackmann, “Ein Votivtäfelchen mit einer ungewöhnlichen Weihinchrift für Zeus”, ZPE 178 (2011), p. 221–222: Ed. pr. of a small bronze plaque in the shape of a tabula ansata, with two suspension rings (unknown provenance, probably from Asia Minor; offered for sale by Gerhard Hirsch Nachfolger, Munich). According to an inscription, the plaque was dedicated to Zeus Kraouandaseon by a man in fulfilment of a vow (Imperial period). This is the first attestation of this cult.

26929) A. Bresson, “An Introduction to the Funerary Inscriptions of Apameia”, in L. Summerer, A. Ivantchik, A. von Kienlin (eds.), Kelenai-Apameia Kibotos. Développement urbain dans le contexte anatolien, Bordeaux, 2011, p. 295–308: B. discusses the main features of epitaphs in Apameia/Kelainai. Among the grave epigrams, we note a Late Hellenistic epitaph (MAMA IV 362), in which a son compares his parents to the gods: κατὰ πά[ν]τα τοῖς θεοῖς ἴσους | ἐν τῶιδε τύμβω[ι] θῆκε· καὶ χαίροιτέ μοι | κουφὴν ἔχοντες γα[ῖαν] ἐν θεοῖς θεοί (‘Philoxenos has placed his father [- -] and his mother Ammia, they who in all aspects are equal to gods, in this tomb. And may you be pleased with me, because as gods among gods earth is to you light’) [‘gods among gods’ reflects ideas of immortality of the soul, without necessarily implying initiation in a particular cult]. Another interesting epitaph (SGO III 16/04/03, Imperial period) has been though to reflect Christian ideas (because of the reference to a prayer), but B. rightly rejects this interpretation: ‘I, Apphia, lie here, together with my husband Menekles; for when we were alive this was also our privilege. We have left two children, the younger one being Artemidoros, who out of piety has built this tomb for the dead. Farewell, passers-by, and make prayers in his name’ (εὐχὰς θέσθ᾿ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ) [rather: ‘make prayers for his sake’]; ‘the prayers in favor of a son who had rightfully performed his duties towards his parents could fit well with pagan religion’ (p. 301). [This text is an interesting testimony of strong affection, both between husband and wife, united in death as in life, but also between parents and son. Even in death, the parents request the passers-by to pray for their son. Of course, in realty, the one who requests the prayers is the son, not the dead parents]. B. presents examples of funerary imprecations in pagan, Christian, and Jewish contexts (the formulaic phrases τὸν νόμον οἶδεν τῶν Ἰουδαίων: IJO II 179; ἔσται αὐτῶι πρὸς τὸν θεόν: MAMA VI 229 and 234b; ἔσται αὐτῶι πρὸς τὸν ἐξουσιάζοντα πάσης ψυχῆς: MAMA VI 234a).

27030) L. Bricault, “Une statuette d’Hermanubis pour Arès”, in Bibliotheca Isiaca II, p. 131–135: B. discusses a bronze statuette of Hermanoubis (2nd/3rd cent.), of unknown provenance, offered for sale in New York (Royal-Athena Galleries, Art of the Ancient World XIV, New York/London 2003, no 45). According to an inscription on the base, the statuette was dedicated by a man and a woman to Ares. The personal names of the dedicants suggest a provenance from south Asia Minor. B. argues that the fact that the object was dedicated to Ares, confirms the conception of Hermanoubis as ‘divinté psychopompe, qui écoute et exauce les voeux de ceux qui s’adressent à elle’.

27131) L. Bricault, “Poids de Byblos inscrits au basileion”, in Bibliotheca Isiaca II, p. 137–143: B. collects lead weights of Byblos which are decorated with the basileion of Isis (3rd/2nd cent.). They provide evidence for the reception of Isis as a patron of the city [and maritime trade].

27232) L. Bricault, “RICIS. Supplément II”, in Bibliotheca Isiaca II, p. 273–307: B. presents bibliographical supplements and corrigenda to his Recueil des inscriptions concernant les cultes isiaques, Paris, 2005, that we briefly presented in EBGR 2005, 22. On p. 299–307, he presents inscriptions that had not been included in his corpus. We only mention the few texts that have never been presented in EBGR. Demetrias: A graffito on a vase, found in a deposit near the palace, designates the vase as a dedication to Isis (112/0708 = SEG LIII 525). Philippi: A Latin inscription from Doxato mentions a priest of Isis (113/1013). Kyrene: A dedication to Sarapis and Isis (701/0111).

27333) W. Burkert, “Genagelter Zauber. Zu den Ephesia Grammata”, ZPE 183 (2012), p. 109–110 [BE 2013, 47]: B. discusses a passage in the new phylactery in the Getty Museum (infra no 83). He proposes to read hόστις τῶνδ᾿ hιερῶν ἐπέων ἀρίσημα κολάψας | γράμματα κασσιτέρωι κεκολαμμένα <ἁλ>οῖ [from ἡλόω; ΛΑΟΣ on the tablet] ἐν οἴκωι | οὔ μιν πημανέουσιν hόσα τρέφει εὐρεῖα χθών: ‘whoever engraves with a hammer the letters of these sacred verses, impressed with hammer on tin, and fixes them with nails in a house, will not be harmed by whatever is nourished by broad earth’. [But see the objection of M. Sève, BE 2013, 47: the aspiration sign is consistently written in this tablet; one would expect hαλοῖ].

27434) A. Calapà, “Due dediche a sovrani tolemaici da Efeso e l’espansione tolemaica in Ionia negli anni settanta del III secolo a.C.”, Studi Ellenistici 24 (2010), p. 197–210 [BE 2011, 511; SEG LX 1152]: C. republishes and discusses two dedications from Ephesos: a dedication to King Ptolemy, Queen Arsinoe, Sarapis, and Isis (I.Eph. 199 = SEG XXXIX 1232 and XLIII 749); and a dedication to Ptolemy, Arsinoe, and the Soteres by an officer and soldiers (SEG XXXIX 1234). She attributes both inscriptions to the reign of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II (ca. 279–272) and discusses Ptolemaic influence in Ephesos in this period. [P. Hamon, BE 2011, 511, suggests that the dedicants of the second inscription were the Ptolemaic garrison soldiers in the citadel, i.e. in Bülbüldag. [A. Meadows, “Two ‘Double’ Dedications at Ephesus and the Beginning of Ptolemaic Control of Ionia”, Gephyra 10 (2013), p. 1–12, dates the dedications to the reign of Ptolemy IV, possibly after the battle of Raphia; in the second dedication, he restores καὶ Σ[αράπιδι καὶ] | Εἴσιδ[ι] instead of καὶ Σω̣[τῆρσι] | Εἰσίδω[ρος]; this is a ‘double’ dedication to the royal couple and Sarapis and Isis; he collects further examples of such ‘double’ dedications].

27535) S. Campanelli, “Tra epigrafia e topografia: su una recente ipotesi di identificazione del santuario di Eracle Diomedonteios a Cos”, Scienze dell’Antichità 17 (2011), p. 643–685: C. rejects the hypothesis expressed by L. De Matteis, Mosaici di Co. Dagli Scavi delle missioni italiane e tedesche (1900–1945), Athens, 2004, p. 103–105 and 191–196, that the Herakles sanctuary found in the harbor of Kos (mentioned in IG XII 4, 320 and 302) should be identified with the sanctuary of Herakles founded by Diomedon (IG XII 4, 348). The former was a public sanctuary founded immediately after the synoecism of Kos in 366 BCE, whereas the sanctuary of Diomedon was a private sanctuary. It was probably located in the countryside. The celebration of weddings mentioned in this inscription cannot be used as evidence for the role of Herakles as a patron of marriage in Kos.

27636) S. Campanelli, “Hiera kai bebala in un’iscrizione di Cos. Lessico epigrafico e legislazione sacra”, in Omaggio – Lombardi, p. 83–95: An inscription from Kos (IG XII 4, 349, 2nd cent) provides details for the administration of a foundation established by Pythion for the worship of Artemis, Zeus Hikesios, and the Theoi Patrioi. One of the clauses describes the duties of a manumitted slave entrusted with the supervision of the sanctuary and the administration of the funds: ἐπιμελέσθω καὶ Μακαρῖνος καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἱερῶν καὶ βεβάλων καθάπερ καὶ ἐν τᾶι ἱερᾶι δέλτωι γέγραπται (lines 9–11). After a study of related expressions, C. concludes that βέβαλα/βέβηλα refers to the proper use of the endowment for non strictly cultic purposes, e.g., the exploitation of the endowed real estate.

27737) S.C. Caneva, “Queens and Ruler Cults in Early Hellenism: Festivals, Administration, and Ideology, Kernos 25 (2012), p. 75–101: This study is dedicated to the rather neglected subject of cults of Hellenistic queens, examining the relevant epigraphic and papyrological sources for the cults of Berenike I, Arsinoe II Philadelphos, and Laodike IV [on Laodike, cf. infra no 210]. With regard to the cult of Arsinoe, inscriptions and papyri show a successful synergy between the official promotion of her cult and private devotion. C. examines in detail the cultic aspects (festivals, selection of sacrificial animals, association between queens and goddesses), the appointment of priests and priestesses (kanephoroi), and the ideological significance of these cults.

27838) J.-M. Carbon, V. Pirenne-Delforge, “Beyond Greek ‘Sacred Laws’”, Kernos 25 (2012), p. 163–182: After reviewing recent discussions of the notion and nature of texts that have been variably labeled as ‘sacred laws’, leges sacrae, and cult regulations, and pointing to the very heterogeneous character of such texts, the authors present the aims of a new Collection of Greek Ritual Norms. The new collection will be limited to texts that unambiguously concern ritual practice and performance, i.e. purity and sacrifice. Adducing many examples of normative inscriptions, they convincingly explain why the use of the notion of the ‘norm’ and the limitation to purity and sacrifice will permit a more coherent collection of inscriptions that will enhance the study of Greek religion.

27939) A. Chaniotis, “Megatheism: The Search for the Almighty God and the Competition of Cults”, in One God, p. 112–140: Without denying the sporadic existence of genuine monotheistic ideas in intellectual circles of the Graeco-Roman world, this study argues that the term ‘pagan monotheism’ is misleading in as much as it reduces the quest for the divine to a question of quantity, whereas the textual evidence shows that we are primarily dealing with a question of quality. Important questions concerned the properties of the divine, effective way of communicating with divine powers, the proper form of worship, and the hierarchy among the gods. The term ‘megatheism’ designates an expression of piety which is based on the personal experience of the presence of god, represents one particular god as somehow superior to others, and is expressed through oral performances (praise, acclamations, hymns) that accompanied ritual actions. Exploiting the epigraphic evidence of the Imperial period, this study discusses the following subjects: the propagation of a privileged relationship between a community and a patron deity (e.g. I.Ephesos 24 = LSAM 31; SEG XLIII 756); the dissemination of religious ideas through written texts, especially oracles such as the theosophical oracle of Klaros (SEG XXVII 933; cf. SEG L 1225 and LIII 1587); the acclamatory phrases heis theos (‘one god’, i.e. a god who is unique within a polytheistic system) and megas theos (e.g. SEG LI 613–631; SEG LIII 1344); the devotion to gods whose power is regarded as superior to that of others (e.g. IG XI2 1, 1024; SEG L 1222); the idea that a superior god presides over a council of gods (SEG LVII 1186; BIWK 5) and is served by angels; and the significance of newly constructed epithets that elevate a god and present him as continually present. The epigraphic material reveals several recurring elements in the conception of the divine: the power, righteousness and efficacy of gods; their demand for continual public praise; their willingness to offer assistance; and their presence.

28040) A. Chaniotis, “Constructing the Fear of Gods: Epigraphic Evidence from Sanctuaries of Greece and Asia Minor”, in Unveiling Emotions, p. 205–234: Fear and hope were two emotions of fundamental importance for the ‘emotional construction of god’ (e.g. Lucian, Alexander, 8; Sextus Empiricus, Against the Mathematicians, 9, 54). These two ambiguous feelings are reflected by the use of the verb ‘to have courage’ (θαρρεῖν or θαρσεῖν) in narratives of human encounters with a god (e.g. I.Lindos 2 D; IG IV2 1, 128 lines 63–68). The narration of emotional experiences accompanied by rituals was an important foundation of religious belief (e.g. SEG LVI 1434: the narrative of a man’s fearful experience leads to the establishment of a cult of Great Zeus; cf. TAM II 174; Philostratos, Heroikos 16, 5–6). Also the fear of divine punishment for crimes, violations of sacred regulations, impiety, or anything else that might cause the anger of gods was omnipresent in Greek culture and dictated the public actions of communities, fearful of collective punishment (e.g. E. Meyer, “Eine Inschrift von Jolkos”, RhM 8 [1936], p. 367–376, Iolkos, 3rd cent., B line 5: [ἵνα μή τι ἐκε]ῖθεν μήνισμα γίνηται; SEG XIX 427, oracular enquiry of Dodona, 3rd cent.: ‘has the god sent bad weather because of the impurity [ἀκαθαρτία] of some man?’). Conversely, piety (εὐσέβεια), which can be understood as fear of the divine (δεισιδαιμονία), justifies hope for divine grace (e.g. LSCG Suppl. 14; RDGE 34 lines 11–15; IThracAeg E205). Inscriptions were important media for the propagation of these ideas and the arousal of the fear of punishment. The most important among them were oracular instructions and cult regulations (e.g. Merkelbach/Stauber, SGO I nos 02/12/01, 02/12/03, 03/02/01; LSCG Suppl. 14; LSAM 20 = TAM V 3, 1539; SEG XLIII 710), occasionally endorsed with curses (LSAM 16), the ‘epigraphic memorials of divine justice’ (‘confession inscriptions’ and other records of divine punishment; e.g. I.Leukopetra 53, 65; IG X 2 2, 233; BIWK 3, 5, 69, 98; SEG LIII 1344; LVII 1186), aretalogies and narratives of miracles (e.g. RICIS 302/0204), petitions for divine punishment such as the Knidian curses and funerary imprecations. Set up in sacred space, these inscriptions, often decorated with suggestive images and incorporated in rituals and oral performances (public reading, acclamations, oaths, curses), stimulated fear, hope, and gratitude. Texts and images set up in sanctuaries functioned as visual and acoustic signals that inspired the fear of god. These monuments also demonstrate the interdependence of attention, memory, emotion, cognition, and decision-making. Narratives of divine punishment written on stone and set up in sanctuaries preserved the memory of past events that had caused fear of god. Their decoration with reliefs attracted the attention of pilgrims. Their reading out loud, often in the context of rituals, aroused emotions: fear of divine punishment, hope of divine protection. And this founded a belief in the presence and power of god which guided decisions and actions.

28141) A. Chaniotis, “Inscriptions”, in C. Ratté, P.D. De Staebler (eds.), Aphrodisias V. The Aphrodisias Regional Survey, Darmstadt/Mainz, 2012, p. 347–366 [BE 2013, 390]: Ed. pr. of inscriptions found during a field survey in the area of Aphrodisias. The most significant find is a pierre errante, a dedication to Meter Adrastou (24: [Ἀνδρ?]όνικος ἀνέθηκ[ε] Ṃητρὶ Ἀδράστου [εὐχή]ν̣), one of the most prominent cults at Attouda. Until recently it was believed that the goddess’ name, usually found in the genitive (Μητρὸς Ἀδράστου) was Μήτηρ Ἄδραστος, but Riet van Bremen (‘Adrastos at Aphrodisias,’ in Onomatologos, p. 447–449) has argued that Adrastos was the name of the founder of her cult (on 353f. a long list of divine names consisting of the personal name of the cult founder in the genitive; cf. personal names turned into adjectives, such as Μήτηρ Θεῶν Σατυρειναία and Ζεὺς Ἀντιγόναος/Ἀντιγόνιος). Since the dedication was not found in situ, it only indirectly provides information concerning the location of Meter’s sanctuary. The text of a dedication (?) on an altar or base (3, 3rd cent. CE) was partly destroyed when a Christian cross was engraved. The restoration χα[ρισ]τήρ̣[ιο]ν̣ Διὶ Σαπ̣αζίωι or Σαυ̣αζίωι is possible but not certain. Two inscriptions on sarcophagi refer to the use of the fine for the violation of a grave for the erection of statues of the emperors (9: [καὶ προσαποτεισάτω εἰς τειμὰς τῶν] Σεβαστῶν; 10: [ἀπ]ο̣τείσει εἰς τειμὰ[ς τῶν Σεβαστῶν]). The word τιμαί/τειμαί here has the specific meaning ‘honorary statues.’ There is more evidence for such use of fines in Aphrodisias (IAph2007 11.12; 11.29; 11.34; 13.156). One of the relevant texts, with the variant [προσ]αποτεισάτω ἱερᾷ θεᾷ Ἀφροδείτῃ εἰς τε̣[ιμὰς] τῶν Σεβαστῶν (SEG LVII 1016), suggests that the fine was paid to the sanctuary of Aphrodite, which was then obliged to use these funds for honorary statues of the emperors. In this text, J. Reynolds reads ἱερὰ θεᾷ Ἀφροδείτῃ (‘[to be] sacred to the goddess Aphrodite’) but the reading ἱερᾷ θεᾷ Ἀφροδείτῃ is supported by IAph2007 12.526 line 8: τῇ [ἱερ]ωτάτῃ θεῷ Ἀφροδείτῃ. Included in this article is also the funerary epigram for Philadelphos (15) for which see EBGR 2010, 150.

28242) A. Chaniotis, “Greek Ritual Purity: from Automatisms to Moral Distinctions”, in P. Rösch, U. Simon (eds.), How Purity is Made, Wiesbaden, 2012, p. 123–139: This study gives an overview of the way the idea of ritual purity developed from ca. 600 BCE to ca. 200 CE. Archaic and Classical sacred regulations concerned themselves with an ethically neutral pollution originating in physical processes, transmittable through physical contact, and removable through rituals focusing on the body. In the course of the Archaic period the law on homicide developed an elaborate idea of responsibility which influenced cult regulations. The idea of the purity of the mind was also promoted by religious movements interested in the immortality of the soul. Already in the fifth century BCE works of literature reflect the idea that the purity of the mind, the heart, or the soul should be aspired after, but cult regulations were rather slow in adopting it. A decisive part in this development may have been played by the cult of Asklepios and the belief in the interdependence of disease and sin, repentance and cure. From the second century BCE onwards sanctuaries increasingly demanded, in addition to the requirement of external purity, justice and piety, as well as pure and honest thoughts; in some cases they even warned that there were some sins for which one could never atone. It is argued that this development was part of a more general evolution of Greek attitudes towards rituals, from the belief that the efficacy of rituals depends on the correct and mechanical performance of prescribed actions (‘automatism’) towards an emphasis on moral distinctions. This evolution can be observed in measures for the exclusion of criminals from asylum, in the development of a new type of curses (‘prayers for justice’), in moral requirements for initiation into mystery cults, and more generally in a tendency towards a priority of the word and the thought over the ritual action. Several cult regulations are adduced (LSCG Suppl. 91; I.Cret. I xxiii, 3; LSAM 20 = TAM V 3, 1539; SEG XLIII 710; the temple inscription of Epidauros: Clemens of Alexandria, Stromateis V, 1, 13, 3; Porphyrios, de abstinentia II, 19, 5).

28343) K. Chatzinikolaou, “Ἀρτέμιδι Σιβοννικῇ… Περιπτώσεις τοπικῶν λατρειῶν Ἄρτεμης στὴ Μακεδονία”, in Dineessa – Romiopoulou, p. 601–608 [BE 2013, 254]: With a dedicatory relief dedicated to Artemis Sibonnike (Orestis, Imperial period; SEG XLIX 772) as her starting point, C. collects evidence for local cults of Artemis in Macedonia, as indicated by epithets (Γουρασία, Ἀκραία, Διγαία Βλαγανῖτις, Βλουρεῖτις Γαζωρία).

28444) M. Chelotti, “Brindisi e Augusto”, in S. Cagnazzi et al. (eds.), Scritti di storia per Mario Pani, Bari, 2011, p. 101–109: Discussion of the decree of Mytilene concerning the cult of Augustus (IG XII 2, 58), which C. dates to the period between the adoption of Caius and Lucius by Augustus and the death of Octavia (17–11 BCE).

28545) P. Christodoulou, “Les reliefs votifs du sanctuaire d’Isis à Dion”, in Bibliotheca Isiaca II, p. 11–22: The author republishes 7 inscribed dedicatory reliefs found in the sanctuary of Isis at Dion (RICIS 113/0201–0203, 0205, 0206, 0217, 0219) and discusses in detail the iconography (representations of Isis, ears, and footprints), the date (2nd cent. BCE-early 3rd cent. CE), and the texts. We summarize the most significant new contributions. A relief dedicated to Sarapis, Isis, and Anoubis (p. 11–16 no 1; SEG XLVIII 788; RICIS 113/0219; EBGR 1997, 177) is decorated with a representation of Isis who holds ears of wheat in her right and another object in her left hand; C. tentatively recognizes a bag filled with corn. Isis is represented as a goddess of fertility. A hole in Isis’ hat was used for the suspension of an object, probably a basileion. The phrase χαριστήριον τῆς πλανητέας was explained by M.B. Hatzopoulos as a reference to the wanderings of Isis. C. rejects this interpretation, since the dedication is not addressed to Isis alone, but to Sarapis, Isis, and Anoubis. In his view, it refers to the reason for which the dedicants were grateful, probably after a commercial trip (πλανητεία; ‘en marque de reconnaissance [pour les gains] du commerce par navire ambulant’; cf. SEG XL 1020: ἀνδρῶν ναυκλήρων πλανητῶν). For this relief C. proposes a date in the early 3rd cent. CE. In a dedication to Hermanoubis (SEG XXXIV 625; RICIS 113/0206; p. 18–20 no 6), C. corrects the reading of the god’s name: Ἑρμανούβει, followed by (not Ἑρμανουβείου). With regard to the footprints represented on reliefs (nos 4–7; RICIS 113/0201, 0203, 0205, 0206), C. notes the different size of the two feet. The difference in size cannot correspond to a difference in gender between two dedicants, since the inscriptions of these reliefs name a single individual as dedicant. The bigger footprint must be that of the divinity, the smaller that of the worshipper (p. 21f.).

28646) N. Çokbankir, “Modrena ve Nikaia teritoryumundan yeni yazitlar”, Olba 18 (2010), p. 323–345 [BE 2011, 575; SEG LX 1338–1339]: Ed. pr. of inscriptions from the territory of Nikaia (Imperial period). 6: A man dedicated an altar to Zeus Okonenos for his master in fulfillment of a vow (ὑπὲρ κυρίου… εὐχήν). The altar is decorated with a bust of Zeus in relief. Zeus Okonenos was already attested (I.Iznik 1118 and 1119); the cult may be of Thracian origin [V. Scheibelreiter-Gail, in SEG LX 1339, notes that Zeus Okkonenos ἐπήκοος is attested in Thrace (SEG XXXII 679)]. 7: An altar was dedicated to the gods Tadenos and Okonenos, θεοὶ ἐπήκοοι.

28747) O. Coloru, “Themison, nipote di Antioco III”, Studi Ellenistici 24 (2010), p. 273–280 [SEG LX 1574]: C. studies a dedication to Zeus Kasios for the well-being of King Antiochos III and his relatives from Aigeai (SEG XLIX 1943 = I.Anabarzos 31, 197 BCE). He identifies the dedicant as Themison, ‘cousin’ of King Antiochos III, grandson of Antiochos II and brother of Ptolemaios, the last dynast of Telmessos.

28848) T. Corsten, O. Hülden, “Zwischen den Kulturen. Feldforschungen in der Kibyratis. Bericht zu den Kampagnen 2008–2011”, MDAI(I) 62 (2012), p. 7–117: Ed. pr. of the epitaph of a priestess of Aphrodite from Gölhisar Gölü, near Kibyra (1st/2nd cent.; p. 38f.).

28949) C. Crowther, “CIG 2017: A Phantom Thracian Name and a False Corcyraean Provenance”, in Onomatologos, p. 464–469: C. presents an improved edition of a dedication to Zeus Olbios made by a man as an expression of gratitude (εὐχαριστήριον) for his son’s well-being (CIG 2017, Kyzikos, Imperial period).

29050) L. D’Amore, “Il corpo militare ateniese e il temenos di Apollo Liceo (IG I3 138). Un esempio di epikephal(a)ion telos?”, in Omaggio – Lombardi, p. 19–31: The Athenian decree IG I3 138 (ca. 449–434 BCE) obliges the Athenian soldiers, both citizens and foreigners [but here χσένος may not have the meaning ‘straniero’ but the more technical meaning ‘mercenary soldier’] to pay a certain amount of money, that corresponds to a day’s payment, to be used for a temenos of Apollo. This payment was a kind of epikephalaion telos to be distinguished from the due to be paid to Enyalios in Lindos (SEG IV 171 = LSCG Suppl. 85) [see EBGR 2008, 53]. The sanctuary for which the payment was made can be identified as the temenos of Apollo Lykeios, who was regarded as a patron of hoplites. D. discusses the administration of these funds by the city and associates this decree with the Periclean policy that promoted the use of public and private funds for public works.

29151) J.-C. Decourt, A. Tziafalias, “Un nouveau règlement religieux de la région de Larissa”, in AEThStE 3, p. 463–473 [BE 2013, 237]: Preliminary presentation of an extremely important cult regulation from Marmarini in Thessaly. The ed. pr. of this text is presented in the present issue of Kernos and will be discussed in EBGR 2015.

29252) I. Dekoulakou, “Le sanctuaire des dieux égyptiens à Marathon”, in Bibliotheca Isiaca II, p. 23–46 [SEG LIX 198, 233]: D. presents a preliminary report of excavations at the sanctuary of the Egyptian gods in Marathon. In addition to a very interesting architecture, with a peribolos that had four Egyptianizing pylones decorated with statues (three male statues resembling statues of pharaohs, three statues of Isis), the finds include statues (inter alia, a sphinx, and a priest), lamps, and a small number of inscriptions. A fragmentary inscription (p. 36f.; late 2nd or early 3rd cent. CE) [SEG LIX 198] mentions a man in the service of Sarapis. According to the restorations suggested by A. Rizakis (apud D.), he was an athlete ([ξυσ]τάρχης), who served as [νεωκόρος] or [πρεσβύτατος νεωκόρος] τοῦ Σαράπιδ[ος] and had been victorious in athletic contests ([νικήσας παγκράτιον ἐν Ὀλυμπιάδι - -] ἐν Ἀλεξανδ[ρείᾳ]). The text is heavily restored, but there are good parallels of xystarchs who held offices in the cult of Sarapis, e.g. M. Aurelius Ammonios (SEG XLI 1627) and M. Aurelius Asklepiades (IGUR 239–241 and 250). In another inscription only the word ἱερο[--] is preserved. A third text is a dedication made by Polydeukes, the alumnus of Herodes Atticus, in expression of piety (εὐσεβεί[ας ἕ]νεκα) [SEG LIX 233]. Polydeukes died at the age of 15 or 16, probably in 165 CE. Herodes Atticus owned land in Marathon. The sanctuary of the Egyptian gods can be identified with the sanctuary of Kanopos, where according to Philostratos (Vitae Sophistarum II, 554) Herodes met a certain Agathion, the ‘Herakles of Marathon’. For other finds from the sanctuary see P. Fotiadi, “Ritual Terracotta Lamps with Representations of Sarapis and Isis from the Sanctuary of the Egyptian Gods at Marathon: the Variation of ‘Isis with Three Ears of Wheat’”, ibid., p. 65–77; L. Siskou, “The Male Egyptianizing Statues from the Sanctuary of the Egyptian Gods at Marathon”, ibid., p. 79–95.

29353) L. Del Monaco, “Una lex sacra da Locri Epizefiri”, in Omaggio – Lombardi, p. 31–42: A very fragmentary text on a bronze tablet found in a temple (of Zeus?) at Casa Marafioti in Lokroi Epizephyrioi (late 6th cent.; R. Arena, Iscrizioni greche arcaiche di Sicilia – V, no 46; LSAG2 p. 286 no 1) may be a cult regulation. This assumption is based on the restoration of a few expressions (lines 2f: [--- οὐ]δὲ ἄν[θρο̄|π]ος; line 5: πάντον [θεν]; line 7: ξ[ένος] or ξ[ενικός]; line 8: [hόπ]ο κα λ[εῖ]) that are known from similar texts, e.g. the cult regulation from Selinous (SEG XLIII 630) [cf. id., “Ancora sulla lex sacra dal tempio di Casa Marafioti a Locri”, in L. Breglia, A. Moleti, M.L. Napolitano (eds.), Ethne, identità e tradizioni: la “terza” Grecia e l’Occidente, Pisa, 2011, p. 415–429].

29454) L. Del Monaco, “aσκι κατασκι. Ephesia grammata da Locri Epizefirii”, ZPE 183 (2012), p. 129–139: D. observes that seven fragments from Lokroi Epizephyrioi are part of one and the same lead tablet (EBGR 1999, 41 and 2000, 95). He identifies the text as a magical incantation, of which he presents a hypothetical reconstruction. One recognizes a version of the Ephesia grammata (line 1: [Ασκι κ]ατασ[κι] Υσσκι Ασια Ενδασινα) [see also infra no 83] followed by a protective text: ἐ[ν ἀμολγι]· | [- ca. 9 - ἐκ κ]άπο ἐλα[ύ]νει ἀπὸ ἀλ[ca. 12] ὄνυ[μα] Τετρακ<ο>ς. | Σοὶ δ᾿ ὄνυμ[α Τρεχ- - ca. 5 - ἀνεμόλιος ἀ]κτὰ κρανᾶν. | Ὄλβιος [hοῖ κε τάδε σκεδαθι] κ[ατ᾿ ἁμαξ]ιδὸμ «Αϊ» | Καὶ φρασὶν [αὐτὸς ἔχει μακάρον κατ᾿ ἁμα]ξ<ι>τὸν ἀυδά<ν>, | «Τραχ Τετρ[αχ Τετρακος» | [Δαμναμεν]εῦ, δάμασον δὲ κακς ἀέ[κοντας ἀνάγκαι.] | [hός κέ μ]ε σίνεται κα<ὶ> hοὶ κακ[ὰ κόλλοβα | δσι] | [ca. 4] hός τε Διὸς μνάσαιτο hεκάτ[οιό τε Φοίβο] | [ca. 9 κ]αὶ hύδρα{α}ς [ca. 15]φιος | οὔ κα δαλέσαιτο οὐδ᾿ α[ἰ πολυφάρμακ- --] | [- - Δι]ὸς υ[ἱὸς].

29555) O. Delouis, J.-P. Grélois, “Campagne de prospection 2008 de la mission Marmara. Annexe 2. Épigraphie”, Anatolia Antiqua 17 (2009), p. 453–456 [BE 2011, 495]: D.-G. briefly present new epigraphic finds from Barakli, near Hadrianoi. The first fragmentary inscription (146/7 or 155/6 CE) mentions a Bithyniarches [the eds. restore χρυσοφοροῦντος Βιθυνιαρχο[ῦντος] (lines 4/5) and translate ‘ (untel) exerçant les fonctions de chrysophore et de bithyniarque’; we should possibly restore χρυσοφοροῦντος Βιθυνιάρχο[υ]. The chairman and highpriest of the Bithynian koinon was χρυσοφόρος in his capacity as Βιθυνιάρχης (cf. e.g. I.Tralleis 134: χρυσοφόρον στρατηγόν; MAMA VIII 525: τοῖς νεοποιοῖς χρυσοφόροις). The authors recognize the text as a cult regulation: ἐὰν [- - -] ἢ ἐνοχλήσῃ τινί, ἐκδυέσθω [- - -] φυλάκων καὶ ἐκβαλλέσθω Τ[- - - τὰ] εἱμάτια πιπρασκέτω καὶ Τ[- - -] τ[ὸ] ἱερόν [‘if someone - - or harasses anyone, let his/her garments be removed - - the guards, and let him/her be expelled (from the sanctuary) - - let the garments be sold - - the sanctuary’; cf. P. Hamon, BE 2011, 495, who recognized that the regulation concerns order in a sanctuary and prohibits the wearing of certain garments]. A second inscription (2, 2nd/3rd cent.) commemorates the erection of a statue (ἀνδριάς) and an altar upon divine command (κατ᾿ ἐπιταγὴν τοῦ θεοῦ). The term used for the altar is unattested: μηριοκαύσιον (‘altar on which the thighs of the victims are burned’).

29656) A. Deriziotis, S. Kouyoumtzoglou, “Ὁ Ἡρακλῆς Κυναγίδας καὶ ἡ Βασιλικὴ Γ´ στὴν Ἀκρόπολη τῆς παλαιοχριστιανικῆς Δολίχης”, AEThStE 3, p. 663–670: In a report on recent excavations in early Christian Doliche (Thessaly), D.-K. mention three important epigraphic finds that attest the existence of a sanctuary of Herakles Kynagidas in the citadel of Doliche; the exact location of this sanctuary has yet to be determined: 1) A proxeny decree for a man from Larisa, set up in the sanctuary of Herakles (late 3rd/early 2nd cent.). 2) A dedication to Herakles Kynagidas made by his priest, after his term in office, and by three neokoroi (4th cent.). 3) A dedication to Herakles Kynagidas by Alexandros (3rd cent.).

29757) R. Descat, “Autour de la tombe d’Hékatomnos. Nouvelle lecture d’une inscription de Mylasa”, ZPE 178 (2011), p. 195–202: D. offers a convincing interpretation of a very fragmentary inscription from Mylasa (I.Mylasa 35, 4th cent.). It is a dedication to the Daimones Agathoi of the Karian dynast Hekatomnos and his wife Aba. It was made by a courtier of Maussolos, who had the court title grastapatis (an Iranian word). The dedication was made in the funerary monument of Hekatomnos.

29858) A. Doulgeri-Intzesiloglou, “Ἀνάθημα στὸν Διόνυσο ἀπὸ τὴν ἀρχαία πόλη τῶν Φερῶν”, in Namata – Pandermalis, p. 207–215 [SEG LXI 475]: Ed. pr. of an inscribed stele from Pherai (early 4th cent.). A hole on the front of the stele was used for the suspension of a metal object (a crown or another votive object). A dedicatory epigram, consisting of an elegiac couplet, is inscribed on the left narrow side: Δ̣ῖε υ̣ἷ κ᾿ ὦ Διόνυσε, δ̣ὸ̣ς̣ εὐτ̣υ̣χ̣ε̣ῖ̣ν̣ Ε̣ὐ̣ρ̣ώ̣παι, | α̣ὐ̣τ̣ᾶι καὶ γενεᾶι καὶ βιοτε͂ς φύλακι. Ed. pr. interprets υ̣ἷ κ᾿ as οἷ κα (‘wherever you are’). The third line ([- - -]Α̣Ε̣Τ̣Ο̣[- - -]ΟΒ̣[- -]ΤΙΚΙΒΙΟΤΕΙΦΥΛΑΚΙΣ) seems to repeat the text of the second line but in an imperfect manner. The cult of Dionysos was already attested in Pherai (SEG XXXIX 507). Europa, the dedicant, prays to Dionysos asking for happiness for herself, her family, and ‘the guardian of her life’; this was a guardian, servant, or protector of her property; or more probably a personal agathos daimon (cf. Hesiod, Works and Days, 120–122). [The latter interpretation is unlikely; γενεά is not family but ‘offspring’; Europa prays for happiness for herself, her children, and her husband.]

29959) A. Doulgeri-Intzesiloglou et al., “Τὸ Ἀσκληπιεῖο τῆς Πεπαρήθου. Ἕξι χρόνια μετά”, in AEThStE 3, p. 701–708: The authors report on the results of research conducted in the Asklepios sanctuary in Peparethos (Skopelos). This is the only Asklepieion known in the northern Sporades and one of the earliest in Greece, probably founded in the 5th cent. They mention the discovery of stamped tiles which are inscribed with the name of the god (Ἀσκληπιοῦ) and the texts ἱερὸς and δημόσιος.

30059 bis) M. Dreher, “Gerichtsverfahren vor den Göttern? - ‘judicial prayers’ und die Kategorisierung der defixionum tabellae”, in Symposion 2009, p. 303–337: D., who is directing a project dedicated to Greek and Latin defixiones, presents his thoughts on the categorization of curse tablets and rejects the suggestion of H.S. Versnel and other scholars that there is a separate category of ‘prayers for justice’ [cf. id., “‘Prayers for Justice’ and the Categorization of Curse Tablets”, in M. Piranomonte, F. Marco Simón (eds.), Contextos Mágicos — Contesti Magici (Atti del Convegno Internazionale Roma 4 — 6 novembre 2009), Rome, 2012, p. 29–32]. For the main arguments and Versnel’s response see infra no 200.

30160) T. Drew-Bear, M. Türktüzün, “Goloe”, in A.N. Bilgen et al. (eds.), Archaeological Research in Western Central Anatolia. The IIIrd International Symposium of Archaeology, Kütahya, 8th-9th March 2010. Proceedings, Kütahya, 2011, p. 199–201: Ed. pr. of new inscriptions from Goloe (Northern Phrygia). They include a statue of Hadrian dedicated by the Goloreanoi ([καθιέ]ρωσαν, p. 201). An honorific inscription was set up for a man who served twice as priest (p. 201, 3/2 BCE).

30261) A. Drujinina, “Gußform mit griechischer Inschrift aus dem Oxus-Tempel”, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 40 (2008), p. 121–135 [SEG LVIII 1686]: Ed. pr. of a clay casting mould for a large bronze vessel found in a pit in the area of the Oxos temple (Taxt-i Sangīn, Bactria). The inscription, written in bad Greek by an indigenous man, reports that a bronze vessel weighing 7 talents was dedicated to Oxos, the local river-god. [The text in the edition of A.I. Ivantchik, VDI 279.4 (2011), p. 112–117, reads: εἰς ῎Οξον κατὰ φραζύμενα ἀνέθεσε Ιρωμοις Νεμίσκου μολρπαλρης χαλκίον ἐγ ταλάντων ἑπτά (‘Iromois, [son of] Nemiskos, keeper of the seal, [dedicated] to Oxos a bronze cauldron weighing seven talents in accordance with a vow’). See also infra no 198].

30362) D. Elefterescu, “Two Gnostic Pieces from Durostorum”, in Cultură şi Civilizaţie la Dunărea de Jos. Orient şi Occident, Călăraşi, 2011, p. 153–157 [An.Ép. 2011, 1135–1136]: Ed. pr. of a lead ring with the inscription Ιαω and an amulet with the inscription Ιαω | TPC on the obverse and ABRA|CAZ (for Αβρασαξ) on the reverse (Durostorum, Imperial period).

30463) H. Engelmann, “Inschriften von Patara”, ZPE 182 (2012), p. 179–201 [BE 2013, 397]: Ed. pr. of 22 inscriptions from Patara in Lykia. 1) Ti. Claudius Flavianus Eudemos, a benefactor and statesman was honored posthumously (1, early 2nd cent. CE). He had served as a highpriest of the emperors and priest of the ‘ancestral god’ (πατρῶιος θεός) Apollo [E. assumes that Eudemos was highpriest of the Lykian koinon but this is not explicitly stated in the text]. 2) The same man was posthumously honored with another inscription, which mentions building works in the theater, including the construction of a temple. 9) Iason was honored for serving as priest of the emperors in a pious, generous, and fastidiously luxurious manner (ἱερεύσαντα τῶν Σεβαστῶν εὐσεβῶς καὶ φιλοδόξως καὶ δαπανηρῶς, 2nd cent. CE). 11) An honorific inscription for a highpriest (2nd cent. CE). 16) An epitaph with a funerary imprecation (ἔστω θεοῖς καταχθονίοις ἁμαρτωλός, 2nd cent. CE). 19) The epitaph of Euphrosynos, an alumnus of the city and hierodoulos (θρεπτοῦ τῆς πόλεως, ἱεροδούλου, 2nd cent. CE). Euphrosynos was probably an orphan or exposed child, raised by the city, who later became a temple servant. 20) The long grave inscription of Marcia Aurelia Chrysion (ca. 250 CE) provides information on her family and her monumental grave. Chrysion was a daughter of the Lykiarch Alkimos. Her husband Alkimos is called κοσμητὴς πατρῴου θεοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος (an honorific title alluding to benefactions for the sanctuary of Apollo?) [rather, the designation of a religious office connected with a festival of Apollo; see infra no 183]. The grave monument (ἡρῶιον) consisted of a peribolos, within which there was a funerary temple (ναός), where two sarcophagi were placed, a pronaos, and a grove (cf. lines 17f.: ἔξω τοῦ ναοῦ ἐν τῷ προνάῳ ἤτε ἐν τ[ῷ] ἄλσει [ἔνδο]θεν τοῦ περιτειχίσματος). Chrysion had erected the grave for herself, family members, and the slaves who had been assigned the care of the grave (ταφόδουλοι; cf. μνημόδουλοι in I.Arykanada 147). Chrysion had left an endowment of 250 denarii per annum for the maintenance of the grave. The text contains a long funerary imprecation: οἱ κατατολμήσατες πρᾶξαι τ᾿ ἐπάρατοι ἔστωσαν ἐξάγιστοι θεοῖς οὐρανίοις, θαλασσίοις, ὑπὲρ γῆν, ὑπὸ γῆν, καὶ ἰχθύσιν, οἰωνοῖς, ἐξώλεις πανώλις, αὐτοί, γένος αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ διαδεξάμενοι αὐτοὺς πάντες εἰς τὸν αἰώνιον χρόνον [‘those who dare do something (against her instructions) shall be accursed and liable to punishment by the gods of the heaven and the sea, above the earth and under the earth, by the fish and by the birds, liable to total destruction and annihilation, they themselves, and their offspring, and all their succession in eternity’].

30564) R. Ergeç, J.-B. Yon, “Nouvelles inscriptions”, in C. Abadie-Reynal (ed.), Zeugma III. Fouilles de l’Habitat (2). La maison des Synaristôsai, Lyon, 2012, p. 153–198 [BE 2013, 31]:
(Re)publication of inscriptions from Apameia and Zeugma. Apameia: A dedication to Meter Theon in fulfillment of a vow (κατ᾿ εὐχήν; 1, ca. 1st cent.). Zeugma: New edition of SEG XXVI 1498, a fragmentary honorific inscription in which the phrase ναοῦ θεῶν [πα]τρῴων is preserved (2, undated).

30665) C. Fantaoutsaki, “Preliminary Report on the Excavation of the Sanctuary of Isis in Ancient Rhodes: Identification, Topography, and Finds”, in Bibliotheca Isiaca II, p. 47–63: F. summarizes the results of an excavation in the sanctuary of Isis in Rhodes. Although the cult of the Egyptian deities was known through epigraphic finds (cf. RICIS 204/0110/0111), the location of the sanctuary was not known. A still unpublished anatomical votive (a marble relief plaque with a female breast) was found in the eastern part of the city (Ὀλυμπιὰς | Ὀσείρει εὐχάν); for this reason, a sanctuary of the Egyptian gods was suspected in this area. The sanctuary, consisting of a peribolos, a temple, a crypt, and subsidiary structures, has now been identified at the eastern edge of the city, near the sea, just inside the south-eastern line of the fortification wall. The finds include statues and an inscription. The subject of the decoration of a marble relief plaque cannot be determined; it was dedicated by a woman to Osiris (Νικοστράτη | Ὀσίρι εὐχάν) [to judge from the letterforms, both dedications belong to the 3rd cent.]. The temple was built in the early 3rd cent.; Rhodes was one of the earliest recipients of the cult of Isis and Sarapis.

30766) P. Flourentzos, “Ausgrabungen in der Unterstadt von Amathous”, in K. Lembke (ed.), Zypern — Insel der Aphrodite, Hildesheim, 2010, p. 76–85 [SEG LX 1611–1612]. F. summarizes the results of recent excavations in the lower city of Amathous. On the basis of a dedication to Arsinoe II Philadelphos (SEG LVII 1736), F. assigns a temple excavated in the lower city to the cult of Arsinoe. He presents a new dedication to Tiberius [correct: Augustus; for the correct reading see supra no 19]. This text and another dedication to Tiberius (mentioned by P. Flourentzos, BCH 128/129 [2004/2005], p. 1661) suggest the existence in Amathous of a building complex dedicated to the imperial cult in general [see now also T. Fujii, Imperial Cult and Imperial Representation in Roman Cyprus, Stuttgart, 2013].

30867) P. Frölich, “Un décret de Messène accordant des honneurs post mortem”, in J.‑C. Couvenhes (ed.) L’hellénisme, d’une rive à l’autre de la Méditerranée. Mélanges offerts à André Laronde. De l’archéologie à l’histoire, Paris, 2012, p. 441–466: F. presents a new edition of a posthumous honorific decree for a benefactor, who died young (IG V 1, 1427, Messene, mid- or late 1st cent.). The decree provides for the participation of the entire community in his funeral, his crowning with a golden wreath, the construction of his grave monument in the city, the erection of a statue and the annual proclamation of the honors. The decree also mentions a sacrifice and the obligation of a priest (whose priest?), to provide a victim, probably for cultic honors offered to the anonymous benefactor. F. provides parallels for the honors, especially for the burial intra muros.

30968) W.D. Furley, “Revisiting Some Textual Problems in the Delian Sarapis Aretalogy by Maiistas (IG IX 4, 1299)”, ZPE 180 (2012), p. 117–125 [BE 2013, 328]: F. presents a new critical edition and translation of Maiistas’ poem from the Sarapieion of Delos, in which the poet narrates the introduction of Sarapis’ cult to Delos. [On this text and the evidence it provides for the introduction and development of the cult of Sarapis in Delos see I.S. Moyer, Egypt and the Limits of Hellenism, Cambridge, 2011, p. 142207 and 282–286 (text and translation)].

31069) V. Gabrielsen, “The Chrysaoreis of Caria”, in Labraunda and Caria, p. 332–353: A close study of the documentation concerning the Hellenistic league of the Chrysaoreis (esp. SEG LIII 1229; I.Labraunda 43; I.Amyzon 16) leads G. to the view that it was a federal state and not simply a religious amphiktyony devoted to the cult of Zeus Chrysaoreus. The following cities were members: Mylasa, Amyzon, Alabanda, Alinda, Thera, Keramos, possibly Pisye, and another city ([--]na). In addition to cultic activities (an agonistic festival) and religious officials (hieromnemones), the Chrysaoreis had an assembly and were connected in some sort of sympoliteia.

31170) L. Gawlinski, The Sacred Law of Andania: a New Text with Commentary, Berlin, 2012: G. presents a new critical edition, translation, and detailed commentary of the cult regulation of the mysteries of Andania (IG V 1, 1390; cf. EBGR 2006, 36). She discusses the meaning of διάγραμμα and the date of the text (favoring the view that the inscription dates to the 55th year of the Achaian era, i.e. 91 BCE) [That Messene used the Actian era is securely attested by 18 inscriptions; by contrast, there is not a single piece of evidence that securely attests the use of the Achaian era. P. Themelis’ view that the text dates to 24/23 CE is further supported by prosopographical evidence (SEG LVII 364) and is far more plausible]. G. presents an excellent study of the topography of Andania and proposes a plausible reconstruction of the procession. In her thorough commentary, she discusses all aspects of the regulation, especially the clauses concerning garments, the arrangement of the procession, the order, and the financial aspects of the cult. [For some criticism in minor details, see my review in Gnomon 87 (2015), p. 275f.]. G. rejects the view of V. Pirenne-Delforge (see EBGR 2010, 155) that Mnasistratos, the driving force behind this regulation, gave to Messene a text that was not an ancient ‘sacred book’ but the result of his personal research (p. 104–106). [There is a good parallel for Pirenne-Delforge’s view. Leon, priest of Zeus Panamaros, persuaded the city to upgrade the cult (ἔπεισεν τὸν σύναπαντα δῆμον εἴς τ[ὸ] τὰς θυσίας ἐπιφανεστέρας καὶ μείζονας συντελεῖν (I.Stratonikeia 7, ca. 200 BCE) by presenting the result of his study of ancient documents and historical accounts (παραθεὶς ἔκ τε [τ]ῶ[ν ἱστοριῶ]ν καὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων γραμμάτων). This may well be what Mnasistratos did in Messene].

31271) W. Günther, “Neue Inschriften aus Didyma”, Chiron 42 (2012), p. 255–269 [BE 2013, 370]: Ed. pr. of two inscriptions from Didyma: Thrasys dedicated a dekate to Apollo (1, ca. 550–500 BCE); Aristagore dedicated a statue of her son to Apollo Didymeus (3, 3rd cent.). G. also presents an improved edition of a rediscovered inscription, hitherto known only from a copy by C.T. Newton: Histiaios dedicated a tithe to Apollo (2 = I.Didyma 14, late 6th cent. BCE). It is not certain whether the dedicant is the famous tyrant of Miletos at the time of the Ionian revolt.

31372) L.-M. Günther, “Die Milesierinnen Tryphosa Apolloniou und Tryphosa, die Prophetin”, in L.-M. Günther, V. Grieb (eds.), Das imperiale Rom und der hellenistische Osten. Festschrift für Jürgen Deininger zum 75. Geburtstag, Stuttgart, 2012, p. 151–163: Examining the prosopographical evidence for Tryphosa, a hydrophoros of Artemis Pythie (I.Didyma 395, 41/40 BCE) in Miletos, the hydrophoros Platainis Tryphosa (SEG XXX 1286, ca. 110–115 CE), and her grandmother Tryphosa, who served as prophetis in ca. 5 CE, G. argues that all three women were related to the important Milesian family of C. Iulius Epikrates. The prophetis was expected to be an unmarried woman and to serve for life. Tryphosa, who was either married or a widow when she was appointed, was selected for this office in accordance with Apollo’s oracle. Her service in this office may be connected with efforts of Miletos to upgrade the cult in Didyma and to achieve a neokorate in ca. 40 CE.

31473) K. Hallof, K. Herrmann, S. Prignitz, “Alte und neue Inschriften aus Olympia I”, Chiron 42 (2012), p. 213–238: Ed. pr. of important finds from Olympia. 1) A statue, crafted by the sculptor Pelanidas, was dedicated by Byzantion from the war booty (ἀκροθίνιον) of an undetermined war, either shortly before 513 or during the Ionian revolt of 499/8 BCE. Ἀκροθίνιον is attested as a designation of war booty in the early Classical period (SEG XXIV 318–319; IG I3 1463). 2) An inscription records the dedication of a statue of Autolykos of Elis by Argos (early 3rd cent.); the statue is signed by Daippos. 3) An inscribed base supported an honorific statue of Asamon of Elis; according to Pausanias VI, 16, 5, the statue was made by Pyrilampos. 4) A very fragmentary epigram probably honors the philosophers who were sent as envoys of Athens to Rome in 156/50. The authors also present an improved edition of an inscription that records the dedication of a statue of C. Caecilius Metellus by Hyampolis to the gods (SEG III 414, ca. 148–146 BCE); the inscription was found re-used in a church between Hyampolis and Kalapodi.

31574) H. Hauben, “Ptolémée III et Bérénice II, divinités cosmiques”, in More than Men, Less than Gods, p. 353–388: H. discusses the literary evidence for the ‘lock of Berenike’ and the Canopus decree as evidence for the way Ptolemy III and Berenike were presented as masters of time and ‘cosmic divinities’.

31675) P. Iossif, “Apollo Toxotes and the Seleukids. Comme un air de famille”, in More than Men, Less than Gods, p. 229–291: After an exhaustive study of the numismatic and epigraphic evidence for the perception of Apollo as an archer and his association with the ruler cult of the Seleucids, I. argues that the motif of the archer has Assyrian and Achaemenid origins. The oracle of Didyma played an important part in the association of Apollo with the Seleucids (cf. I.Didyma 424, 479, 480). In this context, I. examines the evidence for Apollo as father of Seleukos I and ἀρχηγός/ἀρχηγέτης of the Seleucids. Since the date of OGIS 212 (Seleukos I or II?) and 219 (Antiochos I or III?) is disputed, I.Didyma 493 (under Seleukos II, 246/5 BCE) is the earliest secure attestation of this filiation. With regard to a hymn from Erythrai (I.Erythrai 205), in which a king Seleukos (I or II?) is praised with the words Ἀπόλλωνος κυανοπλοκάμου παῖδα Σέλευκον, I. argues that the word παῖς may have the meaning ‘servant’; in this case, the king is Seleukos II. [When ancient hymns refer to the descent of the god whom they praise, they always use the word παῖς in the meaning ‘son’; see A. Chaniotis, “The Ithyphallic Hymn for Demetrios Poliorcetes and Hellenistic Religious Mentality”, in More than Men, Less than Gods, p. 183. Here, there can be no doubt that the text refers to filiation, since it continues: ὃν αὐτὸς γείνατο χρυ[σ]ολύρας. Since the text explicitly states that Apollo is the father of Seleukos, the king must be Seleukos I.].

31776) S. Isager, “The Epigraphic Tradition at Labraunda Seen in the Light of Labraunda Inscription no 134: A Recent Addition to the Olympichos File”, in Labraunda and Karia, p. 199–215: I. republishes an honorific decree of Mylasa that establishes the cult of the Karian dynast Olympichos (EBGR 2008, 73) and sketches the development of the epigraphic tradition in the sanctuary of Labraunda from the 3rd cent. BCE to the Imperial period.

31877) S. Isager, P. Pedersen, “Hadrian, Sabina, and Halikarnassos — Some Epigraphic Evidence”, ZPE 181 (2012), p. 95–101 [BE 2013, 383]: Ed. pr. of a very fragmentary letter sent by Hadrian to Halikarnassos (1); there is a reference to sacred things ([τὰ ἱε]ρὰ καὶ τὰ δημόσια) but the context is not clear; a reference to ἱστορίαι may be seen in the context of the interest in history inspired by the creation of the Panhellenion. The authors also publish a dedication to Hadrian found in 1990. The emperor is identified with Zeus Olympios (2: Διὶ Ὀλυμπίῳ Νέῳ Ἁδριανῷ; ‘for Zeus Olympios the New Hadrian’). [To judge from numerous parallels, the epithet νέος is to be connected with Zeus, not with Hadrian: ‘For Hadrian, the New Zeus Olympios’; exactly as his wife Sabina was ‘new Hera’ (see below), Hadrian was ‘new Zeus’; e.g. Iulia was praised as Nea Aphrodite (EBGR 2004, 42), Caius Caesar as Neos Ares (EBGR 1994/95, 131), Drusilla as Nea Charis (EBGR 2001, 75), Nero as Neos Apollon (EBGR 1994/95, 38), Hadrian and Caracalla as Neos Dionysos (EBGR 2008, 52 and 62), Hadrian as Neos Pythios (EBGR 2011, 29), Commodus as Neos Helios (EBGR 2004, 126), etc.]. Another dedication to Hadrian also identifies him with Zeus Olympios (3; G.E. Bean, J.M. Cook, “The Halicarnassus Peninsula”, ABSA 50 [1955], p. 105 no 29). In this context, the authors reconsider an honorific inscription for Ἰουλίαν Νέαν Ἥραν Σαβεῖναν Σεβαστήν, which B. Haussoullier (“Inscriptions d’Halicarnasse”, BCH 4 [1880], p. 396 no 3) identified with the daughter of Emperor Titus. They suggest that the dedicants ‘chose to raise the value of their dedication by adding an unofficial Iulia’. [The identification with the daughter of Titus should indeed be rejected; there was no foundation for her identification with Hera, whereas there were good reasons to associate Sabina, the wife of Hadrian, the New Zeus Olympios, with Hera. Sabina is in fact called Nea Hera in Thasos (IG XII Suppl. 440), Patara (TAM II, 412), and Tlos (TAM II, 560). I suspect that the addition of Iulia was influenced by dedications to Iulia, Augustus’ daughter (e.g. Iulia Nea Aphrodite: IG XII 2, 482; Iulia Sebasta Lato: SEG LIV 753; Iulia Sebasta Nea Eileithyia: SEG XLVII 847), or Livia, who after Augustus’ death was called Iulia Sebaste (e.g. Iulia Sebaste Artemis Boulaia: SEG XXII 152; Iulia Sebaste Hestia Nea Demeter: IGSK 6, 11). The author of the text applied a known formula by mistake, not as an unofficial title].

31978) A.I. Ivantchik, S.R. Tokhtas’ev, “Queen Dynamis and Tanais”, in E. Papuci-Władyka et al. (eds.), Pontika 2008: Recent Research on the Northern and Eastern Black Sea in Ancient Time, Oxford, 2011, p. 163–173 [BE 2010, 471; SEG LIX 860]: The authors present a new edition of a fragmentary inscription from Tanais (SEG XLV 1022), associating two further fragments with the published one. In their reconstruction, the inscription records a dedication made by the community of Tanais on behalf of Queen Dynamis (20 BCE-9 CE) for her services to the sanctuary of Apollo ([εὐεργέτιδος εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν/ναὸν τοῦ | Ἀπ]ό̣λλωνος) [rather [εὐεργέτιδος τοῦ ἱεροῦ τοῦ | Ἀπ]ό̣λλωνος, as suggested by A. Avram, BE 2010, 471]. For a Russian version see iid., VDI 270, 3 (2009), p. 95–100 no 1. [V.P. Yaylenko, Tysiacheletnij Bosporskij reich, Moscow, 2010, rejects this reconstruction and recognizes two separate dedications, one for Mithridates VI and one for Pharnakes].

32079) P. Iversen “Inscriptions from Pisidian Konane (Conana) and the Surrounding Area”, EA 45 (2012), p. 103–152 [BE 2013, 423; SEG LX 1479–1480]: Ed. pr. of two dedications found in the area of modern Isparta (ancient Konane) in Pisidia. A dedication was made to Zeus Epekoos in fulfillment of a vow (6, Gönen, 2nd cent. CE). A dedication is addressed to Διὶ Γαλακτίνῳ in fulfillment of a vow (29, Güneykent, 2nd cent. CE) [SEG LX 1480]. I. interprets this as a dedication to the ‘milky-white’ Zeus (cf. Zeus Galaktios in Lydia: TAM V 1, 32). [The correct reading is Γαλακτηνῷ, with a ligature of HΝ, not Γαλακτίνῳ (see infra no 101). As all epithets in -enos, Γαλακτηνός derives from a place name Galakta, not from a property of Zeus]. I. also republishes a fragmentary dedication to Mes from Güneykent (2nd cent. CE, SEG XXXI 1280). He reads: [-]Ν[- - - - - Οὐ]|α̣λερίου̣…Α̣.[-]| κέλευσιν Μηνὶ κα|τὰ εὐχὴν ἐκ τ[ῶν] | ἰδίων (possibly μ̣ε̣τὰ̣ τ̣[ὴν] | κέλευσιν). In an addendum (p. 136) [SEG LX 1480], I. reports the different readings by G. Labarre et al., infra no 101, p. 83 no 2: ΜΕ̣ΡΙΟ…Κ̣Α̣ΝΟ|Κ..Ο.ΣΙΝ Μηνὶ Κ̣Α̣|Τ..Χ̣Η̣. ἐκ τ[ῶν] | ἰδίων [both the name of Valerius and κέλευσιν can be read on the photo]. For a dedication to Zeus Nikator (p. 124f. no 31) see infra no 101.

32180) A. Jacquemin, D. Mulliez, G. Rougemont, Choix d’inscriptions de Delphes, traduites et commentées, Athens, 2012 [BE 2013, 209]: This selection of Delphic inscriptions in reliable editions and translations is truly a quarry for information concerning the Delphic cult, dedications, cult regulations, the administration of the sanctuary, and the political role of the Delphic amphiktyony. The volume presents 300 inscriptions, all of them published. Naturally, private and public dedications to Apollo take the lion’s share (3–12, 14–20, 22, 25, 33–34, 47–48, 51–54, 57, 59, 61, 63, 67, 80, 82, 114, 143, 151–153, 160, 178–180, 187, 210, 214–220, 228, 261). There are only two dedications to other deities (Aphrodite Epiteleia: 159; Dionysos Sphaleotas: 171) but there is evidence for secondary cults (9–13: Eileithyia, Hygieia, Athena Ergane, Athena Zosteria, Zeus). Among the dedications we note a dedicatory epigram with which a man thanks Apollo for the birth of two daughters (59). We summarize the content of other inscriptions of religious interest according to subject matter. Cult regulations: prohibitions concerning wine consumption (23); an amphiktyonic regulation (27); the sacred law of the Labyadai (30); decrees concerning the value of the pelanos offered by Phaselis (26) and the participation of the Asklepiadai of Kos and Knidos (32); an agreement between Delphi and Skiathos concerning the participation of Skiathos in the Delphic cult (31). Festivals: documents concerning the celebration of the Pythais by the Athenians (198–205) and the Dodekais, i.e. probably the offering of the sacrifice of 12 victims by the Athenians (278–280); agonistic inscriptions (21, 50; documents related to the Soteria: 70, 79, 285–286, 298); the honorific decree for Aristotle and Kallisthenes for the composition of a list of the victors at the Pythia (49); decrees concerning the activities and privileges of the Dionysiac technitai (68–69, 194–197); honorific inscriptions for poets (122, 123, 282) and musicians (186, 189–190, 192, 208–209, 283, 287, 289, 298); a list of theorodokoi (125); a document concerning construction works in preparation of the Pythia (116); documents pertaining to the recognition of agonistic festivals (Ptolemaia: 73; Nikephoria of Pergamon: 154–155; Delphic Soteria: 78; Eumeneia of Sardeis: 163–164); decrees concerning the organization of the Eumeneia and Attaleia in Delphi (167–168); documents concerning the re-organization of the Pythia under Domitian (230–233); an endowment concerning the establishment of the commemorative sacrifice Alkesippeia (137). Hymns: hymns to various gods (60, 203). Oracular practices: grants of promanteia (35, 36, 56, 58, 71); an oracle given to Kyzikos concerning a festival for Kore Soteira (91); an oracle given to Agamemnon (an ancient forgery; 171). Sanctuaries: documents concerning the reconstruction of the temple of Apollo in the 4th cent. (37–45); a decree concerning livestock belonging to the sanctuary of Apollo in Delphi (157); a list of immobile property given to the sanctuary (144); documents concerning the asylia of Athena Itonia (74), the Pythaion of Kalchedon (75), the sanctuary of Aphrodite Stratonikis in Smyrna (81), Teos (86–89), Antiocheia of the Chrysaoreis (90), Delphi (145–147), and the sanctuary of Athena Nikephoros in Pergamon (154–155); use of sacred money for construction work in the sanctuary (234–239). The Delphic amphiktyony: honorific decrees for men for their services to the amphiktyony (92–102, 107–108, 138, 149); amphiktyonic decrees concerning cases of embezzlement of sacred money (99–100, 174–177); a verdict concerning the representation of East Lokris in the amphiktyony (183); a letter of Hadrian on amphiktyonic affairs (252); other amphiktyonic decrees (117, 118). Cult personel: an honorific statue for a priestess of Eileithyia (142). Manumission records: 127–136. Hero cult: a Delphic decree (237 = F.Delphes III 1, 466) establishes the heroic cult of Memmius Nikandros; prayers should be addressed to him in the prytaneion (τειμάς τ[ε αὐτῷ] ἡρωϊκὰς ψηφίσασθα[ι καὶ] κατεύχεσθαι α[ὐτῷ ὡς ἥ]ρωι ἐν πρυτανείῳ. Imperial cult: among the numerous inscriptions in honor of emperors, we single out a dedication to Hadrian by the league of the Greeks who participated in the Eleutheria at Plataia: Αὐτοκράτορι Ἁδριανῷ Σωτῆρι ῥυσαμένῳ καὶ τρέψαντι τὴν ἑαυτοῦ Ἑλλάδα οἱ ἰς Πλαταιὰς συνιόντες Ἕλληνες χαριστήριον ἀνέθηκαν (253).

32281) T.S.F. Jim, “Seized by the Nymph? Onesagoras the “dekatephoros” in the Nymphaeum at Kafizin in Cyprus”, Kernos 25 (2012), p. 9–26 [BE 2013, 74]: K. studies the evidence provided by a large group of inscribed vases from Kafizin (225–218 BCE) for private piety (T.B. Mitford, The Nymphaeum of Kafizin, Berlin, 1980). 269 out of 310 inscribed items were dedicated by Onesagoras, either alone or together with other individuals. Because of the similarity between Onesagoras’ devotion and that of Archedemos of Thera, a νυμφόληπτος (‘seized by the Nymphs’) who built a cave-sanctuary for the Nymphs on Mt. Hymettos in the late 5th cent. (IG I3 977–980), and Pantalkes, who decorated a grotto near Pharsalos in Thessaly (SEG I 247–248; XVI 377–378) in the 4th cent., it has been suggested that Onesagoras was also a νυμφόληπτος. [J. also includes in this group of devoted worshippers Artemidoros of Perge, who built a sanctuary in Thera (IG XII 3, 421–422; IG XII Suppl. 1333–1350); although his activities are a good example of private piety, they have nothing to do with either nympholepsy or particular devotion to one deity; see EBGR 1995, 149]. Onesagoras’ dedications usually include the following elements: the invocation ἀγαθῇ τύχῃ, the addressee (Νύμφη τῆι ἐν τῶι στρόφιγγι), Onesagoras’ name and patronymic, his occupation and function (κουρεὺς ὁ δεκατηφόρος), and the date; additionally, there may be references to an association (ἀπὸ Ἀνδρόκλου Οἴκου τῆς Ἰδαλιακῆς, ἀπὸ τῆς Ζήνωνος κοινωνίας), the source of the dedication (ἀπὸ προσυπάρχοντος δεκατισμοῦ, ἀπὸ τῆς κοινωνίας), the type of the dedicated vase, and the name of the potter. It seems that Onesagoras was member of an association dedicated to the worship of the Nymphs. The association met occasionally for drinking parties and sacrifices. The texts allude to various economic activities, such as the making of pottery and the production and trade of flax and linseed. As regards the designation δεκατηφόρος, J. favors a religious meaning over a secular (tax-farmer), and wonders whether Onesagoras ‘might have been responsible for collecting tithes on the agricultural produce payable by the association(s) to the Nymphs’. Onesagoras’ close relation to the Nymphs resembles nympholepsy.

32382) C.P. Jones, “Zeus Anabatênos and Zeus Kersoullos”, ZPE 180 (2012), p. 233–236: J. presents an improved edition of a dedication to Zeus Kersoullos from the territory of Hadrianoi (modern Derecik, probably ancient Anabata, late 2nd/early 3rd cent.; see supra no 4) [SEG LIX 1418]. The dedicant is Zeus Anabatenos, who set up a statue for Zeus Kersoullos (2nd/3rd cent.): Ζεὺς Ἀναβατηνὸς Διὶ Κερσούλλῳ ἀνέστησεν. The cult of Zeus Anabatenos, whose epithet probably derives from Anabata (modern Derecik?) was already known (I.Hadrianoi 9). The cult of Zeus Kersoullos was also known through dedications from the territory of Hadrianoi (I.Hadrianoi 2–8) and Aizanoi (SEG LVI 1436: Ζεὺς Ὀλύμπιος Κερσουλλος; I.Hadrianoi 4 is a dedication made by a citizen of Aizanoi). J. provides parallels for gods making dedications to other gods, i.e. dedications funded with sacred money (e.g. I.Thespiai 259). The two epithets (Anabatenos and Kersoullos) refer to two hypostases of Zeus that are so distinct that one Zeus can make a dedication to the other; similarly, Apollo of Klaros recommended a dedication to Apollo Soter in Kaisareia Troketta (IGR IV 1498). J. also republishes a dedication to Zeus Anabatenos (infra no 4) inscribed on an altar. The text, engraved among images of a bull’s head, an altar, a phiale and an unclear object (‘a bust with hair extending sideways and coming to a point, and below the bust an object resembling a heavy pendant (perhaps a schematic representation of clothing)’) reads: Ἀσκλᾶς Ἀντ(ι)ό|χου [εὐ]χ̣ὴν <ἀ>νέ|θετο Δεὶ Ἀ|ναβατ||ηνῷ Ὁσ<ί>ου καὶ [Δ]ι̣κ̣|αίου [SEG LIX 1419]. Following a suggestion of G. Petzl, J. argues that Asklas dedicated an altar of Hosios and Dikaios; the word βωμόν is substituted by the representation of the altar. [I wonder whether the ‘bust with hair’ really is a bust. The three other objects are directly related to the use of the altar for offerings (altar, bull’s head, phiale for libations); but I have no better explanation. Hosios and Dikaios were probably regarded as ‘angels’ of Zeus].

32483) D.R. Jordan, R.D. Kotansky, “Ritual Hexameters in the Getty Museum. Preliminary Edition”, ZPE 178 (2011), p. 54–62: J.-K. present the preliminary edition of a very important lead tablet inscribed on both sides with hexametrical incantations that aim at protecting a house or a city from various dangers. The tablet, originally foldable to form a small portable packet, is of unknown provenance (probably Selinous, late 5th cent.); it was acquired in 1981 by the Getty Museum. [This text, known from preliminary reports, has already been discussed by many scholars, whose observations will be summarized in future issues of the EBGR. A recent collection of articles (C.A. Faraone, D. Obbink [eds.], The Getty Hexameters. Poetry, Magic, and Mystery in Ancient Selinous, Oxford, 2013), presents a very good overview of the significance of this document and the problems connected with its interpretation. In the following summary, I quote the text of the improved (but not yet final) edition presented in this collective volume and the translation of Faraone and Obbink]. The incantation in col. I of side A promises to protect the owner of the tablet (‘whoever hides in a house of stone the notable letters of the sacred verses inscribed on tin’; ὅσ̣τις τῶνδ᾿ ἱερῶν ἐπέων ἀρίσημα κολάψας | γράμματα κασσιτέρωι κοκολαμμένα <ἁλ>οῖ ἐν οἴκωι) [on <ἁλ>οῖ see supra no 33], from harmful animals (οὔ νιμ πημανέουσιν hόσα τρέφει εὐρεῖα χθών | οὐδ᾿ ὅσα πόντωι βόσκει ἀγάστονος Ἀμφιτρίτη; ‘as many things as broad earth nourishes shall not harm him nor as many things as much-groaning Amphitrite rears in the sea’). The text then invokes Paieon (‘Paean, for in every direction you send averting charms, and you spoke these immortal verses to mortal men’; Παιήων, σὺ δὲ παντὸς ἀλέξιμα φάρ̣μακα πέμπεις | καὶ τάδε φωνήσας ἔπε’ ἀθάνατα θνητοῖσιν) and quotes the god’s words: ‘As down the shady mountains in a dark-and-glittering land a child leads out of Persephone’s garden by necessity for milking that four-footed holy attendant of Demeter, a she-goat with an untiring stream of rich milk laden; and she follows, trusting in the bright goddesses with their lamps. And she leads Hecate of the Roadside, the foreign divinity, as she cries out in a frightening voice’ (ὅσσα κατὰ σκιαρῶν ὀρέων μελαναύγει χώρωι | Φερσεφόνης ἐγ κήπου ἄγα̣ι πρὸς ἀμολγὸν ἀνάγκη̣[ι] | τὴν τετραβήμονα παῖς ἁγίην Δήμητρος ὀπηδόν, | αἶγ᾿ ἀκαμαντορόα νασμοῦ θαλεροῖο γάλακτος | βριθομένην̣, ἕπεται <δὲ> θεαῖς ῥεπ̣ιθοῦσα φαειναῖς | [λ]αμπάδας· [Ε]ἰνοδίαι δ᾿ Ἑκάτει φρικώδεϊ̣ φωνῆι | [βά]ρβαρον ἐκκλάζουσα θεὰ θεῶι | ἡγεμονεύ[ει]). [Various contributions in C.A. Faraone, D. Obbink (eds.), The Getty Hexameters, recognize these verses as the original hexametrical version of what later became the incantation known as Ephesia Grammata (cf. ὅσσα κατὰ σκιαρῶν ὀρέων and ασκι κατασκι etc.). It seems that the Ephesia Grammata developed from originally comprehensible dactylic hexameters. The quotation of the Ephesia Grammata in col. II of side A (κατασκι αασσια ασια; see infra) reveals a process of devolution. I note that the ‘textual confusion and creative phonetic play’ (C.A. Faraone, D. Obbink, “Introduction”, in op.cit., p. 3) that one observes in this incantation, can also be observed in the Dionysiac-Orphic tablets. In one of the Cretan tablets (SEG LX 999) the traditional phrase κράνας ἀειρόου becomes κράνας <Σ>αύρου, obviously a reference to the κρήνη Σαύρου καλουμένη near the Idaean Cave, mentioned by Theophrastos, Historia plantorum III, 3, 4.] The words of Hekate, in the remaining part of col. I, which appears to be a sort of historiola, are not well preserved. The incantation in col. II of side A again invokes Paieon, but the text is very fragmentary: ‘Paian, for you yourself send averting charms, give ear in your mind to sweet hymnic song!’ ([Παιήων], σ̣ὺ γὰρ αὐτὸς ἀ[λ]έξιμα φάρμα[κα πέμπεις]· | [καὶ φθόγ?]γ̣ου κατάκουε φ<ρ>ασὶν γλυκὺν ὕ[μνον]). After a fragmentary passage, the god is invoked, again (‘Paian, for you in every direction are cure-bringing and excellent’; [Παιήων, σὺ δ]ὲ παντὸς ἀκεσσφόρος ἐσσὶ καὶ ἐσθ[λός]). This invocation is followed by nonsense words, an early version of the Ephesia Grammata: [- - -]κι κατασκι αασσια ασια ενδασι[- -]. The remaining verses and the verses on side B (with references to the son of Zeus and Ἑκάτοιος Φοῖβος) are very fragmentary. [Concerning the date, J.N. Bremmer, “The Getty Hexameters: Date, Author, and Place of Composition”, in C.A. Faraone, D. Obbink (eds.), The Getty Hexameters, p. 21–29, has rightly observed a strong similarity in vocabulary between the tablet and Euripides. Since the text on col. I uses the rare word μελαναυγής, which also appears in Euripides, Hecuba, 152, Bremmer assumes that the incantation’s author knew and quoted Euripides. For this reason, he suggests dating the text to shortly before the destruction of Selinous in 409 BCE. This argument is not conclusive. Firstly, the text on the tablet may copy a text that is much older than the tablet; as a matter of fact, there are good reasons to assume that the incantations were orally composed, transmitted, and performed for a long time, before they were written down. In that case, a comparison with Euripides can only provide clues for the date of the prototype, not of the copy that we have on the tablet. Secondly, and most importantly, Euripides was both interested in and informed about contemporary religious trends and ritual texts. There is no proof whatsoever that the word μελαναυγής is his creation. In Hecuba he may well have adopted a word from a ritual text, i.e. the text in which the incantation on the tablet ultimately originates. So, Euripides’ Hecuba may be the terminus ante, not post quem for the composition of the text on the tablet].

32584) M. Jost, “La vie religieuse à Lykosoura”, Ktema 33 (2008), p. 93–110 [BE 2009, 241; SEG LVIII 403]: J. discusses the content of a cult regulation from Lykosoura concerning the cult of Despoina (IG V 2, 514; IPArk 607; EBGR 1999, 254, 3rd cent.). This text lists objects that were not allowed to be brought into the sanctuary of Despoina. J. explains the prohibition of gold objects as the result of ‘un désir de dénuement rituel, lié à l’idée de pureté’ (95) [a connection with ideas of purity is unlikely; valuable objects distracted the attention of worshippers, presented a clear danger of theft, and provoked envy]. Simplicity and purity also explain prohibitions against certain types of dress; some objects were connected with superstitions and magical practices. With regard to sacrifices (lines 13–14), J. rejects the readings ποσθύ[μα]|σιν or πὸς θυ[μία]|σιν and prefers to read πὸς θύ[ω]|σιν (for the sacrificial offerings) [but as A. Matthaiou points out in SEG LVIII 403, all these restorations are based on unattested words]. Ἀγάλματα appear among the items that were used for sacrificial offerings; J. doubts that they should be interpreted as small clay figurines and leaves the question of the word’s meaning in this context open. J. also discusses the possible nature of the mysteries of Lykosoura.

32685) D. Kah, “Eine neue Brunneninschrift aus Priene”, EA 45 (2012), p. 55–70 [BE 2013, 363]: Ed. pr. of a fragmentary inscription that regulates the use of a fountain (Priene, 3rd cent.). The text forbids the use of the fountain for ritual purifications (μηδὲ καθ̣α̣ρμὸν κα̣θαιρέτω ἐπὶ̣ [τῆι] κρήνηι μηθεὶς μηθένα). In an appendix, K. collects the cult regulations that prescribe ritual cleanings before entering a sanctuary.

32786) M. Kajava, “ ‘Hera non permette che…’ Ancora sul dischetto bronzeo di Cuma”, in L. Chioffi (ed.), Il Mediterraneo e la storia. Epigrafia e archeologia in Campania: letture storiche. Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Filosofici, Napoli, 4–5 dicembre 2008, Naples, 2010, p. 7–22 [SEG LX 1026]: An inscription on a bronze disk from Kyme/Cumae (7th/6th cent.; IGDGG I 14) has been interpreted as an oracular response, with which Hera restricted the consultation of an oracle. K. suggests reading ἐπιμαστεύεσθαι (‘seek, search after’) instead of ἐπιμαντεύεσθαι; in this interpretation the prohibition does not refer to divination but to the behavior of the worshippers in Hera’s sanctuary; consequently, there is no evidence that the oracle of Kyme originally belonged to Hera.

32887) M. Kajava, “Honorific and Other Dedications to Emperors in the Greek East”, in More than Men, Less than Gods, p. 553–592: In this important contribution to the study of the imperial cult K. studies the vocabulary used in inscriptions recording the dedication of statues and altars to emperors or members of the imperial family. Admitting that clear distinctions are sometimes difficult, he distinguishes various types of dedicatory inscriptions using as criteria the type of dedication (honorific or sacral), the dedicated object (statue, altar, other object), the presence of additional recipients, and the case in which the name of the emperor or the member of the imperial family is given (accusative, dative, genitive): A1) the name is in the accusative, i.e. the dedication refers to the erection of a statue (e.g. IG VII 63; I.Ephesos 265); A2) the name is in the accusative, but the emperor/member of the imperial family is associated with a god (e.g. IG II2 3250: Caius Caesar and Ares); B1) the dedication of a statue is addressed to the emperor/member of the imperial family alone; the name is in the dative (e.g. IG VII 3418; SEG LVII 1650); B2/3) dedications of altars; the name is in the dative; the dedicant is named (e.g. SEG XXVII 229) or omitted (e.g. IG V 1, 373); B4) dedications of statues with the name of the recipient in the dative; the recipient is associated with a god (e.g., I.Pergamon 365); B5) sacral dedications with the name of the recipient in the dative (IG XII 2, 184); B6–9) joint dedications of altars (IGLS III 715; SEG XXV 680) or other objects (IGR IV 239) to emperors and gods, sometimes with additional recipients (the polis, the demos, etc.; e.g. TAM V 2, 903: altar; IG XII 6, 571: other object); the names of the recipients are in the dative; B10) sacral dedications to the Theoi Sebastoi (in the dative), with or without other divine recipients (e.g. I.Selge 1; MAMA VIII 448); C1) erection of altars; the name of the emperor is in the genitive; further gods may be named (e.g. IG II2 3224/3225; IG XII 6, 499; SEG XLII 477); C2)  erection of a statue with the name of the emperor in the genitive (e.g. SEG LVII 1479; I.Rhod.Peraia 256); D) erection of statues; the name of the emperor is in the nominative (e.g. I.Pergamon 357); E) dedications on behalf/for the well-being (ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας) of the emperor (e.g. IG II2 3181). This study shows that the context of an inscription must be studied carefully. There are some peculiar cases, such as the dedication of the statue of an emperor to a god (M. Holleaux, “Inscriptions de Carie”, 9 [1885], p. 79f. no 10: τὸν θεὸν τῷ θεῷ) and the use of the accusative for the dedication of a cult statue (AvPergamon VIII 3, 6). The inclusion of further recipients (the polis, the demos, villages, etc.; e.g. IGR IV 1492, 2234) make the dedicated object, often a building, the joint property of the recipients [and thus protect it from abuse].

32988) Y. Kalliontzis, V. Aravantinos, “Μουσεῖα Θηβῶν καὶ Χαιρωνείας. Ἡ σύνταξη καταλόγου τῶν ἐπιγραφῶν”, in AEThStE 3, p. 1029–1037 [BE 2013, 155, 165, 172, 177]: K.-A. report on work conducted in the Museums of Thebes and Chaironeia towards the compilation of epigraphic catalogues. They present the of a dedication to Zeus Homoloios (Hyettos, 2nd cent.) and republish a dedication of an honorific statue to the gods (Thebes, 1st. cent.).

33089) M. Kantiréa, “Étude comparative de l’introduction du culte impérial à Pergame, à Athènes et à Éphèse”, in More than Men, Less than Gods, p. 521–551: A comparative study of the introduction of the imperial cult in Pergamon, Athens, and Ephesos shows significant differences, determined by local traditions and historical contexts. In Pergamon, Attalid traditions of ruler cult played an important part; Athens highlighted the commemoration of the Persian Wars and the association of Augustus with Apollo; in Ephesos the Roman elite contributed to the introduction of the cult.

33190) K. Karila-Cohen, “La Pythaïde et la socialisation des élites athéniennes aux iie et ier siècles avant notre ère”, in Individus, groupes et politique, p. 365–383: A prosopographical study of the participants in the Pythais shows that they belonged to the Athenian elite; the participation in this ritual gave an opportunity for social contacts among these families and created a sense of identity.

33291) B. Kayachev, “The So-Called Orphic Gold Tablets in Ancient Poetry and Poetics”, ZPE 180 (2012), p. 17–37: The author detects allusions to the journey of the soul to the underworld, as described in the texts of the Dionysiac-Orphic tablets, in Greek and Latin poetry, especially in Theocritus’ poem Dioskouroi, Callimachus’ Hymn to Athena, Apollonius’ Argonautica (III, 200–202, 222–227, IV, 1381–1501), Vergil, Aeneid VI, and possibly Philitas’ Demeter. Such allusions do not necessarily imply that these authors had personal knowledge of the tablets. They may have been familiar with the poem, passages of which are quoted in the tablets.

33392) D. Knoepfler, “Les agonothètes de la Confédération d’Athéna Ilias. Une interprétation nouvelle des données épigraphiques et ses conséquences pour la chronologie des émissions monétaires du Koinon”, Studi Ellenistici 24 (2010), p. 33–62 [BE 2011, 501; SEG LX 1314]: A decree honoring an agonothetes of the Great Panathenaia celebrated for Athena Ilias (SEG LIII 1373; EBGR 2003, 121) is K.’s starting point for an attempt to reconstruct the organization of the federation of cities that participated in the cult of Athena Ilias
I.Ilion 2, 5, 10, 12; I.Alexandreia Troas 50; SEG LIII 1373 = LVII 1215). Each city-member sent two delegates to the synhedrion, regardless of its size, possibly following the model of the Delphic amphiktyony. Additionally, a board of five agonothetai was responsible for the organization of the agonistic festival. The federation may have been divided into five districts (‘conscriptions’), each of which was represented by an agonothetes. To explain the number of the agonothetai, K. assumes that there was a cycle of four years, within which there were four annual celebrations of the Panathenaia and one celebration of the pentaeteric Μεγάλα Παναθήναια (cf. the Athenian Panathenaia and Great Panathenaia).

33493) C. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, “Κοινὸν τεχνιτῶν στὴν Ἀμφίπολη”, in Namata – Pandermalis, p. 235–247 [BE 2013, 278; SEG LXI 485]: Ed. pr. of an honorific inscription for priests of Athena by an association of technitai (Amphipolis, 84/83 BCE). Under the heading
[τ]ὸ κοινὸν τῶν τεχνιτῶν [ἐ]στεφάνωσεν τοὺς ἱερεῖς τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς the names of five ἱερεῖς and συνιερεῖς of Athena are listed. This is the second honorific inscription for a board of priests of Athena by the same koinon (
SEG LXVIII 716 ter, 89/88 BCE). The nature of the κοινὸν τῶν τεχνιτῶν is not clear. Τhey may have been artisans under the patronage of Athena Ergane, since one of the priests, M. Caecilius Sotas, may be identified with a χαλκεύς known from a now lost inscription. However, the editor does not exclude the possibility of a Dionysiac association of theater artists.

33594) M. Koutsoumbou, “Μία ἐνεπίγραφη ἀγνύθα ἀπὸ τὴ Συλλογὴ Γιαμαλάκη στὸ Ἀρχαιολογικὸ Μουσεῖο Ἡρακλείου και τὰ Ὠσχοφόρια”, in Dineessa – Romiopoulou, p. 579–585 [BE 2013, 66]: Ed. pr. of an inscribed loom-weight in the private collection of S. Giamalakis in Crete (unknown provenance, ca. 3rd cent.). The inscription, engraved after firing, consists of the ritual cry ἐληλεύ, ἰού, ἰού, which according to Plutarch (Theseus 22, 4) was shouted during the libations at the Oschophoria in Athens. After detailed discussion of the literary, archaeological, and epigraphic evidence for the Oschophoria, K. proposes that this loom-weight was dedicatory, dedicated in the sanctuary of Athena Skiras [if it is not a modern forgery, as are many objects in the Giamalakis Collection; the letterforms look very suspicious].

33695) V.V. Krapivina, “Home Sanctuaries in the Northern Black Sea Littoral”, in Ancient Sacral Monuments, p. 127–147 [BE 2011, 458; SEG LX 831]: K. discusses evidence for domestic sanctuaries in the North Shore of the Black Sea. She presents a statuette of Kybele found in the citadel of Olbia (135f.); according to an inscription on the base, it was dedicated to Meter Theon. K. interprets the room in which the statuette was discovered as a domestic shrine destroyed in the early 3rd cent. CE. [A. Avram, BE 2011, 458 and Pontica 44 (2011), p. 139, presents an improved text; he dates this statuette to the late 3rd cent.; two heads of Aphrodite and Hermes found in the same context date to the Hellenistic period].

33796) V.V. Krapivina, “New Data on the Significance of the Cult of Aphrodite in Olbia Pontica”, in Ancient Sacral Monuments, p. 148–170 [BE 2011, 455; SEG LX 828]: K. discusses the cult of Aphrodite in Olbia and presents a selection of graffiti on vases dedicated to the goddess. The texts give the name of the goddess in the genitive or dative. A graffito possibly has the epithet Ὀλ[βίη]. A vase is designated as ‘sacred’, i.e., belonging to the goddess (Ἀφροδίτης ἱερ[- -]). The text ἄβατα Ἀφροδίτης is puzzling.

33897) S. Kravaritou, “Μηχανισμοὶ διαμόρφωσης ἐθνικῆς ταυτότητας στὴ Θεσσαλία καὶ Βοιωτία τῶν κλασικῶν καὶ ἑλληνιστικῶν χρόνων”, AEThStE 3, p. 505–514: The author examines how religion and mythology contributed to the shaping of distinct ‘ethnic’ identities in Thessaly and Boiotia in the Classical and Hellenistic periods. Genealogical myths and cults (Athena Itonia in Koroneia, Athena Alalkomenia, and Poseidon in Onchestos) played an important part in Boiotian identity, establishing a connection between the Boiotian ethnos and its territory. The same can be observed in Thessaly in the case of the cult of Athena Itonia (cf. SEG LIII 849 and LV 605). She suggests that the importance of Athena Itonia for both Boiotians and Thessalians developed between the 8th and the 6th cent., when the two neighboring ethne developed their identities exploiting mythological traditions connected with Achaia Pthiotis (the origin of Protesilaos in Iton and the cult of Athena Itonia).

33998) C.B. Kritzas, “Συνθήκη Λυττίων καὶ Ὀλουντίων”, Πεπραγμένα Ι´ Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου, Chania, 2011, A4, p. 141–154 [BE 2013, 345]: Ed. pr. of two joining fragments of an inscription from Chersonesos that preserves a copy of a treaty between the Cretan cities of Lyttos and Olous (Chaniotis, Verträge no 60, 111/10 BCE). The text mentions the festivals to which the citizens of the two cities were invited and preserves the text of the treaty oath. The other copies of this treaty were fragmentary (Athens: IG II2 1135+add.; Rhodes: SEG XXXIII 638 and XXXVII 698). The new copy shows that the Olountians were invited to two commemorative anniversaries in Lyttos: the anniversary of the city’s re-foundation after its destruction in a war in 221/20, and the anniversary of the destruction of Lyttos’ traditional enemy, Dreros; the Lyttians were invited to the festival of Britomartis and to the Thiodaisia, a festival of Dionysos ([ἑ]ρπόντων δὲ καὶ ἐς τὰς | [ἑ]ορτάς, οἱ μὲν̣ Λ̣ύττιοι ἐς | [Β]ολόεντα ἐς τὰ Βριτομάρ|[π]ια καὶ ἐς τὰ Θουδαίσια, | ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ οἱ Βολό[ν]|τ̣ιοι Λυττόνδε ἔς τε τὰν | [ε]ὐ̣άμερον τᾶς καταβοικί|[σι]ος τᾶς πόλιος κἠς τὰν
εὐ̣|[ά]μερον̣ ἐν ἇ οἱ Λ̣ύττιοι τὰν̣ | Δρῆρον ἧλαν) [we note the word εὐάμερος = εὐήμερος (‘good day’) as a synonym of ἑορτή]. The cities dispatched choruses and participants in running contests (καὶ θίασον [ἀ]|γόντων ἑκάτεροι καὶ δρο̣|[μ]έ̣ας ἀποσστελλόντων) and offered the customary sacrifices ([κ]α̣ὶ θυόντων τοῖς θεοῖς θῦ|μα τὸ νομιζόμενον). The following gods were invoked in the treaty oath: Hestia, Zeus Kretagenes, Zeus Monnitios, Zeus Idaios, Zeus Tallaios, Hera, Poseidon, Athena, Apollo Pythios, Leto, Artemis, Ares, Aphrodite, Hermes, the Kouretes, the Nymphs, Britomartis ([Βρ]ιτόμαρπιν), and all the other gods and goddesses.

34099) C.B. Kritzas, “A Greek Inscription from Tarraco (CIL II2/14,2 G16)”, ZPE 181 (2012), p. 88–90: K. corrects the reading of a painted inscription on a wall-fresco in the villa of C. Valerius Avitus in Tarraco [EBGR 2011, 3]: the inscription should be read as Ἄκθεια, i.e. a variant of Ἄκτια. A second painted inscription mentions the contest Νέμεια. The owner of the villa with the fresco had been a winner at the Aktia and Nemea.

341100) G. Labarre, M. Özsait, N. Özsait, “Les inscriptions de Yazili Kanyon”, Anatolia Antiqua 17 (2009), p. 175–186: The authors republish the inscriptions from Yazili, near Çandir in Pisidia (area of ancient Anaboura). A well-known dossier of rock-cut inscriptions from a sanctuary of Apollo (SGO IV 18/09/01–03, 2nd cent. CE) consists of a dedicatory epigram to Apollo Phoibos, protector of the travelers (3), a dedication to Apollo (2), and a philosophical poem (1). The poem summarizes Stoic views on freedom, attributed to Epictetus, and makes Zeus the common origin of all humans (εἷς γὰρ Ζεὺς πάντων προπάτωρ, μία δ’ ἀνδράσι ῥίζα, εἷς παλὸς πάντων). Leontios, the composer and dedicant of the poem, may be identified with a homonymous poet known from an inscription in Adada (GVI 1397).

342101) G. Labarre, M. Özsait, N. Özsait, “Monuments funéraires et inscriptions de Pisidie (Burdur-Isparta)”, Anatolia Antiqua 18 (2010), p. 59–89 [BE 2011, 579; SEG LX 1480, 1497]: Ed. pr. of an inscription that records the construction and dedication of a temple of Zeus Heliopolites at Sazak (ancient Takina?, Pisidia, ca. 200 CE; p. 74–77) [SEG LX 1497]. The names of the members of a φράτρα (15 men) are listed under the heading Ὑπογραφὴ Διὸς Ἡλιοπολίτου, which the eds. translate as ‘décision de Zeus Héliopolitès’. This phratra, a religious association, dedicated the temple for the salvation of Ligys, his wife, and his children (ὑπὲρ τῆς σωτηρίας τῆς Λίγυος καὶ γυνεκὸς καὶ τέκνων· τὸν ναὸν ἐπόησε ἡ προγεγραμένη φράτρα). The eds. assume that Ligys was a prominent member of this association. The cult of Zeus Heliopolites was previously attested in Pisidia (SEG XXXI 1233). [P. Hamon, BE (2011) no 579, rightly points out that the translation ‘décision de Zeus Héliopolitès’ does not make any sense. T. Corsten, Gephyra 8 (2011), p. 135–140, presents an improved text and commentary. He interprets ὑπογραφή (subscriptio) as a list of members of the association who signed a document for this project. Two of the members are designated as Λίγυος οἰκονόμος, not ‘fils de Ligus, intendant’ but ‘steward of Ligys’. The dedicants must have been slaves and stewards of Ligys, an estate owner in that region]. The authors also republish a dedication to Mes (p. 83–85 no 2) [for an improved text see supra no 79] and a dedication to Zeus Galaktenos (Διὶ Γαλακτηνῷ) from Konana (p. 85 no 3, Imperial period) [SEG LX 1480], whom they regard as protector of the animals that produce milk [but see infra no 79]. A third dedication from the same place (p. 85–87 no 4, early 3rd cent. CE) records the erection of a statue by Aurelius Antiochos: κατὰ πρόνοιαν Διὸς Νικάτορος ἀνέστησεν τὸν ἀνδριάντα (‘selon la prévision de Zeus Nikator a dressé la statue’). Zeus Nikator is attested in Tymandos (MAMA IV 226) and Arykanda (SEG XLVI 1704) [there is also an attestation in Side: G.E. Bean, Side Kitabeleri. Inscriptions of Side, Ankara, 1965, no 100]. The eds. wonder whether this is the cult of Seleukos Nikator, referring to the priest of Zeus Seleukos Nikator in Seleukeia of Pieria (e.g. IGLS XXXV III 2, 1184). In Doura Europos a priest of Seleukos Nikator still existed in 180 CE. Therefore, the cult of the founder of the Seleucid dynasty may have continued in Asia Minor under the name Zeus Nikator after the end of the Seleucid rule. The dedicant did not erect the statue of a god but of a mortal (ἀνδριάς). [The word ἀνδριάς is more commonly used for portrait statues but it can also designate divine images. The expression κατὰ πρόνοιαν followed by the name of a god is unattested; but it must refer to an expression of divine will and, therefore, it roughly corresponds to κατὰ κέλευσιν/κατ᾿ ἐπιταγήν; cf. the expression προνοίαι δαιμόνων ἐν στήλαις ἐχάραξεν ἱεραῖς in the document concerning the cult reforms of Antiochos of Kommagene (e.g. IGLS I 52 lines 8f.) and θεοῦ προνοίᾳ Αὐρήλιος Ἀβδώσης Μάλχου ἀνείγιρεν (Annales islamologiques 7 [1967], p. 185, from Syria; cf. IGBulg III 1133). As for Zeus Nikator it is quite possible that the epithet originated in a joint cult of Seleukos Nikator and Zeus. Although the cult of Hellenistic rulers sometimes continued well into the Imperial period, as A.S. Chankowski has shown (“Les cultes des souverains hellénistiques après la disparition des dynasties: formes de survie et d’extinction d’une institution dans un contexte civique”, in Des rois au Prince, p. 271–290), in this case it is quite certain that Nikator is conceived just as an epithet of Zeus. The phrase κατὰ πρόνοιαν Διὸς Νικάτορος is unambiguous: the command for the dedication was given by the god, and there is no evidence for a divinised Hellenistic king requesting a dedication through dream, oracle, or another such medium.]

343102) G. Labarre, M. Özsait, N. Özsait, I. Güceren, “La collection du Musée d’Uluborlu: nouvelles inscriptions d’Apollonia Mordiaon”, Anatolia Antiqua 20 (2012), p. 121–146 [BE 2013, 420]: Ed. pr. of 28 inscriptions from Apollonia Mordiaon, now in the Museum of Uluborlu. The most interesting texts are two decrees on a stele. They are very fragmentary; the eds. recognize in the first text an honorific decree for a woman. [To judge from the ph., one can read more on the stone than the eds. have read; P. Hamon, BE 2013, 261, suggests several plausible readings and restorations. The honorand, Ammia, daughter of Menemachos, died prematurely (B 4: ἡ τύχη φθάσασα προ[αφείλε]το τὴν Ἀμμίαν; cf. I.Kios 88: ἔφθασε δαίμων; MAMA IV 319: ἔφθασε μοῖρα). There is a reference to her parents (B 1: [γ]ονεῖς) and possibly to deceived hopes (B 3: [τὰ?]ς [ἐ]λπί[δας]). With this decree the city offers consolation to her family (B 8: παραμύθιον τοῦ πένθους). Ammia was to be crowned with a golden crown during her funeral (στε[φ]νωθῆναι ἐπὶ τῆς ἐκφορᾶς ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου). In lines B 28f. of the second decree Hamon restores [ἀ]τυχεστάτων instead of the eds.’ [εὐ]τυχεστάτων; this is another posthumous honorific decree: B 28–32: [εἰ]ς τὴ[ν] πα[ραμυθίαν τῶν ἀ]τυχεστάτων α[ὐ]τοῦ γ[ονέων] | ἐστεφανῶσθ[αι] ὑ[πὸ] το[ῦ δή]|μου τὸν Θρασύμαχον χρυσῷ στεφάνῳ ἀρετῆς. Thrasymachos must have been a relative of Ammia, probably her brother. In B 17/18 Hamon reads [Θρα]σύ|μαχος Μενεμ[ά]χου Μά]γα.] An inscription honors a man who served as agonothetes διὰ γένους of the great pentaeteric Kaisareia (3, 1st/2nd cent.). A fragmentary inscription on an epistyle refers to honors granted to a local benefactor (6, 2nd cent. CE; [--] Χρύσῃ Ἐφίππωι καὶ Νάῶ[ι]) [sic!; the man had been honored with a golden equestrian statue ([εἰκόνι] χρυσῇ ἐφίππῳ) and the erection of his temple (?). The latter implies the introduction of his cult. This would be a very unusual honor in the imperial period, and the erection of a golden equestrian statue is similarly extraordinary, attested e.g. for Attalos III (I.Pergamon 246) and Iollas in Sardeis (1st cent., Sardis VII 1, 27). Another late Hellenistic example from Kelainai/Apameia, an honorific inscription for a gymnasiarchos, was published recently: T. Drew-Bear, J.‑M. Fillon, “Honneurs pour un gymnasiarque à Apamée”, in L. Summerer, A. Ivantchik, A. von Kienlin (eds.), Kelenai — Apameia Kibotos. Développement urbain dans le contexte anatolien, Bordeaux, 2011, p. 277–280. To judge from the letterforms, the inscription does not date to the 2nd cent. CE but to the 2nd cent. BC (at the latest). Apollonia established the cult of a local Hellenistic statesman (cf. [φιλ]όπατριν), who must have saved his city (cf. σωτῆρα) during a war.] An inscription (8, 1st/2nd cent.) commemorates the victory of a wrestler at the contest of the Kornouteia ([θέμιν] Κορνουτείαν). Later inscriptions attest this agonistic festival under the name ἱερὰ σεβαστηδώρητος θέμις Αἰλεία Κορνουτεία [the eds. misunderstand the expression τὴν σεβαστοδώρητον πρώτην θέμιν Αἰλείαν Κορνουτείαν πυθικῶν πάλη[ν] (MAMA IV 154) and think that this contest was an isopythian agon (‘équivalent aux concours pythiques’); but pythikoi refers to an age-class and has nothing to do with the status of the Kornouteia]. We also note an altar of Zeus (9, 2nd/3rd cent.) and the re-publication of an inscription recording the dedication of a statue of Apollo Soter by his priest (10 = BCH 17 [1893], p. 258 no 38, Imperial period).

344103) A. Lajtar, J.J. Martinović, “Greek Inscriptions in the Bay of Kotor (Boka Kotorska), Montenegro: ‘Pierres errantes’ and Objects of Local Provenience”, Palamedes 7 (2012), p. 81–107: New critical edition of two Hellenistic dedications by peripoloi (guards) and their officer from the territory of Rhizon in Dalmatia. The first text was a dedication to Medauros, the patron god of Rhizon; the addressee of the second dedication is unknown.

345104) S.D. Lambert, “A Polis and its Priests: Athenian Priesthoods before and after Pericles’ Citizenship Law”, Historia 59 (2010), p. 143–175: L. argues that no priesthood of the polis of Athens created after the citizenship law of Pericles was allocated to a genos; by contrast, all polis priests created before that law were appointed by gene. Priesthoods following the new model, with priests selected by lot from among all Athenians, include those of Athena Nike, Asklepios, and possibly Bendis. Priesthoods in new polis cults of foreign gods were appointed from groups of orgeones. Priesthoods in Attic extra-urban cults may have been appointed from the demes.

346105) S.D. Lambert, Inscriptiones Graecae. Voluminis II et III editio tertia. Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores. Pars I. Leges et decreta. Fasciculus II. Leges et decreta annorum 352/1–322/1, Berlin, 2012: This fascicule of the third edition of IG II assembles the laws and decrees of the period from 352 to 322 BCE, i.e., an very important period for the re-organization of Athenian cults and the administration of sanctuaries. The inscriptions are presented very often with new readings and restorations. This volume should be used together with S.D. Lambert, Inscribed Athenian Laws and Decrees 352/1–322/1 BC: Epigraphical Essays, Leiden, 2012, which contains detailed discussions both of documents and of general phenomena (see esp. p. 48–91, ‘Religious Regulations’). Cult regulations et sim.: The volume contains several texts included in LSCG: the decrees pertain to the hiera orgas and its borders (292 = LSCG 32); the foundation of a sanctuary of Aphrodite by the Kitians (337 = LSCG 34); the restoration of the statue of Athena Nike (444 = LSCG 35); the Small Panathenaia (447 = LSCG 33); the organization of a festival (the Dipoleia?; 551 = LSCG 179). The dossier of laws proposed by Lykourgos in 335 BCE concerning financial matters of various cults (445) has not been included in the Lois sacrées. The laws in this fragmentary inscription deal with dedications, the funding and preparation of processions, and the acquisition of ornaments (κόσμος) for the worship of Zeus Soter and Athena Soteira, Zeus Olympios, Dionysos, Athena Itonia, Agathe Tyche, Artemis Mounychia, the Twelve Gods, Amphiaraos, Asklepios, Artemis Brauronia, Demeter and Kore, and other deities. Another cult regulations that had not been included in the LSCG is a small fragment concerning a sanctuary (and possibly the leasing of sacred land; 487). Two small fragments deal with an agonistic festival and a panegyris (448) and an agonistic festival, a banquet, and a sacrifice to Athena (449) respectively. See also below on 448–449. Sanctuaries and sacred land: A supervisor of fountains was honored for his services concerning fountains in the sanctuaries of Ammon and Amphiaraos (338). Phanodemos was honored for his services to the sanctuary of Amphiaraos (348), for proposing laws concerning the celebration of the penteteris in the most beautiful manner (ὅπως ἂν ἥ τε πεντετηρὶς ὡς καλλίστη γίγνηται καὶ αἱ ἄλλαι θυσίαι τοῖς θεοῖς τοῖς ἐν τῶι ἱερῶι τοῦ Ἀμφιαράου), and for increasing the sanctuary’s revenues. An unusual decree, proposed by Phanodemos, provides for the offering of a golden crown to Amphiaraos (349), ‘because the god takes good care of the Athenians and the others who arrive to the sanctuary’ [see EBGR 2010, 171]. Festivals and cults: Officials are honored for the services they provided in festivals and cults: the supervisors of the agon and the festival of Amphiaraos (355), the priest of Asklepios (359), the priest of Dionysos, Poseidon Pelagios, Zeus Soter, and Ammon, and the hieropoioi (416), the hieropoioi (369), the architheoros to the Nemea (375), a man who offered his services to the choregoi of the Dionysia (473; see also supra on Phanodemos). Festivals are occasionally mentioned in the context of the announcement of honors: Dionysia (378), Panathenaia (298), Thargelia (370). A small fragment refers to the travel expenses of the Pythaistai (533). Dedications: A decree proposed by Phanodemos provides for a dedication to Hephaistos and Athena Hephastia (306 II). A dedication was made to Amphiaraos through subscription (360). Oaths: The treaty oath of the treaty with Philip II (318, 338/7 BCE) invokes Zeus, Ge, Helios, Poseidon, Athena, Ares, and all the gods. Cf. the oaths of treaties with Eretria (412) and with an anonymous city (488).

347106) I. Lazarenko, E. Mincheva, R. Encheva, N. Sharankov, “The Temple of the Pontic Mother of Gods in Dionysopolis”, in Ancient Sacral Monuments, p. 13–62 [BE 2011, 448; SEG LXI 758–779]: The authors summarize the results of research conducted in the temple of the Meter Theon Pontia (Μητρῷον) in Dionysopolis in 2007–2008. N. Sharankov gives a preliminary presentation of the epigraphic finds. The goddess was known as Μήτηρ θεῶν Ποντία, Μήτηρ Ποντία or Μήτηρ θεὰ Ποντία. The epithet Ποντία is attested for the Mother of the Gods for the first time but is well-known for other gods and goddesses. The Μητρῷον was the place where civic decrees were inscribed [SEG LX 761, 764]. There is a possible relation between the cults of Μήτηρ Ποντία and Ἀφροδίτη Ποντία. The main festival of the goddess was celebrated on the 8th of Taureon. We mention the epigraphic finds with religious significance: 1) A decree honors several persons, who were ‘asked by the Dionysopolitans to propitiate the gods of the city (παρακληθέντες ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου ἐξειλασκεύεσθαι θεοὺς τῆς πόλεως)’ (p. 36, late 2nd/early 1st cent.) [SEG LX 760]. 2) A decree honors the benefactor Polyxenos of Mesambria (p. 35f., late 2nd/early 1st cent.), who was a hieronikes [SEG LIX 730; LX 762]. 3) A document concerns an endowment given by Diodoros for the πανήγυρις of Meter Theon to be celebrated on the 8th of Taureon (τὰ Μητρῶια ἃ ἄγει ὁ δῆμος μηνὸς Ταυρεῶνος ὀγδοίῃ). The gift included vineyards and workshops (p. 30–32 and 60, ca. 300–250) [SEG LX 765]. 4–5) A base is inscribed with a list of priests of Dionysos (p. 30 and 34, 3rd cent.); in one year, the god served as priest (line 6: [Διό]νυσος) [SEG LX 766]. This base was re-used later as the base of a statue of Meter Theon, designated as ‘the pure Mother’ ([Μη]τέρα καθαρήν; p. 30 and 34, Hellenistic period) [SEG LX 773]. The statue was dedicated to Meter Theon Pontia by Apollonios [according to A. Avram, apud SEG LX 773, possibly to be identified with a man who served as priest of Dionysos (IGBulg I2 20)]. 6) A list of members of a cult association of νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς θεῶν Ποντίας (p. 32f., after 212 CE) [SEG LX 767] is inscribed on a relief stele. The pediment depicts four men surrounding the goddess. The association was presided over by a chairman, whose title is not preserved on the stone (πατήρ?), and the ‘priest of the feast’ (ἱερεὺς τῆς θύνης, i.e. θοίνης). One of the members, the αὐλητής Hermes [who probably performed at the banquets], appears in the same function also in an association of Attiasts (see the next text). An association of νεομηνιασταί is also attested in Olbia (IGDOP 96; late 6th cent.); celebrations πάσῃ νεομηνίᾳ took place in Histria (I.Histriae 57; 2nd cent. CE). 7) A stele decorated with a relief depicting Attis with shepherd’s crook and syrinx is inscribed with a list of the members of a cult association of worshippers of Attis: Ἄττεις οἱ κὲ Ἀτιαστὲ εἱαιρόδουλοι Μη[τρ]ὸς θεᾶς Ποντίας (p. 33f., after 212 CE). M. Aurelius Koures, who is named first, served as priest of Meter Theon Pontia (ὁ καὶ ἱερεὺς Μητρὸς θεᾶς Ποντίας); he is also known as the officer in another association (ἱερονόμος of the σπεῖρα Ἀσιανῶν: IGBulg I2 23, 222–235 CE) and as the first archon of the city. The man who is named after him served as θεοφόρος [bearer of the god’s statue] and πατὴρ τῆς θύνης (‘president of the feast’). A flutist, member of this association (Ἑρμῆς εἱαιρόδ̣[ου]λος Μητρὸς θεᾶς Ποντία[ς] αὐλητής) is also mentioned in the aforementioned list of νεομηνιασταί. 8) An inscription on the pediment of the temple reports that the temple was dedicated by Demophon, priest for life, as expression of his gratitude (ἱερώμενος διὰ βίου Μητρὶ θεῶν Ποντίαι χαριστήριον; p. 31 and 52, Hellenistic period) [SEG LX 769]. The pediment is decorated with an image of Helios in a chariot. 9) A bench was dedicated to Meter Pontia by Agathion (p. 31 and 54, ca. 300–250) [SEG LX 770]. 10) A priest for life made a dedication to Poseidon Asphaleus for the sake of the people (Ποσειδῶνι Ἀσφαλεῖ Ἑστιαῖος Πόσειος ἱερώμενος διὰ βίου ὑπὲρ τοῦ δήμου; p. 34 and 59, 3rd/2nd cent.) [SEG LX 771]. Ἀσφαλεύς is a variant of Ἀσφάλειος (e.g. I.Kallatis 48B, 49). 11) A votive relief depicting a small boy was dedicated by a man for his son (φιλοστοργία[ς ἕνεκ]εν; p. 34 and 59, 2nd cent.) [SEG LX 772]. 12) A table was dedicated to Meter Theon by a man from Tyros (p. 31 and 55, Hellenistic period) [SEG LX 774]. 13) An interesting dedication to Meter Theon Pontia, made by a priestess, describes her activities (p. 30 and 60, 1st/2nd cent.) [SEG LX 775]: ἱερωμένη ἠνθολογήσεν τῇ θεῷ, θυσίας τε καὶ πομπὰς ἐπισήμους παρέστησεν, εὐώχησεν τε καὶ ἐγλύκισεν πάσας πολείτιδας ἀξίως κα[ὶ π]ρεπόντως (‘while she was a priestess, she performed the rite of flower collection, offered sacrifices and processions in a distinguished manner, offered a banquet and sweet wine to all the female citizens in a worthy and proper manner’). 14) The text of a similar dedication by a priestess is not given (p. 30, 1st/2nd cent.) [SEG LX 776]. The priestess collected beautiful flowers (τὰ καλὰ ἄνθη) together with the female citizens and offered sweet wine to the council and all the women ‘in accordance with the ancestral custom’. 15) Two brothers made a dedication to the Thracian Rider called Ἥρως Φύλαξ (p. 34, 2nd/early 3rd cent.) [SEG LX 777]. 16) A small altar was dedicated to Herakles as a δῶρον (p. 31 and 34, 2nd/3rd cent.) [SEG LX 778]; the dedicant was member of an association of worshippers of Athena. 17) A small altar was dedicated to an anonymous deity (p. 31, Imperial period) [SEG LX 779]. [Cf. the remarks of A. Avram, BE 2011, 448 and SEG LX 758–770. For the inscriptions see also I. Lazarenko, E. Mincheva, R. Encheva, N. Stoyanova, N. Sharankov, The Temple of the Pontic Mother of Gods in Dionysopolis, Varna, 2013, p. 47–64].

348107) B. Le Guen, “L’association des Technites d’Athènes ou les ressorts d’une cohabitation réussie”, in Individus, groupes et politique, p. 339–364: G. examines the connection between the association of the Dionysiac artists in Athens and the city of Athens. She argues that the association cooperated closely with the state in the organization of festivals and in diplomatic enterprises; therefore, it should not be regarded as entirely independent from the state. She also argues that the large majority of the members of the association possessed Athenian citizenship.

349108) B. Levick, “Some Augustan Oaths”, in S. Cagnazzi et al. (eds.), Scritti di storia per Mario Pani, Bari, 2011, p. 245–256: After observing that the oaths of loyalty to the emperor drew on a variety of Greek and Roman models, L. observes that oaths of loyalty to emperors have a different tone and display varying degrees of aggressive vehemence against potential enemies. The oaths of loyalty to Augustus (Samos: IG XII 6 1, 7, 6/5 BCE; Conobaria in Spain: An.Ép. 1988, 723, 6/5 BCE; Phazimon in Paphlagonia: OGIS 532; IGR III 137; SEG LVII 1298, 3 BCE) display intense hostility, which can be explained by the context, that is, the recent arrangements for Augustus’ succession. These oaths envisage as hostile elements those who would challenge the predominance of the direct male blood-line of Augustus through his former wife Scribonia and his daughter Julia; also Tiberius, who had gone into exile in 6 BCE, might have been envisaged as a potential threat. The initiative for these oaths possibly came from governors or local elites who ‘were agog to know what their political leaders were about and to demonstrate loyalty, thereby winning credit’ (253). The oath to Tiberius from Palaipaphos was taken at the initiative of the koinon of Cyprus (SEG XVIII 578; I.Paphos 151) and focused on local interests [republished and discussed by T. Fujii, Imperial Cult and Imperial Representation in Roman Cyprus, Stuttgart, 2013, p. 74–88, 188f.]. The oaths to Caligula from Aritium (ILS 190) and Assos (Syll.3 797; I.Assos 26) are very different in tone. The oath of Aritium, a western community that had vivid memories of factional violence, is aggressive, whereas the Assos oath, introduced by an enthusiastic decree, simply calls down good on the Assians if they are faithful to the oath and the reverse if not. Such differences are the result of varying local awareness of metropolitan politics; oaths of loyalty are connected with the fact that intense rivalries were being played out throughout the Julio-Claudian dynasty [on this subject see also T. Fujii, “Typology of Inscribed Oaths to the Roman Emperors and Political Communication”, in W. Eck et al. (eds.), Öffentlichkeit — Monument — Text. XIV Congressus Internationalis Epigraphiae Graecae et Latinae, 27.-31. August MMXII. Akten Berlin, Berlin, 2014, p. 613–615].

350109) P.M. Liuzzo, “Osservazioni sulle iscrizioni del Trofeo di Platea e della colonna serpentina”, Epigraphica 74 (2012), p. 27–41: After a detailed study of the literary sources concerning the victory dedication made in Delphi after the battle of Plataia (Herod. IX, 81, 1; Thuc. I, 132; III, 57; Dem. LIX, 97/98; Diod. XI, 33, 2; FgrH 104 F1; Paus. X, 13, 9) and the inscription engraved on the serpentine column (now in Istanbul; Syll.3 31; most recent editions: M. Steinhardt, “Bemerkungen zu Rekonstruktion, Ikonographie und Inschrift des plataischen Weihgeschenkes”, BCH 121 [1997], p. 33–69; SEG XLVII 535; Choix – Delphes [supra no 80] 17), L. proposes the following reconstruction of the history of this monument: originally, the inscription consisted of an epigram attributing the dedication to Pausanias; the epigram was deleted by the Spartans, and a list of the cities was inscribed around the vessel on the top of the column; the names of the cities were inscribed on the column during the Third Sacred War.

351110) P. Lombardi, “Per sempre accanto al suo dio: la sepoltora di una Menade tebana vicino al teatro di Magnesia al Meandro (Inschr. v. Magnesia, 215)”, Scienze dell’Antichità 14 (2007/2008), p. 547–565 [SEG LX 1255]: L. reprints the text of an inscription from Magnesia on the Maeander (I.Magnesia 215) concerning the cult of Dionysos. The inscription contains an oracular enquiry after the discovery of a statue of Dionysos and the response of the Delphic oracle recommending the introduction of Dionysos’ cult from Thebes to Magnesia by three maenads. The texts were inscribed in the 2nd cent. CE by Apollonios Mokolles, a mystes, but they are much older. Since the enquiry mentions an eponymous prytanis, replaced by an eponymous stephanephoros in 221/20, it was generally believed that the oracle was given before 221/20. However, L. proposes to date the enquiry and the oracle to ca. 205–197, i.e. in the period in which the Delphic Amphiktyony, of which the Magnesians were members, was dominated by Thebes. She also points out that the cult of Dionysos Kadmeios was upgraded in Thebes in the late 3rd cent. (cf. CID IV 70); until that time, Orchomenos and Chaironeia had been the main centers of the festival Agrionia, connected with Dionysos. The enquiry was fabricated by Apollonios Mokolles in the 2nd cent. CE; in an effort to insinuate the oracle’s antiquity, he dated the document by referring to an eponymous prytanis. L. comments on the names of the three maenads (Κοσκώ, Βαυβώ, Θετταλή) and their respective thiasoi (Πλατανιστηνοί, Πρὸ πόλεως, Καταιβάται). The Καταιβάται were women who descended into a specific cult place from which they emerged carrying the image of the god — possibly also the image of Semele. From Thettale’s burial near the theater, L. infers that the rituals of her thiasos were connected with the theater. [A small detail: The oracle mentions support offered by the Magnesians to Delphi (lines 13–14: κτεάνοις ἐπαμύντορες ἡμετέροισιν). According to L., this refers to membership in the Amphiktiony and not to Magnesia’s contribution to the defeat of the Gauls in 279/278. This is unlikely. The word ἐπαμύντορες clearly refers to a military achievement. Magnesia’s contribution to the defeat of the Gauls was an important part of Magnesian self-representation, mentioned in I.Magnesia 46 (208 BCE). I see no reason why an oracle dating to ca. 205–197 BCE (L.’s date) should not mention the invasion of the Gauls].

352111) F. Lozano, “The Creator of Imperial Gods: Imposition versus Spontaneity”, in More than Men, Less than Gods, p. 475–519: L. examines the exact circumstances of the introduction of the imperial cult in East and West and the part played by representatives of Roman authority and local elites. He argues that the appearance of the imperial cult should be approached from the perspective of cultural transformation.

353112) A. Makres, “A New Fragment of a Fourth-Century BC Athenian Treasure Record”, in Studies – Tracy, p. 63–71 [BE 2011, 184]: Ed. pr. of a fragment of an inventory of the treasury of Athena and the Other Gods (Athens, late 4th cent.), part of the known inventory IG II2 1464. The new discovery permits a better restoration of this fragmentary inscription.

354113) G. Malouchou, “Θραῦσμα ἀρᾶς ἀπὸ τὴν Κηφισιᾶ”, Grammateion 1 (2012), p. 39–43: Ed. pr. of a small fragment of an inscription from Kephesia (early 2nd cent. CE) containing a curse against those who would destroy a statue. M. recognizes the new text as belonging to a well-known group of curses set up by Herodes Atticus against those who would damage statues of his wife Regilla and his deceased alumni (see Philostratos, Vit.Soph. II, 559, and EBGR 1998, 260).

355114) G. Malouchou, A.P. Matthaiou, “Ἱερὸς νόμος Χίου”, Grammateion 1 (2012), p. 57–62 [BE 2013, 341]: Ed. pr. of a fragmentary inscription from Chios (late 5th/early 4th cent.). It is a copy of an already known cult regulation that contains prohibitions against the use of groves for pasture and against the removal of objects from a sanctuary (LSCG 116). The new fragment (copy B) differs in some details from the already known copy (copy A). The passage which concerns people illegally throwing manure (A 14–17, B 11–15) seems to be better preserved in the new copy. The additional text of copy B is underlined: ἢν δὲ κοπρέων ἁλίσκηται, πέντε στατῆρας ὀφειλέτω· ὁ δὲ ἰδὼν κατειπάτω ἁγνῶς πρὸς το͂ θεο͂.

356115) G. Manganaro, “La συγγένεια dei Centuripini e dei Lanuvini, il lemma di Fabio Pittore a Tauromenion e il fr. 23 Morel del Bellum Poenicum di Nevio”, in C. Deroux (ed.), Corolla Epigraphica. Hommages au professeur Yves Burnand, Brussels, 2011, p. 549–561: An inscription from Centuripae contains a decree of the council of Lanuvium renewing the kinship between the two communities (SEG XLII 837; LVII 868, 1st cent.). M. associates with this tradition the summary of the work of Fabius Pictor presented in an inscription from the gymnasion of Tauromenion (SEG XXVI 1123; LIX 1131, 3rd/2nd cent.). According to the recent restoration by F. Battistoni (SEG LVI 1106), Fabius Pictor narrated the journey of Lanuvius, the eponymous founder of Lanuvium (τ̣ὸν [νόστ]ο̣ν Λανοίου), an ally of Aeneas and Ascanius.

357116) G. Marginesu, “Χρῆσθαι λίθοις καὶ γῆι in un decreto del demo del Pireo (SEG 33, 143, 1–7)”, ZPE 180 (2012), p. 153–157 [BE 2013, 139]: A decree of Piraeus (IG II2 1176 + SEG XXXIII 143) provides for the use of stone and earth from a sanctuary of Dionysos. The decrees’ subject is not the use of a stone quarry belonging to the sanctuary, as was previously thought, but the recycling of building material (cf. IG I3 78, 79; I.Oropos 292 lines 29f.).

358117) P. Martzavou, “Dream, Narrative, and the Construction of Hope in the ‘Healing Miracles’ of Epidauros”, in Unveiling Emotions, p. 177–204: Through an analysis of the structure, style, and content of the collection of healing miracles in the Asklepieion of Epidauros (IG IV2 1, 121–124, late 4th cent.), M. explains how this inscription evoked the emotions of hope and confidence among the people who came to the sanctuary of Epidauros in search of healing. She plausibly argues that these texts were sophisticated literary compositions that exploited detailed descriptions (enargeia) and dramatic elements (peripeteia) in order to lead their audience to metaphorical and literal catharsis through ‘pity and fear’. She stresses the importance of dream experience in this process. The placement of the inscriptions with the narratives near the abaton and in close proximity to other inscriptions contributed to their emotional impact. The narratives were arranged in an order that gradually constructs the profile of the healing god and leads the reader from anxiety, uncertainty, and disbelief to trust and hope.

359118) P. Martzavou, “Isis Aretalogies, Initiations, and Emotions: the Isis Aretalogies as a Source for the Study of Emotions”, in Unveiling Emotions, p. 267–291: M. argues that the aretalogies of Isis, written in stone and set up in sanctuaries, played an important part in rites of initiation. M. distinguishes between two types of texts, those in which Isis reveals her properties (‘I am Isis’; Kyme: RICIS 302/0204; Thessalonike: RICIS 113/0545; Kassandreia: RICIS Suppl. 113/1201; SEG LVIII 583; Ios: RICIS 202/1101) and those in which the worshipper praises the goddess (‘You are Isis’; Maroneia: RICIS 114/0202; IThracAeg E205; Andros: RICIS 202/1801). In addition to a discussion of these texts, M. also exploits the information provided by Apuleius’ Metamorphoses XI concerning Isiac initiation. She argues that these texts were performed during the initiation ceremony, which she tentatively reconstructs as follows: first, the epiphany of the goddess was staged and the ‘I-am-Isis’ type of text was recited by a priestess in front of the initiates. Later, towards the end of the ceremony, the initiate responded with the ‘You-are-Isis’ type of text, sealing the pact between the goddess and the initiate. Through surprise and emotional arousal the performance of these aretalogies contributed to a specific perception of the divine: they underlined the role of Isis as an instigator of change and defined life-goals for the initiates.

360119) F. Matei-Popescu, “Notes épigraphiques II”, SCIVA 59/60 (2008/2009), p. 241–245 [AE 2008, 1202; BE 2011, 452; SEG LVIII 732; LIX 797]: Ed. pr. of a fragmentary inscription from Moesia (2, 2nd/3rd cent.), which M.-P. interprets as a dedication to Plouton and Persephone (Πλούτ[ωνι καὶ Περσεφόνῃ]) [however, J.-Y. Strasser, An.Ép. 2008, 1202, interprets this text as an epitaph, recognizing in Πλουτ[- -] the beginning of the name of a deceased woman]. Ed. pr. of a fragmentary dedication of unknown provenance, somewhere in Moesia (3, ca. 150–200); only parts of the Thracian names of the dedicants are preserved.

361120) F. Matei-Popescu, “A Greek Inscription from Tomis (MNA L 419)”, in I. Piso et al. (eds.), Scripta Classica Radu Ardevan Sexgenario dedicata, Cluj-Napoca, 2011, p. 307–310 [An.Ép. 2011, 1146]: Ed. pr. of a dedication to the Theoi Patrioi by a Roman commander of a cavalry unit stationed in Arabia (unknown provenance, early 3rd cent. CE). The same officer also made a dedication to Heros Manibazos in Tomis (I.Tomis 127); Tomis is probably also the provenance of his second dedication [and since it is a dedication to Patrioi Theoi, Tomis is most likely to have been the officer’s place of origin].

362121) F. Matei-Popescu, “Note epigrafiche III”, SCIVA 62 (2011), p. 265–273: New edition of a small altar of unknown provenance (Dacia or Moesia Inferior) in the National Museum of Antiquities in Bucharest (CIL III 8059, 3rd cent. CE). In line 1, M.-P. reads the word ΑΡΑ, i.e. the Latin ara written in Greek letters, as a designation of the altar.

363122) A.P. Matthaiou, “Τὸ Πύθιον παρὰ τὸν Ἰλισσόν”, in Ἔπαινος Luigi Beschi, p. 259–271 [BE 2012, 15; SEG LXI 36]: M. re-examines the literary, epigraphic, and archaeological evidence concerning the location of the sanctuary of Apollo Pythios. He proposes a location southwest of the Olympieion. The relevant inscriptions include an altar dedicated by Peisistratos, the son of the tyrant (IG I3 948), choregic monuments (IG I3 963, 965; IG II2 2814, 3029, 3047, 3065–3067; SEG XXI 469; XXVI 220/221; XXVII 12–19), dedications (IG I3 964; IG II2 2789), and vase inscriptions with the abbreviated epithet of the god, Πυ(θίο).

364123) A. Mazarakis Ainian, “Ἀνασκαφικὲς ἔρευνες στὸ ἱερὸ τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος στὸ Σωρό (2006–2008)”, AEThStE 3, p. 287–298: Ed. pr. of an inscribed block, re-used for the construction of the base of a statue near the temple of Apollo at Soros (Thessaly, ca. 500 BCE). The block came from a dedication (Αὐτονόα ὀνέθηκε ΤΟΔΙ). A second inscription on a block of the base preserves part of the sculptor’s signature.

365124) L. Mercuri, “Contributi allo studio degli spazi pubblici delii: L’agora di Teofrasto”, ASAA 86 (2008), p. 193–214: M. discusses the epigraphic and archaeological evidence concerning the agora constructed by the Athenian epimeletes of 125 BCE Theophrastos (cf. I.Délos 1645). As the author infers from the large number of dedications and honorary statues from that area (I.Délos 1551, 1601, 1642, 1645, 1663, 1673, 1737, 1753/1754, 1777, 1807, 1845, 1850, 1869, 1957, 1969, 1978, 1989, 2011 bis, 2018, 2097, 2121, 2151, 2212, 2233, 2483, 2496, 2498, 2505, 2651), the agora fulfilled important functions as a place of religious worship and display of honors. From the heterogeneity of the dedicants and the divine recipients of the dedications (Herakles, Hermes, Poseidon Nauklarios, Zeus Ourios, and the Egyptian gods) one may infer that individuals of different origin, especially with connections to Alexandria and Rome, came together in this place.

366125) L. Migeotte, “La fondation d’Aristoménès et de Psylla à Corcyre”, in Studi ellenistici 24, Pisa, 2010, p. 63–69 [BE 2011, 356; SEG LX 561]: In the early 2nd cent., Aristomenes and Psylla left an endowment for the funding of dramatic contests in Korkyra (IG IX2 1, 798). As M. explains, the modalities for the administration of the funds indicate tensions between the donors and the city. Since the original sum (120 mnai) was insufficient for the festival’s budget (180 mnai), the original capital and the generated interest were to be annually lended at a high interest rate of 16%, until the amount of 252 mnai and 4 drachmas was reached in the fifth year. The arrangement also took into consideration the eventuality of delayed payments.

367126) A. Minchev, “Greek Traditions and Roman Taste: Continuity and Change in Odessos/Odessus (3rd c. B.C.-3rd c. A.D.”, in I.P. Haynes (ed.), Early Roman Thrace: New Evidence from Bulgaria (JRA Suppl. 82), Portsmouth, RI, 2011, p. 15–39: The archaeological and epigraphic evidence from Odessos from the 3rd cent. BCE to the 3rd cent. CE reveals the persistence of Greek traditions and the introduction of Roman cultural elements. The principle deity in Hellenistic Odessos was Ἀπόλλων Δελφίνιος; in the late Hellenistic period the cults of the Nymphs and Ἥρως Καραβασμος (IGBulg I2 78/79, 284–290), the local version of the Thracian Rider, were introduced. In the Imperial period, when a large portion of the population consisted of Hellenized Thracians, Odessos received Roman settlers and traders from Asia Minor. Thracian deities were very popular, also among the Greek population. The most important religious developments are the introduction of the imperial cult, the cults of Dea Roma, Mithras, and Roman deities (Sol Invictus, Mars, Silvanus, Concordia), and the popularity of Δαρζαλας. Darzalas, Poseidon, and Apollo were served by one priest (IGBulg I2 67). Another divine triad consisted of Θεὸς Μέγας Δερζελας, Athena, and Herakles (IGBulg I2 47 bis). The cult of Ἥρως Καραβασμος remained very popular; that of the Thracian Rider was connected with the cults of Darzalas and Apollo. M. gives an overview of contests, festivals, and gladiatorial events in Roman Odessos. M. mentions two unpublished inscriptions: an inscription that records the dedication of marble benches in the temple of Apollo Delphinios (p. 19, 5th/4th cent.) and an inscription that refers to the appointment of a highpriest of the imperial cult for life and mentions the cult of Thea Rhome (p. 27).

368127) N.P. Milner, “The Remaining Inscriptions from the Balboura Survey Project”, in J.J. Coulton et al., The Balboura Survey and Settlement in Highland Southwest Anatolia, Ankara, 2012, II, p. 83–127: M. presents inscriptions found during the Balboura survey and not previously presented in earlier articles (new texts are marked with an asterisk). An honorific inscription (4 = IGR III 476; SEG XXVIII 1217, mid-2nd cent. CE) lists the services of a local benefactor. He served in a pure manner ([ἁγνῶς? καὶ καθ]αρῶς) as priest of Zeus Philios, Herakles, and Ares, making the suitable dedications to these gods; together with his wife he served as priest of the civic imperial cult, dedicating a gilt-bronze statue of Antoninus Pius and offering a banquet to the city. [M. reads [ἱερ]ασάμενον τῶν θεῶν Σεβα[στῶν]… ἐπιφαν{Α}ῶς καὶ [ε]ὐσεβῶς ὁ̣σιω̣θ̣έ̣ν̣τ̣α̣ [ὡ]ς τ̣ε̣τ̣ε̣ι̣μ̣ῆσθαι etc. (lines 9–13): ‘having performed the rites splendidly and piously’. But it is difficult to interpret ὁσιόω (in the middle-passive) as ‘to perform rites’; I suspect ὡ̣ς…….[.]ς τετειμῆσθαι, i.e. ὡς followed by an adverb that specifies the manner in which he was honored. Because of the use of καὶ I doubt that [ἱερατεύσαντα]… καὶ Διὸς Φ̣ι̣λ̣ί̣ο̣υ̣ κ̣α̣ὶ̣ Ἡ̣ρ̣α̣κ̣λ̣έ̣ο̣υ̣ς̣ κ̣α̣[ὶ] Ἄρεος attests a joint cult of these divinities, as tentatively assumed by M. These are three separate priesthoods, possibly held at the same time by the honorand]. Other inscriptions include the dedication of a statue of Dionysos (5), a dedication to gods (14*), and a dedication to the emperor Vespasian (1). M. interprets the following texts as funerary inscriptions: 17 (LBW 1229: ‘stela’, now lost): Ἀρτειμο[ς?] Κενδαιβου Μάνου Κενδαιβην τὸν ἑαυτοῦ πατέρα εἰς θεούς (‘Arteimos son of Kendaibes son of Manes (set it up for) Kendaibes, his own father; to the spirits of the departed’); 21* (altar or column): ΠΙΑΣΑΡ τὸν ἑαυτῆ[ς] ἄνδρα θεοῖς (‘MM (set it up) for her own husband, to the Spirits of the Departed’). [But θεοί, without any further specification, are ‘gods’ and not the ‘spirits of the departed’. The dedicants set up ‘his father’ and ‘her husband’ respectively, i.e. their images, and not ‘it’ (the stele or column). These inscriptions record the dedication of images (honorific statues?, paintings?). They are posthumous honors but not epitaphs. The same applies to no 29 (block, possibly a statue base): τὸν πατέρα καὶ… τὴν μητέρα φιλοστοργίας ἕνεκα θεοῖς (‘the statue of his father and the statue of his mother for affection’s sake to the gods’; not: ‘in loving memory to the spirits of the departed’). These texts are dedications to the gods and should be distinguished from other epitaphs in which the name of the deceased is in the accusative (e.g. 22, 23, 32, 34, and 40)]. A sacred slave is mentioned in an epitaph (35): a man erected the grave for himself, his wife, his son, and a hieros. We note three funerary imprecations (24*: ἔσται θεοῖς κ[α]ταχθονίοις; 30*: κακῶς [ἀ]πόλ[οιτο]; 38*: ἐπάρατος ἔστω θεοῖς καὶ θεαῖς πᾶ[σι]).

369128) S. Mitchell, “Further Thoughts on the Cult of Theos Hypsistos”, in One God, p. 167–208 [SEG LX 2036]: In this significant contribution to the study of monotheistic trends in the Roman Empire, M. returns to the problem of how the epigraphic evidence for Theos Hypsistos should be interpreted. Was there a conceptual unity in the worship of Hypsistos, or is the epithet hypsistos a generic adjective applicable to many forms of divinity? M. defends the idea that a common cult of Theos Hypsistos could emerge in the Roman Empire. Important features of this cult were its aniconic character, the absence of animal sacrifice, the existence of adjutants (angels), and the role of the eagle in religious iconography. For the majority of the worshippers the god remained anonymous but a significant minority identified Theos Hypsistos with Zeus. In some cases a connection between ‘god-fearers’ (θεοσεβεῖς) and worshippers of Theos Hypsistos can be established (e.g. SEG XXXVIII 1335: θεῷ ἀψευδεῖ καὶ ἀχειροποιήτῳ; SEG XLVII 1810–1811: κυρίῳ ἄνω θεῷ; SEG LIV 1243 bis: θεὸς κύριος ὁ ὢν εἰς ἀεί). Although the cult of Theos Hypsistos ‘was not rigorously exclusive’ (p. 180), very few texts refer to other gods, directly or indirectly. Theos Hypsistos was not normally conceived as being integrated into the wider pantheon of deities. In an appendix (p. 198–208), M. presents addenda to his catalogue of inscriptions mentioning Theos Hypsistos (83 inscriptions) [cf. EBGR 198, 190].

370129) S. Mitchell, “Votive Monuments from South West Asia Minor”, in H. Börm, N. Ehrhardt, J. Wiesehöfer (eds.), Monumentum et instrumentum inscriptum. Beschriftete Objekte aus Kaiserzeit und Spätantike als historische Zeugnisse. Festschrift für Peter Weiß zum 65. Geburtstag, Stuttgart, 2008, p. 154–175 [BE 2009, 30; SEG LVIII 1564]: Ed. pr. of a dedication to the Theai Hagnai Epekooi from Sagalassos (ca. 150 CE; p. 167f.; mentioned in SEG XLVII 1761.3). The inscription, inscribed on a column decorated with a fragmentary relief, records two dedications. Briseis, a priestess, dedicated at her own expense a column and two entablatures (τὸ[ν στῦ]λον καὶ ἐπιστύλια δύο). Together with another woman, the same priestess also dedicated the entablature at the entrance [of a temple?] and the pediment (τὸ δὲ εἰσοδικὸν ἐπιστύλιον καὶ [τὸ] ἀέτωμα). Briseis also served as priestess of Angdistis (SEG XXX 1508). In Late Antiquity (5th cent. CE), the Christian acclamation Εἷς Θεός was engraved under this inscription.

371130) J.D. Muccigrosso, J. Higginbotham, “A New Archaic Dipinto from Poseidonia”, ZPE 178 (2011), p. 191–194: of a cup from Poseidonia, reassembled from many fragments (ca. 550–500). A very fragmentary dipinto seems to record the dedication of the vase ([ἀν]έθεκε τ[ι θει]) by an athletic victor (νικάσ[ας?]).

372131) H. Müller, “Hadrian an die Pergamener. Eine Fallstudie”, in R. Haensch (ed.), Selbstdarstellung und Kommunikation. Die Veröffentlichung staatlicher Urkunden auf Stein und Bronze in der römischen Welt, Munich, 2009, p. 367–406 [BE 2011, 498; SEG LX 1423–1424]: M. presents a new edition of Hadrian’s letter to Pergamon in response to the city’s request to build a third temple for the provincial emperor cult (I.Pergamon 276+277, December 137 CE). After thanking the Pergamenes for their zeal, the emperor points out that the city already has two large temples (for Roma and Augustus, and for Trajan and Zeus Philios), contests, and exemption from taxes during the festivals. The cost for a third temple would endanger the funds for the existing temples and contests (δύο] τε γὰρ ναοὺς [παμμεγ]ε̣θ̣εστ̣[άτους] καὶ ἐνδοξοτ[άτους ἔ]χετε κα[ὶ ἀγῶ]νας δύο καὶ ἀ̣[τέλεια]ς δύο̣· εἰ δ̣[ὲ π]ροσθήσετε ναὸ̣[ν
ἄλλο]ν̣ κ̣α̣ὶ̣ τ̣ὰς τούτω[ν κ]τήσε[ις εἰς καινόν (?)] τ[ι] π̣ρᾶγμα προδ̣[ώσ]ετε). Instead, the emperor allowed them to set up his statue in Trajan’s temple next to Trajan’s statue (ἔστιν ὑμῖν ἐν τῷ τοῦ πατ[ρὸς ἐμοῦ] νεῷ παρ᾿ αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον κ̣[αθιδρῦσ]α̣ι κἀμέ). He adds that Trajan’s temples are cause of greater joy for him than his own (ἐγὼ τ[οῖς ἐκεί]ν̣ου ναοῖς πολὺ πλέον ἢ τοῖ̣ς [ἐμοῖς ἥδ]ομαι). M. suspects that the Koinon of Asia was not prepared to earmark additional revenues for a third provincial temple in Pergamon; the expenses would have to have been borne by the city. In an appendix, M. (p. 393–406) presents a new edition of
I.Pergamon 272, adding three further fragments. The text is a copy of a letter of Trajan to Pergamon and a senatus consultum concerning the promotion of the contest Traianeia Diiphilia to a pentaeteric and eiselastic agon (115 CE). The contest for Trajan and Zeus Philios was given the same privileges as ‘the other sacred contest’, i.e. the agon for Roma and Augustus. The dossier was published in the Traianeion, together with a second version (I.Pergamon 269). Pergamon managed to establish a second temple for the provincial emperor cult after sending at least three embassies to the emperor, probably in order to overcome the objections of Ephesos and Smyrna.

373132) F. Muscolino, “Il bollo laterizio ΕΡΜΑΗΡΑΚΛΕΟΣ a Taormina”, ZPE 182 (2012), p. 223–242: M. studies a group of stamped tiles from Tauromenion (3rd-1st cent.); the text on the stamp reads Ἑρμᾶ, Ἡρακλέος. Because of the mention of the patron gods of the gymnasion, M. attributes these tiles to the gymnasion.

374133) Vacat.

375134) J. Mylonopoulos, “Divine Images Behind Bars. The Semantics of Barriers in Greek Temples”, in Current Approaches to Religion, p. 269–291: M. collects the evidence for barriers of wood, metal, or stone in front of the cult statue in Greek temples. Not all barriers (ἴκρια, κιγκλίς, ἔρυμα, τρύφακτος, δρύφακτος) mentioned in inscriptions refer to barriers in front of statues; they may refer to screen walls in the intercolumniations. But there is firm evidence for barriers in front of statues in temples in Aigina, Athens, Sounion, Epidauros, Kleonai, Lindos, Lykosoura, Olympia, Priene, and possibly Delos. After critically examining various hypotheses for the existence of barriers (protection of valuable or famous statues, the existence of tables for offerings, aesthetic considerations), M. proposes a different interpretation. Adducing cult regulations that attest the regular or daily opening of temples (LSAM 5, 28; LSCG 69; Iscr.Cos ED 236), he argues that these barriers both created a boundary and regulated the movement in temples that were accessible on a daily basis, making the area around the statue inviolable.

376135) P. Nigdelis, “Harpaliani: Μιὰ νέα κώμη τῆς ρωμαϊκῆς ἀποικίας τῶν Φιλίππων”, in Diniessa – Romiopoulou, p. 103–110: Ed. pr. of a Latin inscription on a funerary altar from the territory of Philippi (2nd cent. CE). The text records the bequest of 250 denarii to the Harpaliani, inhabitants of a vicus of Philippi, by Bacchanius Bizes. The recipients of the bequest were obliged to use the revenues in order to provide an annual sacrifice at the man’s monument, celebrate a feast on the occasion of the rosalia (adalant [et] vescantur Rosis), and fund the gymnasium. In case of violation of the testator’s wish, the money would be given to a cult association of worshippers (sancti cultores) of Iupiter Optimus Maximus.

377136) P.M. Nigdelis, “The Roman Calendar and its Diffusion in the Greco-Roman East: The Evidence of the Personal Name Kalandion”, in Onomatologos, p. 617–627 [SEG LX 1980]: N. collects the evidence for the diffusion of personal names deriving from Kalendae in the Greece, the Balkans, Asia Minor, and Cyprus (Καλανδίων, Καλανδία, Καλανδίκη, Κάλανδος, Καλανδάριος) and examines the cultural and religious context of this phenomenon. Several factors may explain the familiarity of the Greeks with the word Kalendae: the diffusion of the festival of Kalendae Ianuariae; the use of the Roman calendar in financial transactions involving Roman creditors. Children born on the first day of the month were given related names (cf. the Greek name Νουμήνιος).

378137) P.M. Nigdelis, A. Arvanitaki, “Direct Taxation in Roman Macedonia: a New Votive Inscription of a δεκάπρωτος in an Unknown city of Western Pieria”, Chiron 42 (2012), p. 271–286 [SEG LX 644]: Ed. pr. of an inscription that records a dedication made to Asklepios and Hygieia by a dekaprotos of an ancient city near Elatochori (perhaps Phylakai?, 73/74 CE) [see supra no 13]. The dekaprotoi were responsible for the collection of the direct taxes payable to the imperial treasury. Timoxenos financed the construction of a temple on the occasion of their election to some office, either as summa honoraria or as a voluntary contribution.

379138) A. Ochał-Czarnowicz, “The Cult of Achilles on the Coast of the Black Sea”, in E. Papuci-Władyka et al. (eds.), Pontika 2008: Recent Research on the Northern and Eastern Black Sea in Ancient Times, Oxford, 2011, p. 269–274: A mosaic in Amisos (SEG LIII 1427 and LV 1391, early 3rd cent. CE) [EBGR 2005, 137] depicts Achilles and Thetis in a central panel (Ἀχιλλεύς — Θέτις), busts of the four seasons in the corner panels, and Nereids in the side panels. The bottom section displays a sacrificial scene. The author returns to the suggestion that the presence of a sacrificial scene attests an otherwise unknown cult of Achilles in Amisos (see EBGR 2005, 137). Adducing evidence for the cult of Achilles in the North Pontic region, she tentatively suggests that the bottom section depicts a bull sacrifice to Achilles. [No reference to J. Hupe (ed.), Der Achilleus-Kult im nördlichen Schwarzmeerraum vom Beginn der griechischen Kolonisation bis in die römische Kaiserzeit. Beiträge zur Akkulturationsforschung, Rahden, 2006. In the Amisos mosaic, the sacrificial scene is clearly separated from the depiction of Achilles and Thetis; therefore, it cannot serve as evidence for a cult of Achilles.]

380139) J. Oulhen, “ΗΡΟΠΥΘΟΣ. Une pousse printanière pour Elaine Matthews?”, in Onomatologos, p. 628–645 [SEG LX 1982]: Several personal names with the element -πυθος are not theophoric names deriving from Apollo Pythios, but are composed with -φυτος. Ηρόπυθος (sc. Hρόφυτος) may derive not from Hera (Ἡρόπυθος) but from ἔαρ (Ἠρόπυθος = ἐαρόφυτος, ‘sprouting in the spring’).

381140) A. Ovadiah, “The Roman Altar Dedicated to Zeus from Velico Târnovo — Bulgaria Reconsidered”, Geríon 29, 2 (2011), p. 35–39: An altar dedicated to Zeus from Veliko Tarnovo (Nikopolis ad Istrum, 2nd/3rd cent., IGBulg V 5252) is decorated with a thunderbolt of unusual shape. O. recognizes a combination of a thunderbolt and an ant. According to mythology, Zeus deceived Eurymedousa in the disguise of an ant and had intercourse with her; for this reason, her son was called Myrmidon (from μύρμηξ).

382141) L. Palaiokrassa-Kopitsa, “ Ἀνάθημα στὴ Μουνυχία Ἄρτεμη ἀπὸ τὸν Ὠρωπό”, in Namata – Pandermalis, p. 217–224: Ed. pr. of an inscribed naiskos-base supporting a metrical dedication to Artemis Mounichia (ca. 350 BCE). Exekestos and Kleino dedicated a statue of their daughter Hagnodora to Artemis (Μουνιχίαι Παρθένωι Ἀρτέμιδι). The base was found re-used in Oropos, but its provenance seems to be Brauron, where Exekestos served as epistates (IG II2 1524). The Acropolis inventories mention Kleino as a dedicant to Artemis Brauronia.

383142) D. Palaiothodoros, “ Ἡ λατρεία τῆς Ἀρτέμιδος Φεραίας ἀπὸ τὴ Θεσσαλία στὶς Συρακοῦσες”, AEThStE 3, p. 439–450: An inscribed kothon found in Syracuse, property of Artemis Pheraia (ἱαρὸς Ἀρτάμιτος Φεραίας, IGDS 92, late 4th/early 3rd cent.), along with a dedication to Artemis Pheraia seen by Cyriacus of Ancona in Issa are the only epigraphic testimonia for the cult of Artemis Pheraia (L. Robert, Hellenica XI/XII, Paris, 1960, p. 591 note 4). An inscription with exactly the same text on a lekythos of unknown provenance is a modern forgery. According to Pausanias Artemis Pheraia was also worshipped in Sikyon (II, 10, 7 and II, 23, 5). The prevailing view is that Artemis Pheraia can be identified with Ennodia; this assumption is based on the observation that Ennodia is one of the six goddesses mentioned on an altar at Pherai (SEG XLV 645), whereas Artemis is not. It is also assumed that Ennodia was assimilated with Artemis, when her cult was transferred from Thessaly to other areas. P. Chrysostomou (Ἡ θεσσαλικὴ θεὰ Ἐν (ν)οδία ἢ Φεραία θεά, Athens, 1998, p. 187–190) established, however, that there were separate cults of Artemis and Ennodia in Pherai, although he assumed that the two cults were conflated. P. argues that the two cults were and remained separate. In his view, the epithet Pheraia does not refer to Ennodia but to the origin of specific rituals connected with the cult of Artemis in Pherai. The goddess was connected with rites of passage of children, as P. infers from the dedication made by a woman for her children (Chrysostomou, op.cit., p. 188f.). P. speculates that the transfer of the cult to areas outside of Thessaly may have taken place upon divine command, to appease the angry goddess. He attributes the diffusion of the cult to the relations between Corinth and Syracuse. The vase was found in a deposit near a sanctuary of Demeter and Kore. For this reason, it has been suggested that the cult of Artemis Pheraia was chthonic in nature. Examining the other finds from the same well, P. argues that music and dance were important aspects of her cult.

384143) M.F. Papakonstantinou, “ Τὸ Ἀσκληπιεῖο τοῦ Δαφνοῦντος. Πρώτη παρουσίαση”, in AEThSt 3, p. 1236–1247: The author summarizes the results of an excavation at the sanctuary of Asklepios in Agios Konstantinos, ancient Daphnous (Eastern Lokris). The sanctuary existed from the 5th to the early 1st cent. BCE. The excavations have revealed a temple, an incubation room (?), an altar, a banquet hall (?), and open spaces. P. mentions three graffiti on vases dedicated to Asklepios. Two of them name the god in the dative, the third designates the vase as sacred property (hιαρόν).

385144) D. Papanikolaou, “IG V.2.268 (= SIG3 783) as a Monument of Hellenistic Prose”, ZPE 182 (2012), p. 137–156: P. presents a critical edition of an honorific decree of Antigoneia (Mantineia) for the local benefactor Euphrosynos and his wife Epigone (IG V 2, 268, late 1st cent.) and offers an excellent analysis of its style (rare words, rhythmical clausulae, metaphors). This decree is a good example of Hellenistic oratory and late Hellenistic sophistic style. We note that the orator highlights the couple’s services to the city’s cults. They repaired temples (ναοὺς μὲν ἤγειραν εἰς ἔδαφος ἠρε[ιμμέν]ους), and Epigone served as priestess, conducting the rituals, celebrations, and banquets in a luxurious manner (πάσῃ θεῷ τὴν ἀνεπίτακτον ἱερωσύνην ἀναλαβοῦσα μετὰ πάσης δαπάνης πολυτελοῦς τοὺς μὲν θεοὺς ἐθρήσκευσεν εὐσεβῶς, τοὺς δ’ ἀνθρώπους εὐώχησε πανδήμως).

386145) N. Papazarkadas, Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens, Oxford, 2011: This book is the first systematic treatment of the evidence concerning the ownership of land by the Athenian state, its subdivisions (tribes, demes, phratries, gene, orgeones) and its gods or sanctuaries, the administration of this property and the officials responsible for this task. P.’s study is an important contribution to the study of the financial aspects of Athenian religion and the revenues of sanctuaries. He provides detailed discussions of the use of sacred land, especially its leasing, the setting of boundary stones, the use of the revenues from sacred land, the protection of sacred land by the Athenian army, and other legal, economic, religious, and political aspects. Needless to say that inscriptions, especially texts from Eleusis (I.Eleusis 144, 177) and leasing records, take the lion’s share of the evidence. In many cases P. proposes new readings, dates, and interpretations. Among the subjects of religious interest that are discussed in the book and in appendices, we single out the discussion of the property belonging to Demeter and Kore of Eleusis, the hiera orgas (IG II3 292 = I.Eleusis 144), the olives belonging to Athena (moriai) and the use of their produce for the prizes of the Panathenaic contests (cf. IG II2 2311), the initiatives of Phanodemos for the cult of Amphiaraos (I.Oropos 297), the cults of the genos of the Salaminioi and the conflicts that arose from the split of this group (SEG XXI 527).

387146) E.K. Petropoulos, “Apollo’s Cult in the Black Sea Area and the Greek Colonists: Some Remarks”, in Ancient Sacral Monuments, p. 283–293 [BE 2011, 444; SEG LX 755 bis]: P. discusses the diffusion of the cult of Apollo in Thrace (Apollonia Pontike), Moesia (esp. Histria, Kallatis), and the North Shore of the Black Sea (esp. Olbia) [A. Avram, BE 2011, 444, points out omissions in the bibliography. With regard to Apollonia Pontica, the main sanctuary of this city was the sanctuary of Apollo Ietros (IGBulg I2 388 bis)].

388147) S. Pingiatoglou, “Μιὰ νέα ἀναθηματικὴ ἐπιγραφὴ ἀπὸ τὸν Δῖον”, in Namata – Pandermalis, p. 197–206 [BE 2013, 261; SEG LXI 490]: Ed. pr. of a marble base in the shape of a table, possibly from the sanctuary of Demeter in Dion (late 5th/early 4th cent.). The base was dedicated to Praxidika and Hermes Tychon. This is the first attestation of these deities in Dion. Praxidika and Πραξιδίκαι were regarded as patrons of justice; Tychon, associated with Hermes (I.Magnesia 203) and Priapos, was a patron of luck. Praxidikai and Hermes are jointly invoked in curses from Athens and Eretria. Being chthonic deities, they were probably worshipped as patrons of fertility.

389148) H.W. Pleket, “An Agonistic Inscription from Sardis”, ZPE 181 (2012), p. 102–107 [BE 2013, 374]: P. discusses a fragmentary inscription from Sardeis (SEG XLVII 1653), with which the international association of athletes honored an anonymous emperor. P. proposes a date between ca. 120–180. The inscription was erected under the supervision of a xystarches for life of the contests in Sardeis. Presumably, these contests included the Chrysanthinos Agon and the contest of the Koinon of Asia.

390149) H.W. Pleket, “Fraudulent Agonothetes”, ZPE 180 (2012), p. 158: The letters of Hadrian to the Dionysiac technitai (EBGR 2007, 111) address the problem of agonothetai who did not pay the prize-money to victorious contestants. This common fraud explains why an agonothetes at Gerasa (SEG VII 825) is praised for honesty with regard to prizes (ἐν τοῖς θέμασιν αὐτοῦ ἁγνεία).

391150) S. Prignitz, “Ein Augustuspriester des Jahres 27 v. Chr.”, ZPE 178 (2011), p. 210–214: P. discusses the date of the building inscription of the bouleuterion of Kalindoia (Macedonia, SEG LVIII 578), which had rooms dedicated to the imperial cult. This text is dated to the 120th year of an era. It has been assumed that this is a reference to the Actian era (88 CE), but p. presents plausible arguments in favor of a date in 27 BCE (Macedonian era). If this date is correct, Arrhidaios, who is mentioned in this text as priest of Zeus, Roma, and Imperator Caesar Augustus, was the first priest of the imperial cult [conceivably, a joint cult of Zeus and Dea Roma already existed, and Augustus was added to this cult].

392151) G.H. Renberg, “Was Incubation Practiced in the Latin West?”, ARG 8 (2006), p. 105–147: A survey of the literary, archaeological, and epigraphic evidence from sanctuaries of healing gods in Italy and the Latin West shows that incubation, divinatory and therapeutic, was not widespread. The only sanctuaries for which there is reliable evidence belonged to Greek gods or show influence from non-Roman worship (the cult of Egyptian gods). Two inscriptions of uncertain provenance in Rome (IGUR 105 and 148) and literary evidence concerning the Asklepieion in Taras (Julian, Gal. 198.2) can be associated with incubation; by contrast, however, the inscriptions mentioning φώλαρχοι in Eleia do not prove the practice of incubation. In the West, sanctuaries associated with sacred springs did not necessarily practice incubation: it is attested with certainty only for the shrines of Kalchas and Podaleirios at Mt. Drion. A dedication to Somnus and Asklepios in Reii (ILS 3855; cf. Greek dedications to Hypnos and Asklepios: I.Ephesos 4123; I.Cret. I xvii, 24; SEG XXII 268, 293; IG II2 4467) implies an epiphanic dream but does not prove that this dream occurred during incubation in a sanctuary. Also dedications made ex visu cannot be taken as proof for this practice. Equally ambiguous is a cult regulation concerning purity in a sanctuary of Asklepios in Thuburdo Maius (Africa Proconsularis, ILAfr 225).

393152) M. Ricl, “A New Inscription from the Cayster Valey and the Question of Supernomina in Hellenistic and Roman Lydia”, in Onomatologos, p. 530–551 [SEG LX 1161]: Ed. pr. of a fragmentary honorific inscription for an anonymous magistrate of Ephesos (ca. 200 CE), who was a descendant of prominent ancestors, including priestesses of Artemis (ἱερειῶν τῆς κυρίας ἡμῶν Ἀρτέμιδος). A dependent community of Ephesos (the village of the Boneitai?) set up his statue for his services; the man was πανηγυρίαρχος of the village. The men who were responsible for the erection of the statue include the descendant of a neopoios, who is mentioned in I.Ephesos 3239.

394153) M. Ricl, H. Malay, “Two New Decrees from Iulia Gordos and Lora”, EA 45 (2012), p. 74–87 [BE 2013, 375]: Ed. pr. of two posthumous honorific decrees from Iulia Gordos. The first text is a rhetorically elaborate decree of Iulia Gordos and Lora for Attalos, a deceased statesman (1st cent. CE), the second text a decree for his grandson (69/70 CE). Both decrees make provisions for the closing of the baths (the first decree) and the baths and workshops (the second decree) on the day of the benefactors’ funerals (κλεισθῆ[ν]αι τά τε βαλανεῖα καὶ̣ ἐ̣ρ̣γ̣α̣σ̣τ̣ή̣ρια [ἐπὶ τῆ]ς προφορᾶς αὐτοῦ). The closing of workshops is attested in IOSPE I2 34 lines 23f. and SEG XXVIII 953 lines 39–42. The stelai were to be erected near these men’s graves. The stelai and the graves are protected with a funerary imprecation invoking Demeter: ὅς/εἰ ταύτην τὴν στήλλην ἀδικήσει ἢ ἄλλον ταφήσῃ μ̣ὴ τύχοι/τύχοιτο εἱλαίης/εἵλως Θεσμοφόροιο Θεᾶς. The editors comment on the metaphors for death used in these texts: τὰ νῦν εἰς τὸ χρεὼ μεθέστη and ὑ[πὸ τοῦ] τὰ πάντα καταπατοῦντος δαί[μονος] μεθέσταται τοῦ ζῆν.

395154) T. Ritti, “La carriera di un cittadino di Hierapolis in Frigia”, CCG 19 (2008), p. 279–308 [BE 2011, 570; SEG LVIII 1510]: R. republishes an honorific inscription for C. Memmius Eutychos (Hierapolis, ca. 214–217; SEG LIII 1464) and comments on his imperial career. Eutychos served as ἀλύταρχος τῶν μεγάλων Ἀπολλωνείων Πυθίων (lines 13–15; cf. I.Side 134). As one can judge from the office of the alytarchos/alytarches, the Apollonia had been organized following the model of the Olympic games.

396155) F. Rocca, “Le iscrizioni di manomissione dal Cabirio di Lemno”, ASAA 88 (2010) [2012], p. 289–308 [SEG LX 925–937]: Four stelai with manumission records have been found in the Kabireion of Lemnos (S. Accame, “Iscrizioni del cabirio di Lemno”, ASAA 19–21 [1941–1943], p. 94–99 nos 14–16). R. presents improved editions of the texts and reports on the discovery of a new fragment.

397156) E. Rosamilia, “Un iscrizione inedita da Cirene nell’archivio Breccia”, Studi Ellenistici 24 (2010), p. 289–295 [BE 2011, 648; SEG LX 1836]: Ed. pr. of a dedication made by Kletomachos, during his service as a priest, probably of Apollo (Kyrene, ca. 260–250 BCE).

398157) D. Rousset, De Lycie en Cabalide. La convention entre des Lyciens et Termessos près d’Oinoanda. Fouilles de Xanthos X, Geneva, 2010 [BE 2011, 554; SEG LX 1545, 1546, 1559, 1569]: R. presents the of an important inscription containing a treaty between the Termessians-near-Oinoanda and the Lycian League (Xanthos, ca. 160–150) [SEG LX 1569]. Following an arbitration by Koan judges, the treaty resolved a dispute between Termessos Minor and Tlos and Kadyanda concerning the possession and exploitation of Mt. Masa. We note an interesting detail in the description of the border; one of the points of orientation was a wooden Hermaion placed on a road, which R. interprets as a wooden temple of Hermes (lines 39f.: ἐπὶ τὸ προσονομαζόμενον ξύλινον Ἕρμαιον τὸ ἐπὶ τῆς ὁδοῦ). The text is dated with references to eponymous priests: the priests of Roma and Apollo (Lykian Koinon) and the priests of Zeus and Roma (Termessos Minor). The treaty was to be published in the sanctuaries of Leto in Xanthos, Artemis in Tlos, Zeus in Termessos Minor, and in a sanctuary in Kaunos that was yet to be determined by the Kaunians. In this study, R. also presents two other inscriptions of religious interest. The most interesting is a funerary altar from the area of Oinoanda (p. 154f. no 8, Imperial period) [SEG LX 1545]. The altar is decorated with a relief representing two serpents holding their mouths above a large krater. The text reads: Θεῷ ἥρωι | Γ (άϊος) Γεμίνιος | Μάξιμος. On the basis of parallels (e.g. TAM II 100, 380; IGUR 848), R. argues that this is not a dedication to a hero but the epitaph of a ‘défunt divinisé’. The expression Θεῷ ἥρωι is a conflation of the Greek rendering of Dis manibus as Θεοῖς Ἥρωσιν and the designation of the deceased individual as a ἥρως. R. also presents the of a votive relief dedicated to Kakasbos, θεὸς ἐπήκοος, in fulfillment of a vow (from Seki, in the territory of Termessos or Oinoanda, Imperial period, 158f.) [SEG LX 1546]. The relief represents a rider holding a club in his right hand. Finally, R. republished an epitaph with a funerary imprecation from Seki (ἂ[ν δ]έ τις ἀδικήσῃ, ἤτω ἐ̣πά<ρ>ατος θεοῖ[ς] καὶ θεαῖς; 159f., 2nd/3rd cent. CE; SEG LIV 1424) [SEG LX 1559].

399158) D. Rousset, “Les inscriptions antiques de Phocide et de Doride”, CRAI (2012), p. 1659–1689: In an overview of epigraphic research in Doris and Phokis, R. presents an improved reading of an interesting funerary stele from Boulis in Phokis (p. 1665–1668) [3rd cent. CE or later?; mentioned in SEG LIX 545]. The stele was set up for Euemeros, who is designated as heros. An interesting feature is the representation of the Thracian Rider, rare in this region. R. also mentions an inscribed bronze sheet found in a cave on Mt. Parnassus (site Ambouria, near Patronis; 3rd cent. BCE; p. 1070f.). It records a dedication made by a woman to Pan and the Nymphs (cf. S. Katsarou, “Λατρεία Πανὸς καὶ Νυμφῶν σὲ σπήλαιο τῆς ἀρχαίας Φωκίδας στὸν Παρνασσό”, Grammateion 2 (2013), p. 33–40). [Judging from the suspension hole on the left, this sheet was suspended on the votive object, as a label].

400159) D. Rousset, G. Zachos, “Aus der Arbeit der ‘Inscriptiones Graecae’. Nouveaux monuments inscrits de Tithoréa de Phocide”, Chiron 42 (2012), p. 459–486 [BE 2013, 210]: Ed. pr. of four manumission records from the sanctuary of Sarapis in Tithora (ca. 100  CE). The acts of manumission were inscribed on orthostates, found re-used in a Christian basilica. The texts are formulaic, usually containing an invocation (Θεός· Τύχαν ἁγαθάν), a date, the names of the manumittors, the formula ἀπέδοτο τῷ θεῷ Σαράπει ἐν Τιθόρᾳ (1, 3) or simply ἀπέδοτο (2), the names of the manumitted slaves, the price, the conditions of manumission, and the names of witnesses and guarantors; in case of violation, a fine was payable to the sanctuary of Sarapis (1–3). Copies of the ownership document were deposited in the sanctuary (1, 3: ἁ ὠνὰ παρὰ τὸν θεὸν τὸν Σάραπιν) and in the archive of Tithorea; or were inscribed in the sanctuary (2: τὰν ὠνὰν ἀνέγραψε… ἐν ἱερῷ ἐν Σεραπείῳ ἐν τᾷ βάσει τᾶς τρα[πέζας]); R. suggests that the copy deposited παρὰ τὸν θεὸν is the inscription on the orthostate.

401160) A.S. Rusjaeva, Graffiti Ol’vii Pontijskoj, Simferopol, 2010 [BE 2011, 454]: R. presents a catalogue of ca. 800 graffiti from Olbia, half of which are inedita, mostly consisting of a few letters. [Non vidimus. We present a selection of new texts based on the report of A. Avram, BE 2011, 454]. West Temenos (p. 42–101): Dedications to Achilles (148), Apollo Aiginaios (15), Apollo (23, 26–28), the Dioskouroi (112–121), Hermes (132–133), Meter (50–51, 53–61, 63, 65–76), and (Zeus?) Soter (181). The text Φανόδικος ἱεροσυλία (155) is enigmatic [perhaps Φανόδικος, ἱεροσυλίᾳ (‘Phanodikos, because of sacrilege’). This graffito makes an accusation of some sort, but the context is unclear: a curse?, an oracular enquiry?, a message? It may be related to a lawsuit; cf. no 180 (δικασ[τ- -] (Avram’s reading)]. Upper town (p. 102–162): Dedications to Artemis (7), Demeter (21: Διονυσίη | δῶρον | Δήμητ[ρι] | ἔδωκ[ε]; 22: [ἱ]ερὴ Δήμητρος), Dionysos (18–20), Hermes (27–30), Kore (11–12), Poseidon (14–15), and Zeus Soter (31). According to Avram no 34 may be a defixio: Μολπόθ̣[εμις] | [- -]αλεω στερήσετ̣[αι]. Lower town (p. 163–197): A dedication to Artemis Ephesie.

402161) C. Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, “Τά μαρμάρινα ἀπὸ τὴ θόλο τοῦ ἀνακτόρου τῶν Αἰγῶν. Ι. Τὰ ἐνεπίγραφα θραύσματα”, in Namata – Pandermalis, p. 225–230 [BE 2013, 265; SEG LXI 482/483]: The author publishes two similar dedications from a cult room of the palace of Aigai (Vergina). One of them had already been published and interpreted as a dedication made by the sons of King Perseus, who dedicated a statue of their father to Herakles Patroios (SEG XLVI 829; EBGR 1997, 166). The two marble monuments are pillar-shaped shafts, decorated on top with two anthemia and an Ionic kymation and in the body with a frieze of alternate bucrania and phialai. S.-P. presents a new restoration of the known inscription, according to which King Perseus dedicated a statue of his father, Philip V, to the ancestral god of the Temenids. The kings’ names were erased after the defeat of Perseus at Pydna: [Βασιλεὺς] Π̣ε̣ρ̣[σεὺς βασιλέω]ς | [Φιλίππου τὸν πατέρα ἀνέθηκεν] | Ἡρακλεῖ Πατρώιωι. The inscription on the second monument must have been similar, but only the epithet Πατρώιωι is well preserved. It is not clear if the addressee was Ἡρακλῆς Πατρώιος or another ancestral god.

403162) I. Salvo, “Sweet Revenge: Emotional Factors in ‘Prayers for Justice’”, in Unveiling Emotions, p. 235–266: S. examines how the wish for revenge was channelled into cursing prayers. Her starting point is the plea for revenge in the Jewish epitaph of Heraklea from Rheneia (I.Délos 2532 I A-B, 2nd/1st cent.), which she discusses in great detail. Attributing Heraklea’s untimely death to foul play, her relatives made public their desire for vengeance, addressing their prayer to God but also expecting it to be read by passers-by. S. analyses the various means by which the author expressed the sense of loss and affliction and attempted to persuade God to act (flattery of God, hope, urgency of the request, invocation of the God’s omniscience and power; cf. SEG L 1233; I.Délos 2532 II). In similar texts from Alexandria (GV 1875, 2nd/1st cent.) [cf. EBGR 2002, 54] and Alexandria Troas (I.Alexandreia Troas 90) the wish for revenge was enhanced by presenting the text as the very emotional prayers of the victims themselves. The public expression of the desire for revenge was socially acceptable, and it can be found in many ‘prayers for justice’ (e.g. I.Délos 2531; I.Knidos 148, 150). The wish for revenge is characterized by a sense of violation and by feelings of helplessness that provoke action-orientated emotions. Such emotions were a kind of a ‘social toxin’, poisoning social and personal lives in a small community operating as a face-to-face society. By condensing retaliatory emotions into a text that was delivered to a divinity, the responsibility for action was transferred to the divinity. Thus, through a socially accepted ritual, the negative emotions were eradicated from everyday life. S. also comments on the importance of Schadenfreude in emotionally loaded curses (e.g. IG XII 7, p. 1 from Amorgos; SB 1323). Prayers for justice and the public expression of one’s emotions served to regulate social behavior and interactions, keeping under control the negative emotions that could threaten a peaceful life in a community.

404163) I. Salvo, “Ristabilimento della pace civica e riti di purificazione a Dikaia”, ASNSP Ser. 5, 4, 1 (2012), p. 89–102: A dossier of documents concerning the reconciliation of the citizens of Dikaia after a civil war in 364 BCE (EBGR 2008, 156–157; SEG LVII 576) contains an oath and details of a ritual of purification. S. summarizes the content of the inscription, discusses the historical context (a civil war), and comments on the ritual of purification.

405164) S. Samartzidou-Orkopoulou, “Στοιχεῖα ἀπὸ τὴ λατρεία τῶν αἰγυπτιακῶν θεοτήτων στὴν Ἀμφίπολη”, in Namata – Pandermalis, p. 57–72 [BE 2013, 277; SEG LXI 484]: The author discusses archaeological evidence for the cult of the Egyptian gods in Amphipolis, focusing on a statue of Sarapis. She summarizes the epigraphic evidence for the cult of Sarapis in this city (RICIS 113/0901–113/0910 and two unpublished inscriptions that mention Ἀνοῦβις). The archaeological evidence suggests the existence of three sanctuaries of the Egyptian gods: a sanctuary in the northwest part of the city was founded in the 3rd cent.; a second sanctuary in the citadel was founded in the Imperial period; a third, rural sanctuary, where Egyptian and Anatolian deities were jointly worshipped, seems to have been established in the Hellenistic period outside of the east wall.

406165) C. Sánchez-Natalías, “Fistus difloiscat languat… Re-Reading of Defixio Bologna 2”, ZPE 181 (2012), p. 140–148: The author republishes a defixio in the Museo Archeologico Civico di Bologna (4th/5th cent.), published by A. Olivieri in 1899 together with another four curse tablets of unknown provenance (“Tavolette plumbee bolognesi di defixiones”, Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica 7 [1899], p. 193–198) [for the other three tablets see EBGR 2011, 112]. A drawing shows a standing naked figure with crossed (tied?) hands. A star is engraved on the genital area. Three winding snakes emerge from each side of the crowned head. Magical words and signs are inscribed on and on both sides of the figure in Greek (φωρβη, φωρβεν, φωρβεομ φωρβι, etc.). S.-N. identifies the figure as the invoked demonic power. The curse, written in Latin, is directed against Fistus, probably a senator (sinator); magical powers are asked to destroy the victim (‘crush, kill Fistus the senator; crush, kill Fistus; crush… Fistus, the senator; crush, kill Fistus the senator. May Fistus dilute, languish, sink and may all his limbs dissolve, all his entrails, of Fistus. Dissolve his limbs and entrails, may he languish. Burst his veins, break all his limbs. Fistus the senator’).

407166) S. Saprykin, N. Fedoseev, “New Lead Plaques with Greek Inscriptions from East Crimea (Bosporos)”, in Onomatologos, p. 422–434 [BE 2009, 384; 2011, 463; SEG LVIII]: Ed. pr. of a curse tablet found on the acropolis of Pantikapaion (ca. 300–250). Only remains of personal names can be recognized and possibly remains of a verb ([ἔ]θ̣ελεν?). For a Russian version see VDI 266, 3 (2008), p. 64–72.

408167) I. Savalli-Lestrade, “Intitulés royaux et intitulés civiques dans les inscriptions de cités sujettes de Carie et de Lycie (Amyzon, Eurômos, Xanthos). Histoire politique et mutations institutionelles”, Studi Ellenistici 24 (2010), p. 127–148: [SEG LX 1083–1084, 1101]: S.-L. discusses how the dating formulas used in cities of Karia and Lykia reflect their changing relations to Hellenistic kings, the level of subordination of the cities, and local identities [cf. on the same subject I. Savalli-Lestrade, “Les rois hellénistiques, maîtres du temps”, in Des rois au Prince, p. 55–83]. Such changes include the introduction of the Macedonian calendar in Amyzon (cf. I.Amyzon 3, 14, 15, 28 and 36); the use of the high-priest of the royal cult and the high-priest of Zeus Kretagenes and Diktynna (I.Amyzon 14) as eponymous magistrates in Amyzon and that of the priest of the kings as an eponymous magistrate in Amyzon (I.Amyzon 14–15), Mylasa (I.Mylasa 894), and Xanthos (SEG XLVI 1721). This priesthood, possibly modelled after the central priesthood in the Seleucid kingdom, may not be a specifically Seleucid phenomenon but may also have existed already during the Ptolemaic rule in Lykia (Xanthos). In this study, S.-L. also discusses a regulation from Euromos concerning the introduction of new magistracies shortly after 197 BCE (SEG XLIII 707; p. 136–148). In view of the introduction of the board of the kosmoi, a Cretan institution, and the fact that the priest of Zeus Kretagenetas served as στεφανηφόρος, S.-L. adopts a suggestion by T. Boulay (in his thesis Les cités grecques et la guerre en Asie Mineure hellénistique) that Cretan mercenaries, living in the area of Myous, may have settled in Philippoi-Euromos [see now T. Boulay, Arès dans la cité. Les poleis et la guerre dans l’Asie Mineure hellénistique, Pisa, 2014, p. 326f.].

409168) A.C. Scafuro, “Conservative Trends in Athenian Law: IE 138, a Law Concerning the Mysteries”, in Symposion 2009, p. 23–46 [BE 2011, 228]: S. studies the law concerning the Eleusinian mysteries (I.Eleusis 138, ca. 367–347 BCE) in connection with other regulations concerning the mysteries (I.Eleusis 7, 13, 19, 21, 22, 28a/b, 30, 237, 250) and literary sources (Andocides I, 111 and 115f; Demosthenes XXI, 175). She stresses the competence of the proposers of laws and decrees in producing rational, coherent and comprehensive regulations (esp. I.Eleusis 19 and 138).

410169) N. Sekunda, “Kaineus”, in Onomatologos, p. 344–354 [BE 2011, 377; SEG LX 580]: S. republishes a dedication to Γᾶ Πανταρέτα by Καινεὺς Π[ε]ιθούνειος, possibly made after a visit to Delphi (IG IX 2, 491; ca. 325–150) and a proxeny decree (SEG XXIX 502), which mentions a homonymous tagos. Kaineus is the name of a Lapith, the son of Atrax. Because of the significance of this hero for the city of Atrax and the fact that the personal name Καινεύς is not attested in any other Thessalian city, S. attributes to Atrax other homonymous men mentioned in ancient sources.

411170) M. Sève, “Le dossier épigraphique du sculpteur Damophon de Messène”, Ktema 33 (2008), p. 117–134: S. presents a list of the inscriptions concerning the sculptor Damophon (late 3rd/early 2nd cent.) and his family, republishing the text of those inscriptions that have been published (decrees of Lykosoura, Leukas, Kranioi, Kythnos, and Oiantheia: IG IX2 1, 1475, 1583; SEG XLIX 423; XLI 332; LIV 452; honorific inscriptions for and dedications by family members: IG V 2, 454, 540; SEG XXIII 219; XLI 349, 350, 352). Two decrees from Melos and Gerenia are still unpublished. This dossier includes decrees of Lykosoura and Leukas honoring the sculptor for waiving payments for the construction of statues of Despoina (SEG XLI 332) and Aphrodite Limenarchis (IG IX2 1, 1475). Some of the inscriptions mention the dedication of sculptural decoration and statues (statue of Hagemon: SEG XLI 352; the akroteria of the temple of Zeus: SEG LII 415; statues dedicated to the Goddesses in Lykosoura: IG V 2, 539; dedication to Poseidon Asphaleios in Megalopolis by family members: IG V 2, 454).

412171) N. Sharankov, “Language and Society in Roman Thrace”, in Early Roman Thrace, p. 135–155: In a study dedicated to the linguistic situation in Thrace in the Imperial period, S. presents the of a votive relief with the representation of Hermes with kerykeion and a three-faced Hekate (Jagodovo, Imperial period; p. 137f.). The Thracian dedicant offered the relief to θεοὶ ἐπήκοοι as δῶρον.

413172) J.L. Shear, “Religion and the Polis. The Cult of the Tyrannicides at Athens”, Kernos 25 (2012), p. 27–55: S. plausibly argues that the cult of the tyrannicides was established in Athens in the late 6th cent. (probably as early as 507 BCE), in order to promote a particular version of the overthrow of the Peisistratids. The cult was celebrated annually at the Panathenaia, which was the anniversary of their attempt on the life of Hipparchos. The tyrannicides received ἐναγίσματα at the Panathenaia and libations on the occasion of other sacrifices. S. studies in detail the importance of this cult for the public image of the Athenians.

414173) J.L. Shear, “Hadrian, the Panathenaia, and the Athenian Calendar”, ZPE 180 (2012), p. 159–172: It is widely believed that in the Imperial period the Great Panathenaia were celebrated in the fourth year of the Olympic cycle. S. argues that they continued to be celebrated in the third year. The re-organization of the sequence of agonistic festivals by Hadrian favored the Athenian festivals by placing the Hadrianeia in the first year of the Olympic cycle, the Pantathenaia in the third, and the Panhellenia in the fourth. S.’s hypothesis, if correct, has important consequences for the chronology of agonistic inscriptions; it means, e.g., that the naumachia held under the responsibility of Herennios Dexippos (IG II2 2245 lines 477f.) cannot have been part of the Panathenaia.

415174) W.J. Slater, “Paying the Pipers”, in B. Le Guen (ed.), L’argent dans les concours du monde grec, Saint Denis, 2010, p. 249–281 [SEG LX 1911]: S. gives an overview of the different kinds of pay and rewards given to actors, choruses, and musicians, who performed in festivals (salaries, food provisions, prizes), as well as the fines imposed for non-fulfillment of their obligations. He discusses in detail the evidence provided by inscriptions concerning the Dionysia and Demetrieia in Chalkis (IG XII 9, 207), the Asklapieia and Apollonia in Epidauros (IG IV2 1, 99), the Mouseia in Thespiai (I.Thespiai 152, 153, 156, 157, 161, 163), and the Sarapieia of Tanagra (SEG XIX 335).

416175) E. Soler, “Les initiations de l’aristocratie sénatoriale païenne de Rome, au ive siècle d’après les inscriptions”, in C. Deroux (ed.), Corolla Epigraphica. Hommages au professeur Yves Burnand, Brussels, 2011, II, p. 671–682: A group of inscriptions, mainly from Rome and Ostia, attest the multiple initiation of members of the senatorial aristocracy in mystery cults (ca. 360–380). A well-known example is that of Vettius Agorius Praetextatus, who was initiated in the mysteries of Dionysos, Eleusis, Kybele and Attis, and Mithras (CIL VI 1779) and also served as curialis Herculis; Herakles was important in the theology of the Neoplatonics, and his descent into the underworld was associated with the Eleusinian mysteries. Praetextatus’ wife was initiated in the mysteries of Eleusis, Dionysos, Demeter and Kore in Lerna, the goddesses of Aigina, the Egyptian mysteries, the cult of Hekate, and the mysteries of Mithras. Alfenius Ceionius Iulianus Kamenius was initiated in mysteries of Mithras, Hekate, and Dionysos (CIL VI 1675). Ulpius Egnatius Fauentius was initiated in the mysteries of Kybele and Attis, Mithras, Dionysos, Hekate, and Isis (CIL VI 511; for other multiple initiations see CIL VI 500, 510, 512, 30966; An.Ép. 1955, no 180). Similar multiple initiations are known for the Emperor Julian and his circle (Libanios, Or. XIV, 5; XIV, 7; XIV, 65). S. associates this trend with the interest in Neoplatonic theurgy [for individuals in Julian’s circle who were interested in initiations, one may add Plutarch, appointed by Julian as governor of the provincia Insularum and initiated in the mysteries of Zeus Idaios; see IG XII 6, 584 II and SEG LIV 808].

417176) G. Staab, “Hellenistisches Gedicht auf ein verstorbenes Mädchen aus dem Gebiet von Priene”, EA 45 (2012), p. 47–54: Ed. pr. of a Hellenistic epigram from the vicinity of Priene. The epigram presents the deceased girl speaking from her grave and reporting that the Fates forced her to come to a temenos of the Nymphs. G. proposes the following restoration: [ἐς τέμεν]ο̣ς Νυμφῶν Μοῖραί μ(ε) ἠνάγκασαν ἐλθε[ῖν] | [κρηναί]α̣ιασι θεαῖς συνοπάονα· τ̣ῆιδε χορείαι | [δ](ὲ) ἐν τεμένει ναὸν καὶ χορὸν ἡμέτερον | [ἤρε]σ̣α̣· τοῦτ(ο) ὀ̣π̣ί̣σω καὶ πατρὶ Φιλί̣σ̣τ̣[ωι ἀρέσκοι]. From the phrase τῆιδε χορείαι S. infers that the inscription refers to an image, probably a relief, that showed the girl dancing together with the Nymphs. He suspects that the image was placed in a sanctuary of the Nymphs as a memorial for the girl, who had probably drowned (‘The fates forced me to come to the precinct of the Nymphs, as a companion of the goddesses of the water sources. With this dance performance I gave delight in the precinct to the temple and our chorus; may also my father Philistos find delight in this later’). [S.’s restoration is based on the assumption that the 3rd verse is a pentameter beginning with δέ and that, consequently, this line was shorter than lines 1–2. But as one can see on the photo, line 3 is longer than lines 1–2, and S.’s assumption that there were vacats at the beginning of lines 3–4 disturbs the centered arrangement of the text on the stone. In addition to this, τ̣ῆιδε χορείαι | [δ](ὲ) ἐν τεμένει ναὸν καὶ χορὸν ἡμέτερον | [ἤρε]σ̣α̣ does not make good sense, because of the awkward position of δέ and the unusual construction χορὸν ἡμέτερον | [ἤρε]σ̣α̣. I suspect that the 3rd verse was a hexameter].

418177) L. Stavrogiannis, “Ἱερὰ καὶ λατρεῖες στην ἀρχαία Μελιταία”, in Φθιωτικὴ Ἱστορία. Πρακτικὰ 4ου Συνεδρίου Φθιωτικῆς Ἱστορίας, Lamia, 2010, p. 585–598 [BE 2011, 375; SEG LX 595–596]: S. gives an overview of the cults in Melitaia (Aspalis, Artemis, Asklepios, Boras, Demeter, Ennodia, Hermes, Ino, Poseidon, Zeus, and Zeus Soterios). He presents the of a senatus consultum concerning a dispute over the ownership of public land (2nd cent.; περὶ χώρας δημοσίας τοῦ δήμου τοῦ ἑαυτῶν καὶ περὶ χώρας Διὸς Ὀθρυίου [καὶ] τῆς ἐπιμελείας τοῦ ἱεροῦ τούτου). S. suggests that the text concerns the well-known dispute between Melitaia and Narthakion over the ownership of land (IG IX 2, 89; Ager, Arbitration nos 32, 79, 154, and 156). [In my comments in SEG LX 596 I explain why this cannot be the case. The new text treats three different issues: the ownership of public land (δημοσία χώρα); the limits of sacred land belonging to a sanctuary of Zeus (χώρα Διὸς Ὀθρυίου), outside of the disputed civic land but adjacent to it; and the control (ἐπιμέλεια) of the sanctuary. The status of the land and sanctuary of Zeus Othryios, as an extra-urban sanctuary in the mountainous borderland between two cities, is paralleled by that of the ἱερὰ χώρα οf Zeus Diktaios in Crete (see A. Chaniotis, “Extra-urban Sanctuaries in Classical and Hellenistic Crete”, in G. Deligiannakis, Y. Galanakis (eds.), The Aegean and its Cultures, Oxford, 2009, p. 59–67)]. The inscription was found on the hill of Agios Georgios, where the main sanctuary of Melitaia was located S. identifies the sanctuary as that of Zeus Othryios. [R. Bouchon, BE 2011, 375, objects that the sanctuary of a god of mountain peaks cannot be located on the hill of Agios Georgios; the sanctuary where the block was found, close to the citadel of Melitaia, was the sanctuary where public documents were published (cf. IG IX 2, 206/207).

419178) A. Stylow, “Stumm wie ein Frosch ohne Zunge! Eine neue Fluchtafel aus Celti (Peñaflor, Prov. Sevilla)”, ZPE 181 (2012), p. 149–155: Ed. pr. of a lead curse tablet from Celti (Spain, late 1st cent. CE). The curse concerns a lawsuit: ‘May Valerius Marcellus be dumb and silent in the lawsuit, which he has against C. Licinius Gallus. Exactly as a frog without tongue is dumb and silent (quemadmodum rana sene lingua muta tacita est), thus may also Valerius Marcellus be dumb and silent and incapable (of action) (mutus, tacitus, debilitatus) against Licinius Gallus’. S. comments on the fact that the defigens states his name. This is the first reference to a frog in a defixio, in the similia similibus-formula. In an appendix, S. gives a list of the defixiones found in Spain.

420179) V.M. Strocka, “Bauphasen des kaiserzeitlichen Asklepieions von Pergamon”, MDAI(I) 62 (2012), p. 199–287: A close study of the inscriptions and the architectural ornaments from the Asklepieion of Pergamon shows that, contrary to the communis opinio, this sanctuary was not built as one single building project under Hadrian; its construction lasted from ca. 90 to ca. 160 CE. S. discusses the inscriptions that concern the construction of the stoa of the gymnasion of the neoi (I.Pergamon 461), the dedicatory inscription of the ‘Kaisersaal’ (H. Hepding, “Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon I: Die Inschriften”, MDAI(A) 32 [1907], p. 347f. no 99), the dedicatory inscription of the north portico (AvPergamon VIII 3 no 64; new reconstruction). In an appendix, M. Wörrle (p. 272–275) presents the of a dedication to the Theoi Sebastoi and the demos of Pergamon: T. Iulius Amyntas Klaudianos and his wife dedicated two seating blocks in the theater, after serving as high priests of Asia (ca. 100 CE).

421180) D. Summa, “Una nuova lista cultuale per Artemide”, in Lo spazio ionico, p. 385–393 [SEG LX 547/548]: D. recognizes a fragmentary inscription from Palairos (IG IX2 1, 451, 2nd cent.) as a list of priests who made a dedication to Artemis [cf. supra no 15] in lines 3/4 she restores [καὶ] συ[νε]ιερ[εῖς] | Ἀρ̣τ̣έ̣μ[ιτι]. In this context, she discusses the function of the ἱεραπόλος mentioned in IG IX2 1, 454/455. The ἱεραπόλος of Artemis served as an annual eponymous magistrate for activities related to the sanctuary of Artemis. S. collects evidence for female ἱεραπόλοι in Athens (IG II2 3474: priestess of Athena), Megalopolis (IG V 2, 461: priestess of Aphrodite), and Argos (SEG XI 304: priestess of Hera). Male ἱεραπόλοι are attested in Astakos (IG IX2 1, 434) and as eponymous officials in Sicily.

422181) H. Taeuber, “Inschriften aus dem Vediusgymnasium. Die Neufunde”, in M. Steskal, M. La Torre (eds.), Das Vediusgymnasium in Ephesos (Forschungen in Ephesos XIV.1), Vienna, 2008, p. 243–252 [BE 2009, 28; SEG LVIII 1309–1325]: Ed. pr. of new inscriptions from the gymnasium of Vedius in Ephesos (Imperial period). They include a graffito on a marble plaque with an acclamation of Artemis (I 5B = SEG LVIII 1312 B: Ἐφεσία) and an honorific inscription for a man who served as agonothetes of the Megala Olympia, a contest established during Hadrian’s reign (I 72 = SEG LVIII 1315).

423182) C. Tanrıver, “The Cult of Theos Peismatene in Mysia”, EA 45 (2012), p. 93–99 [BE 2013, 352]: The cult of Theos Peismatene was known from an inscription of unknown provenance (EBGR 2006, 53; SEG LVI 2042). T. presents the of 12 relief stele dedicated to this goddess, all kept in a private collection and allegedly found near Daskyleion in Mysia; the sanctuary of this goddess must have been located near the villages Yeşilçomlu and Doğa. The goddess is represented on a throne flanked by two dogs; she wears a polos and holds an object (a tympanon?) in her left hand; with the right hand she makes a libation on an altar, in front of a tree, in the presence of worshippers. The dedications were made by both men and women in fulfillment of vows (1–8, 10–11: εὐχήν), in one case as an expression of gratitude for the goddess’ help in saving a woman (9: σωθεῖσα χαρι[στήριον]). In three cases, the vows were made for the well-being of the dedicants and family members (2–3, 5). One stele (12) is un-inscribed (or the inscription is not preserved).

424183) R. Tekoğlu, “Two Inscriptions from Arcik”, MDAI(I) 60 (2010), p. 110–111 [BE 2011, 265; 2012, 28 and 390; SEG LX 1570–1571]: Ed. pr. of two inscriptions from the area of Xanthos. The first inscription honors M. Aurelius Tlepolemos, a Roman knight (ca. 200 CE), who is designated as κοσμητὴς τῶν θεῶν. Honorific statues of Tlepolemos had been erected in the sanctuaries and the temples of the city and in the temple of Leto that consisted of three cellas (παρὰ τε τοῖς ἐ[ν] τῇ πόλει καὶ τῷ τριναῷ τ[ῆς] Λητοῦς ἱεροῖς τε καὶ ναοῖς). [M. Sève, BE 2012, no 28, more plausibly interprets τριναός (or τρίναος?) as a sanctuary with three temples. For the office of κοσμητὴς τῶν θεῶν cf. the expression κοσμητὴς πατρῴου θεοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος in Patara (see supra no 63)]. An additional statue was to be erected near a temple. The same Tlepolemos is mentioned in a second inscription as the recipient of a dedication of statues: Βασιλει[- - -]ου [- - -]| Τληπολέμ[- Διονυσί]ου [τρὶς] | τοῦ Ἀρτεμ[ιδώρου - - -] | ΑΛΜΕΙΤΗΣΑΣ καὶ τα[- - -] | ἀγάλματα καθιέρωσας [ἀνέθηκεν]. [As D. Rousset, BE 2012, 390, points out, Tlepolemos is the dedicant, making a dedication to Βασιλει[- -]].

425184) P.G. Themelis, “Ἀνασκαφὴ Μεσσήνης”, PAAH 162 (2007) [2010], p. 23–47 [SEG LVII 369–370, 373–376]: T.’s report on the results of the excavation in Messene contains references to several new inscriptions. A fragmentary decree of the Pylians in honor of Archedamos (late 1st cent., p. 42) has been presented in EBGR 2011, 12. A fragmentary inscription records the dedication of the proskenion of the theater to Trajan by Tiberius Claudius Saithidas on behalf of his mother, who had the honorific title Ἑστία πόλεως (p. 28f.). An honorific statue for the high priest Tiberius Claudius Geminianos was erected when his brothers served as priest of Zeus Ithomatas and secretary respectively (p. 29–31, ca. 140–170). Other inscriptions include a dedication to Dionysos by Diouskouridas (3rd cent., p. 26), possibly a man who is known as agonothetes (SEG XLI 365), a dedication to Eleithyia (ca. 200, p. 45f.), and stamped tiles mentioning Artemis in the genitive (p. 28).

426185) P. Themelis, “The Cult of Isis at Ancient Messene”, in Bibliotheca Isiaca II, p. 97–109: The cult of Isis in Messene is mentioned by Pausanias (IV, 32, 6) and attested through archaeological finds (mainly statuary). The sanctuary, of which a crypt is preserved, has been identified near the theater. The finds include an enigmatic inscription on a trapezoid capital found re-used in a Byzantine basilica (SEG LI 491; EBGR 2004, 268). T. assumes that it was originally part of a door-jam of the theater’s scaenae frons. The text reads
[ἔ]ργον Ἴσιδος. Because of the letterforms T. dates it to the late 4th cent. CE [the writing is careless; it is a graffito that can be earlier (2nd/3rd cent.). T. does not attempt an interpretation. Ἔργον may have the meaning ‘miracle’ as in Isyllos’ hymn for Asklepios:
IG IV2 1, 128 line 57: καὶ τόδε σῆς ἀρετῆς, Ἀσκληπιέ, τοὖργον ἔδειξας. The graffito may refer to a painted representation of a miracle on display in the theater].

427186) P.G. Themelis, “Ἀνασκαφὴ Μεσσήνης”, PAAH 164 (2009) [2012], p. 61–98 [SEG LIX 411, 416, 417, 420, 422, 423, 427]: Ed. pr. of inscriptions found during recent excavations in Messene. The most important text is an agonistic inscription of the late 1st cent. BCE or early 1st cent. CE, which had already been presented in earlier reports (see SEG XLIII 162; p. 71–74). The inscription lists victories of an athlete in wrestling and pankration in a series of agonistic festivals, including two contests for which this inscription was, until recently, the only evidence: the Delia in Tanagra [now attested in SEG LVII 452], and the Rhomaia in Aigion [now attested in SEG LIX 492]. The other victories were won at the following contests: Aleiaia, Eleutheria in Larisa and in Plataiai, Halieia in Rhodes, Heraia, Isthmia, Lykaia, Nemea, Olympia, Panathenaia, Pythia, Pythia in Megara, and Rhomaia in Chalkis and in Messene. Other agonistic inscriptions record the victory of a boy pankratiast at the Aleaia (p. 76) and the victories of a boy boxer at the Basileia of Lebadeia and the Pythia (p. 69f., 2nd/1st cent.). Other inscriptions include a dedication to Artemis Soteira (93f., 2nd cent.) and Zeus Epidotas (95); both epithets are attested in Messene for the first time. Epidotas is an epithet of Zeus in Sparta (Hesychios, s.v.; Pausanias VIII, 9, 2) and in Mantineia (IG V 2, 270). A Roman officer made a dedication to Iuppiter Capitolinus (Zeus Kapitolios; p. 81–83, 1st/2nd cent. CE). A poorly preserved mosaic (2nd cent. CE, p. 78–81) still shows the labels that identify two mythological figures: Messene, the eponymous heroine and mythical queen of Messenia, and Attikos, possibly a son of Pandion (cf. Pausanias IV, 1, 6–8). Finally, the finds include two defixiones, found in the Thesauros south of the temple of Messene. T. suggests that the curse tablets were thrown into the Thesauros after the murder of Philopoimen in 183 BCE. He presents the text of one of them. The defigens invokes (καλῶ) chthonic deities and heroes: καλῶ ᾿Ελεύθειαν, Κῆρας, ῾Εκάταν, Ἑβρακλέα [i.e. Herakles], καὶ κλε(ι)νὸν ῾Ιπόλυτο(ο)ν καὶ ᾿Ελευσινίας κ[- - -]αι τοὺς [- - -] Μεσ[σα]νίους ΟΥΝ[…]Α[- - -] [we note the laudatory attribute for Hippolytos; the accusative Μεσ[σα]νίους is either an attribute of Messenian gods or more likely not the object of καλῶ but of an infinitive that describes the action that the defigens requests (cf. the ending [- - -]αι)].

428187) P.G. Themelis, “ Ἀνασκαφὴ Μεσσήνης”, PAAH 165 (2010) [2013], p. 53–64 [SEG LXI 443]: Ed. pr. of an inscription that records the dedication of the statue of a former thoinarmostria to Demeter and Kore (Messene, Hellenistic, p. 64 no 3); the office is attested in the Peloponnese (e.g. IG V 1, 1390, 1447, 1498; SEG XXV 437).

429188) P Thonemann “The Women of Akmoneia”, JRS 100 (2010), p. 163–178 [BE 2011, 571; SEG LX 1423]: Ed. pr. of an honorific inscription from Akmonia (6/7 CE). The corporate body of ‘the Greek and Roman wives’ of Akmoneia honored a high priestess.

430189) P. Triantafillopoulou, “Ἡ Δημητριάδα καὶ ἡ εὐρύτερη περιοχή της κατὰ τοὺς ρωμαϊκοὺς χρόνους”, in AEThStE 3, p. 342–349: In an overview of the urban development of Demetrias after the Roman conquest, T. mentions a relief stele, decorated with an ear and dedicated to Meter Theon (Demetrias, Imperial period). She also mentions statuettes of Zeus, Hermes, Athena, and Aphrodite found in domestic contexts.

431190) E.-B. Tsigarida, “Δαχτυλίδι μὲ ὀρφικὸ συμβολισμὸ ἀπὸ τὸ νεκροταφεῖο τῆς ἀρχαίας Πύδνας”, in Dineessa – Romiopoulou, p. 503–508 [BE 2013, 49, 264]: Ed. pr. of an inscribed silver ring found in the grave of a woman in Pydna (late 4th cent.). The inscription, with gold inlayed letters, names the ring’s original owner (Menandros, son of Nikon). Later, a gold crescent was fixed to the bezel, covering one letter of the inscription. A similar inlayed crescent is found on a ring from Cyprus (F.H. Marshall, Catalogue of the Finger Rings, Greek, Etruscan, and Roman, in the Departments of Antiquities, British Museum, London, 1968, no 1057). T. associates the crescent, a symbol connected with Selene, with Orphic views and speculates that the woman was an initiate into the Orphic mysteries.

432191) M. Tsouli, “Νέα ἀνάγλυφα τῶν Διόσκουρων ἀπὸ τὴ Σπάρτη”, in Dineessa – Romiopoulou, p. 409–418 [BE 2013, 38]: Publication of two dedicatory reliefs from Sparta depicting the Dioskouroi (1st cent. BCE/CE). One of the reliefs, made of clay, has an unusual iconography: right and left, the Dioskouroi are represented standing next to their horses; in the middle, two women flank an altar. They must be the Leukippids, i.e. the Messenian princesses abducted by the Dioskouroi. An inscription (Ἔρωτο[ς]) written above the altar suggests that the Dioskouroi and their wives are offering a sacrifice on the altar of Eros, possibly in a wedding scene.

433192) A. Twardecki, “A Collegium of Hieroi in the Bosporan Kingdom”, in Pontika 2008, p. 371–376: T. discusses a grave epigram from the vicinity of Pantikapaion (CIRB 121; GV 1812, late 1st cent.), which has been interpreted as the epitaph of an Orphic (E. Bikerman, “The Orphic Blessing”, Journal of the Warburg Institute 2 [1938], p. 368–374; cf. G. Casadio, “Le metempsicosi tra Orfeo e Pitagora”, in P. Borgeaud [ed.], Orphisme et Orphée, Geneva, 1991, p. 136f.) or a philosopher (A.D. Nock, “Orphism or Popular Philosophy?”, HThR 33 [1940], p. 301–315; cf. D.V. Panchenko, “Epitaph of Hekataios (CIRB 121): Faith, Philosophical Topos or Choice of the Way?”, in A.K. Gavrilov [ed.], Studies in the History and Culture of Northern Black Sea Coast in Antiquity, St. Petersburg, 1992, p. 28–42). The text reads: οὐ λόγον, ἀλλὰ βίον σοφίης ἐτυπώσαο δόξαν | αὐτοδαὴς ἱερῶν γινόμενος κριμάτων. | εὕδων οὖν, Ἑκαταῖε, μεσόχρονος, ἴσθ’ ὅτι θᾶσσον | κύκλον ἀνιηρῶν ἐξέφυγες καμάτων. T. argues that αὐτοδαὴς suggests that Hekataios ‘was self-knowing or had self-knowledge from a god’ (not self-taught or having learned from instinct). He rejects earlier interpretations of the phrase ἱερῶν κριμάτων as a reference to holy principles or judgments; adducing the cult regulation of Andania, he argues that this phrase refers to the judgments of officials called ἱεροί (i.e. κρίματα ἱερῶν, not ἱερὰ κρίματα). In Nock’s interpretation, followed by T., κύκλον ἀνιηρῶν ἐξέφυγες καμάτων is not a reference to escape from re-incarnation, but to escape from the daily troubles of life; Hekataios died middle-aged (μεσόχρονος), thus escaping from the pains of life faster than other people. T. offers the following translation: ‘not by words, but by life you copied wisdom’s glory, self-knowing you made judgments of holies. So resting, Hekataios, in the middle of time, know that faster you escaped wheel of grievous troubles’ [sic! The idea of re-incarnation should, indeed, be put to rest. But a comparison with the cult regulation of Andania and the judiciary duties of the hieroi is not helpful. And the phrase αὐτοδαὴς ἱερῶν γινόμενος κριμάτων cannot be made to mean that Hekataios gave judgments as a hieros].

434193) A. Tziafalias, B. Helly, “Inscriptions de la Tripolis de Perrhébie”, Studi Ellenistici 24 (2010) [2011], p. 71–125 [BE 2011, 399; SEG LX 586]: Ed. pr. of a dossier of letters sent by King Antigonos Doson to the Tripolitans in Thessaly. The documents concern privileges granted to soldiers and officers who fought at the battle of Selasia (222 BCE; 104–117 no IV). The pillar with the inscriptions was dedicated to Apollo Pythios and was found in the sanctuary of this god in Azoros.

435194) A. Tziafalias, G. Lucas, “L’organisation de la surveillance du territoire de Dolichè”, in AEThStE 3, p. 487–494: Ed. pr. of a fragmentary inscription that deals with the protection of the territory of Doliche (Thessaly, late 2nd cent.). The text mentions the months Apollonios (line 9), Hippodromios (line 23), and Itonios (line 26). Two sanctuaries are mentioned along the border of Doliche: [τ]ὸ ἱερὸν τὸ καλούμενον παλαιόν (line 39) and the sanctuary of Themis (line 42).

436195) G. Valarino, “Le epigrafi dello Hephaisteion e il culto di Efesto ad Atene”, in Omaggio – Lombardi, p. 61–74: It is generally assumed that the construction of the temple of Hephaistos in Athens started in ca. 460 BCE and was completed 40 years later. V. challenges this view using the evidence provided by the accounts for the construction of cult statues (IG I3 472, ca. 421–419), the decree concerning the re-organization of the Hephasteia (IG I3 82), and masons’ marks. He argues that the construction started around 460–458 BCE and was completed a few years later; the statues were constructed in ca. 421–414 BCE; a torch-race was added in 420 BCE to a pre-existing festival.

437196) P. Valavanis, “Κύλιξ δὶς ἐνεπίγραφος”, in I.K. Promponas, P. Valavanis (eds.), Εὐεργεσίη. Τόμος χαριστήριος στὸν Παναγιώτη Ι. Κοντό, Athens, 2006, II, p. 507–518 [SEG LXI 115 bis]: V. discusses an inscribed kylix from a cemetery in Marathon (CVA, Greece 7, 43/44, no K 555, ca. 500–475). The vase, decorated with a dancing maenad (interior) and Dionysos and Ariadne (exterior) was first inscribed with a graffito-dedication: Χρυσονίδες ἔθεκεν Θ[εοῖς?]. The vase was re-dedicated and re-inscribed one or two generations later: Κύλον ἀνέθεκεν Θεοῖς. The place of dedication may have been the Delion of Marathon or the cave of Pan and the Nymphs at Oinoe. The two dedicatory inscriptions were erased when the kylix was deposited in a grave as an offering; to use a vase dedicated to gods as a grave offering was probably regarded as an offence.

438197) R. van Bremen, “Day and Night at Stratonikeia”, in Labraunda and Karia, p. 149–157 [BE 2012, 27]: An enigmatic inscription from Stratonikeia (EBGR 2005, 30; SEG LV 1145) consists of a list of individuals, to whom ‘a day and a night’ were given. The entries follow the same pattern: τοῖς ἔχουσι τὰ ΝΝ + δεδωκότος + amount, ἡμέρα καὶ νύξ (‘to those, who hold the property of NN, son of NN + ethnic, who has given + amount, day and night + a numeral’). V.B. plausibly dates the inscription to the 1st cent. BCE (not the time of the Rhodian occupation of Karia in the early 2nd cent.) and rejects the view that the privilege was connected with a cult. It most likely granted the owners of certain properties the right to use a water reservoir on certain days, both day and night [cf. CIL XIV 3676, an inscription from Tibur assigning to individuals certain amounts of water in certain times ab hora noctis – ad horam –].

439198) M. Veksina, “Zur Datierung der neuen Weihinschrift aus dem Oxos-Tempel”, ZPE 181 (2012), p. 108–116: V. republishes the text of the dedication to the river-god Oxos (supra no 61; ‘an den Oxos hat auf (göttliche) Anweisung iromois (Sohn) des Nemiskos, molrpalres, das sieben Talente schwere Bronzegefäß geweiht’). Based on the letterforms, V. proposes a date in the mid-2nd cent.

440199) H.S. Versnel, Coping with the Gods. Wayward Readings in Greek Theology, Leiden, 2011: V.’s Sather Lectures are devoted to central aspects of the Greek concept of gods: the ways identities and properties were attributed to gods; how names and epithets contribute to the construction of a divine identity [for a nice example see supra no 82: two different epithets imply two different hypostases of Zeus]; how local, relatively isolated, pantheons co-existed [since local ‘pantheons’ continually evolve, I would prefer the term ‘local cult constellations’]; the central part played by the idea of justice in the perception of the divine; the development of the idea of the ‘oneness’ of god; the question of divine omnipotence, epiphanies, and miracles; and the Hellenistic ruler cult. By limiting this summary to the sections that heavily rely on the epigraphic evidence, I am not doing justice to a book that with plausible and innovative remarks and with an exhaustive collection and analysis of sources brings order to the Greek approaches to the divine, contextualizes the evidence, and addresses the contradictions and inconsistencies in the Greek concepts of god(s). The epigraphic evidence is exploited in the study of the acclamation εἷς θεός (p. 280–283); the religious significance of aretalogies (p. 283–289); the main features of henotheism: cosmopolitan claims, miracles (arete), beatitude (makarismoi), acclamations of greatness, devotion, condemnation of impious behavior, recognition of the god’s invincibility, divine punishment of the god’s enemies, and public confession of guilt (p. 289–296); the religious significance of collections of healing miracles, especially of Asklepios (p. 400–422); the notion and cult of πάντες θεοί (p. 501–515).

441200) H.S. Versnel, “Response to a Critique”, in M. Piranomonte, F. Marco Simón (eds.), Contesti Magici — Contextos Magicos, Rome, 2012, p. 33–45: V. is engaged in a discussion with M. Dreher (supra no 59 bis) concerning the existence of a separate category of defixiones, the ‘prayers of justice’. Main characteristics of the ‘prayers of justice’ are the following: 1) the name of the author is mentioned; 2) an argument defending the action is presented, sometimes with a single term, sometimes with more elaborate details; 3) the author requests that the act be excused or that the writer be spared the possible adverse effects; 4) gods other than the usual chthonic deities appear; 5) either because of their superior character or as a persuasive gesture the gods are addressed either with a flattering adjective (e.g. philē) or with a superior title such as kyrios, kyria, or despoina; 6) expressions of supplication are added to personal and direct invocations of the deity; and 7) terms and names which refer to injustice and punishment are used. The existence of these features is denied by Dreher, who argues that similar features can also be found in traditional curses. In his response V. points out that he has always maintained that there are ‘borderline curses’ and an occasional overlap between the ‘prayers for justice’ and the other curses. In a detailed, point-to-point discussion of Dreher’s arguments and relevant texts, V. shows that there are no traditional defixiones that contain references to injustice [see also supra no 178]. Similarly, he argues that the texts that are adduced by D. as binding curses and display features attributed by V. to ‘prayers for justice’ are not ‘pure’ or ordinary defixiones but in fact ‘prayers for justice’. There are no ‘pure’ curses that name the author, have references to injustice and revenge, use a different tone, or mention explicit grounds for cursing. V. re-iterates that beyond this distinction there is a ‘mixed group’. [I have adopted and still use the notion of the ‘prayer for justice’ for most of the reasons stated by V., but also for an additional reason. As I argue in an article summarized in supra no 42, there is an evolution of Greek attitudes towards rituals, from the belief that the efficacy of rituals depends on the mechanical performance of a prescribed action towards an emphasis on moral distinctions. I recognize the development of a new type of curses as part of this development].

442201) R. Veymiers, “Les cultes isiaques à Argos. Du mythe à l’archéologie”, in Bibliotheca Isiaca II, p. 111–129: Because of the association of Io with Isis and Epaphos with Apis, the cult of the Egyptian gods in Argos has a specific character. V. discusses in detail the numismatic and archaeological evidence for the cult in Argos. The epigraphic evidence includes a dedication to Isis, Sarapis, and Anoubis ‘for a good year’ ([ἐπὶ εὐ]ημερίαι; or [καὶ Εὐ]ημερίαι; RICIS 102/0803), a dedication to Isis and Sarapis (RICIS 102/0804).

443202) R. Veymiers, “ Ἵλεως τῷ φοροῦντι. Sérapis sur les gemmes et les bijoux antiques. Supplément I”, in Bibliotheca Isiaca II, p. 239–271: V. presents addenda to his catalogue of gems connected with the cult of Sarapis that we summarized in EBGR 2009, 171. We briefly present the inscriptions of religious content. Inedita are marked with an asterisk; we give references to those gems that are also included in A. Mastrocinque, Sylloge gemmarum gnosticarum II, Rome, 2008. The most common texts are acclamations and invocations: εἷς Ζεὺς Σάραπις: VI.DA.15 (Mastrocinque, p. 133); VI.DA.16*; A.42; A.44*; μέγα τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Σέραπις: A.43*; A.45; A.48 (Mastrocinque, p. 117); Σάραπις: A.46. There are also two prayers (Σέραπι, σῶζε με: A.49*; φύλαξε: II.AB.27, obverse = Mastrocinque, p. 188) and two gems with magical names and words (Αβρασαξ: I.H.6 = Mastrocinque, p. 43; magical words: II.AB.27, reverse = Mastrocinque, p. 188).

444203) B. Virgilio, “L’epistola di reale dal santuario di Sinuri presso Mylasa in Caria, sulla base dei calci del Fonds Louis Robert della Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres”, Studi Ellenistici 23 (2010), p. 55–107 [BE 2011, 530; SEG LX 1127]: Ed. pr. of an inscription found in 1934 by L. Robert in the sanctuary at Sinuri, near Mylasa. Only part of the inscription was quoted by L. Robert, Le Sanctuaire de Sinuri près de Mylasa. Première partie. Les inscriptions grecques, Paris, 1945, p. 12. According to V.’s readings and restorations, the inscription contains a letter sent by Antiochos III to the syngeneia that managed the sanctuary at Sinuri and to the priest. Antiochos promises the return of sacred slaves that had been carried away by his soldiers during his campaign in Karia in 203–201 BCE.

445204) M. Vitale, Eparchie und Koinon in Kleinasien von der ausgehenden Republik bis ins 3. Jh. n. Chr. (Asia Minor Studien, 67), Bonn, 2012: V. examines the functions of the so-called ‘provincial koina’ in Asia Minor, highlighting the existence of smaller entities (‘eparchies’) that did not coincide with a province but had their own federal structure. The title of the highest official of these ‘eparchies’ was composed with the name of that region and the ending -arches (e.g. Asiarches, Lesbarches, Pontarches, Paphlagoniarches, Bithyniarches). V. examines the evidence for the koina of Asia, Phrygia — its existence is uncertain —, Galatia, Pontos, Bithynia, Pamphylia, Lykia, Kilikia, Kilikia-Isauria-Lykaonia, and Lykaonia. This study is relevant for the understanding of the imperial cult and its festivals in the Roman East, although V. does not specifically discuss this subject.

446205) E. Voutiras, “Φροντίσµατα: Τὸ ἀνάγλυφο τῆς Ξενοκράτειας καὶ τὸ ἱερὸ τοῦ Κηφισοῦ στὸ Νέο Φάληρο”, in Ἔπαινος Luigi Beschi, p. 49–58 [SEG LXI 73]: V. presents a new interpretation of the relief dedicated by Xenokrateia in the sanctuary of the river god Kephisos (IG I3 987, Athens, late 5th cent., probably after 413 BCE). In his interpretation, the dedicant presents her son to Kephisos, who is expected to look after the child. She designates her dedication as διδασκαλίας τόδε δῶρον, because she wishes to thank the gods for their support in her efforts to educate her son.

447206) E. Voutiras, “Ἡ λατρεία τοῦ Διονύσου στὴν Ἔδεσσα”, in Dineessa – Romiopoulou, p. 563–568 [BE 2013, 271]: In Edessa, the cult of Dionysos is attested through coins and an honorific inscription for Claudia Ocellina, priestess of θεὸς πάτριος Διόνυσος and ἀρχιέρεια τῆς Ἐδεσσαίων πόλεως πρὸς πατρὸς Κλαυδίου Μαξίμου ἀρχιερέως. [According to V. πρὸς πατρός means that Ocellina served as high priestess of the civic imperial cult on the basis of heredity; indeed, πρὸς πατρός usually denotes ancestry (e.g. I.Didyma 317: ἀπόγονος ὑπάρχων [κ]αὶ πρὸς πατρὸς καὶ μητρὸς προγόνων εὐεργετῶν). But taking into consideration the fact that the high priesthood of the imperial cult was occupied by a man and his wife, and, in the case of widowers, by a man and his daughter, this expression may not refer to a hereditary priesthood (i.e., ἀρχιέρεια διὰ γένους) but to the fact that Ocellina served together with her father, deriving her office πρὸς πατρὸς, i.e. ‘from her father, on the side of the father’.] V. associates with Dionysos’ cult a famous epigram for a pig that came to Edessa on foot from Dalmatia, wishing to see Emathia (Macedonia) and the cart of the phallus (Ἠμαθίην δὲ ποθῶν κατιδεῖν φαλλοῖο δὲ ἅρμα), but was killed by a cart (SEG XV 711, Edessa, 2nd/3rd cent.). The accident is depicted on a relief that shows a cart drawn by four mules and the pig under its wheels. V. plausibly assumes that the pig, which had been trained to perform in festivals, was killed by the cart used for the phallagogia in a festival of Dionysos; the relief shows the pole on which the phallus would be erected; the phallus itself, which was transported by the cart, is not shown, since it is covered. Acrobatic performances by pigs are attested (Petronius, Satiricon 47, 9–10). V. collects evidence for phallic processions in Greece and Thessalonike. The latter are mentioned in an oration of Leo the Mathematician; V. Laurent, “Une homélie inédite de l’archevêque de Thessalonique Léon le Philosophe sur l’Annonciation (25 mars 842)”, in Mélanges Eugène Tisserant. II. Orient chrétien, Città del Vaticano 1964, p. 281–302). [A phallic procession is also attested in Beroia (I.Beroia 7 line 30: δηνάρια χείλια τὰ ὑπὲρ τοῦ φαλλοῦ; ca. 100–150 CE.]

448207) R. Wagman, “House of the Nymphs”, in Studies Tracy, p. 323–325 [BE 2013, 230; SEG LX 600]: Republishes a dedicatory epigram from the cave of the Nymphs in Pharsalos (SEG I 248; I.ThessEnipeus 73). For line 7, he suggests restoring τ[ὸ δ]ῶμα ἅπαν (τ[ά]δ̣, ὦνα Πάν, earlier editors). The poem refers to a rudimentary architectural structure annexed to the cave.

449208) J. Wallensten, “Apollo and Artemis. Family Ties in Greek Dedicatory Language?”, in Current Approaches to Religion, p. 23–40: W. collects 17 joint dedications to Apollo and Artemis, sometimes also to other gods (87 of them from Delos); often, the two gods are also associated with Leto. The joint dedications can be explained by the mythological relationship of the two sibling gods. The fact that they were twins played an important part in the association of Artemis and Apollo in dedications, but their close relationship is rarely expressed through epithets (e.g. Delphinios/Delphinia, epekooi). Artemis and Apollo usually had different epithets in their joint dedications (for a list see p. 38).

450209) C. Wallner, Die Inschriften des Museums in Yozgat (Tyche, Sonderband, 6), Vienna, 2011: W. presents a catalogue of the inscriptions in the Museum of Yozgat; the inscriptions (mostly epitaphs) come from various sites in Galatia, Kappadokia, and Pontos. We highlight an unpublished epitaph from the area of Tavium (Imperial period, I.20*) with an interesting curse for those who open the grave: ‘for whoever opens, may get elephantiasis’ (ἐπὶ ΕΔΕ ἐλεφαντίασι ὁ ᾿νύξας); elephantiasis probably is leprosy or a skin disease. In another ineditum, also from the area of Tavium, the deceased individual is designated ἥρως (I.11*).

451210) M. Widmer, “Pourquoi reprendre le dossier des reines hellénistiques? Le cas de Laodice V”, in F. Bertholet et al. (eds.), Égypte — Grèce — Rome. Les différents visages des femmes antiques, Bern, 2008, p. 63–92: W. examines the evidence for the benefactions of Laodike V, the wife of Antiochos III, to Greek cities and her cult in Iasos, Sardeis, and Teos. She argues that the queen did not exercize autonomous power but could take initiatives to offer humanitarian assistance to cities. Antiochos III introduced a high priestess for her dynastic cult, in order to strengthen the souvereignty of the reignung couple and secure that of their descendants.

452211) H.-U. Wiemer, D. Kah, “Die phrygische Mutter im hellenistischen Priene: Eine neue Diagraphe und verwandte Texte”, EA 44 (2011), p. 1–54: Ed. pr. of a regulation concerning the sale of the priesthood of Meter Phrygie in Priene (2nd cent.). The priesthood was to be purchased by a woman for life. The priestess was exempt from the tax for herself and one slave. Her main duty was the offering of a sacrifice on the 12th of Artemision. On the 1st of Artemision, the priestess drew from the city the amount of 40 drachmas for the victims: a sheep for the Meter, a chicken for Pan, and two lambs for Hermes and Zeus. The perquisites of the priestess from this public sacrifice consisted in the skin of the sacrificed animals and half of the honorary portions (τῶν γερῶν τὰ ἡμίση); the remaining meat was distributed among those who attended the sacrifice. She was obliged to provide cakes (ἔλατρα) for the victims, things to be burnt (θύα), grain corns (οὐλάς), and incense. In the case of private sacrifices, she received one third of the honorific portions. The priestess also supervised initiatory rites for women (ὅσαι δ᾿ ἂν θέλωσιν τελεῖσθαι,
τελείσθ[ω]σαν παρὰ τῇ ἱερῇ τῆι δημοσίη), offering a grown sacrificial animal. Another exclusive right of the priestess was the organization of an
agermos together with other women, a gathering of donations, on the 4th of Artemision. From this offering, the priestess received one third of the honorific portions and the skin. The regulation also deals with the temenos of the goddess, obliging people to return to the sanctuary thalamai (possibly aediculae with the representation of Kybele). The priestess was responsible for a ritual which is described as εἰσάγειν εἰς το πρυτανεῖον (her inauguration?, a sacrifice on the 12th of Artemision?) [the imperative εἰσαγέτω suggests that this was a ceremony that was repeated regularly; so, it cannot be the priestess’ inauguration; it may be the inauguration of the civic magistrates on the first day of the year]. For this celebration, the city offered certain food items (grain, olive oil, honey, cheese). The expenses for the initiation of the priestess into her office (τελεσθήσεται) were covered by her. The authors provide an exhaustive commentary on the rituals, the institutions of Priene, and the cult of the Phrygian Mother/Kybele. In appendices they publish a dedication to the Phrygian Mother and republish with detailed commentaries the regulations concerning the priesthoods of Dionysos Phleos (I.Priene 174; LSAM 37) and Poseidon Helikonios (I.Priene 201–203; LSAM 38).

453212) A. Wolicki, “A Note on a Defixio from the Kerameikos”, ZPE 180 (2012), p. 250–252 [BE 2013, 44]: W. discusses the lead tablet from Athens that curses Θοχάρης ὁ κηδεστὴς ὁ Θοχάρος, 3 men καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι ἀντίδικοι (SEG XLIX 316; L 279). He argues that the defigens did not curse ‘Theochares, the in-law of Theochares’ but Theochares and the in-law of Theochares, whose name was not inscribed, along with other individuals.

454213) A. Wypustek, Images of Eternal Beauty in Funerary Verse Inscriptions of the Hellenistic and Greco-Roman Periods, Leiden, 2012: This book offers a very useful survey of eschatological ideas found in grave epigrams of the Hellenistic and Imperial periods. Based on a very good selection of epigrams, presented in original and translation, W. discusses the following subjects: the perception of the dead as gods (especially apotheosis in the ether and among the stars); the designation of the deceased individual as ἥρως; the motif of the marriage of the deceased individual (usually a girl) with a god; the perception of the deceased as chosen by the gods and as serving the gods. This book is a good example of how the systematic study of the epigraphic evidence can contribute to the understanding of religious phenomena.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Angelos Chaniotis, « Epigraphic Bulletin for Greek Religion 2012 (EBGR 2012) », Kernos, 28 | 2015, 175-254.

Référence électronique

Angelos Chaniotis, « Epigraphic Bulletin for Greek Religion 2012 (EBGR 2012) », Kernos [En ligne], 28 | 2015, mis en ligne le 01 octobre 2017, consulté le 20 octobre 2017. URL :

Haut de page


Angelos Chaniotis

School of Historical Studies
Institute for Advanced Study
Einstein Drive
Princeton, NJ 08540

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