1 Examples could be multiplied at pleasure: see, for instance, the case of the Attalid basileia being added to the citadel of Pergamon, which was dominated by the pre-existing terrace of Athena. This case also shows that the host-guest relationship is not a stable one, but is subject to change through time. Starting from the monumental reorganization of Athena’s terrace under Attalos I and Eumenes II, the balance between sacred and royal space in the citadel of Pergamon was reversed as the precinct of Athena was progressively encapsulated in the royal space; this process is attested by the creation of the Library and by Attalos III’s royal addition of the cult of Zeus Sabazios to the temenos of Athena.

2 See Price (1984b) on the difference between the fluid status granted to the recipients of ritual honours in the Greek Hellenistic East and the juridical definition of the religious category of Diui in Rome. A revealing case of a new approach to cultic honours is provided by a decree for L. Vaccius Labeo (IK Kyme 19; IGR IV 1302; 2 BC – 14 AD). This member of the local elite of Kyme rejected the establishment of civic honours comprising a temple to be erected in the gymnasium and the grant of the epithet Ktistēs, arguing that such honours exceeded those suitable for men: cf. Kuhn (2017), p. 202-205. Labeo’s Italic origins (he was a member of an important family of negotiatores) may have made him particularly sensitive to the ongoing Augustan process of re-definition of the system of cultic honours for political leaders. His recusatio is reported in detail at lines 11-20 of the decree: “although he accepted the resolution of the city with pleasure, Labeo, also considering the initiatives taken for him and measuring his luck in relation to what can be reached by a human being, declined this excessive honour, fitting the gods and those equal to the gods (isotheoi)—that is, the consecration of the temple and the denomination as Founder—and since he considered as sufficient the decision taken by the city and its manifestation of benevolence, he accepted with joy the honours suitable for good men”. I will discuss diachronic changes in the use of the adjective isotheos and other key expressions of the vocabulary of Hellenistic ritual honours in Caneva (in preparation).

3 This point was already convincingly made by Steuernagel (2010).

4 On the role of the entrenchment clause in public regulations, see Harris (2006), p. 23-25 and (2015), p. 66, 69 (specifically on the so-called ‘sacred laws’); on juridical devices to ensure the duration of private cultic foundations, Laum (1914), p. 178-211. A remarkable difference between civic honorific decrees and private foundations pertaining to ruler cults emerges from the sacred regulation of Antiochos I of Kommagene. Here the content of the foundation is related to the dynastic cult of the king and his ancestors; however, because the endowment is private (royal), the juridical and religious devices activated to ensure the perpetuation of the cults attached to the principal capital provided by the king are comparable to those of non-royal private foundations. On the foundation of Antiochos, see IGLS I, 1 (from the hierothesion of Nemrud Dağ) and the new texts collected in SEG LIII 1763.

5 On early Hellenistic Aigai, see Habicht (2020).

6 See LINSSEN (2004), p. 124-128; Gladić (2007).

7 IK Laodikeia am Lykos 1; January 267 BC. The two offerings are also to take place in distinct locations: that for Achaios in the sanctuary of Zeus at Baba Kome, those for his collaborators in the sanctuary of Apollo at Kiddiou Kome. On the status and honours of Achaios in the area, see Mcauley (2018), p. 38-39.

8 Chaniotis (1995).

9 Rhodes – Osborne (2007), no. 83, γ.front.ii, lines 5-6.

10 We also hope that her comparative effort with the Seleucid evidence will encourage further analyses of the finances of honours for other Hellenistic dynasties. The finances of honours did not figure among the topics dealt with in the Freiburg conference Comparing the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Empires, 30 June – 2 July 2016. Another dynasty for which we have abundant evidence allowing for a detailed study of the financial mechanisms of honours is that of the Attalids. For some preliminary remarks in this direction, see Kaye (2012); Chin (2018).

11 See the cases of the precinct of Ptolemy III and Berenike II at Itanos and the Laodikeion at Sardis. In some cases, the creation of open-air cultic spaces would be in line with local traditions: cf. the Arsinoeion created inside the sanctuary of Apollo/Reshef at Idalion, whose interpretation as an uncovered precinct fits the traditional structure of pre-Hellenistic Cypriot sanctuaries.

12 See Chankowski (2010b) on cults surviving the death of the ruler for whom they had been created, or even the extinction of a dynasty.

13 Dative dedications are still well documented in the Ptolemaic kingdom under Ptolemy VI and VIII. For a later period, see also Pfeiffer in this volume for the coexistence of the dative and hyper formulae in a decree from Cyrene, SEG IX 5; IGCyr011100 (109/108 BC).

14 Kantirea (2007), passim; Kajava (2011).

15 I limit myself to a few sparse examples from outside Egypt. Since gymnasia played a paramount role in the celebration of ritual honours for rulers in the late Hellenistic period, the documentation from this type of institution is particularly useful for us here: see e.g. IG XII Suppl. 250 (Andros; mid-second cent.), mentioning a sacrifice accomplished by a gymnasiarch during a civic festival for the health and salvation of an Attalid king, probably Eumenes II; TAM V 2, 855 (Thyateira; mid-second cent.), probably with a monthly sacrifice accomplished by the gymnasiarch hyper Attalos II or III; IG XII 3, 331 (Thera, shortly before 145 BC), referring to the celebration of the festival Hermeia and Herakleia in the gymnasium hyper Ptolemy VI; SEG I 466 (Tyana, second half of the second cent.), a list of gymnasiarchs dedicated to Hermes and Herakles hyper Ariarathes IV. Arguing for a growing success of the hyper formula in late Hellenistic dedications for rulers, Price (1980), p. 38 adds to the documentary dossier an inscription from Delphi mentioning the festival Attaleia (LSCG 80), whereby sacrifices are accomplished hyper Attalos II. However, this example should be treated with particular care since the festival was a royal foundation of this king (like the Delphic Eumeneia of LSS 44, founded by Eumenes II). The festival was named after the donor and its logic was different from that of ruler cult festivals established by cities to honour a king.

16 Price (1980), p. 30-32.

17 See in particular Chaniotis (2018).