• Contenu principal
  • Menu
OpenEdition Books
  • Accueil
  • Catalogue de 15532 livres
  • Éditeurs
  • Auteurs
  • Facebook
  • X
  • Partager
    • Facebook

    • X

    • Accueil
    • Catalogue de 15532 livres
    • Éditeurs
    • Auteurs
  • Ressources numériques en sciences humaines et sociales

    • OpenEdition
  • Nos plateformes

    • OpenEdition Books
    • OpenEdition Journals
    • Hypothèses
    • Calenda
  • Bibliothèques

    • OpenEdition Freemium
  • Suivez-nous

  • Lettre d’information
OpenEdition Search

Redirection vers OpenEdition Search.

À quel endroit ?
  • Presses universitaires de Liège
  • ›
  • Kernos suppléments
  • ›
  • Greek Incubation Rituals in Classical an...
  • ›
  • Chapter 1. The rites and rules
  • Presses universitaires de Liège
  • Presses universitaires de Liège
    Presses universitaires de Liège
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Liens vers le livre
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Formats de lecture

    Plan

    Plan détaillé Texte intégral 1.1. Preparation, purification and payment 1.2. Offerings and prayer 1.3. The appearance of the incubant 1.4. The setting 1.5. Incubation for someone else 1.6. The giving of thanks Notes de bas de page

    Greek Incubation Rituals in Classical and Hellenistic Times

    Ce livre est recensé par

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    Chapter 1. The rites and rules

    p. 23-109

    Texte intégral 1.1. Preparation, purification and payment 1.1.1. Invitation by the god to come and incubate 1.1.2. Abstinence from sex 1.1.3. Avoidance of birth and death 1.1.4. Purity of mind 1.1.5. Abstinence from certain foods Possible cultic reasons for prohibitions on pigs and goats 1.1.6. Fasting 1.1.7. Purification with water 1.1.8. Purificatory sacrifice 1.1.9. A fee to be paid before incubating 1.2. Offerings and prayer 1.2.1. Animal sacrifice to associated deities 1.2.2. The sacrifice of cakes Contextualization and analysis of the rite The cakes The gods receiving cakes 1.2.3. Libations 1.2.4. Unspecified sacrifice before incubation 1.2.5. Animal sacrifice before incubation Testimonia The contextualization and analysis of the rite 1.2.6. Vows and prayers 1.2.7. The use of incense 1.3. The appearance of the incubant 1.3.1. Wearing a wreath 1.3.2. Clothing restrictions 1.4. The setting 1.4.1. The dormitory 1.4.2. Sleeping on a stibas 1.4.3. Sleeping on the skin of the sacrificed animal 1.4.4. Sleeping on klinai 1.4.5. Did men and women sleep separately or together? 1.4.6. Lamps 1.5. Incubation for someone else 1.5.1. Incubation by proxy 1.5.2. Priests sleeping in place of incubants 1.6. The giving of thanks 1.6.1. A common meal after incubation 1.6.2. Priests interpreting the dreams 1.6.3. Monetary payment for the cure 1.6.4. Animal sacrifice as thanks for recovery 1.6.5. The dedication of votives and cure tablets Votives mentioned in inscriptions and texts Archaeological evidence Testimonia on the nature of the cures on pinakes and iamata Contextualization and analysis of the rite Notes de bas de page

    Texte intégral

    1This chapter concerns what happened before and after the incubation dream. The different kinds of rites performed and the rules observed in different sanctuaries at different times, before and after the epiphany in a dream, are all put together in a hypothetical sequence. The rites and rules can roughly be divided: first, into the purifications and payments before the sleeping; secondly, there is the very nexus of incubation, the setting of the sleeping inside the temenos and what rites and rules were prescribed for those entering this sacred space within a sacred space; thirdly, there are rites for the giving of thanks, which were enacted after the consultation.

    1.1. Preparation, purification and payment

    1.1.1. Invitation by the god to come and incubate

    2In the Asklepieion at Lebena on Crete, which is of Hellenistic date, two inscriptions mention that Demandros and Phalaris were called by the god to come to the sanctuary.1 The ordinance does not seem to be anything out of the ordinary, and it is merely stated as a matter of fact; thus, the callings cannot have been singular events. It might have been a prerequisite to be invited in this way, but it is not mentioned in the other inscriptions.

    3Commenting on these inscriptions, Girone states that it was necessary for a consultant at Lebena to make a preliminary consultation close to the sanctuary before gaining access to the adyton.2 It is difficult to interpret the contents of these short inscriptions with certainty. The text from Lebena concerning Demandros and Phalaris describes a command by the god to come to the sanctuary, and it does not mention that a preliminary consultation was made at an official branch of the sanctuary close to Lebena. For the sanctuary to administer preliminary consultations in the various cities on Crete seems impractical.

    4Was it common in Greek religion as a whole for worshippers to be summoned to come to a sanctuary? It did happen that worshippers received private dreams which acted as a guide or revelation, and these dreams urged the worshipper to come to a certain sanctuary.3 We must differentiate between these dreams and a prescription at the sanctuary that no one who had not been called in a dream could enter. Prescriptions made by sanctuaries that only those summoned in dreams could enter are rare. Pausanias speaks of the shrines of the gods of the lower world by the Meander and also of the cult of Isis at Tithorea, where the worshippers were invited to come in dreams.4 In these two examples, being summoned in a dream was required. As for Lebena, we must question whether the summoning was made in a dream, and whether the summoning was obligatory and administered by the sanctuary or spontaneously experienced by the worshippers.

    5In Lebena there seems to be no doubt that it was the incubant who was summoned to come to the sanctuary, not the ordinary worshipper. This seems logical because the summoning in itself augments the expectations of what is to happen at the sanctuary and in a way presages the incubation dream itself. It is possible that the worshippers experienced a calling through a dream, but it is also possible that at some city-Asklepieia, which did not offer incubation, the priests may have advised the worshippers to travel to a larger sanctuary and incubate there. In any case, it cannot have been a regular preliminary consultation — there are only the instances of Demandros and Phalaris. The administration of preliminary consultation somewhere close to Lebena, as Girone suggests, seems highly impractical.5 To the best of my knowledge, no testimonia pertaining to someone being summoned in a dream to enter a sanctuary can be dated to before Roman times. Then again, whatever testimonia there are on Greek religion are more numerous in Roman times. Maybe the summoning, which was possibly made in a private dream, was anticipated by the worshippers and was recommended by the servants of the sanctuary, but at the same time it was not an obligatory rite.

    6As this habit of summoning cannot be attested in any other incubation context in the Classical and Hellenistic periods, it might be ascribed to local variations at this Cretan sanctuary.

    1.1.2. Abstinence from sex

    7In Greek religion, abstinence from sex was a common prerequisite before entering a sacred space. In incubation contexts, the only time abstinence from sex is specifically mentioned is in the Lex sacra Hallenstrasse from the Asklepieion at Pergamon (Collection of texts, no.7).6 The inscription, which is broken at the top, first relates daytime offerings to Asklepios and other gods, and this is followed by the specific instruction to make cake offerings in the evening by the dormitory. It then reads, ‘He who enters the dormitory must be pure from all the things mentioned above and from sex and from goat meat and from goat cheese and… the third day.’, Ἁγνευέτω δὲ ὁ v | [εἰσπορευ]ό̣μενος εἰς τὸ ἐγκοιμητήριον ἀπό τε τῶν προειρημέ- v? | [νων πάν] τ̣ων καὶ ἀφροδισίων καὶ αἰγείου κρέως καὶ τυροῦ κα[ὶ] | [. . c.7. .]ΙΑΜΙΔΟΣ τριταῖος.7 The incubant was to abstain from sex for three days before incubation; it did not suffice just to wash before entering the sanctuary. The instruction to abstain from sex for three days is explicitly given to the incubant (‘he who enters the dormitory’) and not to all visitors coming to the sanctuary. What pure ‘from all the things mentioned above’8 refers to we cannot know, since the top of the inscription is lost. The editor Wörrle conjectures that the previous, now lost, purity instruction may have entailed abstinence from birth, miscarriages, or death.9 This would in all probability have been a prescription meant for all visitors coming to the sanctuary, including the incubants, since there would have been no reason to mention instructions especially for ‘those entering the enkoimeterion’ if the group that all the instructions on the stone addressed were already defined at the top of the inscription as incubants only. An extra degree of purity was thus needed for incubants, as compared to other worshippers.

    8What preparatory rites might have been seen as normal for visitors entering the temenos-areas in Pergamon at the time of the Lex sacra Hallenstrasse? A sacred law inscribed sometime after 133 BC for visitors to Athena Nikephoros at Pergamon is a good parallel.10 The text starts, ‘Citizens and all other people who enter the temple of the goddess shall be pure (ἁγνευέτωσαν), having washed themselves clean (λουσάμενοι) from their own wife or their own husband for one day, or from another woman or another man for two days’.11 This inscription begins with purification instructions, which are similar to those hinted at in ll. 12–13 of the Lex sacra Hallenstrasse but which are now lost. Thus, it would seem that these purity instructions, which are now lost, referred to in ll. 12–13 in the Lex sacra Hallenstrasse were for ‘polluted’ worshippers entering the sanctuary (the ones who had not abstained for the requisite number of days). Other people, including the incubants who had kept themselves clean for three days, presumably just entered, or (as is the standard view in research today) sprinkled themselves with water from the perirrhanterion upon entering.12 It would indeed seem a contradiction if those who had abstained from sex nonetheless had to sprinkle themselves with water upon entering the sanctuary, but, on the other hand, the sprinkling of water from a perirrhanterion may have been a routine.

    9A recently found sacred law from a small Asklepieion at Yüntdağ, dated to the first half of the second century BC, confirms that there were different purity instructions for incubants and for those who were coming only to pray and sacrifice (Collection of texts, no. 8). Instructions are given for anyone entering the sanctuary for the sake of health, and first it is prescribed that all those entering must wash off from sex, [-----ἁγ]ν̣[εύεσ]- |θ̣αι τ̣ό̣ [ν εἰ] σ̣π̣ορευ̣- |ό̣μενον ὑγίας ἕ̣ν- |ε̣[κ]ε̣ν̣ εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν̣ |ἀπὸ μὲν τῶν ἀϕρο̣-|δισιακῶν̣ κατ̣ὰ κ̣ε-|φ̣αλῆς̣ λ̣ου̣σ̣άμε̣-|νον, …13 The washing off is described as ‘from the head’, and this was interpreted by Müller as the worshipper having water poured on his or her head.14 Special prescriptions were then to be given to those who wanted to incubate in the dormitory, and it might be presupposed that for incubants, both of these general abstinences were to be considered, as well as further prescriptions for the sake of purity.15 However, the stone is broken here, and the exact prescriptions for incubants alone remain unknown.

    10Considering Greek cultic regulations in general, abstinence from sexual activities, or purification from them before entering, was a prerequisite at most sanctuaries.16 The explicit mentions of abstinence from sexual activities, or the washing off of them, in leges sacrae, are, however, of quite late date: none of the examples mentioned by Parker in Miasma are, as he also points out, earlier than the second century BC.17 Nonetheless, since Herodotus mentioned the rule, we may suggest that it was valid early on.18 The washing off seems to denote a lesser need for purity, whereas the abstinence from sexual activities for a number of days before the sacred activity denotes a greater need for purity.19 Parker conjectures that if more evidence were available, we might find that preliminary abstinence (just as we encounter it before incubation here) was a requirement for any private person wishing to participate in any important ritual.20 Also, the custom of washing after sexual activity before entering a sanctuary seems most often not to be explicitly stated in sacred laws, perhaps because it was such a well-known feature and thus did not require special mention.21

    11We might presuppose a period of general abstinence before incubation, even if it is not mentioned in Classical and Hellenistic sources. Incubation was performed at sanctuaries, and in order to enter a sanctuary purity was needed — at least the minimum washing-off of recent sexual activity before entering the sanctuary. Incubants at Pergamon apparently had to remain extra pure in comparison with other worshippers. Was this a general rule for all incubants?

    12Plato mentions that both priests and priestesses should be over 60 years old in order to officiate according to the laws of religion.22 In many cults, priests were not to have intercourse when in service, and in some cults, possibly not ever.23 In ancient literature, the Pythia of Delphi and the priestesses of Zeus at Dodona, an oracular sanctuary, were never to marry.24 Since incubants also were to enter into direct contact with a god, one might compare preparations made by priests and those made by incubants. The need for priests to be pure when meeting the gods, as well as the variation in purity rules for priests of different cults, may suggest that incubants in incubation sanctuaries other than Pergamon had to be purer than the other worshippers, but nothing definite can be said and variation is likely to have occurred.

    1.1.3. Avoidance of birth and death

    13In one of the iamata of Epidauros, a woman sleeps in the dormitory, the abaton, in order to be able to deliver her child. After sleeping, she rushed out of the abaton and gave birth as soon as she was outside of the sacred area.25 Clearly, childbirth inside the temenos was not allowed. A newly discovered lex sacra from Yüntdağ (close to Pergamon) from the first half of the second century BC, relates how any worshipper wanting to enter the sanctuary for the sake of health must wait for two days after attending at a funeral or being close to a newly delivered mother or her newborn (or a miscarriage).26 In the next line, stricter rules for incubants, possibly for the sake of purity, are hinted at, but the stone is broken and therefore nothing can be said for certain.27

    14Avoidance of birth and/or death is only found in incubation contexts in an inscription from Roman times, but it is probable that such measures were in place also earlier.28 Birth and death were prohibited at all Greek sanctuaries. The need to avoid contact with both birth and funerals was often mentioned in Greek religion, and in any sacred place giving birth or dying was forbidden.29 Exclusion from temples seems to be the only identifiable consequence of natural pollutions such as births and funerals.30 In the Kyrene cathartic law of the late fourth century BC, it is stated that anyone entering a house where the mother of a newborn lay was impure for three days.31 Three days seem to be the usual number of days, but the leges sacrae vary, and it is not always clear whether it is the person who came into contact with the mother, or the mother herself, who was impure during the stated number of days.32 Examples of these types of prescriptions come from all sorts of cults, including the cult of Asklepios.

    15Given the existence of later sources which include this rule33, and the prevalence of this rule in Greek cult in general from at least Hellenistic times, we can posit that being pure from birth and death was surely a prerequisite for incubating, just as it was for performing any other cultic act inside the temenos. One might suspect, given the status of the incubant as one about to communicate with the god, that purity regulations of this kind would have been stronger than for the ordinary worshipper, as in the lex sacra from Yüntdağ.34 For priests, the officials appointed to communicate with the god, the rules on not having contact with a corpse were even more important than for the private worshipper entering the temenos.35

    16To conclude, incubants were to observe the same rules for purity after a death or birth as normal worshippers coming to the sanctuary. The reason why this is supported only in Roman testimonia is simply because much of the evidence we have on Greek religion comes from Roman times. Since everyone entering a Greek sanctuary was expected to be pure from birth and death, there may simply have been no reason to inform people that this was a special inscription for incubants, unless the rule in some way differed from the common practice of the cult.

    1.1.4. Purity of mind

    17‘He who goes inside the sweet smelling temple must be pure. Purity is to have an honest mind.’ is a famous epigram thought to have hung at the entrance of Epidauros.36 The inscription does not survive, but it is quoted in many works, the earliest of which was thought to be Theophrastos’ On Piety, as retold in Porphyry’s De Abstinentia 2.19. The Edelsteins, and others, have taken this quotation as an indication not only that incubants needed to be purified by actions such as washing, but that they also had to be pure in their hearts.37 However, J. Bremmer has recently demonstrated that the quotation was not taken from Theophrastus by Porphyry.38 Previously dated to c. 340 BC, it has now been redated to around the year 0.

    18Although the feeling of purity which came from a ritual washing is difficult to imagine, this epigram even prescribes a particular state of mind necessary to worship Asklepios. In inscriptions from later times, it is not unusual to see this type of conceptual requirement for all worship.39 As for Classical and Hellenistic times, however, the need for purity of the mind has yet to be attested, given Bremmer’s later dating of the epigram.

    1.1.5. Abstinence from certain foods

    19The Greeks would sometimes distinguish their cults of rites by the preference for or prohibition of certain foodstuffs. Let us now examine briefly the testimonia from incubatory contexts. First, there is a rule on not eating pork before entering the well-known sanctuary of Hemithea at Kastabos in Karia.40 Incubation was practised here for the sake of healing, and nobody could enter the sanctuary if they had come into contact with pigs, either by eating or by touch.41 Secondly, the Lex sacra Hallenstrasse of Pergamon prescribes that the incubant should not eat goat meat or goat cheese for three days before incubation.42 Thirdly, it has been claimed by scholars that beans were forbidden in the cult of Amphiaraos, as a way of preparing before the incubation, on the basis of a fragment from Aristophanes’ Amphiaraos: ὅστις φακῆν ἥδιστον ὄψων λοιδορεῖς, ‘You, who dare insult lentil soup, sweetest of all delicacies!’43 The context of the citation of this fragment in Athenaeus is one of giving literary quotations on lentil soup.44 The passage could fit in many comedic contexts, and it need not have anything to do with preparatory rites at the Amphiareion, although the play is entitles Amphiaraos. A character in a comedy does not like lentil soup and is rebuked for it. Was it Amphiaraos? We simply cannot know who did not like the soup, and the passage cannot be used as concrete evidence for the prohibition of eating lentils before incubating in the cult of Amphiaraos. It is only a Late Antique commentator who interprets the fragment as implying that beans were prohibited in the cult of Amphiaraos.

    20Most researchers writing on incubation have claimed that incubants were prohibited from eating certain foods,45 but in relation to the cult of Asklepios, however, this assumption should be opposed.46 Judging from the examples of prohibition of certain foods in incubation cults presented above, it does not seem that abstinence from certain foods was a common practice for incubation cults within the time-span studied here.

    21Were prohibitions on sacrificing and eating pig and goat common in other Greek cults? The answer must be no. Pigs, as well as piglets, were a very common sacrifice, as shown by Clinton.47 The goat was also a normal victim that is often mentioned,48 and perhaps it was common for it to be sacrificed in the cult of Artemis.49

    Possible cultic reasons for prohibitions on pigs and goats

    22First, it will be investigated why pig was prohibited in the cult of Hemithea, and goat in the cult of Asklepios at Pergamon. In previous research the prohibition of pig in the cult of Hemithea has been viewed as specifically related to the incubation.50 My focus here is to see if these prohibitions on foodstuffs had anything to do with the incubation itself. Were these prohibitions cultic prescriptions for all worshippers at these particular cults, or were they special prescriptions for incubants?

    23Diodorus describes the prohibition of sacrificing a pig as well as the libations of honey and milk made in the cult (and the prohibition of wine) in the myth of the girl Molpadia, who was later renamed Hemithea. Molpadia was tasked with guarding her father’s wine together with a sister. The sisters fell asleep, and a pig entered the room and trampled down the jar. The sisters fled the rage of their father by jumping off a cliff, but they were saved by Apollon and brought to Karia. Because of the intervention of Apollon, Molpadia was renamed Hemithea (‘Half-goddess’) and was honoured by all inhabitants. Hence, wine and pigs were prohibited in her cult.51

    24Farnell associates Hemithea with Aphrodite, and he suggests that, since the sacrifice of pig was generally taboo in cults of Aphrodite, this might explain the prohibition also in the cult of Hemithea.52 Farnell further posits that the pig was prohibited in the cult of Aphrodite because of the sanctity of the pig in Oriental cult.53 The piglet was one of the most common sacrificial animals,54 and so the avoidance of pig is an exception to the general practice in Greek cult. An indigenous goddess from Asia Minor, Ma-Enyo of Komana in Cappadocia, also prohibited the sacrifice of pigs.55 Wächter argued that these rules were a result of Oriental cults viewing the pig as unclean.56 However, pork was a forbidden food in all parts of the Orient.57 There are thus different explanations for why pig was prohibited in the cult of Hemithea; but whatever the reason, it does not seem to have had anything to do with incubation, and as such, rules are found also in cults which did not offer incubation.

    25Goat was prohibited in some of the cults of Asklepios, but not in all.58 Since the sacrifice of goats was prohibited at Epidauros,59 the founding sanctuary of Pergamon,60 it is not unreasonable to presume that the sacrifice of goats, by any worshipper, was also prohibited at Pergamon.

    26According to the Lex sacra Hallenstrasse (ll. 13–14), incubants were not allowed to eat goat meat or goat cheese for three days before incubating; this proves that extra purity from goat meat was required for incubants. We must presume that if there was a general prohibition on the use of goat in the cult of Asklepios at Pergamon, this applied only to sacrificing the animal, and not eating goat or goat cheese before you entered the sanctuary. The prohibition on eating goat and goat cheese clearly applied to incubants only, since the Lex sacra Hallenstrasse explicitly says in l. 12 that the prohibition is for those entering the enkoimeterion. The rules that applied to worshippers coming to the sanctuary to sacrifice and pray were thus made stricter for the incubants. Worshippers were not allowed to sacrifice goats, and incubants were not even allowed to eat goat three days before sleeping in the dormitory.

    27The cult of Asklepios at Pergamon was founded from Epidauros, and thus it seems logical that the prohibition of goat sacrifices, whatever its origin, had the same cultic reason at Pergamon as at Epidauros. The Edelsteins use the story of Asklepios being nursed by a goat to explain the prohibition of goat, but this story in itself might be an explanation invented in ancient times to explain the prohibition of goat sacrifices.61

    28Goat was not prohibited at all sanctuaries of Asklepios, and also, when there was a prohibition, all the worshippers were forbidden to sacrifice goat; thus, there must be a more general cultic reason for the prohibition which was valid for the entire sanctuary, rather than some reason that was related to the success of incubation.

    29It is also important to ask if there was any general reason why pig and goat were prohibited in cults. Different explanations have been put forward in previous research. It has been argued that sacrifices of goats and piglets were often prohibited simply because their meat was disliked.62 Another explanation is that goats and pigs were prohibited as sacrifices because of the sanctuary’s desire to receive larger, more expensive offerings.63 However, if the meat was disliked, why sacrifice goats and pigs at all (this was done in many cults)? Furthermore, if the priests of Asklepios prohibited the sacrifice of goats because of their low value, they would not have allowed the sacrifice of roosters (or cakes for that matter). The rooster was by far the most common sacrifice in the cult of Asklepios.64

    30As for popular beliefs concerning the consumption of goat meat, it seems that the meat was believed to cause digestive problems and was thus prohibited by popular purifiers. In the Hippocratic text On the Sacred Disease, which was written possibly as early as the fifth century, we are told that purifiers and quacks, among others, advise their patients not to eat goat or pigs (as it supposedly disturbed the digestion), and not to lie on or wear goat-skin.65 Lesser medical benefits of the goat are, however, attested in Hippocrates.66 In Pliny and Galen, the goat is said to have many healing powers.67 The belief that the goat and pig caused digestive problems might have been the reason for avoiding goat in a healing cult. Thus, the record of popular beliefs concerning goat meat exhibits variation, with goat meat being seen both as the cause of digestive problems and also as salubrious. On the other hand, the sacrifice of goat was permitted at the Asklepieion of Kyrene. Furthermore, Artemis also healed, and goat was a well-accepted sacrifice in her cult.68 In the cult of Apollon at Delphi, the goat was the prescribed victim, and it was believed that goats had found the oracular shrine, making the animal a suitable intermediary with the divine.69 Local variations of Greek cults should never be underestimated.

    31In the examples of Hemithea and Asklepios at Pergamon it is clear that certain kinds of meat (pig and goat respectively) were avoided for reasons that did not reflect any general incubation rules or benefits for the incubation process. In the cults of Hemithea and Asklepios, the prohibition of singular foodstuffs seems to have been a way of adjusting the worshipper to the special requirements of the particular god or goddess; thus, the foods to be avoided were chosen for cultic reasons, and the choice was not related to some general requirement for purity or facilitating the healing.

    32In both cults, pig and goat respectively were prohibited as sacrificial animals for all worshippers of that particular cult, but at Pergamon the incubants had to observe a special degree of purity by not eating goat meat or goat cheese for three days prior to incubation. A rule for all worshippers had thus been made stricter for incubants, a situation which we might compare with rules of abstinence from certain foodstuffs for Greek priests in different cults.70 General rules of abstinence applied to priests more than to worshippers, in order for them to be the appropriate intermediaries with the divinity.71 Similarly, in the Eleusinian mysteries, there were prohibitions both on certain foodstuffs and general fasting for initiates (total abstinence from food and drink).72 In the cult of Trophonios, where a sole consultant descended (after elaborate preparations) into a cave to consult the hero, certain fish were prohibited as a foodstuff.73 In comparison, some Greek priests were forbidden from eating fish, to prepare themselves for communicating with the gods on a higher level than other worshippers.74 The cultic prohibition of a certain meat, which was even stricter for incubants at Pergamon, is comparable to the rules of abstinence which a priest had to observe before meeting the god.

    1.1.6. Fasting

    33There is no evidence from Classical and Hellenistic times of fasting as a preparatory rite. There is, however, evidence of fasting in connection with incubation, from the Plutonium at Acharaka.75 At this sanctuary, the usual practice was for the priests to sleep and dream for the ill, and they would receive prescriptions for cures from the gods. Moreover, the priests often brought the sick themselves to lie in quiet in the cave without food for many days. The ill also received dreams, but ‘… still they use those other men, as priests, to initiate them into the mysteries and to counsel them. To all others the place is forbidden and deadly.’76 The priests were the primary consultants; the incubants did not always receive dreams, but when they did, the priests helped them interpret their dreams.

    34The testimonium from Acharaka sets itself apart from much of the other evidence on incubation. In previous research, fasting before incubation has often been seen as part of the incubation preparations in general, mostly due to a passage in Philostratus on incubation in the cult of Amphiaraos at Oropos: ‘He (Amphiaraos) sends dreams to his inquirers, so that the priests take the would-be inquirer, and deprive him of food for one day and of wine for three, so that he can absorb the messages with his soul in a state of illumination.’77 From about the same time as Philostratus, we have a general statement of Tertullian saying that fasting was prescribed in incubation oracles.78 These are, however, late testimonia, and they need not relate to what happened in Classical or Hellenistic times.79

    35Why did the incubants fast at Acharaka? The incubants at Acharaka lay in the cave for many days without food, and thus the deprivation of nourishment was a part of the consultation process rather than a prerequisite for entering the cave. It is tempting to draw parallels with other testimonia from Roman times on fasting before incubation, but caution should be taken here. We should not ascribe later, Roman mainstream religious thoughts to this local cult. We do not know from which traditions it developed or which religious traditions influenced it.80 Fasting would have had, if nothing else, a very practical function when aspiring to supernatural experiences.

    36Most of the information we have on Greek religion is from Roman writers, so testimonia on any occurrence would naturally appear in greater quantities in later times. Philostratus writes about a later development in the cult of Amphiaraos where Amphiaraos was again (as in the beginning of the oracle) consulted in order to obtain assistance on what to do in a crisis.81 One might argue that fasting could not have been a standard (purificatory) requirement before entering sacred ground or it would have been mentioned in some of the texts on incubation rituals, although the absence of evidence is no evidence of absence. Furthermore, the prohibition of goat in the Lex sacra Hallenstrasse shows that other foods were indeed consumed before incubation, and hence incubants were not required to fast.

    37In relation to contextualizing the rite, there are examples of rules for fasting, both for priests and worshippers, in Greek cults in both Classical and Hellenistic times — notably, the festival of Thesmophoria and the initiation at Eleusis. The reason for fasting at the Thesmophoria has been much debated and does not serve as a good comparison for incubation.82 On ‘the day of fasting’ at the Thesmophoria, all the women who were participating sat on the ground, on stibades, possibly in imitation of the mourning and fasting Demeter. In this case, the fasting was not a preparation but an event in itself. In the Eleusinian mysteries, prohibitions on certain foodstuffs as well as general fasting (total abstinence from food and drink) existed.83 The complexity and the elusive nature of the Eleusinian rites make them difficult to use as comparisons for fasting in the Plutonium at Acharaka, as described by Strabo.

    1.1.7. Purification with water

    38In Aristophanes’ Ploutos, which is probably set in the Asklepieion of Piraeus, the incubant is bathed in seawater before entering the temenos.84 The text states that the companions of Ploutos led him (‘our patient’) to the sea to purify him, and thus we may posit that the purification was especially for incubants. Many possible pollutants, such as sex, birth, or death may have been the cause of this washing. It has been suggested that bathing in saltwater was part of Ploutos’ cure; this is improbable, since the cure had to be given by the god, after sleeping in his sanctuary.85 Full immersion in seawater was purification on a level higher than just purification with water from a perirrhanterion.

    39Furthermore, Xenophon wrote in the Memorabilia that the sickly who came to Amphiaraos’ sanctuary had to wash in cold water.86 We cannot be certain that the Amphiareion of Oropos is being referred to here, but since this sanctuary was highly renowned at the time, this could be inferred. It is not clear in the text whether the worshippers bathed before or after entering the temenos, or if the washing was part of a purification, part of a cure, or was just bathing to get clean.

    40It has been conjectured that incubants, before coming into the Amphiareion at Oropos, cleansed themselves in a water installation with a central pit at an ancient bridge on the road to the sanctuary, since Xenophon mentions that worshippers bathed in cold water at the Amphiareion.87 The water installation on the road to the sanctuary, however, has been identified as a klepsydra,88 but it is of course possible that incubants were supplied with water with which to cleanse themselves by some other means.89

    41Another hypothesis is that an ordinary bath is meant in the Memorabilia, perhaps one which was built as a response to the growing popularity of the sanctuary in the fourth century BC.90 A fountain and baths existed at least as early as the fourth century in the sanctuary of Oropos.91 As is specifically stated in the Memorabilia, it was the sickly who bathed at Oropos, and since the water is described as very cold, some curative function might be conjectured. A bath inside the sanctuary might have had both a purificatory and a curative function, and, of course, baths had a practical function in a sanctuary with many visitors.

    42The archaeological evidence seems to provide us with a fuller picture than the literary texts, but because the water installations are multi-functional it is not always easy to posit that purification was their definite purpose. Baths such as those built at large incubation sanctuaries like Oropos and Epidauros must certainly have been constructed for worshippers who were staying for a long time, not for those who were just coming there for a couple of hours to sacrifice and pray.92 Baths are referred to in many descriptions of incubation cures, but it is not always made clear whether the bathing itself is part of a cure.93

    43It is often difficult to determine what role baths, water installations or sources in sanctuaries played in the rituals. If we consider what happened in iatromantic cults, purification with water, but also cures (and of course the practical needs of a large group of people), could be possibilities. Still, even though exceptionally some water sources are known to have been restricted to one use only,94 most water structures at sanctuaries must have been multi-purpose.95 If, however, a water source was located within the space identified as dormitory for incubants, it seems that the use of water had a ritual purpose.

    44Ginouvès, using the many water installations at the Asklepieia at Corinth and Gortys as examples, has suggested that, apart from the purification with water at the entrance to the sanctuary, a bath before incubation was also a requirement.96 After surveying the archaeological remains of the sanctuary at Corinth, Ginouvès concludes that the water installations were used for simple purifications and for submersion in water before incubation as well as for hydrotherapy.97 Melfi also suggests that purifications were an important part of the rituals before sleeping in the dormitories of Asklepieia. She suggests that ablutions and purifications took place both at the entrance and inside the temenos during the preparations for entering the dormitory.98 A large number of dedications of perirrhanteria and basins from the fifth and fourth centuries at Epidauros may suggest that, from early on, water played an important part in this cult.99

    45If water installations were a part of incubation rituals, such constructions would likely have been adjoined to the buildings identified as dormitories, thereby indicating a rite which was more likely specific to incubants. Water sources within the space identified as a dormitory for incubants can be found adjoined to the incubation dormitories at Epidauros and at Athens.100 These two dormitories may be identified with a reasonable degree of certainty.101 However, because incubation dormitories are notoriously difficult to identify if literary evidence is lacking, and one criterion for identifying them has been their proximity to water, the risk of circular argument is obvious.

    46If we turn to Greek religion in general, purification was a common prerequisite for meeting the sacred (going into a temenos or performing a rite that connected you with the deity).102 This might have consisted of washing your hands, sprinkling water, or even bathing or changing your clothes. The sprinkling of water, which was supplied by a perirrhanterion at the entrance, seems to have been a common practice for all visitors coming to the sanctuary, and perirrhanteria were also present beside altars inside the sanctuaries.103 If we examine a central rite in Greek religion — animal sacrifice — a number of varying purificatory rules for sacrificers can be noted. Contemporary sources vary, in that sometimes all the participants are described as cleansing themselves before a sacrifice, while in other cases only the priest or official is cleansed. Thus, there may not have been one rule for all Greek worshippers at all times.104 Ritual variations were not unusual in Greek religion, and we should not be surprised that the rules for the purification of incubants also varied.

    47If we look at more explicit references to purifications with water in Greek religion and compare them with what happened in the Ploutos, there are many instances where seawater was considered to have extra purifying qualities.105 It may also be noted that the Athenian mystai bathed in the sea three days before the procession to Eleusis.106 In many sanctuaries, the water from certain sources has been noted as having equally special powers.107 Bathing in seawater at Piraeus may have had a special purificatory significance, more so than purification with water within the sanctuary. Practicality should also be taken into account, however, because the sea was below the sanctuary and there was no bath in the sanctuary itself (it had just been established). Nonetheless, one explanation need not exclude the other. It would seem that submergence in a bath, especially the sea (if close by), would have had a greater psychological impact on the worshipper and was also preparation in itself for the dream consultation to come.108

    48The passage in the Memorabilia may apply both to purification, a curative bath and an ‘ordinary’ — though very cold — bath. It might not be too far-fetched to suppose that bathing at incubation sanctuaries, before sleeping in the dormitory, also had some purificatory value. However, there is no evidence, apart from the Ploutos, that bathing before going to the dormitory was ever a rule. Purification with water before the incubation, inside the temenos, as a part of the chain of rites leading up to the dream healing seems likely.109 The evidence from the Ploutos and the Memorabilia, together with the many water installations at Asklepieia and at the Amphiareion at Oropos strongly suggests that purifications were more important for incubants in these cults than for the worshippers who were entering the sanctuary to pray or sacrifice — for them, sprinkling themselves with water at the entrance would have been sufficient.

    1.1.8. Purificatory sacrifice

    49There are no literary testimonia from Classical or Hellenistic times on purification before incubation by means of sacrificing an animal. It has, however, been argued in previous research that a relief from Oropos from the fourth century BC, which depicts a family leading a pig and a ram to sacrifice,110 combined with information given by Pausanias on a purificatory sacrifice at Oropos, attests to this type of rite existing in Classical times.

    50Pausanias writes that those coming to consult the oracle of Amphiaraos must purify themselves with a purificatory offering to the god, as well as to all the different gods inscribed on the five parts of the altar (καθάρσιον τῷ θεῷ θύειν, θύουσι δὲ καὶ αὐτῷ καὶ πᾶσιν ὅσοις ἐστὶν ἐπὶ τῷ βωμῷ τὰ ὀνόματα).111 The deities that shared the altar are as follows: in the first part, Herakles, Zeus, Apollon Paion; in the second part, the heroes and their wives; in the third part, Hestia, Hermes, Amphiaraos and the children of Amphilochos; Aphrodite, Panakeia, Iaso, Hygieia, Athena Paion are in the fourth part; and finally, the nymphs and Pan as well as the rivers Acheloüs and Kephisos in the fifth part. When this was done, Pausanias continues, a ram was to be sacrificed (the verb thyo is used). Two offerings seem thus to have been made, one to all of the gods inscribed on the altar (including Amphiaraos), and then a sacrifice of a ram, which was presumably for Amphiaraos. The text does not specify what the first, purificatory, offering consisted of.

    51Different scholars have reconstructed the ritual sequence at Oropos using this text. One reconstruction suggests that the purificatory sacrifice related in Pausanias was also part of the incubation ritual at Oropos in the fourth century BC.112 According to this hypothesis, in the above-mentioned relief from Oropos where a family leads a pig and a ram to sacrifice, the pig is the first purificatory sacrifice, while the ram would have provided the fleece on which the incubant would sleep. An alternative hypothesis proposes that the purificatory sacrifice mentioned in Pausanias should be interpreted as involving a ram (its fleece having purificatory abilities), although this would have been an exception to normal purificatory sacrifices. According to this hypothesis, the sacrifices to all the gods on the altar were preliminary sacrifices.113 More plausibly, it has been argued by P. Sineux that there were two sacrifices: one with a purificatory purpose (the animal not being mentioned in the text), and then a sacrifice with a purpose which was linked to the sleeping — that of the ram.114 As for the relief and the possibility of interpreting the pig as being used for purification and the ram’s skin for sleeping, Sineux rejects this and refers to a sacred law from Oropos that allowed any choice of sacrificial animal and another sacred law from the same sanctuary that suggests some suitable animals.115

    52The leges sacrae of the sanctuary of the time, which provided specifications on other requirements relating to the sacrifice (such as the parts given to the priests, or the sale of the hides), would certainly have specified the animal (if any particular kind was required).116 Furthermore, as we will see in Section 1.4, it was not a general rule for incubants to sleep on the fleece of a sacrificed ram. The relief NM 1395 may well depict two kinds of sacrificial animals used for an ordinary sacrifice, since it is fairly common on votive reliefs from this time for many different sacrificial animals to be depicted together.117 There is no way of knowing if the pig in the relief was to be used for a purification, although this is an attractive hypothesis. Most importantly, a considerable amount of time had passed from the point when the relief was made in the fourth century BC to when Pausanias described the purificatory sacrifice.

    53To put things in a wider perspective, purification by means of a sacrifice could have been seen as a way of transferring an impurity to the sacrificed animal, which was, as a rule, a piglet (the least expensive of all sacrifices) or a dog.118 Purification through blood could, according to Nilsson, have functioned in the same way as purification with water.119 There is some evidence for purifications with the blood of sheep and pigs before larger festivals or initiations, e.g. in the Andanian mysteries.120 It is important to note, however, that the blood of the pig in this instance cleansed the locale, not the initiate, and therefore these acts cannot parallel a hypothetical purification-by-blood of the incubants.121

    54According to Clinton, the evidence on pig sacrifices suggests that the circling of an area with slaughtered piglets (or other animals) was used for purifying groups of people, whereas the immolation of piglets (or other animals) served to purify places.122 Accordingly, using a ram as katharmos in the Andanian mysteries, together with three young pigs, which were used to cleanse the locale, would suggest a purificatory hierarchy.123

    55Aside from Pausanias, there is another possible description of a purification with blood in a testimonium on incubation, in a sacred law from the Asklepieion of Pergamon from Imperial time.124 A purification before incubation, enacted with the blood of a rooster, has been suggested by scholars, although the reading of this fragmentary inscription has been disputed. The interpretation I would choose to follow, that of Roussel,125 suggests that the purificatory sacrifice was of a very special character: it was made to purify the sanctuary from a death inside the temenos, and it was not a ritual component of incubation procedures. Whatever the character of this purificatory sacrifice, it cannot have had any bearing on what happened at Oropos in the fourth century BC, as attested by the relief depicting worshippers leading a pig and a ram (Athens, NM 1395). The Pergamene inscription dates to Roman times and was set up to regulate the contemporary situation at that sanctuary.

    56Pausanias makes it clear that the purificatory sacrifice was obligatory for all those who had come to consult the god. Since there are no parallels for purification with blood in Classical or Hellenistic times, we must consider whether this more elaborate procedure at Oropos may have been a rite that was added in Roman times. In the same way, the custom of fasting before asking Amphiaraos at Oropos for help occurs in testimonia from Roman times, but not in Classical or Hellenistic evidence (e.g. IOropos 277); this raises the possibility that new additional incubation rites were introduced in the Roman period.126

    1.1.9. A fee to be paid before incubating

    57Different fees and taxes were an important source of income for Greek cults.127 Here, we are concerned with the evidence for a fee that was paid before incubation, without which the consultation with the divinity could not have proceeded.

    58If we examine the testimonia from incubation contexts, our first example is a fourth-century BC sacred law from the Amphiareion of Oropos (Collection of texts, no. 1): a fee (eparche) of no less than nine obols was to be paid by the incubants and deposited in the thesauros in the presence of the neokoros.128 Also, in another sacred law of the fourth century from Oropos,129 a fee of one Boeotian drachma was to be placed in the thesauros. The name of the person who paid the fee (on both the above-mentioned Oropian inscriptions) was also to be written down.130 According to Sineux, the tablet was displayed in the sanctuary to ensure that only those who had paid the fee could incubate.131 Thus, this was not a way to commemorate the incubants, or to advertise to newcomers how many had incubated, but rather it was a means of making sure that those who incubated had paid their fee.

    59In our second example, a sacred law from Amphipolis (Collection of texts, no. 3), a drachma was to be paid upon entering the sanctuary, according to the restorations of Veligianni.132 It is not explicitly stated that incubants were to pay the drachma, but Lupu argues that, since the inscription was probably directed at incubants and not at ordinary visitors to the sanctuary, the drachma could be seen as a consultation fee, comparable to similar fees at pre-incubation sacrifices.133 In my view, the inscription is much too fragmentary to support any definite conclusions.

    60A third case concerns the Asklepieion at Athens, where a payment of ‘one drachma for Asklepios’ is mentioned in an inscription from the late 340s.134 There is a scholarly discussion as to whether this fee was a tax on all citizens, or a payment made by incubants, in analogy with the initial payment at Oropos.135 Gorrini and Melfi view the drachma for Asklepios as a preliminary fee that was paid upon entering the sanctuary.136 I find, in agreement with the first hypothesis, that the establishment of contractors and their guarantors to collect the tax is suggestive of administrative effort — suggesting that taxpayers rather than just suppliants were visiting the Asklepieion at Athens and paying a fee. Since the inscription does not provide us with any clear evidence for a fee being paid before incubation, it is best left aside.

    61Finally, the Lex sacra Hallenstrasse (Collection of texts, no. 7) mentions, right after the sacrifice of a piglet to Asklepios and the parts being given to the priests, that a sum of three obols was to be put in the thesauros.137 Further down the inscription, after specifications relating to the sacrifice of an additional piglet for those consulting a second time and the sacrifice of cakes made by those entering the small enkoimeterion, another fee of three obols was to be put in the thesauros.138 Sineux, referring to the first fee, and Lupu, referring to both these fees, interpret the fee of three obols as payment for incubation.139 According to Wörrle, on the other hand, the fee of three obols (in both instances where it is mentioned) was to be paid for the sacrifice.140 At any rate, the fees of three obols were not paid upon entering the sanctuary but rather at the sacrifice.

    62The sanctuary certainly would have needed to cover expenses such as the ritual attendance of priests, wood, tidying the dormitory, etc. I would argue that the payment of three obols need not be seen as a definite category, either as a consultation fee or as a sacrificial fee. It was money paid to the sanctuary at the sacrifice, when a priest was attending and could control the payment, one may presume. A similar fee can be noted in relation to the cult of Asklepios at Erythrai (third century BC), where a payment of one or two obols was prescribed at the sacrifice.141

    63To conclude, at Oropos, two inscriptions from the first half of the fourth century BC attest to a fee, eparche, that was paid by the incubants before they slept in the dormitory. At Amphipolis it seems that a fee was paid upon entering the sanctuary, but the fragmentary state of the inscription makes it difficult to ascertain what kind of a fee it was. At Athens, the drachma given to Asklepios, which is mentioned in an inscription from the late 340s, is better interpreted as a tax rather than a fee paid before incubating because of the contractors mentioned in the inscription. Finally, the fee of three obols at Pergamon could have been a fee for the sacrifice, or a fee for incubating, or, as argued above, a payment for covering expenses at the sanctuary (to be paid to the priest at the most convenient moment).

    64The categories tend to intermingle, and it is not always clear what the payment to the sanctuary was to cover. The Edelsteins have stated that admission fees for incubants at Asklepieia were rare.142 Lupu suggests, based on the evidence of the lex sacra from Amphipolis and of the Lex sacra Hallenstrasse, that payment for incubation was indeed expected.143 According to Petropoulou, citing Beer, the eparche at Oropos was the only instance in a healing cult where a fee was demanded before healing took place.144 At Oropos, it is clear from the sacred law that the eparche, the consultation fee, was paid specifically by incubants.145 The cult of Amphiaraos at Oropos most probably started as an incubation cult which provided oracles, and then it changed its repertoire to healings. Perhaps it was influenced by the popular healing cult at Epidauros? Thus, if we examine the previous history of the cult, we can suggest that the payment of a fee before incubation might be explained by tradition.146 In other words, the eparche at Oropos need not indicate that similar fees were also paid before incubation at other incubation sanctuaries.

    65If we look at fees in Greek religion in general, the eparche (or aparche) was originally a rite of first fruits which were given the sanctuary, then it became a monetary fee which was put in the thesauros, comparable with other consultation fees or sacrificial fees.147 It is, however, not always clear whether the fee was for the coming sacrifice or for consulting the divinity, wherefore care must be taken not to establish definite categories.148 Unfortunately, archaeology cannot help us to answer this question. The presence of thesauroi, money boxes, at several Asklepieia attests to the paying of fees both before consultation and before sacrifice, as well as thank-offerings, but need not indicate that consultation fees were paid before incubating.149

    66If we look at other phenomena in Greek cult where a more complex ritual was enacted, we find that similar fees were paid. Consultation fees existed in oracle cults such as Delphi, where a fee was sometimes paid before consultation.150 In the Manteion of Apollon Pythios at Argos, around 300 BC, a pelanos was thrown in the thesauros.151 Furthermore, in order to consult the oracle of Trophonios, each consultant had to pay ten cakes (εἰλυτά) worth ten drachmae in total.152 Just as the payment of a pelanos in the beginning denoted a payment of cakes, the fee here was of cakes, but the monetary specification of the value seems to indicate that the worth and not just the sort of cake was important. Ten drachmae is a substantial amount compared to the eparche at Oropos of one drachma (or three obols at Pergamon) for example, and it attests to the exclusivity of consultation at the Trophonion as compared with the incubation cults at Oropos and Pergamon.

    67Fees were present before mystery initiations as well. At Eleusis, payments of eparche and pelanos are attested.153 No one could be initiated at Eleusis free of charge.154 At Andania, two thesauroi were placed in the sanctuary for the monetary offerings of the mystes.155 Fees seem to have been paid on a number of religious occasions, and it is not always clear in the inscription whether they were paid for consultation or for sacrifice. Since a deity was consulted when the person went to incubate, a consultation fee seems logical. However, the sacrifice before incubation could in that case also be seen as a payment for the consultation. Just by looking at the testimonia on fees in connection with incubation we can posit that variations occur; in any case, it seems unwise to postulate that a consultation fee as such before incubation was a common rule.

    68As a general remark, fees seem to have been levied especially when the sanctuaries had greater expenses, such as might be expected at the Great Mysteries or at an oracle consultation. At animal sacrifices the sanctuaries also incurred expenses for the officiating priest, for the distribution of wood etc., wherefore fees are also mentioned here. Incubants, on top of contributing to expenses for rites such as the sacrifice performed in the sanctuary, would have needed to use the dormitory in the sanctuary. The dormitory was, as a rule, a building which was specially constructed for incubants exclusively. There, there would have been beds in need of tidying and this service had a price.156 Lights burning in the dormitory (which would then be extinguished when all incubants were in place) were an additional cost for which the sanctuary had to compensate.

    69A fee for all the expenses incurred by the sanctuary is likely (money or an animal, before or after the sleeping), and would have been paid by the incubants. However, it is only at Oropos that we find a monetary fee called an eparche, which was to be paid before sleeping. At several other incubation sanctuaries that specialized in cures a fee was paid after the effected healing.157 To exact a fee after a healing, but before an oracle consultation, makes sense. The god always gave an answer to the enquirer, albeit sometimes not the desired answer. A cure, though, was a gratification which was to be wished for, and was not a given outcome of incubation. Some worshippers were never healed, while some were healed only after staying a long time at the sanctuary (often worshippers were advised by the god to stay a certain time).158

    1.2. Offerings and prayer

    70It is not surprising that sacrifice preceded incubation, since this was one of the most common rites used to attract the attention of the gods and gain their goodwill. Before examining the evidence for offerings and prayer, a few words concerning the terminology of making offerings before incubation are necessary.

    71The act of προθύω (‘to sacrifice first’) and the nouns προθυσία and πρόθυσις (a pre-sacrifice), as well as προθύματα (denoting the pre-sacrificed offerings),159 are testified in Greek cult and also in incubation contexts, alongside the verb θύω (to sacrifice).

    72Scholars agree that the word prothyo could mean, among other things, to sacrifice to a divinity before sacrificing to another divinity,160 and to sacrifice to a divinity before an important event, be it incubation, combat, a departure on an expedition etc.161 Given that prothyo may mean a number of things, not just to sacrifice before an animal sacrifice to the main god or a sacrifice before incubation, care must be taken when evaluating testimonia from incubation contexts containing the word prothyo. My method will be to examine each instance where prothyo is used in its proper context to determine the meaning of the term in that particular testimonium.

    1.2.1. Animal sacrifice to associated deities

    73The cult of Asklepios grew from the cult of Apollon, and this can be seen in the structure of the Asklepian rituals.

    74The Hymn of Isyllos, a paian composed by Isyllos from Epidauros around 325– 300 BC, relates that not even in Thessalian Trikka would one go down into the adyton of Asklepios without first sacrificing on the altar of Apollon Maleatas: οὐδέ κε Θεσσαλίας ἐν Τρίκκηι πειραθείης | εἰς ἄδυτον καταβὰς Ἀσκληπιοῦ, εἰ μὴ ἀφ’ ἁγνοῦ | πρῶτον Ἀπόλλωνος βωμοῦ θύσαις Μαλεάτα.162 There are two alternative meanings for adyton: either the innermost part of the temple, or a dormitory for incubation. Since the incubation hall in the iamata of Epidauros was called adyton, and the Hymn of Isyllos is an inscription from Epidauros, it seems likely that in the paian, adyton signifies a dormitory.163

    75Hence, around 300 BC at both Epidauros and Trikka it was customary to sacrifice to Apollon Maleatas before entering the adyton of Asklepios. It may be taken for granted that a sacrifice to Asklepios was performed before incubation at these sanctuaries and before entering the adyton — there is no reason to postulate a sacrifice to the associated god if the main helper did not receive a sacrifice.

    76In order to denote the pre-sacrifice to Apollon as a prerequisite for incubating at Trikka, we must however ascertain that incubation was practised in Trikka at the time when the Hymn of Isyllos was composed. Trikka was from ancient times in the myths of Asklepios from ancient times. The only explicit testimonium which mentions that there was an Asklepieion offering incubation at Trikka is, however, found in Strabo.164 He states that at Kos and Trikka, as at Epidauros, many people were cured by the epiphany of Asklepios and that the temples were full of ill people and votive tablets with stories of the cures. Since Isyllos named Trikka, and since Strabo some 200 years later considered it to be one of the major Asklepieia, it is probable that Trikka was a major Asklepieion even at the time of Isyllos. It is a general assumption among scholars that all larger Asklepieia offered incubation, and it is likely that incubation was practised at Trikka as early as the late fourth century BC.

    77Furthermore, a fragmentary lex sacra from Amphipolis dated to around 350– 300 BC (Collection of texts, no. 3) regulates incubation and a sacrifice to Asklepios. Before the mention of incubation and a sacrifice to Asklepios, according to the restoration of Veligianni, a first sacrifice (the verb thyo is used) is prescribed to ‘the gods’, [θ] ύειν τοῖς θε[οῖς------],165 and then ἄ̣λλο τι ἂν ΑΥ [------]follows.166 Due to the fragmentary state of the inscription, it is not possible to say if ἄ̣λλο τι is another voluntary sacrifice, another sacrifice for a purpose other than the first sacrifice, or just a mention of some other concern of which the worshipper was to be attentive. Who are ‘the gods of the sanctuary’? Both Veligianni and Lupu suggest Apollon and Hygieia, who were also associated with Asklepios in other sanctuaries.167 This seems a plausible suggestion, and we may compare a passage in the Mimiambi of Herondas which indicates that it was a custom in the cult of Asklepios to pay respects also to the associated gods.168

    78In the Asklepieion at Pergamon, as shown by the Lex sacra Hallenstrasse (Collection of texts, no. 7), there is mention of an animal sacrifice that was made before a pre-sacrifice of cakes and a sacrifice of a piglet to Asklepios, κ̣α̣ὶ̣ τ̣ραπεζού̣σθ̣ω σκ̣[έ]- | [λος δεξιὸν κ]α̣ὶ σπλάγχ̣ν̣α κα[ὶ] λ̣αβὼν̣ ἄλλον στέφανον ἐλάας…169 The name of the god is not given in this first sacrifice due to the inscription being broken at the top. Wörrle has partly restored the lines at the top, which concern this first sacrifice to an unknown god, translating ‘the [right leg] and the entrails are to be placed on a table’. After this sacrifice of an animal to an unknown god, the worshipper was to put on ‘another wreath’, this time of olive. The most credible interpretation of this fragmentary sentence would be, as pointed out by Wörrle, that the worshipper changed a laurel wreath, which was used when sacrificing to Apollon, for an olive wreath because they were then sacrificing to Asklepios.170 Since the payment for the effected cure, which is mentioned later in the same inscription, also goes to Apollon, the most likely restoration of the text is that Apollon was offered the first sacrifice.

    79For Wörrle, there is no question that the sacrificer of this first, unknown animal to Apollon was an incubant.171 In my view, it is certain that the incubant performed all of the prescribed sacrifices in the Lex sacra Hallenstrasse, but there is nothing to say that the instructions on sacrifice to Apollon prior to a sacrifice to Asklepios were not also meant for other worshippers who were coming to the sanctuary to pray and sacrifice but not to incubate. In lines 11–14, where the inscription gives special purity instructions to those entering the enkoimeterion, the instructions are explicitly given in addition to, and referring to, other purity instructions which are now lost at the top of the stone.172 This would have been an understandable way of giving purity instructions to two groups — sacrificers in general (including the incubants), and then later, extra instructions for the incubants. It might be the case that the instructions for this sacrifice to Apollon (as well as the following sacrifice of cakes to associated gods and a piglet to Asklepios) were the same for those who were only sacrificing as for those who were sacrificing and then incubating.

    80Based on our knowledge in general of the cult of Asklepios, the paying of respects also to Apollon, his father, as well as to the gods around the hearth of Asklepios, was nothing unusual — all worshippers who came to the sanctuaries of Asklepios, not just the incubants, did this. For instance, at Epidauros, the heading text of the iamata ‘Healings by Apollon and by Asklepios’ suggests that gratitude was felt for both gods.173 A sacred law from the end of the fifth century at Epidauros strengthens the connection between the two gods.174 It concerns sacrifices: first to Apollon and the gods sharing his temple, and then to Asklepios and the gods associated with him. It concerns all the worshippers who were coming to the sanctuary — incubants as well as others.

    81To summarize, an animal sacrifice was made to Apollon as a part of the preparations for incubation at Epidauros, Trikka and Pergamon. At Amphipolis, a sacrifice was made to gods associated with Asklepios, before the main sacrifice to Asklepios. The sacrifices to Apollon were in all probability made by all the worshippers in the sanctuary, as testimonia from Epidauros and Erythrai indicate.

    1.2.2. The sacrifice of cakes

    82In many Greek cults, cakes could be offered either as the only offering or as an addition to the sacrifice of an animal. From the context of incubation rituals, there are five testimonia concerning the sacrifice of cakes, all from the cult of Asklepios.

    83First, there is a sacred law from the Asklepieion at Erythrai of 380–360 BC that provides regulations on sacrifice for any worshipper in the cult, including, one must presume, incubants, since they are mentioned further down in the text, where thank-sacrifices are mentioned (Collection of texts, no. 2). In the general sacrificial regulations, rules for a variety of different offerings are mentioned, including the offering of θυστά (cakes).175 The inscription says that a cake called phthoïs and one called hermetes should be put on the offering table of each god.

    84Furthermore, in an inscription from the Asklepieion at Piraeus from the fourth century BC,176 a pre-sacrifice of cakes, presumably prior to a sacrifice to Asklepios, is prescribed with the words ‘sacrifice first according to this’, κατὰ τάδε προθύεσθαι (Collection of texts, no. 4). The prescription is that Maleatas,177 Apollon, Hermes, Iaso, Akeso, Panakeia, ‘the dogs and the huntsmen (kynegetai)’ are to receive three πόπανα each. Mnemosyne and Helios appear in a later addition to this inscription, where it is written that they are to receive an ἀρεστήρ and a κηρίον each (a cake and a honeycomb).

    85This pre-sacrifice and the following sacrifice to Asklepios did not necessarily precede incubation, but the presence of the goddess of memory, Mnemosyne, would mean that incubation was a probable next step; it would make sense to want to remember your incubation dream.178 The inscription was found in Piraeus, near the area where the temple of Asklepios is thought to have lain (though there is nothing on a main sacrifice to Asklepios in the inscription). A priest of Asklepios is mentioned as having dedicated the inscription. A sacrifice to gods associated with Asklepios without honouring the main god himself does not seem logical: if Asklepios also received cakes just like these gods, why not also specify what sort and how many cakes he was to receive? The number of associated gods mentioned in the inscription further suggests that it was difficult for the worshippers to keep track of all the cake offerings.179 Perhaps Asklepios received a sacrifice which was easier to remember, such as a cock.

    86In the cult of Asklepios in Piraeus, as attested by Aristophanes, a sacrifice of cakes, presumably to Asklepios and maybe to the gods associated with him as well, was also made prior to sleeping: πόπανα and unspecified προθύματα were consecrated on a βωμός,180 and possibly burnt together with πέλανος (here best translated as a liquid mixture of meal, honey and oil).181 Other cakes, φθόϊες, and dried figs, ἰσχάδες, were then placed on a holy offering table inside the dormitory, whence the priests later in the night took the cakes in order to eat themselves.182 After having taken the cakes from the trapeza, the priests also circled all the altars (τοὺς βομοὺς ἅπαντας ἐν κύκλῳ) to see if there was any cake (popanon) left.183 The above-mentioned sacred law from Piraeus that describes the pre-sacrifices of cakes to associated deities on many different altars, before the main sacrifice to Asklepios, indicates that the many altars related in the Ploutos probably belonged to both Asklepios and to other deities; Aristophanes was simply more concerned with a fluent narrative than pleasing today’s historians by providing the identity of these associated gods.184 There are many kinds of cake sacrifices here: the burning of pelanos and maybe also cakes on a bomos, and then there is a display of phthoïs-cakes and dried figs on a holy table, trapeza, inside the dormitory, as well as remains from cake offerings that have been made on a number of bomoi, inside the dormitory, or on altars visible from the dormitory.185

    87There are thus two fairly contemporaneous testimonia on cake sacrifices in the cult of Asklepios at Piraeus (388 BC, and the fourth century BC with later additions). The first testimonium, the sacred law, instructs worshippers to sacrifice cakes to a number of associated deities, in connection with the main sacrifice to Asklepios, one must presume. The other testimonium, the Ploutos, relates the story of a cake sacrifice where cakes were burnt and then put on the offering table just before the incubants entered the dormitory. It might be the case that Asklepios was also given cakes at Piraeus and all associated gods in the sacred law were explicitly mentioned because people had difficulty remembering them all.

    88In one of the Epidaurian iamata, the act of prothyo is mentioned, προεθύσατο καὶ [ἐπόησε τὰ] νομιζόμενα, ‘performed the opening sacrifices and did the required things’.186 It is not clear what is meant by performing ‘opening sacrifices’, or ‘pre-sacrificed’, as is the more literal translation, or what is implied by ‘do the usual, customary things’. After performing these rites, the ‘boy who carries fire for the god’187 asked the father of the mute boy to promise to sacrifice within a year if ‘what he came for occurred’.188 From this we can conclude that the offering to Asklepios was completed. If we accept that the offerings to Asklepios were completed when the boy who carried the fire asked the father to promise to give a thank-offering, then the most logical thing would be to interpret the act of prothyo as a preliminary offering of cakes to other deities before the main sacrifice of an animal to Asklepios and the τὰ νομιζόμενα as the sacrifice of an animal — there would be no point in having a boy who carries fire present if nothing was to be burnt.

    89The most conspicuous features of the Lex sacra Hallenstrasse from the Asklepieion at Pergamon are perhaps the detailed sacrifices of different cakes to deities associated with Asklepios (Collection of texts, no. 7). First, there is a sacrifice of cakes before the sacrifice of a piglet to the god (ll. 3–6 and ll. 19–22, in both passages described with the verb prothyo). Secondly, there is a sacrifice of cakes in the evening before entering the incubation chamber (ll. 9–11 and 28). The sacrifice of cakes just before the animal sacrifice consists of a πόπανον ῥαβδωτὸν ἐννεόμφαλον (‘ribbed round cake with nine buttons’) each to Zeus Apotropaios and Zeus Meilichios, then a πόπανον ἐννεόμφαλον (‘a round cake with nine buttons’) each to Artemis (with a lost epithet), Artemis Prothyraia, and Ge (ll. 3–6). This sacrifice of cakes is mentioned a second time in ll. 19–22, to be made by those incubating in the small dormitory (enkoimeterion). The sacrifice of cakes in ll. 19–22 is performed only by incubants — the sacrifice specially applies to those entering the small enkoimeterion. The other sacrifice of cakes (in ll. 3–6) was certainly made by incubants, but the possibility that other worshippers sacrificing to Asklepios in the sanctuary were equally addressed on the stone, and were required to make the same pre-sacrifices, cannot be ruled out.189

    90Cakes were also offered just before entering the dormitory in Pergamon: a πόπανον ἐννεόμφαλον (‘round cake with nine buttons’) each to Tyche, Mnemosyne and Themis.190 The sacrifice was performed to Tyche and Mnemosyne on the ‘outer thymele’ and to Themis ‘in the enkoimeterion’. The name of the outer altar, thymele, may indicate that these cakes were burnt.191 Those incubants who entered the large enkoimeterion, as well as those who entered the small enkoimeterion made the offering. Furthermore, more permanent residents with semi-official duties existed at the Asklepieion at Pergamon, and they were required to offer a cake (restored as pelanos by Wörrle, although with a question mark) dipped in honey and olive oil ([πελανο(?)] ῖς μέλιτι καὶ ἐλαίω̣ι δεδευμένοις).192

    Contextualization and analysis of the rite

    91When the offering of a cake is described by a term in these testimonia, prothyo and prothymata are used. The same terminology is used for making an offering to one deity before making an offering to another deity, and the terminology is used in all Greek cults.193

    92Bloodless offerings were a part of Greek sacrificial rites as much as the animal victims.194 Blood sacrifices were regularly preceded by bloodless sacrifices to lesser gods or heroes in Greek cult.195 In some cases, the cakes seem to have been the only offering, although the prescription of a sacrifice of cakes may also mean that it was to accompany an implicit animal sacrifice.196 It is impossible to say here whether the pre-sacrifice of cakes was more common in the cult of Asklepios or in other cults. The habit of sacrificing cakes before a main sacrifice, before incubating, thus does not differ from the sacrifice of cakes before the main sacrifice to any Greek deity. The sacrifice of cakes just before entering the dormitory was of course a rite exclusive to incubants, and (as shown) is only documented for the cult of Asklepios.

    93It has been stated in previous research that preliminary offerings to associated deities before the main sacrifice to Asklepios were obligatory at all Asklepieia, but the few inscriptions referred to in support of this do not prove that the rite was obligatory.197 However, it seems to have been common practice for cakes to be offered to gods associated with Asklepios, just as Asklepios was also habitually accompanied by family members in his sanctuaries and also, for example, on votive reliefs (see more on this below).

    The cakes

    94The cakes thus documented as having been part of incubation preparations are described as popanon, more specifically as nine-knobbed, or ribbed and nine-knobbed popanon, arester kerion, pelanos and phthoïs. The names of the cakes offered in an incubatory context do not differ from the names normally used for cakes in other cultic prescriptions.198 Cakes offered in Greek cult could, as Kearns writes, take on multiple shapes and thus had an appearance that was easily adaptable to the deity to whom they were given.199 It is her suggestion that the cakes in their different shapes, especially when they were carried around in a procession together with other offerings, helped to define the cult and the deity.

    95Looking at the inscriptions concerning cakes as pre-sacrifices before an incubation sacrifice, all the gods who received the pre-sacrifice also received the same cake — the choice of cake (and indeed the choice of associated deities to receive the cakes) was made at each local cult of Asklepios. The popanon shaped with nine knobs that is prescribed in the Lex sacra Hallenstrasse was no doubt a way of distinguishing the cult and ensuring that no cakes other than the ones sanctioned by and possibly sold at the sanctuary were offered. Interestingly, the male deities (Zeus Apotropaios and Zeus Meilichios) received a ribbed, round cake with nine buttons (πόπανον ῥαβδωτὸν ἐννεόμφαλον), while the female deities (Artemis with a lost epithet, Artemis Prothyraia, Ge, Tyche, Mnemosyne and Themis) all received a round cake with nine buttons (πόπανον ἐννεόμφαλον). At Erythrai, the cakes are phthoïs and hermetes. At Piraeus, popana are offered at first, to Maleatas, Apollon, Hermes, Iaso, Panakeia, the dogs and the huntsmen, or, in the play by Aristophanes, the popana are burnt on the outer altar. Then the phthoïes are offered on altars inside the dormitory (in the Ploutos), or an arester and a honeycomb (a later addition to the inscription from Piraeus).

    96The exception is the later addition of arester kerion (a cake and a honeycomb) to Helios and Mnemosyne in Piraeus (all the other associated gods mentioned in the pre-sacrifice receive three popana). It is interesting to note, although we cannot infer anything definite about the the culinary preference of the goddess, that Mnemosyne received the same sacrifice outside of an incubatory context as at the Asklepieion of Piraeus, as evidenced in an inscription from the end of the fourth century BC found in the Agora of Athens, near the Heliaia.200 It relates, in a fragmentary state, how Mnemosyne was to receive cakes and pieces of a honeycomb.

    The gods receiving cakes

    97Were the associated gods themselves sacrificed to in order that the worshipper would have a successful incubation, or because they were honoured in general in that particular cult of Asklepios? How tailored or adapted for incubants was the sacrifice of cakes? Especially when the offerings were made just prior to entering the dormitory, one might suspect that the associated gods in some way helped with the incubation process.

    98The associated gods of Asklepios who received cakes may very roughly be divided into four groups: the immediate family of Asklepios, gods that had a local cultic connection, healing and helpful deities, and/or deities with the capacity to help with dreaming or oracles.

    99Asklepios’ immediate family, Apollon as well as the daughters of Asklepios, Iaso, Akeso and Panakeia, received cakes in the inscription from Piraeus of the fourth century BC.201 Asklepios was habitually surrounded by his immediate family. His wife Epione, his sons Machaon and Podaleirios, and his daughters Akeso, Iaso, Panakeia and Hygieia (later, Hygieia is also described as his wife),202 as well as Aigle, often accompany him.203 It is not surprising that this close relationship with his family is also reflected in the incubation rites. The inclusion of Asklepios’ immediate family in a pre-sacrifice before incubation seems likely, and hence it was not bound to any specifics in the particular cult, nor did it affect the dream itself, other than invoking the full healing power of Asklepios. In the cult of Asklepios the cakes offered to his associates would, in the same way, have helped to define the cult of Asklepios.

    100The choosing of which associated deities were to receive cakes mirrored local cultic characteristics, as seen in relation to the cult of Asklepios in Attica, which was founded from Epidauros. The inscription from fourth-century Piraeus prescribes that Maleatas was to receive cakes.204 Apollon Maleatas was the first god at Epidauros, with a sanctuary on the Kynortion hill that dated back to the mid-eighth century.205 He always received a sacrifice before Asklepios, at both Trikka and at Epidauros.206 An offering to Apollon Maleatas in the Piraean inscription is logical since the cult of Asklepios at Piraeus was founded from Epidauros.

    101In the inscription from Piraeus, ‘the dogs and the huntsmen (kynegetai)’ were to receive cakes. It is not clear who these huntsmen were, but their connection with the circle of Asklepios at Epidauros is clear. The Asklepieion at Piraeus was founded from Epidauros, and so it is logical that gods associated with Asklepios at Epidauros followed him to Attica. Parker has argued that the huntsmen were a group of hunters with dogs, who, according to a version of the myth of Asklepios which is first attested in the Hellenistic period but is possibly of older date, took care of the infant Asklepios after he had been exposed by his mother.207 In support of this myth being known at the time of the lex sacra from Piraeus, Parker refers to a plate by the Meidias Painter.208 Another interpretation has been suggested by Eickstedt, who examined an Epidaurian votive relief depicting Machaon and Podaleirios as hunters with three dogs, next to Asklepios (from the second half of the fourth century BC).209 His hypothesis is that the huntsmen in the Piraean inscription are Machaon and Podaleirios, the sons of Asklepios.

    102Both interpretations of the huntsmen’s identities are plausible, the state of the evidence being what it is. It is interesting that the dogs (be it the dogs that helped save the infant Asklepios or the dogs belonging to the sons of Asklepios) receive cakes, especially when we consider that some of the cures at Epidauros were conferred on the help-seekers by holy dogs in the sanctuary.210 Just as the snakes living in the sanctuary at Epidauros (they also accompany Asklepios in reliefs and in literature) helped to confer cures,211 Asklepios also cured through the dogs of his sanctuary, and they were thus mythologically woven into the circle of Asklepios.

    103Certain deities received cakes because of their general healing and helping abilities, and/or the ability to help with the dreaming and oracular process itself. Hermes received cakes in the above-discussed lex sacra from Piraeus. An altar of Hermes is also mentioned in cure-inscriptions at the Asklepieion of Lebena, but these are fragmentary and so it is not clear what action occasioned its mention.212 Hermes was considered a ‘bringer of dreams’, in the fifth century Homeric Hymn to Hermes.213 In an inscription from Knidos, which is dated to around 300 BC, Hermes helps Demeter and Kore to communicate with a worshipper through a dream.214 Hermes was also known for having given unfailing memory to his son, the Argonaut Aethalides.215 It was of course important for the incubant to obtain a dream, and also to remember it. The main reason why Hermes is present in the lex sacra from Piraeus is, in my view, his general popularity in Attica.216 As the protector of herds, he also ensured the prosperity of the people of Attica.217 Figurines of Hermes were commonly donated in sanctuaries of other gods. In Greek sanctuaries from Geometric to Classical times, Hermes was one of the two ‘visiting gods’ whose figurines were donated in sanctuaries of most deities.218

    104In a later (possibly Hellenistic) addition to the lex sacra from Piraeus, Helios received a cake.219 A few ancient testimonia point to Helios as a healer, and above all as a healer of the eyes (being the god of light).220 He is briefly mentioned in inscriptions from third- and second-century Attica, illustrating his presence there.221 As has been stated in previous research, there is no evidence to suggest that Helios influenced the incubation process itself.222

    105Turning to Pergamon and the Lex sacra Hallenstrasse (Collection of texts, no. 7), Artemis Prothyraia received a pre-sacrifice of a cake. It is not clear what Artemis Prothyraia helped worshippers with, but the fact that Apollon Thyraios and Apollon Propylaios are classic averters of evil might mean that Artemis Prothyraia had the same function also when she was connected with this type of epithet.223 Gods standing before doors functioned as averters of evil, and thyraios, prothyraios, and propylaios might be seen as natural variations of the same idea. Aside from Pergamon, Artemis Prothyraia was also revered at Epidauros, possibly as early as the third century BC.224

    106Zeus Apotropaios also received a cake in the Lex sacra Hallenstrasse. The epithet Apotropaios, when linked with gods, means that they would avert misfortune.225 Zeus Apotropaios received cult in Erythrai, Asia Minor, from at least the mid-third century BC.226 It thus seems fitting that Zeus Apotropaios, the averter of misfortune, should be present among rites preceding healing by incubation. This said, the god seems to assist the healing rather than the procurement a dream.

    107Zeus Meilichios, a kind god and a protector of prosperity, is given a cake in the Pergamene inscription.227 An altar at Epidauros with a dedication to Zeus Meilichios connects the god with Asklepios.228 The presence of Zeus Meilichios before incubation is easily explained by his previously mentioned attributes.

    108Finally, Ge received a cake before the sacrifice to Asklepios in the Lex sacra Hallenstrasse. It has been suggested that she was included in this pre-sacrifice because of her alleged mantic powers and also because she was revered at Epidauros.229 Ge was a mantic goddess, and in Greek myth she was seen as the first oracle at Delphi (although this myth was not founded in actual cultic history).230 Ge also had a kourotrophic aspect (as the nourisher of children), but she was probably mainly worshipped in this aspect in Attica.231

    109Mnemosyne was added as a recipient of a cake on the Piraeus inscription, and she also received a cake at Pergamon, in the evening just outside the dormitory.232 A sacrifice to Mnemosyne in the context of incubation would likely to have been made in order to remember a dream, but also because she was the mother of the Muses who brought joy to humans.233 Her presence may also be noted at Epidauros and in the Agora of Athens in Classical times.234 Tyche and Themis were also to receive a cake each in the Lex sacra Hallenstrasse. Tyche, the goddess of both good and bad fortune, was generally seen as favourable and just.235 Tyche also received dedications in Epidauros from at early as the fourth century BC.236 Themis, the daughter of Ge, was theologically, though not in cult, viewed as one of the previous owners of the Delphic oracle and was also associated with Apollon.237 She also watched over human assemblies, where (among other things) different interpretations of oracular answers presented to the state were discussed — perhaps such a characteristic was necessary for the interpretation of the incubant’s dream.238

    110To conclude, a combination of factors decided which associated gods were given cakes. The inscription from Piraeus combined pre-sacrifice to Asklepios’ family (father, wife, daughters, sons) with pre-sacrifice to deities who were locally revered, as well as those revered at Epidauros. The inscription was later modified with the addition of Mnemosyne and Helios, and thus it was directed more towards success with dreaming and healing. The Lex sacra Hallenstrasse, which did not include the immediate family of Asklepios, but mostly gods with generally helpful, apotropaic and mantic gifts (as well as the gods known to have been worshipped at Epidauros whence the cult was founded), was more directed towards incubants than the one at Piraeus.

    1.2.3. Libations

    111In the cult of Asklepios at Piraeus in the early fourth century, a pelanos,239 was poured on the fire of the bomos by the incubants prior to entering the dormitory.240

    112In an inscription from the Asklepieion at Piraeus of the fourth century BC, a libation is recorded (see Collection of texts, no. 4).241 Hellenistic additions on sides B and C of the marble stele prescribe wineless libations, ‘nephalioi on three altars’, and on side D the text reads only nephalioi. The three altars mentioned are no doubt the altars set in front of sides B, C and D of the stone. The first prescription of nephalioi on side B was made following the prescription of a cake each to Helios and Mnemosyne. In Ziehen’s opinion, in the inscription, the nephalioi are to be dedicated to Helios and Mnemosyne, but the text is not clear on this.242 Since Helios and Mnemosyne were to receive a cake each, and the nephalioi were to be made on three altars, I would instead suggest that the nephalioi were sacrificed around the stone, on the sides of the main altar in front of side A. I imagine the sacrifice of nephalioi as being made to all the gods mentioned in the inscription, at the same time creating a circular movement in the rite. Greek officiating priests or assistants, in any cult, might have performed a circular march around the altar before the slaughter of the animal, and to come across similar acts in the cult of Asklepios would not be surprising.243 Two reliefs from the Athenian Asklepieion, depicting animal sacrifice, suggest this type of circular movement (an attendant leading the victim around the altar), and strengthen the possibility that this practice was also a part of the act of libating in the cult of Asklepios.244

    113Finally, at the incubation sanctuary of Hemithea at Kastabos, according to Diodorus, libations of milk and honey (melikraton) were offered in the sacrifices held in honour of Hemithea, but wine was forbidden.245 The libations were part of the animal sacrifices, which were held in her honour.246 Since it is not explicit that these sacrifices were made by incubants, but rather they are related in a generally descriptive passage of the cult, it must be concluded that the prohibition on libations of wine applied to all worshippers, i.e. those who were honouring the goddess without incubating as well as those who were incubating in the sanctuary. There are two occasions when the libation mentioned in Diodorus might have been made: first, as a preliminary, before the sacrifice, after the audience had been verified as being without miasma;247 secondly, when a libation was poured over the burning parts on the altar. The latter type of libation was of greater importance, and so we might perhaps assume that this is the one that Diodorus references.248

    114From a more general viewpoint, it is not surprising that libations were also part of the rites preceding incubation, since they were part of regular cult practice.249 Libations presumably occurred in sacrifices before incubation more frequently than the evidence suggests because they were part of normal sacrificial procedure; thus, they are not specifically mentioned in inscriptions. The libation in the cult of Hemithea is mentioned in the text of Diodorus because wine was forbidden and this was an exception to common practice in other cults.250 Wine was a very common libation in Greek cults.251 It is difficult to speculate as to why wine was prohibited in the cult of Hemithea. The story of Diodorus shows that wine was generally prohibited as an offering in the cult,252 and thus it does not seem to have had anything directly to do with incubation.253

    115Furthermore, as previously noted, libation in the cult of Hemithea was performed by all worshippers, and this must also be true for the libation in the Piraeus inscription (since it is not specified that the sacrifices only applied to incubants). In the Ploutos, the pelanos is explicitly burnt by incubants, but there is in fact no way of telling whether this was not also done by the other worshippers coming to the sanctuary. After all, pouring a libation over the burning offerings was a common custom. The lex sacra from Piraeus might also have applied to non-incubants.

    116To conclude, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that a particular type of libation was habitually offered by incubants.

    1.2.4. Unspecified sacrifice before incubation

    117In these testimonia, it is unclear whether the sacrifice was that of an animal or of cakes, fruit and/or incense.

    118Three iamata from Epidauros refer to a sacrifice before incubation, although they do not specify what was sacrificed.254 In two of the iamata the suppliants are noted as sacrificers.255 In one, a pyrphoros, the boy who carries the fire, is also present, and he bids the father of the mute boy (who is the suppliant) to come back and sacrifice within a year if the boy has been cured.256 The pyrphoros asking for a thank-offering may imply that a priest of higher rank was not present at this first sacrifice before incubation. The presence of a pyrphoros indicates a burnt offering, but there is nothing to say that it had to be the god’s part of an animal that was to be burnt. The burnt offering might also have consisted of incense and/or cakes.

    119Semos of Delos, a Greek grammarian of uncertain date, describes the local cult of Brizo on Delos, where Brizo is described as an oracle in dreams, i.e. a dream oracle (ἡ ἐν ὕπνωι μάντις).257 Here, according to Semos of Delos, sacrifices are made by the women (the verb thyo is used): ‘bowls with all good things except fish’ (σκάφας πάντων πλήρεις ἀγαθῶν πλὴν ἰχθύων) ‘because they pray to her for everything, and especially for the safety of their ships’.258 What these good things were we cannot know — fruit, cakes, meat? Stengel suggests that the attested scarcity of fish offerings in the ancient world was to do with the fact that fish was considered an affordable source of nourishment, and also that it was difficult to transport live fish to the sacrificial site, an offering of an already dead animal not being optimal.259 R. Parker argues that a possible reason for the unpopularity of large deep-sea fish as a food in the ancient world might have been that these fish were thought to eat dead seamen.260 This might also be why fish (all fish) are described as prohibited in the fragment of Semos of Delos — here, he mentions that the women pray for the safety of their husbands and ships. The reason behind not offering fish cannot have been that the animal was considered holy (and therefore was not eaten, as was the case in some Greek cults)261 because the islanders lived off the sea.

    120Why were fish in general (not any particular kind of fish) prohibited for sacrifice in the cult of Brizo, when it was the basic food of the community? The reason seems likely to be that, since the sea was both the giver of nourishment and a cause of death for the fishermen, offerings of animals other than those from the sea were chosen for Brizo when people asked for safety at sea.

    1.2.5. Animal sacrifice before incubation

    Testimonia

    121Two sacred laws from the Amphiareion at Oropos, from the fourth century BC, are of interest here. First, IOropos 277 (Collection of texts, no. 1), provides rules for incubants entering the dormitory of the sanctuary along with instructions on animal sacrifice. Petropoulou argues that this law relates to a sacrifice before incubation.262 Secondly, the sacred law IOropos 278 of the fourth century BC, which regulates animal sacrifice at Oropos, has tentatively been interpreted by Lupu as referring to a sacrifice before incubation.263

    122In the first and longest of these two inscriptions, it is written that any animal that anyone wishes may be sacrificed (θύειν δὲ ἐξεῖν ἅπαν ὅ τι ἂν βόληται ἕκαστος),264 and in the shorter inscription, a number of animals are suggested to be suitable, among them chickens and bovines.265 In the longer inscription, instructions are also given that the skin of every animal sacrificed in the sanctuary is to be sacred (τῶν δὲ θυομένων ἐν τοῖ ἱεροῖ πάντων τὸ δέρμα ἱ̣ε̣ρ[ὸν εἶναι] …),266 and that the meat is not to be taken outside of the sanctuary (μὴ εἶναι ἐκφορὴν).267 It is stipulated that the priest should be given the shoulder of each animal that was sacrificed, on behalf of the private sacrificer.268 It might be assumed that the priest, or one of his staff, was present at the sacrifice whenever there is a sacred law stipulating that the priest was to receive a share of the animal.269

    123Petropoulou interprets the sacrifice in the longer of the two inscriptions, the IOropos 277 (Collection of texts, no. 1) as a preliminary to incubation.270 Sineux, on the other hand, states that the instructions concerning the sacrifice in these two inscriptions are notably inexplicit and cannot be pinpointed to any specific event.271 In my view, the sacrificial regulations in the IOropos 277 were for any sacrifice made in the sanctuary because the text stipulates ‘every animal sacrificed in the sanctuary’ ll. 29–30. Concerning the sacrifice, it was important to clarify which parts the priest was to be given, that meat was not to be taken outside of the sanctuary, and what was to be done with the hides. To give a step-by-step layout of rites surrounding incubation was not the objective of the inscription.

    124Regulations on what parts the priests were to be given at public sacrifices are also mentioned in the inscription.272 Hence, the sacrifice mentioned could be of any kind: a public sacrifice at a festival, a sacrifice by a private person (accompanied by a prayer or vow), a sacrifice before incubation, or a thank-offering given after the request of the worshipper had been granted (either through incubation or through prayer and sacrifice alone).

    125Notwithstanding the popularity of incubation at the Amphiareion, other opportunities for sacrifice must have existed, such as the normal sacrifice with a vow, thank-sacrifices, and the sacrifices at festivals.273 That worshippers other than those who came to incubate frequented the sanctuary is suggested by the rule that a list of the names of those who had paid the eparche for incubation was to be inscribed above the dormitory, so as to hinder others (who had not paid the eparche) from entering.274 No doubt these other worshippers also prayed and offered sacrifice, and certainly the public sacrifices mentioned in the inscription were not followed by incubation.275 The fact that the eparche for incubants is mentioned does not mark the entire text as being directed at incubants alone. Fees that were to be paid by persons who had committed an offence inside the sanctuary are also dealt with on the stone, and certainly included everyone at the sanctuary, not only incubants.

    126Thus, the same sacrificial procedure would have applied for all worshippers, incubants included. Of course, the priest’s share of the sacrificial animal, as can be expected, would have differed at a private sacrifice and at festivals at Oropos because the multitude of animals sacrificed at a festival meant it was sufficient to give the priests parts from the public animals only.276

    127In a sacred law from the cult of Asklepios at Amphipolis (Collection of texts, no. 3), a sacrifice before incubation is mentioned.277 Veligianni proposes that lines 8–13 are specific instructions for the person who wanted to incubate: he/she was to sacrifice to Asklepios, as opposed to the previous sacrifice, which was made to ‘the gods’, and put aside the legs, which were to be put on the altar or trapeza for the god. In l. 11 there is an instruction to pay a sum of money (ἀργύριον) to the god (presumably Asklepios), and if this was not paid, double the amount was to be paid.278 According to Veligianni, the sum was to be paid either to the priest at the sacrifice, or it was to be put in a thesauros.279

    128The inscription is very fragmentary. The argurion is mentioned just after the rule on what share to give the priest, and so it seems likely that this is a fee for expenses made at the sacrifice. Since the verb to incubate, ἐγκαθεύδειν, is used two times in the inscription, and the only god specifically mentioned is Asklepios, and there is also a clear instruction for an animal sacrifice (although the details are unclear), this was in all likelihood a sacrifice performed in the process of incubation within the sanctuary of Asklepios at Amphipolis, a sanctuary that was shared with some other, unnamed gods.

    129In a sacred law from Epidauros (Collection of texts, no. 6),280 from the end of the fourth century BC, a priest was to give the persons performing the pre-sacrifice (τοῖς προθυομένοις) what was required for the prothysis: a wreath, grains, and wood. Nothing is said on cakes here, so the pre-sacrifice presumably was a sacrifice of an animal before a cultic event such as incubation. The animal is not specified, but since different regulations are given in the inscription for immature (ἁπαλίοις) and for full-grown (τελέοις) animals,281 this suggests that at the time of this inscription in Epidauros there was a wide variety of animals, both young and full-grown, that could be offered.

    130In the cult of Asklepios at Erythrai, at the end of the fourth century BC, a sacrifice was stipulated before incubation (Collection of texts, no. 2).282 First, the inscription regulates, albeit in a fragmented state, sacrifice to Apollon and Asklepios. The goat is mentioned, but the text is fragmentary here, and only αἰγείωι, in the dative, is inscribed. It is possible that it was described as prohibited for sacrifice, but it is impossible to know. Animals that are permitted are the ox, an unspecified full-grown animal (maybe sheep), the piglet, and θυστά cakes.283 The donations on the trapeza vary for the different animals. Two obols are to be paid to the priest when sacrificing an ox, but otherwise only one obol is necessary, and as for the piglet, no money is required.284 Also, different cakes are prescribed. All regulations apply to both private offerings and sacrifices made by the city. The sacrifices made by private worshippers could have been for any cause, and incubants may well be included even though they are not mentioned specifically (there are no special sacrificial rules for incubants here).

    131It is also inscribed that in festivals at Erythrai the official sacrificers have the right to sacrifice before the private worshippers. Using this right to sacrifice first was called prothyo.285 It has been suggested that προθύω in l. 27 means ‘sacrifice before incubation’ and also that the state in ll. 26–27 sacrifices on behalf of all incubants, ὑπὲρ πάντων.286 This would be unusual, i.e. the state regulating the incubation of private individuals, and there are no parallels for this practice.287 I suggest that prothyo in this inscription has different meanings. The meaning of προθύω might in l. 27 be interpreted as ‘the right to sacrifice first’ during festivals: the state was to sacrifice first, before individuals with private prayers. The words ὑπὲρ πάντων, ‘on behalf of everybody’, need not mean that the state sacrificed on behalf of every incubant or person making a vow, but rather that the state had the right to sacrifice first, before individuals, on behalf of every citizen, as opposed to those with individual needs, ἰδιώτης. Further down, the text instructs that when there is not a festival, ‘let him sacrifice according to the aforementioned regulations’ (l. 29), and since this passage deals with private sacrificial rituals, prothyo must mean ‘to sacrifice before incubation’.

    132Lastly, regulations concerning thank-offerings (performed after successful healing) are provided, and it is here that incubants are mentioned for the first time.288 It is clear from the text that the same rules for thank-offerings apply to incubants and to those who made a vow. The hiera moira, the god’s share,289 was to be placed on the altar, and all worshippers offering the thank-sacrifice were to sing the paian three times around the altar of Apollon.290 The passage on thank-offerings by incubants makes it clear that incubants offered the same sacrifices as every other private person, according to the rules mentioned above.

    133In another cult in Asia Minor, that of Hemithea of Kastabos, the sacrifice of a pig was forbidden.291 We may thus infer that other animals were sacrificed prior to incubation.

    134The Lex sacra Hallenstrasse also provides evidence that in Pergamon there was no incubating without the sacrifice of an animal. A sacrifice was first to be made to Apollon. After the wreath was changed to an olive one, denoting that Asklepios was now the recipient, a preliminary sacrifice of cakes was given to associated gods, and this was followed by the sacrifice (the verb thyo is used) of a piglet (χοῖρος γαλαθηνός) to Asklepios.292 The right leg and entrails were to be put on the trapeza.293 Incubants who came back a second time or more, consulting on the same matter, had to sacrifice (the verb prothyo is now used) a piglet (χοῖρος). If a worshipper had two requests, he or she was required to offer two piglets. I agree here with the translation of Wörrle — that a piglet was to be sacrificed on both occasions. According to Sokolowski, it should be interpreted differently: an incubant returning to consult on the same matter did not have to offer another piglet, but if he were to consult on a different matter, two piglets had to be offered.294

    135This sacrifice was also preceded by the sacrifice of cakes to associated divinities as well as the payment of three obols. Given the two-fold purity instructions before the sacrifice to Apollon (referred to in ll. 12–13), and the additional purity instructions which were specifically given to those about to enter the enkoimeterion (ll. 11–14), the rules concerning the first sacrifice of a piglet might have been directed to other worshippers in the sanctuary as well as the incubants.

    136The Lex sacra Hallenstrasse is a good example of the vagueness of the use of prothyo: the word has different meanings depending on the context.295 When prescribing the pre-sacrifice of cakes to several associated deities, the verb prothyo is used (ll. 2–6 and 19–22). Here, prothyo means to sacrifice cakes to associated deities before the main sacrifice. For denoting the following sacrifice of a piglet to Asklepios, the verb thyo is used (ll. 6–7). Further down in the inscription, when it is prescribed that returning incubants should sacrifice a piglet, the verb prothyo is used again (ll. 15–17).296 Prothyo here means ‘to sacrifice before (incubation)’.

    137In the Lex sacra Hallenstrasse, one may distinguish between the following types of sacrifices: 1) the sacrifice of cakes to deities associated with Asklepios (ll. 2–6, 19– 22); 2A) the sacrifice of a pig to Asklepios, following sacrifice type 1 (ll. 6–8); 2B) an additional sacrifice of a pig to Asklepios upon returning to the sanctuary a second time or upon making two enquiries (ll. 15–18); and 3) a sacrifice of cakes just before entering the incubation hall, in the evening (ll. 9–11, 26–29). As for the terminology, the sacrifices nos. 1. and 2B are described using the verb prothyo, whereas the sacrifice 2A is denoted by thyo. The third type of sacrifice, of cakes by the enkoimeterion, is simply described as ‘to add or place’ (ἐπιβαλλέσθω) cakes on two different altars. It may be concluded from the use of prothyo in the Lex sacra Hallenstrasse that, even in the same inscription, one of the two equal actions may be labelled thyo and the other prothyo. The description of the first sacrifice of a piglet includes the term thyo (to separate it from the initiatory sacrifice of cakes described with prothyo), but the second sacrifice of a piglet, made upon returning to the sanctuary for a second consultation, is labelled prothyo.

    138To sum up this discussion on the terminology of incubation, a sacrifice before incubation need not be described with the verb prothyo. The Lex sacra Hallenstrasse uses both thyo and prothyo. In the lex sacra from fourth-century Epidauros, concerning priests giving grains and wood to those performing prothysis, the prothysis mentioned is an animal sacrifice which most likely occurred before incubation.297 The Erythrean inscription uses prothyo, but here the verb denotes both ‘to sacrifice before other sacrificers’ as well as ‘to sacrifice before incubation’.298 In the sacred laws from the Amphiareion at Oropos, the Asklepieion at Amphipolis, and in the text of Diodorus concerning the cult of Hemithea at Kastabos, the animal sacrifices before incubation are described with the verb thyo (or thysia denoting the sacrifice itself).299

    139Turning to a different testimonium, Strabo relates how those who consult the oracle of Kalchas on the summit of Mount Drion in Daunia sacrifice (ἐναγίζουσι) a black ram to him and sleep on its hide.300 It is not certain from the text where the oracle-seekers sleep, i.e. in the heroon or somewhere else. No tomb of Kalchas is mentioned. Petropoulou has argued that, as far as the evidence goes, consultation here concerned learning the future and not obtaining a cure.301 Strabo also mentions that below the heroon of Kalchas there is a heroon of Podaleirios (the son of Asklepios and brother of Machaon) near the base of the hill. A stream runs from this place, and in the water, animals are cured from all diseases. Thus, the oracle of Kalchas and the healing cult of Podaleirios appear as two separate cults in the account of Strabo.

    140An earlier testimonium on the cult on Mount Drion by Timaeus of Tauromenion, which is cited in the Alexandra of Pseudo-Lycophron, presents another story.302 Here, Kassandra prophesies what will become of all the Trojans and Greeks once the city of Troy has fallen, and she says that near Kalchas’ empty tomb (since the real tomb is at Kolophon), Podaleirios will find his grave. She goes on to prophesy that Podaleirios will give oracles through dreams to men sleeping in sheepskins on his tomb, (ἐγκοιμωμένοις χρήσει καθ’ ὕπνον). Furthermore, she says that Podaleirios shall also be called a healer of diseases by the Daunians, since they themselves and their herds will be healed when they wash in the stream Althaenus and invoke Asklepios.

    141There is nothing in the text of the Alexandra to say that the skins came from the sacrificed animals, but this does not seem too far-fetched an assumption. In the days of Timaeus (c. 350–250 BC), however, any sheep would have been suited for sacrifice, not only the black ones.303

    The contextualization and analysis of the rite

    142The Edelsteins state that there could be no healing by incubation without an offering to the deity.304 The offering, they state, could be given before incubation, together with a prayer, or afterwards, when the healing had been effected.

    143The existing testimonia on the sacrifice of an animal far outnumber other preparatory rites, and perhaps this is not surprising. Sacrifices were made at oracular consultations of private persons and also before initiation at Eleusis.305 In Greek religion, the sacrificial rite was the main way to establish a bond between humans and the gods, to receive the attention of the god, and to receive a gift in return (health or some other oracular response).

    144It has been stated in previous research that an animal sacrifice was obligatory both before and after a cure in sanctuaries of Asklepios,306 based on testimonia from the cult of Asklepios at Epidauros, Erythrai and Miletos.307 These inscriptions do not describe rites that were to be performed in all sanctuaries of Asklepios — the sacrificial rules vary from sanctuary to sanctuary. In the cult of Asklepios in Piraeus, as attested in the Ploutos, only cakes were offered. In the cult of Brizo on Delos it is not certain what the offering before incubation consisted of — an animal, cakes, incense, or fruit. In the Asklepieion at Erythrai, cakes, thysta, were an alternative to animals at sacrifices. Hence, we cannot state that incubation was always preceded by an animal sacrifice.

    145In my opinion, some kind of offering always preceded incubation, although the offering did not need to be that of an animal. When it was an animal, it was often a smaller, less expensive animal. The terminology of sacrifice before incubation was not set, but the verbs thyo and prothyo were used since they fitted the context best. Incubants could sacrifice themselves or with the help of a priest,308 just like ordinary animal sacrificers, depending on the resources of the sanctuary.

    1.2.6. Vows and prayers

    146Hardly any testimonia from Classical and Hellenistic times include a prayer before incubation which was not made in the context of sacrifice or the promise of a sacrifice.309 In a sacred law from the Amphiareion at Oropos (Collection of texts, no. 1), it is stipulated that the priest is to pray over the sacrifice and put the offerings on the altar, but if he is not present, the worshipper is to do this himself and say his own prayers.310 Turning to Lebena, in the second century BC, Klados from Gortyn vowed to erect an altar (presumably if he obtained a cure), before he incubated.311 The inscription is fragmentary, and it is not clear whether he makes a vow or just at prayer. Here, the making of a vow is not related as being anything out of the ordinary.

    147Saying prayers and making vows at sacrifices were common practice in Greek religion — the main sacrificer (the priest or somebody else) would utter what the sacrificers wished for.312 Nothing in the above-related testimonia differs from practice in Greek religion in general.

    148A sacred law from Oropos provides rules both for those who incubate and those who only sacrifice.313 In the inscription from Oropos, the prayers of the individual and of the priest seem to have the same value, and the inscription merely regulates that the priest was to perform the sacrifice if he was present at the sanctuary or at a public sacrifice.314 To compare, the characters Kynno and Kokkale say their own prayers at a thank-sacrifice to Asklepios in Herondas’ Mimiambi.315 The neokoros performs the sacrifice of the cock they brought. The prayers and vows made at the sacrifice before incubation, as far as the evidence goes, do not seem to have differed, at least technically, from what was done by other worshippers who were not incubating.

    149Prayer without an animal sacrifice was also ubiquitous. Prayer could be performed in front of the gods’ statues, for instance, and was also accompanied by smaller offerings such as cakes, fruit and incense. The importance of prayer before healing by incubation has been emphasized by the Edelsteins, amongst others.316 The Hippocratic author of De morbo sacro describes how the sick, if they believed the gods were the cause of illness, should be brought to pray to the gods, as opposed to the superstitious treatments given by popular purifiers: ‘… they should have brought them to the sanctuaries, with sacrifices and prayers, in supplication to the gods’.317 Hence, different traditions relating to the best way to be cured existed in Greece at the time. Different groups and individuals in society certainly had different behavioural ways of addressing affliction in life. Thus, prayer made by incubants, outside of the context of sacrifice, seems likely to have been a regular practice (since it was also a part of Greek religion in general),318 especially since many incubants, as attested in the iamata of Epidauros, stayed a long time in the sanctuaries.319

    1.2.7. The use of incense

    150The only instance where the use of incense can be noted is when a special group of worshippers, therapeuontes, at Pergamon, who incubated often and stayed at the sanctuary, performed a sacrifice of cakes dipped in honey and oil and incense.320 The less costly sacrifice of wetted cakes and incense before incubation, for this group, suggests that they performed this sacrifice often. Other inscriptions at Pergamon that mention this group of worshippers, however, date to Roman times, and thus this particular part of the inscription might be a later addition and should be considered with caution.321

    151To compare, in the festival of Asklepios at Lampsakos in the second century BC, the priest sacrificed incense on the altar (bomos) of Asklepios as part of preparations for festivals.322 Furthermore, in a relief copied from a model dated to the end of the fifth century BC, which is now in Istanbul, Asklepios and Hygieia are depicted with a snake and a thymiaterion, thus attesting to the use of thymiateria in his cult.323

    152In previous research, it has been claimed that burning incense was part of the incubation ritual and experience,324 and it has been argued that a connection existed between incense and the summoning of a god in dreams.325 Also, the burning of incense in the cult of Asklepios has been viewed as embodying curative functions (being part of the cures at the temple).326 However, incense was used in the cult of Asklepios in the same way as it was used in other Greek cults — as an offering in itself or as an accompaniment to libations or sacrifice.327 There is no evidence to indicate that incense had any connection with incubation as such. The Edelsteins view the use of incense in the cult of Asklepios as a regular part of active temple service; incense and libations were offered because prayers together with offerings were presented so often that it would have been impractical to sacrifice an animal on every occasion of worship.328

    1.3. The appearance of the incubant

    1.3.1. Wearing a wreath

    153In the Lex sacra Hallenstrasse from Pergamon, instructions were given that the incubant should place the olive wreath (stephanos) he had donned at the sacrifice to Asklepios on the stibas, ‘rough bed’, in the dormitory, in the morning after sleeping there.329 As discussed in Section 1.2.1, the incubants changed wreaths at the sacrifice, from the laurel wreath of Apollon during the first sacrifice (now lost on the stone) to the olive wreath of Asklepios at the sacrifice of cakes and a piglet. After the latter sacrifice, the incubant, now a consultant proper, seemingly continued to wear this wreath during the day and the night of the consultation. In the morning, he or she donated the wreath to Asklepios, leaving it on the pillow in the dormitory.

    154The wearing of wreaths in cult rituals is well attested, as is the change of wreaths in rites when the god to whom the rite was directed was altered (though this does not occur so frequently).330

    155Wreaths were also used in oracle cults as a marker for the consultant.331 The suppliant’s crown was an emblem of their sanctified status.332 In this sense, the incubants’ wearing of a wreath during the whole day at Pergamon could be seen as a mark of their consultancy, and leaving it on the bed was a sign that the consultation was over.

    156Leaving the wreath on the pillow could also be seen as a gift to the god. To donate wreaths as votives to gods was a common practice, and the wreaths were usually put around statues of the gods or dedicated somewhere else in the sanctuary.333 The garland was a given component on the trapeza in a theoxenia ritual, along with sacrificial cakes, fruit, and wine.334 In the Lex sacra Hallenstrasse, however, it seems to be both a donation to the god and a marker that the direct consultation is over.

    157The use of a wreath in incubation at Pergamon can thus be said to embody elements common to all worshippers (the changing of a wreath at the sacrifice) as well as particulars for incubants (the wearing of a wreath during consultation and the use of the wreath as a marker that the consultation is over).

    1.3.2. Clothing restrictions

    158In the Ploutos of Aristophanes, the friends of Ploutos bring him ὡς νομίζεται to the Asklepieion, which is translated by Sommerstein as in ‘the customary garb’.335 ὡς νομίζεται may mean a number of things, but the incubant was clearly marked out as an incubant in some way, and thus they would have differed from how people in Athens appeared at the time. The mention of the singling out of Ploutos no doubt gave the account a realistic flavour, making the spectators of the play envision Ploutos being walked through Athens and down to Piraeus in a way that emphasized his intention to incubate. For him to have special clothes as a marker of his intention makes sense, since later evidence suggests that incubants wore white clothes.

    159In previous research it has been claimed that incubants, as a rule, wore special clothes336 and also that they did not.337 In a lex sacra concerning incubation from Pergamon (dated to Roman times), as well as in the writings of Aristides, it is mentioned that white clothing is worn by incubants, and this may indicate that white garments were previously worn during incubations.338

    160There is evidence for the wearing of special clothes and the absence of rings in Greek cult before the birth of Christ. The testimonium that comes closest to incubation practices is the Hymn of Isyllos, which describes a procession at Epidauros where the participants wear white clothing and have flowing hair (c. 325–300 BC).339 It is improbable, given that this is a public procession, that it would be part of incubation preparations.

    161A passage in Aeschines tells how Ktesiphon dressed all in white and thanked Zeus and Athena with a wreath on his head upon pretending to have learnt of Philip’s demise in a god-sent dream.340 From this we learn that in Athens around 330 BC it was appropriate, when thanking the gods (with sacrifices one might presume), to dress in white. There need not have been a rule concerning this practice, and it may have been no more than a local habit.

    162In the cult of Apollon Koropaios, at Korope, an inscription from c. 100 BC mentions how magistrates acting as officiants of the cult had to wear white inside the sanctuary.341 According to Wächter, priests in any Greek cult had to be purer, in relation to their clothing, than other worshippers in the same cult.342

    163A more general prohibition on purple and black clothing is given in a lex sacra from the mystery cult of Demeter at Lycosoura (third century BC).343 Here, upon entering the temple, it was forbidden to wear gold (unless for an offering), purple, brightly coloured or black garments, shoes, or finger-rings. If any of these objects were worn, they had to be dedicated to the temple. Women were not allowed to have their hair bound up, and men had to enter with a bare head. Also, in the cult of Demeter Thesmophoros, women were forbidden from wearing brightly coloured robes.344 In a regulation of the Andanian mysteries from 92 BC, one reads of regulations for female initiates and hierophants.345 They wore white clothing (specified in detail) and went barefoot (unless they wore felt or shoes of consecrated leather). Make-up was forbidden, as well as hair ribbons or braided hair and gold jewellery.

    164Wearing white clothes and having unbraided hair were apparently prescribed at certain times in Greek cult, especially for cultic activities such as initiation, as well as for priests, and thus they cannot be excluded for incubation practices. In the passage in the Ploutos it is likely that incubants in the cult of Asklepios at Piraeus, and hence also Epidauros, whence the cult was founded, wore special clothing. White clothing has, in previous research, been connected with regulations for purity346 as well as with the notion that the white colour could have helped with healing.347 Black clothes were prohibited from being worn by the patients of popular purifiers.348

    165We may be sure that if the incubants wore white clothes, this set them apart from other worshippers in the sanctuary, just as the participants in the procession recounted in the Hymn of Isyllos. White was, however, not the only colour used in processions in the cult of Asklepios: multicoloured garments were used in a fourth- or early third-century BC procession in honour of Asklepios in Euboia.349

    166The probable origin of the notion that Greeks in general wore white clothes when approaching the gods comes from Plato’s The Laws: χρώματα δὲ λευκὰ πρέποντ’ ἂν θεοῖς εἴη.350 The passage as it reads provides many recommendations for what gifts to give to sanctuaries — for instance, not to give anything of metal, but rather things that were carved from wood and stone. While mentioning tapestries as gifts, Plato writes that they should not have taken more than a month to weave and that the preferred colour for the gods was white, and this especially concerns tapestries. Plato thus writes of ideal conditions in his State, and does not describe Greek religious life per se. Furthermore, the colour white is generally recommended, but in a context of gifts to the gods (tapestries). It might be that the Christian symbolism of white as the colour of purity has ‘spilled over’ here into the interpretation, and so the notion is ascribed to more occasions than the evidence permits. The base colour of linen clothes was white (or light beige, and often they had different coloured bands). Maybe the occurrences we have are prescriptions for simplicity as well as purity, i.e. the coloured bands were excluded in some cults.

    167To conclude, it is possible that the incubants in the Ploutos wore white, simple clothes. As for the customs at other Asklepieia, one cannot know.

    1.4. The setting

    1.4.1. The dormitory

    168The place in the sanctuary where incubants slept provided the setting for the epiphany in the dream. The character of such dormitories influenced how the rites were experienced and enacted, and as such is important to establish. Of course, the whole visual and spatial impact of healing sanctuaries determined the experience of ritual movement as well as religious sentiment.351 There is no room within this study, however, to explore the totality of the incubation sanctuaries; we will focus on where the incubants slept inside the sanctuary and examine how space determined the experience of the ritual. Incubation sanctuaries, and Asklepieia above all, have been well excavated, and excellent studies of the architecture and finds of these sites have been published.352 A future study might focus on the religious experience engendered by the layout of these healing sanctuaries.

    169In previous research, two hypotheses have been put forward: that incubants slept in the temple and that they slept in a separate dormitory. The fact that incubation dormitories have been notoriously difficult to identify in the archaeological record has led researchers to suggest that they slept in the temple instead.353 The text of Aristophanes’ Ploutos might indicate that the incubants slept in the temple itself.354 In the play, Asklepios cures Ploutos by clicking with his tongue whereupon two snakes come towards them ‘from the temple (ἐκ τοῦ νεὼ)’.355 If, however, the incubants slept in the temple, were they not already sleeping among the snakes, since these, as the text goes, came towards them from the temple? The snakes might, on the other hand, have come out from an ‘inner room in the temple’ (both interpretations of the word νεώς are possible). The most plausible explanation, in my view, is that the holy snakes lived in the temple, and came out to some semi-sheltered building in the courtyard, or even the temple porch, where the incubants slept. Even if the incubants did sleep inside the temple at the time of Aristophanes, there is no way of knowing whether the sanctuary at Piraeus received a separate incubation dormitory later, when it acquired a more monumental form.

    170A passage in Pausanias on the Asklepieion at Tithorea has previously been interpreted as evidence that incubants in general slept in the temple.356 Pausanias describes the temple of Asklepios at Tithorea and the statue inside the temple, and he proceeds to mention that there was a kline to the right of the statue. This cannot be adduced as definitive evidence that incubation was practised inside the temple at Tithorea, however: one kline could not have sufficed for all incubants, and its placement inside the temple may have had a more symbolic function rather than being one single incubation bed inside the temple.

    171Thus, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the temple was ever a preferred location for incubation. However, the account in the Ploutos may indicate that the temple was used, at least at a formative stage in the history of the sanctuary, in the absence of other suitable buildings in the sanctuary.357

    172If we look at the epigraphical record, especially at the iamata of Epidauros, a special dormitory which was the focal point of all miraculous activity in the sanctuary is described. It was called abaton or adyton (‘not to be trodden’ and ‘not to be entered, the innermost sanctuary or shrine’), indicating its secret and sacred nature. In Epidaurian iama B 18 (38), a man was carried out of the adyton and put down in front of the temple. This indicates that the sleeping-hall was a closed building and also that it was not identical to the temple at Epidauros.358 In A2, Ithmonika of Pellene consulted the god about a three-year pregnancy. After her dream vision, she rushed out of the abaton, and as soon as she was outside the sacred area she gave birth. Here, we understand that the abaton was situated within the sacred area. In A 11, Aischines climbed up a tree and looked ‘over into the abaton (ὑπερέκυπτε εἰς τὸ ἄβατον)’. This suggests that at the time of this iama, the interior of the building could somehow be seen from a higher level.

    173A further testimonium on the location of incubants sleeping is found in the Amphiareion at Oropos, where a dormitory called koimeterion is mentioned in an inscription dated to 386–374 BC.359 Some years later, Hyperides wrote in 330–324 BC that the incubants at Oropos slept in the hieron (usually translated as ‘temple’).360 The word is, in this context, better translated as ‘holy place’, since the existence of a set koimeterion at the beginning of the fourth century suggests the same practice continued to exist at the time of Hyperides.361 A stoa at Oropos, which was built in 360–340 BC,362 provided ample space for incubants (Fig. 1). The place where the incubants slept when the inscription was made need not have been a stoa, but naming the place koimeterion rules out the possibility that they slept in the temple.

    174The evidence on incubation rituals, especially from Epidauros, thus indicates the use of a special dormitory. It might be argued that the general outline of incubation at Epidauros is indicative of ritual in other Asklepieia: Epidauros was, if not the first, then certainly the Asklepieion that provided the oldest evidence for incubation. It also gave rise to a number of new foundations of the cult all over the Greek world. Thus, it is likely that most Asklepieia had a special dormitory.363 Moreover, at established cults of Asklepios, such as the one at Kos, there is evidence for ample valuable gifts to the god being displayed in the temple.364 To incubate in the temple would have been impractical; there would have been a risk of damaging the treasures, or theft, and it would also have been necessary to tidy up beds and such in the morning before the arrival of daytime visitors. A large number of incubants would have created a need for ample space, and the temples were often not big enough (e.g. those at Pergamon and Athens).

    175Given that incubants at most Asklepieia and at Oropos in all likelihood slept in a dormitory, these buildings should be possible to identify in the archaeological evidence. No clear building type stands out as a ‘dormitory’, however. A brief look at three well-documented Asklepieia demonstrates this point.

    176Epidauros is the only incubation site with surviving architecture that is described in detail in ancient literature, and thus it is the only site where it is possible to identify the location of a dormitory. Pausanias, when describing what is worth seeing at Epidauros, writes, ‘Over against the temple is the place where the suppliants of the god sleep (τοῦ ναοῦ δέ ἐστι πέραν ἔνθα οἱ ἱκέται τοῦ θεοῦ καθεύδουθσιν).365 Near has been built a circular building of white marble, called Tholos, which is worth seeing.’ Pausanias often uses πέραν for ‘over’/’against’/’opposite’. Just before this passage, he described the statue in the temple, so he was probably standing at its entrance (A in Fig. 2). From there, the best alternatives for a dormitory are the stoa (D in Fig. 2), which is to the north, or building E, which is to the south. The stoa consists of two parts, an eastern part dating to the first half of the fourth century BC, and a later, western part, dating to Roman times.366 Beneath this stoa, a mud-brick stoa from the sixth century BC has been excavated.367 Building E is dated to the fifth century. It has a sixth-century open-air altar underneath it, and its features mean that it can be identified as a place for ritual meals.368 The iamata speak of one dormitory, used only for this purpose (thereby excluding building E which was used for dining), and thus the stoa is the likeliest alternative, as suggested by most scholars.369 It has been suggested, on the basis of the architectural form of the dormitory at Epidauros, that a Doric stoa at the Asklepieion in Athens was the dormitory. The Asklepieion in Athens was founded from Epidauros in 420/419 (Fig. 3).370 The only other suitable building in the sanctuary is an Ionic stoa just west of the temple, which has rooms that were fitted for klinai in the style of dining rooms (B in Fig. 3).371 The Asklepieion certainly needed dining rooms, and the Doric stoa north of the temple at Athens is the best option for a dormitory (C in Fig. 3).

    Fig. 1. Amphiaraeion in Oropos, from B.C. Petrakos, Οι επιγραφές του Ωρωπού, Athens 1968, pl. 1

    Image

    © The Archaeological Society at Athens.

    Fig. 2. Asklepieion in Epidauros, from P. Kavvadias, Fouilles d’Épidaure vol. 1, Athens 1891.

    Image

    177Both the archaeological and the epigraphical evidence indicate that incubation sanctuaries could have had several dormitories. In the Lex sacra Hallenstrasse from Pergamon, both a large and a small enkoimeterion are mentioned and, according to the inscription, the smaller one was used for incubants who came back a second time (or more) to incubate.372 In the archaeological record at the sanctuary, there are a great number of possible dormitories, the oldest being the Hellenistic building close to the first temple that was rebuilt many times (Fig. 4: A: Dormitory, B: The temple).373 It has also been suggested that the surrounding stoas (e.g. the subterranean part of stoa E in Fig. 4) and the so-called Lower Circular Building (D in Fig. 4) from Roman times were dormitories in Roman times.374 The incubation areas for the different groups identified by the Lex sacra Hallenstrasse were not necessarily fixed at two (or three, for that matter) locations from Hellenistic to Roman times.375 Changes in the number of incubants coming to the sanctuary and new building programmes must have meant that the dormitories were relocated.

    Fig. 3. Asklepieion in Athens, adapted from J. Travlos, Pictorial dictionary of ancient Athens, London: Thames and Hudson 1971, p. 129, fig. 171. A: The temple, B: The Ionian stoa, C: The Doric stoa

    Image

    © Ernst Wasmuth Verlag Tübingen.

    178It is important to note that special buildings were needed for the ritual. At the Asklepieia and the Amphiareion at Oropos, incubants slept in a group. No one was to look into the building from outside while the god was supposedly walking around there at night. The dormitory was to be centrally located in the sanctuary, so as to be a place of as much holiness as possible. The temple was probably not used for sleeping for practical reasons. The incubants slept on beds, and whether these were of a more permanent kind or only temporary, their presence would have interfered with other usages of the temple.376

    Fig. 4. Asklepieion in Pergamon, adapted from Altertümer von Pergamon XI.1. Das Asklepieion 1. Teil. O. Ziegenhaus & G. De Luca, Der südliche Temenosbezirk in hellenistischer und frührömischer Zeit, Berlin: De Gruyter 1969, pl. 68. A: Dormitory, B: The temple, C: Holy source, D: Lower Circular Building, E: South Stoa

    Image

    © De Gruyter Verlag.

    179The Plutonium at Acharaka and the cults of Kalchas and Podaleirios on Mount Drion differ from all other incubation cults, in that incubation was not performed inside a dormitory, but in a cave (entrance to the underworld), or on a tomb. The incubants could not enter the cave alone, but had to be accompanied by the priests. Sleeping on a tomb, or in a cave bordering the underworld, might have enhanced the incubatory experience, making the ritual itself ‘stronger’ than if the incubant slept in a dormitory inside a sanctuary. The unusualness of the location as a place to sleep, as compared with other instances of Greek cult or cult in Asia Minor, suggests this. Also, the purpose of these cults was to contact a dead seer or underworld deities, and the place for incubation was chosen accordingly. In any case, the Plutonium at Acharaka and the cults of Kalchas and Podaleirios are exceptions to the general practice at incubation sanctuaries, as regards both the ritual elements and the location for sleep.

    180Why did incubants sleep in a specially allotted place in the middle of the sanctuary, not the temple? There is nothing in the design of Greek temples that would have made it impossible to sleep in them. In my view, the existence of a special dormitory points to the practical requirements of a popular rite. If many people, and often, as described in the iamata, slaves, women and children incubated, the temple staff might have wanted to protect the treasures stored inside the temple, and they would not have wanted to clean and empty the location of the bedding etc. every morning. Also, the nature of the Greek sanctuary was such that its holy character was not dependent upon a temple being present in the temenos. The marked-out temenos was holy ground in itself, and the altar was the place of principal worship. A dormitory, in the cases where it might be identified as situated close to the temple, would have been just as holy a place as the temple. The words abaton and adyton, which are used at Asklepieia in Epidauros, Trikka, Lebena, as well as the central position of the dormitory at Epidauros, clearly indicate the sacred and secret nature of the ritual.377

    1.4.2. Sleeping on a stibas

    181In Aristophanes’Ploutos, in the passage describing incubants sleeping in the Asklepieion, all the incubants lie down on rough beds, στιβάδες.378 Στιβάς, stibas, means ‘bed of straw, rushes, or leaves’ or ‘mattress’.379 The meaning of the word shifts depending on the period in which it is used and by which author. Contemporary parallels for the meaning of stibas do not denote ‘bed of twigs’ (as in a ritual context), but rather a very rough and primitive mattress.380

    182Earlier in the Ploutos, as the characters prepare to leave for Piraeus, Chremylus tells Carion and Ploutos to bring out their bedding (τὰ στρώματ’) before they take off for the Asklepieion.381 It is thus clear that the incubants bring along their own bedding. The stibades which the friends of Ploutos set out next to Ploutos must have consisted of these στρώματα — why else would they have carried them along? That worshippers were provided with bedding suggests good organization and also that the number of staff working in the sanctuary was sufficient to see that all followed this prescription. At the time when the Ploutos was written, the sanctuary at Piraeus had been established fairly recently, and the organization of the sanctuary was probably still in a formative state.382

    183In another passage from the Ploutos, in the context of describing the toils of poverty, stibas denotes only a bed of leaves, stressing the extreme discomfort a poor man had to endure, which also includes having a stone for a pillow and radish leaves instead of barley cakes.383 If the word stibas had a deeper symbolic significance later in the text, one would think that Aristophanes might have used another word for mattress in a passage on hardships of poverty. In my opinion, the word stibas in the Ploutos need not imply a symbolically significant ‘bed of twigs’ as it did in some Greek festivals.384

    184In Pergamon, the bed that incubants slept on was also labelled stibas.385 Wörrle does not translate stibas as a bed of twigs but rather as a rough, temporary bed.386 I agree, since there is no reason why stibas here should have anything more than its basic meaning of rough bed.

    185In previous research on stibades in ritual contexts, it has been suggested that they were beds of twigs used at Greek festivals, and also at initiations and incubations.387 The notion is that beds of twigs had a ritual significance. In relation to this, it has been stated that incubants could have slept either on beds of twigs or on animal skins, as a sign of the unusualness of the ritual.388 On the same note, the use of a bed of twigs in Dionysiac rites, for example, has been interpreted as a sign of the dissolution of normality.389 In the same manner, sleeping on stibades during incubation would have brought the incubant out of the ordinary sphere of everyday life and facilitated the meeting with a god.

    186Upon closer examination of the testimonia from the Ploutos or the Lex sacra Hallenstrasse, however, the hypothesis that the incubants slept on beds of twigs cannot be supported. The incubants in the Ploutos would, however, have slept on ‘rough beds’. Maybe the roughness not only reflected the temporary character of the bed, but was also an intentional part of the rite. We might compare the women in the Thesmophoria who sit on foliage, stibades, and camp-out overnight.390 Also, at a very different time and place, the Selloi at Dodona (mythic oracular priests of Zeus) slept on the ground and did not wash their feet (they did not wear shoes either, we must presume).391 Sleeping on the ground was clearly a break from normal routine: stepping out of the comfort and security of your home signalled that you expected something unusual to happen.

    1.4.3. Sleeping on the skin of the sacrificed animal

    187In votive reliefs from Rhamnous (Fig. 5), Piraeus (Fig. 6), and Athens (Figs. 7–8) (fourth and maybe also fifth centuries BC), incubants are depicted as sleeping on animal skins.392 Petropoulou has examined these reliefs extensively, and she argues that the later practice of sleeping on the sacrificed ram’s skin during incubation, as attested in Pausanias 1.34, was indeed a rite that originated in Oropos in the fifth and fourth centuries and one which continued to be practised in Roman times.393 She argues, from a careful study of the reliefs, that sheepskins are depicted. However, no written source before Pausanias speaks of sleeping on skins at Oropos as a part of the incubation ritual. It is not known whether the practice of sleeping on skins persisted at Oropos through Hellenistic into Roman times. The oracle of Amphiaraos, which was of great renown even at the time of Herodotus, seems to have been a well-known oracle also later in Roman times, and it is referred to by Pausanias, Philostratus and Tertullian.394 Maybe Amphiaraos was so well-known that his cult never dwindled, and the sleeping on skins was a continued practice — it is impossible to tell for certain.

    188A sacred law from Oropos, from the early fourth century BC mentions that the skins from sacrificial animals at Oropos were to be sacred, hieron,395 a rule which was later erased from the inscription. Even if incubants did sleep on skins, the regulation that skins were to be sacred is common for Greek sanctuaries, as noted by Petropoulou. Petropoulou interprets the regulation as meaning that the priests did not use the skins as a source of income for themselves, but rather that the skins belonged to the sanctuary and formed a source of income for the sanctuary as a whole — i.e. they were sacred.396 It is possible that the rule was chiselled out because the Athenians, who were now in control of the sanctuary, used the money from the sale of the skins as a source of income for the state and not for the sanctuary at Oropos exclusively. There is thus no epigraphical evidence that refers to the custom of sleeping on skins at Oropos.

    189Furthermore, there is no reason to think that the practice depicted in the reliefs was compulsory for the incubant at Oropos. For example, in the Archinous relief from Oropos, Archinous is lying on a kline, and there is no sign of an animal skin (Fig. 9).397 In the Ploutos by Aristophanes, incubants lie on rough mattresses. As has been pointed out by van Straten,398 most of the incubation reliefs do not depict the incubants lying on animal skins, but rather on klinai, and so the practice cannot have been the rule for incubation, even at Oropos.

    190In the hero cults of Podaleirios and Kalchas at Mount Drion in Daunia, incubants slept on the skin of the sacrificed animal.399 The earliest text concerning this practice, by Timaeus of Tauromenion, cited in the Alexandra of Pseudo-Lycophron,400 mentions the heroon and tomb of Podaleirios on top of Mount Drion, next to the empty tomb of Kalchas, where incubants slept in sheepskins and received oracles. Podaleirios is a healer also in the Alexandra, but it is by and with the water in the stream of Althaenus, by the base of Mount Drion, that he heals, and he gave oracles by the heroon on the top of the mountain.

    191In Strabo, only Kalchas gave oracles on the summit of Mount Drion, whereas Podaleirios healed animals by the stream of Althaenus below.401 It is specified that a black ram was to be sacrificed to Kalchas and also that the incubants should sleep in its fell.

    192If we study parallels for the use of skins in Greek cult from this time, it seems that the skins had a purifying effect. Scholars such as Harrison and Jameson, discussing the Dios kodion (the sacred fleece of Zeus), remark that the fleece, when used in the cults of Zeus Meilichios and Zeus Ktesios, was most likely a purifying agent, and they compare the act with other purification ceremonies.402 There is also evidence for sitting on animals’ skins in the initiation to the mysteries at Eleusis.403 The rite may thus have been a means of purifying the incubant. Meeting with a god in person would have required a high degree of purity, and the use of fleeces in incubation contexts should be seen as a way of strengthening the direct communication sought with the deity. Offering an animal to the deity (hero or god) opened up this communication, and it was further enhanced when the worshipper slept in the fell of the animal consecrated to the deity.404

    Fig. 5. Fragmentary relief from Rhamnous, National Archaeological Museum, Athens, inv. no. 1397, early fourth century BC (photographer/s: K. Konstantopoulos, K. Xenikakis)

    Image

    © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports /Archaeological Receipts Fund.

    Fig. 6. Relief from Piraeus, Piraeus Museum inv. no. 405, c. 400 BC

    Image

    © Archaeological Museum of Piraeus, 26th Ephorate of Prehistorical and Classical Antiquities.

    Fig. 7. Fragmentary relief from the Asklepieion at Athens, National Archaeological Museum, Athens, inv. no. 2505, first half of the fourth century BC (photographer/s: K. Konstantopoulos, K. Xenikakis)

    Image

    © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports /Archaeological Receipts Fund.

    Fig. 8. Fragmentary relief from the Asklepieion at Athens, National Archaeological Museum, Athens, inv. no. 2488 (photographer/s: K. Konstantopoulos, K. Xenikakis)

    Image

    © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports /Archaeological Receipts Fund.

    1.4.4. Sleeping on klinai

    193In reliefs from Asklepieia we can identify suppliants lying on klinai, without fells, and the god (and also gods from the hearth of Asklepios) is often depicted behind the suppliant curing him or her. Most of the incubation reliefs do not depict the incubants lying on animal skins, but rather just on klinai, as in the Archinous relief from Oropos (Fig. 9).405 Another example is a votive relief from Athens (Fig. 10).406 Caution must of course be advised when interpreting a relief as evidence for actual ritual. Nonetheless, the practice of sleeping on fells was clearly not seen as something which had to be illustrated in a detailed and skilfully worked votive image placed in the sanctuary. Thus, one might suggest that sleeping on a fell was not obligatory at Oropos.

    194One might have suspected that the presence of klinai would have been documented in the archaeological evidence for dormitories, or that they would have been used in the identification process for dormitories, but so far this has not been the case. At Oropos there are benches in the dormitory, but these are later additions and are hard to date.407 Klinai in incubation dormitories from Classical or Hellenistic times have not been securely documented.408 The assumption has always been that the large number of incubants who came into the dormitory in Epidauros slept on makeshift beds. If we compare the Ploutos, the incubants did indeed sleep on temporary beds, or stibades.409 A relief is not necessarily an authentic depiction of reality (as suggested by the presence of family and gods in the reliefs); it might be the case that the klinai in these reliefs were part of symbolic representation of a man sleeping, or that they were not particularly concerned with the practicalities of the dormitory.

    Fig. 9. Relief from Oropos, National Archaeological Museum, Athens, inv. no. 3369, first half of the fourth century BC (photographer: Giannis Patrikianos)

    Image

    © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports /Archaeological Receipts Fund.

    Fig. 10. Relief from the Asklepieion at Athens, National Archaeological Museum, Athens, inv. no. 1841, fourth century BC (photographer/s: K. Konstantopoulos, K. Xenikakis)

    Image

    © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports /Archaeological Receipts Fund.

    1.4.5. Did men and women sleep separately or together?

    195In a sacred law from Oropos of the fourth century BC, it is prescribed that men and women are to sleep separately in the dormitory — men east of the altar and women west of it.410 In the Ploutos of Aristophanes, however, the text makes it clear that men and women were not separated.411

    196In previous research it has been suggested that the sexes usually slept separately during incubation, both in Asklepieia and in the cult of Amphiaraos at Oropos.412 In the two examples related above, the traditions of how the incubants slept differed from each other.

    197Whether the incubants slept all together, alone, or divided into different groups must have had an impact on the sleeping and dreaming itself. How the sanctuary chose to bed the incubants also says something about how the sanctuary itself chose to form the ritual as a whole. The fact that the customs at Oropos and Piraeus differ is interesting because it shows that, in two instances which were close in time and location, this particular part of the incubatory setting was fashioned in different ways. The fashion at Oropos might have been influenced by the notion, which was common in Greece, that the right side was the more favourable one, hence the men got to sleep to the east of the altar.413

    1.4.6. Lamps

    198In the Ploutos of Aristophanes (set in the Asklepieion of Piraeus, 388 BC) the temple servant (τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ πρόπολος) puts out the lights (τοὺς λύχνους) when all the incubants lie down on their stibades and bids them fall asleep.414 He also tells them to keep quiet should they hear something during the night. Seeing the priests go around and extinguish the candles would no doubt have increased the sense of anticipation that the god was soon to come. The monition to keep quiet, should they hear the god approaching, no doubt further augmented the expectations of the incubants.

    199An inscription from Kyrene of c. 335 BC plausibly deals with a ceremony of lamps performed at sunset in the healing cult of Iatros at Kyrene.415 Iatros, Dobias-Lalou writes, was associated with Asklepios at Balagrai close to Kyrene.416 Dobias-Lalou argues that, since ceremonies of lamps existed in other incubatory contexts (she refers to the above-mentioned passage in the Ploutos),417 incubation would have been practised at Kyrene. Iatros is an epiklesis of Apollon as a healer, as well as the title of four Attic healing heroes418 and none of these can be said to have ever offered incubation, so it is difficult to say what rituals were enacted in the cult of Iatros at Kyrene. Illumination of parts of sanctuaries might have occurred in many contexts not linked to incubation. The inscription at Kyrene is too fragmentary for us to decide what sort of ceremony is mentioned, and it is not clear if the lamps were used in direct connection with incubation.

    200It has been argued in previous research that lamps were used in incubation rites, in ceremonies, and also to light up the incubation chamber before the incubants went to sleep.419 It has also been claimed that the use of lamps is proof of a connection between incubation and magical rites.420 If we look more closely at the testimonia at hand, however, it becomes clear that there is no proof of such a connection. Lamps were a necessary ingredient of any nocturnal rite, and their use in an incubation dormitory, to enable incubants to find their beds and settle down, is not proof of any connection with the practices documented in the Papyri Graecae Magicae. Torches and lamps were used in Greek cult and also in divinatory rituals,421 but in the example in the Ploutos, the ritualized act is that of extinguishing lamps. If we read only the text in Aristophanes, it seems that what happens in the dormitory in Piraeus is not an integrated part of the ritual with a clear cultic purpose, but rather a step before the incubants could go to sleep.422 The incubants lie in the dormitory; they have performed the necessary preparatory rites, and have been invited to sleep in the house of the god. All lamps had to be extinguished for the suppliants to fall asleep, and the fact that the priests do this suggests some ritualization of an otherwise necessary practice. A practice established out of necessity might have taken on a ritual form. The event itself signals that the god is about to come and visit the dreamers, and if performed in a regulated manner, this extinguishing of lamps might have, as part of the preparations, heightened the expectations of the incubants.

    1.5. Incubation for someone else

    1.5.1. Incubation by proxy

    201‘Incubation by proxy’ means that the incubant who for some reason was not able to come to the god in person allowed someone else to perform incubation in his or her stead.

    202The earliest example of this practice is from the first, oracular, cult of Amphiaraos in Boeotia.423 Herodotus, writing in the 450s or 440s BC about events from the 480s, tells of Mys, a servant of Mardonios, who consulted many oracles, among others Amphiaraos, to whom he sent a non-Theban (because Thebans were not allowed to consult the oracle). This is the earliest example of Greek incubation, and despite this, neither incubation nor the sending of a proxy incubant seems to be a novelty for Herodotus.

    203At Epidauros, this practice was also accepted, as testified in one of the iamata where Arata from Sparta, while suffering from dropsy, had her mother incubate on her behalf.424 They both saw the same dream, and when the mother returned the daughter was well.

    204Thus, two reasons are provided in our testimonia as to why people would incubate by proxy: they were either too ill to make the journey themselves, or they could not go themselves because they did not meet the requirements for consultants (in the case of Mys, being Greek).

    205In oracular cults in general (other than the special case of incubation oracles), sending someone to an oracle in place of another was a well-known phenomenon. Especially in the case of political leaders or foreign sovereigns, it was (understandably) an established custom to send an envoy to an oracle.425 There was also the custom of making a dedication by proxy, where someone dedicated a votive on your behalf if for some reason you were not able to travel. The iamata from Epidauros relate how the slave Pandaros asked his friend Echedoros, who was going to Epidauros, to donate a sum of money to Asklepios in Pandaros’ name.426

    206The performance of a religious act by proxy is thus a symbolic representation of what another worshipper would have done had he or she been able to attend in person, and thus it is not in any way characteristic only of incubation.

    1.5.2. Priests sleeping in place of incubants

    207At the Plutonium of Acharaka, priests usually slept for the ill, but they also placed the ill themselves in the cave to sleep and receive dreams.427 The priests who slept for the ill were labelled hiereis and are also described by Strabo as experienced. At the Plutonium, the priests slept for the incubants, not because the incubants could not travel, but because the priests were simply better at communicating with the divinity. This form of incubation is very similar to that found in oracular cults where incubation was for the promantis but not for the enquirer.428 However, this is a cult far from mainstream Greek religion in Classical and Hellenistic times, and so the custom of priests sleeping for incubants cannot be said to apply to Greek cults in general.

    1.6. The giving of thanks

    1.6.1. A common meal after incubation

    208It has been suggested in previous research that the incubants gathered for a meal on the day after the incubation in order to eat the animal that had been sacrificed on the previous day. Although there are no testimonia attesting to this rite, the presence of dining rooms in Asklepieia and the prohibition on taking the sacrificed meat away from some sanctuaries, the so-called ou phora rules (‘not to carry away’), have been seen by some scholars as indicators of such ritual dining.429 A parallel to this rite would be the initiation in Eleusis, where the day of the mysteries was followed by a feast, and theoretically, a day of individual liminality would be followed by a common meal.430 However, there is no concrete evidence for a communal sacrificial meal for incubants after incubation, even in Roman times.

    209As for the presence of dining halls in Asklepieia, nothing in their construction suggests that incubants dined as a secluded group. Many other worshippers were present in the sanctuary: the priests of the sanctuary, worshippers who did not incubate, and the families of the incubants. There is nothing to say that they did not take part in the same ritual meal as the incubants.

    210The only testimonium for ou phora rules in incubation rituals of Classical and Hellenistic times is an inscription from the Amphiareion at Oropos from the early fourth century BC. This inscription deals with rules concerning incubation (amongst other things), and it prescribes that the meat from the sacrificed animal was not to be taken out of the sanctuary.431 As argued in Section 1.2.5, all regulations concerning sacrifice in this sacred law applied to any animal sacrificed in the sanctuary and did not only concern the sacrifices before incubation. Hence, a common meal, if it happened at Oropos, would have included all those who sacrificed, and presumably also the accompanying family members. Other worshippers who were also offering sacrifices would have been present at the sanctuary as well; this is evidenced by the fact that the names of incubants-to-be, upon paying the eparche, were inscribed above the dormitory. This practice was supposed to hinder those who had not paid from entering the sanctuary.432

    211There is nothing that separates the ou phora rule at Oropos from ou phora rules at other sanctuaries, in contexts that have nothing to do with incubation. Commenting on the inscription, Ekroth interprets the regulation on eating the meat inside the sanctuary as a way of prolonging the ritual sequence of animal sacrifice, as well as a way of making sure that the intended group was there to eat the meat.433 Petropoulou sees ou phora as a rare prohibition, marking the sanctity of the offering.434 According to Rhodes and Osborne, although the prohibition was not uncommon in sacred calendars, it was no less to ensure that eating the meat resulted in a group gathering.435 The rule is likely to have ensured all these goals were achieved.

    212Ou phora inscriptions similar to the one from Oropos may also be found at Asklepieia; though they are not found in the immediate context of incubation prescriptions, they were certainly relevant for incubants. For instance, an inscription from an Asklepieion in Attica, of the first century AD, states that meats were not to be taken outside the temenos.436 Comparing the inscribed rule to rules in Roman times, Pausanias writes that at Epidauros and Titane all meat was to be consumed inside the temenos.437 Ou phora rules attested at some incubation sanctuaries need not, however, indicate a common meal where the animals sacrificed prior to incubation were eaten by the incubants at a group meal. First, there is no general rule that an animal was always sacrificed before incubation.438 When an animal was to be sacrificed before incubation at the Asklepieion at Pergamon, a small piglet was prescribed. After the healing had been effected, though, the incubant was to come back to the sanctuary and an animal no younger than one year was to be sacrificed. It would make more sense to feast on the one-year-old animal than the piglet because the piglet would not have supplied as much meat.

    213Secondly, there is nothing to say that only incubants could eat the meat. Since the existing ou phora rules from incubation sanctuaries do not apply specifically to incubants, one must presume that ordinary sacrificers, as well as priests of course, took part in the event when the meat was being eaten. Here, we might briefly refer to the existing reliefs which depict incubants sleeping on klinai or fells, or making offerings to Asklepios.439 The incubants are very often depicted together with their families, suggesting that the ill person, as is logical, did not make the journey to the sanctuary by him- or herself. If the family were present at the sanctuary, it would also be logical to assume that the family of the incubant participated in any sacrificial meal that went on at the sanctuary. An ou phora rule marks the sanctity of the offering and ensures that only those (family, other group) who had taken part in the sacrifice could eat the meat.

    214In Eleusis, initiation into the mysteries was a ritual where an individual, in search of a better life and a better afterlife, went through the initiatory rites and became a member of a new group. The feast in Eleusis strengthened group identity. But in the case of incubation a single crisis-event was being dealt with, and the very ill, as well as women and children who were seeking the aid of the god, were accompanied by family members or servants.

    215It is an appealing hypothesis that the incubants gathered after the incubation night and shared their experiences over a meal. On the other hand, incubation was not a festival, and its purpose was not to honour the god but to ask for a favour in a difficult situation.

    1.6.2. Priests interpreting the dreams

    216At the Plutonium at Acharaka, the incubants received help with interpreting their dreams. The ill were, according to Strabo, often brought to the cave by the priests, and lay there for days without eating, although they only sometimes received dreams themselves. The incubants still used ‘… those other men, as priests, to initiate them into the mysteries and to counsel them.’, μυσταγωγοῖς δ’ ὅμως καὶ συμβούλοις ἐκείνοις χρῶνται, ὡς ἂν ἱερεῦσι.440 At Acharaka, the priests were the regular intermediaries between the incubants and the divinities, and private incubants only sometimes succeeded in receiving dreams of their own. The cult at Acharaka was, however, a local cult that cannot be expected to parallel what happened in Greek incubation during the Classical and Hellenistic ages in general.

    217In previous research, two of the iamata of the Asklepieion at Epidauros have been classified as possible evidence for interpretative assistance at the sanctuary of Epidauros.441 In the two iamata, there is a mention of a mantis and a symbolon (both words may, according to Herzog, mean a dream interpreter). However, the word symbolon is better translated as ‘symptom’. In the iama which includes mention of a mantis, the woman Kallikrateia goes to a seer (mantis) after returning home from Epidauros, in order to make some sense of her incubatory dream. In all likelihood, the seer she visited was not affiliated with Epidauros, since she consulted him after returning home. Many of the stories related in the iamata of Epidauros, one must presume, were redacted by religious personnel at the sanctuary and set up for suppliants to read.442 It is not certain whether the priests at Epidauros played a part in the individual’s relating of his or her dream and cure on the votive tablets that were dedicated. On the contrary, the iamata that tell of worshippers leaving the sanctuary without having obtained a dream suggest that the priests did not help to interpret dreams.443

    218It has been suggested that a very detailed cure from the first century BC from the Asklepieion at Lebena was ordained by the priests of the sanctuary, based on a dream of the help-seeker.444 Many herbs are mentioned, as well as their exact usage, and it is similar to medical cures of the time. It has been conjectured that this cure-prescription was put together by doctors working in the sanctuary.445 The detailed account in this inscription suggests that the incubant did indeed have some help with interpreting his dream. However, it would have been practically impossible for the priests at major incubation sanctuaries to help the substantial number of incubants interpret their dreams.

    219Another example of the need for help with interpreting incubation dreams comes from comedy. In Plautus’ Curculio, which is probably a re-writing of a play of Menander, the character Cappadox, having slept in the temple of Asklepios, begs his friend to help him interpret his dream.446 His friend, Palinurus, at first accepts because even the coniectores, the dream interpreters, ask him. This passage, in a famous comedy, shows that the audience would probably have recognized a situation where an incubant walked out of the temple and searched for help with interpreting the dream, be it help from friends or professional dream interpreters outside of the temple.

    220A passage in the Sacred Orations of Aristides, from Roman times, was previously thought to indicate that the dream of an incubant was habitually discussed with a priest of the sanctuary.447 As shown above, however, this was not the case at incubation sanctuaries in Classical and Hellenistic times. However, when reading the Sacred Orations of Aristides closely, there is nothing that can be taken as definite proof that priests helped to interpret dreams at the sanctuaries. Aristides talks to one, named, temple servant, who appears to be his friend, as well as his friends and doctors, about his dreams, but this does not mean that dream interpretation by priests was a ritual element.448 In other fields of Greek religion, however, priests did help to interpret the will of gods. In oracular cults, obtaining an answer from the god would have been difficult without the help of priests because the worshippers themselves did not have access to the deity. Nonetheless, the multitude of incubants coming to some of the incubation sanctuaries would have made private counselling by priests impossible. Indeed, the descriptions of disappointed incubants who did not receive any dreams suggest that many sleepers did not get the opportunity to confer with the priests and receive assistance in interpreting their dreams.449

    221The testimonia on incubation seem to support the fact that incubants needed help with interpreting their dreams. However, aside from Strabo on Acharaka, there is no evidence in the sources that the priests of the incubation sanctuary ever gave such help in a systematic manner.

    1.6.3. Monetary payment for the cure

    222In one account from the Epidaurian iamata, the slave Pandaros gave his friend who was going to Epidauros a sum of money to donate to the god in Pandaros’ name, as a thank-offering.450 The payment was given after he had already dedicated his fillet, the sign of his cure, in the temple, and had left the sanctuary. In another iama, Sostrata from Pherai, who did not see a clear dream, was carried home.451 She was, however, cured on the way back and was ordered by Asklepios to send offerings, iatra, to Epidauros.

    223Perhaps sanctuaries wanted to ensure that the proper reciprocal gift was donated in due time. In one of the iamata from Epidauros a blind man from Thasos was cured, but he became blind again after not offering the iatra.452 Another iama concerns the divine punishment that occurred when a promised thank-offering (a tenth of a fishmonger’s profit) was not delivered.453 A monetary payment is also attested in another iama where a man from Crete brought a mina of silver into the treasury after becoming well.454

    224In all of these examples, the thank-offering was prescribed by the sanctuary and was brought by the worshipper after the cure had been effected. It is explicitly stated in the iama, or else the context strongly suggests it, that the iatra was a monetary payment.455

    225The Lex sacra Hallenstrasse also includes evidence for cure-payments, iatra, which were to be thrown in the thesauros of Asklepios, in combination with other thank-offerings previously mentioned.456 The amount was one phokais for Apollon and one phokais for Asklepios, a coin which was much used in Asia Minor in the fifth and fourth centuries BC. It was not minted after Alexander, but was still used in later periods because there were masses of coins in circulation.457

    226Versnel is of the opinion that Asklepios demanded a payment, misthos, for his cures, citing the evidence from the iamata and the Lex sacra Hallenstrasse.458 Following the above-presented testimonia, a regular monetary payment does indeed seem to have existed in Epidauros and Pergamon, and if we consider the renown of Epidauros, it is likely to have existed also at other Asklepieia.

    1.6.4. Animal sacrifice as thanks for recovery

    227An inscription from the cult of Asklepios at Erythrai dated to 360–380 BC (Collection of texts, no. 2), concerns, among other things, regulations for after the incubation: instructions are given to sacrifice in return both to Asklepios and to Apollon, and a paian is to be sung around the altar of Apollon when the hieran moiran, or sacred share, has been placed there.459 Individual sacrificers, both those who gave thanks after incubation and those who gave thanks after making a vow, sacrificed in the same way and gave both Asklepios and Apollon parts of the animal on their respective offering tables, and they then sang the paian.460 The animal to be sacrificed could have been either an ox, a bigger animal (ἱερέον τέλεον, presumably sheep), or a suckling pig (presumably a piglet), and both gods were also to receive cakes on their respective offering tables. Thus, for incubants and the worshippers who were only making a vow, the regulations for thank-offerings were the same.

    228In the Lex sacra Hallenstrasse (Collection of texts, no. 7), in addition to other thank-offerings, an animal no younger than one year old was to be offered as iatra upon returning to the sanctuary after successful healing.461 The animal offered as thanks was thus larger than the piglet offered to Asklepios right before the incubation.462 The giving of thanks was apparently more important than the size of the gift that accompanied the prayer to the god. Since there is a lacuna in the inscription there is no way of knowing whether the animal was simply given to the sanctuary or was sacrificed by the thank-giver (s) together with a representative of the sanctuary.

    229There are two cure-inscriptions from Epidauros that describe sacrifices made in thanks for a cure.463 In the first, the pyrphoros, bade the suppliants (presumably at the sacrifice before incubation) to sacrifice within a year if they obtained what they came for. Thus, the thank-sacrifice was to be made if the suppliant recovered, and it had to be done within a year. In another iama, the woman Kallikrateia slept in the sanctuary in order to find gold that had been buried by her late husband.464 She found the gold and sacrificed the customary things (τὰ νομιζόμενα) to the god. This tells us that there was probably some kind of rule for what could be sacrificed as a thank-offering. I would suggest that a cock was offered because it was such a common sacrifice in the cult of Asklepios, and it would not have been too expensive.465

    230At Oropos (Collection of texts, no. 1), a thank-sacrifice could consist of any animal, but the meat was not to be consumed outside the sanctuary, and the priest (if present) was to receive the shoulder of each victim, except at festivals when no shares from the private sacrifices were required.466

    231We might compare these testimonia that strictly relate to incubation rites with a passage from the Mimiambi of Herondas, where a cock is sacrificed as thanks for a healing (it is not clear whether the healing was effected through incubation or as a result of a prayer and sacrifice).467 The thigh of the bird is given to the neokoros, and a coin is offered (pelanos)468 to the snake’s mouth (probably a thesauros),469 presumably as a payment for the sacrifice. The sacrifice itself is performed by the neokoros out of sight of the two women, but they pray to Asklepios and his companions in connection with the sacrifice, thanking the god for healings and asking him to accept their gift. The women take the cock home to eat it there (except for the thigh of the bird given to the neokoros), but a cake, a psaista, is wetted and presumably burnt or donated on an offering table, (a trapeza) and blessed bread is passed around to those standing by the sacrifice.470 The expression of gratitude, in the form of a prayer, is thus also given at the sacrifice. We might conjecture that even if the incubant who had been healed or helped in some other way was not obliged to make such a sacrifice, or did not have sufficient money for a thank-sacrifice, he or she would still have offered thanks and praise, perhaps in combination with a smaller gift.471

    232The example of the Mimiambi can tell us two things. First, if the women in the Mimiambi were incubants who were returning to give thanks, then the sacrifice that they made, at least the prayer part and the passing around of blessed bread, was made along with ‘ordinary’ worshippers at the sanctuary. Secondly, if the women in the Mimiambi obtained the favour for which they gave thanks through the ‘ordinary’ worship of Asklepios (i.e. they did not incubate), we can suggest that the custom of giving thanks for a healing by sacrificing an animal, as attested in the inscription from Erythrai, for example,472 was not a rite exclusive to incubants, but rather, as the routine character of the particulars of the sacrifice in the Mimiambi shows, it was a very common way of giving thanks.

    1.6.5. The dedication of votives and cure tablets

    Votives mentioned in inscriptions and texts

    233Livy records that Epidauros was richly adorned with thank-offerings when Aemilius Paulus visited, but in Livy’s time it was only full of broken votives.473 The sanctuary of Hemithea was full of votives, as Diodorus describes.474 There can be little doubt that the most popular, major incubation sanctuaries at the time were full of votives attesting to the success of the god. Votives were no doubt donated by all those who had received or hoped to receive a favour from the god, and were not only from those who had incubated. Not all were valuable, or of such a character as to persist through time and come to light in excavations in modern times. Many of the votives recorded in the iamata of Epidauros were of little monetary value, and possibly reflect that many help-seekers were poor. In one iama from Epidauros, the god asked a boy who slept in the sanctuary what he would give if the god made him well.475 The boy answered ‘ten dice’, whereupon the god laughed and made him well. Many of the votives told the story of the miraculous cure that had occasioned them. In one example, a baggage carrier broke his master’s cup on the way to Epidauros, but the god mended the cup miraculously, whereupon it was donated to the sanctuary.476 In another iama, Ambrosia from Athens ridiculed some of the cures she read about in the sanctuary.477 The god came to her in a dream, saying that he would make her well if she paid a fee (misthos) by donating a silver pig to the sanctuary in memory of her ignorance. In another iama, Pandaros, a slave, wanted to be freed from the slave tattoos on his forehead. The god bound a fillet around his head, on which the tattoos were fastened, and told Pandaros to dedicate the fillet to the sanctuary.478 Some votives described in the iamata reflect how certain votives dedicated at the sanctuary required an explanation, the original reason for the choice of a votive having been forgotten (e.g. the story of a silver pig set up in the sanctuary).479

    Archaeological evidence

    234Many votives can be noted at healing sanctuaries, healing gods being perhaps the most frequent receivers of dedications.480 The remark of Diogenes from Sinope when he saw the numerous votive tablets in the Kabirion at Samothrace illustrates this: ‘It would be so much more (remarkable) if also those who were not saved put up votives (anathemata)’.481 The custom at incubation sanctuaries did not differ from other healing sanctuaries in this respect.482 Body-part votives are especially interesting in the context, since they explicitly tell of a cure effected or the wish for a cure to come, even without an accompanying inscription. Such votives have been documented, as they have been at incubation sanctuaries, at the Asklepieion at Athens,483 the Asklepieion of Piraeus,484 the Asklepieion at Epidauros,485 the Asklepieion at Corinth,486 the Asklepieion on Kos,487and the Amphiareion at Oropos.488

    235Also, body-part votives have been noted at sanctuaries where there are no testimonia that explicitly mention incubation, but where incubation can be hypothesized, such as the Asklepieia at Delphi, Herakleia Lynkestis (in Macedonia), Delos, Melos and Paros.489

    236The evidence we have on votives donated before and after incubation agrees with what is known about Greek votives: they could be of many kinds, represent many things, and were often of little value.490

    Testimonia on the nature of the cures on pinakes and iamata

    237Votives could also take the form of votive tablets, pinakes, either with drawings depicting the cure or with an inscription (iamata or cure tablets). They tell the story of the help given by the god, and so they differ from other votive tablets (pinakes) in sanctuaries because they are not just material tokens of piety that accompanied an offering and a prayer.491

    238Strabo mentions that the sanctuaries of Epidauros, Kos and Trikka were full of votive tablets on which the different treatments were noted.492 At Kos and Trikka, thus, both cure inscriptions and pinakes may well have existed but do not survive in the archaeological record.

    239The iamata from Epidauros form the most solid testimonia on the custom of displaying the cures of Asklepios. The four stelae were redacted from many smaller tablets that were collected from around the sanctuary, and in some cases stories were possibly woven around conspicuous votive offerings in the sanctuary.493 A specific mention of cure inscriptions pre-dating the four large stelae is made in iama A1 where another inscription, which is not in the collection but is related to in A1, is cited word for word, illustrating how the cures were noted down for visitors to read even before the redaction. Furthermore, in an inscription from the Asklepieion of Lebena, it is made clear that healing inscriptions were entered into a catalogue under the magistrates, Archeiai, and the neokoros, Ischonida.494 Hence, the stories of the cures were also collected at Lebena.

    240In one of the iamata of Epidauros, Echedoros promised the god that he would ‘have an image inscribed and dedicate it to him’.495 This tells us that many of the iamata, both before and probably also after the redaction of the four stelae, were a combination of picture and inscription. In another iama, a man looking at the pinakes ‘didn’t believe in the cures and was somewhat disparaging of the inscriptions’.496 I would interpret this as meaning that the man looked at pictures of the cures and read inscriptions, either below the pictures or on other pinakes, relating to the cures. On the famous Telemachos monument in Athens, which relates the introduction of Asklepios in Athens, a pinax is depicted that attests to the custom of painting cures at Asklepieia in Attica.497 To compare, in the Mimiambi of Herondas, the two women offering thanks to Asklepios donate a pinax at the same time as they utter a prayer.498 A pinax could be either a plaque with an inscription, or a picture, or both, and here the context suggests that it was a small painting of the miraculous cure. The pinax was placed by the statue of Hygieia, and then the women turned to admire the larger votive offerings. A pinax in this context would not have depicted anything else but the cure, and if the pinax was small, it would have been easiest and most affordable just to have the picture and not inscribe it.

    241The conspicuous reliefs from Attica depicting incubation scenes may be viewed as the expensive version of painted wooden pinakes, like that mentioned in the Mimiambi. Furthermore, given the absence of incubation scenes on reliefs elsewhere than in Attica, we must wonder whether this was a localized habit in Attica among the wealthy Athenians at a time (the reliefs are dated to the fourth century BC) when so many sumptuous reliefs were commissioned from the stonecutters in the Agora. Riethmüller’s complete survey of the archaeological material reveals that in the 38 Asklepieia where votive reliefs have been found, 200 come from the Asklepieion of Athens, 16 from other Athenian sanctuaries, and six from Piraeus, whereas only two or three have been documented at Epidauros.499 The availability of stonecutters and wealthy clients may have influenced how local habits of giving thanks for healing developed.

    Contextualization and analysis of the rite

    242Pinakes were a popular votive offering in many other Greek sanctuaries.500 Praising the gods in Greek religion was also seen as a way of thanking them for their gifts.501 Just as Versnel has pointed out, in relation to the numerous thank-giving inscriptions, cure tablets may be interpreted not only as a gift given in return for a granted wish but also as permanent praise and thanks for the help given to the worshipper.502

    243The very nature of incubation was to receive and remember a dream in which the worshipper believed that the god was communicating a cure or was curing him or her. Since many incubants complained that this never happened, we must conclude that the dream did not always come as wished for.503 Walking around the sanctuary and reading other people’s cures must have helped auto-suggestion. Incubants seem to have normally read the stories of other people’s miraculous cures before they slept in the dormitory. This can be seen in iama A4, where Ambrosia from Athens ridiculed some of the cures (iamata) related in the sanctuary, as being impossible. Another unbeliever in B 16 (36) laughs at the treatments of Asklepios. The detailed nature of the cure tablets, as opposed to votives in ‘regular’ healing sanctuaries, may be explained by this particular need for a detailed dream. It is clear that the officials at Epidauros saw the didactic value in having help-seekers read the miraculous stories of what had previously occurred. Similarly, in iamata from Lebena from the second and first centuries BC, the god ordered incubants to note down the event of the cure.504 It is highly likely that the incubants coming to Lebena had, in some way, heard or read about previous cures effected there, as the preserved iamata from Lebena also show.

    244A reciprocal gift was thus a very common type of testimonium in the testimonia on incubation. Expressing thanks after a healing was a very common thing to do, and this may be the reason that this type of testimonium forms such a large part of the evidence on incubation. Thus, the motivation of the sanctuary and psychological and cultural habit combined to make the rite of thanking the deity after a successful healing one of the most numerously recorded among incubation rites.

    Notes de bas de page

    1 ICr 1.17.9.1–5 (Demandros), ICr 1.17.9.5–11 (Phalaris): second century BC (according to letterforms, Guarducci ICr, 159), or the third century BC (Halbherr 1901, 305). Guarducci is commonly trusted to date inscriptions correctly with the help of letterforms. In both instances, the word ‘προσέταξε’ is used for when Asklepios prescribed, or commanded, the ill person to come to Lebena.

    2 Girone 1998, 82, n. 18.

    3 For example, a rich Thracian was called in a dream to come to Asklepios at Pergamon. This was more a private dream than a requirement of the sanctuary (Galen, Subfiguratio Empirica, ch. 10, p. 78 [Die griechische Empirikerschule, ed. K. Deichgräber, Berlin 1930, repr. 1965 = T436]).

    4 Paus. 10.32.13. NB, nothing is said in Pausanias on subsequent incubation in the sanctuaries of Isis at Tithorea and the gods of the lower world in the Meander valley — calling in a dream is a prerequisite for entering the shrine, but it might of course be conjectured that those entering the shrine incubated. Incubation existed in the cult of Isis, and we also know from Strabo that it occurred in the Plutonium of Acharaka — no doubt one of the shrines of the lower world mentioned by Pausanias (Strabo 14.1.44).

    5 Ill people in search of a cure, accompanied by their families, incurred great expense for the journey. If the sanctuary allowed only some people to incubate, then there might have been a rapid decline in the number of visitors coming. However, if the preliminary consultation allowed for everyone to enter, there would have been little point in it.

    6 IvP III 161 A.11–14.

    7 IvP III 161 A.11–14. Translations by the author, based on Wörrle 1969, 171. The word here used is ἀφροδίσια, as e.g. in LSS 108, a word used for every kind of sexual relations, as opposed to differentiations made in leges sacrae between marital, non-marital and homosexual sex. See also Müller 2010, 443, n. 50.

    8 IvP III 161 A.12–13.

    9 Wörrle 1969, 179–180.

    10 LSAM 12, referred to by Wörrle.

    11 LSAM 12.1–6.

    12 Ginouvès 1962, 299–310.

    13 Müller 2010, 440, ll. 1–8. Any kind of sex is meant, marital, heterosexual or homosexual, see Müller 2010, 443, n. 50.

    14 Müller 2010, 445.

    15 Müller 2010, 446.

    16 Parker 1983, 74–77 and 86. See also Burkert 1985, 79 and 378 n. 45; Burkert 1987, 108.

    17 Parker 1983, 74–75, n. 4 (apart from the LSS 115 as Parker mentions).

    18 Hdt. 2.64.

    19 Parker 1983, 74–75.

    20 Parker 1983, 86.

    21 Parker 1983, 74, on the prevalence of this rule in e.g. Herodotus and sacred laws.

    22 Pl. Leg. 759d; Arist. Pol. 1329a, 27–34. See Parker 1983, 87.

    23 Fehrle 1910, 72–125; Price 1999, 69; cf. Stengel 1910, 31–48; RE 8.2 (1913), 1411–1457, s.v. Hiereis [Ziehen]; Burkert 1985, 157–163. See, however, Brulé (1987, 348–349), on this being a figure of speech; he posits that the important thing was to stay abstinent during the time of service to the god.

    24 Diod. Sic. 16.26.6. Cf. Strabo 14.1.23 (Artemis at Ephesos). On such rules possibly being a figure of speech, the important thing being to stay chaste when serving the god, see Brulé (1987, 348–349).

    25 Epidaurian iama A2.

    26 Testimonium no. 8, p. 227. Müller 2010, 440 and 447 (the date).

    27 Müller 2010, 446.

    28 LSAM 14, Imperial times. The inscription dealing with incubation in at least the lower part of the text is heavily restored, and it is not certain whether the first lines on abstinence are directed to all worshippers or just incubants. Abstinence from birth or sex (the text may be restored in different ways) can be noted. For different suggestions on how to restore the text, see Roussel 1926; Zingerle 1924; LSAM 14.

    29 Parker 1983, 33–34, 55 and 393; Wächter 1910, 55–62.

    30 Parker 1983, 66; Wächter 1910, 25–34 and 43–62.

    31 LSS 115 A.16–20; LSS 115 B.26–27; Parker 1983, appendix 2.

    32 Parker 1983, 50, n. 67; Wächter 1910, 27–34 and 55–62, with ample references to ancient sources. Usually, though, it seems that pollution was incurred when the mother was touched (not just by simply entering her house), see Parker 1983, 50. For the cult of Asklepios, see e.g. LSS 119 (Ptolemais, first century BC).

    33 In Epidauros at the time of Pausanias, there was a special building outside the temenos which was used to house women during childbirth or ill people with little hope of survival (Paus. 2.27.6).

    34 Müller 2010, 440.

    35 LSCG 154 A.21–45 (Kos, third century BC); Parker 1983, 52; Wächter 1910, 59–62. Priests sometimes had to abide by rules such as not wearing clothes or shoes made from dead animals, e.g. at the Andanian mysteries (Deshours 2006).

    36 Translation by Parker 1983, 322–323.

    37 Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 126–127.

    38 Bremmer 2002, 106–108.

    39 LSS 91.5 (Lindos, third century AD); LSS 108.6–7 (Rhodes, first century AD); LSCG 139.3–7 (Lindos, second century AD); Parker 1983, 324. The requirement for the incubant to be pure of mind is attested in later sources on the cult of Asklepios: Philostr. VA 1.10.

    40 Cook & Plommer 1966; SEG 14.690; IK 38.401; Bresson 1991, no. 44.

    41 Diod. Sic. 5.62–63.

    42 ll. 13–14.

    43 Ar. Amphiaraos, PCG III.2, 44–45, frg. 23; cf. FAC I, 578–579, frg. 23; Kock, CAF 23. Translation by C.B. Gulick (Loeb 1927–41). The Amphiaraos is dated to 414 BC by Edmonds, FAC I, 576. Deubner (1900, 15, n. 1), Arbesmann (1929, 100–102), and Sineux (2007, 125) also refer to a commentary by Cassianus Bassus from the sixth/seventh century AD, Geoponica sive de re rustica eclogae 2.35.8 [Mueller] on the relevant passage in Ar. Amphiaraos. Cassianus writes that beans were to be shunned in order to obtain a dream oracle from Amphiaraos, Πρῶτος δὲ ἀπέσχετο κυάμων Ἀμφιάραος, διὰ τὴν δι’ ὀνείρων μαντείαν, ‘Amphiaraos was the first to abstain from (eating) beans because he gave oracles through dreams’. The lateness of Cassianus’ commentary means we must be cautious.

    44 Ath. 4.158c.

    45 Deubner 1900, 14–17; Pley 1916, 1259; Simboli 1921, 61–62; Bonnechere 2003a, 179; Sineux 2007, 120, n. 4. Many of the examples offered by Deubner come from the cult of Trophonios, which was an oracle cult rather than an incubation cult (as shown by Bonnechere 2003b). Contra: Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 149.

    46 Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 148–149.

    47 Clinton 2005, 168.

    48 Robert 1966, 197, with further refs. Contra: Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 189, n. 21. See Robert 1949, 163, n. 3, and Robert 1966, 197, for cults where goats were prohibited.

    49 Farnell 1896, vol. 2, 449.

    50 Deubner 1900, 40; Pley 1916, 1259.

    51 On Molpadia, see Gruppe 1906, 259.

    52 Farnell 1896, vol. 2, 646–647, 664 and 756; Wächter 1910, 82–83. See also Pirenne-Delforge (1994, 133 and 146) on the sacrifice and prohibition of pig in the cult of Aphrodite in Sikyon. For exceptions, see Farnell 1896, vol. 2, 646–647.

    53 Farnell 1896, vol. 2, 646.

    54 In Greek cult in general, the sacrifice of piglet was very common, probably due to the low cost of the animal; see Arbesmann 1929, 43; Clinton 2005, 168. Van Straten (1995, 177–178), argues that pigs depicted on votive reliefs were probably piglets, since the sacrifice of piglets is so prevalent in the epigraphical material.

    55 Strabo 12.8.9.

    56 Wächter 1910, 84. He mentions Isis in Tithorea (Paus. 10.32.12), Attis (Paus. 7.17.10), and Men at Sounion (LSCG 55.2–3, second century AD).

    57 Neue Pauly 11 (2001), 291–294, esp. 291, s.v. Schwein [Nissen & Renger].

    58 In IK 2.205.9, concerning sacrifices to Apollon and Asklepios at Erythrai (380–360 BC), goat was possibly prohibited (the inscription is fragmentary). In Roman times, the sacrifice of goat seems to have been prohibited at the Asklepieia of Epidauros (Paus. 2.26.9) and Tithorea (Paus. 10.32.12). Sextus Empiricus (Pyr. 3.220–221 = T534, second century AD), writes that it is impious to offer goats to Asklepios, hinting at the general validity of this rule.

    59 Paus. 2.26.9.

    60 The temple of Asklepios at Pergamon was, according to Pausanias 2.26.8–9, founded by a private person, Archias, in recognition of a healing at Epidauros, also mentioned in IG IV2, 1 60 from the second century AD from Epidauros. This probably took place during the first half of the fourth century BC (Hansen 1971, 10–11 and 443).

    61 Paus. 2.26.3–5; Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 189, n. 21.

    62 Sokolowski 1956, 157.

    63 Jameson 1988, 98–103 and 106–107.

    64 Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 190.

    65 Hippoc. Morb. sacr. 2. See further Jouanna 2003.

    66 Hippoc. Nat. Mul. 32 = 7.367 [Littré]; Mul. 2.158 fin. = 8.337 [Littré]: tallow of goat used to heal bubos, festering wounds and open wounds. Homer claimed that the blood of goats was nutritious (Od. 18.44), but this is hardly a medical observation. Furthermore, Hippocrates mentions the usefulness of goat’s milk as a cure for dropsy (Int. 24 = Hippoc. 7.229 [Littré]) as well as internal bleeding (Int. 1 = Hippoc. 7.169 [Littré]), menstrual disruptions (Mul. 1.29 = Hippoc. 8.75 [Littré]) and pleuritis (Morb. 3.16, med. = Hippoc. 7.149 [Littré]).

    67 Plin. 28.153, 255–256 and 259; Gal. Aliment. 1 = 6.555 [Kühn]; RE 2.19 (1972), 398–433, s.v. Ziege, esp. 417–420 [Richter].

    68 Arbesmann 1929, 39.

    69 Diod. 16.26; Brulé 1998, 276–277.

    70 For example, the priests of Cretan Zeus were forbidden from eating meat (Eur. Kretes, TrGFV.1, 506, frg. 472, cf. edition and translation of C. Collard & M. Cropp, Loeb 2008). Likewise, the priestess of Athena Polias was forbidden from eating sheep’s cheese (Ath. 9.375c).

    71 Price 1999, 69; Arbesmann 1929, 72–74.

    72 See e.g. Arbesmann 1929, 75–83 with ample citations from ancient authors.

    73 Bonnechere 2003b, 148, 204–205; Cratinus, PCG IV, 241, frg. 236: the mullet, ray fish, and blacktail, also prohibited at Eleusis (Melanthios, FGrHist IIIB, frg. 326, F2). Bonnechere (2003, 179), suggests that these fish were prohibited in order that the enquirer would not have gas which might impede the oracular experience, and supports this suggestion with passages in Hippoc. Morb.sacr. 2.

    74 Cult of Poseidon: Price 1999, 69; Poseidon in Leptis, the hieromnemones did not eat fish at all: Plut. Mor. Quaest. conv. 8.8.4; cf. Dölger 1922, 21 and 332.

    75 Strabo 14.1.44.

    76 Strabo 14.1.44, translation H.L. Jones (Loeb 1960). See also the full citation Collection of texts, no. 12.

    77 Philostr. VA 2.37, translation by C.P. Jones (Loeb 2005); Deubner 1900, 14–17; Pley 1916, 1258– 1259; Simboli 1921, 61–62; Flacelière 1965, 22–23; Wacht 1998, 212–215. Contra: Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 149.

    78 Tert. De anim. 48.

    79 For discussions on the reliability of Philostratus as a historical source: Anderson 1986, 191–192, n. 1; Jones 1974, 13–16.

    80 See Ustinova (2009, 86–87) for an analysis of the cults of the underworld around the River Meander. She puts it in the context of caves being seen as entrances to the underworld.

    81 Philostr. VA 2.37.

    82 Burkert 1985, 242–246; Parker 2005, 274, with further references and discussion.

    83 See e.g. Arbesmann 1929, 75–83 with ample citations from ancient sources.

    84 Ar. Plut. 656. For a full citation of the incubation scene, see Collection of texts, no. 9.

    85 Roos 1960, 76–77. Contra: Behr 1968, 34–35, n. 60.

    86 Xen. Mem. 3.13.3: ‘… “And which is colder to bathe in, the water at your house or that in the temple of Amphiaraus?” “That in the temple (ἐν Ἀμφιαράου) of Amphiaraus,” he said… ’ (translation Bonnette 1994). The character complains that the water in his house is too warm to drink and too cold for bathing.

    87 Leonardos 1918; Ginouvès 1962, 346 (the construction is dated to the fourth century BC).

    88 Glaser 1982, 130–136; Glaser 1983, 189, n. 4; Argoud 1985, 10 and 16.

    89 For Roman times, Sineux (2007, 132–133) suggests that water from a small basin near the temple was used for purificatory purposes — but this was of course situated within the temenos.

    90 Rhodes & Osborne 2003, 133.

    91 Sineux 2007, 131–136; IOropos 292 = IG VII 4255.

    92 That incubants stayed for longer periods — in one of the cases for four months — can be seen in two of the Epidaurian iamata, C 5 (48) and C 21 (64). These documents make it clear that it was common for the god to prescribe that the suppliants stayed a certain amount of time at the sanctuary.

    93 Baths are recorded in stories of cures, presumably as having both a purificatory and a curative value, however; cf. the Epidaurian iama C 22 (65). Cf. Villard 1994, 48–52 on baths in the Hippocratic writings. Many incubation cures of Roman times included baths as a curative element. See e.g. the IG IV2, 1 126 (Apellas inscription from Epidauros, c. 160 AD), M. Aur. Med. 5.8 and Aristid. Or.sacr. 1.7, 1.8, 1.18, 1.20–21, 1.34, 1.50, 3.6 and 5.22–24. See also Ginouvès 1962, 349–361; Ginouvès 1994; Guettel Cole 1988; Boudon 1994, 163; Lambrinoudakis 1994.

    94 E.g. Paus. 1.34.4, a spring south of the temple was not to be used for purificatory sacrifices or for washing hands.

    95 That the bath at Epidauros served the everyday need for cleanliness can be seen in the Epidaurian iama C 22 (65), where a blind man lost his oil bottle in the bath.

    96 Ginouvès 1962, 352–357; cf. Parker 1983, 213, n. 31; Ginouvès 1994, 240.

    97 The first evidence of a cult to Asklepios at Corinth comes from the end of the fifth century BC: Melfi 2007, ch. II. 4B.

    98 Melfi 2007, 498–506.

    99 At Epidauros, the first attestations of a cult to Asklepios come from the second half of the sixth century. A well, which was identified as a holy well because of votive material inside, existed as early as the sixth century BC. It was opposite the first mud-brick stoa from the sixth century, which has been identified as the first abaton. When the later abaton, the Classical stoa, was built on top of the mud-brick stoa, the well was incorporated into the structure, indicating its ritual importance; see Martin & Metzger 1942–43, 331; Tomlinson 1983, 67–70. The perirrhanteria: Melfi 2007, 28 and 148–149, table 1 nos. 12–15 and 17–25).

    100 At Athens, where the first evidence for a cult of Asklepios comes from the end of the fifth century BC, a water source was incorporated into the Doric stoa built in fourth century BC, which was identified by most researchers as the dormitory (for simple lack of a better space); see Travlos 1971, 127–242; Ehrenheim 2009, 244–247 with references. This incorporation of a water source into the stoa seems likely to have served ritual purposes, since it did not contain water used for anything other than symbolic purposes, contrary to the constructed fountain. Cf. Verbanck-Piérard 2000, 329–332, who has suggested that the so-called bothros in the Doric stoa of the Athenian Asklepieion would most probably have been a cistern.

    101 Ehrenheim 2009, 239–247.

    102 Wächter 1910, 6–11; Parker 1983, 19–20 and 226–227.

    103 Wächter 1910, 7; Ginouvès 1962, 305–306; Parker 1983, 19–20.

    104 Ginouvès 1962, 311–318; Ar. Pax 935–975; Ar. Av. 958.

    105 The purificatory effect of seawater on miasma: Eur. IT 1039 and 1193 (washing weapons); Soph. Aj. 655; LSCG 97 A.15–16 (Keos, funerary rule, fifth century BC); LSCG 151 B.23–24 = Rhodes & Osborne 2003, no. 62.23–24 (Kos, sacrificial calendar, mid-fourth century BC); Diphilus, PCG V, 118–119, frg. 125; Plut. Mor. Quaest. Graec. 40.301a. The statue of Artemis which was polluted by the touch of Orestes was cleaned with salt water: Eur. IT 1041. On the popularity of sprinkling oneself with seawater, apparently for purificatory reasons, see Theophr. Char. 16.13. Furthermore, Circe cleaned her head with seawater because she had frightening dreams; see Ap.Rhod. Argon. 4.663. For the custom of bathing in the sea before the Greeks sacrificed: Eitrem 1915, 335–336; Ginouvès 1962, 406; Wachsmuth 1967, 219–223; Parker 1983, 226–227; Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 33 and 45. Ordinary water was sometimes mixed with salt in order to augment its purificatory value (Menander, Phasma 31 [Arnott]).

    106 Parker 1983, 283; Graf 1992, 178; Burkert 1972, 285, n. 9 with references to the sources, cf. Plut. Vit. Phoc. 28).

    107 At Delphi, the servants of the temple, as well as girls who were serving the god, cleansed themselves in the baths of Kastalia at Delphi — a replacement for the holy source that had gone dry (Eur. Ion 95–97; Eur. Phoen. 222–226; Amandry 1950, 135–137).

    108 In the cult of Trophonios, there was a preliminary cold bath (after entering the sanctuary, though) at least in Roman times (Paus. 9.39.7). The cold bath, among other things, before descending into the cave of Trophonios, has been described by Bonnechere as a way of making the consultant susceptible to autosuggestion (Bonnechere 2003a, 176–177). The cold bath in Trophonios is thus not a purifying action before entering the sanctuary, but rather a step in the preparations that created the almost initiatory consultation process of the oracle.

    109 For Roman times, Aristides speaks of purification ceremonies performed en masse in Pergamon, with worshippers clad in white (Aristid. Or. sacr. 2.30 and 2.31). This is, however, a Roman testimonium and also pertains to a rite performed by incubants who had already entered the sanctuary (and possibly had stayed there for a while).

    110 Athens, National Archaeological Museum 1395; van Straten 1995, 73, fig. 72, R37; Kaltsas 2002, no. 427. On the relief we can note worshippers walking up to a sacrifice, with, among other things, a ram (the horns are visible) and a full-grown pig.

    111 Paus. 1.34.3–5; Petropoulou 1985, 176, n. 44. Frazer (1913, vol. 2, 467–468) believed that the altar seen by Pausanias replaced two earlier ones, and two altars from Oropos with the inscriptions Amphiaraos and Amphilochos (first altar), and Hestia (second altar), may confirm this (Petrakos 1968, pl. 18).

    112 Van Straten 1995, 73.

    113 Clinton 2005, 175.

    114 Sineux 2007, 138.

    115 Sineux 2007, 138–142; IOropos 277.30–31 = IG VII 235.30–31; IOropos 278.

    116 I.e. the IOropos 277 = IG VII 235 and IOropos 278.

    117 Cf. van Straten 1995, fig. 94 (R92), a bovine and a sheep led up to Herakles (Athens, National Archaeological Museum 1404). Pigs on votive reliefs: see for instance van Straten 1995, figs. 68 (R30), 72 (R37), 74 (R41), 75 (R44), 79 (R58), 80 (R60), 81 (R67), 82 (R68), 92 (R86), 96 (R97), 102 (R106), 103 (R126) and 104 (R174).

    118 Parker 1983, 371–373.

    119 Nilsson 1967, 104–107.

    120 Deshours 2006, 35, ll. 65–71 = LSCG 65.65–71 (92 BC).

    121 Parker 1983, 283, n. 11. The so-called mystic pig sacrificed at Eleusis (Schol. Ar. Ach. 747; Ar. Ran. 338) was eaten, and thus cannot (according to Parker) have been a purificatory sacrifice (Parker 1983, 283).

    122 Clinton 2005, 173–174. In serious cases of pollution, however, individuals were purified by having blood from the slaughtered piglets (or other animals) poured over them (Clinton 2005, 174). Nowhere does Clinton mention purification of disease by blood.

    123 Clinton 2005, 172–173. Purificatory sacrifices, explicitly stating that they were not eaten, are recorded in Ap. Rhod. Argon. 4.710; LSS 38 A.32 (Delphi, fifth century BC); LSAM 79.19 (first century BC); Parker 1983, 30, n. 65.

    124 Ed.pr. Zingerle 1924, 171; IvP II 264 [Fränkel]; LSAM 14 [Sokolowski]; Roussel 1926.

    125 Roussel 1926, 307–312.

    126 Fasting before incubation at Oropos: Philostr. VA 2.37. On ‘archaisms’ added to Greek society in general during the second sophistic, as well as to Greek cults; see Bowie 1970; Anderson 1993.

    127 Sokolowski 1954a, 156–158.

    128 IOropos 277.20–24 and 39–43 (386–374 BC).

    129 IOropos 276.4–5 = LSS 35.4–5 (before mid-fourth century BC). Petropoulou (1981, 58–59) dates the IOropos 276 to 402–387 BC. Petrakos dates it to before the middle of the fourth century BC (Petrakos 1997, 177). Sineux (2007, 149–150) argues against the date suggested by Petropoulou because the formula δέδοχθαι has not been established before 387/6 BC. Sineux dates the inscription to between 366 (because the donation of a Boeotian drachma is likely to coincide with the beginning of the Theban period of domination of the sanctuary) and the middle of the fourth century.

    130 IOropos 277.39–43; IOropos 276.7–9.

    131 Sineux 2007, 155.

    132 NGSL 13.4 = Veligianni 1994, 391, l. 4 = SEG 44.505 [Chaniotis]. Veligianni (1994, 393–394) dates it, according to the lettering, to the first half or around the middle of the fourth century BC.

    133 Lupu in NGSL, 245 and 247.

    134 Meritt 1936, 401 no. 10, ll. 142–147. The text concerns the failure of a metic (as well as his guarantor) to collect the drachma for Asklepios as was agreed. According to Aleshire (1989, 98, n. 4), the wording of the text could signify the collection of either a fee or a tax.

    135 Schlaifer (1940, 240–241) writes that since the temple of Asklepios in Athens was so newly established, it might have needed the income. He conjectures that every male was to pay the tax, but emphasizes that we cannot be certain. He also suggests that the tax was the Athenian equivalent of the iatrikon, a tax levied on the whole population to pay for public physicians; cf. Ferguson 1949, 142–144. Aleshire (1989, 99) argues that the parallels offered by Schlaifer are later and are not from Athens. The establishment of a fee would, according to Aleshire, have coincided with the state taking control of the sanctuary around 350 BC, and the total revenue of the sanctuary implies, according to Aleshire, around 15–20 suppliants per day.

    136 Gorrini & Melfi 2002, 259.

    137 IvP III 161 A.8.

    138 IvP III 161 A.22–23.

    139 Lupu in NGSL, 247; Sineux 2007, 157, n. 151.

    140 Wörrle 1969, 176 and 182; cf. LSAM 12.10–15 (cult of Athena in Pergamon, after 133 BC), and Peek 1969, no. 336 (Epidauros, fourth century BC).

    141 IK 2.205.17 and 20. This fee is described by Sokolowski (1954a, 153) as a fee at a sacrifice before or after incubation. Although incubants are one of the types of worshippers the inscription turns to, the regulation also explicitly sets up sacrificial rules, and other rules, for those who had made a vow, or those participating in a festival. This fee must therefore be described as a fee pertaining to the sacrifice, and not for incubation or cure as such.

    142 Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 149; Sokolowski 1954a, 153–154.

    143 Lupu in NGSL, 247.

    144 Petropoulou 1981, 53–54; Beer 1914, 101–106; Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 148–149, n. 17. Petropoulou comments that this is a high fee; in e.g. Ar. Vesp. 609 the daily fee for a juror was three obols.

    145 This we see explicitly in the IOropos 277.20–24 and 39–43. Sokolowski’s restoration of LSS 35.4 allows for both ordinary visitors and incubants to pay an eparche to Amphiaraos, whereas Petropoulou (1981, 41) argues with the support of the IOropos 277, and in my opinion successfully, that the eparche fee was exclusively paid by incubants. Petrakos on the IOropos 276.4 (= LSS 35.4) disregards the restoration of Sokolowski.

    146 Schachter 1981, 23; Petropoulou 1985, 176.

    147 Amandry 1950, 99, n. 1; Sineux 2007, 151; Sokolowski 1954a, 154.

    148 Amandry 1950, 86–103. For fees that were to be put in the offertory box, the thesauros, explicitly for sacrificial animals (different fees for different animals), see ThesCRA 1 (2004), 103, nos. 349–352. See also Peek 1969, no. 336 (Epidauros) for payment which was to be made at a sacrifice, probably a pre-incubation sacrifice.

    149 Thesauroi have been noted in Epidauros, Corinth, Lebena, Kos, Fregellae, Melos, Ptolemais in upper Egypt, Butrint, Delos, Lambesis and Pergamon — see Kaminski 1991, 123, and catalogue; Gorrini & Melfi, 260–263 (esp. 260 on the thesauros at Epidauros, which is more hypothetical).

    150 For its occurrence in oracle cults, see Sokolowski 1954a, 154 and Amandry 1950, 86–103, esp. 101–102. Amandry (1950, 101–102) argues that a fee (pelanos) was probably paid together with the sacrifice, but that, since a sacrifice was required for consultation, the categories became jumbled. Pouilloux (1952, 500–501) leans towards interpreting the payment of a pelanos as a payment which was made before any religious activity, upon entering. See further cf. Eur. Ion 226; CID 1, no. 1 (c. 500 BC); LSS 39 = FdD III: 4 no. 369. See further ThesCRA 3 (2005), 19–20 and testimonia nos. 103–108.2.3.2.

    151 Pouilloux, 1958, 63. From the fourth century BC onwards, pelanos came to mean, apart from cake, monetary donations to sanctuaries, which were put in the treasure-box; see Brill’s New Pauly 10 (2007), 692, s.v. pelanos [Frey] and Bouffartigue 1979, 69–70.

    152 IG VII 3055 (fourth century BC) = LSCG 74 = Salviat & Vatin 1971, 87–89 (textual revision p. 89, l. 4).

    153 Amandry 1950, 90–98; IG I3 78.4–10 = LSCG 5.4–10 (c. 423–422 BC), on aparchai in Eleusis. See also IG II2 1672.182 (eparche) and 284 (pelanos) (Eleusis, 329/8 BC). For fees at Eleusis see also IG I3 6 and Parker 2005, 342, n. 65, with further references. See also the payments of an eparche to Bendis and Theogenes: LSS 6.8 (Athens, 431–411 BC); LSS 72 A.3, 72B.4–5 (Thasos, first century BC).

    154 Parker 2005, 342; see e.g. IG I3 386 III 144–146, on incomes in Eleusis in 408/407, the majority of which came from initiates in the Great Mysteries.

    155 Deshours 2006, 37, ll. 89–92 = LSCG 65.89–92 (92 BC) and Deshours 2006, 89.

    156 If the beds were not brought by the incubants themselves, as was the case in the Ploutos; but this cannot be presupposed for all incubation sanctuaries; see Section 1.4.

    157 See Section 1.6.3.

    158 Some Epidaurian iamata (B 5 [25], B 13 [33]) mention that incubants left because they had had no clear dreams. See also Epidaurian iamata C 5 (48), C 21 (64), for incubants being commanded by the god to stay in the sanctuary for a certain time in order to recover (in iama C 21 [64] this was specified as four months for paralysis of the legs; C 5 [48] concerns a problem with pus).

    159 Rudhardt 1958, 263, n. 6 (prothymata may = cakes before an animal sacrifice to the main deity); Mikalson 1972, 583 (prothymata = any type of offering (grain, cakes, incense, animal) offered before an event, or before a sacrifice to another deity).

    160 Ziehen writes that in Classical times prothyo meant only ‘to sacrifice before’, thus comprising categories 1 and 2 of Casabona (Ziehen 1904, 405–406).

    161 See a synthesis of previous scholars’ translations of prothyo in Casabona 1966, 103–108. He translates the verb as 1. To sacrifice to a divinity before sacrificing to another divinity; 2. To sacrifice before an enterprise; 3. To sacrifice to a divinity before another person sacrifices. Casabona (1966, 108) importantly notes that some of the meanings of prothyo change as the Greek language develops. See also the commentary of Sokolowski in LSS 11.

    162 IG IV2, 1 128.3.29–31 (dated to c. 280 BC); Furley & Bremer (2001, vol. 1, 233–236) date it to 325–300 BC. Translation by Furley & Bremer (2001, vol. 1, 229): ‘Not even in Thessalian Trikka would one go down into Asklepios’ sanctuary and seek his favour if one had not first sacrificed on the sacred altar of Apollon Maleatas.’ For a detailed commentary on Isyllos and his time, see Kolde 2003, esp. 120–122 with different interpretations on what type of building is denoted in the hymn by the words ‘go down into Asklepios’ sanctuary’, εἰς ἄδυτον καταβὰς Ἀσκληπιοῦ. Kolde concludes that the question cannot be resolved because Trikka has not been excavated and it is difficult to know how literally ‘to go down’ should be interpreted, i.e. whether the incubants go down into a hypogeum or whether the sense is more metaphorical (as suggested by Sinuex 1999, 160, n. 26).

    163 Epidaurian iama B 18 (38).

    164 Strabo 8.6.15.

    165 NGSL 13.6 (the verb thyo is used).

    166 NGSL 13.7.

    167 Lupu in NGSL, 247–248; Veligianni 1994, 398. Veligianni suggests the parallels LSCG 54 (Athens, first century AD) and the LSCG 159 (Kos, third century BC), where Asklepios and Hygieia (LSCG 54), and Asklepios, Apollon, Hygieia and Epione (LSCG 159) receive sacrifices.

    168 Herod. Mim. 4.1–10. In this passage of the Mimiambi, a thank-offering is made to Asklepios after a successful healing that may have been achieved through incubation, but it might also have been the imagined result of sacrifice and prayer alone.

    169 IvP III 161 A.1–2.

    170 Wörrle 1969, 172. Cf. the Hymn of Isyllos (IG IV2, 1 128.19–20) where a laurel wreath is worn in honour of Apollon, and an olive garland was donned to honour Asklepios.

    171 Wörrle 1969, 171–172.

    172 IvP III 161 A.11–14: Ἁγνευέτω δὲ ὁ v | [εἰσπορευ]ό̣μενος εἰς τὸ ἐγκοιμητήριον ἀπό τε τῶν προειρημέv?| [νων πάν]τ̣ων καὶ ἀφροδισίων καὶ αἰγείου κρέως καὶ τυροῦ κα[ὶ] | [. . c.7. .] ΙΑΜΙΔΟΣ τριταῖος.

    173 IG IV2, 1 121–124.2.

    174 LSCG 60 = IG IV2, 1 40–41 = T561–562.

    175 IK 2.205.22.

    176 IG II2 4962 = LSCG 21 = LGS II 18.

    177 There are several inscriptions dedicated to Apollon Maleatas, both from his original sanctuary on Mount Kynortion above the sanctuary to Asklepios on the plain and in the sanctuary of Epidauros on the plain. He is never mentioned as only ‘Maleas’, but always as ‘Apollon Maleatas’. Farnell argues, concerning the IG II2 4962, that the priest who commissioned the inscription simply parted ‘Apollon’ from ‘Maleatas’, giving Panhellenic Apollon a sacrifice that was separate from the more local Apollon Maleatas. Maleatas in the IG II2 4962 would then be an abbreviation of Apollon Maleatas. See the discussion in Farnell 1907, vol. 4, 237.

    178 Cf. Ar. Nub. 482–488, where the consultants of the oracle of Trophonios are to drink water from the sources of Lethe and then Mnemosyne in order to remember their vision.

    179 Perhaps the inhabitants of Attica at this time even made fun of complicated cake-offerings to numerous smaller gods such as the ones in the IG II2 4962. This may be seen in a fragment of Plato Comicus’ Phaon, (PCG VII, 509–511, frg. 188; Farnell 1920).

    180 Ar. Plut. 660–661, ἐπεὶ δὲ βωμῷ πόπανα καὶ προθύματα καθωσιώθη πέλανος Ἡφαίστου φλογί, in the translation of Sommerstein 2001: ‘… and when the preliminary sacrifice of cakelets had been consecrated on the altar as a “sop for Hephaestus’ flame”… ’.

    181 LSJ has two translations relating pelanos to sacrifices: II.1. A — liquid substance of meal, honey and oil (with examples from Euripides); and III. A — round cake (with examples from Pausanias). The first translation best fits the word in Ar. Plut. 661 in terms of chronology. See further Brill’s New Pauly 10 (2007), 692, s.v. pelanos [Frey], Amandry 1950, 86–103, esp. 98–99. According to Frey, pelanos was a more-or-less liquid mixture of meal, honey, beer, and poppy milk or wine. It was never eaten but was offered, or libated, on the fire of the bomos. Cf. Aesch. Pers. 203–204, Aesch. Cho. 92 and Eur. Ion 226–227 and 705–707.

    182 Ar. Plut. 676–678,… ὁρῶ τὸν ἱερέα τοὺς φθοῖς ἀφαρπάζοντα καὶ τὰς ἰσχάδας ἀπὸ τῆς τραπέζης τῆς ἱερᾶς. Consecrated cakes were normally considered to be the property of the priests; see e.g. LSAM 13.14–15.

    183 Ar. Plut. 678–680,… μετὰ τοῦτο δὲ περιῆλθε τοὺς βωμοὺς ἅπαντας ἐν κύκλῳ, εἴ που πόπανον εἴη τι καταλελειμμένον…

    184 IG II2 4962 = LSCG 21.

    185 Both the trapeza and the bomoi of ll. 679–680 could be seen from where the incubants lay — Carion, a friend of Ploutos who was also incubating, recounts how he saw the priest put all of these cakes into a sack.

    186 Epidaurian iama A 5. Wörrle translates this προθύομαι as a sacrifice before incubation (Wörrle’s ‘category 2’ on how to translate prothyo). I would translate the verb as something close to his ‘category 1’ (pre-sacrifice to associated deities), whereas ποιεῖν τὰ νομιζόμενα (do the customary/required things) would be a paraphrase for ‘sacrificing (the main sacrifice)’. Cf. Melfi (2007, 49–51), on possible pre-sacrifices by the numerous small altars close to the main altar of Asklepios at Epidauros.

    187 Translation of LiDonnici 1995, 89. Rhodes & Osborne 2003, no. 102.43 translate the phrase as ‘the acolyte who carried fire for the god’. The πυρφόρος is mentioned in many inscriptions at Epidauros and was originally of lesser status because the job consisted of tending the fires on the altars of the sanctuary (LiDonnici 1995, 89, n. 13).

    188 Rhodes & Osborne 2003, no. 102: ‘if he obtained what he came for’.

    189 The two sets of purity instructions given on the stone denote two sets of worshippers (IvP III 161 A.12–14), opening up the possibility that the regulations concerning the first sacrifice of a piglet mentioned on the stone also applied to those who were not incubating, but making a vow. See further Sections 1.2.5 and 2.2.

    190 IvP III 161 A.9–11 and 28–29.

    191 LSJ, s.v. θυμέλη. The round building at Epidauros, close to the abaton, was called tholos in Pausanias 2.27.3 but was originally denoted thymele (IG IV2, 1 103 A and B [Tholos accounts]; Burford 1969, 66, 162 and 220–221). This fact has led Melfi (2007, 41–42) to suggest that a sacrifice of cakes was made before entering the dormitory at Epidauros by the Thymele, just like the one on a thymele by the enkoimeterion at Pergamon (IvP III 161 A.10–11). The function of the Tholos or Thymele at Epidauros is, however, not clear (Burford 1969, 66; Riethmüller 2005, vol. 1, 318–324 with further references to the different hypotheses put forward, his own being that the Thymele was a heroon to Asklepios.

    192 IvP III 161 A.24. This group of worshippers is denoted as οἱ περιθυσάμενοι, ‘those who perform the action of perithyein’ (l. 27), or οἱ θεραπεύοντες, probably stayed a longer time at the sanctuary and sacrificed repeatedly; see Sokolowski 1973, 410; Ehrenheim 2009, 249–250.

    193 Casabona 1966, 104–105, category 1.

    194 Cf. the Ar. Plut. 1111–1132, where Hermes complains about all the sacrifices of which he is now deprived: different cakes, parts from the sacrificed animal, incense and libations.

    195 Henrichs 1984, 258. In many inscriptions where cakes appear in sacrificial contexts it is unclear when in the ritual they were used: e.g. LSCG 7; LSCG 23; LSS 77 and LSS 92.

    196 In the case of smaller deities like the Moirai and Mnemosyne, one might suspect that the cake offering would be the only one, as in the LSCG 22 of Piraeus (cakes to the Moirai, fourth century BC) and the LSCG 26 (Mnemosyne, Athens of the fourth century BC). When the sacrifices of cakes were to be made in another god’s sanctuary, the animal sacrifice was probably made to the ‘home’ god; see the LSCG 24 from Athens, where three cakes were to be sacrificed to Herakles on an altar inside the Asklepieion.

    197 Sokolowski, comment to LSS 11. For this statement, Sokolowski refers to LGS II 54 (= LSCG 60), IG II2 4962, IK 2.205 (= LSAM 24) and an article by Ziehen (Ziehen 1904, 391–406). The lex sacra from Erythrai mentions a pre-sacrifice, but here prothyo deals with the rights of the state to sacrifice before the individual: IK 2.205.26–30 = LSAM 24 A.26–30.

    198 Cf. Kearns 1994.

    199 Kearns 1994, 69.

    200 Meritt 1963, 45–46, no. 62: [ἀρεστῆ]ρα[ς καὶ] κηρία.

    201 IG II2 4962 = LSCG 21. It has been stated in previous research that Akeso was less popular in Attica than her sisters Iaso, Panakeia and Hygieia (Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 88, n. 45; Kutsch 1913, 33). This inscription suggests otherwise.

    202 Orphei hymni 67.7 [Quandt].

    203 The presence of his family is characteristic of Asklepios, as illustrated for instance in the incubation scene in the Ploutos, where Asklepios appears together with Iaso and Panakeia (Ar. Plut. 701–702). See further Herod. Mim. 4.1–18 and Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 76–91. The members of Asklepios’ family had different origins; Machaon and Podaleirios, for instance, had a background as Homeric healers and heroes. On the cult of Hygieia; see Stafford 2005. On votive reliefs portraying Asklepios healing, his family (Hygieia, daughters, sons) is habitually depicted; see e.g. van Straten 1995, reliefs nos. (all from the fourth century BC, and from Athens unless otherwise stated): R1, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12, R13, R14, R15, R16, R17, R18, R19, R21, R23, R25, R31 (Attica?), R32 (Attica?), R33 (Epidauros), R34 (Patrai), R35 (provenience unknown).

    204 IG II2 4962 = LSCG 21. Probably ‘Apollon Maleatas’ and not ‘Maleatas’ is meant, as discussed above, supra n. Chapter 1, 177.

    205 Lambrinoudakis 1982, 49.

    206 Hymn of Isyllos, IG IV2, 1 128.30–31.

    207 IG II2 4962 = LSCG 21; Apollodoros of Athens, FGrHist IIB, frg. 244, F138; Parker 1996, 182– 183.

    208 LIMC 2: 1 (1984), 868, no. 1, s.v. Asklepios; Cramers 1978, 67–73.

    209 Von Eickstedt 2001, 13, referring to Athens, National Archaeological Museum 1426 = LIMC 2: 1 (1984), 881, no. 204, s.v. Asklepios. I might add, in support of the argument, the passage Xen. Cyn. 1.1 and 1.14, where Machaon and Podaleirios are mentioned as being renowned for their hunting skills (not only for being healers). There is, however, a debate as to whether this passage was written much later, and added under the name of Xenophon. The discussion of authenticity of the Cynegeticus: Norden 1898, 431–434; Radermacher 1896, 596–627; Radermacher 1897, 13–41; Gray 1985, 164; Doty 2001, 13 and 16; Hull 1964, 108–109; Marchant 1925, xxxvii.

    210 Epidaurian iamata A 20 and B 6 (26).

    211 Epidaurian iamata A 17, B 3 (23), B 17 (37), B 19 (39), B 22 (42), C 1 (44), C 2 (45) and possibly C 15 (58).

    212 ICr 1.17.10 and 15 (second century BC). Hermes was worshipped in many cities on Crete: Bile 1991, 13. For a discussion on the supposedly Chthonian nature of Hermes, explaining his presence in incubation rites; see the discussion in 2.1.1.

    213 Hymn. Hom. Merc. 4.14 (fifth century BC; see Görgemanns 1976). In the first or second century AD, Hermes is described as, among other things, the god of cleromancy (Apollod. Bibl. 3.10.2).

    214 Epigr.Gr. 785; Bean & Cook 1952, 207.

    215 Ap. Rhod. Argon. 1.642–643.

    216 Cf. RE 8 (1913), 738–792, s.v. Hermes, esp. 740–742; Rückert 1998, 109–111.

    217 Cattle needed healing just as much as people, as can be seen when the son of Asklepios, Podaleirios, cured cattle in the streams of the Althaenus by Mount Drion in Apulia in the third century BC (FGrHist IIIB, frg. 566, F56 = Pseudo-Lycophron Alex. 1047–1050).

    218 Alroth 1989, 109.

    219 IG II2 4962 = LSCG 21. See Collection of texts, no. 4.

    220 Pl. Resp. 6.507d–509b; Eur. Hec. 1068; Artem. 2.36. Helios preserves the well-being of the righteous: Hymnus Homericus ad Solem 31.17; Hippoc. Insomn. 4 [Kühn, vol. 22, 10].

    221 SEG 33.115.12 (247/6 or 246/5 BC); cf. Polemon frg. 42 at Scholion Soph. Oid. Kol. 100 (second century BC).

    222 Eitrem (1948, 173–175) has claimed that the presence of Helios in the IG II2 4962 is due to Helios helping with incubation, basing his argument on the presence of a statue of Helios in the incubation sanctuary of Ino-Pasiphaë in Roman times (Paus. 3.26.1), as well as the possible identification of Helios with Apollon in the PGMs. The statue of Helios mentioned in Pausanias may have been set up for reasons of which we know very little, and they might not have had anything to do with incubation. Identifications of Helios with Apollon in Greek magical papyri, of Roman date, do not essentially concern incubation in Greek cult, as shown in the IG II2 4962.

    223 For Apollon Thyraios, and Apollon Propylaios see Farnell 1907, vol. 4, 371–372 and Di Filippo Balestrazzi 1984. According to Wörrle (1969, 174, n. 16), a possible connection with the saving and healing abilities of Artemis Eileithyia and Artemis Soteira may explain the presence of Artemis Prothyraia in this inscription. Artemis Prothyraia, who, as argued above, was an averter of evil, may however have been included in the pre-sacrifice before incubation because of this aspect alone.

    224 IG IV2, 1 276 (third century BC?). A naos to Artemis is attested at Epidauros in Paus. 2.27.5. Cf. Wörrle 1969, 173, n. 15.

    225 See e.g. Neue Pauly 1 (1996), 899, s.v. Apotropaioi (theoi) [Parker].

    226 LSAM 25.81–82 (mid-third century BC).

    227 IvP III 161 A.4 and 20. On Zeus Meilichios; see Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 81–103. For a discussion of the supposedly Chthonian nature of Zeus Meilichios, thus explaining his presence in incubation rites, see Section 2.1.1.

    228 IG IV2, 1 282 (fourth/third century BC), restored, but the restoration is plausible since the inscription is also dedicated to Aphrodite Meilichia.

    229 IG IV2, 1 284 (third century BC) and 285 (sixth–first century BC); Wörrle 1969, 174.

    230 Aischylos’ Eumenides 2–4 shows how Ge was considered to have had an oracle at Delphi before Apollon. On the mantic powers of Ge, as the first oracle at Delphi; see e.g.: RAC 5 (1962), 1113– 1179, esp. 1128, s.v. Erde [Opelt]; RE 24 (1963), 539–547, s.v. Pythia [Fauth]. As C. Sourvinou-Inwood (1991, 217–243) has shown, there is no archaeological evidence for a cult to Ge preceding that of Apollon at Delphi.

    231 Hes. Theog. 479–480; Eur. Phoen. 686; Farnell 1907, vol. 3, 17–18; Hadzisteliou-Price 1978, 191– 192.

    232 IvP III 161 A.10 and 28.

    233 Cf. the oracle of Trophonios in Lebadeia, where the oracle-seeker was to drink the waters of Mnemosyne in order to remember what he had seen in the cave, and then upon returning from the cave, he was to sit on the throne of Mnemosyne and relate to the priests what he had seen and experienced: Paus. 9.39.8 and 13; Plin. HN 31.15. The muses bringing joy: Hes. Theog. 54–67; Pind. Nem. 7,15; Pind. Isthm. 6,75. See Ahearne-Kroll 2014 for an analysis of the importance of Mnemosyne at Asklepieia.

    234 IG IV2, 1 303 (altar, fourth century BC); Meritt 1963, no. 62, pp. 45–46 (end of the fourth century BC).

    235 Her cult was fairly widespread from the fourth century BC. See OCD3, 1566, s.v. Tyche [Robertson and Dietrich] and Wörrle 1969, 177.

    236 Tyche: IG IV2, 1 269 (fourth century BC), 311 (fifth/fourth century BC) and 312 (first century BC?).

    237 OCD3, 1496–1497, s.v. Themis [Sourvinou-Inwood]. On Themis as the first owner of the Delphic oracle, see Sourvinou-Inwood 1991, 192–243. For her association with Apollon, see Ephoros of Cyme FGrHist IIA, frg. 70, F31b (she founds an oracle together with Apollon in Ephorus) and the Homeric Hymn to Delian Apollon 124–125, where she feeds the newborn Apollon with nectar and ambrosia.

    238 Cf. Johnston 2008, 59 on Themis helping both assemblies and oracle-seekers to determine the just and proper course of action.

    239 See supra n. Chapter 1, 181.

    240 Ar. Plut. 661.

    241 IG II2 4962 = LSCG 21. As argued above, the context of the inscription means that it was likely a set of rules for the incubant, prior to incubation in the cult of Asklepios at Piraeus.

    242 Ziehen, commentary to LGS II 18.

    243 Mehl 2002.

    244 Athens, National Archaeological Museum 1333 and 1436; van Straten 1995, 64, figs. 59–60 (R8 and R217).

    245 Diod. Sic. 5.62.5.

    246 Diod. Sic. 5.62.5: ἐν δὲ ταῖς θυσίαιςαὐτῆς διὰ τὸ συμβὰν περὶ τὸν οἶνον πάθος τὰς μὲν σπονδὰς μελικράτῳ ποιοῦσι, ‘And in the sacrifices which are held in her honour a mixture of honey and milk is used in the libations, because of the experience which she had had in connection with the wine, … ’ (translation C.H. Oldfather, Loeb 1961).

    247 Stengel 1920, 111; Stengel 1920, 114.

    248 We may also note that the word used for ‘libation’ here is sponde, a word which, according to Burkert (1985, 70) generally, though not exclusively, was associated with wine. In the text of Strabo, sponde was not associated with wine. On the difference between spondai and choai, see further Rudhardt 1958, 240–248 and Casabona 1966, 231–297.

    249 See e.g. Brill’s New Pauly 7 (2005), 481–483, s.v. Libation [Haase].

    250 Diod. Sic. 5.62.5.

    251 See e.g. Brill’s New Pauly 7 (2005), 481–483, esp. 482, s.v. Libation [Haase]. There is no scholarly consensus on why wine might have been prohibited in some cults.

    252 Malkin argues (OCD3, 854, s.v. libations) that choai, often wineless, were made especially for the dead, Chthonian and nature deities, such as Nymphs, Muses and Erinyes. The libation mentioned in Diod. Sic. 5.62.5, however, is labelled a sponde.

    253 Philostr. VA 2.37 has been referred to by Deubner (1900, 17) as evidence for abstinence from wine as well as a prohibition on libating wine before incubation. The passage tells of the priests at Oropos preventing the incubants from eating for one day and drinking wine for three, ‘so that he can absorb the messages with his soul in a state of illumination’. (Translation by C.P Jones (Loeb 2005). This is clearly a prescription to prepare the incubants and does not have any connection with what was libated at sacrifices. Cf. Kircher 1910, 88–89, Wächter 1910, 109–110 and Arbesmann 1929, 61–62 and 103 on abstinence from wine and food in Greek religion. See also Arbesmann 1929, 98–100, for views among ancient philosophers that having a certain purity of body was needed to be able to receive visionary dreams.

    254 Epidaurian iamata A 5, D 2 (68) and D 3 (69).

    255 Epidaurian iamata A 5 and D 2 (68).

    256 Epidaurian iama A 5.

    257 Semos of Delos, FGrHist IIIB, frg. 396, B4.

    258 Translation C.B. Gulick (Loeb 1961).

    259 Stengel 1910, 201–202.

    260 Parker 1983, appendix 4, 360. On fish eating dead seamen, see e.g. Archestratus frg. 24 [Olson and Sens]; Antiphanes, PCG II, 347–348, frg.69.11–12, idem, PCG II, 380, frg. 127.6; cf. Alexis PCG II, 60, frg. 76.1–4 (fourth/third century BC). Man-eating fish: Ael. NA 2.41 and 9.65.

    261 Arbesmann 1929, 50–52, with references to relevant testimonia.

    262 Dated to 386–374 BC according to Rhodes & Osborne 2003, 131, whereas it is dated to 387– 377 BC in Syll.2 589 (this is the dating followed by Petropoulou 1981 and Petrakos in IOropos 277).

    263 Petrakos in IOropos 278. Lupu 2003, 332 agrees but advises caution because of the fragmentary state of the inscription.

    264 IOropos 277.30–31.

    265 IOropos 278.7 and 9.

    266 IOropos 277.29–30. The passage on the skins being sacred has been much discussed by scholars since it was erased at some later point in antiquity. According to Petropoulou, the erasure illustrates that the money from the sale of the skins no longer went to the oracle treasury but to the Athenians because they now ruled Oropos, according to the new Lycurgian Dermatikon and an Athenian state fund dealing with the sale of public sacrificial skins in Attica (Petropoulou 1981, 55 and 61–62; Robert 1960, 195, n. 4).

    267 IOropos 277.31–32. Scullion (1994, 99–101 and 110) considers the prohibition on taking the meat out of the sanctuary to be a sign of a Chthonian sacrifice. Ekroth argues that since only one clear case of a connection between ou phora and the partial destruction of the meat exists, and since ou phora is much more commonly prescribed in cults of gods than heroes, the rule cannot have been a marker for the character of the recipient. Ekroth (2002, 313–325) suggests that the stipulation to eat the meat inside the sanctuary should be seen as a way of prolonging the ritual sequence of animal sacrifice, as well as a way of making sure that the intended group was there to eat the meat.

    268 IOropos 277.32–36. It was a very common rule that priest (esses) were to receive some part of the sacrificial animal as payment, and sometimes also a monetary sum. See e.g. Le Guen Pollet 1991b, 12–23.

    269 In the LSAM 53 B (cult of Asklepios at Miletos, first century AD), as well as the LSCG 160, it is explicit that certain magistrates are to sacrifice and then give the priest his share.

    270 Petropoulou 1981, 55; Petropoulou 1985, 176, n. 41. Dillon (1997, 247, n. 46) and van Straten (1995, 74) agree with Petropoulou on this.

    271 Sineux 2007, 140.

    272 IOropos 277.34–36.

    273 Fees for sacrifices are not exclusive to incubation contexts such as the IvP III 161A.8, Peek 1969, no. 336 and the NGSL 13.4. See e.g. ThesCRA 1 (2004), 103, and Section 1.1.9.

    274 IOropos 277. 20–24 and 39–43. See Section 1.1.9.

    275 Public sacrifices in Oropos: IOropos 277.28–29 and 34.

    276 IOropos 277.33–36.

    277 NGSL 13.8–13 = Veligianni 1994 (around 350–300 BC).

    278 Veligianni 1994, 397–398, nn. 23, 24, 25 and 26. For payments made at sacrifices, see ThesCRA 1 (2004), 103, nos. 349–352.

    279 A priest was clearly present at this animal sacrifice before incubation in ll. 8–13 since he was to receive parts of the animal (the thighs are mentioned).

    280 Peek 1969, no. 336.

    281 See the LSJ Suppl., s.v. ἁπαλίας, for this translation.

    282 IK 2.205 = LSAM 24 A. This is a sacrifice before incubation according to Wörrle 1969, 172 and Graf 1985, 253.

    283 Goat: IK 2.205.9 = LSAM 24 A.9; ox: IK 2.205.16 = LSAM 24 A.16; piglet: IK 2.205.20–21 = LSAM 24 A.20–21; unspecified animal of one year: IK 2.205.17–18 = LSAM 24 A.17–18. The term thysta is translated as ‘singed animal’ in the LSJ Suppl., but Casabona 1966, 117, and Gill 1974, 125, translate this hapax as a general term for cakes. Cf. the use of θύα for cakes in LSS 77.9 and LSAM 37.19.

    284 IK 2.205.17 and 20 = LSAM 24 A.17 and 20.

    285 Lines 25–30 read in the translation of Edelstein and Edelstein (T521): ‘Whenever the city makes sacrifice to Asclepius (θυσίην… ποιῆι), let the offerings of the city be the first (προτεθύσθαι ὑπὲρ πάντων) to be made in behalf of all and let no individual make a sacrifice (προθυέτω) before this at the festival. For the rest of the time, let him sacrifice (προθυέτω) in accordance with the aforementioned regulations.’

    286 Graf 1985, 253.

    287 As also pointed out by Graf (1985, 253).

    288 IK 2.205.30–38 = LSAM 24 A.30–38. Lines 30–38 read in the translation of Edelstein and Edelstein (T521): ‘So many as, having slept in the temple, make a sacrifice to Asclepius in return and to Apollo, or so many as, having made a vow, make a sacrifice (θυσίην ἀποδιδῶσιν), whenever they set up (ἐπιθῆι) the sacred portion, must first raise this paeon thrice around the altar of Apollo: Hail Paeon, O, hail Paeon, hail Paeon, O, hail Paeon, hail Paeon, O, hail Paeon. O Lord Apollo, spare the youths spare… ’.

    289 See Dimitrova 2008 on the concept of hiera moira.

    290 On the phrase ἰὴ παιάν closing a prayer in general, see Xen. An. 3.2.9 and Ar. Thesm. 311.

    291 Diod. Sic. 5.62.5. The text relates that at the sacrifices, thysiai, wine was forbidden, and also that no one who had touched or eaten pig was allowed to enter the temenos. From this it can be inferred that it was forbidden to sacrifice pig to the goddess.

    292 IvP III 161 A.6–8 and 15–18. Χοῖρος began, in the second century AD, to be used both for piglet, as before, and a pig of any age (Schaps 1996, 171). Since the Lex sacra Hallenstrasse goes back to a much earlier original, however, the preferred translation here would be piglet.

    293 IvP III 161 A.7–8. These parts would have become the perquisite of the priests, cf. LSAM 13.12– 16 = T491 (Asklepieion at Pergamon, before 133 BC).

    294 Sokolowski 1973, 408, commenting on IvP III 161 A.15–18.

    295 Wörrle (1969, 172), the editor of the Lex sacra Hallenstrasse, translates προθύεσθαι in this inscription as either to sacrifice to other deities before the main sacrifice or to sacrifice as required before incubation, in a more general sense.

    296 The text may be translated as follows: ‘If someone wants to enquire several times about the same (thing), he must first offer a pig, (but if) he enquires about another matter, he must first offer (another) pig (according to) the above instructions’. Hence, the meaning of the verb here seems to imply that pro- means ‘before’ enquiring for help, and not ‘before’ the regular sacrifice.

    297 Peek 1969, no. 336. It is an animal sacrifice — different costs are given for the wood to be supplied for piglets and for grown animals.

    298 LSAM 24.

    299 IOropos 277.27 and 30; NGSL 13; Diod. Sic. 5.62.

    300 Strabo 6.3.9. See Collection of texts, no. 11.

    301 Petropoulou 1985, 170.

    302 See Collection of texts, no. 10.

    303 See further on the sacrifice of a black ram, Section 2.1.1.

    304 Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 186–187. They specify that the offerings were normally of low monetary value, such as the common offering of a cock (cf. Pl. Phd. 118).

    305 Eur. Ion 300–304, 392–394 and 404–409; SEG 34.122.62 (initiation at Eleusis).

    306 Sokolowski, commentary to LSCG 40.

    307 IG IV2, 1 121.45; IG IV2, 1 126.20 (the cure of Apellas, c. 160 AD); Peek 1969, no. 336 (Epidauros, fourth century BC), as well as IK 2.205.31–32 = LSAM 24 A.31–32 (cult of Asklepios at Erythrai, c. 380–360 BC); LSAM 52 B (cult of Asklepios at Miletos, first century AD).

    308 For incubants sacrificing without a priest present, see IOropos 277. 27–28. For sacrifices before incubation being performed by a priest, see IOropos 277. 25–26 and IK 2.205.10–25 = LSAM 24 A.10–25.

    309 The exceptions to this consist of some iamata from Epidauros where prayers were made to Asklepios as a way of placating the god after the incubants had been punished for neglecting to fulfil a vow (C 4 (47)), or because of non-belief in the god’s powers (B 16 [36]). See Pulleyn (1997, 66–69) on supplication or the asking of forgiveness being occasions when worshippers sought favours from the gods with empty hands.

    310 IOropos 277.25–29 (386–374 BC).

    311 ICr 1.17.11a.

    312 Burkert 1985, 56.

    313 IOropos 277 = IG VII 235, see the analysis presented in Section 1.2.5.

    314 The IK 2.205 = LSAM 24 A does not regulate the prayers said, but the sacrifices made. A sacrifice without an accompanying prayer is unlikely because the sacrifice is made to strengthen the prayer.

    315 Herod. Mim. 4.1–20.

    316 Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 193.

    317 Hippocrates, Morb. sacr. 4 (translation by W.H.S. Jones [Loeb 1943]); Jouanna 1992; Jouanna 2003). The text is dated by most scholars to c. 400 BC, or c. 200 BC at the latest.

    318 Burkert 1985, 73–75; Pulleyn 1997, 7–15 and passim; Aubriot-Sévin 1992, 41–48.

    319 See Epidaurian iamata C 5 (48) and C 21 (64), for incubants being commanded by the god to stay in the sanctuary for a certain amount of time in order to get well (in iama C 21 [64] specified as four months). See also Anth. Pal. 6.330 (a three-month stay). Some Epidaurian iamata (B 5 [25] and B 13 [33]) make it clear that incubants left because they had had no clear dreams, and one might speculate that they tried to sleep in the dormitory more than one time.

    320 IvP III 161 A.161.23–25. On this group, see Sokolowski 1973.

    321 IvP III 47, 79, 122, 140 and 152; on therapeutai: Aristid. Or. sacr. 1.23, 2.47, 4.16, 4.18 and 4.50.

    322 LSAM 8.19 = T572.

    323 LIMC 2: 1 (1981), 875, no. 98, s.v. Asklepios. See also Pedrizet 1903 and Zaccagnino 1998, 57.

    324 Simboli 1921, 61–62, who claims that opiates were also burnt on the altar. There is no evidence whatsoever of the use of opiates in Greek religion.

    325 Eitrem 1915, 224; Lefort 1906, 115–116. Lefort supports this in Artem. 4.2, where Artemidoros writes that asking for dreams should not be accompanied by the burning of incense or uttering sacrilegious words. In my view, this prohibition does not pertain to the use of incense but rather to the uttering of sacrilegious words. Incense was frequently used in order to catch the attention of the god at prayer and at sacrifice. So-called magical rites as we know them were no closed system, but were influenced by and also influenced the conceptions of common cult.

    326 Zaccagnino (1998, 57), referring to how Julius Apellas at Epidauros dreamt that he was covered in mustard and salt and was being led by a small boy with a smoking censer (IG IV2, 1126, c. AD 160).

    327 Ar. Thesm. 36–37; Ar. Vesp. 860–862; Ran. 871–872; Fritze 1894; Burkert 1985, 371, n. 66.

    328 Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 194.

    329 IvP III 161 A.14–15.

    330 Blech 1982, 286, 297, 305–306, n. 169 and 312, n. 206a.

    331 RE 11.2 (1922), 1588–1607, esp. 1601, s.v. Kranz [Ganszyniec], mentioning among other things the oracle of Apollon Koropaios, IG IX, 2 1109.39–40.

    332 Parker 1983, 153.

    333 Blech 1982, 269–272.

    334 Blech 1982, 273.

    335 Ar. Plut. 625. Sommerstein 2001, 179, takes this customary garb to be white, referring to Aristid. 48.31 = Or. sacr. 2.31. Aristides is, however, a Roman source and should not be used on its own to document practices in Classical times.

    336 Walton (1894, 76–82) stated that white gowns were the rule, quoting Aristid. 473.8 and 494.6 = Or. sacr. 2.30 (a dream of many men dressed in white gathered in the Sacred Theatre) and Or. sacr. 3.21 (a servant bearing an ointment in Aristides’ dream was clad in white). Deubner (1900, 25) claims that incubants wore white linen clothes and purple bands, citing testimonia from the cult of Trophonios, which is not an incubation cult (see Bonnechere 2003a and Bonnechere 2003b). Also, Dillon (1994, 245), quoting the LSAM 14 of Roman times, mentions that white clothing was a prerequisite for incubation.

    337 Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 149–150 (writing only about the cult of Asklepios). They state that there were no fees, no special clothing, no crowns, and no animal skins in the incubation ritual. They regard the LSAM 14 as an exception.

    338 Aristid. Or. sacr. 2.30, 2.31. In the LSAM 14, white clothes, as well as the absence of rings, belts and shoes are noted.

    339 IG IV2, 1128.17–21 (date of c. 280 BC); Furley & Bremer (2001, vol. 1, 233–236) date it to 325–300 BC.

    340 Aeschin. In Ctes. 77.

    341 LSCG 83.39–40 = IG IX, 2 1109 I.39–40 = HGIU vol. 3, no. 492.

    342 Wächter 1910, 18, cf. the Coan sacred law LSCG 151 A.8–9 = Rhodes & Osborne 2003, no. 62.8–9 (middle of third century BC).

    343 LSCG 68.5–6.

    344 Robinson 1943, 191–199 (end of the sixth century BC); Mills 1984, 258, n. 17.

    345 Deshours 2006, 31, ll. 16–26 = LSCG 65.16–26 (92 BC). English translation in Mills 1984, 259. Cf. LSCG 124.15–18 (second century BC; no worshipper was allowed to wear shoes or clothes made from animals).

    346 Any impurity shows very clearly on a white garment, and thus a white garment may be claimed to be an attestation of purity (Wächter 1910, 16, n. 1).

    347 This connotation is somewhat speculative; see Radke (1936, 12–13) who argues that the Dioskouroi, riding white horses, also had some healing abilities, and that Amphiaraos, who had healing powers, rode a team of white horses.

    348 Hippocr. Morb.sacr. 2.

    349 IG XII, 9 194 = T787 (fourth or beginning of the third century BC).

    350 Pl. Leg. 12. 956a.

    351 Cf. Petsalis-Diomidis 2007.

    352 E.g. Armpis 2001, Riethmüller 2005, Melfi 2007.

    353 Aleshire 1989, 29–30.

    354 Ar. Plut. 659–663 and 732–734. The Ploutos according to Aleshire was set in the Asklepieion of Athens.

    355 Ar. Plut. 732–734.

    356 Paus. 10.32.12; Aleshire 1989, 29–30.

    357 In the same manner, the decline of the rite and a possible deterioration of the buildings in the sanctuary might have meant that the incubants’ slept in the temple. An account of Damaskios (Vita Isidori frg. 218 [Zintzen] = T427) describes how incubants (and the philosopher Plutarch in particular) in the AD 480s slept on the porch of the temple of Asklepios in Athens. From the place where Plutarch slept, ἐγκαθεύδων τῷ προδόμῳ τοῦ ἱεροῦ, he could see the cult statue. The Edelsteins (T427) translate the passage as ‘in the vestibule of the shrine’. In the LSJ πρόδομος, ὁ, is translated as ‘in temples’, the opposite of opisthodomos. Damaskios was born in AD 462 and was a student of rhetoric in Athens (Neue Pauly 3 [1997], 291–293, s.v. Damaskios [Brisson]). Hence, he must have been familiar with the Asklepieion. The visibility of the cult statue strongly suggests that Plutarch slept on the very small porch of the temple (roughly measuring 5 × 2 metres).

    358 Likewise, in A 6, it is made clear that the abaton and the temple were two separate buildings.

    359 IOropos 277.43–44. This is the first instance where the word koimeterion is documented, being an unusual word for ‘dormitory’. Later, it came to mean ‘burial place’, as attested on Early Christian tomb stones and, as argued by Kramar (1990, 272), also when it occurs in papyri.

    360 Hyperid. Eux. 14, edition of Whitehead 2000, 200.

    361 LSJ, s.v. ἱερός, III.2.

    362 Coulton 1976, 48, n. 2, 269 and pers.comm. J. Coulton as of 26.05.05 for the wider date range.

    363 There is no reason to postulate that every cult of Asklepios offered incubation. At larger Asklepieia, it is usually taken for granted that incubation existed, even though no literary sources state this. At smaller sanctuaries, especially those within a city, incubation would often have been impractical. DiVita 1982, 537–545.

    364 Herod. Mim. 4.39–78.

    365 Paus. 2.27.2–3.

    366 The eastern stoa: Coulton 1976, 46–47 and 237–238, cf. Roux 1961, 404 (the first third of the fourth century BC). The western stoa: Kavvadias 1900, 127; Coulton 1976, 47 and 238. Cf. Shoe (1936, 124 and 175), who dates the extension to the latter half of the fourth century BC, on stylistic grounds. For arguments against this, see Coulton 1976, 47, n.4.

    367 Lambrinoudakis 2002, 219.

    368 Lambrinoudakis 2002, 216–217 and 219. The features indicating ritual meals are a perimetric channel, stoas surrounding the courtyard, and paving of small stones in both stoas as well as on the courtyard (to facilitate cleaning).

    369 Kavvadias 1891, 17–18; Kavvadias 1900, 121–128; Martin & Metzger 1942–1943, 331–332; Burford 1969, 62–63; Lambrinoudakis 2002, 219. Previous interpretations of the abaton as a building E (e.g. Holwerda 1902, 289–293) seem less likely, owing to its usage as a place of ritual dining.

    370 Kavvadias 1891, 18; Allen & Caskey 1911, 43.

    371 Walker (1979, 254–255 and 257) suggested that it was an incubation dormitory which was shared with the nearby established cult of Isis. See further discussion in Ehrenheim 2009, 246.

    372 IvP III 161 A.11–12 and 16–19. Armpis (2001, 142) argues that the small enkoimeterion was used for special worshippers, the perithytai or therapeutai (see Sokolowski 1973, 408–412; Ehrenheim 2009, 250, n. 103). Mention of the small enkoimeterion is made when advice is given to incubants wanting to enquire several times. Instructions on the evening sacrifice of cakes to Tyche, Mnemosyne and Themis are given in ll. 9–11 for the first-time incubants, and in ll. 26–29 for two other groups: those going to the enkoimeterion and those who perithyo. Since ll. 15–29 seems to concern second-time sleepers and those who perithyo, we may assume that the perithytai also slept in the small enkoimeterion, the word ‘small’ being implied and thus left out in l. 27.

    373 Suggested to be ‘dormitory’ by Deubner (1938, 15, 17, 34 and 40). On the phases of the building, see AvP XI.1, 17–19, 29, 32–33, 46 and 61–62.

    374 See e.g. AvP XI.3, 76–77 and Hoffmann 1998, 54–55, as well as discussion in Ehrenheim 2009, 250–251.

    375 Ehrenheim 2009, 249–251.

    376 On klinai, see Section 1.4.4.

    377 Epidaurian iamata, passim; ICr 1.17.11b (Lebena, second century BC). As for Trikka, the Hymn of Isyllos (IG IV2, 1 128.29–31) speaks of sacrificing to Apollon Maleatas first before going down to the adyton of Asklepios at Trikka. If the adyton here was ‘only’ the innermost of the temple of Asklepios, why sacrifice first to the healing aspect of Apollon in order to gain access? The adyton of Asklepios must be the dormitory here.

    378 Ar. Plut. 663.

    379 LSJ, s.v. στιβάς.

    380 Cf. how stibas is used in Pl. Resp. 2.372b, where the simplicity of family celebrations among peasants is praised.

    381 Ar. Plut. 624–626.

    382 Parker 1996, 181–182.

    383 Ar. Plut. 541.

    384 E.g. the use of twig beds in the cults of Demeter and Dionysos (Graf 1996, 196).

    385 IvP III 161 A.15.

    386 Wörrle 1969, 171 and 181, n. 71. Riethmüller (2005, 384, n. 153) accepts the translation of Wörrle.

    387 Verpoorten 1962.

    388 Graf 1992, 189.

    389 Sourvinou-Inwood 2003a, 80–88, 99, and 120.

    390 Parker 1996, 77.

    391 Il. 16.234. See further on the Selloi in Section 3.2.

    392 Fragmentary relief from Rhamnous, Athens, National Archaeological Museum 1397, early fourth century BC = LIMC 1: 1 (1981), 701, no. 61, s.v. Amphiaraos; relief from Piraeus, Piraeus Museum inv. no. 405, around 400 BC (Petropoulou 1985, 173, no. 2, pl. 2); fragmentary relief from the Asklepieion at Athens, Athens, National Archaeological Museum 2505, first half of the fourth century BC (Petropoulou 1985, 173, no. 3, pl. 3); fragmentary relief from the Asklepieion at Athens, Athens, National Archaeological Museum 2488 (Petropoulou 1985, 173–175, no. 4, pl. 4). Petropoulou also presents a fragmentary relief from Oropos, Piraeus Museum, no inv. no, beginning of the fourth century BC (Petropoulou 1985, 170, no. 1, pl. 1).

    393 Petropulou 1985, passim.

    394 Cic. Div. 1.88; Philo, Leg.78 and 93; Paus.1.34; Philostr. VA 2.37; Tert. De anim. 46.

    395 IOropos 277.30 = IG VII 235.30 (Testimonium no. 1); see the commentary of Rhodes & Osborne 2003, 132–133.

    396 Petropoulou 1981, 55. Later, the passage on the sale of the skins (IOropos 277.30, ἱ̣ε̣ρ̣ὸν εἶ]ναι) was erased. According to Petropoulou, this was done since the Athenians now ruled Oropos, and the money from the hides went to the new Lycurgian Dermatikon — a state fund that dealt with the sales of public sacrificial skins in Attica (IG II2 333; Robert 1960, 195, n. 4; Petropoulou 1981, 61–62; Rhodes & Osborne 2003, 132–133).

    397 Athens, National Archaeological Museum 3369 = IG II2 4394 = LIMC 1: 1 (1981), 702, no. 63, s.v. Amphiaraos (first half of the fourth century BC).

    398 Van Straten 1995, 73.

    399 FGrHist IIIB, frg. 566, F56 = Pseudo-Lycophron, Alexandra 1047–1051; Strabo 6.3.9. Also, in the cult of Faunus, as related by both Verg. Aen. 7.88 and 94–95 and Ov. Fast. 4.659–660, incubants lay down to sleep on fresh fleeces. Much of the information on the cult of Faunus is, however, probably a literary construct. Still, the texts illustrate that both Ovid and Vergil thought it appropriate that incubants should sleep on fleeces.

    400 FGrHist IIIB, frg. 566, F56 = Pseudo-Lycophron. Alex. 1047–1051. For a citation of the whole passage, see Collection of texts no. 10, above.

    401 Strabo 6.3.9. For a citation of the whole passage, see Collection of texts no. 11, above.

    402 Harrison 1922, 24 and 27–28; Jameson 1965, 161, n. 7; Parker 1983, 373; Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 83 and 95, with references to relevant ancient sources.

    403 See Deubner (1932, 77–78, pls. 7.1–2) and Richardson (1974, 211–213), on Herakles’ initiation into the Eleusinian mysteries where he is depicted as sitting on a ram’s skin with his head veiled (sarcophagus from Torre Nova and the Lovatelli urn, both thought to be based on the same original).

    404 Hubert & Mauss 1964, 97–103; cf. Henninger 1987. See also Graf (1992, 190), who views sleeping in the fell of the consecrated animal as a way of enhancing the sacrality and liminality of incubation.

    405 Athens, National Archaeological Museum 3369 = IG II2 4394 = LIMC 1: 2 (1981), 564, no. 63, s.v. Amphiaraos (first half of the fourth century BC).

    406 Van Straten 1995, 73; e.g. Athens, National Archaeological Museum 1841 (fourth century BC) = LIMC 2: 2 (1984), 637, no. 54, s.v. Asklepios; van Straten 1995, R22.

    407 Coulton 1968, 183: the date ranges from the end of the fourth century to Roman times.

    408 The klinai excavated at Corinth and Troizen cannot have been there for incubation since there was a table opposite each couch (Roebuck 1951, 51–55; Welter 1941, 28–33 (Welter still believes that the building is an incubation hall, however, despite the evidence for tables). See also Studniczka 1914, 142–143, Frickenhaus 1917, 114–118, and Tomlinson 1969, 106–112 on klinai for theoxenia.

    409 Ar. Plut. 663.

    410 IOropos 277.43–47.

    411 Ar. Plut. 685–695.

    412 Graf 1998, 1006.

    413 See Mehl 2002, 44–46, for a summary of the ancient evidence and scholarly discussion. For instance, it has been claimed in previous research that in battle the best troops were placed on the right side of the army, until Leuktra (Lévêque & Vidal-Naquet 1960).

    414 Ar. Plut. 668–670.

    415 SEG 43.1186.16–17 (λυχνοκαιία, ‘lightning of lamps, illumination’); Dobias-Lalou 1993, 32–33. One Asklepieion at Kyrene from the second century AD has been found, identified by the in situ statues of Asklepios and Hygieia (Bonacasa & Ensoli 2000, 150; Stucchi 1975, 262–263; Paribeni 1959, n. 214 and n. 225).

    416 Paus. 2.26.9; Dobias–Lalou 1993, 32–33.

    417 Ar. Plut. 668–670.

    418 Neue Pauly 5 (1998), 875, s.v. Iatros [Graf].

    419 Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 150.

    420 Deubner 1900, 26–27 (though citing testimonia from the cult of Trophonios which is not an incubation cult; see Bonnechere 2003b); Lefort 1906, 118.

    421 Eur. Hel. 865–872; Parisinou 2000, 77. Had the lamps in the Ploutos remained lit, one might have thought that they played some part in calling Asklepios, but this is very far-fetched (cf. Ps.-Callisth. Hist. Alex. 1.10 (Ammon being summoned); Paus.7.22.2 (Hermes at Pharai in Achaea)).

    422 There is a Roman rite with lamps which is, however, not completely comparable to what is described in the Ploutos. Aelius Aristides mentions in Or. sacr. 1.11 and 5.28 a ceremony of holy lamps at the Asklepieion at Pergamon (the time of the day is given as ‘time for the Holy lamps’). In 1.32 it appears clear that lamps were to be carried into the temple. This was probably done in the evening, since a carrying of lights would have had the most effect then. It would seem to me, however, that this was likely an evening-time procession that incubants may have taken part in, but one which was not an obligatory rite before incubating. There were further daily ceremonies with lamps upon the closing and opening of the temple at Epidauros in Roman times, as illustrated in the LSS 25. According to Festugière (1951, 478–479), the use of lamps in rituals increased in the Roman period.

    423 Hdt. 8.134.

    424 Epidaurian iama B 1 (21).

    425 E.g. Soph. OC 413.

    426 Epidaurian iamata A 6 and A 7.

    427 Strabo 14.1.44.

    428 Hdt. 1.182.

    429 Graf 1992, 194, citing Tomlinson 1969, 106–112 (on the existence of dining areas, not which group in particular would eat in them); Will 1976, 353–362 (on identification of hestiatoria).

    430 Graf 1992, 195.

    431 IOropos 277.31–32.

    432 See Section 1.1.9.

    433 IOropos 277; Ekroth 2002, 313–325. Scullion (1994, 99–101 and 110) connects the prohibition on taking meat out of the sanctuary with a Chthonian sacrifice.

    434 Petropoulou 1981, 55, n. 52. She has changed her view on this being a thank-offering, and posits that it was instead a sacrifice before incubation: Petropoulou 1985, 176, n. 41.

    435 Rhodes & Osborne 2003, 133.

    436 IG II2 1364.10–11 = LSCG 54.10–11.

    437 Paus. 2.27.1.

    438 See Sections 1.2.2, 1.2.4 and 1.2.5.

    439 For reliefs with incubants lying on klinai, with or without fleeces (accompanied in the relief by what might be interpreted as their family), see van Straten 1995, R30 (fig. 68, Piraeus Asklepieion, lost) and Piraeus Museum no. 405 (Petropoulou 1985, pl. 2). Reliefs with worshippers in group making offerings to Asklepios: van Straten 1995, cat. nos. R6, R9, R10, R18, R19, R23, R27, R28, R30, R34, R35, R37 (Amphiaraos) and R39 (Amphiaraos).

    440 Strabo 14.1.44 (translation H.L. Jones, Loeb 1960). See also the full citation Collection of texts no. 12.

    441 Epidaurian iamata C 3 (46) and C 6 (49) (mentioning a symbolon): Riethmüller 2005, vol. 1, 392; Herzog 1931, 154. There is no translation in the LSJ of σύμβολος as dream interpreter. It may be translated as augury or omen.

    442 LiDonnici 1995, 40–43, with further refs.

    443 Epidaurian iamata B 5 (25), B 13 (33) and C 18 (61).

    444 ICr 1.17.17 (first century BC) = T439; Girone 1998, 116–122; Guarducci 1978, 158.

    445 Zingerle 1937, 88.

    446 Plaut. Curc. 61–62 and 216–273. This play is probably a rewriting of a Greek play by Menander (Nixon 1959, vii–viii), datable to shortly after 311 BC. Even though the events are set in Epidauros, the procedures surrounding incubation would have been recognizable to any Greek (or Roman) at the time.

    447 Behr 1968, 35, n. 61; Graf 1998, 1007.

    448 In Aristid. Or. sacr. 3.21–23, a temple servant helped Aristides to interpret a dream. In Or.sacr. 2.72B, some friends, or priests — the text is unclear — misinterpret the diet prescribed by Asklepios in a dream. Aristides also conferred with his friends as well as his doctors, to make sense of his dreams. Or. sacr. 1.56–57, 1.73, 2.34, 3.27 and 4.38.

    449 Epidaurian iamata B 5 (25), B 13 (33) and C 18 (61).

    450 Epidaurian iamata A 6 and A 7.

    451 Epidaurian iama B 5 (25).

    452 Epidaurian iama B 2 (22).

    453 Epidaurian iama C 4 (47).

    454 Epidaurian iama D 2 (68).

    455 This is explicitly stated in iamata A 6/A7, B 2 (22) and D 2 (68).

    456 IvP III 161 A.31–33.

    457 Wörrle 1969, 186, nn.96 and 97 with further references. Wörrle interprets this coin as being kept in the lex sacra for cultic reasons.

    458 Versnel 1981, 56. Versnel also refers to Lucian Charon sive Contemplantes 11, but this passage is about a payment for prophecies to Apollon at Delphi.

    459 IK 2.205.30–38 = LSAM 24 A.30–38.

    460 IK 2.205.30–38 (sacrifice as thanks, specifically), 10–25 (sacrificial instructions to every type of sacrifice, including the thank-sacrifices).

    461 IvP III 161 A.31.

    462 IvP III 161 A.6.

    463 Epidaurian iamata A 5 and C 3 (46).

    464 Epidaurian iama C 3 (46).

    465 Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 190.

    466 IOropos 277.29–36. Petropoulou 1981, 55, n. 52, Petropoulou 1985, 176, n. 41. As discussed in Section 2.2.5, the sacrifice that is regulated in the inscription could be of any kind, performed by any worshipper in the sanctuary: an offering with a vow, an offering before incubation, a thank-offering for any effected favour (with or without incubation preceding it), or offerings presented by the state at public festivals.

    467 Herod. Mim. 4.1–95.

    468 From the fourth century BC, pelanos also came to mean monetary donations to sanctuaries, see Brill’s New Pauly 10 (2007), 692, s.v. pelanos [Frey].

    469 Herod. Mim. 4.91. Sometimes a sculptured snake guarded the thesauros (Kaminski 1991, 77). See also ThesCRA 3 (2005), 103.

    470 Cakes, including wetted cakes, often accompanied animal sacrifices. See Section 1.2.3.

    471 Pulleyn 1997, 40–42.

    472 LSAM 24.

    473 Liv. 45.28.3.

    474 Diod. Sic. 5.62–63.

    475 Epidaurian iama A 8.

    476 Epidaurian iama A 10. Also, in the fragmentary C 12 (55), there is mention of an unspecified dedication.

    477 Epidaurian iama A 4.

    478 Epidaurian iama A 6. Furthermore, in an iama from the Asklepieion at Lebena, an altar is dedicated after a vow. ICr 1.17.11a (second century BC or somewhat later); Girone 1998, 92–93. It was surely not the only dedication at the site.

    479 Epidaurian iama A 4; LiDonnici 1995, 43. Similarly, the purpose of A 15 is to explain a big stone that lay just outside the abaton, which tells of the paralysed Hermodikos, who was ordered by Asklepios to carry the biggest stone that he could into the sanctuary.

    480 See van Straten 1981, 88–102, on the occasions when votives were offered. Sacred regulations at healing sanctuaries governing when to remove and how to dispose of dedications, when there was simply no more room, are a strong indicator of the number of dedications made; see LSCG 41 (Athens, Herosiatros, 221–220 BC), LSCG 42 (Athens, unidentified sanctuary, second century BC), LSCG 43 (Athens, unidentified sanctuary, second century BC), LSS 107 (Rhodes, Asklepios, third century BC). See further McLean 2002, 255 and ThesCRA 1 (2004), 269–318, esp. 278–280.

    481 The story is retold in Diog. Laert. 6.59.

    482 For publications of votives from known incubation sanctuaries, see the complete references in Riethmüller 2005, as for the Asklepieia. For the Amphiareion at Oropos, see Petrakos 1968 and Petrakos 1997.

    483 Aleshire 1989, 111–353, passim in inventories I–VIII (IG II2 1532–37 and 1539; SEG 28.116).

    484 Van Straten (1981, 120) lists anatomical votives from the Asklepieion at Piraeus.

    485 Van Straten (1981, 122–123) lists anatomical votives from the Asklepieion at Epidauros.

    486 Van Straten (1981, 123–124) lists anatomical votives from the Asklepieion at Corinth; Lang 1977.

    487 Van Straten (1981, 129–132) lists anatomical votives from the Asklepieion at Kos.

    488 Van Straten (1981, 124–125) lists anatomical votives from the Amphiareion at Oropos. See further inventory lists of dedicatory offerings that included body-part votives: IG VII 303 and 3498; SEG 16.300; cf. IG II2 4394 (the Archinous relief).

    489 Van Straten 1981, 126 (Delphi); van Straten 1981, 126–127 (Herakleia Lynkestis); Delos: van Straten 1981, 127 (Delos); van Straten 1981, 128–129 (Melos, though of Roman date); van Straten 1981, 133 (Paros, though of Roman date).

    490 Van Straten 1981, 80 and 88–102; ThesCRA 1 (2004), 278–280.

    491 Karoglou 2010, 62–63.

    492 Strabo 8.6.15.

    493 LiDonnici 1995, 40–44. Cf. Bing 2009, 276–291 and Wickkiser 2013, with further references.

    494 ICr 1.17.8; Chaniotis 1988, T12; Girone 1998, 78–80.

    495 Epidaurian iama A 7, ἀνθησεῖν οἱ εἰκόνα γραψάμενος (translation LiDonnici 1995).

    496 Epidaurian iama A 3 (translation LiDonnici 1995).

    497 Beschi 1982, 39–40; Beschi 2002, 21–22.

    498 Herod. Mim. 4.19–20.

    499 Riethmüller 2005, vol. 1, 66–67.

    500 Van Straten 1981, 79; Karoglou 2010.

    501 Xen. Cyr. 4.1.2; Versnel 1981, 56; Pulleyn 1997, 42–43.

    502 Versnel 1981, 56.

    503 Epidaurian iamata B5 (25); B13 (33) and C18 (61).

    504 ICr 1.17.17, ICr 1.17.18 (first century BC) and ICr 1.17.19 (second/first century BC).

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

    Voir plus de livres
    The Iconography of Greek Cult in the Archaic and Classical Periods

    The Iconography of Greek Cult in the Archaic and Classical Periods

    Proceedings of the First International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, organised by the Swedish Institute at Athens and the European Cultural Centre of Delphi (Delphi, 16-18 Novembre 1990)

    Robin Hägg (dir.)

    1992

    Configurations d’Hermès

    Configurations d’Hermès

    Une ‘théogonie hermaïque’

    Dominique Jaillard

    2007

    Entre ciel et guerre

    Entre ciel et guerre

    Figures d’Aphrodite en Grèce ancienne

    Gabriella Pironti

    2007

    Entre Asclépios et Hippocrate

    Entre Asclépios et Hippocrate

    Étude des cultes guérisseurs et des médecins en Carie

    Cécile Nissen

    2009

    The Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Hero-Cults in the Archaic to the Early Hellenistic Period

    The Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Hero-Cults in the Archaic to the Early Hellenistic Period

    Gunnel Ekroth

    2002

    Opera inedita

    Opera inedita

    Essai sur la religion grecque & Recherches sur les Hymnes orphiques

    Jean Rudhardt

    2008

    La norme en matière religieuse en Grèce ancienne

    La norme en matière religieuse en Grèce ancienne

    Actes du XIIe colloque international du CIERGA (Rennes, septembre 2007)

    Pierre Brulé (dir.)

    2009

    Le donateur, l’offrande et la déesse

    Le donateur, l’offrande et la déesse

    Systèmes votifs des sanctuaires de déesses dans le monde grec

    Clarisse Prêtre (dir.)

    2009

    La Théurgie

    La Théurgie

    Des Oracles chaldaïques à Proclus

    Carine Van Liefferinge

    1999

    Héros et héroïnes dans les mythes et les cultes grecs

    Héros et héroïnes dans les mythes et les cultes grecs

    Actes du colloque organisé à l’Université de Valladolid, du 26 au 29 mai 1999

    Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge et Emilio Suárez de la Torre (dir.)

    2000

    Le Bestiaire d’Héraclès

    Le Bestiaire d’Héraclès

    IIIe Rencontre héracléenne

    Corinne Bonnet, Colette Jourdain-Annequin et Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge (dir.)

    1998

    Retour à la source

    Retour à la source

    Pausanias et la religion grecque

    Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge

    2008

    Voir plus de livres
    1 / 12
    The Iconography of Greek Cult in the Archaic and Classical Periods

    The Iconography of Greek Cult in the Archaic and Classical Periods

    Proceedings of the First International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, organised by the Swedish Institute at Athens and the European Cultural Centre of Delphi (Delphi, 16-18 Novembre 1990)

    Robin Hägg (dir.)

    1992

    Configurations d’Hermès

    Configurations d’Hermès

    Une ‘théogonie hermaïque’

    Dominique Jaillard

    2007

    Entre ciel et guerre

    Entre ciel et guerre

    Figures d’Aphrodite en Grèce ancienne

    Gabriella Pironti

    2007

    Entre Asclépios et Hippocrate

    Entre Asclépios et Hippocrate

    Étude des cultes guérisseurs et des médecins en Carie

    Cécile Nissen

    2009

    The Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Hero-Cults in the Archaic to the Early Hellenistic Period

    The Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Hero-Cults in the Archaic to the Early Hellenistic Period

    Gunnel Ekroth

    2002

    Opera inedita

    Opera inedita

    Essai sur la religion grecque & Recherches sur les Hymnes orphiques

    Jean Rudhardt

    2008

    La norme en matière religieuse en Grèce ancienne

    La norme en matière religieuse en Grèce ancienne

    Actes du XIIe colloque international du CIERGA (Rennes, septembre 2007)

    Pierre Brulé (dir.)

    2009

    Le donateur, l’offrande et la déesse

    Le donateur, l’offrande et la déesse

    Systèmes votifs des sanctuaires de déesses dans le monde grec

    Clarisse Prêtre (dir.)

    2009

    La Théurgie

    La Théurgie

    Des Oracles chaldaïques à Proclus

    Carine Van Liefferinge

    1999

    Héros et héroïnes dans les mythes et les cultes grecs

    Héros et héroïnes dans les mythes et les cultes grecs

    Actes du colloque organisé à l’Université de Valladolid, du 26 au 29 mai 1999

    Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge et Emilio Suárez de la Torre (dir.)

    2000

    Le Bestiaire d’Héraclès

    Le Bestiaire d’Héraclès

    IIIe Rencontre héracléenne

    Corinne Bonnet, Colette Jourdain-Annequin et Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge (dir.)

    1998

    Retour à la source

    Retour à la source

    Pausanias et la religion grecque

    Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge

    2008

    Accès ouvert

    Accès ouvert freemium

    ePub

    PDF

    PDF du chapitre

    Suggérer l’acquisition à votre bibliothèque

    Acheter

    Édition imprimée

    • amazon.fr
    • mollat.com
    • leslibraires.fr
    • placedeslibraires.fr
    • lcdpu.fr
    ePub / PDF

    1 ICr 1.17.9.1–5 (Demandros), ICr 1.17.9.5–11 (Phalaris): second century BC (according to letterforms, Guarducci ICr, 159), or the third century BC (Halbherr 1901, 305). Guarducci is commonly trusted to date inscriptions correctly with the help of letterforms. In both instances, the word ‘προσέταξε’ is used for when Asklepios prescribed, or commanded, the ill person to come to Lebena.

    2 Girone 1998, 82, n. 18.

    3 For example, a rich Thracian was called in a dream to come to Asklepios at Pergamon. This was more a private dream than a requirement of the sanctuary (Galen, Subfiguratio Empirica, ch. 10, p. 78 [Die griechische Empirikerschule, ed. K. Deichgräber, Berlin 1930, repr. 1965 = T436]).

    4 Paus. 10.32.13. NB, nothing is said in Pausanias on subsequent incubation in the sanctuaries of Isis at Tithorea and the gods of the lower world in the Meander valley — calling in a dream is a prerequisite for entering the shrine, but it might of course be conjectured that those entering the shrine incubated. Incubation existed in the cult of Isis, and we also know from Strabo that it occurred in the Plutonium of Acharaka — no doubt one of the shrines of the lower world mentioned by Pausanias (Strabo 14.1.44).

    5 Ill people in search of a cure, accompanied by their families, incurred great expense for the journey. If the sanctuary allowed only some people to incubate, then there might have been a rapid decline in the number of visitors coming. However, if the preliminary consultation allowed for everyone to enter, there would have been little point in it.

    6 IvP III 161 A.11–14.

    7 IvP III 161 A.11–14. Translations by the author, based on Wörrle 1969, 171. The word here used is ἀφροδίσια, as e.g. in LSS 108, a word used for every kind of sexual relations, as opposed to differentiations made in leges sacrae between marital, non-marital and homosexual sex. See also Müller 2010, 443, n. 50.

    8 IvP III 161 A.12–13.

    9 Wörrle 1969, 179–180.

    10 LSAM 12, referred to by Wörrle.

    11 LSAM 12.1–6.

    12 Ginouvès 1962, 299–310.

    13 Müller 2010, 440, ll. 1–8. Any kind of sex is meant, marital, heterosexual or homosexual, see Müller 2010, 443, n. 50.

    14 Müller 2010, 445.

    15 Müller 2010, 446.

    16 Parker 1983, 74–77 and 86. See also Burkert 1985, 79 and 378 n. 45; Burkert 1987, 108.

    17 Parker 1983, 74–75, n. 4 (apart from the LSS 115 as Parker mentions).

    18 Hdt. 2.64.

    19 Parker 1983, 74–75.

    20 Parker 1983, 86.

    21 Parker 1983, 74, on the prevalence of this rule in e.g. Herodotus and sacred laws.

    22 Pl. Leg. 759d; Arist. Pol. 1329a, 27–34. See Parker 1983, 87.

    23 Fehrle 1910, 72–125; Price 1999, 69; cf. Stengel 1910, 31–48; RE 8.2 (1913), 1411–1457, s.v. Hiereis [Ziehen]; Burkert 1985, 157–163. See, however, Brulé (1987, 348–349), on this being a figure of speech; he posits that the important thing was to stay abstinent during the time of service to the god.

    24 Diod. Sic. 16.26.6. Cf. Strabo 14.1.23 (Artemis at Ephesos). On such rules possibly being a figure of speech, the important thing being to stay chaste when serving the god, see Brulé (1987, 348–349).

    25 Epidaurian iama A2.

    26 Testimonium no. 8, p. 227. Müller 2010, 440 and 447 (the date).

    27 Müller 2010, 446.

    28 LSAM 14, Imperial times. The inscription dealing with incubation in at least the lower part of the text is heavily restored, and it is not certain whether the first lines on abstinence are directed to all worshippers or just incubants. Abstinence from birth or sex (the text may be restored in different ways) can be noted. For different suggestions on how to restore the text, see Roussel 1926; Zingerle 1924; LSAM 14.

    29 Parker 1983, 33–34, 55 and 393; Wächter 1910, 55–62.

    30 Parker 1983, 66; Wächter 1910, 25–34 and 43–62.

    31 LSS 115 A.16–20; LSS 115 B.26–27; Parker 1983, appendix 2.

    32 Parker 1983, 50, n. 67; Wächter 1910, 27–34 and 55–62, with ample references to ancient sources. Usually, though, it seems that pollution was incurred when the mother was touched (not just by simply entering her house), see Parker 1983, 50. For the cult of Asklepios, see e.g. LSS 119 (Ptolemais, first century BC).

    33 In Epidauros at the time of Pausanias, there was a special building outside the temenos which was used to house women during childbirth or ill people with little hope of survival (Paus. 2.27.6).

    34 Müller 2010, 440.

    35 LSCG 154 A.21–45 (Kos, third century BC); Parker 1983, 52; Wächter 1910, 59–62. Priests sometimes had to abide by rules such as not wearing clothes or shoes made from dead animals, e.g. at the Andanian mysteries (Deshours 2006).

    36 Translation by Parker 1983, 322–323.

    37 Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 126–127.

    38 Bremmer 2002, 106–108.

    39 LSS 91.5 (Lindos, third century AD); LSS 108.6–7 (Rhodes, first century AD); LSCG 139.3–7 (Lindos, second century AD); Parker 1983, 324. The requirement for the incubant to be pure of mind is attested in later sources on the cult of Asklepios: Philostr. VA 1.10.

    40 Cook & Plommer 1966; SEG 14.690; IK 38.401; Bresson 1991, no. 44.

    41 Diod. Sic. 5.62–63.

    42 ll. 13–14.

    43 Ar. Amphiaraos, PCG III.2, 44–45, frg. 23; cf. FAC I, 578–579, frg. 23; Kock, CAF 23. Translation by C.B. Gulick (Loeb 1927–41). The Amphiaraos is dated to 414 BC by Edmonds, FAC I, 576. Deubner (1900, 15, n. 1), Arbesmann (1929, 100–102), and Sineux (2007, 125) also refer to a commentary by Cassianus Bassus from the sixth/seventh century AD, Geoponica sive de re rustica eclogae 2.35.8 [Mueller] on the relevant passage in Ar. Amphiaraos. Cassianus writes that beans were to be shunned in order to obtain a dream oracle from Amphiaraos, Πρῶτος δὲ ἀπέσχετο κυάμων Ἀμφιάραος, διὰ τὴν δι’ ὀνείρων μαντείαν, ‘Amphiaraos was the first to abstain from (eating) beans because he gave oracles through dreams’. The lateness of Cassianus’ commentary means we must be cautious.

    44 Ath. 4.158c.

    45 Deubner 1900, 14–17; Pley 1916, 1259; Simboli 1921, 61–62; Bonnechere 2003a, 179; Sineux 2007, 120, n. 4. Many of the examples offered by Deubner come from the cult of Trophonios, which was an oracle cult rather than an incubation cult (as shown by Bonnechere 2003b). Contra: Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 149.

    46 Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 148–149.

    47 Clinton 2005, 168.

    48 Robert 1966, 197, with further refs. Contra: Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 189, n. 21. See Robert 1949, 163, n. 3, and Robert 1966, 197, for cults where goats were prohibited.

    49 Farnell 1896, vol. 2, 449.

    50 Deubner 1900, 40; Pley 1916, 1259.

    51 On Molpadia, see Gruppe 1906, 259.

    52 Farnell 1896, vol. 2, 646–647, 664 and 756; Wächter 1910, 82–83. See also Pirenne-Delforge (1994, 133 and 146) on the sacrifice and prohibition of pig in the cult of Aphrodite in Sikyon. For exceptions, see Farnell 1896, vol. 2, 646–647.

    53 Farnell 1896, vol. 2, 646.

    54 In Greek cult in general, the sacrifice of piglet was very common, probably due to the low cost of the animal; see Arbesmann 1929, 43; Clinton 2005, 168. Van Straten (1995, 177–178), argues that pigs depicted on votive reliefs were probably piglets, since the sacrifice of piglets is so prevalent in the epigraphical material.

    55 Strabo 12.8.9.

    56 Wächter 1910, 84. He mentions Isis in Tithorea (Paus. 10.32.12), Attis (Paus. 7.17.10), and Men at Sounion (LSCG 55.2–3, second century AD).

    57 Neue Pauly 11 (2001), 291–294, esp. 291, s.v. Schwein [Nissen & Renger].

    58 In IK 2.205.9, concerning sacrifices to Apollon and Asklepios at Erythrai (380–360 BC), goat was possibly prohibited (the inscription is fragmentary). In Roman times, the sacrifice of goat seems to have been prohibited at the Asklepieia of Epidauros (Paus. 2.26.9) and Tithorea (Paus. 10.32.12). Sextus Empiricus (Pyr. 3.220–221 = T534, second century AD), writes that it is impious to offer goats to Asklepios, hinting at the general validity of this rule.

    59 Paus. 2.26.9.

    60 The temple of Asklepios at Pergamon was, according to Pausanias 2.26.8–9, founded by a private person, Archias, in recognition of a healing at Epidauros, also mentioned in IG IV2, 1 60 from the second century AD from Epidauros. This probably took place during the first half of the fourth century BC (Hansen 1971, 10–11 and 443).

    61 Paus. 2.26.3–5; Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 189, n. 21.

    62 Sokolowski 1956, 157.

    63 Jameson 1988, 98–103 and 106–107.

    64 Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 190.

    65 Hippoc. Morb. sacr. 2. See further Jouanna 2003.

    66 Hippoc. Nat. Mul. 32 = 7.367 [Littré]; Mul. 2.158 fin. = 8.337 [Littré]: tallow of goat used to heal bubos, festering wounds and open wounds. Homer claimed that the blood of goats was nutritious (Od. 18.44), but this is hardly a medical observation. Furthermore, Hippocrates mentions the usefulness of goat’s milk as a cure for dropsy (Int. 24 = Hippoc. 7.229 [Littré]) as well as internal bleeding (Int. 1 = Hippoc. 7.169 [Littré]), menstrual disruptions (Mul. 1.29 = Hippoc. 8.75 [Littré]) and pleuritis (Morb. 3.16, med. = Hippoc. 7.149 [Littré]).

    67 Plin. 28.153, 255–256 and 259; Gal. Aliment. 1 = 6.555 [Kühn]; RE 2.19 (1972), 398–433, s.v. Ziege, esp. 417–420 [Richter].

    68 Arbesmann 1929, 39.

    69 Diod. 16.26; Brulé 1998, 276–277.

    70 For example, the priests of Cretan Zeus were forbidden from eating meat (Eur. Kretes, TrGFV.1, 506, frg. 472, cf. edition and translation of C. Collard & M. Cropp, Loeb 2008). Likewise, the priestess of Athena Polias was forbidden from eating sheep’s cheese (Ath. 9.375c).

    71 Price 1999, 69; Arbesmann 1929, 72–74.

    72 See e.g. Arbesmann 1929, 75–83 with ample citations from ancient authors.

    73 Bonnechere 2003b, 148, 204–205; Cratinus, PCG IV, 241, frg. 236: the mullet, ray fish, and blacktail, also prohibited at Eleusis (Melanthios, FGrHist IIIB, frg. 326, F2). Bonnechere (2003, 179), suggests that these fish were prohibited in order that the enquirer would not have gas which might impede the oracular experience, and supports this suggestion with passages in Hippoc. Morb.sacr. 2.

    74 Cult of Poseidon: Price 1999, 69; Poseidon in Leptis, the hieromnemones did not eat fish at all: Plut. Mor. Quaest. conv. 8.8.4; cf. Dölger 1922, 21 and 332.

    75 Strabo 14.1.44.

    76 Strabo 14.1.44, translation H.L. Jones (Loeb 1960). See also the full citation Collection of texts, no. 12.

    77 Philostr. VA 2.37, translation by C.P. Jones (Loeb 2005); Deubner 1900, 14–17; Pley 1916, 1258– 1259; Simboli 1921, 61–62; Flacelière 1965, 22–23; Wacht 1998, 212–215. Contra: Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 149.

    78 Tert. De anim. 48.

    79 For discussions on the reliability of Philostratus as a historical source: Anderson 1986, 191–192, n. 1; Jones 1974, 13–16.

    80 See Ustinova (2009, 86–87) for an analysis of the cults of the underworld around the River Meander. She puts it in the context of caves being seen as entrances to the underworld.

    81 Philostr. VA 2.37.

    82 Burkert 1985, 242–246; Parker 2005, 274, with further references and discussion.

    83 See e.g. Arbesmann 1929, 75–83 with ample citations from ancient sources.

    84 Ar. Plut. 656. For a full citation of the incubation scene, see Collection of texts, no. 9.

    85 Roos 1960, 76–77. Contra: Behr 1968, 34–35, n. 60.

    86 Xen. Mem. 3.13.3: ‘… “And which is colder to bathe in, the water at your house or that in the temple of Amphiaraus?” “That in the temple (ἐν Ἀμφιαράου) of Amphiaraus,” he said… ’ (translation Bonnette 1994). The character complains that the water in his house is too warm to drink and too cold for bathing.

    87 Leonardos 1918; Ginouvès 1962, 346 (the construction is dated to the fourth century BC).

    88 Glaser 1982, 130–136; Glaser 1983, 189, n. 4; Argoud 1985, 10 and 16.

    89 For Roman times, Sineux (2007, 132–133) suggests that water from a small basin near the temple was used for purificatory purposes — but this was of course situated within the temenos.

    90 Rhodes & Osborne 2003, 133.

    91 Sineux 2007, 131–136; IOropos 292 = IG VII 4255.

    92 That incubants stayed for longer periods — in one of the cases for four months — can be seen in two of the Epidaurian iamata, C 5 (48) and C 21 (64). These documents make it clear that it was common for the god to prescribe that the suppliants stayed a certain amount of time at the sanctuary.

    93 Baths are recorded in stories of cures, presumably as having both a purificatory and a curative value, however; cf. the Epidaurian iama C 22 (65). Cf. Villard 1994, 48–52 on baths in the Hippocratic writings. Many incubation cures of Roman times included baths as a curative element. See e.g. the IG IV2, 1 126 (Apellas inscription from Epidauros, c. 160 AD), M. Aur. Med. 5.8 and Aristid. Or.sacr. 1.7, 1.8, 1.18, 1.20–21, 1.34, 1.50, 3.6 and 5.22–24. See also Ginouvès 1962, 349–361; Ginouvès 1994; Guettel Cole 1988; Boudon 1994, 163; Lambrinoudakis 1994.

    94 E.g. Paus. 1.34.4, a spring south of the temple was not to be used for purificatory sacrifices or for washing hands.

    95 That the bath at Epidauros served the everyday need for cleanliness can be seen in the Epidaurian iama C 22 (65), where a blind man lost his oil bottle in the bath.

    96 Ginouvès 1962, 352–357; cf. Parker 1983, 213, n. 31; Ginouvès 1994, 240.

    97 The first evidence of a cult to Asklepios at Corinth comes from the end of the fifth century BC: Melfi 2007, ch. II. 4B.

    98 Melfi 2007, 498–506.

    99 At Epidauros, the first attestations of a cult to Asklepios come from the second half of the sixth century. A well, which was identified as a holy well because of votive material inside, existed as early as the sixth century BC. It was opposite the first mud-brick stoa from the sixth century, which has been identified as the first abaton. When the later abaton, the Classical stoa, was built on top of the mud-brick stoa, the well was incorporated into the structure, indicating its ritual importance; see Martin & Metzger 1942–43, 331; Tomlinson 1983, 67–70. The perirrhanteria: Melfi 2007, 28 and 148–149, table 1 nos. 12–15 and 17–25).

    100 At Athens, where the first evidence for a cult of Asklepios comes from the end of the fifth century BC, a water source was incorporated into the Doric stoa built in fourth century BC, which was identified by most researchers as the dormitory (for simple lack of a better space); see Travlos 1971, 127–242; Ehrenheim 2009, 244–247 with references. This incorporation of a water source into the stoa seems likely to have served ritual purposes, since it did not contain water used for anything other than symbolic purposes, contrary to the constructed fountain. Cf. Verbanck-Piérard 2000, 329–332, who has suggested that the so-called bothros in the Doric stoa of the Athenian Asklepieion would most probably have been a cistern.

    101 Ehrenheim 2009, 239–247.

    102 Wächter 1910, 6–11; Parker 1983, 19–20 and 226–227.

    103 Wächter 1910, 7; Ginouvès 1962, 305–306; Parker 1983, 19–20.

    104 Ginouvès 1962, 311–318; Ar. Pax 935–975; Ar. Av. 958.

    105 The purificatory effect of seawater on miasma: Eur. IT 1039 and 1193 (washing weapons); Soph. Aj. 655; LSCG 97 A.15–16 (Keos, funerary rule, fifth century BC); LSCG 151 B.23–24 = Rhodes & Osborne 2003, no. 62.23–24 (Kos, sacrificial calendar, mid-fourth century BC); Diphilus, PCG V, 118–119, frg. 125; Plut. Mor. Quaest. Graec. 40.301a. The statue of Artemis which was polluted by the touch of Orestes was cleaned with salt water: Eur. IT 1041. On the popularity of sprinkling oneself with seawater, apparently for purificatory reasons, see Theophr. Char. 16.13. Furthermore, Circe cleaned her head with seawater because she had frightening dreams; see Ap.Rhod. Argon. 4.663. For the custom of bathing in the sea before the Greeks sacrificed: Eitrem 1915, 335–336; Ginouvès 1962, 406; Wachsmuth 1967, 219–223; Parker 1983, 226–227; Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 33 and 45. Ordinary water was sometimes mixed with salt in order to augment its purificatory value (Menander, Phasma 31 [Arnott]).

    106 Parker 1983, 283; Graf 1992, 178; Burkert 1972, 285, n. 9 with references to the sources, cf. Plut. Vit. Phoc. 28).

    107 At Delphi, the servants of the temple, as well as girls who were serving the god, cleansed themselves in the baths of Kastalia at Delphi — a replacement for the holy source that had gone dry (Eur. Ion 95–97; Eur. Phoen. 222–226; Amandry 1950, 135–137).

    108 In the cult of Trophonios, there was a preliminary cold bath (after entering the sanctuary, though) at least in Roman times (Paus. 9.39.7). The cold bath, among other things, before descending into the cave of Trophonios, has been described by Bonnechere as a way of making the consultant susceptible to autosuggestion (Bonnechere 2003a, 176–177). The cold bath in Trophonios is thus not a purifying action before entering the sanctuary, but rather a step in the preparations that created the almost initiatory consultation process of the oracle.

    109 For Roman times, Aristides speaks of purification ceremonies performed en masse in Pergamon, with worshippers clad in white (Aristid. Or. sacr. 2.30 and 2.31). This is, however, a Roman testimonium and also pertains to a rite performed by incubants who had already entered the sanctuary (and possibly had stayed there for a while).

    110 Athens, National Archaeological Museum 1395; van Straten 1995, 73, fig. 72, R37; Kaltsas 2002, no. 427. On the relief we can note worshippers walking up to a sacrifice, with, among other things, a ram (the horns are visible) and a full-grown pig.

    111 Paus. 1.34.3–5; Petropoulou 1985, 176, n. 44. Frazer (1913, vol. 2, 467–468) believed that the altar seen by Pausanias replaced two earlier ones, and two altars from Oropos with the inscriptions Amphiaraos and Amphilochos (first altar), and Hestia (second altar), may confirm this (Petrakos 1968, pl. 18).

    112 Van Straten 1995, 73.

    113 Clinton 2005, 175.

    114 Sineux 2007, 138.

    115 Sineux 2007, 138–142; IOropos 277.30–31 = IG VII 235.30–31; IOropos 278.

    116 I.e. the IOropos 277 = IG VII 235 and IOropos 278.

    117 Cf. van Straten 1995, fig. 94 (R92), a bovine and a sheep led up to Herakles (Athens, National Archaeological Museum 1404). Pigs on votive reliefs: see for instance van Straten 1995, figs. 68 (R30), 72 (R37), 74 (R41), 75 (R44), 79 (R58), 80 (R60), 81 (R67), 82 (R68), 92 (R86), 96 (R97), 102 (R106), 103 (R126) and 104 (R174).

    118 Parker 1983, 371–373.

    119 Nilsson 1967, 104–107.

    120 Deshours 2006, 35, ll. 65–71 = LSCG 65.65–71 (92 BC).

    121 Parker 1983, 283, n. 11. The so-called mystic pig sacrificed at Eleusis (Schol. Ar. Ach. 747; Ar. Ran. 338) was eaten, and thus cannot (according to Parker) have been a purificatory sacrifice (Parker 1983, 283).

    122 Clinton 2005, 173–174. In serious cases of pollution, however, individuals were purified by having blood from the slaughtered piglets (or other animals) poured over them (Clinton 2005, 174). Nowhere does Clinton mention purification of disease by blood.

    123 Clinton 2005, 172–173. Purificatory sacrifices, explicitly stating that they were not eaten, are recorded in Ap. Rhod. Argon. 4.710; LSS 38 A.32 (Delphi, fifth century BC); LSAM 79.19 (first century BC); Parker 1983, 30, n. 65.

    124 Ed.pr. Zingerle 1924, 171; IvP II 264 [Fränkel]; LSAM 14 [Sokolowski]; Roussel 1926.

    125 Roussel 1926, 307–312.

    126 Fasting before incubation at Oropos: Philostr. VA 2.37. On ‘archaisms’ added to Greek society in general during the second sophistic, as well as to Greek cults; see Bowie 1970; Anderson 1993.

    127 Sokolowski 1954a, 156–158.

    128 IOropos 277.20–24 and 39–43 (386–374 BC).

    129 IOropos 276.4–5 = LSS 35.4–5 (before mid-fourth century BC). Petropoulou (1981, 58–59) dates the IOropos 276 to 402–387 BC. Petrakos dates it to before the middle of the fourth century BC (Petrakos 1997, 177). Sineux (2007, 149–150) argues against the date suggested by Petropoulou because the formula δέδοχθαι has not been established before 387/6 BC. Sineux dates the inscription to between 366 (because the donation of a Boeotian drachma is likely to coincide with the beginning of the Theban period of domination of the sanctuary) and the middle of the fourth century.

    130 IOropos 277.39–43; IOropos 276.7–9.

    131 Sineux 2007, 155.

    132 NGSL 13.4 = Veligianni 1994, 391, l. 4 = SEG 44.505 [Chaniotis]. Veligianni (1994, 393–394) dates it, according to the lettering, to the first half or around the middle of the fourth century BC.

    133 Lupu in NGSL, 245 and 247.

    134 Meritt 1936, 401 no. 10, ll. 142–147. The text concerns the failure of a metic (as well as his guarantor) to collect the drachma for Asklepios as was agreed. According to Aleshire (1989, 98, n. 4), the wording of the text could signify the collection of either a fee or a tax.

    135 Schlaifer (1940, 240–241) writes that since the temple of Asklepios in Athens was so newly established, it might have needed the income. He conjectures that every male was to pay the tax, but emphasizes that we cannot be certain. He also suggests that the tax was the Athenian equivalent of the iatrikon, a tax levied on the whole population to pay for public physicians; cf. Ferguson 1949, 142–144. Aleshire (1989, 99) argues that the parallels offered by Schlaifer are later and are not from Athens. The establishment of a fee would, according to Aleshire, have coincided with the state taking control of the sanctuary around 350 BC, and the total revenue of the sanctuary implies, according to Aleshire, around 15–20 suppliants per day.

    136 Gorrini & Melfi 2002, 259.

    137 IvP III 161 A.8.

    138 IvP III 161 A.22–23.

    139 Lupu in NGSL, 247; Sineux 2007, 157, n. 151.

    140 Wörrle 1969, 176 and 182; cf. LSAM 12.10–15 (cult of Athena in Pergamon, after 133 BC), and Peek 1969, no. 336 (Epidauros, fourth century BC).

    141 IK 2.205.17 and 20. This fee is described by Sokolowski (1954a, 153) as a fee at a sacrifice before or after incubation. Although incubants are one of the types of worshippers the inscription turns to, the regulation also explicitly sets up sacrificial rules, and other rules, for those who had made a vow, or those participating in a festival. This fee must therefore be described as a fee pertaining to the sacrifice, and not for incubation or cure as such.

    142 Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 149; Sokolowski 1954a, 153–154.

    143 Lupu in NGSL, 247.

    144 Petropoulou 1981, 53–54; Beer 1914, 101–106; Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 148–149, n. 17. Petropoulou comments that this is a high fee; in e.g. Ar. Vesp. 609 the daily fee for a juror was three obols.

    145 This we see explicitly in the IOropos 277.20–24 and 39–43. Sokolowski’s restoration of LSS 35.4 allows for both ordinary visitors and incubants to pay an eparche to Amphiaraos, whereas Petropoulou (1981, 41) argues with the support of the IOropos 277, and in my opinion successfully, that the eparche fee was exclusively paid by incubants. Petrakos on the IOropos 276.4 (= LSS 35.4) disregards the restoration of Sokolowski.

    146 Schachter 1981, 23; Petropoulou 1985, 176.

    147 Amandry 1950, 99, n. 1; Sineux 2007, 151; Sokolowski 1954a, 154.

    148 Amandry 1950, 86–103. For fees that were to be put in the offertory box, the thesauros, explicitly for sacrificial animals (different fees for different animals), see ThesCRA 1 (2004), 103, nos. 349–352. See also Peek 1969, no. 336 (Epidauros) for payment which was to be made at a sacrifice, probably a pre-incubation sacrifice.

    149 Thesauroi have been noted in Epidauros, Corinth, Lebena, Kos, Fregellae, Melos, Ptolemais in upper Egypt, Butrint, Delos, Lambesis and Pergamon — see Kaminski 1991, 123, and catalogue; Gorrini & Melfi, 260–263 (esp. 260 on the thesauros at Epidauros, which is more hypothetical).

    150 For its occurrence in oracle cults, see Sokolowski 1954a, 154 and Amandry 1950, 86–103, esp. 101–102. Amandry (1950, 101–102) argues that a fee (pelanos) was probably paid together with the sacrifice, but that, since a sacrifice was required for consultation, the categories became jumbled. Pouilloux (1952, 500–501) leans towards interpreting the payment of a pelanos as a payment which was made before any religious activity, upon entering. See further cf. Eur. Ion 226; CID 1, no. 1 (c. 500 BC); LSS 39 = FdD III: 4 no. 369. See further ThesCRA 3 (2005), 19–20 and testimonia nos. 103–108.2.3.2.

    151 Pouilloux, 1958, 63. From the fourth century BC onwards, pelanos came to mean, apart from cake, monetary donations to sanctuaries, which were put in the treasure-box; see Brill’s New Pauly 10 (2007), 692, s.v. pelanos [Frey] and Bouffartigue 1979, 69–70.

    152 IG VII 3055 (fourth century BC) = LSCG 74 = Salviat & Vatin 1971, 87–89 (textual revision p. 89, l. 4).

    153 Amandry 1950, 90–98; IG I3 78.4–10 = LSCG 5.4–10 (c. 423–422 BC), on aparchai in Eleusis. See also IG II2 1672.182 (eparche) and 284 (pelanos) (Eleusis, 329/8 BC). For fees at Eleusis see also IG I3 6 and Parker 2005, 342, n. 65, with further references. See also the payments of an eparche to Bendis and Theogenes: LSS 6.8 (Athens, 431–411 BC); LSS 72 A.3, 72B.4–5 (Thasos, first century BC).

    154 Parker 2005, 342; see e.g. IG I3 386 III 144–146, on incomes in Eleusis in 408/407, the majority of which came from initiates in the Great Mysteries.

    155 Deshours 2006, 37, ll. 89–92 = LSCG 65.89–92 (92 BC) and Deshours 2006, 89.

    156 If the beds were not brought by the incubants themselves, as was the case in the Ploutos; but this cannot be presupposed for all incubation sanctuaries; see Section 1.4.

    157 See Section 1.6.3.

    158 Some Epidaurian iamata (B 5 [25], B 13 [33]) mention that incubants left because they had had no clear dreams. See also Epidaurian iamata C 5 (48), C 21 (64), for incubants being commanded by the god to stay in the sanctuary for a certain time in order to recover (in iama C 21 [64] this was specified as four months for paralysis of the legs; C 5 [48] concerns a problem with pus).

    159 Rudhardt 1958, 263, n. 6 (prothymata may = cakes before an animal sacrifice to the main deity); Mikalson 1972, 583 (prothymata = any type of offering (grain, cakes, incense, animal) offered before an event, or before a sacrifice to another deity).

    160 Ziehen writes that in Classical times prothyo meant only ‘to sacrifice before’, thus comprising categories 1 and 2 of Casabona (Ziehen 1904, 405–406).

    161 See a synthesis of previous scholars’ translations of prothyo in Casabona 1966, 103–108. He translates the verb as 1. To sacrifice to a divinity before sacrificing to another divinity; 2. To sacrifice before an enterprise; 3. To sacrifice to a divinity before another person sacrifices. Casabona (1966, 108) importantly notes that some of the meanings of prothyo change as the Greek language develops. See also the commentary of Sokolowski in LSS 11.

    162 IG IV2, 1 128.3.29–31 (dated to c. 280 BC); Furley & Bremer (2001, vol. 1, 233–236) date it to 325–300 BC. Translation by Furley & Bremer (2001, vol. 1, 229): ‘Not even in Thessalian Trikka would one go down into Asklepios’ sanctuary and seek his favour if one had not first sacrificed on the sacred altar of Apollon Maleatas.’ For a detailed commentary on Isyllos and his time, see Kolde 2003, esp. 120–122 with different interpretations on what type of building is denoted in the hymn by the words ‘go down into Asklepios’ sanctuary’, εἰς ἄδυτον καταβὰς Ἀσκληπιοῦ. Kolde concludes that the question cannot be resolved because Trikka has not been excavated and it is difficult to know how literally ‘to go down’ should be interpreted, i.e. whether the incubants go down into a hypogeum or whether the sense is more metaphorical (as suggested by Sinuex 1999, 160, n. 26).

    163 Epidaurian iama B 18 (38).

    164 Strabo 8.6.15.

    165 NGSL 13.6 (the verb thyo is used).

    166 NGSL 13.7.

    167 Lupu in NGSL, 247–248; Veligianni 1994, 398. Veligianni suggests the parallels LSCG 54 (Athens, first century AD) and the LSCG 159 (Kos, third century BC), where Asklepios and Hygieia (LSCG 54), and Asklepios, Apollon, Hygieia and Epione (LSCG 159) receive sacrifices.

    168 Herod. Mim. 4.1–10. In this passage of the Mimiambi, a thank-offering is made to Asklepios after a successful healing that may have been achieved through incubation, but it might also have been the imagined result of sacrifice and prayer alone.

    169 IvP III 161 A.1–2.

    170 Wörrle 1969, 172. Cf. the Hymn of Isyllos (IG IV2, 1 128.19–20) where a laurel wreath is worn in honour of Apollon, and an olive garland was donned to honour Asklepios.

    171 Wörrle 1969, 171–172.

    172 IvP III 161 A.11–14: Ἁγνευέτω δὲ ὁ v | [εἰσπορευ]ό̣μενος εἰς τὸ ἐγκοιμητήριον ἀπό τε τῶν προειρημέv?| [νων πάν]τ̣ων καὶ ἀφροδισίων καὶ αἰγείου κρέως καὶ τυροῦ κα[ὶ] | [. . c.7. .] ΙΑΜΙΔΟΣ τριταῖος.

    173 IG IV2, 1 121–124.2.

    174 LSCG 60 = IG IV2, 1 40–41 = T561–562.

    175 IK 2.205.22.

    176 IG II2 4962 = LSCG 21 = LGS II 18.

    177 There are several inscriptions dedicated to Apollon Maleatas, both from his original sanctuary on Mount Kynortion above the sanctuary to Asklepios on the plain and in the sanctuary of Epidauros on the plain. He is never mentioned as only ‘Maleas’, but always as ‘Apollon Maleatas’. Farnell argues, concerning the IG II2 4962, that the priest who commissioned the inscription simply parted ‘Apollon’ from ‘Maleatas’, giving Panhellenic Apollon a sacrifice that was separate from the more local Apollon Maleatas. Maleatas in the IG II2 4962 would then be an abbreviation of Apollon Maleatas. See the discussion in Farnell 1907, vol. 4, 237.

    178 Cf. Ar. Nub. 482–488, where the consultants of the oracle of Trophonios are to drink water from the sources of Lethe and then Mnemosyne in order to remember their vision.

    179 Perhaps the inhabitants of Attica at this time even made fun of complicated cake-offerings to numerous smaller gods such as the ones in the IG II2 4962. This may be seen in a fragment of Plato Comicus’ Phaon, (PCG VII, 509–511, frg. 188; Farnell 1920).

    180 Ar. Plut. 660–661, ἐπεὶ δὲ βωμῷ πόπανα καὶ προθύματα καθωσιώθη πέλανος Ἡφαίστου φλογί, in the translation of Sommerstein 2001: ‘… and when the preliminary sacrifice of cakelets had been consecrated on the altar as a “sop for Hephaestus’ flame”… ’.

    181 LSJ has two translations relating pelanos to sacrifices: II.1. A — liquid substance of meal, honey and oil (with examples from Euripides); and III. A — round cake (with examples from Pausanias). The first translation best fits the word in Ar. Plut. 661 in terms of chronology. See further Brill’s New Pauly 10 (2007), 692, s.v. pelanos [Frey], Amandry 1950, 86–103, esp. 98–99. According to Frey, pelanos was a more-or-less liquid mixture of meal, honey, beer, and poppy milk or wine. It was never eaten but was offered, or libated, on the fire of the bomos. Cf. Aesch. Pers. 203–204, Aesch. Cho. 92 and Eur. Ion 226–227 and 705–707.

    182 Ar. Plut. 676–678,… ὁρῶ τὸν ἱερέα τοὺς φθοῖς ἀφαρπάζοντα καὶ τὰς ἰσχάδας ἀπὸ τῆς τραπέζης τῆς ἱερᾶς. Consecrated cakes were normally considered to be the property of the priests; see e.g. LSAM 13.14–15.

    183 Ar. Plut. 678–680,… μετὰ τοῦτο δὲ περιῆλθε τοὺς βωμοὺς ἅπαντας ἐν κύκλῳ, εἴ που πόπανον εἴη τι καταλελειμμένον…

    184 IG II2 4962 = LSCG 21.

    185 Both the trapeza and the bomoi of ll. 679–680 could be seen from where the incubants lay — Carion, a friend of Ploutos who was also incubating, recounts how he saw the priest put all of these cakes into a sack.

    186 Epidaurian iama A 5. Wörrle translates this προθύομαι as a sacrifice before incubation (Wörrle’s ‘category 2’ on how to translate prothyo). I would translate the verb as something close to his ‘category 1’ (pre-sacrifice to associated deities), whereas ποιεῖν τὰ νομιζόμενα (do the customary/required things) would be a paraphrase for ‘sacrificing (the main sacrifice)’. Cf. Melfi (2007, 49–51), on possible pre-sacrifices by the numerous small altars close to the main altar of Asklepios at Epidauros.

    187 Translation of LiDonnici 1995, 89. Rhodes & Osborne 2003, no. 102.43 translate the phrase as ‘the acolyte who carried fire for the god’. The πυρφόρος is mentioned in many inscriptions at Epidauros and was originally of lesser status because the job consisted of tending the fires on the altars of the sanctuary (LiDonnici 1995, 89, n. 13).

    188 Rhodes & Osborne 2003, no. 102: ‘if he obtained what he came for’.

    189 The two sets of purity instructions given on the stone denote two sets of worshippers (IvP III 161 A.12–14), opening up the possibility that the regulations concerning the first sacrifice of a piglet mentioned on the stone also applied to those who were not incubating, but making a vow. See further Sections 1.2.5 and 2.2.

    190 IvP III 161 A.9–11 and 28–29.

    191 LSJ, s.v. θυμέλη. The round building at Epidauros, close to the abaton, was called tholos in Pausanias 2.27.3 but was originally denoted thymele (IG IV2, 1 103 A and B [Tholos accounts]; Burford 1969, 66, 162 and 220–221). This fact has led Melfi (2007, 41–42) to suggest that a sacrifice of cakes was made before entering the dormitory at Epidauros by the Thymele, just like the one on a thymele by the enkoimeterion at Pergamon (IvP III 161 A.10–11). The function of the Tholos or Thymele at Epidauros is, however, not clear (Burford 1969, 66; Riethmüller 2005, vol. 1, 318–324 with further references to the different hypotheses put forward, his own being that the Thymele was a heroon to Asklepios.

    192 IvP III 161 A.24. This group of worshippers is denoted as οἱ περιθυσάμενοι, ‘those who perform the action of perithyein’ (l. 27), or οἱ θεραπεύοντες, probably stayed a longer time at the sanctuary and sacrificed repeatedly; see Sokolowski 1973, 410; Ehrenheim 2009, 249–250.

    193 Casabona 1966, 104–105, category 1.

    194 Cf. the Ar. Plut. 1111–1132, where Hermes complains about all the sacrifices of which he is now deprived: different cakes, parts from the sacrificed animal, incense and libations.

    195 Henrichs 1984, 258. In many inscriptions where cakes appear in sacrificial contexts it is unclear when in the ritual they were used: e.g. LSCG 7; LSCG 23; LSS 77 and LSS 92.

    196 In the case of smaller deities like the Moirai and Mnemosyne, one might suspect that the cake offering would be the only one, as in the LSCG 22 of Piraeus (cakes to the Moirai, fourth century BC) and the LSCG 26 (Mnemosyne, Athens of the fourth century BC). When the sacrifices of cakes were to be made in another god’s sanctuary, the animal sacrifice was probably made to the ‘home’ god; see the LSCG 24 from Athens, where three cakes were to be sacrificed to Herakles on an altar inside the Asklepieion.

    197 Sokolowski, comment to LSS 11. For this statement, Sokolowski refers to LGS II 54 (= LSCG 60), IG II2 4962, IK 2.205 (= LSAM 24) and an article by Ziehen (Ziehen 1904, 391–406). The lex sacra from Erythrai mentions a pre-sacrifice, but here prothyo deals with the rights of the state to sacrifice before the individual: IK 2.205.26–30 = LSAM 24 A.26–30.

    198 Cf. Kearns 1994.

    199 Kearns 1994, 69.

    200 Meritt 1963, 45–46, no. 62: [ἀρεστῆ]ρα[ς καὶ] κηρία.

    201 IG II2 4962 = LSCG 21. It has been stated in previous research that Akeso was less popular in Attica than her sisters Iaso, Panakeia and Hygieia (Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 88, n. 45; Kutsch 1913, 33). This inscription suggests otherwise.

    202 Orphei hymni 67.7 [Quandt].

    203 The presence of his family is characteristic of Asklepios, as illustrated for instance in the incubation scene in the Ploutos, where Asklepios appears together with Iaso and Panakeia (Ar. Plut. 701–702). See further Herod. Mim. 4.1–18 and Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 76–91. The members of Asklepios’ family had different origins; Machaon and Podaleirios, for instance, had a background as Homeric healers and heroes. On the cult of Hygieia; see Stafford 2005. On votive reliefs portraying Asklepios healing, his family (Hygieia, daughters, sons) is habitually depicted; see e.g. van Straten 1995, reliefs nos. (all from the fourth century BC, and from Athens unless otherwise stated): R1, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12, R13, R14, R15, R16, R17, R18, R19, R21, R23, R25, R31 (Attica?), R32 (Attica?), R33 (Epidauros), R34 (Patrai), R35 (provenience unknown).

    204 IG II2 4962 = LSCG 21. Probably ‘Apollon Maleatas’ and not ‘Maleatas’ is meant, as discussed above, supra n. Chapter 1, 177.

    205 Lambrinoudakis 1982, 49.

    206 Hymn of Isyllos, IG IV2, 1 128.30–31.

    207 IG II2 4962 = LSCG 21; Apollodoros of Athens, FGrHist IIB, frg. 244, F138; Parker 1996, 182– 183.

    208 LIMC 2: 1 (1984), 868, no. 1, s.v. Asklepios; Cramers 1978, 67–73.

    209 Von Eickstedt 2001, 13, referring to Athens, National Archaeological Museum 1426 = LIMC 2: 1 (1984), 881, no. 204, s.v. Asklepios. I might add, in support of the argument, the passage Xen. Cyn. 1.1 and 1.14, where Machaon and Podaleirios are mentioned as being renowned for their hunting skills (not only for being healers). There is, however, a debate as to whether this passage was written much later, and added under the name of Xenophon. The discussion of authenticity of the Cynegeticus: Norden 1898, 431–434; Radermacher 1896, 596–627; Radermacher 1897, 13–41; Gray 1985, 164; Doty 2001, 13 and 16; Hull 1964, 108–109; Marchant 1925, xxxvii.

    210 Epidaurian iamata A 20 and B 6 (26).

    211 Epidaurian iamata A 17, B 3 (23), B 17 (37), B 19 (39), B 22 (42), C 1 (44), C 2 (45) and possibly C 15 (58).

    212 ICr 1.17.10 and 15 (second century BC). Hermes was worshipped in many cities on Crete: Bile 1991, 13. For a discussion on the supposedly Chthonian nature of Hermes, explaining his presence in incubation rites; see the discussion in 2.1.1.

    213 Hymn. Hom. Merc. 4.14 (fifth century BC; see Görgemanns 1976). In the first or second century AD, Hermes is described as, among other things, the god of cleromancy (Apollod. Bibl. 3.10.2).

    214 Epigr.Gr. 785; Bean & Cook 1952, 207.

    215 Ap. Rhod. Argon. 1.642–643.

    216 Cf. RE 8 (1913), 738–792, s.v. Hermes, esp. 740–742; Rückert 1998, 109–111.

    217 Cattle needed healing just as much as people, as can be seen when the son of Asklepios, Podaleirios, cured cattle in the streams of the Althaenus by Mount Drion in Apulia in the third century BC (FGrHist IIIB, frg. 566, F56 = Pseudo-Lycophron Alex. 1047–1050).

    218 Alroth 1989, 109.

    219 IG II2 4962 = LSCG 21. See Collection of texts, no. 4.

    220 Pl. Resp. 6.507d–509b; Eur. Hec. 1068; Artem. 2.36. Helios preserves the well-being of the righteous: Hymnus Homericus ad Solem 31.17; Hippoc. Insomn. 4 [Kühn, vol. 22, 10].

    221 SEG 33.115.12 (247/6 or 246/5 BC); cf. Polemon frg. 42 at Scholion Soph. Oid. Kol. 100 (second century BC).

    222 Eitrem (1948, 173–175) has claimed that the presence of Helios in the IG II2 4962 is due to Helios helping with incubation, basing his argument on the presence of a statue of Helios in the incubation sanctuary of Ino-Pasiphaë in Roman times (Paus. 3.26.1), as well as the possible identification of Helios with Apollon in the PGMs. The statue of Helios mentioned in Pausanias may have been set up for reasons of which we know very little, and they might not have had anything to do with incubation. Identifications of Helios with Apollon in Greek magical papyri, of Roman date, do not essentially concern incubation in Greek cult, as shown in the IG II2 4962.

    223 For Apollon Thyraios, and Apollon Propylaios see Farnell 1907, vol. 4, 371–372 and Di Filippo Balestrazzi 1984. According to Wörrle (1969, 174, n. 16), a possible connection with the saving and healing abilities of Artemis Eileithyia and Artemis Soteira may explain the presence of Artemis Prothyraia in this inscription. Artemis Prothyraia, who, as argued above, was an averter of evil, may however have been included in the pre-sacrifice before incubation because of this aspect alone.

    224 IG IV2, 1 276 (third century BC?). A naos to Artemis is attested at Epidauros in Paus. 2.27.5. Cf. Wörrle 1969, 173, n. 15.

    225 See e.g. Neue Pauly 1 (1996), 899, s.v. Apotropaioi (theoi) [Parker].

    226 LSAM 25.81–82 (mid-third century BC).

    227 IvP III 161 A.4 and 20. On Zeus Meilichios; see Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 81–103. For a discussion of the supposedly Chthonian nature of Zeus Meilichios, thus explaining his presence in incubation rites, see Section 2.1.1.

    228 IG IV2, 1 282 (fourth/third century BC), restored, but the restoration is plausible since the inscription is also dedicated to Aphrodite Meilichia.

    229 IG IV2, 1 284 (third century BC) and 285 (sixth–first century BC); Wörrle 1969, 174.

    230 Aischylos’ Eumenides 2–4 shows how Ge was considered to have had an oracle at Delphi before Apollon. On the mantic powers of Ge, as the first oracle at Delphi; see e.g.: RAC 5 (1962), 1113– 1179, esp. 1128, s.v. Erde [Opelt]; RE 24 (1963), 539–547, s.v. Pythia [Fauth]. As C. Sourvinou-Inwood (1991, 217–243) has shown, there is no archaeological evidence for a cult to Ge preceding that of Apollon at Delphi.

    231 Hes. Theog. 479–480; Eur. Phoen. 686; Farnell 1907, vol. 3, 17–18; Hadzisteliou-Price 1978, 191– 192.

    232 IvP III 161 A.10 and 28.

    233 Cf. the oracle of Trophonios in Lebadeia, where the oracle-seeker was to drink the waters of Mnemosyne in order to remember what he had seen in the cave, and then upon returning from the cave, he was to sit on the throne of Mnemosyne and relate to the priests what he had seen and experienced: Paus. 9.39.8 and 13; Plin. HN 31.15. The muses bringing joy: Hes. Theog. 54–67; Pind. Nem. 7,15; Pind. Isthm. 6,75. See Ahearne-Kroll 2014 for an analysis of the importance of Mnemosyne at Asklepieia.

    234 IG IV2, 1 303 (altar, fourth century BC); Meritt 1963, no. 62, pp. 45–46 (end of the fourth century BC).

    235 Her cult was fairly widespread from the fourth century BC. See OCD3, 1566, s.v. Tyche [Robertson and Dietrich] and Wörrle 1969, 177.

    236 Tyche: IG IV2, 1 269 (fourth century BC), 311 (fifth/fourth century BC) and 312 (first century BC?).

    237 OCD3, 1496–1497, s.v. Themis [Sourvinou-Inwood]. On Themis as the first owner of the Delphic oracle, see Sourvinou-Inwood 1991, 192–243. For her association with Apollon, see Ephoros of Cyme FGrHist IIA, frg. 70, F31b (she founds an oracle together with Apollon in Ephorus) and the Homeric Hymn to Delian Apollon 124–125, where she feeds the newborn Apollon with nectar and ambrosia.

    238 Cf. Johnston 2008, 59 on Themis helping both assemblies and oracle-seekers to determine the just and proper course of action.

    239 See supra n. Chapter 1, 181.

    240 Ar. Plut. 661.

    241 IG II2 4962 = LSCG 21. As argued above, the context of the inscription means that it was likely a set of rules for the incubant, prior to incubation in the cult of Asklepios at Piraeus.

    242 Ziehen, commentary to LGS II 18.

    243 Mehl 2002.

    244 Athens, National Archaeological Museum 1333 and 1436; van Straten 1995, 64, figs. 59–60 (R8 and R217).

    245 Diod. Sic. 5.62.5.

    246 Diod. Sic. 5.62.5: ἐν δὲ ταῖς θυσίαιςαὐτῆς διὰ τὸ συμβὰν περὶ τὸν οἶνον πάθος τὰς μὲν σπονδὰς μελικράτῳ ποιοῦσι, ‘And in the sacrifices which are held in her honour a mixture of honey and milk is used in the libations, because of the experience which she had had in connection with the wine, … ’ (translation C.H. Oldfather, Loeb 1961).

    247 Stengel 1920, 111; Stengel 1920, 114.

    248 We may also note that the word used for ‘libation’ here is sponde, a word which, according to Burkert (1985, 70) generally, though not exclusively, was associated with wine. In the text of Strabo, sponde was not associated with wine. On the difference between spondai and choai, see further Rudhardt 1958, 240–248 and Casabona 1966, 231–297.

    249 See e.g. Brill’s New Pauly 7 (2005), 481–483, s.v. Libation [Haase].

    250 Diod. Sic. 5.62.5.

    251 See e.g. Brill’s New Pauly 7 (2005), 481–483, esp. 482, s.v. Libation [Haase]. There is no scholarly consensus on why wine might have been prohibited in some cults.

    252 Malkin argues (OCD3, 854, s.v. libations) that choai, often wineless, were made especially for the dead, Chthonian and nature deities, such as Nymphs, Muses and Erinyes. The libation mentioned in Diod. Sic. 5.62.5, however, is labelled a sponde.

    253 Philostr. VA 2.37 has been referred to by Deubner (1900, 17) as evidence for abstinence from wine as well as a prohibition on libating wine before incubation. The passage tells of the priests at Oropos preventing the incubants from eating for one day and drinking wine for three, ‘so that he can absorb the messages with his soul in a state of illumination’. (Translation by C.P Jones (Loeb 2005). This is clearly a prescription to prepare the incubants and does not have any connection with what was libated at sacrifices. Cf. Kircher 1910, 88–89, Wächter 1910, 109–110 and Arbesmann 1929, 61–62 and 103 on abstinence from wine and food in Greek religion. See also Arbesmann 1929, 98–100, for views among ancient philosophers that having a certain purity of body was needed to be able to receive visionary dreams.

    254 Epidaurian iamata A 5, D 2 (68) and D 3 (69).

    255 Epidaurian iamata A 5 and D 2 (68).

    256 Epidaurian iama A 5.

    257 Semos of Delos, FGrHist IIIB, frg. 396, B4.

    258 Translation C.B. Gulick (Loeb 1961).

    259 Stengel 1910, 201–202.

    260 Parker 1983, appendix 4, 360. On fish eating dead seamen, see e.g. Archestratus frg. 24 [Olson and Sens]; Antiphanes, PCG II, 347–348, frg.69.11–12, idem, PCG II, 380, frg. 127.6; cf. Alexis PCG II, 60, frg. 76.1–4 (fourth/third century BC). Man-eating fish: Ael. NA 2.41 and 9.65.

    261 Arbesmann 1929, 50–52, with references to relevant testimonia.

    262 Dated to 386–374 BC according to Rhodes & Osborne 2003, 131, whereas it is dated to 387– 377 BC in Syll.2 589 (this is the dating followed by Petropoulou 1981 and Petrakos in IOropos 277).

    263 Petrakos in IOropos 278. Lupu 2003, 332 agrees but advises caution because of the fragmentary state of the inscription.

    264 IOropos 277.30–31.

    265 IOropos 278.7 and 9.

    266 IOropos 277.29–30. The passage on the skins being sacred has been much discussed by scholars since it was erased at some later point in antiquity. According to Petropoulou, the erasure illustrates that the money from the sale of the skins no longer went to the oracle treasury but to the Athenians because they now ruled Oropos, according to the new Lycurgian Dermatikon and an Athenian state fund dealing with the sale of public sacrificial skins in Attica (Petropoulou 1981, 55 and 61–62; Robert 1960, 195, n. 4).

    267 IOropos 277.31–32. Scullion (1994, 99–101 and 110) considers the prohibition on taking the meat out of the sanctuary to be a sign of a Chthonian sacrifice. Ekroth argues that since only one clear case of a connection between ou phora and the partial destruction of the meat exists, and since ou phora is much more commonly prescribed in cults of gods than heroes, the rule cannot have been a marker for the character of the recipient. Ekroth (2002, 313–325) suggests that the stipulation to eat the meat inside the sanctuary should be seen as a way of prolonging the ritual sequence of animal sacrifice, as well as a way of making sure that the intended group was there to eat the meat.

    268 IOropos 277.32–36. It was a very common rule that priest (esses) were to receive some part of the sacrificial animal as payment, and sometimes also a monetary sum. See e.g. Le Guen Pollet 1991b, 12–23.

    269 In the LSAM 53 B (cult of Asklepios at Miletos, first century AD), as well as the LSCG 160, it is explicit that certain magistrates are to sacrifice and then give the priest his share.

    270 Petropoulou 1981, 55; Petropoulou 1985, 176, n. 41. Dillon (1997, 247, n. 46) and van Straten (1995, 74) agree with Petropoulou on this.

    271 Sineux 2007, 140.

    272 IOropos 277.34–36.

    273 Fees for sacrifices are not exclusive to incubation contexts such as the IvP III 161A.8, Peek 1969, no. 336 and the NGSL 13.4. See e.g. ThesCRA 1 (2004), 103, and Section 1.1.9.

    274 IOropos 277. 20–24 and 39–43. See Section 1.1.9.

    275 Public sacrifices in Oropos: IOropos 277.28–29 and 34.

    276 IOropos 277.33–36.

    277 NGSL 13.8–13 = Veligianni 1994 (around 350–300 BC).

    278 Veligianni 1994, 397–398, nn. 23, 24, 25 and 26. For payments made at sacrifices, see ThesCRA 1 (2004), 103, nos. 349–352.

    279 A priest was clearly present at this animal sacrifice before incubation in ll. 8–13 since he was to receive parts of the animal (the thighs are mentioned).

    280 Peek 1969, no. 336.

    281 See the LSJ Suppl., s.v. ἁπαλίας, for this translation.

    282 IK 2.205 = LSAM 24 A. This is a sacrifice before incubation according to Wörrle 1969, 172 and Graf 1985, 253.

    283 Goat: IK 2.205.9 = LSAM 24 A.9; ox: IK 2.205.16 = LSAM 24 A.16; piglet: IK 2.205.20–21 = LSAM 24 A.20–21; unspecified animal of one year: IK 2.205.17–18 = LSAM 24 A.17–18. The term thysta is translated as ‘singed animal’ in the LSJ Suppl., but Casabona 1966, 117, and Gill 1974, 125, translate this hapax as a general term for cakes. Cf. the use of θύα for cakes in LSS 77.9 and LSAM 37.19.

    284 IK 2.205.17 and 20 = LSAM 24 A.17 and 20.

    285 Lines 25–30 read in the translation of Edelstein and Edelstein (T521): ‘Whenever the city makes sacrifice to Asclepius (θυσίην… ποιῆι), let the offerings of the city be the first (προτεθύσθαι ὑπὲρ πάντων) to be made in behalf of all and let no individual make a sacrifice (προθυέτω) before this at the festival. For the rest of the time, let him sacrifice (προθυέτω) in accordance with the aforementioned regulations.’

    286 Graf 1985, 253.

    287 As also pointed out by Graf (1985, 253).

    288 IK 2.205.30–38 = LSAM 24 A.30–38. Lines 30–38 read in the translation of Edelstein and Edelstein (T521): ‘So many as, having slept in the temple, make a sacrifice to Asclepius in return and to Apollo, or so many as, having made a vow, make a sacrifice (θυσίην ἀποδιδῶσιν), whenever they set up (ἐπιθῆι) the sacred portion, must first raise this paeon thrice around the altar of Apollo: Hail Paeon, O, hail Paeon, hail Paeon, O, hail Paeon, hail Paeon, O, hail Paeon. O Lord Apollo, spare the youths spare… ’.

    289 See Dimitrova 2008 on the concept of hiera moira.

    290 On the phrase ἰὴ παιάν closing a prayer in general, see Xen. An. 3.2.9 and Ar. Thesm. 311.

    291 Diod. Sic. 5.62.5. The text relates that at the sacrifices, thysiai, wine was forbidden, and also that no one who had touched or eaten pig was allowed to enter the temenos. From this it can be inferred that it was forbidden to sacrifice pig to the goddess.

    292 IvP III 161 A.6–8 and 15–18. Χοῖρος began, in the second century AD, to be used both for piglet, as before, and a pig of any age (Schaps 1996, 171). Since the Lex sacra Hallenstrasse goes back to a much earlier original, however, the preferred translation here would be piglet.

    293 IvP III 161 A.7–8. These parts would have become the perquisite of the priests, cf. LSAM 13.12– 16 = T491 (Asklepieion at Pergamon, before 133 BC).

    294 Sokolowski 1973, 408, commenting on IvP III 161 A.15–18.

    295 Wörrle (1969, 172), the editor of the Lex sacra Hallenstrasse, translates προθύεσθαι in this inscription as either to sacrifice to other deities before the main sacrifice or to sacrifice as required before incubation, in a more general sense.

    296 The text may be translated as follows: ‘If someone wants to enquire several times about the same (thing), he must first offer a pig, (but if) he enquires about another matter, he must first offer (another) pig (according to) the above instructions’. Hence, the meaning of the verb here seems to imply that pro- means ‘before’ enquiring for help, and not ‘before’ the regular sacrifice.

    297 Peek 1969, no. 336. It is an animal sacrifice — different costs are given for the wood to be supplied for piglets and for grown animals.

    298 LSAM 24.

    299 IOropos 277.27 and 30; NGSL 13; Diod. Sic. 5.62.

    300 Strabo 6.3.9. See Collection of texts, no. 11.

    301 Petropoulou 1985, 170.

    302 See Collection of texts, no. 10.

    303 See further on the sacrifice of a black ram, Section 2.1.1.

    304 Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 186–187. They specify that the offerings were normally of low monetary value, such as the common offering of a cock (cf. Pl. Phd. 118).

    305 Eur. Ion 300–304, 392–394 and 404–409; SEG 34.122.62 (initiation at Eleusis).

    306 Sokolowski, commentary to LSCG 40.

    307 IG IV2, 1 121.45; IG IV2, 1 126.20 (the cure of Apellas, c. 160 AD); Peek 1969, no. 336 (Epidauros, fourth century BC), as well as IK 2.205.31–32 = LSAM 24 A.31–32 (cult of Asklepios at Erythrai, c. 380–360 BC); LSAM 52 B (cult of Asklepios at Miletos, first century AD).

    308 For incubants sacrificing without a priest present, see IOropos 277. 27–28. For sacrifices before incubation being performed by a priest, see IOropos 277. 25–26 and IK 2.205.10–25 = LSAM 24 A.10–25.

    309 The exceptions to this consist of some iamata from Epidauros where prayers were made to Asklepios as a way of placating the god after the incubants had been punished for neglecting to fulfil a vow (C 4 (47)), or because of non-belief in the god’s powers (B 16 [36]). See Pulleyn (1997, 66–69) on supplication or the asking of forgiveness being occasions when worshippers sought favours from the gods with empty hands.

    310 IOropos 277.25–29 (386–374 BC).

    311 ICr 1.17.11a.

    312 Burkert 1985, 56.

    313 IOropos 277 = IG VII 235, see the analysis presented in Section 1.2.5.

    314 The IK 2.205 = LSAM 24 A does not regulate the prayers said, but the sacrifices made. A sacrifice without an accompanying prayer is unlikely because the sacrifice is made to strengthen the prayer.

    315 Herod. Mim. 4.1–20.

    316 Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 193.

    317 Hippocrates, Morb. sacr. 4 (translation by W.H.S. Jones [Loeb 1943]); Jouanna 1992; Jouanna 2003). The text is dated by most scholars to c. 400 BC, or c. 200 BC at the latest.

    318 Burkert 1985, 73–75; Pulleyn 1997, 7–15 and passim; Aubriot-Sévin 1992, 41–48.

    319 See Epidaurian iamata C 5 (48) and C 21 (64), for incubants being commanded by the god to stay in the sanctuary for a certain amount of time in order to get well (in iama C 21 [64] specified as four months). See also Anth. Pal. 6.330 (a three-month stay). Some Epidaurian iamata (B 5 [25] and B 13 [33]) make it clear that incubants left because they had had no clear dreams, and one might speculate that they tried to sleep in the dormitory more than one time.

    320 IvP III 161 A.161.23–25. On this group, see Sokolowski 1973.

    321 IvP III 47, 79, 122, 140 and 152; on therapeutai: Aristid. Or. sacr. 1.23, 2.47, 4.16, 4.18 and 4.50.

    322 LSAM 8.19 = T572.

    323 LIMC 2: 1 (1981), 875, no. 98, s.v. Asklepios. See also Pedrizet 1903 and Zaccagnino 1998, 57.

    324 Simboli 1921, 61–62, who claims that opiates were also burnt on the altar. There is no evidence whatsoever of the use of opiates in Greek religion.

    325 Eitrem 1915, 224; Lefort 1906, 115–116. Lefort supports this in Artem. 4.2, where Artemidoros writes that asking for dreams should not be accompanied by the burning of incense or uttering sacrilegious words. In my view, this prohibition does not pertain to the use of incense but rather to the uttering of sacrilegious words. Incense was frequently used in order to catch the attention of the god at prayer and at sacrifice. So-called magical rites as we know them were no closed system, but were influenced by and also influenced the conceptions of common cult.

    326 Zaccagnino (1998, 57), referring to how Julius Apellas at Epidauros dreamt that he was covered in mustard and salt and was being led by a small boy with a smoking censer (IG IV2, 1126, c. AD 160).

    327 Ar. Thesm. 36–37; Ar. Vesp. 860–862; Ran. 871–872; Fritze 1894; Burkert 1985, 371, n. 66.

    328 Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 194.

    329 IvP III 161 A.14–15.

    330 Blech 1982, 286, 297, 305–306, n. 169 and 312, n. 206a.

    331 RE 11.2 (1922), 1588–1607, esp. 1601, s.v. Kranz [Ganszyniec], mentioning among other things the oracle of Apollon Koropaios, IG IX, 2 1109.39–40.

    332 Parker 1983, 153.

    333 Blech 1982, 269–272.

    334 Blech 1982, 273.

    335 Ar. Plut. 625. Sommerstein 2001, 179, takes this customary garb to be white, referring to Aristid. 48.31 = Or. sacr. 2.31. Aristides is, however, a Roman source and should not be used on its own to document practices in Classical times.

    336 Walton (1894, 76–82) stated that white gowns were the rule, quoting Aristid. 473.8 and 494.6 = Or. sacr. 2.30 (a dream of many men dressed in white gathered in the Sacred Theatre) and Or. sacr. 3.21 (a servant bearing an ointment in Aristides’ dream was clad in white). Deubner (1900, 25) claims that incubants wore white linen clothes and purple bands, citing testimonia from the cult of Trophonios, which is not an incubation cult (see Bonnechere 2003a and Bonnechere 2003b). Also, Dillon (1994, 245), quoting the LSAM 14 of Roman times, mentions that white clothing was a prerequisite for incubation.

    337 Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 149–150 (writing only about the cult of Asklepios). They state that there were no fees, no special clothing, no crowns, and no animal skins in the incubation ritual. They regard the LSAM 14 as an exception.

    338 Aristid. Or. sacr. 2.30, 2.31. In the LSAM 14, white clothes, as well as the absence of rings, belts and shoes are noted.

    339 IG IV2, 1128.17–21 (date of c. 280 BC); Furley & Bremer (2001, vol. 1, 233–236) date it to 325–300 BC.

    340 Aeschin. In Ctes. 77.

    341 LSCG 83.39–40 = IG IX, 2 1109 I.39–40 = HGIU vol. 3, no. 492.

    342 Wächter 1910, 18, cf. the Coan sacred law LSCG 151 A.8–9 = Rhodes & Osborne 2003, no. 62.8–9 (middle of third century BC).

    343 LSCG 68.5–6.

    344 Robinson 1943, 191–199 (end of the sixth century BC); Mills 1984, 258, n. 17.

    345 Deshours 2006, 31, ll. 16–26 = LSCG 65.16–26 (92 BC). English translation in Mills 1984, 259. Cf. LSCG 124.15–18 (second century BC; no worshipper was allowed to wear shoes or clothes made from animals).

    346 Any impurity shows very clearly on a white garment, and thus a white garment may be claimed to be an attestation of purity (Wächter 1910, 16, n. 1).

    347 This connotation is somewhat speculative; see Radke (1936, 12–13) who argues that the Dioskouroi, riding white horses, also had some healing abilities, and that Amphiaraos, who had healing powers, rode a team of white horses.

    348 Hippocr. Morb.sacr. 2.

    349 IG XII, 9 194 = T787 (fourth or beginning of the third century BC).

    350 Pl. Leg. 12. 956a.

    351 Cf. Petsalis-Diomidis 2007.

    352 E.g. Armpis 2001, Riethmüller 2005, Melfi 2007.

    353 Aleshire 1989, 29–30.

    354 Ar. Plut. 659–663 and 732–734. The Ploutos according to Aleshire was set in the Asklepieion of Athens.

    355 Ar. Plut. 732–734.

    356 Paus. 10.32.12; Aleshire 1989, 29–30.

    357 In the same manner, the decline of the rite and a possible deterioration of the buildings in the sanctuary might have meant that the incubants’ slept in the temple. An account of Damaskios (Vita Isidori frg. 218 [Zintzen] = T427) describes how incubants (and the philosopher Plutarch in particular) in the AD 480s slept on the porch of the temple of Asklepios in Athens. From the place where Plutarch slept, ἐγκαθεύδων τῷ προδόμῳ τοῦ ἱεροῦ, he could see the cult statue. The Edelsteins (T427) translate the passage as ‘in the vestibule of the shrine’. In the LSJ πρόδομος, ὁ, is translated as ‘in temples’, the opposite of opisthodomos. Damaskios was born in AD 462 and was a student of rhetoric in Athens (Neue Pauly 3 [1997], 291–293, s.v. Damaskios [Brisson]). Hence, he must have been familiar with the Asklepieion. The visibility of the cult statue strongly suggests that Plutarch slept on the very small porch of the temple (roughly measuring 5 × 2 metres).

    358 Likewise, in A 6, it is made clear that the abaton and the temple were two separate buildings.

    359 IOropos 277.43–44. This is the first instance where the word koimeterion is documented, being an unusual word for ‘dormitory’. Later, it came to mean ‘burial place’, as attested on Early Christian tomb stones and, as argued by Kramar (1990, 272), also when it occurs in papyri.

    360 Hyperid. Eux. 14, edition of Whitehead 2000, 200.

    361 LSJ, s.v. ἱερός, III.2.

    362 Coulton 1976, 48, n. 2, 269 and pers.comm. J. Coulton as of 26.05.05 for the wider date range.

    363 There is no reason to postulate that every cult of Asklepios offered incubation. At larger Asklepieia, it is usually taken for granted that incubation existed, even though no literary sources state this. At smaller sanctuaries, especially those within a city, incubation would often have been impractical. DiVita 1982, 537–545.

    364 Herod. Mim. 4.39–78.

    365 Paus. 2.27.2–3.

    366 The eastern stoa: Coulton 1976, 46–47 and 237–238, cf. Roux 1961, 404 (the first third of the fourth century BC). The western stoa: Kavvadias 1900, 127; Coulton 1976, 47 and 238. Cf. Shoe (1936, 124 and 175), who dates the extension to the latter half of the fourth century BC, on stylistic grounds. For arguments against this, see Coulton 1976, 47, n.4.

    367 Lambrinoudakis 2002, 219.

    368 Lambrinoudakis 2002, 216–217 and 219. The features indicating ritual meals are a perimetric channel, stoas surrounding the courtyard, and paving of small stones in both stoas as well as on the courtyard (to facilitate cleaning).

    369 Kavvadias 1891, 17–18; Kavvadias 1900, 121–128; Martin & Metzger 1942–1943, 331–332; Burford 1969, 62–63; Lambrinoudakis 2002, 219. Previous interpretations of the abaton as a building E (e.g. Holwerda 1902, 289–293) seem less likely, owing to its usage as a place of ritual dining.

    370 Kavvadias 1891, 18; Allen & Caskey 1911, 43.

    371 Walker (1979, 254–255 and 257) suggested that it was an incubation dormitory which was shared with the nearby established cult of Isis. See further discussion in Ehrenheim 2009, 246.

    372 IvP III 161 A.11–12 and 16–19. Armpis (2001, 142) argues that the small enkoimeterion was used for special worshippers, the perithytai or therapeutai (see Sokolowski 1973, 408–412; Ehrenheim 2009, 250, n. 103). Mention of the small enkoimeterion is made when advice is given to incubants wanting to enquire several times. Instructions on the evening sacrifice of cakes to Tyche, Mnemosyne and Themis are given in ll. 9–11 for the first-time incubants, and in ll. 26–29 for two other groups: those going to the enkoimeterion and those who perithyo. Since ll. 15–29 seems to concern second-time sleepers and those who perithyo, we may assume that the perithytai also slept in the small enkoimeterion, the word ‘small’ being implied and thus left out in l. 27.

    373 Suggested to be ‘dormitory’ by Deubner (1938, 15, 17, 34 and 40). On the phases of the building, see AvP XI.1, 17–19, 29, 32–33, 46 and 61–62.

    374 See e.g. AvP XI.3, 76–77 and Hoffmann 1998, 54–55, as well as discussion in Ehrenheim 2009, 250–251.

    375 Ehrenheim 2009, 249–251.

    376 On klinai, see Section 1.4.4.

    377 Epidaurian iamata, passim; ICr 1.17.11b (Lebena, second century BC). As for Trikka, the Hymn of Isyllos (IG IV2, 1 128.29–31) speaks of sacrificing to Apollon Maleatas first before going down to the adyton of Asklepios at Trikka. If the adyton here was ‘only’ the innermost of the temple of Asklepios, why sacrifice first to the healing aspect of Apollon in order to gain access? The adyton of Asklepios must be the dormitory here.

    378 Ar. Plut. 663.

    379 LSJ, s.v. στιβάς.

    380 Cf. how stibas is used in Pl. Resp. 2.372b, where the simplicity of family celebrations among peasants is praised.

    381 Ar. Plut. 624–626.

    382 Parker 1996, 181–182.

    383 Ar. Plut. 541.

    384 E.g. the use of twig beds in the cults of Demeter and Dionysos (Graf 1996, 196).

    385 IvP III 161 A.15.

    386 Wörrle 1969, 171 and 181, n. 71. Riethmüller (2005, 384, n. 153) accepts the translation of Wörrle.

    387 Verpoorten 1962.

    388 Graf 1992, 189.

    389 Sourvinou-Inwood 2003a, 80–88, 99, and 120.

    390 Parker 1996, 77.

    391 Il. 16.234. See further on the Selloi in Section 3.2.

    392 Fragmentary relief from Rhamnous, Athens, National Archaeological Museum 1397, early fourth century BC = LIMC 1: 1 (1981), 701, no. 61, s.v. Amphiaraos; relief from Piraeus, Piraeus Museum inv. no. 405, around 400 BC (Petropoulou 1985, 173, no. 2, pl. 2); fragmentary relief from the Asklepieion at Athens, Athens, National Archaeological Museum 2505, first half of the fourth century BC (Petropoulou 1985, 173, no. 3, pl. 3); fragmentary relief from the Asklepieion at Athens, Athens, National Archaeological Museum 2488 (Petropoulou 1985, 173–175, no. 4, pl. 4). Petropoulou also presents a fragmentary relief from Oropos, Piraeus Museum, no inv. no, beginning of the fourth century BC (Petropoulou 1985, 170, no. 1, pl. 1).

    393 Petropulou 1985, passim.

    394 Cic. Div. 1.88; Philo, Leg.78 and 93; Paus.1.34; Philostr. VA 2.37; Tert. De anim. 46.

    395 IOropos 277.30 = IG VII 235.30 (Testimonium no. 1); see the commentary of Rhodes & Osborne 2003, 132–133.

    396 Petropoulou 1981, 55. Later, the passage on the sale of the skins (IOropos 277.30, ἱ̣ε̣ρ̣ὸν εἶ]ναι) was erased. According to Petropoulou, this was done since the Athenians now ruled Oropos, and the money from the hides went to the new Lycurgian Dermatikon — a state fund that dealt with the sales of public sacrificial skins in Attica (IG II2 333; Robert 1960, 195, n. 4; Petropoulou 1981, 61–62; Rhodes & Osborne 2003, 132–133).

    397 Athens, National Archaeological Museum 3369 = IG II2 4394 = LIMC 1: 1 (1981), 702, no. 63, s.v. Amphiaraos (first half of the fourth century BC).

    398 Van Straten 1995, 73.

    399 FGrHist IIIB, frg. 566, F56 = Pseudo-Lycophron, Alexandra 1047–1051; Strabo 6.3.9. Also, in the cult of Faunus, as related by both Verg. Aen. 7.88 and 94–95 and Ov. Fast. 4.659–660, incubants lay down to sleep on fresh fleeces. Much of the information on the cult of Faunus is, however, probably a literary construct. Still, the texts illustrate that both Ovid and Vergil thought it appropriate that incubants should sleep on fleeces.

    400 FGrHist IIIB, frg. 566, F56 = Pseudo-Lycophron. Alex. 1047–1051. For a citation of the whole passage, see Collection of texts no. 10, above.

    401 Strabo 6.3.9. For a citation of the whole passage, see Collection of texts no. 11, above.

    402 Harrison 1922, 24 and 27–28; Jameson 1965, 161, n. 7; Parker 1983, 373; Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 83 and 95, with references to relevant ancient sources.

    403 See Deubner (1932, 77–78, pls. 7.1–2) and Richardson (1974, 211–213), on Herakles’ initiation into the Eleusinian mysteries where he is depicted as sitting on a ram’s skin with his head veiled (sarcophagus from Torre Nova and the Lovatelli urn, both thought to be based on the same original).

    404 Hubert & Mauss 1964, 97–103; cf. Henninger 1987. See also Graf (1992, 190), who views sleeping in the fell of the consecrated animal as a way of enhancing the sacrality and liminality of incubation.

    405 Athens, National Archaeological Museum 3369 = IG II2 4394 = LIMC 1: 2 (1981), 564, no. 63, s.v. Amphiaraos (first half of the fourth century BC).

    406 Van Straten 1995, 73; e.g. Athens, National Archaeological Museum 1841 (fourth century BC) = LIMC 2: 2 (1984), 637, no. 54, s.v. Asklepios; van Straten 1995, R22.

    407 Coulton 1968, 183: the date ranges from the end of the fourth century to Roman times.

    408 The klinai excavated at Corinth and Troizen cannot have been there for incubation since there was a table opposite each couch (Roebuck 1951, 51–55; Welter 1941, 28–33 (Welter still believes that the building is an incubation hall, however, despite the evidence for tables). See also Studniczka 1914, 142–143, Frickenhaus 1917, 114–118, and Tomlinson 1969, 106–112 on klinai for theoxenia.

    409 Ar. Plut. 663.

    410 IOropos 277.43–47.

    411 Ar. Plut. 685–695.

    412 Graf 1998, 1006.

    413 See Mehl 2002, 44–46, for a summary of the ancient evidence and scholarly discussion. For instance, it has been claimed in previous research that in battle the best troops were placed on the right side of the army, until Leuktra (Lévêque & Vidal-Naquet 1960).

    414 Ar. Plut. 668–670.

    415 SEG 43.1186.16–17 (λυχνοκαιία, ‘lightning of lamps, illumination’); Dobias-Lalou 1993, 32–33. One Asklepieion at Kyrene from the second century AD has been found, identified by the in situ statues of Asklepios and Hygieia (Bonacasa & Ensoli 2000, 150; Stucchi 1975, 262–263; Paribeni 1959, n. 214 and n. 225).

    416 Paus. 2.26.9; Dobias–Lalou 1993, 32–33.

    417 Ar. Plut. 668–670.

    418 Neue Pauly 5 (1998), 875, s.v. Iatros [Graf].

    419 Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 150.

    420 Deubner 1900, 26–27 (though citing testimonia from the cult of Trophonios which is not an incubation cult; see Bonnechere 2003b); Lefort 1906, 118.

    421 Eur. Hel. 865–872; Parisinou 2000, 77. Had the lamps in the Ploutos remained lit, one might have thought that they played some part in calling Asklepios, but this is very far-fetched (cf. Ps.-Callisth. Hist. Alex. 1.10 (Ammon being summoned); Paus.7.22.2 (Hermes at Pharai in Achaea)).

    422 There is a Roman rite with lamps which is, however, not completely comparable to what is described in the Ploutos. Aelius Aristides mentions in Or. sacr. 1.11 and 5.28 a ceremony of holy lamps at the Asklepieion at Pergamon (the time of the day is given as ‘time for the Holy lamps’). In 1.32 it appears clear that lamps were to be carried into the temple. This was probably done in the evening, since a carrying of lights would have had the most effect then. It would seem to me, however, that this was likely an evening-time procession that incubants may have taken part in, but one which was not an obligatory rite before incubating. There were further daily ceremonies with lamps upon the closing and opening of the temple at Epidauros in Roman times, as illustrated in the LSS 25. According to Festugière (1951, 478–479), the use of lamps in rituals increased in the Roman period.

    423 Hdt. 8.134.

    424 Epidaurian iama B 1 (21).

    425 E.g. Soph. OC 413.

    426 Epidaurian iamata A 6 and A 7.

    427 Strabo 14.1.44.

    428 Hdt. 1.182.

    429 Graf 1992, 194, citing Tomlinson 1969, 106–112 (on the existence of dining areas, not which group in particular would eat in them); Will 1976, 353–362 (on identification of hestiatoria).

    430 Graf 1992, 195.

    431 IOropos 277.31–32.

    432 See Section 1.1.9.

    433 IOropos 277; Ekroth 2002, 313–325. Scullion (1994, 99–101 and 110) connects the prohibition on taking meat out of the sanctuary with a Chthonian sacrifice.

    434 Petropoulou 1981, 55, n. 52. She has changed her view on this being a thank-offering, and posits that it was instead a sacrifice before incubation: Petropoulou 1985, 176, n. 41.

    435 Rhodes & Osborne 2003, 133.

    436 IG II2 1364.10–11 = LSCG 54.10–11.

    437 Paus. 2.27.1.

    438 See Sections 1.2.2, 1.2.4 and 1.2.5.

    439 For reliefs with incubants lying on klinai, with or without fleeces (accompanied in the relief by what might be interpreted as their family), see van Straten 1995, R30 (fig. 68, Piraeus Asklepieion, lost) and Piraeus Museum no. 405 (Petropoulou 1985, pl. 2). Reliefs with worshippers in group making offerings to Asklepios: van Straten 1995, cat. nos. R6, R9, R10, R18, R19, R23, R27, R28, R30, R34, R35, R37 (Amphiaraos) and R39 (Amphiaraos).

    440 Strabo 14.1.44 (translation H.L. Jones, Loeb 1960). See also the full citation Collection of texts no. 12.

    441 Epidaurian iamata C 3 (46) and C 6 (49) (mentioning a symbolon): Riethmüller 2005, vol. 1, 392; Herzog 1931, 154. There is no translation in the LSJ of σύμβολος as dream interpreter. It may be translated as augury or omen.

    442 LiDonnici 1995, 40–43, with further refs.

    443 Epidaurian iamata B 5 (25), B 13 (33) and C 18 (61).

    444 ICr 1.17.17 (first century BC) = T439; Girone 1998, 116–122; Guarducci 1978, 158.

    445 Zingerle 1937, 88.

    446 Plaut. Curc. 61–62 and 216–273. This play is probably a rewriting of a Greek play by Menander (Nixon 1959, vii–viii), datable to shortly after 311 BC. Even though the events are set in Epidauros, the procedures surrounding incubation would have been recognizable to any Greek (or Roman) at the time.

    447 Behr 1968, 35, n. 61; Graf 1998, 1007.

    448 In Aristid. Or. sacr. 3.21–23, a temple servant helped Aristides to interpret a dream. In Or.sacr. 2.72B, some friends, or priests — the text is unclear — misinterpret the diet prescribed by Asklepios in a dream. Aristides also conferred with his friends as well as his doctors, to make sense of his dreams. Or. sacr. 1.56–57, 1.73, 2.34, 3.27 and 4.38.

    449 Epidaurian iamata B 5 (25), B 13 (33) and C 18 (61).

    450 Epidaurian iamata A 6 and A 7.

    451 Epidaurian iama B 5 (25).

    452 Epidaurian iama B 2 (22).

    453 Epidaurian iama C 4 (47).

    454 Epidaurian iama D 2 (68).

    455 This is explicitly stated in iamata A 6/A7, B 2 (22) and D 2 (68).

    456 IvP III 161 A.31–33.

    457 Wörrle 1969, 186, nn.96 and 97 with further references. Wörrle interprets this coin as being kept in the lex sacra for cultic reasons.

    458 Versnel 1981, 56. Versnel also refers to Lucian Charon sive Contemplantes 11, but this passage is about a payment for prophecies to Apollon at Delphi.

    459 IK 2.205.30–38 = LSAM 24 A.30–38.

    460 IK 2.205.30–38 (sacrifice as thanks, specifically), 10–25 (sacrificial instructions to every type of sacrifice, including the thank-sacrifices).

    461 IvP III 161 A.31.

    462 IvP III 161 A.6.

    463 Epidaurian iamata A 5 and C 3 (46).

    464 Epidaurian iama C 3 (46).

    465 Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 190.

    466 IOropos 277.29–36. Petropoulou 1981, 55, n. 52, Petropoulou 1985, 176, n. 41. As discussed in Section 2.2.5, the sacrifice that is regulated in the inscription could be of any kind, performed by any worshipper in the sanctuary: an offering with a vow, an offering before incubation, a thank-offering for any effected favour (with or without incubation preceding it), or offerings presented by the state at public festivals.

    467 Herod. Mim. 4.1–95.

    468 From the fourth century BC, pelanos also came to mean monetary donations to sanctuaries, see Brill’s New Pauly 10 (2007), 692, s.v. pelanos [Frey].

    469 Herod. Mim. 4.91. Sometimes a sculptured snake guarded the thesauros (Kaminski 1991, 77). See also ThesCRA 3 (2005), 103.

    470 Cakes, including wetted cakes, often accompanied animal sacrifices. See Section 1.2.3.

    471 Pulleyn 1997, 40–42.

    472 LSAM 24.

    473 Liv. 45.28.3.

    474 Diod. Sic. 5.62–63.

    475 Epidaurian iama A 8.

    476 Epidaurian iama A 10. Also, in the fragmentary C 12 (55), there is mention of an unspecified dedication.

    477 Epidaurian iama A 4.

    478 Epidaurian iama A 6. Furthermore, in an iama from the Asklepieion at Lebena, an altar is dedicated after a vow. ICr 1.17.11a (second century BC or somewhat later); Girone 1998, 92–93. It was surely not the only dedication at the site.

    479 Epidaurian iama A 4; LiDonnici 1995, 43. Similarly, the purpose of A 15 is to explain a big stone that lay just outside the abaton, which tells of the paralysed Hermodikos, who was ordered by Asklepios to carry the biggest stone that he could into the sanctuary.

    480 See van Straten 1981, 88–102, on the occasions when votives were offered. Sacred regulations at healing sanctuaries governing when to remove and how to dispose of dedications, when there was simply no more room, are a strong indicator of the number of dedications made; see LSCG 41 (Athens, Herosiatros, 221–220 BC), LSCG 42 (Athens, unidentified sanctuary, second century BC), LSCG 43 (Athens, unidentified sanctuary, second century BC), LSS 107 (Rhodes, Asklepios, third century BC). See further McLean 2002, 255 and ThesCRA 1 (2004), 269–318, esp. 278–280.

    481 The story is retold in Diog. Laert. 6.59.

    482 For publications of votives from known incubation sanctuaries, see the complete references in Riethmüller 2005, as for the Asklepieia. For the Amphiareion at Oropos, see Petrakos 1968 and Petrakos 1997.

    483 Aleshire 1989, 111–353, passim in inventories I–VIII (IG II2 1532–37 and 1539; SEG 28.116).

    484 Van Straten (1981, 120) lists anatomical votives from the Asklepieion at Piraeus.

    485 Van Straten (1981, 122–123) lists anatomical votives from the Asklepieion at Epidauros.

    486 Van Straten (1981, 123–124) lists anatomical votives from the Asklepieion at Corinth; Lang 1977.

    487 Van Straten (1981, 129–132) lists anatomical votives from the Asklepieion at Kos.

    488 Van Straten (1981, 124–125) lists anatomical votives from the Amphiareion at Oropos. See further inventory lists of dedicatory offerings that included body-part votives: IG VII 303 and 3498; SEG 16.300; cf. IG II2 4394 (the Archinous relief).

    489 Van Straten 1981, 126 (Delphi); van Straten 1981, 126–127 (Herakleia Lynkestis); Delos: van Straten 1981, 127 (Delos); van Straten 1981, 128–129 (Melos, though of Roman date); van Straten 1981, 133 (Paros, though of Roman date).

    490 Van Straten 1981, 80 and 88–102; ThesCRA 1 (2004), 278–280.

    491 Karoglou 2010, 62–63.

    492 Strabo 8.6.15.

    493 LiDonnici 1995, 40–44. Cf. Bing 2009, 276–291 and Wickkiser 2013, with further references.

    494 ICr 1.17.8; Chaniotis 1988, T12; Girone 1998, 78–80.

    495 Epidaurian iama A 7, ἀνθησεῖν οἱ εἰκόνα γραψάμενος (translation LiDonnici 1995).

    496 Epidaurian iama A 3 (translation LiDonnici 1995).

    497 Beschi 1982, 39–40; Beschi 2002, 21–22.

    498 Herod. Mim. 4.19–20.

    499 Riethmüller 2005, vol. 1, 66–67.

    500 Van Straten 1981, 79; Karoglou 2010.

    501 Xen. Cyr. 4.1.2; Versnel 1981, 56; Pulleyn 1997, 42–43.

    502 Versnel 1981, 56.

    503 Epidaurian iamata B5 (25); B13 (33) and C18 (61).

    504 ICr 1.17.17, ICr 1.17.18 (first century BC) and ICr 1.17.19 (second/first century BC).

    Greek Incubation Rituals in Classical and Hellenistic Times

    X Facebook Email

    Greek Incubation Rituals in Classical and Hellenistic Times

    Ce livre est diffusé en accès ouvert freemium. L’accès à la lecture en ligne est disponible. L’accès aux versions PDF et ePub est réservé aux bibliothèques l’ayant acquis. Vous pouvez vous connecter à votre bibliothèque à l’adresse suivante : https://freemium.openedition.org/oebooks

    Suggérer l’acquisition à votre bibliothèque Acheter ce livre aux formats PDF et ePub

    Si vous avez des questions, vous pouvez nous écrire à access[at]openedition.org

    Greek Incubation Rituals in Classical and Hellenistic Times

    Vérifiez si votre bibliothèque a déjà acquis ce livre : authentifiez-vous à OpenEdition Freemium for Books.

    Vous pouvez suggérer à votre bibliothèque d’acquérir un ou plusieurs livres publiés sur OpenEdition Books. N’hésitez pas à lui indiquer nos coordonnées : access[at]openedition.org

    Vous pouvez également nous indiquer, à l’aide du formulaire suivant, les coordonnées de votre bibliothèque afin que nous la contactions pour lui suggérer l’achat de ce livre. Les champs suivis de (*) sont obligatoires.

    Veuillez, s’il vous plaît, remplir tous les champs.

    La syntaxe de l’email est incorrecte.

    Référence numérique du chapitre

    Format

    Von Ehrenheim, H. (2015). Chapter 1. The rites and rules. In Greek Incubation Rituals in Classical and Hellenistic Times (1‑). Presses universitaires de Liège. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pulg.15945
    Von Ehrenheim, Hedvig. « Chapter 1. The Rites and Rules ». In Greek Incubation Rituals in Classical and Hellenistic Times. Liège: Presses universitaires de Liège, 2015. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pulg.15945.
    Von Ehrenheim, Hedvig. « Chapter 1. The Rites and Rules ». Greek Incubation Rituals in Classical and Hellenistic Times, Presses universitaires de Liège, 2015, https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pulg.15945.

    Référence numérique du livre

    Format

    Von Ehrenheim, H. (2015). Greek Incubation Rituals in Classical and Hellenistic Times (1‑). Presses universitaires de Liège. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pulg.15905
    Von Ehrenheim, Hedvig. Greek Incubation Rituals in Classical and Hellenistic Times. Liège: Presses universitaires de Liège, 2015. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pulg.15905.
    Von Ehrenheim, Hedvig. Greek Incubation Rituals in Classical and Hellenistic Times. Presses universitaires de Liège, 2015, https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pulg.15905.
    Compatible avec Zotero Zotero

    1 / 3

    Presses universitaires de Liège

    Presses universitaires de Liège

    • Plan du site
    • Se connecter

    Suivez-nous

    • Flux RSS

    URL : http://www.presses.uliege.be

    Email : pulg@uliege.be

    Adresse :

    7, place du 20-Août, Bât. A4

    4000

    Liège

    Belgique

    OpenEdition
    • Candidater à OpenEdition Books
    • Connaître le programme OpenEdition Freemium
    • Commander des livres
    • S’abonner à la lettre d’OpenEdition
    • CGU d’OpenEdition Books
    • Accessibilité : partiellement conforme
    • Données personnelles
    • Gestion des cookies
    • Système de signalement