Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

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

 | 
Gunnel Ekroth

Chapter I. Terms assumed to be related to hero-cult rituals

Texte intégral

1In the modern literature on hero-cults, a number of terms have been classified as being particularly applicable to the sacrifices to heroes. This terminology is said to express the specific characteristics of the rituals used in hero-cults and to distinguish them from the sacrifices to the gods, while at the same time linking the heroes to the cult of the ordinary dead.

  • 1 For previous studies, see, for example, Pfister 1909–12, 475–476; Stengel 1920, 15–17; Rudhardt 19 (...)
  • 2 Casabona 1966, 204–210; Rudhardt 1958, 238–239 and 250–251; Pfister 1909–12, 466–480; cf. Robert F (...)

2Among the terms chosen for a closer study in this chapter are ἐσχάρα, ἐσχαρών and βόθρος, which refer to the altars or sacrificial installations that were supposedly used in hero-cults. Furthermore, the verb ἐναγίζειν and its three connected nouns, ἐνάγισμα, ἐναγισμός and ἐναγιστήριον, will be investigated: these terms all refer to the sacrificial rituals. The use and meaning of eschara, escharon and bothros have not been extensively covered previously.1 Enagizein, enagisma, enagismos and enagisterion have been studied by Casabona, Rudhardt and Pfister, but the specific connection between these terms and hero-cults merits further study.2

  • 3 Entemnein and related terms: Casabona 1966, 211–229; Rudhardt 1958, 281–286; Stengel 1910, 103–104 (...)

3Other terms have also been considered as being particularly applicable to hero-cults, for example, entemnein, sphagiazein, holokautein and choai. These terms will be partly commented upon in Chapters II and III and have also been the focus of thorough investigations previously.3 From this work, it is clear that the connection between these terms and hero-cults is not as prominent as for the terms mentioned above and that they were also used to cover the sacrificial activity in other kinds of cults than hero-cults, either of the gods or of the departed.

  • 4 Benveniste 1954, 251; Casabona 1966, vi; Rudhardt 1958, 3–8; Peirce 1993, 219–266.

4To understand the use and meaning of a term, all the contexts in which it appears should be investigated. This is the lexical approach formulated by Benveniste, which has been employed by Casabona and Rudhardt in their work on Greek religious terminology and the same method has also been applied by Peirce in her study of iconographical representations of sacrifices.4

  • 5 Casabona 1966, 348.

5Casabona argues that any study of the terminology should include as many contexts as possible: si l’on veut conserver le contact avec les réalités, on se gardera de toute construction qui ne reposerait pas sur une étude philologique aussi exhaustive que possible.5 Casabona emphasizes that the terms are inseparable from the notions they convey and that their use and meaning develop with them. It cannot be taken for granted that the use and meaning of a certain term in the Classical period was the same as, for example, during the 2nd century AD.

  • 6 The date of the sources used by Pfister (1909–12, 475–476), Stengel (1920, 15–16), Rohde (1925, 23 (...)

6To be able to test the assumption that the terms eschara, escharon, bothros, enagizein, enagisma, enagismos and enagisterion were particularly connected with hero-cults, it is therefore necessary to look into all contexts in which these terms are found, independently of their date and character. This means including also sources which are substantially later than 300 BC, since the connection between heroes and these terms is particularly apparent in the post-Classical sources.6 The investigation of the whole chronological span of the use of these terms is especially important, in order to define the validity of the information derived from later sources for conditions also in earlier periods and to distinguish whether the use and meaning of the terms had undergone any changes.

7The terms investigated in this chapter are used in sources spanning more than 1500 years. The inscriptions of interest here date from the 4th century BC to the 4th century AD. On the whole, the epigraphical material is not abundant, particularly from the Archaic and Classical periods. It is also of relatively uniform character and there is therefore no need for a division into more specific groups.

  • 7 Harpokration and Pollux date from the 2nd century AD. For the dates of these sources, see OCD3 s.v (...)
  • 8 On the difficulties of dating scholia, see Smith 1981; Erbse 1965, 2723–2725; McNamee 1995; Dear 1 (...)

8The literary material, on the other hand, is more extensive. The texts date from the 6th century BC and well into the Byzantine period and to be able to handle such a considerable period, the sources have been arranged in three categories depending on their date and character. The first category consists of sources from the Archaic to early Hellenistic periods, i.e., from approximately 700 down to 300 BC. The second and third categories are formed by literary sources dated after 300 BC, but they have been separated, depending on their character and aim. The second category comprises post-300 BC sources, which use the investigated terms as something well understood and still relevant in contemporary society. They date from the 3rd century BC to approximately the 5th century AD. The third category partly overlaps chronologically with the second and consists of explicatory sources, which aim at explaining a term or concept, such as the lexica, the scholia and the commentators on earlier texts. The work of the ancient lexicographers and commentators is mainly later than the 5th century AD and some of the sources are as late as the 13th century AD.7 The scholia are notoriously difficult to date, even for experts; although some of their contents may go back to the Classical period, they are mainly preserved in the Byzantine editions, after having passed through the Roman abbreviations of the Hellenistic hypomnemata.8

1. Eschara and escharon

  • 9 LSJ s.v. έσχάρα. There are some variants, which have partly the same meaning (cf. LSJ for referenc (...)
  • 10 Eschara also seems to be a type of fish (sole?) or sea-food; see Archippos fr. 24 (PCG II, 1991), (...)
  • 11 LSJ, Second supplement (1996), s.v. ἐσχάρα; cf. Chadwick 1986; Chadwick 1996, 111–115.

9The word eschara has a variety of meanings. The LSJ gives the following explanations:9 (i) hearth, fireplace, pan of coals, brazier, watch-fires, (ii) sacrificial hearth (hollowed out of the ground and so distinguished from bomos, structural altar; used especially in hero-worship), frequently used generally, altar of burnt-offering, (iii) fire-stick, (iv) platform, stand, basis; grating, (v) scab, eschar, on a wound caused by burning or otherwise, (vi) in the plural, parts of the female sexual organs.10 In the LSJ supplement of 1996, the religious connotations of the term have been played down. The explanations given here are, on the one hand, a place for the fire, from which was derived the meanings “hollow scab”, “hollowed-out wood” and “external female genitals”, and, on the other, a container for fire, brazier and fire-basket (not clearly distinguished from the sense “altar”), from which was derived the meanings “grid” and “lattice-work”.11 Escharon is explained as “a place for a hearth” (LSJ s.v.).

  • 12 Chadwick 1986, 515–523, finds that the meanings diverge widely with no obvious link between them. (...)
  • 13 Ar. Av. 1232.
  • 14 Theophr. Hist. pl. 5.9.7.
  • 15 Arist. [Pr.] 863a; cf. the English term “eschar”.
  • 16 Hippoc. Art. 11.30 and 70; Plato fr. 200, line 4 (PCG VII, 1989).
  • 17 Theophr. Hist. pl. 5.9.7.
  • 18 Ammonios FGrHist 361 F 1b. The form escharios can refer to the construction surrounding a boat, wh (...)

10Although the explanations presented above may seem highly diverse, two common features can be distinguished.12 In the first place, fire is closely related to an eschara, whether it is a religious installation where sacrifices are burnt,13 a part of the equipment made out of wood for making a fire,14 a scab on a wound which has been cauterized to facilitate healing15 or simply a burn injury.16 Secondly, in most meanings of the term, there can be found an indication of an eschara being hollow or surrounding something. The hearth and brazier are by their nature hollow, an altar may have a sunken area on top, the wooden board used for making the fire has a hole in it,17 and as a medical term eschara can signify a hollow wound on the body.18

  • 19 For example, Hippokrates and the Corpus Hippocraticum (Art. 11.30, 11.40, 11.60 and 11.70; cf. Küh (...)
  • 20 Deneken 1886–90, 2496–2501; Pfister 1909–12, 475–476; Foucart 1918, 97; Stengel 1920, 15; Rohde 19 (...)
  • 21 Deneken 1886–90, 2496–2501; Pfister 1909–12, 474–476; Stengel 1920, 15–16; Rohde 1925, 23; Robert (...)
  • 22 Stengel 1920, 15–16; Rohde 1925, 23.
  • 23 Deneken 1886–90, 2498–2501; Pfister 1909–12, 476; Stengel 1920, 16.
  • 24 Reisch 1907, 614–617; Stengel 1920, 15–16; Robert F. 1939, 185–189; Nilsson 1967, 78.
  • 25 Van Straten 1974, 174 and 185–187; van Straten 1995, 165–167; Reisch, 1907, 616; Stengel 1920, 16.

11The use of eschara in a religious context is not too frequent and the term is, in fact, mainly found in the medical literature.19 In the modern scholarly literature, the term has been particularly connected with the heroes, the dead and the chthonian divinities.20 In these contexts, the term is explained as an altar used in their cult and it is frequently contrasted with bomos, the altar for Olympian sacrifices. An eschara is thought to have had a particular appearance, being low, shaped like a mound and/or hollow, in contrast to a bomos, which has been considered as being high and well-built.21 The use of the term eschara for the altar has also been taken as a sign that specific rituals took place in hero-cults, as well as in chthonian cults in general, for example, the pouring of the blood of the animal slaughtered into a hole in the ground and the burning of the entire sacrificial victim.22 At the same time, it has been noted that the distinctions between eschara and bomos, both concerning the appearance and the rituals for which they were used, were not always accurately observed.23 The term eschara could be used for bomos and in particular for the upper, sunken part of a bomos.24 The variations in the meaning of the term eschara (a particular kind of altar used for the heroes and the chthonians, as well as an equivalent of bomos or simply a hearth used for sacrifices) have led some scholars to question the distinctions between eschara and bomos and even to suggest that eschara should be avoided altogether, owing to its lack of clarity.25

  • 26 The literary definitions of eschara have been used to identify them in the archaeological and icon (...)

12Eschara is commented upon in most studies touching upon Greek religion. The term is usually discussed in connection with heroes and chthonian cults in general and considered as adequately understood and documented. In general, it can be said that there is at present a consensus on a distinction between eschara and bomos as two different kinds of altars, each with a particular appearance and each used for different kinds of divinities and rituals, although there is an awareness of the evidence arguing against such a division.26

1.1. Epigraphical sources

1.1.1. Eschara

  • 27 The terms escharidion, escharion and escharis are also found in the inscriptions, but the meaning (...)
  • 28 For example, the sacrifice by Eumaios on the household hearth in Od. 14.420.

13The term eschara is commonly found in the inscriptions, but it is not immediately obvious what kind of object is meant.27 Is it the altar on which the sacrifice was performed or the brazier or grill on which some or all the meat was prepared afterwards? Only a small number of the escharai mentioned in the inscriptions can be interpreted as being altars, but the interpretation is complicated by the fact that a hearth, too, could be used for sacrifices.28

  • 29 Escharai of bronze, 4th century: IG II2 120, 46; 1414, 41; 1416, 8; 1424a, 260; 1425, 364; 1440, 5 (...)
  • 30 IG II2 1492, 70, eschara of silver. Cf. the silver thymiaterion or escharis, a votive gift by Boul (...)
  • 31 Hellmann 1992, 77, interprets all the metal escharai in the Delos inscriptions as braziers or pans (...)
  • 32 Escharai occurring in a context with dining equipment: IG II2 1416, 8; 1638, 68; 1639, 1; 1640, 31 (...)
  • 33 IG II2 1638, 68; 1639, 9; 1640, 31; ID 104, 142; 104–10, 10; 104–11B, 35; 104–12, 114; all 4th cen (...)

14The majority of the escharai mentioned in the inscriptions are found in the temple inventories from Athens and Delos dating from around the mid-4th to the end of the 2nd century BC. Frequently, the escharai are listed with other kinds of metal objects and specified as being of bronze, iron or even silver.29 A silver eschara was probably not used as a simple hearth but may rather have been an incense-burner.30 It is possible that all the bronze and iron escharai were portable hearths.31 In some instances, the context seems to be connected especially with dining, since in the same section of the inscription are mentioned cooking-pots, meat-hooks, spits, vessels for preparing sausages, trays, buckets, kraters, jugs, wine-ladles, strainers, drinking-vessels, couches, lamps, stands, etc.32 A few of these escharai are specified as μεγάλη and αὐτόστροφος, the latter, according to the LSJ, meaning something which rotates.33 These escharai are best interpreted as grills equipped with an arrangement for placing and rotating the spits and thus facilitating the grilling of the meat, like a modern Greek gyros or a shwarma of the Middle East. None of the escharai listed in these temple inventories can be interpreted as having functioned solely as altars.

  • 34 Peek 1969, 48, no. 52, lines 15 and 16 = SEG 24, 1969, 277 (re-edition of IG IV2 118 A); for comme (...)
  • 35 IG XI:2 203 A, 33.
  • 36 ID 1417 A, col. I, 76 (156/5 BC) lists a βωμòν ξύλινον among the inventories of the Thesmophorion, (...)
  • 37 Tréheux 1952, 564–566; Hellmann 1992, 73 and 77, with n. 22. For eschara or escharis as a sledge f (...)

15The escharai found in the temple inventories, which form the bulk of the occurrences of the term in the epigraphical evidence, seem to have been used as hearths or grills and were in most cases movable. Some of these may have been employed for sacrifices, but it seems most likely that they were used for the preparation of food. Before moving on to the escharai with a stronger sacrificial connection, it should be mentioned that a completely different meaning of the term is also found in the inscriptions. Eschara could mean simply a grating, with no connection with fire. This seems to be the meaning of the term in an inscription from Epidauros dating to c. 370 BC.34 These escharai appear to have been connected with the subterranean waterworks and were located in the drains of the water-tanks for cleaning purposes. Another non-religious use of eschara is found in an early 3rd-century inscription recording the monthly pay-outs by the temple of Apollon on Delos.35 Here it is mentioned that a certain Theodemos is paid one drachma and three obols for having made an eschara of wood, an amount equivalent to one day’s work. A hearth or altar of wood seems unlikely, since the fire would have consumed the eschara.36 Tréheux suggested that the wood referred to was a base or the feet of an eschara of terracotta or of metal, while Hellmann interpreted the eschara as not connected with fire at all, but as some kind of chariot used for the transportation of stone.37

  • 38 IG II2 4977; Rhousopoulos 1862, 83, no. 84. The stone is 0.49 m high, 0.21 m wide and 0.07 m thick
  • 39 Cf. the two 4th-century stelai inscribed Ἀμφιαράο Ἀμφιλόχο and Ίστίης placed against the smaller a (...)
  • 40 A small shrine found below the terrace of the Middle Stoa in the Athenian Agora was marked only by (...)
  • 41 Thorikos: Daux 1983, 153, line 36; for the reading Ήρακλείδ[αις τέλεον], see Parker 1984, 59. Erch (...)

16Few escharai mentioned in the inscriptions can be interpreted as being altars and even fewer show any connection with hero-cults. The first and clearest case of an eschara being connected with hero-cults, as well as referring to an altar or a sacrificial installation, is an inscription from Porto Raphti, Attica (Fig. 1). It consists of a stone-Çsqára slab inscribed Ηρακλειδῶν ἐσχάρα and is dated to the 4th century BC.38 The topmost part with the inscription is smooth, while the lower two-thirds are rough. The stone itself is too small to be an altar, but the treatment, as well as the dimensions, confirm that it is a horos. Nothing is known of the find circumstances. The stone may have delimited a sacred area where the eschara was located.39 Perhaps the eschara consisted only of a heap of ashes on the ground and had to be marked by the stone, owing to its inconspicuous appearance.40 Nothing further is known of the cult of the Herakleidai at this particular location, but they received what seem to have been regular thysia sacrifices, followed by dining, in both the Thorikos and the Erchia calendars, and they are also known from other locations in Attica.41

Fig. 1. Horos from Porto Raphti, Attica, bearing the inscription Ἡραϰλειδῶν ἐσχάρα, 4th century BC, IG II2 4977. Drawing after Rhousopoulos 1862, 83, no. 84.

  • 42 LS 177 = Laum 1914, vol. 2, no. 45; cf. Sherwin-White 1977, 210–213. The inscription falls into th (...)
  • 43 For kyklon (line 130) meaning “trencher”, cf. LSA 50, 32.
  • 44 Farnell 1921, 122.
  • 45 This aspect of the cult of Herakles is discussed by Verbanck-Piérard 1992, 85–106.
  • 46 Jameson 1994a, esp. 42–43.

17An eschara, as well as a bomos, are mentioned in an inscription from Kos recording the testamentary foundation by a certain Diomedon, dated from the late 4th to the early 3rd century BC.42 The object of worship was Herakles, with the additional name Diomedonteios. In lines 120–130, there is a small inventory of the sanctuary, in which the founder Diomedon informs us that “he dedicated two lamp-stands, two lamps of bronze with seven flames, a square eschara, a krater, a rug, a table, five gilt wreaths for the statues, two clubs, three gilt incense-burners and one couch, so that all the holy things will belong to Herakles, as well as a base for the couch and a trencher (kyklon) of bronze”.43 Farnell suggested that this cult had two kinds of altars, a bomos and an eschara, which would reflect the duality of the cult of Herakles as being both a god and a hero.44 This seems unlikely, since the eschara is mentioned among the inventories and the bomos only in the section in which the regulations of the sacrifices to Herakles, Hebe, Hera, Dionysos, Aphrodite and the Moirai are specified (lines 25–36). The objects listed with the eschara could have been used by the worshippers when banqueting. However, Herakles receiving food and drink also formed a part of both his cult and his iconography.45 Since the inventories are specifically dedicated to Herakles, the eschara is more likely to have been a grill or an incense-burner, which was part of the theoxenia equipment for Herakles, than an altar.46

  • 47 Blinkenberg 1941, 899–946, nos. 580–619; some examples were published in IG XII:1 791–804.
  • 48 Blinkenberg 1941, 897–903, stated that among the finds was pottery dating from the PG period to th (...)
  • 49 Blinkenberg 1941, proscharaios thysia: nos. 581, 582, 584–586, 592, 593, 595–597, 600, 601, 605–60 (...)
  • 50 Blinkenberg 1941, 908; cf. SIG2 no. 626, n. 2.
  • 51 Blinkenberg 1941, 907–909, proscharaios thysia boukopia: nos. 581, 585, 586, 600, 601, 606, 608, 6 (...)
  • 52 Blinkenberg 1941, 904–906; Athena is mentioned in inscription no. 615 and possibly also in no. 616 (...)

18The remaining cases of eschara are not connected with heroes, but with gods. The first case concerns a group of inscriptions from Lindos, Rhodes, dated from the late 5th to the 3rd century BC.47 They were found cut into the rock, downhill from the acropolis towards the main port. Some of the inscriptions are located near a small naiskos or temple, 9.20 × 5.35 m, dated to around 700 BC on the basis of pottery evidence.48 Of a total of 40 inscriptions, 21 contain the expression προσχάραιος θυσία.49 Blinkenberg took proscharaios to be a Dorian contraction of prò tâv Çsqárav and interpreted the meaning as a thysia taking place in front of the eschara, which he understood as a simple altar constructed for the particular occasion.50 Some of the instances of proscharaios thysia are labelled boukopia or theodaisia: Blinkenberg suggested that the terms referred to sacrifices of cattle or of meals and named the area of the inscriptions the Boukopion.51 Blinkenberg further argued that the divinity worshipped was Athena, who received burnt animal sacrifices at the Boukopion and, in accordance with the literary tradition, unburnt, bloodless offerings on the acropolis.52

  • 53 Blinkenberg 1941, 907–908.
  • 54 Blinkenberg drew parallels with probomios sacrifices, see LSS 115 A, lines 61, 67 and 68, and Eur. (...)

19According to Blinkenberg’s interpretation, the Lindian inscriptions could be taken as evidence for the use of eschara meaning an altar in the epigraphical record. However, there are complications. The rock near some of the inscriptions was flat and suitable for the slaughter of animals, but in other cases there was no suitable area nearby for that kind of activity.53 Furthermore, the specification that a sacrifice is to take place in front of the altar is both puzzling and unusual.54

  • 55 Kostomitsopoulos 1988, 122–128 = SEG 38, 1988, 788: Προ(σ)χάραιο(ς) Πρατάρχου θυσία οὐ βοκοπία ; d (...)
  • 56 Kostomitsopoulos 1988, 125–126; Suda s.v. προσχαψητήρί,α and s.v. προχαρί,στήρί,α (Adler 1928–35, (...)
  • 57 Deubner 1969, 17; Parker 1996, 303; cf. Harp. s.v. προσχαιρητήρια (Dindorf 1853).

20Recently a new inscription was discovered in the same area.55 The publisher Kostomitsopoulos agreed with Blinkenberg that proscharaios thysia could be interpreted as a sacrifice taking place before the eschara and that eschara in this context would mean an altar on which offerings were burnt. The meaning of the expression proscharaios thysia would then be a sacrifice performed in front of the altar for burnt-offerings, i.e., a non-burnt sacrifice, and be an example of the Rhodian tradition of apyra hiera, the unburnt, vegetal offerings mentioned by the literary sources (see n. 52). Kostomitsopoulos found this explanation unsatisfactory for several reasons, not least the ritual implications, and suggested instead that proscharaios may have no connection at all with eschara. Proscharaios could be temporal instead of modal and refer to the circumstance that the ritual was performed on the Proschaireteria or Procharisteria, a day at the end of the winter when the crops were beginning to grow and sacrifices were performed to Athena and Kore.56 However, the Proschaireteria or Procharisteria seems to be known only from Athens and the sources mentioning this festival indicate a particular connection with the religious situation in Attica.57 If Kostomitsopoulos’ explanation of the proscharaios inscriptions is to be followed, we have to assume that this Ionian festival was also performed on Dorian Rhodes. Therefore, in spite of the ritual oddity of a sacrifice before an altar, proscharaios is perhaps to be interpreted as referring to some kind of eschara in the sense of altar, rather than to a festival.

  • 58 Reinmuth 1955, 228, line 15, supplementing IG II2 1032 (127/6 BC); IG II2 1006, 12–13 (123/2 BC); (...)

21An eschara of Dionysos is mentioned in four Attic ephebic inscriptions, ranging from 127/6 to 107/6 BC.58 The context in which the eschara occurs differs slightly between the four inscriptions. According to IG II2 1006, the ephebes brought Dionysos from the eschara to the theatre by torchlight, εἰσήγαγον δὲ [κ]αὶ τòν Διόνυσον ἀπò τῆς ἐσχάρας εἱς τò θέατρον μετὰ φωτός,, sent a bull to the Dionysia festival and sacrificed it at the shrine at the time of the procession, ἔθυσαν ἐν [τ] ῶι ἱερῶι τῆι πομπῆι. The inscription from 107/6 BC (IG II2 1011, 11–12) states that the ephebes sacrificed (thysantes) to the god before conducting him from the eschara and that they also consecrated a phiale worth 100 drs.

  • 59 4.18.16: τòν ἐπ' ἐσχάρας ὑμνῆσαί, κατ' ἔτος Διόνυσον (transl. by Benner & Fobes 1949).

22This eschara seems to have been a well-known feature in the cult of Dionysos, since Alkiphron has Menander exclaim in a letter “May it be my lot always to be crowned with a wreath of Attic ivy and every year to raise my voice in honour of Dionysos of the Hearth”.59

  • 60 Deubner 1969, 139–141; Pickard-Cambridge 1968, 59–61; Sourvinou-Inwood 1994, 270. Pélékidis 1962, (...)
  • 61 Mentioned by Paus. 1.29.2. For a proposed location of this shrine on the road to the Academy, see (...)
  • 62 Deubner 1969, 141. Nilsson 1951, 212–213, argued that the eisagoge referred to the bringing of the (...)
  • 63 Sourvinou-Inwood 1994, 281–285. Kolb 1981, 44, proposed that the altar in the Agora belonged to Di (...)
  • 64 Sourvinou-Inwood 1994, 280–285 and 287–288.
  • 65 Gadbery 1992, 456, fig. 8, section D-D, 464, n. 41 and 475, pottery lot 380. The northern part of (...)
  • 66 Cf. Mikalson 1998, 246–247, on the question whether these ephebic inscriptions reflect the 5th-cen (...)

23The procession, eisagoge, mentioned in the inscriptions was connected with the City Dionysia and seems to have preceded the actual festival, which began with a pompe.60 The statue of Dionysos Eleuthereus was brought from his temple at the theatre, on the south slope of the Acropolis, to a small shrine near the Academy.61 The eschara has usually been thought to have been situated in this sanctuary and the sacrifices mentioned in IG II2 1011 must have taken place here before the god was brought back to the theatre again.62 Recently, it has been suggested that the eschara mentioned in the inscriptions should be identified with a low altar near the altar of the Twelve Gods in the Athenian Agora, which has been considered as being a typical eschara, owing to its low height.63 This altar was built at the end of the 6th century BC and its construction has been linked to changes in the ritual scheme of the City Dionysia during the same period.64 According to the excavators, the altar went out of use in the Hellenistic period and could therefore theoretically be equated with the eschara of Dionysos mentioned in the late-2nd-century BC inscriptions. However, a new analysis of the stratigraphy in the area between the low altar and the altar of the Twelve Gods indicates that the northern part of the low altar, which is not preserved, was overlaid in c. 430–420 BC by a wall.65 This seems to exclude the possibility of the low altar still being visible and in use in the 2nd century BC.66

  • 67 Gow 1912, 237–238, and Ridgeway 1912, 138, connected the eschara with heroes and traced a reminisc (...)

24In any case, judging from the inscriptions, it is clear that the term eschara in this context refers to an altar, used for sacrifices, which was probably located in a sanctuary. The term for the sacrificial activity in IG II2 1011 is thyein and there is no reason to assume that these sacrifices did not include ritual dining before the ephebes brought Dionysos back to the city for the actual festival.67

  • 68 Hiller von Gaertringen 1906, no. 202:8, line 37.
  • 69 According to Kleidemos (FGrHist 323 F 1), Poseidon Helikonios had an eschara at Agrai, Athens.
  • 70 Petzl 1987, no. 737, line 9; Robert L. 1939, 193–197, no. 10, line 9.
  • 71 Robert L. 1939, 194.

25A fragmentary inscription dating to c. 200 BC from Priene concerning the sale of the priesthood of Poseidon Helikonios mentions a [---ἱερ]ὰν ἐσχά[ραν---], unfortunately without sufficient context to establish more precisely what kind of eschara this was.68 The restoration of eschara is quite certain, but the word preceding it does not necessarily have to be ἱεράν. If the restoration of the eschara as sacred is correct, it is possible that the term refers to an altar.69 However, the eschara could have been a part of the kitchen facilities of the sanctuary of Poseidon, as seems to have been the case in a fragmentary inscription from Smyrna dating from the late 2nd to the early 3rd century AD.70 This text deals with the construction or repair of a hieron, probably belonging to a cultic association. A μαγειρεῖον is mentioned, as well as an amount of lead, maybe to repair the roof, and finally an eschara (line 9). Louis Robert interpreted the eschara as a low altar to be used for sacrifices to chthonian divinities.71 Since the stone is damaged, we cannot know for certain, but since a mageireion is mentioned, it is more plausible that the eschara was a regular grill, housed in the kitchen where the sacrificial meals were prepared, rather than an altar.

26From this review of the epigraphical evidence it is clear that the term eschara was mainly used to designate a hearth or a grill, often portable and made of metal. Only a handful of the escharai mentioned can be interpreted as altars of a permanent kind. They form a small and dispersed group belonging to a range of deities: the Herakleidai and Dionysos, and possibly Athena and Poseidon. The Herakleidon eschara inscription is interesting for several reasons. It is the only evidence for a connection between heroes and escharai in the epigraphical record. Furthermore, the inscription is the earliest epigraphical mention of an eschara likely to refer to some kind of altar or sacrificial installation (4th century BC), since the interpretation of the Lindian rock-cut inscriptions as alluding to escharai remains doubtful.

27These escharai/altars also had different appearances. That of the Herakleidai was perhaps simply an ash-heap marked by a horos, while the eschara of Dionysos was placed in a sanctuary and may have been more monumental. If the inscriptions at the Lindian acropolis refer to escharai, these consisted of the bare rock or were constructed of loose stones for the occasion.

1.1.2. Escharon

  • 72 IG XI:2 144 A, 61, 96 and 99; 156 A, 23; 199 A, 103; 287 A, 76; ID 409 A, 12; 440 A, 82; 1400, 4; (...)
  • 73 Robert F. 1939, 190; Robert F. 1952, 48.
  • 74 Cf. LSJ s.v.; Hellmann 1992, 76; Roux 1979, 115, with n. 25 on the locative suffix -ών -ön; Schulh (...)
  • 75 Roof tiles or reeds for an escharon: ID 440 A, 82; IG XI:2 144 A, 61; new doors: ID 409 A, 12; cle (...)

28The term έσχαρών occurs only in inscriptions from Delos, a total number of 13 cases, dating from the early 3rd to the mid-2nd century BC.72 Fernand Robert argued that escharon was to be understood as a large eschara.73 The word is usually explained, owing to the value of the locative suffix -ών, as being a place where an eschara is to be found or housed.74 The escharones must be understood as rooms or buildings, owing to the constructions or restorations mentioned in the inscriptions. Roofs were built with reeds or tiles, new doors were installed and the area was occasionally cleaned.75 An escharon must have contained some kind of hearth or fire, eschara, which could have been used for sacrifices, but also for preparing meals either in religious or more profane contexts.

  • 76 For the Archegesion and the Dioskourion, see below. Sarapeion C: ID 1416 A, col. I, 36; 1417 B, co (...)
  • 77 For the restoration by Ph.H. Davis, see Hellmann 1992, 73.

29Most of the escharones mentioned in the inscriptions cannot be connected with any particular building or sanctuary. Those which are identified or for which it is possible to suggest an identification, are found at different locations: the Archegesion, the Dioskourion and the Sarapeion C (see Table 1).76 Of major interest is the escharon situated in the Archegesion, since this was the sanctuary of a hero, Archegetes or Anios. IG XI:2 156 A, 23–24 (early 3rd century), mentions the construction of the wall of the escharon in the temenos of Archegetes (οικοδομ]ήσαντι τον τοίχο [ν τ]οΰ έσχαρώνος του έν τώι τεμένει του Άρχηγέτου).77

  • 78 Robert F. 1953, 13–23; Daux 1962, 959–963; Daux 1963b, 862–869; Bruneau 1970, 424–426; Kuhn 1985, (...)

30The excavation of the Archegesion has revealed that the sanctuary consisted of two structures: to the west, a walled, rectangular courtyard with a peristyle, in the centre of which was found a heap of ashes, and to the east, an oblong building divided into a series of rooms (Fig. 2).78

Table 1. Instances of eschara and escharon in the epigraphical sources.

Table 1. Instances of eschara and escharon in the epigraphical sources.

Eschara has been included only when it is possible that the term refers to an altar. Instances of escharon in which the recipient is unknown have not been included.

  • 79 Robert F. 1953, 22; Bruneau 1970, 424; Hellmann 1992, 76. The date of the ash-altar is difficult t (...)
  • 80 Kuhn 1985, 229–232; sheep bones were found in the ashes (see Bruneau 1970, 428). A banquet relief (...)
  • 81 For this construction, see Daux 1962, 960; Bruneau 1970, 425; Ekroth 1998, 121, fig. 1.
  • 82 Kuhn 1985, 228–229. Oikoi: IG XI:2 287 A, 107–108; Bruneau 1970, 425 with n. 3. The same inscripti (...)
  • 83 Daux 1962, 960. The carbonized sheep bones found in the ash-heap and a deposit of sea-shells (oyst (...)

31The ash-heap, usually interpreted as an ash-altar, has generally been identified as the escharon.79 The functions of the two structures are difficult to discern in detail, since the sanctuary awaits its full publication. Animal sacrifices may have taken place in the courtyard with the ash-altar, where the worshippers could have watched the rituals from the peristyle.80 Apart from the ash-heap, a rectangular construction in the western part of the courtyard may also have served as an altar or a bench for the deposition of votives or of food offerings, or perhaps for the carving of meat.81 Since the rooms in the oblong building were equipped with drains for cleaning the floors, they were probably dining-rooms and have been identified with the oikoi mentioned in a mid-3rd-century inscription.82 The peristyle of the rectangular courtyard may also have been used for ritual dining: it had a drain in the south-western corner and among the finds were a large number of drinking cups, as well as an obelos of iron.83

Fig. 2. Plan of the Archegesion, Delos. Modified after Robert F. 1953, 11, fig. 1.

  • 84 Robert F. 1952, 5–50; Roux 1981, 43; Guide de Délos3 1983, 258–260, no. 123. Bruneau 1970, 383–385 (...)
  • 85 Roux 1981, 41–55. Hestiatorion: IG XI:2 161 A, 97 (279 BC); naos: ID 461 Ab, 32 (169 BC).
  • 86 Roux 1981, 53–55; cf. Bergquist 1990, 46–49.

32The escharon in the Dioskourion is mentioned in IG XI:2 144 A, 61 (303 BC). The identification of the sanctuary with the complex no. 123 has been accepted by most scholars.84 Roux suggested that the escharon should be identified with the Temple A and that this building was the same one as the hestiatorion and the naos mentioned in other, later inscriptions concerning the Dioskourion.85 He further argues that the main function of this structure was to serve as a dining-hall, equipped with tables and couches, and that the designation of this building varied through time, though the function remained the same.86

  • 87 ID 1400, 4 (between 314 and 166 BC); 1409 Ba, col. II, 26 (166–145 BC).
  • 88 ID 1400, 4–6; 1409 Ba, col. II, 26–29. Other objects are of a different nature: hydria with metal (...)

33The confinement of the term escharon to Delos seems to indicate that it was a local term for a place or building housing some kind of fire or hearth. Structures containing hearths found in sanctuaries are usually understood as dining-rooms, hestiatoria, and the escharones in the Archegesion and the Dioskourion can both be interpreted as having been used for that kind of activity. The term escharon could thus be taken as a Delian term for a hestiatorion. A further indication of escharon meaning a dining-hall may be found in two inscriptions recording the inventories stored in the Oikos of the Andrians. Here are listed various objects that have been brought from the Escharon.87 The location of this Escharon is unknown and it is difficult to judge how many of the objects following this heading should actually be considered as having been brought from that location. Some of the objects listed, however, such as a rhyton, cauldrons, escharai (here probably referring to portable hearths or grills) and cooking pots, are suitable equipment for a building used for dining.88

1.2. Literary sources

1.2.1. Eschara in the Archaic to early Hellenistic sources

  • 89 Od. 14.420. A Linear-B tablet from Pylos mentions an e-ka-ra, taken by Ventris & Chadwick (1973, 4 (...)

34In Homer, eschara is used for the household hearth and never as referring to an altar. A sacrifice can be performed on the hearth of the house, however, as Eumaios does in the Odyssey in connection with a meal.89

  • 90 Euripides also uses eschara for the household hearth, for example, Cyc. 384 and El. 801. An uniden (...)
  • 91 Rudhardt 1958, 6; cf. Reisch 1907, 614.
  • 92 For the variations in language between different classes of evidence, see Parker 1983, 13–14 and s (...)

35The earliest instances of eschara meaning purely an altar are to be found in Aischylos, Sophokles, Euripides and Aristophanes (Table 2).90 By this period, the term had taken on a more specific meaning, apart from that of a hearth and a place for the fire. It has been suggested that the language of the tragedians was a special case, since the words used in drama may have been deliberately chosen to echo a mythical past or at least to be more venerable than contemporaneous Greek.91 Even if that was the case and the language of the poets was likely to have been more varied and to have contained more unusual words than prose texts, the meaning of the term eschara must still have been intelligible to the audience.92

Table 2. Instances of eschara in the Archaic to early Hellenistic literary sources.

Table 2. Instances of eschara in the Archaic to early Hellenistic literary sources.

Only cases in which the term is used in a religious context have been included.

36There is no support in the tragedies and comedies for the notion that eschara was particularly connected with heroes. In fact, it is not possible to connect eschara with any particular kind of divinity. Furthermore, the distinction between eschara and bomos as two types of altars used for different kinds of rituals is not reflected in the 5th-century sources.

  • 93 Eur. Heracl.: eschara 121, 127 and 341, bomos or its derivatives bomios or probomios 33, 61, 73, 7 (...)
  • 94 Eur. Phoen. 274.

37A closer look at the usage of eschara shows that in several cases the same altar is called both eschara and bomos, as well as thymele in one instance.93 The choice of term is not connected with the part of the drama in which it occurs, since eschara is found in both the regular text and the chorus parts. Since the terms could be used interchangeably, the variations in terminology may rather be explained by a wish to avoid repetitious language or as being demanded by the metre. A further indication of the connection between eschara and bomos is the addition of the adjective bomios, meaning “of an altar”, to the eschara.94 If an eschara could be a part of a bomos, it is less likely that it also formed a separate category of altar.

38Only in one case, in the Antigone of Sophokles (1016), are bomoi and escharai mentioned side by side. Considering the variations in the denominations of altars in the dramas, this single instance should not necessarily be taken as an indication that the two words corresponded to two types of altar. The context in the Antigone is Teiresias’ complaint that the town’s altars are full of the flesh of the unburied son of Oidipous, brought there by birds and dogs (1016–1018). Altars covered with this type of filth constituted a grave situation, and the poet may have wanted to underline the fact that it included all the altars in the city and thus chose to use two words instead of one to emphasize his point. In any case, there is no indication that these escharai and bomoi belonged to different divinities or were used for different kinds of rituals.

  • 95 Eur. Alc. 119; Ar. Av. 1232.
  • 96 Apollon: Aesch. Pers. 205; Eur. Andr. 1102, 1138 and 1240; Eur. Supp. 1200; Eur. Phoen. 284. Zeus: (...)
  • 97 Daimones: Eur. fr. 628 (Nauck 1889). Erinyes: Aesch. Eum. 108. The escharai which Athena promises (...)

39If we continue with the question to whom the escharai were dedicated or in whose cult they were used, it is clear that there is a broad variety, which does not include the heroes. The Olympian gods as a group could receive a sacrifice on an eschara.95 Apollon, Zeus, Demeter and Kore are specifically named.96 The daimones and the Erinyes also have escharai.97 It may have been a pure coincidence that just these particular divinities had an eschara or there may have been something inherent in their character or cult that made the poet choose this term to designate the altar. The first explanation seems more plausible, since, in some cases, the escharai of these divinities are also called by other terms.

  • 98 Eur. Alc. 119–121; Eur. Andr. 1100–1103.
  • 99 For the translation of bouthytos as “for hecatombs”, see Casabona 1966, 140–142.

40There is no pattern indicating that any particular rituals were connected with the use of the eschara. In most cases, there is no information on what kinds of sacrifices the eschara was used for, since this is just mentioned in passing or the eschara was being employed for a type of activity different from sacrifice, such as supplication. In any case, there is a certain amount of variation in the rituals performed on or at the eschara. Some of the sacrifices performed or alluded to appear to have been regular thysiai, i.e., the burning of the god’s portion followed by the consumption of the meat by the worshippers.98 The burning of the god’s portion is especially clear from Aristophanes’ Birds (1231–1233). Iris is about to urge mankind to sacrifice to the Olympian gods and slay sheep on the escharai used for hecatombs and fill the streets with sacrificial smoke: θὺειν τοῖς Ὀλυμπίοις θεοῖς μηλοσφαγεῖν τε βουθύτοις ἐπ' ἐσχάραις ϰνισᾶν τ' ἀγυιάς.99

  • 100 Eur. HF 926–930.
  • 101 In Eur. Heracl. 121, 127 and 341, the supplicants have gathered around an altar of Zeus in his san (...)

41A sacrifice to purify the house after a murder takes place on the eschara of Zeus, but later in the passage the same altar is called bomos and the ritual that follows has the components of a thysia sacrifice.100 The use of the term eschara for the altar of Zeus may depend on the circumstance that this altar, being the house-altar of Zeus, formed the centre of the house and in that aspect had a function related to the hestia.101 In the Suppliant Women by Euripides (1196–1202), Athena instructs Theseus on how to perform an oath sacrifice in a tripod placed next to the eschara of Apollon at Delphi. However, the eschara itself is not used for the ritual, only the tripod.

42The only cases in which a clearly different kind of sacrifice is being performed on an eschara are the wineless libations (choai aoinoi and nephalia meligmata) and the nightly deipna that Klytaimnestra has sacrificed to the Erinyes in order to seek revenge (Aesch. Eum. 106–109). This is a sacrifice removed from the sphere of the thysia and does not include any collective dining. It is questionable, however, whether the mention of the eschara in this case should be explained by the fact that this was a particular kind of sacrifice, since the escharai could also be used for regular thysiai. Moreover, in the Persians (202–204), Atossa sacrifices pelanos on a bomos to the powers that avert evil, apotropoi daimones, a sacrifice similar to that made by Klytaimnestra.

  • 102 Eur. Andr. 1138; Phoen. 274.
  • 103 Od. 7.100; Chantraine 1968–80, s.v. bwmóv; Casevitz 1988, 57–58.

43Thus, it is clear that the tragedians and Aristophanes do not connect eschara with a particular kind of divinity or with it being used for a special type of ritual. In what sense do they use the term? In most cases, it is the equivalent of an entire altar that is referred to, since sacrifices are performed on the eschara and the same sacrificial installation is also called bomos. More specifically, the term seems to have meant the upper part of the altar where the fire was kept, since bömioi Çsqárai the texts speak of βωμοῦ ἐσχάρα and βώμιοι ἐσχάραι.102 This area was the most important part of an altar and the denomination eschara would then function as a pars pro toto. It is useful to remember that one of the original meanings of bomos, besides “altar”, was “base”.103

  • 104 Pouilloux & Roux 1963, 102–122. For the interpretation that Neoptolemos was killed by the hestia i (...)

44The relationship between eschara and bomos and how the terms could be used to vary the text are well illustrated by Euripides’ Andromache (1085–1165). The context is the killing of Neoptolemos in Delphi and the passage contains references to eschara and bomos as altars. The eschara mentioned has sometimes been assumed to refer to an altar situated inside the temple of Apollon, since Pausanias was there shown the hestia where Neoptolemos was killed, next to the iron chair of Pindar (10.24.5). If the text of Euripides is read carefully, it is clear that Neoptolemos moves between various spots during the tragic event. A neat explanation of his whereabouts has been offered by J. Pouilloux and G. Roux.104 Neoptolemos arrives at the escharai mentioned in line 1102 in order to sacrifice. According to Pouilloux and Roux, this altar must be understood as situated in front of the temple. Then Neoptolemos enters the temple and is performing a sacrifice (1113) when he is attacked and withdraws to the entrance and climbs the bomos in front of the temple (1123). He makes his impressive Trojan jump from the top of this altar, the bomou eschara (1138). Finally he returns into the temple and is killed beside an altar, bomos, situated there (1156). Euripides may very well have used the extant topography of the Delphi of his own time, when he wrote the tragedy. If one interprets the text with this in mind, the eschara must refer to an altar where the present altar of the Chians is standing. The two mentions of eschara fit the picture well. In the first instance (1102), the term escharai refers to the whole altar in front of the temple where the sheep are to be sacrificed, while in the second passage (1138), the bomou eschara is the part of the altar that Neoptolemos jumps from, i.e., the upper part, where the fire was to be placed.

45An eschara of Apollon at Delphi also occurs in the Suppliant Women (1200). Here an oath is taken by the Argives, and the throats of three sheep are cut above a tripod placed next to the eschara. It is unlikely that a sacrifice of this kind would take place inside the temple. Thus the eschara must refer to an altar situated outside the temple, presumably at the same location as the altar of the Chians.

46The remaining passages, dating to before 300 BC, in which eschara is used are more difficult to grasp, since the term occurs only once in each text and some of these have been preserved only in a heavily abbreviated form.

  • 105 Dem. [In Neaer.] 116. This eschara has often been identified with a Roman construction of brick; s (...)
  • 106 Lykourgos fr. 6.10 (Conomis 1970), ap. Harp. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Dindorf 1853). Phot. Lex. s.v. ἐσχάρα (T (...)
  • 107 FGrHist 323 F 1 (ap. Anecd. Bekk. s.v. Ἄγραι [Bekker 1814, vol. 1, 326–327]). For the identificati (...)

47A speech ascribed to Demosthenes mentions the eschara of Demeter and Kore in the courtyard at Eleusis, where the hierophant Archias sacrificed (ἱερεĩον θύσειεν) during the Haloa festival, although animal victims were prohibited on that occasion and it was the priestess who was to perform the sacrifice.105 It is possible that the eschara in the Demosthenic speach is the same as the escharai mentioned by Euripides (Supp. 33 and 290). Lykourgos apparently used the term eschara in his speech concerning a priestess, presumably that of Athena Polias, but nothing further is known of the context in which the term was mentioned.106 Kleidemos, briefly quoted by a much later source, mentions an eschara of Poseidon Helikonios at Agrai, in the Ilissos area at Athens.107

  • 108 Cyr. 8.3.12.

48Finally, a non-Greek example may be added. In his description of the sacrificial procession of Kyros, Xenophon mentions a large eschara, topped with a fire and carried by several men.108 Whether this eschara was used as an altar or simply as a substantial incense-burner is impossible to tell from the context.

1.2.2. Eschara in the post-300 BC sources

49Most of the later sources mention eschara only once (Table 3). The picture presented is quite disparate as regards the appearance of the escharai, the rituals performed and the recipients, but most of the characteristics of the escharai of the earlier sources can also be traced in the later sources. What should be noted is that in the post-300 BC literary sources can be found the first direct connections between escharai and heroes, as well as the notion that escharai and bomoi constituted two different kinds of altars.

  • 109 FGrHist 84 F 7: βωμοὺς θεῶν φησιν, ἐσχάρας δε ἡρώων. Neanthes is also quoted by Eustathius, Od. 6. (...)
  • 110 The quotation from Neanthes comes from his Κατά πόλί,ν μυθικά, an account of the mythical history (...)

50The earliest evidence for an eschara as a particular kind of hero-cult altar is found in Neanthes of Kyzikos (3rd century BC), who is quoted as saying “bomoi are for the gods and escharai for the heroes”.109 Neanthes is a good example of how complex the source situation occasionally is. His information is explicit, but highly abbreviated, and is preserved as quotations in two stages by later sources.110 It is impossible to tell whether Neanthes is implying that the distinction in altars also meant a distinction in rituals between gods and heroes. Still, Neanthes is particularly interesting, since he is the only literary source before the Roman period making a direct connection between heroes and escharai.

Table 3. Instances of eschara in the post-300 BC literary sources.

Table 3. Instances of eschara in the post-300 BC literary sources.

Only cases in which the term is used in a religious context have been included.

  • 111 On the Neoplatonic view of the cosmos, see Levy 1978, 509–512 and Nilsson 1950, 412–419, esp. 414. (...)

51Porphyrios (De antr. nymph. 6), a substantially later source, stated that the Olympian gods had temples and bomoi, the chthonian gods and heroes escharai, the hypochthonian gods bothroi and megara and the Kosmos caves and grottoes (ὡς γὰρ τοῖς μὲν Ὀλυμπίοις θεοῖς ναούς τε ϰαὶ ἕδη ϰαὶ βωμοὺς ἱδρύσαντο, χθονίοις δὲ ϰαὶ ἥρωσιν ἑσχάρας, ὑποχθονίοις δὲ βόθρους ϰαὶ μέγαρα, οὕτω ϰαὶ τῷ ϰόσμῳ ἄντρα τε ϰαὶ σπήλαια). There is no mention of different kinds of rituals being connected with the various types of altars and sacred places. In this case, there are no complexities in the transmission of the text, but, on the other hand, the contents are coloured by the philosophical climate of the period in which Porphyrios lived. The hierarchical arrangement of the deities into these specific groups (Olympian, chthonian, heroes and hypochthonian) is in accordance with the Neoplatonic view of the cosmos, formulated in the 3rd century AD, and therefore not necessarily valid also for earlier periods.111

  • 112 Ap. Rhod. Argon. 2.1168–1177.

52Most of the post-300 BC sources, however, mention the escharai in connection with gods: Ares, Ge Olympia, Zeus Astrapaios, Zeus Herkeios and the gods in general. The eschara of Ares referred to by Apollonios Rhodios is described as being built of pebbles and used by the Argonauts for a regular thysia sacrifice of sheep, followed by a meal.112 The Amazons, when they came to the sanctuary of Ares, were not allowed to sacrifice sheep and oxen and burn the hiera on this eschara, but only horses, which they cut up and, apparently, ate (ἀλλ'ἵππους δαίτρευον, lines 1174–1177).

  • 113 FHG III, 136, F 75 (ap. Ath. 11.462b-c). The quote from Polemon by Athenaios is incomplete, which (...)
  • 114 Strabon 9.2.11. Proposed locations for this eschara are somewhere on the north-western slope of th (...)
  • 115 Paus. 4.17.4 and 10.27.2; the later eschara is also called bomos ins the same passage.

53The escharai of Ge Olympia and Zeus Astrapaios were both permanent installations, but there is no information on the sacrifices that took place at these altars. From the eschara near the temple of Ge Olympia outside the walls of Syracuse, mentioned by Polemon, a kylix was brought out to sea and dropped in the water.113 The eschara of Zeus Astrapaios in Athens was used by the Pythaistai when they watched the sky for signs of lightning.114 The use of eschara for the altar of Zeus Herkeios, noted previously in Euripides (HF 922), is found also in Pausanias, when he describes the killing of Priamos by Neoptolemos.115

  • 116 On the meaning of thylemata, see Casabona 1966, 123–124.
  • 117 AJ 3.149; cf. the use of eschara for a grating in an Epidaurian inscription, Peek 1969, 48, no. 52 (...)
  • 118 For the use of the adjective ἕστιος in the sense τῆς ἑστίας (particular for Heliodoros), see Ratte (...)

54The more specific meaning of eschara as the upper part of the bomos, where the fire is kept, is used by Diogenes Laertios (4.56), in describing a man beginning desperately to sacrifice when he fell ill and death was approaching. He feasted the noses of the gods with greasy smoke, fat and meal broth, not only over the eschara of the bomoi, but also over the sacred table(οὐ μοῦνον ἐσχάρης ὕπερ βωμῶν τε ϰαὶ τραπέζης ϰνίση, λίπει, θυλήμασιν θεῶν ἔδαισε ῥĩνας).116 Flavius Josephus describes a bronze altar (bomos) crowned by an eschara resembling a network, through which the burning fuel fell to the ground.117 Eschara could also be the upper part of a hestia, as in Heliodoros (Aeth. 4.18.6). For lack of a proper altar, a priest lights τὴν ... ἑστίαν ἑσχάραν to be used as a bomos and burns frankincense at an oath sacrifice when Apollon Pythios, Artemis, Aphrodite and the Erotes are evoked.118

  • 119 FGrHist 627 F 2, 34; cf. Rice 1983, 118–119 and 171.
  • 120 18.61.1.
  • 121 AJ 3.148.

55In the later sources are also mentioned escharai that seem to have been portable and functioned more or less as incense-burners. Two, gigantic, gilt escharai of this kind were carried in the pompe of Ptolemaios II in Alexandria, according to the 3rd century historian Kallixeinos.119 Eschara is used by Diodorus Siculus to designate an altar on which Alexander’s generals sacrificed to him as a god after his death.120 This portable eschara, with a fire, is brought into the tent where the generals are meeting and they burn frankincense on it. The upper part of an incense altar in the tabernacle at Jerusalem is called eschara by Flavius Josephus.121

  • 122 5.13.9.
  • 123 Paus. 5.13.8–11 and 5.14.8–10. Ash-altars: Olympian Zeus, Olympian Hera and Ge at Olympia, Zeus at (...)

56Eschara is thus used for the whole altar and, more particularly, the upper part of the bomos, as well as for an incense-burner that could be used for sacrifices. The basic meaning of eschara is still “hearth” or “the place for the fire”, both of which could be used for sacrificial purposes. In this context should be considered an interesting piece of information provided by Pausanias. In discussing the ash-altar (bomos tephras) of Zeus at Olympia, he compares it with the ash-altar of Hera on Samos, which, he says, is no more conspicuous than what the Athenians call improvised escharai (αὐτοσχεδίας Ἀθηναĩοι ϰαλοῦσιν ἐσχάρας).122 These Athenian escharai mentioned by Pausanias are likely to have had a religious function, not being just any kind of hearths or fire-places. It is possible to imagine them as simple altars or sites for sacrifices, probably not consisting of anything more elaborate than the remains of the debris from previous sacrifices, just like the ash-altars of Zeus at Olympia and that of Hera on Samos. These two ash-altars, however, seem to have been more substantial, since they had been in use for a long time, and particularly the altar of Zeus had acquired monumental proportions in the course of time. Pausanias’ statement that the Athenians use the expression autoschediai escharai for ash-altars of this kind may be taken as an indication that this was the Athenian terminology for a kind of altar that in other regions would be called a bomos tephras. It is interesting to note that all the other altars mentioned by Pausanias in the same section are called bomoi, even though they were made of ashes or, as in one case, of the blood of the animal victims.123

  • 124 See FGrHist 361 F 1, commentary p. 118–120; Tresp 1914, 91, fr. 48.
  • 125 1st-2nd century AD, but preserved in a later reworking; see the discussion above, in connection wi (...)
  • 126 FGrHist 361 F 1a (ap. Ammon. Diff. s.v. t [Nickau 1966, no. 113]): βωμοὶ μὲν γὰρ oἱ τὰς προσβὰσεις (...)

57The use of eschara for a simple kind of altar is probably what is alluded to by the Athenian Kultschriftsteller Ammonios of Lamptrai (prob. 2nd–1st centuries BC), who wrote a study of altars and sacrifices, Περὶ βωμῶν ϰαὶ θυσιῶν, which is preserved only in occasional fragments in later sources.124 Of particular interest as regards eschara is the information quoted in the Περὶ ὁμοίων ϰαὶ διαφóρων λέξεων,,125 where it is stated that, according to Ammonios, there is a difference between bomos, hestia and eschara. Ammonios is quoted as saying that “bomoi, on the one hand, have bases, while eschara is what is established on the ground for regular use, and the elaborate ones are called hestiai, while megaron is a hestia enclosed in a building”126. The original text by Ammonios has probably been abbreviated and the only thing that can be said definitely is that Ammonios indicates that there was a difference between bomos and eschara regarding the appearance. It seems probable that eschara, in this context, refers to an altar or a location where sacrifices took place, not just a hearth or a place for a fire.

  • 127 This context echoes Soph. Ant. 1016.

58Considering the information found in Ammonios and Pausanias, it seems as if eschara could also, at least from the Hellenistic period onwards, refer to a simple altar, with an appearance different from a bomos, particularly in Attica. A final passage to be mentioned will be found in the Aethiopica of Heliodoros (1.18.4). The text describes the temple of Isis at Memphis, where the bomoi and escharai were full of all kinds of animals, dripping with blood.127 If we are to understand the terms as meaning two kinds of altars, they were both found in the same temple and received the same kind of offerings.

1.2.3. Eschara in the explicatory sources

59The division between the later and the explicatory sources regarding the term eschara is not so self-evident, since some post-300 BC sources, for example, Neanthes and Ammonios, are only preserved as quotations in an abbreviated form in explicatory sources. It is interesting to note that the term eschara is found in a large number of explicatory sources, i.e., this was a word that needed explanation (Table 4). Many of these sources quote each other without any comments of their own.

60Three major points are made in the explicatory sources: (1) a connection between eschara and heroes, (2) a polarisation between eschara and bomos as regards the appearance and mode of construction, and (3) an indication that the earlier sources did not always use the terms in this fashion. At the same time, many explicatory sources indicate that there was a certain overlap in the use of the terms bomos and eschara.

  • 128 Ptol. Ascal. s.v. βωμός (Heylbut 1887, 398). For the date, see OCD3 s.v. Ptolemaeus 1.
  • 129 See supra, p. 45, n. 110; cf. KlPauly 4 (1974), s.v. Ptolemaios 4.
  • 130 Onom. 1.7–8 (Bethe 1900–31): ἐσχάρα δ' ἰδίϰῶς δοϰεῖ μὲν ὧδε ὀνομάζεσθαι, ἑφ' ἧς τοĩς ἥρωσιν ἀποθύο (...)
  • 131 Schol. Eur. Phoen. 274 (Schwartz 1887): ἐσχάρα μέν ϰυρίως ὀ ἐπὶ γῆς βόθρος ἔνθα ἐναγίζουσι, τοĩς ϰ (...)
  • 132 See LSJ s.v. 1. For the terms bothros and enagizein in this scholion, see below, pp. 71–72 and pp. (...)

61As mentioned previously, the combination of heroes and eschara is first encountered in the 3rd-century BC historian Neanthes, quoted in the Peri homoion kai diaphoron lexeon. Ptolemaios of Askalon, a source which can be dated either to the 2nd century BC or the 2nd century AD, says in his Περί διαφορᾶς λέξεων that the bomoi of the heroes were called escharai.128 This work, however, is probably one of the variants of the Peri homoion kai diaphoron lexeon, and even if the information given by Ptolemaios differs in certain aspects from that found in the latter source, it is possible that his statement also goes back to Neanthes.129 More straightforward is Pollux, who states that “eschara seems especially to be called that on which we sacrifice to the heroes”.130 Finally, in a scholion to the Phoenician Maidens by Euripides, it is said that eschara is mainly the bothros on the ground where they perform enagizein sacrifices to those going down, while bomos is that on which they perform thysia sacrifices to the heavenly gods.131 Oἱ ϰάτω ἐρχόμενοι should probably be taken as referring to the departed, since katerchomai can mean “to go down to the grave”.132 Even though such a group could include the heroes, since they were dead, it seems more likely that it refers only to the ordinary dead.

Table 4. Instances of eschara in the explicatory literary sources.

Table 4. Instances of eschara in the explicatory literary sources.

Only cases in which the term is used in a religious context have been included.

Table 4 (continued)

Table 4 (continued)

Only cases in which the term is used in a religious context have been included.

62The second point concerns the appearance and construction of the eschara and how it differs from bomos. The sources commenting upon this are numerous, but they frequently echo each other in chronological order. The information given by each source is often somewhat contradictory of what is said in other sources. The individual source may also contradict itself and it is difficult to picture the kind of installation being described.

  • 133 Ap. Soph. Lex. Hom. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Bekker 1833, 78); Harp. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Dindorf 1853), quoting Ammon (...)
  • 134 Steph. Byz. s.v. βωμoí (Meinecke 1849); Phot. Lex. s.v. ἐσχάρα E (Theodoridis 1982–98, 2041–2042); (...)
  • 135 Ap. Soph. Lex. Hom. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Bekker 1833, 78); Hsch. s.v. ἐσχάρα E (Latte 1953–66, 6446); scho (...)
  • 136 Harp. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Dindorf 1853), quoting Ammonios; Steph. Byz. s.v. βωμoí (Meinecke 1849); Phot. (...)
  • 137 Square base: schol. Eur. Phoen. 274 (Schwartz 1887); rounded shape: Phot. Lex. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Theodo (...)
  • 138 Hsch. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Latte 1953–66, E 6447); Etym. Gud. s.v. ἐστα 1 (Sturz 1818, 213); Eust. Od. 6. (...)
  • 139 Ap. Soph. Lex. Hom. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Bekker 1833, 78); Harp. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Dindorf 1853), quoting Ammon (...)
  • 140 Cf. the cooking pits found near the Tholos in the Athenian Agora (Thompson 1940, 25–27, 16, fig. 1 (...)
  • 141 Schol. Aesch. Pers. 203 (Dindorf 1851); schol. Aesch. Pers. 203 (Massa Positano 1963, scholia); sc (...)

63The following statements on the differences between eschara and bomos can be disentangled. The major distinction was the height: a bomos was high, while an eschara was low and situated on the ground.133 Regarding the construction, the bomos was built up, presumably of stones, and had a proper base.134 The eschara was not constructed of stones and lacked a base.135 The eschara could simply be hollowed out in the ground.136 The shape is described either as having a square base or as being rounded.137 An eschara seems to be of a less permanent character than a bomos, since the term could signify the fire established on the ground for regular use or simply the ashes left behind.138 There is an evident connection with fire, and eschara is often compared with hestia, both in the sense of an altar and of a regular hearth, even if the explicatory sources often consider hestia as being more elaborate and connected in particular with the hearth of the house or the Prytaneion.139 This equating of eschara with hestia, both in appearance and in function, complicates the understanding of eschara in the explicatory sources, since it is difficult to ascertain whether the eschara mentioned is an altar or a plain hearth. Some of the explanations may be based on the appearance of household hearths, which could be used for sacrifices in some situations. In any case, whether the escharai mentioned in these sources were used as altars or not, it seems clear that they were understood as simple installations placed directly on the ground or in a hole in the ground, consisting mainly of the remains of the fire. In this aspect, eschara corresponds to the ash-altars mentioned by Ammonios and Pausanias. In general, the distinction between eschara as a simple altar, contrasted with bomos in the sense of a built-up altar is more obvious in the explicatory sources. The remark that escharai could be hollow or sunk into the ground is understandable, considering that cooking pits could be dug into the ground.140 The particular characteristic of an eschara being hollow should also be connected with the fact that some explicatory sources give the explanation of eschara as being the upper, sunken part of a bomos, where the hiera or hiereia were burnt.141

  • 142 Anecd. Bekk. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Bekker 1814, vol. 1, 256–257); schol. Opp. Hal. 5.307 (Bussemaker 1849).
  • 143 Cf. Hsch. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Latte 1953–66, E 6447); Phot. Lex. s.v. ἐσχάρα and ἐσχάρας (Theodoridis 198 (...)

64Moreover, an indication that the bomos was especially constructed for sacrifices, while the eschara may not have had any sacrificial function at all, is also found in some explicatory sources.142 Among the other explanations of the term, apart from altar, hearth or place for the fire, are round and hollow wounds on the body, parts of the female genitalia and some kind of stage machinery or construction: all these meanings of the word eschara are to be found in the earlier sources.143

  • 144 Poll. Onom. 1.8 (Bethe 1900–31).
  • 145 Etym. Magn. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Gaisford 1848); cf. Eur. HF 922.
  • 146 Eust. Il. 10.418 (van der Valk 1979, vol. 3, 101, line 13); Eust. Od. 6.305 (Stallbaum 1825–26, vo (...)
  • 147 Etym. Gud. s.v. ἐστα 1 (Sturtz 1818, 213).

65That eschara was an altar for heroes that looked different from a bomos, which was used for the gods, is not compatible with the meaning of the term in the Classical sources. This divergence is commented upon by some explicatory sources. Pollux, after connecting heroes and escharai, says that some of the poets have also called the altars of the gods by that term.144 The Etymologicum Magnum states that eschara can mean bomos and refers to the way in which Euripides uses the term.145 Eustathios notices that Sophokles and Euripides use eschara instead of bomos.146 The Etymologicum Gudianum says that eschara can be found instead of bomos.147

1.3. Conclusion

66The term eschara had a variety of meanings in the epigraphical and literary sources. The assumption that eschara was a special kind of altar for hero-cults and was used for particular rituals cannot be substantiated for the Archaic to early Hellenistic periods. Instead, when eschara is used as referring to an altar, the term functions as an equivalent to bomos and cannot be connected with any particular deities or rituals.

  • 148 Hellmann 1992, 75–76; in some cases the whole altar was covered with stucco or plaster or repainte (...)
  • 149 Serpentite: Heraion on Samos (Schleif 1933, 196 and 210). Gneiss: altar dedicated to Hera in the s (...)
  • 150 No such metal trays are preserved, but occasionally altars show discolourations on the sides where (...)
  • 151 I have treated the depictions of upper parts of altars elsewhere (Ekroth 2001). This section is la (...)
  • 152 This particular function as fire covers for altars may perhaps explain why some escharai listed am (...)

67More specifically, the literary sources show that eschara meant the upper part of a bomos, where the fire was kept. This interpretation of the term finds additional support in its use in the epigraphical material. Several inscriptions from Delos speak of repairs with stucco or plaster of the upper surface of an altar (thymele), owing to damage caused by fire.148 Some preserved altars of marble or limestone are crowned with a heat-resistant material, such as serpentite, gneiss or terracotta, or had such a cover sunk into the upper surface, protecting the stone from being damaged by the fire (Fig. 3).149 In other cases, the cover seems to have been made of metal, probably bronze.150 From vase-paintings, it is clear that altars frequently had an upper cover of some kind and that, in some instances, the object shown covering the surface of the altar was presumably made of metal, since it protrudes at a sharp angle from the altar surface (Figs. 4–5).151 If eschara is to be understood as the place for the fire, it is possible that some of the metal escharai mentioned in the inscriptions may refer to such metal sheets or pans protecting the upper surfaces of the altars.152 The metal eschara must have rested on an isolating bedding of clay or plaster, which would have further protected the stone from the heat.

Fig. 3. Altar dedicated to Hera crowned by slabs of gneiss to protect the marble from the heat. Sanctuary of Poseidon, Thasos, probably 4th century BC. After Bon & Seyrig 1929, 334, fig. 9.

Fig. 4. Vase-painting of altar equipped with a fire-cover (eschara). Athenian red-figure volute-krater, c. 500–480 BC, Karlsruhe, Badisches Landesmuseum.

Fig. 5. Vase-paintings of altars equipped with fire-covers (escharai). (a) Athenian red-figure oinochoe, c. 490–480 BC, Athenian Agora. (b) Athenian red-figure neck amphora, c. 500–480 BC, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum.

  • 153 From the Chalkotheke on Delos, IG II2 1440, lines 53–54: ἐσχάραι χαλϰαĩ], ἐφ' ὧν π[ῦρ] ϰάειν, οὐ [ (...)

68Since these escharai are listed among objects kept in storage, they are not likely to have been lying on top of altars when the inventories were made. In fact, the reason why they are mentioned in the inventories was probably that they had been removed. They may have been temporarily taken into storage if the altar was being repaired or permanently if the altar went out of use altogether. Another explanation for the escharai being kept in a storage facility, instead of being used, may be that they were broken.153

69A connection between eschara and hero-cults could be made only in a handful of cases and of these only the eschara of the Herakleidai in Attica dates to before 300 BC, while the inscription mentioning the escharon in the Archegesion on Delos dates to the early 3rd century BC. The earliest literary source connecting escharai and heroes dates to the 3rd century BC, while the rest of the sources making this connection are considerably later.

  • 154 Furthermore, the actual ash-altar/eschara in the Archegesion dates to the late Hellenistic or even (...)
  • 155 For the archaeological remains of altars in hero-cults, see Ekroth 1998.

70It is important to note that the use of an eschara in the cult of the Herakleidai and in the escharon in the sanctuary of the Archegetes does not automatically imply that particular kinds of sacrifices (holocausts, for example) were performed. Eschara in these cases is best understood as referring to the altar being of a simple kind, a heap of ashes placed directly on the ground, in the sense that the term is employed in later literary sources, beginning with Ammonios of Lamptrai, and perhaps also in the rock-cut proscharaios inscriptions from Lindos. In the Archegesion, the presence of an eschara should rather be explained by the sanctuary being used for ritual meals than by the recipient being a hero, since escharon seems to have been a Delian term for hestiatorion.154 It is possible that the link between heroes and escharai may have originated in the fact that the sanctuaries of heroes, to a certain extent, were of a less elaborate kind than the sanctuaries of the gods and therefore had simple escharai where the sacrifices were performed.155 Neanthes’ claim that escharai were used for heroes while bomoi were for the gods may also be a reflection of such conditions rather than of any distinctions in cult practices between heroes and gods. Furthermore, it is possible that the term eschara was, in particular, a local Attic term for these simple altars, which elsewhere would be called bomoi, just as escharon on Delos seems to have been a local term for hestiatorion.

71The explicatory sources particularly emphasize a distinction between eschara and bomos, especially concerning differences in the appearances and modes of construction. Even if such a distinction may have existed as early as in the Archaic and Classical periods, it is clear that the explicatory sources focus on the meaning of eschara as a hearth, a pit for the fire or a simple altar on the ground.

  • 156 The heroes occupying a position separate from that of the gods is a thought developed particularly (...)
  • 157 The term enagizein for sacrifices in hero-cults became more common in the Roman period (see below, (...)
  • 158 For references, see below, pp. 80–81, Enagisterion.
  • 159 For this monument, see Pariente 1992, 195–225, esp. 195–197, and pl. 35. The pit measures 6.50 × 2 (...)

72The eagerness of the explicatory sources to distinguish eschara from bomos may reflect an increased degree of specialization among the altars and the use of the terminology. On the one hand, escharai were used in particular for simple, more improvised altars, while bomoi were reserved for the altars constructed of stone. On the other hand, escharai came to be associated with the heroes, while the bomoi were used in the cults of the gods. Why this specialization took place is hard to tell, but perhaps it should be linked to a greater distinction between heroes and gods in later and especially Roman times.156 Possibly, there was an increase of particular rituals in hero-cults, especially in holocaustic sacrifices, which led to a higher degree of specialization in the altars and the use of escharai in hero-cults. 157Such a development may also be discernable in the archaeological evidence. For example, the Roman Palaimonion at Isthmia was equipped with a pit where holocaustic sacrifices were performed and such an installation corresponds to the escharai of the explicatory sources.158 Another candidate for a Roman eschara used for hero-cults is an ash-filled pit in the agora of Argos, installed in the 4th century AD but which included the re-use of nine limestone posts originating from an Archaic monument dedicated to the heroes who participated in the expedition against Thebes.159 If a change in ritual practices in hero-cults had taken place in the Roman period, the later and the explicatory sources would reflect the conditions of their own periods and explain the term from its contemporaneous meaning, which is not necessarily valid also for conditions during Archaic and Classical times.

  • 160 Cf. Chadwick 1986, 515–516.

73It should also be noted that eschara is frequently commented upon in the explicatory sources, i.e., this particular term apparently needed explanation. The information found in the lexica and scholia is quite ambiguous and the explanations given are often general. Considering the fact that the use of eschara in general in the Roman period and later seems mainly to have been as a medical term, it seems likely that a religious use of eschara in the same periods was not very frequent. When the term was explained, it had to be distinguished both from its general meaning of hearth and place for the fire, from the term hestia, from the common word for altar, bomos, and from the meaning “wound”. The descriptions of eschara as low, hollow and connected with fire are very general. As shown above, both fire and hollowness are characteristics of almost all meanings of the term, whether religious or not. Perhaps some of the later commentators had never seen an eschara functioning as an altar and, when they described it, they focused on the general traits of the term, in order to distinguish eschara from other phenomena covered by the same term or from similar concepts, such as bomos and hestia.160 The distinction between eschara and bomos and the connection between escharai and hero-cults may thus have been the result of the bewilderment of the explicatory sources when faced with the use of eschara in the earlier periods, rather than a reflection of the terminology and ritual practices of previous periods.

2. Bothros

74The meaning of the term bothros, according to the LSJ, is a hole, trench or pit dug in the ground. The LSJ also gives the explanations “hollow”, “grave” and “ritual pit for offerings to the subterranean gods”.

  • 161 Deneken 1886–90, 2497; Rohde 1925, 50, n. 53; Pfister 1909–12, 474–475; Stengel 1910, 151; Eitrem (...)
  • 162 Pfister 1909–12, 474–475; Burkert 1983, 9, n. 41; Burkert 1985, 199.
  • 163 Deneken 1886–90, 2497; Pfister 1909–12, 474–475; Stengel 1910, 151; Foucart 1918, 99; Rudhardt 195 (...)
  • 164 Nilsson 1967, 78, 180 and 186.
  • 165 Deneken 1886–90, 2497; Pfister 1909–12, 474–475; Riethmüller 1999, 123–143.

75The bothroi used for ritual purposes have usually been considered as being characteristic of the cult of the heroes, the deceased, the chthonian divinities and the winds, just as bomos was a typical feature in the sanctuaries of the gods.161 In correct use of the language, it has been claimed, bothros was distinguished from eschara, but such a distinction was not always observed in practice and both kinds of sacrificial installations have been considered as being used in the same cults and for the same kinds of rituals.162 More specifically, a bothros was a sacrificial pit, i.e., a hole in the ground into which libations were poured, the most prominent being the blood of the sacrificial victims.163 Sacrifices could also be burnt in the bothros.164 The pit could be freshly dug for each occasion or be a permanent construction, which sometimes was raised above the ground level, such as the bothroi found in the sanctuaries of deities considered to be chthonian, like Asklepios.165

2.1. Epigraphical sources

  • 166 A third case is to be found in a Christian inscription from Sicily dating to the Roman period, in (...)
  • 167 IG XI:2 235, 3.
  • 168 [χ]οĩρος ὥστ[ε τó ἱερòν ϰαθάρασθαι?] – .
  • 169 Temple of Apollon: Bruneau 1970, 93; IG XI:2 203 A, 32–57. Thesmophorion: Bruneau 1970, 286–288; I (...)
  • 170 Porph. De antr. nymph. 6, speaks of bothroi and megara as two different kinds of installations use (...)

76Bothros is a rare term, which seems to be documented only twice in the inscriptions, none of which show any connection with hero-cults (Table 5).166 The first inscription is an account of expenses from Delos dated to c. 265–255 BC and unfortunately rather damaged.167 Line 2 mentions a piglet, presumably bought to be used in the purification of a sanctuary.168 The only words preserved in the next line are. τοὺς βóθρου [ς] – . It is not clear whether the bothroi were used in the purification or whether this line refers to a different context. There are two sanctuaries on Delos for which purifications by piglets are known. The sanctuary of Apollon was purified monthly by the blood of a piglet and the purification of the Thesmophorion is mentioned in many accounts.169 The inscription is too fragmentary for any connection to be made, but it seems likely that the bothroi belonged to a ritual context.170

Table 5. Instances of bothros in the epigraphical sources.

Table 5. Instances of bothros in the epigraphical sources.
  • 171 Krauss 1980, no. 11, line 25, the new edition and reading of the text followed here. Previous edit (...)

77Term bójroi Recipient Source Date bójroi Unknown, Delos IG XI:2 235, 3 265–255 BC Gods of the underworld, Kallipolis Krauss 1980, no. 11, 25 2nd century AD The second inscription using bothros is Roman (2nd century AD) and comes from Kallipolis in Thrace.171 The text records an oracle against pestilence given by the oracle of Apollon at Klaros. This inscription belongs to a series of oracles, preserved in epigraphical form, given in connection with a plague, which spread in the eastern part of the Roman empire in the second half of the 2nd century AD.

  • 172 The epithet E¹qaíthv usually refers to Hades, see Buresch 1889, 84, line 23; LSJ s.v. Krauss 1980, (...)

78At the end of the inscription, the remedies against the plague are outlined (lines 21–33). The people of Kallipolis are “to sacrifice to the gods below the earth”, ἔρδειν ὑπουδαίοις θεοĩς,, a black goat to Hades and a black sheep to Persephone.172 When the black blood flows into the bothroi, a collection of libations and medicines shall be poured out from above. The victims are to be burnt together with fragrant oils and frankincense. Wine and milk shall then be poured on the pyre to extinguish the fire. It is not clear from the text whether the burning is to take place in the bothros or next to it.

2.2. Literary sources

2.2.1. Bothros in Archaic to early Hellenistic sources

  • 173 Hom. Il. 17.58; Od. 6.92; Arist. Hist. an. 579a; Metaph. 1025a. Just like eschara, the term is fou (...)
  • 174 Xen. Oec. 19.7 and 19.13.
  • 175 Xen. An. 5.8.9.
  • 176 Hymn. Hom. Merc. 112; Hippoc. Nat. mul. 109.

79Most occurrences of bothros in the literary sources refer simply to a hole, dug in the ground without any religious connotations.173 These holes are sometimes dug for a specific purpose, such as planting vines or olives,174 burying a corpse175 or keeping a fire.176 The common characteristic is that the bothros was not a permanent installation but was created when the need arose.

Table 6. Instances of bothros in the Archaic to early Hellenistic literary sources.

Table 6. Instances of bothros in the Archaic to early Hellenistic literary sources.

Only cases in which the term is used in a religious context have been included.

  • 177 Od. 10.517–542, esp. 10.517; 11.23–50, esp. 11.25, 11.36, 11.42, and 11.95.
  • 178 Od. 11.35–36; the animals may have been killed by cutting off their heads completely (apodeirotome (...)

80The religious use of bothros in this period is indeed slight, and there is no connection with hero-cults. In all, the evidence seems to be limited to Odysseus’ consultation of the souls of the dead in Hades.177 This bothros of a cubit’s length is dug by Odysseus with his sword in the bank of the river Akeron. The sacrifice begins with libations: first melikraton, then wine and water, followed by the sprinkling of barley meal. Then Odysseus prays and promises the dead the sacrifice of a barren cow on his return to Ithaka, as well as a black sheep to Teiresias. The black ewe and a black ram are slaughtered over the bothros and the blood flows into the pit to attract the dead souls (τὰ δὲ μῆλα λαβὼν ἀπεδειροτόμησα ἐς βόθρον, ῥέε δ' αἷμα ϰελαινεφές).178

81Finally, the slaughtered animals are flayed and burnt, while prayers are said to Hades and Persephone. The burning seems to have taken place outside the pit. After the completion of the ritual, Odysseus sits down with his sword in his hand to wait for the souls of the dead to approach, and in particular for Teiresias, who, after having drunk the blood, will proclaim the fate of Odysseus.

82There is a strong connection with death in this sacrifice and the use of the bothros is aimed at putting the person sacrificing in contact with the dead. The ritual is a single occasion. The atmosphere of the sacrifice has a temporary character, which is further stressed by the fact that it takes place away from society and outside the boundaries marking the area where regular sacrifices are performed. The bothros was not a permanent installation but was dug just for this particular occasion. There is a closeness to water, and the pit is dug on the shore. The offerings that go into the bothros are all fluid: melikraton, wine, water and blood. Any burning takes place outside the pit. After the ritual is finished, the participants leave without any indication of returning.

  • 179 Ion fr. 54 (Nauck 1889). The context deals with the mourning habits of the Egyptians, Syrians and (...)

83That a bothros is used in a ritual to evoke the dead is hardly surprising, considering the fact that the dead were imagined as remaining underground and that the burial itself took place in a hole in the ground. A further indication of the close connection between bothros and death/burial is found in a fragment of the tragedian Ion. He mentions, in a non-Greek context, that particular bothroi were used in the mourning of the dead and that the mourners presumably descended into them.179

2.2.2. Bothros in the post-300 BC sources

84In the later sources, the use of bothros in religious contexts is more frequent and a connection with heroes is also found, the earliest cases being in Pausanias. It is striking that many of the contexts in which a bothros is used show similarities to the sacrifice performed by Odysseus in the Nekyia of Homer, as regards the recipients of the sacrifice, the aim of the ritual and the actual ritual actions performed.

  • 180 Lycoph. Alex. 684; Paus. 10.29.8; Lucian De astr. 24; Philostr. Her. 43.14.
  • 181 Lucian Menip. 9.
  • 182 Philostr. V A 4.16.

85Some of these later passages are direct references to Homer and the Nekyia and need no further comment here.180 Other instances describe a ritual that is almost a copy or a paraphrase of Homer, even though single details differ or the order varies, in which the separate actions are carried out. When Lucian tells the story of how Menippos wanted to visit Hades with the aid of the Chaldean Mithrobarzanes, the ritual described must be considered as copied almost exactly from Homer but with a slightly ironic twist.181 Menippos and his Chaldean friend drifted along the river Euphrates into a marsh to a woody, sunless place, dug a bothros, slaughtered the sheep and sprinkled the blood around it, βόθρον τε ὠρυξάμετα ϰαὶ τὰ μήλα ϰατεσφ άξαμεν ϰαὶ τὶ αἷμα περὶ αὐτὸν ἐσπείσαμεν. Philostratos is perhaps also somewhat ironic, when he states that Apollonios managed to get into contact with Achilles, even though he did not dig a bothros, like Odysseus, or tempted the souls with the blood of sheep.182

Table 7. Instances of bothros in the post-300 BC literary sources. Term Recipient Source

Table 7. Instances of bothros in the post-300 BC literary sources. Term Recipient Source

Only cases in which the term is used in a religious context have been included.

  • 183 Argon. 3.1026–1041 and 3.1194–1222.

86Obvious similarities to Homer are to be found in the Argonautica of Apollonios Rhodios, describing how Jason must act to take the Golden Fleece.183 The story even echoes the narrative structure of Homer. First, Medea tells Jason in detail how to proceed and then follows the description of what is done, i.e., more or less the same account given twice, just as in the case of Kirke and Odysseus. In the middle of the night, in a far-away place, Jason is to bathe in a stream, dig a round bothros one cubit deep, cut the throat of a ewe over it, pile up firewood and sacrifice the animal whole, by placing the body on top of the pyre and setting fire to it. Finally, he is to evoke Hekate and pour out libations of milk and honey. The sacrifice aims at contacting Hekate and, when that has been accomplished, Jason is to leave without turning back.

  • 184 Orph. Argon. 950–987. For the date and the relationship with Apollonios Rhodios, see West 1983, 37

87The ritual outlined in the Argonautica is echoed in the Orphic Argonautica, which is largely dependent on Apollonios Rhodios but is hardly earlier than the 4th century AD.184 Here Mopsos instructs the Argonauts how, by evoking Hekate, they are to get into the precinct where the dragon guards the Golden Fleece. Orpheus digs a triangular bothros (or a bothros with three compartments), fills it with various kinds of dry wood and places figures made of meal on top of the heap. The sacrificial animals consist of three black puppies. Their blood is mixed with various herbs and poured into their stomachs, which are placed on top of the wood. The rest of the intestines are scattered around the bothros. Orpheus sounds a bronze gong and prays. Finally, Hekate, Pandora and the Poinai appear, carrying torches, and the wood in the bothros kindles by itself.

  • 185 Hekate: Lucian Philops. 14. Kore: Paus. 2.22.3. Hypochthonioi theoi: Porph. De antr. nymph. 6; De (...)
  • 186 Pelops: Paus. 5.13.2. Agamedes: Paus. 9.37.7 and 9.39.6. Achilles: Philost. Her. 53.11. Heroes in (...)
  • 187 CAF, vol. 3, Adespota, fr. 128 (Kock 1888), from New Comedy; Lucian Charon 22; Lucian Philops. 14; (...)
  • 188 Paus. 2.12.1. The association of the winds with bothroi may be due to the tradition that the winds (...)

88The recipients of the sacrifices in the bothroi considered so far were the gods of the underworld, as well as the dead. In fact, in almost all the cases in which a bothros is used for sacrifices, the recipients have a connection with death and the underworld, either as gods associated with that sphere, as heroes or as ordinary dead. Among the divinities named are Hekate and Kore, and among the unnamed, the hypochthonioi and chthonioi theoi, as well as any god to whom it is necessary to sacrifice in order to avoid immediate death.185 The heroes found in these contexts are Pelops, Agamedes, Achilles and the Athenian heroes in the garden of Akademos.186 Finally, the departed are approached by sacrifices in a bothros, both as a part of the regular cult of the dead and in trying to get into contact with the dead, either to be able to talk to their souls or to bring them back to life.187 The only exception in which the recipient is not connected with death is the use of bothroi to tame the winds at Titane, reported by Pausanias.188

  • 189 Lucian Charon 22; cf. CAF, vol. 3, Adespota, fr. 128 (Kock 1888); Orph. Argon. 569–575.

89The main aim of using a bothros was to get into contact with those residing below ground. This ritual formed part of the regular funerary cult, according to Lucian, who has Charon express his surprise that the living actually thought that the dead could come up from below and eat of the meals burnt on the pyres and drink of the wine and the melikraton poured into the bothroi.189

  • 190 Philops. 14.
  • 191 6.14.3–6.

90More significant is the use of the bothros in magic rituals for direct contact with a particular dead person. In Lucian, for example, a young man has a magician dig a bothros and perform rites to summon his dead father and to make it possible for the son to hear his father’s opinion of his girl-friend.190 In the Aethiopica of Heliodoros, a mother performs an elaborate ritual at a bothros on the battlefield at night, to bring her fallen son back from the dead, so that she can inquire about the fate of her other son.191 By digging the bothros and sacrificing into it, a dead person or the divinity could be summoned and called up to the world of the living.

  • 192 Ap. Rhod. Argon. 3.1211–1220; Lucian Philops. 14; Orph. Argon. 966–982.
  • 193 Paus. 9.39.6 and 9.37.7.
  • 194 Philostr. Her. 53.11–12. Cf. Philostr. V A 4.16: Apollonios can get into contact with Achilles, ev (...)
  • 195 Paus. 5.13.2. This possibility will be further discussed below, p. 178, in connection with Pind. O (...)

91The divinities of the underworld could also be evoked or called by the use of a bothros. Hekate, either alone or in the company of other deities of her kind, is summoned both by Jason, by the young man trying to contact his dead father and by Orpheus.192 Heroes were also called in this manner: Agamedes was called by those consulting the oracle of Trophonios, when a ram was sacrificed in the bothros located on the site where the earth swallowed up Trophonios.193 Achilles and Patroklos are invited to come and participate in a dais on the burial mound of Achilles at Troy, where a bull is slaughtered at the newly dug bothroi.194 The sacrifice in a bothros performed by Herakles to Pelops at Olympia should perhaps also be taken to contain an element of calling and inviting Pelops to come and participate.195

  • 196 Ap. Rhod. Argon. 3.1026–1041 and 3.1194–1214; Orph. Argon. 950–987.
  • 197 Ael. Arist. Hier. log. II 26–27.
  • 198 Philostr. V A 8.7.9.
  • 199 Paus. 2.12.1.

92The second use of the bothroi, which partly overlaps the first, was to perform a sacrifice to solve a difficult situation and, in particular, to avoid danger. Both Jason and Orpheus sacrifice in the bothros in order to succeed in retrieving the Golden Fleece.196 These sacrifices are aimed not only at contacting Hekate, but also at propitiating her. In Aelius Aristides, this aim is even clearer.197 Asklepios tells the author that he will die in two days, unless he seeks out a deserted location outside the city, digs a bothros and performs a sacrifice to whichever god it is thought to be necessary. Back in the city again, he is to perform a regular thysia sacrifice, followed by dining, to Asklepios, as well as to cut off a part of his body, which, fortunately, could be substituted by the dedication of a ring. Similarly, from Philostratos we learn that it was thought that pestilence could be averted by digging bothroi, even though Philostratos himself mocks this belief.198 At Titane, the winds could be tamed by sacred rites in four bothroi, as well as by the singing of the charms of Medea.199

  • 200 Ap. Rhod. Argon. 3.1035–1036, 3.1199 and 3.1210; CAF, vol. 3, Adespota fr. 128 (Kock 1888); Lucian (...)
  • 201 Blood poured into the bothros: Ap. Rhod. Argon. 3.1208; Porph. De phil. 114; Philostr. Her. 53.11– (...)
  • 202 Aeth. 1.17.5.
  • 203 Paus. 5.13.2. For discussion of the rituals of Pelops, see below, pp. 190–192. On the dining on th (...)
  • 204 Paus. 9.39.6.
  • 205 Hier. log. II 27.
  • 206 Heliod. Aeth. 6.14.3–6; Orph. Argon. 957–958.
  • 207 2.22.3
  • 208 For megara and torches, see Burkert 1985, 242–243; Clinton 1988, 77.

93The rituals performed are of two kinds, those taking place in the bothros and those executed outside it. The first kind consisted mainly of libations. Honey, water, milk and wine could be poured in, either separately or mixed together.200 In the cases in which there was an animal sacrifice the blood was poured out, usually in the pit itself directly from the slit throat of the animal, but in one instance, the blood was sprinkled around the pit.201 Heliodoros mentions an enagizein sacrifice to the heroes in the bothros in the garden of Akademos, which should probably be taken to refer to an animal sacrifice, in which the meat was completely destroyed. The blood may have been separately poured out into the bothros.202 Pausanias speaks of two sacrifices into a bothros, using the term thyein. The first case concerns the sacrifices performed by Herakles to Pelops, a cult which seems to have consisted of a blood libation followed by ritual dining.203 The second passage describes the preparations before consulting the oracle of Trophonios, which included the sacrifice (thyein) of a ram into a bothros. Presumably, the blood was poured into the pit, while the meat was eaten.204 In Aelius Aristides, the expression for the sacrifice is δρᾶσαι τὰ ἱερά,, which must refer to an animal sacrifice but since the bothros was to be dug explicitly for this occasion, it is likely that the blood went into it.205 Non-liquid offerings, such as cakes shaped like a man (pemmata or ouloplasmata), could occasionally be thrown into the bothros, but the sources mentioning this practice are both late.206 Finally, Pausanias states that in the sanctuary of Demeter at Argos, burning torches were thrown into the bothros in honour of Kore.207 This ritual seems to be completely different from the libations and animal sacrifices outlined so far and should, however, perhaps be connected with the use of pits, usually called megara, and torches in the cult of Demeter and Kore.208

  • 209 Ap. Rhod. Argon. 3.1032–1034.
  • 210 Heliod. Aeth. 1.17.5; Philostr. Her. 53.11.
  • 211 CAF, vol. 3, Adespota, fr. 128 (Kock 1888); Lucian Charon 22.
  • 212 Orph. Argon. 571–572.
  • 213 Orph. Argon. 960–963.

94The rituals taking place outside the bothros consisted mainly of burning. The ewe slaughtered by Jason in the Argonautica was to be placed on the pyre heaped up on the edge of the bothros and sacrificed whole, ἀδαίετον ὠµοθετῆσαι, i.e., completely burnt.209 At the enagizein sacrifices to the heroes in the garden of Akademos and to Achilles at Troy, the location of the burning is not specified, but it is likely to have taken place outside the bothros.210 The burning of meals at the tombs of ordinary deceased persons definitely took place on the ground, in front of the burial mounds and near the dug-out bothroi.211 The only cases of anything being burnt inside the bothros are found in the late Orphic Argonautica, where the wood is placed in the pit, together with the animal victims, and subsequently burnt. What happens to the blood in these cases is not entirely clear. At the burial of Kyzikos, the victims are called entoma, which may indicate that the victims were bled before they were burnt.212 In the sacrifice to Hekate, the blood was poured into the stomachs of the puppies, which were subsequently placed on the wood in the bothros and burnt.213

  • 214 Ap. Rhod. Argon. 3.1026–1041 and 3.1194–1214; Lucian Menip. 9; Ael. Arist. Hier. log. II 26–27; He (...)
  • 215 CAF, vol. 3, Adespota, fr. 128 (Kock 1888); Lucian Charon 22; Philostr. Her. 53.11; Orph. Argon. 5 (...)
  • 216 Lucian Philops. 14.
  • 217 Old woman: Heliod. Aeth. 6.14.3–6.

95Looking at the location and appearance of the bothroi, it is clear that the majority were single installations created for the particular occasion. A need had arisen to contact the dead or the divinities of the underworld or to make a sacrifice aiming at solving particular problems, such as the threat of disease or death, and consequently the bothros was dug. In some cases, it is emphasized that the bothroi are to be located outside the bounds of society in a deserted spot.214 Other bothroi were dug at graves or in the actual burial mound.215 One bothros is found in a private garden.216 These bothroi were not meant to be part of a general and official cult. As far as it is possible to tell, they seem to have been fairly small and shallow. The pit dug by Jason was one cubit deep (cf. the pit dug by Odysseus, which was one cubit long). The fact that the bothros is often dug by one person, in one case even by an old woman, also gives the impression of it being a fairly small hole.217 There is no indication of these bothroi being adorned or elaborated; they were just simple holes in the ground.

  • 218 Paus. 2.12.1 (winds); 2.22.3 (Kore); 9.39.6 (Agamedes); Heliod. Aeth. 1.17.5 (heroes in the garden (...)
  • 219 Philostr. Her. 53.11.
  • 220 Paus. 5.13.2; see below, pp. 190–192.
  • 221 Heliod. Aeth. 1.17.5; Paus. 9.39.6. The term can also be used for a cave, such as the one located (...)

96The bothroi located in sanctuaries, on the other hand, seem to have been both of a more permanent character and of larger size. Sacrifices were regularly performed in these bothroi: to the winds at Titane, to Kore at Argos, to Agamedes at Lebadeia and to the heroes in the garden of Akademos at Athens.218 The sacrifices to Achilles at Troy took place on his burial mound, but they were a recurrent event and his grave functioned as the sanctuary of the hero.219 The bothros sacrifice performed by Herakles to Pelops at Olympia may have been a single occasion in connection with the institution of the cult, but it is possible that a similar sacrifice also formed part of the ongoing rituals at the Pelopion.220 The sizes of some of these bothroi must have been substantial. A woman committed suicide by flinging herself into the bothros of the heroes at the garden of Akademos, and the bothros at Lebadeia was identified as the hole into which Trophonios disappeared.221

97To sum up the use of bothroi in the post-300 BC sources, it seems possible to divide them into two categories. On the one hand, there are the bothroi dug for the individual occasion, located outside any kind of sanctuary and often set apart from society and the neighbourhood of the living. The sacrifices consist either of libations (milk, honey, wine, water) or of blood, if an animal sacrifice takes place. The animal victim was subsequently destroyed and there is no sign of dining taking place at these sacrifices. The aim of the ritual is to deal with a particular situation. The recipients of the sacrifices are either the divinities of the underworld or the dead.

98On the other hand, there are the more institutionalized bothroi, which were permanent installations, used for recurrent rituals and located in sanctuaries. The recipients of these cults are more diverse: the winds, Kore, Agamedes, the heroes at the Academy, Pelops and Achilles at Troy. In the case of the sacrifices to the winds, no details are known and the throwing of torches into the bothros of Kore seems to belong to a category of rituals different from the other sacrifices for which bothroi were used.

  • 222 Heliod. Aeth. 1.17.5.
  • 223 Philostr. Her. 53.11–13.

99The rituals of the heroes, however, have certain traits in common with the rituals used at the temporary bothroi, but they also show some deviating features. The enagizein sacrifice to the heroes in the garden of Akademos is best understood as an animal sacrifice, including the complete destruction of the victim, perhaps preceded by pouring the blood into the bothros.222 This ritual is similar to the bothros sacrifice in Apollonios Rhodios, but it is an institutionalized cult performed by the polemarch. The sacrifices to Achilles at Troy comprised the slaughter (sphattein) of a bull into bothroi dug in the burial mound, the calling of Achilles and Patroklos to come and participate in the dais and the annihilation of the victim (enagizein).223 The ritual was then continued with a regular thysia sacrifice on the beach using a second victim. The Thessalians took the carcass with them when they left, and the reason given for not consuming the meat on the spot was that they did not want to dine on enemy territory. The first part of the ritual involving the institutionalized bothroi is the same as the rituals at the temporary bothroi, but it is complemented by a thysia probably involving dining.

  • 224 Paus. 9.39.6.
  • 225 Paus. 5.13.2–4.

100The last two cases of hero-cults at bothroi seem to have consisted of a blood libation, followed by ritual dining. The blood of a ram sacrificed to Agamedes (thyein) at Lebadeia must have been poured into the bothros while Agamedes was called upon.224 The meat from this victim, just like the rest of the victims sacrificed at the consultation of Trophonios at Lebadeia, was likely to have been eaten. Finally, the thyein sacrifice to Pelops at Olympia, which was performed by Herakles at a bothros, included dining on the meat by the worshippers, at least in Pausanias’ time, and it also seems likely that Pelops was called upon to come and participate.225

2.2.3. Bothros in the explicatory sources

  • 226 Eust. Od. 10.517 (Stallbaum 1825–26, vol. 1, 393, lines 16–29); schol. Hom. Od. 10.517 (Dindorf 18 (...)
  • 227 Hsch. s.v. ϰοτυλίσϰος (Latte 1953–66, K 3818).

101There is a handful of mentions of bothros in the explicatory sources as well, but not much additional information is provided. Two cases are connected with Homer’s Nekyia and explain the bothros as being used for the blood of the victims sacrificed (thyein) to the departed.226 Similar information is given by Hesychios, who explains kotyliskos as, among other things, the bothros into which the blood of the sacrificed victims is discarded.227

  • 228 Schol. Eur. Phoen. 274 (Schwartz 1887); see above, p. 50.
  • 229 One of the basic characteristics of the term eschara, no matter what the context, is an indication (...)

102In a scholion to Euripides’ Phoenician Maidens, discussed earlier in connection with eschara, it is stated that eschara is mainly the bothros in the ground where they sacrifice (enagizein) to those going down (τοĩς ϰάτω ἐρχομένοις), i.e., to the departed.228 The use of a bothros for sacrifices to the dead is well documented in a number of sources, as we have seen above. This scholion is the only source connecting bothros directly with eschara. The explanation of eschara as meaning a bothros for the dead is probably due to eschara here being understood as something hollow, since the same scholion also explains bomioi escharai as the depressions of the bomoi229

Table 8. Instances of bothros in the explicatory literary sources.

Table 8. Instances of bothros in the explicatory literary sources.

Only cases in which the term is used in a religious context have been included.

2.3. Conclusion

103The chronological spread of the term bothros is uneven. Apart from the use of the term in Homer, bothros occurs in a handful of Hellenistic sources, but the most frequent usage dates to the Roman period. The great majority of the recipients of the sacrifices performed in bothroi show a connection with the underworld, either as deities linked to the realm of the dead, as heroes or as ordinary departed. A direct link between the term and heroes cannot be established before the Roman period. In all, the use of bothroi at sacrifices to heroes is slight and this kind of sacrificial installation was never a regular feature of hero-cults.

104Most of the bothroi (no matter the recipient or the chronological context) seem to have been temporary installations used for a single occasion. They were dug for the specific purpose of getting into contact with the beings of the underworld, to propitiate them, to seek their aid and to avoid danger and diseases. The marginality of these sacrifices is clearly demonstrated by the location of these pits in remote areas outside the bounds of society or at cemeteries, and by the private or secret character of the rituals, performed by only one or a few participants and not followed by any collective dining.

  • 230 On Homer as normative for later conceptions of the Underworld, see Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, 15–16. H (...)
  • 231 The other terms for pit, βοθύνος, λάϰϰος or ὄρυγμα, all occur later, not before the 5th century BC (...)
  • 232 Klaros: Krauss 1980, no. 11; Porph. De phil. 112–121; cf. Philostr. V A 8.7.9.

105It is interesting to note that the main characteristics of these bothros sacrifices are all found in the Nekyia of Homer and it is clear that there is a connection between this account and many of the ritual uses of bothroi found in the later sources. In some cases, particularly when the bothros is used in a mythical context, it can be argued that the later sources simply copied the ritual of the Nekyia. It is possible that the whole concept of bothros is to be considered as deriving from Homer, even though he must presumably have referred to a ritual or an action which was comprehensible to his audience.230 Homer’s use of the term bothros is, however, rather due to his description of a ritual making use of a dug-out pit than bothros being an established sacrificial installation already in this period.231 The impact of Homer may, in its turn, have led to the creating of a sacrificial installation designated by this term. The sacrifice of blood into a bothros, in order to contact the dead and the beings of the underworld, seems to have become more or less a topos, and most contexts in which the term is used in this sense are purely literary and cannot be regarded as descriptions of rituals actually performed. However, the epigraphically attested, 2nd-century AD oracle given by Apollon at Klaros outlining a similar ritual, paralleled in the writings of Porphyrios, seems to reflect a well-known and specific use of bothros for actual ritual purposes in the Roman period.232

106The bothroi used in hero-cults show a different pattern. They were recurrently used, forming a regular part of the cult and directly connected with a specific location where the hero was worshipped. Furthermore, the rituals were not private or secret, but involved a larger number of participants, since they were more or less public. The bothros seems to have been used for a blood ritual, aiming at contacting and calling upon the hero to come and participate in the subsequent rituals, which, at least in some cases, included ritual dining for the worshippers. The use of bothroi in herocults cannot be said to be a dominant feature, since it can be documented in so few cases and only in late sources. The reason for using the bothros may be connected with the fact that the hero was dead and there was a will to contact him. It is possible that bothroi, in Greek cult in general, were primarily and originally used for occasional sacrifices answering particular needs and called for by the situation, as outlined previously. This use was transferred to the hero-cults, but in these cults the bothroi became institutionalized and were used for only one part of a larger ritual.

3. Enagizein, enagisma, enagismos and enagisterion

107The last group of terms, which will be analysed in this chapter, is enagizein and the nouns enagisma, enagismos and enagisterion. The LSJ explains enagizein as “to offer sacrifices to the dead, opposed to θύω”. The meaning of enagisma is given as “offering to the dead” and of enagismos as “offering to the dead” or “sacrifice”. Enagisterion is explained as “a place for offerings to the dead”.

  • 233 Deneken 1886–90, 2505; Pfister 1909–12, 466 and 477; Eitrem 1912, 1123; Foucart 1918, 98; Stengel (...)
  • 234 Deneken 1886–90, 2505–2506; Stengel 1920, 143 and 149; Rudhardt 1958, 238–239; Casabona 1966, 209; (...)
  • 235 Pfister 1909–12, 467; Eitrem 1912, 1123; Rohde 1925, 116 and 140, n. 15; Nagy 1979, 308, § 10n4; B (...)
  • 236 Casabona 1966, 85 and 204.

108The general tendency in modern scholarship has been to regard enagizein and its associated nouns as particularly connected with sacrifices to the dead and the heroes.233 The terms have also been linked to other terms, such as eschara, bothros, entemnein, haimakouria and choai, which have all been considered to express the specific ritual actions of these cults.234 Enagizein has been understood as being the opposite to thyein, the former term indicating that the recipient was a hero or a dead person, while the latter was used only for sacrifices to the gods.235 Casabona’s detailed study of the sacrificial terminology has shown, however, that the relation between enagizein and thyein is that of a technical term versus a very general term. Thyein could be used for sacrifices to the gods above, as well as to the heroes and deified mortals. Only when the two terms are used in opposition, does thyein take on the meaning of “to sacrifice to an immortal or an Olympian god”, while enagizein refers to a technical term for the funerary honours given to the dead.236

  • 237 Stengel 1920, 143; Nock 1944, 593; Chantraine & Masson 1954, 100; Casabona 1966, 208–209; Burkert (...)
  • 238 Deneken 1886–90, 2505–2506; Pfister 1909–12, 477; Stengel 1920, 143 with n. 8; Rudhardt 1958, 239; (...)
  • 239 Nock 1944, 592–593; Chantraine & Masson 1954, 101–102; Casabona 1966, 206; Nilsson 1967, 186.
  • 240 Pfister 1909–12, 474–477; Rohde 1925, 116; Chantraine & Masson 1954, 101; Rudhardt 1958, 239.

109On the general level, the meaning of enagizein has been understood as tabu facere, to render sacred or to place in the domain of the sacred, i.e., to remove from the sphere of the living.237 Concerning the rituals covered by the terms, two main explanations have been advanced. On the one hand, enagizein has been considered to refer to a total destruction of the victims or offerings by burning them in a holocaust.238 In this sense, an enagizein sacrifice would imply that no part of the animal would be available for consumption by the worshippers. On the other hand, the terms have been linked to various kinds of libations, such as wine, melikraton, milk and, in particular, blood.239 It has also been suggested that enagizein and the related nouns can refer to both kinds of actions, i.e., the discarding of the blood of the animal followed by the burning of the carcass240

3.1. Epigraphical sources

  • 241 Ar. Tag. fr. 504, line 12 (PCG III:2, 1984).

110None of the three terms enagizein, enagismos and enagisterion is documented in the epigraphical record before the 2nd century BC. When they are found, enagizein and enagisterion are used only in connection with heroes, while the term enagismos is found for sacrifices both to heroes and to the dead. The term enagisma, which, in the literary sources, occurs from Aristophanes onwards, is not documented in the inscriptions.241 In all, the number of instances in which the three terms are used in the epigraphical record is low (see Table 9, p. 81).

3.1.1. Enagizein and enagismos

  • 242 IG II2 1006, 26 and 69; cf. pp. 33–34; Mikalson 1998, 245.
  • 243 In line 26, , ἐνήγισαν is completely preserved.

111The earliest occurrence of the verb enagizein is found in a substantial ephebic inscription dating to 123/2 BC, discussed above in connection with the eschara of Dionysos.242 Among the deeds performed by the ephebes and for which they were praised was that they marched to the polyandreion at Marathon, placed wreaths on it and ἐνήγισαν to those who had died in the war for freedom : ἤγαγεν δὲ ϰαι ἑπὶ τò [ἐ]μ Μ[αρ]αθϖνι πóλυάνδρ[ειον ϰαὶ ἐστεφ] άνωσαν ϰαὶ ἑνήγ[ισ]αν τοĩς ϰατὰ πόλεμον τελευτήσασιν ὑπ [ὲρ] τῆς ἑλευτηρίας (line 69).243 In the same inscription are also mentioned sacrifices to other heroes. Amphiaraos received sacrifices at the Amphiareion (lines 27–28 and 70–71) and Aias on Salamis (lines 30–31 and 72–73), but the term used for these sacrifices is thyein. Presumably, there must have been a difference between the sacrifices to the Marathonian war dead, compared with those to Amphiaraos and Aias, which prompted the use of different terms.

  • 244 The main sanctuary of Amphiaraos was at Oropos (see Petrakos 1968; Petropoulou 1981, 57–63; Schach (...)
  • 245 On the Amphiareia, see Parker 1996, 149 and 247; Pélékidis 1962, 253; on the sacrifices, see Petro (...)
  • 246 Parker 1996, 153–154; Pélékidis 1962, 247–249.

112The sacrifices to Amphiaraos and Aias, on the one hand, and to the Marathon war dead, on the other, differ both as to their chronological contexts and as to their contents. Amphiaraos and Aias were well-established heroes, who had been worshipped by the Athenians at least from the 5th century BC onwards.244 The sacrifices to Amphiaraos mentioned in the inscription took place at the Amphiareion, a sanctuary with a recurrent festival to the hero, at which the sacrifices were followed by ritual dining.245 In the case of Aias, the sacrifices formed part of the Aianteia, a festival which also included a procession, a gymnastic competition, a torch-race and a boat-race.246 Here, too, it is reasonable to assume that dining formed a part of the ritual activity.

  • 247 Loraux 1986, 39–41, considers the war dead as heroes who received time but does not explicitly say (...)
  • 248 Loraux 1986, 38–41, argues that a particular characteristic of the ancient sources that speak of t (...)

113The history of the cult of the war dead at Marathon is more tricky. The first source which states that they received a cult is in fact IG II2 1006, followed by Pausanias (1.32.4), who says that they were honoured (sebontai). Most modern scholars consider them as heroes but waver as to whether these war dead had a continuous cult from the 5th century onwards.247 It is possible that this was the case, even if our sources do not say so.248 But it is also possible that the cult, or at least the enagizein sacrifice, was a late-2nd-century BC feature.

114The sacrifice to the Marathonian war dead was performed by the ephebes, a fact that may be relevant to the understanding of the ritual.

  • 249 Pélékidis 1962, 183–209; Nilsson 1955, 17–29; Mikalson 1998, 181–185 and 246–249.
  • 250 Jacoby 1944, 66; cf. Pélékidis 1962, 211–256; Mikalson 1998, 246–249. Epigraphical evidence: Reinm (...)

115After having petered out in the late 3rd century, the ephebic institution was resurrected after 166 BC and transformed from a regular military institution into an exclusive education for boys from the upper class, both Athenians and foreigners.249 Participation in various religious activities was fundamental for these ephebes. Athens was no longer a free city with its own foreign policy but dependent on the Romans, and the emphasis on religious rites connected with a glorious past is clear in the inscriptions documenting the yearly activities of the revived ephebeia.250 Seen in this light, it is possible that the enagizein sacrifice to the war dead at Marathon may have been a particular, 2nd-century BC ritual, regarded as being specifically suitable for the ephebes, since the ephebeia had an originally military background and since this sacrifice also evoked the honourable history of Athens. The enagizein sacrifice is mentioned only in IG II2 1006, which is one of the earliest ephebic inscriptions, while other religious actions are found in several inscriptions. The sacrifice to the Marathon war dead was perhaps an occasional event and did not mark the institution of a regular sacrifice or the continuation of an earlier cult.

116The enagizein sacrifice took place at the tomb of the fallen warriors at Marathon, which was decorated with wreaths, an action usually found in the cult of the dead. The focus on the tomb, the placing of wreaths and the use of the term enagizein indicate that this sacrifice was of a kind different from the thysia sacrifices to Amphiaraos and Aias. The ritual may have consisted in a single visit to the tomb, at which sacrifices, either of animals or of other kinds of offerings, were performed. It is possible that this sacrifice, taking place on the actual battlefield, should be regarded as a new invention of the 2nd century BC and as being a distinct ritual separate from the regular cult of the war dead, which took place at the Kerameikos.

  • 251 IG VII 53 = Kaibel 1878, no. 461. Cf. Wade-Gery 1933, 95–97; Page 1981, 213–215, no. 16.
  • 252 Wade-Gery 1933, 96, is sceptical of the attribution to Simonides. Page 1981, 213–215, dates the ep (...)
  • 253 According to IG VII 53, 13, the stone has ENNTZEN, read as ἐν[ή]γ[ι]ζεν, also followed by Kaibel 1 (...)

117The second inscription in which enagizein is used also concerns sacrifices to the war dead from the Persian wars, but in Megara.251 The text consists of an early-5th-century BC epigram attributed to Simonides, inscribed by the high-priest Helladios in the 4th century AD at the earliest, but possibly even later.252 The epigram honours the Megarians who fell at Plataiai. It is preceded by Helladios’ introduction, in which the war dead are called heroes, and ends with the addition [M]εχρὶς έφ' ἡμῶν δὲ ἡ πόλις [ϰ]α[ὶ] ταῦρον ἑν[ή] γ [ι] ζεν (IG VII 53, 13). The text is quite damaged and the exact reading of the last word is difficult.253 The content is clear, however, even though the tense depends on how the last word is read: “Down to our time the city also sacrificed a bull” (Lattimore), “Up to our own day the city has consecrated a bull” (Campbell) or “The city consecrates a bull up to our time” (Page). What is of major interest is the fact that the term enagizein is found only in the 4th-century AD addition to the text. In the 4th century AD, the Megarian war dead received an enagizein sacrifice consisting of a bull, but it is questionable whether this was an early practice. Very little is known of the Megarian war dead, and it is not even certain where they were buried and where the sacrifice could have taken place. According to Herodotos, they were buried on the battlefield (9.85), while Pausanias claims that their tombs were in the city (1.43.3). In the introduction to the epigram, Helladios says that the heroes are resting where the inscription was located and, since the stone was found in Megara, presumably the tomb was considered to be located there in the 4th century AD.

  • 254 Wade-Gery 1933, 96; cf. Campbell 1991, 532, n. 1.

118The last line of the inscription states that the bull sacrifice was performed even in Helladios’ own time, which seems to indicate a long tradition. This, however, may partly be wishful thinking on Helladios’ part. Wade-Gery emphasized that Helladios inscribed, not re-inscribed, the epigram and that the text seems to have been copied from a literary source rather than from another inscription.254 Thus, Helladios seems to have either revived a cult that had fallen into oblivion (the text says that the epigram had been destroyed by time) or instituted a new cult. In any case, the enagizein sacrifice was not part of a continuous, ancient tradition and may have been a feature added by Helladios himself in connection with the execution of the inscription. Perhaps the tomb of the fallen soldiers was restored on the same occasion.

  • 255 OGIS, no. 764, line 16 = IGR IV 294. Schröder 1904, 152–160, no. 1, dated the text to the reign of (...)
  • 256 On Diodoros Pasparos, see Kienast 1970, 224–225; Jones 1974; Gauthier 1985, 62–63.

119The term enagismos is found in five inscriptions, but only two of these seem to refer to heroes. The first is from Pergamon and dates to the 1st century BC.255 The inscription honours the Pergamene Diodoros Pasparos, a great benefactor of his city, for what he has accomplished as gymnasiarch.256

120Diodoros took a great interest in various cults in his city and among his deeds was the execution of an enagismos to Aristonidas, an otherwise unknown, Pergamene hero. The inscription is partly damaged, and it is not clear whether Diodoros inaugurated the worship of Aristonidas or just promoted its continuation.

  • 257 Orlandos 1959, 162–173, esp. 170, line 13 (= SEG 23, 1968, 207); Robert J. & L. 1964–67, 308–311, (...)

121Another hero receiving an enagismos was Aristomenes at Messene. A substantial decree dating to the Augustan period, placed on the northern side of the agora at Messene, lists the citizens who donated money for the preservation and repair of buildings in that city.257 Kraton, son of Archedamos, granted wood to the gymnasium for 300 denars and promised an additional 70 denars for the enagismos of a bull Aristomenes εἰς ἐναγισμòν Ἀριστομένει ταύρου δεινάρια ἐβδομήϰοντα (lines 12–14). Aristomenes was the main hero of Messene and his exploits are described in detail by Pausanias (4.14.7–4.22.7), who also states that Aristomenes was buried at the gymnasium, after his bones had been sent to Messene from Rhodes (4.32.3). The cult of Aristomenes, as described by Pausanias, follows the same outline as the inscription: an enagizein sacrifice of a bull. Pausanias adds further that the bull was tied to a pillar on the hero’s grave before being sacrificed (4.32.3). Presumably the sacrifice to Aristomenes mentioned in the inscription also took place at the hero’s tomb at the gymnasium, since the donation of funds by Kraton concerned both the gymnasium and the cult of Aristomenes.

  • 258 Mansel 1957, 407–409, no. 4 (= SEG 16, 1959, 418); Robert J. & L. 1959–63, 59–61, no. 252. The ins (...)
  • 259 Frisch 1978, no. 23 = CIG 3645. This inscription is identical with the wrongly catalogued CIG 1976 (...)
  • 260 Drew-Bear 1980, 533–536, esp. 534, line 2 = SEG 30, 1980, 1387 = Meriç et al. 1981, no. 3803b = La (...)

122The remaining three cases of enagismos all cover funerary sacrifices to private individuals, and there is no reason to regard the recipients as being heroes of the same kind as those considered so far. On an inscribed sarcophagus from Byzantion, dated to around 100 BC, it is stated that the judge Iatrokles Ainetos from Mylasa was given a burial and an enagismos by the people of Byzantion, where he died.258 A similar wording, burial and enagismos, is found in an inscription from Lampsakos dating from the 1st to the 2nd century AD.259 The last inscription containing the term enagismos is a foundation decree from Hypaipa near Ephesos dated to AD 301.260 One part of the foundation deals with the reservation of financial means for an enagismos to the son of the donor, if he was buried in the family heroon. The enagismoi in these three cases seem to have been single sacrifices performed in connection with the burial, and there is no indication of a continuation of the ritual.

3.1.2. Enagisterion

  • 261 IG IV 203 = Gegan 1989, 350.
  • 262 Broneer 1959, 312–319; Broneer 1973, 99–112; Gebhard 1993a, 89–94; Gebhard 1993b, 170–172; Gebhard (...)
  • 263 Gebhard 1993a, 85, 89 and 93.
  • 264 Broneer 1959, 313; Gebhard 1993a, 85 with n. 26; the bones have been re-studied by David Reese, se (...)

123The term enagisterion is found only once in the epigraphical evidence and never in the literary sources. The term occurs in an inscription dating to about AD 170, dealing with work performed by Licinius Priscus Juventianus in the sanctuary of Poseidon at Isthmia, which had been damaged in an earthquake c. AD 150–175. Juventianus was a wealthy Roman who spent lavishly at Isthmia. Among the buildings which he restored or had constructed were the Palaimonion with its ornaments, the enagisterion and the sacred portal : τò Παλαιμόνιον σὺν τοĩς προσϰοσμήμασιν ϰαὶ τò ἐναγιστήριον ϰαὶ τὴν ἱεράν ἐίσοδον (lines 8–10).261 The buildings mentioned in the inscription have been identified in the excavations of the site.262 The shrine of Palaimon, located just to the south-east of the temple of Poseidon, shows three major phases. The first phase dates to c. AD 50–80, the second to c. AD 80–100 and the final phase to c. 150, to the late 2nd or possibly early 3rd century AD.263 The third phase, recovered in the excavations, corresponds well to the buildings mentioned in the inscription. At that time, the shrine consisted of two main parts: a small tholos on a podium and a stone-lined pit, both placed within courtyards, and an elaborate entrance to the stoa to the north. In the pit were found ashes and burnt bones, mainly from bovines and young bulls that had been burnt whole in the fire.264 The stones forming the walls of the pit had been badly damaged by fire.

  • 265 On the analogy with θυσιαστήριον, meaning altar (Joseph. AJ 8.4.1), derived from θυσιάζειν, which (...)
  • 266 Philostr. Imag. 2.16.3. The Palaimonion was possibly in use into the 3rd century AD, and, even if (...)

124The term enagisterion must be derived from enagizein and refer to the pit where holocausts of the bulls were performed, as well as to the courtyard in which the pit was located.265 Furthermore, in the description of the “Palaimon” painting, Philostratos states that Sisyphos is sacrificing (thyei) a black bull and that the rituals also included enagismata.266 Even if the enagisterion is mentioned only in the Juventianus inscription and refers to the third phase of the Palaimonion, the two previous courtyards with their sacrificial pits are likely to have been called by the same term.

  • 267 Gebhard 1993a, 79.
  • 268 Palaimon is mentioned in a fragmentary ode by Pindar, but no archaeological traces of a cult have (...)
  • 269 Cf. Piérart 1998, 106–109.

125It is important to remember that all the archaeological, epigraphical and literary evidence for holocaustic sacrifices of bulls to Palaimon at Isthmia dates to the Roman period. The whole sanctuary of Poseidon seems to have been more or less deserted from the mid 2nd century BC to the third quarter of the 1st century AD.267 There might have been an earlier cult of Palaimon at Isthmia, but nothing is known of how or where it was performed.268 It is thus possible that the enagizein sacrifices to Palaimon at Isthmia were instituted at the Roman revival of the sanctuary.269

Table 9. Instances of enagizein, enagisterion and enagismos in the epigraphical sources.

Table 9. Instances of enagizein, enagisterion and enagismos in the epigraphical sources.

126To sum up, the terms enagizein, enagismos and enagisterion are not documented in the epigraphical evidence in connection with heroes before the late 2nd century BC, and, taken as a whole, the terms are mainly used in the Roman period (Table 9). Judging from the available evidence, the sacrifices were focused on the tombs of the war dead at Marathon and from Megara, as well as of Aristomenes at Messene. The connection with the graves is also emphasized by the fact that enagismos is used for a sacrifice at the burial of the ordinary dead. The war dead at Marathon and from Megara and Aristomenes died violent deaths, being killed in battle, while Palaimon was drowned. Furthermore, the terms seem to have been particularly favoured when hero-sacrifices were instituted or restored, which seems to have been the case with the Marathon and Megarian war dead, Palaimon and perhaps also for Aristomenes at Messene and Aristonidas at Pergamon.

3.2. Literary sources

3.2.1. Enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the Archaic to early Hellenistic sources

  • 270 Since non-participation sacrifices are discussed more fully in ch. II, a certain overlap in the tr (...)

127In the literary sources dating to before 300 BC, enagizein and enagismata are used for sacrifices to heroes (Table 10), and enagizein, enagismata and enagismoi for sacrifices to deceased persons (Table 11, p. 87).270

Table 10. Instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the Archaic to early Hellenistic literary sources. Greek contexts: Heroes Term Çnagízein Recipient Source

Table 10. Instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the Archaic to early Hellenistic literary sources. Greek contexts: Heroes Term Çnagízein Recipient Source
  • 271 1.167 and 2.44; the latter will be discussed below.

128The earliest literary source in which enagizein is found is Herodotos, who uses the term in two different passages.271 The first case concerns sacrifices performed to a number of Greek prisoners of war from Phokaia who had been killed by stoning by the Etruscans of Agylla (Hdt. 1.167). After this summary execution had taken place, the location where the stoned Phokaians lay proved to be a dangerous spot: any man or animal from Agylla passing it became distorted, crippled and paralysed. The Agyllans consulted Delphi about remedying their wrongdoing, and the Pythia ordered them to do what they still did in Herodotos’ time, namely to sacrifice greatly to the dead Phokaians and to set up athletic games and horse-races (ἡ δέ Πυθίη) oφέαç ἐϰέλευσε ποιέειν τὰ ϰαὶ νῦν οἱ Ἀγυλλαĩοι ἔτι ἐπιτελέουσι ϰαὶ γὰρ ἐναγίζουσί σφι μεγάλως ϰαὶ ἀγῶνα γυμνιϰòν ϰαὶ ἱππιϰòν ἐπιστᾶσι).

  • 272 This sacrifice is peculiar, since it is hard to picture athletic games and horse-races not being a (...)

129The contents of these enagizein sacrifices are likely to have been substantial, since they are performed μεγάλως (greatly) and were accompanied by athletic contests and horse-races. Exactly what was sacrificed is not known, but a ritual on that scale presumably included some animal sacrifice. The ritual was probably focused on the place where the Phokaians had died and were buried. The reason for the institution of the cult should also be noted: to avoid a dangerous situation, arising from a violent and unjust killing, and to propitiate the anger of the recipients of the sacrifices. Even though the setting itself is non-Greek, the ritual was prescribed by Delphi, i.e., it had a Greek origin and followed a Greek pattern: sacrifice, games and horse-races.272

130The second passage of interest here is found in the Aristotelian Athenaion politeia (58.1), where the religious duties of the polemarch are discussed.

  • 273 Text after Chambers 1986.

Ὁ δέ πολέμαρχος θύει μὲν θυσίας τήν τε τῇ Ἀρτέμιδι τη άγροτέρᾳ ϰαὶ τῷ Ἐνυαλίῳ, διατ[ί]θησι. δ' ἀγῶνα τòν ἐπιτάφιον {ϰαὶ} τοĩς τετελευτηϰóσιν ἑν τῷ πολέμῳ ϰαὶ Ἁρμοδίῳ ϰαὶ Ἀριστογείτονι ἐναγίσματα ποιεĩ.273
The polemarch performs the sacrifices to Artemis Agrotera and to Enyalios and arranges the funeral games in honour of those who have fallen in the war and performs enagismata to Harmodios and Aristogeiton.

  • 274 At least the sacrifices to Artemis fell on that day and presumably also those to Enyalios; see Rho (...)
  • 275 On which day the commemoration of the war dead fell is not definitely known. Jacoby 1944, 62–65, s (...)
  • 276 Deletion: Chambers 1986; cf. Poll. Onom. 8.91 (Bethe 1900–31). Emendation: Rhodes 1981, 650–652 em (...)

131The relation between these three religious activities is somewhat complicated, since it is not directly clear over how many festivals they were spread. The thysia sacrifices to Artemis Agrotera and Enyalios to commemorate the victory at Marathon were presumably performed at a separate festival on the 6th of Boedromion.274 The funeral games to the war dead and the enagismata to Harmodios and Aristogeiton are more difficult to sort out.275 The text states that the polemarch διατίθησι δ' ἀγϖνα τòν ἐπιτάφιον {ϰαὶ} τοĩς τετελευτηϰóσιν ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ ϰαὶ Ἁρμοδίῳ ϰαὶ Ἀριστογείτονι ἐναγίσματα ποιεĩ . The interpretation depends on whether the kai before tois teteleutekosin should be deleted, emended or retained.276

  • 277 Clairmont 1983, 14; Calabi Limentani 1976, 11–12. Deubner 1969, 230, ascribes both the commemorati (...)
  • 278 Loraux 1986, 38; Stupperich 1977, 54–55; cf. Seaford 1994, 121.
  • 279 Pl. Menex. 244a; Dem. Epitaph. 36. On the unwillingness of the literary sources to elaborate on th (...)

132It is beyond dispute that funeral games were organized for those who had fallen in the war. The question is, whether these war dead received funeral games separately from the enagismata to Harmodios and Aristogeiton or whether both the war dead and Harmodios and Aristogeiton were the recipients of funeral games as well as enagismata. Any certainty seems impossible, but, in any case, the cult of Harmodios and Aristogeiton must have been close to the cult of the Athenian war dead: both fell under the responsibilities of the polemarch, both were located at the Demosion Sema and the Academy region, and both had a connection with warfare.277 It is possible that Harmodios and Aristogeiton regularly received funeral games, even though these seem to have been intimately linked mainly to the funeral of the war dead but also to their subsequent cult.278 However, it is clear that Harmodios and Aristogeiton were given enagismata, but it is questionable whether this was the kind of sacrifice normally used in the cult of the war dead in this period. Other contemporary sources that mention the sacrifices to the war dead speak of thysiai, never enagismata.279 It is probably best to regard the enagismata sacrifices to Harmodios and Aristogeiton as being distinct from the commemorations of the war dead, on a concrete, executional level.

  • 280 Mir. ausc. 840a.

133The passages from Herodotos and the Athenaion politeia do not offer any direct explanation of the contents of the rituals covered by enagizein and enagismata. On this particular point, the sacrifices to various groups of heroes at Taras mentioned in the Ps.-Aristotelian On marvellous things heard, are of great interest.280

Ἐ ν Τάραντι ἐναγίζειν ϰατά τινας χρóνους φασὶν Ἀτρείδαις ϰαὶ Τυδείδαις ϰαὶ Αἰαϰίδαις ϰαὶ Λαερτιάδαις, ϰαὶ Ἀγαμεμνονίδαις δὲ χωρὶς θυσίαν ἐπιτελεĩν ἐν ἄλλη ἡμέρᾳ ἰδίᾳ, ἐν ᾗ νόμιμον εἶναι ταĩς γυναιξὶ μὴ γεύσασθαι τῶν ἐϰείνοις θυομένων.

134At certain times, the Atreidai, Tydeidai, Aiakidai and Laertiadai received enagizein sacrifices, while on another special day, the Agamemnonidai were given a thysia. The text further specifies, that at the sacrifice to the Agamemnonidai, it was not the custom for the women to taste the meat from the victims sacrificed to these heroes (μὴ γεύσασθαι τῶν ἐϰείνοις θυομένων). On the basis that the thysia included consumption, it is reasonable to view the enagizein sacrifices to the Atreidai, Tydeidai, Aiakidai and Laertiadai as not including any ritual dining. The context of the On marvellous things heard where this information is given, mentions other cults and temples at various locations. This particular passage is very brief, however, and nothing further is known as to where and when these sacrifices took place and whether the recipients had any particular characteristics.

135The final passage in which enagizein is used for sacrifices to a hero during this period is Herodotos’ well-known account of the double cult of Herakles (2.44).

ϰαὶ δοϰέουσι δέ μοι οὗτοι ὀρθότατα Ἑλλήνων ποιέειν, οἳ διξὰ Ἡράϰλεια ἱδρυσάμενοι ἔϰτηνται, ϰαὶ τῷ μὲν ὡς ἀθανάτῳ Ὀλυμπίῳ δὲ ἑπωνυμίην θύουσι, τω δὲ ἑτέρῳ ὡς ἥρῳ ἐναγίζουσι.

  • 281 On the opposition of thyein and enagizein, see Casabona 1966, 84–85 and 337.

136According to Herodotos, those Greeks who had two cults of Herakles were behaving in the most correct fashion. They sacrificed to Herakles, on the one hand, as to an immortal, calling him Olympian, ὡς ἀθανάτῳ Ὀλυμπίῳ δὲ ἐπωνυμίην θύουσι, and, on the other, as to a hero, ὡς ἥρῳ ἐναγίζουσι. The use of the two terms thyein and enagizein in this passage clearly reflects two kinds of sacrificial rituals, just like the description of the sacrifices to the various groups of heroes at Taras in the On marvellous things heard (840a).281

  • 282 On the Phoenician and Thasian contexts of the cults of Herakles, see Bonnet 1988, esp. 346–371.
  • 283 Od. 11.601–603; Pind. Nem. 3.22. It has been suggested that Od. 11.602–604 is a 6th century interp (...)
  • 284 On the connection between the manner of Herakles’ death and the sacrificial rituals, see Nilsson 1 (...)

137If the context in which Herodotos makes this statement is taken into account, it is clear that he is recommending a dual ritual to be performed to Herakles, owing to his specific background. The original Herakles was a Phoenician god with temples both in Tyre and on Thasos.282 The Greek Herakles, on the other hand, was a son of Amphitryon, born at least five generations after the construction of the temple on Thasos. This duality in character is the reason why he is supposed to receive two kinds of cult. A hero who has a divine side clearly distinguishable from an early period, is a unique feature in Greek religion and Herodotos’ separation of the two kinds of cult should be viewed as an expression of the special position of Herakles. The notion that Herakles was partly an immortal god and partly a mortal hero is mentioned as early as in the Odyssey and a further indication of his mixed status can be found in Pindar, who calls him heros theos.283 Moreover, Herakles was worshipped all over the Greek territory and there is no tradition of him having a tomb, only the pyre on Mount Oite, on which he burnt himself to death and then ascended to Olympos.284

  • 285 Vandiver 1991, 93–97 and 136.
  • 286 Vandiver 1991, 110.

138The exceptional position of Herakles in the Herodotos passage becomes even more apparent if the treatment of heroes at large in Herodotos is considered. A recent study has shown that clear-cut distinctions between gods and heroes are far from a hallmark of Herodotos.285 Apart from this specific passage, he makes little or no distinction between gods and heroes in discussing matters of religion. Heroes may even be referred to as theoi, when he is concerned with their religious roles or offerings made to them.286

  • 287 Kurtz & Boardman 1971, 147.
  • 288 Dieuchidas FGrHist 485 F 7. Dieuchidas (or rather Athenaios [6.262a] who is quoting him) further s (...)
  • 289 Kleidemos FGrHist 323 F 14; McInerney 1994, 22. The passage concerns the ordinary dead (see Jacoby (...)

139The remaining cases of enagizein, enagisma or enagismos in the early sources concern sacrifices to the ordinary dead (Table 11). In all, these terms are more frequently used for covering rituals in the cult of the dead than for sacrifices to heroes. The contexts are more uniform and related to the regular ritual practices devoted to the dead, which do not seem to have included any exceptional behaviour. In the funerary contexts, we get more information on what actions took place, and it is clear that the terms could cover different kinds of rituals. Enagizein could refer to the whole ritual complex, performed annually at the tomb, as in Isaios 2.46, where the orator states that a person who dies without an heir will not receive these rituals. The same meaning is found in 7.30, where Isaios speaks about the necessity for a dying person to arrange for someone to perform sacrifices (ὁ ἐναγιῶν) and carry out the customary rites (πάντα τὰ νομιζóμενα ...). The enagizein sacrifice probably took place at the tomb, while ta nomizomena seems to have marked the end of the mourning period, when the family resumed their normal way of living again.287 The 4th-century historian Dieuchidas uses enagismoi in a similar manner, describing how Phorbas commanded his friends to have freemen perform the enagismoi to him after his death.288 Finally, Kleidemos, in his Exegetikon, a handbook on religious and ritual matters, mentions enagismoi in connection with the cult of the dead and the purification of the unclean.289 The text, only preserved as a fragment and with a somewhat unclear content, seems to refer to the rituals performed at the tomb. The ritual described consisted in digging a trench to the west of the grave and pouring water and scented oil into it. However, it is not clear from the context whether this ritual formed a part of the enagismoi or whether it referred to a separate action.

Table 11. Instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the Archaic to early Hellenistic literary sources.

Table 11. Instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the Archaic to early Hellenistic literary sources.
  • 290 Isae. 6.51 and 6.65.
  • 291 Ar. Tag. fr. 504, lines 12–14 (PCG III:2, 1984): θύομεν † ατοĩσι τοĩς ἐναγίσμασιν ὥσπερ θεοĩσι, ϰ (...)
  • 292 Klearchos fr. 58 (Wehrli 1969).

140More specifically, enagizein and enagismata could mean the non-fluid part of a funerary sacrifice. Isaios describes how the children of the deceased visit the tomb and offer sacrifices and libations, ἐναγίζουσι ϰαὶ χέονται.290 A fragment of Aristophanes mentions that enagismata are sacrificed (thyein) and choai poured to the deceased, as though to gods, and the dead are asked to send up good things to the living.291 What was offered at the enagizein sacrifice to the dead is specified by Klearchos in one case, telling the story of the piper and fish-lover Technon, who sacrificed small fried fish on the tomb of his dead colleague Charmos (ἀποπυρίδας ἐπὶ τοῦ μνήματος ἐνήγιζεν αὐτῷ).292

  • 293 Diphilos fr. 37 (PCG V, 1986).

141Finally, a comedy by Diphilos, entitled Ἐναγίζοντες or Ἐναγίσματα, seems to have dealt with funerary matters, but hardly anything is known of the contents of this play.293

142To sum up the use of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the pre-300 BC sources, the most important conclusion is that these sacrifices are connected with death, since the recipients are all dead persons, either heroes or the departed. The terms are more frequently used for sacrifices to the ordinary dead than to heroes.

143Since the terms seem to have been mainly used for the regular sacrifices to the departed, it is possible that the use of enagizein sacrifices in the cult of the heroes functioned as a way of connecting these recipients with the sphere of death. There are several factors supporting such an interpretation. The site where the Phokaians had been killed, and presumably buried, was of central importance for the institution of the cult and the sacrifices are likely to have taken place at that location. The sacrifices to Harmodios and Aristogeiton were probably also focused on their grave. Death itself was also significant (the manner of death and its consequences). Herakles committed suicide by burning himself and both the Phokaians and Harmodios and Aristogeiton died particularly violent deaths, which in the case of the Phokaians led to severe problems that could be solved only by instituting a cult. The cult functioned as an appeasement of the anger of the killed men and solved the difficulties arising from the death of the heroes.

144If we assume that death was an important aspect of heroes receiving enagizein sacrifices, it is also possible to argue that these sacrifices could function to mark the recipient as being different from, or at least removed from, an immortal god on the conceptual level. Herakles has both an immortal side as a god and a mortal side as a hero and therefore receives both thyein and enagizein sacrifices. However, the distinction can also apply to various groups of heroes who are more or less mortal or immortal, as in the case of the Atreidai, Tydeidai, Aiakidai and Laertiadai, who received enagizein sacrifices at Taras, while the Agamemnonidai were given a thysia.

  • 294 Parker (forthcoming) compares enagizein to hagizein and kathagizein which both seem to refer to th (...)

145Concerning the contents of the ritual actions, none of the sources offer any detailed descriptions but the use of the terminology gives indications of what kinds of sacrifices were meant. The contrasting of enagizein and thyein is an argument in favour of the terms referring to two kinds of rituals, enagizein covering a kind of sacrifice different from thyein, namely a sacrifice not followed by collective dining. Presumably the offerings at an enagizein sacrifice were destroyed in one way or another.294 The use of enagismata and choai to describe the rituals performed at the tomb is also of interest in this context, since this division indicates that enagizein sacrifices are likely to have consisted not only of libations but of some kind of food-stuff or of animal victims, depending on who was the recipient.

3.2.2. Enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the post-300 BC sources

146In the sources dating to after 300 BC, the three terms enagizein, enagisma and enagismos are used for sacrifices to three kinds of recipients. The two main recipients are the same as in the earlier sources: heroes and the ordinary dead. To these can be added a new group found only in the later sources: gods.

Table 12. Number of instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the post-300 BC sources.

Table 12. Number of instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the post-300 BC sources.

Instances are divided according to the recipients (unidentified recipients have been left out) and their cultural contexts. On the Roman “heroes”, see below, pp. 106–108. The “gods” group includes daimones.

147In the earlier sources, the terms are used only for sacrifices in contexts that are Greek or have a Greek origin. In the post-300 BC material, enagizein, enagisma and enagismos are most frequently found in Greek contexts, but the terms can also cover Roman sacrifices, as well as occasional instances of other contexts (Egyptian, Hebrew and Carthaginian). The tables 12 and 13 illustrate the general spread of the use of the terms for various kinds of recipients, cultural contexts and dates.

Table 13. Chronological spread of the post-300 BC sources that use enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the respective contexts.

Table 13. Chronological spread of the post-300 BC sources that use enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the respective contexts.

Each context includes all three categories of recipients (heroes, the ordinary dead and gods). The figures in parentheses indicate the number of sacrifices to heroes for each context and period.

148The majority of the sources deal with Greek religious contexts and the Roman and other contexts make up only a third of the Greek cases.

149In the Greek contexts, enagizein, enagisma and enagismos are found most frequently in connection with heroes (77 %). The instances of sacrifices to the deceased covered by these terms make up only about one-seventh of the total number of cases, and the contexts in which the recipients are gods are even fewer (8 %). This can be compared with the use of the terms in the earlier sources (even though the total sample for that period is much smaller): four instances of sacrifices to heroes and nine instances of sacrifices to the ordinary dead.

  • 295 The category “hero” is here chosen from the Greek point of view to facilitate the comparison of th (...)

150The Roman contexts are more evenly spread between heroes (ten cases) and the ordinary dead (eleven cases). At the same time, it should be noted that these two categories are more difficult to separate in the Roman contexts than in the Greek.295 The small but mixed group of other contexts (Egyptian, Hebrew and Carthaginian) contains no sacrifices that could be considered as being to heroes and only a few concerning the ordinary dead. Here, instead, the gods dominate.

  • 296 For the references, see Tables 14–20, and for Pausanias, see also Ekroth 1999, 145–158.

151If the chronological distribution of the sources using enagizein, enagisma and enagismos is considered, almost 60 % of the texts date to the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. Sources dating to the later 2nd and 3rd centuries AD make up an additional 25 % of the total number of instances. This remarkable peak is due to the popularity of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in certain sources. For example, Pausanias uses the terms 30 times (only for Greek contexts), Plutarch 20 times (seven Greek contexts, twelve Roman and one other context), Philostratos eleven times (all Greek contexts) and Heliodoros ten times (seven Greek contexts and three other contexts).296 Of these sources, Pausanias stands out, not only because of his frequent use of the terms, but because he never uses them for sacrifices to the dead. In Plutarch, Philostratos and Heliodoros, on the other hand, enagizein, enagisma and enagismos cover sacrifices to heroes, ordinary dead and gods alike. From this review, it is clear that 55 % of the instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos are found in four sources only, dating from the 1st to the 3rd centuries AD, while the remaining 45 % are spread between about 25 different sources dating from the 3rd century BC to the 5th century AD.

3.2.2.1. Greek contexts: Heroes

152From the use of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the earlier sources, it was suggested that the three terms were used for sacrifices in hero-cults that were particularly connected with the burial and the tomb of the hero, for heroes who had died a violent death and for whom the sacrifice seems to have served as some kind of appeasement, and finally as a marker of the hero’s mortality as a contrast to the immortality of the gods. A similar pattern of usage of the terms can be traced also in the sources dating to after 300 BC.

Table 14. Instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the post-300 BC literary sources.

Table 14. Instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the post-300 BC literary sources.

Table 14 (continued)

Table 14 (continued)

Table 14 (continued)

Table 14 (continued)
  • 297 Ekroth 1999, 147–149; cf. Pirenne-Delforge 2001, 125. Taphos: 2.20.3; 4.32.3; 6.21.9; 7.17.8; 7.24 (...)
  • 298 Ekroth 1999, 148–149; cf. Pirenne-Delforge 2001, 127–128. Hieron: 1.44.5; 3.20.8; 4.30.3. Temenos: (...)

153The burial and the tomb of the hero feature prominently in more than half of the passages in which enagizein, enagisma and enagismos are used for the sacrifices. This connection is particularly clear in Pausanias. In those cases in which he describes the cult place as being connected with a burial (taphos, mnema, polyandrion, choma ges) or mentions the fact that the hero was buried or his bones kept, the term for the sacrificial activity is enagizein.297 Most of these sacrifices seem to have been performed at the actual tomb of the hero. On the other hand, when Pausanias calls the cult place a hieron, temenos, naos, alsos, heroon, kenon erion (empty mound), bomos or bothros, the terms for the sacrifices are thyein or thysia.298 Even if there was a burial also at these cult places, it does not seem to have been a prominent feature.

  • 299 Diod. Sic. 17.17.3; cf. Strabon 13.1.32; Cass. Dio Epit. 78.16.7 and Philostr. V A 4.16.
  • 300 Philostr. Her. 52.3 and 53.11–13.
  • 301 Paus. 1.4.4 and 10.24.6; Heliod. Aeth. 3.1.1.-3.6.1, esp. 3.5.2.
  • 302 Hippoc. [Ep.] 27 (Littré 1839–61, vol. 9, 414).
  • 303 Sopater Diair. zet. 238.
  • 304 Plut. Vit. Arist. 21.2; De malign. Her. 857f.
  • 305 Strabon 6.1.15: at Heraklea, a city founded by the Pylians, the Neleids received an enagismos. Pau (...)

154The tombs of some of the heroes who fell at Troy were also honoured with enagizein sacrifices.299 The sacrifices to Achilles, centred on his burial mound, are described in great detail by Philostratos.300 Neoptolemos received enagizein sacrifices at Delphi, presumably at his tomb, which was circled three times by the procession which took place in connection with the enagismata performed by the Ainianes, according to Heliodoros.301 Chrysos, a warrior killed at Delphi in the first Sacred War, was buried in the hippodrome and given enagizein sacrifices by the Delphians at public expense.302 The 4th-century AD rhetor Sopater tells the story of a young boy, who committed suicide to save his city from a plague and who was buried, honoured and given enagismoi to keep him friendly and gracious.303 The sacrifices to the war dead buried at Plataiai, which took place at their tomb, are described as enagizein by Plutarch.304 Also in the cults of the oikists, in which the tombs were of great importance, the term enagizein could be used for the sacrifices.305

  • 306 Andriskos FGrHist 500 F 1. For the conjecture of probata instead of panta suggested by Rohde, see (...)
  • 307 Plut. Vit. Alex. 72.3–4.
  • 308 On enagismos referring to the killing of humans in connection with a burial: Plutarch (Vit. Pyrrh. (...)
  • 309 Cass. Dio Epit. 68.30.1.

155The enagizein sacrifices could also be particularly linked to the rituals performed at the burial, which did not necessarily mean the institution of a recurrent cult. At the public burial of Polykrite, who was killed by accident after having helped to defend her city against the Milesians, the Naxians sacrificed (enagisantes) a hundred sheep.306 Plutarch describes Alexander’s attempts to institute a cult to Hephaistion after his death.307 The oracle of Ammon ordered that Hephaistion was to be honoured and receive sacrifices as a hero, τιμᾶν Ἡφαιστίωνα ϰαὶ θύειν ὡς ἥρῳ. Before the burial and the construction of the tomb, Alexander attacked and slaughtered the Kossaians, an act which was called an enagismos to Hephaistion and which can be seen as an extreme form of funerary sacrifice.308 To this context can also be added the enagizein sacrifice performed by Trajan to Alexander in Babylon in the very room where he had died.309

  • 310 Plataiai: Plut. Vit. Arist. 21.2–5; the war connection is further emphasized by the archon using a (...)
  • 311 Iphikles: Paus. 8.14.10. Polykrite: Andriskos FGrHist 500 F 1.
  • 312 Diod. Sic. 17.17.3; Strabon 13.1.32.
  • 313 Polyb. 23.10.17. Purifications of the army do not seem to have been performed at the end of a camp (...)

156The importance of the actual dead state of the heroes receiving enagizein sacrifices is clear from the prominent place which the tomb and the burial occupy in many of these cults. The manner in which the hero died is also of interest and further emphasizes the fact that he is dead. In about one-fourth of the cases, the heroes perished violently. Many of the heroes receiving enagizein sacrifices were killed in battle: for example, the war dead buried at Plataiai, whose cult is described in detail by Plutarch, the Athenians who fell in Sicily, the men of Oresthasion, who had to die in order to help the inhabitants of Phigaleia and who had a polyandrion in that city, Thersander, who had a monument in the agora of Elaia, as well as Chrysos, killed in the first Sacred War and buried in the hippodrome at Delphi.310 To this group can be added Iphikles, who died from wounds received in battle and Polykrite, who helped her fellow citizens in war and was killed by accident.311 Also the sacrifices to the heroes Achilles, Aias, Antilochos and Patroklos, all killed at Troy, are covered by enagizein or enagismata312 The enagizein sacrifices to Xanthos in Macedonia may also have had a connection with war, since they took place at the same time as the annual purification of the army.313

  • 314 Paus. 6.21.9–11.
  • 315 Paus. 8.14.11.
  • 316 Paus. 8.23.7.

157Other recipients of enagizein sacrifices were murdered and sometimes not even properly buried. The suitors of Hippodameia were killed by Oinomaos and only scantily buried, until Pelops provided them with a proper monument.314 Oinomaos’ charioteer Myrtilos was drowned by Pelops and not buried until the corpse was taken care of by the people of Pheneos.315 A violent, unjust death and the lack of a proper burial might lead to grave consequences that had to be remedied by a cult that aimed at soothing the anger of the hero. Pausanias tells the story of the children of Kaphyai, who pretended to hang a statue of Artemis and were therefore stoned by the enraged Kaphyans.316 After this, the women began to have miscarriages, until the Pythia ordered the Kaphyans to bury the children and perform annual enagizein sacrifices to them, since they had died unjustly. This course of events shows a striking similarity to Herodotos’ account of the Phokaians, who were stoned by the people of Agylla and whose unjust deaths and the effects thereof also led to the institution of a cult (1.167).

  • 317 Ael. VH 5.21.
  • 318 Cf. Johnston 1997, 44–70, esp. 50.
  • 319 Paus. 3.12.7 and 7.24.1.
  • 320 A less serious case concerns the athlete Oibotas, who cursed his fellow Achaians, when he did not (...)
  • 321 Paus. 9.38.5.

158Another example is the children of Medea, who, according to Claudius Aelianus, were killed by the Corinthians and not by their mother.317 This scandalous act led the Corinthians to perform enagizein sacrifices to the children, as if to give them a tribute, an action which must also have functioned as a kind of propitiation.318 The herald Talthybios had tombs in both Athens and Sparta and received sacrifices at both locations.319 The appeasement of Talthybios was linked to his revenge for the murder of the Persian heralds sent to Greece to demand earth and water for king Darius, a revenge which in Laconia fell on the whole people, but in Athens only on the family of Miltiades.320 An improper burial also seems to have been a direct cause of the institution of a cult, as in the case of Aktaion, whose unburied remains the Orchomenians had to cover with earth in order to get rid of a creature who was devastating the region with rocks.321 The Orchomenians also performed annual enagizein sacrifices to the hero.

  • 322 Paus. 9.13.6.
  • 323 Epaminondas’ sacrifice to Skedasos and his daughters is mentioned in a number of sources. Accordin (...)
  • 324 Sopater Diair. zet. 238.

159A few heroes who received enagizein sacrifices had committed suicide. The daughters of Skedasos hanged themselves after they had been raped by two Spartans, and their father also committed suicide, after trying in vain to seek justice at Sparta.322 This event took place at Leuktra and Epaminondas sacrificed (ἐνήγιζε) to Skedasos and his daughters at that location before the battle in 371 BC, implying that the struggle would seek to avenge them.323 Similarly, a young boy, mentioned in one of the declamation themes by Sopater, had committed suicide to save his city from a plague and was therefore given enagismoi to keep him friendly and gracious.324

  • 325 Nock 1950, 714; Cumont 1949, 332–334; cf. Waszink 1954, 391–394. As a rule, those who died honoura (...)

160All these heroes died violent deaths, often connected with war and occasionally leading to difficulties among those who had carried out the killing. In the latter cases, in which the hero’s anger led to the institution of the cult, the enagizein sacrifices must have served as an appeasement of the hero. This is not necessarily true of the heroes killed in war, even though there is some evidence that soldiers fallen in battle may have been counted among the biaiothanatoi, at least in the Roman period.325 In any case, the fact that the heroes had died violently seems to have emphasized their status as belonging to the dead and constituted a reason why they were given enagizein sacrifices.

161The third category of usage of enagizein in the earlier sources was to mark the mortal side of the hero, i.e., the fact that he was dead, as a contrast to the immortal side connected with the gods. In more than a third of the post-300 BC instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos, the terms occur in contexts contrasting the heroic and the divine, emphasizing the recipients’ mortality and immortality, respectively. Such a contrast can be found in the same recipient, as in the case of Herakles, or concern two different recipients, usually a hero and a god, but in some instances two heroes. The contrast is usually expressed by enagizein being opposed to another ritual, predominantly thyein or thysia, and more rarely timan. The hero receiving the enagizein sacrifices could also be buried in or near the sanctuary of a god and receive sacrifices in connection with the worship of a god.

  • 326 De malign. Her. 857d.
  • 327 Ptolemaios Chennos 3.12 (Chatzis 1914); Paus. 2.10.1.

162The particular case of Herakles, who started off as a mortal hero and ended as an immortal god, is commented upon by several sources. The question of the heroic and the divine sides of Herakles and their reflection in the terminology and the sacrificial rituals seems to have been initiated by Herodotos (2.44) and to have worried scholars ever since. Plutarch comments directly on the position of Herodotos in his critical work on that author.326 According to Plutarch, Herodotos considered the Herakles and the Dionysos worshipped by the Egyptians as ancient gods, while the Herakles and the Dionysos worshipped by the Greeks were in origin mortal men. To the latter pair, Herodotos thought it proper to ὡς (φθιτοĩς ϰαὶ ἥρωσιν έναγίζειν, but not to θύειν ὡς θεοĩς, a position of which Plutarch disapproved. The double ritual to Herakles is also mentioned by Ptolemaios Chennos and Pausanias, both contrasting ἐναγίζειν ὡς ἥρῳ with θύειν ὡς θεῷ.327

  • 328 Hommel 1980; Hedreen 1991, 313–330, with references.
  • 329 Strabon 13.1.32; cf. Julian. Ep. 79 mentioning the Achilleion and the tomb of Achilles at Ilion. P (...)
  • 330 Philostr. Her. 53.8–15. In V A 4.16, Philostratos mentions the enagismata performed by the Thessal (...)

163Few other heroes show the same characteristics as Herakles. The closest case is Achilles, who, just like Herakles, seems to have been considered more of a god than a hero.328 According to Strabon, Achilles had both a mnema and a hieron near Sigeion and the Ilians performed enagizein sacrifices to him, as well as honouring him as a god, the first ritual presumably taking place at the mnema and the second at the hieron.329 The sacrifices to Achilles by the Thessalians, described by Philostratos, explicitly emphasized his two sides.330 The enagizein sacrifice was centred on his burial mound and clearly underlined the recipient’s character as dead, since the black bull sacrificed was slaughtered as to a deceased person, ὡς τεθνεῶτι ἔσφαττον The second part of the sacrifice, which took place on the beach, was a thysia with all its particular details and was specified as being performed as to a god (ἔθυον γὰρ τὴν θυσίαν ταύτην ώς θεῷ).

  • 331 Arr. Anab. 7.14.7.
  • 332 The ancient tradition concerning the religious status of Hephaistion varies. Arrianos (Anab. 7.23. (...)

164The cult of Hephaistion ordered by Alexander also involved two kinds of rituals, but they do not seem to have been acted out at the same time. After the death of Hephaistion, Alexander ordered that there should always be enagizein sacrifices to Hephaistion as a hero.331 At the same time, he asked the oracle of Ammon whether it would also be permissible to ὡς θεῷ θύειν to Hephaistion, but the oracle did not give its consent to consider Hephaistion as a god. The aim here seems to have been to promote a hero to a god, rather than to emphasize the two sides of the cult.332

  • 333 Paus. 3.19.3.
  • 334 Paus. 9.29.6.
  • 335 Paus. 2.11.7. Other cases following the same pattern: enagizein sacrifices to Eurytos at Ochalia i (...)
  • 336 Apollod. Bibl. 2.5.1.

165It was unusual for the same recipient to receive both enagizein and thyein sacrifices. More frequently, enagizein is used for a sacrifice to a hero in a context that also mentions a god. The sacrifice to the hero could be performed in connection with the sacrifice to the god, and the latter ritual was then covered by thyein or thysia. For example, at Amyklai, before the thysiai to Apollon, Hyakinthos received enagizein sacrifices through a bronze door of the altar of the god.333 Linos was annually given enagizein sacrifices before the thysiai to the Muses on Mount Helikon.334 Alexanor and Euamerion, both having statues located in the sanctuary of Asklepios at Titane, also had contrasting rituals, the sacrifices to Alexanor being ἐναγίζειν ὡς ἥρῳ and those to Euamerion θύειν ὡς θεῷ.335 Apollodoros tells the story of how Herakles, on his way to Nemea to kill the lion, stayed with Molorchos at Kleonai.336 Molorchos wanted to sacrifice a victim (thyein hiereion) but was told by Herakles to wait thirty days and, if Herakles had returned safely by then, to perform a thyein sacrifice to Zeus Soter, but, if not, ἐναγίζειν ὡς ἥρῳ. On the thirtieth day, Herakles came back and found Molorchos about ὡς νεϰρῷ τò ἱερεĩον ἐναγίζειν (perform an enagizein sacrifice of an animal victim as to a dead person). Since he was alive, Herakles performed a thysia to Zeus Soter.

  • 337 Neoptolemos: Paus. 10.24.6; cf. Paus. 1.4.4 and Heliod. Aeth. 3.5.2–3. Other cases, all mentioned (...)

166In other cases, the contrast between the heroic and the divine is marked by the hero who received the enagizein sacrifice being buried in or near a sanctuary of a god or a goddess, for example, Neoptolemos in the sanctuary of Apollon at Delphi.337

  • 338 In the Imagines by Philostratos (2.16.3), thyein, thysia and enagismata are all used to describe t (...)
  • 339 Plut. Vit. Thes. 4.1.
  • 340 Plut. Vit. Alex. 72.3–4.

167Finally, in two instances, both in Plutarch, enagizein or enagismata are used in contexts of contrast, which seem to involve only heroes.338 Plutarch states that to Konnidas, the teacher of Theseus, the Athenians enagizousi a ram on the day before the Theseia.339 Theseus and Konnidas can be regarded as a major and a minor hero, but it is also possible that Plutarch considered Theseus as being more of a god than a hero. The other case concerns Hephaistion, who was given thyein sacrifices ὡς ἥρῳ as well as enagismata.340 The thyein sacrifices were his regular cult, approved of by the oracle of Ammon. The enagismata, on the other hand, can be seen as a funerary sacrifice, emphasizing the dead side of the recipient, since they were performed on a single occasion before the burial and consisted in the massacre of a group of people (see above, p. 95).

168This review of the use of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos for sacrifices to heroes in the post-300 BC sources shows that the terms are used in contexts similar to those found in the earlier sources. The heroes receiving the enagizein sacrifices have a close connection with death. Their tombs are important in the cult; they often died violent deaths and occasionally caused difficulties, once dead. The cult is frequently contrasted with the cult of a god.

  • 341 Paus. 2.10.1.

169Finally, the contents of the rituals should be considered. From the contrast between enagizein and thyein, it is clear that the two terms refer to two different kinds of rituals. Pausanias is particularly explicit in describing the dual sacrifices to Herakles at Sikyon.341 According to him, the Sikyonians slaughter (sphaxantes) a lamb and burn the thigh-bones on the bomos. Some of the meat is eaten, as from an ordinary victim (ὡς ἀπò ἱερείου), while they sacrifice other parts of the meat as to a hero (ὡς ἥρῳ τϖν ϰρεϖν ἐναγίζουσι). The latter ritual must have meant a destruction of the meat, probably by burning it. The enagizein sacrifice cannot simply have meant that the blood was poured out, since it took place after the animal had been slaughtered and explicitly involved the meat. It is interesting to note that the same animal could be used for the two rituals. The sacrifice was initiated as a regular thysia, where the thigh-bones were burnt, followed by the dining on the meat, but a certain quantity was destroyed as well.

  • 342 Philostr. Her. 53.8–13.
  • 343 For the meaning of entemnein, see Casabona 1966, 225–227. On the use of the bothroi, see pp. 60–74

170Philostratos gives a detailed account of the sacrifices to Achilles at Troy, performed by the Thessalians.342 These rituals also consisted of two parts: an enagizein sacrifice at the burial mound and a thysia sacrifice on the beach. The first sacrifice was directed to Achilles as a hero, clearly underlining his dead state. The burial mound was garlanded, bothroi were dug out, a black bull was slaughtered as to a deceased (ὡς τεθνεϖτι ἔσφαττoν), and Achilles and Patroklos were invited to the dais. To describe the whole ceremony, Philostratos uses entemnein and enagizein, indicating that the sacrifice consisted both in the handling of the blood of the bull, which must have been poured into the bothroi, and in the destruction of the meat, either by burning it or by simply leaving the carcass at the site.343 The second part of the sacrifice took place on the beach where the Thessalians had landed. They sacrificed a white bull (verb thyein), initiating the ritual with barley from a reed basket and with the handling of the splanchna, since this sacrifice was performed as to a god (ἔθυον γὰρ τὴν θυσίαν ταύτην ὡς θεῷ). Finally, they sailed away, taking the animal victim with them, in order to avoid feasting in the enemy’s country (ὡς μὴ ἐν τῇ πολεμία εὐωχοĩντο).

171The two ceremonies are clearly contrasted, consisting of different actions but directed to different aspects of the same recipient. At the enagizein sacrifice to the dead hero, there was no dining for the worshippers. The meat was either destroyed or left at the tomb. The dais seems to have been given only to Achilles and Patroklos and probably consisted of the blood of the victim, as well as the carcass, and not a proper meal sacrifice, since there is no indication of a kline, table or food offerings. At the thysia to the god Achilles, on the other hand, the meat was kept and eaten, even if the dining did not take place at the site of the sacrifice.

  • 344 Plut. Vit. Arist. 21.2–5.

172A third passage of great interest in understanding the meaning of enagizein is Plutarch’s description of the sacrifices to the war dead at Plataiai, performed annually by the Plataians on behalf of all the Greeks.344 The whole ritual complex is designated by enagizein, but a number of other terms are used to cover various parts of the sacrifice. In a procession to the burial site, there were brought a black bull, jars of wine and milk, pitchers of oil and myrrh, water and myrtle wreaths. The gravestones were washed and anointed with myrrh. The bull was slaughtered (sphaxas) at the funeral pyre by the archon, using a sword instead of a knife, and the fallen Greeks were called to come to the deipnon and the haimakouria. Finally, a libation of water and wine was poured out.

  • 345 Jameson 1994a, 38–39, with n. 18.
  • 346 Jameson 1994a, 39, n. 18.
  • 347 Haimakouria is found also in Pindar’s description of the sacrifices to Pelops at Olympia (Ol. 1.90 (...)

173The term deipnon usually refers to food offerings, often of the kind not meant to be eaten.345 It is possible that the deipnon in this case consisted of the slaughtered bull, of which no part was eaten by the worshippers. There is no reason to interpret the sacrifice in general, and the deipnon in particular, as a theoxenia where food would have been displayed.346 The meat may have been completely burnt, perhaps on the old funeral pyre, or left on the site of the sacrifice. The rare term haimakouria meant an offering of blood.347 The war dead were invited to come to the deipnon and drink the blood, just as Achilles and Patroklos were invited to the dais and offerings of blood at Troy. In any case, there is no indication of the worshippers dining on the meat at this sacrifice.

  • 348 Plut. Vit. Alex. 72.4; Polyb. 23.10.17.
  • 349 Paus. 4.32.3; Ekroth 1999, 151–154; cf. Pirenne-Delforge 2001, 125, who points out that enagizein (...)
  • 350 Heliod. Aeth. 3.1.3–5; 3.5.2–3; 3.6.1; 3.10.1–3. Heliodoros produces other cases of an unusual use (...)

174These three sources support the interpretation of enagizein as meaning a sacrifice not including any dining by the worshippers. Moreover, Plutarch uses enagismos referring to the slaughter of humans, and in Polybios the victims used for the enagizein sacrifice were horses: in neither of these cases would there be any meat to dine on.348 The bull sacrificed to Aristomenes at Messene was probably not eaten, since Pausanias never seems to use enagizein for a sacrifice involving dining.349 In all, the frequent contrasting of enagizein and thyein can be taken as a further indication that enagizein refers to a non-participation sacrifice. In fact, in none of the contexts in which enagizein is used, apart from one case in a late source, is there any evidence that any form of dining took place. The exception is found in the Aethiopica of Heliodoros. Here, the enagismos to Neoptolemos at Delphi consisted of bulls, lambs and goats being sacrificed (hiereuonto); their extremities were burnt on a bomos and the ritual concluded with a banquet.350

  • 351 War dead at Plataiai: Plut. Vit. Arist. 21.2. Achilles: Philostr. Her. 53.11. Aristomenes: Paus. 4 (...)
  • 352 Herakles: Paus. 2.10.1. Polykrite: Andriskos FGrHist 500 F 1.
  • 353 Strabon 6.3.9.
  • 354 Plut. Vit. Thes. 4.1.
  • 355 Apollod. Bibl. 2.5.1. A hiereion could be any kind of victim.
  • 356 Heliod. Aeth. 3.1.3–4; 3.5.2.

175In many cases, the sources offer no information on what was sacrificed at the enagizein sacrifices to heroes, but when the offerings are specified, they consist of animal victims. A bull was sacrificed to the war dead at Plataiai, to Achilles at Troy, to Aristomenes at Messene and to Palaimon at Isthmia.351 Herakles at Sikyon was given lambs and at the burial of Polykrite 100 sheep were sacrificed.352 The consultants of the oracle of Kalchas at Daunia in southern Italy sacrificed black sheep and slept in the hides.353 Konnidas, the teacher of Theseus, received a ram on the day before the Theseia.354 At the enagizein sacrifice performed to the dead Herakles as a hero in Apollodoros’ Bibliotheca, the victim is a hiereion.355 The enagismos to Neoptolemos at Delphi consisted of a hecatomb of oxen, as well as lambs and goats.356

  • 357 Paus. 3.19.3.
  • 358 Philostr. Her. 52.3.

176Enagizein and the two related nouns rarely seem to cover libations. There are two possible cases. The enagizein sacrifice to Hyakinthos at Amyklai was performed through a door in the altar of Apollon, where the hero was buried.357 Since the sacrifice took place in the altar, it is unlikely to have involved the use of fire. It may have consisted of some kind of libation, of blood or perhaps of a deposition of meat. The other case is found in Philostratos, who states that something was mixed with (ἐγϰαταμιγνύντες) the enagismata to Achilles at Troy, which may imply that they consisted of some kind of liquid.358

3.2.2.2. Greek contexts: The ordinary dead

  • 359 Burial: Plut. Vit. Sol. 21.5; Philostr. Her. 31.8; Philostr. Imag. 2.29.4; Heliod. Aeth. 2.18.2. R (...)
  • 360 Libations: Lucian Catapl. 2; Lucian Philops. 21. Popana: Lucian Catapl. 2. Wreaths: Lucian Philops (...)
  • 361 Lucian De merc. 28. Cf. Lucian Catapl. 2: choai, popana and enagismata.
  • 362 Lucian Philops. 21.

177In the post-300 BC sources, as in the earlier sources, enagizein, enagisma and enagismos could refer to the sacrifices performed at the burial, as well as to the regular funerary cult (see Table 15).359 In some cases, when the activities are outlined in more detail, enagizein and enagismata cover one part of the ritual, which also consisted of various kinds of libations (choai, melikraton), deposition of popana and wreathing of the gravestone.360 Enagizein and enagismata usually seem to have referred to the offerings of food. In Lucian, the enagismata were brought to the grave site: the gravestone was drenched with myrrh and crowned with wreaths, while the visitors themselves enjoyed the food and drink that had been prepared.361 In another passage from Lucian, the enagizein sacrifices at the tomb are contrasted with a thysia, at which animal victims were sacrificed and eaten.362 The context concerns Hippokrates, who is said to have been upset when his annual thysia was late. One of the two physicians participating in the discussion exclaims that things have gone too far when even Hippokrates demands thyein sacrifices and to be feasted on animal victims, when he should be content if someone gives him enagizein sacrifices, pours out melikraton and puts wreaths on his gravestone.

  • 363 Plut. Vit. Sol. 21.5; Ruschenbusch 1966, F 72c. Cf. Toher 1991, 161.

178Enagizein rarely seems to have meant animal sacrifices to the ordinary dead. The only clear case is found in Plutarch but concerns the conditions in a much earlier period.363 In describing the laws of Solon dealing with funerary practices, Plutarch states that these laws, among other things, did not allow the enagizein of an ox and forbade the women to bring more than one obol’s worth of food and drink to the grave. In this case, the enagizein sacrifice was a ritual separate from the food offerings.

Table 15. Instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the literary post-300 BC sources.

Table 15.  Instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the literary post-300 BC sources.
  • 364 Lucian De merc. 28.
  • 365 Philostr. Imag. 2.29.4.
  • 366 Sopater Diair. zet. 200, ἐϰ τῶν αἰχμαλώτων ἐπισφάξαι.
  • 367 Plut. Vit. Pyrrh. 31.1. Plutarch’s use here of enagismos for the killing of humans as an act of gr (...)

179In general, the enagizein sacrifices do not seem to have been eaten. Lucian makes fun of those who eat and drink the enagismata brought to the tomb.364 Any food offerings could have been left at the grave or perhaps burnt. Fire was at least used for the enagismata to Polyneikes, as shown on a painting described by Philostratos.365 In some instances, the offerings could not be eaten. In Sopater, the victims slaughtered at the tombs for the enagizein sacrifices were prisoners of war.366 When Pyrrhos’ son had been killed by the Spartans, Pyrrhos, in his fury, annihilated the attackers to vent his grief: this action is called an enagismos and preceded the funeral games to the dead son.367

  • 368 Ael. Arist. Smyrna 8.
  • 369 Lucian Catapl. 2.
  • 370 Plut. Quaest. Rom. 270a.
  • 371 Heliod. Aeth. 2.18.2.

180The enagizein sacrifices were performed in an atmosphere of gloom and dread. Aelius Aristides compares the day on which an earthquake destroyed Smyrna to the day when the enagismata are brought.368 Lucian has Charon complain that in Hades there are only asphodels, choai, popana, enagismata and misty darkness.369 According to Plutarch, the enagizein sacrifices to the dead, as well as certain purification rituals, took place in the month dedicated to the gods of the underworld.370 When no regular funerary offerings (ta nomizomena) were available, the mourners could sacrifice their tears and lamentations instead.371

3.2.2.3. Roman and other contexts: “Heroes” and the ordinary dead

181In all, enagizein, enagisma and enagismos are less frequently used for sacrifices in the Roman and other contexts than in the Greek contexts (see Table 12, p. 89). The Roman contexts concern both heroes and the ordinary dead, while, in the few cases of other contexts, the recipients are only the departed (Tables 16–17).

  • 372 Roman religion seems more or less to have lacked any intermediate categories between gods and men. (...)

182There is no direct Roman equivalent to the Greek concept of heroes and hero-cult and the closest counterpart to a Greek hero is probably a Roman lar.372 Here, the term “hero” has been applied from the Greek point of view to facilitate the comparison between the Roman contexts and the rest of the material. The reason for considering certain of these Roman recipients of enagizein sacrifices as heroes and not as deceased, lies in the fact that they are dead persons receiving a treatment exceeding that given to the ordinary dead. In general, the prominent Roman dead seem to have become gods and certain recipients of cult regarded as Roman heroes in the Greek sources may rather have been Roman gods seen with Greek eyes. Still, the fact that they were dead called for the use of the term enagizein for the sacrifices by the Greek sources. Furthermore, the Greek terminology presented the possibility of a further, non-Roman, distinction to be made.

Table 16. Instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the post-300 BC literary sources.

Table 16. Instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the post-300 BC literary sources.

183The use of the terms for sacrifices to heroes and the ordinary dead in the Roman and other contexts are only of marginal interest here. In the Roman contexts of the enagizein sacrifices, it is in many cases difficult to decide whether the cult should be considered as an official hero-cult or as a kind of extended cult of the dead.

  • 373 Pompey: Cass. Dio Epit. 69.11.1; Epit. 76.13.1. Nero: Cass. Dio Epit. 64.7.3. Geta: Cass. Dio Epit (...)
  • 374 Vestal Virgins: Plut. Quaest. Rom. 287a; cf. Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.67.4, lack of enagismoi at gra (...)
  • 375 Killed in war: Cass. Dio Epit. 67.9.6; Epit. 68.8.2 (war dead in Dacia); App. B Civ. 1.117 (Krixos (...)
  • 376 App. B Civ. 1.117.
  • 377 Cass. Dio Epit. 78.12.6.

184The Roman heroes receiving enagizein sacrifices are historical persons: Pompey, members of the imperial family, the Vestal Virgins, the war dead and other characters associated with Roman wars.373 The basic connection between enagizein and death found in the Greek usage of the term can be found also in the Roman contexts and the authors of the Roman period writing in Greek seem to apply the Greek sense of the term to the Roman contexts. The sacrifices to the Vestal Virgins and the courtesan Larentia were performed at the grave site.374 Most of the recipients had died violent deaths, for example, killed in war, being murdered, committing suicide or being buried alive.375 There is only scanty information on the contents of ther rituals, but they do not seem to refer to any kind of dining. The enagizein sacrifice to Krixos consisted in the killing of 300 Roman prisoners of war.376 Caracalla’s annual enagismos to Geta is depicted as a final insult to his memory, after Caracalla had exposed Geta to extensive damnatio memoriae.377

Table 17. Instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the post-300 BC literary sources.

Table 17. Instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the post-300 BC literary sources.
  • 378 Parentalia: Joseph. AJ 19.272; Plut. Vit. Num. 19.5; Plut. Quaest. Rom. 268b and 272d–e; Plut. Vit (...)
  • 379 Plut. Quaest. Rom. 272d.
  • 380 Cass. Dio Epit. 67.9.3.
  • 381 Cass. Dio Epit. 64.13.5.
  • 382 Plut. Vit. Cat. Mai. 15.3.

185The enagizein sacrifices to the Roman ordinary dead mainly concern references to the Roman festivals of the dead, the Parentalia and the Lemuria.378 At the Parentalia, meals were brought to the tombs, and Plutarch mentions choai and enagismoi being offered to the dead on that occasion.379 That food offerings were part of the rituals covered by the terms is also clear from two passages in Cassius Dio, where enagismata is used for funerary sacrifices of food, even though the context is not a funerary one. At a weird party given by Domitian, the guests were served with everything that was usually offered in the enagismata (ἐν τοĩς ἐναγίσμασι ϰαθαγίζεται), painted black and served on black plates.380 Another interesting use of enagismata is found in a conversation between two soldiers taking their last meal before a battle.381 One of the soldiers is urging the other to eat and drink in order to gain strength and make the hand that holds his sword grow strong and perform the killing well. He calls the food they are eating enagismata and says that this is given by Vitellius and Vespasian to the soldiers while they are still alive. The soldier sarcastically remarks that they themselves will then be sacrificed to the long-time dead (τοĩς πάλαι νεϰροĩς ϰαταθύσωσι). The only indication of enagizein referring to animal sacrifices is found in Plutarch, where Cato instructs a younger man that the enagizein sacrifices brought to his dead parents should not consist of lambs and kids, but of the condemnation and tears of their enemies.382

  • 383 App. Pun. 84 and 89.
  • 384 Heliod. Aeth. 6.13.6–6.14.6. See also discussion above, pp. 66–70.

186The few instances of contexts that are neither Greek nor Roman concern sacrifices to the dead at Carthage and in Egypt (Table 18). In the first case, enagizein and enagismata are used for the regular funerary sacrifices to the Punic dead, which are contrasted with the thyein sacrifices to the gods in the sanctuaries.383 The Egyptian sacrifice is different, since here the enagismoi are a magic ritual aimed at bringing a dead person back to life.384 By performing enagismoi at night, an old woman tries to wake up the corpse of her dead son in order to enquire about the fate of her other son. A bothros is dug in the ground and the corpse is placed between two fires. Honey, milk and wine are poured into the hole. A cake shaped like a man is thrown in as well. Finally the woman draws blood from her own arm and sprinkles it on the fires. After some more rituals, no less surprising according to Heliodoros, the woman murmurs incantations in the ear of the corpse and thus makes it wake up.

Table 18. Instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the post-300 BC literary sources.

Table 18. Instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the post-300 BC literary sources.

3.2.2.4. Greek and other contexts: Gods

187In the later sources, enagizein, enagisma and enagismos are also used for sacrifices to gods in Greek contexts (Table 19), as well as in occasional Hebrew, Egyptian and Christian cases (Table 20).

Table 19. Instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the post-300 BC literary sources.

Table 19. Instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the post-300 BC literary sources.

188From the evidence discussed so far, it has been argued that enagizein and the two nouns have a particular connection with death. The recipients of these sacrifices are dead, their graves are central to the cult and in the case of hero-cults, the heroes have often perished violently. Moreover, heroes receiving enagizein sacrifices are often contrasted with gods and thyein sacrifices. Considering this pattern of use of the terms, it may, at first glance, seem surprising that enagizein, enagisma and enagismos can also be used for the sacrifices to gods.

  • 385 Iambl. VP 27.122.
  • 386 Philostr. Her. 53.5.
  • 387 Paus. 8.34.3. Pirenne-Delforge 2001, 125–127, explains the use of enagizein in this case as relate (...)
  • 388 Plut. De Is. et Os. 359b.
  • 389 Heliod. Aeth. 1.28.1. On sacrifices before battle, see Jameson 1991.
  • 390 Heliod. Aeth. 10.16.7.

189However, a number of the enagizein sacrifices to gods can be fitted into the previously outlined pattern of use of the terms, even though the recipients are neither heroes nor the ordinary dead. The gods receiving these sacrifices are often connected with the underworld and the rituals are performed in an atmosphere far removed from the joyful thysia sacrifices. Iamblichos speaks of the chthonian gods, who, contrary to the Olympians, rejoice in lamentations, dirges, choai, epiphoremata (grave offerings) and enagismoi.385 The enagismata to the chthonian and unspeakable gods on Lemnos were performed annually to purify the island after the women had killed their husbands.386 In a fit of madness after having killed his mother, Orestes bit off his finger and the black goddesses who had been pursuing him suddenly appeared white and benevolent. Orestes then performed an enagizein sacrifice to the black goddesses to turn away their anger (ἐνήγισεν ἀποτρέπων τò μήνιμα αὐτϖν), followed by a thyein sacrifice to the same goddesses in their white aspect.387 Plutarch describes the island of Philai, which was untrodden by any living creatures and on which was located the tomb of Osiris.388 Once a year, the priests visited the island to perform enagizein sacrifices and to place wreaths on the tomb. This ritual almost bridges the gap between gods, heroes and the ordinary dead, since the recipient of the sacrifice is a god, but he is also dead. Heliodoros uses enagizein twice for sacrifices to gods in Egypt. In the first case, the sacrifice takes place before a battle and must have constituted a kind of sphagia, i.e., the slaughtering and bleeding of a victim to ascertain the right moment to attack.389 The second passage in Heliodoros concerns a human sacrifice, performed as a thank-offering after a victory in war.390

190It should be noted that the extended use of enagizein and its two related nouns to cover rituals performed to gods is a late development: none of the sources in question is earlier than the 1st century AD. The basic meaning of the terms was a sacrifice at which the offerings were annihilated, usually by burning them and such a ritual is suitable for the contexts mentioned previously. However, at this period, the use of the terms had also been extended to mean “a complete burning of offerings, no matter who was the recipient”.

  • 391 Greg. Nys. Encom. xl mart. II 776M.
  • 392 Hymn. 6.27. In line 29, the text also mentions another completely burnt sacrifice, júh kalá of fra (...)
  • 393 Joseph. BJ 1.32; 1.39; 1.148; 6.98. In AJ 19.272, Josephus uses enagismoi for sacrifices to the de (...)
  • 394 Milgrom 1991, 456–457; de Vaux 1960, 364; Lust 1993, 283–284 and 295.
  • 395 BJ 1.148.

191In the writings of Bishop Gregorios of Nyssa, the recipients of the enagizein sacrifice are the daimones, which here means the pagan gods.391 The sacrifice consists of frankincense, which must have been burnt completely. A hymn by the Christian Synesios, praising the Lord, mentions enagismata of myrrh: an offering which must have been burnt as well.392 The Christian use of the terms can be related to the use by Flavius Josephus of enagismoi for the daily sacrifices in the temple in Jerusalem.393 The rituals that Josephus speaks of are the tamid sacrifices, which consisted of two daily holocausts of lambs, accompanied by a mixture of flour and oil, as well as a libation of wine.394 At these sacrifices, there was no dining. In one of the passages, Josephus mentions the daily thysiai, enagismoi and allai therapeiai performed to God in the temple.395 Here, the enagismoi are the holocaustic tamid, while the thysiai correspond to the zebah selamim, at which the animal was eaten by the worshippers and a portion given to the priest, the fat was burnt on the altar and the blood was sprinkled on it.

Table 20. Instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the post-300 BC literary sources.

Table 20. Instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the post-300 BC literary sources.
  • 396 Porph. De phil. 112. In 114, θυσίας ἐναγίζων seems to refer only to the rituals of the chthonioi a (...)

192A similar use of enagizein is also found in Porphyrios’ Philosophy from oracles.396 The text divides the gods into four categories: hypochthonioi, epichthonioi, thalassioi and ouranioi, to all of whom the worshipper is encouraged to θυσίας ἐναγίζων. The text is full of ritual detail and terminology which partly deviate from the common usage found in earlier sources, but it is clear that, at the sacrifices to the first three categories of gods, the victims were to be destroyed, either by burying, by burning or by throwing them into the sea. At the sacrifices to the ouranioi theoi, the animals are eaten, and the ritual has many of the characteristics of a regular thysia. Since thysias enagizein is used for all the sacrifices, the terms seem here to be used as a general expression for “to sacrifice” without any inherent meanings of holocausts or of particular recipients.

  • 397 Markellos fr. 125 (Klostermann & Hansen 1991).
  • 398 Cf. Burkert 1966, 118.
  • 399 Ael. VH 5.21; Phot. Lex. s.v αἰγóς τρόπον (Theodoridis 1982–98, A 532).
  • 400 Ael. Arist. Contr. Lept. 106.
  • 401 For the reading δή τισι. θυσιῶν, see Dindorf 1829, vol. 2, 683, app. crit. line 4.

193A certain confusion in the use of the terms can also be noted in some cases in which enagizein is used for sacrifices to gods, however, mainly in the sources of later date. Markellos speaks about the rituals concerning the children of Medea at Corinth.397 When the Corinthians enagizontas a black goat, the knife is missing, but the goat finds it with its hoof and the animal is subsequently sacrificed to Hera Akraia (αὐτῇ τυθῆναι). If the text is read straight off, it means that Hera received an enagizein sacrifice. It is possible that enagizein here should be considered as being used as a general term for holocaustic sacrifice.398 However, it is also possible that Markellos, or rather Eusebios, who quotes Markellos, was confused as to who was the recipient of the enagizein sacrifice, since, when this particular ritual is mentioned in other sources, it is the dead children of Medea, and not Hera, who are given the enagizein sacrifices.399 Similarly, Aelius Aristides speaks of the gods as the euergetai of the world, since they both created it and preserved it, and says that they prefer being greeted as euergetai rather than by being given great outlays of enagismata (πολυτελείας ἐναγισμάτων).400 That these gods, who show no particular connection with the underworld, should be given enagismata seems puzzling. The transmission of enagismata was perhaps a mistake and the original text may have read δή τισι θυσιῶν instead, as is found in one manuscript.401 It would make more sense if the gods who created and ruled the world were given thysiai rather than enagismata as their main sacrifice.

  • 402 The only exception would be the use of θυσίας ἐναγίζ ων Porphyrios’ Philosophy from oracles (112) (...)
  • 403 Greg. Nys. Encom. xl mart. II 776M; Synesios Hymn. 6.27; Joseph. BJ 1.32, 1.39, 1.148 and 6.98.
  • 404 Iambl. VP 27.122: the chthonian gods rejoice in enagismata involving great expense (τοĩς μετὰ μεγὰ (...)
  • 405 Heliod. Aeth. 1.28.1.
  • 406 Philostr. Her. 53.5.
  • 407 Cf. Burkert 1970, 1–16, esp. 8; Burkert 1983, 192–194, suggests the blood of a ram.

194On the whole, the enagizein sacrifices performed to gods were not of the kind in which any dining took place, either in the cases in which the recipients are connected with death and the underworld or when the terms are used in the general sense of burning.402 The ritual consisted in a complete destruction of the offerings, usually by fire.403 In some instances, the sacrifices are remarked upon as involving great expense, perhaps a further indication that the offerings were completely destroyed.404 In a few cases, the ritual was instead focused on the blood of the victim. Heliodoros uses enagizein for a pre-battle sacrifice, at which the animal was bled and left on the spot, without any burning taking place.405 The enagizein sacrifice purifying Lemnos cannot have involved any burning, since all fire on the island was extinguished during this period and new fire was later brought from Delos.406 This ritual may have consisted in a purification accomplished by blood.407

3.2.3. Enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the explicatory sources

195Enagizein, enagisma and enagismos are found in a substantial number of explicatory sources, both as terms being explained and as being used in the explanations of other terms and concepts. The terms are mainly connected with sacrifices to the ordinary dead and are less frequently used for sacrifices to the heroes. There is also a handful of cases in which the recipients are gods (Table 21).

  • 408 Rituals at burial: schol. Hom. Od. 1.291 (Dindorf 1855). Sacrifices and rituals at the grave: scho (...)
  • 409 Schol. Nic. Ther. 860a (Crugnola 1971); cf. Burkert 1983, 218.
  • 410 Katachthonioi theoi: Erot. Voc. Hipp. 74.80; schol. Lucian Tim. 43 (Rabe 1906). Cf. schol. Aesch. (...)

196The context and usage of the terms for sacrifices to the ordinary dead and to the gods in the explicatory sources are similar to those found in the post-300 BC sources. Enagizein, enagisma and enagismos are used both for the rituals performed at the burial and for the offerings made at the graves to the ordinary dead.408 In one instance, enagismata is used as a reference to the Anthesteria.409 Of the gods receiving enagizein sacrifices, some have a connection with the underworld, since they are specified as katachthonioi.410

  • 411 Schol. Hom. Il. 1.464 b1–b2 (Erbse 1969–88, vol. 1).
  • 412 Schol. Pind. Ol. 3.33b, cf. 3.33d (Drachmann 1903–27). Pindar (Ol. 3.19) speaks of the consecrated (...)

197In other cases, enagismata is used for sacrifices to gods in the sense of a total burning of the offering no matter who was the recipient. In a scholion on the Iliad, the mera, the thigh-bones burnt as the gods’ portion at a thysia, are explained as the enagismata for the gods.411 A similar use of enagismata as the burnt part of a thysia is perhaps intended in a scholion on Pindar, speaking of the thysiai and enagismata filling up the area around the altars of Zeus at Olympia.412

Table 21. Instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the explicatory literary sources.

Table 21. Instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the explicatory literary sources.

Table 21 (continued)

Table 21 (continued)

Table 21 (continued)

Table 21 (continued)
  • 413 Poll. Onom. 8.91 (Bethe 1900–31): enagizein sacrifices to Harmodios mentioned previously in the At (...)
  • 414 Aischylos: schol. Aesch. PV, Vita Aeschyli 11 (Herington 1972). Themistokles: schol. Ar. Eq. 84b ( (...)
  • 415 Schol. Ar. Eq. 84b (Jones & Wilson 1969, vet.); cf. Ar. Eq. 84.

198Some of the heroes connected with enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the explicatory sources can be fitted into the pattern of use of these terms outlined previously. In some cases, the explicatory sources simply quote an earlier source, mentioning a hero receiving enagizein sacrifices, or refer to an earlier tradition of such rituals in a particular hero-cult.413 In other cases, the enagizein sacrifices were performed at the grave of the hero (Aischylos and Themistokles).414 Themistokles is also said to have died a violent death, committing suicide by drinking the blood of a bull.415

  • 416 In fact, enagizein, enagisma and enagismos are used also by the scholiasts on Homer, Aischylos, Eu (...)
  • 417 Pind. Ol. 1.90; for the contents of these sacrifices, see below, pp. 190–192. Schol. Pind. Ol. 1.1 (...)
  • 418 Thuc. 5.11; for the contents of these sacrifices, see below, pp. 184–185. Schol. Thuc. 5.11.1 (Hud (...)
  • 419 Ap. Rhod. Argon. 1.587–588; schol. Ap. Rhod. Argon. 1.587 (Wendel 1935). Cf. the entemnetai sphagi (...)
  • 420 Thuc. 3.58; for the contents of these sacrifices, see below, p. 179. Schol. Thuc. 3.58.4 (Hude 192 (...)

199It is interesting to note the use of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos by the scholia to explain sacrifices to heroes mentioned in earlier sources, such as Pindar, Thucydides and Apollonios Rhodios. These earlier authors never use these terms, either for sacrifices to heroes or for the rituals performed to the ordinary dead.416 In some instances, the rituals explained in the scholia are more or less the same or at least are related to the actions covered by enagizein. For example, the haimakouriai given to Pelops at Olympia, mentioned by Pindar, are explained in the scholia as a Boiotian term for enagismata to the dead and enagismoi of blood.417 The sacrifices to Brasidas at Amphipolis are described by Thucydides by the term ὡς ἥρῳ ἐντέμνειν and θυσίαι, while the scholion explains entemnein as “enagizein, bringing of enagismata, thyein”.418 In the Argonautica, Apollonios Rhodios speaks of ἔντομα μήλων ϰείαν at the tomb of Dolops: entoma is explained by the scholiast as sphagia and the enagizomena to the dead.419 The esthemata (clothes) offered annually to the war dead at Plataiai, according to Thucydides, are glossed as enagismata and can also be related to the sphere of funerary offerings.420

  • 421 Pind. Isthm. 4.61–68; for the contents of these sacrifices, see below, pp. 181–182. Schol. Pind. I (...)
  • 422 Pind. Pyth. 5.85–86. For the contents of these sacrifices, see below, p. 177.
  • 423 Schol. Pind. Pyth. 5.113b (Drachmann 1903–27).
  • 424 Pind. Nem. 7.46–48; for the contents of these sacrifices, see below, p. 183. Schol. Pind. Nem. 7.6 (...)

200In other cases, the rituals explained seem to have had a content which was not at all related to that of enagizein sacrifices. The preparation of bomoi and burnt-animal sacrifice (empyra), filling the air with knise to the children of Herakles and Megara at Thebes, described in Pindar’s fourth Isthmian Ode, are promptly summarized by the term enagizein by the scholiast.421 In the fifth Pythian Ode, Pindar describes how Battos and his men welcomed the Antenoridai at Kyrene with thysiai and brought them gifts (δέϰονται θυσίαισιν ... οἰχνέοντές σφε δωροφóροι ).422 In the scholion, it is stated that the children of Antenor were honoured with thysiai and received gifts and enagismata.423 The heroes of Delphi were honoured with processions and many sacrifices (polythytoi), according to Pindar: the scholiast describes the rituals as thysiai followed by enagismoi.424 In these cases, it seems as if the scholiasts automatically assumed that enagizein sacrifices formed a part of the rituals to all heroes, whether the actual sources they were commenting upon indicated such sacrifices or not. It is possible that the increased use of enagizein for sacrifices to heroes in the Roman period may have led to the assumption by some scholiasts that this kind of ritual was standard in the cult of heroes, also in the Classical and the Hellenistic periods. Therefore, in commenting upon the sacrifices to heroes, the scholiasts use enagizein, enagisma and enagismos as an explanation both of rituals that could form part of enagizein sacrifices or could be equated with such sacrifices and of rituals that seem to have been thysiai followed by dining.

  • 425 Hsch. s.v. ἐναγίζειν (Latte 1953–66, E2586); Phot. Lex. s.v. ἐναγίζων (Theodoridis 1982–98, 794); (...)

201Finally, the meanings of the terms, as regards concrete actions, should be considered. In the explicatory sources, enagizein, enagisma and enagismos are linked both to different kinds of libations and to a total burning of the offerings. In the case of enagizein, the sources offer a series of explanations: to bring choai, to sacrifice to the dead (θύειν τοĩς ϰατοιχομένοις), to destroy completely by burning (διὰ πυρός δαπανᾶν or ϰαταϰαίειν) or to kill (φoνεύειν).425

  • 426 Schol. Ar. Ach. 961 (Pfister 1909–12, 473); cf. Suda s.v. χοάς (Adler 1928–35, Q 364). This scholi (...)
  • 427 Phot. Lex. s.v. ἐναγίσματα (Theodoridis 1982–98, E 792).
  • 428 Schol. Pind. Nem. 7.62c (Drachmann 1903–27).
  • 429 Etym. Magn. s.v. χύτλα (Gaisford 1848); schol. Ap. Rhod. Argon. 1.1075–77a (Wendel 1935).
  • 430 Schol. Pind. Ol. 1.146d; cf. 1.146a (Drachmann 1903–27); Hsch. s.v. αἱμαϰουρίαί, (Latte 1953–66, A (...)
  • 431 Schol. Ap. Rhod. Argon. 1.587 (Wendel 1935).
  • 432 Schol. Eur. Phoen. 274 (Schwartz 1887). On the relation between bothroi and blood, see above, pp. (...)

202A specific explanation as libations is given in several cases. A scholion on Aristophanes states that choai are the enagismata for the dead or spondai.426 The lexicon by Photios explains enagismata as choai and enagizein as to perform choai.427 In the scholia on Pindar’s seventh Nemean Ode, enagismoi are being poured out.428 The Etymologicum Magnum and a scholion on Apollonios Rhodios state that enagismata and choai were incorrectly used for a mixture of water and olive oil, called chytla.429 The contents of the libations are not specified in these cases, but the scholia on Pindar explain haimakouriai as enagismoi of blood, given to the dead, and Hesychios equates haimakouriai with enagismata to the dead.430 In the scholia on Apollonios Rhodios, the term entoma is defined as sphagia and ta enagizomena to the dead.431 The enagizein sacrifice into a bothros, mentioned in the scholia on Euripides, can also be taken as a connection between this term and offerings of blood.432

  • 433 Hsch. s.v. ἐναγίσματα (Latte 1953–66, E 2587), s.v. ἐναγισμοί (E 2588); Phot. Lex. s.v. ἐναγισμοί (...)
  • 434 Schol. Hom. Il. 1.464 b1–b2 (Erbse 1969–88, vol. 1).
  • 435 Schol. Aesch. Cho. 484c (Smith 1976).

203In other sources, the terms are explained as meaning that the offerings were burnt. Enagismata and enagismoi are explained as holokautomata by Hesychios, Photios and Suda.433 In the scholia on the Iliad, enagismata is used to explain the term mera (the thigh-bones burnt in the altar fire).434 A scholiast on the Libation Bearers by Aischylos uses enagismoi to clarify the empyra knisota (steaming, burnt sacrifices) offered to the dead.435

  • 436 The use of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos as explanations for thysia are another matter.
  • 437 Schol. Hom. Il. 3.273b (Erbse 1969–88, vol. 1).
  • 438 Agos as miasma: Hsch. s.v. ἐναγίζειν (Latte 1953–66, E 2586); Etym. Magn. s.v. ἐναγίζειν (Gaisford (...)

204There is no indication in the explicatory sources that the terms are connected with sacrifices involving any kind of dining.436 Apart from referring to the burning of offerings and the pouring of libations, the terms are also used for sacrifices differing from regular thysiai, as regards both the context and the ritual detail. In a scholion on the Iliad, commenting upon an oath sacrifice, it is said that no hair was thrown into the fire from the victims used at enagizein sacrifices, indicating a ritual different from the one at a thysia.437 The explicatory sources also connect enagizein with pollution, by explaining agos as miasma, and with purifications, by giving enagismata as an alternative to katharmata, the offscourings from purificatory rituals.438

3.3. Conclusion

205The two principal conclusions reached in this review of enagizein, enagisma, enagismos and enagisterion concern the chronological spread of the terms as used for hero-cults, as well as the changes in use and meaning which the terms underwent in the course of time.

206In the Classical and Hellenistic literary sources, the terms are used only for sacrifices to the ordinary dead and the heroes and are not very frequent. The earliest occurrence of enagizein and the related nouns in the epigraphical evidence dates to the late 2nd century BC. In the Roman period, the use of the terms for sacrifices to the ordinary dead is still not very common, but there is a pronounced increase in the use of enagizein and its related nouns for sacrifices in hero-cults, particularly in the 2nd century AD (see Table 22). The hapax enagisterion is only found in an late 2nd century AD inscription, for example.

Table 22. Chronological distribution of enagizein, enagisma, enagismos and enagisterion in Greek contexts for sacrifices to heroes and the ordinary dead in the epigraphical and literary sources (explicatory sources not included).

Table 22. Chronological distribution of enagizein, enagisma, enagismos and enagisterion in Greek contexts for sacrifices to heroes and the ordinary dead in the epigraphical and literary sources (explicatory sources not included).
  • 439 Spawforth & Walker 1985; Spawforth & Walker 1986; Cartledge & Spawforth 1989, 99, 106–107, 164–165 (...)

207Is this increase in the use of these terms to be taken as a reflection of enagizein sacrifices having become more common in Roman times as compared with earlier periods or as the terms now being used in a more general manner, not necessarily corresponding to particular rituals and recipients, as was the case previously? The possibility that changes may have taken place both in the religious and the linguistic spheres has to be taken into consideration but, most of all, the use of enagizein and its related terms has to be put in relation to the aim and character of the sources in which the terms are found and the period when these texts were composed. The popularity of the terms in question is, in fact, almost exclusively the result of their frequent use in four sources: Pausanias, Plutarch, Philostratos and Heliodoros. These writers can all be said both to reflect and to be influenced by the antiquarian tendencies of the age in which they were active, i.e., the 1st to the 3rd centuries AD. Among the trends of this period was a fascination for the past, which led to a greater interest in the religion of old times.439 Old cults were revived or boosted and new ones with a connection with the past were instituted.

  • 440 See Ekroth 1999, 151–152 and Table 2. It should be noted that, of the 29 enagizein sacrifices ment (...)
  • 441 Plut. Vit. Thes. 4.1; Plut. Vit. Arist. 21.2 and 21.5.
  • 442 Philostr. Her. 53.8–14, esp. 53.14.
  • 443 Kos: Sor. Vit. Hipp. 3.6. For an earlier date of this text, see Sherwin-White 1978, 355–356. Child (...)

208In this period, enagizein sacrifices may have been considered as an old and venerable ritual and as a sign of hero-cults that had a long history. In several instances, the writers comment upon the age of the cults in question. This is most obvious in Pausanias, who uses the terms more frequently than any other ancient source. In ten cases out of 25, he remarks that the enagizein sacrifices were “still carried out” or performed “even in my day”.440 Also Plutarch comments that the sacrifices to Konnidas in Athens and to the war dead at Plataiai were performed to this very day, the latter even said to be the same kinds of rituals as those instituted in the 5th century BC.441 Philostratos reports that the enagizein sacrifices to Achilles at Troy, performed by the Thessalians, were considered as originating from the time of the tyrants.442 Other sources from the same period make similar comments, for example, the sacrifices to Hippokrates on Kos being described as still carried out in the 2nd century AD, the enagizein sacrifices to the children of Medea being performed μέχρι τοῦ νῦν by the Corinthians and the enagizein sacrifices to the war dead at Megara carried out [μ]εχρὶς ἐφ' ἡμῶν (up to our own day).443

  • 444 Price 1984a, 32–36 and 207–220. Price (33 and 209) stresses that heroic sacrifices (enagismata) we (...)
  • 445 Price 1984a, 32–36.

209The reason for considering enagizein sacrifices as old cult practices in the Hellenistic and Roman times may have been that they differed from the rituals used in the new hero-cults established in these periods. The sacrifices used in these cults, as well as in the ruler and imperial cults, were of the thysia kind.444 Dining formed an important part of the ritual and, by having a large number of citizens participating in the meal, the recipient of the cult, as well as his relatives, gained in prestige. Since enagizein sacrifices were especially connected with recipients who were dead and seem to have functioned as a marker of the recipient’s “dead-ness”, they were not suitable sacrifices for the ruler and imperial cults which aimed at disguising the mortality of the recipient.445 This difference in the kind of rituals performed may have been taken as the enagizein sacrifices being a mark of an ancient and venerable hero-cult, distinct from contemporaneous practices. As such, they attracted the attention of the writers with an interest in antiquarian matters.

  • 446 The enagismata mentioned in Ath. pol. 58.1 seem to have concerned only Harmodios and Aristogeiton (...)
  • 447 Dion. Hal. Thuc. 18.6.
  • 448 IG II2 1006, 26 and 69 (123/2 BC).
  • 449 IG VII 53 = Kaibel 1878, no. 461.
  • 450 Plut. Vit. Arist. 21.2–5; De malign. Her. 872f; cf. Lib. Decl. 13.59. The Classical sources speak (...)

210Enagizein sacrifices as a sign of an old cult may perhaps also be the explanation for a certain increase in the course of time in the use of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos for sacrifices to the war dead, an increase which, to some extent, may reflect a change in cult practices. In the Classical period, sacrifices of this kind do not seem to have been practised in the cult of the war dead or, at least, they are not mentioned in the available sources.446 In the Hellenistic period, the terms are used for the sacrifices to the war dead of earlier periods, even though these heroes do not seem to have received enagizein sacrifices previously. In his critical commentary on Thucydides, Dionysios of Halikarnassos explicitly blames the earlier historian for not mentioning the enagismoi to the Greeks killed in the war in Sicily in 414/3.447 Thucydides himself, however, never uses this term. The enagizein sacrifices to the Marathonian war dead, mentioned in a late-2nd-century BC inscription, do not seem to have been a continuous tradition from the Classical period and may have been a new feature of this period.448 Also the sacrifices to the Megarian war dead, which, in the 4th century AD, were designated by enagizein, may have been a kind of ritual that had not been practised previously.449 Similarly, Plutarch describes the enagizein sacrifices to the war dead at Plataiai. For these sacrifices we actually have more evidence as to their content in earlier periods and it seems clear that there had been changes in the cult practices from the 5th century BC down to Plutarch’s time.450

  • 451 Chaniotis 1991, 138–142; Jacoby 1944, 66; Cartledge & Spawforth 1989, 192.

211Why this change took place is hard to say but one suggestion is that the link between enagizein sacrifices and the war dead could be seen as an attempt to evoke the glorious past of the independent poleis that did not exist any longer. Festivals with a historical focus, particularly those commemorating the military glory of earlier times, became increasingly popular in the Hellenistic and the Roman periods.451 The cult of the war dead served as a reminder of the past and the use of enagizein sacrifices may have functioned as a way of marking their ancient character and distinguishing them from the more recent heroes of the Hellenistic and the Roman periods.

  • 452 The cult of the Megarian war dead was perhaps instituted or at least reorganized in the 4th centur (...)
  • 453 IG IV 203 = Gegan 1989, 350; for the archaeological evidence, see above, pp. 80–81. For the Roman (...)
  • 454 Cf. the interesting suggestion by Wilamowitz (1931, 385–387) that the holocaust of live animals to (...)

212In the case of the war dead, a change in cult practice may have taken place, but the evidence is too scant for any certainty. Other cults containing enagizein sacrifices show evidence of having been re-organized, newly installed or even created in the Hellenistic or Roman periods.452 A particularly interesting case is the enagisterion used for the cult of Palaimon at Isthmia, which seems to be, in fact, the only osteologically demonstrated case of a holocaust to a Greek hero. This cult place was clearly a Roman establishment and need not have had any connections in ritual with a Classical cult of the hero on the same site.453 If enagizein sacrifices were considered as a sign of venerable age, this kind of ritual practice may have been consciously chosen for these very reasons, even though the sacrifices to Palaimon in the Archaic and Classical periods may have been of another kind. It is also possible that contemporary Roman demands and taste may have affected the ritual practices of some hero-cults (as well as other cults) but this is a matter that requires further investigation.454

213Such considerations have to be taken into account when deciding to what extent the mentions of enagizein sacrifices in the Roman sources have any bearing on the cult practices of earlier periods, for which enagizein and its related terms are rare. Many of these cults are remarked upon as being old, but are we to assume that the same kinds of rituals were performed also in the Classical period, for example? Since there is, in most cases, no earlier evidence to compare with, the question becomes one of methodology, i.e., whether later sources can be used to throw light on earlier periods, which brings us back to the initial comments on the 1st- to 3rd-century AD sources reflecting the attitudes of their own time. In some instances in which more information is available, the war dead at Plataiai, for example, it is clear that the practices reported by the Roman sources cannot be considered valid also for earlier periods. In all, even though it is theoretically possible that these later sources reporting enagizein sacrifices may describe rituals also performed as early as the Classical period, the information on these sacrifices in the Roman sources is best used with care when applied to conditions of earlier periods considering the many uncertain factors.

  • 455 See Ekroth 1999, 158.
  • 456 Ekroth 1999, 149, Table 1.

214The occurrence of enagizein and the corresponding nouns in the Roman period may thus, to a certain extent, correspond to an increase of certain rituals that were less common during earlier periods. At the same time, it has to be kept in mind that the bulk of the evidence for enagizein sacrifices is found in Pausanias, who deliberately picked out matters worthy of reporting. It is possible that his frequent use of enagizein is a result of these sacrifices being interesting and spectacular rather than an indication of this kind of ritual being more or less the standard practice of hero-cults of his time.455 In fact, Pausanias mentions almost as many sacrifices to heroes covered by thyein or thysia as sacrifices covered by enagizein or enagismos.456 On the whole, enagizein sacrifices may still have been relatively rare in the Roman period, as compared to thysia sacrifices, but this is an assumption, which can only be verified or falsified by a wider investigation of hero-cults in this period.

  • 457 See in particular Paus. 2.10.1; cf. Ekroth 1999, 151–156.

215There is no reason to assume, on the other hand, that the popularity of enagizein and the related terms is due to their being used in a more general sense for hero-cults in these sources, even though signs of a gradual change in use and meaning can be noted in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD (see below, p. 127). Pausanias, for example, makes the same distinctions between enagizein sacrifices and thysiai as do the sources of earlier periods.457 The detailed descriptions of the rituals for the war dead at Plataiai by Plutarch and in the cult of Achilles at Troy in Philostratos’ Heroicus leave no doubt that the sacrifices performed were of a kind entirely different from thysiai.

216In any case, the frequent use of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos for the sacrifices to heroes in the Roman period, no matter how it is to be explained, may be the reason for the link between enagizein and hero-cults made in the scholia. These sources use enagizein, enagisma and enagismos almost as generic explanations of any kind of sacrifices to heroes mentioned in earlier sources, whether these earlier rituals corresponded to the content of enagizein sacrifices or not.

217Enagizein, enagisma and enagismos started off in the Classical period as terms used for sacrifices to dead recipients, both heroes and the ordinary dead. The heroes receiving this kind of sacrifice seem to have had a particular connection with death. From the contexts in which these sacrifices are found, it is clear that the fact that they were dead and had died was considered important. The burial and the grave could figure prominently in the cult and many of these heroes had died in a violent way, being killed in war, murdered or having committed suicide. Sometimes, the manner of death led to grave consequences and the enagizein sacrifices were aimed at placating the heroes’ anger. These particular characteristics can be traced from the earliest cases in which enagizein sacrifices are used for heroes (5th century) all through the Roman period.

  • 458 Hdt. 2.44; Apollod. Bibl. 2.5.1; Plut. De malign. Her. 857d; Ptolemaios Chennos 3.12 (Chatzis 1914 (...)
  • 459 Achilles: Strabon 13.1.32; Philostr. Her. 53.8–15; Philostr. V A 4.16. In the case of Herakles, it (...)
  • 460 It should be noted that the only enagizein sacrifices that Achilles received were performed at his (...)

218The connection between enagizein sacrifices and death is further underlined by the many contexts in which these sacrifices are contrasted with the cult of an immortal recipient. A hero receiving enagizein sacrifices may be worshipped in connection with an immortal god or be buried in the god’s precinct. This contrast between mortality and immortality can also be found in the same recipient. The earliest and clearest case is the dual cult of Herakles, who received both enagizein sacrifices as a hero and thyein sacrifices as an immortal god, a ritual combination which is explicitly commented upon by sources from the Classical, the Hellenistic and the Roman periods alike.458 Because of his dual character and dual cult, Herakles occupies a unique position among the heroes. The only parallel to Herakles in this aspect is Achilles and it is interesting to note that they both seem to have been principally regarded as gods.459 In the case of Herakles, and probably also Achilles, the use of both kinds of rituals seems to mark the fact that the recipient was originally a mortal hero who was later promoted to become an immortal god460 The enagizein sacrifices served as a reminder of the recipient’s origin, an origin that he seems to have more or less transgressed in the course of time.

219In the Roman period, the usage and meaning of the terms underwent some important changes regarding both the recipients of the sacrifices and the contents of the rituals. The pronounced connection between enagizein and death seems to have diminished gradually. First of all, enagizein and the two nouns began to be used also for sacrifices to gods, though gods with a connection with the underworld. The enagizein sacrifices to these gods differed from thysia sacrifices regarding both their aim and their ritual content, since they were concerned with, for example, purification, expiation, pre-battle sacrifice and human sacrifice. Secondly, the terms came to mean a total burning of the offerings without any particular bearing on the character of the recipient or the context in which the sacrifice was performed. The recipient did not have to be dead or to have a connection with death and the sacrifice did not necessarily differ from a thysia. In this particular, late use of enagizein, the actual burning and creation of fragrant smoke was of essential importance and therefore enagizein seems to be used in almost the same sense as thyein.

220Apart from this late and rare usage, enagizein and its connected nouns were used for sacrifices at which the offerings were destroyed and the participants did not dine, in contrast to thysia sacrifices. The difference between enagizein sacrifices and thysiai does not concern only the fact that the recipients of the former kind of sacrifice had a particular connection with death. A further sign of the distinction is the use of enagizein for contexts differing from the thysiai, such as rituals of purification, pre-battle sacrifices and human sacrifices. This use is, however, mainly documented in the Roman period.

  • 461 The construction of enagizein with an accusative is a post-Classical development: earlier, the ter (...)

221What was sacrificed at the enagizein sacrifices is often not specified.461 When the terms are used for sacrifices to heroes, the offerings seem to have consisted of animal victims: bulls, oxen, sheep, rams, lambs and goats. In contexts concerning sacrifices to the ordinary dead, the terms could refer to the whole ritual performed at the tomb or, more specifically, the non-fluid offerings, consisting of cakes, fruit and prepared food.

222The animal victims at enagizein sacrifices were totally abandoned by the worshippers. This could mean that the carcass was left at the site of the sacrifice or, more commonly, that it was destroyed by burning. The importance of fire in the enagizein sacrifices is clear from the use of the terms to cover rituals in non-Greek contexts, at which the offerings were completely annihilated by fire and from the extended meaning of the terms in the late Roman period as general terms for burning.

223A particular connection with blood and the use of enagizein and the two nouns for a sacrifice consisting of blood is mainly found in the late Roman and the explicatory sources. An enagizein sacrifice of an animal victim may have included a particular treatment of the blood, for example, a total discarding of the blood on a specific place, an action which could have initiated the ritual. However, since the meat was not available for consumption, the basic meaning of the terms must have been as a destruction sacrifice involving a whole animal victim. The particular handling of the blood is rather indicated by the use of a separate term.

224The link with libations is less clear when the terms are used for herocults. In funerary cults, the terms enagisma and enagismos could refer to libations, but the rituals at the grave could also be divided into enagizein and the pouring of choai. It is mainly the explicatory sources that explain the terms as libations.

Notes

1 For previous studies, see, for example, Pfister 1909–12, 475–476; Stengel 1920, 15–17; Rudhardt 1958, 250–251.

2 Casabona 1966, 204–210; Rudhardt 1958, 238–239 and 250–251; Pfister 1909–12, 466–480; cf. Robert F. 1939, 156–160 and 178–179.

3 Entemnein and related terms: Casabona 1966, 211–229; Rudhardt 1958, 281–286; Stengel 1910, 103–104. Sphazein and related terms: Casabona 1966, 155–196; Rudhardt 1958, 272–281; Stengel 1910, 92–102. Holokautein: Rudhardt 1958, 286–287. Choai: Casabona 1966, 279–297; Rudhardt 1958, 246–248; Stengel 1910, 183–185; Citron 1965, 69–70.

4 Benveniste 1954, 251; Casabona 1966, vi; Rudhardt 1958, 3–8; Peirce 1993, 219–266.

5 Casabona 1966, 348.

6 The date of the sources used by Pfister (1909–12, 475–476), Stengel (1920, 15–16), Rohde (1925, 23 and 50, n. 53), Rudhardt (1958, 250–251) and Burkert (1985, 199 and 428, n. 4) to define eschara as a low and hollow altar particular for hero-cults may serve as an example.

7 Harpokration and Pollux date from the 2nd century AD. For the dates of these sources, see OCD3 s.vv. etymologica, glossa, Harpokration, Pollux, Hesychius, Photius, Suda, Eustathius, Lexica Segueriana.

8 On the difficulties of dating scholia, see Smith 1981; Erbse 1965, 2723–2725; McNamee 1995; Dear 1931; OCD3 s.v. scholia.

9 LSJ s.v. έσχάρα. There are some variants, which have partly the same meaning (cf. LSJ for references): έσχάρων (diminutive of eschara), έσχαρίς (brazier) and its diminutive έσχαρίδί,ον.

10 Eschara also seems to be a type of fish (sole?) or sea-food; see Archippos fr. 24 (PCG II, 1991), 5th century BC.

11 LSJ, Second supplement (1996), s.v. ἐσχάρα; cf. Chadwick 1986; Chadwick 1996, 111–115.

12 Chadwick 1986, 515–523, finds that the meanings diverge widely with no obvious link between them. He argues that the original sense of the word was “fire-place”, which was later extended to include the fire-basket, when such a construction had come into use. After this development, eschara came to be distinct from the hearth, designated by hestia.

13 Ar. Av. 1232.

14 Theophr. Hist. pl. 5.9.7.

15 Arist. [Pr.] 863a; cf. the English term “eschar”.

16 Hippoc. Art. 11.30 and 70; Plato fr. 200, line 4 (PCG VII, 1989).

17 Theophr. Hist. pl. 5.9.7.

18 Ammonios FGrHist 361 F 1b. The form escharios can refer to the construction surrounding a boat, when it is lowered into the water (Ath. 5.204c). This latter term can also mean “platform” (Diod. Sic. 20.91.2). The connection between eschara and wooden constructions will be further discussed below in the section on the epigraphical evidence.

19 For example, Hippokrates and the Corpus Hippocraticum (Art. 11.30, 11.40, 11.60 and 11.70; cf. Kühn & Fleischer 1989, s.v. ἐσχάρη) and predominantly in Roman or later medical sources, such as Dioscorides Pedanius (1st century AD), Galenos, Pseudo-Galenos and Aretaios (2nd century AD), Aëtios and Nonnos (6th century AD), Paulos (7th century AD) and the Hippiatrica (9th century AD); cf. Durling 1993, s.v. ἐσχάρα and related terms. The non-medical use is generally rare.

20 Deneken 1886–90, 2496–2501; Pfister 1909–12, 475–476; Foucart 1918, 97; Stengel 1920, 15; Rohde 1925, 23; Robert F. 1939, 185–187; Rudhardt 1958, 129; Nilsson 1967, 78; Burkert 1985, 199; Burkert 1983, 9, n. 41.

21 Deneken 1886–90, 2496–2501; Pfister 1909–12, 474–476; Stengel 1920, 15–16; Rohde 1925, 23; Robert F. 1939, 185–189; Yavis 1949, 93–94; Rudhardt 1958, 238–239 and 250–251; Nilsson 1967, 78; Burkert 1985, 199; Burkert 1983, 9, n. 41.

22 Stengel 1920, 15–16; Rohde 1925, 23.

23 Deneken 1886–90, 2498–2501; Pfister 1909–12, 476; Stengel 1920, 16.

24 Reisch 1907, 614–617; Stengel 1920, 15–16; Robert F. 1939, 185–189; Nilsson 1967, 78.

25 Van Straten 1974, 174 and 185–187; van Straten 1995, 165–167; Reisch, 1907, 616; Stengel 1920, 16.

26 The literary definitions of eschara have been used to identify them in the archaeological and iconographical material. I have dealt with parts of that evidence elsewhere (Ekroth 1998 and Ekroth 2001) and I hope to treat it more fully in the future. For the iconographical material, see also van Straten 1974 and van Straten 1995, 165–167.

27 The terms escharidion, escharion and escharis are also found in the inscriptions, but the meaning seems to be confined to small censers or incense-burners (see Hellmann 1992, 73).

28 For example, the sacrifice by Eumaios on the household hearth in Od. 14.420.

29 Escharai of bronze, 4th century: IG II2 120, 46; 1414, 41; 1416, 8; 1424a, 260; 1425, 364; 1440, 53; 1640, 33–34; ID 104–12, 115–116; probably also IG II2 1638, 59; 1639, 1; ID 104, 133; 104–10, 10; 3rd century: IG XI:2 161 B, 124; 199 B, 76; probably also IG XI:2 164 B, 12 and 36; 199 B, 89; 2nd century: ID 1416 A, col. I, 14; 1417 B, col. I, 11; 1442 A, 81; 1452 A, 14; probably ID 439b, 16; 442 B, 173; 443 Bb, 96; 444 B, 11; 457, 22; 1400, 5; 1409 Bc, col. II, 28. Eschara of silver, 4th century: IG II2 1492, 70. Escharai of iron, 3rd century: IG XI:2 161 B, 128; 199 B, 79; 219 B, 74. The inventories from Brauron also mention escharai (see Peppas-Delmousou 1988, 336). These were probably simple braziers or grills, since they remained at Brauron, when the more valuable objects were moved to Athens. An eschara worth two obols (presumably a piece of household equipment made of terracotta) is mentioned in the Attic stelai, see Amyx 1958, 229–231, Stele III, line 9; Pritchett 1953, 262.

30 IG II2 1492, 70, eschara of silver. Cf. the silver thymiaterion or escharis, a votive gift by Boulomaga, mentioned in five Delian accounts from the 3rd century BC: IG XI:2 203 B, 44; 219 B, 52–53; 199 B, 16; 194, 4; ID 1401 a–b, 3–5.

31 Hellmann 1992, 77, interprets all the metal escharai in the Delos inscriptions as braziers or pans of coal.

32 Escharai occurring in a context with dining equipment: IG II2 1416, 8; 1638, 68; 1639, 1; 1640, 31 and 33–34; ID 104, 143; 104–10, 10; 104–11B, 35; 104–12, 114, all 4th century. In ID 461 Bb, 52 (2nd century), [esch]ara is probably wrongly restored (see Linders 1994, 76, n. 29).

33 IG II2 1638, 68; 1639, 9; 1640, 31; ID 104, 142; 104–10, 10; 104–11B, 35; 104–12, 114; all 4th century; cf. the μολυβδοκρατευταί, lead frames on which a spit turns, mentioned by Poll. Onom. 10.96 (Bethe 1900–31). Chadwick (1986, 521), suggests that autostrophos possibly meant that the fire-basket was hinged so that the ashes could be tipped out without moving the base of the eschara.

34 Peek 1969, 48, no. 52, lines 15 and 16 = SEG 24, 1969, 277 (re-edition of IG IV2 118 A); for commentary, see Mitsos 1967, 15.

35 IG XI:2 203 A, 33.

36 ID 1417 A, col. I, 76 (156/5 BC) lists a βωμòν ξύλινον among the inventories of the Thesmophorion, but it is perhaps best interpreted as meaning “wooden base” rather than an altar. However, Paus. 9.3.7 mentions that at the Daidala festival in Boiotia, a bomos was constructed of wooden blocks shaped and fitted together like stones. This altar was subsequently burnt.

37 Tréheux 1952, 564–566; Hellmann 1992, 73 and 77, with n. 22. For eschara or escharis as a sledge for the transportation of stones, see IG XI:2 203 B, 97 and IG II2 1673, 63, cf. discussion by Clinton 1971, 102; Raepsaet 1984; Orlandos 1968, 21, n. 15.

38 IG II2 4977; Rhousopoulos 1862, 83, no. 84. The stone is 0.49 m high, 0.21 m wide and 0.07 m thick.

39 Cf. the two 4th-century stelai inscribed Ἀμφιαράο Ἀμφιλόχο and Ίστίης placed against the smaller altar (5th century) in the Amphiareion at Oropos, IG VII 421; Leonardos 1917, 39–40, no. 91, figs. 1–2; Petrakos 1968, 67–68, 96–98, and pl. 19.

40 A small shrine found below the terrace of the Middle Stoa in the Athenian Agora was marked only by horoi before being fenced in (see Lalonde 1980, 97–105); cf. the four horoi of the Tritopatreion in the Kerameikos (Brückner 1910, 102–104; Kübler 1973, 189–193; Knigge 1974, 191–192).

41 Thorikos: Daux 1983, 153, line 36; for the reading Ήρακλείδ[αις τέλεον], see Parker 1984, 59. Erchia: LS 18, col. II, 42–44. For the Herakleidai at Axione and elsewhere in Attica, see Kearns 1989, 166–167.

42 LS 177 = Laum 1914, vol. 2, no. 45; cf. Sherwin-White 1977, 210–213. The inscription falls into three parts of various dates: (1) lines 1–55, c. 325–300, (2) lines 56–68, c. 300 and (3) lines 69–159, c. 280 (see Sherwin-White 1977, 210, n. 21).

43 For kyklon (line 130) meaning “trencher”, cf. LSA 50, 32.

44 Farnell 1921, 122.

45 This aspect of the cult of Herakles is discussed by Verbanck-Piérard 1992, 85–106.

46 Jameson 1994a, esp. 42–43.

47 Blinkenberg 1941, 899–946, nos. 580–619; some examples were published in IG XII:1 791–804.

48 Blinkenberg 1941, 897–903, stated that among the finds was pottery dating from the PG period to the 7th century, a Cypriote limestone figurine and other figurines dating to the 6th century. A re-study of the pottery by Sørensen & Pentz 1992, 57, shows that only a few sherds can be safely dated to the PG or Geometric periods; cf. Dyggve 1960, 462.

49 Blinkenberg 1941, proscharaios thysia: nos. 581, 582, 584–586, 592, 593, 595–597, 600, 601, 605–608 and 610–614.

50 Blinkenberg 1941, 908; cf. SIG2 no. 626, n. 2.

51 Blinkenberg 1941, 907–909, proscharaios thysia boukopia: nos. 581, 585, 586, 600, 601, 606, 608, 610, 611 and 614; proscharaios thysia theodaisia: nos. 582, 584, 593, 595–597, 605, 607 and 613. A thysia proscharaios ou boukopia is also found, no. 612, as well as the combinations proscharaios boukopia, nos. 583, 599 and 602 and proscharaios theodaisia, no. 604. For theodaisia, related to theoxenia, and usually connected with Herakles and Dionysos, see Nilsson 1906, 279–280; Jameson 1994a, 36, n. 5.

52 Blinkenberg 1941, 904–906; Athena is mentioned in inscription no. 615 and possibly also in no. 616. Literary evidence for unburnt sacrifices to Athena of Rhodes: Pind. Ol. 7.40–49; Diod. Sic. 5.56.5–6; Philostr. Imag. 2.27.3. Dyggve 1960, 174–180, rejected Blinkenberg’s theory, since ashes and animal bones were found on the acropolis.

53 Blinkenberg 1941, 907–908.

54 Blinkenberg drew parallels with probomios sacrifices, see LSS 115 A, lines 61, 67 and 68, and Eur. Ion 376. Probomios can refer both to a sacrifice in front of the altar and to a preliminary sacrifice; cf. LSJ s.v.

55 Kostomitsopoulos 1988, 122–128 = SEG 38, 1988, 788: Προ(σ)χάραιο(ς) Πρατάρχου θυσία οὐ βοκοπία ; dated to c. 350 BC.

56 Kostomitsopoulos 1988, 125–126; Suda s.v. προσχαψητήρί,α and s.v. προχαρί,στήρί,α (Adler 1928–35, P2851 and 2928); cf. Harp. s.v. . προσ×αψητήρί,α (Dindorf 1853). Kostomitsopoulos assigns the small shrine to Athena.

57 Deubner 1969, 17; Parker 1996, 303; cf. Harp. s.v. προσχαιρητήρια (Dindorf 1853).

58 Reinmuth 1955, 228, line 15, supplementing IG II2 1032 (127/6 BC); IG II2 1006, 12–13 (123/2 BC); IG II2 1008, 15 (119/8 BC); IG II2 1011, 11 (107/6 BC).

59 4.18.16: τòν ἐπ' ἐσχάρας ὑμνῆσαί, κατ' ἔτος Διόνυσον (transl. by Benner & Fobes 1949).

60 Deubner 1969, 139–141; Pickard-Cambridge 1968, 59–61; Sourvinou-Inwood 1994, 270. Pélékidis 1962, 239–246, however, suggested that the procession took place at the Lenaia.

61 Mentioned by Paus. 1.29.2. For a proposed location of this shrine on the road to the Academy, see Clairmont 1983, 30 and fig. 1.

62 Deubner 1969, 141. Nilsson 1951, 212–213, argued that the eisagoge referred to the bringing of the god by the ephebes from his temple by the theatre into the orchestra. The sacrifices mentioned in IG II2 1006, 12, on the other hand, were performed in the sanctuary by the theatre in connection with the pompe.

63 Sourvinou-Inwood 1994, 281–285. Kolb 1981, 44, proposed that the altar in the Agora belonged to Dionysos Lenaios. For the altar, see Thompson 1953, 43–46; Thompson & Wycherley 1972, 132; Gadbery 1992, 467–469; Ekroth 1998, 119–120. There is no compelling reason to label this altar an eschara simply on account of the lack of height (see the discussion below on the literary evidence for eschara).

64 Sourvinou-Inwood 1994, 280–285 and 287–288.

65 Gadbery 1992, 456, fig. 8, section D-D, 464, n. 41 and 475, pottery lot 380. The northern part of the low altar and its enclosure were perhaps removed when this wall was constructed. The wall was built entirely of fragments of re-used poros, which have been thought to have originated from the original altar of the Twelve Gods (see Crosby 1949, 95) but which may stem from the dismantled low altar.

66 Cf. Mikalson 1998, 246–247, on the question whether these ephebic inscriptions reflect the 5th-century Dionysia or the conditions of the Hellenistic period.

67 Gow 1912, 237–238, and Ridgeway 1912, 138, connected the eschara with heroes and traced a reminiscence of hero-cult in the Attic theatre, since Dionysos is called heros in a cult hymn cited by Plut. Quaest. Graec. 299b. This passage is far from uncontroversial (see Brown 1982, 305–314, for the latest review of previous scholarship on the “heros Dionysos”). Brown concludes that there must have been some error in the transmission of the text.

68 Hiller von Gaertringen 1906, no. 202:8, line 37.

69 According to Kleidemos (FGrHist 323 F 1), Poseidon Helikonios had an eschara at Agrai, Athens.

70 Petzl 1987, no. 737, line 9; Robert L. 1939, 193–197, no. 10, line 9.

71 Robert L. 1939, 194.

72 IG XI:2 144 A, 61, 96 and 99; 156 A, 23; 199 A, 103; 287 A, 76; ID 409 A, 12; 440 A, 82; 1400, 4; 1409 Ba, col. II, 26; 1416 A, col. I, 36; 1417 B, col. I, 37; 1452 A, 29.

73 Robert F. 1939, 190; Robert F. 1952, 48.

74 Cf. LSJ s.v.; Hellmann 1992, 76; Roux 1979, 115, with n. 25 on the locative suffix -ών -ön; Schulhof (1908, 39–40) argued that, judging by the context, escharon must be a building or a part of a building, but that it was possible that escharon was a type of scaffolding with no connection with a hearth; cf. IG II2 1672, 308, έσχ«ρε, "(ον, and the discussion of eschara in the sense of a wooden construction, supra, p. 29, n. 37.

75 Roof tiles or reeds for an escharon: ID 440 A, 82; IG XI:2 144 A, 61; new doors: ID 409 A, 12; cleaning: IG XI:2 287 A, 76; cf. Hellmann 1992,76.

76 For the Archegesion and the Dioskourion, see below. Sarapeion C: ID 1416 A, col. I, 36; 1417 B, col. I, 37; 1452 A, 29. For the suggestion of the location of the escharon in this sanctuary, see Vallois 1944, 88–92; cf. Roussel 1916, plan III, building Z.

77 For the restoration by Ph.H. Davis, see Hellmann 1992, 73.

78 Robert F. 1953, 13–23; Daux 1962, 959–963; Daux 1963b, 862–869; Bruneau 1970, 424–426; Kuhn 1985, 227–232; Guide de Délos3 1983, 200–201, no. 74; Ekroth 1998, 120–121. For the inscribed sherds from the sanctuary, some carrying the inscriptions Ἀρχηγέτηι, or Ἀρχ(ηγέτου), see ID 35. The first phase of the sanctuary dates to c. 600 BC: both structures were extended in the early to middle 5th century and underwent further changes in the Hellenistic and Roman periods.

79 Robert F. 1953, 22; Bruneau 1970, 424; Hellmann 1992, 76. The date of the ash-altar is difficult to ascertain, but it seems to have been late Hellenistic or rather Roman (see Bruneau 1970, 424; Daux 1963b, 865).

80 Kuhn 1985, 229–232; sheep bones were found in the ashes (see Bruneau 1970, 428). A banquet relief dedicated to Anios shows the reclining hero being approached by a man and his servant leading a ram (see van Straten 1995, R154; Bruneau 1970, 428, pl. 5:2; for the inscription, see Butz 1994, 78, n. 4). For the prohibition on xenoi entering the courtyard, see Butz 1994 on ID 68.

81 For this construction, see Daux 1962, 960; Bruneau 1970, 425; Ekroth 1998, 121, fig. 1.

82 Kuhn 1985, 228–229. Oikoi: IG XI:2 287 A, 107–108; Bruneau 1970, 425 with n. 3. The same inscription also mentions an oikos (line 109) which has been identified with an enclosure in the south-eastern corner of the rectangular courtyard (see Bruneau 1970, 424–425).

83 Daux 1962, 960. The carbonized sheep bones found in the ash-heap and a deposit of sea-shells (oysters, mussels) may be the debris from dining (see Daux 1963b, 865 and 863, fig. 3; Bruneau 1970, 428).

84 Robert F. 1952, 5–50; Roux 1981, 43; Guide de Délos3 1983, 258–260, no. 123. Bruneau 1970, 383–385, is doubtful.

85 Roux 1981, 41–55. Hestiatorion: IG XI:2 161 A, 97 (279 BC); naos: ID 461 Ab, 32 (169 BC).

86 Roux 1981, 53–55; cf. Bergquist 1990, 46–49.

87 ID 1400, 4 (between 314 and 166 BC); 1409 Ba, col. II, 26 (166–145 BC).

88 ID 1400, 4–6; 1409 Ba, col. II, 26–29. Other objects are of a different nature: hydria with metal voting ballots, a small stele and ingots.

89 Od. 14.420. A Linear-B tablet from Pylos mentions an e-ka-ra, taken by Ventris & Chadwick (1973, 499, Py 237) to refer to a portable hearth or brazier. See also Casevitz 1988, 58–59, for the earliest uses of the term.

90 Euripides also uses eschara for the household hearth, for example, Cyc. 384 and El. 801. An unidentified choral lyric fragment mentions the Pythian god at Delphi by the escharai (see Page 1962, Fragmenta adespota, Fr. 991).

91 Rudhardt 1958, 6; cf. Reisch 1907, 614.

92 For the variations in language between different classes of evidence, see Parker 1983, 13–14 and supra, p. 19, n. 22.

93 Eur. Heracl.: eschara 121, 127 and 341, bomos or its derivatives bomios or probomios 33, 61, 73, 79, 124, 196, 238, 249 and 344; Supp.: eschara 33 and 290, bomian 93 and thymele 65; HF: eschara 922 and bomos 974. Aesch. Pers.: eschara 205, the same altar as the bomos in line 203?

94 Eur. Phoen. 274.

95 Eur. Alc. 119; Ar. Av. 1232.

96 Apollon: Aesch. Pers. 205; Eur. Andr. 1102, 1138 and 1240; Eur. Supp. 1200; Eur. Phoen. 284. Zeus: Eur. Heracl. 121, 127 and 341; Eur. HF 922. Demeter and Kore: Eur. Supp. 33 and 290 (only Demeter).

97 Daimones: Eur. fr. 628 (Nauck 1889). Erinyes: Aesch. Eum. 108. The escharai which Athena promises the Eumenides in Aesch. Eum. 806 seem to refer to household hearths, rather than to altars used for sacrifices.

98 Eur. Alc. 119–121; Eur. Andr. 1100–1103.

99 For the translation of bouthytos as “for hecatombs”, see Casabona 1966, 140–142.

100 Eur. HF 926–930.

101 In Eur. Heracl. 121, 127 and 341, the supplicants have gathered around an altar of Zeus in his sanctuary. The hestia of the house could also be used for the same purpose (see Nilsson 1967, 78).

102 Eur. Andr. 1138; Phoen. 274.

103 Od. 7.100; Chantraine 1968–80, s.v. bwmóv; Casevitz 1988, 57–58.

104 Pouilloux & Roux 1963, 102–122. For the interpretation that Neoptolemos was killed by the hestia inside the temple, see Fontenrose 1960, 213–218.

105 Dem. [In Neaer.] 116. This eschara has often been identified with a Roman construction of brick; see Clinton 1988, 72 with n. 35; Scullion 1994, 113, n. 124; Mylonas 1961, 168–170; Kourouniotes 1936, 41–42. Earlier remains on the same spot consist of a 6th-century, polygonal wall and part of a curved wall (8th–7th century BC?), neither of which seems to have had a function similar to the Roman construction, see Mazarakis Ainian 1997, 96 and fig. 183, who suggests that the curved wall may have been part of a peribolos or temenos enclosure.

106 Lykourgos fr. 6.10 (Conomis 1970), ap. Harp. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Dindorf 1853). Phot. Lex. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Theodoridis 1982–98, E 2042), and Suda s.v. ἐσχάρα (Adler 1928–35, E 3242), follow Harp. but have lumped together Lykourgos and Ammonios. On the identification of the priestess, see Kunst 1927, 2457.

107 FGrHist 323 F 1 (ap. Anecd. Bekk. s.v. Ἄγραι [Bekker 1814, vol. 1, 326–327]). For the identification of the archaeological remains of the sanctuary of Poseidon Helikonios, see Travlos 1971, fig. 154, no. 150, and fig. 379, no. 150.

108 Cyr. 8.3.12.

109 FGrHist 84 F 7: βωμοὺς θεῶν φησιν, ἐσχάρας δε ἡρώων. Neanthes is also quoted by Eustathius, Od. 6.305 (Stallbaum 1825–26, vol. 1, 255, lines 36–37), as saying “bomoi are for the daimones and escharai for the heroes”.

110 The quotation from Neanthes comes from his Κατά πόλί,ν μυθικά, an account of the mythical history of Kyzikos (see Laqueur 1935, 2108–2110). The precise identity of the writings of Neanthes is unclear and his accuracy is considered as unreliable (see OCD3 s.v. Neanthes; commentary to FGrHist 84 F 7 by Jacoby, p. 144–149). This particular quotation is preserved in the Περὶ ὁμοίων ϰαὶ διαφόρων λέξεων (abbreviated Ammon. Diff.), probably dating to the 1st-2nd centuries AD (see FGrHist 361, commentary p. 83, n. 1). This latter work was originally written by Herennios Philon and is known in various versions by various authors, for example, Eranios Philon, Ptolemaios Askalonites and Symeon; see KlPauly 1 (1964), s.v. Ammonios 4; Neue Pauly 1 (1996), s.v. Ammonios 4; Heylbut 1887, 398, s.v. βωµóς; Tresp 1914, 90–91; Dihle 1959, 1863. The Peri homoion kai diaphoron lexeon was reworked by a certain Ammonios, probably during the Byzantine period, and this is the version that has been preserved; see KlPauly 1 (1964), s.v. Ammonios 4; Neue Pauly 1 (1996), s.v. Ammonios 4. For the edition of this text, see Nickau 1966.

111 On the Neoplatonic view of the cosmos, see Levy 1978, 509–512 and Nilsson 1950, 412–419, esp. 414. On the role of the heroes in the Neoplatonic divine hierarchy, see Rodrı´guez Moreno 2000, 91–100; Ramos Jurado 2000, 101–110. The division into Olympian, chthonian and hypochthonian deities (but without any mention of heroes) and their different kinds of sacrificial rituals is laid out in detail in Porph. De phil. 112–121.

112 Ap. Rhod. Argon. 2.1168–1177.

113 FHG III, 136, F 75 (ap. Ath. 11.462b-c). The quote from Polemon by Athenaios is incomplete, which complicates the understanding of the ritual.

114 Strabon 9.2.11. Proposed locations for this eschara are somewhere on the north-western slope of the Acropolis (Keramopoulou 1929, 86–92; Dörpfeld 1937, 14–15 and 106–107; Broneer 1960, 59; Travlos 1971, 91) or to the south-east of the temple of Olympian Zeus in the Ilissos area (Judeich 1931, 386; Wycherley 1959, 68–72).

115 Paus. 4.17.4 and 10.27.2; the later eschara is also called bomos ins the same passage.

116 On the meaning of thylemata, see Casabona 1966, 123–124.

117 AJ 3.149; cf. the use of eschara for a grating in an Epidaurian inscription, Peek 1969, 48, no. 52, lines 15 and 16.

118 For the use of the adjective ἕστιος in the sense τῆς ἑστίας (particular for Heliodoros), see Rattenbury, Lumb & Maillon 1960, vol. 2, 30, n. 2; cf. Aeth. 1.30.5.

119 FGrHist 627 F 2, 34; cf. Rice 1983, 118–119 and 171.

120 18.61.1.

121 AJ 3.148.

122 5.13.9.

123 Paus. 5.13.8–11 and 5.14.8–10. Ash-altars: Olympian Zeus, Olympian Hera and Ge at Olympia, Zeus at Pergamon and Hera on Samos. Altar of blood: Apollon at Didyma.

124 See FGrHist 361 F 1, commentary p. 118–120; Tresp 1914, 91, fr. 48.

125 1st-2nd century AD, but preserved in a later reworking; see the discussion above, in connection with Neanthes of Kyzikos, p. 45, n. 110.

126 FGrHist 361 F 1a (ap. Ammon. Diff. s.v. t [Nickau 1966, no. 113]): βωμοὶ μὲν γὰρ oἱ τὰς προσβὰσεις ἔχοντες, ἐσχάρα δέ ἡ πρòς τὴν βιωτιϰὴν γινομένη χρῆσιν ἐπὶ γῆς τὰ δὲ πολυτελῆ ἑστίαι, τò δὲ μέγαρον ἡ περιωιϰοδομημένη ἑστία, ἔνθα τὰ μυστιϰὰ τῆς Δήμητρος. Ammonios is quoted also by Harpokration, Photios and Suda, who give slightly different information.

127 This context echoes Soph. Ant. 1016.

128 Ptol. Ascal. s.v. βωμός (Heylbut 1887, 398). For the date, see OCD3 s.v. Ptolemaeus 1.

129 See supra, p. 45, n. 110; cf. KlPauly 4 (1974), s.v. Ptolemaios 4.

130 Onom. 1.7–8 (Bethe 1900–31): ἐσχάρα δ' ἰδίϰῶς δοϰεῖ μὲν ὧδε ὀνομάζεσθαι, ἑφ' ἧς τοĩς ἥρωσιν ἀποθύομεν.

131 Schol. Eur. Phoen. 274 (Schwartz 1887): ἐσχάρα μέν ϰυρίως ὀ ἐπὶ γῆς βόθρος ἔνθα ἐναγίζουσι, τοĩς ϰάτω ἐρχομένοις' βωμòς δὲ ἐν οἷς θύουσι, τοĩς ἐπουρανίοις θεοĩς.

132 See LSJ s.v. 1. For the terms bothros and enagizein in this scholion, see below, pp. 71–72 and pp. 114–121.

133 Ap. Soph. Lex. Hom. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Bekker 1833, 78); Harp. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Dindorf 1853), quoting Ammonios; Ptol. Ascal. s.v. βωμóς (Heylbut 1887, 398); Hsch. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Latte 1953–66, E 6446); Phot. Lex. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Theodoridis 1982–98, E 2041–2042); Eust. Il. 10.418 (van der Valk 1979, vol. 3, 101, lines 14–15); Eust. Od. 6.305 (Stallbaum 1825–26, vol. 1, 255, lines 32–34) and 7.153 (vol. 1, 270, line 33); Anecd. Bekk. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Bekker 1814, vol. 1, 256–257); schol. Eur. Phoen. 274 (Schwartz 1887).

134 Steph. Byz. s.v. βωμoí (Meinecke 1849); Phot. Lex. s.v. ἐσχάρα E (Theodoridis 1982–98, 2041–2042); Anecd. Bekk. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Bekker 1814, vol. 1, 256–257); schol. Eur. Phoen. 274 (Schwartz 1887).

135 Ap. Soph. Lex. Hom. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Bekker 1833, 78); Hsch. s.v. ἐσχάρα E (Latte 1953–66, 6446); schol. Hom. Od. 23.71 (Dindorf 1855). On the other hand, a scholion on Ap. Rhod. Argon. 2.1172 (Wendel 1935) says that an eschara is a bomos built of small stones.

136 Harp. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Dindorf 1853), quoting Ammonios; Steph. Byz. s.v. βωμoí (Meinecke 1849); Phot. Lex. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Theodoridis 1982–98, E2042), quoting Lykourgos and Ammonios; Suda s.v. ἐσχάρα (Adler 1928–35, E 3242), quoting Lykourgos and Ammonios; Etym. Magn. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Gaisford 1848); Eust. Ll. 10.418 (van der Valk 1979, vol. 3, 101, line 15); schol. Eur. Phoen. 274 (Schwartz 1887).

137 Square base: schol. Eur. Phoen. 274 (Schwartz 1887); rounded shape: Phot. Lex. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Theodoridis 1982–98, E 2041); Anecd. Bekk. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Bekker 1814, vol. 1, 256).

138 Hsch. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Latte 1953–66, E 6447); Etym. Gud. s.v. ἐστα 1 (Sturz 1818, 213); Eust. Od. 6.305 (Stallbaum 1825–26, vol. 1, 255, line 33).

139 Ap. Soph. Lex. Hom. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Bekker 1833, 78); Harp. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Dindorf 1853), quoting Ammonios; Hsch. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Latte 1953–66, E6446); Phot. Lex. s.v. ἐστα (Theodoridis 1982–98, E 2025) and s.v. ἐσχάρα (E 2041); Etym. Magn. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Gaisford 1848); Eust. Il. 10.418 (van der Valk 1979, vol. 3, 101, lines 8–10); Eust. Od. 6.305 (Stallbaum 1825–26, vol. 1, 255, line 33) and 14.159 (vol. 2, 68, lines 11–15); Anecd. Bekk. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Bekker 1814, vol. 1, 256–257); schol. Aesch. Sept. 73i (Smith 1982).

140 Cf. the cooking pits found near the Tholos in the Athenian Agora (Thompson 1940, 25–27, 16, fig. 13, and 41, fig. 32); for barbecue sites located directly on the ground, see Bergquist 1988, 30–31 (Kato Syme); Bergquist 1992, 46 (Selinous, Naxos and Metaponto). The stone lined pits found in many sanctuaries and usually considered as bothroi or escharai for chthonian sacrifices, may also have been cooking pits. See, for example, the seven pits from the late 4th century BC pre-monumental phase of the sanctuary of Poseidon and Amphitrite on Tenos (Étienne & Braun 1986, 28 and 187–188, pls. 3–4:1 and 68:3).

141 Schol. Aesch. Pers. 203 (Dindorf 1851); schol. Aesch. Pers. 203 (Massa Positano 1963, scholia); schol. Aesch. Pers. 205b (Massa Positano 1963, glossemata); schol. Eur. Phoen. 274 (Schwartz 1887).

142 Anecd. Bekk. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Bekker 1814, vol. 1, 256–257); schol. Opp. Hal. 5.307 (Bussemaker 1849).

143 Cf. Hsch. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Latte 1953–66, E 6447); Phot. Lex. s.v. ἐσχάρα and ἐσχάρας (Theodoridis 1982–98, E 2041–2042 and 2044); Eust. Il. 10.418 (van der Valk 1979, vol. 3, 101, lines 12–17); Eust. Od. 7.153 (Stallbaum 1825–26, vol. 1, 270, lines 34–36); schol. Ar. Eq. 1286a (Jones & Wilson 1969, vet.). For the earlier sources, see pp. 25–26.

144 Poll. Onom. 1.8 (Bethe 1900–31).

145 Etym. Magn. s.v. ἐσχάρα (Gaisford 1848); cf. Eur. HF 922.

146 Eust. Il. 10.418 (van der Valk 1979, vol. 3, 101, line 13); Eust. Od. 6.305 (Stallbaum 1825–26, vol. 1, 255, line 37).

147 Etym. Gud. s.v. ἐστα 1 (Sturtz 1818, 213).

148 Hellmann 1992, 75–76; in some cases the whole altar was covered with stucco or plaster or repainted.

149 Serpentite: Heraion on Samos (Schleif 1933, 196 and 210). Gneiss: altar dedicated to Hera in the sanctuary of Poseidon, Thasos, my Fig. 3 (Bon & Seyrig 1929, 333–337, fig. 9). Terracotta: altar in the sanctuary of Apollon, Kyrene (Parisi Presicce 1991, 165 and pl. 51b-c).

150 No such metal trays are preserved, but occasionally altars show discolourations on the sides where rain water has dripped from the metal onto the stone, as on a small altar from Paros (see Ohnesorg 1991, 121 and pl. 25b). Other altars have a central cutting in the rough upper surface, where this metal pan could have been fastened, for example, the altar of Aphrodite Hegemone, Demos and the Graces from Athens (see Travlos 1971, figs. 103–104).

151 I have treated the depictions of upper parts of altars elsewhere (Ekroth 2001). This section is largely based on that study. For vase-paintings showing altar covers made of metal, see ibid.

152 This particular function as fire covers for altars may perhaps explain why some escharai listed among various objects from the Chalkotheke on Delos are labelled as πυρϰαιός (IG XI:2 145, 58; 161 B, 124; 164 B, 12 and 36; 199 B, 76 and 89, all dating from the late 4th to the early 3rd century BC) or as as ἐφ' ὧν πῦρ ϰαίεν (IG II2 120, 46; 1440, 53, both mid 4th century BC).

153 From the Chalkotheke on Delos, IG II2 1440, lines 53–54: ἐσχάραι χαλϰαĩ], ἐφ' ὧν π[ῦρ] ϰάειν, οὐ [χὑγιεĩς ; cf. line 59: ἐσχαρίδες χαλϰαĩ οὐχ ¸ ὑγιεĩς, mid 4th century.

154 Furthermore, the actual ash-altar/eschara in the Archegesion dates to the late Hellenistic or even Roman period, see above, p. 37, n. 79. It may of course have had an Archaic/Classical predecessor.

155 For the archaeological remains of altars in hero-cults, see Ekroth 1998.

156 The heroes occupying a position separate from that of the gods is a thought developed particularly in the Neoplatonic texts, see Rodrı´guez Moreno 2000, 95–100; Ramos Jurado 2000, 103–110.

157 The term enagizein for sacrifices in hero-cults became more common in the Roman period (see below, pp. 90–91).

158 For references, see below, pp. 80–81, Enagisterion.

159 For this monument, see Pariente 1992, 195–225, esp. 195–197, and pl. 35. The pit measures 6.50 × 2.60 m and is 0.60 m deep. See also the Roman “eschara” of brick in the courtyard at Eleusis, supra, p. 44, n. 105.

160 Cf. Chadwick 1986, 515–516.

161 Deneken 1886–90, 2497; Rohde 1925, 50, n. 53; Pfister 1909–12, 474–475; Stengel 1910, 151; Eitrem 1912, 1123; Stengel 1920, 16–17; Nilsson 1967, 78; Burkert 1983, 9, n. 41; Burkert 1985, 199.

162 Pfister 1909–12, 474–475; Burkert 1983, 9, n. 41; Burkert 1985, 199.

163 Deneken 1886–90, 2497; Pfister 1909–12, 474–475; Stengel 1910, 151; Foucart 1918, 99; Rudhardt 1958, 129; Burkert 1983, 9, n. 41; Burkert 1985, 199; Riethmüller 1999, 137.

164 Nilsson 1967, 78, 180 and 186.

165 Deneken 1886–90, 2497; Pfister 1909–12, 474–475; Riethmüller 1999, 123–143.

166 A third case is to be found in a Christian inscription from Sicily dating to the Roman period, in which bothros is used for the grave (IG XIV 238).

167 IG XI:2 235, 3.

168 [χ]οĩρος ὥστ[ε τó ἱερòν ϰαθάρασθαι?] – .

169 Temple of Apollon: Bruneau 1970, 93; IG XI:2 203 A, 32–57. Thesmophorion: Bruneau 1970, 286–288; ID 440 A, 38–39 and 48.

170 Porph. De antr. nymph. 6, speaks of bothroi and megara as two different kinds of installations used in the cult of the gods of the underworld: ὑποχ θονίοίς δὲ βóθρους ϰαι μέγαρα ἱδρύσαντο . It seems unlikely that bothroi could be used as another term for megara, the holes known from sanctuaries of Demeter, in which piglets were deposited during the Thesmophoria (see Henrichs 1969, 31–37). On the megara and the deposition of piglets at Eleusis, see Clinton 1988, 72–79.

171 Krauss 1980, no. 11, line 25, the new edition and reading of the text followed here. Previous editions: Kaibel 1878, no. 1034; Buresch 1889, 81–86. Cf. Parke 1985, 152–153.

172 The epithet E¹qaíthv usually refers to Hades, see Buresch 1889, 84, line 23; LSJ s.v. Krauss 1980, 76 (line 24) and 79 (commentary), suggests Dionysos on the basis of the sacrificial animal.

173 Hom. Il. 17.58; Od. 6.92; Arist. Hist. an. 579a; Metaph. 1025a. Just like eschara, the term is found in medical contexts, and there bothros can mean a depression in the heart (Hippoc. Corde 5); cf. Durling 1993, s.v. βóθριον, in the plural referring to the sockets of the teeth.

174 Xen. Oec. 19.7 and 19.13.

175 Xen. An. 5.8.9.

176 Hymn. Hom. Merc. 112; Hippoc. Nat. mul. 109.

177 Od. 10.517–542, esp. 10.517; 11.23–50, esp. 11.25, 11.36, 11.42, and 11.95.

178 Od. 11.35–36; the animals may have been killed by cutting off their heads completely (apodeirotomein) rather than simply slitting their throats, see discussion, pp. 174–175.

179 Ion fr. 54 (Nauck 1889). The context deals with the mourning habits of the Egyptians, Syrians and Lydians.

180 Lycoph. Alex. 684; Paus. 10.29.8; Lucian De astr. 24; Philostr. Her. 43.14.

181 Lucian Menip. 9.

182 Philostr. V A 4.16.

183 Argon. 3.1026–1041 and 3.1194–1222.

184 Orph. Argon. 950–987. For the date and the relationship with Apollonios Rhodios, see West 1983, 37.

185 Hekate: Lucian Philops. 14. Kore: Paus. 2.22.3. Hypochthonioi theoi: Porph. De antr. nymph. 6; De phil. 118. Chthonioi theoi: Porph. De phil. 114; Philostr. V A 6.11. Any god to whom it is necessary to sacrifice: Ael. Arist. Hier. log. II 27.

186 Pelops: Paus. 5.13.2. Agamedes: Paus. 9.37.7 and 9.39.6. Achilles: Philost. Her. 53.11. Heroes in the garden of Akademos: Heliod. Aeth. 1.17.5; these heroes have been identified with either Harmodios and Aristogeiton (cf. Ath. pol. 58.1) or the dead in the Persian wars (see Parker 1996, 137).

187 CAF, vol. 3, Adespota, fr. 128 (Kock 1888), from New Comedy; Lucian Charon 22; Lucian Philops. 14; Heliod. Aeth. 6.14.3–6; Orph. Argon. 572.

188 Paus. 2.12.1. The association of the winds with bothroi may be due to the tradition that the winds resided in a bothros in Thrace (see schol. Ap. Rhod. Argon. 1.826b [Wendel 1935]; Hampe 1967, 9–10).

189 Lucian Charon 22; cf. CAF, vol. 3, Adespota, fr. 128 (Kock 1888); Orph. Argon. 569–575.

190 Philops. 14.

191 6.14.3–6.

192 Ap. Rhod. Argon. 3.1211–1220; Lucian Philops. 14; Orph. Argon. 966–982.

193 Paus. 9.39.6 and 9.37.7.

194 Philostr. Her. 53.11–12. Cf. Philostr. V A 4.16: Apollonios can get into contact with Achilles, even if he does not dig a bothros or tempt the souls with the blood of sheep.

195 Paus. 5.13.2. This possibility will be further discussed below, p. 178, in connection with Pind. Ol. 1.90.

196 Ap. Rhod. Argon. 3.1026–1041 and 3.1194–1214; Orph. Argon. 950–987.

197 Ael. Arist. Hier. log. II 26–27.

198 Philostr. V A 8.7.9.

199 Paus. 2.12.1.

200 Ap. Rhod. Argon. 3.1035–1036, 3.1199 and 3.1210; CAF, vol. 3, Adespota fr. 128 (Kock 1888); Lucian Charon 22; Lucian Menip. 9; Heliod. Aeth. 6.14.3–6; presumably also Orph. Argon. 572–575.

201 Blood poured into the bothros: Ap. Rhod. Argon. 3.1208; Porph. De phil. 114; Philostr. Her. 53.11–12, digging of bothroi and slaughtering of a bull (esphatton), the whole ceremony being designated by the term entemnein. Sprinkling of the blood around it: Lucian Menip. 9; cf. Heliod. Aeth. 6.14.3–6, the woman performing the sacrifice sprays her own blood on the fires near the bothros.

202 Aeth. 1.17.5.

203 Paus. 5.13.2. For discussion of the rituals of Pelops, see below, pp. 190–192. On the dining on the meat from this sacrifice, see Ekroth 1999, 154.

204 Paus. 9.39.6.

205 Hier. log. II 27.

206 Heliod. Aeth. 6.14.3–6; Orph. Argon. 957–958.

207 2.22.3

208 For megara and torches, see Burkert 1985, 242–243; Clinton 1988, 77.

209 Ap. Rhod. Argon. 3.1032–1034.

210 Heliod. Aeth. 1.17.5; Philostr. Her. 53.11.

211 CAF, vol. 3, Adespota, fr. 128 (Kock 1888); Lucian Charon 22.

212 Orph. Argon. 571–572.

213 Orph. Argon. 960–963.

214 Ap. Rhod. Argon. 3.1026–1041 and 3.1194–1214; Lucian Menip. 9; Ael. Arist. Hier. log. II 26–27; Heliod. Aeth. 6.14.3–6, on the battlefield; Orph. Argon. 950–951, at the enclosure of the dragon guarding the Golden Fleece.

215 CAF, vol. 3, Adespota, fr. 128 (Kock 1888); Lucian Charon 22; Philostr. Her. 53.11; Orph. Argon. 568–572.

216 Lucian Philops. 14.

217 Old woman: Heliod. Aeth. 6.14.3–6.

218 Paus. 2.12.1 (winds); 2.22.3 (Kore); 9.39.6 (Agamedes); Heliod. Aeth. 1.17.5 (heroes in the garden of Akademos).

219 Philostr. Her. 53.11.

220 Paus. 5.13.2; see below, pp. 190–192.

221 Heliod. Aeth. 1.17.5; Paus. 9.39.6. The term can also be used for a cave, such as the one located under the temple of Apollon at Hierapolis, Phrygia, and from which poisonous fumes emerged (Damaskios, Vita Isidori, fr. 131 [Zintzen 1967]). The use of bothros for a natural hollow is rare and in most cases, no matter the context, the terms refers to a hollow created by man.

222 Heliod. Aeth. 1.17.5.

223 Philostr. Her. 53.11–13.

224 Paus. 9.39.6.

225 Paus. 5.13.2–4.

226 Eust. Od. 10.517 (Stallbaum 1825–26, vol. 1, 393, lines 16–29); schol. Hom. Od. 10.517 (Dindorf 1855).

227 Hsch. s.v. ϰοτυλίσϰος (Latte 1953–66, K 3818).

228 Schol. Eur. Phoen. 274 (Schwartz 1887); see above, p. 50.

229 One of the basic characteristics of the term eschara, no matter what the context, is an indication of it being hollow or surrounding something (see above, p. 26).

230 On Homer as normative for later conceptions of the Underworld, see Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, 15–16. Heubeck & Hoekstra 1989, 71, lines 516–540, suggest that the poet in the Nekyia combines conceptions drawn from different spheres in order to create something new. On the idea that the blood ritual was taken over from the practices of oracular cult, see Page 1955, 24–25; Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, 83. On possible Near Eastern influences on the necromancy described in the Nekyia, see Johnston 1999, 88–90.

231 The other terms for pit, βοθύνος, λάϰϰος or ὄρυγμα, all occur later, not before the 5th century BC (see LSJ s.v.).

232 Klaros: Krauss 1980, no. 11; Porph. De phil. 112–121; cf. Philostr. V A 8.7.9.

233 Deneken 1886–90, 2505; Pfister 1909–12, 466 and 477; Eitrem 1912, 1123; Foucart 1918, 98; Stengel 1920, 143 and 149; Rohde 1925, 116 and 140, n. 15; Méautis 1940, 16; Chantraine & Masson 1954, 100–101; Rudhardt 1958, 238; Casabona 1966, 204; Burkert 1983, 9, n. 41; Burkert 1985, 194 and 205.

234 Deneken 1886–90, 2505–2506; Stengel 1920, 143 and 149; Rudhardt 1958, 238–239; Casabona 1966, 209; Burkert 1983, 9, n. 41; Burkert 1985, 200.

235 Pfister 1909–12, 467; Eitrem 1912, 1123; Rohde 1925, 116 and 140, n. 15; Nagy 1979, 308, § 10n4; Burkert 1983, 9, n. 41.

236 Casabona 1966, 85 and 204.

237 Stengel 1920, 143; Nock 1944, 593; Chantraine & Masson 1954, 100; Casabona 1966, 208–209; Burkert 1983, 9, n. 41; Burkert 1985, 200.

238 Deneken 1886–90, 2505–2506; Pfister 1909–12, 477; Stengel 1920, 143 with n. 8; Rudhardt 1958, 239; Burkert 1966, 103; Parker 1983, 329; Burkert 1985, 194; Parker (forthcoming).

239 Nock 1944, 592–593; Chantraine & Masson 1954, 101–102; Casabona 1966, 206; Nilsson 1967, 186.

240 Pfister 1909–12, 474–477; Rohde 1925, 116; Chantraine & Masson 1954, 101; Rudhardt 1958, 239.

241 Ar. Tag. fr. 504, line 12 (PCG III:2, 1984).

242 IG II2 1006, 26 and 69; cf. pp. 33–34; Mikalson 1998, 245.

243 In line 26, , ἐνήγισαν is completely preserved.

244 The main sanctuary of Amphiaraos was at Oropos (see Petrakos 1968; Petropoulou 1981, 57–63; Schachter 1981, 19–25; Parker 1996, 146–149), but he was also worshipped at Athens, Rhamnous and Piraeus (see Kearns 1989, 147). On Aias, see Deubner 1969, 228; Kearns 1989, 141–142; Parker 1996, 153–154; Mikalson 1998, 183–184.

245 On the Amphiareia, see Parker 1996, 149 and 247; Pélékidis 1962, 253; on the sacrifices, see Petropoulou 1981, 49, lines 25–36.

246 Parker 1996, 153–154; Pélékidis 1962, 247–249.

247 Loraux 1986, 39–41, considers the war dead as heroes who received time but does not explicitly say whether those at Marathon received a cult; Jacoby 1944, 39 and 47 with n. 49, classifies all war dead as heroes and dates the institution of the cult of the Marathonomachoi to 490/489 BC; Whitley 1994, 216–217, speaks of heroic honours given to the Marathonian war dead, at least in the first century BC; Welwei 1991, 62, argues that they were not considered to be heroes before Pausanias’ time.

248 Loraux 1986, 38–41, argues that a particular characteristic of the ancient sources that speak of the war dead, in particular Thucydides, is that they suppress the element of cult in favour of politics; cf. Hornblower 1991, 292; Stupperich 1977, 62. Parker 1996, 132 and 135–137, points out that, even if the war dead were not explicitly called heroes, their cultic honours were indistinguishable from those of the heroes. On the Athenian 5th-century war dead being heroized, see also Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, 194.

249 Pélékidis 1962, 183–209; Nilsson 1955, 17–29; Mikalson 1998, 181–185 and 246–249.

250 Jacoby 1944, 66; cf. Pélékidis 1962, 211–256; Mikalson 1998, 246–249. Epigraphical evidence: Reinmuth 1955 (complements IG II2 1032), IG II2 1006; 1008; 1009; 1011; 1027; 1028; 1029; 1030; 1039; 1040; 1041; 1042; 1043, dating from 127/6 to 38/7 BC.

251 IG VII 53 = Kaibel 1878, no. 461. Cf. Wade-Gery 1933, 95–97; Page 1981, 213–215, no. 16.

252 Wade-Gery 1933, 96, is sceptical of the attribution to Simonides. Page 1981, 213–215, dates the epigram to the early 5th century BC and excludes the possibility of Simonides as the author.

253 According to IG VII 53, 13, the stone has ENNTZEN, read as ἐν[ή]γ[ι]ζεν, also followed by Kaibel 1878, no. 461, and Lattimore 1962, 126–127. Wade-Gery 1933, 97, suggests εναγιζεν and Campbell 1991, 534 (Simonides, no. 16), ἐναγίζει. Page 1981, 213, n. 2, says that, while the stone has εναγιζεν, either ἐνήγιζεν or ἐναγίζει must be intended and that the context is much in favour of the present tense.

254 Wade-Gery 1933, 96; cf. Campbell 1991, 532, n. 1.

255 OGIS, no. 764, line 16 = IGR IV 294. Schröder 1904, 152–160, no. 1, dated the text to the reign of Attalos III, 139–133 BC. The inscription has now been dated down to 69 BC (see Jones 1974, 183–205; cf. Gauthier 1985, 47–48).

256 On Diodoros Pasparos, see Kienast 1970, 224–225; Jones 1974; Gauthier 1985, 62–63.

257 Orlandos 1959, 162–173, esp. 170, line 13 (= SEG 23, 1968, 207); Robert J. & L. 1964–67, 308–311, no. 200; for a new edition of the text including a new fragment (irrelevant to Aristomenes), see Migeotte 1985, 597–607.

258 Mansel 1957, 407–409, no. 4 (= SEG 16, 1959, 418); Robert J. & L. 1959–63, 59–61, no. 252. The inscription dates to c. 100 BC, but the sarcophagus belongs to a group of sarcophagi reused for burials down to the 2nd century AD and decorated with later reliefs.

259 Frisch 1978, no. 23 = CIG 3645. This inscription is identical with the wrongly catalogued CIG 1976 from Macedonia.

260 Drew-Bear 1980, 533–536, esp. 534, line 2 = SEG 30, 1980, 1387 = Meriç et al. 1981, no. 3803b = Laum 1914, vol. 2, no. 82.

261 IG IV 203 = Gegan 1989, 350.

262 Broneer 1959, 312–319; Broneer 1973, 99–112; Gebhard 1993a, 89–94; Gebhard 1993b, 170–172; Gebhard & Reese (forthcoming); cf. Piérart 1998, 88–104.

263 Gebhard 1993a, 85, 89 and 93.

264 Broneer 1959, 313; Gebhard 1993a, 85 with n. 26; the bones have been re-studied by David Reese, see Gebhard & Reese (forthcoming).

265 On the analogy with θυσιαστήριον, meaning altar (Joseph. AJ 8.4.1), derived from θυσιάζειν, which replaces thyein in koine, see Casabona 1966, 139. The archaeological discoveries invalidate Fernand Robert’s suggestions (1939, 178–179) that the enagisterion was the cave-like structure under the round temple of Palaimon, where a blood libation took place. The bull from which the blood came was, according to Robert’s interpretation, killed and bled at another location and the meat burnt elsewhere, probably on a bomos. Similarly, Casevitz’s interpretation (1988, 58) of enagisterion as an altar where the dead were honoured is not compatible with the archaeological findings at Isthmia.

266 Philostr. Imag. 2.16.3. The Palaimonion was possibly in use into the 3rd century AD, and, even if Philostratos did not see the rituals himself, it cannot have been difficult to obtain information on how they were performed.

267 Gebhard 1993a, 79.

268 Palaimon is mentioned in a fragmentary ode by Pindar, but no archaeological traces of a cult have been found before the Roman period (see Gebhard 1993b, 170–172 and 177, n. 71; Gebhard & Dickie 1999, 159–165). Gebhard (pers. comm.) refutes the identification of a Classical Palaimonion with three statue bases along the southern side of the earlier racetrack, made by Rupp 1979, 64–72.

269 Cf. Piérart 1998, 106–109.

270 Since non-participation sacrifices are discussed more fully in ch. II, a certain overlap in the treatment of the sources is inevitable.

271 1.167 and 2.44; the latter will be discussed below.

272 This sacrifice is peculiar, since it is hard to picture athletic games and horse-races not being accompanied by dining (and animal sacrifice) of any kind. Fontenrose (1968, 98, n. 38) questioned the authenticity of the oracular response that called for the institution of the cult and suggested that this was an ancient and native Etruscan cult which was later identified by the western Greeks as that of the slain Phokaians.

273 Text after Chambers 1986.

274 At least the sacrifices to Artemis fell on that day and presumably also those to Enyalios; see Rhodes 1981, 650; Deubner 1969, 209; Pritchett 1979, 173–174; Mikalson 1975a, 18 and 50.

275 On which day the commemoration of the war dead fell is not definitely known. Jacoby 1944, 62–65, suggests that it took place at the Genesia on the 5th of Boedromion, a festival which was later called Epitaphia. Deubner 1969, 230, assigns these rituals to the Epitaphia; cf. Rhodes 1981, 651; Pritchett 1979, 183–184.

276 Deletion: Chambers 1986; cf. Poll. Onom. 8.91 (Bethe 1900–31). Emendation: Rhodes 1981, 650–652 emends kai with epi (by analogy with three inscribed bronze vases used as prizes in funerary games for the war dead) and considers the cult of Harmodios and Aristogeiton as distinct from the commemoration of those who had died in war; cf. Loraux 1986, 363, n. 149. Retaining: Pfister 1909–1912, 469; Calabi Limentani 1976, 11 and n. 11. Jacoby 1944, 38, n. 3, retains kai but states that Aristotle does not say that Harmodios and Aristogeiton received enagismata at the same time as the war dead did, and that the games were meant for these two as well, though this may have been possible.

277 Clairmont 1983, 14; Calabi Limentani 1976, 11–12. Deubner 1969, 230, ascribes both the commemoration of the war dead and the sacrifices to Harmodios and Aristogeiton to the Epitaphia, which was held annually at the Kerameikos. According to Pausanias (1.29.15), Harmodios and Aristogeiton were buried in the Kerameikos, but it is not known whether this burial was a cenotaph or a real grave, since the fate of their bodies in 513 BC is unknown (see Jacoby 1944, 38, n. 3, and 50, n. 64).

278 Loraux 1986, 38; Stupperich 1977, 54–55; cf. Seaford 1994, 121.

279 Pl. Menex. 244a; Dem. Epitaph. 36. On the unwillingness of the literary sources to elaborate on the cult of the war dead, see above, p. 76, n. 248. Therefore, the use of the terminology should perhaps not be pressed too far.

280 Mir. ausc. 840a.

281 On the opposition of thyein and enagizein, see Casabona 1966, 84–85 and 337.

282 On the Phoenician and Thasian contexts of the cults of Herakles, see Bonnet 1988, esp. 346–371.

283 Od. 11.601–603; Pind. Nem. 3.22. It has been suggested that Od. 11.602–604 is a 6th century interpolation, since the concept of Herakles’ apotheosis is post-Homeric, see Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, 86–87; see also Petzl 1969, 28–41; Heubeck & Hoekstra 1989, 114, lines 601–627.

284 On the connection between the manner of Herakles’ death and the sacrificial rituals, see Nilsson 1922; Nilsson 1923.

285 Vandiver 1991, 93–97 and 136.

286 Vandiver 1991, 110.

287 Kurtz & Boardman 1971, 147.

288 Dieuchidas FGrHist 485 F 7. Dieuchidas (or rather Athenaios [6.262a] who is quoting him) further says that freemen continued to have this function Çnt.jusíýtoûFórbantov. The use of thysia could be taken as an indication that dining had a place in the continuous rituals performed to Phorbas; see Nock 1944, 580, n. 24. However, according to Diod. Sic. 5.58.5, Phorbas received heroic honours after his death and the dining would then have formed a part of the hero-cult of Phorbas rather than of the funerary cult.

289 Kleidemos FGrHist 323 F 14; McInerney 1994, 22. The passage concerns the ordinary dead (see Jacoby’s commentary to FGrHist 323 F 14) and not heroes, as Kearns 1989, 3–4, assumes.

290 Isae. 6.51 and 6.65.

291 Ar. Tag. fr. 504, lines 12–14 (PCG III:2, 1984): θύομεν † ατοĩσι τοĩς ἐναγίσμασιν ὥσπερ θεοĩσι, ϰαὶ χοάς γε χεόμενοι, αἰτούμεθ' αὐτοὺς δεῦρ' ἀνιέναι τγαθά.

292 Klearchos fr. 58 (Wehrli 1969).

293 Diphilos fr. 37 (PCG V, 1986).

294 Parker (forthcoming) compares enagizein to hagizein and kathagizein which both seem to refer to the offerings being wholly destroyed, either by fire or in some other way.

295 The category “hero” is here chosen from the Greek point of view to facilitate the comparison of the chronological and geographical spread of the material, although there is no direct Roman equivalent to the Greek heroes and hero-cults. See further discussion below, p. 106 esp. n. 372.

296 For the references, see Tables 14–20, and for Pausanias, see also Ekroth 1999, 145–158.

297 Ekroth 1999, 147–149; cf. Pirenne-Delforge 2001, 125. Taphos: 2.20.3; 4.32.3; 6.21.9; 7.17.8; 7.24.1; 9.18.3; 10.24.6. Mnema: 1.4.4; 4.32.3; 5.4.4; 6.21.9; 6.21.11; 7.17.8; 7.17.13–14; 7.19.10; 7.20.9: 7.24.1; 8.14.9–10; 9.5.14; 9.18.3; 10.24.6. Polyandrion: 8.41.1. Choma ges: 6.21.9 Burial/bones: 3.19.3; 4.32.3; 5.4.4; 8.14.9–10; 8.14.11; 8.23.7; 9.38.5. For the exceptions (1.41.9, 2.3.7 and 6.20.15–20), see Ekroth 1999, 155–156. Pausanias of course also mentions burials and tombs of heroes without commenting on the sacrificial rituals.

298 Ekroth 1999, 148–149; cf. Pirenne-Delforge 2001, 127–128. Hieron: 1.44.5; 3.20.8; 4.30.3. Temenos: 2.32.1; 3.13.7; 5.13.1–3. Naos: 2.32.1; 9.39.4. Alsos: 9.39.4. Heroon: 1.42.7. Kenon erion: 6.20.17. Bomos: 1.26.5; 6.20.15. Bothros: 5.13.2; 9.39.6.

299 Diod. Sic. 17.17.3; cf. Strabon 13.1.32; Cass. Dio Epit. 78.16.7 and Philostr. V A 4.16.

300 Philostr. Her. 52.3 and 53.11–13.

301 Paus. 1.4.4 and 10.24.6; Heliod. Aeth. 3.1.1.-3.6.1, esp. 3.5.2.

302 Hippoc. [Ep.] 27 (Littré 1839–61, vol. 9, 414).

303 Sopater Diair. zet. 238.

304 Plut. Vit. Arist. 21.2; De malign. Her. 857f.

305 Strabon 6.1.15: at Heraklea, a city founded by the Pylians, the Neleids received an enagismos. Paus. 3.1.8: Theras worshipped on Thera; Paus. 9.18.4, the oikist Pionis at Pioniai, Mysia, from whose grave smoke rose by itself. On the graves in the cults of oikists, see Malkin 1987, 200–203.

306 Andriskos FGrHist 500 F 1. For the conjecture of probata instead of panta suggested by Rohde, see FGrHist 500 F 1, commentary.

307 Plut. Vit. Alex. 72.3–4.

308 On enagismos referring to the killing of humans in connection with a burial: Plutarch (Vit. Pyrrh. 31.1) speaks of the enagismos performed by Pyrrhos to his dead son, which was preceded by the killing of a great number of Spartans; cf. App. B Civ. 1.117, where Spartacus sacrificed (ἐνάγισας) 300 Roman prisoners to Krixos after his death.

309 Cass. Dio Epit. 68.30.1.

310 Plataiai: Plut. Vit. Arist. 21.2–5; the war connection is further emphasized by the archon using a sword for the killing of the bull sacrificed; cf. Lib. Decl. 13.59. Sicily: Dion. Hal. Thuc. 18.6. Men of Oresthasion: Paus. 8.41.1. Thersander: Paus. 9.5.14. Chrysos: Hippoc. [Ep.] 27 (Littré 1839–61, vol. 9, 414). Heliodoros (Aeth. 1.17.5) mentions that the polemarchs enagizousin to the heroes at the Academy: these heroes may have been the Athenian war dead (see Parker 1996, 137 with n. 57) or Harmodios and Aristogeiton (cf. Ath. pol. 58.1; Poll. Onom. 8.91 [Bethe 1900–31]).

311 Iphikles: Paus. 8.14.10. Polykrite: Andriskos FGrHist 500 F 1.

312 Diod. Sic. 17.17.3; Strabon 13.1.32.

313 Polyb. 23.10.17. Purifications of the army do not seem to have been performed at the end of a campaign, but only after serious disorders, such as mutiny (see Pritchett 1979, 197–202).

314 Paus. 6.21.9–11.

315 Paus. 8.14.11.

316 Paus. 8.23.7.

317 Ael. VH 5.21.

318 Cf. Johnston 1997, 44–70, esp. 50.

319 Paus. 3.12.7 and 7.24.1.

320 A less serious case concerns the athlete Oibotas, who cursed his fellow Achaians, when he did not receive any special rewards after his victory at Olympia (Paus. 7.17.14). The curse led to a complete lack of Achaian victories, a trend which was not broken until several centuries later, when Oibotas was given a statue at Olympia and enagizein sacrifices at home.

321 Paus. 9.38.5.

322 Paus. 9.13.6.

323 Epaminondas’ sacrifice to Skedasos and his daughters is mentioned in a number of sources. According to Plutarch (Vit. Pel. 21–22, esp. 22.2), Pelopidas enetemon a brown horse on the grave, while in Am. narr. 774d he speaks of a white horse being slaughtered (sphagiazasthai). Xenophon (Hell. 6.4.7) states that the Thebans decorated the monument of the young girls. Diod. Sic. 15.54.2 mentions Skedasos and the tomb of his daughters but gives no details of any sacrifice.

324 Sopater Diair. zet. 238.

325 Nock 1950, 714; Cumont 1949, 332–334; cf. Waszink 1954, 391–394. As a rule, those who died honourably, such as soldiers in battle, did not become biaiothanatoi, see Johnston 1999, 149–150.

326 De malign. Her. 857d.

327 Ptolemaios Chennos 3.12 (Chatzis 1914); Paus. 2.10.1.

328 Hommel 1980; Hedreen 1991, 313–330, with references.

329 Strabon 13.1.32; cf. Julian. Ep. 79 mentioning the Achilleion and the tomb of Achilles at Ilion. Patroklos, Antilochos and Aias also received the same kind of worship. Diod. Sic. (17.17.3) speaks of the enagismata at the tombs of Achilles, Aias and the other heroes, and Cassius Dio (Epit. 78.16.7) mentions enagismata and armed races encircling the tomb of Achilles.

330 Philostr. Her. 53.8–15. In V A 4.16, Philostratos mentions the enagismata performed by the Thessalians and the public thyein sacrifices by the Trojans.

331 Arr. Anab. 7.14.7.

332 The ancient tradition concerning the religious status of Hephaistion varies. Arrianos (Anab. 7.23.6) and Plutarch (Vit. Alex. 72.3) call Hephaistion a hero, Diodorus Siculus (17.115.6) states that Alexander made him a theos paredros and, according to Lucian (Cal. 17), he was a theos paredros and alexikakos.

333 Paus. 3.19.3.

334 Paus. 9.29.6.

335 Paus. 2.11.7. Other cases following the same pattern: enagizein sacrifices to Eurytos at Ochalia instituted at the same time as the thyein sacrifices to the river Pamisos and held before the mystery of the Megaloi Theoi at Andania (Paus. 4.3.10); enagizein sacrifices to Eurypylos at Patras at the festival to Dionysos (Paus. 7.19.10); thysia to Apollon at Delphi being followed by the enagismos and procession to Neoptolemos (Heliod. Aeth. 2.35.2); hecatombs to Sarapis and enagismoi to Alexander (Herodian. Div. Marc. 4.8.7).

336 Apollod. Bibl. 2.5.1.

337 Neoptolemos: Paus. 10.24.6; cf. Paus. 1.4.4 and Heliod. Aeth. 3.5.2–3. Other cases, all mentioned by Pausanias: Phoroneus buried by the sanctuary of Nemean Zeus at Argos (2.20.3); Hyakinthos having his tomb in the altar of Apollon at Amyklai (3.19.3); Preugenes buried in front of the sanctuary of Athena at Patras (7.20.9); Myrtilos buried behind the temple of Hermes at Pheneos (8.14.11).

338 In the Imagines by Philostratos (2.16.3), thyein, thysia and enagismata are all used to describe the sacrifices to Palaimon at Isthmia. Here, thyein and thysia seem to be used in a general sense, meaning any kind of sacrifice, and not in a particular sense, constituting a contrast to enagismata. The sacrificial ritual at the Palaimonion seems to have been an enagizein sacrifice at which the bulls were destroyed in a holocaust (see above, pp. 80–81).

339 Plut. Vit. Thes. 4.1.

340 Plut. Vit. Alex. 72.3–4.

341 Paus. 2.10.1.

342 Philostr. Her. 53.8–13.

343 For the meaning of entemnein, see Casabona 1966, 225–227. On the use of the bothroi, see pp. 60–74.

344 Plut. Vit. Arist. 21.2–5.

345 Jameson 1994a, 38–39, with n. 18.

346 Jameson 1994a, 39, n. 18.

347 Haimakouria is found also in Pindar’s description of the sacrifices to Pelops at Olympia (Ol. 1.90); see below, pp. 171–172.

348 Plut. Vit. Alex. 72.4; Polyb. 23.10.17.

349 Paus. 4.32.3; Ekroth 1999, 151–154; cf. Pirenne-Delforge 2001, 125, who points out that enagizein refers to destruction of the offerings, though not necessarily an animal but, for example, cakes.

350 Heliod. Aeth. 3.1.3–5; 3.5.2–3; 3.6.1; 3.10.1–3. Heliodoros produces other cases of an unusual use of enagizein and enagismos: for a battle-line sacrifice (1.28.1) and a magic sacrifice aimed at resurrecting a corpse (6.13.6).

351 War dead at Plataiai: Plut. Vit. Arist. 21.2. Achilles: Philostr. Her. 53.11. Aristomenes: Paus. 4.32.3. Palaimon: Philostr. Imag. 2.16.3.

352 Herakles: Paus. 2.10.1. Polykrite: Andriskos FGrHist 500 F 1.

353 Strabon 6.3.9.

354 Plut. Vit. Thes. 4.1.

355 Apollod. Bibl. 2.5.1. A hiereion could be any kind of victim.

356 Heliod. Aeth. 3.1.3–4; 3.5.2.

357 Paus. 3.19.3.

358 Philostr. Her. 52.3.

359 Burial: Plut. Vit. Sol. 21.5; Philostr. Her. 31.8; Philostr. Imag. 2.29.4; Heliod. Aeth. 2.18.2. Regular funerary cult: Plut. Quaest. Rom. 270a; Lucian Catapl. 2; Lucian Philops. 21; Lucian De merc. 28; Ael. Arist. Smyrna 8; Philostr. Her. 53.23; Diog. Laert. 10.18; Sopater Diair. zet. 200; Lib. Progym. 2.13.

360 Libations: Lucian Catapl. 2; Lucian Philops. 21. Popana: Lucian Catapl. 2. Wreaths: Lucian Philops. 21; Lucian De merc. 28; Lib. Progym. 2.13.

361 Lucian De merc. 28. Cf. Lucian Catapl. 2: choai, popana and enagismata.

362 Lucian Philops. 21.

363 Plut. Vit. Sol. 21.5; Ruschenbusch 1966, F 72c. Cf. Toher 1991, 161.

364 Lucian De merc. 28.

365 Philostr. Imag. 2.29.4.

366 Sopater Diair. zet. 200, ἐϰ τῶν αἰχμαλώτων ἐπισφάξαι.

367 Plut. Vit. Pyrrh. 31.1. Plutarch’s use here of enagismos for the killing of humans as an act of grief is the same as in Vit. Alex. 72.3 concerning Hephaistion and the slaughter of the Kossaians by Alexander.

368 Ael. Arist. Smyrna 8.

369 Lucian Catapl. 2.

370 Plut. Quaest. Rom. 270a.

371 Heliod. Aeth. 2.18.2.

372 Roman religion seems more or less to have lacked any intermediate categories between gods and men. Prominent dead characters, such as Aeneas or Romulus, were looked upon as gods or identified with gods rather than considered as heroes. Even in the cult of the dead the deceased shared some degree of divinity, see Beard, North & Price 1998, 31 and 140–149, esp. 141. The Greek hero of Plautus’ Aulularia has been replaced by a lar, see Kuiper 1940, 16–17, 36–37 and 39–41; cf. Latte 1960, 99. On the difficulty of transferring Greek religious concepts to the Roman sphere, see Price 1984b on the use of theos in relation to the Roman Imperial cult and Mikalson 1975b on the relation ἡμέρα ἀποφράς dies ater. For a discussion of Plutarch’s view of Hellenic influences on Roman culture, (though not religion), see Swain 1990, 126–145.

373 Pompey: Cass. Dio Epit. 69.11.1; Epit. 76.13.1. Nero: Cass. Dio Epit. 64.7.3. Geta: Cass. Dio Epit. 78.12.6. Vestal Virgins: Plut. Quaest. Rom. 287a; cf. Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.67.4. The war dead: Cass. Dio Epit. 67.9.6; Epit. 68.8.2. Krixos: App. B Civ. 1.117.

374 Vestal Virgins: Plut. Quaest. Rom. 287a; cf. Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.67.4, lack of enagismoi at grave as a means of dishonouring the seduced Vestals. Larentia: Plut. Quaest. Rom. 272e. Cf. Cass. Dio Epit. 69.11.1, enagizein sacrifice at the mnema of Pompey in Egypt.

375 Killed in war: Cass. Dio Epit. 67.9.6; Epit. 68.8.2 (war dead in Dacia); App. B Civ. 1.117 (Krixos). Murdered: Cass. Dio Epit. 69.11.1; Epit. 76.13.1 (Pompey); Cass. Dio Epit. 78.12.6 (Geta). Suicide: Cass. Dio Epit. 64.7.3 (Nero). Buried alive: Plut. Quaest. Rom. 287a (Vestal Virgins). On the Vestal Virgins, see also Cornell 1981, 27–37.

376 App. B Civ. 1.117.

377 Cass. Dio Epit. 78.12.6.

378 Parentalia: Joseph. AJ 19.272; Plut. Vit. Num. 19.5; Plut. Quaest. Rom. 268b and 272d–e; Plut. Vit. Cat. Mai. 15.3. Lemuria: Plut. Quaest. Rom. 285b. For these festivals, see also Latte 1960, 98–99; Beard, North & Price 1998, 50.

379 Plut. Quaest. Rom. 272d.

380 Cass. Dio Epit. 67.9.3.

381 Cass. Dio Epit. 64.13.5.

382 Plut. Vit. Cat. Mai. 15.3.

383 App. Pun. 84 and 89.

384 Heliod. Aeth. 6.13.6–6.14.6. See also discussion above, pp. 66–70.

385 Iambl. VP 27.122.

386 Philostr. Her. 53.5.

387 Paus. 8.34.3. Pirenne-Delforge 2001, 125–127, explains the use of enagizein in this case as related to the goddesses’ divine character being a secondary development.

388 Plut. De Is. et Os. 359b.

389 Heliod. Aeth. 1.28.1. On sacrifices before battle, see Jameson 1991.

390 Heliod. Aeth. 10.16.7.

391 Greg. Nys. Encom. xl mart. II 776M.

392 Hymn. 6.27. In line 29, the text also mentions another completely burnt sacrifice, júh kalá of frankincense. For the term thyos, see Casabona 1966, 109–115.

393 Joseph. BJ 1.32; 1.39; 1.148; 6.98. In AJ 19.272, Josephus uses enagismoi for sacrifices to the dead.

394 Milgrom 1991, 456–457; de Vaux 1960, 364; Lust 1993, 283–284 and 295.

395 BJ 1.148.

396 Porph. De phil. 112. In 114, θυσίας ἐναγίζων seems to refer only to the rituals of the chthonioi and nerterioi theoi.

397 Markellos fr. 125 (Klostermann & Hansen 1991).

398 Cf. Burkert 1966, 118.

399 Ael. VH 5.21; Phot. Lex. s.v αἰγóς τρόπον (Theodoridis 1982–98, A 532).

400 Ael. Arist. Contr. Lept. 106.

401 For the reading δή τισι. θυσιῶν, see Dindorf 1829, vol. 2, 683, app. crit. line 4.

402 The only exception would be the use of θυσίας ἐναγίζ ων Porphyrios’ Philosophy from oracles (112) for the sacrifices to the heavenly gods. The meat from the animals killed at these sacrifices was to be eaten by the worshippers (117 and 120).

403 Greg. Nys. Encom. xl mart. II 776M; Synesios Hymn. 6.27; Joseph. BJ 1.32, 1.39, 1.148 and 6.98.

404 Iambl. VP 27.122: the chthonian gods rejoice in enagismata involving great expense (τοĩς μετὰ μεγὰλης δαπὰνης ἐναγισμοĩς ). Cf. Ael. Arist. Contr. Lept. 106: great expense on enagismata (πολυτελείας ἐναγισμάτων). For the alternative reading δή τισι θυσιῶν see p. 113, n. 401.

405 Heliod. Aeth. 1.28.1.

406 Philostr. Her. 53.5.

407 Cf. Burkert 1970, 1–16, esp. 8; Burkert 1983, 192–194, suggests the blood of a ram.

408 Rituals at burial: schol. Hom. Od. 1.291 (Dindorf 1855). Sacrifices and rituals at the grave: schol. Aesch. Cho. 23b (Smith 1976); Suda s.v. ἀπαργμάτων ὡρίων ϰαιριώτερον (Adler 1928–35, 2921); Phot. Lex. s.v. ἐναγίσματα (Theodoridis 1982–98, E 793), offerings of fruit at the grave. Meals given to the dead: schol. Aesch. Cho. 23b and 484c (Smith 1976). The offerings to the dead: schol. Lucian Catapl. 2 (Rabe 1906). General contexts: Erot. Voc. Hipp. 74.80; Poll. Onom. 3.102 and 8.146 (Bethe 1900–31); Hsch. s.v αίμαϰουρία (Latte 1953–66, A 1939), s.v. ἀποφράδες ( (A 6792), s.v. ἐγγριμᾶσθαι ( (E 148), s.v ἐναγίζειν (E 2586), s.v. μὴ μὲν δὴ ϰαθαρῷ (M 1210); Suda s.v. ἐναγίζειν (Adler 1928–35, E 1092), s.v. ἀποφράδες ἡμέραι (A 3642), s.v. χοάς (Q 364); Etym. Magn. s.v. ἐναγίζείν (Gaisford 1848); schol. Eur. Phoen. 274 (Schwartz 1887); schol. Ar. Ach. 961 (Pfister 1909–12, 473); schol. Ar. Ran. 293 (Koster 1962); schol. Pind. Ol. 1.146a (Drachmann 1903–27); schol. Ap. Rhod. Argon. 1.587 (Wendel 1935).

409 Schol. Nic. Ther. 860a (Crugnola 1971); cf. Burkert 1983, 218.

410 Katachthonioi theoi: Erot. Voc. Hipp. 74.80; schol. Lucian Tim. 43 (Rabe 1906). Cf. schol. Aesch. Supp. 122 (Smith 1976): sacrifices (enagismata) to the gods if death is avoided.

411 Schol. Hom. Il. 1.464 b1–b2 (Erbse 1969–88, vol. 1).

412 Schol. Pind. Ol. 3.33b, cf. 3.33d (Drachmann 1903–27). Pindar (Ol. 3.19) speaks of the consecrated altars (βωμῶν ἁγισθέντων) of Zeus. Hagizein in the Classical period meant “to place in the domain of the sacred” (Casabona 1966, 198; Rudhardt 1958, 235–236) but may have been interpreted by the scholiast as referring particularly to a complete annihilation by fire: cf. Etym. Magn., explaining enagizein as katakaiein and deriving it from hagizein (s.v. ἐνϰγίζειν [Gaisford 1848]).

413 Poll. Onom. 8.91 (Bethe 1900–31): enagizein sacrifices to Harmodios mentioned previously in the Ath. pol. 58.1; cf. Heliod. Aeth. 1.17.5. Phot. Lex. s.v. αἰγòς τρόπον (Theodoridis 1982–98, A 532): enagizein sacrifices to the children of Medea, cf. Ael. VH 5.21; Markellos fr. 125 (Klostermann & Hansen 1991). Suda s.v. ἐναγίζων (Adler 1928–35, E 1093), quoting Polybios (23.10.17) on the sacrifices to Xanthos.

414 Aischylos: schol. Aesch. PV, Vita Aeschyli 11 (Herington 1972). Themistokles: schol. Ar. Eq. 84b (Jones & Wilson 1969, vet.).

415 Schol. Ar. Eq. 84b (Jones & Wilson 1969, vet.); cf. Ar. Eq. 84.

416 In fact, enagizein, enagisma and enagismos are used also by the scholiasts on Homer, Aischylos, Euripides, Aristophanes and Nikander to explain various features of these texts (not connected with sacrifices to heroes), but the terms are never used by these authors themselves.

417 Pind. Ol. 1.90; for the contents of these sacrifices, see below, pp. 190–192. Schol. Pind. Ol. 1.146a–d and 1.150a (Drachmann 1903–27).

418 Thuc. 5.11; for the contents of these sacrifices, see below, pp. 184–185. Schol. Thuc. 5.11.1 (Hude 1927).

419 Ap. Rhod. Argon. 1.587–588; schol. Ap. Rhod. Argon. 1.587 (Wendel 1935). Cf. the entemnetai sphagia to Polyeidos and his children in Dion. Byz. Bosp. 14 explained in the scholia as enagizein (schol. Dion. Byz. Bosp. 19 [Wescher 1874]).

420 Thuc. 3.58; for the contents of these sacrifices, see below, p. 179. Schol. Thuc. 3.58.4 (Hude 1927).

421 Pind. Isthm. 4.61–68; for the contents of these sacrifices, see below, pp. 181–182. Schol. Pind. Isthm. 4.104b (Drachmann 1903–27). The scholiast in this case was Chrysippos (1st century BC), who is generally considered as untrustworthy (see Körte 1900, 131–138).

422 Pind. Pyth. 5.85–86. For the contents of these sacrifices, see below, p. 177.

423 Schol. Pind. Pyth. 5.113b (Drachmann 1903–27).

424 Pind. Nem. 7.46–48; for the contents of these sacrifices, see below, p. 183. Schol. Pind. Nem. 7.62c (Drachmann 1903–27). Perhaps the scholiast was influenced by Heliodoros’ description of the sacrifices to Neoptolemos in the Aethiopica.

425 Hsch. s.v. ἐναγίζειν (Latte 1953–66, E2586); Phot. Lex. s.v. ἐναγίζων (Theodoridis 1982–98, 794); Suda s.v. ἐναγίζειν and ἐναγίζων (Adler 1928–35, E 1092–1093); Etym. Magn. s.v. ἐναγίζειν (Gaisford 1848).

426 Schol. Ar. Ach. 961 (Pfister 1909–12, 473); cf. Suda s.v. χοάς (Adler 1928–35, Q 364). This scholion is found only in Pfister (1909–12, 473) and not in Wilson’s edition (1975) of the scholia on this play.

427 Phot. Lex. s.v. ἐναγίσματα (Theodoridis 1982–98, E 792).

428 Schol. Pind. Nem. 7.62c (Drachmann 1903–27).

429 Etym. Magn. s.v. χύτλα (Gaisford 1848); schol. Ap. Rhod. Argon. 1.1075–77a (Wendel 1935).

430 Schol. Pind. Ol. 1.146d; cf. 1.146a (Drachmann 1903–27); Hsch. s.v. αἱμαϰουρίαί, (Latte 1953–66, A 1939), cf. s.v. ἐντέμνουσι (E 3346).

431 Schol. Ap. Rhod. Argon. 1.587 (Wendel 1935).

432 Schol. Eur. Phoen. 274 (Schwartz 1887). On the relation between bothroi and blood, see above, pp. 60–74.

433 Hsch. s.v. ἐναγίσματα (Latte 1953–66, E 2587), s.v. ἐναγισμοί (E 2588); Phot. Lex. s.v. ἐναγισμοί (Theodoridis 1982–98, E 795), s.v ἐναγίζων (E 794); Suda s.v. . ἐναγισμοί (Adler 1928–35, E 1094).

434 Schol. Hom. Il. 1.464 b1–b2 (Erbse 1969–88, vol. 1).

435 Schol. Aesch. Cho. 484c (Smith 1976).

436 The use of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos as explanations for thysia are another matter.

437 Schol. Hom. Il. 3.273b (Erbse 1969–88, vol. 1).

438 Agos as miasma: Hsch. s.v. ἐναγίζειν (Latte 1953–66, E 2586); Etym. Magn. s.v. ἐναγίζειν (Gaisford 1848). Enagismata as katharmata: schol. Hom. Od. 1.291 (Dindorf 1855).

439 Spawforth & Walker 1985; Spawforth & Walker 1986; Cartledge & Spawforth 1989, 99, 106–107, 164–165 and 190–211. For archaism in general, see Bowie 1970, 3–41; Anderson 1993, 101–132; in religion, see Lane Fox 1987, 64–101.

440 See Ekroth 1999, 151–152 and Table 2. It should be noted that, of the 29 enagizein sacrifices mentioned by Pausanias, 26 were contemporaneous rituals. On Pausanias’ interest in the past, see further Elsner 1992, 11; Arafat 1992; Alcock 1993, 174.

441 Plut. Vit. Thes. 4.1; Plut. Vit. Arist. 21.2 and 21.5.

442 Philostr. Her. 53.8–14, esp. 53.14.

443 Kos: Sor. Vit. Hipp. 3.6. For an earlier date of this text, see Sherwin-White 1978, 355–356. Children of Medea: Ael. VH 5.21. Megara: IG VII 53, 13 = Kaibel 1878, no. 461.

444 Price 1984a, 32–36 and 207–220. Price (33 and 209) stresses that heroic sacrifices (enagismata) were never used in the cult of the Hellenistic kings and the Roman emperors. Lanciers 1993, 204–223, gives one possible example of a non-participation sacrifice in a Hellenistic ruler cult, but this sacrifice was performed in a Hebrew context, which may have influenced the choice of ritual.

445 Price 1984a, 32–36.

446 The enagismata mentioned in Ath. pol. 58.1 seem to have concerned only Harmodios and Aristogeiton and not the war dead (see above, pp. 83–85). For the sacrifices to the war dead, see also p. 197.

447 Dion. Hal. Thuc. 18.6.

448 IG II2 1006, 26 and 69 (123/2 BC).

449 IG VII 53 = Kaibel 1878, no. 461.

450 Plut. Vit. Arist. 21.2–5; De malign. Her. 872f; cf. Lib. Decl. 13.59. The Classical sources speak of offerings of clothes, customary gifts and aparchai (Thuc. 3.58). For the distinctions between Plutarch’s account and the earlier sources mentioning this cult, see Étienne & Piérart 1975, 66–67 and 74–75; Schachter 1994, 129–132 and 137–138; Parker 1996, 137, n. 57.

451 Chaniotis 1991, 138–142; Jacoby 1944, 66; Cartledge & Spawforth 1989, 192.

452 The cult of the Megarian war dead was perhaps instituted or at least reorganized in the 4th century AD, see IG VII 53 = Kaibel 1878, no. 461, and discussion above, pp. 77–78. Similarly, there is no Classical evidence for the enagizein sacrifices to the Marathonian war dead, only documented in a late-2nd-century BC inscription, IG II2 1006, 26 and 69.

453 IG IV 203 = Gegan 1989, 350; for the archaeological evidence, see above, pp. 80–81. For the Roman aspect of this cult, see also Piérart 1998, 106–109.

454 Cf. the interesting suggestion by Wilamowitz (1931, 385–387) that the holocaust of live animals to Artemis Laphria at Patras, described by Pausanias (7.18.11–13), was a Roman adaptation or even a complete reconstruction of the cult in accordance with the contemporary venationes, animal fights in the amphitheatres. The distinctions between eschara and bomos became more pronounced in the Roman period, see above, pp. 58–59.

455 See Ekroth 1999, 158.

456 Ekroth 1999, 149, Table 1.

457 See in particular Paus. 2.10.1; cf. Ekroth 1999, 151–156.

458 Hdt. 2.44; Apollod. Bibl. 2.5.1; Plut. De malign. Her. 857d; Ptolemaios Chennos 3.12 (Chatzis 1914); Paus. 2.10.1.

459 Achilles: Strabon 13.1.32; Philostr. Her. 53.8–15; Philostr. V A 4.16. In the case of Herakles, it is doubtful to what extent the enagizein sacrifices were ever actually performed (see below, pp. 219–221 and p. 238).

460 It should be noted that the only enagizein sacrifices that Achilles received were performed at his tomb at Troy. Herakles, on the other hand, had no tomb and is connected with enagizein sacrifices at Thasos, Kleonai and Sikyon.

461 The construction of enagizein with an accusative is a post-Classical development: earlier, the term refers only to a ceremony and not to an action (see Casabona 1966, 205 and 209).

Table des illustrations

Légende Fig. 1. Horos from Porto Raphti, Attica, bearing the inscription Ἡραϰλειδῶν ἐσχάρα, 4th century BC, IG II2 4977. Drawing after Rhousopoulos 1862, 83, no. 84.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/501/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 549k
Titre Table 1. Instances of eschara and escharon in the epigraphical sources.
Légende Eschara has been included only when it is possible that the term refers to an altar. Instances of escharon in which the recipient is unknown have not been included.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/501/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 328k
Légende Fig. 2. Plan of the Archegesion, Delos. Modified after Robert F. 1953, 11, fig. 1.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/501/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,0M
Titre Table 2. Instances of eschara in the Archaic to early Hellenistic literary sources.
Légende Only cases in which the term is used in a religious context have been included.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/501/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 511k
Titre Table 3. Instances of eschara in the post-300 BC literary sources.
Légende Only cases in which the term is used in a religious context have been included.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/501/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 434k
Titre Table 4. Instances of eschara in the explicatory literary sources.
Légende Only cases in which the term is used in a religious context have been included.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/501/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 600k
Titre Table 4 (continued)
Légende Only cases in which the term is used in a religious context have been included.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/501/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 143k
Légende Fig. 3. Altar dedicated to Hera crowned by slabs of gneiss to protect the marble from the heat. Sanctuary of Poseidon, Thasos, probably 4th century BC. After Bon & Seyrig 1929, 334, fig. 9.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/501/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 2,3M
Légende Fig. 4. Vase-painting of altar equipped with a fire-cover (eschara). Athenian red-figure volute-krater, c. 500–480 BC, Karlsruhe, Badisches Landesmuseum.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/501/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,0M
Légende Fig. 5. Vase-paintings of altars equipped with fire-covers (escharai). (a) Athenian red-figure oinochoe, c. 490–480 BC, Athenian Agora. (b) Athenian red-figure neck amphora, c. 500–480 BC, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/501/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,5M
Titre Table 5. Instances of bothros in the epigraphical sources.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/501/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 73k
Titre Table 6. Instances of bothros in the Archaic to early Hellenistic literary sources.
Légende Only cases in which the term is used in a religious context have been included.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/501/img-12.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 114k
Titre Table 7. Instances of bothros in the post-300 BC literary sources. Term Recipient Source
Légende Only cases in which the term is used in a religious context have been included.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/501/img-13.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 522k
Titre Table 8. Instances of bothros in the explicatory literary sources.
Légende Only cases in which the term is used in a religious context have been included.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/501/img-14.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 134k
Titre Table 9. Instances of enagizein, enagisterion and enagismos in the epigraphical sources.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/501/img-15.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 283k
Titre Table 10. Instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the Archaic to early Hellenistic literary sources. Greek contexts: Heroes Term Çnagízein Recipient Source
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/501/img-16.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 114k
Titre Table 11. Instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the Archaic to early Hellenistic literary sources.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/501/img-17.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 239k
Titre Table 12. Number of instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the post-300 BC sources.
Légende Instances are divided according to the recipients (unidentified recipients have been left out) and their cultural contexts. On the Roman “heroes”, see below, pp. 106–108. The “gods” group includes daimones.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/501/img-18.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 76k
Titre Table 13. Chronological spread of the post-300 BC sources that use enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the respective contexts.
Légende Each context includes all three categories of recipients (heroes, the ordinary dead and gods). The figures in parentheses indicate the number of sacrifices to heroes for each context and period.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/501/img-19.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 213k
Titre Table 14. Instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the post-300 BC literary sources.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/501/img-20.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 639k
Titre Table 14 (continued)
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/501/img-21.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 640k
Titre Table 14 (continued)
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/501/img-22.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 292k
Titre Table 15. Instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the literary post-300 BC sources.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/501/img-23.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 350k
Titre Table 16. Instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the post-300 BC literary sources.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/501/img-24.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 222k
Titre Table 17. Instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the post-300 BC literary sources.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/501/img-25.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 291k
Titre Table 18. Instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the post-300 BC literary sources.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/501/img-26.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 115k
Titre Table 19. Instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the post-300 BC literary sources.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/501/img-27.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 255k
Titre Table 20. Instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the post-300 BC literary sources.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/501/img-28.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 193k
Titre Table 21. Instances of enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the explicatory literary sources.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/501/img-29.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 430k
Titre Table 21 (continued)
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/501/img-30.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 644k
Titre Table 21 (continued)
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/501/img-31.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 471k
Titre Table 22. Chronological distribution of enagizein, enagisma, enagismos and enagisterion in Greek contexts for sacrifices to heroes and the ordinary dead in the epigraphical and literary sources (explicatory sources not included).
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/501/img-32.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 222k

© Presses universitaires de Liège, 2002

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540

Lire

Freemium

open access

Offert par L’éditeur de ce site

Acheter

Volume papier

amazon.fr