Version classiqueVersion mobile

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

 | 
Gunnel Ekroth

Chapter II. Evidence for sacrifices in hero-cults down to 300 BC

Texte intégral

1Chapter II deals exclusively with sources dating to before 300 BC, in order to distinguish the sacrificial rituals in hero-cults in the Archaic to early Hellenistic periods from the contemporaneous evidence alone. As in the preceding section, the epigraphical and literary sources will be examined separately.

2As I mentioned in the introduction, heroes have commonly been considered as having sacrificial rituals different from those of the gods: holocaustic sacrifices, libations of blood, offerings of meals. Thysia sacrifices, at which the animal was divided between the deity and the worshippers and the ritual was followed by dining, have been regarded as exceptions or late developments in the cult of the heroes. In order to test this assumption, the occurrence of these four kinds of rituals has been investigated. Each category of ritual has been defined as follows:

  1. Destruction sacrifices. At this kind of sacrifice, the animal victim was totally destroyed and no meat was available for consumption. The destruction could be accomplished by burning, by total immersion in water or simply by leaving the carcass at the place of the sacrifice. This category also includes sacrifices at which a larger part of the animal was destroyed than was usual at a thysia (see below, no. 4).1
  2. Blood rituals. These include the rituals at which the blood of the victim was of special importance, either because it was treated in a particular way, for example, poured out at a specific location, or because the animal was killed in a manner emphasizing the blood.
  3. Theoxenia. The term theoxenia (heroxeinia exists but is very rare) here stands as a collective term for the offerings of food of the kind eaten by humans.2 These offerings could consist of grain, fruit and cakes, but also of portions of meat, either cooked or raw. They were usually placed on a table (trapeza). A couch could be prepared and the recipient of the sacrifices was invited to come and dine.
  4. Thysia sacrifices followed by dining. At these sacrifices, the animal was consecrated to the divinity and slaughtered. The deity’s share of the victim (fat, bones, gall-bladder) was burnt, while the meat fell to the worshippers. The whole ceremony was concluded by the participants dining, either collectively in the sanctuary or at home.

3The character of the material does not always make it possible fully to follow the structure outlined above. A sacrifice could consist of a combination of rituals, for example, a thysia with dining initiated by a blood ritual or theoxenia performed in connection with thysia. Since the same inscription or passage in a text may contain evidence for more than one kind of ritual, a certain degree of repetition is inevitable.

4The evidence for sacrifices to heroes occurs in different contexts in the epigraphical and literary sources, respectively, and therefore the two parts differ somewhat in the detailed structure. The review of the epigraphical evidence ends with an examination of the four, well-preserved Attic, sacrificial calendars from Thorikos, Marathon, Erchia and the genos of the Salaminioi, since the completeness of these four inscriptions makes it possible to discuss the relation between heroes and gods as recipients of sacrifices, as well as local variations and patterns in the sacrifices to heroes. The review of the literary evidence concludes with a discussion on the use and meaning of the specification of some sacrifices as ὡς ἥρῳ.

  • 3 For libations to heroes as independent rituals not performed in connection with animal sacrifice, (...)

5Libations have not been included in this study, unless they form part of an animal sacrifice to a hero.3 To fully understand and evaluate the use and functions of libations in hero-cults, an extensive study of the material is needed, also in contexts outside hero-cults, i.e., in the cult of the gods and in the cult of the dead. Such an investigation is outside the scope of this work.

6A few words should also be said about the geographical distribution of the material. The basic geographical area of concern here is the Greek mainland and the islands of the central Aegean. However, the inscriptions that describe sacrifices to heroes come almost exclusively from Attica. Any study of sacrificial rituals in the Archaic and Classical periods will, to a large extent, have to depend on the Attic evidence, since the most complete and extensive sacrificial calendars and sacred laws have been found in that region (Table 23).

Table 23. Number of inscriptions with religious contents, based on the dated inscriptions in LS and LSS.

Table 23. Number of inscriptions with religious contents, based on the dated inscriptions in LS and LSS.

Some new evidence can be added to Sokolowski’s collections of sacred laws, for example, the sacrificial calendar from Thorikos (Daux 1983), but the general spread of the material is still the same geographically and chronologically.

  • 4 Cf. a regulation of the relations between Argos, Knossos and Tylissos, dated to c. 450 BC, which c (...)
  • 5 Peloponnese: Corinth has yielded few inscriptions before the Roman period (see Dow 1942, 113–119 f (...)

7Outside Attica, inscriptions dealing with religious matters are markedly less frequent and are dated mainly to the Hellenistic period. The Aegean islands, and Kos in particular, have yielded some sacrificial calendars and sacred laws, but heroes are only mentioned occasionally. Crete has produced some early epigraphical material but with little bearing on religious matters.4 In other regions, such as the Peloponnese and the colonies, occasional inscriptions dealing with religion have been recovered, for example, the extensive sacred laws from Kyrene and Selinous.5

  • 6 Athens has produced more inscriptions than any other city state, and not only regarding religious (...)
  • 7 In later periods, however, when there is more comparative material from other regions, the attitud (...)

8How is the dominance of the Attic material to be handled? Even though it cannot automatically be assumed that the information on hero-cults stemming from the Attic inscriptions can be treated as valid also for the rest of the Greek world during the same period, there is very little material from other regions to decide whether, and to what extent, there were regional differences and what cultic expressions these differences may have had. The Athenians may have taken greater interest in their heroes than other city states did, judging from the sheer number of Attic heroes known and how well represented they are in the religious inscriptions. Still, hero-cults are documented in all Greek regions, and the Athenian interest may simply be a result of the abundance of the epigraphical documentation from this area.6 The positive side of the amount of Attic epigraphical evidence, however, is the fact that it is large enough to make it possible to discern variations in the sacrificial practices and attitudes to heroes within one region.7

  • 8 So does the archaeological evidence for hero-cults (see Abramson 1978; Antonaccio 1995, 145–197; B (...)
  • 9 The definition of a hero-sacrifice as Greek or barbarian is sometimes difficult, for example, a sa (...)

9The hero-cults mentioned in the literary sources, on the other hand, show a wider geographical spread, which can help to balance the Attic predominance in the epigraphical material.8 Of the approximately 50 herosacrifices that will be discussed here, a fifth is found in Athens and almost as many in the Peloponnese and central Greece respectively. To this evidence can be added a handful of cases from northern Greece, Ionia and the Greek colonies, as well as occasional, non-Greek contexts which are still of interest.9

1. Epigraphical evidence

1.1. Destruction sacrifices

10The evidence for the destruction of a larger part of the animal victim than at a regular thysia or of the total destruction of the victim is not abundant in the inscriptions that concern hero-cults. In all, there is only testimony for this kind of ritual in two of the sacrificial calendars from Attica, the one from Erchia and the one of the genos of the Salaminioi, both dating to the first half of the 4th century BC. Only four non-participatory sacrifices to heroes are explicitly mentioned, all being holocausts.

  • 10 LS 18: Epops, col. IV, 20–23, and col. V, 12–15; Basile, col. II, 16–20.

11In the calendar from Erchia, the hero Epops received two holocaustic sacrifices on the 5th of Boedromion, while the heroine Basile was given a holocaust on the 4th of the same month.10 No other sacrifices were performed on these occasions, either to Epops or to Basile or to any other deities.

  • 11 Hollis 1990, 127–130; Callim. Aet. fr. 238, line 11 (Suppl. Hell. 1983). Epops was perhaps related (...)

12The victims of the two holocausts to Epops were piglets and the sacrifices were to be followed by libations designated as wineless (nephalios). Sacrifices to Epops are known only from the Erchia calendar. The mythological context of Epops is not clear, but he may also be mentioned in a papyrus fragment of the Aetia by Kallimachos, in which one passage may concern a conflict between the demes Paiania and Erchia.11

  • 12 Stengel 1910, 187–190; Radke 1936, 26–29.
  • 13 Kearns 1989, 151; Shapiro 1986, has collected the available evidence on Basile. In Athens, Basile, (...)

13The sacrifice to Basile consisted of a white, female lamb and was also followed by a wineless libation. The colour of the animal is to be noted, since holocausts have commonly been classified as chthonian sacrifices, and it is usually assumed that the victims used in such rituals were black.12 Basile was also worshipped elsewhere in Attica, but nothing is known of the kind of sacrifices she received at those locations.13

  • 14 LSS 19, 84.
  • 15 See below, pp. 153–157.
  • 16 LS 20 B, 14. Cults of Ioleos are known also from other regions than Attica, but only from later so (...)

14In the sacrificial calendar of the genos of the Salaminioi, there is one holocaust of a sheep to Ioleos.14 This sacrifice took place in Mounychion (no date is specified) at a major festival of the Salaminioi. On the same occasion, Herakles received an ox and Kourotrophos a goat; Alkmene, Maia, Ion (every second year) and the Hero at the Hale all received a sheep each, while the Hero at Antisara and the Hero at Pyrgilion were each given a piglet. All these victims must have been eaten.15 Just like Basile, Ioleos also received sacrifices at other locations in Attica. The sacrificial calendar from Marathon prescribes a sheep for him without any indication that this sacrifice was a holocaust.16

  • 17 Van Straten 1995, 158, n. 144.
  • 18 In support of the notion of private sacrifices involving the priests of the genos, Ferguson (1938, (...)
  • 19 Ferguson 1938, 42. Sacrificed swine are sometimes called εὑστά in the inscriptions. They do not se (...)

15Van Straten has argued for the presence of a second holocaust in the Salaminioi calendar. He suggests that the sacrifice performed in the Eurysakeion (LSS 19, lines 34–36) was also a holocaust, since the priest of Eurysakes was given 13 drachmas as compensation for the leg and the skin, which he would have received from a regular sacrifice.17 It seems strange, however, that, if the calendar listed two holocausts, one was explicitly called holokautos (to Ioleos), while in the other case there was no term of that kind. Ferguson, in the publication of the text, offered a different explanation of the financial compensation of the priest. Private sacrifices, other than those performed by the genos to Eurysakes, also took place in this shrine. The 13 drachmas was a compensation given to the priest, since, at these private sacrifices, if the officiating priest was someone other than the priest of Eurysakes, he received the leg and the skin, and therefore the priest of Eurysakes was given financial compensation.18 Furthermore, the priest of Eurysakes cannot have received the skin of the victim sacrificed by the genos to Eurysakes (line 87), since that victim was a pig, an animal which was only singed and not flayed, and therefore yielded no hide.19

  • 20 It was probably a wether, a castrated ram (see van Straten 1995, 181–186).

16The victims used for holocausts were not of the most expensive kind. The piglets listed in the Thorikos and Erchia inscriptions cost 3 drachmas each, and the lamb sacrificed to Basile was also among the cheaper victims (7 drachmas). The sheep burnt whole to Ioleos cost 15 drachmas, which places it in the more expensive category of sheep: the cheaper ones usually cost between 10 and 12 drachmas.20 Still, this sheep was far less expensive than the cattle or pigs mentioned elsewhere in the Salaminioi inscription, which cost 70 and 40 drachmas respectively (see further discussion on prices below, pp. 163–166).

1.2. Blood rituals

  • 21 For this group of terms, see Casabona 1966, 155–196. The earliest use of any of these terms in an (...)

17Rituals with emphasis on the blood are very rare in the epigraphical evidence concerning hero-cults. The rituals connected with blood described by terms with the root sphag- are not documented at all for sacrifices to heroes in the inscriptions dating to the period of interest here.21

  • 22 LSS 64, 7–22 = Pouilloux 1954b, no. 141.

18The only epigraphical instance of a blood ritual is to be found in a mid-4th-century inscription from Thasos regulating the honours given to the Agathoi, the men who had died in battle for their country.22 They will be given a worthy funeral, their names will be inscribed publicly and their fathers and children will be invited when the state sacrifices to the Agathoi (ϰαλεĩσθαι αὐτῶν τοὺς πατέρας ϰαὶ τοὺς παĩδας ὅταν ἡ πóλις ἐντέμνηι τοĩς Ἀγαθοĩς , lines 9–11) and be given seats of honour at the games. Furthermore, there will be financial compensation for the sons and daughters of the Agathoi.

  • 23 Casabona 1966, 226–229; Rudhardt 1958, 285–286. Entemnein has been restored for a hero-sacrifice i (...)
  • 24 Pouilloux 1954b, 373–374 and 377; Casabona 1966, 227; commentary on LSS 64, line 10, by Sokolowski (...)
  • 25 LSS 64, commentary on line 12; cf. Pouilloux 1954b, 374.

19The term for the sacrifice is entemnein, a technical term meaning to cut the throat of the animal victim, without any bearing on what was done with the meat afterwards.23 Even though no other term is used for the sacrificial activity in the Thasian inscription, this sacrifice to the Agathoi is likely to have been followed by a banquet, since the fathers and the sons are explicitly invited to come there.24 To invite the relatives of these war dead to attend a ceremony at which the animal victims were simply killed and destroyed and then to send them home empty-handed would seem strange, particularly since the sacrifice was part of the compensation for the relatives of those killed in war. Moreover, the financial compensation given to each of them was the same as that given to the timouchoi, citizens receiving particular benefits, which seem to have included, among other things, contributions of food for a certain time or permanently.25

  • 26 Cf. Casabona 1966, 226–227.

20The ritual may rather have consisted of an animal sacrifice at which the victims were killed and bled, and the blood perhaps poured on the tomb of the Agathoi.26 After the entemnein sacrifice had been concluded, the meat of the victims was treated as at a thysia and eaten by the participants, among whom the relatives of the Agathoi occupied a prominent position.

1.3. Theoxenia

  • 27 For the use of this term, see Jameson 1994a, 36–37; Gill 1974, 122–123; Gill 1991, 11.
  • 28 LSS 69, 3 = Salviat 1958, 195.
  • 29 Salviat 1958, 198–212; LSS 69, commentary p. 127.
  • 30 Salviat 1958, 254–259; Jameson 1994a, 36 with n. 6. Among the other festivals mentioned in the sam (...)
  • 31 The Heroxeinia festival has been connected with various Thasian heroes, such as the Agathoi killed (...)

21In modern scholarship, the term theoxenia is used for a whole set of rituals connected with the offerings of food, but the term is actually quite rare in the ancient sources.27 The term Ἡροξείνια is found in a late-4th-century inscription from Thasos.28 The text is a regulation listing in chronological order a number of festivals during which it was not allowed to take certain legal proceedings29The Heroxeinia is likely to have been a major festival at Thasos, since it is listed together with other important festivals, such as the Apatouria, the Anthesteria and the Dionysia. Judging from the name and by analogy with theoxenia, Heroxeinia must have meant a feast for the heroes to which they were invited to come and dine.30 The practicalities of this festival are unknown.31

  • 32 Rotroff 1978, 196–197, lines 4–13 = SEG 28, 1978, 53. Among the silver listed were ten kylikes bel (...)
  • 33 Rotroff 1978, 203; Jameson 1994a, 50 with n. 55. Cf. the foundation of Diomedon on Kos (LS 177, 12 (...)

22In the case of the Heroxeinia, the ritual is recognised from the name of the festival. In other instances, it is the equipment mentioned that indicates that the theoxenia took place. A 4th-century BC inscription from the Athenian Agora lists the belongings of a nameless hero: a double-headed couch, a mattress, a bedspread, a smooth rug, four pillows, two kinds of cloths and a number of silver vessels.32 These items may have been used for ritual dining by the worshippers in connection with the cult. The single couch, on which two people could recline, was perhaps used by the priest or some of the more prominent participants. However, it is more likely, owing to the fact that the equipment could be used by so few, that it was utilized in a theoxenia ceremony for the hero. The contents of the shrine correspond to the objects depicted in the reliefs showing banqueting heroes.33

  • 34 Gill 1991, 10.
  • 35 Jameson 1994a, 40; Gill 1991, 10.
  • 36 Jameson 1994a, 39–40.
  • 37 Jameson 1994a, 37–41.

23In most cases, the inscriptions mention simply the trapezai (tables) and, more rarely, a kline (couch). The term trapeza should not be taken to refer to the table itself, but to the offerings that were placed upon it.34 These could consist of one or several portions of the meat from the thysia victim, either cooked or raw, if such a sacrifice was performed on the same occasion, or of other kinds of food, as well as perhaps vessels and crowns.35 The preparation of the table could be seen as an action aimed at inviting the hero to come and participate in the sacrifice as an honoured guest.36 The offerings on the table probably went to the priest and were subsequently eaten.37

  • 38 Cf. Jameson 1994a, 41, for similar cases concerning gods.
  • 39 LSS 20, 12–23 = Meritt 1942, 282–287, no. 55 = Ferguson 1944, 73–79, Class A, no. 1. The inscripti (...)
  • 40 LSS 20, 14–15. For the interpretation of teleon as a sheep, see van Straten 1995, 173, n. 53; Rosi (...)

24The two inscriptions mentioned above seem to refer to a sacrifice in which a meal and an invitation for the hero to come and dine were the main purpose. A thysia sacrifice, including dining by the worshippers, may have been performed on the same occasion, but the theoxenia was the more important ritual.38 In most cases in which theoxenia is found in the epigraphical record concerning hero-cults, the ritual was combined with animal sacrifice and seems to have functioned as an addition to the thysia. The hero received both a thysia and theoxenia and the whole ritual was concluded with a meal. This is the case in a 5th-century, orgeonic decree concerning the worship of the Heros Echelos and his Heroines.39 On the first day of the celebrations, a piglet was sacrificed to the Heroines and to the Hero a full-grown victim, a teleon, which in all probability meant a sheep.40 A table was also prepared for the Hero, τράπεζαν παρατιθέναι. On the following day, the Hero received a second teleon (line 16). The meat from the victims was distributed among the orgeones (see below, pp. 140–141).

  • 41 LS 20 B, 23–24.
  • 42 LS 20 B, 25.
  • 43 LS 20 B, 3–4.
  • 44 That seems to have been the case in an early-4th-century law from a tribe or a deme: the priestess (...)

25A similar use of trapezai in connection with animal sacrifices is found in the sacrificial calendar from Marathon. When the Hero at -rasileia received a sheep costing 12 drachmas, he was also given a trapeza worth 1 drachma.41 Similarly, the Hero at Hellotion got a sheep for 12 drachmas and a 1-drachma table.42 An anonymous couple consisting of a Hero and a Heroine each received a piglet costing 3 drachmas, as well as a joint trapeza worth 1 drachma.43 From this pricing, it is clear that whatever was put on the table must have been additional to the sacrificed animal, since the trapeza had its own cost. However, a portion of meat from the thysia could still have been placed on the table.44

  • 45 Daux 1983, 153–154: lines 16–17, a sheep to Kephalos and a trapeza to Prokris; lines 18–19, a sele (...)

26From the Marathon calendar, it is evident that the trapeza was a cheaper kind of sacrifice than a thysia. In the Thorikos calendar, the trapezai are also combined with animal sacrifices to heroes, but to different recipients. The tables were given to the less important recipients, all of whom were heroines, while their male counterparts received animal victims, such as sheep, piglets or cows.45

  • 46 LS 11 A, 6, 12 and 16 = IG I3 255 A, 4, 10 and 14; cf. Jameson 1994a, 39.
  • 47 The cult of Hippolytos seems always to have been connected with that of Aphrodite and her name has (...)
  • 48 Jameson 1994a, 39. The other two tables are used for Zeus Tropaios and Herakles (LS 11 A, 9–10) an (...)
  • 49 LS 1 A, 17–19 = IG I3 234 A; c. 480–460 BC; cf. Jameson 1994a, 39.

27The use of a trapeza as a parallel offering to a less important deity at a thysia sacrifice to another divinity also seems to be found in the combination of heroes and gods. In a fragmentary Athenian list of sacrifices, dating to c. 430 BC, a table is mentioned three times.46 In lines 4–7, a trapeza is mentioned, as well as the spreading of something over a couch or perhaps a throne. Eros and Hippolytos are named, and probably also Aphrodite.47 Jameson suggests that in all of these three groups of deities, where trapezai are found, an animal sacrifice was prescribed for the major divinity, in this case Aphrodite, while the less important characters, Eros and Hippolytos, received the table and the couch.48 A similar case is an early-5th-century sacrificial calendar, which prescribed the sacrifice of a kid to Dionysos, while Semele received a trapeza.49

  • 50 Gill 1991, 7–11; Jameson 1994a, 37. For cakes at thysia, see Kearns 1994, 65–67.

28The offering of bloodless gifts should also be considered here, since these were commonly used at theoxenia. Various kinds of food, for example, bread, cakes, fruit, grain, oil and wine, could be offered and either placed on the altar or on a separate table. The mention of such edible matters does not automatically mean that a theoxenia took place; it may be a reference to the hiera, the additional offerings that were burnt in the sacrificial fire.50

  • 51 LS 38, 10–13 = IG II2 1195; late 4th century BC; cf. Kearns 1994, 65–70.
  • 52 LS 2 C, 2–4 = IG I3 246D, 29–32; c. 470–450 BC.
  • 53 LS 151 C, 2–8. The beginning of line 2, in which the recipients were named, is lost. Paton & Hicks (...)
  • 54 Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 35–36.

29Explicit references to this kind of offering to heroes are fairly rare in the epigraphical evidence. A fragmentary decree from the deme Kollytos mentions that the gods and the heroes were to be given popana and pelanos.51 This offering was perhaps preceded by an animal sacrifice, since a thysia is mentioned earlier in the inscription (line 8). Furthermore, the expenses for the sacrifices may have been as much as 30 drachmas ([πó] πανα ϰαὶ πελανò[ν ϰαὶ τἅλλα ἅ δεĩ ἀπò δραχμῶντριάϰ]οντα, lines 12–13), a very large sum did the sacrifice consist only of cakes. Similarly, two anonymous heroes in an early Athenian, sacrificial calendar received two measures of wheat.52 The bloodless offerings are described in more detail in a mid-4th-century sacrificial calendar from Kos, which may concern sacrifices to heroes, depending on how the text is restored.53 Three sheep (telea) are to be sacrificed, and one measure of barley groats, one measure of mixed wheat and barley, three kylikes and a tray (pínax) are to accompany each victim. These extras are called hiera and were probably burnt in the altar fire as additional offerings to the thysia, but it is possible that this practice was equivalent to the preparation of tables with food at a thysia.54

  • 55 Jameson 1994a, 56 with n. 83; Gill 1991, 15–19.
  • 56 LS 28, 8–9 = IG II2 1356: ἐπὶ δὲ] τὴν τράπεζαν ϰ[ω]λῆν, πλευρòν ἰσχίο, ἡμίϰρα[ιραν χορδ] ῆς. For t (...)

30Finally, raw meat could also be deposited on a table, a ritual usually called trapezomata.55 Here, the table was principally used for presenting and displaying the priest’s share of the meat. At a sacrifice to a heroine mentioned in a law of a deme or a tribe from the early 4th century BC, a thigh, a part of the side near the hip with the surrounding meat, and half of the head of the victim stuffed with guts were deposited on a trapeza.56 This meat was subsequently taken by the priestess.

1.4. Thysia sacrifices followed by dining

1.4.1. Direct evidence for dining

31Greek inscriptions relating to sacrifices, whether those to the gods or those to the heroes, rarely stated that the ritual was to be concluded with a meal, at which the meat from the animal was to be eaten. There are many other indications of the animal being available for consumption, for example, regulations for the division of the meat between the participants, stipulations of the perquisites of the priest in the form of portions of meat and the skin, prescriptions that the meat could not be taken out of the sanctuary (ou phora) and mentions of dining facilities and dining personnel.

  • 57 LSS 20. For the date, see above, p. 138, n. 39.
  • 58 For the interpretation of teleon as a sheep, see above, p. 138, n. 40. Ferguson 1944, 74, n. 16, a (...)
  • 59 For different interpretations, see Meritt 1942, 287; Ferguson 1944, 73–76, and LSS 20, commentary.

32The most obvious evidence for meals in hero-cults is when the inscriptions comment upon how the meat is to be handled after the animal has been killed. One of the earliest inscriptions providing this kind of information is a decree of the orgeones of the Hero and the Heroines dating to the mid 5th century BC and mentioned earlier in the discussion of the Theoxenia.57 This association of orgeones had a host who performed the sacrifice, τòν ἑστιάτορα θύειν τὴν [θυσί]αν once a year, on the 17th and the 18th of Hekatombaion. On the first day, a piglet was sacrificed (thyein) to the Heroines and a full-grown victim, teleon, to the Hero, which in all probability meant a sheep (lines 14–16).58 For the Hero a table, trapeza, was also prepared. The following day, the Hero received a second, full-grown victim. The decree ends with the detailed description of the distribution of the meat by the host to the orgeones and members of their families (lines 17–23). Orgeones who were present each received a full portion of meat. There is some disagreement among the commentators on how the rest of the meat was divided, but the sons and the women of the orgeones seem to have received at least half a portion of meat each.59

  • 60 Meritt 1942, 286.
  • 61 Lines 6–7, t[òν βωμòν] ἐν τῶι ἱερῶι; cf. Ferguson 1944, 79.

33In his publication of the inscription, Meritt stressed the chthonian nature of Echelos (as the Hero was named in the 3rd century), which he considered to be further underlined by his being worshipped by a group of orgeones and by the fact that a piglet was sacrificed to the Heroines connected with Echelos.60 This statement is surprising, since thysia here definitely refers to an alimentary sacrifice, at which the distribution of the meat was carefully regulated. Furthermore, the hieron of Echelos and the Heroines, at least in the 3rd century BC, may have had a bomos, the kind of altar usually assumed to be characteristic of Olympian, rather than chthonian, cults.61 The interpretation of the Hero/Echelos as chthonian depends, of course, on how “chthonian” is defined, but it cannot be done on the basis of what we know of the sacrifices performed in his cult, since they show all the signs of being what is commonly called Olympian.

  • 62 LS 10 C, 4–9 = IG I3 244 C; c. 460 BC.
  • 63 LS 10 C, 5. The stone is damaged. Wilamowitz 1887, 255, suggested λέχ[σιν δύο ὀ]βολõν; LS 10 C, λέ (...)

34The division of meat is rarely as explicit as in the decree of the Hero and the Heroines. In the deme Skambonidai, the citizens, and also the metoikoi, could receive meat, when sacrifices were performed to the hero Leos.62 The animal sacrificed was a teleon, i.e., probably a sheep, and the portions handed out were probably worth two or three obols each.63

  • 64 LSS 19, 19–24.
  • 65 LS 18, col. I, lines 44–51 (Semele); col. IV, lines 33–40 (Dionysos).

35Other instances of a division of the meat at the sacrifices to heroes are to be found in the mid-4th-century sacrificial calendars of the genos of the Salaminioi and of the deme Erchia, which will both be further discussed below. In the calendar of the Salaminioi, it is stipulated that, when the sacrifices to the gods and the heroes are performed, the raw flesh should be equally divided between the two branches of the genos.64 In the Erchia calendar, it is stated that the women were to receive the meat from the goat sacrificed to Semele on the 16th of Elaphebolion. This sacrifice took place on the altar (bomos) of Dionysos and the women were also given the meat sacrificed to this god on the same day.65

  • 66 IG II2 1254, 11–12, dated from after 350 BC, and SEG 37, 1987, 102, c. 300 BC; the latter is quite (...)

36In other cases, particular portions of meat are specified for certain persons as a reward for their contributions. A group calling themselves the Paraloi worshipped Paralos, who most likely had a sanctuary in Piraeus. In two decrees passed by the Paraloi after 350 BC, a member of the group is honoured by receiving a meris (meat-portion) Parálwi when the Paraloi θ[ύ]ωσι τ[ῶι] Παράλωι.66

  • 67 IG VII 235, 25–36 = LS 69; new edition by Petropoulou 1981, 48–49 (= SEG 31, 1981, 416). On the di (...)

37The perquisites of the priest, usually the skin and/or certain parts of the animal, are also specified at some hero-sacrifices. The share given to the priest is carefully regulated in a 4th-century inscription from Oropos, concerning sacrifices made to Amphiaraos as a thanksgiving, either after effective incubation or in fulfilment of a vow.67 The sacrificial animal could be of any kind, but no meat was to be taken out of the sanctuary. After the prayer, the sacred share should be placed on the bomos (ϰατεύχεσθαι δὲ τῶν ἱερῶν ϰαὶ ἐπὶ τòμ βωμòν ἐπιτιθεĩν , lines 25–26) and the skin belonged to the sanctuary. The priest received as payment one shoulder of each victim from private sacrifices: when the festival of Amphiaraos took place, the priest’s share came from the public victims.

  • 68 LS 28, 5–9 = IG II2 1356; early 4th century. Sokolowski (LS 28, line 6, commentary) suggested that (...)
  • 69 See above, p. 140.
  • 70 LSS 19, 37–39.
  • 71 LSS 19, 31–33. On the lack of skins from the pigs, see p. 134, n. 19.
  • 72 LSS 19, lines 84–87, for the recipients: Alkmene, Maia and Ion were given sheep and the Hero of An (...)
  • 73 LS 18: heroines at Pylon, col. I, lines 19–22; heroines at Schoinos, col. V, lines 3–8; Semele, co (...)
  • 74 LS 151 A a: τῶν θυομένων τᾶι Λευϰοθῆι, ἀποφορὰ ἐς ἱέρεαν.
  • 75 LS 70 = Pouilloux 1954b, no. 129; late 4th to early 3rd century BC. To the examples of priests rec (...)

38Another sacred law from a deme or a tribe in Attica specifies that the priestess of the Heroine (unnamed) should get, as her priestly perquisites (hierosyna), five drachmas and, among other things, the skins from at least some of the victims and portions of meat, , δεισίας χρεών.68 From the trapeza, the table where offerings were deposited, she also received certain parts of the meat.69 In the Salaminioi calendar, several priestly perquisites are specified. The priest of the Hero at the Hale was given the skin and a leg of the animals sacrificed to that hero.70 The priest of Herakles at Porthmos at Sounion, where the Salaminioi had their Herakleion, received the skin and the leg of animals that were flayed, the leg of the pigs, which were singed and did not yield any skin, and from the oxen he was to be given nine pieces of meat and the skin.71 This priest must have performed all the sacrifices offered by the Salaminioi at Porthmos, including those offered to the other heroes worshipped there in connection with Herakles, and was therefore also given parts of the animals from the sacrifices to these heroes.72 In the sacrificial calendar from Erchia, the priestesses of the Heroines at Schoinos, of the Heroines at Pylon and of Semele received the skins of the animals sacrificed.73 The two groups of anonymous heroines received sheep, while Semele was given a goat. According to a sacrificial calendar from Kos, dating from the mid 4th century, the priestess of Leukothea had the right to take portions of meat from the sacrifice.74 A very fragmentary inscription from Thasos seems to mention portions allotted to the priest at sacrifices to an unnamed hero and to Dionysos.75

  • 76 On this particular practice, see Scullion 1994, 99–112, who provides an overview of both the evide (...)
  • 77 Petropoulou 1981, 49, lines 31–32, τῶν δὲ ϰρεῶν μὴ εἶναι ἐϰφορὴν ἔξω τοῦ τεμένεος
  • 78 LS 18: Heroines at Pylon, col. I, lines 19–22; Semele, col. I, lines 46–51; Herakleidai, col. II, (...)

39The evidence reviewed so far deals mainly with the division of the meat, which seems to have been by no means an unimportant activity to regulate. To this context can be added the specification that the meat was not to be taken out of the sanctuary, which must have meant that it was consumed within that area.76 This kind of restriction is found in the sacrificial regulation concerning the cult of Amphiaraos at Oropos, dating to the non-Attic period of the sanctuary; “there is to be no carrying away of the meat outside the sanctuary”.77 In the calendar from Erchia, seven of the eleven sacrifices to heroes are marked as οὐ φορά (the Heroines at Pylon, Semele, Herakleidai, Aglauros, Leukaspis, Menedeios and the Heroines at Schoinos).78

  • 79 Daux 1983, 153, line 27.
  • 80 Parker 1987, 145–146, commentary on line 11 and lines 26–27. Daux 1983, 155–157, suggested the res (...)
  • 81 IG II2 1496, 134–135 and 143; 334/3 to 331/0 BC. Cf. Jameson 1988, 111–112.

40The opposite restriction, namely that the meat had to be sold, is perhaps indicated in the sacrificial calendar from Thorikos.79 Neanias received a teleon at the Pyanopsia festival. After this entry, the line breaks off and only the letter P is preserved, which Parker restored as π[ρατόν] (“to be sold”).80 Also the skins of victims sacrificed to heroes could be sold, as was the case of the hides from the animals sacrificed at the Theseia.81

  • 82 LS 47, 27–30 = IG II2 2499; 306/5 BC.
  • 83 LSJ s.v.; Ferguson 1944, 80; LS 47, commentary on line 29.
  • 84 Ferguson 1944, 80 with n. 27.
  • 85 Trees, line 15. The number of members in these kinds of cult-associations seems to have been quite (...)

41Facilities for dining in the sanctuary of a hero are specified in a lease, established by the orgeones of the hero Egretes.82 The orgeones leased the hieron and the oikiai to a private person for ten years (lines 1–7). When they performed the annual sacrifice to the hero, ὅταν δὲ θύωσιν οἱ ὀργεῶνες τῶι ἥρωι , the tenant was to let them use the oikia housing the hieron, which was to be opened up, two other structures called the stégh and the Äptánion, as well as ϰλίνας ϰαὶ τραπέζας εἰς δύο τρίϰλινια (lines 26–30). Stege means a roofed place of some kind and was perhaps a small stoa or portico, or a temporary shed or shelter, while the optanion was the kitchen.83 The couches and the tables may have been placed in the stege and provided reclining space for 12 to 30 people depending on how many used each couch.84 If there was not enough space to house all the worshippers, the remaining ones could have dined under the trees growing in the sanctuary.85

  • 86 See LSJ s.v. for references.
  • 87 IG II2 1259, 1–2.
  • 88 For the Amyneion, see also IG II2 1252 + 999 and 1253; Kearns 1989, 147; Kutsch 1913, 12–16 and no (...)

42The mention of an hestiator or host can be taken as an indication that the cult included dining, judging from the use and meaning of the term in the inscription regarding the cult of the Hero and the Heroines mentioned above (LSS 20) and in the literary sources.86 Two histiatores (a variant spelling of hestiatores) are known from a decree of a group of orgeones dating from the late 4th century BC.87 The decree honours two persons who have performed that duty and taken care of the affairs and the sacrifices (thysiai) of the association. This inscription was found in the Amyneion, west of the Acropolis, and must concern the cult of Amynos, Asklepios and Dexion.88

  • 89 Körte 1896, 301–302, in analogy with Hegesandros quoted by Ath. 8.365d: “the contribution brought (...)

43IG II2 1252, a decree dating from the mid 4th century, gives a further indication that the cult of Amynos, Asklepios and Dexion included dining. The decree honours two members of the association for their achievements. They would each be given money for a thysia and a votive offering (lines 12–14). They were also to have ἀτέλειαν χοῦ χοῦ (line 11), which Körte interpreted as meaning that they would be granted an exemption from bringing wine to the sacrifices.89

  • 90 LS 151 C: the beginning of line 2, where the recipients were named, is lost. For the restoration o (...)
  • 91 On the treatment of hiera, see Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 35–36. On the interpretation of th (...)
  • 92 LS 151 C, commentary on line 7, pinax explained as a tray.
  • 93 Veyne 1983, 286, the pinax is thus a part of the actual sacrifice. This practice was more common i (...)

44The substantial, mid-4th-century, sacrificial calendar from Kos, remarked upon previously in connection with Leukothea, may also concern sacrifices to other heroes, depending on the restoration of the text.90 If the restoration of the recipients as heroes is correct, the three heroes, in the names of the three tribes in the city, received annual sacrifices in three different sanctuaries. Each hero was given a sheep (teleon). The officials who performed the sacrifice (τoὶ ἱα[ροποιοὶ] ϰαὶ θύοντι) were also to provide ἱερὰ in the form of one measure of barley groats, one measure of mixed wheat and barley, three kylikes and a tray (πίναξ) for each of the victims (lines 5–8). Presumably these hiera were burnt in the sacrificial fire on the altar, a ritual forming a part of a normal thysia sacrifice.91 The pinax may have been used for carving, and perhaps also for displaying, the meat from the sacrificed sheep.92 Veyne, however, identified the pinax with a signboard, carried in the sacrificial procession, on which the name of the tribe performing the sacrifice was written.93

45To sum up, the inscriptions discussed above give clear evidence that the animals sacrificed in these hero-cults were not destroyed but eaten by the worshippers (or perhaps sold), either in the sanctuary or elsewhere. The texts mention the division and handling of the meat, the histiatores (hosts), the perquisites for priest and priestesses (skins and portions of meat), the restrictions on where the meat might be eaten and the facilities for dining. In the cases in which a term is used for the sacrificial activity, it is thyein or thysia, but it should be noted that in some inscriptions no particular term is mentioned (this will be further discussed below in connection with the four, well-preserved, Attic sacrificial calendars).

1.4.2. Circumstantial evidence for dining

46Other inscriptions in which sacrifices to heroes are mentioned are not as explicit as those discussed so far, but it can still be argued that the meat of the animal was available for consumption. Some of these inscriptions are very concise and give little information, apart from the name of the recipient, the kind of victim and sometimes the price.

47The context in which these sacrifices to heroes are found and, more specifically, the company in which the heroes occur, offer guidance on what kind of ritual was used. According to the epigraphical evidence, some sacrifices to heroes and to gods were performed on the same occasion, with no indications that there were any ritual distinctions. In the case of the sacrifices to gods, it is usually assumed that the consumption of the meat was so self-evident that it did not have to be mentioned. If no other information is provided, the sacrifice must have been of the regular thysia kind. Since the sacrifices to the heroes, taking place on the same occasion, are not marked as being in any way different from those to the gods, they, too, should be considered as being thysia sacrifices, followed by dining.

  • 94 IG I3 5 = LS 4; cf. von Prott 1899, 241–266; Clinton 1979, 1–12; Clinton 1992, 83, n. 109.
  • 95 IG I3 5, line 4, Tri . p. Τριπ[τολέμοι, ϰριóν]
  • 96 On the restoration of [Ἰάϰ] χος line 5, see Clinton 1988, 70–71 with n. 24.

48This is clearly the case with the various heroes worshipped at Eleusis. IG I3 5, for example, dating from about 500 BC, contains a résumé of sacrifices performed when the initiates arrived at Eleusis.94 The only verb for the ritual activity is. θ[ύε] ν (line 2). Hermes Enagonios and the Charites are given a goat, Poseidon a ram, and Artemis a goat. Telesidromos and Triptolemos probably received a ram.95 To Plouton, Iakchos96 and the two goddesses, there is sacrificed a τρίττοα βόαρχος, i.e., a bovine, a pig and a sheep. This sacrifice of three animals was given jointly to the four recipients and there is no indication that different kinds of rituals were performed.

49In the First Fruit Decree from Eleusis (around 422 BC), IG I3 78 (LS 5), lines 39–40, Triptolemos, Theos, Thea and Eubouleus receive a full-grown victim each. Here, too, only one verb, thyein, is used for the sacrificial activity (line 36). In another First Fruit Decree from the mid 4th century BC, IG II2 140 (LSS 13), Zeus, Demeter, Kore, Triptolemos, Theos, Thea and Eubouleus are given a hiereion each (lines 20–23).

  • 97 LSS 10 A, 60–74 = Oliver 1935, 19–32, no. 2; cf. Healey 1984. Oliver places the sacrifices at the (...)
  • 98 Pherrephatte must mean Kore, since she appears after Demeter (see Clinton 1992, 63, n. 199).
  • 99 Melichos (line 66), was formerly read as Delichos; for the correction, see Graf 1974, 139–144. Hea (...)

50One of the fragments connected with the recodification of the Athenian state calendar by Nichomachos at the end of the 5th century lists sacrifices performed to both gods and heroes by the genos of the Eumolpidai at Eleusis.97 The term for the sacrifice [júousin] was probably thyein, Εὐμολπ[ίδαι] ταῦτα [θύουσιν] (lines 73–74). The first four recipients are gods, Themis, Zeus Herkeios and Demeter receiving sheep and Pherrephatte receiving a ram.98 Next come Eumolpos, Melichos the hero, Archegetes, Polyxenos, Threptos, Dioklos and Keleos, who all receive a sheep each, apart from Threptos, who is given a ram.99

  • 100 LSS 19, 19–20 and line 79, θύωσι, αἰεὶ τοĩς θεοĩς ϰαὶ τοĩς ἥpωσι, In line 81, all the sacrifices a (...)
  • 101 LSS 19, 84. See above, pp. 133–134.
  • 102 LS 20 B, 2, 23 and 39.

51In a similar fashion, the sacrifices to gods and heroes are mixed in the sacrificial calendars from Thorikos, Marathon and Erchia and of the genos of the Salaminioi, which will be discussed in detail further on. However, it can be pointed out also here that, in the sacrificial calendar of the genos of the Salaminioi, the gods and the heroes are mentioned as an entity. In two passages, it is stated that the Salaminioi are to sacrifice to the gods and the heroes, , θύεν δὲ τοĩς θεοĩς ϰαὶ τοĩς ἥρωσιν.100 The sacrifices are listed in chronological order, and there is no particular information on the rituals, either for those of the gods or for those of the heroes, apart from the fact that one of the hero-sacrifices was to be a holocaust, specified in connection with this particular sacrifice.101 In the sacrificial calendar of the deme Marathon, the series of annual and biennial sacrifices are initiated with the term thyein.102 For the individual sacrifices, no particular regulations are prescribed.

  • 103 LS 38, 6–7 and 10–13 = IG II2 1195; late 4th century. The offerings seem to have been bloodless, p (...)
  • 104 Pomtow 1883, nos. 1, 2, 8, 34 and 47; cf. SGDI 3208–3209. The dating of these tablets is difficult (...)

52A fragmentary decree from the deme of Kollytos also mentions joint sacrifices to both gods and heroes.103 Finally, among the questions posed to the oracle of Zeus at Dodona and recorded on lead tablets are inquiries about which of the gods or the heroes one was to sacrifice (thyein) and pray to in order to fare well.104

53In the inscriptions discussed so far under the heading Circumstantial evidence for dining, there are no indications of the victims sacrificed to the heroes being treated in a particular fashion, apart from those few cases in which specific ritual instructions are given, for example, the holocausts recorded in the Erchia and Salaminioi calendars. The most plausible interpretation, therefore, must be that, when the sacrifices to heroes and to gods are mentioned together, they were of the same kind and ended with dining.

  • 105 LSS 64; see above, pp. 135–136.

54The company in which the heroes were worshipped can thus help us to understand what kind of sacrifices were used. Another indicator concerns who performed the sacrifices and for what purpose. The war dead Agathoi worshipped on Thasos received a sacrifice that contained a blood ritual, since the term for the sacrifice is entemnein. Still, the whole ritual was aimed at compensating the families of the fallen for their loss and one essential part of the compensation must have been a banquet for those who attended the ceremony.105

  • 106 IG II2 2501. The mythology of Hypodektes is unknown, like that of Egretes. Kearns 1989, 75 and 202 (...)

55Other heroes, documented in the epigraphical material as receiving sacrifices, were worshipped by small cult-associations meeting once a year to sacrifice. The orgeones of the hero Egretes mentioned above (IG II2 2499 = LS 47) leased his hieron to a private person for ten years, on the condition that they would have access to it for their annual celebration in Boedromion. This sacrifice ended with a meal taking place in the sanctuary, which was equipped with a kitchen, couches and tables (see above, p. 144). Egretes has a very close parallel in Hypodektes, who is also known from only one inscription dating from the end of the 4th century BC106 This is also a lease, by which the orgeones of Hypodektes permanently let out his temenos, containing a hieron (line 4) and an oikia (line 11), to a private person for an unspecified use. The orgeones performed a sacrifice (thysia) to Hypodektes on the 14th of Boedromion, when the hieron was to be opened and garlanded at dawn and his statue oiled and unveiled (lines 6–9). Hypodektes is called theos in the inscription (line 20).

  • 107 Ferguson 1944, 82; cf. the Heros Iatros at Athens, who is called theos in an inventory, IG II2 839 (...)
  • 108 Cult-statues of heroes seem to have been quite rare and mainly found in the cults of major, well-k (...)

56Hypodektes and Egretes both had substantial cult-places, where the orgeones gathered once a year to perform the sacrifices. In the case of Egretes they must have dined in the sanctuary, since equipment for this activity was available there. The orgeones of Hypodektes probably did the same, since his cult-place contained an oikia, where the worshippers could have been housed. Thus, classification of Hypodektes as a god and Egretes as a hero has no relation to the kind of sacrifices performed. Why, then, are they labelled differently? Ferguson suggested that theos was a honorific appellation given to Hypodektes.107 It is possible that the orgeones could decide by themselves what to call the focus of their cult. Perhaps the orgeones of Hypodektes were a more prominent group than those of Egretes and therefore they labelled Hypodektes a god. A sign of his importance was the fact that he had a statue, which was oiled and unveiled as a part of the ritual. Even if Egretes had had a statue, it was not considered important enough to be mentioned in the inscription.108

  • 109 IG II2 1262, 6–7, dating from 301/0 BC. For the new reading οἱ Τυνάβου (line 17), see Tracy 1995, (...)
  • 110 Ferguson 1944, 123–129.

57Other cases of cult-associations are the orgeones of Amynos, Asklepios and Dexion, already commented upon previously, and the thiasotai of Tynabos, who, in a honorary decree, venerate members of the group, because they have taken care of the thysiai and other matters.109 Ferguson, in his study of the Attic orgeones, emphasized that the major feature of the cult practised by these associations was the sacrifice and the meal which followed. There is no sign of what he calls chthonian rituals and sacrifices, and he finds that a holocaust was unthinkable and unheard of.110

1.4.3. Unspecified cases

58It remains to consider the inscriptions, in which the sacrifices to heroes are simply mentioned without any additional information or in no particular context. Among these are included many of the sacrifices to heroes found in the well-preserved, sacrificial calendars from Thorikos, Marathon, Erchia and of the Salaminioi. These will be treated further below.

  • 111 LS 11 A, 11–12 = IG I3 255 A, 13–14.
  • 112 IG II2 1357 a, 5 Ἐρεχθεĩ ἄρνεως; late 5th century. LS 31, 7–8 = IG II2 1146, θύεν δ]ὲ ταῦρον ϰαὶ τ(...)
  • 113 LS 2 C, 6–10 = IG I3 246D, 34–37, hέροιν ἐμ πεδίοι: τέλεον hεϰατέρ[oι---] ; c. 470–450. Cf. LS 1 A (...)

59In IG I3 255, a list of rituals, including sacrifices and the shares given to priests, dating to c. 430 BC, the heroes Glaukos and Xouthos each receive a lamb.111 To Erechtheus, a ram and also a bull were sacrificed.112 Two anonymous heroes, defined as the Heroes in the field, were each given a full-grown victim (teleon).113 We can only speculate on how these sacrifices were performed, but since no particular ritual actions are indicated, there is no reason to assume that they were not of a thysia kind.

  • 114 Rougemont 1977, no. 10, line 32. The re-edition of the text by Rougemont replaces IG II2 1126.
  • 115 Rougemont 1977, 113–114; the first interpretation is comparable with ὁ βοῦς ἡγεμών (Xen. Hell. 6.4 (...)

60A more doubtful case of a sacrifice to a hero is found in a law of the Delphic Amphictyony, dating from 380/79 BC.114 The relevant line in the new edition by Rougemont reads ἐνέστω- [τ]οῦ βοòς τιμά τοῦ ἥρωος, ἑϰατòν στατῆρες Α ἰγιναĩοι, Rougemont suggests the following translation: “... were is found(?). Cost of the bull of the hero(?). 100 Aiginetan stateres”. He finds the line unclear and the expression τοῦ βοòς τοῦ ἥρωος. completely obscure. Two explanations are suggested, either “the hero bull”, i.e., an extremely fine bull, or the hero should be taken as a complement to the bull, which could perhaps mean that the bull was sacrificed to the hero, but it is far from certain.115

1.5. Four Athenian sacrificial calendars: A comparison

  • 116 Three of the calendars (Thorikos, Marathon and Erchia) have recently been discussed by Annie Verba (...)

61The Athenian sacrificial calendars offer a wealth of information concerning Greek sacrifices, both to heroes and to gods. The four best-preserved calendars, those of the demes Thorikos, Erchia and Marathon, and that of the genos of the Salaminioi, all of which have been partly commented upon above, will be more fully discussed together in this section (for the texts, see the Appendix, pp. 343–355).116 In these calendars, a substantial number of heroes are mentioned and a closer study of these inscriptions can provide a context for the sacrifices to heroes, both concerning the relation between various kinds of heroes and between heroes and gods.

  • 117 Eleusis: IG II2 1363, re-edited by Dow & Healey 1965. Teithras: Pollitt 1961 = LSS 132. For an ove (...)

62Of the other known calendars from Attica, which are more fragmentary, LSS 10 A and IG II2 1357 have been discussed previously. The fragmentary calendars of the demes Eleusis and Teithras do not mention any sacrifices to heroes.117 It is clear from the better-preserved calendars that heroes generally received fewer sacrifices than the gods and the lack of heroes in the Eleusis and Teithras calendars is probably best explained by the coincidence of preservation.

  • 118 Daux 1983, 152–154 = Daux 1984, 148 = SEG 33, 1983, 147; Parker 1987, 144–147; Rosivach 1994, 22–2 (...)
  • 119 LS 20 B = IG II2 1358 B; Rosivach 1994, 29–36; cf. Whitehead 1986a, 190–194. The inscription origi (...)
  • 120 LS 18; Daux 1963a, 603–634; Jameson 1965, 154–172; Dow 1965, 180–213; Rosivach 1994, 14–21; cf. Wh (...)
  • 121 LSS 19; Ferguson 1938, 1–74; Lambert S. 1997, 85–106 (partly correcting Ferguson); Rosivach 1994, (...)

63The four calendars in question here are spread in time over a period of almost a hundred years. The Thorikos calendar is dated to about 430,118 the Marathon calendar to c. 400–350,119 the Erchia calendar to c. 375–350,120 and the calendar of the genos of the Salaminioi to 363/2 BC.121

  • 122 In the Erchia calendar (LS 18), one sacrifice lacks an indication of date, col. II, lines 37–39, a (...)
  • 123 Daux 1983, 153–154, lines 28–30, a cow to Thorikos costing between 40 and 50 drachmas, and lines 5 (...)
  • 124 Jameson 1965, 155–156; Dow 1968, 180–186; Whitehead 1986a, 176–204. This is particularly obvious i (...)
  • 125 Jameson 1965, 156.

64The fastidious character of the calendars is obvious and it is interesting to see which kind of information is included and how it is arranged. In all the calendars, the sacrifices are arranged by month, but only the Erchia calendar specifies the dates properly.122 The name of the recipient and the kind of victim are listed in each case. Prices for the victims are given in the Marathon, Erchia and Salaminioi calendars and for two of the sacrifices in the Thorikos calendar, both being to heroes.123 Modern studies have emphasized that one of the prime reasons for inscribing the sacrificial calendars was to regulate the financial responsibilities, rather than to give instructions to the worshippers.124 As Jameson comments, “The ritual information is precious, but it is incidental, even casual”.125

  • 126 Dow 1965, 207.

65Still, the calendars offer a great amount of information on sacrificial practices. If their prime purpose was to deal with financial matters, it seems plausible to argue that only such ritual indications were given as deviated from the regular procedures, understood by everyone. What was regular practice did not have to be specified, in contrast to any particular ritual behaviour. For example, the Erchia calendar mentions only the prerogatives of the priestesses, but not those of the priests. Dow has argued that the priestesses were mentioned in order to make sure they received their share and that, in those cases in which no specification is made, the recipient of the hide of the animal is likely to have been the priest.126

1.5.1. Heroes versus gods

66The first observation to be made is that there is no indication of the separation of the sacrifices to the heroes from the sacrifices to the gods. The sacrifices are listed in chronological order, no matter whether the recipient is a hero or a god. However, as regarded the actual number of sacrifices, the heroes generally received less attention than the gods. They were given fewer sacrifices or, in total, less money was spent on them, as can be seen from the table below.

Table 24. Number of sacrifices to heroes and gods and the amount of money spent in the sacrificial calendars of Thorikos, Marathon, Erchia and the genos of the Salaminioi.

Table 24. Number of sacrifices to heroes and gods and the amount of money spent in the sacrificial calendars of Thorikos, Marathon, Erchia and the genos of the Salaminioi.

Since prices are given only for two sacrifices in the Thorikos calendar, these have been excluded in the summaries of the costs. For the calculation of the various items, see the discussion on the individual calendars, below. The numbers (1) and (2) for the Marathon calendar relate to the alternative years, including biennial sacrifices (see further explanation under the Marathon calendar, p. 159).

67If the number of sacrifices in all the four calendars are added, it is clear that the heroes received a little less than 40 % of all the sacrifices that were performed. If the amounts of money spent are compared (which excludes the Thorikos calendar), the percentage is more or less the same: the cost of the sacrifices to the heroes was c. 38 % of the budget. This distribution illustrates that, even though the gods are likely to have been considered as being the more prominent and powerful, the heroes occupied an important position as recipients of sacrifices. The importance of the heroes is further underlined, if the average costs of a sacrifice to a hero and a sacrifice to a god are estimated (excluding Thorikos). The average amount spent on the hero was 14 drachmas, just the same as the average for a sacrifice to a god. Even though heroes often received fewer sacrifices in absolute numbers, each sacrifice was of no less value than the sacrifices to the gods. If each calendar is studied on its own, the proportions vary for the numbers and costs of sacrifices, to the heroes and to the gods, a fact which will be commented on below.

68The calendars provide us with a context which makes it possible to discern how the sacrifices to heroes functioned in a larger framework. Therefore, the four calendars offer us different kinds of opportunities to evaluate the assumption that hero-sacrifices meant destruction of the animal victim and that no meat was eaten. If the meat from the animals sacrificed to heroes was considered unfit for consumption, this would mean that more than a third of the animals slaughtered could not be eaten. Such an interpretation seems unlikely for several reasons.

  • 127 Whitehead 1986a, 205–206; Rosivach 1994, 11–12; Sourvinou-Inwood 1990, 313–316. See further Parker (...)
  • 128 I see no reason to follow Rosivach (1994, 15), who excludes all piglets from the victims that were (...)

69First of all, animal sacrifice, and especially the dining which followed, fulfilled an important role in ancient Greek society as a means of strengthening the social ties between the citizens and also as a means of indicating who did belong and who did not. Whitehead, in his study of the Attic demes, has shown that there were three categories of deme sacrifices, depending on who could have a share in the hiera: (1) hiera which could be shared by outsiders, (2) hiera which could not be shared by outsiders, and (3) hiera in which others besides the demesmen were regularly included.127 The interpretation that more than a third of the sacrifices performed in the deme were not followed by dining fits badly into that picture.128

  • 129 Rosivach 1994, 84–88; Stengel 1920, 105–106; Berthiaume 1982, 62–69 and 79–80; Isenberg 1975.

70Secondly, if all the victims sacrificed to heroes were destroyed, a third of the money spent would literally have gone up completely in smoke, without making any meat available for the worshippers. Such a waste of meat seems highly implausible, considering the scarcity of meat in antiquity and the fact that, as far as we can tell, virtually all the meat eaten seems to have come from animals killed at sacrifices.129

  • 130 Cf. Verbanck-Piérard 1998, 115–119.

71Thirdly, in the discussion above on which kinds of sacrifices can be reconstructed from the epigraphical material, it was argued that only a very small number of sacrifices could be interpreted as involving the total destruction of the animal victim. These sacrifices were explicitly marked as holocausts. If we were to assume that also other, unspecified sacrifices to heroes meant a total destruction, why were not these, too, marked as being holocausts? What would be the difference between these two kinds of destruction sacrifices, i.e., between those marked as holocausts and those not marked, but only implicitly understood as holocausts? It seems more plausible to argue that, when a sacrifice differed from a regular thysia, that difference was marked in some way. If there is no indication of any particulars, there is no reason to assume a difference from a regular thysia sacrifice.130

  • 131 Information on where the sacrifice was to be performed or at which festival has not been taken int (...)

72The third point is further illustrated by the similar treatment of heroes and gods with regard to the use of ritual specifications for the various sacrifices. These specifications provide additional information regarding what was to be done with the animal or if any other kind of ritual action was to be performed. Most sacrifices listed in the four calendars have no such specifications.131 In the Marathonian calendar, there are none at all, which seems to indicate that all the animal sacrifices were performed in the same manner, i.e., thysia with dining. In the Salaminioi calendar, one sacrifice is specified and in the Thorikos calendar there are six specifications. The Erchia calendar stands out clearly with 46 ritual specifications. Some sacrifices in the Erchia calendar are specified in more than one way. For example, a holocaust may also be nephalios (wineless) or the meat from a sacrifice can be stipulated as to be given to a certain group of people, who also had to consume it within the sanctuary. The ritual specifications are summarized in Table 25.

73It is clear from the table that the ritual specifications are fairly evenly distributed among the sacrifices to the heroes and the gods, respectively. The predominance of ritual specifications for the sacrifices to the gods must be related to the fact that more sacrifices were performed to the gods than to the heroes (cf. Table 24).

74In the Salaminioi calendar, the holocaust to the hero Ioleos is the only ritual specification given. In the Thorikos calendar, there is one holocaust for a god and five specifications that the meat is to be sold: one sacrifice concerning a hero and the rest concerning gods. The impression one gets from these two calendars is that it was of great interest to indicate clearly those few occasions when the meat would not be available for consumption by the worshippers. If the animal was burnt whole or the meat sold, there would be no dining. It is important to note that these sacrifices were performed both to heroes and to gods.

75In the Erchia calendar, the giving of ritual instructions must clearly have been of the utmost importance, considering the frequency of these additions. Both the cult of the heroes and that of the gods were regulated in this manner.

  • 132 LSS 19, 79. Also in lines 19–20, all the sacrifices .rwsi are referred to: θύεν δὲ τοĩς θεοĩς ϰαὶ (...)
  • 133 LS 20 B; cf. also line 23, τάδε ὁ δήμαρχος ὁ Μαραθωνίων θύει.

76The large number of specifications in the Erchia calendar should be compared with the fact that this calendar has no particular term for the sacrificial activity at the beginning: the listing of the sacrifices in the five columns begins immediately below the heading Demarchia he mezon. Apparently there was no need for a term, such as thyein or thysia, which summarized all the sacrificial activity. In the introduction to the listing of the sacrifices in the Salaminioi calendar, all the subsequent activity is summarized as τὰ ἱερὰ θύωσι αἰεὶ τοĩς θεοĩς ϰαὶ τοĩς ἥρωσι.132 In the Marathon calendar, the series of annual sacrifices are initiated with [ὁ Μα]ραθωνίων θύει (line B 2) and the second group of biennial sacrifices with τάδε τò ἕτερον ἔτος θύεται (line B 39).133 For the Thorikos calendar, the beginning is lost, but there may have been a comprehensive sacrificial term in the part which is now missing.

Table 25. Occurrence of ritual specifications in the sacrificial calendars of Thorikos, Erchia and the genos of the Salaminioi.

Table 25. Occurrence of ritual specifications in the sacrificial calendars of Thorikos, Erchia and the genos of the Salaminioi.

The division of the ritual specifications. The listing follows the order of the table above. References to the inscriptions: Thorikos – Daux 1983, 152–154; Erchia – LS 18; for the three cases of ou phora added later, see Daux 1963a, 628; Salaminioi – LSS 19. See also the Appendix, pp. 343 – 355.
Holocaust: Thorikos 15 (Zeus); Erchia col. II, 18–19 (Basile); Erchia col. IV, 22–23 (Epops); Erchia col. V, 13–14 (Epops); Erchia col. III, 23–24 (Zeus Epopetes); Salaminioi 85 (Ioleos).
Ou phora: Erchia col. I, 21 (Heroines at Pylon); Erchia col. I, 51 (Semele); Erchia col. II, 44 (Herakleidai), added later; Erchia col. II, 59 (Aglauros), added later; Erchia col. III, 53 (Leukaspis); Erchia col. IV, 55 (Menedeios); Erchia col. V, 6–7 (Heroines at Schoinos); Erchia col. I, 5 (Apollon); Erchia col. I, 10– 11 (Hera Thelchinia); Erchia col. III, 6–7 (Kourotrophos); Erchia col. III, 10 (Artemis); Erchia col. III, 17–18 (Zeus Polieus); Erchia col. III, 64 (Zeus Polieus); Erchia col. IV, 6–7 (Kourotrophos); Erchia col. IV, 10–11 (Artemis); Erchia col. IV, 38 (Dionysos); Erchia col. IV, 46 (Tritopatreis); Erchia col. V, 21–22 (Ge); Erchia col. V, 26–27 (Zeus); Erchia col. V, 30 (Zeus Horios); Erchia col. V, 38 (Apollon Lykeios), added later; Erchia col. V, 63–64 (Zeus Epakrios).
Distribution of meat: Erchia col. I 48–50 (Semele); Erchia col. II, 49–50 (Apollon Pythios); Erchia col. III, 36–37 (Apollon Apotropaios); Erchia col. IV, 37–38 (Dionysos); Erchia col. V, 36–37 (Apollon Lykeios).
Meat to be sold: Thorikos 27 (Neanias); Thorikos 11–12 (Zeus Kataibates); Thorikos 23 (Athena); Thorikos 26 (Zeus Kataibates); Thorikos 35 (Zeus Milichios).
Skin to be torn: Erchia col. III, 11–12 (Artemis); Erchia col. IV, 11–12 (Artemis).
Skin to priestess: Erchia col. I, 21–22 (Heroines at Pylon); Erchia col. I, 51–52 (Semele); Erchia col. V, 7–8 (Heroines at Schoinos); Erchia col. II, 38–39 (Hera); Erchia col. IV, 39–40 (Dionysos).
Nephalios: Erchia col. II, 19–20 (Basile); Erchia col. III, 52 (Leukaspis); Erchia col. IV, 23 (Epops); Erchia col. V, 14–15 (Epops); Erchia col. I, 41–43 (Zeus Milichios); Erchia col. III, 24–25 (Zeus Epopetes); Erchia col. IV, 45–46 (Tritopatreis); Erchia col. V, 63 (Zeus Epakrios).

77Most of the ritual specifications in the Erchia calendar are concerned with the meat: four holocausts, 22 regulations that no meat was to be taken away and five stipulations on who was to receive the meat. In Erchia, just as in Marathon and among the Salaminioi, it seems to have been important to clarify, not only when there was no meat available for consumption, but also, whether there were any restrictions on what could be done with the available meat.

78Moreover, the specifications in the Erchia calendar are used in the same manner both for heroes and for gods. For example, the four holocausts, three to heroes and one to a god, are all to be wineless (nephalia). The distribution of the meat is prescribed after one sacrifice to a heroine and following four sacrifices to gods. In the case of the heroine Semele, the meat was given to the women and was to be eaten in the sanctuary. This sacrifice was performed on the same day and at the same altar (bomos) as the sacrifice to Dionysos, in which the meat also was given to the women and consumed in the sanctuary. Furthermore, in both cases, the priestesses received the hide of the goats sacrificed. The only specification stipulated in the Erchia calendar that occurs only for gods and not for heroes is the tearing of the skins of the goats sacrificed to Artemis.

79In all, although the main purpose of the calendars was to regulate economical matters, the fact remains that the main cost at a sacrifice must have been the animal victims. Admittedly, many possible ritual actions are not commented upon in these texts. This is clear if a comparison is made with the more detailed documents such as the mid-4th-century inscription from Kos or the new sacred law from Selinous. Still, what the calendars do say about ritual, and this applies both to the Attic examples as well as to other inscriptions, is principally concerned with meat: the amount available, its division, any particulars surrounding its consumption. And since the treatment of meat and the dining on meat must be viewed as a main feature of Greek religion, these documents can definitely be considered as having a bearing on the rituals practised, especially when it comes to evaluating the traditional notion of the main ritual in hero-cults being a sacrifice at which the animal was destroyed.

1.5.2. Thorikos

  • 134 The text follows Daux 1983, 152–154, apart from the following restorations: line 27, Nεανίαι, τέλε (...)

80If we continue to look at each calendar separately, it is possible to discern some regional distinctions concerning the cult of the heroes. The earliest calendar is that from Thorikos.134

  • 135 See Kearns 1989, 177.

81In the Thorikos calendar, c. 40 % of the animals sacrificed were to heroes. Prices are given only for one category of victims, namely cattle, which were to cost between 40 and 50 drachmas. However, we are well informed of the prices for the other categories of animals from the other calendars and it is safe to assume that the cows or oxen were the most expensive animals sacrificed at Thorikos. Only heroes received these costly animals in this deme. One was sacrificed to the hero Thorikos (lines 28–30), the eponymous hero of the deme, while the other was offered to Kephalos (lines 54–56), a hero who was intimately connected with the deme Thorikos in myth.135 The importance of these two heroes is further indicated by the fact that both of them also received a sheep each on another occasion during the year (lines 16–18).

Table 26. The Thorikos calendar. Type and number of animals and expenses for sacrifices to heroes and gods.

Table 26. The Thorikos calendar. Type and number of animals and expenses for sacrifices to heroes and gods.

Trapezai have been included, even though that kind of sacrifice did not include a particular victim.

  • 136 On the particular role of heroines in the Attic sacrificial calendar, see Larson 1995, 26–34, who (...)

82Though the total number of sacrifices to heroes was less than that to the gods, it is interesting to note that the heroes mainly received substantial victims. Apart from the two cows or oxen, the heroes were given 14 grown sheep, just as many as the gods. The latter, however, also received two pregnant ewes and three goats. The remaining sacrifices to the gods were mainly made with what must have been relatively cheap animals: lambs, kids and piglets. The heroes seem either to have been considered so important that they were given substantial animals like cows or oxen and sheep or of relatively minor importance, and therefore received only a piglet or a trapeza, which, in all probability, did not include a particular animal victim (see above, p. 138). Trapezai were given only to heroines, and five of these heroines received their trapeza in connection with a male hero being given an animal victim: cow or ox, sheep or piglet. Some of these heroines did not even have their own names but were simply designated after their male companion as the Heroines of (the hero) Thorikos (line 30) or the Heroines of Hyperpedios (lines 48–49).136

1.5.3. Marathon

  • 137 The text follows LS 20 B, apart from line 20, where - νεχος is is preferred (see Kearns 1989, 188) (...)

83The calendar from Marathon is, in many ways, similar to that from Thorikos, concerning both the number and the type of sacrifices and their division between heroes and gods.137

84The sacrifices in the Marathon calendar are divided into three sections in the inscription. First are listed sacrifices performed every year (lines B 2–33), followed by two groups of sacrifices performed in alternate years (lines B 34–38 and B 39–53 respectively). In Table 27, boxes with two numbers for the animals or two kinds of prices show the differences between the alternate years. Boxes with only one number or price indicate that there was no difference between the two years. The number and kind of sacrifices given to the heroes and the gods, respectively, therefore depend on which year is being discussed. What can be noted regarding this division is that the biennial sacrifices deal almost exclusively with the gods. The sacrifices to the heroes are all found among those performed every year, with the exception of the sacrifice of a ram to Galios every two years (line B 51).

Table 27. The Marathon calendar. Type and number of animals and expenses for sacrifices to heroes and gods.

Table 27. The Marathon calendar. Type and number of animals and expenses for sacrifices to heroes and gods.

Trapezai have been included, even though that kind of sacrifice did not include a particular victim. The numbers (1) and (2) refer to the differences between sacrifices performed in alternate years (see the explanation p. 159).

  • 138 The recipient of two sacrifices among the annual ones cannot be identified. Line B 5 ends with πρò (...)

85For the first of the two years, the heroes receive more than the gods, both in actual numbers of victims and in the amount of money spent.138 In the second year, the sacrifices to the heroes and those to the gods are more alike. The heroes receive 14 sheep and the gods six, but the gods are also given a pregnant ewe, a ram and a goat: victims within the same price range or somewhat more expensive. The cows or oxen are distributed with two for the heroes and two for the gods; however, one of the latter was specified as a pregnant cow. The piglets are more unevenly spread. The heroes were given three and the gods seven. To the gods were also sacrificed two pregnant pigs, victims that were of a more expensive kind. Even when the number of victims sacrificed was evenly divided between heroes and gods, the latter were given more unusual kinds of animals, such as pregnant females or an uncastrated male.

86In some cases, a hero or a god received more than one victim on the same occasion, making the total cost of the offering exceed 100 drachmas. The hero Neanias was given a cow or ox, a sheep and a piglet, a trittoa boarchos, of a total cost of 105 drachmas (line B 21), and the Hero -nechos, received a cow or ox and a sheep, together costing 102 drachmas (line B 20). The only, more expensive group of offerings given to a single deity found in the Marathon calendar is that to Athena Hellotis (lines B 35–36). To her were sacrificed a cow or an ox, three sheep and a piglet, which altogether cost 126 drachmas. However, this expensive sacrifice to Athena Hellotis took place only every second year: in the intermediate year, Athena Hellotis was given only a sheep costing 11 drs (line B 41). The sacrifices to Neanias and -nechos, on the other hand, were performed every year. This comparison illustrates clearly the prominence of these heroes in this deme.

87As in the Thorikos calendar, also minor heroes receiving cheap offerings are found at Marathon. For example, an unnamed Hero and his Heroine were given a piglet each, as well as a joint trapeza (lines B 3–4). The pairing up of a male hero and female heroine is common in many cases, apart from the one just mentioned. Both the important heroes, Neanias and -nechos, are each accompanied by an anonymous heroine, who receives a female sheep as sacrifice (lines B 20 and 22). The Hero at -rasileia is given a sheep and a trapeza, and his anonymous heroine a sheep (lines B 23–24). The same offerings were made to the Hero at Hellotion and his heroine, also unnamed (lines B 25–26).

1.5.4. Erchia

  • 139 The text follows Daux 1963a, 606–610 = LS 18 = SEG 21, 1965, 541. The restorations proposed for th (...)

88The Erchia calendar shows many differences, compared with the Thorikos and Marathon calendars.139 In these two calendars, the sacrifices were listed for each month, with no clear indication of the day on which the ritual was to take place. Furthermore, the Marathon calendar contained no ritual specifications and the Thorikos calendar very few. In the Erchia calendar, the dates are carefully indicated and there are ample ritual specifications for a number of sacrifices. The most striking difference, however, is the proportions of the sacrifices to the heroes and the sacrifices to the gods.

Table 28. The Erchia calendar. Type and number of animals and expenses for sacrifices to heroes and gods.

Table 28. The Erchia calendar. Type and number of animals and expenses for sacrifices to heroes and gods.

89The impression one gets from the Erchia calendar is one of economy. No animals of the most expensive kind were sacrificed, such as cows or oxen or pigs. There are no pregnant animals, which also seem to have had a higher price. The cult of the gods seems to have been given precedence at the expense of the sacrifices to the heroes. Of the preserved sacrifices listed from Erchia, only a fifth were performed to heroes. They mainly received sheep, but only a total of seven, compared with 23 sheep sacrificed to the gods. Both heroes and gods were given lambs and female goats, the gods more often than the heroes. As in the Thorikos and Marathon calendars, the gods at Erchia were given a greater variety of animal victims, usually not given to the heroes: male goats, a kid and a ram.

  • 140 Col. III, 28; col. IV, 20 and col. V, 12; col. IV, 53. For Menedeios, perhaps related to the cult (...)
  • 141 Col. III, 50; for Leukaspis at Syracuse, see Dunst 1964, 482–485. This cult will be further discus (...)

90The heroes that do receive worship mainly have a strong local colour, but still seem to be quite insignificant. There are two groups of heroines only identified by their toponyms, the Heroines at Pylon and the Heroines at Schoinos (col. I, 19, and col. V, 3). Alochos, Epops and Menedeios all have unknown or unclear mythology and seem to have had no known cults, apart from those documented in the Erchia calendar.140 The mythological background of Leukaspis is obscure, but he may also have been worshipped at Syracuse.141 Local heroes of major importance in terms of expenses for sacrifices, such as Thorikos and Kephalos at Thorikos or Neanias and -nechos at Marathon, are completely lacking at Erchia.

  • 142 Dow 1965, 210–211; Dow 1968, 182–183.

91Dow explained the unusual division of the sacrifices in the Erchia calendar into five columns as a result of a new way of financing the sacrifices, which apparently was difficult. The calendar was re-codified and divided into five, almost equal parts, the expenses of each column were to be paid for by one demesman. Dow further suggested that there may have been more hero-sacrifices previously but that they had had to be abandoned in the 4th century.142 If that assumption is correct, it would explain the low number of sacrifices to heroes at Erchia, as compared with Thorikos and Marathon.

  • 143 Dow 1965, 192–193; Dow 1968, 183.
  • 144 Daux 1963a, 632–633; Jameson 1965, 155; Whitehead 1986b, 62.
  • 145 Daux 1963a, 632; Mikalson 1977, 427–428.
  • 146 On the contents of the presumed “Lesser Demarchia”, see Whitehead 1986b, 60–61.

92It is also possible that this calendar of sacrifices was not the only one at Erchia. The heading of the calendar, Δημαρχία ἡ μέζων, the “Greater Demarchia”, has usually been taken as an indication that there was also a “Lesser Demarchia”. Dow argued that this “Lesser Demarchia” contained the sacrifices that used to be performed in the past, before the re-codification and creation of the “Greater Demarchia”.143 The “Greater Demarchia” is therefore a replacement for the former “Lesser Demarchia”. Other scholars, beginning with the publisher Daux, have argued that a “Greater Demarchia” rather presupposes a contemporary “Lesser Demarchia”.144 The main argument for another contemporary calendar is the lack of any biennial or quadrennial sacrifices in the extant calendar.145 If there was a second calendar at Erchia, it is possible that that calendar contained a number of sacrifices to the heroes.146

1.5.5. The genos of the Salaminioi

  • 147 The text is completely preserved; see LSS 19 (N.B. I follow Sokolowski’s numbering of the lines wh (...)
  • 148 Lines 20–24 and 86; cf. Ferguson 1938, 33–34 and 67.

93The last calendar to be dealt with does not regulate the sacrifices of a deme, but of the two branches of the genos of the Salaminioi.147 The whole inscription is an arbitration dealing with the common cults of the genos and how these are to be funded and administered. The sacrificial calendar forms only the last part of the text (lines 85–94) and lists the sacrifices that the Salaminioi paid for with the income from the lease of land at their Herakleion at Sounion. In the inscription are also mentioned sacrifices at which the victims were furnished by the state or by voluntary contributions from the individual members, but we have no information on the kinds of victims, their prices or who received them.148

Table 29. The calendar of the genos of the Salaminioi. Type and number of animals and expenses for sacrifices to heroes and gods.

Table 29. The calendar of the genos of the Salaminioi. Type and number of animals and expenses for sacrifices to heroes and gods.

The cost of wood has not been included.

94The Salaminioi calendar displays some differences when compared with the three deme calendars discussed previously. First of all, the total number of sacrifices is substantially lower than that of the other calendars. This is not surprising, however, since the Salaminioi were a genos and not a deme and therefore must have had less resources. Secondly, the heroes receive more sacrifices than the gods, twelve to the heroes (thirteen if the biennial sacrifice to Ion is included) and ten to the gods. This division may also be explained as being related to the fact that the inscription concerns a genos, who may have been even more interested in genealogical cults than a deme was. Furthermore, in terms of sacrificial practices, a genos may be compared to an association of orgeones, which also focused on the cults of heroes, even though it mainly concerned itself with one, and not several, heroes.

95Even though the heroes received more sacrifices than the gods, the sacrifices to the latter cost substantially more money. The heroes were mainly given sheep (five) and piglets (five), and the only expensive animals were two pigs costing 40 drs each. The gods receive only one sheep and one goat, but four pigs and the only cow or ox listed in the calendar.

  • 149 Lines 11, 34 and 83–84; Ferguson 1938, 16.
  • 150 Ferguson 1938, 28 and 67.

96Just as in the Thorikos and Marathon calendars, it is possible to distinguish various categories of heroes. Eurysakes and Theseus received pigs, the most expensive victims given to the heroes (lines 87 and 91). On the days when their sacrifices were performed, the Salaminioi seem to have made no other offerings, since each occasion has the date indicated, the 18th of Mounychion for Eurysakes and the 6th of Pyanopsion for Theseus. These festivals were apparently focused completely on the respective hero. Eurysakes had a priest and a precinct, the Eurysakeion at Melite in Athens, which is likely to have been the headquarters of the Salaminioi and where their published records were stored.149 Theseus was, of course, a major Athenian hero, receiving worship at several locations, but the Salaminioi probably sacrificed to him in Athens or perhaps at Phaleron.150

  • 151 The different occasions when the Salaminioi sacrificed, either to a group of gods and heroes or to (...)

97All the other heroes were worshipped together with a god or gods.151 For example, the heroes Phaiax, Teukros and Nauseiros each received a piglet costing 3.5 drs at the same festival as when Poseidon was given a pig worth 40 drs (lines 89–91).

  • 152 Lines 52–54; for the salt-works, see Ferguson 1938, 54–55; Thompson 1938, 75–76; Young J.H. 1941, (...)

98At the major festival of the Salaminioi, which took place in Mounychion at their Herakleion at Porthmos at Sounion, six heroes (or seven, depending on the year) and two gods were given sacrifices (lines 84–87). Herakles, the main deity, received an ox, the only one in the whole calendar, and Kourotrophos a goat, also the only one in the calendar. Of the heroes, Alkmene, Maia, Ion (every second year), the Hero at the Hale and Ioleos were given sheep, but the sheep sacrificed to Ioleos was burnt in a holocaust. Finally, the Hero at Antisara and the Hero at Pyrgilion were given a piglet each. The last two heroes, identified only by their toponym, received the smallest victims. The Hero at the Hale, “the Hero of the salt-works”, was also known by his toponym but was given a sheep. This hero was probably more important, since his cult was administered by the priest of Eurysakes.152

99Finally, the hero Skiros received a sheep on the same occasion as Athena Skiras was given a pregnant ewe (line 92). This entry ends with the expense of 3 drs for wood for the altar (bomos), which presumably was used for both these sacrifices.

1.5.6. Conclusions

  • 153 Cf. van Straten 1995, 170–181. On the relation between deme and state sacrifices, see Mikalson 197 (...)

100Four points can be made from this discussion of the four calendars. Before these points are outlined, it is important to remember that the calendars reflect sacrifices performed on an intermediate level of Athenian society, which, to a certain degree, was different from the religious activity of the state or from that in the private sphere, such as the family or groups of orgeones. Both the deities which received worship and the kind of animals sacrificed are clearly related to the fact that we are dealing with the records of demes and a genos.153

  • 154 The beginning of the Thorikos calendar is lost and may have contained such terminology.

101First of all, it is evident that the most frequent ritual performed both to heroes and to gods was a sacrifice ending with dining. The terminology used for these sacrifices is thyein and thysia in the Marathon and Salaminioi calendars, but this ritual seems to have been so common that it was sufficient to use these terms in the introduction to the whole calendar or to sections of the text. The individual sacrifices did not have to be specified as thysiai. In the calendars from Thorikos and Erchia, the terms thyein and thysia do not occur at all.154 Any ritual behaviour deviating from a regular thysia, on the other hand, was indicated by particular terms, such as holokautos, nephalios or ou phora. Moreover, these ritual specifications are used both for the sacrifices to heroes and for those to gods.

  • 155 On the amount of meat from different victims, see Rosivach 1994, 157–158, who also outlines the di (...)
  • 156 Jameson 1988, 94–95, some of these animals may have been bought from outside Attica.

102Secondly, the interpretation of the main kind of sacrifice to the heroes as a thysia including dining, is strengthened by the prominent position which the heroes occupy in the calendars. The heroes were important recipients of worship, as is obvious from the actual number of sacrifices they received and the amount of money that was spent on these sacrifices, and it seems highly unlikely that such a substantial part of the sacrifices would not have ended with dining. In all four calendars, the worship of the heroes is interwoven with that of the gods throughout the year. Judging from the frequency of sacrifice and the kinds of animal victims used, the heroes must, in many cases, have been considered as just as important as the gods and in a few instances even more important. Some heroes, such as Thorikos and Kephalos at Thorikos, and Neanias and -nechos at Marathon, received cattle, i.e., victims of the most expensive kind. These large animals gave a substantial amount of meat, and the festivals of these heroes must have been of major importance, since a great number of people could participate.155 Cattle were usually sacrificed only by the Athenian state, which had more substantial resources at its disposal.156

  • 157 Not all demes could have had an eponymous hero, since they were not eponymously named, and may hav (...)

103Thirdly, the heroes we encounter were not all of the same kind. Some were major religious characters, such as Thorikos, Kephalos, Neanias and -nechos mentioned above, who may have been the eponymous hero or the archegetes of a deme.157 In the Salaminioi calendar, the major hero is Eurysakes, who received an expensive victim, a pig, and whose shrine must have been the meeting-point of the genos, since they stored their records at that location. The large animals sacrificed to these heroes clearly emphasize their importance, and their festivals must have been major events. On a middle level are the bulk of the heroes in the calendars. Several of these heroes are little known apart from these inscriptions. The sacrifices they receive are mainly sheep. On the lowest level, we find the heroes, who are often identified by their toponyms or simply called the Hero or the Heroine. These heroes receive piglets or the most inexpensive kind of offerings, trapezai.

  • 158 Jameson 1988, 87–119, esp. 95 and 106.

104Finally, there are regional variations between the calendars, regarding both the numbers of sacrifices to heroes and the animals used (see Tables 24 and 30). If we compare the three demes, it is clear that Thorikos and Marathon must be considered as having been fairly wealthy, while Erchia was more frugal. In his study of the relation between sacrifice and animal husbandry in ancient Greece, Michael Jameson has emphasized that, on this local level, the victims sacrificed correspond more or less to the seasonal supply of animals but that the local geographical conditions were also of importance.158 On the Marathon plain, there was good pasturage for cattle and therefore the deme could sacrifice this expensive type of animal. Erchia was apparently dependent on sheep and did not sacrifice one single cow or ox. Furthermore, the Erchia calendar differs from the other three calendars regarding the low number of sacrifices to heroes: only a fifth of the total. It is possible that this deme had had difficulties in financing the sacrifices and had therefore cut down on the offerings to the heroes. However, the Erchian calendar records more sacrifices to the gods than the other calendars, and therefore it seems rather as if the Erchians gave priority to the gods over the heroes.

Table 30. Number and kind of animals sacrificed to heroes and gods in the calendars of Thorikos, Marathon, Erchia and the genos of the Salaminioi.

Table 30. Number and kind of animals sacrificed to heroes and gods in the calendars of Thorikos, Marathon, Erchia and the genos of the Salaminioi.

The numbers (1) and (2) refer to the differences between sacrifices performed alternate years, see the explanation above under the Marathon calendar, p. 159.

105Bearing the regional variations in mind, it can be said that from the perspective of the deme and the genos, little distinction seems to have been made between gods and heroes, judging from the sacrifices performed. Admittedly, the gods as a whole received more sacrifices than the heroes, but the most important heroes must be considered as being more or less on the same level as the gods. The cheapest kinds of victims, piglets, could also be given to gods, although a preference for presenting such sacrifices to minor heroes can be noted. Any explicit need to distinguish between heroes and gods in these contexts may rather have been expressed on another level than the actual sacrifices performed. By their exclusive and individual nature, the heroes were more connected with a local community, a family or a group than the pan-Hellenic gods, worshipped not only in Athens itself but also outside Attica. Still, it has to be remembered that many of the gods occurring in these documents can by their epithets be considered as having clear local traits. The general impression remains, however, that any particular distinctions made between heroes and gods can rarely be demonstrated from the calendars but have to be sought in other kinds of evidence.

1.6. Conclusion: Sacrifices to heroes from the epigraphical evidence

106From the review of the epigraphical evidence for sacrifices to heroes in the Archaic to early Hellenistic periods, it is clear that there is no support for the notion that the rituals used in hero-cults were predominantly holocausts, blood libations and offerings of food. Holocausts and blood rituals are rarely indicated in the inscriptions, judging from the terminology used. If we assume that these rituals were performed also in other cases, apart from when it is explicitly stated, we are faced with the problem of deciding which of the other hero-sacrifices should be interpreted as having been holocausts or blood rituals. Furthermore, why should a handful of holocausts to heroes be specified as being of this kind, while the great majority were not? The direct evidence for thysia including dining is so substantial that this kind of ritual has to be assumed also in the cases in which there is no extra information, showing beyond any doubt that the meat of the animal was kept and eaten.

107The theoxenia are more common than the holocausts and blood rituals but seem mainly to have functioned as a complimentary ritual used on the same occasion as a thysia. Either the hero receiving a thysia would also receive a table with offerings or the table would be presented to a less important hero or heroine at the same time as the thysia to the other recipient.

108According to the epigraphical material, the standard sacrifice to heroes was a thysia with dining. This ritual was so frequent that it did not need any particular explanations, unless the meat or the skin was to be handled in a special manner. It was the deviating, unusual practices that had to be indicated. The basic sacrifice to a hero was a thysia at which the worshippers ate, just as in the cult of the gods.

2. Literary evidence

2.1. Destruction sacrifices

  • 159 Rudhardt 1958, 286–287. The terms are commonly found in Hebrew and Christian contexts.

109In the epigraphical material, the instances of total destruction of the animals sacrificed to heroes were covered by the term holokautos. In the literary sources, the verb holokautein and its variants are not documented at all for sacrifices to heroes and are in fact rare also in other Greek religious contexts.159

110The terms which the literary sources use for the hero-sacrifices in which the whole victim was destroyed are enagizein, enagisma and enagismos. From the investigation of the use and meaning of these terms in chapter I, it is clear that they were linked in particular to recipients who had a close connection with death and that the rituals covered consisted in a total destruction of the offerings, usually by means of fire, not leaving any meat to dine on.

  • 160 See above, pp. 82–86.
  • 161 Hdt. 1.167.

111In the period of interest here, down to 300 BC, only enagizein and enagisma are used for sacrifices to heroes in a total of four cases. Since these passages have already been discussed, only a brief summary is given here.160 The Greek prisoners of war killed by the inhabitants of Agylla received enagizein sacrifices and games at the command of the Pythia.161 These sacrifices were instituted to remedy the negative effects of the unjust killing of the Phokaians. The contents of the rituals are not described by Herodotos, but they probably included the killing of animals, since they are said to be performed megalos and were accompanied by athletic games and horse-races.

  • 162 Ath. pol. 58.1.
  • 163 Demosthenes (De falsa leg. 280) says that Harmodios and Aristogeiton received a share in the libat (...)

112Harmodios and Aristogeiton were given enagismata performed by the polemarch in Athens.162 The cult of Harmodios and Aristogeiton seems to have been close to, but not identical with, the cult of the war dead, which was also among the responsibilities of the polemarch. The contents of the enagismata are not known, but animal sacrifice seems likely, considering the importance accorded to Harmodios and Aristogeiton in the abolition of the tyranny.163 Furthermore, it seems strange that these heroes should have received less than, for example, the minor local heroes known from the sacrificial calendars of Attica.

  • 164 Mir. ausc. 840a.

113The third case of enagizein sacrifices concerns four groups of heroes at Taras, the Atreidai, Tydeidai, Aiakidai and Laertiadai.164 These heroes received their enagizein sacrifices on certain occasions, while another group of heroes, the Agamemnonidai, were given thysiai on another day. The thysia to the Agamemnonidai was followed by dining, since the text states explicitly that the women were not allowed to taste the meat. Animals were probably also sacrificed at the enagizein sacrifices.

  • 165 Hdt. 2.44.

114Finally, Herakles was worshipped in two aspects, on the one hand, with enagizein sacrifices as a hero, and on the other, as an immortal Olympian receiving thysia.165 The explicit contrasting of thyein and enagizein is best interpreted as referring to two different kinds of rituals, a sacrifice ending with dining and a destruction sacrifice, respectively.

  • 166 See further below, pp. 219–221.

115The enagizein sacrifices to the Phokaians at Agylla, and to the Atreidai, Tydeidai, Aiakidai and Laertiadai at Taras, as well as the enagismata to Harmodios and Aristogeiton, were the only rituals to be performed to the heroes on each particular occasion, as far as it is possible to tell. The dual cult of Herakles, on the other hand, may have been a single entity consisting of both an alimentary and a destruction sacrifice, using either the same victim or two separate animals.166

2.2. Blood rituals

  • 167 Pp. 183–192; cf. Ekroth 2000.

116The blood rituals mentioned in the literary sources are covered by a terminology more varied than that of the destruction sacrifices. The evidence for blood rituals is not abundant, though. It is interesting to note that, in all the cases of relevance to Greek conditions, the blood rituals belong to a larger complex, which also included thysia followed by dining. Only the blood rituals themselves are of interest here, while the contexts to which they belong and in particular the evidence for thysia sacrifices will be considered later in this chapter.167

  • 168 Pind. Ol. 1.90–91. For the full text and discussion of this passage, see pp. 190–192.
  • 169 Gerber 1982, 141–142; Casabona 1966, 206; Krummen 1990, 159. The etymology is usually given as der (...)
  • 170 Plut. Vit. Arist. 21.5 (see above, p. 102); Hsch. s.v. (Latte 1953–66, A 1939); Etym. Magn. s.v. ( (...)

117The first and clearest case of a blood ritual is found in Pindar’s description of the cult of Pelops at Olympia, in which it is said that he has a share in the splendid offerings mémiktai of blood: νῦν δ' ἐν αἱμαϰουρίαις ἀγλααĩσι μέμιϰται.168 Haimakouria must be considered as referring to an offering of blood.169 This term is highly unusual and seems to have been a local Boiotian word, which, apart from this instance in Pindar, is only found once in Plutarch and in a few lexica from late antiquity.170

  • 171 Thuc. 5.11. For the full text and discussion of this passage, see pp. 184–185.
  • 172 Casabona 1966, 128 and 226–229, who equates the term with haimakouria; Rudhardt 1958, 285; Stengel (...)

118The Spartan general Brasidas, who fell when defending Amphipolis against the Athenians, was buried in the city and considered as its new founder.171 The Amphipolitans instituted a cult consisting of various features: ὡς ἥρωί τε ἐντέμνουσι ϰαὶ τιμὰς δεδώϰασιν ἀγῶνας ϰαὶ ἐτησίους θυσίας: (“they perform entemnein sacrifices to him as a hero and gave him honours in the form of games and annual thysiai”). This sacrifice contained a blood ritual covered by the term entemnein: the same term was used also for the sacrifices to the war dead Agathoi on Thasos, recorded in an inscription discussed above (LSS 64). The meaning of this term was to cut the throats of the animals, a purely technical action, which seems to have had no bearing on the subsequent treatment of the body, i.e., it cannot be automatically assumed that the meat was destroyed in connection with this sacrifice.172

  • 173 Fr. 65, lines 77–94 (Austin 1968); see also Cropp 1995 for commentary and translation; cf. Jouan 2 (...)

119In a substantial fragment of the Erechtheus by Euripides, three sacrifices which can be interpreted as blood rituals are mentioned.173 The setting in which these rituals are outlined is the end of the play: both Erechtheus and his daughters are dead and Athena instructs his wife Praxithea on the sacrifices they are to receive. The dead daughters, now called the Hyakinthids, are to be given two sets of sacrifices.

  • 174 Fr. 65, lines 77–80 (Austin 1968). For the full text and discussion of this passage, see pp. 186–1 (...)
  • 175 Casabona 1966, 174–178.
  • 176 Casabona 1966, 189 and 336–337. On sphagia, see also Jameson 1991.
  • 177 See Cropp 1995, 192, line 79, who compares bouktonos to tauroktonos, “bull-slaying” (Soph. Phil. 4 (...)

120First of all, they are to have a regular cult consisting of thysiai and the slaughter of oxen (σϕραγαĩσι [βουϰ]τόνοις).174 The term sphage, which is used for wounds, killings, massacres and suicides, refers, in connection with sacrifices, to the actual gesture of killing the animal victim by cutting its throat.175 This is an action highlighting the blood. Sphage differs from sphagia (used for battle-line sacrifices, for example), since the latter could mean a separate ritual, a sacrifice of blood which was never followed by a meal.176 In the Erechtheus, the sphage rather forms part of the thysia and it is possible that the sacrifice referred to was an ordinary thysia. On the other hand, since both terms are explicitly mentioned, they can be taken to refer to two kinds of sacrificial actions, which, however, were performed jointly involving the same victims. Even though sphage could form part of any regular animal sacrifice, the interpretation of the sphagai, in this context, as referring to the actual killing and bleeding of the animals may be supported by them being specified as bouktonoi, a unique term but best understood as “ox-slaying”.177 This is no ordinary slaughter of oxen but an event when the actual killing and bleeding was emphasized.

  • 178 Fr. 65, lines 81–86 (Austin 1968). For the full text and discussion of this passage, see pp. 186–1 (...)
  • 179 Austin 1967, 57, line 83; Kron 1976, 196; Henrichs 1983, 98; Scullion 1994, 117; Cropp 1995, 173 a (...)
  • 180 Cropp 1995, 192, line 83, with references to Wilkins 1993, 101–102, lines 399–409.
  • 181 Jameson 1991, 205.
  • 182 On the distinction between camp-ground and battle-line sacrifices, see Jameson 1991, 205–209.

121The second set of sacrifices was to be performed to the Hyakinthids in case of war, when the Athenians were to θύειν πρότομα πολεμίου δορός, not using any vine-wood nor libating any wine on the altar (pyra), but instead pouring out honey and water.178 The term protoma is a hapax and has generally been taken to mean a sacrifice before battle.179 Cropp suggests the translation “pre-cuttings” of sacrificial victims and seems to equate this sacrifice with the battle-line sphagia performed just before the armies clashed.180 However, in war sphagia in the true sense, no libations were poured, no fire was lit and no altar was used.181 Since honey and water were to be poured out at the protoma and an altar (pyra) is mentioned, this sacrifice seems rather to have been performed before the army took the field than on the actual battleground.182

  • 183 LSJ s.v.
  • 184 See Casabona 1966, 227–229; entoma is also very rare and is attested only twice in sacrificial con (...)

122It is tempting to connect protoma with temnein, “to cut”, and especially with protemnein, meaning “to cut off beforehand”, even though the latter term does not seem to have been used in a religious sense.183 Protemneinprotoma may be compared to entemnein-entoma, the latter being the noun corresponding to entemnein and meaning either the victims, whose throats one cuts to make the blood flow into something, or the equivalent rituals.184 If there is a connection, protoma may perhaps have been a sacrifice of blood performed before another action, for example, going to war. The performance of the protoma as a preparation for war strengthens the interpretation of the ritual as being centred on blood.

  • 185 LSJ s.v. Cf. τόμος (slice, piece). Cf. also the rhyta consisting of an animal’s head or protome wi (...)
  • 186 Cf. Aesch. Psych. no. 125, col. II, lines 3–4 (Kramer al. 1980, 17): ὑπò τ' αὐχένιον λαιμòν ἀμήσαω (...)
  • 187 Od. 11.35. Hughes (1991, 52 and 219–220, n. 14) prefers the translation “cut the throat of” rather (...)
  • 188 Paris, Cabinet des Médailles 422, c. 400–375 BC; Furtwängler & Reichhold 1900, vol. 1, 300–302, pl (...)

123Perhaps there is also a connection with προτομή, the front part which is cut off, especially the head of an animal.185 In that case, protoma may refer to a ritual in which the whole head of the victim was cut off, in order to bleed the animal dry, and not just the throat. The evidence for the decapitation of animal victims is meagre and the most explicit references are late, but there may have been a connection between this kind of ritual and war.186 Of interest is also Odysseus’ slaughter and bleeding of sheep over a bothros preceding his consultation of Teiresias in the Odyssey, covered by the verb ἀποδειροτομεĩν, which may have referred to the victims’ heads being severed.187 Incidentally, a depiction of this scene on a Lucanian, red-figure kalyx-krater shows the severed head of a ram, blood flowing from the neck, lying between Odysseus’ feet (Fig. 6).188 Next to the decapitated head is seen the body of a second animal victim, a ewe with its throat slit, and the head of Teiresias emerging from a pit in the ground.

124Thus, it is suggested that protoma is to be interpreted as a blood ritual performed as a preparation for war, presumably initiating the sacrifice by killing the animals, perhaps by completely cutting off their heads, and emphasizing the blood.

Fig. 6. Odysseus consults the shade of Teiresias by means of the blood from two slaughtered sheep. The head of the ram has been severed from its body and lies between Odysseus’ feet. Lucanian kalyx-krater, c. 400–375 BC, Paris, Cabinet des Médailles. From Furtwängler & Reichhold 1900, pl. 60:1.

  • 189 Fr. 65, lines 90–94 (Austin 1968). For the full text and discussion of this passage, see pp. 188–1 (...)
  • 190 Casabona 1966, 140–142. For the ironical use, see Ar. Av. 1231–1233.
  • 191 See LSJ s.v. for references; cf. Vernant 1991, 294.
  • 192 Cropp 1995, 193, lines 93–94, gives the translation “ox-sacrificing slaughters”.

125The sphagai and the protoma concerned the Hyakinthids but Athena also gives Praxithea instructions on how to perform the sacrifices to Erechtheus himself.189 In his newly constructed precinct, he is to receive ϕoναὶ βούθυτοι. Bouthysia originally meant a substantial, solemn sacrifice followed by dining, often in a context of games and festivals, but was later used almost as an equivalent to a hecatomb, often in an ironical sense.190 Here, however, the meaning must be the older one. Phone is usually used for carnage and bloodshed by slaying, often on the battlefield.191 Phonai bouthytoi may perhaps also be taken to mean a major sacrifice of cattle, at which there was special emphasis on the killing of the animals and presumably also on their blood, either when the animals were slain or afterwards.192

  • 193 Pind. Ol. 1.93; Thuc. 5.11; LSS 64, 1–4; Eur. Erech. fr. 65, line 68 (Austin 1968).
  • 194 Eur. Erech. fr. 65, lines 59–60 (Austin 1968).
  • 195 Cf. Casabona 1966, 226. Paus. 5.13.2 speaks of Herakles sacrificing (thyein) into a bothros at the (...)
  • 196 Ekroth 2000, 274–276, fig. 1. A small hole with unknown purpose, cut in the paving near the foot o (...)

126All the blood rituals considered above formed part of a larger sacrificial complex, the other rituals being indicated by a terminology which is different from that covering the blood rituals. Since the killing of the animal had, of course, to precede the handling of the meat, whether it was to be eaten or not, the blood rituals are likely to have initiated these sacrifices. The haimakouria was an offering of blood and the entemnein sacrifice, the sphagai bouktonoi, the protoma and the phonai bouthytoi probably also denoted the same kind of ritual or a particular way of killing the animal, perhaps by cutting off the head. The contexts in which the blood rituals are found also concern the tomb or the burial of the hero: the tymbos of Pelops, the burial and the mnemeion of Brasidas at Amphipolis, the burial of the Agathoi, the taphos chthonos of the Hyakinthids.193 Erechtheus has also been confined to earth.194 As for the actual execution of the ritual, the blood may have been poured onto the tomb of the hero, perhaps into a pit dug for that particular purpose.195 In the case of Erechtheus, the blood may have been discarded over the fissures in the rock of the Acropolis, usually identified as the location where Erechtheus was killed, and after the construction of the Erechtheion, through the hollow altar placed in the northern portico of this building.196

  • 197 Cyr. 8.3.24.
  • 198 Casabona 1966, 164, considers the sacrifices as barbarian customs viewed by Greek eyes.

127An additional case of blood rituals performed to heroes is found in Xenophon, who describes a series of sacrifices performed by Kyros at Babylon: a holocaust of bulls to Zeus and a holocaust of horses to the Sun, followed by a blood ritual to the Earth and the local heroes of Syria (ἔπειτα Γῇ σϕάξαντες ὡς ἐξηγήσαντο οἱ μάγοι ἐποίησαν ἔπειτα δὲ ἥρωσι τοĩς Συρίαν ἔχουσι).197 Even though these sacrifices are mentioned in a Greek source, it is questionable whether they are relevant to the rituals in Greek hero-cults, since both the recipients and the context are non-Greek.198

2.3. Theoxenia

128The literary evidence for theoxenia in hero-cults is not very distinct, when compared with the explicit references to trapezai in the epigraphical sources. The performance of theoxenia is indicated both by the terminology used and by the character of the offerings.

  • 199 Pyth. 5.85–86. There has been some disagreement concerning who received whom in this passage. Perr (...)
  • 200 Recurrent cult: Farnell 1932, 179–180; Defradas 1952, 292–300; Vian 1955, 307–309; Krummen 1990, 1 (...)
  • 201 Malkin 1994, 55–56; Krummen 1990, 120–124; Defradas 1952, 289–301, who identifies the Antenoridai (...)
  • 202 For topographical suggestions on where the cult of the Antenoridai was performed, see Malkin 1994, (...)

129In the fifth Pythian Ode, Pindar speaks of how Battos and the people accompanying him to found the colony at Kyrene worshipped the Antenoridai, who were considered to be the mythological founders of the city. Pindar writes that the Antenoridai were warmly welcomed with sacrifices, ἐνδυϰέως δέϰονται θυσίαισιν , and that Battos and his men greeted them with gifts, οἰχνέοντές σφε δωρoφóρoι.199 Of particular interest here is the verb dekomai or dechomai meaning “to welcome” or “to receive”. Most commentators on the passage agree on the meaning here being interpreted as a theoxenia ritual, to which the Antenoridai were invited, but opinions differ on whether Pindar refers to a recurrent cult or to a single occurrence in connection with the arrival of Battos and his people.200 The context of the cult of the Antenoridai has also been discussed and it seems most plausible to connect the performance of the rituals with the Karneia and the sacrifices to Apollon Karneios. The Antenoridai were welcomed with thysiai or invited to the thysiai, presumably referring to animal sacrifices which took place at the Karneia.201 It is thus possible that the theoxenia to the Antenoridai should be considered as being performed in connection with animal sacrifice, like many of the theoxenia mentioned in the inscriptions, and that this ritual formed one part of a more extensive complex of rituals.202

  • 203 Pind. Ol. 1.90–92. Translation by Race 1997. For the full text and discussion of this passage, see (...)
  • 204 Gerber 1982, 143–144; Slater 1989, 491; Krummen 1990, 164–165.
  • 205 Gerber 1982, 142.
  • 206 Gerber 1982, 142, who also points to the contrast between Tantalos (lines 58–59), having no share (...)
  • 207 See below, pp. 190–192.

130To receive a hero could be an indication of theoxenia, but also the description of the recipient as reclining at a banquet evokes the same kind of ritual. The latter case could be argued for the cult of Pelops at Olympia, also described by Pindar and discussed above in connection with the blood rituals. Pindar states that Pelops νῦν δ' ἐν αἱμαϰουρίαις ἀγλααĩσι μέμιϰται, Ἀλφεοῦ πόρῳ ϰλιθείς, (“and now he partakes of splendid blood sacrifices as he reclines by the course of the Alpheos”).203 It has been suggested that klitheis means “reclines”, in the sense that Pelops is not just put to rest in his tomb near the Alpheos but that he is reclining as a guest at a banquet.204 Gerber, in his commentary on the ode, stresses the analogy between Pelops and Hieron found throughout the poem: Pelops is reclining as at a symposium, while Hieron’s table is often surrounded by guests (line 17).205 A further reference to banquets is found in memiktai: Pelops participates in or partakes of the offerings of blood.206 It is thus possible to view Pelops as being honoured with theoxenia, at which he was presented with the haimakouria. As the invited guest of honour, he reclines, but he is drinking blood instead of wine. The haimakouria forms a part of the theoxenia and, since blood was offered, animal sacrifice must have taken place as well.207

  • 208 Heropythos FGrHist 448 F 1; Philostephanos FHG III, 29, F 1; cf. Malkin 1987, 197. On τάριχος as a (...)

131The nature of the offerings made to heroes could also be taken as an indication of theoxenia. The hero Kylabras at Phaselis in Pamphylia received a sacrifice of smoked or salted fish τάριχος.208 This ritual was said to have originated in the circumstances at the foundation of Phaselis. The oikist Lakios bought the territory from the shepherd Kylabras for some pickled or smoked fish, which was the reason why the Phaselites sacrificed this kind of fish to Kylabras, annually (τάριχον θύουσι).

  • 209 Malkin 1987, 200, assumes consumption. Apollonides of Smyrna (early 1st century AD), Anth. Pal. 6. (...)

132The sacrifice of fish of this kind cannot have followed the usual proceedings of a regular thysia––killing of the animal, burning of the god’s portion and consumption of the rest of the meat by the worshippers––since the fish was already dead and prepared. It seems possible that the fish was offered to Kylabras as a part of a theoxenia ritual and subsequently eaten by the worshippers, since the offerings were of the same kind as the food eaten by humans.209 There is no indication of any other kind of sacrifice in this case.

  • 210 Thuc. 3.58: ἐσθήμασι, τε ϰαὶ τοĩς ἄλλοις νομίμοις, ὅσα τε ἡ γῆ ἡμῶν ἀνεδίδου ὡραĩα, πάντων ἀπαρχὰς (...)
  • 211 Beer 1914, 8–49; Rudhardt 1958, 219–222; Burkert 1985, 66–68; Jameson 1994a, 38–39. Aparchai is us (...)
  • 212 A similar ritual is mentioned in the laws of Drakon, as quoted by Porphyrios, Abst. 4.22.7: θεοὺς (...)

133Finally, in the offering of aparchai there might have been a theoxenia aspect or, more precisely, the handling of the actual offerings recalls the use of trapezai known from the inscriptions. Thucydides writes that the war dead at Plataiai were given offerings of clothes and customary gifts, as well as aparchai of the fruits of the season from the earth.210 Aparchai as a main ritual usually consisted of vegetable materials, though cases of animal sacrifices are known.211 The aparchai could be deposited in a particular place, such as a trapeza, and may have been destroyed, but seem more commonly to have benefited the priests of the temple where the offerings were made. The cult of the war dead at Plataiai, as described by Thucydides, does not seem to have included animal sacrifice and the offerings were of the kind usually found in simpler versions of theoxenia: fruits and agricultural produce.212

2.4. Thysia sacrifices followed by dining

2.4.1. Direct evidence for dining

  • 213 Unlike the inscriptions, the literary sources occasionally mention libations to heroes performed a (...)

134Just as in the inscriptions, many literary contexts in which sacrifices to heroes are mentioned offer little information, apart from the fact that the sacrifice took place.213 Exactly what was done during the ritual or, whether the sacrifice was followed by a meal, is rarely outlined. In many cases, the literary texts are even less explicit than the epigraphical sources, a difference which is understandable, since the inscriptions were made to regulate cults and the handling of the meat, while the literary sources often mention hero-sacrifices in passing. Therefore, it seems suitable to begin with those contexts which provide the most detailed information about dining.

  • 214 Mir. ausc. 840a. See above, p. 85.

135One explicit reference to dining in hero-cults concerns the group of heroes at Taras described in On marvellous things heard and discussed previously in connection with the enagizein sacrifices.214 Two categories of heroes are mentioned: on the one hand, the Atreidai, Tydeidai, Aiakidai and Laertiadai, who received an enagizein sacrifice katá tinav qrónouv at certain times (ἐναγίζειν ϰατά τινας χρόνους) and, on the other, the Agamemnonidai, whose sacrifice was performed on another day (χωρὶς θυσίαν ἐπιτελεĩν ἐν ἄλλῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἰδίᾳ). At the sacrifice to the Agamemnonidai, the women were not allowed to taste the meat from the victims sacrificed (ταĩς γυναιξὶ μὴ γεύσασθαι τῶν ἐϰείνοις θυομένων).

  • 215 The prohibition for women to eat of these animals is surely to be connected with the fact that Aga (...)
  • 216 See discussion above, p. 85 and pp. 127–128.

136Two important facts concerning hero-cults can be deduced from this passage. First of all, the meat from animals sacrificed to heroes was regularly eaten. Since the women were not allowed to eat of the meat from the victims sacrificed to the Agamemnonidai, this must mean that the meat was consumed by the men alone. The exception here is not the fact that the hero-cult included dining but that women were excluded from tasting the meat.215 Secondly, it is clear from the use of the terminology that heroes could receive two different kinds of sacrifices, labelled enagizein and thyein respectively. Since it is obvious that thyein here means a sacrifice followed by dining, it must be assumed that enagizein refers to a sacrifice not including dining.216

137References to dining, as explicit as this text, are rare in the literary evidence for hero-cults. However, a thysia sacrifice which ended with dining contained particular rituals, such as the burning of the divinity’s portion in the altar fire, and the mention of such actions can also be taken as an indication of the meat being available for consumption.

  • 217 Isthm. 4.61–68.

138The rituals that preceded the dining are described by Pindar in the fourth Isthmian Ode in a passage dealing with the worship of Herakles and the sons of Herakles and Megara at Thebes, outside the Electran gate.217

τω μὲν Ἀλεϰτρᾶν ὕπερθεν δαĩτα πορσύνοντες ἀστοὶ
ϰαὶ νεόδματα στεφανώματα βωμῶν αὔξομεν
ἔμπυρα χαλϰοαρᾶν ὀϰτώ θανόντων,
τοὺς Μεγάρα τέϰε οἱ Κρεοντὶς υἱούς
65 τοĩσιν ἐν δυθμαĩσιν αὐγᾶν φλòξ ἀνατελλομένα συνεχές παννυχίζει,
αἰθέρα ϰνισάεντι λαϰτίζοισα ϰαπνῷ,
ϰαὶ δεύτερον ἆμαρ ἐτείων τέρμ' ἀέθλων
γίνεται., ἰσχύος ἔργον.

  • 218 Translation by Race 1997.

In his honour, above the Electran Gates we citizens prepare a feast and a newly built circle of altars and multiply burnt offerings for the eight bronze-clad men who died, the sons that Megara, Kreon’s daughter, bore to him. For them at sunset the flame rises and burns all night long, kicking heaven with its savour of smoke. And on the second day is the conclusion of the annual games, the labour of strength.218

  • 219 Slater 1969, s.v. δαίς; Schmitt-Pantel 1990, 22. Krummen 1990, 56, also recognizes a theoxenia ele (...)
  • 220 Fresh garlands: Thummer 1968, 175, line 80. Newly built altars: Bury 1892, 76, line 62; Slater 196 (...)
  • 221 On the meaning of auxomen empyra, “make great the sacrifice of burnt offerings”, see Slater 1969, (...)
  • 222 Burkert (1985, 63) takes this ritual to be a parallel to the fire festivals of Herakles on Mount O (...)
  • 223 Either to Herakles or to the sons, see Schachter 1986, 26; Krummen 1990, 75–94.

139Both Herakles and his eight sons with Megara receive sacrifices by the Thebans. For Herakles, a banquet (dais) is prepared. In Pindar, dais means a festive meal for the gods among themselves, but most frequently a meal in honour of the gods, i.e., a sacrificial banquet at which the meat was distributed and eaten.219 Next are mentioned a number of bomoi, which either had been newly constructed in a circle or freshly garlanded, depending on how the text is interpreted.220 These bomoi must have been used for the sacrifices to Herakles himself, but also for the sacrifices to his eight sons, sacrifices which consisted of burnt offerings, empyra.221 The sacrifices to the sons of Herakles and Megara seem to have been regular thysiai, at which the portions of the heroes were burnt on the bomoi, filling the air with knise (αἰθέρα ϰνισάεντι λαϰτίζοισα ϰαπνῷ). The burning of the sacrificial fires all through the night is unusual at a regular sacrifice, since the fire would normally have been extinguished by a wine-water libation after the divinity’s portion had been burnt.222 Even though the time when the sacrifice is performed (at sunset) and the extensive use of the fire differ from the practices at a standard thysia, there is no indication of a larger part of the victim being burnt than was the usual practice. The whole ceremony ended the following day with the celebration of games.223

  • 224 Pind. Ol. 9.112.
  • 225 For the meaning of dais, see Slater 1969, s.v. δαίς; Schmitt-Pantel 1990, 22

140The combination of dais and bomos to describe the cult of a hero is found also in the ninth Olympian Ode by Pindar.224 Here, the victorious wrestler Epharmostos is said to crown the bomos of Aias at the festive meal (dais) of the hero, presumably referring to an animal sacrifice followed by the victory banquet.225

2.4.2. Circumstantial evidence for dining

141In the three passages discussed above, it is clear that the sacrifices ended with dining, since it is stated that the meat was eaten or the rituals described were of the kind characteristic of a sacrifice ending with a banquet. The remaining passages are not as explicit. However, it can be argued also here that the contexts in which the sacrifices are found support an interpretation of the ritual as a thysia with a banquet. In some cases, the sacrifices are performed in a ritual setting for which an interpretation of the sacrifices as a thysia with dining is the most plausible. In other cases, the performance of a sacrifice followed by dining is evident from the execution of other rituals on the same occasion, for example, blood rituals and theoxenia. Finally, heroes are mentioned together with gods or other divine beings as recipients of sacrifices without any direct indications of there being any ritual distinctions.

  • 226 Hdt. 5.67.

142The ritual setting of the sacrifice can serve as a guideline for the interpretation of the kind of ritual performed. For example, a sacrifice to a hero, which was performed at a major state festival, is likely to have included dining. That was the case of the hero-cult to Adrastos and his successor Melanippos at Sikyon.226 Owing to the political development (a conflict with Argos), Kleisthenes of Sikyon decided to exchange the hero Adrastos, an Argive, for the hero Melanippos from Thebes. The sacrifices and festivals (θυσίας τε ϰαὶ ὁρτάς) were taken away from Adrastos and promptly given to Melanippos, while the tragic choruses of Adrastos were transferred back to Dionysos. Adrastos was ousted from his heroon in the market-place and Melanippos was given a temenos in the prytaneion.

  • 227 On the relation between thysia and heorte, see Casabona 1966, 132–134 and 336.
  • 228 See Mikalson 1982, 213–221, on the meaning and contents of heorte.
  • 229 Miller 1978, 4–13.

143The cult of these two heroes must have been of central importance for Sikyon, since the fate of the city was considered as depending on the geographical origin of the hero worshipped in its centre. Both Adrastos and Melanippos received thysiai and heortai, sacrifices and festivals. The use of these two terms together also indicates that this cult was a major event.227 Even though heortai could occasionally include some gloomy or lugubrious elements, the majority of such festivals were pleasant and joyful experiences with an abundance of food and entertainment.228 Moreover, the location of the temenos of Melanippos in the prytaneion indicates a further connection with dining, since this was one of the main functions of such a building.229

  • 230 Nem. 7.46–47.
  • 231 The term polythytos does not seem to occur outside poetry, see Casabona 1966, 144; Bury 1890, 135; (...)
  • 232 On the relation between sacrifice and pompe, see Burkert 1985, 56 and 99–102; Graf 1996, 56–65. Th (...)

144Adrastos and Melanippos were given thysiai and heortai, rituals that are likely to have included dining. A similar case is that of the heroes at Delphi, described by Pindar in the seventh Nemean Ode.230 Here, Pindar speaks about the fate of Neoptolemos, who was killed at Delphi and buried in the sanctuary of Apollon. His purpose after death was to stay at Delphi and see to the processions honouring heroes with many sacrifices (ἡρωΐαις δέ πομπαῖς θεμισϰóπον οἰϰεĩν ἐόντα πολυθύτοις, lines 46–47). Who those heroes were is not stated, but their cult must have been substantial, since the rituals are described as polythytoi, “with many sacrifices”.231 These sacrifices are likely to have been of the regular thysia kind followed by dining, since the heroes also received pompai, a feature particularly connected with that type of sacrificial ritual.232

  • 233 See above, pp. 171–179; cf. Ekroth 2000.

145The hero-sacrifices at Sikyon and Delphi are not very explicit in ritual detail, but their execution at a festival (heorte) or in connection with a procession (pompe), respectively, makes it likely that dining took place. In other cases, the ritual detail is more abundant and the occurrence of a thysia with dining can be argued from the fact that other rituals with a different content were performed on the same occasion. The thysia with dining was complemented with another kind of sacrifice, expressed by a particular term or terms. These complementary rituals mainly concern the blood of the sacrificial animal and in one case there is also a theoxenia element. The evidence for blood rituals and theoxenia in these passages has already been outlined but can now be put into a wider context and be related to the thysia sacrifices.233

  • 234 5.11. On the particular role of Brasidas in Thucydides, see Hornblower 1996, 38–61.

146The most interesting case of a hero-sacrifice, consisting of both a thysia and another ritual, is the cult of the Spartan general Brasidas at Amphipolis, described by Thucydides.234 The text runs as follows:

Μετά δὲ ταῦτα τòν Βρασίδαν οἱ ξύμμαχοι πάντες ξὺν ὅπλοις ἐπισπόμενοι
δημοσίᾳ ἔθαψαν ἐν τῇ πóλει πρò τῆς νῦν ἀγορᾶς οὔσης ϰαὶ τò λοιπόν οἱ
Ἀ μφιπολĩται περιείρξαντες αὐτοῦ τό μνημεĩον, ὡς ἥρωί τε ἐντέμνουσι ϰαὶ
τιμάς δεδώϰασιν ἀγῶνας ϰαὶ ἐτησίους θυσίας, ϰαὶ τὴν ἀποιϰίαν ὡς οἰϰιστῇ
προσέθεσαν, ϰαταβαλóντες τὰ Ἁγνώνεια οἰϰοδομήματα ϰαὶ ἀφανίσαντες ἐί
τι μνημόσυνόν που ἔμελλεν αὐτου τῆς οἰϰίσεως περιέσεσθαι, νομίσαντες τòν
μὲν Βρασίδαν σωτῆρά τε σφῶν γεγενῆσθαι ϰαι ἐν τῷ παρόντι ἅμα τὴν τῶν
Λαϰεδαιμονίων ξυμμαχίαν φóβῳ τῶν Ἀθηναίων θεραπεύοντες, τον δέ Αγνωνα
ϰατά τό πολέμιον τῶν Ἀθηναίων οὐϰ ἂν ὁμοίως σφίσι ξυμφóρως οὐδ' ἂν ἡδέως τὰς τιμὰς ἔχειν.

  • 235 Translation by Hornblower 1996, 449–455.

Brasidas was buried in the city with public honours in front of what is now the Agora. The whole body of the allies in full armour escorted him to the grave. The Amphipolitans fenced off his tomb, and to this day they cut the throats of victims to him as a hero, and have also instituted games and yearly sacrifices in his honour. They also made him their founder, and dedicated the colony to him, pulling down the cult buildings of Hagnon, and obliterating any other solid memorials of Hagnon’s foundation. For they thought Brasidas was their saviour, and in the present circumstances fear of Athens made them flatter their Spartan allies. The idea that Hagnon should retain the honours of a founder, now that they were enemies of the Athenians, seemed to them against their interests, and uncongenial.235

  • 236 On the interpretation of the Hagnoneia as cult buildings, see Hornblower 1996, 452–455; cf. Malkin (...)

147Brasidas, who had captured the city from the Athenians in 424 BC, was, after his death in battle, buried by the Amphipolitans and given a monument in the agora. Thucydides says that the Amphipolitans fenced in his monument and ever since ὡς ἥρωί τε ἐντέμνουσι ϰαὶ τιμὰς δεδώϰασιν ἀγῶνας ϰαὶ ἐτησίους θυσίας. They also adopted him as a founder of the colony and obliterated the cult buildings of Hagnon, the previous founder.236

  • 237 The addition ὡς ἥρῳ will be discussed below (pp. 206–212), since it is used also with other terms. (...)
  • 238 Malkin 1987, 228–230.
  • 239 Malkin 1987, 230. The present tense, ἐντέμνουσι, has also been suggested as indicating an eye-witn (...)

148This passage is frequently evoked in discussions on sacrificial rituals in hero-cults, since it is so detailed and has consequently been interpreted variously. It is clear that Brasidas received various kinds of sacrifices and honours: entemnein sacrifices “as a hero”, games and annual thysiai.237 Malkin argued that Brasidas received two kinds of cults, which should not be viewed as being antithetic but rather as juxtaposed.238 Ἐντέμνουσι refers to a continuous cult of a more popular kind, while δεδώϰασιν ἀγῶνας ϰαὶ ἐτησίους θυσίας meant the institution of a solemn, annual, state cult with sacrifices and games.239 This interpretation, however, does not account for the technical meaning of the term entemnein as “cutting the throat of the animal”. Why should the popular ongoing worship of Brasidas consist in a sacrifice which emphasized the slaughtering and bleeding of the animal, even when such sacrifices were also followed by dining?

  • 240 Cf. Casabona 1966, 128 and 226. For the conjectural identification of “Brasidas’” tomb under the m (...)

149It is better to view the whole ritual as one sacrificial complex, consisting of different parts. Entemnein must refer to a blood ritual: the cutting of the throats of the victims and disposing of the blood, presumably on the tomb of Brasidas.240 This blood ritual formed an initial part of the cult, which was followed by the thysiai, i.e., the burning of the hero’s share of the victims and the dining on the meat by the worshippers.

  • 241 Brasidas was not the actual founder of Amphipolis, but he took over the role of oikist from Hagnon (...)
  • 242 Malkin 1987, 203. Malkin (193) further defines the cult of the oikist as a hero-cult but does not (...)

150Brasidas was buried in the centre of the city and his cult was a state festival, an event likely to have centred on ritual dining. One further reason to argue that the thysiai ended with a banquet may be found in the fact that the principal title given to Brasidas was oikistes.241 The cult of an oikist was of central importance for the identity of a city and is likely to have involved ritual meals on a grand scale, with the purpose of integrating all members of the society.242 Thus, the thysiai must refer to these meals which took place in connection with the annual sacrifices.

  • 243 Arist. Eth. Nic. 1134b; cf. Malkin 1987, 229. A third source mentioning the cult of Brasidas at Am (...)

151The cult of Brasidas is also mentioned by Aristotle, who speaks of the cult as τò θύειν Βρασίδα, without specifying any particular details.243 In this case, thyein is best understood as a general term meaning “to sacrifice”, which probably included the rituals outlined by Thucydides (a blood ritual and thysiai with dining), but it is also possible that the entemnein sacrifice was no longer performed in the 4th century and at that time the ritual consisted only in sacrifices followed by ritual dining.

  • 244 Fr. 65, lines 77–89 (Austin 1968); see also Cropp 1995 for commentary and translation.

152The terminology used for the cult of Brasidas can be interpreted as referring to two kinds of sacrificial rituals: a regular thysia with dining, which was complemented by or extended with the handling of the blood of the animal victims in a particular manner. A similar ritual seems to have been performed to the daughters of Erechtheus, the Hyakinthids, as documented in the Erechtheus by Euripides.244 After the death of the daughters of Erechtheus in attempting to save Athens, Athena instructs their mother Praxithea on the burial of her daughters, now to be called the Hyakinthids, and on how the ritual to them is to be performed and their sanctuary administered.

... τοĩς ἐμοĩς ἀστο[ĩς λέγ]ω
ἐνιαυσίαις σφας μὴ λελησμ[ένους] χρóνῳ
θυσίαισι τιμᾶν ϰαί σφαγαĩσι [βουϰ]τόνοις
80 ϰoσμοῦ[ντας ἱ]εροĩς παρθένων [χορεύ]μασιν
γνον[......]χθρ. εἰς μάχη[ν
ϰιν.[.......]ας ἀσπίδα στρατ[
πρώταισι θύειν πρóτομα πολεμίου δορòς
τῆς οἰνοποιοῦ μὴ θιγóντας αμπέλου
85 μηδ' εἰς πυρὰν σπένδοντας ἀλλὰ πολυπόνου
ϰαρπòν μελίσσης ποταμίαις πηγαĩς ὁμοῦ
ἄβατον δέ τέμενος παισί ταĩσδ' εἶναι χρεών,
ἐίργειν τε μή τις πολεμίων θύση λαθὼν
νίϰην μέν αὐτοĩς γῇ δέ τῇδε πημονήν.

  • 245 Translation by Cropp 1995, 173.

I instruct my citizens to honour them, never forgetting over time, with annual sacrifices and slaughterings of oxen, adorning the festival with sacred maiden-dances; _......_ into/for battle, rous- _..._ shield _..._, to offer first to them (the Hyakinthids) the sacrifice preliminary to battle, not touching the wine-producing vine nor pouring wine upon the altar but rather the industrious bee’s produce together with stream-water. There shall be an untrodden sanctuary dedicated to these maidens; you must prevent any of your enemies from secretly making offerings there so as to bring victory to themselves and affliction to this land.245

  • 246 For possible reconstructions of lines 81–82, see Cropp 1995, 173 and commentary, 192.
  • 247 Lines 87–89.

153The Hyakinthids were to be honoured with annual sacrifices and slaughtering of oxen (θυσίαισι τιμᾶν ϰαὶ σφαγαῖσι [βουϰ]τόνοις), as well as with sacred dances of maidens (lines 77–80). The following two lines are damaged, but they seem to introduce the theme of war and to indicate that the Hyakinthids could help in that kind of situation.246 If there was a war, the Athenians were first to offer to the Hyakinthids a sacrifice preliminary to battle (or “before taking up the spear of war”, θύειν πρότομα πολεμίου δορός, line 83), not using wood from the vines, nor pouring wine on the sacrificial fire or altar, but instead using honey and water from rivers τῆς οἰνοποιοῦ μὴ θιγóντας ἀμπέλου μηδ' εἰς πυρὰν σπένδοντας ἀλλὰ πολυπόνου ϰαρπòν μελίσσης ποταμίαις πηγαĩς ὁμοῦ, lines 84–86). Furthermore, the sanctuary of the Hyakinthids was to be an abaton, and any enemies must be prevented from secretly sacrificing (thyein) there, in order to bring victory to themselves and misery to the Athenians.247

  • 248 Cf. Henrichs 1983, 98.

154The rituals used in the worship of the Hyakinthids thus seem to have consisted of two sets of sacrifices, one kind performed continuously and another, which was used in the case of war.248

  • 249 Cf. Mikalson 1991, 33–34; Casabona 1966, 176.
  • 250 Robertson 1996, 45–46, suggests that the ritual was similar to the sacrifices performed on the bat (...)

155The first set of sacrifices consisted of thysiai and sphagai (lines 77–80). Since the two terms thysiai and sphagai are here found together, they can be taken to refer to two kinds of sacrificial actions, which, however, were performed jointly. Thysia covers the main ritual, consisting of an animal sacrifice ending with dining, an interpretation which is strengthened by the fact that, on the same occasion, the sacred dances of the maidens took place.249 Sphagai bouktonoi, “ox-sacrificing slaughters”, indicates a highlighting of the blood of the victims (see above, pp. 172–173). The sphagai could be considered as forming a ritual separate from the thysiai, but it seems more plausible that they constituted a part of the thysiai and were performed with the same victims. The detailed terminology of the passage may be seen as a desire to show that, in this case, the ritual differed from an ordinary thysia, since the blood was of particular importance.250 How this blood ritual was performed is not known, but it is possible that the animal was killed in a fashion different from that at a regular thysia and that the blood was libated on the tomb of the Hyakinthids.

  • 251 Thyein covers the ritual opposite to pouring out a libation and never seems to refer only to a dri (...)
  • 252 Philoch. FGrHist 328 F 12 (ap. schol. Soph. OC 100 [Papageorgius 1888]); cf. Kearns 1989, 60–61, n (...)

156The second set of sacrifices to the Hyakinthids (lines 81–86) seems to have been used when there was an emergency (war). In this ritual, the Athenians were to thyein a protoma. The hapax protoma has been interpreted as meaning a sacrifice connected in particular with war. It was suggested earlier (pp. 173–175) that this term may refer to a blood ritual performed before the army left Athens. The heads of the victims used in this sacrifice may have been completely cut off and the blood poured on the grave of the Hyakinthids. In any case, the protoma sacrifice differed from a regular thysia in several respects. Vine wood was not allowed for the sacrificial fire, and the usual libations of wine were to be replaced with honey and water. The offerings are likely to have consisted of animal victims, since both thyein and spendein are used, as well as the mention of an altar, pyra, and, albeit in a negative sense, firewood.251 It is thus possible to interpret this sacrifice as a thysia, modified by a series of libations consisting of blood, honey and water instead of wine, but still followed by dining, since the ritual was performed at Athens and should not be understood as a battle-line sphagia. This second set of sacrifices is probably the same as those referred to in a fragment of Philochoros, according to which both wineless thysiai and the burning of some wood were performed to Dionysos and the daughters of Erechtheus.252

  • 253 The Hyakinthids were buried where one of them was sacrificed and the rest killed themselves (Eur. (...)

157The context of the protoma sacrifice was when war was approaching. This ritual does not seem to have been a sacrifice taking place on the battlefield but was rather accomplished in Athens, in or at the abaton of the Hyakinthids, since it was this sanctuary that the Athenians were to watch, so that no enemy should secretly sacrifice there to gain victory in war (lines 87–89). Whether the temporary protoma sacrifices and the annual thysia took place at the same location cannot be deduced from the text, but this interpretation may be possible.253

  • 254 Fr. 65, lines 90–94 (Austin 1968); Cropp 1995, 174–175 and 193.

158In the same Euripides fragment are also outlined the sacrifices to Erechtheus himself.254

πόσει δ τ σ σηϰòν μ μέσ πόλει
τεῦξαα ϰελεύω περιβόλοισι λαΐνοις,

ϰεϰλήσεται δ τοῦ ϰτανόντος ονεϰα
σεμνòς Ποσειδν νομ' πονομασμένος
στοĩς ρεχθες μ φοναĩσι βουθύτοις

  • 255 Translation by Cropp 1995, 175.

For your husband I command the building in mid-city of a precinct with stone enclosure. In recollection of his killer the citizens, slaughtering sacrificial oxen, shall call him august Poseidon surnamed Erechtheus.255

  • 256 On the complex question of the merging of Erechtheus and Poseidon in the cult, see, for example, K (...)
  • 257 Cf. Harmodios of Lepreum (FGrHist 319 F 1), who speaks of the bouthysia megale to the heroes at Ph (...)
  • 258 See above, p. 176, n. 196. See also Stern (1986, 57–58), who suggests that the northern portico of (...)
  • 259 Sacrifices to Erechtheus are mentioned in the Iliad (2.550–551) as ταύρθισι, ϰαὶ ἀρνειoĩς ἱλάoνται (...)
  • 260 For the link Erechtheus-Panathenaia, see Mikalson 1976, 153; Connelly 1996, 77–78. For Erechtheus (...)

159Athena instructs Praxithea (and the Athenians) to build a precinct with a stone enclosure in the middle of the city (σηϰòν ἐν μέσῃ πóλει τεῦξαι ... περιβόλοισι λαΐνοις). In the cult, Erechtheus is to be called Poseidon, surnamed Erechtheus as a recollection of him being killed by the god.256 The sacrifices are called phonai bouthytoi, “ox-sacrificing slaughters”. The term phonai, often used for carnage on the battlefield, links these sacrifices with war and bloodshed, and the ritual may be understood as a substantial sacrifice of cattle at which the blood was of particular importance (see above, pp. 175–176). The rest of the ritual was probably a regular thysia, since the term used is bouthytoi, and ended with the worshippers dining on the meat.257 The blood of the victims may have been poured onto the fissures in the Acropolis rock, usually considered as the location where Erechtheus was killed, above which was later placed the hollow altar in the northern portico of the Erechtheion.258 Thus the sacrifices to Erechtheus follow a ritual scheme corresponding to that of the Hyakinthids.259 As for the ritual context of these sacrifices to Erechtheus, there are no clear indications. The rituals described may have formed a part of the Panathenaia, a festival which has even been suggested as originally dedicated to Erechtheus, but the offerings to this hero outlined in the Erechtheus have also been assigned to the Skira.260

160The cult of Brasidas at Amphipolis and the sacrifices to the Hyakinthids and Erechtheus showed a similar pattern in the sacrificial practices. The major ritual seems to have been a thysia with dining. This sacrifice was complemented with another kind of ritual, which focused on the killing, bleeding and handling of the blood of the animal, as is indicated by the use of the term entemnein at the sacrifice to Brasidas, sphagai and protoma at the annual sacrifices to the Hyakinthids and perhaps also phonai in the cult of Erechtheus. A last case can be added to this category: the cult of Pelops at Olympia. Here, the blood ritual seems to have been performed in the context of a thysia, but there was also a theoxenia element.

  • 261 Ol. 1.90–93.

161The reference to the sacrifices to Pelops at Olympia is to be found in Pindar’s first Olympian Ode261

90 νῦν δ' ἐν αἱμαϰουρίαις
ἀγλααĩσι μέμιϰται,
Ἀλφεοῦ πόρῳ ϰλιθείς,
τύμβον ἀμφίπολον ἔχων πολυξενωτάτῳ παρὰ βωμῷ.

  • 262 Translation by Race 1997.

And now he partakes of splendid blood sacrifices as he reclines by the course of the Alpheos, having his much-attended tomb beside the altar thronged by visiting strangers262

  • 263 The other major piece of evidence for sacrifices to Pelops is Paus. 5.13.1–3. On the importance of (...)

162Even though there is very little written evidence for the actual sacrifices to Pelops, it is clear that he was the most important hero worshipped at Olympia, being almost on an equal footing with Zeus.263

  • 264 Gerber 1982, 141.
  • 265 See pp. 171–172 and p. 178.

163The language Pindar uses to describe the rituals of Pelops is both rich and unusual, but the use of νῦν at the beginning of the description of the sacrifices makes it likely that he reports the sacrificial practices of his own time.264 In the discussion previously in this chapter, two of the rituals outlined by Pindar have already been touched upon: the sacrifices of blood covered by haimakouriai and the presence of a theoxenia element indicated, above all, by klitheis.265

  • 266 Gerber 1982, 142.

164To have an offering of blood, there must be an animal victim, or rather victims, since the haimakouriai are in the plural and are called aglaaisi ––splendid or magnificent.266 It was suggested earlier that the haimakouriai formed a part of the theoxenia and that Pelops, as an invited guest, received blood instead of wine. The question is, what was done with the rest of the victims after the blood had been used? The meat could have been destroyed, but there is nothing in Pindar’s text that supports such an interpretation. It is possible that some of the meat was prepared and offered to Pelops along with the blood at the theoxenia, but most or all of the meat was probably consumed at a banquet.

  • 267 For example, Burkert 1983, 96; Slater 1969, s.v. bwmóv; Race 1997, 56, n. 1. No traces of this alt (...)
  • 268 Gerber 1982, 145, followed by Krummen 1990, 159–160.
  • 269 Gerber 1982, 144. Krummen (1990, 163–164) is more in favour of the amphipoloi providing for Pelops (...)
  • 270 Gerber 1982, 145. The scholia on this passage either identify the altar as that of Pelops (schol. (...)

165Of great interest for the treatment of the meat is the bomos mentioned in line 93. Pelops has his τύμβον ἀμφίπολον ... παρὰ πολυξενωτάτω βωμῷ (“his much-attended tomb beside the altar thronged by visiting strangers”). This altar has usually been understood as the famous ash-altar of Zeus, which was located somewhere to the east of the Pelopion.267 Gerber, however, in his commentary on the ode, interprets the altar as that of Pelops and suggests that polyxenotatos may be understood as meaning both “visited by many foreigners” and as “entertaining many guests”.268 He further proposes that amphipolon, usually translated as “much visited”, may be a reference to amphipoloi, i.e., the servants bringing food and drink.269 This would mean that both the tomb and the altar were much visited and also entertained many guests, which, of course, is possible only if the sacrifice to Pelops was a thysia with dining for the worshippers. The interpretation of the altar as that of Pelops would constitute a further analogy between Pelops and Hieron: Pelops’ altar entertains many guests, just as Hieron’s table is often surrounded by guests.270

  • 271 Pausanias (5.13.2), the only other source to comment upon the details of the sacrifices to Pelops, (...)
  • 272 Pausanias (5.13.2) also describes a ritual including dining: the neck of the sacrificial victim wa (...)

166It is thus possible to interpret Pindar’s text as describing three kinds of rituals: a blood ritual, theoxenia and thysia with dining. Pelops would have been given the haimakouriai, the blood of the animals slaughtered, at the theoxenia to which he had been invited. The blood was probably poured on his burial mound, perhaps into a pit which may have been dug for each occasion or was a permanent installation.271 It is also possible that he received additional portions of meat, perhaps placed on a table. The haimakouria and the theoxenia were both, however, part of the thysia sacrifice, at which the worshippers dined on the meat from the sacrificial victims, which had been sacrificed at his bomos.272 The thysia was the major ritual which was modified by the haimakouriai and the theoxenia.

  • 273 Slater 1989, 495–501; Burkert 1983, 100–102; cf. Uhsadel-Gülke 1972, 31–33; Krummen 1990, 168–184.
  • 274 Earlier in the ode (Ol. 1.46–53), Pindar refutes as slander the myth of Pelops being boiled. Cf. S (...)
  • 275 Hdt. 1.59. On the recovery of cauldrons and tripods from the excavations at Olympia, see Burkert 1 (...)

167One final comment on the sacrifices to Pelops concerns the preparation of the meat for the banquet. Several scholars have argued that there was a particular connection between the use of cauldrons at Olympia and the cult of Pelops and that the meat from the sacrifices to this hero may have been boiled instead of grilled.273 There is nothing in Pindar’s text which indicates a use of a cauldron at the actual sacrifices, but, according to the myth, Pelops was boiled in a cauldron.274 Cauldrons were used in other sacrifices at Olympia for boiling the meat, and it is possible that this was also the method of preparing the meat from the victims sacrificed to Pelops.275

168The final group of literary sources to be considered under the heading of Circumstantial evidence for dining consists of cases in which the sacrifices to heroes are mentioned together with sacrifices to gods or other divine beings. In general, these texts offer little information apart from the term for the sacrifice, usually thyein or thysia. However, the context may be an indication of the kinds of rituals used. In the epigraphical evidence, sacrifices to heroes and gods were intermingled in the same sacred law or sacrificial calendar, without any indications of there being any ritual distinctions as to how the sacrifices were to be executed. For these inscriptions, it was suggested that the ritual meant must have been the one most frequently performed in Greek cult, i.e., thysia with dining. A similar argument can be made for the texts.

  • 276 Resp. 427b.
  • 277 Resp. 427b τελευτησάντων τε αὖ θῆϰαι ϰαὶ ὅσα τοĩς ἐϰεĩ δεĩ ὑπηρετοῦντας ἵλεως αὐτοὺς ἔϰειν.
  • 278 Plato’s three categories of gods, daimones and heroes occur also in Resp. 392a and Leg. 818c, cf. (...)
  • 279 Cf. Casabona 1966, 128.

169When Plato describes the necessary kind of legislation connected with religion, which was stipulated by Apollon at Delphi, he mentions the founding of temples, sacrifices and other forms of worship to the gods, daimones and heroes (ἱερῶν τε ἱδρύσεις ϰαὶ θυσίαι ϰαὶ ἅλλαι θεῶν τε ϰαι).276 Furthermore, the dead were to be buried and given the appropriate services to keep them happy.277 This division between various recipients of cult or of religious attendance can, to a certain extent, be said to be a philosophical construct, which does not necessarily reflect actual, practised religion. The religious category of daimones, in particular, is a feature of the writings of the philosophers.278 Still, it is of interest to note that the gods, the daimones and the heroes are considered as forming one category receiving one kind of treatment, while the dead form a special group.279 There is no indication that the heroes were treated in a fashion different from that of the gods and the daimones

  • 280 Leg. 717a–b.

170In the Laws, Plato lists, in a similar fashion, the different kinds of recipients of religious attention in descending order.280 First of all, timai are to be accorded to the gods, both to the Olympian gods and to the gods of the polis, as well as to the chthonian gods. Then the wise man will worship the daimones, and after them heroes (τοĩς δαίμοσιν ὅ γ' ἔμϕρων ὀργιάζοιτ' ἄν, ἥρωσι δὲ μετὰ τούτους). After these come private shrines dedicated to the ancestral gods and, finally, the timai paid to the living parents.

  • 281 Mund. 400b.
  • 282 Mund. 400b θεῶν τε θυσίαι ϰαὶ ἡρώων θεραπεĩαι ϰαὶ χoαὶ ϰεϰμηϰότων..

171The grading of gods, heroes and ordinary mortals is found also in the philosophical treaty entitled On the cosmos (transmitted with the Aristotelian corpus).281 In this text, discussing the divine law and order which is to govern the city, it is stated that the law orders customary public feasts and yearly festivals, thysiai to the gods, therapeiai to the heroes and choai to the dead.282 The distinction, if any, between the thysiai and the therapeiai cannot be defined from this context, but both these categories are likely to have been substantial sacrifices, unlike the simple choai to the dead.

  • 283 De cor. 184.
  • 284 Philoch. FGrHist 328 F 10.
  • 285 Xen. Cyr. 3.3.22 θεοὺς θυσίας ϰαὶ ἥρωας Ἀσσυρίας οἰϰήτορας ηὐμενίζετο.
  • 286 Xen. Cyr. 3.3.21–22.
  • 287 This is a non-Greek sacrifice described in Greek terms, but rituals performed at a border crossing (...)

172The lumping together of heroes and gods in speaking of sacrifices is found in the speeches and historical texts as well. Demosthenes mentions a case of the Athenians praying and sacrificing (θύσαντας) to the gods and heroes who guard their city and country.283 In a fragment of Philochoros, it is stated that, if someone sacrifices (θύῃ) a cow to Athena, a sheep must also be sacrificed (θύειν) to Pandrosos and the victim was called epiboion.284 Xenophon describes how Kyros performed thysiai to the gods and heroes of Assyria to win their favour, after having crossed the border into that country.285 These sacrifices were likely to have been jointly made to both the gods and the heroes, since Xenophon specifies that they were preceded by another kind of ritual to a different recipient: propitiatory libations to Earth (Γῆν ἱλάσϰετο χοαĩς). Before crossing the border between Media and Assyria, Kyros had already sacrificed first to Zeus Basileus and then to the rest of the gods, while the heroes dwelling in Media and guarding the country were invited to come and join in (symparakalein).286 If the heroes also received any sacrifices of their own, they must have been the same as those to the gods.287

  • 288 Contr. Macart. 66; Fontenrose 1978, 253–254, H29, dated to before 340 BC.

173A lengthy oracle, preserved in the speech Against Makartatos, mentions sacrifices to both gods and heroes.288 In order to obtain good omens, the Athenians were instructed by Delphi to perform a series of sacrifices. First of all, they were to sacrifice (θύοντας) to Zeus Hypatos, Athena Hypate, Herakles and Apollon Soter and send offerings (ἀπόπέμπειν) to the Amphiones. The next part of the oracle prescribes a sacrifice to Apollon, Leto and Artemis: the streets are to be drenched in sacrificial smoke, kraters and dances are to be set up (τὰς ἀγυιὰς ϰνισῆν, ϰαὶ ϰρατῆρας ἱστάμεν ϰαὶ χορούς) and the participants are to wear wreaths after the custom of their fathers. To all the Olympian gods and goddesses, thank-offerings are to be made (μνασιδωρεĩν) with raised arms, according to ancestral custom. Thirdly, to the Heros Archegetes, the Athenians were to sacrifice and bring presents (θύειν ϰαὶ δωροτελεĩν), after the custom of their fathers. Finally, the relatives should fulfil their duties to the dead on an appointed day, according to established custom (τοĩς ἀποϕθιμένοις ... τελεĩν ... ϰαττὰ ἀγημένα).

  • 289 Apopempein may be used in the sense “to send away”, for example a pharmakos, but the meaning “to s (...)

174The first group of sacrifices performed to Zeus, Athena, Herakles and Apollon must have been regular thysiai. It should be noted that Herakles is treated as one of the gods, while the Amphiones are not. The offerings sent to this pair of Theban brothers may not even have included animal sacrifice.289 The sacrifices to Apollon, Leto and Artemis were definitely regular thysiai with dining, since the streets were drenched in knise, and they took place in a festive mood, in which wreaths were worn and dances performed. The Olympian gods and goddesses mentioned next are probably the gods in general and the gifts brought to them may have meant animal sacrifice, but it is possible that the gifts were some kind of aparchai. The sacrifice to the Heros Archegetes makes up a separate entry, which may imply that he received a kind of sacrifice different from that of the gods and heroes mentioned so far, but it is also possible that the division simply meant that his sacrifice should be performed on a separate occasion or simply at a different location. The rituals to the dead, finally, were definitely supposed to take place on a particular day.

  • 290 This concerns in particular the daimones, see above, p. 193, n. 278. Still, it is interesting to n (...)

175In this last category of passages, there are no indications of any clear distinctions between the sacrifices to the heroes and those to the gods. The use of the same or equivalent terms for the rituals to both heroes and gods makes any major distinctions in the sacrificial practices unlikely. If anything, the texts indicate a separation between, on the one hand, divine recipients, such as gods and heroes (and daimones in the philosophical writings) and, on the other hand, ordinary mortals, either dead or still alive. On the basis of the general terminology and the lack of details, it is probable that, in the case of gods and heroes, it was the most common ritual that was intended, i.e., an animal sacrifice followed by a meal. However, the sense of these texts should not be forced too far, since they are rarely, if ever, intended to describe ritual practices in detail and the sacrifices are often mentioned in passing in a context dealing with non-religious matters. Furthermore, the division between various kinds of divinities in the philosophical treaties, such as in Plato, may be more of a theoretical construct than a reflection of actual, practised cult.290

2.4.3. Unspecified cases

176Finally, there is a handful of cases of sacrifices to heroes which are even less explicit than the texts discussed so far. The question here is how the lack of details is to be interpreted, just as in the passages in which heroes and gods were mentioned together without any indication of ritual distinctions.

177On the one hand, the scarcity of ritual specifications can be interpreted as due to the source speaking only of “a sacrifice” in general, without any intention of elaborating on ritual detail. In that case, these passages can be used only as evidence of hero-cult sacrifices taking place, but not of the kind of actions which they contained. On the other hand, the lack of information may also be considered as referring to sacrifices of the most frequent kind, and that was why it was considered unnecessary to specify any details. However, if we assume that the lack of information should be interpreted as the sacrifice being of the kind that was most common in hero-cults, we still have to define which kind of sacrificial rituals was intended. Judging from the evidence reviewed so far, both epigraphical and literary, it seems as if the most common ritual in hero-cults was a thysia followed by dining.

  • 291 Perry 1952, no. 110 = Hausrath 1962, no. 112. For other cases of heroa near houses, see Rusten 198 (...)

178Aisopos, in a fable called The hero, tells the story of a man who had a hero near his house and was sacrificing lavishly to him (πολυτελῶς ἔθυεν; πολλὰ εἰς θυσίας δαπανῶντος).291 One night, the hero appeared before the man and told him to stop destroying his property by this extravagant activity. If the man ruined all his fortune, the hero was afraid that he would have to take the blame.

  • 292 See van Straten 1995, 179.

179The thysiai performed to this hero may have been of any kind. From what we know of the sacrificial practices of private individuals and families, animal sacrifice seems to have been quite rare, as compared with offerings of fruit, vegetables and cakes.292 On the other hand, the hero’s point of view is just that the sacrifices may threaten to ruin the man, and therefore they are better understood as more expensive animal sacrifices. There seems to be no reason to interpret them as anything else than regular thysia.

  • 293 Isthm. 5.30–31.
  • 294 Slater 1969, s.v.
  • 295 Philoch. FGrHist 328 F 25.
  • 296 Ephoros FGrHist 70 F 118.

180In other passages, the information is very brief. Pindar writes in the fifth Isthmian Ode that Tydeus and Meleager, the sons of Oineus, received θυσίαι ϕαενναί, “brilliant sacrifices”, from the Aetolians.293 The description of the sacrifices as brilliant may be an indication of the use of fire, since the adjective ϕαεννóς could be used to describe a shining or radiant fire, but the term could also be used metaphorically.294 A fragment of Philochoros speaks of the sacrifices to a hero called Keramos: . τoῦ θύειν Kεράμωι τινὶ ἥρῳ.295 Lykourgos is mentioned in an Ephoros passage as being the only one of the Spartan law-makers to have had a temple constructed to him and receiving annual sacrifices (ἱερòν ἱδρῦσθαι ϰατ ἔτoς).296

  • 297 Pl. Menex. 244a.
  • 298 Pl. Menex. 249b.
  • 299 Dem. Epitaph. 36.
  • 300 See above, p. 76, n. 248.

181Two texts mention the rituals performed to the war dead at Athens. According to Plato, the war dead were to be given prayers and thysiai.297 In a later passage from the same text, the honours accorded to the war dead are specified as an annual public performance of the private funerary rituals (ta nomizomena), as well as athletic contests, horse-races and music.298 Demosthenes speaks of the war dead as receiving deathless honours, a memorial erected by the State, thysiai and games.299 The content and extent of the religious treatment of the war dead are difficult to grasp, since the sources offer few details.300 It is clear, however, that they received public funerals and a consecutive cult, as well as athletic games, horse-races and music competitions. The war dead occupied a prominent place in society, especially in democratic Athens, and it therefore seems likely that the sacrifices consisted of animal victims. Furthermore, since the burial and commemoration of the war dead was a public ritual, distinct from the private celebrations of the dead, some kind of collective ritual dining may be assumed.

  • 301 Enagizein: 1.167; 2.44. Thyein/thysia: 5.47 (twice); 5.67; 5.114; 6.38; 7.117. Choai: 7.43. For he (...)

182The final four passages to be considered are from Herodotos, and all of them use the terms thyein or thysia for the sacrifices. Herodotos is a rich source of information about hero-cults, mentioning such sacrifices no less than 13 times. His use of different terms for the rituals must reflect a wish to differentiate between various kinds of sacrifices, for example, enagizein for destruction sacrifices, thyein/thysia for sacrifices followed by meals, and choai for rituals consisting only of libations.301

  • 302 Hdt. 5.47.
  • 303 On the cult of enemies, see Visser 1982. Fontenrose (1968) classifies the athletes worshipped as h (...)
  • 304 Herodotos uses hilaskesthai and exhilaskesthai also for sacrifices to various gods (Apollon, Pan, (...)

183The first passage concerns the athlete Philippos of Kroton, winner at Olympia and the most beautiful of all Greeks.302 According to Herodotos, Philippos participated in the Spartan attempt to colonize Sicily but was killed in battle with the combined forces of the Phoenicians and Segestans. He was buried at Segesta and received unrivalled honours from the Segestans because of his beauty. They built a heroon on his tomb and propitiated him with sacrifices (θυσίησι αὐτòν ἱλάσϰονται). Of particular interest here is the fact that the sacrifices were aimed at propitiating Philippos. It is not clear from Herodotos’ account why this had to be done. Two alternatives are possible: either Philippos had to be appeased, since he had caused some kind of problem for the Segestans, perhaps since he was a former enemy of theirs (cf. the Phokaians killed at Agylla), or, if he was propitiated, he was thought to be able to help the worshippers in some way.303 The use of the verb hilaskesthai may indicate that these sacrifices contained particular rituals, but it is also possible that the use of this term simply refers to the aim of the whole sacrifice and has no bearing on the ritual content.304

184In the last three Herodotos passages, the thyein sacrifices are said to be performed ὡς ἥρῳ or ὡς νóμος οἰϰιστῇ. Whether these additions refer to the recipient being regarded as a hero or an oikist or to the thyein sacrifices having a particular content will be more fully discussed below, since ὡς ἥρῳ is also used together with enagizein, entemnein and timan.

  • 305 Hdt. 5.112–113.
  • 306 Hdt. 5.114.

185The first passage concerns Onesilos, king of Salamis on Cyprus, who was killed in the siege of Amathous.305 The Amathousians cut off his head and placed it above the gates to their city, where it hung until the hollow skull was entered by a swarm of bees, which filled it with their honey comb.306 The Amathousians consulted an oracle concerning the matter and were told to take the head down, bury it and θύειν ὡς ἥρῳ annually to Onesilos, since, if they did so, they would fare better.

  • 307 Hdt. 7.117.
  • 308 The term Çtumboqóee is to be taken as referring to the piling up of the grave mound rather than as (...)

186The second case of θύειν ὡς ἥρῳ concerns the overseer of Xerxes, Artachaies, who was the tallest man in Persia and had the loudest voice on earth.307 He died at Akanthos during the Persian invasion and was mourned by Xerxes, who gave him a funeral and a substantial burial mound.308 The Akanthians continue to sacrifice to him in accordance with an oracle (θύουσι Ἀϰάνθιοι ἐϰ θεοπροπίου ὡς ἥρῳ) and to call his name.

  • 309 Hdt. 6.38. For the historical background, see Malkin 1987, 77–78 and 190–193.
  • 310 Malkin 1987, 190–191 and 200.

187In both these cases, apart from the specification of thyein as ὡς ἥρῳ, there is nothing in the contexts which indicates that any particular kinds of rituals were performed. The construction θύειν ώς ή ρω may be compared with θύειν ὡς νόμος οἰϰιστῇ, which Herodotos uses in describing the honours accorded to the deceased Miltiades by the Chersonesitai, whom he had ruled as a “tyrant”.309 Ever since Miltiades died, the Chersonesitai sacrificed to him “as it is the norm for a founder” (θύειν ὡς νόμος οἰϰιστῇ) and arranged horse-races and athletic contests. Malkin, in his discussion of the passage, argues that there must have been a generally accepted norm for the cults of founders and that this cult was manifested by annual commemorations which included sacrifices and feasting.310

2.4.4. The honouring of heroes

  • 311 The honouring of heroes seems to be a particular feature of the literary sources, rarely documente (...)

188With the exception of a few instances, the passages discussed so far in this chapter contain a terminology which in one way or another refers to concrete actions: the killing of a sacrificial victim and how it was handled afterwards. In many cases, however, the literary sources speak of heroes being honoured.311 The terms most commonly used are τιμᾶν and τιμή or τιμαί or , but a few others are also found, for example, σέβεσθαι and γέρας.

  • 312 The terminology of honours is not commented upon in particular by Stengel (1910 and 1920), Nilsson (...)

189What kind of activity is meant, when the literary sources speak of heroes being honoured? Do the sources refer to animal sacrifice, bloodless offerings or other kinds of rituals, for example, the deposition of votives or the holding of contests and the performance of music? Terms used to describe the honours, such as timan and time, have not received the same attention in the study of the religious terminology as, for example, thyein, presumably since these terms have been considered as covering less direct ritual actions.312

  • 313 In Homer, time is reserved solely for the living and has no connection with religious observances (...)

190According to the LSJ, timan signifies to honour and revere as men do the gods or the elders, rulers or guests, while time is worship, esteem, honour and, in the plural, honours, such as those accorded to gods or to superiors. Time underwent a change of meaning from Homeric to Classical times, which is more apparent than the development of thyein during the same periods.313

  • 314 Nagy 1979, 118–119; Mikalson 1991, 183–202.
  • 315 Mikalson 1991, 183–202; see also Mikalson 1998, 301–303.
  • 316 Cf. the components of time among the Greeks as defined by Aristotle (Rh. 1361a): sacrifices, memor (...)

191In the Classical period, time and timan had come to specify the honour which a hero or a god received in cult.314 Mikalson, in his study of popular religion in Greek tragedy, offers a lengthy discussion on the meaning and use of time, which he considers as the essential element of Greek piety, defining it both as the “honour” and the “office” or “function” for which one receives honour.315 If a god or a hero has time, it means that he is worshipped with sanctuaries, dedications, hymns, dances, libations, rituals, prayers, festivals and, above all, sacrifices.316 Thus, it is important also to look into the honouring of heroes when investigating sacrificial rituals.

  • 317 Hdt. 4.33–35.

192In the case of hero-cults, the honours given refer to some kind of cult with sacrifices taking place. On this level, the terms referring to honours function more or less as thyein does in the evidence discussed previously. However, the sacrifices covered by timan and time can include animal victims, but in some cases the offerings seem to have been bloodless. The use of time and timai as meaning sacrifices of various kinds can be illustrated by how the terms are used in Herodotos’ description of the cult of the Hyperborean maidens on Delos.317

  • 318 Hdt. 4.33.
  • 319 Hdt. 4.35.
  • 320 Hdt. 4.34. The sema has usually been identified with a semi-circular foundation in the Artemision, (...)

193Herodotos tells the story of how the Hyperboreans sent offerings to Delos with two maidens, Hyperoche and Laodike, who were escorted by five men. This group never made it back to the Hyperboreans. Both Hyperoche and Laodike and their escort, the latter called the Perpherees by the Delians, are said to be honoured on Delos. The Perpherees were given great honours (τιμὰς μεγάλας ... ἔχοντες), which Herodotos does not specify further.318 Hyperoche and Laodike were also honoured by the Delians (τιμὴν ἔχουσι).319 The Delian girls and boys cut their hair and placed it on their tomb, the σῆμα, which was located at an olive-tree on the left-hand side as one entered the Artemision.320

  • 321 Hdt. 4.35.
  • 322 The location of the theke is more disputed. The remains of a built-up, Bronze Age tomb, surrounded (...)

194There was also another pair of Hyperborean maidens, Opis and Arge, who were said to have come to Delos earlier than Hyperoche and Laodike and who received another kind of honours (τιμάς ἄλλάς δεδóσθαι).321 The women of Delos took up collections for them and named them in a hymn. Their tomb, the θήκη, was located behind the temple of Artemis, facing east, close to the banqueting-hall of the people of Keos.322 Finally, Herodotos says that the ashes from the thigh-bones burnt upon the altar (τῶν μηρίων ϰαταγιζομένων ἐπὶ τῷ βωμῷ τὴν σποδόν) were used for throwing upon the θήϰη.

  • 323 Some scholars have argued that there was originally only one cult of the Hyperborean maidens which (...)
  • 324 Offerings of hair were among the timai megistai promised to Hippolytos by Artemis (see Eur. Hipp. (...)
  • 325 On this particular ritual, see Robertson 1983, 143–169; Burkert 1985, 101–102.
  • 326 Artemis: Pfister 1909–12, 452; Nilsson 1906, 207; Sale 1961, 78; Robertson 1983, 147; Larson 1995, (...)
  • 327 Roux 1973, 525–526 with n. 2, identifies the altar as belonging to Opis and Arge. Chantraine & Mas (...)
  • 328 The spreading of the ashes in a particular place, and especially a holy one, such as the theke, wa (...)

195This passage is fairly explicit about the kinds of honours which the two pairs of Hyperborean maidens received.323 In the case of Hyperoche and Laodike, the only offerings mentioned are the cut-off hair placed on the sema, and there may have been no sacrifice of animal victims.324 The honours paid to Opis and Arge are said to be different, timai allai, from those given to Hyperoche and Laodike. A collection was made by the women of Delos, which must have been a form of ritual begging,325 as well as the singing of hymns, but Opis and Arge were also given the ashes from the thigh-bones burnt upon the bomos. Whom did this altar belong to? The common interpretation has been to consider the bomos as belonging to Artemis or Apollon, but that identification is a modern inference, since the text does not mention any particular owner of the altar.326 Since Herodotos says “the ashes of the thigh-bones burnt on the altar are used to cast upon the theke of Opis and Arge”, it is possible to identify this altar as that of the Hyperborean maidens.327 If that was the case, the cult of Opis and Arge must have consisted of a regular thysia, at which the divine portion, the thigh-bones, was burnt on the altar and the rest of the meat was consumed by the worshippers. In any case, Opis and Arge were given the ashes from a thysia sacrifice.328

196From the usage of timai in Herodotos, it is clear that the term could be used for sacrifices of a non-edible kind, such as hair, but perhaps also for regular animal sacrifices, depending on how the text is interpreted. Examples of both kinds of usage can be found also in other texts.

  • 329 Thuc. 3.58.
  • 330 Cf. the fragmentary laws of Drakon which state that the gods and heroes of the country should be h (...)
  • 331 Burning of clothes: Hdt. 5.92; cf. the clothes mentioned in the 5th-century BC funerary law from I (...)

197The war dead at Plataiai were honoured with clothes, customary gifts and aparchai consisting of fruits of the season Ïfrom the earth (ἐτιμῶμεν ϰατὰ ἔτος ἕϰαστον δημοσίᾳ ἐσθήμασί τε ϰαὶ τοĩς ἄλλοις νομίμοις, ὅσα τε ἡ γῆ ἡμῶν ἀνεδίδου ὡραĩα, πάντων ἀπαρχὰς ἐπιϕέροντες).329 In this case, it seems as if animal sacrifice was not part of the ceremonies and that the aparchai of fruits may have been offered at theoxenia.330 The clothes could either have been burnt, as the garments given to Periander’s wife Melissa had to be, for her to enjoy them in Hades, or deposited whole somewhere, as is known from sanctuaries, Brauron, for example.331

  • 332 Fr. 65, lines 79–80 (Austin 1968).

198A definite case of timan referring to rituals which included animal sacrifice is the way the term is used in Euripides’ Erechtheus discussed previously. In this passage, Athena instructs the Athenians to honour, timân, the Hyakinthids annually with thysiai, sphagai and choruses.332 Here, timan is used in a general sense, covering a whole set of rituals, for which the particular actions are designated by special terms.

  • 333 Thuc. 5.11; cf. Hornblower 1996, 455.
  • 334 Hornblower 1996, 455; Malkin 1987, 231–232.
  • 335 The entemnein sacrifices to Brasidas were not necessarily part of the cult of Hagnon, since these (...)

199A similar usage is found in Thucydides when he is speaking of the worship of Brasidas at Amphipolis, to whom the Amphipolitans τιμὰς δεδώϰασιν ἀγῶνας ϰαὶ ἐτησίους θυσίας, i.e., honours comprising games and annual thysiai.333 When Brasidas was adopted as the new founder and saviour of the city, Hagnon, the original founder of Amphipolis, was deprived of the timai he used to receive. The timai accorded to Hagnon have usually been considered as being the same as the timai given to Brasidas.334 It seems plausible that both Hagnon and Brasidas would have received timai in the form of animal sacrifices and games in their aspects as founders of the city.335

  • 336 Malkin 1987, 200 and 203.
  • 337 Hdt. 1.168. See Malkin 1987, 221–223, on the status of this cult as that of an oikist.
  • 338 Pind. Pyth. 5.95. See further Malkin 1987, 204–206, with a discussion of the sacred law from Kyren (...)
  • 339 Xen. Hell. 7.3.12.
  • 340 The term archegetes was commonly applied to oikists, for example, to Battos, and could serve as a (...)

200To take the honours as referring to sacrifices of animal victims followed by ritual dining is probably the best interpretation also in other oikist cults, since communal feasting seems to have formed the essential part of the cult of the oikist.336 Timesios of Klazomenai, the original founder of Abdera, who was later driven out by the Thracians, received honours from the people of Teos (τιμὰς ... ὡς ἥρως ἔχει), who founded a new colony on the same site in 544 BC.337 Battos, the founder of Kyrene, is said to be a .rwv laosebåv, “a hero honoured by the people” and had his tomb in the agora.338 Euphron, the leader of the popular party at Sikyon, was killed in 364 BC by his political opponents when in Thebes.339 The Sikyonians brought him home, buried him in the agora and revered him as the founder (archegetes) of the city (ὡς ἀρχηγέτην τῆς πόλεως σέβονται).340

  • 341 See above, p. 76, n. 248.
  • 342 Thuc. 3.58.
  • 343 Thuc. 2.35.
  • 344 Lys. Epitaph. 80.
  • 345 Pl. Menex. 249b. In Menex. 244a, Plato speaks of thysiai.
  • 346 Dem. Epitaph. 36. Cf. Loraux 1986, 38, on the distinction between the burial of the war dead, whic (...)
  • 347 Dem. Epitaph. 36; cf. Pl. Menex. 244a.

201Another group of recipients of honours are the war dead. It has commonly been pointed out that, even though the war dead received an established cult in most Greek cities, the sources are often unwilling to elaborate on the details.341 It is therefore interesting to note that the worship of the war dead is often described in terms referring to honours. The public honouring of the war dead at Plataiai mentioned by Thucydides has already been commented upon.342 The Athenian war dead, who were buried at public expense in the Kerameikos, are described as receiving honours and the sources often stress the honour of being buried by the state, more than the fact that they were also the focus of a continuous cult. Thucydides speaks only of timai in connection with the funeral.343 Lysias mentions the public funeral and the following games and further states that the war dead were worthy of receiving the same honours as the immortals (ταĩς αὐχαĩς τιμαĩς ϰαὶ τοὺς ἀθανάθουςτιμᾶ σθαι).344 In Plato’s Menexenos, the city honours (τιμῶσα) the war dead with a public version of the private funerary rituals (ta nomizomena), athletic games, horse-races and music.345 Demosthenes speaks about the deathless honours (ἀγήρως τιμάς) for the war dead, as well as a public monument, thysiai and games.346 The importance of the worship of the war dead in Athens makes it likely that the rituals did not consist only of offerings of clothes and fruit, as was the case of the war dead buried at Plataiai. It is probable that, in Athens, animal victims were sacrificed and that timan and timai should be interpreted as referring to such sacrifices, in particular, since these honours are defined as consisting of thysiai in one case.347 The frequent usage of timan and timai may be understood as playing down the religious aspect in the treatment of the war dead.

  • 348 Hyp. Epitaph. 21.
  • 349 Habicht 1970, 28–36; Parker 1996, 257–258.
  • 350 Price 1984a, 33–34, considers that the classification of the recipient as a hero was a means of de (...)
  • 351 Cf. Habicht 1970, 31–32.
  • 352 The relationship between Demetrios Poliorketes, considered as a god or equal to a god, and three o (...)

202A final example of timai, which may correspond to animal sacrifice, is found in the Funeral speech by Hypereides.348 Here, the orator complains that the Athenians are now forced to bring thysiai to ordinary men and, while the statues, altars and temples of the gods are left without care, those belonging to living men are being taken care of. Furthermore, the Athenians have to honour the servants of these men as heroes (ὥσπερ ἥρωας τιμᾶν ... ἀναγϰαζομένους). This passage concerns the conditions in Athens in 323 BC, when cults had been instituted both to Alexander and to Hephaistion.349 It is difficult to say whether the difference in terminology––thysiai, statues, altars and temples for the gods and simply timai for the heroes––reflects a distinction in rank between gods and heroes.350 Alexander and Hephaistion seem to have been intimately united in cult, and the use of thysiai and timai may just be a way of varying the language.351 On the other hand, if the equating of Hephaistion with a hero was intended to diminish his importance as compared with Alexander, it is possible that timai should be understood as rituals less elaborate than animal sacrifice.352

  • 353 Isoc. Plat. 60. Probably these heroes were not the war-dead buried at Plataiai (see Schachter 1986 (...)
  • 354 Alkman, no. 7, fr. 1, lines 6–9 (Page 1962).
  • 355 Pind. Isthm. 5.32–33.
  • 356 Arist. Rh. 1398b; Alkidamas no. 14 (Radermacher 1951, 134).
  • 357 Mir. ausc. 840a; cf. Harrison 1989, 174.
  • 358 Eur. Antiope fr. 48, line 99 (Kambitsis 1972, with commentary pp. 124–125); Jouan 2000, 36, esp. n (...)

203As in the case of thyein, there is a handful of passages in which timan or other terms for honours paid to heroes are used without any further specifications of what was done. In one of the orations by Isokrates, the Plataians urge the Athenians to help them against Thebes, giving as one of the reasons for demanding support that they were concerned for the monument of the fallen Greeks at Plataiai, lest it should be damaged and the gods and heroes of the site would not receive their rightful timai.353 A fragment of Alkman refers to the cult of Menelaos, who is mentioned as being honoured (τιμᾶ[σθαι] at Therapne, together with the Dioskouroi.354 Helen is mentioned a few lines further down in the same fragment (line 10) and her name is followed by a kai, which may indicate that she also had a companion or companions. Helen and her company may also have been honoured, if the [τιμ] ὰς ἔχουσι (line 13) later in the fragment refers to them. Pindar speaks of Iolaos being honoured (γέρας ἔχει) at Thebes, just as Perseus was at Argos.355 Preceding this statement, Pindar mentions that Tydeus and Meleager, the sons of Oineus, were given thysiai by the Aitolians. The geras accorded to Iolaos and Perseus were probably also some kind of sacrifices, presumably thysiai. Aristotle states that men of talent are honoured everywhere (τιμῶσιν) and further quotes the orator Alkidamas, according to whom the Parians honoured (τετιμήϰασι) Archilochos, in spite of his evil tongue, the Chians Homer, although he had rendered no public services, the Mytilenians Sappho, although she was a woman, the Italiotes Pythagoras, and the Lampsakenes buried Anaxagoras, although he was a foreigner, and honour him still (τιμῶσιν ἔτι ϰαὶ νῦν).356 According to the Aristotelian work On marvelous things heard, Philoktetes was honoured (τιμᾶσθαι) among the Sybarites.357 Two fragments from plays by Euripides also mention unspecified honours given to heroes. In the Antiope, Amphion and Zetos will receive the greatest honours (τιμάς μεγέστας) at Thebes, while the timai accorded to Hippolytos at Troizen are mentioned in a fragment of the first and now lost version of the Hippolytos.358

  • 359 Xen. Lac. 15.9.
  • 360 On the Spartan kings as heroes with continuous cult, see Cartledge 1988. For the designation of th (...)

204A final and slightly different case to consider is the treatment of the Spartan kings after their death. Xenophon says that a dead king was given timai after he had died, and that in this manner the laws of Lykourgos show that they honour the kings of the Spartans not as mortal men but as heroes (οὐχ ὡς ἀνθρώπους, ἀλλ' ὡς ἥρωας ... προτετιμήϰασιν).359 There has been some argument as to whether this statement should be taken to mean that the kings became heroes, honoured in cult after they had died, or that they only received exceptional funerals, since they had an inherent heroic quality from birth but got no continuous honours after their burial.360 Considering the usage of timan and timai for definite, continuous hero-cults, such as those of the oikists, it seems difficult to avoid the conclusion that the dead kings were treated as heroes with proper cults. Xenophon’s terminology may be compared with the cautious attitude to the religious position of the war dead found in other sources. Even if a cult did exist, it was not emphasized.

2.5. The specification of the sacrifice as ὡς ήρφ

  • 361 Deneken 1886–90, 2505; von Fritze 1903, 66; Stengel 1920, 141–142; Pfister 1909–12, 479–480.
  • 362 Pfister 1909–12, 479–480; Rohde 1925, 140, n. 15.
  • 363 Pfister 1909–12, 479–489.

205It has been noted above that some sacrifices to heroes are specified as ὡς ἥρῳ . This addition has been taken to indicate the performance of particular rituals, which in the case of hero-cults would mean a complete destruction of the animal victim and no dining for the worshippers.361 The addition ὡς ἥρῳ has been compared with sacrifices specified as ὡς θεῷ, which have been understood as rituals at which the worshippers dined. Since it has been assumed that dining did not take place at sacrifices to heroes, the addition of ὡς ἥρῳ to the verb thyein has caused some problems among modern scholars. The combination θύειν ὡς ἥρῳ has been viewed as an impossibility and has consequently been explained as a mistake or a careless usage of the terminology by the ancient sources.362 The expression θύειν ώς ὡς θεῷ used for a sacrifice to a hero, on the other hand, has been considered as a conscious choice, indicating that the recipient differed from regular heroes, most frequently by not having died a proper death or by not having any grave.363

  • 364 Thus, Pfister 1909–12, 480.

206The problem of interpreting ὡς ἥρῳ as referring to particular sacrificial rituals concerns not only the fact that some ancient sources have to be dismissed as sprachlich nicht korrekt, since they use this addition with thyein.364 A review of the expression ὡς ἥρῳ shows that it is used with thyein, timan, entemnein and enagizein alike, terms with highly varied meanings (see Table 31).

  • 365 For enagizein, see above, pp. 82–89.
  • 366 Thuc. 5.11; LSS 64, line 9; cf. Rudhardt 1958, 285–286. Entemnein used for sacrifices to heroes in (...)

207To add ὡς ἥρῳ to enagizein in order to mark the presence of rituals particular to hero-cults seems unwarranted, since in the Classical and Hellenistic periods this term was, anyway, used only for sacrifices to heroes and the dead and never for the cult of the gods.365 Entemnein is also connected in particular with hero-sacrifices and would therefore need no further elucidation.366 Moreover, which kind of ritual should be considered as being the most typical for heroes and correspond to ὡς ἥρῳ? The review of the epigraphical and literary sources indicates that sacrifices to heroes were mostly of the alimentary kind, while destruction sacrifices and blood rituals were uncommon. A hero could of course receive destruction sacrifices (enagizein) or blood rituals (entemnein), since these were among the rituals performed to heroes, but a hero could also, and did frequently, receive thysia sacrifices followed by dining. It is therefore not possible to argue that ὡς ἥρῳ is automatically to be taken as indicating enagizein or entemnein sacrifices. On the whole, the interpretation of ὡς ἥρῳ as referring to ritual practices for heroes differing from the cult of the gods rests upon the assumption that the sacrifices to heroes were ritually distinct from those to the gods.

Table 31. Sacrifices specified by an addition.

Table 31. Sacrifices specified by an addition.
  • 367 Kontoleon 1970, 45–46, ὡς ἥρῳ meaning “as if to a hero” in the sense of a hero of epic, not simply (...)
  • 368 Onesilos: Hdt. 5.114; Artachaies: Hdt. 7.117; Timesios: Hdt. 1.168; Brasidas: Thuc. 5.11; Herakles (...)
  • 369 Xen. Hell. 7.3.12.

208The alternative interpretation of ὡς ἥρῳ has no bearing on the contents of the rituals but concerns the status of the recipient.367 If the addition . ὡς ἥρῳ is viewed from this angle, it would constitute a means of indicating that the recipient belonged to the category of heroes. Similarly, θύειν ὡς θεῷ defines the recipient as being a god and σέβεσθαι ὡς ἀρχηγέτην as an archegetes. The thyein ὡς ἥρῳ to Onesilos and Artachaies, the honouring of Timesios ὡς ἥρῳ, the entemnein ὡς ἥρῳ to Brasidas and the enagizein ὡς ἥρῳ to Herakles would mean that all these recipients were considered as being heroes and not any other kind of divine beings.368 Likewise, Euphron of Sikyon, who was honoured as ὡς ἀρχηγέτην τῆς πόλεως, belonged to the category of archegetai.369

  • 370 Isoc. Hel. 63.
  • 371 Xen. Lac. 15.9. Cf. Parker 1988, 10, who does not believe that the kings were given a continuous h (...)
  • 372 Hdt. 6.38; cf. discussion in Malkin 1987, 190–200.

209The importance of the religious status is especially obvious when it is emphasized that the recipient belonged to one particular category and not to another. When Isokrates speaks of the cult of Helen and Menelaos at Sparta, he makes a point of stressing that the couple were receiving holy and traditional thysiai, not as heroes but as being gods (θυσίας αὖτοĩς ἁγίας ϰαὶ πατρίας ἀποτελοῦσιν οὐχ ὡς ἥρωσιν ἀλλ' ὡς θεοĩς ἀμϕοτέροις οὖσιν).370 Similarly, the dead Spartan kings were honoured, not as ordinary men, but as heroes (οὐ ὡς ἀνθρώπους, ἀλλ' ὡς ἥρωας ... προτετιμήϰασιν).371 The only case in which the addition seems to concern the ritual practices is the worship of Miltiades among the Chersonesitai. Here, however, it is indicated that the people of Chersonesos “sacrifice as is the norm for a founder” (θύουσι ὡς νόμος ο ἰϰιστῇ), a ritual presumably centred on an annual, solemn feast.372

210In the examples discussed so far, the recipients are considered as being heroes, oikists, archegetai or gods and it was argued that the additions were meant to clarify their status, not to indicate any particular rituals. In a few cases, the addition is not ὡς ἥρῳ or ὡς θεῷ but ὥσπερ ἥρωας or ὥσπερ θεῷ/θεοĩσι. The meaning of this addition is less clear and can, in fact, both refer to the status of the recipient and to the rituals they receive.

  • 373 Hyp. Epitaph. 21; cf. Habicht 1970, 28–36; Parker 1996, 257–258.

211In the first example, the status of the recipient must be the issue. Hypereides complains about the Athenians having to perform thysia and erect statues, altars and temples to their Macedonian overlords and honour their servants as heroes (ὥσπερ ἥρωας τιμᾶν), a passage taken to refer to the cult of Alexander and Hephaistion.373 The point being made is not that the servants (or Hephaistion) were considered as being heroes, but that they had to be honoured as if they were heroes, i.e., Athenians had to show them an excessive amount of respect. A certain degree of irony can be detected here. The fact that the servants had to be treated as heroes, while the masters were gods, may have been a means for indicating that the former were of lesser status than the latter. In any case, the passage is to be taken as having a bearing on the status of the recipients of the honours rather than as a sign of there being particular ritual practices for heroes, distinct from those of the gods.

  • 374 Pind. Ol. 7.77–80. Translation by Race 1997.
  • 375 The description of the ritual as a thysia with dining is natural, since this was the most common k (...)

212A second, slightly different case, in which the same construction is found, concerns the cult of the mythical founder of Dorian Rhodes, Tlapolemos. Pindar, in his seventh Olympian Ode, states that on Rhodes “is established for Tlapolemos, the Tirynthians’ colony-founder, as if for a god, a procession of rich sacrificial flocks and the judging of athletic contests” (Τλαπολέμῳ ἵσταται Τιρυνθίων ἀρχαγέτα, ὥσπερ θεῷ, μήλων χε ϰνισάεσσα πομπὰ ϰαὶ ϰρίσις ἀμφ' ἀέθλοις).374 Tlapolemos is an archegetes and not a god, but he is given sacrifices as if he were a god. The rituals to Tlapolemos are of a kind commonly performed to the gods but they may as well be found in a cult of an archegetes. The meaning intended here, seems to have been a wish to show the extent to which he was honoured and the fact that, though an archegetes, he was worshipped on the same scale as a god.375

  • 376 Ar. Tag. fr. 504, 12–14 (PCG III:2, 1984).
  • 377 See below, p. 288, n. 367. For the use of ὥσπερ in the new sacred law from Selinous (Jameson, Jord (...)

213Here can also be considered an interesting fragment of Aristophanes’ Tagenistai.376 The speaker in the text states that “we are sacrificing enagismata to them (the dead) as if they were gods, and we are pouring out choai, begging them to send up the good things here” (θύομεν † αὐτοĩσι τοĩς ἐναγίσμασιν ὥσπερ θεοĩσι, ϰαὶ χοάς γε χεόμενοι αἰτούμεθ' αὐτοὺς δεῦρ' ἀνιέναι τἀγαθά). Also in this case, the rituals themselves do not seem to be the main issue. In this period, the gods would not be recipients of enagismata and the stipulation that the dead were to be given these offerings “as to the gods” clearly has no bearing on them being gods nor of the gods actually receiving enagismata. Intended is rather the unusual situation that the dead are receiving a substantial amount of offerings, just as the gods, although the departed normally would be given comparably poor offerings. The use of thyein can also be taken as an indication of the exceptional character of these sacrifices, since this term is, as a rule, not used for rituals for the ordinary Greek dead in this period.377

  • 378 Thus, in particular, in the inscriptions: the theos Hypodektes (IG II2 2501, 20) and the heros Egr (...)
  • 379 Hdt. 5.114 and 7.117.
  • 380 Xen. Hell. 7.3.12; Thuc. 5.11.
  • 381 Hdt. 1.168. For the institution of the cult, see Malkin 1987, 55–56.
  • 382 Xen. Lac. 15.9.
  • 383 It is interesting to note that the cults marked ὡς θεῷ or ὡς ἀθανάτῳ are referred to as being alr (...)

214Why, then, was there a need to specify the religious status of the recipient in some cases? In general, the denominations heros and theos seem to have been used in quite a flexible manner.378 It is interesting to note that most of the passages defining the recipient as a hero, an oikist or an archegetes concern the institution of the cults in one way or another. When Herodotos speaks of the thyein ὡς ἥρῳ sacrifices to Onesilos and Artachaies, it is in describing the background of the cults and the circumstances of their institution.379 The cults of Euphron at Sikyon and Brasidas at Amphipolis were also new cults, even though Brasidas replaced Hagnon in many respects.380 The worship of Timesios at Abdera was probably newly established by the second group of colonists of the site.381 The honouring of the dead Spartan kings can also be said to concern the institution of cults, since the elevation of the kings to heroes took place only in connection with their burial.382 At the institution of a new cult, it seems to have been of importance to define the status of the recipient.383 Furthermore, it cannot be a coincidence that so many of these cults concern founders, whether they were the actual founders or not or only later adopted as such: Miltiades at Chersonesos, Timesios at Abdera, Euphron at Sikyon, Brasidas at Amphipolis and Tlapolemos on Rhodes. After his death, the founder received a hero-cult, but it still seems to have been of interest whether he was to be called a hero, an oikist or an archegetes.

  • 384 Boedeker 1993, 164–177, on the specific case of Hdt. 1.66–68 (the bones of Orestes); for other cas (...)
  • 385 Malkin 1987, 27–28. Cf. Plato (Leg. 738d), who declares that, when a state is created, religious m (...)
  • 386 Pl. Resp. 540b–c.

215The link between the addition ὡς ἥρῳ and the religious status of the recipient is further supported by the role played by oracles in the institution of the cults. It is well known that Delphi in many cases ordered the recovery of the bones of a hero and the foundation of a cult.384 The sacrifices to Onesilos and Artachaies described by Herodotos were both begun on the command of an oracle. Delphi also played an important role in the creation of oikist cults, since it was the oracle which appointed the oikist, who, when he died, received a hero-cult.385 When the oracle decided on the institution of a cult, it is possible that it also decided upon the status of the recipient as a hero, an oikist or an archegetes. The importance of the epithet and the role of an oracle in these matters are clear from Plato, when he speaks of the guardians and leaders of the state, who, after their death, will depart to the Island of the Blessed and dwell there.386 Plato says that the state should establish mnemeia and thysiai for them, as daimones (ὡς δαίμοσιν), if the Pythia approves, and, if not, as divine jeíoiv and godlike men (ὡς εὐδαίμοσι τε ϰαὶ θείοις). The distinction here does not lie in different kinds of rituals, since in both cases mnemeia and thysiai will be established, but in the designation of the recipients and how their religious status was to be perceived, a decision made by the oracle.

2.6. Conclusion: Sacrifices to heroes from the literary evidence

216The picture of sacrifices to heroes presented in the literary sources is basically the same as that given by the review of the epigraphical evidence, but there are some distinctions, which mainly depend on the particular character of each category of evidence.

217Direct evidence for destruction sacrifices and blood rituals is not abundant in the literary evidence. The sources offer few details as to the execution of the destruction sacrifices, but the blood rituals always seem to have been performed in connection with thysia sacrifices, presumably constituting the initial ritual of a sacrifice ending with dining. The evidence for theoxenia is scarce and less direct than in the inscriptions, but it is clear that this kind of ritual could be used both as a main ritual and as a complement to animal sacrifice.

218The texts specifically indicating animal sacrifice followed by dining are few, if compared with the epigraphical evidence. This is not surprising, considering the fact that the literary sources often mention the hero-sacrifices in passing when discussing non-religious subjects, while one of the primary aims of the inscriptions was to regulate the handling of the meat. The bulk of the literary texts use thyein or thysia in describing the sacrifices. In most cases, however, the contexts support an interpretation of the ritual as animal sacrifice followed by dining. A number of texts also speak of heroes receiving honours, a terminology almost unknown in the epigraphical sources, but best interpreted as referring to a proper cult with sacrifices, either of animals or of less substantial offerings.

219The lack of detail in the majority of the literary references to hero-cults can in itself be taken as an indication of the ritual intended. When no specifics were given, the sacrifice performed must have been of the most common kind, which meant a ritual at which the worshippers dined. The fact that some sacrifices are specified as destruction sacrifices, blood rituals or theoxenia supports the notion that these sacrifices were unusual and therefore commented upon, rather than that rituals of this kind were common in hero-cults

Notes

1 The term “destruction sacrifice” is a modern construct, which does not correspond to “destruction” in the sense covered by φθείρω. Here, “destruction” refers to the treatment of the offerings from the point of view of the human worshippers, who at these sacrifices received less meat than usual or no meat at all. The divinity, on the other hand, received his share of the sacrifice, which was even larger than at a regular thysia.

2 Theoxenia here covers the same actions as those included in the recent treatment of the subject by Michael Jameson (1994a).

3 For libations to heroes as independent rituals not performed in connection with animal sacrifice, see below, p. 179, n. 213. On heroes and wineless libations, see Henrichs 1983, 93–100, esp. 98–99 with n. 58.

4 Cf. a regulation of the relations between Argos, Knossos and Tylissos, dated to c. 450 BC, which contains a number of sacrifices (see Meiggs & Lewis 1988, no. 42). For a comparison between the early epigraphical evidence from Attica and Crete, though not only inscriptions with a religious connection, see Stoddart & Whitley 1988, 763–767.

5 Peloponnese: Corinth has yielded few inscriptions before the Roman period (see Dow 1942, 113–119 for possible explanations) and of these only two have a religious content: a sacred law from the temple of Apollon, Meritt 1931, no. 1, with a new fragment, Robinson 1976, 230–231 = SEG 26, 1976–77, 393, pre-570 BC, and a horos from the Sacred Spring temenos, Meritt 1931, no. 22 = LSS 34, c. 475 BC. On the early Spartan inscriptions, see Cartledge 1978, 35–36. Kyrene: LSS 115, late 4th century BC; for the extensive bibliography on this inscription, as well as a translation and discussion, see Parker 1983, 332–351; cf. Malkin 1987, 206–212. Selinous: Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993; Kernos 12, 1999, 234–235, no. 45.

6 Athens has produced more inscriptions than any other city state, and not only regarding religious matters (see Hedrick 1994, 160–161). For example, Athenian inscriptions occupy more IG space than entire regions of ancient Greece.

7 In later periods, however, when there is more comparative material from other regions, the attitudes to the heroes and heroization (but not necessarily to sacrificial rituals) seem to have been different in Attica, as compared with elsewhere, see Parker 1996, 276; see also above, p. 18, n. 18. Heroization of regular mortals, for example, is less common in Attica than in other regions, as is clear from the use of the term heros on tombstones, see Fraser 1977, 77; Guarducci 1974, 152–153; Craik 1980, 175–176; Graf 1985, 129, n. 56.

8 So does the archaeological evidence for hero-cults (see Abramson 1978; Antonaccio 1995, 145–197; Boehringer 2001; Pariente 1992, 205–211; Ekroth 1998), which I hope to be able to deal with later.

9 The definition of a hero-sacrifice as Greek or barbarian is sometimes difficult, for example, a sacrifice prescribed by Delphi but executed by a non-Greek population or a cult by non- Greeks of a Greek recipient. The geographical division of the passages is as follows: Attica 14, Peloponnese 10, central Greece 8, the Aegean islands 5, northern Greece 4, Ionia 3, Italy 2, Sicily 1, Cyprus 1, Kyrene 2, Media 2 and general contexts that cannot be tied to a particular geographical location 6.

10 LS 18: Epops, col. IV, 20–23, and col. V, 12–15; Basile, col. II, 16–20.

11 Hollis 1990, 127–130; Callim. Aet. fr. 238, line 11 (Suppl. Hell. 1983). Epops was perhaps related to the hoopoe (see Kearns 1989, 159).

12 Stengel 1910, 187–190; Radke 1936, 26–29.

13 Kearns 1989, 151; Shapiro 1986, has collected the available evidence on Basile. In Athens, Basile, together with Kodros and Neleus, had a substantial temenos, in which at least 200 olivetrees could be planted (IG I3 84, 418/7 BC).

14 LSS 19, 84.

15 See below, pp. 153–157.

16 LS 20 B, 14. Cults of Ioleos are known also from other regions than Attica, but only from later sources (see Kearns 1989, 172–173).

17 Van Straten 1995, 158, n. 144.

18 In support of the notion of private sacrifices involving the priests of the genos, Ferguson (1938, 42) pointed out that the priest of Eurysakes was also the priest of the Hero at the Hale and received the skin and the leg of the victims which were sacrificed to that hero, τῶν θυομένων λαμβάνειν τò δέρμα ϰαὶ τò σϰέλος (LSS 19, 37–39). Ton thyomenon must refer to the animals sacrificed by private persons rather than to the single sheep sacrificed to the Hero at the Hale by the genos (line 85).

19 Ferguson 1938, 42. Sacrificed swine are sometimes called εὑστά in the inscriptions. They do not seem to have yielded any skins: they were singed and the rind must presumably have been eaten (see Ziehen 1899, 267–274; Stengel 1920, 112, n. 21; Jameson 1988, 107–108).

20 It was probably a wether, a castrated ram (see van Straten 1995, 181–186).

21 For this group of terms, see Casabona 1966, 155–196. The earliest use of any of these terms in an inscription concerning hero-cults is the 2nd-century BC foundation of Kritolaos from Amorgos, which prescribes that a ram is to be slaughtered (σφαξάτωσαν), boiled whole and used for prizes at the games for the heroized Aleximachos (LSS 61, 75–81 = IG XII:7 515 = Laum 1914, vol. 2, no. 50).

22 LSS 64, 7–22 = Pouilloux 1954b, no. 141.

23 Casabona 1966, 226–229; Rudhardt 1958, 285–286. Entemnein has been restored for a hero-sacrifice in a cult regulation from Kos (LS 156 A, 10), dating to 300–250 BC. According to the restoration proposed by Herzog (1928, no. 5; followed by Sokolowski, LS 156 A), a priestess cannot personally sacrifice to Hekate or to the chthonian gods, nor sacrifice (entamnetai) to the heroes of the nether world, nor step on a heroon (μηδὲ παρ' Ἑϰάτας Μεγάλ[ας μηδὲ ὅσσα τoĩς θεοĩς τοĩς χθονί] οις θύεται, μηδὲ ὅσσα τοĩς ἐνε[ρτέροις ἥρωσιν ἐντάμνεται, μηδὲ ἐμ] πατεĩν ἡρῶιον , lines 8–10).

24 Pouilloux 1954b, 373–374 and 377; Casabona 1966, 227; commentary on LSS 64, line 10, by Sokolowski; cf. Krummen 1990, 71–72.

25 LSS 64, commentary on line 12; cf. Pouilloux 1954b, 374.

26 Cf. Casabona 1966, 226–227.

27 For the use of this term, see Jameson 1994a, 36–37; Gill 1974, 122–123; Gill 1991, 11.

28 LSS 69, 3 = Salviat 1958, 195.

29 Salviat 1958, 198–212; LSS 69, commentary p. 127.

30 Salviat 1958, 254–259; Jameson 1994a, 36 with n. 6. Among the other festivals mentioned in the same inscription are the Herakleia and the Dioskouria, i.e., festivals to divinities who often received theoxenia (see Jameson 1994a, 46–48).

31 The Heroxeinia festival has been connected with various Thasian heroes, such as the Agathoi killed in war (Salviat 1958, 259; Dunant & Pouilloux 1958, 97) and Herakles (Bergquist, forthcoming). Ἡρωιξείνια is found in another Thasian inscription of substantially later date (Dunant & Pouilloux 1958, no. 192, line 23; 1st century AD). In this case, the two euergetai Euphrillos and Mikas were given parts in the heroixeinia and also received sacrifices of bulls (βουθυτεĩσθαι ... ταύρους) and games on their anniversary.

32 Rotroff 1978, 196–197, lines 4–13 = SEG 28, 1978, 53. Among the silver listed were ten kylikes belonging to the Eponymous Heroes, which led Rotroff to suggest that the hero was one of the Eponymoi, possibly Leos. Lewis 1979 argued that it is more likely that the kylikes were stored in an important civic building, for example, the Strategeion, and that the hero could have been Strategos.

33 Rotroff 1978, 203; Jameson 1994a, 50 with n. 55. Cf. the foundation of Diomedon on Kos (LS 177, 120–130 = Laum 1914, vol. 2, no. 45; cf. Sherwin-White 1977, 210–213; late 4th to early 3rd century BC) listing the theoxenia equipment of Herakles Diomedonteios: two lampstands, two lamps, a grill (eschara), a krater, a rug, a table, five gilt wreaths for the statue, two clubs, three incense-burners and one couch. For the eschara, see above, p. 31.

34 Gill 1991, 10.

35 Jameson 1994a, 40; Gill 1991, 10.

36 Jameson 1994a, 39–40.

37 Jameson 1994a, 37–41.

38 Cf. Jameson 1994a, 41, for similar cases concerning gods.

39 LSS 20, 12–23 = Meritt 1942, 282–287, no. 55 = Ferguson 1944, 73–79, Class A, no. 1. The inscription was cut in the early 3rd century BC, but the decree containing the information on the sacrifices dates to the mid 5th century (see Ferguson 1944, 76; Jameson 1994a, 41). The hero is named Echelos in the 3rd-century part of the inscription (lines 4–5).

40 LSS 20, 14–15. For the interpretation of teleon as a sheep, see van Straten 1995, 173, n. 53; Rosivach 1994, 24, n. 42 and 150–151.

41 LS 20 B, 23–24.

42 LS 20 B, 25.

43 LS 20 B, 3–4.

44 That seems to have been the case in an early-4th-century law from a tribe or a deme: the priestess of the Heroine was to get certain portions of meat from the trapeza (LS 28, 8–9 = IG II2 1356).

45 Daux 1983, 153–154: lines 16–17, a sheep to Kephalos and a trapeza to Prokris; lines 18–19, a selected sheep to Thorikos and a trapeza to the Heroines of Thorikos; lines 28–30, a cow to Thorikos and a trapeza to the Heroines of Thorikos; lines 48–49, a sheep to Hyperpedios and a trapeza to the Heroines of Hyperpedios; lines 50–51, a piglet to Pylouchos and a trapeza to the Heroines of Pylouchos. The trapeza to Philonis (line 44) probably went, together with the preceding sacrifice of a pregnant sheep, to Demeter (lines 43–44) (see Parker 1987, 145) and a sheep to Zeus Herkeios (added to the right-hand side of the stone at the level of line 44). On the lesser status of heroines in the Attic sacrificial calendars, see Larson 1995, 26–34.

46 LS 11 A, 6, 12 and 16 = IG I3 255 A, 4, 10 and 14; cf. Jameson 1994a, 39.

47 The cult of Hippolytos seems always to have been connected with that of Aphrodite and her name has been restored in LS 11 A, 5 and IG I3 255 A, 4 (see commentaries to each edition).

48 Jameson 1994a, 39. The other two tables are used for Zeus Tropaios and Herakles (LS 11 A, 9–10) and for Apollon Pythios, probably together with another recipient (LS 11 A, 13–15?).

49 LS 1 A, 17–19 = IG I3 234 A; c. 480–460 BC; cf. Jameson 1994a, 39.

50 Gill 1991, 7–11; Jameson 1994a, 37. For cakes at thysia, see Kearns 1994, 65–67.

51 LS 38, 10–13 = IG II2 1195; late 4th century BC; cf. Kearns 1994, 65–70.

52 LS 2 C, 2–4 = IG I3 246D, 29–32; c. 470–450 BC.

53 LS 151 C, 2–8. The beginning of line 2, in which the recipients were named, is lost. Paton & Hicks 1891, no. 39, restored the line as τοĩς ἥρω] (σ) ιν oἱ [ἱαρεĩ(ς] ὄϊε τελέω; Herzog 1928, no. 3 proposed ἥρωσι, πᾶ]σιν(?) ὄιε [ς τρεĩ]ς τέλεωι, followed by Segre 1993, no. ED 140; Sokolowski, LS 151 C, suggested βασιλεῦ]σιν οἶ [ες τρεĩ]ς τέλεωι.

54 Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 35–36.

55 Jameson 1994a, 56 with n. 83; Gill 1991, 15–19.

56 LS 28, 8–9 = IG II2 1356: ἐπὶ δὲ] τὴν τράπεζαν ϰ[ω]λῆν, πλευρòν ἰσχίο, ἡμίϰρα[ιραν χορδ] ῆς. For the identification of the parts, see Le Guen-Pollet 1991, 14 and 20.

57 LSS 20. For the date, see above, p. 138, n. 39.

58 For the interpretation of teleon as a sheep, see above, p. 138, n. 40. Ferguson 1944, 74, n. 16, and 77, argues that an ox was also sacrificed when funds were available (line 20, [ἂν ἦι, β]ọῦς).

59 For different interpretations, see Meritt 1942, 287; Ferguson 1944, 73–76, and LSS 20, commentary.

60 Meritt 1942, 286.

61 Lines 6–7, t[òν βωμòν] ἐν τῶι ἱερῶι; cf. Ferguson 1944, 79.

62 LS 10 C, 4–9 = IG I3 244 C; c. 460 BC.

63 LS 10 C, 5. The stone is damaged. Wilamowitz 1887, 255, suggested λέχ[σιν δύο ὀ]βολõν; LS 10 C, λέχ[σιν III ὀ]βολõν; Berthiaume 1982, 63, three obols. IG I3 244 C offers no restoration.

64 LSS 19, 19–24.

65 LS 18, col. I, lines 44–51 (Semele); col. IV, lines 33–40 (Dionysos).

66 IG II2 1254, 11–12, dated from after 350 BC, and SEG 37, 1987, 102, c. 300 BC; the latter is quite damaged, but the word merida is preserved. For the Paraloi and their sanctuary, see Garland 1987, 131–132, who identifies them with the crew of the sacred trireme Paralos. Cf. Kearns 1989, 193.

67 IG VII 235, 25–36 = LS 69; new edition by Petropoulou 1981, 48–49 (= SEG 31, 1981, 416). On the disputed dating of this inscription, early or late 4th century BC, see SEG 31, 1981, 416; SEG 38, 1988, 386; Knoepfler 1986, 96, n. 116; Knoepfler 1992, 452, no. 78; Parker 1996, 148–149.

68 LS 28, 5–9 = IG II2 1356; early 4th century. Sokolowski (LS 28, line 6, commentary) suggested that the skins might have come from lambs, [ἀρν] ί<νι>ων. Ziehen 1899, 273, n. 1, proposed the restoration ['Ἡρω] ινίων. For the interpretation of δεισίας ϰρεῶν (line 6) as portions of meat, see Le Guen-Pollet 1991, 22.

69 See above, p. 140.

70 LSS 19, 37–39.

71 LSS 19, 31–33. On the lack of skins from the pigs, see p. 134, n. 19.

72 LSS 19, lines 84–87, for the recipients: Alkmene, Maia and Ion were given sheep and the Hero of Antisara and the Hero at Pyrgilion a piglet each; cf. Ferguson 1938, 65. Another inscription concerning the Salaminioi, also published by Ferguson (1938, 9–10) and dated to the mid 3rd century BC, speaks of the temenos of Herakles at Porthmos as having altars, bomoi (lines 8–9). Presumably these altars must have been used for all the sacrifices performed at the Herakleia (see Ferguson 1938, 22 and 71; Woodford 1971, 221). On the location of this sanctuary at Sounion, see Young J.H. 1941, 169–171.

73 LS 18: heroines at Pylon, col. I, lines 19–22; heroines at Schoinos, col. V, lines 3–8; Semele, col. I, lines 46–51.

74 LS 151 A a: τῶν θυομένων τᾶι Λευϰοθῆι, ἀποφορὰ ἐς ἱέρεαν.

75 LS 70 = Pouilloux 1954b, no. 129; late 4th to early 3rd century BC. To the examples of priests receiving shares from sacrifices to heroes should perhaps be added LS 11 B (= IG I3 255 B; c. 430 BC). Lines 8–9 can be reconstructed as [---γλõτ[ταν δὲ τõι Ἀρ χ εγέτε[ι---] which are perhaps to be interpreted as the tongue from the victim sacrificed to Archegetes being given to the priest. In the Classical period, the tongues were often the prerogative of the priest, see Kadletz 1981, 21–29 (LS 11 B not included).

76 On this particular practice, see Scullion 1994, 99–112, who provides an overview of both the evidence in all kinds of cults and the previous interpretations. Scullion argues that the practice was a sign of chthonian ritual, see further below, pp. 313–325.

77 Petropoulou 1981, 49, lines 31–32, τῶν δὲ ϰρεῶν μὴ εἶναι ἐϰφορὴν ἔξω τοῦ τεμένεος

78 LS 18: Heroines at Pylon, col. I, lines 19–22; Semele, col. I, lines 46–51; Herakleidai, col. II, lines 42–44 (ou phora added later); Aglauros, col. II, lines 57–59 (ou phora added later); Leukaspis, col. III, lines 50–53; Menedeios, col. IV, lines 53–55; Heroines at Schoinos, col. V, lines 3–8.

79 Daux 1983, 153, line 27.

80 Parker 1987, 145–146, commentary on line 11 and lines 26–27. Daux 1983, 155–157, suggested the restoration . Π [οσειδῶ] and that this line should be connected with the addition . -ῶνι, τέλεον Πυανοψίοις on the left-hand side of the stone at the height of line 31. Cf. Rosivach 1994, 23, n. 40.

81 IG II2 1496, 134–135 and 143; 334/3 to 331/0 BC. Cf. Jameson 1988, 111–112.

82 LS 47, 27–30 = IG II2 2499; 306/5 BC.

83 LSJ s.v.; Ferguson 1944, 80; LS 47, commentary on line 29.

84 Ferguson 1944, 80 with n. 27.

85 Trees, line 15. The number of members in these kinds of cult-associations seems to have been quite small. According to Ferguson (1944, 91 and 117), the orgeones of Asklepios were 16, while the cult-association of Dionysos had 15 members.

86 See LSJ s.v. for references.

87 IG II2 1259, 1–2.

88 For the Amyneion, see also IG II2 1252 + 999 and 1253; Kearns 1989, 147; Kutsch 1913, 12–16 and nos. 14 and 15; Ferguson 1944, 86–91. It has recently been convincingly shown that Dexion does not correspond to the heroized Sophokles, see Connolly 1998, 1–21. For the archaeological remains of the Amyneion, which had a small shrine with a cult table, a stoa for the worshippers to eat and sleep in and a supply of water by a well and presumably also by being connected to a water conduit to the south, see Körte 1893; Körte 1896; Judeich 1931, 289; Travlos 1971, 76–78.

89 Körte 1896, 301–302, in analogy with Hegesandros quoted by Ath. 8.365d: “the contribution brought in to the symposia by the drinkers is called by the Argives χῶς (heap)” (transl. Gulick 1930).

90 LS 151 C: the beginning of line 2, where the recipients were named, is lost. For the restoration of the recipients as heroes, see above, p. 139, n. 53.

91 On the treatment of hiera, see Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 35–36. On the interpretation of the hiera as part of a theoxenia ritual, see above, p. 139.

92 LS 151 C, commentary on line 7, pinax explained as a tray.

93 Veyne 1983, 286, the pinax is thus a part of the actual sacrifice. This practice was more common in Roman sacrifices.

94 IG I3 5 = LS 4; cf. von Prott 1899, 241–266; Clinton 1979, 1–12; Clinton 1992, 83, n. 109.

95 IG I3 5, line 4, Tri . p. Τριπ[τολέμοι, ϰριóν]

96 On the restoration of [Ἰάϰ] χος line 5, see Clinton 1988, 70–71 with n. 24.

97 LSS 10 A, 60–74 = Oliver 1935, 19–32, no. 2; cf. Healey 1984. Oliver places the sacrifices at the Mysteries in Boedromion, while Healey (137) and Sokolowski assign them to the Eleusinia in Metageitnion.

98 Pherrephatte must mean Kore, since she appears after Demeter (see Clinton 1992, 63, n. 199).

99 Melichos (line 66), was formerly read as Delichos; for the correction, see Graf 1974, 139–144. Healey 1984, 139, suggests that Melichos was explicitly called heros to distinguish him from Zeus Meilichios. Melichos, Archegetes and Threptos have been considered as cult epithets for Eubouleus, Hippothoon or Eleusis/Eleusinos, and Triptolemos or Demophon, respectively (see Healey 1984, 139–140). Clinton 1992, 101, prefers to identify Threptos with Demophon rather than with Triptolemos.

100 LSS 19, 19–20 and line 79, θύωσι, αἰεὶ τοĩς θεοĩς ϰαὶ τοĩς ἥpωσι, In line 81, all the sacrifices are called thysiai.

101 LSS 19, 84. See above, pp. 133–134.

102 LS 20 B, 2, 23 and 39.

103 LS 38, 6–7 and 10–13 = IG II2 1195; late 4th century. The offerings seem to have been bloodless, popana and pelanos, but may also have included an animal victim, see above, p. 139.

104 Pomtow 1883, nos. 1, 2, 8, 34 and 47; cf. SGDI 3208–3209. The dating of these tablets is difficult but seems mainly to be the 5th–4th centuries BC (see Parke 1967, 259–273).

105 LSS 64; see above, pp. 135–136.

106 IG II2 2501. The mythology of Hypodektes is unknown, like that of Egretes. Kearns 1989, 75 and 202, suggests two possible origins: Hypodektes may either have been originally an underworld god or he may have functioned as the original recipient of the hiera from Eleusis in Athens.

107 Ferguson 1944, 82; cf. the Heros Iatros at Athens, who is called theos in an inventory, IG II2 839, 20, 33 and 45–46, dated to 221/0 BC.

108 Cult-statues of heroes seem to have been quite rare and mainly found in the cults of major, well-known heroes, often having substantial precincts: Amphiaraos at Oropos, statue base in the temple, Petrakos 1968, 99; Amphieraos at Rhamnous, mentioned in IG II2 1322, 13, stele to be placed παρὰ τòν θεóν; Heros Archegetes at Rhamnous, Pouilloux 1954a, no. 26,. ἀρχεγέτει hροι ἄ[γ]αλµα (cf. Petrakos 1991, 41–42, no. 15, an additional part to the same base); Heros Ptoios at Akraiphiai, inscribed statue base, Perdrizet 1898, 243–245; Helen at Therapne, Hdt 6.61; Lykos, Ar. Av. 819–821.

109 IG II2 1262, 6–7, dating from 301/0 BC. For the new reading οἱ Τυνάβου (line 17), see Tracy 1995, 145–146; Mikalson 1998, 147 with n. 28. Kearns 1989, 201, proposes that Tynaros (as his name was read previously) may have been a foreign god rather than a hero, judging from the find-place of the inscription, Piraeus, and the foreign name. Tracy (ibid.) suggests an Egyptian origin, while Mikalson (ibid.) is in favour of the cult stemming from Cyprus.

110 Ferguson 1944, 123–129.

111 LS 11 A, 11–12 = IG I3 255 A, 13–14.

112 IG II2 1357 a, 5 Ἐρεχθεĩ ἄρνεως; late 5th century. LS 31, 7–8 = IG II2 1146, θύεν δ]ὲ ταῦρον ϰαὶ τ---; after 350 BC.

113 LS 2 C, 6–10 = IG I3 246D, 34–37, hέροιν ἐμ πεδίοι: τέλεον hεϰατέρ[oι---] ; c. 470–450. Cf. LS 1 A, 12 = IG I3 234 A, 12, [h]εροΐνει,: ἐμ π[---]; c. 480–460.

114 Rougemont 1977, no. 10, line 32. The re-edition of the text by Rougemont replaces IG II2 1126.

115 Rougemont 1977, 113–114; the first interpretation is comparable with ὁ βοῦς ἡγεμών (Xen. Hell. 6.4.29)

116 Three of the calendars (Thorikos, Marathon and Erchia) have recently been discussed by Annie Verbanck-Piérard (1998), whose approach is similar to mine.

117 Eleusis: IG II2 1363, re-edited by Dow & Healey 1965. Teithras: Pollitt 1961 = LSS 132. For an overview of the Athenian sacrificial calendars, see Dow 1968; for the religion of the Attic demes, see Mikalson 1977; Whitehead 1986a, 176–222; Verbanck-Piérard 1998.

118 Daux 1983, 152–154 = Daux 1984, 148 = SEG 33, 1983, 147; Parker 1987, 144–147; Rosivach 1994, 22–29; cf. Whitehead 1986a, 194–199. Daux dates the text to about 385 to 370, but Lewis 1985, 108, Parker 1987, 138 with n. 11, and Jameson 1988, 115, n. 7, all favour a date about 440/430 or 430/420 based on the letter-forms. The beginning of the calendar is partly damaged.

119 LS 20 B = IG II2 1358 B; Rosivach 1994, 29–36; cf. Whitehead 1986a, 190–194. The inscription originally covered sacrifices of the organization of the Marathonian Tetrapolis, which was made up of the demes Marathon, Probalinthos, Oinoe and Trikorynthos. Only the deme Marathon is of concern here: the rest are too damaged and also contain no sacrifices to heroes. In the Marathon calendar, a part of the first quarter of the Attic year is missing.

120 LS 18; Daux 1963a, 603–634; Jameson 1965, 154–172; Dow 1965, 180–213; Rosivach 1994, 14–21; cf. Whitehead 1986a, 199–204. The calendar is complete, apart from four sacrifices missing at the end. On the interpretation of the title of the calendar, Demarchia he mezon (Greater Demarchia), see Daux 1963a; Dow 1965, 188–213; Dow 1968, 182–183; Mikalson 1977, 427–428; Whitehead 1986b, 57–64; Jameson 1988, 115, n. 4; Rosivach 1994, 20–21. The deme Erchia was located south of modern Spata, south-east of Athens (see Vanderpool 1965, 21–24).

121 LSS 19; Ferguson 1938, 1–74; Lambert S. 1997, 85–106 (partly correcting Ferguson); Rosivach 1994, 40–45; cf. Parker 1996, 306–316. The text is completely preserved.

122 In the Erchia calendar (LS 18), one sacrifice lacks an indication of date, col. II, lines 37–39, a sheep given to Hera at the end of Gamelion. Indications of dates in the other calendars: Thorikos (Daux 1983, 153): the 16th of Pyanopsion (line 26), a teleon to Zeus Kataibates, and the 12th of Anthesterion (line 33), a kid to Dionysos. Marathon (LS 20 B): the 10th of Elaphebolion (line 17), a goat to Ge. Salaminioi (LSS 19): the 18th of Mounychion (line 87), a pig to Eurysakes; the 7th of Metageitnion (line 88), a pig to Apollon Patroos, and the 6th of Pyanopsion (line 91), a pig to Theseus.

123 Daux 1983, 153–154, lines 28–30, a cow to Thorikos costing between 40 and 50 drachmas, and lines 54–56, a cow to Kephalos costing between 40 and 50 drachmas. The interpretation by Daux 1983, 156 and 169, of the two superimposed ∆ between oµ and n at the beginning of line 57 as “a sheep costing between 10 and 20 drachmas”, has been questioned by Parker 1987, 147, and van Straten 1995, 177, n. 59, on the grounds that the price is too high for such a victim.

124 Jameson 1965, 155–156; Dow 1968, 180–186; Whitehead 1986a, 176–204. This is particularly obvious in the Erchia calendar, in which the sacrifices are listed in five parallel columns, each column adding up to more or less the same amount of expenses. The sacrifices in one column were probably paid for by one individual. To find out which rituals took place on a certain day, it was necessary to consult all five columns.

125 Jameson 1965, 156.

126 Dow 1965, 207.

127 Whitehead 1986a, 205–206; Rosivach 1994, 11–12; Sourvinou-Inwood 1990, 313–316. See further Parker 1987 on the importance of local sacrifices and festivals for the solidarity of the demes.

128 I see no reason to follow Rosivach (1994, 15), who excludes all piglets from the victims that were eaten, since they were commonly used as purificatory victims and would, in any event, not supply much meat, at least not on these occasions. For the dining on piglets, see Jameson 1988, 98.

129 Rosivach 1994, 84–88; Stengel 1920, 105–106; Berthiaume 1982, 62–69 and 79–80; Isenberg 1975.

130 Cf. Verbanck-Piérard 1998, 115–119.

131 Information on where the sacrifice was to be performed or at which festival has not been taken into consideration here.

132 LSS 19, 79. Also in lines 19–20, all the sacrifices .rwsi are referred to: θύεν δὲ τοĩς θεοĩς ϰαὶ τοĩς) ἥρωσί.

133 LS 20 B; cf. also line 23, τάδε ὁ δήμαρχος ὁ Μαραθωνίων θύει.

134 The text follows Daux 1983, 152–154, apart from the following restorations: line 27, Nεανίαι, τέλεον, Πυανοψίς, π [ρατόν] (see Parker 1987, 146); line 36, Ἡραϰλείδ[αις τέλεον] (see Parker 1984, 59). Excluded restorations: line 56, unidentified god or hero, perhaps Poseidon (see Daux 1983, 154), Prokris (see Parker 1987, 147) or Pandrosos or Pandora (Scullion 1998, 121); the addition to the left-hand side, at level of line 31, -ωνι, τέλεον Πυανοψίοις.; lines 12 and 52, two unidentified oath-victims. For the interpretation of teleon as a full-grown sheep, see above, p. 138, n. 40. For the text, see also the Appendix, pp. 343–345.

135 See Kearns 1989, 177.

136 On the particular role of heroines in the Attic sacrificial calendar, see Larson 1995, 26–34, who argues that heroines were often given less and received less attention than their male counterparts.

137 The text follows LS 20 B, apart from line 20, where - νεχος is is preferred (see Kearns 1989, 188). Line 10, spylia 40 drs, is not known from anywhere else and has been excluded. Line 32, the sheep given to the Tritopatores (no price given) has been counted as costing 12 drs. On the two kinds of sheep, ewes and wethers, see van Straten 1995, 181–184. For the text, see also the Appendix, pp. 345–346.

138 The recipient of two sacrifices among the annual ones cannot be identified. Line B 5 ends with πρò μ [υ] στ [η] ρ [ίων----] and line B 6 reads “one cow/ox 90 drs, one sheep 12 drs. To Kourotrophos ...”. The cow or ox and sheep are likely to have been sacrificed to Demeter, since the Mysteries are concerned and Demeter is linked with Kourotrophos also in lines B 43–46. The recipient of the cow or ox (90 drs) and the sheep (12 drs) in line B 8 was probably a hero, since the next sacrifice was to a heroine. Furthermore, the victim and the price of the sacrifice to Kourotrophos (line B 6, see above) and Zeus Hypatos (line B 13) have not been preserved.

139 The text follows Daux 1963a, 606–610 = LS 18 = SEG 21, 1965, 541. The restorations proposed for the missing endings of columns III and V are not included (see Jameson 1965, 156–157, and Dow 1965, 187). On the two kinds of sheep, ewes and wethers, see van Straten 1995, 181–184. For the text, see also the Appendix, pp. 347–351.

140 Col. III, 28; col. IV, 20 and col. V, 12; col. IV, 53. For Menedeios, perhaps related to the cult of Bendis, see Jameson, 1965, 158–159.

141 Col. III, 50; for Leukaspis at Syracuse, see Dunst 1964, 482–485. This cult will be further discussed in ch. III, pp. 259–261.

142 Dow 1965, 210–211; Dow 1968, 182–183.

143 Dow 1965, 192–193; Dow 1968, 183.

144 Daux 1963a, 632–633; Jameson 1965, 155; Whitehead 1986b, 62.

145 Daux 1963a, 632; Mikalson 1977, 427–428.

146 On the contents of the presumed “Lesser Demarchia”, see Whitehead 1986b, 60–61.

147 The text is completely preserved; see LSS 19 (N.B. I follow Sokolowski’s numbering of the lines which differs from Ferguson’s after line 67); Ferguson 1938, 3–5; new edition by Lambert S. 1997, 86–88, correcting the price for wood in line 91 to 3.5 drachmas. One sacrifice is listed as being biennial (line 87, a sheep to Ion). No price is given for this victim, but, if all the costs listed in the calendar have been deducted from the total of 530.5 drs (summarized in line 94), there remain 11 drs, which in two years would have added up to 22 drs, more than enough to buy a sheep costing 15 drs, as well as wood; for discussion, see Ferguson 1938, 64–65; Lambert S. 1997, 93. On the two kinds of sheep, ewes and wethers, see van Straten 1995, 181–184. For the text, see also the Appendix, pp. 352–355.

148 Lines 20–24 and 86; cf. Ferguson 1938, 33–34 and 67.

149 Lines 11, 34 and 83–84; Ferguson 1938, 16.

150 Ferguson 1938, 28 and 67.

151 The different occasions when the Salaminioi sacrificed, either to a group of gods and heroes or to a singular god or hero, are separated from each other by the phrase covering the funds for wood and other expenses (lines 86, 87, 88, 89, 91 and 92) and/or the indication of the date when the sacrifice was to be performed (lines 87, 88 and 91); see Ferguson 1938, 22; Parker 1996, 313–316.

152 Lines 52–54; for the salt-works, see Ferguson 1938, 54–55; Thompson 1938, 75–76; Young J.H. 1941, 179–182.

153 Cf. van Straten 1995, 170–181. On the relation between deme and state sacrifices, see Mikalson 1977; Sourvinou-Inwood 1990, 313–316.

154 The beginning of the Thorikos calendar is lost and may have contained such terminology.

155 On the amount of meat from different victims, see Rosivach 1994, 157–158, who also outlines the difficulties of calculating how far this meat went.

156 Jameson 1988, 94–95, some of these animals may have been bought from outside Attica.

157 Not all demes could have had an eponymous hero, since they were not eponymously named, and may have had an archegetes instead (see Whitehead 1986a, 208–211). A Heros archegetes, who also had a statue, is known from Rhamnous (see Pouilloux 1954a, no. 26; Petrakos 1991, 43, no. 16).

158 Jameson 1988, 87–119, esp. 95 and 106.

159 Rudhardt 1958, 286–287. The terms are commonly found in Hebrew and Christian contexts.

160 See above, pp. 82–86.

161 Hdt. 1.167.

162 Ath. pol. 58.1.

163 Demosthenes (De falsa leg. 280) says that Harmodios and Aristogeiton received a share in the libations at sacrifices in every shrine and that they were honoured as equals to the gods and the heroes. They also had statues in the agora, a unique honour; see Wycherley 1957, 93–98; cf. Parker 1996, 136, with n. 55.

164 Mir. ausc. 840a.

165 Hdt. 2.44.

166 See further below, pp. 219–221.

167 Pp. 183–192; cf. Ekroth 2000.

168 Pind. Ol. 1.90–91. For the full text and discussion of this passage, see pp. 190–192.

169 Gerber 1982, 141–142; Casabona 1966, 206; Krummen 1990, 159. The etymology is usually given as deriving from ϰόρος (fill); see Chantraine 1968–80, s.v. αἷμα 2; cf. Slater 1989, 493, n. 39.

170 Plut. Vit. Arist. 21.5 (see above, p. 102); Hsch. s.v. (Latte 1953–66, A 1939); Etym. Magn. s.v. (Gaisford 1848). See also schol. Pind. Ol. 1.146a and 1.146d (Drachmann 1903–27).

171 Thuc. 5.11. For the full text and discussion of this passage, see pp. 184–185.

172 Casabona 1966, 128 and 226–229, who equates the term with haimakouria; Rudhardt 1958, 285; Stengel 1910, 103–104; Hornblower 1996, 451–452.

173 Fr. 65, lines 77–94 (Austin 1968); see also Cropp 1995 for commentary and translation; cf. Jouan 2000.

174 Fr. 65, lines 77–80 (Austin 1968). For the full text and discussion of this passage, see pp. 186–188.

175 Casabona 1966, 174–178.

176 Casabona 1966, 189 and 336–337. On sphagia, see also Jameson 1991.

177 See Cropp 1995, 192, line 79, who compares bouktonos to tauroktonos, “bull-slaying” (Soph. Phil. 400). Cf. Eur. IT. 384: θυσίαις βροτοϰτόνοις; Eur. Cret. fr. 82, line 37 (Austin 1968): σφαγὰς ἀνδροϰτόνους, “cut-throat murders”. Cf. Robertson 1996, 45, translating sphagai bouktonoi as “a bloodletting of slain oxen”.

178 Fr. 65, lines 81–86 (Austin 1968). For the full text and discussion of this passage, see pp. 186–188.

179 Austin 1967, 57, line 83; Kron 1976, 196; Henrichs 1983, 98; Scullion 1994, 117; Cropp 1995, 173 and 192; Connelly 1996, 58; Jouan 2000, 34. Mikalson 1991, 32, gives the meaning “first fruits of battle”.

180 Cropp 1995, 192, line 83, with references to Wilkins 1993, 101–102, lines 399–409.

181 Jameson 1991, 205.

182 On the distinction between camp-ground and battle-line sacrifices, see Jameson 1991, 205–209.

183 LSJ s.v.

184 See Casabona 1966, 227–229; entoma is also very rare and is attested only twice in sacrificial contexts in the Archaic-Classical sources (Hdt. 2.119 and 7.191), both cases concerning sacrifices of blood in order to procure favourable winds.

185 LSJ s.v. Cf. τόμος (slice, piece). Cf. also the rhyta consisting of an animal’s head or protome with a funnel attached to it. These vessels have been suggested to be particularly connected with heroes and hero-cults, see Hoffmann 1997, 8–15.

186 Cf. Aesch. Psych. no. 125, col. II, lines 3–4 (Kramer al. 1980, 17): ὑπò τ' αὐχένιον λαιμòν ἀμήσαω τοῦδε σφαγίου (when you have cut off the throat of this sacrificial victim at the neck); parodied in Ar. Av. 1559–1560. A scholiast on Ap. Rhod. Argon. 1.587 (Wendel 1935) states that at sacrifices to the dead and the chthonians, the victims are decapitated facing the ground, διὰ τῇ γῇ αὐτῶν ἀποτέμνεσθαι, τὰς ϰεφάλας . Decapitation of the sacrificial victims before a battle may also be referred to in Plut. Vit. Pyrrh. 31. Pyrrhos’ and Antigonos’ armies are ready to clash near Argos when Pyrrhos has a bad omen: the heads of the sacrificed oxen, which were already lying apart (from the bodies), were seen to put forward their tongues and lick their own blood (τῶν γὰρ βοῶν τεθυμένων αἱ ϰεφαλαὶ ϰείμεναι χωρὶς ἤδη τάς τε γλώττας ὤφθησαν προβάλλουσι ϰαὶ περιλιχμώμεναι, τòν ἑαυτῶν φόνον). Cf. the Roman Octoberhorse, which was decapitated and also had a connection with war, see Latte 1960, 119–121; Beard, North & Price 1998, 47–48 with n. 144.

187 Od. 11.35. Hughes (1991, 52 and 219–220, n. 14) prefers the translation “cut the throat of” rather than “behead”, even though he admits that decapitation might well be a consequence. In the Theogony (line 280), apodeirotomein means behead, since the direct object of the action is the head of Medusa. For other instances of apodeirotomein with the same meaning but not in a religious context, see LSJ s.v.

188 Paris, Cabinet des Médailles 422, c. 400–375 BC; Furtwängler & Reichhold 1900, vol. 1, 300–302, pl. 60:1; Trendall 1938, pl. 16; LIMC VIII, 1997, s.v. Teiresias, no. 11.

189 Fr. 65, lines 90–94 (Austin 1968). For the full text and discussion of this passage, see pp. 188–189.

190 Casabona 1966, 140–142. For the ironical use, see Ar. Av. 1231–1233.

191 See LSJ s.v. for references; cf. Vernant 1991, 294.

192 Cropp 1995, 193, lines 93–94, gives the translation “ox-sacrificing slaughters”.

193 Pind. Ol. 1.93; Thuc. 5.11; LSS 64, 1–4; Eur. Erech. fr. 65, line 68 (Austin 1968).

194 Eur. Erech. fr. 65, lines 59–60 (Austin 1968).

195 Cf. Casabona 1966, 226. Paus. 5.13.2 speaks of Herakles sacrificing (thyein) into a bothros at the installation of the cult of Pelops at Olympia. Cf. above, pp. 67–68.

196 Ekroth 2000, 274–276, fig. 1. A small hole with unknown purpose, cut in the paving near the foot of the back wall of the portico, may also have been used for the discarding of the blood, see Ekroth 2000, 276, fig. 2; Paton 1927, 109–110, figs. 66 A–B:e and 67 A–B:e. Robertson (1996, 32) suggests that blood or bile may have been meant to run into these cavities in the rock. For the cult of Erechtheus in the northern portico of the Erechtheion and the altar, see also Paton 1927, 104–110, figs. 66 A–C and 67 A–B; cf. Kron 1976, 43–47; IG I3 474, 77–80 and 202–208. On the identification of the Erechtheion, see Hurwit 1999, 200–209, esp. 202; Jeppesen (1987, passim) suggests the “House of the Arrephoroi” to be the Erechtheion, while Robertson (1996, 37–44) proposes the so-called “Pandion”.

197 Cyr. 8.3.24.

198 Casabona 1966, 164, considers the sacrifices as barbarian customs viewed by Greek eyes.

199 Pyth. 5.85–86. There has been some disagreement concerning who received whom in this passage. Perret (1942, 182–212) and Brunel (1964, 5–21) both suggested that the Antenoridai received Battos upon his arrival. Most scholars concerned with the matter support the more plausible interpretation that it is the Antenoridai who are welcomed, see Malkin 1994, 52–56 and 64–66; Krummen 1990, 117–130; Defradas 1952, 282–301.

200 Recurrent cult: Farnell 1932, 179–180; Defradas 1952, 292–300; Vian 1955, 307–309; Krummen 1990, 120; Malkin 1994, 55–56 and 64–66. Single occurrence: Chamoux 1949, 155–161; cf. Malkin 1987, 153; Brunel 1964, 7–12.

201 Malkin 1994, 55–56; Krummen 1990, 120–124; Defradas 1952, 289–301, who identifies the Antenoridai with the Dioskouroi/Akamantes on the basis of the theoxenia ritual. Vian (1955, 308) also stresses the connection with the Karneia but considers the theoxenia as a kind of funerary cult to the Antenoridai.

202 For topographical suggestions on where the cult of the Antenoridai was performed, see Malkin 1994, 53–56; Krummen 1990, 126.

203 Pind. Ol. 1.90–92. Translation by Race 1997. For the full text and discussion of this passage, see pp. 190–192.

204 Gerber 1982, 143–144; Slater 1989, 491; Krummen 1990, 164–165.

205 Gerber 1982, 142.

206 Gerber 1982, 142, who also points to the contrast between Tantalos (lines 58–59), having no share in the banquet, being deprived of fellowship and having a life of continuous toil, and Pelops (line 93), participating in the blood-offerings and enjoying the fellowship of man.

207 See below, pp. 190–192.

208 Heropythos FGrHist 448 F 1; Philostephanos FHG III, 29, F 1; cf. Malkin 1987, 197. On τάριχος as a regular kind of food served, for example, at the Eileithyiaia on Delos, see Linders 1994, 78.

209 Malkin 1987, 200, assumes consumption. Apollonides of Smyrna (early 1st century AD), Anth. Pal. 6.105, wrote an epigram on a fisherman sacrificing a grilled red mullet, a hake and a cup of wine with bread broken into it. This sounds like a theoxenia ritual. There is epigraphical evidence for fish being burnt as a complement to the hero’s portion at a thysia (Foundation of Diomedon, LS 177, line 63, c. 300 BC; Testament of Epikteta, c. 250–200 BC, Laum 1914, vol. 2, no. 43, line 191 = LS 135), but that does not seem to have been the case in the cult of Kylabras.

210 Thuc. 3.58: ἐσθήμασι, τε ϰαὶ τοĩς ἄλλοις νομίμοις, ὅσα τε ἡ γῆ ἡμῶν ἀνεδίδου ὡραĩα, πάντων ἀπαρχὰς ἐπιφέροντες

211 Beer 1914, 8–49; Rudhardt 1958, 219–222; Burkert 1985, 66–68; Jameson 1994a, 38–39. Aparchai is usually the ritual which initiates a sacrifice.

212 A similar ritual is mentioned in the laws of Drakon, as quoted by Porphyrios, Abst. 4.22.7: θεοὺς τιμᾶν ϰαὶ ἥρωας ἐγχωρίους ... σὺν εὐφημία ϰαὶ ἀπαρχαĩς ϰαρπῶν <ϰαὶ> πελάνοις ἐπετείοις (Patillon & Segonds 1995). This passage is often referred to as one of the earliest mentions of sacrifices in hero-cult. The law is probably not an authentic Draconian law, however, but rather of Hellenistic date; see Busolt & Swoboda 1926, 814, n. 2.

213 Unlike the inscriptions, the literary sources occasionally mention libations to heroes performed as independent rituals and not in connection with animal sacrifice: the Persian magi ἐχέαντο χοὰς ... τοĩσι ἥρωσι at Troy (Hdt. 7.43); Harmodios and Aristogeiton being made partners ἐπί ταĩς θυσίαις σπονδῶν ϰαὶ ϰρατήρων ϰοινωνούς (Dem. De falsa leg. 280); the second cup of mixed wine (ϰρᾶσις) at a meal offered to the heroes (Aesch. Epig. fr. 55 [Nauck 1889]); bomoi, spondai and heroa given to three of the companions of Demetrios Poliorketes (Demochares FGrHist 75 F 1). The traditional linking of chein and choe with the gods of the underworld, heroes and the dead, and spendein and sponde with the heavenly gods, has been shown to be too stereotyped; see Casabona 1966, 293–296; Rudhardt 1958, 240–248.

214 Mir. ausc. 840a. See above, p. 85.

215 The prohibition for women to eat of these animals is surely to be connected with the fact that Agamemnon was slain by a woman, his wife Klytaimnestra. Women were excluded also from the cults of some other “misogynist” divinities who had had bad experiences of women, for example, Herakles (IG XII Suppl. 414, 3–4; see Bergquist 1973, 73, n. 190, for further references) and Orpheus (Konon FGrHist 26 F 1, 45.6). For the barring of women from cult, see also Wächter 1910, 125–130.

216 See discussion above, p. 85 and pp. 127–128.

217 Isthm. 4.61–68.

218 Translation by Race 1997.

219 Slater 1969, s.v. δαίς; Schmitt-Pantel 1990, 22. Krummen 1990, 56, also recognizes a theoxenia element.

220 Fresh garlands: Thummer 1968, 175, line 80. Newly built altars: Bury 1892, 76, line 62; Slater 1969, s.v. νεόδματος. Schachter 1986, 26, n. 1, finds either interpretation possible. Cf. Krummen 1990, 41–48, suggesting the altars being new but also garlanded, the latter action being a reference to funerary cult.

221 On the meaning of auxomen empyra, “make great the sacrifice of burnt offerings”, see Slater 1969, s.v. αὐξάνω. Krummen (1990, 43, 54–55 and 62–69) understands auxomen as containing both a reference to honour and to cult, and argues for a connection between empyra and pyrai (funeral pyres), since, according to the literary tradition, Herakles killed his sons by throwing them into the fire. The connection between dais and bomos is made also in Ol. 9.112 (see below).

222 Burkert (1985, 63) takes this ritual to be a parallel to the fire festivals of Herakles on Mount Oite. Sacrifices to heroes have often been considered as taking place at night; see Stengel 1910, 133; Stengel 1920, 143; Rohde 1925, 116 and 140, n. 7. In most cases, however, there is no information about the time of day when the sacrifice is performed.

223 Either to Herakles or to the sons, see Schachter 1986, 26; Krummen 1990, 75–94.

224 Pind. Ol. 9.112.

225 For the meaning of dais, see Slater 1969, s.v. δαίς; Schmitt-Pantel 1990, 22

226 Hdt. 5.67.

227 On the relation between thysia and heorte, see Casabona 1966, 132–134 and 336.

228 See Mikalson 1982, 213–221, on the meaning and contents of heorte.

229 Miller 1978, 4–13.

230 Nem. 7.46–47.

231 The term polythytos does not seem to occur outside poetry, see Casabona 1966, 144; Bury 1890, 135; cf. Slater 1969, s.v. Suárez de la Torre (1997, 155–156) suggests that the heroes mentioned constitute a reference to Neoptolemos, either alone or in connection with other heroes.

232 On the relation between sacrifice and pompe, see Burkert 1985, 56 and 99–102; Graf 1996, 56–65. The intimate link between pompe and thysia is clear also from the iconographical material (see Peirce 1993, 229). The scholion on the Pindar passage (Drachmann 1903–27, Nem. 7.68a) states that there were xenia for heroes at Delphi, to which Apollon called the heroes to come and participate.

233 See above, pp. 171–179; cf. Ekroth 2000.

234 5.11. On the particular role of Brasidas in Thucydides, see Hornblower 1996, 38–61.

235 Translation by Hornblower 1996, 449–455.

236 On the interpretation of the Hagnoneia as cult buildings, see Hornblower 1996, 452–455; cf. Malkin 1987, 231–232.

237 The addition ὡς ἥρῳ will be discussed below (pp. 206–212), since it is used also with other terms. There seems to be no support for Gomme’s interpretation (1956b, 654–655) that Brasidas was worshipped as a god or received annual festivals at which sacrifices to the gods took place (see Malkin 1987, 228–232; Hornblower 1996, 452).

238 Malkin 1987, 228–230.

239 Malkin 1987, 230. The present tense, ἐντέμνουσι, has also been suggested as indicating an eye-witness account, presumably by Thucydides himself (see Hornblower 1996, 452).

240 Cf. Casabona 1966, 128 and 226. For the conjectural identification of “Brasidas’” tomb under the museum at Amphipolis, see Hornblower 1996, 451.

241 Brasidas was not the actual founder of Amphipolis, but he took over the role of oikist from Hagnon who had founded the city in 437 BC (see Malkin 1987, 81 and 229–230).

242 Malkin 1987, 203. Malkin (193) further defines the cult of the oikist as a hero-cult but does not specify which kind of sacrifice that would imply, even though he seems to favour a ritual with dining.

243 Arist. Eth. Nic. 1134b; cf. Malkin 1987, 229. A third source mentioning the cult of Brasidas at Amphipolis is the mid-2nd-century AD Aelius Aristides, who describes the cult as Bρασίδᾳ θύείν ... ὡς ἥρῳ ϰαὶ οἰϰιστῇ (Alex. epitaph. 85).

244 Fr. 65, lines 77–89 (Austin 1968); see also Cropp 1995 for commentary and translation.

245 Translation by Cropp 1995, 173.

246 For possible reconstructions of lines 81–82, see Cropp 1995, 173 and commentary, 192.

247 Lines 87–89.

248 Cf. Henrichs 1983, 98.

249 Cf. Mikalson 1991, 33–34; Casabona 1966, 176.

250 Robertson 1996, 45–46, suggests that the ritual was similar to the sacrifices performed on the battlefield.

251 Thyein covers the ritual opposite to pouring out a libation and never seems to refer only to a drink-offering (see Casabona 1966, 75–76). For the firewood, see Cropp 1995, 192, lines 84–86. For pyra meaning an altar, see Denniston 1939, 112, line 513.

252 Philoch. FGrHist 328 F 12 (ap. schol. Soph. OC 100 [Papageorgius 1888]); cf. Kearns 1989, 60–61, n. 70.

253 The Hyakinthids were buried where one of them was sacrificed and the rest killed themselves (Eur. Erech. fr. 65, lines 67–70). Henrichs 1983, 98, with n. 54, believes that there was a grave separate from the cult-place, as well as separate locations for the sacrifices. Cropp 1995, 191, lines 67–68, and Larson 1995, 153 and 187, n. 98, locate the cult at the tomb. Treu 1971, 121–122, places both the burial and the cult place outside the city. Jouan 2000, 34, n. 30, suggests Euripides combined the rituals for the Hyakinthids with those of the Panathenaia, which ended with a hecatomb.

254 Fr. 65, lines 90–94 (Austin 1968); Cropp 1995, 174–175 and 193.

255 Translation by Cropp 1995, 175.

256 On the complex question of the merging of Erechtheus and Poseidon in the cult, see, for example, Kron 1976, 48–52; Kearns 1989, 210–211; Christopoulos 1994, 123–130; Cropp 1995, 193, lines 93–94.

257 Cf. Harmodios of Lepreum (FGrHist 319 F 1), who speaks of the bouthysia megale to the heroes at Phigaleia, a sacrifice followed by a banquet in which the slaves could participate and the boys dined with their fathers.

258 See above, p. 176, n. 196. See also Stern (1986, 57–58), who suggests that the northern portico of the Erechtheion resembles the set of a theatre. The construction of the Erechtheion definitely seems to have begun when Euripides wrote the Erechtheus, probably in 424 BC, see Treu 1971, 125–126.

259 Sacrifices to Erechtheus are mentioned in the Iliad (2.550–551) as ταύρθισι, ϰαὶ ἀρνειoĩς ἱλάoνται ϰοῦροι Ἀθηναιων (the young men of the Athenians propitiate him with bulls and rams); on the authenticity of this passage, see Kirk 1985, 179–180 and 208–209. Is the propitiation to be taken as a reference to a blood ritual?

260 For the link Erechtheus-Panathenaia, see Mikalson 1976, 153; Connelly 1996, 77–78. For Erechtheus receiving his sacrifices at the Skira, see Robertson 1985, 235 with n. 6; Robertson 1996, 45.

261 Ol. 1.90–93.

262 Translation by Race 1997.

263 The other major piece of evidence for sacrifices to Pelops is Paus. 5.13.1–3. On the importance of Pelops at Olympia, see Burkert 1983, 93–103. For the archaeological remains of the Pelopion, see, for the older excavations, Furtwängler 1890, 2–3; Dörpfeld 1892, 57; Dörpfeld 1935, 118–124; Mallwitz 1972, 133–137; Herrmann H. 1980, 62–73. The new investigations of the Pelopion have lowered the date of the introduction of the cult to the Archaic period; see Mallwitz 1988, 79–109; Kyrieleis 1990, 181–188; Kyrieleis 1992, 20–24; cf. Antonaccio 1995a, 170–176.

264 Gerber 1982, 141.

265 See pp. 171–172 and p. 178.

266 Gerber 1982, 142.

267 For example, Burkert 1983, 96; Slater 1969, s.v. bwmóv; Race 1997, 56, n. 1. No traces of this altar have been found (see Mallwitz 1972, 84). Slater 1989, 491, is more hesitant in his identification of the altar and says that it is “presumably that of Zeus”.

268 Gerber 1982, 145, followed by Krummen 1990, 159–160.

269 Gerber 1982, 144. Krummen (1990, 163–164) is more in favour of the amphipoloi providing for Pelops himself than for any visitors.

270 Gerber 1982, 145. The scholia on this passage either identify the altar as that of Pelops (schol. Pind. Ol. 1.150a [Drachmann 1903–1927]) or as belonging to Zeus and Pelops (schol. Pind. Ol. 1.150b [Drachmann 1903–1927]).

271 Pausanias (5.13.2), the only other source to comment upon the details of the sacrifices to Pelops, does not mention a haimakouria or any other blood ritual being executed in his time, but he states that the cult of Pelops was initiated by Herakles, who performed a thysia in a bothros, a sacrifice which may be taken as a reference to a blood ritual (see above, p. 70).

272 Pausanias (5.13.2) also describes a ritual including dining: the neck of the sacrificial victim was given to the woodman and anyone eating of the meat of the victim was barred from entering the temple of Zeus, cf. Burkert 1983, 101; Slater 1989, 494; Ekroth 1999, 154.

273 Slater 1989, 495–501; Burkert 1983, 100–102; cf. Uhsadel-Gülke 1972, 31–33; Krummen 1990, 168–184.

274 Earlier in the ode (Ol. 1.46–53), Pindar refutes as slander the myth of Pelops being boiled. Cf. Slater’s discussion of Ol. 1.48–49 as referring to the public sacrifice and boiling of the black ram (Slater 1989, 498).

275 Hdt. 1.59. On the recovery of cauldrons and tripods from the excavations at Olympia, see Burkert 1983, 101 and n. 39.

276 Resp. 427b.

277 Resp. 427b τελευτησάντων τε αὖ θῆϰαι ϰαὶ ὅσα τοĩς ἐϰεĩ δεĩ ὑπηρετοῦντας ἵλεως αὐτοὺς ἔϰειν.

278 Plato’s three categories of gods, daimones and heroes occur also in Resp. 392a and Leg. 818c, cf. also Motte 2000, 79–90; Ramos Jurado 2000, 101–103. The meaning of the term daimon shows substantial variations, depending on the source where it is found and its date (see Nowak 1960 for the general development of the term from Homeric to Christian times) but does in general not refer to a recipient of cult, apart from the Agathos daimon; see Mikalson 1983, 64–66. On the Platonic meaning of daimon, see Burkert 1985, 331–332; Reverdin 1945, 127–139; Motte 2000, 79–90. For the use of daimon in 5th-century tragedy, where it refers to (usually bad) “fortune” and is never a cult deity, see Mikalson 1991, 22–29.

279 Cf. Casabona 1966, 128.

280 Leg. 717a–b.

281 Mund. 400b.

282 Mund. 400b θεῶν τε θυσίαι ϰαὶ ἡρώων θεραπεĩαι ϰαὶ χoαὶ ϰεϰμηϰότων..

283 De cor. 184.

284 Philoch. FGrHist 328 F 10.

285 Xen. Cyr. 3.3.22 θεοὺς θυσίας ϰαὶ ἥρωας Ἀσσυρίας οἰϰήτορας ηὐμενίζετο.

286 Xen. Cyr. 3.3.21–22.

287 This is a non-Greek sacrifice described in Greek terms, but rituals performed at a border crossing on land seem not to have included any kind of particular action different from a regular sacrifice, as opposed to the crossing of rivers and the sea, at which the sacrifices seem to have been sphagia, see Jameson 1991, 202–203.

288 Contr. Macart. 66; Fontenrose 1978, 253–254, H29, dated to before 340 BC.

289 Apopempein may be used in the sense “to send away”, for example a pharmakos, but the meaning “to send offerings” without any negative connotations is also common from Homer and onwards, see Schlesier 1990, 38–41.

290 This concerns in particular the daimones, see above, p. 193, n. 278. Still, it is interesting to note the complete lack in Plato of the terms usually considered as characteristic for hero-cults, such as enagizein, eschara and heroon, see Motte 2000, 88.

291 Perry 1952, no. 110 = Hausrath 1962, no. 112. For other cases of heroa near houses, see Rusten 1983, 292–295.

292 See van Straten 1995, 179.

293 Isthm. 5.30–31.

294 Slater 1969, s.v.

295 Philoch. FGrHist 328 F 25.

296 Ephoros FGrHist 70 F 118.

297 Pl. Menex. 244a.

298 Pl. Menex. 249b.

299 Dem. Epitaph. 36.

300 See above, p. 76, n. 248.

301 Enagizein: 1.167; 2.44. Thyein/thysia: 5.47 (twice); 5.67; 5.114; 6.38; 7.117. Choai: 7.43. For hero-sacrifices described by timan/timai (1.168; 4.33; 4.35 [twice]), see below.

302 Hdt. 5.47.

303 On the cult of enemies, see Visser 1982. Fontenrose (1968) classifies the athletes worshipped as heroes as belonging to the “avenging-hero” type, i.e., the wronged hero whose anger is placated by cult. On athletes as heroes, see further Bohringer 1979, who argues that these kinds of cults arose in particular when the city, which later worshipped the hero, experienced difficulties.

304 Herodotos uses hilaskesthai and exhilaskesthai also for sacrifices to various gods (Apollon, Pan, Zeus, the winds) and to inanimate objects (the gold of the Skythians), as well as metaphorically (see Powell J. 1966, s.v. for references).

305 Hdt. 5.112–113.

306 Hdt. 5.114.

307 Hdt. 7.117.

308 The term Çtumboqóee is to be taken as referring to the piling up of the grave mound rather than as a reference to choai, see Powell J. 1966, s.v. tumboqoéw; Casabona 1966, 84–85. Furthermore, the whole army participated, an involvement which is unlikely, had the action consisted in the pouring of libations.

309 Hdt. 6.38. For the historical background, see Malkin 1987, 77–78 and 190–193.

310 Malkin 1987, 190–191 and 200.

311 The honouring of heroes seems to be a particular feature of the literary sources, rarely documented in the inscriptions from the period under study here. The only comparable, epigraphical case concerns the hero Naulochos of Priene, who was honoured (ἥρωα τόνδε σέβειν) as a guardian of the city and had a sanctuary; see Hiller von Gaertringen 1906, no. 196, c. 350 BC; cf. LS 180, 15 (c. 250 BC), an oracle approving a cult of Archilochos on Paros, ([τι] μῶντι Ἀρχίλοϰον).

312 The terminology of honours is not commented upon in particular by Stengel (1910 and 1920), Nilsson (1967), Burkert (1985), Rudhardt (1958) or Casabona (1966).

313 In Homer, time is reserved solely for the living and has no connection with religious observances (see Nagy 1979, 149–150; McGlew 1989, 286–287 with nn. 7 and 8). Hesiod uses time as referring both to the actual sacrifice, in particular to the god’s portion, and to the religious attention, the honour, given to the divinity (see Theog. 73–74, 112–113 and 881–885, discussed by Rudhardt 1970). On time in Hesiod and the distinction from its usage by Homer, see Nagy 1979, 151–155. For the development of the meaning of thyein, see Casabona 1966, 69–85.

314 Nagy 1979, 118–119; Mikalson 1991, 183–202.

315 Mikalson 1991, 183–202; see also Mikalson 1998, 301–303.

316 Cf. the components of time among the Greeks as defined by Aristotle (Rh. 1361a): sacrifices, memorials in verse and prose, privileges, grants of land, front seats, public burial, statues and maintenance by the state (μέρη δὲ τιμῆς θυσίαι, μνῆμαι ἐν μέτροις ϰαὶ ἄνευ μέτρων, γέρα, τεμένη, προεδρίαι, τάφοι, εἰϰόνες, τροφαὶ δημόσιαι).

317 Hdt. 4.33–35.

318 Hdt. 4.33.

319 Hdt. 4.35.

320 Hdt. 4.34. The sema has usually been identified with a semi-circular foundation in the Artemision, cut out of the poros bedrock and covered with a stone packing. The monument, probably of Late Bronze Age date, was fenced in by a wall in the Hellenistic period. See Guide de Délos3 1983, no. 41; Picard & Replat 1924, 247–263; Picard 1946, 56, with fig. 1, for the Hellenistic enclosure; Gallet de Santerre 1958, 32–33 and 94–95; Vatin 1965, 225–230; Roux 1973, 528; Schallin 1993, 102–104. Among the finds in this structure were pottery dating from the Mycenaean to the Archaic periods, fragments of a bronze lebes, spindle whorls and ashes.

321 Hdt. 4.35.

322 The location of the theke is more disputed. The remains of a built-up, Bronze Age tomb, surrounded by a semi-circular wall in the Hellenistic period and situated on the southern side of the portico of Antigonos, is the most frequently suggested candidate (see Guide de Délos3 1983, no. 32; Courby 1912, 63–74; Gallet de Santerre 1958, 32–35 and 93–94; Vatin 1965, 225–230; Schallin 1993, 102–103). Roux 1973, 525–534 and 543–544, argues for a different location further to the west, north of the temple of Artemis (Guide de Délos3 1983, no. 46) and east of the building no. 48 (Guide de Délos3 1983), which he identifies as the hestiatorion of the Keans.

323 Some scholars have argued that there was originally only one cult of the Hyperborean maidens which was later doubled (see the discussion in Larson 1995, 119–121). Whatever the origin of the cult, Herodotos describes two sets of honours or sacrifices.

324 Offerings of hair were among the timai megistai promised to Hippolytos by Artemis (see Eur. Hipp. 1423–1427; cf. Mikalson 1991, 41–42 and 186).

325 On this particular ritual, see Robertson 1983, 143–169; Burkert 1985, 101–102.

326 Artemis: Pfister 1909–12, 452; Nilsson 1906, 207; Sale 1961, 78; Robertson 1983, 147; Larson 1995, 119. One suspects that Pfister excluded the possibility of the bomos belonging to the Hyperborean maidens, since he was convinced that the altar used in a hero-cult was either an eschara or a bothros (ibid. 474–476). Apollon: Guide de Délos3 1983, 145, n. 1.

327 Roux 1973, 525–526 with n. 2, identifies the altar as belonging to Opis and Arge. Chantraine & Masson (1954, 99) and Casabona (1966, 202–203) interpret the ritual as a sacrifice offered to Opis and Arge following the traditional Greek rituals, i.e., a regular thysia. Casabona further emphasizes that there is no particular chthonian connection of the term kathagizein in Herodotos.

328 The spreading of the ashes in a particular place, and especially a holy one, such as the theke, was not a common action. Unless the ashes were left where the burning had taken place and allowed to form an ash-altar, they were considered as waste that had to be disposed of. Negligence to clear away ashes could even be punished with a fine; see Németh 1994, 62–63, who has shown that in many cases spodos was treated in the same way as kopros, the dung or excrement of animals produced during sacrifice.

329 Thuc. 3.58.

330 Cf. the fragmentary laws of Drakon which state that the gods and heroes of the country should be honoured annually in public with prayer and aparchai consisting of fruits and cakes (θέους τιμᾶν ϰαὶ ἥρωας ἐγχώρίους ἐν ϰοινῷ ... σύν εὐφημίη ϰαὶ ἀπαρχαĩς ϰαρπῶν <ϰαὶ> πελάνοις ἐπετείους; Porph. Abst. 4.22.7; Patillon & Segonds 1995). For the date of this law, probably Hellenistic, see Busolt & Swoboda 1926, 814, n. 2.

331 Burning of clothes: Hdt. 5.92; cf. the clothes mentioned in the 5th-century BC funerary law from Ioulis, Keos, LS 97 A, 2–3 = IG XII:5 593. Gomme (1956a) suggests that the clothes mentioned by Thucydides were either offerings of clothes to the dead or the special clothes worn by the Plataian archon at the festival at the tombs, as narrated by Plutarch (Vit. Arist. 21.4). Dedications of clothes are mainly known from sanctuaries of Artemis (see van Straten 1995, 82–83 and Linders 1972 for the inventories from Brauron in which the clothes are mentioned). For the dedication of clothes as spoils of war, see Aesch. Sept. 275–279, with commentary by Hutchinson 1985, 87–88.

332 Fr. 65, lines 79–80 (Austin 1968).

333 Thuc. 5.11; cf. Hornblower 1996, 455.

334 Hornblower 1996, 455; Malkin 1987, 231–232.

335 The entemnein sacrifices to Brasidas were not necessarily part of the cult of Hagnon, since these rituals seem to have been linked in particular to the fact that Brasidas was killed in war (see the discussion below, pp. 257–259). Hagnon, on the other hand, was still alive when he was accorded the timai, see Hornblower 1996, 452–454; Malkin 1987, 231.

336 Malkin 1987, 200 and 203.

337 Hdt. 1.168. See Malkin 1987, 221–223, on the status of this cult as that of an oikist.

338 Pind. Pyth. 5.95. See further Malkin 1987, 204–206, with a discussion of the sacred law from Kyrene in connection with Battos. On the sacrifices to the mythical founders of Kyrene, the Antenoridai, see above, p. 177.

339 Xen. Hell. 7.3.12.

340 The term archegetes was commonly applied to oikists, for example, to Battos, and could serve as a cult title (see Malkin 1987, 241–250).

341 See above, p. 76, n. 248.

342 Thuc. 3.58.

343 Thuc. 2.35.

344 Lys. Epitaph. 80.

345 Pl. Menex. 249b. In Menex. 244a, Plato speaks of thysiai.

346 Dem. Epitaph. 36. Cf. Loraux 1986, 38, on the distinction between the burial of the war dead, which ensured them eternal remembrance, and the annual sacrifices and games, which reactivated the initial honours.

347 Dem. Epitaph. 36; cf. Pl. Menex. 244a.

348 Hyp. Epitaph. 21.

349 Habicht 1970, 28–36; Parker 1996, 257–258.

350 Price 1984a, 33–34, considers that the classification of the recipient as a hero was a means of degrading his status.

351 Cf. Habicht 1970, 31–32.

352 The relationship between Demetrios Poliorketes, considered as a god or equal to a god, and three of his companions, who were given bomoi, heroa and spondai, is perhaps a better example of the use of a hero-cult as marking an inferior status (Demochares FGrHist 75 F 1; cf. Habicht 1970, 44–58; Price 1984a, 33–34; Parker 1996, 259; Mikalson 1998, 88). It may be of importance that Demetrios and his companions were still alive when these cults were instituted.

353 Isoc. Plat. 60. Probably these heroes were not the war-dead buried at Plataiai (see Schachter 1986, 55–56).

354 Alkman, no. 7, fr. 1, lines 6–9 (Page 1962).

355 Pind. Isthm. 5.32–33.

356 Arist. Rh. 1398b; Alkidamas no. 14 (Radermacher 1951, 134).

357 Mir. ausc. 840a; cf. Harrison 1989, 174.

358 Eur. Antiope fr. 48, line 99 (Kambitsis 1972, with commentary pp. 124–125); Jouan 2000, 36, esp. n. 41. Eur. Hipp. I, fr. 446 (Hallerau 1995 = Nauck 1889, fr. 446); cf. Mikalson 1991, 41–42. In the second version of the Hippolytos, the hero is promised timai megistai and offerings of hair (Eur. Hipp. 1423–1427).

359 Xen. Lac. 15.9.

360 On the Spartan kings as heroes with continuous cult, see Cartledge 1988. For the designation of the kings as heroes only referring to the funeral, see Parker 1988.

361 Deneken 1886–90, 2505; von Fritze 1903, 66; Stengel 1920, 141–142; Pfister 1909–12, 479–480.

362 Pfister 1909–12, 479–480; Rohde 1925, 140, n. 15.

363 Pfister 1909–12, 479–489.

364 Thus, Pfister 1909–12, 480.

365 For enagizein, see above, pp. 82–89.

366 Thuc. 5.11; LSS 64, line 9; cf. Rudhardt 1958, 285–286. Entemnein used for sacrifices to heroes in later sources: Plut. Vit. Sol. 9.1; Plut. Vit. Pel. 22.2; Lucian Scytha 1; Philostr. Her. 53.13.

367 Kontoleon 1970, 45–46, ὡς ἥρῳ meaning “as if to a hero” in the sense of a hero of epic, not simply a heroized mortal. Cf. Habicht 1970, 172, on ὥσπερ θεῷ and ὡς θεόν referring to the recipient as being a god in cult. See also Scullion 2000, 167–171.

368 Onesilos: Hdt. 5.114; Artachaies: Hdt. 7.117; Timesios: Hdt. 1.168; Brasidas: Thuc. 5.11; Herakles: Hdt. 2.44.

369 Xen. Hell. 7.3.12.

370 Isoc. Hel. 63.

371 Xen. Lac. 15.9. Cf. Parker 1988, 10, who does not believe that the kings were given a continuous hero-cult but that they were given a special status, since their divine descent (idem 15.2) led to their being seen as heroes.

372 Hdt. 6.38; cf. discussion in Malkin 1987, 190–200.

373 Hyp. Epitaph. 21; cf. Habicht 1970, 28–36; Parker 1996, 257–258.

374 Pind. Ol. 7.77–80. Translation by Race 1997.

375 The description of the ritual as a thysia with dining is natural, since this was the most common kind of sacrifice in the cult of the gods. In the particular case of Tlapolemos, the emphasis on the sacrifices being performed as if for a god should perhaps be connected with the fact that both the role as a founder and the cult were later transferred from Tlapolemos to the god Helios (see Malkin 1987, 245).

376 Ar. Tag. fr. 504, 12–14 (PCG III:2, 1984).

377 See below, p. 288, n. 367. For the use of ὥσπερ in the new sacred law from Selinous (Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993), see below, pp. 235–237. In this text, the impure Tritopatores are to receive sacrifices hóσπερ τοĩς hερóεσι (A 10), the pure Tritopatores hóσπερ τοĩς θεοĩς (A 17) and the sacrifice to the elasteros is to be performed hóσπερ τοĩς ἀθανάτoισι (B 12–13).

378 Thus, in particular, in the inscriptions: the theos Hypodektes (IG II2 2501, 20) and the heros Egretes (IG II2 2499, 25); the Heros Iatros called theos (IG II2 839, 20, 33 and 45–46); Amynos, Asklepios and Dexion referred to as theoi (IG II2 1252, 7–8).

379 Hdt. 5.114 and 7.117.

380 Xen. Hell. 7.3.12; Thuc. 5.11.

381 Hdt. 1.168. For the institution of the cult, see Malkin 1987, 55–56.

382 Xen. Lac. 15.9.

383 It is interesting to note that the cults marked ὡς θεῷ or ὡς ἀθανάτῳ are referred to as being already in existence and are performed to “old” and well-established heroes of myth, such as Helen and Menelaos, and Herakles.

384 Boedeker 1993, 164–177, on the specific case of Hdt. 1.66–68 (the bones of Orestes); for other cases, see Rohde 1925, 122 with nn. 35–36 and 129 with n. 72. On the importance of oracles at the institution of cults of athletes, see Fontenrose 1968.

385 Malkin 1987, 27–28. Cf. Plato (Leg. 738d), who declares that, when a state is created, religious matters must be regulated by an oracle, such as Delphi, Dodona or Ammon, and a plot of land must be assigned to each god, daimon or at least to a hero.

386 Pl. Resp. 540b–c.

Table des illustrations

Titre Table 23. Number of inscriptions with religious contents, based on the dated inscriptions in LS and LSS.
Légende Some new evidence can be added to Sokolowski’s collections of sacred laws, for example, the sacrificial calendar from Thorikos (Daux 1983), but the general spread of the material is still the same geographically and chronologically.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/502/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 64k
Titre Table 24. Number of sacrifices to heroes and gods and the amount of money spent in the sacrificial calendars of Thorikos, Marathon, Erchia and the genos of the Salaminioi.
Légende Since prices are given only for two sacrifices in the Thorikos calendar, these have been excluded in the summaries of the costs. For the calculation of the various items, see the discussion on the individual calendars, below. The numbers (1) and (2) for the Marathon calendar relate to the alternative years, including biennial sacrifices (see further explanation under the Marathon calendar, p. 159).
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/502/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 151k
Titre Table 25. Occurrence of ritual specifications in the sacrificial calendars of Thorikos, Erchia and the genos of the Salaminioi.
Légende The division of the ritual specifications. The listing follows the order of the table above. References to the inscriptions: Thorikos – Daux 1983, 152–154; Erchia – LS 18; for the three cases of ou phora added later, see Daux 1963a, 628; Salaminioi – LSS 19. See also the Appendix, pp. 343 – 355.Holocaust: Thorikos 15 (Zeus); Erchia col. II, 18–19 (Basile); Erchia col. IV, 22–23 (Epops); Erchia col. V, 13–14 (Epops); Erchia col. III, 23–24 (Zeus Epopetes); Salaminioi 85 (Ioleos).Ou phora: Erchia col. I, 21 (Heroines at Pylon); Erchia col. I, 51 (Semele); Erchia col. II, 44 (Herakleidai), added later; Erchia col. II, 59 (Aglauros), added later; Erchia col. III, 53 (Leukaspis); Erchia col. IV, 55 (Menedeios); Erchia col. V, 6–7 (Heroines at Schoinos); Erchia col. I, 5 (Apollon); Erchia col. I, 10– 11 (Hera Thelchinia); Erchia col. III, 6–7 (Kourotrophos); Erchia col. III, 10 (Artemis); Erchia col. III, 17–18 (Zeus Polieus); Erchia col. III, 64 (Zeus Polieus); Erchia col. IV, 6–7 (Kourotrophos); Erchia col. IV, 10–11 (Artemis); Erchia col. IV, 38 (Dionysos); Erchia col. IV, 46 (Tritopatreis); Erchia col. V, 21–22 (Ge); Erchia col. V, 26–27 (Zeus); Erchia col. V, 30 (Zeus Horios); Erchia col. V, 38 (Apollon Lykeios), added later; Erchia col. V, 63–64 (Zeus Epakrios).Distribution of meat: Erchia col. I 48–50 (Semele); Erchia col. II, 49–50 (Apollon Pythios); Erchia col. III, 36–37 (Apollon Apotropaios); Erchia col. IV, 37–38 (Dionysos); Erchia col. V, 36–37 (Apollon Lykeios).Meat to be sold: Thorikos 27 (Neanias); Thorikos 11–12 (Zeus Kataibates); Thorikos 23 (Athena); Thorikos 26 (Zeus Kataibates); Thorikos 35 (Zeus Milichios).Skin to be torn: Erchia col. III, 11–12 (Artemis); Erchia col. IV, 11–12 (Artemis).Skin to priestess: Erchia col. I, 21–22 (Heroines at Pylon); Erchia col. I, 51–52 (Semele); Erchia col. V, 7–8 (Heroines at Schoinos); Erchia col. II, 38–39 (Hera); Erchia col. IV, 39–40 (Dionysos).Nephalios: Erchia col. II, 19–20 (Basile); Erchia col. III, 52 (Leukaspis); Erchia col. IV, 23 (Epops); Erchia col. V, 14–15 (Epops); Erchia col. I, 41–43 (Zeus Milichios); Erchia col. III, 24–25 (Zeus Epopetes); Erchia col. IV, 45–46 (Tritopatreis); Erchia col. V, 63 (Zeus Epakrios).
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/502/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 121k
Titre Table 26. The Thorikos calendar. Type and number of animals and expenses for sacrifices to heroes and gods.
Légende Trapezai have been included, even though that kind of sacrifice did not include a particular victim.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/502/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 99k
Titre Table 27. The Marathon calendar. Type and number of animals and expenses for sacrifices to heroes and gods.
Légende Trapezai have been included, even though that kind of sacrifice did not include a particular victim. The numbers (1) and (2) refer to the differences between sacrifices performed in alternate years (see the explanation p. 159).
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/502/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 230k
Titre Table 28. The Erchia calendar. Type and number of animals and expenses for sacrifices to heroes and gods.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/502/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 132k
Titre Table 29. The calendar of the genos of the Salaminioi. Type and number of animals and expenses for sacrifices to heroes and gods.
Légende The cost of wood has not been included.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/502/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 100k
Titre Table 30. Number and kind of animals sacrificed to heroes and gods in the calendars of Thorikos, Marathon, Erchia and the genos of the Salaminioi.
Légende The numbers (1) and (2) refer to the differences between sacrifices performed alternate years, see the explanation above under the Marathon calendar, p. 159.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/502/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 162k
Légende Fig. 6. Odysseus consults the shade of Teiresias by means of the blood from two slaughtered sheep. The head of the ram has been severed from its body and lies between Odysseus’ feet. Lucanian kalyx-krater, c. 400–375 BC, Paris, Cabinet des Médailles. From Furtwängler & Reichhold 1900, pl. 60:1.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/502/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,2M
Titre Table 31. Sacrifices specified by an addition.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/502/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 409k

© Presses universitaires de Liège, 2002

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

Acheter

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search