Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

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

 | 
Gunnel Ekroth

Chapter III. The use and meaning of the rituals in a wider perspective

Texte intégral

  • 1 In order provide such full contexts as possible for the four ritual categories also in the cult of (...)

1The review of the epigraphical and literary evidence in the previous chapters established a ritual pattern which differs in many ways from the traditional view of the sacrificial rituals of hero-cults. In this chapter, the four ritual categories–– destruction sacrifices, blood rituals, theoxenia and thysia sacrifices followed by dining––will be discussed in more detail. To understand the place and function of each kind of ritual within hero-cults, it is of interest to see to what extent similar rituals occur in the cult of the gods and the cult of the dead, respectively.1

  • 2 Deneken 1886–90; 2502; Thomsen 1909, 482; Stengel 1910, 138–145; Eitrem 1912, 1125; Stengel 1920, (...)

2In trying to understand and explain why certain sacrifices were performed in hero-cults, the traditional approach has been to link the ritual to the character of the recipient. Hero-cults have been considered as originating in the cult of the dead and preserving older traits which later were abandoned in the funerary cult. Furthermore, in the division of Greek religion into Olympian and chthonian spheres, the heroes were firmly placed in the latter and connected with the cult of the dead and to a lesser extent with the cult of the chthonian gods.2 Consequently, a number of traits and activities commonly understood as chthonian have been ascribed to the heroes, whether or not there is any actual evidence for such a connection.

  • 3 Unusual: Scullion 1994, 115. Later deviations and influence from the cult of the gods: Foucart 191 (...)

3At the same time, it has always been noted that the connection between the character of the recipient and the sacrifices performed is not absolute. Even though heroes were chthonian, they could receive thysia sacrifices, at which the meat from the animal victims was eaten, i.e., the ritual usually considered as being Olympian and reserved for the gods of the sky. This practice has been regarded as unusual and explained as later deviations from the sacrificial norm, as influences of the cult of the gods, as a result of the fact that the hero had not died a proper death but had simply disappeared or as careless usage of the terminology by the ancient sources.3

4The alternative approach to the sacrificial practices has been to focus on the ritual itself and on the occasion in which the sacrifice was performed, instead of the character of the recipient. In certain situations, a particular kind of sacrifice had to be performed and the character of the recipient was of little importance or no specific deity was even mentioned as receiving the sacrifice.

  • 4 Nock 1944, 590–591.
  • 5 Jameson 1965, 162–163. See also Verbanck-Piérard 2000, 283–284, on the distinctions between thysia (...)
  • 6 Peirce 1993, 252 with n. 134.
  • 7 Graf 1980, 209–221, esp. 220.
  • 8 Burkert 1983, 9, n. 41; Burkert 1966, 103, n. 36.

5Of particular interest in this approach are the sacrifices at which no meal took place, such as holocausts and sphagia, or rituals in which a more substantial part of the animal victim was destroyed than was the usual practice, since these are the rituals that have usually been considered as being chthonian and as expressing the chthonian character of the recipient. Arthur Darby Nock called these actions heilige Handlungen and meant that non-participation in these sacrifices was a result of the purpose and atmosphere of the ritual, as well as the disposition and aspect imputed to the recipients rather than their identity or supposed habitat.4 Michael Jameson has advocated the view of Greek sacrifices as consisting of, on the one hand, the normal type of sacrifice, thysia, and, on the other, of a variety of “powerful actions” which could be used to modify and colour the thysia, depending on the purpose and context of the rite.5 Sarah Peirce divides the sacrifices according to the presence or absence of consumption and not after the divine destination of the ritual. An animal at a thysia sacrifice had a different kind of “sacrality” than an animal at an enagismos, since the latter was linked with notions and observances of darkness and pollution.6 The stressing of the ritual before the recipient has been most strongly advocated by Fritz Graf in a study on libations, in which he argues that the libations were chosen according to the inner logic of the ritual rather than to the character of the recipient of the sacrifice.7 Also Walter Burkert notes that different kinds of sacrifices, both complete destruction of the victim by fire and partial burning followed by a meal, could exist within the same ritual.8

1. Destruction sacrifices

1.1. The complete or partial destruction of the animal victim in the cult of the gods

  • 9 A total destruction could also be accomplished by throwing the victim into the sea (Il. 19.267–268 (...)

6At a thysia, only the non-edible parts of the victim were burnt and the rest of the meat was available for consumption by the worshippers. The complete opposite to such a sacrifice was a holocaust, meaning that the whole victim was destroyed in the fire.9 Between these two poles, the holocaust, leaving no meat to dine on, and the thysia, at which all the meat was eaten, other degrees and modes of destruction were possible, which all affected the parts of the animal that fell to the worshippers. The intestines or particular portions of the meat could be cut out and destroyed by burning, either by putting them directly into the fire or by first displaying them on a table and then using them in a theoxenia ritual. The blood could be poured out completely, not just splashed on the altar (to be treated below, pp. 242–254). The skin, which was usually the prerogative of the priest, could be burnt or cut into pieces. Finally, a sacrifice could be initiated by the holocaust of one victim, followed by a thysia which made use of a second victim or victims. A holocaust could thus replace a thysia completely, but the destruction of a whole victim, or only parts of it, could also be used to modify a thysia in different ways.

  • 10 The holocausts of bulls to Zeus and of horses to Helios performed by Kyros (Xen. Cyr. 8.3.24) have (...)

7The evidence for complete or partial destruction sacrifices to Greek gods is scattered, but it is evident that the use of sacrifices of this kind was a marginal feature, as regards the actual number of such rituals performed. Two recipients stand out, Zeus and Herakles, to whom can be added a mixed handful of others: the Tritopatores at Selinous, Boubrostis (“The ravenous appetite”), an unnamed god at Epidauros, Artemis and the Charites. 10Furthermore, the clear majority of the destruction sacrifices, either complete or partial, took place at a thysia that concluded with dining. The offerings destroyed often constituted only a minor part of a larger whole, such as a leg of the victim or a ninth part of the meat or an animal of lesser value, such as a piglet.

  • 11 LS 151 A, 32–34. This sacrifice must have been to Zeus Polieus (see Jameson 1965, 164–165; Scullio (...)
  • 12 LS 151 A, 46–55. Scullion 1994, 85, suggests that LS 17 A b, 5–8 (= IG I3 241, 14–17, 5th century (...)
  • 13 LS 151 B, 10–21.

8For example, the two holocausts to Zeus mentioned in the extensive, mid-4th-century, sacrificial calendar from Kos, referred to several times previously, were of this kind. Zeus Polieus received a holocaust of a piglet, burnt together with its splanchna on the bomos, while the rest of the intestines were washed out and burnt by the side of the altar.11 This holocaust was followed the next day by the sacrifice of an ox, which was concluded by a banquet, since meat portions were distributed and not allowed to be carried away.12 In the same calendar, Zeus Machaneus was given a piglet burnt in a holocaust on the eleventh of the month of Batromion and on the following day, he received three sheep and an ox or, every alternate year, only three sheep.13 From these victims, γέρη were distributed and this sacrifice must have been a thysia at which the worshippers ate.

  • 14 Daux 1983, 153, lines 13–15: ∆ιὶ ∏oλιεĩ ϰριτòν oἶv : χοĩραν ϰριτόν ΕΠAΥTOMENAΣ, χοĩρον ὠνητòν ὁλόϰ (...)
  • 15 “The women acclaiming the god”, see Daux 1983, 154 and 171–174; Daux 1984, 152 and n. 28. “To Auto (...)
  • 16 Scullion 1998, 116–121, esp. 117. In his article from 1994 (p. 88, n. 33), Scullion agreed with Pa (...)
  • 17 LS 151 A, 32–34 and 46–55; C, 8–15. It is not entirely sure that the sacrifices are mentioned in t (...)
  • 18 The command τῶι ἀϰoλουθõvτι ἄριστομ παρέχεν τòν ἱερέα may, however, also be interpreted as meanin (...)

9Zeus Polieus at Thorikos also received a similar sacrifice. In Boedromion, he was given the holocaust of a piglet, as well as a sheep and another piglet, both of which must have been eaten, since they are not marked as holokautos.14 The connection between the sheep/piglet sacrifice and the piglet holocaust depends on the understanding of the letters EΠAΥOMENAΣ. Daux offered the interpretation “the women acclaiming the god” (ἐπ' Αὐτομένας), while Parker proposed “to Automenai” (ἐπ' Αὐτομενας), i.e., a geographical location.15 Recently, Scullion has suggested the reading ἐπ' αὐτο μένας, “remaining on the spot/within the sanctuary”.16 If the first and the third interpretations are followed, the three sacrifices would belong together, the holocaust taking place after the sacrifice of the sheep and the other piglet. This sequence of events, with the holocaust being performed after the sacrifice of the animals meant to be eaten, is rare. The holocaust usually preceded the thysia sacrifice (see, for example, the Coan calendar discussed above).17 The second interpretation would mean that the holocaust took place at a different location or on an occasion different from the preceding sacrifices of the sheep and the piglet. The latter explanation seems preferable, since the priest was to provide the attendant with lunch after the piglet holocaust, an action which would have been unnecessary, had that sacrifice been performed in connection with the other sacrifices, from which there was meat to dine on.18

  • 19 Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, A 17–21; cf. Jameson 1994a, 43–44. The editors of the text take τ (...)
  • 20 For the identification of the recipient, see Clinton 1996, 173. Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 6 (...)
  • 21 A 19–20: προθέμεν ϰαὶ ọολέαν ϰαὶ τἀπò τᾶς τραπέζας : ἀπάργματα ϰαὶ τοτέα ϰα[τα]ϰᾶαι; cf. Jameson, (...)
  • 22 The thigh was usually given as the perquisite of the priest; cf. Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, (...)

10Another case of a partial destruction sacrifice at a thysia to Zeus is to be found in the newly published, sacred law from Selinous. Zeus Meilichios, in the plot or sanctuary of Euthydamos, is to receive sacrifices in two consecutive years.19 The first year, he is to be given a ram (lines A 17–18). The following year, no recipient or victim is specified but it seems plausible to assume that both were the same as in the previous year, Zeus Meilichios receiving a ram.20 Apart from the animal sacrifice, there was also to be a theoxenia entertainment (A 18–20) and from the table used at this ritual, offerings (apargmata) were to be taken and burnt, as well as a thigh and the bones.21 Thus, the text prescribes the sacrifice of a ram, of which a whole thigh was to be burnt, as well as some additional meat offerings first placed on the theoxenia table.22 The rest of the meat was eaten, since it was forbidden to carry it away, and the person performing the ritual could invite whomever he wished to participate (A 20).

  • 23 Hdt. 2.44. For the post-Classical, literary tradition of such sacrifices, see above, p. 127, n. 45 (...)
  • 24 LS 151 C, 8–15.
  • 25 For reconstructions of line 11, see LGS, vol. 1, no. 7, [θεῶί, ἱ] ερά; LS 151 C and Segre 1993, ED (...)

11The second major recipient of destruction sacrifices, apart from Zeus, was Herakles. Herodotos speaks of the dual cult of Herakles on Thasos: those Greeks behaved most correctly who performed both thyein sacrifices to Herakles as an immortal Olympian and enagizein sacrifices to him as a hero.23 All cases of destruction sacrifices to Herakles, which, on the whole, are quite few, seem to have followed the same scheme: a smaller, non-participatory ritual, in which a part of the victim or a separate animal was destroyed, followed by a second, more substantial sacrifice, from which the meat was eaten. In the calendar from Kos mentioned above, Herakles received a lamb, which was burnt whole (ἀρὴν ϰαυτός) and an ox, sacrificed by the priest (τοῦτον θύει ὁ ἱαρεύς).24 The second sacrifice was more elaborate, since there were also to be provided as hiera certain quantities of barley, wheat, honey and cheese, i.e., extras usually accompanying a regular thysia, as well as a new oven, dry sticks, wood and wine.25

  • 26 LSA 42 A, 4–5: – – – λαχάνων : [ο] ὐ [βρ] ῶσις; see commentary by Sokolowski.

12Another case is to be found in a fragmentary inscription from Miletos regulating a cult of Herakles, dated to around 500 BC, prescribing that eating the splanchna was not allowed, a stipulation which can be interpreted as meaning that these parts were destroyed, presumably holocausted.26 The rest of the meat from the animal victim was probably eaten.

  • 27 An additional, later case of enateuein is found in a sacrificial calendar from Mykonos (c. 200 BC) (...)
  • 28 Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, A 11–12, commentary 31–32.

13Sacrifices to Herakles involving partial destruction of the animal victim are also covered by the term ἐνατεύειν. This term has usually been interpreted as meaning that the meat of the animal was divided into nine parts, one of which was burnt, even though the contexts in which the term is used do not mention the use of fire.27 This interpretation is supported by the new sacred law from Selinous, which prescribes for the sacrifice to the impure Tritopatores that “of the nine parts burn one”.28

  • 29 LSS 63, 5 = IG XII Suppl. 414, c. 450 BC; cf. Bergquist 1973, 65–90. The law also prohibits goats (...)
  • 30 IG XII Suppl. 353, 10, late 4th or early 3rd century BC; Launey 1937, 380–409; cf. Bergquist 1973, (...)
  • 31 Bergquist’s re-study of the Thasian Herakleion (1973) has demonstrated that the alleged bothros ra (...)

14On Thasos, the term is used in two inscriptions for sacrifices to Herakles, but it is in fact doubtful to what extent sacrifices of this kind were actually performed. The first case, a sacred law, prohibits, among other things, the use of enateuein sacrifices in the cult of Herakles Thasios, οὐ [δ]' ἐνατεύεται.29 The second inscription, a regulation for the lease of the garden of Herakles, is broken just before [ἐ]νατευθῆι, but it is possible that the missing part contained a negation, [οὐδ' ἐ]νατευθῆι, so that also this inscription banned the use of this kind of sacrifice in the cult of Herakles.30 Thus, the ritual of enateuein seems to have been known on Thasos but perhaps not executed. This conclusion receives additional support from the archaeological investigation of the Herakleion on Thasos, which has provided no evidence for a dual cult of Herakles at this site.31 The mention of the enateuein ritual may have functioned as an echo of Herakles’ particular history and mythology, which hardly ever was acted out in actual practised cult.

  • 32 Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, A 9–12, translation by the editors. On the specification hóoπερ τ (...)

15The impure and the pure Tritopatores mentioned in the sacred law from Selinous were also recipients of destruction sacrifices. The sacrifice to the impure Tritopatores was to be performed “as (one sacrifices) to the heroes, having poured a libation of wine down through the roof, and of the ninth parts burn one” (τοĩς Τριτοπατρεῦσι τοĩς μιαροĩς hόσπερ τοĩς hερόεσι, ροĩνον hυπολhείψας δι' ὀρóϕo ϰαὶ τᾶν μοιρᾶν τᾶν ἐνάταν ϰαταϰαίεν μίαν).32

  • 33 A 15–16: πλάσματα ϰαὶ ϰρᾶ ϰἀπαρξάμενοι, ϰαταϰαάντο; cf. Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 69.

16The pure Tritopatores at Selinous were given a full-grown victim (teleon), presumably a sheep, as well as a theoxenia ritual (A 13–17). On the table were to be placed a clean cloth, crowns of olive, honey mixture in clean cups, cakes and meat. The text further stipulates that, from the food on the table, offerings were to be made and burnt.33 At this sacrifice, too, some of the meat was destroyed, but presumably less than at the sacrifice to the impure Tritopatores.

  • 34 Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 29–30 and 53; Jameson 1994a, 44. North 1996, 299–301, suggests an (...)
  • 35 Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky (1993, 31, cf. 18–20) take κ«τ«κ«ίεν (A 11–12) as referring explicitly (...)

17The editors considered the impure and pure Tritopatores as two versions of the same deities, who had been polluted, presumably by bloodshed and violent death within the society, but were brought back to a pure state by the ninth-part sacrifice.34 Furthermore, they suggested that the impure Tritopatores did not receive any victim of their own and that the meat portion to be burnt was taken from the two victims sacrificed to Zeus Eumenes and the Eumenides, and to Zeus Meilichios, at the rituals preceding the sacrifices to the Tritopatores.35 Each of these two victims would have provided a ninth part and one of these was burnt to the impure Tritopatores.

  • 36 Even though mortals can pollute gods, it is the offenders who will suffer, not the divinity, see P (...)
  • 37 Clinton 1996, 163 and 172. He furthermore refutes the editors’ interpretation of side A of the tex (...)
  • 38 Clinton 1996, 170–171, takes θυόντο θῦμα (line A 12) to refer to the sacrifice to the impure Trito (...)

18It seems strange, however, that the actions of humans should have been powerful enough to pollute deities and that sacrifices could in fact change their condition from impure to pure.36 This difficulty is avoided if the Tritopatores are considered as being permanently of two types, impure and pure, as has been argued by Kevin Clinton on linguistic grounds.37 Moreover, Clinton has pointed out the rarity of one divinity receiving parts of a victim sacrificed to another deity and has proposed that the impure Tritopatores must have received their own victim, of which a ninth part of the meat was burnt.38

  • 39 From the meat on the table presented to the pure Tritopatores, offerings were to be taken and burn (...)
  • 40 The text speaks of τᾶν μοψᾶν (A 11), portions of meat from a sacrifice (Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky (...)

19In any case, the ninth-part destruction can be said to have modified a thysia ending with dining. If the portion burnt came from one of the victims sacrificed to Zeus Eumenes, the Eumenides and Zeus Melichios, the remaining portions (eight out of nine) of meat must have been eaten. Furthermore, if the impure and pure Tritopatores were just two sides of the same deities, the ninth-part destruction could also be considered as initiating and modifying the subsequent thysia to the pure Tritopatores.39 On the other hand, if Clinton’s interpretation is followed, which in many ways seems the more preferable, the impure Tritopatores would be separate divinities who were given their own victim, a ninth part of which was burnt. This sacrifice to the impure Tritopatores would have been a thysia modified by a partial destruction, just like the sacrifices to Zeus and Herakles outlined above, but in this case, it was stipulated that the destruction should comprise a ninth part of the meat.40

  • 41 LS 18, col. III, 8–12, and col. IV, 8–12; cf. Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 18–19.
  • 42 LS 151D, 16–17; cf. Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 18–19. The goat sacrificed to the Charites on (...)

20To destroy the skin of the animal sacrificed, either by cutting it up or burning it, also constitutes a partial destruction. Two such cases are to be found in the Erchia calendar at sacrifices of goats to Artemis at Erchia.41 In both of these sacrifices, the meat was eaten, as is clear from the ou phora demand. Another partial destruction of the skin of the victim was made at a sacrifice to the Charites on Kos, in connection with an oath ceremony.42

21The destruction sacrifices considered so far all took place in the context of thysiai and were followed by dining. The burning of a portion of the victim sacrificed or of a separate, smaller victim comprised only part of the ritual, often being performed at the beginning of the sacrifice. Holocausts not accompanied by any thysia are rarer and can be demonstrated only in a few cases, some of which are in fact doubtful.

  • 43 FGrHist 43 F 3 (ap. Plut. Quaest. conv. 694a–b).
  • 44 LS 18, col. III, 20–25.

22The most extreme case of a complete destruction sacrifice concerns Boubrostis (“The ravenous appetite”), who received a holocaust from the people of Smyrna, according to Metrodoros, a 4th-century BC historian quoted by Plutarch.43 The victim was a black bull, which was sacrificed and cut up and burnt entirely, hide and all: θύουσι Βουβρώστει ταῦρον μέλανα ϰαὶ ϰαταϰόψαντες αὐτόδορον ὁλοϰαυτοῦσιν . Here, there is no indication of any meal taking place. Another example of a single holocaust, though involving a smaller victim, is found in the Erchia calendar. According to this inscription, Zeus Epopetes was given the holocaust of a piglet on the 25th of Metageitnion.44 No other victim was sacrificed on the same occasion, either to Zeus or to any other divinity.

  • 45 Jameson 1965, 163; cf. Rudhardt 1958, 286–287. It was possible to take signs at sacrifices in whic (...)

23In the Anabasis, Xenophon describes a situation in which he had run out of money and the seer Eukleides suggested a sacrifice to Zeus Meilichios, since Xenophon used to thyesthai and holokautein to this god at home (7.8.4–5). Xenophon ἐθύετο ϰαὶ ὡλοϰαύτει χοίρους τῷ πατρίῳ νόμῳ, ϰαὶ ἐϰαλλιέρει, “he sacrificed and performed holocausts of piglets, as was the custom of his fathers, and obtained favourable omens”. The same day, the money for the army arrived. It is possible, however, that this sacrifice consisted of two rituals, a holocaust of piglets and a regular thysia of another victim or victims, since good omens were obtained (kallierein), a procedure which it must have been difficult to perform, had the sacrifice been solely a holocaust.45

  • 46 Peek 1969, 38–39, no. 43, lines 2, 6, 23 and 26 = IG IV2 97; 3rd century BC. For the identificatio (...)
  • 47 A fragmentary regulation for a mystery cult at Phanagoria on the Black Sea, dated to the 1st or th (...)

24Finally, a slightly later case is an Epidaurian inscription mentioning the ὁλοϰαύτησις performed to an unnamed god, τῶι θεῶι, usually identified as Asklepios.46 The inscription records contributions of money for the holokautesis, made by individuals from all over Greece on behalf of themselves and their families. The text offers no indication of what was to be purchased for the money and burnt completely. No other sacrificial terms are used in the inscription and it is possible that the holokautesis meant only a sacrifice of incense or cakes.47

25Since complete or partial destruction sacrifices were so uncommon, it is particularly interesting to consider whether these rituals can be regarded as a manifestation of the character of the deities receiving them or as a result of the contexts in which they were performed. No conclusive answer can be given, since, in most cases, it is possible to argue for both approaches.

  • 48 For the definition, see Scullion 1994, 90–92; Clinton 1996, 169, n. 39; Clinton 1992, 61–63; Burke (...)
  • 49 Scullion 1994, 93, 103 and 106–107; Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 95–97; cf. Burkert 1983, 136– (...)
  • 50 Scullion 1994, 110–111; Clinton 1996, 172; Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 107–114.
  • 51 Scullion 1994, 110–112; Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 112.
  • 52 Scullion 1994, 99–112, esp. 109.
  • 53 Scullion 1994, 90–92 and 99; Petropoulou 1991, 29–31; Robert F. 1939, 343–347.

26If by chthonian character is meant a connection with the earth, in the aspects of both fertility and agriculture and as the place where the dead reside, most of the recipients of destruction sacrifices can be fitted into this category.48 A connection with fertility and agriculture can be argued for Zeus Polieus, Zeus Machaneus and Zeus Meilichios.49 The Tritopatores were the collective dead ancestors but were concerned with fertility as well.50 They were also identified with the winds and counted among the powers of the weather and mountain-top Zeuses, such as Zeus Epopetes. These powers were similar in temperament to the chthonians and therefore received chthonian worship.51 The ou phora stipulation, i.e., the ban on removing meat from the sanctuary after a sacrifice, it has been suggested, is a further sign of chthonian cult, and therefore the sacrifice to Artemis, at which the skins were torn, can be explained as being related to her character as well.52 Herakles and Asklepios both began as mortal heroes, though they were later transformed into gods, and the destruction sacrifices have been seen as an indication of this origin.53

  • 54 Cf. Verbanck-Piérard 1989, who criticizes the assumption that, for example, Herodotos’ statement o (...)
  • 55 Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 189 with n. 19, and 193 with n. 7, are sceptical about the existence o (...)
  • 56 This sacrifice has been connected with a low altar, to the south of the temple of Asklepios, where (...)

27Still, if these rituals are to be viewed as an expression of the chthonian character of the recipients, it is remarkable that such sacrifices can so rarely be demonstrated. If we take the cases of Herakles and Asklepios, for example, in whom the chthonian side would be expected to be particularly prominent, considering the fact that they both had died before becoming divine, the evidence for destruction sacrifices is meagre. Only a small fraction of the rituals to Herakles can be shown to have included the burning of a substantial part of the animal or a separate victim.54 For Asklepios, there is even less evidence for holocausts and the only documented case seems to be the holokautesis inscription from Epidauros.55 Moreover, even though Asklepios can be taken as a likely candidate for this sacrifice, it has to be remembered that he is not named in this document, since the holokautesis is only said to be performed “to the god”. To consider this ritual as being a particularly “heroic” sacrifice, as has often been done, seems odd, since the inscription says explicitly that the holokautesis is performed “to the god” and not “to the hero”.56

  • 57 On religion and crisis management, see Burkert 1985, 264–268.

28If we leave the character of the recipient and turn to the context in which the sacrifice is performed, the destruction sacrifices can in most cases also be shown to be connected with a situation in which a society or an individual is faced with threats, danger or problems. The performance of the sacrifices, either in a single instance or in the form of the institution of a cult, was aimed at resolving the crisis.57

  • 58 Scullion 1994, 81–89.
  • 59 On the link between Zeus Polieus on Kos and the Dipoleia at Athens, see Scullion 1994, 84–86. Thou (...)
  • 60 Nilsson 1906, 21–22, suggested that the original sacrifice to Zeus Machaneus consisted only of the (...)
  • 61 Stengel 1920, 136–138; Burkert 1985, 250–252.
  • 62 Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 56–61 and 131. For diseases or sterility as possible reasons for (...)

29The sacrifices to Zeus Meilichios were performed by Xenophon in order to procure funds for the army, while the holocaust of a bull to “The ravenous appetite” (Boubrostis) was meant to keep starvation away. The rituals of Zeus Polieus, which included holocausts of piglets, at least at Kos and Thorikos, and perhaps also at Athens, have been linked to the prosperity of the crops and the community.58 At Athens, the sacrifices to Zeus Polieus were performed at the Dipoleia, a festival said to emanate from the murder of an animal which led to drought and barrenness of the country, a problem which was solved by the collective slaughter and consumption of an ox.59 The sacrifice to Zeus Machaneus at Kos also included the holocaust of a pig, followed by the thysia of a bull and three sheep, and was probably copied from the cult of Zeus Polieus and may have had a similar meaning.60 The destruction of the skin of the goat sacrificed to the Charites at an oath ceremony may also be connected with the situation: in oaths, the blood of the victim was usually discarded and the rest of the animal also destroyed.61 The destruction sacrifices to Zeus Meilichios and the Tritopatores, mentioned in the sacred law from Selinous, can be related to the situation, if the editors’ interpretation is followed, which suggests that the purpose of the whole inscription was to regulate purification, probably needed after some kind of crisis, for example, civil war or another form of extraordinary death, or perhaps to deal with the miasma arising from ineffective funerary rites.62 In the cases of Herakles and Asklepios (if the latter received destruction sacrifices at all), there are no direct indications of why rituals of these kinds were practised on certain occasions but the small number of instances in total suggests that external conditions may have had an effect on the choice of sacrifices in these particular cases.

  • 63 See Burkert 1987, 44–46. A similar pattern is found in the scapegoat rituals: one person is chosen (...)
  • 64 Moreover, anything but a complete destruction would be impossible in the case of Boubrostis, since (...)

30It is thus possible to link the destruction sacrifices both to the character of the recipient and to the situation when the sacrifice was performed: one of these approaches is not more obvious than the other and no distinct conclusion can be reached. More evident, however, is the fact that destruction sacrifices formed part of the sacrificial practices of the gods, but they were rarely performed and usually took place in connection with thysiai followed by dining. In most cases, the destroyed part constituted only a portion of the victim or a small and cheap animal. The principle of these sacrifices seems to be that of destroying a smaller entity to rescue the rest: a ninth part of the meat, some of the meat from the theoxenia table, a piglet before the sacrifice of a sheep or an ox.63 The holocaust of a whole ox to Boubrostis stands out, but the renunciation of the largest and most expensive animal was probably the only action considered to be sufficient to ward off the threat of starvation.64

1.2. The destruction of the animal victims in the cult of the dead

31Of central importance in discussing the use of destruction sacrifices in the cult of the dead is the question whether animal sacrifice formed a part of the rituals performed to the dead or not, either at the funeral or in the subsequent practices at the grave. The destruction of other offerings (food, clothes, equipment for the dead person) is of less interest here.

  • 65 23.6–58, esp. 29–34 and 55–57, for the meal preceding the funeral and 23.166–177 for the sacrifice (...)
  • 66 Burkert 1985, 193–194; Rohde 1925, 167; Nilsson 1906, 454; Nilsson 1967, 179–180; Garland 1985, 11 (...)

32Modern scholars have often assumed that animal sacrifice, including the destruction of the victim, used to form part of the rituals at the burial and the cult of the dead. The main evidence cited for this view is the Homeric epics and, in particular, the description of the funeral of Patroklos in the Iliad.65 It has usually been considered that, from the historical period onwards, animal sacrifice was not frequently performed and gradually came to be replaced by libations and the offerings of cakes and various kinds of food.66 In fact, the evidence for animal sacrifice to the dead in the Archaic and Classical periods is both rare and difficult to interpret. We are best informed of the situation in Attica, but the evidence from outside this region seems to concur more or less with the Athenian practices.

  • 67 Plut. Vit. Sol. 21.5; Ruschenbusch 1966, F 72c. The laws of Solon also ordered the mourning women (...)
  • 68 [Pl.] Min. οἵοις νóμοις ἐχρώμεθα πρò τοῦ περὶ τοὺς ἀποθανóντας, ἱερεĩά τε προσφάτ-τοντες πρò τῆς ἐ (...)
  • 69 Garland 1985, 113.
  • 70 Van Straten 1995, passim. On the banquet reliefs (Totenmahl reliefs) carved on gravestones, person (...)

33Judging from the written sources, animal sacrifice in connection with the burial seems, already in the Archaic period, to have been considered as an act of the past. In the laws of Solon, as they are quoted by Plutarch, it is stated that the sacrifice of an ox was no longer to be permitted, ἐναγίζειν δὲ βοῦν οὐϰ εἴασεν 67 Also in the Minos, a late 4th century dialogue wrongly ascribed to Plato, it is declared that, in accordance with the former laws regarding the dead, victims were slaughtered before the funeral procession set out.68 It is also interesting to note the complete absence of any reference to animal sacrifice on the Attic, white-ground lekythoi with funerary motifs.69 Furthermore, none of the representations of animal sacrifice on pottery or stone reliefs covered by the study by van Straten can be connected with the cult of the dead.70

  • 71 LS 97 A, 12–13 = IG XII:5 593: προσφαγίωι [χ]ρέσθαι, ϰατὰ τὰ π[άτρια].

34One of the rare examples of animal sacrifice in a context dealing with the ordinary dead is to be found in a funerary law from Ioulis on Keos, dated to the 5th century BC, which states that a prosphagion was to be performed according to ancestral custom.71 Presumably this sacrifice took place before the burial and the deceased must have received the prosphagion as a grave offering. The victim was probably killed at the grave and deposited whole in the grave or burnt with the corpse.

  • 72 Seaford 1994, 74–78; Toher 1991, 159–175.
  • 73 See Hughes (forthcoming).
  • 74 This is not entirely sure, since the entries in the Ioulis law (part A) do not follow in strict ch (...)
  • 75 If the prosphagion was performed by a person outside the family, who was untouched by the miasma s (...)

35This interpretation is complicated by the fact that the funerary laws, both the one from Ioulis and other examples, are concerned with restricting the funerary practices: the number of mourners, their dress, the number of grave offerings accompanying the deceased, the period of mourning.72 In such a context, animal sacrifice to the ordinary dead seems like an extravagance and at least in Athens, the killing of the most prestigious victim, an ox, was forbidden in the laws of Solon. It is possible that the prosphagion is to be considered as having been performed to a divinity and not to the deceased. Sacrifices to gods, both the “Olympian” kind and those connected with the underworld, were made after the burial, when the family and the house had been purified, and the meat from these sacrifices was eaten at the funeral meal.73 However, the prosphagion seems to have taken place before the burial, when the family was still ritually impure.74 It cannot therefore be understood as a regular thysia from which the meat was to be eaten, since the family could not participate in such sacrifices.75 Thus, the prosphagion is probably to be taken as an animal sacrifice to the ordinary dead but probably performed on a small scale on the private level and not resulting in any meat for the family of the deceased.

  • 76 Cf. Houby-Nielsen 1996, 49, who has suggested that the vases in the offering-trenches at the Keram (...)

36To define the occurrence of animal sacrifice in the cult of the dead, a substantial investigation of the archaeological material would be needed, which is, of course, outside the scope of this study. Works on burial practices and funerary rituals, however, show that animal bones are not frequently found in or at graves and, when this is the case, the quantities are often small. On the whole, the finds of animal bones seem to be too scanty to support the notion of animals either being burnt in a holocaust or sacrificed and eaten at the grave on a regular basis. The animal bones rather represent portions of meat, raw or cooked, being given to the dead, burnt on the pyre or placed in the grave. Furthermore, bones are recovered only from some of the graves in a certain plot or cemetery and it seems clear that food offerings consisting of meat were not given to all the dead. Perhaps meal offerings were considered to be a particularly prestigious gift, which was reserved for the most distinguished burials.76

  • 77 Houby-Nielsen 1996, 44–49, with n. 22: the identified bones are one sheep or goat thighbone, teeth (...)
  • 78 Houby-Nielsen 1996, 46–47.
  • 79 Pfuhl 1903, 268–282. The bones in the graves come from the parts of the animals that would have be (...)
  • 80 Young R.S. 1939, 19–20, graves XI, XII, XVIII and XX. In grave XI, an amphora with unbroken animal (...)

37In the 7th- and 6th-century BC material from the Kerameikos, for example, animal bones were found only occasionally and consisted of tiny fragments.77 Moreover, the range of the pottery in each offering-trench, regarding the number of shapes and the composition of vase-shapes, is too uneven to be interpreted as dining equipment used by the mourners. It may rather have served as a reference to dining and does not have to be interpreted as evidence for actual banquets taking place.78 Of the around 100 Archaic graves excavated on Thera, only 15 yielded animal bones and in the ashes from the offering-pits near some of the graves, only small fragments of animal bones were recovered.79 From a LG grave plot with 22 burials in the Athenian Agora, small fragments of animal bones were recovered in the burnt deposits in or near four of the graves.80

  • 81 Cavanagh 1996, 668. The joints of meat come from sheep or goats and pigs, and some were burnt on t (...)
  • 82 Cavanagh 1996, 674.
  • 83 Blegen, Palmer & Young 1964, 17–18 and 84.

38At the Knossos North cemetery, the Early Greek tombs yielded animal bones from joints of meat in four cases, and teeth, maybe representing amulets, were also found in some graves.81 The only remains that seemed to be those of animal sacrifices were two major deposits, clearly different from the bones serving as food offerings, since they consisted of skeletons of horses and dogs, animals that were never eaten. These animals had been sacrificed at the tombs and not at the pyres.82 In the North cemetery at Corinth, many of the Geometric graves yielded quantities of charcoal but only some fragments of animal bones, while in the Classical to Roman graves, no traces of food were observed, apart from shells of hen’s eggs and sea-shells, the latter probably being toys.83

  • 84 Carter 1998, 120–121 and 560–562.
  • 85 Whole animal skeletons: Carter 1998, 560–562, T 62, mule; T 191, dog; T 316, horse; T 321, wolf. A (...)
  • 86 Food remains: Carter 1998, 120–121 and 560–562 (T 37, T 128, T 301, F 344 and T 347). Eggshells we (...)
  • 87 Lyons 1996, 122–124 and 221–223 (T 50, T 51 and T 52).

39The new, extensive investigations of cemeteries in the Greek colonies in the west show a similar pattern. Of the 359 burials investigated at Metaponto, only 13 yielded any kind of animal bones.84 Of these, four cases were skeletons, whole or fragmentary, from pets or work animals, while in four other graves were found sheep and goat astragaloi, sometimes in great numbers, which were probably used as decorative art pieces or toys.85 Bones that could definitely be interpreted as food remains were only recovered in five tombs, i.e., in less than 1.5 % of the total number of graves.86 In the Archaic cemetery at Morgantina, animal bones taken to be food offerings were discovered in three tombs.87 The bones are identified as sheep, pig and ox, and are in two cases mixed with the human bones and pottery, suggesting them to belong to the rituals executed in connection with the burial. The assumption that meat offerings were prestigious and unusual gifts reserved for only a minority of the dead is further supported by the fact that the three tombs with this kind of offerings in the Morgantina cemetery were located together.

  • 88 To clarify matters, the practices during the Geometric period have to be studied, which is, of cou (...)
  • 89 On food offerings to the dead, see further below, pp. 278–280. In the late Hellenistic and Roman p (...)

40In all, though it has been assumed that animal sacrifice used to be performed to the ordinary dead, there is, even in the Archaic period, very little evidence for such practices.88 Neither the written nor the archaeological evidence indicates that animal sacrifice and dining by the mourners at the tombs of the ordinary dead was a regular practice in the Archaic and the Classical periods. Holocaustic sacrifices of animals were not a part of the cult of the dead, but portions of meat, either raw or cooked, were occasionally given to the dead and burnt on the pyre, even though this practice also seems to have decreased in time.89

  • 90 Hdt. 5.92; cf. Leach 1976, 83.
  • 91 Nock 1944, 590; Nilsson 1967, 179; Stupperich 1977, 61.

41The reasons for destroying the offerings to the dead, whatever they consisted of, can be linked to the practices at the burial, at which some gifts were deposited in the grave, while others were burnt together with the corpse on the pyre. More specifically, the destruction has been considered as being a necessity, since the dead could not profit from the offerings unless they had been burnt. The ghost of Melissa, the dead wife of Periander, for example, explicitly asked for her clothes to be burned so that she would be able to use them.90 Similarly, the burning of food on the pyre has been seen as a way of feeding the dead or at least providing them with necessities in the next life.91

  • 92 Burkert 1985, 192–193; Meuli 1946, 202–206.
  • 93 Hom. Il. 22.510–514; see commentary by Richardson 1993, 162. I am grateful to David Boehringer for (...)
  • 94 For the treatment of such offscourings, see Parker 1983, 35–39. The animals, the blood of which wa (...)

42It has also been suggested that the destruction of the offerings functioned as a way of channelling the grief and anger felt by the relatives of the dead person.92 Still, the same ritual may very well have had different meanings for different individuals depending on the time and place. Andromache’s burning of Hektor’s clothes after his death may be interpreted both as an action to assure that the dead man will receive them and as a means for his widow to act out her loss and despair. At the same time, to burn the clothes can be seen as a way of increasing Hektor’s kleos, since this is all that will survive after his death.93 Possibly, the destruction of the offerings to the dead may be linked to the fact that the actual death, the burials and the handling of the dead body, as well as subsequent visits to the grave, all involved various degrees of pollution. The burning of the offerings to the dead could perhaps be viewed as a way of dealing with this pollution, just as the water used for purification when the corpse was in the house had to be poured out and the sweepings from the floors were discarded at the tomb.94

1.3. Enagizein sacrifices in hero-cults and the cult of the dead, and the relation to the term holokautos

43In chapter I, it was argued that the terms enagizein, enagisma and enagismos were, above all, used for sacrifices to dead recipients, either the ordinary dead or heroes. The dead status of a hero receiving enagizein sacrifices is often underlined by the mention of his grave, the manner of his death or by a contrast with the cults and sanctuaries of the immortal gods.

44Furthermore, enagizein and the relevant nouns referred to sacrifices at which no dining took place, either in hero-cults or in the cult of the dead. At an enagizein sacrifice, the offerings were completely consecrated, usually by burning them, and nothing was left for those who brought them. Even though the same terms were used for both hero-cults and the cult of the dead, the contents of the offerings differed, depending on whether the recipient was a hero or an ordinary mortal. The contents of the enagizein sacrifices in hero-cults are rarely specified, but the ritual usually seems to have comprised animal sacrifice. The offerings in the cult of the dead, on the other hand, consisted of cakes, fruit, prepared food, flowers and wreaths, as well as libations. The common denominator in the use of enagizein in hero-cults and the cult of the dead was not the contents of the offerings, but the dead status of the recipients and the absence of dining, since the offerings were destroyed.

  • 95 Cf. the calendar from Thorikos, Daux 1983, 153, lines 15–16: at the holocaust of a piglet to Zeus (...)
  • 96 The earliest epigraphical instance of enagizein is in IG II2 1006, 26 and 69, late 2nd century BC; (...)
  • 97 IG IV 203, 9.

45If enagizein in hero-cults referred to a ritual in which the meat of the animal victims was destroyed by burning and no banquet followed, what was then the difference, if any, between a sacrifice covered by enagizein and one designated as holokautos? At a sacrifice marked as holokautos, the whole victim was also destroyed and nothing was left to be eaten.95 It is possible that the distinction simply reflects the usage of different kinds of terminology in the literary and epigraphical sources in the period under study here, enagizein being the literary equivalent of holokautos, kautos or karpoein in the inscriptions. In the late Hellenistic and Roman periods, the vocabulary of the inscriptions became more diversified and the terms enagizein and enagismos were used in the epigraphical material as well.96 A further sign of this development is the term enagisterion, which is found once in a 2nd-century AD inscription.97

  • 98 For references, see pp. 110–114. The only pre-2nd-century AD instance is given by Flavius Josephus (...)

46Another explanation of the distinction between an enagizein sacrifice and a holokautos concerns who was the recipient of the sacrifice and the attitude which the worshippers took towards the recipient. The common denominator between the recipients of the enagizein sacrifices, the heroes and the deceased, is that they are all dead. In the Archaic and the Classical periods, enagizein, enagisma and enagismos are never used for sacrifices to gods, either in inscriptions or in literary texts. When the terms occur in the inscriptions in late Hellenistic times, the recipients of the sacrifices are still only heroes and the ordinary dead. In the literary sources, enagizein, enagisma and enagismos may occasionally be used for sacrifices to gods, but it should be noted that all instances but one date to the 2nd century AD or later, when the terms seem to have taken on the more general meaning of “to burn completely, no matter who was the recipient”.98 Moreover, the gods receiving enagizein sacrifices often show a connection with the realm of the dead and the rituals are performed in an atmosphere removed from that of the joyful thysia sacrifices.

  • 99 On the connection between enagizein and the world of the dead, see Chantraine & Masson 1954, 100–1 (...)

47Thus, in the Classical and Hellenistic periods, enagizein, enagisma and enagismos were not used for sacrifices to Greek gods, since they were considered to be immortal. The three terms were reserved for dead recipients and often carried with them a notion of burials, graves and violent death, incompatible with the sphere of the gods. Holokautos, on the other hand, does not seem to have had any such particular connotations in this period and could therefore be used for both heroes and gods. This term must have been more neutral, meaning “to burn completely”, without any particular bearing on the recipient, while enagizein was used for the same kind of activity but also indicated the dead status of the recipient.99

1.4. Destruction sacrifices in hero-cults

  • 100 Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, A 9–13.

48In discussing the function of destruction sacrifices in hero-cults, the problem is the lack of information regarding the particulars of the situation when the sacrifices were performed or any specific traits in the character of the recipient. The starting point, however, must be the small number of cases in which rituals of these kinds can be demonstrated in hero-cults. Before discussing the evidence for heroes outlined previously, it is of interest to take a closer look at the sacrifice to the impure Tritopatores in the Selinous lex sacra, a ritual said to be performed “as one sacrifices to the heroes”, ", hóσπCEçi τοĩς hερόεσι, since this text may seem to contradict the conclusion that destruction sacrifices were rare in hero-cults. The whole passage runs as follows:100

τοĩς Τρ-
10 ιτοπατρεῦσι. τοĩς μιαροĩς hόσπερ τοĩς hερóεσι, ροĩνον hυπολhεί-
ψας ' δι' ὀρóφο ϰαὶ τᾶν μοιρᾶν - τᾶν ἐνάταν – ϰαταϰα-
ίεν - μίαν. θυόντο θῦμα : ϰαὶ ϰαταγιζόντο hoĩç hoσία - ϰαὶ περιρά-
ναντες ϰαταλινάντο

  • 101 Translation by Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 15.

(Sacrifice) to the Tritopatores, the impure, as (one sacrifices) to the heroes, having poured a libation of wine down through the roof, and of the nine parts burn one. Let those to whom it is permitted perform sacrifice and consecrate, and having performed aspersion let them perform the anointing.101

  • 102 Cf. Scullion (2000, 165), who suggests that such rituals were common at sacrifices to heroes.

49The sacrifice that the impure Tritopatores receive must, in some way, have encompassed rituals which were considered as particular for heroes, or the stipulation would have been meaningless. At first, it may seem obvious to take this passage as an indication of partial destruction of the animal victim being a standard ritual in hero-cults.102 However, the survey of the occurrence of this kind of ritual behaviour in other contexts than hero-cults has shown that the destruction of a more substantial part of the meat than at a thysia sacrifice cannot simply be considered a typically heroic ritual. From the evidence discussed above, it is clear that partial destructions of the animal victims were used also in the cult of the gods, in particular for Zeus in various guises, but also for Artemis and the Charites. Therefore, the heroic side of this sacrifice to the impure Tritopatores ritual has to be further considered.

  • 103 The alternative, less likely interpretation, is to consider the wine libation and the burning of a (...)

50Which rituals does the stipulation hόσπερ τοĩς hερóεσι actually refer to? The text states that a libation of wine is to be poured through the roof and that one of the nine portions of meat is to be burnt. Presumably these two actions make up the contents of a sacrifice “as to the heroes”. To perform a ritual “as to the heroes” cannot, however, have been self-evident, or the contents of the ritual would not have had to be outlined as clearly as, in fact, it is done here.103

  • 104 Cf. Paus. 10.4.10, blood being poured through a hole into the tomb of the Heros Archegetes at Tron (...)
  • 105 Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, A 17 and commentary p. 36, line A 16, and p. 71–72.
  • 106 See Henrichs 1983, 98–99; cf. Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 72–73.

51The wine libation through the roof has been compared to similar practices in hero-cults, for example, the pouring of liquids into the tomb of the hero, but, on the whole, there is very little comparanda for the use of this kind of ritual in hero-cults.104 The verb used to describe the pouring, hypoleibein, seems to refer to the physical action of pouring a liquid down, in this case through the roof of a structure. The term does not seem to have any particular heroic connotations, since it is used also for the libation at the sacrifice to the pure Tritopatores, which is specified as being performed “as to the gods”.105 Possibly it is the content of the libation, wine, that is to be taken as being heroic. Wineless offerings, such as the melikraton offered to the pure Tritopatores, have often been claimed to be characteristic for the dead and the divinities connected with the underworld, but they seem to have been the exception rather than the rule in hero-cults.106 To libate wine is therefore perhaps to be seen as using a ritual from hero-cults also in the cult of the Tritopatores.

  • 107 Herakles, supra, p. 221, nn. 29–30; Semele, supra, p. 220, n. 27.
  • 108 LSS 19, 33.

52What may have been particularly heroic, however, was the division of the meat from the victim into nine parts, one of which was burnt. The contents of the partial destructions used in the cult of gods are less well defined, consisting of a leg of a ram, offerings from the theoxenia table or a separate, small victim, usually a piglet. The partial destruction of a ninth of the meat is a very distinct stipulation, which is known only from two other instances, both heroic: Herakles on Thasos and Semele on Mykonos.107 As for the division of the meat into nine parts, it is interesting to note that the priest of Herakles in the Salaminioi inscription from Attica was to be given nine pieces of flesh from the ox sacrificed to Herakles at Sounion.108

53The heroic rituals at the sacrifice to the impure Tritopatores can therefore be suggested to have consisted primarily of the division of the meat into nine portions and the burning of one of these, perhaps in connection with the contents of the libation being wine. To assume that a destruction of a ninth of the meat was commonly performed at all sacrifices to heroes seems, however, to be pressing the evidence too far, considering the small number of instances when this kind of ritual can be ascertained.

  • 109 On the question of the heroes also being polluted, see also below, pp. 263–265.

54That the impure Tritopatores received rituals also used in hero-cults is not surprising, considering the fact that both the Tritopatores, being the collective ancestors, and the heroes were dead and therefore would be expected to receive sacrifices of the same kind. It is possible that the destruction of the meat of the animal victims to the impure Tritopatores is to be seen as connected to their impurity. The impurity of the impure Tritopatores is of course beyond dispute but if this character trait may be related to the partial destruction of the animal victim in this case, the same explanation may also be valid for the use of similar rituals in hero-cults. This argument may be supported by the use of enagizein and enagismata for destruction sacrifices to the heroes. These terms seem to have marked the recipients as being dead but, at the same time, it is possible that the rituals covered by these terms are to be seen as engendered by the dead character of the recipient and perhaps also as a response to or a recognition of a certain impure quality.109

  • 110 Verbanck-Piérard 1989, 46–53; Lévêque & Verbanck-Piérard 1992, 53–64; see also supra, p. 226, n. 5 (...)
  • 111 Pirenne-Delforge 2001, 120–121; cf. Bonnet 1988, 346–371. At Lindos, Herakles was said to have pre (...)
  • 112 On the fire rituals, see Nilsson 1922 and 1923. On the cult on Mount Oite and the archaeological r (...)

55If we now turn to the rest of the evidence, a connection between the destruction sacrifices and the character of the recipients can be argued for in some instances. Just as in the case of the impure Tritopatores, the rituals are here to be taken as a recognition of the impurity rather than as an attempt to purify the recipient. The use of enagizein sacrifices to Herakles in his aspect as a hero can be seen as connecting him with the sphere of the dead and marking him as having a mortal side. However, destruction sacrifices were rare in his cult and it was apparently not necessary to show his dual character as both a mortal hero and an immortal god at all sacrifices and he seems mainly to have been perceived as a god.110 The mythical background of Herakles may have lent itself to local interpretations, which in some cases led to particular rituals.111 From the ritual point of view, Herakles occupies a unique position in Greek religion and has a ritual pattern similar to that of Zeus, when it comes to destruction sacrifices. Apart from being both a hero and a god, it is also possible that the manner of Herakles’ death––committing suicide by burning himself to death––may have affected the rituals practised in his cult. On Mount Oite, where this event was said to have taken place, Herakles had a cult centred on a large pyre with a bonfire, but thysia sacrifices also seem to have been performed. However, the rituals at this particular site can be viewed as belonging to a complex of fire rituals known also from other sites in central Greece and the myth of Herakles may have been adapted to fit these rituals.112

  • 113 LSS 19, 84.
  • 114 LS 20 B, 14; cf. Pind. Isthm. 5.32–33, Iolaos being honoured (see also supra, p. 205).
  • 115 LSS 19, 84–86.
  • 116 Verbanck-Piérard 1989, 53, speaking of the “satellite” cult of Ioleos.

56In connection with Herakles, it is of interest to consider the holocaust to his close friend Iolaos. Such a ritual is known in one case only to this hero, who was given a sheep burnt whole, when the genos of the Salaminioi celebrated their main festival in the Herakleion at Porthmos, Sounion.113 Iolaos (a variant spelling of Ioleos) was worshipped also at Marathon, but in this calendar there are no indications of the sacrifice being anything but a regular a thysia followed by dining.114 As in the case of Herakles, all sacrifices to Ioleos did not have to be holocausts. At Sounion, the holocaust to Ioleos formed part of a complex of sacrifices: Herakles was given an ox, Kourotrophos a goat, Alkmene, Maia, Ion (every second year) and the Hero at the Hale each received a sheep, while the Hero at Antisara and the Hero at Pyrgilion were given a piglet each.115 Since Ioleos did not receive holocausts at other locations, this destruction sacrifice is rather to be considered as depending on the local context and, perhaps most of all, on the fact that he was worshipped in connection with Herakles. Annie Verbanck-Piérard has proposed the attractive suggestion that in this case, instead of performing a holocaust to Herakles to mark his mortal side, a sacrifice of this kind was made to his close companion, the mortal Ioleos.116

  • 117 Hdt. 1.167.
  • 118 On the problems of picturing a festival with games and horse-races but without sacrifice followed (...)

57The holocausts and partial destruction sacrifices to Herakles may thus have depended on local conditions and contexts. Also in the case of Ioleos it has been proposed that it was the particular ritual context where his sacrifice was performed that influenced the holocaust. It is therefore possible to argue that the situation when the sacrifices were performed may have been just as, or even more, essential than the character of the recipient. The situation in which the ritual was performed seems definitely to have been decisive in the case of the enagizein sacrifices to the Phokaians, stoned by the people of Agylla.117 Here, the rituals were clearly a response to the problems caused by the violent and unjust deaths of these Greeks. The cult was aimed at placating the anger of the recipients. The enagizein sacrifices were originally meant to solve the immediate problems arising from the stoning of the Greek prisoners of war, but sacrifices of this kind continued to be the standard ritual in this cult. On the other hand, the cult was probably performed at the site where the Phokaians had been killed and buried and the enagizein sacrifices may have been practised as a kind of funerary cult, though with games and horse-races.118

  • 119 LS 18, col. II, 16–20; col. IV, 20–23; col. V, 12–15.
  • 120 See above, p. 133, n. 13.

58About the holocausts to the heroine Basile and the hero Epops mentioned in the sacrificial calendar from Erchia, there is not much additional information.119 Basile was worshipped at other locations in Attica, apart from Erchia, and had a major precinct in Athens, together with Kodros and Neleus, but no details are known of how the sacrifices were performed in her Athenian temenos.120 Epops is not known to have received any cult, except that at Erchia.

  • 121 Mikalson 1977, 430; Johnston 1999, 44, however, erroneously locating the sacrifice to Zeus Epopete (...)
  • 122 Jacoby 1944, 62–65; cf. supra, p. 84, n. 275.
  • 123 Hollis 1990, 127–130; Callim. Aet. fr. 238, line 11 (Suppl. Hell. 1983).
  • 124 The similarities between the funeral cremation rites and the burning of the god’s portion at a thy (...)

59It has been suggested that the sacrifices to Epops on the 5th of Boedromion may have been linked to the state festival of Genesia on the same day, when the dead were honoured, since Epops received wineless holocausts, an offering considered as being appropriate for the dead.121 Another possibility would be to link Epops with the commemoration of the war dead who fell at Marathon, which may have taken place on the same date.122 A connection between Epops and war can be argued from a passage in the Aetia of Kallimachos, which mentions Epops as helping the deme Erchia in a conflict with Paiania.123 Epops may have been a local, war-related hero who received a holocaust, perhaps serving as a reminder of the fallen at Marathon who were cremated on the battlefield.124

  • 125 Verbanck-Piérard (1998, 120, n. 52) suggests that the calendar reflects the combined cult of two d (...)
  • 126 To define the modern equivalents of the ancient months is difficult, owing to the irregularities i (...)
  • 127 Scullion (1994, 110–111) has suggested that Zeus Epopetes is to be understood as belonging to the (...)

60It is interesting, however, to note how the holocausts to Epops, Basile and Zeus Epopetes, mentioned in the Erchia calendar, are related in time. Zeus Epopetes received his holocaust on the 25th of Metageitnion, Basile hers on the 4th of Boedromion and the two holocausts to Epops were performed on the 5th of the same month. These four sacrifices are concentrated in a period of ten days during which no other sacrifices were performed (at least not by the demesmen of Erchia). Since they make up a distinct group, they may have had a specific purpose.125 The end of Metageitnion and the beginning of Boedromion would fall somewhere around the middle of August to the middle of September, depending on how the ancient months are co-ordinated with the modern calendar.126 This is the time of the year after the harvest and before the rains, when the fields lie barren, dry and burnt and no vegetation has begun to sprout. Perhaps these holocausts are to be seen as connected with this particular “dead” period, aimed at dealing with problems stemming from the warm season but maybe also serving as a kind of placation of the gods in order to achieve the wind and the weather necessary for the crops to grow.127

  • 128 Mir. ausc. 840a.
  • 129 Ath. pol. 58.1.
  • 130 See discussion pp. 83–85. Perhaps Harmodios and Aristogeiton were given enagismata, since they wer (...)

61In some cases, finally, we simply cannot discern the reasons behind the execution of the destruction sacrifices: too little is known of both the recipients and the cultic contexts. There is no additional information on the enagizein sacrifices performed in the cult of the Atreidai, Tydeidai, Aiakidai and Laertiadai at Taras which could hint why these sacrifices were performed.128 The cults of these groups of heroes, or descendants of heroes, were contrasted with the thysia sacrifices, followed by dining, for the Agamemnonidai on a separate occasion. Similarly, in the case of Harmodios and Aristogeiton, little is known, apart from the fact that they received enagismata, performed by the polemarch.129 These two heroes had died a violent death, being slain at the Panathenaia, and their cult was close to that of the war dead, though there seems to have been a difference between the enagismata to Harmodios and Aristogeiton and the funerary games and cult of the war dead.130

62To sum up, the function of the destruction sacrifices in hero-cults cannot be given a uniform explanation. On the one hand, the use of destruction sacrifices to heroes can be connected to the fact that the heroes were dead and therefore received enagizein sacrifices, just like the ordinary departed. In those cases, the sacrifices mark this particular character trait of the hero and may also have served as a means of recognizing in ritual a certain degree of impurity, which can be further emphasized by contrasting this ritual with the thysia sacrifices of the immortal sphere. Considering how rarely destruction sacrifices were performed in hero-cults, the dead character of the recipient seems to have been of importance only on a few occasions.

63On the other hand, destruction sacrifices can also be used as a response to a difficult and dangerous situation, which is remedied by cult. By destroying the offerings, the recipient is propitiated and placated and the conditions are improved. The principle here seems to have been to completely surrender a part or a portion to save the rest and the extent of the offerings depended on the gravity of the situation: the graver the situation, the more was destroyed.

2. Blood rituals

2.1. Blood on the altar and the purpose of the sphageion at a regular thysia

  • 131 Stengel 1910, 19; Ziehen 1939, 615; Rudhardt 1958, 262; Burkert 1983, 5; Durand 1989a, 90–92; van (...)

64In order to clarify the role of blood rituals in hero-cults, the use of the blood at regular thysia sacrifices must first be considered. The common opinion among scholars has been that the blood of the animal was used for pouring or splashing on the altar and that the blood that did not end up on the altar was poured out.131 The blood has been considered as constituting the god’s part of the sacrifice, together with any other libations made and the knise from the bones, the fat and the non-edible intestines burnt in the altar fire.

  • 132 Aesch. Sept. 275–279 (for the text, see Hutchinson 1985, with commentary pp. 87–88); Ar. Thesm. 69 (...)
  • 133 For example: Louvre G112, Athenian red-figure kylix, van Straten 1995, V147, fig. 110 (my Fig. 7); (...)

65To stain the altars with blood from the sacrificial victims was an important part of the sacrifice. This action, αἱμάσσειν τοὺς βωμούς, is mentioned in many literary sources.132 It is also evidenced in a number of vase-paintings which clearly show the bloodstains on the altar (Figs. 4 and 7).133 The question is, whether the blood was really meant to cover the whole altar. The bloodstains depicted on the altars are prominent but fairly small and in no case is the whole altar shown as covered with blood. If the altar was supposed to be drenched in blood, it seems odd that the bloodstains shown are of such a moderate size. Furthermore, if the blood was poured out over the altar, it would have extinguished the sacrificial fire already at the beginning of the sacrifice, before the splanchna had been grilled.

Fig. 7. Preparations for the killing of a piglet. Athenian red-figure kylix, c. 525–550 BC, Paris, Louvre. From Stengel 1920, pl. 3, fig. 12.

  • 134 Stengel 1910, 117; Rudhardt 1958, 261; van Straten 1995, 104–105.
  • 135 Louvre G112, van Straten 1995, V147, fig. 110. The small group of scenes showing youths wrestling (...)
  • 136 On the depictions of purification sacrifices, see infra, p. 289, n. 376. For purifications by the (...)

66The handling of the blood from the victim is believed to have depended on its size. Small animals were lifted up above the altar and their throats were slit so that the blood would pour out over the altar.134 The clearest, but also unique, representation of this action, or rather the stage preceding this action, is found on the tondo of an Athenian red-figure kylix showing a man lifting up a piglet, while another man clutches a large knife (Fig. 7).135 Perhaps at this sacrifice the blood of the piglet was to cover the altar, but it is not shown in the vase-painting (the altar has bloodstains from previous sacrifices, though). Owing to the uniqueness of this vase-painting, it is possible that the action shown is not even a regular thysia. The animal to be sacrificed is a piglet or a small pig, and perhaps the ritual depicted is a purification sacrifice, which was regularly performed with this kind of animal.136

Fig. 8. Mageiroi cutting up a ram lying on its back on a table, under which the sphageion is centrally placed. Athenian black-figure pelike, c. 500 BC, Paris, Collection Frits Lugt, Institut Néerlandais.

  • 137 For iconographical representations, see also, for example, Copenhagen NM 13567, Caeretan hydria, v (...)

67Larger animals were first stunned, then killed and the blood gathered in a bowl or basin. This vessel, the sphageion, is shown on a number of vase-paintings and is also known from written sources (Figs. 8, 9 and 12).137 It is usually considered that, for practical reasons, the blood was first collected in this vessel and then splashed onto the altar. However, why collect the blood in such large vessels as those shown on the vase-paintings, if only a small amount was needed to stain the altar, while most of the blood would be discarded shortly afterwards?

  • 138 See the vessel depicted on the Viterbo vase (my Fig. 12, p. 274), van Straten 1995, V141, fig. 115 (...)
  • 139 Blood clots within three to ten minutes, see Divakaran 1982, 6. Today, chemicals are often used to (...)

68It is possible that both the use and the size of the sphageion are to be explained by its also fulfilling an alimentary purpose. The blood was first collected in this vessel or in a wider and shallower bowl, and some of it was splashed on the altar.138 The main function of the sphageion, I would suggest, was to collect the blood for future use, i.e., to be prepared in some way, so that it could be eaten. When an animal is slaughtered and the blood is to be kept and subsequently used for food, it is standard procedure to whip the blood carefully to prevent it from coagulating.139 After the blood has been whipped for about 30 minutes to one hour while it cools down, there is no longer any risk of coagulation and at the same time flour and seasoning may be added. A large vessel, such as the sphageion, would serve such a purpose excellently.

  • 140 Depictions of sphageia in connection with meat: Boston MFA 99.527, Athenian black-figure oinochoe, (...)

69Some of the vase-paintings depicting the meat being cut up and prepared for dining show a sphageion centrally placed under the table on top of which the dead animal is lying (Fig. 8–9).140 If the sphageion was used only for holding the blood temporarily before it was poured out, it seems strange that the vessel should occupy such a prominent place in the vase-paintings, particularly in those scenes showing the cutting up of the meat. Rather, the sphageia filled with blood are to be considered as being left to the mageiroi (butchers) for them to prepare the blood in a suitable manner after having taken care of the meat. The blood had to be taken care of quite quickly, since it was easily spoilt.

Fig. 9. Mageiros preparing the meat for consumption. The sphageion is placed under the table on top of which the animal is being cut up. Note the blood that has spilled over the sides of the sphageion. Athenian red-figure lekythos, c. 475–450 BC, Munich, Staatliche Antikensammlungen und Glyptotek.

  • 141 Ar. Thesm. 750–755.

70This interpretation of the function of the sphageion receives additional support from the use of this vessel at the sacrifice of a wineskin described by Aristophanes.141 The wineskin/child is to be slaughtered, ἀποσφαγήσεται, and the mother calls for the sphageion, so that she will at least be able to keep the “blood”. Of course, in this case the “blood” is wine and perfectly consumable, but, had the sphageion not generally been used to keep the blood from the sacrificial victims for future consumption, Aristophanes’ play on the terminology would have been unintelligible.

2.2. Evidence for food made with blood

  • 142 Od. 20.25–28.
  • 143 LSA 44, 12, from Miletos, c. 400 BC; LS 151 A, 52, from Kos, c. 350 BC; LS 156 A, 29 (restored), f (...)
  • 144 Sophilos fr. 6 (PCG VII, 1989). Cf. also Ar. Nub. 409: Strepsiades fries a stuffed stomach, which (...)
  • 145 Zomos melas: Matron Convivium 94 (Brandt 1888), 4th century BC; Theophr. Char. 8.6 (where the word (...)
  • 146 Artemidoros of Tarsus (1st century BC) ap. Ath. 14.662d; Epainetos ap. Ath. 14.662d–e. The myma co (...)
  • 147 Erasistratos ap. Ath. 7.324a; Glaukos of Lokris ap. Ath. 7.324a; cf. Hipponax, fr. 166 (West 1971– (...)
  • 148 Tò δέ ϰάλλιον γάρος, το ϰαλούμενον αἱμάτιον, followed by a recipe on how to prepare it (Geoponica (...)

71The ancient Greek sources are not very explicit on the use of blood. However, there is no indication of a rule stipulating that, after some blood had been used for splashing on the altar, the rest had to be poured out, since it belonged to the gods or was considered as unfit for consumption. There are a number of clear cases of the blood being kept and eaten. In the Odyssey, Odysseus’ twisting and turning in his bed is compared to that of a man grilling a stomach filled with fat and blood (ϰνίσης τε ϰαὶ αἵματος) over the fire, turning it over and over to make sure that it is evenly cooked.142 Another example is to be found in the Homeric Hymn to Hermes (122–123). The god slaughters two of Apollon’s cows and roasts the meat, as well as the bowels filled with blood, μέλαν αἷμα ἐργμένον ἐν χολάδεσσι, a kind of blood sausage. The term αἱμάτιον, also meaning blood sausage, is found in inscriptions among the parts to be distributed after a sacrifice.143 The 4th-century BC comedian Sophilos also speaks qordå of a blood sausage, αἱματίτης χορδή .144 Blood seems to have been used for the Spartan black broth, ζωμòς μέλας , since another term for this soup was αἱματία.145 Another dish, called myma, was prepared with meat and blood. The tender parts of the meat were cut up and mixed with the intestines, blood, cheese, various kinds of onions and a number of spices and herbs.146 Hyposphagma was the name of a black-pudding, made of blood mixed with various other ingredients.147 Later sources indicate that blood could be used when garum was manufactured.148

  • 149 The infrequent mention of blood products can be compared with how rarely the boiling of meat is re (...)

72Thus, it was not forbidden to eat the blood. However, if blood was eaten on a regular basis, why are there not more mentions of food prepared with blood or blood being kept to be eaten? The most plausible answer is that blood products were not considered to be the most prestigious kind of food, especially if compared with the meat. Food prepared from animal blood was probably seen as more of a poor man’s diet and was not eaten by those who could afford better. The fact that the Spartans used blood in their frugal alimentary regime agrees well with blood being a simple kind of nourishment. The ideal fare in the ancient Greek world was meat, grilled meat, the kind of diet most strongly emphasized in the Homeric poems.149

  • 150 The cleaning of intestines in connection with sacrifices is discussed by Németh 1994, 63–64.
  • 151 Γαστρόπτης, IG II2 1638 B, 67 (359/8 BC); ID 104, 142. Gastroptív, IG XI:2 161 B, 128 (3rd century (...)
  • 152 For the preparation of the boudin noir in intestines and boiling them in connection with the slaug (...)

73Secondly, blood must be treated before it can be eaten. Sausages could probably be manufactured on the spot by pouring the whipped and seasoned blood into the intestines that had been cleaned out and then grilling them over the fire, in the same manner as referred to in Homer and the Homeric Hymn to Hermes mentioned above.150 A bronze vessel for preparing sausages, γαστρóπτης, is mentioned among the dining equipment in the Delian inscriptions.151 More likely, the sausages were first cooked in water, to preserve the blood, and later fried or grilled, just like the French boudin noir.152 The preparation of blood sausages takes a longer time than the direct grilling of the splanchna, or the cooking of the meat, and therefore belongs to the aftermath of the sacrifice, which rarely is described in the sources.

  • 153 The blood makes up c. 3–5 % of the weight of the modern animals usually slaughtered for consumptio (...)

74Apart from the direct instances of preparation of the blood mentioned above, one could argue from the point of view of practicality. Since, at a regular thysia, everything in the animal was eaten except the parts which could not be digested by man, such as the bones, the fat, the bile and the hide, it seems highly unlikely that the blood would have been discarded, since it is both nutritious and contains valuable minerals, especially iron.153

  • 154 For the handling of dung and ashes, see Németh 1994. Unused blood is a major source of contaminati (...)
  • 155 The amount of blood collected at slaughter is difficult to estimate, since it depends on how the a (...)

75Moreover, if all the blood was to be poured out on, at, around or near the altar, one would have expected regulations stipulating where this could be done, just as there were regulations stipulating where various kinds of dung and ashes could be disposed of.154 This, however, is not the case. Considering the amount of blood that had to be disposed of at each sacrifice, it seems unlikely that the blood was simply discarded on the ground.155

  • 156 It should be pointed out that the blood was prepared before being eaten. Consumption of raw blood (...)
  • 157 On the lack of a blood taboo, see Burkert 1985, 59; Himmelmann 1997, 10, n. 6. For the relationshi (...)
  • 158 Ringgren 1982, 154–155 and 157; Hubert & Mauss 1964, 34–36 with nn. 201, 202 and 221.

76Matters would have been different, had there been a ritual prohibition against eating blood, but there is no trace of such a rule in the Greek contexts.156 In this respect, there is a fundamental difference between the Greek ritual practices and the Israelite ones, in spite of the fact that many similarities can be found between these two cultures regarding the way in which the sacrifices were performed.157 At the Israelite sacrifices, it was forbidden to eat the blood, since it belonged to God and contained the life of the animal sacrificed.158 It could be collected in a particular vessel and used for ritual purposes, but in the end it was all poured out, usually over the altar.

  • 159 Bradbury 1995; cf. Himmelmann 1997, 60–62, on the killing of animals losing its religious characte (...)
  • 160 Dalby 1996, 197. Cf. the Christian, neo-Greek sacrifices, at which the blood does not seem to be k (...)

77The Israelite practice of not eating the blood was transferred to the Christian sphere. The Christian emperors of the 4th century AD forbade the blooding of the altars, even though animal sacrifice seems to have been on the wane in pagan circles already during the 3rd century AD for financial reasons.159 The Christian distaste for eating blood is particularly clear in a passage from Tertullianus’ Apology (9.13–14). Here, the pagans are said to offer the Christians sausages of blood (botulos cruore distentos) just because they were perfectly aware of this kind of food being forbidden to eat for those belonging to the Christian faith. A formal prohibition against eating food made with blood was pronounced by the Byzantine emperor Leo VI (late 9th century AD), but even in the 12th century AD some sources claim that “foods made from blood” were still eaten.160 Altogether, it is possible that the attitude to blood in the Judaeo-Christian culture has been allowed to influence the interpretation of the Greek evidence in modern times, which has led to the assumption that the blood was considered as unfit for consumption also at Greek sacrifices and that it was therefore poured out.

  • 161 See also the sacrifice to the elasteros in the Selinous lex sacra (Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993 (...)

78Considering the available evidence, however, it seems more likely that at regular thysia sacrifices the blood was kept and eaten after a small amount had been sprinkled on the altar. Finally, if all the blood was poured out, in one way or another, at regular thysiai, what would then have been the difference between that action and the blood libations and blood rituals covered by terms such as haimakouria, sphage, sphagia, sphazein, sphagiazein, entoma and entemnein? The existence of a particular terminology for the complete discarding of the blood can be taken as a further argument in favour of the conclusion that the blood was kept at sacrifices for which no such particular terminology was used.161 To discard all the blood seems to have been an exceptional practice reserved for particular occasions.

2.3. Rituals at which the blood was not kept and eaten

  • 162 Cf. Ziehen 1929, 1669–1670.

79Of interest here are the rituals focusing in particular on the blood of the animal victim, whether the meat of the animal was eaten or not after the blood ritual had been performed. Some of these rituals were performed on a recurrent basis, while others were singular events triggered by the circumstances on a specific occasion. Apart from the blood rituals found in hero-cults, rituals of this kind are usually considered as having been used at purifications, oath-takings and battle-line sacrifices and at sacrifices to rivers, the sea and the winds, as well as in certain rituals for the dead, i.e., both in particular situations and to particular recipients.162

  • 163 Parker 1983, passim; Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 73–76 and 116–120; cf. van Straten 1995, 4.
  • 164 Parker 1983, 225–232 and 371–373.
  • 165 Parker 1983, 371–373; Burkert 1985, 76–77 and 80–82; Pritchett 1979, 196–202.
  • 166 Parker 1983, 283, with. n. 11.
  • 167 Kevin Clinton, in a paper on pig sacrifices presented at the seminar entitled Greek sacrificial ri (...)
  • 168 Parker 1983, 139, n. 142, and 393; Healey 1964.

80Purification rituals were needed in a number of instances, the most urgent being death, especially after blood had been shed in murders, but purifications were also used as propitiations to avert hostile forces.163 The actual means of accomplishing the purification varied: water, the burning of acrid-smelling substances, laurel, eggs and onions, but the most powerful kind of purification was brought about by blood.164 It was used in purifying murderers, but also armies after mutinies and for cleansing temples and assemblies on a regular basis.165 The animals preferred at these ceremonies were pigs or piglets. The fate of the animal, after the blood had been used, is often not indicated, but apparently it was usually considered unfit for consumption.166 A major component in the purification sacrifices was to get rid of the matter used in the ritual by throwing it away, burying it or pouring it into the sea, and the animal victims seem often to have been completely burnt after the ceremony had been completed, since it was the blood that achieved the purification.167 Though some gods, in particular, Apollon and Zeus, were connected with purifications, the actual purificatory sacrifices were not performed to these gods and often no specific divine recipient is mentioned in these contexts.168

  • 169 Stengel 1920, 136–138; Ziehen 1929, 1671–1673; Burkert 1985, 250–252; Faraone 1993, 65–80; Casabon (...)
  • 170 Xen. An. 2.2.9; Aesch. Sept. 42–53; Eur. Supp. 1194–1202.
  • 171 Dem. Arist. 67–68; Ath. pol. 7.1 and 55.5; cf. also Paus. 5.24.9–11; Poll. Onom. 8.86 (Bethe 1900– (...)
  • 172 Stengel 1920, 137–138; Ziehen 1929, 1674; cf. Stengel 1914, 97–98, on the burning of the parts of (...)
  • 173 Burkert 1985, 250–251; Casabona 1966, 165 and 215–216.

81The second category of blood rituals was the sacrifices made when oaths were taken.169 The blood was important in these instances, since it emphasized the gravity of the situation and also the fate of the oath-takers, should the oath be broken. The blood could be collected in a bowl or a shield and the oath-takers were to dip their hands or spears into it.170 The animal could also be cut into pieces, on which the oath-taker was to stand.171 In this latter instance the animal could not have been eaten and the same is probably also true for the animals of which only the blood was used.172 When the oath was taken, divine figures were often invoked as witnesses, but the actual killing of the animal rarely seems to have been directed to a particular divinity.173

  • 174 For the evidence and discussion, see Jameson 1991; Jameson 1994b; Casabona 1966, 165–166 and 180–1 (...)
  • 175 An idea of how such a divination may have been carried out can perhaps be gleaned from the modern, (...)
  • 176 Jameson 1991, 211–212; Henrichs 1981, 213–214 and 219–220.

82Blood rituals occupied an important place among the sacrifices made in connection with war.174 Most sacrifices performed in war seem to have been regular thysiai followed by dining, but, when the two armies were facing each other across the battlefield, sphagia were performed. At this kind of sacrifice, executed by a mantis and not a priest, no altar was used, no fire was lit and the animal was not even opened up for inspection of the intestines. It was simply killed and signs were probably read from how the blood flowed on the ground and the manner in which the dead body fell.175 The war sphagia meant a destruction of the blood and the body of the animal was abandoned on the spot where it had been killed. It should be noted that also these sacrifices were, in most cases, not addressed to any supernatural figure.176 What seems to have been of major importance was the performance of the act itself.

  • 177 Stengel 1920, 135–136; Nilsson 1906, 425–426; Jameson 1991, 202–203.
  • 178 LS 96, 35–37, c. 200 BC.
  • 179 Cf. Jameson 1991, 203 with n. 16.
  • 180 Jameson 1991, 202–203; Casabona 1966, 189–190.
  • 181 Rivers, the sea and springs were also given sacrifices at which the victims were plunged into the (...)

83At the purifications, oath-takings and war sphagia, it was the situation that called for the blood rituals and a specific recipient was rarely mentioned. Among the deities that were actual recipients of blood rituals are rivers and the sea.177 For example, on Mykonos, the river Acheloios received an annual sacrifice of eight lambs slaughtered (sphattetai) so that the blood would flow into the river, while two more lambs and a full-grown sheep were killed at the bomos.178 At this sacrifice, which formed part of the regular sacrificial calendar of the island, the meat of the victims may very well have been eaten.179 Other sacrifices to rivers and the sea, at which the blood was emphasized, were performed in times of war, when the army had to cross over the water or on other occasions involving danger.180 At these sacrifices, the blood of the animal was made to flow into the water and the victims seem to have been abandoned afterwards.181

  • 182 Stengel 1910, 146–153; Stengel 1920, 126–127; Nilsson 1906, 444–445; Casabona 1966, 228–229; Hampe (...)
  • 183 Hampe 1967, 12.
  • 184 Evidence collected by Stengel 1910, 146–153.

84The blood rituals for rivers and the sea can be linked with the use of the same kind of practices to calm or receive favourable winds.182 The winds could receive thysia sacrifices followed by dining and a number of bomoi dedicated to winds are known.183 However, the blood rituals in the cult of the winds seem mainly to have been reserved for dealing with dangerous and threatening situations or to prevent the winds from damaging the crops.184

85Thus, it turns out that the contexts in which blood rituals were used mainly seem to concern situations that in some way differed from a regular thysia. The atmosphere in which these sacrifices were performed was characterized by some kind of threat or danger, and often also by a close connection with death. The war sphagia before battle and at crossings of water were the most extreme cases, but the purificatory rituals and the sacrifices at oath-takings were also particular situations. The aim of the blood rituals was to get rid of this danger or to prevent the unwanted from happening. In most cases, the animal was destroyed or discarded after the ritual had been completed. The main focus, however, was the handling of the blood. The blood rituals are often not directed to any specific recipient: it is the actual execution of the sacrifices on a certain occasion that is of main interest. Also in those cases in which there was a named recipient, the blood rituals can often be connected with particular situations.

2.4. The use of blood rituals in the cult of the dead

  • 185 Eitrem 1912, 1123; Stengel 1920, 148; Meuli 1946, 193–194; Burkert 1985, 60.

86Blood rituals are also considered to have been used in the cult of the dead.185 This presupposes that animals must have been killed either in connection with the funeral or later, as a part of the ongoing tending of the grave and the dead. In the previous section on destruction sacrifices, it was argued that, even though animal sacrifice may have been practised in earlier periods, this ritual rarely formed a regular part of the cult of the dead in the Archaic and Classical periods, at least not in Attica.

  • 186 Stengel 1920, 148–149; Rohde 1925, 167–169; Garland 1985, 113–115. See also the Derveni papyrus, c (...)
  • 187 [Pl.] Min. 315c.

87Blood rituals for the dead seem to have been regarded as a practice of the past, which in historical times had been replaced by choai made of wine, water, milk, honey and oil.186 The terminology used in the Minos points in that direction, when it is stated that it used to be the custom that victims were slaughtered before the dead were brought out, ἱερεĩά τε προσϕράττοντες πρò τῆς ἐϰϕoρᾶç τοῦ νεϰροῦ.187

88Most evidence of blood rituals to the dead is found in epic and tragedy, i.e., pictured as taking place in mythical history, and it is questionable to what extent these practices should be taken as being relevant to the actual cult of the dead in the Archaic and Classical periods.

  • 188 See discussion by Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, 77–83. Garland 1985, 112, takes the blood sacrifice perfo (...)
  • 189 Il. 23.166–178.
  • 190 Il. 23.30–34, esp. 34: πάντῃ δ' ἀμφὶ νέϰυν ϰοτυλήρυτον ἔρρεεν αμα, either referring to the blood (...)
  • 191 Eur. El. 91–92; cf. 511–515.
  • 192 Eur. Hec. 124–126, 260–261, 391–393 and 528–537.
  • 193 Eur. Heracl. 1026–1036 and 1040–1043. Other examples: Aesch. Ag. 1277–1278; Eur. Alc. 845; Eur. He (...)

89For example, Odysseus’ slaughter of a black ram and a black ewe described in the Odyssey (10.504–540 and 11.23–50) can scarcely be considered as reflecting any contemporaneous rituals performed to the dead.188 Both the aim of the ritual, to approach a certain deceased person and to acquire information, and the context in which it is set, at the entrance to Hades, far away from society, argues against such an interpretation. Another passage often evoked in this context is the description of the sacrifice performed by Achilles at the funeral of Patroklos.189 For the dinner preceding the burial, sheep, goats and boars were slaughtered and their blood flowed around Patroklos’ bier.190 At the actual interment, a number of sheep and oxen, four horses, two dogs and twelve young Trojans, were all slaughtered and burnt on the funeral pyre, hardly a ritual with parallels in the funerary practises in the historical period. In the tragedies, a number of passages mention sacrifices of blood to the dead. In the Electra of Euripides, Orestes visits his father’s grave at night and offers his tears and some cut-off hair, as well as the blood of a black sheep.191 Polyxena is to be killed on the tomb of Achilles at Troy and her blood sacrificed to his ghost, a sacrifice which her mother Hekabe thinks should rather be performed with an ox.192 Eurystheus promises that he will protect Athens from his grave, but the Athenians are not to worship him and not to let choai and blood drip on his tomb.193

  • 194 Mikalson 1991, 114–123, cf. 29–45; Garland 1985, xi, considers tragedy as drawing more from hero-c (...)

90The problem is, to what extent, if any, these passages from Homer and the tragedians can be said to reflect the contemporaneous rituals to the ordinary dead during historical times. In his study of popular religion in the Greek tragedies, Jon Mikalson has argued that the concept of the dead in these tragedies has little relevance to our knowledge of the attitude to the ordinary dead in the Classical period.194 Even though the “literary” dead are ordinary dead in their own contexts, they cannot automatically be considered as corresponding to the ordinary dead in an actual contemporaneous context.

  • 195 Hom. Il. 23.22–23 and 175–176; Eur. Hec. 528–537. Cf. Casabona 1966, 168–170, on the terms apospha (...)
  • 196 The mention of blood rituals to the dead in the tragedies could be seen as an influence from hero- (...)

91Moreover, some of the cases of blood rituals found in epic and tragedy concern human sacrifice, for example, the slaughter of the twelve Trojans at Patroklos’ funeral pyre or of Polyxena at the tomb of Achilles, which further remove them from the sphere of contemporary funerary cult.195 The use of sacrifices of blood, from either animal or human victims, to the dead in these contexts is perhaps best seen as a means of distinguishing these dead from the ordinary dead of the Classical period. In the mythical/epic past, blood was sacrificed to great men, such as Achilles, Agamemnon and Patroklos, but that was no longer the case in later periods.196

  • 197 LS 97 A, 12–13 = IG XII:5 593: προσφαγίωι [χ]ρέσθαι ϰατὰ ṭὰ π[άτρια].
  • 198 See discussion above, pp. 229–230. Furthermore, to share a victim with an unburied family member w (...)
  • 199 See Casabona 1966, 170–174: prosphagion is found only in the Ioulis law, while prosphazein and pro (...)

92Of great interest in this context is a 5th-century BC law from Ioulis on Keos regulating burial modes. This text, which has been discussed previously in connection with the Destruction sacrifices, stipulates that a prosphagion should be performed according to ancestral custom.197 The prosphagion must have taken place before the burial and seems to have been some kind of animal sacrifice. The meat could not be eaten, since the family was still ritually impure, and was probably deposited in the grave or burnt with the corpse.198 The term prosphagion, however, indicates that the blood of the victim was of importance at this ritual.199 Most likely, the main purpose of the ritual was to provide the dead with the blood of the animal.

  • 200 [Pl.] Min. 315c: ἱερεĩά τε προσφάττοντες πρò τῆς ἐϰφορᾶς τοῦ νεϰροῦ. Schol. [Pl.] Min. 315c (Green (...)
  • 201 LS 97 A, 14–17. One of the main purposes of the funerary laws may have been to limit and prevent t (...)

93Another possibility would be to view the prosphagion as part of the purification of the family of the departed. A scholion on the passage in the Minos, which mentions the slaughter of an animal before the ekphora, states that there were particular women, enchytistriai, who purified the enageis and poured out the blood of the hiereion.200 If the prosphagion is to be considered as connected with purifications, it made up only one part of the transformation of the family from impure to pure, since the house was purified the following day by sea- and spring-water and soil.201

  • 202 Louis Robert (1937, 306–308, no. 3) suggested the restoration προσφα[γ]ιάζ[οντες] in a late imperi (...)
  • 203 Enagizein and enagismos used for funerary rituals in Athens refer to the burning of vegetable offe (...)
  • 204 See, for example, LS 77 C (= Rougemont 1977, no. 9 C and discussion pp. 51–57), the funerary law o (...)

94Whatever was the purpose of the prosphagion, it seems to have been a rare ritual, which is documented only from Keos.202 It was not practised in Attica in the Classical period.203 Other funerary laws regulating the burial and the later activities at the tomb, just as the Keos law, do not mention any similar kind of ritual.204

2.5. Blood rituals in hero-cults

  • 205 Peirce 1993, 253–254; Jameson 1991, 219; Durand 1989a, 91. Human sacrifice: London BM 97.7–27.2, b (...)
  • 206 Durand 1986, 10–11; Durand 1989a, 91–92; Peirce 1993, 220.

95The association between many of the blood rituals and sudden, violent death is apparent. Blood was emphasized in the sacrifices just before the armies were to begin the killing and blood was used to wash away the guilt caused by bloodshed. The spilling of blood is also prominent in the descriptions of human sacrifice. The representations of blood flowing in Greek art are limited to human sacrifice and war sphagia, situations far removed from the regular thysia and not followed by any consumption of the meat.205 As a contrast, the killing and the bleeding at regular sacrifices are hardly ever shown in art and, apart from the splashing of some of the blood on the altar, blood did not occupy a prominent place in a thysia.206

96The blood rituals known from hero-cults should be considered against this background. On the general level, the rare use of blood rituals in hero-cults is in accordance with the infrequency of these kinds of rituals in Greek religion on the whole. The heroes are interesting, however, since they could be direct recipients of blood rituals, which was rarely the case with gods, apart from rivers, the sea and the winds.

97If the cases of blood rituals documented in hero-cults are compared with the contexts outlined above, in which the blood of the sacrificial animal was particularly important, there are three contexts that may be relevant to the understanding of blood rituals in hero-cults: war, purification and the sphere of the dead and the underworld.

  • 207 Cf. Ekroth 2000, 277–279.
  • 208 Thuc. 5.11. Most instances of entemnein in hero-cult have a connection with war; see Plut. Vit. So (...)
  • 209 Discussed by Hornblower 1996, 454–456. According to Thucydides, Hagnon, who received a cult at Amp (...)

98Most of the heroes for whom blood rituals are documented have a connection with war.207 The cult of Brasidas at Amphipolis consisted of a thysia sacrifice at which the blood of the victim was of particular importance, as indicated by the term entemnein, probably referring to a complete renunciation of the blood.208 The connection of Brasidas with war is obvious: he was a general who had been killed in battle. The Amphipolitans regarded him as a founder of their city, but also as a saviour who gave his life in order to save them.209

  • 210 LSS 64, 7–22.
  • 211 See discussion above, pp. 135–136.

99The war dead on Thasos, the Agathoi, constitute a close parallel to Brasidas.210 These men killed in battle were subsequently honoured by the city, together with their families. The inscription recording these honours states that the polemarchs and the secretary of the council should record the names of the war dead among the Agathoi and that their fathers and children should be invited when the city performed the entemnein sacrifice to them. The text does not use any other term for the sacrifice, but since the fathers and children were invited to attend, the blood ritual is likely to have been followed by a banquet.211

  • 212 Fr. 65, lines 77–89 (Austin 1968). For references to war in this passage, cf. Robertson 1996, 45.
  • 213 Cf. Lacore 1995–96, 102–107, suggesting that the death and subsequent cult of the Hyakinthids is t (...)
  • 214 No direct war connection can be demonstrated for Pelops, who also received a blood ritual. Zeus, h (...)

100The sacrifices to the Hyakinthids in the Erechtheus of Euripides are set in the aftermath of a war and described by a terminology evoking war.212 The daughters of Erechtheus have died in order to save the city at a time of war: one of them was sacrificed and the other two committed suicide.213 When Athena describes the sacrifices the Hyakinthids are to receive in the future, the relation to war is important. When war threatens, the Athenians are to perform a particular sacrifice, protoma, to the Hyakinthids and their sanctuary is to be a guarded abaton, which no enemy should be allowed to enter and sacrifice to secure victory. Their regular cult is to consist of thysiai sacrifices at which oxen are slaughtered and the blood shed in sphagai, blood rituals related to sphagia. Erechtheus himself, who was killed by Poseidon in connection with war, was to receive sacrifices called phonai, a term often used to describe bloodshed on the battlefield.214

  • 215 See also Robertson 1996, 45. Cf. the sacrifice of goats to Artemis Agrotera before battle, taken a (...)

101A connection with war can, admittedly, be demonstrated for many heroes, but I would suggest that in these cases this link was considered as being particularly essential and therefore may have affected the ritual practices. The use of blood rituals in these cults may have served as a reminiscence of the sphagia, the war sacrifices par excellence, but also of the shedding of blood taking place in war and the fact that the hero had fallen in battle or been killed as a consequence of war, which was the case of all these heroes.215

  • 216 LS 96, 35–37; Jameson 1991, 203 with n. 16.

102It is important to note, however, that the blood rituals were not the only sacrifices performed to these heroes. The discarding of the blood, and perhaps also the killing of the animal in a particular fashion, only formed one part of a ritual which ended with dining. The use of the blood of the victim in hero-cults is thus different from that found in most of the other contexts in which blood rituals are documented. The blood rituals in hero-cults seem to have operated like the blood rituals in the sacrifices to the river Acheloios on Mykonos: the killing and bleeding of the animal were followed by the consumption of the rest.216 The blood rituals to the heroes and to Acheloios are both institutionalized parts of the cults, performed on a regular basis, in contrast to purifications, oath-takings, pre-battle sphagia and the placating of waters and winds, for which the blood rituals constituted a response to a particular situation.

  • 217 The best parallel to this ritual is that of the Heros Archegetes at Tronis, described by Pausanias (...)

103The blood rituals to the heroes should not be considered as being proper war sphagia, but as modifications of regular thysiai by a specific handling of the blood, in order to recognize in ritual the fact that the recipients had specific connections with war. The thysia sacrifices, at which the blood rituals were performed, can, in fact, be considered as partial destruction sacrifices: the hero was given all of the blood, while the worshippers dined on the meat.217

  • 218 Ekroth 2000, 279, figs. 3–4; Dunst 1964, 482–485, fig. 1, who also discusses possible connections (...)
  • 219 For altars and sacrifices in the Greek numismatic material, see Aktseli 1996, 50–54; Ayala 1989, 5 (...)
  • 220 Jameson 1994b, 320–324, nos. 1–12, esp. 323, no. 9, the animals all being rams. Bulls are used for (...)
  • 221 In the regular thysia scenes, the dead victim is shown only when being opened up or cut up into po (...)
  • 222 Raven 1957, 77–81; cf. Lacroix 1965, 51. For Leukaspis’ war connections, see also an early-6th-cen (...)

104This kind of particular hero-sacrifice, a blood ritual followed by a thysia with dining to a hero with a war connection, is perhaps what is alluded to on a late-5th-century BC coin from Syracuse showing the hero Leukaspis (Fig. 10).218 The hero is naked and in arms (helmet, spear and shield), charging to the right in front of a rectangular altar (to the left) and a dead ram lying on its back (to the right). The motif is remarkable, since sacrificial scenes are rarely depicted on Greek coins and within the Sicilian material such scenes are confined to divinities libating on altars.219 It is therefore likely that the Leukaspis coin refers to a particular ritual. The presence of the altar excludes the possibility that the scene shown is a pre-battle sphagia, even though rams are clearly the preferred kind of animals in representations of war sphagia.220 On the other hand, the dead ram lying on its back evokes a kind of sacrifice different from a regular thysia, at which the dead animal never seems to be shown, at least not lying by the altar.221 Leukaspis was a local Sicanian or Siculian, who was killed, together with a number of other military leaders, defending their territory against the invasion of Herakles. The story is told by Diodorus Siculus (4.23.5), who further adds that Leukaspis and the other generals received heroikai timai even in his time. The minting of the coin has been connected with the Sicilian victory over the Athenians in 415 BC, an occasion when it would be particularly suitable to worship a local hero connected with war.222

Fig. 10. (a) Silver coin from Syracuse showing the hero Leukaspis, late 5th century BC, Munich, Staatliche Münzsammlung. (b) Drawing of silver coin from Syracuse showing the hero Leukaspis, late 5th century BC. After Rizzo 1946, 215, fig. 47b.

  • 223 The connection between heroes and war is further underlined by heroes being shown on reliefs as ar (...)
  • 224 Cf. Jameson 1951, 49–51, for the connections that heroes have with the territory. Cf. the heroes E (...)
  • 225 Plut. Vit. Sol. 9.1.
  • 226 Plut. Vit. Pel. 21–22; Am. narr. 774d.
  • 227 Parth. Amat. Narr. 35.2.
  • 228 Soph. OC 621–622: ἵν’ οὑμòς εὕδων ϰαὶ ϰεϰρυμμένος νέϰυς ψυχρός ποτ’ αὐτῶν θερμòν αἷμα πίεται. The (...)

105The link between heroes, war and blood can be traced also in other cases, even though the individual passages do not necessarily reflect actual hero-cults.223 Before a military undertaking, but not as a direct, pre-battle sphagia, heroes could receive blood rituals to secure their help, since they were intimately connected with the land that was to be invaded or defended, as was the case with the occasional protoma sacrifice to the Hyakinthids.224 For example, before the Athenian invasion of Salamis, Solon secretly sailed to the island at night and performed a blood ritual, entemnein sphagia, to the heroes Periphemos and Kychreus.225 Pelopidas was urged by Skedasos and his daughters to slaughter (sphagiasai) a virgin on their tombs to procure victory at Leuktra in 371 BC: he finally sacrificed a mare (enetemon).226 The Cretan king Kydon was told by an oracle that, in order to defeat his enemies, he had to sacrifice (sphagiasai) a virgin to the heroes of the country.227 The statement by the dying Oidipous in the Oidipous at Kolonos, that his body will lie hidden in the Athenian ground and drink the blood of the enemies killed in future conflicts between Athens and Thebes, can also be interpreted along the same lines.228

  • 229 Cf. the haimakouria to the war dead at Plataiai described by Plut. Vit. Arist. 21.1–5. The rituals (...)
  • 230 Thuc. 2.34–46; cf. Hornblower 1991, 292.
  • 231 Pl. Menex. 249b; Dem. Epitaph. 36.
  • 232 Lys. Epitaph. 80: those fallen in war are worthy of receiving the same honours as the immortals (ὡ (...)
  • 233 On the immortal state of the war dead, see also Hyp. Epitaph. 27–30; Simonides’ epitaph for the fa (...)

106The worship of the war dead was spread all over the Greek territory, but in many cases it is not possible to ascertain whether blood rituals formed a regular part of the worship of all war dead, since there is no information on how the sacrifices were performed. For the Agathoi on Thasos, as well as for Brasidas at Amphipolis, a blood ritual was performed in connection with the thysia.229 The sources that speak of the treatment of the war dead at Athens, on the other hand, tend to play down the religious element. From Thucydides’ speech over the fallen Athenians, it can hardly be deduced that they received any kind of regular cult.230 Other sources are more outspoken but use only the terms timan and thysiai in referring to the cult.231 Sacrifices including animal victims and banqueting were certainly performed, but it is not known whether the blood of the victims was handled in any particular manner. However, it is interesting to note that the sources that speak of the funeral and cult of the Athenian war dead stress that they now had an immortal quality and received honours accordingly.232 Perhaps the blood rituals are to be viewed as being more connected with heroes who had died in war, whose actual deaths were considered to be of central importance, for example, the Thasian Agathoi and Brasidas, while in the case of the Athenian war dead there was a wish to emphasize that, by dying, they had transcended death and had now reached an immortal state, being closer to the gods. 233

  • 234 Parker 1983, 37–39; LS 97 B, 1–11.
  • 235 See above, p. 256.

107The second context of blood rituals which may be relevant to the understanding of the use of rituals of this kind in hero-cults is that of purification. Here, we enter into the question of what degree of impurity, if any, was ascribed to the heroes. Contact with the ordinary dead created pollution, particularly in connection with the burial, but also later visits to the grave could cause a certain impurity.234 The prosphagion sacrifice in the funerary regulation from Keos perhaps functioned as a purification of the family of the dead person and of those participating in the funeral.235

  • 236 For graves of heroes located in sanctuaries of gods, see Pfister 1909–12, 450–459; Vollgraff 1951, (...)
  • 237 LS 154 A, 21–22 and 37; LS 156 A, 10. According to Herzog’s restoration of LS 156 A, 9–10, the pri (...)
  • 238 LSS 115 A, 21–25, late 4th century BC. For the interpretation of the passage, see discussions by P (...)
  • 239 Paus. 5.13.3. In the case of Telephos, a bath would allow the worshipper to enter the temple of As (...)
  • 240 On the impure Tritopatores, see Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, A 9–12, and above, pp. 221–223 an (...)

108The heroes and the tombs of the heroes, on the other hand, do not seem to have caused much pollution, since they could be located in sanctuaries, which were areas from which death and burials usually had to be kept away.236 The evidence for heroes spreading pollution is scarce and seems mainly to have concerned those who were particularly sensitive. Two inscriptions from Kos, both dating to the first half of the 3rd century BC, stipulate that priestesses of Demeter, in order to keep their state of purity, should not step on or eat by a heroon (or from the sacrifices to heroes).237 The sacred law from Kyrene contains a difficult passage that may be taken to mean either that the oikist Battos, the Tritopatores and Onymastos the Delphian could pollute anybody or only those who were “pure” or, on the contrary, Battos, the Tritopatores and Onymastos alone among the dead did not cause any pollution.238 Pausanias states that anyone eating of the meat from the sacrifices to Pelops at Olympia cannot enter the temple of Zeus, a case which he parallels with the similar regulations for the cult of Telephos at Pergamon239 Finally, the impure Tritopatores at Selinous received sacrifices “as the heroes”, but from this stipulation it does not automatically follow that all heroes were also impure240

  • 241 Parker 1983, 42; Pritchett 1979, 196–202; cf. Bremmer 1983b, 105. The sacrifices on the battlefiel (...)
  • 242 See Johnston 1999, 149–150; Bremmer 1983b, 105–108.
  • 243 Jameson 1991, 212–213.
  • 244 Seaford 1994, 123–139. The concept of the heroes being angry and revengeful at being violently kil (...)
  • 245 Johnston 1999, 129–139.

109The way in which the hero died may be thought to be a cause of pollution and therefore purification. Violent and unjust death, such as murder, called for purification of the murderer by blood, but heroes who perished in this way do not seem to have been a source of any particular pollution. The war dead, who could be considered as having died a violent death, were not considered as being impure, at least not in this period and there is no evidence for purifying the army after battle, only after mutiny241 The mode of death seems to have been of importance, however, since to die with kleos, for example on the battlefield, did not turn one into a biaiothanatos242 Moreover, the pre-battle sphagia do not seem to have been meant as a purification243 A hero may be angry and revengeful at being violently killed and having died, but in those cases the sacrifices were aimed at placating the hero rather than at achieving purification244 Sarah Johnston has recently suggested that purifications in general were more concerned with appeasing and averting the angry dead than has previously been recognized but she wavers on whether this view of purifications applies to heroes or not245

  • 246 Chantraine & Masson 1954, 85–106; Parker 1983, 6.
  • 247 Strabon 6.3.9; see Petropoulou 1985; cf. Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 83 and 95, on the Διòς ϰ (...)
  • 248 The terms enagizein, enagisma and enagismos occasionally occur in contexts mentioning purification (...)

110The problem that still remains is to decide to what extent the heroes are to be considered as being impure. It seems doubtful that any of the rituals performed to heroes aimed at purifying the recipient. The use of enagizein sacrifices in hero-cults, for example, does not seem to have constituted a purification and is rather to be considered as a recognition of the dead state of some heroes and a certain impure quality (see above, pp. 237–239). The concept of impurity has been shown not to be fundamental to agos, but rather a consequence of the awesome character of the sacred246 The enagizein sacrifice of a ram to Kalchas at Daunia before the consultation of his oracle, for example, may have been a purification, but of the consultant, not the divinity, and the consultant then slept in the skin of the ram.247 On the whole, there is little evidence for the heroes spreading such kinds of pollution as would necessitate purification, and the blood rituals in hero-cults are best not connected with such a purpose.248

  • 249 Cf. Ekroth 2000, 274–277.
  • 250 Page 1955, 24–25; Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, 82–83.
  • 251 Paus. 9.39.6.
  • 252 Most examples come from later sources, see Heliod. Aeth. 6.14.3–6; oracle given by Apollon at Klar (...)

111Finally, a third context for blood rituals in hero-cults should be considered: the use of blood in the sphere of the dead and the underworld, particularly as a means of establishing contact.249 To pour out the blood of a sacrificial victim, often in combination with evoking the recipient in question, seems to have been used as a means of getting his or her attention. The purposes for performing such rituals varied but in some cases it is an oracular function that was aimed at.250 The clearest case is the sacrifice of blood to Teiresias in the Nekyia (Od. 11.23–43; 97–99), made in order to persuade the seer to give Odysseus instructions on his return to Ithaka. Odysseus slaughters and bleeds the victims into a pit and sits back to wait for the shade of Teiresias to come and drink, and thereafter provide the desired information. Similarly, before the consultation of the oracle of Trophonios at Lebadeia, a sacrifice was made in a bothros and Agamedes was called.251 The term used for the sacrifice is thyein, but it is possible that the blood of the ram sacrificed went into the bothros by analogy with Odysseus’ sacrifice in the Nekyia leading up to the consultation of Teiresias. Blood was also used for calling and contacting other beings of the underworld, such as Hekate and certain dead characters, in order to enquire about various matters.252

  • 253 Eur. Hec. 534–541.
  • 254 See above, pp. 173–175; cf. Plut. Vit. Sol. 9.1; Vit. Pel. 21–22; Am. narr. 774 d.
  • 255 Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, A 12–13, see also commentary pp. 119–120; cf. Clinton 1996, 179.
  • 256 Philostr. V A 4.16; Ap. Rhod. Argon. 3.1026–1041 and 3.1104–1222; Lucian Philops. 14.

112In other cases, it was help and advice in a more general sense that was desired. At the killing of Polyxena on the tomb of Achilles Neoptolemos urges his dead father to come forward and drink her blood and to grant them a safe journey home.253 To pour out blood for heroes as a preparation for war can also be seen as a way to approach them and secure their support. This may have been the intent of the protoma sacrifice to the daughters of Erechtheus, which, it was argued above, consisted of a libation of blood.254 Possibly the sacrifice of blood to the elasteros in the Selinous inscription may also have aimed at procuring the services of this being, although as a means of revenge.255 Other cases can be found in the later sources.256

  • 257 Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, 77 and 83; cf. below, pp. 285–286.

113The common nominator for the use of the blood in these rituals seems to have been to attract the attention of the recipients by means of the blood. In such cases in which the recipients were dead, the blood itself, to a certain extent, may also have revitalized those receiving it, giving them back some of the powers they had while still alive and thereby making them approachable.257 This function is clearest in the case of Teiresias and the dead in the Homeric underworld. The ordinary dead cannot even speak before having drunk the blood and Teiresias can only prophecy after consuming this liquid. It is possible that the heroes were thought to have needed the blood to be invigorated as well, though is seems doubtful that they would have been considered as being as weak and feeble as the ordinary dead. Rather, in the case of the heroes, just as for the other divine beings of the underworld, the libation of blood created a connection and facilitated interaction between the recipients and the worshippers.

  • 258 On the importance of calling and acclaiming the hero, in particular by using chaire, see Sourvinou (...)
  • 259 See discussion above, pp. 171–172, 178 and 190–192.
  • 260 On the question with which games the sacrifices to the Agathoi should be connected, see Pouilloux (...)

114In hero-cults, however, an additional purpose can be suggested for the libation of the blood and the evoking of the hero: to serve as an invitation and an attempt to procure the hero’s presence at the sacrifice and the following festival, such as athletic games and horse-races.258 The haimakouriai to Pelops at Olympia can be seen as being part of a theoxenia ritual, at which the blood of the animal victim constituted the invitation to the hero to come and participate in the sacrifice and the festival, as an invited guest participates in a symposium.259 The distinction between Pelops and a regular guest lies in the fact that Pelops is drinking blood, not wine. The sacrifices to Brasidas and the Agathoi on Thasos both contained blood rituals and were accompanied by games. There is no direct indication of the blood being used as an invitation in these cases but it is possible that the blood was thought to function in a similar manner in these cults: to ensure the presence of the heroes.260

  • 261 Aet. book 2, fr. 43, lines 80–83.
  • 262 Plut. Vit. Arist. 21.1–5. The term deipnon was mainly used for “dinners” associated with apotropai (...)
  • 263 Philostr. Her. 53.11–12.

115Further examples of blood being used as an invitation to heroes to come and attend a sacrifice can be found in the post-Classical sources. In the Aetia of Kallimachos, the blood is clearly intended as an invitation to the dead founder of Zankle to come and participate in the rituals.261 The magistrates invite the founder to the sacrifice (ϰαλέουσιν ἐπ' ἔντομα). He is to come to the dais and he may bring two or more guests, since no small amount of the blood of an ox has been spilt (οὐϰ ὀλ[ί]γως α[ἷ]μα βοòς ϰέχυ[τ]αι). The blood sacrificed to the war dead at Plataiai described by Plutarch functions in a similar manner: an ox is slaughtered and the war dead are invited to the deipnon and the haimakouria.262 Achilles was called at the sacrifices on his burial mound at Troy and, when a black bull was slaughtered (esphatton), Patroklos was also invited to the dais to make Achilles happy.263

  • 264 Hom. Od. 11.97–99; Eur. Hec. 536–537; cf. also Soph. OC 612–622, Oidipous is to be buried in the A (...)

116In the cases outlined here, the blood did not only serve as a means of getting the hero’s attention, as an invitation and possibly as providing him with the necessary powers to execute certain functions. Of importance is also the view of the blood forming part of the offerings presented to the hero at a dais or deipnon, offerings which he consumed on this occasion, and he may have been perceived as participating in a symposium and drinking the blood. Pelops, for example, is described as reclining like a guest at a banquet, taking part in the offerings of blood. That the recipients were to drink the blood is also evident from the cases of Teiresias and Achilles.264

  • 265 Cf. Jouan 1981, on calling the dead in tragedy; cf. Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, 197.
  • 266 Mikalson 1991, 121. It seems rather to have been desired to keep the dead at a distance, particula (...)
  • 267 Johnston 1999, 23–35. Possibly the explicit case of the dead drinking blood and being revitalized (...)
  • 268 See, for example, the use of curse tablets, Johnston 1999, 71–81.

117In all, the use of blood rituals to attract attention and to render communication possible seems to have been restricted to heroes, the divinities of the underworld and dead persons from the mythical and epic past described in the literary tradition.265 Libations of blood, it was argued above, cannot be said to have formed part of the regular funerary cult in the Archaic and Classical periods. The ordinary dead do not seem to have been called, contacted or invited by means of blood and there is little evidence that there was any desire for that kind of closeness with the departed.266 If the blood could function both as a way of getting into contact with the beings of the underworld and as a manner of revitalizing them and making them act, it is possible that such rituals were deliberately avoided in the cult of the ordinary dead, since, in the Archaic and Classical periods, they were beginning to be perceived as a threat.267 Even though the departed could be manipulated and used for the purposes of the living, such activities seem to have been accomplished in a controlled manner, in which the living used the power of the dead but made no attempts to increase it.268

118To sum up, blood rituals in hero-cults seem to have had two possible functions, not mutually exclusive, however. On the one hand, the offerings of blood can be connected with the prominent link with war which some of the heroes had, who received these sacrifices. These heroes had either been directly killed in battle or suffered a death caused indirectly by the war. The sacrifice of the blood can have been a way of recognizing in ritual this particular character trait and served as a reminiscence of the battle-line sphagia. The use of blood rituals for heroes connected with war can be seen as a way of institutionalizing a ritual usually only performed in particular situations when the need arose.

119On the other hand, the blood libations functioned as a means of calling and inviting the hero to come and participate in the festival, at which he was received as a divine guest and given the blood as a part of his entertainment. On these occasions, sacrifices, and often also games, took place. This use of the blood is more linked to the sphere of the underworld, as is evidenced from the literary sources, even though it is doubtful whether such rituals were carried out for the contemporary ordinary dead.

2.6. The position of the head of the animal victim in blood rituals

  • 269 Deneken 1886–90, 2505; von Fritze 1903, 64–66; Stengel 1910, 113–125; Eitrem 1912, 1124; Stengel 1 (...)
  • 270 Stengel 1910, 113–125; Rohde 1925, 116; Rudhardt 1958, 285–286.

120Before concluding this section, a technical detail of the blood rituals should be briefly considered. Among the distinctions between Olympian and chthonian deities has often been mentioned a correlation between the location of the divinity and the direction in which the sacrifices were performed.269 Olympian deities residing in the sky above received sacrifices aimed in that direction, while the chthonian deities below were given sacrifices going into the earth. In particular, the position of the head of the sacrificial victim, and therefore the direction of the blood streaming from it, have been considered to differ, depending on whether the recipient was regarded as belonging to the upper or to the lower sphere. At the sacrifices to heroes, who were dead and buried and classified as chthonian, the heads and throats of the animals have been thought to have been facing downwards when the animal was killed, so that the blood from the slit veins would soak into the ground and be of benefit to the hero.270

121Two points are of interest here. First of all, are the terms particularly connected with the blood of the victim, such as haimakouria, sphagia and entemnein, to be understood as covering not only the slaughtering of the animal and the complete discarding of the blood, but also more specifically the killing of the victim when the head was facing downwards, no matter who was the recipient of the sacrifice? Secondly, are all sacrifices to heroes, both the regular thysia and the blood rituals, to be considered as differing from the sacrifices to the gods, since the head of the animal was bent towards the ground when a sacrifice was performed to a hero?

122Apart from the apparently obvious correlation between the direction of the sacrifice, downwards, and the location of the recipients, below ground, we have to begin by looking at the extant evidence for bending the head of the animal towards the ground and its relation to hero-cults. The idea that the head was to be turned downwards is found most explicitly in two scholia, on the Iliad 1.459 and on the Argonautica 1.587 by Apollonios Rhodios, respectively.

  • 271 Il. 1.458–459: αὐτὰρ ἐπεί ῥ' εὔξάντο ϰαὶ οὐλοχύτας προβάλοντο, αὐέρυσαν μὲν πρῶτα ϰαί ἔσφαξαν ϰαὶ (...)
  • 272 Schol. Il. 1.459 (Dindorf 1875, vol. I): αὐέρυσαν: εἰς τοὐπίσω νέϰλων τòν τράχηλον τοῦ θυομένου ἱ (...)

123The context of Iliad 1.459 is a sacrifice to Apollon by Kryseis, asking the god to stop the plague, since the priest has received his daughter back. In lines 458–459, after prayer and sprinkling of barley, the heads of the animals are drawn back, and the victims are killed, flayed and later prepared, i.e., a regular thysia.271 In the scholia on line 1.459, it is stated that, when a sacrifice was performed to the gods, the throat of the victim was bent back, so that one turned towards heaven for the gods who lived there, while to the heroes, as to the departed, entoma were sacrificed towards the ground, while looking away.272

  • 273 For the meaning of entoma, see Casabona 1966, 228.
  • 274 Schol. Ap. Rhod. Argon. 1.587 (Wendel 1935): ἔντομα δὲ τὰ σφάγια, ϰυρίως τὰ τοĩς νεϰροĩς ἐναγιζόμε (...)

124The other scholion containing this information is on Apollonios Rhodios’ Argonautica 1.587. The passage describes the Argonauts arriving at Magnesia, where the tomb of Dolops was located. Here, they performed a sacrifice to Dolops, ἔντομα μήλων ϰείαν, a killing and bleeding of sheep and then burning them.273 The scholion states that “entoma are sphagia, mainly the enagismata to the dead, at which the heads of the victims are cut off (apotemnesthai) towards the ground: this is the way to sacrifice (thyein) to the chthonians; to the heavenly ones they slaughter while turning the throat upwards”.274 The scholion mentions the dead and the chthonian gods, but not the heroes.

  • 275 Plut. Vit. Pel. 21–22. This story is referred to in less detail also by other sources, see above, (...)
  • 276 Plut. Vit. Pel. 22.2, ed. Ziegler 1968.
  • 277 Von Fritze 1903, 66; Stengel 1910, 104, n. 1; Rudhardt 1958, 285–286. For the reading katastrepsan (...)

125To these two scholia can be added a passage in Plutarch concerning the sacrifice to the daughters of Skedasos, performed by Pelopidas before the battle at Leuktra in 371 BC.275 On the night before the battle, Pelopidas had a dream, in which Skedasos and his daughters urged him to sacrifice his own daughter to procure victory. Pelopidas was greatly troubled, but the matter was finally resolved by sacrificing a young mare on the tomb of the maidens. In the Teubner edition, the text runs as follows ἐϰ τούτου λαβόντες τὴν ἵππον ἐπὶ τοὺς τάϕους ἦγον τῶν παρθένων, ϰαὶ ϰατευξάμενοι ϰαὶ ϰαταστέψαντες ἐνέτεμον “they brought the mare to the tombs of the maidens and after having prayed and garlanded, they sacrificed her by slitting her throat”276 Some scholars have advocated the alternative reading of katastepsantes as ϰαταστρέψαντες, “after having turned down”.277 In that case, this gesture preceded the slitting of the animal’s throat, meaning that the actual killing of the animal was performed when the victim had its head facing the ground.

  • 278 Od. 10.527–528.
  • 279 Od. 11.35–36. On this sacrifice resulting in a decapitation of the victims, see above, pp. 174–175 (...)

126Of relevance in this context is also Odysseus’ sacrifice in the Nekyia, in order to get in touch with the dead Teiresias. In book 10, Kirke instructs Odysseus to sacrifice a black sheep and a black ram and to turn the victims towards Erebos, while he himself look away (ὄϊν ρνειòν ῥέζειν θῆλύν τε μέλαιναν εἰς Ἔρεβος στρέψας, αὐχος δ' πoνóσϕι τραπέσθαι).278 In Odysseus’ own description of the event in book 11, he took the sheep and slaughtered them above the pit, perhaps by cutting off their heads, and the blood flowed freely (τα δέ μῆλα λαβὼν πεδειροτόμησα ἐς βόθρον, ῥέε δ' αἷμα ϰελαινεφές).279

127Only in these four instances can a correlation be found between particular recipients of blood rituals (the chthonian gods, heroes and the dead) and the position of the animal’s head. The connection with heroes is, in fact, made only in the scholion on the Iliad and in the alternative reading of the Plutarch passage. In all other cases of sacrifices to heroes, or rituals covered by terms particularly connected with the killing and bleeding of the victim, the bending down of the head of the animal remains an inference.

  • 280 Casabona 1966, 155–196, 211–229 and 337–338.

128The next step is to examine the practical course of action when slaughtering an animal with the head bent towards the ground. It is clear from Casabona’s study of entemnein, entoma, sphagia temnein, sphazein and sphagiazein that these terms often have a direct technical meaning, all concerning rituals in which the blood of the animal played an important part, and that there is also a certain overlap in the use of these terms for the same kinds of action.280 The blood shed at these rituals was completely discarded and eventually soaked up by the ground, even though it may first have been used for a certain purpose, for example, at oath-takings, or poured out at a specific location.

  • 281 Material collected and discussed in Jameson 1991, 217–219 with n. 49, and Jameson 1994b, 320–324; (...)
  • 282 The interpretation of the clearest depiction of a sacrifice of this kind, a tondo of a fragmentary (...)
  • 283 Cf. Jameson 1991, n. 49; von Fritze 1903, 64–65.

129Of particular interest among these blood rituals are the sphagia performed before battle, since there exists a small number of representations apparently showing this action.281 It is striking that, on all these representations, no matter whether they are found on vases, reliefs or coins, the head of the animal is pulled up to expose the throat. The warrior or Nike who is about to kill the animal has straddled its back, holding the muzzle or the horns with one hand, while plunging, or being ready to plunge, the sword into the animal’s throat with the other hand (Fig. 11). The throat is stretched out and has a vertical position: in some cases, the head is even pulled backwards.282 Judging from these representations, the position of the head was not important, only the flow of the blood, which, of course, would go down into the ground.283 If the main purpose of blood rituals was a complete renunciation of the blood, an exposure of the throat in this manner would also have facilitated the blood flow.

Fig. 11. Sphagia sacrifice in connection with war. Fragmentary Athenian red-figure kylix, c. 490–480 BC, Cleveland, Museum of Art.

  • 284 See also van Straten 1995, V141, fig. 115; Barbieri & Durand 1985, figs. 1, 6 and 7.
  • 285 Peirce 1993, 220 and 234–235, interprets the vase as showing the sphage in a thysia; van Straten 1 (...)
  • 286 For sources and discussion, see van Straten 1995, 107–113; Peirce 1993, 234–235 with n. 56; Jouann (...)
  • 287 The small number of representations of the actual moment of killing should be kept in mind. Cf. th (...)

130Though it seems logical to bend the head of the animal towards the ground when sacrificing to those residing below, there is a practical problem: is it possible to slit the animal’s throat when its head is facing downwards and its throat is not exposed? If the head of the animal is really bent towards the ground and the muzzle is pointing downwards, the access to the jugular veins is very restricted and it would seem almost impossible to cut the animal’s throat. If, however, the victim is lifted up, so that the head and the throat are oriented in a horizontal position, the throat can be pierced from below, as is shown on a black-figure amphora from Viterbo (Fig. 12).284 Exactly what kind of sacrifice this scene is showing is difficult to be precise about, owing to its uniqueness, but there is no objection to considering it as being a regular thysia.285 What should be noted on the Viterbo amphora is the presence of the sphageion to collect the blood, an object which is lacking in the depictions of war sphagia. The sacrifice shown on the Viterbo vase is not a sacrifice at which all the blood is to be spilt. Lifting animals up, in order to kill them at sacrifices, is mentioned in the written sources, but there is no indication of these rituals being anything other than regular thysiai, at which the lifting up of the animals was a demonstration of strength.286 Thus, we are faced with a paradox: in the depictions of sphagia, at which all the blood was spilt, the throat is exposed and almost turned upwards, while at a thysia, at which the blood was collected and kept, the victim could occasionally be killed with the throat facing the ground.287 There is no indication that the position of the head at these sacrifices had any bearing on the location of the divine recipient.

Fig. 12. An ox being lifted and killed by a group of men. Athenian blackfigure amphora, c. 550 BC, Viterbo, Museo Archeologico Rocca Albornoz.

131To conclude, the important action at the blood rituals must have been to steer the blood of the animal in a certain direction and eventually discard it all, rather than bending the head of the animal towards the ground at the moment of the killing. The action described in the Odyssey can also be interpreted along the same lines: first, Odysseus sacrificed the animals over the bothros by cutting their throats or, rather, by completely cutting off their heads, and then he turned the victims towards the ground, so that the blood would flow into the pit. To correlate the position of the head of the victim, when it was slaughtered, with the location of the recipient, as is done by the scholiasts on Homer and on Apollonios Rhodios, and in the alternative reading of the Plutarch passage, does not seem to fit the practicalities of Greek sacrifices in the Archaic and Classical periods.

  • 288 For the use of knives at thysiai, see Berthiaume 1982, 18 and 109–110, n. 14.
  • 289 Odysseus uses a sword for the sacrifices in the Nekyia (Od. 11.24 and 11.48). In the examples of i (...)
  • 290 The distinctions between piercing and slitting/cutting need to be further examined. In the depicti (...)
  • 291 The bending down of the head at the bleeding should not be overemphasized, since, to collect the b (...)
  • 292 Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, B 13, see also commentary p. 45.

132It is possible that, apart from the cases in which the animal was lifted up, the head of the victim was always bent back to facilitate the killing, no matter which kind of ritual was being performed or who was the recipient. The distinction between a thysia and a blood ritual may rather have depended on whether the blood was to be saved or not, as well as on the technique employed at the actual killing. At a thysia, a knife was used for the killing,288 perhaps only piercing the vein so that the blood could be collected and saved in a sphageion for future consumption. At the blood rituals, the throat was slit or cut, or the head may have been completely cut off, using a sword, at least for the sphagia,289 and the blood was allowed to flow freely into the ground.290 When the ritual took place at a bothros, the head of the animal, or the decapitated carcass, was surely held so that the blood would be directed down into the pit.291 The sacrifice to the elasteros in the Selinous inscription being described as θύεν hóσπερ τοĩς θανάτοισι. σϕαζέτο δ' ἐς γᾶν (“sacrifice as to the immortals but slaughter the victim so that the blood flows into the ground”) obviously shows that it was not self-evident where the blood was to go.292

  • 293 The sacrificial reality can be difficult to imagine. Cf. the butchers at the slaughterhouse in Ber (...)

133Furthermore, the notion that there was a particular action of bending the animal’s head towards the ground when sacrificing to heroes, chthonian divinities and the dead is based only on information found in late literary sources and is perhaps best regarded as a literary construct with little bearing on the actual rituals performed.293

134Thus, there is no reason to suppose that all sacrifices to heroes, whether they were regular thysiai or contained a blood ritual, were executed by bending the head of the animal towards the ground during the killing, since this manœuvre seems to be very hard to execute, unless the victim is lifted up. The majority of sacrifices to heroes were regular thysiai, at which the blood was kept and eaten along with the meat, and there was no interest in spilling all the blood. In the specific case of blood rituals, however, the blood was discarded and directed into the ground (or into a bothros dug into the hero’s burial mound).

3. Theoxenia

3.1. Offerings of food in the cult of the gods and the cult of the dead

  • 294 Ziehen 1939, 582–586; Burkert 1985, 68; Gill 1991, 7–11; Jameson 1994a, 37.
  • 295 Jameson 1994a, 38.
  • 296 Jameson 1994a, 38.
  • 297 Jameson 1994a, 37–38; Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 35–36; Burkert 1985, 68; cf. Kearns 1994.
  • 298 Jameson 1994a; Burkert 1985, 107.

135In the cult of the gods, offerings of food of the kind eaten by humans could take a variety of forms. Cakes, bread, pots of cooked grain and fruit could be deposited on altars, on particular sacred tables, at sacred places like caves and springs or before the images of the deities.294 At the regular meals of men, the gods received an offering of a part of the food as a kind of aparchai.295 Deipna (dinners) were offered to Hekate, for cathartic and apotropaic purposes, where three roads met.296 Thysia sacrifices were regularly accompanied by the burning of grain and cakes, usually labelled hiera.297 Among these food offerings, the ritual of theoxenia occupies a particular place, since the divine recipient was not only given food of the kind eaten by humans, but was also thought of as a guest, who was entertained and offered a table with a prepared meal and a couch to recline on.298

  • 299 Jameson 1994a; Bruit 1989; Bruit 1990, 170–173.
  • 300 Herakles and Dioskouroi: Verbanck-Piérard 1992; Hermary 1986; Jameson 1994a, 47–48; Gill 1991, 9. (...)
  • 301 Jameson 1994a, 54–55. Preserved remains of tables are associated with a variety of recipients, see (...)

136The important role that theoxenia played in Greek religion has been made clear by several recent studies.299 Theoxenia rituals have usually been considered as being used primarily for heroes or lesser gods, such as Herakles and the Dioskouroi, but it is evident that this kind of ritual was also practised in the cults of major gods, such as Apollon, Dionysos, Zeus and Athena.300 The ritual seems to have been so widely practised that it cannot be tied to any particular kind of god and it is therefore not possible to explain theoxenia as a manifestation of the recipient’s character.301

  • 302 Jameson 1994a, 55.
  • 303 Jameson 1994a, 41; Bruit 1984, 363–367.
  • 304 Jameson 1994a, 37; cf. Gill 1991, 15–19; Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 67.
  • 305 Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, A 15–16 and A 19–20, cf. 64 and 68; Jameson 1994a, 43–44.

137When used in the cult of the gods, theoxenia could exist as a single action, comprising only vegetable offerings, and be of a relatively low cost. The ritual could also be a complement to a thysia at which animals were slaughtered and the offerings on the table in these cases included portions of cooked meat.302 Moreover, theoxenia could be the climax or focus of a festival, at which other kinds of sacrifices were also performed, as was the case at the Theoxenia performed to Apollon at Delphi.303 The offerings placed on the table seem regularly to have fallen to the priest, though the sources rarely elaborate on the fate of the offerings once they had been made.304 Occasionally, the destruction of the gifts is stipulated, as in the sacred law from Selinous, which prescribes that offerings are to be taken and burnt from the cakes and meat placed on the tables for the pure Tritopatores and Zeus Meilichios, respectively.305

138The use of similar rituals in the cult of the dead is more difficult to grasp, as regards both their contents and the extent to which they were used. Though the term theoxenia is, of course, unsuitable for contexts involving the ordinary dead, it is of interest to see whether the dead were invited as guests and given a table and a couch, as were the heroes and the gods receiving theoxenia.

  • 306 Garland 1985, 110; Kurtz & Boardman 1971, 215; Burkert 1985, 192; De Schutter 1996, 340–342.
  • 307 For examples of animal bones and the uneven distribution of these remains in different grave plots (...)
  • 308 Stengel 1920, 146; Kurtz & Boardman 1971, 145–147. Burkert 1985, 194, suggests offerings of food. (...)
  • 309 Kurtz & Boardman 1971, 146; Sourvinou-Inwood 1983, 41–42; Burkert 1985, 193; Johnston 1999, 42; Hu (...)
  • 310 Stengel 1910, 144; Stengel 1920, 146; Rohde 1925, 167.
  • 311 Nilsson 1967, 179; Murray 1988, 250; cf. Burkert 1985, 193.

139Food was among the offerings brought to the dead. At the burial, offerings of food could be burnt with the corpse or deposited in the grave.306 These offerings probably comprised mainly vegetable materials, since the finding of animal bones is quite rare in funerary contexts.307 Next to nothing is known of the contents of ta trita and ta enata, the ceremonies that followed on the third and the ninth day of the burial, but they probably consisted only of libations brought to the tomb.308 The perideipnon, the meal which terminated the period of mourning and ritual impurity for the family of the departed, took place at home, and not at the grave and was a meal reserved for the living.309 It was previously thought that the dead person participated in the perideipnon or even acted as its host,310 but evidence for such a notion cannot be found before the Roman period, when the Greek customs had been influenced by Roman practices.311

  • 312 Rohde 1925, 167; Kurtz & Boardman 1971, 147–148; Murray 1988, 250; Johnston 1999, 63–64 and 277. G (...)
  • 313 Rohde 1925, 168; Nilsson 1967, 181; Deubner 1969, 111–114; Parke 1977, 116; De Schutter 1996, 339– (...)
  • 314 The information on the Chytroi is found only in late sources, whose authors have probably mistaken (...)
  • 315 The doorways were smeared with pitch, buckthorn was chewed and the sanctuaries closed, see Rohde 1 (...)
  • 316 At the Genesia, sacrifices were offered to Ge, but private celebrations of the dead also took plac (...)

140The annual ceremonies for the dead were performed at the grave by the family. The offerings seem mainly to have comprised various kinds of libations (wine, honey, oil, milk, water), as well as cakes, flowers, fillets and, to a lesser extent, prepared food.312 Offerings of food were also a part of the ceremonies performed on the third day of the Anthesteria, Chytroi, which was dedicated to the dead and on which a vegetable meal was cooked.313 There is some disagreement as to whether the recipient of this meal, of which no humans ate, was Hermes or the dead, but the souls of the dead were at least thought to enter into the world of the living on this occasion.314 However, they can hardly be thought of as having been invited, since various precautions were taken to deal with the presence of the dead and, at the end of the day, the souls were driven away.315 The contents of the sacrifices performed at the other festivals of the dead, for example, the Genesia, are practically unknown.316

  • 317 Funerary monuments resembling tables are known from Thera (Archaic period), Athens (Hellenistic pe (...)
  • 318 Stengel 1910, 126; Stengel 1920, 146–149; Rohde 1925, 170; Meuli 1946, 191–194.
  • 319 Stengel 1920, 148–149; Meuli 1946, 191 and 198; cf. Burkert 1985, 193
  • 320 Thönges-Stringaris 1965, 48–62; Dentzer 1982, 353–363 and 526–527; van Straten 1995, 94–95; Jameso (...)
  • 321 Thönges-Stingaris 1965, 65–67, suggests that the increase in mystery cults could have led to the o (...)
  • 322 Thönges-Stringaris 1965, 65.

141Altogether; though food seems regularly to have been given to the ordinary dead, mainly in connection with the burial, there is no indication that the offering of food and the preparation of a meal fulfilled the same function as they did at the theoxenia, i.e., to demonstrate that the recipient was a welcome and honoured guest, who was invited and entertained.317 The purpose of the food offerings in the cult of the dead is not clear, but it has often been suggested that they served as a means of providing the dead with sustenance and keeping them satisfied.318 The idea that the ordinary dead were invited to a banquet and presented with a meal is to a large extent based on the interpretation of the so-called Totenmahl reliefs, which show a reclining male figure at a table laden with gifts.319 These reliefs have now been demonstrated to be votary instead of funerary and showing banqueting heroes instead of the ordinary dead.320 The banquet motif could occasionally be used on gravestones, but the stelai bearing these reliefs belong mainly to the Hellenistic period.321 Furthermore, no worshippers or servants bringing food are shown on any of the reliefs when used in a funerary context.322

  • 323 Meuli 1946, 201, argued that the term xenia seems to imply that the family of the departed partici (...)
  • 324 See above, pp. 127–128.
  • 325 Nilsson 1967, 179. Incidentally, the examples cited by Nilsson––the testament of Epikteta and the (...)

142Another distinction between the use of food in the cult of the dead and at theoxenia concerns the handling of the offerings at the end of the ceremony. At theoxenia, the food was usually kept and eaten by the priest or the worshippers. The food offerings to the departed, on the contrary, do not seem to have been eaten by the family members and other mourners.323 Instead, the offerings were destroyed by burning, judging from the usage of the terms enagizein and enagismata to describe the rituals, or simply deposited on the grave site.324 At least, there are no direct indications of the family members dining at the grave at the funeral or at the subsequent visits, and the tombs of the ordinary dead were not equipped with dining-rooms for the dead, nor for the living, until the Hellenistic period.325

3.2. The use and meaning of theoxenia

  • 326 Meuli 1946, 196–198.
  • 327 Jameson 1994a, 53–54, is sceptical about deriving theoxenia from meals for the dead; cf. Gill 1991 (...)

143The meaning of theoxenia in Greek cult is debated. Its use in hero-cults has been explained as originating in the cult of the dead: after the ritual had been taken over into hero-cults, it later influenced also the cult of the gods.326 Though the origin of the ritual may be impossible to trace, there are several arguments against such a development.327

144It is clear that offerings of food in the cult of the dead seem to have had a meaning different from that in hero-cults and the cult of the gods, since the dead do not seem to have been invited to receive the meal or considered to be guests in the sense that the heroes and the gods were. The dead were confined to an existence separate from the living and in those cases in which they entered into the upper world, measures were taken to keep them at bay.

  • 328 Od. 14.414–456; Gill 1991, 20–22; Jameson 1994a, 38–39; cf. Ziehen 1939, 616, who considers theoxe (...)
  • 329 For the details of this sacrifice, see Kadletz 1984; Petropoulou 1987.

145The view of the chronological spread of theoxenia from the dead to the heroes and finally to the gods is also complicated by the mention of what can be considered as an early precedent for theoxenia in Homer: Eumaios’ sacrifice to the Nymphs and Hermes described in the Odyssey.328 After having sacrificed the pig in what seems to have been more or less the regular thysia manner, Eumaios divides the grilled meat into seven portions and sets one portion aside for the Nymphs and Hermes.329 A kind of theoxenia thus seems to have been used for gods already in the Archaic period.

146Alternative approaches to the meaning of theoxenia are less concerned with the origins and focus instead on their function within the Greek sacrificial system, mainly in relation to thysia. The ritual has been seen as a cheaper version of sacrifice, as a means of modifying a thysia or as a way of marking a more intimate connection with the divinity.

  • 330 Chionides fr. 7 (PCG IV, 1983); cf. Jameson 1994a, 46–47.
  • 331 LS 20 B: trapezai, lines 3–4, 14–15, 23–24, 25 and 53; piglets, lines 28, 36 and 37.

147Theoxenia without animal sacrifice could be simple indeed and therefore not expensive, like the meal consisting of cheese, barley cake, ripe olives and leeks offered to the Dioskouroi in the Athenian Prytaneion.330 The cost of the trapezai in the sacrificial calendar from Marathon was only one drachma apiece, while the cheapest kind of animal victim, the piglet, cost three drachmas.331 In this sense, a vegetable trapeza could be used as a less costly kind of sacrifice, in the same way as cakes and fruits were regularly deposited in sanctuaries.

  • 332 Gill 1991, 22–23, who suggests that the idea could have come from house cults or the practice of d (...)
  • 333 On trapezomata, see Jameson 1994a, 56; cf. Gill 1991, 11–15.

148It has also been suggested that the performance of theoxenia in connection with thysia was a way of increasing the god’s share at the sacrifice.332 Apart from the inedible parts of the victim, the deity would receive a table with various vegetable offerings. On the table were also placed portions of cooked meat, which later were taken by the priest. A similar practice was the deposition of raw portions of meat, either on a table, on the altar or at statues. These portions, usually labelled trapezomata, also served as a means of increasing the god’s part of the sacrifice but finally fell to the priest as well.333

  • 334 Jameson 1994a, 56–57.

149The use of theoxenia at thysia may also have been a way of underlining that sacrifice implied a division of an animal between the deity and the worshippers.334 The preparation of the couch and the table with offerings, among which were included cooked parts of the animal victim, served as an accentuation of the god as the recipient of his part of the sacrifice.

  • 335 Vernant 1989, 24–26; Bruit 1990, 171.
  • 336 Bruit 1990, 170–173; cf. Bruit 1989.
  • 337 There does not seem to have been any sense of commensality between gods and men in Greek sacrifice (...)

150The difference between theoxenia and thysia lies in the fact that, at the former, the divinity is presented with the same kind of food as that eaten by man. At a thysia, on the contrary, the deity receives his share of the sacrifice in the form of the smoke from the fire on the altar, a way in which it is impossible for humans to consume their food. Food eaten by humans represents the human side of the sacrifice and evokes the distant period when the gods still dined with ordinary men.335 The ritual serves to emphasize that the relations between gods and men can be characterized by reciprocity and exchange.336 Seen from this angle, theoxenia can be used as a means of illustrating various levels of proximity and distance between the divine recipients and the worshippers and therefore may modify a thysia.337

3.3. Theoxenia in hero-cults

  • 338 See pp. 136–140 and 177–179.
  • 339 Remains of actual tables have been found in the Amyneion in Athens (Körte 1893, 234; Körte 1896, 2 (...)
  • 340 Thönges-Stringaris 1965, 22–24, 48–54 and 61–62; van Straten 1995, 89 and 94–100; Dentzer 1982, 50 (...)
  • 341 Van Straten 1995, 96: banqueting reliefs with animals, R115–190, with maid and kiste, R191–211. Mo (...)
  • 342 Van Straten 1995, 96–97.

151In the epigraphical and literary sources, there is no abundant evidence for the occurrence of theoxenia in hero-cults. In most cases, the ritual is found together with thysia and functions as a complement to it.338 The number of reliefs showing banqueting heroes, however, indicates that the ritual must have been more popular in hero-cults than appears from the written sources alone.339 Occasionally, these reliefs could be used for gods, for example, Zeus Philios and Herakles, and, in later periods, also for the ordinary dead, but the clear majority concern hero-cults.340 It is interesting to note that, though these reliefs demonstrate the popularity of theoxenia in hero-cults, a substantial number of them show not only the reclining hero and the table with food, but also a sacrificial victim (or, more rarely, victims) being led by the approaching worshippers. Of the about 100 banqueting hero-reliefs included in the study by van Straten, 76 show the worshippers bringing animals, while in 21 cases the worshippers are accompanied by a maid carrying a kiste.341 The latter scenes must refer to the bringing of bloodless offerings, such as cakes.342 This interpretation is supported by the fact that no altar is found in any of the reliefs showing the worshippers with the maid and the kiste, while at least 50 of the banqueting scenes with animals also show an altar. From this point of view, the banqueting hero-reliefs can be taken as evidence, not only for the frequency of theoxenia in hero-cult, but also for the combination of this ritual with regular thysia.

  • 343 Jameson 1994a, 53; cf. Dentzer 1982, 335 and 519–524.
  • 344 Jameson 1994a, 53; Verbanck-Piérard 1992, 92–93.
  • 345 The composition of the reliefs with animal sacrifice falls into two parts, the worshippers approac (...)
  • 346 Jameson 1994a, 53.
  • 347 On the effects of standardization, cf. Murray 1988, 246.
  • 348 For the financial considerations in choosing an animal victim, see van Straten 1995, 179–181.

152Jameson has noted that meat does not seem to be shown among the food lying on the tables on the reliefs.343 However, on the vase-paintings depicting Herakles or Dionysos at theoxenia are shown long strips hanging from the tables, which probably represent meat unwound from the spits.344 Apart from any purely technical difficulties in showing the meat relating to the skill of the artists, an explanation of the lack of meat on tables on the reliefs could be sought in the relation in time between the various actions found in the reliefs. When animal sacrifice is alluded to in the reliefs, it is always the pompe leading up to the sacrifice that is shown, i.e., the situation before the animal has been killed. The reason for there being no meat on the table must be that, at this particular moment, there was still no meat available to put on the table, since the sacrificial victim was still alive. The reliefs thus show two different chronological stages: the worshippers bringing the animal and other gifts, and the hero reclining at the banquet.345 The thysia alluded to must also have been performed to the hero and it seems safe to assume that cooked portions of meat would eventually end up on the hero’s table. The epigraphical evidence shows that the preparation of the table usually took place after the sacrifice of the animal.346 The order on the reliefs is the reverse, showing the hero already having been presented with his table, even though the animal sacrifice has not taken place. An explanation for this discrepancy is best sought in the standardization of the motif.347 The most essential part of the relief was the banqueting hero and to this basic component could be added worshippers, with or without animal victims, as well as other attributes (weapons, horse, snake, dog, female companion, cup-bearer). Furthermore, since the reliefs, with very few exceptions, were private offerings and the sacrifice of an animal was a costly business for a family, there may have been a desire to clearly document the fact that the hero was being honoured with an animal sacrifice and not only the vegetable theoxenia.348 The best way of showing the animal was at the pompe. The vase-paintings apparently show a later stage of the ritual, after the animal had been killed and when there was meat available. However, they are not entirely comparable with the reliefs, since the vase-paintings never show any human presence, only the divine recipients.

  • 349 On the popularity of hero-cults on the family level, see van Straten 1995, 95–96, who further poin (...)
  • 350 In the Thorikos calendar, all the recipients of trapezai are heroines (see p. 138, n. 45 for refer (...)

153The financial aspect of the use of theoxenia is definitely one reason for the popularity of this ritual in hero-cults. As a cheaper alternative to thysia, theoxenia were financially feasible for families who had less resources than, for example, groups of orgeones or other cult-associations.349 In the inscriptions and the literary sources, which mainly give evidence for public cults, theoxenia to heroes are not very frequent, but considering the substantial number of banqueting hero-reliefs, which predominantly originate from private sacrifices, the ritual was very popular with heroes. Since families had less resources to perform animal sacrifice, theoxenia may have been the best solution. Also in the Athenian sacrificial calendars, it is often heroes of minor importance and, most of all, heroines that receive the trapezai, while the major heroes are honoured by animal sacrifice.350 Public sacrifice was aimed at collective participation and therefore animal victims were necessary. In the private sphere, with fewer participants and less resources, theoxenia may have been more suitable.

  • 351 For the Heroxeinia, see p. 136. On the Theoxenia at Delphi, see Bruit 1984, 363–367; Jameson 1994a(...)
  • 352 See above, p. 284, n. 349.

154The explanation of the use of theoxenia for heroes as to financial considerations is not valid in all contexts, however, since there were festivals such as the Heroxeinia on Thasos, which must have been a major state celebration for which funds were hardly lacking. Here, the fact that the hero was invited and entertained must have constituted the main feature and also the main purpose of the festival. No further details of the contents are known, but the ritual may very well have included animal sacrifice, as did the Theoxenia to Apollon at Delphi.351 The view of theoxenia as a manner of approaching the deity, and bringing him closer, is therefore relevant to the understanding of the use of this ritual in hero-cults. This may have been true for all theoxenia rituals for heroes, especially since a substantial group of heroes were of a helpful kind concerned with healing.352

  • 353 Pind. Ol. 1.90–92.
  • 354 Thuc. 5.11; LSS 64, 7–22.
  • 355 Plut. Vit. Arist. 21.5; Philostr. Her. 53.11–12. In these cases, however, the meat from the animal (...)
  • 356 On the effects of eating raw blood, see above, p. 249, n. 156.
  • 357 For the burning of offerings from tables at Selinous, see Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, A 15–16 (...)

155The notion of inviting and entertaining the hero seems to have been at work also in those cults in which the blood of the animal victim was poured out for the hero. It was argued earlier that one of the purposes of blood rituals in hero-cults was to call on the hero and procure his presence at the sacrifice and the festival. Pelops is portrayed by Pindar as reclining as an invited guest at Olympia, drinking blood instead of wine.353 Also in the cults of Brasidas at Amphipolis and the Agathoi at Thasos, the blood may have served a similar purpose.354 Later sources speak of heroes being invited to a dais or a deipnon and given the blood of the animal sacrificed.355 The blood rituals can be said to make use of the concept of theoxenia, but in a modified way. First of all, even when blood could be eaten, it had first to be prepared. The blood presented to the hero was raw and differed from the food offerings usually comprising theoxenia.356 Secondly, the blood was poured out and therefore destroyed, an action distinguishing these rituals from the practices of theoxenia in general, though other cases of the destruction of the offerings at theoxenia are known.357

  • 358 See pp. 62–71 and 254–257.
  • 359 Od. 11.95–99.
  • 360 The shades seem to have been in various degrees of need of the blood. Teiresias could talk even be (...)

156To use the blood of the victim in some hero-cults to achieve the same purpose as at theoxenia can also be linked with the use of blood to contact the beings of the underworld. This practice does not seem to have formed a regular part of the cult of the dead, but it is documented for the “literary” dead, for example, Achilles, Agamemnon and Teiresias, as well as in magical contexts, though mainly in later sources.358 The blood may have activated the recipient and made him approachable, as is most evident in the case of Teiresias, who could prophesy only after he had drunk the blood.359 It remains doubtful, however, whether the heroes were considered as being as weak and feeble as the ordinary dead and therefore in need of the blood to be invigorated.360

157To sum up, theoxenia in official hero-cults were mainly used as an elaboration of a thysia, just as in the cult of the gods. In the private sphere, the presentation of a table with offerings constituted a cheaper alternative to animal sacrifice, but also in private contexts the ritual could be used in connection with animal sacrifice.

158There are a number of similarities between the function of theoxenia in hero-cults and the cult of the gods: the theoxenia-heroxeinia terminology, the use of trapezai in the inscriptions for both heroes and gods, banqueting reliefs used for both groups, the food constituting the priest’s share or being eaten by the worshippers after the ceremony. It is therefore possible that theoxenia may have originated in the cult of the gods, though the ritual seems to have been more frequently practised in hero-cults, partly on account of financial considerations.

159The use of theoxenia to call the hero and induce him to attend the sacrifice seems to have had a particular application in hero-cults in the cases of blood rituals. Though the offering of meals to the heroes cannot be shown to have originated in the cult of the dead, it is possible that the pouring out of the animal victim’s blood as both an invitation and the provision of a meal for the hero should be considered as belonging to the rituals connected with the beings of the underworld.

4. Thysia sacrifices followed by dining

4.1. Animalt sacrifice ending with a meal

  • 361 Burkert 1985, 55 with n. 1, for references to the older literature. It should be pointed out that (...)
  • 362 Burkert 1966, 104–113; Burkert 1983, 1–29; Burkert 1985, 55–59; cf. Meuli 1946.
  • 363 Vernant 1989, 24–29 and 36–38; Vernant 1991, 279–283; Detienne 1989a; Durand 1989a; Durand 1989b; (...)
  • 364 Burkert 1985, 57; Rudhardt 1970, 13–15; Vernant 1989, 27; Vernant 1991, 281.

160The fundamental role of thysia sacrifice, i.e., animal sacrifice followed by a communal meal, has always been recognized in the study of Greek religion.361 This kind of sacrifice constituted the main ritual in the cult of the gods and formed the basis for the whole Greek sacrificial system, both on the official and on the private level. Work done on thysia in the last few decades, represented in particular by the studies by Walter Burkert, on the one hand, and by Jean-Pierre Vernant and other French scholars, on the other, has approached the ritual from different angles. Burkert is mainly interested in the origin of the ritual, explaining its structure and function as deriving from the treatment of the animal by Palaeolithic hunters and its subsequent transformation by the Neolithic farmers.362 The French structuralists aim at understanding the function of thysia within the Greek religious system, interpreting the ritual as serving as a marker for man’s place in a larger context, defining his position in relation to the gods, on the one hand, and in relation to the wild animals, on the other.363 Still, both approaches emphasize two central features of thysia: its collective nature and the consumption of meat by the worshippers. Furthermore, the ritual meant a separation between god and man, most clearly manifested in the division of the animal, resulting in the god’s portion amounting to next to nothing, while man received the choice portions.364

  • 365 Vernant 1989, 36–38; Vernant 1991, 280–281.

161The eating aspect is considered as particularly important in the French model of thysia, in which the criteria distinguishing gods, men and animals determine what each group ate: gods enjoyed the smoke from the altar fire, man consumed the meat cooked in the company of his fellows, and animals ate their meat raw. Moreover, the gods’ share of the sacrifice consisted only of the smoke, which was something ethereal and could not be destroyed or rot and therefore indicated their immortality. Men, on the other hand, ate the meat, which would putrefy if not consumed and thereby demonstrated their mortality.365

  • 366 On the suggested similarities between funeral and sacrifice, see above, p. 240, n. 124. The dead p (...)
  • 367 The actual terms thyein and thysia are, as a rule, not used for the rituals performed to the ordin (...)
  • 368 Cf. the treatment of the impure Orestes at Athens, who had to eat and drink at a separate table an (...)

162No matter which approach to thysia is adopted, the importance of the various actions making up the ritual and the treatment of the different parts of the victim are fundamental: the consecration, the handling of the grains and the knife, the chernips, the killing, the sprinkling of the blood on the altar, the burning of the god’s portion, the grilling of the splanchna, the libations and, finally, the division of and dining on the meat. It is difficult to imagine an animal sacrifice following this scheme being directed to an ordinary dead person, as a part of the funerary cult.366 The dead may occasionally have been given animal victims, but the primary aim in those cases cannot have been the division of the animal between the recipient and the worshippers, as at a thysia.367 Furthermore, the ordinary dead were impure and the consumption of an animal victim sacrificed to the dead would have resulted in the living also sharing this impurity and being contaminated with it.368

  • 369 At least not in the case of the Tritopatores; see Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 113. For discus (...)
  • 370 Erchia calendar, LS 18, col. IV, 41–46, a sheep; Marathon calendar, LS 20 B, 33, a sheep, and 53–5 (...)
  • 371 SEG 30, 1980, 1119, lines 29–33; the verb used for the sacrifices is thyein.

163In this respect, there was a difference between the sacrificial practices in the cult of the dead and in the cult of ancestors, even though these two groups may be difficult to separate. The ancestors were not directly identified with specific dead persons and the cult did not necessarily take place at actual graves.369 The Tritopatores, for example, being some kind of collective ancestors, received sacrifices recognized in the official sacrificial calendars and the ritual consisted in regular thysiai followed by dining.370 A late 4thto early 3rd-century BC inscription from Nakone, Sicily, clearly states that the ancestors and Homonoia were to receive a hiereion each annually and that the citizens were to feast with each other on this occasion.371

  • 372 See Hughes (forthcoming).

164The animals sacrificed to the dead are better considered as representing nourishment for the departed, as forming part of their belongings or as some kind of manifestation of the state of the mourners, perhaps connected with their impurity or grief. Animals sacrificed to gods in connection with the funeral, particularly at the end of the mourning period, are a different matter. These sacrifices seem to have been thysiai from which the meat was eaten.372 Altogether, a thysia sacrifice, as regards both the content and the function, is a kind of ritual distinct from the cult of the dead and belonging to the cult of the gods.

  • 373 See, for example, Berthiaume 1982; Peirce 1993; Rosivach 1994; van Straten 1995.
  • 374 See above, pp. 217–225; for the specific case of Herakles, see Verbanck-Piérard 1989; Lévêque & Ve (...)
  • 375 Peirce 1993, passim; van Straten 1995, passim.

165Recent studies, based primarily on epigraphical or iconographical evidence, have even more clearly demonstrated the fundamental place of thysia among the Greek sacrificial practices and underlined its focus on collectivity and dining.373 The importance of thysia sacrifices followed by dining is also evident from the lack of evidence for rituals of other kinds, particularly rituals in which little or no dining took place. Holocausts and sacrifices, at which a more substantial part of the victim was destroyed than at a thysia, can rarely be documented in the inscriptions and the literary sources.374 Also the iconographical material is dominated by renderings of thysia followed by dining.375

  • 376 Van Straten 1995, 3–5. As regards the purification sacrifices, could some of the scenes showing pi (...)
  • 377 Van Straten 1995, 3–5; for the sphagia, see 103–107 (esp. V147, fig. 110) and for the holocaust, s (...)
  • 378 Van Straten 1995, 5. Even though the thysia sacrifices would have given the vase-painters more sco (...)

166In his study of the images of animal sacrifice in the Archaic and Classical period, van Straten expresses some surprise at the lack of evidence for non-participatory sacrifices, particularly purificatory sacrifices, which were regularly performed at both public meeting-places and sanctuaries.376 He excludes the existence of some sort of taboo on depicting destruction sacrifices and blood rituals, since a few cases are known, mainly battleline sphagia and one single holocaust.377 Van Straten offers two possible explanations: non-participatory sacrifices may have given the vase-painters less scope for variety than sacrifices at which the meat was eaten, but it is also possible that scenes showing purification sacrifices, or destruction sacrifices in general, were only produced in small numbers and that by pure coincidence no such renderings have been preserved.378

  • 379 Durand 1986, 11; Durand 1989a, 91; Vernant 1991, 294; cf. Burkert 1966, 106; Burkert 1985, 58.
  • 380 Henrichs 1998, 58–63; Bonnechere 1999, 21–35; cf. Lambert M. 1993, 293–311, esp. 308–309, testing (...)
  • 381 Peirce 1993, passim.
  • 382 Peirce 1993, 251–254.
  • 383 Durand 1989a, 91.

167From the studies of representations of thysia, it is evident that the actual moment of killing is hardly ever shown, a fact usually interpreted as a wish to conceal the moment of death.379 Recently, the concept of Unschuldskomödie has been challenged and it has been suggested that the killing was not depicted simply since it was not considered as being of great importance.380 The fact that the clear majority of all representations connected with thysia show acts which are in one way or another connected with the meat of the animal and the dining aspects of this kind of sacrifice (the bringing of the victim, the burning of the god’s portion and the grilling of the splanchna, the division of the meat) may rather be taken as an indication of the importance of these actions within this ritual than as an attempt to hide the fact that the animal was killed. Sarah Peirce, in her analysis of the thysia motif on Athenian vases, suggests that the abundance of scenes showing thysia should be related to the message in the depictions of this kind of sacrifice: the successful completion of the ritual and the subsequent dining.381 Scenes related to non-eaten sacrifices belong to the entirely different sphere of battle and war, which is in fact shown, though rarely.382 The killing of the animal refers only to death itself, nothing else, and it has even been suggested that such rituals focus exclusively on the slaughter itself and are not to be classified as sacrifices.383

168The absence of evidence is not automatically to be taken as proof of absence, but the scarcity of representations of sacrifices different from thysia followed by dining supports the notion of this kind of ritual being performed most frequently and considered as the “normal” kind of sacrifice.

  • 384 Vernant 1989; Burkert 1985, 55–59; Durand 1989a; Detienne 1989a, 3–5; Whitehead 1986a, 205–206; Mu (...)
  • 385 Durand 1989a, 103; Schmitt Pantel 1992, 49–50.
  • 386 Though men were the principal recipients of the meat from sacrifices, there is ample evidence for (...)

169The widespread use of thysia sacrifices is related to their function both within society and within the religious system. Animal sacrifice followed by dining was a ritual intimately linked to the social structure of society and the communal sharing of the meat at these rituals seems to have been a central feature of ancient Greek society.384 The collectivity is further emphasized by the meat being divided into equal portions and distributed by lot, indicating the equal positions of the citizens in relation to each other.385 In order to participate in the sacrifices and receive and eat the meat, one had to be a citizen and the participation was therefore a sign of citizenship, since most sacrifices were not accessible to foreigners and slaves.386 At the same time, it was the citizen’s duty to take part in the sacrifices.

170The universality of thysia stands in sharp contrast to the destruction sacrifices and blood rituals, which can never be considered as having been common, regular rituals aiming at collective participation but are rather to be connected with particular situations, recipients and festivals. These rituals resulted in little or no meat for the worshippers. At destruction sacrifices, all the meat, or at least a substantial quantity, was destroyed. The animals used at blood rituals were often burnt or disposed of in a way that left no meat, since the handling of the blood made up the ritual. Also at theoxenia rituals, the actual dining for the worshippers was not the main purpose, even though the offerings to the divinity could be eaten in the end, usually by the priest. In all, destruction sacrifices, blood rituals and theoxenia had a focus different from the collective participation and eating characterizing a thysia.

  • 387 Berthiaume 1982, 64–69; Vernant 1989, 25; Detienne 1989a, 3; Peirce 1993, 234–240; Rosivach 1994, (...)
  • 388 Isenberg 1975, 271–273; Berthiaume 1982, 62–70 and 81–93 (on meat from animals not ritually slaugh (...)
  • 389 Two contemporary examples are the Jewish kosher and the Muslim halâl slaughter. On the non-religio (...)

171The centrality of thysia is further underlined by the fact that all the meat eaten by the Greeks seems to have come from sacrifices or from animals slaughtered in a religious manner.387 It also seems that most, if not all, meat sold came from sacrificial animals, the only exception being meat acquired by hunting.388 The notion of eating only meat which has been procured in a religious setting may seem strange to the modern mind but the fact that most cultures seem to have had, and still have, religious rules surrounding the killing of animals makes Western, Christian society rather the exception than the rule.389

  • 390 For example, Hdt. 1.126; Xen. Mem. 2.3.11, An. 6.1.2–4; Dem. De falsa leg. 139. Cf. Casabona 1966, (...)
  • 391 Vernant 1989, 25–26; cf. Berthiaume 1982, 62–70.
  • 392 Rosivach 1994, 2–3 and 65–67; for a different opinion on the role of sacrificial meat in the diet, (...)
  • 393 Similarly, Jameson has shown that the local, ritual commands (demonstrated in the sacrificial cale (...)

172The important connection between animal sacrifice and the consumption of meat is further illustrated by the fact that the terms thyein and thysia were often used as meaning “to feast” or “feast” without any explicit mention of the sacrificial activity or a divine recipient of the sacrifice, even though such sacrifices must have had a recipient.390 There seems not to have been any proper term in ancient Greek for the butchering of an animal in order to eat it, apart from thyein.391 The frequency of sacrifices of this kind is also of interest. A recent study by Rosivach has shown that, in the Classical period, the ordinary Athenian male citizen could receive meat from state or deme sacrifices as often as every eighth or ninth day and he suggests that this meat distribution formed a substantial part of the protein intake in the diet.392 As far as we can tell, meat was not frequently eaten in antiquity and this fact alone would decrease the incentive to destroy the animal. The aim of a thysia seems to have been to produce as much meat as possible for the participants, no matter what origin or function modern scholars have ascribed to the division of the animal between the deity and the worshippers. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the animals used for destruction sacrifices were small and cheap, i.e., usually piglets: if the destruction itself had been of central importance, more substantial victims would have been expected. Practical considerations were thus allowed to influence the sacrificial practices.393

4.2. Sacrifices to heroes at which the victims were eaten

173In looking at the use and function of thysia sacrifices followed by dining in hero-cults, there are two kinds of evidence to be considered. On the one hand, there are the direct references to the handling of meat and dining, in many instances covered by thyein or thysia, but often no comprehensive term is used for the sacrifice. On the other hand, there is a substantial number of cases for which no particular details are given as to how the sacrifice was performed. The terminology used for this latter category are also thyein and thysia, as well as various terms referring to honours being given, such as timan and time. Thus, there is a difference, as compared with the evidence for the destruction sacrifices, the blood rituals and the theoxenia. For the destruction sacrifices and the blood rituals, a particular terminology is used, dealing especially with the practical and technical sides of these rituals: the burning, the cutting and the bleeding. Also the evidence for the theoxenia is often more factual, mentioning trapezai or terms referring to the actual invitation of the hero.

174In the review of the evidence in chapter II, it was argued that, apart from the cases in which dining is indisputable, animal sacrifice followed by consumption is the most likely interpretation, on circumstantial grounds, in a number of cases for which only thyein, thysia and the honouring of heroes are mentioned. Of interest here is why so many of the sacrifices to heroes do not contain any specific information on the ritual practices and what this fact can tell us about the place and function of hero-cults, as compared with the cult of the gods and the cult of the dead.

  • 394 Pfister 1909–12, 466 and 478–479; Rohde 1925, 140, n. 15, on the particular case of Hdt. 7.117; Me (...)
  • 395 Casabona 1966, 72–85 and 126–139 (see esp. 85, n. 23bis), criticizing the position of Meuli; cf. R (...)

175A survey of the terminology used for sacrifices to heroes shows that thyein and thysia are, in fact, the most frequently used terms to describe the rituals (Table 32). If the totality of the evidence for hero-cults is taken into account, the previous assumptions that thyein and thysia were rarely used in hero-cults and mainly occurred as a result of the ancient sources using the terminology in a sloppy manner or not respecting the rules of the vocabulary are unfounded.394 Furthermore, to consider thyein and thysia as referring only to sacrifices to the immortal gods of heaven, and as a sign of Olympian cult has been demonstrated as all too schematic by Casabona’s careful investigation of the use and meaning of these terms. According to Casabona, thyein and thysia have a flexible use that can encompass all the different kinds of contexts, which have often been viewed by previous scholars as more or less incompatible.395 He underlines that the understanding of the terms in all cases depends on the contexts in which they are found.

Table 32. Terms used for sacrifices to heroes in the epigraphical and literary sources from the Archaic to the early Hellenistic periods.

Table 32. Terms used for sacrifices to heroes in the epigraphical and literary sources from the Archaic to the early Hellenistic periods.

Only terms referring to a specific sacrifice are included.

  • 396 Casabona 1966, 75–76, 80, 84, 126–127 and 334–336.

176Casabona does not comment in particular on hero-cults or on the implications of his interpretation of thyein and thysia for the view of the sacrificial rituals of hero-cults. There is, however, no reason why it cannot be fully applied to the evidence for the sacrifices to heroes as well. If we look at the use and meaning of thyein and thysia as terms for Greek sacrifices, they refer most frequently, according to Casabona, to the whole sacrificial ceremony, comprising both the consecration (katarchesthai) and the killing of the victim (sphazein), as well as the pouring of libations (spendein). These sacrifices ended with a meal for the worshippers and, when no particular details are given which can help to clarify the contents of the rituals, the most common meaning of the terms is to be assumed, i.e., a sacrifice in a positive atmosphere concluding with a banquet for the participants.396 The majority of all Greek animal sacrifices were of this kind.

  • 397 LSS 19, 19–20, cf. line 79. Cf. the calendar from Marathon, LS 20 B, 2, 23 and 39.

177As has been shown above, there are a number of sacrifices to heroes in which the details given show beyond dispute that the terms refer to sacrifices followed by ritual dining. More importantly, also when there are no particulars given it is, in fact, possible to interpret thyein and thysia as covering the same kind of sacrifice. Most obvious is the use of the terms in the sacrificial calendars. In the calendar of the Salaminioi, for example, all the sacrifices are summarized θύεν δὲ τοĩς θεοĩς ϰαὶ τοĩς ἥρωσιν.397 In the subsequent listing of the individual recipients and their sacrifices, one sacrifice is further specified: the holocaust to Ioleos. In this case, thyein must be considered to carry the general meaning “to sacrifice” and, unless otherwise specified, “to sacrifice and eat”. Therefore, all the sacrifices in the Salaminioi calendar, both those to the gods and those to the heroes, are to be interpreted as followed by dining, apart from one case. The exceptional sacrifice deviating from this norm and having a different ritual is explicitly pointed out and indicated as a holocaust.

  • 398 Casabona 1966, 82–84 and 127–129.
  • 399 The use of thyein and thysia for human sacrifice is in a way more understandable, since this kind (...)

178Casabona further stresses that, owing to the general meaning, thyein and thysia could also be used to describe sacrifices with widely different aims and directed to all kinds of divinities, a group that also includes the heroes.398 This extended usage means that thyein and thysia could cover sacrifices which did not include any dining on the meat from the victim, such as purifications and apotropaic rituals (incidentally, none of the two examples given by Casabona involve animal victims). The most evident case of this use is thyein and thysia as referring to human sacrifices, which of course would not be followed by a meal.399 Casabona makes it clear, however, that the usage of thyein and thysia for sacrifices not followed by consumption is rare, no matter the context, and that these rituals are generally covered by their own particular terminology, which is more concerned with the purely technical aspects of the sacrifices than thyein and thysia. From the evidence which has been discussed here, it is clear that this is the case also in hero-cults, in which the blood rituals are described by terms such as entemnein, haimakouriai, sphagai, protoma and phonai and the destruction sacrifices are covered by holokautos, enagizein and enagisma.

  • 400 Cf. Scullion 1994, 97, n. 57, and 117.
  • 401 In two cases, thyein and thysia may have been used to cover a sacrifice followed by dining but mod (...)

179Even though Casabona does not explicitly say so, there is, however, no support for the notion that, when found in the cult of heroes, thyein and thysia were used in such general senses that they had no bearing on the ritual contents, i.e., the ritual could very well be a holocaust, even when thyein and thysia were used.400 There is, in fact, not one single instance of thyein or thysia in hero-cult which can be demonstrated as referring directly to a specific, complete, destruction sacrifice in the same sense as terms such as enagizein or holokautos.401 On the other hand, there are a number of cases in which the general use of the terms can be shown to cover a sacrifice followed by dining.

  • 402 Creuzer 1842, 762–769, esp. 763; Hermann 1846, 66–67. See also Schoemann 1859, 173, 212–213 and 21 (...)
  • 403 To illustrate this point, see the discussion in chapter I of the terminology assumed to be particu (...)
  • 404 For this passage (Hdt. 2.44), see pp. 85–86 and 225–226.

180If the preconceived notions concerning how sacrifices to heroes were performed are discarded and all the relevant evidence is considered, there is, in fact, no objection to interpreting all unspecified contexts as being sacrifices at which the worshippers ate. It is of interest here to consider briefly the origin of the notion that the main ritual used in hero-cults was a sacrifice that clearly differed from the cult of the gods and that it left no meat for the worshippers to dine on. This notion is firmly established in the late 19th and early 20th century handbooks on Greek religion, but it can be traced even further back. As early as in Creuzer’s Symbolik und Mythologie der alten Völker, which appeared in its third edition in 1842, and in Hermann’s Lehrbuch der gottesdienstlichen Alterthümer der Griechen from 1846 the regular hero worship is presented as a kind of funerary cult or the worship of the dead, clearly distinguished from the cult of the gods, in particular when it comes to the terminology.402 All the assumed characteristics of hero-cults are present here: the low altar called eschara, the blood poured into a pit, the head of the victim being bent towards the ground, the ritual actions covered by enagismos, enagismata and entoma, occasionally interrupted by thyein. However, the evidence supporting this characterization of hero-cults consists of a mixture of sources. With few exceptions, these sources are post-Classical and most of them are of Roman date: Diogenes Laertios, Ammonios, Pausanias, Plutarch, Philostratos, Athenaios, Porphyrios, as well as the late-2nd-century AD inscription recording Juventianus’ restoration of the Palaimonion at Isthmia. The explicatory sources also occur frequently: the Etymologicum Magnum, Eustathius, Pollux, Apollonios’ Lexicon Homericum and scholia to the Iliad, Euripides’ Phoenician women, Pindar and Apollonios Rhodios. Apart from the fact that all of these texts are late works, it can, in many cases, be demonstrated that they both reflect and are influenced by their own contemporary contexts, which are not necessarily applicable to the conditions during earlier periods.403 The only Archaic-Classical source used by Creuzer and Hermann to demonstrate the particular characteristics of hero-cults is Herodotos’ account of the cult of Herakles on Thasos, contrasting thyein and enagizein, a passage which, as has been shown above, cannot be said to be generic for the sacrificial practices in hero-cults.404

181From this brief review, it can be concluded that from the early 19th century onwards, the understanding of the sacrificial rituals of hero-cults in the Archaic and Classical periods has not been based on the contemporaneous evidence. Instead, a selection of sources has been made, an approach perhaps emanating from the belief that these texts (and the occasional inscription) were representative for the general situation of all periods. It is evident that a comprehensive evaluation of the sources from a limited time span has not been aimed at in any case. When the entire material is taken into account, as has been attempted in this study, it is clear that the evidence making up the foundations of the traditional notion of hero-cults cannot be regarded as being representative. Furthermore, when these texts are put into their respective chronological context it is even more apparent that they do not present an accurate picture of the sacrificial rituals of the hero-cults in the Archaic and Classical periods. Most importantly, the traditional notion of hero-cults as distinct from the cult of the gods cannot be substantiated. From this follows that there is no support for the assumption that thyein and thysia in hero-cults can and should be interpreted as an unspecified use referring to destruction sacrifices, since such rituals were characteristic of hero-cults.

  • 405 Bomoi to heroes: Aias, Pind. Ol. 9.112; Herakleidai, Pind. Isthm. 4.62; Pelops, Pind. Ol. 1.93, cf (...)

182In all, it can be argued that thyein and thysia had the same function in both hero-cults and the cult of the gods. The difficulties in accepting that thyein and thysia in hero-cults refer to animal sacrifice followed by a meal for the worshippers, unless when explicitly stated, rests on the assumption that it was forbidden to eat of the meat from the victims sacrificed to the heroes. The lack of evidence for destruction sacrifices and rituals focusing on the blood of the victim, as well as the frequent combination of theoxenia with thysia, does not support such a notion. The hesitation to recognize the dominance of alimentary sacrifices in hero-cults and to interpret also unspecified instances of thyein, thysia and other general terms as referring to this kind of ritual has also originated in the belief that heroes received their sacrifices on escharai and in bothroi. As has been demonstrated above, these terms have little or no relevance to sacrifices to heroes in the Archaic and Classical periods. When an altar is mentioned in a hero-cult, it is called bomos, a fact which has been more or less overlooked.405

  • 406 Pfister 1909–12, 480–489; Rohde 1925, 140, n. 15.

183An alternative approach to the common use of thyein and thysia in hero-cults has been to view the choice of the terms as a deliberate attempt to indicate that in a few instances, the recipients were not regarded as chthonian and dead, but as Olympian and immortal and therefore receiving sacrifices concluded by dining.406 From this follows, that in the majority of the instances, the sacrifices could still have been different from the cult of the gods. However, this explanation is also based on the assumption that the heroes were chthonian and that their character automatically resulted in certain rituals. The use of the terms in this manner is not supported by Casabona’s study of thyein and thysia. More importantly, this belief is invalidated by the direct evidence for dining in hero-cults being more substantial than the evidence for the destruction sacrifices and blood rituals. If all the unspecified instances of sacrifices to heroes are excluded and only the cases which can definitely be considered as being either holocausts, blood rituals or centred on ritual dining are taken into account, thysia sacrifices at which the worshippers ate are still more frequent than rituals resulting in the destruction of the animal victim.

  • 407 The principle of a general category being in less need of specification than an unusual category i (...)

184The majority of all sacrifices to heroes are not specified in any way, i.e., no particular term is given or the terminology consists of thyein, thysia or terms referring to honours (see Table 32, p. 294). The lack of information for so many of the sacrifices to heroes is, in itself, relevant, since it is the unusual practices deviating from the norm that have to be specified and pointed out, not the regular behaviour known to all.407 From the study of the evidence for destruction sacrifices, blood rituals and theoxenia carried out above, it was clear that particular comments or details concerning the sacrifices almost exclusively concern the parts of the animal falling to the worshippers. Any behaviour resulting in less or no meat to be eaten, a total discarding of the blood, restrictions as to where the dining was to take place, as well as a handling or division of the meat diverging from the ordinary, was in need of elucidation. Unspecified sacrifices to heroes can thus be interpreted as being thysia followed by dining.

185Furthermore, if we assume that destruction sacrifices and blood rituals were common in hero-cults, we have to presume that a number of cases refer to such sacrifices, even though no particular term for the sacrifice is used or just thyein, thysia or a term referring to honours. Still, it is impossible to define which of these unspecified sacrifices are to be interpreted as holocausts or blood rituals. The specification of a sacrifice as ὡς ἥρῳ does not offer any guidance, since this addition seems not to have had any bearing on the ritual content but to have served as a means of defining the ritual status of the recipient.

  • 408 Thasos: LSS 64 = Pouilloux 1954b, no. 141. Egretes: LS 47 = IG II2 2499.

186If every unspecified sacrifice to a hero (whether or not covered by thyein or thysia) is to be taken as being either a destruction sacrifice or a sacrifice ending with dining but modified by a partial destruction of the meat or by a particular handling of the blood, it seems strange that this specific ritual is indicated in some instances but not in others. For example, the inscription from Thasos regulating the entemnein sacrifice to the war dead Agathoi can be compared with the rental contract of the orgeones of the hero Egretes mentioning his thysia.408 In the latter case, it seems beyond doubt that dining took place, since the lease mentions the kitchen and dining-rooms. In the former inscription, dining also seems to have followed, but the sacrifice must have been performed in a different manner, since entemnein is used. Should we assume that the orgeones of Egretes also performed an entemnein ritual at the annual thysia to their hero? If the contexts of these two sacrifices are taken into consideration, this seems highly unlikely. The blood ritual to the Agathoi fits into the commemoration of those who had given their lives for their country, emphasising the grim origin of this cult and its connections with war. After the particular initiation of the sacrifice by this ritual, presumably by pouring the blood of the victims on the tomb of the Agathoi, there follows a thysia with a banquet. In the friendly and familiar, annual feasting in the sanctuary of Egretes, however, a blood ritual would seem out of place, since this cult did not carry with it any particular connotations that needed to be recognized in ritual in this manner.

187On the other hand, if we start from the opposite direction, namely the definite cases of holocausts and blood rituals, it is possible to argue that undefined cases are actually to be interpreted as regular thysia and that this kind of ritual was so self-evident that, in most cases, there was no need for any elaborations. Considering the importance of heroes in the Greek religious system, there is no reason why thyein and thysia should not have been used in the same manner in hero-cults as in the cult of the gods.

188To sum up, the interpretation of thyein and thysia, of various terms covering religious honours and of contexts in which no particular term is used, as referring to rituals different from sacrifices ending with dining, rests on the assumption that holocausts, blood rituals and offerings of meals were the main rituals performed to heroes or at least that such rituals were frequent. There is, however, no support for such a notion, either in the terminology, or in the contexts in which sacrifices to heroes are found. If we approach the hero-cults on the assumption that the consumption of the animal victims was common, the opposite conclusion will be reached: the unspecified cases of thyein and thysia are to be interpreted as sacrifices at which the worshippers ate. This interpretation is in better accordance with the place occupied by the heroes in Greek religion at large. The dominance of thysia sacrifice followed by dining is clear, not only from the direct evidence, but also from the terminology, in particular, the use of thyein and thysia, and the fact that, in most cases, it was considered unnecessary to elaborate on the rituals. If all the evidence is taken into account, which has not been done previously, and not just the exceptional cases (exceptional as regards both the ritual content and the frequency), animal sacrifice with dining was the principal ritual. The evidence for hero-cults shows that heroes were worshipped on all levels of society and fulfilled the same role as the gods and therefore it is inconceivable that the unspecified cases did not refer to thysia with dining. The predominance of this kind of ritual further separates the heroes from the ordinary dead, since, unlike destruction sacrifices and blood rituals, thysia sacrifices had no connection with the sphere of the dead.

Notes

1 In order provide such full contexts as possible for the four ritual categories also in the cult of the gods and the cult of the dead, material later than 300 BC will occasionally be included.

2 Deneken 1886–90; 2502; Thomsen 1909, 482; Stengel 1910, 138–145; Eitrem 1912, 1125; Stengel 1920, 141; Rohde 1925, 116; Meuli 1946, 194; Burkert 1985, 205.

3 Unusual: Scullion 1994, 115. Later deviations and influence from the cult of the gods: Foucart 1918, 101–106; Meuli 1946, 197; Nilsson 1967, 186–187. Disappearance: Stengel 1920, 141–142; Pfister 1909–12, 480–489. Terminological mistakes: Rohde 1925, 140, n. 15; Pfister 1909–12, 478–479.

4 Nock 1944, 590–591.

5 Jameson 1965, 162–163. See also Verbanck-Piérard 2000, 283–284, on the distinctions between thysia and enagismata.

6 Peirce 1993, 252 with n. 134.

7 Graf 1980, 209–221, esp. 220.

8 Burkert 1983, 9, n. 41; Burkert 1966, 103, n. 36.

9 A total destruction could also be accomplished by throwing the victim into the sea (Il. 19.267–268; Paus. 8.7.2; cf. Hdt. 1.165, sinking iron bars in the sea) or into a river or by simply leaving it on the ground where it had been killed, as must have been the case with the pre-battle sphagia, which will be further discussed below. The whole piglets deposited in the megara in the sanctuaries of Demeter are a different matter, since they were not completely destroyed. Their rotten remains were hauled up at the Thesmophoria, placed on the altars and spread on the fields to procure fertility see Burkert 1983, 256–259; Burkert 1985, 242–245; Detienne 1989b, 134–135. On the mystic piglets which were not eaten but deposited in the megara at the Mysteries at Eleusis, see Clinton 1988, 72–79.

10 The holocausts of bulls to Zeus and of horses to Helios performed by Kyros (Xen. Cyr. 8.3.24) have not been considered here, since they seem to be Persian rituals (cf. Casabona 1966, 164). On the burning of the tongues to Hermes from the victims sacrificed to other gods, a ritual which in fact does not seem to have been performed, see Kadletz 1981; Stengel 1910, 172–177.

11 LS 151 A, 32–34. This sacrifice must have been to Zeus Polieus (see Jameson 1965, 164–165; Scullion 1994, 82, n. 17) and not to Hestia Hetaireia, as Graf suggests (1980, 210).

12 LS 151 A, 46–55. Scullion 1994, 85, suggests that LS 17 A b, 5–8 (= IG I3 241, 14–17, 5th century BC) refers to an Athenian case of a holocaust to Zeus Polieus, since the inscription mentions piglets, wood, hiereia and kerykes: the last-mentioned played a prominent part in the sacrifice to Zeus Polieus on Kos.

13 LS 151 B, 10–21.

14 Daux 1983, 153, lines 13–15: ∆ιὶ ∏oλιεĩ ϰριτòν oἶv : χοĩραν ϰριτόν ΕΠAΥTOMENAΣ, χοĩρον ὠνητòν ὁλόϰαυτον, τῶι ἀϰόλουθõντι ἄριστομ παρέχεν τòν ἱερέα.

15 “The women acclaiming the god”, see Daux 1983, 154 and 171–174; Daux 1984, 152 and n. 28. “To Automenai”, see Parker 1987, 144.

16 Scullion 1998, 116–121, esp. 117. In his article from 1994 (p. 88, n. 33), Scullion agreed with Parker.

17 LS 151 A, 32–34 and 46–55; C, 8–15. It is not entirely sure that the sacrifices are mentioned in the correct order on the stone.

18 The command τῶι ἀϰoλουθõvτι ἄριστομ παρέχεν τòν ἱερέα may, however, also be interpreted as meaning that the priest had to provide the attendant’s lunch from his own perquisites.

19 Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, A 17–21; cf. Jameson 1994a, 43–44. The editors of the text take τõι ἐν Εὐθυδάμο (line 17) to refer to a precinct belonging to an important, gentilitial group established by Euthydamos, whose cult of Zeus Melichios had become significant for the whole community (idem, 28–29 and 37). Clinton (1996, 165) suggests that Euthydamos was rather a local hero of Selinous, who had a precinct of Zeus Meilichios in, or attached to, his sanctuary.

20 For the identification of the recipient, see Clinton 1996, 173. Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 64, identify the recipient as both Zeus Melichios and the Tritopatores (mentioned previously, A 9–16).

21 A 19–20: προθέμεν ϰαὶ ọολέαν ϰαὶ τἀπò τᾶς τραπέζας : ἀπάργματα ϰαὶ τοτέα ϰα[τα]ϰᾶαι; cf. Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 38–39, 64 and 68. The thigh does not seem to have been placed on the table (see Jameson 1994a, 44).

22 The thigh was usually given as the perquisite of the priest; cf. Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 38 and 64. A decree regulating the relations between Argos, Knossos and Tylissos states that, when six full-grown rams were sacrificed to Machaneus, a leg of each victim was to be given to Hera (see Meiggs & Lewis 1988, no. 42, lines 29–31, c. 450 BC).

23 Hdt. 2.44. For the post-Classical, literary tradition of such sacrifices, see above, p. 127, n. 458.

24 LS 151 C, 8–15.

25 For reconstructions of line 11, see LGS, vol. 1, no. 7, [θεῶί, ἱ] ερά; LS 151 C and Segre 1993, ED 140, [θεῶι ἐφ]ίερα. Presumably these extras were provided by the priest or some other official, such as the hieropoioi mentioned in lines 7–8. The cereal, the honey and the cheese may have been baked into cakes in the oven, before being sacrificed in the altar fire; cf. Stengel 1920, 42. The interpretation of ἱπνός (line 13) as lantern or lamp, suggested by LSJ s.v. and LGS, vol. 1, p. 29 seems less likely in this context. On the burning of hiera, see Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 35–36.

26 LSA 42 A, 4–5: – – – λαχάνων : [ο] ὐ [βρ] ῶσις; see commentary by Sokolowski.

27 An additional, later case of enateuein is found in a sacrificial calendar from Mykonos (c. 200 BC), prescribing such a sacrifice to Semele, LS 96, 23–24. The rest of the meat from the victim is likely to have been eaten, since it is stipulated that this sacrifice, unlike some other cases in the same calendar, should be accessible to the public, ἐπὶ το(ῦ)τ[ο] πλῆθος. Three other victims listed in the same calendar are to have particular parts cut out (koptetai) but presumably not destroyed: the back and the shoulder blade of a ram to Poseidon Temenites (line 7), the back of a pregnant sheep to Demeter Chloe (line 12) and the back of a bull to Apollon Hekatombios (lines 30–31). Perhaps these parts constituted honorary portions; cf. Odysseus being given the back of the swine prepared by Eumaios (Od. 14.437–438).

28 Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, A 11–12, commentary 31–32.

29 LSS 63, 5 = IG XII Suppl. 414, c. 450 BC; cf. Bergquist 1973, 65–90. The law also prohibits goats and piglets as sacrificial victims, the participation of women, the cutting of gera and contests. Bergquist (forthcoming) has convincingly argued that the whole ritual referred to was a normal thysia sacrifice followed by dining; see also Bergquist 1973, 65–90; Bonnet 1988, 359–360. Most other commentators, beginning with the editor Picard (1923, 241–274, esp. 252), have interpreted the law as a regulation for a holocaust, see for example, Seyrig 1927, 193–198; Scullion 2000, 166–167.

30 IG XII Suppl. 353, 10, late 4th or early 3rd century BC; Launey 1937, 380–409; cf. Bergquist 1973, 66–69. For the suggestion [οὐδ' ἐ]νατευθῆι see Bergquist (forthcoming). A small fragment of another Thasian inscription (c. 400–350 BC) may contain a third instance of the prohibition of enateuein sacrifices, [οὐ]δ' ἐἰνάτευεν, see Pouilloux 1954b, 82–85, no. 10a, line 1; cf. Bergquist 1973, 75; Bergquist (forthcoming).

31 Bergquist’s re-study of the Thasian Herakleion (1973) has demonstrated that the alleged bothros rather was a well and the “temple” with an interior heroic eschara a regular hestiatorion, which was later extended to five banquet rooms; see also Bonnet 1988, 358–366. Furthermore, a recent analysis of the bones found in the Herakleion on Thasos shows that the animals sacrificed at that site must have been eaten (see Des Courtils, Gardeisen & Pariente 1996, 799–820, esp. 799–800).

32 Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, A 9–12, translation by the editors. On the specification hóoπερ τoĩς hερóεσι,, see below, pp. 235–237.

33 A 15–16: πλάσματα ϰαὶ ϰρᾶ ϰἀπαρξάμενοι, ϰαταϰαάντο; cf. Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 69.

34 Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 29–30 and 53; Jameson 1994a, 44. North 1996, 299–301, suggests an outbreak of disease or a period of infertility as the cause of the impure state. Johnston 1999, 52–57, proposes sterility, since impurity may cause this condition. See also Kernos 12, 1999, 234–235, no. 45.

35 Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky (1993, 31, cf. 18–20) take κ«τ«κ«ίεν (A 11–12) as referring explicitly to the burning of the ninth portion and ϰαταγιζόντο (A 12) as concerning the burning of the usual parts, the hiera, at a regular animal sacrifice. Θυόντο θῦμα (A 12) is taken to refer to the animal sacrifices considered so far, i.e., those to Zeus Eumenes, the Eumenides, Zeus Meilichios and the impure Tritopatores.

36 Even though mortals can pollute gods, it is the offenders who will suffer, not the divinity, see Parker 1983, 144–146. The parallels offered by the editors (Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 53) of the Selinous text are Orestes’ sacrifice to the black and white goddesses near Megalopolis (Paus. 8.34.1–3) and the dual cult of Achilles at Troy (not Leuke, as stated on p. 53) described by Philostratos (Her. 53.8 and 53.11–13). In the first case, the goddesses change from black to white when Orestes bites off his finger: he then sacrifices to them both (see above, p. 111). The sacrifices to Achilles are directed to his two aspects as a mortal hero and an immortal god, respectively (supra, p. 99 and pp. 101–102). In none of these instances do the sacrifices result in any changes in the character of the recipient. Johnston 1999, 53–54, offers more compelling examples of deities being purified.

37 Clinton 1996, 163 and 172. He furthermore refutes the editors’ interpretation of side A of the text as dealing with the purification needed in a particular instance and instead considers the text on side A as a regular sacrificial calendar arranged chronologically.

38 Clinton 1996, 170–171, takes θυόντο θῦμα (line A 12) to refer to the sacrifice to the impure Tritopatores of a victim of unspecified type and argues that both ϰαταϰαίεν and ϰαταγί,ζόντο concern the burning of the ninth part of this victim.

39 From the meat on the table presented to the pure Tritopatores, offerings were to be taken and burnt (A 15–16). This meat must come from the victim sacrificed to the pure Tritopatores. However, if the impure Tritopatores did not receive any victim of their own and the ninth portion burnt to them came from the two victims sacrificed to Zeus Eumenes, the Eumenides and Zeus Meilichios (A 8–9), the meat portion on the table for the pure Tritopatores could have been the second of the two ninth parts of the animals slaughtered to Zeus Eumenes, the Eumenides and Zeus Meilichios (Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 31, suggest that each of these two victims yielded a ninth part) and thus the counterpart to the first ninth part burnt whole to the impure Tritopatores.

40 The text speaks of τᾶν μοψᾶν (A 11), portions of meat from a sacrifice (Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 31). Whether the victim was that of Zeus Eumenes and the Eumenides, of Zeus Meilichios or of the impure Tritopatores, the animal must first have been treated as at a regular thysia, i.e., the portion of the divinity was burnt, and then the meat was divided into nine parts, one of which was used for the holocaust.

41 LS 18, col. III, 8–12, and col. IV, 8–12; cf. Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 18–19.

42 LS 151D, 16–17; cf. Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 18–19. The goat sacrificed to the Charites on this occasion was apparently eaten after two portions (of the meat?), δύο θυῶναι had been burnt or just placed on the altar, see Pirenne-Delforge 1996, 210–212; cf. the commentary by Sokolowski to LS 151D.

43 FGrHist 43 F 3 (ap. Plut. Quaest. conv. 694a–b).

44 LS 18, col. III, 20–25.

45 Jameson 1965, 163; cf. Rudhardt 1958, 286–287. It was possible to take signs at sacrifices in which the animal was destroyed. In connection with war sphagia, signs were probably taken only by observing the flow of the blood and how the animal fell (Jameson 1991, 205, see also below, p. 252, n. 175). The inspection of entrails and the use of fire at sphagia are documented only in post-Classical sources (see Jameson 1991, 207–208; Henrichs 1981, 213–214).

46 Peek 1969, 38–39, no. 43, lines 2, 6, 23 and 26 = IG IV2 97; 3rd century BC. For the identification of the god as Asklepios, see Farnell 1921, 242; Robert F. 1939, 343–347; Roux 1961, 190; Petropoulou 1991, 30–31; Riethmüller 1999, 139.

47 A fragmentary regulation for a mystery cult at Phanagoria on the Black Sea, dated to the 1st or the 2nd century AD, also mentions a holokautesis (LS 89, 6). The term here seems to refer to the burning of parts of the animal victim, the rest of which was not destroyed, since the priest received the feet, the tongue and the hide (see commentary by Sokolowski on LS 89).

48 For the definition, see Scullion 1994, 90–92; Clinton 1996, 169, n. 39; Clinton 1992, 61–63; Burkert 1985, 199–203; OCD3 s.v. chthonian gods.

49 Scullion 1994, 93, 103 and 106–107; Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 95–97; cf. Burkert 1983, 136–143; Durand 1986, passim.

50 Scullion 1994, 110–111; Clinton 1996, 172; Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 107–114.

51 Scullion 1994, 110–112; Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 112.

52 Scullion 1994, 99–112, esp. 109.

53 Scullion 1994, 90–92 and 99; Petropoulou 1991, 29–31; Robert F. 1939, 343–347.

54 Cf. Verbanck-Piérard 1989, who criticizes the assumption that, for example, Herodotos’ statement on the dual cult of Herakles at Thasos (2.44) should be considered as characteristic of his cult in general. See also Lévêque & Verbanck-Piérard 1992, 51–64; Verbanck-Piérard 1992; Bonnet 1988, 346–371; Woodford 1971, 213; Bergquist 1973; Bergquist (forthcoming). For the archaeological evidence, see supra p. 221, n. 31.

55 Edelstein & Edelstein 1945, 189 with n. 19, and 193 with n. 7, are sceptical about the existence of a chthonian cult to Asklepios; see also Verbanck-Piérard 2000, 281–332. Riethmüller’s interpretation (1996, 1999) of both the tholos in the Asklepieion at Epidauros and the so-called bothros at the Asklepieion at Athens as used for holocausts and enagismoi of blood is based on the assumption of these rituals being common in his cult. On the bothros in the Athenian Asklepieion being a reservoir, see Aleshire 1989, 26 with nn. 6 and 7; Verbanck-Piérard 2000, 329–332.

56 This sacrifice has been connected with a low altar, to the south of the temple of Asklepios, where the chthonian part of the cult of Asklepios has been located (see Robert F. 1939, 343–347; Petropoulou 1991, 30–31). For the remains of this altar, see Rupp 1974, 139–143, no. 46, who does not identify the recipient. Burford (1969, 48–51), on the other hand, suggests that the altar belonged to Apollon Pythios, on the basis of IG IV2 40, found in Building E to the east of the altar.

57 On religion and crisis management, see Burkert 1985, 264–268.

58 Scullion 1994, 81–89.

59 On the link between Zeus Polieus on Kos and the Dipoleia at Athens, see Scullion 1994, 84–86. Though the evidence for the Dipoleia is difficult to disentangle, it is clear that the festival was connected in some way with anxiety, solving problems and unusual contexts; see Durand 1986, 9–12 and 43–143, esp. 52–55; Scullion 1994, 84–89; Deubner 1969, 158–174; Burkert 1983, 136–143. Cf. also the comments by Rosivach (1994, 162–163) on the slaughter of working animals.

60 Nilsson 1906, 21–22, suggested that the original sacrifice to Zeus Machaneus consisted only of the three sheep: the holocaust of the piglet and the bull sacrifice were later additions. The meaning of Machaneus is uncertain; Cook 1940, 566, n. 2, suggested “Contriver” in the sense of “crafty”.

61 Stengel 1920, 136–138; Burkert 1985, 250–252.

62 Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 56–61 and 131. For diseases or sterility as possible reasons for the creation of the inscription, see North 1996, 299 and Johnston 1999, 52–57.

63 See Burkert 1987, 44–46. A similar pattern is found in the scapegoat rituals: one person is chosen and expelled in order to save the community (see Bremmer 1983a, 299–320; Hughes 1991, 139–165).

64 Moreover, anything but a complete destruction would be impossible in the case of Boubrostis, since a sacrifice at which the worshippers ate (either a partial destruction sacrifice or a regular thysia) would imply that the worshippers shared their meal with “Hunger”. On the negative aspect of Boubrostis, see also Hom. Il. 24.532.

65 23.6–58, esp. 29–34 and 55–57, for the meal preceding the funeral and 23.166–177 for the sacrifice of sheep, oxen, four horses, two dogs and twelve, noble, young Trojans, all burnt on the funeral pyre, together with Patroklos’ corpse.

66 Burkert 1985, 193–194; Rohde 1925, 167; Nilsson 1906, 454; Nilsson 1967, 179–180; Garland 1985, 112–113.

67 Plut. Vit. Sol. 21.5; Ruschenbusch 1966, F 72c. The laws of Solon also ordered the mourning women to bring no more than one obol’s worth of food and drink to the tomb. This nourishment must have been intended as grave-gifts for the dead and not as a meal for the living at the grave side.

68 [Pl.] Min. οἵοις νóμοις ἐχρώμεθα πρò τοῦ περὶ τοὺς ἀποθανóντας, ἱερεĩά τε προσφάτ-τοντες πρò τῆς ἐϰφορᾶς τοῦ νεϰροῦ. Some of the other rituals referred to in the same passage also seem to have fallen out of use at the time when the dialogue was written, see De Schutter 1996, 339.

69 Garland 1985, 113.

70 Van Straten 1995, passim. On the banquet reliefs (Totenmahl reliefs) carved on gravestones, persons bringing food and drink are never shown (see Thönges-Stringaris 1965, 65). This is in marked contrast to how commonly worshippers leading animals are found on the banquet reliefs dedicated to heroes (see van Straten 1995, 98–100 and 303–321, R115-R190).

71 LS 97 A, 12–13 = IG XII:5 593: προσφαγίωι [χ]ρέσθαι, ϰατὰ τὰ π[άτρια].

72 Seaford 1994, 74–78; Toher 1991, 159–175.

73 See Hughes (forthcoming).

74 This is not entirely sure, since the entries in the Ioulis law (part A) do not follow in strict chronological order: lines 13–18 speak of the purification of the house taking place after the burial; lines 18–20 state that at the funeral the women have to leave the tomb before the men (or “not before the men”; see Seaford 1994, 77); lines 20–21 forbid the rituals on the thirtieth day after the burial; lines 21–29 mention rituals when the deceased was still in the house, as well as those who could enter the house after the body had been brought to the tomb. On the impure status of the mourners, see Parker 1983, 36–38.

75 If the prosphagion was performed by a person outside the family, who was untouched by the miasma stemming from the death, the sacrifice may have been a thysia, cf. the enknisma (Plut. Quaest. Graec. 296f–297a) discussed by Hughes (forthcoming), which, however, took place after the funeral and as a conclusion of the period of mourning. However, sphagion usually refers to a sacrifice not followed by dining (see Casabona 1966, 187).

76 Cf. Houby-Nielsen 1996, 49, who has suggested that the vases in the offering-trenches at the Kerameikos were not gifts to the dead, but rather a material expression of the quality of the dead. See also Murray 1988, 249–250.

77 Houby-Nielsen 1996, 44–49, with n. 22: the identified bones are one sheep or goat thighbone, teeth, bird-bones and shells.

78 Houby-Nielsen 1996, 46–47.

79 Pfuhl 1903, 268–282. The bones in the graves come from the parts of the animals that would have been eaten: legs of lamb, sheep, goat, calf or cow, heads of sheep, ribs of pigs (268–269). Also the bones from the offering-pits are mainly long bones and skulls. It could not be deduced whether whole animals or only parts of animals had been burnt in the pits (273). No post-burial, burnt sacrifices could be proved (282). Cf. Kurtz & Boardman 1971, 215.

80 Young R.S. 1939, 19–20, graves XI, XII, XVIII and XX. In grave XI, an amphora with unbroken animal bones was recovered. None of the bone finds was identified as to species. The excavator interpreted the bones as evidence for animal sacrifice and the perideipnon taking place at the graves.

81 Cavanagh 1996, 668. The joints of meat come from sheep or goats and pigs, and some were burnt on the pyre. The teeth are those of cattle, sheep or goats, pigs and dogs.

82 Cavanagh 1996, 674.

83 Blegen, Palmer & Young 1964, 17–18 and 84.

84 Carter 1998, 120–121 and 560–562.

85 Whole animal skeletons: Carter 1998, 560–562, T 62, mule; T 191, dog; T 316, horse; T 321, wolf. Astragaloi: Carter 1998, 560–562, T 186, 25 pieces; T 263, 8 pieces; T 264, 51 pieces; T 397, 3 pieces.

86 Food remains: Carter 1998, 120–121 and 560–562 (T 37, T 128, T 301, F 344 and T 347). Eggshells were also recovered from one tomb (T 218–13) and an olive pit from another burial (T 196–19).

87 Lyons 1996, 122–124 and 221–223 (T 50, T 51 and T 52).

88 To clarify matters, the practices during the Geometric period have to be studied, which is, of course, outside the scope of this study; see Hägg 1983, 192–193; Antonaccio 1995, 249, who interpret the animal bones found in connection with Geometric graves as the remains of meals rather than animal sacrifices. For the rare cases of food offerings shown on LG vases with funerary scenes, see Boardman 1966, 2; Himmelmann 1997, 15–16, n. 11.

89 On food offerings to the dead, see further below, pp. 278–280. In the late Hellenistic and Roman periods, animal sacrifice seems to have been performed in the cult of some dead, but none of the instances found in the epitaphs cited by Lattimore (1962, 126–127) is earlier than the 1st century BC. In the private cult foundations, beginning in the 3rd century BC, animal sacrifice, followed by dining, played an important role, for example, the foundation of Diomedon, Kos, c. 300–250 BC (LS 177 = Laum 1914, vol. 2, no. 45; Sherwin-White 1977, 210–213); the foundation of Epikteta, Thera, 210–195 BC (LS 135 = IG XII:3 330 = Laum 1914, vol. 2, no. 43); the foundation of Kritolaos, Aigale, Amorgos, late 2nd century BC (LSS 61 = IG XII:7 515 = Laum 1914, vol. 2, no. 50); the foundation of Poseidonios, Halikarnassos, 3rd–2nd century BC (Laum 1914, vol. 2, no. 117); cf. Kamps 1937, 145–179. The rituals in these cults were rather modelled on the hero-cults of the preceding and contemporary periods than on the cult of the dead, since the aim of the foundations was to separate these deceased from the ordinary dead. Furthermore, these practices cannot be said to be typical of funerary cult in general, since the purpose of the cult foundations was to separate these particular, important deceased from the mass of the ordinary dead.

90 Hdt. 5.92; cf. Leach 1976, 83.

91 Nock 1944, 590; Nilsson 1967, 179; Stupperich 1977, 61.

92 Burkert 1985, 192–193; Meuli 1946, 202–206.

93 Hom. Il. 22.510–514; see commentary by Richardson 1993, 162. I am grateful to David Boehringer for this reference.

94 For the treatment of such offscourings, see Parker 1983, 35–39. The animals, the blood of which was used for purifications, seem to have been destroyed, usually by burning them, after the purification had been achieved, see below, p. 251, n. 167.

95 Cf. the calendar from Thorikos, Daux 1983, 153, lines 15–16: at the holocaust of a piglet to Zeus Polieus, the priest had to provide the attendant with lunch.

96 The earliest epigraphical instance of enagizein is in IG II2 1006, 26 and 69, late 2nd century BC; see further references above, pp. 75–82.

97 IG IV 203, 9.

98 For references, see pp. 110–114. The only pre-2nd-century AD instance is given by Flavius Josephus, who uses enagismos to describe the holocaustic sacrifices in the temple at Jerusalem (BJ 1.32, 1.39, 1.148 and 6.98).

99 On the connection between enagizein and the world of the dead, see Chantraine & Masson 1954, 100–102; cf. Parker 1983, 5–10. Agos refers to the religious power that can affect humans, contrary to hagios/hagnos, see Vernant 1990, 137. Cf. Pirenne-Delforge 2001, 122, who suggests that a similar distinction can be observed in Pausanias’ use of the terms kathagizein and enagizein, only the latter being connected to the identity of the recipient of the sacrifice.

100 Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, A 9–13.

101 Translation by Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 15.

102 Cf. Scullion (2000, 165), who suggests that such rituals were common at sacrifices to heroes.

103 The alternative, less likely interpretation, is to consider the wine libation and the burning of a ninth portion of the meat as actions to be performed in addition to the “as to the heroes” ritual, the contents of which are unknown.

104 Cf. Paus. 10.4.10, blood being poured through a hole into the tomb of the Heros Archegetes at Tronis; Garland 1985, 114. For libating through the roof, see Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 30–31 and 70–73.

105 Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, A 17 and commentary p. 36, line A 16, and p. 71–72.

106 See Henrichs 1983, 98–99; cf. Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 72–73.

107 Herakles, supra, p. 221, nn. 29–30; Semele, supra, p. 220, n. 27.

108 LSS 19, 33.

109 On the question of the heroes also being polluted, see also below, pp. 263–265.

110 Verbanck-Piérard 1989, 46–53; Lévêque & Verbanck-Piérard 1992, 53–64; see also supra, p. 226, n. 54.

111 Pirenne-Delforge 2001, 120–121; cf. Bonnet 1988, 346–371. At Lindos, Herakles was said to have prepared and eaten a whole ox, leaving no scope for any sharing of the meat and communal consumption (see Durand 1986, 156–173). This mythical background to the cult of Herakles on Rhodos can be taken as a further indication of his particular position, even though the cult at Lindos did not contain any destruction sacrifices. On Herakles’ exceptional behaviour towards meat and consumption, see also Verbanck-Piérard 1992, 97–98.

112 On the fire rituals, see Nilsson 1922 and 1923. On the cult on Mount Oite and the archaeological remains, see Verbanck-Piérard 1989, 58, n. 38; Pappadakis 1919, 25–33; Pantos 1990, 174; Krummen 1990, 62–63 with n. 16.

113 LSS 19, 84.

114 LS 20 B, 14; cf. Pind. Isthm. 5.32–33, Iolaos being honoured (see also supra, p. 205).

115 LSS 19, 84–86.

116 Verbanck-Piérard 1989, 53, speaking of the “satellite” cult of Ioleos.

117 Hdt. 1.167.

118 On the problems of picturing a festival with games and horse-races but without sacrifice followed by dining, see above, p. 83, n. 272. Still, the possibility remains that this cult may have been a particular Etruscan feature only described in Greek terms.

119 LS 18, col. II, 16–20; col. IV, 20–23; col. V, 12–15.

120 See above, p. 133, n. 13.

121 Mikalson 1977, 430; Johnston 1999, 44, however, erroneously locating the sacrifice to Zeus Epopetes to the same day.

122 Jacoby 1944, 62–65; cf. supra, p. 84, n. 275.

123 Hollis 1990, 127–130; Callim. Aet. fr. 238, line 11 (Suppl. Hell. 1983).

124 The similarities between the funeral cremation rites and the burning of the god’s portion at a thysia, as well as holocaustic sacrifices, have been emphasized by Vernant 1989, 38–41; Vernant 1991, 69–70; Burkert 1985, 63; on the general connection between funeral and sacrifice, see Burkert 1983, 48–58. See also supra, p. 238, n. 112, for the relation between Herakles’ suicide and the sacrificial practices of his cult. The battle of Marathon gave rise to the institution of a annual goat sacrifice to Artemis Agrotera, the goat being her favourite victim, which was also used for the battle-line sphagia directed to Artemis (see Jameson 1991, 209–210; Vernant 1991, 247–248).

125 Verbanck-Piérard (1998, 120, n. 52) suggests that the calendar reflects the combined cult of two divine pairs, Hera Thelchinia (21st of Metageitnion) with Zeus Epopetes, and Basile with Epops, and argues that these sacrifices must be very old, since they extend over the turn of the months Metageitnion and Boedromion.

126 To define the modern equivalents of the ancient months is difficult, owing to the irregularities in the ancient calendar (see Samuel 1972, 58; Pritchett 1979, 164–166). Cf. the following definitions of Hekatombaion: KlPauly 2 (1975), s.v. Hekatombaion 2, Hekatombaion = July/August, but also Metageitnion = July/August (KlPauly 3 [1975], s.v.); Bischoff 1912, 2785–2786, Hekatombaion = June/July; Woodhead 1992, 58, from end the of the 5th century, Hekatombaion = July; Jameson 1988, 117, n. 23, Hekatombaion equated with August, rather than July/August, for simplicity.

127 Scullion (1994, 110–111) has suggested that Zeus Epopetes is to be understood as belonging to the category of mountain-top Zeuses concerned with the weather and that a similar function could be argued for Epops, the “Overseer”. For Zeus as a weather god, see also Parker 1996, 29–32. Cf. the sacrifices to Zeus on Keos at mid-summer to bring in cooling winds (Burkert 1983, 109–110; Burkert 1985, 266).

128 Mir. ausc. 840a.

129 Ath. pol. 58.1.

130 See discussion pp. 83–85. Perhaps Harmodios and Aristogeiton were given enagismata, since they were, in some sense, considered to be impure, having committed a sacrilege by killing Hippias at a religious festival, see Thuc. 6.56–57; cf. Parker 1983, 159–160. Robert Parker has also suggested to me the possibility that the enagismata marked the fact that Harmodios and Aristogeiton had died recently, thus being closer to the ordinary dead than were the heroes in general.

131 Stengel 1910, 19; Ziehen 1939, 615; Rudhardt 1958, 262; Burkert 1983, 5; Durand 1989a, 90–92; van Straten 1995, 104–105. I hope to deal more extensively elsewhere with the uses of animal blood in Greek religious contexts.

132 Aesch. Sept. 275–279 (for the text, see Hutchinson 1985, with commentary pp. 87–88); Ar. Thesm. 695; Ar. Pax 1020; Theoc. Epigr. 1.5; Lucian De sacr. 9 and 13; Philostr. V A 1.1.

133 For example: Louvre G112, Athenian red-figure kylix, van Straten 1995, V147, fig. 110 (my Fig. 7); Palermo MN V661 a, Athenian red-figure kylix, van Straten 1995, V198, fig. 133; Athens NM 9683, Athenian red-figure pelike, van Straten 1995, V341, fig. 49; Frankfurt β 413, Athenian red-figure bell-krater, van Straten 1995, V178, fig. 126; London BM F 66, Apulian, red-figure bell-krater, van Straten 1995, V384, fig. 43; cf. the wooden pinax from Pitsa, van Straten 1995, fig. 56; cf. Durand 1991, 47–48.

134 Stengel 1910, 117; Rudhardt 1958, 261; van Straten 1995, 104–105.

135 Louvre G112, van Straten 1995, V147, fig. 110. The small group of scenes showing youths wrestling with bulls, and in one case even piercing the throat of the animal, do not include any altar (see van Straten 1995, V141, fig. 115 and V145, fig. 116 and my Fig. 12).

136 On the depictions of purification sacrifices, see infra, p. 289, n. 376. For purifications by the blood of a piglet, see Parker 1983, 30 with n. 66, 230 and 371–373. This particular vase is furthermore unusual, since it prominently displays the sacrificial knife, which is usually not depicted (see Peirce 1993, 232 and 234, who considers the motif a thysia).

137 For iconographical representations, see also, for example, Copenhagen NM 13567, Caeretan hydria, van Straten 1995, V120, fig. 114; Ferrarra T 499 VT, Athenian red-figure kylix, van Straten 1995, V347, fig. 53; Louvre C 10.754, Athenian red-figure stamnos, van Straten 1995, V135, fig. 47 (sceptical); see also below, p. 245, n. 140. For the written sources, see Stengel 1910, 117; Casabona 1966, 180; van Straten 1995, 105 with n. 8. In Homer, the sphageion is called amnion, which is also a medical term for a foetal membrane collecting blood, see King 1987, 117–126.

138 See the vessel depicted on the Viterbo vase (my Fig. 12, p. 274), van Straten 1995, V141, fig. 115; Barbieri & Durand 1985, fig. 7, which, in fact, is similar in shape to the modern vessels used for blood collecting at slaughter, see Divakaran 1982, 13, fig. 2.

139 Blood clots within three to ten minutes, see Divakaran 1982, 6. Today, chemicals are often used to avoid coagulation, but defibrination, vigorous stirring with a rough-surfaced rod to which the fibrin responsible for the clotting sticks, is still practised (Divakaran 1982, 41). For the treatment of blood in modern times, see also Durand-Tullou 1976, 97–98. For an ancient example of blood being whipped, see Erasistratos (3rd century BC, ap. Ath. 7.324a), who describes a dish of cooked meat stewed in blood that had been thoroughly beaten. Blood may also have been mixed with vinegar or red wine to prevent coagulation, as modern experiments have shown, see Marinatos 1986, 25, n. 80.

140 Depictions of sphageia in connection with meat: Boston MFA 99.527, Athenian black-figure oinochoe, van Straten 1995, V213, fig. 157, Berthiaume 1982, pl. 15:2; Paris, Fondation Custodia 3650, Athenian black-figure pelike (my Fig. 9), van Straten 1995, V151, Berthiaume 1982, pl. 19, Durand 1989a, 111, fig. 8; Munich, Athenian red-figure lekythos (my Fig. 8), van Straten 1995, V230, Berthiaume 1982, pl. 15:1; Ferrarra T 256 b VP, Athenian red-figure Janiform kantharos, van Straten 1995, V152, fig. 119, Berthiaume 1982, pl. 20; Berlin 1915, Athenian black-figure olpe (sacrifice of a tuna fish), Durand 1989a, 116, fig. 20.

141 Ar. Thesm. 750–755.

142 Od. 20.25–28.

143 LSA 44, 12, from Miletos, c. 400 BC; LS 151 A, 52, from Kos, c. 350 BC; LS 156 A, 29 (restored), from Kos, c. 300–250 BC; for commentary, see Le Guen-Pollet 1991, 14. A fragmentary cult regulation from Thasos (LSS 70, 5, late 4th to early 3rd century BC) mentions a ϰύστις (bladder), which could have been filled with fat or blood (see commentary by Sokolowski).

144 Sophilos fr. 6 (PCG VII, 1989). Cf. also Ar. Nub. 409: Strepsiades fries a stuffed stomach, which bursts.

145 Zomos melas: Matron Convivium 94 (Brandt 1888), 4th century BC; Theophr. Char. 8.6 (where the word is used metaphorically for a bloodbath); Plut. Vit. Lyc. 12.6. Haimatia: Poll. Onom. 6.57 (Bethe 1900–31).

146 Artemidoros of Tarsus (1st century BC) ap. Ath. 14.662d; Epainetos ap. Ath. 14.662d–e. The myma could also be made with fish. Cf. the mimarkys, a similar kind of meat-stew including blood, mentioned in a scholion on Ar. Ach. 1112 a II (Wilson 1975) and by Hsch. s.v. mímarkuv (Latte 1953–66, M 1371).

147 Erasistratos ap. Ath. 7.324a; Glaukos of Lokris ap. Ath. 7.324a; cf. Hipponax, fr. 166 (West 1971–72), a “squid-pudding”.

148 Tò δέ ϰάλλιον γάρος, το ϰαλούμενον αἱμάτιον, followed by a recipe on how to prepare it (Geoponica 20.46.6 [Beckh 1895], AD 10).

149 The infrequent mention of blood products can be compared with how rarely the boiling of meat is reported, though that cooking method must have been widespread (see Burkert 1983, 89, n. 29; Berthiaume 1982, 15–16). Cf. the harpax from the Menelaion, used for fishing up pieces of boiled meat (Catling & Cavanagh 1976, 153–157) and the boiling of meat shown on the “Ricci hydria” (van Straten 1995, V154, fig. 122).

150 The cleaning of intestines in connection with sacrifices is discussed by Németh 1994, 63–64.

151 Γαστρόπτης, IG II2 1638 B, 67 (359/8 BC); ID 104, 142. Gastroptív, IG XI:2 161 B, 128 (3rd century BC). Gastropotív, IG II2 199 B, 79 (275–274 BC). Cf. Poll. Onom. 10.105 (Bethe 1900–31) γαστρόπτης δὲ ἐν τοĩς Δημιοπράτοις πέπραται, ϰαὶ δευτήρ, ϰοινòν ἀρτοποιῷ ϰαὶ μαγείρῳ σϰεῦος, ἀπò τοῦ δεύειν ὠνομασμένον . This vessel was used for “dry” cooking and may have been some kind of grill or toasting rack, pan or tray, see Amyx 1958, 232.

152 For the preparation of the boudin noir in intestines and boiling them in connection with the slaughter, see Durand-Tullou 1976, 97–98; Marchenay 1976, 120. The blood sausages may later have been sold (see Berthiaume 1982, 48 with n. 24; cf. Theophr. Char. 9.4, a vendor of tripe).

153 The blood makes up c. 3–5 % of the weight of the modern animals usually slaughtered for consumption, see Divakaran 1982, 50. Dahl & Hjort 1976, 173, gives the figure 3.4–3.5 % for East African cattle, which in size may perhaps be closer to the animals of antiquity than the European modern livestock. On the nutritive value of blood, see also Dahl & Hjort 1976, 172 and 218.

154 For the handling of dung and ashes, see Németh 1994. Unused blood is a major source of contamination, since it putrefies so easily, a fact which requires particular precautions in modern slaughter houses, see Divakaran 1982, 3–4.

155 The amount of blood collected at slaughter is difficult to estimate, since it depends on how the animal is butchered. The East African cattle studied by Dahl and Hjort (1976, 174) each gave c. eight litres of blood, while a modern European ox yields 10–12 litres of blood, according to a French butcher.

156 It should be pointed out that the blood was prepared before being eaten. Consumption of raw blood is a different matter, which is clear from the tradition claiming that Themistokles committed suicide by drinking the blood from a bull (Ar. Eq. 83–84; Plut. Vit. Them. 31.6; Diod. Sic. 11.58.8) and the female oracle of Apollon at Argos drinking blood and becoming possessed with the god (Paus. 2.24.1). Raw blood is not dangerous for humans to consume, as is clear from pastoralists bleeding their cattle occasionally, for example in East Africa, see Dahl & Hjort 1976, 171–174 and 218.

157 On the lack of a blood taboo, see Burkert 1985, 59; Himmelmann 1997, 10, n. 6. For the relationship between the Near Eastern and the Greek sacrificial practices, see Bergquist 1993; Burkert 1966, 102, n. 34; Burkert 1985, 51 with n. 46.

158 Ringgren 1982, 154–155 and 157; Hubert & Mauss 1964, 34–36 with nn. 201, 202 and 221.

159 Bradbury 1995; cf. Himmelmann 1997, 60–62, on the killing of animals losing its religious character in the Christian sphere. On Tertullianus’ and Origines’ views on blood not to be eaten by the Christians, see Grimm 1996, 122 and 144.

160 Dalby 1996, 197. Cf. the Christian, neo-Greek sacrifices, at which the blood does not seem to be kept and eaten but disposed of into a ditch, together with the rest of the inedible parts (tail, ears, horns, bile). The blood from these sacrifices can be used for making the sign of the cross or fingerprints to procure good health and fertility, for divinatory purposes or for protecting the church, see Georgoudi 1989, 190 with n. 42; Aikaterinides 1979, 171 and 173–176.

161 See also the sacrifice to the elasteros in the Selinous lex sacra (Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, B 12–13), bóϰα τõι, ἐλαστέροι χρέζει θύεν, θύεν hóσπερ τοĩς ἀθανάτοισι,. σφαζέτο δ' ἐς γᾶν . This ritual must have been a thysia of the regular kind but modified by letting the blood flow into the ground. The fact that this handling of the blood is explicitly pointed out, can be taken as an indication of that this was not the usual practice at a thysia.

162 Cf. Ziehen 1929, 1669–1670.

163 Parker 1983, passim; Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 73–76 and 116–120; cf. van Straten 1995, 4.

164 Parker 1983, 225–232 and 371–373.

165 Parker 1983, 371–373; Burkert 1985, 76–77 and 80–82; Pritchett 1979, 196–202.

166 Parker 1983, 283, with. n. 11.

167 Kevin Clinton, in a paper on pig sacrifices presented at the seminar entitled Greek sacrificial ritual, Olympian and Chthonian at Gothenburg in April 1997, argued that most pigs (and other animals) used for purifications were subsequently destroyed in holocausts.

168 Parker 1983, 139, n. 142, and 393; Healey 1964.

169 Stengel 1920, 136–138; Ziehen 1929, 1671–1673; Burkert 1985, 250–252; Faraone 1993, 65–80; Casabona 1966, 165.

170 Xen. An. 2.2.9; Aesch. Sept. 42–53; Eur. Supp. 1194–1202.

171 Dem. Arist. 67–68; Ath. pol. 7.1 and 55.5; cf. also Paus. 5.24.9–11; Poll. Onom. 8.86 (Bethe 1900–31). For further examples, see Faraone 1993, 68–75; Casabona 1966, 220–225. The interpretation by Stengel 1910, 78–85, that tomia were the cut-off testicles of the victim has been rejected by Casabona 1966, 220–225.

172 Stengel 1920, 137–138; Ziehen 1929, 1674; cf. Stengel 1914, 97–98, on the burning of the parts of the animals used at the oath-takings. To use the animals after the oath ceremony, presumably for consumption, seems to have been rare. The lambs used for the oath sworn by the Greeks and Trojans in Il. 3.292–301 were removed by Priamos (3.310). The meat from the goat from an oath-sacrifice to the Charites on Kos (LS 151D, 5–17) seems to have been eaten, see Pirenne-Delforge 1996, 210–212. Cf. Pausanias’ remark that he forgot to ask what they did with the victim used for the oath taken by the athletes at Olympia (5.24.9–11).

173 Burkert 1985, 250–251; Casabona 1966, 165 and 215–216.

174 For the evidence and discussion, see Jameson 1991; Jameson 1994b; Casabona 1966, 165–166 and 180–191; Vernant 1991, 244–257.

175 An idea of how such a divination may have been carried out can perhaps be gleaned from the modern, Moroccan, Muslim ram sacrifices performed annually to predict the prosperity of the coming year, see Combs-Schilling 1989, 212–232. The ram is held on its back, its head turned towards Mecca and the person performing the sacrifice plunges the knife deeply into the ram’s throat. The way the blood spurts, whether the ram manages to stand up after having its throat cut and how long it will live after it has fallen are among the signs to be observed.

176 Jameson 1991, 211–212; Henrichs 1981, 213–214 and 219–220.

177 Stengel 1920, 135–136; Nilsson 1906, 425–426; Jameson 1991, 202–203.

178 LS 96, 35–37, c. 200 BC.

179 Cf. Jameson 1991, 203 with n. 16.

180 Jameson 1991, 202–203; Casabona 1966, 189–190.

181 Rivers, the sea and springs were also given sacrifices at which the victims were plunged into the water and drowned (Burkert 1985, 138–139; Stengel 1920, 135).

182 Stengel 1910, 146–153; Stengel 1920, 126–127; Nilsson 1906, 444–445; Casabona 1966, 228–229; Hampe 1967.

183 Hampe 1967, 12.

184 Evidence collected by Stengel 1910, 146–153.

185 Eitrem 1912, 1123; Stengel 1920, 148; Meuli 1946, 193–194; Burkert 1985, 60.

186 Stengel 1920, 148–149; Rohde 1925, 167–169; Garland 1985, 113–115. See also the Derveni papyrus, col. VI, 6–7 and col. II, 5; Laks & Most 1997, 10–12; Tsantsanoglou 1997, 102–103.

187 [Pl.] Min. 315c.

188 See discussion by Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, 77–83. Garland 1985, 112, takes the blood sacrifice performed by Odysseus in Od. 10.526–540 to be a description of a regular sacrifice to the dead. See further discussion above, pp. 62–63 and p. 73.

189 Il. 23.166–178.

190 Il. 23.30–34, esp. 34: πάντῃ δ' ἀμφὶ νέϰυν ϰοτυλήρυτον ἔρρεεν αμα, either referring to the blood being so plentiful that it could be taken in cups or the blood actually being caught in cups and poured out, see Richardson 1993, 169, line 34; Burkert 1985, 60.

191 Eur. El. 91–92; cf. 511–515.

192 Eur. Hec. 124–126, 260–261, 391–393 and 528–537.

193 Eur. Heracl. 1026–1036 and 1040–1043. Other examples: Aesch. Ag. 1277–1278; Eur. Alc. 845; Eur. Hel. 1255; Eur. Tro. 622–623.

194 Mikalson 1991, 114–123, cf. 29–45; Garland 1985, xi, considers tragedy as drawing more from hero-cult than from the cult of the ordinary dead. Cf. Henrichs 1991, 200, arguing that tragedy focuses on the abnormal dead, while comedy reflects the attitude to the normal dead.

195 Hom. Il. 23.22–23 and 175–176; Eur. Hec. 528–537. Cf. Casabona 1966, 168–170, on the terms aposphazein and katasphazein, which are used almost exclusively for the killing of humans.

196 The mention of blood rituals to the dead in the tragedies could be seen as an influence from hero-cult, but each passage cannot automatically be taken as a description of or reference to an actual hero-cult, see Mikalson 1991, 31–45; see also below, p. 261, n. 228.

197 LS 97 A, 12–13 = IG XII:5 593: προσφαγίωι [χ]ρέσθαι ϰατὰ ṭὰ π[άτρια].

198 See discussion above, pp. 229–230. Furthermore, to share a victim with an unburied family member would have been to share his condition as unburied, dead and impure.

199 See Casabona 1966, 170–174: prosphagion is found only in the Ioulis law, while prosphazein and prosphagma are mainly found in tragedy, often concerning human sacrifice.

200 [Pl.] Min. 315c: ἱερεĩά τε προσφάττοντες πρò τῆς ἐϰφορᾶς τοῦ νεϰροῦ. Schol. [Pl.] Min. 315c (Greene 1938): ἐγχυτιστρίας'... λέγονται, δὲ ϰαὶ ὅσαι, τοὺς ἐναγεĩς ϰαθαίρουσιαἷμα ἐπιχέουσαι τοῦ ἱερείου. Cf. De Schutter 1996, 335.

201 LS 97 A, 14–17. One of the main purposes of the funerary laws may have been to limit and prevent the spread of pollution, see Heikkilä (forthcoming).

202 Louis Robert (1937, 306–308, no. 3) suggested the restoration προσφα[γ]ιάζ[οντες] in a late imperial epitaph recording the institution of a funerary cult in Phrygia. The terminology is unusual also in this context, since the other examples of similar texts use thyein or thysia (ibid. 391).

203 Enagizein and enagismos used for funerary rituals in Athens refer to the burning of vegetable offerings and cakes, as well as the pouring of libations, but cannot be taken as support for the use of animal sacrifice and blood rituals in the cult of the dead.

204 See, for example, LS 77 C (= Rougemont 1977, no. 9 C and discussion pp. 51–57), the funerary law of the phratry Labyadai, Delphi, c. 400 BC; LSA 16, Gamberion, Mysia, 3rd century BC; LS 124, Eresos, Samos, 2nd century BC; cf. Seaford 1994, 74–78; Toher 1991, 159–175.

205 Peirce 1993, 253–254; Jameson 1991, 219; Durand 1989a, 91. Human sacrifice: London BM 97.7–27.2, black-figure, “Tyrrhenian” amphora showing the death of Polyxena, van Straten 1995, V422, fig. 118; see also Durand & Lissarrague 1999, 83–106, esp. 91–102. On human sacrifices in general, see Hughes 1991; Bonnechere 1994. War sphagia: Cleveland 26.242, Athenian red-figure kylix (my Fig. 11, p. 272), van Straten 1995, V144, fig. 112.

206 Durand 1986, 10–11; Durand 1989a, 91–92; Peirce 1993, 220.

207 Cf. Ekroth 2000, 277–279.

208 Thuc. 5.11. Most instances of entemnein in hero-cult have a connection with war; see Plut. Vit. Sol. 9.1, heroes of Salamis; Plut. Vit. Pel. 22.2, daughters of Skedasos; Philostr. Her. 53.13, Achilles; cf. Plut. Quaest. Rom. 290d, Enyalios; perhaps also the Scythian Toxaris who was depicted as carrying a bow, Lucian Scytha 1–2.

209 Discussed by Hornblower 1996, 454–456. According to Thucydides, Hagnon, who received a cult at Amphipolis prior to Brasidas, was given timai. It is possible that Thucydides deliberately used only the term timai to make a distinction between the cult of Hagnon and that of Brasidas, since the latter had been killed in war and therefore received rituals of a particular kind.

210 LSS 64, 7–22.

211 See discussion above, pp. 135–136.

212 Fr. 65, lines 77–89 (Austin 1968). For references to war in this passage, cf. Robertson 1996, 45.

213 Cf. Lacore 1995–96, 102–107, suggesting that the death and subsequent cult of the Hyakinthids is to be seen as a reference to the citizens who die for their country and the honours they are promised and that the tone and content of Euripides here are reminiscent of the epitaphioi logoi.

214 No direct war connection can be demonstrated for Pelops, who also received a blood ritual. Zeus, however, with whom Pelops was associated at Olympia, was in the Archaic and Classical periods chiefly worshipped as a god connected with war, receiving a remarkable number of war-related offerings and having an oracle that was consulted about the outcomes of military campaigns, see Mallwitz 1972, 24–39; Sinn 1991, 38–46.

215 See also Robertson 1996, 45. Cf. the sacrifice of goats to Artemis Agrotera before battle, taken as symbolizing the imminent shedding of human blood, see Vernant 1991, 256.

216 LS 96, 35–37; Jameson 1991, 203 with n. 16.

217 The best parallel to this ritual is that of the Heros Archegetes at Tronis, described by Pausanias (10.4.10): each day, the hero was honoured with animal victims, the blood of which was poured into the hero’s grave, while the meat was consumed (ἔχει δ' oὖv ἐπὶ ἡμέραι τε πάσηι τιμὰς ϰαὶ ἄγοντες ἱέρεĩα oἱ Φωϰεĩς τò μὲν αΐμα δι’ ὀπῆς ἐσχέουσιν ἐς τòν τάφον, τὰ δὲ ϰρέα ταύτηι σφίσιν ναλοῦν ϰαθέστηϰεν). The identity of this hero is unknown, but it is interesting to note that, according to one tradition reported to Pausanias, he was a famous soldier called Xanthippos.

218 Ekroth 2000, 279, figs. 3–4; Dunst 1964, 482–485, fig. 1, who also discusses possible connections with the Attic Leukaspis mentioned in the Erchia calendar (LS 18, col. III, 50–53); Caltabiano 1992, 273; Jenkins 1972, fig. 421 and p. 169. For a discussion of the coin type, see Raven 1957, 77–81, who proposes a date around 412 BC.

219 For altars and sacrifices in the Greek numismatic material, see Aktseli 1996, 50–54; Ayala 1989, 56–65, esp. 59; cf. Liegle 1936, 203.

220 Jameson 1994b, 320–324, nos. 1–12, esp. 323, no. 9, the animals all being rams. Bulls are used for the sphagia shown on the Nike parapet (Jameson 1994b). There are also a few examples of the Leukaspis coin type which show only the ram and no altar, see Rizzo 1946, pl. 47:5; Lacroix 1965, 50–51.

221 In the regular thysia scenes, the dead victim is shown only when being opened up or cut up into portions (see van Straten 1995, 115–153). A parallel to the position and appearance of the dead ram on the Leukaspis coin is to be found on an Athenian red-figure stamnos by the Triptolemos painter (ARV 2 361/7) showing Aias or Achilles fighting Hektor, both being restrained by older men. Between the warriors lies a ram on its back with its throat deeply cut and blood running out of the wound. The vase-painter has named the ram PAT[, presumably Patroklos: for the various interpretations, see Schmidt M. 1969, 141–152; Griffiths 1985, 49–50; Griffiths 1989, 39; Jameson 1994b, 320, no. 2. Cf. also a Roman coin from Magnesia showing Themistokles with a phiale and a sword next to an altar and the front part of a bull, see Rhousopoulos 1896, 21; Podlecki 1975, 170–171 and pl. 3:c.

222 Raven 1957, 77–81; cf. Lacroix 1965, 51. For Leukaspis’ war connections, see also an early-6th-century dedication from Samos to this hero showing a shield and the front part of a ship (Dunst 1972, 100–106 and pl. 45–46). The monument was put up by two men from the same island, thanking Leukaspis for helping them at a Sicanian attack on Himera.

223 The connection between heroes and war is further underlined by heroes being shown on reliefs as armed, with or without horses (van Straten 1995, 93–94) and the presence of weapons in the banqueting hero-reliefs, in particular those from Thasos (Thönges-Stringaris 1965, 58).

224 Cf. Jameson 1951, 49–51, for the connections that heroes have with the territory. Cf. the heroes Echetlos and Marathon participating in the battle at Marathon, Paus. 1.32.4–5.

225 Plut. Vit. Sol. 9.1.

226 Plut. Vit. Pel. 21–22; Am. narr. 774d.

227 Parth. Amat. Narr. 35.2.

228 Soph. OC 621–622: ἵν’ οὑμòς εὕδων ϰαὶ ϰεϰρυμμένος νέϰυς ψυχρός ποτ’ αὐτῶν θερμòν αἷμα πίεται. The OC has often been suggested to imply a hero-cult of Oidipous at Athens, see Kearns 1988, 48 and 189; Méautis 1940, 37–51; cf. Seaford 1994, 130–136. This passage, however, is not to be used as evidence for the ritual practices of such a cult, since the tomb is to be secret and unapproachable and receive no regular cult (see Mikalson 1991, 41). The strongest advocates for OC reflecting an actual cult of Oidipous are Henrichs (1983) and Edmunds (1981, 229, n. 31). Their opinion is partly based on a fragment of the Thebais (Allen 1912, 113, fr. 2; 7th–6th century BC), in which the terms παρέθεϰε τράπεζαν (line 2) and γέρα (line 6) are used in connection with Oidipous, which, Henrichs and Edmunds argue, suggests the existence of a hero-cult of Oidipous. This reasoning seems strange, since Oidipous in that particular context is still alive and quarrels with his sons over the distribution of meat after a sacrifice; cf. Bethe 1891, 102–103.

229 Cf. the haimakouria to the war dead at Plataiai described by Plut. Vit. Arist. 21.1–5. The rituals to these war dead seem to have undergone changes from the 5th century BC to the 2nd century AD, see above, p. 124, n. 450. Welwei 1991, 56, considers the 2nd-century AD ritual as being more or less intact from the 5th century BC.

230 Thuc. 2.34–46; cf. Hornblower 1991, 292.

231 Pl. Menex. 249b; Dem. Epitaph. 36.

232 Lys. Epitaph. 80: those fallen in war are worthy of receiving the same honours as the immortals (ὡς ξίους ὄντας τοὺς ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ τετελευτηϰότας ταĩς αὐταĩς τιμαĩς ϰαὶ τοὺς θανάτους τιμᾶσθαι); Dem. Epitaph. 36: the war dead as possessors of ageless honours, who had had a memorial of their valour erected by the State, and were deemed deserving of sacrifices and immortal games (σεμνòν δέ γ' γήρως τιμὰς ϰαὶ μνήμην ρετῆς δημοσίᾳ ϰτησαμένους ἐπιδεĩν, ϰαὶ θυσιῶν ϰαὶ γώνων ἠξιωμένους θανάτων); Stesimbrotos FGrHist 107 F 9: Perikles declared that the fallen in the Samian War had become immortal like the gods (τοὺς ἐν Εάμῳ τεθνηϰότας ... θανάτους ἔλεγε γεγονέναι ϰαθάπερ τοὺς θεούς); cf. Parker 1996, 135–136; Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, 191–195; Loraux 1986, 40–41.

233 On the immortal state of the war dead, see also Hyp. Epitaph. 27–30; Simonides’ epitaph for the fallen at Thermopylai (no. 532, Campbell 1991); cf. Rudhardt 1958, 122–125. The fact that the Athenian war dead did not receive enagizein sacrifices (in this period) may have been a further way of distancing them from death. Cf. also Fuqua 1981 on Tyrtaios’ allusion to the Spartan war dead being considered as immortal. The religious status of the war dead, as well as their cult, is a complex question, which I hope to be able to pursue further elsewhere.

234 Parker 1983, 37–39; LS 97 B, 1–11.

235 See above, p. 256.

236 For graves of heroes located in sanctuaries of gods, see Pfister 1909–12, 450–459; Vollgraff 1951, 315–396. In speaking of the funerals of the “Examiners”, Plato states that priests and priestesses are to participate in the funeral procession as to t§ táfÿ a tomb that is pure (ὡς ϰαθαρεύοντι τῷ τά), even though they are barred from approaching all other tombs (Leg. 947d). These “pure” tombs were probably the tombs of heroes.

237 LS 154 A, 21–22 and 37; LS 156 A, 10. According to Herzog’s restoration of LS 156 A, 9–10, the priestess could not participate in the sacrifices to the chthonian gods or the heroes. However, this restoration is highly conjectural (see above p. 135, n. 23). The superstitious man in the Characters of Theophrastos (16.9) refuses to step on a gravestone (mnema), to view a corpse or to visit a woman in childbirth, so as not to incur pollution. A heroon, however, does not seem to have posed any danger to him.

238 LSS 115 A, 21–25, late 4th century BC. For the interpretation of the passage, see discussions by Parker 1983, 336–339; Malkin 1987, 206–212; Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 110–111; cf. Nock 1944, 577.

239 Paus. 5.13.3. In the case of Telephos, a bath would allow the worshipper to enter the temple of Asklepios.

240 On the impure Tritopatores, see Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, A 9–12, and above, pp. 221–223 and pp. 235–238.

241 Parker 1983, 42; Pritchett 1979, 196–202; cf. Bremmer 1983b, 105. The sacrifices on the battlefield after the battle at the tropaion were regular thysia, see Durand 1996, 50–52.

242 See Johnston 1999, 149–150; Bremmer 1983b, 105–108.

243 Jameson 1991, 212–213.

244 Seaford 1994, 123–139. The concept of the heroes being angry and revengeful at being violently killed and having died seems mainly to have been a later development (see Rose 1953, 1052–1057, cf. Nock 1950, 713–714; Waszink 1954, 391–394; Nilsson 1967, 183–184). Revengeful spirits are another matter. The elasteroi at Selinous receive thysia sacrifices “as to the immortals”, but the blood is to flow into the ground, see Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, B 12–13.

245 Johnston 1999, 129–139.

246 Chantraine & Masson 1954, 85–106; Parker 1983, 6.

247 Strabon 6.3.9; see Petropoulou 1985; cf. Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 83 and 95, on the Διòς ϰῴδιον used for purifications.

248 The terms enagizein, enagisma and enagismos occasionally occur in contexts mentioning purifications (Kleidemos FGrHist 323 F 14; Polyb. 23.10.17; Plut. Quaest. Rom. 270a), but a more direct connection between these terms and concepts of pollution is to be found only in the lexicographers and the scholia, e.g. Hsch. s.v. ἐναγίζειν (Latte 1953–66, E 2586); Etym. Magn. s.v. ἐναγίζειν (Gaisford 1848); schol. Hom. Od. 1.291 (Dindorf 1855). Cf. the development of agos and enages to become synonymous with miasma and miaros from the late 4th century BC (Parker 1983, 8, n. 35).

249 Cf. Ekroth 2000, 274–277.

250 Page 1955, 24–25; Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, 82–83.

251 Paus. 9.39.6.

252 Most examples come from later sources, see Heliod. Aeth. 6.14.3–6; oracle given by Apollon at Klaros, Krauss 1980, no. 11; see further above, pp. 60–74. Cf. also the female oracle of Apollon at Argos drinking blood to become possessed by the god (Paus. 2.24.1).

253 Eur. Hec. 534–541.

254 See above, pp. 173–175; cf. Plut. Vit. Sol. 9.1; Vit. Pel. 21–22; Am. narr. 774 d.

255 Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, A 12–13, see also commentary pp. 119–120; cf. Clinton 1996, 179.

256 Philostr. V A 4.16; Ap. Rhod. Argon. 3.1026–1041 and 3.1104–1222; Lucian Philops. 14.

257 Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, 77 and 83; cf. below, pp. 285–286.

258 On the importance of calling and acclaiming the hero, in particular by using chaire, see Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, 197. Johnston (1999, 155) further suggests that calling the hero was a way of locating him at a desired location, a kind of goeteia.

259 See discussion above, pp. 171–172, 178 and 190–192.

260 On the question with which games the sacrifices to the Agathoi should be connected, see Pouilloux 1954b, 378; Bergquist (forthcoming). A later case of a blood ritual in connection with games to a hero is the foundation of Kritolaos, at Aigale, Amorgos. At the yearly festival to this young hero a ram was to be slaughtered (σφαξάṭωσαν) at the agon, boiled whole and used for prizes in the contest; LSS 61 = Laum 1914, vol. 2, no. 50, lines 74–80, late 2nd century BC.

261 Aet. book 2, fr. 43, lines 80–83.

262 Plut. Vit. Arist. 21.1–5. The term deipnon was mainly used for “dinners” associated with apotropaic and cathartic rites, such as the deipna to Hekate, see Jameson 1994a, 38. Among the few cases of positive connotations of deipna, Jameson places the sacrifices to the war dead at Plataiai.

263 Philostr. Her. 53.11–12.

264 Hom. Od. 11.97–99; Eur. Hec. 536–537; cf. also Soph. OC 612–622, Oidipous is to be buried in the Athenian soil and drink the blood of its enemies.

265 Cf. Jouan 1981, on calling the dead in tragedy; cf. Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, 197.

266 Mikalson 1991, 121. It seems rather to have been desired to keep the dead at a distance, particularly from the Archaic period and onwards, see Johnston 1999, passim. At the Anthesteria, when the souls of the dead were thought to come up into the world of the living, various precautions were undertaken (Rohde 1925, 168; Deubner 1969, 111–114; Parke 1977, 116–117). At the Genesia, the state celebration in honour of the dead, sacrifices were primarily performed to Ge, even though some kinds of offerings were probably also brought for the departed, see Deubner 1969, 229–230.

267 Johnston 1999, 23–35. Possibly the explicit case of the dead drinking blood and being revitalized in the Nekyia is to be put in connection with the Homeric concept of the dead as weak and powerless shades; cf. Johnston 1999, 8–9; Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, 81–83.

268 See, for example, the use of curse tablets, Johnston 1999, 71–81.

269 Deneken 1886–90, 2505; von Fritze 1903, 64–66; Stengel 1910, 113–125; Eitrem 1912, 1124; Stengel 1920, 112; Rohde 1925, 116; Ziehen 1929, 1670–1671; Rudhardt 1958, 261–262 and 285–286; Scullion 1994, 97, n. 60; Scullion 2000, 169.

270 Stengel 1910, 113–125; Rohde 1925, 116; Rudhardt 1958, 285–286.

271 Il. 1.458–459: αὐτὰρ ἐπεί ῥ' εὔξάντο ϰαὶ οὐλοχύτας προβάλοντο, αὐέρυσαν μὲν πρῶτα ϰαί ἔσφαξαν ϰαὶ ἔδειραν.

272 Schol. Il. 1.459 (Dindorf 1875, vol. I): αὐέρυσαν: εἰς τοὐπίσω νέϰλων τòν τράχηλον τοῦ θυομένου ἱερείου, ὡς προσέχειν εἰς oὐρανòν τοĩς θεοĩς οἷς ϰαὶ ἐθύοντο, ὡς ϰαὶ αὐτῶν ὄντων ἐν οὐρανῷ. πάλιν δὲ τοĩς ἥρωσιν, ὡς ϰατθιχομένοις, ἔντομα ἔθυον ποβλέποντες ϰάτω εἰς γῆν. This information is found in the so-called Didymos scholia, not included in the scholia maiora published by Erbse (schol. Il. 1.459, Erbse 1969–88, vol. 1).

273 For the meaning of entoma, see Casabona 1966, 228.

274 Schol. Ap. Rhod. Argon. 1.587 (Wendel 1935): ἔντομα δὲ τὰ σφάγια, ϰυρίως τὰ τοĩς νεϰροĩς ἐναγιζόμενα, διὰ τò ἐν τῇ γῇ αὐτῶν ποτέμνεσθαι τὰς ϰεφελάς. οὕτω γὰρ θύουσί, τοĩς χθονίοις, τοĩς δὲ οὐρανίθις ἄνω ἀνϰστρέφοντες τòν τράχηλον σφάζουσιν Casabona 1966, 226, mistakenly refers this scholion to Thucydides.

275 Plut. Vit. Pel. 21–22. This story is referred to in less detail also by other sources, see above, p. 97, n. 323.

276 Plut. Vit. Pel. 22.2, ed. Ziegler 1968.

277 Von Fritze 1903, 66; Stengel 1910, 104, n. 1; Rudhardt 1958, 285–286. For the reading katastrepsantes, see Plut. Vit. Pel. 22.2, ed. Ziegler 1968, app. crit., line 23.

278 Od. 10.527–528.

279 Od. 11.35–36. On this sacrifice resulting in a decapitation of the victims, see above, pp. 174–175, esp. n. 187.

280 Casabona 1966, 155–196, 211–229 and 337–338.

281 Material collected and discussed in Jameson 1991, 217–219 with n. 49, and Jameson 1994b, 320–324; cf. van Straten 1995, 103–113.

282 The interpretation of the clearest depiction of a sacrifice of this kind, a tondo of a fragmentary, red-figure kylix now in Cleveland (my Fig. 11), is complicated by the problem of how the picture is to be oriented. This is clear if one compares how Jameson (1991, 218, fig. 1) and van Straten (1995, V144, fig. 112) have placed the vase. Jameson has turned the picture so that the sword of the soldier is parallel to the ground and the exposed throat of the ram is vertical to the ground. Van Straten, on the other hand, has oriented the illustration with the sword pointing towards the ground at an angle of 45° and the throat of the animal facing downwards. Considering how the head is shown on the other depictions of the same ritual, Jameson’s orientation of the vase seems preferable.

283 Cf. Jameson 1991, n. 49; von Fritze 1903, 64–65.

284 See also van Straten 1995, V141, fig. 115; Barbieri & Durand 1985, figs. 1, 6 and 7.

285 Peirce 1993, 220 and 234–235, interprets the vase as showing the sphage in a thysia; van Straten 1995, 111, does not consider the scene to be a sphagia.

286 For sources and discussion, see van Straten 1995, 107–113; Peirce 1993, 234–235 with n. 56; Jouanna 1992, 412–413. Of particular interest is Od. 3.444–455: at this sacrifice, the vessel for the blood is kept ready, the animal is stunned and thereafter raised (the entire animal or just the head) from the ground, so that the throat can be slit and the blood flow out. If the raising refers to the whole animal, the scene described would have been very similar to that shown on the Viterbo amphora.

287 The small number of representations of the actual moment of killing should be kept in mind. Cf. the position of the head and throat of the pig on the Athenian red-figure, kylix tondo Louvre G112, showing the moments preceding the killing of the animal (my Fig. 7, p. 243), and the position of Polyxena on the vase depicting her being sacrificed (van Straten 1995, V422, fig. 118). In these two cases, however, the position of the victim seems to be dependent on what was convenient for the person performing the actual killing rather than the location of the recipient.

288 For the use of knives at thysiai, see Berthiaume 1982, 18 and 109–110, n. 14.

289 Odysseus uses a sword for the sacrifices in the Nekyia (Od. 11.24 and 11.48). In the examples of iconographical representations of sphagia listed by Jameson (1994b, 320–324), a sword is definitely used in nine cases out of twelve (nos. 1–5, 8–10 and 12; no. 6 has a sword or a dagger; no. 11 probably a sword; no. 7, no weapon mentioned). On the use of swords at depictions of human sacrifices, see Durand & Lissarrague 1999, 91–106, esp. 105. Cf. Plut. Vit. Arist. 21.2–5, esp. 21.4; the archon at Plataiai uses a sword for the enagizein sacrifice and haimakouria to the war dead.

290 The distinctions between piercing and slitting/cutting need to be further examined. In the depictions of the pre-battle sphagia, it looks as if the person killing the animal is driving his sword into the throat of the victim, rather than slitting it, see Jameson 1991, 218, fig. 1 (cf. 222, n. 9) = my Fig. 11, p. 272; Jameson 1994b, 321, figs. 18.8 and 18.9a. Stengel (1910, 120–123) and Ziehen (1929, 1670) argued that there was a vital difference between piercing and cutting the animal’s throat: the former was the practice at Olympian sacrifices and the latter in chthonian rituals, but they also interpreted sphazein as referring to piercing and not cutting, and Stengel further underlined that the scenes showing Nike performing sphagia were not to be considered as being chthonian rituals.

291 The bending down of the head at the bleeding should not be overemphasized, since, to collect the blood at regular thysiai, the head of the victim must have been turned downwards or the whole carcass hung with the head facing towards the ground.

292 Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, B 13, see also commentary p. 45.

293 The sacrificial reality can be difficult to imagine. Cf. the butchers at the slaughterhouse in Berlin, who laughed at Stengel (1910, 115) when he asked them whether it was possible to lift adult living cows and then kill them, see van Straten 1995, 109. The practical difficulties of killing an animal while the head was bent down were remarked upon already by von Fritze (1903, 61–66), who instead suggested that katastrephein referred to the pressing of the whole animal towards the ground and not just turning down the head; see also Scullion 1994, 97, n. 60. Cf. also the Roman standard rendering of sacrifices, especially of bulls, from the early 2nd century AD to late antiquity, in which the animal’s head is always bent towards the ground to show the victim’s consent, a kind of representation lacking in the Greek material, see Himmelmann 1997, 56–59; Brendel 1930.

294 Ziehen 1939, 582–586; Burkert 1985, 68; Gill 1991, 7–11; Jameson 1994a, 37.

295 Jameson 1994a, 38.

296 Jameson 1994a, 38.

297 Jameson 1994a, 37–38; Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 35–36; Burkert 1985, 68; cf. Kearns 1994.

298 Jameson 1994a; Burkert 1985, 107.

299 Jameson 1994a; Bruit 1989; Bruit 1990, 170–173.

300 Herakles and Dioskouroi: Verbanck-Piérard 1992; Hermary 1986; Jameson 1994a, 47–48; Gill 1991, 9. Other gods: Jameson 1994a, 53–54; Bruit 1984 (Apollon); cf. Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 67–70.

301 Jameson 1994a, 54–55. Preserved remains of tables are associated with a variety of recipients, see Gill 1991. These tables could have been used both for the regular deposition of bloodless gifts and for theoxenia.

302 Jameson 1994a, 55.

303 Jameson 1994a, 41; Bruit 1984, 363–367.

304 Jameson 1994a, 37; cf. Gill 1991, 15–19; Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 67.

305 Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, A 15–16 and A 19–20, cf. 64 and 68; Jameson 1994a, 43–44.

306 Garland 1985, 110; Kurtz & Boardman 1971, 215; Burkert 1985, 192; De Schutter 1996, 340–342.

307 For examples of animal bones and the uneven distribution of these remains in different grave plots and the question of animal sacrifice for the ordinary dead, see above, pp. 230–232.

308 Stengel 1920, 146; Kurtz & Boardman 1971, 145–147. Burkert 1985, 194, suggests offerings of food. According to Rohde 1925, 167, the dead man had a meal alone at the grave.

309 Kurtz & Boardman 1971, 146; Sourvinou-Inwood 1983, 41–42; Burkert 1985, 193; Johnston 1999, 42; Hughes (forthcoming).

310 Stengel 1910, 144; Stengel 1920, 146; Rohde 1925, 167.

311 Nilsson 1967, 179; Murray 1988, 250; cf. Burkert 1985, 193.

312 Rohde 1925, 167; Kurtz & Boardman 1971, 147–148; Murray 1988, 250; Johnston 1999, 63–64 and 277. Garland 1985, 110–114, is more in favour of more extensive offerings of meals, as well as animal sacrifice to the dead.

313 Rohde 1925, 168; Nilsson 1967, 181; Deubner 1969, 111–114; Parke 1977, 116; De Schutter 1996, 339–345.

314 The information on the Chytroi is found only in late sources, whose authors have probably mistaken the dead for Hermes, see Meuli 1946, 199–200; Nilsson 1967, 181; Deubner 1969, 111–114; Parke 1977, 116–117; Johnston 1999, 64. For the dead receiving a panspermia in connection with the funeral, see De Schutter 1996, 338–345. On the Anthesteria and its contents, see also Robertson 1993, 197–250, who suggests that the keres are to be understood as Carians rather than as ghosts.

315 The doorways were smeared with pitch, buckthorn was chewed and the sanctuaries closed, see Rohde 1925, 168; Deubner 1969, 111–114; Parke 1977, 116–117; Murray 1988, 251. For the fear of ghosts and the Anthesteria as a means to avert, appease and control the dead, see Johnston 1999, 63–71.

316 At the Genesia, sacrifices were offered to Ge, but private celebrations of the dead also took place on the same day, see Deubner 1969, 229–230; Georgoudi 1988, 80–89; Johnston 1999, 44 with n. 24.

317 Funerary monuments resembling tables are known from Thera (Archaic period), Athens (Hellenistic period), Macedonia and Boiotia, but it is doubtful to what extent they were used as tables for meals, see Kurtz & Boardman 1971, 168–169 and 235–236; Gill 1991, 29. In the sacred law from Selinous, a theoxenia ritual is used as a means to control an angry spirit, elasteros, but the recipient is still dangerous and has to be separated from the living while being placated, see Johnston 1999, 48. On the exceptional use of a symposium to the dead for the purpose of necromancy, see Murray 1988, 252.

318 Stengel 1910, 126; Stengel 1920, 146–149; Rohde 1925, 170; Meuli 1946, 191–194.

319 Stengel 1920, 148–149; Meuli 1946, 191 and 198; cf. Burkert 1985, 193

320 Thönges-Stringaris 1965, 48–62; Dentzer 1982, 353–363 and 526–527; van Straten 1995, 94–95; Jameson 1994a, 53–54. Cf. Murray 1988, 244–255, who argues that there was a polarity between the world of the symposium and the world of the dead in the Greek world.

321 Thönges-Stingaris 1965, 65–67, suggests that the increase in mystery cults could have led to the ordinary dead being pictured as partaking in an eternal symposium and therefore the motif was used also in funerary contexts. However, if the motif had been used in hero-cults from the late 6th century BC, is it not possible that the cult of the dead had been influenced by the hero-cults in this matter?

322 Thönges-Stringaris 1965, 65.

323 Meuli 1946, 201, argued that the term xenia seems to imply that the family of the departed participated in the meals at the tomb.

324 See above, pp. 127–128.

325 Nilsson 1967, 179. Incidentally, the examples cited by Nilsson––the testament of Epikteta and the heroon at Kalydon––are rather to be taken as hero-cults than as examples of the cult of the ordinary dead.

326 Meuli 1946, 196–198.

327 Jameson 1994a, 53–54, is sceptical about deriving theoxenia from meals for the dead; cf. Gill 1991, 22–23.

328 Od. 14.414–456; Gill 1991, 20–22; Jameson 1994a, 38–39; cf. Ziehen 1939, 616, who considers theoxenia to be an older ritual than thysia.

329 For the details of this sacrifice, see Kadletz 1984; Petropoulou 1987.

330 Chionides fr. 7 (PCG IV, 1983); cf. Jameson 1994a, 46–47.

331 LS 20 B: trapezai, lines 3–4, 14–15, 23–24, 25 and 53; piglets, lines 28, 36 and 37.

332 Gill 1991, 22–23, who suggests that the idea could have come from house cults or the practice of depositing food offerings at shrines.

333 On trapezomata, see Jameson 1994a, 56; cf. Gill 1991, 11–15.

334 Jameson 1994a, 56–57.

335 Vernant 1989, 24–26; Bruit 1990, 171.

336 Bruit 1990, 170–173; cf. Bruit 1989.

337 There does not seem to have been any sense of commensality between gods and men in Greek sacrifices, see Jameson 1994a, 55; Nock 1944; Gill 1991, 23; Bruit 1989, 21. At theoxenia, the divine guests were thought of as visiting and then departing and at regular thysia, the divine and the human part of the sacrifice were separate, both in time and in contents. Commensality also seems to have been lacking in the cult of the dead.

338 See pp. 136–140 and 177–179.

339 Remains of actual tables have been found in the Amyneion in Athens (Körte 1893, 234; Körte 1896, 289 and pl. 11:F; Gill 1991, 69, no. 53) and the Amphiareion at Oropos (Gill 1991, 69, no. 55, and 78, no. 62). Banqueting hero-reliefs are known from both these sites, see van Straten 1995, R36–38; Petrakos 1968, 123, no. 24. Legs of tables were also found in two small shrines at Corinth, usually interpreted as belonging to heroes, see Williams 1978, 7–11, fig. 1 and pl. 1:a (Stele shrine); Williams, Fischer & MacIntosh 1974, 4–6, fig. 1 and pl. 1:b (Shrine at the crossroads). Cf. also the banquet relief dedicated to Anios on Delos and the altar/bench in the Archegesion, which may have been used in theoxenia ceremonies, see supra, pp. 36–37.

340 Thönges-Stringaris 1965, 22–24, 48–54 and 61–62; van Straten 1995, 89 and 94–100; Dentzer 1982, 503–511.

341 Van Straten 1995, 96: banqueting reliefs with animals, R115–190, with maid and kiste, R191–211. Most reliefs have neither worshippers nor sacrificial victims, only the reclining hero accompanied by a consort and a cupbearer, see Thönges-Stringaris 1965, 69. Cf. Salapata 1993 for the Laconian hero-reliefs, which never show any food, only drinking vessels.

342 Van Straten 1995, 96–97.

343 Jameson 1994a, 53; cf. Dentzer 1982, 335 and 519–524.

344 Jameson 1994a, 53; Verbanck-Piérard 1992, 92–93.

345 The composition of the reliefs with animal sacrifice falls into two parts, the worshippers approaching with the animal on one side and the banqueter on the other, and there are no attempts to integrate the two groups into one composition, see Dentzer 1982, 328.

346 Jameson 1994a, 53.

347 On the effects of standardization, cf. Murray 1988, 246.

348 For the financial considerations in choosing an animal victim, see van Straten 1995, 179–181.

349 On the popularity of hero-cults on the family level, see van Straten 1995, 95–96, who further points out that, judging from the names of many heroes, they were of a benevolent, kind and helpful character, which must have been particularly appealing on the private level; cf. Parker 1996, 38–39; Kutsch 1913.

350 In the Thorikos calendar, all the recipients of trapezai are heroines (see p. 138, n. 45 for references). On the lower status of heroines in the Athenian sacrificial calendars, see Larson 1995, 26–34.

351 For the Heroxeinia, see p. 136. On the Theoxenia at Delphi, see Bruit 1984, 363–367; Jameson 1994a, 41.

352 See above, p. 284, n. 349.

353 Pind. Ol. 1.90–92.

354 Thuc. 5.11; LSS 64, 7–22.

355 Plut. Vit. Arist. 21.5; Philostr. Her. 53.11–12. In these cases, however, the meat from the animal used for the blood ritual seems not to have been eaten by the worshippers; cf. Jameson 1994a, 39, n. 18.

356 On the effects of eating raw blood, see above, p. 249, n. 156.

357 For the burning of offerings from tables at Selinous, see Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, A 15–16 and A 19–20; cf. the burning of the hiera at a regular thysia and the deposition of the deipna to Hekate, from which only the very poor ate, see Jameson 1994a, 38 and 45; Parker 1983, 347.

358 See pp. 62–71 and 254–257.

359 Od. 11.95–99.

360 The shades seem to have been in various degrees of need of the blood. Teiresias could talk even before he had drunk the blood, while Odysseus’ mother did not recognize her son before drinking, see Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, 81–83. For the offering of food for the purpose of necromancy, see Murray 1988, 252–253. The ordinary dead apparently suffered more under their bodily needs than the heroes. The notion of the dead as being dry and thirsty and becoming revitalized by the libations, also known from the Orphic gold leaves, seems to have concerned the ordinary dead rather than the heroes, see Vernant 1985, 334–338; Deonna 1939, 60–70 and 76–77; Zuntz 1971, 370–374 and 389.

361 Burkert 1985, 55 with n. 1, for references to the older literature. It should be pointed out that thysia sacrifice here means the contents of the rituals, whether or not the terms thyein or thysia are used, since thysia sacrifice, in the sense of alimentary sacrifice, does not necessarily have to be described by the terms thyein or thysia.

362 Burkert 1966, 104–113; Burkert 1983, 1–29; Burkert 1985, 55–59; cf. Meuli 1946.

363 Vernant 1989, 24–29 and 36–38; Vernant 1991, 279–283; Detienne 1989a; Durand 1989a; Durand 1989b; Schmitt Pantel 1992. For mutual criticism, see Burkert 1985, 4 and 217, on the structuralist approach and Vernant 1991, 279, on Burkert.

364 Burkert 1985, 57; Rudhardt 1970, 13–15; Vernant 1989, 27; Vernant 1991, 281.

365 Vernant 1989, 36–38; Vernant 1991, 280–281.

366 On the suggested similarities between funeral and sacrifice, see above, p. 240, n. 124. The dead person is rather to be likened to the animal victim at a sacrifice than to the divine recipient of the thysia.

367 The actual terms thyein and thysia are, as a rule, not used for the rituals performed to the ordinary Greek dead in the period under study here. The only case known to me is Ar. Tag. fr. 504, lines 12–13 (PCG III:2, 1984): θύομεν † αὐτοĩσί, τοĩς ἐναγίσμασιν ὥσπερ θεοĩσι. Here, however, the offerings were enagismata and no dining took place. In non-Greek contexts, thyein and thysia can occasionally refer to sacrifices to the ordinary dead, for example, Hdt. 3.24 (rituals of the Ethiopians); Xen. Cyr. 8.7.1 (sacrifices in memory of Kyros’ parents).

368 Cf. the treatment of the impure Orestes at Athens, who had to eat and drink at a separate table and not be addressed by anyone, lest his impurity should spread, see Eur. IT 947–960; Phanodemos FGrHist 325 F 11; Burkert 1983, 221–222; Burkert 1985, 238–239. On the prosphagion, an animal that was sacrificed to the dead but did not result in any meat for the family, see above, pp. 229–230 and 256–257.

369 At least not in the case of the Tritopatores; see Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 113. For discussions of the distinctions between the ordinary dead and the ancestors from a cultic perspective, see Schmidt B. 1994, 4–13 (though I disagree with his views on Greek hero-cult, see ibid., 8–9 with n. 19); Hardacre 1987, 263–268, esp. 264.

370 Erchia calendar, LS 18, col. IV, 41–46, a sheep; Marathon calendar, LS 20 B, 33, a sheep, and 53–54, a trapeza. The sacrifices to the pure Tritopatores at Selinous (and perhaps also to the impure Tritopatores) consisted in animal sacrifice concluding with dining, even though a part of the meat was completely burnt (see Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, A 9–17, and the discussion above, pp. 221–223). For the cult of the Tritopatores in general, see further Jameson, Jordan & Kotansky 1993, 107–113; Malkin 1987, 210–212.

371 SEG 30, 1980, 1119, lines 29–33; the verb used for the sacrifices is thyein.

372 See Hughes (forthcoming).

373 See, for example, Berthiaume 1982; Peirce 1993; Rosivach 1994; van Straten 1995.

374 See above, pp. 217–225; for the specific case of Herakles, see Verbanck-Piérard 1989; Lévêque & Verbanck-Piérard 1992.

375 Peirce 1993, passim; van Straten 1995, passim.

376 Van Straten 1995, 3–5. As regards the purification sacrifices, could some of the scenes showing piglets being carried by one hind leg, with the head facing the ground, be purification scenes? For depictions of piglets being carried (without any indications of belonging to a thysia context), see Durand 1986, figs. 58 and 61 (= van Straten 1995, V71 and V92); for purifications with piglets, only shown on Apulian and South Italian vases, see, for example, van Straten 1995, V411 (Orestes) and V427, fig. 1 (Proitidai?). On the purification with piglets, see also Parker 1983, 21.

377 Van Straten 1995, 3–5; for the sphagia, see 103–107 (esp. V147, fig. 110) and for the holocaust, see 157–158, V382, fig. 168: an Attic red-figure oinochoe from the late 5th century (Kiel B 55) showing Herakles and a youth with an oinochoe next to a low altar, on which lies a bovine skull and possibly a second animal skull. The interpretation of this scene as a holocaust depends on the skull, which has usually not been considered as belonging to the god’s portion placed on the altar (idem, 158). The finding of skull fragments and horn cores among the bones from the altar of Poseidon at Isthmia (Gebhard & Reese forthcoming) shows that the head of the animal could form part of the god’s portion as well and its presence does not necessarily indicate a holocaust.

378 Van Straten 1995, 5. Even though the thysia sacrifices would have given the vase-painters more scope for variation, the iconography of this ritual is limited to a few chosen moments: the pompe, certain preliminary rituals, the post-kill butchering and the dining; see van Straten 1995; Peirce 1993, 228; Durand 1989a; Durand 1989b. However, Herakles’ funeral pyre, which was also his holocaust of himself, is shown on red-figure Athenian vases (see Boardman 1990, 128–129, nos. 2909, 2910, 2916 and 2917). An animal holocaust would presumably have had a similar appearance.

379 Durand 1986, 11; Durand 1989a, 91; Vernant 1991, 294; cf. Burkert 1966, 106; Burkert 1985, 58.

380 Henrichs 1998, 58–63; Bonnechere 1999, 21–35; cf. Lambert M. 1993, 293–311, esp. 308–309, testing Burkert’s theory on Greek sacrifices against Zulu evidence.

381 Peirce 1993, passim.

382 Peirce 1993, 251–254.

383 Durand 1989a, 91.

384 Vernant 1989; Burkert 1985, 55–59; Durand 1989a; Detienne 1989a, 3–5; Whitehead 1986a, 205–206; Murray 1990, 5–7; Rosivach 1994, 1–4 and 11–12.

385 Durand 1989a, 103; Schmitt Pantel 1992, 49–50.

386 Though men were the principal recipients of the meat from sacrifices, there is ample evidence for women also receiving meat, either in the sanctuaries or at home, and metics and slaves could also occasionally be given meat portions, see Whitehead 1986a, 205–206; Rosivach 1994, 66–67.

387 Berthiaume 1982, 64–69; Vernant 1989, 25; Detienne 1989a, 3; Peirce 1993, 234–240; Rosivach 1994, 88; Jameson 1988, 87–88.

388 Isenberg 1975, 271–273; Berthiaume 1982, 62–70 and 81–93 (on meat from animals not ritually slaughtered); Xen. An. 5.3.7–10: a sacrifice to Artemis in which meat from hunted animals (from the land of the goddess) was used as a supplement to the sacrificial victims; cf. Stengel 1910, 197–201.

389 Two contemporary examples are the Jewish kosher and the Muslim halâl slaughter. On the non-religious character of butchering in the Christian sphere, see Himmelmann 1997, 61–62. See also Murray 1990, 5, on the possible ritual functions of modern dining.

390 For example, Hdt. 1.126; Xen. Mem. 2.3.11, An. 6.1.2–4; Dem. De falsa leg. 139. Cf. Casabona 1966, 80–81, 84 and 128; Durand 1989a, 87–89; Rosivach 1994, 3, n. 5.

391 Vernant 1989, 25–26; cf. Berthiaume 1982, 62–70.

392 Rosivach 1994, 2–3 and 65–67; for a different opinion on the role of sacrificial meat in the diet, see Jameson 1988, 105–106.

393 Similarly, Jameson has shown that the local, ritual commands (demonstrated in the sacrificial calendars from the Attic demes) corresponded more or less to the seasonal supply of various animals (1988, 87–119, esp. 106).

394 Pfister 1909–12, 466 and 478–479; Rohde 1925, 140, n. 15, on the particular case of Hdt. 7.117; Meuli 1946, 208, n. 1.

395 Casabona 1966, 72–85 and 126–139 (see esp. 85, n. 23bis), criticizing the position of Meuli; cf. Rudhardt 1958, 257–271. The use of the terminology in the post-Classical period is a different matter, since thyein was usually replaced by thysiazein (see Casabona 1966, 139); cf. the development of the meaning of enagizein outlined above, pp. 126–127.

396 Casabona 1966, 75–76, 80, 84, 126–127 and 334–336.

397 LSS 19, 19–20, cf. line 79. Cf. the calendar from Marathon, LS 20 B, 2, 23 and 39.

398 Casabona 1966, 82–84 and 127–129.

399 The use of thyein and thysia for human sacrifice is in a way more understandable, since this kind of sacrifice was never performed (at least not in Greek contexts). This marks a difference from sphagia and similar destruction sacrifices using animal victims, which were actually executed and therefore were more likely to be described by their own particular terminology. On the terminology of human sacrifice, see Scullion 1994, 97; Henrichs 1981, 218, n. 4, and 239–240. Non-Greeks are a different matter. Herodotos describes several cases of the sacrifice and eating of humans, using thyein for the ritual, see Hughes 1991, 8.

400 Cf. Scullion 1994, 97, n. 57, and 117.

401 In two cases, thyein and thysia may have been used to cover a sacrifice followed by dining but modified by a blood ritual. Aristotle (Eth. Nic. 1134b) refers to the sacrifices to Brasidas at Amphipolis simply as τò θύειν Βρβσίδᾳ, while Thucydides (5.11) describes them as ὡς ἥρωί τε ἐντέμνουσι ϰαὶ τιμὰς δεδώϰασιν ἀγῶνας ϰαὶ ἐτησίους θυσίας. Philochoros (FGrHist 328 F 12) mentions the θυσίαι νηφάλιοι to Dionysos and the daughters of Erechtheus, possibly the same sacrifices as those outlined in the Erechtheus of Euripides (fr. 65, lines 79–86 [Austin 1968]), but there said to consist of two sets of rituals described as θυσίαισι τιμᾶν ϰαὶ σφαγαĩσι [βουϰ]τόνοις and θύειν πρότομα For these rituals, see pp. 172–175 and 183–188. There is, however, a difference in time between Thucydides and Aristotle, and between Euripides and Philochoros, and it is possible that in the 4th century the blood rituals had disappeared. The words of Philochoros are only preserved as quoted in a scholion (schol. Soph. OC 100 [Papageorgius 1888]): the original text may have contained more details.

402 Creuzer 1842, 762–769, esp. 763; Hermann 1846, 66–67. See also Schoemann 1859, 173, 212–213 and 218–219; Wassner 1883. In other contemporary studies, the distinction between hero-cult and the cult of the gods seems to be so well established that no or only very few sources needed to be presented as evidence, see, for example, Müller 1848, 288–291; Nägelsbach 1857, 104–110; Lehrs 1875, 320 and 324. It is interesting to note that Welcker (1862, 247–250, esp. 248, n. 2), though accepting a distinction between hero-cult and the cult of the gods in terminology, altars and certain rituals, argued that enagismata and enagismoi could be understood as referring to animal sacrifice, at which the meat was eaten and not burnt. Ultimately, the notion of a distinction between the rituals for heroes and for gods can be viewed as an effect of the application of the Olympian-chthonian model, see Schlesier 1991–92, 38–44, esp. 39–40.

403 To illustrate this point, see the discussion in chapter I of the terminology assumed to be particular for hero-cults. Furthermore, in some cases, the sources referred to by these early scholars do not concern hero-cults, but destruction sacrifices to other divinities. See, for example, Wassner 1883, 6, n. 5.

404 For this passage (Hdt. 2.44), see pp. 85–86 and 225–226.

405 Bomoi to heroes: Aias, Pind. Ol. 9.112; Herakleidai, Pind. Isthm. 4.62; Pelops, Pind. Ol. 1.93, cf. p. 165; Opis and Arge, Delos, Hdt. 4.35, cf. pp. 201–202; Amphiaraos, Petropoulou 1981, 49, line 26; Echelos, LSS 20, 6 (restored). Heroes sharing a bomos with a god: Semele/Dionysos, LS 18, col. I, 46–48; Athena Skiras/Skiros, LSS 19, 93. To the written sources can be added the iconographical representations of altars in hero-cults, which show no distinctions from the altars used in the cult of the gods or any indications of being used for anything other than regular thysia, see van Straten 1995, 165–167; Ekroth 2001.

406 Pfister 1909–12, 480–489; Rohde 1925, 140, n. 15.

407 The principle of a general category being in less need of specification than an unusual category is the basis for the division into unmarked and marked, a model which is often used in linguistics and anthropology (see Waugh 1982, with further references to Roman Jakobson) but which can also be applied to Greek sacrifices (see Nagy 1979, 308, § 10n4).

408 Thasos: LSS 64 = Pouilloux 1954b, no. 141. Egretes: LS 47 = IG II2 2499.

Table des illustrations

Légende Fig. 7. Preparations for the killing of a piglet. Athenian red-figure kylix, c. 525–550 BC, Paris, Louvre. From Stengel 1920, pl. 3, fig. 12.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/503/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 816k
Légende Fig. 8. Mageiroi cutting up a ram lying on its back on a table, under which the sphageion is centrally placed. Athenian black-figure pelike, c. 500 BC, Paris, Collection Frits Lugt, Institut Néerlandais.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/503/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 2,6M
Légende Fig. 9. Mageiros preparing the meat for consumption. The sphageion is placed under the table on top of which the animal is being cut up. Note the blood that has spilled over the sides of the sphageion. Athenian red-figure lekythos, c. 475–450 BC, Munich, Staatliche Antikensammlungen und Glyptotek.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/503/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 820k
Légende Fig. 10. (a) Silver coin from Syracuse showing the hero Leukaspis, late 5th century BC, Munich, Staatliche Münzsammlung. (b) Drawing of silver coin from Syracuse showing the hero Leukaspis, late 5th century BC. After Rizzo 1946, 215, fig. 47b.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/503/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 6,9M
Légende Fig. 11. Sphagia sacrifice in connection with war. Fragmentary Athenian red-figure kylix, c. 490–480 BC, Cleveland, Museum of Art.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/503/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 715k
Légende Fig. 12. An ox being lifted and killed by a group of men. Athenian blackfigure amphora, c. 550 BC, Viterbo, Museo Archeologico Rocca Albornoz.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/503/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,4M
Titre Table 32. Terms used for sacrifices to heroes in the epigraphical and literary sources from the Archaic to the early Hellenistic periods.
Légende Only terms referring to a specific sacrifice are included.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/503/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 211k

© Presses universitaires de Liège, 2002

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

Lire

Freemium

open access

Offert par L’éditeur de ce site

Acheter

Volume papier

amazon.fr