Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:32:34.303Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The sacrificial calendar of Athens1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

Stephen Lambert
Stephen Lambert
Affiliation:
British School at Athens, University of Liverpool
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents the first ever full edition of the fragments of one of the most important documents of ancient Greek religion, the sacrificial calendar of Athens as it was inscribed on stone as part of the revision of Athenian Law in 410/9–405/4 and 403/2–400/399 BC. All these fragments, where they survive, are in Athens (the Agora and Epigraphical Museums). The edition contains many new readings, restorations and interpretative points (in particular the identification of festivals). In addition to a line-by-line commentary, a translation is included and there are explanatory notes on linguistic features, animal and non-animal items listed in the calendar and payments to priests and other officials.

Type
Articles
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 97 , November 2002 , pp. 353 - 399
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Ferguson, ‘Trittyes’, 144.

3 For these dates, and in general on the historical circumstances of the revision, see Rhodes, ‘Athenian Code’; on Lysias 30 see Todd, ‘Expert’.

4 Lys. 30. 17; cf. Parker, Athenian Religion, 44–5.

5 The precise nature of the kyrbeis has been the subject of endless, ultimately inconclusive, discussion; for a useful summary see Hansen, ch. 7 with pp. xix–xxv.

6 Rhodes, ‘Athenian Code’, 95; cf. Parker, Athenian Religion, 45 n. 6.

7 The commission's work on the sacrificial calendar is attacked at Lys. 30. 17–22.

8 Draco's law: IG i3. 104. Laws about the Council: IG i3. 105. Face B of our F3 is inscribed with law about the trierarchy (see further Rhodes, ‘Athenian Code’, 89–90). Some fragments of the calendar arc quoted in literary sources, Solon, Nomoi, F81–6 Ruschenbusch. Some fragmentary or doubtful text on our fragments, while dealing with sacred matters, may not have been in calendar form. F1A, 26–30 and F9B, col. 2, are certainly from the calendar, though the short sections preserved lack the usual prices; F12–13B may derive from religious matter in the code separate from the calendar, though the texts are too fragmentary for certainty.

9 This applies not least to the publications most frequently referred to, those in LSCG and LSS. It should be acknowledged, however, that Sokolowski also made significant contributions to the reconstruction and elucidation of this text.

10 In addition to the central state calendar several inscribed local Attic calendars survive. These include Eleusis Calendar, Erchia Calendar, Salaminioi Calendar, Teithras Calendar, Tetrapolis Calendar, and Thorikos Calendar.

11 This section repeats in summary form, with adjustment, well established matter. The basic argumentation is for the most part contained in Dow 1953–7, 1960 and 1961 (summary, 1968).

12 I omit from this reckoning IG i3. 240K, a very small fragment containing no complete word. It was attributed to these texts by Dow (followed by IG i3), but in my opinion it does not belong and is probably part of IG i3. 1185. See Parerga. I also omit IG i3. 236b, a piece of F3 preserving only Face B (trierarchic law), and IG i3. 237, in Lewis's view in the same hand as F13B, but not sacrificial calendar.

13 On the reason for this supposition see below, Order of Fragments, on F3. It is not clear whether the original text on Face A will have been sacrificial calendar. The suggestion of Kuhn, 215–16, that Face A was originally simply the uninscribed reverse of Face B, cannot be ruled out, but explains less well the unusual features of Face A.

14 F1A is probably from Boedromion of the annual sequence, F1B from Skirophorion (i.e. later in the year) probably also in the annual sequence; but it is very unlikely that F1B, in Attic script, contained a continuation of the sequence in F1A, in Ionic script. Rather, probably F1A is from a revised version of the material on F1B.

15 This is the majority view, supported e.g. by Dow, Clinton, ‘Law Code’, 35, and Rhodes, ‘Athenian Code’, 94–5, who is persuasive against the alternative views proposed by a minority of scholars, e.g. that Face A post-dates the trial of Nikomachos and represents an attempt to correct his commission's work.

16 See Order of Fragments on F8; commentary on F1B, 14. Kuhn, 216, suggests that the stelai were only clamped together when the material in Ionic script was inscribed.

17 In essentials this follows Dow, especially 1961. However I prefer 'stele-series’ to Dow's term ‘wall’ and Dow's attribution of the surviving fragments to two, or perhaps three, ‘walls’, while possible, is questionable. Of the published fragments with both faces preserved only two have the same thickness. Moreover, it is quite possible that stelai of different thickness were joined in a single series, with Face A aligned, Face B protruding back to a differing extent (indeed, a positive case can be made for this in the case of the group A fragments) and/or that there was more than one stele-series which contained stones of the same, or about the same, thickness.

18 Again this is the majority view, supported by Rhodes, ‘Athenian Code’, 90–1 (cf. IG i3. 104, 6–8). Dissenters include Kuhn and Robertson, Laws: Five of our fragments were found in various late contexts in the south-west Agora, in or around the tholos (F3, 8–11), but it is not clear that this was close to their original location (Robertson, Laws, 59–60, argues that was South Stoa I, but cf. Rhodes n. 22), rather than reflecting movement to that area of some blocks from our stelai for a later construction purpose (cf. Parerga I). At least two fragments were found on the slopes of the Acropolis (F1a, south slope, F6, NW slope), F2 rather to the SE of the tholos-area cluster. If the original location was the Stoa of the Basileus, the findspot of F13, a little to the NW of that Stoa, would be closest to it.

19 The argument relating to F2A and F3A col. 1 is new; see the notes ad loc. Dow 1960 inferred from the wording of Lysias 30. 20–1, about traditional sacrifices that had been omitted the previous year and new sacrifices offered for the last two years, that the revised annual calendar had come into effect two years before the speech was delivered, i.e. in 401/0, and the prior of the biennial sequences (i.e. in his view that in F3A, col. 2) one year before, in 400/399. In my view the prior biennial sequence may rather have been that beginning in F2A, but even if it was not, and even allowing that it is legitimate to make literal chronological inferences from this contentious passage, there are serious doubts e.g. about (a) the date of delivery of Lysias 30 (see most recently Todd, ‘Expert’, 103–5, who argues persuasively for late 400/399 rather than the traditional date of early 399/8); (b) whether, even if interpreted literally, Lysias 30. 20–1 can be pressed to imply that the sequences came into effect in the staggered manner suggested by Dow.

20 On the below-the-line text see commentary on F1A.

21 The earlier view was that these rubrics specified funds, but Dow argued persuasively that the monthly total at F3A, 16–17, shows that the accounting was not by fund, but by month.

22 Cf. Hesych. s.v. ῥητἡν τἡν ὡρισμένην ἡμἐραν τοῖς θεοῖς εἰς θυσίαν σημαίνει. Fales, De C., Hesp. 28 (1959), 165–7Google Scholar; Triantaphyllopoulos, J., REG 95 (1982), 291–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The one occurrence of this term, at F1A, 24, in fact relates to a fixed day, suggesting that, at some point, sacrifices which had previously floated had been fixed to specific days.

23 The uncertainly restored [ἐκ?] νέων (F2A, 3) may also refer to more recently introduced items.

24 The speaker of Lysias 30 (17–22) also seems primarily concerned with the financial implications of the ancestral sacrifices omitted and the new ones included. Interestingly, however, he does not explicitly allege that perquisites had been inappropriately paid or withdrawn.

25 I should, however, sound a warning about making inferences about the popularity or importance of the festivals on the basis of numbers of offerings here listed. Our list, for example, may relate to a biennial sequence, but there may have been other relevant items listed in the annual sequence, the other biennial sequence etc. Moreover, it is important to bear in mind that, as e.g. Salaminioi Calendar, 20–1, 87–8 (cf. also IG i3. 244. 17–19, Skambonidai) demonstrates, what our calendar lists is state contributions to festivals which might to a greater or lesser extent also be funded from other sources.

26 For a much more detailed description of physical aspects than that given here see Dow 1961.

27 Here and elsewhere, ‘left side’ means ‘left side when Face A is uppermost’.

28 " Dow thought this original. However, it cannot be ruled out that the fragment was originally thicker and that the original (inscribed) reverse face was removed in connection with a subsequent use, taking with it the anathyrosis band.

29 While it is uncertain whether the original thickness was the same as F1, 2, or 3, the text on Face A is inscribed stoichedon and is consistent in other respects with the group A fragments.

30 As previous note.

31 While it is uncertain whether the original thickness was the same as F8 or 9, the fragment is compatible in other respects with group B.

32 Dow 1961 argued that the bottom of this fragment, which was worked, was original. This is unconvincing. See Parerga I.

33 As n. 31.

34 Dow 1961 assigned this to group B, supposing that the text on it was non-stoichedon. He had earlier taken it to be stoichedon and assigned it to group A. Ross's transcript of both faces is non-stoichedon. On the other hand the non-syllabified word-breaks at line-ends on Face A are more suggestive of a stoichedon text. There are no word-breaks at all on Face A of the certain non-stoichedon (group B) fragments, 8 and 9 (admittedly a very small sample); but they do sometimes occur on Face A of the stoichedon (group A) fragments. In this paper I leave this issue open.

35 Parker, Athenian Religion, 19 n. 39 questions the usual view that the reference is to Erechtheus rather than Athena; but if there is a connection between this passage and our text, the usual view will be right.

36 Sokolowski LSS identified our festival as Skirophoria/Skira, but as he had observed in 1936 the date of that festival was 12 Skirophorion.

37 My purpose in using LSS as a reference text for this column is partly to alert the reader to the numerous more or (unfortunately sometimes) less minor errors to which his texts are liable. I do not normally draw attention to these elsewhere.

38 A = annual, B1 = biennial, odd years (i.e. those ending 9/8, 7/6 etc.), B2 = biennial, even years (i.e. those ending 0/9, 8/7 etc.), Q = quadrennial, V = variable, U = uncertain.

39 Since entries in this calendar are not headed by festival names, this column represents interpretation rather than translation.

40 Less likely: ‘a cloak [price], pure [plural noun, price]’.

41 Less likely, ‘in lieu of a leg’.

42 Less likely, ‘on Delos, the Delia’.

43 Or ‘for Poseidon’

44 The γνὡμονες are the teeth which indicate the age of a young animal, a reference to the progressive replacement of deciduous incisors in the first few years of life (e.g. for a sheep between 1 and 4 years, for a bovine between 1.5 and 4 years). A λειπογνώμων should be an animal which lacked such teeth, but exactly what this meant in a sacrificial context is unsure. Some ancient evidence (e.g. FGH 334 Istros F23) suggests that it was an animal that had just finished shedding its deciduous incisors (i.e. if a sheep, about 4 years old), but it seems difficult in that case to explain the very low price when compared with other animals of the same species. Though not supported by the ancient evidence, most modern scholars have taken the view that it means an animal so young that it had not grown its deciduous incisors. For a helpful recent discussion see Rosivach, Public Sacrifice, 148–53, though I am doubtful about his argument that a λειπογνώμων meant a very old animal.

45 Cf. previous note. On the normal principle that male divinities receive male offerings, female divinities female ones (cf. n. 47), it may be that one of this pair was male (for Zeus), one female (for Athena).

46 Pace Rosivach, Public Sacrifice, 23, there seems no reason to doubt this obvious sense. The concept of selection of choice animals is very common in Greek sacrificial practice, cf. Agora, xvi. 75, Cos Calendar etc.

47 On this see Jameson, ‘Sacrifice’, 91; van Straten, Hiera Kala, 181–86, and most recently Scullion, S., ZPE 134 (2001), 117–19Google Scholar. Scullion makes a good case for supposing that the recipient of a pregnant sheep at Tetrapolis Calendar, A, col. 1, 28, was female (cf. Jameson, 98), but his conjecture, ῾ Ρέαι Μητρί θε]ῶν, remains unconvincing in the absence of evidence, in a sacrificial calendar or comparable context, for the use of these two names in conjunction or for the sort of clarificatory description of the Mother (or any other deity) which he posits. One tends to think that those for whom such calendars were inscribed knew what deities they sacrificed to and did not require ‘clarification’. There is insufficient basis for confident conjecture, but the most likely possibilities are, a topographical or other description of a recipient, e.g. [Γῆι (or other female deity with few letters) ἐν… c.5..]ων, or perhaps ἐν ᾿Απατουρί]ων(the absence of stated recipient would be unique in what survives of Tetrapolis Calendar, but does occur occasionally in ours).