AIO 847 Sacrificial calendar of Thorikos

Sacrificial calendar of Thorikos

AIO 847 Date: Ca. 440-400 BC (?)

Face A (front)

[. . . . . . . . . . ¹⁹ . . . . . . . . . Ἑκ]ατομβαιῶν- [ος . . . . . . . . . . ¹⁹ . . . . . . . . .]ΑΚΙ καὶ τοῖ- [ς . . . . . . . . . ¹⁸ . . . . . . . . . ἄ]ριστομ παρέ- [χεν . . . . . . . ¹⁴ . . . . . . . δρα]χμὴν ἑκατέρ- 5 [ο . . . . . . . . . . ¹⁹ . . . . . . . . .]ΑΙ τὴν πρηρο[σ]- [ίαν . . . . . . . ¹⁴ . . . . . . . Δελ]φίνιον αἶγ[α] [. . . . . . . . . . ²⁰ . . . . . . . . . .]ΕΑΙ Ἑκάτηι [. . . . . . . . . . . ²² . . . . . . . . . . .]ΗΝΟΣΑΤΗ[.] _ [. . . . . . . . . . ²⁰ . . . . . . . . . .] τέλεομ πρατό[ν]. 10 [Μεταγειτνιῶνος, Διὶ Κατ]αιβάτηι ἐν τ- ῶι σηκῶι π[αρ]ὰ τὸ [Δελφίνι?]ον τέλεον πρ- _ ατόν ∶ ὁρκωμόσιον πα[ρέ]χεν ἐς εὐθύνας. Βοηδρομιῶνος, Πρηρόσια ∶ Διὶ Πολιεῖ κρ- ιτὸν οἶν ∶ χοῖρον κριτόν, ἐπ᾽ Αὐτομενας (?), 15 χοῖρον ὠνητὸν ὁλόκαυτον, τῶι ἀκολου- θο̑ντι ἄριστομ παρέχεν τὸν ἱερέα ∶ Κεφ- άλωι οἶν κριτόν ∶ Πρόκριδι τράπεζαν· ^v Θορίκωι κριτὸν οἶν ∶ Ἡρωΐνησι Θορίκο τράπεζαν ∶ ἐπὶ Σούνιον Ποσειδῶνι ἀμν- 20 ὸν κριτόν ∶ Ἀπόλλωνι χίμαρον κριτόν, Κ- οροτρόφωι χοῖρον κριτήν ∶ Δήμητρι τέλ[εο]- [ν], Διὶ Ἑρκείωι τέλεον, Κοροτρόφωι χοῖρ[ον], ⟦Ἀθηναίαι οἶν πρατὸν⟧ ἐφ’ ἁλῆι ∶ Ποσ[ειδῶνι] _ τέλεον, Ἀπόλλωνι χοῖρον. vacat 25 Πυανοψιῶνος, Διὶ Καταιβάτηι ἐμ [Φιλομ]- η⟨λ⟩ιδῶν τέλεον πρατόν, ἕκτηι ἐ[πὶ δέκα]· _ Νεανίαι τέλεον, Πυανοψίοις, π[ρατὸν or -ύανα] Μαιμακτηριῶνος, Θορίκωι βοῦ[ν μἤλατ]- τον ἢ τετταράκοντα δραχμῶν [μέχρι πε]- 30 _ ντήκοντα, Ἡρωΐνησι Θορίκο τ[ράπεζαν]. _ Ποσιδειῶνος, Διονύσια. vacat _ Γαμηλιῶνος, Ἥραι, Ἱερῶι Γάμωι [. . . . ⁷ . . .]. Ἀνθεστηριῶνος, Διονύσωι, δω[δεκάτηι], αἶγα λειπεγνώμονα πυρρὸν ἢ [μέλανα, Δ]- 35 _ ιασίοις, Διὶ Μιλιχίωι οἶν πρα[τόν vacat] Ἐλαφηβολιῶνος, Ἡρακλείδα[ις τέλεον] Ἀλκμήνηι τέλεον, Ἀνάκοιν τ[έλεον, Ἑλέ?]- νηι τέλεον, Δήμητρι, τὴν χλο[ΐαν, οἶν κρ]- _ ιτὴν κυο̑σαν, Δὶ ἄρνα κριτόν. vacat 40 Μονυχιῶνος, Ἀρτέμιδι Μονυχ[ίασι? τέλε]- ον, ἐς Πυθίο Ἀπόλλωνος τρίτ[τοαν, Κορ]- οτρόφωι χοῖρον, Λητοῖ αἶγα, Ἀ[ρτέμιδι] αἶγα, Ἀπόλλωνι αἶγα λειπογνώ[μονα, Δή]- μητρι ∶ οἶν κυο̑σαν ἄνθειαν, Φιλ[ωνίδι τρ]- 45 άπεζαν, Διονύσωι, ἐπὶ Μυκηνον, [τράγον] _ πυρρὸν ἢ μέλανα. vacat Θαργηλιῶνος, Διὶ ἐπ᾽ Αὐτομενας (?), [κριτὸν] ἄρνα, Ὑπερπεδίωι οἶν, Ἡρωΐνησι[ν Ὑπερ]- πεδίο τράπεζαν, Νίσωι οἶν, Θρασ[. . . ⁵ . .] 50 οἶν, Σωσινέωι οἶν, ῾Ρογίωι οἶν, Πυ[λόχωι] _ χοῖρον, Ἡρωΐνησι Πυλοχίσι τρά[πεζαν] Σκιροφοριῶνος, ὁρκωμόσιον ⟨π⟩αρ[έχεν, Π]- λυντηρίοις Ἀθηναίαι οἶν κρι[τόν, Ἀγλ]- αύρωι οἶν, Ἀθηναίαι ἄρνα κριτ[όν, Κεφά]- 55 λωι βοῦν μἠλάττονος ἢ τεττα[ράκοντα] δραχμῶν μέχρι πεντήκοντα, Π[ρόκριδι] οἶΔΔν ∶ τὸν δ’ εὔθυνον ὀμόσαι καὶ τ[ὸς παρέδ]- ρος εὐθυνῶ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἣν ἔλαχ[ον εὐθύν]- εν κατὰ τὰ ψηφίσματα ἐφ’ οἷς ἐ[γκαθέστ?]- 60 [ηκ?]εν ἡ ἀρχή, ὀμνύναι Δία, Ἀπόλλ[ω, Δήμητρ]- α ἐξώλειαν ἐπαρώμενον, καὶ τ[ὸς παρέδ]- ρος κατὰ ταὐτά, ἀναγρά{ι}ψαι [δὲ τὸν ὅρκ]- [ο]ν ἐστήληι καὶ καταθε̑ναι π[αρὰ . . . ⁵ . .]- [.]ιον, ὅσαι δ’ ἂν ἀρχαὶ αἱρεθῶ[σιν ἤ λάχω]- 65 σιν ὑπευθύνος ἐ̑ναι ἁπάσα[ς]. vacat vacat

Face B (right)

4 Μυκηνω[ι] τέ[λεον - - -] 5 [.]/αν οἶν Παναθ[ηναί]- 6 οις θύεν πρατ[όν] 12 Φοίνικι τέλ[εον] 44 [Διὶ Ἑ]ρκείωι ⋮ οἶν

Face C (left)

[Ἀπόλ]- 31 λωνι τέλεον Πυ- 32 ανοψίοις 42 [Δι]ὶ Ἑρκείωι ⋮ οἶν 58 [Ἡ]ρωΐνησιν Κορωνέων ⋮ οἶν

Previous - Csapo and Wilson II, 247-52 Next - Csapo and Wilson II, 260-2
Translated text

References:

AIO 847 (Translated text) (AIO)

IG I³ 256bis

SEG 50.55

SEG 55.58

SEG 54.60

SEG 33.147 (PHI)

SEG 52.49

Lambert, Genesia, 81

Humphreys, Strangeness, 155-65

Lupu, NGSL 1

Matthaiou, Attic Public Inscriptions, pp. 205-6 (date)

CGRN 32 (CGRN)

OR 146

Humphreys, Kinship, 991-9

Csapo and Wilson II, 253-274

Russo, Ripartizioni, D101

Takeuchi, Euthynai, 322-37

Translation by: Stephen Lambert, Feyo Schuddeboom, Robin Osborne

Images: Wikimedia Commons - (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)

Monument type: Stele

Inscription type: Sacrificial Calendar

Original location: Attica ([Thorikos])

Findspot: Attica (Keratea) (EM 13537)

No transliterations No places

[1] Like SEG 50.168 (Marathonian Tetrapolis), and SEG 21.541 (Erchia) (and see also IG I³ 244, Skambonidai), this is the sacrificial calendar of a local community, Thorikos, a deme of the tribe Akamantis on the south-east coast of Attica which returned 5 men to the Council (Agora XV 42, 265-270, and Traill, Demos and Trittys, 1986, 133; 6, however, at Agora XV 39, 7-13, with notes, cf. IG II³ 4, 52, 3-6), suggesting that it accounted for ca. 1% of the Attic population, or ca. 300–500 adult male citizens in the 5th century (for links to other examples of this genre of inscription see IG I³ 232 with notes; on the Attic demes in general see RO 46, with notes). It is probably not coincidental that, like these three other communities, it was an ancient settlement, and, like the Tetrapolis, was reputed to be one of the original twelve cities pre-dating the unification of Attica (Strabo 397C = 9.1.20), with a deeply rooted local identity. Clustering round a conical hill on the north side of a relatively sheltered bay (site of one of the ten main Attic regional harbours at the coastal end of a wagon road: M. C. McHugh, ABSA 114, 2019, 207-40 (map), and D. M. Lewis, Pnyx 1, 2022, 81-101, at 90-94 (map)), it is well known archaeologically and has yielded substantial late Bronze Age tholos tombs, as well as a cemetery, industrial workings (ore washeries), residential and religious buildings and the only well-preserved 5th-century BC Attic theatre. For recent general discussions of the deme see R. Osborne in Lambert ed. Sociable Man. Essays ... Fisher [2011] 28–38; M. Miles in M. Miles ed., Autopsy in Athens: Recent Archaeological Research on Athens and Attica, 2015, 163–80; Humphreys, Kinship, 991-99; and on the theatre and inscriptions relating to it, Csapo and Wilson and below note 15.

Scholars have assigned dates to this calendar on the basis of its (Ionic) script and orthography ranging from ca. 385-370 BC (Daux, in Ant. Class. 52, 1983, 150-74 = SEG 33.147, cf. in support of this date, Threatte, Grammar II, 96 ff., 51.0331) to ca. 440-420 BC (Lewis, IG I³ p. 958, ZPE 60, 1985, 108 n. 3; similarly, Matthaiou. This dating has become conventional. The most recent discussion, by Takeuchi, Euthynai, 333-5, however, prudently leaves the date open). Lettering and orthography are not very firm indicators especially for inscriptions from the demes whose cutter is unidentified, and there is some attraction in the observation of Lupu in NGSL, that this calendar might be interpreted as a reaction to the revision of the sacrificial calendar of the city between 410 and 399 BC (cf. AIO 1185). Moreover, in 409 BC, in the context of what seems to have been a reassertion of themselves in their own territory, the Athenians fortified Thorikos, primarily to receive grain ships diverted from their normal route by the Spartan fortification of Dekeleia (Xen. Hell. 1.2.1-17; cf. IG I³ 377, ll. 18-20 with AIO Papers 5, p. 7 with n. 20). It is accordingly possible that this calendar and/or the cluster of late-5th century inscriptions relating to the Thorikian Rural Dionysia (see below n. 15) date to ca. 409 BC, reflecting an increased self-confidence, and renewal of deme festivals and institutions, generated by the fortification of the deme.

Thorikos lies towards the northern end of the silver-mining area, and members of the deme Thorikos are recorded in the 4th cent. both as lessees of mines and as owners of the land on which mines stood (cf. RO 36). The deme was most likely among those that are recorded as selling estates in the public land sale programme of the third quarter of the 4th century BC, Rationes F7A, 27-F8A, 42, with Lambert, Rationes Centesimarum (1997), 188 no. 16.

Like IG I³ 244 the calendar from Thorikos combines a concern with sacrifices and accountability, the link apparently being that proper provision and conduct of these sacrifices is the most solemn duty of the deme’s officials, for which they are to be held accountable before gods and men. IG I³ 248 (Rhamnous) and IG I³ 258 (Plotheia) fill out our picture of the financial organisation of the religion of Attic demes. Sacrifices were presumably for the most part open to all members of the deme, and the size of the animals sacrificed suggests substantial numbers of participants (a single sheep or a goat will yield around 20 kg. of meat, see V. Rosivach, The System of Public Sacrifice [1994], 157, and so feed up to 100 people). It may not be coincidental that the calendar is more specific in dating and in pricing of at least some victims than the somewhat older IG I³ 244, but less so than the 4th-cent. examples. The precise significance of some of the offerings is obscure (and some may have been opaque at the time), but overall the calendar is eloquent witness to the concerns of a rural Attic community, a community which, by its frequent offerings to local heroes and heroines, embraces and harnesses numinous local powers, some of them doubtless identifiable with the inhabitants of the tholos tombs that were a looming presence in the deme (for this cf. the hero Aristomachos in the Marathonian Tetrapolis, SEG 50.168, A2, 19, with n. 2). At the same time it seeks the beneficent attention of the Olympian deities, including Poseidon, god of the neighbouring sea, recognised as powerful presence at his sanctuary in neighbouring Sounion (l. 19, an Athenian state cult, cf. IG I³ 369 ll. 62 and 82, see also IG I³ 8), as well as in connection with the (doubtless valuable) local saltpan (ll. 23-24) and Zeus, as Kataibates (“the Descender” - the enclosure of l. 11 will have marked the place of a lightning strike), Herkeios (sponsor of hearth, home and local community), Polieus (presiding over acropolis and city, whether Athens or Thorikos) and Meilichios (purifier and provider of abundance). Above all there is an emphasis on agricultural and human fecundity and vigour, apparent in offerings to Demeter, to other Olympians in their provident aspect, to Kourotrophos, to Hera in her capacity as the archetypal wife, and to heroes such as "the Young Man", male counterpart of Demeter's daughter, Kore ("the Girl"). The absence of any rite obviously connected to Thorikos’ newer industrial activities (no offerings to Hephaistos for example or other deities connected specifically with mining) is notable.

Textual note. Subject to the following, AIO's text follows that of OR, which is itself based on Lupu, NGSL 1, modified by M. H. Jameson, in S. Goldhill and R. Osborne eds., Performance Culture, 1999, 328-31 (SEG 50.55). Additionally we mark the paragraphoi (cf. below n. 7), and (with Humphreys, cf. SEG 54.60) we decline to restore the location of the stele at 63-64 (π[αρὰ τὸ Δελ⟨φί⟩|ν]ιον eds.; restoration of this location at l. 11 is also uncertain). At 40-41 we adopt S. Lebreton's attractive suggestion (per ep. to CGRN), Ἀρτέμιδι Μονυχ[ίασι τέλ]|εον, "for Artemis at Mounichia, a full-grown victim" in place of the previous reading, Ἀρτέμιδι Μονυχ[ίαι τέλε]|{ε}ον, "for Artemis Mounichia", and note that this seems to imply contribution of a sacrificial victim at a festival in Piraeus, like Thorikos a coastal location (and the connection may have been particularly apparent in the period after 409 BC, when Thorikos was fortified for the reception of grain ships), but a considerable distance by land. Perhaps the offering was transported round the coast by sea. Cf. the offering at 19 at Sounion, another coastal location, albeit a closer one, but also perhaps accessed by sea from Thorikos. Our text of 57-65 reflects the discussion of Takeuchi, Euthynai, accepting his persuasive restoration of l. 64, αἱρεθῶ[σιν ἤ λάχω]|σιν, "elected or allotted", (αἱρεθῶ[vac.]|σιν, "elected", eds.). [2] The short initial heading is lost. The calendar then starts with the first month in the Athenian year, Hekatombaion (ca. July). [3] Apollo Delphinios was associated with youth (Parker, Polytheism [2005], 436). Whether this Delphinion (if correctly restored), and the Pythion (l. 41), are the central Athenian sanctuaries or, more likely perhaps, local ones of the same description, is unclear. [4] These locations are unknown. [5] These offerings are linked to ancient festivals, several of them eponyms of months, also attested centrally: Proerosia, anticipating the ploughing season; Pyanopsia, in the month Pyanopsion, connected with youth and the fruits of the earth; Theogamia, celebrating the marriage of Zeus and Hera in the ‘Wedding’ month, Gamelion; Anthesteria in Anthesterion; Diasia, celebrating Zeus Meilichios; Mounichia, festival of Artemis, again in its eponymous month; Plynteria, marking in Athens the cleansing of the ancient wooden statue of Athena, a rite associated with Aglauros (cf. OR 108, SEG 58.145), here notably in Skirophorion (ca. June), the month that in some other Ionian cities (Paros and Thasos) was called Plynterion (C. Trümpy Untersuchungen zu den altgriechischen Monatsnamen und Monatsfolgen [1997], 71–2), but celebrated centrally in Athens a month earlier, in Thargelion (ca. May). The item for the Panathenaia, a festival developed more recently, was perhaps added to the calendar later. On all these festivals see Parker, Polytheism [2005], 456-87. [6] An aspect of sacrificial ritual crucial to understanding its social function is that sacrifices were normally followed by feasting; indeed public sacrifices seem to have been generally the most important source of meat in an Athenian's diet. We do not know how sacrifices in Thorikos were funded, or how animals were supplied (the specific provision for "bought" animals suggests it was not normally a pure market mechanism, even where prices or price-ranges are specified). Parallels suggest collective funding is likely, perhaps from rentals of sacred land, which may in turn have been used in part to raise animals for sacrifice. The provision in these cases that victims are to be “sold” suggests that, in these rites, there was, unusually, no post-sacrificial feasting. [7] The lines marking off the months (paragraphoi) are inscribed above the month names. [8] An oath victim is supplied in the second month of the year, Metageitnion (ca. August), relating to the audit of officials in office the previous year (l. 12). Cf. the procedure stipulated for Halai Aixonides, IG II² 1174, ll. 10-13, where officials are to deposit their accounts in a box before the month of Metageitnion (i.e. during the first month of the year, Hekatombaion, following their term of office). This would seem to be the occasion on which the oath specified at ll. 57-65 was to be sworn. An oath victim is also provided for in the last month, Skirophorion (ca. June), l. 52. It is not specified for audit, and is perhaps for new officials about to take office; or, it might be for the auditors on their appointment to audit the officials whose term of office is concluding (thus Takeuchi). [9] The ritual significance of the victim being ‘bought’ is perhaps that it is to come from outside the community. Note that, since it is also to be completely burnt, there is nothing left to feed the assistant, who has therefore to be provided with lunch. [10] This is the only, oblique, mention of the officiant of a sacrifice. In Attic local communities some sacrifices were performed by local priests and priestesses, who also presided over the relevant local sanctuary, others by the demarch and perhaps also by other officials of the deme. [11] Tables belonged to the rite of ‘divine hospitality’, theoxenia. They were laid with food offerings. [12] This cluster of offerings to heroes and heroines linked particularly with Thorikos (Kephalos and Prokris are localised at Thorikos by Apollodoros 2.4.7) may mark the celebration of the festival of the dead, the Genesia; Prokris’ father, Erechtheus, received sacrifices in the city Genesia. [13] Kourotrophos, ‘Nourisher of Youth’, is a characteristically Attic divinity, who usually appears in conjunction with other deities and serves to direct their sphere of action. [14] These words were cancelled by inscribing a horizontal line through the middle of the letters. [15] Celebrations of the Rural Dionysia took place in Posideon (ca. December), i.e. several months earlier than the City Dionysia (in Elaphebolion). On the Rural Dionysia see IG II³ 4, 498, with notes; on the date of the festival across the demes, Csapo and Wilson, 26-29; on the theatre at Thorikos, 253-60 (this inscription, 256). The other extant inscriptions of the deme also relate to the Thorikian Rural Dionysia: the choregic dedications, IG I³ 1027bis (late v BC) and IG II³ 4, 512 (ca. 350-325 BC); the decrees about choregoi, SEG 34.107; SEG 63.41 (both late v BC); the list of choregoi, SEG 56.232 (mid-iv BC). [16] This was the date of Choes, part of the Anthesteria festival, apparently entailing drinking contests, and the date is presumably specified in this case to ensure co-ordination of timing with the central rites. [17] Helen is supposed to have stayed on the island of Helene (Makronisi) just off the coast of Thorikos on her way back from Troy (Paus. 1.35.2), though she is worshipped here with her brothers the Anakes (Dioskouroi) who appear in Attica at an earlier stage in Helen’s life to rescue her from Theseus (a story not otherwise connected to Thorikos). [18] The names of the two spring sacrifices to Demeter, 'Green Shoots’ (Chloia; Chloe was also an epithet/alternative name for Demeter) and ‘Flowery’ (Antheia), both of them pregnant ewes, emphasise the importance of agricultural fecundity among the concerns of the demesmen. These two festivals, together with the 'Pre-Ploughing' (Proerosia), also feature largely in the broadly contemporary decree of Paiania, IG I³ 250. Thorikos features in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter (l. 126) which may imply her cultic importance there from an early date. [19] Most of these heroes are obscure, though some have names which suggest their function, e.g. Sosineos, “Save-ship”, appropriate for a coastal location. Philonis is a mythical figure localised at Thorikos by FGrH 26 Konon F1.7. [20] The entries on the right side of the stone appear to be additions to the text on the front. The entries on the left side do not fit so well with the text on the front and it has been suggested that they belonged to a sacrificial calendar originally inscribed on the back of the stone, completely lost due to the secondary use of the stone as a threshold. However, the most recent discussion, by Takeuchi, Euthynai, 325 n. 5, questions whether the back was ever inscribed. [SDL]

Added: 29 Jul 2014
Updated: 26 Oct 2024
Feedback

ID: AIO_847