Bulletin de correspondance

hellnique

Six Athenian sacrificial Calendars

Sterling Dow

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Dow Sterling. Six Athenian sacrificial Calendars. In: Bulletin de correspondance hellnique. Volume 92, livraison 1, 1968. pp.
170-186;

doi : 10.3406/bch.1968.2206

http://www.persee.fr/doc/bch_0007-4217_1968_num_92_1_2206

Document gnr le 18/05/2016

170 STERLING DOW

SIX ATHENIAN SACRIFICIAL CALENDARS

Contents

Form, Distribution, Preservation, Newness 170

Introduction to the Individual Calendars 172
The Collections of Leges Sacrae 173
Bibliographies and Descriptions:
(1) The Athenian State {Hesp 1935. 5-32; 1941. 31-37) 173
(2) The Marathonian Tetrapolis (/Gil* 1358) 174
(3) The Deme Erkhia (BCH 1963. 603-634) 175
(4) The Deme Eleusis {Harv Theol Stud 21 [1965]) 175
(5) The Deme Teithras {Hesp 1961. 293-297) 176
(6) The Genos of the Salaminioi (Hesp 1938. 1-74) 176
Table 178
Distinctive Character of the Six Calendars 176
Codifications as Scholarly Editions, Conveniences, Reforms 177
The Calendars as Financial Measures 180
(1) Financial Aspects of the State Code 180
(2) The Calendar and the Contributors of the Tetrapolis 181
(3) The Greater Demarkhia at Erkhia 182
(4) The Cult Personnel at Eleusis 184
(5) Teithras 184
(6) Financial Concerns of the Salaminioi 185
The Demes and Cult Expenses in the Fourth Century 185
The Absence of Priests 1 86

Form, Distribution, Preservation, Newness. The form of the developed

Athenian sacrificial calendar was price deity victim : these were its
essential items, and the main body of the calendar consists of such entries.
They follow along one after the other, a list without connectives.
Preceding these entries are rubrics. Perquisites and other extras are
entered at the end. Unless space on the stone is too limited, the
arrangement of the list is columnar, with a new line for every rubric, every
sacrifice, every perquisite. The price stands in the margin at the left,
and the lines are short. An example is a monthly rubric and a complete
panel for one day, from the Calendar of the Deme Teithras (slightly
 SIX ATHENIAN SACRIFICIAL CALENDARS 171

modified from J. J. Pollitt, Hesp 1961. 293 and pi. 62; F. Sokolowski,
Lois sacres des cits grecques [1962] no. 132):
Line 2 [.]
3 [ ]
4 Ait : [ ]
5 -h : [vacat]
6 HI [vacat]
After 403/2 B.C., all of the known Athenian sacrificial calendars have
this form or a simple modification of it. Six calendars are now known,
the last of which is probably from ca. 330, or possibly as late as ca. 270 B.C.
The distribution among sources is as follows:
(1) The Athenian State itself.
(2) The principal other super-Deme entity, viz. the Marathonian
Tetrapolis.
(3) A medium-small Deme of the Mesogaia, Erkhia; the Calendar
uniquely arranged.
(4) The Deme pre-eminent in cult, Eleusis; a Calendar devoted largely,
or wholly, to perquisites.
(5) A small Deme, Teithras.
(6) A rich Genos, the Salaminioi.
The distribution could hardly be more fortunate.
In extent of preservation, the. Sacrificial Calendar of
(1) The State is represented by 231 lines, but the whole was so large
that what remains is a small fraction.
(2) The Deme Marathon itself is all but complete; the lists of the other
three Demes are largely missing.
(3) Erkhia is all but complete.
(4) Eleusis, two fragments, is a small fraction.
(5) Teithras has in all about one month.
(6) The Salaminioi is complete.
There is considerable variation. The loss under (1) is grim, but the
total number of lines (as now numbered) preserved in all six calendars
is substantial, 808.
In large part the study of sacrificial calendars is a study of details
festival by festival, line by line. Two of the Calendars, however, were
not discovered until the 1960's, one other was not properly edited until
1965, and the only well-perfected texts yet published are those of the
Erkhian Calendar and most of the Eleusinian. Even so, much good
work has been done on details. The study of sacrificial calendras
ought to include also the study of features common to the group,
but on this little has been done. There has been so much to assimilate so
recently that hitherto no attempt has been made to ascertain what the
common features are, and the present article is actually the first on the
subject.
172 STERLING DOW

The article is in two parts : a catalogue of the documents, for reference

rather than for perusal (photographs, such as they are, will be found in the
articles referred to). After this is a study of the common features,
particularly an effort to understand whether the common features were
dictated by a common purpose.
Introduction to the Individual Calendars. Understanding may be
easier if a few introductory essentials are noted here:
(1) The State Calendar was a part of a comprehensive new Code.
The Calendar was laid out on one side of each of two walls, the surfaces
of which had been prepared for the purpose. The list of annual festivals
came first. Biennial festivals were in two separate lists on these same
walls, then quadrennial, doubtless in four lists, also on these walls.
Uniquely, authority was given, in a rubric introduced by , for every panel
throughout: for instance, | ( vel sim.). Monthly
totals of costs were given. The state paid for all. The whole was
elaborate and lengthy.
(2) The Tetrapolis Calendar listed the four Demes separately, dividing
the year, uniquely, into quarters. The Tetrapolis paid for all.
(3) At Erkhia the Calendar is split vertically into five lots of offerings
which are meaningless except that, with curiously elaborate care, the
costs of the five lots are kept astonishingly equal.
(4) The Eleusis Calendar is designed to provide at the Deme's expense
for offerings theretofore given by the Eumolpidai, Kerykes (and others ?).
Its distinctive feature is a lumping-together of costs, as if to provide
flexibility in details.
(5) Teithras imitates the State Code, except that authorities (-)
are not cited.
(6) The Salaminioi, who are intent upon a clear understanding about
costs, hold festivals appropriate to the Genos and are able to spend more
in a year than Erkhia.
With this introduction, readers who do not wish to peruse the detailed
descriptions can turn to p. 176.

There are a few other Athenian cult inscriptions of the period, not
regular calendars, which should be noted here. IG II2 1356 appears to
be an elaborate list of perquisites for priests and priestesses. On the same
subject but shorter are IG II2 1359 and 1360. IG II2 4962 prescribes
cakes as prothymata for several deities, etc. For present purposes these
inscriptions can be left aside.
 SIX ATHENIAN SACRIFICIAL CALENDARS 173
The Collections of Leges Sacrae. It may be useful to set down here the contents of the
four volumes which between them include all Greek leges sacrae collected down through 1961.
J. v. Prott, Leges graecorum sacrae e titulis collectae, Fasc. 1, Fasti sacri (Leipzig 1896).
28 inscriptions including dubia, excerpta, addenda. Attika nos. 1-3 with add. et corr.
pp. 45-46, no. 26. No index.
L. Ziehen, same title, II Fasc. 1, Leges Graeciae el insularum (Leipzig 1906). 153 inscriptions.
No addenda, corrigenda, index. Attic: nos. 1-49.
F. Sokolowski, Lois sacres de l'Asie mineure (cole Franaise d'Athnes : Travaux et mmoires
des anciens membres trangers de l'cole et de divers savants, fasc. 9 ; Paris 1955).
88 inscriptions, including Addenda. Corrigenda p. 212. Appendix I: Prix des prtrises
193-194. Appendix II: Prix des victimes et des sacrifices 195. Index A: Divinits, ftes,
concours, mois 196-199. Index B: Mots et expressions notables 199-208. Index C:
Matires 209-211.
F. Sokolowski, Lois sacres des cits grecques, Supplment (same series, fasc. 11; Paris 1962).
133 inscriptions, including Addenda. Attic: nos. 1-21, 124-127, 132. Corrigenda, p. 239.
Index A: Divinits, ftes, concours, mois 221-223. Index B: Mots et expressions notables
223-234. Index gnral 235-238.

Bibliographies and Descriptions

(1) THE ATHENIAN STATE. 411/0-400/399 B.C. Codified by Nikomakhos and associates
(Lysias 30). Edilio princeps of the principal fragment: J. H. Oliver, Hesp 1935. 5-32
(Oliver's is still the first discussion to read). Fragments added later: S. Dow, Hesp 1941.
31-37 (through these two articles all the texts are accessible). Discussion of the whole,
S. Dow, Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, 71 (1953-1957, pub. 1959), pp. 3-36
and pi. I (reprint, Bobbs-Merrill Reprint Series in European History, no. E-60; Indianapolis,
Indiana, 1967); on the chronology, etc., Historia 1960. 270-293; on the Walls, Hesp 1961.
58-73 and pis. 9-11. Edition of parts, with commentary, F. Sokolowski, Lois sacres (1962),
pp. 26-31, nos. 9 and 10. Bibliographies: Historia 1960. 292-293 and Sokolowski, op. cit.;
add some of the items infra.
Two opisthographic walls, plus independent stelai bearing secular law and not considered here.
(I G I2 114 and 115 are the stelai preserved; of 114 a new text will be published by
R. S. Stroud.) The walls consisted of tall wide slabs set side by side and so carefully jointed
on one side that the inscriptions there could disregard the cracks. The two walls are
different in thickness, and are most conveniently called from their thicknesses the Thicker
Wall (this is 0.120 m. thick; the principal one; but at least one slab projected 0.023 m.
farther back only the other surface of the wall was kept even, for the [continuous, later]
calendar) and the Thinner Wall (0.092 m. thick; a later addition). Counting much-damaged
passages as one each, in all 26 passages are preseved, and some 334 lines of text, many of
them broken.
Thicker Wall, Earlier Side: Attic lettering, i.e. inscribed ante 403/2 B.C.; stoikhedon. Now in
poor condition, it contained secular law (Trierarkhic preserved); also sacred law apparently
in calendar form, but the character and purpose remain obscure. Apart from the Table
infra, the Earlier Sides of the two Walls are not considered in the present article.
Thicker Wall, Later Side: A systematic calendar, elaborately designed, of all the Athenian State
sacrifices in the asty. Scheme: at the top, above a conspicuous incised horizontal groove,
large-letter rubrics, designating the (the word, which is restored here from the
Tetrapolis calendar, clearly means series of sacrifices : Historia 1960. 282-283; correct
LSJ ; pace Sokolowski): one of Annual sacrifices, two of biennial
 174 STERLING DOW
sacrifices, other series of quadrennial, etc. Below these rubrics and below the groove,
the lists proper, all stoikhedon. Month rubrics in larger letters; day-rubrics, indented one
space; rubrics giving authorities, indented two spaces. Then the solid column of deities,
victims, extras, perquisites; prices in the left margins. The total cost for each month is
given in larger letters at the end of the month. The preserved rubrics which cite the
authority are: law of the Phylobasileis ( ), sacrifices from a monthly
list ( ), sacrificesC."from a list of those which do not fall on a stated day of
sacrifice ( : De Fales, Jr., Hesp 1959. 165-167), sacrifices from individual
stelai ( []), new sacrifices ([] [ ]; also [ ] [ ]) and
[] [] [ ]. (Rubrics citing authorities appear in no other calendar.) In this,
the Calendar proper, places of sacrifice are not given, but at the bottom, footnote-wise, below
a second conspicuous incised horizontal groove, supplementary prescriptions deal with some
such non-fiscal details.
Contents preserved: parts of the annual list and, with Dramosyne rubrics, parts of both
biennial lists; a little of the footnote matter. At present, several festivals have been
recognized as preserved at least in part (none has been fully discussed in print): the Genesia,
Plynteria (F. Sokolowski, Eos 1936. 450-), Synoikia, Eleusinian sacrifices (Sokolowski,
op. cit.; R. F. Healey, HTE 1964. 153-159), and Kronia.
Thinner Wall, Side A in Attic lettering, Side in Ionic letters, i.e. of 403/2-400/399 B.C.; neither
side is stoikhedon. The preserved texts are brief, but Face has a festival of Apollo mostly
in Delos; and a festival of Apollo in the Pythion at the Tetrapolis Oinoe. The Thinner
Wall was evidently for supplementary calendars, i.e. for festivals outside the asty.

(2) THE MARATHONIAN TETRAPOLIS (Marathon, Probalinthos, Oinoe, Trikorynthos).

Med. s. IV a.
Bibliography. Face A: editio princeps: R. B. Richardson, Papers Am. School 6 (1890-1897)
374-391 and pi. 25; identical is AJA 1895. 209-226 and pi. 16. J. Kirchner, IG II2 1358.
J. v. Prott, Leges sacrae I, Fasti, pp. 46-54, no. 26. Face B: W. Peek, AM 1942. 12-13.
Face A has often been cited, but the first full study will be that of G. M. Quinn.
A stele broken away at top and bottom but preserving the two sides. Opisthographic.
Face A, with an extensive inscription nearly all legible, has two columns: Col. I extended across
about one third of the width; Col. II, much wider, fills the remainder.
Face A, Col. I. The stone has broken away so that at the beginning of each line 7-12 letters are
missing. Each line had a limited number of entries, consisting usually of place, deity,
victim, and price. The main headings were tri-month rubrics, e.g. ;
under them months; once only the exact day is specified. In Col. I, the sacrifices are all
small except for one ox.
Face A, Col. II occupies the remainder of the width of Face A. It is arranged by Demes, the
long panel for Marathon being nearly complete, the presumably much shorter panel for
Trikorynthos, following Marathon, being preserved to the extent of three lines only. Under
Marathon the first part is annual sacrifices, then follow lists of two biennial series of sacrifices
(the term [supra] is here preserved). The annual list is arranged by tri-month
groups (supra), as was also the list for Trikorynthos. One day only is specified. Except
to designate heroes, places are not given. As in Col. I, month-rubrics are regular. Deities,
victims, prices and are regular. The disposition of the victims is not specified,
but for one entry it is provided that the Demarkhos shall do the sacrificing. The sacrifices
are of middling size, often they consist of a suovetaurilia. The three Marathonian
together, as best they can now be reckoned, call for 63 victims, costing Dr 1157 5/12 plus
Dr 79 1/2 for ; total Dr 1236 11/12.
 SIX ATHENIAN SACRIFICIAL CALENDARS 175
Face B, water-worn, a few lines only partially legible. Lettering similar to that of Face A;
possibly the same mason. Names of citizens of the Tetrapolis followed by odd amounts,
evidently taxes. No rubric read; inscription in continuous lines, but neither beginning
nor end is preserved. The amount of space available, and the size and arrangement of the
items, suggest an extensive list. It covered Face B.

(3) ERKHIA, a Deme of the Mesogaia. Ca. 360-350 B.C.

Fundort: presumably the civic center, i.e. the Agora, of Erkhia, hitherto unknown. E. Vander-
pool undertook a new and successful search: BCH 1954. 21-26; additional note by
P. de La Coste-Messelire, p. 1009.
Editio princeps, with full apparatus, including photographs: G. Daux, BCH 1963 (published Jan.
1964). 603-634 and pis. XII-XIV; addenda, 1964. 676-677.
Leukaspis: G. Dunst, BCH 1964. 482-485; G. Manganaro, Parola del Passato 1965. 166-174.
Theogamia: F. Salviat, BCH 1964. 647-654. Various deities: M. H. Jameson, BCH 1965.
154-172. Explanation of the heading and study of the apportionment of the sacrifices
between columns: S. Dow, BCH 1965. 180-213. Summaries, with some comments:
J./L. Robert, REG 1965. 106-107, nos. 158-159; 1966. 365-366, nos. 169-173.
Inscribed on one side only, a stele preserving all but ca. 14 last lines out of the original ca. 339.
Heading of the whole: The Calendar itself is in five columns,
each headed by a single letter, respectively Each column is arranged by
months and days, under which were specified details of 59 different sacrifices in all (56 are
preserved). On two days as many as six sacrifices are specified, but never more than two
sacrifices for one day in any one of the five columns. The division into five columns is a
dcoupage (Daux), i.e. a vertical division, of all the Deme's sacrifices. For each sacrifice
there are regularly specified: the deity, place, victim (never larger than a sheep or goat),
disposition of the sacrifice (in about half the instances), price. Each of the five columns has
a total of its prices at the end; the totals are all very nearly equal, evidently varying only
from Dr 108 to 111. Equality between columns was attained in several other respects,
curious and surprising.

(4) ELEUSIS. Ca. 330-ca. 300 (or ? ca. 270 B.C.).

Bibliography: S. Dow and R. F. Healey, S. J., Harvard Theological Studies, no. 21 (1965), a
rdition of IG II2 1363. Reviews: G. Roux, AntCl 1966. 562-573; N. J. Richardson,
Gno 1967. 277-281. Further discussion forthcoming.
Two fragments of a thin stele inscribed on one side only.
Two columns: three passages in all, a total of 41 lines, preserved. The columns are arranged
under rubrics for months and days, with numerals for amounts in the left margins. Under
the rubrics are single victims, extras, and special provisions for Eleusinian cult officials at
the Proerosia (including a trip to Athens for the prorresis), Pyanopsia, Thesmophoria, and
(text slight) [Skira].
The purpose is evidently to provide funds to the cult personnel to assist them in their duties and
to relieve them of costs formerly borne personally. Among the items are a few small
victims (sheep, goats) and the extras and perquisites that went with them. The amounts,
often Dr 20, cover these items in a lump, i.e. flexibility in apportionment seems to be
envisaged. The highest Eleusinian officials are thus assisted. The functions in question
are to be performed some in Athens, some in Eleusis.
176 STERLING DOW
(5) TE1THRAS, a small Deme of the Mesogaia, near modern Pikermi. First half of the Fourth
Century B.C.
Edilio princeps: J. J. Pollitt, Hesp 1961. 293-297 and pi. 62. F. Sokolowski, Lois sacres,
Supplment (1962), no. 132, pp. 218-219.
A thin stele, broken above and below, inscribed on both sides.
Side A. Rubrics for months and days; numerals in the margin; stoikhedon. Preserved: part
of a numeral from the last line of [Metageitnion]; 13 lines with sacrifices for 4 Boedromion,
complete, one large ram to Zeus; and for 27 Boedromion, incomplete. Hence the fragment
comes from fairly high on the stele; and the sacrifices of the Deme would appear not to have
been numerous. The ram has the same price as in Athens, and the arrangement of the
margins is similar, as Sokolowski saw, to that of the Later Side of the State Code (1).
Side B. Preserved: ends only of seven lines, some restorable: Not stoikhedon, but same period,
probably same hand, as Side A. Content not known, probably a continuation of Side A.

(6) SALAMINIOI, scil. the Genos of The Salaminioi of the Seven Phylai and Sounion 363/2 B.C.
Edilio princeps : W. S. Ferguson, Hesp 1938. 1-74, no. 1, lines 80-97. F. Sokolowski, Lois sacres,
Supplment (1962), pp. 49-54, with bibliography; add F. Jacoby, FGrHist 328 Frags. 14-16
(III vol. I, pp. 285-305).
Large stele, inscribed on one side only, preserved virtually complete.
Text in continuous lines, with months but only three days specified others did not need to
be ; deities, victims, prices; one place and two State festivals.
Purpose: that the Arkhontes succeeding one another in office for both parties (i.e. the two
divisions of the Genos) may know the amount of money each party must contribute for all
the sacrifices (lines 83-84).
Content: eight festivals in six different months, including participation in the Panathenaia and
Apatouria. In all, 23 victims, their cost being Dr 429, plus Dr 32 for wood, etc., plus
Dr 59 paid to Priests. The Calendar gives the total cost of the sacrifices as Dr 530 1/2
annually. The largest festival included nine victims (one a bull) and cost Dr 151.

For more ready comparison, and with some additional details, the data on the six calendars
are also organized in a table (pp. 178-179).

Distinctive Character of the Six Calendars. The first impression

is an impression of differences: the six calendars are sufficiently different
in details so that a fragment of any one of them, or even a transcript of
the text of a fragment with as few as a dozen lines, could easily be
recognized and placed. The differences, or variations, are distinctive,
and the digests and table supra emphasize the differences. Nevertheless
the six Calendars have much in common. Because most of the six
Calendars have only recently become known, and because virtually no
comparisons of formal features had been made, no one realized, until the
present study was begun, how like each other they are, and how different
from others. Comparisons can be made especially with fasti sacri from
 SIX ATHENIAN SACRIFICIAL CALENDARS 177

elsewhere, but including some from Attika of the Fifth Century B.C.
(in the whole period after the Eleusinian Calendar, one calendar, of Roman
date, is all that survives). The comparisons will show that the present
six Athenian Calendars are unlike all others in the amount of detail given,
especially in giving prices. It is true that L. H. Jeffery's pair, Hesp
1948. 86-111, of ca. 510-480, do have prices, but the arrangement, in
continuous lines, is crude. Outside Attika there is only one that has many
prices: F. Sokolowski, Lois sacres de l'Asie mineure (1955) no. 26, of
Erythrai, s. // a. ; it has no arrangement, but is a jumble of continuous
lines. The present six Athenian calendars, in contrast, are loaded with
detail. Dramosynai, citation of authorities, hierosyna and provision for
wood these are rarely found elsewhere, some of them never. But the
outstanding feature is the prices. In the six Attic Calendars, every
sacrifice has a price. If the whole corpus of fasti sacri were to be inspected
to find distinctive features, the six Attic Calendars would readily be singled
out as the most distinct single group, and the most prominent distinctive
feature would be the prices.
If we were to compare decrees instead of calendars, Athens may well
have furnished a model which the world copied. But Athenian sacred
calendars, although more elaborately detailed than other sacred calendars,
did not provide a model which was copied. Except in Attika during one
century, evidently the need rarely existed to copy out on stone so much
matter. The question asks itself, Why did the Athenians do so ?
Codifications as Collections, Conveniences, Reforms. In some vague
way, I suppose, scholars have thought of calendars like these as intended
to be a set of up-to-date scholarly editions. They originate in 403/2-
ca. 330 (270 ?) B.C., and there is no difficulty in imagining why it was in
this period that they came into being. Systematizing and collecting
were activities characteristic of the time. The whole collection of sacred
calendars might well have been a practical and epigraphical counterpart
of Aristotle's collection of 158 polis constitutions, and of Theophrastos'
collection of Nomoi.
But surely the calendars were not an instance of collecting merely
for the sake of obtaining a collection. In a state where festivals were
added to and altered from time to time, codification, merely for
convenience, was a recurring need. The model was the State's own
elaborate, vastly extensive Code, which Nikomakhos and his associates
labored over, with interruptions, during eleven years. Just as the Demes
copied, though with much variation, the form of the State Calendar, so
likewise the Demes might well have been influenced by the motives which
were behind the commission given to Nikomakhos. The number and
variety of sources cited by Nikomakhos as authorities is proof enough that
Athens had real need for a published synthesis, worked out in detail, of
all the various series of State sacrifices. The Demes, of course, would
not have so large a body of material to systematize; among the Demes,

12
 Tabular description of the six Athenian sacrificial caiendars
(For features and details common in the whole group, see the section beginning p. 176)

Calendar and date Monument Preserved

1) STATE Two Walls:

Thicker Wall, Earlier Side:
Civil law in continuous form. (1 passage Trierarkhic law).
Sacrifices in lists. 2 short passages.
411/0-404/3.
Thinner Wall, Earlier Side:
Sacred law in continuous 1 short broken passage.
form.
Sacrifices in lists. 6 columns scantily preserved.
Thicker Wall, Later Side:
Systematic calendar of sacri- 11 passages, of which 3 are
fices in asty; list form, under short.
403/2-400/399. rubrics.

Thinner Wall, Later Side:

Systematic calendar of sacri- 5 passages, of which 3 are short,
flees outside asty; list form.

2) TETRAPOLIS Stele, opisthographic.

med. s. IV a. ; the two sides
contemporary
Side A: Lists in mixed co- Side A, Col. I: Parts of many
lumnar (two columns) and lines and panels,
continuous form. Side A, Col. II:
Marathon, all but beginning;
Trikorynthos, beginning.
Side B: List, in continuous Side B: Several lines partially
form, of Tetrapolis demes- legible; indications of similar
men and amounts. lines throughout entire
face.

3) ERKHIA Stele, surmounted by moul- Heading, 5 columns, totals

ca. 360-350 ding; back rough, uninscri- for 3; 56 out of 59 entries
bed. for sacrifices. Except for
Lists in mixed columnar (five these 3 entries, complete.
columns) and continuous
form.

4) ELEUSIS Stele; back apparently rough, Col. I: Much of Pyanopsion.

ca. 330 - ca. 300 uninscribed. Col. II : A little, from Skiro-
(or ? - ca. 270) List in columnar form (two phorion ?
columns).

5) TEITHRAS Stele, opisthographic. Side A: Most of Boedromion,

ca. 400 - ca. 350 List in columnar form, one 10 lines.
column; Side B: Parts of 10 lines, month
[continued] from front to and festival(s) unknown.
back.

6) SALAMINIOI Stele with pediment, calendar Complete sacrificial calendar

363/2 at bottom, following decrees. of the Genos. 8 festivals.
Back rough, uninscribed.
List in continuous form.
 Original number
and span of list(s): times
Unknown: all preparatory for
Later Side ?
Unknown.
Unknown.
1 annual list,
2 biennial lists,
4 quadrennial lists,
Miscellaneous list.
Probably similar but not so
full.
Side A, Col. I: Minor sa- Side A, Cols. I and II: Annual Side A. Cols. I and II: Months;
crifices, many, under local
heading.
Side A, Col. II: Full calendar Side A, Col. II: For each deme: Side A, Col. II: Perquisites,
for each of four demes.
Side B. Extensive list,
probably hundreds, of payers and
amounts.
1 annual list, solely. Months,
days.
1 annual list [solely?]. Months,
days.
1 annual list [solely?]. Months,
days.
1 annual list, plus 1 biennial
sacrifice. Months, but only
three days, specified.
Distinctive features Details specified
Different hands; some non- Unknown: prices? rubrics? to-
stoikhedon tals?
Different hands; all(?) non- Prices, at least some. Rubrics?
stoikhedon. Totals?
Rubrics inscribed with gra- Authority stated for all sacri-
duated margins. Stoikhe- flees. Monthly totals of costs.
don. Non-fiscal speciflca- Perquisites.
tions in columnar form, non-
stoikhedon.
Mostly unknown, but there Localities specified.
were some rubrics; non-stoi-
khedon.
sacrifices in trimenial groups, very few days.
purpose unknown.
1 annual, 2 biennial, etc., hierosyna; no totals.
Dramosynai.
Heading, column labels, 5 co- All locations given, but some
lumns splitting the year's merely Erkhia.
sacrifices. Cost of each co- Disposal of victims specified
lumn totalled at bottom. in many instances.
Columns equalized in cost. Hierosyna, extras not specified
Sums granted to be paid out Some locations, mostly the
to cult officials, to assist in ones outside Eleusis,
duties. Extras listed but without
The sums flexibly cover vie- prices,
tims and incidentals
together.
Small, fairly simple, but Side A Some locations.
similar in several features One cult garment specified
to State Calendar. [with payment].
Hierosyna stated.
The sacrifices of the Genos, One location specified, no
with total cost. others needed. Perquisites
stated.
Hierosyna stated.
180 STERLING DOW

the Tetrapolis, with its elaborate series of sacrifices, was doubtless

exceptional. It is also true that taking all these calendars together,
the codifying was spread over many decades: the impulse to codify,
whatever prompted it, was not felt, or rather was not acted upon,
universally in one generation. But this hardly militates against the
theory that the calendars originated in a general impulse to collect,
regularize, and codify. A lively Deme would wish to be up-to-date and
fashionable, but no doubt the need for a calendar was usually not mere
fashion. It was the need, rather, which a business-like and accurate code
would serve, viz. a practical need. There would be political complications,
of course, but the striking fact was that the scholarship which served
practicality was markedly detailed, precise, evidently meticulous; in
short, not just codifying, but good codifying.
Besides such motivating forces as the creation of scholarly collections
and of inclusive up-to-date codes, a third force must be allowed for. The
Athenian codes best known to us, those of Drakon and of Solon, were far
from being mere collections of laws that already applied. They were
full of change, they were reforms. One suspects that the Greeks never
codified without changing. Whatever else it may or may not prove,
Lysias 30 does prove that a considerable reform of the State sacrifices was
intended and was carried out. For the other Calendars, however, there
is no external evidence.

The Calendars as Financial Measures. It was the Erkhian Calendar

which suggested a motivating force more precise and practical than
scholarship, convenience, or reform. This motivating force is the
difficulty of finding money. Formerly the rich Gennetai could and
did pay for most of the sacrifices in the Deme. The Deme itself, though
constituted only under Kleisthenes, may have paid for some. Now,
however, the rich were poorer. The situation was desperate enough so
that an elaborate system of allotment had to be devised in order to get
the sacrifices paid for. This explanation of the Erkhia calendar is set
forth infra with references. Erkhia might conceivably have been the
only Deme in Attika known to us as having trouble financing sacrifices.
Certainly there is reason to think, however, that everywhere the rich were
poorer, so that the question now asks itself, Can other Calendars be
explained in the same way ? Did other Demes take over control and
re-apportion charges or, probably, reduce charges and then re-apportion
them ?
Although the discussion of (3) Erkhia ought perhaps to be read first,
it may be convenient to have the discussions of the Calendars printed in
their order.

(1) Financial Aspects of the State Code. Composed as part of a

re-codification of all the laws, the State Calendar would probably have been
compiled anyway, regardless of the economic situation, for multiple pur-
 SIX ATHENIAN SACRIFICIAL CALENDARS 181

poses of convenience. It brought together numerous fasti sacri scattered

about in various places and dating from various periods back to Solon.
But even so, for the compiling of such a list, careful regard to costs may
have been prominent in Nikomakhos' instructions. Certainly the
financial aspect of piety is permitted to loom large in Lysias' oration.
More than that, Lysias 30 is strong evidence that extensive changes
were actually effected Lysias says, of no less than six talents of new
sacrifices, associated with suspension of three talents of old sacrifices.
Allow for gross exaggeration, yet doubtless the actual amounts were
considerable. The inscription itself contains evidence. It gives monthly
totals in large letters for the costs of sacrifices: fiscal aspects certainly
were made to look prominent.
Presumably to get money for new sacrifices, Nikomakhos evidently
attacked the problem of reducing the old sacrifices in part by the device
of biennial sacrifices. Some sacrifices formerly offered every year can
have been halved: one half could be offered one year, the other half the
next; or most of the regular sacrifices in one year, a small token or none
in the alternate year. For the Kronia, we have now learned, modest
supplementary sacrifices were offered in one year, but no supplementary
sacrifices whatever in the alternate year. There is good reason to infer
that the same is true for the Synoikia.
Financial considerations were very much to the fore. To what extent
difficulty in finding the money played a part we do not know.

(2) The Calendar and the Contributors of the Tetrapolis. The Calendar
of the Marathonian Tetrapolis itself has only one feature that is particular
and suggestive, viz. the arrangement by three-month periods, with a
rubric at the head of each. But the reason for this seasonal arrangement
is not revealed in the Calendar. Evidently totals were not given for
any of the successive periods no totals of any kind appear in the many
lines we possess; for Marathon itself it can be stated positively that no
totals were given. The trimenial division might conceivably be very
ancient and primitive, dating back to a time when the seasons determined
everything. The approximation to the seasons is however approximate
only, and in the cults themselves the trimenial divisions have no meaning
obvious to us. Hence such a division might well indicate that revenue
(or whatever form of payment) was expected, or that Deme revenue was
paid out, or perhaps audited, every three months.
In view, however, of the Erkhia and Eleusis Calendars, Side of the
Tetrapolis stele, hitherto not commented upon, becomes interesting.
Prolonged study will be needed, but as read by Peek the text, consisting of
parts of seven lines, has six abbreviated demotics, all () or ().
Names without patronymics precede the demotics; following the demotics
are numerals, of which the first is Dr 131 1/6 (or? Dr 132); the others are
182 STERLING DOW

doubtful. There are many names to a line, and the number of lines is
large. The appearance, of course, is that of a list of taxpayers with their
payments, and the natural suggestion is that the Demesmen named were
paying for the sacrifices. The payments are unlikely to have been
annual, i.e. pledged to be paid year after year, indefinitely. Instead,
they would be the record of semi-voluntary tax-donations for one year,
or perhaps for one fixed period of years. If true, this betokens a
considerable change. It is at least possible that a new was in control,
and that as at Erkhia the sacrifices, once paid for by the Gene chiefly,
and other such private groups, are now in the sphere of the Tetrapolis
as a whole, and that funds have been obtained from some sort of tax. The
conjecture might be that the plan evidently succeeded in its first period;
and that as a stimulant to payments in the future, the first group of
payments was listed on one side of the stele.

(3) The Greater Demarkhia at Erkhia. It has been noted supra that
among the Fourth Century Athenian calendars, the new one from Erkhia,
although it shares most of the features and particulars of the rest, is
unique: the dcoupage altogether into (five) columns produces columns
which are all, so to speak, simultaneous: each extends throughout the
year, and a given festival may be split between all five of them. This
feature comes to us with no predecessor, no companion, no sequel. The
heading, (), also wholly unlike any other, was no less
baffling, because it seemed that another Demarkhos' calendar, concurrently
in operation, but Lesser in scope, had to be imagined.
Trying to find a solution, I hit upon one which does at least attempt
to take into account both the vertical division and the heading; and up to
a point it seems to be confirmed by the various forms of exact or near-
exact equality between the columns surprising kinds of "equality. For
this latter aspect I must refer to the article (BCH 1965. 180-213); but the
rest, which for present purposes is the vital part, can be summarized
briefly as follows.
The equality of the totals at the feet of the columns, once perceived,
afforded the first clue. Next were the letter-labels , which I
was able to show were added as an afterthought, one letter at the top of
each column; the letter-labels suggested allotment of the sacrifices of each
column en bloc to some Demesman who would pay for them. The
equality, and the alphabetical numerals added late as mere labels, could
have no meaning other than to make the allotment fair. Evidently
therefore the purpose of the calendar as a whole was to get the sacrifices
paid for.
Presumably the older arrangement at Erkhia no longer worked. The
older arrangement, in Attika and doubtless nearly everywhere, was for
the rich Gene to pay. If there had been a change, the change would
consist in the taking over of the financing of the sacrifices, and of the
 SIX ATHENIAN SACRIFICIAL CALENDARS 183

control, by public authority, that is, by the Deme. The control by

the Deme is its (this meaning was first perceived by R. F. Healey),
and it is Greater now, by reason of the Deme's assumption of the financing,
than it had been formerly. There is no need to imagine a concurrent
Lesser Demarkhia. What was lesser was past. A new situation
had arisen. There never had been a Demarkhia described
contemporaneously as lesser.
Unless this conception is wholly mistaken, the explanation of the
Erkhian calendar was no mere impulse to re-codify. Instead, the
Erkhian was seen to be a devolution in the handling of
the Deme's sacrifices. Private payment for the cults had to be largely
abandoned. The Deme took over from private persons, scil. from the
Gene, the finding of the money to pay for the sacrifices, and when it
took over the payment, the Deme also assumed the general management
of the sacrifices. With astonishingly minute care, the sacrifices were
divided into five sections as nearly equal as possible to each other with
respect to every detail likely to concern whoever paid the money. The
division was made even so that the lot could operate fairly.
The five Demesmen would be chosen, presumably by lot, and then one
column of sacrifices would be allotted to each. The function of these
five men was simply to pay: that was the main object of the whole calendar
(the minimum cost to each leitourgist was at least Dr 110; semi-voluntary
extras probably made it somewhat more). There were certain other
aspects, worthy of mention but minor. Primarily the Greater Demarkhia
involved a division of sacrifices made necessary by the compulsion to find
the money.

In Erkhia we see best the signs of the devolution from private to public,
and the change explains the features of the Calendar. Throughout its
339 lines, no Priest was mentioned, but much else had to be set down
for the guidance of inexperienced Deme officials not merely the exact
day, deity, victim, price, but the places of sacrifice, even the very altar.
These latter details are fuller than anywhere else. Wide distribution
moreover is assured in 22 instances by the prohibition against taking
portions away (Daux): wide distribution is the real intent, unless I am
mistaken, of .

Codified in the heyday of allotment, this Calendar represents an

interesting extension of allotment to cult. It also exemplifies the
inveterate Athenian love of elaborately refined systems in which the lot
could operate. The goal was the highest degree attainable of equality,
and it was attained by laborious and careful attention to all the many
and varied details. Public financing; the amazingly detailed division of
the sacrifices into five groups; and allotment all went hand in hand.
184 STERLING DOW

(4) The Cult Personnel at Eleusis. In the Eleusinian Calendar we

notice that charges doubtless borne earlier by the Gennetai who served as
officials, or rather by the Gene to which they belonged, scil. the
Eumolpidai and the Kerykes, now are stated as being assumed by the
Deme. Thus the Hirophantes himself (a Eumolpides) and the
Hierokeryx (of the Genos Kerykes) when they go to Athens for the Prorresis
(announcement, etc.) of the Proerosia, are given Dr iy2 for an ariston
(lunch) in town. In fact, to judge by the fragments, the whole calendar
is concerned solely with the Eleusinian personnel of the cults. No
sacrifice is of more than one (sheep? or) goat. Most of the entries provide
money for such details as tables to be dressed, and for furnishing libations,
cakes, etc.; for (sacred) baskets and the like. Evidently these modest
expenses were first assumed by the Deme at this late date (perhaps as late
as ca. 270 B.C.); we do not know for certain, but no other objective of the
Calendar is obvious. In any case these items would be precisely the kind
of things once paid for, at Eleusis and everywhere, by the Gennetai. When
the Deme furnishes the money for the Hirophantes and the Hierokeryx
to lunch in town, a great change has come about.
At Eleusis we observe an interesting financial innovation: several
various items are lumped together, to be paid for by a round sum (here
usually Dr 20). In this, the latest of the calendars, experience shows
itself: the lesson had been learned that results were better, or procedure
was easier, when flexibility of expenditure was encouraged. But all
the items, even petty ones, are stated: nothing was to be omitted, even
though the proportion of payment was left to the official's decision.

The problem remains, how Eleusis found the money. Nothing in

the preserved text makes it appear that the burden was cut into sections,
as at Erkhia, and allotted. The nature of the items was different, and an
Erkhian scheme would perhaps not have been feasible. Probably the
Deme itself footed the bill. In any case the main fact is that Eleusis
extended the scope of its payments and no doubt of its control. Eleusis
had postponed its Greater Demarkhia longer, apparently, than Erkhia.

(5) Teithras. About the Teithras Calendar there is no hint of financial

stringency. The two surviving short passages are like those of the State
Code. It is as if no special change were needed: but the sacrifices
preserved are meager, and may represent a reduction. In any case, so
far as one can tell, no new method of payment is contemplated.
There may be a single clue in a line left unsolved, viz. line A12, printed
as [ca-3]E^OH[ ]. In the absence of any other solution, and
helped by the apparent trace of a new letter, I shall suggest that this line
may well be understood as referring to a cult garment, e.g. [] [
]. If the noun in correct, then here too we have minor details
of cost being assumed by the Deme.
 SIX ATHENIAN SACRIFICIAL CALENDARS 185

(6) Financial Concerns of the Salaminioi. The prelude to the Sala-

minioi Calendar states that there is need for an exact statement accessible
to both halves of the Genos. The Salaminioi were still rich: if they gave
only Dr 70 for an ox, still they paid at the higher rate, Dr 15 and 12,
for sheep. Their annual cult budget was larger than that of the Deme
Erkhia. Nothing had to be said in the Calendar about perquisites and
disposal no for them! and few non-financial details had to
be specified. Month rubrics sufficed, only three days had to be specified.
One small sacrifice only is biennial. What the Salaminioi needed was
not funds but clarity about the sacrifices for which the funds were to be
spent, so as to avoid misunderstandings. In that sense the calendar
was inscribed for a financial reason.

The Oem.es and Cult Expenses in the Fourth Century. The Calendars,
different in origin, affected many differing cults and a host of persons.
No one motive explains all the Calendars equally, but they do all share
an interest in costs. This is the reason, we can now say, for their
distinctive character. Everywhere, and in the main, all sacrificial
calendars give the details important for their purposes. It is no accident
that prices are the feature that distinguishes these present calendars from
all others. In different organizations the financial interest differed. The
Salaminioi and the State had problems and interests that were quite
different from each other's, and so also did the Demes. In at least three
of the Demes in the Fourth Century, the Gennetai could no longer pay;
in two of these Demes, and probably in most others throughout Attika,
finding the money for sacrifices had become an acute problem.
The three larger calendars of the Demes, therefore, so far from being
mere compilations to codify current practice, are documents interesting
for the condition of the Athenian communities in their time. The
calendars relate themselves to increased democratization; to the sharing of
burdens widely, by all who are able, and can be induced or compelled to
do so; to the spreading of perquisites and privileges formerly restricted to
the now-less-wealthy aristocracy.

In the sphere of the State, the system of Symmoriai is the equivalent.

The many financial reforms of Lykourgos are similarly an effort to
establish finances on a new and sounder basis. Conversely, the sumptuary
laws of Demetrios of Phaleron were an effort to salvage what was left of
private fortunes. The substitution of public for private responsibility
meant that money had to be found to pay the costs. The agency was
the Deme. The samples available prove that different Demes adopted
different methods.
186 STERLING DOW

The Absence of Priests. The foregoing explanation of the Fourth

Century Athenian Calendars, i.e. that their purpose was primarily financial,
can be tested and explained by an observation that applies to them all,
viz. the genral absence of mentions of Priests. It is in the decrees of the
Salaminioi, i.e. quite apart, that the interests of Priests are dealt with;
not in their Calendar. Cult officials are present in the Eleusinian Calendar,
because it was made up specifically to provide for their expenses.
Priestesses (five times) and Pythastai (three times) are given definite
perquisites at Erkhia, presumably to make certain that what belonged to
them was given to them; and it is prescribed that the Herald is to sacrifice
at one festival appropriately, as I have tried to show, for Hermes in
the Agora. The Demarkhos is mentioned once, in such a way as to imply
that he takes at all the sacrifices in the Calendar. But no Priest is
mentioned in any of the ca. 339 lines of the Erkhian Calendar. The
State Calendar was in a different sphere of explicitness: when necessary,
it mentioned cult officials; no regular specification tells who is to do the
sacrificing. Thus the older, more properly Eleusinian sacrifices are
prescribed to be performed by the Eumolpidai, scil. by Priests belonging
as of old to the Genos. The newer sacrifices, the list of which is preserved
to the extent perhaps of its first half, would be assigned to different officials;
we lack any line that said which ones, but probably there was no such
statement, because it would be understood that the Priests of the several
deities would officiate. It is only when we turn to the Eleusis Calendar
that we find a calendar made up to deal with cult personnel. This
Calendar therefore proves the rule: for it is concerned with moneys,
apparently all modest, but taken together, for the whole year, a fairly
large total, granted by the Deme to the officials.
That is all the provisions for the principal cult officials, the Priests
themselves. It is as if they hardly existed. Actually, of course, no
doubt they continued to perform just about all the sacrifices they had ever
performed. Payment, however, was now from different sources. More
citizens got more meat, and in some instances perquisites formerly given
to the Priest had now to be shared with the Demarkhos.

Harvard University. Sterling Dow.