Bibliography
Edition here based on Dittenberger IG IX.1 129.
Other edition: Foucart 1884.
Cf. also:
Ziehen LGS II 79;
Sokolowski LSCG 82.
Further bibliography:
Bilco 1884;
Roberts - Gardner IGE 229bis;
Detienne 1979;
Cole 1992;
Osborne 1993;
Dillon 2002;
Blok 2005.
Commentary
This text (which may have been a boundary stone) contains short regulations abour behaviour in and entrance to the sanctuary.
Lines 1-2: Various temples of the Anakes ("Lords") are attested in Athens and in Epidauros. For the references, LSJ s.v. Ἀνάκειον. For sacrifice to the Anakes in the present in the present Collection cf. [CGRN 32](http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be/CGRN_32/) (Thorikos), line 37.
Lines 3-4: "The one who sacrifices" (θύοντα = τὸν θύοντα) should be taken as the subject accusative of an accusative with infinitive construction; σκανε̑̄ν is a variant of σκανοῦν, "to put up a tent". Ziehen took the infinitive in an imperatival sense and argued that σκανέω refers to setting up a tent for the post-sacrificial meal, adducing a law from Kos (LSCG 168 / IG XII.4 293, line 1) in which worshippers are urged to "sacrifice and set up a tent" ([θ]υέτω δὲ καὶ σκανοπαγείσθω). An alternative has been proposed (Bilco; Roberts - Gardner) that the verb refers to (facultative) "camping" (staying the night). In this reading, the rule would have stipulated that "the one who sacrifices may put up a tent in the sanctuary of the Anakes" (as opposed to other visitors; cf. e.g. [CGRN 129](http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be/CGRN_129/) (Patara), lines 6-8, where only those offering a sacrifice are
allowed to camp in the sanctuary; for a discussion of restrictions on camping in sanctuary space: Dillon, p. 123-124). However, it is difficult to see how the simple infinitive σκανε̑̄ν could be taken to mean ἐξεῖναι σκανε̑̄ν. Thus Ziehen's interpretation is to be preferred. The rule should be seen as one tantamount to a prohibition against the carrying away of meat, since it enforced "camping" in the sanctuary and accordingly prescribed overnight feasting on the spot (compare the rules stipulating "no take-away", οὐκ ἀποφορά or similar, e.g. at [CGRN 52](http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be/CGRN_52/), Erchia).
Lines 5-6: For γυναῖκα μὲ παρίμεν, cf. LSJ s.v. πάρειμι (εἶμι) III. This is one of the cases in which women are forbidden entrance as a group. Such cases occur infrequently and are discussed in some detail by Cole and Osborne. Cole (p. 105) provides a list of eight similar cases, ranging from the 5th to the 2nd century BC. In some of these, the entrance of women is framed as being against the religious norm (οὐ θέμις, e.g. [CGRN 27](http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be/CGRN_27/), Thasos, lines 3-4, or οὐκ ὀσία, e.g. [CGRN 62](http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be/CGRN_62/), Lindos). We do not know precisely what these inscriptions prohibit, but because of their general focus on aspects of the sacrificial ritual, it is likely that they concern women’s participation in sacrifice. The status of such prohibitions against women is a matter of ongoing scholarly debate. For Detienne, p.131, women were always excluded in these contexts, and sacred laws explicitly prescribing such exclusions made a point of emphasizing (for some reason) what was anyway expected. Alternatively, women were normally included, and these inscriptions represent the exceptional case; casuistic prohitibitions against women were restricted to individual cults with particular rules of (and reasons for) exclusion (e.g. Dillon, p. 338; Blok, p. 133).