Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike International License 4.0.
All citation, reuse or distribution of this work must contain somewhere a link back to the DOI (
Fragment of a white marble
The text is inscribed non-stoichedon, with letters of the early Hellenistic period. Word division is strictly respected in the preserved lines.
The letters are
Encoded for EpiDoc schema 8.17 on 01-01-2014 by J.M. Carbon and S. Peels.
Edition here based on Lupu
Other editions:
Further bibliography:
(Given the fragmentary character of the text, no translation is attempted; see Commentary.)
(En raison du caractère fragmentaire du texte, aucune tentative de traduction n'est proposée; voir Commentary.)
This stele describes rules for behaviour and sacrifice in a sanctuary of Asclepius (lines 16 and 17) and another god or gods in the
Line 2: -γηι is probably the ending of subjunctive verb (so Veligianni), but an exact restoration is elusive.
Lines 3-4: The first fragmentary line seems to deny incubation unless or until some requirement fulfilled. This may be the fee of 1 drachma that is to be paid in the next line as well as perhaps the sacrificial obligations listed in this text. Lupu draws attention to some evidence for cult fees in sanctuaries of Asclepius; a roughly contemporaneous one can be found at CGRN 64 (Epidauros) where the priest of Asclepius receives 3 obols and other amounts from those making preliminary sacrifices (προθυόμενοι); see also here line 11.
Line 5: The interpretation is problematic, since it is not clear whether ἱερὸν refers to the sanctuary or it qualifies an offering. The phrase τὸμ
Lines 9-10: The requirement in line 9 is to perform a sacrifice and probably to place or consecrate certain portions of the sacrificial animal. Regrettably, however, the lacuna prevents us from knowing whether this referred to the altar, where portions would be be burned, or to the cult table or some other place where portions of meat might be set aside. If this was connected with the description of portions in the next line, then we might be dealing with meaty (priestly?) portions rather than divine ones for the altar. The hams (
Lines 12-13: These lines appear to propose a situation where a requirement is not fulfilled, and as a result a double payment (i.e. two drachmae?) must be made to the god (Asclepius).
Line 14: The subjunctive θύηι appears to propose the case of a sacrifice to a god other than Asclepius. The restoration of the qualifier or epithet ἐντεμένιος is made likely by the absence of an article, since one might have otherwise expected e.g. τῶι θεῶι ἐν τῶι τεμ
Line 15: The phrase