This decree reflects a decision of the city of Kos to publish on two stone steles the "sacred and ancestral laws" ([τοὺς ἱε]ροὺς καὶ πατρίους νόμους, lines 5-6) concerning purity. These steles were to be put up in the sanctuary of Demeter and in the Asklepieion (lines 11-12)—the present copy is the one from the Asklepieion (see above, Provenance); other copies were to be placed at diverse sanctuaries in the city (all or a majority apparently connected to cults related to women or childbirth, lines 16-17: the sanctuary of Artemis and [Artemis] Lochia; the sanctuary of Aphrodite) and in the demes of Isthmos and Halasarna (lines 17-18; cf. also lines 64-79 for regulations applying to "demesmen") as well as in a now missing location where doctors were appointed (line 19). The high visibility thus accorded to these laws may be seen as an indication of their perceived importance. What is more, the rules concerning purity were not only "ancestral and sacred norms", but needed to be reinscribed following a consultation of the ritual experts called exegetai (see below, on lines 1-5). These officials may have been in possession of traditional knowledge on the matter of purity or were in a capacity to interpret older documents concerning the subject (cf. Hallof and Bosnakis who note inter alia that the variation in forms of εἰ in the rules on Face B should indicate a mixture of sources: the traditional Dorian form αἰ is present in lines 74-75 for instance, while the more "recent" koine εἰ can be found in line 54). What motivated the city of Kos to reinscribe these rules upon consultation with the exegetes at this particular juncture remains unclear, however. For further comprehensive rules of purity, cp. here CGRN 99 (Cyrene).

The structure of the text, which is highly fragmentary (the stone being broken on the right and below) cannot be reconstructed with absolute certainty, though some general observations are clear. Face A is the beginning of the inscription and records the decision of the city concerning the inscribing of the decree (lines 1-20), then continues with two sets of purity regulations before breaking off. These rules concern the priestess of Demeter Olympia (lines 21-35) and the priestess of another Demeter, whose epithet is now lost (lines 36-45). The two sets of rules seem to be highly similar and it is possible that further rules for priestesses would have been discussed on this face of the stele. For similar rules applying to priests on Kos, see CGRN 85 and CGRN 163, lines 12-14. Face B perhaps begins in medias res, continuing from Face A, or with a highly fragmentary section in lines 48-51 (see below ad loc.). All of the subsections (terminating in a clear portion of empty space) of this face are reconstructed as being casuistic in IG, which is a plausible inference; on casuistic purity regulations, presenting a series of hypothetical scenarios (αἰ δέ κα vel sim.) and their resolution, cf. here CGRN 3 (Kleonai) and CGRN 166 (Lato), among others. Various enigmatic situations in which a purification is required are presented in lines 48-63, one of which involves a variety of cult objects (lines 52-57); this is followed by three further sections concerning: first, purifications in case a person was not buried properly and the tomb or bones become visible (lines 64-79); second, in case a person has hanged himself (lines 80-83); and, third, regulations for the selling and buying of pregnant sacrificial animals (lines 84-93). Part or the whole of the regulations on Face B seems to have a more general scope than referring to the personnel of a particular cult or to a particular sanctuary: cf. for example the reference to “a priest” in line 82 (not a specific one) and to offerings for “those gods and goddess to whom a pregnant animal (is sacrificed)” (another general rule). More specific regulations concerning the deity Kourotrophos and her priestess are also found, however (cf. lines 71-72, below). To sum up, Hallof and Bosnakis plausibly remark that Face A was generallyconcerned with abstentions (ἁγνεῖαι) imposed on priestesses and perhaps other cult personnel, while Face B was more properly concerned with specific cases of purifications (καθαρμοί).

Lines 1-5: The ἐξηγηταί were experts on rituals and expounders of ritual norms: they could be asked to intervene when aspects of a ritual were unclear or when rules needed to be laid down, as "important upholders and (re-)interpreters of traditional practices" (so Price; cf. also Garland); for the exegetes on Kos, see also here CGRN 208, lines 24-26.

Lines 5-10: The occurrence of καθαρμῶν in line 10 is a good indication that the restoration καὶ τοὶ κα[θαρμοὶ] is correct here. For the notions of ἀγνός and καθαρός occurring in parallel in ritual norms, cp. e.g. Roussel - Launey, ID 2529, lines 11-16: ἰέναι εἰς τὸ ἱερ[ον] ... [χερ]σὶν καὶ ψυχῇ καθα[ρᾷ] ... ἁγνεύοντα[ς ἀπὸ γυν]αικὸς καὶ κρέως. More particularly, it is worth remarking that the collocation of ἀγνεῖαι and καθαρμοί with perhaps a third element now missing in the lacunae closely matches the formulation found in the major purity rules at Cyrene, CGRN 99, lines 2-3, as well as in the rules at CGRN 191 (Philadelphia), lines 12-13. The use of the term ἱεροί νόμοι is relatively rare (see Georgoudi 2010 and Carbon - Pirenne-Delforge), though it is found with some frequency on Kos; cf. CGRN 145, Commentary on line 1. The goal of the decree seems to be to guarantee the upholding of ancestral norms, though again this recodification of the norms remains obscure. Apparently, as we gather from line 9, these "sacred laws" or "sacred norms" had already been recorded previously, but there seems to have been a reason to gather and inscribe them again and put them up at conspicuous places.

Lines 10-12: On the importance of the Asklepieion, located 3 km to the south-east of the city of Kos, cf. Paul, p. 167-188; see also here CGRN 139, CGRN 140, and CGRN 218. Cf. Paul, p. 73-75, for sanctuaries of Demeter on Kos. We do not know precisely which sanctuary of Demeter is meant here.

Lines 12-14: The threat "let it weigh on his conscience" (ἐνθύμιον αὐτοῖς ἔστω) is a religious sanction (cf. Parker 1983: 253; Karila-Cohen). The use of the term ἀσεβεῖν similarly communicates that a particular course of action will not be pleasing to gods, but at the same time opens the path to a legal process (by suggesting that an individual has committed the crime of ἀσέβεια), though without this necessarily happening in actual terms; cf. Parker 1983 and 2004: Delli Pizzi: Peels.

Lines 14-17: Due to the fragmentary nature of these lines, it is not completely clear whether "transcripts" (ἀντίγραρα, see line 18) of the two steles set up in the sanctuaries of Demeter should be placed in the sanctuaries of Artemis, (Artemis) Lochia and in the Aphrodision, as well as in Isthmos and Halasarna, or whether something else is ordered. It is perhaps possible that documents prescribing other rules—rather than exact copies—are to be placed in these other sanctuaries and territories, for instance containing purity regulations tailored to these other cults and places. However, the phrase τὰ γεγραμμέν[α περὶ] would seem to suggest that full and exact copies were in fact intended. Various suggestions have been made for the restoration of the first epithet of Artemis (cf. the discussion in Paul, p. 140-141). Herzog thought of Artemis Toxitis, but this epithet would make more sense in the context of defense of the city (a sanctuary placed at a strategic place), than in the context of purificatory regulations. At the time of Herzog's restoration, this was the only other epithet of Artemis attested on Kos but, since then, Artemis Pergaia and Agrotera are also attested. Given the mention of (Artemis) Lochia, one may also think of Artemis Ilithyia, but without any certainty. Hallof and Bosnakis suppose that the stele at Halasarna was set up in the important sanctuary of Apollo in this deme; see here CGRN 151.

Lines 17-19: The phrase εἷ τοὶ ἰατροὶ τάσσονται is not straightforward to interpret. Perhaps the most likely sense is “where the doctors are appointed”: this regulation concerning purity would have to be set up wherever doctors had their offices, since its contents would be of interest both to these practitioners and their patients. Hallof and Bosnakis take the verb to qualify more vaguely a place "where the doctors congregate". Another, more remote possibility is that the decree records a decision to distribute copies “where the doctors prescribe (to place the copies)”, in which case we have an indirect middle (in which the subject acts somehow ‘in his own interest’), and the doctors are mentioned as a source of authority. Doctors are mentioned among the recipients of portions of meat in a Koan regulation on the priesthood of Zeus Polieus (CGRN 85, line 34), a text that contains prescriptions highly similar to the present inscription.

Line 22: The priestess is not to have any contact with "impure persons", because the μίασμα would be contagious. Impure persons would be those polluted by usual causes of pollution, for example, persons who have been in contact with a dead person, a woman giving birth, etc.

Line 23: In the highly similar text concerning Koan priests (CGRN 85), the prohibition against eating at a hero's feast is restored from the present inscription (μηδὲ παρ’ ἥρωνα ἔσθ]εν, line 12); additionally, it is possible to restore line 23 in this inscription (μηδὲ ἐπιβαίνεν ἐ[φ᾿ ἡρῶιον μηδὲ ...) from CGRN 85, line 14 ([μηδὲ ἐμ]π̣ατεῖν ἡρῶιον μηδὲ ...). These prohibitions may be seem as eminating from the fear of pollution caused by dead persons (hence the other regulations concerning contact with the dead, with dead animals, or women who had miscarried). Being in a hero shrine may be seen in the same light (cf. also Paul, p. 77), as far as the priestess of Demeter is concerned. For analogous restrictions concerning participations in heroic feasts and attendance to heroic shrines, cf. the regulation from Cyrene, CGRN 99, lines 21-24.

Lines 23-24: Childbirth, miscarriage and abortion are recurrent sources of pollution. Sometimes one finds a discussion of the extent of the pollution of the mother herself (e.g. CGRN 155, Megalopolis, lines 5-6), other times a definition of periods of time that those who have been in contact with the woman must wait before becoming pure (e.g. CGRN 85, Kos, lines 16-17, and CGRN 212, Pergamon, line 7). Occasionally, both qualifications are defined: cf. CGRN 181, Eresos, lines 5-8, and CGRN 144, Pergamon, lines 5-6 and 10-11. The numbers of days differ greatly: an overview can be found in the commentary to NGSL 7.

Lines 25-26: Contact with the dead is another frequent source of pollution. Cp. for example CGRN 181 (Eresos), CGRN 211 (Maionia), CGRN 212 (Pergamon) and CGRN 214 (Miletos); cf. also Parker 1983: 37 n. 17, for a list of inscriptions mentioning pollution resulting from death.

Line 26: In another purity regulation from Eresos, CGRN 181, line 14, it is forbidden to introduce (εἰσφέρην) a θνασίδιον into the sanctuary. This presumably refers to an animal that has not been sacrificed in cult; see Hallof - Bosnakis for further references. The same rule seems to be inscribed here. Alternatively, the construction with a genitive here may point to another type of interdiction: perhaps not only the body of a dead person, but also the corpse "of a dead animal" is polluting. There are other ritual norms in which pollution normally caused by humans are extended to the realm of animals: one inscription mentions a pollution from dogs who have given birth (CGRN 214, Miletos, lines 6-9) and miscarriage of a woman, dog or donkey could cause pollution at Lindos (LSS 91, line 11, 3rd century AD). Another regulation, CGRN 155 (Megalopolis), lines 9-10, does not provide a good parallel, in that it may describe pollution resulting from killing, whether a murder or (much less likely) that of an animal.

Line 27: It is not possible to reconstruct the precise polluting food that is the source of impurity here. However, various ritual norms mention different types of food as forbidden or requiring ablutions in particular cults: cp. here CGRN 203 (Delos), line 5 (fish); CGRN 217 (Delos), lines 2-3 (fish, pork); cf. also e.g. LSCG 139 (Lindos), lines 9-11 (lentils, goat meat, cheese) and IG II² 1365 (Attica), lines 10-11 (garlic, pork). We know that the priestess of Athena Polias in Athens was prohibited from consuming local fresh cheese (Str. 9.1.11). In the case of Demeter, the only known prohibition is that of beans, in the specific context of the Eleusinian Mysteries (Paus. 1.37.4).

Lines 28-30: The pig was often sacrificed to Demeter and particularly associated with contexts of purification (cf. Clinton, p. 168-176). The restoration περιταμέσθω χοίρωι in IG is made on the basis of IG XII.4 332, line 18 ([πε]ρ̣ιταμέσθω χοίρω). As Clinton, p. 169, has proposed, in this context the verb refers to a way of purifying by moving the pig around the person who needs to be purified; the verb τέμνω in this context accordingly refers to the cutting of the animal to pour its blood around the person purified. The formulation of the required purification in line 49, [περιρα]ν̣άτω χρυσίωι καὶ προσπερμεί[αι], also found in line 62 and line 73 (with the verb form περιρανάντω intact), is close to the prescribed ritual action of purifying ἀπὸ χρυσίου καὶ προσπερμείας, occurring e.g. in line 72. The former phrase may help to elucidate the latter. The envisaged action in both cases seems to have been a sprinkling or pouring of water from a golden cup or receptacle (cf. Parker 1983: 228; cp. Paul, p. 78, with n. 281, on archaeological evidence for vases containing lustral water that were placed at the entrances to sanctuaries and that carried the inscription "περιρραντήριον"). The word προσπερμεία occurs only here (and has been restored in IG XII.4 332, line 19), but we may readily compare the πανσπερμία ("mixture of all seeds") known from a ritual norm at Gortyn, CGRN 15, line 2; cf. esp. Parker 1983: 231 with n. 141, on this type of mixture.

Lines 31-34: According to Herzog's restorations, not fully adopted in IG, the passage was concerned with the "initiation" (telete) of the priestess; cf. esp. τὰ δὲ τέλεια as a sum of money, perhaps for this ritual, which must be "spent" here. If Herzog is correct, this discussion would take the subject somewhat away from the focus of the document on abstentions and purifications. On the ritual of telete for priests and priestesses on Kos, see here CGRN 85, line 1, and CGRN 220, lines 47-50.

Lines 34-35: This priesthood is earmarked for the triakas (usually, a group of thirty persons) and the pentekostys (a group of fifty) of (the tribe) Pollondai. We do not understand well the structure of this organisation of the tribes on Kos. Each tribe was divided into three chiliastyes (cf. IG XII.4 278); possibly, the triakas and the pentekostys were subdivisions of the chiliastys (cf. Paul, p. 24, for further discussion). A similar atrribution of the priesthood is found for an unknown cult on Kos, IG XII.4 332, lines 20-21: it is reserved for the triakas (and the pentekostys?) of the Hippiadai.

Lines 36-47: The next section of the "sacred laws" in this document contains purity requirements concerning the priestess of another Demeter. As far as we can tell from the fragmentary lines, these seem to be a repetition of the same prescriptions and requirements as those that applied to Demeter Olympia, and in the same order. It is not clear which other epithet of Demeter should be understood here. Herzog restored: Δάματρος τᾶ[ς ἐν Ἰσθμῶι]; if we follow this hypothesis, perhaps another section on "Demeter in Halasarna" originally followed these prescriptions (in the lacuna below).

Lines 48-49: While these lines perhaps represent the conclusion of a further set of polluting factor(s) mentioned at the end of side A, they more probably form a part of a section in lines 48-51, concluding like the other sections of the document with empty space at the end of line 51. At any rate, they define a case of impurity which further necessitates a purification with (water from) a gold (cup) and a sprinkling with seeds, as above (cf. lines 28-30); for the "sacred sword" mentioned in line 50, see immediately below.

Lines 50-57: The syntactical construction of the sentence starting line 50, in which a "sacred sword" is mentioned, eludes us. Antagonistic objects occur sporadically in purity regulations; for example, at Eresos (CGRN 181, lines 13-15), it is forbidden to introduce "weapons of war" (ὄπλα πολεμιστήρι[α]), and iron and bronze things into the sanctuary; cp. also at Gortyn (CGRN 15, line 3, for a "small iron thing" (σιδηρίσκος), in a list of ritual supplies. At first sight, we may think that this section also discusses the introduction of such objects into the sanctuary (Herzog). Two specifications of the polluting circumstances are seemingly discussed (line 52: [αἰ δέ κα ...]; line 54: κατὰ ταὐτὰ δε εἴ...). But the precise involvement of the city (having "made or bought" things in line 52), the role of the sacrificial table (line 54) and the fact that the sword is explicitly “sacred” (line 50) in these rituals are not explained by this reading, nor is the fact that the purifications probably need to be carried out by the priestess, after which she is to be considered pure (καθαρὰ ἔστω, line 57; Herzog thought of ἀναθήματα as the subject here; for alternatives, however, see Hallof - Bosnakis, who note that the πόλις is also possible). As earlier in the text (cf. above), the transgressions demand a pouring of water from a golden cup and a sprinkling of seeds (line 53), but this is to be supplemented by the sacrifice (τελεῖν) of a full-grown sheep. In Koan inscriptions, the verb τελεῖν usually refers to the rituals of "initiation" for the priest (cf. notably above at lines 31-34), but here the reference seems perhaps to be to a sacrifice that "completes" the purification (for sacrifice as a restoration of the normal ritual order after the completion of a purification, cf. here CGRN 10, Gortyn, line 3, and CGRN 12, Delphi, line 4). As a further precision, it is explained that the same guidelines as those operative for "an axe" (πέλυξ) are to be followed (these may be the ones that were defined in the section at lines 48-51 or in an earlier passage in the document). We may reasonably hypothesize that a (sacrificial?) axe and the sacred sword are not items that would be introduced into the sanctuary by visitors as potential sources of pollution, but rather objects that were used by the priestess and other members of the cult personnel for the performance of rituals, and which somehow warranted special treatment.

Lines 58-63: The content of this section remains unclear, especially the reason underlying the elaborate purification and sacrificial ritual described. It has been interpreted by Herzog as describing the procedure for founding a new sanctuary (thus Herzog [HGK 8] restores line 58 as [αἰ δέ τίς κα δήληται ἱερὸν ἱδρύσασ]θαι ὅτιοῦν ὁπειοῦν, but this hypothesis has not been retained in the IG edition. What is clear is that the rituals prescribed involve the sacrifice of "customary" sacrificial animals, the consumption of something (parts of the animal?) by fire and its quenching by wine (line 59), mention of "eternal fire" and "earth from the altar" which is removed from the sanctuary and deposited elsewhere (lines 60-61); this is then followed by a standard purification with (water from) a gold (cup) and a sprinkling of seeds (line 62). At line 59, καρπόω should be interpreted as "to burn" completely on the altar or hearth: for this reading, cf. here CGRN 152 (Thera), lines 75-76; cp. also LSCG 52, line 5. For the sacred fire and the removal of residue from the altar during a sacrifice which is not performed according to custom, cp. also CGRN 99 (Cyrene), lines 26-32, though it is far from clear that the case is exactly parallel here.

Lines 64-79: This section seems to regulate cases in which a body has not been buried properly, so that either the tomb or a bone is visible (line 64), as well as cases in which a field (in which the burial has taken place?) has not been purified according to the law or custom (line 65); an unburied corpse could endanger an entire society; cf. Sophocles' Antigone for the most noteworthly dramatic treatment of this theme. When one of these problems occurs, immediate action is necessary (cf. line 68, αὐταμερὸν ἐπεί κα πύθωντα). The demesmen, the relatives, the master (in the case of a slave) or the guardian (in the case of a child or woman) of the dead person who has not been properly buried should make sure that the tomb or bone is no longer visible (lines 66-69; due to the fragmentary state of the inscription, the precise assignment of responsibility for these actions cannot be ascertained). The relatives or masters, or in the absence of these, the demesmen of the place where the (most directly adjacent?) sanctuary is, must purify the sanctuary (lines 69-71). The statue of Kourotrophos should be taken out (and perhaps washed), a sacrifice of (pig? or) sheep to the goddess needs to be made, and the standard purification with (water from) a gold (cup) and a sprinkling of seeds is required (lines 71-74). The relatives or master should pay for the resources necessary for all of these actions, but if there are no relatives, public money is to be used; if relatives/masters fail to do their duty, the demesmen perform the necessary actions but the relatives or masters are still liable to the incurred costs (lines 74-79). It is not completely clear whether Kourotrophos on Kos was worshipped as a goddess of her own, or if it was an epithet of Demeter (Sherwin-White, Hadzisteliou Price); as Pirenne-Delforge has demonstrated, in Athens, Kourotrophos was an independant goddess; elsewhere, the use of Kourotrophos as an epithet is in fact rather rare. The reference to a sacrifice to this goddess in the context of reburial and purification remains enigmatic, but could perhaps be partly explained by the idea that Kourotrophos was particularly concerned with land, the place where the human remains were to be reburied, and as well as more generally with the process of human maturation (and its counterpart, death?). Alternatively, the sacrifice to Kourotrophos may be viewed as preliminary to the restoration of the proper ritual order in the deme and the sanctuary where the impurity had occurred; for preliminary sacrifices to Kourotrophos in Attica, see again Pirenne-Delforge and here e.g. CGRN 52 (Erchia), col. Α, lines 25-27, 59-61; col. Β, lines 7-10, 33-36; col. Γ, lines 3-6; col. Δ, lines 3-6. For purifications of the deme in case of a corpse left exposed, see also the supposed Athenian law cited in Dem. 43.57 (also proclaimed to be the primary responsibility of family members).

Lines 80-83: In the framework of the city's "sacred and ancestral" laws, it might be surprising to find such detailed prescriptions on the pollution caused by persons hanging themselves. Corpses were certainly a very serious cause of temporary μίασμα. This is why those who had been in contact with dead persons (or who had experienced, or had been in close vicinity of a miscarriage or abortion) should stay away from sanctuaries for a number of days (cf. above). More specifically, the threat made by the daughters of Danaus in Aeschylus' Suppliants, namely that they will hang themselves in the sanctuary—the most polluting place to commit suicide—, is taken very seriously: it is what finally persuades their interlocutor, Pelasgus, to help these suppliants (A. Supp. 455-467, cf. Loraux, p. 34-35; cp. also H. Od. 22.462 on the hanging of Penelope's servants by Telemachos, not a καθαρὸς θάνατος, with Loraux, p. 38-39). But why is this eventuality of "suicide by hanging" given so much space in the description of Kos' ritual norms? It was probably impossible for a community to anticipate every possible type of pollution that could happen, which is why we generally do not find rules like this one (for a perhaps equally surprisingly precise case, cp. CGRN 5 from Olympia, in which purificatory measures are prescribed for an individual who had had sex in the sanctuary). What is also striking in this case is that the rules may have prescribed the treatment not only of the corpse itself, but also what to do with the instruments of the suicide: the rope (line 80) and the wooden beam from which the hanging took place (line 81). For the impurity caused by priests looking at corpses, see Hallof - Bosnakis citing Herzog and Serv. in. Verg. Aen. 6.176; for further discussion of the impurity caused by suicide, see also Parker 1983: 42 with n. 37 and 185 with n. 228.

Lines 84-93: The final preserved section regulates the selling of sacrificial animals, specifically pregnant animals. It apparently envisages the possibility that an animal is bought and sacrificed to a god or goddess (line 84), and then turns out to be not pregnant (in which case an unproper animal will have been sacrificed to the deity in question). Possibly, in this eventuality, the person who has made the sacrifice should give (part of?) the sacrificed animal back to the vendor (and get his money back?), but only if take-away of animals is allowed in the cult in question, and in this case the vendor has the opportunity to sell another animal, which should be led to sacrifice again. The phrase "gods or goddesses for whom pregnant (animals)..." (θεοῖς ἢ θεαῖς οἷσιν κυόεντα, line 84) is puzzling, since Scullion has remarked that sacrifices of pregnant animals are only ever attested for goddesses. Perhaps this was simply a way of speaking, and no sacrifice of pregnant animals to gods is actually envisaged. Otherwise, the mention of sacrifice of pregnant animals seems unsurprising given the wider context of the prescriptions. This type of offering is most frequently made to Demeter, and often has a clear connection with "fertility", whether of humans or the land (cf. Georgoudi 1994); for the sacrifice of pregnant ewes to Athena Polias and Demeter respectively in the sacrificial calendar of the city of Kos, cf. here CGRN 86 A, lines 57 and 61. Thus, the occurrence of such a prescription in an inscription that concerns two cults of Demeter, and that otherwise mentions Artemis, Lochia, Aphrodite and Kourotrophos seems especially appropriate (cf. also Paul, p. 336-337, for a general discussion). Prohibitions against carrying away meat (οὐ φορά or οὐκ ἀποφορά), or, conversely, injunctions to eat it on the spot (e.g. ταῦτα ἀναλίσκεσθαι αὐτο̑) occur regularly as part of sacrificial norms, cp. e.g. CGRN 59 (Thera) and CGRN 128 (Lissos).

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 (https://doi.org/10.54510/CGRN148), as well as the year of consultation (see “Home” for details on how to cite or click “Export Citation” to create a reference for this specific file).