CGRN 235

Boundary stone with a purity regulation from Herakleia Pontika

Date :

ca. 400 BC

Justification: lettering and Doric dialect (e.g. τότο instead of τούτου), cf. Solmsen.

Provenance

Herakleia Pontika . According to Hirschfeld, the stone was found in a bakery behind the oven but it subsequently disappeared.

Support

Stone block, having a semicircular form when discovered (perhaps not its original form, but due to reuse in or around a oven, see on Provenance). No further information is available about the state of the stone before its disappearance.

  • Height: 105 cm
  • Width: 28 cm
  • Depth: unknown

Layout

The layout of the text is only known from the drawing made by von Diest, published for the first time by Hirschfeld in capital letters.

Letters: unknown height.

Bibliography

Edition here based on Jonnes – Ameling I.Heraclea Pontica 70.

Other edition: Hirschfeld 1883: 885, no. 51.

Further bibliography: Solmsen 1898; Parker 1983; Morris 1989; Sourvinou-Inwood 1996; Horster 2004; Harris 2015.

Text


ὅρρος το͂
ἱερο͂· τότο
ἔνδος μὴ
θάπτειν.

Translation

Boundary stone of the sanctuary. Do not bury inside this place.

Traduction

Borne du sanctuaire. Ne pas enterrer en ce lieu.

Commentary

This stone, found in Herakleia Pontika, served as a boundary marker of a sanctuary, though to which deity the sanctuary belonged is unknown. The dialect of the inscription is Doric, perhaps including a Megarian spelling of ὅρος as ὅρρος (cf. LSJ s.v. ὅρος); for Megara as the mother-city of the colony Herakleia Pontika, see also here CGRN 169 (Kallatis, itself colony of Herakleia Pontika).

Line 1: Horoi were small stones which stipulated the boundaries of a particular space, often a sanctuary or sacred land: see Horster, p. 23-33 (for another horos containing a ritual norm, see also CGRN 60, Thera). The boundary stones could function as ‘warning signs’, implicitly commanding viewers to act according to the prescription, while sometimes explicitly specifying particular regulations and prohibitions. For another boundary stone prohibiting certain actions, see IG XII.5 183 (Paros). This type of short inscription, prescribing behaviour in a sanctuary, often comes without an enactment formula or an explicit penalty, yet one can assume that the relevant authority (often the sanctuary) would have enforced its provision: see Harris, p. 58-60.

Line 2: Several syntactic constructions are possible: τότο (i.e. τούτου) can determine ἱερο͂ (without interpunction) or instead be understood together with the preposition ἔνδος. The second interpretation seems the most plausible. For another example of a prohibition against burial “in this place”, see LSS 120 (Cumae).

Line 4: The regulation forbids all burial within the sanctuary. In Classical Greece, it was the norm for burials to take place away from the dwellings of the living and from those of the gods. Nearly all Greek cities practiced extra-mural burial (for the exceptions of Sparta and Tarentum, see Parker, p. 70-73) and a prohibition on burying the dead in sacred spaces was customary. For the debate on the origin and evolution of these Greek burial customs, which differ from practice in the Mycenaean period, see e.g. Morris; Sourvinou-Inwood, p. 413-444. The only exception to the prohibition of burial in sacred spaces was for heroes, whose remains were often located and worshipped in public settings such as the agora (e.g. Battos, the founding hero of Cyrene: CGRN 99, lines 21-24), or in sanctuaries (e.g. Neoptolemus in the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi: Paus. 10.26.4). This inscription from Herakleia Pontika is therefore interesting because it makes explicit a norm which is normally implicit and generally understood, namely the interdiction of burial in a sacred space. There are a few other examples of such explicit prohibitions against burial: famously, burials were not allowed on the whole island of Delos (Thuc. 3.104), while Pausanias also mentions an interdiction of burial in the sacred grove of Asclepius at Epidauros, marked by boundary stones (Paus. 2.27.1); cf. also SIG³ 1220, in relation to the city-walls of Nisyros. In the case of Delos, the unusual scope of the prohibition, extending to the whole sacred island, explains why the norm would be made explicit. Why it was felt necessary to inscribe this particular norm on the boundary stone of a sanctuary at Herakleia Pontika is unclear. It is possible that this horos belonged to an extra-urban sanctuary which lay close to a necropolis. Another possibility is that the norm had been broken in the past, necessitating an explicit restatement of the prohibition against burial. In any case, it is clear that the regulation guards the sanctuary of an unknown deity against the pollution associated with the dead: for other regulations regarding the pollution caused by the dead and access to sanctuaries, see CGRN 212 (Pergamon), lines 3-9, and CGRN 214 (Miletos).

Publication

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/CGRN235), 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).

Authors

  • Julien Dechevez
  • Elie Piette
  • Zoé Pitz
  • Rebecca Van Hove

How To Cite

Brief citation of the Greek text : CGRN 235, lines x-x.

Reference to the file as a critical study of the inscription : Julien Dechevez, Elie Piette, Zoé Pitz et Rebecca Van Hove, "CGRN 235: Boundary stone with a purity regulation from Herakleia Pontika", in Collection of Greek Ritual Norms (CGRN), 2017-, consulted on April 25, 2024. URL: http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be/file/235/; DOI: https://doi.org/10.54510/CGRN235.

Full citation of the CGRN in a list of abbreviations or a bibliography is the following : Jan-Mathieu Carbon, Saskia Peels-Matthey, Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge, Collection of Greek Ritual Norms (CGRN), 2017-, consulted on April 25, 2024. URL: http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be; DOI: https://doi.org/10.54510/CGRN0. 

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="CGRN_235" xml:lang="en">
<teiHeader>
	<fileDesc>
		<titleStmt>
	<title><idno type="filename">CGRN 235</idno>: Boundary stone with a <rs type="textType" key="purity regulation">purity regulation</rs> from Herakleia Pontika</title>
			<author>Julien Dechevez</author>
			<author>Elie Piette</author>
			<author>Zoé Pitz</author>
			<author>Rebecca Van Hove</author>
		</titleStmt>
		<publicationStmt>
			<authority>Collection of Greek Ritual Norms, Collège de France - University of Liège.</authority>
			<availability>
				<p>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike International License <ref target="http://creativecommons.org/" type="external">4.0</ref>.</p><p>All citation, reuse or distribution of this work must contain somewhere a link back to the DOI (<idno type="DOI">https://doi.org/10.54510/CGRN235</idno>), 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).</p></availability>
		</publicationStmt>
		<sourceDesc>
			<msDesc>
				<msIdentifier>
					<repository>n/a</repository>
				</msIdentifier>
				<physDesc>
					<objectDesc>
						<supportDesc>
							<support>							
								<p>Stone <objectType key="block">block</objectType>, having a semicircular form when discovered (perhaps not its original form, but due to reuse in or around a oven, see on Provenance). No further information is available about the state of the stone before its disappearance. 
								</p>
					<p><dimensions>
						<height unit="cm">105</height>
						<width unit="cm">28</width>
						<depth unit="cm">unknown</depth>
							</dimensions></p>
					</support>
					</supportDesc>
							<layoutDesc>
								<layout>						
									<p>The layout of the text is only known from the drawing made by von Diest, published for the first time by Hirschfeld in capital letters.</p>

									<p>Letters: unknown height.</p>
						</layout>
						</layoutDesc>
						</objectDesc>
					</physDesc>
					<history>
						<origin>
						<p><origDate notBefore="-0425" notAfter="-0375">ca. 400 BC</origDate>
							</p>
							<p><desc>Justification: lettering and Doric dialect (e.g. τότο instead of τούτου), cf. Solmsen.</desc></p>
						</origin>
						<provenance>
							<p><placeName type="ancientFindspot" key="Herakleia Pontika" n="Asia_Minor_and_Anatolia"><ref target="https://pleiades.stoa.org/places/844944" type="external">Herakleia Pontika</ref>. According to Hirschfeld, the stone was found in a bakery behind the oven but it subsequently disappeared.</placeName>
							</p>
						</provenance>
					</history>
				</msDesc>
			</sourceDesc>
		</fileDesc>
		<encodingDesc>
			<p>Encoded for EpiDoc schema 8.17 on 22-07-2020 by Z. Pitz.</p>
		</encodingDesc>
		<profileDesc>
			<langUsage>
				<language ident="eng">English</language>
				<language ident="grc">Ancient Greek</language>
				<language ident="lat">Latin</language>
				<language ident="fre">French</language>
				<language ident="ger">German</language>
				<language ident="gre">Modern Greek</language>
				<language ident="ita">Italian</language>
			</langUsage>
			<textClass/>
		</profileDesc>
		<revisionDesc>
			<change>Revised by XX in 20XX.</change>
		</revisionDesc>
	</teiHeader>
	<facsimile>
		<graphic url="x">
			<desc/>
		</graphic>
	</facsimile>
	<text>
		<body>
			<div type="bibliography">
				<head>Bibliography</head>
				
<p>Edition here based on Jonnes – Ameling <bibl type="abbr" n="I.Heraclea Pontica">I.Heraclea Pontica</bibl> 70.</p>

<p> Other edition: <bibl type="author_date" n="Hirschfeld 1883">Hirschfeld 1883</bibl>: 885, no. 51.</p>

<p>Further bibliography: <bibl type="author_date" n="Solmsen 1898">Solmsen 1898</bibl>; 
	<bibl type="author_date" n="Parker 1983">Parker 1983</bibl>; <bibl type="author_date" n="Morris 1989">Morris 1989</bibl>; 
	<bibl type="author_date" n="Sourvinou-Inwood 1996">Sourvinou-Inwood 1996</bibl>; 
	<bibl type="author_date" n="Horster 2004">Horster 2004</bibl>; 
	<bibl type="author_date" n="Harris 2015">Harris 2015</bibl>.</p>
			</div>
			<div type="edition">
				<head>Text</head>
				<ab>

<lb xml:id="line_1" n="1"/><w lemma="ὅρος">ὅρρος</w> το͂

<lb xml:id="line_2" n="2"/><name type="structure"><w lemma="ἱερόν"> ἱερο͂</w></name>· <w lemma="οὗτος">τότο</w>

<lb xml:id="line_3" n="3"/>ἔνδος <w lemma="μή">μὴ</w>

<lb xml:id="line_4" n="4"/><name type="death"><w lemma="θάπτω">θάπτειν</w></name>.

				</ab>
			
			</div>
			<div type="translation" xml:lang="eng">
<head>Translation</head>
				
<p>Boundary stone of the sanctuary. Do not bury inside this place.</p>
				
			</div>
			<div type="translation" xml:lang="fre">
				<head>Traduction</head>

<p>Borne du sanctuaire. Ne pas enterrer en ce lieu.</p>

			</div>
			<div type="commentary">
				<head>Commentary</head>
				
<p>This stone, found in Herakleia Pontika, served as a boundary marker of a sanctuary, though to which deity the sanctuary belonged is unknown. The dialect of the inscription is Doric, perhaps including a Megarian spelling of ὅρος as ὅρρος (cf. <bibl type="abbr" n="LSJ">LSJ</bibl> s.v. ὅρος); for Megara as the mother-city of the colony Herakleia Pontika, see also here <ref target="http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be/CGRN_169/">CGRN 169</ref> (Kallatis, itself colony of Herakleia Pontika).</p>
					
<p>Line 1: <foreign>Horoi</foreign> were small stones which stipulated the boundaries of a particular space, often a sanctuary or sacred land: see Horster, p. 23-33 (for another <foreign>horos</foreign> containing a ritual norm, see also <ref target="http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be/CGRN_60/">CGRN 60</ref>, Thera). The boundary stones could function as ‘warning signs’, implicitly commanding viewers to act according to the prescription, while sometimes explicitly specifying particular regulations and prohibitions. For another boundary stone prohibiting certain actions, see <bibl type="abbr" n="IG XII.5">IG XII.5</bibl> 183 (Paros). This type of short inscription, prescribing behaviour in a sanctuary, often comes without an enactment formula or an explicit penalty, yet one can assume that the relevant authority (often the sanctuary) would have enforced its provision: see Harris, p. 58-60.</p>
				
<p>Line 2: Several syntactic constructions are possible: τότο (i.e. τούτου) can determine ἱερο͂ (without interpunction) or instead be understood together with the preposition ἔνδος. The second interpretation seems the most plausible. For another example of a prohibition against burial “in this place”, see  <bibl type="abbr" n="LSS">LSS</bibl> 120 (Cumae).</p>

<p>Line 4: The regulation forbids all burial within the sanctuary. In Classical Greece, it was the norm for burials to take place away from the dwellings of the living and from those of the gods. Nearly all Greek cities practiced extra-mural burial (for the exceptions of Sparta and Tarentum, see Parker, p. 70-73) and a prohibition on burying the dead in sacred spaces was customary. For the debate on the origin and evolution of these Greek burial customs, which differ from practice in the Mycenaean period, see e.g. Morris; Sourvinou-Inwood, p. 413-444. The only exception to the prohibition of burial in sacred spaces was for heroes, whose remains were often located and worshipped in public settings such as the agora (e.g. Battos, the founding hero of Cyrene: <ref target="http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be/CGRN_99/">CGRN 99</ref>, lines 21-24), or in sanctuaries (e.g. Neoptolemus in the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi: Paus. 10.26.4). This inscription from Herakleia Pontika is therefore interesting because it makes explicit a norm which is normally implicit and generally understood, namely the interdiction of burial in a sacred space. There are a few other examples of such explicit prohibitions against burial: famously, burials were not allowed on the whole island of Delos (Thuc. 3.104), while Pausanias also mentions an interdiction of burial in the sacred grove of Asclepius at Epidauros, marked by boundary stones (Paus. 2.27.1); cf. also <bibl type="abbr" n="SIG³">SIG³</bibl> 1220, in relation to the city-walls of Nisyros. In the case of Delos, the unusual scope of the prohibition, extending to the whole sacred island, explains why the norm would be made explicit. Why it was felt necessary to inscribe this particular norm on the boundary stone of a sanctuary at Herakleia Pontika is unclear. It is possible that this <foreign>horos</foreign> belonged to an extra-urban sanctuary which lay close to a necropolis. Another possibility is that the norm had been broken in the past, necessitating an explicit restatement of the prohibition against burial. In any case, it is clear that the regulation guards the sanctuary of an unknown deity against the pollution associated with the dead: for other regulations regarding the pollution caused by the dead and access to sanctuaries, see <ref target="http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be/CGRN_212/">CGRN 212</ref> (Pergamon), lines 3-9, and <ref target="http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be/CGRN_214/">CGRN 214</ref> (Miletos).</p>

			</div>
		</body>
	</text>
</TEI>