Much of the context surrounding this fragmentary document is murky and open to debate: we do not know the cultic community, god(s) and sanctuary to which the regulation applied, nor who was the issuing authority. Crucial information on these matters may have been included in the first lines of the inscription, now lost. The available information may suggest a form of private or at least non-civic cult, though that remains to be confirmed. The provenance of the inscription indeed suggests a rural, extra-urban sanctuary in the south of the island of Thasos, and the conclusion of the inscription more pointedly indicates a private initiative: it records the consecration of the regulation or of the inscription (or both, of course) by a man calling himself simply Antiochos (without mentioning his father's name).

Perhaps this man was the founder of the cult. If he was a priest who took matters of regulating the cult into his own hands, we may have expected him to mention his priestly capacity. Alternatively, Antiochos may simply have been someone who added his name to the text at a somewhat later date, thus appropriating it (see above on the Support). We can only speculate. Cp. the boundary stone from Thera which is also inscribed by a private individual as a model for future use: CGRN 60. The fragmentary clauses of the inscription mention several unusual prescriptions, see below, most of which appear to be concerned with the distribution of sacrificial portions and with the procedure(s) employed for libations. Regrettably, none of them can really help us to identify the cult in question.

Line 3: If the restoration is correct, [β]ο̑ν suggests a costly and significant offering, cp. e.g. CGRN 45. Note that the third-person singular imperative ([θυέτ]ω) is plausibly restored in this line (regulations using the third person singular imperative being common), but perhaps might also be doubted. The verb forms throughout the inscription are unclear, and the seeming conjunction of various moods and tenses is both inconsistent and unusual. It is not obvious how we should interpret the third-person singular active present indicative forms in lines 12 and 13 (σπένδει ... ἀπονέμει), or the future ending -χσεται in line 11. On Paros, the indicative present middle explains how things are done: "libations are made with honey" (μέλιτι σπένδεται, CGRN 9). This sentence in the indicative, literally an expression of a state of affairs, seems to have the illocutionary force of a prescription. Perhaps the active forms σπένδει and ἀπονέμει are to be interpreted similarly. That is, though referring to the way in which an individual (the priest? the worshipper?) acts when libating and distributing portions, in fact these verbs mean to convey how this person ‘should act’. We might then also think of alternative third-person indicative forms in lines 6 (νέμετ[αι]?), and 9 (σπένδ[ει] or σπένδ[εται]?). At any rate, the alternation of third-person imperatives and third-person indicatives seems odd, even if the speech act is in both cases a prescription. It is not impossible, though given the fragmentary character of the text we may continue to wonder if it is correct.

Lines 3 and 6: a portion is mentioned, apparently (though not assuredly) without further qualification. It is unclear what portion might be intended in both cases. In line 6, Lupu hesitatingly interjects [καὶ?] between the two verbs, which yields good sense with μοῖραν as an object for the verb τιθ[έτω] following it. In inscriptions on ritual norms, the OV wordorder is less usual, but it occurs here at least in lines 11-12 (ἱρα ἀπονέμει). If, in line 6, this portion was indeed "placed" somewhere (μοῖραν is the object of τιθέτω), for instance on an altar or cult-table, this might go some way towards identifying it. Perhaps the μοῖρα was not a generic one but a sacred portion (ἱερὰ μοῖρα) to be placed on the altar or given to the priest as sometimes mentioned in the present Collection: CGRN 39 (Milet), lines 6-7; CGRN 76 (Erythrai), lines 33-34; CGRN 122 (Thebes-on-the-Mykale), line 5, and CGRN 138 (Milet), line 17. Alternatively, μοῖραν is the object of ἀπονεμέτ[ω] and the lexeme may refer in both cases to ‘portioning out’ or ‘assigning’ a share to the priest or the worshippers.

Line 5: Here in lines 9 and 11, we find variations on an enigmatic phrase which is unparalleled in the extant evidence for ritual norms. All passages employ the verb σπένδω and the expression τὸν τρίτον (here) or τὸ τρίτον (in the other lines). The latter is correctly interpreted by Lupu as a neuter adverbial phrase meaning probably "for the third time" (or possibly "thrice", see LSJ s.v. τρίτος III.1-2). In the first case, here in line 6, we have the masculine, which causes further uncertainty (unless a mistakenly inserted nu may be presumed). Lupu envisages the possibility that τὸν τρίτον might agree with a krater (or another ritual vessel for liquids), the recurrence of the verb σπένδω with τὸν τρίτον strengthens this idea: libations could be poured over offerings from kraters of wine, CGRN 86 A (Kos), line 49-50; and cp. the intriguing libations also apparently "poured (from) kraters" in the norms of the Molpoi at Miletos, CGRN 201, lines 8, 16-17 (e.g. κρητῆρες ... σπεσθέωσι; κρητῆρας σπένδονται). The interpretation of these "triple" ritual acts remains to be elucidated, however. A possible connection, suggested by Lupu, might be with the habitual tripartite division of kraters at banquets, the first in honour of Zeus Olympios, the second to the heroes, and the third to Zeus Soter or Teleios (cf. Lupu p. 319-320 with n. 9, including further refs., and also LSJ s.v. τριτόσπονδος).

Lines 7-9: These lines in particular seem to be considered with specific portions from the sacrificial animal, perhaps with a list of priestly perquisites. The thigh is reasonably restored and it is found in line 8 with πλευρίον, the epigraphically unattested diminutive of πλευρόν, a side or rib. For thighs distributed together with ribs or portions thereof, cp. CGRN 103 (Phrearrhioi), line 5. The genitive plural case of the viscera suggests that only a portion of them was granted. At Miletos and in Karia, the standard portion of viscera granted to a priest is a fourth, cf. CGRN 42 (Iasos), line 3; CGRN 104 (Halikarnassos), line 39; CGRN 118 (Halikarnassos), line 14; CGRN 119 (Theangela), line 9-10. A bread is a reasonable restoration as a further perquisite; cp., CGRN 84 (Athens), lines 43-46.

Lines 10-12: The phrase ἐπὶ τὸ πῦρ suggests a gesture taking place on the altar fire, but this is singularly explicit for ritual norms (see CGRN 225, Face B, line 42, with Commentary, for an exception that proves the rule). Similarly unusual or distinctive is the phrase ἱρὰ ἀπονέμει, which might point to the distribution of sacred portions from a sacrificial animal, but could also designate other forms of ἱερά such as vegetal offerings to be burned (though probably not sacred objects, as Lupu considers). It is impossible to know, also because the precise point of reference of this prescription is unclear: to whom are these hiera being ‘portioned out’ or ‘assigned’? This may have been obvious to the readers, or specified in the uninterpreted letters at the end of line 9 and the start of line 10.

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/CGRN28), 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).