These two decrees concern the prerogatives of the priestess of Ilithyia on Chios in the case of public and private sacrifice. This appears to be the only Greek ritual norm about the cult of Ilithyia, although her cult was fairly widely attested (Lupu, p. 306). The second decree (B), judging from its letters, is somewhat but not much later (Koumanoudis - Matthaiou, p. 109). According to decree B, the priestess' prerogatives will be those "written on the stele" (evidently the first decree, A) plus, in the case of public sacrifice, the head of the animal. Moreover, the decree adds that the priestess will be punished if she takes more than her due. Apparently decree A (in which the priestess just receives some grains from public sacrifices) was not to the satisfaction of everyone, and this first set of rules may have caused some problems. We can presume that decree B was added to answer these concerns.

Decree A

Line A2: On the use of ποιέω for making sacrifice, cf. Casabona, p. 11-12.

Line A3: The ἀγωγός is not attested elsewhere. As Koumanoudis and Matthaiou suggest, the name of this functionary suggests this person probably led the animal to the altar as part of his duties. Why he should be the one that hands over the priestess' prerogative is not clear, nor are his other duties.

Line A6: As Lupu (p. 308) well explains, the λίκνον was an oval wickerwork basket that functioned in marriage rites and was sometimes used as a cradle for babies. Its connection to marriage and childbirth makes its appearance in the cult of Ilithyia understandable and it could have served here as an apt replacement to a τράπεζα in the deposition of sacrificial portions. Cf. below on lines B12-13.

Line A7: The γέρας (a common term for the prerogative of the priest) could be money or a part of the animal. Here the phrase ἀπὸ̣ [τ]οῦ ἱερ̣έ̣[ο]υ̣ strongly suggests that it was a part of the animal. We infer that the Chians would know what the priestess' γέρας consisted of, without spelling this out. Likely candidates are common priestly dues like a thigh, a leg and/or the skin. On the γέρας in Chios, cf. CGRN 88. The μοῖρα, listed separately, probably refers to one portion in the division of the meat for all worshippers made after the honorary parts for the priestess were deducted. Note that the procedure (with the priestess receiving both a γέρας and a μοῖρα) is equalising and differentiating or non-equalizing at the same time (on this cf. Ekroth).

Lines A8-10: For the phrase ταῦτα δὲ ἀναλίσκεσθαι αὐτο̑, cp. CGRN 130 (Kamiros), lines 13-14. Prohibitions against carrying away sacrificial meat and injunctions to eat it on the spot occur with some regularity (cf. Van Straten, p. 145), but this is a rare case that concerns such instant consumption of priestly prerogatives. The rule that one should do so μετὰ τῶν γυναικῶν τῶν π[ο]ι[η]σασέ̣ων τὰ ἱρά has been interpreted as stipulating the exceptional shared consumption of the perquisites by priestess and attending female worshippers alike (Osborne, p. 402), which would at the same time imply that women did share in the sacrificial meat. Indeed, Lupu (ad loc.) showed that ποιεῖν τὰ ἱερά is used in Chian inscriptions of worshippers sacrificing (e.g. CGRN 36, lines 7-11). But it is difficult to understand such a regulation: the idea of the priestess having to share her prerogative with the public seems self-contradictory (cf. Lupu). In Lupu’s view, the γυναῖκες may also be members of the sanctuary’s staff, and he adduces evidence for personnel in this cult of Ilithyia. But the aorist aspect of ποιησασέων seems to preclude the reading of γυναῖκες as female cult personnel. If the decree had referred to those women who, on a regular, iterative basis made the sacrifice, we would have expected a present. Taken at face value, the phrase τῶν γυναικῶν τῶν π[ο]ι[η]σασέ̣ων τὰ ἱρά seems to suggests, interestingly, that the female participants are the ones making the sacrifices (having been led to the sanctuary by the agogos). It seems that the priestess had to eat her perquisites in the company of (cf. LSJ s.v. μετά A(I), "in the midst of") the female worshippers present, but not share it with them. μ|[ε]τὰ τῶν γυναικῶν τῶν π[ο]ι[η]σασ|έ[ων] τὰ ἱρά is a further clarification of τάδε ἀναλ[ί]σκεσθαι αὐτο̑, intended to make sure that consumption "there and then" is understood. For ordinary worshippers, eating ‘on the spot’ entails they eat at the sanctuary, during the ritual events. But the priestess might have stayed ‘on the spot’ even after all the others had gone home. The stipulation "μετα τῶν γυναικῶν" states that the priestess has to eat during the ceremony, not afterwards. This makes sense given what we know about “eating on the spot rules”. The obligatory communal consumption of all the meat seem to have something to do with reinforcing a ritual, strengthening the ties between the human and divine world. If the point of the ‘eating on the spot’ rule in this inscription is to give extra significance to the ritual, too, it makes sense that it explicitly prescribes for the priestess to eat ‘on the spot’ in the company of the other women having their meal, not when everyone else has gone home. For other instances of consumption "on the spot", see e.g. CGRN 52 (Erchia), passim, and CGRN 32 (Thorikos), with Commentary on lines 10-12.

Lines A10-12: In the interpretation of καθαιρέωσιν as a form of καθαιρέω ("to take down") with the sense "to slaughter an animal" (adopted by Lupu, cf. also LSJ II: dramatic usage of this verb) the implied contrast with the two preceding sacrificing entities (polis and individual) is not clear. Accordingly, we prefer to interpret this as καθαίρωσιν (from καθαίρω, "to purify"). The sanctuary would be the Heraion (B 13). This interpretation presumes that both in the case of a purification of the sanctuary and in the case of a libation, sacrifices are performed (from which portions and perquisites can be taken).

Decree B

Line B5: Evidently the stele on which these decrees have been found.

Line B7: The head was a fairly common priestly prerogative. For further discussion, cf. Lupu, p. 312-313.

Lines B10-11: The restoration [ὡ]ς̣ ο̣[ἱ θύον]|τες τὰ [ἱε]ρ̣[ε]ῖ[α] is uncertain and it is difficult to see its sense. The priestess is fined, "just as those who make the sacrifice". If correct, this might mean two different things. First, οἱ θύοντες with present aspect would refer to those performing the sacrifice: butchers? (but contrast τῶν γυναικῶν τῶν π[ο]ι[η]σασέ̣ων τὰ ἱρά, lines A8-10, where it seems that the women sacrifice). According to Koumanoudis - Matthaiou, p. 109-110, the decree would point to another law (which we do not have in our possession) punishing butchers who took a part of the animal not assigned to them. In an alternative interpretation, the text means to say that if the priestess takes more than her due, the butchers (who should keep an eye out) will be punished along with her. But it is possible that we have to reconsider the restorations altogether.

Lines B12-13: Ilithyia was a daughter of Zeus and Hera. On the cultic connections cf. Lupu, p. 315, and Pironti - Pirenne-Delforge.

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/CGRN38), 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).