CGRN 40

Dossier of regulations from Apollonia in Illyria

Date :

ca. 405-375 BC

Justification: lettering of the late 5th or early 4th century BC (Cabanes). The letterforms are otherwise comparable with those of other tablet edited by Cabanes (no. 1, with ph. fig. 1). The alphabet and graphic style suggest a date close to the Attic alphabetic reforms, around 400 BC. The absence of omega might tend to date the inscription before the end of the 5th century. Η seems to stand for the aspirate, not for eta, in A3 and B6. However, it appears to represent eta in δέκησθαι (for Doric δέκεσθαι, line A5) as well as in ἡ[μι]ολίαν (A6). This surely conforms with the hymn to Asclepius on the other tablet (Cabanes 2013: no. 1; SEG 63, 407), where line 1 must surely be read as [χαῖ]ρέ μοι hίλαο(ς), not ἡίλαον; for the hymn, see now Lhôte (with Carbon). For further remarks on the date and the script, see also Lhôte.

Provenance

Apollonia , in Illyria. The findspot is only described by Cabanes as the portico bordering the agora. Current location unclear.

Support

Lead tablet, broken into fragments and inscribed in the same hand on both faces (A and B).

  • Height: 6 cm
  • Width: 10.7 cm
  • Depth: 1 mm

Layout

Letters, face A: 5 mm high; on face B: 4-6 mm high.

Bibliography

Edition here based on Cabanes 2013: 51-54 no. 2, with ph. figs. 2-3. We include a full apparatus criticus (Carbon) at the beginning of the commentary: new readings and restorations (Carbon; Quantin) are based on the published photograph and with the kind consultation of F. Quantin, whose readings are based on autopsy (2014).

Cf. also: Chaniotis Kernos 2017 EBGR no. 28; Chaniotis SEG 63, 408; Lhôte CIOD , responding to esp. SEG 63, 408.

Further bibliography: Edelstein - Edelstein 1945: 190 n. 23; Guarducci 1978: 123-125; Casevitz 2004; Casevitz 2006; Flower 2008: 211-239; Bremmer 2008: 149-150; Hupfloher 2008; Hitch 2011; Carbon 2015a; Dillon 2017: 112-114.

Text


Face A


θεός, τ[ύ]χα ἀγαθά· Δ[...c.5..]-
αι τοῖς Ἀπολλονι[ταις]·
μντις το̑ν κλάρ[ον ..]
ἀπαγόρεσε τὸν Ἀσχ[λα]-
5πιὸν
δέκησθαι ΚΑ[..c.4..]
καὶ [μι]ολίαν κα +[...]-
νες αυ[..] κα[ὶ ..c.4..]
καΠ[..?..]

Face B


[...]ΛΑΝ ἀρχαία[ν]· τᾶι Διό-
[ναι]
ἐσθᾶτα, ζόναν, πόρπνα⟨ν⟩·
[Δὶ Ν]αίοι βο̑ν, οἶας τ[ρ]ῖς Ο[.]
[...]ρρανιοι
βο̑ν· Θέμιτι v
5[...]· Ἐνυάλιοι οἶ[α]ς ἐνόρχα-
τρῖς]· hερόεσσ[ι]ν ξένια
[....c.7...] αγα· [v Ἀ]θανᾶι v
[......c.12......] ἀμ[ν]ς
[.......c.13......]Θ[...]

Apparatus

Line A1: δ[εδόχθ]|αι sugg. Cabanes, Quantin, CGRN (2017), δ[έδοτ]|αι Chaniotis, δ[ιατ]|ᾶι Minon ap. Cabanes, Lhôte. || Line A2: Ἀπολλονιά[ταις] Cabanes, Quantin. || Line A3: ΚΛΑΙ̣ ph., κλάρ̣[ον] Carbon, sugg. Quantin: κλά[δον] Cabanes. || Line A4: ἀπαγόρεσε Carbon, Lhôte: ἀπαγόρε(υ)σε Cabanes, Quantin; Ἀσχ[λα]|πιὸν Cabanes, Quantin: Ἀσ[κλα]|πιὸν Lhôte. || Line A5: ΔΕΚΗΣΘΑΙ ph., δέκησθαι Cabanes, Quantin: δέκhεσθαι Chaniotis; ΚΑΙ̣ ph., Quantin: ΚΑ Cabanes. || Line A6: Η[..]ΟΛΙΑΝ ph., ἡ[μι]ολίαν Cabanes, Quantin, Chaniotis, Lhôte: Η[..]ΟΛΙΑΝ CGRN (2017). || Lines B1-2: Διό|[ναι] Cabanes, Quantin. || Line B2: ΠΟΡΝΑ ph., πόρ(π)α[ν] Lhôte cum Johnston, πόρνα CGRN (2017) (περόνα). || Line B3: [Δὶ Ν]αίοι Quantin; οἶας [τρ]ῖς vac. Lhôte cum Minon, ὄϊας τ̣[ρε]ῖς CGRN (2017), ὄϊας [..]ΙΣ[..] Quantin, οἵας [..]ΙΣΟ[.] Cabanes. || Line B4: [Δὶ Τυ]ρρανίοι Lhôte, [Τυ]ρρανίοι Cabanes; Θ̣ΕΜΙΤΙ ph., Θ̣έμιτι Quantin: Θέμι(σ)τι Cabanes. || Lines B5-6: οἶ[α]ς ἐνορχὰ|[ς τρῖς] Carbon: ὄϊ[α]ς ἐνόρχα|[- -] Quantin, οι[.]ς ἐν ὀρχά|[τοι] Cabanes; ḥερόεσσ[ι]ν̣ ξένια Carbon: Η̣ΕΡΟΕΣΣ[..]ΞΕΝΙΑ Quantin, έροες σ[ὺ]ν Cabanes. || Line B7: αἶ̣γα̣ Carbon et Quantin: ΑΙ τα[ῖ] Cabanes. || Line B8: ἀμ[ν]ὰς̣ Carbon: ΑΜ[.]ΑΣ Cabanes, Quantin. || Line B9: Θ̣ ph., Quantin: Α[.] Cabanes.

Translation

Face A

God, good fortune. [...] to the citizens of Apollonia; the female seer from the lots proclaims that Asclepius receive (or: be received) [...] and a hemiolia and [...] and [...] and [...]

Face B

[...] ancient. To Diona, a vestment, a girdle, a pin. To [Zeus] Naios, an ox, [three] sheep. To [...]rhanios, an ox. To Themis [...]. To Enyalios, [three] non-castrated male sheep (i.e. rams). To the heroes, gifts of hospitality. [To ...], a goat. To Athena [...] female lambs [... (number missing)...]

Traduction

Face A

Dieu, bonne fortune. [...] pour les Apolloniates; la devineresse, à la suite du tirage au sort, proclame qu'Asclépios reçoive (ou: soit reçu) [...] et une hemiolia et [...] et [...] et [...]

Face B

[...] ancienne. À Dionè, un vêtement, une ceinture, une épingle. À [Zeus] Naios, un bovin, [trois] ovins. À [...]rhanios, un bovin. À Thémis [...]. À Enyalios, [trois] moutons mâles non-castrés (c'est-à-dire, béliers). Aux héros, des cadeaux d'hospitalité. [À ...], un caprin. À Athéna [...] des agnelles [...(le nombre manque)...].

Commentary

Though fragmentary, this tablet is of a notable interest for the study of the development of ritual norms and their forms of authority. The tablet was found together with another one, with which it is almost certainly contemporary: this second tablet contains a fragment of a hymn to Asclepius, known from copies at Dion and Ptolemais, cf. Guarducci and the discussion in Cabanes. For a better text of the hymn, see now Lhôte (with Carbon). As it is preserved, the present tablet is also concerned with the cult of Asclepius in the city. The first lines of the text on face A could preserve an official enactment, but in any case seem to refer to an oracular consultation of the citizens of Apollonia (though the restoration of the verb at the end of line A1 and the beginning of line A2 remains elusive). At any rate, the substance of the text on face A clearly derives from another source of authority than the city: a female seer (line A5) proclaims that Asclepius either receive from the community or be received by it, along with a list of what is involved in this act; this is apparently what followed in the remainder of the text on this face (elements of rather unclear import, each connected by καὶ).

Equally intriguingly, face B of the tablet appears to preserve a list of sacrificial prescriptions and other offerings. Yet he precise connection of both faces of the tablet is not obvious.The precise connection of both faces of the tablet is not obvious. These may have been a continuation of what the female seer expounds with authority on the basis of the lots of face A (so Lhôte), though this side of the tablet is clearly distinct, notably in that it concerns other deities, as well as from its style (it presents other lists, but of offerings not connected by καί). An alternative is therefore that these prescriptions were perhaps the result of another oracular consultation. The prescriptions on Face B indeed display a remarkable affinity with the oracle of Dodona, especially in the very probable presence of both Diona and Zeus Naios as recipients (lines B1-2). For a study of analogous oracular responses from Dodona which contain sacrificial prescriptions, see Carbon. Overall, the list of offerings presented on Face B raises several questions, which are not helped by the fact that the beginning of line B1 is fragmentary and refers to something "ancient" (ἀρχαῖος, see below ad loc.). Was this a copy of a more ancient text, now reinscribed in the context of Face A? As Casevitz explains, the term ἀρχαῖος refers to a past that should be considered as linked to the present and thus still relevant to it (as opposed to παλαιός, for example, which refers to a past that is already completed). Referring to "ancient" ways of doing things is thus a form of authority statement. The inscribing of Face B is either a record of one-time offerings made at Dodona, or, perhaps, a text which had a more long-lasting value as a ritual norm: the prescriptions will then have had an impact in shaping cultic practice at Apollonia, as Face A manifestly did and was intended to in connection with the cult of Asclepius. On the question of the impact of oracles on ritual practice in Greek cities, see again Carbon, with further refs.

A further lead tablet has now been found during excavations at Apollonia in 2014, apparently containing another fragment of the hymn to Asclepius. Thus, it may yet shed further light on this subject. Taken together, the tablets may have formed a dossier concerning the introduction or the elaboration of the cult of Asclepius at Apollonia, though of course face B of the present tablet could be of a different or ancillary character. For a complex lead tablet with a similarly bipartite character and whose interpretation is equally, though differently, problematic, see here the dossier from Selinous, CGRN 13.

Restorations suggested in the edition here by Carbon incorporate and develop the efforts and suggestions of Cabanes and Quantin, as well as the now (2019) recent work by Lhôte and his collaborators. They also hinge on the probability that very little of the tablet is now missing. Indeed, from the most certain supplements in lines A2 and A4, it seems clear that little is missing to the right of this face: probably 2-4 letters. While lines A2-5 all contain 15 preserved letters, in line A1 only the first 14 letters are secure, so the gap to the right there should be ca. 5 letters. Similarly, we would thus expect ca. 3 letters to be missing to the left of face B, and this is well confirmed by some of the most certain restorations on this side: cf. lines B2-3.

Lines A1-2: The first text begins with what appears to be a standard preamble with a twofold invocation of the deity and good fortune and then maybe traces of a verb followed by the dative plural of the ethnic, Apolloniatai. An enactment formula employing the verb δ[εδόχθ]|αι, originally adopted by the CGRN (2017), remains but a possibility. The suggestion of Minon in Cabanes involving the verb δ[ιατ]|ᾶι would presume a form of arbitration by the female seer, for the benefit of the Apolloniatai. This is now adopted by Lhôte but seems far from compelling (διαιτῆι would still be expected in Dorian, though this could be an epic form, cf. also hερόεσσι). Other possibilites are equally elusive. If we are to think of an oracular response, as suggested by the presence of the seer and by face B, then perhaps a form of δείκνυμι might be envisaged, e.g. δ[εδείκτ]|αι, though this is rather long (for this verb in a question to the oracle of Dodona, see now DVC 973A). Chaniotis attractively suggests that the request of the Apolloniatai, in this oracular context, may simply have been "granted" (δ[έδοτ]|αι), or that a response was merely "given".

Line A3: On female seers, see the detailed discussion in Flower, p. 211-239, cf. also Bremmer, Hupfloher, and Dillon. It is unclear if the female ritual expert is to be seen as an unnamed "freelance" agent such as a chresmologue, though this perhaps remains the likeliest interpretation. She could also be identified with one of the female cult personnel from the oracular sanctuary at Dodona, who were known by various titles but never as μάντεις (see Hdt. 2.55.1, Paus. 7.21.2, 10.12.10; cf. Strabo 7.7.12; cf. also DVC 70A, oracular selection of an ἀμφίπολος at the sanctuary). For the priest as an authoritative figure on instructions concerning sacrifice, see also CGRN 189 (Lykosoura), line 6 (verb missing). For a study of proclamations by priestly personnel and "embedded speech" in ritual norms, see Hitch. For the reference to lots here, see further below on line A4.

Line A4: Ιf ἀπαγόρεσε were derived from ἀπαγορεύω, a verb normally denoting official and oral interdiction, we would surely have expected μὴ δεκήσθαι, followed then by a series of restrictions in the form μήδε ... μήδε or οὐδέ ... οὐδέ, rather than with καὶ... καὶ as the text clearly reads (for the negative sense of ἀπαγορεύω, prevalent in ritual norms, cf. NGSL 4, lines 7-8: ἀπαγορεύει ὁ θεός; IG II² 1289, lines 9-10: ἀπαγορεύει δὲ καὶ ἡ θεὸς καὶ ὁ προφήτης Καλλίστρατος; IG II² 1362, line 3). Chaniotis is therefore correct to reason that ἀπαγόρεσε must not have a negative sense here, as originally assumed in CGRN (2017), but only imply a public proclamation (cf. LSJ s.v. ἀπαγορεύω III, citing the Code of Gortyn, where the twice recurring phrase κατ’ ἀγορὰν... ἀπὸ το͂ λάο ὀ͂ ἀπαγορεύοντι designates a stone in the agora from which public proclamations could be made, see LAC G72, col. 10, lines 34-36, and col. 11, lines 12-13). The form ἀπαγόρεσε still warrants an explanation, suggesting an original verb ἀπηγορέω, which must have this sense: "to proclaim" (so Chaniotis; cf. the attested medio-passive ἀπηγορέομαι and see further Lhôte). It is possible that the expression hα μάντις το͂ν κλάρ̣[ον] in the preceding line is to be taken as a self-standing expression (so now Lhôte, who translates "la prophétesse affectée au tirage au sort", literally "la prophétesse des sortes"; cf. CGRN (2017)), an interpretation which Chaniotis contests, thinking instead that the female seer "approved of the lot". We are now inclined to pay particular attention to the verb ἀπηγορέω with its prefix ἀπ- and particularly the parallel from Gortyn cited above where the proclamation is to be made from the stone (ἀπὸ το͂ λάο). We therefore choose to intepret το͂ν κλάρ̣[ον] as a genitive of source or cause (cf. already CGRN (2017) for this possibility) following ἀπηγορέω: the female seer made her proclamation literally "from the lots (which she had drawn)". The lots thus formed the authoritative basis for her declaration to the Apolloniatai.

Line 5: Some uncertainty must remain concerning whether the medio-passive δέκησθαι is to be interpreted in a middle or passive sense (δέκησθαι i.e. Doric δέκεσθαι, but apparently with hesitation for Attic δέχεσθαι; on the problematic use of the letter Η in this inscription, see on the Date above). In the former interpretation, the female seer will presumably have proclaimed that Asclepius was to receive certain offerings or objects as part of the apparent inauguration of his cult at Apollonia. At the end of line 5, it would thus be implausible that the apparent list which is apparently found in the fragmentary remainder of the text begins with καὶ. Animals prescribed to the god might have included e.g. a boar, whether wild or domesticated, κά[προν] (for this animal, cp. CGRN 63 (Lindos), line 3, CGRN 199, Delos, line 3, and CGRN 222, Andania, lines 34 and 69); κα[λαΐδα], a cock, would also be a possibility, but rather long for the length available in the lacuna; still, this animal is attested in the cult of Apollo and Asclepius in Epidauros (cf. CGRN 34, Epidauros, lines 5 and 24; further regarding the sacrifice of cocks to Asclepius, see Edelstein - Edelstein). Yet any attempt at a restoration must remain highly tentative here and the problem of what exactly Asclepius may have been intended to receive is compounded by the occurrence of an unusual ἡμιολία in the next line (see below line A6). Alternatively, if δέκησθαι were treated as passive, the proclamation of the female seer will have intriguingly, as Chaniotis suggests, have prescribed the acceptance and the reception of the god Asclepius himself. This would well correspond to the other lead tablet and to the apparent context of the introduction of the cult of the god at Apollonia. The list which follows might then have include the paraphernalia or accoutrements of the god during his introduction in the city (see below, line A6).

Line A6: As suggested by Cabanes, virtually the only conceivable interpretation of the traces is the word ἡμιολία. An expected form would perhaps have been h[εμι]ολίαν, but insufficient space is available in the gap for this restoration (on the inconsistent use of the letter Η in this inscription, see on the Date above). This word, literally designating a female form of a measure of "one and a half" (ἡμιόλιος), is puzzling. Could it designate the measure of something that Asclepius needed to receive as an offering? This is unsatisfactory since a measure of what is not specified: h[εμι]ολίαν is merely followed by another καί. Lhôte conjectures that the word might designate an animal that was 'bistourné' as opposed to simply castrated, but this sense is unattested and the feminine gender seems problematic for this interpretation. Pursuing the alternative raised above (line A5) might lead us instead to consider the apparent list in lines A5 and after as other things (gods, objects?) which needed to be received alongside Asclepius. This might induce one to consider the possibility that the ἡμιολία of line A6 was a ship (cf. LSJ s.v. ἡμιόλιος III), a little rowing vessel on which the god (his statue) needed to be carried during his reception into Apollonia (a form of procession; compare e.g. the Panathenaic ship-on-wheels, see here CGRN 45, commentary at Face B, fr. 9, cols. 1-2; the Katagogia for Dionysus, cf. here CGRN 176, Priene, lines 21-22; and for the introduction of Asklepios on a cart, ἐφ’ ἅ̣|[ρματος] (lines 14-15), into his sanctuary in Athens, cf. SEG 47, 232).

Line A7: A precise restoration remains difficult to propose with any certainty, though perhaps a trace of sense may be discerned. The traces νες + αυ suggest perhaps a masculine nominative or accusative plural form (an accusative would be expected; see also line A7), followed e.g. by αὐ[το̑] or αὐ[το̑ν]. For instance, we might tentatively think of: κ̣α̣ὶ̣ [γο]|νε̑ς (for γονεῖς, from γόνος) αὐ[το̑ν], thus: "and their children" or "their products". This might hypothetically refer to the "derivatives" of animals or other objects mentioned in preceding lines.

Line B1: If the first two fragmentary words of this face are a heading, something like [στα]λ̣ᾶν or [βο]λ̣ᾶν or [γνο]μ̣ᾶν ἀρχαία[ν] might hesitatingly be suggested. If the genitive case is correctly inferred, the text on face B might then be a copy excerpted "from" earlier, "ancient" documents. Yet if this phrase was in the accusative singular (ἀρχαία[ν] can be either), a continuation with the preceding face of the tablet would then remain plausible. However, if that were the case, it would be remarkable that the proclamation of the female seer would abruptly switch from a consideration of the cult of Asclepius to other offerings for the gods of Dodona and other figures (also abandoning the paratactic style of face A). It thus seems difficult to be sure what might be the correct interpretation of the beginning of this line.

Line B2: The offerings listed for Diona do not include any sacrifices but are presumably to be used to clothe and adorn a statue of the goddess during the ritual; for similar rites, cf. here CGRN 24 (Athens), line 11. This would seem to imply that the offerings (and those which follow) were to be made at Dodona, where such a statue was located; if in Apollonia itself, then we must presume that a cult of Diona had been inaugurated there. In the slip ΠΟΡΝΑ, the cutter appears to have anticipated the final nu and replaced the expected pi with it; confusion with περόνη, Doric περόνα, another word for a pin or brooch, is also possible.

Line B3: The reading οἶας "sheep" is much to be preferred to Cabanes’ οἵας, "from which..."; sheep are also found as a sacrificial offering in line B5.The combination of an ox with the sacrifice of three sheep (as restored here) represents a highly significant offering and probably the most substantial sacrifice in this list. For the combination, compare here the sacrifice to Athena Hellotis in Hekatombaion at CGRN 56 (Marathonian Tetrapolis), col. II, lines 35-36 (also including a piglet); and to Zeus Machaneus during the Karneia at CGRN 86 D (Kos), lines 14-15.

Line B4: As Cabanes suggests (though originally thinking of an ethnic), [Τυ]ρρανίο is a possible restoration, especially of an epithet relating to Zeus, perhaps even implicitly following the mention of Zeus Naios in line B3. The epithet is unattested, however, nor is the trace of an omicron in the previous line necessarily compatible with Zeus. A connection drawn by Lhôte between the Corinthians and the region of Tyrrhenia on the basis of Str. 8.6.20 does not really elucidate how a Zeus Tyrrhenios—even if his cult was instituted in Corinthian colonies, which is unknown—might belong in a list of deities prescribed by the seer or the oracle of Dodona. Cf. perhaps Zeus Tyrannos, albeit very uncertainly read in a much later inscription from Dorylaion (MAMA V 11). Alternatives, however, are few and perhaps even less likely, including the epithet Ouranios, though with an unusual and quite inexplicable form: viz. Ο|[ὐ]ρρανίο (see Hdt. 6.56 for Zeus Ouranios at Sparta).

Lines B5-6: At the beginning of line B5, we have a small lacuna for the offering to Themis mentioned in line B4. Given the available space of ca. 3 letters, this is likely to have been an ox (or cow) or a sheep (or ewe): [βο̑ν] or [οἶν]; no certainty seems possible. There is some space (ca. 5 letters) available at the beginning of B6 and we would expect a number to quantify the male, non-castrated sheep (i.e. rams) offered to Enyalios. One could perhaps restore any number, but the number "three" is compelling here (as in line B3): a triple sacrifice, called τρίκτειρα, was apparently a common form of sacrifice for Enyalios and this appropriately is said to consist of three non-castrated animals; cf. Hsch s.v. τρίκτειρα· θυσία Ἐνυαλίῳ, θύεται δὲ πάντα τρία καὶ ἔνορχα (for some discussion of this type sacrifice, in the context of the sacrifice of a board, dog and kid to Enyalios at Lindos, cf. Gonzales, p. 133-134). For the Epic/poetic spelling of the heroes adopted here, cf. CGRN 13 (Selinous), line A10: hόσπερ τοῖς hερόεσ(σ)ι. For ξένια and other analogous rites of hospitality (ξένισμος, theoxenia) offered to heroes, see again the tablet from Selinous and also CGRN 32 (Thorikos), lines 13-24; esp. CGRN 96 (Kos), lines 61-62 and 110; and CGRN 102 (Athens), line 15.

Line B7: As an alternative, the restoration αἶ̣γα̣[ς] is not impossible, but the space in the lacuna is limited and one would have expected the number of goats to have been precisely quantified (see line B3). Accordingly, it seems preferable to think of a singular goat. Since approximately 7 or 8 letters are missing in the gap to the left, we could plausibly think of [Ἀρτέμιτι] or [Διονύσοι], which would fit the lacuna well. These are two deities who are especially frequently the recipients of goats; for Artemis, see e.g. CGRN 8 (Eleusis), line 4; for Dionysus, cf. here CGRN 32 (Thorikos), lines 33-35; CGRN 146 (Phyxa), lines 4-6.

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 URL http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be/ and the filename, as well as the year of consultation (see “Home” for details of how to cite).

Authors

  • Jan-Mathieu Carbon
  • Saskia Peels

Project Director

Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge

How To Cite

CGRN 40, l. x-x.

Alternatively, a more detailed version of this citation, with the relevant URL, can be:
CGRN 40, l. x-x (http://cgrn.philo.ulg.ac.be/file/40/).

The full citation of the CGRN in a list of abbreviations or a bibliography is the following:
J.-M. Carbon, S. Peels and V. Pirenne-Delforge, Collection of Greek Ritual Norms (CGRN), Liège 2015- (http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be, consulted in [2020]).

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="CGRN_40" xml:lang="en">
	    <teiHeader>
			<fileDesc>
	    		<titleStmt>
	    			<title><idno type="filename">CGRN 40</idno>: <rs type="textType" key="dossier of regulations">Dossier of regulations</rs> from Apollonia in Illyria</title>
	    				<author>Jan-Mathieu Carbon</author>
	    				<author>Saskia Peels</author>
	    		</titleStmt>
				<publicationStmt>
					<authority>Collection of Greek Ritual Norms, F.R.S.-FNRS Project no. 2.4561.12, 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 URL <ref target="http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be/">http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be/</ref> and the filename, as well as the year of consultation (see “Home” for details of how to cite).</p>
					</availability>
				</publicationStmt>
	<sourceDesc><msDesc><msIdentifier><repository>n/a</repository></msIdentifier>
	<physDesc>
		<objectDesc>
			<supportDesc><support><p>Lead <rs type="objectType">tablet</rs>, broken into fragments and inscribed in the same hand on both faces (A and B).</p>
			<p><dimensions>
					<height unit="cm">6</height>
					<width unit="cm">10.7</width>
					<depth unit="mm">1</depth>
			</dimensions></p>
			</support>
			</supportDesc>
			<layoutDesc><layout><p>Letters, face A: <height unit="mm">5</height>; on face B: <height unit="mm">4-6</height>.</p>
			</layout></layoutDesc>
		</objectDesc>
	</physDesc>
	<history>
		<origin>
			<p><origDate notBefore="-0405" notAfter="-0375">ca. 405-375 BC</origDate></p>
			<p><desc>Justification: lettering of the late 5th or early 4th century BC (Cabanes). The letterforms are otherwise comparable with those of other tablet edited by Cabanes (no. 1, with ph. fig. 1). The alphabet and graphic style suggest a date close to the Attic alphabetic reforms, around 400 BC. The absence of <foreign>omega</foreign> might tend to date the inscription before the end of the 5th century. Η seems to stand for the aspirate, not for eta, in A3 and B6. However, it appears to represent eta in δέκησθαι (for Doric δέκεσθαι, line A5) as well as in ἡ[μι]ολίαν (A6). This surely conforms with the hymn to Asclepius on the other tablet (Cabanes 2013: no. 1; <bibl type="abbr" n="SEG">SEG</bibl> 63, 407), where line 1 must surely be read as [χαῖ]ρέ μοι hίλαο(ς), not ἡίλαον; for the hymn, see now Lhôte (with Carbon). For further remarks on the date and the script, see also Lhôte.</desc></p>
		</origin>
		<provenance><p><placeName type="ancientFindspot" key="Apollonia" n="Central_and_Northern_Greece"><ref target="http://pleiades.stoa.org/places/481728" type="external">Apollonia</ref></placeName>, in Illyria. The findspot is only described by Cabanes as the portico bordering the agora. Current location unclear.</p>
		</provenance> 
	</history>
	</msDesc>
	</sourceDesc>
			</fileDesc>
	    	<encodingDesc><p>Encoded for EpiDoc schema 8.17 on 03-01-2014 by J.M. Carbon.</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>Last revised by JM Carbon on 30.03.2019.</change>     
	    	</revisionDesc>
	    </teiHeader>
	<facsimile><graphic url="x"><desc/></graphic></facsimile> 
	    <text>
	    	<body>	
				<div type="bibliography">
					<head>Bibliography</head>					
<p>Edition here based on <bibl type="author_date" n="Cabanes 2013">Cabanes 2013</bibl>: 51-54 no. 2, with ph. figs. 2-3. We include a full <foreign>apparatus criticus</foreign> (Carbon) at the beginning of the commentary: new readings and restorations (Carbon; Quantin) are based on the published photograph and with the kind consultation of F. Quantin, whose readings are based on autopsy (2014).</p>

<p>Cf. also: Chaniotis <title>Kernos</title> 2017 <bibl type="abbr" n="EBGR">EBGR</bibl> no. 28; Chaniotis <bibl type="abbr" n="SEG">SEG</bibl> 63, 408; Lhôte <ref target="https://dodonaonline.com/ciod/seg/" type="external">CIOD</ref>, responding to esp. SEG 63, 408.</p>
					
<p>Further bibliography: <bibl type="author_date" n="Edelstein - Edelstein 1945">Edelstein - Edelstein 1945</bibl>: 190 n. 23; <bibl type="author_date" n="Guarducci 1978">Guarducci 1978</bibl>: 123-125; <bibl type="author_date" n="Casevitz 2004">Casevitz 2004</bibl>; <bibl type="author_date" n="Casevitz 2004">Casevitz 2006</bibl>; <bibl type="author_date" n="Flower 2008">Flower 2008</bibl>: 211-239; <bibl type="author_date" n="Bremmer 2008">Bremmer 2008</bibl>: 149-150; <bibl type="author_date" n="Hupfloher 2008">Hupfloher 2008</bibl>; <bibl type="author_date" n="Hitch 2011">Hitch 2011</bibl>; <bibl type="author_date" n="Carbon 2015a">Carbon 2015a</bibl>; <bibl type="author_date" n="Dillon 2017">Dillon 2017</bibl>: 112-114.</p>
				</div>
	    			<div type="edition">
	    				<head>Text</head>
	    				<ab subtype="face" n="A">Face A
	
<lb xml:id="line_A1" n="A1"/><name type="deity" key="generic"><w lemma="θεός">θεός</w></name>, <name type="deity" key="Tyche"><w lemma="τύχη"><unclear>τ</unclear><supplied reason="lost">ύ</supplied>χα</w></name> <name type="epithet" key="Agathe"><w lemma="ἀγαθός">ἀγαθά</w></name>· <orig>Δ</orig><gap reason="lost" quantity="5" unit="character" precision="low"/>

<lb xml:id="line_A2" n="A2" break="no"/><orig>αι</orig> τοῖς <name type="ethnic" key="Apollonia"><w lemma="Ἀπολλωνιάτης">Ἀπολλονι<unclear>ά</unclear><supplied reason="lost">ταις</supplied></w></name>·
	    					
<lb xml:id="line_A3" n="A3"/>hα <name type="personnel"><w lemma="μάντις"><unclear>μά</unclear>ντις</w></name> το̑ν <name type="oracle"><name type="object"><w lemma="κλῆρος">κλά<unclear>ρ</unclear><supplied reason="lost">ον</supplied></w></name></name> <gap reason="lost" quantity="2" unit="character" precision="low"/>		
	    					
<lb xml:id="line_A4" n="A4"/><name type="authority"><name type="speechAct"><w lemma="ἀπηγορέω">ἀπαγόρεσε</w></name></name> τὸν <name type="deity" key="Asclepius"><w lemma="Ἀσκληπιός">Ἀσ<unclear>χ</unclear><supplied reason="lost">λα</supplied>	
	    					
<lb xml:id="line_A5" n="A5" break="no"/>πιὸν</w></name> <w lemma="δέχομαι">δέκησθαι</w> <orig>ΚΑ</orig><gap reason="lost" quantity="4" unit="character" precision="low"/>	
	    					
<lb xml:id="line_A6" n="A6"/>καὶ <name type="object"><w lemma="ἡμιολία">ἡ<supplied reason="lost">μι</supplied>ολίαν</w></name> <unclear>καὶ</unclear> <gap reason="illegible" quantity="1" unit="character"/><gap reason="lost" quantity="3" unit="character" precision="low"/>
	    					
<lb xml:id="line_A7" n="A7" break="no"/><orig>νες</orig> <orig>α<unclear>υ</unclear></orig><gap reason="lost" quantity="2" unit="character" precision="low"/> κα<supplied reason="lost">ὶ</supplied> <gap reason="lost" quantity="4" unit="character" precision="low"/>
	    					
<lb xml:id="line_A8" n="A8"/><unclear>κα</unclear>ὶ <orig>Π</orig><gap reason="lost" extent="unknown" unit="character"/>
	    				
	    				</ab>
	    			<ab subtype="face" n="B">Face B
	    					
<lb xml:id="line_B1" n="B1"/><gap reason="lost" quantity="3" unit="character"/><orig><unclear>Λ</unclear>ΑΝ</orig> <w lemma="ἀρχαῖος">ἀρχαία<supplied reason="lost">ν</supplied></w>· τᾶι <name type="deity" key="Diona"><w lemma="Διώνη">Διό
	    						    				
<lb xml:id="line_B2" n="B2" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">ναι</supplied></w></name> <name type="clothing"><w lemma="ἐσθής">ἐσθᾶτα</w></name>, <name type="clothing"><w lemma="ζώνη">ζόναν</w></name>, <name type="object"><w lemma="πόρπη">πόρ<choice><corr>π</corr><sic>ν</sic></choice>α<supplied reason="omitted">ν</supplied></w></name>·		    						    				
<lb xml:id="line_B3" n="B3"/><name type="deity" key="Zeus"><w lemma="Ζεύς"><supplied reason="lost">Δὶ</supplied></w></name> <name type="epithet" key="Naios"><w lemma="Νάϊος"><supplied reason="lost">Ν</supplied>αίοι</w></name> <name type="animal" key="ox"><w lemma="βοῦς">βο̑ν</w></name>, <name type="animal" key="sheep"><w lemma="ὄϊς">οἶας</w></name> <w lemma="τρεῖς"><unclear>τ</unclear><supplied reason="lost">ρ</supplied>ῖς</w> <name type="deity" key="unclear"><w lemma="unclear"><orig><unclear>Ο</unclear></orig><gap reason="lost" quantity="1" unit="character"/>	
	    						    				
<lb xml:id="line_B4" n="B4"/><gap reason="lost" quantity="3" unit="character"/>ρρανιο<unclear>ι</unclear></w></name> <name type="animal" key="ox"><w lemma="βοῦς">βο̑ν</w></name>· <name type="deity" key="Themis"><w lemma="θέμις"><unclear>Θ</unclear>έμ<unclear>ιτι</unclear></w></name> <space quantity="1" unit="character"/>
	    					
<lb xml:id="line_B5" n="B5"/><gap reason="lost" quantity="3" unit="character"/>· <name type="deity" key="Enyalios"><w lemma="Ἐνυάλιος">Ἐνυάλιοι</w></name> <name type="animal" key="sheep"><w lemma="ὄϊς">οἶ<supplied reason="lost">α</supplied>ς</w></name> <name type="quality"><name type="gender"><w lemma="ἐνόρχης">ἐνόρχα
	    					
<lb xml:id="line_B6" n="B6" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">ς</supplied></w></name></name> <w lemma="τρεῖς"><supplied reason="lost">τρῖς</supplied></w>· <name type="deity" key="Heroes"><w lemma="ἥρως"><unclear>h</unclear>ερόεσσ<supplied reason="lost">ι</supplied><unclear>ν</unclear></w></name> <name type="genericOffering"><w lemma="ξένιος">ξένια</w></name>	
	    						    				
<lb xml:id="line_B7" n="B7"/><gap reason="lost" quantity="7" unit="character" precision="low"/> <name type="animal" key="goat"><w lemma="αἴξ">α<unclear>ἶ</unclear>γ<unclear>α</unclear></w></name>· <supplied reason="lost"><space quantity="1" unit="character"/></supplied> <name type="deity" key="Athena"><w lemma="Ἀθήνη"><supplied reason="lost">Ἀ</supplied>θανᾶι</w></name> <space quantity="1" unit="character"/>
	    					
<lb xml:id="line_B8" n="B8"/><gap reason="lost" quantity="12" unit="character" precision="low"/> <name type="animal" key="sheep"><name type="age"><w lemma="ἀμνός">ἀμ<supplied reason="lost">ν</supplied><unclear>ὰς</unclear></w></name></name>
	    						    				
<lb xml:id="line_B9" n="B9"/><gap reason="lost" quantity="13" unit="character" precision="low"/><orig><unclear>Θ</unclear></orig><gap reason="lost" quantity="3" unit="character" precision="low"/>

	    			</ab>	
<ab subtype="Apparatus">Apparatus
	    				
<lb/>Line A1: δ[εδόχθ]|αι sugg. Cabanes, Quantin, CGRN (2017), δ[έδοτ]|αι Chaniotis, δ[ιατ]|ᾶι Minon ap. Cabanes, Lhôte.
	    				
<lb/>Line A2: Ἀπολλονιά[ταις] Cabanes, Quantin.
	    				
<lb/>Line A3: ΚΛΑΙ̣ ph., κλάρ̣[ον] Carbon, sugg. Quantin: κλά[δον] Cabanes.
	    				
<lb/>Line A4: ἀπαγόρεσε Carbon, Lhôte: ἀπαγόρε(υ)σε Cabanes, Quantin; Ἀσχ[λα]|πιὸν Cabanes, Quantin: Ἀσ[κλα]|πιὸν Lhôte.

<lb/>Line A5: ΔΕΚΗΣΘΑΙ ph., δέκησθαι Cabanes, Quantin: δέκhεσθαι Chaniotis; ΚΑΙ̣ ph., Quantin: ΚΑ Cabanes.
	    				
<lb/>Line A6: Η[..]ΟΛΙΑΝ ph., ἡ[μι]ολίαν Cabanes, Quantin, Chaniotis, Lhôte: Η[..]ΟΛΙΑΝ CGRN (2017).
	    				
<lb/>Lines B1-2: Διό|[ναι] Cabanes, Quantin.

<lb/>Line B2: ΠΟΡΝΑ ph., πόρ(π)α[ν] Lhôte cum Johnston, πόρνα CGRN (2017) (περόνα).
	    				
<lb/>Line B3: [Δὶ Ν]αίοι Quantin; οἶας [τρ]ῖς vac. Lhôte cum Minon, ὄϊας τ̣[ρε]ῖς CGRN (2017), ὄϊας [..]ΙΣ[..] Quantin, οἵας [..]ΙΣΟ[.] Cabanes. 
	    		
<lb/>Line B4: [Δὶ Τυ]ρρανίοι Lhôte, [Τυ]ρρανίοι Cabanes; Θ̣ΕΜΙΤΙ ph., Θ̣έμιτι Quantin: Θέμι(σ)τι Cabanes.
	    				
<lb/>Lines B5-6: οἶ[α]ς ἐνορχὰ|[ς τρῖς] Carbon: ὄϊ[α]ς ἐνόρχα|[- -] Quantin, οι[.]ς ἐν ὀρχά|[τοι] Cabanes; ḥερόεσσ[ι]ν̣ ξένια Carbon: Η̣ΕΡΟΕΣΣ[..]ΞΕΝΙΑ Quantin, έροες σ[ὺ]ν Cabanes.
	    				
<lb/>Line B7: αἶ̣γα̣ Carbon et Quantin: ΑΙ τα[ῖ] Cabanes.
	    				
<lb/>Line B8: ἀμ[ν]ὰς̣ Carbon: ΑΜ[.]ΑΣ Cabanes, Quantin.
	    				
<lb/>Line B9: Θ̣ ph., Quantin: Α[.] Cabanes.
	    				</ab>
	    			</div>
	    		
	    			<div type="translation" xml:lang="eng">
					<head>Translation</head>
					<p>Face A</p>
<p>God, good fortune. [...] to the citizens of Apollonia; the female seer from the lots proclaims that Asclepius receive (or: be received) [...] and a <foreign>hemiolia</foreign> and [...] and [...] and [...]  </p>
	    				
	    				<p>Face B</p>
<p>[...] ancient. To Diona, a vestment, a girdle, a pin. To [Zeus] Naios, an ox, [three] sheep. To [...]rhanios, an ox. To Themis [...]. To Enyalios, [three] non-castrated male sheep (i.e. rams). To the heroes, gifts of hospitality. [To ...], a goat. To Athena [...] female lambs [... (number missing)...]
	    				</p>
				</div>
				<div type="translation" xml:lang="fre">
					<head>Traduction</head>
					<p>Face A</p>
<p>Dieu, bonne fortune. [...] pour les Apolloniates; la devineresse, à la suite du tirage au sort, proclame qu'Asclépios reçoive (ou: soit reçu) [...] et une <foreign>hemiolia</foreign> et [...] et  [...] et [...]</p>
					<p>Face B</p>
<p>[...] ancienne. À Dionè, un vêtement, une ceinture, une épingle. À [Zeus] Naios, un bovin, [trois] ovins. À [...]rhanios, un bovin. À Thémis [...]. À Enyalios, [trois] moutons mâles non-castrés (c'est-à-dire, béliers). Aux héros, des cadeaux d'hospitalité. [À ...], un caprin. À Athéna [...] des agnelles [...(le nombre manque)...].	</p>
				</div>
					<div type="commentary">    
						<head>Commentary</head> 
						
<p>Though fragmentary, this tablet is of a notable interest for the study of the development of ritual norms and their forms of authority. The tablet was found together with another one, with which it is almost certainly contemporary: this second tablet contains a fragment of a hymn to Asclepius, known from copies at Dion and Ptolemais, cf. Guarducci and the discussion in Cabanes. For a better text of the hymn, see now Lhôte (with Carbon). As it is preserved, the present tablet is also concerned with the cult of Asclepius in the city. The first lines of the text on face A could preserve an official enactment, but in any case seem to refer to an oracular consultation of the citizens of Apollonia (though the restoration of the verb at the end of line A1 and the beginning of line A2 remains elusive). At any rate, the substance of the text on face A clearly derives from another source of authority than the city: a female seer (line A5) proclaims that Asclepius either receive from the community or be
received by it, along with a list of what is involved in this act; this is apparently what followed in the remainder of the text on this face (elements of rather unclear import, each connected by καὶ).</p> 
						
<p>Equally intriguingly, face B of the tablet appears to preserve a list of sacrificial prescriptions and other offerings. Yet he precise connection of both faces of the tablet is not obvious.The precise connection of both faces of the tablet is not obvious. These may have been a continuation of what the female seer expounds with authority on the basis of the lots of face A (so Lhôte), though this side of the tablet is clearly distinct, notably in that it concerns other deities, as well as from its style (it presents other lists, but of offerings not connected by καί). An alternative is therefore that these prescriptions were perhaps the result of another oracular consultation. The prescriptions on Face B indeed display a remarkable affinity with the oracle of Dodona, especially in the very probable presence of both Diona and Zeus Naios as recipients (lines B1-2). For a study of analogous oracular responses from Dodona which contain sacrificial prescriptions, see Carbon. Overall,
the list of offerings presented on Face B raises several questions, which are not helped by the fact that the beginning of line B1 is fragmentary and refers to something "ancient" (ἀρχαῖος, see below ad loc.). Was this a copy of a more ancient text, now reinscribed in the context of Face A? As Casevitz explains, the term ἀρχαῖος refers to a past that should be considered as linked to the present and thus still relevant to it (as opposed to παλαιός, for example, which refers to a past that is already completed). Referring to "ancient" ways of doing things is thus a form of authority statement. The inscribing of Face B is either a record of one-time offerings made at Dodona, or, perhaps, a text which had a more long-lasting value as a ritual norm: the prescriptions will then have had an impact in shaping cultic practice at Apollonia, as Face A manifestly did and was intended to in connection with the cult of Asclepius. On the question of the impact of oracles on ritual practice in Greek cities, see again Carbon, with further refs.</p>
						
<p>A further lead tablet has now been found during excavations at Apollonia in 2014, apparently containing another fragment of the hymn to Asclepius. Thus, it may yet shed further light on this subject. Taken together, the tablets may have formed a dossier concerning the introduction or the elaboration of the cult of Asclepius at Apollonia, though of course face B of the present tablet could be of a different or ancillary character. For a complex lead tablet with a similarly bipartite character and whose interpretation is equally, though differently, problematic, see here the dossier from Selinous, <ref target="CGRN_13">CGRN 13</ref>.</p> 
						
<p>Restorations suggested in the edition here by Carbon incorporate and develop the efforts and suggestions of Cabanes and Quantin, as well as the now (2019) recent work by Lhôte and his collaborators. They also hinge on the probability that very little of the tablet is now missing. Indeed, from the most certain supplements in lines A2 and A4, it seems clear that little is missing to the right of this face: probably 2-4 letters. While lines A2-5 all contain 15 preserved letters, in line A1 only the first 14 letters are secure, so the gap to the right there should be ca. 5 letters. Similarly, we would thus expect ca. 3 letters to be missing to the left of face B, and this is well confirmed by some of the most certain restorations on this side: cf. lines B2-3.</p>
												
<p>Lines A1-2: The first text begins with what appears to be a standard preamble with a twofold invocation of the deity and good fortune and then maybe traces of a verb followed by the dative plural of the ethnic, <foreign>Apolloniatai</foreign>. An enactment formula employing the verb δ[εδόχθ]|αι, originally adopted by the CGRN (2017), remains but a possibility. The suggestion of Minon in Cabanes involving the verb δ[ιατ]|ᾶι would presume a form of arbitration by the female seer, for the benefit of the Apolloniatai. This is now adopted by Lhôte but seems far from compelling (διαιτῆι would still be expected in Dorian, though this could be an epic form, cf. also hερόεσσι). Other possibilites are equally elusive. If we are to think of an oracular response, as suggested by the presence of the seer and by face B, then perhaps a form of δείκνυμι might be envisaged, e.g. δ[εδείκτ]|αι, though this is rather long (for this verb in a question to the oracle of Dodona, see now <bibl type="abbr" n="DVC">DVC </bibl> 973A). Chaniotis attractively suggests that the request of the Apolloniatai, in this oracular context, may simply have been "granted" (δ[έδοτ]|αι), or that a response was merely "given".</p>
						
<p>Line A3: On female seers, see the detailed discussion in Flower, p. 211-239, cf. also Bremmer, Hupfloher, and Dillon. It is unclear if the female ritual expert is to be seen as an unnamed "freelance" agent such as a chresmologue, though this perhaps remains the likeliest interpretation. She could also be identified with one of the female cult personnel from the oracular sanctuary at Dodona, who were known by various titles but never as μάντεις (see Hdt. 2.55.1, Paus. 7.21.2, 10.12.10; cf. Strabo 7.7.12; cf. also <bibl type="abbr" n="DVC">DVC </bibl> 70A, oracular selection of an ἀμφίπολος at the sanctuary). For the priest as an authoritative figure on instructions concerning sacrifice, see also <ref target="CGRN_189">CGRN 189</ref> (Lykosoura), line 6 (verb missing). For a study of proclamations by priestly personnel and "embedded speech" in ritual norms, see Hitch. For the reference to lots here, see further below on line A4.</p>
												
<p>Line A4: Ιf ἀπαγόρεσε were derived from ἀπαγορεύω, a verb normally denoting official and oral interdiction, we would surely have expected μὴ δεκήσθαι, followed then by a series of restrictions in the form μήδε ... μήδε or οὐδέ ... οὐδέ, rather than with καὶ... καὶ as the text clearly reads (for the negative sense of ἀπαγορεύω, prevalent in ritual norms, cf. <bibl type="abbr" n="NGSL">NGSL</bibl> 4, lines 7-8: ἀπαγορεύει ὁ θεός; <bibl type="abbr" n="IG II²">IG II²</bibl> 1289, lines 9-10: ἀπαγορεύει δὲ καὶ ἡ θεὸς καὶ ὁ προφήτης Καλλίστρατος; <bibl type="abbr" n="IG II²">IG II²</bibl> 1362, line 3). Chaniotis is therefore correct to reason that ἀπαγόρεσε must not have a negative sense here, as originally assumed in CGRN (2017), but only imply a public proclamation (cf. <bibl type="abbr" n="LSJ">LSJ</bibl> s.v. ἀπαγορεύω III, citing the Code of Gortyn, where the twice recurring phrase κατ’ ἀγορὰν... ἀπὸ το͂ λάο ὀ͂ ἀπαγορεύοντι designates a stone in the agora from which public
proclamations could be made, see <bibl type="abbr" n="LAC">LAC</bibl> G72, col. 10, lines 34-36, and col. 11, lines 12-13). The form ἀπαγόρεσε still warrants an explanation, suggesting an original verb ἀπηγορέω, which must have this sense: "to proclaim" (so Chaniotis; cf. the attested medio-passive ἀπηγορέομαι and see further Lhôte). It is possible that the expression hα μάντις το͂ν κλάρ̣[ον] in the preceding line is to be taken as a self-standing expression (so now Lhôte, who translates "la prophétesse affectée au tirage au sort", literally "la prophétesse des sortes"; cf. CGRN (2017)), an interpretation which Chaniotis contests, thinking instead that the female seer "approved of the lot". We are now inclined to pay particular attention to the verb ἀπηγορέω with its prefix ἀπ- and particularly the parallel from Gortyn cited above where the proclamation is to be made from the stone (ἀπὸ το͂ λάο). We therefore choose to intepret το͂ν κλάρ̣[ον] as a genitive of source or cause (cf.
already CGRN (2017) for this possibility) following ἀπηγορέω: the female seer made her proclamation literally "from the lots (which she had drawn)". The lots thus formed the authoritative basis for her declaration to the Apolloniatai.</p>

<p>Line 5: Some uncertainty must remain concerning whether the medio-passive δέκησθαι is to be interpreted in a middle or passive sense (δέκησθαι i.e. Doric δέκεσθαι, but apparently with hesitation for Attic δέχεσθαι; on the problematic use of the letter Η in this inscription, see on the Date above). In the former interpretation, the female seer will presumably have proclaimed that Asclepius was to receive certain offerings or objects as part of the apparent inauguration of his cult at Apollonia. At the end of line 5, it would thus be implausible that the apparent list which is apparently found in the fragmentary remainder of the text begins with καὶ. Animals prescribed to the god might have included e.g. a boar, whether wild or
domesticated, κά[προν] (for this animal, cp. <ref target="CGRN_63">CGRN 63</ref> (Lindos), line 3, <ref target="CGRN_199">CGRN 199</ref>, Delos, line 3, and <ref target="CGRN_222">CGRN 222</ref>, Andania, lines 34 and 69); κα[λαΐδα], a cock, would also be a possibility, but rather long for the length available in the lacuna; still, this animal is attested in the cult of Apollo and Asclepius in Epidauros (cf. <ref target="CGRN_34">CGRN 34</ref>, Epidauros, lines 5 and 24; further regarding the sacrifice of cocks to Asclepius, see Edelstein - Edelstein). Yet any attempt at a restoration must remain highly tentative here and the problem of what exactly Asclepius may have been intended to receive is compounded by the occurrence of an unusual ἡμιολία in the next line (see below line A6). Alternatively, if δέκησθαι were treated as passive, the proclamation of the female seer will have intriguingly, as Chaniotis suggests, have prescribed the acceptance and the reception of the god Asclepius himself. This would well correspond to the other lead tablet
and to the apparent context of the introduction of the cult of the god at Apollonia. The list which follows might then have include the paraphernalia or accoutrements of the god during his introduction in the city (see below, line A6).</p>
						
<p>Line A6: As suggested by Cabanes, virtually the only conceivable interpretation of the traces is the word ἡμιολία. An expected form would perhaps have been h[εμι]ολίαν, but insufficient space is available in the gap for this restoration (on the inconsistent use of the letter Η in this inscription, see on the Date above). This word, literally designating a female form of a measure of "one and a half" (ἡμιόλιος), is puzzling. Could it designate the measure of something that Asclepius needed to receive as an offering? This is unsatisfactory since a measure of what is not specified: h[εμι]ολίαν is merely followed by another καί. Lhôte conjectures that the word might designate an animal that was 'bistourné' as opposed to simply castrated, but this sense is unattested and the feminine gender seems problematic for this interpretation. Pursuing the alternative raised above (line A5) might lead us instead to consider the apparent list in lines A5 and after as other things (gods, objects?) which needed to be received alongside Asclepius. This might induce one to consider the possibility that the ἡμιολία of line A6 was a ship (cf. <bibl type="abbr" n="LSJ">LSJ</bibl> s.v. ἡμιόλιος III), a little rowing vessel on which the god (his statue) needed to be carried during his reception into Apollonia (a form of procession; compare e.g. the Panathenaic ship-on-wheels, see here <ref target="CGRN_45">CGRN 45</ref>, commentary at Face B, fr. 9, cols. 1-2; the Katagogia for Dionysus, cf. here <ref target="CGRN_176">CGRN 176</ref>, Priene, lines 21-22; and for the introduction of Asklepios on a cart, ἐφ’ ἅ̣|[ρματος] (lines 14-15), into his sanctuary in Athens, cf. <bibl type="abbr" n="SEG">SEG</bibl> 47, 232).</p>
						
<p>Line A7: A precise restoration remains difficult to propose with any certainty, though perhaps a trace of sense may be discerned. The traces νες + αυ suggest perhaps a masculine nominative or accusative plural form (an accusative would be expected; see also line A7), followed e.g. by αὐ[το̑] or αὐ[το̑ν]. For instance, we might tentatively think of: κ̣α̣ὶ̣ [γο]|νε̑ς (for γονεῖς, from γόνος) αὐ[το̑ν], thus: "and their children" or "their products". This might hypothetically refer to the "derivatives" of animals or other objects mentioned in preceding lines.</p>
						
<p>Line B1: If the first two fragmentary words of this face are a heading, something like [στα]λ̣ᾶν or [βο]λ̣ᾶν or [γνο]μ̣ᾶν ἀρχαία[ν] might hesitatingly be suggested. If the genitive case is correctly inferred, the text on face B might then be a copy excerpted "from" earlier, "ancient" documents. Yet if this phrase was in the accusative singular (ἀρχαία[ν] can be either), a continuation with the preceding face of the tablet would then remain plausible. However, if that were the case, it would be remarkable that the proclamation of the female seer would abruptly switch from a consideration of the cult of Asclepius to other offerings for the gods of Dodona and other figures (also abandoning the paratactic style of face A). It thus seems difficult to be sure what might be the correct interpretation of the beginning of this line.</p>
						
<p>Line B2: The offerings listed for Diona do not include any sacrifices but are presumably to be used to clothe and adorn a statue of the goddess during the ritual; for similar rites, cf. here <ref target="CGRN_24">CGRN 24</ref> (Athens), line 11. This would seem to imply that the offerings (and those which follow) were to be made at Dodona, where such a statue was located; if in Apollonia itself, then we must presume that a cult of Diona had been inaugurated there. In the slip ΠΟΡΝΑ, the cutter appears to have anticipated the final nu and replaced the expected pi with it; confusion with περόνη, Doric περόνα, another word for a pin or brooch, is also possible.</p>
						
<p>Line B3: The reading οἶας "sheep" is much to be preferred to Cabanes’ οἵας, "from which..."; sheep are also found as a sacrificial offering in line B5.The combination of an ox with the sacrifice of three sheep (as restored here) represents a highly significant offering and probably the most substantial sacrifice in this list. For the combination, compare here the sacrifice to Athena Hellotis in Hekatombaion at <ref target="CGRN_56">CGRN 56</ref> (Marathonian Tetrapolis), col. II, lines 35-36 (also including a piglet); and to Zeus Machaneus during the Karneia at <ref target="CGRN_86">CGRN 86</ref> D (Kos), lines 14-15.</p>
						
<p>Line B4: As Cabanes suggests (though originally thinking of an ethnic), [Τυ]ρρανίο<unclear>ι</unclear> is a possible restoration, especially of an epithet relating to Zeus, perhaps even implicitly following the mention of Zeus Naios in line B3. The epithet is unattested, however, nor is the trace of an omicron in the previous line necessarily compatible with Zeus. A connection drawn by Lhôte between the Corinthians and the region of Tyrrhenia on the basis of Str. 8.6.20 does not really elucidate how a Zeus Tyrrhenios—even if his cult was instituted in Corinthian colonies, which is unknown—might belong in a list of deities prescribed by the seer or the oracle of Dodona. Cf. perhaps Zeus Tyrannos, albeit very uncertainly read in a much later inscription from Dorylaion (<bibl type="abbr" n="MAMA V">MAMA V</bibl> 11). Alternatives, however, are few and perhaps even less likely, including the epithet Ouranios, though with an unusual and quite inexplicable form: viz. Ο|[ὐ]ρρανίο<unclear>ι</unclear> (see Hdt. 6.56 for Zeus Ouranios at Sparta).</p>
												
<p>Lines B5-6: At the beginning of line B5, we have a small lacuna for the offering to Themis mentioned in line B4. Given the available space of ca. 3 letters, this is likely to have been an ox (or cow) or a sheep (or ewe): [βο̑ν] or [οἶν]; no certainty seems possible. There is some space (ca. 5 letters) available at the beginning of B6 and we would expect a number to quantify the male, non-castrated sheep (i.e. rams) offered to Enyalios. One could perhaps restore any number, but the number "three" is compelling here (as in line B3): a triple sacrifice, called τρίκτειρα, was apparently a common form of sacrifice for Enyalios and this appropriately is said to consist of three non-castrated animals; cf. Hsch s.v. τρίκτειρα· θυσία Ἐνυαλίῳ, θύεται δὲ πάντα τρία καὶ ἔνορχα (for some discussion of this type sacrifice, in the context of the sacrifice of a board, dog and kid to Enyalios at Lindos, cf. Gonzales, p. 133-134). For the Epic/poetic spelling of the heroes adopted here, cf. <ref target="CGRN_13">CGRN 13</ref> (Selinous), line A10: hόσπερ τοῖς hερόεσ(σ)ι. For ξένια and other analogous rites of hospitality (ξένισμος, <foreign>theoxenia</foreign>) offered to heroes, see again the tablet from Selinous and also <ref target="CGRN_32">CGRN 32</ref> (Thorikos), lines 13-24; esp. <ref target="CGRN_96">CGRN 96</ref> (Kos), lines 61-62 and 110; and <ref target="CGRN_102">CGRN 102</ref> (Athens), line 15.</p>
						
<p>Line B7: As an alternative, the restoration αἶ̣γα̣[ς] is not impossible, but the space in the lacuna is limited and one would have expected the number of goats to have been precisely quantified (see line B3). Accordingly, it seems preferable to think of a singular goat. Since approximately 7 or 8 letters are missing in the gap to the left, we could plausibly think of [Ἀρτέμιτι] or [Διονύσοι], which would fit the lacuna well. These are two deities who are especially frequently the recipients of goats; for Artemis, see e.g. <ref target="CGRN_8">CGRN 8</ref> (Eleusis), line 4; for Dionysus, cf. here <ref target="CGRN_32">CGRN 32</ref> (Thorikos), lines 33-35; <ref target="CGRN_146">CGRN 146</ref> (Phyxa), lines 4-6.</p>
						
					</div>
			</body>
    	</text>
	</TEI>