CGRN 42

Contract for the priesthood of Zeus Megistos at Iasos

Date :

ca. 425-375 BC

Justification: lettering of Copy 1 (Fabiani, p. 163 with n. 10). Copy 2 is dated somewhat later, in the mid-fourth century BC (Fabiani, p. 166 with n. 13). Copies 1-2 are also written in the Ionic dialect, which must properly antedate the prevalence of koine Greek after the period Alexander.

Provenance

Iasos . Found where was probably originally the sanctuary of Zeus Megistos and Hera. For further details about the uncertain provenance of Copy 1, in a context of reuse as the lintel of a window "in a Byzantine building", see Fabiani, p. 160-162. Copy 2 was found in 2011 in the Byzantine level of the excavations of the North Stoa of the Agora. Current locations: Copy 1: British Museum (inv. no. 3.440); Copy 2: depot of the Italian mission at Iasos (inv. no. 8555).

Support

Copy 1: A large and long, nearly complete and intact limestone block, which was part of a wall; for further details about the support, see Fabiani, p. 161-162 with n. 7. The central section of the front face with the inscription has been carefully chiselled (width ca. 61 cm). Fabiani argues that this was not due to preparation of the stone for reuse, but rather "an intentional action aimed at destroying the inscription". The remainder of the text is presumed to have been hidden from view during reuse and was considerably preserved as a result.

Copy 2: Fragment of a grey limestone stele, broken on all sides.

Copy 1

  • Height: 31 cm
  • Width: 129.5 cm
  • Depth: 18.5 cm

Copy 2

  • Height: 32 cm
  • Width: 20 cm
  • Depth: 6.7 cm

Layout

Copy 1: The incised letters were originally painted, in alternating lines, with red and blue paint; on this bichromy of Classical inscriptions, see Fabiani, p. 161 with n. 5. Letters: 18 mm high; round letters: 12-14 mm high.

Copy 2: No traces of paint. Letters: 15 mm high; round letters: 10 mm high.

Bibliography

Edition here based on Fabiani 2016, with ph. figs. 1-2. As is given on p. 174 by Fabiani, we present here a composite text based on the two copies of the inscription: rasurae are from Copy 1; readings from Copy 2 are only visible as evidence="parallel" in the Epidoc xml file.

Other editions (Copy 1): Hicks GIBM 440; Blümel I.Iasos 220.

Cf. also (Copy 1): Sokolowski LSAM 59.

Further bibliography: Parker 1983: 45, 170-171; Laviosa 1987: 47-54; Van Straten 1995: 122; Adiego 2007: 147-148.

Text


κατὰ τάδε ἱεράσθωἱε⟦ρες τ[ο] Διὸς τοῦ Μεγίστου· λαμβανέτω⟧ δὲ τῶν θυομένων vv
σκέλος ἕν, ὁποῖον ν θέληι, σὺν τ[ῆι] ὀσφύϊ, ὡς π[ιτί]θεται ὀσφύς⟧, εἰάν τε πολλὰ ἐξά-
γηι
ἱερέα εἰάν τε ἕν, κα⟦[ὶ] κεφαλὴν κα[ὶ] πδας κα σπλάγχνω τ]έτ⟧αρτομ μέρος· τῶν δὲ
ἐνθρύπτων λαμβανέτ⟦ω ἓν ἀπὸ πλεκτοῦ τῶι θεῶι πα[ρεχομένου]· κα⟧τὰ ταὐτὰ δὲ καὶ πα-
5ρὰ
τῶν μετοίκων· παρὰ ⟦δὲ τ[ῶν] ξένων τὰ μὲν ἄλλα [κα]θπ[ερ] παρὰ τῶ⟧ν ἀστῶν, λαμβανέ-
τω
δὲ καὶ τὰ δέρματα· ἢ⟦ν δ τις παρὰ τ[ὰ] γεγραμμένα π[οιῆι, μὴ ἱε]ρ⟧άσθω καὶ τοῦ vacat
ἱερο̑ ἐργέσθω· ἢν δέ τι⟦ς τὴν στήλην φαν[ίσηι τὰ] γ[ρ]μ[ματα,] πασχέτω vacat
ὡς ἱερόσυλος· τῶν δὲ ⟦ἀναθημ[άτ]ων ὅσομ μὲν ἀργρ[ιό]ν [ἐστι αὐ]τ[ῶ]⟧ν, στω τοῦ ἱέρεω, v
τὰ δὲ ἄλλα ἀναθήματ⟦α τοῦ θ[εοῦ] ἔστ[ω]· ἐπ[ι]μέ[λ]εσθαι δὲ τῶν ἀναθ⟧ημάτων vacat
10τοὺς νεωποίας κατὰ ⟦τὸ νόμον]. vacat

Translation

The priest of Zeus Megistos shall serve as priest according to the following: let him obtain, from the sacrificed animals, whether one leads out one or more sacrificial animals (to the altar), one leg, whichever he wishes, along with the sacrum, as this is placed upon (the altar? the table?), and the head and the feet and a fourth portion of the entrails. Of the sops, let him obtain one from the basket [provided] to the god. According to same (guidelines), (let him take perquisites) (5) from the metics. From strangers, the other (perquisites) just as [from] the citizens, and he shall also receive the skins. If anyone [acts] contrary to what has been written, let him [not serve as priest] and he will be barred from the sanctuary. If anyone obliterates the stele [or its letters], let him be punished as a temple-robber. Of the offerings, as much as there is money among them, (this) will belong to the priest; the other offerings belong to the [god]. (10) The neopoiai are to take care of the offerings according to the [law].

Traduction

Que le prêtre de Zeus Megistos assume son sacerdoce de la manière suivante. Qu'il prenne sur les animaux sacrifiés, une patte, celle qu'il souhaite, avec le sacrum, comme il est déposé (sur l'autel ? sur la table ?) — que l'on amène un ou plusieurs animaux sacrificiels —, ainsi que la tête, les pieds et un quart de viscères. Des gâteaux, qu'il en prenne un du panier [fourni] au dieu. Qu'il en aille de même de la part (5) des métèques. De la part des étrangers, les autres (prélèvement) précisément comme ceux qui proviennent des citoyens, et qu'il prélève également les peaux. Si quelqu'un [agit] contrairement à ce qui est écrit, qu'il n'assume [pas le sacerdoce] et qu'il soit exclu du sanctuaire. Si quelqu'un altère la stèle [ou les inscriptions], qu'il soit tenu pour sacrilège. Sur les offrandes, pour autant qu'elles comprennent de l'argent, ce dernier reviendra au prêtre. Que les autres offrandes appartiennent au [dieu]. (10) Les néopes prendront soin des offrandes selon la [loi].

Commentary

Though both copies of this regulation were found in contexts of later reuse (see Provenance), it seems clear that they originally relate to the major sanctuary of Zeus Megistos and Hera located at the northwest of the city, just inside the city-wall. The sanctuary of Zeus Megistos is one of the earliest cult-sites epigraphically attested at Iasos; the archaeology of the sanctuary, beginning with construction in the Archaic period, has been well discussed (see Laviosa, with further refs.). Particularly intriguing is the epithet of Zeus, Megistos, which is very rarely found at such an early date and might tend to indicate that we might be dealing with a Greek "interpretation" of an Anatolian cult. At the very least, a meeting ground between Greek and Anatolian cults of Zeus is perceptible in the sanctuary, since it has yielded evidence for the Karian worship of Tarhunt (trq-; he was the Storm and Ruler God, most often equated with Zeus): cf. Adiego, p. 147-148 no. C. Ia 3 (the Karian dedication is inscribed on an Attic krater, dating to ca. 625-500 BC). On the cult of Zeus Megistos' high importance in the city in the fourth century BC—the time of the Hekatomnid dynasty—see also Fabiani, p. 159-160, with n. 1. Two boundary stones contemporaneous with this period, I.Iasos 233-234 are known, which might indicate that this represent a new or increased phase in the epigraphic visibility and definition of the sanctuary. Equally intriguing is the mention of eleven priests of the god as part of the officials listed in the decree of Iasos banishing individuals who had plotted against Mausolus and confiscating their property: I.Iasos 1 (ca. 367-354 BC). Since the duration of the office is unknown, the number of priests of Zeus Megistos mentioned in this text remains to be satisfactorily explained.

In terms of its structure, the documents is quite brief, containing some seven clauses on three major topics. After the introductory heading, the first section is concerned with the perquisites of the priest (lines 1-6) from sacrifices performed by different categories of individuals and groups (citizens, metics and foreigners respectively); a second section contains penalties applying to the priest or perhaps to anyone who disobeys the rules as well as to those who deliberately damage the inscription (lines 6-8); finally, a concluding section (lines 8-10, which Fabiani supposes may have been an addition to the core of the regulation, p. 177-178) is concerned with the treatment of offerings of objects and money made in the sanctuary. On the character of the regulation, we may refer to Fabiani's excellent discussion (p. 175-177) and briefly note some salient points here. While Fabiani supposes that the text may have had the value of a law (νόμος), it should also be underlined that this is nowhere explicitly specified, and thus only remains possible; the text was nonetheless almost certainly enacted by the city of Iasos in some capacity. Intriguingly, the text also begins its second clause with the conjunction δὲ; Fabiani argues that this does not indicate that we are dealing with an excerpt from a larger document, but rather simply marks a transition from the heading. This is possible, but an excerpt from another document remains equally so in our view, since the regulation is rather miscellaneous (see immediately above on lines 8-10) and might easily have dealt with other topics, such as the duration of tenure or other particularities of the office of priest. Another point must be underlined, which is that there were multiple copies (1-2) of the regulation made and that, as Fabiani rightly argues (p. 161), both the size of the letters and the bichromy of the lines (see Layout) were probably designed "to enhance the readability of the text". This would tend to suggest that we are dealing with a short (perahps abbreviated/excerpted) specification of the perquisites and duties of the priest, not only for sake of the man himself and for future holders of the office, but also for the instruction of worshippers. The heading, along with the abbreviated/excerpted nature of the document, compares with some other contracts for priest, and perhaps most directly with IG XII.4 356 / LSCG 175, for the priestess of Demeter at Antimacheia on Kos. For other priestly contracts, notably a later sale of priesthood from Iasos itself, see CGRN 196.

Lines 1-3: The specification of the perquisites obtained from animals sacrificed by citizens and probably also by the city is given here; though it is not explicitly specified, it later becomes clear that the sacrifices of private citizens, at least, are concerned by these lines: cf. "just as from the citizens" in line 5, which refers to this earlier passage. Animals offered by the city during the festival of the god are also not explicitly mentioned but were probably concerned here as well; note especially that the perquisites applied even if one sacrificed more than one animal, lines 2-3, and that the verb ἐξάγηι might imply a formal procession (see also Fabiani, p. 176, for this inference). First and foremost, the priest is given a choice of a leg, probably a hind leg (σκέλος), from each animal. Since occasionally the left or righthand leg can be specified as the perquisite of the priest (see e.g. CGRN 80, Erythrai, lines A1-3, and CGRN 147, Kos, commentary on lines 47-61 with further refs.), this may seem remarkable; but often the handedness of the leg was not stated or left implicit; in the case of Iasos, the priest will have been able to choose for himself, and potentially to select a more meaty one. For the choice of a single leg, yet from multiple animals, cp. also CGRN 184, line 9 (Kasossos, during the τυράλφιτον, a sacrifice which involved both an ox and at least a few rams). This leg is closely associated (σύν) with the sacrum and/or tail of the animal; on the term ὀσφύς, see also the careful discussion of Fabiani, p. 168-170, with further refs. If ὀσφύς here refers to the tail of the animal, this may have originally been cut with the leg during the butchery of the carcass; the sacrum is unlikely to have been cut of a piece with the leg, however. An added specification from Fabiani's new reading both clarifies the matter and raises further questions: it would seem that the sacrum and/or tail was given to the priest "as it is placed upon (the altar)". This would seem to imply that the god and the priest thus shared the same portion, which was placed on or near the altar fire. Indeed, the sacrum and the following caudal verterbrae formed another portion which was fundamental in many Greek sacrifices: after it was placed on the altar, with or without the sacrum, the heat of the fire was always sufficient to make the tail "curl", which was read as an auspicious sign of the success of the ritual in the eyes of the gods (see esp. Ar. Pax 1055 with the schol. ad loc. and the fundamental interpretation and illustration of this passage by Van Straten, p. 122). Several questions remain, however. For instance, was the sacrum attached to the tail, thus forming a "continuous" ὀσφύς and one perhaps with a good amount of meat for the priest also (on this terminology, see CGRN 100, Miletos, line 2)? Or would the tail be completely burned, thus resulting in a symbolic rather than meaty perquisite for the priest? By contrast, the remaining perquisites are more straightforward to interpret. The head forms one of the frequent prerogatives of the priest and other cult officials, and it was often associated with the feet of the animal (with which they might be butchered as part of the removal of the hide from the carcass): see CGRN 99 (Cyrene), lines 83-105 (pars. 13-15), CGRN 104 (Halikarnassos), line 44, CGRN 169 (Kallatis), lines 5-6, CGRN 193 (Hyllarima), lines Ab16-18 and B17-21. A quarter of the entrails is a prevalent portion awarded to priests and priestess in the region of Karia: cf. CGRN 104 (Halikarnassos), line 39, CGRN 118 (Halikarnassos), lines 12-14, and CGRN 119 (Theangela), line 19.

Lines 3-4: A very intriguing small clause also grants the priest one of the sops from the basket (or each basket containing cakes, as Fabiani plausibly understands) provided for the god during the sacrifice. ἔνθρυπτος (cf. also LSJ s.v.) must refer to a cake which was made of coarsely ground meal (θρύπτω) and which could at the same time be crumbled (θρύπτω) into a liquid (or which might soak up such a liquid). The term is even more intriguing since it has associations with other rituals; ἔνθρυπτος is known as an epithet of Apollo at Athens (so Hsch. s.v.) and more explicitly features as part of the elaborate caricature of the rituals of Sabazios depicted by Demosthenes, when impugning Aeschines' mother and thereby accusing the man himself (Dem. 18.260, De Corona in 330 BC). In other words, these types of cakes may have been particularly associated with foreign or Anatolian rituals to Greek eyes; on others cakes offered to Zeus in Karia, see also here CGRN 184 (Kasossos), lines 5-9. On cakes and breads or materials to make these as sacrificial complements in many rituals, see here e.g. CGRN 175 (Priene), with lines 10-13. On the use of a basket (here, it was presumably a "plaited" one made of straw or wicker) to hold offerings as part of the sacrificial ritual, see also e.g. CGRN 38 (Chios), line A6 (holding portions of meat it would seem), and CGRN 84, lines 44-46 (bread given to the "basket-bearer").

Lines 4-6: The portions awarded from sacrifices made by citizens and by metics are identical. For the role of metics as special or occasionally equal participants in certain Greek sacrifices, see here esp. CGRN 19 (Skambonidai), line C8, and CGRN 43 (Athens), lines 23-24. Foreigners are also treated in a similar manner, though in this case the priest will also receive the valuable skins and hides of the animals; this consequently implies that in the other aforementioned sacrifices, such as those of citizens and metics, these individuals and groups were entitled to retained the skins and the remaining meat form the carcass for themselves. Elsewhere, it was a common practice for priests to receive the skins from animals sacrificed privately, but not those from public sacrifices, which would be sold for a profit by the city (cf. CGRN 39, Miletos, lines 3-8, with further discussion). The situation at Iasos is to some degree analogous (in the case of the sacrifices of citizens, or perhaps those of the city more broadly), though also notably different, since only from the private sacrifices of foreigners did the priest receive hides. On the rights of foreigners to perform sacrifices, see notably here, CGRN 41 (Chios), line 6-7; cf. also CGRN 100 (Miletos), lines 6-8, where the scenario in fact was just the opposite: the priest of Apollo received hides from public sacrifices, but not from those of foreigners, where a deputy-priest was required to perform the ritual.

Lines 6-8: The first penalty clause, though presented as applying to anyone (τις) should properly concern the priest himself, since only he would be prevented from holding office; in other words, we might infer that if the priest took more than his due from certain sacrifices, he would then be removed from office. Potentially, the clause might also apply to any worshippers contravening the rules by not giving the priest his due—if that is also correct, such a delinquent worshipper would then have been barred from holding the priesthood at a later date. Another punishment which simultaneously applied, perhaps to any wrongdoer, whether priest or worshipper, was being barred from the sanctuary. This was a serious punishment, usually reserved for major crimes such as manslaughter (involuntary or worse), see e.g. CGRN 166 (Lato), citing Arist. Ath. Pol. 57. Having no longer access to the sanctuary of Zeus Megistos (and Hera), one could naturally no longer perform a sacrifice in this place; cp. the exclusion from sacrifice for ten years invoked upon impious women at Gambreion, CGRN 108, lines 25-27. The second penalty clause is concerned with the protection of the stele and the writing it contains. As Fabiani ably discusses (p. 172-173), it is perhaps surprising that the stone of Copy 1 (a wall-block) is mentioned here as a stele; yet there are many possible interpretations, such as that the inscription was originally inscribed on a stele (as later in Copy 2) or, more likely, that it was a general statement about the integrity of documents included in regulations at Iasos (thus, no specific "stele" need be intended). On the sanction of hierosylia, see esp. Parker; cp. here CGRN 120 (Sinope), line 18.

Lines 8-10: The final clauses discuss the treatment of offerings of objects. In the case of money (not all silver objects), this will belong to the priest; as Fabiani rightly remarks (p. 173-174), this implies that ἀργύριον, silver coinage, was regularly consecrated to Zeus Megistos, perhaps as part of sacrificial tariffs due to the treasury of the sanctuary. This money would have served to finance necessities for the sacrifice which the worshippers might need, such as wood for burning; and as such, priests normally received a portion of the proceeds from the thesauros (such as a structure is known in the sanctuary of Zeus Megistos, see Laviosa, p. 50-54); cf. e.g. CGRN 64 (Epidauros) and CGRN 70 (Oropos) for examples of sacrificial tariffs in the present Collection. In all other cases of dedications, the offerings remain the property of the god. Neopoiai are to act as custodians and caretakers of the offerings, apparently according to a preexisting law (νόμος—more likely than a mere "custom"). As Fabiani rightly notes, reference to some form of norm or codified law for the neopoiai can be reasonably presumed, as well as concerning the crime of hierosylia (see above at lines 6-8). Particularly interesting is also a comparison with a later contract for the sale of a priesthood at Iasos, CGRN 196. There (lines 16-21), the priestess is said to receive a portion from all the offerings which are reserved for the goddess on the cult table, with the exception of objects made of gold, silver, or cloth; mention of money, in the form of sacrificial tariffs, is not made, however. Nevertheless, it seems clear that the neopoiai were fundamental in the administration of offerings here too: objects dedicated must be rendered into account for these officials, who were to provide a copy of it for the council (the city might then resolve to use some of these objects as a monetary fund). Nothing of this sort is explicitly mentioned in the text relating to Zeus Megistos, but the allusion to a law or customary practice for the neopoiai may point to a more detailed source (now lost) on the subject.

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

Project Director

Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge

How To Cite

CGRN 42, l. x-x.

Alternatively, a more detailed version of this citation, with the relevant URL, can be:
CGRN 42, l. x-x (http://cgrn.philo.ulg.ac.be/file/42/).

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 [2019]).

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="CGRN_42" xml:lang="en">
	    <teiHeader>
			<fileDesc>
	    		<titleStmt>
	    			<title><idno type="filename">CGRN 42</idno>: <rs type="textType" key="priestly contract">Contract</rs> for the priesthood of Zeus Megistos at Iasos</title>
	    				<author>Jan-Mathieu Carbon</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>Copy 1: A large and long, nearly complete and intact limestone block, which was part of a wall; for further details about the support, see Fabiani, p. 161-162 with n. 7. The central section of the front face with the inscription has been carefully chiselled (width ca. 61 cm). Fabiani argues that this was not due to preparation of the stone for reuse, but rather "an intentional action aimed at destroying the inscription". The remainder of the text is presumed to have been hidden from view during reuse and was considerably preserved as a result.</p>
<p>Copy 2: Fragment of a grey limestone stele, broken on all sides.</p>
			<p>Copy 1<dimensions>
					<height unit="cm">31</height>
					<width unit="cm">129.5</width>
					<depth unit="cm">18.5</depth>
			</dimensions></p>
			<p>Copy 2<dimensions>
					<height unit="cm">32</height>
					<width unit="cm">20</width>
					<depth unit="cm">6.7</depth>
				</dimensions></p>

			</support>
			</supportDesc>
			<layoutDesc><layout><p>Copy 1: The incised letters were originally painted, in alternating lines, with red and blue paint; on this bichromy of Classical inscriptions, see Fabiani, p. 161 with n. 5. Letters: <height unit="mm">18</height>; round letters: <height unit="mm">12-14</height>.</p>
				<p>Copy 2: No traces of paint. Letters: <height unit="mm">15</height>; round letters: <height unit="mm">10</height>.</p>
			</layout></layoutDesc>
		</objectDesc>
	</physDesc>
	<history>
		<origin>
			<p><origDate notBefore="-0425" notAfter="-0375">ca. 425-375 BC</origDate></p>
			<p><desc>Justification: lettering of Copy 1 (Fabiani, p. 163 with n. 10). Copy 2 is dated somewhat later, in the mid-fourth century BC (Fabiani, p. 166 with n. 13). Copies 1-2 are also written in the Ionic dialect, which must properly antedate the prevalence of koine Greek after the period Alexander.</desc></p>
		</origin>
		<provenance><p><placeName type="ancientFindspot" key="Iasos" n="Asia_Minor_and_Anatolia"><ref target="http://pleiades.stoa.org/places/599664" type="external">Iasos</ref></placeName>. Found where was probably originally the sanctuary of Zeus Megistos and Hera. For further details about the uncertain provenance of Copy 1, in a context of reuse as the lintel of a window "in a Byzantine building", see Fabiani, p. 160-162. Copy 2 was found in 2011 in the Byzantine level of the excavations of the North Stoa of the Agora. Current locations: Copy 1: British Museum (inv. no. 3.440); Copy 2: depot of the Italian mission at Iasos (inv. no. 8555).</p>
		</provenance> 
	</history>
	</msDesc>
	</sourceDesc>
			</fileDesc>
	    	<encodingDesc><p>Encoded for EpiDoc schema 8.17 on 01-01-2014 by JM 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>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 <bibl type="author_date" n="Fabiani 2016">Fabiani 2016</bibl>, with ph. figs. 1-2. As is given on p. 174 by Fabiani, we present here a composite text based on the two copies of the inscription: rasurae are from Copy 1; readings from Copy 2 are only visible as evidence="parallel" in the Epidoc xml file.</p>
					
					<p>Other editions (Copy 1): Hicks <bibl type="abbr" n="GIBM">GIBM</bibl> 440; Blümel <bibl type="abbr" n="I.Iasos">I.Iasos</bibl> 220.</p>

					
	<p>Cf. also (Copy 1): Sokolowski <bibl type="abbr" n="LSAM">LSAM</bibl> 59.</p>

					<p>Further bibliography: <bibl type="author_date" n="Parker 1983">Parker 1983</bibl>: 45, 170-171; <bibl type="author_date" n="Laviosa 1987">Laviosa 1987</bibl>: 47-54; <bibl type="author_date" n="Van Straten 1995">Van Straten 1995</bibl>: 122; <bibl type="author_date" n="Adiego 2007">Adiego 2007</bibl>: 147-148.</p>
				</div>
	    			<div type="edition">
	    				<head>Text</head>
	    				<ab>	
	    				    
<lb xml:id="line_1" n="1"/><w lemma="κατά">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="ὅδε">τάδε</w> <name type="personnel"><w lemma="ἱερόω">ἱεράσθω</w></name> ὁ <name type="personnel"><w lemma="ἱερεύς">ἱε<del rend="erasure">ρε<unclear>ὺ</unclear>ς</del></w></name> <del rend="erasure">τ<supplied reason="lost">ο</supplied><unclear>ῦ</unclear></del> <name type="deity" key="Zeus"><w lemma="Ζεύς"><del rend="erasure">Διὸς</del></w></name> <del rend="erasure">τοῦ</del> <name type="epithet" key="Megistos"><w lemma="μέγας"><del rend="erasure">Μεγίστου</del></w></name><del rend="erasure">·</del> <name type="portion"><w lemma="λαμβάνω"><del rend="erasure"><unclear>λα</unclear><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">μβανέτ</supplied>ω</del></w></name> δὲ τῶν <name type="sacrifice"><w lemma="θύω">θυομένων</w></name> <space quantity="2" unit="character"/>
	    					
<lb xml:id="line_2" n="2"/><name type="portion"><w lemma="σκέλος">σκέλος</w></name> <w lemma="εἷς">ἕν</w>, <w lemma="ὁποῖος">ὁπο<supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">ῖον</supplied></w> <w lemma="ἄν"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">ἂ<unclear>ν</unclear></supplied></w> <w lemma="θέλω"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">θέ</supplied><del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">λη</supplied>ι</del></w><del rend="erasure">,</del> <w lemma="σύν"><del rend="erasure">σὺν</del></w> <del rend="erasure">τ<supplied reason="lost">ῆι</supplied></del> <name type="portion"><w lemma="ὀσφῦς"><del rend="erasure">ὀσφύϊ</del></w></name><del rend="erasure">,</del> <w lemma="ὡς"><del rend="erasure">ὡς</del></w> <name type="genericOffering"><w lemma="ἐπιτίθημι"><del rend="erasure"><unclear>ἐπ</unclear><supplied reason="lost">ιτί</supplied><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">θεται</supplied></del></w></name> <del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">ἡ</supplied></del> <name type="portion"><w lemma="ὀσφῦς"><del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">ὀσφύ</supplied>ς</del></w></name>, <w lemma="εἰ">εἰάν</w> τε <w lemma="πολύς">πολλὰ</w> <w lemma="ἐξάγω">ἐξά
	    						
<lb xml:id="line_3" n="3" break="no"/>γη<supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">ι</supplied></w> <name type="animal" key="generic"><w lemma="ἱερεῖον"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">ἱερέα</supplied></w></name> <w lemma="εἰ"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">εἰάν</supplied></w> <supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">τε</supplied> <w lemma="εἷς"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">ἕν</supplied></w>, κα<del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="lost">ὶ</supplied></del> <name type="portion"><w lemma="κεφαλή"><del rend="erasure">κεφαλὴν</del></w></name> <del rend="erasure">κα<supplied reason="lost">ὶ</supplied></del> <name type="portion"><w lemma="πούς"><del rend="erasure">π<unclear>ό</unclear>δας</del></w></name> <del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">κ<unclear>α</unclear>ὶ</supplied></del> <name type="portion"><w lemma="σπλάγχνον"><del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">σπ<unclear>λ</unclear>άγχνω</supplied><supplied reason="lost">ν</supplied></del></w></name> <w lemma="τέταρτος"><del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="lost">τ</supplied>έτ</del>αρτομ</w> <name type="portion"><w lemma="μέρος">μέρος</w></name>· τῶν <supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">δὲ</supplied>
	    					
<lb xml:id="line_4" n="4"/><name type="bakery"><w lemma="ἔνθρυπτος"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">ἐνθρύπτων</supplied></w></name> <name type="portion"><w lemma="λαμβάνω">λαμβανέτ<del rend="erasure">ω</del></w></name> <w lemma="εἷς"><del rend="erasure">ἓν</del></w> <w lemma="ἀπό"><del rend="erasure">ἀπὸ</del></w> <name type="object"><w lemma="πλεκτός"><del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">πλεκτοῦ</supplied></del></w></name> <del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">τῶι</supplied></del> <name type="deity" key="Zeus"><w lemma="θεός"><del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">θε</supplied>ῶι</del></w></name> <name type="genericOffering"><w lemma="παρέχω"><del rend="erasure"><unclear>π</unclear>α<supplied reason="lost">ρεχομένου</supplied></del></w></name><del rend="erasure">·</del> <w lemma="κατά"><del rend="erasure">κα</del>τὰ</w> <w lemma="αὐτός">ταὐτὰ</w> δὲ <supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">καὶ</supplied> <w lemma="παρά"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">πα</supplied>
	    							
<lb xml:id="line_5" n="5" break="no"/><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">ρὰ</supplied></w> <supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">τῶν</supplied> <name type="person"><w lemma="μέτοικος">μετοίκων</w></name>· <w lemma="παρά">παρὰ</w> <del rend="erasure">δὲ</del> <del rend="erasure">τ<supplied reason="lost">ῶν</supplied></del> <name type="person"><w lemma="ξένος"><del rend="erasure">ξ<supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">ένων</supplied></del></w></name> <del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">τὰ</supplied></del> <del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">μὲν</supplied></del> <w lemma="ἄλλος"><del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">ἄλλ</supplied>α</del></w> <w lemma="καθάπερ"><del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="lost">κα</supplied><unclear>θ</unclear>ά<unclear>π</unclear><supplied reason="lost">ερ</supplied></del></w> <w lemma="παρά"><del rend="erasure">παρὰ</del></w> <del rend="erasure">τῶ</del>ν <name type="person"><w lemma="ἀστός"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">ἀστῶν</supplied></w></name>, <name type="portion"><w lemma="λαμβάνω"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">λαμβανέ</supplied>
	    										
<lb xml:id="line_6" n="6" break="no"/>τω</w></name> δὲ καὶ τὰ <name type="portion"><w lemma="δέρμα">δέρματα</w></name>· ἢ<del rend="erasure">ν</del> <del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">δ<unclear>ὲ</unclear></supplied></del> <w lemma=""><del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">τ<unclear>ι</unclear>ς</supplied></del></w> <w lemma="παρά"><del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">παρὰ</supplied></del></w> <del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">τ</supplied><supplied reason="lost">ὰ</supplied></del> <name type="authority"><w lemma="γράφω"><del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">γ</supplied>εγραμμένα</del></w></name> <w lemma="ποιέω"><del rend="erasure"><unclear>π</unclear><supplied reason="lost">οιῆι</supplied></del></w><del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="lost">,</supplied></del> <w lemma="μή"><del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="lost">μὴ</supplied></del></w> <name type="personnel"><w lemma="ἱερόω"><del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="lost">ἱε</supplied>ρ</del><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">άσθω</supplied></w></name> <supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">καὶ</supplied> <supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">τοῦ</supplied> <space extent="unknown" unit="character"/>
	    					
<lb xml:id="line_7" n="7"/><name type="structure"><w lemma="ἱερός"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">ἱε</supplied>ρο̑</w></name> <name type="punishment"><w lemma="ἔργω">ἐργέσθω</w></name>· <w lemma="ἄν">ἢν</w> δέ <w lemma="τις">τι<del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">ς</supplied></del></w> <del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">τὴν</supplied></del> <name type="authority"><w lemma="στήλη"><del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">στήλ<unclear>ην</unclear></supplied></del></w></name> <w lemma="ἀφανίζω"><del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">ἀ</supplied>φαν<supplied reason="lost">ίσηι</supplied></del></w> <del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="lost">ἢ</supplied></del> <del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="lost">τὰ</supplied></del> <name type="authority"><w lemma="γράμμα"><del rend="erasure"><unclear>γ</unclear><supplied reason="lost">ρ</supplied><unclear>ά</unclear>μ<supplied reason="lost">ματα</supplied></del></w></name><del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="lost">,</supplied></del> <name type="punishment"><w lemma="πάσχω"><del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">πα</supplied></del><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">σχέτω</supplied></w></name> <space extent="unknown" unit="character"/>
	    					
<lb xml:id="line_8" n="8"/><w lemma="ὡς"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">ὡς</supplied></w> <name type="punishment"><w lemma="ἱερόσυλος"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">ἱε</supplied>ρόσυλος</w></name>· τῶν δὲ <name type="object"><w lemma="ἀνάθημα"><del rend="erasure">ἀ<unclear>ν</unclear>αθ<unclear>η</unclear><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor"><unclear>μ</unclear></supplied><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor"><supplied reason="lost">άτ</supplied></supplied><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor"><unclear>ων</unclear></supplied></del></w></name> <w lemma="ὅσος"><del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">ὅσομ</supplied></del></w> <del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">μὲ</supplied><unclear>ν</unclear></del> <name type="object"><w lemma="ἀργύριον"><del rend="erasure">ἀργ<unclear>ύ</unclear>ρ<supplied reason="lost">ιό</supplied>ν</del></w></name> <w lemma="εἰμί"><del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="lost">ἐστι</supplied></del></w> <w lemma="αὐτός"><del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="lost">αὐ</supplied><unclear>τ</unclear><supplied reason="lost">ῶ</supplied></del>ν</w>, <w lemma="εἰμί">ἔ<supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">στω</supplied></w> <supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">τοῦ</supplied> <name type="personnel"><w lemma="ἱερεύς"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">ἱέρεω</supplied></w></name>, <space quantity="1" unit="character"/>
	    					
<lb xml:id="line_9" n="9"/>τὰ δὲ <w lemma="ἄλλος">ἄλλα</w> <name type="object"><w lemma="ἀνάθημα">ἀναθήματ<del rend="erasure">α</del></w></name> <del rend="erasure">τοῦ</del> <name type="deity" key="Zeus"><w lemma="θεός"><del rend="erasure"><unclear>θ</unclear><supplied reason="lost">εοῦ</supplied></del></w></name> <w lemma="εἰμί"><del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="undefined" evidence="previouseditor">ἔστ</supplied><supplied reason="lost">ω</supplied></del></w><del rend="erasure">·</del> <w lemma="ἐπιμελέομαι"><del rend="erasure">ἐπ<supplied reason="lost">ι</supplied>μέ<supplied reason="lost">λ</supplied>εσθαι</del></w> <del rend="erasure">δὲ</del> <del rend="erasure"><unclear>τ</unclear>ῶν</del> <name type="object"><w lemma="ἀνάθημα"><del rend="erasure">ἀναθ</del>ημάτων</w></name> <space extent="unknown" unit="character"/>
	    					
<lb xml:id="line_10" n="10"/>τοὺς <name type="personnel"><w lemma="νεωποίης">νεωποίας</w></name> <w lemma="κατά">κατὰ</w> <del rend="erasure">τὸ<supplied reason="lost">ν</supplied></del> <name type="authority"><w lemma="νόμος"><del rend="erasure"><supplied reason="lost">νόμον</supplied></del></w></name>. <space extent="unknown" unit="character"/>
	    				
	    				</ab>
	    			</div>
	    			<div type="translation" xml:lang="eng">
					<head>Translation</head>
<p>The priest of Zeus Megistos shall serve as priest according to the following: let him obtain, from the sacrificed animals, whether one leads out one or more sacrificial animals (to the altar), one leg, whichever he wishes, along with the sacrum, as this is placed upon (the altar? the table?), and the head and the feet and a fourth portion of the entrails. Of the sops, let him obtain one from the basket [provided] to the god. According to same (guidelines), (let him take perquisites) (5) from the metics. From strangers, the other (perquisites) just as [from] the citizens, and he shall also receive the skins. If anyone [acts] contrary to what has been written, let him [not serve as priest] and he will be barred from the sanctuary. If anyone obliterates the stele [or its letters], let him be punished as a temple-robber. Of the offerings, as much as there is money among them, (this) will belong to the priest; the other offerings belong to the [god]. (10) The <foreign>neopoiai</foreign> are to take care of the offerings according to the [law].
					</p>
				</div>
				<div type="translation" xml:lang="fre">
					<head>Traduction</head>
<p>Que le prêtre de Zeus Megistos assume son sacerdoce de la manière suivante. Qu'il prenne sur les animaux sacrifiés, une patte, celle qu'il souhaite, avec le sacrum, comme il est déposé (sur l'autel ? sur la table ?) — que l'on amène un ou plusieurs animaux sacrificiels —, ainsi que la tête, les pieds et un quart de viscères. Des gâteaux, qu'il en prenne un du panier [fourni] au dieu. Qu'il en aille de même de la part (5) des métèques. De la part des étrangers, les autres (prélèvement) précisément comme ceux qui proviennent des citoyens, et qu'il prélève également les peaux. Si quelqu'un [agit] contrairement à ce qui est écrit, qu'il n'assume [pas le sacerdoce] et qu'il soit exclu du sanctuaire. Si quelqu'un altère la stèle [ou les inscriptions], qu'il soit tenu pour sacrilège. Sur les offrandes, pour autant qu'elles comprennent de l'argent, ce dernier reviendra au prêtre. Que les autres offrandes appartiennent au [dieu]. (10) Les néopes prendront soin des offrandes selon la [loi].
					</p>
				</div>
					<div type="commentary">    
						<head>Commentary</head>    

<p>Though both copies of this regulation were found in contexts of later reuse (see Provenance), it seems clear that they originally relate to the major sanctuary of Zeus Megistos and Hera located at the northwest of the city, just inside the city-wall. The sanctuary of Zeus Megistos is one of the earliest cult-sites epigraphically attested at Iasos; the archaeology of the sanctuary, beginning with construction in the Archaic period, has been well discussed (see Laviosa, with further refs.). Particularly intriguing is the epithet of Zeus, Megistos, which is very rarely found at such an early date and might tend to indicate that we might be dealing with a Greek "interpretation" of an Anatolian cult. At the very least, a meeting ground between Greek and Anatolian cults of Zeus is perceptible in the sanctuary, since it has yielded evidence for the Karian worship of Tarhunt (<foreign>trq-</foreign>; he was the Storm and Ruler God, most often equated with Zeus): cf. Adiego, p. 147-148 no. C. Ia 3 (the Karian dedication is inscribed on an Attic krater, dating to ca. 625-500 BC). On the cult of Zeus Megistos' high importance in the city in the fourth century BC—the time of the Hekatomnid dynasty—see also Fabiani, p. 159-160, with n. 1. Two boundary stones contemporaneous with this period, <bibl type="abbr" n="I.Iasos">I.Iasos</bibl> 233-234 are known, which might indicate that this represent a new or increased phase in the epigraphic visibility and definition of the sanctuary. Equally intriguing is the mention of eleven priests of the god as part of the officials listed in the decree of Iasos banishing individuals who had plotted against Mausolus and confiscating their property: <bibl type="abbr" n="I.Iasos">I.Iasos</bibl> 1 (ca. 367-354 BC). Since the duration of the office is unknown, the number of priests of Zeus Megistos mentioned in this text remains to be satisfactorily explained.</p>

<p>In terms of its structure, the documents is quite brief, containing some seven clauses on three major topics. After the introductory heading, the first section is concerned with the perquisites of the priest (lines 1-6) from sacrifices performed by different categories of individuals and groups (citizens, metics and foreigners respectively); a second section contains penalties applying to the priest or perhaps to anyone who disobeys the rules as well as to those who deliberately damage the inscription (lines 6-8); finally, a concluding section (lines 8-10, which Fabiani supposes may have been an addition to the core of the regulation, p. 177-178) is concerned with the treatment of offerings of objects and money made in the sanctuary. On the character of the regulation, we may refer to Fabiani's excellent discussion (p. 175-177) and briefly note some salient points here. While Fabiani supposes that the text may have had the value of a law (νόμος), it should also be underlined that this is nowhere explicitly specified, and thus only remains possible; the text was nonetheless almost certainly enacted by the city of Iasos in some capacity. Intriguingly, the text also begins its second clause with the conjunction δὲ; Fabiani argues that this does not indicate that we are dealing with an excerpt from a larger document, but rather simply marks a transition from the heading. This is possible, but an excerpt from another document remains equally so in our view, since the regulation is rather miscellaneous (see immediately above on lines 8-10) and might easily have dealt with other topics, such as the duration of tenure or other particularities of the office of priest. Another point must be underlined, which is that there were multiple copies (1-2) of the regulation made and that, as Fabiani rightly argues (p. 161), both the size of the letters and the bichromy of the lines (see Layout) were probably designed "to enhance the readability of the text". This would tend to suggest that we are dealing with a short (perahps abbreviated/excerpted) specification of the perquisites and duties of the priest, not only for sake of the man himself and for future holders of the office, but also for the instruction of worshippers. The heading, along with the abbreviated/excerpted nature of the document, compares with some other contracts for priest, and perhaps most directly with <bibl type="abbr" n="IG XII.4">IG XII.4</bibl> 356 / <bibl type="abbr" n="LSCG">LSCG</bibl> 175, for the priestess of Demeter at Antimacheia on Kos. For other priestly contracts, notably a later sale of priesthood from Iasos itself, see <ref target="CGRN_196">CGRN 196</ref>.</p>

<p>Lines 1-3: The specification of the perquisites obtained from animals sacrificed by citizens and probably also by the city is given here; though it is not explicitly specified, it later becomes clear that the sacrifices of private citizens, at least, are concerned by these lines: cf. "just as from the citizens" in line 5, which refers to this earlier passage. Animals offered by the city during the festival of the god are also not explicitly mentioned but were probably concerned here as well; note especially that the perquisites applied even if one sacrificed more than one animal, lines 2-3, and that the verb ἐξάγηι might imply a formal procession (see also Fabiani, p. 176, for this inference). First and foremost, the priest is given a choice of a leg, probably a hind leg (σκέλος), from each animal. Since occasionally the left or righthand leg can be specified as the perquisite of the priest (see e.g. <ref target="CGRN_80">CGRN 80</ref>, Erythrai, lines A1-3, and <ref target="CGRN_147">CGRN 147</ref>, Kos, commentary on lines 47-61 with further refs.), this may seem remarkable; but often the handedness of the leg was not stated or left implicit; in the case of Iasos, the priest will have been able to choose for himself, and potentially to select a more meaty one. For the choice of a single leg, yet from multiple animals, cp. also <ref target="CGRN_184">CGRN 184</ref>, line 9 (Kasossos, during the τυράλφιτον, a sacrifice which involved both an ox and at least a few rams). This leg is closely associated (σύν) with the sacrum and/or tail of the animal; on the term ὀσφύς, see also the careful discussion of Fabiani, p. 168-170, with further refs. If ὀσφύς here refers to the tail of the animal, this may have originally been cut with the leg during the butchery of the carcass; the sacrum is unlikely to have been cut of a piece with the leg, however. An added specification from Fabiani's new reading both clarifies the matter and raises further questions: it would seem that the sacrum and/or tail was given to the priest "as it is placed upon (the altar)". This would seem to imply that the god and the priest thus shared the same portion, which was placed on or near the altar fire. Indeed, the sacrum and the following caudal verterbrae formed another portion which was fundamental in many Greek sacrifices: after it was placed on the altar, with or without the sacrum, the heat of the fire was always sufficient to make the tail "curl", which was read as an auspicious sign of the success of the ritual in the eyes of the gods (see esp. Ar. <title>Pax</title> 1055 with the schol. ad loc. and the fundamental interpretation and illustration of this passage by Van Straten, p. 122). Several questions remain, however. For instance, was the sacrum attached to the tail, thus forming a "continuous" ὀσφύς and one perhaps with a good amount of meat for the priest also (on this terminology, see <ref target="CGRN_100">CGRN 100</ref>, Miletos, line 2)? Or would the tail be completely burned, thus resulting in a symbolic rather than meaty perquisite for the priest? By contrast, the remaining perquisites are more straightforward to interpret. The head forms one of the frequent prerogatives of the priest and other cult officials, and it was often associated with the feet of the animal (with which they might be butchered as part of the removal of the hide from the carcass): see <ref target="CGRN_99">CGRN 99</ref> (Cyrene), lines 83-105 (pars. 13-15), <ref target="CGRN_104">CGRN 104</ref> (Halikarnassos), line 44, <ref target="CGRN_169">CGRN 169</ref> (Kallatis), lines 5-6, <ref target="CGRN_193">CGRN 193</ref> (Hyllarima), lines Ab16-18 and B17-21. A quarter of the entrails is a prevalent portion awarded to priests and priestess in the region of Karia: cf. <ref target="CGRN_104">CGRN 104</ref> (Halikarnassos), line 39, <ref target="CGRN_118">CGRN 118</ref> (Halikarnassos), lines 12-14, and <ref target="CGRN_119">CGRN 119</ref> (Theangela), line 19.</p>
						
<p>Lines 3-4: A very intriguing small clause also grants the priest one of the sops from the basket (or each basket containing cakes, as Fabiani plausibly understands) provided for the god during the sacrifice. ἔνθρυπτος (cf. also <bibl type="abbr" n="LSJ">LSJ</bibl> s.v.) must refer to a cake which was made of coarsely ground meal (θρύπτω) and which could at the same time be crumbled (θρύπτω) into a liquid (or which might soak up such a liquid). The term is even more intriguing since it has associations with other rituals; ἔνθρυπτος is known as an epithet of Apollo at Athens (so Hsch. s.v.) and more explicitly features as part of the elaborate caricature of the rituals of Sabazios depicted by Demosthenes, when impugning Aeschines' mother and thereby accusing the man himself (Dem. 18.260, <title>De Corona</title> in 330 BC). In other words, these types of cakes may have been particularly associated with foreign or Anatolian rituals to Greek eyes; on others cakes offered to Zeus in Karia, see also here <ref target="CGRN_184">CGRN 184</ref> (Kasossos), lines 5-9. On cakes and breads or materials to make these as sacrificial complements in many rituals, see here e.g. <ref target="CGRN_175">CGRN 175</ref> (Priene), with lines 10-13. On the use of a basket (here, it was presumably a "plaited" one made of straw or wicker) to hold offerings as part of the sacrificial ritual, see also e.g. <ref target="CGRN_38">CGRN 38</ref> (Chios), line A6 (holding portions of meat it would seem), and <ref target="CGRN_84">CGRN 84</ref>, lines 44-46 (bread given to the "basket-bearer").</p>
													
<p>Lines 4-6: The portions awarded from sacrifices made by citizens and by metics are identical. For the role of metics as special or occasionally equal participants in certain Greek sacrifices, see here esp. <ref target="CGRN_19">CGRN 19</ref> (Skambonidai), line C8, and <ref target="CGRN_43">CGRN 43</ref> (Athens), lines 23-24. Foreigners are also treated in a similar manner, though in this case the priest will also receive the valuable skins and hides of the animals; this consequently implies that in the other aforementioned sacrifices, such as those of citizens and metics, these individuals and groups were entitled to retained the skins and the remaining meat form the carcass for themselves. Elsewhere, it was a common practice for priests to receive the skins from animals sacrificed privately, but not those from public sacrifices, which would be sold for a profit by the city (cf. <ref target="CGRN_39">CGRN 39</ref>, Miletos, lines 3-8, with further discussion). The situation at Iasos is to some degree analogous (in the case of the sacrifices of citizens, or perhaps those of the city more broadly), though also notably different, since only from the private sacrifices of foreigners did the priest receive hides. On the rights of foreigners to perform sacrifices, see notably here, <ref target="http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be/CGRN_41/">CGRN 41</ref> (Chios), line 6-7; cf. also <ref target="CGRN_100">CGRN 100</ref> (Miletos), lines 6-8, where the scenario in fact was just the opposite: the priest of Apollo received hides from public sacrifices, but not from those of foreigners, where a deputy-priest was required to perform the ritual.</p>

<p>Lines 6-8: The first penalty clause, though presented as applying to anyone (τις) should properly concern the priest himself, since only he would be prevented from holding office; in other words, we might infer that if the priest took more than his due from certain sacrifices, he would then be removed from office. Potentially, the clause might also apply to any worshippers contravening the rules by not giving the priest his due—if that is also correct, such a delinquent worshipper would then have been barred from holding the priesthood at a later date. Another punishment which simultaneously applied, perhaps to any wrongdoer, whether priest or worshipper, was being barred from the sanctuary. This was a serious punishment, usually reserved for major crimes such as manslaughter (involuntary or worse), see e.g. <ref target="CGRN_166">CGRN 166</ref> (Lato), citing Arist. <title>Ath. Pol.</title> 57. Having no longer access to the sanctuary of Zeus Megistos (and Hera), one could naturally no longer perform a sacrifice in this place; cp. the exclusion from sacrifice for ten years invoked upon impious women at Gambreion, <ref target="CGRN_108">CGRN 108</ref>, lines 25-27. The second penalty clause is concerned with the protection of the stele and the writing it contains. As Fabiani ably discusses (p. 172-173), it is perhaps surprising that the stone of Copy 1 (a wall-block) is mentioned here as a stele; yet there are many possible interpretations, such as that the inscription was originally inscribed on a stele (as later in Copy 2) or, more likely, that it was a general statement about the integrity of documents included in regulations at Iasos (thus, no specific "stele" need be intended). On the sanction of <foreign>hierosylia</foreign>, see esp. Parker; cp. here <ref target="CGRN_120">CGRN 120</ref> (Sinope), line 18.</p>

<p>Lines 8-10: The final clauses discuss the treatment of offerings of objects. In the case of money (not all silver objects), this will belong to the priest; as Fabiani rightly remarks (p. 173-174), this implies that ἀργύριον, silver coinage, was regularly consecrated to Zeus Megistos, perhaps as part of sacrificial tariffs due to the treasury of the sanctuary. This money would have served to finance necessities for the sacrifice which the worshippers might need, such as wood for burning; and as such, priests normally received a portion of the proceeds from the <foreign>thesauros</foreign> (such as a structure is known in the sanctuary of Zeus Megistos, see Laviosa, p. 50-54); cf. e.g. <ref target="CGRN_64">CGRN 64</ref> (Epidauros) and <ref target="CGRN_70">CGRN 70</ref> (Oropos) for examples of sacrificial tariffs in the present Collection. In all other cases of dedications, the offerings remain the property of the god. <title>Neopoiai</title> are to act as custodians and caretakers of the offerings, apparently according to a preexisting law (νόμος—more likely than a mere "custom"). As Fabiani rightly notes, reference to some form of norm or codified law for the <title>neopoiai</title> can be reasonably presumed, as well as concerning the crime of <foreign>hierosylia</foreign> (see above at lines 6-8). Particularly interesting is also a comparison with a later contract for the sale of a priesthood at Iasos, <ref target="CGRN_196">CGRN 196</ref>. There (lines 16-21), the priestess is said to receive a portion from all the offerings which are reserved for the goddess on the cult table, with the exception of objects made of gold, silver, or cloth; mention of money, in the form of sacrificial tariffs, is not made, however. Nevertheless, it seems clear that the <title>neopoiai</title> were fundamental in the administration of offerings here too: objects dedicated must be rendered into account for these officials, who were to provide a copy of it for the council (the city might then resolve to use some of these objects as a monetary fund). Nothing of this sort is explicitly mentioned in the text relating to Zeus Megistos, but the allusion to a law or customary practice for the <title>neopoiai</title> may point to a more detailed source (now lost) on the subject.</p>				
					</div>
			</body>
    	</text>
	</TEI>