This inscription contains a relatively comprehensive set of regulations concerning cult practice in the Amphiareion at Oropos. Perhaps excerpted from a decree or another document—though no definite indications of this are available—the regulations cover a sizeable variety of topics, most of which are conveniently distinguished and separated through the use of punctuation or empty spaces (see above on the Layout). First and foremost come the duties and prerogatives of the priest of Amphiaraos (lines 2-20): this section appears to be comprised of two or three subsections, one dealing with the parameters of the presence of the priest in the sanctuary (lines 2-6); another, perhaps, with the supervision of the priest over the subsidiary neokoros who must take care of the sanctuary (6-8); a final, lengthy portion (9-20) concerns the legal capacities of the priest in exacting fines against wrongdoers. The regulations also cover fees for therapy and consultation in the sanctuary (lines 20-25), rules for sacrifices (25-36, also divided into subsections), and detailed norms concerning incubation (36-48, perhaps more in 49-51), before trailing off. The fragmentary continuation of the regulation may have covered other topics or specified something of the context in which these norms were inscribed.

The issuing authority is unclear, since the text begins immediately after a brief invocation in line 1. That being said, a new and revised publication of practical norms by the people of Oropos seems likely (see also below on lines 21-25 and 37-48 for antecedents). The inscription is to be dated to the period between 386 and ca. 374 BC, during which Oropos was independent from the control of either Athens or Thebes (Rhodes and Osborne; see above on Origin and Provenance). Other aspects of the context of the inscription are perhaps less easy to discern. The numerous rasurae (lines 6, 22, 24-25, 30, and 37-38) in the text, by contrast with other inscriptions from Oropos, for instance the partially analogous regulation CGRN 70 (also concerned with sacrificial tariffs, though very fragmentary), demonstrate how the rules adopted by a sanctuary were susceptible to evolution over time (cf. Petropoulou; see also below for further discussion). It is noteworthy that much of the regulation is highly practical and especially concerned with financial matters; some of the notable erasures in the document relate to sums of money (line 23) or to the prerogatives of the sanctuary (line 30). Financial questions were especially sensitive and liable to change at the only briefly autonomous Amphiareion.

According to Pausanias (1.34.2), the people of Oropos were the first to worship Amphiaraos (a mythical king of Argos, a seer and a hero, see Sineux) as a god. Cult activity at this site is attested from the last quarter of the 5th century onwards (Petrakos). The rules for nightime incubation and therapy found in this set of regulations, though they do not specify many ritual details, are extensive, and parallel those containing sacrificial tariffs and other prescriptions in analogous sanctuaries, for instance that of Asclepius at Epidauros CGRN 64, or e.g. at IvP III 161A. On incubation and Oropos, see now von Ehrenheim.

Lines 2-6: The regulation begins by describing the priest's mandatory minimum presence in the sanctuary, and briefly in lines 6-8 the duties of the neokoros (temple-warden) to be himself supervised by the priest (the latter appears to be responsible for the sanctuary as a structure and for the visiting worshippers). The priest should be present on a regular basis, at least during ten days each month, except in winter when he is dispensed from this requirement. In this part of the priestly contract, it is perhaps remarkable that no precise months are mentioned: the reason might be that the Oropians no longer wanted to use the Attic or Theban calendar during their period of independance. However, this part of the regulation is also framed very loosely, given the priest a wide latitude concerning his minimal presence in the sanctuary: about half of the time each month during the three warmer seasons of the year. In cases when the priest is absent, worshippers can perform sacrifices themselves, but the priest remains responsible for important public sacrifices (as prescribed in lines 25-29). It is not clear from the document whether the priest is appointed annually or holds the function for life.

Lines 6-20: The priest and the temple warden deal with small offenses of fellow-citizens and foreigners, passing sanctions and fines, while more serious offences were to be treated in the relevant courts. The fines for small transgresssions (of an unspecified character) committed inside the sanctuary area are to be deposited into the money-box, hence contributing to the sanctuary's wealth. It is unclear whether monetary penalties for larger offences will be donated to the sanctuary as well. Le Guen-Pollet points out that in Athens the time between summons and process was a minimum of four days: thus, the Oropian procedure of resolving cases on the same or the next day was quite fast, perhaps because those on trial would often be visitors, travellers and merchants.

Lines 21-25: A modest fee for a consultation was often the norm in oracular or healing cults. Here, the eparche of 9 obols is written over an erasure. In an earlier 4th-century inscription from Oropos describing consultation fees (Sokolowski LSS 35), the worshipper must pay one Boeotian drachma (6 obols). Perhaps this was the sum that originally figured on this stone as well, and the fee eventually increased. For tariffs and other fees commonly deposited (ἐμβάλλειν) in a money-box (εἰς τὸν θησαυρόν), cp. e.g. CGRN 182 (Mytilene), line 5; LSS 35, line 4; LSS 108, lines 8-12. The neokoros, presumed to be always resident in the sanctuary by contrast with the priest, is to supervise when the fee is being deposited; apparently, one did not trust the worshippers to always obey the rules. The erasure in lines 24 and 25 demarcates this section from the next one below, concerning sacrifice, but its original content has now vanished.

Lines 25-29: This portion of the regulation specifies that the priest, if present, is to officiate during sacrifices, and obligatorily during public sacrifices. The ritual gestures performed include praying over the hiera, the sacred portions, which are to be placed on the altar (cp. CGRN 147, Kos, lines 10-11, where the placement is done by the priest). For comparable cases in which worshippers may sacrifice on their own or select a deputy-priest if the priest is not present, cf. CGRN 36 (Chios), lines 7-11, and CGRN 76 (Erythrai), lines 27-30.

Lines 29-36: This section describes other sacred portions from the sacrificial animal and the perquisite for the priest. The prescription that the skin is to be "sacred" (ἱερός) may be presumed to mean that the hide would be consecrated in the sanctuary itself and remain its property (lines 29-30). Though it remains partly legible, this original specification has been erased, leaving no other rule to substitute it. It is possible that the regulation evolved to allow skins to be taken away by worshippers offering sacrifices, or to be sold (so Rhodes - Osborne, attractively citing later Athenian practice for selling skins: the Lykurgan dermatikon fund, cf. IG II² 1496, 331/0 BC, col. IV, and IG II³ 445, ca. 335 BC, lines 19-23—the latter specifying that proceeds were to be spent on the Amphiareion, among other shrines). The precise historical situation, however, is far from clear given the remaining rasura. Further compounding the problem is the tradition concerning the use of skins at the Amphiareion, especially from a sacrificed ram. Pausanias (1.34.5) details how those undergoing incubation would first sacrifice to Amphiaraos as a form of preliminary purification, then to the other gods in the sanctuary, and finally a ram, on whose skin they would then sleep in order to obtain a dream from the god. Cf. Lupu for further discussion of votive reliefs from Oropos and the difficulties of linking this passage from the regulation with the tradition attested in Pausanias and elsewhere; cf. also Van Straten. It was the normal state of affairs at the Amphiareion that each person could sacrifice what he wanted (lines 30-31), cf. Petrakos and cp. Commentary on CGRN 70 (Oropos). The prohibition against carrying away sacrificial meat from a sanctuary (lines 31-32) occurs with regularity in the present Collection, cp. e.g. the phrases οὐκ ἀποφορά and οὐ φορά, CGRN 52 (Erchia), passim, and CGRN 32 (Thorikos), Commentary on lines 10-12. Similarly, shoulders of sacrificial animals (or perhaps by extension the whole of a forelimb) are found as priestly perquisites, cf. here CGRN 120 (Sinope), line 8, and CGRN 129 (Patara), line 5. The festival referred to in line 34 (πλὴν ὅταν ἡ ἑορτὴ εἶ) is probably the Amphiaraia; this is the first known reference to it (cf. Rhodes - Osborne, p. 133). A subtle contrast seems to be drawn between the festival and non-festal contexts, since the perquisite is in both cases the shoulder from each of the sacrificial animals. The meaning is probably that private individuals could also make sacrifices during the festival, in which case the priest would not receive a perquisite from those animals, but only from the public (δημόσια) animals.

Lines 37-48: The final extant section of the document prescribes further and more detailed rules concerning incubation in the Amphiareion, to some degree reprising the subject of lines 20-24. This section includes two large rasurae in lines 37 and 38: no text has been inscribed to replace the erasures. The neokoros is to record the name and city of patients when they deposit the required money in the money-box, and this prescription appears to match the earlier set of rules known from Oropos (LSS 35, lines 7-8). The list is to be put on display and the πέτευρον (notice-board, probably wooden) on which these names were to be published implies a temporary record, in sharp contrast to permanent nature of the stone containing the more durative regulation (cf. Rhodes - Osborne). Though of course necessary for reasons of purity and other practical factors, the segregation of men and women in the single dormitory of a sanctuary is not directly paralleled to our knowledge (at Pergamon, IvP III 161A, we also hear only of a single building: ἐγκοιμητήριον, but perhaps male and female were also kept apart in some fashion there).

Lines 49-56: The content of these fragmentary lines is elusive. They appear to outline other rules regarding incubation, and also seemingly mention a penalty for breaking them.

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike International License 4.0 .

All citation, reuse or distribution of this work must contain somewhere a link back to the DOI (https://doi.org/10.54510/CGRN75), as well as the year of consultation (see “Home” for details on how to cite or click “Export Citation” to create a reference for this specific file).