# The viscera (splanchna) and the “Greek way” of sacrificing

Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge

► To cite this version:

Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge. The viscera (splanchna) and the “Greek way” of sacrificing. Jan-Mathieu Carbon; Gunnel Ekroth. From snout to tail. Exploring the Greek sacrificial animal from the literary, epigraphical, iconographical, archaeological, and zooarchaeological evidence., 60 (1), Swedish Institute at Athens, pp.165-178, 2024, Skrifter utgivna av Svenska institutet i Athen, 4°, 9789179160692. 10.30549/actaath-4-60-10 . hal-04798847

HAL Id: hal-04798847

https://hal.science/hal-04798847v1

Submitted on 22 Nov 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
From snout to tail

Exploring the Greek sacrificial animal
from the literary, epigraphical,
iconographical, archaeological,
and zooarchaeological evidence

Edited by Jan-Mathieu Carbon
& Gunnel Ekroth
## EDITORIAL COMMITTEE

Prof. Henrik Gerding, Lund, Chairman

Dr Mikael Johansson, Gothenburg, Vice-chairman

Mrs Kristina Björksten Jersenius, Stockholm, Treasurer

Dr Susanne Carlsson, Stockholm, Secretary

Prof. Gunnel Ekroth, Uppsala

Dr Therese Emanuelsson-Paulson, Stockholm

Dr Johan Eriksson, Uppsala

Dr Ulf R. Hansson, Rome

Prof. Christer Henriksén, Uppsala

Dr Jenny Wallensten, Athens

Mr Julian Wareing, Stockholm

Dr Lewis Webb, Gothenburg

## EDITOR

Dr Julia Habetzeder, Stockholm

## SECRETARY'S & EDITOR'S ADDRESS

Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies

Stockholm University

SE-106 91 Stockholm

secretary@ecsi.se | editor@ecsi.se

## DISTRIBUTOR

Eddy.se AB

Box 1310

SE-621 24 Visby

For general information, see https://ecsi.se

For subscriptions, prices and delivery, see http://ecsi.bokorder.se

Published with the aid of grants from the Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities, Birgitta Bergquists stipendiefond and Vilhelm Ekmans Universitetsfond.

The English and French text was revised by Jan-Mathieu Carbon, Queen's University

ISSN 0586-0539

ISBN 978-91-7916-069-2

© Svenska institutet i Athen and authors

Printed by PrintBest (Viljandi, Estonia) via Italgraf Meda AB (Stockholm, Sweden) 2024

Cover and dust jacket: illustrations by Julia Habetzeder.

## ABSTRACT

Animal sacrifice fundamentally informed how the ancient Greeks defined themselves, their relation to the divine, and the structure of their society. Adopting an explicitly cross-disciplinary perspective, the present volume explores the practical execution and complex meaning of animal sacrifice within ancient Greek religion (c. 1000 BC–AD 200).

The objective is twofold. First, to clarify in detail the use and meaning of body parts of the animal within sacrificial ritual. This involves a comprehensive study of ancient Greek terminology in texts and inscriptions, representations on pottery and reliefs, and animal bones found in sanctuaries. Second, to encourage the use and integration of the full spectrum of ancient evidence in the exploration of Greek sacrificial rituals, which is a prerequisite for understanding the complex use and meaning of Greek animal sacrifice.

Twelve contributions by experts on the literary, epigraphical, iconographical, archaeological and zooarchaeological evidence for Greek animal sacrifice explore the treatment of legs, including feet and hoofs, tails, horns; heads, including tongues, brains, ears and snouts; internal organs; blood; as well as the handling of the entire body by burning it whole. Three further contributions address Hittite, Israelite and Etruscan animal sacrifice respectively, providing important contextualization for Greek ritual practices.

**Keywords:** Greek animal sacrifice, anatomy, division, butchery, body part, multi-disciplinary approaches, zooarchaeology, iconography, epigraphy, texts, cross-cultural comparisons

https://doi.org/10.30549/actaath-4-60

## BOOK EDITORS

Jan-Mathieu Carbon, Department of Classics, Queen's University
501 Watson Hall, 49 Bader Lane, Kingston, ON, Canada K7L 3N6
(jmc32@queensu.ca) & Gunnel Ekroth, Department of Archaeology
and Ancient History, Uppsala University, Box 626, SE-751 26 Uppsala,
Sweden (gunnel.ekroth@antiken.uu.se).
## 10. The viscera (*splanchna*) and the “Greek way” of sacrificing

### Abstract

The discovery of a remarkable cult regulation at Marmarini in Thessaly has recently brought to light an exceptional mention in our epigraphic documentation: the statement that a sacrifice could be performed “according to the Greek norm”. As this sacrifice highlights the *splanchna* (“viscera”) of the animal and the parts placed in the fire (on the altar), the present study offers a thorough analysis of the role of the viscera in the sacrificial process attested in Greek narratives as well as in ritual norms, in order to test the hypothesis that the combustion of a part for the gods and the specific manipulation of the viscera constitute, beyond local variations, the essential characteristics of the “Greek way of sacrificing”.*

*Keywords:* Greek animal sacrifice, Greek literature, Greek inscriptions/epigraphy, Marmarini inscription, Greek ritual norm (*Hellenikos nomos, ritus Graecus*), sacred parts (*hiera*), viscera (*splanchna*), heart, lung, liver, spleen, kidneys, roasting, altar, table

https://doi.org/10.30549/actaath-4-60-10

As Robert Parker recently pointed out, standard accounts of Greek sacrifice in scholarship regularly emphasize the fact that *splanchna* “were distributed for immediate eating among the inner circle of participants at a sacrifice, the group known

as the σπλαγχνεύοντες or ουσπλαγχνεύοντες”.<fnref n="1" /> Such verbs are quite uncommon in our evidence, as we shall see, but the act to which they refer is well known to the readers of Homer and Aristophanes: it is notably the fact of eating. But edibility is not the only quality of the viscera taken from a sacrificial animal, just as burning the divine part at the altar is not simply “destruction”. The complex progression of the ritual gives these elements a specific dimension that goes beyond the superficial observation of gestures and actions around the altar: the fact that textual evidence is likely to call them *hiera*, “sacred things”, must be seriously taken into account. However, in the context of ancient Greek religion, no generalizing statement can be made without testing it against the fragmented evidence from several hundred cities. The present study aims to address the place of the *splanchna* in a certain “Greek manner” of sacrificing to the gods, in view of the variety of local practices. This question has been unexpectedly legitimated through the recent discovery in Thessaly of a ritual norm that explicitly evokes a sacrificial *Hellenikos nomos* referring in detail to *splanchna*. But before addressing this inscription, it is first necessary to deal more generally with the *splanchna* in our evidence.

### Homeric preliminaries

#### SACRIFICING AT AN ALTAR

In the more extended epic descriptions of sacrifice, after the skinning of the carcass, the bones of the thighs are extracted and covered with fat, to which tiny pieces of raw meat are add-

<footnote>* I warmly thank Gunnel Ekroth and Jan-Mathieu Carbon for inviting me to the inspiring *From snout to tail* conference. The latter is entitled to my full gratitude for decisive discussions on the topic of *splanchna* in inscriptions and for making my English much better. The former asked me pertinent questions which helped to clarify some parts of the argument. I also warmly thank Robert Parker for fruitful discussions and for adding some final polish to this paper, written in a language which is not my own. An abridged version of the analysis of the *splanchna* in the Marmarini inscription was published in French in Pirenne-Delforge 2020, 145–153.</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ Parker 2018, 79.</footnote>
ed, in order to form the divine part burnt on the altar.<fnref n="2" /> Mean-
while a share of *splanchna* is detached, skewered and roasted
in the fire of the altar, probably once the surge of flame around
the divine part has diminished.<fnref n="3" /> In this context, tasting the
*splanchna* is the first occasion for the human consumption of
animal parts, and seems to be an important step in the whole
process.<fnref n="4" /> The case of the sacrifice offered by the Pylians in the
*Odyssey* gives evidence for this: when Telemachus and Mentor
arrive in Pylos, they are welcomed by their hosts, who have al-
ready started the sacrificial performance; the latter involve the
newcomers in the operation by asking them to pour a libation,
to recite a prayer, and to eat a share of the *splanchna*, although
the Pylians had already done so.<fnref n="5" /> Finally, the remains of the
animal (τ' ἄρα τᾶλλα) are cut apart, roasted,<fnref n="6" /> and shared
equally between the participants who, the epic tells us, rejoice
in this feast glorifying the gods, who rejoice in turn.<fnref n="7" />

In epic, the consumption of the *splanchna* has two con-
comitant effects: first, it closely associates the performers with
the combustion of the divine share, which is the moment in
the sacrificial operation that involves the gods; secondly, it
creates a sense of community, as well as of privilege, between
those who taste these delicate pieces of food that do not last
long once removed from a slaughtered animal.<fnref n="8" /> Accordingly,
even if three major parts of the animal can be identified in epic
sacrifice performed publicly by a group (the divine part, the
*splanchna*, the meat subsequently prepared for the festive ban-
quet<fnref n="9" />), the ritual process, seen from the perspective of animal

division, is structured in two main sequences, first at the altar,
secondly at the banquet.

SACRIFICING AT HOME

In Book 14 of the *Odyssey*, Eumaios kills a boar in honour of Odysseus who still remains unknown to him.<fnref n="10" /> This ritual killing next to the hearth (420: ἐπ' ἐσχάρη) illustrates that welcoming a host with a meal of meat after killing and cutting an animal does not imply the same sequence of gestures as a sacrifice at an altar. Two differences deserve to be emphasized: there is no reference to the thighbones burnt for the gods<fnref n="11" /> or to the *splanchna* tasted by the people involved in the operation. However, the gods are not forgotten by the swine-herd: some pieces of hair are thrown into the fire before the killing “for the Immortals”; a prayer is made “to all the gods”. After the killing, pieces of raw meat from all parts of the body deposited on the rich fat and sprinkled with flour are also put into the fire of the domestic hearth. All these manipulations are like a “household” enactment of the phase “burning the divine share” of the Iliadic sacrifices, even with an indirect reference to barley. As Jan-Mathieu Carbon rightly writes: “the ritual process performed by Eumaios distinctly aims to convey through consumption by fire a measure of all the parts of the animal to the gods.”<fnref n="12" /> One part of cooked meat from the seven prepared by the pig-herder (probably including the *splanchna*) is “deposited with a prayer” for Hermes and the Nymphs. This parallels the *trapezomata* attested later in our evidence, as we shall see below, or even some aspects of *theoxenia*.<fnref n="13" /> It is as if this meal, as with others in epic, modified the expectations attested in sacrifices at an altar: the latter are centred on the divine recipient with whom a communication is initiated and the banquet is like a side effect of the operation for the benefit of the human community; a domestic meal focuses on the human guests, even if the burnt offering to the Immortals, eventually complemented by an unburnt deposition, is still the first step in the chronological process of commensality. The absence of the *splanchna* in this process perhaps suggests that a community of *splanchnneuontes* does not need to be defined in the same way around a domestic hearth as it is around an altar.<fnref n="14" />

<footnote n="2">² E.g. Hom. *Il*. 1.451–474, 2.402–433; *Od*. 3.5–10, 3.418–472, 12.343–365, 14.413–456. Zooarchaeological evidence attests that the burning of thighbones is a ritual practice dating back to the Early Iron Age or even inherited from the Bronze Age, see Ekroth 2011, 18.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ On this surge of flame, see Morton 2015, 72, and his paper in the present volume, *Chapter 2*.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Hom. *Il*. 1.464, 2.427; *Od*. 3.461. Cf. *Od*. 3.9.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Hom. *Od*. 3.40–64. See e.g. Rudhardt 1992, 255; Durand 1989, 92; Ekroth 2008a, 93–95.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ On the lack of boiling in Homer, see Berthiaume 1982, 15–16, with further evidence.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ Rudhardt 1992, 254. The butchering of the carcass, as evidenced on Attic vases and in a few texts (for example Eur. *El*. 819–837), did not follow the epic sequence of sacrifice, since the *splanchna* and other in-
nards were probably removed first, see Berthiaume 1982, 46–47; Durand 1989, 92–97; Ekroth 2008b, 260–264; Carbon 2017a, 172.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ Even today, in the age of refrigeration, offal is an easily perishable food. It can only be kept raw for one or two days in the fridge. Once cooked, it should be eaten on the same day. In this volume (Chapter 9), Bednarek pushes the argument to the limit by considering that the “essence” of par-
ticipation in a sacrifice consists precisely in tasting the *splanchna*, thus re-
turning to the “communion model” proposed by Robertson Smith. I do not go that far, either in the search for an essence or to rehabilitate the notion of “communion”, rooted in Christianity.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ Nicely called *taratalla* by van Straten (1995, 144) who refers to the Homeric formula τ' ἄρα τᾶλλα: e.g. Hom. *Il*. 1.465. See also Bednarek in the present volume, *Chapter 9*.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ Hom. *Od*. 14.413–429.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹ According to Ekroth (2011, 20–21, n. 30), “the course of the ritual may depend on the fact that the victim is a pig.” Moreover, “the osteologi- cal evidence reveals very few instances of pig’s bones being burnt as a part of the god’s share and pigs may therefore have been sacrificed according to a different ritual.” Parker points out to me that this idea goes back to Meuli (1946, 214, n. 1).</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² Carbon 2017b, 3§6.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ Bruit Zaidman 2005, 33–34. See below *note 34*.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ During the dinner of the suitors in Odysseus’ palace, sheep and goats are killed, and the *splanchna* are first sliced and given to his guest (the</footnote>
## CONTENT OF THE GENERIC SPLANCHNA

Before examining the post-homeric uses of the *splanchna*, the meaning of the word must be addressed. In epic poetry, *splanchna* remain generic and the various organs roasted and tasted in the first sacrificial phase are not detailed. In tragedy, sacrificial *splanchna* are associated with divination, especially the liver.<fnref n="15" /> In parallel to this word in the Archaic and Classical evidence, other lexemes refer to the innards of the body. In the *Iliad*, the expression τὰ ἔγκατα generically identifies the viscera and entrails of an animal or a man, while τὰ ἔντερα is only used for describing a soldier seriously wounded in the belly.<fnref n="16" /> In the *Odyssey*, the first of the two occurrences of ἔγκατα, added to σάρκες and ὀστέα, belongs to the impressive image of Odysseus' companions being entirely devoured by Polyphemus. The second occurrence is exceptional in the epic corpus: it is used as a *variatio* replacing the *splanchna* in the context of the killing of the cows of Helios, a parodic and impious sacrifice.<fnref n="17" /> In a different context but in a similar perspective, the Hesiodic passage relating the Promethean crisis and inaugurating the separation of men and gods juxtaposes the part of the division formed by the white bones of the ox, wrapped in the glistening fat, and the one composed by the “meat and innards” (Hes. *Theog.* 538: σάρκας τε καὶ ἔγκατα), covered by the unappetizing stomach.<fnref n="18" /> The *splanchna* are not yet identified as a specific sacrificial portion among the bones, fat, and meat, as they are in Homer. Hesiod tells an etiological story, without describing a “first sacrifice”. Sacrificing to the gods will come later as the ritual consequence of the distance between men and divinities.<fnref n="19" /> In the *Theogony*, this process is still in the making.

As an observer of sacrificial division, as well as a practitioner of dissection, Aristotle provides precious information concerning what lies behind the generic term *splanchna*. He is our first systematic witness in this regard and his list includes the heart and the lungs above the diaphragm and, below, in

the abdominal cavity, the liver, the spleen, and the kidneys.<fnref n="20" /> In the abdominal cavity, one finds also the stomach and the intestines, which form the *entera*, the “entrails”. To the list of six organs forming the *splanchna* by Aristotle, the tongue is added in later texts concerned with collecting all the occurrences of “seven elements” in the world: σπλάγχνα ἑπτά, γλῶσσα, καρδία, πνεύμων, ἦπαρ, σπλὴν, νεφροῦ δύο.<fnref n="21" /> The tongue is usually “inside” the body and this explains why it can be included in such a list; by contrast, the organic point of view adopted by Aristotle in his treaty *De partibus animalium* properly entails a reference to the tongue only when describing the head.<fnref n="22" /> Aristotle also points out the potential faults of the *splanchna*, which make them informative tools in order to ascertain the divine will.<fnref n="23" /> In this perspective, we can consider that the *splanchna* refer to the noble “viscera”—the word chosen here to translate the term—and the *entera* to the digestive system, even though there is sometimes an overlap in the use of these words in the literary evidence.<fnref n="24" />

## Post-Homeric variations

In the few descriptions of sacrifices found in Classical texts,<fnref n="25" /> one identifies, during the ritual now labelled *thysia*, the division of the animal carcass in the three unbalanced parts already attested in epic poetry: divine share to be burnt onto the altar/splanchna/rest of the meat.<fnref n="26" /> The lack of balance be-

<footnote n="20">²⁰ Arist. *Part. an.* 3.5.668b30–3.9.672b12.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹ Theon of Smyrna, *De utilitate mathematicae*, p. 104, lines 15–16 (Hiller). See also Iambl. *De communi mathematica scientia*, p. 67, lines 18–20 (Falco). The gall-bladder is not mentioned in any list, but is closely related to the liver. Aristotle emphasizes its divinatory potential (*Part. an.* 4.2.677a1–3).</footnote>

<footnote n="22">²² Arist. *Part. an.* 2.17.660a–661a. The association of the tongue with the *splanchna* is later attested by Plutarch (*Mor.* 166a–b) who emphasizes the divinatory potentials of this organ.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³ Arist. *Part. an.* 3.4.667a31–3.9.667b108.</footnote>

<footnote n="24">²⁴ The distinction between *splanchna* and *entera* is clearly made for the preliminary offering of a piglet to be wholly burnt for Zeus Polieus on Kos: *CGRN* 86, A lines 34–35: τοῖ δὲ κά[ρυκες κ|αρπῶντι τοῖ μέγχοι |[ρ]ογ καὶ τὰ σπλάγχνα ἑπὶ τοῦ βωμοῦ ἑπισπένδοντες μελίκρατον, ἕ[ντ|ερ]α δὲ ἐκπλύναντες παρὰ τὸ[μ βωμὸν κα|ρπῶντι. See Bednarek in this volume, *Chapter 9*. I do not here address the vexed question of the *endera* to be “wrapped” and burnt on hearths for Zeus Polieus and, on another occasion, for Hera Argeia Eleia Basileia: *CGRN* 86, A lines 47–50; D lines 8–10. According to Stengel (1910, 85–91), these were *splanchna*. See also Paul 2013, 351–354; Pirenne-Delforge & Pironti 2016, 195–198; compare Georgoudi in this volume, *Chapter 8*. In a sanctuary located at Kaphizin on Cyprus, an object called σπλανχνοευντεριφόρον was dedicated to a local nymph: Mitford 1980, no. 285 (224/222 BC). Cf. the pieces of equipment called ἑπισπλαγχνιδιοι in the Hellenistic accounts of Delian festivals: e.g. *CGRN* 199, line 7 (178 BC).</footnote>

<footnote n="25">²⁵ The main ones are Eur. *El.* 800–830 and 835–839; Ar. *Pax* 941–1062, 1074 and 1106–1126; Men. *Dys.* 394–399, 440–441, 447–453, 473–475, 505–507 and 546–549.</footnote>

<footnote n="26">²⁶ Ar. *Pax* 941–1059.</footnote>

<footnote>disguised Odysseus) by Telemachos. But the background of the scene is a hecatomb for Apollo and this could explain the emphasis on *splanchna* (Hom. *Od.* 20.245–261, 20.276–278).</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ Aesch. *PV* 493–495; Eur. *El.* 826–829 and 835–839.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ Hom. *Il.* 13.507, 14.517, 17.314, 20.418 and 20.420.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ Hom. *Od.* 12.362–365: οὐδ' ἑίχον μέθυ λεῖψαι ἐπ' αἰθομένοιο' ἱεροῖσιν, | ἀλλ' ὕδατι σπένδοντες ἐπώπτων ἔγκατα πάντα. | αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ κατὰ μήρ' ἐκάη καὶ σπλάγχνα πάσαντο, | μίστυλλόν τ' ἄρα τῶλλα καὶ ἀμφ' ὁβελοῖσιν ἔπειρον, "They had no wine to pour over the blazing sacrifice, but they made libations with water, and roasted all the viscera over the fire. Now when the thighs were wholly burned and they had tasted the viscera, they cut up the rest and spitted it" (transl. A.T. Murray, slightly modified).</footnote>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ Hes. *Theog.* 538–541.</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ Hes. *Theog.* 538–541, 556–557, with the interpretation by Vernant 1989 and Rudhardt 1981, 217–226. Cf. Ekroth 2008a, 89, n. 9; Parker 2011, 140–141; Carbon 2017b, 1§1. See also Pirenne-Delforge 2018, for an analysis of the “theology” of sacrifice by Vernant.</footnote>
tween the first two components and the third is quantitative, but also, in a ritual perspective, qualitative: in literary texts, as well as in inscriptions, the divine part and the *splanchna* can be called *hiera*, “sacred things”,<fnref n="27" /> which is not the case for the meat eaten during the banquet on site or taken away by the participants.<fnref n="28" /> In other words, there is more meat in the third stage of a sacrifice but more sacredness during the first two. As Jean Rudhardt rightly wrote: “In a certain sense, what is *ieρός* is located on a path leading from god to man, or from man to the gods.”<fnref n="29" />

The expression *hierà kalà*, repeatedly found in Xenophon,<fnref n="30" /> refers to the actions involving these “sacred parts”, at a time when effective and positive communication with the gods is expected. From the Classical period at least, sacrificial divination involves the visual analysis of the *splanchna* cut from the animal, especially the liver and the gall-bladder, as well as the observation of what is happening on the altar.<fnref n="31" /> The tail of the sheep “doing nicely” during the sacrifice staged in Aristophanes’ *Peace* is based on such an expectation: this part of the animal offered to the goddess is a good sign when it curves from the heat of the fire.<fnref n="32" /> The same comedy also presents the image of a large distribution of *splanchna*, if we consider that the gesture of sharing them (*ουσπλαγχνεύετε*) with the spectators built on shared knowledge of (Attic) sacrificial procedure.<fnref n="33" />

An additional element complicates the picture of the “three parts” in the Classical corpus of images and the Classical and Hellenistic corpus of texts: the textual evidence can refer to a table next to the altar where some supplementary portions—not to be transformed into smoke—are added to the part consumed by fire in honour of the divine recipient.³⁴ Images on vases also illustrate the presence of tables next to altars.³⁵ In texts, this piece of furniture in the sacrificial scene can be filled with cakes, fruits, parts of meat and also parts of *splanchna*.³⁶ Moreover, a verse of Aristophanes and some Classical inscriptions from Chios attest that *splanchna* were placed “on hands” or “on knees” (sometimes both),³⁷ thus extending to the statue of the divine recipient the notion of *trapezomata*.³⁸ This confirms, if necessary, that the things deposited on

huge, but we cannot be completely sure. Cf. here Bednarek (Chap-ter 9), building on an argument presented by Detienne. In the famous inscription of Erchia, dated to the 4th century BC (*CGRN* 52, col. A lines 36–43), the expression μέχρι σπλάγχνων punctuates the sacrificial process; during the festival of Zeus Meilichios in Agrai, the sacrifice of a male sheep was accompanied by a wineless libation “until the viscera”. We do not know if μέχρι here is inclusive (until the *splanchna* have been eaten, according to Daux 1963, 629, even if he confuses “combustion” and “rōtissage”) or exclusive (until the *splanchna* start to be eaten, as Jameson 1965, 164, argued). But this rule confirms that eating the *splanchna* is an important scansion of the sacrificial process.

³⁴ Ar. *Pax* 1032 and 1059; Ar. *Plut*. 678. To quote only some examples from the Classical period referring to a *trapeza* related to a *thysia* (except in the context of a *theoxenia* and in the context of the offering of a *trapeza* to a hero or a heroine, as in some Attic texts): *CGRN* 13, A lines 18–19 (Selinous, first half of the 5th century BC); *CGRN* 56, col. II lines 14–15 (Athens, Marathonian Tetrapolis, mid-4th century BC); *CGRN* 57, *passim* (Athens, Aixone, early 4th century BC); *CGRN* 76, lines 14–15, 19–20 and 24–25 (Erythrai, c. 380–360 BC).

³⁵ Gill 1974; Durand 1986, 116–117; van Straten 1995, 155; Ekroth 2011; Naiden 2013, 56–57.

³⁶ The *trapeza* for offerings close to altar must be distinguished from the table where the animal is cut up, which is not related to the altar in the same way. Cf. the famous Ricci Hydria, with the analysis of Durand 1989, who provides other examples of cutting tables.

³⁷ Ar. *Av*. 518–519; *CGRN* 170, lines 4–8 (5th century BC); *CGRN* 36, lines 4–6 (end of the 5th century BC); *CGRN* 41, lines 11–14 (end of the 5th–first half of the 4th century BC); *CGRN* 49, lines 5–7 (early 4th century BC); *CGRN* 50, lines 3–5 (early 4th century BC); *CGRN* 66, lines 3–4 (first half of the 4th century BC); *CGRN* 88, lines 1–3 (second half the 4th century BC); and probably also *LSS* 130, lines 4–5 (4th century BC). On this corpus, see Graf 1985, 428–432; Le Guen-Pollet 1991, 15–17; Parker 2006, 67–72; Carbon 2017b, 3§1–3.

³⁸ A decree concerning the priestess of Ilithyia on the same island (*NGSL* 20 = *CGRN* 38, c. 400 BC) mentions “a portion, a honorific portion, and the tongue” to be “given from the sacrificial animal, so as to be placed in the *liknon*; these shall be consumed on the spot in the company of the women who performed the rites” (A lines 5–7: διδοσθαι ἀπὸ τὸ ἱε|ρ[ō], ὥστε ἕς [τὸ] λ|ι|κνον ἐνθεῖ|ν]αι, | [μ]οῖραν καὶ γέρας καὶ γλῶσσαν | ταῦτα δὲ ἀναλ|ι|σκεοθαι αὐτὸ μ| | [ε]τὰ τῶν γυναικῶν τῶν π|ο[α]ι|η|σασ | ἑ|ων] τὰ ἰρά). In this case, the *liknon* could be another way of presenting “divine parts”, as on a *trapeza* or on the hands and the knees of the statue. This may have been related to the profile of the godess, since a *liknon* could be used as a cradle for babies (see comm. to *NGSL* 20, p. 309).

<footnote n="27">²⁷ Eur. *El*. 826–829, for the *splanchna*, and Pl. *Resp.* 3.*394a; *Leg.* 7.*800b; Xen. *Hell*. 3.4.4, and later Plut. *Conjug*. 141e, for the part burnt on the altar. Cf. Casabona 1966, 13–15; Rudhardt 2008, 139–141.</footnote>

<footnote n="28">²⁸ In inscriptions, the generic *hiera* can refer to the parts burnt on the altar or to those deposited on a *trapeza*: e.g. *CGRN* 147, line 10 (Kos, first half of the 3rd century BC); *CGRN* 152, lines 183–184 and 189–190 (Thera, end of the 3rd–early 2nd century BC); *CGRN* 163, lines 16–17 (Kos, first half of the 2nd century BC); *CGRN* 208, lines 18–19 (Kos, second half of the 2nd century BC); *IG* XII.4 304, lines 39–40 (Kos, 2nd century BC). For Kos, see Paul 2013, 340–346. However, in the epigraphic evidence, there is no label referring to the rest of the meat, the epic *taratalla*. One finds τὰ κρέα (e.g. *CGRN* 84, line 23, Attic, *genos* of the Salaminioi, 363/2 BC; *CGRN* 85, B lines 55–56, Kos, mid-4th century BC); μερίδες (*CGRN* 92, line 12, Athens, 335–330 BC); σάρκες for bovine meat (*CGRN* 26, B lines 13–14, Attic, mid-5th century BC).</footnote>

<footnote n="29">²⁹ Rudhardt 2008, 153: “D’une certaine manière, ce qui est *ieρός* se trouve sur une voie qui conduit du dieu à l’homme ou de l’homme aux dieux.”</footnote>

<footnote n="30">³⁰ Xen. *An*. 1.8.15 (τὰ *ieρὰ καλὰ καὶ τὰ σφάγια καλά), 4.3.9, 4.3.19, 6.5.2 and 6.5.9. On the esthetic dimension of ritual action, see now Mikalson 2017, 253–264.</footnote>

<footnote n="31">³¹ The *locus classicus* is Aesch. *Pers*. 484–499. See also Xen. *An*. 2.1.9, 2.2.3 and 6.4.15, with *hiera* for divination purposes. Concerning the “cut *splanchna*”, see the comparison made by Strabo with Lusitanian divinatory practices: the barbarians did not cut the *splanchna* out of the sacrificial animals to obtain predictions from them, which is an implicit contrast with the Greek practice (Strabo 3.3.6: Λυσιτανοὶ τὰ τε σπλάγχνα ἐπιβλέπουσιν οὐκ ἐκτέμνοντες).</footnote>

<footnote n="32">³² Ar. *Pax* 1053–1055. See van Straten 1995, 118–130; Morton 2015; Carbon 2017b, 2§1. Cf. also Morton in this volume, *Chapter 2*.</footnote>

<footnote n="33">³³ Ar. *Pax* 1115–1116. For practical reasons, a selection of the participants “close to the altar” was perhaps made when the attendance was</footnote>
the table were considered as the property of the recipient de-
ity and belonged to the *hiera*, on the same semantic level as a
“divine part” burnt on the altar.

In some cases, the food on the table was explicitly said
to be given to the cult personnel.<fnref n="39" /> In the same manner, in
Chios, the *splanchna* placed “on hands” or “on knees” go to
the priest. Therefore, the significance of these delicate parts
of the animal, considered as *hiera* in some texts, can fluctuate
between the determination of a sacrificial group around the
altar strongly associated with the burning of the divine part
upon it, and the determination of a privileged share of meat
for privileged agents. In different ritual norms, the two aspects
may seem to converge or diverge, as we will see. But, before
addressing ritual norms, a few words about “evolution” and
chronology are necessary.

"Deposition on a table" seems to be unattested in the sac-
rifices of epic poetry—except in the domestic sacrifice per-
formed by Eumaios—and it has been suggested that it might
have developed from the ideology of the Archaic banquet as
a means for expressing status and hierarchies, perhaps under
the influence of Near Eastern practices.<fnref n="40" /> Whatever its origin,
such a deposition is closely linked to the distribution of honor-
ific portions to the cult personnel.<fnref n="41" /> However, even if epic po-
etry does not mention priestly shares during sacrifices where a
priest is involved, the formulaic expression “he was honoured
by the people like a god” is applied to priests in Homer and
probably refers to honorary portions given to them, wherever
this *geras* is left during the sacrificial process and regardless of
its composition.<fnref n="42" /> But priests are not the only recipients of
honorary shares: other officials or people honoured at various
levels were likely to receive a *geras*, as we see in the case of Ajax
honoured by Agamemnon in Book 1 of the *Iliad*.<fnref n="43" /> The Ho-
meric *taratalla*, the “third element”, comprised of equal parts
of meat, points to an ideal vision which, at first glance, does
not seem necessarily compatible with a society sensitive to the
hierarchy of honours. However, the epic context, even with-
out *trapezomata*, implies honorific portions and thus could be
closer than expected to the situation evidenced by some later

inscriptions. Indeed, in documents referring to the distribu-
tion of meat, after the mention of honorary portions, the ex-
pression *ta alla krea*<sup>44</sup> points to a hierarchy that prevailed in
the concrete life of Greek cities, even democratic ones.<sup>45</sup>

Concerning the divine part itself, fat-wrapped thighbones
are a constant, from Homeric poetry at least to the time of
Pausanias.<fnref n="46" /> In post-Homeric evidence, however, variations in
the composition of the “divine package” are attested and can
refer to some increase of the part burnt on the altar (a process
for which Scott Scullion coined the term “moirocaust”<fnref n="47" />). The
*splanchna* are involved in these variations and some pieces of
viscera were perhaps added to the thighbones and fat.<fnref n="48" /> But
the chronology of such changes is difficult to assess since the
“canonical” description of epic poetry is a narrative construc-
tion giving uniformity to rituals which, as early as the Archaic
period, may have been more diverse than is suggested by the
poetic picture.

SPLANCHNA, TRAPEZOMATA AND PRIESTLY SHARES:
"LE CRU ET LE CUIT"

In cities other than Athens, where they do not appear in the
epigraphic evidence as priestly shares, *splanchna* are often giv-
en to priests, as attested by sales of priesthoods. In Karia and
once in Kos a quarter share of viscera was regularly taken by the
priest (τεταρτημορίδα σπλάγχνων). We can only speculate
what happened to the other three quarters: were they partly
burnt for the divinity or collectively consumed by "those who
share the *splanchna*", as in Aristophanes, or both? Whatever
the answer, they still belong to the more sacred parts of the
slaughtered animal. The same question can be asked for a cult
of Artemis on the island of Kos. Those who sacrifice place on
the table for the goddess a cake and *splanchna* and the fourth
part of this food is taken by the priestess.<fnref n="49" />

<footnote n="39">³⁹ *CGRN* 163, lines 14–17 (Kos, 1st century BC); *CGRN* 188, lines 2–5 (Kos, 1st century BC): τιθέντω δὲ τοι θύσουτε[s] | ἐπὶ τὰν τράπεζαν τὰι θεῶι πθόιν καὶ σπλάγχνα· ἀμ | βανείτω δὲ ἀ ἱέρεια καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐπιτιθεμένων ἐπὶ | τὴν τράπεζαν τὰι θεῶι τὰ τέταρτα μέρηι.</footnote>

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰ Ekroth 2011.</footnote>

<footnote n="41">⁴¹ In this perspective, the mirror effect between gods and priests in the sacrificial process is striking: Le Guen-Pollet 1991, 16–17; Pirenne-Delforge 2010, 134–135; Ekroth 2011, 36–38; Carbon 2017a, 176–177.</footnote>

<footnote n="42">⁴² Hom. *Il.* 5.78, 16.605. I do not see where, in *Iliad* 1, “Chryses receive[s] the *splanchna*” as claimed by Naiden 2013, 205, without a reference.</footnote>

<footnote n="43">⁴³ The distribution of meat which follows the sacrifice performed by the Achaean king after the single combat between Hector and Ajax involves the award (γέραιρεν) of a continuous portion of the back of the animal: Hom. *Il.* 7.321–322.</footnote>

<footnote n="44">⁴⁴ CGRN 86, A line 23 (Kos, mid-4th century BC); CGRN 92, line 16 (Athens, c. 335–330 BC). Later: CGRN 147, line 60 (Kos, second half of the 3rd century BC); CGRN 169, line 4 (Kallatis, 2nd century BC).</footnote>

<footnote n="45">⁴⁵ On this point, see Ekroth 2008b.</footnote>

<footnote n="46">⁴⁶ See Paus. 1.24.2.</footnote>

<footnote n="47">⁴⁷ Scullion 2000. See Parker 2011, 144.</footnote>

<footnote n="48">⁴⁸ A passage from the fables of Aesop (1 Hausrath & Hunger) is informa-
tive on this point: in “The eagle and the fox”, an eagle flies down and
grabs a piece of the viscera from the altar (ἀπὸ τοῦ βωμοῦ), which im-
plies the presence of some part of the viscera among the divine part. See
also directly below, for a kidney perhaps burnt for the god in Miletos.</footnote>

<footnote n="49">⁴⁹ CGRN 42, lines 1–4 (lasos, end of the 5th–early 4th century BC); CGRN 118, lines 10–14 (Halikarnassos, first half of the 3rd century BC); CGRN 119, lines 6–12 (Theangela, first half of the 3rd century BC); CGRN 104, lines 39–40 (Halikarnassos, first half of the 3rd century BC); CGRN 188, lines 2–5 (Kos, 1st century BC), with the text above note 39.</footnote>
The case of Miletos is revealed by a general regulation concerning sales of priesthood dating from c. 400 BC,<fnref n="50" /> and then by the particular case of a contract of sale for the priestess of Dionysos more than a century later (275/4 BC). The general lines of the priestly perquisites in both texts are: “viscera, a kidney, the small intestine, the sacred portion, the tongue, and a leg cut at the hip-joint” (σπλάγχνα, νεφ[ρόν], σκολιόν, ιεράμ μοῖραν, γλῶσσαν, σκέλος εἰς κοτυληδόνα [τ]ετμημένου), with slight variations particularly depending on the species of the animal in the context of the general regulation.<fnref n="51" /> The specification of a single kidney, which is normally included in the *splanchna*, suggests that another part of the viscera, with the other kidney, was consumed by the other participants or, perhaps, belonged to the part burnt in honour of the god. Still in Miletos, the famous inscription of the Molpoi (c. 200 BC) marks the distinction between “the roasting of *splanchna* and the boiling/cooking of meat” (ἔπτησις σπλάγχνων, κρεῶν ἔψησις) by the Onitadai, probably a gentilical group.<fnref n="52" /> Such cooking seems to imply direct consumption of the viscera by the participants. On the other hand, the same document stipulates that the herald has the right to obtain “by lot some viscera from each of the sacrificial animals.”<fnref n="53" /> The regulation may suggest that both aspects of the *splanchna* were involved: the sense of a common sacrificial group *and* the dimension of privilege for some sacrificial agents.<fnref n="54" /> Another interesting case is offered by the inscription of the familial foundation of Epiketa on the island of Thera.<fnref n="55" /> The monthly officials (*epimenioi*) in charge of the sacrifices have “to burn the sacred parts of the sacrificial animal which are traditional” (183–184 and 189–

190: καρπωσεῖ τοῖς θεοῖς τά τε ἐκ τοῦ ιερείου νενομισμένα ἱερά) and some other food. Then (194–199) we read:

οἱ δὲ ἐπιμήν[ιοι] οἱ θύον | τες τὰς θυσίας ταύτας ἀποδω-
σο[ῦ]ντι τῶι | κοινῶι τός τε ἐλλύτας πάντας κ[α]ι τῶν |
σπλάγχνων τὰ ἡμίσῃ· τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ [ἐ]ξοῦντι | αὐτοί·
ό[ι] δὲ ἀρτυτὴρ διελεῖ τὰ ἱερὰ τ[ο]ῖς παροῦ | σι.

The *epimenioi* who are celebrating these sacrifices shall deliver to the association all the cakes and half of the viscera, while they shall keep the rest (of the viscera) for themselves; the administrator shall distribute the *hiera* between those who are present.

If the *hiera* mentioned in this passage are the small pieces of viscera distributed to the participants, this is a rare example of such a specification in our evidence.<fnref n="56" /> It is perhaps likelier that *hiera* here includes the viscera as well as the rest of the meat, the “sacred” status of the *splanchna* being exceptionally extended to the parts simply called *krea* or *merides* elsewhere.<fnref n="57" />

Two final questions need to be considered before traveling, as promised, to Thessaly. The first is related to the fact that regulations almost never specify concretely when pieces of meat were left raw or cooked. If the Milesian inscription of the Molpoi exceptionally refers to roasting *splanchna* and boiling meat, this is only to remind the Onitadai of their obligations, in a generic manner. In other places and on other occasions, this was probably self-evident for the sacrificial group, but it also depended on whether a banquet was organized on site or not.<fnref n="58" /> When the sacrifice was officially performed for a group, the *splanchna* may have been roasted and tasted, whether or not the rest of the meat was eaten on the spot. But what about honorific portions of viscera? In the same inscription of the Molpoi, a portion of *splanchna* is drawn by lot and given to the herald: were they already roasted when given? Does this mean that the herald is among the *splanchnneuontes* thanks to his honorific portion? The specific reference to viscera to be roasted in the inscription allows for a positive answer to the

<footnote n="50">⁵⁰ CGRN 39.</footnote>

<footnote n="51">⁵¹ CGRN 138, lines 16–18. See also LSAM 52, A lines 4–7, with Carbon 2017a, 170–171.</footnote>

<footnote n="52">⁵² CGRN 201, line 34.</footnote>

<footnote n="53">⁵³ CGRN 201, lines 43–44: τῶι κήρυκι ... λάξις σπλάγχνων ἀπὸ θυσῶν ἑκασ | τέων.</footnote>

<footnote n="54">⁵⁴ At lines 6–8 of the same inscription, the *aisymnetes* of the Molpoi has to do something (the verb is unintelligible) to “the sacred portions or the viscera for those offering libations” (τὰ ιερὰ ἤ σπλάγχνα σπείσοοι μολπῶν | αἰσυμνήτης). Then, “the *aisymnetes* and the companion consume (wine), once the libations have been poured from all kraters and they have sung paecans.” The text does not refer to the sacrifice that may have preceded the command given to the *aisymnetes* concerning sacrificial parts designated as *hiera* or *splanchna*. The implications of the coordination ἤ (“or”) between *hiera* and *splanchna* remain difficult to understand. What kind of alternative might this have been? These portions are not honorary shares since this part of the text focuses on ritual handling and obligations rather than on prerogatives. Moreover, the reference to libations and the singing of paecans coheres with the time of the “two first stages” of sacrifice—burning the divine part and roasting the *splanchna*. In this context, those “who are in charge of the libations” seem to assume duties in the handling of *hiera* and *splanchna* involved in these first phases of the ritual. But the alternative between the two elements—*hiera* or *splanchna*—remains obscure.</footnote>

<footnote n="55">⁵⁵ CGRN 152 (225–175 BC).</footnote>

<footnote n="56">⁵⁶ A Thasian inscription (CGRN 28, 450–425 BC), which is unfortunately heavily damaged, lists the viscera, in the genitive, among other portions in the accusative (lines 6–8: μοῖραν, κωλῆν, πλευρίον, σπλάγχνων, ἄρτον), probably referring to *trapezomata* as priestly prerogatives. In the middle of an unreadable passage at the end of the stone, one deciphers: “for the third time he libates and distributes sacred (portions)” (lines 11–12: τὸ τρίτον σπένδει καὶ ἰρὰ ἀ | πονέμει). Could this also have implied the distribution of the *splanchna*? As Lupu rightly remarked (NGSL 21, p. 321 and n. 20), *ta hiera* would have been expected.</footnote>

<footnote n="57">⁵⁷ See the commentary on these lines in CGRN 152, with further bibliography.</footnote>

<footnote n="58">⁵⁸ From Miletos too comes the famous reference to the ὠμοφάγιον thrown by the priestess in honour of Dionysos, probably a small piece of raw meat: CGRN 138, line 2 (275/4 BC).</footnote>
question in this case. Was this also the case for the *splanchna* displayed on *trapezai* in Erythrai or in Kos? Even more complicated to imagine is the way of displaying the *splanchna* “on the hands or knees” in Chios. Were they roasted or left raw? An indication could be given by Aristophanes’ *Ploutos* depicting Hermes lamenting the end of sacrifices for the gods and the disappearance of the “warm *splanchna*” that he ate. This could be a comic reference to some *splanchna* included in the divine part, whether on the altar, on the *trapeza* (since the god also refers to the thigh) or on the statue, or perhaps a comic interpretation of the involvement of the god expected among the *splanchnneuontes*.<fnref n="59" />

The second question concerns the verbs formed on the word *splanchna* (σπλαγχνεύειν, σπλαγχνίζειν), which are rarely attested in our epigraphic evidence. If the stone had been less damaged, one of the most informative inscriptions referring to viscera might have been a stele which is part of the sacrificial calendar of Kos and contains a passage relating to the sacrifice of a goat to the Charites.<fnref n="60" /> Rudolf Herzog considered that this entry in the calendar referred to an oath sacrifice for the ephebes, but all the elements which support this hypothesis are restored.<fnref n="61" /> *Splanchna* are mentioned three times in relation to the altar (of the Charites) and the stone “in the olive-trees”, which are two places where various phases of the ritual are performed. Firstly, after the aspersion of the altar (thrice) and the stone (once) by the priestess (lines 7–8), *thyona* connected in some way with *splanchna* are made, but damage to the stone prevents us from understanding the link between the two. The *thuona* are perhaps portions of meat and viscera, or cakes in the form of meat and viscera; they are deposited on the altar (lines 9–11).<fnref n="62" /> Secondly, at a place related to a mysterious figure called Asia (perhaps at the stone located among the olive-trees), first-fruits from the *splanchna* are to be offered (line 12: ἄπαρξάμενοι καὶ τῶν σπλάγχνων[v]<fnref n="63" />). Thirdly, we find the verb σπλαγχνίζεται (line 14), which could refer to the eating of the viscera by the participants—even if the verb σπλαγχνεύειν might have been expected.<fnref n="64" /> In terms of its attention to ritual precision, this

part of the calendar is as exceptional as the sacrifice to Zeus Polieus in the month Batromios found in another part of the calendar; there, the level of detail is probably justified by the necessity of introducing a new ritual after the synoecism of the island or, at least, of re-organising existing rites.<fnref n="65" /> The fact that the sacrifice to the Charites implies two different places could partially explain the necessity of describing in such detail the phase involving the deposition of parts and the treatment of the *splanchna*, regardless of whether this part of the calendar describes an oath-ritual or not. In this case too, it cannot be said if the viscera were cooked before deposition.

## “Sacrificing according to the Greek norm” in Thessaly

Now, it is time to go to Thessaly, where a new document has shed light on all these unanswered questions, while opening up others. The so-called “Marmarini inscription”, discovered in 2002 some 15 kilometers north-east of Larisa in Thessaly and published in 2015, provides precious details on sacrifice and purification. Dating to the first half of the 2nd century BC, it regulates rituals in a local sanctuary, probably related to an association, where Greek and non-Greek people had the opportunity of meeting and interacting in the cult of an anonymous goddess of Near Eastern origin.<fnref n="66" /> A number of other deities were involved in the cult of this goddess. Except for the god Men who is attested elsewhere and for another case discussed immediately below, no other non-Greek deity mentioned in the text is known. On the contrary, Artemis, Apollo, Moira (in the singular), Helios, Pan are Greek names, but the latter is identi-

<footnote>nection with a gymnasium (IG IV 4, lines 5–7): someone “sacrificed the first-fruits to Hermes ... and ... tasted the viscera” (ἀπαραχήν ἐθυσίασεν τῷ Ἐρ[μήι - - - καὶ - - ἐσ]πλάνχνευσεν), before organising a banquet (ἐθοίνησε). The verb is attested e.g. in Ar. *Av*. 984 (with schol.: σπλάγχνων μεταλαβεῖν); Theophr. *apud* Porph. *Abst*. 2.51; Strabo 3.3.6. An interesting fragment supposed to come from the so-called “*patria* of the Eupatrids” in Athens refers to a group of σπλαγχνεύοντες in the context of the purification of a suppliant (FGrH 356, F 1, quoted by Ath. 9.410a–b). In some cases, as in Strabo (3.3.6 and 7.2.3), σπλαγχνεύειν refers to the observation of the viscera for divinatory purposes.</footnote>

<footnote n="65">⁶⁵ Pirenne-Delforge 1996, 208–213; Paul 2013, 162–163.</footnote>

<footnote n="66">⁶⁶ *Editio princeps*: Decourt & Tziaphalias 2015, and then a reedition by Bouchon & Decourt 2017. Important analysis by Parker 2016, Carbon 2016 and Parker & Scullion 2016. See also *BE* 2016, nos. 291–293; 2017, nos. 291–292. The *CGRN* provides an updated edition of the text (no. 225) to which I refer here. Collaboration with Carbon on the online publication of this inscription allowed me to substantially improve the first analysis of the passage about the *Hellenikos nomos* that I presented at the Collège de France in March 2018. Between the editions of 2015 and of 2017, Decourt has changed the way of referring to the two sides of the stele: side A has become side II, and side B, side I. *CGRN* 225 maintains the layout of the first edition.</footnote>

<footnote n="59">⁵⁹ Ar. *Plut*. 1130: σπλάγχνων τε θερμῶν, ὦν ἐγὼ κατήσθιον. See also Ar. *Av*. 518–519: ἵν' ὅταν θύων τις ἔπειτ' αὐτοῖς εἰς τὴν χεῖρ', ὡς νόμος ἐστὶν, | τὰ σπλάγχνα διδῷ, τοῦ Διός αὐτοὶ πρότεροι τὰ σπλάγχνα λάβωσιν. In the Delian accounts, we find with some frequency the word ἐπισπλαγχνίδιος (in the plural, see *CGRN* 199, line 7), whose meaning remains mostly unclear.</footnote>

<footnote n="60">⁶⁰ *CGRN* 86, C.</footnote>

<footnote n="61">⁶¹ *CGRN* 86, C, lines 13–15: ... τοῦ λίθου τοῦ ἐν ταῖς ἐλα[ίαις | ἀψάμενοι ὄμυντι ...]. Cf. *IG* XII.4 275 *ad loc*.</footnote>

<footnote n="62">⁶² On this point, see the commentary at *CGRN* 86, C.</footnote>

<footnote n="63">⁶³ For this restoration, see Jim 2014, 33–36, with previous bibliography.</footnote>

<footnote n="64">⁶⁴ *LSJ*, s.v. σπλαγχνίζω; in the middle voice, the verb means “to feel compassion, pity” in Christian texts. The only epigraphic parallel for this sequence, with σπλαγχνεύω, is a fragmentary text from Aegina, dated to the 1st century AD and referring to acts of euergetism in con-</footnote>
ἐὰν δέ τις θύειν βούληται τῆι θεώι Ἐλ-

B 35 ληνικῶι νόμωι, ἔξεστιν ὅ τι ἂμ βούληται πλὴν χοίρου· ἐπὶ δὲ τῆ[ι]
θυσίαι, φέρειν δεῖ ἐπὶ τὴν τράπεζαν τὰ ἐπιτιθέμενα χοίνικα λαγάνων,
ὕμορας χοίνικα, καὶ τριώβολον εἰς θησαυρὸν καὶ ἐλαίου ἐπὶ λύχνου κοτύ-
λην καὶ εἰς κρατῆρα ὀίνου χοᾶ· ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱεροῦ, τὸ στῆθος ἑφθὸν ἐπὶ τὴν

B 40 τράπεζαν καὶ τὸ σκέλος ὡμὸν τῆι ἱερείαι· τὰ σπλάγχνα ἔψειν, ἦπαρ καὶ πλεύμονα καὶ φρένας καὶ νεφρὸν ἀριστερὸν καὶ γλῶσσαν· τὸν δὲ δεξιὸν νεφρὸν καὶ ἀκροκόλιον δεξιὸν καὶ καρδίαν καὶ ἐπίπλουν καὶ τὸ σκέλο[σ] τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ στήθους καὶ τῆς κέρκου τὸ νομιζόμενον εἰς ἰερὰ ἐπὶ τὸ πῦρ. ταῦτα ποήσας καὶ ἀποθύσας, φερέτω ἄλλο ἱερεῖον οὖ ἂμ βούλη- ται καὶ ἐσθιέτω ὁ βουλόμενος.

The Marmarini inscription.

fied as the god “whom the Syrians call Neirigles (or Neiriglen)”;
this statement provides an explicit *interpretatio* and the divine
name rendered in Greek appears to be that of Nergal.<fnref n="67" /> The
other gods bearing Greek names could also be, at least in some
cases, *interpretationes*, which were left implicit as is more usual
in inscriptions.<fnref n="68" /> Another exceptional statement in this text is
the reference to the possibility of “sacrificing to the goddess ac-
cording to the Greek norm” (B 34–35: ἐὰν δέ τις θύειν βούλη-
ται τῆι θεώι Ἐλ | ληνικῶι νόμωι) among many other sacrificial
rituals. We will focus on this part of the text since the treatment
of the viscera is exceptionally detailed.

HELLENIKOS NOMOS

The relevant passage of the inscription is given above, with
translation below:<fnref n="69" />

If anyone wishes to sacrifice to the goddess in the Hellenic
custom, it is possible (to sacrifice) whatever one wants
except swine (lit. a piglet). For the sacrifice, it is necessary
to offer the things to be set on the table: a *choinix* of flat-

breads, a *choinix* of sesame-honey-cake, and a three-obol
into the money-box and a *kotyle* of oil for a lamp and for
the krater a *chous* of wine; from the sacrificial animal, the
breast cooked on the table and the leg raw for the priest-
ess; cook the viscera: the liver, lung, diaphragm, left kid-
ney, and tongue; and as sacred offerings on the fire: the
right kidney, a right extremity, the heart, the omentum,
the leg removed from the breast (i.e. a foreleg), and the
customary part of the tail. Having done these things and
completed the sacrifice, if he wants, let him offer another
sacrificial animal, whichever he wishes, and eat it.

This “Greek *nomos*” seems to be implicitly contrasted with
another norm, to which various other sacrifices present on
the same side of the stele must be related. For instance, the
generic *thyein* and its cognates, without any precision, prob-
ably implies a non-Greek ritual,<fnref n="70" /> as do the references to the
completion of a “full table” (for which a full-grown sheep
is cooked whole),<fnref n="71" /> the performance of an “all-day rite” for
the goddess,<fnref n="72" /> and various holocaust sacrifices.<fnref n="73" /> The sense of

<footnote n="67">⁶⁷ For the identification of the god as Nergal, proposed during presenta-
tions at a conference at the Collège de France in January 2022, see now
Zerhoch 2022.</footnote>

<footnote n="68">⁶⁸ Decourt & Tziaphalias 2015, 26–32; Parker 2016; Parker & Scullion 2016, 217–218.</footnote>

<footnote n="69">⁶⁹ CGRN 225, B lines 35–44 (with the translation from the CGRN). Among other modifications, two major changes of punctuation are made in the text of CGRN 225 compared to both editions by Decourt et al. The first is in line 36 where the ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱεροῦ is here considered as refer- ring to the sacrificial animal from which the following parts are cut (even if one finds the more expected ἱερεῖον in B 43 and 61), and not to the sanctuary which the wine just mentioned would come from. The second is in line 37, where all interpreters until now have taken the dative τῆι ἱερεῖαι as the indirect object of the phrase τὰ σπλάγχνα ἔψειν. It makes better sense if τῆι ἱερεῖαι is the recipient of the raw leg mentioned just before. This coheres with the place of τῆι ἱερεῖαι in the other statements of priestly shares on the side A of the document (lines 34 and 35). The translation of words like lagana and omora is justified in the commentary on CGRN 225.</footnote>

<footnote n="70">70 On side B, some sacrifices indicated by the verb μεταθύειν or ἐπιθύειν follow a purification with the offering of another animal: lines 3–4, μεταθύειν ἄλλον ἀλέκτορα τέλεον; lines 14–15, μεταθύειν | δέ σκέλος; lines 30–31: ἐπιθυσάτω ἐπὶ τοῦ τῆς Φυλακῆς βωμοῦ ὄρνιθα θή | λειαν ἢ ἀποπυρίδα, μαν ἀρεῶν ... Other sacrifices on the same side are simply denoted with the verb θύειν and the name of the animal: lines 23–25: θύειν ἀλέκτορας λευκούς ... καὶ ἐὰν ἀρ | νία θ<έ>λη, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπου; line 53: ἐὰν δὲ ὄρνιθα τις θύηι ἢ χῆνα ...; lines 75–76: ὅταν τις τῆι θεώι ἀλέκτορίδα θύηι, ἐπὶ τὸν τῆς Μοίρας | βωμόν. The exact manipulation of these various animals remains unknown and *thyein* need not system- atically imply the combustion of some part of the animal.</footnote>

<footnote n="71">71 B lines 44–48. See just below.</footnote>

<footnote n="72">72 B lines 48–50: ἐάν τις πανημερίσαι βούληται τῆι θεώι, ἄριστον φερόμενος ὅτι ἂν βούληται, πλὴν | χοιρέων κρεῶν, καὶ ἐπὶ λύχνον ἐλ[αί]ου ἡμικοτύλιον. Bringing meat to the sanctuary for a ritual is also attested in Delos in the 2nd century BC in the Near Eastern cult of Zeus Ourios and Astarte Palaistine Aphrodite Ourania: CGRN 171, line 7.</footnote>

<footnote n="73">73 ὁλοκαυτῆσαι: B lines 65–69 (a full-grown ram or a male lamb), B lines 70–73 (a goose), B lines 73–74 (a *trubba* or a quail). Holocausts are attested in Greek procedures, but their rarity and the particular iden- tity of the animals burnt here suggest that this performance belongs to</footnote>
thyein is more open for debate in the case of the sacrifice of a bovine mentioned five paragraphs after the “Greek nomos”, sandwiched between the sacrifice of a fowl or a goose and sacrifices in the context of Near Eastern festivals, but an in-depth analysis of this passage would exceed the limits of the present discussion.<fnref n="74" />

The most interesting observation for our discussion is the association of the *Hellenikos nomos* with the mention of *splanchna* and of specific parts of the sacrificial animal burned in the fire. Both are unique in the inscription, although many ritual processes are evoked using *thyein* and its compounds. But in the non-Greek rituals labelled as *thyein*, deposition on a table is the main trend and does not necessarily imply combustion (except, of course, in the case of holocaustic sacrifices). Before addressing these “Greek” peculiarities, the prerequisites for the priestess must be briefly considered.

## PRIESTLY SHARES

In the *Hellenikos nomos*, the priestess receives a raw leg. The only point of internal comparison is on side A, where the regulation stipulates what kind of sacrifice has to be done for the ritual of “lifting the offering tray” (lines 30–31: σκάφην ἐάν | τις αἴρηι). A mature sheep, male or female, has to be sacrificed, “close to Moira” (αἴρειν παρὰ Μοίραι καὶ θύειν πρόβατον τέλεον). Supplementary offerings are to be brought, as usual (lines 32–33). Then, some parts are to be extracted “as for the table-filling ritual” (lines 33–34: τὰ δὲ ἐξαίρούμενα κάθαπερ τῆι τραπεζο | πλησίαι), “but the leg is removed raw along with the fleece for the priestess” (line 34: τὸ δὲ σκέλος ὡμὸν ἀφαιρεῖν καὶ τὸ κοίδιον τῆι ἱερείαι). The meat must be eaten on the spot and non-initiates cannot taste it. Finally comes a reminder that “the fleeces (are) for the priestess” (line 35: τὰ κοίδια τῆι ἱερείαι). For the second “lifting of the offering tray”, it is stipulated that one has to “remove the sacred parts as for the first” (lines 37–38: τὰ ἱερὰ ἐξαίρετ尼 ὡσαύτως ὥσ | περ τῆς πρώτης).

The reference to “the extracted parts”, for the first “lifting”, and to “the sacred parts” is puzzling here since the point of comparison given by the text is the ritual of “the table-filling”, for which the mature sheep, male or female, has to be “cooked whole” (line 46: ἔψειν δὲ ὅλον). The parallel seems to be based on a confusion, since the only sacrifice where hiera are explicitly extracted is the “Greek” ritual, described just before the *trapezoplesia* on side B, with the priestly share also made up of the raw leg.<fnref n="75" /> Be that as it may, the verb ἔψειν brings us back to the *splanchna*.

## COOKING THE SPLANCHNA AND BURNING THE DIVINE PART: A “GREEK” SPECIFICITY

The verb generally understood as “to boil” is mentioned only twice in this long regulation: concerning the sheep of the *trapezolenia*, just mentioned, and the *splanchna* manipulated in the “Greek” sacrifice. The adjective ἐφθός can be added, qualifying in the same context the breast to be placed on the table. As explicitly described in the Molpoi inscription, as well as in various literary texts seen above, the viscera are generally roasted and not boiled. In the same manner, the “boiling” of the entire carcass of the animal for the *trapezolenia* is difficult to imagine.<fnref n="76" /> A kind of “méchou”, or roasting an animal on a spit without cutting it up, is more expected, since this is the easiest way of cooking it “whole” in the strictest sense of the adjective. Accordingly, the two occurrences of ἔψειν must be translated by “cooking” in general, and refer to roasting.<fnref n="77" /> This is also probably the case for the στῆθος ἐφθόν, the “cooked” breast.

The “Greek way” of sacrificing described in the text from Marmarini therefore includes the “three elements” identified in the ritual process called *thysia*: (1) the divine share, burned in the fire of the altar and complemented by a deposition of meat on a table, which for once is explicitly characterized as cooked; (2) the *splanchna* to be cooked; and (3) the rest of the meat, which is mostly implicit here, but we are told that the leg to be taken away by the priestess is raw. The mention of the priestly share also gives to this part of the sacrificial rules a “Greek” flavour, well attested in epigraphic evidence about sacrifice. For the first time in our evidence, we are explicitly told: (1) what must be put into the fire as hiera and (2) what

<footnote>non-Greek practice as well. On all these Near Eastern aspects of the offerings, see Parker & Scullion 2016, 220–228; Ekroth 2018. For holocausts, see also Ekroth in this volume, Chapter 12.</footnote>

<footnote n="74">⁷⁴ According to Parker & Scullion 2016, 242–247, the *Hellenikos nomos* “distinguishes between victims seen as typical of Greek sacrifice and those of a different culture, or at any rate of smaller size” (243) and so “the distinction between birds (and lambs) and larger animals is probably all there is to the “Greekness” of the Greek rite (245). In my view, the size of the animal has no bearing on the “Greekness” of the ritual, but the way of handling it is what matters. For example, a full-grown sheep can be the object of a ritual which is clearly non-Greek (cf. the “table-filling” ritual on lines B lines 45–49, or the full-grown sheep “sacrificed” for the ritual of “lifting the offering tray”, on lines A lines 30–31). For more discussion on this debate, see the commentary on these lines (B lines 57–60) in CGRN 225.</footnote>

<footnote n="75">⁷⁵ Perhaps this last ritual can be considered as a supplement to the sacrifice “à la grecque”, when one brings “another animal” to be eaten, just before the mention of the *trapezolenia*.</footnote>

<footnote n="76">⁷⁶ In the case of the ram offered to Aleximachos in Amorgos, the animal is clearly cut up into anatomical portions which are boiled or cooked “whole” and placed before his statue: IG XII.7 515 = LSS 61, lines 77–78 (Aigiale, end of the 2nd century BC).</footnote>

<footnote n="77">⁷⁷ Chantraine, DELG, 394, s.v. ἔψω: “Ces termes se sont substitués à la famille de πέσσειν pour exprimer l’idée de « cuire ».”</footnote>
the *splanchna* to be roasted are. Other occurrences of the
word, in the ritual norms mentioned above, are always generic
and never include a description of the *splanchna*.

There is a good reason for this. Contrary to hundreds of
epigraphic ritual norms issued by Greek people in which the
Greek way of performing rituals can be postulated as a shared
background against which local specificities are more or less
detailed, the shared background of the Marmarini inscrip-
tion is non-Greek, which explains why the verb *thyein* can
be used with no other specification and the “Greek” way of
sacrificing becomes a peculiarity which needs to be detailed.
However, matters are not so simple, because the so-called
“Greek” perspective in the region of Larisa could be a “Thes-
salian” way of sacrificing or even one specific to the city in
which the sanctuary of the Near Eastern goddess was located.
Unfortunately, Thessaly is a “virtual desert”<sup>78</sup> as far as ritual
norms are concerned and points of comparison are lacking.
In all likelihood, the *nomos* is said to be “Greek”, and not
just “Thessalian”, precisely because the Greek reference offers
the most comprehensive contrast with rituals coming from
abroad. Whether a Thessalian custom is present in this norm
or not, the Marmarini inscription magnificently confirms that
a “Greek” sacrificial framework is not merely the ideal vision
of historians of Greek religion, in spite of the local variations
attested by the epigraphic evidence.<sup>79</sup> As we saw above, the di-
vision of the animal in three parts and their respective, specific
handling is a recurring trend in Greek *thysia* everywhere. This
is exactly what is described in the prescriptions of the “mixed”
community involved in the cult of a Levantine goddess when
a “Greek” ritual is performed. Even in the case of the divine
portion, which at first sight seems to be larger than expected,<sup>80</sup>
one finds trends known elsewhere: leg and omentum, perhaps
referring to the “package” made of fat-wrapped bones; the
tail; a piece from the extremities (like the small pieces of raw
meat in Homer?). The right kidney is a part of the *splanchna*
which is burned, perhaps paralleling what may have been
practiced in Miletos.<sup>81</sup> The heart is rarely mentioned in our
ritual norms, but in documents regulating sacrifices in Ephes-
sos and in Smyrna in the 2nd century AD, it appears to be
burned on the altar.<sup>82</sup> In parallel to the burning of these ani-

mal parts, consuming the “cooked” *splanchna* tends to build
a group of *splanchneuontes* “à la grecque”, in the sanctuary of
this Syrian goddess.

A text as complex as the inscription found in Marmarini
will contribute to wider discussion among researchers on
Greek and Near Eastern modes of sacrifice. In a study focused
on the place and the role of the *splanchna* in the process, this
extraordinary ritual norm attests to the need to refer explic-
itly to these animal parts when a sacrifice is supposed to be
Greek, as well as to define the part to be burnt on the altar.
What little we know of Near Eastern sacrifices (and “Near
East” is certainly too broad a category in this respect) focuses
on the cooking of food and deposition in many cases: in the
Persian way of “sacrificing” without flaming altars described
by Herodotus,<fnref n="83" /> in the Hittite practice,<fnref n="84" /> or in the Mesopo-
tamian daily service for the gods.<fnref n="85" /> The reference to a “Greek
way of sacrificing” finds some support in this sense and the use
of *thyein* in the Marmarini text could point, in many cases, to a
generic “animal offering to a deity”, without necessarily imply-
ing the combustion of a part for the divine recipient when the
ritual is not Greek.

As far as comparison is concerned, a brief glance at a Ro-
man ritual practice mentioned by a Greek author will give us
the opportunity to add a last consideration to the analysis of
the “Greek way of sacrificing” and the *splanchna*.

<footnote n="78">⁷⁸ Cf. Parker 2018, 75.</footnote>

<footnote n="79">⁷⁹ A conclusion also reached by Parker 2018, 80, from a broader perspective.</footnote>

<footnote n="80">⁸⁰ This is the interpretation of Parker & Scullion 2016, 246, who con-
sider that we are confronted with a “moirocaust” in this case.</footnote>

<footnote n="81">⁸¹ See above with *note 51*.</footnote>

<footnote n="82">⁸² *I.Ephesos* 10 = LSS 121, lines 5–12: ... ἱερεῖα | προσάγοντα τοῖς
θεοῖς νενομιμέμ | ναις ἡμέραις τὸν ἀρι<θμ>ὸν τέε', καρδιου[ρ] | γούμενα
μὲν καὶ ἐκμηριζόμενα ρο', κα | τατελισκόμενα δὲ ροε', ἐξ οἰκείας δυ | νά-
μεως, περιηγουμένου καὶ διδάσκοντος | αὐτὸν τοῦ δημοτελοῦς ἱερο-
φάντου καθό | τι ἔκατον τοῖς θεοῖς νόμιμὸν ἐστιν, "(the *prytanis*) leading
the sacrificial animals to the gods on the usual days, numbering 365; 190
whose hearts have been removed and their thighs extracted, 175 offered</footnote>

<footnote>without being cut, at his own expense, the public *hierophant* instructing
him and teaching him how each custom must be performed for the gods.”
*LSSM* 84, lines 12–13: ἡμδ' ἐν Βακχείοις ὡὸν ποτὶ δαῖτα τ[ibεσθαι.] | καὶ κραδῖνα καρποῦν ἱεροῖς βωμοῖς [— — —], where Sokolowski consid-
ered it was forbidden to burn the heart on the altars but this would imply
a negative statement lost in the gap at the end of line 13. In any case, these
two texts attest that the heart could be part of the divine portion, at least
in Roman Imperial Ionia.</footnote>

<footnote n="83">⁸³ Hdt. 1.131.</footnote>

<footnote n="84">⁸⁴ Mouton 2017, 242: “The key gesture of Hittite animal sacrifice is clearly the placement of the sacrificial meat cuts on the divine table.” However, this interesting paper shows different cooking techniques depending on the nature of the meat cuts. The liver and heart are roasted and not cooked in a pot, as other parts are. For other variations involving burning in the Hittite material, see Mouton in this volume, *Chapter 13*.</footnote>

<footnote n="85">⁸⁵ Abush 2002, 43: “The central act of the daily cult is not sacrifice in the sense of giving the food over to a fire which consumes it, nor is it acts of slaughter and pouring out of blood. Food was placed before the god and consumed by him through that mysterious act that characterizes Babylonian religiosity.”</footnote>
The ritus Graecus by Dionysius
of Halikarnassos

According to John Scheid, the Roman sacrifice *Graeco ritu* is “a typically Roman way of honouring the gods.”<fnref n="86" /> I have no intention of contesting the analysis of one of the best scholars in the field of ancient Roman religion. My point here is to identify what elements the Greek author Dionysius of Halikarnassos clearly emphasizes as “Greek” in the sacrifices offered to Hercules at the *Ara Maxima*, which are said to be performed *Graeco ritu*.<fnref n="87" />

According to Dionysius, Hercules was considered a god for the first time in Italy and he asked the inhabitants to offer him an annual sacrifice. To be sure to get what he wanted to receive, he himself taught two distinguished families, the Potitii and the Pinarii, whose descendants had long been in charge of this sacrifice, “to perform the ritual according to Greek customs” (ἀγιστεύοντες δὲ τὴν ἱερουργίαν ἔθεσιν Ἕλληνικοῖς). Initially, the ceremonies had to be performed equally by both families but, at the first sacrifice, the Pinarii arrived too late, “when the *splanchna* had already been eaten” (ἐσπλαγχνευμένων ἤδη τῶν ἱερῶν). Accordingly, the Potitii presided at the sacrifice, “taking the first-fruits of the burnt-offerings” (τῶν ἐμπύρων ἀπαρχομένων), while the Pinarii “were excluded from tasting the viscera” (Πιναρίων δὲ σπλάγχνων τε μετουσίας εἰργομένων).<fnref n="88" /> Whether the *splanchna* were effectively eaten by the participants or burnt for the gods in sacrifices to Hercules, as in the “classical” Roman sacrifice,<fnref n="89" /> the important point for my topic is the emphasis put by Dionysius on this aspect of the “Greek” sacrifice for the hero/god. Partaking of the *splanchna* is clearly considered especially “Greek” in a Roman sacrificial ceremony, which supports our analysis of the “Greek way of sacrificing” in the Marmarini text.<fnref n="90" />

When I first read the expression θνέιν ... ἐλληνικῶι νόμωι
in the inscription found at Marmarini, I considered this testi-
mony to be the validation of a strong conviction: the notion
of “Greek religion”, in the singular, was indeed relevant. Refer-
ring to *Religions of the Greeks* in the plural was not mandato-
ry.<fnref n="91" /> Despite the political fragmentation of the Greek world,
something typically “Greek” could emerge from this religious

system, whether in the names of many gods or in the ritual
framework of sacrifice as regulated by dozens of ritual norms.

This consideration does not invalidate the obvious obser-
vation of the great variety of local traditions, whether in the
structure of divine local “assemblages” and the choice of the
gods’ cult-titles, in the establishment of festivals or in the spe-
cific elaboration of local calendars. But the Greek themselves
considered that an underlying unity did exist in their way of
recognising supra-human beings and interacting with them.
As Fritz Graf remarked some years ago, there was “a basic lin-
guistic unity of Greekness despite the many local dialects”, and
“the dialectic of a common Hellenic language and its multi-
ple dialectal expressions might be a useful model on which
to understand the tension between Panhellenic and local
religion.”<fnref n="92" /> It is no coincidence that the expression “according
to the Greek norm” appears in a document issued by a mixed
community of Greeks and non-Greeks. The effect of contrast
is obvious and it gives us the rare opportunity to reach an *emic*
definition of a *thysia*: it involves burning parts of a slaugh-
tered animal on an altar for the recipient deity and sharing the
roasted *splanchna* within the sacrificing group. The point of
anchor of the text, Hellenistic Thessaly, attests to the validity
of the definition.

VINCIANE PIRENNE-DELFORGE

Collège de France, Paris

vinciane.pirenne@college-de-france.fr

Bibliography

Abush, T. 2002. ‘Sacrifice in Mesopotamia’, in *Sacrifice in religious experience* (Numen, 93), ed. A.I. Baumgarten, Leiden, 39–48.
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004379169_004

Berthiaume, G. 1982. *Les rôles du mágeiros. Étude sur la boucherie, la cuisine et le sacrifice dans la Grèce ancienne* (Mnemosyne Supplement, 70), Leiden.
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004327894

Bouchon, R. & J.-C. Decourt 2017. ‘Le règlement religieux de Marmarini (Thessalie) : nouvelles lectures, nouvelles interprétations’, *Kernos* 30, 159–186.
https://doi.org/10.4000/kernos.2494

<footnote n="86">⁸⁶ Scheid 1995 (the quotation is the subtitle of this article: the French version is in 2005, 87–122) and 1998.</footnote>

<footnote n="87">⁸⁷ Dion, Hal. 1.30.3–4.</footnote>

<footnote n="88">⁸⁸ The *Hellenika ethe* are once more associated to the fact of “sacrificing the burnt first-offerings” in 6.1.4 (τὰς ἐμπύρους ἀπαρχὰς ἔθυσον Ἐλληνικοῖς ἔθεσιν).</footnote>

<footnote n="89">⁸⁹ On this question, see Scheid 2005, 105–107.</footnote>

<footnote n="90">⁹⁰ See other examples of the fundamental importance of *splanchna* in a Greek sacrificial context provided by Bednarek here, *Chapter 9*.</footnote>

<footnote n="91">⁹¹ As Price 1999, for example. See the conclusion of Parker 2018, with which I absolutely agree. Cf. also Pirenne-Delforge 2020, *passim*.</footnote>

<footnote n="92">⁹² Graf 2010, 57.</footnote>
Bruit Zaidman, L. 2005. 'Offrandes et nourritures : repas des dieux et repas des hommes en Grèce ancienne', in *La cuisine et l'autel. Les sacrifices en questions dans les sociétés de la Méditerranée ancienne* (Bibliothèque de l'École des Hautes Études, Sciences Religieuses, 124), eds. S. Georgoudi, R. Koch Piettre & F. Schmidt, Turnhout, 31–46.
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.BEHE-EB.4.00019

Carbon, J.-M. 2016. 'The festival of the Aloulaia, and the association of Alouliastiai. Notes concerning the new inscription from Larisa/Marmarini', *Kernos* 29, 185–208.
https://doi.org/10.4000/kernos.2398

Carbon, J.-M. 2017a. 'Meaty perks: Epichoric and topological trends', in *Animal sacrifice in the ancient Greek world*, eds. S. Hitch & I. Rutherford, Cambridge, 151–178.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139017886.007

Carbon, J.-M. 2017b. 'At the table of the gods? Divine appetites and animal sacrifice', *CHS Research Bulletin* 5:2.
http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hInc.essay:CarbonM. At_the_Table_of_the_Gods.2017

Casabona, J. 1966. *Recherches sur le vocabulaire des sacrifices en Grèce des origines à la fin de l'époque classique* (Publication des Annales de la Faculté des Lettres, Aix-en-Provence, N.S. 56), Aix-en-Provence.

CGRN = *Collection of Greek ritual norms*, eds. J.-M. Carbon, S. Peels & V. Pirenne-Delforge, Liège, 2017-
http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be
https://doi.org/10.54510/CGRN0

Daux, G. 1963. 'La grande démarche : un nouveau calendrier sacrificiel d'Attique (Erchia)', *BCH* 87:2, 603–634.
https://doi.org/10.3406/bch.1963.5006

Decourt, J.-C. & A. Tziaphalias 2015. 'Un règlement religieux de la région de Larissa : cultes grecs et « orientaux », *Kernos* 28, 13–51.
https://doi.org/10.4000/kernos.2321

DELG = P. Chantraine, *Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque*, Paris 1968–1980.

Durand, J.-L. 1986. *Sacrifice et labour en Grèce ancienne. Essai d'anthropologie religieuse* (Images à l'appui, 1), Paris & Rome.

Durand, J.-L. 1989. 'Greek animals: Toward a typology of edible bodies', in *The cuisine of sacrifice among the Greeks*, eds. M. Detienne & J.-P. Vernant, Chicago, 87–105.

Ekroth, G. 2008a. 'Burnt, cooked or raw? Divine and human culinary desires at Greek animal sacrifice', in *Transformations in sacrificial practices. From antiquity to modern times*, eds. E. Stavrianopoulou, A. Michaels & C. Ambos, Berlin, 87–111.

Ekroth, G. 2008b. 'Meat, man and god. On the division of the animal victim at Greek sacrifices', in *Μικρός Ιερομνήμων. Μελέτες εἰς μνήμην Michael H. Jameson*, eds. A.P. Matthaiou & I. Polinskaya, Athens, 259–290.

Ekroth, G. 2011. 'Meat for the gods', in *Nourrir les dieux ? Sacrifice et représentation du divin* (Kernos supplément, 26), eds. V. Pirenne-Delforge & F. Prescendi, Liège, 15–41.
https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pulg.1677

Ekroth, G. 2018. 'Holocaustic sacrifices in ancient Greek religion and the ritual relations to the Levant', in *Change, continuity, and connectivity. North-Eastern Mediterranean at the turn of the Bronze Age and in the Early Iron Age* (Philippika, 118), eds. Ł. Niesiołowski-Spanò & M. Węcowski, Wiesbaden, 308–326.
https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvckq4zg.19

Gill, D. 1974. *Trapezomata: A neglected aspect of Greek sacrifice*, *HThR* 67:2, 117–137.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0017816000003217

Graf, F. 1985. *Nordionische Kulte. Religionsgeschichtliche und epigraphische Untersuchungen zu den Kulten von Chios, Erythrai, Klazomenai und Phokaia* (Bibliotheca Helvetica Romana, 21), Rome.

Graf, F. 2010. 'Gods in Greek inscriptions. Some methodological questions', in *The gods of ancient Greece. Identities and transformations*, eds. J.N. Bremmer & A. Erskine, Edinburgh, 55–80.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9780748642892-008

I.Ephesos = H. Wankel, *Die Inschriften von Ephesos* (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien, 11:1), Bonn 1979.

Jameson, M.H. 1965. 'Notes on the sacrificial calendar from Erchia', *BCH* 89:1, 154–172.
https://doi.org/10.3406/bch.1965.2256

Jim, T.S.F. 2014. *Sharing with the gods. Aparchai and dekatai in ancient Greece*, Oxford.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198706823.001.0001

Le Guen-Pollet, B. 1991. 'Espace sacrificiel et corps des bêtes immolées. Remarques sur le vocabulaire désignant
la part du prêtre dans la Grèce antique, de l'époque
classique à l'époque impériale', in *L'Espace sacrificial
dans les civilisations méditerranéennes de l'Antiquité.
Actes du colloque tenu à la Maison de l'Orient, Lyon,
4-7 juin 1988* (Publications de la bibliothèque
Salomon-Reinach, 5), eds. R. Étienne &
M.-T. Le Dinahet, Lyon & Paris, 13-23.

LSAM = F. Sokolowski, *Lois sacrées de l'Asie Mineure*
(École française d'Athènes. Travaux et mémoires, 9),
Paris 1955.

LSS = F. Sokolowski, *Lois sacrées des cités grecques. Supplément* (École française d'Athènes. Travaux et mémoires, 11), Paris 1962.

Meuli, K. 1946. 'Griechische Opferbräuche', in *Phyllobolia. Festschrift für Peter von der Mühll zum 60. Geburtstag am 1. August 1945*, ed. O. Gigon, Basel, 185-288.

Mikalson, J. 2017. *New aspects of religion in ancient Athens. Honors, authorities, esthetics, and society* (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World, 183), Leiden.
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004319196

Mitford, T.B. 1980. *The Nymphaeum of Kaphizin* (Kadmos Supplement, 2), Berlin.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110837124

Morton, J. 2015. 'The experience of Greek sacrifice: Investigating fat-wrapped thighbones', in *Autopsy in Athen. Recent archaeological research on Athens and Attica*, ed. M.M. Miles, Oxford, 66-75.

Mouton, A. 2017. 'Animal sacrifice in Hittite Anatolia', in *Animal sacrifice in the ancient Greek world*, eds. S. Hitch & I. Rutherford, Cambridge, 239-252.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139017886.011

Naiden, F.S. 2013. *Smoke signals for the Gods. Ancient Greek sacrifice from the Archaic through Roman periods*, Oxford.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199916405.001.0001

NGSL = E. Lupu, *Greek sacred law. A collection of new documents (NGSL)* (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World, 152), Leiden & Boston 2005.
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047405801

Parker, R.C.T. 2006. 'Sale of a priesthood on Chios', in *Χιακόν συμπόσιον εἰς μνήμην W.G. Forrest*, eds. G.E. Malouchou & A.P. Matthaiou, Athens, 67-79.

Parker, R.C.T. 2011. *On Greek religion* (Cornell Studies in Classical philology, 60), Ithaca & London.
https://doi.org/10.7591/9780801461750

Parker, R.C.T. 2016. 'The nameless goddess of Marmarini', *ZPE* 199, 58–59.

Parker, R.C.T. 2018. 'Regionality and Greek ritual norms', *Kernos* 31, 73–81.
https://doi.org/10.4000/kernos.2678

Parker, R.C.T. & S. Scullion 2016. 'The mysteries of the Goddess of Marmarini', *Kernos* 29, 209–266.
https://doi.org/10.4000/kernos.2399

Paul, S. 2013. *Cultes et sanctuaires de l'île de Cos* (Kernos supplément, 28), Liège.
https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pulg.17308

Pirenne-Delforge, V. 1996. 'Les Charites à Athènes et dans l'île de Cos', *Kernos* 9, 195-217.
https://doi.org/10.4000/kernos.1167

Pirenne-Delforge, V. 2010. 'Greek priests and 'cult-statues': In how far are they unnecessary?', in *Divine images and human imaginations in ancient Greece and Rome* (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World, 170), ed. I. Mylonopoulos, Leiden, 121-142.
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047441656_007

Pirenne-Delforge, V. 2018. 'Vernant, le sacrifice et la cuisine, quarante ans après...', in *Relire Vernant*, eds. S. Georgoudi & F. de Polignac, Paris, 53-81.

Pirenne-Delforge, V. 2020. *Le Polythéisme grec à l'épreuve d'Hérodote*, Paris.
https://doi.org/10.4000/books.lesbelleslettres.594

Pirenne-Delforge, V. & G. Pironti 2016. *L'Héra de Zeus. Ennemie intime, épouse définitive*, Paris.

Price, S.R.F. 1999. *Religions of the ancient Greeks*, Oxford.
https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511814488

Rudhardt, J. 1981 [1970]. *Du mythe, de la religion grecque et de la compréhension d'autrui*, Geneva, 209-226.

Rudhardt, J. 1992 [1958], *Notions fondamentales et actes constitutifs du culte dans la Grèce classique*, Paris.

Rudhardt, J. 2008. *Opera inedita. Essai sur la religion grecque & Recherches sur les Hymnes orphiques 2008* (Kernos supplément, 19), ed. P. Borgeaud & V. Pirenne-Delforge, Liège.
https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pulg.514

Scheid, J. 1995. 'Graeco ritu: A typically Roman way of honouring the gods', *HSCP* 97, 15–31.
https://doi.org/10.2307/311298
Scheid, J. 1998. 'Nouveau rite et nouvelle piété. Réflexions sur le *ritus Graecus*,' in *Ansichten griechischer Rituale. Geburtstags-Symposium für Walter Burkert*, ed. F. Graf, Stuttgart & Leipzig, 168–182.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110962406.168

Scheid, J. 2005. *Quand faire, c'est croire. Les rites sacrificiels des Romains*, Paris.

Scullion, S. 2000. 'Heroic and chthonian: New evidence from Selinous', *ZPE* 132, 163–171.

Stengel, P. 1910. *Opferbräuche der Griechen*, Leipzig & Berlin.

van Straten, F.T. 1995. *Hierà kalá. Images of animal sacrifice in Archaic and Classical sacrifice* (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World, 127), Leiden.

Vernant, J.-P. 1989 [1979]. 'At man's table: Hesiod's foundation myth of sacrifice', in *The cuisine of sacrifice among the Greeks*, eds. M. Detienne & J.-P. Vernant, Chicago, 21–86.

Zerhoch, S. 2022. 'Nergal, the Syrian Pan: A new reading in line A 10 of the Marmarini inscription', *ZPE* 222, 89–98.