## THE ECONOMY OF PRIESTLY PERQUISITES IN ANCIENT GREEK CULT

By Anders Holm Rasmussen

Summary: The remuneration of priestesses and priests was closely linked to the performance of rituals in ancient Greek cult. The aim of this article is twofold: Firstly, to get an overview of the priestly perquisites mentioned in inscribed cult regulations. Secondly, to try to explore the value of these perquisites. Did the perquisites received by the priestess/priest represent a firm income, or were they just a small extra with only limited economic impact on the life of these people? Following these questions the article specifically discusses the sanctuaries as suppliers of meat to society and the values of hides. The conclusion is that priestly perquisites perhaps did not make the receiver rich, but was most likely a firm income which could make the office of priestess/priest attractive. The article ends with a catalogue of all the registered perquisites.

ἔπειτ᾽ ἀναβλέψας ὁρῶ τὸν ἱερέα τοὺς φθοῖς ἀφαρπάζοντα καὶ τὰς ἰσχάδας ἀπὸ τῆς τραπέζης τῆς ἱερᾶς : μετὰ τοῦτο δὲ περιῆλθε τοὺς βωμοὺς ἅπαντας ἐν κύκλῳ , εἴ που πὸπανον εἴη τι καταλελειμμένον : ἔπειτα ταῦθ᾽ ἤγιζεν ἐς σάκταν τινά .

So I looked up, and what did I see but the priest taking the cheese-cakes and figs off the holy table; after which he went round all the altars seeing if anyone had left a cake there, and he consecrated all of them by putting them into his bag. 1

## I ntroduction: A multitude of perquisites

This well-known passage from Aristophanes's Wealth , in which the slave, Carion, is giving an account of what he has experienced during a night in a sanctuary of Asclepius, is of course a satire: the greedy priest running around among the altars protected by the darkness of night seeing if he can find some leftovers for his bag. Greedy priests have always been targets  for  a  good  laugh. 2 But  as  is  often  the  case  with  Aristophanes  the scene is not necessarily far away from reality. It might well be that this priest is out on his round quite legitimately collecting his perquisites after a long day's work. The nightly scene in Aristophanes does not in itself contradict e.g., an inscribed cult regulation from Erythrai concerning the cult for Asclepius and Apollo, dated ca. 380-360 BCE, and thus contemporary with the Athenian comedy produced for the year 388 BCE. The cult regulation states a.o.: ὅσα δὲ ἐπὶ [ τὴν ] τράπεζαν παρατεθῆι , ταῦτα εἶναι γέρα τῶι ἱρεῖ . 3

But if the act of the priest was just ordinary everyday business, why then make a joke out it? Is it just because it is always funny to make jokes about the gods (plenty of them in Aristophanes!) and this also includes the servants of these gods? Or is it because the priests - and priestesses - were fairly wealthy people making quite a living out of doing almost nothing overviewing the rituals in the sanctuaries? At the very end of Wealth we meet a priest of Zeus Soter complaining that he has lost all his income and is nearly dying of starvation, because now - after the whole community has become rich - no one come to the sanctuary to sacrifice anymore. In Alan Sommerstein's free but great translation:

'In the old days, when they had nothing, you could count on a sacrifice from a merchant on his safe return from the voyage, or a defendant who had got off; or perhaps someone would have a grand sacrificial feast at home, and then naturally he'd invite me. But now nobody sacrifices at all. I never see a living soul, apart from a darn sight too many who think the temple is a gents' toilet.' 4

2 Cf. Van Straten 1995: 154.

3 CGRN 76:23-25.  'Whatever  is  placed  upon  [the]  table  will  be  perquisites  for  the priest' (trans. CGRN ). For the date of Wealth cf. Sommerstein 1978: 267.

The same theme - this time with a chresmologos extremely keen to lay his hands on those parts of the offerings which he thinks belong to him runs through a scene in Aristophanes's Peace . The oracle-monger, Hierocles, almost attack a private sacrificial feast to Peace run by the elderly farmer Trygaeus in order to get his share. And he is of course also very eager to stop Peace from ruling because it will be bad for his business. A central passage from vv. 1104-19 - again in Sommerstein's translation reads:

'Trygaeus: A drink-offering to the gods!

- Hierocles: Aren't you going to give me any? And what about those offals ( σπλάγχνα )?
- Trygaeus: Not, not yet do the gods consent, for they strictly enjoin us first to pour our libation, and you to get out of it pronto! ... Our Lady of Peace, be with us and remain with us all our life long. Amen.

Hierocles: Could I have the tongue ( γλῶττα ), please?

Trygaeus: You've got one already - so kindly take it away from here.

Hierocles: A drink-offering!

Trygaeus: Here, have something to go with! [ Throws some rubbish in his face]

- Hierocles: Is nobody going to give me any of the meat ( σπλάγχνα )?
- Trygaeus: Not yet is it lawful to do so, till that a wolf shall mate with a sheep.

Hierocles: I beg you, I beseech you!

Trygaeus:  No  good  beseeching.  'None  can  bring  it  about  that  the hedgehog should cease to be prickly.' [ To the audience ] Come here, everyone, let's have a feast!

Hierocles: What about me?

Trygaeus: Oh, go and eat Sibyllines!

- 4 Ar. Pl. 1178-84: ὅτι πάντες εἰσὶ πλούσιοι· καίτοι τότε , ὅτ᾽ εἶχον οὐδέν , ὁ μὲν ἂν ἥκων ἔμποροςω ἔθυσεν ἱερεῖόν τι σωθείς , ὁ δέ τις ἂν δίκην ἀποφυγών , ὁ δ᾽ ἂν ἐκαλλιερεῖτό τις κἀμέ γ᾽ ἐκάλει τὸν ἱερέα· νῦν δ᾽ούφὲ εἷς θύει τὸ παράπαν οὐδὲν οὐδ᾽ εἰσέρχεται , πλὴν ἀποπατησόμενοι γε πλεῖν ἢ μύριοι .

Hierocles: I swear I'm not going to let you eat the whole lot yourselves! I'll get 'em, see if I don't!' 5

The  two  specific  items  that  Hierocles  asks  for  here  is σπλάγχνα and γλῶττα , entrails and tongue. Both are parts of sacrificial animals which are commonly found in cult regulations to be given to the priests as perquisites. 6

Reading through inscriptions with ancient greek cult regulations we find very many stipulations concerning the perquisites of priestesses and priests. The overall picture we get from these sources confirm all in all the satirical representations of the priests in Aristophanes: The priests get paid for their services by obtaining parts of the sacrificial victims, but also by receiving money in cash. The purpose of this article is thus twofold: To get an overview of the priestly perquisites handed down to us through cult regulations preserved in inscriptions, and to explore the value  some  of  these  perquisites  represented  for  the  priestesses  and priests receiving them. Had the priests in Aristophanes good reason to panic if their praxis went out of business or were the perquisites just a small extra income without much economic impact on the daily life of these people?

The source material for this investigation are all the documents published through the project Collection of Greek Ritual Norms ( CGRN ) on their magnificent website. 7 The basis for CGRN is the inscriptions published in the three volumes from the 1950's and 60's by F. Sokolowski and the volume by E. Lupu in 2009. 8 Moreover the CGRN have a number of inscriptions not published in any of these four volumes. According to the editorial  guidelines  of  the CGRN -collection  they  have  included  inscriptions 'relating to ancient Greek rituals, in particular ... the two large subjects

5 Ar. Pax 1104-1119. Sommerstein 1978: 136-37.

- 6 For references cf. the catalogue below in the appendix. I note that the hits in the catalogue under γλῶσσα and σπλάγχνα all come from Asia Minor and some Aegean Islands. There are no hits from Attica or places further west.

7 http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be.

- 8 F. Sokolowski, Lois sacrées de l'Asie Mineure (Paris 1955) (abbreviated LSAM ), Lois sacrées des cités grecques. Supplement (Paris 1962) (abbreviated LSS ), Lois sacrées des cités grecques (Paris 1969) (abbreviated LSCG ), E. Lupu, Greek Sacred Law. A Collection of New Documents (Leiden 2009) (abbreviated NGSL ).

of sacrifice and purification'. 9 In doing so, the CGRN hit on almost every inscription  which  contain  information  on  priestly  perquisites. 10 This makes  it  clear  that  the  remuneration  of  priestesses  and  priests  was closely linked to the performance of the local ritual. Even though we find many local specialities in connection with cult activity, there seems nevertheless to have existed quite a firm structure throughout the ancient Greek  world  from  archaic  times  down  to  the  first  centuries  CE:  The priestess or the priest of the sanctuary shall perform the sacrifice and for this receive perquisites of some kind.

The most common Greek word used in the sources for what we translate as 'perquisites' is γέρα , the plural of τὸ γέρας , which in the literary texts has the basic meaning of gift of honour, a privilege or prerogative conferred on kings and nobles. 11 Often γέρα constructed with the verbs λαμβάνω (receive) or δίδωμι (give) clearly designates priestly income in general by referring to specific items to be received by the priestess or priest. 12 But γέρα is no straightforward technical term, and information about  perquisites  appear  in  many  ways,  and  with  the  help  of  several terms. First, γέρας or γέρα can be a part of a list of perquisites, that is being a perquisite in it self. 13 Secondly, γέρα is not so common in Attic

- 9 Cf. the 'Guiding Principles' for the CGRN at: http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be.
- 10  There are some few texts in the three volumes of Sokolowski and NGSL relevant to my purpose here, which are not in the CGRN -collection. The reason seems to be that these texts often are so mutilated that it would make no sense to publish them in a collection on sacrifice and purification. But they might still contain some isolated words giving information on perquisites.
- 11  Thus LSJ .
- 12  Cf. e.g. CGRN 98 (Erythrai c 350-300 BCE) lines 10-15, though heavily restored it is clear that γέρα here are both money and parts of sacrificial animals; CGRN 124 (Pergamon c 250-200 BCE) lines 4-9, here δέρμα and κωλῆ together with money; CGRN 193 (Hyllarima 196 BCE) lines Ab16-Ab18 and B17-21, here κεφαλή and πούς ; CGRN 194 (Magnesia-on-the-Maiander c. 197/6 or 180 BCE) lines 53-54 where it relates to the usual grants without any specification; CGRN 206 (Pergamon 2nd cent. BCE) lines 1215, where it relates to natural goods.
- 13  We have four examples from Chios: CGRN 36 (end of fifth cent. BCE) line 4, where it occurs second in a list after γλάσσας ; CGRN 38 (c. 400 BCE) lines 4-7. This decree is concerned  with  the  priestess  of  Ilithyia: ἢν δὲ ἰδ | ιώτης ποι [ ῆι ], διδοσθαι ἀπὸ το̃

inscriptions even though the term occurs in two important sources, in both cases with reference to grants in money. 14 Very often in Attica the word τὰ ἱερεωσύνα is  used  to  designate  priestly  perquisites. 15 As  with γέρα , ἱερεωσύνα refers  to  grants  in  both  money  and in kinds. 16 But in

ἱε | ρ [ ο̃ ], ὥστε ἐς [ τὸ ] λ [ ί ] κνον ἐνθεῖ [ ν ] αι ,| [ μ ] οῖραν καὶ γέρας καὶ γλῶσσαν ('If a private person performs (a sacrifice), a portion, a honorific portion, and the tongue shall be given from the sacrificial animal.' Trans. from CGRN ). Here γέρα is translated 'honorific portion.' What this portion was we cannot know, but it definitely was something different from the tongue. Carbon 2017: 173 mentions this inscription in connection with the question of the tongue, but he does not discuss γέρα ; CGRN 88 (c. 350-300 BCE) line 4. The text is very damaged, but we have in line 4 [... c. 12 ...] καὶ γέρας δεξιό [ ς ] ('and a right prerogative.' Trans. CGRN ). We cannot be absolutely sure that the adjective δεξιός is attached to γέρας , because the beginning of the next line of the text has been lost. But if δεξιός qualifies γέρας , this must be some specific part of a sacrificial animal. See also CGRN 170 (fifth cent. BCE), one of the earliest known sales contracts for a priesthood (here male). From Priene two examples from the same inscription, CGRN 175 (2nd cent. BCE), lines 8-9, where the priestess of Meter Phrygie shall receive from what is sacrificed the hides and half the γέρα . The other part of the γέρα shall be distributed among the women present together with the rest of the meat. In lines 16-18 the same priestess shall receive a third of the γέρα and the skin from the animal, which shall be sacrificed when women are initiated into the cult. LSAM 65 is very damaged but has ὁ ἱερεὺς γέρας in l. 6. See also Mylasa 350 (PHI) .

- 14 CGRN 52 / SEG  21:541 (The  Erchia  calendar,  c.  375-350  BCE)  in  lines  E53-59: τούτ | ωι ἱερεῶσθ | αι τὸν κήρυ | κα καὶ τὰ γέ | ρα Λαμβάνε | ν καθάπερ ὁ | δήμαρχος Δ ('the herald performs  this  sacrifice  and  receives  perquisites  like  the  demarch  would,  10  dr.' Trans. from CGRN ). γέρα is here money, but it is uncertain what the stipulation refers to. CGRN 84 / SEG 21:527 (The regulations of the genos of the Salaminioi in Attica 363/62 BCE)  in  lines  27-28: τοῖς δὲ ἱερεῦσι καὶ ταῖς ἱερείαι | ς ἀποδιδόναι τὰ γέρα τὰ γεγραμμένα ('to the priests and priestesses shall be given the perquisites prescribed here.' Trans. from CGRN ). What follows is money.
- 15 τὰ ἱερεωσύνα is a special form we find in Attic inscriptions. It is the same word as τὰ ἱερωσύνα . It derives from the adjective ἱερώσυνος , simply meaning priestly, belonging to priests.
- 16  Cf.. e.g.. CGRN 45 (the civic sacrificial calendar of Athen, c. 410-404 and 403/2-400/399 BCE); CGRN 55 (calendar from the deme of Teithras, c. 400-350 BCE); CGRN 57 (accounts for priestly perquisites et al. from the deme Aixone, c. 400-375 BCE); CGRN 74 (from the Attic phratry of the Demotionidai, 396/5 BCE); CGRN 84 (regulations of the genos of  the  Salaminioi, 363/2 BCE); IG II 2 1361 (decree of the orgeones of Bendis, c.330324/3); CGRN 94 (sacrificial calendar of the deme of Eleusis, c 330-270 BCE); CGRN 103 (regulations from the deme of Phrearrhioi, c. 300-250 BCE).

very many cases the grants of perquisites are not qualified by a special terminology. The texts simply say what the priestesses or priests are to be given for their services in the cult. 17

When looking at the catalogue of perquisites in the appendix from pp. 36-50 below, various things become clear. The most obvious is perhaps the number of different perquisites and how specific some of them are. It is also easily perceived that a few items stand out as the most common. A table with the items sorted by the number of hits gives this picture:

| Perquisites received                                      |   Number of hits |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|------------------|
| Money                                                     |               78 |
| δέρμα (hide, skin)                                        |               65 |
| σκέλος (leg)                                              |               46 |
| κωλῆ (thighbone)                                          |               25 |
| γλῶσσα (tongue)                                           |               22 |
| σπλάγχνα (entrails)                                       |               17 |
| πλευρόν (rib)                                             |               14 |
| κεφαλή (head)                                             |               13 |
| γέρας / γέρα (honorific portion/preroga- tive/perquisite) |               12 |
| κρέας (meat)                                              |               11 |
| ἀπόμετρα (priestly prerogative)                           |                9 |
| ἱερὰ μοῖρα (sacred portion)                               |                9 |
| πούς (foot)                                               |                9 |
| χορδή (intestine)                                         |                9 |
| ἀτελής (freedom from liturgies or taxes)                  |                8 |
| ἄρτος (bread)                                             |                7 |
| οἶνος (wine)                                              |                6 |
| τραπεζώματα (things on the table)                         |                6 |
| ὦμος / ὠμοπλάτη (shoulder/shoulder blade)                 |                6 |
| ἄλφιτον (barley-groats)                                   |                4 |

| νεφρός (kidney)                                                        |   4 |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|
| σκολιόν (intestine)                                                    |   4 |
| θύα ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἂν θύῃ (burnt-offerings from which one makes smoke)         |   3 |
| κώιδιον (sheep skin)                                                   |   3 |
| ὀσφῦς (loin)                                                           |   3 |
| οὖς (ear)                                                              |   3 |
| αἱμάτιον (blood-sausage)                                               |   2 |
| βραχίων (shoulder)                                                     |   2 |
| ἰσχίον (hip)                                                           |   2 |
| πρότμησις (portion from the waist)                                     |   2 |
| σπύρος (wheat)                                                         |   2 |
| τὰ ἐπὶ κωλῆν νεμόμενα (the portions distrib- uted on the thigh)        |   2 |
| χέλυς (chest)                                                          |   2 |
| ἀκρίσχιον (end of hip)                                                 |   1 |
| γαστρίον (stomach, or little stomach)                                  |   1 |
| γνάθος (jaw)                                                           |   1 |
| δεῖπνον (meal)                                                         |   1 |
| ἐγκέφαλος (brain)                                                      |   1 |
| ἔλαιον (olive oil)                                                     |   1 |
| ἐλατήρ (cake)                                                          |   1 |
| ἐνθρύπτος (a kind of cake?)                                            |   1 |
| ἑρμέα (Hermes-cake)                                                    |   1 |
| καρπεύεσθαι δὲ αὐτὸν καὶ τὸ ἱερόν (have the usufruct of the sanctuary) |   1 |
| κεφάλαιον (a part of the head)                                         |   1 |
| κοιλία (belly)                                                         |   1 |
| κορυφαῖα (parts of the (top of the?) head)                             |   1 |
| μνοῦς (soft down)                                                      |   1 |
| νῶτον (back)                                                           |   1 |
| ὁπλή (hoof ? (of oxen))                                                |   1 |

| πλάτη (shoulder blade)          |   1 |
|---------------------------------|-----|
| πόκος (wool, fleece)            |   1 |
| πυρός (wheat)                   |   1 |
| ῥύγχος (snout of swine)         |   1 |
| σῖτος (?) (grain)               |   1 |
| τὰ λοίπα ἱερά (the sacred rest) |   1 |
| ταρσός (shank)                  |   1 |
| τράχηλος (throat)               |   1 |
| ὑπώμαια (armpits)               |   1 |
| φθόϊς (cake)                    |   1 |
| χόλικες (bowels from ox)        |   1 |
| ὤρη (foreleg or tail?)          |   1 |

Money is by far the most common item, followed by only nine other items that can show more than 10 hits, δέρμα and σκέλος taking a clear lead. But against this seemingly uniform impression, it is worth pointing out that items with one to ten hits are still making up 35% of the total registered perquisites. Very many of these items with only one or few hits are of course special cuts from a sacrificial animal, which could be gathered under the heading: meat from ox, sheep or goat. 18 Others are different kinds of bakery. All in all, it confirms the view of how diverse local practice was in the many cults spread out across the ancient Greek world,  but  it  also  shows  a  common  structure  in  which  the  most  frequently given perquisites are found all over the Greek areas. 19

I  shall in what follows try to look into the question of how much a priestess  or  priest  could  earn  from  their  business,  especially  when  it comes to the received foodstuff and the hides. Were the priestesses' and priests' share of the sacrificial animal only a small supply to use for themselves and their families, or did they achieve a surplus they could subsequently sell? A number of variables have to be taken into consideration here:  How  large  was  the  sanctuary  in  which  the  priestess  or  priest served? How many people attended the cult? Did the priestess or priest serve at large public sacrificial festivals, and how often did these events occur in the given sanctuary? We know for example that the priestess of Athena Nike in Athens was to receive legs and hides from the public sacrifices. But how many legs and hides did that produce? How much money could she make from selling the legs and hides she received and thus ad to the 50 drachmas that she also received each year as a firm salary? 20 And the 50 drachmas, were they only what she received from the public sacrifices? Did private persons come to the sanctuary of Athena Nike to sacrifice besides the public events, and if they did, what should they pay for the service? These questions are not easily answered, at least not in detail.

18  For many of these see Ekroth 2007, 2008, 2011, 2013, and Carbon 2017.

19  On this question cf. Parker 2018.

Moreover,  these  questions  also  activate  the  topic  of  the  supply  of meat to the ancient communities. It is broadly agreed in scholarship that the bulk of the meat in circulation in ancient Greek society came from sacrifices. If the sanctuaries had a monopoly on delivering meat to society it must have had a considerable influence on the possible income for the priests selling their surplus of the acquired perquisites. And looking at our catalogue of acquired perquisites, the hides are equally brought to our attention. If the sanctuaries with their priestesses and priests had a near monopoly providing meat to the society, the same then must be the case for the hides.

## The sanctuaries as sole suppliers of meat?

The understanding of the sanctuaries as the main suppliers of meat to the communities has a long standing in scholarship going back at least to P. Stengel. 21 Some scholars even claim that the sanctuaries were the only suppliers of meat, at least that is Vincent J. Rosivach's argument in relation to Athens in the fourth century BCE. Rosivach moreover sees a division in the quality between what is kept in the sanctuaries for feasting or distribution and the parts ending up in the butchers' shops. At these shops only the odd parts of sacrificial victims were sold, that is those parts which could not easily be used for immediate cooking in the sanctuary. 22 In a footnote, Rosivach mentions a couple of sources which relates to the selling of sacrificial meat, but he sees them as exceptions from the general rule. 23

20  Cf. IG I 3 35 & 36/ OR 137 & 156.

21  Stengel 1920: 105-6; cf. Jameson 1988: 87, with note 1.

There is no doubt that the sanctuaries must have produced a large quantum of the meat in circulation in their respective local societies. On the other hand, I am not convinced that the sanctuaries were the only suppliers. I think we are easily misled in this question - as in other questions when it comes to ancient history - if we interpret the randomly preserved source material as giving a one-to-one picture of life in the Greek past. What we know is that there existed a market for meat, and some of this meat came from sanctuaries and ended up in the butchers' shops. These shops certainly also sold meat from other sources or producers, but these producers have to a large extend escaped mentioning in our preserved evidence. Michael Jameson in relating to the question of sanctuaries as sole suppliers of meat stated rightly that 'the bulk of the evidence is consistent with this view but [Arist.] Oec . 2.20e, 1349b distinguishes σφάζοντες ἐπώλουν from ἱερόθυτα ἐποίουν .' 24 In the Aristotelian text there is a clear division between the slaughter of livestock to meet the daily needs and the possibility to convert these animals to sacrificial victims if needed.

A passage from Saint Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians can perhaps support this point of view. In chapters eight to ten Paul treats the question  whether  the  Christians  in  Corinth  are  allowed  to  eat  meat

- 22  Rosivach 1994: 88: 'In sum then, there is no evidence for animals being slain for their meat outside the framework of sacrifice; the meats available for sale from butchers appear always to be cuts that would be unsuited for sacrificial meals; and the fantasies of comedy seem always to associate private dining exclusively with these odd cuts. Each of these factors is most easily explained if we assume that animals were slain only for the purpose of sacrifice and that only those parts of the animals unsuitable for sacrificial meals were disposed of by butchers on the public market.' For the arguments that only odd parts were at sale in the butcher's shops, cf. pp. 85-87.
- 23  Rosivach 1994: 86 note 60. The exceptions mentioned are the fifth-century calendar from the deme Skambonidai ( IG I 3 244/ CGRN 19 (without face B of the inscription)) and Theophrast Char. 22.4.  Rosivach  fails  to  mention  the  calendar  from  Thorikos ( NGSL 1/ CGRN 32),  and  if  we  leave  Attica,  we  also  have  an  example  from  Didyma ( LSAM 54). See further below.
- 24  Jameson 1988: 87 with note 1.

which comes from sacrifices in the temples. Paul's answer is that the Christians are allowed to eat anything they buy on the meat market without further examination. And if the Christians are invited to dinner in the homes of non-Christians, they can eat anything put on the table without further examination. But if the host tells the Christian guest that the meat on the table comes from sacrifices, the Christian shall refrain from eating it. Why this is so has to do with Paul's rather complicated arguments concerning what is allowed versus what is good to do as a Christian. But this just underlines my point: Why should the host suddenly tell the guest that the meat comes from sacrifices if all meat always did that? From the context it must be clear, that the market contained both meat from sacrifices and meat supplied from elsewhere. 25 But apart from stating that the sanctuaries with their priestesses and priests did not have a monopoly delivering meat to the local society, it is not possible to conclude anything more specific about the value of the meat the priestesses and priests received. We do not have prices for meat cuts preserved in our sources. And the two calendars from Attica mentioning the sale of meat - from the demes Skambonidai and Thorikos - have no prices at all. What matters in the two regulations is that the meat must be sold as both calendars are connected to the yearly rendering of accounts through the euthynai . 26 We have of course a number of prices connected to sacrificial victims in the preserved cult calendars, but that does not help us here. 27 The  fragment  from  Didyma  just  say  that  the  meat  must  be  sold  by weight. 28

- 25  1 Cor. 10.25-28. Πᾶν τὸ ἐν μακέλλῳ πωλούμενον ἐσθίετε μηδὲν ἀνακρίνοντες διὰ τὴν συνείδησιν . ... εἴ τις καλεῖ ὑμᾶς τῶν ἀπίστων καὶ θέλετε πορεύεσθαι , πᾶν τὸ παρατιθέμενον ὑμῖν ἐσθῖετε μηδὲν ἀνακρίνοντες διὰ τὴν συνείδησιν . έὰν δέ τις ὑμῖν εἴπῃ · τοῦτο ἱερόθυτὸν ἐστιν , μὴ ἐσθίετε δι᾽ἐκεῖνον τὸν μηνύσαντα καὶ τὴν συνείδησιν .
- 26  Skambonidai: CGRN 19 face C: 17-18; 21-22. Thorokos: CGRN 32: 9; 11-12; 23; 26; 35.
- 27  Thorikos (ca. 440-430/380-375): CGRN 32; Teithras (ca. 400-350): CGRN 55; Marathonian Tetrapolis (ca. 375-350): CGRN 56 (all the perquisites listed here are money); The Nicomachus Calendar (403/2-400/399): Lambert 2002, CGRN 45; Erchia (ca. 375-30): CGRN 52; The Salaminioi genos (363/2): CGRN 84, RO 37; Eleusis (ca. 330-270): CGRN 94.
- 28 LSAM 54. The text in tuto reads: ἐν τῆι σκην [ ῆι ... ] ν . εἰ δὲ μὴ , ἐξε̣ [ ῖ ]| ναι τῶι βουλομένωι λαμβάνειν · | πωλεῖσθαι δὲ πάντα σταθμῶι · | τῶν δὲ ῥυγχέων καὶ [ τ ] ῶν ἀκροκω | λίων

This rather meagre amount of direct source material for the sale of sacrificial meat - not to mention the lack of exact prices - is definitely not representative for the past reality. There has been a lot of meat at the sanctuaries, and this meat has been used in different ways. Some of it has been sold directly, some of it has been distributed among the community for free and some of it has been consumed in the sanctuary at a sacrificial feast. But what about the priest's share? It is reasonable to imagine,  that  the  parts  the  priestesses  and  priests  could  not  use  herself/himself also were sold. This cannot be proved, but I think it is a qualified  guess.  To  imagine  priestesses  and  priests  continually  during  the year  receiving  perquisites  in  kind  of  meat,  perhaps  taking  what  they could eat themselves on the day or the day after and then leaving the rest to rot in the sanctuary I find hard to believe.

## The value of hides

When looking at the received perquisites in kind, the hides constitute the largest group. In a fairly large part of the inscriptions the kind of hides or skin are either not specified in the text or lost on the stone. But generally, the evidence show that the priestesses and priests received hides from all the most common sacrificial animals as ox, sheep, goat and pigs  with  sheep  not  surprisingly  in  the  lead. 29 As  with  the  meat  the priestesses and priests must continually have had quite a stock of animal hides much more than they could use themselves, unless they joined the

ὑπολογίζεσθαι τὸ τρίτον | μέρος .  [ ὑ ] πὲρ τῶν κεφαλῶν τῶν | προβατείων . τοὺς δὲ μαγείρ [ ους ] | πωλεῖν τὰς κεφαλὰς τῶν [ προβά ]| των καθάραντας̣ -  -  -  -  -  ('...  in the tent ..., but if not, the one who wish can take: sell it all from weight. From the snouts and from the other cut-aways a third portion must be included. Concerning the heads of the flocks: The butchers shall sell the heads from the animals cleaned ...'). Sokolowski gives no date. Rehm 1958, no. 482 has a slightly different reading. See the commentary on this topic in NGSL : 71-72.

- 29  In 18 cases the kind of hide is either not specified or lost on the stone. In 17 cases the priest is to receive hides from all sacrificed animals. In 16 cases hide from sheep are specified, in 8 cases oxen, in 5 cases goats, and in 2 cases pigs.

priestly services with a business as tanners. This is of course not an impossible thought (at least not for the priests), but to my knowledge we have no evidence for such a connection.

When it comes to the prices on hides we have perhaps a little more to go on compared to the meat. A connection between hides from sacrificial animals and prices is first and foremost seen in the so-called dermatikon -accounts dating from Lycurgean Athens in the 330s. 30 The inscription originally in four columns - is heavily fragmented and must have contained  various  accounts.  The  best-preserved  part  of  the  text,  though, gives  us  the  account ἐκ τοῦ δερματικοῦ for  the  years  334/3  through 331/0.

The year 334/3 lists nine public sacrificial festivals with information on which board of magistrates was in charge of each festival and how much income in cash the sale of hides from the sacrificial victims had rendered. The board in charge of the sale seems to be the βοῶναι . 31 The full sum from this year were 5,099 drachmas and 4 obols . The largest preserved sum collected from one of the nine festivals is from the sacrifice for Zeus Soter, giving 1,050 drachmas, the smallest sum is from the sacrifice to Agathe Tyche , giving 160 drachmas.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to link any of the cults mentioned in the dermatikon -accounts to documents regulating priestly perquisites to these same cults, at least not in detail. The closest we get is in the case of the Bendis cult. Stephen Lambert has commented on the dermatikon -accounts in comparison with a late 5th century document concerning the

- 30 IG II 2 1496. Cf. Rosivach 1994: 48-67. Rosivach suggests that the selling of the hides from these festivals was not invented by Lycurgus, but that he had rationalised a pre-existing practice (p. 48 note 99), and it seems quite clear from what we know about  the  term  that  Lycurgus  somehow  were  involved:  For  the  meaning  of dermatikon cf.  Harpokration  s.v.: Λυκοῦργος ἐν τῷ ἐπιγραφομένῳ ἀπολογισμὸς ὧν πεπολίτευται · δερματικὸν ἂν εἴη λέγων ὁ ῥήτωρ τὸ ἐκ τῶν δερματίων τῶν πιπρασκομένων περιγινόμενον ἀργύριον (Lycurgus  in  the  title  'account  to  those who are governed': Dermatikon is  -  according to the speaker - the surplus of the money coming from the sales of the hides). Apart from this and IG II 2 1496, dermatikon is known only from IG II 3 1 445:42, ... τῶν θεῶν τὸ ἀργύριον [ τ ] ὸ ἐκ τοῦ δερματικοῦ ... The context is uncertain, but the text is from a law issued by Lycurgus.
- 31  For the βοῶναι cf.  Dem. 21.171 and RO 81: B17-18. See also Rosivach 1994: 108-14. Hansen 1980: 163-64 gives an overview of the magistrates mentioned in IG II 2 1496.

cult of Bendis in Athens, the earliest evidence we possess on this cult. 32 In the dermatikon -accounts we have preserved under the year 334/3: ἐγ Βενδιδέων παρὰ ἱεροποι [ ῶν ] and the sum 457 drachmas. An identical line can be reconstructed in the following year, but here the sum of money is lost. 33 Is  it  at  all  possible  to  connect these 457 drachmas to the Bendis priestess? 34

The late fifth-century Bendis-document is unfortunately very damaged, and there is no clear reference to priests in the preserved text, but it  is  very likely that this cult regulation has contained information on priestly perquisites. 35 In  l.  34  we  read:  [ ․․ c.7 ․․ ἀπ ] ὸ δέκα h ιερείον· τὰ δὲ ἄλλα δέρματ̣ [ α ․․ c.28 ․․ ]. 36 To  this  Lambert  has  suggested  that  the  text could have described a division between hides (from ten victims) going to the priestess and the hides from the rest of the victims going to be sold as we find it in the dermatikon -accounts. As Lambert puts it: 'Skins (or in the case of mass sacrifices, as here, some skins) of sacrificial victims were commonly retained by the officiating priest or priestess as a fee (cf., e.g., SEG 54.214). Here a division is probably being made between skins going to the priestess and others which were to be sold to finance the cult.' It is this last part of the hides Lambert suggests we have represented in the dermatikon -accounts. 37

This is a plausible suggestion, but it is at the same time important to emphasize that the suggestion only hangs on the damaged line 34 of the Bendis inscription. We have no direct evidence in the preserved sources

- 32 IG I 3 136/ CGRN 44 (413/2 BCE). Lambert's comments are in AIO in connection with his translation of the document.
- 33 IG II 2 1496: 86, 117.
- 34  On the question of both a priestess and a priest serving the Bendis cult cf. Lambert 2010: 161-163. See also Parker 1996: 170-75 on the establishment of the Bendis cult in Piraeus.
- 35 IG I 3 136/ CGRN 44: 29-36. In l. 29 of the fragment, we read: [ ․ c.13 ․ ] εἴτε χρὲ γυναῖκα h ιερεοσ [ ․ c.30 ․ ]. In AIO Lambert translates l. 29: '... whether the wife of the priest (?) ought ...,' with the commentary to the translation: 'The word translated here as 'of the  priest'  may  also  be  part  of  a  longer  verb,  which  would  change  the  sense  to 'whether a woman should serve as priest.' This translation is preferred in CGRN . See in general Lambert's translation and important commentaries in AIO . Cf. also Wijma 2014: 139-45.
- 36  Lambert trans.: '... from ten victims. The other hides ...'
- 37  Lambert in AIO note 10.

for the division of hides between the priestess or priest and the cult. The SEG 54.214 mentioned by Lambert refers to the so-called law from Aixone in Attica from ca. 400-375 (see also CGRN 57). Nowhere in this inscription is it stipulated that the skins are to be divided between the priest and cult. All the skins go to the relevant priest. Having no examples of such a division we have on the contrary some cases in which it is being specified that all the hides from public sacrifices shall go to the priestess or priest. From Athens most prominently perhaps the fifth-century decree establishing a cult for Athena Nike. 38 Looking beyond Attica we have examples in which the priestess or priest shall have all the hides from public sacrifices, but no hides from private sacrifices. 39 And we have quite a lot of cases just stating that the priestess or priest shall receive 'the hides' in plural. 40 Judged from the preserved evidence the normal procedure thus seems to be that the priestesses or priests received all the hides from public  sacrifices.  And  following  this  line  we  should  perhaps  conclude that the priestess of Bendis in the year 334/3 received 457 drachmas from the sale of the hides given to her during that year's festival. And moreover, that all the numbers mentioned in the dematikon -accounts derived from the sale of hides given to priestesses or priests during a year's public sacrifices.

In the chart below I have listed the preserved prices in the dematikon -accounts. Taken that all the sums come from public festivals held during a year, I have divided the sums with 365. The numbers in the brackets indicate thus how much the yearly sum equals in drachmas per day.

| Cult / Sanctuary                | 334/3          | 333/2          | 332/1   | 331/0   |
|---------------------------------|----------------|----------------|---------|---------|
| Dionysos in Peiraios            | 311 dr. (0.85) |                |         | Lost    |
| Dionysos at the Lenaia festival | Lost           | 106 dr. (0.29) |         | Lost    |
| Agathe Tyche                    | 160 dr. (0.44) | 101 dr. (0.28) |         |         |

| Asklepios                           | 291 dr. (0.80)   | 225 dr. (0.62)        |                      | Lost   |
|-------------------------------------|------------------|-----------------------|----------------------|--------|
| Asklepios                           |                  |                       | 1,000 dr. (2.74)     | Lost   |
| Dionysos in the city                | 808 dr. (2.21)   | 306 dr. (0.84)        |                      | Lost   |
| Olympieion at the demos ' gathering | 671 dr. (1.84)   | 500 dr. (1.37)        |                      |        |
| Hermes Hegemonios                   | Lost             | Lost                  |                      |        |
| Bendis                              | 457 dr. (1.25)   | Lost                  |                      |        |
| Zeus Soter                          | 1,050 dr. (2.88) | 2,610 dr. (7.15)      |                      |        |
| Eirene                              |                  | 874 dr. (2.39)        | 710 dr. 3 ob. (1.95) |        |
| Ammon                               |                  | 44 dr. 4.5 ob. (0.12) |                      |        |
| Panathenaion                        |                  | 61 dr. 3 ob. (0.17)   | Lost                 |        |
| Panathenaion (?)                    |                  | 33 dr. 3 ob. (0.09)   |                      |        |
| Daeira (+ others lost on the stone) |                  | 229 dr. 4 ob. (0.63)  |                      |        |
| Eleusinion                          |                  |                       | Lost                 |        |
| Demokratia                          |                  |                       | 414 dr. 3 ob. (1.14) |        |
| Theseus (?)                         |                  |                       | 1,183 dr. (3.24)     | Lost   |

If we look at the description in Ath.Pol. on payments for attending meetings and holding offices in Athens about the same time as that of the dermatikon -accounts, these varies from ½ to 1 ½ drachmas. And the wages for unskilled labourers were around 1 ½ drachmas per day, while a skilled labourer  could  earn  up  to  2 ½ drachmas  per  day. 41 Compared  to  this  it makes good sense to interpret the sums in the dermatikon -accounts as yearly payments to the priestesses or priests for the festivals. It is only the sums from Zeus Soter in the year 333/2 with 2,610 drachmas that seems to stand out as extreme, but the year before the payment was in line with what could be expected. All in all, the trend seems to indicate wages in the lower end. But this is of course only payments from the sale of hides. The priestesses and priests had as we have seen also a whole range of other sources of income. 42

## Wealthy priestesses and priests?

Were the ancient Greek priestesses and priests wealthy people because of their position in the cults receiving perquisites for their services? It is often stated in scholarship that Greek priests did not make up a specific caste or class with a fixed position in society, and through many years it was also established knowledge that anyone could make a sacrifice in a Greek sanctuary without the involvement of a priestess or a priest. 43 Today this picture has been nuanced. First of all, there seems to be a general acceptance now that a Greek cult could not function without a priestess

- 41  [Arist.], Ath. Pol . 62.2. RO , xxiii with the references in note 17.
- 42  Payments to priests are examined by Loomis 1998: 76-86. In his conclusions p. 256 he states: '... I have isolated those figures that tell us what people really were paid for various kinds of work and allowances at various periods. ... The evidence for physicians, priests, oracles, seers, actors, writers and pimps is either not reliable or not useful for comparative purposes.'
- 43  Thus e.g., Burkert 1985: 95: 'Greek religion might almost be called a religion without priests: there is no priestly caste as a closed group with fixed tradition, education, initiation, and hierarchy, and even in the permanently established cults there is no disciplina , but only usage, nomos . The god in principle admits anyone, as long as he respects the nomos , that is, as long as he is willing to fit into the local community; ... among the Greeks, sacrifice can be performed by anyone who is possessed of the desire and the means, including housewives and slaves.' But one can also refer to Stengel 1898: 31, or Ziehen 1913: col. 1411.

or a priest, not to mention the polis as such. 44 Secondly it is obvious from the investigation here that it was established as a fundamental rule that the priestesses and the priests should receive perquisites for their service to cult and polis .

Attending a cult was giving to the cult, whether it was the society the polis -  which attended or a private person: One gave some kind of sacrifice to the gods, one paid perhaps a fee for getting access to the cult, and one had to give perquisites to the priestess or priest who should perform the ritual. Something of what was given came back to society or the private individual. Sacrificial meat could be distributed to members of the society, or the sacrificial meat could be sold and thus enter a market. 45 The same could happen - as we have seen - with hides from sacrificial victims. And it is my suggestion here that also the priestesses and priests have been suppliers of meat and hides given the fact that they must have received far  more  than  they  were  able  to  consume  or  use themselves. Did that make them rich? Not necessarily. But I am sure that income - large or small - floated to the priestesses or priests continuously during the year and thus made the basis for a firm income.

The role of the Attic gene with its exclusivity when it comes to supplying public cults with priestesses and priests could very well derive from the possibility of controlling the economy in certain cults. And it is a fact that a large part of our sources concerning cult regulations concentrate on economic matters - an obvious example being the arbitration in the genos of the Salaminioi. 46 The conflict in this case is clear: how were the cults administered by the genos to be financed, and who within the genos had a right to which priesthoods and how should the perquisites be divided? This is the expressed purpose of linking the result of the arbitration with a sacrificial calendar - the only surviving calendar where we can actually see from the preserved text on the stone why it was written up. 47 And one could also point to the contracts in connection with the sale of priesthoods in the eastern part of the Greek world. Some of these priesthoods were sold at very high prices, and perquisites such as exemption from liturgies - but also running income from other kinds of perquisites - is a central theme in these texts. We have of course also examples of priesthoods sold at more modest prices, but again, in the contracts the priestly income stand as a central and very important issue. 48

44  Cf. e.g., Parker 2011: 48-57. On the priest's role in the ritual cf. Rasmussen 2008. Important is also Blok 2017 establishing priestesses as citizens with very conspicuous roles in society.

45  As in the demes of Skambonidai ( CGRN 19) and Thorikos ( CGRN 32). But see also the law and decree on the Little Panathenaea from c. 335: RO 81: B1-29.

46 CGRN 84/ RO

37.

## Appendix: A catalogue of perquisites

This section contains a catalogue of all the different items that priestesses and priests received as perquisites. Some of the grants are very specific and technical, and we have a lot of examples, with only one occurrence in the whole material, others we find frequently. It has not been the purpose here to go into the discussion of the exact meaning of these sometimes very specific parts of the sacrificial animals given as priestly perquisites. There exists much qualified work on this subject. 49 In  the catalogue I have used the translations of the Greek terms found in CGRN . The catalogue lists the Greek terms in alphabetical order and the number of hits in the sources. In counting the number of hits, the approach has been to register perquisites in each cult. If e.g. one inscription deals with a number of cults, it can result in more than one hit for each perquisite in the same text. I give the reference to the sources below each lemma. Arabic numbers in italics alone refer to the inscription in CGRN followed by reference to line. If not anything else is noted all years are BCE.

- 47 CGRN 84/ RO 37: 80-84.
- 48  Typical examples of contracts cf. CGRN 119 (Theangela near Halikarnassos, ca. 250200)  &  184  (from  Kasossos,  ca.  200-100).  None  of  these  have  preserved  the  price payed for the priesthood, but IErythrai 201, ca. 300-260 lists the sale of public priesthoods. The most expensive priesthood went for 4610 drachmas while the cheapest went for 10 drachmas. For this list see now the convenient set-up in Parker 2011: 98102.
- 49  Fundamental now for the study of animal sacrifice in Greek cult is the work of Gunnel Ekroth. See especially Ekroth 2007, 2008a, 2008b, 2009, 2011, 2013. Important is also Carbon 2017.

αἱμάτιον (blood-sausage) 2 39:10-13 , Miletos c 400 86:A52f , Cos c 350 ἀκρίσχιον (end of hip) 1 86:A52 , Cos c 350 ἄλφιτον (barley-groats) 4 56:II.45, 50 , Marathonian Tetrapolis c 375-350 88 , Chios c 350-300 156:14-15 , Mykonos c 230-200 ἀπόμετρα 50 (priestly prerogative) 9 25:A19-20, A23-24, A30-31, B2-3, B6, B13, B20, B24-25, B28-29 ,  Attic deme of Paiania c 450-425 ἄρτος (bread) 7 80 , Erythrai c 350 84:43-46 , Attica 363/2 ἀτελής 51 (free from liturgies or taxes) 8 49:3 , Chios c 400-375 93:11 , Xanthos 337/6 119:16 , Theangela c 250-200 147:6-8 , Cos c 250-200 164:12-13 , Cos c 200-150 167:9-11 , Cos 1st cent. 175:2-3 , Priene 2nd cent.

- 50  Apart from the nine entries here, ἀπόμετρα always refers to payments of money to priestesses in Attica (see lemma 'money' below). In CGRN 25 (from the Attic deme Paiania) we have though the nine entries here in which ἀπόμετρα refers to a contribution of 'a quarter' ( τεταρτεύς ) to priestesses. What the quarter refers to is unclear.
- 51  This is of course not a direct perquisite, but I have included it in the list as an indirect income. In the sales contracts this seem to be one of the most important privileges of the priesthoods in question.

221:16-18 , Cos c 125-100

## βραχίων (shoulder) 2 156:8, 31-32 , Cos c 325-300

γαστρίον (stomach, or little stomach) 1 39:2-10 , Miletos c 400

## γέρας / γέρα 52 12

36:1-7 , Chios end of 5th cent.

38:A7 , Chios c 400

88 , Chios c 350-300

160:B9 , Delos 181/0

170:4-8 , Chios c 500-400

175:8-9, 14-15 , Priene 2nd cent.

188:14 , Cos 1st cent.

194:53 , Magnesia-on-the-Maiander c 197/6 or 180s

246:8-20 , Miletos 380/79 or 379/8

248:A28, B30-40 , Miletos c 129

LSAM 65:6 , Mylasa 2nd cent.

Mylasa 350:1 (PHI) , Mylasa udat.

## γλῶσσα

## (tongue) 22

36:1-7 , Chios end 5th cent.

38:A7 , Chios c 400

39:2-10 , Miletos c 400

41:9 , Chios c 425-350

- 49:7 , Chios c 400-375
- 50 , Chios c 400-350

80 , Erythrai c 350

88 , Chios c 350-300

- 52 CGRN use three different translations according to context: 'honorific portion' (36, Chios end of 5th cent.; 38, Chios c 400), 'prerogative' (88, Chios c 350-300; 170, Chios c 500-400), 'perquisite' (160, Delos 181/0; 175, Priene 2nd cent.; 188, Cos 1st cent.). LSAM 65 and Mylasa 350 (PHI) both have γέρας in the singular, but the contexts are lost.

100 , Miletos c 300-275 120:7 , Sinope c 350-250 122:4-6 , Thebes-on-the-Mykale c 350-250 138 , Miletos 275/4 156:8, 31-32, 32-33, 33-34 , Mykonos c 230-200 170:4-8 , Chios c 500-400 176:8-10 , Priene 2nd cent. 196:12-18 , Iasos c 225-200 249:C5 , Miletos 1st cent. CE LSS 121:17-22 , Ephesos 3rd cent CE SEG 56:1037:3-6 , Plakari 4th cent

## γνάθος (jaw) 1

37:11 , Chios c 425-375

## δεῖπνον (meal) 1

49:10 , Chios c 400-375

## δέρμα (hide, skin) 65

14:5-6 , Gortyn c 500-450; 53

19:A14-15 , Attic deme of Skambonidai c 460; 54

26:B6-7, B16-18 , Attica c 430

30 , Delphi c 450-375

36:1-7 , Chios end of 5th cent.

39:2-10 , Miletos c 400

42:5-6 , Iasos c 425-375

44 , Athens 413/2

50:5 , Chios c 400-350

52: Α 22, Α 50-51, Β 39, Δ 39-40 , Ε 8, Attic deme of Erchia c 375-350

57:5-6, 10, 12, 20, 26-28, 28-29,32-33 , Attic deme of Aixone c 400-375

61 , Athens c 350

80 , Erythrai c 350

84:31-33, 33, 37-39 , Attica 363/2

85:B58-59 , Cos c 350

- 53  The entry has two hides: ἀμμνά (lambskin) and βοΐα (oxhide).
- 54  The hide belongs to the demarch .

86:A20-23, A45-47, A49-51, A56-58, A58-60, C2-3, C17-20, D2-3, D3-5, D5-8, D2021 , Cos c 350

91:28-30 , Eretria c 340

96:39-41 , Cos c 325-300

99:98-99 , Cyrene c 325-300

100 , Miletos c 300-275

118:4-14, Halikarnassos c 250-200

119:6-12 , Theangela c 250-200

120:6 , Sinope c 350-250

124:6 , Pergamon c 250-200

147:12 , Cos c 250-200

163:B14-16 , Cos 1st cent.

164:7-8 , Cos c 200-150

175:8-9 , Priene 2nd cent.

176:8-10 , Priene 2nd cent.

184:7-9 , Kasossos c 200-100

206:14 , Pergamon 2nd cent.

212:14 , Pergamon aft. 133

222:A83-89 , Andania 23 CE(?)

249:C7 , Miletos 1st cent. CE 55

IG I 3 35:11-12 , Athens c 448

LSAM 2:5 , Chalkedon 3rd cent

LSCG 45:2-6 , Piraeus 4th cent. 56

LSCG 89:8 , Phanagoria 2nd cent. CE 57

LSCG 164:4 , Cos 2nd cent.

LSS 121:17-22 , Ephesos 3rd cent. CE

SEG 56:1037:3-6 , Plakari 4th cent.

## ἐγκέφαλος (brain) 1

196:12-18 , Iasos c 225-200

ἔλαιον (olive oil) 1

55  Have the word δορά instead of δέρμα .

56  The text mentions three donations of hides: One from a young victim, one from a full-grown victim, and one from an ox.

57  Have the word δορά instead of δέρμα

.

80 , Erythrai c 350 ἐλατήρ (cake) 1 74:7 , Attica 396/5 ἐνθρύπτος (a kind of cake?) 1 42:4 , Iasos c 425-375 58 ἑρμέα (Hermes-cake) 1 49:9 , Chios c 400-375 θύα ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἂν θύῃ (burnt-offerings from which one makes smoke) 3 36:1-7 , Chios end of 5th cent. 41:13 , Chios c 425-350 49:9 , Chios c 400-375 ἱερὰ μοῖρα 59 (sacred portion) 9 29:25-28 , Delphi c 425 60 38:A7 , Chios c 400 61 39:2-10 , Miletos c 400

- 58  For the establishment of this text from two copies, cf. Fabiani 2016.
- 59  What the expression ἱερὰ μοῖρα covers has been widely discussed in scholarship. It is commonly accepted that it should be translated 'sacred portion' or 'divine portion', but what it contained is unknown. A traditional view has linked it to another enigmatic term, τραπεζώματα (q.v.), 'the things placed on the table,' cf. Sokolowski's commentary at LSAM 21 & 37 and Gill 1974. Dimitrova 2008 suggested that ἱερὰ μοῖρα represented a specific part of the sacrificial animal and found that the ὀσφύς was a possibility. Carbon 2017 also argue σ for a specific perk but suggests - inspired by Ekroth 2013 - that it referred to parts connected with the foreleg of the animal.
- 60  The preserved text does not contain the expression ἱερὰ μοῖρα ,  but  some kind of portion  is  given  to  a  priest: ὑπαρχέτο δὲ τὰ ἐξαίρετα · π [ ε ][ λ ] ανὸς τέσσαρας , μεταξέ [ ν ][ ι ] α δύο , ἱερε̃ι ἕξ , ἀπὸ τῆς ἑ [ κ ][ ατ ] όμβης ἑκάστ [ η ] ς . Cf. the commentary in CGRN.
- 61  The text just mentions a portion together with gera and tongue: ἢν δὲ ἰδιώτης ποι [ ῇ ], δίδοσθαι ἀπὸ τ õ ἱερ [õ], ὥστε ἐς [ τὸ ] λ [ ί ] κνον ἐνθεῖ [ ν ] αι ,  [ μ ] οῖραν καὶ γέρας καὶ γλῶσσαν .

119:11-12 , Theangela c 250-200 62 122:4-6 , Thebes-on-the-Mykale c 350-250 138 , Miletos 275/4 176:8-10 , Priene 2nd cent. 63 249:C5 , Miletos 1st cent CE LSAM 63:5 , Mylasa udat.

## ἰσχίον (hip) 2

103:5, 20-21 , Attic deme of Phrearrhioi c 300-250

καρπεύεσθαι δὲ αὐτὸν καὶ τὸ ἱερόν (have the usufruct of the sanctuary) 1

206:16 , Pergamon 2nd cent.

## κεφάλαιον

86:A54-55

(a part of the head) 1 , Cos c 350

## κεφαλή (head) 13

30 , Delphi c 450-375

38:B7 , Chios c 400

42:1 , Iasos c 425-375

45:A.3.43, A.3.56 , Athens c 410-404 and 403/2-400/399

80 , Erythrai c 350

85:B58-59 , Cos c 350

88 , Chios c 350-300

99:98-99 , Cyrene c 325-300

104:33-40 , Halikarnassos c 285-245

193:Ab16-17, B17-18 , Hyllarima 196

196:12-18 , Iasos c 225-200

LSS 121:17-22 , Ephesos 3rd cent. CE.

## κοιλία

(belly) 1

85:A32 , Cos c 350

62  The priest is to receive τὰ παρατιθέμενα τῶι θεῶι (the portions set aside to the god). 63  ... παρὰ βωμοῦ μοίρας .

## κορυφαῖα (parts of the (top of the?) head) 1 39:10-13 , Miletos c 400

## κρέας (meat) 11

39:2-10, 10-13 , Miletos c 400

49:7-8 , Chios c 400-375

50 , Chios c 400-350

57:6, 13, 16-17, 20-21 , Attic deme of Aixone c 400-375 76:19-21 , Erythrai c 380-360

80 , Erythrai c 350

84:33 , Attica 363/2 64

86:A52-54 , Cos c 350

160:B7 , Delos 181/0

215 , Attica 1st cent.

LSS 130 , Chios 4th cent. 65

## κώιδιον

## (sheep skin) 3

98:B5 , Erythrai c 350-300

104:33-40 , Halikarnassos c 285-245

122:4-6 , Thebes-on-the-Mykale c 350-250

## κωλῆ 66 (thighbone) 25

25:B32-35 , Attic deme of Paiania c 450-425

45 , Athens c 410-404 and 403/2-400/399

57:4, 8, 10-11, 15-16, 18-19, 22-23 , Attic deme of Aixone c 400-375

74:5, 6-7 , Attica 396/5

100 , Miletos c 300-275

103:5 , Attic deme of Phrearrhioi c 300-250

104:33-40 , Halikarnassos c 285-245

118:4-14 , Halikarnassos c 250-200 67

- 64  The text has σάρξ in stead of κρέας .
- 65 κρέας is not preserved on the stone, just ... μο ] ίρας δύο .
- 66  For a discussion of κωλῆ in relation to σκέλος cf. Carbon 2017: 152-56.
- 67  The passage contains the expression: '... a thigh, and a portion distributed on the thigh ...' (trans. in CGRN ); the Greek text in context: λήψεται τῶν θυομένων δημοσίαι

119:6-12 , Theangela c 250-200 68

122:4-6 , Thebes-on-the-Mykale c 350-250

124:6 , Pergamon c 250-200

156:14 , Mykonos c 230-200

160:B3 , Delos 181/0

184:6-7 , Kasossos c 200-100

196:12-18 , Iasos c 225-200

LSAM 2:5 , Chalkedon 3rd cent.

LSAM 63:5 , Mylasa no date

IG II 2 1361:2-6 , Peiraeus c 330-324/3

SEG 56:1037:3-6 , Plakari 4th cent.

## μνοῦς (soft down) 1

LSAM 66:11-12 , Mylasa no date

## money 69 78

26:B10, B11-13 , Attica c 430

41:10 , Chios c 425-350

42:8 , Iasos c 425-375

45:A.3.4, 3.23, 3.39, 3.52, 3.76, 5.11, 6.3, 6.6, 12.7, B.1.10, 4.17, 5.13, 5.15 , Athens c 410-404 and 403/2-400/39;

49:11-12 , Chios c 400-375

52:E47-58 , Attic deme of Erchia c 375-350

ἀφ ' ἑκάστου ἱερείου κωλῆν καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ κω ⌈ λ ⌉ ῆι νεμόμενα καὶ τεταρτημορίδα σπλάγχνων καὶ τὰ δέρματα , τῶν δὲ ἰδιωτικῶν ⌈ λ ⌉ ήψεται κω ⌈ λ ⌉ ῆν καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ κω ⌈ λ ⌉ ῇ νεμόμενα καὶ τεταρτημορίδα σπλάγχνων (ll. 9-14). See the commentary in CGRN and Parker 2010.

- 68  The inscription has the same wording as CGRN 118, cf. n. 65 above.
- 69  This is a collected entry for all the examples found in which money is payed to the priestess/priest  as  a  perquisite.  In  some  cases  -  especially  in  Attica  -  the  term ἱερεώσυνα is used when the grant is money, but there are also many cases with just a neutral verbal expression that money is going to be payed to the priestess/priest. CGRN 26 from Attica use the term ἀπόμετρα . We have two examples of the use of the term γέρα , one from the Attic deme of Erchia ( CGRN 52) and one from Erythrai ( CGRN 98). According to A. Chaniotis there is no reason to pay much attention to these different expressions as τὰ ἱερώσυνα is just a short form for τὰ ἱερώσυνα γέρα ( EBGR 2002.32).

55:5, 10 , Attic deme of Teithras c 400-350

56:II.8, 9, 12, 15, 16, 20-21, 22, 28, 28-29, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 42, 43-45, 46, 47, 48-49,

49-50, 51-52 , Marathonian Tetrapolis c 375-350

57:5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 16, 20, 24, 26-28, 28, 32 , Attic deme of Aixone c 400-375 74:6, 8 , Attica 396/5

76 , Erythrai c 380-360

84:28-30, 34-36 , Attica 363/2

94:A15, A25 , Eleusis c 330-270

98:A10-15, B

10-11, Erythrai c 350-300

103:20-21 , Attic deme of Phrearrhioi c 300-250

118:23-28 , Halikarnassos c 250-200

124:7

, Pergamon c 250-200

138 , Miletos 275/4

142:A20-23 , Cos c 100-50

187

, Magnesia-on-the-Maeander beg. 2nd cent.

220:8-9 , Cos late 2nd cent.

222:A83-89

, Andania 23 CE(?)

IG I 3 35+36

, Athens c 448 and 424/3

IG II 2 1361:2-6 , Piraeus 4th cent.

## νεφρός (kidney) 4

39:2-10 , Miletos c 400

122:4-6 , Thebes-on-the-Mykale c 350-250

138 , Miletos 275/4

249:C5 , Miletos 1st cent. CE

## νῶτον

## (back) 1

45:A.3.41 , Athens c 410-404 and 403/2-400/399

## οἶνος (wine) 6

34:9, 27-28 , Epidauros end 5th cent

56:II.45, 50 , Marathonian Tetrapolis c 375-350

74 , Attica 396/5

156:14-15 , Mykonos c 230-200

## ὁπλή (hoof ? (of oxen)) 1

## 86:D18-20 , Cos c 350

## ὀσφῦς 70 (loin) 3

42:1 , Iasos c 425-375

100:2 , Miletos c 300-275

156:14 , Mykonos c 230-200

## οὖς (ear) 3

74:5-6, 7 , Attica 396/5 86:A60-62 , Cos c 350

## πλάτη (shoulder blade) 1

129:5 , Patara c 300-200

## πλευρόν

## (rib) 14

25:B32-35 , Attic deme of Paiania c 450-425

57:4, 8-9, 10-11, 15-16, 18-19, 22-23 , Attic deme of Aixone c 400-375 71

61:8 , Athens c 350

74:5, 7 , Attica 396/5

88:7 , Chios c 350-300 72

103:5, 20-21 , Attic deme of Phrearrhioi c 300-2501

196:12-18 , Iasos c 225-200

πόκος (wool, fleece) 1

98:A12 , Erythrai c 350-300

## πούς (foot) 9

30:A5, B2 , Delphi c 450-375

42:1 , Iasos c 425-375

45:A.3.43, 56 , Athens c 410-404 and 403/2-400/399

85:B58-59 , Cos c 350

99:98-99 , Cyrene c 325-300

193:Ab16-17, B17-18 , Hyllarima 196

- 70  For a discussion of the term cf. Carbon 2017: 158.
- 71  In the law from Aixone the expression is πλευρὸν ἰσχίο throughout.
- 72  Spelled: πλεόρας .

πρότμησις (portion from the waist) 2 37:11 , Chios c 425-375 120:7, 8 , 73 Sinope c 350-250 πυρός (wheat) 1 37:13 , Chios c 425-375 ῥύγχος (snout of swine) 1 80 , Erythrai c 350 σῖτος (?) (grain) 1 38:A3-4 , Chios c 400 σκέλος 74 (leg) 46 22:B15 , Argos c 450; 26:16, 19 , Attica c 430 30:B3 , Delphi c 450-375 34:9-10, 11-13, 28-30, 30-31 , Epidauros end 5th cent. 37:10 , Chios c 425-375 39:2-10 , Miletos c 400 42:1 , Iasos c 425-375 45:A.3.54 , Athens c 410-404 and 403/2-400/399 61:5 , Athens c 350 84:31-33, 37-39 , Attica 363/2 85:B55, 58-59 , Cos c 350 86:A20-23, 45-47, 49-51, 56-58, 58-60, C2-3, 17-20, D2-3, 5-8, 21 , Cos c 350 96:39-41 , Cos c 325-300 98:A15, B5 , Erythrai c 350-300 104:33-40 , Halikarnassos c 285-245 138:17-18 , Miletos 275/4 75 147:12 , Cos c 250-200

- 73 CGRN 120:8 has: πρότμησις ἢ ὠμοπλάτη (portion from the waist or shoulder blade).

74  For a discussion of σκέλος in relation to κωλῆ cf. Carbon 2017: 152-56.

75  The passage reads: σκέλος εἰς κοτυληδόνα [ ἐκ τ ] ετμημένον (a leg cut into (i.e. at) the hip-joint ( CGRN trans.)).

163:B14-16 , Cos 1st cent.

164:7-8 , Cos c 200-150

176:8-10 , Priene 2nd cent.

184:7-9 , Kasossos c 200-100

187:10-11 , Magnesia-on-the-Maeander beg. 2nd cent.

188:1 , Cos 1st cent.

196:12-18 , Iasos c 225-200

206:14 , Pergamon 2nd cent.

212:14 , Pergamon aft. 133

249:C5 , Miletos 1st cent. CE

IG I 3 35:11-12 , Athens c 448

## σκολιόν (intestine) 4

39:2-10 , Miletos c 400

122:4-6 , Thebes-on-the-Mykale c 350-250

138:17 , Miletos 275/4

249:C5 , Miletos 1st cent. CE

## σπλάγχνα (entrails) 17

36:1-7 , Chios end 5th cent.

39:2-10 , Miletos c 400

41:12 , Chios c 425-350

42:1 , Iasos c 425-375

49:6 , Chios c 400-375

50:7 , Chios c 400-350

76:19-21 , Erythrai c 380-360

88:1 , Chios c 350-300

104:33-40 , Halikarnassos c 285-245

118:4-14 , Halikarnassos c 250-200

119:6-12 , Theangela c 250-200

138:16 , Miletos 275/4

170:4-8 , Chios c 500-400

188:3-5 , Cos 1st cent.

249:C4 , Miletos 1st cent. CE

LSAM 66:11-12 , Mylasa udat.

LSS 130 , Chios 4th cent.

Halikarnassos  118:9  (PHI) ,  undat.  (L.  Robert, Études  anatoliennes (Paris 1937), 466-468

## σπύρος

(wheat) 2

34:8-9, 26-27 , Epidauros end 5th cent

## τὰ ἐπὶ κωλῆν νεμόμενα (the portions distributed on the thigh) 2

118:11 , Halikarnassos c 250-200

119:7-8 , Theangela c 250-200

## τὰ λοίπα ἱερά (the sacred rest) 1

249:C7 , Miletos 1st cent. CE

## ταρσός

86

(shank) 1 , Cos c 350

## τραπεζώματα 76 (things on the table) 6

76:23-25 , Erythrai c 380-360 77

188:2 , Cos 1st cent. 78

195:B2.15-20 , Minoa on Amorgos 1st cent. 79

196:16-17 , Iasos c 225-200 80

206:15 , Pergamon 2nd cent 81

222:A83-89 , Andania 23 CE(?) 82

- 76  Cf. note 52 above. The standard works on τραπεζώματα are still Gill 1974 and Gill 1991.
- 77  The wording here is ὅσα δὲ ἐπὶ [ τὴν ] τράπεζαν παρατεθῆι , ταῦτα εἶναι γέρα τῶι ἱρεῖ (whatever is placed upon the table will be perquisites for the priest (trans. from CGRN )).
- 78  ... καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐπιτιθεμένων ἐπὶ vacat τὴν τράπεζαν τᾶι θεῶι τὰ τέταρτα μέρηι .
- 79  Fragmented, but wording close to CGRN 188, cf. note 76 above.
- 80  ... καὶ τὰ παρατιθέμε [ να ] πάντα ἐπὶ τὴν τράπεζα [ ν ] ἡ ἱέρεια πλὴν χρυσίου ἢ ἀργυρ [ ίου ἢ ] [ ἱ ] ματισμοῦ .
- 81  ... καὶ τἆλλα τραπεζώματα πάντα τὰ παρατιθέμεν [ α ] ...
- 82  ... καὶ ὅσα κα οἱ θύοντες ποτὶ τᾶι κράναι τραπεζῶντι [...] λαμβανέτω Μνασίστρατος . For a discussion on the identity of Mnaistratos cf. the commentary in CGRN .

τράχηλος (throat) 1 196 , Iasos c 225-200

ὑπώμαια (armpits) 1 86:A52f , Cos c 350

φθόϊς

(cake) 1

188:3-5 , Cos 1st cent.

χέλυς

(chest) 2

, Athens c 410-404 and 403/2-400/399

45:A.3.42 86:51 , Cos c 350

χόλικες (bowels from ox) 1 39:10-13 , Miletos c 400

χορδή (intestine) 9

39:10-11 , Miletos c 400 83

, Attic deme of Aixone c 400-375

57: 4-5, 9, 10-11, 15-16, 18-19, 22-23 SEG 56:1037:3-6 , Plakari 4th cent.

## ὦμος / ὠμοπλάτη (shoulder / shoulder blade) 6

45:A.3.42 , Athens c 410-404 and 403/2-400/399

75:32-36 , Oropos c 386-374

86:D18-20 , Cos c 350

120:7, 8 , 84 Sinope c 350-250

165 , Cos c 200-150

196:12-18 , Iasos c 225-200

ὤρη (foreleg or tail?) 1

100:5-6 , Miletos c 300-275

83  The terminology is here χορδίον (a large intestine) and χόλιξ

(bowel from ox).

84 CGRN 120:8 has: πρότμησις ἢ ὠμοπλάτη (portion from the waist or shoulder blade).

AIO

## ABBREVIATIONS

- = Athenian Inscriptions Online (https://www.atticinscriptions.com).
- AIUK =  Attic  Inscriptions  in  UK  Collections  (https://www.atticinscriptions.com).
- CGRN = Collection of Greek Ritual Norms (http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be).
- EBGR = Epigraphic Bulletin for Greek Religion (in the periodical Kernos ).
- IErythrai = Engelmann, H. & R. Merkelbach 1972-1973. Die Inschriften von Erythrai und Klazomenai (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 1-2. Bonn.
- IG I 3 =  Lewis,  D.M.  (ed.)  1981. Inscriptiones Graeca I,  3rd  edition.  Fasc.  1. Berlin + D.M. Lewis & L. Jeffery (eds.) 1994. Inscriptiones Graeca I,  3rd edition. Fasc. 2. Berlin.
- IG II 2 = Kirchner, J. (ed.) 1913-1940. Inscriptiones Graeca II-III, 2nd edition. Berlin.
- IG II 3 = Inscriptiones Graeca II-III, 3nd edition.
- LSAM = Sokolowski, F. 1955. Lois sacrées de l'Asie Mineure . Paris.
- LSCG = Sokolowski, F. 1969. Lois sacrées des cités grecques . Paris.
- LSJ =  Liddell, H.G. & R. Scott 1940. Greek-English Lexicon .  9th ed., rev. H. Stuart Jones. Oxford.
- LSS = Sokolowski, F. 1962. Lois sacrées des cités grecques. Supplement . Paris. NGSL = Lupu, E. 2009. Greek Sacred Law. A Collection of New Documents . Leiden.
- OR = Osborne, R. & P.J. Rhodes, 2017. Greek Historical Inscriptions 478-404 BC . Oxford.
- PHI = Searchable Greek Inscriptions. The Packard Humanities Institute (https://epigraphy.packhum.org).
- RO = Rhodes P.J. & R. Osborne 2003. Greek Historical Inscriptions 404-323 BC . Oxford.
- SEG = Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum .

## BIBLIOGRAPHY

Blok, J. 2017. Citizenship in Classical Athens . Cambridge. Burkert, W. 1985. Greek Religion. Oxford.

- Carbon, J.-M. 2017. 'Meaty Perks: Epichoric and Topological Trends' in S. Hitch & I. Rutherford (eds.) Animal Sacrifice in the Ancient Greek World . Cambridge, 151-77.
- Daux, G. 1983. 'Le calendrier de Thorikos au musée J. Paul Getty' AC 52, 150-74.
- Dimitrova, N. 2008. 'Priestly Prerogatives and hiera moira' in  A.P.  Matthaiou & I. Polinskaya (eds.) Μικρὸς Ἱερομνήμων . Μελέτες εἰς μνήμην Michael H. Jameson. Athens, 251-57.
- Ekroth, G. 2007. 'Meat in Ancient Greece: Sacrificial, Sacred or Secular?' in W. van Andringa (ed.) Sacrifice et marché de la viande dans le monde romain: Rituel, commerce et pratiques alimentaires . Food and History 5, 24972.
- Ekroth, G. 2008a. 'Meat, Man and God: On the Division of the Animal Victim at Greek Sacrifices' in A.P. Matthaiou & I. Polinskaya (eds.) Μικρὸς Ἱερομνήμων : Μελέτες εἰς μνήνην Michael H. Jameson . Athens, 259-90.
- Ekroth, G. 2008b. 'Burnt, Cooked or Raw? Divine and human culinary desires at Greek animal sacrifice' in E. Stavrianopoulou, A. Micheals & C. Ambos (eds.) Transformations  in  Sacrificial  Practices:  From  Antiquity  to Modern Times . Berlin, 87-111.
- Ekroth, G. 2011. 'Meat for the gods' Kernos Supplément 26, 15-41.
- Ekroth, G. 2013. 'Forelegs in Greek cult' in A-L. Schallin (ed.) Perspectives on Ancient Greece. Papers in celebration of the 60th anniversary of the Swedish Institute at Athens (Skrifter utgivna av svenska institutet i Athen, 8 0 , 22). Stockholm, 113-34.
- Fabiani, R. 2016. ' I.Iasos 220 and the regulations about the priest of Zeus Megistos' Kernos 29, 159-83.
- Gill, D. 1974. ' Trapezomata :  A Neglected Aspect of Greek Sacrifice' HThR 67, 117-37.
- Gill, D. 1991. Greek Cult Tables . New York & London.
- Hansen, M. H.1980. 'Seven Hundred Archai in Classical Athens' GRBS 21, 151-73.
- Humphreys, S.C. 2004. The Strangeness of the Gods: Historical Perspectives on the Interpretation of Athenian Religion . Oxford.
- Jameson, M. H. 1988. 'Sacrifice and Animal Husbandry in Classical Greece' in  C.R.  Whittaker  (ed.) Pastoral  Economies  in  Classical  Antiquity .  Cambridge, 87-119.

- Lambert,  S.D. 2000. 'The Sacrificial  Calendar  of  the  Marathonian Tetrapolis: A Revised Text' ZPE 130, 43-70.
- Lambert, S.D. 2010. 'A Polis and its Priests: Athenian Priesthoods before and after Pericles' Citizenship Law' Historia 59, 143-75.
- Lambert, S.D. 2019. Attic Inscriptions in UK Collections. British Museum. Cult Provisions (AIUK, vol. 4.1).
- Loomis, W.T. 1998. Wages, Welfare Costs and Inflation in Classical Athens . Ann Arbor.
- Parker, R. 1996. Athenian Religion: A History. Oxford.
- Parker, R. 2005. Polytheism and Society at Athens. Oxford.
- Parker, R. 2010. 'A Funerary Foundation from Hellenistic Lycia' Chiron 40, 103-21.
- Parker, R. 2011. On Greek Religion . Ithaca.
- Parker, R. 2018. 'Regionality and Greek Ritual Norms' Kernos 31, 73-81.
- Rasmussen, A.H. 2008. 'Priest and Ritual in Ancient Greek Cult' in A.H. Rasmussen & S.W.  Rasmussen  (eds.) Religion  and  Society.  Rituals,  Resources and Identity in the Ancient Graeco-Roman World. The BOMOS-Conferences . Rome, 71-80.
- Rehm, A. 1958. Didyma II: Die Inschriften . Berlin.
- Rosivach, J. V. 1994. The System of Public Sacrifice in Fourth-Century Athens . Atlanta.
- Sommerstein, A. 1978. Aristophanes. The Birds and Other Plays . London.
- Stengel, P. 1898. Die griechischen Kultusaltertümer (Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 5/3). Munich.
- Stengel, P. 1920. Die griechischen Kultusaltertümer . 3rd ed. Munich.
- Straten, F.T. van. 1995. Hiera kala: Images of Animal Sacrifice in Archaic and Classical Greece . Leiden, New York & Köln.
- Whitehead, D. 1986. The Demes of Attica 508/7-ca. 250 B.C. Princeton.
- Wijma, S.M. 2014. Embracing the Immigrant: The Participation of Metics in Athenian Polis Religion (5th-4th c. B. C.) (Historia Einzelschriften 1, 233). Stuttgart.
- Ziehen,  L.  1913.  'Hiereis'  in Paulys  Realencyclopädie  der  classischen  Altertumswissenschaft VIII,2. Stuttgart.