A Polis and its Priests: Athenian Priesthoods before and after Pericles' Citizenship Law

Historia, Band 59/2 (2010)© Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart

A POLIS AND ITS PRIESTS: ATHENIAN PRIESTHOODS BEFORE AND AFTER PERICLES’ CITIZENSHIP LAW1

Introduction

In 451/0 BC the Athenians passed Pericles’ citizenship law, providing that, to qualify for citizenship, Athenians had in future to be of citizen descent in the female line as well as the male.2 Contemporary Athenians commonly defi ned citizenship in terms of partici-pation in the hiera and hosia of the polis,3 in terms, in other words, of the relationship between the city and the gods. From this point of view the city’s priests, as mediators of that relationship, played a role of central importance and the method used by the city to appoint them, and any changes in that method that occurred over time are of great interest as topics in the study not only of Athenian religion, but of the development of Athenian citizenship and offi ce-holding more broadly. In a recent paper in this journal Josine Blok has made an attractive case that Pericles’ citizenship law was of pivotal importance in this regard.4 Before the law polis priests were supplied by the gene, insti-tutions which had specifi c attributes suiting them for the task: they traced their descent straight back to the heroic and mythical time in which Athens came into being;5 and they traced that descent in the female line as well as the male.6 In requiring Athenians to be of citizen descent in both the male and female lines, therefore, Pericles’ law in effect made a genos of the whole Athenian people, paving the way to the creation of new priesthoods for which all Athenians (of the appropriate gender) would be eligible. It was a “democratising” measure in that it opened up access to polis priesthoods, but an “aristocratising” measure in that it did so by reshaping the citizen body on a more exclusive model, embedding aspects of genos ideology, including autochthony, in the ideology of citizenship.7

1 This is the second in a connected series of articles on Attic gene and priesthoods. The fi rst was Blok and Lambert 2009. Other items in the series include Aleshire and Lambert forthcoming and Lambert forthcoming. I am very grateful to Josine Blok and Robert Parker for reading drafts, and for their helpful suggestions, and to both of them for showing me items of their own work in preparation or in press. Neither is responsible for remaining fl aws. I thank Sean Byrne for advice on dates of the third-century Athenian archons.

2 Ath. Pol. 26.3–4.3 Connor 1988; Blok 2009a and forthcoming (a) and (b).4 Blok 2009a.5 Ath. Pol. F3 with Lambert 1998a: Appendix 2. Cf. the use by Hesychius of the term ithageneis, “of

straight descent” in describing Attic gene (Parker 1996: appendix 2; Blok 2009b). On the mythology of Attic genos origins see Lambert forthcoming.

6 See Blok and Lambert 2009.7 Autochthony: Lambert 2008b; Blok 2009b; Lambert forthcoming.

STEPHEN LAMBERT144

I do not propose, in this paper, to review in detail the case that Blok has made in relation to Pericles’ Law. I do propose, however, to argue that the evidence for individual Athenian polis cults and their priesthoods is consistent with it, in other words that no polis priesthood founded after Pericles’ law was demonstrably allocated to a genos, and that no polis priesthood founded before it was demonstrably appointed from any group other than a genos. I shall also seek to take discussion forward on three fronts.

If we are concerned with the relations between the polis and the gods, the priest-hoods we are particularly interested in are polis priesthoods, but that raises the issue, what is a “polis priesthood”? I shall offer an answer to this question in the fi rst part of the paper, developing a line of approach pioneered by the late Sara Aleshire.

In the second part I shall briefl y explore the role of the gene in supplying polis priesthoods founded before ca. 450.

Finally, I shall look at how things changed with the “new model” priesthoods founded after ca. 450. Conventionally a single model of appointment “from all Athenians” (of the appropriate gender) has been posited, and just three priesthoods are usually identifi ed as fi tting this model: those of Athena Nike, Asklepios, and possibly Bendis, all founded in the second half of the fi fth century. I shall adduce evidence for a much larger number of individual priesthoods created on the “new model” and explore it in greater depth than has previously been attempted. I shall emphasise that appointment by lot, often conceptualised as a characteristically democratic feature, is in fact one respect in which there is continuity. So far as we know all polis priests, after Pericles’ law as before, were appointed by this mechanism. The ideology of appointment was coloured not only by the mechanism, however, but also by the group from which appointment was made. Here I shall propose a tripartite model of appointment in place of the unitary one, “from all Athenians”, that has conventionally been adopted: (a) priesthoods in new urban cults, those outside Attica and perhaps those in the Piraeus, which were indeed appointed from all Athenians, (b) priesthoods in new polis cults of foreign gods, appointed from groups of orgeones, and (c) priesthoods in Attic extra-urban cults, where the situation is diffi cult to pin down, but there are indications that appointment may have been from the demes.

What is a polis priesthood?

I begin with an issue of defi nition: Athenian polis priests are those that served Athenian polis cults, but what is a “polis cult”?8 In some sense the entirety of religious activity in Attica was under the purview of the polis. This is apparent, for example, from a decree of 352/1 in which the Assembly required that:

“the oversight of the sacred orgas [a tract of land between Eleusis and Megara] and the other sacred precincts at Athens shall be the responsibility from this day for all time of those whom the law requires for each and the Council of the Areopagos and the general elected for the (20) protection of the countryside and the patrol com-

8 The following develops a line of analysis pursued by Aleshire 1994.

A Polis and its Priests: Athenian Priesthoods before and after Pericles’ Citizenship Law 145

manders and the demarchs and the Council in offi ce and any other Athenian who wishes, in whatever way they know how.” (IG II2 204 = R&O 58.16–23)

The polis also maintained oversight of new cults. One of the formal charges against Socrates was that he had introduced “new powers” (daimonia).9 New cults were in-troduced in classical Athens, but such introductions had to be approved by the polis.10

We need, however, to distinguish this type of general oversight from the much stronger involvement which the polis had in a limited number of cults and which marked them off from cults which were specifi c to individual households or to Attic associations (demes, phratries etc.). The issue is complicated since even some household cults came within the city’s purview (e. g. Zeus Herkeios11) and associations might be involved with the administration of “polis cults”, as well as their own “private” cults. There is no single defi nition of “polis cults” in this stronger sense available to the historian. We have to deal with a number of different criteria.

If one asked a contemporary Athenian to defi ne “polis cults”, the hiera of the polis, he or she would probably have identifi ed rites which were publicly funded, demoteles.Thucydides ends his description of the unifi cation of Attica by Theseus with a reference to the Synoikia, a eJorth;n dhmotelh', which the Athenians still celebrated in his time. This means literally “publicly funded festival”, but Thucydides is not really concerned with funding here; his meaning is very close to what, in English, would be termed a “public festival”.12 Plato uses the same term when he wants to ban foul language from “public” places and occasions, including, alongside athletic games, the agora and the lawcourts, “public sacrifi ces” (e[n tisi dhmotelevsi qusivai~).13 By dhmotevlh~ was meant, in effect, that funding for the rite was included in the city’s “sacrifi cial calendar”. We possess a very few fragments of this calendar in its original Solonian version, quoted in later sources, a little more in the inscribed version which was produced as part of the wholesale revision of Athenian law at the end of the fi fth century (by chance this happens to include the part of the calendar which provided for the Synoikia);14 but there are also other ways that we can identify “publicly funded” sacrifi ces and festivals: from explicit references in liter-ary authors, like Thucydides’ statement about the Synoikia; from offi cial inscriptions of the 330s recording the money raised from the sale of skins of animals in (by implication) publicly funded rites;15 and from inscribed laws and decrees of the polis making explicit provision for public funding of specifi c sacrifi ces.16 Sacrifi ces funded by the polis might be in central Athens, in the Attic countryside, or outside Attica altogether (e. g. on Delos).17

9 Favorinus ap. Diogenes Laertius 2.40.10 Cf. Parker 1996: 214–217.11 Ath. Pol. 55.3.12 Pirenne-Delforge 2005: 55–68 emphasises that the -teles suffi x connotes ritual participation as well

as fi nancial.13 Thuc. 2.15.2; Plato, Laws 935b. Cf. Parker 1996: 5–6.14 Solonian version: Solon, Nomoi F83–84 Ruschenbusch (Lambert 2002a: 367, 384). Synoikia: Lam-

bert 2002a: F3A col. 2. A new fragment of the calendar is published by Gawlinski 2007.15 IG II2 1496.16 E. g. R&O 81 (Little Panathenaia).17 Central Athens: e. g. Lambert 2002a F1B col. 2 (Dipolieia); Attic countryside: e. g. F12B, 4 (Oinoe);

Delos: F8B col. 2, 6.

STEPHEN LAMBERT146

In this context polis funding applies not to the cult as a whole, but to individual rites. The polis does not, for example, fund all sacrifi ces made to Demeter and Kore at Eleusis, it funds specifi c sacrifi ces at specifi c festivals.

In addition to the funding of sacrifi ces, the polis might also take direct responsibility for the physical property of a god, and this is visible to us above all in the appointment of polis offi cials to exercise this responsibility. The treasurers of Athena had existed at least since the time of Solon. Shortly before the Peloponnesian War the city appointed a comparable board to oversee a portion of the treasure of “other gods” (i. e. gods other than Athena). IG I3 52A = M&L 58A, dating apparently to the 430s or 420s,18 provides that loans that the Athenians had contracted with these “other” gods were to be repaid; the “re-payments” were not, however, to be made to the temples of the gods in question. Custody of the property was to be transferred from the present treasurers, epistatai and hieropoioiof the sanctuaries and administered on the acropolis by a new board of treasurers “of the other gods”. This board continued in existence, at some periods jointly with the treasur-ers of Athena, at others as a separate board, through the fourth century; and its inscribed records are our main source for the identity of the deities involved.19 The inscriptions are fragmentary and we do not have a complete list; some forty-fi ve “other gods” are attested. They include well-known deities such as Apollo Pythios, Athena Nike, Artemis Brauronia and Zeus Polieus, less familiar ones such as Aphrodite in the Gardens and Apollo Delios at Phaleron and wholly obscure ones, such as Datyllos and Ion ek Pleistieion. As with the polis-funded sacrifi ces, some of these cults were in central Athens, others elsewhere in Attica (in this case none is known to be outside Attic territory).

Apart from explicit evidence for the “other gods”, there are other inscriptions which show us the polis exercising responsibility for the physical property of gods, in particular public leases of sacred property;20 and a law of the Lykourgan period providing for new kosmos for a number of cults.21 A number of priests and priestesses enjoyed proedria, i. e. allocated seats in the theatre of Dionysos in Athens, mostly known from surviving inscriptions on the seats. The cults they served were patently in some sense polis, or at least polis-recognised, cults.22 Other evidence that arguably indicates a “polis” cult includes: cults whose priests received a salary from the public purse, or perquisites from public sacrifi ces;23 sacrifi ces or dedications by polis offi cials or on the initiative of the polis to the deity in question;24 the use of the cult location as a meeting place by

18 The decree is conventionally dated 434/3, but this is debated (see SEG LIV 42; LIII 52; L 38).19 Most of the “other gods” known to us are attested on IG I3 369.55–97 (accounts of the logistai,

423/2) and 383 (accounts of treasurers of other gods, 429/8).20 Agora XIX L2 (temene in Euboea, ca. 430–410); L6 and L9–L12 and L14 (leases of properties

belonging to Athena and “other gods”, 343/2 and later).21 IG II2 333 with Lambert 2005: 135 and 137–144 no. 6. These are mostly identifi able as “other gods”.22 See Maaß 1972 and most recently Connelly 2007: 205–213. The surviving inscriptions are of hel-

lenistic or Roman date, but proedria in the theatre of Dionysos and many of the individual cults are known to have existed in the classical period.

23 As, for example, Athena Nike (IG I3 35 and 36 and see further below).24 E. g. the dedication to Amphiaraos by the Council in 328/7, I Orop. 299 = Lambert 2004 no. 6; the

decree providing for sacrifi ce to Agathe Tyche (?) for the safety of those of campaign, SEG XXX 69 (304/3).


the Assembly;25 laws or decrees of the polis regulating the cult;26 and decrees of the Council and/or Assembly honouring priests or other cult offi cials.27

While there is quite an overlap between the cults that can be identifi ed on these various criteria, there are many which we can observe to fulfi l one criterion, but not others. This is a consequence of the patchy quality of our evidence. We do not know whether, if we had full knowledge, we should discover that we are dealing with, broadly, a single set of cults which meet all the criteria, or different groups in which the polis was involved for different purposes. Were all the “other gods”, for example, gods for whom there were publicly funded sacrifi ces? Perhaps, but we do not know.

How far does it make sense to distinguish polis and other cults on the basis of par-ticipation? Was it a criterion of a polis cult that it was not local or specifi c to one or more associations, but open to wider participation by Athenians more generally? Up to a point. It is diffi cult to see why the polis should have decided to fund sacrifi ces, to administer cult property, to regulate a cult, to honour its priests etc., unless there was some sense that the cult was important to the community as a whole, and it seems reasonable to defi ne such “importance” to an extent in terms of breadth of interest and participation in the cult. As we shall see, there are specifi c indications that this criterion may work rather well in the case of cults served by gene. We cannot press the point, however. A cult might be seen to be important to the polis without necessarily attracting broad par-ticipation; and indeed some of the provisions in the sacrifi cial calendar of the polis do not look to be for “popular” cults in this sense. The religion of the city comprehended “the obscure” as well as “the spectacular”.28 Moreover, on the other side of the equa-tion, there were local cults which attracted wide participation, but did not, so far as we know, count as “polis” cults, in terms of funding or other criteria (see further below).

“Polis” cult is not a simple concept, therefore. Polis funding is a key criterion; but our direct information about which cults were polis funded is patchy and it is legitimate to look to other indicators also, while being aware of the limitations of our evidence and the incompleteness of our picture.

There is not the space, in this article, to supply a full analysis of the role of the gene in supplying polis priests. I summarise the key points, reserving further discussion of some aspects to another place.29

25 E. g. a meeting in the early fi fth century in the sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios, IG I3 105.34. There were regular meetings in the theatre of Dionysos (see most recently Lambert 2008).

26 E. g. an archaic decree regulating the festival of the Anakes (Ath. 235b, cf. IG I3 133); a decree about cleansing the temple of Aphrodite Pandemos, IG II2 659, cf. SEG XLV 105 (283/2, archon Euthios).

27 E. g. priests of Dionysos, Poseidon Pelagios, Ammon and Zeus Soter, IG II2 410 = Lambert 2004 no. 10 (c. 340–330); priestess of Aglauros, SEG XXXIII 115 with LI 93 (250/49?, archon Polyeuktos); priestess of Athena Polias, IG II2 776 (237/6?, archon Alkibiades).

28 Terms used in the brilliant analysis of Jameson 1999. In the Athenian sacrifi cial calendar fi nancial provision is regularly made for sacrifi ces for a specifi c group, e. g. just one sheep for the obsolete Ionian trittys Leukotainioi on the eve of the Synoikia, Lambert 2002a: F3A, 31–43, with perquisites for the chiefs of the old Ionian tribes, the phylobasileis, and the herald, a leftover from the pre-Cleisthenic era which cannot have attracted wide participation.

29 See also in the meantime Bourriot 1976 (the fundamental modern account); Lambert 1999b and forthcoming; Blok and Lambert 2009; Aleshire and Lambert forthcoming.

STEPHEN LAMBERT148

Genos priesthoods: the essentials of the system

Gene were descent groups, normally components of the phratries.30 Their distinctive function in the classical period was to supply priests and priestesses in older polis cults. Well-known examples include the priests of Athena Polias and Poseidon Erechtheus on the acropolis, supplied by the Eteoboutadai, the leading male priests of the Eleusinian Mysteries, the hierophant and the dadouch, supplied by the Eumolpidai and the Kerykes respectively, and the priestess of Athena Skiras (and several others) supplied by the genosSalaminioi. 47 “certain and probable” gene and 33 “uncertain and spurious” gene are catalogued by Parker 1996.31 Our evidence is insuffi cient to allow us to correlate every attested genos with a priesthood in a cult which is independently identifi able as a polis cult, but there is no polis cult founded before ca. 450 whose priest was demonstrably supplied by any other means. Genos priests and priestesses were appointed by lot (a mechanism which appropriately gave scope for the exercise of divine choice) from the sons and daughters of members of the relevant genos (or sometimes branch of a genos)and held offi ce for life.32

The role of the female line of descent was much more signifi cant in the gene than it was in the Cleisthenic tribes and demes. Gene had always had to supply legitimate priestesses as well as priests; and the systems for inheritance of phratry and genos membership were linked to those for inheritance of property, in which daughters be-came epikleroi in the absence of sons and, in the absence of any children or surviving relations on the male side, relations on the female side had a claim. Thus eligibility for genos priesthoods (which can be conceptualised as a species of property) could be traced in the female line when the male line failed;33 and epikleroi could be introduced into phratries in their own right.34

The capacity of gene to supply polis priests and priestesses was linked to the guar-antee they provided of pure and ancient descent (on the male side, but also, as outlined above, the female), encapsulated in Hesychius’ regular use, in relation to Attic gene, of the term genos ithagenon. In some cases the line was traced back to a divine, heroic or royal ancestor, in some cases to an ordinary human ancestor, or already existing genos,which had performed some service to a god or to mankind, and had been awarded a priesthood in return.35 The importance to the polis of this pure line of descent in geneis emphasised by the fact that genos membership and genos priesthoods were one of the intima of citizenship from which foreigners made Athenians by decree were excluded.36

30 See Lambert 1998a. 31 One genos has come to light since Parker wrote, the Euenoridai, who appear in a newly published

hellenistic inscription and apparently played a role in the cult of Aglauros. See Lambert 2008 and forthcoming.

32 Blok and Lambert 2009. “Divine” lot: e. g. Plato, Laws 3.690c, 5.741b, 6.759b.33 Documented in Blok and Lambert 2009.34 Isae. 3.73 and 76 with Lambert 1998a, 177–188; Aleshire and Lambert forthcoming.35 Cf. Lambert forthcoming.36 Explicitly in the earliest extant decree granting citizenship to the Plataians who escaped to Athens

in 427, [Dem.] 59.104 (on which see Blok and Lambert 2009: 104); implicitly in later decrees, in that while new citizens were usually admitted to phratries and demes they were never admitted to gene.


The gene and historical polis priesthood foundations pre-450 BC37

In fourth-century reconstructions of the early history of Athens gene, along with phratries, were part of the Ur-constitution of the city, and myths of individual gene, mostly known to us from sources post-dating ca. 450, also located their foundations in the distant past, in the heroic and mythical time, never in identifi able real-life historical circumstances. Moreover Cleisthenes “allowed the gene, phratries and priesthoods to remain as they were, each according to ancestral custom”.38 From the point of view of an Athenian of the fourth century it appears that the gene, collectively and individually, had existed essentially unchanged since time immemorial. This, however, raises the question, what actually happened in the case of new polis priesthoods created between, say, the time of Solon and Pericles’ citizenship law? Explicit evidence is lacking, but in at least three in-stances a case can be made that they were allocated to gene, previously existing or newly created: in the Salaminioi, composed, if my theory is correct, of Athenians established on Salamis in the archaic period;39 the Bakchiadai, who had functions connected with the City Dionysia, a festival probably created in the second half of the sixth century;40

and the Phytalidai, whose priestly functions in relation to cult of Theseus are unlikely to have pre-dated the development of that hero’s mythology which took place in the fi fth century, and may have been created in connection with the return of the bones of Theseus to Athens by Cimon in the 470s.41 If new priesthoods were still being allocated to gene in the 470s, we may suppose that the mythical projection of pure descent traced back to timeless origins was so crucial to the identity, continuing relevance and prestige of the gene in post-Periclean Athens that it was convenient to forget that some gene (or at least some genos priesthoods) had been founded relatively recently.

Gene serving other descent groups within the polis

The polis was not only the aggregate of citizens functioning collectively in the central organs of the city such as the Council and the Assembly, it was also the citizens as grouped in their subordinate descent groups, tribes and phratries and their subgroups. The rites of some of these groups qualify as “polis cult”, as defi ned above,42 and, in some cases

37 This section summarises an argument made in Lambert forthcoming.38 Ath. Pol. 21.6.39 See Lambert 1997a and 1999a. Cf. R&O 37.40 Lambert 1998b. Cf. my Foreword in Aleshire and Lambert forthcoming. 41 For this suggestion see Humphreys ap. Parker 1996: 169–170; F. Jacoby ad FGrH 327 Demon F6.

The tomb of Lakios, eponym of Cimon’s deme Lakiadai, was close to that of Phytalos, Paus. 1.37.2; Kearns 1989: 180, 205. Apollonides son of Hieron of Rhamnous, having become priest of Theseus (hiereus genomenos), made a dedication to him on the acropolis (IG II2 2865, mid-ii BC). It is unclear whether Apollonides’ priesthood was in the same cult of Theseus (there were four Athenian Theseia according to FGrH 328 Philochoros F 328), or, if so, whether its priests were still supplied by the Phytalidai in ii BC.

42 There was provision for sacrifi ces by the old Ionian tribes in the city’s sacrifi cial calendar (for Gleontis, and its subgroup the Leukotainioi, Lambert 2002a: F3A col. 2). We do not know whether provision for the Cleisthenic tribes was made elsewhere.

STEPHEN LAMBERT150

at least, gene also supplied priests for the rites of these groups. The arrangements for priests in phratries are unfortunately rather obscure,43 but there is no unequivocal case of a phratry supplying its own priest and there are some indications that phratry priests were supplied by gene within them.44

The type of arrangement that existed in the phratries may have provided the model for the Cleisthenic tribes. Each of the ten tribes had a priest who served the cult of its eponymous hero. Unfortunately we have no evidence for these priests until the fourth century. At that time, in some cases at least, they seem to have been supplied by a genos.45 This is clearest in the case of Erechtheis (Eteoboutadai), but similar arrange-ments seem to have applied in Kekropis (Amynandridai) and Hippothontis (unknown genos), where the attested priests came from a deme which did not belong to the tribe they served and in some cases were demonstrably related to each other.46 In the other tribes all securely attested priests of the eponymous came from the “right” tribe, but there is no direct indication as to how they were appointed. Particularly for eponyms that did not have an established cult when the tribes were introduced, it is not out of the question that a tribe might have decided, before 451/0, that all tribe members should be eligible for the priesthood of its eponymous hero, in a limited way anticipating, on a tribal level, the effects of Pericles’ law on a polis-wide level;47 but it is possible that the priests in these other seven tribes were also appointed from a genos, the only dif-ference from Erechtheis, Kekropis and Hippothontis being that the genos had members that belonged to the “right” tribe, a perfectly plausible arrangement.48

43 See Lambert 1998a: 233–235.44 Andocides 1.125–127, cf. Lambert 1998a: 68–71; Aeschin. 2.147; R&O 5.45 The groundbreaking study of this topic was Schlaifer 1940. Cf. Parker 1996: 285–286.46 Three probable priests of Erechtheis are attested (cf. Blok and Lambert 2009: 112–113): Aristony-

mos son of Aristonymos of Pithos (VII), Agora XV 98 and 99 (ca. 215–205 BC, Tracy 1990: 67), perhaps, as suggested by Parker 1996: 293, son of the Aristonymos listed among the descendants of Lykourgos the Eteoboutad at [Plut.] X Orat. 843b; Kallias, Agora XV 231 (ca. 200–150 BC, cf. Tracy 1990:104; name common in the family of Lykourgos’ wife, Kallisto daughter of Habron of Bate, cf. APF 7856 with Aleshire and Lambert 2003: 82 no. 43); Medeios son of Medeios of Piraeus (VIII), prominent politician ca. 100 BC, polis priest of Poseidon Erechtheus ([Plut.] X Orat. 843b) and, as Sean Byrne has suggested, probably priest of the eponymous of Erechtheis (Agora XV 257, 131/0–98/7 BC, Tracy 1990: 183). Attested priests of Kekropis are: a man from Paiania (III), Agora XV 132 (ca. 229/8–203 BC, Tracy 1990: 48); Kallixenos of Atene (X), Agora XV 209 (ca. 173/2–161/0 BC, Tracy 1990: 104); Dikaiopolis of Pambotadai (I), Agora XV 261 (ca. 148/7–135/4 BC?, Tracy 1990: 159). Cf. Agora XV 173, name not preserved (189/8 BC, archon Euthykritos). Attested priests of Hippothontis are: Thrasippos I son of Kallias I of Gargettos (II), Agora XV 193 (210/9–171/0 BC, Tracy 1990: 73), Agora XV 194 (178/7 BC, archon Philon after Menedemos) and Agora XV 205 (ca. 176/5–170/69 BC); Kallias II [perhaps son of Thrasippos I of Gargettos?], Agora XV 226 (ca. 155 BC, Tracy 1990: 250); Thrasippos II son of Kallias II of Gargettos, Agora XV 243 (135/4 BC, archon Dionysios after Timarchides, not in Agora XV 244).

47 The anticipation by tribes of trends that can be observed later in central systems of the polis would not be unexampled, e. g. tribes had been inscribing decrees honouring Athenians long before the practice became normal in the Council and Assembly in the 340s. See Lambert 2004: 87.

48 I hope to set out elsewhere a fuller argument on this point.


This servicing of cults for the wider community may have extended beyond phra-tries and tribes to other formal cult groups. I have made a case elsewhere that the genos Praxiergidai serviced a cult of Herakles, used by a cult-group (thiasos) of Herakles.49

The function of the gene in this regard seems to have been similar to groups of orgeones, which, like gene, were citizen groups within phratries. They too seem to have serviced cults used by other groups. For example there was a group of orgeones associated with the shrine of Herakles Pankrates in Athens, which was also used by a group of thiaso-tai of Herakles and a group of eranistai. We can perhaps understand the orgeones as playing a lead-role at this shrine, both as owners of it, and perhaps too as suppliers of its priest; and we can perhaps understand the thiasotai and eranistai as “guest-users”, just as the tribe Kekrops was, in effect, guest-user of the sanctuary of Kekrops on the acropolis, served by a priest of the genos Amynandridai.50 At one further remove, the use of genos sanctuaries by such other groups should not perhaps be conceptualised as radically different from their use e. g. by Athenian offi cials (individuals or in boards) making formal “sacrifi ces and dedications”, or indeed private individuals.51

Strangely, however, despite the abundant evidence for religion in the Attic demes, the relation between gene and demes is obscure. On the model I have been sketching here it would be no surprise to fi nd a genos servicing a cult used by a deme, but there is no unequivocal case,52 while there were certainly some priesthoods which demes supplied themselves. At Dem. 57.46–48 and 62 Euxitheos of Halimous claims to have been elected by his deme to a pool of candidates from which a priesthood of Herakles was to be selected by lot, but though he claims to have been in a genos, and indeed presents the eugeneia he enjoyed as genos-member as suiting him for tenure of this priesthood (to which he was not, in the end, appointed), it is clear that this deme priest-hood was supplied directly by the deme, not by Euxitheos’ genos. There are, however, cases where it appears that a deme was guest-user of a sanctuary owned and controlled

49 Lambert 2003a: 79–82.50 Herakles Pankrates: SEG XLI 247. On the public function of orgeones see Parker 1996: 110–111.

The theme is developed and applied to several other orgeones-groups by Wijma 2009: chapter 4. See also below on the cult of Bendis.

51 Offi cials (archons, generals, prytaneis, agonothetai etc.) are commonly praised for “sacrifi cing on behalf of the city” in hellenistic decrees (see e. g. Agora XV passim); and fi nancial provision for “sacrifi ce and a dedication” is sometimes one of the awards made to them for good service (see Lambert 2005: 128–9). In the former cases (and perhaps also the latter?) it seems the sacrifi ces were conducted by the offi cials themselves, rather than by the relevant priest (thus Parker 2005: 95–99). Private individuals: Parker 2005: 41.

52 It has been suggested that the priestess of Aglauros supplied by the genos Salaminioi might have served a deme cult, but in my view this was the city cult of Aglauros. Cf. Kearns 1989: 139; Hum-phreys 1990: 246 n. 5; Parker 1996: 311; Lambert 1999a: 114. An inscription from Aixone, of which an important new fragment has recently been published, lists perquisites for a number of priests and priestesses, but it is unclear whether it is the product of a deme or a genos or indeed (and the point has not yet been fully recognised in recent discussions) some other type of group or association of groups (cf. e. g. the Tetrakomoi of Piraeus, Xypete, Phaleron and Thymaitadai, a cult association which still existed at the end of the classical period and whose components were not coterminous with the later demes of those names, Lambert 1997b: 189–192, cf. 2000b: 78; 2002b: 80). See SEG LIV 214; Ackermann 2007; Parker 2009.

STEPHEN LAMBERT152

by orgeones;53 and, as we shall see, some “polis cults” may have been administered by demes under the “democratic” model for extra-urban polis priesthoods.

Private cult of gene

So much for the “public” aspect of genos cult. It could also have a more private as-pect. Gene, like other types of descent group, functioned as communities in their own right, visible to us primarily in communal functions of a type which tended to produce inscriptions: ownership of collective property, lending money to members, honouring benefactors;54 and this communality might generate cult which was “private” in the sense that it was not funded by the polis or open to other groups.55 This is attested most clearly in the genos Salaminioi. In addition to sacrifi ces funded by the polis, they had a programme funded from their own resources and supplied priests specifi cally to serve these “private” cults (e. g. their priest of the hero-at-the-salt-fl at).56

An exception proving a rule

There is another type of exception to the rule that genos cults were “public”. The Gephy-raioi were the genos to which the tyrannicides Harmodios and Aristogeiton belonged, supposed originally to have been immigrants to Attica. Herodotos informs us that they were excluded from certain of the privileges of Athenian citizenship and that Atheni-ans, in turn, were excluded from Gephyraioi sacrifi ces, in particular their cult and rites of Demeter Achaia.57 Rites of Attic descent groups such as phratries and demes were

53 A case can be made that the deme Erchia, in sacrifi cing to Zeus Epakrios on Mount Hymettos (out-side deme territory), was making use of a shrine there served by a group of orgeones. See Lambert 2000: 77–78; 2003: 80–81.

54 Common property: most fully documented in the genos Salaminioi, R&O 37 with Parker 1996: 308–316, Agora XIX L4b with Lambert 1997a. Lending to members: e. g. IG II2 2670 (Lykomidai); IG II2 2723 with Parker 1996: 320 (Glaukidai and Epikleidai); Finley 1952: 160 no. 147 (Gephyraioi). Honouring benefactors: e. g. IG II2 1232 with Lambert 1997a: 104, 1999a: 98–99 (Salaminioi).

55 The point is well brought out by Parker 1996: 57–58. 56 R&O 37.24–27 with 80–97; Parker 1996: 308–316. Polis priests at R&O 37.8–12 include the priest

of Eurysakes but not the priest of hero-at-the-salt-fl at. Same man to be (polis) priest of Eurysakes and (private genos) priest of hero-at-the-salt-fl at, 52–54.

57 Hdt. 5.61. The exclusion of an immigrant genos from some privileges of citizenship can be paralleled in historical group enfranchisements (cf. Lambert 1998a: 53 with n. 120; on the decree enfranchis-ing the Plataians who escaped to Athens in 427, Blok and Lambert 2009: 104; on aspects of the tyrannicide myth from this point of view, Lambert forthcoming). Parker 1996: 288–289, raises the possibility that Herodotos was wrong to insist on the exclusivity of the Gephyraian cult of Demeter Achaia, pointing out that “Achaia” received offerings in the Marathonian Tetrapolis (in its sacrifi -cial calendar, SEG L 168 A col. II 27), but I am inclined to interpret the latter as a separate cult, the Tetrapolitan instantiation of a regionally powerful deity. A similar approach can be detected in the Tetrapolis to the Eleusinian religion, which looms large in the calendar (Parker 2005: 333 leaves open the possibility that the Eleusinion at A col. I 17 is outside the Tetrapolis, but, with Prott, I doubt that,


normally specifi c to the group which celebrated them; exclusion of “other Athenians” from such rites would scarcely be remarkable. It is easiest to understand Herodotos’ comment against the background of a system in which gene, unlike phratries and demes, normally served public cults – public not only in the sense that they were “polis cults”, with public funding etc., as defi ned above – the Gephyraioi cult of Demeter Achaia may have been such a cult58 – but also in the sense that they were open to all Athenians. The Gephyraioi were unique not in that some of their religion was “private” (for that applied also, for example, to the Salaminioi), but in that their major cult excluded other Athenians, whereas the norm was that the major cults served by gene were public (e. g. for the Salaminioi, Athena Skiras, deity of the Oschophoria). The Gephyraioi are the exception which proves the rule: a genos with no “public” cult.

As already mentioned, there are no demonstrable exceptions to the rule that priests in polis cults founded before ca. 450 were supplied by gene.59 We must turn now to consider priests in cults that meet criteria of a “polis cult”, but were not appointed from gene. There has been a tendency to lump all non-genos-appointed state priests in classi-cal Athens together under the defi nition “democratic” priests; but I wish to suggest that we have to do with not just one, but three distinct categories of priest, which I label A, B and C, depending on the group from which they were appointed.

A. Post-Periclean Urban and Extra-Attic Foundations

The fi rst type of Post-Periclean priesthood foundation for which we have evidence are priesthoods in cults in the city of Athens appointed by lot from all Athenian citizens of the appropriate gender. Two examples are fi rmly attested, one female, one male, and several others can be identifi ed that were probably created on the same model.

Athena Nike60

Sometime between the 440s and 424/3 BC the Athenian Assembly passed a decree which provided for the appointment of a priestess of Athena Nike by lot from all (feminine) Athenians, IG I3 35 (M&L 44).61 The decree provides for gates to be added to the sanctu-

cf. my remarks, 2000: 52). Compare also the theoriai to Delos sent by the Tetrapolis, distinct from those sent by the polis as a whole (FGrH 328 Philochoros F 75). In general the Tetrapolis shows a pattern of local religious observance which is independent of the rest of Attica and self-contained.

58 The priestess of Demeter Achaia had a named seat in the theatre of Dionysos (IG II2 5117).59 The polis cult of Artemis Agrotera (Agora XIX L6, 343/2) was founded in fulfi lment of a vow made

before the battle of Marathon (Parker 2005: 461–462). Crosby 1937: 457–458 no. 7. 12 (169/8–135/4 BC, Tracy 1990: 150) restores in a fragmentary list of offi cials, [iJereu;~ Art]evmido~ Agrotevra~.The others in the list appear to have been annual offi cials, but if indeed the restoration [iJereu;~] is correct, there would be no necessary implication that he too was an annual offi cial and not appointed from a genos.

60 The brief discussion of Parker 1996: 125–127 is now fundamental.61 The undermining of the three-bar sigma as a criterion indicating a date no later than ca. 450–445

(for the dating of IG I3 11, which has this type of sigma, to 418/7 BC see most recently SEG LII 54; LIII 54) leaves the way open for a date shortly before IG I3 36, but certainty is impossible (cf. Mattingly 2000: 604–606; Gill 2001: 257–278; SEG L 36 and 66; LII 37).

STEPHEN LAMBERT154

ary according to the specifi cations of Kallikrates; for the priestess to have 50 drachmas and the legs and skins from public sacrifi ces;62 for the temple to be built according to the specifi cations of Kallikrates, and a stone altar. A rider proposed by Hestiaios con-cerns the letting of the contract for the works. On the back is inscribed IG I3 36 (M&L 71), a decree of 424/3 providing for the fi fty drachma salary for the priestess to be paid by the kolakretai in offi ce in the month of Thargelion. Our other fi fth-century evidence for this priesthood is IG I3 1330, the funerary monument of Myrrhine daughter of Ka-llimachos. It states that she was fi rst to tend the shrine of Athena Nike and alludes to her selection by lot.63

The cult of Athena Nike was patently a polis cult in the strongest sense. Its priesthood is here being explicitly established by the polis; and the priestess is to receive a salary from public funds and perquisites from “public” sacrifi ces. Was it the fi rst priesthood to be appointed in this “open” fashion? We cannot be certain, but no earlier example is known and the text of the decree conveys an impression of radical, unprecedented in-novation.64 The impression of radicalism is enhanced by the absence of any reference to a consultation of Delphi or other oracle, which was normal when new departures were being contemplated in the religious sphere.65 Moreover, the allusion to her appointment “from all by lot” on the tombstone of the fi rst priestess is more understandable if this was something new and remarkable.

If Blok is right about the connection of this innovation with Pericles’ citizenship law, the ideological signifi cance will be clear: democratic in that it opens a new priesthood to all; but the “openness” is only possible because the quality of lineage of “all” has been raised by Pericles’ law to the quality of lineage of a genos. It may be signifi cant in respect of a possible link with Pericles’ law, and its concern with the female line, that this fi rst “democratic” priesthood was a feminine one. The description of Athenian women as “Athenians” in the decree rather than as daughters or wives of Athenians, is certainly striking, and perhaps refl ects a sense that it was in the religious sphere and particularly in their tenure of priesthoods that Athenian women came closest to sharing the full citizen status of men. There is also resonance with a remark of [Dem.] 51.19, where priesthood is brought into connection with the offering of political advice as some-

62 ta; skevle kai; ta; devrmata fevren to'n de|mosivon: (11–12).63 prwvte Aqhnaiv|a~ Nivke~ e{do~ aj|mfepovleusen ej|k pavntwn klhvrw|i (11–15). It has been speculated

that the character Myrrhine in Aristophanes’ Lysistrata (produced in 411) may be based on her. Cf. Lewis 1955: 1–3, and most recently Connelly 2007: 62–63. The name, however, was common. It is unclear whether the lekythos, IG I3 1285, relates to the same Myrrhine (Parker 1996: 126–127 n. 20).

64 At least, no precedent is referred to. For the tendency, in the religious sphere, to adduce precedents, especially where an action might be deemed contentious, compare e. g. IG II2 337 = R&O 91.42–45 (333/2 BC), where the foundation of a sanctuary of Isis by the Egyptians is cited as precedent for the permission granted the Kitians to establish a sanctuary of Aphrodite.

65 E. g. IG I3 7 (consultation of Delphi about the duties and privileges of the genos Praxiergidai), 136 (consultation of oracle about arrangements for new priesthood of Bendis), II2 4969 (extraordinary tenure of priesthood of Asklepios by Demon of Paiania sanctioned by oracle), IG II2 204 = R&O 58 (consultation of Delphi about what should be done with the sacred orgas). On a lower dating of IG I3 35, however, it may be relevant that Delphi appears to have been “out of bounds” to Athens during the Archidamian War (Thuc. 4.118.1 with Hornblower’s note).


thing common to all: in a “common polity” (politeiva koinhv) anyone who wishes may offer political advice and it should not be treated as a “private priesthood” (iJerwsuvnh ijdiva). The new priesthood of Athena Nike was to be koinov~, not i[dio~. It was not to be, as it were, the private property of a genos (existing or newly created). Indeed there are attractions in interpreting it as a deliberate attempt to break the hold of the gene on the acropolis, and in particular the hold of the Eteoboutadai on the Athena cult there.66

Though the priesthood was newly created at this point, the cult of Athena Nike on the acropolis had existed for decades, as IG I3 596, an archaic inscribed altar of Athena Nike (dated ca. 550? in IG I3), clearly demonstrates.67 The arrangements that applied before IG I3 35 are obscure, but it is an attractive guess that Athena Nike was previously served by the Eteoboutad priestess of Athena Polias, Nike only now being articulated as separate. The fi nal step may have been radical, but the process as a whole – emergence of a cult, with activity, altars and structures developing within the ambit of another cult over an extended period of time – is characteristic of the organic character of religious change at Athens.

“From all Athenians” may also have a further connotation. The intention may be to stress a contrast not only with the exclusivity of genos, but with the local specifi city of a deme. As we shall see below there are some priests in polis cults who may have been appointed from the demes. Athena Nike, however, was on the top of the acropolis, at the heart of Athens; to give her priesthood to a deme would be wholly inappropriate. The acropolis belonged to “all Athenians”, not to any Attic group or locality.

The use of allotment in the selection of this priestess was not in itself an innova-tion. No other means of appointing priests is attested in archaic and classical Athens. As a mechanism which removed choice from mortal to divine hands it was especially appropriate for priesthoods,68 and was the method used by the gene.69 Indeed allot-ment was not unequivocally democratic; it was egalitarian in that it gave everyone in a group an equal chance, but the composition of the group from which appointment was made could make the procedure as a whole democratic, aristocratic or oligarchic.70 The democratic novelty in our case was not in the mode of appointment, but in the breadth of the group: all Athenian women, without limitations. There is no indication that, like the priesthood of Asklepios, there was rotation among the tribes, perhaps because tribes were groups concerned exclusively with the masculine sphere of polis life, and women did not belong to them. It is diffi cult to imagine, however, that every Athenian woman

66 The Praxiergidai also played a role in the cult of Athena on the acropolis (care of statue and its gar-ments, Parker 1996: 307–308), as perhaps did the Euenoridai (connected with Aglauros and also, it seems, with the vestments of Athena, Lambert 2008b). Other gene with a locus on the acropolis (for references see Parker 1996: Appendices 1–2): Amynandridai (Kekrops); Daitroi ?, Kentriadai, Thaulonidai (Zeus Polieus); Kerykes ? (Artemis Epipyrgidia?, cf. Lambert 2005: 150, and see below in relation to Asklepios), Salaminioi (Aglauros and Pandrosos).

67 Cf. Parker 1996: 70.68 Plato Laws 6.759b, cf. 3.690c, 5.741b. Cf. Blok and Lambert 2009: 99.69 Argued by Blok and Lambert 2009.70 Cf. Aristotle Pol. 3.1266a 7–10, 4.1294b 7–10, 1298b 5–11, 1300a 20 – b 5. As Aristotle makes

clear, factors such as prokrisis and property qualifi cations could also be relevant in determining the extent to which allotment was “democratic”. See Blok and Lambert 2009: 99.

STEPHEN LAMBERT156

was in practice included in the allotment; one assumes that it was limited, in practice, to those who put themselves forward.71

Apart from the breadth of the group from which appointment was made, annual tenure was also indicative of a specifi cally democratic ideology. It applied to the priest-hood of Asklepios, but, as Parker has pointed out,72 it is not clear whether it applied to Athena Nike or whether her priesthood was held for life, like the genos priesthoods. In the latter case Athena Nike would be a sort of hybrid, a staging-post on the way to the full-blown “democratic” priesthood, with annual tenure.73

AsklepiosAnother polis priesthood serving a central Athenian cult was that of the healing deity Asklepios, whose cult was founded on the south slope of the acropolis on the initiative of one Telemachos in 420 BC in the aftermath of the plague which had devastated Ath-ens during the Archidamian War. We know a good deal about the foundation of the cult from a monument on which the founder recorded the main events of its early years.74

The initiative may have been private, but this was in no sense a private cult. As we saw above, introduction of new cults had to be approved by the polis; but it is quite clear that the polis did much more than merely tolerate the new cult of Asklepios. It seems to have met our key defi nition of a “polis cult”, public funding, from the start (or very soon after), for there is a fragment of the sacrifi cial calendar of the polis which probably provides for Asklepios’ festival, the Epidauria, which took place during the Eleusinian Mysteries. The fragment belongs to the earlier phase of the calendar, in Attic script, showing that the cult had received public funding by 410 at the latest.75

Unfortunately we know nothing for certain about the early arrangements for the priesthood. The fragmentary fourth-century inscription, IG II2 4963, seems to date some building (?) activity relating to Asklepios epi Thea[- and in older scholarship this was combined with the fact that there is a Telemachos son of Theangelos of Acharnai at-tested in the second half of the fourth century,76 to yield an identifi cation of the founder of the cult as a member of the same family and a hypothesis that he was its fi rst priest, succeeded by a son named Theangelos. Aleshire, however, introduced a salutary note of scepticism. There are several possible restorations of Thea- and since we do not know

71 We can scarcely guess at what the arrangements may have been for verifying candidates’ citizen qualifi cations. Perhaps there was a dokimasia before the priestess could enter offi ce (as in Plato Laws 759c).

72 Parker 1996: 126–127 n. 20.73 The history of the cult and priestesses of Athena Nike (none of them, after Myrrhine, known by

name) in the fourth century is of considerable interest. It was a focus of particular attention in the Lykourgan period, in the context of the quest to reconnect with and revive Athens’ fi fth-century imperial and democratic heritage. See Lambert 2010.

74 SEG XXV 226, XXXII 266, and especially XLVII 232 (Clinton’s new text). Most recently: Wickiser 2008: 67–70.

75 Lambert 2002a: F4B. Phases: pp. 353–357. The latest treatment of the foundation of the cult of Asklepios at Athens, Wickiser 2008 (chapter 4), makes a good case on other grounds for polis in-volvement in the cult from the start.

76 LGPN II Thlevmaco~ 6.


the founder’s father’s name or demotic (Parker suggests that he may not even have been an Athenian, but an Epidaurian77) there is insuffi cient basis to identify Thea- as his son.78 That the priesthood was allocated to a single family is also highly implausible. It would have amounted to the creation of a new genos, an unparalleled procedure in post-Periclean Athens.

The calendar fragment, which is incomplete, mentions no priest of Asklepios. In what survives there is mention of Demeter, perhaps of her priestess. The cult of Asklepios did indeed have strong links with Eleusis,79 but early relations were not entirely smooth. In the second year of the cult (419/8) Telemachos records that the Kerykes “disputed the plot of land and prevented some things from being done”. We do not know any more about the dispute; perhaps it had to do with resistance by the Eleusinian genos to es-tablishment of a new shrine in the Pelargikon, a consecrated zone under the acropolis, in which the Kerykes may have claimed an interest.80 Did the Kerykes also aspire to the priesthood? We do not know, but whatever the point of contention, it seems that tension with the Kerykes attended the foundation of this priesthood, as tension with the Eteoboutadai perhaps attended the foundation of the Athena Nike priesthood.

When evidence for the character of this priesthood emerges in the mid-fourth century (the earliest datable tenant, Lysitheos of Trikorynthos, apparently held offi ce in 354/3 or 344/3), it is apparent that it was also selected by lot “from all Athenians”, though in this case it rotated among the tribes. Tribal rotation was to an extent no doubt a pragmatic measure, designed to make allotment “from all Athenians” easier to manage in practice, but it also located the priesthood squarely within the framework of the institutions of the democratic polis, assimilating it, for example, to the prytanies of the Council. We do not know whether tribal rotation was an original feature of this priesthood, but in the absence of explicit evidence one way or the other, it seems likely that selection from “all Athenians” was determined as the means of appointment to the Asklepios priesthood at its foundation. The precedent of the Athena Nike priesthood would have pointed in that direction. There would be no parallel for any alternative arrangement for a newly founded public cult in classical Athens, except perhaps (as we shall see) appointment from a deme, which, as in the case of Athena Nike, would have been unsuitable for a cult located in the heart of the city. Like Bendis the cult was of foreign origin and, if Clinton’s restorations of the Epidauria fragment of the state’s sacrifi cial calendar are

77 1996: 178.78 Aleshire 1989: 72–73. At 370 she lists Thea- among annual priests of ca. 350–325. She still believes

that Telemachos was the fi rst priest (p. 8), but there no longer seems any basis for this assumption.79 Aleshire 1989: 8; Wickiser 2008: 63–76 and 87–89. On his arrival in the city from Zea (harbour

of Piraeus) during the Great Mysteries, Asklepios appears to have lodged fi rst in the Eleusinion (Telemachos’ monument, ll. 9–12).

80 Athenians fl ooding into the city at the start of the Archidamian War were forced to occupy the Pelargikon, in spite of an oracle prohibiting it (Thuc. 2.17); and Lampon’s rider to the Eleusinian fi rst-fruits decree required the delimiting of sanctuaries in the Pelargikon by horoi and prohibited the establishment of altars, the quarrying of stone and the removal of earth or stone without the consent of the Council and People (IG I3 78.54–61). Aleshire 1989: 9 suggests that another factor may have been the Kerykes’ support for a rival healing shrine, the Amyneion. See also below for a speculation that the priesthood of Asklepios in the Piraeus was held by the Kerykes.

STEPHEN LAMBERT158

correct, offi cials from Epidauros may have been involved with it,81 but, unlike exotic Bendis, the deity himself was wholly familiar and Greek, and there does not seem to have been an intention to involve a specifi c group of foreign residents in the cult or the priesthood. There was no need, therefore, for the special arrangements that, as we shall see, were applied in the case of Bendis.

As the exceptional Gephyraioi help illuminate the norm for genos cults, so there is an illuminating exception to the system of appointment of priests of Asklepios. As we learn from an inscription, at some point in the mid-fourth century Demon of Paiania was designated by the People to be priest of Asklepios in response to an oracle, in exchange for donating his house and garden to the god.82 The priesthood of Asklepios was created by the People and the People could make changes and exceptions to whatever systems it established for appointments, as and when it seemed expedient; but such systems were normally approved in the fi rst place by the divine authority of an oracle (Athena Nike, as we saw, seems to have been unusual in this regard), and changes or exceptions could safely be made only by seeking renewed divine approval.

Other “democratic priesthoods” on same model as Athena Nike and AsklepiosThe late classical temple of Aphrodite Pandemos was located on the acropolis slope immediately beneath that of Athena Nike.83 Two priestesses are attested. In c. 350–320 the priestess, Menekrateia daughter of Dexikrates of Ikaria, her sister (name not pre-served) and her sister’s son, Archinos son of Alypetos of Skambonidai, erected a naiskoscontaining statues. The statues are lost, but the inscribed architrave is preserved, with a dedicatory epigram to Aphrodite Pandemos and the names of the dedicators.84 Then, in the early third century, the Assembly passed a decree requiring the astynomoi to cleanse the sanctuary of Aphrodite Pandemos on the occasion of the procession.85 It is dated “in the priestess-ship of Hegesipyle, in the archonship of Euthios (283/2)”. Such dating, with the priest’s name juxtaposed to that of the annual archon, probably implies annual tenure and, if so, nothing stands in the way of an inference that, consonantly with the deity’s epithet, this priestess was appointed “from all Athenians”, like that of her neighbour, the priestess of Athena Nike.86 When was the priesthood instituted? We cannot be certain, but there is little to confi rm the assertion of late sources that there

81 Clinton 1994: 17–34; see Lambert 2002a: 386–388.82 IG II2 4969. Cults were typically supported by income from landed property which might be distant

from the cult-site itself (cf. the scattered locations of temene of specifi c “other gods” leased by the poletai in Agora XIX L6, L9–12, L14). We do not, therefore, need to suppose that Demon’s house and garden were located on the south slope of the acropolis.

83 Paus. 1.22; Goette 2001: 41–42 with fi g. 6; Dally 1997: 13–15; Beschi 1967/8: 517–528. Theatre seat: IG II2 5149 (Aphrodite Pandemos Nymphe).

84 IG II2 4596. Improved text and updated bibliography at CEG 775. The fact that the leading dedicator was nephew of the priestess perhaps implies that no other male relations were alive at the time. We know nothing of this family except that the nephew, or a homonymous relation, was a councillor in the Athenian cleruchy on Samos, c. 350 (PAA vol. 11 no. 213933 = IG XII [6] 262.127 with Hallof and Habicht 1995: 296).

85 IG II2 659, cf. SEG XLV 105. Parker 2005: 461. 86 Connotation of inclusiveness in the epithet: Parker 2005: 407–408, cf. 1996: 48–49.


was a cult of Aphrodite specifi cally under this epithet as early as the time of Solon or even Theseus.87 There is, however, clear evidence for early cult of Aphrodite in this general area88 and it is an attractive hypothesis that, just as, on the acropolis, Athena Nike became articulated as separate from Athena Polias by a gradual process, culmi-nating in the appointment of her own priestess in the third quarter of the fi fth century, so Aphrodite Pandemos was only gradually articulated as a distinct and independent manifestation of the Aphrodite cult of the acropolis slopes. Like Athena Nike, she may only have acquired her own priestess at the point when she acquired her own temple. It is even possible that, just as Myrrhine was fi rst priestess of Athena Nike, so Menekrateia was fi rst priestess of Aphrodite Pandemos (though no claim to that effect is made on her dedicatory inscription).

The cult of the Mother at the Metroon in the Agora was the location, from the end of the fi fth century, of the state archive. Her priest, Armenos son of Antiphates of Pam-botadai, made a dedication found in the Agora and doubtless set up in the Metroon.89 It is dated precisely to the archonship of Euthykritos (328/7), a type of dating which perhaps suggests that, like other offi cials of the polis who made dedications dated in this way, he held offi ce for that year only, and may therefore have been appointed, appropriately enough for a cult so closely associated with the Council and the record-keeping of the democratic organs of the city, by the “democratic” mechanism. The man is otherwise unknown.90

The cult of Kalliste and Ariste (apparently forms of Artemis) was located north-west of Athens, just outside the walls.91 Three third-century priests are attested: Antibios son of Prokles of Phrearrhioi (VI), who made a dedication to Kalliste and Ariste, “having been priest in the archonship of Polyeuktos” ([iJe]reu;~ genovmeno~ [ejp]i; Polueuvktou, 250/49?92); Dionysodoros of Semachidai (XII), who was priest in the archonship of Kimon (236/5?93) and as such dates a decree erected by a thiasos which was a guest-user of the sanctuary (IG II2 129794); and Antidoros son of Antidoros of Pergase (I), who was “allotted priest of Kalliste in the archonship of Ekphantos” (235/4?95) and

87 Theseus: Paus. 1.22. Solon: Nicander ap. Athen. 569d and FGrH 244 Apollodoros F 113, but the claim goes back to an unreliable source in fourth-century comedy (cf. Parker 1996: 49). The con-nection made by Apollodoros between Aphrodite Pandemos and an “old agora” may be a mirage. Cf. Pirenne-Delforge 1994: 27–28.

88 Monument to Hippolytos on south slope: Paus. 1.22.1. Sanctuary of Eros and Aphrodite on north slope below Erechtheion: Goette 2001: 54; Dally 1997: 1–20. Dedication to Aphrodite (no epithet), ca. 480–470?: IG I3 832; Base of statue of Aphrodite dedicated by Kallias ca. 450?: IG I3 876.

89 IG II2 4595. On the cult see Parker 1996: 188–192.90 A much later priest may be Dionysios Dion[ysiou - - -] mentioned in an uncertain context as priest

of the Mother in a dedication (?) found in the Agora Excavations (SEG XXI 797, i BC/i AD).91 Paus. 1.29.1–2; Travlos 1971: 301–302, 322. Cf. Parker 2005: 57; 2009: 10. The somewhat ambigu-

ously gendered Artemis and related deities in Attica were served by both priests and priestesses. Cf. below n. 158.

92 SEG XVIII 87. Year: Tracy 2003: 166.93 Year: Osborne 2008: 89.94 IG II2 1298 is a decree of (probably) the same thiasos (archon Diomedon). Cf. Parker 1996: 340;

Philadelphus 1927: 155–163.95 Year: Osborne 2008: 89.

STEPHEN LAMBERT160

honoured by an Assembly decree of the following year.96 From these inscriptions it is clear that this was a “polis cult” and that its priests were selected by lot and held offi ce for a year, on the model of Athena Nike and Asklepios. Presumably appointment was “from all Athenians”, perhaps with tribal rotation, though that is uncertain on present archon-datings.97 The priests of Kalliste are otherwise practically unknown, though benefactions “from their own resources” while in offi ce (Antidoros dedicated a stone altar), suggest that, like other “democratically” appointed priests in the hellenistic pe-riod, they were expected to possess a certain level of wealth and to dispose of it in the performance of their duties.

Pausanias saw wooden cult statues, but surviving inscriptions and dedications show us a cult active in the hellenistic period. Nothing stands in the way of an assumption that the priesthood was created after Pericles’ citizenship law, whether the cult was wholly a post-Periclean foundation, or whether its priesthood emerged by gradual separation from a pre-existing cult, as with Athena Nike and (if I am right) Aphrodite Pandemos. There was apparently a cult of Artemis Soteira in the same area, and Kalliste and Ariste might have emerged as a separate articulation of that priesthood, though at least by the late-fi rst century, the priesthood of Artemis Soteira was also annual.98 It is also clear from this evidence that, despite being only marginally “urban” in physical location, its priesthood was treated like that of other urban cults, not delegated to a local deme.

There are enough cases of this type of priesthood to support a working hypothesis that all priests created in urban cults of classical Athens after Pericles’ law were ap-pointed on the “democratic” model that applied to Athena Nike and Asklepios. This may have included the priesthoods in the three cults of personifi cations founded in the fourth century, that of Peace established to commemorate Timotheos’ victory over the Spartans in 375 (no priest is attested);99 of Demokratia, whose (male) priest enjoyed proedria in the theatre of Dionysos by the third century, if not before;100 and that of Agathe Tyche.101 By the late hellenistic period there were at least two temene of Agathe Tyche, one of them apparently in the Piraeus;102 but there are also slight indications of a cult location in central Athens.103 The priesthood is not directly attested.

96 IG II2 788 (archon Lysanias). The fragmentary IG II2 789 probably also honoured a priest of Kalliste. In the Roman period the priesthood was held for life (Oliver 1941: 242 no. 42, restored by Oliver as of [Artemis] Kalliste and [Soteira or Ariste]), probably in consequence of a reform of the Augustan period (see Aleshire and Lambert forthcoming).

97 Tribal rotation was fi rst suggested by Ferguson 1907: 213–214. On present datings of the relevant archons, there was a priest in tribe I in 235/4 succeeding in proper order a priest in tribe XII in 236/5, but one would expect a priest from tribe X in 250/49, rather than one from tribe VI.

98 IG II2 1343.24–25, cf. 4695; Oliver 1941: 243; Woodhead 1959: 279. The idea that Kalliste and Soteira might have been served by a single priest was fi rst suggested by Ferguson 1907: 213–214.

99 Parker 1996: 230; SEG XVI 55 with Lambert 2005: 145 and 147–148, no. 8.100 Parker 1996: 228–229. Theatre seat: IG II2 5029a = Maaß 1972: 108–109. Cf. IG II2 4676 with SEG

XXI 788. 101 Parker 1996: 231–232; Leventi 2003: 128–139; Parker 2005: 456; IG II2 333 with Lambert 2005,

141 fr. c + e, 19–20; Agora XVI 114.102 IG II2 1035.44 (Piraeus?), 48.103 E. g. the dedication to the Twelve Gods and Agathe Tyche by Philippos son of Iasidemos of Kolonai,

attested as trierarch in the 360s, IG II2 4564 (for the altar of the twelve gods in the Agora see Thuc.


New priesthoods outside Attica on model of urban foundationsPost-Periclean Athenian priesthood foundations outside Attica seem to have been on the same model as the Athenian urban foundations. Annual tenure, and perhaps there-fore appointment “from all Athenians”, is suggested for the priesthood of Amphiaraos in Oropos by I Orop. 290 (c. 369/8?), dated by (and praising) the priest, Antikrates of Dekeleia;104 and annual tenure was also the norm for Delian priesthoods after the re-establishment of Athenian control in 166. Interestingly this seems to have included the major priesthood of Apollo on Delos. In the Augustan period, perhaps in consequence of a general reform of the gene in 21 BC, it became a life priesthood held by the genosErysichthonidai.105 This probably revived arrangements that had applied in the classi-cal period. If so, this is the closest we have to an example of a “democratic” mode of appointment (post-166) superseding appointment from a genos (classical), though this was after the break of a considerable period during which Athens did not control the priesthood at all; and the arrangements after 166, while they may have been democratic in form, in practice restricted the priesthood to the political and economic elite.106

B. Accommodating a contradiction: “foreign” polis cults and the orgeones

I turn now to the second type of post-Periclean polis cult whose priests were not sup-plied by a genos. Fifth-century Athens was a maritime, imperial, city with far-fl ung international interests and an increasingly cosmopolitan population; and polytheism was an “open system” that adapted readily to new infl uences.107 A major area of Athens’ imperial interest was the Thraceward region, and one of the most numerous foreign populations in Attica in the fi fth century were the Thracians. Moreover in the 430s Athens was actively engaged in diplomacy with the Thracian kings.108 An important aspect of Athens’ developing relations with Thrace was its incorporation of the cult of Bendis into Athenian religion. Its status as a “polis” cult is clear on at least two criteria: Bendis was an “Other God”;109 and skins from (a large number of) animals sacrifi ced at her festival in the 330s appear in the city’s accounts of sacrifi cial skin sales.110 The cult also had a high profi le in other ways: the Bendideion in the Piraeus, which was

6.54.6; Parker 1996: 73); IG II2 4644, headed “Agathe Tyche” was found in the Asklepieion on the south slope of the acropolis, but it is not clear whether this is a dedication or the heading of a docu-ment relief (Parker 1996: 232 n. 52).

104 For this priesthood (unless it is a distinct priesthood of Amphiaraos in Athens) see also SEG XXXII 110 (Agora XVI 255C, cf. Bull. ép. 1982: 138, 273/2?, archon Glaukippos).

105 Parker 1996: 289–290. Augustan reform: Aleshire and Lambert forthcoming.106 On this tendency see Blok and Lambert 2009; Aleshire and Lambert forthcoming.107 On this and in general on the reception of Bendis and other new gods at Athens in the fi fth century

see Parker 1996: chapter 9 (Bendis at pp. 170–175). The incorporation of Bendis into Athenian religion is fully explored by Wijma 2009: chapter 4.

108 Cf. Garland 1992: 111–114.109 At IG I3 383.142–143 she is apparently associated with Adrasteia (a Phrygian deity, Parker 1996:

195); at IG I3 369.67–68 they are recorded separately. The signifi cance of this is obscure. We hear no more of Adrasteia in the evidence for the Bendis cult.

110 IG II2 1496.86 and 117.

STEPHEN LAMBERT162

located in the vicinity of the sanctuary of Artemis Mounichia (signifi cantly no doubt, as both deities were huntresses), was a notable landmark by 404/3;111 and, famously, at the opening of Plato’s Republic we hear about a new festival involving two proces-sions (by Thracians and Athenians), a torch-race on horseback and a pannychis.112 Her status as an Other God suggests an origin of the cult in Attica probably by 434; but the subsequent enhancement of which we hear in the Republic is also apparently refl ected in IG I3 136, an Assembly decree dating perhaps to 413/2 which, among other things, provides for consultation of the oracle113 about the priesthood of the cult. Unfortunately the relevant passage is desperately fragmentary. We can be sure only that the question concerned a woman and, in the next line, there is reference to [selection of a priestess or priest or of envoys to the oracle from?] all Athenians.114 We next hear about priests in two of the series of decrees of orgeones of Bendis in the Piraeus, dating from the late-fourth and early-third centuries, which supply most of the rest of our knowledge of this cult. In IG II2 1361.4–7, of perhaps the late-fourth century, provision is made for members of the group to sacrifi ce free of charge. However, if a private individual (i. e. someone not a member of the orgeones) sacrifi ces, specifi ed fees and portions from the animals are to be paid to the priestess. The perquisites (hiereosyna) for female animals are to be given to the priestess, for male animals to the priest. Then in IG II2

1283.20–22 (ca. 240, archon Polystratos) provision is made that, when sacrifi ces take place, the priest and priestess are to pray additionally for the orgeones in the city (ap-parently a separate group from the orgeones in the Piraeus, and recently founded).115

From these decrees it is clear that the cult had both a priest and a priestess, who seem to be responsible to the orgeones.116 We can not be certain that this arrangement of the priesthood was established following the consultation of the oracle provided for in IG I3 136, but everything we know about Athenian priesthoods points to continuity of arrangements being more likely than change. Moreover it is quite clear that the priest and the priestess not only serve the orgeones, they also serve the wider community. The fact that the Athenians put a question to an oracle about the priesthood suggests that there was more than one possible arrangement: perhaps the question was about the ethnicity of the priest(ess) (we do not know whether, in the event, the priest and priest-ess were Athenians), perhaps it was precisely about gender, male or female (or both?).

111 Xen. Hell. 2.4.1.112 Plato Rep. 327a–328a.113 Perhaps at Dodona, appropriate for a Thracian deity, cf. IG II2 1283.6.114 ei[te cre; gunai'ka hiereos[–c.30–]|[–c.8– Aqena]ivon aJpavnton pemfsavnton [–c.32–]|[–c.13–] oJ~

tavcista: IG I3 136.29–31. There is not enough text surviving to reconstruct the sense with confi -dence (the masculine aJpavnton does not rule out reference to a priestess, cf. ej|k pavntwn klhvrw|i of Myrrhine, priestess of Athena Nike, at IG I3 1330).

115 IG II2 1317b (p. 673) honours a priest named Charinos (who also dates the decree), epimeletai, a treasurer (also named Charinos, same man?) and a secretary in iii BC (archon Hieron), but this may relate to a separate group of thiasotai of Bendis on Salamis (cf. Parker).

116 Whether the priest was priest of Bendis, or, as Wijma suggests (but in my view less likely), of Deloptes (associated with Bendis e. g. at IG II2 1324.15) is obscure. A priest and priestess of the Hagne Theos (= Kore?) are now attested in the early-fourth-century list from Aixone of perquisites for priests, SEG LIV 214.23–27. Other examples of this phenomenon are discussed by Parker 2009, and see below n. 158.


In any case the crucial factor determining the arrangements for administering this cult is surely that it involved Thracians as well as Athenians. Whether there were separate groups of Thracian and Athenian orgeones is not quite clear;117 but the involvement of Thracians in the administration of the cult is implied by IG II2 1283, in which the orgeones claim that they alone of foreign people (tw'n a[llwn ejqnw'n) had the right “to acquire land (enktesis) to found a sanctuary according to the oracle of Dodona and to conduct a procession from the prytaneion hearth”.118 In such circumstances one can see that none of the conventional modes of appointing this polis priesthood would seem ap-propriate. A priest selected from a genos, a deme (Piraeus would have been the obvious one in this case) or from all Athenians would exclude the Thracians. To involve them a new system for appointing the priest was needed, and that chosen was one which drew on the model of pre-existing orgeones-groups. As we saw above, these groups seem to have performed a similar role to gene in that they were groups within phratries,119

might administer shrines for which they supplied priests,120 and to which they provided access for other groups of worshippers. They do not, however, seem to have shared in the strong ideology of autochthonous origins and descent from Ur-Athenians which characterised the gene,121 and in that respect were eminently suitable to be adapted to administer a cult in which foreigners were to have a signifi cant role.

Was the arrangement for Bendis unique? One other cult, that of the Libyan oracular deity Ammon, displays some similarities. The origins and context of Athens’ links with this deity are rather less clear than in the case of Bendis. Like Bendis, however, Ammon boasted a “polis cult” in the Piraeus. A public sacrifi ce is recorded in the skin-sale ac-counts of 333/2;122 in the same year the superintendent of the water supply, Pytheas of Alopeke, was honoured, in a decree of the Assembly, inter alia for creating a new spring at the sanctuary of Ammon;123 and in another Assembly decree probably of the same decade the priest of Ammon, Pausiades of Phaleron, is praised along with other priests from the Piraeus area.124 Moreover, property of Ammon is listed in the Hekatompedon inventories of 371/0–367/6, suggesting that, like other deities whose property is so

117 Parker 1996: 171. Wijma 2009, chapter 4, makes a case that before the founding of the separate group in the city, there was only one group and they were Thracians.

118 Not true at the time this decree was passed (e. g. Kitian merchants in the Piraeus had acquired a similar right to found a sanctuary of Aphrodite in 333/2 and the Egyptians a sanctuary of Isis before that, IG II2 337 = R&O 91), but quite possibly true at the time the cult was founded. The wording of the decree seems to be based on a fi fth-century text, perhaps the original grant of enktesis.

119 Cf. Lambert 1998a: 74–77.120 The function of orgeones in supplying and regulating priesthoods is apparent from numerous inscrip-

tions, including those honouring priests appointed (from the group) by lot (e. g. IG II2 1314–1316, 1317b p. 673, 1334, 1337, SEG XVII 36, XXIV 116, all hellenistic), specifying priestly duties (IGII2 1328, which also concerns appointment of a zakoros), and listing annual priestesses (IG II2 2361, imperial). Cf. Kearns 1989: 74.

121 Cf. Parker 1996: 109–111. Unlike gene, orgeones do not feature in the Ur-constitution of the city sketched at Ath. Pol. F3. Ustinova 1996 suggests that the original orgeones were immigrants in the archaic period, admitted to phratries but not to gene. This is diffi cult to substantiate.

122 IG II2 1496.96.123 IG II2 338 = I Orop. 295 = Lambert 2004: no. 15.124 IG II2 410 = Lambert 2004: no. 10.

STEPHEN LAMBERT164

listed, Ammon was one of the “other gods” whose property was originally gathered on the acropolis and placed under the purview of the treasurers of the other gods in the 430s or 420s, though it is uncertain whether he was one of the original group.125 There is circumstantial support for early public interest in the cult in accounts of consultations of Ammon by Cimon and, apparently, by the Athenians collectively about the Sicilian expedition.126 Ar. Birds 619 and 716 seem to imply that such consultations were normal by the Peloponnesian War period.127 The similarities with Bendis seem so far to be rather close: both cults of foreign origin established in the Piraeus, perhaps by the second half of the fi fth century. What we lack in the case of Ammon is any evidence of foreign involve-ment in the operation of the cult; and indeed in contrast to the many known Thracian residents of Athens (FRA 2487–2595) no “Libyans” are attested before the fi rst century BC (FRA 3341–3344). How was the priest appointed? For such a (surely) relatively late-created “polis” cult, appointment from a genos seems unlikely. The demotic of the attested priest shows that the cult was not administered by the deme Piraeus. Straight-forward appointment “from all Athenians” is possible, though it would not have been appropriate if (what is admittedly unclear in this case) there was an intention to involve foreigners in the administration of the cult, and the priest from Phaleron suggests local connections. An alternative possibility is raised by IG II2 1282, a third-century decree (archon Antipatros, 263/2?) from Piraeus of an association, praising those responsible for building works on the sanctuary of Ammon. The type of association is not explicit in the surviving text, but the decree strikes a proprietorial tone, not one suggestive of a group that were merely “guest-users” of the sanctuary. Perhaps it was passed by a group of orgeones which owned the public shrine and supplied the priest, on a model similar to the orgeones of Bendis.

C. Polis cults in Attica outside Athens: the Demos in the demes

The third type of “democratic” polis priest for which we have evidence served extra-urban polis cults, overseen by the demos = deme functioning as local instantiation of the Demos = People. Unfortunately, however, and despite an abundance of evidence for religion in the demes, there is no case of this sort that we can interpret with clarity and confi dence. Our fullest information relates to an example in the deme on the west coast of Attica, Halai Aixonides. The temple of Apollo Zoster there dates from the late-

125 IG II2 1424a.176 and 1428.73–4 = Harris 1995: p. 172 no. 321 (phiale of Ammon weighing 802 dr.). The gods named as possessors of objects in the Hekatompedon inventories (Harris Part V) are either Athena Polias or “other gods”, individually (Athena Nike, Zeus Polieus, Artemis Brauronia, Demeter and Kore, etc. but also Asklepios, who, unless this is Asklepios in the Piraeus, was not one of the original group) or collectively (e. g. Harris nos. 329–330).

126 Plut. Cim. 18.7; Plut. Nik. 13.2.127 SEG XXI 241 + SEG XLVI 122, of 363/2, from the Mahdi wreck, and IG II2 1642 + SEG XXX

109 + SEG XXI 562, from the acropolis and perhaps of the same period, record offerings (taken to Libya?) to Ammon (and Para[mmon?]) and Hera [Ammonia?]; cf. Petzl 1994: 381–386; Parker 1996: 195–196; 2005: 111.


sixth or early-fi fth century.128 In about 360 the deme inscribed on a cult table in the temple a decree honouring the priest of Apollo Zoster, Polystratos son of Charmantides of Halai.129 He had performed his priestly duties well and piously, carrying out build-ing works with extreme philotimia; he had adorned the statues and had taken care of the sacrifi ce at the Zosteria festival. He had given fi nancial accounts (logous) of his responsibilities to the demesmen,130 and is honoured with a laurel crown. He is praised together with a commission of four of his fellow demesmen who had been elected by the deme to oversee the sanctuary with the priest. From this inscription it seems that the deme was responsible for this cult and that the priest was responsible to the deme for the performance of his priestly duties. There are also, however, strong indications that this was a “polis” cult and priesthood. From an inscription of around the same period, also found by the shrine, we learn that the Athenian Council and People had honoured another priest of Apollo Zoster, Eukles son of Eukles of Halai;131 Apollo Zoster was one of the “other gods”, whose treasurers were established in the 430s or 420s;132 and his priest enjoyed proedria in the theatre of Dionysos.133

Unfortunately it is unclear how the priest was appointed. Two possibilities lie to hand. (a) From a local genos, in which case what we should have here is a deme overseeing

a local Attic genos cult in the same way as the Demos oversaw urban “polis cults” whose priests were supplied by gene and which were administered centrally.134 Appointment from a genos would be consistent with service of a “polis cult” founded before Pericles’ citizenship law. There is no fi rm parallel for a genos priest serving a cult administered by a deme, but this is not a decisive argument when our evidence for the arrangements for appointing deme priests is in general so slight. There is no mention of any genos in the inscription, but the gene that supplied a priest are never mentioned in decrees of the Demos honouring priests either.135

(b) The priest may have been appointed by and from the deme itself. In favour of this one might argue that the priest seems to be subject to the annual accounting arrange-ments normal for deme offi cials, but that does not necessarily imply appointment from the deme, or an annual term of offi ce. At the central level, genos priests, who had life

128 Kourionotes 1927–1928, 49. Photo: Parker 2005: 70.129 R&O 46.130 What this meant in this deme is clarifi ed by IG II2 1174, of 368/7, which requires offi cials of Halai

Aixonides to deposit into a box monthly a logos of their receipts and outgoings and to undergo euthynai in the fi rst month of the following year on the basis of these accounts and no others. Cf. Whitehead 1986: 118.

131 Kourionotes 1927–1928, 39 no. 3. 132 IG I3 369.67. IG I3 249 (= Whitehead 1986: 380 no. 60), found in the “priest’s house” near the

temple, may be an account of the treasurers of the other gods. Some progress may be made with its text, which I hope to discuss further elsewhere.

133 IG II2 5081 = Maaß 1972: 140. Parker 2005: 59 notes that the story that Euripides was pyrphorosin the cult (Vita Eurip. p. 2.4) tends to confi rm its public character.

134 Cf. e. g. in mid-iv BC the epimeletai appointed by the city to oversee the Mysteries alongside the Eleusinian gene, SEG XXX 61 A fr. a + b 29–32. Cf. Parker 1996: 127.

135 See e. g. IG II2 776, for the priestess of Athena Polias, which does not mention the Eteoboutadai.

STEPHEN LAMBERT166

tenure, were liable to undergo (annual?) euthynai, like other polis offi cials.136 The priest was still in offi ce when the decree was passed (present tense, l. 3), but that might indicate life tenure, or annual tenure that had not quite come to an end.137 There is a parallel for a deme priest being appointed from the deme itself in the priesthood of Herakles in mid-fourth-century Halimous, but this was not, so far as we know, a “polis cult”.138

There would seem to be no decisive arguments either way. If appointment was from the deme, it would parallel nicely the centrally administered priesthoods if the priesthood of Apollo Zoster had been created after Pericles’ citizenship law: after 451, priesthoods in urban polis cults appointed from all Athenian citizens, those in the At-tic countryside appointed from all demesmen; but we cannot press this. If, as seems likely, the cult existed before Cleisthenes, there would be an (unanswerable) question about how it was administered before the demes were created. Moreover, the case of Halimous suggests that the demes may have had somewhat different methods from the Demos for ensuring that their priests were of the right birth-calibre. In the mid-fourth century Halimous fi rst pre-elected a group of men suitable to hold the priesthood of Herakles, only then proceeding to allotment from this pre-elected group; and it is im-plied by Euxitheos, the speaker of [Dem.] 57, that eugeneia, to which he lays claim by virtue of his genos membership, was the (or a) criterion on which the pre-election was based.139 Whether before or after Pericles’ law, Halai might have adopted similar appointment procedures, designed in a sense to have a comparable effect on the local level to Pericles’ law at polis level.

Diffi cult though its interpretation is, there is no case of a deme-administered polis cult as clear as Apollo Zoster. There are, however, several possible parallels. At the latest by about the second half of the sixth century a cult of the “founder hero” (Hero Archegetes) had been established at Rhamnous, as we know from a statue base (or bench) inscribed with a dedication to him by one Antiphanes (I Rham. 77); a further statue was dedicated in the fi fth century (I Rham. 78); and there are two horoi “of the sacred court (aules hieras)” of the hero dated by the excavator to the late-fourth or early-third century (IRham. 79–80; note also I Rham. 81). The preserved remains of the sanctuary are dated by the excavator to the last phase of the life of the deme, the third century AD.140 The most signifi cant fi nd from our point of view, however, is the row of thrones (originally apparently fi ve of them) from the deme theatre, I Rham. 82 = IG II2 2849, dating to the second half of the fourth century and inscribed under their seats with a dedication to Dionysos by the priest of the Hero Archegetes (his name is not preserved), who has been praised and crowned by the Council and the demesmen and the soldiers (presum-

136 Aeschin. 3.18 states that the law makes priests and priestesses, who receive nothing but priestly dues (gevra), subject to euthynai, jointly and severally, both individual priests and collectively the gene, Eumolpidai, Kerykes and the rest.

137 He had patently complied with the requirement to deliver his monthly accounts (logoi), but it is unclear whether he had yet undergone the annual euthynai required of deme offi cials by IG II2 1174 (see above n. 130). At the central level it was common for the Assembly to honour annual offi cials at the very end of their terms of offi ce. Cf. Lambert 2004.

138 [Dem.] 57.46–48 and 62.139 Cf. Blok and Lambert 2009: 99–101.140 I Rham. 117–119.


ably of the Rhamnous garrison). The importance of the cult is confi rmed by SEG LI 174, which shows that the general’s headquarters in Rhamnous (the strategion), was dedicated by Epichares, general of the coast in the fi rst year of Chremonidean War, to the Hero Archegetes; and by an unpublished decree from Rhamnous of the year 184/3 showing the general of the coast, Euxitheos son of Philoxenides of Kephisia, organis-ing an agon in the hero’s honour (I Rham. 890). The honour awarded by the Council might suggest that this was a “polis” priesthood, though it is not a decisive indicator given the Council’s general responsibilities for oversight of religion in Attica, and one might interpret the absence of an Assembly decree as a counter-indicator. We have no direct evidence as to how the priesthood was appointed, but the fact that the cult was of the Archegetes of the deme, and that the priest is honoured by the deme, together with the location of the memorial thrones, all point to appointment by and from the deme.

A third possible example of a “polis cult” being administered by a deme is supplied by a remarkable inscription of perhaps the second half of the fourth century, found at Kamatero in Attica (perhaps the area of the deme Eupyridai141):

“Gods. The priest of Apollo Erithaseos announces and forbids on behalf of himself and the demesmen and the Athenian People that, in the sanctuary of Apollo, there shall be any cutting or carrying out of the sanctuary of wood or branches with or without leaves or of fallen leaves; and if anyone is caught cutting or carrying away any of the forbidden things from the sanctuary, if he is a slave who has been caught, he shall receive 50 lashes of the whip and the priest will hand him over with the name of his master to the basileus and the Council according to the decree of the Athenian Council and Peo-ple; and if he is a free man the priest together with the demarch will exact from him a penalty of 50 drachmas and will hand over his name to the basileus and the Council in accordance with the decree of the Athenian Council and People.”

The edict is a remarkable document of the extent of the personal powers which a priest might exercise in relation to his own sanctuary, issuing decrees as if he were a public body.142 On the other hand he is very careful to place his actions legally within the framework of his deme (the demarch) and of the central authorities at Athens, the basileus (qua chief offi cial of Athenian religion) and the Council and People. It is pos-sible that the priest’s references to Council and People should be interpreted solely in the context of the decree he refers to, which perhaps placed obligations on “all priests and demarchs” vel sim.143 We cannot infer with confi dence that the cult he served was a “polis cult” in a stronger sense; but it might have been. It found its way into Hesychius’ lexicon (s. v. Eriqaseuv~: Apovllwn ejn th'/ Attikh'/), which suggests that it may have

141 Traill 1975: 46.142 The special authority of priests in their own sanctuaries is refl ected in dedications and sometimes

decrees of the Assembly set up in them, which may be dated by the priest, instead of or alongside, the eponymous archon of the city. E. g. IG II2 354 + Lambert 2004: 106 no. 11 (Assembly decree of 328/7 honouring the priest of Asklepios).

143 As Whitehead notes (1986: 135), this might be a reference to the decree, IG II2 204 = R&O 58 (352/1), cited above, which places an obligation on the Council and the demarchs and others (including “those whom the law requires”, which presumably includes priests), to care for all sanctuaries or precincts (ll. 16–23), or perhaps to another decree dealing with similar subject matter and/or specifi cally with collection of wood in sanctuaries.

STEPHEN LAMBERT168

been mentioned by an orator or hellenistic work on Attic antiquities; and the fact that Hesychius, one of our major sources for Attic gene,144 does not link it with a genos,together with the priest’s reference to the deme as source of authority, suggest that it was not a genos priesthood.

Another tantalising case of what may be a polis cult administered by a deme is Nemesis at Rhamnous. The cult was apparently extremely ancient,145 and the evidence that it was administered by the deme Rhamnous is unequivocal. Inscribed fi fth-century accounts,146 and the lease of temene of the goddess by the deme in 339/8,147 show the deme fi rmly in control of cult fi nances and property. Three priestesses are known by name: Kallisto and Pheidostrate, who appear to have held offi ce in quick succession (successive years?) sometime in the second half of the fourth century;148 and Aristo-noe daughter of Nikokrates of Rhamnous, whose son, Hierokles son of Hieropoios of Rhamnous, dedicated a statue of her in the third century.149 The priesthood was most likely supplied from the deme rather than a local genos.150 As is clear from an ephebic victory dedication of the Lykourgan period, however, the Nemesia festival was of more than local importance,151 and the classical temple there was large and dramatically posi-tioned on an eastern tip of Attica.152 And yet the evidence for polis involvement is much thinner than with Apollo Zoster. We know of no priestess honoured by the Council and Assembly; and there is no clear indication that Nemesis was one of the “other gods”.153

144 Cf. Parker 1996: 284–285.145 The sanctuary area had been frequented since the proto-Helladic and Mycenean periods without

interruption and cult of Nemesis is attested there from the beginning of the sixth century (I Rham.188).

146 IG I3 248 = I Rham. 182 (cf. IG I3 247 bis addenda p. 957 = I Rham. 181).147 I Rham. 180.148 The evidence (with Petrakos’ important improvements on earlier readings) is: (a) I Rham. 120 (IG II2

3109), dedication of a statue of Themis by Megakles son of Megakles of Rhamnous in the priestess-ship of Kallisto, commemorating his crowning by the demesmen and his victory as gymnasiarch in the boys’ and mens’ competition. Wording was added when Pheidostrate was priestess of Nemesis to commemorate a subsequent victory of Megakles as choregos for comedy. (b) I Rham. 121 (IG II2

4638b), a throne dedicated to Nemesis by Sostratos when Kallisto was priestess. (c) I Rham. 122 (IG II2 4638a), a similar throne dedicated to Themis when Pheidostrate was priestess.

149 I Rham. 133 (IG II2 3462).150 It is interesting that, despite the abundant evidence that has now accrued for the deme, no genos is

attested at Rhamnous (though phratries are, e. g. I Rham. 186–187). 151 IG II2 3105 + SEG XXXI 162 (333/2 BC). The reference to the Nemesia at Dem. 41.11, however,

has now attractively been associated rather with the Genesia (by Parker 1996: 254 n. 126, cf. 2005:476).

152 On the temple (Periclean period) see I Rham. 221–245. Parker 2005: 58 sees the size and position of the temple as suggestive, prima facie, of polis involvement, though it might equally be accounted for by wealthy private donor(s).

153 There is a tantalising correspondence between I Rham. 180 (IG II2 2493+2494), which includes a lease to an unknown tenant of a temenos of the goddess (i. e. Nemesis) in Hermous by the demes-men (scil. of Rhamnous) of the meros of Archippos and Stesias in 339/8, and the lease of a temenosin Hermous in or after 343/2 (?) in the records of leases of properties of “other gods”, Agora XIX L6.65–66. However, other details in the two records do not appear to correspond and it is not clear that the two temene are identical.


This may be a full-blown “polis cult” with priest appointed from the deme; but it may simply be a very popular deme cult, which attracted interest from outside the deme, though possibly no formal polis involvement earlier than the Lykourgan period and the institution of the ephebate.154

There are several other important “polis” cults located in the Attic demes, but un-fortunately in no case can we be certain by what mechanism the priest was appointed. Artemis at Brauron was an ancient polis cult of the fi rst importance, with a sanctuary on the acropolis as well as in Brauron.155 There are several tantalising references to the priestess and her relations in fourth-century orators156 and inscriptions.157 Given the antiquity and importance of the cult one might think in terms of a genos, but we do not know the name or family of any priestess and have no evidence for the mode of appointment.158 Poseidon at Sounion was also a “polis cult”,159 but we know nothing about the priest.

Polis priests in the Piraeus: urban or extra-urban model?

If the direction of the above analysis has been correct, priests in older “polis cults” in the Piraeus area were supplied by gene, those in “polis cults” in the Piraeus with a foreign aspect from groups of orgeones. What, however, about newer cults without a foreign aspect? Were the priests supplied by the deme or “from all Athenians”? Unfortunately

154 A Roman period inscription on a seat in the theatre of Dionysos (IG II2 5143), is restored for the [priestess of Nemesis] in Rham[nous] by Petrakos, in Philia Epe eis Georgian E. Mylonan II (Athens, 1989), 235 = SEG XXXVI 276 (cf. SEG L 197). It is not clear whether IG II2 5109, theatre seat for priest of The[mis] or IG II2 5070 = Maaß 1972: 134, for Nemesis Ourania, are relevant.

155 See Parker 2005: 228–231. “Other God”: IG I3 369.72 and 89 etc. Acropolis accounts: IG II2

1514–1531.156 Dem. 54.25; Din. 2.12; Hyp. F 199 Jensen.157 IG II2 1519.11; 1524.45–46 and 111–112; 1526.27 refers to her kyrios.158 At IG II2 1526.6 an item in an account of Artemis Brauronia is dated ejf iJerevw~ Pe- (cf. 1527.1).

Kirchner thinks of a priest in another cult, but it is perhaps possible that Artemis Brauronia was served by both a priest and a priestess, as was another Artemis-related deity, Bendis (see above) and, much later, Artemis Kolainis (IG II2 4817, cf. 5057, 5140). For a priest of Artemis, apparently on the acropolis (Epipyrgidia, Brauronia?) cf. IG II2 326 + Lambert 2005: no. 12 and 2007: p. 82. Josine Blok (personal communication) wonders whether there might have been a priestess in Brauron and a priest on the acropolis. A priest and priestess of Hagne Theos are now attested in the early fourth century (cf. n. 116). Given the association of the 6th-century temple of Artemis Brauronia with Pei-sistratos (Photios s. v. Braurwniva ed. Theodoridis), one might think mischievously of a priesthood vested in his genos and restore Pe[isistravtou at IG II2 1526.

159 Like Nemesis at Rhamnous, Poseidon at Sounion boasted a large temple of the Periclean period, located on a coastal tip of Attica; and there are stronger indications than with Nemesis that this was a “polis” cult. Note especially IG I3 8, an Assembly decree which appears to provide for funding from a levy on shipping (c. 460–450 BC?); I3 369.62 and 82, 383.106, 319 and 330, showing that Poseidon at Sounion was an “other god” (note also the Hekatompedon inventory of 390/89, Harris p. 127 no. 74, cf. p. 169 no. 307, “from Sounion”, no mention of cult); and the evidence for a nautical festival which attracted participation from outside the deme cited by Parker 2005: 59 n. 36.

STEPHEN LAMBERT170

once again there is no unequivocal evidence. Dionysos in Piraeus was a “polis cult,”160

and, like Apollo Zoster, it was administered by the local deme. We see this from the (late-iv BC?) decree of the deme Piraeus honouring Kallidamas son of Kallimedon of Cholleidai and awarding him proedria “whenever the Piraeans hold the Dionysia”, IGII2 1214. In this case, however, we can be certain that the priest was not supplied by the deme. The one attested tenant, Meixigenes, honoured by the Assembly in the 330s, was from the deme Cholleidai. One of two possible explanations seems likely: a pre-Periclean origin of the Piraeus cult of Dionysos is quite possible and in that case the priesthood may have been supplied from a genos which included men who were not demesmen of Piraeus, including Meixigenes (and, one might suspect, also Kallidamas, who, strikingly, is from the same deme, Cholleidai). Alternatively, it is possible that, like some other aspects of the administration of the Piraeus, it was taken under the wing of the polis as a whole. The demarch of the Piraeus, for example, was appointed not by the deme, but by the Athenian Assembly.161 In a similar way the priest of Dionysos in the Piraeus might have been appointed not from the deme, but from “all Athenians” on the model of Athena Nike and Asklepios in the city.

Asklepios in the Piraeus was also a “polis cult”, subject of a state decree of around the second quarter of the fourth century, IG II2 47. The date of foundation is quite obscure, but may well have been earlier than the city cult, quite possibly earlier than Pericles’ law.162 There are several notable features about the priest, Euthydemos of Eleusis, who is attested in that inscription and in IG II2 4962. IG II2 47 is based on his report and contains detailed provisions for the public festival of Asklepios, including for preliminary offerings (prothymata) that he has “expounded”; and IG II2 4962, set up on his initiative, contains further specifi cations as to “preliminary offerings”. Euthydemos was patently a cultic expert, and while such experts sometimes performed short-term or one-off services to a cult (one thinks, for example, of the Atthidographer Phanodemos of Thymaitadai, who legislated for the Amphiaraia festival in 332/1),163 it would be slightly surprising if he was in offi ce as priest for one year only. Moreover, the man was a member of a prominent family (connected with the prominent politician Moirokles of Eleusis and a late-fourth century demarch of Eleusis164) from a deme which hosted a cult, that of the Mysteries of Demeter and Kore, which had close connections with that of Asklepios.165 We can only speculate, but several things would fall nicely into place (including in relation to involvement of the Kerykes with the foundation of the city cult) if Euthydemos was appointed by and from one of the Eleusinian gene.

160 Clear from an Assembly decree of the 330s honouring the priest, Meixigenes of Cholleidai (IG II2

410 = Lambert 2004: no. 10, ca. 340–330 BC), the sale by the polis of skins from sacrifi ces in the 330s (IG II2 1496.70 and 144) and from an Assembly decree of 320/19 requiring the agoranomoi to take care of the processional route, IG II2 380. Cf. Dem. 21.10.

161 Ath. Pol. 54.8.162 See Parker 1996: 181–182.163 I Orop. 297 = Lambert 2004 no. 16. There is no sign, however, that Phanodemos was priest of this

cult.164 See PAA 432295 and most recently Lambert 2007: 112–113.165 See above, on the foundation of the city cult of Asklepios, and Wickiser 2008.


The cult of Zeus Soter in the Piraeus was extremely popular in the fourth century.166

The known priests, all praised in Assembly decrees, are: Nikokles of Hagnous (V),167

a man from Kerameis (V),168 and Smikros son of Philinos of –.169 Pre-fourth-century evidence is lacking, but this cannot be taken to rule out an earlier origin for the cult.170

So this priesthood too may have been appointed from a genos, or on the “democratic” model from all Athenians.171

In contrast to Zeus Soter the cult of Poseidon Pelagios is almost whole obscure.172

The priest honoured in IG II2 410 was Himeraios of Phaleron, who was brother of the famous Demetrios of Phaleron, ruler of Athens 317–307 BC. One may suspect appoint-ment from a genos, but an annual priesthood appointed “from all Athenians” cannot be ruled out.

Conclusion

It is a paradox at the heart of polytheism as manifested in Athens that it was at the same time a profoundly conservative religious system and an open and adaptable one,173 and, congruently, the development of the method of appointment of priests in polis cults in classical Athens displays both continuity and change. There was continuity in the use of the “divine lot”, the mechanism specifi cally appropriate to the appointment of priests, and the only mechanism attested in classical Athens for polis priests, after Pericles’ law as before. There was continuity in basic ideology: the relationship between the commu-nity and its gods was the central relationship that defi ned citizenship, and to represent and preside over the relationship of the citizens with specifi c gods the priest or priest-ess must usually possess the purest qualifi cations for citizenship: direct descent in both

166 The fi ctional priest of Zeus Soter in Aristophanes’ Wealth (388 BC) has a thriving business and in the sacrifi cial skin-sale records of the 330s more animals were sacrifi ced at the festival of Zeus Soter than at any other, IG II2 1496.88–89 and 118–119. See Parker 1996: 238–241; 2005: 466–467.

167 IG II2 410 = Lambert 2004: no. 10, ca. 340–330 BC, cf. 2003c. If I am right about the circumstances, this decree dates to the aftermath of the battle of Chaironeia (338/7).

168 IG II2 689 + SEG XLVI 134 (archon -ides, 305/4–270 BC, probably Lysitheides, 272/1 BC, cf. Tracy 2003: 77). In a later decree, IG II2 783 (163/2 BC), a priest is specifi ed explicitly as being priest “of Zeus Soter in the Piraeus”, which suggests that by then there were separate priests for the Piraeus and city cults (in the Agora), but in 689 the priest is named without further specifi cation, seeming to imply that at this time there was only the one polis priest (scil. in Piraeus).

169 IG II2 690 + SEG XXIX 103, ca. 305/4–270 BC. Date: Tracy 2003: 77 (same cutter as 689).170 Parker 1996: 240 suspects a fi fth- or early-fourth-century foundation. See also 2005: 98 n. 31,

466–467.171 I observe that it is an (indecisive) argument in favour of the latter solution that, if the date that I

have suggested for IG II2 410, 338/7 BC, and the probable date for IG II2 689, 272/1 BC, are correct, tribal rotation can be posited for this priesthood, with the priest from Hagnous (V) in due sequence behind the one from Kerameis (V).

172 This may have been the Poseidon for whom Lykourgos established dithyrambic competitions in the Piraeus ([Plut.] Mor. 842a) and whose stele is referred to at SEG XXVI 72.42 and 46–47. Cf. Lambert 2003c: 63.

173 Cf. Parker 1996: 152–153.

STEPHEN LAMBERT172

the male and female line stretching back to the time of gods and heroes. Continuity too in the embedded character of the arrangements for priestly appointment. The polis and its complex web of worshipping descent groups might develop and change, but if you wanted to maintain good relations with the gods, you did not tamper with priest-hoods whose tenants were qualifi ed to perform their mediating roles by descent since time immemorial from the relevant gods or heroes or those who had served or received them. There is no documented case of a systematic change in the method of appoint-ment of any established Athenian polis priesthood before the late hellenistic period, no documented case of a genos being deprived, by action of the polis, of its right to supply a priest or priestess. When disturbance of existing arrangements was contemplated, it would usually proceed only after a laborious consultation of an oracle, such was the anxiety about securing divine approval.

But if the system was in these ways deeply conservative, it was also capable of adapting to change. The simplest and clearest such change was the shift, in the case of priesthoods created after Pericles’ law, to annual tenure of priestly offi ce rather than life tenure. This was unequivocally a democratic development, assimilating priesthoods in this respect to other offi ces of the democratic polis, and having the effect of improving accountability and sharing the offi ce around. Characteristically, it was a development fi rst undertaken by the radical democracy of the late-fi fth century (though it was not applied to already existing priesthoods).

The second change was that necessitated by the increasing cosmopolitanism of fi fth-century, imperial, Athens, which meant that, when the city founded new cults, they were sometimes cults of foreign origin. In such cases there might be a desire or need to incorporate foreigners into the administration of the cults, even perhaps into the priesthoods, in a way which both recognised that they did not possess the normal Athenian descent qualifi cations, but which also gave them an honoured and legitimate role in the system of polis cults. This was achieved, it seems, via an adaptation of the existing mechanism of the orgeones.

The third change was the most fundamental. If Josine Blok’s analysis is correct, it was intimately connected with the raising of the quality of lineage of all Athenians achieved by Pericles’ citizenship law, which lifted all Athenians to the level of a genos and made every citizen, male and female, qualifi ed to perform the sacred offi ce of a polis priest: an elitist development that was, paradoxically, also profoundly democratic.

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Ackermann, D. 2007: “Rémuneration des prêtres et déroulement des cultes dans un dème de l’Attique. Le règlement religieux d’ Aixonè”, Les Études Classiques 75, 111–136.

Agora XV: B. D. Meritt and J. S. Traill eds., The Athenian Agora. Vol. XV. Inscriptions: the Athenian Councillors. Princeton, 1974.

Agora XVI: A. G. Woodhead ed., The Athenian Agora. Vol. XVI. Inscriptions: the Decrees. Princeton, 1997.Agora XIX: G. V. Lalonde, M. K. Langdon and M. B. Walbank, The Athenian Agora. Vol. XIX. Horoi,

Poletai Records, Leases of Public Lands. Princeton, 1991.


Aleshire, S. B. 1989: The Athenian Asklepieion. Amsterdam.– 1994: “Towards a Defi nition of State Cult for Ancient Athens”, in R. Hägg ed., Ancient Greek Cult

Practice from the Epigraphical Evidence. Stockholm.– and Lambert, S. D. 2003: “Making the Peplos for Athena: A New Edition of IG II2 1060 + 1036”, ZPE

142, 65–86.– and Lambert, S. D. forthcoming: “The Attic gene and the Athenian Religious Reform of 21 BC”, in J.

H. Richardson and F. Santangelo eds., Priests and State in the Roman World.

Beschi, L. 1967–8: “Contributi di topografi a ateniese”, ASAA 45–46 (1967–8), 511–536.Blok, J. H. 2009a: “Pericles’ Citizenship Law: a New Perspective”, Historia 58, 141–170.– 2009b: “Gentrifying Genealogy: on the Genesis of the Athenian Autochthony Myth”, in C. Walde, U.

Dill, Festschrift Fritz Graf, Berlin, 83–107.– forthcoming (a): “A Covenant between Gods and Men: hiera kai hosia and the Greek Polis”, in C. Rapp

ed., City – Empire Christendom: Changing Contexts of Power and Identity in Antiquity. Cambridge.– forthcoming (b): “Politics and the Gods: Hosiê and Athenian Law from Solon to Lykourgos”, in V. Azou-

lay, P. Ismard eds., Clisthène et Lycurgue d’Athènes. Autour du politique dans la cité classique. Paris.– and Lambert, S. D. 2009: “The Appointment of Priests in Attic Gene”, ZPE 169, 95–121.Bourriot, F. 1976: Recherches sur la nature du génos. Lille.

Clavaud, R. 1974: Démosthène. Prologues. Paris (Budé).Clinton, K. 1994: “The Epidauria and the Arrival of Asklepius at Athens”, in R. Hägg ed., Ancient Greek

Cult Practice from the Epigraphical Evidence. Stockholm.Connelly, J. 2007: Portrait of a Priestess. Princeton.Connor, W. R. 1988: “‘Sacred’ and ‘Secular’: hiera kai hosia and the Classical Athenian Concept of the

State”, Anc. Soc. 19, 161–188.Crosby, M. 1937: “Greek Inscriptions”, Hesperia 6, 442–468.

Dally, O. 1997: “Kulte und Kultbilder der Aphrodite in Attika im späteren 5 Jh. v. Chr.” JdI 112 (1997), 13–15.

Ferguson, W. S. 1907: “Researches in Athenian and Delian Documents I”, Klio 7, 213–240. Finley, M. I. 1952: Studies in Land and Credit in Ancient Athens. New Brunswick.FRA: M. J. Osborne and S. G. Byrne, The Foreign Residents of Athens. Leuven, 1996.

Garland, R. 1992: Introducing New Gods. The Politics of Athenian Religion. New York.Gawlinski, L. 2007: “The Athenian Calendar of Sacrifi ces. A New Fragment from the Athenian Agora,”

Hesperia 76, 37–55.Gill, D. W J. 2001: “The Decision to Build the Temple of Athena Nike (IG I3 35)”, Historia 50, 257–278.Goette, H. R. 2001: Athens, Attica and the Megarid. London.

Hallof, K. and Habicht, Ch. 1995: “Buleuten und Beamte der athenischen Kleruchie in Samos”, AM 110, 273–304.

Harris, D. 1995: The Treasures of the Parthenon and Erechtheion. Oxford.Humphreys, S. 1990: “Phrateres in Alopeke, and the Salaminioi”, ZPE 83 (1990), 243–248.

I Orop.: B. Petrakos, Hoi Epigraphes tou Oropou. Athens, 1997.I Rham.: B. Petrakos, Ho demos tou Rhamnountos. II Hoi Epigraphes. Athens, 1999.

Jameson, M. H. 1999: “The Spectacular and the Obscure in Athenian Religion”, in S. Goldhill and R. Osborne eds., Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy, Cambridge, 321–340.

Kearns, E. 1989: The Heroes of Attica. London.Kourionotes, K. 1927–8: K. Kourionotes, “To Hieron tou Apollonos tou Zosteros” Arch. Delt. 11, 9–53.

Lambert, S. D. 1996: “Notes on Two Attic Horoi and some Corrigenda to The Phratries of Attica”, ZPE 110, 77–83.

STEPHEN LAMBERT174

– 1997a. “The Attic genos Salaminioi and the Island of Salamis”, ZPE 119, 85–106.– 1997b. Rationes Centesimarum. Amsterdam.– 1998a. The Phratries of Attica. 2nd ed. Ann Arbor.– 1998b. “The Attic genos Bakchiadai and the City Dionysia”, Historia 47, 394–403.– 1999a. “IG II2 2345, thiasoi of Herakles and the Salaminioi again”, ZPE 125, 93–130.– 1999b. “The Attic Genos”, CQ n.s. 49, 484–489.– 2000a: “The Sacrifi cial Calendar of the Marathonian Tetrapolis: a Revised Text”, ZPE 130, 43–70.– 2000b: “Two Notes on Attic Leges Sacrae”, ZPE 130, 71–80.– 2001: “Ten Notes on Attic Inscriptions”, ZPE 135, 52–60.– 2002a: “The Sacrifi cial Calendar of Athens”, ABSA 97, 354–399.– 2002b: “Parerga III: The Genesia, Basile and Epops again”, ZPE 139, 75–82.– 2003a: “Two Documents of Attic Gene”, Horos 14–16, 77–82.– 2003b: “The First Athenian agonothetai”, Horos 14–16, 99–105.– 2003c: “IG II2 410: an Erasure Reconsidered”, in D. Jordan and J. Traill eds., Lettered Attica. A Day

of Attic Epigraphy. Canadian Institute at Athens, 56–67.– 2004: “Athenian State Laws and Decrees, 352/1–322/1: I. Decrees Honouring Athenians”, ZPE 150,

85–120.– 2005: “Athenian State Laws and Decrees, 352/1–322/1: II. Religious Regulations”, ZPE 154, 125–159.– 2007: “Athenian State Laws and Decrees, 352/1–322/1: IIIB. Decrees Honouring Foreigners. B. Other

Awards”, ZPE 159, 101–154.– 2008a: “Polis and Theatre in Lykourgan Athens: the Honorifi c Decrees”, in A. P. Matthaiou and I.

Polinskaya eds., Mikros Hieromnemon. Meletes eis mnemen Michael H. Jameson, Athens, 52–85.– 2008b: “Aglauros, the Euenoridai and the Autochthon of Atlantis”, ZPE 167, 22–26.– 2010: “Some Political Shifts in Lykourgan Athens”, in V. Azoulay, P. Ismard eds., Clisthène et Lycurgue

d’Athènes. Autour du politique dans la cité classique. Paris.– forthcoming: “Aristocracy and the Attic gene: a Mythological Perspective”, in N. Fisher and H. van

Wees eds., Aristocracy, Elites and Social Mobility in Ancient Societies. Swansea. See also Lampeter Working Papers in Classics at http://www.lamp.ac.uk/ric/workin_papers.

Leventi 2003: I. Leventi, “Paratereseis sta attika anathematika anaglypha tou hysterou 4ou kai proimou 3ou ai. p. Ch.”, in O. Palagia and S. V. Tracy eds., Macedonians in Early Hellenistic Athens. Oxford.

Lewis, D. M. 1955: “Notes on Attic inscriptions II”, ABSA 50 (1955), 1–3.LGPN II: M. J. Osborne and S. Byrne eds., A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names. II Attica, Oxford, 1994.

M&L: R. Meiggs and D. Lewis, A Selection of Greek Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century BC. Oxford, revised edition, 1988.

Maaß, M. 1972: Die Prohedrie des Dionysostheaters in Athen. Munich.Mattingly, H. B. 2000: “The Athena Nike Dossier: IG I3 35/6 and 64A–B”, CQ n.s. 50, 2000, 604–606.

Oliver, J. H. 1941: “Greek and Latin Inscriptions”, Hesperia 10, 237–261.Osborne, M. J. 2008: “The Date of the Athenian Archon Thrasyphon”, ZPE 164, 85–89.

PAA: J. S. Traill, Persons of Ancient Athens, Toronto, 1994–.Parker, R. 1996: Athenian Religion. A History. Oxford.– 2005: Polytheism and Society at Athens. Oxford.– 2009: “New Problems in Athenian Religion: the ‘Sacred Law’ from Aixone”, in J. H. F. Dijkstra, J.

Kroesen and Yme Kuiper eds., Myths, Martyrs, and Modernity. Studies in Honour of J. N. Bremmer. Leiden, 193–208.

Petzl, G. 1994: “Die griechischen Inschriften”, in G. Hellenkemper Salies et al. eds., Das Wrack, Co-logne, 381–397.

Philadelphus, A. 1927: “La sanctuaire d’Artemis Kalliste”, BCH 51, 155–163.Pirenne-Delforge, V. 1994: L’Aphrodite grecque (Kernos Suppl. 4). Athens-Liège.– 2005. “La cité, les dèmotelè hiera et les prêtres”, in V. Dasen and M. Piérart eds., Idia kai Demosia.

Les cadres “privés” et “publics” de la religion grecque antique (Kernos Suppl. 15), Liège.


R&O: P. J. Rhodes and R. Osborne, Greek Historical Inscriptions 404–323 BC. Oxford, corrected edi-tion 2007.

Schlaifer, R. 1940: “Notes on Athenian Public Cults”, HSCP 51, 233–260.Tracy, S. V. 1990: Attic Letter-Cutters of 229–86 BC. Berkeley–Los Angeles.– 2003. Athens and Macedon. Attic Letter-Cutters of 300–229 BC. Berkeley–Los Angeles.Traill, J. S. 1975: Political Organisation of Attica (Hesp. Suppl. 14). Princeton.Travlos, J. 1971: Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens. London.

Ustinova, Y. 1996. “Orgeones in Phratries: a Mechanism of Social Integration in Attica”, Kernos 9, 227–242.

Whitehead, D. 1986: The Demes of Attica. Princeton.Wickiser, B. L. 2008: Asklepios, Medicine and the Politics of Healing in Fifth-Century Greece. Baltimore.Wijma, S. M. 2009: Joining the Athenian Community. The Participation of Metics in Athenian Polis

Religion in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC. PhD dissertation, Utrecht.Woodhead, A. G. 1959: “Greek Inscriptions”, Hesperia 28, 273–288.

Cardiff School of History and Archaeology/ Stephen LambertUtrecht Department of History and Art HistoryCardiff University

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

A Polis and its Priests: Athenian Priesthoods before and after Pericles' Citizenship Law

Documents

Transcript of A Polis and its Priests: Athenian Priesthoods before and after Pericles' Citizenship Law