Virtual Seminar on Some Unpublished Inscriptions from Corinth I
I. Introduction
This post represents the first installment at Current Epigraphy of what will be a summer-long “Virtual Seminar on some Unpublished Inscriptions from Corinth.” For the next few months about every two weeks I will upload Don Laing’s and my preliminary text of a Greek or Latin inscription from Corinth and invite suggestions for restorations or comments on the context, date, etc. Tom Elliott and Gabriel Bodard will then work up an EpiDoc version of the resulting texts. As Tom Elliott explained here, the purpose of this first-ever virtual epigraphical seminar is to promote a new model of collaboration and publication of epigraphical texts with the following benefits: a preliminary text will be made available more quickly; scholars or those interested will be able to “attend” the seminar at their leisure from anywhere in the world with an internet connection; students will see how epigraphers work and it may raise more interest in the discipline; there should be more interest in the final print version that will appear in Hesperia, where proper attribution to those who proposed any particular idea or reading will be given and comments on this experiment will be included; the final print publication will be stronger (these inscriptions from Corinth, like most inscriptions from there, are very fragmentary and they lend themselves to collaborative treatment); the project will introduce more epigraphers to the advantages of EpiDoc. Special thanks are due Guy Sanders (Director of the ASCSA dig at Corinth) and Charles Watkinson (Director of ASCSA Publications) for their support of this project.
II. Historical Background to the Inscriptions
These inscriptions were unearthed on Corinth’s Temple Hill between 1970 and 1978 in the excavations conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens that were overseen by H.S. Robinson and partly supported by the Temple Hill Fund administered by Case Western Reserve University. H.S. Robinson assigned Don Laing to publish them, and last year Don asked me to join him in finally getting them out. In June of 2007, therefore, the two of us went to ancient Corinth and did autopsies of the stones; the readings given in all subsequent posts will represent our joint opinion of what we saw. [As a personal side note, I want to wish Don all the best, as two weeks ago he found out that he has lymphoma and last week he underwent his first round of chemotherapy; he tells me that his first treatment went well and that he is feeling fine].
III. Abstract
In this first post Don and I will conclusively show that a partially published fragment of an archaic text belongs with an already published sacrificial calendar (Meritt, ICor VIII,1 1). We will also follow H.S. Robinson in positing that this sacrificial calendar was housed under the Late Geometric Temple’s roof, where it was destroyed by fire ca. 570 BCE. In addition, we will present for the first time a second inscription that is inscribed on a lead tablet; it too records a sacrificial calendar that is similar, or possibly even identical, to the stone sacral calendar. Finally, based on this new material, we will suggest a new layout for ICor VIII, 1 1, proffer a historical context for the monument, and invite comments.
[…] The second posting of our Virtual Seminar features a tantalizing fragment of fine, buff poros limestone coated with a layer of fine stucco, broken on all sides with the back missing. The inscription has register lines that are set 0.011 m apart. H.S. Robinson initially felt that “The face of this fragment has suffered from exposure to fire and has turned gray; the fine gray surface is probably not a stucco (too thin) but represents a calcining of the outer ‘skin’ of the stone by heat” (NB 521, p. 179). Later, however, he agreed with the view that it was a layer of fine stucco. Found 17 July, 1972 in Temple Hill Trench X, which lay north of Wall 2. Photo, squeeze, and autopsy of stone. […]
Pingback by Current Epigraphy » Virtual Seminar on Some Unpublished Inscriptions from Corinth II — 5 June, 2008 @ 09:53
First of all, congratulations and thanks for posting this; it’s a wonderful initiative and I hope there will be others like it.
Some comments on your edition of ICor VIII, 1 1:
The interpretation of the first word as a month name seems a good one, but might it not be best to reserve judgment about whether this a sacred calendar or some other type of sacred law?
If the readings are correct, the amount of piglets sacrificed is perhaps worth commenting on. One possible comparandum that springs to mind comes from the sacred calendar of the Marathonian Tetrapolis, where χοῖροι τρεῖς are sacrificed to Kore, in addition to a ram (IG II(2) 1358 col.2, line 44; Sokolowski, LSCG 20.B.44; in Metageitnion). Scores of piglets were associated in particular with Eleusinian sacrifices, although not exclusively. This might suggest a hypothetical context for the sacrifice in your fragment. And could it be presumed that Fränkel’s alternative reading–four piglets–was inspired by IC IV 4 4, line 2 (Gortyn, end 7C-early 6C): [— —]τυτυι | ἔτι δὲ ϟοῖρο[ι {χοῖροι} | τέτορες | καὶ ϝαρὴν [— — — — —]?
The new text:
Again, can we be sure that this a sacred calendar and not simply a series of sacrificial prescriptions issued by some authority? But you must surely be right about the similarities between the letterforms of the two texts.
Incidentally, cf. now a similar sacred law inscribed on lead: E. Lhôte, Les lamelles oraculaires de Dodone, no. 142. Since that text is known only from a German translation and rather unique, it’s problematic, yet it clearly appears to be a series of deities in the dative followed by sacrificial victims prescribed by the oracle. In this light, could we think of the lead text as in some way a blueprint for the one inscribed on stone?
Comment by MathieuCarbon — 18 June, 2008 @ 11:35
[…] This is the third entry in our Virtual Seminar on some Unpublished Inscriptions from Corinth (see post I here and post II here) and it will feature our first Latin inscription. It consists in four fragments of buff-colored micaceous marble. Fragment A was found beside the Lechaion Road in December, 1929 and has already been published, Fragment B was found 12 July, 1976 in Quarry Trench 9, Fragment C was found a day later 13 July, 1976 also in Quarry Trench 9, and Fragment D was found 6 August, 1974 in Quarry Trench 3. All the fragments are broken on all sides, except Fragment D, which seems to preserve part of the original right edge, although it is not at a right angle with the inscribed surface and therefore it may have been trimmed for reuse. The corner, however, is smoothly rounded here between the two adjacent faces and there are no partial letter traces at the edge. None of the four fragments join and it is not entirely clear to us in what order they should be placed. Photos, squeezes, and autopsy of stones. […]
Pingback by Current Epigraphy » Virtual Seminar on Some Unpublished Inscriptions from Corinth III — 24 June, 2008 @ 16:00
Mathieu,
Thank you for your comments and questions. I’ll try to respond to each in order.
While it is possible that these texts could be some type of a lex sacra rather than a calendar, such calendars are quite common and the preserved portions of all the fragments of both texts are consistent with a calendar, so we’re comfortable with calling them such, as was Meritt, Dow, and Fränkel of the stone text.
The idea of trying to identify the deity based on the type of animal or number had occurred to us, but we abandoned the idea after some searching. For instance, on one of the texts you cite (IG II2 1358), if I’m reading the acrphonic numerals correctly, I believe we find three pigs sacrificed to Athena Ellotis (col. I, line 55), three pigs sacrificed to a hero and heroine (col. II, lines 3-4; in the first example the numeral is restored), three pigs to Kourotrophos (col. II, line 14, where the numeral is restored, col. II, line 37, and col. II line 42), three pigs to Neania (col. II, line 21; numeral restored), three pigs to the Morai (col. II, line 28), and finally your example of three pigs to Kore (col. II, line 44). This last example, however is odd, since here the inscriber employs the plural of the sacrificial animal followed by the word τρεῖς, followed by the acrophonic numeral nine, rather than using a singular form followed by an acrophonic numeral as he usually does elsewhere. In addition, on SEG 21.541 (from Erchia, Attica) we again find three pigs to Kourotrphos (several times), three pigs to Zeus Epopetes (col. III, lines 21-6), three pigs to Epops (col. IV, lines 21-4 and col. V, lines 13-16), and three pigs to Zeus Orios (col. V, lines 29-32). In short, even the evidence in Attica does not allow one to surmise the deity based on the animal and the number sacrificed. All we can say is that throughout the Greek world three pigs is epigraphically attested more often than four. I, too, suspect that four may have been preferred by previous scholars based on IC IV 4 4, line 2.
And thank you very much for the comparandum from Dodona! It may be quite helpful. And yes, the other possibility I had considered was that the lead tablet might have been used as a model for the stone masons to copy, but it slipped my mind as I was writing up the post.
Cheers,
Paul Iversen
Comment by PaulIversen — 25 June, 2008 @ 10:46
Hi Paul,
Thanks for your replies to my comments; I’m hoping you might consider the following further replies and thoughts.
Concerning the precise identification of the first texts, I of course agree with you that identfying them as a part of a “sacred calendar” is not particularly problematic. Yet I was also wondering if we have any way of determing with some measure of probability the original extent or length of the stone. Sacred calendars are usually quite lengthy and detailed inscriptions. If the original stone at Corinth was of relatively compact dimensions, then it might be that you dealing with an extract or possibly several extracts from a sacred calendar; in other words some sort of abbreviated version? Such extracts are found notably on Rhodes (cf. e.g. Lindos II 26; there are many other examples), and were presumably derived from larger calendars. Note also that these extracts regularly begin simply with a date as a header–like your text, if that is the first line?–whereas we probably would expect more lengthy sacred calendars to begin more formally in the manner of official or accounts accounts (cp. e.g. SEG 21.541, Erchia).
Concerning the piglets: I think you might be misunderstanding the numerals in the calendar of the Marathonian Tetrapolis. These are usually taken to refer to the amounts in drachmai allotted or allowed for the purchase of these sacred animals (hence a single victim, in the singular, can followed by large numerals, e.g. ΔΔΔ). So there’s actually only one piglet being sacrificed to Athena Ellotis at a cost of three drachmai (etc.). Granted, that’s still a lot piglets in total, and it’s of course almost always too difficult to link gods and rites very closely, but only for Kore (as far as we know) were three piglets sacrificed. This might therefore remain a valid, albeit very tentative, comparandum.
Best wishes,
Mat
Comment by MathieuCarbon — 25 June, 2008 @ 13:14
Mat,
We, like all previous scholars, believe that in Frag A we have the beginning of the monument’s text, but at present there is no way, as far as I know, to determine this structure’s size. The size and scale of the letters suggests it was quite big. The only thing I think we can say with certainty is that the first fragment published belonged to a block that had 2 to 4 incribed faces. As noted in my description, however, there is some evidence that perhaps it had more than one block set side by side. I hadn’t thought of it being an extract, but that’s certainly a possibility.
Just an interesting side note. Another similar, maddeningly fragmentary block with a similar text was recently found at Korinth that will be published by Ben Millis and Ron Stroud, but the lettering is of inferior quality and it appears it does not belong with our monument.
Thanks again for the clarification on the acrophonic numerals. Of course, you’re right — the acrophonic numerals in IG II(2) 1358 must be drachs, which also explains the use of singulars and plurals with the victims. I’ll have to rethink the idea of identification of the deity being Kore based on number. A note on this with a hat tip to you is certainly warranted.
Comment by PaulIversen — 25 June, 2008 @ 13:51
[…] This is the fourth installment of our “Virtual Seminar of Some Unpublished Inscriptions from Corinth” (for the previous three posts, see: Seminar I; Seminar II; and Seminar III). […]
Pingback by Current Epigraphy » Virtual Seminar on Some Unpublished Inscriptions from Corinth IV — 7 July, 2008 @ 18:41
Hi Paul,
Just an addendum: I recently realised that Eran Lupu in his book Greek Sacred Law actually anticipated several of the comments I made previously about your text (see pp. 65-66 with n.332 especially); I thought you might like to include that in your eventual note on the subject of the multiple piglets.
Best wishes,
Mat
Comment by MathieuCarbon — 8 July, 2008 @ 15:04
In an excellent question via email that I think should be added to the record here, Eran Lupu asks whether “long o and ou interchangeable at this time period at Corinth for the spurious diphthong o (long)/ou?”
Here he’s referring to the spelling of βoν for βοῦν on the lead tablet. I don’t yet know the answer to that question, but obviously it may have a significant bearing on dating the lead tablet (and possibly the stone calendar by extension). For now I’ll just note that LSJ at the end of the their lemma on βοῦς state that “βοῦς (from βωύς, Skt. gaús) acc. βῶν (Skt. gām) are old forms: stem βωϝ- βοϝ-, cf. Lat. (Umbr.) bos, etc.” (my emphasis).
Comment by PaulIversen — 23 July, 2008 @ 12:28