une terminologie (.)ĦChapter 3, and those that follow it, expound a refreshingly careful and meticulously contextual method for the interpretation of archaeological data. p. 105, though she is not always true to these principles: “nous adoptons. 6 In this respect, one would have hoped for a more thorough discussion of the modalities by which objects might be consecrated or even brought away from the altar. confronts with the now acknowledged fact that metal objects, for example, could sometimes be melted down for political purposes. 5 Both of these chapters also offer a rather décousue discussion on potentially problematic notions like the purported phenomenon of ‘desacralisation’ and the ‘inalienability’ of sacred dedications, which P. She nevertheless has a tendency to minimise the extent to which competitive emulation within sanctuaries may have been a stimulating factor in dedicatory habits, even with regard to smaller dedications moreover, this is not helped by mixing in the anthropological conundrum of the potlach. finds many of these models only partly satisfactory, and probably rightly so. SEG 57, 2026, a graffito from Cyrene incised on a cup bearing the enigmatic inscripti (.)ĥP.’s second chapter complements this introduction with a survey of scholarly approaches to ‘offerings’: reciprocal, contractual, ethical and utilitarian theories for conceptualising human and divine relationships, and so on. ὅσιος ‘distinction’, among other matters) a (.) p. 40-47 (with a brief revisiting of the ἱερός vs. In many cases, it seems evident that dedicants will have vied to set up the m (.) 4 Other terms she invokes like δεκάτη and μνῆμα do have much more precise connotations, though she correctly affirms that εὐχή is the proper term for a ‘votive offering’ and that one should accordingly be cautious about claiming that other offerings were in reality ‘votive’. warrants further systematisation than she wishes. Yet ἀνάθημα is so widespread and generic that it perhaps does approach something like a rubric, our ‘dedication’ or ‘offering’.

does succeed in convincingly demonstrating how these expressions were sometimes interchangeable and almost always more flexible than one might suppose in terms of their points of reference: ἄγαλμα is usually a cult statue, but more widely an ‘adornment’ ἀπαρχή is an ‘initial’ or ‘first fruit’ offering in a general or specific sense. The treatment is necessarily brief, but P. 4 Would it not be useful to compare ἄγαλμα to ἀνδριάς for example? Was the former really as “polysém (.)ĤThe first chapter (p. 17-51) offers a brief overview of terms which are usually associated with ‘permanently’ dedicated objects, such as ἀνάθημα, δῶρον, ἄγαλμα, ἀπαρχή, etc.

Ancient eating eyeballs ritual