Uso de sellos y/o candados en contenedores y remolques

7. Seguridad de los vehículos de carga, contenedores, remolques y/o semirremolques

7.1 Uso de sellos y/o candados en contenedores y remolques

Inscriptions are public documents, issuing from civic bodies as well as from private individuals: often gods appear in them in their public and civic roles. Gods own sanctuaries, have priests, and receive sacrifi ces and dedications from the city, its offi cials and its subgroups, but also from individuals, citizens, alien residents and foreigners.⁷ Festivals with their sacrifi ces, temples and priests contribute to the construction of a divine persona and to that of the local pantheon, which in turn helps defi ne a divine individual. Myths, in our scholarly understanding the single most important tool for constructing a divinity, are rare in inscriptions: story- telling was almost never the purpose of these docu-ments; with a few exceptions they at best allude to a story that was told locally and, if we are lucky, is more fully preserved in the frag-ments of a local history. Neither inscriptions from Priene nor those from Gonnoi narrate or allude to a local myth, as some texts from other cities do. Among these are the Hellenistic verses on the mythical history of the city of Halikarnassos published a few years ago;⁸ the

6 S. Price, Religions of the Ancient Greeks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), programmatically announced the multiplicity in his book title.

7 Lucian. Sacr. 10, in a short evolutionary history of divine worship, insists on the early local worship of gods: a fi rst phase of purely natural worship is followed by worship in city- states where ‘people regard the gods as their fellow citizens’.

8 Published by S. Isager, ‘The pride of Halikarnassos: editio princeps of an inscrip-tion from Salmakis’, ZPE 123 (1998), pp. 1–23, and S. Isager and P. Pedersen (eds), The Salmakis Inscription and Hellenistic Halikarnassos (Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark, 2004), pp. 217–37; see also H. Lloyd- Jones, ‘The pride of Halicarnassus’, ZPE 124 (1999), pp. 1–14; M. Gigante, ‘Il nuovo testo epigrafi co di Alicarnasso’, Atene e Roma 44 (1999), pp. 1–8; G. B. D’Alessio, ‘Some notes on the Salmakis inscription’, in Isager and Pedersen, The Salmakis Inscription and Hellenistic Halikarnassos, pp. 43–57 (mainly literary appreciation); R. Gagné,

‘What is the pride of Halicarnassus?’, ClAnt 25 (2006), pp. 1–33; J. N. Bremmer,

‘Zeus’ own country: cult and myth in The Pride of Halicarnassus’, in U. Dill and C. Walde (eds), Antike Mythen: Media, Transformations and Sense- Constructions (Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2009), pp. 125–45; F. Graf, ‘Zeus and his parhedroi in Halikarnassos: a study in religion and inscriptions’, in A. Martinez Fernandez (ed.), Estudias de Epigrafi a Griega (La Laguna: Universidad, 2009), pp.

333–48.

many founding myths used as political arguments in the East of the empire by places eager to construct for themselves a Greek pedigree;⁹ and the information that Orestes brought an image of Artemis from her temple among the Taurians, best known from Euripides’ Taurian Iphigeneia as the cult legend of Halai Araphenides in Attica, but also used to explain several other cults, such as the ritual of Artemis Orthia in Sparta or the secret cult of Artemis on the island of Patmos.¹⁰ The closest to such a local myth is the dream narration of one Philios from Cyprus, in which he justifi ed the worship of the hero Naulochos as a guardian of Priene at the gate that received the main traffi c from the plain of the Maeander and the port city of Naulochos (I.Priene 196):

ਫ਼ʌȞȦșİ੿Ȣ ĭ઀ȜȚȠȢ Ȁ઄ʌࣁȚȠȢ Ȗ੼ȞȠȢ ਥȟĮȜĮȝ૙ȞȠȢ ȣੂઁȢ ਝࣁ઀ıĲȦȞȠȢ ȃĮંȜȠȤȠȞ İੇįİȞ ੕ȞĮࣁ

șİıȝȠࢥંࣁȠȣȢ Ĳİ ਖȖȞ੹Ȣ ʌȠĲȞ઀ĮȢ ਥȝ ࢥ੺ࣁİıȚ ȜİȠțȠ૙Ȣǜ

੕ȥİıȚ į’ ਥȞ ĲࣁȚııĮ૙Ȣ ਸ਼ࣁȦĮ ĲંȞįİ ı੼ȕİȚȞ ਵȞȦȖȠȞ ʌંȜİȚȦȢ ࢥ઄ȜĮțȠȖ Ȥ૵ࣁંȞ Ĳ’ ਕʌ੼įİȚȟĮȞǜ

ੰȞ ਪȞİțĮ ੆įࣁȣıİȞ ĲંȞįİ șİȚઁȞ ĭ઀ȜȚȠȢ.

In his sleep, Philios, a Cypriot from Salamis, son of Ariston, saw in a dream Naulochos¹¹ and the sacred ladies, the Thesmophoroi, in white garments; and in three dreams, they ordered that this hero be worshipped as a guardian of the city, and they showed the place. For this reason, Philios placed the divine being here.

The term ਸ਼ࣁȦĮ ĲંȞįİ (l. 4) must refer to the same image of the wor-shipped hero as the term ĲંȞįİ șİȚઁȞ in line 6. He is otherwise unknown to us and must be the eponymous hero of Priene’s port city. Demeter and Kore, who order the establishment of his cult, had an important sanctuary on the hillside above the city centre with dedications whose iconography underlined female sexuality. But they also protected the wealth of a community and the obligation to feed everybody; in an age in which grain imports were important to supplement and bolster the local harvests, a fl ourishing port city was essential.

Inscriptions document mainly cult, the interaction humans had with

9 See T. S. Scheer, Mythische Vorväter: Zur Bedeutung griechischer Heroenmythen im Selbstverständnis kleinasiatischer Städte (Munich: Editio Maris, 1993).

10 Patmos: Kaibel 872; G. Manganaro, ‘Le iscrizioni delle isole milesie’, ASAA 41/42 (1963–4), pp. 293–349, no. 34. On the entire complex see F. Graf, ’Das Götterbild aus dem Taurerland,’ Antike Welt 10.4 (1979), pp. 33–41.

11 M. Schede, Die Ruinen von Priene: Kurze Beschreibung (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1964², originally 1934), p. 17, suggests understanding Naulochos as the attested) name of Priene’s port city; it makes better sense to assume him to be its eponymous founding hero.

their gods, and thus point to the role the gods played in a community.

Priene’s civic divinity was Athena Polias, ‘the goddess who presides over our city’ (I.Priene 46.20). Alexander dedicated her temple, which the city much later rededicated to her and the emperor Augustus; the construction was completed with the help of the Ephesian Megabyxos, son of Megabyxos and neokoros of Artemis.¹² He belonged to the Ephesian family that had been running the sanctuary of Artemis since Persian times; his connections might have helped to secure Alexander’s funding.¹³ Her sanctuary, situated on a terrace in the city centre above the agora, received the vast majority of the decrees that honoured the city’s benefactors: it was the main place for effi cient public display.¹⁴ The same is true for statues of outstanding people, although the only example from Priene concerns an athlete who died abroad and whose father dedicated his image in the sanctuary of Athena Polias – since his grave was not in Priene, his memory could not be attached to a local grave monument, and a statue in the central city sanctuary was an effi cient albeit somewhat unusual substitute, doubtless a tribute to the father’s eminence.¹⁵ The sanctuary also exhibited the statues of deserving former priestesses, as did the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore, presumably the two most outstanding female priesthoods of the

12 Dedication of the sanctuary by Alexander I.Priene 156, expansion to Athena and Augustus 157 and 158; honorary decree of Megabyxos to reward him lav-ishly for his help with the temple I.Priene 3 (the crucial name of the goddess is a certain restoration); the base of the honorary statue promised by the authorities of Priene gives his function as ȞİȦțંࣁȠȢ ĲોȢ ਝࣁĲ੼μȚįȠȢ ĲોȢ ਥȞ ਫࢥ੼ıȦȚ, I.Priene 231.

13 His father was the neokoros whom Xenophon entrusted with some of his booty, Anab. 5.3.4.2 and 5.3.8.3. The name is attested several times for noble Persians;

cf. J. N. Bremmer, Greek Religion and Culture, the Bible and the Ancient Near East (Leiden: Brill, 2008), pp. 353–6 (‘The spelling and meaning of the name Megabyxos’). On the question of whether Megabyzos (sic, against the better evi-dence that argues for - byxos) ever was a priestly title in Ephesos (eunuch priests according to Strabo 14.1.23: at least the father of our Megabyxos cannot have been a eunuch, which scholars have overlooked) or rather was a personal name in the Ephesian priestly family, see J. O. Smith, ‘The cult of Artemis at Ephesus’, in E. N. Lane (ed.), Cybele, Attis and Related Cults: Essays in Memory of M. J.

Vermaseren (Leiden: Brill, 1996), pp. 323–66 (most probably a personal name, not a title) and L. LiDonnici, ‘The Ephesian Megabyzos priesthood and religious diplomacy at the end of the classical period’, Religion 29 (1999), pp. 201–14 (a title, in a reassertion of the general opinion). The evidence favours Smith’s reading.

14 For the archaeological record: Schede, Die Ruinen von Priene; N. A. Dontas and K. Ferla (eds), Priene (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 2005², originally Athens: Foundation of the Hellenic World, s.a.). What moderns call the acropolis is a very steep hill that rises high above the city and was the site of the city’s garrison.

15 I.Priene 288; BCH 52 (1928), pp. 399–406. More commonly, the relatives built a cenotaph; we do not know whether this was the case here as well.

city. Other sanctuaries appear rarely, such as the precinct of Asklepios or of Zeus Hypatos.¹⁶

Honorary decrees for foreigners sometimes indicate the places of display in their home cities, helping us to gauge the local importance of a precinct, such as the sanctuary of Apollo Klarios in Kolophon or of Artemis in Iasos, or of Athena in Alexandreia in the Troas.¹⁷ Only rarely do these documents allow the free choice of place by decreeing the display of an inscription or image ‘in the most visible (or the most outstanding) place’, ‘ਥȞ Ĳ૵Ț ਥʌȚࢥĮȞİıĲ੺ĲȦȚ (or ਥʌȚıȘȝȠĲ੺ĲȦȚ) ĲંʌȦȚ’.

This formula allows for presentation outside a sanctuary, although this is rare and the sanctuary remained the most commonly used space. For reasons unknown, an honorary decree from Priene is to be inscribed on the wall of a portico in the marketplace ‘wherever the architect thinks fi t’ (I.Priene 107). The honoree must have had a special connection with the agora that eludes us, or his fellow citizens wanted to mark his eminent political importance, or they thought such a place was more visible than the interior of a sacred precinct.

The same mechanisms play out in the smaller epigraphical record of Gonnoi. Again, the main sanctuary was Athena’s, built on the main city hill.¹⁸ Dedications preserve her unspectacular cultic epithet, Polias: inscriptions usually preserve the unspectacular item, unlike the literary texts with their taste for the less common. Only once do we hear about another place of exhibition: a decree for a foreign judge was to be located in the sanctuary of Themis.¹⁹ As usual, we are not given a reason for the location, but the connection between Themis and a judge is suggestive.²⁰

Other sanctuaries in Gonnoi that are attested through a combina-tion of ruins and a high concentracombina-tion of inscripcombina-tions were dedicated to Artemis (inside the city) and to Asklepios (outside).²¹ The inscrip-tions attest to more divinities, some with their priest, and there must have been more sanctuaries, but their locations escape us. In some cases, an individual altar might have been placed in a larger sanctuary:

a dedication to Apollo Agreus, the Hunter, comes from the acropolis.

16 Dontas and Ferla, Priene, p. 112.

17 Apollo Klarios: I.Priene 57.7; Iasos: I.Priene 53.36; Alexandreia: I.Priene 44.29.

18 For the excavated remains of the sanctuary on the main city hill (which dis-appeared during World War II) see Helly, Gonnoi, I, p. 30.

19 I.Gonnoi 69 (178 BC).

20 On Themis, with an emphasis on the literary record, see M. Corsano, Themis: La norma e l’oracolo nella Grecia Antica (Galatina: Congedo Editore, 1988); J. Rudhardt, Thémis et les Hôrai: Recherches sur les divinités grecques de la justice et de la paix (Geneva: Droz, 1999).

21 Helly, Gonnoi, I, pp. 148–9.

The choice might seem random to us, since no known story combines Athena, Apollo and hunting; but the hunting gentlemen might have belonged to the civic power and military elite that was focused on Athena.

All this simply attests to the routine presence of space belonging to the gods in a Greek city and to the extent of prestige each divinity could display in a civic setting. Sanctuary space is well demarcated, safe, neutral, and visited by crowds who might be bored enough to read even a lengthy honorary decree. Sanctuary space also helped to articulate the relationship between a divinity and the city, as we can see in Priene, where the epigraphical record interacts with a very full archaeological ground plan. Some sanctuaries were in the city centre, close to agora and bouleuterion, the spaces for political and economic interactions: those of Athena Polias and Zeus Olympios, surprisingly perhaps also of Asklepios.²² Others, often those founded and frequented by private associations, were tucked away in the resi-dential quarters, such as the shrine of Egyptian gods with its inscrip-tions, or that of Kybele, whose presence is attested iconographically only. Others again were on the periphery: the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore was above the city centre below the acropolis (a common place for Demeter sanctuaries); the Hermaion was far outside the city space, on the border of the territory, as was a sacred grove of Apollo in Gonnoi;²³ and there was the cult of a protecting hero at Priene’s city gate (above).

Everywhere, the space of the sanctuary is clearly marked off from non- sanctuary space, and boundary markers designate its circum-ference.²⁴ The land inside belonged to the divinity, in two senses. On the one hand, the god owned its real estate, both buildings and land, and he could rent out his land for cultivation; the revenue helped to pay expenses and even allowed the god to step in as the eponymous magistrate in time of economic distress, when no mortal felt able to

22 On the problem of whether the sanctuary of Zeus Olympios originally belonged to Asklepios see Dontas and Ferla, Priene, pp. 120–2: the identifi cation is based on I.Priene 19, an honorary decree to be inscribed in the Asklepieion (ਥȞ ĲોȚ ʌĮࣁĮıĲ੺[įȚ] ĲોȢ ıĲȠ઼Ȣ ĲોȢ ਥȞ Ĳ૵Ț ਝıțȜȘʌȚ੾ȦȚ) that was found reused in the Byzantine fort near the agora (the second copy, on a marble stele in the sanctuary of Telon, is lost). The city centre is otherwise an unusual place for an Asklepieion, which is usually at the periphery and close to running water; see R. Martin and H. Metzger, La religion grecque (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1976), pp. 69–109; F. Graf, ‘Heiligtum und Ritual: Das Beispiel der griechisch- römischen Asklepieia’, in A. Schachter (ed.), Le sanctuaire grec (Geneva: Fondation Hardt, 1992), pp. 159–99.

23 Sanctuary of Athena: I.Gonnoi 93 B 11.

24 I.Priene 168 col. III.

stand for an offi ce whose heavy expenses were notorious. In such an event, attested only for the cities in the Greek East, decrees were dated after the god. Sometimes, his full name was given, as often in the list of stephanephoroi in Miletos where Apollo appears several times – not because Apollo was the city protector (this role fell to Athena Polias with her central city temple), but because he was intimately connected with the stephanephoroi and the structure of power in the city.²⁵ Priene remains more laconic and usually dates more vaguely ਥʌ੿ ıĲİࢥĮȞȘࢥંࣁȠȣ ĲȠ૨ șİȠ૨.²⁶ This god must be Zeus Olympios, with whom the stephanephoroi of Priene entertained a close relationship,

‘receiving [as one decree put it] from the people the eponymous wreath of Zeus Olympios’ (ȜĮȕઅȞ ʌĮࣁ੹ ĲȠ૨ į੾ȝȠȣ ĲઁȞ ਥʌઆȞȣȝȠȞ ĲȠ૨ ǻȚઁȢ ĲȠ૨ ȅȜȣȝʌ઀Ƞȣ ıĲ੼ࢥĮȞȠȞ) as their emblem of offi ce, sacrifi cing to him at the beginning of their tenure, and off ering a dedication at the end.²⁷ As yet another stephanephoros, the god behaved like a human member of the landed urban elite, except that he offi ciated so often that one needed a specifi cation in order to determine the year by naming his human predecessor: ਥʌ੿ ıĲİࢥĮȞȘࢥંࣁȠȣ ĲȠ૨ șİȠ૨ ĲȠ૨ μİĲ੹ ȀȜİ૙ĲȠȞ. Rarely (and never in Priene), the god could even share the offi ce with a human; one hopes that they also shared the expenses.²⁸

On the other hand, the god’s space is more than just real estate that guarantees a constant income to the temple. It has its own ritual properties that call for specifi c behaviour: this again helps with the ritual construction of the individual divinity. In most cases, the details of the ritual are determined by tradition, and the worshippers do not need a written reminder of what they had to do; they had learned it from their parents. But there are the cases when the divinity stands out from the rest of the pantheon as someone who demands special behaviour; the boundary marker then contained a short sacred law to

25 On the temple of Athena see A. Mallwitz, ‘Gestalt und Geschichte des jüngeren Athenatempels von Milet’, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 25 (1975), pp. 67–90; on Apollo and the stephanephoroi see A. Herda, Der Apollon- Delphinios- Kult in Milet und die Neujahrsprozession nach Didyma: Ein neuer Kommentar der sog.

Molpoi- Satzung (Mainz: Von Zabern, 2006).

26 I.Priene 4, 2 (a. 332/328); 4.49 (327/326); 201 a 1; 202. Other examples e.g. from Amyzon L. and J. Robert, Fouilles d’Amyzon en Carie I (Paris: De Boccard, 1983), nos. 14 (202 BC), 15 (201 BC), Herakleia under Latmos (I.Priene 51; SEG 37.859 B 1), Didyma (I.Didyma 199 and often) or Iasos I.Iasos 36 (224/223 BC).

27 Sign of offi ce: I.Priene 114.21 (after 85 BC); sacrifi ce at the beginning of tenure:

I.Priene 46, after tenure: I.Priene 187–9; on the monthly sacrifi ces to Zeus Olympios and Hera (and other divinities): I.Priene 108 (see below n. 109). The one female stephanephoros (who as ‘the fi rst woman dedicated from her own money the water reservoir and the aqueducts in the city’) does not mention the divinity to whom she felt obliged, I.Priene 208; it might well have been Hera.

28 Amyzon, no. 15 (201 BC).

remind visitors of what was needed, most drastically on Chios: ੂࣁંȞǜ Ƞ੝ț ਩ıȠįȠȢ (‘Sacred. No Entry’).²⁹ Neither Gonnoi nor Priene left such a boundary marker in its epigraphical record; in Priene, however, a small shrine had two inscriptions on one of its doorposts, one of them the injunction:

İੁı઀ȞĮȚ İੁȢ [Ĳઁ] ੂİࣁઁȞ ਖȖȞઁȞ ਥ[Ȟ] ਥıșોĲȚ Ȝİȣț[ોȚ.]

Enter the sanctuary pure, in a white dress³⁰

The sanctuary was embedded in the grid of the residential quarter where house abutted to house, with no open space between; this made a boundary marker impractical and unnecessary. But still there was a need to clarify the special conditions under which one should enter.

Here, one thinks of an Egyptian deity, in whose cult a white linen dress was de rigueur.

There are more complex examples, but none from Priene or Gonnoi. A stone from the sanctuary of Hypatos on Paros combines border marker and special ritual injunction; it forbids entry to the uninitiated, and to women.³¹ The god presided over an exclusively male group of worshippers who performed their cult far away from the city, somewhere on Mount Kynados; and they underwent a special initiation ritual.

In some cases, sanctuaries and their divine owners appear in contexts other than honorary decrees as well. Sanctuaries are obvious points of reference in space, especially outside the city. In a territorial dispute between Gonnoi and its neighbour Herakleia, a witness tells of sheep grazing in Apollo’s sanctuary somewhere along the disputed border³² – obviously in a sacred grove: unlike a few other cities, Gonnoi did not prohibit the use of a grove for grazing sheep.³³ More commonly, the cities prohibited cutting down the trees or collecting the fallen wood, which belonged to the god and was presumably used for sacrifi cial pyres.³⁴ The border between Priene and Mykale was defi ned, among other things, by several shrines, of the goddess or heroine Mykale, of

29 LSCG 121 = I.Chios 11.

30 I.Priene 205; LSAM 35.

31 IG XII 5,183; LSCG 109. It is a stray fi nd without archaeological context, and the assumption that the sanctuary was somewhere on the mountain rests mainly on the name of the divinity.

32 I.Gonnoi 93 B 11.

33 Prohibition e.g. LSCG 91 (Euboia), 116 (Chios).

34 On the protection of trees in sacred groves e.g. LSCG 37 (Attica, Apollo Erithaseios), 57 (Argos, Apollo Lykeios), 65.78–81 (Andania, Great Gods), 84 (Korope, Apollo Koropaios), 111 (Paros), 150 (Kos, Apollo Kyparissios).

Hermes and of Athena Samia, and there is also a place named ‘Wall of Zeus’, Dios Teichos, perhaps the remains of a Bronze Age wall with a myth attached to it (I.Priene 363). In a rare case, some sanctuaries (the sanctuary of Artemis in Ephesos and of Dionysos in Rhodes) are specifi ed as the neutral meeting places of a foreign committee judging a territorial dispute between Priene and Samos,³⁵ or as places of safe keeping for money.³⁶

Sanctuaries have priests, but a Greek city must have had more priests than the sanctuaries we have documented through their temples, to judge from the large number of priesthoods sold in one short period in Hellenistic Erythrai, a city whose size was compara-ble to Priene’s (I.Erythrai 201). There must have been priests with altars only, but no temples: doubtless the gods sometimes had to be content with an altar in a larger sanctuary, or in an open space, and not only in the countryside where we might most expect it, such as Poseidon’s altar at Cape Monodendri on the coast of Miletos, or the lonely altar that triggered the story of the Lycian peasants in Ovid’s

In document Descripción del estándar. 1.1 Sub-estándar. Descripción del sub-estándar. Describa y/o anexe. ? Puntos a destacar. Recomendación: (página 74-93)