incubation. The texts also emphasize the perquisites of priests or assistants who
administer the process of healing. When Aristophanes’ Carion observes the priests’
nightly ‘‘rounds’’ in theabaton, he ironically interprets this as the priest ‘‘nicking’’
the items on tables and altars. The priest was not stealing anything though – a cult
regulation from Pergamum explicitly assigns ‘‘all the offerings which are dedicated on
the sacred table’’ to the holder of Asclepius’ priesthood (IvPergamon251 lines
14–15). Religious officials had an obvious interest in making sure that all visitors
paid their fee and attributed the customary share to them, not least because ultimately
they were held accountable by civic institutions for the way they handled the sacred
revenues. Early in the third century BC the Athenians ordered a special type of
inventory, anexetasmos, for the temple of Asclepius (Aleshire 1989: Inventory IV);
this went beyond the regular priestlyparadosis, the handing over of accounts from
one priest to the next, and was probably prompted by a suspicion of maladministra-
tion. The listing of the contents of the temple and other dedications in precious metal
give us a tour of the temple and allow an insight into the careful arrangement of
votives. Apparently priests personally decided on this arrangement and often
attempted to group the dedications of their priesthoods to specific areas (Aleshire
1989:102–12, 222, 1991:41–6).
Although the inventories of the Athenian Asclepieum reflect an Athenian practice
that emphasized the meticulous recording of and accounting for the votive offerings
in the sanctuary, priests and other religious officials everywhere must have been
engaged in book-keeping of some sort and must have kept records of both inventor-
ies and special events during their term of office. The Delian inventories, which
include the sanctuaries’ revenues from leases and loans, illustrate how complex and
wide-ranging priestly supervision could be. On Thasos the priest of Asclepius had to
make sure that a lessee of a ‘‘garden of Heracles’’ kept the a specific area clean and
received ‘‘a sixth’’ daily from the lessee (IGxii.8, no. 265, fourth century BC). In the
first century BC the priest of Asclepius at Calchedon was allowed to use the public
land around the sanctuary (LSAM5, lines 7–8) – the same priest was, incidentally,
asked to ‘‘open the temple every day’’ (lines 23–4).
Sacrilegious and otherwise criminal behavior was a concern in many sanctuaries. At
Oropus, the ‘‘job description’’ of the priest of Amphiaraus includes a section on
jurisdiction (LSCG69; Rhodes and Osborne 2003: no. 27, lines 9–17). Although it
looks as if the priest’s jurisdiction was limited to misdemeanors, it included offences
against both the sanctuary and private persons. The possible scenarios are many: the
theft or damage of votives, cult equipment, or sacred buildings, the violation of cult
regulations, the failure to pay fees, violence among worshipers and servants.
Apart fromhiereis,neo ̄koroiandtherapeutai(‘‘attendants’’) orhieroi douloi(‘‘sac-
red slaves’’), there were other groups or individuals who contributed to the function-
ing of the daily life within Asclepius’ sanctuaries. Speaking for his own time and for
Pergamum, Aelius Aristides refers to ‘‘those who had posts in the temple’’ (Oration
48.47:taxeis echontes) as a group distinct from the servants. He himself mentions a
‘‘doorkeeper’’ (Oration47. 32:thyro ̄ros). Members of a chorus (aoidoi) as well as
‘‘guards’’ (phrouroi) are attested at Epidaurus as recipients of parts of the sacrificial
animals, and so is a group ofhiaromnamones(‘‘recorders’’;LSCG60 lines 29–34, ca.
400 BC). The latter appear again in a fragmentary cult regulation that may assign
them judicial functions in the sanctuary (LSCG24, second century BC, possibly a
174 Beate Dignas