C.
Denver GRANINGER The Cult of
Arkhêgetai and Ktistai in Magnesia
(Thessaly)
This paper argues that both
IG ix.2 1099b (Glaphyrai/Boibe?: post IVa) and McDevitt
1030B (Iolkus: 276-239a), fragmentary sacred laws
concerned with a cult of arkhêgetai and
ktistai, originated from the kômai of
Demetrias and reflect an ongoing negotiation of
conflicting identities through cult. These identities
were contested at the overlapping levels of polis
-- between Demetrias and the older, pre-synoikism
communities of Magnesiaóand ethnos --
between Macedonia and Magnesia.
After casting doubt upon
the conventional assumption that IG ix.2 1099b was
originally set up at Demetrias (Leschhorn 1984, 263),
this paper, on the basis of the language of the
inscription and findspot (the modern village of Kanalia
some 15km north of Demetrias), will suggest that the
sacred law belongs to one of the kômai of
Demetrias, most likely Boibe or Glaphyrai, and not to
Demetrias proper. It therefore compares well with
McDevitt 1030 which certainly originated from the
kômê of Iolkus.
Comparison of the two
texts, fragmentary as they are, reveals that both are
concerned with sacrificial matters (IG ix.2 1099b 6, 8:
McDevitt 1030B 2-3) and, more importantly, that both
foreground the relationship between polis and
kômê (IG ix.2 1099b 12-13: McDevitt
1030B 8). While the extremely fragmentary character of
the Iolkus document makes it difficult to determine how
the polis/kômê relationship was
expressed, a plausible reading of the Glaphyrai/Boibe law
reveals the desire of the kômê to
memorialize their performance of cult, qua
kômê, for the city of Demetrias. This paper associates
this impulse to commemorate with a renewal of the cult of
arkhêgetai and ktistai or at least
its reestablishment on a more secure basis. Therefore,
the cult is realized as both a means of asserting the
individual identity of the kômê and of
demonstrating the interdependence of polis and
kômê
The opisthographic front
side of the Iolkus stele contains an honorary decree for
Antigonus Gonatas issued by the Iolkians in recognition
of, among other things, his participation in sacrifice
and establishment of contests. Although no specific
mention of arkhêgetai and ktistai is
preserved in the fragment, it is probable that reference
was made to his sacrifice ìto the heroes who
occupyî [Iolkus?] (McDevitt 1030A 12). The
regular synonymy of the words hêrôs,
arkhêgetês and ktistês
(cf. IG ix.2 1129, a dedication to
hêrôes, hêrôissai
and ktistai from Demetrias) coupled with the
presence of the sacred law on the back make it probable
that Antigonus did take part in the cult of
arkhêgetai and ktistai at Iolkus.
When considered in light of Hegesandrosí testimony
(FHG iv 418) about Macedonian kings sacrificing at the
Magnesian festival of Zeus Hetairios (pace Nilsson
19952, 34), the outlines of a broader strategy
of Macedonian royal participation in Magnesian cults,
particularly those with political overtones, become
clear. The traditions of the genealogical connections
between the two ethnê, which date to the
archaic period (Hes. fr. 7 West), are therefore renewed
and updated through the cult of arkhêgetai
and ktistai.