SLATER, W. J., Pelops at Olympia , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:4 (1989) p.485 

Pelops at Olympia 

w. j. Slater 

So brauchen wir uns gar nicht zu 
wundern, wenn auch sonst bei He­
roenopfern nach olympischen Ritus 
geschlachtet und vom Opfertier 
gegessen wird .... 

K. Meuli , Ges. Schriften II 920 

T HE PROBLEM [sc. of epiphanic gods] is related," remarked 
W. K. Pritchett, "to the 'divine banquets' common in 

Greek (theoxenion) and Roman (lectisternium) rituals, 
where the god reclines on a KAtVll." 1 Ritual table-laying and bed­
spreading are practically synonymous with theoxenies, and the 
custom is old. 2 Presumably the god's or the hero's invisible 
presence is assumed,3 sometimes symbolized by means of e.g. 
armour (:E Pind. N em. 2.19 Drachmann), sometimes replaced 
by a masked worshipper,4 a statue or image,S or other represen-

1 W. K. Pritchett, The Greek State at War III (Berkeley 1979) J 7f; cf. K. 
MEULI, "Griechische Opferbrauche," in Gesammelte Sch riften , ed. T. Gelzer 
(Basel 1975: hereafter 'Meuli') II 907-1021, esp. 917. Also cited by author's 
name: W. BURKERT, Greek Religion, tr. J. Raffan (Oxford 1985); A. D. NOCK, 

"The Cult of Heroes," HThR 37 (1944) 141-74 (=Essays on Religion and the 
Ancient World, ed. Z. Stewart (Cambridge, Mass., 1972] II 575-602). 

2 H.-J. Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult (=NeutestamentI.Abh. 
N.F. 15 [Munster 1982]) 120, cf 158 n,433; Hdt. 6.139; Pind. 01. 3.40; and above 
all the material collected by K. Schauenburg, "'Theoxenien auf einer schwarz­
figurigen Olpe," in Melanges Mansel I (Ankara 1974) 101-17 with pIs. 57-60. 
Wilamowitz (Glaube der Hellenen 3 [Darmstadt 1959] 346£), noticed the ab­
sence of lectisternia in the earliest inscriptions. 

3 "Its concern is with effective presence [Es geht urn die wirksame Prasenz]" 
of hero cult: Burkert 204; cf. Pluto Mor. 1102A, somewhat idealistically . 

.. SylP 736.24; Pluto Mor. 417; Paus. 8.15.1; and obviously in Attic drama: see 
R. Hurschmann, Symposienszene auf unteritalischen Vasen (Wurzburg 1985) 
146; H. Usener, Kleine Schriften IV (Leipzig 1913) 453. Cf. P. Stengel, Die 
griechischen Kultusaltertumer3 (Munich 1920) 28 n.2. 

5 L. Radermacher, SBWien (1927) 182ff; K. Latte, ArchRW 26 (1928) 48 (= 
Kleine Schriften [Munich 1968] 118) on "'die T oten ... vertretenden Puppen" 

485 



SLATER, W. J., Pelops at Olympia , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:4 (1989) p.485 

486 PELOPS AT OLYMPIA 

tation.6 Several evocative names are given to such rituals, e.g. 
~£VUl, 9£o~£vux, ilpCl)~£Vl(l, 9£oBalaia, in which the divinity is 
invited to participate in the feast (£c; Bdxvov, £c; ~£vla lCaA£tv); 
but D. Gill demonstrated in a well-known article that there 
were other circumstances in which table-offerings were shared 
between gods and heroes and their worshippers. 7 The greatest 
such feast was probably the Delphic Theoxenia, in which 
Apollo invited the other gods to dine; but here also a large 
public banquet followed. 8 Yet innumerable lesser feasts were 
observed around hero cults in smaller groups (e.g.9iaaol, 
opy£oov£C;, Epavol, and many more), like the worshippers of the 
hero Egretes. 9 In the festival and games held in the gymnasium 
of Aegiale for the dead youth Aleximachus, whose father Crito­
laus had dedicated the hero foundation to him, there is to be no 
pancratium, and the heroized youth is to be declared winner. 1o 

It is impossible to prove that in classical times the worship­
pers of the dead, including the heroic dead, felt themselves to 

of Sokolowski, LSCGS 115.39, i.e " colossi, on which see R. Parker, Miasma 
(Oxford 1983) 347. If so, Pritchett (supra n.1: 18) is in error, cf. the xoana of 
SylL 3 589.42 or the <rTUltiOV of Aesch. Supp. 205. The type of popular religious 
feast, where the divine xoanon is surrounded by banqueting worshippers, is 
epitomized by the Tonaia of Samos, reconstructed by G. Kipp, ·Zum Hera 
Kult auf Samos" Innsbr.Beitr. 18 (1974) 157-209, with criticisms by Uta Kron, 
• Kultmahle im Heraion von Samos archaischer Zeit," in R. Hagg et al. edd., 
Early Greek Cult Practice: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium 
at the Swedish Institute in Athens (Stockholm 1988) 135ff, esp. 139. 

, Aen. Tact. 31.15; Ar. Vesp. 821; in the many discussions of the meaning of 
Totenmahlreliefs it is perhaps not sufficiently stressed that they might have 
been the place for the gathering of banqueting worshippers or relatives. 

7 Important is Sophron's description of a magical action, discussed by Laue 
(supra n.5) 496; Parker (supra n.5) 222ff; D. Gill, • Trapezomata, " HThR 67 
(1974) 117-37. 

8 S. L. Radt, Pindars Zweiter und Sechster Paian (Amsterdam 1958) 83ff; L. 
Bruit, ·Sacrifice a Delphes; sur deux figures d'Apollon," RHR 101 (1984) 
339---67. 

9 Syll. 3 1097 [Sokolowski, LSCG 47]: a representation of the hero with two 
triclinia. 

to LSCGS 61, a shortened form of I G XII.7 515, recording this hero-cult 
typical of the islands, but also influenced by the presence of Italian traders. 
Whether he was to be offered as victor a share in the sacrifice as we should 
expect (F. Puttkammer, Quo modo Graeci victimarum carnes distribuerint 
[diss. Konigsberg 1912] 44ff and n.57 infra) is not certain; in any case all the 
meat that was afterwards used for prizes was first presented to him on a table 
(lines 74-78). 



SLATER, W. J., Pelops at Olympia , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:4 (1989) p.485 

W.j. SLATER 487 

be participating in table-fellowship with them;11 it is equally 
impossible to prove that there was any sense of table-fellowship 
in sacrifice to the gods. With gods it is commonly assumed, and 
there is some circumstantial evidence. 12 It is assumed, however, 
with more certainty that there was table-fellowship in the case 
of SOIne heroes. The obvious objection to this was that it used 
to be affirmed on the basis of a passage of Herodotus that 
heroes were given enagismata which were totally burned,13 
while gods by contrast were offered a 9ucrla, parts of which 
could be eaten normally by the worshippers; it would therefore 
be impossible for worshippers of heroes to share-even sym­
bolically-in a meal that was totally burned.14 But this distinction 
was dismissed by Ada Thomsen in 1911 in a brilliant article as 
overschematic, and Meuli and Nock in particular collected fur­
ther exceptions, of which the Olympic ritual for Pelops is one 

11 So Nilsson (GGR P, 179) asserted, probably correctly, of the perideipnon 
only, though his remark has been taken to apply to the Totenmahl generally, 
and has therefore provoked skepticism: e.g. U. Hausmann, Kunst und Heil­
tum (Potsdam 1958) 156 n.445, 159 n.482; N. M. Kontoleon, in Charisterion A. 
K. Orlandos I (Athens 1965) 359 n.34. Klauck (supra n.2: 83) quotes Artemi­
doms 5.82, although Nilsson (179 n.7) had already cited it as invalid evidence 
for classical times; even Meuli (922 n.3) agreed. 

12 In the most important discussion Nock (582) argued that strictly (a) 
"participation in the flesh of a sacrificed animal did not involve conscious 
table-fellowship with the supernatural recipient of the other parts of the 
animaL.,» and (b) .. the semblance of table-fellowship with heroes and the 
dead was not avoided.» The first thesis refers to gods, and is I suppose 
incapable of strict demonstration; Meuli (936) was more positive: '"Denn die 
Gotter geniessen die Mahlzeit mit.» The second thesis, with its extremely 
cautious formulation, is the one that interests us. 

13 The principal exponents of this scheme, which was based (cf. Stengel, 
Hermes 27 [1892] 165ff) on Herodotus, were E. Rohde, PsycheS (Leipzig 1910) 
149ff, and Stengel (supra n.4) 124. This is even today repeated by the unwary, 
e.g. C. Brown (GRBS 23 [1982] 311). Cf. the note at Aristophanes fr.504 K.-A.: 
discrimen illud-saepe neglegitur. Herodotus does not follow his own defini­
tion at 2.44 (euou(J\ ... cO~ TlPro\), 7.117, 5.14. For a similar example of Herodo­
tean dogmatism in religious matters cf. L. Robert, Opera minora selecta V 
(Amsterdam 1969) 493f. Another typical example of pointless sophistic dis­
tinctio at Antiphon fr.72; cf. K. J. Dover, Greek Popular Morality (Oxford 
1974) 59. 

14 Fr. Pfister, Der Reliquienkult im Altertum (Giessen 1909) 466-509, still 
provides one of the best surveys, though he maintains the validity of the 
Herodotean definition. Noel Robertson suggests that table-fellowship and 
sacrifice may have had nothing to do with one another in the beginning since 
they have different origins. 



SLATER, W. J., Pelops at Olympia , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:4 (1989) p.485 

488 PELOPS AT OLYMPIA 

of the best known. ls Nock's results, reached independently of 
Meuli, and based to a great extent on recent epigraphy, are 
summarized by Brelich: 16 

la differenza tra i due tipi di rituale con Ie sue regole nette e fisse, 
sarebbe frutto di que 1 processo di legalizzazione, di sistemazione, 
che anche in altri campi della religione greca si sovrappone, con 
l'andar del tempo, aBe piu antiche formazioni spontanee. 

Likewise Pouilloux, discussing recent epigraphical discoveries 
in Thasos, came to the same conclusion as Nock and Thomsen 
had done. 17 

Indeed Herodotus is retailing what looks like a sophistic 
distinction, preserved by grammarians and occasionally remem­
bered by the well educated, but just as often forgotten, and with 
no general validity. There was, as Thomsen had pointed out 
long before, a great deal more variety in the actual procedures 
than the antiquarians and philologists wished to recognize. 

For the question immediately arises how enagismata are com­
patible with the feasting worshippers, who are also a feature of 
hero cult, as one can see from the examples collected by Nock. 
Pfister, for example, had already drawn attention to the prob­
lem not only by citing the well-known examples of heroes (Her­
acles, Achilles) to whom sacrifice was made both as a hero and 
as a god, but by using the traditional distinction to explain a 
double sacrifice to Heracles at Cos on the same day.ls But even 
though authorized by Herodotus, this was clearly a ques­
tionable academic procedure, in which the form of sacrifice 
defines the object of the sacrifice as god or chthonic hero, so 
that the worshippers may be enabled, when necessary, to have 

IS Ada Thomsen [later Adler], ArchRW 12 (1909) 481, to whom are in­
debted Meuli (907-1021="'Griechische Opferbraiiche," in Phyllobolia: Fest­
schrift Peter Von der Muhll [Basel 1946] 185ff), and Nock, after Thomsen's 
article had been largely ignored. 

16 A. Brelich, eli eroi greci (Rome 1958) 18, cf. 17f, 81. The criticisms of 
Nock by K. Kerenyi (Saeculum 7 [1956] 387) have not to my knowledge won 
any followers. "'The distinction between holocaust and sacrificial banquet 
does not coincide with the distinction between chthonic and Olympian 
sacrifice": Burkert 428, citing esp. LSCC 18.r .23 (a holocaust for Zeus 
Epoptes); Lucian Mere. Condo 28. 

17 J. Pouilloux, Recherches sur l'histoire et les cultes de Thasos I (Paris 1954) 
371-81, cited by J. Casabona, Recherches sur le vocabulaire des sacrifices en 
grec (Aix-en-Provence 1966) 227 n.15. 

18 LSCe 151.9, although the inscription says clearly that both are thusiai; 
Burkert 430 n.30 (the importance of these banquets already recognized by 
Nock), 467 (following Rohde). 



SLATER, W. J., Pelops at Olympia , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:4 (1989) p.485 

W. J. SLATER 489 

their cake and burn it too; Stengel was thereby obliged by his 
insistence on this criterion to classify Helios and Selene as 
chthonic. 19 The division might of course seem to work for the 
obvious demigods, but not for the innumerable and constantly 
multiplying heroes of Greece. Once we accept Thomsen's 
thesis, we must contemplate various kinds of hero worship, 
where feasting and enagismata could be combined. Either a 
portion was set aside for the hero as an enagisma to be burned, 
or a separate victim could be sacrificed for the banqueters to 
eat, or in some other way it was possible for the feasters to 
celebrate a hero. For example, Thucydices speaks of the 
honours accorded to Brasidas: ot 'AJ.Upt1tOA.l-tat, 1t£pt£p~av't£~ 
au'tol> 'to IlVTU.l£10V, ro~ llprot t£ £vt£IlVOUOt Kal. 'ttlla.~ odiroKaOtV 
&:yrova~ Kat £titOtoU~ 6uota~.l) 

Here the enagismata with the entemnein,21 the bloodletting, 
are separated from but associated with the cultic 6uotat and 
feasting; it is not important to tell us the objects of the 6uotat or 
that they imply, as would be obvious, feasting. As Scheid says in 
another context: "Pourquoi les documents omettent-ils sou­
vent de souligner cette liaison entre banquet et sacrifice? Sans 
doute en raison de sa banalite. "22 The feasting is in honour of 
Brasidas the hero, however it was justified. Conversely the 
mention of 6uota does not oblige us to reclassify a hero as a 
god, nor does it preclude the existence of enagismata. At the an­
nual Totenopfer for the dead at Plataea the dead were called rnt 
'to O£l1tVOV Kal. 'tllv atJlaKOUptaV, i.e., to both thusia and enagis­
mata, among which were fruit (Meuli 915, 4). In any event, 
enagizein does not preclude a common meal. Lucian refers with 
disdain to the feasting ceremonies after enagismata, while the 
Hellenistic historian Harmodius of Lepreum describes a tradi­
tional feast in Arcadia: "when they sacrifice to the heroes, there 
is a great butchering of cattle, and they all feast with their 
slaves .... "23 But-to cite only one of the epigraphic examples 
that have come to light in the last hundred years-the contract 

19 P. Stengel, ArehRW 8 (1905) 204 (Helios), as Thomsen (supra n.15) 
pointed out; Stengel, Opferbrauehe der Grieehen (Leipzig 1910) 132 (Selene). 

20 Thuc. 5.11, cited by Casabona (supra n.17) 226. 
21 .. iv'ti~v£lV lui-meme concerne l'offrande de sang sur Ie ~V'T1~E'iov, c'est a 

dire les rites bien connus de I' ai~(n:o\)pia" is the definition of Casabona 
(supra n.17) 228. 

22 J. Scheid, "Sacrifice et banquets a Rome," MEFRA 97 (1985) 196. 
23 Lucian Mere. Condo 28; Harmod. FGrRist 319 F l=Ath. 149c, already 

noted by Pfister (supra n.14) 486 as anomalous. 



SLATER, W. J., Pelops at Olympia , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:4 (1989) p.485 

490 PELOPS AT OLYMPIA 

of the worshippers of the hero Egretes24 leaves no doubt that 
the main business of the worshippers was a thusia (line 25) with 
attendant preparation of tables, couches for two trikina, and the 
optanion. If there was an enagisma, it is not mentioned. Nor for 
that matter is table-fellowship, but we can reasonably assume 
nonetheless that it was for that purpose that the feasters col­
lected in the hero's shrine. 

Certainly cakes or fruit would suffice for enagismata, and 
being both cheap and traditional would be likely to be omitted 
in an official recording. But the blood of the slaughtered animal 
certainly went into the ground for the hero, as did choai. Could 
in some cases the blood be considered sufficient as an 
enagisma? And just how did the various kinds of soups and 
stews we know from Spartan theoxenies get prepared and 
consumed and offered? Ferguson showed that banqueting and 
feasting was a central preoccupation of the early Attic hero­
cults known as orgeones, in which a chief officer is called the 
"restaurateurlt (EO'tUltrop).25 The conclusion must be that 
collective banqueting in hero worship was a common practice, 
and indeed sometimes regarded to such an extent as the main 
feature that any enagismata are subsumed into the general 
thusia. 

"The main event [sc. of a festival for a hero] is the cultic feast 
of the living in the company of, and in honour of, the hero: 
accordingly the hero is often shown recumbent at the feast, It 
writes Burkert. 26 Aristophanes' Banqueters, for example, met in 
a temple of Heracles to eat and drink, in the cpresence' of 
Heracles to whom they sacrificed; it follows, one supposes, that 
they imagined the hero lying like themselves in a sympotic 
position, cup in hand, as he is so often depicted on vases, as 
indeed the heroized Archilochus was depicted in his heroon.27 
H. Hoffmann concludes: "What Bronze Age heroes have in 
common is their great antiquity and the fact that in classical 

24 LSCC 47, cited by Thomsen (supra n.15) 483; Nock 578. 
25 W. S. Ferguson, -The Attic Orgeones," HThR 37 (1944) 60-140, discuss­

ing especially the implications of LSCC 20; Nock 578. 
26 Burkert 205; cf M. Worrle, Stadt und Fest in kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien 

(= Vestigia 39 [Munich 1988]) 254f. 
27 Aristophanes PCC IV 122-48 K.-A., with the useful comments of H. 

Lind, MusHeh" 42 (1985) 249ff; W. Lambrinudakis and M. Worrle, Chiron 13 
(1983) 293, with further references. 



SLATER, W. J., Pelops at Olympia , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:4 (1989) p.485 

W. J. SLATER 491 

times they were most commonly visualised as banqueters at an 
eternal symposium. "28 

This is, I believe, exactly how Pindar wanted to portray the 
hero Pelops at Olympia in his festival (01. 1.90-93): 

vuv 0' tv UtJluKo'UpiulC; 
<lyAUUt<Jt J.lEJ.llKtUt, 
'AACPEOU 7tOPCP KAted~, 
'tUJ.l~ov clllCPl7tOAOV EXroV 7tOAU~Evro'ta'tq> 

7tupa ~rollip. 

The suggestion that KAteEl~ could mean "reclining" as at a feast 
was first made tentatively by van der Valko That must be the 
primary association of the word, and can be supported by other 
considerations.29 First, the poem is full of references to festivity, 
and especially symposia; KAted~ would only be the last of 
these.30 Secondly, the antithesis stressed throughout between 
Tantalus who in eternal misery EUCPPO<Juvu~ clAft'tUt ("is an 
outcast from festivity") and Pelops the successful hero requires 
that Pelops be firmly located; 31 accordingly Pindar tells us not 
only that in contradistinction to his father he has a tomb next to 
an altar much frequented by tourists, presumably the Zeus altar, 
but also that, unlike his father, he is a party to cultic festivity 
(utlluKOUPlUt~ and KAted~). Thirdly-the point of this article-a 
consideration of hero cult and the cult of Pelops must lead to 
the conclusion that Pe10ps would have been invited to dine 

28 H. Hoffmann, "Rhyta and Kantharoi in Greek Ritual," Greek Vases in 
the]. Paul Getty Museum 4 (1989) 159, cf. 163 nn.197f on the eternal banquet 
of the heroes. My thanks to Dr M. Miller for drawing this useful article to my 
attention. See also N. W. Slater, GRBS 26 (1985) 333-44, esp. 336f£. 

29 M. van der Valk, in KOMODOTRAGEMATA: Studia Aristophanea ... 
W. J. W. Koster in honorem (Amsterdam 1967) 131; P. Janni, QUCC 3 (1967) 
7-25; G. Tedeschi, Ri'llStCl 26 (1978) 205. Van der Valk noted the odd parallel 
with the perfect participle-the aorist is not in Homer-at Il. 5.709, which 
looks like a misused formula. The translation of J.ltJ.l tlC't(l. t as .. drenched" 
(Burkert [n.35 infra] 96, 98), however, is incorrect; if anything it would more 
properly represent (luv£ivo.t, a wor(describing festive communion, as pointed 
out several times by L. Robert, e.g. Etudes anatoliennes (Paris 1937) 184; BuLL 
epigr. 1977,405. 

30 D. Gerber, Pindar: Olympian One (Toronto 1982) index S.'ll. "symposi­
um, theme of." For Aglaia cf L. Robert, Hellenica II (Paris 1946) 115: "L'eclat 
de fete." 

31 There is a strong connection between the word euphrosyne and the 
festivity arising from sacrifice: P. Roussel, BCH 51 (1927) 134; Dentzer, RA 
(1971) 253; J. and L. Robert, Bull.epigr. 1977, 342; Burkert (206) comments 
that "a hero is always confined to a specific locality." 



SLATER, W. J., Pelops at Olympia , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:4 (1989) p.485 

492 PELOPS AT OLYMPIA 

together with some of the annual officers of the Zeus/Pelops 
cult and anyone else who was invited,32 and that Pindar means 
us to think of Pelops as he would have been portrayed by the 
Greek artist, reclining in a Totenmahl, cup in hand.33 

When Pausanias visited Olympia, over six hundred years after 
Pindar, the shoulder-bone of Pelops, he was informed, had 
been lost again, though his bones were in the temple of Artemis 
Kordax close by.34 Wherever they were, they were not in his 
tomb, a fact which was known apparently then and can be 
verified now. 35 But hero-cults require bones and myths to 
accompany them,36 and Pindar's allusions to the ivory shoulder 
suggests that his shrine had already been adequately furnished 
with explanation of the first and elaborations of the second. This 
was made even more necessary by the fact that the Eleans 
considered Pelops as superior to other heroes as Zeus was 
superior to other gods (Paus. 5.13.1). Pelops mayor may not 
have preceded Zeus at Olympia; but Pindar thought that he was 

32 Burkert (GRBS 7 [1966] 104) says that the ram sacrificed to Pelops at 
Olympia ·was ... not eaten by participants in the festival"; this is not at all 
what Paus. 5.13.2 says. The magistrates are to sacrifice; the mantis does not get 
a share, and the ·woodman" gets ·only the neck"; the other magistrates, one 
concludes, will therefore get something better. No one at all who has eaten of 
the ram may enter the temple of Zeus, implies Pausanias, without a bath. 
Comparable is the notorious prohibition against entering the precinct of Zeus 
Lycaon. 

33 The best example is the fine archaic relief from Thcisos now in Istanbul: J.­
M. Dentzer, Le motif du banquet couchi (Paris 1982) fig. 565 (R316). On • die 
verehrten Toten im Bild anwesend" see Meuli 921 with reference to Pfuhl, JdI 
20 (1903) 130, approved by Eitrem, RE 8 (1912) 1145 s.v. ·Heros." More in 
Hoffmann (supra n.28) 163 n.198. 

34 Paus. 6.22.1; Plin. HN 28.34. 
35 W. Burkert, Homo Necans, tr. P. Bing (Berkeley 1983) 94££, with further 

references; H. Abramson, ·Greek Hero Shrines" (diss.Berkeley 1978) 105f£. 
There had been no agreement about the state of the Pelopeion at the time of 
Pindar, as one can learn from the very differing interpretations of the experts: 
H.-V. Herrmann, ·Pelops in Olympia, .. ITHAH ... KONTOAEONTOI (Athens 
1980) 59ff (cf. Forschungen zur aegaeischen Vorgeschichte: Das Ende der 
mykenischen Welt [Cologne 1987] 151-72); A. Mallwitz, ·Cult and Com­
petition Locations at Olympia," in W. J. Raschke, ed., The Archaeology of the 
Olympics (Madison 1988) 79-109. Even the present mound, one learns, is a 
modern creation. The problem, however, has now been clarified by archae­
ological proof that under the Pelopeion lies a Mycenaean tumulus marked by 
a simple stone circle: BCH 112 (1988) 633. 

36 Nilsson, GGR F 189, on ·Reliquienkult"; Philo stratus (Gymn. 7) does 
not seem to me to have relevance to the rites discussed here. 



SLATER, W. J., Pelops at Olympia , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:4 (1989) p.485 

W. J. SLATER 493 

certainly Kronian and that the Olympic races were his. 3? 

Whether the races have an origin in initiation rites is uncertain, 
but this does not affect the paper.38 

In the midst of such possibilities, it is good to know that there 
is one certain fact, which we owe to Pindar. Pelops was wor­
shipped in archaic times with the version of heroic cult sacrifice 
known as all .. UxlCOUpta, a Boeotian word according to the 
scholiast, who to everyone's surprise appears to be confirmed 
by Plutarch CArist. 21), the only other author apart from lexi­
cographers to use the word. 39 Apparently the rites of Pelops 
reminded Pindar of the rituals for the heroic dead of his own 
Boeotia. From personal experience, as Plutarch says, he de­
scribes the rites (£vaYt~£tv with lOat of milk and wine) for the 
Greek dead at Plataea, which involve the following actions at 
their tacpot, though we know that the account is incomplete:40 

(1) washing of the tombstones and anointing with myrrh by the 

37 Pind. Ol. 10.24; 3.23; Bacch. 8.31; Burkert (supra n.35) 93ff, although very 
different views of Pelops' position and connection with the races have been 
held, e.g. Stengel (supra n.4) 192 n.2 with addenda. 

38 In particular the Cretan apodromoi and their related institutions provide 
a good analogy; cf. L. Gernet, The Anthropology of Ancient Greece, tr. J. 
Hamilton and B. Nagy (Baltimore 1981) 31Sf with n.28. But Noel Robertson 
points out to me that Meuli did not approve the idea. 

39 I have doubts about the standard derivation from K6po~ (Frisk, GEW III 
136; Chant raine, Dictionnaire s.'V.) and cannot believe that the aberrant vowel 
is Boeotian; but nothing better comes to mind. Gerber tentatively followed 
Frisk's original suggestion of a derivation from KElPro, but this is not possible. 
This meaning of KElPro was already proposed by E. Maas, ArchRW 23 (1925) 
221-28, and refuted by B. Laum, ArchRW 25 (1927) 213-16. 

40 The basic study is by Meuli (915); cf Stengel, Opferbrauche (supra n.19) 
24; Burkert (supra, n.35) 56ff; Nilsson, GGR P 455; Pluto Arist. 21; Thuc. 3.58; 
Philostr. VA 4.6. Obviously Od. 1 0.517ff and 11.23ff are relevant. Odysseus is 
told to sacrifice the animals into Erebos, and then his companions are to burn 
the animals completely. In Bk 11, however, he says he butchered (OUPO'tOIl£ro) 
the animals into a bothros, the blood ran, and then after the ghosts came, his 
companions flayed and burned the slaughtered beasts. No eXflanation for the 
skinning is given. The sacrifical calendar for Mykonos (Syll. 1024.25 [LSeG 
96]), however, specifies black animals to be flayed for Zeus Chthonios and Ge 
but adds that they may be eaten. According to Nock (579) in another context, 
·skins ... excludes the idea of holocaust," while in Ziehen's view (R E 3A 
[1929] 1675), "Das Fell des Opfertieres wurde mitverbrannt." But Meuli, 
under the influence of the analytic theories of his colleague Von der Miihl, 
saw no difficulty in the Teiresias passage: 916 n.3, 924. The Vernichtungsopfer 
of Il. 23.166ff for the dead Patroclus is very different, but we still would like to 
know why the sheep, cattle, and dogs are flayed before being burnt com­
pletely. 



SLATER, W. J., Pelops at Olympia , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:4 (1989) p.485 

494 PELOPS AT OLYMPIA 

archon; (2) the slaughter «Hpa~Etv) of a black ox de; 'tl)v 1tupav;41 
(3) prayer to Zeus and Hermes Chthonios and invitation of the 
b rave dead de; 'to bE l7tVOV and to the a tJ.lalCOU p lav ;42 (4) mixing 
of a crater of wine, pouring of loal; (5) pronouncing a toast to 
the men who died for Greece;43 (6) races and competitions. The 
festive banquet came presumably after the races, when the ox 
had cooked. To be compared is also the law relating to honours 
for the patriotic dead at Thasos, where EV'tEJ.lVEtV is again 
probably combined with a banquet.44 

From Pausanias' brief indication we can deduce that some­
thing similar was to be found in the cult of Pelops. It was a black 
ram not a black ox that was sacrificed.45 But fortunately Pausan­
ias, by indicating that portions of the animal were apportioned 
to the cult personnel, makes it indirectly certain that the animal 
was eaten afterwards, and that a festive banquet took place. 

If there was a sacrifice and blood was poured to the dead 
Pelops so that he could participate, then we have to consider 
the strong probability that he was invited to join in the common 
meal as were the Plataean heroes. This is how he is thought to 
keep company (J.lEJ.llK'tal) with men in death as he did in life. 
When Pelops is given blood, it is to allow him to join with his 
worshippers, just as Teiresias is given blood so that he may 
communicate with men. 46 Pindar would be further circumstan-

41 Not specified, but presumably the remains of the funeral pyre. That 
would require that a bothros was dug into the pyre, into which the blood 
would flow in the ritual of tV'tE~VE\v. 

42 It would seem that the OEl1tVOV is the consequence, as we should expect, of 
the ai.~(llCoupia. Epiphanius Ancor. 86.5 (=CGS 106.25 Holl) ricidules the 
pagan custom of calling up the dead by the invocation livacr'ta, 0 oElva, <paYE 
Kal. 1ttE Kal. £'\><Ppav911'tt. So Eur. Hec. 536, tABE 0', ro~ 1tln~. Ar. fr.504.5 K.-A. 
asks only for blessings. See Rohde (supra n.13) 235ff. But it is to be assumed 
that the recalled dead are asked to eat, drink, and be merry, and grant 
blessings from below sc. in return. 

43 A sympotic action. My colleague Dr M. Miller will discuss sympotic 
toasts in a forthcoming Hesperia. 

H LSCGS 64 with Sokolowski's notes on line 10, which do not, however, 
amount to proof of his assertion. 

4S In Homer black animals are specifically sacrified only to Poseidon, Earth, 
and the ghost of Teiresias. Hoffmann (supra n.28: 142) provides evidence for 
the ram as equivalent to the hero. 

46 M. Andronikos, ArchH om IIIw: Totenkult (Gottingen 1968), collects 
much relevant archaeological material, but his results have been overtaken by 
the Lefkandi excavations. E. T. Vermeule (ArchHom IIlv: Gotterkult [Got­
tingen 1963 (published 1974)] 98) deals briefly with the Teiresias scene, but 
translates Ka'taKalE\V as -braten" when it must mean in fact -burn up," i.e. 
an enagzsma. 



SLATER, W. J., Pelops at Olympia , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:4 (1989) p.485 

W.]. SLATER 495 

tial evidence for table-fellowship in archaic times. The primary 
motive was to allow the worshippers to celebrate the effective 
presence of the hero at the banquet. 

Beyond this we are at the mercy of speculation on the basis of 
flimsy evidence, even if one tries to avoid "des interpretations a 
la mode, globales et simplificatrices." 47 The great importance of 
the cauldron at Olympia has been emphasized by Burkert; 48 and 
on the basis of the Lycaon festival, which shows close analogies 
with neighbouring Olympia,49 he has suggested that it played a 
role in the rituals of Pelops, as the vessel in which the sacrificial 
meat was boiled. Quite apart from the general recontruction, 
the important evidence comes primarily from Herodotus' 
story (1.59) which strongly suggests that an important sacrifice 
in Olympia involved-whether primarily or secondarily we 
cannot tell-a boiling cauldron; the further connection of the 
cauldron with Pelops' is not self-evident since there is par­
ticular likelihood that it was the same cauldron. But the basic 
probability remains that Pelops' cauldron is one involved in a 
sacrifice to him. There is very little surviving evidence for 
cauldron sacrifice as opposed to the doubtless common use of 
the cauldron for secondary preparation of sacrifical meat,50 but a 
valuable parallel is cited by Burkert from the Hellenistic founda-

47 J. and L. Robert, Bull.epigr. 1987,618; cf G. Kirk, "Pitfalls in the Study of 
Greek Sacrifice," in Le sacrifice dans l'antiquite (=Entretiens Hardt 27 [Van­
doeuvres-Geneva 1981]) 41-80. 

48 Burkert (supra n.35) 100. C. Uhsadel-Giilke, Knochen und Kessel (=Beitr. 
z.kLPhiL 43 [Meisenheim am Glan 1972]), gives many parallels, following 
Meuli. To be compared is the famous bronze cauldron at Dodona (H. W. 
Parke, The Oracles of Zeus [Oxford 1967] 46-79), which I take to be the same 
as the boiling cauldron into which the prophetess Myrtila (cf Myrtilus!) was 
thrown: Zenob. 2.84=Heracl. Pont. fr.14a Wehrli2, cJ. Ephorus FGrHist 70 F 

119; Eur. fr.368 Nauck 2 (=NO'V.Fr.Eur. 59 Austin). 
49 Treated most recently by M. Jost, Sanctuaires et cultes d'Arcadie (Paris 

1985) 179ff, 249ff, with serious criticism of Burkert's reconstruction, esp. 256, 
260. Equally strong reservations by Herrmann (supra n.35) 62 n.32: "ein­
gehend aber mit zu weit getriebenen religionswissenschaftlichen Spekula­
tionen. " 

50 Now well illustrated on an Ionian hydria in the Villa Giulia: C. Berard, J. 
P. Vernant, et al" Die Bilderwelt der Griechen (Mainz 1984) 76, 79. J.-L. 
Durand gives a grisly commentary in The Cuisine of Sacrifice among the 
Greeks (Chicago 1989) 87-128, as does also G. Berthiaume, Les roles du 
Mageiros (Leiden 1982) 45ff, with valuable comments on the role played by 
the O'1tAanVa in sacrifice. 



SLATER, W. J., Pelops at Olympia , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:4 (1989) p.485 

496 PELOPS AT OLYMPIA 

tion by Critolaus of a hero-cult and games at Aegiale. 51 One 
should note at this point that the early depictions of the wine 
crater were scarcely distinguishable from the lebes on a tripod, 
and Herodotus (3.11.3) has a human sacrifice into a crater. 52 We 
can add the archaic and difficult law of the Ephesian Molpoi, 
where the clan of the Onitadae are allocated 01t't1l(Jtc; 
01tMYX,VOlV, Kpeii>v E'If110tc; ... E'fI1l0tC; Kat otaipeotc; Kpeii>v, where 
the tenderloin is to be divided up after stewing, a strange 
process. 53 From the parallels collected by Uhsader-Giilke, it 
would be hyperskeptical to deny that boiling cauldrons played 
an important part in most sacrifice. Athenaeus even tells us that 
the size of the lebes was an indication of the magnitude of the 
hospitality offered. There is no representation of the sacrifice of 
Pelops; we do have as a substitute the boiling of a ram and the 
rejuvenation by Medea of a child, documented by H. Meyer. 
There the ram is shown being cooked whole but possibly for 
artistic reasons only, while the child is removed. 54 At Aegiale a 
ram on the morning of the first day is sacrificed and boiled 
OA0J,1£ATl 55 beside the hero's statue, and given to the ephebic 

51 Burkert (supra n.35) 89 n.29; the evidence first collected by Puttkammer 
(supra n.10) 64; LSCGS 61.77, lCal 'tOU lCPlOU 'ta lCpia [OAolJ,L[1 •. tt <l1tot;ioavn:c; 
1tapan9i'tcooav 'tQ> <lyaAflan. On this inscription see also P. Gauthier, BCH 
104 (1980) 210-20. Cauldron sacrifice would have been common enough in 
less elevated religious gatherings (Ar. fr.419 K.-A. with notes), where soup and 
stew would be served. For soup, probably vegetarian, at Spartan theoxenies 
see the commentary of C. Calame, Aleman (Rome 1983) 362-69. 

52 Kontoleon (supra n.ll) 354 n.19; Ath. 37F. More on tripods, lebetes, and 
cauldrons in G. Bruns, ArchHom IIQ: Kuchenwesen und Mahlzeiten (1970) 
37ff. 

53 LSA M 50.34££, also cited by Burkert. The Scythian rites described by 
Herodotus 4.61 are similar, where the meat is boiled in lebetes very like 
craters, according to Herodotus. 

54 Ath. 13b, quoting Anaxandrides 2.151 K.; H. Meyer, Medea und die Peli­
aden (Rome 1982); representations of a white ram in the Oenomaus story are 
irrelevant: so Burkert (supra n.35) 98. 

55 This is a technical Hellenistic term Gos. A] 3.221.4 of a holocausted ram; 
Ath. 540B-C, 210c-D bis [=Posidonius, FGrHist F 9]; Strab. 15.3.19}, apparently 
meaning ·in one piece," which is obvious enough of hens or fish; but ·with 
whole limb" seems the meaning in the Diphilus fr.34.2 K. (wrongly cited by 
LSJ). It occurs twice in the Aegiale inscription, both times describing lCpta 
and not the animal. I am inclined to think it means in the second instance at 
least whole pans of the animal; contra Stengel (BPhW 28 [1908] 927), who con­
siders it the whole animal and indicates the opposite of lC01t'tElV. E. Ziebarth, 
Aus dem griechischen Schulwesen (Leipzig 1914) 147, is I think therefore right 
to translate • noch unveneilte Fleischstiicke," i.e. fJ.iAtt. Berthiaume (supra n.50) 
71ff makes it clear that the dissection was often in two pans, roughly lC01t'tElV 
and lCa'talC01t'tElV. A further dissection followed any division lCa'ta fliAtt. 



SLATER, W. J., Pelops at Olympia , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:4 (1989) p.485 

W. J. SLATER 497 

victors as a prize the next day.Sl. The victors in the girls' race at 
Olympia were given part of the cow sacrified to Hera so that 
we could at least suspect that the victors in the main races were 
also given a portion of the Pelops sacrifice, as well as being en­
tertained in the prytaneion afterwards. 57 Just exactly how the 
feast is to be connected to the sacrihce we are not told; boiling 
obviously takes some time, and must be left to those like the 
professional officials (Jlcly£tPOl) who are mentioned in the in­
scriptions of Olympia. 58 The inference would be that a boiling 
cauldron full of mutton stew was part of the sacrificial feast, in 
which Pelops and those honouring him participated. 

Finally Burkert again has put forward the suggestion that the 
rumour of cannibalism at the rites of Zeus Lycaon was a mis­
understanding of the sacrificial meat in the cauldron during the 
initiation rituals. It would be reasonable to seek the same ex­
planation for the cannibalism that Pindar claims to be offensive 
in the myth of Pelops. The cauldron, here as in other myths, is 
the place of both dismembering and reintegration, of death and 
rebirth.s9 It is also the place at which myth and ritual meet. 
Pindar knows of a myth in which Pelops is chopped limb from 
limb into the boiling water of a cauldron; he knows of a myth 
whereby Pelops is taken from a cauldron with an ivory 
shoulder; here too the cauldron is attested as a symbol of death 
and rebirth. We know of the importance of the cauldron at 
Olympia from the many archaeological finds; its importance in 
the rituals of PeJops is symbolized in the myth of PelopS.60 Into 

5(, See Gill (supra n.7) 128-33. Noel Robertson suggests that the reason for 
this odd procedure both at Aegiale and at Olympia-and perhaps at other 
gymnasia in similar circumstances-was that the meat offered to the hero 
needed to be kept cooked in order to provide as usual the prizes to the victors 
in the competitions on the following day; this would be impossible for grilled 
meat but appropriate for boiled or stewed. 

57 Pause 5.16.3. But this is common practice. cf. supra n.10; e.g. I.Priene 
112.110; Syl1.3 958.33f (Koressos); I.Magnesia 98.36; at Notion, Ziebarth (supra 
n.55) 154. L. Robert shows that victorious kings as well as other eminent 
benefactors were accorded this honour in Hellenistic times: Documents d'Asie 
Mineure (Paris 1987) 470 n.M. cf. 534. 

58 I. Olympia 58-141. These inscriptions are all disappointingly late. and do 
show some changes in the development of cult personnel in Imperial times. 

59 Burkert (supra n.35) 98-119; Uhsadel-Giilke (supra nA8) passim. follow­
ing Meuli. 

(,0 Lastly. H.-V. Herrmann, AM 99 (1984) 17-33. See also Bruns (supra n.52) 
for the archaic use of these objects. The well-known Trajanic inscription, 
OGIS 611. would be precisely true for Pelops: N£'ttlpo'U 'tot> a1toetr09iv'to~ tv 
'til> A.i~T'I't\ St' ot ai £op'tatliyov'tat. 



SLATER, W. J., Pelops at Olympia , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:4 (1989) p.485 

498 PELOPS AT OLYMPIA 

it the black ram was dismembered and eaten by the worship­
pers in his presence. The cauldron would be the primary per­
manent cult object. 

If one approaches the text of the first Olympian Ode with all 
this in mind, some aspects of the narrative assume a significance 
that is at the same time more real and more profound. The 
detailed description at lines 48f of the sacrifice of Pelops: 

ulia'tO<; on 'tE XUPl ~EOtOaV £i.e; aKJ.ulv 
J,laxatp~ 'taJ,lov Ka'tu J,lEA:1'\ 

would be a description of cauldron sacrifice, modelled after the 
cannibal meal of the Cyclops at Od. 9.291, 'toile; Oe OtU J,lEA,EtO'tl 
'taJ,lwv oXA,tooa'to oopxov. 61 The Cyclops in Euripides prepares 
his human meat by both boiling the J,lEA,.., in a lebes and roasting 
the flesh. 62 Even if Pindar alleges that the dismemberment of 
Pelops was just envious gossip, he also asserts that this was the 
tale of XPO'tEPOt, and his assumed repugnance at his (unneces­
sary!) mention of it, besides being a useful poetic recusatio, is 
somewhat at variance with his obvious fascination with details 
which occupy four whole lines. The action is KpEavOJ,lta; 'taJ,lov 
perhaps represents the technical EV'tEJ,lVEtV,63 the bloodletting of 
the hero-sacrifice, but the subsequent "cutting up limb by 
limb'" would most accurately be Ka'taKOX'tElV 6t or OtalpE1.V lCa'tu 
J,lEA,..,65 or prosaically (Ota)'tEJ,lVEtV Ka't' a.p9pa; J.Laxatpa is the 
sacrificial knife. 66 In this description would not some of the 
audience recognize the public sacrifice of the black ram? 

The detailed description of the heroic honours accorded to 
Pelops-the haimakouria, the recurring honours, the perma-

61 Od. 18.338 and Jl. 24.409 are threats to cut up enemies. 
62 Eur. Cycl. 390ff with Seaford's commentary on this very disturbed text. 
63 Stengel (supra n.4) index s.'ll.; Burkert (200) translates -to cut into the fire," 

but the evidence does not justify that. Casabona (supra n.17) 226, cited by 
Burkert, specifically connects it with aiJ.1aKoupia, i.e., the animal is cut so as to 
let the blood flow into the ground for the dead. 

64 Berthiaume (supra n.50) 114 n.102, to which add Meuli 932 n.2; Burkert 
(supra n.35) 115 shows that K01t'tttV and the association of the shoulder have 
parallels (LS C G 96.7) that explain the prominence attached to Pelops' 
shoulder. 

6S PI. Pol. 287c; G. J. de Vries, A Commentary on Plato's Phaedrus (Amster­
dam 1969) on 265E1, cf Apollod. Bibl. 3.13.7, 'Ao'tuooJ.1£tav ... <pOVE'l)Et Kal 
~\EAroV J.1EArtMv, cited by Ziehen (supra n.40) 1673; J. Svenbro, -U taglio della 
poesia," in C. Grottanelli and N. F. Parise, edd., Sacrificio e societa nel mondo 
antico (Rome 1988) 238ff. 

66 Berthiaume (supra n.50) 111 n.34, 109f. 



SLATER, W. J., Pelops at Olympia , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:4 (1989) p.485 

w. J. SLATER 499 

nent hero-cult-were of much more than passing interest to 
Hieron. We learn that in founding the city of Etna, a project he 
had already started, his motives were in part to ensure that he 
continued to be awarded heroic honours by its loyal in­
habitants. To this end he constructed his tomb as a ktistes there, 
presumably in the af)0ra, and it is further likely that he 
established the short-lived Aetnaean games in honour of his 
patron Zeus of Etna and of himself.67 Since nearly all scholars 
accept that Pelops is throughout intended as an analogy for 
Hieron, Pin dar would be making a direct comparison between 
the rites of Pelops and those intended to ensure the future 
immortality of the aptly named Hieron. He too must hope to 
participate in banquets held by the populace, in a shrine visited 
by many foreigners and celebrated by famous games. 

This consideration leads inevitably to the representation of 
heroization in art, the so called Totenmahl. 68 The hero is buried 
as a symposiast,69 according to popular thinking lived on as a 
symposiast in the afterlife,70 and the first Olympian suggests that 
Pelops is heroized as a symposiast at Olympia. This would be 
one reason why banqueting is a central theme in the poem.71 

The connection between horse-racing and symposia that we 
find in the first Olympian is well attested in ancient art; horses 

67 I Ole 6.162a Drachmann, but a reasonable inference from Ot. 1 and Pyth. 
1 in any case; Pfister (supra n. 14) 445ff; W. Leschorn, Grunder der Stadt 
(=Palingenesia 20 [Stuttgart 1984]) 124-27: a useful collection of the material 
on Etna, though the whole book gives insight into heroic ktisis. 

68 The complex problems associated with its iconology are discussed by 
Dentzer (supra n.33) 562ff. 

69 First evidence: Alcmaeonis fr.2 Bernabe (2 Davies) with commentary by 
M. Blech, Studien zum Kranz (=Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorar­
beiten 38 [Berlin 1982]) 101. 

70 Earliest evidence: Pind. fr.129; Ole 2.74 with PI. Resp. 363c; bibliography 
in Blech (supra n.69) 101, 407. 

71 Among these sympotic references should be included the opening words. 
The unexplained statement, ·Water is best," corresponds to the sympotic 
game: ·What is best?": Fraenkel ad Aesch. Ag. 899. Burkert (Lore and Science 
in Ancient Pythagorean ism [Cambridge 1972J 169) has come to the same con­
clusion, though the passage is missing in his index. A festive poem demands 
the standard answer: "Wine (or Euphrosyne, etc.) is best," as in Kypria fr.17.1 
Bernabe (15 Davies); Panyassis fr.19.1 Bernabe (14.1 Davies); and esp. Pind. 
Nem. 4.1, imitating Ode 9.5ff; on the later influence on this precept see the 
remarks of H.-G. Nesselrath, Lukians Parasitendialog (Berlin 1986) 301ff. To 
start a poem by affirming that water is best is to invert a topos. The actual so­
lution-whether water is poetry or something else-is perhaps less important. 



SLATER, W. J., Pelops at Olympia , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:4 (1989) p.485 

500 PELOPS AT OLYMPIA 

even appear in the Totenmahl where they are scarcely ap­
posite.72 It was therefore predictable that Pindar should praise 
the cultivated symposia of the victorious Hieron (16f). This 
theme is maintained through the banquets of Tantalus and 
Pelops to culminate in the heroic haimakouria festival of Pelops, 
who was considered to return not as a horseman but as sym­
posiast. It has been a difficulty for many readers that Pindar 
mentions a 1C(le(lpO~ A.£Pll~ as almost the first item in his 
narrative, though he goes on to deny the old myth of dismem­
berment and especially its consequence in cannibalism, which 
would be difficult to equate with a "pure- or "purifying- caul­
dron. 73 Not everyone has accepted that there is any difficulty 
here. Uhsadel-Giilke (supra nA8: 32), for example, commented: 
"The cauldron has this epithet because in it Pelops achieves 
new life, because Pelops is redeemed as pure, because the 
cauldron's effect is purifying.-

This seems to me to be on the right lines. The difficulty is 
seen to be illusory, if we accept that the cauldron is central to 
the rituals of Pelops and Olympia, and that, although by its very 
mystery it could give rise to wild myths, its sacral existence and 
primary purpose were not in doubt. This purpose was in the 
minds of listeners that of 'Jungkochen'; it was the cauldron of 
rebirth, not dismemberment,7· just as-to use a modern 
analogy-the cross which is an instrument of torture can be 
viewed by the faithful as a sign of hope and redemption. 
Beyond that, as Mme Schmitt-Pantel affirms,7s "Ie chaudron est 
Ie signe du repas commune a base de viandes du banquet 
sacrificiel privilegie de Paristocratie guerriere.-

72 Examples from art in P. Schmitt and A. Schnapps, ·Image et societe en 
Grece ancienne: les representations de la chasse et du banquet," RA (1982) 
57ff; cf. I.Kyme. ed. H. Engelman (Bonn 1976) T19. 152; Dentzer (supra n.33) 
490. 

73 E.g. R. Scodel. CP 80 (1985) 267. considers the mention of the ·pure" 
cauldron to be the strongest but insufficent argument against the traditional 
interpretation of the myth, which is that of Gerber in his commentary, and 
which seems to me also correct, but a discussion at this point of what is still a 
controversial matter would not be helpful. 

74 The motif of 'Jungkochen' is a popular one in many myths, cf. S. 
Trenkner, The Greek Novella in the Classical Period (Cambridge 1958) 47 
n.2; P. Rau, Paratragodia (Munich 1967) 189. The first mention of it is in the 
Nosto;. 

7S P. Schmitt-Pante~ ·Banquet et cite grecque," MEFRA 97 (1985) 140.deal­
ing with the importance of the cauldron in burial rites and citing M. Gras. 
·Vin et societe a Rome," in Modes de contact et processus de transformation 
dans Les sociites antiques (=CoLLEFR 67 [Rome 1983]) 1067-75. 



SLATER, W. J., Pelops at Olympia , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:4 (1989) p.485 

W. J. SLATER 501 

Just as EUVOJlc.O'to:toV (line 37) indicates in advance that Pindar 
intends to contradict the myth of cannibalism at the banquet of 
Tantalus, so lCa8ap6<; here declares in advance the purity of the 
rituals of Pelops. Rebirth, not dismemberment; of the gods, not 
of men; a cult object, not a ki tchen utensil. As such it deserves 
its ritual epithet; Clotho took Pelops not from a clean basin, but 
the Cauldron of Purification. 

Even though we know so little of the complex rituals of 
Pelops, it still seems appropriate to stress their existence and try 
to sketch a possible outline, if only because the reality of his 
worship can be forgotten in a purely literary interpretation of 
Pindar's text. If Themistocles could take part in cauldron 
sacrifice at Olympia in Pindar's time, it seems likely that some 
of Pindar's Syracusan aristocrats-some with close family ties to 
Arcadia and the Peloponnese-knew Olympia at first hand. For 
them Pelops really did take part, as Pindar says, in his festiva1. 76 

McMASTER UNIVERSITY 
October, 1989 

76 I am grateful for a detailed critique of an earlier draft by Noel Robertson, 
who touches on Pelops at GRBS 29 (1988) 250.