Guidelines for using the BDEG database
.1. A bit of
history…
.2. Functionalities
.3. User
ID and account management
.4. Display
of text in ancient Greek
.5. Input in
ancient Greek
The
project of creating a Greek Cult-Epithets Data Base (in French: Banque de Données sur
les Épiclèses Grecques –
BDEG) started as the idea to construct a tool which allowed researchers
to study Greek polytheism and, more broadly, Greek religion; and also allowed
them to move a step forward in quantitative terms, thus opening new
perspectives in their quest to understand this complex human construction.
Putting together an extensive meta-source with the available tools at that
moment implied a documentary task in itself. However, it led to new questions
and innovative ways to answer them. One of these ways is moving from the polis
scale to the region scale and to the Greek world and viceversa;
or studying the links between certain cult-epithets and certain deities. It is
worth mentioning from now, that here the quantitative aspect often has a
positive impact on the qualitative one.
In
1997, Pierre Brulé provided the bottomline
for this reflection during the CIERGA seminar in Liège: “Le langage
des épiclèses dans le polythéisme hellénique ” [1], which lays the basis for a theoretical reflection
about the cult-epithets and outlines the contribution of the diverse tools to
explore the divine landscape just as the semantical richness of the Greek cult-epithets describes it. A long time, as
well as patience and work were needed to take that reflection from that point
to its current completion and diffusion. First of all, there was a conjunction.
Pierre Brulé submitted a project to the recently
created Crescam which consisted of doing an
in-depth research on the names of gods. Such research would have to be
supported by a new instrument: The BDEG. What allowed Pierre Brulé to submit his project was the conjunction of two
fields of common interest among the researchers team at the University of
Rennes 2 (including Marie-Françoise Baslez, Nicole Belayche, Pierre Brulé, Patrick
Le Roux and Jacques Oulhen): The first was
onomastics, and the second was ancient religions.
Since
1997, the intellectual basis that led the construction of this database has
been complemented by Robert Parker’s “The problem of the Greek Cult Epithet” [2] and the statements
gathered from the acts of the
Nommer les dieux conference,
published in 2005 [3]. In the latter, the
contributions from Nicole Belayche, Madeleine Jost, Robert Parker and Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge shed some light on the nature of the cult-epithets.
Nonetheless, its definition was still difficult to figure out. New theoretical
problems emerged as researchers were faced with challenges such as the data
input in a database along with the technical difficulties it implies; the
effect of confronting linguistic features; and what can be inferred about cult
realities throughout the document. Sylvain Lebreton
and Pierre Brulé tried to give an answer to some of
these conceptual and methodological questions in the article “La Banque de données sur les épiclèses divines (BDDE) du Crescam:
sa philosophie” [4].
Our
objective is simple: We aim to gather a corpus of information about the names
of Greek gods. More precisely, we seek to gather and make available all the
data about Greek divine epithets, regardless of the source, time and region
they come from. Thus, the entire ancient Greek history is our chronological
framework, from the first Mycenaean stone tablets ever registered to the last
ones which date from the
4th century of our era. From a spatial point of view,
we could say that no defined geographical context is convenient. Instead, our
field of research is formed by all Greek-speaking regions from the Antiquity.
Sometimes, even the dedication of a Greek in a non-Greek-speaking region is
evidence of his presence and loyalty to his gods. We seek to work thoroughly in
each framework, chronological and geographical.
Returning
to the essential, what is, in brief, the definition of epithet taken into
account here? The binomial naming system combines the name of a god, usually in
the first place, with a complement which is commonly an adjective (there are
also participles and prepositions) into a single nominal group. This
complement, named cult-epithet, describes a particular feature of its respective
god. Cult context and acts in ancient Greece mainly refer to gods so precisely
defined, that it is possible to talk about a naming system. For those
complements to be stored in our BDEG as cult-epithets, the nominal group should
refer to a divine entity worshipped by ancient Greeks.
There
is an unavoidable stage of interpretation by the editor when storing an entry
on the BDEG, since the source hardly ever specifies the quality of a
cult-epithet next to a particular god’s name. The editor must then decide if
the source refers to a cult practice and what part of the “divine nominal
group” is the cult-epithet. In some few cases, it was difficult to make such
decision. Generally, these unclear entries were stored to enable future
verifications.
The BDEG went through several stages. The first
stage was the construction, completed in 2002 by Laurent Piolot, using FileMakerPro. The Database worked
with this program until 2006. During this first stage, the base was enhanced in
terms of information, but underwent little technical improvement. Under the
direction of Pierre Brulé,
this work was again developed by Laurent Piolot (2002
– 2003), who is again responsible for setting the intellectual and system
bases of Hélène Bectarte(2003-2004), Céline
Dubois and Pierre Tandé (2004-2005)
and Sylvain Lebreton (2004 onwards).
The second stage was placing the database online. After a test phase
(2006), it became available on the web in 2007, thanks to the initiative of
Pierre Brulé, Sylvain Lebreton
and Yves Kernaleguen
(2006 – 2007). Pascal Gouéry, from the System Resources Centre at University
of Rennes 2, completed the technical aspects of the database (data transfer,
well elaborated layout, inclusion of sorting and search tools). We estimate
that in spite of not being complete, the BDEG with about 6700 entries can
already be considered as useful for the scientific community.
We were, nonetheless, fully aware of the imperfections of the BDEG,
from which
incompleteness was the main one. There was a big amount of data
to check thoroughly – there is, still – and many corrections and general
harmonization had to be applied. Above all, there were some improvements to be
made in order for the database to offer all the desired functionalities. The
most important was offering the option to sort entries by chronological order.
For technical and institutional reasons (lack of regular financial support in
the first place), these changes did not happen for several years (2008 – 2013).
During this lapse, Sylvain Lebreton was the only
editor of the entries and continued to enrich and improve the Database (it has
over 9200 entries today).
The reform of the Crescam into the LAHM
and the CReAAH (UMR 6566) helped the BDEG to
regain momentum and to keep evolving on its technical aspects. So far, it had
been slowed down by administrative and technical difficulties. Since 2013,
thanks to the remarkable job of Olivier
Troccaz (research engineer at the UMR 6566 CReAAH), responsible for its
technical functionality, the BDEG is
again available online on a new website. It has now a module of chronological
sorting and a map tool; both of which must still be improved. The eventful
history of the BDEG, the reality of
the documentary data, the progress made on understanding quantitative treatment
of the information, and the evolution of the digital tools explain that certain
features of the database are very different from what they were at the time of
its conception. Initially an entry was composed by a cult-epithet associated to
a god’s name in a given location (usually a polis). All the occurrences were not meant to be
registered: the earliest and the latest
seemed enough. As the base was used, a different approach was needed. In order
not to write off some data, the editors have progressively registered all
the occurrences of a cult-epithet for a
given location, which in turn created more entries for a single locality. This
actually means that the structure of the database was modified (by empirically
entering the entity “attestation d’une épiclèse dans un source” i.e.
evidence of an epithet in a source) without changing its theoretical structure,
which made it impossible to treat information quantitatively, yet it was useful
for the functionalities of chronological sorting and map referencing. Changes
in the structure of the BDEG were
necessary to ensure it could continue working. Karine Karila-Cohen’s integration to the
project (since 2013) goes along with this purpose. Much of her research work
has to do with the quantitative treatment of data in ancient history. A third
phase in the history of the BDEG begins then. Sylvain Lebreton and Karine Karila-Cohen consider modifying the philosophy of the BDEG,
and then testing a partially automatic migration of a part of the data (the one
related to Attica) from the old database structure to the new one. Sylvain Lebreton will continue improving the entries on the website
currently available online.
The BDEG is always
evolving. We are aware of the many mistakes that can be made in the process of
constructing such an extensive tool. Consequently, we listen carefully to (we
could even say we expect) your criticisms and suggestions. If you have any
remarks, please do not hesitate to let us know through the Contact section. Your comments
will allow us to improve the database and to work on its continuous
development, always aiming to foster the study and interpretation of Greek
polytheism.
So
as to wish you a “Bon voyage”, and since the use of “navigation” is from
now on dedicated to all the manoeuvres to surf the web, let us bless you under
the protection of Αφροδίτη
Εὐπλοία!
Pierre
Brulé, Karine Karila-Cohen, Sylvain Lebreton,
November
2014.
.2. Functionalities
Introduction
A
meta-source like this, given its own nature, implies certain rules of use that
are different from those for the constitution of a corpus. The editors of the BDEG
did not go to primary documents; there was not a thorough analysis of stones
for epigraphic texts, nor critical philology concerning publications. The
editors started from publications that worked as a reference (including the SEG, for epigraphy). The
reader has access to these publications for all discussions about the edition
of the text.
*
The aim
of the BDEG is to allow requests according to the different needs
of every user. It offers two search possibilities.
2.1. Single-criterion
search
The
single-criterion search module (or general search), which is accessible
directly on the website, is a simple tool which allows a quick search according
to the following categories: nom de la divinité
(name of the god), nom de l'épiclèse
(name of cult-epithet), traduction
de l'épiclèse (translation of the cult-epithet), divinités associées (
associated deities), commentaire
(commentary), nom du lieu (name of place), nom de la
region (name of region), référence
de la source (reference of the source). It is not necessary to type the accentuations, or even the complete
term. Thus, if the user types “karp”, s/he will find
matches for “karpophoros”, but also “karpios”, “kallikarpos”, “epikarpios”, etc. in the name of cult-epithet. If
applied to all categories, results like “Karpasia”
will also be found on the name of place category. A recap chart with the
number of matches in every category is shown and it can be expanded by each one
of the matches.
It can be seen here that accentuation and the order of
uppercase and lowercase characters does not affect the search process.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By
clicking on the number of the entry (at the beginning of each line), the user
can see the details (see example below)
This
search mode also allows switching between different categories of the BDEG simultaneously based on a single
term or root. This helps to measure the quantitative importance of the Epiclèse 1 (Cult-Epithet
1) and Epiclèse 2 (Epithet 2), the Divinités associées (Associated deities) and the Commentaire (Commentary), for
example. Nevertheless, the Multi-criteria
search module is better adapted to the matches for one epithet (with their
locations and references), especially if it is very common (
Soter for example).
2.2. Multi-criteria search
The
possibility to specify the variables is what makes the BDEG so interesting. Let us give you a simple example. If you are
searching for Athena Polias, in Attica
for example, this tool makes it possible to find that one deity very quickly.
Type the data in the corresponding fields, namely Divinité
(Deity), Épiclèse (Cult-Epithet) and Région (Region), then click on lancer la recherche (Search) and the numbers of the entries
that match your criteria will appear.
There
are also some criteria to choose how the entries are sorted and shown. These
make it possible to choose which criteria you want to see as well as the order
in which they appear. This tool becomes indispensable for a user who has to
deal quickly with a large number of entries.
A
map tool is also available - click on Carte
(Map) -. This tool allows you to
localise the results of a multi-criteria search on a map. It is currently
available only for Attica as it is still on the test phase
2.3. Search by entry number
This
function can become essential, for instance, for a user who works regularly on
the database and who needs to go back to an entry previously found. By using
the number of the entry, the user can easily find it again. This allows the
user to save time and to avoid typing again all the criteria in the fields of a
multi-criteria search.
*
The task of
establishing the content of each section, as well as the the
way the user interprets it call for comments. The fields of the model entry,
just as it was designed by Laurent Piolot and just as
it appears when the user clicks on the number on the left in the sorting table,
will be examined one by one.
2.4. Example of an entry: Dionysos Karpios
Localisation
Registries show two
results:
Lieu (Location) Larissa[5]
Région (Region) Thessalie
(Pelasgiotide)
It
is not always possible to find the location of an entry. Many editors only mention
a location such as « Phrygie » (Phrygia).
In this case, the column Lieu (Location)
is empty. The aim is to relate a
document to a certain polis (and to its territory); but sometimes only a
modern designation is
known. In the case of islands, we have considered that, for the most important
ones, their name should be in the Région (Region)
column and the name of the polis in the Lieu column. Consequently, it is possible to have an entry with Lieu and Région columns containing the
same information; it is the case of Rhodes, for example. For small islands,
however, especially those with one only city, it is the name of the island that
will appear in the Lieu column and “Egée” (Aegean) (most of the times) in the Région column.
Identity
It is found,
successively:
Divinité (Deity)
Dionysos
Διόνυσος
Épiclèse 1 (CultEpithet 1)
Karpios
Κάρπιος
« Des
fruits » (of fruits)
(Épiclèse 2) (Cult-Epithet 2)
Comment
All names are registered
in their
nominative singular form (except invariable names, types of epithets such as Tiamou).
Divinité (Deity)
This
column contains the name of the deity. It might not be included in the source
and we might have only the cult-epithet. We have tried to take it into account
in the research process as much as possible, bearing in mind that the absence
of such name is a major concern. Brackets are shown (in the fields in French
and Greek) if the name has not been retrieved. If it cannot be retrieved due to
the incompleteness of the document, the restitution is shown between square
brackets (only in the field in Greek)
While
all Athana, Damater or Artamis… are registered under the names of Athena,
Demeter and Artemis in the French field [6], the slight dialect
differences in the Greek written form are respected. This procedure is usually applied if we
learn more from the meta-source about this subject.
Épiclèse 1 and Épiclèse 2
A
reason for having different columns, Épiclèse
1 and Épiclèse 2, is that
sometimes, names of deities have not one but many cult-epithets. Therefore, an
entry has been built for each cult-epithet so as to find them easily if they
are sorted from the Épiclèse 1 column
(this does not correspond to the order in which the cult-epithets appear in the
document, so we redirect the reader to the source). The Épiclèse
2 column does not appear unless it has been filled. Such is not the case of
this example.
The
cult-epithet is transliterated according to the most common uses (thus e for e, è for h, u for u, kh for c,ô for w). When cult-epithets include a preposition
such as “en kèpois”,
the preposition is shown in
brackets after the noun it refers to. For this example: “kèpois
(en)”. In Greek, however, the original order is kept ( ἐν κήποις).
Just
as in the Divinité column, the restitution square
brackets will be used only in the Greek fields.
Certain cult-epithets
indirectly attested are shown in brackets in the Greek and French
fields, such as cult-epithets attested through association names deriving from
them , for example (cf. the Dios Ataburiastai
for Zeus Ataburios in Rhodes ).
Translation
is shown between quotation marks. This is one of the most difficult fields to
complete. Certain cult-epithets are still enigmatic, mostly because they do not
relate to a Greek root.
Sometimes, a hypothesis is proposed (in this case the hypothesis is followed by
a question mark).
Dating and references
In
the current version of the BDEG, the total amount of references is
not registered, but for us, it was important to indicate the relative volume of
each epithet in a given place and within a chronological limit:
- we
indicated in the register which were the earliest and latest reference for a
given epithet in a given place. Thus, for Dionysos Karpios in
Larissa, the third quarter of the fifth
century BCE for the earliest date (Source 1) and the
Imperial period for the latest date (Source 2).
- We have
evaluated approximately ( to the date of creation of
the entry) the number of references of a cult-epithet found in a single city.
This is shown in the column Nombre d’épiclèses (Number
of epithets), using the following scale: one (1), between two and five
(<5), between five and ten (5<10) and over ten (>10) references.
The entry is shown:
Source 1
D. Theocharis,
AD 16 (1960)[1962], B : 185 (BE 1964, 226) = A. Kontogiannis, in Praktika tou a' historikou-arkhaiologikou Symposiou Larisa, Larisa, 1985, p. 111-129 (SEG XXXV 590)
Nature
de la source Epigraphique
Date
de la source 450-425 a.C.
Source
2
IG IX 2, 573
Nature
de la source Epigraphique
Date
de la source Impériale
Nombre d’épiclèses <5
Complementary comment.
The
abbreviations used for editions of
inscriptions are those of the SEG,
but also the EBGR or the BE. For technical reasons, the titles of
books, newspapers, etc. are displayed in Latin characters only (titles in Greek
alphabet have been transliterated) and could not be registered in italic
characters.
Nature
de la source (Nature of the source) is
chosen from literary, epigraphic, papyrological (rarely) and numismatic
(sometimes).
Bearing
in mind the uncertainty concerning the dating of epigraphic texts, introducing
a chronological segmentation by thirds or halves of century was pointless. The Date
de la source (date of the source) is specified by century or group of
centuries (ex : IIe-IIIe
p.C.), or, by period (Hellenistc,
Imperial, Byzantine[8]…). Nevertheless, the dates are specified as precisely
as possible in each case in which the source indicates it. In these cases, the
dates are shown in
Arabic numerals, like in the following example: 450-425 a.C. for the third quarter of the fifth century BCE.
Four
more columns
Culte attesté : oui
(Largement
restitué)
Divinités associées 2 : Déméter
Phulaka
Commentaire dédicaces (2 :
par une prêtresse) ; cf. P.
Chrysostomou, Hyperia 2
(1994) : 113-149 (BE 1997, 285 = EBGR 1996, 40)
Culte attesté
In
most of the cases, the mention of a sacrifice, a priest, a sanctuary or a
simple dedication, allowed us to confirm a cult to the deity the cult-epithet
referred to. On the other hand, certain divine epithets have been included even
if they have been mentioned in certain sources out of the cult context (this
might be useful for chronological order purposes). The editor chooses
« OUI » or « NON » (“yes” or
“no”). Sometimes, it is impossible to make such choice, so the mention « Non
renseigné » (Not specified) is used. It is
worth mentioning that this undefined choice is possibly due to laconic
meta-sources.
Largement restitué
It
is applied to epigraphic texts where we consider that a doubt can be accepted
according to the risk taken during a restoration (bearing in mind that we
do not comment on the pertinence of the
restoration). A « OUI » (“yes”) is used in this column, which will
not be shown otherwise (like
in the case of Dionysos Karpios of Larisa). As a complement, right
square brackets are added sometimes (only in the Greek fields) when the source
or meta-source allows it.
The
Divinités associées ( associtaed deities) are those which appear next to
the deity in the text (before or after). It might be on a coherent list ( an oath or sacrifce) or on
some relief.
Commentaire (Commentary) – longer or shorter according to the meta source
and the editor of the entry – aims to provide complementary information (types
of support: altar, tablet ; topographical
context : temple ; nature of the text : hymn, dedication ;
bibliographical additions…).
When
Commentaire or Divinités
associées deal with only one of the sources,
or if they are different for each sources, a number (1 or 2) indicates the
sources they refer to. Thus, the Dionysos Karpios of Larisa
is associated with Déméter Phulaka only in the inscription that appears in the Source 2
column.
2.5. Contacts
Do
not hesitate to let us know about any malfunction or mistake in an entry
through the Contact section. We will
correct it after verifying it. This interaction with the user is totally
positive since it allows improving the information proposed by the BDEG.
Thank you for your participation.
.3. User ID and account
management.
-It
is not necessary to log in to have access to the database.
-The
application is developing a tool for creating a user account, changing the
password, etc…
-A utilisateur (user)
can be designed as auteur (autor)
or administrateur (administrator) by
an administrator of the application.
-The
auteur has the possibility to create, delete or modify entries,
apart from the search functionalities.
-The
administrateur, besides having the same rights as the auteur, must
manage the accounts of the whole group of users..
.4. . Display of text in ancient
Greek:
Texts
in ancient Greek can be displayed in different ways:
Specific
Greek fonts (greek, grammata, alpha...)
Unicode
fonts, supporting multiple language
uses
In
the current version, the user can use specific fonts or Unicode fonts. S/he can
switch between them by clicking on the following icon:
 |
|
The site
uses the greek
or grammata fonts. The user can indicate another
font type s/he wants to use to display the fields in Greek (because s/he
does not have the greek or grammata font, or because a new one is more convenient for
her/him). S/he only has to specify the name
of the font in the form that opens by clicking the icon above (it can be
found in all the pages that display text in Greek). This
setting is saved by a
cookie mechanism (if authorised
by the user) which allows
using it in different sessions. |
Many
websites deal with displaying text in ancient Greek, we recommend visiting:
http://membres.lycos.fr/initiationaugrecanc/polices_grecques.htm
.5. Input in ancient Greek :
The
technique used here consists of typing the diacritc
mark before the character.
The
keys to insert a diacritical mark are the following:
|
Diacritical mark |
|
Key |
Name of the key |
|
Esprit rude (Dasia) |
` |
( |
Opening bracket |
|
Esprit doux
(Psili) |
' |
) |
Closing bracket |
|
Accent grave (Varia) |
\ |
\ |
Antislash |
|
Accent aigu
(Oxia) |
/ |
/ |
Slash |
|
Tréma (Dialytika) |
@ |
¨ |
Diaeresis |
|
Tilde (Perispomeni) |
^ |
|
Tilde (Alt Gr + é) |
|
Cédille (Iota souscrit) |
Ä |
, |
Comma |
The
diacritical marks can be combined in any order, for example:
(/,a /(,a ,(/a ...
having the same result : ¯
Currently,
the key combinations of the non Unicode font “greek” are the only ones that are recognised.
Diacritical
marks do not appear directly on uppercase letters. It is advised to type an accented spacebar with the mark,
followed by the capital letter (the character will not be as elegant as if it
had been combined with the diacritical mark directly, but the correct recoding
will be done automatically when the unicode version
of this tool is released).
Thus,
to obtain ῎Α, you should type the
following sequence : )/ <espace>
A ou /)<espace>A
Finally,
to display the comma, you must only tap the key twice, same as for the
brackets.
[1] Kernos 11 (1998) : 13-34.
[2] Opuscula Atheniensia 28
(2003) : 173-183.
[3] Nommer les dieux. Théonymes, épithètes, épiclèses dans l’Antiquité (qui publie
le colloque du même titre
de Strasbourg), N. Belayche, P. Brulé,
G. Freyburger, Y. Lehmann, L. Pernot,
Fr. Prost (éds), Brepols.
[4] Kernos 20 (2007) : 217-228. The Banque de Données sur
les Épiclèses Divines (BDDE) hs since then become
the Banque de Données des Épiclèses Grecques (BDEG), as well as the Crescam (Centre de Recherches et d'Etudes des Sociétés et Cultures
Antiques de la Méditerranée) has been reformed in the LAHM (Laboratoire Archéologie et
Histoire Merlat, UMR 6566 CReAAH).
[5] Titles in red bold are those
of the columns of the entry; in italics
the information relating to Dionysos Karpios
in Larissa.
[6] This avoids to split entries relating to the same deity when searching
in Divinité ; indeed, if we
had faithfully taken into account
all local spellings,
Despoina would have appeared between Damater and Demeter, for example.
[7] .
[8]
Sources from the
Byzantine era, such as lexicographers, can not be considered as evidence for a cult in their own period,
of course.