• 1 Weynants-Ronday, 1926, p. 203; Assmann, 2001, p. 131-39. For the situation in the Near East, which (...)

1In ancient Egypt, offerings were necessary, not only for people hoping to receive benefits for themselves, but also for the gods and the dead, for whom they were destined. Some Egyptian texts clearly show that the ka or spirit of a dead man could be extremely hungry, if he did not receive food from living human beings.1 But what was the matter with the Greek gods? What could the goddess do with pins, vases, or others things given to her? For Sokrates, it was an astonishing question. He asked the priest Euthyphro (Euthyphro 14E):

• 2 All dates are BCE unless noted otherwise.

4Compare this incident with the poetic dedications collected in Palatine Anthology of fishermen depositing their tools in sanctuaries of Poseidon. One of them, by Leonidas of Taras (3^rd century),2 explains:

• 3 For the presentation of the offerings in the temples of Delos on different supports (ribbons, small (...)
• 4 Huber, 2003.
• 5 Ibid. p. 146-47.
• 6 Amandry, 1991, p. 191-226.
• 7 Blegen, 1952.
• 8 Felsch, 2007, p. 209-10.

6Defunctionalisation of everyday things is the necessary consequence of depositing objects, but the reverse can be true as well: defunctionalisation allows the transformation of objects in offerings. In Greek sanctuaries, there were several processes of defunctionalisation. The simplest one is depositing itself. The most frequent verb used in dedications is ‘ἀνέθηκεν (puts ἀνα on the top, then consecrated), which suggests that the normal way to consecrate an offering to the god is to hang it on the wall or from the beams of the temple or stoa or treasury.3 The inscription in itself is often sufficient, because it indicates the intention or will to suspend the item, and is currently used even for monuments. These different meanings of defunctionalisation are well documented, but other processes have been observed. The recent publication of the North Area of the sanctuary of Apollo in Eretria provides some examples.4 Offerings can be buried in the soil, either in a horizontal deposit or in a pit dug for that purpose. Sometimes it seems to have been necessary to destroy the offering. In Eretria hundreds of small objects were damaged, probably crushed by people walking over them.5 In Delphi the famous pits discovered by Pierre Amandry contained many objects that were burned in situ, that is, inside the pits themselves.6 Another process is to “kill” the objects. This process is known as much in funerary contexts as in sanctuaries. It consists of deforming the object in such a way as to remove any possibility of usefulness for it. The most famous example is that of the swords that had been bent, probably after heating, before being deposited in a grave (figure 1).7 This operation had a practical purpose as well, since a bent sword can be introduced in the tomb more easily, but defunctionalisation is operating all the same. For example, at Olympia, Kalapodi, and Delphi, offensive and defensive weapons had been intentionally deformed, twisted or folded before being buried. At Kalapodi, some bronze helmets and other protective pieces had even been pierced from inside by a spear butt, an operation that could be undertaken only in the holy place and not on the battlefield.8

• 9 The evolution of the shape, which lost its use, is described by Rolley, 1977, p. 15-22, Maass, 1978 (...)
• 10 Maass, 1978, p. 6-7, 136 no. 1. Mycenaean and Protogeometric tripods are still more clearly functio (...)
• 11 Rolley, 1977, p. 79; Schweizer, 1971.

8Let us begin with the giant objects. The best example is provided by tripods.9 These bronze cauldrons, which were often mentioned in Mycenaean tablets, were luxurious cooking objects. The earliest example found at Olympia, ca. 900, is still a functional object, in spite of its tendency toward the monumental (figure 2).10 It measures 0.65 m in height. Its legs, which are massive, thick, and solid, are well adapted to a practical use. It has no decoration other than motifs imitating rope on its legs and handles. The proportions of tripods change over time. Through the late ninth and eighth centuries, they become much higher, with long legs and bigger handles. The section of the legs changes as well. Instead of being massive, the legs become slimmer. In the eighth century, double-T legs appear. Solidness has been left, decoration is now favoured, since the objects offer more room for decoration (figure 3). The size can be still higher than before and is now completely unsuitable to any practical use. In the second part of the eighth century, some giant examples must have been higher than 2 meters and could exceed 100 kg in weight. As Claude Rolley has pointed out, the loss of usefulness engaged a process in which size and morphology completely changed.11

• 12 Hood, 1968, p. 214-18.
• 13 Inv. 4401, cf. Rolley, 1977, no. 50, p. 40; Aurigny, 2009.
• 14 On the big Boeotian fibulae, see Rolley, 1983, p. 81-82, Coldstream, 1977, p. 204.
• 15 Paris, Louvre inv. no. Br 1880.
• 16 Coldstream, 1977, p. 204 and fig. 66c.

9Other objects such as bronze pins and fibulae followed the same development. These fineries were used as garment attachments. The history of pins is related to that of the peplos. The oldest examples in tombs, with a pin on each shoulder of the dead, appeared in the eleventh century.12 Each pin measures between 15 and 40 cm long. In Delphi, however, a massive fragment, 18 cm long, attests an object that should have exceeded 60 cm in length (figure 4).13 Weight and size were not suitable for any practical use. Such objects were probably made for consecration only. The most significant type of fibula is the catch-plate one, which was in use in Boeotia and Thessaly (figure 5).14 A Boeotian example, now in the Louvre, measures 27.5 cm in length.15 These objects were too big to be worn, except on special occasions, but most of them must have been made for consecration in sanctuaries. They frequently bore an elaborate decoration on the plate, as did the crescent Boeotian fibulae, of which some enormous examples could reach the length of 21 cm (figure 6).16

• 17 Hermann, 1979; Rolley, 1983, p. 70-75.

10Around 700, the tripods tended to be replaced by big cauldrons equipped with griffin protomes and Siren attachments (figure 7).17 These cauldrons were not made for cooking and likely served as mixing vessels for wine. Although they are votive objects, they could be used in some rituals related to symposia organised in sanctuaries. The one dedicated by Colaios to Hera at Samos, according to Herodotos (4.152), had a bowl with griffin heads on a support made of three bronze statues measuring seven elbows, that is, more than three meters in height. Such a huge object could not be used at all.

• 18 Courbin, 1957; Courbin, 1982.

11Some iron roasting spits, the famous obeloi, have been found in graves and in sanctuaries.18 I do not know of any giant models found in sanctuaries, but Herodotos (2.135) mentions several spits dedicated by the courtesan Rhodopis in Delphi, in the early sixth century, that were long enough to pierce an entire ox.

• 19 Haussoullier, 1905; Boardman, 1980, p. 108, fig. 125; Meckelmach, Stauber, 2005, no. 421, p. 96; an (...)

12A bronze knucklebone found in Susa in Persia (figure 8)19 bears an inscription that indicates that it stood as a dedication in the sanctuary of Apollo at Didyma before it was looted by Persians. Knucklebones were frequently used as toys, but only a giant could use this one, since it weights 93,070 g and measures 37 cm in length, 21 cm in width, and 23 cm in height, whereas normal knucklebones measure 3 to 7 cm in length.

• 20 Luce, 2003, p. 60-61.

13The range of giant ceramic vessels is much more limited than that of their bronze counterparts. Big vases such as pithoi or kraters are suitable for their normal practical use, except perhaps the giant kraters and amphorai used in Attika to mark graves in geometric cemeteries: defunctionalisation or maybe refunctionalisation is indicated by the hole pierced in the bottom of some of them. The purpose of this hole is much debated.20

• 21 Some big knucklebone-shaped vases are attested, such as one decorated by the Sotades Painter (Londo (...)

14I can now make some preliminary observations about the giant objects. Our first remark is that metal is more favoured than clay, and that, among the metals, bronze is the typical material. Gold tripods, such as the one dedicated at Delphi after the Battle of Plataea (Pausanias 10.13.9), are rare. Because the objects are big, a great quantity of metal was used to make them. The second remark is about the range of objects concerned. Tripods, cauldrons, and obeloi were all relevant to cooking. They are also related to sympotic activities. So are grave markers in the geometric cemeteries. The second theme is as accoutrements, particularly those attached to garments. Toys are the third theme, as attested by the Susa knucklebone.21 These themes are limited in comparison with the large range of objects found in Greek sanctuaries and graves. We have no giant weapons, no giant tools, nor any giant furniture. The third remark concerns the morphological transformation of the objects, when they become bigger. While enlargement didn’t affect the shape of the pins, it did significantly affect that of tripods and fibulae. In both cases, the shape of the giant examples developed in a way that made the objects more suitable for decoration than for practical use.

• 22 Stillwell et al., 1984, p. 309.
• 23 Huber, 2003, p. 72-73.
• 24 Huber, 2003, no. O 25.
• 25 Prêtre, 1997b, p. 679.

15Miniature objects are, in some respects, the mirror image of the giant ones. They are involved in the same process of defunctionalisation. As Jack L. Benson pointed out: “The term ‘miniature’ is itself perhaps somewhat arbitrary, since the true criterion for the class of vessels which it represents is logically not so much a precise conception of quantitative limits as whether or not the vase was produced for practical use: in other words, whether as a content-holding vase or merely as a representation in reduced format of that shape, to serve as a token”.22 But I can go further: not only did miniature objects follow the same process of defunctionalisation as the giant ones, but some of them reproduce the same models. The sanctuaries of Delphi, Olympia, Eretria, and Samos have produced some miniature tripods.23 Most of them are Archaic or Classical, but some of them are Geometric. The one discovered in the sanctuary of Apollo Daphnephorion in Eretria is only 4 cm in height, but is damaged (figure 9). It would have been 8 cm in height originally. It bears a typical late geometric decoration on the handle.24 Delian inventories frequently mention miniature Delphian tripods, τριποδίσκος Δελφικός.25

• 26 Ekroth, 2003.
• 27 Vokotopoulou, 1985, nos. 125, 180, 228, 278, where obeloi are set on firedogs, and 298. Cf no. 125 (...)

16As far as the cauldrons are concerned, miniature versions in ceramic have been found in several places in the Argolid (figure 10). As Gunnel Ekroth has pointed out, they reproduced the bronze prototype, but with some small differences.26 The examples from the Argive Heraion have bull’s head protomes. Elsewhere, while griffin heads are more frequent, bull’s heads are also well attested. Miniature obeloi occur in the graves of Sindos in Macedonia, at the end of the sixth century (figure 12). They are packed in groups of six or seven, as expected.27

• 28 Voyatzis, 1990, p. 198-200.
• 29 Prêtre, 1997b, p. 675.
• 30 Felsch, 2007, no. 1991.
• 31 Voyatzis, 1990, 200 (miniature swords), 194 (axes).

17Miniature objects, however, are not only the mirror images of the giant ones, but have their own specificity. Giant weapons are not documented, as far as I know, but miniature versions are frequent, mostly shields and axes. Mary Voyatzis has collected 22 miniature reproductions of the so-called Dipylon shield, most of them in Arkadian sanctuaries, but one in Olympia and another in the Dipylon Cemetery at Athens (figure 11). They are oval in shape and with two cut out circles on each side. What prototype did they reproduce? Some scholars support the idea that there was no prototype at all, but that this was just an iconographical survival of the Mycenaean “figure-of-eight” shield.28 Since the technical structure of the shield seems properly represented in some images, however, I prefer to accept the traditional view, that the miniature objects imitate real weapons. In any case, there is no doubt about the miniature round shields, usually in bronze, of which there are also some examples in gold. The Delian inventories often mention miniature shields made of metal or of wood.29 Helmets are not frequent, but one example, from a context dated to the second quarter of the sixth century, has been found in Kalapodi.30 Offensive weapons are rare, but some miniature swords have been found in Arkadia and in Sparta. Axes have been found in several sanctuaries, in Arkadia and other regions. They are usually double axes.31

• 32 Vokotopoulou, 1985.

18At the end of the sixth century some unusual miniature objects were deposited in some graves in the cemetery of Sindos in Macedonia.32 Here the material necessary for a symposion has been found. Obeloi are represented, as noted above, but there are also firedogs, often as supports for obeloi (figure 12), and furniture, including tables and chairs (figure 13). In many sanctuaries, miniature vessels in bronze have been found, used sometimes as pendants. In the Kirrha sanctuary in the Delphic sacred territory, one miniature bronze jug was discovered, alongside many others of terracotta.

• 33 Jacquemin, 1984.
• 34 Pemberton, 1989, p. 20.

19Scholars working on miniature objects often forget that metallic objects are so well attested, but it is true that the most of the material they are dealing with is ceramic. Several sanctuaries have given thousands of miniature ceramic vessels representing a large range of shapes. The most usual forms are skyphoi and hydriai, but many other shapes are attested as well. The range of shapes changes from one sanctuary to another. For example, in the Korykian Cave, among the 9076 miniature vessels, skyphoi dominated from the end of the sixth century onwards (94.2%), as at Kirrha (figure 14). But many other shapes, such as lekythoi and oinochoai, occur in small proportion.33 In Eretria and at the Argive Heraion, hydriai dominated, while at Corinth, in the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore, the most popular shapes were kalathiskoi and phialai.34 Miniature vases appeared from the early Iron Age onwards, but were not mass-produced, until the late Archaic period, where most of them were destined for sanctuaries.

• 35 Hammond, 2005, p. 420-21.
• 36 Huber, 2003, p. 48.
• 37 Ibid.

20The process of defunctionalisation could perhaps be reconstructed for miniature vessels as it was for giant objects, comparing their development in Tegea and in Eretria. Leslie Hammond, who has studied the examples found in Tegea and in all of Arkadia, has identified a first stage, in which the objects, locally produced with a handmade technique, were not small versions of normal vases. She suggests that they “were probably containers for offerings dedicated at the site, rather than functioning as dedications themselves”.35 But in the second stage, Geometric in date, and still more clearly in the third, in the Archaic-Classical period, the range of shapes changed, including new shapes that “reflect the ‘normal’ ceramic shapes more closely”. They could have been offerings made for themselves, as offerings, and no longer as containers. In Eretria, the miniature hydriai of the late Geometric and Sub-geometric periods measure 15-20 cm in height, instead of 35-50 cm for the normally sized examples.36 A practical use is not probable, but still possible at this stage. In the Archaic period, however, Sandrine Huber observed that the size diminished significantly.37 In both cases the process of defunctionalisation seems to have been progressive. In any case, mass production of miniature vessels began in the Archaic period.

• 38 Onasoglou, 1995.
• 39 For Attika and Cos, see Rolley, 1977, p. 107-13; for Eleusis see Skias, 1898; for Knossos, see Catl (...)
• 40 Rolley, 1977, p. 126-29.

23The study of contexts gives us a good opportunity to compare both categories. Giant and miniature objects occur in sanctuaries and in graves, but not or rarely in settlements. While giant objects in funerary contexts are rare in Greece, miniature vessels are frequent in Greek tombs and sanctuaries. In fact, only one tripod has been found in a Bronze Age grave (dated at LHIIIC) in Mycenae.38 Other examples have been found in different graves in Attika, Kos, and Knossos, but they all were full-sized ceramic imitations.39 Some cauldrons were found in graves, e.g. the Pnyx tomb in Athens, or Salamis in Cyprus (figure 7), at Sellada (Thera) and elsewhere,40 but they are exceptions. For the most part, they come from sanctuaries. A closer examination seems necessary.

• 41 Demangel, 1926, Lerat, 1957.

24Delphi and its chora provide an excellent example of the process of defunctionalisation in sanctuaries. Giant objects are frequent in the sanctuaries of Apollo and Athena from 800 onwards. It is difficult to specify the associations in their geometric contexts, because the geometric offerings frequently have not been found in geometric contexts, but rather in much later layers. That is particularly true for Delphi’s Apollo sanctuary, which developed on a settlement. In the Athena sanctuary, where geometric layers were found by Robert Demangel and Lucien Lerat,41 some ceramic vessels were discovered, particularly geometric goblets, associated with an impressive quantity of offerings dating from the Mycenaean period, but deposited in the eighth century. In the seventh and sixth centuries, more evidence is available, since layers related to the sanctuary’s activity have been excavated recently. While they contained some precious objects in bronze, gold, or ivory, pottery is extremely abundant there. Weapons and obeloi were found, but no giant objects. This suggests that they were not stored and treated as the other objects. A few miniature vessels have been found with some terracotta figurines in a context dated in the third quarter of the sixth century (figure 15).

• 42 Poplin, 1984, p. 381-93.
• 43 Amandry (ed.), 1984, p. 265, fig. 5.

26The associations of objects are worth noting. In Kirrha as in the Korykian Cave, thousands of figurines were found, but only a few metal objects, so that miniature vessels appear there as companions to figurines. In Kirrha, notice a miniature bronze jug alongside many others made of ceramic. In Delphi, terracotta figurines do occur, but infrequently, whereas bronze figurines are more abundant. The Korykian Cave and Kirrha sanctuaries are comparable in many respects, but the Korykian Cave can be distinguished by the impressive discovery of more than 20,000 knucklebones.42 The so-called “temple boys”, which are just representations of male children, were found in Kirrha as well as in the Korykian Cave (figure 16). They are not so numerous, but worth mentioning, particularly because, in the Korykian Cave, one of them is made of bronze (figure 15).43

• 44 Luce, Forthcoming.
• 45 Edlund-Berry, 2001.

28As far as funerary contexts are concerned, miniature vessels appeared in graves from the Iron Age onwards. A survey of a large part of the ancient Iron Age tombs discovered in Greece clearly shows that they appear mostly in children’s tombs.44 The same has been observed in Morgantina, where so many miniature vessels were found, in graves as in sanctuaries, but from the late Archaic period.45

• 46 Amandry, Caskey, 1952, p. 211 n. 52.
• 47 Ekroth, 2003.
• 48 For the relation of figurines and female protomes to the dedicator’s age and gender, see the stimul (...)

29The association of objects in sanctuaries and tombs begs the question as to whether offerings can be interpreted in relation to the age and gender of worshippers or of deities. Giant objects are usually, but not always, male offerings and were given, as a rule, by adults. On the other hand, links to childhood seem to have existed for miniature ceramic vessels, but not for those made of metal. Miniature ceramic vessels occur for the most part in children’s graves and, since they are associated with knucklebones and some figurines of children in the Korykian Cave, they seem to be firmly related to childhood. This suggestion has already been made by Amandry and John L. Caskey for the Argive Heraion.46 But the relationship is not that they were all toys. Indeed, some of them were probably toys, but how did this kind of object circulate in the Greek world? Gunnel Ekroth has already observed that miniature vessels were not always produced in the area where they were found but could have been imported.47 In the case of the Delphic Chora, almost all miniature vessels of the sixth and fifth centuries were made in Corinth. The fact that most, but not all, of the figurines came from the same city too suggests that miniature vessels and figurines were sold together in the same places at Delphi and Kirrha, probably near the sanctuaries. In such conditions, these objects could not have been the toys of children who deposited them. Neither does it mean that they had no connection with childhood. Indeed, a significant proportion of them could have been consecrated by children, after having been bought in situ (by their mothers?), or were offered to the deity by their parents, in order to receive favours for their offspring in return, or by young people so as to mark their transition from childhood, before marriage, for example.48 The circumstances in which these objects were offered could change their meaning. We should also be conscious that the meaning can be fickle, changing from place to place, and that a relationship to childhood may exist in one place and not in another. In any case, connections to childhood concern the miniature ceramic vessels only, since metallic objects were discovered in adult graves in Sindos. As with the giant objects, metallic miniatures were probably dedications made by adults.

• 49 Amandry, Caskey, 1952, p. 211.
• 50 Stillwell et al., 1984, p. 310.
• 51 Amandry, 1984.
• 52 Stillwell et al., 1984, p. 337.

30Since mainly female figurines were associated with miniature vessels, perhaps they could have a gender connotation. Indeed, since female figurines were usually deposited in sanctuaries devoted to female deities, the question is whether a connection between childhood and female gender could have existed. Hydriai are often interpreted as offerings for a female deity or as objects given by women or girls to the deity of any gender, or both.49 If hydriai were female offerings, should the skyphoi have been male? That is a possibility. But skyphoi are firmly associated with female figurines in Kirrha and the Korykian Cave, as they are in the Aphrodite Deposit in Corinth.50 In the Korykian Cave they dominate whereas, according to Amandry, the worship of the Nymphs was more important than that of Pan and established before his cult.51 As can be seen, the relationship of offerings to gods is not always clear. The picture becomes clearer if we distinguish sanctuaries where miniature vessels were imported from those where they were produced in situ. Where they were imported or made by professionals working for many sanctuaries, the relationship to the deity could have been weakened or lost, while the relationship to the worshipper could be more significant. In the small sacred deposits of the Potters’ Quarter at Corinth, the kalathiskos (miniature kalathos) is the most popular shape,52 probably because huge quantities of them were produced in order to supply another more important sanctuary, that of Demeter and Kore. On the other hand, where miniature vessels are manufactured specifically for one sanctuary, the shapes could have been adapted to the deity, as is the case in the north part of the Apollo sanctuary at Eretria.

• 53 Jouve, Luce.
• 54 Amandry, Caskey 1952, p. 165-67 (Argive Heraion), Luce, 1992, p. 267 (Kirrha), BCH, 15 (1891), p. 9 (...)
• 55 See the example of Tegea: Jouve, Luce.

31It has become clear that the range of offerings changes significantly from one sanctuary to the other, but gender and age are not the only factors involved. This change is a part of a system, that is, the change is done in relation to other sanctuaries in the region. For understanding this pattern, the opposition between cheap miniature vessels and giant expansive objects could give us one of the keys. The first ones, which were the usual offerings in some sanctuaries, were only considered acceptable in others. On the other hand, the presence of giant offerings conformed to the norm in certain sanctuaries, such as Delphi or Olympia. What distinguishes them and justifies this difference? Why bronze tripods considered normal in Odysseus’ cave at Ithaca, while they were absent from the others? Giant objects need to be exhibited in the more salient places. The difference is visible in the find contexts. Tripods and cauldrons were made to be displayed in the sanctuary, but not the miniature vessels, which would have been stored somewhere before being thrown away on the ground in the courtyard. As can be seen on the plan of offerings found at Tegea in the sanctuary of Athena Alea, the distribution of objects is grouped in such a way as to suggest that they were thrown away several times, after having been mixed with other small objects.53 Similar observations have been made at the Argive Heraion, Korkyra, Kirrha, Korykian Cave, Olympia, and many others sanctuaries.54 As a rule, the offerings were spread on the surface or included in filling layers, in what can be called horizontal deposits.55 In a limited number of cases, the gifts were buried in pits specifically dug for that purpose. This difference in the treatment of cauldrons and small offerings can be explained by the value attributed to the objects. This answer may seem simple, but value, which is not a self-evident concept, is a notion that needs more examination.

• 56 The theory of value is displayed in the first capital of On the Principles of Political Economy and (...)

32As can be seen, defunctionalisation opens the way to two processes, which are related but quite distinct. The first leads to the enlargement of the pieces, the other to their reducton. I observed that enlargement led to the use of a large quantity of metal, so that all of these objects had a high value. Perhaps we could have a better understanding of what happened if we try to grasp the economic implication of it. The first book of Karl Marx’s Das Kapital may be of help. The philosopher, after Adam Smith and David Ricardo,56 distinguished “use value” from “exchange value”. The use value is the value of an object in as far as it has some utility. This value depends on the material from which it is made of and its shape, which should be suited to its use. For Marx this value is very stable, and this aspect of his theory has been rightly criticised, although use value remains a valuable concept. Exchange value, which is more unstable, is the value of an object when it is exchanged for another. The price of an item thus depends on the fact that it has use value, which changes significantly, in the opinion of Ricardo and Marx, in relation to the time necessary for its manufacture. But this labour time is not that of an individual worker manufacturing an individual object, but the average time used for producing items of the same type in society. The separation between the two kinds of value led to the invention of coins, which represents the exchange value in itself.

• 57 Rolley, 1977, p. 26-30.
• 58 For example, Ruzé, van Effenterre, 1994, no. 12, 1-17.
• 59 Hitzl, 1996, p. 151-53. The inscription says: These beautiful objects (Tade tagalmata), the produce (...)

33When defunctionalisation happens, use value is always lost. For some objects, such as weapons, it can be recovered, but not in the case of giant objects. On the other hand, exchange value remains. That is exactly what Sokrates indicated when he described the giving of offerings as an exchange, an emporia, with the gods. In the case of giant objects, because they are made of large quantities of metal, their exchange value was high. That the first meaning is just to be an exchange value is apparent from the circumstances in which they are offered. They could be seen as the dekatè, the tithe, a tribute to the god. Tripods and cauldrons are often prizes won in a game, as is indicated from the inscriptions written on some of them.57 What is won is an object of value, to chresma. A system that leads to removing all use value from an object is not an insignificant fact. It directly leads to the premonetary system. Among giant objects, tripods, cauldrons, and obeloi were all used as references for defining fines in the Archaic period, particularly in Crete.58 Obeloi, as is well known, are the origin of oboloi, the common coin in Greece, and drachma is nothing more than a handful of six obeloi. As far as the Susa knucklebone is concerned (figure 8), it was in fact a weight similar by its form to those found at Olympia, but much bigger. As observed by Konrad Hitzl, its 93070 g are the exact equivalent of 220 Milesian mines, i.e. 3 ²/₃ talents. This object is not only an expensive thing, but an enormous value, offered as a tithe, from harvest, if the inscription has been correctly understood.59

• 60 There are many examples from the Athenian Acropolis in Harris, 1995.

34The first meaning of the giant object is clearly its high value, that is, its pure exchange value. A first step towards answering Sokrates’ question—“what advantage do they derive from what they get from us”—is to understand that what is given is not the practical object, not the use value, but the exchange value, because that relationship with the god is a kind of exchange. Two observations should be made, however, regarding this point. The dedications written on the offerings indicate the importance given by the Greeks to the memory of the dedicator, which should be kept as long as possible. This feature is not relevant to the exchange value, which is often anonymous. There are many examples of offerings that are melted down, however, in order to produce coins.60 In such cases, any memory of the dedicator is forgotten and offerings are transformed from gifts into goods.

• 61 Mauss, 2002, p. 59.

36The situation with miniature objects is quite different. Miniature metal objects had a certain exchange value as well, particularly the gold examples. The shields found at Tegea and on other sites in Arkadia bear decorations that the original, probably made of leather and wood, could not have had. For the miniature ceramic vessels, since their exchange value was so low, the picture was probably not the same. But they were as much offerings as other objects, and as such, they occupied a place in the emporia, as Sokrates says, for bartering and trading with the gods. Indeed, some of them, such as the tripods found in the Argolid, were not objects of value, but were images of value. The problem is whether images can be thought of as equivalent to the model. Since large offerings and catalogues of dedications made by the priest greatly emphasize the exchange value of offerings, such a link seems improbable. As Ekroth argues, miniature offerings were not simply a substitute for more expensive offerings by poor people. The dedication act in itself supposes that the deity gives a value to the good that he or she receives. What is this kind of value, since it appears so different from exchange and use values? Perhaps some light could be thrown upon this problem by resorting to the other face of the theory of value, i.e. the theory of gift as formulated by Marcel Mauss. Indeed, offerings are always gifts to the deity. The question is what is circulating in the gift exchange? Mauss said: “If one gives things and returns them, it is because one is giving and returning ‘respects’- we still say ‘courtesies’. Yet it is also because by giving one is giving oneself, and if one gives oneself, it is because one ‘owes’ oneself—one’s person and one’s goods—to others”.61 It means that what is circulating in the gift is the self of the dedicator. So, keeping the memory of who is giving is, in this system, crucial. But in what Mauss called “purely individual contract” this memory loses its importance. Whereas the exchange value of an expensive object does not suffer alteration, if the memory of the dedicator is lost, the offerings like miniature vessels, as offerings, die, from the moment this memory is lost. They can be thrown away as garbage in the fill of the sanctuary court (but not excluded from the sanctuary, because they are still the deity’s property).