16
HESPERIA 75 (2006)
I3 1055
B AND
THE
83?119
Pages
OF MELITE
BOUNDARY
KOLLYTOS
AND
ABSTRACT inAthens, IG I31055 A Two rupestral horoi found on the Hill of the Nymphs : B (#opo?), are not a with reversed and ?io? (?opo? [retrograde sigmas]) as text edited. usually single boustrophedon Investigation of the possibility a deme
a boundary, prefaced by discussion of deme formation and territoriality, yields evidence that the ancient street that passed south of horos B on its route from the Agora to the saddle between the Hill of the that B marked
and the Pnyx divided the urban demes ofMelite and Kollytos. This argument challenges the traditional view that the Pnyx was inMelite. The an approximation of the full extent ofMelite. study concludes with
Nymphs
IGV 1055 B In 1835 Kyriakos S. Pittakis published the first edition of two Archaic rupes tral horoi (IGV 1055 A: ?opo? :?io? [retrograde with reversed sigmas] and IG I3 1055 B:h?poc?) that he had found four years earlier near the midpoint of the south edge of the northeast spur of the Hill of the Nymphs inwestern are the On of this bedrock spur rock-cuttings (Figs. 1-3).l plateau noted by topographers and archaeologists of the 19th century as remnants of
Athens
1. Pittakis 1835, pp. 460-461; the two
inscriptions
in the present B.
study
Marie
are referred
to
as horos A
and
horos
like to express my gratitude to the institutions and per following I would
sons who Greek Trianti,
to this
contributed
Ministry former
of Culture
study: the and A. I.
in the Greek
ephor
Service, Archaeological to study for publication horoi on the northeast
for permission the rupestral spur of the Hill
of theNymphs; Munindra Khaund for help with ?
The
computing American
technology; School
of Classical
Mauzy
the
illustrations; of Fig. drawing
for scanning and editing Anne Hooton for the
for 1; Craig Mauzy of Fig. 5; Judith Binder, preparation Kevin Glowacki, the Bookidis, Nancy late Michael Liberman,
Jameson, Molly
Mathilda
N.
Richardson,
S. Stroud, and Charles K. and to the anonymous Williams, Hespe ria referees, all of whom this improved Ronald
work
by generously ing and evaluating
or read discussing or all of it. I am part
to Dorothea Lalonde grateful especially assistance for her generous and support
Studies
at Athens
at all stages of the work. I am also to indebted V. Tracy, Director Stephen of the American of Classical School at Athens, the resources and
Studies
and Gennadius trustees
and
Libraries,
and other
to his
services
staff for
of the Biegen and to the
benefactors
of Grin
nell College for financial support of this study.Finally, Iwould like to thank Editor o? and Cullen, Tracey Hesperia, her for their care and patience colleagues in the of this publication. preparation are those of the All translations author,
unless
otherwise
noted.
GERALD
84
AH 1999
100
200
V.
LALONDE
300
1.Western Figure A. Hooton, Agora
Athens. Excavations
THE
BOUNDARY
OF
MELITE
AND
KOLLYTOS
85
"SE
Figure 2. Athens (1931) from the west; northeast spur of the Hill of the Nymphs in the foreground. Photo
courtesy Agora
Excavations
referred to by horos A.2 In antiquity visitors approached an Street" adjacent road, dubbed here "Nymphs/Pnyx a via to crude rock-cut the (Fig. 1), stairway (Fig. 3:C) up plateau of the a spur and then path (Fig. 3:D) with treads cut in its surface leading from east towest up the south edge of the spur.The two inscriptions are located on the north side of this m west of path about 12 stairway C; horos B lies 2.0 m north of the rock-cut path D, and horos A, directly behind and par allel to it, another 1.39 m to the north. Both inscriptions were cut facing south with the obvious intention that they be read from path D. Beginning the shrine of Zeus this shrine from
editio princeps, the two inscriptions have had a substantial and tradition, but one that has left many questions unanswered was a I unsolved. As problems preparing complete epigraphical study of horoi A and B for publication elsewhere, the question of the relationship of
with
Pittakis's
editorial
the two inscriptions loomed distinctly enough towarrant separate treatment here. Could they be explained in a common context, or did horos B have a separate purpose, and, was that purpose to mark the finally, boundary between the demes Melite and Kollytos? to the relationship of horoi A and B is the question of their in The of A horos has dating. dating prior publications ranged widely in the 6th and 5th centuries B.c.3 Its general appearance (Fig. 4) puts it among the oldest horoi published in /GI3, but we can rule out C. E. Ritchie's suggested upper and lower bars of a closed heta (B)4 as natural fissures parallel with Relevant
2. E.g.,
Pittakis
1852,
p. 683; Milch
h?fer 1885, p. 153;Wachsmuth 1890, pp. 255-256. Judeich (1931, p. 398) andWycherley (1978, p. 188) note the shrine
but
refer
to no
evidence
beyond
the horoi. 3. For
p. 188; Ritchie 1984, p. 540; Lazaridou 2002,
6th-century
date,
see Harri
son 1890, p. 108; Judeich 1931, p. 398; Ervin 1959, p. 156;Wycherley 1978,
6th/5th
century,
see Meritt, Lethen, century, mires 1957, p. 91, no. 37.
see
and Sta
the term using the early Attic letter H for the from Ionic Spiritus asper H (eta) for the long-^ vowel. 4.1
a
p. 40. For
IG I31055 A and B. For the early 5th
"heta"
follow
LSAG
to differentiate
in
86
V.
GERALD
LALONDE
N
t
s/
lg<^Aw?i4i??^*
the letter, and thus we are not obliged to date horos A before the early third quarter of the 6th century, when Attic inscriptions = h.5 The evidence that tailed rho seem to have fully adopted the open H others above and below
Figure 3. Northeast
spur of the Hill
After of the Nymphs. Curtius 1868, pi. 7, with G. V. Lalonde
in J. Schmidt, additions by
first appears in the last years of the 6th century or, at least, in the very early anterior date,6 but part of the 5th century is helpful for an approximate the lower limits of both tailed rho and three-barred setting chronological intense debate.7 Nor does the right-to-left sigma is amatter of continuing, an direction of horos A indicate earlier date than B, as the old idea that was to Attic writing evolved from retrograde to boustrophedon orthograde refuted long ago by L. H. Jeffery.8 While letter forms are by themselves a very fallible means of dating except on a broad scale, reliably dated texts with inscriptions, lettering comparable to that of horos A may provide an approximate date. Particu are the Archaic horoi of the Athenian Agora larly noteworthy parallels a came to in When second situ horos of the (Fig. 5). Agora light in 1967 = IG I3 1088), Homer Thompson noted that [I 7039] (Agora XIX, H26 the date of ca. 500 b.c. that was proposed for the horos found in situ in
1938 (AgoraXIX,H25 [I 5510] = IGl31087) on the basis of pottery in its 5. Ritchie 1984, p. 540, TA 112, drew suppl. fig. 13 (here he correctly as the supposed horizontal top bar
oblique
and
rounded);
for enclosed
see LSAG, heta, p. 66, Attic 1, and p. 66 for the Attic adoption the H = h.
heta,
6. LSAG, 1948,
p. 67;
see also
p. 88, commentary
Jeffery on no. 66
(Agora I 2470, fir. a, c [=IGV 231, fir.
a, c]), pi. 29\a,
1942, pp. 329-333, [ca. 500
type of
c; p. 102; Vanderpool
fig. 3 (= IGV 2
b.c.]).
7. Central
to the polemic
iswhether
theAthenian Standards Decree (IG I3 GXLVIII 58) and 1453; see, e.g., the Egesta
ffiGXLVIII
Decree
(IGV
11; see, e.g.,
55) are to be dated about
the middle
Henry
The
(2001) andMattingly
those support can serve to and
or in century recent articles of
of the 5th
its last quarter.
its
respective recapitulate
bibliography. Matthaiou 2004. 8. LSAG,
See, most
pp. 43-50.
(1999)
and positions the debate recently,
THE
OF
BOUNDARY
AND
MELITE
KOLLYTOS
87
Figure 4. Horos A (IG I31055 A). Photo
and drawing G. V. Lalonde
series, that is, not setting trench could establish the dating for the whole has recently long before the end of the 6th century.9 John Papadopoulos noted that a reliable dating of relevant pottery deposits is still in question and that the letter forms of the Agora horoi could allow a date as late as was shortly after 480 b.c., when he has argued that the Classical Agora as founded.10 The letter forms could conceivably be that late, but T. L. Shear in 1939, the next layer of road metal above the level through which that and Hippokrates the horos was set contained ostraka of Themistokles
noted
may have belonged, cism of 482 b.c.11
according
to Thompson
to the ostra
andWycherley,
I suggested in an earlier treatment of these horoi that if they are as to enter the sociated with a law of Kleisthenes forbidding atimoi Agora more attrac Andoc. then the earlier 1.71.76), (Dem. 24.60; dating maybe tive.12To be sure, the letters of the Agora horoi are somewhat smaller and
9. Shear 1939, pp. 205-206 the
(mentions only ostraka containing level contemporary
layer of road metal above the ground with
the planting
of horos I 5510; see below and n. 11); Thompson p. 117
1968, (Thompson
late-6th-century
p. 63;^r
in the
trench); the datings by Shear (1978) and Camp (1994) closely approximate
and nn. 11.
on
setting
legal sense of the deprival of rights
that of Thompson. 10. Papadopoulos 291
12.
AgoraXIX,
pp. 27-28,
2003,
pp. 289
112-113.
AgoraXlV, H25-27,
and n. 27, for the pp. 78-80 that Classical in the atimia suggestion 1976,
p. 117. and pp. 10-11, see Hansen pi. 2;
rather
than
exile may abolition Kleisthenes.
the older
be associated of tyranny
and outlawry with the and
the reforms
of
V.
GERALD
LALONDE
"T
r '-4r;
-> ^r
I 7039
I 5675
^U*W*^14^V^^VAW^VV^^^^
I 55I0
W.B.D.,JR.
-I967 l,00
,50
than those of horos A, but this may stem in part from the greater length of the Agora texts and their schematic limitation to the upper one lateral margin and part of margin of the front face. More importantly, the Agora horoi texts have in common with horos A three-barred sigma, doser
together
Figure 5. Horoi W.
Agora. Excavations
of the Athenian
B. Dinsmoor
Jr., Agora
angular loop and tail, and omicrons smaller than the other let ters; Agora I 7039 (Fig. 5, right) also has the retrograde direction and one reversed sigma. In sum, on the basis of horos As letter forms and their
rho with
it seems reasonable to date similarity to those of the horoi of the Agora, or to horos A the very late 6th very early 5th century b.c. With the exception of just two scholars, all who have treated both and B?including, of course, all who have considered them a text (see below)?date as one.13 It must be noted, them boustrophedon in style and script. Horos B however, that the two texts differ considerably horoi A
not only has rougher, larger lettering (Fig. 6) 13. Exceptions: Threatte (1980, that p. 53), without giving dates, noted a indicates the style of the lettering different
dating
for the two
texts;
and a left-to-right
direction,
Ritchie (1984, p. 166) dated horos B to the "first half on
the basis
barred
sigma,
of the fifth of tailed but
B.c." century rho and three
these
forms were
used
also
in the
late 6th
century
and
possibly in the late 5th century (see above,
nn. 6-7).
THE
Figure 6. Horos B {IGV 1055 B). Photo
and drawing G. V. Lalonde
;J
BOUNDARY
OF
'' ' ' " ' >"\^^
j /
AND
MELITE
KOLLYTOS
89
' '^
in the rounded loop of rho, the closer junction of the loop and tail of rho to the vertical, the proportionally larger size of the the less-extended and the closer omicrons, sigma, spacing of letters. These differences indicate that horos B was carved according to a different design,
but also differs from A
and very probably at a different time, but they do not indicate a significant distinction. The brevity and eroded state of horos B make chronological with other inscriptions difficult, and, given the uncertain lower comparison date of tailed rho and three-barred sigma, it seems wise to put no narrower limits on horos B than the late 6th to the late 5th century b.c. chronological even a date Thus, though the similarity of the Agora horoi suggests early in that period for horos A, and it is quite possible that B is considerably later, in the end it is impossible the enduring notion Despite are trophedon text,14 there ample is it (1) inherently boustrophedon: Pittakis gave the two but wrote, separate numbers aDTai tod rpcmoD tod BoDOTpo
14. In 1852 horoi "eioiv
1852, (pn?ov KaXoDja?voD" (Pittakis von Gaertrin p. 683, no. 1134). Hiller gen,
in IG V 863, while
not
using
the
term
"boustrophedon," standard indicators:
number, texts,
employed
its
a
single inscription arrows for the two
opposing and a reference
to them
in the
as "v. 1" and "v. 2." Most commentary the editors of IGV 1055 dis recently,
to be sure of a difference. chronological that A and B together constitute a bous reasons to conclude difficult
that A and B are not
to classify two inscribed
lines in
the two horoi by the letters tinguished A and B but still treated them under a a at the single number, placed period a end of B as if the two horoi were single inscription, texts with opposed
and printed arrows.
the two
V.
GERALD
9o
LALONDE
a meter and on two styles and letter forms ridges of rock nearly a half apart as at least in the usual sense of the term, and boustrophedon, even if the two were cut in the same inscriptions style, that would not make
different
them a boustrophedon
text; (2) albeit the use of boustrophedon was conser rare after 540, in some religious texts, it is nonetheless vatively prolonged as no B A noted tailed rho and earlier than the and, above, definitely puts text would late years of the 6th century;15 (3) A and B as a boustrophedon be
to the
similar
use
redundant
rences of which
are anomalous
of
the word
?opo?
on
a stele,
the
rare
occur
and not associated with
shrines;16 (4) ifA on separate stelai, they would hardly be A and B lack the syntactic inscription; (5)
and B were
in the same locations
considered
a
boustrophedon horos in text; (6) a boustrophedon continuity typical of a boustrophedon in if a bou and would be Attic (7), finally scription unparalleled epigraphy;17 it had been could have been cut, with wanted, inscription strophedon on some in the surface where A letter size, single superior compromise
is located. For these reasons, I suggest that Adolf Kirchhoff was uniquely correct among all two horoi under separate Corpus editors in publishing the numbers (IG I 504 and 505) and not as boustrophedon. There is no cogent dissent from the view of the distinguished topog a shrine of A marked cited above that horos and archaeologists raphers on the plateau of this bedrock
not spur.18The single-word horos B is the horos of have treated occasionally easily explained. Epigraphists Zeus (A) alone, but nearly all who deal with both A and B take them both without commentary or question as having the single context of the shrine Zeus so
of Zeus.19 Given, however, that horoi A and B are not a next question iswhether B can be inscription, the logical or as something quite separate. To single context with A or in definitive answer, easy part because the inscribed word
boustrophedon in a considered this there is no
"horos" by itself one of several have could Classical Early period mean to It of could and refer any number "boundary," things. meanings or "domain," and a horos, with any number of words, marker," "boundary rather than a could identify a domain and simply its general proximity or
in the Late Archaic
precise boundary.20 Still, considering
the proximity of the two texts, their lack of clear their nearly parallel axes, and their similar distinction, chronological to a reader on the adjacent path (Fig. 3:D), itmakes sense to orientation the purpose of horos B was related to that of A. consider first whether inscriptions, for example, may have marked the shrine of Zeus, but the simply worded horos B was conceivably cut first, and the more fully
Both
15.Jefferyl948,p.86.
16. IG II22569; Agora XIX, p. 32, H49,
pi.
4 (opo?
twice
on
the
same
(above, n. 13) precludes text.
opinion popular that the neighborhood of the spur are remnants of
in the modern
consecutive
cuttings ancient
horoi).
17.Threatte (1980, p. 55) shows that the horos IG V 862 (=IG V 1068) as for horoi A
is not
boustrophedon; and B, he refers to them rock-cut
horos,"
(p. 53)
but his dating
conjectured
boustrophe
a
18. Nonetheless,
stone); IG II2 2693 (use of stone for security
a
don
houses
is echoed
in e.g., scholarship: and Lauter 1971, where
as "a
taken
of them
Goette
of the horos 2001,
no notice
of Zeus,
p. 57, where
and
the horoi
that both
horoi
identified
the
same
shrine
have
to a consideration
struck
by
2.
probably of Zeus that
is
they may
had 20.
are
place
statement
is in
a
lightning. 19. Ritchie's (1984, pp. 167,542)
closest
occasionally in Lauter-Bufe
to mark
separate purposes. nn. See Agora XIX, p. 5 and
1,
THE
BOUNDARY
MELITE
OF
AND
QI
KOLLYTOS
a shrine with the worded A added later for specificity. Marking single word is that "horos" would be uncommon but not unique.21 A second possibility B was cut in order to give visitors coming up the South Path (Fig. 3:D) more a general notice of the shrine before the specific ?opo? ?io?. The two horoi are close enough together, however, that they come into view at same time. In another scenario, horos B could virtually the single-context have had the more general purpose of marking the outer limits of the entire shrine, while horos A designated the approach to its inner sanctum farther north on the plateau of the spur. none of these can be proven, each of them con Although possibilities forms to the rule that horos texts usually face the reader outward from the domain towhich they refer.This would not be true of another possible expla nation of horoi A and B in a single context, namely, that A marked the shrine in all its sacred elements
to the north, while
B differentiated
those things the spur (Fig. 3:D) and the adjacent path up to the south along Nymphs/Pnyx Street (Fig. 3:E)
to the south?the
immediately rock-cut rooms below ?as
the
Nevertheless,
profane.22
common
arrangement
of
outward-facing
horoi could logically have been suspended in this case, for if horos B in its present location faced to the north then one would have intruded on what was
likely the sacred ground in order to read it right side up. Because of the obviously different styling and lettering of horoi A and B and their possible redundancy in such proximity to one another, we must of A and also the possibility that B had a purpose independent sometimes used such simple horoi to mark the shrine of Zeus. Athenians the boundary or location of public or private land or structures. If horos B had been a simple property marker unrelated to the shrine of Zeus, itmight to the south the rock-cut rooms (Fig. 3:E) immediately have delimited below the edge of the spur. In that case it might have been more logical to inscribe it on the spur just above those rooms, with the letters facing north so as to be read from path D, although the surface of the rock is very consider
rugged in that location. Such single-word horoi have also been found at or around a tomb or burial precinct,23 but there is no evidence remotely close to horos B of Archaic rock-cut burials of the sort discovered at the east hills. foot of the Pnyx and at many other places in these western Athenian An anonymous Hesperia reviewer suggested that I consider whether as security for debt. This B might have marked property encumbered more than a brief seems at least a possibility, but its consideration requires to security horoi Even the earliest reference though literary explanation. 21. See p. 22, H2, pi. 1, Agora XIX, one of two stelai for the rediscovered
(the second is lost) inscribed simply ?opo?,which D?rpfeld (1892, p. 91) found
a shrine by
on
and dated of the Areiopagos b.c. on the basis 6th century
come
to the of letter
forms and masonry (IG II22507). The dating
is controversial
(cf.Meritt
1967,
pp. 98-99, no. 30, pi. 28; IG II22507; IG I3, p. 729 Termini").
and See
the note
also Lalonde
on
"Succincti 1980,
[?]opo?
that a dislocated
for
speculation from the Agora
excavations
(I 2618; Agora XIX, H43) might have side
the southwest
p. 101,
from
terrace
a hero
shrine
of the Agora's
beneath
Middle
the
Stoa
(SEGXXX 37 and IG I3, p. 729, re port
the association
speculation);
as
see Goette
stronger 1995,
than
stelai (OPF) in situ at the sanctuary and Kore. Although these of Demeter do not identify last two markers the
rooms side
XVIII.3,
pp. 200-201,
shrine at Panagia also Corinth for two
inscribed
them. 22. Cf.
pp. 235
237, for the abbreviated horoi (HO) an apparent marking in rural Attica; Thiti
by name, they apparently the sacral area of its dining from the stairway that ran be
sanctuary delimited
23. E.g.,
Lazaridou Charitonides
2002,
p. 40. 1961,
pp. 31-32, fig. 53; pp. 67-70, figs. 116, 117.
GERALD
92
V.
LALONDE
in 364 b.c., and the earliest extant, dated example of an horos (/Gil2 2654) is from 363/2 b.c., scholars have long security debated whether property was alienable from a genos and thus usable as is in Isaios (6.36)
inscribed
security before the 4th century. The early favored view was essentially that of Gustave Glotz, who argued that the use of real security went back at least to the early 6th century, a view that trusts that the Aristotelian school {Ath. Pol. 11-12; see also Plut. Sol. 15.3-5) was correct in interpreting So lon s claim to have freed the land from slavery by uprooting horoi as a state ment that he gave the "Sixth-parters" (hektemoroi) relief from their debts the security markers from their land: rfj (j?aocivoc, xfj? ?yco tcote I?pouc ?ve?Aov KoXXa%r\\ 7T?7rnyOTo:?,ITipooGev Se I once pulled up v?v ?XevQ?pr\: "Black Earth, from which dovXzvovaa, horoi planted everwhere, before enslaved, now free."24 The opponents of this view see it as anachronistic. Prominent among these was J. V. A. (seisachtheia)
and removed
Fine, who associated the first use of genos land as security with the debt and dispossession attendant upon the Peloponnesian War.25 If real property was in fact used for debt security in the Archaic and must have been marked either periods, then that property or stone by perishable horoi, perhaps made of wood, by yet unrecognized markers of simpler text than the later opo? o?k?ccc 7C?7tpa|uivr|?ml Xvgei and Early Classical
the like.We cannot utterly preclude the possibility of horos B as a security for itmight have marker on the grounds that to us it is too uninformative, a detailed written agreement between debtor and creditor, as was implied case in a number of the later multiverbal security horoi.26 It is explicitly the conceivable, then, that B was an early security marker pertaining to one or more of the rock-cut rooms to the south case is shoplike (Fig. 3:E), but the tenuous. In fact, to return to the question of Solon's horoi, the latest round of as scholarship not only interprets them boundary stones rather than security in but also sees Solon's claim of their removal as poetic metaphor, one view standing for the removal of stasis (discord) between the disparate socioeconomic classes, and in another for the freeing of the subjugated like boundary hektemoroi, who, stones, had been bound to the land.27
markers
a was to mark the Finally, possible independent purpose of horos B ancient road (Nymphs/Pnyx Street) that skirted the south side of the spur as a deme boundary, which in this region of the city could only be the shared and Kollytos. An immediate objection to this proposition border ofMelite may be that the horos is rather far removed from the street, but a possible is that the intervening rock-cut rooms (Fig. 3:E) may have counterclaim we a closer might expect the marker juxtaposition. Then again, prevented of an urban deme boundary, even if it referred to the nearby Nymphs/Pnyx than just "horos," or at least to have Street, to give us more information some recognizable ruralAttica parallels among the urban demes. Although has yielded several series of simple horoi from the 4th century or later that a number of scholars as deme boundary markers,28 within by the innermost territory of the ancient asty there is not a single inscription a deme that is demonstrably boundary stone, and, in fact, horos B is the known within that area that is rupestral and limited to the inscription only word "horos." Although the inner urban area has yielded a fair number of one-word horoi inscribed on stelai, only four were in situ, one marking a shrine and three marking graves.29 are viewed
24. IE2 5-6.
vol. 2, Solon,
See Glotz
1904,
fr. 36,
lines
pp. 325-349;
Finley 1951, p. 28; Guarducci 1974, p. 233; Rhodes 1981, pp. 88-97,125 130,169-179.
25. Fine 1951, pp. 167-208. p. 18 and n. 109. 1997 Harris respectively,
26. Agora 27.
See,
and Gallo also
to
XIX,
sources
1999,
recapitulate
serve that may and
the history
bibliography of this debate. 28. SeeTraill 1986, pp. 116-122. 29.
Shrine
southwest
pagos: /GIF 2507;Meritt
of the Areio
1967,
pp. 98-99; Agora XIX, p. 22, H2. in the area of Tombs Syntagma Square:
Charitonides 1961, pp. 31-32, fig. 53; pp. 67-70,
figs.
116,117.
THE
BOUNDARY
OF
MELITE
AND
KOLLYTOS
93
In the end, the case for IG I31055 B as a deme boundary marker is, at least from the evidence of its immediate context, inconclusive. Nevertheless, led me to considerable other evidence the investigation of this possibility course from the its southwestward that the road in question, throughout to some point beyond the saddle of the Hill of the Nymphs and Agora to the north and west from Kollytos to the Pnyx, did in fact divide Melite the south and east. Later in this study, Iwill raise the subject of horos B was a cut by theMeliteans again, with the suggestion that it special marker to emphasize their authority over the precinct of Zeus and other shrines within
their territory.
THE TERRITORIALLY
OF URBAN DEMES
of Attic deme boundaries, even the single common boundary of two inner urban demes, can ignore the ongoing debate as to whether constitution were, simply the fundamental political units of the Kleisthenic one another by boundaries (the "artificial" put, territories separated from model), or only borderless administrative units (the "natural"model).30 This
No discussion
of the artificial is, of course, too neat, because no proponent dichotomy model has been able to prove that the Kleisthenic demes were from the beginning precisely defined territories, and most who favor the natural that re allow that the demarch occasionally had responsibilities was not in that in that deme and his landed his property quired knowing a case for of another demarch. The close and stable boundary of Melite
model
and Kollytos and
general,
therefore the
requires urban
central
some
demes
argument
prefatory in
particular,
that demes
at some
were
time,
in
pos
sibly from the beginning, units of territory surrounded by boundaries that were contiguous with those of other demes or of exclusive polis domains, such as the Agora.31 no claimant to the that the Kleisthenic proposition My research finds with no regard to territorial demes received their original membership could enroll in any deme ity, that is, that anyone qualified for citizenship As C. W. J. Eliot noted, Herodotos usually used the word a a to not to and refer Sfjuo? village political division, and many Kleisthenic
he wished.
30. The
fundamental
modern
work
on
of in interpretation as markers for parallels trittys markers (Haussoullier boundary
Haussoullier's
of the Attic demes the organization a later is Traill 1975, esp. pp. 73-103; treatment of the demes comprehensive
deme
isWhitehead
array and
31. The
1986a. of the question
thorniness
of the initial and continued form of the demes nence opposing
can be measured of the scholars views
from
by the emi have argued the same virtually
who
body of evidence. Typical of the 19th and early 20th Haussoullier's
centuries
was
Bernard
p. 2 and nn. 3-4) view of territorial demes thoroughly and marked recorded, by surveyed, in part from horoi. This view stemmed (1884,
scribed
cited
IG I 517,
markers,
518;
for the current of these
interpretation see Siewert 1982,
pp.
10-16;
Traill 1986, pp. 93-113; Agora XIX, pp. 14-16,29-31). Just four years after Haussoullier's treatise, his view seemed a passage in the corroborated newly by Politeia Athenaion discovered (21.4.22
24; text of F G. Kenyon, Oxford 1920): ?e Kai rr?v %copav KaT?c 8t|uod? TpiaKovTa ji?pri, ??Ka u?v tcov 7iepi to
?i?veiue
aoTD,
??Ka
?? Tri? 7iapaXia?,
??Ka ??
ttj? laeaoyeioD ("[Kleisthenes] divided
land by demes into 30 parts, 10 the asty, 10 of the shore, throughout In recent and 10 of the midland."). the
decades,
and on
the basis
of accumulat
evidence, ing archaeological significant of support for some extent expressions of demes have of the "territorial model"
appeared in Eliot 1962, pp. 3-4 and passim; Traill 1975, pp. 73-75 and n. 6; Siewert 1982; Langdon 1985;Traill 1986, pp. 116-122; Lohmann 1993, Prominent 1, pp. 57-59. of the "administrative model"
vol.
advocates have
been
W. E. Thompson (1971), Andrewes (1977),Whitehead (1986a, pp. 27-30), and Lambert
(1998,
pp. 7-8
and n. 24).
GERALD
94
V.
LALONDE
took their names from villages.32 It is fairly inferred from this that, with for the divided demes and probably the inner urban nuclei of the demes were individual villages or demes, the administrative clusters of villages. Moreover, intended mixing of the citizens among the demes
some variation
new trittyes and tribes would only have succeeded if the demes drew their for the most part, from the territory around these nuclei. membership, Even David Whitehead, recently the foremost spokesman for the natural model, has noted that "in and immediately after 508/7, naturally, all Eleu sinioi lived in Eleusis, all Skambonidai in (and as) Skambonidai, and so on,"33 and has written of the creation of the demes as a kind of centripetal at villages
process in which all individuals registered the traditional centers of their areas.34
that were
or towns
in the male line, it unchanged "in the political and constitutional sense ... by a single technical and criterion: the sharing non-topographical a common demotic."35 There a group of of is, however, ample by people reason for also with Eliot and that the demes had territo Traill, believing, Since
deme membership to define economical
is most
descended
a deme
some early, and that the territory of Attica, with exceptions aswill be the and and Pnyx, (probably Acropolis, Agora, possibly, suggested below, the public streets and roads), "must have been associated theoreti rial boundaries
one deme or another."36 cally, if not actually, with the strongest evidence that demes had territorial Among testimonia
epigraphical chief magistrates,
of the functions
limits are the
of the demes
and of their single service and in that of
the demarchs, both in their own the larger polis.37 There is no direct evidence of these specific duties before the second quarter of the 5th century B.c., but, ifwe can credit the claim of Ath. Pol. 21.5, that Kleisthenes created the demarchs, it is plausible, even if not provable, that some of the responsibilities cited here went back to the formation of the constitution.38 Especially pertinent to the question of are the demarchic duties that concerned territoriality residency and landed property within the deme, matters that were could hardly have been carried out without
subject official,
to
change and therefore recorded reference to
can begin with ?yKiniiK?v, a tax on land within territory. We or nonresident of the deme. Since Pi the deme owned by a nonmember raeus's grant of exemption from eyKiniiK?v to Kallidamas of Cholleidai extant reference (IG II2 1214, lines 26-28 b.c.]) is the sole [ca. 300-250 a traditional to this tax by name, Whitehead rightly rejected assumption
delimited
32. Eliot 1962, p. 79. 33.Whitehead 1986a, p. 75.
all the subsidiary effectively of state. Fundamental proof
34. Whitehead
division of labor is that the polis did
pp. 23-30.
1986a,
35. Traill 1975, p. 73. 36. Traill 1975, pp. 73-74, n. 6; Eliot
1962, 37. Many
polis
would polis
were
implies have been
offices
in Pol.
because, 1264a6-ll,
impossible and magistrates
a
keep but,
of this
comprehensive at least as early
the as
forms,
relied
it
their
respective
for central to manage
initiation
of the Kleisthenic on
the demes
to
mainly treat to the
in finance religious shrines
list
a full account
as the
seeWhitehead
third quarter of the 5th century (see IGV 138, line 6), and probably from
necessarily
to the demarchs,
even
of citizens,
pp. 3-4. needs of Athenian
administration
delegated Aristotle
not
business
re provide
ypaji|LicxTe?a XrfcxapxxKa see Traill when needed; 1975, p. 73. 38. Here we note demarchic duties
Faraguna departs arguing
law, but we will
and
duties
below
in relation
in the deme Melite. of the demarch's
For duties,
1986a, pp. 121-139 and
1997.
however, Faraguna, from Whitehead, radically are that cadastral registries in the office of the demarch
implicit a and presuppose high territorial organization.
degree
of
initial
THE
OF
BOUNDARY
MELITE
AND
KOLLYTOS
95
levied it, but he also allowed that the 4th-century grants of to resident Theban benefactors al?jela {IG II2 1185, by the Eleusinians nondemesmen lines 4-5; 1186, lines 25-26) and toAthenian (/Gil21187, that all demes
and by Coastal Lamptrai (IG IT 1204, 1188, lines 28-30), or to its honorand conceivably ?YKrnTiK?v something imply like it.39Although there is no evidence that eyKinxiKOv was universal, it strains the argument from silence in the other direction to suggest that lines 16-17; lines 11-12)
this tax and a consequent deme
specificity
about boundaries
were
to the
unique
of Piraeus.40
evidence of deme territoriality is the official formula for iden metics (metic's name + oikcov ?v + name of a deme) used for the tifying collection of a poll tax (|I?to?kiov), the granting of concessions, and various other official accounts involving resident aliens.41 The verb o?K?co clearly denotes residence and not just political enrollment. The works of Clerc Further
exemplify the long-held opinion that the oikcov ?v designa tion for metics went back to the time of Kleisthenes.42 Whitehead, while
and Hommel
on recognized, registered, and kept records locus standi from the reforms of legal dating a as of Kleisthenes those from the 5th or, reforms, century, corollary early has nevertheless argued that the relatively late appearance of the o?kcov ?v formula in its "embryonic form" in 414/3 (IGV 421, col. 1, fr. b, line 33) is
allowing that demes officially metics as a separate class with
not just an evidentiary accident.43 Since documentary evidence of Athenian is for four before that time, he about decades relatively plentiful politics may be right, but the practice may have predated the formula. The only alternative to an initial but changeable enrollment of metics residence would seem to be that for about a century metics were, like by to the deme of their original ancestral registration, but that fixed citizens, this system was given up as late as 414/3 in favor of reckoning by current a is ex si/entio, but, more only argument for such hypothesis as a than that, metics did not figure in the constitutional objectives, such among the trittyes permanent broad scattering of demes and demesmen of a stable quota of representatives of the and tribes and the maintenance domicile. The
39. Whitehead
p. 76, n. 38;
1986a,
40. Jones (1999, p. 59) argued from of a squeeze
examination
(opo? n[ei]lpaecov that its third line yac
and
to enforce
as
it was
to Piraeus. has
Recently
rebutted
that ya
Jones's
is
Lam epigra in
phy, noting unparalleled of the Attic prose and that an autopsy stone shows the text: opo? following I [- up to 3-4 -]AI[. I-?]. nieipa?cov Lambert
restores
the third
line
tenta
as [oiK?Ja?^ or Pfl, and concludes tively that "this inscription, therefore, would to to do with have appear nothing boundaries land'
set up specifically of an eyKTnri the collection
that
k?v unique bert (2004)
2623
of/Gil2
[%colp]a?. rasura) should be restored
Boule,
was
of demesmen
the metic's
p. 150.
the inherited enroll objectives on which sum up, there is no To certainty about predicated. more to relation the but the deme, equally plausible, and early
to the Athenian
demes ment
or territories,
of demes."
Cf.
agoras SEGXUX
or 175,
formula
oikcov
ev: IG V
475-476; /Gil21553-1578,1654, 1672-1673,1951; Lewis 1959,1968; seeWhitehead 1977, pp. 31-32, supplemented
by 1986a,
pp. 81-83,
and Moysey line 7 1986, and commentary; Whitehead (1977, alien" p. 7) may be right that "resident is "tired translationese" for jj?toikoc,
but his preferred "immigrant" as not all metics were fusing,
XLVIII164,XLVLI193. 41. The
pp. 75-77; Henry 1983, pp. 244-245; Heisserer
grants metics.
and not
all immigrants
is con immi were
42. Clerc 1893, pp. 339-340; and
1986b, pp. 148-154; u?to?kiov: IG V 106, lines 6-7; 107, line 3; /Gil2 61, lines 10-11; 211, line 5; 237, lines 25 26; 545, lines 11-13;Whitehead 1977,
RE XV,
1932,
cols.
1413-1458,
s.v.
Metoikoi (H.Hommel). 43.Whitehead 1977, pp. 31-32, 145.
GERALD
96
V.
LALONDE
is that a metic's business with the polis and the economical, hypothesis constitution deme was from the beginning of the Kleisthenic administered by, and according to, the deme inwhich he resided, and that the formula oikcov ?v was later as an official expression of that traditional adopted practice.
and early deme territoriality is the provision that its metics are to have a part in the local sacrifices (IGV 244, Face C, lines 8-9: xo? |I?toik[o? ?,oc%]l?v).As White head has noted in this instance, "aswell as the obvious intrinsic importance apropos of metics in a lex sacra of Skambonidai Also
of this early [ca. 460 b.c.] example of a deme's having decided upon such a concession, the provision demonstrates not merely that the deme recognizes the presence of metics but also that it commands a means of determining which of them were living in Skambonidai and not elsewhere [my emphasis] ."44 Surely the demarch's precise knowledge of the deme's territorial limits would have been necessary, This
albeit not sufficient, for that means of determination. of the demarch would have been particularly critical in
responsibility the urban demes?such tion was
asMelite
and Kollytos?where
the metic
popula
concentrated.45
Further
of the territorial distinction
evidence
of demes
can be drawn
for the polis of ??o(pop?, the tax usually on war free residents, citizen and metic for all levied property-owning (Dem. 22.61). Presumably the citizen could have registered all his property, but again regardless of its location, in his deme of ancestral membership,
from
the demarch's
collection
the levy on metics was likely assigned to the deme inwhich they resided. The few extant and rather late decrees honoring metics who paid ??o(pop? {IG II2 421, 554, 715) probably do not imply that metics were normally exempt from this tax, although the paucity of evidence may indicate that there were
not many
metic
landholders.46
The
demarch
also
imposed ??iTODpyia (required public service financed by individuals with estates and in a decree of the deme of Ikarion from the of superior valuation), third quarter of the 5th century b.c. the allusion to residency, if correctly in a provision for choosing tragic choregoi from de restored in stoichedon, motai and from persons residing in the deme {IGV 254, lines 3-4: [..5.. .]i tov ??|iot?v Kai x?v 'lKoc[pio? o?k?vtIov 8t)o] t?v ?%op?y?xov), implies same reasoning applies to the or rio supervision (legal challenge of A^ixoDpyioc assessment of property as a (pop?) and issuance of ??roypa(pri (declared the basis for payment of taxes, delinquent debts, or legal confiscations), awareness of the deme's territorial extent. The of ocvt??ooi?
demarch's
at least as early as the confiscations from the profaners of the Hermai andMysteries (415-413 b.c.) and the Thirty Tyrants (402/1 b.c.).47 a Finally, duty of the demarch that has particular implications for the latter attested
territoriality Demosthenes
of demes
is found
in the Athenian
law quoted in Pseudo is required under pain of
43.57-58, by which the demarch a 1,000-drachma in default of relatives or, in the case of slaves, fine?and masters?to pick up and bury any corpse in the deme within the day of the death.48 The wording of this polis-wide law, "in the deme," and the stated of the land corroborates the previously noted sugges objective purifying tion of Eliot associated with
that the territory of Attica was for the most part one deme or another. Lambert, a proponent of the generally
and Traill
44. Whitehead 45.
p. 81.
1986a,
InWhitehead's
survey
(1986a,
p. 83)Melite has the highest number (75) of attested metics; seeWilamowitz-M?llendorff pp.
in general, 1887,
116-124.
46. SoWhitehead who
adds
of metics
that
(1977, p. 78),
the earliest eiocpopa
paying
testimony is the state
ment of Lysias (12.20) that he and his brother
contributed
47.Whitehead n. 64;Walbank am 48.1 Hesperia suing
greatly.
1986a, p. 131 and 1982,
grateful reviewer who
this point.
pp. 95-96. to the anonymous suggested
pur
THE
BOUNDARY
OF
MELITE
AND
KOLLYTOS
97
of demes, agrees, but with a chronological qualification, was carried out that the community responsibility for burial by the
"natural" formation
noting deme rather than the phratry because dated it to the late 5th or early 4th
by the time this law was passed (he century),49 "the demarch, unlike the was responsible for a tract of territory aswell as a group of per phratriarch, while giving considerable attention to this demarchic sons."50Whitehead, was an is silent and measure, noting that it responsibility anti-pollution about its territorial
implications for the demes. One might infer, however, that itwould at least fall under those practical purposes for which he seems to allow some late calculation of a deme's geographical extent.51
cited above are sporadic or unique, still, a in the aggregate, they make strong case that the Attic demes were con even as well as administrative units. Moreover, tiguous territories though none of these cases is dated before the second quarter of the 5 th century Granted
that the testimonia
b.c., it must be kept in mind that for the first four to five decades under constitution we have very little extant detailed epigraphical the Kleisthenic politics in general, let alone of the demes. Therefore, claims about the territoriality of demes in these early decades must although be tentative, it seems very hard, as even the strong proponents of "natural" demes show, to infer from this lack of direct evidence that demes were evidence
of Athenian
no need for territorial even at the outset purely administrative units with In any formulation of the natural or artificial models of deme
boundaries. formation
it is difficult
demes without
to conceive
of distinctions
of residency
among
territorial boundaries.
It ismore
answer to the probable that the question of deme formation between the theoretical poles of purely administrative units and of distinct and contiguous territorial units (the "divided" demes not lies somewhere
with all of their internal real estate surveyed and recorded. withstanding) seem a reasonable It would of the general territorial model compromise to postulate an initial determination of at least the outer territorial limits of demes inhabitants
and their citizen memberships, with the data concerning other and interior domains being gathered and recorded piecemeal as required them.52 In this more evolutionary model, have assigned political business to the demes as it recog
the duties of demarchs
the polis would nized that their territoriality allowed them to conduct this business more precisely and efficiently than the traditional gentilitial and political groups. The preceding conclusion leaves unanswered the question o? how the demarchs marked or otherwise kept track of these territorial distinctions, to well into the 4th century, when especially from the time of Kleisthenes 49. Humphreys reference a date
(1980, p. 98), with
to the Great
ca. 430
Plague,
suggests
b.c.
50. Lambert 1998, p. 227 and n. 121;
elsewhere
in the same work
Lambert notes (pp. 314-319) that in a Poletai
account
found
in the Agora
excavations (SEGXII100, 29) Isarchos as demarch
may have of Xypete
been
lines 25 acting
in recouping
30 drachmas
from
condemned
Theosebes
of burying
the
the estate
latter's
of the
for the expense
of deme
parents.
cartographical
for positing survey
an initial of several
while
that showing in the Kleisthenic
key forms were that the
boundaries).
52.Whitehead (1986a, p. 27 and n. 102) fairly criticized Lauter (1982, esp. p. 305)
147), who, elements
51.Whitehead 1986a, pp. 137-138, 258-259 (burial); p. 29 and n. Ill (calculations
but less fairly Eliot (1962, pp. 146
years,
as late as 501
the duration survey
is hard
the organizers pre-Kleisthenic surveys.
b.c.,
some re noted
and chronology of to calculate, and that
use of may have made censual and cadastral
GERALD
98
V.
LALONDE
the earliest claimed deme horoi have been dated, or later, with the possible of horismoi, putative archival records of deme limits.53 The Attic series of abbreviated or single-word has yielded numerous countryside rupestral horoi that, in part because of their distance from population creation
centers and their alignment on ridges or saddles over extensive terrain, have considerable scholarly acceptance as deme boundary markers.54 Many of these inscriptions use the lunate sigma, which first appears in the 4th
won
century b.c., and Traill has speculated that as deme boundary markers they in of Attica may have been occasioned by theMacedonian reorganization most in 307/6 B.c.55 Lunate sigma is the Roman era, common, however, and there continues to be shifting opinion and debate about the age and function of the growing number of discovered ruralAttic one-word horoi.56 The question of how the outer limits of rural demes were marked or recorded and which
of the series of rural horoi might have served this pur as the is pose discovery of archaeological evidence necessarily complex and, warrant will and theoretical study for a long time continues, investigative to come. Here
and now we will put aside that question and, as a prelude to ofMelite and Kollytos, turn our attention to the delimiting
the discussion
of urban demes, and specifically those in the interior of the city. of the artificial model believe, geographical bound If, as proponents were in the rural and aries necessary for the function of the demarchs a fortiori the greater in demes of Attica, density of population the inner asty made official deme boundaries essential. Whitehead, while of the "natural" formation of the demes even eschewing any compromise
coastal
in the city,57 made the important point that the demes of the asty do call as three different types: those in the inner for consideration populated center of Athens, and Kollytos, those in the immediate such asMelite as and such Keiriadai and those outer-city demes Kerameis, "suburbs," centered in villages in open country, the last having a character and mode no different
of formation
rest of this article
of the shore and interior.58 The
from the demes
is concerned
the innermost of the demes mainly in that tripartite scheme, and only incidentally with those in the suburbs. evidence that 8th-century has noted, the archaeological As Whitehead of Athens was a cluster of distinct villages says little about urban Athens to reference polis comes in a territory to Ar. Av. 997 (Me?itri y?p scholion 0C7iaV ?K??V0, C?? ?V T01? X_)plG|U0?? 53. A
records
possible of deme
xfjc Tz?Xzwq, "for that whole as is written in the isMelite,
y?ypa7rcou thing
of the polis"), but that these records were
records
boundary there is doubt earlier
than
the 3rd century
(Lewis
1955, p. 17, n. 48); Jacoby (FGrH Illb II, p. 402) suggested that the horismoi
have
a book written
been
may b.c. about as late as the 1st century sections of the city and not about
demes.
As will
text of this
be
scholion
seen below, is
quite
the full unreliable.
Finley (1951, pp. 14 and nn. 19,27) saw
virtually
no
evidence
for a public
with
cadastre
of private
property;
I once
considered
pp. 20-21) (AgoraXJX, in the demise of security horoi
that
b.c. may the early 2nd century such a cadastre. followed
have
1962, esp. e.g., Eliot 1-2; Traill 1975, p. 73, n. 6; Lang
54. See, pp.
don 1985;Traill 1986, pp. 116-122; Lohmann
1993,
vol.
1, pp. 57-59.
e.g., Goette
1994;
pp. also
57. SeeWhitehead's ing
(1986a, pp. 24
criticism some
of the majority, includ of "natural" rural proponents
demes,
who
urban
demes
that
see the creation as artificial
of the
(Young
1951,
see Traill 1986, no. 4, for the sug
the pair
of single-word
horoi (IG IV 2521) that Christopher Wordsworth
Alepovouni.
25)
boundaries; 117,119-120,
gestion
Langdon 1999 on the 19 horoi found on
even is in this regard that noteworthy the outer area of the asty has yielded of later horoi that are possibly markers deme
55. Traill 1986, p. 118. 56. See,
p. 141; Eliot 1962, p. 3; Lewis 1963, p. 27; Andrewes 1977, pp. 243-244; Murray 1980, p. 255; Rhodes 1981, p. 254). 58.Whitehead 1986a, pp. 25-26; it
first noted
on
Lykabettos
and ?%iOTf|n?Tpa (the latter probably a may have marked quarrying) to the tribe of land boundary assigned the from Kydathenaion, Antigonis lost
most
to
extensive
urban
deme.
THE
BOUNDARY
OF
MELITE
AND
KOLLYTOS
99
the late 6th century,59 and perhaps he was right that Andrewes begged the wrote area at he when that the time of "the within Kleisthenes, question the city wall was not an agglomeration of distinguishable villages," thus were formed in an area that had become implying that inner urban demes a fair continuum of domestic, industrial, political, and religious domains streets intersected by and roads and extending outward from the focal as far as the Archaic precinct of the Agora city wall and probably beyond.60 more it is that little than two decades after Kleis Nevertheless, noteworthy thenes' reforms, the placement of the Themistoklean city wall suggests an Athenian urban population considerably larger than that served by any estimated
extent of the Archaic
wall.61
this day many factors complicate the question of the demographic of Archaic Athens: the literary evidence is later and sketchy; much of shape the ancient city has not been excavated; there is no comprehensive survey of findings at the Archaic the evidence of centuries the 8th and 7th level; To
consists mainly of graves and wells; and the 6th and early 5th centuries, while showing significant sacred and civil architecture of the Peisistratids and the early democracy, have not been closely studied for their residen tial patterns.62 Nevertheless, if Papadopoulos is right that the creation of the Classical Agora, whether in the late 6th or early 5th century, was area was before that a loose of Iron possible because the conglomeration Age cemeteries and ceramic industries, then it is quite possible that at the time of Kleisthenes there were other unsettled spaces among the populated areas of the Archaic city. This may particularly have been the case west and northwest
of the Acropolis when the main focus of city life was still as archon in and before Themistokles (Thuc. 2.15.3-6) to move maritime to from Phaleron the ports of activity Bay
to the southeast 493/2
began (Thuc. 1.93.3-7).63 Even if there were closely settled expanses of at the time of Kleisthenes, inner Athens the new urban demes could have drawn their names and locations from what were earlier separate population we have no direct centers, villages, or komai?"proto-demes."64 Although on evidence of the basis which boundaries of inner urban demes were cre
Piraeus
ated and stabilized, they would lines analogous to the marked identified Some
59.Whitehead
1986a, p. 6 and
60.Whitehead
Travlos Athens, those
1986a, p. 26;
Andrewes
1977, pp. 243-244. a dating of the Archaic city to ca. 560 b.c., see wall Vanderpool in and a later 1974; for that wall general to the Peisistratid see dating period, Weir 1995. In either case, the structure 61. For
scholars have inferred that the traditional
(1960,
ends
burials of the
urban
demes
have been the outer limit of thetically the inner urban demes, but the location of the wall is much Judeich disputed.
be
of the western
hills,
and
More
it skirted
that
and
Acropolis
the west
Areiopagos,
nian
could
have
been
In the end
territory. said that we should
not
confined it must
expect polit to ical divisions with correspond city the placement of which is a walls, matter in terms of ter of defensibility rain and population.
summaries
topography
E.Thompson, of Archaic
Athe see
and monuments,
Judeich 1931, pp. 60-70; Camp 2001, pp. 22-47. 63. 2003, Papadopoulos his summary, topographical 316.
but it is hardly plausible that the inner to so little
at the crest
Areiopagos.
62. For between
isWinter's (1982) argument persuasive from defensibility and the location of Archaic
streets and roads of the
have best served this purpose.65 Even W.
pp. 33-34,40-42; in the valley
p. 8, fig. 5) hills and the
of theArchaic citywall could hypo
(1931, pp. 62,120, and plan IV) put it
ridgelines of the late rural and coastal demes.
as markers
urban region would
n. 11, pp. 26-27.
some along logical and saddles where horoi have been
have had to be devised
64. SeeWhitehead n. 98 and remark
the reference
(7.46)
that
especially pp. 271
1986a, p. 27, to Isocrates'
the Archaic
lawgiv
ers of Athens divided "the city by komai and
the country by demes." 65. E.g., 1985, Langdon
Agora
XIX,
pp.
13-14,29.
pp.
12-13;
IOO
V.
GERALD
LALONDE
in his seminal argument for purely administrative demes, admitted that the of the asty initially needed particular lines such as rivers and roads to determine the first registry of urban demesmen, although he added that the boundaries could then have been dispensed with and forgotten.66 Even if the roadways were first seen as simply the most efficient route between obstacles in significant points, since they avoided natural and man-made
demes
terrain, this does not defeat the hypothesis that Kleisthenes adopted existing streets or,where vacant space allowed, the addition of new streets as urban deme boundaries. In fact, such a hypothesis is bolstered the intervening
by both logic and inference from indirect evidence. Since the courses of streets tend not to deliberate initiative, those serving as change without deme borders would have been easily retained in the collective memory of the community and thus would have had stability even without the ben streets efit of horoi or archival records.67 Moreover, and roads, as existing public property, would have been the logical choice for deme boundaries because they could have been put to that use without the expropriation or disturbance of other domains, public or private. Of 21 certain Attic horoi of streets and roads, mainly from the Athens or opo? o?ou, thus not are inscribed region, nine simply o?ou identifying the roadways by name but maintaining their official limits.68 The strict de limitation of streets from other domains is explicit in several horoi found in Piraeus, one of them in situ, which refer both to the street and the adjacent as the 5th century, the Athenian Poletai as early property.69 At least officially recorded the location of confiscated properties with reference to streets.70 One of the duties of the ten Athenian Astynomoi, five in the upper city and was streets to keep five in Piraeus, free of encroachment ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. their function as boundaries.71 If, as 50.2), probably in part to maintain were seems likely, this jurisdiction of the implies that the streets Astynomoi not deme territory, but were, like the Agora, in the direct and sole purview of the polis, then Andrewes's people loses cogency.72 66.
Thompson is a strong son's article.
1985
67. The streets
and
1971, rejoinder
point
p. 75; Langdon to Thomp
of the course
longevity roads, and therefore as boundaries, is well
of
their
illus reliability of Britain, trated in the archaeology where of routes, both great numbers urban
and
Roman
rural, have
not
changed
simply
69. IG V 1109-1113;^ p. 13 and nn. 66-71; Eleusis was probably but
a
XIX,
since
through 28, H30,
or opo?
pp.
Agora and above,
JGI3
Fig.
XIX, 1116
from
another
of the text
key part
civil precinct
rule.
ooou
rather than divided
example, is lost; see
10-11,27,
H25, H26, 1, for the two in situ
horoi of theAgora that delimited the
68. Athens: JGI31093,1094, 1094bis, 1095,1096; IG II22624, 2626; SEG XU 13;AgoraXJX, H32 H35; Piraeus: IGV 1109-1114; Eleusis: IG V1116; IG II2 2625; Panormos (Laureion region): SEGU 157; horoi inscribed
that streets united
o?o?:
IG V 1093,1094,1094bis, 1114; IG1V 2625,2626; SEGU 157;Agora XIX, H32, H35.
from
the district
the
that
street
street
that passed
it; also Agora XIX, pp. for the six horos H31,
of the Kerameikos
street
the
that
of Kerameikos ran
through as Kerameikos.
either
11-13, stelai delimited
from it or
the
designated
70. See, e.g., pp. 57-143, Agora XJX, see below, instance, and, for a specific roads were used p. 106. Similarly, as in the Greek world widely points of reference in boundary regulations SEGXL and agreements 542, (e.g.,
4th
Mygdonia, 1123, Mylasa,
b.c.; XXXIX century 2nd century b.c.).
71. See /Gil2 380, lines 16-23; n. 6. Cf. in the wider Sylt.3 313, world SEGXI?I 785,Thasos,
Greek ca. 470
460 b.c.; OGIS 483; SEG XIII 521, 2nd Pergamon, 72. Andrewes the linear
p. 244, n. 1; of roads unites
1977,
function
was
but Andrewes
people,
to their
referring
b.c.
century
clearly function. An
lateral
amplification of Langdon's (1985, pp. 12-13) analogy of the delimiting of modern French political districts is an instructive streets
parallel
as
to Athenian
polis-administered urban demes. that divided state
codes
even more in setting
are also precise the midline
boundaries American
and analogous, than Athenian law of streets
and
AND
MELITE
OF
BOUNDARY
THE
IOI
KOLLYTOS
THE BOUNDARY OF MELITE AND KOLLYTOS that the street this background we can now return to the proposition saddle was the boundary from the Agora to the crest of the Nymphs/Pnyx of Kollytos and Melite. As a first step, we should deal with a controversial
With
the boundary (quoted in Strabo 1.4.7) about observation made as an analogy to the boundaries
of Eratosthenes
observation
of these two demes?an
of continents, which geographers argue about without agreed-upon criteria. Here, with no particular evidence to the contrary, we assume that Strabo's is accurate, although of Eratosthenes and communication understanding that was
not
the
always
case:
Kai Me?rcn?, oiov nil ovxcov y?p ocKpi?cov opcov KaGarcep Ko??dto? xomo U?v orn?Av n, 7??pi?OAxov, 8%8iv (pavai fijaac, on tout! ji?v ?axi KOAA/UTO?,TOUT??? MeX?XT\, TO?? OpOU? (??) UT| ?'%?lV81718?V.73 If there are no precise horoi, as in the case of Kollytos and Melite, such as stelai or enclosure walls, we can say this: "This is Kollytos, that isMelite." We cannot, however, point to the horoi. of this passage is usually translated, as here, as a present beginning an actual instance. In this particular condition, with KaB?rcep introducing translation, the ambiguity of the word opoi is deliberately maintained. it as "boundaries," as is sometimes done,74 must be wrong, Translating because boundaries cannot be equated with stelai or enclosure walls. Eratos thenes must have meant by ?poi "boundary markers," or simply "markers." Thus, if this is a present general condition, it does not imply that Kollytos
The
do not have boundaries, but that their boundaries do not have It is reasonable to conclude then that, lacking such precise markers. precise as the two demes stelai and enclosure walls, one could distinguish markers and Melite
by
some
less
means.
exact
In conceiving of ameans of delimiting Melite less exact than stelai or enclosure walls, it makes on
our
above
arguments
for
the
use
of
streets,
from Kollytos that was sense to fall back good
roads,
and
and
prominent
of urban deme permanent features of the cityscape for the determination boundaries. These features would allow one to say, "This isKollytos, that is Melite," without being able to cite markers as precise as stelai and enclosure runs counter to that of interpretation of the passage, however, scholars of Greek, W. M. Leake, Rodney S. Young, three distinguished andW. Kendrick Pritchett, who inferred from this passage that there were
walls. This
It is grammati "This is Kollytos" and "This isMelite." a intended here mixed condition with cally conceivable that Eratosthenes a were no a present contrary-to-fact precise horoi,") protasis ("if there
horoi
roads
as the official or wards.
townships however,
is
boundaries
of
This
precision, for administrative
merely is citizen for the American purposes, to reside or build not allowed along these
to the legal boundary on a of margin right-of-way
streets
or even
out
inscribed
on either position
side of the
street. Here
of the residents
the
is somewhat
to that of the demesmen
comparable of ancient Athens, are to the officers record
offices
as state
Astynomoi, to the putative
of G. Aujac,
1969, who
accepts
a
and B2. in the Loeb 74. E.g., trans. H. L.Jones,
and county and their
Strabo,
horismoi.
1917.
73. The text is the Bud? edition
Paris
in the last clause the ?? ofMSS edition London
of
I02
V.
GERALD
LALONDE
present general apodosis ("we are able to say"), and the use of Koc0?7t?p to as a introduce Kollytos and Melite hypothetical example ("for instance, case the inference of Leake, and In that Melite").75 Young, and Kollytos a shared boundary marked by inscribed Pritchett, that Kollytos andMelite horoi, would be correct. Either of the preceding interpretations would fit the wider context of Eratosthenes' macrogeography. He presents the case of Kollytos andMelite to quibble as an analogy to his immediately preceding point that it is futile have a rough idea about the division of the continents. All geographers an of the continents, but without their bound agreed mode of marking aries?as
it is,
some
use
rivers
and
call
continents
the
islands,
use
others
are as the Athenians. can and call them peninsulas?they They over is is the Asia" "This but fine "This and say points they argue Europe," of delimiting them. After the analogy of Kollytos andMelite, Eratosthenes, to Strabo, then according reemphasizes his point with historical examples isthmuses
over of the Argives and the Lakedaimonians no over is There and the Boiotians Oropos.76 we but do tradition about such contention between Kollytos and Melite, not have all the evidence, and I suggest below that Melite may have used
of the perennial disputes Thyrea, and the Athenians
to emphasize rupestral marker its own side of the border with Kollytos.
horos B and another
its claim to shrines on
However Strabo's quotation of the geographical views of Eratosthenes is construed, it leaves no doubt thatMelite and Kollytos were contiguous. The location of their common boundary, however, is quite another mat ter. Few exact boundaries of urban demes are known or even argued, but a number of modern maps and commentaries suggest the general location all of these sources agree that Melite was west and of demes.77 Virtually southwest of the Agora, but they vary somewhat about Kollytos: some limit it to the area south of the Areiopagos and the Acropolis, while others add to that the area directly south of the Agora. Before David M. Lewis refuted the long-held belief that Kolonos Agoraios was a deme, inclusion inMelite was considered of the Pnyx and, according to some, even the Mouseion its status as one of the most populated of the essential to accommodate urban demes.78 Lewis's finding, however, has apparently effected no shift of opinion
75. Leake Young
1951,
1953,
p. 276;
extent ofMelite.
about the southern
vol. 2, p. 442, n. 3; n. 12; Pritchett 140, p. in these schol opposing
ars,Thompson
1841,
(1971, p. 74) rightly
out
that KaOarcep is normally pointed but actual instances, used to introduce the use here is possibly irregular.
76. Strabo himself in the following chapter uncertain
(1.4.8)
ticality
that he
of Eratosthenes'
(r\ TotJto Aiyei), for inconsistency
Melite,
intimates
is
tinents.
Eratosthenes'
that determining would the continents
useless had
an
instead
to the attempts of the con
point was, how of the division not be a matter
of
isthmuses.
of horoi
castigates in stressing the prac in the cases of Kollytos,
Thyrea,
and Oropos,
dis
fig.
I; Kirsten
and Krai
ker 1967, p. 97, fig. 21; Traill 1975, pp. 37-55,
map
1, inset;
Siewert
123-144,
1982;
Langdon 1985, pp. 11-15; Traill 1986,
inset.
(end page), pp. 12-17.
map
78. Lewis century substantial
if the geographers disputation set of aKpi?oi ?poi agreed over rivers and of quibbling
14 and plan
pp. 4th
77. Judeich 1931, pp. 165-175, him
but
superfluous the boundaries
ever,
meaning
for he
as
missing determine
1955,
and following, data of bouleutic
For
the
the quotas
(Traill 1975, p. 67; 1986, pp. 125-140 rosters (Reinmuth ephebic no. 2; Gomme 1933, pp. 5-10, 1986, pp. 77-79), p. 67; Hansen et al. (Hansen funerary inscriptions and map), 1971,
1990,
p. 33,
table
9), and metic
resi
dences (Whitehead 1986a, p. 83) indi cate
that Melite
Kydathenaion
was in
at least
population.
second
to
THE
BOUNDARY
OF
MELITE
AND
KOLLYTOS
103
return to the specific question of the Pnyx below, but the first and Kol step in the argument of our hypothesis of the boundary ofMelite some certainty the full extent and course of must to with be establish lytos will
We
the road proposed as that boundary. For this, there is good archaeological, not previously been epigraphical, and literary evidence that has synthesized in its entirety. Young,
the so-called
excavating
from
Industrial District
southwest
of the
to 1949, uncovered much of the initial it from the Hill of the Nymphs, where
1939
intermittently Agora course of this road farther down
off from the Agora's west street (hereafter, "AgoraWest Street"; m southeast of about 20 the horos of the theTholos?at Fig. 1) Agora found in situ in 1938 (Agora I 5510).79 From that point it followed the line of the Great Drain southwestward for about 170 m, in a stretch that
branched see
Young called the "Street of theMarble Workers" (Fig. I).80 Just after passing side of the poros complex identified by Vanderpool the northwest and on the Agora plan as the State Prison,81 the road jogged about 60 m directly west before it crossed the main street from the northwest (Young's "Melite up the valley between the Hill of the In the and this last stretch Street) it passed Nymphs Pnyx. (Nymphs/Pnyx the south flank of the northeast spur of the Hill of the Nymphs, with its Street")
and turned southwestward
horos B, before continuing over the saddle in the Nymphs-Pnyx ridge and the the toward the north end of the Diateichisma, gate exiting city through at least when that wall existed.82 In his excavation report of 1951 Young carefully pondered whether his Industrial District and the land farther south and southwest were in or the deme Melite Kollytos. He conjectured that the area was probably in was not so specific as to question the but he Melite, judgment of K?hler own and Judeich that the merger and continuation his of and Areiopagos Streets southward into the valley between the Areiopagos and the were narrows the called cnxvam??... Koaa/uto? ("a Pnyx Kollytos"), said by = Phot. Bibl. cod. the 4th-century rhetorician Himerios 31.63-65 (Or. 243) to be in the very middle of the city, to give its name to the deme through
Melite
it ran,
which
79.AgoraXD?,H25. 80. Young 1951,
tant historical pp.
137-147
and
3.
fig.
81. Vanderpool 1951; Koumanoudis pp. 319-323. traces 82. The
but
cf. Crosby 1984; Hunter
1980,
1998,
obliterated "Melitides nation
of this gate have been See Fig. 1, is the desig
by quarrying. Gate," which
of Travlos
(Athens,
pp.
161,168
169, fig. 219, Gate XV). The Melitides Gate
was
said by rather
late ancient
sources (Marcellin. Vita Thucydidis 17 and 55; Paus. where dides sources,
the
1.23.9)
tombs
the historian with
to be near Koile,
of Kimon could
their mention
be
have
tury, may lier testimonia
to
and
serve
as an
agora.83
cen figures of the 5th been derived from ear that
the Melitides
Gate
was
in the original Themistoklean city in the 5th century wall, which looped out of the line southwest considerably of the later Diateichisma
(see Judeich
1931, p. 140 and plans LB-D/5-7, IV; Wycherley 1978, p. 12). Judeich (1931, p. 140 and plan I:C 7), for example, tentatively located theMelitides Gate farther
south
along
this Themistoklean
placement
was
doubtless
influenced
and Thucy seen. These
by his belief that the deme Melite
of impor
Pnyx.
tended
as far south
as to include
If the name Melitides
was
ex the trans
from
the gate in the Themis to the city wall corresponding in the Diateichisma, there is no
toklean
gate evidence
of
it.
83. Young 1951, p. 140; K?hler 1872, p. 112; Judeich 1931, p. 169, n. 1. Stroud
(1998,
reminded
recently
p. 89, n. 10) has us of Judeich's
(1931, p. 169) observation that the aphorism that not (ou??
loop toward theHill of theMuses, but his
ferred
of Plutarch, all Athenians
y?p AOrjva?oi
Ko?Xdtov:
Mor.
601B,
were
wealthy 7iavxe? KaxoiKouoi
"For certainly
all Athenians
do not live inKollytos") iswell reflected on the in the excavated grand houses and southwestern slopes of
western
the Areiopagos.
V.
GERALD
I04
LALONDE
Two
years after Young's article appeared, Pritchett published among a notice (stele VI, lines 13-15 = IG I3 426, fragments of the Attic Stelai of a house lines 5-8) of the confiscation from one of the Hermokopidai described as being in Kollytos and bordered on one side by the Agora and on the other, according to Pritchett s restoration, by the Aifonceiov], the shrine of Aiakos. Joining this evidence with the testimony of Hime rios about Kollytos and that of Herodotos (5.89.3) that shortly after the eki reforms of Kleisthenes the Athenians marked out a shrine of Aiakos concluded that the Aiakeion should be sought at xfj? ?yopa?, Pritchett the southwest corner of the Agora.84 Against Pritchett's Aiakeion, both on the Lewis and Eliot suggested the restoration of Aijavxeiov] grounds that there was probably a cult-place of Aias together with that of his son on the Kolonos in his Stroud, however, Eurysakes Agoraios.85 Ronald B.c. recent editio of the inscribed Athenian law of 374/3 grain-tax princeps earlier consideration that the (Agora I 7557), confirmed Wycherley's an Aianteion two mentions in of Athenian inscriptions (/Gil21008, only line 87; Agora I 286, decree V, lines 140-141) may well have referred to and thus leave us with
in Salamis
the shrine of Aias
no clear evidence
of
such a shrine inAthens, either by itself or as another name for the Eury and more to our point, Stroud presents significant new sakeion.86 Moreover, of evidence supporting Pritchett s restoration as well as an identification (where the law says the grain was to be brought, stored, and large, nearly square structure by the southwestern boundary of the Agora, previously identified as the Heliaia or simply the Rectangular Per?bolos.87 Textual details in the grain-tax law, as Stroud shows, are suited to the chronology, architectural form, size, and location of this building. the Aiakeion sold) as the
In short, it is hard to disagree with Stroud's summation that his evidence, while circumstantial, "is, however, better evidence than that used in support of all previous identifications of the building." His Aiakeion does lie south of the more
[I 7039]) found in southerly Agora horos (Agora XIX, H26 to that with reference (see Fig. 1), and, marker, he proposes the houses excavated a little south of the east-west line of the
situ in 1967
that among horos and northwest
of the proposed Aiakeion was the confiscated house Stelai as being in Kollytos between the Aiakeion
referred to in the Attic and the Agora.88
84. Pritchett 1953, p. 276; his con with of Kollytos the southwest junction has found other ad part of the Agora
herents: Traill 1986, p. 126 andmap; Stroud son's
1998, (1970,
pp.
86-90. W.
p. 67)
counter
E. Thomp to Pritchett,
that Kollytos bordered the north side of Melite
near
the northwest
corner
of the
is unique and ignores Pritchett's to the Ai[aK8tov] and Hime rioSS GT?VC?71?C . .. Ko??dto?. 85. Lewis 1955, p. 16, n. 40; for
Agora, attention
Eliot,
see
III, p. 49. No
Agora
structure
has been found or identified as the Eurysakeion, tion seems
but assured
its
loca
approximate testimo by ancient
inMelite that itwas and by the covery on or near the southern part of fragments the Kolonos Agoraios stelai inscribed with of documents
nia
Pritchett
of
Camp II inAgora XXVIII, pp. 99-103,
of
as a for the Rectangular Per?bolos court of law; earlier, probable Thomp
the
genos Salaminioi and thephyle Aiantis that
for the erection
include
of those
provisions stelai in the Eurysakeion;
see
Ferguson 1938;Agora III, pp. 90-93; SEG AgoraXlV, pp. 40-41,171,228; XLVII 146bis;Malouchou-Da?liana 1998, p. 75, no. 324;ffiGXLVIII 264; see Parker
on
the genos Salaminioi, 1996, pp. 308-316.
1953,
p. 276;
son 1954, pp. 33-39; Agora XIV, pp. 62-65; Camp 1986, pp. 46-47; 1990, pp. 180-181. Camp 88. Stroud 1998, pp. 94 tion),
95-96,
fig. 5; excavated
(summa houses:
AgoraXIV, pp. 173-177; Camp 1990, pp. 56-58; heretofore
not been
it had that
the
southerly
certain (Agora
I 7039) of the two standing boundary
86. Stroud 1998, pp. 89-90;Wy cherley, Agora 87. Stroud
cf. J.McK.
dis
stones
of the Agora but that
111, p. 91.
ern limit,
1998,
Stroud's
esp. pp. 85-108;
conclusion.
marked is a clear
its south corollary
of
THE
BOUNDARY
OF
MELITE
AND
KOLLYTOS
105
seen how
It can now be
the preceding scholarship, culminating street fits about the my proposition argument, boundary of as corner it and Melite the of from southwest the Agora Kollytos proceeds at There West Street its southern end divides into (see Fig. I).89 Agora two branches at the point of the northerly Agora horos (Agora I 5510), about 20 m southeast of the Tholos. The eastern branch continues south
with
Stroud's
the southerly
of the Agora (Agora I 7039) continues around the Street, which Young's Areiopagos end of its namesake hill. The western of the two streets branching
by southwest, and becoming west
passing
horos
from the Agora diverges gradually from its eastern counterpart, heading as and passing directly southwest Young's Street of the Marble Workers State Prison before turning westward up to the Hill of the Vanderpool's as If is Street. Stroud Nymphs/Pnyx Nymphs right that the confiscated house in Kollytos was one of those excavated in the tongue of land formed by the divergence of these two streets, then the easterly of the two routes, Street, is ruled out as the deme boundary, for it lies Young's Areiopagos within then, the sole remaining road as a entirely Kollytos.90 Tentatively candidate for the deme boundary isYoung's Street of theMarble Workers, radiates from the Agora,
which
Stroud's
confiscated
neatly dividing Kollytos and Aiakeion) and Melite
house
to the east (with to the west with
its Eurysakeion. attentive
The
seems to support the choice of of Young above. He suggested that one of the streets of his
fieldwork
boundaries
presented as a deme excavation was chosen by Kleisthenes that boundary?obviously between Kollytos andMelite. Although Young did not commit himself to a a specific street, his later description of the stratigraphy at point in the Street of theMarble Workers
is telling: "The westward branch of the Street in use from Archaic continued through late Ro
of the Marble Workers man
times. A cut made
in its filling at the bend in its course [about 180 m southwest of the Agora] revealed six successive layers of road metal, of which the uppermost produced fourth century b.c. [sic] sherds, the lowest sherds of the late sixth or early fifth century. Beneath lay a layer of soft red earth which evidently predated the use of this area as a street and which contained sherds of the sixth century."91 This chronology strongly suggests that the Street of theMarble Workers was laid, or at least regraded, about the time of Kleisthenes' reform to connect the Agora with Nymphs/Pnyx since the horoi of the Agora, Street.92 Furthermore, in date and purpose, themselves arguably Kleisthenic fetched a more
89. For the area, fig.
see Stroud
detailed 1998,
plan
of
p. 96,
90. Stroud 1998, p. 95 and fig. 5. Young
1951,
p. 162.
92. If the Street of theMarble Workers
was
the area must ulated.
This
first created not have is not
at this
been well
time, pop since
implausible, of the Classical Agora one its tradi accepts nearby, whether the creation
Kleisthenic
that the delimiting
dating
or the post
Salamis dating of Papadopoulos (2003,
5.
91.
tional
to suggest
the earlier use of a p. 285), supplanted tract of land. Whether much the larger route over the saddle of Nymphs/Pnyx a these hills was already full-fledged road before this time is uncertain. At this gap through the western hills there was at least a probably always footpath, a but it certainly would have become road for pedestrians
and pack
animals
as noted
above, are it does not seem far
of the Agora with
horoi, and of the
or cen by the very late 6th early 5th a was when there tury B.c., great in crease in traffic on roads to and from the west
and northwest
the city as the Athenians
region of the created
Classical Agora and shifted their chief
harbor
from
Phaleron
to Piraeus
(Papadopoulos [2003, p. 285] would date
both
Salamis).
events
after
the Battle
of
io6
V.
GERALD
LALONDE
demes Kollytos and Melite with the Street of theMarble Workers, which exited the Agora at one of its horoi, were of a piece in the Kleisthenic pro of boundaries.93 gram political Further indirect evidence that this street was the deme boundary lies in records of the Poletai. The relevant pas another entry in the confiscation . . .voto: r\ ?[8oc sage from Agora I 1749 is ?pyaoxf|pia 8vo ?[jnME?irni] too Toi) ??r? work f) ?HpocK]I???o A?^iKaKOD d? ?yofp?cv cp?po'oaa] ("two . . .bounded on the south shops inMelite by the road leading from the Shrine of Herakles
Alexikakos
the road described
here was
to the Agora").94 Wycherley the extension
of Young's
concluded
that
Street of theMarble
as what we have up the south flank of the Hill of the Nymphs was near this road as and that Herakleion called Nymphs/Pnyx the Street, it passed between the Hill of the Nymphs and the Pnyx. As I have argued s in an earlier publication,95 Wycherley general location of the Herakleion
Workers
can be further refined to agree with Pittakis's more exact on placement of it tier of the Hill of the the upper of the northeast spur Nymphs.96 Wycherley was Street and the Street of theMarble certainly correct that Nymphs/Pnyx a of Workers were continuous segments single road, for, after exiting the was unbroken, and it alone ascended of the line this Agora, thoroughfare and the Pnyx.97 Moreover, the draw between the Hill of the Nymphs by reference to two of itswidely separated points, the and the Agora, this official text shows that, although Streets on its route, it was this road crossed Young's Piraeus and Melite as an integral line radiating from the Agora, and thus would thought of
describing Herakleion
the road with inMelite
be a logical deme boundary.98 Since we cannot be sure that horos B marked
Street Nymphs/Pnyx in the shrine of Zeus, shifts significantly to the question
as a deme
was
or that the Herakleion
boundary, of proof for this boundary raised briefly above: In what deme was the Pnyx? The significance of this Street is the only exit road lies in the fact that Nymphs/Pnyx question area and the Pnyx. from the city in the between the Hill of the Nymphs or surrounded if the Pnyx was not inMelite, In other words, by Melite, Street is the only road that could have been the south then Nymphs/Pnyx the burden
boundary
of Melite.
of the dating and purpose see above, of the Agora, and pp. 10-11. pp. 86-88, AgoraXlX, see Meritt 94. For Agora 11749, no. 10, Face A, 1936, pp. 393-413,
confiscation the location
trace of the name Melite
survives
on
its restoration is not a the fragment, case of explaining ignotum per ignotius, of certain for a number but is virtually reasons: name
the rest of the restoration
after
of
entries
86-93.
pp.
Twelve
where
the Street
turned west
of the
to mount
the slope of theHill of the Nymphs had
another
branch
as old
as the Geo
metric
is
that may have continued period the southward up the valley between and the Pnyx. This branch, Areiopagos however,
noted for, as Young (p. 136, was built over with houses fig. 1), it b.c. in the 5th and 4th centuries
boundary, of
96.Wycherley 1959, pp. 67-68; 1978, p. 187; Pittakis 1835, p. 461. 97. Young (1951, p. 161) recorded that at the point Workers
whose Alexikakos, (2) Herakles is inMelite, shrine was by all accounts
correct;
(3) in
the mention
98. The Agora, with itsAltar of the 2006,
Marble
(1) it is the only urban deme that fits the stoichedon pattern,
presuming
and
proximity;
documents, is formulaic
real property. 95. Lalonde
col. 4, lines 105-109; Agora XIX, p. 114, P26, lines 450-454; although no
in
mentioned
93. On
the horoi
could
not have
been
a deme
modern
is
recognized
in ancient
scholarship
(Agora XIV,
pp. 192-193; Wycherley 1962, p. 9; Siewert 1982, p. 55) as the hub from which
it
Gods,
sources (Hdt. 2.7; IG IV 2640) and
main
was
roads
radiated;
as such,
of all demes exclusive probably the inner therefore formed boundary of the urban demes that surrounded
it and
so Siewert 1982, pp. 56-57; Langdon 1985,
p. 12.
it;
THE
BOUNDARY
OF
MELITE
AND
KOLLYTOS
IO7
It is a long-standing tradition of scholarship that the Pnyx was in A first step in the argument against that tradition is to allow that at least the east and north slopes of the Hill of the Nymphs were inMelite. Most modern topographers agree with this, even though the southernmost
Melite.
certain monument
of the deme is the shrine of Artemis Aristoboule
(Plut. Them. 22; Mor. 869C-D) m north of the summit and northeast 150
founded in 1956
and unearthed
by Themistokles
spur of the Hill of the was inMelite was largely But the belief that the (see Fig. I).99 Pnyx Nymphs rooted in the further belief, prominent up to the mid-1950s, that Kolonos were demes, and thus that the area ofMelite, as and Kerameikos Agoraios one of the most populous of the urban demes, must have extended quite about
in 1955 that far south.100 But Lewis, as noted above, showed conclusively was not itself a deme but an area within deme of the Agoraios now is it and that the horoi Kerameikos marked Melite, widely accepted or the street not a deme but either the public district of the Kerameikos Kolonos
extended much farther to the east adjacent to the horoi.101 In short, Melite and north than was once thought, although its northern boundary is not known precisely. A reasonable guess is that in the north it bordered the on the line of the Panathenaic Way from the Dipylon to the at In Lewis's least allows the possibility any case, Agora.102 finding as far its could that Melite accommodate extending population without south as the Pnyx or theMouseion. the much greater extent now allowed to eastern and northern Despite
deme Skambonidai
and despite the abandonment of hypotheses that were concomitant Melite, with the Pnyx's being inMelite, such as the location of Otto Walter's Hera kleion and Homer Thompson's Thesmophorion, the long-standing belief that the Pnyx was within Melite hangs by any ancient evidence,
has continued
unchallenged.103 If this belief it is the thin thread of a scholion toAristo
997 (Philochoros of Athens, FGrH 328 F122), a text inwhich phanes,^^ the generally reliable Philochoros is introduced to test claims of earlier but a text that is still difficult
writers,
to read and suspect by any reading:
ti e?vai ?v Koac?vcoi av?on(i? [10] Oncji ?? KaAAioxpaxo? . . . ? ?? OiAolxopo? ?v Koax?vc?i u?v a?x?v a?xon IaaxpoAoyiK?v ou??v Oe?vai ?iyei, ?ni Axj/eu?ou? [15] ?? (xou) 7ipo IIuGo?copou f|?,ioTpo7ciov ?v xfji vuv ouani ?KKA,na?ai Ircpo? xcoi xei%ei xcoi ?v I?ice?vo 7tav, an
xfji rivuK?. uT|7tox? o?v x? %a>p?ov (cpao? xive?)
99. See Threpsiades and Vanderpool the shrine's control 1965, pp. 31-33; by
rests on
the deme
a decree ofMelite of about nent
of
(SEGXXll 116) honoring
its promi
demesman
10652),
(APF Neoptolemos for his restoration apparently
of the shrine; pp.
b.c.
330
the discovery
see also Frost
the Pnyx
inMelite,
see
Young 1951, p. 140; Judeich 1931, p. 169
and of Melite
see above,
n. 78.
101.
and n. 1;Wilamowitz-M?llen
dorff 1880, p. 148; on the population of
in particular,
pp.
11-13;
Brueckner 1914, p. 91; Ohly 1965, pp. 327-328; lengthy
see, most
argument
however,
envisioned
Kerameis
AgoraXlX,
recently,
the
of Papadopoulos
(2003, especially chap. 5) that the Kerameikos
1980,
184-185. 100. On
the demes
was Quarter) of the Areiopagos northwestward with the (Potters'
originally but moved
north
founding
of the Classical
Agora.
102. So Langdon 1985, p. 12 and n. 21; Siewert (1982, p. 29, n. 140),
a
strip of the deme inward from the
extending to the which Dipylon Agora, sistent with his later argument
is con (1999,
p. 3) that the district and its horoi were
to some
deme
extent
identified
with
the
Kerameis.
103. Walter
1915,
pp. 97-98,
fol
lowed by Judeich (1931, pp. 396-397); Thompson
1936, pp. 156-192; and Scranton 1943,
Thompson on the location Melite,
of the
see Clinton
cf. p. 295;
Thesmophorion 1996, pp. 123-125.
of
V.
GERALD
io8
LALONDE
7U?piAO:|j?(iv?Tai Kai f] IIvTl)^,Ko?XOVO??oTW, ? ?T?pO? ? (I?G01O? I ??yo|i?vo? oikco? pipo? ti v?v cjwn6?? y?yov? to Ko?cov?v kccA??v to ?7iia0?v
Zto?c?. ?XX' otjk ?axi- MzXur]
Ixr\qMaKpa?
?K?ivo, cb? ?v to?? 'Opia[20]|io??
y?cp a7iav
y?ypocTiTai ttj? 7to??co?.104
in Kolonos says that a certain astronomical monument is his [Meton's] ... but Philochoros that he [Meton] set up says in in but that the of Kolonos, archonship nothing Apseudes
Kallistratos
he set up a heliotropion in [433/2 b.c.], the one before Pythodoros, the present ekklesia by the wall in the Pnyx. And so perhaps, some is included also the Pnyx, is Kolonos, say, that whole place, inwhich the other [Kolonos], the so-called hiring place. Thus it has now become customary to call a certain part the Kolonon, namely the part behind theMakra Stoa. But it is not; for that whole thing is as is in written the of the records Melite, boundary polis. text, like many scholia, is cobbled together with little coherence from a seem number of earlier commentaries, and modern attempts at emendation
This
only to complicate its problems. Foremost among the difficulties here is an and per the Kolonos Agoraios, apparent confusion of the deme Kolonos, other the The scholiast allows Kolonoi.105 of Kallistratos's haps possibility set up an astronomical apparatus in Kolonos, but then to the in Philochoros indicates that he finds nothing set up anything there, and he, or perhaps Philochoros, a in the contemporary actually set up heliotropion
claim that Meton he
(the scholiast) effect that Meton
asserts
that Meton
ekklesia by the wall in the Pnyx. The disagreement may have derived from a confusion of the Kolonos the deme Agoraios with Kolonos Hippios, of Sophocles, and a tradition that Meton installed devices on both the In any case, this confusion Pnyx and the Kolonos (perhaps Agoraios).106 seems to have given rise to a popular claim (line 16: cpoco?tw??) that Kolonos extended west and southwest of the Agora as far as the Pnyx. The text
104. The oiFGrH, dation I retain Jacoby's
except of ou 8T8po?
(to Ko?xovov)?in the dative (below,
emen
17, where See
leaves Kotaovov
also
and notes
commentary
perhaps
1, pp. 496-497; Hlb 2, on
pp. 401-403)
where
Philochoros,
this fragment of the difficulties
text are made
scholiast's
greater detail. 105. Note use
in line
of codex V.
? erepo?
(FGrHlllb
the
is that
here printed for Dobree's
the
and nonuse
scholiast's
of the definite
Kolonoi
alternating article
KoAxov-, both here and further on same scholion below (as quoted are in n. 106). Even if these variants
in the
the Kolonos
Agoraios the deme,
(Hippios) been lost on not
explain
the
a distinction between
and Kolonos this
scholiast.
the neuter
seems
to have
in line
(and perhaps
18
on the basis of the possibility suggests a passage in the (414 b.c.) Monotropos of the comic poet Phrynichos (Kock
1880, p. 376, fr. 21, probably derived
the
1 to Ar. Av.
from Hypothesis or statue
instrument
on
two Attic
in addition
to his device
seeD?bner
the
or astronomical
several
Av.
and
installed a
didaskaliai) thatMeton fountain
discussed
coby's idea that the subject of the scho lion and the horismoi may have been regions of the city rather than demes;
the Kolonos on
Agoraios the Pnyx:
[1877] 1969, scholion to
p. 233: ?gc?? ?? ?v KoXcovq. KaxeoKeuaGaTO. Kprjvr|v uva (prjaiv ? Opuvixo? "xi? ?' ?axiv MovoTp?7i(p 997,
? jiexa xa?na ? AeuKovoe??,
xau?ric
cppovxicov; M?xcov
? x?? Kpr|va?
aycov."
this nearly led him (p. 403) to antici
KaGe?xai?? Kai ?Movoxporco? ?nl to?
pate Lewis's
auTot) Xa?piou, ob? eipTixai. 'AMxo?, ?ggd? ?v tco Ko?covco Kprivnv Tiv? Kaxe
Agoraios,
It also does
article
unattested, in a text as the only recourse as this one is to view it as an
demes called Kolonai) in his third book (FGrH328 F26; see also Illb 2, p. 401); cf.FGrHlllb 2, p. 402, for Ja
in the
of vestiges sources scholiast's
instance, tco Ko?xov ) uncertain. Since to
the gender seems otherwise
Philochoros
of
with
inconsistent
second
prickly error for tov KoAxovov.
in
clear
the
n. 106:
about finding as he considered
Kolonos that Aris
meant by Kolonos tophanes may have a deme. a town not of the and quarter 106. Further on, the same scholion
(xrixavnoaTO, ?oTpoA,oyiKov
r\ ayaA,|ia, r\ ?vaGrijia amco. KaTeaKEDaGaTO
THE
OF
BOUNDARY
MELITE
AND
KOLLYTOS
109
contradicts however, perhaps again deriving from Philochoros, meant the is that Kolonos the other Kolonos,107 the hiring this, clarifying area behind theMakra Stoa (that is, Kolonos and not the Agoraios place, as area as far the Pnyx and that not only that but also Kolonos Hippios), isMelite?assuming that there is any grammatical coherence here, and that the final ocTcav ?ice?vo refers not to ouxco? pipo? xi kx?,., but to the scholion,
text seems rightly to imply what scholarship, that the Kolonos Agoraios but it is also the sole ancient testimony invoked by scholars
Thus earlier ?Kx?vo 7iocv.108
this crabbed
clear to us from Lewis's
is now was
inMelite, our own era that Melite to up
south far enough to embrace the root discussion in Jacoby may have been right that the Pnyx.109 Moreover, the scholion was not about demes at all. extended
In any case, one may readily put up against that scholion a passage of the sober, early, and learned Tertullian (De anim. 20) on the supposed on factors the inherited character of local effects of environmental peoples: et hic etiam de locis interest. Thebis
Nam
relatum est, Athenis sapiendi dicendique mense citius Colyttum pueri eloquuntur even locale makes
For in this matter
hebetes
et brutos nasci ubi penes
acutissimos; praecoca
lingua.110
a difference. At Thebes
it
are born obtuse
is said that the people and irrational, at Athens, and expression; and there in the deme very keen at comprehension are so precocious in language that they learn the children Kollytos to talk amonth
sooner.
Here, for the purposes of argument, we must accept the logical but errone ous Lamarckianism and interpret this remark about children in Kollytos as an allusion to the rhetorical
influence of the Ekklesia. So Judeich understood was inMelite, that the he strained the passage to it, but, believing Pnyx was in amain area of traffic in the mean that Kollytos vicinity of the Pnyx.111 was was in Kollytos or, if the that the Pnyx But surely Tertullian's point like the Agora,
assembly-place, 107. This
is the point
apposition
of keeping theMS
reading ? erepo?
ou erepo? in line in making 17. The latter phraseology, as well as the ? uiaO?o? Kotaovo? Pnyx seems part of another Kolonos, unduly instead
of Dobree's
complicating. 108. The
of this Kolonos
"the so by the qualifier Agoraios is confirmed called hiring-place" by the scholia and lexicographies apparently based on earlier commentators who as
noted
also Agora III, p. 21, no. 3, forWycher note that this stoa was ley's probably "one of those along the road from the to the agora, on the south, Dipylon to the scholion where [in accord with Ar. Av.
it would
997]
behind
distinction
Hyperides' fr. 8) to hirelings
reference
(Blass 1894, as Kolonetai; see
no. 251; III, pp. 91-92, p. 99, Agora no. 286; Lambert 1997, p. 295, n. 11. of the Makra Stoa "in For location
Kerameikos," see IG IV 968, line 14;
was
Agoraios 109. E.g., there is need
unreliability one need not Aeschin. testimony a deme.
have
1995,
to
emphasize of scholiasts look
1.125)
is also
the
sole direct
Agoraios
was
of J. H. Waszink, 1947. Tertullian probably
the comparison of Thebans from Cicero (Fat. 4.7).
and Athenians
and mind. of mense
on
translators
Some
no
tradition
influences
citius as the ablative than
the
of soul
read mense of com
a month"),
but ("sooner parison of the ablative of degree my translation of difference for may be preferred the statement less outlandish. making I thank
(to
(the Pnyx survives
story about Kollytos else in the ancient
environmental
p. 554. If further the
110. Edition
borrowed
where
the Kolonos
on demes, far, for a scholion
that Kolonos
Amsterdam
The
it."
Dunbar
separate from the demes
Ioannis
Evrigenis
me with Waszink's Richardson some
Less
of the
text,
for calling my attention textual difficulties.
Ill.judeichl931,p.l69,n.l. likely isWaszink's
of Kollytos to Plato's allusion above)
(Diog.
Laert.
for providing and Molly
3.3).
notion
in this context deme
to
(n. 110, as an
and birthplace
no
V.
GERALD
LALONDE
its own horoi; e.g., IG V 1092),112 largely embraced by Kollytos. the saying should have been about children inMelite. Otherwise, Before quitting the subject of Melite and Kollytos, we return to the did have
on the northeast spur of the Hill of the and simple horos B (?opo?) Nymphs one B consider other possible function, that is, that horos may have been a deme marker in a sense apart from the official polis-wide program of Kleis thenic divisions at the end of the 6 th century b.c. The demesmen ofMelite themselves may have cut horos B to emphasize to all visitors to the shrine of Zeus, and thus preclude any dispute, that this t?menos and all those were within
to its other boundaries
northward
the control of the deme.113
Lanzil to, and independent of, this hypothesis, Eugenio Subsequent lotta published a remarkably parallel idea, namely, that the shrine at the summit of the Hill of the Nymphs (Fig. 1), and therefore also just north of did not belong to the Nymphs the proposed deme boundary ofMelite, and I its horos 1065: but that Demos, (IGV hiepov N\)|i(p[?]v A?|Lio), rupestral a "shrine of of the Nymphs roughly contemporary with horos B, meant horos B deme," with the intent of asserting a territorial claim.114 Although lacks the word ??jLio, the proximity of the horos of Zeus may have helped to clarify Melite's territorial purpose in the simple marker. its territorial claims at key shrines near purpose in marking its possession of its boundary with Kollytos was very likely to emphasize these prestigious and valuable religious resources. Unlike rural demes, which had land for plowing, pasture, and minerals as well as religious ternene, the inner urban demes had their greatest public resource in cults. At least four Melite's
other shrines of specific gods or heroes besides those of the Zeus of horos at the summit of their namesake hill are known to have A and the Nymphs in been and three of these shrines (Fig. 1: the Eurysakeion, the Melite, of Artemis have been discovered and the Aristoboule) Hephaisteion, temple or are otherwise
convincingly located north of the deme boundary proposed is that of Herakles Alexikakos, probably located, where on Pittakis first suggested, the northeast spur of the Hill of the Nymphs, within, or adjacent to, the precinct of Zeus.115 In the case of the shrine of a resident of Melite, was its founder Themistokles, Artemis, although not a member of the deme, there is direct epigraphical evidence that by about 330 b.c. the precinct was administered by theMelitean demesmen.116 here. The
fourth
century
nosce
Athens,
b.c.;
113. Cf. Traill's
somewhat
analogous esp. p. 168), that the
(1982,
precise division by inscribed horoi of Erechtheid andAntigonid Lamptrai was
necessitated
the
in
b.c.
late 4th
century 114. Lanzillotta
p. 499:
"che
lo iep?v sia dedicate alleNinfe del po p?lo
argues
culti
that
the Nymphs
Lanzil and
in common the poli with nothing or the tics of the Athenian demos per sonified Demos, that there is no parallel for such a connection, and that Demos cult
often
and
ap figure, or the Graces, is with Grace propriately the 4th century from attested on; only
come
see also P.Gauthier inBullEp 2001,
Ambedue
le
p. 505,
no.
accettabili,
come
rico
calling
this article
del demo,
inteso
pure
149.1
thank R. to my
S. Stroud
attention.
We
should add that Parker earlier (1996,
for
the combination
that
noted
p. 233)
and demos
Nymphs
their
territoriale.
o alle Ninfe
ripartizione letture sono
per del demo."
dei
appare la consolidata
concern with fertility and childbirth
as a heroized
2000,
e tuttavia
have
by the establishment
of theMacedonian phylai of Athens
lotta
[1979],
la seconda,
la Kr?n
preferibile attestazione
fig. 588.
pp. 466-467, suggestion
ca. mid
of the Pnyx, see Trzvlos,
112. Horos 5th
was
unusual
of and
that the shrine may not have suspected been "of," but owned by, the demos (i.e., of the Athenians).
115. Pittakis 1835, p. 461; also Lalonde 116.
2006, See
this
shrine
after
the
pp. 86-93.
above, of Artemis
p. 107, n. 99. Since was founded
institutions
of Kleisthenes, a strong sup the shrine porter of demotic politics, may well have come under deme and Themistokles
control
from
was
its beginning.
THE
BOUNDARY
MELITE
OF
AND
III
KOLLYTOS
Two other shrines very likely inMelite that have been excavated but remain are the small hieron discovered and Scranton on anonymous by Thompson to the north, the northwest of the Hill of further the and, slope Nymphs on the apparent shrine the site of the old Church of Agios Athanasios on (Fig. 1) Heptakhalkou
Kourkouris Metro
just west
Street,
of the Theseion
Station.117
shrine, as inter dating of horos B and that of the Nymphs' had some early interest and preted above, suggest that the deme Melite the cults its boundaries. and shrines within Some of authority regarding The
this authority probably originated with Kleisthenes' reforms, but there is also evidence that other demotic control evolved later. The role of the in the Apaturia and Thargelia festivals and in the cults of Zeus and Athena Phratria, as well as details of the cultic activity of some credence to the Aristotelian claim phratries and their subgroups, give left sacrificial matters to the phratriai and (Ath. Pol. 21.6) that Kleisthenes
phratriai Phratrios
gen? in accordance with ancestral customs,118 but, at least for the reason that some of the old gentilitial groups would have had territorial roots that were
outside
or
the demarchy from its overlapped the deme boundaries, have had some of the administrative role in religion that
inception must we see in later evidence, especially that of the 4th century.119 In state decrees as well as those of the demes there is evidence
that
religious duties gradually increased, often not replacing but and laws. For example, we merging with those of older cult functionaries in Demosthenes read of such a merger the priest 62, where 57.46-48, in the deme Halimous of Herakles is said to be appointed by lot from the demarchs
a list of "best-born"
candidates nominated (enyev?oxaxoi) by the deme a state decree of 352/1 B.c., orders (lines 16-23) IG II2 204, assembly. that from then on, various polis officials "whom the law prescribes in each care of all shrines. instance" and demarchs should see to the permanent A decree of the demesmen
of Piraeus (/Gil2 1177) stipulates that the in with the priestess is to see to the proper use of the along deme's Thesmophorion and to impose fines for illegal wood-gathering cumbent
117. Thompson and Scranton 1943, B. For the Church of p. 381, app. Agios see Mommsen Athanasios, [1868]
1977, pp. 49-50, n. 47; Biris 1940, p. 51, no. 90; Travlos
1960, pi. X Some of the arched
p. 192). (following cut and rectangular niches facets of the rock on which old
chapel be the work
of Hosios
into
the
stands
the
Athanasios
may of the Chris
of devotees
tian
I thank Kevin holy man, but Glowacki for sharing (pers. comm.) with me his opinion that most of the niches a
has
tenon, votive
are ancient
and
that one
in the bottom
setting a common
feature
of them for a
surface of Classical
niches.
118. On
phratry
religion
and
its
demarch
post-Kleisthenic 1998,
chap.
see Lambert survival, here Lambert 6; clearly lays
to rest the idea ofWade-Gery that
the phratry
gious Note
antipode
survived
(1933)
as the reli
of the secular
deme. for
pp. 224-225, particularly Lambert's consideration of the possi meant in part bility that the Ath. Pol. that
the Kleisthenic
had
reforms
the
some effect of transferring of the phratries and their sub see also Kearns to the demes; groups indirect
political
together, Aristotle's with
the by undermining that held them
coalitions
religious
some
institutions a view
that
relied rule
theoretical reference
that
to Kleisthenes, rites should
"private religious to a few reduced public 119. On the subject the demes,
I have
heavily
on
(Pol. 1319b), be
ones." of religion
benefited
in
especially
from the following: Mikalson
1977;
cults
Osborne
1985, pp. 204-205; 1989, pp. 755-777; andWhitehead 1986a, pp. 176-222.
head 1986a, pp. 176-222 (in general), 163-169 (cult finance), 127-128,134 137 (religious duties of the demarchs); asWhitehead notes (1986a, p. 176,
This 1998,
along with Lambert the earlier view 8, counters
scholarship,
chap. (see, for example, that Kleisthenes
Lewis broke
1963, up
p. 37) the old local
1985,
pp.
154-189;
White
n. 1), the loci classici on deme religion, are Arist. Eth. Nie. sacrifice, especially and PI. Lach. 187d-e. 1160a.l4-25,
112
GERALD
V.
LALONDE
according to "the ancient laws on the subject."120 The demarchy, from the time of its institution, certainly would have been responsible for seeing that only those eligible partook of the hiera of deme festivals and sacri fices or those of the polis conducted by and within the deme. Keeping in mind that the evidence of deme inscriptions ismostly scattered and late, and that every internal practice of one deme may not be that of the others, as still cite these isolated extant documents suggestive of wider
we may practice.
suggested territorial imperative of the deme over its local shrines, not only and festivals was motivated cults, by interest in divine favor and the political prestige of these religious institutions, but also by what these The
institutions
did for the deme's economy. Whitehead neatly summarizes interest in religious finance thus: "The cost of cult?upkeep of and shrines, offerings of regular sacrifices, celebration of recurrent
the deme's temples
festivals?surely
represented, for any deme, the major object of regular and indeed the fundamental raison d'?tre of the budget as a
expenditure, whole."121 Evidence sacri of Attic
demes
of this is the fact that the extant leges sacrae andfasti are less the rules and schedules of ritual than accounts
of the personnel and finances of sacrifices and offerings, accounts that run into the hundreds of drachmas annually for single demes.122 For the 59 sacrifices listed in the sacred calendar of the deme of Erchia (SEG XXI 541) the total cost is approximately 547 drachmas, and all but five of those sacrifices took place in Erchia itself. A decree of about 400 B.c. from the deme of Plotheia lists cult outlays, including the demarchs budget, totaling 22,100 drachmas, an amount so large that itwas certainly not expenditure but rather the total capital investment in loans and the leasing of deme lands, the interest from which would have supported the deme's cult budget.123 a inner urban deme, would, unlike Melite, being heavily populated to have had little real lease. Like Erchia, itwould have Plotheia, property raised religious funds through leitourgiai and other forms of taxation, but, inner city with a large traffic in sacrifices, being in the heavily populated its numerous shrines would themselves have generated some of the funds as well as material benefits for for their own function and maintenance the deme. For example, if the demarch himself was making sacrifice, a at least six deme was often in duty attested in inscriptions, he charge of was meat sacrifice the of of and the distributing perquisites (gera) recipient such as the skins of the sacrificial animals.124 the great part of these extant records concerns the deme's own While on shrines and rituals, beyond
expenditures 120. For other pp.
seeWhitehead
evidence,
with
127-128,134-137,
121.Whitehead 122. On
the
laws as practical 1965,
1986a, notes.
1986a, pp. 163-164.
sacral
calendars
accounts,
pp. 155-156; of the sacred
study Attic demes,
of this and
elaboration
and
see Jameson
for a summary calendars of the
see Verbanck-Pi?rard
1998.
123. See Finley 1951, pp. 284-285,
these, and more
to the point
n. 39, for a summary of the debate about the meaning of the figures in this decree;
Haussoullier
mated
from
of 12 percent
these
or 1,812
discounting capital shrine of Herakles.
p. 64) esti a yield after drachmas
(1884,
investments
expenditure
124. SeeWhitehead and nn. 40-49, ritual
duties
financing.
On
for the
1986a, p. 128
for a summary of the of the demarch and their the various
expenses
of
sacrifice,
see Sokolowski
1954;
Burkert
1985, pp. 95-97; Rosivach 1994, For the extent and direc pp. 68-142. see tion of deme cult expenditures,
1977, pp. 424-435. Dow (1965, pp. 206-207) suggested that in the Erchia calendar (SEGXXI 541)
Mikalson
the unusual
granting
lines k?ryx (col. E, ? ?rijiapxo? meant was
the normal
of gera 54-58) that
recipient.
to the
KaGarcep the demarch
THE
OF
BOUNDARY
MELITE
AND
KOLLYTOS
113
on this hill of popular cults and shrines like those of Zeus or the Nymphs inMelite,125 individuals and small groups must have spent, and offered in their sacrifices, a great deal that has gone unrecorded but might be loosely extant votives, analogous inventories, and leges sacrae of the projected from In the case of these "private" sacrifices, the deme itself demes. and polis probably profited from sale of victims, bloodless offerings, and wood fuel, the sale of the services of mageiroi to slaughter and cook sacrificial animals, of shares of the sacrificial meat and bloodless offerings, the
the collection
gera, and, at least relatively late in the evolution of Greek cults, the receipt of monetary fees and other gifts. Obviously such expenditures by the in dividuals and small groups would have been more modest on the average than those of the deme and other large corporations, but in the aggregate they must have been considerable.126 The deme ofMelite was always a territory bordered by other territo reforms to the rial demes, but in the short period from the Kleisthenic century it became also the neighbor of great polis institutions as such the Agora, the Pnyx, and the Themistoklean city wall. Although it probably took pride in its proximity to the central greatness of Athens, as Robert Parker has said, "in many respects the a deme religious life of
mid-5th
can be seen as that of amini
n?Xiq, closely comparable on a small scale to own communal that of Athens itself."127 In this sense, Melite's highlight as a deme must have been its collective shrines and cults, and it is quite plausible, though admittedly uncertain, that the purpose of rupestral horos B and that of the shrine of the Nymphs was to emphasize its territoriality, its religious resources from those of Kollytos and thereby distinguishing as a its within the marking identity polis polis.
THE EXTENT OF MELITE the foregoing discussion has not involved all the boundaries of Although it has included enough information about the other and Kollytos, Melite of Melite that itmay be useful to present the evidence for the of that deme. Lewis's definitive full configuration striking of Kolonos eastern list of demes that border ofMelite from the showed the Agoraios was virtually coextensive with the west side of the Agora. Without any hard boundaries
evidence, but again with the premise that major roads radiating from the as boundaries of the inner urban demes, a city center served good tentative is northern limit, perhaps bordering Skambonidai, placement of Melite's or out the line of the Panathenaic Way from the Agora to, through, the an outer border of the central Gate.128 for Dipylon Langdon's preference 125. Elsewhere (Lalonde 2006, I have pp. 40-80), argued from tions to Zeus Meilichios found
dedica in the
vicinity of theHill of the Nymphs and theAgora that this popular god of purification and individual and familial welfare marked
was
the chief
deity by horos A. Having
purification, have been demesmen,
the shrine frequented but also
ing citizens
of Zeus
would
not
only by and visit resident
of other
demes, metics, even slaves. and perhaps foreigners, 126. Much of the research of Ro
of the shrine
sivach
a cult of
nomics
on
the eco
pp. 68-142) and acquiring of supplying
(1994,
is for public sacrifice applic to sacrifices by small family groups for fees and contribu individuals;
victims able and tions
paid
to cults,
see LSCG
69,
lines
20-24; Petropoulou 1981, pp. 53-54; Sourvinou-Inwood 127. Parker 128.
Siewert
pp. 263-264. 137. 1987, p. 1982, p. 42. 1988,
GERALD
114
urban demes at the Themistoklean
LALONDE
some city wall may correspond to fact in but a general rule to that effect raises
including that of Melite,129 questions of chronology and purpose. Even cases,
V.
if the inner urban demes
took
the their territories and names from what were once separate communities, streets and natural features was, as noted above, topography of Athenian at of the 6th century for these divisions to have the end complex enough himself.
been made
by Kleisthenes have no evidence
that the city deme boundaries were reset in 479 B.c. to match the new city wall, and, to be sure, the new wall could not have been made to fit political boundaries, for its purpose was defense, and the main criteria in siting a defensible city wall inArchaic or Classical Greece We
were manpower and terrain. Still, as suggested above, Melite may have been one of those urban demes whose outer boundary was coincidentally on or close to the Themistoklean circuit. I hinted above, in the discussion at the outer extent the of the Melitides Gate, difficulty of determining southwest of the saddle of the proposed southern boundary of Melite as a and the Pnyx. The Diateichisma, of the Nymphs of the 4th century or later, is out of the question, unless that sat on the deme boundary. The limited evidence of the wall coincidentally area between the Long Walls to city wall in the original Themistoklean the Hill
between
construction
that it looped out considerably farther southwest than the If the southern street boundary of Melite went that far crest the of the hills, it probably bordered Koile aswell as Kollytos
Piraeus suggests Diateichisma.130 beyond on
the
south.
we cannot be extended to the precise about how farMelite Although was a western its flank is evidence that of there west, contiguous complex in the area shortly west and northwest of the with the deme Keiriadai from at least as early as the 2nd Hill of the Nymphs. One testimonium, century A.D. (L?xica Segueriana), associates Keiriadai with Athens's place of execution, describing the barathron as a pit in Keiriadai into which the to death.131 Some Classical writers bear cast those condemned Athenians out the implication of this phraseology, that casting into the barathron was not always just to exhibit the corpse and deprive it of burial, but was also sometimes a mode of execution, and that the site was therefore a rocky some kind.132 Two other ancient sources bring into closer precipice of focus
of the barathron and thus the approximate boundary that Plutarch wrote (Them. 22; Mor. 869C-D) near his house in founded the temple of Artemis Aristoboule
the location
and Keiriadai.
of Melite Themistokles
"where now the ofijiioi throw out the bodies of those put to death." Melite, has been excavated and securely identified (Fig. I),133 Since this Artemision 129. Langdon
1985,
p. 11.
130. See Judeich 1931, plan LB-C/ however, 5-6, where, are tentative. 131. Bekker BapaGpov: ?v Keipia?
many
lines
132. E.g,Xen.
1814,
A6rjvr|Gi v ?r||iq)
of the
s.v.
p. 219, ?? r\v ?puyjia
xr)? Oivni?o?
KaTayvcooBfj xi (pvXri?
[Thalheim (see below): vielmehr xfj? I7t7io6ocovxi?o?], KaxayvcoG0?vxa?
s.v. ?apaOpov and ?puyjia. For the see RE II, 1896, in barathron general, s.v. ?apaOpov col. 2853, (T. Thalheim).
ei? ? xo?? ?v?ftaXXov.
?7il Oav?xco Cf. Harp.,
Hell.
??iKe?v,
1.7.20: a7io6ave?v
??v ei? t?
eu?^n?evTa. Thucydides term the less parochial (2.67), using indicates that the corpses of cpapayya,
?apaOpov
heinous ways
were
criminals also
executed cast
into
in other the barathron
(a7T?KX?ivav
7tavxa?
Kai
?? (p?payya
the historian EGE?a^ov)?unless Either intended hysteron-proteron.
sequence might be implied in the common
idiom
Din.
one
for handing
to the executioner, ?7ii xot) ?p?yjaaxoc
rcapa?o?vai (e.g., Lycurg.
over xa> 121;
1.62). 133.
See
above,
p. 107
and n. 99.
THE
OF
BOUNDARY
MELITE
AND
KOLLYTOS
115
we
can be quite certain that Plutarch meant that they cast the bodies out ruts running per from wheel the that Judeich postulated city gate beyond to line of the the wall about Themistoklean 240 m south city pendicular of the Piraeus Gate and just northwest of the Hill of the Nymphs. Judeich as the Anjaiai nvXax ("Executioner's tentatively identified this gate (Fig. 1) mentioned location fits neatly the other piece Gate") by Hesychius.134This a scene in Plato of evidence from Classical literature, paradigmatic (Resp. on the road from Piraeus, 439e), where outside the north Long Wall Leontios feasts his eyes on the corpses of executed criminals.135 Plutarch's use of the word "now" (vuv), his mention of Melite rather than Keiriadai, should not, I think, lead terms, ?puyjaa and ?apa?pov, us, as it has some late antique and modern writers, to see two successive execution places, an early one in Keiriadai and a later one inMelite.136 If and the different
use of the barathron survived to Plutarch's time?and there is little evidence use now with seems more of that beyond his of vuv?it likely, especially our knowledge of the exact location of the temple of Artemis Aristoboule, that Plutarch was simply being elliptical in his observation, meaning that Themistokles' house was inMelite the of that the and Artemis, by temple was not "Demian much and farther out, but beyond the Gate" barathron in Keiriadai. If the public exposure of corpses was, in addition to sheer punishment, expression of civil authority intended to deter crime, then the barathron would have been located, as the story of Leontios suggests, near the well an
a frequented road leading to city gate. As Stroud has shown with regard to the transportation of grain from Piraeus to the upper city, this road outside the north Long Wall was the hamaxitos (Fig. 1), or carriage road, which was
the most the western
It avoided
level and certainly the most heavily trafficked route. hills of Athens and divided into several branches
in the the city through various gates, including the Demian, section of the city wall.137With all this evidence, it remains only to look in the vicinity for a suitable rocky precipice. The south towest sides that entered
northwest
are of the Nymphs of quite precipitous, but the construction area 460 the north Long Wall would have made that inaccessible (ca. B.c.) to anyone coming up the hamaxitos from Piraeus or going down that road
of the Hill
through the Demian 140 and
134.Judeichl931,p. I:C 5 ("Henker
plan
Thor?");
Gate. A
larger but less steep rocky declivity more
part of the Themistoklean city wall. 136. See, for example, Thalheim testimonia (above, n. 131); late ancient
northern
Travlos,
Athens,
(s.v. Aru_iiaGi p. 159; Hesychius 7c6Xai?) is the only source for a gate of this name, but he associates it only with and that is denies Ar|(iiaGi prostitutes
to this view
are the scholion
431
a mistake
for Aio|ifJGi.
The
sources
s.v. jirjxpay?pxrj?. These to the barathron in addition
the
of Artemis
and,
shrine
mately
along the Demian
Gate
I and
from
Plato's
journey phrase vnb refers
xe?^o? ekxo? clearly ?opeiov the northern and not Long Wall,
sources,
a
primitive the Athenians
... cppeaxco?e? that atonement in as partial
for killing
%aG|-ia filled a
Phrygian priest of theMother goddess
pp. 168-169, reference 244.
Leontios's
Piraeus,
can be
Athens,
fig. 219, Gate 135. Since
see,
of historical
approxi a road to the
150 m
southwest, seen in Travlos,
of
relation
to Ar. Plut.
and Suda,
there. This
was xo
that to
the
story has
all of the trappings
of etiological folklore: the grisly details this 6pi)y|ia
that
was
like a dark well
at the top and bottom; the Phrygian had come to initiate
and had hooks
the women
than
in the rites of the eastern or to
Mother was
coming the absurdity was Metroon this old
that Demeter prophesy to look for Kore; and that the Bouleuterion/ erected
barathron Mother
Phrygian If there was
on
the site of
as the shrine (see also Poll.
any relocation
of the 3.11).
of the bara
thron, itwas likely intended to keep its the city, and therefore in the oppo been out site direction, from an earlier place to a farther side the Archaic wall city
pollution the move
place
outside
would
beyond
have
the Themistoklean
wall.
137. Stroud 1998, pp. 104-107, fig. 7; Papadopoulos 2003, p. 287.
V.
GERALD
ii6
100 m west modern
of the Hill
of the Nymphs has been identified by several early as the barathron, and it fits the evidence well enough,
topographers quite visible from the hamaxitos
being the Demian indicates
LALONDE
and not far outside
from Piraeus
it Gate.138 So, to relate this evidence to the deme boundaries, and Keiriadai would have been that the dividing line of Melite
near, but not necessarily on, the line of the Themistoklean city wall. can close, then, with a brief of the We approximate recapitulation and extent of Melite. Its shape was roughly that of an isos configuration celes trapezoid with its nonparallel sides diverging from the Agora, one corner over the saddle, the other from Nymphs/Pnyx corner out the Panathenaic Way. The shorter parallel side was contiguous and west coextensive of the Agora, with the side practically was western while the longer side perhaps roughly parallel and proximate its southwest
from
its northwest
city wall but not necessarily on its line. All of this area, with the exception of the road to the Dipylon Gate, would fit Dem osthenes' observation (54.7) that the drunken Ktesios, son of Konon, went "from the Agora up toward Melite." to the Themistoklean
REFERENCES = The Athenian Agora Agora: Excavations Conducted
Results
can School
of Classical Princeton III = R. E. Wycherley,
Oxford. Camp,
Athens,
and
Testimonia,
Epigraphical = H. A. XIV Thompson R. E. The Agora Wycherley,
Literary 1957.
-.
and
A.
1977.
in The and ofAthens Archaeology Proceed under the Democracy.
Biris,
1814. An?cdota
December
Berlin. Segueriana, 1940. Ai 'Eiac?ri<jiai
Monograph son et al., Oxford,
1:
-.
pp. 7-12. The Archaeology New Haven.
2001. Athens,
S. 1.1961.
Charitonides,
Kerameikos," W.
1893.
orationes 3rd ed.,
Clinton, rion
"Neue
AA 1985.
Funde
29, pp. 91-95.
Greek
rrjv ArchEph
Les m?t?ques
K.
1996.
in Central
Celebration 1914.
"AvaaKaipfj
Tacpcov rcap?
7i?,aTe?av luvTayuxxTOC," Clerc, M.
Leipzig. A.
of
ath?niens,
Paris.
F., ed. 1894. Hyperidis sex, cum ceterarumfragmentis,
Brueckner,
(Oxbow E. Coul
D.
?d.W.
1958 (1961), pp. 1-152. tcov
Athens.
Blass,
4-6,1992
37),
Graeca
Conference since the Birth
Years
in Greece at the Held ofDemocracy, American Studies at School of Classical
"Kleisthenes'
IlaXaioov?0rjvav,
Burkert,
2,500
K?,aootKcov
E.
K.
an International
Celebrating
Athens,
1971. L?xica
ings of
and
Reform Bill," CQ 27, pp. 241-248. = K. APF Athenian Davits, ]. Proper 600-300 tied Families, b.c., Oxford
Bekker,
Agora: and
to the Excavation
Attica
Poletai Records, Inscriptions: Horoi, Public Lands, 1991. Leases of = A. L. et al. XXVIII Boegehold at Athens: The Lawcourts Sites, Build
Andrewes,
The Athenian
4th ed., Athens. Museum, -. 1994. "Before Democracy: Alkmaionidai and Peisistratidai,"
B. Walbank,
Procedures, ings, Equipment, 1995. Testimonia,
London.
Athens,
1990. A Guide
of and Uses The History, Shape, an Ancient 1972. City Center, of = G.V. M.K. XIX Lalonde, and M.
II. 1986. The Athenian J.McK, in theHeart Excavations of
Agora: Classical
Athens:
Langdon,
trans. J. Raffan,
and Classical,
Archaic
of
Ameri by the Studies at
Religion:
am
"The Thesmopho Athens and the
of the
Thesmophoria
inAttica," in The Role ofReligion in the Early Third of the
Greek Polis. International
Proceedings Seminar
138. Curtius
and Kaupert
1878,
p. 18;Wachsmuth 1874, pp. 349-350 and plan (end page); 1890, p. 265; Judeich 1931, plan LB-C 5.The drop off of the terrain even
beneath
modern the term
city, and opuyuct,
an old quarry.
here
is still visible of the
the construction it is not as it may
at odds with have
been
THE
on Ancient
Greek Cult,
-.
Organized at Athens,
Institute
by the Swedish
Stockholm,
H?gg,
125.
Megarid:An
CorinthXVU1.3 =N. Bookidis and R.
S. Stroud,
The
M.
von Athen,
Topographie Atlas
Gotha.
"The Greater
J. 1962.
(Phoenix
M.
1878.
17,
Demarkhia
1959.
Coastal Demes
-.
11, pp.
1951. Horoi:
1.1951.
Haussoullier, en Attique: d?mes au
inAncient
oring pp.
in Land
1999. "Solone, gli hektemoroi n.s. 6, horoi," AION, pp. 59-71. gli G. 1904. La solidarit? de la Glotz, fa mille dans le droit criminel en Gr?ce, Paris. R.
1994.
Felsinschriften,"
"Neue Klio
attische
76, pp.
120
La
sur
vie
2001.
Humphreys,
ed. M.
Koumanoudis, Usually pp. 71-81. U.
Jameson,
M.
-.
and Cult
Shrine
and Privi
S. D.
simarum:
of Athens
"Notes
on
the
(Monumenta
11), Leiden. Rationes Public
2004.
"A House
Boundary
3),
ofAttica,
K.
of the Pirae
pp. 91-92. 1985. "The Territorial
of the Attic
60, pp. 5-15. -. 1999.
Hesperia
in
Arbor.
ans," ZPE146, M.
Cente
Land
The Phratries
ed, Ann
Langdon, Basis
49,
(Ap%aia EMla?: on Ancient Greek
-. 1998.
-.
Shrine
An Athenian
Zeus
and History Archaeology Amsterdam.
2nd
AM
Hesperia
Dios: of
1997.
Sales
Monographs
JHS
1989-1992.
"AHero
et Romana
Lambert,
?ltesten
in Athen,"
Agora,"
pp. 97-105. 2006. Horos
Lykourgan
1965.
Pnyx, Zu Demos zum
>
und
"Demos,
the Athenian
Sigma Stigma," pp. 93-105. S. C. 1980. "Family Tombs
H.
1979.
94, pp. 49-75. G. V. 1980. Lalonde,
Hildes
Oxford
Comoediae
in Areopag 6, pp. 92-112. S. N. 1984. "Perhaps > Horos 2, Certainly,"
Nymphenh?gel:
"The
L. West,
Atticorum
Hermes
Athen,"
municipale des
100, pp. 96-126. V. 1998. "The Prison of Ath Hunter, ens: A Comparative Perspective," Phoenix 51, pp. 296-326. IE2 = Iambi et elegi graeci anteAlexan drum cantati, 2nd ed., 2 vols,
ed, Heidel
l'.Antiquae
und Darstellungen Kultort des Demos
or Traditionalism?"
zu
F?hrer
Fragmenta, Leipzig. K?hler, U. 1872. "Der
andTomb Cult inAncient Athens: Tradition
5th
Comicorum
Fragmenta
Graeca
Decrees,
1967.
Ein
St?tten,
1880.
Kock,T.
55,
Hesperia
Kraiker.
berg.
l'organisation si?cle, Paris.
S. 1983. Honours
A.
ZPE137,
L.
Essai
Foreigners," 177-182.
-.
((Themis Frost, F. J. 1980. Plutarch's tocles":A Historical Commentary, Princeton.
1884.
inAthenian leges heim.
500?
Horos-Inscriptions, Brunswick.
134.
1986.
(Hesperia
Athens,
klassischen
Kr?n,
quatri?me A. J, and R. A. Moysey. "An Athenian Hon Decree
Heisserer,
and Land
B.
and W.
E,
Griechischelandkunde:
London.
Henry,
Studies
(BICS Suppl. 57), London. Kirsten,
and
Mythology Ancient Athens, of
75th Birthday, and F D. Har
Cartledge
vey, London, pp. 189-207. -. 1989. The Heroes ofAttica
103
pp.
1890.
J. E. Monuments
in
b.c.: The
H.
ed. P. A.
"The De
London,
onHis
de Ste. Croix
?d. L. G. Mitchell
Greece,
Harrison,
9), Princeton.
and Credit
Goette,
in Religious after Structures in Crux: in Essays to G E. M. Greek Presented History
Cleisthenes,"
Inscrip Sepulchral 19, pp. 25-44.
and P. J. Rhodes, 112.
1923
Studies
Real Mortgage, Security, Tenure inAncient Athens
Gallo, e
of the
E.
nuity
in The Development of thePolis in
1930; Leiden 1940-1958.
200
Athen,
1997. "A New E. M. Solution Harris, to the Riddle of the Seisachtheia,"
der
Fragmente Berlin Historiker,
et al. 1990.
H,
von Topographie Munich. ed, 1985. "Change and Conti 1931.
2nd
Kearns,
Endeixis,
1976.Apagoge,
tions," AnalRom
146
1-74. peria 7, pp. = F. FGrH Jacoby, Die
New
M.
Archaic
J. V. A.
greca Rome.
Epigraf?a
carattereprivato,
H.
Evidence
S. 1938. "The Salaminioi Ferguson, W. of Heptaphylai and Sounion," Hes
Suppl. Finley, M.
di
from Erchia,"
154-172.
Judeich, W. 3:
mography of theAttic Demes: The
of
" 1997. Regis trazioni Faraguna, M. catastali nel mondo greco: Il caso di Atene," Athenaeum 85, pp. 7-33.
Fine,
1974.
1986. and Democ Demography Citi Athenian racy: The Number of zens in the Fourth b.c., Her Century ning, Denmark. Hansen,
Suppl. 5), Toronto. "Geraistai Nymphai
UXaxcov
griechischen
b.c., Oxford.
Odense.
Genethliai and theHill of the Nymphs," 159.
The Population
against Kakourgoi, A in Pheugontes: Study Administration the Athenian Justice of b.c. (Odense in the Fourth Century
Attika:A Study in thePolicy ofKleis Ervin,
the
Ephegesis and Atimoi,
in repr. Hildesheim. Aristophanem, N. 1995. "Birds," Dunbar, Aristophanes, Oxford.
thenes
1933.
Calendar
89, pp. 1948. "The Boustrophe Jeffery, L. H. don Sacral Inscriptions from the 17, pp. 86-111. Agora," Hesperia Jones, N. F 1999. The Associations of to Classical Athens: The Response Oxford. Democracy,
and
of Erkhia," BCH 89, pp. 180-213. Diibner, F. [1877] 1969. ScholiaGraeca
C. W.
and
Attica,
117
Sacrificial
University Classical Studies 8),
S. 1965.
Eliot,
Athens,
KOLLYTOS
BCH
10, pp. 235-246.
M.
Epigrafi M. Hansen,
zur
"Funde," AM
1892.
D?rpfeld,W. pp. 90-95.
"Der H?gel der Panagia und seine Inschrif
A. W.
Guarducci,
Building,"
E., and J. A. Kaupert. von Athen, Berlin.
Curtius,
AND
Guide, Archaeological trans, rev. ed., London.
Centuries
20, pp. 168-187. 1868. Sieben Karten
Hesperia E. Curtius,
Dow,
"The Poros
1951.
MELITE
ofAthens in theFifth andFourth
and
Topography Princeton 1997.
Architecture,
English Gomme,
of
and Kore:
Demeter
Crosby,
Sanctuary
OF
bei Vari
ten," AMI -. 2001.
Ill?
pp.
1995. Thiti
16-18 October 1992 (SkrAth 8? 14), ed. R.
BOUNDARY
Demes,"
SymbOslo
III: The "Hymettiana Markers of Alepovouni," 68, pp. 481-508.
in
GERALD
Il8
E. 2000.
Lanzillotta, in Atene," nea perini, 501.
in
epigr?fica ed. G.
del demo
Attic
1982.
"Zwei Horos-In
Attika,"^ H.,
97, pp. 299-315. and H. Lauter. und
"Wohnh?user des klassischen
AM
Mommsen,
K. 2002.
Lazaridou,
evo
"Epyaoie?
7ro?noT|c ap%aioXoyiKc?v
2 vols.,
Lewis,
D. M.
ed., London. "Notes on Attic
2nd
1955.
(II)," BSA 50, pp. "Attic Manumissions,"
Inscriptions -. 1959.
28, pp. 208-238. Hesperia -. 1963. "Cleisthenes Historia -.
12, pp. 22-40. 1968. "Dedications
1-36.
Classical
and Attica," at
of Phialai
Greece,
rev. ed. with
by A. W.
Johnston,
Sokolowski,
Lois
R.
1987.
Demes,"
in
sup Oxford
to the Gods: Pro
Gifts ceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1985 (Boreas 15), ed. T. Linders Uppsala,
G. Ath?nes
18), -.
E.
1998.
"The Eparche the Early Oracle GRBS22, pp. 39-63. L'ancienne
1852. ArchEph
B.
1999.
1852,
at
Ath?nes,
pp. 665
the
Inscrip
tions," Hesperia 5, pp. 355-430. -. 1967. "Greek Inscriptions," 36, pp. 57-101. Hesperia B. D., M. L. Lethen, and Meritt,
tions," Hesperia
1957.
"Greek
22,
Ste
pp. 225
299. O. W.
1971. TheEphebic of the Fourth Century 14), Leiden. Suppl.
Inscriptions
b.c.
(Mnemosyne on P. J. 1981. A Commentary Rhodes, Athenaion the Aristotelian Politeia,"
Inscrip 26, pp. 24-97.
C. E.
1984.
"The Athenian
Stones of Public Domain" Boundary of Univ. Colorado, Boulder). (diss. Rosivach, Public
Stamires.
"The Attic
Oxford.
117-122. "Greek
1953.
I,"Hesperia
Reinmuth,
Ritchie,
Right Dating Criteria for Fifth Century Attic Texts?" ZPE126, 1936.
K.
lai, Part
?paKTiKa
"What Are
W.
Pritchett,
ou
ei? ?VTJjunvAdolf Athens, pp. 99-122.
B. D.
1981.
Athens.
la descrip et d'Ath?nes
emypacpai:
H.
A His
Religion:
and
Documents
Pittakis,
Kai TTJ?ATTIK?J?3, pp. 15-244. A. 2004. Matthaiou, "nepi xfjc; IG I311,"
Wilhelm,
tory, Oxford. A. Petropoulou,
Oropus," K. S. 1835.
sacr?es
antiquit?s ses environs, Ath?nes 1835," Tcov /ivrijueicov rcov ??nvcdv Apxe?ov
in ?rriKai
of the Attic
"Festivals
688.
tion des
IvfiJtooo?ov
The Discovery
Cambridge. J. K. 2003. Cer?micas Iron Pot The Early Age in the Area Classical the of
and G. Nordquist, 137-147.
de
G.
1956-1961," AA
pp.
1969.
Malouchou-Da?liana,
Meritt,
"Kerameikos-Grabung
-. 1996. Athenian
"L'ancienne
Brigh
Princeton. Parker,
des cit?s grecques (Ecole fran?aise et m?moires Travaux d'Ath?nes,
pp.
Greece,
Early
Attica,
ters'Field
Cologne.
ofArchaic
1,
Athenian Agora (Hesperia Suppl. 31),
LSAG = L. H. Jeffery, The Local Scripts plement 1990. = F. LSCG
und
vol.
80, pp. 277-376. R. 1985. Demos: Osborne, of
37, pp. 368-380. Hesperia H. 1993. Atene: Lohmann, Forschungen zu und Wirtschaftsstruk Siedlungstur des klassischen Attika, 2 vols.,
Mattingly,
Kunst
Religion,
repr. Chicago.
Papadopoulos, Redivivus:
Athens,"
Paris
in
T?tigkeitsbericht
%copa>v,"
ArchDelt 52, B'1 (1997), pp. 39-43. Leake,W. M. 1841. The Topography of Athens,
der Griechen
1965.
D.
Ohly,
des Lebens
0.1980.
Murray, ton.
zur
Altertums
Baumeister,
christianae, 86,
in Denk
"Athen,"
pp. 144-209. 1977. Athenae A. [1868]
Munich, 1971.
109-124.
pp.
1885.
ed. A.
Sitte,
Stadtviertel
Athen,"
98, pp. 424
des klassischen
Erl?uterung und R?mer
Zu Grenzziehung in S?dost und Demenlokalisierung
Lauter-Bufe,
in the
"Religion
AJP
A.
Milchh?fer,
bei Vari:
schriften
1977.
Demes,"
LALONDE
435.
pp. 495
Rome,
Paci,
J. D.
Mikalson,
m?ler
H.
Lauter,
"Il culto
'Emypa?a? Miscella in onore di Lidio Gas
V.
Athens,
1994.
V.J.
Sacrifice Atlanta.
Shear, T. L.
1939.
in
The
System
of
Fourth-Century
"The Campaign
of
8, pp. 201-246. 1938," Hesperia and Shear, T. L, Jr. 1978. "Tyrants
Buildings inArchaic Athens," in Athens
Comes
to Salamis.
ofAge:
Papers
of
From a
Solon
Symposium
THE
Princeton Soci Sponsored by theAIA, Art and and the ety, Department of Princeton University, Archaeology, Princeton. ed.W. A. P. Childs, P. 1982. Die
Siewert,
und die
Attikas
Trittyen des Kleis
Heeresreform
Testimonien
pp.
und
Attic raphy
und
epigra 'Kera
?ber
"Fees
in the Organization Toronto.
and Taxes
o? Aspects ArchStorAnt R.
of
29),
b.c.
374/3
1954. Athenian
(Hesperia
1936.
"Pnyx
and
0opoc: in the Athenian
"Activity
M.
"The Deme
Reforms,"
pp. 72-79. L. 1980. Threatte,
in Kleis
SymbOslo
1:
of
Attica: of
A
Study
-.
1980.
"The
College
department
of iowa
[email protected]
classics 50ii2
Bradeen Locust
Prison
of
in From Athens Athens," aMemo to Gordion: The Papers of rial S. Symposium for Rodney of Pennsylvania (University Young Papers
1), ed. K. DeVries,
pp. 17-31. A. 1998.
origines Actes du
? la
P?ri?g?se
colloque orga de du 15 au Li?ge
of
17 mai 1997 (2epartie) (Kernos
19,
Suppl. Li?ge, Wachsmuth,
8), ed. V. Pirenne-Delforge, pp. 109-127. C.
imAlterthum
1874. Die 1, Leipzig.
1982.
Stadt Athen
27,
CQ
"The Confisca
?JhBeibl 18, pp. 87-98. R. G. A.
1995. around
Ar
"The Lost
Phoenix
Athens,"
49, pp. 247-258.
Whitehead, D. 1977. The Ideology of theAthenian Metic (PCPS Suppl. 4), Cambridge. -. 1986a. 508/7-ca. Social
and pp.
The Demes
ofAttica, b.c.: A Political and
250
Study, 1986b.
Princeton. "The
Metic:
of the Ideology Some Pendants
a Reappraisal," 145-158.
PCPS
32,
U.
Wilamowitz-M?llendorff,
von.
1880.Aus Kydathen (Philologische
Hermes
Metoeken," State
II.
1), Berlin. Untersuchungen -. 1887. "Demotika der
Valley,
Ancient
Museum
B.
Athenian
and
in
Society:
of the Property
-.
"An Archaic
from Marathon,"
nis? ? l'Universit?
of the Demes,
Gerald V.Lalonde
1942.
"Studies
of Kleisthenes,"
chaic Wall
McGregor, pp. 156-160.
de Pausanias.
A' (1964), pp. 26-36. Traill, J. S. 1975. The Political Organi
grinnell,
M.
Weir,
in of Athens," City-Wall to Benjamin Tribute Dean
des cit?s: Des
Phonology,
J., and E. Vanderpool. Threpsiades, 1965. "Themistokles' Sanctuary Artemis ArchDelt Aristoboule,"
Grinnell
Epi
"H?ros Verbanck-Pi?rard, au le Les calen attiques jour jour: in Les Panth?ons driers des d?mes,"
Berlin.
zation
Walbank,
1933. of Attic
of the Thirty 51, pp. 74-98. Tyrants," Hesperia "Zu attischen 0.1915. Walter, Reliefs,"
ano
Stele
Philadelphia,
46,
The Grammar
Inscriptions
F
N.Y,
12, pp. 269-383. Pnyx," Hesperia W. E. 1970. "Notes on Thompson, Attic Demes," 39, pp. 64 Hesperia 67.
Attic
17-29.
imAlter
tion and Sale by the Poletai in 402/1
ofAttica,
ed. D. W.
Meritt,
37,
Hesperia
H. A., and R. L. Scranton. on the "Stoas and City Walls
-. 1971.
Persian
23,
1953," Hesperia
1966-1967," Agora: pp. 36-72.
thenes'
pp.
b.c.
11, pp. 329-337. Hesperia -. 1974. "The Date of the Pre
in the
"Excavations
E.
Vanderpool, Inscribed
5,
Hesperia
Agora:
pp. 31-67. 1968.
Grain
Princeton.
H. A.
Thompson, 1943.
Topog
tcov npoioTopiKcov tcov apxodv rod 19ov Xp?vcov ju?xpi ai vo?, Athens. = Pictorial Travlos, Athens J. Travlos, Ancient Athens, Lon Dictionary of don 1971. tcov AOrjvmv,
"Further
Polis Religion," Ann 10, pp. 259-274.
Thesmophorion," pp. 151-200.
-.
1988.
C.
S. 1998. The Athenian
Tax Law
-.
Laws
in
Travlos, J. 1960. noAeoSojuucrj ????i?i?
153-164.
Sourvinou-Inwood,
Thompson,
The
Vanderpool
Trittys:
Stadt Athen
the Structure
19), Princeton, and
II?
thum 2, Leipzig. H. T. Wade-Gery,
graphical and Topographical Studies F. 1954.
Suppl.
and
History, to Eugene
Epigraphy, Presented
-. 1986. Demos
in the Greek Cults," HTR 47,
Stroud,
in Studies
of Lamptrai,"
KOLLYTOS
-. 1890. Die
and Their Phylai, Rep in the Athenian Council
Suppl. (Hesperia 162-171.
1-8.
Sokolowski,
pp.
AND
pp.
114,
'Kerameis,"'yfM
and
MELITE
14), Princeton. (Hesperia Suppl. 1982. "An Interpretation of Six in the Attic Rock-Cut Inscriptions Demes
zur alten
thenes (Vestigia: Beitr?ge Geschichte 33), Munich. -. 1999. "Literarische phische meikos'
Trittyes, resentation
-.
OF
BOUNDARY
attischen
22, pp.
107
128. Winter,
F. E.
urbem
and
of Athens,"
intra uSepulturae the Pre-Persian Walls
1982.
in Studies and
graphy, History, to Presented Eugene (Hesperia Suppl. pp. 199-204. Wycherley,
R. E.
inAttic
Epi
Topography Vanderpool
19), Princeton, 1959.
"Two Athenian
Shrines," AJA 63, pp. 67-72. -. 1962. How the Greeks Built Cities, 2nd -. 1978.
ed., London. The
Stones
ofAthens,
Princeton. R. S. 1951. Young, trict of Ancient 20, pp.
135-288.
"An Industrial Athens,"
Dis
Hesperia
