Studies in Attic Epigraphy, History, & Topography Presented to Eugene Vanderpool (Hesperia Supplement 19)

HESPERIA: SUPPLEMENT XIX

IN

STUDIES HISTORY

ATTIC AND

EPIGRAPHY TOPOGRAPHY

PRESENTED TO

EUGENE VANDERPOOL

AMERICAN

SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS PRINCETON,

NEW JERSEY

1982

HESPERIA: SUPPLEMENT XIX

STUDIES

ATTIC

IN

HISTORY

EPIGRAPHY TOPOGRAPHY

AND

J'AP

I

PRESENTED TO

EUGENE VANDERPOOL

AMERICAN

SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 1982

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Main entry under title: Studies in Attic epigraphy, history, and topography. (Hesperia Supplement; 19) "Bibliographyof Eugene Vanderpool":p. 1. Attiki (Greece)-Antiquities-Addresses, essays, lectures. 2. Inscriptions, Greek-Greece-Attiki-Addresses, essays, lectures. 3. Attiki (Greece)-History-Addresses, essays, lectures. 4. Athens (Greece)-History-Addresses, II. essays, lectures. 5. Vanderpool, Eugene, 1906Series: Hesperia (Princeton, N.J.). Supplement; 19. 81-12876 938'.5 DF261.A8S88 AACR2 ISBN 0-87661-519-1

EUGENEVANDERPOOL ETH FEFONOTI iTENTE KAI EBtOMHKONTA XAPITHPION Y1TOTHE EN AGHNAI AMEPIKANIKH7 XXOAHX KAAIIIKQN 1TTOYAQN APETHE ENEKEN

AUGUST 3, 1981

These papers are offered by members of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens who have been students and colleagues of Eugene Vanderpool.Contributions towardthe cost of publicationhave been generously providedby the following:

Anna Benjamin

Charles H. Morgan

William R. and Jane C. Biers

James H. Oliver

Alan L. Boegehold

Jerome J. Pollitt

OscarBroneer

W. KendrickPritchett

John McK. Camp II

Carl A. and Mary C. Roebuck

Diskin Clay

Henry S. and Rebecca W. Robinson

Alison Frantz

BrunildeS. Ridgway

VirginiaR. Grace

Robert and Louise Scranton

Evelyn B. Harrison

T. Leslie and lone M. Shear

Dorothy Kent Hill

Evelyn Lord Smithson

RichardH. Howland

BrianA. Sparkes

Henry R. Immerwahr

Homer A. and Dorothy B. Thompson

Frances F. Jones

Stephen V. Tracy

Mabel L. Lang

Emily T. Vermeule

Merle K. Langdon

Michael B. Walbank

James R. and MarianM. McCredie

Saul S. and Gladys D. Weinberg

Malcolm and MargueriteMcGregor

Charles K. Williams, II

BenjaminD. and Lucy S. Meritt

FrederickE. Winter

Stephen G. and Stella G. Miller

Nancy A. Winter

Fordyce W. Mitchel

R. E. Wycherley The Meriden Gravure Company

TABLE OF CONTENTS BIBLIOGRAPHY OF EUGENE

ALANL.

BOEGEHOLD: A

VANDERPOOL .........................................

Lid with Dipinto .

EUGENEN. BORZA:Athenians,

Royal House

.

Macedonians, and the Origins of the Macedonian

.....................................................

JOHNL. CASKEY: Koroni and Keos

.........................................

in the Archives of Athens ............................. KEVINCLINTON: The Nature of the Late Fifth-century Revision of the Athenian Law Code ............................................................ STEVEN DIAMANT: Theseus and the Unificationof Attica ........................ COLINN. EDMONSON: Onesippos'Herm ...................................... C. W. J. ELIOT:Gennadeion Notes, V. The Journalof Thomas Whitcombe, Philhellene........................................................ HENRYR. IMMERWAHR: A Lekythos in Toronto and the Golden Youth of Athens .... MICHAELH. JAMESON:The Leasing of Land in Rhamnous ....................... MABELL. LANG:Writing and Spellingon Ostraka .............................. MERLEK. LANGDON: Some Attic Walls ..... ................................ JAMES R. MCCREDIE: Dodwellopolis: Addendum to FortifiedMilitaryCampsin Attica.. DISKIN CLAY:Epicurus

MALCOLM F. MCGREGOR: Athens and Hestiaia ................................. BENJAMIN D. MERITT:Thucydides and the Decrees of Kallias .................... JAMESH. OLIVER: Arrian in Two Roles ...................................... ANTONYE. RAUBITSCHEK: The Dedication of Aristokrates ........................ HOMERA. THOMPSON: The Pnyx in Models LESLIE THREATTE: The

vii

................................... Alleged Conservatism of Attic EpigraphicalDocuments:

A Different View .................................................. STEPHEN V. TRACY: Agora 1 7181 + IG 112, 944b ..............................

7 14 17 27 38 48 51 59 66 75 88 99 101 112 122 130 133 148 157

JOHNS. TRAILL:An Interpretation of Six Rock-cut Inscriptions in the Attic Demes of Lamptrai ......................................................... JOHN TRAVLOS:

rLAPAAEIFMA ............................................

MICHAEL B. WALBANK: Regulations for an Athenian Festival ..................... PAULW. WALLACE: The Final Battle at Plataia ................................ LIVINGSTON VANCEWATROUS: An

F. E.

WINTER:

Attic Farm Near Laurion ....................... Sepulturae intraurbemand the Pre-PersianWalls of Athens .........

EPIGRAPHICAL INDEX ......................................................

162 172 173 183 193 199 205

GREEKEPIGRAPHICALINDEX PERSONS Alruxvq k

---]a8ov

BEP[EVMKd(8rj)],

ephebe

205/4 a., 157 87 AIrNaq (KnqkOEv1), ca. 436? a., father of 'OvqcTrqos,

48 1

['A r]XX6o8wpoU[q](HTroXEAud8o0),ca. 225/4 a., fatherof 'A~roXXd[Loo],157 88

(K----), 'A~roXX68wpo;

ca.

225/4 a., father of

Xapiaq, 157 84 [Loc 'A7ro]X\o8dpo [v ----I (HTroXAqat'A7roXAwV 8o;), ephebe 205/4 a., 157 88 'Apptav6o, proconsulin inscriptionfound at Cordoba, 123 5; 'Apptauvo6], see A(oVKLOz)$X(a&,8to;) 'Apptav6oU], 122 1 BE[pEVt(Ktd8rc1)], H1oXv [(rIrparov 'ApXETtLO' ephebe 205/4 a., 157 86 AlOKr19

)tXOOTpaTOV'EpXLEv1, ephebe 205/4 a.,

157 80

0 x KEpE[a]pEc,katapaltaN[E]a[P18poc HE8E&' phetes 205/4 a., 158 121-124 NLKOXaipq, didaskalos of comedy 403? a., 48 5

'OXv -rt06(8)copoq, boxer,

AIrTov KqN0t-EvJ, archon basileus 'OVq,0-rLrTo 403? a., 48 1; '0vpo-L-rt7T7ioc, 48 2 E8tE'V' (EK

'E[o]prnoc EpWto8V]pov 'AXapvEvJ5,paidotribes 205/4 a., 157 113-116 'Ep'8[c61poa ('AXapvEvl), ca. 238/7 a., father of 'E[o] prtoq, 157 114-115

KEpa/Edcow),ca. 238/7 a., father of 158 122-123

N[E]a[v]8po;,

IHL8C,javelin thrower, on white-ground lekythos ca. 500 a., 60 IHoXv[cr] rparo; (BEpEMVKtL8Tj), ca. 225/4 a., father of 'ApXE'tW,;o,157 86 Drh'6apoa, discus thrower, on white-groundlekythos ca. 500 a., 60 IrparOVLKO'

A"ov, runner, on white-groundlekythos ca. 500 a., 60

MEyaKXEsqp, jumper, on

white-groundlekythos,

ca. 500 a., 60 didaskalosof tragedy403? a., 48 8 ME-yaKXdt8Tj', MEyaKXq, on red-figuredplate, 60

choregos

IrpaTwvoa,

of

tragedy

403? a., 48 7 arpcrcwv,ca. 436 a., fatherof 7rpaTrVKO4, 48 7 7_C0rTKpaTrrq, xaXKo7rwT'kq,choregos of comedy

403? a., 48 4 4ItXoo-T[p]aToc )t'L\o6rTpaTo';,

('EpXLEvP), ca. 225/4 a., father of 157 81; t'X6'O(rTpaToc ('EpXLEvl),

ca. 225/4 a., father of A(OVKLO9) 'AX(ac,8toc)'Appuavo6[i], VJfTrartKo9 Otxo[colfool, on a base in Athens, 122 1

on white-ground

lekythos ca. 500 a., 60

')t'LocrTpaTo'

ALoKK-1i,

157 80

'EpXLE(v),

't'LouT[p]aTov

ephebe

205/4 a., 157 81

'Apptavo [k], 'tx(ac,8toc): see A (OVKLO9) 'AX(a&fLoq)

122 1 Xapiaq 'A7roXo8pov K[----], tis 205/4 a., 157 84

ephebe of Leon-

DEMES, PHYLAI, PLACES 'A6v[---], 107 72-73 'AO~vato;:'A6q[vauov],105

18 'AOvat: 'Aq'vnqOt, 106 41, 52; 'A6Yvqctv, 105 52; 'A[] n'q[otLv], 105 17; ['As]hvqotv, 107 74 AiyE4: AtyEL8o0, 157 79

'AXapVEV(): 'AXap 8Ea,157 115-116 BEP [E VLKL(8'q1)I,

157 87; BE [PE Pt(KL'8'l) I, 157 86

Atov: ALot, 106 49 'Exxom'a: 'Exxorriat, 106 51; 'EXkorma[LI, 106 50 'E o'rnto;:['E]XXo~r"ov,106 51 'EpXLEvJ,157 80; 'EpXtE(vl), 157 81 'EO-T'ata: [hEo-TL]aux[-],

105 47-48; hE[orTatavl,

105 57; hEoTcaa, 105 41, 106 44; [h]E-Tardaq, 107 69; hErT[uilglx, 105 19-20; 'EoruTaa, 106

206

GREEKEPIGRAPHICALINDEX

105 55; hEOTtatL, 37; [TErtatad], 105 42; hEoT[rtatd], [h]EOraiat, 105 42-43; [hErl]aiat, [hEcrna[]at,

106 47, 48; 106 46-47; 104 9, 106

53, 54; [hEoTtatLa], 106 46

K[----],

157 84

AEWcVTtl: AECOPTi8o0,

157 83

157 82 IHroXEAatt: H1roKEAM88o0,157 85 HaV8tolVex: Hav8Lovt'8o,

XaXKd: XaXK08o0, 105 57; [Xa]XK8o0, 105 53-54

KEpa/IEV1: KEp[a]/E.dv, 157 123-124 Kq~tqtEvLE, 48 1, 157 78

'flpconr6o:

'flpwonTv,

105 54, 56; 'flpwiTov, 105 55

GODDESSES,DEITIES 'A6nva: AOvqat, 174 39

Moc-ua: [Movuaocol~,123 3

"AprqEAL: "AprE4L, 123 2

INSCRIPTIONSSTUDIED OR EMENDED AcropolisInventoryNumbers (Vase) 16 .........

636..................

60

60-61

AgoraInventoryNumber (Inscription) 727.......... 7063..........

27-37 173-182

7181..................

AgoraInventoryNumber (Pottery) 28470..........

1-6 AgoraXV

42 ..........

166-167 AthenianTributeLists I, 1939 and II, 1949

Dl, D2 ..........

112-121 AthensAnnalsof Archaeology

3,1970,377-380 ..........

122 BritishMuseum InventoryNumber

4 ..........

101-111 Cabinetdes MedaillesInventoryNumber (Vase)

523..........

61

157-161

207

GREEKEPIGRAPHICALINDEX CorinthVIII, iii 124.122 EpigraphicalMuseum InventoryNumber 4219 ...... 6572, 6572a...... 6573......

66-74 101-111 101-111

6576 .. 6809 .. 13179 ..

101-111 101-111 101-111

Hesperia 4, 1935, pp. 5-32 ........... 30, 1961, pp. 12-13 .......... 30, 1961, pp. 31-33 .......... 31, 1962, pp. 399-401 ........

27-37 1596

166-167 101-111

40, 42, 43, 45,

1971, pp. 256-257 (4) ..... 1973, pp. 173-175 (1) ..... 1974, pp. 246-259 ........ 1976, pp. 296-303 ........

48-51 130-132 157-161 157-161

GraecaeI2 Inscriptiones 40/1, 42, 43, 48 .........

101-111

772.130-132 GraecaeI3 Inscriptiones

41 .......................

101-111 Inscriptiones Graecae112

944b .

157-161

2493.66-74

KerameikosInventoryNumber (Inscription) 131.157-161 Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum XXI, 26 ...

101-111

XXVI, 1215......

122-129

BIBLIOGRAPHYOF EUGENE VANDERPOOL

1932 "An Athenian Dikast's Ticket," AJA 36, pp. 293-294 1935 "Tholos and Prytanikon,"Hesperia4, pp. 470-475 1937 "The Kneeling Boy," Hesperia6, pp. 426-441 1938 "The RectangularRock-cut Shaft," Hesperia7, pp. 363-411 1939 "An Alabastronby the Amasis Painter," Hesperia8, pp. 247-266 1942 "An ArchaicInscribedStele from Marathon,"Hesperia11, pp. 329-337 1945 "Two InscriptionsNear Athens," Hesperia14, pp. 147-149 1946 "The RectangularRock-cutShaft," Hesperia15, pp. 265-336 "Some Black-figuredPottery from the Athenian Agora," Hesperia15, pp. 120-137 "An Unusual Black-figuredCup," AJA 39, pp. 436-440 1949 "The Route of Pausaniasin the Athenian Agora," Hesperia18, pp. 128-137 "Some Ostraka from the Athenian Agora," Hesperia, Suppl. VIII, Commemorative Studiesin Honorof TheodoreLeslieShear, Baltimore,pp. 394-412 (with G. P. Stevens) "An InscribedKouros Base," Hesperia,Suppl.VIII, pp. 361-363 1950 "The Apostle Paul in Athens," Archaeology3, pp. 34-37 (with M. T. Mitsos) "Inscriptionsfrom Attica," Hesperia19, pp. 25-30 (with M. T. Mitsos) "Addendum," Hesperia19, p. 391 (with G. A. Stamires) "Kallixenosthe Alkmaionid,"Hesperia19, pp. 376-390

viii

EUGENE VANDERPOOL

1951 "A Black-figuredKylix from the Athenian Agora," Hesperia20, pp. 61-63 1952 "Kleophon," Hesperia21, pp. 114-115 "The Ostracismof the Elder Alkibiades,"Hesperia21, pp. 1-8 1953 "New Evidence for the Locationof the Attic Deme Kopros," Hesperia22, pp. 175-176 "News Letter from Athens," AJA 57, pp. 281-286 (with M. T. Mitsos) "Inscriptionsfrom Athens," Hesperia22, pp. 177-181 Review of J. D. Beazley, TheDevelopmentof AtticBlack-figure,Berkeley and Los Angeles, Cambridge1951, AJP 74, pp. 321-323 1954 "News Letter from Athens," AJA 58, pp. 231-241 1955 "New InscriptionsConcerningArchilochos,"AJP 76, pp. 186-188 "News Letter from Athens," AJA 59, pp. 223-229 Review of R. Lullies, Corpus VasorumAntiquorum,Deutschland,IX: MAnchen,3, Munich 1952, Gnomon27, pp. 122-123 1956 "News Letter from Athens," AJA 60, pp. 267-274 Review of J. D. Beazley, Attic Black-figureVase-painters,Oxford 1956, AJA 60, pp. 304-306 Review of J. Kefalinos (and others), Ten WhiteLekythoi in the National Museum, Athens 1953-1955, AJA 60, p. 459 Ein Fihrer zu klassischen Review of E. Kirsten and W. Kraiker, Griechenlandkunde. Stiitten,Heidelberg1955, AJA 60, pp. 193-194 Review of E. Meyer, Pausanias. BeschreibungGriechenlands,Zurich 1954, AJA 60, pp. 194-195 1957 "A Decade of Discovery 1948-1957: Greece," Archaeology10, pp. 242-245. "News Letter from Athens," AJA 61, pp. 281-285 Review of S. Karouzou, TheAmasisPainter,Oxford 1956, AJA 61, pp. 207-208

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ix

1958 "The Museum and Garden of the Peripatetics," 'ApX'E0, 1953-1954, B' [19581, pp. 126-128 "News Letter from Athens," AJA 62, pp. 321-325 1959 "An Athenian Monument to Theodoros of Gadara,"AJP 80, pp. 366-369 "Athens Honors the EmperorTiberius," Hesperia28, pp. 86-90 "News Letter from Athens," AJA 63, pp. 279-283 "Roads at the Northwest Corner of the Athenian Agora," Hesperia28, pp. 289-297 1960 "News Letter from Athens," AJA 64, pp. 265-271 1961 "Excavationsat Koroni (Porto Raphti) Attica, 1960," Khlo 39, pp. 271-275 (= 16, 1960, B' [19621,pp. 40-42) "News Letter from Athens," AJA 65, pp. 299-303

AEXT

1962 "News Letter from Athens," AJA 66, pp. 389-391 "Some Attic Inscriptions,"Hesperia31, pp. 399-403 (with J. R. McCredieand A. Steinberg) "Koroni:A Ptolemaic Camp on the East Coast of Attica," Hesperia31, pp. 26-61 1963 "News Letter from Athens," AJA 67, pp. 229-283 (with J. Threpsiades)"Ilpos Tots 'Epjza's,"AEXT 18, A' [19641,pp. 99-114 (with E. French) "The Phokikon," Hesperia32, pp. 213-225 1964 "More Inscriptionsfrom the Phokikon," Hesperia33, pp. 84-85 "News Letter from Athens," AJA 68, pp. 293-295 (with J. R. McCredie and A. Steinberg) "Koroni, the Date of the Camp and the Pottery," Hesperia33, pp. 69-75 (with W. P. Wallace) "The Sixth Century Laws from Eretria," Hesperia 33, pp. 381-391 (with J. Threpsiades) "Themistokles' Sanctuaryof Artemis Aristoboule," AEXT 19, A' [19651,pp. 26-36

x

EUGENEVANDERPOOL

1965 K. 'OpXav8ov I, Athens, Et 'AvaO-Tacatov "The AcharnianAqueduct," Xapt-Triqp'ov pp. 166-175 "Amphipolis, Hill 133," Appendix to W. K. Pritchett, Studiesin AncientGreek Topography,Berkeley, Part I, pp. 46-48 "The Location of the Attic Deme Erchia," BCH 89, pp. 21-26 "News Letter from Athens," AJA 69, pp. 353-357 1966 "The Deme of Marathonand the Herakleion,"AJA 70, pp. 319-323 "A Monument to the Battle of Marathon,"Hesperia35, pp. 93-106 "Some Attic Inscriptions,"Hesperia35, pp. 274-283 1967 "Kephisophon'sKylix," Hesperia36, pp. 187-189 "The MarbleTrophyfrom Marathonin the BritishMuseum," Hesperia36, pp. 108-110 "Pan in Paiania: A Note on Lines 407-409 of Menander's Dyskolos," AJA 71, pp. 309-311 1968 "Alcibiades,"Hesperia37, p. 398 "Metronomoi,"Hesperia37, pp. 73-76 "New Ostrakafrom the Athenian Agora," Hesperia37, pp. 117-120 "Notes on Readings," AEXT 23, A', pp. 295-296 "Three Inscriptionsfrom Eleusis," AEXT23, A', pp. 1-9 1969 "A Palaistrain Kephissia,"AEXT24, A' [19711,pp. 6-7 "Three Prize Vases," AEXT24, A' [19711,pp. 1-5 1970 "A Lex Sacra of the Attic Deme Phrearrhioi,"Hesperia39, pp. 47-53 "Some Attic Inscriptions,"Hesperia39, pp. 40-46 "NV1toPau EITE'aq'A7TLK'. II. The Two Attic Demes of Eitea," AEXT25, A' [19711, pp. 215-216 1971 "An Athenian Decree in PhocianStiris," AAA 4, pp. 439-443 "Hoplon, An Athenian Archon of the III CenturyB.C.," Hesperia40, pp. 109-111 "A Relief Pithos Fragmentfrom Attica," AAA 4, pp. 75-76

BIBLIOGRAPHY

xi

1972 Articles on Delphi (in part), Eleusis (in part), Epidaurus(in part), Olympia,and Pella, Britannica(14th Edition, revised) Encyclopedia "The Inscriptionon the Theron Stele," AAA 5, pp. 248-251 1973 "Ostracismat Athens. I. The Ostraca.II. Some HistoricalPoints," Universityof Cincinnati ClassicalStudies, II (Lecturesin Memoryof Louise Taft Semple,Second Series, 1966-1970), Oklahoma,pp. 215-2701 1974 Article on Athens (in part), TheNew Encyclopedia Britannica(15th Edition) "The 'Agora' of Pausanias,I, 17, 1-2," Hesperia43, pp. 308-310 "The Attic Deme Phegaia," Aelanges hellkniquesofferts a' GeorgesDaux, Paris, pp. 339-343 "The Date of the Pre-PersianCity-Wall of Athens," 4(1kpoa.Tributeto BenjaminDean Meritt,Locust Valley, N.Y., pp. 156-160 "Ostrakafrom the Athenian Agora, 1970-1972," Hesperia43, pp. 189-193 "Victoriesin the Anthippasia,"Hesperia43, pp. 311-313 1975 "A Southern Attic Miscellany," MiscellaneaGraeca, fasc. 1, Thorikosand the Laurionin Archaicand ClassicalTimes,Ghent, pp. 21-42 1976 Articles on Agrinion, Mykonos, Thasos, Tiryns, The PrincetonEncyclopediaof Classical Sites, Princeton "MarbleTorso of a Fallen Warrior,"AthMitt91, pp. 75-76 "The Prison of Socrates," ILN, vol. 264, June, pp. 87-88; see also TheAthenian,vol. III, no. 30, April 1967, pp. 22-24 1977 "Fouillesde DelphesIII 2 No. 49: An Explanationof the Puzzle," AJA 81, pp. 553-554 "The Marquisde Nointel in Naxos, A.D. 1673," Hesperia46, pp. 257-258 1978 "Roads and Forts in NorthwesternAttica," CSCA 11 [19791,pp. 227-245 1979 "The Genos TheoinidaiHonors a Priestess of Nymphe," AJA 100, pp. 213-216 'A "preliminarypublication"of these lectures was issued by the Universityof Cincinnatiin 1970 with the title Ostracismat Athens(36 pp. 66 ill.).

xii

EUGENE VANDERPOOL

1980 "The State Prison of Ancient Athens," FromAthensto Gordion.The Papersof a Memorial Symposiumfor RodneyS. Young(UniversityMuseumPapersI), Philadelphia, pp. 17-31 1981 "The SacredThreshingFloor at Eleusis," Hesperia,Suppl.XX (forthcoming)

A LID WITH DIPINTO* (PLATE 1)

I. VESSELAND INSCRIPTION Lid (P 28470). P1. 1 H. 0.054; p. W. 0.113; est. Diam. 0.19 m. About one quarter of a shallow-domed, unglazed lid, mended from ten pieces; orange, slightly micaceous clay; knob handle at top center; rounded edge. Context: 350-300 B.C., fill used to level a floor.1

FIG.1. Lid P 28470

The lid is like B. Sparkesand L. Talcott, TheAthenianAgora, XII, Black and Plain Pottery, Princeton 1970, pl. 95, nos. 1963 and 1981 from 4th-centuryB.C.contexts. Inscription fin. saec. IV [-- -]8E:

TETTap[...

E( a'VaKpt'CEcO'

[---81tajiapTVptia: [---]h' [--0

[S

KaKpckE

[t8t- - 1

p

.] p: E'K[

i

E[KE

*1 dedicate this study to Eugene Vanderpool,.from whom I have been learning new things about Greece, ancient and modern, for twenty-fiveyears. I thank T. L. Shear, Jr. for permission to publish P 28470 and Homer A. Thompsonfor entrustingme earlierwith publicationof materialrelatingto law courts in the AthenianAgora. 'See T. L. Shear, Jr., Hesperia42, 1973,pp. 138-144 on the building.

2

ALAN L. BOEGEHOLD

Commentary Epigraphical Letters (except omega) are 0.004 to 0.005 m. high, paintedneatlywith a brushin black.In some places, pigment is gone but prints of letters can still be seen, e.g. NKAKf11 in line 3. Elsewhere, e.g. the space before rho in line 4, where letters ought to have been, no trace remains. A left margincannot be fixed. and E'7E&17KE may end lines 2 and 4. A photographand a drawing(P1.1) of the shapesand lines I avaKpt0EwOq can see supplementepigraphicalcommentary.There is no traceof writingabove line 1. The dotted nu in line 1 could be an eta; the dotted iota in line 4 is uncertainbecauseof an ancientsmudgingof the paint.

Papyrustexts of the late 4th and 3rd centuries B.C. show letters that are comparable in shape, stance, alignment and disposition.Note especiallytheta with a horizontalline, xi made with three short horizontalstrokes and no vertical, lunate sigma, upsilon, and a transitionalform of omega, all of which appearin similar forms in the first three papyri picturedin W. Schubart,PapyriGraecaeBerolinenses.2 A two-dot interpunctseparateswords and phrasesin some inventories publishedon stone during the 5th, 4th, and 3rd centuries at Athens.3 In the present inscriptionthe interpunctappearsfour times, but not between en and a'vaiKptocE-w in line 2, and not in line 3. betweennu and KaKWoCrEWo; Commentary possiblya summarizing. Line 1. TE'-T-ap[aI Line 2. 8taWcpTvp a-sworn testimony to a fact that affects admissabilityof an action at law. Originatingat a pre-trialhearingcalled anakrisis(see below), it must precede prosecutor'sand defendant's oaths. The counter to a diamartyriais a denunciation leading to a chargeof false witness (qEv8outtapTvpiwV).4 (E'Mco-Kwqns) avaKptcrt'-judging from context, this means here the pre-trialhearing before a magistratewhere litigantsmake a formal appearanceto answer questions and at some point to swear to charges and denials. In the course of the hearing they may also cite laws and produce sworn testimony from witnesses. After a time early in the 4th century, evidence and testimonies were not acceptable unless written. At the hearing, a magistratedecided whether the case as stated was his responsibility.If he decided Yes, he scheduled a day on which a panel of dikastswould decide the case.5 2Bonn 1911: Pap. Berol. 9875, the Persae of Timotheos, usually dated to the last quarterof the 4th century;Pap. Berol. 13500, a marriagecertificatefrom Elephantine,dated securely to 311 B.C.; Pap. Berol. of the 13270, a fragmentof a poem dated a little before or after 300. Cf. E. Turner, GreekManuscripts AncientWorld, Oxford 1971, no. 40, a fragmentof Menander'sSikyoniosdated "LaterIII B.C." 'See L. Threatte, The Grammarof Attic Inscriptions,I, Phonology,Berlin and New York 1980, pp. 73-84, esp. p. 84. 4For details of implementation,see W. Wyse, TheSpeechesof Isaeus, Cambridge1904, pp. 232-234; L. Gernet, Droitet societydans la Grdceancienne,Paris 1955, pp. 83-102; A. R. W. Harrison, TheLaw of Athens,II, Procedure,Oxford 1971, pp. 125, 127; S. Isagerand M. H. Hansen, Aspectsof AthenianSocietyin the FourthCenturyB.C., Odense 1975, pp. 132-137; D. M. MacDowell, TheLaw in ClassicalAthens,Ithaca, N.Y. 1978, pp. 212-219. Harrison(op. cit., pp. 192-197) discusses some uncertaintiesin our reconstruction of proceduresleadingto a trialfor false witness. 5For details of scope and procedure,as well as uncertaintiesdue to lack of evidence, see R. Bonner of JusticefromHomerto AristotleI, Chicago 1938, pp. 283-293; Harrison, and G. Smith, TheAdministration op. cit. (footnote 4 above), pp. 94-105; MacDowell, op. cit. (footnote 4 above), pp. 239-242.

A LIDWITHDIPINTO

3

Line 3. Ka(Kwcrot--in Athenian law a formal term for certain kinds of abuse. Pvtot KaKWCrEC'q protected orphans, heiresses, and living ascendants from abuse of person or property by relations or appointed guardians. The eponymous archon conducted the anakrisis in such cases. In the present text, ypa/nq, Elo-ayyEXta, be restoredalong with OpfavcUv, E7T-KX-qpWV or yoPEv.6

VOAS,

or bacrst could

Line 4. E'VEOhjKE.The restorationis suggested by the function of a lid. Identificationof Vessel

Athenian chytrai came in different shapes and sizes, and in the late 4th century they typically had lids.7 Lid P 28470 could serve to close any shape of chytra whose mouth it fit.8Given, however, the juridicalnature of the dipinto, along with the association of Lid P 28470 and chytrai, we shall want to consider Erotian, who defines a new echinus as a new chytra:"It is a kind of large chytra with a large mouth." EXtVOVK(atv .Xvpav

KatLVV E(CrTtVEXLVoq XVlpaq et80o /EyaXocTTO'AOV Kat AEyas

Kat EV"7roXtA Kat ME'vavpoq Ev 'ErnTTPEirOVat Kat T-nsq XEAsECe

/E/VYTat

)txqArWvEv Mvpwt8o'6t.9

Cf. Pollux (Bethe), vi.91: EXLvo4 8E xvTpalq E48O0 Do, and Hesychios (Latte), s.v. EXt/ayELpLKO VO; . . . Kat CTKEVOq

...

Kat X0oraq.7

Aristotle's account of the work of the Forty is usually taken to be later lexicographers' source of informationconcerning the echinus, although Aristotle does not provide an equivalent name for the vessel. He says, " . . . if plaintiff and defendant cannot re-

solve their difference by arbitration,they put their testimonies, challenges, and laws into echini, those of the plaintiffapartfrom those of the defendant. After they have had them sealed, they fasten on a tablet on which the arbitrator'sdecision is written. They pass the echini over to the four men who are acting as justices for the tribe of the defendant. These justices receive the echini and introduce them to the law-court. ... Litigants are not allowed to use any laws, challenges, or testimonies other than those deposited with the arbitrator."(Aristotle, Ath. Pol., 53.2, ca. 325 B.C.). Notices in Harpokration,the Suda Lexicon, and Photios are different in that use of an echinus is not restrictedto arbitration.Harpokration:EXINOX'E"Crzt gEv ayyoq Tt ELs o Ta ypa/JaTEta

ar Ipos

as 8tKaq ETL6EVTO... . ("It is a pot in which documents for

trials were put." The notice in the Suda is almost identical.) Photios, s.v. Extvoqno. 2: Ka8tCTKO' TV; ECTt XaXKOVS ELt Ov at

XOV7O V"IT TCOV 8tKaro/iEK

va. ,JaXtoALE

TE

gfapVptat

Vv Kat KaTEcYrqatvovTo

EVEflaXKat at TPOKX-qCrEt' Eyypa4)ot Y8Et' KaKOVpCt ITEpt Ta E-

tva

("It is a bronzejar into which testimonies and written challenges were put

6See J. H. Lipsius, Das attischeRecht uindRechtsverfahren, Leipzig 1908, pp. 339-353; A. R. W. Harrison, The Law of Athens, I, The Familyand Property,London 1968, pp. 117, 119; and II (footnote 4 above), p. 218. 7See Hegesippos (T. Kock, Comicortimn atticorumfiragmenta III, Leipzig 1888), frag. 1, lines 13-14: Tov7fL97q/a T

V

appeVr

o-a

TOiS

4aKpVOvTaq

yEkav.

'Cf. Sparkesand Talcott, op. cit. (p. 1 above), nos. 1956, 1963, 1981. It fits neatly, for instance, in the mouths of two Hellenisticcooking pots in the Agora collection, viz.P 18788and P 26661. 9P. 41, no. 79 (Nachmanson). 'OAlopas is a sort of chytra. See Sparkes and Talcott, op. cit. (p. 1 above), p. 227 and pi. 95; nos. 1959-1968, it will be observed, have a profilelike the swellingechinus of a Doric capital.

ALANL. BOEGEHOLD

4

by the litigants.They had them sealed so that no one would act wronglywith what was being put in.") Lid P 28470 fits chytraiwhose dimensions do not necessarilyconflict with Erotian's definitionof an echinus. He says "large"and there are in fact chytraiwhose mouths are considerablysmaller than 0.19 m. Pottery context and letter forms provide an approximate date late in the 4th century, a time when we know the echinus was in use. With these considerations as a kind of frame, evidence available from the dipinto seems clearer. A lid is an easy place to list what a pot holds. The double-dot interpunctsof the dipinto are like double-dot interpuncts in Athenian inventories published on stone. "Four"could be a summarizingnumber. The dipinto is comprehensibleas a list. If it is a list, its items are telling. There is the name of a pre-trialprocedure (8t&awpVpta) qualifiedby the name of the hearing at which it was initiated (aPaKpLoEWq), and there is the name of a certain kind of wrongdoing (KaKd'crEco). All three terms are amply attested in the 4th-century Athenian legal vocabulary, and one of them, namely the diamartyria,Aristotle lists as being deposited in echini: ... Tcas,AapTVptaq Kat Tra lTpo(Ath. Pol., 53.2).

KX'qoEtS Kat TOVq Votovc

Restored Text, Exempli Gratia

On the assumptionthat Lid P 28470 once closed an echinus, I present the following restored text, exempligratia: 1VVECoT:

Tr]8E:

TETTap[a:rTC'-:

E'K[yEypa-I

a'vaKpicECO' [:1 81tatkafVpia E'R LI jpCI V KaK(cO'cEW[J: E'KTj ]qJ [V0to': E"7TLKX [6'pKOL: a LT]8tj[KcV: 'APrTrvlp: EvrE'O[JKEP:I

[ean'm:

5

NOMINA NOMINA

to end lines of writing.Both prosecutorand plaintiff are taken as having each original texts or copies of all relevant documents in his echiin echini, nus. Demosthenes,XLV.8, XLVIII.48, attestsdepositionof copies (a&Vrtypacka) but Aristotle, Ath. Pol., 53.2, xcWpts Tar AEtV ToV 8tWKOVTO', XWpk 8E Tar TOVy0EVYOVTos, could be taken to mean than each has only the documents he himself has brought to the arbitration. For E"VEOCrL,cf. Demosthenes, XLV.57:TaVlTv OlX -qVPpoV EvovcraV EV TO EXL For Taq crVvhKaq. cf. [Dem.], XLVIII.48: KOLV' EKypa1Pa/4EVOV' qa EKyEypa/4EV0J, There must have been a challenge (E'Mr0-Kw t') in the instance we are examining, for otherwise no one would have deposited a copy of the diamartyriain the echinus. For O'pKOt, cf. Demosthenes, XLIX.65: E443,aXopiE'vovyap EtiV3 OpKOV ElS TOP EX vovP.Antenor (or Kydenor) is an attested Athenian name. Some one person was made officiallyresponsiblefor closing the pot. The archonhimself did not performsuch chores.1aCaKpLOcEco and -7ErO9TKEseem

"See LSJ, 9th ed., s. v. ad line 770.

KaTrao-tcdvoaL.

Cf. K. J. Dover, Aristophanes. Clouds, Oxford 1968, comm.

A LID WITH DIPINTO

5

Translation of RestoredText "Of the written copies, the following four are inside: diamartyriafrom the anakrisis, law on abuse of heiresses, challenge of testimony, oaths of litigants.Antenor put the lid on." NAMES of litigantsand possiblyother relevant persons follow. II. QUESTIONSCONCERNINGPROCEDURE Aristotle, when describing public arbitration,says litigants who go on to a court trial must use only the testimonies, challenges, and laws they have used at the arbitration and have had sealed in the echinus (Ath. Pol., 53.2). Aristotle does not mention anakrisisin connection with the echinus, nor is there evidence elsewhere that an anakrisis precededan arbitration.But if a disputantrejects an arbitrator'sdecision, then the dispute goes on to a dikasterion, and when this happens, an anakrisis must be held, since that is where enabling decisions concerning competence of magistrateand day of trial are made. There is presumablyno need to broach echini for such questions as are asked. We now have the words 8&a1WTp7vp'a a'PaKptOEWq written on an echinus lid, the implicationbeing that a written copy of that testimony was once sealed in the echinus. The immediate, obvious inference is that echini were used not only at public arbitrations but at anakriseisas well. There is, however, a consensus now that litigantsdid not have to reveal all their arguments, witnesses, and documents at that pre-trialhearing. They could and did introduce new matter at the trial."2Oratorsmoreover do not allude to the sealing of documents in echini except in cases where public arbitrationhas gone before.13An echinus at an anakrisistherefore may seem to be out of place, unless there is more discussion. Consider, therefore, Theophrastos' Reckless Man. Often involved in suits, he is "apt to be defendant, to prosecute, to swear No, to be there with an echinus in his cloak and strings of documents in his hands." (Theophrastos, CharactersVI.8). It is an index of his recklessness or despair that he lets himself be seen so continuously in court. He is consequentlynot a member of the Forty carryingout his officialduty. He is a private citizen acting on his own or on a litigant's initiative, and he is carryingan echinus. To speculate briefly on what he may have carried in that echinus, some of the maneuvres in Demosthenes, AgainstOlympiodoros may be enlightening, if only indirectly. Plaintiff summons one Androkleides as custodian of agreements to which plaintiff says he and Olympiodorosswore (XLVIII.11-12). These written agreements (O-VVO9Kat) were sealed (XLVIII.48),and Androkleideswill keep them sealed until some time that is not specified. How the agreements were sealed we are not told. Possibly there was no single canonicalway, and sometimes such arrangementswere completed by sealing the relevant documents in an echinus. '2See Bonnerand Smith, Harrison,MacDowell, locc.citt. (footnote 5 above). '3See J. E. Sandys, comm.ad Aristotle, Ath. Pol., 53.2; Bonner and Smith, op. cit. (footnote 5 above), p. 288; Harrison,op. cit. (footnote 4 above), p. 97.

6

ALAN L. BOEGEHOLD

Plato's provisions for false witness at Laws 937 B suggest another possibility.The strangersays, " . . . when a witness' testimony is challenged, the magistratesare to keep the challenges, which have been sealed up by both parties to the action, and produce them at the trial for false witness." It may be that at an anakrisis,when a diamartyria was made and duly challenged, then in those cases, documents were sealed in echini. The effect would be to assure dikasts at the trial for false witness that oaths and testimony had not changed form or substancein the time between anakrisisand trial. Aristotle happens not to touch on this particularfunction of the echinus, but he does sometimes leave things out. For instance, when listing sorts of documents that go into an echinus, he leaves out 6pKOt, and yet we know that written texts of oaths were sometimes deposited and sealed in echini (see Demosthenes, XLIX.65). The words 8taawpvptpa E a'vaKptC'E-W in the present instance may therefore be evidence for an aspect of Athenian judicial procedure that contemporarywriters happened not to discuss. In that case, the lexicographicaltraditionas representedby Harpokration, the Suda Lexicon, and Photios is correct, and not careless or misinformed, in assigningto the echinus more general use than Aristotle and the oratorsdescribe. III. CONCLUSION By means of the present inscription,a seemingly ordinarycooking pot is identified as a unique monument, namely the echinus noted by various 4th-century Athenian authors.The echinus now has a place with kleroteria,dikasticpinakia,dikasticsymbola, ballots, and the klepsydra.During the classical era, Athenians used them all in the course of their highly elaboratedjudiciaryprocesses, and examples of each have been found in the excavations of the Athenian Agora. The inscriptionalso gives us a new instance of reliabilityin the Greek lexicographicaltradition, a new perspectiveon anakrisis, and the means to see in actualityan element of publicarbitrationat Athens. ALAN L. BOEGEHOLD BROWNUNIVERSITY Department of Classics Providence, RI 02912

PLATE

--

x

.

*'4

x-

It

a.

I~~~~~~~~~~~~I .\~

~

~

~

P

1

ATHENIANS, MACEDONIANS, AND THE ORIGINS OF THE MACEDONIAN ROYAL HOUSE N TWO OCCASIONSseparatedby nearly a century and a half, the destinies of Athens and Macedon appearto have intersected on a specific issue: the Hellenism of the Macedoniansand, especially, of the Macedonianroyal house. At the time of the Persian invasions King Alexander I, in an attempt to maintain a precariousbalance between his position as a Persiansubject-allyand his apparentneed to ingratiatehimself into the Hellenic community, announced that his family was of Argive (Greek) origin. Or, at least, so Herodotos informs us. Later, when Philip II of Macedon attempted to make a stable settlement in Greece, and, by doing so, appearedto threaten the sovereignty of the poles and the interests of Athens, some Athenians maintained thatamong other things-the Macedonianswere not Greek.' What follows are a few observations about the genesis and development of the traditionwhich put the origins of the Macedonianroyal house in the Greek world. The "racial"qualityof the Macedonianswas, in this author's view, an underlyingperipheral issue in the history of Athenian-Macedonianrelations. It was not the main cause of Athenian-Macedonianenmity in the 5th and 4th centuries B.C. (ancient history is replete with examples of bonafide Greeks who fought constantlyagainstone another) but it emerged from time to time to be exploited by those who saw Macedon as a barbarian nation intent on threateningthe independenceof the Greek cities. Our understandingof the Macedonians' emergence into history is confounded by two events: the establishment of the Macedoniansas an identifiableethnic group, and the foundation of their ruling house. The "highlanders"or "Makedones"of the mountainous regions of western Macedonia are derived from northwest Greek stock; they were akin both to those who at an earliertime may have migratedsouth to become the historical"Dorians", and to other Pindus tribes who were the ancestors of the Epirotes or Molossians. That is, we may suggest that northwestGreece provideda pool of IndoEuropean speakers of proto-Greek from which were drawn the tribes who later were known by different names as they established their regional identities in separate parts of the country.2 O

IIn light of the sensitivity to this issue among some circles, it seems best to emphasize at this point that I am concernedhere only with the development and impactof the Argeaddynastyfoundationmyth. I do not question the impact of Greek culture on the Macedoniangentry from at least the time of King Archelaos. Literaryevidence and, most recently, archaeologicalevidence provide testimony for the abundant Greek influenceon the materiallife of the Macedoniancourt and nobility. In referencesbelow the followingabbreviationwill be used: Hammond = N. G. L. Hammond, A Historyof Macedonia,I, HistoricalGeographyand Prehistory,Oxford 1972, and II (with G. T. Griffith), 550-336 B.C., Oxford 1979 -This is not the place to argue this position in detail; I hope to express my views on it fully sometime soon. In brief, I find much merit in some recent scholarshipon the movement of peoples in the Balkans

8

EUGENE N. BORZA

Sometime between ca. 700 and ca. 650 B.C. one such group migrated out of the eastern Pindus watershed, leaving what may have been its home in the upper and middle Haliakmonbasin, and followed the river down to the piedmont above the waterlogged central (Emathian)plain.3What caused this migrationcan only be guessed at; it may have been yet one more example of populationpressureprecipitatingthe historical movement of a hill people in search of land for settlement. This process is part of the transitionfrom a way of life dependent on pasturageand hunting-which can support relatively few people in a fixed area of limited resources-to a search for more and better land, resulting in the settling influence of agriculture.Virtually any moderately fertile area of land can support a larger population under cultivation than if it were given over to pasturageand hunting. These migrantswere "Makedones"or "highlanders", and those who emerged from the middle Haliakmon were to be distinguished from the Makedones who remained in the upper cantons by the name Argeadai, "descendants of Argeas."4They eventually settled in the Pierian piedmont whence they came to spreadover all centralMacedonia. There was, however, a persistent,well-attestedtraditionin antiquitywhich spoke of a group of Argives, the descendents of Temenos, who came to Macedonia and established their rule over the Makedones, unifying them and providinga Greek royal house whose kings would guide Macedonianexpansion through a dynasty lasting until the late 4th century B.C. There is no doubt that the tradition of a superimposedGreek house was widely believed by the Macedonians,although less by Greeks. In antiquitythere were two basic traditionsabout the Greek origins of the Macedonian monarchy:One was introducedin the early 5th century and can be read in Herodotos and Thucydides. The other is late 5th and 4th century, and can be attributedto Euripidesand those writerswho embellished his works in later times. Herodotos tells that he visited Thasos (vi.47); there is reason to believe that he may have crossed over into Macedonia.5One of the most remarkableaspects of Herodotos' interest in Macedonian affairs is his unabashed enthusiasm for recounting the exploits of the flamboyantand unpredictableking, Alexander I. It was a period during during the transitionfrom the Bronze Age to the Dark Ages in Greece, especiallythe revisionist position on the "Dorian invasions".E.g., J. Chadwick,CAH, 3rd ed., II, ii, Cambridge1975, chap. xxxix(a), and, more forcefully, The MycenaeanWorld,Cambridge1976; J. T. Hooker, MycenaeanGreece,London, Henley and Boston 1977, chap. 7; K. A. Wardle, "The Northern Frontier of MycenaeanGreece," BICS 22, 1975, pp. 206-212; and, on the early genealogy of a Dorian-Makednonlink, Hammond, 1, pp. 309-311, and CAI-F,II, ii, pp. 681-686. 'For a descriptionof the topographyof central Macedoniain the historicalperiod see E. N. Borza, "Some Observationson Malariaand the Ecology of Central Macedonia in Antiquity," forthcoming in with full literaturecited. AmerJournAncHist, 4In this matterI follow C. F. Edson, "EarlyMacedonia,"'H 'ApXataMaKEdovua 1, Thessaloniki1970, pp. 20-21, and Hammond,I, pp. 309-311, 431-432, and II, pp. 24-29 (the latteron the Argeadai,but not on the Temenidai). 5Herodotoscites the Macedoniansfirsthand(v.22, vii.73, viii.138.3). He may have journeyed there in the companyof the young Hellanikos;see the Suda, s.v. Hellanikos= FGrHist,no. 4, Ti, with corrected on HerodotusI, Oxford text ("Alexander"for "Amyntas") in W. W. How and J. Wells, A Commentary 1928, p. 5, and commentaryby L. Pearson, TheLocalHistoriansof Attica,Philadelphia1942, p. 4.

THEORIGINSOF THEMACEDONIAN HOUSE

9

which philhellenic propagandawas being issued from Alexander's court; e.g., Pindar had producedan encomium to Alexander in the mid-450's.6Alexander died in the late 450's, and we may put Herodotos' visit to Macedonia ca. 460. Herodotos procureda number of stories concerningAlexander's philhellenicexploits from the Macedoniansif not from Alexander himself.7 The intent of these stories is clear: to offer proofs of Alexander's Hellenic nature. Whatever Alexander's purpose in desiring a Hellenic ancestryHerodotos perhapsunwittinglyserved as his spokesman.The stories originating at Alexander's court provide the sole basis upon which the Hellenic origins of the Macedonianroyal house rests.8 Following an account which attempts to confirm Alexander's pro-Athenianattitude during the PersianWars, Herodotos (viii.137-139) gives the earliest full version of the Argive origin of the Macedonian monarchy, herein paraphrased:Alexander was the seventh in descent from Perdikkas,who together with his brothers, Gauanes and Airopos, were Argive exiles descended from Temenos. The Temenid brothers spent some time in Illyria, then crossed into upper Macedoniato the town of Libaia. They worked there at menial tasks for awhile. Then, midst some portents, they fled the place with the local ruler in pursuit.The three Temenidai eventually crossed a river and came to "another land of Macedonia,"and lived close to the so-called Garden of Midas, son of Gordias, above which rises Mt. Bermion. After acquiringpossession of this land, they began to subdue the rest of Macedonia.There follows (chap. 139) the royal lineage of fathers and sons: Perdikkas, Argaios, Philip, Airopos, Alketes, Amyntas, and Alexander. This was the manner by which the descendantsof the Argive Temenos (himself of Herakles' house) gained the rule over the Macedonians. The Hellenic genesis occurs in two other places in Herodotos. On the eve of the battle of Plataia (ix.45) a lone figure on horseback emerged from the darkness of noman's land and asked the Athenian pickets for an audience with their generals. He promised to give them secret information about Mardonios' forthcoming attack, both because he loved Greece and "because I myself am of ancient Hellenic descent." Having delivered a monologue on the attack, the strangeridentified himself as "Alexander the Macedonian", and disappearedinto the night. The circumstances of the Plataian episode make its veracitysuspect:that the king of the Macedonianscould make such an 6Frag.120, J. Sandysedition (Loeb); Dio Chrysostomus,Orationesii.33. 'Recounted at v.19-21, v.22, vii.173, viii.34, viii.136, viii.140 and ix.44-45. Hammond (II, p. 98) be-

lieves that Alexanderhimself told these stories to Herodotos. 8Mentionshould be made here of the forthcomingpaperof E. Badian,"Greeks and Macedonians,"to be published in the National Gallery of Art series, Studiesin the Historyof Art. As a sub-editor for the history papersin that volume, and as chairmanof the historians'session of the symposiumat which it was first presented, I have had an opportunityto examine Badian'spaperin advance of publication.I discovered that he and I had been workingindependentlyalong many of the same lines in those sections of our respectivepapersdealingwith the traditionof the Temenid originsof the Argeadai,and, in fact, had anticipated some of each other's arguments.I am happyto report that, while our work is not mutuallydependent, we share many of the same conclusions. Rather than duplicateneedlessly the testimonia on Greek attitudes towardMacedonians,I refer the reader to Badian'spaper, and prefer myself to present material which is differentfrom his.

10

EUGENE N. BORZA

unlikely night journey over uncertain ground; that he gives a speech to the Athenian officers which is laden with Greek sentiments about freedom and patriotism;that he asks to be rememberedfor his services; and that, curiously, there is no response from the Athenian side. The story suggests a non-Athenian source, and, quite likely, a piece of propagandaderived from Alexander himself.9 Following the famous and improbabletale of Alexander I's conspiracyto murder the Persianenvoys (v.18-21),10 Herodotos reaffirmsthe Hellenic ancestryof the Macedonian monarchy (v.22) and offers to prove it by telling of Alexander's attempt to compete in the Olympicgames. When his fellow contestants objected to his presence on the grounds that he was a foreigner, Alexander proved to the Hellanodikaithat he was of Argive descent, and was thereby permitted to enter. He tied for first in the stade race.II It is not beyond the audacityof this monarch to attempt to enter the competition, whether as a regularcontestant or as a runner in a special race for a king. Yet Alexander's name fails to appearon any of the Olympic victor lists.12As for the date of the competition Badian has suggested 476 B.C.,13on the grounds that the first Olympic festival following the victory over the Persians may have been a time for thanksgiving. It may have provided a special moment to bend the rules somewhat and to recognize one who may have assisted the Greek cause. One wonders what to make of Alexander's claim of Argive descent. Did he, when challenged, suggest that his family, the "Argeadai",were originallyfrom Argos (however linguisticallyimprobable)?Who could check such a claim? Moreover, the early to mid-5th century B.C. was an era during which it was fashionable to lay all manner of heroic and mythical deeds at the door of the famous and ancient Argive state.14Whether the objection to Alexander's Hellenic lineage was really an issue at Olympia (suggesting, of course, that there was real doubt among at least some Greeks about the Macedonianroyal house), or whether the story emerged only as part of the later tale, as a hedge against scepticismabout Alexander's actual participation,is problematic.The 91t is profitlessto argue that Herodotos, who apparentlyhad not bothered or been able to check the story of Alexander'sOlympiccompetitionagainstthe victors' lists (see below), would bother to check the story of the Plataianadventureagainstan Atheniansource. doubt has alreadybeen cast on the veracityof this story; interalios, How and Wells, op. cit. 10Sufficient (footnote 5 above), ad loc. I Herodotos' use of 0TVVEK1T1w mirrorsthe languageof Plutarch, de Stoicorumrepugnantiis,1045D, suggestinga technicalphrasefor "deadheat", and lending some credence to the story. "2EitherAlexander was defeated in a runoff, or his initial competition was a special race for a royal visitor. The stade race in the first two decades of the 5th centurywas dominatedby Tisikratesand Astylos of Kroton, and won by Skamandros(Skamandrios?)of Mytilene in 476 B.C. See the full victor lists compiled by D. 1. Lazarides,Historyof the HellenicWorld,II, TheArchaicPeriod,George Phylactopoulos,ed. and PhilipSherrard,trans., UniversityPark, Penna. 1975, pp. 518-523. 13Footnote8 above. "4Aischylos(Supplices,249-259) has a Dark Ages Argos rulingeverythingas far as the Strymonriver; the same author placed the Oresteiaat Argos. For this classical-agetendency to inflate the importanceof early Argos see T. Kelly, A Historyof Argosto 500 B.C., Minneapolis1976, pp. 43-46, 84-86 and 105-106, with whose conclusionsI am in generalagreement.

THE ORIGINSOF THE MACEDONIANHOUSE

11

fact is that we have no evidence that any Macedonian competed at Olympia between Alexander I and Philip II;15indeed, the Macedonianseventually (under King Archelaos) formed their own "Olympian" festival at Dion (Diodorus Siculus, xvii.16.3-4; Arrian, i.11.1), perhaps,as has recently been suggested, as a "counter-Olympics"for a nation unable to participatein the ancient festival in Elis. On balance, the story of Alexander's participationat Olympiadeserves scepticism, not only because of improbabilityon general grounds16but also because the only evidence is what Herodotos has given us, and that is certainlywhat was told him by his Macedoniansources. There is no independentconfirmation.If the tale is a piece of Macedonian propaganda,one must both admire the boldness of Alexander in creating this myth and take note of his good fortune in having it passed on by the likes of Herodotos. The plantingof an Argive connection had bloomed, and it quicklybecame Macedonian canon: the rulers of Macedon were Greeks, Temenidai descended from Herakles. That there was doubt about these mattersamong at least some Greeks, however, is confirmed by the attitude of Alexander's fellow competitors at Olympia (if indeed he competed) and, a century and a half later, by Demosthenes' cry that Philip "is not Greek, nor related to Greeks,"17a comment which, regardlessof Demosthenes' intent, was surely designed to play upon existing scepticism.Thucydides (ii.99.3, v.80.2) picked up the Argive lineage from Herodotos, or from Macedonian-influencedsources, and passed it on. His is not an independentversion.18Thus what emerged in the 5th century was a Macedonian-inspiredtale of Argive origins for the Argead house; it is possible to trace this account directlyto its source: Alexander 1.19There is no external confirmation of these legends. Fifth-centuryMacedoniankings continued to be fortunate in having some of the leading literarylights of the day record their family histories. In the last decade of the 5th century B.C. Euripides came to reside in Macedon at the court of King Archelaos and thereby usher in the second stage of the Macedoniancreation-myth.Euripides'play in honor of his patron, Archelaos,undoubtedlyadorned the basic story, replacingPerdikkas with an Archelaos as the descendent of Temenos, no doubt to the delight of his "5Badian(footnote 8 above), who is also rightlyscepticalof some late evidence attributingan Olympic competitionto Archelaos.As for the MacedonianOlympianfestival, Diodorus puts it at Dion, and Arrian (probablyincorrectly)at Aigai. 16Evenif a special case had been made in 476 for politicalreasons to honor one who had assisted in the anti-Persiancause, its exceptional nature suggests that Macedonianswere not normallyadmitted into competition. '7Philippic iii.31; in Olynthianiii.24, Demosthenes also refers to an earlier Macedonianking as a barbaros. Even Isokrates (Philip, 105-108) drew rather careful distinctions between Greeks and Macedonians, althoughhe acceptedthat Herakleswas the progenitorof the Macedonianroyal house through the Argive connection. 18Thereis (pace Hammond, I, p. 4) no hard evidence that Thucydideswas ever in Macedonia,but it makes no difference;Thucydidesis reflectingthe officialMacedonianversion of things. "9Theliteratureon this problemis huge. It is sufficienthere to refer to two recent full accountsof the Argos-Macedonlink: Hammond, II, chap. 1, passim, and A. Dascalakis, TheHellenismof the AncientMacedonians,Thessaloniki 1965, part 3, passim, both of which supportthe notion of a Temenid origin of the Macedonianroyalhouse.

12

EUGENE N. BORZA

host.20Delphic oracles were introduced, and in an even more extended version of the tale a new founder, Karanos (Doric, "head" or "ruler"), came into being. From here the story passed into the hands of local Macedonianhistorians in the 4th century B.C., and by Roman times it was widely known in a number of versions.21Nothing in this later period can be traced back earlier than Euripides'first embellishment of the Herodotean tradition. The notion that Alexander I or one of his predecessors obtained a Delphic oracle to confirm the Macedoniantie with Argos22has no evidence to support it.23 Had such an oracle existed we can be certain that Alexander, eager to prove his Hellenic heritage, would have used it, and that Herodotos, who delighted in oracles, would have mentioned it. The claim that the Macedonian royal house descended from Argive Greeks is based entirely on a single event: Herodotos' conversationsin Macedonia, perhapswith Alexander I himself. Because of the efforts of Herodotos and his successors, this bit of Macedonianroyal propagandawas transformedinto one of the most contorted foundation fables of antiquity, and recent efforts to make history of legend have produced nearly unfathomablemurk. In the end, what may appearto be a rationalscholarlyprocess in sorting out and commenting upon the encrusted myths of antiquityresults only in acceptingsome legends over others.24To deny all such fables and attributethem to contemporaryMacedonianpropagandamay appearto be the acme of minimalism. But given the historical milieu in which these tales were spawned and then adorned, a denial of myth seems prudent. The Temenidai in Macedon must disappearfrom history.25What is most important is not whether they founded the Macedonian royal 20Fulldiscussionin Hammond,II, pp. 5-14. 21Amongothers: Diodorus Siculus, vii.16; Eusebios, Chronicai.277; Clement of Alexandria,Protrepticus li.11; Justin, vii.1.7-12. Full citations in Hammond, II, pp. 7-14 and 31-39, the latter an especially useful discussion. 22Hammond, II, p. 11. 21H.W. Parke and D. E. W. Wormell, TheDelphicOracleI, Oxford 1956, pp. 63-64 (evidence in II, nos. 225-227), do not acceptthese oracles as other than fiction, althoughthey put the origin of one oracle as early as AlexanderI: Attend noble Caranus,and set my words in your mind. ForsakeArgos and Hellas of fair women, and go to the watersof the Haliacmon,and whereveryou first see goats grazing,then you are to dwell in happiness,you and all your offspring.(trans.Hammond,II, p. 9) (p. 64) and Hammond (II, p. 5), following them, make too much of the point Wormell Both Parke and that the oracle, obviously refering to Aigai and enjoining that Karanosand his offspring (geriea) should reside there, must predateArchelaos'moving of the capitalfrom Aigai to Pella. This is highly interpretive of the meaningof an oracle whose source is a scholiaston Clement of Alexandria(ed. 0. Stihlin, Clemens 3rd ed. rev. U. Treu, I [Berlin19721, p. 300). Moreover, the genealogy is incorrect.Karanos Alexandrinius, cannot figure into Alexander I's ancestry;Herodotos, who got his genealogy from Macedoniansources, gives Perdikkasas the founderof the royal house. This oracle must be Euripideanat the earliest. 24Themost forcefuland ingeniousdiscussion is Hammond's (II, chap. 1) which, in the end, is unconvincing to me. 25Toaccept this view would make Hammond'sdiscussion (II, p. 29) of the terminologyof the royal house (whetherit should be called Temenid or Argead) largelyunnecessary.I propose hereinafterto call it Argead.

THEORIGINSOF THEMACEDONIAN HOUSE

13

house but that at least some Macedoniankings wanted so desperatelythat they should have. The extent to which the alleged Greek origins of the Argeadai was a prominent issue for the ancients is problematic.Macedoniankings may have simply accepted the story of their Greek origin; that they continually insistedon it is not so clear. The question is one of separatingMacedonian panhellenism and philhellenism from their own consciousness as Hellenes. From time to time it was politicallyuseful for Macedonian kings to seek accomodation with the Greeks. Alexander I sought ties with Athens during a period of Athenian imperialexpansion in the mid-5th century, mainly to protect his own hard-won kingdom from Athenian encroachments in the north Aegean. The development of a traditiontelling of Greek progenitors,and emphasizing (probably exaggerating) his own role in the struggle against the barbariansduring the Persian invasion would have suited Alexander's needs perfectly. At the end of the 5th century Archelaos made peace with Athens,26suppliedher with ship timber, and Hellenized his court. Philip II, intent on establishingstability in Greece preferablythrough diplomatic means (although in the end force became necessary), reaffirmedhis Hellenic heritage, including participationin the Olympic games (356 B.C., and, perhaps, 352 and 348 as well). One suspects that Hellenism was a political device revived on occasion to suit a tactical need, to be used as part of a panhellenic or philhellenic foreign policy.27The later Argeads almost certainlyaccepted as canon the Temenid link. That some Greeks, especially some Athenians, had their doubts is clear. But one wonders if the issue, occasionallyexploited by one side or the other, was one of abiding concern among the two parties.28Our general impression remains that Macedoniansand Athenians viewed each other with mutual misgivings over a long period of time, and that the periodic attempt to give the Macedonian royal house a Greek origin in no way affected the normal distrustfulcharacterof their relations. EUGENE N. BORZA THE PENNSYLVANIA STATEUNIVERSITY Department of History University Park, PA 16802 26His predecessor,PerdikkasII, had fought nearly twenty years to establish his authorityin his kingdom againstenemies (includinghis brother, Philip, and Derdas, ruler of the upper Macedoniancanton of Elimea) supportedby Athens. And once in power, Perdikkasswitchedsides several times duringthe PeloponnesianWar, respondingalternatelyto Athenianand Peloponnesianpressures;he succeeded throughout in maintainingthe independenceof his kingdom. 27E.g.,J. Perlman, "The Coins of Philip II and Alexanderthe Great and their Pan-HellenicPropaganda," NC, ser. 7, 5, 1965, pp. 57-67. 28One suspects that this mattermay be of more importanceto some modern Greeks than to either the ancient Greeks or the Macedonians.E.g., see the Greek press response to Badian's paper (footnote 8 above), read at a scholarlysymposiumat the NationalGalleryof Art, 15 November 1980: H. Spanopoulou, MET(T-qtJJ3ptV, 19 November 1980, p. 7.

KORONIAND KEOS (PLATES 2 A

and 3)

N ANCIENTSITEon the peninsulaof Koroniin Atticawas investigatedby Eu-

gene Vanderpooland his younger colleagues J. R. McCredie and A. Steinberg in 1960. Their full report followed promptly1giving descriptions of the discoveries and conclusions to be drawn from the material evidence: house walls, fortifications,fragments of inscriptions,coins, domestic pottery and other objects. The informationwas summarizedagain, with further commentary and explanation, by McCredie in his extensive study of militaryinstallationsin Attica.2 To the excavators it appearedevident that Koroni was occupied only briefly, the structureshaving been put together hastily and soon abandoned. Most of the objects recovered could be assigned to the first half of the 3rd century B.C. The whole scheme of the settlement suggested clearlythat this was not simply the center of a deme, which would have been built more carefullyand would have survived much longer, but rather that it was the place of a militaryencampmentinstalled by forces which came by sea to oppose potentialenemies in the landwardregion. To fix the date more closely, a known event was proposed:the naval expedition under the admiralPatroklos sent by Ptolemy Philadelphosto support Athens and her allies against Antigonos Gonatas in the ChremonideanWar of 265-261. Objects found fit this date: for example, the surprisingnumber of coins of Philadelphoshimself that were recoveredin the fort. It was a notable discovery. Some discussion and disagreements followed. G. R. Edwardsand V. R. Grace preferredto date classes of the pottery earlier.3The excavators replied-convincingly, I think-in the same journal in 1964. It is not my purposeto review the arguments.Rather, I would add brief notes on a related topic. Patroklosbuilt another fort also, on the rocky islet that bears his name, just off the cape of Sounion. But the base for his fleet was in Keos, the nearest of the Cyclades, conveniently at hand for operationsbut prudentlysafe from incursionsby Macedonian infantry. On the northwesterncoast of the island there is a splendid harbor with a narrow opening, long, deep, well protectedfrom the winds that blow (Pls. 2:d, e, and 3:b, f).4 It has been known, surely, by marinersfrom very early prehistorictimes onward. Minos came with his fifty ships. Nestor will have stopped there on his voyage homewardfrom Troy, when he dedicateda temple to Apollo Smintheus near the bay. This was, natural' Hesperia31, 1962, pp. 26-61. 2Hesperia,Suppl.XI, Princeton1966, pp. 1-16. 3Hesperia32, 1963, pp. 109-111 and 319-334, respectively. Miss Grace now, however, accepts the lower date: AthMitt89, 1974, pp. 193-200. 4Cf. Keos, I, Kephala,Princeton1977, pls. 1 and 2.

KORONIAND KEOS

15

ly, the chief port for the people of Joulisand many other Keians, serving also their allies in the PersianWars and in the times of the Delian and Second Athenian Confederacies. Classical and Hellenistic settlements were numerous in the region. One of the towns, very probablyKoressos at the mouth of the harbor, was renamed Arsinoe for a while. And naval activities continued thereafter.Camocio's map of A.D. 1571 and Dapper's of 1703 (P1.2: a, b) ignore the true shape of the island while mightilyexaggeratingthe size of the roadstead.In 1790 LambrosKatsonis, commandinghis Greek squadronunder the banner of Catherinethe Great in the Second Russo-TurkishWar, found refuge in (and made his bold escape from) the harborof Keos, the island by then being known as Kea, Zea, Zia, or more generally Tzia'.In the 20th century big freighterscame there to take fuel and supplies at the coaling station that was operated until 1940 by the Michalinos Company.Today, steamers, fishing craftand sailingyachts are much in evidence. A small promontoryextends southwardinto the bay near its eastern end, the region known now as Vourkari.On it is a chapel of St. Irene (eAyia Elpq'rvq,Ayia Irini; P1. 3:b). This is the site of ancient settlements, successive with no long intervals, from late Neolithic times through Classicalantiquity.Excavationsand studies have been conducted there since 1960 by the University of Cincinnatiunder the aegis of the American School and with generous support of the Greek ArchaeologicalService. Reports have appearedin Hesperiaand other journals, and full publicationis proceeding. Among the many buildings uncovered is one of special character, a temple, long and narrow, comprisinga succession of rooms. It was built in the Middle Bronze Age and flourished in early phases of the Late, when it held some fifty large terracotta statues of women in postures of the dance, symbolizing, we think, perpetualadoration of the divinity. A severe earthquakedestroyed most of the town in the time of LM IB and LH II. Limited reconstruction and reoccupation followed in LH III, but the temple was promptlyrestored and worship continued. After further damage in the period of IIIC, use of the space was restrictedto smaller partsof the originalplan. Modest shrines were set up successively throughout the Early Iron Age and thereafter.A graffitoof ca. 500 B.C. shows that Dionysos was revered: a sanctity almost certainlyrecognized before that date and quite certainlyin the next centuries. In the topmost deposits (some disturbed, some largely lost through modern activities) were pots and objects clearly assignable to the Hellenistic period. Study of them has not yet been completed, but we may cite here a few pieces closely related in style and date to those of Koroni: a bronze coin of Ptolemy, probably Philadelphos, and another of Antigonos, probablyGonatas (so noted by the late A. R. Bellingerafter brief inspection); and, in the abundant pottery, fragments of small kantharoiof distinctive shape. These are illustratedon Plates 2:c and 3:a, c-e (the whole collection and its significance will be discussed in our full accounts of the temple). Comparablecoins and kantharoiare shown in the first Koroni report.5 IHesperia 31, 1962, pls. 16, 17; ibid., pi. 20, and McCredie,op. cit. (footnote 2 above), pi. 6.

16

JOHNL. CASKEY

Many other cups, jugs, kraters and amphoras are represented in these strata but also in earlierdeposits. There is a kantharosof Late Geometric I, and vessels for drinking, pouring and storage of liquids are notably common in Bronze Age assemblages from MH to LH III. Looking backwardthrough the ages, we are strongly inclined to surmise that the power of wine was recognized as divine at a very early date, and that the deity who embodied that power-whatever name he may have borne in the Second Millennium was essentially a forerunnerof the Hellenic Dionysos. Keos, among other places in the Aegean area, is well suited to viticulture.Coins of Classicalloulis and Poieessa bore the head of Dionysos and a bunch of grapes, those of Karthaiaa wine jar. A rich darkwine is producedin small quantities today. But the terraced hillsides (P1. 2:f), now in large part sadly neglected, once held abundant vineyards. One may reasonably guess that some of this visible terracingoriginatedin ancient times. If the fleet of Patrokloswas anchored and moored in the great bay, as we firmly believe, it was close to the site of our temple. Is it not quite possible-nay, almost inevitable-that captainsand crews visited the Dionysiac shrine and, raising their cups, offered homage to the god and a prayerfor victory? In any case, we of Ayia Irini now raise our simple glasses and extend a toast to Eugene Vanderpoolof Koroni across the straits. JoHNL. CASKEY UNIVERSITYOF CINCINNATI

Department of Classics Cincinnati, OH 45221

PLATE

2

~~~~ ~

~

~

~

~EA A~~ ~

L C g ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I' z- '' m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~oo4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ a. Mapby Camocio,1571

b. Mapby Dapper,1703

c. Coin of Antigonos

(Gonatas?) Scale5:3

-I

.A g,

_

d. Viewtowardthe bayfromeast-northeast

A

`

?-.

-

e. Innerend of the bay:AyiaIrini;Soulisinland above.Fromnorth-northwest

f. Hillsideterracedfor vineyards

PLATE 3

Z

_

b. Ayia Irini ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Alf -

w-'t;

.

from west-northwest

~

~

~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .

a. Coin of Ptolemy (Philadeiphos?)1 Scale 5:3

-

~

7

dj

_

Kantharos(B 190) ~~~~~~~~~c.

9

d. Kantharos(B 30)

*

A:

-S

f. Haror mouth rom norteast

EPICURUS IN THE ARCHIVES OF ATHENS RISTOTLEwas not an Athenian, yet his interest in the history of the polis in which he lived for more than three decades as a resident alien made possible a book of 428 pages entitled AristotelesundAthen.1Epicuruswas an Athenian, the son of Neokles, of the deme of Gargettos and the tribe of the Philaidai (Diogenes Laertius, x.1), but for him no EpikurundAthen is readilyconceivable. Epicuruswas a philosopher who appearsto have made his life conform to his teaching and his basic politicalteaching was jg ToXCAEvIEo-6ai.But appearancesare deceiving.2Epicuruswas raised in Samos and came to Athens at the age of 18 to serve as an ephebe. He returned to Athens permanentlyafter having spent years trying to establish himself as a philosopher and teacher, first in Kolophon, then in Mytilene, and then, for a period of over four years, in Lampsakoson the Hellespont. His ties with that city were so strong that Strabocould call him a virtual citizen of Lampsakos (rpo6Iov vcT& AaCYpdKijvU); and his letters to Idomeneus, Polyainos, Leonteus and his wife Themista, Metrodoros, Hermarchosand Kolotes are testimony to how enduring these ties were.3But it is Athens with which we are concerned. Diogenes Laertius has a date for Epicurus' definitive return to Athens: vaxtv &rcaVEXOEIVEi' 'AO rva' GOT''Ava6KPcTVo (307/6).4 There is nothing peculiar about this date, although, when he is making use of the Chronicleof Apollodoros, it is Diogenes' habit to cite his source and give the synchronism between Olympiadand Athenian archon year.5 For the date of Epicurus' settlement we have only the latter. And this reminds us of a peculiarityabout his life and writings:the dating of his writingsby Athenian archon year.6Epicurusis the only Greek philosopherwhose works are dated by the year of the eponomous archon in which they were written. And for his writings A

'U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Berlin 1893. 2As is shown by the texts discussed by A. Vogliano, "Nuovi testi storici," RivFC, n.s. 4, 1926, pp. 310-332 and A. Momigliano, "Su alcuni dati nella vita di Epicuro," RivFC, n.s. 13, 1935, pp. 302-316. Philodemos' treatise on the engagement of Epicurusin the practicalaffairsof life, the [IpayuaTrEtat, contains words of praise for an Epicureanwho for the 63 years of his life had abstainedfrom the life of his city, col. xxiii.1-10; W. Liebich (Alutbau,AbsichtltndFormder PragmateiaiPhilodems,Berlin-Steglitz1960, p. 66) is fullyjustifiedin arguingthat this man can not be Epicurus. 3Cf. Strabo, xiii.1.9, the letters included in G. Arrighetti, Epiculro: Opere,2nd ed., Turin 1973, [401[1331, and the new fragmentfrom Oenoandaof a letter of Epicurusdescribinga shipwreckon his way to Lampsakos,D. Clay, "Sailingto Lampsacus:Diogenes of OenoandaNew Fragment 7," GRBS 14, 1973, pp. 49-59. For the sources of the dated writingsof Epicurus,see Appendix,Bibliographical Note. 4Duringthe archonshipof Anaxikrates,Diogenes Laertius,x.2. 5Contrast,e.g., v.9-10; ii.44; and x.14-15. 61 give a list of the 30 dates we have for Epicurus'writings in an appendix to this article, Epicurus' Dated Works.Usener had compileda digest of the letters of Epicurusidentifiedby Athenianarchonyear in his Epicurea,Leipzig 1887, pp. 132-134, and the evidence from the Epicureanpapyriin Herculaneumis for the most part included in W. K. Pritchett and B. D. Meritt, The Chronologyof HellenisticAthens, Cambridge, Mass. 1940, pp. xv-xix. There is more evidence than they adduced,and Usener's fasti are long out of date.

18

DISKINCLAY

we have a total of at least 30 dates and the names of 16 archons. They range from 300/299 B.C. and the archonshipof Hegemachos to the archonshipof Pytharatosand the year of Epicurus' death in 271/0 B.C. The dates preserved for two books of Epicurus' summa on physics, the HEpt' PV'O-EWO,and the date for the death of Pythokles which comes from Philodemos' treatise on the praxis of Epicurus' life as a Philosopher, the HlpaygTcrEtat, and which gives us a terminusante quem for Epicurus' Letterto Pythokles, have been welcome to the modern historians of philosophy who have attempted to determine a development in Epicurus' thought and his manner of presenting it.' But the ancient author to whom we owe most of our dates for Epicurus' letters seems to have put the dates he provides so generously and needlessly to no use. Philodemos gives us dates for some 24 of Epicurus'letters and these range from the archonshipof Nikias (295/4) to that of Pytharatos(271/0), but he gives us no idea of why he gives them. Philodemos' editors in the last century, BUchlerand Gomperz, were not puzzled by the dates they found in his various citations from the letters of Epicurus, but they did take them as evidence that Philodemos had a collection of Epicurus'letters which was organized chronologicallyby the Athenian archon year in which they were written. Usener doubted this, but it is hard to see a better explanationof Philodemos' habit of referringto the letters by archonyear. Seneca seems to have possessed such a collection of Epicurus'letters in the next century, for he speaks of Epicurus'proud frugalityas he knew of it from the letters Epicuruswrote Polyainos of Lampsakosduring the archonship of Charinos (291/0): in his epistolisquas scripsitCharinomagistratu(Epistulae18.9).8 But it remains to ask why Epicurus'letters and the individualbooks of his HEpt (Dvo-EWq were known by the archonyear of their composition. The question leaps to the eye. But it is a question that is so obvious that, to the best of my knowledge, it has never been asked. And, if it has been asked, its answer and its importancefor Epicurus'survival as a philosopherand the history of Epicureanism seem to have been forgotten. We possess nothing like these dates for the writings of any other Greek philosopher.Demokritos calculatedthat he wrote his MikrosDiakosmos 730 years after the fall of Troy (Diogenes Laertius, ix.34), but in the case of the writingsof Epicurusit is unlikely that they derive from the latter's concern for his fast. He was no annalist.His real concern was for his own survival as a philosopher,and our dates for his writingsare a symptom of this. It is a concern which makes him an Athenian more deeply involved in the state of Athens than has been thought. I shall argue that at some time after his settlement in Athens, and possibly as early as 307/6 B.C., Epicurusdecided to preserve his writings in an authoritativeand inalterableform and 7D. Sedley, "Epicurus,On Nature Book XXVIII," ChronacheHercolanesi 3, 1973, pp. 13-17 and my

own "Epicurus' Last Will and Testament," Archivffir Geschichteder Philosophie 55, 1973, pp. 255-256. Jahrbicher fir 8This connection was first made by F. Bilchler in his "Philodems wept Ev&EoEfaq," klassische Philologie 91, 1865, p. 540 (= KleilneSchriften I, 1915, pp. 610-611), and T. Gomperz follows him in this, "Ein Brief Epikursan ein Kind," Hermnes 5, 1871, p. 386. Usener doubts this hypothesis, but he does not say why, op. cit. (footnote 6 above), p. 132.

EPICURUS IN THEARCHIVES OF ATHENS

19

on the same footing as the laws and decrees, the 8-qgo-imaypaggaTa, of the state of Athens. To this end he deposited them in the Metroon where they were kept under the year of the archon in which they were written. But first the evidence. I The writings for which we have dates range over three decades, that is, for the greatest part of Epicurus' life in Athens. The first date that survives for a work of Epicuruscomes from the subscriptionto Book XV of his On Nature. From the end of PapyrusHerculanensis1151 we have the date of its composition, NO' 'HIyeja'Xov.9 The last date is for a letter Epicuruswrote Mithres, the Syrianwho had served Lysimachos as minister of finance, during his last illness and in the archonship of Pytharatos (271/0). If we did not have a date for this archon from other sources, we would have it from this letter from Philodemos' HlpayguaxrEtt in which Epicuruswrites Mithres that in a way he welcomes the prospectof death.10The some 30 dates we have for Epicurus come from two kinds of writing:the first is the highly technical treatises that make up Epicurus' On Nature;the second is the letter. Both are "esoteric"and the more remarkable for having been preserved. The first of the two dated books of Epicurus' On Naturepreservedin the libraryof L. CalpurniusPiso in Herculaneum,Pap. Herc. 1151, gives us the number of the book, the earliest date we have for a writingof Epicurus (300/299), and a stichometrictotal of XXXHH or 3,200 lines. A second subscriptionis preservedfor Book XXVIII of Epicurus' On Nature: it is dated to the archonship of Nikias, "the Nikias who succeeded Antiphatesas archon" (Uy[pco e5rrj NCKLOV It is also noted /JjErV a 'A[vnTfrCrrJv). TOil that our papyruswas copied "from the ancient exemplars."11This subscriptionmakes it abundantlyclear that the dates we have for Epicurus'writingscannot go back to Epicurus himself but must have another explanation.There is another date like the date that has come down to us for Nikias in Pap. Herc. 176, a treatise by an unknown Epicurean on the first generation of the Epicureanschool. It is for a letter written in the archonship of Diokles, the third archon of this name (E(ir) [rpIC5ovAoKXE'ov[V, 286/5), to Anaxarchos,Leontion and others.12It too makes us seek an explanationfor the dates of Epicurus'writingsin a source other than his annalisticconcern to log his own writings. For Epicuruswas no Demetrios of Phaleron or Kraterosand his interest was not in the registerof the archonsof Athens (cf. Diogenes Laertius,i.22). The other kind of writingfor which we have dates is the epistle. All but one of the dates we have for Epicurus'letters come from papyrirecovered in the Villa dei papiriin Herculaneum.The majorityof these dates come from six treatises of Philodemos of 9Cf. Appendix, No. 1. '0Cf. Appendix, No. 30. Diogenes Laertius,x.15, gives the date of Epicurus'death as 01. 127:2 = the archonshipof Pytharatoson the authorityof Apollodoros(FGrHist,fr. 42). " Cf. Appendix, No. 2 and p. 22 below. ''2Cf.Appendix, No. 17.

20

DISKINCLAY

Gadara;three come from Pap. Herc. 176, a treatise whose title is lost, but which relies on a collection of the letters of Epicurusand his close associatesto reconstructa chapter in the early history of his school. This treatise resembles Philodemos' documentary account of Epicurus' engagement in the affairs of his friends and philosophicalassoeffect, the acts of the epistle. To ciates, a treatise he entitles the npaygaTEatL-in document the praxis to which Epicurus brought his philosophy to bear, Philodemos drew on a collection of Epicurus'letters. Some, but not all, of those he cites he identifies by the Athenian archonyear in which they were written. And it might be significant to our search for an explanation of the dates we have for Epicurus' writings that no letter quoted by Philodemos, the author of Pap. Herc. 176, or Seneca antedates the archonshipof Nikias and the year 296/5. That is, we have no secure date for any writing of Epicurusfrom the periodbefore his settlement in Athens.13The dates in Philodemos and in Pap. Herc. 176 take us from the archonshipof Nikias and 296/5 to that of Pytharatosand 271/0. The fact that Philodemos dates a letter Mithres sent Epicurusto the archonshipof Demokles (278/7) must mean that the collection of letters which Philodemos was using contained not only Epicurus' letters but,those of his correspondents.14Briefly, our dates from the Villa dei papiriderive from these sources: ten come from Philodemos' n7paylcaTE'tat, which is also our source for the date of Mithres' letter to Epicurus;four come from his treatise On Wealthand his documentationof Epicurus' poverty and frugality (and there is possibly a fifth); three or four come from his On Piety; two from two papyri On Epicurus;another two from a tract Against[the Sophists] (as its title has been restored); and two from a historicalwork On the Stoics."5There are also dates for three letters quoted by the author of Pap. Herc. 176.16 Other authors quote from Epicurus' letters. Diogenes Laertius reproduces three letters entire, but gives no date for them, although he gives the dates of Epicurus'birth and death by both Olympiadand Athenian archon year. Diogenes of Oenoanda preserves a letter of Epicurusto his mother and still other letters of the master, but without dates. Plutarch,Sextus and Athenaeus all knew Epicurus'letters, but if they knew their dates they do not reproducethem. Only Seneca, as we have seen, refers to the letters Epicurus sent Polyainos by their date, the archonship of Charinos (Epistulae 18.9). The last author we know to cite a letter of Epicurusis Didymus Caecus, but it is "3Accordingto Usener, op. cit. (footnote 6 above) and Momigliano, op. cit. (footnote 2 above), p. 303, Charinosby whose archonshipsome six of Epicurus'letters are dated (cf. Appendix, Nos. 8-13) was archon in 308/7. He was, but an inscriptionfrom the Athenian Agora (I 6703) brings to light another archon of this name whom Meritt dates to 291/0, "Greek Inscriptions,"Hesperia26, 1957, no. 10, pp. 53-54. "4The date comes from Philodemos, HpayR adTEtatxxix.17; cf. F. Sbordone, "Per la storia dell' episto-

lariodi Epicuro,"in Studialessandriniin memoriadi A. Rostagni,Turin 1963, p. 35. come Nos. 4, 6, 15, 18, 20, 23, 26, 27, 28 and 30 of the Appendix;from 15Fromthe Hpay~uat~dat 14: there might be an archon hidden under the letters of col. xxxviII.8 13, Nos. 12, 7, On Wealth, (Guerra,p. 68: aatov), but his name still has to be recovered;from On Piety, Nos. 10, 11 (which might containthe names of two archons)and 16; from On the Stoics, Nos. 22 and 24; from adv. [Sophistas],Nos. 21 and 29; from On Epicurus,No. 9; from On EpicurusII, No. 3. 16Nos.5, 17 and 25.

EPICURUSIN THEARCHIVES OF ATHENS

21

unlikely that a date to the archonshipof either Isaios or Eythios should be restored to fill a gap in the papyrustext of this new letter.17 The dates we have for Epicurus' letters give an approximatedate for the death of Pythokles and therefore a terminusante quem for the Letterto Pythocles(278/7) and, as a consequence of this, for the Letterto Herodotusto which the Letterto Pythocleslooks back (ad Pyth. 85.6-7). We have some dates for the long and difficult association between Epicurusand Timokratesof Lampsakos,but this association, as it is known from Epicurus' letters, must now be abbreviatedby the discovery of a Charinos who was archon in 291/0. Previously the Charinos (or Kairinos) of 308/7 gave a date for these

letters.18And, thanksto the npaygaTEtat,

we have a date for Epicurus'attempt,with

the aid of Timokrates'brotherMetrodoros, to gain freedom for Mithres who was being held by Kraterosin the Macedoniangarrisondown in the Peiraieus in 277, the date of Metrodoros'death. And finally, we have the date of Epicurus'death in 271/0 from his last letter to Mithres whom he made the minister to his own obligations.19But in all this wealth of dates we are still without an explanationfor the dates themselves. 11 For this we must turn back to a subscriptionto one of the books of Epicurus' On Nature, Book XV. This takes us back to the archonship of Nikias and Pap. Herc. 1479/1417 (once a single roll). In the subscriptionto this book we read: Fr. 13 XIII (Sedley)

11 sup. 'EIT[LK]OVpov HEptL OVO-EW KT)

14

EK]

5wv &pxicodv

1 inf. Ey[pIa'r E7n NtKTOVroi ,[Eflda A clue and a question come from the notation(K] which Sedley, the T'oI ?&pXacdwv, most recent editor of this book, translates"from the old exemplars".20There can be no question that the roll from Herculaneumis a copy from the "old exemplars" but what is the word "old" modifies and where were these old exemplars? I would restore the word for these exemplars as ai'Toypa&xov, "originals, or exemplars", and look for a parallel in a source that gives us an idea of where these ancient originals were preserved. My source is Athenaeus and his descriptionof the activities of the "Peripatet"7Thesuggested restorationsare those of Arrighetti, op. cit. (footnote 3 above), [133]. The text of Didymus' commentaryto Ecclesiastesis published by G. Binder, L. Koenen and L. Liesenborghs, "Ein neues Epikurfragmentbei Didymos dem Blinden," ZPE 1, 1967, pp. 33-44. 18Cf.footnote 13 above. '9Appendix,No. 30. 20Op. Cit. (footnote 7 above), p. 56.

DISKINCLAY

22

ic", Apellikon of Teos, who not only bought up the libraryof Aristotle but attempted to take from the archives of the state of Athens, the Metroon, the originalcopies of the rwv 7lTaXatwvalv'Toypara ancient decrees which were kept there: TarT' (K TOi;M'Trp@OV 0/qNtL-,ka'Twv V?faxtpOV'AEVO'EKTaTO.21 Here, I think, we have an answer to our question about the place where the originalof Pap. Herc. 1479/1417 was to be found. And this is a place to which we have been directedby the editors of this roll. As Sedley says of the subscriptionto Book XXVIII of Epicurus' On Nature: "this archetype may well have been an Athenian one dating back to Epicurus'own lifetime, in which case our papyrus is more likely to have been copied from it in Athens than in Italy."22But whether these copies were made in the garden itself is still a question and it is a question which takes us back to Nikias, the successor of Antiphates. Why was it importantto the scribe of our papyrusto give not only a title of his book, and the total of the lines he copied, but the seemingly extraneous informationthat the book he had copied was written in the archonshipof Nikias, the Nikias who succeeded Antiphates as archon? It would seem that this precisionabout Nikias arises from the fact that within the period of Epicurus' 36 years of residence in Athens there was another Nikias who was archon in 283/2 and the notation E'TimNtKiOV by itself was not sufficient to date the book. But why this concern with the archonsof Athens? These archons bring us around to the question of dates and to a hypothesis of August Boeckh who conjectured that the documents deposited in the State Records Office of Ancient Athens, the Metroon, were stored in bins under the year of the archon in whose term of office they were submitted to the grammateusof the Boule.23It appearsthat at some time after he had established his school in Athens, Epicurusrealized that the surest way to preserve his writingsin an authoritativeand inalterableform was to deposit them in the distinguishedcompany of the laws and decrees of the state of Athens. We know from Diogenes Laertius that Epicurus deposited his will in the Metroon, and he seems to have been the first Athenian who, as a citizen without public office, gained access to the Public Records Office for the registry of his own, private affairs.24But such is the gap between papyrologyand epigraphy, or philosophy and history, that the connection between the dates preserved in the papyrifrom Herculaneum and the testimoniafor the Metroon has not been seen. Or perhapsit is the ostensibly retiring and private character of Epicurus' philosophy, whose most notorious politicalmaxim was gu) ITOXtrLE1EO-at, that has made it difficultto believe that Epicurus was both the first and only private individualwe know of to deposit the record of his testamentarybequests in the state archives of Athens and the only philosopher and, indeed, the only writerto secure his own survivaland integritythere.25 2'Athenaeus, v.214 D-E, in R. E. Wycherley, The Athenian Agora, III, Literary and EpigraphicalTesti-

Princeton1957, no. 469. mnonia, 22Qp. cit. (footnote 7 above), p. 11. 2IFor Boeckh's hypothesis, cf. C. Curtius, Das Afetroonin Athen als Staatsarchiv, Berlin 1868, p. 23.

2IDiogenesLaertius,quoted in the paragraphbelow (= AgoraIII, no. 480). 25Bya law of Lykourgos, the tragedies of Aischylos, Sophokles and Euripideswere deposited in "a publicplace," which I would not hesitate to identify as the Metroon, to be read (or dictated) by the secre-

EPICURUSIN THEARCHIVES OF ATHENS

23

This explanationfor the dates that have come down to us for the writingsof Epicurus helps recover the precise sense of Epicurus'languagewhen, in the Letterto Herodotus and in the On Nature, he refers back to his earlier writings.The Letterto Herodotus V/O-EW' a vayEypaAEvwv looks back to some of these as E'Kao-a 7TO Ept a> (35.1-2) and Book XXVIII of the On Naturelooks back to an earlier treatise On Ambid guity (possibly an earlier book of this same treatise, EV To[CthHIEpt afh[f,3oXt'as vqA avayEypa/4LEvotq). This is precisely the word Epicurus uses to refer to his registry of his bequest to Amynomachos and Timokrates (of Potamos), "in accordancewith the deed to each of these recorded in the Metroon (Ka Tra Tow)v En MX'0 rTp&avayEypa/LEKaTEpC jt V). 26 Epicuruswas not simply writing up a series of treatises inter/EVT)V preting the physicalworld or a tract on ambiguity, he was recordingthem, and, providentially enough, the language of the later Epicureanswho make use of these documents reflects their characteras officialdocuments.27 But there is an obstacle to this interpretationof the dates that have come down to us for Epicurus'writings, and this arises from the very librarythat has given us 29 of our 30 dates. The dating of the transactionsof Hellenistic philosophers by Athenian archon years is not peculiarto Philodemos' treatment of Epicurus.From two histories of the Stoics and Academics in Athens, there are still more dates, fixed by reference to Athenian archon years, which enter into the fasti of these schools and, since they clearly go back to the Chronicleof Apollodoros, help flesh out the third and fourth books of this enormously influential work. It was soon appreciatedthat the so-called index of Academic philosopherswas in part derived from Apollodoros, and the history of the Stoic philosophers,preserved in Pap. Herc. 1018, makes it abundantlyclear that it dependedon Apollodoros,6rov' TOV-Tov'7rcq KaOt TO pdovovsavaypafaq, for its chronology of this school.28Both works must come from a work known to Diogenes Laertius as Philodemos' "Syntax", or succession of the philosophers (Diogenes Laertius, x.3); and both must derive their dates from Apollodoros.Accordingly,they have been digesttary of the city to those intending to producethem, cf. Agora III, p. 160, note 1. The case of Epicurusis different, and, indeed, very much like the case of Herakleitoswho deposited his book in the temple of Artemis in Ephesos (cf. Diogenes Laertius,ix.5). Epicurus'protectresswas the Mother of the Gods. 2"Seefootnote 24 above. 27Forthe languageof On NaturexxviII, cf. Arrighetti,op. cit. (footnote 3 above), [31] 14.27. The term is the same as the word Epicurususes to describehis deed of his propertyto Amynomachosand Timokrates as this is "recorded"in the Metroon, Diogenes Laertius,x.16. G. Klaffenbach'sfundamentalstudy of the epigraphicalevidence for the archives of the Greek states, "Bemerkungenzum griechischen Urkundwesen," SBBerl, 1960, no. 6, pp. 5-41, is itself a repositoryfor the term ValJyp(akELV in inscriptionsproviding for the makingof officialcopies of importantdocuments to be deposited in a city archive (e.g. the official copy of a treatybetween Smyrnaand Magnesia,OGIS, no. 229, lines 85-86: avaypaqiaC0 8E Kat 6oypaqjaToOViXauTV-s f3ovXqj Kat ToV -0r/10vTa avrbypaoa Trqs6IoAo0ytas [Eis To'8-q1]-tov, cited, op. cit., p. 11). A passagefrom Philodemos' Hpay,4aTctatseems to reflect his sense of the "official"characterof the documents he is using to illustratethe transactionsof Epicurus'life; here he uses the term ITPo0-KaTaKEXWPO-6 in connection with the letters he has cited concerningEpicurusand Mithres, xxxii.9, C. Diano, Lettere di Epicuroe di suoi, Florence 1946, p. 18: "Let these additionaldocuments which we have now put on record explainwhy we have spoken of Mithres."For the term KaraxcpkEtV, cf. Klaffenbach,op. cit., p. 20. 28Cf.F. Jacoby, ApollodorsChronik:EineSammIungderFragmente,Berlin 1902, fr. 78 and p. 12.

24

DISKINCLAY

ed in Jacoby's collection of the fragmentsof Apollodoros.29Yet two observationsneed to be made about the dates in these historicalworks of Philodemos:the first is that they are quite unlike the dates we have for Epicurus in that they are all concerned with deaths and successions and not writings.We learn of the nodal dates in the lives of Kleitomachos, Boethos, Lakydes, and figures such as Moschion and Melanthios of Rhodes, but their works are never mentioned; the second observationis simply that of Apollodoros'editor, Felix Jacoby, who saw that if Philodemos' chronologywent back to Apollodoros, Apollodoros' own Chronicekmust itself go back to some earlier source. And, for Epicurus,he thought this source to be Epicurus'own letters and the memorials of his contemporariesand students.30So we are broughtback to the late 2nd century B.C. and the time Apollodoros spent in Athens and the possibilitythat he derived some of his dates for the life of Epicurusfrom the place where his fasti were kept as faithfully as the date of his birth was kept by the community he left behind him: the Metroon in the Agora of Athens. There is evidence that Epicurus'librarywas also preserved in the garden, but the prospect of Epicurus' survival in the State Records Office of ancient Athens is even more paradoxicalthan that of Sokrates installed in the Prytaneionwith free meals for the rest of his life. Another philosopherwas housed more briefly in the Metroon. This was Diogenes the Cynic who found shelter in a large pithos there; and Stilpon had the courage to enter the building, which was the precinctof the Mother of the Gods, with garlic on his breath." Much later, in the 2nd century after Christ, Favorinus of Arles could find there the formal indictment against Sokrates, doubtless filed with the documents registered under the archonshipof Laches (400/399).32 Whether he could have found Epicurus'testamentarybequests, the 37 rolls of his HEpt 'FVO-Ew0, and his letters with those of his associates is an interestingquestion. What is certain is that Epicurus'survival in Athens was more secure than that of Aristotle, concerningwhose prudence he had some hard things to say (Diogenes Laertius, x.8). We have the story of the survival, such as it was, of Aristotle's work from Strabo.And we now know that De Witt was wrong in his conjecturethat "in the fortuitous survival of the Greek mss., it seems that the writingsof Epicurushave met a like fate with those of Aristotle."33Their fates were quite dissimilar, and Epicurusdid not leave much to chance. Like Aristotle, he did leave his books to his successor (Diogenes Laertius, x.21), but Epicurus' books remained in Athens after his death as he had wished, both in the Metroon and in the private setting of his garden. Aristotle willed his libraryto Theophrastosfrom whom it passed to Theophrastos'student Neleus who took it to Skepsis where it passed into the hands of Neleus' heirs. There it was buried early in the 2nd century B.C. and finally disinterredand sold to the wealthy collector 29Ibid.,frs. 53b, 100, 97, 70, 71, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101, 102 and 80a and b. 30Ibid., p. 335; cf. his remarkon the characterof Apollodoros'evidence for an earlierperiod, p. 52. "31Cf.AgoraIII, nos. 479 and 481 for Diogenes; and no. 471 for Stilpon. 32Cf.Diogenes Laertius,ii.40 (= AgoraIII, no. 478). :33 and his Philosophy,Minneapolis1954, p. 46. Epicuruls

EPICURUSIN THEARCHIVES OF ATHENS

25

Apellikon of Teos.A'We have already met Apellikon. It was Apellikon who attempted to remove the originalcopies of ancient decrees from the Metroon in Athens. Little did he know that with these ancient documents of the state of Athens he could have found the writingsof Epicurus. APPENDIX: EPICURUS'DATED WORKS Note Bibliographical I have used as an armaturefor the chronology of the Athenian archons after 308/7 the table in W. K. Pritchettand B. D. Meritt, The Chronologyof HellenisticAthens, Cambridge,Mass. 1940, pp. xv-xix, with the later revisions which A. E. Samuel has incorporatedin the table he gives for this period in his Greek and RomanChronology: Calendarsand Yearsin ClassicalAntiquity,Munich 1972, pp. 212-213. The sources for the dated writingsof Epicurusare cited from G. Arrighetti,Epicuro:Opere,2nd ed., Turin 1973. In the case of Philodemos and Pap. Herc. 176, I cite the following as well: for the HlpayuaTEltat, and where possible, C. Diano, Letteredi Epicuroe di suoi, Florence 1946 (now reprintedin EpicuriEthicaet Epistulae, Florence 1974); also, F. Sbordone, "Per la storia dell'epistolariodi Epicuro,"in Miscellaneadi studialessandriniin memoriadi A. Rostagni, Turin 1963, pp. 26-39; for Philodemos, On Wealth,A. T. Guerra, "II primo libro 'Sulla ricchezza' di Filodemo," ChronacheHercolanesi8, 1978, pp. 52-95; for On Piety, T. Gomperz, Philodem:Uber Frammigkeit,Leipzig 1866; for Againstthe [Sophists],F. Sbordone, Philodemi adversus[Sophistas],Naples 1947; and for On Epicurusand Pap. Herc. 176, A. Vogliano, Epicuriet Epicureorum Scriptain Herculanensibus PapyrisServata, Berlin 1928, pp. 21-55 (ScriptorEpicureusIncertus= Pap. Herc. 176), pp. 57-61 (On EpicurusII) and 63-73 (On Epicurus). (307/6 Anaxikrates 300/299 Hegemachos 296/5

Nikias

294/3

Olympiodoros

292/1

Philippos

291/0

Charinos

The date of Epicurus'move to Athens, Diogenes Laertius,x.2.) No. 1. IlEpt(Pvo0-EwBook XV (Arrighetti,p. 292). No. 2. HEpt (Pvo0-Ew Book XXVIII (Arrighetti, p. 321).

No. 3. A letter written Ego NtKiov, Philodemos, On EpicurusII, fr. 1.7 (Vogliano, p. 59). No. 4. A letter to a person unknown, from Philodemos, rIpayaTELac xiv.11 (Sbordone 1963, p. 31; Arrighetti,[105]). No. 5. A letter to Polyainos and Leonteus of Lampsakoson the Stoics in Athens, Pap. Herc. 176, fr. 5, XXIV.14-15 (Vogliano, p. 50; Arrighetti, [67]). No. 6. To Themistaof Lampsakosreportingon the young Pythokles, Philodemos, HpaytcMndat iv.8-10 (Arrighetti,[50]). No. 7. To friends in Lampsakos on poverty, Philodemos, On Wealth xxxv.38 (Guerra,p. 67; Arrighetti,[96]). No. 8. Letters sent to Polyainos, Charinomagistrate,Seneca, Epistulae18.9 (Arrighetti,[83]). No. 9. A letter to Polyainos?Philodemos, On Epicurus,fr. 5.1 (Vogliano, p. 65; Arrighetti[84]). No. 10. A letter to a person unknown, Philodemos, On Piety, Pap. Herc., 1098, X.12 (Gomperz, p. 125; Arrighetti,[106]). No. 11. To a person unknown, Philodemos, On Piety, Pap. Herc., 1077, X.1 (Gomperz, p. 105; Arrighetti,[107]).

34Strabo, xiii.1.54; cf. J. P. Lynch, Aristotle'sSchool:A Studyof a GreekEducationalInstitution,Berkeley 1972, pp. 200-202.

DISKIN CLAY

26

290/289 Telokles 289/8

Aristonymos

286/5

Diokles

285/4

Diotimos

284/3

Isaios

283/2

Euthios

281/0

Ourios

279/8

Anaxikrates

278/7

Demokles

274/3

Euboulos

271/0

Pytharatos

No. 12. To Polyainos on poverty? Philodemos, On Wealthxxxiv.8 (Guerra, p. 66; Arrighetti,[1081). No. 13. A letter to a person unknown, Philodemos, On Wealthxxxv.8 (Guerra,p. 67; Arrighetti,[1091). No. 14. To Mithres, on a reversal of fortune, Philodemos, On Wealth xxxvi.9 (Guerra,p. 67; Arrighetti,[791). No. 15. To Mithres, acknowledginga contributionto the school, Philode(Diano, p. 32; Arrighetti,[741). XXXIV.1 mos, 11payaTEtrat No. 16. To Phyrson of Kolophon on the piety of a certain Theodotos, Philodemos, On Piety, Pap. Herc., 1098, XII.15 (Gomperz, p. 127; Arrighetti, [93]). No. 17. A letter to Anaxarchos and Leontion, Pap. Herc. 176, fr. 5, XXV.31-32 (Vogliano, p. 51). No. 18. To Phyrson,Philodemos, Hpay~uTE'at xv.1-2 (Arrighetti,[941). No. 19? If the name Diotimos is that of the archon;cf. No. 11. A Diotimos appearsin Pap.Herc.,1780, VIII, fr. 1. If he is Diotimos Ev'voro0v 1ZrqaxLSirrhe cannot be the recipientof a letter from Epicurus;cf. W. Croenert, KolotesundMenedemos,Leipzig 1906, pp. 82-83. No. 20. To a person unknown, Philodemos, iipaypxadat XXXII.14(Diano, p. 19; Arrighetti,[110]). No. 21. To a person unknown, apparentlyon the education of the sons of Menoikeus, Philodemos, adv. [Sophistas],fr. 16 (Sbordone 1947, p. 78; Arrighetti,[1111). No. 22. On a setback of the Macedoniansto a person unknown, Philodemos, On theStoics, Pap. Herc., 339, V.9 (Arrighetti,[1121). No. 23. To Leonteus, Philodemos, lpayiTExat XXXII.15-16 (Diano, p. 19; Arrighetti,[681). No. 24. To a person unknown,Philodemos, On the Stoicsv.13, Eir'1'AvaPt(cf. Croenert [under No. 19 above], p. 54, n. 259). K[pla'[TOVR No. 25. To Kolotes of Lampsakos,possibly on the death of Metrodoros, Pap. Herc., 176, fr. 5, XXVIII.3-4 (Vogliano, p. 54 [cf. Gomperz in Hermes 5, 1871, pp. 387-3881; Arrighetti,[621). xxix.17 (Diano, p. 15; No. 26. To Mithres, Philodemos, HpayRaTaat Arrighetti,[751). XXVI.14 No. 27. To Idomeneus of Lampsakos,Philodemos, [IpaytrElat (Diano, p. 12; Arrighetti,[601). No. 28. To Mithres on frugality, Philodemos, [lpaygaTEratxxx..16-17 (Diano, p. 16; Arrighetti,[761). No. 29. To a person unknown, asking for some books of Demokritos, Philodemos, adv. [Sophistas],fr. 1V (Sbordone 1947, p. 75; Arrighetti, [1131). No. 30. To Mithres on his approachingdeath, Philodemos, [IpaytxaJat xxxi.3-4 (Diano, p. 17; Arrighetti,[771). DISKIN CLAY

THE JOHNS HOPKINSUNIVERSITY

Departmentof Classics Baltimore,MD 21218

THE NATURE OF THE LATE FIFTH-CENTURY REVISIONOF THE ATHENIANLAW CODE TARTING IN 410 B.C. it was the task of Nikomachos and other a&vaypa0E'vto Publish on stelai a large body of law,1 now sometimes called "The Law Code of Nikomachos".Much has been written about this publicationof the law, especiallyabout the inscribed fragments that evidently represent different stages of the publication.2 Sterling Dow, who has contributed so much to our understandingof this document, called the inscription" . . . as a whole, among the thousands that stood in Athens, . .. the most precious and the most exciting of them all."3 Here I shall discuss, in general terms, the nature of this body of law withintheAthenianlegal tradition.This question has not received enough attention, and some current views, I believe, are probablywrong. When in 1935 J. H. Oliver publishedthe large Agora fragment (I 727) he wrote: "With the restorationof democraticgovernment in 410 a board of registrarswas appointedto re-edit the laws of Athens. They were to retain the laws of Solon (and at least parts of the laws of Draco; cf. IG 12, 115) but preparean edition that recognized the alterations imposed by changed conditions and partly expressed in subsequent legislation."4His view, I think, is basicallyright, but subsequent scholars have not always respected the careful wording of his statements. It is especially importantto take his second sentence closely with his first. A recent view, which is quite a departurefrom Oliver's, and which I think is incorrecton this point, is MacDowell's, in TheLaw in ClassicalAthens: When this had been done, the Athenians declared this year, 403/2, that of the arkhonshipof Eukleides, to be the start of a new era, as far as the legal code was concerned. [11 No law passed before 403/2 was valid henceforthunless it was includedin the new inscriptionsmade in the years from 410 to 403; [21 no uninscribedlaw was to be enforced; [31 no decree could override a law; and [41 no prosecutioncould be broughthenceforthfor offences committed before 403/2.5

The first two propositionsof his second sentence will concern us in this article, because it seems to me the evidence we now have does not supportthem. 'On the date cf. S. Dow, "The Athenian Calendarof Sacrifices:The Chronology of Nikomakhos' Second Term," Historia9, 1960, p. 271. 2The largestfragment,Agora I 727, was publishedby J. H. Oliver, Hesperia4, 1935, pp. 5-32. A full bibliographyto 1959 is given at the end of Dow's article, op. cit., pp. 292-293. 3"The AthenianLaw Codes," Proceedings of the Massachusetts HistoricalSociety71, 1953-59, p. 5. 4 Op. Cit. (footnote 2 above), p. 7. 'London 1978, p. 47. The numbersin bracketsare my own. Cf. M. Ostwald,Nomosand the Beginnings of the AthenianDemocracy,Oxford 1969, p. 1, note 4; A. R. W. Harrison,"Law-Makingat Athens at the End of the Fifth Century B.C.," JHS 75, 1955, pp. 26-35, especially p. 33. Harrisonbelieved that the phrase Trots; vIoots Xpijo-6atc' EvKXEtI8OV pxoVTros(Andocides, On the Mysteries,D. MacDowell, ed., Oxford 1962 [= On the Mysteries],87) indicated "that all laws received a kind of canonisationat this point";but the phrasedoes not mean this: see MacDowell, ibid., pp. 128-129.

28

KEVINCLINTON

The first proposition, "No law passed before 403/2 was valid henceforth unless it was included in the new inscriptionsmade in the years from 410 to 403," seems especially hard to reconcile with the law of Diokles which Demosthenes cites (xxiv.42) and on which MacDowell relies for his conclusions: To1s i~oAov' ToPs 7TpO EV'KXi8oV (i.e. before 403/2) TE6E'v7aq Ei' 8-qgoKpaTva Kat 6'Ot E&' Ev'KXdt8oV E6TE)-aV Kat EUtLLI aI'EyEypap4LEI'ot, KVpLOVq Etvat. This directly contradictsMacDowell's statement; for it says straightforwardly that laws passed before 403/2, under the democracy,were valid in additionto the ones passed in 403/2 and inscribed. To conclude that no law passed before 403/2 was valid unless it was inscribedin the inscriptionsmade in the years from 410 to 403 is simply not a conclusion that can be drawn from this passage in Demosthenes; it requires the assumption that the readers of Diokles' law would naturally know that they should add the rather drastic qualification" ... yes, under the democracy, but only in the years 410 to 403," and this is hard to believe. I can agree that Diokles is a bit imprecisehere, for this sentence is not the main point in his law (what follows about the effective dates of new laws is much more important). Surely some sort of qualificationis needed, because we know (and the Athenians knew) that not all the laws passed under the democracywere equallyvalid. But the qualificationshould be an easy one, such as: all laws made under the democracy were KVp'ot but some, as everyone knew, were KVpt(TEpot.6 This minor distinctionwas not importantto Diokles. I think that we may be better able to understandthe nature and function of the laws passed in 403/2 if we look first at the evidence concerningthe duties of the a&vaypa0Et% operatingin the years 410-404, and then the evidence for the revision of the laws in 403. The task of Nikomachos and the other a&vaypa0E'v is given in Lysias' speech Against Nikomachos (xxx.2): ... aPds vopw v av/aypafEV1q EyEVETO ... 7TpOOrTaX6E'vyacp avTwr TETTapcWov/A-rqlcl/oa&aypaciat ZoXu'ov

avTOV

VO~AO6E7T)l KaTEOT7)0Ev,

arTt

TOV' lNO4AOV' TOVq Zo0Wu'oo, aVrio AE'V TT/ln aPXTJ1v

8E TETTapW1v/.LVTOV E'E77)

VTOLuoarTO,Ka6' EKaG-TY7i 8E -qAE'pau &pyvlptov Xa,4a'VCw TOVs AEV EVEypwfE, TOV' 8E Efr)~XELEv. Lysias charges Nikomachos with exceeding his authority, which was "to

publish the laws of Solon (i.e. to have them inscribed)." But Lysias is obviously not telling the whole story at this point. If Nikomachos' (and the other anagrapheis')task was merelyto publishthe laws of Solon, then he surely could not have gotten away with including (E'hE'ypaoE)some of Solon's laws and omitting (E'r~XELfEh) others. In fact, he seems to have passed his Ev'VIa at the end of his term of office (xxx.3), and he was elected to serve a second term. It seems, therefore, that he did indeed have the authority to include some parts of Solon's code and omit others. Yet he was not called -vythe title associatedwith the authorityto make new law (cf. IG J2, 76, etc.) or ypaoEv';, revise an old one (Demophantoswas the ovyypa0EV' in 410 of a law that probablywas a substantive revision of a Solonian law [On the Mysteries,96]).7 The acaypaoEisq, on 6The term occurs, e.g., in Andocides, On the Mysteries,87. 7Cf. M. Ostwald, "The Athenian Legislationagainst Tyrannyand Subversion," TAPA86, 1955, pp. 103-128.

THELATEFIFTH-CENTURY REVISION OFTHEATHENIANLAWCODE

29

the other hand, could not properlymake new law; Lysias' AgainstNikomachosmakes this point very clearly. Their task was more humble, but in this instance they surely were not mere copyists. So it seems to me what they were asked to do was to inscribe the laws of Solon then in use (Lysias conveniently omitted the latter phrase); and one would assume, therefore, that if any law needed major rewriting, it had to be turned or some other authority, perhapsthe Boule itself.8The task of the over to rovyypa0E'v as publishers, must have been somewhat mechanical, but it involved a avaypaoevq, large amount of work, for it requiredchecking all post-Solonianlaw against the original laws of Solon (now most readily available on KVpJ3EL%stored in the Stoa Basileios according to R. Stroud's attractive hypothesis9. Where a revision of a Solonian statute existed, the anagrapheis,I assume, would omit the Solonian originaland insert the later revision. A post-Solonianlaw that did not representa revision of a Solonian law or have any effect on Solonian law would be disregarded;it simply did not concern them. This descriptionof the anagrapheis'activity is the one that can best be reconciled with the slightly misleading descriptionin Lysias (xxx.2) and the fact that Nikomachos passed his euthyna. Thus he was described by Lysias as including some Solonian laws and omitting (therefore, wiping out) others. Lysias' description is not gross exaggeration (that sort of thing could be detrimentalto his cause) but is simply misleading. How, then, can we reconcile the inclusion of these revisions, which were not Solon's, with "publishingthe laws of Solon (then in use)"? The Athenians, it seems, had a habit of calling laws by the name of the original, famous lawgiver and not by the name of their reviser. So Andocides calls a "law of Solon" one that was actuallywritten by the syngrapheusDemophantos and passed by the Boule and Demos in the year 410 (On the Mysteries,96). Andocides is not being disingenuous, for it would be foolish to do so in such a blatant way. He was simply following the accepted custom of using the original lawgiver's name.10An early and famous example of a similar sort is the fact 8The evidence for the existence of a board of syngrapheisin this period is weak; see R. S. Stroud, Drakon'sLaw on Homicide,University of CaliforniaPublications:ClassicalStudies III, Berkeley and Angeles 1968, pp. 27-28. 9TheAxonesand Kyrbeisof Drakonand Solon, University of CaliforniaPublications:ClassicalStudies XIX, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London 1979, pp. 42-44. 10Thedecree of Demophantos was almost certainlyincluded in the revised Solonian Code of 403/2, and this fact may also have been why Andocidesfelt free to call it a "lawof Solon". Before completingthe typescriptof this articleI was unable to see J. Schreiner, de corporeiurisatheniensium, diss. Bonn 1913, who accordingto Harrison, op. cit. (footnote 5 above), p. 30, note 34, "has established the thesis that 'the laws of Solon' was often a generic term for the 'corpusiurisAttici'." It seems to me that Schreinerarguedpersuasivelythat the revision of the Solonian Code that was published in 403/2 was known in the-4th centuryas "the laws of Solon". He did not realize, however, the full significance of the law of Diokles on this subject, and I cannot agree that "the laws of Solon" as revised in 403/2 representedat that time the entirecorpusiurisAttici.To maintain the consistency of his thesis Schreiner concludes that the decree of Teisamenos (see below, p. 31) was wronglyinserted in Andocides' text by a grammarian,and that the law on the stele in the Eleusinion (see. below, pp. 30, 36) is a copy of a law which appearedamong the revised laws of Solon. It is odd that the Irr'kto-uaof the syngrapheusDemophantos (which must be regardedas having the force of a vioOs) is the law cited by Andocides and other orators (Demosthenes, xx.159, Lycurgos,124-127), ratherthan the same law on this subjectin the revised

KEVINCLINTON

30

that, although Solon made Drakon's laws on homicide part of his own legislation, Drakon's name continued to be attached to the homicide laws. Our anagrapheistherefore published the "laws of Solon (which were currentlyin use)." Attaching the name of Solon to revisions of his law was acceptable,until 403/2 at any rate. The anagrapheisevidently published the "laws of Solon" on freestandingo-T'Xat; this they certainlydid for the homicide law (that partof the Solonian code to which the name of Drakon was still attached [IG 12, 1151), setting it in front of the Stoa Basileios, and we may assume that they published the rest in the same way. MacDowell has shown that they probablycompleted their task before the accession of the Thirty, and that the accession of the Thirty did not force them to abandon it.1" The sections of Solon's originalcode that were omitted in this new edition were, of course, the ones no Otts OVKETt XPraTat, to use the phrase that appearsin longer in use, ot v4o'ot ot Xo'XWVOs the AthenaionPoliteia (viii.3) in reference to such laws. Solon's originalcode remained,

however,as Stroudsuggests,on the KVp/3Eti. They surelywere still called simplyot 4oL oi Zwoivos, but the new revision, oi vouiot oi ZXovw'o'os XpgCTat

ot 'Athjvcdot,

were now KVpLCWTEpOL. The anagrapheis,therefore, must have left a large number of Athenian laws untouched, because these laws did not represent revisions of the Solonian code. Andocides, if he possiblycould, liked to call a law "a law of Solon" (cf. On the Mysteries,96, 111), but in the year 400 or 399 Andocides' friend Kephalos defended Andocides during a Boule meeting (in the Eleusinion) by pointing to a law on a stele standing in the Eleusinion (ibid., 116). The curious thing is that Andocides does not call it a "law of Solon". It is clear from its description that it was not part of the original Solonian legislation;12for that reason it is probablyan example of a law that was not a partof the recent recodificationof the Solonian laws; and so Kephalosdoes not refer to it as "a law of Solon". Let us recapitulatethe stages of the late 5th-century recodification.Nikomachos TOV' were charged in the year 410 with the task of a&aypactpat and other a&vaypa0E'v were that evidence they no is there ot 'AOI'aiot; xpCOTrat oks ZOWu'oVt~ ToPs 4oAovs given a broadertask. They inscribedthese laws on stelai in front of the Stoa Basileios; and we possess the first of these stelai, Drakon's law on homicide (IG 12, 115). Their work was evidently complete by the time of the regime of the Thirty in 404. In 403, after the restorationof the democracy,there was talk of devising a whole new law code, axXot IoAOt TE6ELEVi (On the Mysteries,81-82), because (Andocides says) recent events had forced some citizens to violate the laws of Solon and Drakon. But when they discussed the matter in the Boule and Ekklesia they decided instead, accordingto AndoCode of Solon, since accordingto Andocides' (and Schreiner's) view of the law, a qX't-uga of the year 410 was no longer the technicallyvalid version. MacDowelleliminatedthis inconsistencyby enlargingthe periodin which the new, henceforthvalid body of law was created, from Schreiner's403/2 to 410-403. But Andocidesdoes not provideevidence, and Diokles' law is in opposition. IIOn the Mysteries, p. 197.

"2Itseems only recentlyto have replacedunwrittenlaw:see below, p. 36.

REVISION OFTHEATHENIANLAWCODE THELATEFIFTH-CENTURY

31

cides, to review all the laws and then to publish in the Stoa the laws that had passed (TOro TorovT r Trm EnV Treview (8oKtga'io-aTa' rTaVra' Tros lOAP4ov, ELT ai'aypatat ibid., 82). The decree of Teisamenos,however, which GOwvD ot av 8OKtgao-Cat, of Andocides offers in support this, does not say quite the same thing:"3 "E8oSE Trt 8'Aw, TEL0aAE ' V6/otq 8E Xpllo-6at T-to; IAX6XVo'Kat

ITaTpta,

Ap&KOVTO;

toilet

O6EOCLo,

UTC7TEp

TOy' EIT&JV14LOV'; (TKOTELV -roV' 8E ITapao8tOE

EXpCO4E0a

Tp

-ra4toK,

rp7TpOO6EV XPo Vp.

ETV

VITO -rrjn 8ovXrj;

'prqAEjVotVOO6ETrat

UeLTEdITOXtEVEo-6at AErpOV; Kat

EovXALE/, Kat

'A6Tvat'ov;

KaTa

ITOfOWV

avaypaOErTaq

E'v -avutLv

EKTL6E'TrOV

Tapa8t8O'To>

rt'

El) Tp8E rp /L.

i

VOPS; VOtIOV; 8OKLRtZao-arT ITpOTEpOV

apXaL'

[3ovX'

T

8E K~atTOS 8' av lTpoo-8,

Xpllo-at

Kat oi

7TpO';

ot

voto6E'rat

EXOVTO, EITEL8aV O/WUJK(CVt7V oi;V oa &AO(rt E~ELtvat 8E Kat t8tcvr7 r E"X 7TEpt Tnov vOAR. (oivA/JoVXEV'EV 0" Tt a) alya9Ol ,3ovXoALE'VE1ITLOVT Elt T77v [overv

ITEVTaKO(LOL,

E7TELt8aA VE8EATEOC0t aiv at apxat Etq

TO7

Ot 5)O/L0t,

TOt' KEt/E5)0Ltq

T0tX0V,

tva

7TEp

E7T/EXELU0IT) )O/lot'

7TpOTEpOv

Xpc)vTat.

"

03ovXenT E

'ApELov TacyoVTCOV V6WOw,

ToV; 86E KVpOV/.E5)OV;

a)Eypac7pqo-av,

T7(05 vo80ov

0'7TCS

avaypao(f

tI

UKO7TELl Tp JovXoAE'V.

The decree at first seems to say that only additionsor amendments to the laws of Drakon and Solon are in question (6riixowv 8' 'v iVpoo8E6g);4 such amendments will be proposed and reviewed; otherwise the laws of Solon and Drakon will remain in force. "The laws (i.e. amendments) that are passed are to be publishedon the wall where they were published previously (lines 15-17)." But what precisely is the antecedent of "they"? Here there is unclarity.The decree seemed to be concerned with additionsto the laws of Solon and Drakon, and it seemed at first possible to think that these ad-

ditions,as approved,TOVS

8E KVpOVIXEVOVq TCV

Vowv,

are the objectof the infinitive

however, can only be "the The unexpressed subject of &VypaxIav, laws" (i.e. the laws of Solon and [perhaps]Drakon). It is also importantto notice that the precedingsentence concerns "the laws" in general and not "additionsto the laws". A. R. W. Harrisonpointed out that the right given to any citizen to speak before the Boule and suggest improvements in the laws argues for the view that more than mere additionswere possible."5This forces us to reconsiderthe meaning of TOVis KVpOVIXEVOVq wv vo ucww.The sentence would more easily make sense if the unexpressed subject of &Vaypc~Eva' .

IVayp'xo-uav had as its antecedenta noun not too distant,i.e. loosely TOiS KVpOVEv6 vovs rvT Poiiv, meaning now "the (previously) approved laws." Thus the sentence

would read: "They are to publish the approved laws (viz. the newly revised laws [of Solon and Drakon]) on the wall where they (viz. the previouslyapprovedlaws of Solon and Drakon) were published."Thus, the implicationby the end of the decree is that "3Whythe discrepancy?Perhapsto reinforcethe idea that the jurors should think of the year 403/2 as a completely fresh start, and to suggest that the spirit of that year was to forget past transgressions.In addition, ITavT7aqTovq v4olovq might suggest to the unwary that*the laws inscribed in the Stoa Basileios representedall the laws when in fact they representedonly all the approvedlaws of Drakon and Solon. 14Severalscholarshave understoodthe decree in this sense; e.g. W. S. Ferguson, "The Athenian Law Code and the Old Attic Trittyes," in ClassicalStudiesPresentedto EdwardCapps,Princeton 1936, pp. 144146; MacDowell, On the Mysteries,p. 195. 15Op.cit. (footnote 5 above), p. 33.

32

KEVINCLINTON

the whole body of this law is to get a thorough scrutiny;in other words, though some sections of this body will remain unchanged, the sort of additionthat is contemplated will often requirefundamentalrevision, and the entire body of the law (Draconianand Solonian), newly approved,is to be reinscribed.In fact, 6rnio-wv8' av 1rpoo-8-g literally means "whateverthings there is still need of" (cf. LSJ, s.v. frpoo-U'w);the translation "whateveradditionallaws (or amendments to laws) are needed" fosters a precision on the phrase which is out of harmony with the rest of the decree. Thus, 6iroio-wv8' ai" seems to be a polite way of saying "new changes" or "revisions". irpoor8 Furthermore, it is not a question of additionallaws appended to an existing body "on the wall where the laws are inscribed"but a new set of laws to be put "on the wall where the laws wereinscribed."We cannot be absolutely certain, but the words suggest that at this point the old set of laws was no longer on the wall in the Stoa. This could have happenedthrough erasure, as A. Fingarettesuggests;16she connects the extensive erasure on the late 5th-century fragments of the sacrificiallaw code" with this final sentence of the decree. She suggests that the erasure was ordered and carriedout by the Thirty. It is equally possible, it seems to me, that the erasure was done under the democracyin 403 in order to replacethe previous set of laws with the new set. In any case, the edition of the Solonian and Draconianlaw that was first prepared and published in the period 410-404 on stelai (see p. 30 above) was then evidently replaced,at least to a large extent, by a version written on a wall, and that wall edition in turn was erased and in 403/2 replacedby another revision on the same wall. None of these three revisions embraced all Athenian law. In addition to the reasons given above, we may add here a practicalconsideration.We have roughly a meter and a half of the width of the third edition of the revised code (or, to be more precise, an addition to the third edition, as I argue below).18 It contains a calendarof sacrifices,yet it is clear that this is only a small part of the calendarof sacrifices;and religious law concerning matters other than sacrificeis missing, not to mention all secularlaw. In the space of a half-meter'swidth we have the biennial sacrificesfor three months. If we make a very rough calculation, all the biennial sacrifices ought to take up about two meters; the annual, of which there were more, at least three meters. Drakon's law on homicide (IG 12, 115 = Stroud, Drakon'sLaw on Homicide[footnote 8 above]) covered a stele 0.725 m. in width. Solon's laws we cannot of course physicallymeasure, but we know they requiredcertainly at least sixteen but probablyat least twenty-one axones.19Now the stele with Drakon's law, 0.725 m. wide, probablyheld the contents of two axones.20 Again, a veryroughcalculationyields a width of about eight meters for Solon's code. So we have to imagine a monument or wall of stelai on the orderof 14 meters wide, plus 40, 1971, pp. 330-335. 16"A New Look at the Wall of Nikomakhos,"Hesperia 170n the erasuresee S. Dow, "The Walls Inscribedwith Nikomakhos' LawCode," Hesperia30, 1961, pp. 60-68. 18Forthe size, cf. ibid. No'tot, Wiesbaden1966, p. 25. 19Cf.E. Ruschenbusch,I6Xowvoq 20Stroud,op. cit. (footnote 8 above), pp. 58-59.

OF THEATHENIANLAWCODE REVISION THELATEFIFTH-CENTURY

33

the width of revisions (minus some deletion).21 If we are to suppose that the revised code was not limited to the homicide law of Drakon and the laws of Solon but included all Athenian law I think the Stoa Basileios would not have been able to contain it. The consolidation and revision of laws concerning the Mysteries around the middle of the 4th century requiredan opisthographicstele about one meter wide. The sacred laws for various sanctuaries22are probablyjust a small sample of religious laws passed by Athens and scattered in the sanctuariesof Attica (Brauron, Rhamnous, and Sounion are not representedin the above list). In addition,there were the many secular laws. It is unreasonable to think that this large body of laws was publishedon a wall or walls in the Stoa of the Basileus with its approximately24 meters of total internal wall. It is also unreasonable to imagine an alternativetheory, that this body of Athenian law which evidently did not affect the laws of Solon was somehow reviewed at this time, and that what was approved was allowed to stand on existing stelai all over Attica, and what was repealedwas expunged. There is of course, as we have seen, no evidence for this, and the survival of several of the earlier stelai argues against it. The Athenians had a hard enough time revising the laws of Solon. But they managedto do it. These laws were the ones that were basic to IoXLTEVEO-0aL, the functioning of the polis. Whatever the title inscribedon them (oi AomLOL ot 1Awzoos ok XpCO PTrt ot 'AOqvaitot al' Ev"KXEtSOVseems most likely),23 they were known, by origin at least, as the laws of (Drakon and) Solon. The archons swore their oath to uphold the laws in their presence; and henceforth anyone wishing to find and cite a law of Solon had only to look at this inscribedwall in the Stoa of the Basileus. 2This matches Lysias' reference to Nikomachos' sacrificialcode as being on a stele, and Teisamenos' call for the revised code to be put on a wall (in the Stoa Basileios). How this was physicallyaccomplished will be shown by T. Leslie Shear, Jr. in his forthcomingbook on the Stoa. I am very gratefulto him for showing me his reconstruction.Interpretationof the originalplacementof the earlierlaws, on the unerased side of the stelai, must awaithis publication. We should keep in mind that the revised SolonianCode may have been arrangeddifferentlyfrom the original in that the revision was divided into three groups-loVXEVTtKot, KOLVOL, and ot KELVTat TOtS EVVEa apxovo(JV,

EtTa

Tcov

afWfv apcev (Demosthenes, xxiv.20)-and

this must have caused considerable repeti-

tion (the same law being listed by magistrateand elsewhere) and so resulted in a larger text than the original;the original laws of Solon evidently may not have listed laws by magistrate(see Ruschenbusch, op. cit. [footnote 19 above], p. 30, but Stroud, op. cit. [footnote 8 above], does not state this view). 22F. Sokolowski, Lois sacrees des cite'sgrecques (Ecole Fran~aised'Athenes, Travauxet Afmoires XVIII), Paris 1969, no. 3 (= IG 12, 4), no. 13 (= IG 12, 84), no. 14 (= IG 12, 94), no. 15 (= IG 12, 80);

idem, Lois sacreesdes cite'sgrecques,Supplement(Travauxet MemoiresXI), Paris 1962, no. 6.7 (= Hesperia 4, 1935, pp. 32-34, no. 3), plus the stele in Andocides, On the Mysteries,116. According to Diodorus, xviii.18, in 322 B.C. Antipaterallowed the Athenians to continue using the laws of Solon (Kat Ka Ta ToV q Xwvoqvroovq E"7o-tTEvoVTo); this probablyrefers to the laws inscribedin the Stoa Basileios, which was the basic body of Athenian law (cf. Cicero, pro Roscio, 70: " . . . Solonem . . .

qui leges,quibushodiequoqueutuntur,scripsit").As long as the Athenianscontinued to use this body of law, they could be said to continue to use the "lawsof Solon". 230t V010t Ot KELE EVOE7T' EVKXEL8oV is another possibility,since one might assume that the laws Andocides cites (On the Mysteries,85-89) just after the decree of Teisamenos were also written on the wall. But these laws were passed after the revisions of Drakon's and Solon's laws were inscribed (E1TEt8c' a'vaypacO-quav,ibid., 85), and he does not say where these additionallaws were inscribed.

34

KEVINCLINTON

Hence it becomes easier now to understandthe citation in the orators of Laws of "Solon" that are obviously later than Solon's lifetime. We need not write off the orators' citations of Solonian law as dubious or worthless, for they quoted what was then the authoritativebody of law, the revised Solonian code that was availableto all in the Stoa of the Basileus.24This was accepted practice.It was not, it seems to me, meant to deceive. But of course it is not helpful to those of us who would like to have the text of the originallaw of Solon.25 To complete our discussion of this new code in the Stoa we need to determine what Nikomachos was officially charged to do and what he actually did in his second term, which ran from late 403 or early 402 to the end of 400/399.26 His prosecutoris somewhat vague on this point; the only title that he uses to describe Nikomachos' officialchargeis Trt)> 60o- Kat TrP LEpUPWavaypaoiElN (Lysias,xxx.25), but whether such extensive activity (publishing both Ta' 6o'ta Kat Ta tEpa) is accurate for Nikomachos' second term alone or, instead, applies to his activity over both terms, the speaker does not make clear. The prosecutor eventually had to make some specific complaintabout Nikomachos' second term: it turns out to be Nikomachos' treatmentof religious law (ibid., 18-23). This is consistent with the only reference that the speaker makes to Nikomachos' precise assignment in this term: "And, finally, you elected

Nikomachosto publishthe ancestralcustoms(Ta'

VarTpta,

ibid.,29)."

The limited nature of Nikomachos' task (ibid., 4), the reference to Ta rnaTpta, the complaints about sacrifices, improperlyomitted or included, indicate that from 403 to 399 Nikomachos was mainly or solely concerned with the publicationof sacrificiallaw. This has long since been realized by modern scholars. But one can draw a further conclusion. Looking at the description of Nikomachos' activity from 403 to 399 in the speech of Lysias one sees that there is virtuallynothing there to suggest that this activity includedthe publicationof the laws which was legislatedby the decree of Teisamenos in 403. In 403 Teisamenos advocatedthe publication,which I described above, of a revised set of Solonian (and Drakonian)laws. The speakerof Lysias' AgainstNikomachos, however, mentions Nikomachos' work on the Solonian code during his first period of activity (410-404) but not specificallyduring his second (403-399). Thus the speech suggests that we should regardthe new revision of the Solonian code ordered by Teisamenos in 403 as a different undertakingfrom Nikomachos' work from 403 to 399, though probablyrelated.27The revision of the code was, accordingto Teisamenos, to take a single month (On the Mysteries,83). I suspect that by the end of that month or a bit later it became clear that the whole basic sacrificiallaw, Solonian and non-Solonian, 24Ruschenbusch,op. cit. (footnote 19 above), F 94-122, puts together one set of fragmentsunder the, heading "Fa/sches, zweifelhaftes, unbrachbares,Redner"; cf. ibid., pp. 53-54.

"Occasionallythe oratorsdid cite the original;e.g., Lysias,x.15. 26Dow,op.cit. (footnote 1 above), p. 272. 27Dow, op. cit. (footnote I above), p. 273, note 2, and with a similar argument plus others, Macp. 198. Dowell, On the AMysteries,

THE LATE FIFTH-CENTURYREVISIONOF THE ATHENIAN LAW CODE

35

needed to be organized and edited.28To accomplish this new task, avaypaEtV Tas Ovcr-q, Nikomachos and others were elected. This calendar is a scholarly work, as Sterling Dow pointed out, with the legal source for each group of sacrifices carefully noted.29Nikomachos and his fellow anagrapheismust have received approvalfor the calendar,perhapssection by section.30But that was not enough to satisfy his prosecutor:Nikomachos did the research and therefore was culpable.It was evidently very good research, because the prosecutorwas not preparedto demonstratethat any specificdetails were incorrect. I summarizein the following list the main activity on the law code from 410 to 399: 1) a)

b) 2)

3) a)

410/9: Commission of avaypaoEfd establishedto publishcode of Drakon and Solon (i.e. the code which was stillin force). 409/8: Publicationof the homicide law of Drakon, comprisingtwo (or three) axones out of his entire code, on a freestandingstele (IG 12, 115 = Stroud, Drakon'sLaw on Homicide[footnote 8 above]). 409/8-404: Publicationof the revised Soloniancode, apparentlyfirst on freestandingstelai but later on a wall in the Stoa Basileios (cf. On the Mysteries,84-85). 403/2: Erasureof that wall, perhapsall of it, to accomodatea republicationproposedby Teisamenos, of a revised Solonian code (ibid.) and perhapssorhe additionsof new law (ibid., 85-89). Accomplishedin a short time because the bulk of the work had been done in 409-404. It was perhaps found not to be necessary to republish Drakon's homicide law; whether republishedor not, it remainedon the freestandingstele (cf. Demosthenes, xLvII.71). 403/2: It was decided not to republishthe calendarof sacrificesthat was publishedin 409/8-405/4 (if it was indeed a calendar)but to do a new one on a fresh basis (above, pp. 34-35). 403/2-400/399: Edition and publicationof this calendarby Nikomachosand his colleagueson stelai that formed a wall.

The new code orderedby Teisamenos in 403 did not include all the valid laws from before 403/2 but just the revised Solonian code. Passed in the same year were a few additionallaws, which Andocides mentions (On the Mysteries,85-89) and tries to interpret to his advantage, i.e. in order to show that the decree of Isotimides, passed in 415, was no longer valid in 400. Two of the additionallaws he cites are 'Aypac?x8E Vow' Tas apXaqcI

Xpop-Oat

VO11OV KVpLUTEpOV

gq&8 ITEpLEvok.

EU'am.

8E ,uvq8 fxo-4ttali

ste

/3ovAXs suiYTE 8)7,1uv

(Since the decree of Isotimides was evidently not published

lava yEypacX.AEvovI, he

argues, it was even less valid than an unwritten law.) It is not clear to me, however, that his quotation of the law about not using unwritten law was correct.Later in his speech, when he recounts an incident in which Kalliasaccused him 28By"basic" I mean essential information, such as date, victims, officiants, fees, but not complete descriptionsof ritual. 29Dow, op. cit. (footnote 3 above). Thus I see no grounds for assuming that Nikomachos had broad discretionarypowers, includingthe power to rewrite Solonian law to such an extent that its originalcharacter was no longer clear. He was a compiler, presumablyfollowing some clear principle,such as using the most recent law regardingparticularsacrifices. 30Theywere clerks, not lawmakers.Approvalwas presumablyfrom a-vyypaOEtqor voto9ETat or the Boule and Demos.

36

KEVINCLINTON

i.e. a law of the Eumolpidai,clearlyan unwrittenlaw, Anof violatinga vo'lxos7raTptoq, docides mentions that a friend of his, Kephalos, refuted Kalliasby pointing to a written law on a near-by stele, a law that prescribeda different penalty for the same crime (ibid., 116). In this instance, Andocides' friend was successful, but he clearly did not owe his success to an appealto the simple fact that an a'ypa?oq vronloswas invalid. The was valid and that it only became invalid if it was implicationis that an caypakoovronlos Kallias, in the first place, have resorted to an would Why law. written by a replaced unwritten law if they were all clearly invalid as of 403/2? On other grounds, too, it seems unwise to think that unwrittenlaws had no validity in 4th-centuryAthens.31It is unlikely that the law concerning impiety could have included every particularact of impiety; for particularsthe Athenians must have relied on unwritten law,32often probably as revealed by the exegetes.33Thus, it seems fairlycertain that Andocides gave an incomplete version of the law concerningcaypakot vogot; he left out the crucialclause, "if there is a written law concerningthe same matter."34In addition, this law surely was meant to distinguish between caypakoq (unwritten) and yEypaxjiqE'voq (written, i.e. passed by the Athenian State), not between caypakoq (uninscribed) and avayEypajx'xEos (inscribed), though Andocides would like us to think that the latter distinction was meant. If that had really been the case, then Athenians used caypakot vo'tot in the 4th century in cases where a law had been passed but not yet inscribed, for Diokles in his decree ordered that a law should be valid not from when it was actually published but a&io Tns ijxE'paq qET Ezi-'9 (Demosthenes, xxiv.42). and thereby did not it was yEypaIE'voq On the day a law was passed (E'9Sq) voivot. Ambiguity could arise from the fact that the belong to the category of caypakot word a6ypakoq could logically be taken as opposite to either 6yypa LE'VrOor avayEypa4xLxEvoq,though as a legal term it seems to have been understood only as the opposite of yEypapxuxErvoq(i.e. formulatedand approvedby the legislative authorityof the

Athenian State). If Andocides' citation and interpretationof the law concerningacypaot vo'got had been correct, this law would have been the strongest part of his case; he would have needed no other legal argument. But it is clear, after some probing, that this part of his case was unsound, and that in the 4th century the Athenians used unwritten laws if they had not been replacedby written versions. 1See J. Rudhardt,"La definitiondu delit d'impiete d'apres la legislationattique," MusHelv17, 1960, pp. 87-105, especiallypp. 98-99; K. Clinton, The SacredOfficialsof the EleusinianMysteries,TAPS, n.s., LXIV, iii, Philadelphia1974, p. 93. 32Cf*MacDowell, TheLaw in ClassicalAthens,(footnote 5 above), pp. 199-200. 33A primaryresponsibilityof the exegetes was announcingand interpretingunwritten law; see J. H. Oliver, The AthenianExpoundersof the Sacredand AncestralLaw, Baltimore 1950, pp. 47-52. In Demosthenes, XLV11.69 the exegetes cite unwrittenlaw and call it Tal vo'*a, but in reference to the law of Drakon they use the term vo'Aoq. 34The authorof [Lysias], AgainstAndokides,10 takes the other extreme and implies that all unwritten law is valid. I am arguingfor a middle view. Aristotle, Ars Rhetorica,1373 b2 seems to recognize the legal use of unwrittenlaw.

THELATEFIFTH-CENTURY REVISION OFTHEATHENIANLAWCODE

37

It is also quite clear, as we have seen, that the revision of the laws in 403 did not entail the publicationof all valid Athenian law. What was published was essentially a revision of the Solonian code. The Athenians could still refer to it, after the original author, as the 1'X6 voq Nogot. They honored the greatest Vo0toOE'rta in this way, but did not feel the same respect for lesser voguoOE'Tat,much less ypajxquaTE'K or avaypafEt4. Thus, except for Nikomachos' accuser, they would not call any body of law by the title "The Law Code of Nikomachos".Y5 KEVINCLINTON CORNELLUNIVERSITY

Departmentof Classics Goldwin Smith Hall Ithaca,NY 14853 35Nor,for that matter, should we. I include myself among those who have made this slip.

THESEUSAND THE UNIFICATIONOF ATTICA OST STUDIES OF ANCIENT ATTICA, at least those by American hands, have 7VW rule.

l

A. an unnamed second author. The present contributionis no exception to the

Mr. Vanderpoolhas few peers in the generosity with which he shares his knowledge, and so this essay, dedicatedto him, in many ways is his already.' Many attempts have been made to discern historical reality in the tradition that Theseus was responsiblefor the synoecism of the Attic townshipsor kingdoms (usually 12 in number) into one capitalcity at Athens. The present study hopes only to restate some of the basic questions and to see if our current state of knowledge about the formation of governmental institutions in the prehistoricand early historic periods can shed any light on this old problem. I accept the following as a working definition of synoecism: "it covers everything from the notional acceptance of a single political center by a group of townships and villages whose inhabitantsstay firmly put, to the physicalmigrationof a populationinto a new political center, which could be either an existing or a purpose-builtcity. The crucialelement in all cases is the politicalunification."2 The first and most obvious question to ask is whether the tradition, first reported in Thucydides (ii.15.1-2) and later in other ancient authors, contains any historicalelements at all. The very existence of this essay presupposes a positive opinion, but I would like to postpone a fuller discussionof the question (see below, pp. 45-47). Next in line of examination is the figure of Theseus himself. It is generallyaccepted that the part of the traditionassociatinghim with the unificationof Attica is a textbook case of Greek political myth making. An excellent recent study shows that the origin and growth of this story was probablya formulation dating to the Peisistratid period.3Efforts to treat Theseus as a historical figure of whatever period are, in my opinion, based on no substantialevidence. There is no more reason for believing in a "real" Theseus than in a "real" Herakles. Thus I would like to exclude Theseus from this discussionand concentrateon the synoecism itself.4 IBoth Professors A. Boegehold and J. Rutter took valuable time off from their respective sabbatic leaves to read and discuss an earlydraftof this paper,and I wish to thank them sincerely. 2A. Snodgrass,ArchaicGreece.TheAge of Experiment,London 1980, p. 34. RE IVB, s. v. synoikismos, cols. 1435-1445, gives more specific informationon the various forms of synoecism which appearedin ancientGreece. 3R. Connor, "Theseus in ClassicalAthens," The Questfor Theseus,London 1970, pp. 143-174, esp. pp. 143-157. 4To some this rejectionperhapswill seem cavalier, to others a point hardlyworth making:such is the rangeof opinion on the subject.Theseus cannot be ruled out simply because there is not, nor ever will be, concrete evidence for his historicity.Discussions of most majorproblemsof Greek prehistorywould have to be excluded if this criterionwere applied.But without trying to sweep completely under the carpet an enormouslycomplex problem (see RE, Suppl.XIII, s. v. Theseus, cols. 1045-1238), I can only say that the great varietyin the Theseus stories, the demonstrablelateness of virtuallyall of them, and their suitability for then currentpoliticalpurposesmake me highly skepticalof any "historicalkernel" in Theseus at all. It

THESEUSAND THEUNIFICATION OF ATTICA

39

The third question to be asked is which period in Attic history might the myth reflect? There are only two possible periods, previous to the time of Thucydides, which witness the development of institutions complex enough to be called states. It is axiomatic that the basic process of formation of any state is a centralizing process: the concentrationof political, economic and social power in one institution, in one place, whatever form that institution may take. One certain such institution is the Attic Iro'At or city-state of the classicalperiod, its capitalin Athens, its origins first apparentin the 8th century B.C.5 Traditionalopinion assigns the unification of Attica to this period.6 There is, however, a second, less certain period of state formationin Attic history. That is the Mycenaean period, and some recent scholarship assigns the synoecism (and Theseus as well) to these times.7These claims need further investigation.8 The first clear signs of economic and social organizationon a scale larger than a single settlement appearin the Aegean during the course of the third millennium B.C. A self-sufficient, village farming way of life, with little evidence for specialized labor or social stratification,had prevailedfor the previous three millennia. Exploitationof metal resources and metallurgical techniques first appeared earlier, in the late fifth/early fourth millennium, but not until the mid-thirdmillennium (the Early Bronze II period specifically)are objects of copper, bronze, lead, gold, and silver found in any quantityat most sites. This development is the first clear evidence for specializedlabor, and in an area without any known deposits of tin, and very few of gold or copper, this also indicates the beginnings of more concentratedtradingactivities. Towns with walls, such as Lerna and Aigina, became common. Large central structures appear, the most well known being the House of the Tiles at Lerna.9Here there were found, among other things, large quantities of clay sealings. Surely Renfrew cannot be far wrong in suggesting that these sealings mark the beginning of an economic redistributionnetwork, based also on the firm evidence for domesticationof olives and grapes from Myrtos in Crete.'0 Increased wealth shown by offerings in graves of this period indicates developing social status and hierarchy.Taking the evidence together, a distinct step forward is possible that the story of Theseus and the Minotaur may reflect the Mycenaean participationin the overthrow of Minoan civilization at the end of the 15th century B.C., but it does nothing to substantiate Theseus as a historicalfigure. As F. Jacoby points out, so "astonishing"are the discrepanciesin the various accounts of the Cretan adventure that "they have in common hardly anything besides the assertion that Theseus went to Crete" (Atthis,Oxford 1949, p. 122). 5Snodgrass,op. cit. (footnote 2 above), pp. 29-32. 6J. B. Bury, A Historyof Greece to the Death of Alexanderthe Great, 3rd ed., London 1951, pp. 165-168. 7R. Padgug, "Eleusis and the Union of Attica," GRBS 13, 1972, pp. 135-150. A. W. Gomme interprets Thucydidesas believing in a united Attica since the generationbefore the Trojanwar (A Historical on Thucydides Commentary II, Oxford 1938, p. 49). 8The review of Aegean prehistorythat follows owes much to C. Renfrew, TheEmergenceof Civilization. TheCycladesand the Aegeanin the ThirdMilleniumB.C., London 1972. 9J. Caskey, "The EarlyHelladicPeriod in the Argolid," Hesperia29, 1960, pp. 288-289. 10Renfrew,op. cit. (footnote 8 above), pp. 304-306. P. Warren, Mvyrtos, BSA, Suppl. VII, Oxford 1972, p. 255 and AppendicesIII and V.

40

STEVENDIAMANT

in culturaldevelopment from a village farming to a proto-urbanlevel may be hypothesized. The House of the Tiles marks the beginning of complex economic and social institutionswhich evolved later into early states. Up to this point in time, all areas of the Aegean-mainland Greece, Aegean islands, Crete-developed at roughly the same culturalrate of speed." The unique material culture of the Cyclades during the third millennium may possibly indicate a slightly greaterdegree of prosperityand culturalcreativitythan in other areas. But this brilliance is eclipsed by Crete early in the second millennium. The beginning of the first urban, literate civilization of Europe was marked by the almost simultaneous foundation of palaces in the Middle Minoan IB period at Knossos, Phaistos, and Mallia. Whether these palaces represent the capitalsof individual political entities, or whether they are manifestationsof a single pan-Cretan"state" is unknowable at present. The point is that some sort of early state or states was developed in Crete by the end of the Old Palace period, for which we have no contemporaryevidence in the Islands (except perhapsSantorini) or the mainland. I am inclined to see the state of cultural development in mainlandGreece of the early second millennium not as a step backwardsdue to invasions or migrations of Indo-Europeanspeaking peoples but rather as a continuation of the previous, proto-urbanlevel groups with changes in material culture explainableby purelylocal processes. Whatever its origins, the material culture of Middle Bronze Age Greece is the milieu from which Mycenaean culture began to grow in the 17th century B.C. In this case, I preferto think of the initial impulse for this development as being a small group of people from outside the Aegean area. The extremely synthetic' nature of almost all early Mycenaean culture (pottery, weapons, jewelry, art in general, plus the obsession with death indicatedby both a proliferationof tomb architectureand a plethoraof grave goods made only for the grave) is indicativeto me not of local traditionsnurturedover generations on Greek soil but of transplantedones. Local or transplanted,Mycenaean culture began to flourish first in the Peloponnese and Attica and then spread to other areas. Mycenaean participationin the destruction of Minoan civilization during the second half of the 15th century B.C., with or without the aid of the Santorinivolcano, is still a safe hypothesis. At this time, Mycenaeanculture underwenta remarkablechange. The above-mentioned obsession with tombs, both their architecture and offerings, gave way to an "lBy"mainland"Greece I mean roughlythe area south of the Spercheiosvalley. It is surely not coincidental that this area, in which successivelydeveloped the proto-urbancultures characterizedby sauceboats and MinyanPottery, Mycenaeancivilization,and classicalcivilizationbased on the polis, should also be the area in which olive and grapeproductionis most intensive in Greece (Renfrew, op. cit. [footnote 8 above], fig. 15:6). '2By "synthetic"I mean the blending of an unusual number of exotic and indigenous elements to producenew culturalartifacts.EarlyMycenaeanpottery, to take one example, was a fusion of many Cretan and Cycladicshapes and decorative styles with local Minyan and Matt Painted ceramic elements. At no other time in Greek prehistoryis this tendency so pronounced. It permeates the whole fabric of early Mycenaeancultureand stands in strikingcontrastto the materialculture of PalatialCrete, practicallyevery element of which can be tracedto local antecedentsin the earlierPre-palatialperiod.

THESEUSAND THEUNIFICATION OF ATTICA

41

emphasis on the architectureof the living: palaces, fortifications,road networks, and a vast increase in the number of settlements.13Undoubtedlya partialcause of this change was the reduction of Minoan civilization and subsequent replacementin the Aegean of a Minoan sphere of influence by a Mycenaeanone. From this point in time (the beginning of the 14th century), Mycenaeanstates began to form, lasting for about 200 years. During the course of the 12th century B.C., these states slowly collapsed, for what are undoubtedlya complex variety of reasons. To return to the originalquestion: is it possible to see the creation of a Mycenaean state in Attica reflected in the synoecism myth? Three separate lines of argument againstthis view make it, in my opinion, unlikely. In the first instance, the archaeologicalevidence for the creation of a Mycenaean state in Attica is equivocal. Thanks to long and careful archaeologicalexploration in Messenia, we have a fairly substantialpicture of the Mycenaean state centered on the palace at Pylos.14It is a true kingdom, but hardly the simple "Indo-European"monarchy one would expect from the Homeric poems. The vast, complex bureaucracy,the strict control over virtually every aspect of human life by the palace,15and the script used to keep the palace records all have as their direct model the palace bureaucracies of Minoan Crete. The Mycenaean palaces were truly."the heirs of the earlier Cretan ones,""6and so also was the structure of the Mycenaean state. I have no difficultyin seeing the Argolid, like Messenia, as a highly centralized state, with Mycenae as the capitaland Tiryns as the majorport. The two citadels perhapshad a relationshipsimilar to that of Peiraieus and Athens in the classical period. In Attica, the evidence for a Mycenaean palace on the Acropolis, while on balance more likely than not, is conflicting. The Homeric evidence must, in my opinion, be discounted altogether (see below, on methodology, pp. 44-45). Only one reasonably certain Mycenaean column base" and two much less certain sandstone staircaserisers18can be attributedto a hypothetical palace. The reconstruction of a network of terraces, on which the presumed palace rested, is itself somewhat hypothetical.For instance, the line of the west end of Terrace III is only a cutting in bedrock, and the criteriagiven for distinguishingthese cuttings from those of other periods are not especially convincing.'9More certain are the preserved fragments of a large Mycenaean circuit wall. There are good parallelsbetween the circuitwalls of Mycenae and Tiryns and the Acropoliswall with its two gates. At all three sites, constructionof access to similar water supplies was made at the end of the of the 13th century B.C.20These parallelfeatures suggest a palace at Athens similar to 130. Dickinson, The Originsof MycenaeanCivilization,SIMA XLIX, G6teborg 1977, p. 110; E. Vermeule, Greecein the BronzeAge, Chicago 1972, pp. 156-157. 14J. Chadwick, TheMycenaeanWorld,Cambridge1976, chaps. 3-9. 15J Hutchinson,"MycenaeanKingdomsand MediaevalEstates," Historia26, 1977, pp. 1-23. 16Dickinson, op. cit. (footnote 13 above), p. 110. 17C.Nylander, "Die sog. MykenischenS-aulenbasenauf der Akropolisin Athen," OpusAth4, 1962, pp.

31-77.

S. lakovides, 'H 1VKiqnvaeK 'aKpOlrOXTort^ 'AOrvcqv,Athens 1962, pp. 174-178. 19Ibid.,pp. 80-88, plans9 and 11. 200. Broneer, "A MycenaeanFountainon the AthenianAkropolis,"Hesperia8, 1939, pp. 317-433.

STEVENDIAMANT

42

those known from Tiryns and Mycenae. On the other hand, the complete absence of Linear B tablets from Athens constitutes another argument against a palace center there. The lack of any obviously strongly fortified citadel sites from the rest of Attica, however, would seem to support the establishment of a capital at Athens. Yet the evidence for growth in Athens and Attica differs strikingly.2"Several sites, such as Eleusis, Brauron,and Thorikos, show strong signs of activity before Athens (periods 1 and 2). "The widespread'Mycenaeanizing'of Athens seems to have fallen in the second half of the 15th century" (period 3), contemporarywith the collapse of Crete.22In the 4th period, "Athens seems to have taken little part," yet this is preciselythe period when "there is ample evidence for widespreadMycenaeansettlement in Attica and little to indicate the overall domination of Athens."23Only in period 5, with the completion of the Acropoliscircuitwall, did Athens begin to look like a majorMycenaeancenter. This is importantevidence to consider because it is preciselyin the 4th period that some wish to see the abandonmentof Mycenaeansites around Attica and a drawingof the populationinto Athens-the supposed Mycenaean synoecism.24The excavations at the prehistoricacropolis at Brauron, never published except in very brief preliminary reports, revealed a flourishingMiddle Helladic settlement which supposedly began to decline after 1600 B.C. and was totally abandonedby 1300 B.C.25The originalimpression of Mycenaean Thorikos was similar: a flourishing late Middle Bronze and early Mycenaean settlement which declined in the Late HelladicIII period.26This also seemed to be true of Marathon,which has producedlittle evidence for Mycenaeanoccupationlater than the LH II tholos tomb.27 Besides the evidence for Mycenaean expansion in the 14th century presented by Immerwahr,there are other factors to be considered. One is the deceptive nature of tomb evidence, tholos tombs in particular.Much of the above-cited picture of flourishing sites in the LH I and II periods is based on the presence of tholos tombs. We assume that there were supportingsettlements in the vicinity of the tombs, even if they 2"S. Immerwahr, The AthenianAgora, XIII, The Neolithicand BronzeAges, Princeton 1971, p. 152. Particularlyvaluableis the section on historicalconclusions, pp. 147-157, in which the Mycenaeanperiod is divided into the followingsix broadphases: 1) Shaft Grave period, late MH-early LH I 2) EarlyPalaceperiod, LH I-LH 11A 3) Occupationof Knossos, LH IIB-LH IIIA:1 4) Expansion,LH IIIA:2-IIIB:1 5) Retrenchment,LH IIIB:2 6) Breakup,LH IIIC 22Jbid., p. 151. 23Ibid., p. 152. 24J. Papadimitriou, 'AvafOKaoaKaEv Bpavpwvt,

HPaKTLKa,1956 [1961], p. 80.

Papadimitriou,"The Sanctuaryof Artemis at Brauron,"ScientificAmerican208, 1963, p. 112. 26D.Mitten, review of H. F. Mussche et al., ThorikosJ-IV, 1963-1967, in AJA 77, 1973, p. 96. 270. Pelon, Tholoi,tumuli,et cerclesfuneraires,Paris 1976, pp. 228-231; R. Hope Simpson and 0. in the BronzeAge, I, TheMainlandand the Islands, SIMA LII, Dickinson, A Gazetteerof AegeanCivilization G6teborg 1979, p. 218. 25J.

THESEUSAND THEUNIFICATION OF ATTICA

43

have not yet been located. There is no reason for these settlements to have been abandoned just because no more tholos tombs were constructed.It is now well established that the vast majority of Mycenaean tholos tombs were constructed before the 14th century.28In Attica, only the Menithi tomb seems clearlyto have been constructedlater than 1400 B.C.29 In the 14th century there is, as cited above (pp. 40-41), a clear change in emphasis from tomb architectureto that in settlements. It is thus very doubtful that sites such as Thorikos declined after LH II,30rather that attention was turned to other activities than monumental tomb building.31The same was probablytrue of Marathon. At Brauron,a chamber-tombcemetery, dating primarilyto the LH IIIA and B periods, lies less than 300 meters to the east of the acropolis.It is also now reliablyreportedthat LH IIIA and B pottery can be found on the surface of the acropolis site.32Thus there can be little doubt that Brauroncontinued to flourish until the beginning of the 12th centuryB.C. What can be gleaned from this review? The idea that archaeologicalevidence supports a picture of Attic sites being absorbedinto a central capitalat Athens in the 14th century B.C. is not, in the end, a sound one. In fact, almost the reverse seems to be true. The evidence may possibly allow us to hypothesize the formation of a Mycenaean state, similar to the one in Messenia, centered on the Acropolis, but it is not firm evidence. The second line of argument against seeing a Mycenaean state reflected in the Attic synoecism myth is this: even if we allow the hypothesis of an Attic Mycenaean state to stand, there is absolutely no evidence that the state, as a political entity, survived the Dark Ages. The most recent comprehensive study of this period emphasizes (as others have in the past) that Mycenaeancivilizationhad broken down completely by the end of the 12th century B.C. and that the ensuing period was a true dark age.33The disappearanceof literacyfrom the Aegean basin for over 300 years is the most striking indicator, among many others, that the cultural collapse was complete. "After the internal and external decay of the Mycenaean age and its kingship, the tribal order came into its own."34Thus for over 300 years, the tribes were the central, organizing structure.35The state ceased to exist. The emerging city-state of the 8th century had no 28Dickinson,op. cit. (footnote 13 above), pp. 60-65. 29Pelon,op. cit. (footnote 27 above), p. 233. 3?Dickinson, op. cit. (footnote 13 above), p. 96. 3'Thorikos was probablyfrom the time of its foundation a special case: that is, not an ordinarysettlement but a highly specializedindustrialcenter. With the exception of the Mycenaeantombs, the theater and "temple"of classicaltimes, there is no other monumentalarchitecture,publicor private.Nor is modern Lavriona town graced by strikingmonumentalbuildings.Yet the prime importanceof Thorikos/Lavrion throughoutAttic history is undisputed.I consider Thorikos to be the most importantMycenaeansite in Atticaoutside Athens. 32HopeSimpsonand Dickinson, op. cit. (footnote 27 above), p. 214. 33 A. Snodgrass, TheDarkAge of Greece,Edinburgh1971. 34V. Ehrenberg, TheGreekState, 2nd ed., London 1969, p. 9. 315W.G. Forrest paintsa strikingpictureof society in this period which I find convincing. He calls this vertically divided, aristocraticstructure the "Old Order" (The Emergenceof GreekDemocracy,London

44

STEVENDIAMANT

politicalantecedents in the Mycenaean state. It was a wholly different political entity. This fact, in my opinion, is a very compelling reason for doubting the reflection of a Mycenaeanstate in the Attic synoecism tradition. The third line of argument is methodological, and both strands derive from the work of M. I. Finley. His essay, "Myth, Memory and History,"36appliesmodern historical criteriato ancient Greek historicalwriting, specificallythat related to periods before the 6th century B.C. His conclusion is that the only serious Greek historicalwritingwas about contemporaryevents, beginning with the Persian wars. Anything written about earlier periods is liable to be invention and myth. The past was valued not for finding out "how things really were" but for its usefulness in connecting the present with the heroic age. Applying these same criteria to the proposed Mycenaean synoecism of Attica, even on a general level only, makes it a very dubious proposition. On a more specific level, the question of a Mycenaeansynoecism raises the question of Homeric evidence for a Mycenaean state in Attica-the "well-built house of Erechtheus" (Odysseyvii.78-81). Evidence accumulatingsince the publicationof The Worldof Odysseusonly reinforces Finley's conclusion: that there is no Mycenaean history in Homer apartfrom the odd place name or random artifact.That the world of Odysseus is the world of Geometric Greece can be demonstratedin at least four major areas: government, literacy, geography, and burial customs. First, simple "Homeric" monarchy has no resemblance to the complex Mycenaean bureaucracyinferred from the Linear B tablets.37Second, there are no references in the Homeric texts to writing, yet we know from the tablets that at least some levels of Mycenaean society were literate. Third, place names in the Pylos tablets, with the exception of pu-ro, do not correspondto those in that supposedlymost genuinely Mycenaean part of Homer, the catalogue of ships (Iliad II).38 Finally, Homer's elaborate cremation funerals have no parallelswith Mycenaean burial customs but instead compare closely with those of the Protogeometric and Geometric periods.39In the face of such evidence, appeals to Schliemann's faith in the Homeric texts as history,40as a rationale for a Bronze Age synoecism or a Bronze Age Theseus, are only that-statements of faith. One hundred years of archaeology,as Finley reminds us,41have yet to produce a single artifactfrom 1966, pp. 45-58). M. Finley's analysisof Homeric society is essentially the same (The Worldof Odysseus, 2nd ed., New York 1978). 36M.Finley, The Use and Abuseof History,London 1975, chap.I. 37Partof the problem arises from confusing the picture of life in the "archaic"Shaft Grave period, which the Homeric picturesomewhat resembles, with the very differentMycenaeanworld of the 14th and 13th centuriesB.C. Minneapolis1972, 38J. Chadwick,"The MycenaeanDocuments," The MinnesotaMesseniaExpedition, p. 114 and esp. note. 39N.Coldstream,GeometricGreece,New York 1977, p. 351. What seems to me a clear case of Homeric faith is Coldstream'sextraordinarysuggestion (pp. 349-350) that the magnificent9th- and 8th-century cremationburialsat Salamisin Cyprusshow us burialcustoms modified by epic poetry, when surely it is the poetrywhich reflectsthe funerarycustoms. 40A.Ward, "Introduction,"TheQuestfor Theseus,London 1970, pp. 1-3. 4'Finley, op. cit. (footnote 35 above), AppendixII.

THESEUSAND THEUNIFICATION OF ATTICA

45

the mound of Hissarlikwhich bears directly on the historicalauthenticityof the Trojan war.42

In conclusion, it is unlikely that the Attic synoecism tradition has any basis in Mycenaeanhistory;instead it may reflect the Geometric period. Yet it may legitimatelybe asked, why pay any particularattention to the tradition at all?43Do we not assume that the formation of early states is basicallya centralizing process, joining together previouslyautonomous areas into one politicalentity? Similar stories are told of the origins of other early Greek poleis, and even in classicaltimes the four originalvillages of Spartaretained some degree of their originalautonomy. What is so special about Attica that its synoecism tradition should stand out from the others? What I suggest below is speculative, but may help generate future useful discussion. Two features of Attica, which I suspect to be related, are unusual:its size, and the generallyprogressive44natureof its politicalinstitutions.The normalscale of a city-state, in whatever period it has appeared,is very small.45The area of the city-state of Aigina, with 33 squaremiles of territory,was not unusual for an Aegean polis of the Archaicand Classicalperiods. Sikyon, with 140 square miles, was above average. Corinth possessed 340 square miles, which made it one of the largest. Only two poleis stand out from this list, because their territoriesare a whole order of magnitude larger than the othersAthens with 1,000 square miles and Spartawith 3,300.46The nature of Sparta'sacquisition and control over such a vast territoryis known:conquest and brute suppression.We shall probablynever know exactly how Athens acquiredits territory.But I would suspect that strong, progressive political institutions which, more rapidly than in other areas, moved away from the fragmented, tribal, aristocraticOld Orderunits of the Dark Ages 420ne of the most pervasive of Athenian "prehistoric"myths is currentlyunder scrutiny.Thucydides reports (6.2.4-6) the traditionthat the Atheniansconsideredthemselves autochthonous,althoughhe attributes this to the relative poverty of Attic soil (who would bother?) and not to any fortunateescape from the Return of the Herakleidai.Excavationaround the north slope of the Acropolis and the Mycenaean "fountain"seemed to produce no evidence for a late 13th-centurydestruction level. Thus it has been assumed that the Acropolis survived the troubles that beset the other Mycenaeancitadels, and that the traditionof an autochthonouspopulationwas vindicated (O. Broneer, "Athens in the Late Bronze Age," Antiquity30, 1956, pp. 9-18). Recently the Mycenaeanpottery from these excavations has been re-examined, and the investigatorfeels that it is more likely that the materialdoes representdebris from a major destructionlevel on the Acropoliswhich was thrown over the side than that it representssquatteroccupation (J. Rutter, personalcommunication).Should this prove to be the case, it would cast yet furtherdoubt on Attic early historicaltraditons. 4"H.T. Wade-Geryhas gone so far as to suggest that the traditionof the synoecism derives from explainingthe festival of the Synoikia, ratherthan the other way round, and that the former "means the gatheringof the (great) houses, and marks the establishmentof the Pan-Attic aristocracy"("Eupatridai, Archons, and Areopagus," CQ 25, 1931, pp. 9-10 and note 6). To my knowledge, no one else has followed this lead, and it remainsunconvincingto me. "I am assuming here that strong centralgovernments are the ideal form, and thus evolution towards this form is progressive. 45A.Toynbee, AncientGreekCities, I, An EkkisticalStudyof the HellenicCity-State,Athens 1971, pp. 24-26. 46Ehrenberg,op. cit. (footnote 34 above), pp. 27-28.

46

STEVENDIAMANT

and towards the centralized polis form might have played a role. Perhaps this is the implicationof the myth of king Kodros:that Athens disposed of the institutionof kingship long before other areas, and thus took the first step in polis development. Interestingin this light is the recent proposalthat a severe droughtor epidemic, or both, devastated Athens and Attica, starting at the end of the 8th century and lasting well into the mid-7th, and that consequentlysuch politicaldevelopments as colonization and tyrannywere delayed.47Is it not possible to see a "delay" in both these areas as being politicallyprogressiveratherthan retarded?Lack of colonies may imply economic and social stability at home. Delay in tyranny may likewise imply a lower level in the social tensions which gave rise to tyranny elsewhere, or a flexibility in the political institutions which allowed change to be brought about peacefully. Could not Solon's reforms be cited as an example of the latter?48 Despite the evidence for drought, there are three possible sources for forms of commercial activity (and thus the generation of surplus wealth by a form of activity other than land owning) which could have supportedthe early development of a strong state. The first supposes that the very unsuitabilityof Attica in general for cereal-grain production, in contrast, say, to the Teneric plain around Thebes, could have been responsible for a move into intensive olive and grape productioncodified later in the 6th century by Solon and Peisistratos.The second is based on the thesis, still accepted, that the Protogeometricstyle of pottery was an Athenian invention of the mid-i1th century B.C. and that this should imply "some radical reorganizationof the Athenian economy."49Once established, this stylistic hegemony continues unbrokenuntil at least the third quarterof the 8th century.50As is well known, Corinth supplantedAthens for nearly a century until Athens regained control of the markets towards the end of the 7th century. The economic and social implications of such an early and long-lasting commercialand artistic supremacyare enormous. Third, and perhaps most important, are the metal resources of the Lavrion area. These would be importantin any context, but in an Aegean basicallyvery poor in metal resources of any kind they are crucial. The current excavations at Thorikos have found no signs of occupationfrom the LH IIIB until the Protogeometric period.51Occupation resumed in the 10th century, including industrialactivity as indicatedby the finding of lithargein Protogeometriclevels in the West Cemetery area.52Substantialremains of architecturefrom the Geometric 47J. Camp, "A Drought in the Late Eighth Century B.C.," Hesperia48, 1979, pp. 397-411, esp. pp. 404-405. 48Anotherinterestingaspect of this theory is the proposedepidemic or plague in Athens. Its spreadis usually associatedwith densely populatedurban areas. Could this be evidence for Athens having been a more concentrated,at least up to that point, urbancenter than other early poleis? 49V. Desborough, Protogeometric Potteiy, Oxford 1952, p. 298; idem, The GreekDark Ages, London 1972, p. 133. 50N.Coldstream,GreekGeometric Pottery,London 1968, chap. 14, esp. pp. 334, 360-361. "Hope Simpsonand Dickinson, op. cit. (footnote 27 above), p. 209. 52H.F. Mussche et al., Thorikos1964:Rapportpreliminaire sur la deuxiemecampagnede Ibuilles,Brussels 1967, pp. 29-31.

THESEUSAND THEUNIFICATION OF ATTICA

47

period and the intensive use of the IndustrialQuarterfrom the 7th century on all point to exploitationof the Lavrion-arearesourceswell before the 5th century, although there is still no direct evidence for the periodat which Athens took direct control. Whatever one makes of this early commercial activity, it is a fact that Attica became one of the two largest city-states in the Greek world.53It seems at least possible that Attica's unusual size was due to the early formationof a centralizedstate, based at Athens upon strong commercial foundations, and that this formative process is the historicalrealityreflectedin the Attic synoecism myth. STEVENDIAMANT AMERICANSCHOOLOF CLASSICALSTUDIES AT ATHENS

53Bynot discussing Attic geography,with its encirclingring of hills (Penteli, Parnes, Kithairon)and the sea, I do not mean to imply a low estimation of its importance.On the contrary,I believe that geographicaldeterminismhas always been a strong factor in shapingGreek history. The boundariesthat ancient and modern Attic states have taken are very much determinedby their geography,but human factors are ultimatelyresponsiblefor whether a centralizedstate forms in this area or not, and these human factors are the focus of this paper.

ONESIPPOS'HERM (PLATE4) 7)K() ,.a67)Tqp

E' TO 0pOVTLOTjpTOV

Aristophanes,Clouds,142

ATHE MOSTINTERESTINGof the inscribedhermbaseswhichhelp to identifythe Stoa Basileios in Athens is that dedicatedby Onesipposof Kephisiaduringhis term as Archon Basileus.It still sits above the lower step of the stoa in front of the northernmost column, next to the lithos.' Even without the applicationof Vanderpool's Law HEpt 'Elrtyparxuv

(yv4/q

KaTaX7q0Etno-7, rao-a

Ertypaon)

Eyvo-00f01),

the text can

be read easily and the few gaps confidentlyrestored: o' Aito K7)4XO-tLE palcTLXE a'VEG7)qKE[vi 'OvL1,) o [L81E 'O0V I7T'To EVKWV 13la0-tXEVOVTO0 XOP7)rYOVTE4; K

ZC0-tKparTs NLKOXa'pr7s

W/UVL&OVapvTpaYOta

EX0PIYE XaXK0oT(0AXsh E&8t&8aTKE

TpaTovtLKO EX0PfAYEZpacrvo' MEyaKXE'87

EX8tO8arKE

Irregularitiesof spacing and letter forms suggest that all but the first line were inscribed after the monument was in place (P1. 4:a), and errors in line two produced one glaringlyinappropriateletter form.2There are two furtheranomalies:the dedication is followed by a choregic inscription and not the usual paredroi, and instead of the formulaic /3art-XEvlr-aq a'VE87KEV, Onesippos' dedication was made while he was still that The fact the comic choregos was a metic guaranteesthat the occasion of P3aOLXEV'. the victories was the Dionysia Epilenaia.4The letter forms point to a date in the late 5th IT. Leslie Shear, Jr., Hesperia40, 1971 (= Shear), pp. 241-279 (with illustrations),and especiallypp. 256-257, no. 4; cf. H. A. Thompsonand R. E. Wycherley, TheAthenianAgora, XIV, TheAgoraof Athens, Princeton 1972, pp. 83-90. I am indebted to ProfessorShear for permissionto restudy this inscriptionand to Nancy Moore for the photographs. 2After the first 22 letters of line two, the mason began to carve a sigma, which he altered to a deeply cut omicron followed by sigma, and had fully cut an epsilon in the next space insteadof chi before noticing the error. He then partiallyeffaced the top and bottom strokes of epsilon but kept the vertical and the centralhorizontalhastawhich he extended to the left to producean archaizingcruciformchi (P1.4:b). 3Cf. Shear, pp. 257-258, nos. 5, 6 and p. 256, note 36. These inscriptionsconfirm the ancient reputation of paredroifor nepotism (Demosthenes, XXI [Aeidias].178) but not for venality (Demosthenes, LIX [Neaira].72-79). The aorist participleP3aotXEo-aqis past in reference to the main verb a'VE6'VKE V, while the (implied) present is contemporary:W. W. Goodwin, Syntaxof the Moodsand Tensesof the GreekVerb, Boston 1890, pp. 47-49, ??138-139, 143; B. L. Gildersleeve, Syntaxof ClassicalGreekI, New York 1900, pp. 140-142, ??339,343, 355, etc. 4Shear,p. 256 with note 37. The relevant texts are Plutarch,Phokion,30.3 and AristophanesScholia, Ploutos, 953; cf. Lysias, xii.20. Sosikratesthe bronze-merchantis otherwise unknown, but he could conceivably be a progenitorof the Herakleiotefamily whose grave plot adorns the KerameikosExcavations

ONESIPPOS' HERM

49

or early 4th century B.C., and this agrees with what is known of Nikochares' career as a comic poet.5 Athenian law prohibited citizens in office from making dedications (Aischines, Iii.21: lflTEV9VVOl OVK Ea' TT1 ovalTaV KaGLEpOVv, OV8E aaVa'Ix

aVaGELaL,

K.X.),6

SO

Onesippos' arche must have been exceptional, and it seems reasonable to seek the reason in the Lenaianfestival, whose choregoi were so prominentlyadded to his dedication. The most likely occasion for an unusual celebration of the Lenaia in this period must have been in the archonshipof Eukleides, 403 B.C. Plutarch (de gloria atheniensium, 349F) says that the democratic exiles returned on 12 Boedromion (= III), and the Lenaia began just four Athenian months later, on 12 Gamelion (= VII).2 Exactly when the anarchiaof Pythodorosgave way to Eukleides' arche is not known, but most magisterialfunctions must have been disturbed, if not in abeyance, until the return of the exiles. Aristotle (AthenaionPoliteia, 57.1) implies that preparationsfor the Lenaia were among the first concerns of an incoming Archon Basileus,8and it could well be that the mere performanceof the Epilenaianfestival on such short notice was enough to secure for Onesippospermissionto dedicate his herm in so conspicuousa place while still in office. Even these circumstances,however, seem insufficient for so unusual an honor. Of the seven men named on Onesippos' base, only Nikochares is otherwise known,9but 27 fragments and the titles of 12 of his plays have survived. His Herakles Choregosis dated to 404 B.C. by Edmonds, who plausiblysuggests that Herakles in this play represents the Athenian demos.10Herakles was also pre-eminently nothos, however, and legitimacywas a vital issue in Athens in the late 5th and early 4th century.'1 (A. Brueckner,Die Friedhofam Eridanosbei der Hagia Triadazu Athen, Berlin 1909, pp. 67-70, 72; IG 112, 8551, etc.). 5For letter forms compare especially IG 112,1, of 403/2 (= J. Kirchner, Imaginesinscriptionum atticarum, 2nd ed., Berlin 1948, p1.19, no. 43); IG 112,27, of 416/5-387 (= Kirchner,Imagines2,p1.22, no. 39; for the earlydate see B. D. Meritt, "Greek Inscriptions,"Hesperia8, 1939, p. 68); IG 112,6217, ca. 394/3 (= Kirchner,Imagines2, p1.21, no. 46); R. S. Stroud, "Greek Inscriptions:Theozotides and the Athenian Orphans,"Hesperia40, 1971, pp. 280-301, no. 7, of 403/2. On Nikochares,see Shear, loc. cit., with references;add A. Wilhelm, Urkundendramatischer Auffihrungenin Athen,Vienna 1906, pp. 193-195; E. Capps, "EpigraphicalProblems in the Historyof Attic Comedy," AJP 28, 1907, p. 188; TheFragments of AtticComedyI, J. Edmonds, ed., Leiden 1957, pp. 926-935. 6Shear,p. 256, overlooks this fact when he says that "the herms . . . given by Kings ... were dedicated in the term of their magistracy...." This was true only of Onesippos, among surviving examples; cf. footnote 3 above. 7L. Deubner, AttischeFeste, Berlin 1932, pp. 123-134. 81t is not clear whether Aristotle's Trp(-TOV E&rwr-a is temporal, and even if so, in what sense. AEV ... The EleusinianMysterieswere celebratedin Boedromion, only a few days after the exiles' return. If Onesippos was Basileus in Eukleides' archonship,it is hard to see how he could have done anything noteworthy about the mysteries in only three days, especiallyunder the prevailingcircumstances.The Archon Basileus"underthe Ten, after the Thirty"was one Patrokles(Isokrates,xviii.5). 9Unless Megakleideswas related to any of the homonyms in Kirchner,PA 9684-9686. "Edmonds, op. cit. (footnote 5 above), pp. 930, note b, 933, note f. "1SeeespeciallyStroud, loc. cit. (footnote 5 above) and D. Clay, "Socrates'Mulishnessand Heroism," Phronesis17, 1972,pp. 53-60.

50

COLINN. EDMONSON

Nikochares'victory may thus have been due to the topicalityof a play touching on the demos and legitimacy of citizenship, which was lavishly-and perhaps unexpectedlyproduced.'2

There may have been other occasions in the late 5th or early 4th century which promptedthe Athenians to allow Onesipposthe signal honor of erecting a herm on the step of the Stoa Basileios while he was still in office, but the surviving evidence points to 403 B.C. In that case, Onesippos' herm stands out as one of the most prominent monuments of the restoreddemocracyin Athens. COLINN. EDMONSON AMERICANSCHOOLOF CLASSICALSTUDIES AT ATHENS

"Plutarch (Phokion,30.3) mentions a chorus of 100 at the Lenaia,and such ostentationfrom Sosikrates would have been particularlystriking in 403, when the 60 wealthiest metics had been killed by the Thirty and the Ten (Diodorus Siculus, xiv.5.6). A comic choregia in 403/2 cost ca. 1,600 drachmai, and in 410/9 the men's Dithyramb cost 5,000 drachmai (including a tripod dedication; Lysias, xxi.4). Sosikrates'

expenses could have been ca. herm.

1/2

talent, apart from any contributionhe may have made for Onesippos'

PLATE

4

to~~~~~~~ b 'Agora I 7168

.

r-7

N. EDMONSON: ONsI~os'HERM

COLINs<

S_

_1

Agra 7.

16 deal

1.~

CLI

N.EMNSN

NEIPS'H

GENNADEIONNOTESV THE JOURNAL OF THOMAS WHITCOMBE,PHILHELLENE* (PLATE5)

N JUNE, 1825, Edward John Trelawny, that most Byronic of the swashbuckling Philhellenes, learnt that a willingness to fight for Greece was no protection against the internalfeudings and volatile loyalties of the Greeks. Thus it was that Trelawny,by supportingOdysseus Androutsos and guardinghis cave on Mount Parnassusat a time when the bandit was intriguingwith the Turks, found himself the object of a plot encouraged, if not instigated, by Mavrocordato.The actual assailants were two, a Scot named Fenton, and his accomplice W. G. Whitcombe, an Englishman seduced by extravagant promises of money and position. In the "shoot-out" that followed, Trelawny was desperatelyinjured,Fenton killed, and Whitcombe made prisoner,later to be freed by a magnanimousand recoveringTrelawny. Samuel Howe has left us a contemporarydescription of the unfortunate Whitcombe. ... [Fenton] chose for the instrumentof his crime, a young Englishmanof family and education .. . His victim (for I must call Whitcomb the victim) was about nineteen years of age, had been a midshipmanin the British service, and had come to Greece burningwith enthusiasmfor her cause, and still more with a desire to distinguishhimself by some daringact; he was full of vanity and ambition, daring and headstrong, indeed, but generous and proud; and I believe, would then have shudderedat the bare thought of what he was afterwardsinducedto commit.

Howe's final comment on this strange episode reflects his encounter with the "boy ... full of romanticideas" after the latter's release from the cave. Trelawneyrecovered, and Whitcomb is ruined and desperate;he has blighted the hopes of his highly respectablemother, and wounded the pride of his brave brothers, who are officersof the Britisharmy.

The name Whitcombe is found a second time in the annals of the Greek War of Independence,in a context perhapsless dramaticbut certainlymore honorable than the first. In the spring of 1827 the Greeks, led by General Church, made their greatest *My abidingenthusiasmfor early travelersand Philhellenes, for the land of Greece itself, I owe to my teacherand friend Eugene Vanderpool,as fine a traveleras we shall see, and he will appreciatemy concern to tell of a man who fought "thatGreece might still be free." As for the form of my gift, an essay without scholarlyapparatus,my apology is twofold: I want Gene to enjoy his 75th birthday;and I am preparinga full publicationof Whitcombe'sjournaland other associatedmaterial.For this last privilegeI am indebted to FrankWalton, anotherfriend. An earlierversion of this study was read as a paperat the annual meeting of the ClassicalAssociationof Canadain June, 1977.

52

C. W. J. ELIOT

wartime effort by land, capturingPhaleron and Piraeus, and for a while threatening Athens. On May 4, MajorCharlesFallon, Church'saide-de-camp,noted in his journal: Mr Whitcomban englishmanwas also most severely wounded on an advancedpost with the corps of philhellenesby a cannon shot on the back of his neck, which he bears with great fortitude....

Thomas Gordon, who for a time commanded the Philhellenes, adds that Whitcombe was a volunteer, a captain "of the East India Company's artillery," and that he was "struck on the shoulder by a three-pound ball." However great the seriousness of his wounds, paradoxicallythis injury may have saved Whitcombe's life-as indeed he was to think-for in the attack on Athens two days later the Philhellenes were all but annihilated; four only are reported to have escaped. And, as we shall learn, Whitcombe, helpless, followed the slaughterfrom the comparativesafety of the general's vessel. Even though contemporaryreports make no connexion between these two Whitcombes with their apparentlydifferent careers, later scholars have assumed them to be a single person, and this tradition, with its story-book ending, has been most recently acceptedby C. M. Woodhouse, who speaks of "Whitcomberedeeming his sorry reputation in the battle of Athens." But Woodhouse (and his sources) should have been warnedagainstthis conclusion by the known presence in the Ionian Islandsin February, 1826 of two of W. G. Whitcombe's brothers, "for the purpose of calling to account a certain Mr. Trelawneyfor aspersionsthrown by him on the characterof a brother ... This information, drawn from correspondencein the archives of the Colonial Office, was publishedin 1907, but of the two brothersone was rightly labelled T. D., the other wronglyW. E. (He was in fact S. R.) The identificationof the brave officer of artillery,the Whitcombe wounded in front of Athens, is today no longer a question. In 1971 the Gennadius Libraryacquiredfrom a London dealer an unpublishedjournalabout the exploits of an English gunnery officer on leave from service in India, who joined the Philhellenes in 1827 and was wounded at Phaleron on May 4. The text runs to 106 numbered pages, the first 64 octavo, set in type, the remainder handwrittenin a quarto-sized note-book, into which the printed signatures have been neatly set and stitched. Two unnumbered leaves were placed at the beginning to serve for title and dedication, but these are only partiallypreserved because of damage in which more than a third of both leaves has broken off. The first four lines of the title can be quicklyfinished: "Campaignof the Falieri aind Piraeus] /in the year 1827;/ or Journalof a Vo[lunteer]/ Being the Perso[nal account of]." The fifth and crucialline is not so easily restored, "CaptainThoma[s ... I", but because the title is carefullylaid out, it can be estimated that the line needs a supplement of some fifteen letters (and spaces). Although a few words are lost from the dedication, the meaning is obvious: "To Colonel Pearse, Commanding th[e Regi-Iment of St. Thomas's Mount, M[adras, this] Narrative ... is respectfullydedicated [by one of his] Brother Officerss]" Then follows "LantrithydGlamorgan.1st Decr. 1831." On the basis of the informationso far collected, it would not be difficultto establish the full name of the journal'sauthor. Yet the task is made one of mere minutes by

PHILHELLENE THEJOURNALOF THOMASWHITCOMBE,

53

a consideration of two of the four miscellaneous papers purchased together with the journal, all coming from a single source. One is the official appointment of Thomas Douglas Whitcombe as "Captainof a Company in the Corps of Artillery"in "the Service of the United Company of Merchantsof England, tradingto the East Indies," his promotion from Lieutenant to have effect from August 8, 1830. On the back of this commission a clerk has noted that Captain Whitcombe "Retired from the Service 16 Nov. 1831 in Europe." The other is a document of 13 typewrittenpages with the title "Some Anecdotes and Reminiscences of a CharmingOld Lady, Recorded and Edited by her Son." The lady, who did not give her name, was Selina Katherine Elliott (nee Whitcombe), the Captain'ssixth child, and at the age of eighty-five, in 1929 or 1930, she recalled her youth and "events and personalities"associated with her great-grandfather, Sir John Aubrey, her grandfather,Sir Samuel Whitcombe, and her father, Captain T. D. Whitcombe. Of the experiences of the last and the indiscretionsof his brother, both in Greece, she gave her son, a century later, however garbled or mistaken, nevertheless a recognizable version. With the help of these two sources, there is no doubt about the original reading of the final line of the journal's title-page: Captain Thomas Douglas Whitcombe. *

*

*

Having in the spring of 1825 returned from India, on sick certificate,I agreed to accompanyone of my brothers,an officer in the BritishNavy, who like myself, was somewhat of an invalid, and at that time unemployed, to the continent; a project, the execution of which we deferred till the beginning of winter. Both deriving benefit from the change of air and scene, we pushed on through the south of France to Italy, and from thence were induced to extend our tour to the Ionian Islandsand the Cyclades.

So T. D. Whitcombe begins his journal, and in one paragraphtravels from India to England, and from there to the Aegean in the company of an elder brother, Samuel Richard Whitcombe, Lieutenant in the Royal Navy, who in 1825 retired from active service and went on half-pay.The visit to Trelawnyis ignored, studiously, I believe, for nowhere in his narrative does Whitcombe refer to his younger brother's scandalous behaviour, not even when it involved him in a duel, being "tauntedwith suggestions of complicity"accordingto his daughter. The two brothers spent spring on Syros, but in June, after two months, the elder returned home, suffering both ill health and "disgust" for the islanders. The younger was of different mind and body, and "by dint of very hard fagging at the language ... was enabled to enter ... into some of the best Greek society of the place ... ." Attracted by the people and the climate, and having "an ardent desire to become better acquainted with lands teeming with a romantic interest from our boyhood," he decided "to make a longer sojourn."5 Whitcombe-he no longer needs to be distinguishedfrom his brothers-stayed in Greece another fifteen months. Until the end of 1826, he betrayed no open purpose more serious than his "ardentdesire", first among the Cyclades, where his "ramblings"

54

C. W. J. ELIOT

were not without adventure, as he discovered on Tinos and recorded with amusing pomposity:" . . . through the ignoranceand brutalityof the peasantry,joined, perhaps, to my incaution in travelling without either guard or guns, my mortal peregrinations had like to have terminated";then at Zante, where he experienced quarantine,fever and earthquakein which "the picture of St. Dionysius, suspended near the foot of my couch, appearedto have changed characterwith St. Vitus"; and finally in a crossing of the Morea to Napoli di Romania (Nauplion), with Christmas at Megaspeleion, where Whitcombegave the priorof the great monasterya gift of joy by removing his "grossly ignorantdoubts whether the English believed in Jesus Christ." In Nauplion Whitcombe finished his business in less than a week and was on the point of returningto England after "a short visit to Zante and Cephelonia," when he met John Hane, officer in charge of armamentson Hastings' steamship "Karteria".This "most gentlemanlyman" spoke of the army needed to prevent the fall of the Athenian Acropolisto the Turks, and of Thomas Gordon, a rich Scot who had "stepped forward as the conductor of the enterprise."Whitcombe was quicklywon over: "The desire of volunteering my services under the command of a man, of whose characterI had imbibed the most favourableimpressions,was a feeling that for some time had not been a strangerto my breast."He at once advancedHane "the money to ship off the required batteringguns, cannon shot, powder, etc.," slaved with him for "eight or nine days" at embarking"every implement of war," and on January29, at nine in the evening, set sail for Salamis. Three days later, February1, Whitcombe met Colonel Gordon, "who on my offeringhim my services in the ensuing campaign,appointedme one of his staff, as well as attachingme to the artillery." The narrativeto this point takes up one-tenth of Whitcombe'sjournal. By contrast, the story of the next twenty-four days occupies somewhat less than half (45%), and covers in detail the author's role in the assault, capture, and defence of the heights of Phaleronfrom the time of his acceptanceby Gordon to his retirement on February24, two days after the colonel's resignation.For most of this period Whitcombe served as commanderof the guns on the right wing of the Greek position (P1.5), and his closest companionswere Francis Castle and William Scanlan, both Irishmen, and the Philhellenes. With these he shared the excitement and danger of battle, rainy days of boredom and discomfort, the pleasure of a good meal, moments of rest, and snatched hours of huddled sleep. But alone he discovered the look of death. On February 10, the day of the first determinedTurkishcounter-attack,which the Greeks repulsed with the loss of about 140 men, Whitcombelate at night on duty came upon the fallen ... laid out on a small space of ground, in readinessto be borne off to a place of interment and the sight of their fixed and cadaverousfeatures,-lighted up to increasedghostliness by the shining moon,- was trulywitheringto my spell-boundgaze. My spiritssank chill and sickeningon beholdingthem. But a few hours past, and they had lightlytrod the soil, full of hope and strength;and now they were stretchedout before me ....

Whitcombe's concern is with the day-to-day actions and emotions he and those near him experienced in his sector of the campaign,and these he describedwith consi-

THEJOURNALOF THOMASWHITCOMBE, PHILHELLENE

55

derable vividness and frequent humour in a style that is pleasantly,if on occasion heavily, mannered (the transitionfrom diary to intended book is sometimes laboured). On the other hand he displays little of the historian's interest in tactics or causes. For example, when on February22 Whitcombe and his fellow Europeansreceived a circular letter from Gordon announcing "that for certain reasons he had thought properto give up the command," Whitcombe in no way comments on, or explains, the decision of "this gallantcolonel." Yet it was this decision that promptedWhitcombe and his friends to leave Phaleron forthwith. They were stopped that day only by the beginning of the second major Turkish onslaught. Whitcombe hastened back to his artilleryand at the battle's height was able to give his men appropriateencouragement. He described his efforts thus: and there are moments when you must grimace and chatter like a monkey, throw yourself into the contortionsof a merry-andrew,roar like a cataract,and be as foul-mouthed as the Irish agitatorO'C[on]n[elll, if you would wish to stimulate your men to keep to their duty.

For a second "anxious time", despite heavier losses, the Greeks stood firm. Two days later, Whitcombe left Phaleron for Ambelaki. Next day he arrived in Aegina and his behaviourthat evening safely away from the war is understandable. Having fallen in ... with some brother campaigners,we took possession of a coffeehouse, and celebratedour meeting by an entertainmentkept up till the hour of midnight, and in which our hilariousorgies were I confess markedby rathertoo great a latitudeof punch.

Shortly afterwardshe decided "to lose no time in proceeding to Smyrna, and from thence taking a passage to England." Thus he made his way to Nauplion, and from there to Syros, arrivingon March 11. The town, "a dirty and poky hole as it really was, appearedalmost like a city of palaces after the towns I had lately been accustomed to see," and Whitcombe lost no time in "getting shaved, scoured from head to foot, and re-Anglified in dress" before renewing his former acquaintances.For five weeks he enjoyed the pleasantsociety of a round of friends, young ladies, and old comrades. But when he finally left on April 18, it was not for Smyrna or Malta, but for Aegina. He had heard of the arrivalof Lord Cochraneand General Church, and he knew he had to fight once more for "the deliverance of Athens" before going home. At six in the morning of April 23 Whitcombe presented himself to Colonel Gordon, also returnedto the fray. A little later he found the remnants of the Philhellenes; this time Whitcombe was "enrolleda member of the SacredCompany,"the only Englishmanamong them. Whitcombe's second tour of duty lasted two weeks, until the morning of May 7, when he was taken to Aegina, seriously wounded three days before from gun-shot. His daily record of this period fills a quarterof his journal, and well it might, for not only had the scale of the war more than doubled since his first tour-for example, Whitcombe conjecturedthat in the battle of May 4 a total of 24,000 men may have been engaged-but also in that time he witnessed the culminatingepisodes of the campaign

56

C. W. J. ELIOT

to liberate the Acropolis, the victories of late April and early May and the disaster of May 6 which, coupled with the death of the hero Georgios Karaiskakis,made the expedition's failure inevitable. Yet although Whitcombe recognized the decisive nature of these events, he attempted no comprehensive picture of them nor any examination of the campaign'sstrategy.Rather, he concentratedon the particularsof the war he knew. As an aide he carried messages to and fro among the leaders, the impetuous Lord Cochrane with the fleet, the more cautious General Church commanding the army, Gordon of the artillery,and the ailing but impressive Karaiskakiswho held the Greeks together: Every trait of his fine and thoughful countenance proclaimedthe hero, and in his eye there gleamed a fire beyond the controulof sickness or adversityto subdue.

As a Philhellene he served the guns of his battery, loaded ammunition, supplied his men with vivers- "and had I not providentlybrought a pretty good stock of macaroni, butter in skins, scrapedcheese, coffee, and sugar from Syra, they would have been half starved"-and on Friday,May 4, About half past 3 ... I felt as if I had received a tremendous blow on the head, which seemed to crush it to pieces, heard the loud whiz of a cannon-ball,and fell on my back, deprivedof sense and motion.

Finally, as one of the wounded, he was carriedfor a sum of 30 piastres, extorted in his "helpless state," to General Church's vessel, spent on deck, while Karaiskakisdied in the cabin below, a night "teeming with images of horror," laudanum adding to "the thraldromof distempered fiction," recovered sufficient coherence of mind to want to watch the "murderousaffair"of May 6 but not the strength of body to raise himself "without the assistance of one or two men," and next morning, just before sailing to Aegina, said farewellto one of the few survivingPhilhellenes. I was deeply affected, and being depressedin mind and spiritsas much as worn down in body, the prideof manhood-and why should I be ashamedto confess it!-opposed but a feeble barrierto the free indulgenceof my tears.

Whitcombe's account is unabashedlynot the study of a historian but the journal of a volunteer, as the title-pageannounced. On May 10, Whitcombe was brought back to Syros to begin his long recovery. By the end of the month he was strong enough "to be able to take little airings."By July he could almost as of old enjoy his friends, such as John Hane, or improve his Greek with "the fair inmates." Only his open wound "still requiringthe daily attention of a surgeon" delayed his "departureto England." The duel he chose to forget he fought the evening of August 8. A week later he could travel again, and with six companions, some comrades from Athens, made a trip to Naxos, "a ramble over the ancient abode of Bacchus." Finally, on August 30, Whitcombe left Syros on H.M. Corvette "Rose" for a cruise that lasted a month and includeda visit to Alexandria.

THEJOURNALOF THOMASWHITCOMBE, PHILHELLENE

57

At midday on September 28, the "Rose" entered Melos. In the harbourwere two English schooners ready to sail for home, needing protection as far as Cape Matapan. Off the cape next day Whitcombe left "the Rose, and put off to the merchant-ship," the largerof the two. He "landedat Tower Stairs"on December 1, "and hastening into the country quickly"found his family and friends. ... I leave it to my readers' decision, whether the perils and privations attending an eventful absence of almost two years were not more than amply made up for by the unmixed feelings of delight I experiencedon my return.

*

*

*

Who was the young veteran who so hurried to his family? Thomas Douglas Whitcombe was born in London on August 11, 1804, fifth of the six sons-there were also at least three daughters-of Samuel Whitcombe and Mary Aubrey, marriedin 1792. His father came from Gloucester, where he was a successful "Certified Attorney"; his mother was the illegitimate daughter, and only surviving child, of Sir John Aubrey, Member of Parliamentfor 58 years, rich and eccentric. About the turn of the century Whitcombe moved to Blackheathand established himself in the City at Sergeants' Inn, where he continued to prosper,attractingthe attention of the Prince Regent, for whom he acted as private attorney. In 1812 he was knighted; two years later he moved to Doughty Street in the Borough of St. Pancras;and when he died in 1816 he also maintained Thornton House in Greenwich. According to his granddaughter,the "Charming Old Lady", "the Prince in person" paid "a visit of condolence." Thomas Douglas, twelve at the time, is reported to have told the Prince "that he intended to be a soldier." Shortly after Sir Samuel's accidental death, the family returned to Gloucester, where his widow lived in comfort, well providedfor, openly by her husband, less obviously by her naturalfather. Her sons followed the recognized professions:John Aubrey, the first,-his grandfatherrepaid the compliment in his will-became a lawyer; Samuel Richard,Thomas Douglas, and WilliamGuise, Trelawny'sattacker,served as officers in the army and navy; Charles entered the Anglican priesthood; and Henry Seymour, unmarried, seems to have worked with his eldest brother. The two daughters who survived to maturitywere equally predictable;they married,the youngest, Charlotte, to the great-grandsonof the 8th Duke of Somerset. To return to Thomas Douglas, after attending Mr. Burney's school in Greenwich, where he took Classics and Mathematics, in 1818, *atthe age of fourteen, he entered Addiscombe Seminary, the East India Company's trainingschool for the officers of its army. Four terms later, in 1820, having passed such special subjects as Hindustani, Fortification,and Drawing, he left the college, entered the Indian Army the same year, and was gazetted Lieutenant in the MadrasResidency on June 8, 1821. What he did on leave in 1826 and 1827 I have already described. According to his daughter he was

58

C. W. J. ELIOT

much favoured by his grandfather,Sir John Aubrey, and it was through him that he was able to go to Greece and live there with no thought for expense. If Sir John did indeed contribute, it must have been when the brothersset out, for "the Bad Baronet" died in March 1826, and Thomas Douglas was not among his named heirs. In 1828 he returned to India, attained his captaincyin 1830, but retired to England the following year, defeated by the climate. Once home he settled in the County of Glamorganon propertyassigned to him and his mother. It was there he finished his journal. For the story of Thomas Douglas' life beyond 1831, I have only two documents to draw from, the reminiscences of his daughter and his own minutely detailed diary for 1839 and the first half of 1840. From these we learn that he marriedElizabeth Kircaldy in the summer of 1834, and that two years later they had a child, Charles, the first of ten. By 1839, the retired officer, his wife and growing family were living near Gloucester, trying to "make both ends meet," his pension augmented by an allowancefrom his eldest brotherfor work in his legal office and substantialgifts from his mother. Many of the Whitcombes lived near by, and in the period covered by his diary hardly a day passed without a visitation or a meal with his mother, a brother, or his sister Charlotte. Yet despite such congenial and generous company, the diary makes clear that the captain lived an austere life touched by ill health, in town clerking for his brother, in the countryplantinghis own garden, pruningweeds, and cutting wood. In 1843 Dame Mary Whitcombe died. In her will she left Thomas Douglas ?500, and she asked that certain rents be used to help in the education of his children. About this time-whether before or after his mother's death I do not know-he moved his family to Jersey and in 1846 to France, settling in Brittany.Accordingto his daughter, year by year his fortune slowly diminished, so that by 1867 "it was necessary for all of us who were old enough, girls as well as boys, to relieve the pressureat home by finding some outside employment."These are her final comments about her father. I know little more about Thomas Douglas Whitcombe, except that he died a widower on January13, 1882 at 10 Smith Parade, Bath. The cause of death was "Morbus cordis syncope" accordingto Doctor Freeman. Two months later Julia Whitcombe, an unmarrieddaughter, was granted Letters of Administrationfor her father's estate: the value amounted to ?253= 9 =4 "and no more." His journalwas perhapsoverlooked. C. W. J. ELIOT MOUNTALLISONUNIVERSITY

Departmentof Classics Sackville,New Brunswick CanadaEOA 3CO

PLATE 5

C4 00

A

'-9;X

Zu

ii

0

O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lb~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~c

A LEKYTHOSIN TORONTO AND THE GOLDENYOUTHOF ATHENS (PLATE6)

VANDERPOOL has been interestedin Attic prosopography for many PROFESSOR years,and he has not neglectedthe minorfigures.In publishingostrakaof obscure candidateswho seeminglygot only a few votes againstthem, he remarkedthat "it is worthwhile to recordtheir names and their approximatedates, for the very fact that votes were cast againstthem is in itself evidence that the personsconcernedwere politicalmen of some prominencein theirday."1The namesof youngmen who, with or withoutkalos, appearso frequentlyon Attic vases of the Archaicperiodbelong to the same socialstratumas the majorityof candidatesfor earlyostracism,but they are even more elusive, since most of them, for reasonswhich we cannotnow discover, neverattainedenoughprominenceto be includedin the literarysourcesor the inscripin most cases, but it is madedifficultby the absenceof patronymics tions.Identification is occasionallypossible,e.g. for the namesof Stesagoras,Miltiades,Megakles,Leagros, etc.2 Yet even those who remainunknownto us can sometimesbe connectedwith importantfamiliesto fill out the stemma,and where even this fails, the vase inscriptions give us well-datedexamplesof the existenceof a given name in the earlyperiod. The namesfall in two categories:those whichare accompaniedby kalosare as a rule not picturedon the vases, but are to be connectedwiththe socialuses of the potterysymposiumand other festivities.Names ascribedto figures in contemporaryscenes (athleticevents, symposium,komos, sacrifice,etc.) are also in most cases Athenian, althoughthey are not confinedto youths.This class has been generallyneglectedin Atticprosopography, althoughBeazleyhas frequentlycalledattentionto it. The boundary betweenthe two classesis fluid.It has been claimedthat some kalos-namesbelong to olderpersons,althoughthe eroticelementin the word kalosseems to me to argue againstthis view in most cases.3There are kalos-nameswhich are affixedto persons depictedin the scenes, a phenomenoncalled"tag-kalos"by Beazleyand dubbed"portrait-kalos" by me.4Namesof personsdepictedon vases appearnot infrequently as kaloi IHesperia, Suppl.VIII, 1949, p. 394. 2

TAPA103, 1972, pp. 181-186 and TAPA105, 1974, pp. 167-168 (Stesagorasand Miltiades).Correction: the archeron the Miltiadesplate is not bearded (TAPA 103, p. 185). J. K. Davies, AthenianPropertied Families,Oxford 1971, p. 379 (Megakles)and p. 90 (Leagros). 3In additionto the general bibliographyon love names see K. Schauenburg,Gymnasium76, 1969, pp. 51-53, and 0. Fuchs, Der attischeAdel im Spiegelder "Kalos-Inschriften" (480-410), Vienna 1974 (typed copy), pp. 35-58. 4J* D. Beazley, Attic Red-figureVase-painters, 2nd ed., (= ARV2), p. 1559. H. R. Immerwahr,"A ProjectedCorpus of Attic Vase Inscriptions,"Acta of the Fifth InternationalCongressof Greekand Latin Epigraphy Cambridge1967, Oxford 1971, p. 59, note 7.

HENRYR. IMMERWAHR

60

on other vases. What, then, is the relation between the two uses of contemporary names? A small lekythos in Toronto (P1. 6:a-c), black figure on white ground, of the Little-Lion Class, was attributedby Beazley to the KephisophonPainter, a companion of the Sappho Painter; it is dated around 500 B.C.5 Five youths are shown in athletic exercise. They are from left to right: 'OXv7rt>6(8)Upoq,Olympiodoros,identifiedin CVA as a boxer. ME-yaKXE'E9, Megakles, a jumper. 1Zrt>vHapoa, Spintharos, a discus retrograde,Dion, a runner. lt~H9,retrograde,i.e. Pythis, a javelin throwthrower.ALOUp, er. The inscriptionsare clear. Omission of mu before stop is common, and iota for upsilon, while not common, is also attested in Attica.6 The alphabet is typical of the period; note the dotted delta in Dion's name (the delta in Olympiodoros' name is miswritteninto a kind of pi, with the dot misplacedon the second vertical).' Of the five names, three are found as kalos-namesin the same period: Megakles:the name occurs on five other vases in the period 510-500 B.C.; three times (nos. 1, 2, and 5) it is accompaniedby kalos.8 1. London E 159, red-figuredhydriaby Phintias. 2. Bonn 70, red-figuredkalpis by Euthymides. Symposium:the flautist is called [14L]?KV9o'1.

3. Acropolis 16, frag. of red-figuredplate. ARV2 gives ... HEAAKlE$, which but a photographseems to show a partialmu at the could be [MIhEyaKXKE, complete at end. Perhaps beginning:MEyaKAEXq. ... 4. LeipzigT 3885, frag. of red-figureskyphos.MEya[KAEX& The kalos-name rubbed to related Euthymides. 1037. White plaque 5. Acropolis out and Glaukytessubstituted. The Megakles here praised is almost certainly the MegaklesHippokratousAlopekethen ostracisedin 487/6 and Olympicvictor in 486.9 he appearsas kalos on two other vases.10 Olympiodoros: 1. Acropolis 636, frag. of red-figuredloutrophoros, related to Phintias. Procession to sacrifice. In addition to the kalos-name Olympiodoros there are probablyProxenides several fragmentaryones: ---hg and --]oXo-qE8E[--, 5Royal Ontario Museum 963.59. Plate 6:a-c are parts of three museum photographspublished by permissionof the Royal OntarioMuseum, Toronto. ARV2, p. 1699, J. D. Beazley, Paralipomena,Oxford 1971, p. 253. HesperiaArtBulletin21, no. 272 (ill.). D. C. Kurtz, AthenianWhiteLekythoi,Oxford 1975, pp. 93, 226, and pl. 56:1 (part). I want to thank Neda Leipen for allowing me to study the vase in 1968 and John Hayes for sending me photographsand information,includinga xerox copy of the relevant text of the new CVA, Royal OntarioMuseum [Canada11, 27:15-18. I, Phonology,Berlin 1980, p. 485 (omission of mu) and of AtticInscriptions, 6L. Threatte, TheGrammar p. 261 (iota for upsilon). 7For dotted delta see J. P. Barron,JHS 84, 1964, pp. 45-46, notes 60-62. It begins in the late 6th century. 8ARV2,p. 1598. Paralipomena,p. 507. 9J. K. Davies, op. cit. (footnote 2 above), p. 379. '0ARV2,p. 1604. Paralipomena,p. 358.

IN TORONTO A LEKYTHOS

61

as read by Peek, which very likely was followed by kalos, since there is no male figure near that name. --]t8E[-- may be a fourth kalos-name. In addition, three figures are named: the young flautist is AV[KOhq, Lykos (see AR V2, p. 25, no. la), another youth begins with lambda, and the older man is Mitron.11 2. Cab. Med. 523, red-figured cup, Proto-PanaitianGroup. The other kalosnames are Kephisophonand Dorotheos. All three are depicted on the vase, hence "tag-kalos."The other figures are named without kalos. On the interior: Asopokles (trainer), Antimachos, Eu[en]or. On A: EAONOS(?), Phoinix, Kleiboulos (trainer), Euagoras (bearded), Timon, Kleon, Epichares, Eratosthenes, Kleisophos (trainer), Batrachos,Phormos. On B: Antias, Ambrosios, Batrachos;the three kalos-names are on this side. We shall return to this remarkablevase.12 Olympiodoroskalos appearsalso on a second black-figuredvase: 3. Vatican416, black-figuredhydria, Leagros Group, together with Leagros kalos (ABV, p. 671, Paralipomena,p. 162). Although Olympiodorosappearson fewer vases than does Megakles, he is found in much largercompany, probablyby accident. Identificationof this person with OlympiodorosLamponos(PA 11385 and 11389), who was lochagosof a special troop at Plataia (Herodotos, ix.21; Plutarch, Aristides, 14.5) and has been thought the father of the famous seer, was long ago suggested by Studniczka (JdI 2, 1887, p. 163) and is mentioned by Kirchner(PA, locc. citt.). The identificationhas again been brought up by 0. Vox in connection with a curious graffitoon a late 6th-centurycoarse-warehydriafrom the Athenian Agora.13The hydria bears on the lip a graffito read by Thompson and Lang TLcTa 'OAvn6 V[LI KO9 KaTr7VaryUv, although the letters NIK are partly missing and the first and the third are disfigured.Vox suggests reading 'OAv7rr608[u]poq, and it must be admitted that the traces might favor this reading. But the difficulty then rests with Titas, which Vox connects with the meaning "paederast",which has supportin entries for Titan, titis, etc. in some ancient lexica. Vox's interpretationhas its 11Proxenides:W. Peek in Graef-Langlotz,Die antiken Vasenvon der Akropoliszu Athen, Berlin 19251933, II, p. 131. The same name may occur as a kalos-nameon a lekythos fragmentin Six's technique (J. D. Beazley, AtticBlack-figureVase-painters, Oxford 1956 [= ABVI, p. 673). Beazley, op. cit., lists the name on Acr. 636 without kalos. Except for this somewhat fragilecombination,the name could also be restored as Philoxenidesor Theoxenides. I have taken the inscriptionsfrom the drawingin Graef-Langlotz,II, pl. 50. There is also the inscription ho brats KaXok. "2Theinscriptionsare taken from P. Hartwig,Die griechischen Meisterschalen, Stuttgartand Berlin 1893, pp. 134-135. They are no longer clearlyvisible (ARV2, p. 316, no. 4). 13Agora P 24910. Publishedby H. A. Thompson, Hesperia25, 1956, pp. 63-64 and pl. 22:c and f. See now M. Lang, TheAthenianAgora, XXI, Graffitiand Dipinti,Princeton 1976, C5 and pl. 4. O. Vox, "Un pederastadell' Agora," ZPE 26, 1977, p. 118. SEG, 26.63. The drawingin Agora XXI, pl. 4 omits the traceswhich Thompson had consideredaccidental;it adds the bottom tip of what could be an iota, but this is not mentioned in the text.

62

HENRYR. IMMERWAHR

attractions,althoughthe wordingis awkwardfor whatoughtto be 'O.O TiTauKa-Taretc. If we neverthelessaccept the conjecture,we )yuo1 or 'O. novas Kat KaTalrvyolv, for katashouldadd this inscriptionto the instancesof the kalos-nameOlympiodoros, Anotherpossibility are the reverse,as it were, of kalos-inscriptions. pygon-inscriptions as the father'sname,miswrittenas is readingTitasas a propernameandOlympiodoros nominative,as sometimeshappenson ostraka.14But love and hate inscriptionsdo not of usuallyhave the patronymicin this period.Whateverthe solution,the identification especially a strong possibility, remains fame of Plataian Olympiodoros with the the kalos if he werethe fatherof Lampon. Pythis:the nameis rare.It occurson one othervase only: 1. Chicago 89.15, black-figuredhydria, late 6th century, Leagros Group.15 O. Kaoki, HAI[Vs] of the tribe Aiantisin the In inscriptions,it is found as the name of a lampadephoros 4th centuryB.C. (IG 112,1250).In Ionia,Pythisis knownfromMiletosas a 5th-century propername, as the name of an Ioniansculptorworkingin Athensaroundthe turnof the 6th to 5th centuries,and lateras the name of the sculptorwho made the marble Pythis has thus an Ionic flavor,but as quadrigafor the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus.16 an Athenian name we may perhaps think of it as a nickname, shortened from some longer name such as Pythionikos. Spintharos:the name occurs as a patronymicon an ostrakon of a certain Phalan-

It has also been restoredon an thos, whose son Melanthiosis also foundon ostraka.17 unpublishedearly ostrakon in false boustrophedon,Agora P 4736 (the restorationis by This G. Stamires, as Vanderpool tells me): IDirwtv)aposEvA,/ovikovHpo,/aXvt6tLos?I. reading would connect him with a known family of the 4th century B.C. But the iota read previouslyis in all probabilitya scratch, and the name might equally be Kantharos or Pantharos.18Finally, a Spintharosof Oineis is among the dead of 465 B.C. in the casualtylist, IG 12, 928, line 76 = Bradeen, TheAthenianAgora, XVII, Inscriptions.The

Princeton1974, no. 1, line 132. To combineall these references Monuments, Funerary into a man's careerwould be pure speculation. "See, e.g., two Themistokles ostrakafrom the North Slope, A.G. 30 and 108, Hesperia7, 1938, p. 241, fig. 70; or Agora P 14, Hesperia,Suppl.VIII, pp. 403, no. 19 and 412, and Agora P 6208, ibid., p. 404, no. 21. 15ABV,p. 673, Paralipomena,p. 164, no.l8bis. For the inscription,see Beazley, AJA 54, 1950, p. 315, no. 7. Halle/S., 1917, p. 390 (Miletos). A. E. Raubides Griechischen, 16F.Bechtel, HistorischePersonennamen tschek, Dedicationsfrom the AthenianAkropolis,Cambridge,Mass. 1949, nos. 10 and 90, and p. 524 (two signed bases, one with the signaturein Ionian lettering).Pliny, xxxvi.31 (Mausoleum). "7SeeVanderpool, Hesperia,Suppl. VIII, p. 402. Phalanthos is on Agora P 12529, Melanthios on P 12216, P 12217, and L 1873bis.Vanderpoolsuggests identificationwith the Melanthioswho commanded the 20 Athenianships in supportof the Ionian Revolt (Herodotos,v.97). '8Forthe restoration,see Vanderpool'slist of ostrakain R. Meiggs and D. Lewis, A Selectionof Greek HistoricalInscriptions,Oxford 1969, p. 46. Cf. PA 12855. The vertical scratch is at the right edge of a rubbedareawhich has destroyedthe beginningof the name.

A LEKYTHOS IN TORONTO

63

Dion: a common name. The kalos of AR V2, p. 1574 is later. The name is probably found in a casualtylist ante 450 B.C., Agora XVII, no. 6, line 24. The Toronto lekythos names five young men, three of whom (Megakles, Olympiodoros, and Pythis) appearelsewhere as kaloi on contemporaryvases. These three are therefore historicalpersons and not inventions of the KephisophonPainter. The other two names (Spintharosand Dion) must also be considered actual persons, although we are not able to identify them with kaloi. Secondly, it does not seem to be of consequence in the determinationof the historicity of a given name, whether this name appearswith kalos or without it. This is not to say that there is no differencebetween the two ways of naming so far as the vase painters are concerned. Putting the name of a kalos on a vase (on which ordinarilythat person is not figured) is a greater honor than giving that name to a participantin the action. Therefore older persons are named on vases in the scenes, as well as youths. Yet all these uses are commemorative in some way. For the historian the only difference between kaloi and names without kalos is thus the question of age. Megakles appearsthree times with kalos, once without, and twice in cases where we cannot be sure. In AR V2 (and to some extent in ABV) Beazley gives many instances of this double use of kalos-names. The fact that five names appearon the same vase gives a chronologicalconjunction that is historicallyuseful. These five youths were not only contemporary,they belonged to the same social grouping. From this point of view it is important to consider the linkages of names (kalos or not) with one another. Megakles is linked only once more, with Smikythos (above, Megakles, no. 2). Smikythos appearsonce as kalos on a vase by Euphronios,where he is linked with Leagros kalos and with Antias (without kalos), the last perhapsthe name of the athlete in the scene.19He appearswithout kalos with many other named figures on vases by Oltos, Phintias, and an unattributed blackfiguredvase.20 Olympiodorosis more productiveof further linkages than Megakles. Of the names listed above, the following reappearelsewhere with or without kalos: Proxenides? - Vase related to Sapphoand Diosphos Painters. Lykos - Black figure:EdinburghPainter.Red figure:Onesimos, Antiphon Painter, Foundry Painter. Also Euphronios. It is doubtful whether the kalos of the red-figuredcup painters is the same as that named by the paintersof the end of the 6th century. Kephisophon- Two vases by the KephisophonPainter (ABV, p. 669). Dorotheos - Two black figure. Red figure: ScheurleerPainter, Epeleios Painter, etc. Paseas, Oltos. Antimachos - Black figure: Rycroft Painter. Red figure: Scheurleer Painter and related, Ambrosios Painter. 19Dresden295, red-figuredkalpis, ARV2, p. 16, no. 13, cf. 1563 and 1608. Paralipomena,p. 322. 20ARV2,p. 1608. ABV, p. 673.

64

HENRY R. IMMERWAHR

Antias - Euphronios,Smikros, Proto-Panaitian,etc., frequentlywithout kalos. Ambrosios - Without kalos on the name piece of the Ambrosios Painter (ARV2, p. 174, no. 17). Epichares- Probablythe father of Alkimachos kalos (AR V2, p. 1561). Leagros - Black figure:LeagrosGroup, etc. Red figure:for the numerous occurrences see AR V2, pp. 1591-1594 and Paralipomena,p. 507.21 From this rough sketch (which could be extended much further) it is evident that the names are not confined to any particulargroup of painters or workshops but are used by the paintersof large vases, cups and even lekythoi. In this respect these groups differ from the kalos-namesthat are restrictedto certain painters, a phenomenon which exists alreadyin the 6th century (e.g. Memnon for Oltos, Hipparchosfor Epiktetos) and is especially characteristicof the cup painters of the early 5th century and the whiteground lekythos painters.Nor is there any special connection with specific shapes. The determining factors seem to be the use of the vases in social contexts and, for the names without kalos, the subjects of the scenes. The end of the 6th century must have been a time when the aristocracywas particularlyproudand gay and when it had particularlyclose relationswith the Kerameikos. The celebrationof the young by naming them is characteristicof a number of vases of the period. The cup in the Cabinet des Medailles is an outstandingexample. Others are the neck pictures of Euphronios'volute-kraterin Arezzo (1465) showing a komos of youths with copious use of "tag-kalos"; the Metropolitan psykter (10.210.18) by Oltos with athletic scenes; and a cup by the Epeleios Painter in Munich (2619a) with four kalos-names.22Other minor painters followed suit. The Kephisophon Painter is fond of inscriptions.His New York lekythos (08.258.30; P1. 6:d) has Kephisophon kalos and in addition Chaireleos and Aristos(?).23 The Gallatin lekythos also has Kephisophon, and Boston 98.922 the inscriptionho racts KaoXsergot 8oKEL.24 A similar love of inscriptionswith contemporaryreference appearsin the work of the Ambrosios Painter; among the names of youths the most common is Antimachos, who may appear on three vases, with and without kalos.25 Despite the attention paid to kalos-namesin the past, the properstudy of the aristocraticnames on Attic vases still remains to be made. We need first of all an exact list of all names of contemporarypersons, whether accompanied by kalos or not, with indicationof shape, painter, workshopand especiallythe limits of the historicaldates of 2"Thelist is compiled from the lists of kalos-namesin ABV, ARV2 and Paralipomena,where the particularscan be found. 22ARV2, p. 15, no. 6 (Euphronios);p. 54, no. 7 (Oltos); p. 146, no. 2 (Epeleios Painter). Lekythoi,Paris 1936, p. 117, no. 1. Plate 6:d (courtesythe Met23C. H. E. Haspels, AtticBlack-.figured ropolitanMuseum of Art, Rogers Fund, 1908). I take Aristos to be a man's name; see PA 2049-2052. Beazleytakes it as an adjective(ABV, p. 514, with a query). 24SeeHaspels, op. cit., p. 117, nos. 3 and 2; ABV, pp. 514 and 669; Paralipomena,p. 253. 25ARV2,p. 173, no. 5; p. 174, no. 16; p. 173, no. 1, cf. p. 1564 (but here a man). For Antimachos with or without kalos see AR V2, p. 1564.

65

IN TORONTO A LEKYTHOS

each vase (not only the stylistic dates), as well as the relation of the names to the Fictitious names, which are mostly puns, should be included, since they iconography.26 bear a relation to actual names or even persons.27Such a list would make the whole of this materialavailableto the prosopographer. HENRY

R. IMMERWAHR

AMERICANSCHOOLOF CLASSICALSTUDIES AT ATHENS

26Thedissertationby 0. Fuchs (footnote 3 above) concentrateson the names for the period after the PersianWars. 27Seein general my proposedclassificationof historical,potentiallyhistorical,and invented names, in the Acta of the Fifth EpigraphicCongress (footnote 4 above, loc. cit.). Invented names seem to remain within the boundariesof the Attic onomasticon, and puns have reference to existing names (cf. ibid., p. 56, no. 3, on archers'names).

PLATE 6

'14.

b.

a.

naroMsum

A_._~~~~~~~~oa ova_~~~~~.Bakfiuewie-rudlkths0283 _ _~~~~~~erpoia HER .IMRAR

EYHSI

uemo

ORNOADTEGLE

rt

oot

oesFn,10 OT

FAHN

C.

a-c. Black-figured,white-groundlekythos 963.59

THE LEASINGOF LAND IN RHAMNOUS ENE VANDERPOOLhas shared his knowledge and love of the Attic countryside with all who have wished to learn. This short study is inadequatereturn from one of the many deeply in his debt but I hope the subject will seem appropriate.His own tenure of the Attic land is EL'To;J actl'aVla Xpovov. IG 12,2493 (EM 4219; hereafter1) of 339/8 B.C. contains the beginning of a lease with detailed instructionson the use of the land. It is reported in the corpus as having come from Sounion but in the EpigraphicalMuseum it is recorded as belonging to the group of inscriptionsexcavated by Stais at both Sounion and Rhamnous ca. 1890. While studying this and other Attic lease texts in 1977 I was informed by Mr. Vasileios Petrakos, Ephor of ClassicalAntiquitiesfor Attica, that a fragmentof another version of this inscriptionhad been found in his excavations at Rhamnous, and in 1979 he found a second, joining fragment of the new text (Rhamnous 38; hereafter 2). He has most kindly allowed me to discuss this second version, together with his observations, in connection with the re-examinationof 1.1 1 consists of the top and parts of the two sides of a pedimentalstele of white marble. 2 comes from the center and right side of a stele. The stone and hand of the two texts are not distinguishable.2The wording is very largely the same, a fact of some interest in itself and which helps in the restorationwhile revealing, even in lacunae, the few but at times significant differences. The detailed regulations on the use of the propertyare virtuallyidentical but there remain problems of restorationand interpretation that can be examined more fruitfullyin a broaderstudy of Greek agricultureof the Gn

'For a historyof the excavationsat Rhamnous,see B. Petrakos,HpaKTtKa', 1976 [1978], pp. 43-50. At the EpigraphicalMuseum I am grateful to Mrs. Dina Peppa-Delmouzouand her able staff for assistance and many courtesies.A fellowshipfrom the AmericanCouncil of LearnedSocieties enabled me to work in Athens. Works frequentlycited in this articlewill be abbreviatedas follows: Munich 1970 = DiederichBehrend, Vestigia,XII, AttischePachturkunden, Behrend = M. I. Finley, Studiesin Landand Creditin AncientAthens,New Brunswick,N.J. 1951 Finley grecques(InstitutF. Courby), Paris 1971 Nouveauchoix = Nouveauchoixd'inscriptions des EcolesFranfaisesd'Athe'nes = Jean Pouilloux, La Forteressede Rhamnonte(Bibliothe'que Pouilloux 1954 et de Rome 169), Paris 2It is perhapsnot impossible that they come from the same stele despite the difference of 35 stoichoi for 1 and 37 for 2 which might be explainedby the additionof a second text lower down on the tapering stele. (IG 112,2494, another "Sounion/Rhamnous"lease very similarto ours, has an extra letter space on the right from line 7 on, wherever the end of the line is preserved.)The size of the checker units is close but not identical: 1, horizontal 0.0097 m., vertical 0.0093 m.; 2, horizontal 0.009-0.0094

m., vertical

0.010-0.011 m. If on the same stone, the horizontal lines of 2 would have been slightly more widely spacedlower down on the stone. The originalthickness,0.075 m. for 1 (cf. 0.084 m. for 2), and the width of 1, 0.35 m., point to an original stele ca. 0.70 m. high, excluding the pediment. Cf. S. Dow, CP 37, 1942, p. 324. The last traceson 2 correspondto line 26 on 1, which continues for anotherfive lines.

THELEASINGOF LANDIN RHAMNOUS

67

Classicalperiod.3The major discrepanciesare in the heading and the definition of the property.In this articleI concentrateon the propertyand on the characterof the lessors in consideringthe relationshipof the two texts. It will be convenient to identify the subdivisions of the two leases, with line references to the more complete, publishedtext of 1. (1) Heading(1-2) (2) Definition of the lessors and the property(3-7) (3) Arable farming of the land (7-10). [Note: The only punctuation seen in either text occurs at the end of this section in 1, in the form of: I (4) Period of lease (10-13) (5) Payment of rent (13-15) (6) Digging aroundvines, fig-trees, etc. (15-19) (7) Stakes for vines (19-20) (8) Buildings (21-22) (9) Condition of propertyon lessee's departure(22-) (1) and the latter partof (2) have the majordifferences.The requirementsgiven in (6) have eight more letters in 2 than in 1, which may be connected with a difference in the nature of the propertiesas describedin (2).4 Otherwisesections (3) through (9) are the same in both texts, except that in (4) the length of the lease (ten years) and the date of its commencement are in reverse order in 2 and phrased slightly differently.5 The archon in whose year the lease is made is either the same in both texts or two differentnames occupy the same space. 3For (3), on the use of arable, it is unfortunatethat 2 only repeats the preserved parts of 1 (lines 7-10). One hopes more fragmentsmay be found. I do not understandPrott's restorationprinted in the corpus, nor, it would seem, do others. Cf. Finley, p. 250, note 38; Behrend, pp. 83-84; R. J. Hopper, Tradeand Industryin ClassicalGreece,London 1979, p. 161 (c), a partialtranslation. 41 (6), lines 15-19, with Prott's restorationsfor 15-18 (Hiller's at the end of 19) and the letters preserved in 2 underlined: 8t' TOVi EvItaVTOV' EKao-[[ToV Kat' 1TVpTOV E1E'T'O KpOLptXaI Ka[Tra ITE8OV Pro [q-ETa,

1

rcT

rEpLop'([Et

Kja[T]la

Credov

[.]A[.IAA[....

.]Aipa

KaTa

T[avT]la

In 18 Prott's

restorationis plausibleif we allow the cutter one of his frequenterrors for the first tau, K[aILa[AAa /OTa'

Ta7] 7')/tEpa.

But in this last clause 2 has eight extra letters which enjoins caution.

51 (4), lines 10-12: o 8e XI[P]?oq TK /O-OCLO-Ek[q TOV'XOpLOV E] 8EKa ErTW I[apxIEL apXLOV TT XPdv]oq 6 bIETa Avu[otaXd8fV a"pXo[VrTa2 (4), lines 9-11 as restored by Petrakos:o [/bETa A.tdr6cT0-CEWq Arvtr|,a

xthj

apXoVTa

apXEC

Tr1s /.-t6-0]Ew

XPdVoq I EA 8EKa

ErTadIn

the corpus Kirchner restored for

1, line 11, aXVTJKOvO-~q' i] 85a E'TT), cf. Es 84a stb IG 112, 2499, line 4. Wilhelm, ArchP 11, 1939, pp. 203-204, preferredTOV TErEpV]Vo1 8EKa ETA. But Petrakos'es 8EKa ETT) is all that space permits in 2 and I have thereforewritten TOViXwpLOV Eq] 8EKa E&T)in 1, line 11. The expression of the commencement of the lease in 2 is normal (cf. IG 112, 2492, lines 18-20; 2499, lines 42-43; Nouveauxchoix, no. 27, lines 27-28 [P. G. Vallindas and N. I. Pantazopoulos,

HIpaypaTExtat

Trb

'AKa8cdti'aq'A6nvc'v 13, 2, 1948, pp. 5-23; H.

W. Pleket, EpigraphicaI (Textus MinoresXXXI), no. 431), except for the understandableomission of apsev in the predicate,whereas 1 reverses apXwv and xpo'vo. Kirchner'srestorationof 1, line 11, requiredTrb dL[tO-6CW-EWq XpOv]o to be a mistakenrepetition. Trivialdifferences:2 (8) has one letter less than 1, perhapsto be explained by crasis of TOa&pyvptov (Prott's restoration in 1, line 22), and in 2 (9) we must read oTraV 8'EK T]oV1for o&Ta[V 8E'

1, lines 22-23.

r]O[-'I

EK

To[V in

H. JAMESON MICHAEL

68

The definition of the lessors at the beginning of section (2) proves to be the same but a correctionof the text of 1 in the corpus is required.Lines 3 and 4 of 1 and 2 read as follows: 1 [KWaTa

2

Ta8E

/.WTOo00LV

oi

67/1,oTat

[oti

(f

Toi

'A[p]jx'wirov

RepoV;

Kat

ZTrijoov.

gEpovS CXrotov. o" (K [TOil 'Apxflrov 0 87)1u'7Tat qat and restored the lacuna after an alpha read Kirchnerin the corpus [(ET]a Toi3.The tip of the slanting stroke, which is all that is visible of his alpha, suits kappabetter. I am assumingthat Archipposand Stesias are found in 2 as well as 1. Archipposcould be the Rhamnousian archon of Athens in 318/317 (PA 2562) or a relation. Stesias is not otherwiseknown. The lessors are most probablythe same. The propertyleased is not, or at least is not describedin the same terms. In 1 it is TiOTEAEV1osT%Ts j[1GIEovTo' s'Ep&E. It and threetimes at least simplyas To' XcWpLOV.6 A is referredto twicelateras To TEkEVqO reference to the divine owner of the property is also found in line 2 where T4qE 'EpAuvt,7centered, appearsto have been crowded in as an afterthoughtbetween the invocationof the gods and Tyche in line 1, on a taenia on the bottom of the pediment, and the beginning of the continuous text in line 3. 2 also involves a temenos and all the later references appearto be identical with those in 1. But there is also a kepos and six spaces more than are required for the identification in 1. Thus to' '4EVos TOy KVTOV (lines 4-5). Furthermorethe entire identifica......... . T74.' tions by the name of the previous lessee, a certain Hierokles, and by the neighbor to the north (whose name is lost) are omitted from 2. Either the lease is for a different propertyor the description of it as the temenosof the Goddess 'V "EpuEt has been expandedto include the garden, and perhapsother partsof the property,at the expense of a reference to the location.8That may have been found in the heading, as in 1, line 2. In 2, lines 1-2, we have: x'w\EI[.I ........ .... 17 ..... vacat -----------------?IXEIfN One might restore [& eEpIgE, or [len E& Epltz, roughly centered in line 1, but line 2, with largerletters than lines 1 and 2-22 (0.01 m. to 0.004-0.006 m.) has no parallel in 1. In either case, the specificationof the kepos in 2 may explain the eight extra spaces in section (6) of 2, where instructionsare given for digging around trees. It is noteworthy that this is the only adjustmentto different circumstancesthat can be detected after section (2).

[KaTa

'a6E

,TVod

6temenos,lines 22, 23; chorion,lines 7, 11, 25 (restored in some cases but not in doubt). On the meaningof chorionsee W. K. Pritchett,Hesperia25, 1956, pp. 268-269. 7For the coexistence of Et and qrtsee K. Meisterhansand EduardSchwyzer, Grammatikder attischen Inschriften,3rd ed., Berlin 1900, pp. 39 and 140, note 1217, and Leslie Threatte, The Grammarof Attic I, Phonology,Berlinand New York 1980, pp. 356-357. Inscriptions, 8E.g. T[O Tb)q OEOV'Kat 77b)VOtKiaV Kat] TOy KT)ITOv or the goddess' name may have been used, e.g., Trk t Kat] TO/ KTZOv. For Themis at Rhamnous,cf. IG 112,3109 and 4638, which are TO' Env 'Ep/IE TaI 04u8O and see his p. 151, note 2. Pouilloux, in 40 nos. 39 and

THE LEASINGOF LAND IN RHAMNOUS

69

recurs for a different place, the site of a leased temenosof Athena Polias in a list of propertiesof that goddess, probablynear the city since the next property listed is a gardenor gardenson the Ilissos, and certainlyin the charge of the appropriate EV "EplEt

city officials, not of a local deme.9 'v "EpXELis also given under the deme "Epgos in

Stephanusof Byzantium, s. v., thought to have been between Athens and Eleusis.10The Rhamnousian place is to be distinguished from the other two.1"It had at least two properties,that of the goddess and of the neighbor to the north, so that the existence of another temenosthere is not impossible. The goddess of 1 is either an anonymous figure identified by her association with the place, or one prominentlocally, as Athena in Athens and especiallyon the Akropolis, who need not be named. At Rhamnous one thinks of Nemesis or possibly Themis, cf. IG

J2,

828, lines 3-4:

...

#E

t I418E,

q TO6

< E > XEL TE/E V.12

In 2, the name of the divine owner, if not the same as in 1, may lurk behind the large letters of line 2, IXEIfN. One notes the cult of the herosiatros, Aristomachos,at Rhamnous which could have resulted in propertiesknown as 'AP0-ITOWXELaand the o 'Aptl-rTowaXov qp0O' KAd ToY KTAZrOV. possibilityfor section (2) ... TO TE'/XEVO' > [S But obviously other explanationscan be proposed.'3 Many of the same provisions recur in Attic leases, often in very similar language, and from the multiple listing of leases known to us, and from the routine nature of such documents in general, one would expect that individual leases prepared for a 91G 112, 1591, lines 10-13. David Lewis informs me that MichaelWalbankwill republishIG 112, 1590 and 1591 together with Agora I 4133 (M. L. Crosby, Hesperia6, 1937, pp. 454-456), I 7117, I 7062, and I 7123, as from a single stele. 10Cf.IG 112, 2362, line 61 and Plutarch,Phocion,22. llAlthough the dative in -rat of 1, line 2, is found along with -EL in the later 4th century for neuter s stems (IG 112, 2498, line 18; Threatte, op. cit., pp. 356-357), the alternationis also found for nouns in EVs (ibid.), and the analogy with ('EXXEvi, EA HETpE "stony places", 'EkaEvis', "a place with olive trees", 8ovaKEvi, "a place with reeds", suggests a possible 'Ep/IEv, "a place with heaps of stones", a likely name for a part of the countryside. Cf. Pierre Chantraine, Dictionnaireetymologiquede la langue grecque,Paris 1970, s. v. Eppa; Jameson, "The SacrificialCalendarfrom Erchia," BCH 89, 1965, p. 158. But only TO 'Epws is, in fact, attested. In any case, the placenamecarriesno necessaryreference to the god Hermes. 12Discussedby Pouilloux, no. 36, pp. 150-151. For Nemesis' moneys, ibid., no. 35, pp. 147-150 (Nouveauchoix, no. 20; Russell Meiggs and David Lewis, A Selectionof GreekHistoricalInscriptions, Oxford 1969, no. 53, pp. 144-146). For Themis, see footnote 8 above. There is no warrantto identify the goddess with Athena, as does Behrend, p. 82. The temenosof Athena Polias E'v 'EpAEL (footnote 9 above) is not at Rhamnous. "On Aristomachos,see Pouilloux, chap. VII, esp. pp. 96-97 and no. 32 and no. 33 (IG 112,4436 and 4452). For propertynames with this formationcf. the Sosimacheia(plural)on Delos, J. H. Kent, Hesperia 17, 1948, p. 286, note 149. 'ApO-rop&aXEtat in the feminine pluralare also possible, cf. IG 112, 1638, lines 12 and 18 for examples in the singular. It is at first sight temptingto see a reference to apXEtain 2, line 2, but the word means the physical offices, headquarters,of officials (e.g. IG I12, 1012, line 21, of 112/1, but alreadyin Lysias, ix.9), and in the Hellenistic period, in the plural, the body of officials (e.g. IG 112, 687, line 45 of 266/5 = SIG3, 434/435 with Kirchner'snote). The sense of "archives"appearsto be late and rare (see LSJ).

70

MICHAELH. JAMESON

single body of lessors would take much the same form in each case."4We have no surviving examples of this type and no parallelfor two so very largelyidentical texts.'5 But either the simultaneous leasing of two different propertiesor the continued leasing of a single propertymight be expected to follow the same format. We have seen that the property is not described in the same way in both texts and therefore that it is doubtful, though just possible, that the identical propertyis involved. Nonetheless, we need to consider whether leases were preparedfor the same temenos,somewhat differently describedat differenttimes, for two separate,presumablysuccessive, lessees. There may be some slight support for a different date for the two texts from the different order of section (4), on the period of the lease. If both were copied at the same time from the same model such variationmight be less likely than if the insertion of a differentarchon's name some years later had occasionedthe rewritingof the whole clause. But difficultiesemerge on closer examination. In 2 the name of the archon is not preservedbut it was of the same length (in the accusative case) as that in 1, Lysimachides, if it was not Lysimachides himself. The name of Kephisophon, ten years later, in 329/8, or Themistokles, 347/6, eight years earlier, would fit. If 2 representsthe next lease after the expiration of the ten-year tenure of 1, one may wonder why that lessee's name is omitted from 2, section (2). But since there is also no place in 2 for the neighborto the north the omission of both items could be regardedas an oversight. (If, of course, the two properties are different, that in 2 may not have been leased before, and there may have been no neighbor conveniently near by.) If 2 was prepared in the archonshipof Themistokles one would suppose that the tenure was terminated for some reason after eight years or less and that there had been no previous tenant, whereas the reference to a neighbor was omitted by mistake. Alternatively these two items were an innovation, included for the first time in a second lease (our 1) in the archonshipof Lysimachides.In view, however, of the great similarityof stone and hand as well as contents, and the undoubted difference in the language used to describe the property,the other hypothesis, which does not require us to assume omission or innovation in all or part of a section, seems preferable,namely that the same lessors in the same year arrangedfor the leasing of two differentproperties. The use of the same, detailed set of instructions to the lessees of two different properties(if we are correct in so concluding) suggests that this was the standardform of the Rhamnousianleases in this period. The name of the lessee and the rent he is to pay do not occur in the preserved parts of the text. Probablythey were added at the "'For the multiple listing of leases, see, e.g., the propertiesof Athena Polias, footnote 9 above. For Delian Apollo, e.g. IG 112, 1638. For Thespiai, e.g., M. Feyel, "Etudes d'epigraphiebeotienne," BCH 60, 1936, pp. 175-183. 15Fragmentsof two leases from the deme of Prasiaiare known, both from the second half of the 4th centuryand with a stoichedonof 25, but not otherwise close to each other, IG 112,2497, and Hesperia31, 1962, pp. 54-56 (SEG XXI, 644). IG XII 5, 568 and 1100, from Poiessa on Keos (SIG , 964 A and B), which diverge only slightly, are brief general regulationsplacedon the propertyleased, giving the rent but not the lessees' names, with a referencein the second to a stele in the city's Pythion.

THELEASINGOF LANDIN RHAMNOUS

71

end, just as the names of the particularpersons chosen for a task specified in the body of a resolution are sometimes appended (e.g. IG II2, 2492, lines 46-47). Thus our texts bear considerableresemblanceto examples of general instructionsfor the leasing of all propertiesbelonging to an organization."6The repetition of the same, precise instructions implies that much the same elements were to be found on both properties,with perhapsonly minor adjustmentfor the presence of a kepos, and indeed on most of the deme's properties,which is to be expected, and that at the same time there was a very clear idea of what was required to maintain the propertiesin the best condition. The authorswould seem to have been, not surprisingly,experienced farmersand very likely landlordsin their own right. A number of financialelements frequentlyspecified in Attic leases are not found in the preservedtext. There is no mention of a surety for the lessee (an Eyyvq)T ), nor of propertyto be valued as securityfor paymentof rent (a'or4VO rpa),nor of provisionsfor seizure of propertyfor failure to pay (EvEXvpao-4a), nor a statement as to which partyis to pay any state levy; nor what the rent is to be in case of enemy damage to the property.17 Not all these items are always specifiedand more than one might have come late in the text. The order of subjects is not entirely logical with (3), instructionson the use of the arable, separatedfrom other instructionson the use of the land by (4) and (5), on the period of the lease and the payment. But it is likely even so that more than one element was omitted and surely not because this is an abbreviatedtext. The persons responsibleto the demes in financialmattershad some flexibilityin the precautionsthey might take.18Their relationsto the lessees and to the organizationneed to be examined. We have but one clue to the characterof the lessees at Rhamnous. Hierokles, of 1, line 5, almost certainly belongs to a conspicuous family which, between the later 4th and 3rd centuries, left a number of dedicationsand grave monuments at Rhamnous and one. of whose members was priest of Asklepios at Athens. Hierokles, the lessee, is likely to have been a man of substance.19 '6The bulk of our text can be comparedwith the first subdivision of inscriptionsconcerning leases, "lawsand decrees fixing the generalconditionsof leases," in R. Dareste, B. Haussoullierand Th. Reinach, Recuedldes inscriptions juridiquesgrecquesI, p. 251. They cite the first of the two inscriptionsfrom Keos (footnote 15 above), and IG 112, 2498 from the Peiraieus (pp. 253-254). The latter reads, lines 2-3, KaTac ra8E AuO-60ovo-uHEtpaLtEHapadar
72

MICHAELH. JAMESON

The lessors are demesmen from the meros of Archipposand Stesias.20But what in this instance is a meros?Behrend's suggestion that the propertybeing leased had at one time been divided up, although Hierokles, the most recent tenant of 1, apparently farmed a single property,casts no light, and we now see that the meros was probably concernedwith the leasing of a second propertyas well.21Normally the members of the organization (demotai, phrateresor orgeones) are described as the lessors.22Once the are named and they along with the koinon two officers of the phratry,the phratriarchoi, of the Dyaleis are the lessors (IG I12, 1241, lines 5-8). The Charopsof Phaleron who along with the orgeonesleases the kepos of the herosiatrosis thought to have been the In the deme of Teithras three men, presumablydemesmen, head of the organization.23 in addition to the demarchact to cancel previous leases in preparationfor new arrangements.24Three demesmen of the Aixoneis are chosen to arrangefor the sale and removal of olive trees, with the demarch, tamiai and the lessee (IG II2, 2492, lines 34-47). Thus certain named individuals,not necessarilyofficersof the organization,can be active in the matter of leasing. But a closer parallelto the Rhamnousian meros are o1 ,IEputra (eight names, of whom four are probablyrelated) who are the Kv9-qpkWv lessors of three buildings (IG II2, 2496). More generally, demesmen, probablyof AthT rv vjxOv EIELEXqmonon, honor three ,tpacpXcat because KaXk'a Kat OLXOT/' 112, 1203, lines (IG 2-6). Kotjv@v ~aav KaLt rc~zT^ merosis too proteana word to be very revealing in itself. Schulthess and von Bolla, Kat IotpooXOYXOt, with reference to Pollux, vIII.136, ot &taVEjWEjXEVO vE/JuT)at KaLt/EptTat explain the meritaiof the Kytherioias "Anteilsberechtigte"and "Miteigentilmer"which leave the relationshipto the deme unexplained.25More to the point was Haussoullier's explanation of the meritaias "entrepreneurs","fermiers". He compared them to the men who contractedfor work on the theater of the deme of Peiraieus.26It is noteworthy that all four were honored with crowns as was a certain demesman, Theaios, who had no. 19. Lykeas, priest of Asklepios, IG 112, 1534 B, line 213. [The remarkablefuneraryperibolos of the family of Hierokles has now been identified, excavated, and published by Petrakos, 1paKrtKca, 1977 v NKOXiaovKo iToAEoroT, Athens 1979, pp. 402-407, with a s 1 ro' EtLq (1980), pp. 3-18; cf. ITvr OJl, stemma on p. 406.] 20Archippos,it was noted above, may be, or may be connected with, the Rhamnousianarchon of Athens in 318/7 (PA 2562). A gravestone of an Archippe,daughterof Philostratos,is reportedby Petrakos, HPaKTtKa,1975 [19771,p. 29 and figure 11:a (later 4th century?). 2"Ibid.,p. 83, note 150. 22Cf.Finley, pp. 90 and 277, note 12; Behrend, pp. 105-106; S. Coumanoudisand D. Gofas, REG 91, 1978, p. 299. Juristicinterpretationsdiffer. 23Nouveauchoix, no. 27, and footnote 5 above. I, no. 41, lines 25-27; Wilhelm, ArchP 11, 1939, 24SEGXXIV, 151, lines 26-28 (Pleket, Epigraphica pp. 199-200). 25Schulthess,RE XV, 1932, cols. 2104-2105; von Bolla, RE XVIII, 2, 1949, col. 2456. des EcolesFranfaisesdAthe'neset de Rome, 26B.Haussoullier,La vie municipalen Attique(Bibliothe'que p. 1, no. 1, and 32, 1963, p. 12, no. 10 29, 1960, 38), Paris 1884, pp. 72-74. IG 112,1176, with Hesperia 86). p. 1974, 95, AJP (Stroud,

THELEASINGOF LANDIN RHAMNOUS

73

distinguishedhimself in the interest of the theater. There was more than strict business involved. The merarchaiof Athmonon were honored for their generosity in handlingthe sacrificesand the business of the deme.27We have to do, I believe, with liturgistswho took upon themselves tasks which, in the majorityof demes, the demarch would have had difficultyin managing alone.28Individualbenefactors of organizationsare familiar. But for more routine business demesmen able to serve would have been divided into groups and shared the costs and, in the case of leases, perhapsalso the risks. They may themselves have guaranteedto their fellow demesmen the revenues from the properties. The Kytherianmeritaiengage to pay 1000 drachmasto the lessee and his descendantsfor failure to maintainthe lease (IG II2, 2496, lines 22-24). Another type of liturgy is seen in the deme of Erchia where an extensive list of small sacrifices is divided into five groups, correspondingone supposes to the responsibilitiesof five liturgistsor groups of liturgists.29Just as meros was used of naval symmories in the 4th century, so too it would have been appropriatefor groups that undertook the payment of the Erchian sacrifices,under the chargeof the demarch,or the leasing of Rhamnousianland.30 Andreyev has remarkedthat "many factors seem to point to the fact that renting of public lands took place inside the groups which owned them and that tenants were members of these groups . . . ," and he denies the primarilycommercial intent of such leasing which "is more in keeping with patriarchaltraditions, the privileges of citizens and mutual collective aid.""3Leases of temenedo not usually require improvement of the property, only maintenance in as good condition as when it was entered.32The lessors' concern was to secure a dependableincome for the regularperformanceof cult with the attendant entertainmentof the organizations'members, to avoid the absence of a tenant and the consequent neglect of the propertyfor more than a short period, and, insofar as it was consistent with these aims, to assist members of the organization.33The honoring of lessees points to their contributionsto the benefit of the organization while the grantingof leases over many years or in perpetuityand the option of purchaseof the leased propertysuggest benefits availableto the lessees.34On both sides 27AdolfWilhelm suggested that the merarchaitook their name from the mere which came to the demesmen from the revenues of the deme's propertyand he comparedIG 112, 1266, lines 8-9; "Attische Urkunden,V," SBWien220, 5, 1942, p. 188. 28Cf.Demosthenes, 57.63, the demarch'sexertions in collecting the rents of temene;also Coumanoudis and Gofas, REG 91, 1978, p. 300. 29GeorgesDaux, BCH 87, 1963, p. 617; SterlingDow, BCH 89, 1965, pp. 194-195. 30Cf.Kleidemos, FGrHist323 F 8; Demosthenes, 14.17 (mere as subdivisionsof symmories). "31V.N. Andreyev, "Some Aspects of AgrarianConditions in Attica in the Fifth to Third Centuries B.C.," Eirene12, 1974, pp. 5-46, especiallypp. 43-44. 32Cf.M. I. Finley, Poit.Sc.Quart.68, 1953, p. 262. IG F2,.94, with its requirementthat the lessee plant 200 olive trees, is a decree of the city and a notable exception. 330n the securingof income for cult, cf. IG 112, 1172, lines 22-33 and Harpokration,s. v. airno.urO-OW,u1rWv.Avoidanceof neglect can be inferredfrom the instructionson maintenance. 34Cf.SEG XXIV, 1969, no. 151 ( = Pleket, Epigraphica I, no. 41), Teithras;IG 112, 1241, lines 42-47 (option to purchase),Dyaleis.

74

MICHAELH. JAMESON

the religious and social aspects may have been at least as importantas the strictlyfinancial.35 MICHAELH. JAMESON STANFORD UNIVERSITY

Departmentof Classics Stanford,CA 94305 "I am gratefulto Alison BurfordCooper for letting me read a valuable study of hers on what might be called the non-commercialrole of the lessees of public land. No doubt renting by modest, landless tenants was widespread(cf. Finley, p. 95; on the metic georgoi,cf. CJ 73, 1977, pp. 134-135) but it does not show up in our largest body of evidence, the leases of land from public organizations(cf. Andreyev, op. cit. [footnote 31 above], p. 43 on the virtualexclusion of metics from such leases). For more general, recent studies of Attic land use, in addition to Andreyev, see Gert Audring, Kilo 56, 1974, pp. 445-456, and his "Zur wirtschaftlichenund sozialen Lage des attischen Bauern in ausgehenden 5. und 4. Jahrhunin Kleinasien,SonderundramischenWirtschaftspolftik dert v. u. Z.," in Studienzur athenischenSozialstruktur 1977, pp. 1-85. bandof the Jahrbuch far Wirtschaftsgeschichte,

Addendum,July, 1981

Mr. Petrakoshas been able to add two more fragmentsto 2. Archipposis con4 KaI] rdy KAZOv. The firmedin (2), and the temenosis ro r] js 0E[...... ! suggestionsin footnote8 aboveremainpossible,and we shouldadd thatwe may have to do with propertyof the samegoddessat a differentplace.The proposedreferenceto propertyof the heroAristomachos(in the text above,p. 69) mustbe abandoned.

WRITINGAND SPELLINGON OSTRAKA T7

HE OSTRAKAfound in the AmericanExcavationsof the AthenianAgorahave

long been the special province of Eugene Vanderpool,and so it seems appropriate to dedicate this minor study of their graphicnorms and peculiaritiesto him in honor of his pioneeringwork in the field. With the ostraka found in the Agora we are dealing with material that can be roughly dated to three parts of the 5th century B.C.: early, middle and late. That is, although the vast majorityof the ostrakafound there come from dumps deposited after the ostrakaphoriaiof the 480's,l there are in addition small clusters and individual sherds that can be dated either to the mid-century2or to the last quarter.3The large numbers of ostrakafrom the early period provide a statisticallyuseful mass by which to establish graphicnorms and deviations which may then be followed up in the comparatively few examples of mid-century and last-quarterostraka. The particularareas of study are letter shapes and orthography. 1Ostrakawhich can not be assigned to one of the three periods on ground of context or literaryevidence will not be used in the statisticalstudies lest dating by letter shapes or other writingcriteriacreate circularityof argument.Ostrakanaming the following men, in the noted numbers, belong to the 480's on the ground indicatedby the followingkey: L - literaryevidence; aA - associationin Agora group(s) with those dated in the literature;aK - associationin Kerameikosgroup(s) with those dated in the literature; C - archaeologicallydated context. 3 AcharnionXypetaion aA C 2 KalliasKratiou aK 1 Archenos Philoxenou C 273 KallixenosAristonymou aA 1 AristaichmosTimokratous aK 2 KleiboulosNikodemo aA 68 AristeidesLysimachou L 2 KritiasLeaidou C 7 BoutalionMarathonios aA 17 KydroklesTimokratous aA 1 ChariasPh ... dou aA 1 Laispodiasek Koiles aA 3 Dionysios . .. onou aA 12 MegaklesHippokratous L aA aK 3 EratyllosKattariou aA aK 3 MelanthiosPhalanthou aA 1 Eretrieus aA 1 OnomastosKonthyleus aA 11 HabronMarathonios 1 Phileas Derketou L aA aA 4 HabronichosLamptreus 1 TeisandrosIsagorou L aA aK C 4 HegestratosHasimionides aA 382 ThemistoklesNeokleous PhrearriosL aA 1 HieroklesHerma... 1 Thrasykles aA C 11 HipparchosCharmou L aA 16 XanthipposAriphronos L aA 161 HippokratesAlkmeonidou aA aK 994 HippokratesAnaxileo 2Mid-centuryostraka;see footnote 1 for key. 8 AlkibiadesKleiniou (Elder) L aA 4 Menon Gargettios L 4 DieitrephesEuthoinou aA 2 PeriklesXanthippou L 3 KalliasDidymiou 1 SokratesAnagyrasios L L 6 Kimon Miltiadou L 2 ThoukydidesMelesiou L 3Last-quarterostraka;see footnote 1 for key. 5 AlkibidesKleiniou (Younger) L 8 KleophonKleippidou L 2 HippoklesMenippou L 4 PhaiaxErasistratou L 3 HyperbolosAntiphanous 1 Philinos Kleippidou L L

MABEL L. LANG

76

In Dedicationsfrom the AthenianAkropolis4Raubitschekconsidered most useful for the period 515-480 B.C. the forms of the letters alpha, epsilon, theta, mu, nu and chi "because the shapes of these letters change in this period more rapidly than in any other time, and more clearly than those of any other letters" (p. 448). But such letterform changes as can be traced in precisely cut, stone inscriptionsare not for the most partdistinguishablein the casual, largelyunskilledwritingthat appearson ostraka.Here letter-formchanges must be more dramaticthan an increase in the verticalityof some strokes and in the more horizontal orientation of others. Such subtleties can not be detected with any assurancein writingwhich more often follows the broken edge of the sherd than any abstractstraightline and where letters are hastily scratchedrather than carefully chiseled. The letter-form changes which can be detected on the ostraka are generallyof three sorts: (1) changes from Attic to the Ionic forms which were eventually adopted officiallyin 403 B.C. (A to F and V,to A); (2) minor shifts in generallybasic shapes which form a transitionfrom early to later forms (? to 0, $ to ,, V to Y, and + to X); (3) minor changes that seem to be idiosyncraticand have no lasting effect (dotted delta, various forms of theta, tailed rho and reversed sigma). Thus the first two kinds of changes have some chronologicalsignificancebut the third signalizes no progressive change from an earlier form to a later form, although like any fashion it may be fairlylimited to a particularperiodof time. As far as the introductionof Ionic letter shapes is concerned, gamma and lambda behave in ostrakavery much in accord with expectations based on other informal epigraphicaltexts. In both graffitiand dipintithe Ionic forms appearsporadicallyin the first half of the 5th century and after mid-century become the norm with only sporadic appearancesof the old Attic forms.5In formal stone inscriptionsthe change comes more slowly, especiallyin official documents which mostly keep the old Attic forms until the officiallyauthorizedchange in 403 B.C.6 Figures for the forms of gamma and lambdaon the ostrakamay be tabulatedas follows: gamma Ostrakapreserving 12 Early 3 Mid-century Last quarter

0

r

A 12 (100%) 1 ( 33%)

0 ( 0%) 2 ( 67%)

-

-

4Worksfrequentlycited will be abbreviatedas follows: from theAthenianAkropolis,Cambridge,Mass. 1949 = A. E. Raubitschek,Dedications DAA GUtersloh1894 Kretschmer = P. Kretschmer,Die griechischeVaseninschriften, 3rd ed., Berlin 1900 der attischen Inschriften, Grammatik = Meisterhans, K. Meisterhans I, Phonology,Berlinand New York 1980 = TheGrammarof AtticInscriptions, Threatte 5Kretschmer,pp. 94-103; M. L. Lang, TheAthenianAgora, XXI, Graffitiand Dipinti,Prihceton 1976, pp. 3-5, 23-25. 6G. Klaffenbach,GriechischeEpigraphik,Gdttingen 1957, pp. 40-43; A. G. Woodhead, The Studyof GreekInscriptions,Cambridge1959, pp. 18-20. Private dedicationson stone show the change well in advance of publicdocuments;see Raubitschek,p. 447 and passim.For complete lists see Threatte,pp. 26-45.

WRITINGAND SPELLINGON OSTRAKA

77

The greaterfrequencyof lambdaprovidesa more satisfactorystatisticalpicture: Ostrakapreservinglambda Early 581 15 Mid-century Last quarter 18

V 581 (100%) 7 ( 47%) 0 ( 0%)

A 0 ( 0%) 8 ( 53%) 18 (100%)

Sigma is the most generallyrecognizedexample of the second categoryof changing letter forms, those where minor shifts on generally basic shapes make a transitionfrom regular early forms to those that become standardlater. The "big four" names of the early groupgive the 480's picture: Name Aristeides Hippokrates Kallixenos Themistokles

Ostrakawithat leastone sigma 60 80 229 299

Ostrakawith 3-baronly7 58 80 226 291

668

655 (98%)

Ostrakawith 4-baronly 0 0 2 6 8

Ostraka withboth 2 0 1 2 (2%)

5

Of the mid-centurygroup only six ostrakapreservesigmas; three of these show four-bar forms; three show three-bar.In the late group sigmas appearon only 11 ostraka;all are four-bar.The percentagesfor four-barsigmas thus shift neatly from 2% through 50%to 100%.8

Two other letters which appearat the beginning of the century predominantlyin one form and end it in another are chi and upsilon. Unfortunately, the chi appearsin comparativelyfew names after the early group, and the two forms of upsilon can not alwaysbe distinguishedin really careless writing.Even so, the changes should be noted. The early uprightcross for chi gives way graduallyto the X-shape:9 Ostrakapreservingchi Early 208 1 Mid-century 1 Last quarter

+ 164 ( 79%) 1 (100%) 0 ( 0%)

X 44 ( 21%) 0 ( 0%) 1 (100%)

The early form of upsilon is mostly the V-shape, with the tailed form (or Y-shape) taking over during the century: Ostrakapreservingupsilon Early 190 Mid-century 8 Last quarter 6

V 186 ( 98%) 4 ( 50%) 0 ( 0%)

Y 4 ( 2%) 4 ( 50%) 6 (100%)

7Reversedthree-barsigmas are includedhere since the reversalseems to be not a matterof shape but of sound value. See below, pp. 80-83. 8Cf. the mid-centuryshift tabulatedby R. Meiggs in "The Dating of Fifth-CenturyAttic Inscriptions," JHS 86, 1966, pp. 92-94. Four-barsigmas in our early period may, like the reversed three-barsigmas, be not so much a variantshape as an effort to specifya differentsound; see below p. 80-83. 9Meiggs, op. cit., p. 91, would be surprisedto "find the early chi after 480," but he is dealing with texts on stone, and our single mid-centurychi does not constitutea trend.

MABELL. LANG

78

The last letter to be considered of those that shift during the century from an early form to the later standardform is theta, going from the generally predominantearly crossbarform to the later dotted one. But early 5th-centurythetas, at least on ostraka, do not show the same uniformityas do the other letters of this category, and there are on the early ostrakaat least eight different forms: the crossbartheta may have an upright cross or an X-cross; both crosses may occur in squares as well as circles; either square or circle may be dotted; and a circle may have only a vertical bar or only a horizontal bar. The various other forms will come up when we consider idiosyncratic shapes of no lasting importance, but here our concern is the comparativestrength of the predominantearly form (uprightcross in circle) and its eventual successor (dotted circle): 0 Others Ostrakapreservingtheta 421 Early10 Mid-century"1 6 1 Last quarter

262 ( 62%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%)

76 ( 18%) 4 ( 67%) 1 (100%)

20% 33% 0%

As in the case of other letters the comparativeabsence of ostraka-basedevidence for the latter part of the century is compensated for by the abundance of material both from other graffitiand from formal stone inscriptions. Generally speakingthen, it seems clear that the ostrakafound in the Agora clearly document the impressiongathered over the years from a variety of epigraphicsources concerning the 5th-century development of letter shapes in Athens. Somewhat less familiarand hence perhaps more interesting are the idiosyncraticshapes which flourished for a time and then died out. The following table illustratesthe variety of thetas which appearon Themistokles (i.e. 0qE~A-6roKXE'-r)ostrakafrom the Agora:12 Firsttheta 134 ( 65.7%) $ circle with uprightcross 35 (17.1%) 0) dotted circle 12 ( 6.0%) E squarewith uprightcross 9 ( 4.4%) ? circle with X-cross 14 ( 6.8%) XE e 0 others

Secondtheta 115 ( 58%) 35 (18%) 6 ( 3%) 24 (12%)

204 (100%)

197 (100%)

17 ( 9%)

Most illuminatinghere are the 126 ostraka on which both thetas are preserved:on 96 (75%) the forms are the same, while on 30 (25%) the forms are different.13Given this kind of latitude in a quarterof the Themistokles ostraka, we should be able to accept I?Thefirst and second thetas in Themistokles' name are counted separatelybecause they often have differentforms. "The two "others"are one circle with horizontalcrossbaronly (P 27691) and one squarewith upright cross (P 16755). '21t must be rememberedthat many of the ostrakaare fragmentsand that many will therefore preserve one partof a name and not another;hence the numbersof first and second thetas are differentand neither is equal to the total of Themistoklesostraka. '3Cf. DAA, nos. 6, 233, and 296, each of which combines a dotted theta with an upright crossbar theta.

79

ON OSTRAKA WRITINGAND SPELLING

the reading of a Dieitrephes ostrakon as ALELOpE'4Eq Ev6odvo even though the first theta is crossbarand the second is dotted.14 Deltas with a dot substituted for the ground line occur only rarely, as also in the painted inscriptionsof Douris and his contemporaries.15Of the 118 early ostraka with deltas only four show the dotted form (3.4%);of 14 mid-centuryexamples only one has a dotted delta (7%);and no one of the seven late pieces with delta has such a form. Rho shapes may be rounded or angular, and the loop may meet the upright anywhere from half-mastto the base, but distinguishingamong forms such as these, which may result from accidents of incision, is both difficult and meaningless. What is both detectable and idiosyncraticis the addition of a tail. For the early period use of tailed and untailed rho is as follows:

Aristeides Habron Hipparchos Hippokrates(both) Kallixenos Kydrokles Themistokles Xanthippos All others with fewer than 10 rhos each

Ostrakawithrho

Withouttail

42 10 10 76 147 14 plus 1 99 plus 4 11 plus 1

36 ( 86%) 6 (14%) 8 ( 80%) 2 (20%) 10 (100%) 0 ( 0%) 65 ( 85%) 11 (15%) 141 ( 96%) 6 ( 4%) 12 ( 85%) 2 (14%) 91 ( 92%) 8 ( 8%) 11 (100%) 0 ( 0%)

30 439 plus 6

Tailed

Withand without (not includedin %)

1 4 1

27 ( 90%) 3 (10%) 401

38

6

Of the overall total (445) 8.5% use only tailed rho, and little more than 1%use both. These figures suggest not only that the tailed rho was an affectationpractisedby the few but also that some at least who used it regardedthe tail as a meaningless trimming.16 The numbers may be too small to be significant,but the differencein percentageof use on ostrakacast against Hipparchos,Kallixenos and Xanthipposmight suggest that their ill-wisherswere of a lower class not likely to indulge in graphicaffectations.Could one then explain the upper-classantagonismtowardthose with high percentages? The later-periodostraka, both mid-centuryand last quarter,preserve only 12 rhos, of which one (P 373) is tailed.17This ostrakon was cast against Phaiax, a competitorof Alkibiadesthe Younger, and might therefore have been the work of some gilded youth 14Forthis ostrakon (P 27678) see E. Vanderpool,"New Ostrakafrom the Athenian Agora," Hesperia 37, 1968, p. 118, no. 3, pl. 34. For the aspirationof the dental precedinganother aspiratedconsonant, compareThreatte, pp. 455-460 where examples include E E Oap9E'VE. 5Kretschmer,p. 96, no. 74. "6Thefact that there is no consistency in the use of failed and untailed rhos when both are used on one ostrakon shows that there was no effort here, as with the various forms of sigma, to differentiate sounds. 17Cf.Meiggs, op. cit. (footnote 8 above), p. 93 for an equallyisolated (and idiosyncratic)tailed rho in the 438 B.C. Parthenosaccount.

80

MABELL. LANG

who affected tailed rhos as well as Athens' darling.Certainlythe same ostrakon'suse of Tf for xi suggests an odd combinationof novelty and conservatism.

As was apparentfrom the table above (p. 77) the vast majorityof sigmas in the periodof our early ostrakaare those with three bars which face forward(5I). But a small number of sibilants are represented by other forms, that is, the reversed three-bar sigma, the four-barsigma, and the doubled sigma of either three or four bars. These comparativelyrare forms occur, with one exception only, in three specific situations on the Agora ostraka: (1) to mark the end of a word or of a word group18(only the four-barand the reversed three-bar); (2) to combine with chi to produce the sound later represented by xi; and (3) to precede a dental (theta or tau). The use of these special forms for these specific purposesand in only one other instance19is presumably an idiosyncraticeffort to represent a distinction in sound. The following tables, using the two most numerous sets of ostraka, illustrate the extent and nature of this idiosyncracy: Finalsigma(of name,and of patronymic or demoticwhereapplicable) 5 2 % 295 (92.2%) 17 (5.3%) 8 (2.5%) Themistokles 113 (90.4%) Kallixenos 11 (8.8%) 1 (0.8%) name20 Sigmaplusdentalin Themistokles' theta/tau 158/11 theta/ tau %$theta/5tau2" 7/ 2 2/ 2 :theta/Stau *Etheta/*Etau

1/ 0

Ztheta/?tau theta alone others not involving specialsigma22

6/ 2 5

theta/tau 93.5%/ 6.5% 78%/22.0% 50%/50.0% 100%/ 0.0%

75%/25.0%

total 169 9 4

Total 320 (100%) 125 (100%)

percent 84.5% 4.5% 2.0%

1

.5%

8 5

4.0% 2.5%

4

2.0%

200

100.0%

11.0%

4.5% 4 183/17

It is clear that about 9%of those voting againstThemistokles and Kallixenos felt a need to distinguishthe final sibilant from others, while 11%of those voting against Themistokles felt this need concerningthe sibilant before a dental. And another 4.5%attempted to represent the consonant cluster either by omitting the sigma or by making other combinations.The question then arises whether it is the same individualswho made '8Forphrase-finalreversed sigma see below, pp. 82-83. '9The exception is on an ostrakon naming Aristeides Lysimachou (P 12245) where the intervocalic sigma in the patronymicappearsimmediatelybelow the four-barsigma in Aristeidesand so may have been influencedthereby. 20Thetable has been complicatedby the inclusion of separatefigures for tau and theta in order to show the strong preference-for the aspiratedsound on the part of most writers. (The dental is not preserved after two of the reversedsigmas;these are assignedarbitrarilyto theta.) 21Parallelsfor the doublingof sigma are listed by Threatte,pp. 527-530. 22Sigmaalone: 1; $?)T: 1; $?e: 1; SK: 1.

WRITINGAND SPELLING ON OSTRAKA

81

distinctionsboth finally and in the cluster or whether a largergroup is involved. Of the 22 ostrakawhich show a special form of sigma with either theta or tau only 15 have one or more final sigmas preserved;of these 15 only six follow through with a special form of final sigma.23This means that almost two thirds of those writers who distinguished between regularsigma and the sibilantwith dental did not feel the need to differentiate the final sigma. But on the other hand nine ostraka which have regular sigmas with theta or tau use a special form for one or both of their final sigmas, and four which do not preserve the sibilant-dentalcombination also use a special final sigma. All in all, despite the fragmentarystate of many ostraka, the use of a special form of sigma either with a dental or in final position can be found on 39 ostrakaor 13%of the 299 occurrences of Themistokles' name showing any sigma. The extent to which this picture of sigmatic idiosyncrasymight be general and not limited to Athenians who disapprovedof Themistokles can fortunatelybe tested by an examination of the ostraka cast against Kallixenos. Thus the fact that Kallixenos and Themistokles were at opposite poles politicallymakes it possible for us to get what may also be a cross section of the populationfrom an orthographicpoint of view. Sigmaplusdentalin ostrakaof KallixenosAristonymou 137 (88.4%) S5-T 6 ( 3.9%) T 5:5 2 1.3%) AT AT 5 ( 3.2%) Z (alone) 1 ( 0.6%) 4 ( 2.6%) dental alone

9%

155 (100.0%)

This 9%use of special sigmas comparesreasonablywell with the Themistoclean 11% for special sigma dentals. Xi-soundin Kallixenos chi $ chi Z

117 ( 78.5%) 11 (7.4%)

One example has doubled chi. >9.4%

other specialsigmas

3 ( 2.0%)>

5 chi24

7 (4.7%)

5 (alone)2

5 ( 3.4%) 2 ( 1.3%) 4 ( 2.7%)

chi (alone) others

One chi A; one ? alone; one

.

One example has doubled sigma. One T; two theta; one kappa.

149 (100.0%)

Here the 9.4% showing special forms of sigma splits the difference between the two sigma-dentaluses: 11%for Themistokles and 9% for Kallixenos. And it is very close to the special final-sigma use on Kallixenos ostraka (9.6%). The total number of Kalli2"Infive cases it is the same form of sigma; once a reversed sigma follows a four-barsigma. 24Cf.Kretschmer,pp. 179-180, nos. 157-158; Meisterhans,pp. 92-93; Threatte, p. 21. 25Cf.Threatte, pp. 551-554.

MABELL. LANG

82

xenos ostrakausing special forms of sigma is 27, or 11.8%of the 229 which preserve at least one sibilant. The special uses of both the reversed sigma and the doubled sigma have long been noted,26 but four-bar sigmas appearing in early texts have ordinarily been regarded simply as harbingersof the later form. Now the mass of evidence provided by the Agora ostraka permits us to view the four-barsigma in a new light, as a variationon the regular sigma to represent sounds perceived by at least a small part of the writing populationto be different.Of course, neither the reversed three-barsigma nor the one with four bars was invented for this purpose, since both were used rather indiscriminately earlier.27But apparentlyby the end of the 6th century the three-barsigma had become the all-purposestandardsibilant except for a few people who used one of the displaced sigmas (or doubled the regular) for what they perceived to be different sounds. As one might expect in a matter of democratic phonology, there is little consistency in usage. And not only do individualsdiffer in their practicefrom one another, but a single writer may be inconsistent with himself. Thus on the 39 Themistokles ostrakawhich employ one or more special sigmas there is almost every possible combination in the three positions:ThemistoklesNeokleous (or Phrearrios).Samplesfollow: Withdental P 5355 P3648 P 3655 P 5960 P 20156 P 18043 P 17664

Firstfinal

Secondfinal

$

Just as no consistent rule can be formulated for these cases, so the similar usage of reversed sigma on several near-contemporaryprivate dedications seems to escape definition.28There too reversed sigma appearsboth with chi and before tau as well as finally, but in most of the inscriptionswhere it appears,normal sigma also occurs finally. In some cases it seems reasonableto suggest that it is not word-finalsigma that is reversed but phrase-finalsigma, as in DAA, no. 6: FIATPO$HVZ and DAA, no. 178: MNE$IAAE$ KEPAMEV2. But in DAA, no. 326 there is only a list of names, all apparently parallel,and one final sigma is reversedwhile two are regular. 26Cf.Kretschmer,p. 174, no. 152; p. 181, no. 159; Meisterhans,pp. 89-90; Lang, op. cit. (footnote 5 above), pp. 16-17. 27Forexamples of reversed sigma used for all sibilantsin a text of the mid-6th centuryB.C. see L. H. Jeffery, The Local Scriptsof ArchaicGreece,Oxford 1961, pp. 77-78, nos. 21 and 30; for four-barsigmas ca. 600 B.C., ibid., nos. 6 and 11. 281n DAA, no. 7 two hands are involved: one uses the four-barsigma finally;the other uses reversed sigma both with phi (for psi) and intervocalically.Dated in the last quarterof the 6th centuryB.C. this text might reflect the beginningsof transition:one writerahead of his time distinguishinga final sibilantwith a four-barsigma, and a second writerstill using indiscriminatelya reversedsigma.

WRITINGAND SPELLING ON OSTRAKA

83

If the phrase-finalreversed sigma was the rule, at least for those who distinguished among sigmas at all, there would be reason for the third example above (P 3655), and two others like it, where Themistokles' name ends with a normal sigma and only the final sigma of Neokleous is reversed. Another case of possible phrase-finaluse is in an apparentlypsilotic Kallixenosostrakon: KA L. S1KENO$ IO? APITONYMO The use of kappainstead of chi excuses the absence of aspirationat the beginning of what can be read as o'; with iota replacingupsilon, as frequentlyin both Aristonymou and Xypetaion.29 Although there are thus some indicationsof rationalityand consistency in the use of special sigmas, it is clear that for the most part the vagaries of usage can be accounted for only on the grounds of individualpreference. Another matter in which individualpreferenceseems to have playeda large role, at least in the period of our early ostraka, is in the doubling of consonants. The tendency generallyobserved is from single to double letters, and Raubitschek,for example, dates the process very specifically, with doubling being introduced in 515 B.C. and singles stoppingin 485 B.C. (DAA, p. 446).30 Let us look at some figures: Early (Eratyllos,KalliasKratiou and Kallixenos) Mid-century(KalliasDidymiou) Early (Hipparchos,2 Hippokrates, Hippokratous,Xanthippos) Mid-century(Xanthippou) Last quarter(Kleippidou) Early (Phrearrios) Early (Ariphronos)

Ostrakapreserving X(A)

Double

Single

151 3

113 ( 75%) 3 (100%)

38(25%) 0 ( 0%)

Ostrakapreservingg(TG)

Double

Single

101 2 5

77 ( 76%) 2 (100%) 5 (100%)

24 (24%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%)

Ostrakapreserving p (p) 77 7

Double 22 ( 29%) 5 ( 71%)

Single 55 (71%) 2 (29%)

The way in which single lambda and pi die out in the interval between the 480's and mid-centuryis very much in accordwith expectation, but perhapsRaubitschek'sterminus at 485 B.C. is a little premature.The doubling of rhos is more interesting, even though both examples belong to the early period, partlybecause the percentagesfor the two examples are so neatly reversed and partlybecause the accepted spelling later was in each case that which has the lower percentageon the ostraka.Is it that in the early period there was consciousness of Arriphronas derived from Arsiphron3'and so to be given full value with doubled rho? And was that derivation later forgotten? And in the case of Phrearriosdid the change in the opposite direction (from one rho to two) com29Seealso G. Stamires and E. Vanderpool, "Kallixenosthe Alkmeonid," Hesperia19, 1950, p. 385, no. 17. For the sigma-kappasubstitutionsee Threatte, p. 20. 30Forexamples of geminatesgenerally,see Threatte, pp. 511-541. 31Meisterhans, p. 100, note 896. Threatte, p. 522, considersthis to be false gemination.

MABEL L. LANG

84

pensate for lost aspiration?32Or was a vivid memory of the assimilated tau of the phreat-stemfed by the prevailingtendency towardgemination? At any rate, that doubling was in the air during the 480's is apparentfrom the completely gratuitousdoubling on a Kallixenosostrakon (P 15597) where the patronymicis spelled Arristonymou. T(T) Ostrakapreserving 2 2

Early (Kattariou) Mid-century(Gargettios)

Double 1 (50%) 1 (50%)

Single 1 (50%) 1 (50%)

The numbers here are too small to bear witness, since the singles in both the early and middle period may have been as exceptional as the doubled chi on a Kallixenos ostrakon (P 9965). Related to doubling of letters as an orthographicmatter that may shed light on pronunciationis the addition of letters or syllables, although this may as well reflect absent-mindedcarelessnesson the part of the writer.One added syllable that appearsin both the early and late periods suggests stuttering but might not have anything to do with pronunciationat all: P 23006 'Ap9LLTEt'8Eq Avxa-t~o [E]v P 28320 Pata 'Epaitutarpcaro 'AXapv

A differentstutter syllableis also early: P 17693

X KaVXIE

oq

'Apcarovvvvio (v)

Added single letters are mostly lambdas, suggesting that their pronunciationpresented difficulties,especiallyalong with a k-sound:33 P 15728 'AXKXJIEO[ P 17674 KXaXovE oq P 18142 KXaXtX( ) P 23001

'AXKJI.EX0O8OV

More certainly suggestive of careless or slurred pronunciationare those letters which are often omitted.34The vowel most often omitted in the Agora ostraka is iota (16 times). Five of these are in the name Aristedes where the genuine diphthong is in the great majorityof cases (85%) written out in full.35Perhapscomparableas belonging to the patronymicending is the iota omitted from Alkmeondou on one Hippokratesostrakon (P 18185). But it is more likely that the preceding nu, like the preceding lambdas in three Kallxenos omissions of iota (P 12244, P 17771, P 17776), is for some speakerssufficientlysonant to carrythe accent without need for a vowel.36Otherwiseonly short unaccentediotas are omitted: three each in Arstonymou (P 6047, P 9970, P 17770) and Themstokles (P 2232, P 9952, P 13305), and 32Eleven of the 77 Themistoklesostrakapreservingrhos add aspiration(14%).

a professorof Americanhistory who alwaysspoke of the Decralationof Indepenp. 81 and Threatte,pp. 478-479 on the additionof liquids. Meisterhans, dence. See 34See the generaldiscussionof omitted vowels in Threatte, pp. 395-400. 35Meisterhans,p. 36, note 193; Threatte,p. 353. 36See under omitted alphasbelow. Cf. DAA, no. 308: omitted iota in Sophronskou. 3:31am remindedof

WRITINGAND SPELLING ON OSTRAKA

85

one in HabronMarathon< i> os (P 15479). It is to be noted that in all cases but that of Aristeides' diphthongthe omitted vowel is precededby a liquidor nasal. Of the 12 omitted epsilons six are short and unaccented:three in Alkm<e>onidou (P 15605, P 15607, P 17628); two in Th<e>mistokles (P 14681, P 18045); and one in Alopeketh<e>n (P 15486). One is accented (Heg<e>stratos P 31077), and the uniqueness of this example combined with the difficulty of seeing how the omission could have representedpronunciationalmost requires an assumption of oversight. The other five epsilon omissions involve the writingof the ei-diphthongin Kl<e>iniou and Kl<e>iboulos as iota (P 7134, P 10720, P 18537, P 20562, P 17678).37 Omittedomicrons numbereight, all of which are unaccented:two Themist< o> kles (P 9960, P 9961), the second of which also omits the omicron of Phrearris; four Kallixenos Aristonymou, one of which omits the Kallixens omicron (P 17949) and the others that of Aristnymou (P 9967, P 15797, P 23008);38 one omits the omicron of Hippkrates (P 9974). The eighth example is on an ostrakon of Boutalion (P 5004) where the diphthongis properlywritten once but in another attempt (not necessarily the second) the diphthong is represented simply by upsilon. This may be comparedwith two patronymicgenitive endings in upsilon rather than the usual omicron or the very occasional omicron-upsilonor omega (Alkmeonidu P 14483; HippokratusP 4660).3 Alpha is omitted six times. One is short and unaccented:Boutalion ho Marthonios (P 5004). The others are all accented:Eukrtes (P 30136), Hippokrtes (P 6040), Themistokles Phrerrios (P 9950), MelanthiosPhalnthou (P 12216) and Xnthippos (P 10750). It is to be noted that the omission of these accented vowels occurs only when they are accompaniedby rho (precedingor following) or nu (following), that is, by a sonant liquid or nasal which can have syllabicforce.40 Upsilon is omitted twice from the demotic -eus ending: Thoraies (P 23059) and Lamptre< u> s (P 18226). The other two are on the Kallixenos ostrakawhich also omit sigma and omicron from Ari<s>tnmou (P 9967, P 15797). This upsilon is accented, but the sonant nasals on either side might be able to carrythe accent.42 As far as consonants are concerned both the spelling rules of Linear B43and the evidence of near-contemporaryinscriptions44might prepareus for the occasional omis17M.Milne, BMMA, 1946/47, pp. 226-227; Kretschmer,pp. 131-135; Meisterhans,p. 48, note 357; Threatte, pp. 192-193. *38P 9967 and P 15797 also omit the sigma and upsilon of the patronymic. 39Threatte,p. 260. See below. 40Compareomitted alphain DAA, no. 5 acrTpxEv; no. 315 'AP,]ru>VEq. 41Kretschmer, p. 137; Meisterhans,p. 62, note 524. 42It is possible, alternatively,that the comparativeweakness of this upsilon, demonstratedby its frequent replacementby iota, accounts for this omission. (Almost 8% of the upsilons in Aristonymouand Xypetaionare replacedby iota.) 43M. Ventris and J. Chadwick,Documentsin MycenaeanGreek,Cambridge1956, p. 45: "Final -L, -M, -N, -R, -S. At the end of a syllable these sounds are omitted from the spelling:ka-ko equals khal-kos;a-pi equals am-phi; pa-ka-na equals phas-gana; a-to-ro-qo equals an-throquos; a-ku-ro equals ar-guros."

44Kretschmer,pp. 161ff.;Meisterhans,pp. 82, 84; Threatte, pp. 480-481, 485-488, 506.

86

MABELL. LANG

sions of lambda, nu, rho and sigma when they precede other consonants. But on the ostraka lambda is never omitted in this situation, and rho is thus omitted only once (Hypebolos P 29862). Perhapsit is for lack of opportunitysince only eight each of Alkibiadesand Hipparchosand four of Miltiadouare sufficientlypreservedto show such omission. But lambda and rho are both omitted when they follow another consonant: lambda after kappa in Patrokeous (P 17777) and Themistokes (P 2232, P 15461, P 15614, P 17665, P 18621); rho after beta (Habon P 17777), after kappa (Hippokates P 12191, P 18185), after tau (Hegestatos P 15379, P 31078),45 and after phi (Phearrios P 15646). In the case of both lambdaand rho the numbers are small but enough perhapsto suggest that if for some Athenians liquids could be sufficientlysonant to allow the omission of adjacentvowels, the reverse might also apply, so that vowels could cover for adjacentliquidsand so explain their omission. With nu and sigma omissions seem to be on somewhat firmer ground. Nu is omitted as elsewhere before a dental (Phalathou P 12217); the only other omission is intervocalic (Alkmeoidou P 15624).46 Omitted sigmas may reflect a kind of lisping, since 10 of the 13 omissions come before tau or theta: in Ari<s>teides (P 6927), Ari<s>tonymou (P 7252, P 9967, P 15797, P 17639), Themi<s>tokles (P 17895, P 18030, P 18053, P 18054, P 18072).47The numbers of these combine with the variant forms of sigma before tau and theta noted above (pp. 80-81) to make Threatte's suggestion of clerical error (p. 506) unlikely. There are also two other cases where this same sigma has been added below the line after having been omitted (L 3002, P 20391). Two Kallixenos ostraka (P 9967, P 15488) may have omitted the sigma that ordinarilyaccompanieschi, or they may (exceptionally)be using the chi-symbolwith its "red alphabet"value, that is, xi. The final omitted sigma is at the end of Phrearrio<s> (P 15467) and is presumablyan oversight. Other omitted letters are kappa (Neoleous P 15578 and Almeonidou P 15602), tau (after sigma in Arisonymou P 6041, P 17661, Onomasos P 17647, Themisokles P 17941, and in Hippokraes P 3585), and chi (Kallisenos P 15797, P 17688, P 17921, P 17171). No reasonableexplanationcomes to mind for the omission of kappa.For the omission of tau the only near parallelis in the consonant cluster sigma-tau-rho48but here there are only the two consonants, sigma and tau. For the use of sigma alone, without chi, to represent xi we must look to the other variants (see above), especiallyreversed sigma and doubled sigma, both of which seem to be substitutedfor the usual chi-sigma (P 17674, P 18167). For the most partthis statisticalstudy of the 1047 Agora ostrakawhich are dated to the beginning, middle and end of ostracism'shistory confirms general impressionsand 45Cf.Threatte,pp. 480-482. 46Forthe dental stop cf. Threatte,pp. 485-487; the absence of parallelsfor the missing intervocalicnu suggestsgraphiccarelessness. 47Cf. Meisterhans,p. 91, 9Equafro'I6Ekuro' and the omission of the second sigma in E7Ttraar7a pEs (4th centuryB.C.). Also Threatte,pp. 506-510. 48Kretschmer,p. 184, no. 162; Threatte,p. 571.

WRITING AND SPELLING ON OSTRAKA

87

previous epigraphicalfindings. It does in addition present some new evidence for the writing and speaking habits of Athenians along with some speculative interpretation.It has seemed worthwhileto publish this material, however unexciting, so that both percentages and conclusions can be tested in the study of the far greater numbers of Kerameikos ostraka.Other matters could have been added: use of contraction, corrections, aspiration,metathesis, letter substitution, and grammaticalcases. But only one more set of figures will at least bring the argumentfull circle back to the changes that took place during the 487-417 B.C.period. Just as there was a variety and freedom in letter shapes in the early period which gave way to standardizationin the later period, so the early experimentationwith the renderingof genitives in -ou and -ous gave way to uniformity in a surprisinglyshort time. Of the 304 early ostrakawhich preserve the relevant patronymic genitive ending 266 (87.5%) spell -ou or -ous with a simple omicron. The other 12.5%experiment with omega, omicron-upsilonor upsilon.49Of the 28 mid-centuryand last-quarterostraka preserving such endings 100%use simple omicron. It seems that experimentationslowed down by the second quarterof the century, thus allowing (one might flippantlysuggest) the Athenian creative genius to be channeled more fruitfully into works of art and imagination. MABELL. LANG BRYNMAWRCOLLEGE

Departmentof Greek Bryn Mawr,PA 19010 49Threatte,pp. 47-49.

SOMEATTICWALLS (PLATES7-11) "The Attic landscape ... possesses an aris-

tocraticgrace and ease: the frugal, arid land, the gracefulcurves of Hymettos and Pentelikon, the silver-leaved olive trees, the slender ascetic cypresses, the playful glare of rocks in the sun, and above all the buoyant diaphanous,completely spirituallight which dresses and undressesall things." N. Kazantzakis,Reportto Greco

ROMTHETHRIASIANPLAINon the west to the gulf of Euboiaon the east the landwardbordersof Atticawere guardedby impressivefortificationsin antiquity. Much is knownabout them, and the very mentionof their names-Eleusis, Oinoe, Phyle, Rhamnous-bringsto mindmomentousincidentsin the historyof ancientAthashlarenceintesand towers.Farfrom these borders,in central ens, andwell-preserved whichdo not sharethe limelightwith their and southernAttica,are otherfortifications morefamousbrethrenbecausethey are for the most partwithouthistoricalcontextand are coarse,albeitoften substantial,rubbleconstructions.These rubbleforts have been and studiedby J. R. McCrediein a monographwhichis indispensableto topographers historiansalike.1For besidespublishingplansand site descriptionsMcCredieprovideda whichplausiblyexplainsabouthalf (13 of 30) the installations historicalreconstruction in his provisionalcorpusof fortifiedmilitarycamps.2Yet since we are dealingwith simple,roughstructures,it is not alwayseasy to distinguishbetweenmilitaryand nonmilitarycomplexes.So it is withalternativepossibilitiesin mindthatI wishto turnboth and to a few to McCredie'smonograph,withsome possibleadditionsand subtractions,3 other little-knownAttic sites, in orderto make an offeringto the greatman of Attic F

Hesperia,Suppl.XI, FortifiedMilitaryCampsin Attica,Princeton1966 (= FortifiedCamps). 'Reviewers of his monographcriticizedsome of McCredie'sassigments but without presentinggood alternatives.A recent account of the CremonideanWar, Heinz Heinen, Historia,Einzelschrift20, Unterv. Chr., Wiesbaden 1972, pp. 95-213, presents Geschichtedes 3. Jahrhunderts suchungenzur hellenistischen objectionswhich are too minor to weaken seriouslyMcCredie'scase. 3Severaladditionshave alreadybeen made to McCredie'scorpusof Attic camps:Beletsi, borderingthe plain of Aphidnaon the north, possiblybelonging to the system of garrisonforts, Y. Garlan, RA 1967, p. 293; Sagani, between Spataand Loutsa, Addition 2 of M. Petropoulakouand E. Tsimpides-Pentazos,'Apls, 21, 'ATTLKT, OiKl0TlKHK4E 'KGEa, Athens 1973; Ovriokastro,east cToLXEla-7p07 xaL4E \EXXY)LKE' of Keratea,possiblyto be associatedwith the CremonideanWar, E. Vanderpoolin Thorikosand the Laurion in Archaicand ClassicalTimes(AfiscellaneaGraeca,fasc. 1), Ghent 1975, pp. 26-32; Pirgadaki,on the strait I, Universityof California of Salamisnorth of Perama,W. K. Pritchett,Studiesin AncientGreekTopography Publications:ClassicalStudies, I, Berkeley and Los Angeles 1965, p. 101. For a map showing these and other sites discussedin this article, see Figure 1. I

89

SOME ATTICWALLS

Solts'

hamnnous

*Ono.~sTikwt 'k-oTriko

Phyl*

irgadaki

'Z~~~~~~2

a

K

~~~~~~~~~~~~~agani

i i~~~~~~~sari

-. FVraona

E 5ok.sisnio

Anagyroucis~1

St. Dem-ric)

~~~Ovriokds~

0

I

I

~

5 km.

Patroklosn ~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~Island

ap Sounion

FIG.1. Mapof Attica showing placesmentioned in the text

Makron~sos I

90

K.LANGDON MERLE

of devotionfelt and debt owed, for helpingthis in partialacknowledgment topography, writer'sinterestsfinda home in Athena'sland. KAISARIANI McCredierediscovereda wall On KaisarianiBergnearthe monasteryof Kaisariani whichhad not been seen since earlyin the 19th century.4He consideredit partof a field wall. A good fortification,but it is, in my opinion,simplyan ancientagricultural On the southern 7:a). (P1. Michel parallelmay be found in southernAtticaon Mont slope of that hill a wall runsfor over 100 meters,from near the summitto the lower edge of tree cover whereit disappearsin a vinyard(in aboutthe centerof Plate 7:a). The wallis 0.90 m. thickand is preservedwith few exceptionsonly level with the sloping surfaceof the hill (P1.7:b). It is composedof single blocksof greenstonewhich formthe full widthof the wall.The stones are roughlydressedon each end to give the Bergthere are no meansfor dating,nor walltwo faces.As with the wallon Kaisariani area.If the slopes of Mont Michel immediate are there any tracesof buildingsin the weregiven over to agriculturein antiquity,as I believe, this wouldexplainthe absence of ancientremains.The wallcouldhave servedto demarcatethe landof two individuals or to protectcertainareasfrom grazinglivestock.Whateverthe case, it seems very unlikelythatthis remotewallserveda militarypurpose. Likewisethe wall on KaisarianiBerg may be given a more fitting explanation. haveshownthatthe southwesternslopesof MountHymettoswereheaviInvestigations ly cultivatedin antiquitywith the aid of an extensive system of terraces.5Kaisariani northof this, but it too doubtlesslylay withina cultivatedareaand Bergis considerably of the hill is completely supportedterracesof arableland,thoughtodaythe appearance differentaftercenturiesof erosion.In antiquity,with a plentifulsupplyof waterfrom near-byspringsand enoughsoil to allowit, this hill couldhave been in the midstof a district.The wallon its northand east sides couldhave been builtfor largeagricultural anyof severalreasonsrequiredby farmingactivity. McCredienoted the similarityof the wall on KaisarianiBerg to other wallswith demonstrablemilitarypurpose,the Thriasian"Lager"and the Kamaterowall. This field wallswere built similaritycannotbe denied.But if it be acceptedthat agricultural Bergwas situatedin a farmingdistrict,an explanain ancientAtticaand thatKaisariani tion alongthe linesarguedaboveis equallypossible. RIDGE ST. DEMETRIOS

favoredexplainingit as a In his discussionof the structureon this ridgeMcCredie6 lookoutpostor signaltowerbecauseit commandsa widecoastalview andis intervisible with the acropolisof Anagyrous.New ceramicfinds suggesta differentfunction.Just west of the structurethe slope of the ridgefallsawaymoderately,and a scatterof pot"FortifiedCamps,pp. 50-52. 5For the evidence see John Bradford,AntJ 36, 1956, pp. 172-180, and AncientLandscapes.Studiesin FieldArchaeology,London 1957, pp. 29-34 and pis. 7, 8. Camps,p. 117. fi Fortified

SOMEATTICWALLS

91

sherds may be seen for some distance down the slope. The sherds are mostly pieces of good black glaze, and they support McCredie's Classical dating of the structure based on previous ceramic evidence. Two inscribedpieces have turned up in the new wash of sherds. One is a fragment of a Corinthian-typeskyphos7with a graffitobroken away at both sides (Fig. 2:a). The reading &vE'IOEK[E immediately comes to mind. The other piece is a body sherd, glazed inside and out, and probablybelonging to a similar type of vessel (Fig. 2:b). Its inscriptionis in two lines the second of which is broken away at

a

FIG.2. Graffitifrom St. Demetrios Ridge. Actual size

the right but not at the left. The obvious restoration is hLEp[ovIwith the first line 'AVr6~oA namingthe divine recipientof the cup, [ToV3 l oV, [ToV3ial ov, vel sim. The difficultywith this is that the first line does not seem to be broken away at left or right, as sufficient amounts of uninscribedsurface are preserved to either side as to suggest that the first line is complete. Yet N01 is a word fragment and cannot stand alone. I prefer to regardthe letters as the genitive singularending of the deity honored and to explain their seemingly isolated position as the result of irregularletter spacing, or word division with the rest of the name in a missing line above the preserved letters. Whatever the explanationthe second line certainlyindicatesa religious intent for the cup. Based on the evidence of these votive graffitiI suggest that the structure on the ridge of St. Demetrios was a small sanctuaryrather than a militarytower. McCredie is convinced that its walls never rose higher than the present highest preserved part, 1.70 m., and that it was not roofed. This would be suitable for the enclosure wall of a small altar.The spill of sherds down the slope could be partof the votive dump. VRAONA

Approachingthe Mesogeia from Brauronearlierinvestigatorsnormallyfollowed the bed of the Erasinos, which takes a more westerly course than the modern asphaltroad. 7The flaringring foot is chippedaway, and the piece is too batteredto be dated precisely.It appearsto be like B. A. Sparkesand L. Talcott, TheAthenianAgora,XII, Blackand PlainPotteryof the 6th, 5th and 4th CenturiesB.C., Princeton1970, p. 256, no. 305, 6th century.

92

MERLEK. LANGDON

This route led them quite near to the well-preservedmediaeval tower at Vraonaand, at a short distance southwest of this, some ancient remains on a rocky knoll (P1. 9:a). Vegetation now greatly obscures the remains, so we depend on Milchhoefer'snotice for an accuratedescription.8 A wall of large, squaredconglomerateblocks, 100 Milchhoeferianpaces in length, encloses the knoll. A good stretch is preserved for 6.66 m. along the north side of the knoll (P1.9:b), but the rest of the reportedlyfive-sided circuit is visible only here and there. The wall is two courses high on the north, with the lower course mostly buried. The total exposed height is 0.80 m., with blocks varyingbetween 0.75 m. and 0.90 m. in length. Elsewhere the wall is preservedonly one course high. The full thickness of the wall is nowhere observable. The area enclosed is small, and much of the space is occupied by a rectangular structurewhich Milchhoefer paced off at seven by ten paces. Presently visible are two sides of the building made of a single row of conglomerate ashlars. The highest preserved part belongs to the east wall, 1.10 m., where blocks average 0.80 m. in length and 0.45 m. in height (P1.9:c). No internal divisions can be seen. Sherds and tile fragments are few and none gives an indicationof date. Milchhoeferrefrainedfrom assigning a function to these remains. He did describe the rectangularstructure as tower-like, but for the enceinte itself he did not commit himself, simply calling it a doppelteUmmauerung,though the only clear traces visible now are the blocks of the one circuit described here. Other fragmentsof walls of small rubble are preservedin places at the base of the knoll, but they are much later, perhaps modern, and have nothing to do with the ancient walls on top. The suggestion has been made that the remains belong to a grave precinct,9yet the place is a strongpoint.The rock cliffs render access difficult, and the walls, both of the enceinte and the structure inside, are impressivelylarge. It might seem difficultto come up with compellingstrategic reasons for locatinga militaryinstallationhere, for the location has no great military value itself, but for the present I am inclined to regardthe remains as militaryin nature and tentatively to include them in the corpus of Attic fortifiedcamps. KALISIA

This mediaeval monastery is located on the southern slope of Mount Pentelikon, below and to the west of the peaks of Mavrovounia (P1. 7:c). The setting is a small rocky shelf which is surroundedby pine forests. Some 300 meters north of the monastery, beside a good path, is a tower-likestructurethat has gone unnoticed by almost all Text to E. Curtiusand J. A. Kaupert, Kartenvon Attika, III-VI, Berlin 8A. Milchhoefer, Erlduternder 1889, pp. 7-8 (= KartenvonAttika,Text). It is doubtful that J. G. Frazerever visited these remains. His account of them reads liked an expanded translationof Milchhoefer:Pausanias'sDescriptionof GreeceII, London 1898, p. 446.

9D. R. Theochares in ['epaq KEpajuolrov'Xov, Athens 1953, p. 142, note 4. The remains are also AufsdtzeI, Leipzig 1855, p. 225, but this work is not availableto discussedby LudwigRoss, Archdologische me.

SOME ATTICWALLS

93

investigatorsof Attica.10The structureis oriented northwest to southeast and is mostly buried by earth which has washed over it from the slope to the north. Only part of its southeast face (PI. 8:c) and short returns at northeast and southwest are exposed to view. The southeast face is 5.49 m. long and the returns are 1.30 m. on the southwest and 1.42 m. on the northeast. The building material is schist which has weathered and flaked badly. It is therefore difficultto ascertainthe presence or absence of anathyrosis, but I could detect no certain example. Weathering has also damaged the two exposed corners, but at the east corner a vertical draftingseems certain (P1. 8:a). The evidence is fairlyclear on the lower block but less so on the return block above, which is shifted out of its originalposition. Individualblocks are of generous dimensions; for example, the upper block of the northeast return measures 1.42 m. in length, 0.73 m. in height, and 0.55 m. in thickness. This same block exhibits special preparationsfor the reception of its neighbors on the west. On the upper and inner faces smoothed indented areas extend inward from the outer edge for 0.60 m. and 0.40 m. respectively (P1. 8:b). Similar though less well preservedworked patches are found on the upper block of the southwest return. Such special efforts testify to the care taken to give coherence and stability to the construction. There are, however, no cuttings for clamps. The dimensions of the structure cannot be determined without excavation, although surface indicationssuggest that it was a rectangle approachinga square. Several fallen blocks lie around it and show that the building rose higher than the two preserved courses. We have thus to do with a large, four-sided structure carefully put together of large, worked blocks. The conclusion easily follows that it served as a tower, whether militaryor agricultural,yet the possibilityshould not be completely ruled out that it is a grave precinct.Similarmonumental burial plots are known from other areas of Attica, though none is located in such seemingly remote circumstances.Accordingto Milchhoefer, however, the region of Kalisiaboasts enough ancient remains to qualifyas a deme site.1"Thus the present structurecould belong to a cemetery. If a tower instead, an agriculturalrather than a military purpose seems the better explanation. For the structurecontrols no vital passes but rather is itself hemmed in by mountains. Only to the south is the way open, and the impressiongained on the spot is that this openness was exploited agriculturallyrather than militarily.Milchhoefer notes an extensive system of agriculturalterraces around Kalisia, and even though their antiquity has been questioned," it is a plausible inference, based on the situation on Mount Hymettos mentioned earlier, that where water and earth were not in too short supply, agriculture was practicedin antiquity,even on what are today non-arablemountain slopes. If such a '0The single mention of the structurethat I know is unpublished:E. Smith and H. Lowry, "A Survey of Mountain-topSanctuariesin Attica," p. 17, note 28, in AmericanSchool of ClassicalStudiesat Athens, SchoolPapers,1954. 1 KartenvonAttika,Text,pp. 37-38. "2ByA. Philippson, Die griechischenLandschaften,I, Der Nordostender griechischenHalbinsel,Teil III, AttikauindMegaris,Frankfurt1952, p. 800.

MERLE K. LANGDON

94

set of circumstancesobtainedat Kalisiain ancient times, as seems likely to me, then the structurecould be a farm tower like those in southern Attica studied by John Young.13 An excavation inside the structure,made at some past time, has disturbedthe fill without producingany clues about its function or date. Further, scientific, excavation would probablyyield the informationneeded for a definite conclusion on the matter.

l~~~~~~~~~-

r 1:\w'r

l

X

3m. 2 1 ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0

7

Dt

gMc(7( FIG.

3. Plan of Gur-i-KukiTower

(Fig. 3) GuR-I-KuIu On this low eminence (height 76 m.; Pl. 9:d, center) just over one kilometer north of Cape Sounion are located the remains of a large rectangulartower. It is built predominantly of nicely dressed blocks of soft, red sandstone quarriedfrom just below the hilltop to the southeast. Other materials used in the construction include schist and greenstone for the smaller, less carefullyworked stones. The best preservedwall is that toward the cape, oriented 30 degrees east of north. Its outer face is made of large squared blocks (P1. 10:a) which have neither anathyrosis nor clamp cuttings. Two courses are preserved, to a maximum height of 1.13 m. The wall's full length may be reconstructedas about ten meters. The inner face is composed of smaller stones and is 13Hesperia 25, 1956, pp. 122-146.

SOMEATTICWALLS

95

less well preserved.The other three sides are not well preserved, but they are built in the same technique as the wall toward the cape, except for the northwest side where small stones of miscellaneous material are used exclusively. Of the return sides the southwest is the better preserved.It was originallyjust over eight meters long. Fragmentsof two crosswallsexist inside the tower. The southeast-northwestcrosswall (P1. 10:b) is preservedfor almost four meters. It is 0.59 m. thick and built of small stones. Only a short segment of the northeast-southwestcrosswallremains in place (P1. 10:c). It is 0.92 m. thick and composed of thin slabs of sandstone. An exposed patch of bedrockrises up north of this preservedstretch of wall and is dressed to receive further slabs of a northwardcontinuation of the wall (P1. 10:d). No doorway in either of the crosswallsnor any entrance through the outer wall can be located. Black-glazedsherds are plentiful around the tower and testify to activity in the Classical period. They are mostly body sherds of drinking cups. I found no diagnostic bases or rims nor any ancient tiles. I am in complete agreement with John Young's opinion that the structure was a watchtower."I would go further and claim the site as part of the defenses manned by the ephebic garrisonstationed at Sounion. The tower itself is spacious enough to house men, and there are vestiges of other walls on the hilltop which could belong to other buildings for troops. As a lookout point, although it is dwarfed by higher hills to the north, Gur-i-Kuki does provide a satisfactoryvantage to the south. On the southeast there is a clear view of the open water south of Makronesos and on the southwest a similarlyunobstructedview from PatroklosIsland to the cape. Thus no seaborne force could approachAttica from a southerly direction without being detected. The higher hills to the north provide an even wider view, but since other watchposts adequately covered both east and west coasts north of the cape, it was only the view to the south which was of concern here. Also, these higher hills have steep slopes and terminate in pointed peaks. They do not provide sufficient space for the constructionof large buildings. For that Gur-i-Kukiwas more suitable, so this much lower site was chosen without sacrificingany strategicallyimportantview. STAVROKORAKI (Fig. 4) The remains of a circulartower lie at the west end of the summit ridge of Mt. Stavrokoraki(height 310 m.) on the north side of the plain of Marathon.The tower is six meters in diameter and built of long thin slabs of limestone that are roughly shaped and only loosely fitted together without clamps (P1. 11:a). Two courses are preserved, to a height of 0.48 m. The entrance was on the west as indicated by the threshold block which lies mostly outside the tower (P1. 11:b). Its dimensions are 1.55 x 1.00 x 0.49 "Young mentions the tower in Hesperia25, 1956, pp. 131-132, and there promises a full description in his plannedmonographon Sounion that never appeared.Young's fullest discussionof the tower is in his unpublisheddoctoraldissertationwritten for Johns HopkinsUniversity, Sunium:An HistoricalSurveyof an AtticDeme, Baltimore1942, p. 279, T 1.4. I am indebted to J. H. Oliver for the opportunityto acquirea copy of this dissertation.

MERLEK. LANGDON

96

0 FIG.

1

2

3m.

4. Plan of StavrokorakiTower

m. and its upper surface is 0.55 m. above the present ground level. The block has not been dislodged from the tower but is in situ with other blocks beneath it. There are no cuttings on the threshold'suppersurface, so the door must have been simple, perhapsa hide suspended from the lintel. Originallythe interior may have been hollow, but it is now filled with small rubble which also spills over and obscures several blocks of the circumference.There are some displacedslabs lying around the tower, but they do not permit an estimation of its originalheight. I saw only one datablesherd, a fragmentof a black-glazedkantharos,4th or 3rd century B.C. The tower is markedon BlattXIX of the KartenvonAttika,but it is discussedneither Textnor, to my knowledge,by any other commentator by Milchhoeferin the Erlduternder on Marathonexcept H. W. Lolling."5Its function was obviously military, though it is difficultto go much beyond that statement. The view of the plain of Marathonis unimpeded, but the normal land and sea approachesare not seen to advantageas other peaks rise to block them from view. Thus it does not seem likely that the tower was built as a watchpost.It is temptinginsteadto see here a signal tower and to look northeastwards,to Rhamnous.Rhamnous itself is not visible from our tower, but from any height just west of there a communicationlink is made between the coastal fort, the tower on Stavrokoraki, and the plain of Marathon.I know of no remains on a height west of Rhamnous which could be partof another signal tower, something requiredby my supposition,but '5AthMitt1, 1876, p. 82.

SOMEATTICWALLS

97

considering the unsuitabilityof the tower on Stavrokorakias a watchpost some such linkage,almost obviouslywith Rhamnous, seems the best explanation.16 Lolling calls the tower a Wartturmand stresses the visibility from it of the whole plain and long stretches of side valleys. Yet the valleys which are affordedgood visibility from the tower are those leading into the plain from the north, not those which provide the most importantlandwardapproaches,on the south and west. The latter are visible from our tower, but the view is remote and of doubtful utility when the object is to watch for an advancing enemy. Lolling also proposed a signaling function for the tower, but between Marathon and Trikorynthos,not Rhamnous. He supposes that in antiquitythe tower was tall enough to be visible from Trikorynthos.While the possibility of such a link should not be ruled out, in my opinion one between Marathonand Rhamnous would have been considered much more important,and it is for this reason, I believe, that the tower on Mt. Stavrokorakiwas built. LIMIKO (MESOGEIA) About four kilometers northeast of Markopouloin the Limiko region of the Attic Mesogeia stand the remains of a substantial tower on a low knoll (P1. 11:d). Milchhoefer briefly described the structure, which does not appearto have suffered further deterioration since his time.17It is rectangular, 11.05 m. x 8.20 m., and built of a double row of large, carefullyworked blocks of soft poros which are now considerably weathered. A pry-cuttingwas made in the top surface of each block, though some do not preserve it due to their weatheredstate. There are no cuttings for clamps. Only one course remains, with considerable gaps, except in the middle of the southeast side where there are six courses of alternatingheaders and stretchers (P1. 11:e). The height of each course is 0.42 m. There are no indicationson the inner face of the higher segment (P1. 11:c) for beams to supporta second floor, but this is probablyfortuitous, as such a large tower very likely did have more than one floor. Rubble and undergrowth render it impossible, without clearing, to determine the interior arrangementor the position of the entrance. The tower appearsto have been an independent, freestanding structure;no other ancient Greek remains are visible on the knoll. A great quantityof sherds and small stones from decomposed walls litter the knoll, but they belong to Roman and mediaeval times. The purpose of this tower might at first glance seem easy to explain. Its generous dimensions and strength suggest a militarypost, and this is the explanationadopted by Milchhoefer. Ernst Meyer18goes further and explains it as a watchtoweron the IELptaKTJ 666 which may have passed by it. There are no visible traces of an ancient road in the area, and even if there were, it seems unlikely that the tower and road would be 16There is epigraphicalmention of two guardposts (4vkaKTrpta) in the territoryof Rhamnous, but they are not located more precisely:SEG XXIV, 154, line 14. If one of them occupieda height west of the coastalfort, it could have playeda partin the relayingof signals to points furtherinland. 17 Karten vonAttika,Text, pp. 10- 1. 18RE, s. v. Steiria.

98

MERLE K. LANGDON

connected.I knowof no evidencefor roadsfortifiedwith towersin Attica,at least in the interior.19 In my opinionthe immediateenvironmentof the Limikotower, extensivearable district,more readilysuggestsa different land in Attica'smost importantagricultural function,thatof a farmtower.It is enoughto cite againthe studyof JohnYoung(footnote 13 above) in orderto documentthe indispensablerole of towersin the agrarian life of ancientAttica.The Limikotoweris considerablylargerthan the farmtowersof Sounionstudiedby Young,but for this thereare possibleexplanations,perhapsthe best beingthat this towerreflectsthe extent of the landedestate of its owner.The areaof land,so thatfarmsteadstendedto be small.In the Sounionhas only limitedagricultural Mesogeia,on the other hand, landedestates attainedgreat size.20The Limikotower couldbelongto one suchmanor. In arguinga militaryfunctionfor the LimikotowerMilchhoefercited as parallels the towersat Mazi and Varnavain northernAttica.The lattermay be a watchtower, while the formermore closely resemblesthe Limikotower in being very large and situatedin cultivablelandratherthan on a heightwith a commandingview. The Mazi toweris positionedneara line of importantforts, and it may have had some function connectedwith them, but the same cannotbe said for the Limikotower,whichis not locatedneara majorfort.In any case, for both towersit is theirsize alonewhichseems to forcea militaryexplanation.I wouldurge, however,that size not be used as a criteThus to my mind, at least the Limikotower rion to excludeotherpossiblefunctions.21 shouldbe addedto the list of farmtowerswhichin variedshapesand sizes dottedthe -ancientcountryside.22 MERLEK. LANGDON OF WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

Departmentof Classics Seattle, WA 98195 19Theborder area is another matter. Some of the towers in northernAttica may have guardedroads near the frontier.If tower-fortifiedroads had existed elsewhere in Attica, the mining districtof Laurionis one place where they should be found, yet for all the well-preservedremains of ancient roads there, none shows any evidence of having been guarded by towers. Recently, however, H. Lauter, "Ein Lindliches HeiligtumHellenistischerZeit in Trapuria(Attika)," AA (Jdl 2), 1980, p. 243, raised the possibilitythat the a&0TLK-q'6&8i from Laurionto Athens was guardedby at least one fortifiedpost, near Lagonisi. 201fthe assignmentof the deme Kytherosto the inland trittysof Pandionisis correct, the largestAttic estate, that of Phainippos,was in the Mesogeia:cf. G. E. M. de Ste. Croix in AncientSocietyand Institutions, StudiesPresentedto VictorEhrenbergon his 75th Birthday,Oxford 1966, pp. 109-114. De Ste. Croix also mentions the second largestknown Attic estate, of Alcibiades,also in the Mesogeia. 21A note by J. H. Kent is the only publishedcitation I know that expresses the possibilityof an agriculturalfunction for the northernAttic towers: Hesperia10, 1941, p. 345, note 1. Certainlythe matter is worthyof furtherresearchand should be left open for the present. 22Thereis nothing approachinga complete list of towers in Attica, farm towers or otherwise. John Young, op. cit. (footnote 13 above), p. 144, numbers five in addition to those which he publishes, and PaulaSpitaelsadds a few more in Thorikos1970/1971,VII, Ghent 1978, p. 107, note 48. This takes care of most of the publishedexamples, but there are numerousunpublishedtowers still to be reported.

PLATE 7

4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t4

3'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Z _

_ri

mA,

gO 0

PLATE 8

16

~

41

Or~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

I-~~~~~~~~~~~~~V

U,

-

z~~~~~~~~~

Cd~~~~~~ 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Cd~~~~~~

PLATE 9

IC

0 >

Dz...... 0 7

w#4A

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 5

PLATE 10

y*.

l.

GoA.

z

PLATE 11

t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

~~~~~~

rii

_

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

V-1~~~

cis

A .

ip

~

~

~

/ ~

~

i

X

,=

fin

~

.

DODWELLOPOLIS ADDENDUMTO FORTIFIEDMILITARY CAMPSIN A TTICA (PLATE 12) T

O A TEACHERwho has constantlyput his observationsat the disposalof his

students to an extent impossible to credit in the ritual footnote, publicationof one of his own discoveriesmay providea fitting tribute. In FortifiedMilitaryCampsin Atticawas reportedthe writer's rediscoveryin 1962 of a fortificationwall on the "KaisarianiBerg" (Karten von Attika, Bl. IV, height 375.1), just east of the Kaisarianimonastery, in the foothills of Hymettos.1 Apparentlyfirst noticed by Edward Dodwell in 1805,2 it had been described subsequently only once from autopsy, by Sir WilliamGell, whose account had led to its modern rediscovery.3 Although these brief treatments left no doubt as to the identity of the fortification with that still visible on the "KaisarianiBerg", the extent of the fortificationpreserved in the early 19th century remainedin doubt, since only one run of wall is now clear. Both the priorityof Dodwell's discovery and details of the wall's course are settled by the testimony of Gell's notebook, now in the British School at Athens, in a passage noted by Eugene Vanderpool in 1966; the passage includes not only the customary itinerarybut, more telling, a sketch of the remains (P1. 12).4 The passagereads as follows: ATHENS TO DODWELLOPOLIS To the town of the Pelargior a town discovered by Dodwell near Syriani, of the Pelargi. 13 1/2 to 6 leave gate-4 to 6 in stadium, having crossed the Ilissus full of water rapid-Monks house-after stadium a + R. 9 p 6 running streamlet with pavement & side stones crossed. 10 p 6 a rock cut R. & a tumulus L. a + ruined R. 35 p 6 cross a deep rivulet. 39 p 6 Monastery. 9 to 7 end [correctedfrom "beginning"]of a city gate of which probably below [illegible] monastery, a gate at 7 to 7 [sketch] descend, pass a hollow & ascend by a ruined wall very old hardly visible. Homeric cityAt top 13 p 7 [correctedfrom "13 to 7"]. Hence [a considerable list of I

Hesperia,Suppl.XI, Princeton1966, pp. 50-52. 2E. Dodwell, A Classicaland Topographical TourthroughGreece,London 1819, I, pp. 484-485. '3W. Gell, TheItinerary of Greece,London 1819, pp. 93-94. 4The notebook was acquiredby Dr. Thomas Ashby in 1923 from a bookseller in Naples and subsequently by the BritishSchool. It is notebook (1) in the accountgiven by A. M. Woodwardand R. P. Austin, BSA 27, 1925/1926, pp. 67-70. I am gratefulto A. H. S. Megaw, then Director of the BritishSchool, for obtainingfor me permissionto publishthe present extractand sketch, grantedby his London Committee in its meeting of June 1966.

JAMES R. McCREDIE

100

compass bearings]. 35 p 7 set out. 5 to 8 Monastery near. 10 to 9 arrival at Capucinconvent [correctedfrom "Asomatos under Anchesmus"] Athens passingby the gate with the inscriptionof Adrian& aquaduct& entry at Adriansgate [addedbelow] We called the place Halis. The accompanyingsketch (P1. 12), drawn with west at top and labeled with some inverted captions, both shows the three (Dodwell) or four (Gell) hills that the fortification enclosed and gives some details. The discrepancybetween Dodwell's and Gell's account is now intelligible, since the northernmost "hill" is in fact only a low, rocky ridge, apparentlynot counted by Dodwell.5 Although, it must be admitted, a measure of the contribution of Gell's account derives from the antiquariancharm of his choice of nomenclature, it offers less frivolous informationas well. For the literaryrecord, comparisonof the notebook with his publishedaccount illustrateswell Gell's method; the publisheditinerariesare not identical to his actual travels but combine informationfrom more than one excursion with subsequent research. More important,his sketch presents the best remaining evidence for this still puzzling and now badly destroyed fortification.Although repeated visits to the site, some with Eugene Vanderpooland all with the best of good will, revealed a few stones which could have belonged to one of Gell's gates, it is safe to say that nothing substantialis to be added to my earlieraccount of the modern state of the remains, and the encroachment of the university has caused additional destruction within the past two decades. Enough is still untouched, however, to allow the hope that chance finds, perhapsby another Vanderpoolstudent, will establish the date of the fortification, and, aided by Gell's evidence, determine its purpose. JAMESR. MCCREDIE INSTITUTEOF FINE ARTS

1 East 78th Street New York, NY 10021 5Labelswhich may be indistincton Plate 12 are, on the ridge at the north, "gate", "monast", and "gate" (from west to east), and, at Kaisariani,"Monast.".

PLATE 12

V

;

6.

-.

'a^

4t

'

w~~~~~~~~~ 'r

~

-

.

-

-

4^,.

._.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~.

^

r.

__~~~

Sktc of "Ddelooi" friiainnaKasraibySrWlamGl(othat top) By pemsso ofteBits'col.tAhn _

,0~4 .MCEI:DDWLOOI.ADNU .-

-_

JAE _-

_

_

-"Woo

TO Fotfe

Mltar CapnAtc

ATHENSAND HESTIAIA (PLATES13-15)

I

QUOTEfrom SEG X, 37: "IG 12 40/1, 42, 43, 48 ad unameandemquestelampertinere

B. D. Meritt et A. E. Raubitschek... . Valdedesideramusnovameditiorecognoverunt nemtotiusdecreti."To these fragmentsEugeneVanderpooladdedE.M. 13179,a happy

circumstancethat has provokedme to offer this essay to the scholarand Philhellene who introducedme to areasandaspectsof HellasandHellenismthatI mightnot otherwise have known.1 -Ishallarguebelowthat the seven fragmentsdo indeedbelongto a single opisthographicstele. The largest,fragment4, residesin the BritishMuseum,an isolationthat increasesthe difficultyof epigraphic study;the othersrest convenientlyin the Epigraphic Museumin Athens.I numberthe fragmentsand attachdescriptionsof theirphysical attributesand the basicbibliography. My assignmentof the terms "obverse"and "reverse"mayat this stageseem arbitrary but willbe justifiedlater. Fragments1-3. E.M. 6809, 6572, 6572a; A. R. Rangabe,AntiquiiesHelleniquesI, Athens 1842, nos 282 (frag. 3) and 296 (frag.2); IG I, 25 with SuppL.,pp. 9 (frags2-3) and 59 (frag. 1); IG 12, 42c and p. 302 (=1), b (=2), a (=3); M. Cary (using the text of IG 12), "Athens and Hestiaea;Notes on Two Attic Inscriptions,"JHS 45, 1925, pp. 243-250 (SEG X, 37); Schweigert,pp. 320-322 (SEG X, 37); Hill, Meiggs, Andrewes (using Meritt's unpublishednotes and text), pp. 302-303.

Fragment1 has the top preserved;a completestoichosis missingon the rightside (see Schweigert'sfigure2:a). Height0.220 m., width0.094 m. (at the surface),thickness 0.096 m. Fragment2 is brokenon all sides. H. 0.133 m., W. 0.220 m. (surfacemeasurements),Th. 0.057 m. Fragment3 is preservedon the rightside. H. 0.213 m., W. 0.140m., Th. 0.071m. Fragments1 and 3 join at the surface(firstnotedby Schweigert). Fragments2 and 3 meet behindthe surface(at aboutline 23), and in 1968Bra'My concentratedstudy of these fragmentsbegan in 1967/68, in companywith D. W. Bradeen;examination at first hand was continued in Athens during six later visits. I warmlyacknowledgegrantsfrom the CanadaCouncil that twice made travel possible. B. D. Meritt was kind enough to place in my hands his own file, a file that includedthe notes of D. M. Lewis compiled some twenty-fiveyears ago. I owe special thanks to Lewis, who, with characteristicgenerosity, made available in addition a proof of the text and notes that will appearas no. 41 in IG I3; from this I have profitedimmensely. In the BritishMuseum the friendly efficiency of BrendaMiller enabled me to study fragment 4 in comfort and supplied the photographs of fragment 4. Once again I salute Dina Peppas-Delmouzou,Director of the National Epigraphic Museum at Athens, who provided encouragement,her superb staff, an unexcelled atmospherefor study, and the photographsof fragments1-3, 5-7. Works frequentlycited are abbreviatedas follows: ATL = B. D. Meritt, H. T. Wade-Gery, M. F. McGregor, The AthenianTributeLists, Princeton,II, 1949 and III, 1950 Hill, Meiggs, Andrewes = G. F. Hill, R. Meiggs, A. Andrewes, Sourcesfor Greek HistoryBetween the Persianand PeloponnesianWars,Oxford 1951 Schweigert = E. Schweigert,Hesperia6, 1937, pp. 320-322

102

MALCOLM F. McGREGOR

deen and I were of the opinionthat theyjoined;the relationshipprintedin IG 12, 42 is correctalthoughno join is reported.The three fragmentsare now set in plaster;the reversefacesare not preserved.Heightof letters0.010-0.012m. Stoichos:H. 0.013250.01375 m., W. 0.013-0.0145 m.; the letters are a little more widely spaced at the top

(see lines 8-9) but the pattern(stoichedon) is not affected.See Plate13:a. Fragment4. BritishMuseum 4; A. Bbckh, CIG I, Add., 73c (pp. 893-896); IG I, 28 and 29 with Suppl.,p. 12; IG 40 (obverse), 41 and p. 302 (reverse); M. Cary, op. cit. (SEG X, 37); ATL III, p. 301, note 4 (SEG XXI, 26); Hill, Meiggs, Andrewes, pp. 302-303. 12,

Opisthographic,left side preserved.H. 0.470 m., W. 0.282 m., Th. 0.134 m. Height

of letters0.010-0.013m. (obverse),0.011-0.013m. (reverse).Stoichos:H. 0.0132 m. (obverse),0.0172m. (reverse);W. 0.014m. (obverse),0.0109-0.011m. (reverse).The reverseis so friablethat the makingof squeezesis forbidden.See Plates13:b(obverse) and 14:a(reverse). Fragments5-6. E.M. 6576, 6573; IG I, 30 (frag. 5 reverse), 26 (= 6 reverse; the obverse is not preserved); IG 12, 43 (= 5 reverse), 48 (= 6 reverse); Schweigert,pp. 320-322 (the accountin SEG X, 37 is garbled).

The two surfacesof fragment5 are preserved,as Schweigertwas the firstto notice (he reportedthe obverse);it is otherwisebrokenon all sides. H. 0.161 m., W. 0.164 m., Th. 0.134m. Heightof letters0.009-0.010m. (obverse),0.012-0.015m. (reverse). Stoichos:H. 0.014-0.015 m. (obverse),0.019 m. (reverse);W. 0.0127-0.013m. (obverse), 0.0114m. (reverse).Fragment6 has the left side preserved(obverse;the surface is broken). H. 0.131 m., W. 0.144 m., Th. 0.066 m. Height of letters (reverse)

0.012-0.014m. Stoichos:H. 0.018-0.020m., W. 0.0116 m. Schweigertassociatedfragment 5 withfragments1-3 but did not claima join (despiteSEGX, 37). In 1935a cast (whichI have not seen) of fragment5 was sent to the BritishMuseumand Meritt thoughtit possiblethatthis fragmentjoinedthe top of fragment4 in sucha waythaton the obversesurfacethe alphaof my line 73 becamethe seventeenthletterof the line and on the reversesurfacethe tau of my line 69 was followedby a loss of sixteen letters.On the obversea lacunaof two lines fell betweenmy lines 74 (fragment5) and 35 (fragment4); on the reverseline 35 fell beneath70 withoutlacuna.Merittwas "not absolutely certain ... the line of break seems continuous" (consult Plates 14:b and

13:b, 15:a and 14:a). This collocationI do not accept, becausefragment5 makes a convincingjoin with fragment6, as is illustratedby the photographs, especiallythat of the reversesurfaces.2See Plates14:b(obverse)and 15:a(reverse). Fragment7. E.M. 13179;E. Vanderpool,Hesperia31, 1962, pp. 399-401 with pl. 118 (SEG XXI, 26).

This pieceis partof an impostblockcut fromthe originalstele in Byzantinetimes; the uninscribedobverse is original.Dimensions of the block:H. 0.433 m., W. 0.328 m., 2Lewisonce suspecteda join between fragments5 and 6, althoughhe did not hit upon what I believe is the accurateassociation.Later he abandonedhis suspicionin favour of Meritt's proposal.It is worth observing that the tables of measurementpresentedbelow are compatiblewith my placementof fragment5.

ATHENS AND HESTIAIA

103

Th. 0.134 m. Of the inscribedreverse the height is 0.10 m. and the width 0.11 m. Heightof letters0.10-0.013 m. Stoichos:H. 0.015 m., W. 0.0117m. Vanderpoolassociatedthe text withfragment4 (reverse).See Plate15:b. Twelveyearsof study, not, to be sure, continuous,have left me with the conviction that the fragmentscome from a single stele; moreover,we are dealingwith the workof one stone-cutter.He was not a sensitiveartist;his productis awkwardly cut, letter-shapesand spacingare irregular,and the handis unpractisedand unaesthetic.So erraticis his style that it is impossibleto collateby letter-formsand then to pronounce thatthe fragmentsdo or do not belongtogether.Rather,it is the variationthatis characteristic;thus a generalimpressionbecomesa persuasiveargument.The photographs are themselvesadequatewitnessesbut I call attentionto certaintraits,at the same time remindingthe readerthat the cutteris inconsistenteven in his idiosyncrasies: the narrow alphawith undisciplinedbar, the broadepsilonwith slantinghorizontals,the grotesque lambdaon fragment4 obverse (line 44; if, that is, he did not cut upsilonby error), the low short-leggedmu, the many forms of nu, the full-bowedrho with tail (whenpresent)affixedclumsilyto the arcratherthanto the normaljunction,the versatile sigma, the tau with short horizontal,the often archaicupsilon.It should also be observedthat Hestiaiais namedon fragments1, 4, and 5 (whichcarrywith them 2, 3, and 6) and that the thicknessof fragments4, 5, and 7, in each case original,is identical. To assigneach fragmentor groupof fragmentsto its appropriate face and then to ascertaintheir relativepositionsin the stele are more formidableproblems.The presence or absenceof a tail to the rho is not a decisivefactor:the finalrho of line 44 (frag. 4 obverse)is obviouslytaillessalthoughthe otherrhos on this piece are tailed (see P1. 13:b);of the two rhoson fragment6 reverse(lines72 and 74) the firstis tailedand the second,probably,is not (see P1.15:a). I thereforeretreatto measurements,especiallythe widthof the stoichos.For ease of referenceI have alreadyanticipatedmy conclusionsby my use of the termsobverse and reverse.I set out the averagedimensionsof the stoichosin tabularform (here too the cutter'slackof feelingfor symmetryis revealed). Frags 1-3 4 4 5 5-6 7

obv. obv. rev. obv. rev. rev.

Height 0.01325-0.01375 m. 0.0132 m. 0.0172 m. 0.014-0.015 m. 0.018-0.020 m. 0.015 m.

Width 0.013-0.0145 m. 0.014 m. 0.0109-0.011 m. 0.0127-0.013 m. 0.0114-0.0116 m. 0.0117 m.

The widths on the designatedobverse faces (0.0127-0.0145m.) suggest that they shouldbe groupedtogether,as shouldthe designatedreversefaces (0.0109-0.0117m.). The stoichosof the reverseis narrowerthan that of the obverse.Merittreachedthis conclusionand made the same allocation;Lewis is in agreement.Meritt, havingrestored a section of the obverse (lines 53-58, fragment4) with a line of 36 letters

MALCOLMF. McGREGOR

104

(adoptedin ATL III, p. 304, note 4), calculated48 for the reverse.I reproducehis restorationand lengthof line on the obverse.On this face of fragment4 ten letters horizontallymeasure0.135 m.; a similarmeasurementon the reversegives 0.110 m. If we restorea line of 36 letterson the obverse,then I estimatea minimumof 44 letters to the line on the reverse.I recognizethe uncertaintiesof the restorationand of the the lines mayhave been longerthanin my reconstruction. computation: As for height,the stoichoiof the reverse(0.0172-0.020m.), apartfromfragment7 (0.015 m.), are demonstrablytaller than those of the obverse (0.0132-0.015 m.). In the

assignmentof the inscribedsurfaceof fragment7 to the reverseof the stele I have followedthe biddingof the widthof the stoichoi. Since the top of fragment1 and the rightside of fragment3 are preserved,fragments 1-3 (obverse)find a securehome in the upperright-handcornerof the monuit must thereforebe ment.The preservedobversesurfaceof fragment7 is uninscribed; an to end beforethis area come placedat the bottom,the text of the documenthaving hadbeen reached.The positionsof fragments4 and 5-6 laterallyare determinedby the is not so easy to assess.I have preservedleft sides of 4 and 6. The verticalrelationship' placedfragments5-6 belowfragment4 so as to allowthe reverseside to betraya slight wideningof the stoichosfrom top to bottom:from 0.0109-0.011m. (fragment4) to 0.0114m. (fragment5) to 0.0116m. (fragment6) to 0.0117m. (fragment7). But the cutter'slackof skill is such that, as I am well aware,minorvariationsmay not be decisivelysignificant. I offera conservativetext. OBVERSE3 ?TOIX.36

446 B.C. [

~~~30

1

5

....

.

[

............. 29 .29

. [

I.L XL~d. .1

~~~~29

.

[3.........................

2.

E

(.2 29

[[3............. .l...............

]O Ep[[ L. ]a

=

lines 1-15, 2

]o [.]vlrova[. 1 o8[.I ]

P 30..............

=

lines 17-26, 3

pov[.]

v hEcrl~akrL hoE.] ........ . I ] La[-] Ia KaL 7a ,la

[...............32.1

3Fragment1 7 uninscribed.

.1

. .1

I88

.

29 [I................. ...................... 29 [.. 10

.or.TE.

30

=

lines 16-29, 4

=

lines 35-62, 5

=

70-74, 6 broken,

ATHENSAND,HESTIAIA

105

33

[ [[.15

.................. aL

'A(EOvdow TakS i. 7TpIaxTEq E-

[013ETEt ....

20

]rIja aAXas 8U[KaKs ras Exq hEaT-

.1?

vrE

.1

IV E . ... (fil.

. 5.

1.I

1K1

.IaL:*opELav 8-

.Ii]a XpE/aLo

EK[KXE0-I1aI

&Or [p. .

8E XpE/aToV

v

AE E'aTT[oI-

EITI4XE-

5. .1./al

XXIE.6. I[. ..X.o6V. 4XX[oI E K[aTar TEV 0-T] EXEv: IE.I.... PTO .. .....12 . 1 aL KaTa

.O a .1w' AEa/ I av'rov

[

.4.

E [. .4.

va

TEl KVpt'aL r&F

I........

25

&aL E7Tr.

.Lakv.b..a.ra

[

E

T

I............

TEV

8-

OVOV .r29o?]

[

8qo

T

]lol[.]

32

lacuna 3535 [a1............. 1 .

I]la[ Iv ][ ....................2.3. .23

[.IoorL 8OKel siil lOEE~L ,al

I]

ho~tolaL .I.....

[h~o c.v.OK.l avro LE8I ...................?8]I

40

[.I4+oEraL EITLTEOL[8hlKd-l [.1 h o

.

......

1........... 6.

hE r a%EI Xo ..................T.6.

Ev. hi-

hdrcqiuirEp cUaAas ras oraoav 8LKa; VrpoaxXos [ . .................& 81[EW na8KEaL [eI /AE iap [a]Xeo7E fOEsps [.1.... 8.I........ [ . I.Ia4ov ......I18...? e' hlidiiols El OVlfOl~tE?OL]L. 1. .. [.Ipa'0 l.... .]E ho .3ooLvo. . 4 .. ..........8... ] H oaTlala.[ aE 9 E8ao[.]ro ro Ihavl]r8 I.............E; pSpos Irh'plov hdrcqtallEp T E rag a[AX as .................. a..hi[ol 84tos e' ho cap~ov <EIMdL.18.] [.1hoL 'AElOE'VvO 'yp oit. ................ Ihorc]IldEpra' cXaA'a8LKa's d~v 8E'7Ls TOpO~.EVEL EK XI[hlEcrncaL0

45

50

IaIAidboses 'OpornoviqpIarr&6ro8io 6fl3oX& sav 8155

(lE L S

x' 'Opoir8s hEcrzr~auxv E'Ey3 CErtas

ITOpOEVEl 'Opornov

Ivp~arTEcTo 8paxgev

IpaTTIS he[IuraLavEKTTXEL pasEf3oOXd I.18 ......1 ..... ] 8I

7TlSEK XaXKi8oS E060 I ra5rra

60

[.1,tv hoL XO I.IEEaL E TEEATO

.................. 18 avEvOVE[A 0 ...........h.5

.

.

]

&av81-

I

MALCOLMF. McGREGOR

106

[E9IE'XL ayEV TO'yIO[

? ...

.........

[platux'va .Er[

-

8

...........

26

I

lacuna

70

[

12

10 10

.

23

.....

]

IX.u7T[22.2] 22.22

.ITaI...

.~E[

2.2

.2...

.

11.IVE[.2.2

Fragment6 broken lacuna Fragment7 uninscribed REVERSE4 ITOIX. 44 Fragments 1-3 broken lacuna [ .........

35

.o30[...............

[....

P I E9,q TO'8tKacTTE'poV

22

....

lo EV iomE a

.

EV @vvEoO hat 8E iTpaX(YE' 0vTrov 'AOE'vEO-that Tapa Troy8tKacTr-

[EpE?.V4 .E ..Ka~avE1Ep .1

Io. v Kat a8tKE~ua'TOV Tras8&K[alIE rktk .1 -av hE 7TpIo6EcT-a EXTE'KEt

8.

.

I ho haXko hEomraiaq hE'os IE[I]

.I

45

.

[

.

.

[hEo-rtatat . .... [alaLt .............. 8...

. [v

50

2v

.

[Lov..4rov .. .0 55

18

.evI

2.I.

.

?6...v

.

1ra avlpa;

9Krov OLKOvrOv 9[v] ] 8tLovat rak[l Evvva; Ev hEUT[tLI TrEtEv hE0TalaLt 8toIIovTo[v .1 Karlaa Ugos Ev he1EoaTat rp[tl [. .I Is ALoL 81 r8f avr6s ,at [Ka9

'EX~oidak hherEpovlILKad[TI'rEpIad.] 'EIX~oin'ov[roivIev 'EX~orn'aL o 8o[.49] ho apxo [v hl 'AOEtV Kvapevoravzrov hEorL~auaL

IvhE...rL.a..

'EV KaOdTLcE

[top..............I.

r.oy

=

lines 35-58, 5

=

[ .......... 5. ..]

r .

[oLovrv

.[1] 5

[.a E1o4.

lines 65-70, 6

=

-

.4a.]

]EV

.25I...............Ia.o...h. .r[ 4Fragments1-3 broken, 4

.1

hot vavro8k'lrio 8tKaOTEptoViTapEXovToviTX-

[Kat .....6..........

?.

.1

EaayEL Ta[.

9]V TOL aVToLt/EPtV

.............. 40

I..... h

lines 72-75, 7

8oV.. =

lines 80-86.

ATHENS-AND HESTIAIA

Ta'8EhviEp8E'[Ka...6.. .......... lacuna

[.~~~~........I [5..............

..........I.

65

[

28 [as.8

.I. .[2

70

I.......... [..

vvvvvvvzrIaS &tK.

r.I26

.......... 30 ..........

T

.

]

V

Ert

Patkar[.

80

.

1

ap~ov 'AOEVs ................

28

....

]

.

Eo-ayoy

hat 'AIEvEotv

[I.a[........................

?-?-------------------Io

I

8LKacr[aI---------------I

?-?---?-?-?-?-?-?-?--.]Ka

Ic a

?---------------------. ?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?--..-.I-ovra-

apXat

lacuna 8 I[-----------------------?I -------------EptIovho[

[--------------------

[-?-?---------------

EX

.]I o

- ?-------------------

85

].

....

EE[

33 .3hlo

75

.

44

[

[33.............. [......

I

I!.TaL KK[... 10 ] . &asK~a'EvaLT~p[d . I]] ~ t 4~ 8[. . d. . .

. 26.....................

OO gvsK[ ...................... [2

107

.

Tar 8

8 UKa;---------?

vay

[ovI--------------

.IE EKTEF(TO[------

---

---

I

T[-------------------I

lacuna COMMENTARY: OBVERSE5

Line 1: 1f Schweigert.The remainsof the first letter are better suited to the first two strokes of mu; the relationshipwith the epsilon agrees exactly with that between mu and epsilon in line 7, with mu in each case fallingshort of the height of epsilon. I number this as the initial line because the space between it and the preservedtop seems too shallow to accommodatea line. If this assumptionis correct, along with the adopted length of line, then we are not examining the beginning of a decree with the normal prescript, authorisationby Boule and Demos followed by the tribe in prytany.It is not impossible, althoughit would be unique, I believe, among extant 5th-centurydecrees, that this surfaceof the stone bears a continuation of the recordof action begun on the other surface,which I have designatedas the reverse. Line 2: q-ovT Schweigert.There is no trace of sigma (the stone is missing). The left-hand tip of the horizontalmakes tau Line 4: IEva Hiller; IEvat Schweigert. Absence of the central dot (which Hiller notes) makes theta impossible. Line 5: epflogHiller, Schweigert.The first letter is clearlydelta. Beta has been correctedfrom epsilon. Line 11: Of the first omicron the upperright-handarc is visible (squeeze). Line 13: tia Schweigert.Partof the base of delta is present. 5My apparatuscriticusis not comprehensive:earlier texts include a number of palpableerrors. I comment on readingsand restorationsthat I deem significantor suggestive. In general I collate by Hiller's text (IG 12).

108

MALCOLM F. McGREGOR

Line 15: Aw Schweigert.The second letter has an uppertip, slightlyleft of centre. Line 16: 7rotRangabe(on fragment2 above [81Evin the line below); 7roXHiller. The stone is missing. LtXSchweigert.The narrowcrossbaridentifiesthe middle letter as tau; the other verticalsare central. Line 20: E'r[b8ov]atHiller. Line21: a'TEA Hiller.The letter in the first space looks like a small and narrownu. AE [8E hd]va Hiller. Line 23: [irEpt]8E xppE 'Tov E1o[pa'] Kirchhoff;Eao4o[pa&sgEElvat Hiller. Line24: AELO-Tov[hWvEKa]? Line 25: a[X]Xoe"L[Hiller. Although I bracketomicron, the circularbreak makes the letter certain.The final vertical is on the left side of the stoichos.One does, I admit, expect to see traces of the arms of kappa;lambdais possible. Line 26: EOVToHiller. Epsilon depends on the top horizontal,with typical upwardslant, and a trace of the vertical;nu on two uppertips lying close to each other. But the readingsare doubtful. Line 28: 8E4*oP Hiller. In the last stoichosa clear vertical is cut in the centre; perhapspart (the left side) of the horizontal,which is often short on tau, survives. Line29: as h Hiller. The last verticalis on the left and Hiller'saspiratemay be correct. Line 35: The verticalis centred. Line 36: The verticaltip is to the left. Line 37: The tip in the third stoichosis of a triangularletter. Line 38: taoE[ Kat hogodai]Hiller;cf. Thucydides,i.145. Line 39: .E[TEXE'o]Hiller. After epsilon, the lower left-handangle of delta is detectable. Lines39-40: [, |AIkUkEratHiller. [ypIa'kkrEraL? Line 40: The triangularbreakhas obliteratedthe strokes of delta. Line 44: Note the absence of the daseia. Line45: e To'[V EX]aivovTa Hiller. The second letter is surely iota and omicron is impossible (the stone has gone). Line 47: [y]pa[4'o-Oo8]E Bbckh, Hiller. The break favours sigma rather than phi; the squeeze reveals partof the uppermostarm. gpo; B6ckh, citing Demosthenes, 43.71: irpvTavEta8E TL8E]To TO [hav]TO3 Lines48-49: [7rpvTavEta TnTrW 6 8UKWPV TOV aViToVi Epovs.Of the lambda part of the uprightand part of the arm are perhaps visible (line 49). Lines49-50: I prefer [8tKao]hpToPV to [,foXEvJThpJtopbecause of the context of line 50. Part of the Hiller. crossbarof alphajustifiesadMad]; [CKad] Lines 52-53: Or [KaacJ~r]Ep.The letter following 'iKa' (53) is certainlynot kappa(Hiller, dotted). The photographshows an upper bow, which is misleading.The top horizontalon the squeeze is complete and the base is present, though faint. Lines53-58: Enough is extant for us to realize without misgivingsthat this passageestablishestariffsfor individualtravel by sea among three communities:Oropos, Chalkis, and Hestiaia.In lines 55-56 we journey from Oropos to Hestiaiaand from a lost point of departureto Oropos. Since the trip from Chalkis to Oroposis covered in lines 53-54, the lost town must be Hestiaiaand the consequent restorationbecomes the crucialdeterminantof the length of line in the document. I see no justificationin what survives for increasingthat length by the additionof other phrasesor names. The verb of assessment must be 7rpacTToAm(see 7rp[in lines 54 and 56, ho- in 58) and the amounts must cohere rationally;the base is four obols from Chalkisto Hestiaia (lines 57-58). The restorationof two obols for the journey between Oropos and Chalkis and six for the longer voyage betwen Hestiaia and Oropos is intelligible. This restoration, which persistentexperimenthas failed to improve, satisfiesthe requirements;it forces the writingof ['Eo-TuataS in line 55 without the daseia. Fortunately,there is an exact parallelon the stone in line 37 (reverse): 'EOTtauaq;I have alreadynoted an omitted daseia in line 44 above. In line 57 I prefer [EK,7rX To [rE/LvTEdI(ATL III). I doubt whether 7ruiam.,especiallywhen used absolutely, yields the necessarysense. Furthermore,a verb connoting passageby sea is desirable;movement by land, which would of course be

ATHENS AND HESTIAIA

109

possible (but perhapsmore difficult) between Chalkis and Hestiaia, is not involved, nor would a toll be levied. The verb 7rop6,E1Et is used in line 56 and fits nicely in line 53; I can devise no way of restoringthe same verb in lines 53 and 57. We have a second mild anomaly in that only for passage between Oropos and Hestiaiais the returnjourney includedin the tariff. Line 54: 7rX[EEt Hiller.The squeeze shows the awkwardlyplacedtail and partof the loop of rho. Line 56: 7ropoJ ud[v]Et 7rp[ Kirchhoff; ropo ,uE[8]P 7rp[ Hiller. The dot in the middle of the second circularletter guaranteestheta. The whole right side of upsilon denies Hiller's restored delta. A central upright(iota) eliminateshis nu. Hiller. Members of official missions are to travel at half-fare.The letters of Lines 59-60: [7roAur1r]EVETat line 60 are largerthan elsewhere on this fragment(see P1. 13:b). Line 61: This line was inscribedin rasura.The last letter must be omicron;the top arc shows. Line 70: ota Schweigert.The verticalis central. Line 71: Schweigertread nothing. Line 72: apE Schweigert. Line 73: gaTE Schweigert.The zeta is clear. Line 74: Ao Schweigert. REVERSE

Line 35: EX..rTEKirchhoff;Ept Hiller. The stone supportsbeta in the first stoichos.In the second lambda is sure. The third preserves a left-hand vertical. Gamma at the edge depends on a lower left-hand tip, which might epigraphicallybe of alpha. Line 40: Ev16vvEcTUw(v) Hiller. Omicronis unmistakable. Line 42: /3tahov Hiller. The letter before iota is probablydelta; partof the base (left side) is visible and there is no suggestionof a crossbar. Line 43: Note Demosthenes, 43.16: 7rpoo-KaXEt'LoW KaTa TaviTa,X apqY7rpo6Eo-uAa ,u77rwE7iefnl. Lines 44-45: hEo; 7rp[ Kirchhoff;hEo; rpo|Ik Hiller. Rho is unlikely; the top horizontaldoes not drop into a bow. The breakhas taken the final letter of the line (Hiller's omicron). hEoo-rE[p]? Line 46: The angle on the lower right requiresdelta. Line 47: The last omicron is certain. Line 51: 'EX]AXo'rtot [hot] Hiller. The hook of the first lambdais visible. Final iota is unlikely because the verticalis on the left side. Lines53-58: Hiller's lines are one letter short. Line 55: Upsilon depends upon faint traces of the arms, the precedingepsilon upon the mid-section of the verticaland the joining horizontal. Line 58: 7roXEtHiller. Of pi there is no sign; a left-handvertical and part of the right justify nu rather than iota. Line 65: as &E Hiller. The lowest horizontalof epsilon ought to be visible; hence I interpretthe lefthand verticalas kappa. Line 66: The initialverticaltip (lower) is central. Line 70: The right uppertip of nu remains. Line 75: On the stone and squeeze the diagonalin the first stoichosread looks more like the upperarm of kappathan the last stroke of nu; the photographis curiouslymisleading.In the fourth stoichosthe join of the first and second strokes favours nu. The dotted vertical is high and to the right. I interprettwo uppertips, the second taller than the first, as nu. The last letter, epigraphically,might be theta. Line 80: The two verticalsare cut to the left. Line 84: Alpha depends upon the extant apex. Line 85: The upperhorizontaland partof the middle of initialepsilon can be seen. Line 86: In the first stoichosthe steepness of the diagonaltip favours chi ratherthan kappa.The circular arc is surely omicron. I do not see the crossbarof alpha.

110

F. McGREGOR MALCOLM

Of the communities of Euboia, the "home" island, Styra, Dion, Athenai Diades, Hestiaia, Chalkis, Eretria,and Grynche were probablychartermembers of the Confederacy of Delos.' It is most likely that Styra, Hestiaia, Chalkis, and Eretriacontinued to supplyships ratherthan cash until about 450 B.C.;they do not appearin the first assessment-periodof the quota-listsbut are recordedin each year of the second.7In the early summer of 446, after paymentof tribute in the spring, Euboia revolted. Retributionwas not long delayed (446/5): the Athenians KaTEoTpEqlavTo rniaav, Kat T)V /uEV aXknv 6oxoy,&LaKaTEO-Tqo-avTO,'EOataa' 8E E4OtKutaVTEq aVToL Tr-v y-qv EOrXov (Thucydides, i.114). Klerouchies were despatched to Eretriaand Chalkis.8Hestiaia, however, was colonised, as stated simply and clearly by Thucydides in i.114.3, confirmed in vii.57.2: KaL EfT 'EoTtat-qqot Ev Ev`,3oia 'E0oTr'atav OKKOVVTESarTOKOLOVTES VvvEcTpav. TEvcOa

Historically,the provisions inscribedon our stele belong to the months just after suppressionof the revolt (446/5), along with D16 and D17. This date is reinforcedby the script, which is characteristicof the transitionalstyle: the four-barredsigmas look forward,so to speak; the tailed rhos and the vee-shaped upsilons look backward.9 Although the preservedtext of the stele, frustratingly,does not justify dependable restorationand indeed gives no clue that compels us firmly to date the text of one surface before the other, enough remains for us to recognize, at least in general, Athenian intentions. The references to 8&Ka, 8&Kao-Tac, and 8tKao--TEptv reveal that the Athenians are establishinglegal proceduresfor their colony in some detail. Some cases are to be referredto Athens: Ta%a"XXa 8UKaI' Tak EX hEo-Tkatfa4 (obverse 19, 20), [KaOa'TE]p 'AOEvEct(reverse 41). Some authority is to rest at Athens: K[aTa% Tev (reverse 38-39), 0--rAEXv (obverse25), hot 'AOE'VE0V(obverse52), hot vaVTo8UKadI ho apXo[v hlo 'AOEvEOt(reverse 52), [hlo apXov 'AOEv[---I(reverse 72-73), [hat vvE'o-Oo 'A01EvEotv apXat'(reverse 74). Athenian institutions are to be the model: [Elv]@ (reverse 40) and &8ovat Ta [i EvOvvaqEv hEo-Atakad(reverse 46-47), [KaT]aa 8EA'/os t (reverse 48),10 [Ev hEo-Tlat&at KvaAEvo-avTOV(reverse 53). It is sometimes Ev fto-TtaiU impossible to determine whether a phrase refers to Athens or to Hestiaia: TEt KVpt'a EK[KXE0-ta]t

(obverse22, probablyAthenian),XpE/a'TOV

EO-0o[p---I

(obverse23), [To1

8E4w(obverse 28), TEr ,03oAXs(obverse 44), [ho] 8E4os E` ho apxov (obverse 50-51, Athenian?), [J3IoX'v(reverse 58). The surmise that the Athenians founded the colony 6ATLIII, pp. 197-199. Karystoswas enrolled after militaryaction in the 470s; Thucydides,i.98.3. 7ATL III, pp. 239, 267-268; for the restorationof Eretriaand Chalkis in List 5 see p. 31, note 7. Karystos,unlike the others, paidin 451/0 B.C. 8For the chronologyand the settlement with Eretria(D16) and Chalkis (D17) see ATL III, pp. 294297, 300; texts in ATL II. 9Cf. IG 12 45, concerning the colony to Brea, which is to be dated about the same time; see R. to the End of the FifthCenturyB.C., Oxford Meiggs and D. Lewis, A Selectionof GreekHistoricalInscriptions 1969, no. 49. H. B. Mattingly,"The Date of the HestiaiaDecrees," BCH 92, 1968, pp. 476-477, denying the validityof the evidence of letter-forms(which I consider in itself cogent), places the document in the 420s. undergonein Athens. 1?[6v]vPEaoo may refer to E1VfVJat

ATHENS ANDHESTIAIA

111

as a democracyof theirown type is reasonable.That Atheniancoloniestendedto preserve the mother-country's institutionsand customsis noted by Thucydides(VII.57.2): AAOrqjvawLo,LEvav'TO .L..

7XOOV, Kat' aVTO'T Tf aV'fl

qO

Kat' VO/LUAOLt E`Tlt

Kam Azywvq1Tat, KaLt OF TOTE AVytvaVELXOv, Kat Anquvtot IAp&LOL O'KOVVTE'aTOKOL OVTE' (VVEOTpaTEVO Evfokx 'EO-TLtauav V.1

(0AE VOL

ETL nET~aLn7

ot

Ev

Athenianprovisionswent beyondthe judicialarrangements prescribedfor the new Hestiaians.The text on the reversesurface(lines49-51) showsthat in some way Dion and Ellopiaare involved.Ellopialay in Hestiaiotisand Dion was a neighbour.12 The colony at Hestiaiaprovidedthe opportunityto deal with Dion and Ellopia(whichhad probablybeen a dependencyof Hestiaia;the Ellopiansdo not appearin the quota-lists). In the thirdassessment-period (Lists9-11), the paymentof Dion is includedin thatof AthenaiDiades;Dion then resumedindependentpayment. That the Athenianswere thoroughin their dispositionsis also reflectedby the stipulationof a tarifffor the triangularservice by sea affectingOropos,Chalkis,and Hestiaia.13

The revolt of 446, if we readThucydidesliterally(Evt'fotacaire'o-Tr...

KaTEO-TpE-

qavro lrao-av), affected the whole island. The settlement made by the Athenians was

comprehensive. Klerouchiesweredespatchedto EretriaandChalkis;in the fragmentary D16 and in D17, which is complete,we possess evidence of the terms imposed.To these documentswe shouldnow add the regulationsthat wouldgovern the colonyat Hestiaia.The new state, presumablyan autonomouspolis, paid no tribute.The colonists took theirAthenianheritagewith them, and theirpersistingloyaltyis attestedby theirpresencein Sicilyin 415 B.C. MALCOLMF. MCGREGOR VANCOUVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE, LANGARACAMPUS; UNIVERSITY OFBRITISH COLUMBIA

Vancouver, British Columbia V6T1W5 "The passageis discussed in detail in ATL III, pp. 291-292. The relationshipbetween the Athenians and the newly createdHestiaianswas to remainclose: note hot 7rots7r'Eov'OEk1 (obverse 59). I'Strabo,x.1.3-5, gives an informativeaccountof northernEuboia. '3The mention of XEUcTOTv (obverse 24) perhapsimplies that piracyhad been a problem off northern Euboia.

PLATE 13

god

A

3_

D

_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

IAt

,

-

X

n-.

*s

K.

Hn

i'4H ,

>

u

_ t a. at

~ ~ ~ ~~~a

PLATE 14

_,

a

x_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .

Hi'

't

And'',.,~~~~~~~~~~~l

Ft',; ' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~r)Cl

z

41)

~ ~ 1-f't^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~1

And~

L

P

71

-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

, _L

u

M~~~~~~

C.

'ilk~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l C:~~

D

.{

20

C~~~~~~~~1

_

2~~~~~~~

'0~~~~r

BY~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

_R

-_Es

i~~~~~~~~~s~4

_;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PLATE 15

-~~~~~~~~~~~ '

k

r

9.

;

-

A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A

~~~~~~~~~~~ -

e|

Wn~~~~~~t~

I

.0 IV~

.

>

,a,

,,,j

S

_

w

. 00

4;

ado'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~oo

-,Oa ~ ~~~~~~~a AWi~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~40

,

14P

z=

,,,\

~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~U

s

i

v

o

.

v

'

THUCYDIDESAND THE DECREESOF KALLIAS* rT HE DECREESOF KALLIAS(Dl

and D2), now firmlydated in 434/3, marka financein the 5th centuryB.C. In spite of of Athenian in history the turning point .W some hereticalopinionaboutthese decreesthe evidencefor the date as here statedis convincing.'I summarizethe main pointsin the first decree (D1). It overwhelmingly recordsthe laying-upon the Acropolisof 3000 talents,whichhad been voted, and now thatthis transferhas been madethe repaymentto the OtherGods of the moneysowed both to them.The paymentwas to be out of fundsat the disposalof the Hellenotamiai on hand and still to come, and from the 8EKa&-T.This provision does not necessarily

implyan earlierdecreewhichnamesthe source.2The decreeof DI is itself sufficient evidencefor the sourceof the funds, and the sum of 200 talentsnamedin D2 as the over-allamountout of whichthe repaymentwas to be mademaywell have appearedin catathe lower partof DI now lost. The amountof money was to be systematically of these logued.The state was authorizedto constituteby lot a boardof treasurers just like moneysat the same time as that at whichthey chose the other magistracies, the Boardof Treasurersof the moneysof Athena.The new boardwas to stewardthe and was to open and moneysof the OtherGods on the Acropolisin the Opisthodomos close the doors of the Opisthodomostogetherwith the Treasurersof the moneys of Athena.They were to keep an itemizedaccountof the holdingsof each god and goddess and makea computationof the sums totalboth in silverand in gold. Futuretreasurerswere to inscribeon a stele an accountof their presentholdingsand of the income to the gods andof any expendituresmadeduringthe yearandgive an accounting to the Logistaiand standtheiraudit.Theywere to give theiraccountfromPanathenaia to Panathenaiajust like those who stewardedthe moneys of Athena ... and when the *This article is dedicatedto Eugene Vanderpoolwhose love for and understandingof Thucydidesare profoundand who, for companionship,carriedwith him a text of the author during his enforced exile from Greece duringthe late war. 'For the text of the decrees DI and D2 see BenjaminD. Meritt, H. T. Wade-Gery,and MalcolmF. McGregor, TheAthenianTributeLists (= ATL) I, Cambridge,Mass. 1939, pp. 160-161 with photographs on pp. 210-211, and more recently Russell Meiggs and David M. Lewis, GreekHistoricalInscriptions,Oxford 1969, pp. 155-157, no. 58. The most recent discussion known to me is that of Tullia Linders, The Treasurersof the OtherGods in Athensand theirFunctionsin Beitrige zur klassischenPhilologie62, 1975, Verlag Anton Hain, Meisenheim am Glan. Miss Linders has a runningcommentaryon the texts and has much to say or suggest, but she fails to realize (pp. 56-57) that the comparativeevidence of DI and the Logistaiinscription(IG 12, 324) does in fact permit no date other than 434/3. There is the same lack of realizationin Wesley E. Thompson's admirablearticle on "InternalEvidence for the Date of the Kallias Decrees," in SymbOslo48, 1973, pp. 24-46 (= Thompson, 1973). Thompson's firm commitment to the date 434/3 makes it paradoxicalthat he should consider the erroneousdate 438/7 (op. cit., p. 44, note 68) as possiblesupportfor the book text of Thucydides,ii.13.3 here under discussion. The followingadditionalabbreviationwill be used in this article: Dinsmoor, 1947 = William B. Dinsmoor, "The Hekatompedonon the Athenian Acropolis," AJA 51, 1947, pp. 109-151

2Linders,op. cit., p. 40.

THUCYDIDES AND THEDECREESOF KALLIAS

113

money had been paid to the gods the balance was to be used for the shipyards and the walls....

This decree (DI) authorized the creation of the Board of Treasurers of the Other Gods and guaranteed the regular reporting of their transactions to the board of auditors, the Logistai. Fortunately there still exists, in large part, the record kept by the Logistai for the transactions from 426/5 to 423/2 and summaries to cover the preceding seven years from 433/2 to 427/6. There are also in the Logistai inscription summations for the debts owed to Athena (as well as to the Other Gods) for the eleven years from 433/2 to 423/2 inclusive and for the interest accrued upon them.3 The record for the first loan from the Treasurers of the Other Gods in 423/2 (lines 75-76) gives the sum total in the words [KEXatov loV a&[pxaco avaXoIAraoo torv ako v OEOV es sTpo-rEs [Boo-Eo[q yes OTC ropy]olvo [acpxovpToq. The board had a corporate identity and was known (lines 77-78) as hot Ta[tdat torv cAXIov OEOv FNpyo0vos OVE18o 'IKapLEv' [KaLXcvvapXovTE4I.The corporate name of the board was defined

here and in DI, and the eleven years of the Logistai inscriptioncarry the date back to the Panathenaiaof 433 B.C.There was no loan from the separatetreasure of the Other Gods before the Panathenaiaof 433 because -priorto that date no such board existed. The date of the founding of the board is preciselydefined by the comparativeevidence of DI and the Logistai inscription, all argument to the contrarynotwithstanding,and the question of the date of the founding of the board must be considered settled. It is my purpose here to correlatethe text of the decrees of Kallias with the text of Thucydides, u.13.3, in which he gives an estimate of the availableresources of Athens at the outbreakof the PeloponnesianWar.4 Accordingto ThucydidesPerikles gave the amount of coined silver on the Acropolis in 431 as 6000 talents (ii.13.3). Thucydides adds that this figure is not quite correct because 300 talents had been spent on the Propylaiaof the Acropolis and the other buildingsand for Poteidaia:vTapxovTcrv 8E Ev rjj &Kpo9oIT6 ad IToTE appyvpwov Erno)-q(Tra yacp 1TrAEra TptaKOro-V aTo8EovTa imptEyEVETO, -a+' A.v EaKy4Xwt v raAaXvrWv WV Es TE ra 7TporJVAaUT7s aKpO07OAECV(0Kat TaAa otKoo0tVqgwam Kat E' I0TE1o8atav

I quote the text from the scholion on Aristophanes' Plutus (line 1193). Eiravr1xLdr1). This text has been defended by David M. Lewis in his Princeton dissertationof 1952.5 It was also utilized in the historical discussion by the editors of The AthenianTribute Lists,6 vol. III, 1950 and by Wade-Gery and Meritt in their essay on the resources of Athens in 449 and 431 B.C.7The argument against the book text of the codiceshas so 3For the Logistaiinscription(IG 12, 324) see the text by Mabel Lang and B. D. Meritt, CQ 18, 1968, pp. 84-94, with a slight correction (lines 18-19) in ProcPhilSoc115, 1971, p. 112. A conservative text is publishedby Meiggs and Lewis (op. cit. [footnote 1 above], pp. 205-217, no. 72). 4This has been tried, in some measure, several times, the most impressive attempt being that of Dinsmoor (Dinsmoor, 1947), though with the erroneousdate 438/7 for the decrees of Kallias (see below). 5 Towardsa Historian'sTextof Thucydides, diss. Princeton, 1952. 6See footnote 1 above. 7Hesperia26, 1957, pp. 163-197. This article has been reprintedin the volume Periklesundseine Zeit, 1979, publishedby the WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft,Darmstadt,pp. 178-226.

BENJAMIND. MERITT

114

concernedwithshowingthatat no time coulda maximumof 10,000 farbeen principally talents(the figurein the codices) have been accumulatedon the Acropolis.The figure of the codices,regularlypublishedin the book text of Thucydidesfor the maximumat one time on the Acropolis,leadsto distortionand errorin the narrativeof Thucydides, ii.13.3.It is as follows:V7TapXovTo 8E Ev ni &KpOIT(XpTac TOTE appyvpovEortCrrquov V raXavwrv eaKtcrxtA)u( (Uv

EyEJETo, a+' TptaKocruwv aIo8'ovra ,urpva Es TE ra 7TpOTMvAaLa T7J' a'KpO1TOAXE Kat TaAka otLKOo0liquoaTaKat Es 1OTEL8aOav

(Tra

yap

1rrXUra

aav'raQX rQ).

Thucydidesexplains,accordingto the book text, how a maximumof 10,000 (i.e. 9700) hadbeen reducedin 431 to a still existingbalanceof 6000.I suggestnow thatthe 10,000talentscan ever text is impossiblenot only becauseno sum even approaching explanationwhichthe the on also because the but Acropolis have been accumulated by the evidenceof the text gives for the reductionin 431 to 6000 is in factcontradicted so-calledsecondof the two Kalliasdecrees(D2). This decree,passedon the same day withDI, provides(lines 1-4) for the carryingout of severalprojectsalreadyunderway, including(1) finishingworkon the pedimentsculpturesof the Parthenon,(2) making the goldenNikai,and (3) completingthe Propylaia. The firstprovision,as it appearsin D2, has been restoredin manyways,but most studentshave thoughtto see (correctly,in my opinion)referenceto finishingthe pediment sculpturesof the Parthenon.The accountsof expense for the Parthenonare in for 434/3 (IG I12,352) when the Treasurersof Athena partpreservedepigraphically loaned25,000drachmai,andfor 433/2 (IG I2,353) whereno figureis preserved.In the recordfor 434/3, the year of the decreeof Kallias,16,392drachmaiwere paidto the sculptorsof the pedimentfigures(IG I2,352) anda sum between2000 and 5000drachmai went for work on the marblesat Mt. Pentelikonand for loadingthe stones for transportto Athens. Similar,or lesser, figuresare probablyto be assumedfor 433/2, afterwhichthere was no furtherworkon either the Parthenonor the Propylaia.I believe that the text of lines 1-15 of D2 should be read as given by Wade-Geryand Merittin 1947,8andas they werepublishedagainby the editorsof TheAthenianTribute Lists in 1949.9The proprietyof an injunctionhere to finish the Parthenonand the Propylaiais obvious.10 8Hesperia16, 1947, pp. 283-284. 9See the referencein footnote 1 above. '0See, for example, A. M. Woodward in the centennial volume of the ArchaeologicalSociety in Athens, 'ApX'E4,1937, p. 159. Whateverthe restoration,this interpretationis assumed to be correct, as a matter of course, also by Wesley E. Thompson (Thompson, 1973, p. 34) and by William B. Dinsmoor (Dinsmoor, 1947, p. 132). The restorationra ftSipa Ta XilOva vigorouslyadvocatedby H. B. Mattingly, Proceedingsof the AfricanClassicalAssociation7, 1964, pp. 46-47, is to be rejectedin spite of early support from Wade-Geryand MarcusN. Tod. Mattinglybelieves that the reference is to the "small flight"of steps leadingup from the Propylaiarampto the Nike bastionand temple. But in the midst of great construction this seems an item incongruouslyinsignificant.I reject it first on the principleof De mimmisnon curatkex and second because these steps belong as partof the Propylaiathemselves and the Propylaiaare elsewhere named here in line 3. If the steps were to be thought of at all they belong with the other constructionfor

AND THEDECREESOF KALLIAS THUCYDIDES

115

For the Golden Nikai reference may now be made to the studies by Homer A. Thompson"1and Dorothy Burr Thompson.12There is no problem about the reading of the text in D2, line 3. The traditionaltext is sound, despite recent suggestions made by W. K. Pritchett."3These Nikai were at least three in number (Homer Thompson), for the plural and not the dual was used in describing them. By chance the head of one (probably)of the originalthree, strippedof its gold, was found in the excavations of the Athenian Agora in 1932.14In style of sculpture it is quite close to some of the sculptured heads from the Parthenon frieze. It has now been described in detail and published again in a portfolio in honor of Harold Hugo.15The inlay of gold on each Nike weighed about two talents,16and the statues were thus a convenient way of preserving the gold treasureof Athena. They formed no part, however, of the monetarybalanceof Athena on the Acropolis, nor did their cost make any appreciablediminution in that balance.The gold alreadybelonged to Athena and the sculptor'slabor for affixingit was paid by a deduction from the gold supplied.17 After the address by Perikles to the Athenian people in May of 431 there was no furtherwork on the Propylaia.It is known from literarysources that the work lasted five years.18The building inscriptionscover the span from 437/6 to 433/2.19 The editors of ATL III in 1950 estimated the expense of the Propylaiain 433/2 as 200 talents.20No figure is preservedepigraphically,but there were sources of money for the construction other than the treasuryof Athena.21 No expense was deducted as a loan from the Treasurers of Athena in our table22for 433/2. Like the work on the Parthenonit was probably minimal. At the time of Perikles' speech there were 5700 talents on the Acropolis.23 which Mnesikleswas responsiblein lines 4-12 (see below) and not in line 3. The bases, or steps, were also rejectedby Dinsmoor (loc. cit.) as too trivialfor a decree of this sort. "Homer A. Thompson, "A Golden Nike from the Athenian Agora," AthenianStudiesPresentedto WilliamScottFerguson,HSCP, Suppl.I, 1940, pp. 183-210. '2DorothyBurrThompson, "The Golden Nikai Reconsidered,"Hesperia13, 1944, pp. 173-209. '3BCH 101, 1977, pp. 9-10, note 5, from which the error is now perpetuatedin SEG 26, 1976-1977 [19791,no. 16. '4T. Leslie Shear, Hesperia2, 1933, pp. 519-527. '5Lucy Shoe Meritt and Homer A. Thompson, A PortfolioHonoringHaroldHugo, no. 3, MeridenSteinhour,Inc., Meriden 1978. '6A. M. Woodward, 'ApX'ET,1937, pp. 159-170. '7DorothyBurrThompsonwrites to me as follows: "My remarkin Hesperia13, 1944, p. 178 that most ancient metal objects usuallyfall short of round numbers, such as 10 or 100 minas, suggests that the goldsmith's laborwas paid out of a round sum. As CharlesSeltman points out (GreekCoins, 2nd ed., London, 1955, pp. 72-73), 'Ancient silver- and goldsmiths, like modern orientaljewellers, usuallymade their wares on currentstandardsemployed for the preciousmetals.' Hence, in the absence of any item of paymentfor the goldsmith's labor in the Nikai records we may suppose that the small short-fall of gold below two talents was used for his pay." '8Forthe five years see Harpokration,quoting Heliodoros, s. v. Hpo0mrvKataravTa. 91G I2, 363-367. 20ATLIII, Princeton1950, p. 342, note 68. 21Ibid.,pp. 329-331, 341. 22lbid.,p. 342. 23Ibid.,p. 342, note 73.

116

BENJAMIND. MERITT

But we did not, I think, give due weight to the increment from the sanctuariesof the OtherGods.24I return to this item below. The loans from the Treasurersof Athena for the militaryexpeditions to Corcyrain 433/2 amounted to 76 talents.25There can be no doubt about this, which is epigraphically attested. The time of the loan is also definitely known, at the very beginning of the year. The surplus from the tribute of 434/3 had been used for repaymentof debts to the Other Gods before the Panathenaiaof 433, and the money for Corcyrahad to be taken from the reserve. The year by which loans to the state were measured was the bouleutic year of the ten prytanies, not the Panathenaicyear. Study of the Logistai inscriptionmakes this clear, as I have elsewhere demonstrated.26The loans for Corcyra are the first on which interest was reckoned, beginning a new method of accounting, which was inauguratedin 433, for loans to the state from the sacred treasures.The fact that loans were necessary for Corcyrashows that the Hellenotamiai had no money of their own. The normal reserve for the Hellonotamiai,after the running expenses of the empire, was approximately200 talents. This explains how the 5000 of the Strasbourg were accumulatedin the 25 years (approx.) from 477 down to 450, and how papyrus27 the 3000 talents of DI were accumulatedin the fifteen years from 449/8 to 435/4. The Hellenotamiainever had any reserve after mid-centuryand it was the Athenian financial policy that this should be so. Of course after the war began in 432/1 they were in no condition in any case to gather any reserve.28 The big expense which was not forseen in 434/3 was the cost of Poteidaia.There is some epigraphicalevidence for this in IG J2, 296. The editors of ATL III (p. 342) divided the cost of Poteidaiain 432/1 into loans (a total of 1145 talents) so as to count 400 talents loaned before the speech of Perikles and 745 talents loaned after the speech.29 This still seems to me a reasonable estimate, and the amounts of the loans can be keyed approximatelyto the amounts of interest accruedupon them. There is, however, one other expense named in D2 (lines 4-12) which has to be subtractedfrom the 6000 talents of Thucydides, ii.13.3 to give the actual figure of 5700 talents still on the Acropolis.This is the expense of a programof repairand buildingon the Acropolisat a cost of ten talents a year. How long this work was to be carriedon is not specified, but it can hardlyhave gone on for more than two years. It was in addition X a oiKO8o aTara. The text of Thucyto the work on the Propylaiathemselves as TraAC oLKo8oUUaTCa. The associdides reads E"ITE TaxHponrvkataT"r 'AKpowrAXEWo'KaLtT-ar&Xa ation of the other buildings with the Propylaiabrings them under one management. These "other buildings" have been taken by many to be items in the great building 24Ibid., p. 342, note 68. 251GI2, 295; ATL III, p. 342. 115, 1971, p. 103, and 122, 1978, p. 292. 26ProcPhilSoc 27Forthe text of this papyrusand a discussionof it see Hesperia26, 1957, pp. 163-197. 28ATLIII, pp. 340-341. 29Ibid.,p. 342, note 73.

THUCYDIDES AND THEDECREESOF KALLIAS

117

programof Perikles which was inauguratedin 450/49.3?But it seems incongruous to relegate the Parthenonto the lowly estate of being merely one of the "other buildings". Rather, these buildings are those on the Acropolis described in D2, lines 4-12. Many scholars have made suggestions for the identificationof these buildings, but the most importantcontributionto the understandingof the passage has come from Dinsmoor.31 He has improved the epigraphicalreferences in the Propylaiabuilding inscriptionsand has discussed the topographyof the whole region east of the Propylaia.Dinsmoor's date for the decrees of Kalliasis 438/7, ratherthan 434/3, but his argumentsfor the date are not compelling.He lays great stress on the existence in the foundationsof the Propylaia of blocks which he thinks were salvaged from the renovation of the Acropolis carried out by Mnesikles under the terms of the decrees. That Mnesikles was at work on the Acropolis even before 434/3 is shown by the two rubricsfirst recognized by Dinsmoor in the buildinginscriptionsfor 437/6 and 434/3 which he restored thus:32 IG J2, 363, line 50 aVEV TroV [E4pyov es TO'Hpoirvxatov] IG 12, 384 + 366A [e aKpo~lOXtv rev aVEr r[8v (4ryov) e rcx Hlpoinvata These items were restudied by Wade-Gery and Meritt in 1947 and resolved as follows:33 IG J2, 363, wOu{ [-o0es a0KpoloXtvI rev lines 49-50 aVEV TO'v [es Ta'HpoimXatal IG J2, 384 + 366A, [AwLo0u0aroI v vacat lines 44-45 [EV re TaKpo'ITOXtv aVEV iTov es TaxHIporvnXata Line 44 was uninscribedafter the word [jtuo-ogu'ro]v, in which the letters must have been more widely spaced than in line 45; the squeeze shows uninscribed stone over the words aVEv and [HIpoirirata of line 45. As Wade-Geryand Meritt pointed out, we should not expect such entries to appear in the Propylaiaaccounts after the decrees of Kallias,when he had a special fund associated with the Treasurersof Athena for such work. The main point, as we remarked,is that "landscaping"on the Acropolis did not begin with Kallias; in this, as in all else, Kalliasdesires to wind up, to get clear of commitments as soon as he decently can. He therefore seeks to "systematize" the work. There is no reason for surprise (or for antedatingthe decrees) when we find that similarwork was alreadybeing done. In arguingfor an early date for the decrees of KalliasDinsmoor laid emphasis on a lintel block from one of the earlierbuildingson the Acropoliswhich he believed housed 30As, for example, by Charles Forster Smith in his edition of Thucydidesfor the Loeb ClassicalLibrary, Cambridge,Mass. and William Heinemann, Ltd., London, I, 1956, p. 285, note 5, who cites the Parthenon,the Odeum, and the Telesterionat Eleusis. 3"Dinsmoor,1947, esp. pp. 134-140. Dinsmoor's identificationof the Opisthodomosof the decrees of Kallias with the western part of the old Peisistratidtemple has been accepted by John Travlos, Pictorial Dictionaryof AncientAthens,New York 1971, p. 143, and by R. E. Wycherley, TheStonesof Athens,Princeton 1978, p. 145. 32Dinsmoor,1947, p. 134. 33Hesperia 16, 1947, pp. 282-283.

118

BENJAMIND. MERITT

the Treasurersof Athena before their establishment in the Opisthodomos and which must have been bonded into the foundationsof the Propylaiaas early as 437.34 But this proves nothing about the date of the Kallias decrees. The original home of the lintel is not known and its re-use did not have to wait until the decrees of Kallias. Nor did the use of the Opisthodomosfor the Treasurersof Athena. James M. Paton was probably right in thinking that the Treasurersof Athena had been installed in the Opisthodomos when the western end was all that was left of the Old Temple.35The ruined partsof this and other buildingswere availableas a quarryfrom which Mnesikles could drawmaterial for the foundations of the Propylaia.So far as the Opisthodomosis concerned it is significantthat it was among the buildingson the Acropolis renovated and repairedby Mnesikles accordingto the terms of the decrees of Kallias. It was made ready for its double duty, which included housing the newly created board of Treasurers of the Other Gods. Deductible expenses incurred between the time of the Kallias decrees and the speech of Perikleswhich reduced the normal balanceof 6000 talents on the Acropolisto 5700 may now be summarizedas follows: 76 talents Expeditionsto Corcyra A small amount Three (?) Golden Nikai 200 talents36 Work on the Propylaia The Other Buildings (D2, lines 4-12) 20 talents37 400 talents38 Campaignsto Poteidaia The total figure for loans to the state from Athena's money came to about 700 talents. This is more than twice the sum by which Thucydides says that the normal 6000 talents of reserve had been reduced to 5700 in May of 431. The answer must be that the usual normal increment of 200 talents a year had been turned over to Athena both in 433/2 and in 432/1,39in both years after the collection of the tribute at the time of the Dionysia. The normal level of the reserve was thus maintained as always (ati 7ToTE) except for the reduction of 300 talents by May of 431 to 5700. Thucydides has given the items that made up the reductionas the Propylaia,the work on the Acropolis under Mnesikles, and Poteidaia. We know also from the inscriptionsthe other items 34Dinsmoor,1947, p. 139. Cambridge,Mass. 1927, p. 472; see also Hesperia16, 1947, p. 285. 35JamesM. Paton, TheErechtheum, The ground plan of the Opisthodomoscan be seen in W. B. Dinsmoor, "The Burningof the Opisthodomos at Athens," AJA 36, 1932, pp. 320-321, figs. 3 and 4; the room for the treasureof Athena is on the right and that for the treasureof the OtherGods is on the left (D2, lines 24-25). 36Forthis item of expense see the analysisin ATL III, p. 342, notes 68 and 73, where the loans are keyed to the amount of interestaccruedupon them. 37Theseexpenses were for the renovation of the Acropolis authorizedin the decree of Kallias (D2, lines 4-12). Work on the Acropolisearlierwhen Mnesikleswas gatheringstones for the foundationof the Propylaiain 437 and 434 (see above) was debited to the Propylaia.It was a bookkeepingdevice which served until the reformsof Kalliashad taken effect. 38Seefootnote 36. 39Thispossibilityfor 433/2 was envisagedin A TL III, p. 342, note 68.

AND THEDECREESOF KALLIAS THUCYDIDES

119

and something of the amounts involved. The total cost of Poteidaiawas 2700 talents,40 but the text of D2 was concernedonly with the cost down to May of 431. The provisions of the Kalliasdecree D2 are now seen to be accuratelyreflected in Thucydides, ii.13.3. It should be noted that no expense has to be deducted from the Thucydideannorm except for items which are deductibleafter the passageof the Kallias decrees. Thucydidesand D2 both mention the Propylaiaand "the other construction". Thucydides now adds the cost of Poteidaiawhich is absent from the Kallias decree for the good reason that Poteidaia lay still in the future. In following the book texts of Thucydidesone is grossly misled; the correct text is that of the scholion on Aristophanes, which agrees with the known facts of the financialhistory of Athens and with the explanation which Thucydides gives for the sum total of 6000 (i.e. 5700) talents of coined silver on the Acropolis in 431 B.C. The book text had stated an alleged maximum (a meaning which T7a VXJ0rToa never has in Thucydides4l)as a simple fact (ErT TOTE); the scholiast's text states the maintenanceof a balance of 6000 talents as a matter of policy (cas' IToTE). Furthermore, Thucydides gives the reason for the lesser figure: there had been deductions for expense incurred since the passage of the Kallias decrees in 434/3. This knowledge also dates the beginning of the policy of having 6000 talents always available. This money was in coined silver, not merely in bullion or in votive offerings. These existed too in the Athenian reserve (Thucydides, ii.13.4) but the passage of Thucydides here in question was concerned only with the minted silver (capyvptov Emur1,4ov).This policy of having a reserve fund of 6000 talents always available must have been instituted as part of the financialreforms of Kallias in 434/3, after the 3000 talents of DI had been placed on the Acropolis and after the coined money of the Other Gods (see below) had been banked with the new board of Treasurersof the Other Gods. The words arEstTrOTE mean "alwaysfrom the beginning of the policy" and do not ipso facto imply a remote beginning.42Here the policy had been in effect just over two years. The treasureof the Other Gods played an importantpart in buildingup the normal balance of 6000 talents. Tullia Linders, in her study of the Other Gods, remarks that there had been no melting down or moving of votive offeringsfrom the various shrines to the Acropolis.43But it was different with the coined silver. The decree D2 makes it 401socrates,Apododis(xv).113. 4"Forthe meaningof Ta nxd-CTa see B. D. Meritt, Hesperia23, 1954, pp. 169-231. 42Forthe meaningof aid TrOTIEin this passagesee ibid., pp. 192-193. The enmity between the Syracusan Hermokratesand Tissapherneshad its beginning in 413 (Thucydides,viii.85.3). In 411 it was said to have existed ald 7ToTe, a period of at most two years. When I wrote the article in Hesperiahere quoted I believed that the ati irove of Thucydides,ii.13.3 meant 17 years, but this was before I believed, as I do now, that the beginningof aid IOTE must be with the reforms of Kalliasin 434/3 and that the historical setting is as I have outlined it here. 43TulliaLinders, op. cit. (footnote 1 above), p. 29, thinks it may "be inferredthat the majorityof the votives of silver and gold remainedduringthe war in the temples where they had been dedicated."Wesley E. Thompson (Thompson, 1973, p. 37 and p. 45, note 90), came to the same conclusion.The gatheringof availablecoined moneys on the Acropolisand the founding of the new board of Treasurersof the Other

120

BENJAMIND. MERITT

clear that the repaymentto the Other Gods of what moneys were owed to them would probablycome to less than 200 talents. These sums were to go directlyto the Acropolis to be held in trust by the Treasurersof Athena and then, at the Panathenaiaof 433, to be turned over to the new board of Treasurersof the Other Gods. At the same time, individually,the Other Gods must have turned over to the new board their holdings in coined silver. Only thus can be explained the colossal sum of more than 821 talents which the Other Gods had been able to lend to the Athenian State between-433 and 423/2.44Of this amount more than 766 talents had been borrowed before the end of 427/6.45 These amounts came from the coined silver of the Acropolis and must be counted as part of the 6000 talents which Perikles claimed were always (cadt ITooE) kept there. Before this transferwas made in 433 the balance of coined silver on the Acropolis must have been very low indeed for the major borrowingsfrom Athena could have come only from the initial grant of 5000 talents given outright to Athena from the Delian treasury in 450/49, the use of which was not "protected" as were the 3000 talents accumulatedbetween 449/8 and 435/4.46 The standardreserve of 6000 talents could have been leveled off only after the coined silver of the Other Gods had been added to the coined silver of Athena alreadyon the Acropolis.47The protectionof the 3000 talents of the Strasbourgpapyrus (as restored) and of DI is evidenced by the languageof the so-called SpringhouseDecree (D19) which A. G. Woodhead now dates in 435 B.c.48 This shows (lines 14-16) that no new constructionwas to jeopardize the accumulationof the 3000 talents by impingingon the normal addition of 200 talents a year (Tai vou46uEva to Athena) until the total of 3000 was reached. One outstanding considerationin our judgment of the text of Thucydides is that the sum of 6000 talents in 431 cannot be explained as a reduction from 10,000 by anything in the book text of Thucydides, ii.13.3. On the other hand, the explanatory clause (with yap) covers adequatelythe reduction from a standardbalance of 6000 to an actual 5700 in 431 while naming a few expenses of the years from 434/3 to May of 431 which he estimates as 300 talents more than income. This is clear cut and intelligible; aid ITOzTEhas its logical meaning and Tal 7rT-XE'tia does not need to mean the maximum, a meaning which it is not known ever to have had in Thucydides.The policy of having on the Acropolis a normal sum of 6000 talents was destined not to last for Gods to care for them "was not to protect them from pillage by the enemy but against spending by the local authorities."But surely the incentive of protectionwas also present. "1IG 12, 324 = CQ 18, 1968, p. 94, line 119. 450p. cit., lines 103-105.

46Thesum of 3000 talents has been reasonablyrestored in the Strasbourgpapyrus,for which see the referencein footnote 7 above (the articlein Hesperiahas both text and photograph).In the text the restorto yLov[AEva EK TJW 06pcoI. The proation of lines 8-9 must be changed fromyro[gEVcOV TOV 'epycoVI tected fund was not used while it was accumulating,either for buildingor anythingelse; hence the change in restorationshould be made. 47WesleyE. Thompson (Thompson, 1973, p. 37), thinks that this transfer was effected when the Treasurersof Athena turnedover what had been lodged with them in trust. 48A.G. Woodhead, ArchCI25/26, 1974, pp. 751--761,esp. p. 761.

THUCYDIDES AND THE DECREES OF KALLIAS

121

long. Poteidaia and its siege were far more costly than anticipated;Athenian finances were so reduced by 428 that Athens had to resort to a direct tax (ELo-0opa') at the time of the Mytilenaian revolt (Thucydides, iii.19); and near the end of the Archidamian War Athena and the Other Gods had paid out in loans to the State the enormous sum of 5599 talents 4829 drachmaiat least.49Both Athens and Sparta were ready for the Peace of Nikias. The achievement of Kalliashad been to gather together and conserve the resources of Athens before the outbreakof the war, and his decrees are to be read as a commentary on the confident report of Perikles to the Athenian people on the "state of the nation" when the war was finally declared.They are primarysources which explain and correctone moot passagein the text of the author. BENJAMIN D. MERITT UNIVERSITY OFTEXASAT AUSTIN Department of Classics Austin, TX 78712 491G 12, 324 = CQ 18, 1968, p. 94, line 122.

ARRIAN IN TWOROLES Eugene Vanderpool, who has helped everyone at the American School since at least 1931, will hopefully accept as token of an old colleague's appreciationan article on Arrian's partin carryingout Roman policy in respect to the philosophicalschools at Athens.

I. ARRIAN THE PHILOSOPHERIN FOUR RECENTDISCOVERIES 1. CorinthVIII, iii, no. 124 for a [4XJI0o-o[ov? who was Hadrian'slegate of Cappadocia was rightlyrecognizedby G. W. Bowersock, GRBS 8, 1967, pp. 279-280 as in honor of Flavius Arrianus (PIR2, F 219), whose name had disappeared.One should read also J. and L. Robert, BulIEpigr,1968, no. 253. 2. D. Peppas-Delmouzou, AAA 3, 1970, pp. 377-380 with photograph, published an acephalousherm from Athens with the following inscription: A (X 'AppLavo4vJ vlfTaKOv f4X0[O-0I[vI

On the disputed praenomen one may consult S. Follet, Athenesau IIe et au III" siecle, Paris 1976, p. 34, note 8. 3. On a double herm, Glyptano. 538 in the National Museum at Athens, the head of Arrianwas identified by the writer, "Herm at Athens with Portraitsof Xenophon and Arrian,"AJA 76, 1972, pp. 327-329. 4. SEG XXVI, 1215. A. Tovar, "Un nuevo epigramagriego de Cordoba:iArriano de Nicomedia, proconsul de Betica?" in P. Lain Entralgo (ed.), Estudiossobre la obra de AmericoCastro, Madrid 1971, pp. 401-412 with photograph,published what he called the most importantGreek inscriptionfound in the peninsula.It is an altar, 90 cm. high, found below ground level in Cordova. It was erected by one who considered himself sufficientlyprominentto be easily recognized by his cognomen alone,1 Arrianos, whom Tovar2very cautiouslyidentifiedas the famous pupil of Epictetusand imitatorof Xeno'For the use of cognomen alone by a prominent literaryfigure see L. Robert, Etudesanatoliennes, Paris 1937, pp. 216-220 about altarserected in Asia by Aelius Aristides;C. P. Jones, Phoenix32, 1978, pp. 231-234 about an altarerected in Attica by Aristides. The followingspecialabbreviationwill be used in this article: AgoraXV = B. D. Meritt and J. S. Traill, TheAthenianAgora, XV, Inscriptions.TheCouncillors,Princeton 1974. 2The publicationwas made with learnedcommentarybut without looking at the stone. Tovar, p. 406, writes of verse 3 (line 5), "El suplemento AE reconozco que puede discutirse, y solo un examen de la piedrapermiteraver si los restos que hay delante del hueco son, como parecepermite suponer la fotografia, de la E inicialde 4x0pw."By the remainswhich exist in front of the hole Tovar means a verticalhasta and traces of horizontalor curved strokes to the right. These cannot belong to an epsilon, because the inscriptionhas lunate epsilons. The poem has aroused considerablediscussion:M. F. Galiano, "Sobre la nueva inscripciongriega de Cordoba,"Emerita40, 1972, pp. 47-50; J. and L. Robert, BullEpigr1973, no.

ARRIANIN TWOROLES

123

phon, Flavius Arrianus (PIR2, F 219). Like others we agree with this identificationand refer the reader also to the parallels collected by previous commentators for similar words and phrasesin other poems, although the new epigramis by no means banal. The inscription, engraved in nine lines with lunate sigmas and epsilons, devotes two whole lines to each verse, the first part of each verse in large letters, the overflow centered below it in small; the end of each verse is marked by a leaf. We shall retain the division into four verses with dividers to show the lines and shall incorporatenew readingsin verse 3. KpE'rnrovca orot Xpvooo Koto Movoaov

4fpOTa I a&pYVpOV

8ipa,

"ApTELuC,Ka' 6prs IxoXov apELor[Epal l0 L8[acIp' 8E K(apan j &pa KoPI[kJEtv Evq OEV o0V 6o-j

2 2 o

8aktrropac7I&axorpTUwv

'Apptavos a&vOVirro' 1-2 Tovar. 3 Movcaiwv '[xIp4O /E KTX.Tovar, E[XIpD me Galiano, [a16p4 8e Marcovich1973, [ EIOPdpV8 Burkert,[vMIpwv8 Marcovich 1976, [avIopw1TE Peek, E[IXIpcovGiangrande, f3VI]pwv Oliver.

"There are for you immortal gifts superior to gold and silver, 0 Artemis, and far better than game they are, gifts which Muses inspire. For a person who belongs to tribunalsof justice it is not permissibleto offer as gifts to a deity (predatorybeasts) that destroy those of others. Arrianproconsul." 539 (again 1974, no. 721, again 1976, no. 796 and 1977, no. 597); M. Marcovich,"The Epigramof Proconsul Arrianfrom Cordoba,"ZPE 12, 1973, pp. 207-209; W. Burkert,"Nochmalsdas Arrian-Epigramm von Cordoba," ZPE 17, 1975, pp. 167-169 (improvedtext based on autopsywhich establishedonce and for all the correctnessof Ana MariaVicent's readingNA which Tovar had reportedbut rejected in favor of M in line 5, EXIe4pWAE); M. Marcovich,"NochmalsCordoba,widerum Arrian," ZPE20, 1976, pp. 41-43; A. B. Bosworth, "Arrianin Baetica," GRBS 17, 1976, pp. 55-64 (with first mention of the leaves). W. Peek, "Zum Arrian-Epigramm in Cordoba,"ZPE 22, 1976, pp. 87-88; L. Koenen, "Cordobaand no end," ZPE 24, 1977, pp. 35-40 (with scrupulousattention to details of engraving); A. Tovar, "Un nuevo epigrama griego: LArrianode Nicomedia, proconsulde Betica?" ArchivoEspanolde Arqueologia48, 1975 (published in 1977), pp. 167-173 with no reference to anyone else's discussion, with photographand much the same materialagain, but with acceptanceof Ana MariaVicent's readingafter autopsy.Tovar in 1977 still offered the reading epsilon as the first letter of E[X]Ipw-v. Burkertand Bosworthbracket the letter as rho, while Koenen dots it as a rho outside the bracket.This letter, which Tovar neither bracketsnor dots but treatsunintentionally,I think-as an absolutelycertain epsilon, would almost have to be an incompletelyvisible beta. The leaf which precedesthis letter does not "occurat random" (contraBosworth,p. 50). The use of separationleaves may be exemplified from other 2nd-centuryGreek inscriptions.On Hesperia47, 1978, pp. 306-309, no. 30 there are probablytwo leaves, to wit a large verticalleaf separatingthe two columns at the top of the list and a faint, small, horizontalleaf engraved to the left of lines 10 and 11 in such a way that it helps to separatethe awkwardlycut line 10 as partof the headingfrom the list which begins in line 11 (ibid., pI. 83). On Agora XV, nos. 419 and 437 a leaf marks the end of the heading of a prytanycatalogue. There are later inscriptionslike AgoraXV, nos. 434 and 440, also Hesperia11, 1942, pp. 71-74, no. 37, where the leaves seem to be rather arbitrarilyinserted, but one should not attributearbitraryuse to Arrian's inscriptionwhere the end of every verse is unfailinglymarked by a leaf, as in the Timocrates epigramof L.Kyme, no. 50. G. Giangrande,"El epigramade Arrianoa Artemis," Emerita44, 1976 [19771, pp. 349-355 has some true and interestingthings to say, but his interpretationsof 8at-rTopaq as "us parasites" seems quite fantastic.The present writer has discussed the epigram with his colleague James W. Poultney, helpful but not responsible,who refers 8aa-r0opaq to 8at'olat.

124

JAMESH. OLIVER

The stonecutter slightly separatedthe words apyvpov and g8pOTra in verse 1 (line 2) and the words OEIV and oix in verse 4 (line 7) in order to keep phrasesapart,but in from the word which followed it. verse 3 (line 5) he did more than separateMovo-acwv explained away as decoraplausibly be cannot which a leaf He seems to have inserted tion. The leaf was engraved there not only to keep the reader from taking Movoacwv and the next word as belongingclosely together but in order to mark the end of a major section, the first sentence. The stonecutter acted presumably on instructions from Arrian. The text has been partlymisunderstood,we think, because of two basic misunderstandings. First, the misreading epsilon in verse 3, line 5. Burkert re-examined the stone and eliminated the epsilon, but some who started their researchfrom an assumption of the readingepsilon cannot adjust to the situation. There exist three publications of photographsnone of which shows a trace that could be interpretedas belonging to a lunate epsilon. There exist also two unpublished squeezes (ectypa, calcos). Bosworth looked at the squeezes and reportedthe very importantevidence of the leaves, though he did not appreciatethe importance.He reportedalso that the squeezes gave no trace of the alleged epsilon. Then Giangrande, with no reference to Bosworth's small leaf after Movo-acwv,published a new text based on the reading epsilon (undotted as if certain). He assured everyone that the reading of one squeeze was epsilon and published a photograph,not of the squeeze, but of the stone itself on which there is no trace of a lunate epsilon after Movo-c'wv.In fact the photographshows something like a small leaf followed by a vertical hasta which excludes absolutely the alleged lunate epsilon. Secondly, the word Kap aTC (verse 3, line 5) is not an instrumentaldative but the ordinaryconstructionwhich accompaniesa phrase like ov'X 6'o-vo or ov' OE~ALTOV.Thus Sokolowski, Lois sacreesde lAsieMineure,no. 16, A-q 6'o-wvaVTacd' E Wm, cog aorEOVELV, and other parallels cited in SIG3 index; Herodotus, v.72.3, ov' yap f0OoL43, etc. Only Bosworth seems to have realized this. OE/LLTOU ACOplEVCTv rraptEval EvfaiVia, The word Kacpa means "head" but also "face" or "person", in prose lvpoo-wTrov, here in verse 3 person belonging to tribunalsof justice, 83W0Opwv.In a footnote Bosworth invited those dissatisfiedwith Burkert's [lpElpcvv to experiment with words like 8ac'Opov.Rightly. In Hesychius, s.v. fa'Opov, the first equivalent given is fqija, and some would think of Sophocles, Antigone854, viirjoXVA Kaq facOpov. With anxiety lest the readerfailed to grasphis phrase "for a person belonging to tribunals,"Arrianadded the to his signatureas author. word a&v'TaTro19 The backgroundfor the second sentence, 83[a] pwV 8E' Ka paTt ... &XXorpUv,will be found in Epictetus, Discourses 2 and 29 of Book I. Discourse 2 on how a man may preserve To Kar& iWpo-cwTov on every occasion (or in every situation) explains that the same course may be right for a man in one role but wrong in another. The right decision to do this or that depends on the iTpo-wiuov a man assumes for himself. Discourse 29 on Steadfastnesshas a comment on how to distinguish the tragic from the comic, since the tragic and comic actors wear the same costume. Epictetus (X.29.44-66)then

ARRIANIN TWOROLES

125

turns to the role a man assumes in real life. "'Take a governorship'," he begins. "I take it, and having done so, I show how an educated man comports himself. 'Lay aside the broad stripe, and having put on rags, come forward Ev 17pOoC017p TOIOVTW-'."In i.29.57 Epictetussays, "This is TO1p7oclrrov I would have you assume, that we may no longer use old examples in the school, but may have some example from our own time also" (from the Loeb translationof W. A. Oldfather).For a part as proconsul it is not KaTa to offer as gifts to a deity destroyers? (devourers?) of the gifts of lTpOTCTOV others. Artemis O(TVYEL ... 8ELIrVOvaiETWv (Aeschylus, Agamemnon138). The epigramis facetious, as Koenen rightly insists. Arrian, perhapsafter an unsuccessful hunt, pretends to find verses better than game, especially predators,as gifts to Artemis; in disallowingpredators,moreover, he claims to be acting in accord with the (temporary)position of a proconsul. Finally, the juxtapositionof the word "Muses" and of a poetical circumlocutionfor governor ought to be significant, because a connection was recognized between the right judgments given by a good governor and the education received through the Muses.3 Thus an inscriptionerected at Thespiae for the proconsul of Achaia, Vettius Agorius Praetextatus,begins with the couplet:

Tov Kat EV8LKWlat-tTpafEV-a Pcao-avq MovlaLo-L ov apeo'oylRyaL7c 'EXX'8oq a'v~v7raTOV. aPXEY Xa-q&viarv In P. Coll. Youtie,no. 66, lines 6-9 the grammarian4begins an early draftof his petition to the emperors Valerian and Gallienus with the words, 'H [ohv'palpXaq VWPv JEYako7) Er nXa/LJa(Ya T77)L VlETEpal V7l Kal V O1KOVAE C ca MoV'ua Ol KEco OpoovV7 77p6 cY' -7Tat8EUJ

yap

vJ4ELV OVVE?pOK-

II. ARRIAN AS THE EMPEROR'SCOMMISSIONERAT ATHENS At Athens, where the philosophicaltradition was strongest, the philosophershad participatedactively in the city's affairsagainst the friends of Rome at the time of the Mithradatictroubles. This could not be allowed to happen again because of the very prestige and influence of Athens. Under the principate,from Augustus or Vespasian to Hadrian, the endowed philosophicalschools5 were protected but also restrainedby the necessity of choosing a Successor (to Plato, Zeno or Epicurus) from among Roman citizens by means of a Roman testament in the Latin language, a testament that would 3L. Robert, "Epigrammed'Egine," HellenicaIV, Paris 1948, pp. 5-34 cites with two other epigrams the inscriptionat Thespiaepublishedby A. Plassart,BCH 50, 1926, pp. 444-446, no. 85. 4P. J. Parsons, "Petitionsand a Letter:The Grammarian'sComplaint," CollectaneaPapyrologica: Texts Publishedin Honor of H. C. Youtie(PapyrologischeTexte und Abhandlungen,20, Bonn 1976), pp. 409446, no. 66. 5J. H. Oliver, "The Diadocheat Athens under the HumanisticEmperors,"AJP 98, 1977, pp. 160-178, where it is arguedthat there were three diadochoi,one main diadochosrepresentingthe interests and property of Platonists, Aristoteliansand eclectics, then two diadochoifor the two sects which held aloof, the Stoics and the Epicureans.

JAMESH. OLIVER

126

stand up in a Roman court at a time when local Greek courts were already felt to be weak enforcers of justice in an environment disturbedby powerful local magnates and foreign interests. This may have gone back to Augustus as Mommsen6 suggested, but may since no Successors are attested under the Julio-Claudianemperors, the diadoche3 also have declined or even lapsed for a while and been revived by or before Vespasian, who gave some attention to the institutions of higher education, as one infers from a famous Pergamene inscription.7Vespasian distrusted Helvidius Priscus (PIR2, H 59) and certain other philosophers, but the main Successor at Athens, T. Flavius Menander, bears the emperor's nomen and probablyenjoyed the emperor's confidence. The Successions may have been better protected but simultaneously more effectively restrainedin the Flavian Period than earlier.No change is visible at Athens until A.D. 121 when the EpicureanSchool appliedto Hadrianthrough Plotina for permissionto choose either a Roman or non-Roman Greek as Successor and to hand on the inheritancein a testament drawn up in either language.8Hadrianacquiesced, but in A.D. 125 he had to reassurethe School that he still felt as he did four years earlier9when Plotina was alive. So as late as 125 the situation had not changed drastically,though a change was surely coming. The Roman courts had now become higher ratherthan foreign courts and gave the protectionwhich the schools needed. Hadrian'sclose relationswith Athens were a guarantee of his sympathyand concern, as the schools were surely aware. They would have been eager to respect his wishes in certaincases, but they could not alwaysconsult him, and the annual proconsulof Achaia, chosen by lot in the senate, was no substitute. George Syncellus (p. 659 Dindorf) reports that "Plutarchof Chaeronea, philosopher, was in his old age appointed by the emperor (Hadrian) to be a procuratorof 1794 Adler) says that Trajan granted Hellas." Likewise the Suda (s.n. HlXoViapXoq consulariaand notified the rulers of Illyris (sic) not to carryout Plutarchthe ornamental any (decision) without asking his opinion. Since Hadrianadopted the name P. Aelius TraianusHadrianus,confusion arose later between Trajanand Hadrian,so that it looks to the writer10as if Syncellus and the Suda referred to the same information.At least SchriftenIII,pp. 50-52). The writerdoes 6Th. Mommsen, ZSav 12, 1891, pp. 152-154 (= Gesammelte a problemfor Augustus in the constituted schools hardly the philosophical because opinion this not share weakness and impoverishmentof Greece after the civil wars, but following the last years of Nero and the appearanceof pseudo-Nerosin the East during the early reign of Vespasianthe loyalty and good sense of manyGreeks came into question.Vespasianhimself canceledNero's grantof freedom for Achaia. 7R. Herzog, "Urkunden zur Hochschulpolitikder rbmischen Kaiser," SBBerl 1935, pp. 967-1019, reviewed by W. Hartke, Gnomon14, 1938, pp. 507-512. Publishedalso in S. Riccobono, Fonteslurisromani antejustiniani,2nd ed., Florence 1941, pp. 420-428 as nos. 73 and 77, and in McCrumand Woodhead, SelectDocumentsof the Principatesof the FlavianEmperors,Cambridge1961, no. 458 without knowledgeof Beiheft 48, 19431,pp. 6-7). KonigsbriefeWK/ho, A. Wilhelm's restorationof line 12 (Griechische 8IG 112,1099.

9S. Follet, Athe'nesau 11' et au III" siecle, Paris 1976, pp. 23-24. See further AJP 99, 1978, pp.

269-270. 10E.Groag, Die romischenReichsbeamtenvon Achaia bis auf Diokletian(Schriftender Balkankommission, AntiquarischeAbt. IX, Vienna-Leipzig1939), coll. 145-147 accepts Trajan(or rather the senate at

ARRIANIN TWOROLES

127

Hadriangave Plutarch a procuratorialappointment in Hellas. The word "Hellas" emphasizes the free cities as part of the area under the supervision rather than imperium of the proconsulof Achaia and his legate. Plutarchthus obtained an official position as Hadrian'scultural representativewith the addition of ornamental consulariato make it easier for him to assert himself in dealing with Roman magistratesof praetorianrank. The post was a unique service as a trusted Greek philosopherand not part of an equestrian career. In this period, even while teachers were obtaining some immunity and more freedom, it does not seem likely that the philosophicalschools were left entirely to themselves to indulge in rivalries and to dabble again in political indiscretions.L. Aemilius Juncus cos. 127, a senator in whom Hadrianhad great confidence, was sent to the free cities of Greece as legatusAugustipro praetore(that is, corrector). He has turned up in the Agora inscriptionsrather surprisinglyas son-in-law of the main Successor, Varius Caelianus.11He became an Athenian citizen of the deme Gargettos and may have resided much of the time at Athens. After Hadrian'sdeath he served for a while as proconsul (of Asia?). When Varia Archelais, wife of Aemilius Juncus, died, the arrangementwhich had apparentlyworked well at Athens through the Successor came to an end. It was at about this time that Flavius Arrianusof Nicomedia, a former student of Epictetusand a consular presumablysince 129 or 130,12 seems to have settled at Athens. He is thought to have been legate of Cappadociabetween 130 or 134 and 137.13 He became an Athenian citizen of the deme Paianiaand in 145/6 he served as archon of the city. The date when he settled at Athens is not known but it doubtless antedated 145/6.14 Trajan'srequest) for the ornamental consulariaand Hadrianfor the procuratorshipof Achaia. H.-G. Pflaum, Les carrie'res procuratoriennes equestressous le Haut-Empire romainIII (Inst. Fr. d'Archeologie de Beyrouth, Bibl. arch. et hist. 57, 1961), p. 1071 accepts Plutarchas proc. Achaiae, centenarius, "vers 117-120." In our opinion, however, this is not the usual post but something brand-new. H Hesperia36, 1967, p. 45. See furtherJ. and L. Robert, BullEpig1968, no. 226; J. H. Oliver, AJP 98, 1977, pp. 170-171; S. Follet, op. cit. (footnote 9 above), pp. 32-34. "2Thedate of his consulshipis still unconfirmed,but not before A.D. 129 accordingto A. Degrassi, I fasti consolaridell'Impero romano,Rome 1952, p. 37. 13W. Eck, Senatorenvon Vespasianbis Hadrian( Vestigia13, 1970), pp. 204-210; G. Alfdldy, Konsulat und Senatorenstandhunter den Antoninen(Antiquitas,Reihe I 27, 1977), pp. 220, 238-239, 267-268; B. Thomae, Laterculipraesidum,II, ii, Gbteborg 1978, p. 137. The dissertationby Everett H. Wheeler, Flavius Arrianus:A Politicaland MilitaryBiography(Duke University 1977) gives full attention to the governorship of Cappadociabut was not available to me. It is cited in the same author's article "The Legion as Phalanx," Chiron9, 1979, pp. 303-318. "4On Arrian at Athens see also S. Follet, op. cit. (footnote 9 above), pp. 34-36. The date when L. Aemilius Juncus cos. 127 became proconsul [of Asia, where his father had served as procurator]may have been 141/2, if the usual intervalof fourteen years prevailed(see G. Alfdldy, op. cit. [footnote 13 above], pp. 110-124). On Arrianin Syriaone need not agree with (Harrerand) J. P. Rey-Coquais,JRS 68, 1978, p. 65 and note 288, but two assignments,one in A.D. 131/2-137 as governor of Cappadocia,then another (ratherunlikely) before 147 in Syria in an unknown capacity(in fact the phrasea&V9VraTOqOtko'o-oo in an unpublishedacephalousinscriptionat Byblos would suit Aemilius Juncus better than Arrian), do not invalidateour chronologyfor Arrianat Athens, who would have been appointedas a culturalrepresentative for AntoninusPius, when or before Aemilius Juncus became proconsulof Asia.

JAMESH. OLIVER

128

Since a provincialRoman senator was supposedto invest in an Italianestate and to attend the senate when he was not on special assignment elsewhere, it is hard to believe that Arrianat an early age retired to Athens with no officialassignmentwhatsoever. It is easier to believe that he was excused from attendancein the senate and allowed to retire to Athens because he was in some way more useful to the Roman government preciselythere rather than in Rome or Nicomedia. With this in mind let us re-examine the new evidence on Arrian. No. 1 above honors Arrianas a philosopherat the time when he was still Hadrian's legate of Cappadocia.The relatively respectable VitaHadriani 16.10, which speaks of Hadrian'sfriendshipfor Epictetus, implies that a double bond connected Hadrianwith the author and administrator(No. 4) who had recordedthe Dialogues of Epictetus.The Gellii brotherswho erected No. 1 may have been inspiredto honor Arrianas a philosopher because they foresaw the retirement to Athens and its implication.The Athenian inscriptionNo. 2 calls Arrian "consularphilosopher"as if the phrase had special significance. It probablydid have for one who knew the position earlieroccupied officiallyand non-officiallyby Aemilius Juncus at Athens. The evidence of recent discoveries about Aemilius Juncus and Arrian, it seems to me, supports the likelihood of an official position behind the descriptionof Arrian as C XAo-obos, a single phrase equivalent to a title uniquely suitable for the V1TaTtLKo service which Arrian alone had to render and which makes it less remarkablethat another senatorialhistorianand administrator,Cassius Dio of Nicaea in Bithynia, is said When Arrian posed and received ToVi cXkoo-&kov.15 to have composed a Bioq 'AppLavov' recognition as the New Xenophon16(cf. No. 3, above), the pose, which expressed a genuine sympathy for old Xenophon the Athenian, was pleasing both to Hadrian or Antoninus Pius and to the publicat Athens, where it eased the way for a special assignment. We may look at it also from this point of view. The administratorand judge, Aemilius Juncus cos. 127, despite the silence of Themistius in Orations 17 and 34, has a better chance of being the philosopherwho composed the essay On Old Age than has his homonymous son or [Fl?Iavius Juncus his son-in-law.17If then the consul of 127 I5Suda, s.n. Abwv6 Kacootos-

161tis likely that Arrianwas sometimes called at Athens v)X/3tos 'Apptav6s v0os bErVOfrwV, just as ('Apx'Ek, 1972, pp. Julius Nicanorwas called 'IoviSto' NtKa6VCP VEIOS[( OArpO] KaL VEIOS0EUtOI[TOKX7pI 55-57). That is, Arriandid not receive "Xenophon"as another name, as Ph. A. Stadter, "Flavius Arrianus: the new Xenophon," GRBS 8, 1967, pp. 155-161 used to think. No evidence as yet suggests to the writerthat Arrianwas ever calledjust Xenophon or adoptedXenophon as an agnomen. 17Themistiusmentions Arrianand Rusticusas philosopherswhom Trajan,Hadrianand the Antonines had drawn into public service but does not mention Aemilius Juncus. Still the argumentfrom silence is bei Stobaeus(diss. seldom strong and in this case weaker than usual. J. A. A. Faltin, Die Juncus-Fragmente late 1st or 2nd century the of Atticist an as (so Photius) the "philosopher" identified Freiburgim Br. 1910) after Christ who expressed himself as if he were an Athenian. When inscriptionsdiscovered in the Agora excavationsrevealed that the daughterof the diadochoshad a husband,son and son-in-lawnamed Juncus (a comparativelyrare cognomen) in a philosophicalenvironment at the very period of the "philosopher" Juncus, it became hard to deny that he was one of the three. The more unfamiliarson-in-lawmay have

ARRIAN IN TWO ROLES

129

was not just the son-in-law of the main diadochosat Athens but a man with philosophical pretensionshimself, his usefulness to Hadrianwas not limited to administrationand jurisdiction;he could have assumed the role of Plutarchnear the philosophicalschools of Athens. We assume that he did so. Antoninus Pius replacedhim with an even better man, Flavius Arrianus, who combined the same qualities of administrator,judge and philosopher. We may be able to discern in all this a flexible and enlightened policy beginningwith Vespasian'sinterest in schools of higher education and with a revival by Vespasian rather than by Augustus of the old diadocheunder strict rules and requirements to maintain effective Roman control, then the appointment of Plutarch with consulariato a position of influence and greater protection of schools, then ornamental after the death of Plutarch and the intervention of Plotina, in A.D. 125 to ca. 127 a dismantlingof controls over the successors in philosophicalschools but accompaniedby the appointment of able consular philosophers (first Juncus, then Arrian) to official posts in the free cities or Athens alone. This development may be integratedinto another frame of reference. Trajanbegan the practice of sending correctoresto the free cities of Greece.18Hadrian appointed Plutarch as procuratorwith ornamentalconsulariato be his representative in dealings with the philosophicalschools at Athens. After A.D. 127 HadrianappointedL. Aemilius Juncus primarilyas corrector,but since Juncus was both a philosopherand son-in-lawof the main Successor at Athens, Varius Caelianus, Juncus could serve also as Hadrian's representative in dealings with the philosophicalschools.19Then after the transfer of Aemilius Juncus ca. 141 Antoninus Pius appointed Arrian as his representative at Athens in dealingswith the philosophicalschools, with the option of using him also as a correctorto the free cities, if this became desirable.As far as we know, Antoninus Pius never used him as corrector. JAMESH. OLIVER MD BALTIMORE,

seemed less disqualifiedby the silence of Themistius until H. Halfmann, Die Senatorenaus dem bstlichen Teildes ImperiumRomanumbis zum Endedes 2. Jh. n. Chr. (Hypomnemata58, Gdttingen 1979) identified him attractivelywith an ambassadorfrom colonia Flavia Neapolis Samariain AEpigr,1972, no. 577, who has no resemblanceto an Athenianwith philosophicalpretensions. "8Thatis, Trajandid not change the status of the province. The legatiAugustipr. pr. did not displace the proconsulof Achaiabut went to the free cities as correctores.See W. Eck, op. cit. (footnote 13 above), p. 258. "9Inthe later addition vOfvi7arTO'to his name on his wife's monument (see Hesperia 36, 1967, p. 43

and AJP 98, 1977, pp. 170-171) no province is indicated, merely a post held after the demise of his wife. It reminds one of the inscriptionat Byblos (JRS 68, 1978, p. 65, note 288), where someone (identity unknown) is mentioned as acvOvl7aTo'OtXAo-ofx;,a title not unlike V7CaTtKOq OtX0[o-o1ook]which Arrian bears on a base (above, No. 2) at Athens. In footnote 14 we suggested that the proconsulwas L. Aemilius Juncus, now claimed (see footnote 17) both as a philosopherand as having the title proconsulwithout name of province, perhapsbecause he had not yet assumed office.

THE DEDICATIONOF ARISTOKRATES THE

REDISCOVERYand the prompt republicationof IG 12, 772 by T. Leslie Shear, Jr.1enabled P. Amandry to include this importantmonument in his tripod studies.2I was able in the Spring of 1977 to examine the stone in the company of E. Homann-Wedeking. The letters of the inscription can now be seen more clearly on the photograph publishedby Amandry.I am not as confident as Amandrythat the missing letters at the ends of lines 4-6 have disappeared;I think that at least those in lines 4-5 were never engraved, and I noticed that the last epsilon of the third line is incompletely inscribed, lacking the two upper horizontal strokes. William B. Dinsmoor, Jr. has kindly and generously confirmedthis observation (in a letter of January23rd, 1980). This observation receives significance from the unusual letter forms which have caused concern even before the inscription was rediscovered.3Now that we can all inspect the lettering, it is obvious that the epigraphicalevidence does not agree within grounds. Aristokratesthe itself and with the dating based on prosopographical-historical son of Skellias belongs to the last quarterof the 5th century B.C.4 The inscription,with its three-barsigma and single spelling of double lambdain the father's name, has been dated earlier, between 480 B.C. and 440 B.C., even before it was rediscovered;now that we can look at the original, the problem has not been resolved as Shear's cautious but inconclusiveremarks(p. 175 and note 130) clearlyshow. The monument itself can be restoredwith greaterconfidence. Shear pointed out (p. 173) that the crowningmember of the preserveddrum directlyaccomodatedthe feet of a tripod, and Amandry essentially agreed with him (p. 189), adding that the column was not very high, with the inscriptionperhapsjust above eye level, about two meters from the ground. This could mean two column drums of the height of the preserved one (ca. 0.835 m.) and a stepped base below the column; Amandry illustratedsuch a monument from a vase paintingof about 410 B.C.5 One would expect to find on the top and on the bottom preparationsfor the supportof the tripod and for a connection with the second column drum below. Although both Shear (p. 173) and Amandry (p. 189) insist and Dinsmoor confirms (by letter) that the preservedcircularcuttings on top and bottom are both from later uses of the drum as a mill stone, I suspect that they conceal the originalcuttings of which the bottom one served to receive a stone tenon connectI Hesperia42, 1973, pp. 173-175, no. 1, with a drawingby W. B. Dinsmoor, Jr. 2BCH 100, 1976, p. 19, with note 7; pp. 27-28; BCH 101, 1977, p. 182, with drawingand good photograph,fig. 8; p. 189. 3See the bibliographyassembledby Shear, p. 174, note 128, and Amandry,p. 182, note 31. 4See the pertinentdiscussions by A. Andrewes and D. M. Lewis, JHS 77, 1957, pp. 179-180; H. C. Studiesin the Oligarchyof the FourHundred(diss. Princeton, 1959, pp. 70-86); J. K. Avery, Prosopographical Families,Oxford 1971, pp. 56-59, no. 1904. Davies, AthenianPropertied 5BCH, Suppl.I, EtudesDeliennes,p. 34 and fig. 14.

THEDEDICATION OF ARISTOKRATES

131

ing it with the column drum below, and the top one the foot of a small marble column which supportedthe tripod.6 Returning finally to the chronological problem, one can say that the inscription would be odd for ca. 420 B.C. even if it did not contain four examples of the three-bar sigma and the single spelling of a double consonant. It is inscribedhorizontallyin vertical flutes, two letters to a flute, and it is incompletelyinscribedwith individualbars and whole letters missing. Since we are dealing here surely with the "beautifuldedication" which Aristokratesthe son of Skellias made in the Pythion,7the mere assumptionthat the preserved inscription belongs to a dedication by Aristokrates' grandfather, who would have had the same name and father's name, does not suffice to account for the peculiarityof the stone at hand, nor do "conscious archaismor personal idiosyncracy"8 satisfy, although there may be some truth in all of these explanations. The Pythion of Athens where the dedication of Aristokrateswas erected had been founded by Peisistratos,perhapsby the younger Peisistratos,the son of Hippias,who is known to have set up the altarof Apollo Pythios which is still preservedwith its inscription, IG 12, 761.9 This inscriptionwhich refers to the archonshipof the younger Peisistratos in 521/0 B.C. was not engraved at that time, to judge from its lettering.10Thucydides claimed that it could not easily be read at his-time (vi.54.6) while it is clearlyvisible today.1"We have here an inscriptionwhich was re-engraved or transcribedlater than the event to which its refers, perhapsas much as thirty years later, if this Peisistratos was a child of Hippias'first marriageand if his nephew was the Hipparchosthe son of Charmoswho was ostracizedin 487 B.C.12 The younger Peisistratosmay have had a son whom he called Hippiasand who made a dedication in the Ptoon which was inscribed by the same hand as the altarin the Pythion.13 A similarcase is the early Ionic capitalfrom Paros with the tomb epigramof Archilochos14which was inscribed in the canalis of the capital (also a very unusual place). Evidently, the inscriptionbelongs to the monument but was not inscribedat the same time as the monument was erected.15 These examples of re-engravedinscriptionsmay help us understandthe inscription on the dedication of Aristokrateswhich was erected in the same sanctuaryof Apollo 6See the examples illustratedby Amandry,BCH 100, 1976, p. 16, fig. 1; p. 26, fig. 10; p. 29, fig. 17. 7Plato, Gorgias472AB; see the edition by E. R. Dodds, 1959, pp. 244-245 with D. M. Lewis' comments on this passage. 8Shear,op. cit. (footnote 1 above), p. 175. 9For bibliographyand for a discussion of the topography,see R. E. Wycherley, TheStonesof Athens, Princeton1978, pp. 167-168 with note 29, and note 9 on p. 177. 10SeeL. H. Jeffery, TheLocalScriptsof ArchaicGreece,Oxford 1961, p. 75. "See J. Kirchner,Imaginesinscriptionum atticarum,2nd ed. by G. Klaffenbach,Berlin 1948, p. 11, no. 12; J. Travlos, PictorialDictionaryof AncientAthens,New York 1971, p. 102, figs. 132-134. 12SeeClMed19, 1958, pp. 106-107. 13See Jeffery, op. cit. (footnote 10 above), p. 75, note 4. 14G.Daux, BCH 85, 1961, pp. 846-847. 15SeeEntretienssur I`antiquite classiqueXIV, Geneva 1967, pp. 15-16 and 35-36.

132

ANTONYE. RAUBITSCHEK

Pythios as the altar of Peisistratos.Its unusual inscriptionmay record an earlier dedication made by Aristokrates'grandfather,and the stonecuttermay have imitated (or been told to imitate) the earlier letter forms and the earlier spelling. The original lettering may have been made in paint, with the result that not all the letters were preservedand in the end not all were carved onto the stone. The entire monument may have contained much more than the tripodand its columnar base of which the upper drum only is preserved. These tentative suggestions are offered to the Nestor of our studies in the hope that he may, as he did so often in the past, present us with the correct answer and the solution of the problem. ANTONYE. RAUBITSCHEK UNIVERSITY STANFORD Department of Classics Stanford, CA 94305

THE PNYX IN MODELS* (PLATES16-19)

HE IDENTIFICATION,the history and the successive shapes of the assembly place on the Pnyx are now fairly well established, and the present state of our knowledge is recorded especially in drawings by John Travlos.1 But the relationship between the auditoriumand its setting is unique and at first sight so illogical that even the visitor to the site may feel baffled.What is needed to clarifythe situation is a series of models of the auditoriumin the three successive periods of its history. These models have now been produced by John Travlos. Made from plaster of Paris at a scale of 1:200, they are exhibited in the uppercolonnade of the Stoa of Attalos. From this place the Pnyx itself is visible at a distance of 500 meters to the southwest: It is the purpose of the present paper to give a brief account of the auditoriumin each of its three periods as illustrated by the models, and at the same time to indicate such adjustments regardingthe history and design of the establishment as have been suggested subsequent to the publicationof the excavations made by the Greek ArchaeologicalService and the AmericanSchool of ClassicalStudies between 1930 and 1937. T

SETTING(PIS. 16,

17)

A photographtaken late in the 19th century shows the site before the ancient earth embankment had been disturbed by major excavation and before the contours of the *In respectfulhomage to a very sure-footed student of Athenian topographyand to an esteemed colleague for a half century. 'Works listed in the followingbibliographywill be cited in shortenedform in subsequentfootnotes. vonAthen, 2nd ed., Munich 1931, pp. 390-397; K. KourounioExcavations:W. Judeich, Topographie tes and H. A. Thompson, "The Pnyx in Athens," Hesperia1, 1932, pp. 90-217; W. B. Dinsmoor, review of Hesperia1 in AJA 37, 1933, pp. 180-182 with reply by K. Kourouniotesand H. A. Thompson, op. cit., pp. 652-656; H. A. Thompson, "Pnyx and Thesmophorion," Hesperia 5, 1936, pp. 151-200; H. A. Thompsonand R. L. Scranton,"Stoasand City Walls on the Pnyx," Hesperia12, 1943, pp. 269-383. Finds from the excavations:G. R. Davidson and D. BurrThompson, Hesperia,Suppl.VII, Baltimore 1943 (miscellaneous, terracottafigurines); B. Philippaki,G. R. Edwards,V. Grace, Hesperia,Suppl. X, Princeton1956 (figuredpottery, Hellenisticpottery, stampedwine jars). Subsequentdiscussion:W. A. McDonald, ThePoliticalMeetingPlaces of the Greeks,Baltimore 1943, chap. 4; E. Meyer, RE, s.v. Pnyx, 1951; J. S. Boersma, AthenianBuildingPolicyfrom 561/0 to 405/4 B.C., Groningen 1970, p. 207, no. 80 and passim;J. Travlos, PictorialDictionaryof AncientAthens,London 1971, pp. 466-475; H. A. Thompson and R. E. Wycherley, The AthenianAgora, XIV, The Agora of Athens, Princeton 1972, pp. 48-52; E. S. Staveley, Greekand Roman Votingand Elections,Ithaca 1972, pp. 78-93; M. H. Hansen, "How many Atheniansattended the Ecclesia?" GRBS 17, 1976, pp. 115-134; idem, "How did the Athenian EcclesiaVote?" GRBS 18, 1977, pp. 123-137; idem, "Demos, Ecclesia and Dicasterion in ClassicalAthens," GRBS 19, 1978, pp. 127-146; idem, "'EKKKAqo-a XVvyKX7-TOq in HellenisticAthens," GRBS20, 1979, pp. 149-156; R. A. Moysey, "The Thirtyand the Pnyx," AJA 85, 1981, pp. 31-37.

134

HOMERA. THOMPSON

hillside had been obscuredby planting.2One can readilydistinguishthe main features of the auditoriumin its final phase, Period III:the rock-cutbema flankedby a verticalscarp to left and right, and the curved retainingwall built of enormous blocks. At this time the remains of the two earlier periods still lay concealed beneath the earth embankmentof Period III. The photographbrings out clearly the gentle, naturalgradientof the hillside which must have been the majorattractionin the choice of the site for large gatherings. One will also note the prominenceof the bare rock, a hard, gray limestone. Numerous cuttings for ancient houses, thoroughfaresand steps show that the stony surface was if anything even more exposed in antiquity. No wonder that Demos was described as "sittingon this rock."3On the distant hilltop rises the Monument of Philopapposwhich received cursorymention by Pausanias(i.25.8) whereas the Pnyx passed unnoticed. I (P1. 18:a) PERIOD For the restorationof the earliest auditoriumsome substantialand indubitabledata were yielded by the excavations of the 1930's. The removal of the earth filling of the two later periods revealed much of the seating floor of the earliest. In shape it resembled a segment of a very large saucer. In its preparationthe rock of the hillside had been dressed down, high parts cut away, hollows filled with earth. There is nothing to suggest that the naturalcontours had been greatly altered. The front line of the auditorium could be firmly fixed from the remains of a low retaining wall that supporteda terraceconstitutingthe "orchestra".A few blocks remain in situ in the midpartand in the west wing; elsewhere the line is given by rock-cut beddings. In the middle, where the greatest mass of earth was to be retained, the wall was stepped in its lower part; elsewhere it was thinner and rose with a verticalouter face. No trace of the speaker'splatform(bema) remains. The obvious place for it was on the axis of the auditorium,towardthe front of the "orchestra",as shown on the model (P1. 18:a). From references in the comic poets of the late 5th century it is clear that the bema was of stone and large enough to permit the speaker to move about freely. We may assume, however, that the underpinningof the platform was shallow, and its materialmay well have been deliberatelyremoved to be re-used in the constructionof Period II.4 The most serious difficultyin the restorationof Period I has to do with the upper limit of the seating floor. Yet even here the marginof error is slight. The most precise indicationis given by the line on which the dressing of the rock stops. On axis in front of the bema of Period III some of the dressed surface of Period I was cut away by the buildersof Period III to producea level area. But very little of the early floor is missing. 21 owe the print for Plate 16 (Bonfils Photographno. 535) to the University Museum, Philadelphia. Plate 17 is reproducedwith the kind permissionof J. Travlos. Plates 18:a, b and 19 are from the files of the AgoraExcavations. 3Aristophanes,Knights,754, 783-784. and the Pnyx, Universityof CaliforniaPubli4Hesperia1, 1932, pp. 112-113; J. T. Allen, Aristophanes cationsin ClassicalPhilologyXII, 1936, pp. 27-34.

THEPNYXIN MODELS

135

It must have stopped short of the massive cube of living rock which rises above the back of that platform.In all probabilitythe early floor had not reached even as far as the line of the front steps of the platform of Period III. It appears therefore that not more than two meters has been cut away from the rim of the earliest seating floor on its axis. On this evidence the rim has been restored in the model on the arc of a very large circle.5 The restorationleaves a gap on either side of the seating floor between the upperrim and the upper ends of the lateralretainingwalls. Since there is no indicationof an entrance in the front of the auditoriumwe may assume that entrancewas normallygained throughone or other of these lateralgaps. No tracehas been observed of any gateway. The model may be somewhat misleadingin suggesting a precise delimitationof the rim of the earliest auditorium.The naturalcontours of the hillside would have permitted many citizens to sit or stand outside the dressed seating floor. On the surviving part of the seating floor there are no rock-cut seats nor any beddings such as would have been necessaryfor wooden benches. Yet several references in Aristophanesleave no doubt that the audience sat, and sat indeed in direct contact with the painfullyhard rock. Its hardnesscould have been mitigated, of course, by the use of a cushion or a folded cloak. For the prytaneis, however, and presumably for other officialsor dignitarieswooden benches were available.These would have been placedon the level earthen floor of the "orchestra";no trace of them remains.6 The total area of the earliest auditorium has been calculated as ca. 2,400 square meters. Since we do not know the extent of the space that must have been kept open around the speaker's platform, in view also of the evident informalityof the seating arrangementsfor the main body of the audience, any estimate of the capacityof the auditoriumcan be only very approximate.On the assumption that ca. 0.40 m.2 would have sufficed per person, the figure might be put at 5,000-6,000. This squareswith the statement attributedby Thucydides (viii.72.1) to the oligarchicenvoys to Samos in 411 B.C.: the Athenians had never assembled to consider any matter in numbers greater than 5,000.7 Relevant too is the requirementthat for certain matters a quorum of 6,000 citizens was needed. It was presumablythis factor that determined the extent of the area to be preparedfor a seating floor. As we have seen above, however, the sketchily 5The shallownessof the auditoriumof Period I is paralleledin the first main phase of the theater at Thorikos: Thorikos1965 III, Brussels 1967, pp. 75-96 (T. Hackens); H. F. Mussche, Thorikos,A Guideto the Excavations,Brussels 1974, pp. 29-44; Thorikosand the Laurionin Archaicand ClassicalTimes,H. Mussche, P. Spitaels, F. Goemaere-De Poerck, edd., Ghent 1975, pp. 46-61. The discovery of an officialmeasure and an official drinkingcup in the theater at Thorikos is strong evidence for the use of the building for civic as well as dramaticpurposes. 6Aristophanes,Knights,754, 783; Wasps,31-33, 42-44; McDonald, MeetingPlaces, p. 69. 7The figureattributedby Thucydidesto the oligarchsof 411 B.c. has been regardedas suspect by many scholarson the suppositionthat the oligarchsare likely to have used a wartime figure which might have been much below the normal.But the "never" is not restrictedto wartime, and the envoys are not likely to have quoted to their fellow countrymen a grossly exaggeratedfigure. Cf. A. H. M. Jones, Athenian Democracy,Oxford 1957, p. 109; Hansen, GRBS 17, 1976, p. 123.

136

HOMERA. THOMPSON

defined upper limits of that floor would have permitted a good deal of flexibility when occasion demanded. The earliest literaryreference to the Pnyx is found in the opening scene of Aristophanes' Acharnians(425 B.C.). Although the primitive constructon of the auditorium suggests a much earlier date, the few remnants of the originalmasonry are too lacking in "style" to be of much help in dating. Nor could the very few scrapsof plain pottery found in association with the retaining wall be dated more closely than within the Archaic-earlyClassicalperiod. In the 1930's, moreover, one looked in vain for securely dated comparablemonuments elsewhere. The excavatorswere therefore driven to rely largelyon historicalprobabilityin proposingeven a tentative date for Period I. At that time the most probableoccasion was thought to be the first major step towarda democratic form of government, viz. the reforms of Kleisthenes; accordinglya date in the neighborhoodof 500 B.C. was proposed.8 The problemof the initial date must now be reviewed in the light of what we have since learned about early developments in the Agora. It is true that a formal delimitation of the Agora took place ca. 500 B.C. through the erection of a series of stelai of island marbleeach inscribed"I am a boundarymarker (horos) of the Agora."9This was a considerableundertaking.It may be supposed to reflect a more importantrole for the Agora in civic life as stimulated by the reforms of 508/7 B.C. If, as is probable, the Ekklesiaat this time held its meetings in the Agora, it may have been thought desirable to have the officiallimits of the publicplace clearlydefined.10 On the other hand we now know that the first substantialcivic buildings in the Agora came a good deal later, not before the second quarterof the 5th century. This applies to the Old Bouleuterion, the Tholos, the first substantialphase of the building now believed to be the Heliaia, and the Stoa Basileios, at least in the form in which we now know it.1" All these structureswere well but economically built of poros or sundried brickor both. It seems probablethat this flurryof civic buildingis to be related to the reformseffected in 462 B.C. by Ephialteswho, we are told, "strippedthe Council (of the Areopagus) of all its added powers which made it the safeguardof the constitution, and assigned some of them to the Five Hundred and others to the People and to the The Old Bouleuterionand the Tholos represented a great improvement jury-courts."'12 8Hesperia1, 1932, p. 109. This date has been very generallyaccepted. 9Hesperia8, 1939, pp. 205-206; Hesperia37, 1968, pp. 61-63; AgoraXIV, pp. 117-119. I0Wehave no literaryor epigraphicevidence for regularmeetings of the Ekklesiain the Agora at any period.Cf. AgoraXIV, p. 48; Hansen, GRBS 17, 1976, pp. 117-121. Yet specialmeetings in the Agora are attested for specialoccasions from the Archaicto the Hellenisticperiod, and it seems safe to assume that the Agora was also the normal setting of regularmeetings until such time as the Pnyx or the Theater of Dionysos was adequatelyfitted out. "The chronologicalproblem will be dealt with comprehensivelyelsewhere. For the present the evidence may be summarizedbriefly.Old Bouleuterion:a number of fire-damagedblocks re-used in the inner foundationsattest a post-Persiandate; Tholos: ceramic evidence; Heliaia:ceramic evidence and re-used materialin the foundations;Stoa Basileios:ceramicevidence and much re-used material. 12Aristotle,AthenaionPoliteiaxxv.2.

THEPNYXIN MODELS

137

in accommodationfor the Council of Five Hundred, as did the Heliaia for the judicial branch of government. The Stoa Basileios is reported by Aristotle to have been the repositoryof the Laws of Solon, and the building may well have been designed in the first place to receive the Laws when they were brought down from the Acropolis into the Agora by Ephialtes"so that all might have access to them."13 Period I of the Pnyx would fit well into such a situation. The sloping hillside in a comparativelyquiet place would have represented an improvement over an earlier meeting place in the level Agora, and even if the hill had already been used in its naturalstate for meetings of the Ekklesia the provision of better accommodationrepresented by Period I could well have been promptedby the increased and more formalized activity of the Demos implied by the reforms of Ephialtes.14 The down-datingof Period I is supported by the boundary stone found by K. S. Pittakisin the middle of the 19th century on the hilltop above the bema of Period 111.15 The stone reads "Boundaryof the Pnyx." We may be sure that the word is used here, not in its geographicalsense (the Pnyx Hill), but as the designationof an area officially reserved for the use of the Ekklesia. This stone must then have been one of a series which would have been placed at strategic points around the area like the horoi of the Agora. It is highly probable,therefore, that this formal delimitationof the Pnyx is to be related to its earliest recorded improvement as a meeting place, i.e. to Period I. The letter forms of the horos indicate a date around the middle of the 5th century, perhaps a little before 450 B.C.16 One may still be sure, as were the excavatorsof the 1930's, that the simple auditorium of Period I was the normal meeting place of the Ekklesiathroughoutthe Periclean '3Ath.Pol. vii.1; R. E. Wycherley, TheAthenianAgora, III, Literaryand Epigraphical Testimonia,Princeton 1967, nos. 9, 399, 561. "4Thebest parallelfor the Pnyx is "le theatron'agradinsdroits" at Argos: McDdonald, MeetingPlaces, pp. 80-84; R. Ginouves, Etudespeloponne'siennes, VI, Le theatrona gradinsdroitset l'Odeond'Argos,Paris 1972. This primitiveassembly place overlooked the Argive agorafrom the slopes of the Larissajust as the Pnyx looked down on the Athenian agora. The Argive assembly place is dated by Ginouves to a time around the middle of the 5th century soon after Argos had turned to a democraticform of government and when she was cultivatingclose relationswith Athens, signalized, interalia, by the allianceof 462 B.C. Cf. Ginouves, op. cit., pp. 80-82; L. H. Jeffery, "The Battle of Oinoe in the Stoa Poikile," BSA 60, 1965, pp. 41-57; R. A. Tomlinson, Argosand theArgolid,London 1972, pp. 110-115, 192-199. 151G12, 882; Hesperia1, 1932, pp. 108-109; Travlos, PictorialDictionary,fig. 588. '6Theclosest parallelsfor the letteringof the Pnyx horos appearto be of the 450's. Cf. the tribute lists of the first period (454-450 B.C.): B. D. Meritt, H. T. Wade-Gery and M. F. McGregor, The Athenian TributeLists I, Cambridge,Mass. 1939, figs. 1-10; J. Kirchner,Imaginesinscriptionum atticarum,2nd ed. by G. Klaffenbach,Berlin 1948, no. 33, pl. 14; J. Camp, Hesperia43, 1974, pp. 314-318, pl. 63:b, c; and the accountsfor the makingof Athena Promachos:B. D. Meritt, Hesperia5, 1936, pp. 362-380; AgoraPicture Book No. 10, Inscriptions,Princeton 1966, no. 7. Close also is the casualty list of 464 B.C. (IG 12, 928): Kirchner, Imagines2, no. 32, pl. 13; D. W. Bradeen, Hesperia 36, 1967, pp. 321-328, pl. 70:a-c.

The models do not take into account a series of marble horoi with the names of trittyes the association of which with the Pnyx was questioned in 1932: Hesperia1, 1932, p. 105, note 2. Dr. Peter Siewert in a study to appearin Vestigia33 has given good reason for believing that these horoi were set up in the auditoriumof Period I to markthe placesassignedto citizens of the various trittyes.

138

HOMERA. THOMPSON

period. It is to the same auditoriumthat we must apply the tantalizinglybrief but vivid references in several of the early plays of Aristophanes:Acharnians(425 B.C.), 19-33,

Knights(424 B.C.), 396, 754, 783; Wasps(422 B.C.), 31-33, 42f., and Peace (421 B.C.), 680. The last recorded use of the auditoriumof Period I was in September of 411 B.C. when the Four Hundred were deposed and the management of affairswas turned over to the Five Thousand. The tone in which Thucydides (viii.97.1) reports this historic meeting suggests that the Pnyx had been chosen for its symbolic value as the true home of the Ekklesia. PERIODII (P1. 18:b)

The excavations of the 1930's revealed the startling fact that a reconstructionof the auditoriumwhich has come to be designatedas Period II involved a complete reversal of orientation. Instead of taking advantage of the natural slope of the hillside the builders of the new auditoriumheaped up a mass of earth filling sufficient to reverse the naturalslope. The earthen embankmentwas supported,at least in its lower part, by a stone facing made of coursed limestone masonry, each successive course retreatinga few centimeters so as to producea stepped face. Access to the auditoriumwas provided by two stairwayswhich approachedfrom the side of the Agora and led up over and through the embankment. The surviving remains of this period consist of scattered remnantsof the stepped stone facing, together with much of the masonryof the eastern stair and a rock-hewn approachto the western stair which is still visible outside the retainingwall of Period III. No trace has been found either of a speaker'splatformor of seating for the audience. The restorationshown in the model follows closely that proposedin the publication of 1932. It still seems certain that the orientationwas indeed reversed inasmuch as the introductionof the earth embankment is otherwise inexplicable.The stairways,moreover, are paralleledin the back of the auditoriumof Period III of the Pnyx, as also in the 4th-centuryphase of the theater at Thorikos.17The stone facing of the embankment has been carriedup in the model only to the level of the highest rock-cut beddings for the ends of the masonry;above this level the outer face of the embankment is visualized as unprotected.The buildersof Period III economized in the same way. The principalproblem in the restorationof Period II concerns the location of the front of the auditorium.It must be emphasized at once that virtually no specific evidence exists since neither rock cutting nor masonry attributableto Period II has been found in the relevant area. One may well doubt, in fact, whether the front part of the auditoriumwas ever completed. In makingthe model John Travlos has followed closely the restorationproposedin 1932.18By placingthe speaker'splatforma little to the north 17Footnote5 above. 18BothDinsmoor (AJA 37, 1933, p. 181) and McDonald (MeetingPlaces, pp. 71-75) would place the bema fartherto the south, thus making the auditoriumdeeper, and increasingits capacity.But the objections raisedabove, pp. 134-135, to a similarenlargementof Period I applyalso to Period II.

THEPNYXIN MODELS

139

of the existing bema of Period III and at a slightly lower level one can restore a seating floor with a very gentle downwardslope toward the bema and with a total area of ca. 2,600 square meters, i.e. a little larger than its predecessor (ca. 2,400 square meters) and undoubtedly capable of accommodating6,000 people. In view of the great uncertainty regardingthe scheme of the front part of the auditorium,and because there was some degree of flexibilityin the peripheryof Period II as of Period I, it would be unrealistic to attempt more precise calculationsof capacity.'9 One would gladly know how the hilltop above the auditoriumwas treated in Period II. It now seems probablethat in this period the upper area was not yet developed. The extensive terracing,the row of monument bases and the great stoas are probablyall to be associatedwith Period III. For the dating of Period lI the archaeologicalevidence remainsvirtuallyas it was in 1932.20 Much of, if not all, the surviving parts of the stone facing consists of limestone blocks salvaged from the wall of Period I, and the masonry of the new wall is no more diagnostic than that of its predecessor. There remains the pottery found in the earth filling supportedby the stone facing of Period II. This comprises a dozen pieces of red figure, a few of black glaze and three fragmentarylamps. In 1932 this material was taken to indicate a date near the turn of the 5th and 4th centuries. All that has since been learnedabout Attic potteryand lamps of the periodtends to confirmsuch a date.21 In 1932 the excavators ventured to associate the constructionof Period II with an event recordedby Plutarchin his life of Themistokles (19.4): "For this reason in after time the Thirty turned towardthe land the bema in the Pnyx made so as to look toward the sea, supposing that maritime supremacywas the origin of democracywhereas the tillers of the soil chafed less at oligarchy."The date provided by the ceramic evidence would readily permit a connection with the Thirty Tyrants of 404/3 B.C., and the startling reversal in the orientation of the auditoriumcorrespondsperfectly with the statement in Plutarch.Virtuallyall scholars of modern times have passed over with a smile the politicalmotivation for the change as reportedby Plutarch,and most have accepted the alternativeview put forwardby the excavators accordingto which the purpose was to provide some shelter against the wind that sweeps over the exposed hillside.22 Both before and since the excavations of the 1930's doubt has been expressed about the attributionof the change to the Thirty. Most recently a whole series of seemingly logical arguments has been adduced to discredit Plutarch's testimony.23Plutarch '9Cf. Hansen, GRBS 17, 1976, pp. 130-134. 20Hesperia1, 1932, pp. 128-135. 21One may now comparethe pottery found in the grave of-the Lakedaimonianswho fell in Athens in 403 B.C. (AthMitt1937, col. 200, figs. 13, 14, 15) and a group from the Agora also datable to the close of the 5th century (P. Corbett, Hesperia18, 1949, pp. 298-351). Cf. also the volumes in TheAthenianAgora series: IV, GreekLamps,Princeton1958 and XII, Blackand PlainPottery,Princeton1970. 22Hesperia1, 1932, pp. 134-136. 23Cf.R. A. Moysey, "The Thirtyand the Pnyx," AJA 85, 1981 with referencesto earlierdiscussion.

140

HOMERA. THOMPSON

was writing a half millennium after the event-why should there be no contemporary record?Why should the Thirty with their notoriously oligarchicprogramhave devoted any of the scanty resources availableto them to refurbishingan establishmentthat had come to be regardedalmost as a symbol of Athenian democracy?The rebuilding,it is maintained,is far more likely to have been done by the restoreddemocracy. Plausible though such arguments seem, they are scarcely conclusive. Our lack of contemporaryreferences to the constructionof Period II is matched by a complete absence of literaryand epigraphicrecords for the making of Periods I and III. Plutarch does not quote his source, but he undoubtedlyhad one. To a scholar as deeply versed as Plutarchwas in the history of Athens the grounds for scepticism expressed by modern scholarsmust have been at least equally obvious. Yet he acceptedthe lectiodifjicilis without question. Can there be some foundation in fact? The assembly place of Period I, as shown by the excavation, was in a dilapidatedstate probablyas a result of neglect in the war years. The Thirty, in the early days of their regime, having decided to restore the old civic buildingif for no better reason than to provide state employment for needy citizens, perhapsdeterminedat the same time to improve the design by throwing up the embankmentand reversingthe orientation.Contemporaryobservers, awarethat the assembly place had been founded at a time when sea power and concomitantdemocracy were very much in the ascendant, may have read political symbolism into the change.24They could well have chargedthat the reversal of the bema stood for a reversal in the constitutionof Athens. Such an interpretationmight have been supportedby the decision of the Thirty, actuallyreportedby Aristotle,25to repeal the laws of Ephialtes. Some such ex postfacto interpretationmay have made its way into a literarysource that was availableto Plutarchthough not to us. Despite the uncertaintyabout the authorshipof the change we may be confident that the auditorium of Period II dates from ca. 400 B.C. and that it was the normal meeting place of the Ekklesiaover the followinghalf century.26The most informativeof the few literaryreferences to the Pnyx of this period are to be found in the Ekklesiazousai of Aristophanes (393 B.C.) which is set in part on the Pnyx. We learn that there were seats, presumablyof wood, for at least some of the audience, and that the prytaneis had their place near the bema, facing the audience (86f., 297f.). A refugee couple "squatting"on the Pnyx might live so close to the assembly place that they could listen to the speakers (243f.). The ramshackleauditoriumof Period II served the Ekklesia through the "golden age" of Athenian oratory:the older Andokides and Lysias, Isaios, Isokrates,Demosthenes, Aischines and Hypereides must all have addressed the Athenian people from its bema. 241nthe references to Ephialtesin Ath. Pol. xxv and XLI Themistoklesand the politicalsignificanceof

sea powerare prominent. 25Ath.Pol. xxxv.2. 26Forthe literaryand epigraphicevidence cf. McDonald, MeetingPlaces, pp. 44-61; Staveley, Greek and Roman Votingand Elections,pp. 79-80; Hansen, GRBS 17, 1976, pp. 117-121.

THEPNYXIN MODELS

141

III (P1. 19) PERIOD

The latest version of the assembly place is as remarkablefor its monumentalityas the earliest was for its modesty. Having learned by hard experience, the Athenians finally devised a type of construction that overcame the outrageous demands of the unnaturalorientationand that has withstood remarkablywell the ravages of both time and man. As a result the latest auditoriumis much the best preservedof the three, and its essential features can be restoredwith much greaterassurance. When work began on Period III the earth embankment of the previous period, together with most of its stone facing, had disappeared,presumablythrough lack of maintenance.27The great new auditorium was planted squarely above the scanty remains of its two predecessors,completely covering them. The front part of the auditorium, 119 m. in width, was hewn out of the living rock. The bema too was entirely rock cut together with two series of three benches each above and to either side of the bema. At a slightly higher level is the rock-cut bedding for an altar. The retainingwall for the supportof the new earth embankmentcan be traced throughoutits semicircular course subtendingfrom the extremities of the front scarp.In its lower part this wall was vertical and was made of megalithicmasonry irregularlycoursed. The huge blocks were quarriedfrom the front part of the auditorium,and masses of coarse quarrywaste were thrown in behind the wall to relieve it of the outwardthrust of the earth. The vertical retainingwall was not, however, carriedup to the full height of the embankment.How the outer slope of the embankmentwas protected in its upper part is problematic.The model shows the midpart faced with light stone masonry in stepped courses, as in Period II; the lateral parts, where the height was less, are left unfaced. This is not a certain but a probablerestoration. The principalentrance in this as in the previous period was through the back of the auditorium,i.e. from the side of the Agora. The clearly legible foundation beddings for a single broad stairwaygive the plan, but we have no evidence to show how the stair was carriedup through the rim of the embankment.Communicationbetween the auditorium and the terraceon the hilltop was provided by a stairwaycut in the shoulder of the western scarpat a point suitable for a diazoma. Steps cut in the cube of living rock that rose from the back of the bema served the seats and the altaron the upperlevel. The slope of the seating floor can be fixed with some precision from two observations: the floor must have given ready access to the rock-cut steps in the west scarp;it must also have covered a mass of rock left unquarriedin the southeast corner of the auditorium.The collation of these two data calls for a slope of ca. 40 to the horizontal which presumablyappliedto the whole auditorium. No trace of seating has been observed apartfrom the few rock-cut benches above the bema. Had stone benches been installed they would in all probabilityhave left some mark on the great scarpsin the front of the auditorium.We may be sure that in this as 27Forthe collapseof the orchestraterracewall at Thorikoscf. Thorikos1965 III (footnote 5 above), p. 90.

142

HOMERA. THOMPSON

in the earlierperiodstherewere some woodenbenchesat the frontof the auditorium, but beyondthis all is conjecture.Woodenseatingfor the wholeauditoriumwouldhave been so costlyfor bothinstallationandmaintenanceas to be virtuallyunthinkable.28 and diazoma,was The totalareaof the auditorium,inclusiveof bema, "orchestra" it would ca. 5,550squaremeters.In view of our ignoranceof the seatingarrangements, be idle to attempta preciseestimateof the capacity,but the figureof "over 10,000 The startlingfactis thatthe seatedpersons"as proposedin 1932stillseemsreasonable.29 doublethat of eitherof its predecessors.Does capacityof PeriodIII was approximately in governmentin the periodto this implya revivalof interestin personalparticipation whichwe mustassignPeriodIII, or does it attestthe successof paymentfor attendance at meetingsof the Ekklesiawhichhad risenfrom one obol at the beginningof the 4th centuryto six for a regularmeetingand nine for a specialmeetingin the time of the AthenaionPoliteia?30 Sincethe capacityof the Pnyx in PeriodIIIwas littleless thanthat of the Lykourgantheaterone mightalso speculateon the possibilitythat the Pnyxwas whilethe Theaterwasundergoingreconstruction. used for dramaticperformances intact. The platform,8.35 m. wide, is 1.04 m. above the surThe bemais almost roundingfloor, and is mountedover three steps on its three outer sides.31A cube of the livingrockwas left at the backto supportthe two stairsleadingto the upperlevel. At the baseof this cube on eachof its threesideswas a simplebench.In the top of this benchand in the platformproperare dressedsocketsfor stelai and varioussmall objects. Socketsin the rockfloorsupporteda metalrailingaroundthe bemawithopenings in frontandat the sides. In the scarpto the east of the bemaare socketswhichonce held offeringsto Zeus Hypsistos,a largeniche for a statue and many smallerniches for marbleplaques.A on them numberof these have been found;they are inscribed,and the representations to a healingcult that flourishedin of variouspartsof the humanbodyare appropriate the 2nd and3rdcenturiesafterChrist.32 Most conspicuousof the rock-dressedbeddingson the upperlevel is one on the axis of the bemasuitablein shapefor an altar.Thereneed be no doubtthathere stood the altaron which sacrificeswere made before each meeting of the assembly.It is probablythis altarthat was moved in the early Roman period,when the Pnyx had 28Thereis no trace of seating in the upperpartof the theater at Thorikos, which was added soon after the middle of the 4th centuryB.C.; Guide(footnote 5 above), p. 41. 29Hesperia1, 1932, p. 158; Hansen, GRBS17, 1976, pp. 130-134. 30Ath.Pol. 41.3; Aristophanes,Ekklesiazousai,183-188, 289-310, 383-395; Hansen, GRBS 17, 1976, pp. 132-134. The very substantialenlargementof the theater at Thorikos soon after 350 B.C. may reflect the heightenedactivityin Laurionmining at that time. 31Similardimensionswere employed in the bema erected in the Hellenisticperiod in front of the Stoa of Attalos in the Agora:AgoraXIV, p. 51. 32Hesperia1, 1932, pp. 193-200; Hesperia5, 1936, pp. 154-156; J. Travlos, PictorialDictionary,pp. 569-572. The high antiquityproposedfor the shrine by Travlos is very dubious since all the votives are certainlyof the Roman periodand the cult of Zeus Hypsistosis a late comer to Greece. Cf. Judeich, TopographievonAthen, 2nd ed., p. 396; A. B. Cook, Zeus, II, ii, Cambridge1925, pp. 876-878, 1162-1164.

THEPNYXINMODELS

143

ceased to be used by the Ekklesia,to a new positionin front of the Metroonin the Agorawheremuchof it still stands.33 The two banksof rock-cutseatsbetweenbemaandaltarwitha combinedlengthof ca. 54 meterscouldhave accommodated ca. 90 persons.These places,we may assume, were reservedfor the priests,officialsand functionarieswho are knownto have been responsiblein the 4th centuryB.C. for offeringsacrifices,marshaling the citizens,enforcing orderand presidingover the meetings.34 On the hilltopin front of the auditoriuma very spaciouspromenadewas created, partlyby cuttingdownthe rock,partlyby terracing.Thatthis operationis to be assigned to PeriodIII is indicatedby severalconsiderations. The retainingwall above the west scarpis of the same distinctivestyle of megalithicmasonryas the semicircular wall at the backof the auditoriumof PeriodIII;accessto the promenadefrom the auditorium was providedby an openingin the terracewall; the rock-cutscarpthat rose on the south side of the promenadeis parallelto the frontof the auditorium.In frontof this scarpare the dressedbeddingsfor five largemonumentbases-clear evidencethat the terracewas muchfrequented. The open promenade,commandingas it did a magnificentview of the Acropolis, the Agoraand the distantcountryside,was a splendidplacewhere the citizensmight relax duringintervalsin meetingsof the Ekklesia.It is probablethat the design of PeriodIII also envisagedthe constructionof a largestoa borderingthe promenadeto the southwestof the assemblyplace (Pls. 17, 19). The excavationsof the 1930's broughtto light the rock-cutbeddingsand a few scatteredblocksof the lowestfoundations of such a building.Withover-alldimensionsof 17.86 x 148.10m. the plancompriseda continuousgalleryfrontedby a Doriccolonnadefacingthe terrace.The orientation of the stoa does not conformexactlywith that of the assemblyplace since the placementof the long buildingwas determinedby the contoursof the hilltop.The fact thatthe terracewallsupportingthe northside of the promenadewas bent at the southwest cornerof the assemblyplaceso as to alignwith the stoa is a strongindicationof So too is the convenientaccessfrom the auditoriumto the area in contemporaneity. frontof the stoa. It was probablyslightlylater that a decisionwas made to erect a second stoa so placedas to face on the terraceabovethe easternpartof the auditorium.This building was similarin planto the firstbut muchsmaller,measuring17.21 x 65.80 m. over all. Againnothingremainsexceptrock-cutbeddingsand a few blocksof the lowestfounda33Hesperia12, 1943, pp. 299-300; Agora XIV, pp. 160-162; Travlos, PictorialDictionary,p. 104, figs. 146-148. 34McDonald(MeetingPlaces, pp. 72-75) would associate the benches with Period II, but their alignment with the bema, the altarand the scarpsof Period III leaves little doubt that they belong with Period III. For the procedureat meetings of the Ekklesiacf. A. H. M. Jones, AthenianDemocracy,Oxford 1957, pp. 108-133; Staveley, Greekand Roman Votingand Elections,pp. 78-95. Similarrock-cutseats above the east end of the Stadiumat Delphi probablyserved a similarpurpose:P. Aupert, Fouillesde Delphes,II, Le Stade, Paris 1979, p. 81, pls. II, XXV, XL, fig. 217.

144

HOMERA. THOMPSON

tions, but there are also tracesof an abortiveearlierbuildingplan that would have resultedin a stoa of closelysimilarsize and designwith a slightlydifferentorientation. The changeof ca. 200 may have been made to facilitatethe placingof a rectangular structure,conceivablya propylon,at the east end of the stoa. on these threebuildingswas never carriedabovegroundlevel. Work Construction was brokenoff and a line of city wall was laid down on the rear foundationsof the buildings.Aboutthis morebelow,pp. 145-146. Therecan be little doubtaboutthe intendedpurposeof the two stoas.They were presumablymeant to provideshelteragainstinclementweatherfor citizensattending the Ekklesia,a measureadvocatedby Vitruvius(v.9.1) and alreadyprovidedat a number of Greektheaters,such as that of Dionysosat Athens, long beforehis day. Since there is no traceof crosswallsin the galleriesto the rearof the colonnades,we may infer that this spacewas not to be occupiedby shops or officesbut was to serve as a moreprotectedpromenade.35 The datingof PeriodIIIhas fluctuatedfromthe 4th centuryB.C. to the 2nd century B.C., to the 2nd centuryafterChristand backonce againto the 4th centuryB.C. Decisive evidence in favor of a 4th-centurydate was eventuallyprovidedby the great amountof ceramicmaterialgatheredfrom undisturbedpartsof the earthfillingof the period.The red-figuredpottery,the lamps,the stampedamphorahandlesall appearto breakoff aboutthe middleof the century,probablyrunningdown to a time just after 350 B.C.36This gives us a terminuspost quem for Period III.A terminusante quem is providedby a passagein Hypereides'speech againstDemosthenes(col. 9) in which Demostheneswas saidto be sittingin his accustomedplace"downbelowat the foot of the scarp(katatom)."13 The occasionwas a meetingof the Ekklesiain 324 B.C.;by this time the assemblyplacemusthave been in use. receivesno mentionin the surviving The constructionof PeriodIII, surprisingly, or be sure underwhatcircumstances we cannot hence sources; literaryand epigraphic on whose initiativethe work was begun. One thinks naturallyof Lykourgos,a great builderand a man who mightgladlyhave restoreda famouscivic facilityof the previThe periodwhenLykourgoscontrolledthe city's finances(338-326 B.C.) ous century.38 35Theplan is rare and best paralleledin the Southeast Stoa on the Agora of Thasos: BCH 79, 1955, pp. 345-348; BCH 80, 1956, p. 413; Guidede Thasos,Paris 1968, p. 30, fig. 6. Cf. also J. J. Coulton, The of the GreekStoa, Oxford 1976, pp. 6, 225-226. Development Architectural 36Forthe lamps cf. Hesperia,Suppl. VII, pp. 40-45; for the red-figuredvases Suppl. X, pp. 1-68; for the stampedamphorahandles op. cit., pp. 113-181. In all these categoriesthe latest materialfrom Period III of the Pnyx is comparablewith the latest from Olynthos,destroyedin 348 B.C.. 370n KarTa1o cf. Hesperia1, 1932, pp. 136-137; A. W. Pickard-Cambridge,The Theatreof Dionysus in Athens,Oxford 1946, pp. 138, 169. The attributionto Lykourgoswas proposedin Hesperia12, 1943, pp. 300-301 and has been widely accepted. 380n Lykourgos, his temperamentand his administrationcf. F. W. Mitchel, LykourganAthens338322, Lecturesin Memoryof Louise TaftSemple,2nd ser., University of Cincinnati, 1970; for the Pnyx cf. pp. 41-42. For the record of Lykourgos'building activities cf. the decree of Stratokles, IG 112, 457, and [Plutarch], VitaeX OratorumVIL.

THE PNYX IN MODELS

145

fits easily within the limits indicated by the archaeologicalevidence. But the Pnyx does not appearin the catalogueof Lykourgos'buildingactivities unless indeed it was one of the many other anonymous works with which he is said to have adornedthe city. Moreover, it is hard to believe that Lykourgos,who seems to have taken a particularinterest in completingthe Theater of Dionysos, would have initiatedthe constructionof another huge assembly place. We may therefore consider the possibilitythat the idea of Period III was conceived, and the construction perhaps begun, in the 340's when Euboulos controlled the Theoric Fund and was able to initiate some public works, notably new ship sheds and naval arsenal.39Euboulos' building activities were motivated by military necessity and civic pride, but perhapsalso in some measure by the need of providing state-paidemployment for the many indigent citizens -a consideration that had influenced Perikles in his buildingprogram.The work on the Pnyx of Period III would have furnished employment for a large body of unskilled labor. Constructionmay well have extended, with interruptions,over decades.40 After the completion of the Theater of Dionysos by Lykourgos the Theater was more and more commonly used by the Ekklesia.41It was recommended, no doubt, by its good seating and by its more sheltered location. The Pnyx, apparently,continued to be used well down into the Hellenistic period, perhapsespecially for elections.42But by the time of Cicero it was regardedonly for its historic interest: "the place where Demosthenes and Aischines used to contend with one another."43 FORTIFICATIONS The constructionof the stoas on the promenadewas broken off, as noted above, in favor of a defensive measure. A fortificationwall was laid down on the line of the back walls of the two buildings.This was part of a crosswall (diateichisma)that ran from the Museum Hill to the Hill of the Nymphs, leaving most of the Pnyx quarteroutside, the 390n Euboulos and his times cf. G. L. Cawkwell, "Eubulus," JHS 83, 1963, pp. 47-67. Euboulos' building activity, apart from the Ship Sheds and the Naval Arsenal (for which cf. Dinarchos, i.96 and Aischines, iii.25) is referred to disparaginglyby his arch enemy Demosthenes as merely "plasteringthe battlements, building roads and fountains and trifles," ThirdPhilippic,29; cf. On the Syntaxis,30. On the other hand Dinarchosin his condemnationof Demosthenes implies that Demosthenes had been much less active than his enemies in publicbuilding (X.96). 401nAischines, Against Timarchos,81-84 (345 B.C.) there is a tantalizingreference to a proposalregardinghouses, house lots and cisterns on the Pnyx. The matter was brought before the Ekklesiaby the Council of the Areopagus.Was the subjectconceivablythe expropriationby the state of privatepropertyto make possible the enlargementof the assemblyplace? The history of the Naval Arsenalwill remind one of how long a majorbuildingprogrammight dragon in these troubledtimes. Begun in 347/6 B.C.in the time of Euboulos, the Arsenal is reported to have been finished by Lykourgos;the sale of surplus nails in 330/29 B.C. presumablymarksthe completionof construction.Cf. W. Dittenberger,SIG3, no. 969. 4"Theepigraphicevidence is convenientlyassembledin McDonald, MeetingPlaces, pp. 44-61. Cf. also Hansen, GRBS 17, 1976, pp. 117-121. 42Pollux, viii.132: " . . . of old the assemblies took place in the Pnyx ... but later the other assemblies

were held in the Theater of Dionysos and only elections in the Pnyx." But Pollux gives no indicationof absolutechronology. 43definibus,v.2.5.

146

HOMERA. THOMPSON

purposebeingto makethe enceinteof the city more compactand so more defensible. The potteryassociatedwiththe constructionof the wallpointsto a date towardthe end mentioned The wallis probablyto be identifiedwitha diateichisma of the 4th century.44 in a wall-building inscriptionof 307/6 B.C.; it maybe regardedas one of manymeasures knownto have been takento modernizeand strengthenthe defencesof the city in the troubledyearstowardthe close of the century.45 not in its originalform but in a revisedform The model shows the diateichisma wall in the areaof the two stoas.This adjustment of the shift outward resultingfroman was probablydue to a decisionto strengthenthe systemby puttingthe wall on a line wherethe landslopeddownmore steeplyfrom its outer face. Otherchangesalso were introduced.The survivingpartsof the new wall are all made of a soft whitishporos, of the originalwall,and the curtainis thinner:ca. quitedifferentfromthe conglomerate 2 meters vs. ca. 3 meters.In compensationthe wall was reinforcedon its inner face with buttressesmeasuringca. 1.35-1.40 m. squareand spacedca. 4.60 m. center to center.Bothcurtainand buttresseswereprobablycarriedto theirfull heightin stone.46 the curtainthe buttressesmust also have carriedthe sentry In additionto strengthening walk.Althoughno voussoirshave been found, the buttresseswere probablyconnected by vaults,as shownin the model, ratherthan by planking.The towerswere rectilinear in plansave for one of horseshoeshape. is providedby the pottery Evidencefor datingthe realignmentof the diateichisma This potteryis found among the ruins of houses demolishedby the wall builders.47 and not susceptibleof it is ware 200 but close around plain B.C., evidentlyof the period very precisedating.It points, however,to a traumaticevent of that period, viz. the was attackon Athensby PhilipV in the summerof 200 B.C.48Whetherthe diateichisma 44Hesperia 12, 1943, pp. 333-340. The various lots of potteryfrom the excavationshould be re-examined in the light of our improvedknowledgeof ceramicdevelopment in the late 4th/early 3rd century. An early Rhodian amphorastamp found in the packingof the wall bears the names of Euphronas fabricant and Agrios(?) as eponym: Hesperia,Suppl. X, Small Objectsfrom the Pnyx II, Princeton 1956, p. 141, no. 70. VirginiaGrace (AthMitt89, 1974, p. 198, note 19) notes probableparallelsfor this combination of names at Koroni in east Attica in a context of the second quarterof the 3rd centuryB.C.; if it proves valid this evidence will necessitatea considerabledown-datingof partat least of the wall on the Pnyx. 451G11/1112, 463; F. G. Maier, VestigiaI: GriechischeMauerbauinschriften I, Heidelberg, 1959, no. 11, especially p. 59. The identificationand dating of the diateichismahave been generally accepted. Cf. G. Toronto 1971, p. 59, note 15, p. Gruben, AthMitt85, 1970, pp. 124-128; F. E. Winter GreekFortifications, 114, note 30, pp. 103-104; J. Travlos, PictorialDictionary,p. 159; A. W. Lawrence,GreekAimsin Fortification, Oxford 1979, pp. 138, 149-150. 46Forthis type of constructioncf. Winter, op. cit., p. 143; Lawrence,op. cit., pp. 364-366. 47Hesperia12, 1943, pp. 358-360, fig. 60. 48OnPhilip's attack cf. W. S. Ferguson, HellenisticAthens, London 1911, pp. 267-277; W. Judeich, von Athen, 2nd ed., pp. 93-94; F. W. Walbank, Philip V of Macedon,Cambridge 1940, pp. Topographie 129-131. R. L. Scranton (Hesperia12, 1943, pp. 357, 360) has pointed out that the strengtheningof the diateichismamight well be connected with the abandonmentof the Long Walls which had occurredalready before 200 B.C. (Livy, xxxi.26). Epigraphicevidence exists for work on the walls of the city soon after no. 15) and soon before 172/1 B.C. (IG 11/1112, 229/8 B.C. (IG 11/1112, 834 = Maier, Mauerbauinschriften, no. 17). 2331 = Maier, Mauerbauinschriften,

THE PNYX IN MODELS

147

strengthenedin anticipationof that attack or out of the bitter experience of that attack can scarcelybe decided on the basis of the evidence now available.Further excavation might well yield decisive new evidence. The excavations of the 1930's attested many subsequent vicissitudes in the defenses on the Pnyx: damage at the time of the Herulian sack of A.D. 267, rebuildingunder Justinian (A.D. 527-565) and repairsin the 12th century.49But no account is taken of these events in our model. It is hoped that the new models may facilitate an understandingof the curious history of the assembly place on the Pnyx which may well be regardedas "the cradle of Athenian democracy."The third model will also illustratea good example, the only one of its kind in Athens, of developed militaryarchitectureof the Hellenistic period. HOMER A. THOMPSON INSTITUTE FORADVANCEDSTUDY

Princeton,NJ 08540 49Hesperia12, 1943, pp. 362-378.

PLATE

16

Ar.

.-

The Pnyx from the northwest.Late 19th century

HOMER A. THOMPSON:THE PNYX IN MODELS

PLATE 17

8

"0/'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O.

/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~z

HOMER

a

~

A.TOPO:TEAE

~

~

A

NMDL

IT~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~p

PeriodIII,restored.Auditoriumra. 325 B.C., fortifications Ca.200 B.C. Afte-rJ. Travios,

PLATE 18

a. Model of Period I, from northwest. Ca. 450 B.C.

I

__~~~~~~~~~~~I

b. Model of Period III from northwest. Ca. 400 B.C.

HOMER

A THOMON:

THE PNYX TN

MODELS

PLATE 19

__~~~~~~~~~~~~

i_~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~o . w~~~~~~~

_

. j

_ _

d

An

r.

' I'll

as

^

=~~~~~~~~~

?~~~~~~~~

~~~~~..?;GF~~~~~~~ffi;.V O~~~~rj

c~~~~~0

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C

THE ALLEGEDCONSERVATISM OF ATTICEPIGRAPHICALDOCUMENTS: A DIFFERENTVIEW T IS AN INTERESTINGFACT that there is a wide disparitybetween the numerous papyrustexts from Egypt and the inscriptionsfrom Attica in the dates of the appearance of evidence for certain sound changes in Greek.1 The sound changes in question do not involve special developments or dialectalinfluences, but are basic changes leading to the sounds of Modern Greek. The following are the most importantof these changes:2 Confusionof et and C Attica:Unattestedin pre-Romantexts; very rarebefore ca. A.D. 100 (GAI, pp. 200-202). Egypt:Abundant evidence from 3rd century B.C. on (Mayser-Schmoll,pp. 69-70), examples often resemblingAttic examplesof 2nd centuryafter Christand later. Confusionof q and E Attica:Very rarelyattested at all periods, but pre-Romanexamples do not suggest loss of vowel quantity; there is scarcelyany clusteringof examples in the same text (GAI, pp. 159-164). Egypt:Very abundantevidence from 3rd century B.C. on and clearlydue to loss of vowel quantity;a less is also found at this time (Mayser-Schmoll,pp. 46-49). Also common in Roman times common q f (Gignac, pp. 242-249). 'An awarenessof this problemis shown by E. Schwyzer,cf. GG (see below), pp. 180-203, and especially the table on p. 233. There are good parallelsfor certainsound changes occurringearlier in particular regions of Greece (e.g. atc-- E in Boiotia, psilosis in Ionia, loss of C in qt, etc. in Aiolis, etc.), but such scholarsas mention the discrepancybetween Attica and the papyriat all see the greaterdegree of formality This, for example, is the view of B. G. Mandilaras,'Eo7Tt-rT'q11vtKd of epigraphicaltexts as the explanation. ' ser. 2, 22, 1971/72, p. 258, who assumes TOViHaVE7TL0TdOV 'TET7)ptS Tqnq (DtXOcO-OtK'p ISKOX A9qvCOv, an essentiallyunitaryKoine and attributesthe earlierevidence in the papyrito the carelesscharacterof the writingin them. But I believe such interpretationsshould be re-examinedbecause they are not based on a detailedanalysisof the Attic evidence. Referencesfrequentlycited are abbreviatedas follows: I, Phonology,Berlin 1980 = L. Threatte, Grammarof AtticInscriptions, GAI I, Munich 1938 Grammatik = E. Schwyzer, Griechische GG = F. T. Gignac, A Grammarof the GreekPapyriof the Romanand ByzantinePeriods,I, i, Gignac per lo studiodell'antichit6LV), Milan 1976 Phonology(Testie documenti Mayser-Schmoll= E. Mayser, Grammatikder griechischenPapyriaus der PtolemderzeitI, i, revised by H. Schmoll, Berlin 1970 = SammelbuchgriechischerUrkundenaus AgyptenI-XI, begun by F. Preisigke and conSB tinued by F. Bilabeland E. Kiessling,Strassburget al., 1915-1973 = S.-T. Teodorsson, ThePhonologyof PtolemaicKoine (Studiagraecaet latinagothoburgenTeodorsson sia XXXVI), Lund 1977 2The examples for Attica have been taken from my own Grammarof Attic InscriptionsI (GAI). The evidence for the papyriis taken from Mayser-Schmoll,Gignac, and Teodorsson.

THE ALLEGED CONSERVATISMOF ATTICEPIGRAPHICALDOCUMENTS

149

Confusionof w and o Attica:Attested sporadicallyca. 350 B.C.-ca. A.D. 150, but examples of Hellenistic period do not suggest loss of vowel quantity.Clusteringof examples and great increasein frequencyafter ca. A.D. 150 (GAI, pp. 223-233). Egypt:Abundant evidence from 3rd century B.C.on, examples frequently resembling those from Attica after A.D. 100 (Mayser-Schmoll,pp. 73-76). Loss of vowelquantity e and w ,--o Attica:Despite occasional confusion of in Hellenistic times, the bulk of the evidence E points to the Roman period, especiallyafterA.D. 100 (GAI, pp. 385-386). Egypt:Abundantevidence for vowel isochronyfrom 3rd centuryB.C. on (Mayser-Schmoll,pp. 117-119). Confusionof q and C (or EL) Attica:Extremely rare before ca. A.D. 150 and these examples probablyjust graphic mistakes or vowel assimilations;good evidence for identity of q and Cfrom ca. A.D. 150 on, but cases of q n E continue to occur (GAI, pp. 165-170). Egypt:Rather rarely attested from 3rd century B.C. on, contemporarywith the more common z E; sometimes the examples resemble those from Attica of ca. A.D. 150 and later, e.g. Ero-TroXiv,-rq) for -Etq in verbs, ELwritten ' (Mayser-Schmoll,pp. 51-53). Abundantevidence in the Roman period (Gignac, pp. 235-242). Confusionof at and E Attica:Attested once in the 1st centuryafter Christ, common after ca. A.D. 120 (GAI, pp. 294-299). Egypt:Occurs twice in the Timotheos papyrusof the later 4th century B.C.;fairly common by the 2nd centuryB.C.(Mayser-Schmoll,pp. 85-86). Confusionof ot and v Attica:Very rare and chiefly characteristicof Christiantexts; the earliest case is a'Vy Jo-ETat in the regulations for Pantainos'library(SEG XXI, 500) of the 1st or 2nd centuryafter Christ (GAI, p. 337). Egypt:Found in the 3rd centuryB.C.,common by the 2nd-Ist centuries B.C.;examples resemble late Attic instances,cf. 'vvygEvwv, etc. (Mayser-Schmoll,pp. 89-90; Gignac, pp. 197-199). Change of

-los,

-toy, -atoq to -us, -Cv, -atq (A&tOovts4, 7rat&V, Afrqvalq, etc.)

Attica:Found in two funerarymonuments of non-Atheniansdating vaguely to the 2nd or 1st centuryB.C.; otherwise only in texts of Roman times (lst-3rd centuries after Christ), when common (GAI, pp. 400404). Egypt:Common in Hellenistic times, -av from the 3rd centuryB.C. on, -ts and -avs from the 2nd century B.C. on (Mayser-Schmoll,pp. 130-131). Loss of pre-vocalicaccentediota qfter consonants (Mtqoa r- MtX-qo-ia,'ArmoXovov e- WAmoxxwiov,etc.) Attica:Only three certain cases, all on funerarymonuments of non-Athenians, of which the earliest is dated ca. 1st centuryB.C. (GAI, p. 394). Egypt:Not a few cases found from the 3rd century B.C. on (Mayser-Schmoll,pp. 126-127); in Roman times spellingslike Kvpa for Kvpia,TtJ3Epov for Tf3piov, etc. are abundant(Gignac, pp. 302-304).

With the foregoing can be contrasted a number of similar phenomena in which there is no significant difference between Egypt and Attica in the dates of the first appearanceof the evidence: Confusionof Et and C Attica:Rarely attested even in the 4th century B.C., but examples are frequent from the end of the 3rd centuryB.C. on (GAI, pp. 195-198). Egypt:Well attested from the earlier3rd centuryB.C. on (Mayser-Schmoll,pp. 60-63, 67-69).

150

LESLIETHREATTE

Use of q for Et beforevowels Attica:Attested ca. 225 B.C. to ca. A.D. 250, but most of the examples date 175 B.C. to Ca.A.D. 100 (GAI, pp. 202-205). Egypt:Attested from 3rd century B.C. on, but most examples from ca. 200 B.C. to earlier Roman times (Mayser-Schmoll,pp. 58-60; Gignac, pp. 240-242). Deletionof C in at, rt, cut(a, q, whforat, etc.; wt for w, etc.) Attica:Attested scarcelyat all before 204/3 B.C., thereafterexamples of a, A, w for at, At, wt become quite common; the reverse phenomenon, qt for A, etc. is well attested from slightly later, about 150 B.C. (GAI, pp. 353-362, 365-367). Egypt:The papyriare slightly ahead of the Attic inscriptions,as all the types of spellings are attested occasionally in the 3rd century B.C.; all become considerablymore common from ca. 200 B.C. on (MayserSchmoll, pp. 95-98, 104-114). Confusionof ot and cut Attica:Attested in the 4th and 3rd centuriesB.C. (GAI, pp. 335-337). Egypt:Chiefly attested only before ca. 200 B.C. (Mayser-Schmoll,pp. 114-116; Teodorsson, pp. 160-161); in Roman times clt (= c) may be confused with o, but not ot (= v) (Gignac, p. 276). Confusionof v and t MVTVX7va'tAttica:Virtuallyunattested,except in cases involving vowel assimilation,e.g. ,.VO-V, fGtf3tXtoV, 261-266). os, etc. (GAI, pp. Egypt:In Hellenistictexts examplesare slightlymore frequentthan in Attica, but they are almost all of the same type involving assimilation(Mayser-Schmoll,pp. 80-82). In Roman times cases of confusion of v (or or) and C (or EL) occur occasionally,but they very often involve particularlexical items or vowel assimilations (Gignac, pp. 267-273).

In the first group of phenomena not only is there a disparityof as many as three or four centuries, but in some cases the types of examples found in the much later Attic texts are quite similarto those seen in papyrimuch earlier. It is an interestingquestion whether the first group of sound changes actually occurredconsiderablylater in Attica than in Egypt, or the lateness of the Attic evidence is due merely to the conservatism of epigraphicaltexts in comparisonwith papyri. There is certainlya fundamentaldifferencebetween even the simplest privategrave monument and any of the papyri,for all inscriptionson stone were presumablycarved by a professionalstonemason workingfrom a copy. Correctionsrequiredtime-consuming erasureswhich left an unsightly indentation on the stone surface, a fact which may have encouraged working with greater care. But the private papyriare usually simply personal records, letters, or notes, often not preparedfrom any copy at all, and even official documents and literarypapyricontain deviations from the normal orthography, although to a lesser degree.3While this differencebetween the two writingmedia might 3Accordingto Schmoll the documentarypapyrioffer the same types of evidence as the private, but less frequently,cf. Mayser-Schmoll,p. 2: "Alleineine Gliederungdes gesamtenStoffesnach diesemGesichtsin charakteristischen Erscheinungen da sich die fur die Sprachentwicklung punkt[i.e. type of text] ist unergiebig, also Cf. eben nur hdufiger." Sticken alien Gattenfinden, in den ohne grammatischeSorgfaltgeschriebenen Mayser'sremarksin the originaledition (Leipzig 1906), p. 4, note 1. The literarypapyrialso contain spelling errors, although these texts are usually ignored by the grammarsbecause they cannot be precisely dated.

THEALLEGEDCONSERVATISM OF ATTICEPIGRAPHICAL DOCUMENTS 151 explain why the first examples of phenomena in Egypt are on the papyrirather than inscriptionsand why there is a lag of about a century between Egypt and Attica in certain cases in the second group of phenomena, the existence of large numbers of Hellenistic Attic gravestones, of which not a few exhibit fairlycrude orthography,raises the possibilitythat the lack of evidence for the first group of sound changes is not due merely to the conservatism of epigraphicaltexts. In fact, there are certain important clues which point to a later date for the first group of sound changes in Attica. In the first place there is the existence of the second group of phenomena for which there is abundantevidence in the Attic inscriptionsalmost as early as in the papyri. It is hard to see why spellings like 8oi (ca. 170 B.C.), TMt 9E&Ot (dual) (before 150 B.C.), Xtpt'8ta (247/6 B.C.), Ert8 (217/6 B.C.) should occur4while spellings like YvivacTEtapX7)coaq, BacXEL0o,flEavtEvq, 'EptKatEVl,5 which seem in no way more crude or difficultto read, should not be found until centuries after their appearancein the papyri. Detailed analysis of certain orthographicalphenomena also tends to confirm the later date of these sound changes in Attica. The confusion of at and E presupposesthe change of at from a diphthong [ail to a simple vowel [el. But in Attic inscriptionsof ca. 500-ca. 150 B.C. the iota of at is frequently dropped before vowels, as in 'AaE1vq, etc. (GAI, pp. 270, 279-286). Such spellings show that at has not become HXaTaElvq, [el, but is still a diphthong [ai] whose second element could be droppedbefore vowels. It is only sometime after the spellings with a for at before vowels cease that the first Attic examples of the confusion of at and

E

occur, e.g.

IlEaVtEv

,

HIXaTEE1V', etc. In the

papyri,on the other hand, cases of a for at before vowels are fairlyrare in the Hellenistic period (Mayser-Schmoll,pp. 83-84). A diphthongalpronunciationof ot as [oi], not as [Ri (= v), must also be assumed for Hellenistic Attic because of such frequent variantsin inscriptionsas COEsL, IOTo/Lro-EV, etc., alongside universal use of rot- before o-vowels (GAI, pp. 324-330). Hellenistic papyrialso contain spellings of the IOdEtv type, and the change of ot to [ill may have been somewhat later in pre-vocalicposition; but spellings like 1TVE', which show identity of ot and v before vowels, occur in Egypt as early as A.D. 16. The confusion of Et and 4, probablyalso that of at and E, show loss of vowel quantity, for which there is alreadyabundantevidence in the papyriin the 3rd century B.C. But the Attic evidence points to a later date for loss of vowel quantitythere. In addition to the absence of examples of Et r Land at E there is the omission of the v in the diphthongZtv,as in a'oiv',caTovi, etc. It is only the long av-diphthongwhich is affected, for spellings like acTorfor av'Tokdo not occur in Attic inscriptions.The development is similar to that seen in the droppingof iota in cot, wt. dt.6 The spellings without upsilon occur in Attica only in the early Roman period, usually before ca. A.D. 50 (only two 'Cf. GAI, pp. 360, 366, 196, respectively;the texts are two state decrees, a decree of a genos, and an inventory. 5Cf. GAI, pp. 200, 296-298. 6As seen by Wackernagel,cf. Zeitschrift.furvergleichende (Kuhns Zeitschrfift) 33, 1895, SprachIforschung pp. 4-8; GAI, p. 383.

152

LESLIETHREATTE

cases are later, cf. GAI, pp. 383-384). They disappearjust about the time of the first instances of EL for a, certainevidence of loss of quantity.The loss of quantityeliminated the long diphthongs, and the tendency of the v of at to drop ceased. Only a little later, after ca. A.D. 100, there is a markedincrease of the confusion of w and o in Attica. Yet other evidence for a later loss of quantityin Attica can be mentioned. It has been plausibly suggested that the development seen in 7at&'v, Atoviovq, 'AnoXXct'wt,'A97)'ats, etc. is due to an increase in the expiratorycharacterof the accent,7i.e., the replacement of pitch by stress as the predominantelement in the Greek accent. This change in the accent is also thought to have a close connection with the loss of quantitativedistinction in vowels.8Thus the lateness of the Attic cases of -vs, -I>, -ats ties in with the lateness of the evidence for the loss of vowel quantity. There is yet another type of argumentwhich might be pursued, although it is more speculative.This is to examine the Attic texts which are not typical inscriptionscarved on stone, and therefore more comparableto texts written on less permanent writing media such as papyri.These texts might be expected to compensate in part for the lack of any papyrifrom Attica. They include the numerous dipinti on vases, chiefly of the 6th and 5th centuries B.C.;the more,than 6,500 politicalostracaof the 5th century B.C.; the defixiones,or curse tablets, dating from all periods, but of which the majorityare thought to be from the 4th or 3rd centuryB.C.; and scatteredgraffitiof all periods.9 Here some caution must be used in making comparisonswith the private letters and similar documents among the papyri.The dipinti were placed on the vases before firing, and were intended to be permanent. The origins of the vase painters are only rarelyknown, and in some cases it is certain they were not Athenians. The dipinti may also often have been paintedon by a helper, especially if a signaturewas not involved. The names of mythologicalfigures on the vases seem sometimes to have been influenced by the spellings of epic, although the Attic forms are also found, cf. Karanvpa, HIEppEv1, etc. At first glance it would seem that all the ostracawould be examples of the writing of individuals, and indeed of Athenian citizens. But the study of the larger hordes has shown that the ostraca with the same name can be grouped accordingto hands, which shows that they were pre-madefor distributionto citizens at the time of the vote. The some 200 Themistocles ostracafrom the Acropoliswere actuallyexecuted by only fourteen persons.10This is obviously not the same type of evidence as would be 200 ostracascratchedby as many citizens. It is the defixiones,at least those executed by the person himself, which would seem to be closest to private papyrusdocuments such 7Cf., e.g., D. J. Georgacas, CP 43, 1948, p. 257. 8The order of events is uncertain:either, as seems more likely, vowel quantitydisappearedafter the accent became predominantlyone of stress or the disappearanceof quantitymade the distinctionbetween circumflexand acute impossible,leadingto developmentof a stress accent, cf. GG, p. 393. 9Whilethe importanceof these texts for the everydaylanguageor "Vulgirattisch"is considerable,it is only rarely possible to identify the writers as Athenians. Cf. A. Debrunner, Geschichteder griechischen Griechisch,revised by A. Scherer, Berlin 1969, und Grundzigedes nachklassischen Sprache,II, Grundfragen p. 43. 10Cf.Hesperia7, 1938, pp. 228-243, esp. pp. 231-232.

THEALLEGEDCONSERVATISM OF ATTICEPIGRAPHICAL DOCUMENTS 153 as letters, etc., although sometimes they contain special features due to their magical connections, such as mirrorwriting or intentional misspellings. It is usually impossible to tell whether the writers of defixioneswere Athenians or not. Only rarely do they contain forms which suggest another dialect unequivocally, such as IG III 3, no. 75, which has "Apra~t; (alongside "ApTE4Lw!). Only a small proportion of the curse tablets

has yAco-(o-)a, which at least before the end of the 4th century B.C. would suggest a non-Athenian writer. But most of the tablets have yXW'(T)a, and the occurrence of also suggests that many of the writers were certain other spellings, e.g. e1EppE&aTra, native Athenians. Sometimes names on the tablets are the same as names known elsewhere as names of Athenians. Other types of graffiti are rather rare, and are usually very short. The short letter incised on a lead tablet published IG III 3, Praefatio,p. ii is a rare case of a personal letter from Attica, probablyof the early 4th century B.C.; except for the unusual crasis Ovidt (_ TcL vICas),there is nothing in it which cannot be paralleledin inscriptionson stone.1" A detailed analysis of the dipinti and ostraca does not turn up much which cannot at least be found somewhere in texts on stone, although the phenomenon may be much rarer there and the first occurrences slightly later. Thus Hoio-paTog, 8OKiq occur as early graffiti,but can be paralleledby Epa[o-It9s, certain readingon an Archaicfunerary monument (GAI, pp. 190-191); MhEyaKXEs on a number of ostraca from the Ceramicus can be paralleledby a few cases of ,h on Archaicdedications, of which at least two are certain (GAI, pp. 25-26); OE~t0-00KoKXE is normal on large numbers of ostraca of the 480's, but the same spelling occurs on a prytanycatalogue of the early 4th century B.C., and 0E~O-9Lt0o is attested in a casualty list of ca. 430 B.C. (GAI, pp. 463-464); early examples of EL in Et'vat,KXEt'liaXos, etc. occur in stone inscriptionsand dipinti alike (GAI, p. 174); dipinti with -KXEOV', hEpAoviare paralleledby stone inscriptions with similar cases of ov (GAI, p. 240); the unusual use of omega for u (later ov) seen in A av'8w, NEOKXE'ws,etc. on vases and ostraca also occurs very rarely on stone (GAI, pp. 48-49). Are there any linguistic phenomena attested only in the ostraca and dipinti? There are spellings like KXtvdaq,KXATtSa,etc. KXttas is actually the only spelling found on the ostracaof the elder Alcibiadesof ca. 460, and it is a rare varianton vases of slightly later date. Perhapsrelated to it is 0a&ta, rare for a&AXtaon vases. But KX-- occurs on at least three 6th-centuryprivateinscriptionson stone, and there is no trace of the KALspellings in texts of this type. KXT-(rarelyKXE-) is also normalon vases, and ostracaof ca. 414 B.C. have KXELtVt (cf. GAI, pp. 192-193). The absence of the spellings with L for e (or EL) on stone inscriptionsis puzzling, but since all the examples involve t for e (later EL) in special environments (EL after KX- and the suffix -Eta precededby A-), they scarcelyjustify the assumptionthat the dipinti and ostracaoffer evidence of the change of EL to [ in generalfar in advance of stone inscriptions.The only other spellings occurring on vases and ostraca which are not found on contemporarystone inscriptionsare "1Abetter text is given by W. Dittenberger,SIG3, 1259; read KalTV-UaTxa, not KarT' vgU,

in line b8.

154

LESLIETHREATTE

certain very crude simplificationsof diphthongssuch as -Vi for -Evl, e.g. Tv8iv, Ofvt's; -Es for -Evt, e.g. HpoAEsOEs, 'AXapvaE.Such spellings are found occasionallyon crude stone texts of later times, and they are due to the near illiteracyof the writers (cf. GAI, pp. 345-347). Note, for example, the omitted rho in 'AxavE,;,or the omitted sigma in The greaterfrequencyof such spellings in the dipinti and ostra'Epv~vs for 'EpoVO-8Evl. ca is no doubt due to the careless characterof the writing therein. The 5th-century dipinti also show a confused use of vowel letters of the Ionic alphabet (e.g. Kaxdk for KaXOo MnkaXvoros for MEXca'vwo7, etc.) which cannot be found anywhere else, not even on the ostraca. These spellings are doubtless due to misunderstandingabout the use of the Ionic alphabet (GAI, pp. 39-40, 45-47). Convincing evidence for major sound changes which are not attested on stone inscriptionsof the same or slightly later date simply cannot be found in the dipintiand ostraca. In turning to the defixionesone must cite at once two texts which certainly do seem to be ahead of their time. The more importantis that published by Peek in the third volume of the Ceramicusexcavations;12it was tied to the finger of a person buried with potterydating to ca. 450 B.C., but the orthographylooks very much like the writing on Attic stone inscriptionsof ca. 350 B.C. (cf. GAI, p. 8). Another curse tablet found in a deposit of the 1st century after Christ contains a frequent use of E for at which is otherwise characteristicof inscriptionson stone of ca. A.D. 200 or later (cf. GAI, pp. 9 and 298, no. 60). But even these exceptional cases do not exhibit spelling phenomena which are not well attested in other types of Attic inscriptionswithin 100 or at the most 150 years. The gap is not three or even four centuries as it is between the papyriand Attic inscriptions.The remainder of the defixiones (chiefly of the 4th or 3rd century B.C.) contain no cases of confusion of at and E, of ot and v, of t and Et, nor spellings of the rat&'v, 'AroXX(L'wutype, all well attested in the papyribefore 200 B.C. What the defixionesdo contain is a considerableamount of confusion of Wand o and of 7) and E. There are rare cases of both phenomena in contemporaryinscriptionson stone. Because of the absence of examples of confusion of at and E and of Et and AdI believe these spellings to be due to carelessnessor semiliteracyand not evidence for disappearanceof vowel quantity (cf. GAI, pp. 161, 224). But however they are interpreted,the spellings on the curse tablets are at least paralleledby similarspellings on stone. There is yet another aspect to this problemwhich must be investigated:the orthography of the Greek inscriptionswhich have been found in Egypt.13The Teodorsson study includes all the written documents in Greek from Egypt except the literarypapyri, and for features treated there the inscriptionscan be collected from the lists of examples, which are intended to be complete.14The rarity of examples from inscriptionsin Ostraka,Fluchtafeln,Berlin 1941, Ergebnisseder Ausgrabungen,III, Inschrfiften, 12W. Peek, Kerameikos: p. 91, no. 3. "Inscriptionis here taken in the strictest sense to refer only to texts carved on stone. The numerous graffiti,painted inscriptions,and ostraca (in the sense used in Egypt) are excluded because they contain informalwritingmore akin to the privatepapyrior the Attic defixiones. "4Cf.Teodorsson, pp. 56-57.

THEALLEGEDCONSERVATISM OF ATTICEPIGRAPHICAL DOCUMENTS 155 these lists is strikingand might at first seem to supportthe view that stone inscriptions always lag very far behind other types of writingin showing evidence of sound changes. But a closer examination of the evidence points rather to arguments on the opposite side. In the first place, of the slightly more than 4,200 pages of text analyzed by Teodorsson only a tiny fractionare inscriptionson stone.15The inscriptionsfrom Egypt also tend to be very short, with the exception of a very few texts, chiefly royal edicts, written in a very formal style and exhibiting scarcely any deviations from the standard spellings of 4th-centuryAttic. For Hellenistic Athens, on the other hand, all the abundant evidence consists of inscriptionson stone, with the exception of the approximately 200 defixiones.Decrees, many quite lengthy, are numerous, as are sepulchralinscriptions, important because they often exhibit a less careful style of writing than state documents. And yet despite the small amount of epigraphicalmaterialfrom Egypt, one can collect a few spellings which cannot be paralleledon the much more numerous texts from contemporaryAttica. Thus we find HTro0Aqad8t(with Et for a) in SB, I, no. 4623, dated 101 B.C.; 'r7popE8pt'a occurs in two texts of 93 B.C., cf. SB, III, nos. 6152.9, 6153.11. The earliest securely dated Attic case of EL for t is of the reign of Nero, but it is not entirely certain, and basically the Attic examples begin after ca. A.D. 100 (cf. GAI, p. 200). In addition to 4tkXtcrra on a late Ptolemaicgravestone (SB, I, no. 2116), there is At0ocKVpEt8tov on SB, V, no. 7899.9,probably2nd centuryB.C. This text contains one case of o for w ('A1roXov[toqin line 10), three of c for o (AZdwvcros, Xatpr,uwVo, Ev8qxAwq),and NavKparTiTE (with E for 7)), all in only 16 fragmentarylines. This sort of clustering of examples is not found in Attic texts until well into Roman times. Unfortunatelythe date of this inscriptionis not entirely certain. If we turn to the confusion of at and E, for which the first Attic example of precise date is of ca. A.D. 50 (but this text is known only from an early copy, and the next instances are after A.D. 120, cf. GAI, p. 296), we find: 8UogE ov on SB, III, no. 6155.20 ( OGIS, no. 736) of 69/8 B.C. (the stone actually has AEOMENOY,which could be just a copying error, the inscribingof a similar word for another, but such an error could have been encouragedby the identity of at and E); and avi'Epa5Tws on a text of ca. 58-55 B.C., cf. Archivfur Papyrusforschung und verwandteGebiete3, 1906, p. 132, no. 9, line 18. (The even earlier FopnE'ovon SB, I, no. 462, of the 3rd century B.C., is a dipinto.) For confusion of -e and ?, there is EVEpYET7)K(0 of ca. 200 B.C., cf. J. G. Milne, GreekInscriptions, Oxford 1905, pp. 19-20, no. 33027, line 7, where, however, the writer was possibly thinking of EVEpyE5~s,a confusion which could have been fostered by identity of -e and a; and 7TEro7tKa, SB, V, no. 8412.4 (66 B.C.?), where presumablythe editor would have printed the much more usual -e or E if the traces on the stone had permittedhim to do so. There are also a few cases of o w and e1--- E in Ptolemaic inscriptions.This 15Virtuallyall the inscriptionsare cited from the Sammelbuch(SB) although the edicts of the Ptolemies and a few other texts are in OGIS. Even in the Sammelbuchinscriptionscomprise only a small portion of the texts. Another way of comprehendinghow small a proportionof the texts the inscriptionsare is to look at the bibliographyin Mayser-Schmoll,pp. xi-xviii. Cf. also the remarksof E. Bernand, ZPE 26, 1977, p. 95.

156

LESLIE THREATTE

is indeed a small number of examples of these phenomena from texts carved on stone, but it is significantthat Egyptianinscriptionsoffer no more numerous examples from the second set of phenomena, well attested in Attic inscriptionscontemporaryto or slightly later than the papyri.Thus Ptolemaic inscriptionsoffer only very few cases of Et ^-It, droppingof t in at, ret, and co, and other phenomena well attested in Attica by ca. 150 B.C.The evidence, although scanty, suggests that the small number of cases of the first set of phenomena is not due merely to the conservatism of inscriptionsin comparisonwith papyribut rather to the absence of a sufficient amount of appropriate epigraphicalmaterialfrom Egypt. While the matter can scarcely be regardedas proved, I believe that the evidence justifies the acceptanceof a considerabledisparityin the dates of certain basic sound changes between the Greek of Egypt and Attica. There are parallelsto show that languages which are taken to new areas by colonists tend to change at a more rapid rate than in the homeland, especially if learned by subject populations.16 The town of Athens, on the other hand, was of only little commercialand politicalimportanceafter 300 B.C., although it remained a sort of center for learning, but not the new kind of learning found in Alexandria and other Hellenistic centers. These are factors which could have fostered conservatismin a language.Hence we find that the Greek of Egypt is precociousin certainsound changes while that of Attica shows signs of conservatism. LESLIETHREATTE UNIVERSITYOF CALIFORNIAAT BERKELEY

Departmentof Classics Dwinelle Hall Berkeley,CA 94720 161tshould be rememberedthat while the basis of the Koine was literaryAttic of the 4th century, the majorityof Greeks who came to Egyptwere not Athenians.Schwyzerhad suggested that the disappearance of vowel quantitiesmight have been especiallycharacteristicof the Greek spoken by non-native speakers (GG, p. 393), although not all scholars accept this line of argument. But even if this view is accepted, Egyptianwould not necessarilybe the only non-Greek languageinvolved. It must also be stressed that the present paper is not concerned with certain special confusions of the papyrinot found elsewhere which seem definitely due to the influence of Egyptian (e.g. a

etc.).

, confusion of aspirates and voiceless stops,

AGORA I 7181 + IG 112, 944b (PLATE20) T

HE PRESENTJOINcame aboutas one resultof studyingthe handof the cutter.

Agora I 7181 was originallypublished by 0. W. Reinmuth in Hesperia43, 1974, pp. 246-259 and then re-edited by J. S. Traill in Hesperia45, 1976, pp. 296-303. IG 112, 944b was found by A. Bruecknerin 1914 in the Kerameikos near the Holy Gate and was first publishedby J. Kirchnerin the addendaet corrigendaof IG 112 on p. 669. It is now located in the storeroom of the Kerameikos Museum and bears the inventory number 1 131.' I provide here a new text of 112 944b and its join at line 78 of Agora I 7181. [Note that the lines in column II of the register should be -renumbered89-102 and 7 lines should be indicatedas missing from column II.] 78.

[__

K[-

Ij6

ca-K.

4oEVc4

AiyE`8O'

80.

ACOKXs dCXourTpacroV 'EpXLEv1

(IkXourTparoT 'ClXorT[p]arov 'EPXLE (V') Ha v8to VLos

83.

AEWVTL8O0

Xapaq 'AiroXXo8Wpov KI[-----HroXEpat8o0[']

86.

IoXV[oi rpacrov BE [pEvt (Kt'8qj)I 'ApXETLAo' AioXvr

110.

113.

k[' --ca.7--Iac8ov

BEp

[E VLKL(87)')

I

'A7roI XXo8apo[v----I 'A7roXXdW'[oq vacat0.018 m. X ovX 6 8qamo I rov 7ra[eo]Tptv

'[op]-

illegible traces

rtov 'Epgoa[ ]'It is an especial pleasurein this volume dedicatedto him to record here my warmest thanks to Mr. Vanderpoolboth for his many past kindnesses and, in this particularcase, for his characteristicallysound advice concerningthe probablewhereaboutsof IG I12,944b. I am deeply indebted to Dr. U. Knigge, Director of the German Excavationsin the Kerameikos,for permissionto study and photographthe stone and to S. Dow for helpfulcomments on an early draftof this paper. The followingabbreviationswill be used: AgoraXV = B. D. Meritt and J. S. Traill, The AthenianAgora, XV, Inscriptions.The Councillors,Princeton 1975 Pritchett-Meritt,Chronology= W. K. Pritchett and B. D. Meritt, The Chronologyof HellenisticAthens, Cambridge,Mass. 1940

158

STEPHEN V. TRACY poV 'AXap-

116.

vEa

vacat 0.041 m. 117.

8)J3ovXr

6 8'qo'q illegible traces

TOP KaTa-

120.

rTaXr[a14[EIThvy

N[k'a[vI-

8pOv HE8tE-

123.

BOSEKKEp[aI-

gv

vacatto bottom0.10 m. Line 78. The initialsigma appearsover the interspaceof omikronand sigma in line 79 and directlyabove the phi in line 80. Dotted kappais Traill'sreading;there is no traceof it on my squeeze. Line 80. Only the top left slantingstroke of dotted upsiloncan be discernedat the break. Line 81. A slantingstroke which appearsalong the breakis the basis for readingdotted alpha. Line 84. Only the verticalof dotted kappais preserved;epsilon and pi are also possible.The possible demotics in Leontis are K1oTTLOs, KokcoXviEV, Kpcoidt8-s, EV'7rVpt'8-, H[atovt8qs, H 'kqe, and HoMruao. Lines 110-124. The right part of these citations has been worn nearly smooth by foot traffic.The last three or four letters in every line have almost vanished. Though exiguous, the remains in most cases can be read with certainty.Wreathswere probablyadded aroundthese citationsin paint. Line 113. Only the verticalof dotted rho is legible. Line 115. The lower partof dotted upsilonhas been obliteratedby a small gouge.

The new join allows us to determine the number of participantsin the Ephebeiain 205/4 B.C. Twenty-threenames are preservedin whole or in part and six names at most are lost in column II. The enrollment in 205/4 then was at most 29 and probablynot less than 27, on the assumptionthat the columns of names were approximatelyequal in length. How does this compare with other inscriptionsof the period? There follows a compilationof the evidence of all known ephebic decrees between 229/8 and 166/5. Reference

Date B.C.

Names Preserved

Estimated Enrollment

Hesperia15, 1946, pp. 190-193 IG 112, 794 (HSCP48, 1937, pp. 108-109) Hesperia48, 1979, pp. 174-178 Agora I 5722 (Pritchett-Meritt,Chronology,

220/19 217/6 215/4 214/32

8 0 0 0

20

ca. 2153

6

ca. 30

-

pp. 110-111)

Hesperia23, 1954, pp. 235-236

2For the date, see S. V. Tracy, "Five Letter-cuttersof Hellenistic Athens," Hesperia47, 1978, pp. 257-258. 30n the date, cf. ibid., p. 250.

159

AGORA I 7181 + IG 112,944b Hesperia34, 1965, pp. 90-92 + Hesperia47, 1978, pp. 259-260 Hesperia29, 1960, pp. 53-54 Hesperia16, 1947, pp. 168-169 Agora I 7181 +IG 112, 944b IG112, 930 Hesperia36, 1967, p. 63 Hesperia30, 1961, pp. 10-11 Hesperia45, 1976, pp. 285-287 Hesperia15, 1946, pp. 193-197 IG 112, 901 + Hesperia26, 1957, p. 219 IG 112, 900 Agora I 7138 (forthcomingin Hesperia) Hesperia30, 1961, pp. 12-13 Hesperia30, 1961, pp. 15-17 Hesperia15, 1946, pp. 198-201

210/09

24

ca. 210 ca. 2104 205/4 ca. 200 ca. 200 ca. 2005 ca. 190 186/5 ca. 185 185/4 ca. 181 ca. 1806 ca. 178 172/1

0 0 23 0 0 0 0 8 14 0 0 0 0 0

55 -

29 -

-

35-50 ca. 35 -

50

In re-editing IG I12,794 in 1937, S. Dow observed, "There is no other published decree in honor of ephebes in the period 229-200 B.C."7 We now have much more evidence, fragmentarythough it is. With some fluctuationthere appearsto have been a slow increase in the enrollment during the years 229 to 166 B.C. In any case, the corps of ephebes usually numbered less than 50 in this period. In the latter half of the 2nd century B.C. the enrollment increased to over 100: 107 in 128/7 for example (Hesperia 24, 1955, p. 229, line 89) and 141 in 102/1 (S. V. Tracy, Hesperia, Suppl. XV, The Letteringof an AthenianMason, Princeton 1975, pp. 32-40). The primaryreason for this was probablythe prosperitygained by the Athenians as a result of their administration of the free port on Delos in the years after 166 B.C.8We may also observe that ephebic enrollments do vary in all periods. Perhaps the specific number enrolled in any given year depended to some degree on the zeal of the kosmetes and his staff. Commentary Prosopographical Lines 80-88. These youths are not attested elsewhere. Line 113. This reading requires a correspondingchange in line 40. This man is to be identified with rEOPTCO(II) eEptko8wpov(II) 'AxapVEv1 (PA 4741). The stemma publishedby B. D. Meritt in Hesperia11, 1942, p. 302 should be altered and augmented as follows: 4For the date, see below p. 160. 5For the date, Tracy, op. cit. (footnote 2 above), p. 257. 6This inscriptionis downdated from paullo a. 186/5 a. on the basis of a better reading in line 10, which reveals that the demotic of the paidotribeswas [--?X]vE'a and not [--'Axap]vE'a. It should be dated, therefore, to after 185/4 B.C. Cf. S. Tracy, "Greek Inscriptionsfrom the Athenian Agora," forthcoming in Hesperia. 7HSCP48, 1937, p. 109. 8See the presentwriter's"Athens in 100 B.C.," HSCP 83, 1979, pp. 213-235, especiallypp. 229-231.

STEPHEN V. TRACY

160 323

TEp '8wpos (I) 'AXapV(EV") IG 112,1631, line 439 (324/3)

290

'EopTos (I) 'AXaPVEVE1

257

TEp '8wpos (II) 'EopTLov(I) 'AXapvEVs IG 112, 665, lines 25-26, 68-70 (266/5) IG 112, 700, line 28 (258/7) IG 112, 681, lines 4-5 (249/8) IG 112, 766 = Hesperia17, 1948, pp. 5-7, lines 52-53 (246/5) Hesperia23, 1954, p. 234, line 3 (ca. 250)

224

'Eoprtos (II)

(II) 'AXaPVE1

TEpuo&Opov line 28 (246/5) IG 112, 766, Hesperia2, 1933, p. 159 (ca. 232) Hesperia29, 1960, p. 53 (ca. 210) Hesperia16, 1947, pp. 168-169 (ca. 210) Agora I 7181 + IG 112, 944b (205/4) 191

Tp'8wfocpaq (III)

'EOPTLOV

(II)

'AXapVEVS1

IG 112, 900, lines 21-22 (185/4) IG 112, 901, lines 8-9 (ca. 185) Hesperia33, 1964, p. 212 = AgoraXV, no. 190

(II) in line 33 of Hesperia48, 1979, p. 175 and 'EpAo'8wpo We may restore 'EEopTLo (III) in line 16 of Hesperia15, 1946, p. 196. (III) 'Eptko&Lpov(III) 'AXapThere is now no evidence for an alleged *'EoEpTLo19 VEVs,paidotribesin ca. a. 158 a. In addition to IG 112 944b, the only evidence cited to support his existence has been Hesperia 16, 1947, pp. 168-169, no. 65. This small fragmentexhibits the same highly distinctiveserifed letteringas Agora I 7181 + IG 112, 944b, Agora I 7484 of 214/3 (Hesperia48, 1979, pp. 174-178), and Agora I 7254 (Hesperia 45, 1976, pp. 283-285) and was inscribedby the same cutter. It should be dated to about 210 B.C. and refers to 'EOEPTrK (II). Line 121. The improvedreadingscorroborateP. Roussel's restorationof the nomen in BCH 58, 1934, p. 91, note 1. The stemma offered by B. D. Meritt in Hesperia11, 1942, p. 301 should be altered as follows: 254

HE8&ES'1 (I) EK KEpagw'Cv

221

NE'av8pos(I) HE&Eecos(I) EK KEpagE'WV Agora I 7181 + IG 112, 944b (205/4)

188

HE8&E&v(II) NEcavWpov (I) EK KEpagw'WV

Hesperia30, 1961, pp. 12-13 (ca. 180)

161

AGORAI 7181 + IG 12, 944b

155

NE'av8po. (II)

IE&EW0

(II)

EK

KEpagE'w

Hesperia15, 1946, pp. 198-201 (172/1) 122

HlE&EV'1 (III) NEacv8pov (11) EK KEpagfw

V

Hesperia24, 1955, pp. 228-232, lines 40, 293-294 = IG (128/7)

112,

1007

With the above stemma as a guide, we may restore Neandros (I) in Hesperia48, 1979, p. 175 and Pedieus (II) in Hesperia15, 1946, pp. 195-196 and in IG 12, 900.9 STEPHENV. TRACY THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

Departmentof Classics 414 UniversityHall 230 North Oval Mall Columbus, OH 43210 9The Pedieus of Oe who held the position of katapaltaphetesin ca. 232 B.C. (Hesperia2, 1933, p. 159) is apparentlyno direct relationto Pedieus from the Kerameikos.The nomenPedieus is not so rare in Attic prosopographyas to demandthat they be closely related.

PLATE

20

-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Z

l~

~

~

~

~ ~

~

~

~

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~W

AN INTERPRETATION OF SIX ROCK-CUT INSCRIPTIONS IN THE ATTICDEMESOF LAMPTRAI (PLATE21)

N RECENTYEARSinformal"Attic rambles"with Eugene Vanderpoolhave become, for students, associate members, and visitors alike, one of the most attractive features of life at the American School of ClassicalStudies. This paperin honor of the greatest of the Attic "ramblers"offers an interpretationof six rupestral inscriptions from the pair of Lamptraidemes which were the object of a SaturdayVanderpoolwalk duringthe winter of 1978/79.1 All the texts read identicallyOP$ M (P1.21). They were cut at intervals along the crest of the eastern half of the ridge on the western end of which stands the Church of Panagia, Thiti (map, Fig. 1). The first was discovered by M. Mitsos in 1958. The succeeding inscriptions were found in 1958 and 1961 by Vanderpool and, on an early "Attic ramble", by students of the American School. The group of texts was published by C. W. J. Eliot in CoastalDemes of Attika, pp. 63-64, map, fig. 5, p. 57.2 The physical descriptionof the lettering is not essential to the argument here and the reader is referred to Eliot for these details. The locations of the inscriptions,however, are important and I quote this informationdirectlyfrom the editioprinces: The first is at the foot of the ridge, five or six paces west of an old wagon road that runs along the west side of the stream bed. The second is about a hundredpaces up the slope, the third a hundredand twenty paces beyond that. From the third inscriptionto the top of the hill marked with an altitude of 84 metres is a distance of about a hundred and thirty paces. On the top of the hill there appearsto have been a small mound of stones, now ruinous, probablythe remainsof a cairn.No inscriptionwas found here, and perhaps we may assume that the cairn took its place (see LSJ92057, s.v. /3oAXo'). The fourth inscriptionis in the saddle about a hundred and twenty paces west of Hill 84, the fifth IMy debt to E. Vanderpooland C. W. J. Eliot is manifestthroughoutthis paper.Gratefulacknowledgment is made to the Social Sciences and HumanitiesResearch Council of Canadafor a leave fellowship during 1978/79 on which much of the researchfor this paperwas undertaken.M. B. Wallaceoffered helpful criticism. 2Full title, Phoenix, Suppl. V, CoastalDemes of Attika,A Studyin the Policy of Kleisthenes,Toronto 1962, hereafter cited simply as "Eliot". Eliot included no photographs,but a photographof no. 2 was publishedby F. Willemsen, AthMitt80, 1965, Beilage 40:4. The photographson Plate 21 are through the kindnessof E. Vanderpool.The negativesare on file at the Stoa of Attalos in Athens, nos. V 144-149. Otherabbreviationsused below are as follows: TheCouncillors, = B. D. Merittand J. S. Traill, TheAthenianAgora, XV, Inscriptions. AgoraXV Princeton1975 Hesperia,Suppl.XIV = J. S. Traill, Hesperia,Suppl. XIV, The PoliticalOrganizationof Attica, Princeton 1975

Sphuttos

S~~~~~~~

l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~mta *;-

I

I 11%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-II-r

:''

FIG. 1. Map of Attic demes of Lamptrai

JOHN S. TRAILL

164

about two hundred paces further west. Between the fifth and sixth inscriptionsthe disstance is about four hundred paces, but it may be that other inscriptionsare still to be found between them. From the sixth inscriptionto the edge of the plateauforming the top of the hill markedwith an altitudeof 139 metres the distance may be from fifty to a hundredmetres. The top of Hill 139 does not have a surfacesuitablefor the carvingof inscriptions,and this may explain why none were found. The highest point, however, was marked by a ruined cairn.

The first two letters of OP IHMobviously belong to the word o'po', and the third letter, or, as Eliot more appropriatelydescribes it, "a symbol", is surely a mark of separation.3Only the final two letters which, like OP, reveal an abbreviationor abridgement require interpretation.Eliot offered Vanderpool's suggestion that the letters HIM but he was awareof difficultieswith this expanmight stand for 1T(pos) Lk(E0rrrqtpp'av), sion: Even if other inscriptionsturn up bearingHA, HB, or HA in the appropriatequarters,it may still remain a mysterywhat it was that needed such frequentand public notices of a line of demarcation.

Despite repeated searches in the years following this publication no such additional series of texts have turned up,4 and the caution is, in any case, well taken. A more logical interpretation,I submit, is that HM stands for I(apakalx KaL) ,di(EooyaLaq).5 There were two Attic demes named Lamptrai:Upper Lamptrai and Lower or Coastal Lamptrai.This information is provided by the lexicographersHarpokration, Aa~tkTpEVs ... 8ivo 8' ElTmAatkrTpat,at gEv 7rapaktat, at 8E KaOvf7TEpOEv 'ApurroKaOVITEp4&vrjs 'AO4 'p'E "AaAVTpEV1 E>'IyE TOM KaTW, and Hesychios, AatkTTpa& OEV Kat AantkrTpa VITEvepOEv. 8 ^/kot Aa/tkrTpat 'A0'vi)otv

at gEv IrapaXtot,

at

8E

and is confirmed by the inscriptions, e.g. AautITTp KaOV'ITEpOEP (Hesperia KaOv5TEpOEPv,

11, 1942, p. 233, no. 43 = Agora XV, no. 14, line 53), 0OVKV8L8Tp Aat1Tr. KaO) (IG 112, 1877), AaturTpq} ITra'paXot (Hesperia, loc. cit., line 34), [AatkVr1 pat viEPEp (IG I12, 2362, line 8).6 Kav7ITEpOEv in Upper Lamptraimight mean either "higher" or "more

inland"(cf. L.S.J., 9th ed.,

s. v.

Ka6v1Ep6Ev).

The formermeaningis perhapsmore

appropriatewhen the oppositionis simply between "upper"and "lower", and seems to 3The symbol serves here as a word divider ratherthan as an abbreviationmark, cf. M. Larfeld,HandII, Die attischenInschriften,Leipzig 1902, p. 576. The same symbol, admitEpigraphik, buchdergriechischen tedly, became extremely common as an abbreviationmark in the post-classicalperiod, cf. M. Avi-Yonah, in GreekInscriptions of theDepartment TheQuarterly qf Antiquitiesin Palestine,suppl.to vol. IX, Abbreviations (TheNearEast, 200 B.C.-A.D. 1100), Jerusalemand London 1940, pp. 37, 43-44. 4An isolated horos stone discovered by F. Willemsen in a widely disparatelocation I discuss below, footnote 22. 5This interpretationoccurred to Vanderpoolyears ago, but he rejected it on the grounds that the inland region should not have come so close to the coast and Upper Lamptraicould not have been an inlanddeme. MEao6yata,which has the common variantspellinggEO6oYEta, has a special pertinenceto the politicalorganizationof Attica, in which context it is often translatedinto Englishas "inland". 6A full list of citationsis given in Hesperia,Suppl.XIV, pp. 125-126.

ROCK-CUT INSCRIPTIONS IN THEATTICDEMESOF LAMPTRAI

165

be supported by the parallelof Upper and Lower Paiania whose precise locations are known (the exact sites of Upper and Lower Potamos, Upper and Lower Agryle, Upper and Lower Pergase, and the two portions of Ankyle, presumablyUpper and Lower, are not known). Although Upper Lamptraiis not referredto as AatirTpat /LEOoyatot in our sources, I have no doubt but that when AaurTpat KaGVITEpGEV is cited in conjunction with AajurTpat1ra'paXotthe oppositionis between "coastal"and "inland". Both Upper and Lower, or Coastal, Lamptraihave been located with near certainty, the former at Lambrika,the latter at Kitsi Pigadi. Both are clearly established as demesites from abundantceramic and architecturalevidence,7 and both are firmly identified as Lamptraidemes by the discovery of inscriptions, a dedication to Apollo by [AajuVIrpELs at Lambrika(IG 112, 2967), and a decree of Lamptraihonoring Philokedes of Acharnai at Ki:' (IG 112, 1204).8 A further argument for Lambrika is the obvious survival of the ancient name. That the territoryof Coastal Lamptraiwent down toward the sea is clear both from the epithet ranpaXotand the naturaltopographyof the region (Eliot, pp. 60-61): Lower Lamptraiadministeredtwo large plains that lie approximatelyat right angles to each other. Nature provided clear-cut boundariesexcept to the east where uncertainties exist.9

That Upper Lamptrai'sterritorylay inland and removed from the sea is also made clear from the naturaltopography(Eliot, p. 60): Upper Lamptraicontrolled the plain which lies to the south, east, and west of it ... the limits are clear, even to the north where it appearson the map as if the plain around Lambrikajoinedthe Mesogaiawithoutany break.10(my italics)

The crest of the eastern half of the PanagiaThiti ridge, on which the OP|?IMinscriptions were cut, would form part of a natural topographicaldivision between the two Lamptrais"in an area removed from the deme centers where a question of territorial jurisdictioncould easily arise (see map, Fig. 1). 7Eliot, pp. 55-56; W. K. Pritchett, Studies in AncientGreek Topography I, University of California Publications:ClassicalStudies I, Berkeley 1965, pp. 138-140. 8For the findspotsof both inscriptionsand the topographicalimplicationssee Eliot, pp. 51-53. 9For an alternativeassignmentof Agios Demetrios see footnote 17 below. '0Lambrika'sdirect connection, in ancient and modern times, was obviously with Koropi = Sphettos of the Mesogaia.The question as to the jurisdictionof Upper Lamptraiover the small valley below Hymettos west of Lambrika,discussedby Eliot (pp. 58-60), must still remainopen. The region would be suitable for an caxarta',known to exist in Upper Lamptrai(IG 112,1603, line 5; see D. M. Lewis in Probkmesde la terreen Graceancienne,M. I. Finley, ed., Paris 1973, p. 200). The place is certainly"hilly" (cf. Lewis, ibid., p. 212), but saxamcamay emphasizetopographicalisolation, especiallyfrom a deme center. "With the exception of IG 112,2623, a boundarystone of the [XcOdp]a H[Edpaiwv, these inscriptions are our only evidence for both deme and trittys boundarieswithin Attica, but there were only six pairsof divided demes (where we might first expect problems of territorialdivision to arise), and the Lamptrais were peculiaramong them. The trittys markersfrom the Agora and Peiraieusare, of course, marshalling stationsfor the armyand not properboundarystones.

JOHNS. TRAILL

166

That each section of the divided demes was considereda separatepoliticalentity in the period of the original ten phylai is made clear by lexicographicaland inscriptional evidence, such as that cited above (pp. 164-165) and is confirmed by constitutional evidence, namely, that each section of a divided deme had a fixed quota of representation in the Boule.12Even if there were doubt concerning the individual status of split demes before the creation of the Macedonianphylai, there can be no question for the period after 307/6, since in that year one section of each divided deme was transferred to Antigonis. Rivalry between the two Lamptraiswould account for the use of the particularizingepithet cited in Harpokrationand IG I12, 1877 (p. 164 above), the only instances in which isolated demesmen of a divided deme are so identified. In an article in Hesperia47, 197813I adduced evidence to demonstrate that the Kleisthenic trittyes, as seen from the bouleutic quotas, were as nearly exact thirds as possible, and that the glaringtopographicalaberrations,i.e. particularlythe enclaves, in the map of the politicaland militaryorganizationof Attica resulted from the necessity to adapt natural topographyto arbitrarythirds. The phyle of Pandionis, in which the coastal enclave of Probalinthoswas assigned to the city trittys of Kydathenaion,provided the best evidence. Five other phylai made tolerably good sense (the evidence for Hippothontiswas insufficient), but Erechtheis, Oineis, and Antiochis offered difficulties. I shall appenda few remarkson these last two at the end of this paper, but Erechtheis, to which the Lamptraidemes were originallyaffiliated,concerns us now. The difficultywith Erechtheis was that in order to form equal trittyes Anagyrous (which, unlike Probalinthos,was hardlyan enclave) apparentlyhad to be detached from the proximateLamptraidemes and assigned to the inland trittys composed of Kephisia, two Pergase demes, and perhapsone tiny, unlocated Erechtheiddeme. The amount and qualityof the evidence for this postulation,namely, the first half of a bouleutic list from 336/5 (Agora XV, no. 42 = Hesperia30, 1961, pp. 31-33), in which the four other rosters, with some exceptions, made sense in terms of trittyes, was scarcelyoverwhelming. Of the Erechtheid demes with known locations, Euonymon and Agryle from the city were at the top of column I, Kephisia and Pergase from the inland trittys headed column II, and the coastal demes Anagyrousand Lamptraiwere inscribedat the bottom of columns I and II respectively.I suggested that the "inland" roster began with Pambotadaiand Anagyrous in lower column I and continued with Kephisia and Pergase at the top of column II, Anagyrous' representation having been transferredfrom the In an article in coastal trittys, topographically,to the inland trittys, administratively.14 Historia15, 196615W. E. Thompson had pointed out that in the same bouleutic list the demes of the inland trittys of Pandionis occupied the tops of both column I (Paiania) 12Asnoted by Eliot (p. 53), it is strangethat the particularLamptraideme is not specified.Perhapsit was simply all too obvious to the demesmen. No decree of any other divided deme has survived. 13"Diakris,the InlandTrittysof Leontis," pp. 89-109. "Ibid., pp. 104-105. 15"TpLTTVS 9 TCV 1Tp1VYaVEC0V,

pp. 4-5.

IN THEATTICDEMESOF LAMPTRAI ROCK-CUT INSCRIPTIONS

167

and column II (Oa and Konthyle). Four years later in Hesperia"6 Thompson advocateda similar treatment for the roster of Erechtheis in this inscription, i.e. the coastal trittys was composed of Anagyrousand Lamptraiat the bottom of columns I and II respectively. I return to this view now, with the importantproviso that only part of Lamptrai,viz. the coastal section, should be assigned to the coastal trittys.17Divided demes in the bouleutic list of 336/5 were never given individual listings, but were always recorded under a single demotic heading: there was a single entry for both demes Pergase, one demotic served the two Agryles, Ankyle had only one listing for both sections, and Iflaavcdl sufficed for both Upper and Lower deme. More significantly,all three Potamos demes were listed under a single heading in the coastalroster, even though two of the demes, Upper and Lower Potamos, belonged to the city.18Convenience of listing obviously took precedence in this inscriptionover strict arrangementby trittys.The rosters of the two Lamptrais, like the other divided demes, were recorded under one heading, even though some of the names belonged to the coastal section and others to the upper, or "inland"portion.19 In conclusion, I prefer now to assign Upper Lamptrai,rather than Anagyrous, to the inland administrativetrittys of Erechtheis.20Upper Lamptrai,of course, can hardly be considered an enclave, but the barrierbetween it and the coastal demes of its phyle is at least a physical one, and the differences in the relative orientations of the two regions are more significantthan any respective differences between the closely related coastal demes of Lower Lamptraiand Anagyrous. The parallelin the politicalorganization of Attica will not be with Probalinthosin Pandionis or the Eitea group of demes in Antiochis, both obvious enclaves, but ratherwith Ikarionand Plotheia in Aigeis, which are separatedby Mt. Pentelikon from the inland demes of Gargettos, Erchia, etc., or with Rhamnous in Aiantis, which is separated by the long valley of Limiko from its phyle's coastal demes in the Marathonianplain (Hesperia47, 1978, pp. 101-104). 16"Notes on Attic Demes," Hesperia39, 1970, p. 66. 17I should also

now prefer to affiliatethe tiny deme Pambotadaiwith this trittys rather than with the city, to which Thompson assigned it, or with the inland region, to which I gave it in Hesperia47. A possible site might be Agios Demetrios, to which I would assign a small Erechtheiddeme. t8Thisaffiliationis the presentscholarlyconsensus, see Hesperia47, 1978, pp. 99, 107-109. '9Thatthe names were not segregatedby section of deme within the roster is made clear by prosopographicalinformation.Diodoros in AgoraXV, no. 42, line 55 would appearto be an ancestorof the Diodoros whose son was prytanisfor Coastal Lamptraiin 256/5 (Agora XV, no. 86, line 31). Archias in Agora XV, no. 42, line 56 is probablyidentical with the father of the bouleutes for Upper Lamptraiin 304/3 (AgoraXV, no. 61, line 36). In Agora XV, no. 32 (= IG II2, 1751), in which the two sections of Paiania were listed under a single demotic, the last demesman of Paianiamay be identifiedfrom prosopographical informationas the single representativeof the tiny uppersection. In no other roster in which the segments of divided demes were recordedunder a single heading does the prosopographyallow us to distinguishan order of arrangement. 20Thetidy scheme whereby Erechtheisprovideda Macedonianphyle with one deme from each of its three trittyes (Hesperia47, 1978, pp. 106-107) is now lost, but that patternnever worked for Kekropisand several other phylai.

168

JOHNS. TRAILL

In the period of the original ten phylai I do not believe that the differing trittys affiliationsof the two Lamptraidemes would cause great problems.The descendantsof those enrolled in CoastalLamptraiin the time of Kleisthenes would serve in the coastal contingent, and the descendants of those enrolled in Upper Lamptraiwould belong to the inland trittys. Both demes were affiliatedwith the same phyle Erechtheis, and the difficultiesof tribal organizationand local administrationought to have been minimal. With the creation of the Macedonianphylai, however, Upper Lamptraiwas transferred to Antigonis, and the tribal discrepancyof the two sections may well have caused local problems. It is to this period, i.e. post 307/6, that I would assign the OP$IHMinscriptions. The view of E. Vanderpool,M. Mitsos, and M. Lang, accepted by C. W. J. Eliot, was that, on the basis of letter-forms, these texts belonged to the 4th century, and I submit that the late 4th centuryB.C. is perfectlysuitable for the style of lettering.21With the creation of the Macedonianphylai it was felt necessary, perhapsbecause of a local boundarydispute, or for whatever reason, to define preciselythe topographicaldivision between the Erechtheidand Antigonid Lamptrai.2 The series of six rupestralOPVIIMinscriptions,I conclude, should be interpretedas a late 4th-century definition of part of the boundary between Coastal and "Inland" Lamptrai.This interpretationoffers supportto and is, in turn, supportedby my theory of equally sized Kleisthenic political and military trittyes. This theory has still to win wide acceptance,and I am not sure I have yet convinced Eugene Vanderpool,who has, nevertheless, offered much help and discussion in my formulatingof these ideas over the years. Among many items of useful criticism, he pointed out the following cogent parallel for the use of abbreviatedrupestral boundary inscriptions.On Mt. Paximadi 21Withrespect to the date Eliot cites as evidence the absence of initialeta-aspirateand the shape of pi. The shape of mu may also be adducedto supportthe 4th-centurydate. The very slight apparentwidening of the tips of several strokes is due, I believe, to weatheringand does not reflect the use of apices. 22Theother horos inscriptionsfrom the Lamptraidemes should be mentioned. The well-known,large, 5th-centuryHO texts near the Churchof the Panagia,Thiti (Eliot, pp. 56-58; Willemsen, op. cit. [footnote 2 above], p. 122) undoubtedlymark part of the peribolos of a sanctuary.The Doric capitaldescribed by Willemsen (ibid., pp. 123-126) and dated by him to the second third of the 5th century B.C. probably belonged to a buildingof this sanctuary.The continuityof sacredprecinctsfrom classicalto Christiantimes is well known in Attica. The temenos,which may have been the Doryklelonof Athena mentioned in IG II2, 1035, line 51 (see G. R. Culley, TheRestorationof the SacredMonumentsin AugustanAthens,diss. University of North Carolinaat Chapel Hill, 1973, pp. 180-183, available through University Microfilms,Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan),may have belonged to both Lamptraidemes, or to neither; in either case, the HO inscriptionswould serve to make the area distinctfrom the particulardemes. In additionto the six OP5HM and the six HO inscriptions,Willemsen (ibid., pp. 122-123) noted a thirteenth text with the following location: ... von der Kirche aus in NW-Richtungmehrere hundert Meter entfernt fur sich, auf einen Felsen eingetragen, der sich 35 m ndrdlichdes Fahrwegs nach NW zwar knapp uber seine Feldumgebung,jedoch nicht uber die nahen Busche erhebt. We searchedin vain, both on an "Attic ramble"and several times on my own, for this inscription,and I am told that Willemsenhimself was unable to locate it on a visit subsequentto its discovery.He likens the letteringto that of the OPSIM inscriptions,but the text itself, simply HO, and the aspiratemake it similar to the largeHO inscriptions.The topographicalpurposeof this isolated text is unclear, but it seems to bear no relationto the OPSIIMinscriptions.

ROCK-CUT INSCRIPTIONS IN THEATTICDEMESOF LAMPTRAI

169

dividing the territoriesof ancient Laconia and Messenia appearsthe following series of texts aligned north-southand about 100 meters (ab) or slightly more (bc) apart (IG V, 1, 1371 a-c): M

a. OPO At=1Opo(';)

M (Eo-o7vV

KaL) A(aKEaax4.Vl),

b. OPO

IAK.

pMEz = opo'; AaK(Esa oPve) 7rpG(os)MEr(o((r

v).

APPENDIX I turn now briefly to the problems of the formation of equally sized trittyes in the phylai Oineis and Antiochis. The magnitude of Acharnai is well known, from the evidence of Thucydides (ii.19), xwptov gyuiOTrrov Pr s 'ATtKr?19 Rcov&rquuvKaXov/iEVWV, from the documentation of IG 112, 1745 ( Agora XV, no. 17), the only complete prytanyinscriptionof Oineis, dated 360/59, in which Acharnai had 22 representatives, from the fragmentarybouleutic list of 303/2 B.C. in the first period of twelve phylai (Hesperia37, 1968, p. 12 = Agora XV, no. 62), in which Acharnaihad at least 22 representatives,and probablyas many as 25, from Gomme's figure of 452 for the number of known Acharnians, and from an ephebic roster of about 330 B.C. (Hesperia, Suppl. VIII, Studiesin Honorof T. LeslieShear, Baltimore1949, p. 274), in which Acharnaihad at least 24, and perhaps as many as 26 ephebes out of a total possible roster of 57. Although politicallyAcharnaiis not in any of our sources designateda split deme, topographicallyit has at least two possible sites. In Hesperia,Suppl. XIV, p. 50 I assigned either Menidi or the site southwest of Menidi as its location; in Hesperia47, 1978, p. 105, note 53 I suggested that it might have been both these sites. The form of the demotic is obviously plural, as observed, for example, from Thucydides (ii.19-20), es 'Axappav, rTEpt TE Tac 'Axapvac, etc.; the jurisdictionof the deme clearlywas large and it probablyincluded a number of smaller communities, perhaps in the fashion of the K~pal/ of Aphidna.23 In the case of Aphidna, however, the total representationreached only 16, i.e. the figure for a propertrittys, whereasAcharnaiwas five or six bouleutaitoo large. I suggest that for militaryand politicalpurposesa portion of Acharnaiwas transferred to the city trittys, the remaining inland part being called Pedieis, not Acharnai: rTv 'Apxi8agov ITEpI TE rTa 'Axapva' s es ,..uiaXvrafctkEvov yVang'j8beTOMcEXE'yETaL /.ELva Kat e' To ETE&OLEKE'VV V Ea,8oj3O o0 KarTa,8"vaL (Thucydides,ii.20).24 23See Hesperia,Suppl. XIV, pp. 87-91, and Lewis, op. cit. (footnote 10 above), pp. 192-193, 205. Aphidnais commonly cited in the singularform, althoughthe plural, "Aoc8vat,also has excellent credentials (Herodotos, ix.73; Plutarch, Theseus,32, 33). 240n the name of Oineis inland see H. T. Wade-Gery, in MWianges G. GlotzII, Paris 1932, pp. 885886. The indirectevidence of Agora XV, nos. 43 and 492 does not encouragea divided deme (Hesperia,

170

JOHNS. TRAILL

Antiochis was the most complex of the Attic phylaiin politicalorganization,and in order to form equally sized trittyes recourse to the expedient of a double transfer of representationhas been necessary.Its topographylikewise manifests the greatest anomalies. The deme decree of Eitea found at Grammatikoand published by A. Kalogeropoulou and E. Vanderpool25established a northern Antiochid enclave composed of Eitea, Semachidai,and probablyalso the other tiny demes Krioa, Eroiadai,and Kolonai. On the basis of IG I12, 1750 ( Agora XV, no. 44) I suggested that these demes were associatedwith the city deme Alopeke to form a normal-sizedtrittys.26The topographical coastal section of Antiochis, with 27 bouleutai, was the largestAttic trittys according to the traditionalview of the Kleisthenic system. Again on the basis of Agora XV, no. 44 I surmised that Aigilia and Thorai were associated with Pallene to form the inland trittys, to which the last-mentioned deme gave its name. Vanderpool's publicationin Hesperia39, 197027of a lex sacra of Phrearrhoiwas accompaniedby a topographical discussion in which he proposedOlympos for the site of Phrearrhoiand Agios Panteleimon for the location of Aigilia. On this basis Thorai at Phoinikia might well be considered an enclave, but certainly not Aigilia which had a close topographicalconnection with Anaphlystosat Agios Georgios. The findspot of the lex sacra was almost precisely equidistant from Olympos and Agios Panteleimon, and Vanderpool chose the former for Phrearrhoiand the latter for Aigilia on the grounds that Phrearrhoiwith nine bouleutai was larger than Aigilia with six and Olympos was the larger of the two sites. There are, however, several additionalconsiderationswhich may relate to the pairingof these two demes and sites. The form tpE'appot,as it appearsin Hesychios and Stephanos of Byzantion, is patently a plural,28and the deme may have consisted of several communities. One of these would be (DpEappoi (locative) which occurs twice in the Laureionmining leases, Hesperia19, 1950, p. 228, no. 13, lines 16-17, with restoration of end of name from Hesperia26, 1957, p. 4, no. S2, line 36. Phrearrhoi'spatent etymology denotes "wells", and much water is now pumped from the ground near Olympos, but OpE'apmay also mean "tank" or "cistern" (L.S.J., 9th ed., s.v. OpEap)with wider topographicalapplication.Aigilia, which, as Eliot reminds us,29was well known in Supply.XIV, pp. 78-79), but there are uncertainties,and a bouleutes may have been omitted from one or both lists of Oineis. Almost certainlyno partof Acharnaiwas transferredto Antigonis (cf. above, p. 166). AEXT 25, A', 1970 [19711, pp. 204-218. I am not unawareof P. Bicknell's T'toy 25"rL 4 EITE'aq," attempt to identify this Eitea as the Akamantiddeme (Historia27, 1978, pp. 369-374). Quite apartfrom "conthe fact that Akamantishas no other associationswith northeastAttica, of the two prosopographical the and lemma the of thirds two of restoration nearly siderations"the first rests on a highly questionable second apposesthe name Demokleides to the quite differentname Demokles. 47, 1978, p. 104. The AntiochidKolonai offers an obstacle, but its location at the quarrying 26Hesperia center Pentele is far from certain (Hesperia,Suppl.XIV, p. 92). 27"ALexSacraof the Attic Deme Phrearrhioi,"pp. 47-53. I take to be the correctform of the place-name;the demotic is 4pEappto', and the aggre28EpEappot gate demesmen (FpEapptot; the form (?pEappot of the mining leases presumablyis a locative singularand the place, a portionof the compositePhrearrhoi. 29p. 69.

ROCK-CUTINSCRIPTIONSIN THE ATTIC DEMES OF LAMPTRAI

171

antiquity for its figs, is never cited in the extant mining leases.30It directly follows Thorai in the generally accepted emendation of the order in Strabo's list of coastal demes,31 a catalogue which makes no mention of Phrearrhoi.If we reverse Vanderpool's attributions and place Aigilia at Olympos, which was Eliot's location (before Phrearrhoiobtruded), and Phrearrhoi,in part, at Agios Panteleimon, the territoryof the former will stretch toward the sea, sharing the coastal plain only with the smaller deme Thorai (four bouleutai), whereas the jurisdictionof the latter will run more inland, includingsome of the mining region, the majorityof the coastal plain being occupied by the larger deme Anaphlystos (ten bouleutai). Thorai and Aigilia, accordingly, together become a distinct enclave, and as such would form a parallelto the political treatmentof the other enclaves like Probalinthos. JoHNS. TRAILL UNIVERSITYOF TORONTO

Departmentof Classics VictoriaCollege AB 331 Toronto, OntarioM5S IK7 is cited as the name of a mine located at Besa, Br'ro-ot AN]yLXaKo'V(Hesperia19, 1950, 30Aigiliakon p. 255, no. 18, line 4), but, althoughcognate with Aigilia, it probablyhas no topographicalsignificance,cf. Prospaltikonin IG II2, 2635, and Hagnousiakonand Kerameikonin Hesperia10, 1941, pp. 16 and 17, lines 50 and 77-78. 3'Eliot, pp. 47-51.

Addendum I append three considerationswith respect to Phrearrhoidiscussed above: (1) a mining segment of the deme may have been located at Ari; (2) the name Ari may be derived from Phrearrhoi;(3) OpEap may have a special meaning pertainingto a mining context.

PLATE

_~~~~~

4_

a.

b.

C.

d.

N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4

4

e.

JOHN

S.

TRAILL:

f.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$

SIX.ROCK-CUT

INSCRIPTIOAF

U % LAMPATRA A rr~IcDMSU JoHN SQTRILL:T QT Six ROC-CU-T INSCRIP -,DTIOrNSIN rTHEu OF

21

HAPAAEIFMA* (PLATE22)

HE MONUMENTAL WORK of Lucy Shoe Meritt, Profiles of Greek Mouldings IL (Cambridge, Mass. 1936), in presenting a comprehensive survey of the various moldings and their development through successive periods, has made possible the precise dating of any form. But until now, very little has been known about how moldings were laid out and cut. A recent find now shows how this was done, and also with what care moldingswere carved on architecturalmembers. The key piece of evidence is a thin sheet of lead, 0.117 x 0.142 m., with a thickness that barely exceeds a millimeter. On it is cut the profile of a cyma reversa with a half-roundbelow it (P1.22: a, b). It was found in the excavations conducted in 1965 at Mon Repos in Kerkyraby Dr. George Dontas, then Ephor of Kerkyraand now Director of the AcropolisMuseum, whom I thank most warmlyfor his kindness in turning it over to me to publish. It was rolled up after use and discarded, it would appear, in a filling that dates from the beginningof the 5th century B.C. It was made with care, probablyby the architect I call this piece a rr-apca'8Etyjx. himself, to serve as a pattern for craftsmen to follow in fashioning the molding. The profile of the molding was drawn by him and cut out along one edge, and a series of guide-lineswas engraved on the surface. But how, exactly, did craftsmen use this 7rapca8Etya? Evidence for this comes from the crowningmolding of an unfinishedbase of the 2nd century after Christ which is now in the entrancecourt at Eleusis (P1.22:c). On it, we see that first, with the aid of the '7Tapca8Etya,the moldings were incised on the two ends of the marble within the band of anathyrosis.Next, the profile of the molding was cut to a shallow depth to serve as a guide for cutting the profile along the whole face of the block before it was set into final position. The oblique cut on the Eleusis block is also distinctive, for it is the first step in cutting the molding. This, too, was indicated by the architect, I think, on the left side of the lead rrpca8'typa from Kerkyra, and with it the very first stage in cutting the molding laid out by the craftsmen. JoHN TRAVLOS STUDIESAT ATHENS OFCLASSICAL SCHOOL AMERICAN

*Translatedby E. L. Smithson

PLATE

22

a, b. Lead sheet from Mon Repos, Kerkyra

0 I l

.05

.10

l-

.1A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

REGULATIONSFOR AN ATHENIANFESTIVAL (PLATE

23)

HE INSCRIPTION-FRAGMENTdiscussed here contains a text of regulationsfor a festival, in Attica or in an area controlledby Athens, in the 330'S B.C.

T7

A fragmentof dark, blue-grayHymettian marble, found on September 10, 1969, in the basement of a modern house at Agora Grid Location L-M 5-6. The stele was thicker at the bottom than at the top; this fragmentis also thicker on the left than on the right, suggesting that it comes from near the right side of the stele. The smooth-dressedback is preserved.' P. H. 0.400 m.; p. W. 0.193 m.; Th., top right, 0.113 m., bottom left, 0.120 m.

Height of letters, 0.004 m. Loosely stoichedon, with a horizontal chequer of 0.0075 m. and a vertical chequerof 0.0075-0.0078 m.

Agora Inv. No. I 7063. ca. a. 329/8 a. ?

ITOIX.

--------------------------------------------]aa------~--------------------------------]a 5

5-

-]a--------x----------------------------

-------------------------------~---------aa-----------------------------------------

-O1YT]E -XXO- E-AL

10

----t]? ---------------------------------ay]vLEaI -----------------------------------------------------------------

-I~~~~~~~~-15----------------------------------

------------------------------------O-N-------------------------------------------------------------

--

l

axacVI[I----------------

-

@]qs Xtatoa' 0[ ------------------------&ve a sKaLoTaT[a a wAa O

----------------------------------------------iTXXa]

10

]AIE[-------------------'Ar[c ?----------------

~------------Ktaaa~

O'TL

[E-

Kat'c~a'-c~ EL'8E',.[ Ea(L] 8EL7TL'ELE

8A

o'K?

-----------

---------------

s--% -------------8EXVaI KL'TaEL8aooE% ,q---------------]y0l-tVko-Oas

To7T7To~po/yob[ 9 Ef--V-KaX[Xov

T(XaVOVic't)ai'rov

----

avIrcvt &80o'at a'[/a Kat ------------------------4 -------------

ToVs 8]E /3OVXEVTa' 8ta [ ' - Ka6]a7TEp e]i[A]cv

11 hope that the recipientof this articlemay enjoy this searchfor a lost festival, an exercise of the sort that he has carriedout so many times and with such skill. I am gratefulto Professor T. Leslie Shear, Jr., the Directorof the Agora Excavations,for permissionto study and to publishthis fragment. Note: In addition to the standardabbreviations,LSCG will be used for F. Sokolowski, Lois sacrees des citesgrecques,Paris 1962.

174

MICHAEL B. WALBANK w rioX ap~o' oil--~~~~~~

-16~~~~~~~---

20

I[---------------

--------------------------------------]TA[.EL]HXNHM I

------------------------------------

TaVT-aao

KaTa

----------------------------------------------______--------------------------

ES ELKOOt

--------------------------------------

25

I

halgs

-w --------------------------------------

[---------------

AAOOY[--------------

.4. 4i

I T

8E

T [ --------------

Kat (o[To8'ov

raTpop]Ev

----------

[ ---------

rot'

VtK(0

8;

?---

aXXw EK -

3 .IIE[-------------------------------------------------]YUJOEI1[. -------------------------------------.]O1OTE[------------IEKVATEIt. f

-------------------------------------

30

8] E%O O

-------------------------------------I-------

-------------------------------------------------1

Ivt eolkoltov ]wovav e[K]aro

vOrE [-

6e osyaxst~ oXE'Al~apo rt--------] -~~~0XgT

------------------------------------------------]NNEANH.NEENEIM -----------------------------------rklt vtavTrt TrOtE[r']Eg--------------------------------------------

K]aa7TEp

rL% H a ovAO-qawt VTrTLE'va[ ----I6at 8EtLV Aa<

-------------------------------------]v

i

laTpo6EV

- I va KaL OvS

-]--------------------------------

--------------------------------------]PAAA

-------------------------------------_____-_-_-_-

- - - ----

aTo

Katroy V

K]a' a S L .3.]Aa

-- -- -- -- - ---

- - - - -

8

ov--------

EL .]8([----------ITE'rTEL-------------

]hv 'Anv'6EV

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -___--_--

.]QI[. .]1[(---------

rwt ANI. ]IKI[-------

KraEp ----or~~~~~~~~~~-aE'vrwOV [4iTU]t EVrTa~dv

-----------------------rv 8e ot(ap]xoV ------------------------------------'A~a~ea

__--_--_-_-

YL. .4.

"rat

------------------------------------

45

-----~~~~

ffII[.] 8L vr6 ta[-

----------------------------------raw]

40

? -----------

Aira^

a [ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -

-------H----------------H-----------IU

35

V Iqo

EXI[--------------

- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -

-- ]K[ - -- -- -- -- - ---

---

The text given above is the product of innumerablehours spent, under different kinds of lighting, with the stone, with tracings, with photographs,and with squeezes. The photographof the stone gives the impressionthat much of the stone is easy to read, but this impressionis false: the surface has been much damaged, mostly in patternsof small scratches that, all too often, resemble letter-strokes;moreover, the mason has made several errors, which he has correctedwithout, however, erasing the originaltext. He was also inconsistent in the way in which he cut certain letters, eta and nu being especiallydifficultto distinguishfrom one another, and sometimes, too, he did not place his letters precisely in the centres of the stoichoi. Rather than provide an almost stoichos-by-stoichoscommentary,I appenda drawingof the marks that I believe to be real

FORAN ATHENIANFESTIVAL REGULATIONS

175

letter-strokes, including instances of overcutting. From this I have developed an extremely conservativetext, leaving almost all conjectureto my commentary.Where readings still requireverbal explanation,I shall providean epigraphicalcommentaryas well. This fragment does not form part of any published inscriptionbut in subject-matter, as well as in general appearance,script and in some cases marble-type, it is very much like several large inscriptionsof the Lykourganera that are concerned with the orderingof majorAthenian festivals in the 330's B.C.2Of these, in particular,SEG XVI, 55 seems to be by the same hand, but its chequer-patternsare slightly larger.3It has been conjecturedthat SEG XVI, 55 was concerned with the regulationof the Eleusinia in 330/29 B.C.;the document here discussed seems to be concerned with a similarfestival, involving both Athenians and non-Athenians, and includingequestrianevents. This document may conveniently be divided into five sections, as follows: Section I, Officialsand Competitors,lines 1-11; Section II, Duties of Officials,lines 12-20; Section III, Prizes and Victors, lines 21-26; Section IV, Facilities and Date of the Festival, lines 27-36; Section V, Financialand other Arrangements,lines 37-48. COMMENTARY

SectionI: Officialsand Competitors Line 2: If this fragmentcomes from near the top of its stele, these letters might be restored as part of a demotic, perhapsfrom the prescriptof a decree, for instance, ['AX]atE[v1]. Line 4: The letter-tracesin the first two stoichoi suggest the readingas, ratherthan 8S or kE, but, since the angle of the lowest bar of epsilon and sigma varies on this stone, it is not possible to be certainwhat the true readingis. The imperativekaxacTW is probablypartof a formulafor the selection by lot of an official, or officials,whose oath of office follows in lines 5-7. Since the middle partof this document seems to be concernedwith a musical, dramaticor athletic contest, athlothetai,hieropoioi, epimeletai, or a single agonothetes may be involved.4 Lines5-7: These are clearly partsof an oath, to be sworn by the officials,or official, of line 4. During the 4th century such oaths generally included invocation of a god or gods, undertakingsto carry out duties honestly and reverently, or to abide by the terms set, promises neither to accept nor to offer bribes, and rewardsor punishmentsin the event of complianceor non-compliancewith the terms of the oath.5The 2See IG 112,334 + SEGXVIII, 13 (336/5 B.C.); IG 112, 333 (335/4 B.C.); SEGXVI,55 (330/29 B.c.?). 3Thestele of SEG XVI, 55, at its bottom, is of almost exactly the same thicknessas is this fragmentat its top; the marble is identical, and the hand virtually the same, though neater, but the horizontaland vertical chequer-patternsare somewhat larger (0.0086 x 0.0085 in.). The chequer-patternsof IG 112,333 are 0.0092 x 0.0096 in.; the marbleis of the same type as that in this fragment. 4For instance, in SEG XVI, 55, line 12, 20 athlothetaiare to be chosen by lot, to serve ten for the trieteric and ten for the penteteric Eleusinia; hieropoioi seem usually to have been elected (Aristotle, AthenaionPoliteia,30.2), but those for the Panathenaiaand for the other pentetericfestivals were chosen by lot (Aristotle, Ath. Pol., 54.6-7); epimeletai seem usually to have been elected (see, for instance, IG VII, 4254, lines 11-12: Athenians elected to serve at Oropos in 329/8 B.C.; see also Aristotle, Ath. Pol., 57.1), but they were sometimes allotted (IG 112,354, lines 15-16); at Athens, at least, only one agonothetes seems to have been chosen at a time and he was always elected (for instance, see IG 112,657, lines 38-39). Unless there is a mason's error the form XaxacO is to be preferredto XaXE'T1-: the fourth letter of this word is definitelynot epsilon. 5Cf. Demosthenes, xxiv.150, and IG 112,1135, 1183 and 1196, for instance;for the phrase [d'h &KaLrTaT[a Kat Ev1crEj8EcrTaTaI, see IG 112, 204, lines 10 and 15-16.

MICHAEL B. WALBANK

176

only one of these elements that is missing here is invocation, but, since the formulasimply a fairly long line, the invocation might well have appearedin line 5, or, with less likelihood, in line 7, for example: [OpKOs

Ey&)

ivctn

wIS

8tKato'TaT[a

Kat

OPIE cAXO4 E/LOL% OVPT[Eajar'L

EVTEEETaTa E&86O1

--a

-

I--------------

ovE

S ppa

E/LO V, OVTE TEXVT1t OVTE Wf1XavT1t ov'EUaL

EoLat

oVE

aVT

REpV EVOPKOVTt AMOO

Ivokka] cal a'ya6a El 8E 1.d%IrvavriaI. The restorationof these formulasin full would necessitatea line 81 letters in length, which is not unreasonablefor a document of this sort.6 Lines 8-9: These lines are probablynot part of the oath itself but invoke sanctions against anyone who does not take the oath; refusalto do so (line 8) is followed by denial of the right of such person to participate in the meal, usuallyin the prytaneion,that was almost alwaystaken in common by incoming boards of officials.7This probablymeans that a board,ratherthan a single official,was to be chosen in line 4. Lines 10-11: A new sub-sectionbegins here, dealingwith the competitors(line 10), who are to come both ' (K from Athens and from elsewhere (see also lines 30-31 for a similar clause): 1(K Vc] Kva TWr, GV'6VI.8

SectionH1:Dutiesof Officials Line 12: Presumably,this refers back to line 4. It might instead, however, involve a different group of Trig EvKocTauaqTrig people, such as epimeletai;one might restore, for instance:oi 8E AaXoJTEk E7ftAEX7qTata ITEptTO0'aTpov (or Bat &ywva ?)]9 Line 13: The mason seems to have corrected over an error here: the true reading may be T9LXov,but kappamight be read for tau, rho for omicron, and tau for chi. The provisionof a wall, as well as that of a hippodrome(line 14), may be partof the duties of the officialsof line 12; alternatively,these constructions might be the reason for the crownand other rewardsgrantedin lines 15-16. since the Panathenaia,however, was Line 14: The hippodromecould be the PanathenaicHippodrome;10 not the only Athenian festival to include horse-racing,the sites of other festivals should also be considered, especiallythose locatedoutside Athens, such as that of the Eleusinia.Other festivals in Athens itself, if they includedequestrianevents, may well have employed the PanathenaicHippodromefor these." Line 15: Someone is to receive an olive-crown, perhapsin connection with the wall and hippodromeof lines 13-14: [(rEfavovAT acTorvOaXA[ovi0-TEqa1JWL]. Presumablysome such phraseas [EvVOL'a'EVEKa T7)4 V To'V 'AOrjvaUwvlshould follow.'2 Another interpretationof lines 14-15 is that the hippo8 rq Ets TOs drome itself was designatedas the placewhere the announcementof the crownwas to be made. Line 16: This may be an extension of the formulaof line 17, involving the announcementby the heraldof the awardof the crown, or, more likely, I believe, designationof some furtherrewardto the honorand,a grantof money or even citizenship.13 6IG 112,333 has a line-lengthof 82 letters; IG 112,334 and SEG XVI, 55 have line-lengthsof 42 and 52-58 letters respectively. 7Cf. Demosthenes, xix.190. V 8' Ka' Tot (K 'V 6ow 8Cf. IG 112,956, lines 11-13: Ka' Tat fvkats I ... 'Oka... Tay~uao-v.

9Cf. IG 112,354, lines 15-17. 10Forthe location of the PanathenaicHippodrome,see the referencescollected by S. Benton, "Echelos' Hippodrome,"BSA 67, 1972, pp. 13-19. "Festivals at Athens that includedequestrianevents were the Olympieia,Theseia and Bendidia;outside Athens was the festival of Amphiaraosat Oropos (see footnotes 25-30 below; there was also a hippodrome on Delos). 12Cf.IG 112,351, lines 21-25 (330/29 B.C.): the context of this decree was, among other things, the honorand'sgift of a largesum of money for the constructionof a stadiumand theatrefor the Panathenaia. 13Cf.LSCG, no. 103B, lines 22-25: KaL Ea'r VtKaVl 80K7)L, TErexvoavTwoav avTovs | GaXA (rEMWLKa| avayyELXaw

6

K jVe

OOTL6 81o

UTE(a

vOL a 'Tovs

apETj

Ka' EVEKa

4LAoas

TIs

IEL

fav

r

(Minoa, Amorgos, 1st century'B.C.);cf. also IG 112, 1176, lines 28-29 (ca. 360 B.C.), for an olive-crown;

REGULATIONSFOR AN ATHENIAN FESTIVAL

177

Line 17: The bouleutai are to take some action: the surviving letters suggest the restoration 8ta[XEtPoTovo-alI; though 8t8[0vatI might also be possible, a vote would probablymake better sense in the context

of the Boule. For instance,a boardof epimeletai, or other officials,might be elected.'4 Line 18: The letter-tracessuggest [KaO ?hilrEp ([Ine~] [, , but no obvious restorationcomes to mind. Bearingin mind, however, this mason's proneness to error, I wonder whether what was actuallyinscribed here, perhapsover an error, was [Ka]a"7TEp [EM4'Vkl i-at Ti-ot87)Lu0]. Line 19: A new sub-sectionbegins here, detailingthe duties of the polemarch. Line 20: The mason tended to carve eta and nu in much the same way, so that it is not easy to determine which of the three letters precedingmu is eta and which is nu. A possible readingis [T]Ij -'-[--- I but no obvious restorationcomes to mind; in the context, mules and money are both possibilitiesbut other words are too many to permitsafe conjecture. beginningPROu-

SectionIII: Prizesand Victors Line 21: Since lines 22-26 seem to be concerned with the distributionof prizes, the restoration [Ta 8E seems probable.'5 Line 22: How many differentcategoriesof prize are involved is not clear but there is not much doubt that line 23 containssome such formulaas [Toot8E 8EVTEP1pOL EtKOOLV, TOiS [8E TptiOLS ---]. Since the length of the line is likely to have been considerable(see lines 5-7), it is probablethat lines 22 and 23 define different categories of contestant, each having its own formula for the awardof first, second and third prizes. The letter-tracesin line 22 are confusing, perhapsindicatingcorrectionsover incompletelyerased mistakes; thus, I should preferto disregardthe apparentdelta and omicron of the stoichoi that lie below the tau and epsilon of line 21, in the belief that what was finally engraved here was [Tots ,EV M'KWOcTL] 8(L8]oo-0ia(L] OVK E'aTOV -i-O--- I, basingthis restorationon a decree attributedto Lykourgosand dealingwith prizes for competitionin the festival of Poseidon in Peiraieus.16 Line 24: The end of the prize-formula,perhapsthe word [7TErEV]E, is followed by a formula for recording the names of the victors; this formularuns on into lines 25 and 26, perhapseven into lines 27-28, detailing the treatmentthat is to be given to Atheniansand to foreigners(cf. lines 10-11). Lines 25-26: The nearest parallel,in date though not in context, refers to members of the Boule in 343/2 B.C.'7 We should probablyrestore something on the lines of [amph ,us 'AGvaoqv (or EK Over ?) ia

a'ikaIKaTa Ta3 VTaE`

o6v6oaTa aroypa4'c-rO

(or EK

[TOV

owov

Irap[616OEV Kat [-oi 8br11ov---?) ----].

ai

8E

affar

EK [Ti-J

(Ov@w VtOLWUS

?18or EK[au-ov

SectionIV: Facilitiesand Date of Festival Lines 27-28: The condition of the stone makes restoratio1here a hazardousprocedure.The traces in line 27 suggest [o 8E ---- Ebvs 7IoELU[0w],while those in line 28 suggest [8]EKaTELor EKai-Ep[ov], followed by 07roTE[p-- , but no satisfactoryrestorationcomes to mind unless these lines are an extension of the formulas of lines 24-26, involving, perhaps,the erection of at least two stelai bearingthe names of victors: thus, [ypaju.uaTi-El% or [iEpE1v%; might be restoredin line 27.19Alternatively,this person may be directedto providesome sort of facilityfor the festival. for a grant of money as well as an olive-crown, see IG 112,1282, lines 10-14 (262/1 B.C.);for Athenian citizenshipas well as an olive-crown,see IG 112,954, lines 11-14 (ante a. 159). "See footnote 4 above. "See LSCG, no. 92, line 15, for a similarphrase:[Ta8] &GOa &8QooTatKara ra8E. 6Plutarch],Moralia,842: KaLt&%o800atAEI Aoa VLKTcTO OVK (XaTTOV 8EKa Avaq, TOL1 8E 8E1EpOL' OKTW, 8 TOLS TpLTOLK KpLGUTLtv (victors in competitionfor cyclic choruses in the festival of Poseidon in Peiraieus). '7IG 112,223B, lines 4-5. '8Cf.Thucydides,vi.78.4, and 87.5. 19Cf.IG 112, 204, lines 32 and 61 (for the inscriptionof two plates of tin).

B. WALBANK MICHAEL

178

Lines29-34: The sense of these lines is obscure but the overall impressionis that building-operationsand financialarrangementsare involved. In line 29 either L'irvovor depot could be read, followed, apparently, by the clause' tVva4 [v(roThor'valI,although the letter that I read here as a dotted nu is centrallyplaced and shows no trace of other letter-strokes(cf. line 41 for the same phrase).If I am correct in this, this line should refer to some sort of building-operation,so that I'Eov may be the correctreadingat the startof the line. In line 30 the "remainder"may refer to the possible deposit of a mina in the previous line. Line 31 may mention a purchase-price:perhaps[7rapE'XELV 8E EL1 7q'V TOV ----I dWav E[Klarov OTE [----I. In line 32 the polemarchis instructedto performsome action or, perhaps,to have made three objects, or a tripod, or something three feet in height:the letter partiallypreservedat the right edge seems to be partof a rho, not of an omicron. In line 33 something is to be done (placed ?) in a buildingor sanctuary,and in line 34 the numbernine might be restoredat the beginning:[P]vvE'a. Line 35: A time is set for the actions, either of the precedingor of the following lines: perhaps,TWLtET'] referringto the year of an archonship 'EX(EvEVL],referringto a festival at Eleusis, or TW&tET'] 'EXI----, Whicheverbe correct, this providesthe date for the festival. or priesthood.20 Line36: The sense is obscure:this might be a referenceto an earlierdecree, or a comparisonof some sort.

SectionV:Financialand otherArrangements Line 37: Some sort of financialactivity seems to be implied. I have interpretedthe first word as a compound verb, KaTaftprjrat, but, despite the clear crossbaron the first tau, it might be better to read Ka a Elp7rTat.21

Line 38: Officialsare appointedfor the purpose of ensuring good order, financialor social, perhapsthose mentioned in line 37.22 Line39: A sacrificeis to be made to Athena; restorationof her cult-titleprobablydepends upon the identificationof the festival with which this document deals, but, in light of the mention of a hippodromeat line 14, the cult-titlemight be Hippia. Line 40: Again, the polemarchis instructedto see to the constructionof some building:the initial letter of this word is almost entirely gone but in certain lights a sigma can be made out, somewhat to the right of centre in this stoichos. There are also three small diagonalcuts, independentof this apparentsigma, approximatelywhere the bottom and two upperdiagonalsof a sigma might be expected to be found: thus, on even though [,f1,qhAa epigraphicalgrounds alone, we should probablyread [a]hjja, rather than [,f7,qbAa, mean that the it is If a festival. might this of preferred, in [(o]b the context sense better make might the or "to signal." the tomb" "to make give polemarchis either Line 41: Once more, a deposit is to be lodged, indicatingthat a building-operationis involved, perhapsthat of line 40; the mason left out the final nu of aura. Line 42: Since the context of the two previous lines seems to be financial,the "twenty" mentioned here probablyrefer to a sum of money, not to a groupof men. na a Ev cL 56 Ta [aI jvaO wTa' Ayaa acyWOft];cf. also IG 20Cf.SEG XVI, 55, line 7: E'v TC-OtEvav'rlt that of Elpines (356/5 B.C.), but is here restored be that could 112, 1683, lines 5-6. The only archon-name to rule out restoration seem letter-traces The date. a so surviving is early against the of script the evidence of other names, such as Euainetos(335/4) or Euthykritos(328/7). roV 8&rqov roZK row 81[pplax/ta'q raTdav 21Cf. IG VII, 4254, lines 41-45: 8ovvaL 8E Ta7 rpaKorra [aIlpE8Eftat

E=

To0

aytva,

as

ELP1TaL 8&8ovat

lines 10-11: 330/29 B.C.); cf. also IG 12,94, %

I

TOVS TaL09

el

,,

I

Ev

TLt vO/Iwt T7t aLpEI|EVrTL E=r Tjv

Ev'Ovl)EcOat ...

KaTa

Ta

EtpEfIla;

EVra(av

(Oropos,

and IG 112, 223B, line 9:

I

OVS ELp-T)at EK TOV VOOWV.

22Cf IG VII, 4254, line 45 (footnote 21 above), and IG 112, 417, line 5 (post a. 330); for a discussion Vienna of the liturgyof Eutaxia, see E. Szanto, "Zum attischen Budgetrecht,"in Eranos Vindobonensis, 1893, pp. 103-107, especiallypp. 104-105, where IG VII, 4254 and IG 112,417 are both discussed.

REGULATIONSFOR AN ATHENIAN FESTIVAL

179

Line 43: Once again, the formulafor recordingthe names of Atheniansby patronymicand demotic. If I am correctin interpretingline 42 as involving a financialformula, these persons might be liturgists.23 Lines 44-45: The sense is obscure:I doubt whether the first word of line 44 should be read as [Alvva or [R0vav; it is more likely that this line continues the publication-clauseof line 43. In line 45, however, the reading appearsto be f&AAAa ro ITETE, seemingly a financialformula.24The mason seems to have inscribed over an error here, so that the reading7ima is also possible here, perhapsa reference to a tripod (cf. line 32 also). A financialinterpretationseems better. Lines 46-48: Here, again, two differentcategoriesof person appearto be involved, those who come from Athens, and those who come from elsewhere:perhapsthey are the people mentioned in line 43, though at a considerabledistancefrom them, so that it is more likely that they are a new group.

It is clear that a majorfestival is the subject of this document, either in Attica or in territorycontrolledby Athens. So, which festival is it? From Section III it appears likely that this festival was not limited to Athenian competitors, but that non-Athenians, too, could participate;from line 14 it also appears likely that the contests at this festival included equestrian events. Thus the range of choices for the identificationof this festival is quite small. The strongest candidatesare the Panathenaia,which were certainlyopen to foreigners at all times and also included several equestrian events;25the trieteric Eleusinia, which, at least during the Lykourganera, were internationaland involved equestrian, athletic and musical events, as we know from the opening lines of a set of regulations that was probablyvery similar to and probablyof the same date as the document here discussed;26and the pentetericEleusinia, to which the same set of regulationsapparently applied.27 The evidence that other Athenian festivals fitted within these categories is less secure. The Olympieia included an equestrian event, the Anthippasia, but this was apparentlya displayof cavalry-manoeuvreswhich may not have taken place in a hippodrome; moreover, there is no evidence that the Athenian Olympieia were open to foreigners.28The Theseia, at least in the 2nd century, were open to non-Athenians, 231 wonder, in fact, whether the liturgistshonoured in IG 112,417 have anythingto do with the circumstancesof the document here discussed and whether they are the persons mentioned in line 43 (and also line 42 ?). 24Cf.SEG XVI, 55, line 6: [- -- ]v ao RETVTETaav'VTCOV TA<@> I[e'va]. If a mason's error is involved here, [----]ro8a may have been derived from a part of the text that no longer survives, probablyto the right of a1ro' TEVTE, but no satisfactoryexplanationcomes to mind. 25SeeAristotle, Ath. Pol., 60.3, and IG 112,2311b, column II, lines 54-70. 26SEGXVI, 55, line 4 (restored);see also IG I12, 1672, lines 257 and 261. 271G112, 1672, lines 259-269, providesthe evidence that this festival includedequestrianevents, while lines 12-13 of SEG XVI, 55 applythe same provisionsto the pentetericEleusiniaas applyto the trieteric, if these lines are correctlyrestored, as seems highly likely; whether the Eleusiniawere alwaysPanhellenic is a moot point, but they certainlywere in ca. 330/29 B.C.,when SEG XVI, 55 was inscribed (see lines 8-11 of that inscription). 28W. K. Pritchett (Hesperia9, 1940, pp. 111-112, no. 21) has publishedan inscriptionby which an Athenian phylarchis praisedfor his team's performancein the Anthippasia[ToiZN 'OXv/nrLE0oJ[d] (lines 1-3). He interpretedthis as referringto the Games at Olympia,but H. W. Parke (Festivalsof theAthenians,

180

B. WALBANK MICHAEL

probablymetics, and also included equestrianevents, but I am not sure that evidence from the 2nd century should be used to confirm practices during the 4th century.29 Finally, the Bendidiaincluded horse-racesand were open to Thrakians,if not to other foreigners, as well as to Athenian citizens; the horse-bornetorch-racesof the Bendidia, however, seem to have been point-to-pointevents, so that a hippodrome would not have been needed for these.30 It is not very likely that the Athenians would have publishedregulationsfor a nonAthenian festival, except, perhaps, for one in an area under their control: thus, we might also consider the festival at Delos, which did, apparently, include equestrian events, was international, and was under Athenian control during the period under consideration.We possess no evidence, however, that this festival was reorganizedat this time, as were the Panathenaiaand the two Eleusinia.31 Thus, apartfrom the festival at Delos, the choice seems limited to the Panathenaia and both Eleusinia. Since we already possess a partial text of regulations, similar to those discussed here, for the trieteric Eleusinia,32and also parts of a very large stele which sets out the sacrificialportions for the Panathenaia,of roughly the same date as this document and perhapsincludingsimilarregulationsin the partsof the stele that are lost,33the pentetericEleusinia would appearto be the strongest candidateamong these choices just discussed.34 There is another possibility,however: between 338 and 319 B.C. the Athenians did control another festival, which included equestrian events and was open to Athenians London 1977, pp. 143-144 and 198-199, note 186) is probablycorrectin attributingit to the Olympieiaat Athens. For the existence of this festival in the 330's, see IG 112,1496, lines 82 and 113 (334-331 B.C.). For cavalryinvolvement in the Olympieia,see Plutarch, Phokion,37.1: I do not know on what authority Parke (p. 143) says that "in the Hellenisticperiod, if not before, the festival [of the Olympieia]included cavalryexercises in the Hippodrome."If it did, these exercises may well have been like those describedby 3.10. In any case, there is no evidence that the Olympieiaat Athens were open to Xenophon, Hipparchikos, non-Athenians. 29IG112,956, lines 11-14 (161/0 B.C.) is the earliest evidence for equestrianevents and for non-Athenian competitorsin the Theseia; whether these teams EK TcJV E6vchVwere made up of metics or of visitors is not clear, nor do we know what form the Theseia had before the Hellenistic period. Sacrificesare mentioned in 332-330 B.C. (see IG 112, 1496, lines 134-135 and 143); the festival was clearly of considerable importancethen. 30Forthe Bendidiain 334-332 B.C.,see IG I12,1496, lines 86 and 117; for the horse-racewith torches, see Plato, Respublica,1.327a and 328a. For the Thrakianinvolvement, see also IG 112, 1283 (ante med. s. III). 3"Itis quite possible that the Delian festival would have been the subject of an Athenian document such as this, since Athens still controlled Delos at this time. That there was a hippodromeon Delos is shown by the accountsof the Amphiktyonesfor 359/8 B.C. (IG 112,1638, line 16). I do not believe that the Athenians would have promulgatedregulationsfor festivals elsewhere in the Greek world, in territories not under their control, such as Delphoi. 32SEGXVI, 55: see footnotes 24 and 26 above. 33IG112, 333. 34Butsee footnote 27 above: if this restoration is correct, we already have the regulationsfor the pentetericEleusinia.

REGULATIONS FORAN ATHENIANFESTIVAL

181

and, if not to all non-Athenians, then to one specific group. This was the festival of Amphiaraosat Oropos. Oropos had been ceded by Philip II to the Athenians in 338/7 B.C. They had lost control of it again by 319 B.C.,35but, in the years during which they held it, they had been very active in the affairsof its cult and, in 332/1 B.C., promulgateda new set of regulationsfor the penteteric festival of Amphiaraos,drawnup by the Athenian nomothetes Phanodemos of Thymaitadai.36 A little before this, the revenues from the Nea, the territoryof Oroposthat had been ceded to Athens, were made over for the celebration of the Panathenaia.37 I think it very likely that the present document representsthe text of Phanodemos' nomothesia; indeed, line 33, hitherto obscure, may provide a direct reference to the Amphiaraon:E'V Qea'A[otapacd. Other sections, too, make better sense in the context of the Amphiaraia:lines 13-16, for instance, could relate to the activities of and subsequent honours for a prominent citizen of Oropos; lines 11, 26 and 46, instead of referring to non-Athenians in general, might refer only to citizens of Oropos; line 28 could indicate the existence of two stelai containingthe names of victors, one set up in Athens, the other set up in the Amphiaraon;line 42 could contain a reference to a clause cited in the decree by which the epimeletai of 329/8 B.C.were praisedfor their work in connection with the penteteric festival of Amphiaraos.38The polemarch who is mentioned in lines 19, 32 and 40 might be an official of Oropos, not an Athenian, since there is evidence for the existence of such an office at Oropos; the evidence, however, indicates a board of three 35Forits cession to Athens, see Pausanias,i.34.1; for its loss during the LamianWar, see Diodoros, xviii.56.7. For Athenian domination of Oropos during the later 4th century, see L. Robert, "Sur une loi d'Athenes relative aux petites Panathenees,"HellenicaXI-XII, Paris 1960, pp. 188-203. A second period of Athenian control is implied by the text of SEG III, 117, an Athenian document dated to 303/2 B.C. It was probablyat this time that the expulsion of the Oropianstook place: the subsequent resettlement of Oropos is the subject of an Oropiandecree published by M. Mitsos, 'ApX'E0, 1953-1954, pp. 158-161, and dated by its editor late in the 4th or early in the 3rd centuryB.C. 361 IG VII, 4253 (332/1 B.C.), honours for Phanodemosof Thymaitadaifor the new code of laws that he drew up for the pentetericfestival at the Amphiaraon;before this, in 333/2 B.C., Pytheas of Alopeke was honoured for his work as epimeletes e't as Kp vaq, which included the buildingof a spring-houseat the Amphiaraonand the provisionof a water-channeland undergroundconduit (IG VII, 3499, lines 11-17 = IG 112,338); after the festival for which Phanodemosdrew up the regulations,the epimeletai in charge of the games were praisedfor their work; the games includedathleticcontests and horse-racing(IG VII, 4254, 329/8 B.C.). Another inscriptionfrom Oropos, which may belong to this period of Athenian control, is IG VII, 4255: this deals with the constructionof an aqueductfor the bath-housesof the Amphiaraon.Since the contractorfor this work was a metic living in the Athenian deme of Alopeke and his bondsmanwas an Athenian citizen (lines 36-37), it is extremely likely that this work occurredduringthe Athenian phase at Oropos.See also IG 112,333c, line 21 (335/4 B.C.), by which financialarrangementsare made for the celebrationof the festival of Amphiaraos.There is also a somewhatambiguousreferenceto Amphiaraosin the accountsof the epistataiand treasurersof the Eleusiniandeities for 329/8 B.C. (IG 112,1672, line 305). 37SEGXVIII, 13 ( LSCG, no. 33), lines 7-21 (see footnote 2 above). 381GVII, 4254, lines 38-41: TOU apyvpLov Tko]ELs v 6voxtv TpoiavE at iov ia4tdav jroi &vrtov EV 8E Tois

7TpotS

voLtof6VE'ata

7TpO0-vO/uo60ET7)-at

Tce

Ta~tdat(see also footnote 36 above).

182

B. WALBANK MICHAEL

polemarchsthere, and only during periods when Athens no longer controlled Oropos, so that I doubt whether this possibilityshould be considered.39Finally, the sacrificeto Athena (line 39) could have been a means of underliningthe links between these two states that were now united; it should be remembered that revenues from Oropos, which might hitherto have gone to Amphiaraos' festival, were now appropriatedfor ' Athena's.40Thus, I should be inclined to restore here T 'AOI)qatTr[ 1Hotau&----] and, perhaps,to fill out this line with a matchingsacrificeto Amphiaraos. It therefore seems highly likely, though it cannot be proved, that the festival of Amphiarosat Oropos in 329/8 B.C. was the subject of this document; other candidates, such as the festival at Delos, cannot be excluded, but the evidence for the Amphiaraia, both circumstantialand direct, is cumulativeand does seem to be the most persuasive. If these conclusions are correct, this document would be one more instance of the care devoted by the administrationof Lykourgos to religious matters in Athens, in Attica, and in territoriesunder the control of Athens.41 MICHAELB. WALBANK THE UNIVERSITYOF CALGARY THE CALGARY INSTITUTEFOR THE HUMANITIES

2500 UniversityDrive N.W. Calgary,AlbertaT2N 1N4. 39Severalinscriptionsfrom the late 4th and early 3rd centuries mention the board of polemarchsat Oropos;they seem to be local officials,and are not attested here before the end of the 4th century.There is no evidence that such a board existed during the periods of Athenian domination of Oropos (see the Index to IG VII, s. v. rroXE4uapXo:'fQpjfwov). 40Seefootnote 37 above. 4"Forevidence of this care, see IG 112, 333, and also IG 112, 457, the decree by which posthumous honours were paid to Lykourgos in recognition of his work; the decree seems to be that attributedto Stratoklesby [Plutarch],Moralia, 841c and 852.

PLATE 23

_

C%
*

<

;<Xw d

< > <><,el~~~ Et

; Li

t-vw

xW~OOO-><: -O 1-(7c

bsLf

U-Feso4I La

i,

?6-t wz~E0rq

L - -<

C~o-<2

Uj

0W

W

Z _r

e

-o o V<> LF0>

W 0 0
'VCr
~~~Vi '~~~Ek'.

-

s

1

:E

' c

OF>.< W EZ > <

< >

4

4>wo 0 Ct9+_ LE.

D6*

I

Z

fb

Z:Z

rWW

*" <

(b

O< yWFW"$tg

<

o

-^a-->w

-:-.

XOX

c LJI..Z

0 Xw

t -,-aoLz -<

e2

F ZrL2C<%IZ<

W W C C-,6 . < ( I.n<5 :Z o <4z CCC 'a, X to

<:JL(<

3rW:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r

Zw

t.OX Cc _ <

<s

.44Z

E~.2 W..

X

o C cu

4ta

6

~

Lt

rz~~~

-wZ W<

V <

L


IF

tF

-

I-

UI I

-Z

7 )-O Z

I-Lt

1


>

r

11ZL.%4Z(

W~S~ Lwo *1
O0

0

AL.~

THE FINAL BATTLEAT PLATAIA HEN ARISTEIDESled the Atheniansto Plataia,he followeda route through >\7~J territorynow recently explored by Eugene Vanderpool.1Before the battle began, accordingto the story in Plutarch,Aristeides,11.1-5, Aristeides received an oracle from Delphi saying that the Athenians would be victorious if they fought the barbarianon their own land, in the plain of EleusinianDemeter and Kore. Arimnestos, the resourceful general of the Plataians,was able to apply the oracle to his own land: he found an old sanctuaryof Eleusinian Demeter and Kore near Hysiai and persuadedthe Plataians to remove their boundariesand give the land to Athens. In this present study, in response to the oracle at Princeton, I shall follow the example of Arimnestos and make Plataiapart of Attica, the home of the dean of Attic topographers,in small recognition of his many contributionsto the study of that region and in fond remembranceof excursionswith him over the Greek countryside. A reconstructionof the final battle at Plataiadepends (in varyingdegrees of importance) on the identificationof six places mentioned by Herodotos: Plataia, Gargaphia spring, the heroion of Androkrates,the Argiopion, the Moloeis River, and the sanctuary of Demeter. The identificationof these sites, and the role which the terrainplayed in the final battle, will be the subject of this study. It will be noted that the above list omits a site usually considered of paramountimportancein the reconstructionof the movements of the Greek army in the night before the battle. Students of the battle have devoted considerableattention to the Island, apparentlyin the belief that its identification would explain the movements of the Greek army.2 But though Herodotos (ix.51) gives a ratherfull descriptionof the Island, there are at least two difficultieswith the passage:first, no streams in this area now separate and unite, as he describes, to form an island, and probablynever did;3 and second, the distance of 10 stadia to the Island from the Asopos and Gargaphiaindicates no likely place for such a feature.4 '"Roadsand Forts in NorthwesternAttica" CSCA 11, 1978, pp. 227-245. The followingspecialabbreviationswill be used in this article: = G. B. Grundy, TheGreatPersianWar,London 1901 Grundy Pritchett,AJA = W. K. Pritchett,"New Light on Plataia,"AJA 61, 1957, pp. 9-28 Pritchett,Studies= W. K. Pritchett,Studiesin AncientGreekTopography I, Universityof CaliforniaPublications: ClassicalStudies I, Berkeleyand Los Angeles 1965 2The best recent discussionsof the Island, with earlier views, are those of W. K. Pritchett (AJA, pp. 25-26 and Studies,pp. 115-119). 3For a geological descriptionof the area of the Island see Pritchett (Studies, pp. 115, 116, 118) who visited Plataiain the companyof C. G. Higgins, a geologist. 4W. M. Leake (Travelsin NorthernGreeceII, London 1835, p. 358) tried to make sense out of the passageby locatingthe Islandin the plainnorth of Plataia,and his followers,,notablyE. Kirsten ("Plataia," RE 20, 1950, cols. 2269-2270, and "Oeroe," RE 17, 1937, cols. 2031-2034), assume that the terrainhas changed greatly through the centuries. G. B. Grundy (pp. 480-487) explains Herodotos' distance of 10 stadiaby identifyingone of the small streams (Al) as the Asopos. Most students of the battle now identify the Islandwith a ridge between Plataiaand Kriekouki,acceptingW. I. Woodhouse's (JHS 18, 1898, p. 57)

.... ........

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .r-l---l-l-l-. .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

...

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . ... . . . ... .. ............................ ............................... ...............

..... ...

. ...

21 ............. .............

...

............. ................

... ......... ............... ....... ... ...... ................. ...................

....... ....... . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .... . . . ............

4j

.... ........... X'' .......... ..... ... .... . . .............. ........ . . . . ......... ....... ........

04

............. ............

.................... .................. - .................. ............ ................ ................. .... x: ...................... .............. . . ............

... ...

.............

.......... ... ..... ... ...........

.........

.................. ....................

.. .......

. . ..

......

....... ...

........

C14

.......

.. . ... ........ ... .... ............................... ................... ... .......................... . .. . ......... ........ . ............. . ... ... .. . . . . . . . . . .

0)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

to

4)

................................... ...... .................

............

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

................ ................... . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .......... ... . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. ........

. . . . . . . . . . ..

............ ............. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

4. . . . . . . . . .............. ..... . . . .. . . . . . ............... .............

..

. . . . . . ::i ..............

.. . . . . . . . . . . ..... ..

. . . . . .

....

.......... . .......... ............ I.......... ........... .......... ....... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . ............... ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ ................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ ............ .............

............ ............. .......... ............... ............... . ................ ............ .................... ...............

........ .......

............... ............... . ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . .

... . . . . . ... .

. ................ .... ... ..... ..... ................. ............... .......... . . . . . . . ............ .. . ............... ......................... ........................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ........ ................................................ ........................................................................................................... .................... ........................................... ... .... ........ .... .... ..................... ..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... ..... ... ...... .................... ............. ............. . .................... ....... ...... ............ ................................. ............ ................... ............. ................... ............. ................... ............. ................... ............ ................... ............. ................... ................... ............. ................... ....... . ............. . . . . . ...................... . .............................................. .................... ............

C14

..................

. . . . . .. . m.. .......... ............. ............. ............. ............ .............

................... .................. ................... .................. ................... .................. ..................... ...................

.....

0CL) me 72

OD

V)

. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. .............

......

. . . . . .. .. .. .... ....

0

...........

......... .......... . . ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

............... .. . . . . .. ....... X

CL) 04.

2'.50

CL 0

C'4-0W

0

L)

...

4-

THEFINALBATTLEAT PLATAIA

185

More important,it should be noted that this configuration,whatever it was, played no part at all in the battle. The only importanceof the Island is that Herodotos believed, rightly or wrongly, that the Greeks intended to occupy it. Presumably enough of his informants had mentioned it for him to give it the space he does in his text. Perhaps that night the Athenians and Plataians5had been informed that the next morning they should "move toward the Island." But whether Pausaniasactually intended this hill to be the next position of the Greek army was something Herodotos could not have known. The movement to the Island therefore must be considered as another example of Herodotos' interpretationsand should not be used to explain the movements which actuallyoccurred.In reconstructingHerodotean battles we will do well to keep in mind Hignett's caveat6about Herodotos' interpretationof events: An historianlike Herodotus, dependent on the oral traditionsof survivors and lacking a clear understandingof strategy, is likely to be more trustworthyin his descriptionsof the movements of armies than in his attempts to explain them. If he says that an army moved from point A to point B he is probablyright, but when he tries to give a reason for the movement he may easily be wrong. When he began to write, the generals and admiralswho had taken partin the war were all dead, and though many of the survivors whom he met must have been of the officerclass, they were not necessarilyin the secrets of the high command.

The six sites listed above are places actuallyoccupied by partsof the Greek army, which we can assume that Herodotos' informantswould have rememberedwith some accuracy. The identificationof Plataiahas long been known and need not be discussed here. The Greek center, which moved to a position before the temple of Hera outside the town (Herodotos, ix.52), gives us our first firm location for part of the Greek army. The other places occupied by the rest of the army are not so easy to identify. GARGAPHIASPRING

The importanceof the Gargaphiaspring is that it determines the position of the Lakedaimoniansand Tegeans on the right wing of the Greek second position (Herodotos, ix.49), the point from which that wing retreatedon the morning of the final battle. The only references in ancient literature of any value for locating Gargaphiaare in Herodotos himself. emendation of 20 stadiafor the text of Herodotos. In spite of these difficulties,there must certainlyhave been a place near Plataiacalled the Island in the time of Herodotos. An account as full and precise as his descriptionof this local feature must have derived from the people of the area with whom he spoke when he visited the battlefield. 5When Herodotos visited the battlefield,and most students now agree that he did, he would surely have availed himself of the services of Plataianveterans to guide him about the area. Herodotos' emphasis on the Islandmay reflect the views of his local guides. 6C. Hignett, Xerxes'Invasionof Greece,Oxford 1963, p. 38. Such observationshave often been made, and usuallyjust as often forgotten.See also Grundy, pp. 568, 571 and R. W. Macan, Herodotus:the Seventh, Eighth,and NinthBooks II, London 1908, p. 355. It is those "secrets of the high command" which have resulted in the greatestcontroversiesabout the battle.

186

PAULW. WALLACE

(1) Herodotos, ix.25. The Greeks decided to leave the first position and march down to Plataia. Their march took them along the slopes of Kithairon past Hysiai to Plataianland, where they took up position by nation on the low hills and level land, near the fountainGargaphiaand the temenos of the hero Androkrates. (2) Herodotos, ix.51. Gargaphiawas 10 stadia from the Island. (3) Herodotos, ix.52. Gargaphiawas 20 stadiafrom the temple of Hera at Plataia. The reference to Gargaphiaas being 10 stadia from the Island is, as noted above, of little help in locating the spring.The springscalled Retsi,7 the favorite candidatenow for Gargaphia,are a little less than the 20 stadia from Plataiawhich Herodotos gives, but close enough. The descriptionof the terrainin Herodotos, ix.25 suits well a spring nestled between the low hills of Aghios Joannis and Aghios Demetrios. One would as an hardlyappealto Statius (Thebaisvii.273, 274: Hecataeaquegurgitenutrit/Gargaphie) authorityon Plataiantopography,but we may note that the Retsi, situated probablyon roads from Plataiaand Hysiai, would not be an unlikely place for a shrine to the Lady of the Highways. HEROIONOF ANDROKRATES

Androkrateswas listed among the seven heroes of Plataia to whom the Greeks were supposed to offer sacrifice, according to the story in Plutarch, Aristeides, 11.3 (also, with some changes, in Clement of Alexandria,Protr.,chap. II 35 P., Loeb, p. 86). The heroion of Androkrateswith Gargaphia,as quoted above in Herodotos, ix.25, helps define the Greek second position. The other references important for locating this monument are (1) Thucydides, iii.24.1-2. In 427 B.c. 212 men fled from the besieged city of Plataia and advanced along the road to Thebes, with the heroion of Androkrateson their right; proceeding six or seven stadia along this road they then turned onto the road leading to Erythraiand Hysiai. (2) Plutarch, Aristeides, 11.7. The Plataian general Arimnestos discovers near Hysiai a temple of Demeter, near which was the heroion of Androkrates. The significanceof the Plutarchpassage is that it links the Androkrateionwith the next importantsite to the south, the temple of Demeter. Plutarch'svalue for the topography of Plataia is, however, questionable, though he perhapsdeserves more credence than Hignett8allows him. By far the most importantpassagefor locating the Androkrat7Pritchett,AJA, pp. 21, 22. In Studies,pp. 113-115, Pritchettconjecturesthat Gargaphiawas identical with the fountainLeake (op. cit. [footnote 4 above], p. 322) saw in the area of the Retsi. Since we cannot be sure that Leake's fountainwas not the same as the Retsi, and that fountainsin the immediatearea have not moved about somewhatthroughthe centuriesanyway,this seems like wasted labor. Cit. (footnote 6 above), pp. 418-421. Grundy (p. 468) was of the same opinion. Hignett objects to 80p. the Plutarchpassage, mostly derived from Herodotos, because of certain inconsistenciesand inaccuracies in the orderingof events. In this appraisalhe is undoubtedlycorrect, but an accurateknowledge on Plutarch's part of certain places which may still have existed in his time (cf. also Pausanias,ix.4.3) is not incompatiblewith an incomplete understandingof a battle which occurredover 500 years earlier.See also Pritchett, Studies,p. 110, note 37. Plutarch,after all, lived most of his life not many miles from Plataia, and could easily have passedthe two shrineson one of his tripsto Athens.

THE FINAL BATTLEAT PLATAIA

187

eion is Thucydides, iii.24.1-2. If a road from Plataiato Thebes followed the good natural route between the hills Aghios Joannis and Aghios Demetrios, then the heroion, which was near Gargaphiaand on the right of the road (as you come from Plataia), would probablyhave been located somewhere on Aghios Demetrios hill.9 Some have understood Thucydides to mean that the heroion was less than seven stadia from Plataia,10and Aghios Demetrios hill is at least twice that distance. The text of Thucydides can be interpreted differently, however. In the phrase quoted above Thucydides seems to be taking the marchers up to the Androkrateion.Later, when "for six or seven stadia the Plataiansproceededalong the road to Thebes," the men were advancing from that point (i.e. from the Androkrateion)for six or seven stadia, which would take them just beyond the Aghios Demetrios hill to "the road which leads to the mountain, to Erythraiand Hysiai." This latter road is the road leading from Thebes to the hill villages. A location on Aghios Demetrios hill for the heroion of Androkrates seems to accord better with our sources than the site suggested by Pritchett,"1100 or so meters southwest of Apotripispring, where he observed some blocks, tiles, and stucco. ARGIOPION, MOLOEIs SANCTUARY RIVER, OFDEMETER Herodotos (Ix.57) describes the point to which the right wing had withdrawnwhen it was attacked by the Persian cavalry: "about ten stadia away, by the Moloeis River and the place called Argiopion, where the temple of Eleusinian Demeter stands." Since the Argiopion and the Moloeis River are referred to in ancient literatureonly in this passage, a location for them can be suggested only by discovering a likely location for the Demeter sanctuaryand by determiningthe probableroute of the Greek withdrawal. Pausanias'route, Herodotos (ix.56) tells us, was along the "hills and slopes of Kithairon," which surely refers to the hills of Aghios Demetrios and those to the south of it. Ten stadia would bring the Greeks to a point a little north of the town of Kriekouki (now Erythrai), in which area the three places should be located. The Argiopion is simply called a "place", and whether the name described a feature of the landscape ("bright look") or referred to some heroion or memorial is not now discoverable.The Moloeis River is probably the (comparatively) substantial stream which flows from Kithaironnear Kriekouki along the southeast of the hills where Pausanias' troops are now stationed. The locating of the Demeter sanctuaryis the key to the problem of the final battle of Plataia.It is the location of this sanctuary,not the Island, which explains the movements of the Greek army (and probablythe strategy of Pausanias) on the morning of 9Suggestedalso by Ufer in Kromayer,AntikaSchlachffelder in Griechenland,IV, Berlin 1924-1931, p. 137. 10Fordiscussions of the passage in Thucydides, with citations, see Pritchett, AJA, p. 22; Studies, p. 111; Hignett, op. cit. (footnote 6 above), pp. 302, 303, 430, 431; A. R. Burn in Greeceand the Eastern Mediterranean in AncientHistoryand Prehistory:Studiespresentedto FritzSchachermayr,ed. K. H. Kinzl, Berlin 1977, pp. 95, 96. "Studies, pp. 112, 113.

188

PAUL W. WALLACE

the victory. The evidence for the location is in this case both literaryand archaeological. The literaryevidence may be discussed first. (1) Herodotos, ix.57. As discussed above, the sanctuaryof Demeter is 10 stadia from the second position near Gargaphiaspring. (2) Herodotos, ix.62. The final battle occurredbeside the Demetrion. (3) Herodotos, ix.65. Though many Persians fell near the temple, none died in the temenos itself. (4) Herodotos, ix.69. The Corinthiansleft their position at Plataiaand marchedto aid of the Spartansalong the spurs of the mountain and the hills along the road the which led straightup to the sanctuaryof Demeter. (5) Pausanias,ix.4.3. Pausanias,apparentlyhaving left the town of Plataiaand now on the road to Thebes, mentions the sanctuaryof Eleusinian Demeter, the tomb of Leitos (Homer, Iliad ii.494), and Gargaphia. (6) Plutarch, Aristeides,11.6. Arimnestos, told by the oracle that the battle should be fought near the temple of Demeter, found an old sanctuaryto that goddess near Hysiai, at the foot of Kithairon,with (11.7) the heroion of Androkratesnear by. The Plutarchpassage has led to some confusion, suggesting to some that two temples of Demeter are involved.12But a temple in the area under discussion could certainly be said to be near Hysiai, convincinglylocated by Pritchetton the Pantanassaridge.13 Plutarchindicates, by the way, some personalknowledge of the area in this passage, for the observationthat the temple was near Hysiai was not a detail he would have learned from the text of Herodotos. It is not necessary, however, either to assume the existence of two temples or to locate the sanctuaryat Hysiai itself, for all the passages above could accuratelyrefer to one sanctuary,located somewhere in this general area, not far from the village of Hysiai. A strong case has been made for a different location of this sanctuary by Pritchett,14who identifies the temple with the remains he saw near a well just west of the Pantanassaridge. In locating the temple of Demeter near PantanassaPritchettis using principallythe text of Plutarch,but he apparentlyfinds the most compellingevidence for his identification in what he regardsas the sanctuarycharacterof the remains near the well. Though he notes that the two famous inscriptions (IG VII, 1670, 1671) mentioning Demeter were found in these remains, he wisely does not attach great weight to that discovery for locatingthe temple.15Ancient blocks, of course, are commonly moved about, and in of Greece, 12p. Green, Xerxesat Salamis,New York 1970, p. 244; J. G. Frazer, Pausanias'sDescription 2nd ed., V, London 1913, pp. 5, 21; Burn, op. cit. (footnote 10 above), pp. 97, 98. Pace Burn, Pausanias (Ix.4.3,4) does not mention a temple of Demeter at Hysiai, but at Skolos. Cf. also Athenaeus, iii.109 a; x.416 c. 13AJA,pp. 12, 13, 15, 22, 23; Studies,pp. 103-106. '4AJA,pp. 27, 28; Studies,pp. 104, 105, 109-111. "5Forthe most recent discussionof these inscriptions,with a new text for IG VII, 1670, now see W. K. Pritchett,"Plataia,"AJP 100, 1979, pp. 145-152.

THEFINALBATTLEAT PLATAIA

189

this case Grundy16expressly tells us that in August 1899 he was informed that "those particularstones were known to have been originallydiscovered on another site"; but he was unable to learn anythingelse about their origin. There are four objections to Pritchett's site for the temple of Demeter. The first is that this site is well beyond the 10 stadia Herodotos gives from Gargaphia;Pritchett admits this and assumes that Herodotos' figure is a rough approximation.The second objection is that the periegete Pausanias (ix.2.1), who actuallyvisited the ruins of Hysiai, does not mention a temple of Demeter at that town but a half-finished temple of Apollo near a sacred well, which sounds very much like Pritchett's site. When Pausanias mentions the sanctuaryof Demeter in the passage referredto above (Ix.4.3), he is not at Hysiai but on the road from Plataia to Thebes; he is probablyspeaking of a building he could see as he proceeds along that road. Third, Herodotos' statement (Ix.69) that the route of the Corinthiansled "straightup" (arco We) to the temple does not well describe a site in a depressionbeyond the Kriekoukiridge. Fourth, it is difficult to imagine how the final battle, as Herodotos twice tells us (Ix.62,65), could have raged about this site. The Persian wing under Mardonios had been stationed opposite the Spartansecond position, probablyin the area of the modern Kriekouki-Thebeshighway north of the Asopos. The Spartanretreat (Herodotos, ix.56) along the hills would draw the Persians up Aghios Demetrios and the hillocks to the southeast. Pritchett's site must have been some distance to the east of the final battle. The most likely location for the sanctuaryof Demeter and the final battle would therefore probablybe one of the low hills just to the north of Kriekouki, beyond the Moloeis River. The literary references suggest that the building was something of a landmark,which implies that it stood on a bit of an eminence, and the Spartanretreat "along the low hills" surely indicates a route along the gentle hills between Aghios Demetrios and Kriekouki.It is true that these hills now have no antiquities, except for a few scattered sherds of coarse ware; but the absence of antiquities in the area just north of Kriekoukidoes not argue strongly against locating the Eleusinion there, for a small local sanctuary,situated some distance from the towns, need not be represented now by much surface pottery, and blocks would long since have been removed from such a heavily cultivatedarea. If these identificationscan be accepted, we can now look at the movements of the Greek army which led to the final battle. THE MOVEMENTSOF THE GREEK ARMY AND THE TERRAIN

The Greek second position (Herodotos, ix.49), as now commonly reconstructed, would place the Lakedaimoniansand Tegeans near Gargaphiaand Aghios loannis hill, the Greek center in the plain to the west, and the Athenians and Plataianson the left wing near Pyrgos hill and the Asopos.17During the night the center withdrawsand 16 P. 4592 '7Pritchett,AJA, p. 25; Studies,p. 115; Green, op. cit. (footnote 12 above), P. 248.

190

PAUL W. WALLACE

stations itself before Plataia.The right and left wings wait till the early hours of morning to begin their move. The Lakedaimoniansand Tegeans on the right, with Amompharetos following, withdrawas we have described along the hills to the south. The Athenians on the left wing marchedthrough the plain and were out of sight of Mardonios (ix.56,59); their march must therefore have been to the southeast with Aghios Joannishill separatingthem from Mardonios.Much has been made of the direction of the Athenian retreat; if the Athenians were retreating southeast from Pyrgos, they But would not have been going in the "opposite"direction from the Lakedaimonians.18 ' AaKE8atEOTaktv the words of Herodotos (ix.56) are that the Athenians 1Lo-a V TO-a must mean "marcheddifferently, contrary, to the march of the ipto. Here Ta E&IuraXtv The contrast is then immediately explained by Herodotos: the SparLakedaimonians." tans marchedalong the hills and slopes of Kithairon(i.e. from the Asopos Ridge to the south), the Athenians in the plain. Herodotos is contrastingthe type of route, not the direction. It is now possible to see how the Greeks took advantage of the terrain. Aghios loannis hill, though easily crossed, has at least the advantagefor the Greeks of obstructing the view from the north and of preventing a rapid advance from that direction. This hill therefore requiredthe Persians essentially to divide their army, the east wing under Mardoniosproceedingeast of it towardPausanias,and the west wing proceeding west of it toward the Athenians. The Persian center, for whatever reason, apparently never engaged that day. The Athenians, located in the plain, close the gap southwest of Aghios Joannishill and prevent the Theban horse from reaching Pausanias' left flank and rear. The slopes of the hills and the Moloeis River give Pausaniassome protection on the east, and the Athenians receive some protectionfrom Aghios loannis hill. Both wings, however, were vulnerable to attack from the west: the Spartansfrom the Persians who had entered the valley by Gargaphia,and the Athenians from the Theban cavalryin the plain. Pausaniaswould certainlyhave foreseen this weakness and would have done something about it. And in fact, he had. The former Greek center, now at Plataia, marchesto the aid of both the Athenians and the Lakedaimonians.The Megariansand Phliasiansmove toward the Athenians and receive the full force of the Theban cavalry.A disorderedbunch, sneers Herodotos, whose prejudiceis still repeated. One wonders what the Megarianshad to say about their role in the battle.19The Corinthiansmarch to the aid of the Lakedaimonians,but Herodotos (Ix.69) suggests that the battle was alreadywon before the Corinthiansarrived.The Corinthiansin fact 18E.Kirsten (RhM 86, 1937, pp. 61-66), followed by Pritchett (AJA, p. 28), suggests that the Athenians moved north to the attack. The Athenians, isolated from the rest of the army, attack the Persian right wing, with the Persiancenter presumablynear by, and with no defense against the enemy's cavalry on land most suitablefor horses? Mass suicide was not an Atheniancustom. '9An inscriptionfound near Megara(Wilhelm, Jahresb.6st. Arch.Inst., 1899, p. 221) honors Megarians who died in the PersianWar, "some on the Boiotianplain, who dared lift hand againstmen on horseback."The inscriptionincludesan epigramattributedto Simonides;cf. E. Diehl, AnthologiaLyricaGraeca, II:Simonides, no. 96, and Loeb, LyraGraecaII, p. 361: Simonides, no. 134.

THEFINALBATTLEAT PLATAIA

191

probablyhad to wait until Pausaniaswas actually engaged with the Persian infantry. If the Corinthians moved too soon (or could be seen to be stationed too close to the Lakedaimonians),the Persians would sense a trap. Pausaniashad to wait for the right moment before signaling to the Corinthians;when Pausanias looked to the temple of Hera (Herodotos, ix.61), he was hoping for more than divine support.Once the signal was given, the Corinthiansbegan their two-mile march towardthe temple of Demeter, where the battle was raging. Whether or not the Corinthiansactually closed with the enemy, their role in the battle was apparentlygreaterthan it appearsin Herodotos.20 In this recountingof events we have followed the advice of Burn21in paying "most attention to the 'public facts' of what the formed bodies of troops actually did," while omitting the accounts of what Herodotos thought they were supposed to be doing. Viewed in this way the events cast doubt on the supposed "blunder"of the Greeks in failing to move to the Island. How likely is this "blunder"as Herodotos tries to explain the Greek motives and inaction? The Greek center, he says (ix.52), undependable troops fearing the enemy cavalry,22does not flee to the Island (which is near the passes on the route home) but moves to Plataia and takes its position apparentlyin good order. Pausanias does not move the right wing to the Island, because he spends the night arguingwith an insubordinatejunior officer.23The Athenians do not move to the Island, preferringto stay isolated in the plain, because they could not trust a Spartan's word.24In addition to such unlikely reasons, we might well ask what possible advantage would the Greeks have had by a new position on the Island?25If they could not entice 20Fora poem on the Corinthiansby Simonides, see Plutarch,de malignitateHerodoti,42. It is interesting to note that, accordingto the traditionrecordedby Plutarch(Aristeides,20.1-2), in the battle of Plataia the Corinthianswere held in the highest esteem after the Spartansand the Athenians. 21Persiaand the Greeks,London 1962, pp. 530, 531. Since most of Herodotos' informantson Plataia must have been young men at the time of the battle, they would probablyhave served as common soldiers in the ranks.The common soldier knows what he can see with his own eyes: the location of places about him and what is occurringwithin his vision. He usuallyhas little or no knowledgeof the plans of his commanders.Anyone who has served in the lower ranksof the armed forces knows the power and pervasiveness of militaryhearsay. 22Thecenter had conqueredits fear by the followingday, when it bravelyattackedthe Thebancavalry. 23Theabsurdityof this situationhas been pointedout by many. See especiallyMacan, op. Cit. (footnote 6 above), p. 372; Green, op. cit. (footnote 12 above), p. 263. It might be added that the topic of discussion hardlyseems to providematerialfor an all-nightdebate. 24Arewe to believe, with Kirsten, op. cit. (footnote 18 above), pp. 60-66, that the Athenians were afraidthat the Spartanswere planningto steal the glory themselves by defeatingthe Persiansalone? 25Herodotos(ix.49-51) gives three reasons for the Greeks' decision to move to the Island. First, Gargaphiahad been choked up (an odd incident: see Green, op. cit. [footnote 12 above], p. 261, note), and they would have a better water supply.Second, they would be better protectedfrom the cavalry.And third, they cpuld extricate their supply-trainin Kithairon.Pausaniascould have accomplishedall three objectives by simply withdrawingthe Greek army into Kithairon;obviously he could not do that, for the battle had to be fought. Certainlymore is involved here than these three reasons. The reasons Herodotos gives for the move requiremuch discussion to determine their validity, but it might be observed that the Island, if correctlyidentified,does not provide a better source of water or a better defense againstcavalry than the second position, and the entire army (or even half of it) is hardlyrequiredto bring supplies off the mountain.

192

PAULW. WALLACE

the Persians to begin the battle when the Greeks were stationed along the Asopos Ridge, they certainlywould never bring the Persians to attack them with their backs to Kithairon,in a position still more disadvantageousto the Persians. The need to bring about a battle soon was acute. It was just as importantfor the Greeks to bringabout a battle as it was for the Persians, and not only because of lack of supplies. If the Greeks never managed to bring Mardonios into an engagement, what would have happened?Eventually the Greek army would have to disperse. Mardonios was alreadyin control of centraland northernGreece, and unless he was driven out, he could simply occupy the land, establish a Persian satrapy,26providegarrisonsfor defense against invasions from the south, and bide his time until, by diplomacy or military action, he could extend his territoryinto Attica and beyond. The Greek leaders must have known that it was now or never. If we look only at what actuallyhappenedin the final battle, and not at Herodotos' interpretationof it, the strategyappearswell planned and competentlyexecuted. The Greeks at Plataia,as at Salamis, enlisted the Greek land as their chief ally, and the Persiansagain fell into the trap. It is not possible to say for certain whether the Greek victory at Plataia resulted from deliberatestrategy.Herodotos, and perhapssome of his informants,apparentlydid not think it did;27but whether the victory was due to luck, the gods, the terrain, the braveryof the soldiers, Pausanias'strategy, or a combinationof all of them, it is hard to imagine how things could have fallen out better for the Greeks. Utilizing the terrain to his own advantage, with the Athenians and the other Greeks protectinghis vulnerable left flank, Pausanias managed to lure Mardonios into battle on his own terms. However the situation of the final battle happenedto come about, the Greeks won, and in this "most glorious victory of all" (Herodotos, ix.64), perhapswe should give the Spartanking the benefit of the doubt. PAUL W. WALLACE OFNEW YORKAT ALBANY STATEUNIVERSITY Classics of Department Albany, NY 12222

26Green,op. cit. (footnote 12 above), p. 219: "Mardoniuswas, in effect, the satrapof a new province stretchingfrom Thraceto Attica." 27A contention shared by many modern scholars; see, for example, Hignett, op. cit. (footnote 6 above), pp. 343, 344. It should be noted that some in antiquitybelieved that the retreat was a deliberate tactic:Plato, Laches, 191b-c. I see no reason to assume that "this is an obvious transferencefrom Thermopylai."

AN ATTICFARM NEAR LAURION (PLATE T

24)

HE PROMONTORY OF POUNTAZEZA, on the east coastof Attica,abouteight

kilometers north of Cape Sounion, was thickly settled in the Classical and Hellenistic periods.1In the 4th century B.C., the phratryof the Salaminioimaintaineda sanctuary of Herakles near the bay.2During recent excavationson the north side of the bay, buildings, evidence of ancient smelting operations, and a road were exposed.3Traces of farm buildings, plots of land defined by field walls, and ancient roads can be seen today in the hills north of the bay. On one of his Saturdaywalks in 1973, Professor Vanderpooltook several students from the American School of Classical Studies to this area to look at the remains of ancient farmsteads.One of the farms seen that day is the subject of this article, which is offered to E.V. with thanks for his wonderfulAttic walks. This best preservedfarm complex in the area of Pountazeza (Fig. 1) is on a hilltop (elevation +47 m.) some 200 meters south of the coastline, across the bay from the Olympic Marina boatyards.4Today, this area, known locally as Gaidouromandra,is crisscrossedby newly bulldozed roads and the wooden stakes of land developers. About a hundred meters south of the farm complex, an ancient field wall runs from a ravine to the southwest toward Pountazeza bay. There are traces of other buildings and field walls to the south of Gaidouromandrafarm, and it is possible that they mark its southern boundary.5 A 1980 surfacesurvey and mappingof the Gaidouromandrafarm6(Fig. 2) revealed that the complex is situated on a terrace supported on all sides by retaining walls. Walled structuresalong the west side of the farm complex open onto a broad terraceto the east. Along the steep west side of the hill, the retaining wall is built of massive limestone boulders, whereas the eastern retainingwall is composed of a line of smaller fieldstones less than 0.50 m. in height. The terrace slopes gently to the east and along its southern margin appearsto have been divided into two levels by a small internal retainingwall. 'Cf. J. Young, "Studies in South Attica," Hesperia 10, 1941 (= Young), pp. 163-191. For more recent work on this subject,cf. J. Jones, L. Sackett, and A. Graham, "An Attic CountryHouse Below the Cave of Pan at Vari," BSA 68, 1973, pp. 355-452; M. Langdonand V. Watrous, "The Farm of Timesios: Rock-cutInscriptionsin South Attica," Hesperia46, 1977, pp. 162-177. 2Young, pp. 169-172, and W. Ferguson, "The Salaminioiof Heptaphylaiand Sounion," Hesperia7, 1938, pp. 1-8, lines 10-11, 84. 3Cf. AEXT27, B' 1, 1972 [19771,pp. 147-148. 4Cf. Young, p. 164, fig. 1, no. Ila. 5Ibid., nos. II b and 8. 6Thissurvey was conductedin June, 1980 with the permissionof the Greek ArchaeologicalService.

LIVINGSTON VANCE WATROUS

194

Road tot

Olympic Marina

Laurion N x

f arm

POUNTA Z EZA

PASSA

LIMANI

To

Sounii

0

us

1

2

FIG. 1. Mapof southeastshore of Attica at Pountazeza

3KMS

AN ATTICFARMNEARLAURION

195

Area A on the plan (Fig. 2) is a rectangularplatformcreated by two walls which were added onto the originalwestern retainingwall. There are no signs that this space was ever enclosed. The remainderof the farm complex, however, appearsto have consisted of enclosed rooms whose walls, averagingabout 0.40 m. in width, were constructed with interior and exterior faces of irregularlycoursed stones. Only the east wall of Room C was preservedas high as 1.0 m. (P1.24:a), and this wall alone was built of boulders reaching 1.10 m. in width. Area B appearsto have opened onto the east, and outside its entrance stood an uprightstone block. Room E was formed by two short walls terminatingin upright stone blocks (P1. 24:b), and a third upright block may mark an entrancewayat the southeast cornerof the room. The size and shape of Room E identify it as a farm tower or 7r'pyoq.7 In the center of E is a (recent?) pit in which lies a marble block with dressed sides. On its upper undressed face the letters KE ... <><> are inscribed;the date of these is unclear. The presence of roof tiles throughout this farm complex indicatesthat one or more of the rooms was roofed. In addition to roof tiles, potsherds on the surface of the complex included doublecoil amphorahandles and a black-glazedbowl or plate fragmentwith stamped palmettes on the interior (Fig. 3), which can be dated ca. 350-250 B.C.8In the collection of the American School of ClassicalStudies at Athens is a stamped amphorahandle from this site (P1.24:d) kindly identifiedby Miss VirginiaGrace as a Rhodian type9datableto ca. m 166-146 B.C.. The stamp reads: 'Em TEXEKpE'O ro 'I17roxo xov Kvt&tov. Of unusual interest on the surface of this farm site is a scatter of flakes, chips, and chunks of gray-blackobsidian, concentratedwithin the confines of the terrace walls. A sample of these obsidian fragments (Fig. 4, P1. 24:c) illustratesthe full size range and characterof such remains at this site.10 All the obsidianis opaque, homogenous, and from the visible breaksappearsbrittle rather than flexible. Cortex is preserved on the dorsal surfaces of two flakes indicating that these were struck from the exterior of an obsidian cobble. Of the forty fragments observed on the surface, all were producedby means of percussion, and many appearto have been the result of extremely heavy blows. There are no clear signs of intentional retouch on any of the observed fragmentsnor did a field examinationpermit identification of obvious wear patterns. The intent in this industry appears to have been the production of irregularly shaped flakes ranging in dimension from roughly 0.012 m. to 0.03 m. It is clear, however, that many of the observed fragmentsare only poorly preservedremnants of larger percussion-struckflakes. 7Cf. the Golden Pig tower in Young, p. 127, fig. 3, and pp. 133-143. 8Peter Callaghankindly dated this fragment and tentatively identified it as part of an Attic echinus bowl. 9Cf. V. Grace and M. Savvatianou-Petropoulakou,"Les timbres amphoriquesgrecs," Exploration de Delos, XXVII, Paris 1970, p. 323, type KT 857. archeologique 101wish to thank H. Blitzer for informationon these obsidianflakes, and for the renderingof Figures 2, 3, and 4.

II II ii I II II

I

-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

F

D

|_ig

TERRACE

_ C

1

1s B

A

II I Il

II

Frm

AN ATTIC FARM NEAR LAURION

197

FIG. 3. Palmettedesign stampedon black-glazedsherd

As there are no prehistoricremains visible on the surface of this farm site, and as the extent of these obsidian flakes appearsto be restricted to the terrace of this complex, it seems likely that these objects may be dated to the period of use of the farmhouse itself. It is tempting, therefore, to consider the way in which this raw material was used in the farm complex. One might suggest a use in cutting up various kinds of materialand specificallythe utilizationof such flakes in the base of a wooden threshing sledge, or tribulum,whose importanceon farmsteadsof later antiquityis well attested.11 The Gaidouromandracomplex, like a number of the near-by Attic farms, consists of a building, a tower, and a terrace. The terrace may have been planted in crops and may also have served as a place for outdoor activities such as threshing.Tower E would have served as a secure storage area, perhaps for produce on its dry upper floor and workspaceon the ground level. It is clear, however, that a more complete picture of this Hellenistic farmsteadwill only be forthcomingif this site is thoroughlyexcavated. LIVINGSTON VANCEWATROUS THE STATE UNIVERSITYOF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO

Department of Art History 605 Clemens Hall Buffalo, NY 14261

"Cf. K. D. White, RomanFarming,Ithaca1970, p. 185.

' ' (a ~~~~~L~lIIZ

@

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~E W v

D

9 i

b

0 9

X c_--

.

D

wo~~~~~~~ X~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PLATE 24

Al~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C co

At~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'

I~~~~~~~I CO~~~

'C

C

JI,~

~~

~

'6~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~ con~ ~

SEPULTURAEINTRA URBEM AND THE PRE-PERSIANWALLSOF ATHENS A

LMOSTTHIRTYYEARSAGO the late RodneyS. Youngpublished,underthe

Z~title "Sepulturaeintraurbem",a series of burials discovered in the area between the modern Street of the Apostle Paul and the northwesternslopes of the Areopagus.1 The majorityof these burialswere found in a small Archaic cemetery, which was perhaps in continuous use from the 8th to the late 6th century; there were also some earlierburialsand cremations,rangingin date from Late Bronze Age to Geometric, and a number of cremationsof small childrenor infants made in the 4th to 3rd centuries. In the 1st century B.C. Servius Sulpicius wrote to Cicero that at- Athens sepulturaeintra urbemhad long been forbidden.2Interpretinghis group of burials in the light of this letter, Young concluded that those which pre-dated the end of the 6th century must have taken place before the ban came into effect; on the other hand, graves of later Roman times, which have been found in the Agora itself and on the eastern slopes of the Pnyx Hill, did not violate the ban, since they lay outside the "city limits" of the Late Empire, as defined by the "ValerianWall".3Whatever the date at which the ban was imposed, it evidently did not apply to cremations, at least those of children, which continued into Hellenistic times.4 In discussions of the relationshipbetween city-wallsand graves in ancient Athens, scholars have generally assumed, as Young did, that sepulturaeintraurbemwas synonymous with sepulturaeintramuros.5This assumption is certainly reasonable, for there is no evidence in Greek cities for the existence of legal and religious "city limits" corresponding to the Roman pomerium.Thus a wall-circuit,where one existed, provided the only clear-cutdivision between "city" and "suburbs";however, the built-upand walled areas were probablyseldom co-terminous, and can certainlynever have remainedso for very long in periods of rapidgrowth and development. Of course the same was true of the pomeriumof Rome, which never closely coincided with a wall-circuitbefore the 'R. S. Young, "Sepulturaeintraurbem,"Hesperia20, 1951, pp. 67-134 (= Young, 1951). I am happyto offer these new notes on an old problem both to Homer Thompson, who introduced me to classicalarchaeology,and to Eugene Vanderpool,my teacher in Athenian, Attic and Greek topography, and also to the memory of their friend and colleague Rodney Young, from whom I learned much during my "studentyear" in Athens a generationago. The followingadditionalabbreviationis used in this article: Winter = F. E. Winter, GreekFortifications, Toronto and London 1971 2Cicero, Ad.fam.4.12.3. 3Young, 1951, p. 68. 4Young, 1951, pp. 133-134. 5Cf. Young, 1951, p. 131.

200

F. E. WINTER

time of Aurelian, and at least from the 4th century B.C. onward always left extensive built-upareas outside its perimeter.6 Young's main concern in 1951 was with attemptingto ascertainwhen the Athenian ban on intra-urbanburials came into effect. While accepting the existence of a prePersian city-wall at Athens, he did not discuss the line that this wall would have followed; even on the matter of date, he was content to observe that "it seems very probablethat Athens was first enclosed within a peribolos at some time between the second return of Peisistratos in 546 B.C. and the attempt of the Tyrannicidesin 514 B.C."7 He argued that the cessation of burialsin the Archaiccemetery at the northwestern foot of the Areopagusresulted from the institution of the ban, and that the introduction of the new regulationpresumablyimplies the priorexistence of a wall-circuitat least if intraurbemis taken to mean intramuros.Since he believed that the region of the cemetery "must have been included within the walls of the lower city (of Athens) at whatever period (such walls existed)," and that the Archaic wall-circuitpre-dated 514, he concludedthat the ban came into effect "in the years around500."8 Unfortunately, no remains of an Archaic city-circuit have ever been found at Athens; thus discussions of the line of such a circuit, and estimates of the area that it enclosed, can never be more than plausibleconjectures.In 1960 J. Travlos proposedan approximatelyoval shape for the pre-Persianenceinte, which he thought could have been built as early as the time of Solon, and perhapshad a total length of ca. 2.60 km. On the south his proposedline hardlyextended beyond the lowest slopes of the Acropolis; on the northwest, after traversing the foot of the Pnyx and of the Hill of the Nymphs, it crossed the intervening saddle to enclose Kolonos Agoraios and the Agora itself (Fig. 1), as well as most of the falling ground to the north and northeast of the citadel hill.9 I have noted elsewhere that Travlos' proposed circuit seems "rather implausiblein some respects," but was in any case little more than an enlargedacropoliscircuit;it left so much of the early 5th-centurycity unprotectedthat "it was not considered worth defending in 480 B.C."10I suggested as a likely date for the constructionof this circuit the third and most lengthy period of Peisistratos' rule, i.e. the very beginning of the period favoured by Young.11Travlos' arguments in favour of a Solonian date are not compelling;more attractiveis the early 560's date proposed in 1974 by E. Vanderpool.12Indeed in the wider context of the history of Archaic Greek city-circuits Dictionaryof AncientRome, Oxford 1929, s. v. pomerium, 6Cf. S. B. Platner,T. Ashby, A Topographical dans le mondeantique,2nd ed., Paris 1971, pp. 93-97. and Leon Homo, Romeimperialet l'urbanisme 7Young, 1951, p. 133. 8Young, 1951, p. 132. Athens 1960, pp. 33-34, 40-42; cf. Travlos, Pictorial 1 'E~eEXtA r0v 'AO-qvciov, 9J. Travios, HOXEO8OJ.UK Dictionaryof AncientAthens,London 1971, p. 8, fig. 5, p. 20, fig. 28, on which our Figure 1 is based. 10Winter,p. 62.; the fact that the circuit was too small to be worth defending was probablyalso the main factorin the Atheniandecision to risk a pitchedbattleat Marathonin 490. "Winter, p. 63. 12DOPOl, Tributeto B. D. Merit, Locust Valley, New York 1974, pp. 156-160, "The Date of the prePersianCity-Wallof Athens."

SEPULTURAE INTRA URBEM AND THE PRE-PERSIAN WALLS OF ATHENS

7C_

7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7

IV\

>4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4

I:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;e

Zi

-A~~~~~~~~~~~ -7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4

FI.1 r-esa

al AA fe rvo ndAcaccmtr

B

201

202

F. E. WINTER

Vanderpool's proposal now seems to me more reasonable than my own, as I shall indicate below. In any event I believe that all attempts to deny the existence of a prePersiancircuitshould now be abandoned.13 With regard to the actual course of such a wall, the basic weakness of Young's (and in some measure also Travlos') conclusions lies in the assumption that any citycircuit at Athens, "of whatever period," must have included the Archaic cemetery between the Street of the Apostle Paul and the Areopagus. In all probabilityeven an enceinte enclosing Kolonos Agoraios and the Agora area (i.e. as proposedby Travlos) must for strategicreasons have hugged the slopes of the Areopagusas long as possible, before crossing from the most northerlypromontoryof that hill to the nearest point of Kolonos Agoraios. As a matter of fact it is even debatable whether the inclusion of Kolonos Agoraios and the Agora within the circuitwould have been justifiableat all on militarygrounds-and it was on such grounds that early defensive lines were normally planned. Any completely new city-wall, if built toward the end of the 6th century, would almost certainlyhave enclosed a much larger area than Travlos' proposedSolonian circuit. A system laid out before ca. 550, however, would doubtless have been essentially an enlarged "Fluchtort", outside, but still under the shelter of, the old acropolis-circuit.As earlier at Old Smyrna, such a circuit can never have aimed at including all built-up areas of the city, nor was it ever extended to keep pace with later urban growth. It would indeed have had much more in common with the Late Bronze Age enceintes of Mycenae, Tiryns and Gla than with the genuine city-circuitof Classical and Hellenistic Athens; in particular,like these Bronze Age examples and Old Smyrna,it would have clung tenaciouslyto an easily defensible line.14 Yet this is exactly the quality that is lacking in the line proposed by Travlos, as shown in Figure 1. Thus if my interpretationof the characterof Greek fortifications down to the middle of the 6th century is accepted, it is likely that an Athenian circuit built in the periodsuggested by Vanderpoolwould have been a good deal less extensive than Travlos estimated. Rather than including Kolonos Agoraios and the Agora, the northernline of wall would probablyhave kept to a level somewhere between those of the late 5th-centurySouth Stoa I and the Eleusinion. Southeast of the Acropolis, the southern part of the site of the Odeion of Perikles, together with the area of the later stoa and temenos of Dionysos, may have lain outside the defensive system. To the southwest and west of the Acropolis-Areopagusmassif, the builders of the new walls would surely have been careful to keep well away from the rising ground of MouseionPnyx-Hill of the Nymphs chain; to have drawn the trace partlyalong the foot of these slopes would have been an invitation to disaster. Thus the intersection of the modern Streets of Dionysios the Areopagite and of the Apostle Paul, and probablyall of the 13Seemost recentlyR. E. Wycherley, TheStonesof Athens,Princeton 1978, pp. 9-11 in favour of prePersianwalls. 1Winter, pp. 54-56, 61-64, and detailed discussionof Old Smyrnaand its walls, R. V. Nicholls, "Old Smyrna:The Iron Age Fortifications,"BSA 53/54, 1958/59, pp. 35-137, J. M. Cook, "The Historyof Old Smyrna,"BSA 53/54, 1958/59, pp. 9-27.

SEPULTURAEINTRA URBEM AND THE PRE-PERSIANWALLS OF ATHENS 203

area of Dbrpfeld'sexcavationsbelow the Areopagus,would no doubt have been excluded; further to the northwest the defensive line must have been some 25 to 30 meters uphill from Young's Archaiccemetery, in which burialscontinued to be made until ca. 500 (and perhapseven into the early 5th century).15 Only in terms of such a restricted perimeter, I believe, can we find an intelligibleand consistent patternin militaryevents in Athens between the second return of Peisistratosand the invasion of Xerxes.16 To sum up: 1) Recent studies are in general agreement that any pre-PersianAthenian circuit must have been very modest in extent-evidently too small to be worth defending in 480, and probably,in my view, including little more than the middle and lower slopes of the Acropolisand the Areopagus. 2) Such a restrictedcircuit seems to be in keeping with the development of mainland Greek defensive systems down to ca. 550. 3) A late Archaiccircuitwould almost certainlyhave enclosed a good deal more of the expanded Athens of the late 6th century.17Vanderpool'sdate for the construction of the pre-Persianwalls, i.e. ca. 566 or a few years earlier, seems to be the most reasonable of those suggested in recent decades. 4) In any event it is most unlikely that the Archaiccemetery in the valley between the Areopagusand the Hill of the Nymphs would have been included within the walls, until the defensive line was extended at least to the crest of the Pnyx-Nymphsridge.18 5) Thus if this cemetery went out of use ca. 500 as a result of a newly enacted ban on burials intra urbem, the Latin phrase of Servius Sulpicius, in his letter to Cicero, must refer to burials within the built-up area of the city and is not simply a synonym for intramuros. 6) On the other hand, if, as is not unreasonable, the traditionalequation of intra urbemwith intramurosis retained, the date at which the ban was instituted still remains unknown. The prohibition could even, as Dorpfeld thought, go back to Geometric times, or have been introducedca. 600 (Judeich), or ca. 500 (Young),19without immediately affectinga burial-plotthat lay outside the walls. 7) On the face of it, the most likely period for the introductionof the ban (always assuming that urbem = muros) is the one of general tidying up of the disorder and confusion left behind by the Persians, and of constructionof the circuit of Themistokles, which "extended more widely in all directions"than its predecessor.20The Archaic 151 doubt that ceramicchronologiescan ever

be precise enough to precludea post-500 date for some of the burials. 16Winter, p. 62. "7Cf.discussionof the extent of the pre-Persiancircuitof Eretria,Winter, pp. 61-62. 181twould not, however, have been necessaryto include the Mouseion Hill, since the saddle between it and the Pnyx does provide a defensible point at which the wall could turn eastwarddown the hill. The question is in any event purely academic, since there is no reason to believe that the Archaiccircuit extended so far to the west. 19SeeYoung, 1951, pp. 131-132. 2oThucydides,i.93.2.

204

F. E. WINTER

cemetery publishedby Rodney Young in 1951 may well have fallen almost completely into disuse by ca. 500, as a result of extensive new building in the area. It was only, however, with the constructionof the enlargedwall-circuitof Themistokles that the ban on intra-muralburials (which may indeed date from the same period) made any further use of the cemetery definitelyillegal. F. E. WINTER OFTORONTO UNVERSITY Departmentof Fine Art Toronto, CanadaM5S lAl