undoubtedly extended through thle second
column; hence Aixone had 11 (+ ?) re- presentatives. The 7 prytaneis in lines 2-8
must be of either Melite, Xypete, or ; Halai. The preference for Halai is based -l
on the identifications of two names.'2 i':
The date is suggested by the second of these, and by the style of the lettering.
Line 3: cf. P.A., 4602, 4603, and
4604, possible relatives of the fifth, "-
fourth, and first centuries.
Line 4: P.A., 9918, Mevsxtig A[i'a- X]eCvo,S o arlevt:, yeaqtlarsebg &dyoav6roz)v
9r ZaceVixov ieXovrog (159/8-147/6 B.c.).
Line 15: The names Ei)RevldiS (P.A., 5882) and E',6VOS (P.A., 5891) are both known in Aixone.
Lines 22-24: A descendant, Ntxo-
fiov?og KaXote'rov .'e,rvm,g was ephebe No. 61 in 107/6 (I.G., 112, 1011, line 105).
The citation preserved should from its position be that of the Priest: if so, it is notable that he was not of Kekropis (p. 16).
62. Agora I 1561. Fragment of Hymettian marble, broken on all sides, found on March 14, 1934, at 10/11, in a late wall, 2 m. north of the Tholos in Section B.
Height, 0.242 m.; width, 0.135 m.; thickness, 0.075 m.
Height of letters, 0.004 m.
It is possible that only 7 officials were praised: in that case, there would be 4 columns of 12 each, plus one of 11. The thickness favors the scheme given above.
2 There is no possible identification in Xypete. Melite had 7 representatives earlier, and Straton is a name known in that deme; hence it is the second choice.
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
PRYTANEIS
Early second century B.C.
-]?
-]v~.oS ?~f~""a~?~i~i ;s 1 |1.:.
vacat 0.03 m.
K fovxi AelarzrtLov
of prytaneis, which is represented by five letters. The small lettering, and the blank beneath, indicate that a single row of five or six citations extended across the stele. The preserved citation cannot have been
either the first or the last in this row. No. 62
63. Agora I 907. Fragment of a stele of Pentelic marble, broken away on all sides.
Found on June 1, 1933, at 28/10 in Section H.
Height, 0.075 m.; width, 0.07 m.; thickness, 0.05 m.
Height of letters, 0.007 m.
LEONTIS
Early second century B.C.
[ ', and
n os]
must t in [C-"-"-
-]elie|g[--] "11i
['
i lt] Mt O V [(T o ] L][-~ - ]g q)al[- -]
5 [_ ._4 a _]S vacat
No. 63
The wide spacing in line 3 must indicate a demotic. This being so, the list is not arranged as if for ephebes, and it must be taken as being probably a list of prytaneis.
The style fixes the date.
In this period patronymics are given only to distinguish homonymous demesmen (p. 29, n. 1), and apparently we must admit one such in line 4.
119
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
64. Agora I 1025. Photograph, p. 5. Stele of Hymettian marble, with the upper
Hvavopt&wog vavet 8l E etxadag, rQtaloaffTl T9g 7CQV [rave] lag' xxaraia eV TL OeadCQZ T '
SC roV rQOsQWDV rzE,qptrljV 'HQeaxhiSdi TqrlpaXov zX Keasd [wv X] it aVftQO8eQOl
xz KoalrSg Tobg MtQVravvei 25 4eXhXavqarov
'E evattvov
vacat
'Eo [O1]i?wvos iQxovrTo TOv [user] M?MEve'6( ov lt Tjg [AnXatY] avridog Lryzrrng IrQvravE( ag, jLt EIX [l]
[aUr]hov [X]tUa[]rl]wvog Ilordcdlo[g] yQaa^s^4avtrev MatlpanxnrQtlvog EnKTIr naaLieal'vov, 6dEXT?ir -I 7tQ [v]
T[a] vdaEL flov)j
4
flovIevrleiw Lr t^
iv 7reQO QeWmv [&m]E f'F(plev nHvOeag Uv0oXXiovg A4XavsebVg xat av
30 tQo'Es eOt vvEl O ' i06 ev Tovie v
HIQo[X]]i Heox[Xi]Eovg O (vyatwd`TadSrjs ElEV i 8tE) ot 1tQVTdVE i Tr 'Itro v [v]I;dl6o;g xat ol d [1laiT]oLt []l[etaiarv[av]T[sg X at\ faV?eoa]v)(fav[e?g] drnoogpaivovatLv zl flovXe TOv ratioav v
elXovro [IQ] &cavTWv 9eO'6orov &eoo'rov gx
KoIX[rgS] raSa uT oVialag TeOvxcval T1oaQS xT&a irjo?uag [vy]
rsl Cevvravselat [V]r8\Q TwS flov1a g xat roo 6d'lov, rtllesfIeXUaat 6el xat rwv HiXXWv 6avdTCrwv aX xCIg a[t] SL]
XoTlliw [g] v
dyaOestl w t dedo'XOat Telt ElovXOE U t iaiveLal Y TO TaOdav Q(966orTov OeoodO ov e'x nO Kolk i xa[i]
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
35 [a]T?C(p av6orat OaXXo arcpim
i
v .rraci [vi] at 6d d at yQaOZacela Toy exaQXffecoYv qCvlov 'EXevahlot xa'l 'rv C'EQa TOVi [r] iWYVV OV 9Q[c ]i(5itrtov KaXXlov I'aY Xya ov r oy ,'QaC^IaTC T flaovtS XCl x wov~ dS?otov [71]w]oto[uya]XoV HTwro[^iax]ov laiaicala xal rv v7toyQoaapaTia A, d ',oxyoerV, o diplXov Xo ZaQECa xat OV xiQ,vxa fiov?Zg i:jg xal IOVS 6dtov [E]VzK[X,]v EVXzIovg BeoevLXtzl6v xaCl TO aLXr Tnv KaCaLX^tQaT7v 9OOiLxtLov xatC TV Taciilav [T-jg] &ovirjg KdXXatnrrov Aovros Ai4twvEa xat cr pecPav[(o 40 (atc {Oat} iTOVTrV yXatro( Oa tov ffaTsepdvo t v avayQeapat 6; TO'6 Tra ri6cp ILtaa rOy vacat© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
in 178/7 B.C.; Dinsmoor's exposition is clear and final.' Philon's secretary, on the other hand, is new to us. The demotic HIordxlog shows that he was of Leontis (IV), which according to Ferguson's scheme2 did in fact furnish the secretary in 178/7. Dinsmoor's scheme, which called for an Archon from Tribe V in this year, is thus proved for the second time to be wrong. In fact it is difficult not to regard the cycles for the period in question, 200-158/7 B.C., as finally established. This conclusion was first enforced by the inscription of the year of Eunikos (Meritt, Hesperia, III [1934], no. 18, p. 20; cf. also Hesperia, V [1936], no. 17), and is confirmed again in an inscription of 196/5 (Hesperia, V [1936], no. 15).
It was unknown hitherto that the predecessor of Philon was a Menedemos. A Delian dedication has the name of an archon Menedemos who must be dated after 106/5 B.C.3 There were therefore two archons of this name; to the period of one of them must be assigned the papyrus Herculaneum 1780, an elaborate, fragmentary, and largely illegible account of the Garden, which mentions an archon Menedemos near its present end.
Cronert assigned the document to the period ca. 210-180 B.c.4 His clue was merely a name, and when the Delian dedication appeared, scholars disregarded Cronert's reasoning and gave the papyrus the later date. The discovery of an earlier Menedemos opens wide the possibility that Cronert was right.5
Since it was felt necessary to distinguish the Philon who dates the present text from a predecessor, we must consider dating a new archon Philon within the generation which preceded 178/7 B.C. We have seen (p. 107, n. 1) that the name can be supplied, as Kolbe suggested, in 49; the supposition of a third Philon is unobjectionable, since the name was very common. Kolbe's daring suggestion may well have been correct. Several years are available for this, and perhaps for yet a third, Philon.6
For calendar equations we have
I Pryt. IV, 30 = Pyanopsion 22 (backward count)
=Pyanopsion 29 (forward count) II Pryt. V, 10 = Maimakterion 6
Archons, pp. 256-257, with references.
2 Athenian Tribal Cycles (1932).
3 Dinsmoor, Archons, pp. 289-290.
4 W. Cronert, Kolotes und Menedenlos (Studien zur Paldographie und Papyruskunde, ed. C. Wessely), pp. 81-87, 181.
5 It seems clear that any study of the question should be preceded by painstaking scrutiny of the papyrus. Cronert admits (op. cit., p. 181) that his reading of the name of an archon otherwise unknown needs to be checked: [lE' 'l]aoxQeovs .[4ovro1], in a context where a date might occur. If the reading is correct, then we must consider moving Isokrates also back again from his present date ca. 94/3 (cf.
Dinsmoor, Archons, p. 289). The name might be supplied in the difficult I.G., II2, 934/5 (archon's name, in genitive, - - - - Tov;), which is currently assigned to 189/8 B.c.
6 At this writing they are 208/7, 205/4, 202/1-197/6, 195/4, 194/3, 190/89, 184/3, 180/79 (of which the latter two are improbable in view of possible confusions).
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
PRYTANEIS1
From these it appears that the interval between the two decrees was at least ten days; hence the forward count in I is excluded. The interval (Pyan. 22 to Mai. 6) must have been at least 14 days. This means that Pryt. IV was of at least 34 days. Since in an intercalary year the prytanies should have averaged 32 days each, it must be assumed that the year was intercalary, and that at least one prytany had as many as 34 days. But the disposition of the early months and prytanies of the year leaves problems that are still unsolved and in need further of study.