76. Agora I 728. Fragment of a stele of Hymettian marble, preserved at the bottom and to its full width. The sides were dressed with a toothed chisel; the back was rough- picked, but worn smooth near the top where there is a shallow rut worn by wagon wheels. The surface of the stone is very crumbling. The stele formed part of a late Roman street paving, and was found on April 25, 1933, at 48/Kr, in Section Z, over the fork of the Great Drain.
Height, ca. 0.81 m.; width, 0.465 m.; thickness, ca. 0.105 m.
Height of letters, 0.006 m.
The water-worn surface makes squeezes impossible, and readings have to be made from the stone or from photographs. One photograph was taken in diffused natural light, and three others were made by artificial light, each with the rays directed from a different side. The photograph here published reveals clearly the exact number of lines in the decree. (It will be noted that 84 has 24 lines with about 44 letters in a line.) On this finding the text is based.
AKAMANTIS ,
160/59? B.c. ca. 48
i ['E7t: Tvx]riv[?)ov? QiXovrog, xrl.]
5 [--- -]
6 [--- -s ve' scr]e87j p 6 oltQvrTv[get]S [Tri]
9 [- - - - - - e Ovalag TseuxvatL ifag] Tag [x]a[ o.xovfcrag]
10 [ev rel irevrTcaeicaL, e7rLteIeXaOatl] d
[e
xat] TO)V [Ni)wv] &7rdvTi[WOv]11 [xaoig6 xat 4ptlorllWlog v
dyaOeT] wvXet [X:l.]
20 [---- - avyQOipalt d O68 TO6' i/J cIp,ta rov yaCqyi]adra rov [Kxacr& zQv]
21 [ravEiav v arirelt aOlvEt X]Cal uaq[at] Ev T[it zr]QVr[avtx(-lt E4i d']
22 [,rrv dvcayQacp)v Xal Tijv tvdoEoaiv Tjg uvfrig iteeilcat Tov Taci]
23 [Y' rTcV STaTlrtOTXi v TO yevo IEvov dv] a [o^!ia]
vacat
---- ---- -s 50 [Xo-a]Qy- [Xo;a] ey7i? 6g ---- -- - 75 75 -- -
137
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
No. 76
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
PRYTANEIS 139
- 55 - - - ---- -
---- ---- --- E_ ---- _w
E[i'c~] v
v- - - - 45 - ---- - - - - ca. 4 d.0 [1]
--- o 'Ev -
35 - - --- -- - -- - - - - - -
The reading in line 1 is rendered highly doubtful by the absence of letters nearby;
but the date suggested accords well with the dates of other slabs used as covers of the drain (169/8, 166/5, and 163/2: see Hesperia, II [1933], p. 16). The letters that have been read conform exactly to the formulae of a second decree, and establish the nature of the document beyond a doubt.
The limits of the register are vague at the end of Column V, and Column IV was abnormally long. There were, then, 61 items at least. Since no tribe should have 62, the length of Column V is fixed, and the number of- demotics, if all was regular, was 11, fitting Akamantis and Oineis. The reading given for line 50 appears to be easily the best interpretation of the traces, whatever the tribe. Cholargos was of Akamantis. In line 83, where a demotic should appear, the best reading of traces, which are indented as for a demotic, will fit none.
There were no citations after the register. Here the stone is comparatively well preserved. The citations are omitted also in 77, which has been dated on entirely other grounds to this very period. Above the decree also no citations appear, but in this area the stone is heavily worn.
77. I.G., II2, 918. ca. 160 B.C. (same year as 78). LEONTIS. In the widely spaced last line of the (second) decree, r6v e7ti il i Jtotiatl has been supplied, but the spacing excludes it. The line must read [r6v ralciav rd ysev6Stleov d]v,cowya. This abbreviated formula is unique in the decrees for prytaneis, but is common in other decrees of the period. The year is the year of 78, as is proved under that title. Several restorations of names thereby become possible.
Line 1 ends with the name of the Treasurer; it reads [- - c- -]v. This should be supplied in line 17, as the first prytanis. In lines 6-7 the Secretary should not be identified with the 4;arcowv listed under Aithalidai but rather with the first prytanis listed under the second demotic, [. .h..]ov. This is the correct spacing in line 20. Lines 6-7 should read 4QlaTcrwa 4ot [- - '5 - -ievxovola]. The patronymic may be e4Ql[Cawvos].
The register of prytaneis has names in erasures, col. III, lines 27 (where the erasure is as long as the next name), and 29 (where the erasure does not extend beyond the
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
name now in it); and line 30 has an erasure now almost empty (read [[... ;. .. g]]), as is also the first line of col. IV. The erasures are all similar in appearance, and presumably are the work of the scribe who cut the text, for it was he who inscribed the two names in erasures. There are only 48 prytaneis apart from the two erasures.
It seems preferable to regard the latter as incomplete corrections in a list intended to contain, among 50 prytaneis, 9 Cholleidai.
Another apparently careless feature of the list is its arrangement in columns succes- sively of 17, 15, 15, and 17 items each. A point of some importance is whether we should connect with these errors a third possible mistake. The Phrearrhioi were 10 in 212/1 (36), and are here 3; whereas the Paionidai were 3, and are here 10. Gomme suggested that the mason cut 4PEAPPIOI for nAIONItAI, and then made the opposite error (Population, p. 51, n.); but in his table (p. 59) he entered the figures given on the stone. Those who are tempted by the emendation must remember that it involves two uncorrected confusions of names which resemble each other only in length. The difficulty increases when we recall that corrections actually were made in the next two columns.
The suggestion none the less has weight, especially when we recall the other apparently careless details, and when we note that the one demotic succeeds the other in the list.
At present the names of the prytaneis involved give us no help, but there is light to be had from other sources. P.A. lists a total of only 59 demesmen from Paionidai. None of the individual lists of annual boards of archons contains a citizen of Paionidai, nor did the deme furnish one known Archon Eponymos under the Roman Empire.1 In the lengthy record of small contributions in 183/2 B.C. (I. G., II2, 2332), no nlatovl6rg appears;
there is none in the shorter lists I.G., II2, 2333 and 2334; the extensive record of officials I.G., II2, 2336 contains two. In the seven substantial panels of ephebes from Leontis, dated from 128/7 to 38/7 B.C., there are preserved 50 demotics; 7 demotics are lacking.
Of the 50 preserved, only one is naiovlMTg, and that one is in the list of 38/7. Every other deme of Leontis sent more than one ephebe, except Oion (1) and Pelekes (0).
Paionidai, therefore, can hardly have outnumbered every other deme in Leontis in the middle of the second century. The text is to be emended, substituting IHatovidat for
cdEQaQiLot, and vice versa.
The list as it stands contains no Potamioi (2 bouleutai in 212/1 B.C.), no Potamioi Deiradiotai (2 in the fourth century, subsequently a member of Antigonis, and now, of course, in Leontis), and no Koloneis (2 in the fourth century, 1 in 212/1 B.C.). It is virtually out of the question that the first erased space contained a demotic (the second space itself immediately precedes a demotic). Were the two names erased so as to inscribe two other names, under other demotics, in another part of the list? If so, the intention was not carried out as cad reful examination of the area under columns I and II, where the stone is injured, clearly shows. In any case it could not have been the mason's
1 In I. G., II2, 1706 two Paionidai had been listed. For the demes which furnished Archons Eponymoi, see Graindor, Chronologie, p. 306.
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
PRYTANEIS
error, for the roll of prytaneis would be in final form when placed in his hands, certainly as respects demotics. The conclusion is that in this particular year three small demes simply were not represented.
The inscription was published after N.P.A., and the data on the names seem not to have been examined in detail. Thus for Col. I, line 29 (reading difficult and insecure) cf. 1. G., II, 2442, line 4 (P.A., 13703), possibly identical; that inscription is otherwise known only to be post-200 B.C. Other readings are secure:
Col. II. Line 17: KeQQeitvo is not found elsewhere; I cannot explain it, unless an error for, or corruption of, KIeoxIvo (in Bechtel, p. 582; not in Athens).
Line 21: 'woxQcariog is absent from P.A. and N.P.A. Chandler read the same name in I.G., II2, 1927, line 177, but Boeckh (C.1.G., 172) corrected it to wx ,a<t(c)ov. Pape (s. v.) objected to the emendation, rightly, as it now appears.