The lettering suggests the period, and the variations of formulae between this text and 116 may be held to confirm the earlier date for the present text.
181
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
112. Agora I 866. Fragment of Pentelic marble with part of the smooth-picked right side preserved. It is otherwise broken, but apparently preserved near the top, where there are traces of the start of a moulding, at the top of the right side. Found on May 25, 1933, in the wall of a late pit at 52/IE, 12 m. east of the Tholos, in Section Z.
Height, 0.157 i.; width, 0.098 i.; thickness, 0.087 m.
Height of letters (average), 0.01 m.
ca. third quarter of the first century B.C. ca. 37?
['E7irL dj o't 17revwdtpvtgsIQ --- xat'] ot eiaLtot,
[Oct ilr --- I;exovrog 81walpveaapvij S xat' U'T8
[qapcvdxavz-e deroqoaivovai v 'iel f%ov)X i. v 8] E 6'avniv I
[ToiY GiCov, iirtep8p4eXr Oat L u7n' wv &VXuw v J'v xa] Oxov 1v [xax.iwg xat' C,xOt0i1w(99O, XCTia' at" v 3ra rCaza]c]Xoiai v [Z?jy flVjlx;r - - - -- - - YiC
[- - - - I av wCov)
10 [- -? -? -- ----]TPO&I[.]
The type of the decree is evidently that of 97, etc., but the regular formulae cannot be restored; no one line
can be definitely fixed. No. 112
113. I. G., ,112 1048 plus Hesperia, III (1934), p. 39, no. 28. ca. 45 20 B.c. ERIECHTHEI9.
The text in I. G., ,II is correct, except that T6 should be supplied at the beginning of line 6, moving wag to the end of 5. This preserves the usual formula and the rule of syllabification. A new text of the Agora fragment is given here:
End of Column I:
[- -] ~[-]--- ix [Krid6ir]
(9,6?] Oka [Og ? - -- -]
[- -Te[ I- - - - ? ]
s [NLo ?]I 1 r7[og - - ]
vacat
In a crown:
[Kr1] (piat [#a]
The crown contained space for 3 more lines
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
PRYTANEIS
The letters are by the same hand as those of I.G., II2, 1048; the vertical spacing in lines 1-5 is greater, but since these lines now appear to contain the register, the difference of size is not, in the first century B.C., a reason against associating the two fragments. Meritt's assumption that the two fragments are part of one stele is therefore correct. I.G., II2, 1048 had wandered as far as the Royal Gardens.
The restoration of the demotic is indubitable, but the names cannot certainly be restored. That in line 5 might be Xaieultog, etc. There are difficulties in the citation, The heading is slightly asymmetrical. For the title 6 7aIliag z'rig qpva,t see p. 14. Below the name in the crown there was space, which would normally be filled, for many letters: one thinks of yovwt 6E, xmL., a form which occurred first in 60/59 B.C. (I.G., II2, 2992, partly restored but reading correct: see photograph in A.J.A., XXXVII [1933], p. 584).
The archon Apolexis (designated without patronymic, demotic, or e?rT and his pre- decessor) who dates . G., II2, 1040 and 113 (I.G., II2, 1048) was placed by Kolbe (Archonten, pp. 148 -150) in the years 47/6-43/2 B.c. The reasoning was historical, and, since the sources are scant for the period, the result was conjectural. An archon Apolexis (likewise without other designation), who appears in Delphian records, was securely fixed by Graindorl in the years 25/4-18/7 B.C. Graindor twice suggested (loc. cit.), that I.G., Il2, 1040 and 113 should perhaps be assigned to the Apolexis of 25/4-18/7, i.e., he suggested that there was only one archon Apolexis who appears without additional designation.2
If the reader will turn to I.G., II2, 1048-1050, he will find there three decrees dated in the middle of the first century. Of these we have found reason to date 1050 earlier (97), and to put 1049 in 57/6 B.C. (101). 1048 is obviously different in formulae, as well as in length of line, from the other two. The new Agora documents show where its affinities are: the formulae, the place of erection, and the length of line also, are generally similar to those of 114, 116, etc. The long list of beneficiaries, which is that of ca. 155-100 B.C., is met with after Sulla only in 116 and 121 (p. 25). The formulae them- selves are perhaps somewhat earlier than those of 116. The lettering seems to be earlier, but not much earlier. At this writing it is impossible to decide whether there was an Apolexis of ca. 45 B.c., and whether 113 should be dated in that period. It is amply clear, however, that 113 belongs after 97 and 101, and probably before 116.
114. Agora I 995. Four fragments of Pentelic marble. Fragment A is made up of two joining pieces, found on March 24, 1934, and June 19, 1933, one in a stony fill over the porch of the Tholos and the other in a marble pile in the northwest corner of Section Z. Fragment B was found on April 2, 1934, in the brown earth on the floor of
Chronologie, pp. 37-38; Musee Belge, XXVII (1923), pp. 265-266.
2 Both Dinsmoor (Archons, p. 286) and Ferguson (Tribal Cycles) have tacitly adopted Graindor's view.- For the later Apolexis, who always appears as Anx&Or-L; 1 Oo'0v, see Graindor, Chronologie, p. 51; Roussel, Melanges Bidez, p. 822.
183
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
the Tholos. Fragment C was found on April 18, 1934, in a late fill in the wall trench of the Tholos. Fragment D, preserving the left edge of the stone, was found on April 11, 1934, in a late fill over the Tholos.
(A) Height, 0.065 m.; width, 0.21 m.; thickness, 0.07 m.
(B) Height, 0.066 m.; width, 0.087 m.; thickness, 0.029 m.
(C) Height, 0.041 m.; width, 0.07 m.; thickness, 0.023 m.
(D) Height, 0.081 m.; width, 0.137 m.; thickness, 0.068 m.
Height of letters, 0.011 m.
A B
AU
No(. 111
FRAG.
A
I)
AIANTIS
Age of Augustus (ca. 30-20 B.c.?) ca. 33 ['EmSLt t rQO']aoov 7oaL6ffa[IEVo t otq6S Ti;,v]
[ijovXiv o[l 7rv]rdveY g rT: A4la [vTi6og xal ol &'t]
[aLTOL o EXlt - 8 ]oV iQlXOv[To]; [it[roCpalvovaLV]
[TLt flovL t T6v aFIav b8v eAO]O E[co f E[vT&v, - -]
Gap of several lines
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
PRYTANEIS
5 [- - - - 'v cTC]t tIovi[[Vrj1 i'LW dryaortl TvjXL]
FRAG. [dEdoX(LOat T;L /O]VxiLt kr[al'Iat - - _- -
_a0- - - -]
B [-_ _a 8 - - - -ak]neia %(n a[s?cpavol al3rat v]
[Oaxiovi reTspavwL] na fw[qi6tov Eartv ---]
Gap of several lines
FRAG. [-- - - - U]qr- - TE[C)q Ial & oajl xovi e(Cpdvwit]
o10 [rov] calraiav [---]
[---]A1m[---- - ---]
Gap of several lines, including the end of the decree and the beginning of the
register. Among the OaXlees.:
FRAG. [----] --
D
'H,o a [ - ---
---]]
IQlae [LOS - - - - -]
15 -VhlOO [S - - - ]
'4elarwv T[---]
The four fragments seem to be by the same hand, but B shows some differences in style, while C is more closely spaced vertically than the others. Such variations are not serious in the Roman period, but doubt is possible as to whether all four belong together. The tribe Aiantis is honored in A; the demotic in B can be restored to give Phaleron, a deme of Aiantis; and in D the name Himeraios, rare in Athens (four in all are now known) can be connected with P.A., 7578, Himeraios the brother of the famous Demetrios of Phaleron. In 98, moreover, the list of Phalereis is headed by an Antiochos;
and an Ariston appears under the same demotic in 102 (see commentary in I.G., II2) of the same period. Fragment C is thus the most dubious member. Line 11 may end in Y or X; in the latter case, it should be a proper name (cf. 102, lines 47 and 50 for possible restorations). The restorations from this fragment are all uncertain.
115. Agora I 877. Two fragments of a stele of Pentelic marble crowned by a moulding. Fragment A was found on May 22,
, ? 1933, in a marble pile in Section H. Frag-
ment B was found on February 27, 1934, in a late Roman-Byzantine fill, in Section H'.
(A) Height, 0.11 m.; width, 0.105 m.;
thickness, 0.045 m.
(B) Height, 0.125 m.; width, 0.113 m.;
thickness, 0.05 m.
Height of letters, 0.008 m. No. 115
185
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
In line 3 the spacin(g is observably closer, but even so the regular formulae, those restored below, make too long a line.
The dating of the one or two archons named Apolexis (without qualification) is a problem which cannot be settled at this writing. The lettering fits the date proposed by Graindor in Chronologie, pp. 37-38.
25/4-18/7? B.C. HIPPOTHONTIS Lines one and two, ca. 32;
line three, 49
FRAG. ['Eret7ld o :QVTra] 'E1S rTfS ['Inuo]OcovTldog [xal] FRAG.
A )B
A [oe diaeltito otl 8C7 L'A] QAort[oSg &'ao]vrog S ra [lv] B [acffavg xal arescavcbffavreg drc pab'ovatlv rTe ftovle]. rov a[ilav]
[Xzt.]
116. Agora I 807. Stele of Pentelic marble, broken at the bottom and rough-picked at the back, with a pediment at top with akroteria, mostly broken away. On the right, the side is original; on the left it has been cut back with filled flutings and a clawed foot, probably a Byzantine re-use. Found on May 12, 1933, in a loose fill some 35 m.
east of the Tholos, in Section 0.
Height, 1.015 m.; width, 0.492 m.; thickness, 0.11 m.
Height of letters, (upper), 0.01 m.; (lower), 0.007 m.
PANDIONIS
ca. 20 nB.. ca. 34-44
'AT6or]i g IJi?QoxQrTovgS Oiov ElEtTV . E7E 6I TrQOaodov rrOtiaffd^eVOt etQ6; rTv flov;iv olt rQv TodvLEg ,rg HavltovloSog o l Eil dlrpsov 4rieludog QeXovPTOg cgpaviyovaiv rTv T:a,Plla v rv eQvrcvYE 5 covW o ai'ro ic'l aVO (lDiXwva cHYEOXov ILcatIavia Ert
&jdevSUEov TO E?VT[[EQOV Tr,v rTaCIeav agC T? Oaff]] L [a] g rTeevvat 'oro 0oeo(l)g Sg 8 trztov jv V6reQ Te T(IV v .tTqvTrewv XC natl Tjg Ovxfai za Tov 6'iov xail ralwdov [xai] yVV}atxtV xa T' rcv p;liwov xat avfltlaXZouw , xca xaxlte,oq 10 [aa] rVa v E iraat Trog teQOIg a&viraedqOat ueyaXoeOQCi
[xal] doiwg; ,o?rrj Og t voS TrrQVTaE' EVQ ^olai', cl 1al xca axaaov
[atr] ol rQvraivei:S 2'v 'ovtlOv rv treo4'xo?v?ap IrotffaaaOat v [rQod] votav v
,ziv dyaOr6e d8dlo eOat rt ov erativECaatL robg [7;Q]vTdcveil; TfrS HavSiovhioS t Enl TT rQog ToiS OeoS E?ViE V 15 [fEti]a' 7ralvaffl?at TX al avT3Zv V V roFsivarlTa Clav a TO [CJE]VreQOv i'oXwva HyEXO'Zov 1latavic a e rI Te wLo T ZretEXe [vat] aTg Ovalag zorl OeoTg olg ta'rqtov ~jv, Xal aECPqavoiafa av [r6d]v OalXovi arespqdv Lt icdZrQlOdv eEoriv aTE Ca)'oVi TroV d
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
. '
No. 116
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
[yao]obg T rv dv6Q(0v va l TOVTiOrwv vvreov8`w0V qpalvlrVat
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
PRYTANEIS
As good as complete, the decree has revealed one peculiarity after another as this study has progressed: (1) The spokesman is mentioned (cf. 121). (2) The diLat:ot are not mentioned as such. (3) As beneficiaries of the sacrifices, the prytaneis themselves are mentioned, and in first place: the mere mention of them in this connection would have seemed shocking in the pre-Sullan days, when the theory (at least) was that the Treasurer offered the sacrifices as the agent of the prytaneis, and as one of them.
(4) The long list of beneficiaries is otherwise that of ca. 155-88 B.c.; cf. also 113 and 121.
(5) As in no other post-Sullan decree, nor in any decree passed by the Boule alone, the prytaneis receive praise; but it is to be noted that the Boule refrains from conferring any crown upon them. Hence they are not cited. (6) No statue of the Treasurer is contemplated.
The tenor of all of these peculiarities is the same: they are an attempt to combine the old " first " and " second " decrees: the document is deliberately archaistic in form, with modern improvements in the text and in the stele. The language itself, and the orthography, reveal what the spokesman, Apolexis of Oion, evidently considered to be elegant style.
The archon ar^idag 4,vtlEV has been hitherto unknown.1 The two archons named Apolexis, who served less than a generation apart in the early Augustan period, were distinguished by the addition of the patronymic, and once of the demotic also, to the name of the second. It is not unlikely, though in this period by no means certain, that the demotic of Demeas similarly may have been specified to distinguish him from an earlier archon Demeas, until now unknown to us. His own period must be fixed, in any case, by the evidence of names, which we may conveniently set forth line by line.
A date in the later 20's B.C. will be seen to be probable.
Line 1: the spokesman, .A4roUidS IXoxa'Tova OV; g E Ol'ov, was known as the archon dating F. Delph., III, 2, no. 63. The year is 8/7-2/1 B.C. (Graindor, Chron., p. 51; MJus&e Belge, XXVII [1923], p. 266; I.G., II2 ii, 2, p. 789). At some time previous to this the ephebes had honored him as aTcclia (I.G., II2, 1965),-doubtless io}v SreQacrtwtxiv. His name occurs again in a list of tribesmen of Leontis, l.G., II2, 2461, line 5, which has been taken to be the name not of the archon, but of an otherwise unknown uncle or grandfather; but see below. The same archon also dates I.G., II2, 2997, 3505, 3909.
Lines 5, 16, 22, 91-93: Relatives, uncertain and somewhat remote, are recorded in P.A., 14861, 14862. Philon himself is otherwise unknown.