Aparchai and Phoroi.pdf

8/11/2019 Aparchai and Phoroi.pdf

1/402

Thse de doctorat prsente la Facult des Lettres de

l'Universit de Fribourg (Suisse)

Aparchai and

Phoroi

A Ne w Com mented Ed ition of the Athenian Tribute Quota Lists

and Assessment Decrees

Part I:Text

Bjrn Paarmann

(Danemark)

2007

Thse de Doctorat prsente devant la Facult des Lettres de l'Universit de

Fribourg, en Suisse. Approuv par la Facult des Lettres sur proposition des

professeurs Marcel Pirart (premier rapporteur), Mogens Herman Hansen

(deuxime rapporteur) et Lisa Kallet Marx (troisime rapporteur).

Fribourg, le 26 juin 2007. Le Doyen Jean-Michel Spieser


2/402

Contents

Preface

Introduct ion

Research History

The Tribute Lists as a Historical Source

Chapter 1. Th e Purp ose of the Tribute Lists

1.1 The Tribute Quota Lists

1.1.1 Archives or Symbols?

1.1.2 Archives?

1.1.2 Accounts?

1.1.3 Votives?

1.1.4 Conclusion

1.2 Th e Assessment Decrees

1.3. C on clu sio n: a nd

Chapter 2. T he G eographical Distribution of the Ethnics

2.1 The Organisation of the Qu ota Lists

2.2 Th e Interpretation of the D ata

2.3 Conclusion

Chapter 3. Tribu te Am ou nt and the Size of thePokis

3.1 Tribute A m ou nt and Surface Area

3.2 Examination of the Evidence

3.3 Conclusion

Chapter 4. Ethn ics and Top ony m s in the Tribu te Lists

Conclusion: O n the Shoulders of Giants

Future Perspectives

App endix: Size of the Mem bers of the Delian League

Bibliography

Plates

3

7

16

37

40

40

40

40

42

43

50

52

53

55

55

58

63

64

64

73

77

78

87

91

92

97

126


3/402

Preface

A new ed i t ion o f the t r ibu te quo ta l i s t s and assessment decrees needs , i f no t an excuse , then

perhaps a t l eas t an exp lana t ion . Cons ider ing the p r imary impor tance o f these h i s to r ica l sources ,

i t i s a s ton i sh ing how l i t t l e a t t en t ion has been pa id to the way they have been ed i ted by Mer i t t ,

M c G r e g o r a n d W a d e - G e r y i n The Athenian Tnbute Lists (ATL) I - I V f r o m 1 9 3 9 - 1 9 5 3 a n d b y

Mer i t t in Inscnptiones Graecae (IG I

3

) 254-291 f rom 1981 dur ing the l as t severa l decades .

1

Th is

n e g l i g e n c e o n t h e p a r t o f c o n t e m p o r a r y s c h o l a r s , b o t h a n c i e n t h i s t o r i a n s a n d , m o r e

surpr i s ing ly , a l so Greek ep ig raph is t s , s t ands in sharp con t ras t to the cen t ra l p lace the l i s t s t ake

i n a c a d e m i c a r t i c l e s , m o n o g r a p h s a n d h i s t o r y b o o k s d e a l i n g w i t h G r e e k h i s t o r y o f t h e f i f t h

c e n t u r y B C . I f m a n y h a v e n o t i c e d t h a t s o m e t h i n g w a s w r o n g a n d t h a t s o m e d a y e v e n t u a l l y

s o m e o n e w o u l d h a v e t o u n d e r t a k e a r e - e d i t i o n o f t h e w h o l e , n o p r o j e c t e x i s t e d , a s f a r a s I

cou ld see , wi th exac t ly th i s purpose .

2

The unsa t i s fy ing s ta te o f the cur ren t ed i t ions exp la ins

why I wan ted to t ry do a new one myself. I n p r e s e n t i n g a n e w e d i t i o n o f t h e A t h e n i a n T r i b u t e

Lis t s ,

the p r imary and in i t i a l ob jec t ive has been to improve on an a l ready ex i s t ing p resen ta t ion

o f a n i m p o r t a n t h i s t o r i c a l s o u r c e . I w i s h e d t o c o r r e c t w h a t I b e l i e v e a r e t o o o p t i m i s t i c

render ings o f wha t i s ac tua l ly p rese rved on the s tones .

Where the main purpose has been to improve on an a l ready ex i s t ing ed i t ion , the secondary

p u r p o s e o f t h e t h e s i s i s t o p r o v i d e w h a t I t h o u g h t w a s m i s s i n g f r o m t h e p r e v i o u s o n e s . T h e

introduct ion to the t r ibute l is ts and the research his tory f i l l a lacuna in the avai lable mater ia l on

f i f th cen tu ry h i s to ry . F ina l ly , in o rder no t jus t to es tab l i sh a ca ta logue o f the insc r ip t ions , bu t

a l so to p resen t a d i scuss ion on the ways the t r ibu te l i s t s have been used in recen t scho la r sh ip , I

p resen t a s tudy on the na tu re o f the sources , fo l lowed by th ree chap te r s on the i r va lue fo r

es tabHshing the geograph ica l pos i t ion o f the member s ta tes , the i r po l i t i ca l s t a tus and the i r s i ze

and resources .

I wi l l l eave i t to the reader to judge whe ther the requ i rements fo r an ep ig raph ica l ed i t ion

have been met . A mul t i tude o f po in t s o f d i sagreement a re inev i tab le , and a bu lk o f the 3 ,000

en t r ies as p r in ted , r es to red o r commented can be sub jec t to d i spu te . What I do hope i s tha t the

f ina l p roduc t , wi th a l l i t s shor tcomings , wi l l i l lus t ra te be t te r than p rev ious ed i t ions wha t i s

ac tua l ly l e f t o f the t r ibu te l i s t s , on the one hand , and how these insc r ip t ions can be used as a

h i s to r ica l source , on the o ther .

1

On a general lack of interest in the Athenian Empire and epigraphy in the same period see Stroud 2006, 9-10.

2

I have later heard that Professor Thomas Figueira is planning a re-edition, but I do not know if his plan has

materialized, and if that is the case, how far along he w ould be by now .

3


4/402

T h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t a n d t h e l a y - o u t o f t h e h s t s h a v e b e e n t h e m o s t tim e-

consuming task , and i t was o r ig ina l ly in tended as the core o f the PhD-d isse r ta t ion . There was a

c o n s i d e r a b l e a m o u n t o f t r i a l - a n d - e r r o r a n d l e a r n i n g - b y - d o i n g i n v o l v e d b e f o r e I f o u n d a n

a p p r o p r i a t e w a y o f r e n d e r i n g t h e H s t s , t h e apparatus a n d t h e e p i g r a p h i c a l c o m m e n t a r y . T h e

m e t h o d c h o s e n i n t h i s e d i t i o n i s b a s e d o n t h e c u r r e n t w a y o f e d i t i n g i n s c r i p t i o n s , w i t h s o m e

modi f ica t ions . Af te r each tex t the re fo l lows an

apparatus

g iv ing a l l the poss ib le res t i tu t ions o f

the l i s t in ques t ion . But con t ra ry to normal p rac t ice , the ep ig raph ica l commenta ry i s p resen ted

l i s t b y l i s t i n a s e p a r a t e v o l u m e . T h e f i r s t v o l u m e , T e x t , i s t h e p r e s e n t i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e

t r i b u t e h s t s a n d t h e a s s e s s m e n t d e c r e e s , i n c l u d i n g a r e s e a r c h h i s t o r y a n d f o u r h i s t o r i c a l

chap te r s , the second vo lume i s the Ca ta logue o f these Hs t s and the th i rd i s the Ep igraph ica l

C o m m e n t a r y t o t h e H s t s .

Th is cho ice has been made to fac iHta te the read ing o f the t ex t s . I f the ep ig raph ica l

c o m m e n t a r y w e r e i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t h e a p p a r a t u s b e l o w , t h e l a t t e r w o u l d t a k e u p s o m u c h p l a c e

tha t i t would ru in the l ay-ou t . The consu l ta t ion o f the t ex t s has the re fore been g iven h igher

pr io r i ty than the poss ib iHty o f p resen t ing the Hs t s and the commenta ry in one p lace . I hope tha t

reade rs w l agree tha t th i s i s the bes t so lu t ion .

3

F o r s o m e t i m e I c o n s i d e r e d e d i t i n g a n d c o m m e n t i n g t h e q u o t a H s t s o n l y . G i v e n t h e i r

reHgious charac te r , they cou ld have been p r in ted in i so la t ion . A monograph consecra ted to the

q u o t a H st s w o u l d e m p h a s i z e t h e s a c r e d c h a r a c t e r o f t h i s s o u r c e . T h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g

d i s a d v a n t a g e i s t h a t t h e q u o t a H s t s a n d a s s e s s m e n t d e c r e e s a r e i n t i m a t e l y H n k e d , a n d t h a t

a n c i e n t h i s t o r i a n s n o r m a U y w o u l d b e i n t e r e s t e d i n c o n s u l t i n g b o t h s o u r c e s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y

w h e n l o o k i n g f o r t h e a t t e s t a t i o n s o f t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e A t h e n i a n L e a g u e .

A thes i s i s a pe rsona l engagement , bu t many f r i ends and scho la r s have been d i rec t ly o r

i n d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d . F i r s t I w o u l d l i k e t o t h a n k T h o m a s H e i n e N i e l s e n , w h o i n v i t e d m e t o d o

m y m a s t e r t h e s i s u n d e r t h e a u s p i c e s o f t h e C o p e n h a g e n P o l i s C e n t r e . I o w e m u c h t o M o g e n s

H e r m a n H a n s e n , w h o s u g g e s t e d t h a t I w o r k o n t h e t r i b u t e H s t s a n d w h o h a s b e e n a n u n f a i l i n g

suppor t ever s ince . He has read an ea r ly ve rs ion o f the h i s to r ica l chap te r s and made very use fu l

s u g g e s t i o n s f o r C h a p t e r 3 i n p a r t i c u l a r . M y t h e s i s - s u p e r v i s o r M a r c e l P i r a r t e n g a g e d m e a s

ass i s tan t - t eacher a t the Univers i ty o f Fr ibourg , which permi t ted me to s tay in Fr ibourg dur ing

the four years tha t I worked on the thes i s . He has a l so he lped me come th rough when i t aU

loo ke d m os t da rk . His famiHari ty wi th t he Hsts has be en a g rea t con t r ibu t ing fac to r to my f inal

3

I thank Marcel Pirart, for having suggested separating the proposals for restorations from the epigraphical

commentary.

4


5/402

w o r k , a n d I a m i n f i n i t e l y g r a t e f u l f o r h i s h e l p a n d c o m m e n t s b o t h o n t h e h i s t o r i c a l

chap te r s and the ep ig raph ica l corpus .

Th is thes i s would no t have seen the l igh t o f day had fo rmer Di rec to r o f The Epigraph ica l

M u s e u m i n A t h e n s , C h a r a l a m b o s K r i t z a s , b e e n r e l u c t a n t t o g i v e u n l i m i t e d a c c e s s t o t h e t r i b u t e

q u o t a l i s t a n d a s s e s s m e n t d e c r e e s . O n t h e c o n t r a r y , h e h a s o n t h r e e d i f f e r e n t o c c a s i o n s

permi t ted me to s tudy a l l the f ragments , bo th the ones exposed in the pub l ic rooms as we l l a s

t h e f r a g m e n t s w h i c h a r e k e p t i n t h e s t o r e r o o m o f t h e M u s e u m . K r i t z a s a n d h i s e n t i r e s t a f f

have a lways been ex t remely k ind and he lp fu l , and the i r a t t en t iveness has made long days spen t

on examina t ion o f the s tones l ess t ed ious .

I w i s h t o t h a n k t h e t h r e e c o n s e c u t i v e d i r e c t o r s o f t h e D a n i s h I n s t i t u t e a t A t h e n s , S i g n e

I s a g e r , J r g e n M e j e r a n d E r i k H a l l a g e r fo r h a v i n g h o s t e d m e f o r t h r e e p e r i o d s d u r i n g

a l t o g e t h e r s i x m o n t h s i n t h e g u e s t h o u s e o f t h e I n s t i t u t e , t h e r e b y p e r m i t t i n g m e t o s t u d y t h e

t r ibu te l i s t s d i rec t ly and to p rof i t f rom the fo re ign ins t i tu t ions in Athens , main ly the Amer ican

S c h o o l a t A t h e n s , L ' c o l e F r a n a i s e d ' A t h n e s a n d t h e N o r d i c L i b r a r y . T h a n k s t o G u n v e r

S k y t t e , f o r m e r d i r e c t o r o f t h e D a n i s h I n s t i t u t e i n R o m e , I h a v e b e e n a b l e t o s t u d y o n e m o n t h

there and to use the l ib ra r ies , e spec ia l ly the ones o f the German Archao log ica l Ins t i tu te and o f

the Amer ican School in Rome. The hosp i ta l i ty o f these two ins t i tu t ions and the i r l ib ra r ians i s

exempla ry .

I a m g r a t e f u l a l s o t o t h e A m e r i c a n S c h o o l i n A t h e n s a n d i t s f o r m e r D i r e c t o r S t e p h e n

Tracy and fo rmer Mel lon Professor James P . S ick inger fo r the i r he lp and adv ice a t an ea r ly

s t a g e o f m y r e s e a r c h . I n t h e E p i g r a p h i c a l M u s e u m I g o t a s s i s t a n c e f r o m S t e p h e n T r a c y a n d

A n g e l o s M a t t h a i o u o n r e a d i n g s d i r e c d y o n t h e s t o n e s . F o r t h e c o n s u l t a t i o n o f t h e o l d e s t

ava i lab le squeezes I have benef i t t ed f rom the k indness o f Dr . Klaus Hal lo f who gave me access

t o t h o s e m a d e b y

Kirchhoff,

k e p t i n t h e B e r l i n - B r a n d e n b u r g i s c h e A k a d e m i e d e r

Wissenschaf ten . On d i f fe ren t occas ions L isa Ka l le t has wi l l ing ly exchanged po in t s o f v iew on

the t r ibu te quo ta l i s t s wi th me and has sen t me an abs t rac t o f he r impor tan t a r t i c le on the

i so la ted f ragments which has been the back-bone fo r the d i scuss ion o f these in the d i s se r ta t ion .

C h r i s t ia n G o r m T o r t z e n h a n d e d m e h is c o m p u t e r w h e n m y o w n s u ff e re d a b r e a k d o w n .

M o n i c a T h o n a n d D i t t e S c h w a r t z h e l p e d m e i n t h e p r o c e s s o f t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e f r a g m e n t s t o

m e g a p i x e l s . C h r i s t i a n Z u b l e r , A d a m S c h w a r t z a n d R o g e r a n d D e n i s e d e l a P e r e l l e h a v e r e a d a

d r a f t a n d c o r r e c t e d t h e E n g l i s h i n t h r e e d i f f e r e n t h i s t o r i c a l c h a p t e r s . V r o n i q u e S u y s a n d

A d a m S c h w a r t z , a g a i n , h a v e r e a d a n d c o m m e n t e d o n t h e e n t i r e e p i g r a p h i c a l c o r p u s a n d

c o r r e c t e d a s m u c h a s t h e y c o u l d i n a l i m i t e d a m o u n t o f t i m e . M a r c e l P i r a r t a n d L e o p o l d

Migeo t te have a l so read the en t i re ca ta logue and g iven me the i r genera l impress ion . F ina l ly ,

5


6/402

Heather Taylor agreed to read the entire manuscript of this part of the dissertat ion

twice. She has corrected errors an d inaccuracies in the E nglish as well as in the d evelopm ent of

the arguments and has saved me from more errors than I care to think about. Since the above-

mentioned friends and colleagues have contributed to making the dissertation better, it would

needless to say be vain to blame them for the remaining errors, for which I alone am

responsible.

I am indebted to the staff and the students of the Dpartement des sciences de l 'antiquit

for having part icipated in no small way in making four years spent researching here in

Switzerland a very nice experience. Special thanks must go to Claire-Lyse Curty for her superb

management of the Hbrary. Her husband Olivier Curty and Vronique Dasen have provided

encouragement all the way but especially in the last phase of the drafting. My Swiss friends

Cdric Brlaz, based at l 'Ecole Franaise d'Athnes, and Fabienne Marchand in Oxford have

been valuable informants on epigraphical matters . They have also been useful in those rare

cases where exotic bo ok s an d rare articles where im possible to find h ere in Switzerland.

My mo ther in Den m ark and parents-in-law in Belgium have played a substantial al though

indirect part in the process. But I owe most to my wife, Sandrine Ducat, without whom I

would never have finished the dissertation. She has not only been a daily support, providing

encouragement, never doubting that I would be able to come through when at t imes the work

seemed to have no end, but also gave birth to our beautiful daughter. Perrine took form

simultaneously with my dissertation, but reached completion first in spite of all my efforts.

Once arrived she delayed the final overhaul in a very effective but extremely delightful manner.

6


7/402

Introduction

In 47 8/ 7 the Athen ians and the victors of the Persian Wars foun ded the Delian League (Thuc.

1.96).The Athenians were the leaders - or at least theprimi interpares right from the outset. The

league was an "Alliance under a Hegemon"

4

already before i t turned into an Empire.

5

The

headquarters were in the tem ple of Apollo, in De los, but i t was the Athenians w ho determined

which cit ies were to m ake mon etary con tributions,phoros,and w hich were to provide ships. W e

know from Plutarch (Arist. 24) that i t was the Athenian Aristeides who was commissioned to

estimate the size of thephoros, which we call tribute, that the allies had to pay.

6

The Athenians

were also solely responsible for the insti tution of the

hellenotamiai,

i .e. the " T he Greek

Treasurers," under whose auspices was the handling of the tribute according to Thucydides

(1.97). So if the Delian League only gradually grew into an Athenian Empire, the point of

departure was a very firm Athenian position.

7

At some point the treasure of the League was transferred from Delos to Athens. No

literary source tells us when this happened,

8

but from 454/3 onwards the Athenians began the

practice of inscribing the

aparche,

i.e. the first-fruits, take n from th e quota in the ratio of 1/60

and given to Athena (IG I

3

259-91).

9

These stelae were erected on the Acropolis somewhere

between the Parthenon and the Propylaia.

10

There must have been 15-20 altogether: the so-

called

lapispnmus

(height 3.61 m., wid th 1.11 m., thickne ss 0.39 m.) con tains th e first fifteen

years (454/3-439/8), the second stele (height 2.20 m., width 1.47 m., thickness 0.34 m.)

contains the next eight years (438/7-430/29) and the subsequent l is ts were cut on their own

smaller marble slabs. The last datable list is from 418/7, but we do not know exactly when the

practice of inscribing the aparche ended. According to Thucydides (7.28.4) the Athenians

replaced the t r ibute wi th a 5% harbour tax for the whole empire in 414/13.

1

The mo s t

economical solution would be to think that the last quota list should be dated to this year, in

4

Ehr enbe rg 1960, 112-13.

5

I have no scruples in qualifying the Athenian foreign politics as "imperialism" and their domain of influence as

an "Empire." These are the words modern pol i tologists use when designat ing repeated muscular intervention of

one country in another country's affairs, especially when talking about the American Empire. Schuller 1974, 197-

99, warns against "Empire," but accepts "Imperialism." Finley 1978a, 1 and 1978b, 102-3 is less concerned with

legal definitions and more with the common use of the two terms in everyday language.

6

For a discussion on the basis of the taxation of Aristeides, see chapter 3.1, p.

64-71.

7

See also Arist.Ath.Pol.2 3.5. Th uc. 2.65 provides an e xample of a similar situation in the city of A then s.

8

Plut.Per. 12.1 only inform s us that it took place in Perikles' time.

9

The transfer of the League has therefore logically been interpreted as having taken place immediately before,

viz. in 454. To my knowledge only Sealey 1976, 275 advanced the thesis that there is no necessary connection

between the two events and that the

aparche

might have been given to Athena before that date.

10

For a tentative positioning of these stelae seeinfrap. 43-45.

11

On t heeikoste see now Kallet

2001,

195-201.

7


8/402

which case there were altogether 19 stelae. However, some scholars have argued that

tribute was reintroduced some t ime before 410.

12

The basis for this hypothesis is Xenophon

(Hell.1.3.9), who, writ ing about the events in 408, says that the Persian Satrap Pharnaba2os

accepted that the Calchedonians should pay "precisely the same tribute they had been

accustomed to pay and settle the arrears of tribute." But this seems to be a special agreement

between the Chalchedonians and the Athenians and it is not sufficient evidence for a general

reintroduction of the tribute, on which the sources are si lent .

13

No at tempts have ever been

ma de to date any fragments from the quo ta lists to the years 410-404 B.C.

14

Under the name "tribute lists" we also find the assessment decrees, i.e. the decrees with

which the Athenians sett led which cit ies had to pay what for the following period, being

generally of four years

(IG

I

3

71, 77 and 100).

15

Of the first

(IG

I

3

71), called A9, i.e. the ninth

assessment after the transfer of the league, dated to 425/4, we have about half of the inscribed

surface. Of the second undated assessment (A10?) three relat ively small fragments are

preserved, traditionally dated to 4 2 2 / 1 . B ut this dating is depe nde nt up on the idea that it mu st

follow A9 direcdy, which is not necessarily the case. Some isolated pieces, coupled with a

handful of l i terary fragments from Krateros, have been attributed to one and the same

assessment decree and dated to 410 by the ^TL-edi tors

(IG

I

3

100). Ho we ver, as m entioned

above,

16

it is highly questionable that tribute was ever reintroduced. This means that there was

no assessment in 4 1 4 / 3 , w%. the year in which the 5 % tax took effect, nor in any of the years

410/9 or 406/5. Also, as we shall see later in a brief account on Krateros, there is no secure

basis to date th e literary references on, and there is absolutely no thing ind icating that they ne ed

to have originated from the same decree as the five stones in question, the lat ter being

undatable anyway.

17

No fragments have been found of what we could call the proper tribute

lists, i.e. lists registering the full incoming tribute. There are perhaps good reasons for this,

which we will come back to in the chapter on the nature and the purpose of the quota lists. In

order to avoid confusion, the term "quota lists" will be used here to distinguish the recordings

12

Meiggs 1972, 369 believing that the harbour tax did not l ive up to expectat ions, being too difficult to

administer. The other argument is that the fragments from the third preserved assessment decree could belong to

410, but as Meiggs stated (438-39) 418, 414 and 406 are other possible dates. Mattingly 1967, 13-15 (= 1996, 205-

8);

1966, 321-21 (= 1996, 158-59) denies that tribute was ever introdu ced. Cf. also Kallet 20 01, 2 22-23.

13

T o d

GHP

52; Mattingly 1966 , 199-200 and 1967, 13-15 (= 1 996, 206-8). See also Kallet 20 01 , 223-24.

IG

I

3

101, 11.31-33 (41 0/9-40 7) does speak of a voluntary pa ym ent by Neapolis in Thr ace to the H ellenotamiai (partly

restored), indicat ing that this was considered as a tribute; but again the payment is isolated, and could be

considered part of the Athenian motivation to call the Neopolitans benefactors. It is true that the

Hellenotamiai

are

attested after 414/3 but their tasks included much more than the collection of tribute.

14

But five small fragments from an assessment decree have been dated by the T l^ ed ito rs to 41 0/9

(IG

I

3

100).

15

Ps.-Xen. Ath.PoL 3.5. See also IG I

3

61.5-9 and 27-32 (The Methone Decree) and 71.26-28, 31-33 and 55-57

(A9) where the taxation is linked with the Panathenaia.

16

See

supra

notes 13 and 14.

8


9/402

of the aparche from the taxatio n of the phoros, which consistently will be called

"assessment decrees." The term "tribute l is ts" is used exclusively when quota l is ts and

assessment decrees are meant indistinctively.

We do not have much informat ion about the adminis t ra t ion of the t r ibute and the

deduction of die first-fruits. It is nevertheless possible to reconstruct roughly what happened

from the moment the tribute was assessed until the first-fruits for Athena were inscribed on

stone. Three different kinds of sources for the collection of die tribute are available: first the

li terary sources, being basically Thucydides, Ps.-Xenophon, also known as the Old Oligarch,

and to a minor extent Aristophanes; second the tribute quota l is ts , and third the Athenian

decrees relating to uieir allies, comprising the three preserved assessment decrees. Among this

latter group the standard decree and the assessment decree of 425/4 are particularly helpful,

but both are from die 420's, the former perhaps even later, and die latter is probably the result

of an extraordinary assessment imposing n ew con dit ions. Therefore, the information that these

inscriptions contain do not necessarily illustrate the situation from 454/3 onwards.

The tribute quota lists recorded the first-fruits annually. This appears from the headings

giving the serial number of each list except for one or two,

18

but it is also explicitiy mentioned

in the decree on tribute payment dated to 448/7

(IG

I

3

74). On die other hand, Ps.-Xenophon

(Ath.pol.

3.5) tells us that the assessments of the allies took place every fourth year and this

squares with the inscriptions, according to which the occasion was the Panathenaic Festivals

(IG

I

3

61.8-9 and 28-32; 71.26-27). Meritt discovered that these four year periods are reflected

in the raising and lowering of tribute in the lists themselves.

19

The following figure shows when

Merit t thought the new assessments took place. As i t appears from the figure, at least two

assessments seem to have taken place outside the Panathenaic Festival years,

vi%.

in 443/2 and

425 / 4 ;

it is less certain that a new assessment was indeed undertaken in 428/7.

2 0

The evidence

becomes more and more unreliable with the scarcity of fragments post-dating the 430s. I

accept Meritt 's division into the different periods of assessment except for the fact that A10

should begin already in

422/1 ,

2 1

and that I seriously doubt that A12 ever took place. Also, the

hypothetical attributions of the later fragments to specific years have not been accepted in this

edition when the serial number is not preserved. Finally, as explained in the introduction to the

lapis primus in the Catalogue, there is no reason to assume that the Athenians failed to collect

tribute in the sixth year.

17

Mattingly 1979, 321 (= 19 96,159 ) dates these fragments to 418. Cf. also Kallet 200 1, 223.

18

Namely list 8, cf. commentary on list 6 in the Catalogue. In list1 it might be restored but need not be.

19

Meritt 1925c, 247-73.

20

Mattingly 1961,156 (= 1996, 72).


10/402

Y E A R

4 5 4 / 3

4 5 3 / 2

4 5 2 / 1

4 5 1 / 0

4 5 0 / 4 9

4 4 9 / 8

4 4 8 / 7

4 4 7 / 6

4 4 6 / 5

4 4 5 / 4

4 4 4 / 3

4 4 3 / 2

4 4 2 / 1

4 4 1 / 0

4 4 0 / 3 9

4 3 9 / 8

4 3 8 / 7

4 3 7 / 6

4 3 6 / 5

4 3 5 / 4

4 3 4 / 3

4 3 3 / 2

4 3 2 / 1

4 3 1 / 0

4 3 0 / 2 9

4 2 9 / 8

4 2 8 / 7

4 2 7 / 6

4 2 6 / 5

4 2 5 / 4

4 2 4 / 3

4 2 3 / 2

4 2 2 / 1

4 2 1 / 0

4 2 0 / 1 9

4 1 9 / 8

4 1 8 / 7

4 1 7 / 6

4 1 6 / 5

4 1 5 / 4

4 1 4 / 3

[4 1 0 /9

O L Y M P I A D

81.3

81.4

82.1

82.2

82.3

82.4

83.1

83.2

83.3

83.4

84.1

84.2

4.3

84.4

85.1

85.2

85.3

85.4

86.1

86.2

86.3

86.4

87.1

87.2

87.3

87.4

88.1

88.2

88.3

88.4

89.1

89.2

89.3

89.4

90.1

90.2

90.3

90.4

91.1

91.2

91.3

92.3

A S S E S S M E N T

A l

A l

A l

A l

A 2

A 2

A 2

A 3

A 3

A 3

A 4

A 4

A 4

A 4

A 4

A 5

A 5

A 5

A 5

A 6

A 6

A 6

A 6

A 7

A 7

A 8

A 8

A 8

A 9

A 9

A 9

A 9

A 1 0

A 1 0

A 1 0

A i l

A i l

A i l

A i l

LIST

^ist 1

List 2

List 3

List 4

List 5

No l i s t

List 7

List 8

List 9

List 10

List 11

List 12

List 13

List 14

List 15

List 16

List 17

List 18

List 19

List 20

List 21

List 22

List 23

List 24

List 25

List 26

List 27

List 28

List 29

List 30

List 31

List 32

List 33

List 34

List 35

List 36

List 37

List 38

List 39

List 40

A S S E S S M E N T S

G r e a t P a n a t h e n a i a









R E F E R E N C E 1

IG 2 59

IG 2 60

IG P 261

IG P 262

IG P 263

IG

P 2 64

IG

P 265

IG

P 266

IG P 267

IG P 268

IG P 269

IG P 2 70

IG P 271

IG P 2 72

IG P 273

IG P 274

IG

P 275

IG

P 276

IG P 277

IG P 2 78

IG P 279

IG P 280

IG P 281

IG P 282

IG P 283

IG

P 284

| iG P 71

IG 2 85 \IGP 77

IG P 286

IG P 287

IG

P 288

IG

P 289

IG

P 290

Tr ibu te r e p l a c e d by the 5% ha rbou r t a x

^ 1 2


\IG P 100

S o e v e r y f o u r y e a r s a n e w a s s e s s m e n t t o o k p l a c e a n d t h i s a s s e s s m e n t w a s r e c o r d e d o n s t o n e

f r o m a t l e a s t 4 2 5 / 4 . We c a n n o t k n o w i f t h e p r e v i o u s a s s e s s m e n t s h a d b e e n r e c o r d e d t h a t w a y

a l so .

Such ea r ly assessment dec rees migh t s imply have been los t fo rever o r the f ragments no t

ye t foun d . My per son a l op in io n i s tha t the shee r nu m be r o f f ragm ents a t t r ibu ted to the quo ta

l i s t s a n d t o t h e a s s e s s m e n t d e c r e e o f 4 2 5 / 4 , a g a i n s t t h e a b s e n c e o f f r a g m e n t s w h i c h m i g h t

be long to an ea r l i e r a ssessment dec ree , cou ld ind ica te tha t ea r ly assessments had been exposed

21

For the reasons for the down-dat ing from 4 22 /1 to 421 /0 see McGregor 1987, 202.

10


11/402

on wooden boards or kept on papyrus in the archives, but that they were not eternalized

on stone. That they must necessarily have existed is obvious, since they were required for the

comparison between the actually incoming and the previously assessed tribute. This view is

supported by the so-called Kleinias decree

(IG

I

3

34.18-22): "The prytaneis, after the Dionysia,

are to call an assembly for thehellenotamiai to report to the Athenians which of the cities have

paid their tribute in full and which have defaulted, separately, however many there may be."

And further (43-46): "The hellenotamiai are to record and display on a whitened notice-board

both the assessment of the tribute and the cities, as many as pay in full and record .. ,"

22

However, the argument cannot be pressed since the Kleinias decree is not necessari ly from

before 430.

23

Following this l ine of thought, the totally unattested real tribute l is ts , i .e.

recordings of what the allies actually paid, must also have been made before the

aparche

was

deducted. This way of deducing the existence of an unattested document from an attested one

has been called the method of the "indirect testimonials."

24

T h e hellenotamiaiwere respo nsible for th e collection of tribute accord ing to T hucydides

(1.97) and this is confirmed by several decrees (e.g.

IG

I

3

34.20 and 44, 68.11 and 19). It seems

from the prescript of the first list, if the restitution proposed in IG I

3

259 is correct, that they

handed it over to a board of religious magistrates who in turn presented the aparche for audit by

the thirty (i.e. logistai). The observat ion made by Giovannini

that para tonhellenotamion

cannot

possibly mean "(handed over) by the hellenotamiai,bu t on the contrary, "(handed over) from

the

hellenotamiai

means that they were not responsible for the

aparche

but only for the

phoros.

Who the board of religious magistrates consisted ofis not known although i t might have been

the treasurers of Athena.

25

In any case the attribution of the quota lists to the

hellenotamiai

seems effectively to be erroneous, which may be indirecdy confirmed by the Kallias decree,

where there is a clear distinction between the

hellenotamiai

and the board of magistrates wh o are

to become responsible for the sacred money of Athena the latter chosen by lot (IG I

3

52.13-

15). Again the date is uncertain.

26

T h e

lapis primus,

the biggest of all the stelae, was inscribed on all four faces. Whereas the

first and second lists covered two sides, the obverse and right lateral faces, all subsequent lists

were inscribed on one side only. The first list counts six columns and a postscript, the second

ten short columns, where later lists are inscribed in five columns. List 8 (list 7 in ATL and IG

22

Translation by Dillon and Garland 1994, p. 261-62.

23

Merkt dated i t to 448/7 in

IG

I

3

34, but Pritchett 1965, 439, denies that it could predate 438 and Mattingly

1966,188-89 (= 1996,140-41) proposes 426/5.

2 4

Gschmtzer 1999.

25

Paarman n 2004, 90.

26

For a recent discussion of the date of the decree see Kallet-Marx 1989, 94-113.

11


12/402

I

3

) has just four columns and the lists on the narrow lateral faces are restricted to two

colums. In the first year the entries were inscribed before the quotas seperated only by a ":". In

all subsequent lists the quotas were inscribed first in their own column, followed by the ethnics

in another column. Other part iculari t ies are the introduction of regional panels in the ninth

year and the addition of headings on these panels in the eleventh: Ionia, Hellespont, Thrace,

Caria , Is lands . In 438/7 the Carian dis t r ic t was merged into the Ionian one. Such

improvements in the administrat ive procedure and the layout of the l is ts may indicate that

inscribing the aparche of the levied tribute was new for the Athenians in 454/3 and not a

practise that had begun already in 478/7 with the establishment of the treasury on Delos.

Each list begins with a prescript, giving the name of the secretary of the board of the

hellenotamiae

and the serial number of the year counting from

4 5 4 / 3 :

"In the year of the

eleventh board of which Strombichos of Cholleidae was secretary." The prescript of the first

list is somewhat longer than on the subsequent lists on the

lapis primus,

bu t un fortun ately it is ill

preserved. From the twelfth year (443/2) the name of the chairman of the board, in this case

Sophokles from Kolonos, and a co-secretary was added to the name of the secretary. From the

sixteenth year the dem otic of the secretary is recorded. Only the first list gives a postscript with

the total of the aparche in silver coins and Kyzikene gold Staters. As most on this first lists it is

mutilated and the text cannot be restored with much confidence. The tradit ionally proposed

amount of correspondingphoros is about 400 talents. The second stele is very fragmentary and

no initial and more fully developed prescript survives, but the partially preserved headings of

lists 34, on it own slab is useful, since it gives both the give ratio in which the aparchewas paid

in relation to the tribute and the serial number as well as the name of the archon, in this case

Aristion, who was in office in 421/0. This has permitted the datation of all other Usts carying

the serial number.

The entries are normally given as ethnics, i.e. Milesioi, rather than Miletos. But some 70

communities are at tested with a toponym also, e.g. Bysbikos/Bysbikenoi, and 30 are at tested

with the toponym only, e.g. Leros. At least three regional ethnics, e.g. Lykioi, and five Carian

dynasts, e.g. Syangeles hn archei Pitres, are considered by present day scholars to constitute

the exception to the rule, which says that mainly

poleis,

were members of the Delian League.

27

Th ese m emb ers are m ore often than no t recorded individually, bu t in some cases two or m ore

cities are attested as community payments, syntelies, either explicitly, e.g.

Lykwi kai

sjn(teles)

y

27

Cf. Hansen 2004c, 113. For a full discussion of this theory and on the toponyms in the tribute lists, see

Chapter 4, p. 78-81.

12


13/402

and Syangeles kai Amynandes or indirectly when the payment ofMilesioiis supposed to

comprise the communities of Leros and Teichioussa also.

28

In the first assessment period (454/3 to 451/50) the average amount of tribute paying

allies is 155. In the second period (450/49 to 447/6) 200 members are likely to have paid.

However, in l is t 5, which has room for 195 members, at least twentypoleisfrom the Ion ian,

Carian and Hellespontine districts paid partial payments and many of these are attested twice in

the same list. Had the list been intact, more of such double entries would probably exist. Since

the partial payments and the second attestation of severalpoleis are found in the fifth column,

the phenomenon has been interpreted as reluctancy to pay the full tribute in the first place. At

the end of the seventh list (list 8 inATL and IG I

3

) supplementary payments are recorded for

members, many of which appear already above, and again more might have if the l is t were

completely preserved (Byzantion is even attested twice in 8.1.104-5). Three unique entries attest

for payments directly to Athenian officials or officers in operation in the North:

es Eiona habderi

(8.1.105) and

es s

Tenedon (twice in 8.II.108 and 9). From list 15 a small fine for lateness is

qualified as epiphora?

9

in list 26 the term

perusino

indicates a pay m ent for a previou s year.

In the lists of the sixth and seventh assessment periods (434/3-429/8) special rubrics are

introduced, some of which are not fully understood:

30

hq

ho i

,

31

,

32

,

, ,

33

, ,

ho i [ ...] , h o i

.

34

While these headings are introduced only now, the proceeding they reveal

mig ht be older w itho ut hav ing left any traces.

N o tribute qu ota list is comp letely preserved , bu t some o f the regional panels are alm ost

entire. This means that we can get a fair impression of the number and identity of the tribute

paying members of specific regions in specific years. In the years following the introduction of

the regional panels, the possibility of restitutions of partially preserved entries is naturally

limited to members from these areas. This is a great advantage in comparison with the situation

from 454/3 to 447/6.

28

For an exhaustive list of all the syntelies, seeATL I, 446-49.

29

O n

epiphora,

see Eddy 1968.

30

On the special rubrics, see^lTL I, 449-57. For their translation and interpretation, see Lepper 1962.

31

Schuller 1981.

32

Couch 1929. Gomme 1953b.

3 3

Mei ggs l 972 , p . 534 .

34

Smarczyk 1990, 656.

13


14/402

Of the assessment decrees only the one from 425/4 can be interpreted and

understood in any comprehenive way. However, due to the hazards of survival it is difficult to

com pare i t with contem porary tribute quo ta lists. Th e dating of the two oth er assessments is

impossible.

The tribute lists are an important historical source for the historians of the fifth century.

But because of their sheer size, some 3,000 entries, they are also a difficult source to grasp. It

should be obvious that a reliable edition of them is required if they are to be used in any

sensible way. Unfortunately, the two editions that most scholars would turn to, i.e. the four

volumes of

ATL

on the one hand, and

IG

I

3

(71, 77, 100, 259-291) on the other, are not an

adequate tool for ei ther laymen or even, more surprisingly, specialis t readers. These will

certainly find much information, but not necessarily what they are searching for or in the right

order. For instance, if someone using IG I

3

compares the text with what he sees on the

reconstructed stelae in the Epigraphical Museum in Athens, he will soon be surprised to

discover that the edition contains much text that is not found on the stelae; and he will get no

help from the

apparatus.

To find out where the supplementary readings come from, he will have

to turn to the drawings inATL I (Plates I to XX II), take the num be r of the fragment in the

corresponding position, and then check the catalogue of fragments

(ATL

I, pages 6-126). Only

by going through this procedure will he be informed whether a piece of an extant fragment has

broken away, or the fragment has been weathered, lost , or has not been incorporated in the

reconstruction because i t is kept in the reserves of the Epigraphical or the Agora Museum or

because i t is in London or New York. And sometimes these indications are not even found in

the

ATL

bu t only in prev ious ed itions by Meritt and W est, to wh ich the re will be references

instead.

Similar efforts must be made to understand how a broken entry has been restored to a full

one or how big lacunas have been turned into whole ranges of totally supplied names and

quotas. In

IG

I

3

these restitutions are not explained at all and the readers will have to turn to

"Commentary on the Texts" in

ATL

I (p. 169-208), but here references are made to previous

editions. The sheer number of articles cited will most probably soon discourage even the most

ardent scholar, especially because there is no indication as to which publication has contributed

with what. Also, the many doubtful restitutions proposed, initially exempli gratia have not been

sufficiently signalized, which means that too much confidence has been accorded to what is

really only on e ou t of many possible restitutions.

The student who would like to know what the tribute lists are all about will not have it

easy either. The best thing he could do would be to search in Der Neue Vauly, where there is a

14


15/402

good art icle by P. J . Rhodes. But he will have to know that he must look under the

art icle "Phoros" and not under "Tributl is ten." If he does not know this , he will probably not

find Schwan's comprehensive art icle in Pauly and Wissowa's Kealencyclopdie either (s.v.

"Phoroi"). Alternatively he may begin with his history books, where there is sometimes ample

information to be found, al though i t wil l be scattered throughout the book and rarely be

comprehensive.

35

The only exception to this is the Appendix 6 (pp. 199-203) in McGregror 's

TheAthenians andtheirempire, which has served as inspiration for my description of the lists

above.

The purpose of this dissertation is to fulfil the following two objectives. The first is to

provide an introduction to one of the most monumental inscriptions that have survived from

Antiquity. This should, hopefully, make the consultation and general use of the lists easier as

well as help users avoid the most obvious pitfalls. The second aim is to present an edition

which is more faithful to the extant fragments. Such an edition will most likely disappoint

many readers familiar with the previous editions, since a lot of what has been thought acquired

knowledge has now been taken away. However, it will attempt to give a truer impression of

what we really have. The philosophy behind the edition itself has been to keep the restoration

restricted to a minimum. A reliable edition of the lists with an additional commentary will

hopefully be a useful tool for ancient historians, scholars and students as well.

The historical aspect of the dissertation seemed to me essential, since the intrinsic value of

a historical source depends directly on our understanding of i t . I present three scholarly

theories which I believe are based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the tribute l is ts .

These are the assumptions 1) that the inscriptions can be used to localize the members states

whose posit ion is unknown, 2) that the size counted either in square kilometres or in

inhabitants can be calculated for the member states from the

phoros

they paid to Athens, and

finally 3) that we can obtain an insight in the political status aspoleis depending on whether or

no t the mem ber states were recorded w ith their ethnic, rather than with the topo nym .

Fragments of the tribute lists have been found from the last quarter of the eighteenth

century and they have been edited in every edition of Athenian inscriptions since then. This

provides a unique opportunity to trace their modern history and how they have been treated by

all previous editors of Athenian inscriptions. The Research History is meant to explain how

and why the early editions are important in establishing a new text on the Athenian tribute lists,

bu t also to give an idea of how editing practices have chang ed d uring the last two centuries.

35

E.g. Meiggs 1972 and Sealey 1976.

15


16/402

Research History

The modern history of the Tribute List began a quarter of a millennium ago, when in 1763, at

the age of 25, Oxford student Richard Chandler made a name for himself with his publication

Marmora O xoniensia,

an edit ion of the Arundelian Marbles. He was subsequendy chosen by the

Society of Dilettanti to accompany the architect Nicolas Revet and the painter William Pars on

the second mission of the Society to Greece and Turkey from 1764 to 1766.

36

The idea was to

replaceAntiquities ojAthens, resulting from the previous journey which Nicolas Revet and the

architect and painter James Stuart had undertaken in 1751-55. The new edit ion was to be

ent ided IonianAntiquities?

1

The three travellers reached Athens in 1765 and of course visited

the Acropolis. Chandler later gave an account of this visit in his

TravelsinGreece

', published in

1776: "The marbles, which recorded the riches of the Athenians, have not al l perished. We

discovered some, which I carefully copied, among the farther end of the Parthenon."

38

These

copies were later published inInscnptionesAntiquaepleraeque nondumeditae, and one of them was

from the tribute lists. Chandler, however, was unaware of the nature of that fragment.

39

The

fragment was later lost and when i t was found again, about half of i t had broken away.

Ch andler's 1776 edition is accordingly a primary source for fragment 32 of A9 .

In 1817 the founding father of Greek epigraphy, August Bckh, breathed new air into the

study of Classical Greece with his Oie Staatshaushaltung derAthener, on which he had been

working for four years. In comparison to the second (1851) edition of this work, which, it is

generally agreed, has never been superseded,

40

Bckh at the moment of the first edition only

had knowledge of a very few inscriptions. But among those that he published was the fragment

found by Chandler. In one of the chapters he dealt with the evidence for the tribute and its

collection from the members of the Delian League, mention of which was until then only to be

found in the literature.

41

Deducing from his reading of Krateros that the Athenians must have

made lists of the assessment of tribute and of the already paid tribute, he was able to identify

the fragment found and published by Chandler as belonging to one of these.

42

At this time Bckh had already been working for two years on his brain child, the Corpus

Inscnptionum Graecarum (CIG)

y

i.e. the first collection of Greek inscriptions ever aiming to be

36

Eisner 1991, 74.

37

Eisner 1991 , 74 and 71 .

38

Chand ler 1775, p. 123.

39

Chand ler 1774, no. 23 p. 53.

4 0

G o o c h l 9 5 9 , 2 9 .

41

Berlin 1 817, 427-33.

42

Bckh 1851 , II, p. 369 and

id.

1817, 432.

16


17/402

exhaustive.

43

The first fascicule was printed in 1825, and the entire Volume 1 was ready

three years later. The fragment originally found by Chandler was included in the

CIG

I as no.

143 As for the inscription

itself,

Bckh simply reprinted the text from Chandler's edition, but

he did provide a short commentary and i ts place of discovery: "in pavimento moscheae."

44

I

have not been able to discover how he obtained this information not given by Chandler.

The liberation of Athens from the Turks in 1830 had created favourable circumstances for

the exploration of the Greek antiquities, and with the opening of the Acropolis a large number

of fragments were found and published. The first major recordings of inscriptions were by the

Greek Pit takis , writ ing in French under the Gall icized name Pit takys. In 1835 he published

âncienne Athnes, including about 60 isolated fragments from the tribute lists. Pittakis did not

have access to adequate printing fonts for the Greek numerals, e.g. he had to use a horizontal

" T " to print the one-drachme symbol "h," and he did not have the means to print ei ther "F"

nor "P" or the l ike, but printed for these symbols " " a nd " " re sp ec tiv ely . T his sy stem

sometimes creates difficulties for the modern editor. On top of that, Pittakis' readings are far

from being reliable and should only be used when we have no other source for a reading on a

fragment now lost , or when a reading has been recorded in a dubious manner by other early

editors. Pittakis later produced a few isolated fragments in different volumes of

,

45

and th e wh ole series of fragments of the tribute lists inAEphem 1853 , nr. 32.

In the last quarter of the century Khler complained that Pit takis had done no more than

re-edit the same inscriptions twice and even refused to use the edition of 1853 at all, claiming

that it was merely a copy of the

ândenne Athnes

46

Pittakis did gain a reputation for editing the

same inscriptions several t imes, and some 70 fragments appear in both âncienne Athnes

and

AEphem

1853 , b ut it is less tha n certain tha t he did it volun tarily and n ot just by error.

47

But if Pittakis cannot be accused of cheating, a serious drawback of his edition is that he

often restored partially preserved entries tacitly. The result is clear enough when we are faced

43

Bckh had stated the need for such an edit ion in the "Antrag der historisch-philologischen Klasse" from

March 24, 1815. But as he pointed out in the preface of the CIG I (ix, note 4), Maffei had already proposed the

undertaking of such an enterprise in 1732. Bckh received financing from the Prussian Academy,

cf.

Errington

and Hallof 2002,14.

44

CIG

I, no . 143, p. 205: "Exem plum hoc est descriptionis ( ) t r ib u to r um a so ciis s olu to ru m , q ua e

imperatur lege n. 75. atque aut ab Hellenotamiis facta est aut cura Areopagitarum. Et hanc quidem tabulam cur

tributorum intent ione ab Alcibiade pot issimum Olymp. 89, 1-2. facta ant iquiorem iudicem, nul lam causam video:

eadem non potest anno Olymp. 91,2 recentior haberi , quo circi ter anno tributa sublata sunt , const i tuta in eorum

locum vigesima rerum exportan darum et importand arum (Oec. civ. Ath. I . p. 348)."

45

Namely in 1842 ,1854,1855 , 1859 ,1860,1862.

46

Khler 1869, 1: "Einen neuen Abdruck vermehrt um einige Stcke hat sodann Pit takis in seiner

' 1853 , Nr . 32 , gegeben . Ders e lbe i st tro tz de r gegent he il igen Versi cherungen des Heraus gebers m i t

wenigen Ausnahmen eine Wiederholung der l teren Abschriften und hat daher unbercksichtigt bleiben

knnen."

17


18/402

with some of his wild proposit ions for otherwise unattested communities, and when we

can compare with the readings on extant fragments. However, i t may be unwise totally to

ignore his publications, since these are sometimes preferable to those of other editors, e.g. his

no . 1242

mAEpheml 853,

which gives a row of names

{lapisprimus

fr. 107) om itted for so m e

unknown reason by Rangab 1842, no. 215. But apart from a few instances, it is safest to refer

exclusively to Rangab, Bckh and Khler. The latter's rejection of the utility

oiAEphem

1853

was therefore only partially well founded.

48

The next important publication was the one by A. R. Rangab, who in 1842

m Antiquits

Hellniques

edited even more fragments. As the first , he tried to arrange the individual

fragments into a series, using among other things the sigma with three bars as an indication for

anteriority to the sigma with four bars.

49

Concerning the small sums paid on what we know

now are the tribute quota lists, he thought of them as partials, paid every three days of the year,

contrary to the full payments at tested on a smaller number of the fragments which we now

know are the assessment decrees.

50

Rangab did not, however, separate these two kinds of

fragments, but had them all lined up in one chronological line. This of course invalidates his

entire arrangement. Concerning the readings of the individual fragments, Rangab is far more

reliable than Pittakis; his plates are useful and I have drawn heavily on his readings of lost

fragments, or fragments preserved in a better condit ion than today. However, a lot of errors

remain and extreme caution should be exercised when consulting his publications.

Profiting from the many discoveries and by the intermediary of Pittakis, Rangab and his

own correspondents, Kramer and his favourite pupil and friend O. Mller,

51

and finally the

Danish architecht and art is t Ross,

52

Bckh was able to engage in a fuller discussion of the

Athenian economy in the second and much enlarged edit ion of his DieStaatshaushaltung der

Athener

from 1851 . Lewis has called this m on um enta l study, "th e first bo ok on a Greek subject

47

Rang ab 1842, p. 7, n. 2.

48

Pit takis had the curious habit of edit ing fragments more than once. Two fragments have even been edited

thrice, namely frs. 54 and 76 from the

lapis

pnmus (Pittakis claiming the second time that fr. 54 was "recens

repertum") in 1835 (p. 419 and 429), in 1853 (nos. 1239 and 1215), and finally 1859 (nos. 3552 and 3550).

Another seventy fragments that had not been edited by Pittakis before appeared

in AEphem

1853, but apart from

fragments 39, 66 and 135 from

lapis

pnmus, fragment 1 from list 36 and fragment 23 from A9, they had already

previously been published by Rangab or Bckh or both.

49

Rangab 1842, 288.

50

Rangab 1842, 309-11 arguing that round amounts are arrived at by multiplying the sums by three. Not entirely

convinced of his own hypothesis he added another explanation, p. 311: "Une dernire hypothse serait enfin que

ces listes ne reprsen tent pas le tribu t entier des villes, mais une partie seulem ent, peut-tr e la centime partie

du tribut, qui tait dpos dans le trsor sacr de Mine rve." Th us he came very close to finding the true reason.

51

According to Gooch 1959, 35 the author of the "first important work of actual Greek history." He died on his

first trip to Greece

{ibid.

38).

52

Gooch 1920

2

, 40. L. Ross was a Danish literate, nominated by the Greek government to supervise the partial

recon struction of the Parthe non and care of the antiquities as official curator.

18


19/402

which used inscriptions freely

not

only

as

curiosities

but as

integral parts

of the

evidence."

53

In the second volume Bckh wrotea very long chapter whichcan be considered

the first fully commented editionof thetribu te lists,

54

andprintedhiseditionof the tribute lists

on

7

plates. Bckh never left Germany,

a

paradox

for a man who

knew ancient Greece better

than most ,but he had assistants and collaborators workingfor him inAthens . His editionis

therefore

not

based

on

autopsy; rather

the

readings

are

taken directly from

the

notes

and

drawings sent

to him

from Greece, giving them

a

certain authority. H owe ver,

his

collaborators

werenot equally skilledin copying inscriptions,anda l though Bckhwas a brilliant editorand

the bestman to do the job,

55

he was naturally incapable of correctingall the errors resulting

from badly executed

and

unintelligible copies.

56

Ed it ing inscriptions

is

already difficult

in itself,

and edit ing inscriptions one has not seen must be very hard indeed. Bckh, as already

ment ioned , never saw the s tones , but had to rely on the drawings sent to him by his

collaborators. Nevertheless,

he did

have three means

at his

disposal

for

establishing

the

order

of the fragmented lists: 1) the letter forms (lists with S being prior to lists with ), 2) the

headings

("die wir als jhrige voraussetzen"),and 3) thejoinsof the fragments.

57

He thereby

managed to find a system in the chaos, al though he did complain about the difficulties of

gett ing there.

58

This system could only be intermediary unt i l an edi tor wi th hands-on

experiencewas to undertake thereorganizationof all the fragments. Thevalueof the second

edition ofDieStaatshaushaltung derAthener therefore lies mainly in the readings of fragments

now los t and fragments whose surface has suffered in the intervening century and a half.

Whenever

a

fragment

is

preserved

by

Bckh only,

or

w he n

he

gives

a

better reading than

Rangab,I have therefore nothesitated toreferto it.

Bckh of ten had per t inent things to say a b o u t the tribute in general . But his mos t

important contr ibut ion was to divide the tribute lists into two different kinds of sources,

namely what he called the "tribute lists of the first category," and the tribute lists of the

second category,"

59

correspondingto ourquota listsand assessment decrees.Hestill couldnot

53

Lewis 1971b,

37

( = 1 9 9 7 ,

4).

54

Bckh 1851,

II,

369-747.

55

Goo ch 1959, 32;TodGHP, 16-17.

56

Bengtson 1977, 3,note 2: "Insbesondere war esmisslich, das sich Bckh und seine Mitarbeiter vielfach auf

ungenaue Kopien der epigraphischen Denkmler sttzen mussten. Die Forderung derAutopsie fr jede einzelne

Inschrift

hat

e rs t Theodor Mommsen aufges te l l t

und fr das CIL

durchgese tz t .

Sie ist

dann auch

fr die

Inscriptiones Graecae (1873ff.),

die

Nachfolgerin

des CIG, zum

Prinzip erhoben worden."

57

Bckh 1851,

II, 556.

58

Bckh 1851,

II,

373-74.

59

Bc kh ,

1851, II, 375: Ich

habe nhmlich zwei verschiedene Klassen gebildet ,

in

deren erster

nur

Tribut

quoten vorkommen, whrend

die

andere,

von

welcher

nur

acht Bruchstcke vorhanden sind,

die

vollen Tribute

enthielt."

19


20/402

k n o w i n w h a t r a ti o t h e q u o t a s h a d b e e n p a i d . T h e r e l a t i o n 1 o u t o f e ve r y 1 0 0 , a s

p r o p o s e d i n i t i a l l y b y R a n g a b , r e m a i n e d a p o s s i b i l i t y . T h i s p r o b l e m w a s s o l v e d o n l y t w e n t y

years later.

I n c o m m e m o r a t i o n o f B c k h ' s h u n d r e d t h b i r t h d a y , a t h i r d e d i t i o n o f Die Staatshaushaltung

der Athener W S p u b l i s h e d p o s t h u m o u s l y in 1 8 8 3 . T h e e d i to r , M a x F r n k e l , p r o v i d e d e x t e n s i v e

f o o t n o t e s , i n o r d e r t o c a t c h u p w i t h t h e p r o g r e s s i n a n c i e n t h i s t o r y t h a t h a d b e e n m a d e d u r i n g

the th i r ty years tha t had e lapsed s ince the second ed i t ion . For our ob jec t ive these two vo lumes

are wi thou t much va lue , s ince Frnke l chose to l eave ou t a l l insc r ip t ions as these cou ld now be

c o n s u l t e d i n t h e C o r p o r a . W h e n I r e f e r t o B c k h i n th i s d i s s e r t a t i o n , it w i l l t h e r e f o r e b e

exclusively to the 1851 edi t ion.

T w o y e a r s a f te r t h e d e a t h o f B c k h i n 1 8 6 7 , K h l e r s u b m i t t e d h i s d o c t o r a l th e s i s , a

c o m m e n t e d e d i t i o n o f t h e t r i b u t e q u o t a l i s t s a n d a s s e s s m e n t d e c r e e s .

6 0

Th is was the f i r s t

i n d e p e n d e n t s t u d y o n t h e t r i b u t e l i s t s a n d , i n c o n t r a s t t o B c k h , K h l e r a c t u a l l y w e n t t o

G r e e c e a n d s p e n t a c o n s i d e r a b l e a m o u n t o f t i m e t h e r e .

6 1

S ince he s tud ied the f ragments in

A t h e n s , h e c o u l d c o m p a r e t h e p h y s i c a l a s p e c t o f t h e s t o n e s a s w e l l a s o f t h e h a n d s , t h u s

m a k i n g u s e o f w h a t M e r i t t h a s l a t e r c a l l e d t h e " t h r e e d i m e n s i o n a l " e p i g r a p h i c a l m e t h o d ,

6 2

a n d

he was ab le to make cons iderab le p rogress in p lac ing the f ragments in the i r r e la t ive pos i t ions .

6 3

A major d i f fe rence be tween Khle r ' s ed i t ion and the p rev ious ones was tha t the f ragment

prese rv ing the head ing o f the l i s t o f the 34

t h

y e a r h a d b e e n f o u n d a n d p u b l i s h e d , b y K h l e r

himself, four years earlier.

64

Th is f ragment ca r r ies the words

, w h ic h g a v e

Khle r the key to the ra t io in which the f i r s t - f ru i t s had been g iven to Athena , i . e . 1 /60 . Th is

was in i t se l f an impor tan t con t r ibu t ion . But the f ragment a l so con ta ins an add i t iona l and c ruc ia l

p iece o f in fo rmat ion . The name of the a rchon Ar i s t ion i s p rese rved on th i s f ragment and he i s

k n o w n t o h a v e b e e n i n o f f i c e i n 4 2 1 / 0 , t h u s g i v i n g a p e g o n w h i c h t o h a n g t h e t r i b u t e q u o t a

l i s ts ,

which had h i the r to on ly been a r ranged in a re la t ive chrono log ica l o rder accord ing to the i r

se r ia l number . I t was now poss ib le to da te a l l l i s t s p rese rv ing the number in th i s range , a s we l l

as to res to re the name of the a rchon , "Ar i s tonos , " in the f i r s t l i s t and da te i t to

4 5 4 / 3 .

6 5

T h i s

60

Khler 1869, 4.

61

Khler had been sent to Athens by the Berlin Academy, cf. Kirchhoff IG I, vi. He spent his time there copying

all the inscriptions, cf. E rringto n a nd

Hallof,

2 002, 16.

62

M eritt 1941 , 3-14, e.g. p. 5.

63

Khler 1869, 2: "Die Zusammensetzung und Anordnung der Tributl isten musste , wenn sie mit Aussicht auf

Erfolg unternommen werden soll te , von der usseren Beschaffenheit und dem Schriftcharakter der einzelnen

Bruchstcke ausgehen und konnte nu r Angesichts der Originale gemacht w erden ."

64

K hler 1865, 210.

65

Khler 1869, 1: "Unter den spter zum Vorschein gekommenen Fragmenten ist das wichtigste der zuerst von

mir in den Berichten der Berl. Akademie der Wissenschaften 1865 S. 210 mitgetheilte Anfang der 34. Liste, durch

20


21/402

restitution was confirmed in 1971 by the discovery of the latest fragment to be found

carrying part of his name.

66

Apart from correcting the rest i tutions of Rangab and Bckh in several ways, Khler 's

contribution was the inclusion of almost all published fragments. Khler knew of 89 fragments

from the first stele,

67

in addition to which he presented an unpublished fragment from the first

year (fr. 1) and another from the tenth (Khler's fr. 61), but he had also assembled all the

fragments from the assessment decree of 425/4 for the first t ime.

68

Like Bckh he did an

epigraphical commentary on the l is ts . His readings are generally sound, as he tends to be

prudent in his rest i tutions, preferring lacunas to uncertain restorations, but there are many

errors, and contradictions between the readings on his plates and the l is ts presented in the

texts.

This may be due to the difficulty of printing broken letters. Khler lived before the

invention of the dot as a sign for a reading that would be unsure out of context. He therefore

put pardy preserved letters into square brackets even when their reading was certain, but other

errors may simply have been caused during the drawing of the fragments or while transforming

the drawings into printed lists. I have frequently referred to Khler's edition, citing his plates

for the reading of fragments now lost and for letters that have become unreadable.

The year following the publication of Khler 's edit ion of the tribute l is ts , Kirchhoff

presented a smaller study in the same series of

Abhandlungen derKniglichen Akademie der

Wissenschaften Kirchhoff accepted the general presentation of Khler 's l is ts , s tat ing (p. 1):

"man darf dreist behaupten, dass sie erst durch ihn eine Gestalt erhalten haben, in der sie als

ges icher te Grundlagen his tor ischer Untersuchungen benutzt werden knnen." But he had

minor quibbles concerning the placing of the fragments of the second stele. He therefore

prepared a new edition of the nineteenth list with Khler's consent.

Kirchhoff became interested in the tribute l is ts , having been appointed to undertake the

publication of al l Athenian inscriptions pre-dating the Euclidian reform. Already when the

indices had been completed by Curtius and Kirchhoff in 1877,

70

it was clear that the

CIG,

with

its al together 10,000 inscriptions, had become outdated. So while the final edit ing of this

project was still in progress, a new corpus of inscriptions was begun, called Inscnptiones Graecae

welchen es mglich gewesen ist, das Anfangsjahr dieser Listen und das Verhltniss der in denselben verrechneten

Quoten zu den vollen Tributsummen zu best immen/ '

66

Merkt 1972b.

67

Khler 1869, 4.

68

Khler 1869, 1.

69

Kirchhoff 1871.

70

Reinach 1885, viii, says that the third volume had been completed by Franz using the notes of Bckh and the

fourth volume had been completed by Roehl.

21


22/402

to distinguish it from its predecessor. The first volume with the Attic inscriptions prior

to 403 appeared in 1873.

In preparing this volume Kirchhoff had had access to the notes sent to Bckh by Ross

and the other collaborators.

71

Kirchhoff also made use of Khler's newly published thesis, but

he also travelled to Athens and found points of divergence with regard to Khler's work. He

even made squeezes and from these undertook a paper reconstruction of the

stelae?

1

These

squeezes are preserved today in the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Kirchhoff had knowledge of 105 fragments, preserved or lost from the first s tele. His

numbering of the fragments was followed by the ^4TL-editors and is used in this thesis as well,

s ince only a dozen or so have been given an addit ional inventory number. KirchhofPs

acquaintance with the stones makes the

IG

I a perfectly usable edition for the tribute lists, and

pardy makes up for the fact that Khler's edition is rarely available in modern Hbraries. Until

now the publications of the tribute l is ts had been made from a virtual representation of the

fragments and Kirch ho ff s pap er recon structio n, but some t ime arou nd the 1880s Loll ing

"bu il t into plaster th e fragments of the quo ta l ists , [and] found that Kir chh off s paper

reconstruction of the second stele needed modification in certain important part iculars ."

73

I

have not been able to find out more about this reconstruction. Nor, i t seems, was i t ever the

basis of a new edition.

In 1908 A.M. Woodward published six new fragments of the tribute lists.

74

T he same year

Cavaignac issued

Etudes sur l'histoire

financire

d'Athnes au V

e

sicle,

Le

Trsor

d'Athnes

de

480

404

y

wh ich was the first study since Bc kh to reconside r the aspects of the Ath enian Eco nom y

during the existence of th e Delian League. Cavaignac did no t deliver a full edition of the tribute

quota l is ts , but a commentary on the preserved years, on the basis of which he restored a

hypothetical first list, including 245 names, which is far too many for the 150 available lines.

75

But he did present a full print of the assessment decree of 425/4.

The second edit ion of the

IG

I, commonly called

Editio Minor

but referred to in this

dissertation as

IG

I

2

, was edited by Hiller von Gaertringen and J. Kirchner in 1924. It is useful

for the tribute lists (IG I

2

63, 64 [the assessment decrees] and 191-205 [the quota list]), because

it takes al l previous contributions into account, but there is an abundance of errors, many of

which can only be explained by the fact that the editor himself did not work at autopsy.

7 1

K i r c h h o f f I G I , v i .

72

Meritt and W est 1927, 21 with reference to

Abhandlungen der

Berliner Akademie 1870,

89ff.

73

Meritt and W est 1927, 21 .

74

Woodward, 1908, p. 291: "I include in this paper seven Attic inscriptions, all previously unpublished with the

exception of No. 5, which was published from an incomplete copy by Khler in the Corpus (I.G. ii. 89)."

75

Cavaignac 1908, XXXI-XL VII.

22


23/402

Such was the si tuation when in January 1925, the American School at Athens was

granted the privilege of excavating the Athenian Agora, an event that resulted in what has been

qualified as a new "spring" of Attic epigraphy.

76

Several successive campaigns were to unearth

a multitude of inscribed marbles, among which were fragments from the quota lists as well as

from the assessment decrees. The reason for this is s imple: though both kinds of l is ts had

originally been exposed at the Acropolis , some stelae had been taken down for reuse in

buildings when they no longer served any purpose.

77

West and Merit t had begun independent s tudies on the tribute l is ts and met each other in

1924.

78

A long series of articles followed.

79

In 1925, i.e. the same year in which the American

School had begun the excavations of the Agora, they decided to collaborate with a re

examination of the tribute lists in view. In short order, the publication of the lists 3, 4 and 11

(TAPA

56, 1925, 252 -67), list 1

(AJP

47, 1926, 171-76), and the rest of the lists from the first

stele

(HSCP

37, 1926, 55-98) followed. And one year later came the publication of the lists of

the second stele

(HSCP

38, 1927, 21-73). Having discovered that the reconstruction of the first

stele by Loll ing was not correct , they undertook, with the acceptance of the director of the

Epigraphical Museum , a new reconstruction of i t in the summ er of 1927.

80

In 1934 Meritt and West coedited the

Athenian

Assessment

of 425 B.C.,

presenting a new text

with rest i tutions, commentary and a register of the tribute-paying members. The commentary

on the reading was in most cases reduced to the comment: "For X READ Y." The editors for

the first time showed a desire to fill as many lacunas as possible, a fact that was immediately

recognised by Nesselhauf in a review of the book.

81

It has to be said to their credit, though,

that the editors in the "Foreword" stated that "By far the most difficult problems are

concerned with the text of the decrees. Until more fragments are discovered (if ever), much of

the text must remain conjectural, but we believe that the restorations offered in the following

7 6

K l a f fe nba c h l 953 ,24 .

77

The Athenian stelae share this fate with different kinds of inscriptions from all over the Greek world, with the

exception of statue bases and altars because of their form. The second stele bears marks of a second use, as a

wall, and the list previously dated to 429/8 (IG I

3

282) has been used as a threshold. Several smaller fragments

were found during the nineteenth century integrated into buildings, whether ancient or modern, of the Acropolis,

and still others have been found in deposits on the Agora.

78

Lord 1947,185-86.

79

West 19 25b, 135; Meritt 192 5b, 29; West and Meritt 1925a;

SEG

V; West and Meritt 1934.

80

Meritt 1929, 376 and L ord 1947, 192.

81

Nesselhauf 1936, 296-97:


24/402

pages give at least the general sense of the inscrip tion." Bu t this line of thoug ht was

continued in all subsequent publications and never did the warning caveatapp ear again.

Tod in his

GreekHistorical Inscriptions

from 1933 presented the assessment decree more or

less as it had been restored and sent to him by Meritt and West, but before seeing their final

version.

83

Th eir prop osals do no t respect the line length of thestele as currently reconstructed.

Bu t since there is no certain way of kn owing the exact width o f th e list, it is no t impossible th at

one or two letters should be added in each line or on the contrary be left out. Later, in 1950,

Bquignon and Will (1950) tried to improve the second attempt of the restored text of the

assessment decree by Meritt and West, but they were heavily influenced by the latter, accepting

the majority of the restitutions without discussion. Both of the ensuing editions are exactly as

"complete" as the

Athenian

Assessment

of 425 B.C.

and thus do not follow Nesselhauf s call for

prudence when facing big lacunas .

84

Finally, Meiggs and Lewis in their

Greek Historical

Inscriptions,

published their own restoration. This is the most sensible of all editions of the

assessment decree, and by far the best text hitherto,

85

but it is in my opin ion still too influenced

by the text of M eritt and West, and no t all of it will be retained in o ur edition.

In 1935 all of the quota lists were edited in the Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum(SEG)

V. Contrary to previous edit ions, Merit t and West had managed here to find a place for al l

preserved fragments from the

stelae.

Thus for the first time, no "fragments of uncertain age"

were printed separately. This of course is not necessari ly an improvement. The commentary

was in Latin and restricted to a minimum, e.g. the commentary to List 14.1.90: " [ ]

suppl. W.M." The preference for one restitution over another was hardly ever explained; in this

particular case, the community of the Plaganes did not appear in subsequent editions.

In 1936, A.B. West was killed in a tragic car accident. Two other scholars, Oxford-based

H.T. Wade-Gery and West 's Canadian pupil , M.F. McGregor, who both had already begun to

work with West and Merit t , now joined Merit t and co-edited the first volume of The

Athenian

tribute lists (ATE) in 1939. As Meiggs has pu t it, this title is a serious un de rsta tem en t, since this

monumental edit ion, finally appearing in four folio-sized volumes, contains much more than

merely the tribute lists.

86

Th e first volum e alone included a comm entary and bibliography o n

each fragment, accompanied by photos of many although not al l of them, the edit ion of the

82

West and Meritt 1934, v.

8 3

T o d GHP, no. 66, 148-63.

84

Cf. supranote 81.

85

Meiggs and Lewis 1969, no. 69, 188-201. As it will appear from the Catalogue, I still reject many of their

rest i tut ion s as conjectural . Th e chap ter by Ko ch 1991 , 312-69 is m ore valua ble for the discussion of the

jurisdiction than as a personal contribution towards a new text, although he does indeed present one.

86

Meiggs 1972, vii.

24


25/402

qu ot a l is t s an d the as ses sm ent d ec re es , a l is t o f the t r ibu ta ry a l li e s wi t h the i r an nu a l

p a y m e n t s , d r a w i n g s o f a ll l i st s , a n d a G a z e t t e e r i n c l u d i n g a l l t h e c o m m u n i t i e s n a m e d i n t h e

lists.

T h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e

ATE

I a n d t h e p r e v i o u s e d i t i o n s w a s h u g e . M a n y m o r e

f r a g m e n t s w e r e i n c l u d e d t h a n e v e r b e f o r e , 1 8 0 f o r t h e lapis primus a lone . I f in S EG V all

ex i s t ing f ragme nts ha d bee n g iven a re la t ive pos i t ion , the ed i to r s in add i t ion no w a l so fou nd a

pos i t ion even fo r a l l the los t f r agments . The advan tage o f th i s i s obv ious ; no t on ly does i t

e l imina te the f rus t ra t ion o f p r in t ing unda ted f ragments in i so la t ion , f r agments which can ha rd ly

be used fo r any th ing , i t a l so fac i li t at e s the s t ruc tu re o f th e Gaz e t te e r an d the ch ron o log ica l

p r e s e n t a t i o n o f h o w t h e i n d i v i d u a l m e m b e r s a p p e a r in t h e t r i b u t e l is t s. B u t t h is p r o g r e s s w a s

m a d e a t t h e e x p e n s e o f h i s t o r i c a l c o r r e c t n e s s . S i n c e i t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o c o m p a r e j o i n s , h a n d s

an d o the r ex te rn a l c r i t e r i a on los t f r agme nts w i th the ex tan t one s , i t i s dou b t fu l tha t a ll the

a t t r ibu t ions shou ld be cor rec t , and in th i s d i s se r ta t ion such a t t r ibu t ions have no t been uphe ld .

In h i s r ev iew of ATE I D o w w a s r ig h tl y i m p r e s s e d b y t h e c o n f i d e n c e t h e ^ T L - e d i t o r s h a d

s h o w n w h e n f i n d i n g t h e e x a c t l o c a t i o n f o r fr. 1 3 , p r e s e r v i n g o n l y t h r e e m u t i l a t e d q u o t a s .

8 7

There a re many o the r examples o f th i s genre :

8 8

25 los t f r agments have been incorpora ted in the

lapis primus

a l o n e a n d 1 5 i n t h e s e c o n d

stele,

wi th va ry ing d egre es o f p rob ab i l i ty .

8 9

Far fewer

h a v e b e e n p u t i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e s u b s e q u e n t p r e s e r v e d l is t s, a n d n o n e w i t h l is ts w h i c h

h a v e n o t o t h e r w i s e s u r v i v e d . I t i s e q u a l ly u n c e r t a i n t h a t a ll e x t a n t f r a g m e n t s h a v e b e e n

c o r r e c t l y p o s i t i o n e d , a n d t h e a s s i g n m e n t o f f r a g m e n t s , w h e t h e r l o s t o r p r e s e r v e d , is i n s o m e

cases arbi t rary .

A n o t h e r m a j o r d e p a r t u r e w a s c a u s e d b y t h e d i s c o v e r y m a d e b y W a d e - G e r y i n 1 9 3 5 .

P r e v i o u s e d i t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g SE G V , h a d s u p p o s e d th a t t h e lapis primus contained f i f teen l is ts :

1 -6 on the obverse face , 7 -8 on the r igh t l a te ra l , 9 -13 on the reverse , and 14-15 on the l e f t

l a te ra l f ace . However , in 1932 Wade-Gery showed tha t f r agment 4 ( r igh t l a te ra l f ace ) and 5 o f

the f i r s t s t e le d id no t p rese rve pa r t o f the head ing o f an independen t t r ibu te l i s t ,

vi%

n u m b e r 7 ,

bu t on the con t ra ry were the con t inua t ion o f the f i r s t l i s t w i th the pos t sc r ip t o f the r igh t s ide o f

the s te le .

90

The rev iews o f the f i r s t vo lume of the

r a n g e d f r o m s h e e r e n t h u s i a s m t o h

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	caracallax
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Aparchai and Phoroi.pdf

Documents