Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T20:18:45.618Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Epigraphically the Twenties are too late…’1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

Harold B. Mattingly
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

First principles tend to be forgotten in the course of scholarly polemic. At worst the fault lies in the animus and heat engendered. At best it is because the opponents have become absorbed in an elegant game of skill. Meanwhile the problem remains unresolved—whether it is the dating of crucial fifth-century Attic texts or some far less serious point. We must keep our priorities right. What really counts in the ‘three-bar sigma’ controversy, for instance, is the bare text of the epigraphic documents, freed of modern supplement and interpretation. It is vital to start from this often narrow base of certainty. I propose to do just this, with more self-discipline than in the past. For convenience I shall divide my inquiry into six main parts.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 65 , November 1970 , pp. 129 - 149
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 I have finally come round to Pritchett's exacting view. See Univ. Calif. Publ. Class. Arch. iv. 4 (1963) 373 f. and 379–82. L. Robert has long maintained a similar position (Hellenica i (1940) 149 f.). Both are most concerned that first editions of texts should be kept clear.

3 Op. cit. nos. 46 and 68. They can be admirably firm at times in not admitting doubtful supplements (see pp. 113 and 239). Meritt published the new piece of D 8 in AJP lxxxviii (1967) 29–32: it shows how wrong good scholars can be in filling even short lacunae. My criticism of the ATL text is in CQ N.S. xvi (1966) 188 f.

4 Hill was the first to read part of the dotted iota in l. 45: my dotted delta in l. 46 was read undotted in ATL i, but changed to a dotted gamma in ATL ii—the word now being restored as ἀπογ[ράφεν]. See Hill, and Meritt, , Hesperia xiii (1944) 7 f.Google Scholar

5 See Aristotle Ἀθ. Πολ. 48. 4 and Dem. viii. 28. In D 7 the tablet seems used for charges against individuals.

6 There is a good parallel in D 7. 20 ff.: [ἀ]ποδεῖχσαι ᾿Αθεναίοις το͂μ πόλ|εον τὰς ἀποδόσα[ς τὸμ φόρον ἐ]ντελε͂ καὶ τὰς ἐλλιπό|σας χορίς-----.

7 Hesperia xiii. 11. If a city defaulted completely there would, of course, be no couriers' names to record—unless the tribute was allegedly lost on the way through shipwreck or piracy. The ATL editors should not have been troubled by this point (iii. 15 n. 41).

8 See ATL iii. 15; Meritt, , Doc. Ath. Trib. (1934) 34Google Scholar; Meiggs and Lewis, op. cit. 187. The ATL editors thought that the publication ordered in D 8. 18 ff. was strictly parallel to that of D 7. 20 ff. (see my n. 6), so that ‘το͂ν ἀπαγόντ[ον τὰ ὀνόματα] must mean “the names of those who paid in full”‘. They even inclined to this translation in D 7. 58 f., though recognizing that the phrase means ‘couriers’ in the early lines of the decree. It should mean that throughout and it would be sounder method to apply this sense to D 8. 18 ff., especially as D 7. 20 ff. already has its precise counterpart in D 8. 14 ff.

9 Kleinias' main purpose is defined in D 7. 12 ff.: ηό[πος ἂ]μ μὲ ἐχσ|ε͂ι ἀδικε͂ν τοῖς ἀ[πάγο]σι τὸμ φ|όρον. In CQ N.S. xvi (1966) 189 I had ἐς τὲν σανίδα in l. 59 and accepted the ATL supplement in 60, where even [ἐπ]ιδεῖχσαι is uncertain; [κα]ὶ δεῖχσαι is one valid alternative, [ἐὰν δύνοντα]ι, δεῖχσαι another. In l. 63 f. τὸ κοινὸν τε͂ς| [πόλεος] surely implies a contrast between community and individuals (here οἱ ἀπάγοντες?), against whom the γραφαί of 66 ff. probably lie.

10 The date of D 8 depends on that of the second Methone decree (IG i2. 57. 32–56), whose proposer was also Kleonymos. The passage of D 8 is envisaged in IG i2. 57. 51–6, provision being made for keeping more than one Assembly day clear for it. The new fragment of D 8 proves that it took the better part of two days to finish the business. See Meritt, , AJP lxxxviii (1967) 31 f.Google Scholar

11 JHS lxxxii (1962) 69 f. In view of their evidence [καθάπερ ἂποι]κ[οι] is likely enough in A 9. 58, but I leave it open.

12 I mistakenly made Thoudippos the innovator in Historia x (1961) 133 and was answered by Meritt, and Wade-Gery, , JHS lxxxii (1962) 69–71Google Scholar; Meiggs, , Harv. Stud. lxvii (1963) 23 and 29Google Scholar: Meiggs and Lewis, op. cit. 121 and 198 f. (for them the 430s is the latest possible date for D 7).

13 ‘Doubling’ was severe enough, when it meant going up from 18 to 30 talents (Paros) or from 30 to 60 (Thasos). Some Island tributes were ‘trebled’ (Andros, Siphnos, Chalkis, Keos), others multiplied fivefold (Tenos, Eretria). In Thrace there were some startling sevenfold rises (Samothrace 2 to 15 talents, Maroneia 3 to 21, Abdera 10 to c. 75). See ATL i ‘Register’. For 426/5 and 427/6 B.C. as the true dates of Lists 25 and 26 see later pp. 133–40.

14 I argued this briefly in Historia x (1961) 154 with n. 28. hοι στρατεγοὶ is awkward, followed by τὸς δὲ στρατεγὸς: Béquignon, and Will, (RA xxxv (1950) 5 ff.)Google Scholar prefer hοι ἐπίσκοποι, which is better and might seem to be echoed in D 7. 5 ff. ([τὲ]μ β|ολὲν καὶ τὸς ἄρχ[οντας ἐν] τε͂σ|ι πόλεσι καὶ τὸς [ἐπισκό]πος ἐ|πιμέλεσθαι----).

15 There can be no reasonable doubt about [φσε]φ|ίӡεσθ[α]ι in ll. 43 f., though [κου]φ|ίӡεσθ[α]ι is a remote possibility. I assume that ἀπάγοσιν is subjunctive—since it is hard to build a sentence round τοῖς ἀπάγοσιν—and that the sense is close to Kleinias’ hόπ[ος ἂν χσ]υλλέ|γεται hο φόρος κ[ατὰ τὸἔ]τος h|έκαστον καὶ ἀπά[γεται] ᾿Αθένα|ӡε .

16 See Meiggs', careful statement of the evidence in JHS lxxxvi (1966) 97 and n. 43.Google Scholar

17 See Hill, and Meriti, , Hesperia xiii (1944) 8.Google Scholar

18 Note in D 8 ἐὰν δέ τις κακοτεχνε͂ι and το͂ν ἐκ ταύτες τε͂ς πό[λεος τὸν βολόμενον π]|ρὸς τὸς ἐπιμελετάς: in D 7 ἐὸν δέ τις ᾿Αθ[εναῖος ἒ χσύμμαχος ἀδικε͂ι περὶ τὸ]|ν φόρον----[γ]|ράφεσθαι πρὸς [τὸς πρυτάνες το͂ι β]ολομένο[ι ᾿Αθενα]|ίον καὶ το͂ν χσ[υμμάχον].

19 See ATL iii. 71–8; Andokides i. 34–46; ‘Xen.’ Ἀθ. Πολ. 3. 5; Hignett, G., Athenian Constitution 153 f. and 201–3Google Scholar (good on the auctoritas of the Council's judicial decisions).

20 See Meiggs and Lewis, op. cit. 121 and 111–17 (no. 45: the Coinage Decree).

21 IG i2. 57. 29–32 and ATL ii. 26, col. ii. 51 f.

22 See ATL i. 91 ff. with figs. 124–6 and my comments in CQ N.S. xi (1961) 160 with n. 4.

23 See ATL iii. 133–7 and Meiggs and Lewis, op. cit. 179f. I cannot agree with them ‘that the decision rests on the dating of tribute list 26’. Rather the reverse is true.

24 See ATL iii. 133 f.

25 Note particularly the insistence in ll. 25 f. that the envoys to Athens—if needed—should be plenipotentiary (τέλος [ἔχον|τας] περὶ hο͂[ν] ἂν διαφ〈έ〉ρονται).

26 Op. cit. 179 (on hοι στρατι[ο͂ται | hοι] ἐμ Ποτειδ[ά]αι).

27 See op. cit. 236 and Meritt, , Ath. Fin. Doc. (1932) 59 and 163Google Scholar (ll. 70 and 72 in his edition of IG i2. 302).

28 The two embassies then expected back from Macedon, (IG i 2. 57. 49 ff.)Google Scholar were, I suggest, (a) the original embassy of ll. 16 ff. and (b) a second sent to recover the initiative. The first may even have been sent out in the winter, despite the doubts expressed in ATL iii. 135 n. 6. Even senior envoys might have to travel at that time, if the situation so required. Perhaps they were to return in the spring with the envoys from both sides (failing an earlier settlement).

29 Meritt expounded the full case for 428/7 B.C. in Hesperia xiii (1944) 215–23. He does not really seem to have understood the true nature of my challenge (CQ N.S. xi (1961) 161 f.; xvi (1966) 179 and n. 3) and his answer fails to meet it (GRBS viii (1967) 50 ff.).

30 Meritt recognized συ[ντρεφό]ντον as a valid alternative in l. 6 (Hesperia xiii. 219).

31 As Lepper noted (JHS lxxxii (1962) 47 n. 61) we should not assume that the contributing cities were the same for Aphytis as for Methone. See later my n. 79.

32 As Meritt argued in Hesperia xiii. 220 ff. and GRBS viii. 51. All that survives is ἔδοξεν̣ […. 8 .…[ᾀπ̣οδιδόν[……. 26 ……]ραχμάς.

33 I am tempted to supply κατὰ τὸ [κοινὸ]ν Ψήφισμα rather than the ATL κατὰ τὸ [αὐτὸ]ν ψήφισμα. Iota is not uncommonly closed up with a neighbouring letter in stoichedon texts.

34 D 21. 19–25 with 8 ff.; ATL iv, p. x. 18.

35 See IG i2.45. 14 ff.: ---βοεθε͂ν τὰ[ς πόλες h|ος ὀχσύ]τατα κατὰ τὰς χσυγγραφὰς hα[ὶ ἐπὶ‥|‥8.…]το γραμματεύοντος ἐγένον[το περὶ τ|ο͂ν πόλε]ον το͂ν ἐπὶ Θράικες. None of my arguments for dating Brea 426/5 B.C. (CQ N.S. xvi (1966) 177 ff.) is strong enough to outweigh the silence of Thucydides. So I must withdraw it.

36 See ATL iii. 134 f. on τοῖς προτέροις Παναθεναίοις.

37 See JHS lxxxii (1962) 32 n. 25. Note εἴτε φόρον δοκε ῖ τάττεν τὸν δε͂μο[ν αὐτ[ίκ]α μάλα.

38 See ATL ii. 23, col. ii. 66 f. Dikaiopolos Eretreion is a possible alternative to Sane. See ATL i, ‘Register’.

39 See ATL i, ‘Register’ (Maroneia and Ainos) and 190 f. (Methone not Maroneia): iii. 216 and 309 ff.

40 ATL iii. 65 and n. 1: 176 n. 57 (Argilos).

41 See ATL i, p. 76 fig. 101 and pl. xxi for this possibility.

42 Too much attention has been given to τοῖς προτέροις Παναθεναἰοις on its own. Does it necessarily imply a ‘present’ as opposed to the ‘previous’ Great Panathenaia? Against ATL iii. 134 f. I would ask how else the Great Panathenaia of 430 could have been described in this context in 427/6 B.C.

43 See Meritt, , AFD 14Google Scholar; Meiggs and Lewis, op. cit. 194 (rightly noting how exceptional and irregular A 9 was).

44 The phrase hοι δὲ [.…]θ̣ετα[ι has given great trouble. Should we supply hοι δὲ [νομο]θ̣έτα[ι with ATL or [θε〈σ〉μο]θ̣έτε[ι with Meiggs and Lewis (op. cit. 192)?

45 Hence the ATL editors supplied χ[ιλίος δικαστάσ----].

46 Lepper, (JHS lxxxii (1962) 34)Google Scholar suggested that the rubric—in a list of 430/29 B.C. (on his view)—was a reference back to a court of 434 B.C. He thus maintained the parallelism with the taktai rubric, which the ATL editors agreed in treating as a reference back to the taktai of 434 B.C. (iii. 84). The best argument for the 428 B.C. ‘Reassessment’ will be found in Meritt, , AFD 14–20.Google Scholar

47 For the eisagogeis see ATL iii. 74 f.: for the Council, note the phrase βολὲ ἔρχὲ in D 18 (IG i2. 50+), 46.

48 For a successful defence of the meaning ‘last preceding’ for τελευταία see ATL i. 205.

49 Lepper's point (JHS lxxxii (1962) 34) was already partly dealt with in ATL iii. 79.

50 See Meritt's, revision of IG i 2. 324. 26 f.Google Scholar in AFD 128 f.; Meiggs and Lewis, op. cit. 207 (----hελλενοταμίαις ηένοις Δ[……… 20 ……καὶ χσυνάρχοσι καὶ νέοις] χαροπίδει Σκα[μβ]ονίδει καὶ χσυνάρχοσιν---).

51 I use Meiggs and Lewis's text (op. cit. 207). For Lewis's view that the recipient may be a hellenotamias see JHS lxxxi (1961 ) 119.

52 See Meritt, , Athenian Calendar 79Google Scholar and AFD 130–5; Wade-Gery, , CQ xxiv (1930) 33–9Google Scholar; Lang, and Meritt, , CQ N.S. xviii (1968) 90.Google Scholar

53 Commentary on Thucydides iii. 627 f.

54 See Thuc. iv. 65. 3–4. The charge was one of betrayal of Athenian interests through persuasion by bribery.

55 See Thuc. iv. 75 (Lamachos) and 89 with 101. 3–4 (Demosthenes); Beloch, , Griech. Gesch. ii 2. 2, 264 ff.Google Scholar (the generals' boards).

56 Compare Thuc. ii. 65. 4 with his wry comments in iv. 65. 4 and 103. 2–107. 2 (in the light of v. 26. 5).

57 Plato's brother-in-law (Diog. Laert. iii. 42 f. and iv. 1: PA 5975). Otherwise there is only PA 5972, 5973 (the general), and 5974 (son of Charidemos of Oreos, PA 15380).

58 See op. cit. 207 and 213.

59 See the good treatment of IG i2. 296—with revised text—in Meritt, , AFD 74–80.Google Scholar

60 See IG i2. 324. 2–13 and 26–32.

61 IG i2. 324. 20 f (Meiggs' and Lewis's text). The first grant was to Demosthenes for Pylos (l. 18).

62 See Meritt, in AFD, 132Google Scholar on IG i2. 324. 56, and ll. 40–5 for Athena's tamiai. Significantly they do not define the recipient of the one loan from Athena Nike this year (ll. 51 ff.). In contrast the other tamiai may specify the hellenotamiai as recipients of their second loan (read [hελλενοταμίαις] for Meritt's [καθ᾿ ἕκαστον θεὸν] in l. 78?).

63 He must have been given a patronymic as well as a demotic, unlike the others. But such inconsistency need not trouble us in IG i2. 324. Generals are named twice with patronymic and demotic, once with demotic only and once (if Meritt is right) with neither (ll. 3, 18, 20 f., and 56): four times the Council secretary is named without demotic, once with (ll. 2, 17, 26, 37, and 57).

64 I found that of a random sample of 100 fifth-century generals, treasurers, hellenotamiai, and Council secretaries, only ten fitted this pattern.

65 The restoration of this name in the prescript of List 25 (l. 3) surely is beyond doubt.

66 See the evidence expounded by Meritt, in AFD 3–5 and 26 f.Google Scholar

67 The chairman of 440/39 was from tribe VIII, of 435/4 from V, of 434/3 from VII, and of 432/1 from II. See ATL ii, Lists 15, 20, 21, and 23.

68 See ATL i. 191. Perhaps no more than seven were listed in List 26 (the space allowed in ATL ii is severely limited), but tribal order was probably kept—the first is from I, the fourth from V.

69 The secretary of 432/1 B.C. was from tribe III (ATL ii. 23. 3 f.). The reverse cycle of the secretaries to Athena's tamiai stopped in 430/29 B.C. with tribe VII. In 418/17 B.C. the chairman of the hellenotamiai—Ergokles Besaieus—was from tribe X (it should have been VIII on the cycle), but six of his colleagues were listed before him in the prescript of ‘List 33’ in strict tribal order. For 418/17 B.C. as the true date of this list see Meritt, and McGregor, , Phoenix xxi (1967) 85 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Meiggs and Lewis, op. cit. 226 f. I would further suggest that the secretary this year was an Antiphon (only Ἀντ[, survives in the prescript)—this would explain why the archon is so exceptionally given a demotic. Ten hellenotamiai were listed in strict tribal order in 416/15 B.C. apparently (ATL ii, List 39. 2–5).

70 See List 21, col. vi. 5–35; 22, col. ii. 76–100; 23, col. ii. 68–82.

71 See List 26, col. ii. 34–56 and 25, col. iii. 54–65. For the survival of the pre-war groups see ATL iii. 80 ff.

72 See 26, col. i (actually left lateral face of the stele), ll. 1–21.

73 This pattern is obscured by the editors' intrusion of two island cities and one Hellespontine city under a special rubric between the Thracian and Island panels (col. ii. 37–41). This group is found in 26, col. i. 15–21, together with Alopekonnesos. Alopekonnesos evidently appeared in the main Hellespontine panel of List 25 (col. iii 53 and probably 32). I believe that the rubric has no place in List 25.

74 See Meritt, , AFD 10 f.Google Scholar; ATL i. 196.

75 West and Meritt restored [ταῖσδε πό]λεσ[ιν h]οι |[ἰδιồται φόρ]ο[ν ἔ]τ[α]Χ[σαν], in 1931 (SEG v. 25 col. i. 43 f.)

76 I have already argued the basic case in CQ N.S. xvi (1966) 180 f., but missed the grammatical pattern which can explain variations.

77 All but one of five Thracian ἄτακτοι of 435/4 passed into the πόταί αὐταί rubric. The ATL editors (iii. 84 f.) suggest that they were enrolled by Athenian representatives.

78 See the very useful table in ATL iii. 87. and A 9. col. i. 84 and ii. 148.

79 See ATL i. 450 ff.; Eddy, , AJP lxxxix (1968) 129–43.Google Scholar For the Aphytis decree see earlier pp. 134 f.

80 Meiggs and Lewis, op. cit. 86; Nesselhauf, , Klio Beiheft xxx (1933) 58 ff. and 73Google Scholar; Schaefer, , Hermes lxxiv (1939) 240Google Scholar; Lepper, , JHS lxxxii (1962) 31 ff., 38–43, and 47 f.Google Scholar (agreeing with Schaefer that there were no strings). For a contrary view see ATL i. 455 ff. and iii. 80–2.

81 GRBS viii (1967) 129. He refers to my argument in Ancient Society and Institutions (1966) 195 f., but does not come to grips with it at all.

82 For the facts about the different orders see ATL i. 196; Mattingly, , CQ N.S. xvi (1966) 180 and 182 with 187 f.Google Scholar; Meritt, and Wade-Gery, , JHS lxxxii (1962) 72–4Google Scholar (with their dating of Lists 25, 26, and 28).

83 GRBS viii (1967) 123 f.

84 In the schedule of A 9 there are still four main blocks of cities—headed Νεσιοτικὸς φόρος, etc.—separated by lacunae probably. ᾿Ακτα[ῖαι πόλες] and [πόλες] ἐκ το͂ Εὐ[χσείνο] follow without any break on the totals for the Hellespontine and Thracian districts proper. See ATL ii. 42 f. Meiggs and Lewis (op. cit. 199) incline to follow Dow in arguing that there were, as usual, no gaps. But Lists 14, 15, and 25 (of 426/5 B.C.) form good precedents for the ATL arrangement.

85 GRBS viii (1967) 129.

86 See D 14. §9, το[ύτοις δὲ τὴν πορείαν ἑκάστωι συγγράψαντες οἱ στρατηγοὶ ἀ]ποστειλάντ[ων---: A 9. 40 f., [τὰ]ς δ[ὲ πορ]εία̣ς τοῖς κέρυχ[σι τοῖς ἰο͂σι χσυγγράφσαι κατὰ τ]|ὸν hόρ[κον τὸ]ς τάκ[τας hέο]ς τ[ο͂ πο]ρε[υθέσ]ον[τα]ι---. Meiggs and Lewis admit both supplements into their texts (op. cit. 112 and 191).

87 I have tried to establish this in Acts of the Epigraphical Congress, Cambridge 1967 (1970) 29 f.

88 For this hand see my article in BCH xcii (1968) 467—where ‘the 8 and 6 mm. chisels’ should read ‘the 10 and 6 mm. chisels’—and for the date of the Perdikkas treaty, ibid. 472 ff. I was able to add ATL ii. A 10 after studying the stone itself in the Epigraphic Museum: the photograph in ATL i. 119 (fig. 173) and a squeeze which Michael Osborne kindly made for me amply confirm this (see Plate 41). For IG i2. 118 (Oiniades) see Kirchner, , Imagines 217 f. and pl. 18.Google ScholarMeritt, and Wade-Gery, (JHS lxxxiii (1963) 105 with n. 35)Google Scholar linked this closely with Wade-Gery's ‘three-chisel hand’ (11, 9, and 7 mm.). I wonder whether the same man was not at work throughout, operating with two sets of chisels of slightly different sizes. Someone should make a detailed study of all the relevant documents.

89 In BCH xcii (1968) 470–5 I opted for 422/1 B.C., allowing 424/3 B.C. as an alternative. I would now give up my hazardous restoration [hο] νόμ[ο]ς ḥ[ο] Κ[α]λλ[ίο], in SEG x. 87. 7: we must surely read νόμ[ι]σụ[α].

90 See Hesperia xviii (1949) 345 and xxii (1953) 106 f.; Lang, Mabel, Hesperia xxv (1956) 12 no. 57Google Scholar (Mendean amphora, late fifth century, stamped ‘8¼ choes’) and 10 no. 44 (Mendean?, third quarter fifth century, stamped ‘10⅙ choes’); Grace, Virginia, Hesperia Suppl. viii, 182Google Scholar and AJA 1 (1946) 31 n. 4. I am tempted to supply in SEG x. 87. 20 f. (where only τὸς δὲ ἄρχ[ον]|τας……………… c. 38 …………………κε]ραμεῖα νῦν [δὲ] is assured) those Athenian officials so well known from D 14 and D 7, τὸς ἄρχοντας ἐν τε͂σι πόλεσι.

91 Meiggs and Lewis rightly insisted on the need for such evidence (op. cit. 115 f.).

92 See Head, , NC (1886) 1–18 and pl. iGoogle Scholar; Barren, , Silver Coins of Samos (1966) 76 f.Google Scholar

93 See his p. 76 and pl. ix no. 25, pl. xii no. 66e.

94 See pp. 82–7 for the case for dating Classes VI and VII.

95 See Noe, , ANSMN vi (1954), 90 and pl. xiv. 2Google Scholar; Robinson, , NC (1961) IIIGoogle Scholar; Kraay, , NC (1962) 13Google Scholar (Kelenderis hoard) and Rev. Num. vi ser. x (1969) 188 f. and 215; Schwabacher, , OpArch. iv (1946) 35 f.Google Scholar (Vouni hoard; but his high dating for Azbaal is contradicted by the hoard itself).

96 See Kraay, , Rev. Num. (1969) 210–18Google Scholar and compare pl. xxxvi. 51 with Boston 1113 (Brett, A. Baldwin, Catalogue of Greek Coins (1955), pl. 58Google Scholar).

97 Kraay, , Rev. Num. (1969) 212 f. and 221 with pl. xxiv f.Google Scholar; Atti del I Convegno del Centro Int. Stud. Num., 1967 (Suppl. to Annali xii–xiv, 1969) 141–9 and pl. xii; Colonna, , Cong. Int. Num., Roma 1961 ii (1965) 167–77 and pl. xiii.Google Scholar

98 The Syracusan coin is Boehringer 670 (Colonna, p. 169). Boehringer's final series ends with no. 728. Kraay, argues powerfully for this lowering of dates in Greek Coins and History (1969) 35–8.Google Scholar

99 Rev. Num. 1969, 221. For Diotimos see Thuc. 1. 45. 2 and the scholiast on Lykophron, , Alexandra 732Google Scholar; Mattingly, , Atti del I Convegno … (Suppl. Annali xii–xiv, 1969) 207 f.Google Scholar The Villabate hoard from near Panormos contained coins of Rhegion and Messana from the issues that overstrike Attic tetradrachms, and seventy-nine Syracusan coins down to Boehringer 535, together with tetradrachms of Himera, Akragas, Leontinoi, and Katana. I would connect the presence of so much Greek silver, its burial and loss west of Himera with the campaign fought between Akragas and Syracuse at the River Himera in 445 B.C. (Diod. xii. 7. 4). Kraay puts this hoard in the 440s, the Selinunte hoard c. 435 B.C. (last Syracusan coin Boehringer 604): see n. 98.

100 See Barron, op. cit. 74 and 76.

101 BMC ‘Lykia’, etc., no. 71 and pl. iv. 13. The Samian and Kuprlli staters are also shown on NC (1886) pl. i: the difference in wear is striking.

102 See Meiggs and Lewis, op. cit. 282 f. (on the stele) and Mørkholm, , Jahrb. Num. und Geldgesch. xiv (1964) 72.Google Scholar

103 Op. cit. 72 n. 31.

104 Robinson, , NC (1936) 194 f. and pl. xiii. 6.Google Scholar If the coin is viewed in the mirror, the owl is seen to be an accurate copy of those issues from just after 450 B.C. in the Syrian, hoard (Rev. Num. (1969) 212 f. and pl. xxiv. 12–17).Google Scholar The tail, the stance, and the puffed-out tops of the legs are characteristic. Contrast these features on the coins from the 450S in the Jordanian hoard (ibid. 185 and pl. xx. 43–6).

105 ATL i ‘Register’ (Lykioi and Telmessos): iii. 7 (452/1 and 451/50 B.C. also?) and 209 f.

106 Thuc. ii. 69. He also attacked Karia. His second objective was to collect money from these long-lapsed areas.

107 See Mørkholm, op. cit. 69 (a recent hoard); Jenkins, , NC (1959) 33 and 40.Google Scholar Jenkins postulates two rulers called Khäriga. It would be better, I think, to bring down the traditional dates of Kuprlli, etc.—even more than Mørkholm does. He dates the hoard—which contained at least one stater of Kuprlli and 25 ‘female head’ staters of Sppndasha—c. 450 B.C.Jenkins also postulates a Väkhsära I and II. But all coins with this name could be assigned to one long-lived dynast, ruling from c. 430 (animal on shield fabric) to c. 390 B.C. (three-quarter facing head of Athena: Hess/Leu Sale, 1962, no. 312). The Ashmolean Museum bought three Lykian staters from the hoard. Dr. Kraay was informed that it also included Athenian coins and kindly showed me casts of three of these. We would both put them slightly after 440 B.C. If the association can be trusted (Mørkholm apparently did not know of it) my thesis on Kuprlli, etc., would be valuably confirmed.

108 NC (1961) 111 f. and 117; Thuc. i. 67. 2 and 139. 1. The T-turtles seem to run from the 470s to 457 B.C. Defeat probably did bring a break—perhaps owing to temporary interruption of the silver supply from abroad, or the heavy drain of available silver for tribute (30 talents in ATL ii. 1, col. vi. 18, etc.). It would be easier—and more comprehensible—to change the type after a clear interval. Was this just part of a growing reaction against the past and the old regime, whose main supporters Athens had expelled (Herod, vi. 91)? And was the ‘broad-skew’ reverse deliberately retained to preserve some continuity and credit overseas? For Aigina's silver see Kraay, , Composition of Greek Silver Coins (1962) 8, 12–14, and 33.Google Scholar His remarks on Thasos after defeat (pp. 23 f.) apply with greater force to Aigina, economically more embarrassed. It would seem that Thasos had to reduce the weight and purity of its coinage in 463/2 B.C.

109 Op. cit. 58–64 and 82–7 with 40–5.

110 Op. cit. 89–92.

111 CR N.S. xvii (1967) 214: Thuc. viii. 21 and 73.

112 Meiggs and Lewis (op. cit. 153) take the same view of ATL ii. D 18 (IG i1. 50). Barron believes—against ATL iii. 151—that Samos was loyal to Athens and democracy from 439 until an oligarchic coup in 412 B.C., which was very quickly crushed (op. cit. 81 and 100). I cannot accept the ATL view that Athens actually countenanced the return of oligarchy in some form. This seems incredible after the trouble with Anaia and the exiled oligarchs’ intrigues to overthrow the status quo with outside help in 427 B.C. (Thuc. iii. 32).

113 Barron implicitly recognizes this when he writes (p. 85) that ‘the penalties imposed in consequence of the revolt ipso facto reduced the island to, or even below, the condition of the other states forbidden to coin silver’ (myitalics).

114 Only two specimens with Ξ are known, both from Barron's rev. die no. 94 and obv. die no. 42 (first found with M). See Barron, op. cit. 193 with 62 and 64.

115 See ATL ii. 25, col. i. 59 ff. with 34, (rev.) 107–11 and 27, (rev.) 36 ff.; ATL i. 193 and 198.

116 For the Hellespontine cities see ATL i. 194.

117 This can be readily checked from ATL i. 457 f.

118 ATL i. 191 f. They offer Ielysioi, Keramioi, and Koioi or Kryes as an alternative all-Karian group for ll. 14 ff. If we accept this, we obtain a tight Karian group from 10 to 18 in fact.

119 For a good text of IG i2. 22 see ATL ii. D 11 (with useful bibliography).

120 It was the sigma that originally impelled Kirchhoff to propose in 1877 the correction in Diodoros: see IG i, Suppl. 22a, n. on p. 7.

121 See Diod. xii. 58. 1: IG i2. 324. 5: Schol. Lucian, Tim. 30 (Philochoros fr. 128): Vit. anon. Thuc. 8: Hypoth. Aristoph. Acharn. (Εὐθύνου, Εὐθυμένους:: the variant from 1. 67). The evidence on the archons from 481/80 to 403/2 B.C. is assembled in Hill, , Sources 2397 ff.Google Scholar In 415/14 B.C. all literary sources read Χαβρίου—with Diod. xiii. 2. 1—instead of Χαρίου.

122 Athen. v. 215 d–218 d. Plato's birth is given under Apollodoros, the successor of Euthydemos (217 a). Athenaios dates the battle of Tanagra 426/5 B.C. after Thuc. iii. 91. 4 (218 b), whereas Diodorus puts it in 424/3 B.C. (xii. 65). The archon Euphemos occurs in Athen. v. 216 f–217 b.

123 most convenient text of Dem. xxii. 13 and the relevant commentary is in Hill, , Sources 251.Google Scholar

124 Hermes xlii (1907) 374–403: Rev. ét. anc. xxxi (1929) 214.

125 Hesperia xxvi (1957) 163–97. In this important study they offered a new text (with longer lines than ATL ii. D 13) and established convincingly that 11. 3–11 of the commentary form a single, coherent gloss on section 13.

126 The essential structure of Demosthenes' sentence is οἱ τὰ πρπύλαια καὶ τὸν παρθενῶν᾿ οἰκοδομήσαντες ἐκεῖνοι------ἐκ τοῦ τριήρεις ἔχειν-----τὴν πόλιν---ἔσωσαν. This great generation still remembered the fleet even when preparing to build the Parthenon. That, I think, is the commentator's general point. Fragmentary and hard to read in places, the comment can never be restored in detail. But ἤρξαντο οἰκοδο[με]ῖν—strictly 447/6 B.C.—must govern interpretation of the very next line. A decree of 450/49 B.C. would be very relevant—the wrong Euthydemos admittedly, and the commentator has confused the 5,000 talents set aside for war with the vast sums allegedly brought from Delos and squandered on the building schemes (Diod. xii. 38. 2; Plut. Per. 12. 1–4). I cannot see him picking the right Euthydemos and moving on to 431/30 B.C., to a decree that Sealey—with great ingenuity—makes only marginally and dubiously relevant (Hermes lxxxvi (1958) 443 ff.).

127 PA 5656–8 and 5659. There are 31 entries for Euthydemos (PA 5513–43).

128 See IG xii. 5, p. 108, no. 444. 75; Hill, Sources 2 397; PA 7766–8.

129 PA 8034 and 8037–9.

130 PA 8424–30 + the archon of 237/6 + Hesperia Suppl. i, 101. 47. 14 + SEG xix. 248; PA 805–11 and 805 a + SEG xii. 101. 97 and xxi. 617. For the archon-dates see Dinsmoor, , Hesperia xxiii, (1954) 313 ff.Google Scholar

131 Lot was, of course, introduced in 487/6 and the zeugites admitted thirty years later (Arist. Ἀθ.Πολ., 22. 5 and 26. 2).

132 Op. cit. 161. The fragment was published with a good photograph by Schweigert, in Hesperia ix (1940) 309 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

133 See Schweigert's photograph with my Plate 41 and Kirchner, , Imagines, pl. 18.Google Scholar All are on the same scale.

134 Rh. Mus. xliii (1888) 188 ff. and Griech. Gesch. ii2. 2. 347 f.; BCH xcii (1968) 458 ff.

135 Op. cit. 160 f.

136 AFD 65–8.

137 I number from the first line of text. In l. 2 Mustoxydes has Λ, in l. 3 Ε, in l. 4 Λ, and in l. 6 l. In l. 4 Meritt read τοῖς [ἑ]κκα[ί]δ[εκα] doubtfully.

138 IG i2. 79. 9 ff. and 15 ff. For ἐγ βολε͂ς compare τρε͂ς ἄνδρας hελέσθαι ἐγ βολε͂ς in IG i2. 24. 16 f.

139 For the loans see IG i2. 324. 107 ff. and Meiggs and Lewis, op. cit. 214 ff.

140 I base the restoration mainly on the formula hο͂ παρελάβομεν παρὰ το͂ν προτέρον ταμιο͂ν, which—with variants—accompanies many items in the accounts of Athena's tamiai in 409/8 B.C.; see Meritt, , AFD 60 f.Google Scholar on IG i2. 301.

141 For the chairman Anti— see IG i2. 310. 91 f.; for Lesbos see Thuc. iii. 19 with Gomme's notes (Commentary ii. 278 f.). I hardly dare raise the possibility that IG i2. 300. 11 (12)—ἐπὶ τε͂ς Παν—once joined IG i2. 299. 2—δ̣ιονίδο[ς πρυτανείασ]. Meritt allowed 428/7 as an alternative dating to 431/30 B.C. for the composite document to which Wade-Gery showed that IG i2. 299 belonged. See AFD 83 fF. As transcribed (see IG i. 187) line 13 will not quite fit IG i2. 299. 3 and 1. 11 is hard to restore satisfactorily (ἐς τὰ [ἐ]π᾿ Ὀλύ[νθοι φρόρια]?). But Mustoxydes evidently did not observe the stoichedon arrangement of his text accurately.

142 See my article in BCH xcii (1968) 458 f., which I would now modify. In Athena's inventories the chairman of the present board, representing his colleagues, and their secretary are named as subjects of τάδε παρέδοσαν: the previous board is defined only by its secretary's name. In IG i2. 310 I would assume the same pattern (save that all the present board are listed): Ἐλευσίνιος in l. 7 then will be the demotic of their secretary (not of a sixth treasurer) and in ll. 8 f. we should restore παρὰ το͂ν π[ροτέρον ταμιο͂ν hοῖς Σό]|στρατ[ος?-----------ἐγραμμάτευε].

143 ATL ii. D 1 (IG i2. 91). 13–22. The new board's nature is clear from IG i2. 370/1, on which see Wesley Thompson, , Hesperia xxxvi (1967) 147 f.Google Scholar