Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T18:41:26.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Greek inscriptions on stone in the collection of the British School at Athens1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

S. D. Lambert
S. D. Lambert
Affiliation:
The British School at Athens, University of Liverpool
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article publishes or republishes the 23 Greek inscriptions on stone in the collection of the British School at Athens. The majority are Attic, but also included are five stones from Melos and one each from Anthedon in Boeotia, Aegina(?), Epirus and Thera. Two of the inscriptions, an Attic funerary monument and an Aeginetan(?) fragment, receive their first editions here. In addition, of the eight which have associated reliefs, six are fully published for the first time. Most of the already published items have also yielded something new of interest. An appendix presents the first edition (from the papers of George Finlay) of a short inscription once in his collection.

Type
Articles
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 95 , November 2000 , pp. 485 - 516
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 2000

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 BSA museum catalogue numbers E1 E24, E5, one of a number of inscribed sherds in the museum, is not included here.

3 E17-21 in the context of the BSA's work on Melos in 1896, E16 a little earlier. E6 was presented to the School in 1897. The following inscriptions listed in Finlay, MS Catalogue, and/or noted by Hereward-Clarke as once in Finlay's possession or at the BSA, are not now in the BSA's collection: IG i3 133 frag, e (MS Cat. no. 6), IG ii2 2763 (MS Cat. no. 4), 4559 (MS Cat. no. 5), 9467 (MS Cat. no. 8), 10466 (MS Cat. no. 19), 11568 (MS Cat. no. 13), 12599 (MS Cat. no. 2), Unpublished (see below, Appendix) (MS Cat. no. 18); 5239, 7223, 12815 (all in MS Cat. among ‘other tombs in my garden [Odos Adrianou 199] in Koumanoudes' collection’, together with MS Cat. nos. 2, 8 and 13); 3368, 4098.

4 E7 (= S28), E10 (= S89), E12 (= S91), E14 (= S94), E23 (= S93), E24 (= S92). Numbers with prefix “S” refer to the BSA museum's sculpture catalogue.

5 Diod. xix. 62. I follow conventional Diodoran chronology, which, though not beyond question, seems consistent as far as these events are concerned with the evidence of our decree. On the alternative scheme of Errington, R. M., Hermes, 105 (1977), 478–504, esp. 498Google Scholar n. 63, see Osborne, ii, 114, O'Sulhvan, 109–10 n. 17 and works there mentioned.

6 Diod. xix. 68. 2 and 5.

7 Ibid., 68. 3–4.

8 Ibid., 75.

9 On the conjectured connection with the Lemnos expedition, widely accepted, cf. Osborne, ii, 114. Errington (n. 5), 498 n. 63, objects that Asandros' support is unlikely at a time when he was hard pressed in Caria, leading an army with Prepelaos against his attackers. But this would not seem valid against my suggestion that the decree looked back to the winter of 315/14, when Asandros might plausibly have visited and co-operated with Athens outside the campaigning season in the context of allied preparations for assaults on Antigonos in 314. An attempt to divert Antigonos' attention to Lemnos would have been in Asandros' interest. On O'Sullivan's suggestion that the decree in frag, a was passed while Asandros was helping Athens prepare lor an attack on Samos in 313 see Lambert (cf. Gauthier, P., REG 111 (1998), 600Google Scholar). It arises largely from the long current (but in my view probably incorrect) restoration of the verb in 20–1 in the present tense.

10 Of IG ii2 453 of 310/09, also apparently an honorary decree, little more than the prescript survives. For other decrees possibly dating to the period, see Tracy, 36 with n. 2.

11 Diod. xviii. 74. 2 3. Ci. recenlly Tracy, 38 9; Habicht, 44–5.

12 Osborne, ii, 115 n. 468, notes cases ol public provision for statues.

13 Cf. von Hartel, W., Studien über attisches Staatsrecht und Urkundenwesen (Vienna, 1878), 54Google Scholar; O'Sullivan, 114–15.

14 Cf. Dow, S., HSCP 67 (1963), 83–6Google Scholar; Osborne, ii, 115.

15 Cf. Rhodes, P. J. with Lewis, D. M., The Decrees of the Greek States (Oxford, 1997), 42Google Scholar.

16 Dow (n. 14) and Osborne (n. 14).

17 O'Sullivan, 114–16.

18 SEG xxi. 303 (= Agora, xvi. 97) and 304. Cf. R. Wünsch (ed.), CIA (= IG iii) Appendix. Defixionum tabellae (1897), p. 7, a. Under the regime of 322 19, active citizenship was limited to those possessing 2,000 dr.

19 IG ii2 1623. 5 (epimelete of the dockyards, 333/2); Agora, xix. L6, 120 and Lg, 40 and 45 (lessee of sacred properties in/after 343/2).

20 The only demonstrably non-Attic stone inscription in Finlay's MS Catalogue is explicitly stated to be from Thera. Cf. Appendix.

21 5th cent. (Köhler), first half 4th cent. (Peek). The ligature (see epigraphical notes) raises the possibility that it was a classicizing monument of e.g. the Augustan period.

22 Given that ἀντιάω/άϚω can also mean ‘supplicate’, it might alternatively be a dedication base. I have been unable, however, to find a parallel for the use of this verb in such a context.

23 I am grateful to Judith Binder for informing me of this location.

24 See on E4.

25 –O for –ου, common in the earlier 4th c., became increasingly unusual as the century progressed, cf. Threatte, i, 238–59. Kirchner, following the stylistic scheme of Möbius, H., Die Ornamente der griechischen Grabstelen (Berlin, 1929), 88Google Scholar, dated both stelai to 390–65 BC; Scholl dates E3 to 340–30 BC.

26 This can be seen to good effect in their current position either side of the fireplace in the entrance hall to the BSA.

27 Note for example the bowler-hat style omegas, the upsilons with a slight outward curve to the upper strokes, the mus of Μυρρίνη and Δημοκήδος with left stroke slightly more vertical than the right and the final etas on both inscriptions with a slightly curving right vertical.

28 LGPN ii countenances the possibility that the women on E3 were not of citizen status; but that status will be certain if they were related to the man on E4.

29 The family is attested on the funerary monuments IG ii2 7257, 7263 and probably 11360.

30 Proposer of the fragmentary honorific decree, IG ii2 506 (see further below). Other possible family members can be traced via LGPN ii, Λυσίστρατος 58 and 59, cf. APF p. 425.

31 Probably son of the Brachyllos son of Bathyllos of Erchia, proposer of Agora, xv. 34 of 343/2 (line 10), and a relation (brother?) of [Β]άθυλλος [Βραχύλλου] on the gravestone, SEG xxi. 1013. [Βρ]άχυλλος [–] mentioned immediately before Bathyllos on this gravestone is perhaps identical either with our man or with the proposer of Agora, xv. 34. The name Brachyllos is otherwise attested at Athens only for the lather of the wife of Lysias the orator (Dem. lix. 22; this Brachyllos, mentioned here by name only, must have been well-known to the jury members). A connection with the Erchian family is not impossible.

32 Councillor in 304/3, Agora, xv. 61. 239. His father(?) was councillor in the early 4th cent., Agora, xv. 10. 61.

33 Pantenor son of Euenor, perhaps of Skambonidai, councillor in c. 333, may have been a relation (SEG xxviii. 52. 34).

34 Perhaps related to the Dionysioi of Thorikos with fathers' or sons' names in Kalli- attested on IG ii2 6225 (gravestone) and Agora, xv. 39. 10 (councillor c. 340). Cf. also IG ii2 6219 + SEG xxxiii. 133 and Agora, xv. 42. 266.

35 cf. IG ii2 12480.

36 Councillor in 281/0, Agora, xv. 72. 265.

37 Probably, as Henry pointed out, the decree was actually passed early in 303/2, after the officials had rendered their accounts at the end of their year in office.

38 Demetrios Poliorketes was son of Antigonos the Oneeyed, against whom Athens had campaigned, with Asandros satrap of Caria, ten years earlier. Cf. E1.

39 See n. 30.

40 cf. Habicht, 76.

41 Β]ράχυλλον Βραχύλλου in 8. Cf. n. 31. Note also the new names in 7 and 12.

42 See Nolan, B. T., Inscribing Costs at Athens in the Fourth Century BC, PhD. diss., Ohio State, 1981, esp. 76Google Scholar. Other cases of 40 dr. in this period: IG ii2 410 of c. 337 (42 lines of stoichedon 45 + crowns and perhaps relief), IG ii2 505 of 302/1 (64 lines of stoichedon 39 “aetomate ornatum”), (very uncertainly) Agora, xvi. 83 of c. 330?, (possibly) Agora, xvi. 121 of 303/2–302/1. 50 dr: e.g. IG ii2 448.

43 cf. Henry, 51–63, with textual notes, above. In addition to these two officers, there are decrees datable to later 303/2 in which the treasurer of the stratiotic funds performed this function, but his title could not be accommodated in our decree. In general the arrangements with regard to funds and officials responsible for paying for decrees in 303–301 seem confused and may, as Henry has suggested, have been ad hoc in a period of financial disorder; but 303/2 seems to have had an unusually large output of inscribed decrees and it may also be that, as M. Osbornc has suggested (Naturalization in Athens, [Brussels, 1981–3], ii, 126 n. 534), the Assembly's fund originally allocated to this purpose ran out, cf. Henry, 56–8. Note also in this connection the amount of our stele left uninscribed (intended for crowns?).

44 As Stephen Tracy points out to me, it is notable that two different officials should be ascribed disbursement functions in the same decree. This may be another symptom of financial disorder, though ὁ ἐπὶ τη̑ι διοικήσει perhaps exercises here a broader function than ὁ ταμίας του̑ δήμο< (on the narrow scope of the latter cf. Henry, rather obscure arrangements in the decree for the epimeletai of the Amphiaraia of 329/8, I Orop 298).

45 Thanks for this identification are due to Karen Stears. The outline of the bird remains visible. Birds appear fairly frequently on Attic funerary stelai of this period in a number of poignant contexts, quite often clutched by children (see von Moock, 61, 68, 70, 78, 80; cf. the butterfly with broken wing in von Moock, no. 213). Here no doubt the significance is primarily amatory. See further next note.

46 Conze, A., Die attischen Grabreliefs (Berlin and Leipzig, 1911–1922), ivGoogle Scholar no. 2093. I am grateful to Antonio Corso for drawing my attention to this parallel. The pose of the figures is identical, as are many of the details, e.g. the positioning of the feet, the fact that, of the four feet, only the man's right foot is carved in detail, and the cutting of the lower drapery of the woman. Note also that the man's left forefinger is outstretched under a discoloured area, suggesting that a painted bird once perched on it. Either they derive from a common exemplar, or our stele, which is probably slightly earlier than von Moock, no. 460, was a model for it. Cf. also von Moock, nos. 441 and 512 (= Conze, iv, nos. 2096 and 2103).

47 See Oliver, J. H., Hesp. Supp. 13, 1970. Subsequent bibliography can be traced via SEG xlvi. 145Google Scholar.

48 ‘…trouvé dans la direction de la rue des Tripodes, non loin du monument de Lysicrate, dans les fondements de la maison de M. Finley.’ Rangabé, A. R., Antiquités Helléniques (Athens, 1842), no. 55Google Scholar. ‘Ad Lysicratis monumentum’ (IG i3 959, cf. IG i2 771) is somewhat misleading, since based only on secondary use in Finlay's house.

49 ‘c. a. 430–420’ (Lewis) is in my view over precise.

50 Ath. Pol. lvi. 3 and 5. Cf. Antiphon vi. 11, a speech which gives vivid insights into what the choregia might entail at this period.

51 e.g. Αἰγηίς ἐνίκα . . . , IG i3 960 (Dionysia); . . . ἐχορήγε Πανδιονίδι Ἐρεχθηίδι παίδων, IG i3 966 (Thargelia).

52 Amandry suggested that our monument was from a Thargelia victory as the choregos has both father's name and demotic, but in fact there is only one other 5th-c. case where a demotic is given, IG i3 966, and it may be coincidental that it is for a victory at the Thargelia. The choregos of IG i3 965 at least, also from the Thargelia, has no demotic. The findspot in the foundations of Finlay's house north of the Acropolis was close to the Street of the Tripods and Lysicrates' monument (= IG ii2 3042, commemorating a victory at the Dionysia in 335/4 and still in situ), an area favoured for Dionysia monuments. It is unclear, however, how close Finlay's house was to the original location of the inscription.

Thargelia monuments were apparently usually set up in the Pythion (Isae. v. 41; Plato, Gorgias 472 a-b with IG i3 964; Phot., Suid., s.v. Πύθιθν), which may have been in the area of the Uissos south of the Olympieion, where several such monuments have been found. However, six Thargelia monuments have also been found north of the Acropolis, from which ‘one can get an idea about how misleading the find-spots can be.’ (Makres, A., The Institution of the Choregia in Classical Athens, D. Phil, diss., Oxford, 1994Google Scholar, ch. 7). On the Street of the Tripods see also A. Ghoremi-Spetsieri, in Coulson, W. et al. (eds), The Archaeology of Athens and Attica under the Democracy (Oxbow Monograph 37; Oxford, 1994), 31–42Google Scholar.

53 Eupolis F318 K-A; Ar. Frogs, 1036–38.

54 IG i3 958; Steph. Byz. s.v. Ατήνη; IG i3 967. He was also poet for a chorus produced by the speaker of Antiphon vi (sect. 11) and was mentioned in Aristotle's Didaskaliai (F624 Rose = Harp. s.v. διδάσκαλος).

55 It is unclear how close this was to its original location. On the cemeteries of Roman Athens see Walters, E. J., Attic Grave Reliefs that Represent Women in the Dress of Isis (Hesp. Supp. 22, 1988), 33–41Google Scholar, and von Moock.

56 Of the 136 persons with ethnics on the Attic ‘figürliche Grabstelen’ of the Roman period listed by von Moock, p. 202, 107 are ‘Milesians’, 29 have other ethnics. FRA lists four other women called (E)isias ‘Milesia’ on funerary monuments of the Roman period: IG ii2 9694, 9696 and 9697 (also with an Isis-type relief = von Moock, no. 242, Antomne or Severan) and SEG xxix. 234 (= IG ii2 9693?).

57 IG ii2 2271, 1996, 2026, 2024.

58 See Baslez, M-F in Walker, S. and Cameron, A. (eds), The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire (BICS Supp. 55, 1989), 17–36, esp. 24–27Google Scholar. Note e.g. the disproportionate number of women, of ‘Milesioi’ with mothers' rather than fathers' names (bastards?), of ‘Milesios’-citizen marriages (Athenians marrying their own freed slaves?), of ‘Milesioi’ in Athenian family tombs (freedmen within an Athenian familia?) and of ‘Milesioi’ in attendant-type posts (leitourgoi of archons, thyroroi of ephebes etc.). If Isis-derivcd names can be taken to suggest servile origin (see below), it is also significant that, though they represent only a quarter of the foreign resident population (2016 of 8209 in FRA), many more ‘Milesioi’ have names with an Isis root (60) than do all other foreign residents of Athens combined (36; I am grateful to Sean Byrne for discussion of these figures). The earliest known ‘Milesia’ at Athens was Aspasia, prominent mistress of Perikles, whose son, though illegitimate, was specially permitted entry to a phratry (Plut., Per. xxiv, cf. xxxvii. 5Google Scholar); one wonders if this might have been a conscious precedent for the creation of the later ‘Milesios’ category.

59 Walters (n. 55); cf. J. Eingartner, Isis und ihre Dienenerinnen in der Kunst der römischen Kaiserzeit (1991); von Moock, 62 and passim.

60 Walters (n. 55), 69, with pl. 6. Kirchner's date for our monument was ‘s. I p.’. It is not dated by von Moock.

61 Von Moock, 84–5. Cf. Eingartner (n. 59), 95–107. A different view at Walters (n. 55), 52–7.

62 The name at IG ii2 1654. 8 should be restored as [Σω̑]κλον. The same man is at IG i3 476. 173.

63 cf. Habicht, 321–2.

64 SEG xvii. 34.

65 See Geagan (1997), 22.

66 SEG xvii. 71. Οἱ ἔμποροι Ἀντίπατον Ἀντι[πάτρου] Φλυέα στρατηγήσαντα τὸ ἕβδ[ομον] ἐπὶ τοὺς ὁπ<λ>είτας καὶ προνοηθέν [τα τη̑ς] τω̑ν ἐμπόρων ἀσφαλείας τε καὶ σω[τηρίας]. Presumably port fortifications, measures against pirates vel sim. are envisaged. Meritt's publication of this inscription in 1948 made it clear that the earlier restoration of our l. 1, [Αἰολίωνα Ἀντιπ]άτρου (thus still Sarikakis), was incorrect, cf. Stamires, 249; Dinsmoor, 191. The letter forms on the two inscriptions are very similar.

67 Daux, G., BCH 83 (1959), 479Google Scholar no. II (cf. SEG xviii. 223).

68 See Dinsmoor; Herrmann, P., ZPE 10 (1973), 79–85Google Scholar; Kapetanopoulos, E. A., Hellenika, 29 (1976), 248–53Google Scholar.

69 LGPN ii, Πρόκλος(1).

70 IG ii2 2029. 16; 2058. 13. A Πρόκλος Μιλήσιος (on the significance of this pseudo-ethnic cf. on E 10) was father of τος, in c. AD 116 on IG ii2 2026. 23.

71 I am grateful to Sean Byrne for this suggestion.

72 cf. n. 66 and e.g. M. Antonius Proculus in Messene, Augustan, SEG xxiii. 207. 21Google Scholar.

73 He was also honoured by Thespiae, Plassart, A., BCH 50 (1926), 442CrossRefGoogle Scholar no. 79. On this man see further Groag, E., Die römischen Reichsbeamten von Achaia bis auf Diokletian (Vienna, 1939), 35Google Scholar; Graindor, P., Athènes sous Auguste (Cairo, 1927), 59–61Google Scholar; Hirschfcld, O. ap. Loewy, E., Inschriften griechischer Bildhauer (Leipzig, 1885), 228Google Scholar no. 318.

74 IG ii2 3542 (= 3561, cf. SEG xxii. 155); Groag (n. 73), 36–7; Bodnar, E. W., Hesp. 31 (1962), 393–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; SEG xxi. 743. 75cf. Woodford, S. in Mitten, D.G. et al. (eds), Studies … G. M. Hanfinann (Cambridge Mass., 1971), 214Google Scholar. Sean Byrne suggests to me that the relief might indicate that -atos died while on ephebic service. The only other explicit link with Herakles made on an Attic funerary relief of the Roman period seems to be von Moock, no. 471, where a deceased infant is portrayed with attributes of Herakles. Cf. von Moock, 68.

76 On Eileithyia in general see Pingiatoglou; Stroud, R., The Athenian Grain Tax Law of 374/3 BC (Hesp. Supp. 29, 1998), 89Google Scholar n. 10; Olmos, R., LIMC iii (1986Google Scholar), s.v. Eileithyia. For dedication of the statue of a baby cf. Pingiatoglou, 64–5 with pl. 14, 1; in general on children in Athenian dedications (among whom girls are well represented), Gcagan, D. J., Boeol. Ant. 4 (1994), 163–73 (esp. 165–6Google Scholar).

77 See Kirchner's, note in IG ii 2Google Scholar (= Pingiatoglou E40). LGPN ii makes the priestesses two separate persons, incorrectly I think. The hand on the two dedications, including the distinctive rho with lower curve formed by an extended horizontal stroke, is identical, though somewhat less neat on ours.

78 Kapctanopoulos, no. 8; Clinton, K., The Sacred Officials of the Eleusinian Mysteries (Philadelphia, 1974), 79–80Google Scholar with Ap. vii (= IG ii2 4075 + 4083).79

79 IG ii2 2085. 24 with Kirchner's note.

80 As suggested by Kapetanopoulos, 65.

81 cf. Kapetanopoulos, 65.

82 There is no fixed pattern among dedications to Eileithyia with regard to who dedicates on behalf of whom; but, not surprisingly, the mother seems normally to have been involved or at least mentioned, e.g. SEG xxxv. 141 (= Pingiatoglou E35) and Peek, W., AM 67 (1942) [1951], 56Google Scholar no. 94 (= E39), which look like dedications by husband and wife; IG ii2 4793 (= E42), a prospective mother on her own behalf; IG ii2 3965 (= E40), a maternal grandmother on behalf of her grandson, and mentioning both parents of the child. For a parallel wording to ours see IG ii2 4669 (= E33).

83 See Stroud (n. 76); Walbank, M. B., Hesp. 52 (1983), 119Google Scholar. Geagan (n. 76), 166 (questionably) identifies three. Of the other three known priestesses of Eileithyia we have no indication which cult was served by Philostrate, (SEG xxxv. 141Google Scholar, c. 350 BC, findspot unknown). Pamphile (IG ii2 4669, 4th/3rd cent. BC found ‘ad metropolim’) perhaps served in the Kollytos sanctuary, Archibia (IG ii2 4682, 3rd c. BC, found ‘ad Ilissum orientem versus a Callirrhoe’) the one in Agrai (cf. Pingiatoglou, 42–4).

84 Thus Forsén, B., in Forsén, B. and Stanton, G. (eds), The Pnyx in the History of Athens (Helsinki, 1996), 47–55Google Scholar, through which earlier bibliography can be traced. Cf. Travlos, J., Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens (New York, 1971), 569–71Google Scholar.

85 Thus Forsén (n. 84), 50.

86 Meritt, B. D., Hesp. 29 (1960), 63CrossRefGoogle Scholar no. 108. Cf. Meritt, B. D., Hesp. 17 (1948), 43CrossRefGoogle Scholar no. 34; Thompson, H., Hesp. 5 (1936), 154–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 155 with fig. 5. Other dedications to this deity in Attica can be traced through SEG xl. 202. On the (fairly common) boukranion-type altar relief see Yavis, C. G., Greek Altars (Saint Louis, 1949), 148–52Google Scholar; also Étienne, R. and Le Dinahet, M.Th. (eds), L'espace sacrificiel (Paris, 1991Google Scholar). For an example of a dedication of this type with an object inserted in the top (in this case a sculpted ship's prow) see Basch, L., Le musée imaginaire de la marine antique (Athens, 1987), 362 no. 2 with phGoogle Scholar.

87 Note dated 8 April 1962 on catalogue card in BSA museum.

88 I am grateful to Michael Walbank for this suggestion.

89 It can not, however, be ruled out that the mint magistrates belonged rather to a probably related family from Kothokidai, cf. Mattingly, H. B., Chiron, 9 (1979), 165Google Scholar. See also Habicht, C., Chiron, 21 (1991), 8 and 14Google Scholar (who inverts the names Alketes and Euagion in the last sentence of his discussion on 14).

90 For details and references see S. V Tracy, IG ii2 2336: Conlribulors of First Fruits for the Pythais (Meisenheim, 1982), 194 and 214Google Scholar. Cf. Habicht, 288.

91 On this period in general see Habicht, ehs. 12–13.

92 Date: Tracy. ALC 247.

93 See Roesch, 116.

94 Roesch proposed new readings based on a squeeze and photograph. The stone is now so worn that autopsy yields little further improvement, with the exception of the area at the bottom of col. 2. which I examined with Scan Byrne and where I propose the following revised text:

No editor before R. read anything in these lines, except Kirchner (my 104–5 only). 90–1. SDL. In π̣ at least the verticals seem clear. 92. SDL. [Διον]ύσιος Hereward. 100. SDL. Possibly Ποσειδώνιος or Ποσείδιππος, though there is perhaps a suspicion of not only iota after the delta but also alpha before the sigma. 101. SGB and SDL agree that the father's name is Ἀρίστωνος (cf. ll. 5, 16). The name is less certain; Εὐαίων ? Εὔαίων ? 103. Διϕίλου? SGB X (or K?) Y (or letter with vertical?)Λ[.0.2.]ιων . . .δου? SDL. 104–5. Ki. and R. Further meticulous examination of the stone in this area might prove profitable.

95 First to do so was Wilhelm, A., ÖJh 8 (1905), 278–79Google Scholar. Cf. Roesch, 115. On the archaeology and inscriptions of Anthedon see also H. Schlager, D. J. Blackman and J. Schäfer, AA 1968, 21–98; Knoepfler, D., in Kalcyk, H. et al. (eds), Studien … S. Lauffer (Rome, 1986) ii, 595–630Google Scholar.

96 Many of the Melian tombstones at IG xii. 3. 1128–87 are of this type. Another example is at Cook, J. M., JHS 66 (1946), 115Google Scholar with 116 fig. 6.

97 Thuc. v. 84–116. Survivors were reinstated by Lysander in 403 after the Athenian defeat at Aigospotamoi (Xen., Hell. ii. 2. 9Google Scholar). A date 480–416? is suggested by Jeffery, 324 no. 25.

98 IG xii. 3. 513b, 2nd-ist cent. BC. Cf. LGPN i and iiia.

99 The name Phylosthenes is attested on Thera, Phyleos and Phyleokrates on Melos (see LGPN i); the Phyleomachidai are known from Cos (Segre, M., Iscrizioni di Cos [Rome, 1993]Google Scholar, ED 241. 17–19). Cf. Bechtel, F., Hermes, 34 (1899), 398Google Scholar.

100 The name Phyles is attested on Rhodes, Sthenes, in Mytilene, . See LGPN iGoogle Scholar.

101 cf. Zschietzschmann, W., RE xv (1) s.v. Melos (1931), 583–4Google Scholar; Clinton, K., LIMC vii (1)Google Scholar (1994) s.v. Ploutos, 418–19 no. 22.

102 Smith: first half 4th cent.; IG (Hiller): 3rd cent.; W. G. Forrest (note on card in BSA museum): 2nd cent.

103 e.g. the archaic inscription, IG iv. 7, was discovered by Finlay at the Zeus Hellanios ‘hostel’ site on Mt. Oros. Finlay corresponded with W. M. Leake about the Acginctan temple sites, see Hussey, J. M. (ed.), The Journals and Letters of George Finlay, ii (Camberley. 1995), 484Google Scholar (Finlay to Leake, April 1835), 486 (Leake's reply). For Finlay's residence on Aegina, ibid, i, pp. xxi–xxii.

104 On this site and temple see Paus. ii. 29–30; Walter, H. in Wurster, W., Alt-Ägina i, 1, Der Apollontempel (Mainz, 1974), 5–7Google Scholar; E. Walter-Karydi, AA 1994, 125–38; G. Welter, AA 1954, 40–3, cf. idem, Αἴϒινα (Athens, 1962) (on a putative early Poseidon-temple in the same area). Propaganda Athens im Delisch-Attischen Seebund (Munich, 1990), 109–29Google Scholar.

106 Both our fragment and the temenos horoi show the threebar sigma, for which the conventional terminus ante on Attic inscriptions is 446/5. However, there is now a strong body of opinion that would date the Egesta, decree, IG i 311Google Scholar, which has this form, to 418/7. See Chambers, M. H., Gallucci, R. and Spanos, P., ZPE 83 (1990), 38–57Google Scholar. Subsequent debate may be traced through SEG xxxix. 1, xl. 2, xlii. 4, xlv. 4 and most recently at the time of writing Mattingly, H. B.ZPE 126 (1999), 117–22Google Scholar.

107 Notebook 3 (=B) 74 in Clarke's MS, Notebooks of travels in Epirus, at the BSA.

108 From letter forms.

109 Finlay refers to this visit in published papers, e.g. his journal for 1837, Hussey (n. 103), i, 229 (drawing, 254).

110 = Hiller, F. et al. , Thera, iiGoogle Scholar.

111 I am grateful to Antonio Corso for this suggestion.

112 This appears to bc the only unpublished inscription on stone in Finlay's list of his collection in MS Catalogue. However, Finlay made drawings of numerous other inscriptions in his epigraphical notebooks (especially MS Cat. and MS Coll. Gr.) as well as his journals and correspondence (see e.g. the facsimile reproductions in Hussey [n. 103]). Further study of all this material by an cpigraphist might yield valuable results.

113 The only non-Attic item among the inscriptions on stone in MS Catalogue, no. 15 (= E24), is explicitly stated to be from Thera. The others, all certainly or probably Attic, are listed without provenance.