Navigazione – Mappa del sito
Saggi

ΙG Ι³ 219 and ΙG Ι³ 420 revisited

Georgia E. Malouchou
p. 11-22

Abstract

In the present article two 5th century Attic inscriptions are revisited, namely IG I3 219 and IG I3 420. They were both first published by the 19th century Greek archaeologist and epigraphist K. S. Pittakes. Close study of the two very fragmentary inscriptions led to the assumption that they probably belong to the same dossier, i.e. leases of public lands or sales of confiscated properties.

Torna su

Note dell'autore

I would like to express my gratitude to the Editorial Board of the journal «Historiká» and especially to Prof. Enrica Culasso Gastaldi for accepting my paper for publication, and to Angelos P. Matthaiou for all his help in the study of the two inscriptions and his suggestions. Also to the two anonymous reviewers for «Historiká» for helping me to improve the article. Many thanks to Athanasios Themos, Director of the Epigraphical Museum, Elena Zavvou and Eirene Choremi, Ἐπιμελήτριες Ἀρχαιοτήτων of the Epigraphical Museum. And also to Andronike Makres for improving my English text.
A provisional paper on these inscriptions was presented in the Epigraphic Conference
τῶν Ἀθηναίων ἀρχὴ in honor of Harold B. Mattingly, which was organized by the Greek Epigraphic Society and the British School at Athens (Athens, 21-23 May 2010).

Testo integrale

  • 1 All Attic inscriptions published in the «ArchEph» of the first period, together with other findings (...)

1In the present article I shall be revisiting two fifth century B.C. Attic inscriptions, which were first published by Kyriakos S. Pittakes (1798-1863) in the «Archaeologike Ephemeris» (= «ArchEph») of the first period (1837-1860)1.

1. ΙG Ι³ 219 (ΕΜ 5390). Figs. 1-2.

Fig. 1 = ΙG Ι³ 219. Pittakes, «ΑrchΕph» 1860, 2048, no. 4085

Fig. 1 = ΙG Ι³ 219. Pittakes, «ΑrchΕph» 1860, 2048, no. 4085

Fig. 2 = ΙG Ι³ 219. EM 5390 (phot. courtesy of the Epigraphical Museum).

Fig. 2 = ΙG Ι³ 219. EM 5390 (phot. courtesy of the Epigraphical Museum).

2Ιn ΙG Ι3 it is recorded as ineditum among the «Decretorum fragmenta». Ηowever, it had already been published by Ρittakes in the «ArchEph» (fig. 1). From his publication we gather the information that the fragment was found by himself on the Acropolis.

3In what follows, I will provide a revised edition of ΙG Ι³ 219 after autopsy of the stone.

4Fragment of a stele of white (probably Pentelic) marble, broken on all sides. It was found by Pittakes in 1858 on the Αcropolis in the demolition of the cistern west of the Ρarthenon. Ιt is kept in the Epigraphical Museum (EM 5390).

5A small part of the lower part of the stele has been broken off since its discovery. The letters no longer preserved but read by Pittakes are underligned.

6Preserved height: 0,195 m., pr. width: 0,088 m., pr. thickness: 0,034 m.

7Letter-height: 0,010-0,011 m., 0,008 m. (O), interl. 0,008 m.

8Ed. K. S. Pittakes, «ΑrchΕph» 1860, 2048, no. 4085. (Malouchou, AΡΜΑ 5, no. 325). ΙG Ι³ 219.

s. V2
stoich.
vac.?
- - - -EMONO- - -
- - - ΑΝΔΡΕI - - -
- - -ος vac.
- - -ινι vac.
5 - - -νει ἐμ Π- - -
- - -ΡΕΙΟΝΟ- - -
- - -ITO ΑΡΙ- - -
- - [[- - - ]] [[.]] - -
- - -ΕΣΣ̣ [.]Ι - - - - -
10 - -Σ- - - -
- - - - - - - - -

91 [δ] ε̃μον ο̣[-] Lewis, [-]έμονο[ς] Mal. || 5 [-ἐν στέλει λιθί]νει ἐμ π̣[όλει] Lewis. || 6 [-]ρειον ο[-] or [-]ρειο νo[-]. || 9-10 Pittakes. || 9 ἐς Σ̣[- -] Mal.

Epigraphical Commentary

10The trace on the top of the fragment seems to be a scratch and not a trace of a letter; moreover, its position is not compatible with the stoichedon order of the text. It is possible that the letter Θ, which Pittakes noted over the letter E (line 1) is this particular scratch.

11The vacat space above line 1 is a possible indication that a new entry begins.

Notes

  • 2 Pritchett 1956, 178.

12There are several pecularities in the text, which are not compatible with a decree; namely a) the vacant spaces at the ends of particular lines and the erasure in line 8; and b) the partly preserved words in ll. 2, 4 along with those in ll. 5 and 6. All these indicate that the fragment could have been part of a sale or lease of properties rather than of a decree, as demonstrated in IG I3 219. A close parallel could be, -I do not suggest that the fr. belongs to this dossier- the so-called Attic Stelae, IG I3 421-430, i.e. «the group of inscriptions recording the sale of items of personal property confiscated from Alcibiades and other condemned men, who were accused of mutilating the Herms and profaning the Eleusinian mysteries in 415/4 B.C.»2.

1 Lewis, who took the text to be a decree, had restored [δ]ε̃μον ο̣[-]. But the preserved letters ΕΜΟΝΟ could well have belonged to a personal name in the genitive form, for example [Δ]έμονο[ς], [ℎεγ]έμονο[ς], [Εὐκτ]έμονο[ς], [Eὐθ]έμονο[ς]. It is interesting to note that a certain Εὐκτήμων was among those who were accused of mutilating the Ηerms (Αndoc. 1, 35: Τεῦκρος ἐπὶ τοῖς Ἑρμαῖς ἐμήνυσεν Εὐκτήμονα, Γλαύκιππον etc.).
The partly preserved name might belong to the name or to the patronymic of the owner of the recorded properties (see e.g.
ΙG Ι3 421.26-27.33: Πολυστράτο τõ Διο[δόρο] | Ἀγκυλε̃θεν... Κεφισοδόρο μετοίκο ἐμ Περα[ιεῖ οἰκõντος], ΙG Ι3 426.53sqq.: [Ἀδειμάν]το τõ Λε[υ]κολοφίδο Σκα[μβονίδο] | ἀνὲρ [Ἀρ]ιστόμαχος | ἀγρὸς [ἐν] Θάσοι ἐν ̣- - | καὶ οἰκ[ία]. vac. | ἔπεστιν [πίθ]οι κλπ.), or to the name of the neighbor of the recorded property (see e.g. ΙG Ι3 420.6-7: καὶ οἰκία | [-]α̣γόρο πρὸςέο – see below).

  • 3 Compare for example τὸν λουτρῶνα τὸν ἀνδρεῖον in the Attic hellenistic decree of the orgeones «AM» (...)
  • 4 The word polyandreion usually means common burial place (LSJ9, s.v.). Three polyandreia are epigrap (...)

2 [-]ΑΝΔΡΕI[-]. Α vertical stroke is preserved at the right edge of the fragment (Ι̣, Ρ̣ or Π̣). Perhaps a topographical indication. The preserved letters might belong to the epithet ἀνδρεῖος (ἀνδρε[ῖος] or ἀνδρε[ῖον])3, or, more probably, to a toponym, e.g. [πρὸς τὸ πολυ]ανδρε[ῖον]4 or to a certain land; e.g. [Μεν]ανδρε[ιο-]; compare IG II2 2497.2-3: τὸ χωρίον τὸ Θεοδώρειον. The reference to a ΡΕΙΟΝ in line 6 could be identical with the here attested [-]ΑΝΔΡΕI[-].

3 The vacat space after ΟΣ implies that a new item was listed in the next line.

4 [-]ινι. Probably the ending of a place-name; e.g. [Ἐλευσ]ῖνι, or [Σαλαμ]ῖνι etc.

5 [-]νει ἐμ Π[-]. Lewis restored [ἐν στέλει λιθί]νει ἐμ π̣[όλει]; probably here is another topographical indication, e.g. [τõι τεμέ]νει ἐμ Π[-] or something similar.

  • 5 τὸ Αἰ[άντειον] Lewis 1955, 16 note 40.

6 [-]ΡΕΙΟΝΟ[-]. The transcription of the text is problematic: [-]ρειον ο[-] or [-]ρειο νo[-]. For the restoration [-ανδ]ρειον (or [-ανδ]ρειο) see the comments on l. 2 above. Many other restorations are also possible, e.g. [Διοσκό]ρειον, [Λεοκό]ρειον, [βό]ρειον, [-]ρειο νo[τόθεν] etc. Another topograpical indication can be probably traced here; compare e.g. ΙG Ι3 426.5-8: [․..․c.7․․.]ο τõ Διοδόρο Εἰ[τεαίου | οἰκ]ία ἐν Κολλυτõιε̃[ι γ]εῖτον | ἐκ τõ ἐπὶ θάτερα τὸ Αἰ[-]5 | καὶε ἀγορά... (66-69): οἰκία ἐγ Κυδαθεναίο[ι]... ἑ͂ι γεῖτον [στὶ τὸιερὸν] | Ἀρτέμιδος τε̃ς Ἀθμονõθεν | Ἀμαρυσίας...(89): χορί[ον π]αρὰ τὸ Πύθ[ιον].

7 [-]ITOΑΡΙ[-]. Perhaps a personal name: Ἀρι[-].

8 A similar erasure appears in ΙG Ι3 426.182, which «extends across the entire width of the fragment» (Pritchett 1953, 279).

9 At the end of the line the upper part of a vertical stroke of a iota or of a lamda is preserved. Τhe preserved ΕΣΣ in line 10 seen by Ρittakes might have belonged to a topographical reference, ἐς Σ̣[.]ι̣[-], or ἐς Σ̣[.]λ̣[-], the toponym being in dative; for ἐς Σ[- -] instead of ἐν Σ[- -], see Threatte 1980, 633-635.

13Thorough study of the small fragment ΙG Ι3 219 showed that it probably belongs to an account of leases or sales of properties.

  • 6 ΙG Ι3 426 ll. 40-112 and 144-156 (see Tracy 2016, 125).

14The cutter of the inscription has great similarities with the “Cutter of IG II2 1386” (423/2-394/3) in Tracy 2016, 121-144. Interestingly, Tracy points out (p. 129) that the IG II2 1386 Cutter «inscribed substantial parts of I3 4266, the record of the sale of the property of the Hermokopidai that was set up in the city Eleusinion», and that «the bulk of the II2 1386 Cutter’s surviving work consists of accounts and inventories».

15Similarities between IG I3 219 and 420 in the letter-forms, in the vertical and in the horizontal space between the letters, and in the type of the document prompted me to examine IG I3 420.

2. IG I3 420 (EM 6659). Fig. 3.

Fig. 3 = ΙG Ι³ 420. EM 6659 (phot. courtesy of the Epigraphical Museum).

Fig. 3 = ΙG Ι³ 420. EM 6659 (phot. courtesy of the Epigraphical Museum).

16Two joining fragments of a stele of white marble glued together. The right side is preserved. Both fragments were found by Pittakes on the Acropolis; frg. a was found west of the Erechtheion and frg. b east of the Erechtheion. Now in the Epigraphical Museum (EM 6659).

17Preserved height: 0,29 m., pr. width: 0,32 m., pr. thickness: 0,076 m.

18Letter-height: 0,010-0,011 m., 0,007-0,008 m. (O), 0,009 (Δ), interl. 0,010 (ll. 1-3), 0,008-0,009 m. (ll. 4-11).

  • 7 Kirchhoff assumed that IG I 279a (=I3 418) was possibly the upper part of IG I 279.

19Ed.: Frg. a (left fr.): K. S. Pittakes, «ΑrchΕph» 1842, 597, no. 1048. A. R. Rangabé, Antiquités Helléniques I, Athènes 1842, no. 344. Pittakes, «ΑrchΕph» 1854, 1108, no. 2099. (AΡΜΑ 5, no. 656). Frg. b (right fr.): Pittakes, «ΑrchΕph» 1840, 371, no. 474 (draw.). (Malouchou, AΡΜΑ 5, no. 577). Rangabé (o.c.) no. 287. Frgs. a+b: ΙG Ι 279 (and ΙG Ι suppl. p. 367). ΙG Ι2 385. ΙG Ι³ 420. Morison 2003, 109-113. (SEG LIII 63bis).

20Bibl.: Judeich, Topographie2 80. Papazarkadas 2011, 24 n. 41, 70, 129 n. 139.

s. V2
stoich.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[- - - - - ℎ]õγ γ[ειτ - - - - - -]
[- πλέθρα -?-]ΗΔΔΠΙ ⋮ [- - - - - -]
3 [- - - - - γ]εῖτον τ[ὸ - - - - - -]
?vac. 0,027: 1 line
[- - - - -]ρ̣ο ⋮ τõ Φίλο[νο]ς ⋮ δεμ[- - -]
[- - - - -]σες τõι γυμ̣[ν]ασίοι vac.
6 [- - - - -] πλέθρα ⋮ ΔΔ[.]Ι ⋮ καὶ οἰκία vac.
[- - - - -]α̣γόρο ⋮ πρὸς ℎέο vac.
vac. 0,027: 1 line
[- - - - -]ο̣[.] βολευτέριον ⋮ ΜΟΡΙΜΟ
9 [- - - - -]ι[.]αγoρα[.] ℎ̣ερμαγόρο [-?-]
[- - - - -] βαλαν[ε...5..]'ΟΣΙΤ[- - -]
[- - - - -]Τ[.]Σ̣[- - - - - - -]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

  • 8 The punctuation is outside brackets in IG I3, but it is probably a misprint (cf. IG I 279 and ΙG Ι2(...)

211 Lewis; [-ℎ]õγ γ[είτονες -] Hiller, who compares with l. 3. || 2 beg. Lewis; end [καὶ οἰκία vacat?] Lewis. || 3 [-ℎε̃ι γ]είτον τ[-] Lewis. || 4 beg. [ἀγ]ρõ Morison, (p. 110). End δεμ[όσιον] Hiller. || 5 [γειτονευό]σες Hi.; [- ℎεχ]σε̃ς Mal. || 7 [ℎε̃ι γείτονε -]α̣γόρο. || 6 ΔΔΠ̣Ι Lewis. || 8 beg. Lewis, [- -]ον Morison. End Μορίμο[-] Hiller, Μορίμο8 Lewis, Μορίμο[.] Morison; μορίμο (= μωρίμο) Matth. || 9 I.AΓΟΡΑ Pittakes, [ℎε]ρ̣[μ]αγόρα[ς] Hiller; [Πε]ι[θ]αγόρα[ς] (Morison), or [σ]αγόρα[ς], [N]ι[κ]αγόρα[ς], [T]ι[μ]αγόρα[ς], or [ε][ς] ἀγορά[ν] Mal. || 10 [- τõ] βαλαν[έο τõ Φι]λ̣οσίτ[ο] Μatth.

Notes

22One should mark that the personal names are not followed by demotics, taking of course in account that only a fragment of the original text is preserved.

23It seems that the beginning of each entry was in the missing left part of the inscription.

3 [- γ]εῖτον. The word γείτων is found both in leases of public lands, cf. IG I3 418.13.15.20, IG II2 1635 Β.142.144.145 and in the sales of confiscated properties, cf. IG I3 426.67.

  • 9 Metics were regularily recorded by their proper name, their social status (μέτοικος) and/or their o (...)

4 [-]ρ̣ο τõ Φίλο[νο]ς. Morison has suggested that Philon was the owner of a field, an ἀγρός, and he subsequently restored [ἀγ]ρõ. Since the name9 is not followed by a demotic (cf. ΙG Ι³ 421.12.26, 422.193.204.217.223.375, 424.5.10), the word whose the ending is preserved ([-]ρ̣ο) most probably is not a personal name. It is possible that it belongs to a noun; cf. IG IΙ2 1635.143-144: o[]ς γεῖ[τον] τὸ βαλανεῖον τὸ Ἀρ|[ίσ]τωνος.
δεμ[-]. Hiller suggested the restoration δεμ[όσιον]; cf. Agora XIX P5.9-14 (367/6 BC): Θεόμνηστ|ος Θεοσέβεος Ἰωνίδης ἀπέγραψεν Θεοσέβεος τοῦ Θε|οφίλο Ξυπεταιόνος οἰκίαν Ἀλωπεκῆσιν δημοσία|ν εἶναι, ἧι γείτων... ἁλόντος Θεοσέβος ἱεροσυλίας καὶ οὐχ ὑπομ|είναντος τὴν κρίσιν... Morison (2003, 110) alternatively suggested that a patronymic might begin (Δεμ[-]).

5 [-]σες τõι γυμνασίοι. Hiller restored [- γειτονευό]σες, but the items seem to be in the nominative (see l. 6: καὶ οἰκία). I suggest: [- ℎεχ]σε̃ς τõι γυμνασίοι; for the syntax of the adverb see LSJ9 s.v. ἑξῆς, ΙΙ. c. dat. next to... beside; cf. Ar. Lys. 633: ἀγοράσω τ' ἐν τοῖς ὅπλοις ἑξῆς Ἀριστογείτονι and Pl. Prot. 314e: Ἐπειδὴ δὲ εἰσήλθομεν, κατελάβομεν Πρωταγόραν ἐν τῷ προστῴῳ περιπατοῦντα, ἑξῆς δ' αὐτῷ συμπεριεπάτουν ἐκ μὲν τοῦ ἐπὶ θάτερα Καλλίας Ἱππονίκου καὶ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ ὁμομήτριος

6 πλέθρα ΔΔ[.]Ι; a piece of land of 22 or 26 (or less probable 31) plethra and an oikia are mentioned; compare IG I3 427.72.74: γε̃ς φ[σιλε̃]ς πλέθρα̣ Ι[Ι] | ἀμπελὸν | οἰκία []ν̣ τõι ἀγρõι | [ἕτ]ε̣[ρος] ἀγρὸς γε̃ς φσιλε̃ς πλέθ[ρα]..., IG I3 418.4: γῦαι φσιλε̃ς πλέθρα̣.

  • 10 The text is based on the edition of this inscription by N. Papazarkadas, in Ἀττικὰ ἐπιγραφικά. Μελέ (...)

7 [-]α̣γόρο. From the first letter (α̣) only the lower part of the right oblique stroke is preserved. The property mentioned in l. 6 is designated by the property of a certain [-]agoras to the east, e.g. [ℎε̃ι γείτονε –]α̣γόρο; cf. ll. 1 and 3, ΙG Ι³ 418.7.13.15.20, ΙG Ι³ 426.67, or [ℎε ἐχομένε -]α̣γόρο, compare Agora XIX L9.49-50: π<α>ρὰ <δ> τούτω τὼ γύα τούτο[․․․․] | καὶ τὸν ἐχόμενον μεταξ[ τού]|τοιν τοῖν χωρίοιν..., Thuc. 8, 90.5: διῳκοδόμησαν δὲ καὶ στοάν, ἥπερ ἦν μεγίστη καὶ ἐγγύτατα τούτου (sc. τοῦ τείχους) εὐθὺς ἐχομένη ἐν τῷ Πειραιεῖ. This [-]agoras could be identified with the person mentioned in l. 9.
πρὸςέο. Cf. Agora XIX L 8.110: [π]ρὸς νότον [․․․]ων πρὸς ἑσπέρα[ν] οἱ θρᾶνοι10

8 [-]ο̣[.] βολευτέριον. Morison (2003, 110) assumes that «here surely stood a phrase further describing the bouleuterion», -and he compares Paus. 1, 3.5 and Philostr. VS 2, 8.4-, «alternatively a descriptive adjective». The trace of an omicron can be seen. Τhe reading of the letter nu (uncertain traces of a vertical and of a slanted stroke) or of the punctuation before the letter B are not safe. One possible restoration is [- γεῖτ]ο̣[ν] βολευτέριον. For the omission of the definite article we could compare the phrase ἐν βουλευτηρίωι, which appears in several Attic inscriptions, e.g. IG II2 120.25-26, 361.5; cf. Lys. 53, 8: ἐγγύς τε οἰκῶν τῆς ἀγορᾶς οὔτε πρὸς δικαστηρίῳ οὔτε πρὸς βουλευτηρίῳ ὤφθην οὐδεπώποτε; cf. also Agora XIX, P9.31.40: νοτόθ ̣γο̣ρὰ̣ Β[ησ]αιέω[ν]... ὁδὸς εἰς ἀγο[ρ]άν.

  • 11 See LSJ9 s.v. μόριμος, ον, «poet. for μόρσιμος» and μόρσιμος, ον, «poet. Adj. used also by Hdt., ap (...)
  • 12 Or from the noun μόρον, τό (black mulberry, see LSJ9, s.v.). Derivation from the noun μορία, (μορ (...)

8 end ΜΟΡΙΜΟ. The word has been interpreted as a personal name -a very rare one– (Μορίμο); it is attested in Ephesos and Magnesia, see T. Corsten, LGPN V.A, 321, s.v. In Attica Μόρσιμος is also attested, see M. J. Osborne – S. G. Byrne, LGPN II. Attica, 320, s.v. However, the transcription of the word as a personal name would meant that a new entry begins here, something not quite probable (see below). Could it be the case that the word is an adjective μορίμο (in genitive) designating a certain piece of land [γε̃ς], cf. e.g. IG I3 418.4.7: γῦαι φσιλε̃ς πλέθρα̣... φσιλὲ ΔΔ γειτ-, IG I3 427.72.74 (see above). In favor of the transcription of the word as an adjective is that in Attica the form Mόρσιμος (and not Μόριμος) is attested (see above) as a personal name. But the meaning of the adjective μόριμος, ον11 does not make any sense here.
Angelos Matthaiou suggested to me to transcribe the adjective
μόριμος (= μώριμος), which could possibly derive from the noun μώριον· πόα τις, πρὸς φίλτρα χρῶνται Hesych. (see LSJ9 s.v. μώριος, and Suppl. p. 214)12.

  • 13 See Morison 2003, 112, with a different interpretation of the text.

9 [-]ι[.]αγόρα[.] ℎ̣ερμαγόρο. It is possible that a punctuation mark was inscribed before the aspirate (H); in this case we could restore [- ε][ς] ἀγορά[ν], cf. Αgora XI X P26.453-454: [δὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἡρακ]λείο τοῦ Ἀλεξικάκου εἰς ἀγο[ρὰν φέρουσα]. For the form εἰς cf. the Erechtheion accounts IG I3 475.293, 476.9.10.41. However, the alternative restoration of a personal name is quite probable. Morison suggested [Πε]ι[θ]αγόρα[ς]; we could also restore [σ]αγόρα[ς], [N]ι[κ]αγόρα[ς], or [T]ι[μ]αγόρα[ς]; see Μ. J. Osborne – S. G. Byrne, LGPN II. Attica, s.vv. Τhe personal name belongs to a neighbor of the recorded property13.

10 βαλαν[ε...5..]'οσίτ[-]; the vertical stroke before O could belong either to a iota or to a lambda. Angelos Matthaiou suggested to restore [Φι]λ̣οσίτ[ο]. The personal name is very rare; it is not attested in Attica, but it is found in Thera, see IG XII 3, 662 and 682.
[-
τõ] βαλαν[έο τõ Φι]λ̣οσίτ[ο]; for the restoration cf. IG IΙ2 1635.143-144: o[]ς γεῖ[τον] τὸ βαλανεῖον τὸ Ἀρ|[ίσ]τωνος; see also IG I3 84.34sqq.: καὶ τε̃ς τάφρο καὶ τõ ὕδατος κρατε̃ν τõ ἐγ Διὸς τὸν μισθοσά|μενον... καὶ ὁπόσον ἐντὸς τε̃ς οἰκίας τε̃ς δεμοσίας καὶ τν πυλõν αἳ ἐπὶ τὸ Ἰσθμονίκο βαλανεῖον ἐκφέροσι, Agora XIX L10.40-42: Ἀθηνᾶς τέλμα πρὸς ταῖς [πύλαις] | ταῖς παρὰ τὸ Διοχάρου[ς ․․5․․] | βαλανέον.

Commentary

  • 14 Cf. Judeich, Topographie2, 80.
  • 15 Cf. IG I3 418.

24IG I3 420 records (at least in ll. 4-11) properties most probably located in an urban area, possibly in Athens14, or in another city15. The properties listed in ll. 8-11 were topographically related to the Bouleuterion (l. 8), to a road leading to the agora (l. 9) -or to the property of a certain [-]i[.]agoras, son of Hermagoras- and to the balaneion of a certain Philositos (l. 10). It is possible that the properties listed in ll. 4-7 were nearby, if the prosopographical identification of the man cited in l. 7 ([-]α̣γόρο), that I suggest, is correct. In the first entry of the text possibly a rural estate (or estates) is described, judging from its size (126 plethra, if the restoration of the word plethra is correct).

Conclusion

  • 16 Slight variations in measurement (letter-size, horizontal and vertical spaces) appear in the text o (...)

25IG I3 420 and 219 are very similar in the form of the entries, as far as can be concluded given the small size of both fragments, their letter-size and letter-forms and the horizontal and the vertical space (see fig. 4)16. Punctuation in IG I3 219 cannot be confirmed, because the fragment preserves the ends of the lines. It is also an important fact that both fragments were found on the Acropolis.

Fig. 4 ΙG Ι³ 219 and 420 side by side.

Fig. 4 ΙG Ι³ 219 and 420 side by side.
  • 17 Compare for example IG I3 426, in which, as Stephen Tracy has argued: «we may observe that the lett (...)

26As far as the letter-forms is concerned, as it is stated above, the cutter of IG I3 219 has great similarities with the “Cutter of IG II2 1386”, whose surviving work consists of accounts and inventories. It would be advisable to check if both fragments were inscribed by the same cutter because in that case there would be a strong indication that the fragments belong to the same stele. Nevertheless, even if they were inscribed by two different cutters, it is still likely that they belonged to the same stele17.

27In any case, close resemblance between IG I3 420 and 219 suggests that both fragments belong to the same dossier – possibly but not necessarily to the same stele – of leases of public lands or sales of confiscated properties.

Torna su

Bibliografia

Judeich, Topographie2: W. Judeich, Topographie von Athen2, München 1931.

Lewis 1955: D. M. Lewis, Notes on Attic Inscriptions, «BSA» 50, 1-36.

Matthaiou 2000-2003:A. P. Matthaiou, Εἰς Ag I 4256, «Hόρος» 14-16, 143-152.

Matthaiou 2009: A. P. Matthaiou, Studies in Attic Inscriptions and the History of the Fifth Century B.C. (Thesis, La Trobe University March 2009).

Morison 2003: W. S. Morison, Property Records for Athenian Cleruchs or Colonists? Notes on IG I³ 420, «ZPE» 145, 109-113.

Papazarkadas 2011: N. Papazarkadas, Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens, Oxford-New York.

Pritchett 1953: W. K. Pritchett, The Attic Stelai. Part I, «Ηesperia» 22, 225-299.

Pritchett 1956: W. K. Pritchett, The Attic Stelai. Part II, «Ηesperia» 25, 178-317.

Threatte 1980: L. Threatte, The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions, I. Phonology, Berlin.

Tracy 2016: S. V. Tracy, Athenian Lettering of the Fifth Century B.C., Berlin-Boston.

Torna su

Note

1 All Attic inscriptions published in the «ArchEph» of the first period, together with other findings from Athens and Attica, were collected, identified and presented according to their findspots, often with the necessary notes, by the author in the fifth volume of the Archive of the Monuments of Athens and Attica (Ἀρχεῖον τῶν Μνημείων τῶν Ἀθηνῶν καὶ τῆς Ἀττικῆς [= ΑΡΜΑ] 5, συντασσόμενον ἐντολῇ τοῦ Συμβουλίου. Ἐφημερὶς Ἀρχαιολογική. Εὑρετήρια περιόδου πρώτης 1837-1860, ὑπὸ Γεωργίας Ε. Μαλούχου. Ἀθῆναι 2010). On the project ΑΡΜΑ of the Archaeological Society at Athens see V. C. Petrakos, ΑΡΜΑ 1 (1992) 9-11, and A. P. Matthaiou, ΑΡΜΑ 1 (1992) 13-19 (cf. SEG XLI 244 and SEG XLVIII 16).

2 Pritchett 1956, 178.

3 Compare for example τὸν λουτρῶνα τὸν ἀνδρεῖον in the Attic hellenistic decree of the orgeones «AM» 66, 1941, 228 (l. 9).

4 The word polyandreion usually means common burial place (LSJ9, s.v.). Three polyandreia are epigraphically attested in Attica: τὸ ἐμ Μαραθῶνι and its counterpart erected πρὸς τῶι ἄστει (IG II3 1313 and 1006), for which see Matthaiou 2000-03, 148-149, and the polyandreion on Salamis (see IG II2 1030.33-34=SEG XXVI 121: [ἀκρωτήριο]ν ἐφ᾽ οὗ κεῖται τὸ Θ̣[εμισ]τ[οκ]λέους τρ̣[όπαι]ο̣ν̣ κ̣α̣τ̣̣ Π̣ερσῶν καὶ πολυανδρεῖον τῶν [ἐν τῆι μάχηι τελευτησάντων]).

5 τὸ Αἰ[άντειον] Lewis 1955, 16 note 40.

6 ΙG Ι3 426 ll. 40-112 and 144-156 (see Tracy 2016, 125).

7 Kirchhoff assumed that IG I 279a (=I3 418) was possibly the upper part of IG I 279.

8 The punctuation is outside brackets in IG I3, but it is probably a misprint (cf. IG I 279 and ΙG Ι2 385). Τhere is no punctuation at the end of the line (cf. ll. 5-7), and also there is no room for restoring one letter.

9 Metics were regularily recorded by their proper name, their social status (μέτοικος) and/or their occupation or place of residence; cf. e.g. ΙG Ι³ 421.33: Κεφισοδόρο μετοίκο ἐμ Περα[εῖ οἰκõντος] and ΙG Ι³ 426.24: [ἐκ τõν Ἀρισ]τάρχο τõ σκυτοτ[όμο] in respect.

10 The text is based on the edition of this inscription by N. Papazarkadas, in Ἀττικὰ ἐπιγραφικά. Μελέτες πρὸς τιμὴν τοῦ Christian Habicht, Αth. A. Themos ­– N. Papazarkadas (eds), Athens 2009, 165-181.

11 See LSJ9 s.v. μόριμος, ον, «poet. for μόρσιμος» and μόρσιμος, ον, «poet. Adj. used also by Hdt., appointed by fate, destined».

12 Or from the noun μόρον, τό (black mulberry, see LSJ9, s.v.). Derivation from the noun μορία, (μορίαι· the sacred olives) cannot be excluded, but it is difficult to accept a piece of land cultivated with moriai owned by an individual in the fifth century. (Matthaiou).

13 See Morison 2003, 112, with a different interpretation of the text.

14 Cf. Judeich, Topographie2, 80.

15 Cf. IG I3 418.

16 Slight variations in measurement (letter-size, horizontal and vertical spaces) appear in the text of IG I3 420 (see above) and in similar texts; for example in IG I3 426 (see Pritchett 1953, 274-275).

17 Compare for example IG I3 426, in which, as Stephen Tracy has argued: «we may observe that the lettering of two different workmen is in evidence» (Tracy 2016, 66).

Torna su

Indice delle illustrazioni

Titolo Fig. 1 = ΙG Ι³ 219. Pittakes, «ΑrchΕph» 1860, 2048, no. 4085
URL http://journals.openedition.org/historika/docannexe/image/283/img-1.jpg
File image/jpeg, 82k
Titolo Fig. 2 = ΙG Ι³ 219. EM 5390 (phot. courtesy of the Epigraphical Museum).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/historika/docannexe/image/283/img-2.jpg
File image/jpeg, 329k
Titolo Fig. 3 = ΙG Ι³ 420. EM 6659 (phot. courtesy of the Epigraphical Museum).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/historika/docannexe/image/283/img-3.jpg
File image/jpeg, 2,4M
Titolo Fig. 4 ΙG Ι³ 219 and 420 side by side.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/historika/docannexe/image/283/img-4.jpg
File image/jpeg, 1,7M
Torna su

Per citare questo articolo

Notizia bibliografica

Georgia E. Malouchou, « ΙG Ι³ 219 and ΙG Ι³ 420 revisited »Historika, 8 | 2018, 11-22.

Notizia bibliografica digitale

Georgia E. Malouchou, « ΙG Ι³ 219 and ΙG Ι³ 420 revisited »Historika [Online], 8 | 2018, online dal 01 mars 2020, consultato il 03 août 2020. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/historika/283

Torna su

Autore

Georgia E. Malouchou

gmalouchou@gmail.com

Torna su

Diritti d'autore

Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate 4.0 Internazionale (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)-Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Torna su
  • Logo Celid
  • Logo Università degli Studi di Torino – Dipartimento di Studi Storici - Storia antica
  • Logo DOAJ
  • OpenEdition Journals