The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes 9781463212940

Citation preview

The Five Post-KIeisthenean Tribes

Analecta Gorgiana

34 Series Editor George Kiraz

Analecta Gorgiana is a collection of long essays and short monographs which are consistently cited by modern scholars but previously difficult to find because of their original appearance in obscure publications. Carefully selected by a team of scholars based on their relevance to modern scholarship, these essays can now be fully utilized by scholars and proudly owned by libraries.

The Five Post-KIeisthenean Tribes

Fred Orlando Bates

1

gorgias press 2009

Gorgias Press LLC, 180 Centennial Ave., Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2009 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2009

1

ISBN 978-1-59333-629-5

Printed in the United States of America

ISSN 1935-6854

PREFACE. T h e subject of the post-Kleisthenean tribes is one which, so far as I know, has never been treated as a whole. It is only within recent years that sufficient material has been brought together to enable one to determine much that is certain in regard to them. This is especially true of Antigonis and Demetrias which were in existence such a short period—a little over a century—that a very limited number of monuments throwing light on their history has been preserved to us. T h o u g h there is no treatise covering all five tribes, a few articles dealing with special phases of this question are to be found in various periodicals. A brief review of the most recent and important of these will give some idea of what has already been accomplished in this field. Dittenberger 1 investigated the question of Ptolemais, Attalis, and Hadrianis, with special reference to the demes constituting them and the method pursued in re-allotting demes to form the new tribes. H e noticed that in the case of Hadrianis, eleven of its old demes were taken one each from the first eleven of the twelve tribes already in existence. H e conjectured that the twelfth one, Oinoe, was taken from Attalis, formerly the twelfth tribe. Starting with this clue he found that the same principle could be applied in a general way to the other two tribes, Ptolemais and Attalis. He therefore concluded that each of the old tribes contributed a given quota, usually one deme, towards the formation of the new one. When Dittenberger wrote this article it was universally believed that Ptolemais was created in honor of Ptolemy Philadelphus, as stated by Pausanias, and hence prior to 247 B. C. Historical evidence pointed to a date not later than 265 B . C . Beloch 2 was the first to formally discredit this general belief in regard to the date of Ptolemais. He held that Ptolemais was created in honor of Ptolemy Euergetes (247-222 B . C . ) . On 1

Hermes IX. (1875) p. 385 if. Jahrbücher 129 (1884), p. 481 ff.

2 Neue

Pre/ace.

IV

historical grounds he determined that the exact date was somewhere between 229 and 222 B.C. In this article he apparently assumes that after Ptolemais was created, the two tribes, Antigonis and Demetrias, were merged in one, for in the archon lists for the 8th and n t h years, according to his arrangement of them, he classes Atene under Antigonis. The latest view in regard to the date of Ptolemais is that expressed by Kohler in the Supplement to Vol. II of the Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum. 1 He maintains that the tribe was created after 222 B.C. during the reign of Ptolemy Philopator (222-205 B.C.). Neither Dittenberger nor Beloch devoted any special attention to Antigonis and Demetrias. This study was reserved for Kirchner 2 who tried to determine what demes were allotted to the two tribes. The article is remarkable for the number of demes which the author apparently discovers as belonging to Antigonis and Demetrias, — ten to the former and nine to the latter. In some cases, however, the evidence adduced is far from conclusive. Kirchner furthermore proceeds upon the theory that a deme may belong to more than one tribe at the same time. Such an order of things is prima facie unnatural and, I believe, not in accord with the facts. Thus it will be seen that there is still room for investigation in this field. It is the purpose of this treatise to collect and interpret the evidence which bears on this question. Because of the unreliability of much of the testimony of ancient writers on this subject, the bulk of the material has been taken from inscriptions. Only when these fail have the statements of the writers been taken as a guide, and then with some reservation. It is not expected that all the difficulties will be satisfactorily removed, but it is hoped that the investigation may contribute to a more accurate knowledge of the subject. Whether that object has been attained must be left to the reader to decide. Accompanying the special discussion of each deme a table is added containing a chronological arrangement of the inscriptions in which the deme is mentioned in such a connection that its tribe is indicated or determinable from the context. These inscriptions 1 2

See his note to No. 385 c. Rheinisches Museum 47 (1892), p. 550 ff.

Preface.

v

are generally taken from the Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum and in view of their number the usual abbreviation, C. I. A . , has generally been omitted wherever there is occasion for citing this work. A l l citations, then, not self-explanatory must be understood as referring to this publication. In cases where the reference is duplicated, either in the same inscription or in another, only one citation is made. T h e statements in regard to the topography of each deme are, for the most part, necessarily dependent on the investigations of scholars in this particular field, most prominent among whom are Milchhofer and L,oper. In the matter of dating the inscriptions, I have relied on the list of archons given by Mr. W . S. Ferguson ( T h e Athenian Secretaries, Cornell Studies, Vol. V I I . , pp. 50-58) for the period 307/6-96/5 B.C. inclusive. For other periods I have followed Schoffer's list of archons in his article Archontes in Pauly-Wissowa Real-Encyqlopadie, Vol. II. (1896), p. 565 if. Whereno archon's name or other indication of the exact year is given in the inscription, I have accepted in general the judgment of the editors of the Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum. For handy reference Appendixes are added showing the official order of tribes at different periods and their constituent demes, together with their demotika. T h e redistribution of demes is also indicated. T o Professor B. I. Wheeler, of Cornell University, for guidance and suggestions during this investigation, and for kindly criticism both of manuscript and proof, I wish here to recognize my obligation. I am especially indebted to Mr. W . S. Ferguson, Fellow of Cornell University, for valuable counsel and assistance. I would also thank Professor G. P. Bristol, of Cornell University, for his aid in reading the manuscript anL proof. ITHACA,

N. ¥ . , June 27, 1898.

F . O . B.

TABLÚE

OF

C O N T E N T S .

PAGE

CHAPTER I.—Antigonis and Demetrias

I

I i.

History and Chronology

I

g 2.

Demes of Antigonis

6

I 3.

Demes of Demetrias

18

CHAPTER I I . — P t o l e m a i s

27

I i.

Evidence for the Existence of Thirteen Tribes

27

I 2.

Evidence for Dating the Creation of Ptolemais

28

§ 3.

Tribal Order of Ptolemais

32

\ 4.

Demes of Ptolemais

32

CHAPTER I I I . — A t t a l i s

46

I i.

History and Chronology

46

\ 2.

Demes of Attalis

46

CHAPTER IV.—Hadrianis

54

g I.

History and Chronology

54

§ 2.

Demes of Hadrianis

54

APPENDIX A.—Official Order of Tribes

63

APPENDIX B.—Lists of the Demes of Each Tribe

64

APPENDIX C.—Bibliography

69

CHAPTER

I.

ANTIGONIS AND DEMETRIAS. § I.

HISTORY

AND

CHRONOLOGY.

P r i o r to t h e r e f o r m s of K l e i s t h e n e s , a b o u t 508 B . C . , t h e citizens of A t t i c a w e r e d i v i d e d into f o u r tribes

called

'ApyaSels, a n d AiyiKopcl';1 f r o m t h e sons of I o n . 2 portant of

Kleisthenes'

changes

in

the

TtXeovres, "O^A^Tes, O n e of t h e most im-

Athenian

constitution

w a s to increase t h e n u m b e r of t h e tribes f r o m f o u r t o t e n . 8

These

ten tribes h a d t h e i r n a m e s f r o m t h e l e g e n d a r y p e r s o n a g e s of early Athenian

history,

viz. :

Akamas,

Oineus,

Kekrops,

Erechtheus,

Aigeus,

Hippothoon,

Pandion,

Aias,

and

L,eos,

Antiochos.

T h e tribes e x i s t e d for t w o c e n t u r i e s until D e m e t r i o s P o l i o r k e t e s in 307 B . C . liberated A t h e n s from M a c e d o n i a n rule.

I n h o n o r of

t h e i r d e l i v e r e r and h i s f a t h e r , A n t i g o n o s , t h e A t h e n i a n s added t w o n e w tribes, A n t i g o n i s a n d

D e m e t r i a s , w h i c h , in t h i s

placed at t h e head of the list of tribes.

order, w e r e

T h a t t h e y w e r e instituted

b e f o r e t h e A t h e n i a n official y e a r 307/6 B . C. 4 is p r o v e d b y t h e relation of m o n t h a n d p r y t a n y s h o w n in I V . 2, 240 b.

T h e d a t e of t h i s

p s e p h i s m a is M a i m a k t e r i o n ( t h e fifth m o n t h of the A t h e n i a n calend a r ) 307/6 B . C . t h e 21 st d a y .

It w a s passed in the fifth p r y t a n y not earlier t h a n

W i t h ten tribes the 21st of the fifth p r y t a n y w o u l d

r e g u l a r l y c o m e on t h e 18th of P o s e i d e o u ( t h e s i x t h m o n t h of t h e A t h e n i a n c a l e n d a r ) , w h e r e a s w i t h t w e l v e tribes the

date

g i v e n p r y t a n y r e g u l a r l y a g r e e s w i t h the d a t e of t h e m o n t h corresponds numerically.

of

any

which

U n f o r t u n a t e l y t h e date of the m o n t h is

lost, b u t t h e a g r e e m e n t of m o u t h a n d p r y t a n y is sufficient to s h o w that w e are n o w u n d e r the s y s t e m of t w e l v e tribes.

Furthermore,

A n t i g o n i s held the s e v e n t h p r y t a n y in t h i s y e a r . 3 Pollux VIII. 109. 2 Herbd. V. 66. 3 Arist., Ath. Pol., Chap. 21. date 306/5 B. C. given in Hermann-Thumser, Lehrbuch der griechischen Staatsaltertümer, $ 135,1s based on a wrong identification of the archon's name in II. 238. 5 Cf. II. Add. Nov. 320 b. the date of which should be 307/6 B.C. instead of 279/8 B.C. {cf. note to IV. 2, 240b). 1

4 The

The Five Post-Kleisthenean

2

Tribes.

T h e s e facts indicate that the official recognition of the t w o new tribes preceded the triumphal entry of Demetrios into the city i r September of this year.

1

Inasmuch as various archon lists serve to indicate the demes belonging to Antigonis and Demetrias, and to show the chronology not only of those tribes but also of Ptolemais, it will be convenient for the reader to have them before him at the outset. be given at this point.

T h e y will, therefore,

In these lists I have chosen to g i v e the

name of the deme rather than the demotikon, t h o u g h the latter would appear in the inscriptions.

T h e tribe to which each deme belongs

and its official order are added opposite the name of the deme.

Be-

sides this, the year in which each board officiated is indicated. ARCHON

In C.I.A. (1).

237/6 B . C . '

LISTS.

II. 859. (2).

236/5 B . C .

AÍÓIJ.ÍUX, A i g e i s I V . 'Axapvaí, Oineis V I I I . npoaTrakra, A k a m a u t i s V I I .

naAA^vij, Antiochis X I I . Ilaiavía, Pandionis (?) V . Oineis V I I I .

KoAwos, Aigeis I V .

KvSa^vaiov, A n t i g o n i s I. &r¡yaía, A i g e i s (?) I V . KÍKVWCL, Akamantis V I I . Auá, K e k r o p i s I X . 'Ara/caía, Hippothontis X . &á\T¡pov, Aiantis X I .

IlataWa, P a n d i o n i s V . AtvKOvór], L e o i l t i s V I .

'A^epSoCs, Hippothontis X . 'Pa/uroOs, Aiantis X I . 'AXunrtKrj, Antiochis X I I . (3).

235/4 B . C .

(4).

234/3 B . C .

Olov, Hippothontis X . "AtpiSva, Aiantis X I . ®p'ia, Oineis V I I I .

S^TTÓS, A k a m a n t i s V I I . > •

KOOWKL&U, Demetrias I I . Auinrrpai, Erechtheis I I I .

Aa/j.irTpaí, Antigonis I.

IIuiuviu, P a n d i o n i s V .

riutofiSat, L,eontis V I . Avá, K e k r o p i s

IX.

'A fx^>LTpoirí¡, Antiochis X I I .

Ki/rrós, L,eontis V I .

(dopaí, D e m e t r i a s I I .

; IIa/t/3a>TáSai, Erechtheis I I I . I Kekropis I X . ' KoVpos, Hippothontis X . ¡'PcyivoDs, Aiantis X I .

1 See Holm, History of Greece, E n g . Trans. V o l . I V . p. 44. In each list the denies of the six thesniothetai are separated from the demes

2

of the other archons by a dotted line.

Antigonis (5).

and

Demetrias. (6).

233/2.B.C.

232/1

B.C.

"Aí8va, A i a n t i s X I . ^Ka^/3i(TLa, Oineis V I I . Krj&ot, Erechtheis I. KvSaOrjvaLov, Pandionis III. IlaionSat, Leoiltis I V . i'Xua, Ptolemais V . MapaOwv, A i a n t i s X . 'Ar-qv-q, A n t i o c h i s X I .

In C.I.A. (23).

(22).

96/5 B.C.

III.

III.

1005.

5/4 B.C.

Am, Ptolemais V . 2r/TTÓs, Akamantis V I . Ilept^olSai, Oineis V I I . Kr¡uriá, Erechtheis I. Mvppivovrra, A i g e i s I I . Kv8a8rjvaiov, P a n d i o n i s I I I .

AeipaSiwrat, Leontis I V . Qpeappoi, Leontis I V . ®pla, O i n e i s V I I .

1008.

Tiberius' reign.

In C.I.A. (24).

Ill

1012.

Late Roman times.

'A^apvai, Oineis V I I or V I I I . Ptolemais V .

2v. Se Kal OLTTO ruivSt A.as ¿poverty, 'ArraXou row MvcroC Kal llroXe-

varepov

/JUILOV TOV AlyVTTTiOV

Kal

(CUT

¿¡JLC rffrq

¡iaaiXttos

A.8ptavov

K.

T.

Ptolemais. Paus. I. 6, 8.

29

Tavrfjs rrjs ywat/cos ( B e r e n i k e ) epao-Ods (Ptolemy

Soter) 7ratSas it: avTTjs ¿7TOirjaaTO Kul

yt' 01 irXrjtriov rtAcrr/y. 11 TO/\(-

¿«uov ( Ptolemy Plliladelphus ) airtXnrtv Aiyvtttov fiaaiXtvav, a' ov koI 'Adrjvaiois £v\rj, yeyovora ¿k Tie.peviKrj's, aAA' ovk ¿k rr/q 'Avmrarpov dvyarpos ( E u r y d i k e ) . rS>v Se aWiuv o pxv cl?tXaSeA.UTTiaScU 7. 1

Kepapeixos

1 1 . IIopos 1 2 . IIpocriraAra J

13.

~S,(f>rjTTO