Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Studies in Greek epigraphy and history in honor of Stefen V. Tracy

 | 
Gary Reger
, 
Francis X. Ryan
, 
Timothy Francis Winters

2. The Wider Greek Word

Chapter 20. New Restorations and Date for a Fragment of Hestiatoria from Thespiai (ITHESP, 39)

Paul A. Iversen

Texte intégral

1In the Fall of 1989, my first quarter as a graduate student at The Ohio State University, I had to make a decision about what courses I wanted to take for Winter quarter of 1990. One of the classes being offered that quarter was Classics 811, Greek and Latin Epigraphy. It was to be taught by a Professor Stephen V. Tracy, whom I had not met because he was away in the fall of 1989. Though the scuttlebutt amongst the other graduate students was that his courses were demanding, it looked like an interesting subject, so I enrolled. Little did I know how important that decision would become for my career. Over the course of the next ten weeks Professor Tracy not only imparted a firm foundation for the discipline of Epigraphy, but more importantly he taught us the importance of a patient, careful and unbiased examination of evidence. He also communicated his enthusiasm for the subject. His academic rigor and enthusiasm were contagious, and so I asked to become a Research Assistant on the Packard Humanities Institute (PHI) Greek Epigraphy project, which I began working on in the fall of 1990 at OSU’s Center for Epigraphical Studies, later to become The Center for Epigraphical and Palaeographical Studies. It was there working on the PHI project over the next decade that I learnt the discipline. While I was at OSU and later when I got a job up the road in Cleveland, Stephen also demonstrated another one of his greatest qualities: unflagging support for his students. This paper then is a χαρίστήριον to him, with which I hope he finds favor.

2The primary subject I shall discuss are new restorations and date for a small fragment not unlike that which comprised the final assignment of professor Tracy’s Classics 811 course. Appropriately enough, I came across it in the course of working on the PHI project. This fragment was first published by Th. Spyropoulos (1971, 221, 4 along with πίναξ 195β). It was then republished by J.-P. Michaud, BCH, 98 (1974), 645, who used a copy and commentary supplied by P. Roesch. Roesch himself then published the fragment a few years later (1976, 20, 46), which text was then republished posthumously in 2007 in his Les Inscriptions de Thespies, 39, or IThesp, 39 as I shall designate it hereafter. Although not an identical copy, it is a catalogue of objects very similar to a fully preserved inscription listing the “sacred objects of the Thespians” that was found at Khorsiai, which was in the territory of Thespiai before the dissolution of the Boiotian Confederacy at the Peace of Antalkidas in 387/386 BC. This inscription, which was found at Khorsiai, was first published by N. Platon and M. Feyel (1938), hereafter IThesp, 38. As Michaud (1974, 645) pointed out, the fragment from Thespiai [IThesp, 39] was “établi sans aucun doute au même moment que l’inventaire des objets appartenant aux Thespiens dans l’Héraion de Chorsiai, à Siphai et à Kréusis” [= IThesp, 38] and that “Les objets, les formes verbales, la graphie, la gravure sont identiques à ceux de l’inventaire trouvé à Chorsiai”. I give both inscriptions here:

Inscription from Thespiai, IThesp, 39
Text of Spyropoulos
Image 10000000000000FD000000DFBFC8DB3E.jpg


Text of Roesch † (Schachter and Vottéro)

[——
κ——]
[—
κρε]άγρα : πελε[κεες——]
[——]
ιοι δέκα : τρέ[πεδδαι——]
4 [——]
ον : κλῖναι ρίκ[ατι——]
[—]
ι: σκαφάω π[εντ——]
ΕImage 10000000000000060000000F1E4C95C8.jpg[——] 6a
6 [—
κλιντέ]ρες : Image 100000000000000E0000000B1931DBA0.jpg
O[——] 6b
[—
ὀβελίσσ]κον δαρ[χμαὶ——]
8 [——]
ο : δα[ρχμαὶ-]
[——————––]
l. 6: Michaud (1974, 645) reads—]
ρες ςέ[ντε—].

Inscription found at Khorsiai, IThesp, 38
1
vacat Θεòς Τύχα. vacat
h
ιερὰ χρέματα Θεσσπιέω-
ν Διοπειθέος ρχοντος, ν
h
εραίωι·λέβετες τριάκον-
5
τα πέντε : ἐχνος : ὀβελίσ{σ}κω-
ν δαρχμαὶ τριάκοντα τέν-
πε : χάλκια πλάτεα πέντε,
σκόφοι δοώδεκα : δριαι hν-
δεκα : στάνμνοι χάλκι<ο>ι τ-
10
ρῖς : φιάλα : παρμα : κότος : χ-
αλκία : ποδανιπτέρες hξ,
κρατέρες τρς : χάλκιοι: Ϝοι-
νόχοια χάλκια : πεντεκαί-
δεκα : πελέκεες κτό : ξιν-
15
ος : hάμα : κόρτον : χάλκιον : hμ
ιττα χάλκια : θράγανα διπλ-
όα : κρατευταί τριπλόαι: κρε-
άγραι κτό : τυροκνασστίδες
τρς : Ϝαγάνω δύο : πούραυμα
20
φρυνοποπον : λανπτερῶχ-
οι σιδάριοι τρις : κλναι πέν-
τε : κλιντέρες πεντέκον-
τα : ούγαστρον : ὐκτας : ἒπαρ-
μα : χάλκιον : τρέπεδδαι ĐĐĐ
25
μάχαιραι δέκα. : Σίφαις· λέβετες
τρῖς : ὀβελίσκων δαρχμαὶ τρῖς. Νν
ν Κρείσυι· λέβετε δύο : ὀ:βελίσκω-
ν δαρχμάω δύο. vacat
vacat

l. 2: The symbol h, stands for either the spirirtus asper or the spiritus asper plus an e-sound. On other Boiotian inscriptions it appears as fi. For the evolution of this letter in Boiotia, espacially at Thespiai and Thebes, see Vottéro 1995-1996, 299-339. l. 3: Διοπειθέος is inscribed over the name Image 10000000000000150000000FB6A459A2.jpg[ε]σστίχω. ll. 5-6: The form ΟΒΕΛΙΣΣΚΩ/Ν contains a diplography, not gemination, of S: cf. ll. 26-27. l.

39: ΧΑΛΚΙΩΙ. l. 21: fine Platon and Feyel read <T>.

  • 1 For insightful comments on the vocabulary and orthography of this inscription, see Platon and Feyel (...)
  • 2 For obeloi of pre-monetary value, see Strøm 1992.
  • 3 For the obeloi excavated at Argos, see Waldstein 1902, 61-62 and 1905, pl. CXIX. Also see Etym. Mag (...)
  • 4 For references, see Strøm 1992. Pausanias (9,32,4) writes of his visit to Siphai, which in his day (...)

4The inscription found at Khorsiai lists sacred objects belonging to the Thespians, beginning with equal numbers of cauldrons (λέβετες) and handfuls of spits (βελίσκων δαρχμαί), located “in the Heraion” (ν hεραίωι)1. At lines 25-28 it also lists equal numbers of λέβετες and ὀβελίσκων δαρχμαί located respectively at unnamed sanctuaries in the port cities of Siphai and Kreisys (later known as Kreusis). IThesp, 39 contains similar lists of items. Since it is not an identical copy to IThesp, 38, it is reasonable to suppose it details objects housed at least three other sanctuaries/cities. The word ὀβελίσκων δαρχμαί in these inscriptions is particularly interesting. It carries its pre-monetary, etymological meaning of “handful” rather than drachmas. A standard handful of obeloi, or spits, eventually became six, so it is likely that there were six obeliskoi per lebes at all these sanctuaries2. The original editors, Platon and Feyel (1938, 160) noted that λέβετες and ὀβελίσκων δαρχμαί were particularly appropriate dedications to Hera, such as at Argos3, and from this observation, as well as the fact that IThesp, 38 mentions no other cult, argued that the objects listed as being at Siphai and Kreisys must have been related to the cult of Hera as well. This claim has not been questioned by any subsequent study, but obeloi (or as here, obeliskoi) were common to many sanctuaries in the Classical period so this is by no means a foregone conclusion4.

5Platon and Feyel and all subsequent studies tended to treat these objects as dedicatory offerings, until Tomlinson (1980, 222) identified them as the “equipment for a formal dining hall or hestiatorion and its kitchen”, as is well known from other inscriptions of the same type. The λέβετες and ὀβελίσκων δαρχμαί are clearly also to be used for ceremonial meals at the smaller sanctuaries at Siphai and Kreisys. To back up Tomlinson’s argument, we may particularly note the phrase “the sacred utensils of the Thespians” (hιεpà χρέματα Θεσσπιέων). The word χρέματα seems marked. It is related to the verb χράομαι and hence its primary meaning is that which one needs or uses. If these were merely dedications, we would expect the usual words ἐπάνθετα or ἀναθήματα. The objects, then, were housed at the various sanctuaries, the ones at the port towns of Siphai and Kreisys being quite small, but at the disposal of all the Thespians. As we shall see, this interpretation will have a significant impact on some of the arguments used to date these two texts.

Dating

  • 5 Fraser and Matthews 2000, 122, err, I think, when they list Diopeithes (1) as the local archon of K (...)
  • 6 Compare the comments of Platon 1938, 164, n. 1: “C’est ce que semble montrer la nature de l’erreur (...)

6Roesch and Michaud dated IThesp, 39 “peu après 380 a.C.”, but naturally the dating is tied to that of IThesp, 38. There are three different avenues for dating IThesp, 38: the archons Diopeithes and Onkhesstikhos, the style of lettering, and the historical context of the content. Unfortunately we know nothing about Diopeithes or Onkhesstikhos, other than that it is very likely they were Thespian archons, not local archons at Khorsiai, given that IThesp, 38 displays the Thespian acrophonic numeral (Đ = δέ(κα))]) and was almost certainly inscribed at Thespiai, probably by the same stone-cutter as IThesp, 395. In fact, in a moment we will see that IThesp, 38 may be a pierre errante that really comes from Thespiai. It also looks as though the correction to Diopeithes was made by the same cutter who inscribed the rest of the stele. Perhaps Onkhesstikhos died while in office, or the inscriber momentarily forgot who was the current archon, or the inventories were taken at the end of the archonship of Diopeithes, but not inscribed until Onkhesstikhos had already entered his office6.

7Platon and Feyel argued that IThesp, 38 dates between 395 and 380, basing their argument in part on the belief that its lettering was similar to that of the second column of a casualty list ([οδε ἐν το] πολέμοι ἀ[πέθανον]) published by Keramopoullos (1920, 35-36) with a heading and first column written in larger script than that found in the second column. I give the facsimile of this text made by Vottéro (1996, 164):

  • 7 For the Thespians fighting with Alexander, see AP, 6,344; Arr., Anab., 3,19,5; Curt. 6,2,17; Diod. (...)

When Keramopoullos first published this casualty list, he argued that the heading and first column dated to ca. 400 and the second column to the Sacred War of 355-346 BC or the war in which a Thespian contingent served with Alexander against the Persians starting a decade later7. This article appeared at SEG, 2, 186 (as I shall designate this inscription hereafter), where Wilhelm argued that the heading and first column honored the Thespians who died in the Corinthian War of 395/394. When Platon and Feyel (1938, 150-151) discussed the date of IThesp, 38, they said of SEG, 2, 186 that “La première partie de cette liste comporte la forme épichorique,Image 10000000000000100000000F477805E8.jpg, mais la deuxième partie, gravée sans doute quelque temps après, est de la même écriture que notre inscription [= IThesp, 38 found at Khorsiai]”. Once this equation of similar script was made, thereafter any discussion of the date of column II of SEG, 2, 186 impacted IThesp, 38 and thus also IThesp, 39.

Image 100000000000010E00000198E33CE539.jpg

  • 8 Roesch 1966, 70-87 (= SEG, 24, 363) argued that the dead of column I belonged to battle of Haliarto (...)
  • 9 For a facsimile of IG, VII, 2427, see Vottéro 1996, 162.

There have been several scholars who have pursued differing dates for the two different wars to which the casualties of columns I and II of SEG, 2, 186 might refer. Two scholars have even argued that the differences in script are due to the introduction of the Ionian-Attic alphabet into Boiotia in the interim between when the two columns were inscribed8. Pritchett (1974, 142), however, rejects the line of argument that the two columns were inscribed at different times, saying, “surely column II was inscribed before the stele was set up. The monument must have been commissioned for the dead of one war”. Citing a similar list from Attica, IG, I3, 1147 (see Clairmont 1983, 1, 131-135), he suggested that perhaps more than one mason worked on the stele at the same time and that this accounts for the differences in the size of the script. As for different lambdas, Image 10000000000000100000000FC449B2BE.jpg and Λ, an inscription from Thebes from the same period, IG, VII, 2427, exhibits these same two different lambdas (the form L occurs one time in line 4 in the name Κλιδαμΐδα[ο]) and it was manifestly inscribed by the same mason at the same time9. Likewise, both IThesp, 38 and IThesp, 39 exhibit different letter forms for the same letter and clearly each was inscribed at the same time.

In regards to the claim of Platon and Feyel (1938, 150-151), which was accepted by Taillardat and Roesch (1966, 79) and Vottéro (1996), that the script of column II of SEG, 2,186 is similar to the list found at Khorsiai, Pritchett (1974, 143) also says, “A comparison of the two photographs leads me to believe that this is an uncertain conclusion”. Pritchett’s observation is correct. The script of IThesp, 38 is quite different from that of column two of SEG, 2, 186, and if we were to base our judgment on purely palaeographical grounds rather than any preconceived notions about when either inscription was inscribed, the dispassionate observer would note that IThesp, 38 and IThesp, 39 have characteristics such as the tails on rhos (R), the slanted/hitched nus (Image 10000000000000110000000FDC1CEA2E.jpg) and, in the case of IThesp, 39, epichoric deltas (Image 100000000000000C0000000F116BD6E5.jpg) that do not appear in the second column of SEG, 2, 186. In fact, there is only one letter in column two of SEG, 2, 186, the Image 100000000000000F0000000F3125A856.jpg in line three, that is similar to the in IThesp, 38–hardly enough to claim the scripts are similar. No matter the reason it differs from the heading and column one, the lettering of column two of SEG, 2, 18 Image 100000000000000F0000000F3125A856.jpg is of little help in determining the date of IThesp, 38 and IThesp, 39. The most I think we can say is that IThesp, 38 and IThesp, 39, have lettering that dates to the extreme end of the fifth to the first quarter of the fourth century.

  • 10 On this dating, cf. the comments of Flacelière and L. Robert, BE, 1939, 132: “fort vraisemblable;” (...)

8We must therefore rely on other historical criteria to date these texts. As was mentioned above, Platon and Feyel originally dated IThesp, 38 between 395 and 380 BC based upon the lettering, but Feyel also tentatively argued that the inscription was inscribed shortly after the dissolution of the Boiotian Koinon in 387/386 as a result of the Peace of Antalkidas, when all the Greek city states were declared autonomous. As Feyel (1938, 165) says, “Au moment où Thespies fut privée de [son] petit empire, on conçoit aisément qu’elle ait revendiqué les objets qu’elle avait dédiés, ou que ses citoyens avaient dédiés dans les sanctuaires de Khorsiai, de Siphai, de Kreisys: et qu’à cette fin, elle en ait fait transcrire une liste dans le plus important des sanctuaires qui échappaient à sa domination”. The dating of this inscription shortly after the Peace of Antalkidas has generally been well-received10. Tomlinson (1980, 222), for instance, adjusts Feyel’s thesis to suit his identification of the objects as implements belonging to hestiatoria by saying, “... it may well have been necessary [after the Peace of Antalkidas] for the Thespians to leave in sanctuaries (which are all some distance from Thespiai) the equipment in the dining halls established there”.

  • 11 If the inscription be internally consistent, then the Heraion mentioned here ought not to be locate (...)
  • 12 Cf. the comments of Tomlinson 1980, 222, who although he endorses Feyel’s thesis that these lists w (...)
  • 13 Of the provenance, Platon and Feyel 1938, 152, say, “La pierre était au village de Chostia, dans la (...)
  • 14 On Hera at Thespiai, see Schachter 1981, 251. Feyel 1938, 166, n. 1 considered the possibility that(...)

9One serious objection to Feyel’s thesis that IThesp, 38 was inscribed as a result of the King’s Peace, as Roesch (1965, 55) pointed out, is that Kreisys was the port town of Thespiai and almost certainly never independent. Also, if we accept the assumption that the Heraion mentioned in line four was at Khorsiai11, why after the dissolution of the Koinon would it be necessary to erect a stele at Khorsiai to let them know what belonged to the Thespians at Kreisys and Siphai too12? In addition, Vottéro (1996, 169) believes that IThesp, 38 is an errant stone from Thespiai13, which may have had its own Heraion given that Arnobius (Ad. Nat., 6.11) and Clemens Alexandrinus (Protr., 4,46,3) both mention that the Thespians worshipped Hera14. Naturally, if the stone is originally from Thespiai and it refers to a Heraion at Thespiai, then this Heraion would have still belonged to the Thespians after the Peace of Antalkidas and there must be some other reason for the inscribing of these lists. Arguing that these lists were brought about by the Peace of Antalkidas is, therefore, problematic whether IThesp, 38 was meant to be displayed at Khorsiai or is an errant stone from Thespiai.

  • 15 For the difficult evidence concerning the fate of Thespiai in this period, see Tuplin 1986.

10Vottéro (1996) has proposed another date for IThesp, 38 independent of the King’s Peace. Guiding Vottéro’s study is the belief that the Ionian-Attic alphabet was introduced into Boiotia at Thebes, probably on the basis of a decree, between 379-377 BC, with the support of the new democratic regime there. Then it spread to other parts of Boiotia, including Thespiai, between 376 and 371. He dates IThesp, 38 ca. 373-371 and treats it as a catalogue whose creation was motivated by the recent pillaging15.

  • 16 On the political dimensions of the introduction of the Ionian alphabet at Athens, see D’Angour 1999

11However, there are many problems with this theory. First, the assumption that the use of the Ionian-Attic script in all public documents in Boiotia, including local and regional inscriptions in towns such as Thespiai, must have followed a formal decree–the fundamental assumption that underpins the studies of Roesch (1966) and Vottéro (1996)–is seriously flawed. We know for instance that at Athens the Ionian-Attic script was employed on numerous public documents for decades before its official adoption at Athens in 403/402 BC16. In addition, the inscriber of IThesp, 38 and IThesp, 39 moves between older epichoric and Ionian-Attic forms in a very idiomatic fashion, which suggests local experimentation.

  • 17 Hell. Oxy., 12,1; Xen., Hell., 2,4,1; Plut., Lys., 27,2; Pelop., 6,4 and 7,2; Justin. 5.9.3; Diod. (...)
  • 18 For close Athenian-Thespian ties, see Hdt. 7,132; 7,202; 7,222; 7,226-227; 8,25; IG, I3, 23; Thuc. (...)
  • 19 Thθc. 4,93,4 and 4,96,3. For some new readings of IG, VII, 1888, see Keramopoulos 1920, 19, n. 2). (...)
  • 20 IG, I3, 292-362, IG, II2, 1382-1383. The inventories are extant from 434/3 all the way down to ca. (...)

12Finally, we are simply too ignorant of Boiotian politics in this period to claim that such a decree was likely at Thebes only between 379 and 377. Thebes and Athens had many contacts soon after the Peloponnesian War ended17, and in any case there is no reason to believe that the Ionian-Attic alphabet was first introduced to Boiotia via Thebes rather than introduced to other Boiotian towns with more Athenian contacts, such as Thespiai18. In fact, Athenian influence on Thespian inscriptions may be seen as early as 424 BC on IG, VII, 1888, the Thespian Polyandrion for their dead at Delion19. As Austin (1938, 75) says, “It is remarkable that the names of these dead, killed in a battle in which the Thespians were fighting against the Athenians, were inscribed nevertheless in the style [i.e., stoichedon] which was predominantly Athenian”. Clairmont (1983, 233) goes further saying, “One might wonder whether more than just this inspiration [of the stoichedon style] came from Athens. The idea of stelai arranged in a row in front of the tomb (tumulus, tymbos) may be derived essentially from Athens”. Although of a different purpose, the series of Athenian inscriptions known as the Treasurers of Athena that catalogue the sacred objects (τάδε hοι ταμίαι τõν hiepõv χρεμάτον τές θεναίας ...) kept in the three cellae and Opisthodomos of what today we call the Parthenon (a name derived from only one of these cellae) may have also inspired the Thespians to create their own lists20.

  • 21 The towns of Siphai and Kreisys were undoubtedly frequent ports of call for the Khorsians.
  • 22 We know from Thuc. 4,76,3 and Xen., Hell., 6,4,4 that Thespian land included Siphai and Leuktra. Fo (...)

13Tomlinson (1980) is clearly correct that these inscriptions catalogue objects left in various sanctuaries and at the disposal of the Thespians for ceremonial meals. It would have been inconvenient to continually transport these items at any point in history: the decision to compile a formal catalogue could have been adopted at any time simply as a sensible means to let all the Thespians, including residents of smaller cities like Khorsiai, know what public dining equipment was at their disposal in various popular destinations21, not as a claim of property after some political upheaval. If the Khorsian provenance of IThesp, 38 is correct, then the word “Thespians” must have been used in the wider sense to include all the cities under the domain of the Thespian state and both lists should date c. 400-38722. If IThesp, 38 is an errant stone from Thespiai, then once again there is no basis to date it or IThesp, 39, other than by lettering, which could be ca. 400-375 BC.

New Readings

14Some improvements in readings can be made to IThesp, 39. As was noted above, the fragment undoubtedly lists objects for hestiatoria at the disposal of the Thespians in their own sanctuaries, or various sanctuaries within their “petit empire”, or possibly other pan-Boiotian sanctuaries. Since it is not an exact copy of the one found at Khorsiai, we may speculate that this fragment, since it appears to have been laid out in a fashion similar to IThesp, 38, refers to at least three other sanctuaries than the ones listed in IThesp, 38. Thus it undoubtedly listed city/temple and archon–possibly the same archon Diopeithes–followed by the objects housed at various sanctuaries in various cities, beginning with an equal amount of λέβετς and βελίσκων δαρχμαί.

15Lines 1 and 2 are not visible in the photo. In line 3 we might have [–χάκλ]ιοι δέκα, or [– σιδάρ]ιοι δέκα (the former more likely given there are ten objects), or it may refer to a noun ending in-ioi. If the fragment is about as wide as IThesp, 38, which varies from 20-27 spaces for letters and interpuncts, then it is more likely that the-ioi is the last three letters of a noun rather than an adjective.

16In line 4, the number of τρπεδδαι should be found just before the –]ον, which, unless the inscription is considerably wider than IThesp, 38, probably belongs to a neuter singular object such as [δυγάστρ]ον or [Ϝάγαν]ον on. At the end of the line, note that twenty or more κλῖναι were available at this sanctuary while at the Heraion in IThesp, 38 lines 21-22 there were only five. This suggests that this temple complex was more popular with the Thespians or larger than the Heraion mentioned in IThesp, 38.

  • 23 Ϝαγάνων δύο in line 19, λέβετε δύο in line 27 and δραχμάω δύο in line 28.
  • 24 IG, II2, 1424, a, 142 [σκ]άφαι πομπικα H.

17In line 5, the restoration σκαφάω π[εντ---] is impossible because the word σκαφάω is a dual form and the word beginning with P almost certainly modifies it as an adjective. We should also note that all the duals in IThesp, 38 are followed by the word δύο23, so it is likely that we have that number stated here too. Some comparative material from IThesp, 38 will help us ascertain what is going on. The first point to note is that the placement of interpuncts in both inscriptions seems to follow the same practice, and although the inscriber of IThesp, 38 is inconsistent in the order of noun and its modifier as well as the placement of interpuncts between numerals and adjectives that modify a particular object (sometimes he sets off the metal between interpuncts for instance), whatever object/adjective/number/interpunct combination he uses, he always places such an interpunct before a new object when that new object occurs in the middle of a line. The fact that there is no interpunct between σκαφάω and the π, which occur in the middle of a line, should thus indicate that the word beginning with a π is an adjective going with σκαφάω. That leaves us with σκαφάω π[--- δύο]. As comparanda for this word order of noun/adjective/numeral, we may note that at lines 9-10 and 20-21 of IThesp, 38 we find στάνμνοι χαλκι<ο>ι τ I ρῖς and λανπτερῶχ | ι σιδάριοι τρῖς. On other inscriptions throughout the Greek world σκάφαι χαλκα are quite common as dedications, but of course this is impossible here. On one inscription we do find σκάφω πομτακαί 24, and that appears to be our most attractive choice. Line 5 and possibly the beginning of 6 should be read σκαφάω π[ομπικάω δύο].

  • 25 Vottéro (1994) overlooks IThesp, 39 in his data on Boiotian numerals. His statement on p. 319 that (...)

In line 6, while Michaud and Roesch noticed that this fragment displays the acrophonic numeral system found elsewhere on later Thespian inscriptions, they (or at least Michaud) did not interpret the symbol Image 100000000000000E0000000B6A335FE8.jpgcorrectly. This acrophonic numeral system has been explicated by Feyel (1937) and studied by Vottéro (1994). Assuming that more or less the same system is operating in this earlier inscription, as appears to be the case in IThesp, 38, line 24, where we find the symbol Đ three times (which is the ligature of a delta and epsilon standing for δέ(κα) and later represented by the symbolImage 100000000000000F0000000FBF7394DB.jpg), then the symbol Image 100000000000000E0000000B6A335FE8.jpg in line 6 should thus stand for πε(ντάκοντα), not, as Michaud supposed, πέ(ντε). If this be the case, then Feyel’s (1937, 232) hypothesis that the symbol Image 100000000000000E0000000B6A335FE8.jpg stands for the “nombre pur” 50 at Thespiai is confirmed as occurring at an early date25. To back up the claim that the ГE symbol stands for 50, we may compare IThesp, 38 in lines 22-23 where we find κλιντɛ̃ρες πεντάκον I τα (which is presumably is the source of Roesch’s supplement of [κλιντɛ̃]ρες, although he does not explicitly correct Michaud’s πέ(ντε)).

  • 26 Of the known names of Thespian towns listed by Fossey (1988, 135-196), several have omicrons as a p (...)

18From the photo in Spyropoulos and Ioannidou 1971, πναξ 195β, and a comparison with the letter forms in IThesp, 38, it appears that the letter in line 6a cannot be a B or a Đ, but only an E. The stroke after this letter is not visible in the photo, but it was read by both Spyropoulos and Roesch. The vacat of two spaces (which occurs only once on IThesp, 38 at the end of line 26 just before the new city of Kreisys is named at the beginning of line 27), the interlinear nature of the text and the omicron in line 6b remain enigmatic, but taken together suggest that this may be the beginning of a new entry such as ṿ [urbe vel templo]. Compare lines 3-4 of IThesp, 38, where we have ν hεραίωι, and line 27, where we have ν Κρείσυι. A city is more likely than a temple, with IThesp, 38 as our guide. The omicron in line 6b then, would be a part of the name of the city26.

In line 7, some form of the word δαρχμ- is found, as is the case in lines 6, 26 and line 28 (this last in the dual, δραχμάω δύο] of IThesp, 38. Obviously we could have the singular, plural or dual. It should also be pointed out that the initial delta is inscribed in epichoric fashion on its side (Image 100000000000000C0000000F116BD6E5.jpg), unlike the D of the word δέκα in line 3 of this same inscription and throughout IThesp, 38. In later Thespian inscriptions this Image 100000000000000C0000000F116BD6E5.jpg is the acrophonic symbol for 1 drachma, and it may be that we have such a use here, albeit with the word δαρχμ-written out in full. Or the inscriber, as he did in IThesp, 38, displays lettering that shifts between some epichoric and newer forms, and here inscribed the older epichoric form from habit. In addition, the restoration in line 7 of [---βελι]σ]κ<ω>ν seems inevitable with IThesp, 38 as our guide, where at lines 6, 26 and 28 we have some form of δαρχμ preceded by the word βελίσκων. The fact that there is no interpunct between these two words also means that it is highly likely that the [---]κον goes with the δαρ[χμ---]. The inscriber probably made a slip and inscribed the older omicron for the more recent omega. We may compare line 9 of IThesp, 38, where the reverse mistake occurs, and an omega was inscribed instead of an omicron in the nominative χάλκι<ο>ι.

19We may also note that in IThesp, 38 all the βελίσκων δαρχμαί are preceded by the same number of λέβετες, which as Platon (1938, 160) points out “Manifestement ne sont pas fortuites”. If IThesp, 39 follows the same pattern as IThesp, 38, then after a new city we would expect an equal number of λέβετ- and βελίσκων δαρχμ-. If I am correct that the city is found in lines 6a and 6b, then line 7 should begin with λέβετ-, and we can now determine the left margin of the inscription within a few letters.

Line 8 is also somewhat enigmatic. Clearly there is an omicron followed by an interpunct. The most obvious restorations are δύ]ο: or κτ]ό:. The former is more likely at this point in the inscription per IThesp, 38, and if my argument is right that lines 6a and 6b are the beginnings of a new city, then this would be the right place in the line for a new city followed by two λέβετε. The interpretation of the two letter traces after the interpunct is difficult. Spyropoulos read an alpha, but in the photo both the 90° angle of the left vertical and the slanting shape of the horizontal are not consistent with alphas elsewhere in this inscription or on IThesp, 38. Michaud and Roesch interpret the letter traces as a delta and alpha, and restore δα[ρχμα]. This looks correct, with the delta written in epichoric fashion (Image 100000000000000C0000000F116BD6E5.jpg) like that of the previous line. The use of δαρχμά here, however, is unique in that it is not preceded by βελίσκων, which should then follow.

As for the spacing of IThesp, 39 it is impossible to determine with certitude. The text is not stoichedon, and if it is like IThesp, 38 it does not observe syllabification. The appearance of the acrophonic numeral Image 100000000000000E0000000B6A335FE8.jpg and the interlinear spacing 6a and 6b suggest that this may be towards the right edge of the inscription. Also the appearance of handfuls of spits for two different cities or sanctuaries also suggests it is towards the bottom. I have chosen to restore it with ca. 25-28 letter-spaces exempli gratia.

[Θεός· Τύχα?].
[hιεp
χρέματα Θεσσπιέων Διοπει]-
[θέος? ἄρχοντος ἐν
templo· λέβετες]
[
num. x: ἐχνος? : ὀβελίσκων δαρχμαὶ
[
num. x:——————]
[—
nonnulli versus desunt—]
1 [——]κ[————]
[——κρε]άγρα : πελέ[κεες]
[
numerus:—]ιοι δέκα : τρέ[πεδδ]-
4 [αι
numerus: —]ον : κλῖναι Ϝίκ[ατι]
5 [————]ι : σκαφάω π[ομπ]-
ἐν [—]- 6a
6 [ικάω δύο : κλιντ
ɛ̃]ρες : Image 10000000000000100000000D940DC243.jpgνν
ο[—]
· 6b
[λέβετε δύο : ὀβελισ]κ<ω>ν δαρ[χμάω]
8 [δύο:
urbe: λέβετε δύ]ο : δα[ρχμάω]
[ὀβελίσκων δύο].

Image 10000000000001880000018A30B73042.jpg

Fig. 1. IThesp, 39.

Image 100000000000013E0000026FCAE38E2B.jpg

Fig. 2. IThesp, 38.

Notes

1 For insightful comments on the vocabulary and orthography of this inscription, see Platon and Feyel 1938 and Taillardat and Roesch 1966.

2 For obeloi of pre-monetary value, see Strøm 1992.

3 For the obeloi excavated at Argos, see Waldstein 1902, 61-62 and 1905, pl. CXIX. Also see Etym. Magn., s. v. ὀβελίσκος. “Pheidon of Argos was the first to mint money on Aigina and after giving and receiving obeliskoi, he dedicated them to Hera in Argos”.

4 For references, see Strøm 1992. Pausanias (9,32,4) writes of his visit to Siphai, which in his day was apparently called Tipha (on this point, see Fossey 1988, 172-173): “Sailing from here you come to Tipha, a small town on the sea. The Tiphians have a temple for Herakles and hold a yearly festival in his honor”. Of his visit to Kreisys/Kreusis, Pausanias says (9,32,1): “For those who inhabit Kreusis, the port of Thespiai, there are no public works, but at the home of a private man there was an image of Dionysos made of gypsum and adorned with paint”.

5 Fraser and Matthews 2000, 122, err, I think, when they list Diopeithes (1) as the local archon of Khorsiai. If I am correct that Onkhesstikhos and Diopeithes were local archons at Thespiai, they are the two earliest two known office holders there. For the importance of the local archon in Boiotian cities and in particular Thespiai, see Roesch 1965, 157-162. For Thespian acrophonic numerals, see Feyel 1937 and Vottéro 1994.

6 Compare the comments of Platon 1938, 164, n. 1: “C’est ce que semble montrer la nature de l’erreur commise par le lapicide: étant habitué, cette année-là, à dater par le nom--stichos, il l’a transcrit alors que Diopeithès venait d’entrer en charge; ou bien, l’archonte–stichos étant entré en charge depuis quelque temps au moment de la gravure, la correction a pu consister à remplacer son nom par celui de l’archonte antèrieur Diopeithès, à supposer que la décision de dresser le catalogue ait été prise, ou même que le catalogue ait été rédigé sous cet archonte”.

7 For the Thespians fighting with Alexander, see AP, 6,344; Arr., Anab., 3,19,5; Curt. 6,2,17; Diod. Sic. 17,74,3.

8 Roesch 1966, 70-87 (= SEG, 24, 363) argued that the dead of column I belonged to battle of Haliartos in 395, while the dead of column II a year later from the Battle of the Nemea River. He also was the first to argue that the Ionian-Attic alphabet was introduced into Boiotia in the time between these two battles. Vottéro 1996, 166 (= SEG, 47, 471) also believes that the differences in script are a result of the introduction of the Ionian-Attic alphabet into Boiotia in the interim between two battles, but dates the heading and first column between 394 and 392 (the battles of Nemea, Koroneia, and the capture of Corinth) and the second column between 375-374, when Thespians were participating in various campaigns against Thebes, beginning with the Thespian hoplites who fought for the Spartan Phoibidas (an event which had already been suggested by Pritchett 1974, 143). Plassart 1958, 117, no. 65 (= SEG, 19, 351) took no position on the matter of the date of SEG, 2, 186.

9 For a facsimile of IG, VII, 2427, see Vottéro 1996, 162.

10 On this dating, cf. the comments of Flacelière and L. Robert, BE, 1939, 132: “fort vraisemblable;” Guarducci 1944-5, 177: “lista che sembra essere stata redatta, come giustamente suppose

11 If the inscription be internally consistent, then the Heraion mentioned here ought not to be located at Khorsiai, just as Siphai and Kreisys are not at Khorsiai. Therefore, if IThesp, 38 were inscribed at Thespiai but meant to be displayed at Khorsiai, I would argue contra the opinio communis that the Heraion referenced here is the famous one at Plataiai, not the foundations of the larger temple at Khorsiai identified by Fossey 1986 and others as a Heraion based on IThesp, 38 (cf. Tomlinson 1980, 221 “The temptation to identify the Heraion with sanctuaries elsewhere, in particular the well known Heraion at Plataea, should be resisted”). In this inscription it would simply be called the “Heraion” and not “The Heraion of Plataiai”, because during the Theban occupation of Plataiai of 426-387 BC the Thebans probably no longer referred to the area as Plataiai (cf. Thuc. 5,17,2 where the Thebans refer to the site as simply “the place” (πό χωρίον). Elsewhere (Iversen 2007) I argue that the Thebans cultivated the cult of Hera at Plataiai as a more pan-Boiotian center, beginning in 426/425 BC with their addition to the Heraion sanctuary of a new stone temple (see Thc. 3,68,3). Since the Heraion was built 426/425 from the toppled stones of the rest of the town and was eventually inhabited by only a few Theban farmers, it would have been quite natural for the Boiotians eventually to refer to the site as “The Heraion”. If IThesp, 38 is not errant, these arguments point to IThesp, 38 dating during the Theban occupation of Plataiai, and thus ca. 400-387 BC. For the identification of the foundations at Plataiai with the Heraion, see Washington 1891 and Skias 1899. For a critical review of the evidence for the identification and a fuller bibliography, see Fossey 1988, 106-109. For the abysmal condition of the temple in 1998, see Konecny 1998, 56-57.

12 Cf. the comments of Tomlinson 1980, 222, who although he endorses Feyel’s thesis that these lists were brought about by the Peace, nevertheless notes, “though it is still strange that it should have been considered desirable to list at Chorsiai the few items–sets of lebetes and spits–kept at Siphai and Kreusis”. Also cf. the comments of Buck 1994, 146 n. 16: “But it is odd that inscription was set up at Khorsiai for listing Thespian property at Siphai and Kreusis, unless there was some feeling of association or unity amongst the three”.

13 Of the provenance, Platon and Feyel 1938, 152, say, “La pierre était au village de Chostia, dans la maison de Christos Chatzis, où elle servait de table. D’après nos renseignemnets, elle avait été il Feyel, dopo che la pace di Antalcida (386 av. Cr.) ebbe dissolto la confederazione beotica”. trouvée par le même Chatzis dans le kastro proche du village, ceului d’où proviennent les décrets de Khorsiai, IG VII, 2386-2388”.

14 On Hera at Thespiai, see Schachter 1981, 251. Feyel 1938, 166, n. 1 considered the possibility that IThesp, 38 was an errant stone, but he rejected this notion because “Je ne connais pas d’exemple d’inscriptions de Khorsiai transportées dans quelque autre canton de la Béotie, ni d’inscriptions venues d’ailleurs à Khorsiai. La carte française montre clairement combien ce district est isolé par le relief”. Roesch (1965, 56) too points out that Khorsiai was “la plus isolée de toutes les cités béotiennes”. There is, however, new evidence for another pierre errante from Thespiai found at Khorsiai. Roesch 1980, 224-5 (= SEG, 36, 420) published the following inscription found at Khorsiai: Θεο[δ]ότω ρχοντος, I Λούκων Πραξίωνος I κή Λουκῖνα Λούκωνος I ιαρειά[ξ]ασα ’Αρτέμιδι I Σωτείρη τòν ναòν I κατεσκεύασαν I τϋς θεϋςκ τ πόλει. In an e-mail to me, Albert Schachter tells me that two other unpublished inscriptions from Thespiai, “one found only this year [2006] in the ruins of the town wall” mention Artemis Soteira. He thus feels that both SEG, 36, 420 and IThesp, 38 originally came from Thespiai. If SEG, 36, 420 is not errant and thus Khorsiai also had a cult to Artemis Soteira, then the foundations of the large temple there identified as the Heraion based on IThesp, 38 may just as well be a temple to Artemis Soteira.

15 For the difficult evidence concerning the fate of Thespiai in this period, see Tuplin 1986.

16 On the political dimensions of the introduction of the Ionian alphabet at Athens, see D’Angour 1999.

17 Hell. Oxy., 12,1; Xen., Hell., 2,4,1; Plut., Lys., 27,2; Pelop., 6,4 and 7,2; Justin. 5.9.3; Diod. Sic. 14,6,1; Paus. 9,11,6. For the copious Theban-Athenian ties between 403 and 371, see Buckler 2000, 319-329.

18 For close Athenian-Thespian ties, see Hdt. 7,132; 7,202; 7,222; 7,226-227; 8,25; IG, I3, 23; Thuc. 4,133,1; 6,95 (see IG, I3, 72 for a possible reference to this last passage). For Athenian influence on Boiotian and Thespian art, see Demand 1982, 106-125. For Athenian influence on Thespian funerary reliefs, see Rodenwalt 1913, 338-339.

19 Thθc. 4,93,4 and 4,96,3. For some new readings of IG, VII, 1888, see Keramopoulos 1920, 19, n. 2). On this monument, see Schilardi 1977 and Low 2003, 104-111.

20 IG, I3, 292-362, IG, II2, 1382-1383. The inventories are extant from 434/3 all the way down to ca. 300 BC. On these Treasurers, see Ferguson 1932; Tréheux 1965; Thompson 1966, 286-290; Harris 1995. For the problem of whether the Opisthodomos was located in the Parthenon or elsewhere, see Harris 1995, 2-8, 40-41.

21 The towns of Siphai and Kreisys were undoubtedly frequent ports of call for the Khorsians.

22 We know from Thuc. 4,76,3 and Xen., Hell., 6,4,4 that Thespian land included Siphai and Leuktra. For Khorsiai being an independent city later, see SEG, 22, 410 (IG, VII, 2383).

23 Ϝαγάνων δύο in line 19, λέβετε δύο in line 27 and δραχμάω δύο in line 28.

24 IG, II2, 1424, a, 142 [σκ]άφαι πομπικα H.

25 Vottéro (1994) overlooks IThesp, 39 in his data on Boiotian numerals. His statement on p. 319 that “Le chiffre ‘50’n’est attesté qu’une seule fois [Feyel, 1937, III, l, 59], à Thespies, pour préciser superficie (et son tracé n’est pas très assuré; il semble avoir la forme: Image 100000000000000C0000000F310FA0EA.jpg (ou Image 100000000000000C0000000FF43F8368.jpg ?) ” should be adjusted.

26 Of the known names of Thespian towns listed by Fossey (1988, 135-196), several have omicrons as a part of the dative-locative form, although at this early date we have already seen that Kreisys/Kreusis was spelled differently so undoubtedly the same obtains for other villages. Known possibilities include Δονακών (Δονακόνι), Λεκτρα (Λεύκτροις), λλοπια (λλοπίαι), Λεοντάρνη (Λεοντάρναι) and Χορσαι (Χορσίαις). Of these, ṿ [λλ] I ο[πίαι] would fit more symmetrically than any other if it is towards the end of the line, but this village is attested only by Stephanos of Byzantion.

Auteur

Department of Classics, Case Western University, Cleveland, USA

© Ausonius Éditions, 2010

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540