1In the mid 1930s a young shepherd from the Corinthian village of Kryoneri (formerly called Matsani) presented A. Orlandos, who was then conducting excavations in Sikyon, an inscribed bronze tablet found at Tzami, a place lying ca. 2.7 km northwest of his village. The text, 20 lines long, is entirely preserved and remains the longest surviving inscription ever found in the Sikyon area. In the course of the archaeological survey which I have conducted in the territory of ancient Sikyon, I investigated the site of Tzami which proved to be one of the most sizable settlements of Sikyonia during the late-Archaic and Classical periods. The purpose of this paper is to present the inscription in its geographical context, and to reevaluate its contribution to our knowledge of Sikyonian personal names and social history and of the practice of communal dining in Archaic and early Classical Greece1. In addition, my autopsy of the plaque, which is stored in the Bronze Collection of the National Archaeological Museum (inv. no. X 16355), produced interesting observations on the writing of the inscription that have escaped previous examiners2.

The tablet and the text

2The rectangular tablet, 0.001 m thick, is an alloy of copper and tin and possibly other elements for purposes of hardness and strength (fig. 1). It is preserved almost intact with only its bottom left corner broken away3. Its rather uneven surface has peeled off close to the edges and in a few more spots, but this has not affected the readability of the text. There are four holes on the four corners, which would have served to nail the plaque to a hard surface. The edges of the plaque are not absolutely straight which accounts for slight variations of its width and height. The inscription has two parts: the first, in three lines, contains regulations for an association of 73 men, the names of whom are arranged in five columns in the second part. Each row contains 17 names except for the last one which has only five. For the most part, the writing was carefully executed with letters deeply incised with a thin, sharp instrument4. The cutter has occasionally overextended or doubled a stroke and in only two cases entirely missed it: the cross of the theta in Εὐθδαμος (top of the fourth row), and the horizontal stroke of the second alpha in Δαμαίνεος (fifth row, third name).

3Dimensions of plaque: W.: 0.472 (upper edge)–0.467 (lower edge); H.: 0.259 (middle)–0.255 (closer to the edges). Diam. of holes: 0.009–0.01 m. Upper holes set 0.014 m from upper edge, lower ones 0.010 m from the lower edge. Holes on the left 0.015 m from the left edge, holes on the right 0.010 m from the right edge. Average dimensions of inscribed surface: 0.43 m (W.) by 0.24 m (H.), with uneven margins: W. of left margin: 0.033-0.034 m; W. of right margin: 0.002 m. H. of top margin: 0.005 m; H. of bottom margin: 0.010-0.013 m. Space between the prescript and the columns: 0.013-0.015 m. Line spacing: 0.001-0.002 m. Letter H.: 0.009 m. (Diam. of the omicron: 0.0065 m); Letter Th.: 0.001 m.

4My inspection of the plaque has revealed the existence of guidelines in the form of light incisions, not visible on frontal viewing and consequently not showing on the photographs. On fig. 2, my white lines approximate the guidelines of the plaque. Prior to writing, the cutter had gridded the plaque proceeding as follows: he first drew the lines of the left and right margins from top to bottom. The left margin is 0.030 m and the right margin 0.022 m wide. Then he drew the top margin line, which he most likely did not extend over the left margin, 0.003 m from the upper edge5. He subsequently drew from top to bottom 21 horizontal lines, all 0.011 m high, leaving a bottom margin 0.010 m high. The lines are drawn all the way to the right edge of the plaque, beyond the right vertical margin line, but do not extend over the left margin. He then wrote the prescript, left one empty line below, and started with inscribing the names of the first column. After finishing, he drew a vertical line from the empty line under the prescript to the bottom. The lateral position of this line was determined by the longest words of the column (lines 14-16 and l8). He then incised the names of the second column, drew a second vertical line before proceeding to the third column and so forth. Unlike the horizontal lines and the left and right vertical margin lines, which were drawn with a ruler prior to writing, the vertical lines between the columns are hand drawn after finishing each column. This explains the different width of the columns, which from left to right average 0.078, 0.084, 0.096, 0.097 and 0.084 m. It is also clear that the cutter has miscalculated the width of the columns, which forced him to go over the right vertical guideline almost to the end of the surface. Had he kept an average width of 0.084 m as he did in the second and fifth columns, he would have ended with a total width of 0.41-0.42 m thus respecting the right margin6. This is important to note because it strongly suggests that the cutter inscribed all the names at once and did not add names with time. The result of this preparation and careful execution of the writing is an elegant inscription, undoubtedly the work of someone experienced in writing on this medium.

5My examination of the inscription reconfirmed Orlandos’ and Peek’s readings but for purposes of easy reference I copy the text below:

Τούτονδε κοινὰ ἔστο τò ἑστιατόριον καὶ τὰ ὄρε καὶ ho χαλκιòν
καί τἆλα, fόικέουσίν γα καὶ τὰ τέλε φέρουσιν· πολεῖν δὲ
μεδὲ συναλάζεσθαι ἐξέστο.

6The writing shows Sikyonian epichoric lettering with its hourglass epsilon. The date of the inscription is problematic since the content provides no help and we have to rely on the lettering, notorious for its untrustworthiness even for areas and periods abounding in inscriptions. Jeffery dates it to ca. 500, based on the archaic forms of mu, nu and theta (which is crossed), and the rather spasmodic use of the vau, both initial and medial7. On the other hand, the consistent writing of the prescript from left to right, and the disappearance of the qoppa prevents us from pushing it to the early 6^th century8. A late 6^th /early 5^th date century is probably a safe guess for this unique document, and agrees with the dating of the ceramic material from the site where the plaque was found9.

Commentary on the prescript

7The first three lines set rules for the 73 men, namely that “the hestiatorion and the ὄρη and the χαλκιών and the rest should be common among these people, provided that they live (here) and bring the τέλη; and it is not allowed to sell or exchange”. Hestiatorion is clearly a banquet-hall but the meanings of (ὄρη and χαλκιών are less certain. On the basis of Pollux (Onomastikon 7,151 and 10,130), Orlandos suggested that (ὄρη were the wooden basins of olive-presses, which is an attractive hypothesis given that olives and olive-oil were essential in ancient Greek diet, and are commonly found in the context of communal dining10. Yet, the high altitude of the hill where the hestiatorion was, must have been prohibitive for the growing of the olive, and hence our (ὄρη could not possibly refer to olive presses, usually installed at or near the source of production, i.e. the olive groves11. Tomlinson, based on the scholiast’s interpretation of Aristophanes’Acharnians 82, translates the (ὄρη of our inscription as “chamber pots”, acknowledging at the same time that “the prominence given to the chamber pots is, to say the least, surprising12”. I find Tomlinson’s interpretation in this context rather unlikely. On the other hand, Harpocration (035 Keaney) lists the term (ὄρov, which he explains as a certain agricultural implement (σκεῦóς τι γεωργικόν) occasionally designating a wine-pressing wooden board (ξύλον τι, ᾧ τὴν πεπατημένην σταφυλὴν πιέζορσιν). The (ὄρη of our inscription though must be the plural form of (ὄρoς not of ὄρov, but if we are willing to consider this a mistake, then we could argue that (ὄρη refer to a wine (not olive) pressing implement. Vineyards are less affected by the frost in winter and early spring, and wine was a sine qua non of an ancient Greek symposion. The exact meaning of χαλκιών is more problematic. The term occurs only in Homer and Hesiod in the sense of bronze smithy. It is possible that it designated a bronze smithy here as well as part of the hestiatorion establishment, but more likely the term designated the whole of bronze cooking utensils, as Orlandos first argued13. A further possibility, favored by Peek and Lejeune and endorsed by Hallof, is χαλκιών referring to a room housing the bronze items14. However the case may be, we are dealing with regulations regarding a banquet-hall and its dependencies and belongings.

8γα, “one of the subtlest and most elusive of particles”15, accompanies the restrictions applied so that the men listed below enjoy the rights they were given. These men are allowed to share the hestiatorion and its belongings as long as they live here and pay their τέλη 16. It is rather odd that no preposition or suffix denoting place accompanies ƒἰκέουσιν, as usually happens. Where, then, does fοικέουσιν refer to? All previous commentators of this inscription bypass this obvious question, while Lejeune suggested Sikyon as a whole. This is certainly not so; the verb must refer to a smaller entity, either the town where this tablet was found and our survey identified, or to a specific quarter or even to a complex where the hestiatorion may have belonged. With respect to the last possibility, a sanctuary comes readily to mind since hestiatoria are often associated with sanctuaries17. It is, however, rather unlikely that as many as 73 people lived in a sanctuary, and therefore we should turn to the other two options, the town or one of its districts. Since we do not know if this was the only hestiatorion in town nor its purpose, we cannot answer this question.

9τέλη can have several meanings, services, dues, or offerings to the gods, and can be monetary or in kind or both. Regardless of the exact meaning, this obligation in connection with the last prohibition of the prescript, i.e. not to sell or exchange, argues strongly for these males being adults, in all likehood Sikyonian citizens of some means18. At the same time, these conditions might exclude people of lower status, serfs and obviously slaves, and possibly even citizens of lower means. We hear of a group of serfs in Sikyon called κατωνακοφόροι, literary “sheepskin wearers”, who were attached to the lands that they cultivated on behalf of their masters19. These people presumably resided in farmsteads scattered in the countryside, and would have been excluded from communal dining in the hestiatorion. The 73 participants in question in order to benefit from sharing the hestiatorion, its dependencies and belongings, must reside in the community. Whoever would leave, would also loose these privileges. As to the prohibition contained in the last clause20, no object is specified. I have found no other cases where the verbs in question appear without an object. Therefore I assume that the object implied in our sentence are the privileges expressed above. Accordingly, I take this sentence to mean that the alienation of these privileges, either through sale or exchange, was prohibited. The sentence also suggests that both, barter and monetary exchange, were forms of transaction practiced in late Archaic Sikyon.

Comments on the proper names

10Our knowledge of Greek personal names has greatly increased since Orlandos’editio princeps of the text in 1937 and the subsequent comments and corrections of Peek and Lejeune in the early 1940s21. There is no point to proceeding to a full commentary on the names here, since we have no patronymics, but I have a few observations to make. Our list includes some 13 very common names, which are found around the Greek world. These are Ἄλκιμος, Ἀριστίων, Ἀριστόβουλος, Ἀριστόδαμος, Ἀρίστων, Δεινίας, Καλλικλῆς, Κλεών, Μενίσκος, Ξενοκλῆς, Σίμος, Σωκράτης who occurs twice in the inscription, and Τίμών. Thirty-five names are less common, and most of them widely scattered in the Greek world: Ἀντιμένης, Ἀριστογείτων, Ἀριστοκλείδας, Δαμόχαρις, Δέξανδρος, Δεξίθεος, Ἐμπέδων, Εὐαίνετος, Εὔαλκος, Εὐδαμίδας, Εὐθύδαμος, Εὔφραστος, Θεοκλείδας, Θέρσανδρος who occurs twice in the inscription, Καλλίβιος, Κλειτίας, Κλεομήδης, Λυσίδαμος, Λυσίων, Μενέτιμος, Μικύλος, Μνασιων, Νικοφάνης, Ξανθίας, Ξενέας, Ξενοπείθης, Πείθων, Πλειστίας, Πολέας, Πολλίας, Πράϋλος, Τίμανδρος, Τιμόδαμος, Φίλαρχος, and Χάρμος. There is no apparent geographical pattern in the occurrence of these names, with the exception of Ἀριστόδαμος and Εὐδαμίδας, both very popular in Sparta, Ξανθίας which is common in Thessaly, and Θεοκλείδας which is encountered in a few cities of the Peloponnese and on the island of Thera. We also note the early occurrence of Δέξανδρος in Corinth (eighth century), of Εὐαινετος (early fifth century), and Τιμόδαμος (ca. 500) in Sparta, and of Θέρσανδρος in Argos (550) and Corinth (early sixth century).

11Of potential interest in this respect are the 15 rare names of our inscription: ’Αρχ|ένοος is found in its contracted form (Ἀρχένους) five more times in LGPN, in Chalkis and Thrace, all later in date22. Βαθέας occurs in two fourth century inscriptions from the Arkadian Kleitor and from Thasos, and as Βαθίας in the Thessalian Herakleia. Δεξιάδας appears three times in Hellenistic inscriptions from Messenia, Thespiai and Delphi. Εὐάνιος appears two more times, in an early Archaic inscription from Thera (seventh century?) and on a Classical vase from the Macedonian city of Akanthos. Εὐμναστίδας occurs only one other time in fourth century Athens as Εὐμνηστίδης. ƒίσαρχος is found four more times, in fifth century Olympia and Corinth and in Hellenistic Aitolia as ’Ίσαρχος and once in fifth century Thespiai as ƒίσαρχος. Λιπαρίων appears once again in a mid-fifth century inscription from Keos. Νεόλας appears in a sixth century inscription from Thera and much later (first century BC onwards) in Sparta on seven occasions. There is one more example of Ξενοφάνης, in Achaian Phthiotis of 178 BC. Πέριλλος is found five more times from the fourth century onwards, in Argos, Epidauros, Chalkis, Pholegandros and Macedonia respectively. Πολλιάδας appears twice in third century Argos and Megara respectively, and two more times in Athens as Πολλιάδης. Πυρfίας is epigraphically attested in early sixth century Corinth twice and once in early fifth century Mycenae. Τιμανδρίδας occurs five times in Arkadia and Lakonia, and 13 more times in Athens, Euboea and Boiotia as Τιμανδρίδης. Of Τυχαῖος we have three more examples, from Sparta and Achaian Phthiotis, much later in date. Finally, there is one more example of Χριθύλος, from early fifth century Argos (as Κριθύλος).

12A review of the geographical areas where these rare names occur produces no clear or consistent pattern of distribution23. The example of Πέριλλος illustrates the point, not to mention the extreme case of Ἐμπέδων all other occurrences of which are from outside the Peloponnese. Yet, a couple of regions do share some of the same proper names, namely Lakonia, and to a much lesser extent, Argolis-Corinthia.

13Our inscription adds tremendously to Sikyonian onomastics24. Only 12 of the 71 names25 appear again in literary and epigraphical sources, all dating from the late Classical period onwards. These are the common names Ἀριστόδαμος, Ἀρίστων, Κλέων, Μενίσκος, Ξενοκλῆς, Σωκράτης, and the less common Ἀντιμένης, Εὐθύδαμος, Καλλίβιος, Μνασίων, Νικοφάνης, Ξενέας, and Τιμόδαμος. Beyond, LGPN cites no earlier occurrences for 44 out of the 71 names26. In addition, nine names seem to appear only here: Ἀγρόφιλος (wrongly transcribed in SEG, 11, 244 and hence in LGPN as Ἀργόφιλος), Ἀκμαντίδας, Δαμαίνεος, Εὐέστιος27, ƒέπις, Πεντίας, 'Ραύδιος and Φωσέας. It is perhaps noteworthy that Ἀκμαντίδας is closely related to Ἀκματίδας, which occurs once in sixth century Sparta. Δαμαίνεος approximates Δαμαίνετος, a relatively common name also found in Corinth and Sparta.

The tablet in its geographical context

14Tzami, where the plaque was found, refers to the almost flat and oblong summit of the hill of Thekriza, situated some 12 km west of Sikyon, in the mountainous hinterland of the ancient city-state (fig. 3). The summit of the hill (almost 900 masl), of an approximate surface of 50,000 m², has a southwest-northeast orientation (fig. 4). It features pronounced southern and eastern slopes, a gentler northern slope, and connects with the Moungostos forested tableland towards the northwest. From the hill one has a commanding view over the plain of Klimenti-Kaisari to the southwest and the road to Stymphalos crossing it. A few years after the discovery of the plaque, Stikas, after having reconfirmed the area of discovery by inquiring in the nearby village of Kryoneri, carried out an excavation on the hill in search of the sanctuary where the plaque would have presumably come from28. His excavation concentrated on a square building, the foundations of which lie near the southern edge of the hill, and determined its defensive nature as a watch tower. In the course of my extensive survey of the territory of ancient Sikyon, I investigated the plateau and discovered ample architectural and ceramic evidence for the existence of a sizable settlement here, occupying the entire summit and ranging in date from the late Archaic to the late Classical periods29. Pertinent to our purpose is the discovery of a sanctuary at the northeastern corner of the plateau with abundant sherds from miniature skyphoi, kotylai, kalathoi and kraters. The area has recently suffered from aggressive plowing and some earth removal operations in order to transform it into productive vine land, and this accounts for the scarcity of in situ architecture. We observed ashlar blocks and other architectural fragments in piles on the field boundaries, along the edge of the plateau, and down the slopes. The fact remains that this is the only sacred spot that our survey identified on the hill, and may be the home of the bronze statuette of a goat reported by Orlandos as coming from this site30. Whether the plaque could come from here as well depends on the context of the hestiatorion, sacred or profane, which I discuss below. Either here or somewhere else on the plateau, we can be certain of a permanent structure, given the monumentality of the inscription and the fact that it was nailed to a hard surface, presumably the door of the complex31. Although there does not seem to have been a standard type of a banquet-hall, we often encounter a rectangular room with an off-center door in order to accommodate as many couches as possible along the walls, and sometimes with a hearth at the center, but there is considerable variation and often large hypostyle halls or porticoes could host communal dining32. What is certain is that the accommodation of as many as 73 people would have necessitated a very large single structure, or a complex with series of adjacent rooms. Given the average length of the couches discovered in the dining rooms of the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore in Corinth, between 1.65 and 1.85 m, a very large hypostyle hall, some 32 m per side, would have been needed33. Although there are examples of large halls used for dining34, it is highly unlikely that a single building covering a surface of some 1 000 m² would have been erected in this rural town of Sikyonia ca. 500 BC. It is better to imagine a cluster of modest units, probably not free-standing as in the Corinthian sanctuary of Demeter35, since the inscription refers to a hestiatorion in the singular, but serially arranged behind a colonnade or incorporated into a peristyle36. Accordingly, the participants would have dined in groups. An alternative possibility is the 73 to have dined in shifts according to a certain principle, in which case a smaller dining room would suffice, but the inscription makes no reference to such a pratice.

Overall appraisal

15The sacred or profane context of this inscription has been debated among scholars ever since its discovery. Was this hestiatorion and its dependencies part of a sanctuary or was it part of the public or private, non-religious sphere of the community where it was found? Were these 73 males the participants in a ritual meal in honor of a divinity or do they represent an official civic association or again a private group37? Given the uniqueness of these regulations not only in the Sikyonian corpus but indeed in the entire corpus from the ancient Greek world, we can only offer suggestions here.

16With respect to the first question, the majority of hestiatoria are associated, usually textually and sometimes physically as well, with sanctuaries, and this is particularly true for the Archaic period38. Based on this, Peek (1941, 201-202) argued that our Sikyonians were connected to a particular cult. However, no reference is made in the tablet to a deity or a cult. To circumvent this problem, Peek suggested the possibility that the cult and associated sacred regulations were written on another bronze plaque now lost. It may be so, but the rules given in the prescript and the number of participants forces us to consider other possibilities as well.

17According to Orlandos, 73 is too large of a number for a sacred banquet, and suggests instead that we are dealing with a kind of syssitoi, namely participants in common civic meals after the example of the Cretan or Spartan ones39. Although we have no name list of participants in a banquet held in honor of a divinity, the majority of hestiatoria which have been identified in sanctuaries could have hardly accommodated more than 20 to 30 people40. For Schmitt Pantel the residence requirement implies that we are dealing with citizens who belonged to an official subdivision of the city41. For Hallof on the other hand, the fact that no penalty is foreseen for transgressing the rules points to the private (i.e. not public) sphere42. In order to weigh these possibilities, we need to step back to briefly consider what we know of public and private groups engaged in sacred or profane communal dining in Archaic and Classical Greece.

18The notion of a group of people commonly sharing a building and its belongings finds parallels in the religious sphere. One inscription from Chios and another from Kos, of the late fourth and third century respectively, contain regulations applying to the participants in a sanctuary43. The Chian inscription prescribes that the phratry of Klytidai and no one else was entitled to share the sacred oikos of the phratry, where the private shrines of Klytidai had previously moved. The Koan inscription is a decree of the deme of Alasarna prohibiting the priest and the officials to borrow by pledging the cups or other vessels of the sanctuary of Apollo, unless they are demesmen who participate in the sanctuary. Who these demesmen might have been is indicated by another inscription from Alasarna, dating to ca. 200 BC and bearing the names of the tribesmen who participated to the sanctuary of Apollo and Herakles44. In other words each phratry of late-Classical Chios commonly shared a specific sacred oikos, and each tribe of Hellenistic Alasarna enjoyed participation to a designated sanctuary.

19In Attica, cultic societies called orgeones, namely “ritualists”, first appear in the time of Solon and occur frequently in epigraphic documents from the mid-fifth century onwards45. These groups were devoted to the maintenance of a hero-cult, and the persons in charge of the sacrifice were called hestiatores46. Orgeones were not exclusively based in the asty, as an inscription of the deme of Prospalta found near Keratea demonstrates47. We can be fairly confident that monetary contribution was one of the requirements for joining an orgeon48. In addition to the orgeones, we have a number of phratry subgroups in Attica with cultic associations, such as the thiasoi, unfortunately very poorly documented49. Thiasoi and thiasotai are in fact attested from many parts of the Greek world from the sixth century onwards. Arnaoutoglou convincingly challenges the common opinion that thiasoi have always been associated with the Dionysiac cult, and points to the fact that the earliest references to thiasoi are in the context of the institutionalized gatherings of Spartan men to which I shall return below50. Only from the late fifth and early fourth century onwards does the word denote the followers of a cult and private cult associations51. As in the case of the orgeones, payment of a contribution is the only known prerequisite for joining a thiasos52.

20Phratry-based associations appear in other parts of the Greek world as well. Better known are the hetaireiai attested in early Crete, Thera and Cyrene53. In the decree of the Cyreneans (Meiggs & Lewis 1988, no. 5) whereby they grant equal citizenship to the Theraean residents of Cyrene, in accordance with the arrangements made by their respective ancestors at the time of the founding of Cyrene (late seventh century), it is specified that the Theraeans are “to be appointed to a tribe and to phratry and to nine hetaireiai”54. In Thera, the hetaireiai appear only once, in a very fragmentary inscription probably dating to the late Archaic period (IG, XII, 3, 450, line 18). Yet, this is enough to suggest that the Cyreneans borrowed this scheme from the metropolis, where the hetaireiai were presumably established during the early stages of the state55.

21Dosiadas, a Hellenistic writer of the history of Crete, tells us that all the citizens of Lyttos were divided into hetaireiai, which they called andreia, and that everywhere in Crete there are two houses for the syssitia, the andreion and the koimeterion, the latter used for entertaining strangers56. Willetts, based on the evidence of Dosiadas and a few inscriptions, argues that the hetaireiai or andreia admitted only citizens, honored the same god, namely Ζεῦς ἑταιρεῖος,, and were to be found all over Crete57. According to Dosiadas, in preparing the common meals each Lyttian citizen “contributes a tithe of his crops to his hetaireia, as well as the income from the state which the magistrates of the city divide among the households of all the citizens”58. Aristotle (Pol., 1272a), pointing out the similarities between Cretan and Spartan state organization, says that both have syssitia, which the Lakones in the old days “called not φιτίδια but (ἄνδρια, just like the Cretans, which is a proof that they came from Crete”. The difference, according to Aristotle, is that the Cretan arrangements for the syssitia are better than the Spartan ones, “for at Sparta each citizen pays a fixed poll-tax (τò τεταγμένον), failing which, he is prevented by law from taking part in the government”, whereas in Crete the system is more communal, and the participants are not to pay a tax. In the Spartan tradition, it was Lykourgos who established the common meals (phiditia), in order to do away with the luxurious private dinners59. Plutarch specifies that the Spartans would gather in tables of about 15 people, and each participant was required to contribute on a monthly basis a certain portion of food and a small sum of money to buy the rest60. We are not told on what basis these small groups were formed, but we do know that in Sparta each of the three original tribes had nine phratriai, a scheme echoing the Cyrenean-Theraean social division61.

22The τέλη of our inscription, that the participants were required to bring must have been of similar nature. During the second half of the sixth and the whole of fifth centuries, Sparta and Sikyon had strong political ties, which extended beyond Sikyon’s mere adherence to the Peloponnesian League62. It is possible that the Spartans also exercised their influence on the social organization and communal practices of their precious ally. Common messes among citizens may have been a product of this influence, and if so our 73 Sikyonians could represent an official subdivision of the town where the tablet came from.

23Unfortunately, we know very little about the internal division of the Sikyonian citizen body. Herodotos tells us (5,67-68) that Kleisthenes expressed his hostility against the Argives by changing the names of the three traditional Doric tribes (Hylleis, Pamphyloi and Dymanatai) into Hyatai, Oneatai and Choireatai at the same time adding a fourth tribe, which was his own, namely Archelaoi. The new names were observed for sixty years after the death of Kleisthenes. Thereafter the Sikyonians returned to their former tribal names and added a fourth one, namely Aigialeis63. In addition, a later scholiast to the Ars Grammatica of Dionysios Thrax tells us that the Sikyonians were divided and numbered by tribes64.

24Our 73 Sikyonians could hardly represent a portion of all three or four tribes, since 73 cannot be divided either by 3 or 4. They could not represent the whole of one tribe either since the size of the settlement speaks for a citizen population of at least 300. We should rather think of a smaller division, along the lines of a phratry or a hetaireia, such as those encountered in Sparta, Crete, Cyrene and Thera65. Peek suggested that our restrictive group of people were members of a broad genos66. Perhaps 73 is too large of a number for gennetai of a rural town, and phratores or hetairoi is a better guess. At the same time, the civic basis of this association would not preclude a religious purpose, whereby its members would hold common banquets in honor of a divinity within his or her premises. The examples of Chios and Kos, mentioned above, illustrate the point. Moreover, one of the two inscriptions from Alasarna specifies that the inventory of the tribesmen participating to the sanctuary of Apollo and Herakles will take place during the festival of Herakleia, “when the phyletai are about to dine67”. The sanctuary that we have detected near the northeastern edge of the plateau could have hosted such meetings. The sanctuary that we have detected near the northeastern edge of the plateau could have hosted these meetings.

25To summarize, this inscription is extremely important on many levels. Its very existence and quality prove the spread of writing in early Sikyon beyond the boundaries of the city proper, and at the same time might account for the dearth of inscriptions of that age by attesting to their perishable material. Its contribution to Sikyonian onomastics, where it supplies almost 20% of the total of known Sikyonian names has, I believe, been sufficiently shown. The identity of the group, whether it represents some cult association or a civic subdivision, cannot be established, but in either case this is one of the earliest inscriptions outside Attica to attest the presence of such groups. With respect to communal dining this is by far the earliest occurrence of the word hestiatorion in Greek literature, and provides unique evidence for rules applying to common banqueting in early Greece. But perhaps most important of all is that these regulations betray a certain degree of organization of the communal life in a settlement which was far away from the asty, already before the dawn of the Classical era.