Property Records for Athenian Cleruchs or Colonists?

: Notes on IG I 420
Author(s): William S. Morison
Source: Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 145 (2003), pp. 109-113
Published by: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn (Germany)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20191709
Accessed: 01-06-2015 15:12 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn (Germany) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Zeitschrift
fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 186.135.142.96 on Mon, 01 Jun 2015 15:12:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 109

Property Records for Athenian Cleruchs or Colonists?:

Notes on IG I3 420

Two joining fragments of a list of properties recovered during early excavations on the Athenian acro

polis1 have received little attention by scholars. Most recently, D. Lewis placed this inscription with
some reservation among the records of the poletai,2 but added little comment about the inscription itself.
The lack of scholarly attention reason. As may be seen in the photograph,
is not without the top and
bottom of the stone are completely broken, and the left side of the stone was broken in the apparent re
carving of the stone for later reuse; further damage to the lower left side of the stone's preserved face
has worsened As a result, the text is brief and lacunose. In addition to the inscription's
matters. brevity
and the damage done to the stone itself, the early date of the document and its mention of a bouleuterion
and a bath, apparently in close proximity, have made this text difficult to reconcile with any known area
of Classical Athens.
Here my purpose is to provide a fresh text of this inscription3 and a brief epigraphical commentary.
I will also suggest that the first two sections of the inscription are part of a list of properties leased to or

belonging to Athenian cleruchs or colonists, and that the third section refers to the construction of pub
lic buildings.

Epigraphical Museum 6659 ca. 440-410

ctoi%. a.c.

2 hJOYYletaov
]
Ti?iGpoc:-]HAAn : [Kai o?k?oc ]
4 hei yje?xov T[ ]

?y]p? :t? Oi?,o[vo]c :AEM[ ]

]CEC TOIyUJfMOCC?OI vacat
]7C?i0pa :AA[r]l :KOCIOIK?OCvacat0.039m.
8 ]ayopo :rcp?c h?o vacat 0.139 m.

:
]ON ?oA,?DTepiovMop?|io[ ]
ne]i[0]aY?pa[c] hep|iay?po [ : ]
t?] ?aA,av[eovhop]?oaT[ ]
12
]T[JC[.\\\\ ..]

5 [?y]p? dubitanter scripsi 6 [yeiToveuolcec dubitanter Hiller 10 [he]p[^]ay?pa[c] Hiller 11 t?] ?a

Axxv[eovhopjioci restitui ?aA,av[eu> #Jiocrc^ # ^J Lewis :t?] ?ataxv[eiov 5e]ji?ci[ov] Hiller

1
Fragment A was found in 1839 in the excavations to the West of the Erechtheum, and fragment B on September 20th,
1840 in the excavations to the East of the Erechtheum. A of the was first published
Fragment inscription by K.S. Pittakis,
Arch. Eph. (1842) 597 no. 1048; and fragment B, Arch. Eph. (1840) 371 no. 474. Both were republished by A. Rangab?,
Antiquit?s Hell?niques (Athens 1842) I nos. 344 and 287 respectively. See also K.S. Pittakis, Arch. Eph. (1854) 1108 no.
2099 for additional readings to fr. A. The two fragments were first published together in IG I 279 and republished as IG I2
385.
2
Contra W. Bannier, "Zu den Rechnungsurkunden des 5. Jahrhunderts", RhM 41 (1906) 230, who states that this in

scription does not belong among the poletai records, but provides no explanation for his judgment.
3 I wish to thank to study EM to thank Professors
the Epigraphical Museum for permission 6659.1 also wish T.L. Shear
Jr. and M. Jameson for their discussions with me concerning this inscription.

This content downloaded from 186.135.142.96 on Mon, 01 Jun 2015 15:12:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 110 W.S.Morison

2 "... of which is adjacent

[...I ... ...] 126 [and a
plethra
building |... ] in (or "to") which
an T..."
adjacent
5 "... of the ]field of Philo
DEM[... I... ]SES to the gymna
sium I ...] plethra 26 and a

building I ...]agoras (?) to

wards the East."
9 "...
]ON bouleuterion,
Morimos I... Pe]i[th]agoras son
of Hermagoras I... for the] bath

they [set the boundaries] T[... I

...]T[]S..."

1. A line was likely inscribed in this position based on the four-line groups formed by the empty spaces between lines 5
8 and lines 9-12 (see photograph). The space from the bottom of one line to the bottom of the next line of the preserved text
is a uniform 0.019 m. The regularity of line spacing within these four-line groups and the slightly larger than normal spaces
(0.026 m) between them suggest that some deliberate division was meant to be emphasized.
3. Only the numerals are readable on this line. Hiller restores plethra and oikia from the apparent parallel in line 7. An
area of at least 126 plethra is described. A plethron measured a space of approximately 930 m2, so an area of at least 11.7
hectares or nearly 29 acres is recorded here.
4 yjeixov: a standard term for situating the location of a property in direct relationship to a neighboring structure or area.

The state of
the inscription's preservation makes it impossible to understand more precisely the usage of this term here.
5 dcy]p? : t? OiXo[vo]c :AEM[ .The name is too common in the fifth to make identifi
century any possible
cation with a known Philo. With some hesitation I suggest that agro should be restored, and that a field is mentioned here.
Other property records indicate land near a gymnasium being leased (e.g., Agora XIX L6, lines 102-111, which records
leases of properties belonging to Herakles in Kynosarges, and IG II2 2495, which records leases of property in or near the

Lyceum).
or Ae|iexpio
AEM: may begin a patronymic, e.g., AeuocOevo or an adjective, e.g., ?euociov.
6 ]CEC toi yu|i[v]acioi: at the edge of the break there remain the angled right-hand tips of three strokes, allowing only
for a sigma. Hiller's restoration if not precisely correct, is suggestive of the answer. Because x?i
[yeiToveD?JcEc, right
Y\)u[v]ac?oi is dative, either a verb or a preposition requiring the dative is necessary. No preposition will fit here; a descrip
tive verbal is more likely in a text of this sort and the preserved -cec restricts the possibilities to the genitive singular. Here

perhaps the property abuts a gymnasium, which would a clearly recognizable marker. It is also worth
provide topographical
noting that the reference to a gymnasium here is the earliest in the extant inscriptions from Attica. The earliest use of the
word to yuuvaciov in Attic literature occurs in the so-called "Old Oligarch" (2.10), who wrote at roughly the same time

(430s-420s) that this inscription was carved.

Empty spaces may be observed at the ends of lines 6-8 (see photograph). Measurements are to the preserved right side
of the stone. The reasons for these spaces is unclear, but it is possible that the carver wished to avoid breaking up words.
7 rcAiOpa :AAIHI :Kai otK?a: compare a similar collocation in IG I3 427.72-73 and SEG XXXII 161. The property
described here was about 2.5 hectares or about 6 acres.
8 ]ocy?po: most likely the genitive of a name ending in either -ac or -oc. This person's property abuts its neighbor to the
east.
9 ]ON ?o^euTepiov. The first two letter spaces are worn, but the faint impression of an omicron and a nu are visible be
fore the beta. Here surely stood a phrase further describing the bouleuterion. For example, Pausanias (1.3.5) describes the
Bouleuterion of the Five Hundred as tcov 7??vtockoc??)v KaXouu?vcov and Philostratus (VS 2.8.4) notes to tcov
?outauTepiov
texvitcov in the Kerameikos. a descriptive in the neuter nominative or accusative sin
?o\Ae\)Tr|piov Alternatively adjective
gular could be lurking here.

This content downloaded from 186.135.142.96 on Mon, 01 Jun 2015 15:12:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Property Records for Athenian Cleruchs or Colonists?: Notes in IG I142 111

Mopijno[: damage to the stone immediately after the omicron has completely removed any trace of the following letter.
A nominative like the following ne] i [6] ayo pa [c] deserves consideration (more below). This is the only occurrence of this
rare name in Attica (LGPN II s.v.). Elsewhere in the Greek literary and epigraphic record, the name appears only in two in
scriptions from Magnesia ad Maeandrum ([Mopijuoi) in IM 15a.4 and Mopiuxn) in IM 107 col. 2.11). However, the noun

uopi|ioc is a poetic form of uxSpciuoc (LSJ s.v.), which means "fated" or "destined." M?pciuoc does
appear as a name in At
tica and M?piuoc is likely a by-form that is otherwise unattested (LGPN II s.v. M?pciuoc) as a personal name.

10ne]i[0]ay?pa[c] hepuxxy?po [ : ]: for this Hermagoras, see LGPN 11 s.v. and PA 5083. The space where I restore
theta is badly worn and nothing may be read there on the stone. The iota in the previous space, however, is clear. The only
known Athenian name that will fit is neiOayopac. For references to the name in the late fifth century, see LGPN
Peithagoras
II s.v. No other reference to Peithagoras, son of Hermagoras, is known.
11 to] ?aA,av[eov hop]?oci. Compare the text of IG I3 402.10: to ?ataxveiov copicav, where a bath is similarly delim
ited. The restoration of e rather than ei is necessitated by the stoichedon arrangement of the text. Although the use of e for ei
is uncommon in public documents, there are parallels. For a discussion and examples, see L. Threatte, The Grammar of Attic
Inscriptions. Volume I Phonology (Berlin 1980) 299-301. Perhaps the proper names in lines 9 and 10 are the subjects of the
verb.

The top left of a horizontal stroke is visible after the last iota in this line; thus, I read an undotted tau here.

Property Records for Athenian Cleruchs or Colonists?

The use of a fine, white marble, the clearly carved letters arranged in stoichedon, and the find spot on
the Acropolis all strongly indicate that this inscription is a public document. Three possibilities for the

interpretation of this document come to mind: 1) a lease of sacred or public properties, 2) a sale of sa
cred or public properties, or 3) a public record of the ownership of properties, sacred, public, or private.
Because neither renters and guarantors nor buyers are clearly mentioned in the extant text, certain iden
tification of this text as either a lease or a record of sale is not possible; however, it is possible that the

inscription simply records properties that had already been either leased or sold to Athenian settlers.
There are two principal reasons why this inscription is likely a property record from a cleruchy or col
ony: measured areas of property are listed and the places mentioned in the inscription do not match with
the known topography of Athens. Property records for Athenian overseas holdings are rare, and only
two other examples have been identified.4
Of these two surviving documents, the closest parallel with IG I3420 is IG I3 418 {AgoraXIX L2)
records sacred properties on Euboia, which were possibly leased to cleruchs. The text dates to ca. 430
410. Because IG I3 418 {Agora XIX L2) is the closest parallel to IG I3 420, it isworth quoting in full
here:
a 1 [9]eo[i]
[.]c T8|I8V8
[?v Xoc?,k?]8i 7iocp? t? xec 'AGevoc?occ 7tpoc[xo?ov
4
[_hi]7ut?oc 111
y?ai (pa?,ec Tt?iGpoc[
[ ]eo)ciFAAAA vacat
[?v tEc]xiaiai 'Opo?iocci Ilavam [
[....] ??oc?ai, (pci?? AA yeix[
8 [ vacat
]ypoi
[?v 'Epejxp?ai
A[?yaA,[ ]I[

b 10 ?\i?l[
?vXa[A,K??i
12 ??,aio[v

4 IG I3 44
{Agora XIX LI) and IG I3 418 {AgoraXIX L2). Most likely, asM. Walbank has pointed out, this is because
these documents were not inscribed on stone, but were on more material," such as whitened
normally "kept perishable
boards. See, Walbank, Agora XIX 152-153.

This content downloaded from 186.135.142.96 on Mon, 01 Jun 2015 15:12:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 112 W.S. Morison

Y??to[v
?v 'Ep?[xp?ai

ye?Tofv
16 kXa\(a)[\
%op?o[v?
Xpojie[
napa t[
20 jeixo[v
?vav?[
?vXocA,[k?8i
7cA?0p[cc
vacat

24 ?jin[
7ip[

16 ??,a??[ stone :?tax?(a)[i?Walbank

This inscription various measures

discusses of land (e.g., plethra and gyai) that are to be used for

agricultural purposes. term geiton The

is used presumably as a topographical marker to denote certain

pieces of property. While there is a certain conformity in the presentation of the text, it is not precise.
Likewise, in IG I3 420 the measures of land (plethra) mentioned are relatively large and suggestive
of land in the countryside, i.e., spaces for cultivation of tree fruit, vegetables, grain, or livestock. In the
first section, an area of at least 126 plethra (ca. 11.7 hectares or nearly 29 acres) is recorded. In the sec
ond section (lines 5-8) an area of 26 plethra (2.5 hectares or 6 acres) is mentioned;5 the word yeixov
here is clearly being used to describe adjacent areas or structures. This section also provides the name of
Philo and perhaps the beginning of his patronymic, demotic, or ethnic (line 5), and perhaps the end of
another name in line 8. The gymnasium mentioned in line 6 is clearly a topographical marker for an area
of property.6 The description of areas of land in the first and second sections clearly parallels similar

descriptions in other inscriptions of property records, but the third section refers to buildings that do not
match with any place known either in Athens or Attica.
Several structures are mentioned in the third section (lines 9-12) that have no counterpart with what
is known about the topography of Classical Athens. A bouleuterion is mentioned apparently in the

neighborhood of a bath. The names of Morimos in the next line, Peithagoras,

and, son of Hermagoras,

follow, and are perhaps individuals to be associated with the setting of boundaries for the bathing estab
lishment. If this bouleuterion and bath are understood to be in Athens, difficulty arises.7 References to
bouleuteria in Attic inscriptions normally refer to the one in the Agora, but there is no record or evi
dence of a bath in the area of the Athenian Agora until the Late Roman period.8

5 An was made colonists to make land distribution in value, but not necessarily in size, as N.
attempt by Greek equal
Cahill, Household and City Organization at Olynthus (New Haven and London 2001) esp. 8-12 et passim has demonstrated.
The decree for the foundation of an Athenian at Brea (IG V 46.10-12) mentions yecov?uoi who are to be elected, one
colony
from each of the ten tribes, for the allocation of the land. This board would presumably assure a fair allotment of land.
6 the fifth-century BC were
the city walls
outside and in the vicinity of agricultural land. There are
Gymnasia during
references to other gymnasia in the context of leases for agricultural land (e.g., Agora XIX L6 lines 102-111 for leases of

agricultural land in Kynosarges, and IG 11^ 2495 for leases of agricultural land in or near the Lyceum).
7 the common fundos re
The likelihood of this has been assumption of scholars. E.g., D. Lewis ( IG I3 420): "Titulus

censet, fortasse Athenis, sed cetera obscura sunt."

8 Bouleuterion IG I3 71.24-25, IG I3 78.29-30. Both Thuc.
in the Athenian Agora: see, e.g., IG I3 27.10, IG I3 68.57,
2.15.2 and Plut. Thes. 24.3 refer to the abolition of separate bouleuteria in the demes by Theseus. For more testimonia see

Agora III, s.v. "Bouleuterion." Agora III does not include this inscription in its collection. However, the Areopagus Council

This content downloaded from 186.135.142.96 on Mon, 01 Jun 2015 15:12:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Property Records for Athenian Cleruchs or Colonists?: Notes in IGT 42 113

Ratherthan attempting to make this inscription fit the known topography of Athens, another solu
tion is suggested by the record of properties discussed above (IG I3 418): the tracts of land described in
IG I3 420 were not in Athens, but were located elsewhere in the Athenian empire and had been either
leased or sold to Athenian cleruchs or colonists. The bouleuterion may have been mentioned because, as
Aristotle records (Ath. Pol. 48.1), payments for leases of property owned by the state were made before
the Boule in the Bouleuterion.9 Because Athenian cleruchies operated with institutions similar to those
back home,10 the bouleuterion may be the place to which cleruchs or colonists brought their rents.11
Another possibility is that this third section records the building of public structures, such as a bouleute
rion and a bath, by individual Athenian settlers. Public institutions such as these would be necessary in

any overseas settlement, and it would have been important for those individuals who had paid for them
to have their names on public record in Athens.
In conclusion, the parallels between IG I3 418 and the lack of any apparent corre
and IG I3 420

spondence between the places described in IG I3 420

and the topography of Classical Athens make it

likely that this document is a property record for an Athenian colony or cleruchy. The first and second
sections of the inscription may well refer to properties that either were leased or sold either to cleruchs
or to colonists, and the third sectionperhaps refers to public buildings and to the construction of struc
tures in the cleruchy or colony. Unfortunately, the lack of a more certain date for the inscription makes
even a tentative identification with a particular cleruchy or colony impossible.12

Grand Valley State University William S. Morison

seems to have met in a bouleuterion (Agora XVI 73.25-26 and Aesch. Eum. 570 and 684, Aischin. Tim. 92). A late source

(Philostrat. VS 2.8.4) also mentions t? tcov t?%vitcov ?oi^emripiov near the city gates in the Kerameikos, but that need not
have existed in the fifth-century BC. For a discussion of bouleuteria in the demes, see Whitehead, Demes 88-89 esp. n.ll,
who states that there is no evidence for bouleuteria in the demes and suggests the possibility that deme assemblies may have
been held in the city itself. Also, cf. F. Frost, "The Rural Demes of Attica" in The Archaeology of Athens and Attica under
the Democracy. W.D.E. Coulson, et al. eds. (Exeter 1994) 173. J. Camp, The Athenian Agora. Edition. (London
Updated
1986) 208 provides a brief discussion of the early sixth-century AD bath in theAgora.
9
See, M. Dreher, Hegemon und Symmachoi (Berlin 1995) 97-99 and P.J. Rhodes, Commentary on the Aristotelian
Athenaion Politeia (Oxford 1981) ad loc.
10AJ.
Graham, Colony andMother City inAncient Greece (Manchester 1964) 167.
11 source
One late states that the record of such leases for cleruchs was set up in the Stoa Basileos in the Athenian

Agora (Aelian, WJ 6.1).

12
One such possibility might be the Athenian cleruchy at Oreus (Thuc. 8.95), which had, according to a late source,
athletic facilities ([Plut.] Am. Narr. the Classical The same, however, was
773F) during period. likely at other cleruchies and
colonies throughout the empire. See, P.A. Brunt, "Athenian Settlements Abroad in the Fifth B.C." in Ancient
Century Society
and Institutions (Oxford 1966) 71-92 andGraham, Colony (above, n. 10) 166-210.

This content downloaded from 186.135.142.96 on Mon, 01 Jun 2015 15:12:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions