The sacrificial calendar of Athens

The Sacrificial Calendar of AthensAuthor(s): Stephen LambertReviewed work(s):Source: The Annual of the British School at Athens, Vol. 97 (2002), pp. 353-399Published by: British School at AthensStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30073193 .Accessed: 22/10/2012 20:26

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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

British School at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Annual ofthe British School at Athens.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bsa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/30073193?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

THE SACRIFICIAL CALENDAR OF ATHENS'

(PLATES 31-36)

1. INTRODUCTION

'No more precious . . . document has been found during the [American] excavations . . . in the Athenian Agora ... than the remnant of the Law Code'.2 Ferguson's judgement was made in 1936, when those excavations had not been long underway, but two generations later the find may still be reckoned among the most significant, for the inscription he was referring to (my F3) is the largest fragment so far discovered of one of the fundamental documents of ancient Greek religion, the sacrificial calendar of Athens.

' I am very grateful to Robert Parker, Michael Jameson and Angelos Matthaiou for invaluable comments on a draft (remaining errors, however, are all mine); to Leslie Threatte for advice on two linguistic points; to Charalambos Kritzas andJohn Camp for facilitating access to the stones in, respectively, the Epigraphical Museum and the Agora of Athens; to the Epigraphical Museum for the photographs of Fi and 6 reproduced at PLATES 31, 33 b; to Craig Mauzy for the new digital photographs of F2, 3, 8-12 reproduced at PLATES 32, 33 a, 34-36; to John Camp and Kevin Clinton for information about unpublished fragments; toJaime Curbera of the Berlin Academy (Inscriptiones Graecae) for a copy of Ross's transcript of F12. Much of the work was done, by kind invitation of Angelos Chaniotis, at the University of Heidelberg, where I was privileged to enjoy the financial support of the Humboldt Stiftung. All dates are BC unless stated otherwise or obvious in context.

The following abbreviations are used: Boethius = A. Boethius, Die Pythais (Uppsala, 1918). Clinton, 'Epidauria' = K. Clinton, 'The Epidauria and

the Arrival of Asclepius in Athens', in Cult Practice, 17-34. Clinton, 'Eleusinia' = K. Clinton, 'IG i'. 5, the Eleusinia,

and the Eleusinians', AJP 1oo (1979), 1-12.

Clinton, 'Law Code' = K. Clinton, 'The nature of the late fifth-century revision of the Athenian law code', Hesp. supp. i9 (1982), 27-37.

Clinton, Myth and Cult = K. Clinton, Myth and Cult: The Iconography of the Eleusinian Mysteries (Stockholm, 1992).

Clinton, Sacred Officials = K. Clinton, The Sacred Officials of the Eleusinian Aysteries (Philadelphia, 1974).

Cos Calendar = LSCG 15i.1 Cult Practice = R. Higg (ed.), Ancient Greek Cult Practice from

the Epigraphical Evidence (Stockholm, 1994). Deubner = L. Deubner, Attische Feste (Berlin, 1932). Dow 1941 = S. Dow, 'Greek inscriptions', Hesp. o10 (i94I), 31-7. Dow 1953-7 = S. Dow, 'The law codes of Athens', Proc.

Massachusetts Hist. Soc. 71 (1953-7), 1-35. Dow i960 = S. Dow, 'The Athenian calendar of sacrifices:

the chronology of Nikomachos' second term', Historia, 9 (1960), 270-93.

Dow 1961 = S. Dow, 'The walls inscribed with Nikomachos' law code', Hesp. 30 (1961), 58-73.

Dow 1968 = S. Dow, 'Six Athenian sacrificial calendars', BCH 92 (1968), 17o-86.

Eleusis Calendar = S. Dow and R. E Healey, A Sacred Calendar of Eleusis (Cambridge, Mass., 1965); should be read with SEG 23. 8o.

Erchia Calendar = G. Daux, 'La grande d6marchie: un nouveau calendrier sacrificiel d'Attique (Erchia)', BCH 87 (1963), 603-34 (should be read with SEG 21. 541; 'Two Notes', 75)-

Ferguson, 'Trittyes' = W. S. Ferguson, 'The Athenian law code and the Old Attic trittyes', in Studies . . . Capps (Princeton, 1936), 144-51-

Hansen = H. Hansen, 'Aspects of the Athenian Law Code of 410/9-400/399 BC' (PhD diss., Harvard, 1969; published with updated introduction, New York, I990) (SEG 42. 123).

Healey, Eleusinian Sacrifices = R. F. Healey, 'Eleusinian Sacrifices in the Athenian Law Code' (PhD diss., Harvard, 1961; published, New York, 1990) (SEG 40. 146).

Jameson, 'Sacrifice' = M. H. Jameson, 'Sacrifice and animal husbandry in Classical Greece', in C. R. Whittaker (ed.), Pastoral Economies in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge, 1988), 87-119.

Kuhn = G. Kuhn, 'Untersuchungen zur Funktion der Saulenhalle III,' JdI 00oo (1985), 200-26.

LSCG = E Sokolowski, Lois Sacries des citisgrecques (Paris, 1969). LSS = E Sokolowski, Lois Sacries des citis grecques, Suppliment

(Paris, 1962). Mikalson, Calendar = J. D. Mikalson, The Sacred and Civil

Calendar of the Athenian Year (Princeton, 1975). Mikalson, Religion = J. D. Mikalson, Religion in Hellenistic

Athens (Berkeley, 1998). Mykonos Calendar = LSCG 96. Oliver = J. H. Oliver, 'Greek inscriptions', Hesp. 4 (1935), 5-32. Parerga = S. D. Lambert, 'Parerga', (PE 139 (2002), 69-82. Parker, Athenian Religion = R. Parker, Athenian Religion, A

History (Oxford, 1996). Parker, 'Festivals' = R. Parker, 'Festivals of the Attic

demes', in T. Linders et al. (eds), Gifts to the Gods... Uppsala Symposium 1985 = Boreas 15 (1987), 137-47.

Parker, Tria Lustra = R. Parker, 'Two guesses about Attic cult', in H. D. Jocelyn (ed.), Tria Lustra. Essays . . . Pinsent (Liverpool, 1993), 25-7-

Phratries = S. D. Lambert, The Phratries of Attica (2nd edn., Ann Arbor, 1998).

Prott = J. von Prott and L. Ziehen, Leges Graecorum Sacrae, fasc. I (Leipzig, 1896).

354 S. D. LAMBERT

The calendar was a product of the revision of Athenian law which took place in two stages, between 410/9 and 405/4 and, after the interruption of the regime of the Thirty, 403/2 and

400/399.3 This revision was conducted by a commission about whose activities we are fairly well informed in the literary record, principally by Lysias 3o, a speech delivered against Nikomachos in a prosecution for misconduct in office as a member of it. According to this speech, in its second term the commission was supposed to ensure that Athens performed 'the sacrifices from the kyrbeis and the stelai according to the syngraphai'.4 The kyrbeis were inscriptions of archaic type which were thought to contain the original (i.e. early sixth century) sacrificial calendar of Solon.5 By the stelai was probably meant more recent sacrificial law, enacted by the Assembly and inscribed on stelai. The syngraphai are most likely the instructions to the commission which specified the sources of law on which they were to draw.6 The thrust of the allegations in Lysias 30 is predictable: Nikomachos had cut out ancestral sacrifices which should have been retained and included inappropriate new ones.7

At least in its earlier phase, this legal revision covered matters other than religious law, but, apart from Draco's law on homicide, most of what survives are fragments of the sacrificial calendar.8 Although much good scholarly work has been done on these, notably by, or under the aegis of, Ferguson's pupil Dow, no satisfactory text of the inscribed calendar as a whole has ever been published; in fact, the texts available hitherto are to a greater or lesser extent misleading,9 and they are scattered about in partial publications in corpora, journals, and dissertations such that it is currently impossible to obtain a satisfactory overview of the material from published sources. We cannot expect to progress this document from disorder to

Rhodes, 'Athenian Code' = P. J. Rhodes, 'The Athenian code of laws, 410-399 B.C.', JHS iii (199i), 87-1oo00.

Robertson, Laws = N. Robertson, 'The laws of Athens,

4Io-399',JHS 110 (1990), 43-75. Rosivach, Public Sacrifice = V. R. Rosivach, The System of

Public Sacrifice in Fourth-Century Athens (Atlanta, 1994). Salaminioi Calendar = S. D. Lambert, 'The Attic genos

Salaminioi and the island of Salamis', ZPE 119 (1997), 85-Io6, at 86-8, no. 1, 11. 85-94; should be read with Parker, Athenian Religion, 308-I6.

Selinous = M. H. Jameson, D. R. Jordan, and R. D. Kotansky, A Lex Sacra from Selinous (Greek, Roman and Byzantine Monographs, ii; Durham, NC, 1993)-

Simms, 'Eleusinia' = R. M. Simms, 'The Eleusinia in the sixth to fourth centuries B.C.', GRBS 16 (1975), 269-79.

Simon = E. Simon, The Festivals ofAttica (Wisconsin, 1983). Teithras Calendar = LSS 132. Tetrapolis Calendar = S. D. Lambert, 'The sacrificial

calendar of the Marathonian Tetrapolis: a revised text', ZPE 130 (2000), 43-70 at 45-7; minor adjustments below, sect. 5.5 (wine price) and n. 47.

Thorikos Calendar = 'Le calendrier de Thorikos au Mus6e J. Paul Getty', Ant. Cl. 52 (1983), 150-74; should be read with SEG 33- I47, IG i3. 256bis (IG i3. fasc. 2, add. et corr., p. 958), Parker, 'Festivals', 144-7, SEG 48.61.

Threatte = L. Threatte, The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions (vol. i, 1980, vol. ii, 1996, Berlin).

Todd, 'Expert' = S. C. Todd, 'Lysias Against Nikomakhos: the fate of the expert in Athenian law', in L. Foxhall and A. D. E. Lewis (eds), Greek Law in its Political Setting (Oxford, 1996), 101-31.

'Two Notes' = S. D. Lambert, 'Two notes on Attic leges sacrae', ZPE 130 (2000), 71-80.

Ziehen =J. von Prott and L. Ziehen, Leges Graecorum Sacrae, part II, fasc. i (Leipzig, 1906).

For other works abbreviated in the commentary see the bibliography below, Description of Fragments.

2 Ferguson, 'Trittyes', 144. 3 For these dates, and in general on the historical

circumstances of the revision, see Rhodes, 'Athenian Code'; on Lysias 30 see Todd, 'Expert'.

4 Lys. 30. 17; cf. Parker, Athenian Religion, 44-5- 5 The precise nature of the kyrbeis has been the subject of

endless, ultimately inconclusive, discussion; for a useful summary see Hansen, ch. 7 with pp. xix-xxv.

6 Rhodes, 'Athenian Code', 95; cf. Parker, Athenian Religion, 45 n. 6.

7 The commission's work on the sacrificial calendar is attacked at Lys. 30. 17-22.

8 Draco's law: IG i3. 104. Laws about the Council: IG i3. 105. Face B of our F3 is inscribed with law about the trierarchy (see further Rhodes, 'Athenian Code', 89-90). Some fragments of the calendar are quoted in literary sources, Solon, Nomoi, F81-6 Ruschenbusch. Some

fragmentary or doubtful text on our fragments, while dealing with sacred matters, may not have been in calendar form.

FxA, 26-30 and F9B, col. 2, are certainly from the calendar, though the short sections preserved lack the usual prices; F12-x3B may derive from religious matter in the code separate from the calendar, though the texts are too

fragmentary for certainty. 9 This applies not least to the publications most frequently

referred to, those in LSCG and LSS. It should be acknowledged, however, that Sokolowski also made significant contributions to the reconstruction and elucidation of this text.

THE SACRIFICIAL CALENDAR OF ATHENS 355

perfection in a single leap, and in any case many important issues about it will not be resolved until more fragments have been discovered and published; a realistic hope as American work in the Agora progresses. What follows, therefore, is my provisional text, based primarily on autopsy of the stones (which, where they survive and their location is known, are all in Athens). While there is some contextual discussion (e.g. on identification of festivals), at this stage I am concerned primarily with the establishment of a working text and not with a full interpretation, which would need to encompass other documents of the same genre.'0

GENERAL DESCRIPTION''

Thirteen fragments can be ascribed to the calendar, one with some uncertainty (Fi3), one wholly (F5), another partially (F4), unpublished.'" On one side (Face B) the text is in Attic script, on the other (Face A) in Ionic script. It would appear that Face A was the original front face, that the original (presumably Attic script) text on it had been erased,'3 and that what survives on Face B was part of that original text, or series of texts. Probably the calendrical matter in Attic script was wholly superseded by that in Ionic script and, when Face A was reinscribed, the inscriptions may have been re-erected such that Face B was no longer seen (e.g. backing against a wall).'4 Since Attic script was no longer used for official purposes at Athens after 403/2, the simplest hypothesis is that the Attic script material dates to the earlier of the two terms of Nikomachos' commission (410/9-405/4), the Ionic script material to the later (4o3/2-4oo/399). 5

The surviving opisthographic fragments are of varying thicknesses. Moreover, the calendar was not, as was usual, inscribed on individual, self-standing stelai, but on series of stelai joined by clamps in the top. On the Ionic face at least (the situation on the Attic face is not quite clear'6) the left or right edge of an individual stele in a series might cut through a column of text. We do not know how wide (or high) any individual stele was, nor how wide a single stele- series might be, nor how many such series there were. Nevertheless, a distinction can tentatively be made between two groups of fragments. In group A (Fi-3, 6-7 and possibly 13) the original thickness of the fragments, where it can be determined, is greater than group B and the text is inscribed in a stoichedon style on Face A (except the 'under-the-line' text on

FxA) and roughly stoichedon on Face B. In group B (F8-ii) the fragments with original thickness preserved are thinner and the text is inscribed in non-stoichedon scripts on both

0o In addition to the central state calendar several inscribed local Attic calendars survive. These include Eleusis Calendar, Erchia Calendar, Salaminioi Calendar, Teithras Calendar, Tetrapolis Calendar, and Thorikos Calendar.

" This section repeats in summary form, with adjustment, well established matter. The basic argumentation is for the most part contained in Dow 1953-7, i960 and 1961 (summary, 1968).

12 I omit from this reckoning IG i3. 240K, a very small fragment containing no complete word. It was attributed to these texts by Dow (followed by IG i3), but in my opinion it does not belong and is probably part of IG i3. 1185. See Parerga. I also omit IG is3. 236b, a piece of F3 preserving only Face B (trierarchic law), and IG i3. 237, in Lewis's view in the same hand as Fi3B, but not sacrificial calendar.

13 On the reason for this supposition see below, Order of Fragments, on F3. It is not clear whether the original text on Face A will have been sacrificial calendar. The suggestion of

Kuhn, 215-16, that Face A was originally simply the uninscribed reverse of Face B, cannot be ruled out, but explains less well the unusual features of Face A.

14 FIA is probably from Boedromion of the annual sequence, FiB from Skirophorion (i.e. later in the year) probably also in the annual sequence; but it is very unlikely that FiB, in Attic script, contained a continuation of the sequence in FiA, in Ionic script. Rather, probably FiA is from a revised version of the material on FIB.

'5 This is the majority view, supported e.g. by Dow, Clinton, 'Law Code', 35, and Rhodes, 'Athenian Code', 94-5, who is persuasive against the alternative views proposed by a minority of scholars, e.g. that Face A post- dates the trial of Nikomachos and represents an attempt to correct his commission's work.

'6 See Order of Fragments on F8; commentary on FIB, 14. Kuhn, 216, suggests that the stelai were only clamped together when the material in Ionic script was inscribed.

356 S. D. LAMBERT

faces.'7 F12 is known only from a nineteenth-century copy and it is uncertain to which group it belongs. None of the fragments was found in situ; a case can be made that the inscriptions were originally set up in the Agora, in or near the Stoa of the Basileus.'8

On Face A we possess fragments of headings which show that, like the Tetrapolis Calendar, the text was arranged in sequences: an annual sequence for yearly contributions followed by two biennial sequences for items funded by the state in alternate years. There must also have been arrangements to cover those Athenian festival events which took place quadrennially and the very few at even longer frequencies. Though the evidence is fragile, there is just enough to enable us to see that the biennial sequence on F2A probably related to odd Julian years (i.e. Athenian years ending 9/8, 7/6 etc.) and the other biennial sequence, starting at F3A col. 2, to even years (i.e. those ending 0/9, 8/7 etc.; for details see commentary ad loc.). There are (uncertain) indications that F3A col. I also belonged to the odd-year biennial sequence. If so, that will have been the prior of the two biennial sequences in the calendar.'9

Within each sequence the sacrifices (or other items) in the main body of the calendar on Face A20 were arranged under chronological headings, month by month and within a month, day by day. The name of the festival, as a rule, is not given and has to be inferred from the information in the text and external evidence. This can be done in many cases, with varying degrees of confidence. Even if we can see to what festival the sacrifices relate, however, that does not necessarily support an inference as to their frequency. That is because the same festival might include different sacrifices at different frequencies (e.g. the Panathenaia took place annually, but in an enhanced form quadrennially) and we cannot always be sure at what frequency the state contribution to a festival recorded in our calendar was made. In addition to 'sequence' and 'date' rubrics, there is a third type of heading, the 'iK-rubrics'. As convincingly elucidated by Dow 1953-7, these specified the source of authority for the items listed.2' Three such sources are securely preserved: K -c ry vpuXOI3acTOLXLKWV 'from the tribe- kingly', ETO Nv KaLcT fivac 'from the by month', EK 'cTv tIl % l'T'l 'from those on an

'7 In essentials this follows Dow, especially 1961. However I prefer 'stele-series' to Dow's term 'wall' and Dow's attribution of the surviving fragments to two, or perhaps three, 'walls', while possible, is questionable. Of the published fragments with both faces preserved only two have the same thickness. Moreover, it is quite possible that stelai of different thickness were joined in a single series, with Face A aligned, Face B protruding back to a differing extent (indeed, a positive case can be made for this in the case of the group A fragments) and/or that there was more than one stele- series which contained stones of the same, or about the same, thickness.

18 Again this is the majority view, supported by Rhodes, 'Athenian Code', 9o-I (cf. IG i3. 104, 6-8). Dissenters include Kuhn and Robertson, Laws. Five of our fragments were found in various late contexts in the south-west Agora, in or around the tholos (F3, 8-Ix), but it is not clear that this was close to their original location (Robertson, Laws, 59-60, argues that was South Stoa I, but cf. Rhodes n. 22), rather than reflecting movement to that area of some blocks from our stelai for a later construction purpose (cf. Parerga I). At least two fragments were found on the slopes of the Acropolis (Fia, south slope, F6, NW slope), F2 rather to the SE of the tholos-area cluster. If the original location was the

Stoa of the Basileus, the findspot of Fi3, a little to the NW of that Stoa, would be closest to it.

'9 The argument relating to F2A and F3A col. I is new; see the notes ad loc. Dow 1960 inferred from the wording of Lysias 30. 20-1, about traditional sacrifices that had been omitted the previous year and new sacrifices offered for the last two years, that the revised annual calendar had come into effect two years before the speech was delivered, i.e. in

4o01/o, and the prior of the biennial sequences (i.e. in his view that in F3A, col. 2) one year before, in 400/399. In my view the prior biennial sequence may rather have been that beginning in F2A, but even if it was not, and even allowing that it is legitimate to make literal chronological inferences from this contentious passage, there are serious doubts e.g. about (a) the date of delivery of Lysias 30 (see most recently Todd, 'Expert', 103-5, who argues persuasively for late

4oo00/399 rather than the traditional date of early 399/8); (b) whether, even if interpreted literally, Lysias 30. 2o-I can be pressed to imply that the sequences came into effect in the staggered manner suggested by Dow.

20 On the below-the-line text see commentary on FIA. "' The earlier view was that these rubrics specified funds, but

Dow argued persuasively that the monthly total at F3A, I6-17, shows that the accounting was not by fund, but by month.


unspecified' (sc. day)." It is possible that these were subdivisions of 'Solon's' calendar/the kyrbeis. Another source specification, though its restoration is not completely secure, seems likely to relate to the newer, 'post-Solonian' sacrifices 'from the stelai', which Nikomachos' commission was required to integrate with the older material: icK t"0v o.[rlX6v] (F3A, 77, possibly F2A, 8).23

Too little calendrical text is preserved on published fragments of Face B to support definite conclusions about whether the earlier version of the calendar was organized in a significantly different way from the later, though it may not be coincidental that Face B currently lacks authority rubrics and generally makes an impression of less rigorous drafting than Face A (e.g. it is only at FiB, II, that sacrificial animals are provided for in the plural, but with no number specified). This may be one regard in which, in its later term of office, Nikomachos' commission tightened up on its earlier practice.

It is also difficult to determine what, if any, systematic difference there was between the text on fragment groups A and B. The group A festivals on both faces may all have been annual or biennial. Of the group B festivals, that on F9B may have been the quadrennial Panathenaia; but while it is possible that Fxo-ixxB relate to quadrennial (or sexennial) festivals, the exiguous surviving text on these fragments does not supply strong grounds for such a supposition (see notes ad loc.). The only substantial block of text certainly on Face A of a group B fragment relates to a festival which took place principally outside Attica (the Delia, F8), but whether it was for that reason or some other that it is on a group B fragment is unclear. The Delia had also, since 427, been celebrated quadrennially (and according to Ath. Pol. 54- 7 was also celebrated sexennially), but we do not know whether F8 related to one of these infrequent celebrations or to the annual Delian theoria. Whether the rationale of the group B fragments was the same on both faces is itself uncertain.

The main body of the calendar text on Faces A and B follows essentially the same arrangement: the deity or hero is named, followed by the description of the animal to be sacrificed, any extras such as barley or wine and any payments, in money or in kind, to the officiating personnel. The cost of items is specified in a separate column of text to the left and (on Face A; again the situation on Face B is unclear) monthly totals were listed. The financial aspect of this sacrificial calendar was patently fundamental.24 With the exception of a hecatomb listed at F8B, II, and possibly some of the items in FIB and F4B, the offerings are fairly modest; generally, the largest sums are expended on payments to officiants. Both these points are remarkable; but their explanation, as with most other interpretative aspects of this calendar, lies outside the scope of this article.25

22 Cf. Hesych. s.v. 5rzlvjy iv OPLtoItvriv il 9pcaV Troig 80i Eig 1guoL1v O1.YLtCiLEL. De C. Fales, Hesp. 28 (i959), 165-7; J. Triantaphyllopoulos, REG 95 (1982), 291-6. The one occurrence of this term, at FIA, 24, in fact relates to a fixed day, suggesting that, at some point, sacrifices which had previously floated had been fixed to specific days.

23 The uncertainly restored [AK?] vFtov (F2A, 3) may also refer to more recently introduced items.

24 The speaker of Lysias 30 (17-22) also seems primarily concerned with the financial implications of the ancestral sacrifices omitted and the new ones included. Interestingly, however, he does not explicitly allege that perquisites had been inappropriately paid or withdrawn.

25 I should, however, sound a warning about making inferences about the popularity or importance of the festivals on the basis of numbers of offerings here listed. Our list, for example, may relate to a biennial sequence, but there may have been other relevant items listed in the annual sequence, the other biennial sequence etc. Moreover, it is important to bear in mind that, as e.g. Salaminioi Calendar, 20-I, 87-8 (cf. also IG i3. 244. 17-19, Skambonidai) demonstrates, what our calendar lists is state contributions to festivals which might to a greater or lesser extent also be funded from other sources.

358 S. D. LAMBERT

TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION

Description of Fragments and Textual Bibliography All fragments are of white ('Pentelic') marble. The bibliography aims to be comprehensive in

listing major editions, and significant textual contributions, but not otherwise. Further physical details are set out under Order of Fragments.

Fragment I. PLATE 31. EM 8ooi(fr. a) + 6721(fr. b). Two fragments joined by A. Wilhelm, Arch. Eph. 1902, 141. a: excavations on south slope of Acropolis, before 1879; b: not recorded.

H(eight) 0.34, W(idth) 0.59, Th(ickness) o.ii9. L(etter) h(eight), Face A: as F3A. Face B: 0.oo7 (some up to 0.oo9). Face A: above the line,

stoich(edon grid) (approx. square), vert(ical) c. o.oIo-o.oII, horiz(ontal) c. o.o0oo-o.oio4; below the line, non-stoich., distance between lines c. o.olo-o.oli, average space occupied by a letter c. o.oo8-o.oo9. Face B: stoich. vert. c. o.o0130-o.o0170 (col. I), c. o.oII8 (col. 2), horiz. c. o.oo0095-0.ol0 (col. I),

c. 0.0090 (col. 2). Face A, distance between left edge of columns of numbers, cols. 3 and 4, 0.195-0.20; distance between left edge of 'under the line' text in cols. 2 (as restored) and 3, c. 0.20; distance between left edge of col. of numbers, col. 3 and left edge of stone, 0.355. Face B, distance between normal left edge of main column of text, cols. I and 2, at least c. 0o.30.

Edns: fr. a: A. Hauvette-Besnault, 'Fragments d' inscriptions atheniennes', BCH 3 (1879), 69-73 no. I (Faces A and B); IG ii. 844 (K6hler, own transcript, Faces A and B) (IG i. 534a [suppl., p. 124, Kirchhoff, from K6hler, Face B]); fr. b: IG i. 555a (suppl., p. 54, Kirchhoff, from K6hler, Face B); fr. a+b: Ziehen 16 (squeezes of Wilhelm); IG ii'. 1357a (Kirchner, squeeze, Faces A and B); IG i2. 843 (Hiller, Face B, squeeze (b), transcript of Prott (a and b)); (Boethius, 157-59, Face A); Oliver, 23 (Face A) and 32 (Face B) (ph.); LSCG i7A(Face B)-B(Face A); IG i3. 241 (Lewis, Face B).

Cf. Dow 1961, fr. A (ph.); Hansen, 51, 54.

Fragment 2. PLATE 32. Ag. I 431o. Agora, in demolition of modern house (M i), 1936. H. 0.353, W. o.Io8, Th. 0.144- L. h. as F3A. Stoich.: vert. c. o.o010o4, horiz. c. o.0oi25-o.oio8. Edn. Dow 1941, fr. F (ph.) Cf. Dow 1960, 286-9; Dow 1961, fr. E (ph.); Hansen, 6o-i.

Fragment 3. PLATE 33 a. Ag. I 727. Agora, late Roman paving over fork of drain (I 12), 1933. The following details relate to Face A only. (For Face B see IG i3. 236, frag. b of which preserves Face B only).

H. 0.537, W. 0.510, Th. 0o.120. L.h. 1. 30, 0.009-0o.oo0095; month names: 0.0075-o.oo9; other text: 0.oo6-7 (0, E, X, Q 0.004-5, Y, F

0.oo8-9). Stoich. vert. c. 0.01045, horiz. c. o.oio6 (col. I), c. o.oio8 (col. 2), c. 0.0095 (col. 3). Distance between normal left edge of main column of text, col. I (estimated) and 2, c. 0.205, between col. 2 and 3, 0.198-0.20. Distance between left edge of numbers and normal left edge of main text, col. 2 0.052-0.053, col. 3 0.048-o.o0485.

Edns: Oliver, 19-32 no. 2 (ph.); LSS IoA; (part) Healey, Eleusinian Sacrifices (1. 30, and col. 3, text at App. II) (SEG 40. 146); R. F Healey, A gennetic sacrifice list in the Athenian state calendar', in K. J. Rigsby (ed.), Studies Presented to Sterling Dow on his Eightieth Birthday (Greek, Roman and Byzantine Monographs, Io; Durham, NC, 1984), 135-41 (col. 3, 11. 60-74); Hansen, 81-116 (cols. 1-2).

Other contributions affecting text: F. Sokolowski, 'Nowy Fragment tzw. Fasti Sacri z Athen', Eos 37 (1936), 450-7 (11. 5-15); Ferguson, 'Trittyes'; Dow 1960, 289 (1. 30); F. Graf, 'Zum Opferkalendar des Nikomachos', ZPE 14 (1974), 139-44 (1. 66); W Burkert, ap. G. Dunst, 'Der Opferkalendar des attischen Demos Thorikos', ZPE 25 (1977), 258 (1. 25);J. M. Mansfield, 'The Robe of Athena and the Panathenaic "Peplos"' (Diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1985), 374 with n. 40 (11. 9-II); N. D. Robertson,


'The riddle of the Arrhephoria at Athens', HSCP 87 (1983), 281-2 (1. 25) (SEG 33. 148); Robertson, Laws, at 68-70 (1. 77); Rhodes, 'Athenian Code', at 94-5 (1. 77) (SEG 40. 146).

Cf. A. Kijrte, 'Eleusinisches', Glotta, 25 (1936), 134-42 (on col. 3); Dow 1961, fr. C (ph.); Clinton, 'Eleusinia' and Myth and Cult. Another ph. at Dow 1953-7, facing p. 3.

Fragment 4. Not fully published. Provisional partial publication by Clinton, 'Epidauria'.

Fragment 5. Unpublished.

Fragment 6. PLATE 33 b. EM 286. Two joining fragments, excavations on north-west slope of Acropolis before 1898 (first ascribed to same inscription as F2 by Wilhelm ap. Ziehen).

H. o.164, W 0.220, Th. 0.062. L.h. as F3A. Stoich. (square) c. o.olo3. Distance between left edge of columns of numbers, cols. I and

2, c. 0.195- Edns: E. Ziebarth, 'Inschriften aus Athen', AM 23 (1898), 24-37, no. I at 24-5; Ziehen i6a (squeeze of

Wilhelm); IG ii'. 1357b (Kirchner, squeeze); (Boethius, 147-8); Oliver, 24 (ph.); Hansen, 62-80 (from autopsy, squeezes, phs.) (ph.); LSCG I7C.

Other contribution to text: Threatte ii. 276-7 (11. 11-12). Cf. Dow 1961, fr. B (ph.).

Fragment 7. Agora, before 1936. Now lost. Known from a squeeze. H. c. 0.065, W. c. 0o.11 (Dow's measurements from squeeze), Th. 'a few centimetres'. L.h. 0.007 (Dow). Edn: Dow 1941, fr. E (ph. of squeeze). Cf. Dow 1961, fr. D.

Fragment 8. PLATE 34. Ag. I 251. Agora, in wall of modern house slightly SE of tholos, H 12-13, 1932. H. 0.195, W 0.126, Th. 0.094. L.h. (Face A) 0.oo6-o.oo007 (0, Q 0.004-5), (Face B) c. o.oo6. Face A, non-stoich., distance between

lines c. 0.Olo2-o.o0o6, average space occupied by a letter 0o.oo007-o.olo6. Distance between left edge of numbers and normal left edge of main text (Face A), 0.0545. Edns: B. D. Meritt, 'The inscriptions', Hesp. 3 (1934), 46 no. 34 (drawing); LSS ioB (Face A); IG is. 239 (Lewis, Face B).

Other contribution to text: Dow 1960, 284 (1. 6). Cf. Dow 1941, 31; Dow 1961, fr. G.

Fragment 9. PLATE 35. Three joining fragments. Ag. I 687, Agora, late Roman wall (I 12), 1933; I Io26a, Agora, loose fill in late Roman context above great drain (I II), 1933; o026b, Agora, late Roman disturbance in classical floor (H-I II), 1937.

H. 0.197, W 0.26, Th. 0.092-3. L.h. (Face A) c. o.oo6, (Face B) c. 0.006-7 (N, Y 0.oo8-9). Face A, non-stoich., distance between lines

in col. I, 11. 1-2 0.011, 11. 2-3 0.012, 11. 3-4 0.O16 (line 3a possibly inserted between these lines in col. I, see note ad loc.), 11. 4-5 0.oi0; in col. 2, 11. 1-3 (two lines) 0.020, 11. 3-5 (two lines) 0.024, 11. 5-6 c. 0.012; average space occupied by a letter o.oo8i-o.oo85. Distance between normal left edge of main column of text cols. I (estimated) and 2, c. 0.20. Distance between left edge of numbers and normal left edge of main text (Face A), 0.062. Face B, non-stoich., space between lines o.o0162-o.o166, average space occupied by a letter col. I (line-ends) 0.0096, col. 2 (line beginnings) o.oIo-o.oII.

Edns: Dow 1941, 33 and 36, fr. C (ph.); IG is. 240 J (Lewis, Face B). Cf. Dow 1961, fr.J.

Fragment io. PLATE 36 a. Ag. I 591. Agora, late Roman fill east of tholos (H 12), 1933. H. 0.054, W. 0.082, Th. 0.052.

360 S. D. LAMBERT

L.h. (Face B) 0.oo6-7. Non-stoich., space between lines c. 0o.o013-0o.o015, average space occupied by a letter c. 0.0093-0.010o.

Edns: Dow 1941, fr. A (ph.); LSS 9A; IG i3. 240 H (Lewis, Face B). Cf. Dow 1961, fr. H (ph.).

Fragment ii. PLATE 36 b. Ag. I 945. Agora, late context (I II), 933. H. o.Io, W. O.o9, Th. o.oo6. L.h. (Face B) 0.oo6-7 (O 0.004-5, Y 0.oo9). Non-stoich., space between lines c. 0o.o0128, average space

occupied by a letter c. o.oo8-o.oo85. Distance between left edge of drachma sign in 4 and left edge of column of text, 0.034.

Edns: Dow 1941, fr. B (ph.); LSS 9B; IG i3. 240 I (Lewis, Face B). Cf. Dow 1961, fr. I.

Fragment 12. Lost. Only evidence for the text is a transcript of Ross. Edns: IG i. 533-4 (Kirchhoff, from transcript of Ross); Ziehen 15; IG i'. 844-5 (Hiller); LSCG 16 (Face

A); IG i3. 238 (Lewis, Face B). Other contribution to text: P. Foucart, 'Inscription d'Eleusis', BCH 14 (188o), 240 (A, 1. 8) Cf. Dow 1941, p. 31; 1961, fr. E

Fragment 13. Ag. I 3732. Agora, in a Byzantine context in the north-west corner of the Market Square (E3), 1936. Now lost. Attribution to our calendar uncertain.

H. o.o85, W. 0.071, Th. o.o16. L.h. o.oo9. Stoich. vert. 0.0125, horiz. o.oio6. Edns: B. D. Meritt, Hesp. 37 (1968), 282-3 no. 19 (ph.); IG i3. 237bis (Lewis).

Lettering Styles The fragments show various lettering styles, as follows:

Face A The group A fragments, IA, 2A, 3A, 6A and 7A, are inscribed in a neat stoichedon style, in lettering which makes a square and regular impression. On the group B fragments (8A and 9A) the script is different. It is non-stoichedon, and makes a rather less neat and regular impression than group A, with individual letters tending to be somewhat thinner and more elongated. Too little survives on F9A to see whether, in detail, the style of its lettering is distinguishable from F8A.

Face B The group A fragment, FIB, is inscribed in a roughly stoichedon style, in lettering which is less neat than on Face A of this group. Though very little text survives, the style of col. I appears to differ from col. 2. In col. I the letters are shorter and more widely spaced. In col. 2 they are thinner, more elongated and narrowly spaced. FI3B (the cutter of which was the same as IG i3. 237 according to Lewis) may also belong in this group. Although little text survives from this face of the group B fragments (F8B, 9B, ioB, ixB), there is enough on FgB-xxB to see that the lettering is very distinctive and easily distinguishable from group A. Although columns of letters are sometimes aligned (as on F9B, col. 2), it is clear from FxiB that the style was non-stoichedon. Otherwise perhaps the most notable feature is a tendency for the letters to move up and down markedly in their stoichoi. Neither the top nor the bottom of the stoichos traces a straight line. The effect is either of jagged edges (i.e. where the pattern is low-high-low-high, as F9B, col. 2, 5) or of waves (i.e. where the tops and bottoms of successive letters gradually rise or fall, as e.g. FxxB, 3 and 5).

Order of Fragments

Fx-3 and 6-7 belong to fragment group A. Fx-3 are in the order of their text on Face A, as argued for below, i.e. FxA: annual sequence; F2A: prior biennial sequence; F3A: end of prior and beginning of


posterior biennial sequence. It is possible that the order of F2 and 3 should be reversed, i.e. F3A might alternatively contain the end of the annual sequence and the beginning of the prior biennial sequence, F2A the posterior biennial sequence. The location of F6 and 7 in the sequences is unknown. F8-ix belong to group B. I place the two fragments which preserve their original thickness first, but otherwise the order is arbitrary. F12 is certainly part of this calendar, but we do not know if it belongs to group A or group B. Fi3 is not certainly part of this calendar, but if it is, it probably belongs to group A.

Frag. no. Original thickness Otherfeatures26 Text

I o.119 Opisthographic. Left side27 preserved A: Divided by horizontal line towards (probably cut through text on A, and bottom. Ionic, calendar, stoich. above the possibly B, cf. note on FIB, 14). line, but non-stoich., no surviving prices, Anathyrosis towards front and below the line. B: Attic, rough stoich., (damaged) towards back. calendar.

2 0o.I44?28 Inscribed on A only. Right side A: Ionic, stoich., calendar, biennial preserved (cuts through text). Clamp rubric above inscribed horizontal line. cutting in top for join to block to right, o.o6 in from A, 0.07 in from B. Anathyrosis of right side towards front only. Fascia as on F3A. Mortar on uninscribed reverse face.

3 o.II9-.I120 Opisthographic. Left side preserved A: Ionic, stoich., calendar, biennial rubric cutting through text on A with above inscribed horizontal line. B: Attic, anathyrosis towards front and back. stoich., naval law. Clamp cutting in top for join to block to left, 0o.o057 in from A, 0.052 in from B. Above heading a fascia consisting of a band extending to top of stele raised c. I mm. higher than the inscribed surface and more thoroughly smoothed. Following a suggestion of H. A. Thompson, Dow 1961 inferred from this and other features that the fascia was original (implying that this was the original front face), but that the slightly deeper surface below the fascia had been inscribed and later erased and reinscribed.

4 Preliminary partial publication by Clinton, 'Epidauria'.

5 Unpublished 6 Not preserved29 Broken on all sides. A: Ionic, stoich., calendar. 7 (Lost) Not preserved3s Known from a squeeze. Apparently A: Ionic, stoich., calendar.

broken on all sides. 8 0.095 Opisthographic. Right side preserved A: Ionic, non-stoich. calendar, (including

cutting through text on A with rubric 'on Delos'). B: Attic? (only anathyrosis towards A. Edge of numerals preserved).

26 For a much more detailed description of physical aspects than that given here see Dow I961.

27 Here and elsewhere, 'left side' means 'left side when Face A is uppermost'. 28 Dow thought this original. However, it cannot be ruled out that the fragment was originally thicker and that the

original (inscribed) reverse face was removed in connection with a subsequent use, taking with it the anathyrosis band.

29 While it is uncertain whether the original thickness was the same as FI, 2, or 3, the text on Face A is inscribed stoichedon and is consistent in other respects with the group A fragments.

30 As previous note.

362 S. D. LAMBERT

right side damaged towards B (no sign of anathyrosis). Left edge of B coincides with left edge of col. of numerals, suggesting that this may have been an original left edge of B.

9 0.092-3 Opisthographic. Broken on all sides. A: Ionic, non-stoich., calendar. Probably Although probably towards the preserves two column ends. B: Attic, bottom of a stele, this fragment is same script as Fio and ii, probably slightly thinner than F8. This and calendrical col. I, col. 2 may be same other features (see Dow 1961, 69) festival, but no surviving prices. suggest that the two fragments probably do not belong to the same stele. See further, Parerga I.

Io Not preserved3' Broken on all sides.32 B: Attic, calendar. Same script as F9 and i i.

11 Not preserved33 Broken on all sides. B: Attic, non-stoich., calendar. Script same as F9 and Io.

12 (Lost) Not known34 Known from transcript of Ross. A: Ionic, calendar. B: Attic, not calendar. Opisthographic. Otherwise apparently broken on all sides.

13 (Lost) Not preserved Known from photograph. Broken on B: Attic?, not calendar?, stoich.? all sides. Attribution to our text uncertain.

2. TEXT

I have mostly not disturbed established line-numberings, although this results in inconsistency from one fragment to another, e.g. as regards numbering of different columns on the same face.

FACE A (IONIC ALPHABET) 403/2-400/399?

Group A

Fragment I

col. I col. 2 col. 3 col. 4 fr. a

fr. b [. .4. .]H[- -] stoich.

[3 .IF[.

.. . ..][

I [-?] IEE"Tsvl <3 EK T(VO KaCTCa'l1Ca <2 [.] f ?

5 [- -] 'EpEX0E6 aPV(10g

P vac. EK

T1V 1uVko- <2

1tS.tLLKC6V <2 I C vac. ?

cpu.ofcaLot.qL [.. .6.. .]L[.max. 23?.]

3' While it is uncertain whether the original thickness was the same as F8 or 9, the fragment is compatible in other respects with group B.

32 Dow I96I argued that the bottom of this fragment, which was worked, was original. This is unconvincing. See Parerga I.

33 As n. 31. 34 Dow I96I assigned this to group B, supposing that the

text on it was non-stoichedon. He had earlier taken it to be

stoichedon and assigned it to group A. Ross's transcript of both faces is non-stoichedon. On the other hand the non- syllabified word-breaks at line-ends on Face A are more suggestive of a stoichedon text. There are no word-breaks at all on Face A of the certain non-stoichedon (group B) fragments, 8 and 9 (admittedly a very small sample); but they do sometimes occur on Face A of the stoichedon (group A) fragments. In this paper I leave this issue open.


o10 [- -] [vq(aP].Xov

vac. [- -] [..L E1 1 6. [2.]' i [-?] [ . .. .]_[-] [- -] [.L.

f]L.E]atv b

I/I[---] 15 I I [ . .

. 7 .]. L[-?] // [ ....7 . .] vac. vac.? [ 8 . . . 8 . ]A[-?] .. c [- vc ] I//I [-

....] 20 /I/I [...5.. 1]EYC -[-

?]

[.2?.]C [ . . .max. 7?. . .] vac. ?

So'ivo 1vni]K[-] EKTT1L vac. <3 EK TO4 [ti i pl1TTL

vac. <2 25 'A0rlvaLtt vac.

[.2?] Qrlv[.4] .1T( iv

[.c.3.'An'6] XXvt vac. non-stoich.

[. ?.]H[.]IN[.. ..c5. . "A]p tcrmog Td6E 1n1EaO

L T0)L KcaV[cfL] -piJtOba, Ei~TO1L8a&g,

orTticga, poy6vtoy, 30 [. .4-5. .]LoxKO, ca(pql [v?]

Fragment 2

[fdtbE b '1Epov E tog O].EU[at

- -?] [1. .]Edl[TiLt] <3 stoich.

[AK?] vhOv [-?] <2? [- -] ['A]~r6X[Xwvt offering]

5 [Arl]T.o[C

epithet? offering] [- -] [Kp?]LT[lv?] [- -] Kopo[Trp6'ot offering]

[.].. cv.[- -] 1o [A] i NE

[1t'It] [AR HF ?] [ K]p [g- -?]

[..] .[-

-] [- -] [t?]

.vN[--] [- -] ptX1r[og unit] 15 . . K2[- -]

[- -] [E]XhcL[o unit] [---]

[.] E[.] r[- -] [- -]

..Ew[- -1

20 [. .]NA[- -] [..]EF.r[- -]

Fragment 3 stoich. except 19, 30, 31.

col. I col. 2 col. 3 30 dcE

T o eitpov &rog 6E'ral A[-

[- -?] [Olvo] g x; EKaTopa1t)vogLw

<3 60 A E F 8 g [- -?]

[hkc]o9 X6g TTI1Lt uiC a <2 AR ALj1EpKSEoL o[Ig]

[- -]

[~lt].~o TLxLxov ?K

TO1V q7uXo- <I A HF AAI[LTPL oL; [- -] [pac]p quva ooLX<LKC)V <I QePppE(pdrn.[t]

364 S. D. LAMBERT

5 [8Eun-rpaLc ] Pvovrog <3 35 FXE6vrwV (qP L A1P

F Kpt6g [FK - Tv

Kca],& iLiva <2 AsEtKrot-atvLWV 65 AP E1i 6[to L 0 []g]

[- -?] r['Av'd]at p&pog tp vrn olv A P MEiXOL i[pwo Org?] [- -?] [6Ppyv?] KaOap5v F F

keFnoyvc(bova AP 'ApXlyF'r [L oLg]

[- -?] [. . .S..]pEg -FFFII lepecqvva AP noXI v[wL olg] o [- -?] [ .5. .]pEg 40 qpukop [a]otL1hEaL EpFE7LtrL [--]

[- -?] [. .

.5. .]LtoYv vTO 70 APF KpLr6g

['Aqvoa]LatL KilpUKL 0GLO AP

AL6K1o[L oLg]

[AFF] [Epyadv]nt og IIII tnoi61 KEcpakfg APr" Kehk~E6 [oAg]

['Avyl&?]at ( pbg6 EKTZL t b 6 Ka <2 E p tokn[L [at] 15 [A F] [..4..]ov o[g 45 EK Trov )vko- <1

__aTzTra

[OlO(LV?]

[KEpdk]]qLov <I P3cIcLxLK(;v <I 75 -ep1a[tL

Aillr<pog] [- - - -] F l <? FkXeovr v

q1vki t H &60pe [tpa]

vacat ALt DpaTrpLL KCal ~K cy 6v or['Lk(Xv -?] <2

[KLpoqopL](Tvog <c. 4-5 'AqvaL'aLt pa- (F) F F Xolp[og]

20 [.... 7-8 ..i].t]ratvo

<3 50 rpLat [68 &o A F 'EcrL[aC olg]

[AK -'rv Ka]Tr1t afva <2 []ELwoyvW'ove 80 A F F 'Al1fy[a()at oLg]

[- -] ['AOvd]aLt P6g KpL1.

:AP r peduva A Xi[pLtov offering] [- -] [lEpE] 'Uva qYOkopaothe 'Ep [j Lt]

[F-H F] [Kopor]

p61oL XQpo.g Kickog AP 'Ev[ayOvWL 0 olg?]

25 [. .4. .].pOL Kpt06W' 55 KiPp [K]t[ kLvog A E .[- - - -] [- -?]

[i~R].vog

FF II | no8[6ov] KEsqpak1g 85 AP H .[- -o?]

[- -] [oivo &]>CopnEt a .[. .3.] L KptLO6v AP A[- - oLg?] [. . .5-6. .ra] uLvo <3 vac. ['ti8t]yoq. vac.

Fragment 6 stoich.

[I . . . .] . [- -]

IepEit 'AOrlvaL- agc HoXtdbog

[.']A.A n6eorpa P [-

'EpiL Ek kAuKLo ///[- 5 [.1'.] F[.?] oiS

[F ?] I IepeF,(uva [F] P806jiJcrra

.vo <3

ig 3 Eo[giQov oLg kFEtO-

io [FFFF] yv(tov Huvolor [a] I;c ft[-?]

[- -?] y KCaL o[--]

Fragment 7 stoich.

[. . .5. .t] to[1 Ivo] <2 i[K ]iv p[vlho]- <I

[P]qqO.L1L[K6v] <I

p [v] [ao.Lh..

L] 5 .-------]


Group B

Fragment 8 col. I col. 2 non-stoich.

AF- [item] [divinity]

[- -?] [- - - - -?]k A e[bv pvrXEov ?]

'A..1 [6] [XWv epithet?]

5 Ep [kEov] --v A1- XATA/[- -] <2

'A6oXX'wL [epithet?] [AF -] LEpbv tk [Eov]

Iloao1t, v[L epithet?] o -[A P H] KptOg vac.

[A]y.ro[i] 'kp[bv] [A H H?] ~t[ueov]

Fragment 9 col. I col. 2 non-stoich.

[...... 14-5 ......] [-------] [ C. 11-.. ]v vac. [-------

[- -] [ . . 78. . .?]pLi ooS AP [ - - - - -] ['Ax6dkXX?]vt vac. [-------]

5 [--?] [... .6-...]INHTO I I[ -------] vacat vacat IIII M[ ------] vacat vacat vacat vacat

vacat vacat vacat vacat

Fragment 12 (Group A or B)

[.2.]POAPAAI[- -]- [.] KrlplKOLv [- -]-

[- -?] o 'EXvoltv[- -] O'v6rlot 'ApT[F'tL6t]

5 HAAA protLa[v] P[6capxov] [- -?] MEIEEY[- -] [- -] ~epI~t atn6<[>[rpa]C] ?

A<ti> MopLO<L> Tp[n'Totacv] [HAAA?] P6opxov [ vac. ]

'AOrlvatciL Oi[vctlat ? ]- [HAAA]

p.r[-ot]acy. [P36apxov]

[.]NOQ[------- -]

FACE B (ATTIC ALPHABET) 410-404?

Group A

Fragment I col. I col. 2 fr. a ----------7 [6v 3Po6v?] fr. b rough stoich.

x r1ig 3teptX[ohCog?] [- -] uiv hixg riv

ptpo-r[pov?] [- -] [- - -K]pti6v i~1L1ivog

1o [- -] htrp~cat ct6~~ teppa vac.

2 [- - -'At]6XXovL [- -] TOx Xolpov vac. [- -]

Xo1 Iov vac.

[- -] huEp6v vac.

366 S. D. LAMBERT

[- -] 5 [-? K?]Ep[a?] itLb[t?]ov oLv[o?] [- -] [-- - -] Kpl06v - -t-givoG-

KP1pX(oTyL hoi, AuoXkLE[o]t[g -?] <I

15 [- (verb, possibly followed by description [- -] ofperquisite)

Fragment 4 col. I col. 2 15 vac.

'EELmb[vpLotg -?] H A-E[tFp- -] HHAAAA hLtp[- -] H CLKO[- -] H [<j] p[- -]

20 vac. [- ----]

Group B

Fragment 8

[.]AAP [.]AH APHHH[-?] [.]HHH

Fragment 9 col. I

- - - - - - - - - -]EL

5 ----------]ov

- -]og [- -] - - - - -]v O La

to [~~- - - - - - - - -ptrv

O [--] --------KpL]v

[- -] ---- hEKCar6] - PEv, h6n- [- -] Xa?------ ] vacat

vacat

[vacat?]

col. 2

rough or non-stoich.

ov---------- OL[---------- EGT

[.---------. TOUTO [

--------

ro6g nohx[-g ? - ----

Evvba p p[xovrcg ? - -

[vacat ?]

Fragment io non-stoich.

[--] ol//[-------] [- -] Icav[- offering]

3 [- -] AdL Ka[Ta4kIrEt? -?]

Fragment II

[. c 3.] .XE

I [--- -] [- -] h3v KpLtE[v vacat ? ] [- -] ov KpLTE[v vacat] [-?] HC Koporp6cpo [L offering]

non-stoich.


5 [-?] - AroL H[viOLo offering] [- -] 'AOEvdaa[L epithet? offering] [- -] 'AOev[datL epithet? offering]

M.[----------]

Fragment 12 (Group A or B)

[- -. .. .7. ..]EBHENI[-- -] [- -.c.vaX?]odwTov XIE[- --]

- .6. .] cP' 5 pois&v[---] [-- KQc ? t]cg xOWyypaccx[; - -]

5 _ _...5..]

Tpo -;ag E% F[---]

[- ..4. .]v oTKd yp IEKd[oSEg- -]

[- -. . .5. .]AIO[.I-I /2]YA[.2.]NA[- -] [- -. ..6 . .]ho[.]v tv [- - -]

1o [- -. . .. . .]OVELOV V[-- -] [- -... .7...]Tog T[- - -

Fragment 13 (Group A?)

rough stoich.

[- -... . .7...]. M [---]

[- -. . .6. . .]TPEI: T[--] [- _.4. . at?]pd0 ac[- -]

[- -. .4. .]TONTEXI[- -] 5 [- -. .3.o]KEwatoo[- -]

[- -. . 5. .]TANE[-- -]

3. COMMENTARY

I do not discuss below minor adjustments, such as (re-)moving square brackets or dots. <2, <3 etc. indicates the number of spaces that text protrudes into the left margin.

FACE A (GROUP A)

Fragment 1 The text corresponds with Oliver's, except where noted. Since Oliver the stone has been cleaned, revealing additional letters, detectable to an extent from embedded discoloration caused by oxidization. This is very frequent on Attic inscriptions and produces traces which are often not verifiable on squeezes.

Dow, unpublished, argued that col. 3, 2ff. provided for the festival Genesia (ap. Mikalson, Calendar, 49; ap. S. Georgoudi in P. Gignoux (ed.), La Commemoration (Leuven, 1988), 8o n. 40; most fully, ap. Hansen, 51, 54; see also Dow 1968, 174; Robertson, Laws, 67). The Attic Genesia (the name probably connotes a festival of 'origins') took place on 5 Boedromion: Bekker, Anecd. i. 86. 20, Fv1oaLa- ovoag TE

EopTgjg 6ri1oteXoig 'AO~lvatg, BoqrpoyttlWvog nrFrnteqT , Evio1u KClkoVLE'V]rg, KC6dTL (cpoLt QtX6'Xopog Kcai : 6Xv 0 v uoVig

a1oo50 (FGH 328 Philochoros FI68; Solon, Nomoi, F84 Ruschenbusch, which may have stood in some relation to our text); Hesych. s.v. y~v~iata fiopil t7vL0Itgog 'A0rvCaiotg. oi 6E: Cd v aotau. cKai kv -j, y^ &10ovot. Hdt. iv. 26 confirms that it was a festival of the dead generally in Greece. For recent discussions, see Georgoudi; Parerga III. Dow's suggestion gains strong

368 S. D. LAMBERT

circumstantial support from my new readings. If it is right, there are significant implications for the organization of our document. To the left of col. 3 there were two columns of text which, except for the under-the-line section of col. 2, are now completely eroded. If these columns were as wide as others on this face, the left edge of the fragment will have cut through the left side of the text in col. I, leaving just the numbers column on the stele to the left. F2A and 3A, col. 3, probably contained sacrifices in Metageitnion (the month immediately before Boedromion), from the second column of each of the two biennial sequences. If so, it is very unlikely that this fragment belonged to either biennial sequence. It is also very unlikely that the Genesia took place at a frequency greater than biennial (e.g. it is not in the list of quadrennial festivals at Ath. Pol. 54. 7; festivals at even greater intervals were very rare). The Genesia and the rest of Face A of this fragment therefore probably belonged to the annual sequence. Cf. Parerga, 79. Since there was at least (perhaps only) one stele to the left, it would also follow that the first two months of the annual sequence probably occupied considerably more space than the first two months of the biennial sequences.

Col. 3 i. The eta was read by K6hler, Ziehen, and Kirchner, but has been omitted by eds. since Oliver. It

seems clear on Oliver's phot., though I was unable to confirm it at autopsy. 2. [. .3.]A[.]

-E :[. . ...... .]//I [-?] Lambert. Traces in this line have been detected before, but there has been no attempt at elucidation. In addition to the letters printed, there are several uncertain traces. Sigma is aligned at the normal column edge (above the initial letter of 'EpeXFOc in 5) and in this position before a date in 3 it must be the initial letter of this line. The alternative, that we have a rubric starting to the left of the normal column, can be ruled out, since the only possible rubric here before a date would be a month name, and no month name contains the letters 1E. The traces to the left should therefore be numerals. More or less of the delta has been read by earlier editors; today only the bottom bar is at all clear. Some eds. have read or interpreted my

. as H; today a lower left vertical and perhaps

a slight hint of a central horizontal are visible, probably to be interpreted as a drachma sign (cf. K6hler's majuscule, H). The only alternative in context is P (which would accord with Oliver's reading of two upper verticals). In the tenth stoichos of the main column is a right vertical, not noted by previous eds. Alignment of the surviving numerals with those below indicates that we probably have a minimum of 42 dr. (i.e. AAAA H H) to do with lr[-. Shortly before (on the eve of?) the Genesia, the Semnai are an attractive possibility (_e [tvcaLg 136]y?, or perhaps rather person(s) (priestesses?) E [[tvev O8o]v, receiving payments). For their association with things ancestral cf. Aeschl. Eum., selection of their hieropoioi by the Areopagos (E. Dem. xxi. 115) etc.; Selinous, 79-81, 117-20. For the great sacrifice and procession in honour of them, in which the genos Hesychidai played a role (and which might conceivably have taken place on this occasion), see Parker, Athenian Religion, 298-9. There is probably a connection with the offering of a wineless holocaust lamb to Basile on 4 Boedromion in Erchia Calendar. On the association of Basile with underworld powers and the mythical Athenian kings, including Erichthonios/Erechtheus, see the evidence and literature listed by E. Kearns, The Heroes ofAttica (BICS supp. 57; London, 1989), 151i. There is no obvious connection with the offerings to Zeus in Teithras Calendar, 2-3, on Borl1[poS vog] I tTP[d68& - - (not necessarily 4th). See further Parerga III.

3-5. Unlike F3A and F6A, dates early in the month on this fragment lack iocaLurvo. Cdpwcog is a hapax in Greek and Prott's suggestion (ap. Ziehen, p. 66) that it is Attic for IpvEt6g 'ram' seems likely to be right (cf. Threatte ii. 40). Prott compared Hom. II. ii. 550-i: EV1ca ci tLv (Erechtheus35) TacpoLot Kct ApvcEtoig [dovraiKi KoiApot 'A0rivcya0vy JTEptTEhoF vC)0 EvtcaVUT)^vV. Cf. Euripides Erechth. fr. 65. 94. As Threatte observes, the normal term for a ram in these texts is KPptg (e.g. F3A, 64), so it may be that ipvweg here signified specifically a three-year old lamb, as Hesych. s.v.

&pvEt6g" Tpteilg iptig (cf. FGH 334 Istros F23). In any case, the correspondence between the Homeric text and ours seems unlikely to be coincidental. Possibly, ours is a deliberate echo of Homer; more likely the 'Homeric'

35 Parker, Athenian Religion, 19 n. 39 questions the usual view that the reference is to Erechtheus rather than Athena;

but if there is a connection between this passage and our text, the usual view will be right.


(Peisistratid?) text reflects our rite (sc. in its Solonian form). As earth-born Ur-Athenian, Erechtheus would be an entirely suitable recipient of an offering at the Genesia. Dow ap. Hansen, 51, notes that the very small offering suggests that we are dealing with an ancient celebration attended by relatively few people, like the Synoikia at F3A col. 2; this may be, but this is only the state's contribution (e.g. gene may also have contributed) and there might have been other state contributions at frequencies other than annual.

6-8. At F3A, col. 2, items on the authority of the phylobasileis include perquisites for the phylobasileis themselves, but these are listed after the offering to which they relate. In this case (and in F7), the phylobasileis immediately follow the authority rubric. The entry can be connected with the offering to Erechtheus, on the same day, listed blandly with no specified extras, perquisites etc. In other words, this phylobasileis item probably contained specifications supplementary to the Erechtheus offering. The phylobasileis, heads of the obsolete Ionian tribes, are a patently suitable source of authority for an ancient, ancestor-centred event like the Genesia (as also the Synoikia in F3A, col. 2).

9. The centrally placed vertical stroke may be from the name of a recipient in the dative, probably female, since in receipt of a sow (i i, cf. Explanatory Note 4), or from the animal qualified as

vrlChLov, e.g. o]i [v.

Io-12. Oliver read nothing in these lines.

io. [vrlqpd]X.ov Lambert. Similarly Dow ap. Hansen, p. 54. The upper parts of the letters AIO are clearly legible. A wineless offering is very suitable at the Genesia. One is offered to the ancestral beings, the Tritopatreis, in Erchia Calendar, A 41-6; cf. Selinous, p. 72. Cf. also the wineless porcine holocaust offered to Epops on this day in Erchia Calendar, A 18-23 and E 9-15. Like Erechtheus, Epops was probably some sort of ancestral hero, linked perhaps with another mythical king, Epopeus of Sikyon. Cf. A. S. Hollis, in E. M. Craik (ed.), "Owls to Athens": Essays on Classical Subjects for Sir Kenneth Dover (Oxford, 1990), 127-30; ZPE 93,(I992), 11-13. See further, Parerga III.

II. [it or &cp' il1eavicw?]y .g

Lambert. See on 13. 12. Lambert. In stoichos 8 there is perhaps very faint trace of a bottom (and central?) horizontal, as

of E. The numeral to the left and the repetition in 13 of the text of i i suggests that this line may have contained the name of a new female) recipient and an offering.

13. [F or &cp' il[ e]8.amc^v

{g Lambert, [...6..o.]ovL Oliver. The readings are faint, but clear enough to be beyond reasonable doubt (the letters are partly legible on Oliver's photograph; Graham Oliver kindly confirmed their legibility at autopsy). From trace the A might just be A or A. The omega is distorted by wear, but what I take to be the right half of it is apparent. No other letter seems at all likely in context. I have been unable to think of a plausible alternative restoration. 'A sow from those which are native' is striking, but, as Jameson reminds me per litt., there would be a parallel in reverse, so to speak, in the stipulation that the priestess of Athena Polias eat only imported cheese, and not Attic (Strabo ix. i. i i); and it would have an obvious logic in the context of the Genesia. On sacrificial imports cf. Explanatory Note 4.

14-22. I have slightly adjusted readings and restorations of earlier eds. in these lines, but progress has not been sufficient to reveal the flow of the sense.

20. [~alo r] E1-r [- ? Cf. F2A.

22.- oLVo tevT1ry[- Lambert, I oivo 1.E1.ri[KovtQ Oliver. For wine at the end of a list, cf. F3A, i. The price was certainly a drachma, not an obol. Fifty units of any kind for a drachma would still seem remarkable, but there is no trace of the bottom vertical on the letter after the tau that would enable a reading IENTE and the left vertical of the kappa is visible. Perhaps rather fiftieth(s?), nevTnlKoor-. See further Explanatory Note 5.

23-5. Any epithet and the offering and price will have followed at the top of the next column. Athena is too ubiquitous to enable confident identification of this festival. There was a commemoration of the victory at Marathon on 6 Boedromion according to Plut. Mor. 862 A etc., usually associated with the festival of Artemis Agrotera (Mikalson, Calendar, 50).

Col. 4 The layout of some editions, e.g. Ziehen's and Sokolowski's, has misled some commentators into supposing that the numerals to the right relate to the text of col. 3. As always in this calendar, however,

370 S. D. LAMBERT

numerals are positioned to the left of the text to which they relate. Those in 4-5 and 7 related to now lost text in col. 4. I reproduce the text of previous eds. in 1. 4, but have been unable to detect sure trace of these numbers.

Below the line 26-30. This is the only fragment preserving text inscribed below a line running under the calendar. What survives is text of a slightly different character from the normal calendar entries, and there are no indications of costs or (preserved) rubrics; but its relation to the text above the line is obscure. A possible explanation is that, since it relates to an irregular event which only took place when lightning was sighted over the Harma, it could not readily be accommodated in the regular annual/biennial sequences above the line. It seems that the surviving under-the-line text was continuous from col. 2 to col. 3, all of it relating to the Pythais: col. 2, the circumstances in which the Pythais is to take place; col. 3, 26, reference to Apollo (as deity of the Pythais); col. 3, 27 ff. details of the Pythais procession.

col. 2, 26-7. Lambert; K z'rdc 1V I [tcvTE1Etv TilyV 6' "A]p ctTog K6hler; cp' &]pptacog Boethius; -] KUcUr tiv | [-]ptcaTog Oliver. The cleaning of the stone has revealed important, hitherto unread, letters to the lower right of fr. b, immediately to the left of the join with fr. a in 26-7. I read (26): the right points of sigma and very vague impression of the whole letter (uncertain); all except upper right vertical of eta; uncertain mu (the letter is damaged so as to give the impression of A or A but what is probably the upper left corner of mu is visible to the left of this damage); AIN clear; (very uncertain) vertical stroke; (27) eta and nu certain; before nu, uncertain upper vertical. The left margin cannot be determined precisely by independent means, but the resulting space between columns of text, c. 0.20, is consistent with that observable elsewhere on Face A. However precisely we restore these lines, it seems practically certain that in 26 we have part of the verb orgaittvo and this admirably confirms the sense of Kohler's brilliant conjecture, based on Strabo ix. 2. 11 (404 C), which explains the saying, ~bcratv 6t' "Apttrog dTcrpdan (meaning 'rarely'), as originating from the practice of the pythaistai in watching KcLT& Xprqodov for a lightning flash over Harma, as a signal to send the sacrifice to Delphi (T6ot nevg6vtw0v Tilvy &oacLv sEg A~Xpovg). In 27 perhaps [Xp]fI[o] w (=Xpqrod6v). Boethius' objection that the text might as easily refer to 'irgend welche Herumfifhrung eines heiligen Gegenstandes hp & ]pttaTog' (comparing FD iii. 2. 33 - SIG3. 697L and Clinton, 'Epidauria', 21 = SEG 47. 232. 14-5) now falls.

There followed text of unknown extent, to the end of col. 2, and running over to: col. 3, 26. A reference to Apollo. col. 3, 27-30. The items listed are more or less characteristically Apolline and should be

interpreted as relating to the procession of the Pythais. It is noteworthy that there are no individual prices, though it is possible that there was a single price covering all at the end of the list.

(Female) kanephoroi are a common feature of Attic processions, attested for the revived Hellenistic Pythais at Syll.3. 696C, 7IIE, 728E. The masculine article suggests Kccv[J5L] here. The items to 'follow the basket' are:

TpTuo6ca '. .. placed as votive gifts in temples, especially in that of Apollo at Delphi,' LSJ IV In connection with the Pythais, note e.g. the tripod dedicated by distinguished Athenians at Delphi in 326/5, SIG3. 296; in the revived Hellenistic Pythais, tripod carried from Delphi, SIG3. 7281, cf. SIG3. 697L.

i~no~ilag Hauvette-B., En' o1TL8ca o[- -] Oliver, following Ziehen (who construed as an adjective with

-pm'obao). Photios s.v.

iLntro0ig" g-1yKvpiLiESg otlpaLcq p &ooto (E 1768, cf. Theodoridis ad loc.). LSJ supp. s.v. dyKvplpg, 'perh. small anchor', cf. IG ii2. 1550 (plural, without immediate context in a fragmentary Eleusinian inventory). Cf. also Vitruvius x. 10. 4, where epitoxidos (gen. sing.) is part of a catapult, apparently the hook for attaching the cord that fires the arrow (thus Corso and Romano ad loc.). Ziehen's articulation is possible. Pace Ferguson, 'Trittyes', 151 with n. 3o, spacing would not rule out a short word c[-. There was plenty of space before the beginning of the next column. But a two- items-per-line pattern is perhaps more comfortable; and the new Photios (more likely than Vitruvius to reflect classical Attic usage) and IG ii2 1550 suggest a plural. Like upoyovov in the next line, the word is probably an adjective functioning substantively. In an Apolline context there should be some connection with a t6oov bow. Perhaps bow components, or (as Antonio Corso urges, personal


communication), following Photios' lead, little anchors as symbol of Athens' status as colonial metropolis and of Delphi's in guiding the colonial process. In any case, Sokolowski's attempt to connect this word with i~hTOKog, used occasionally of pregnant animals for sacrifice in (non-Attic) inscriptions, should now fall.

ncgtica. A fillet, perhaps of wool; either a priestly stole, or intended to be used to decorate a statue or to be placed around the head of a sacrificial animal when the procession arrived at Delphi. Cf. Hornblower on Th. iv. 133. 2.

mpoyvLov. The nu is near certain from trace. To the right of it the upper part of the line is vacant for o.oo6, enough to make improbable, if not certainly to rule out, that there was another word on this line. This word is otherwise attested only at Eleusis Calendar, io, in context of items for the same deity as here, Apollo Pythios: poy6vtov Kacti rd& tvE& Tolrou. The precise meaning is not known (for unsatisfactory speculations see Dow and Healey, ad loc.; J. Oliver, AJP 87 (1966), 494-5; Sokolowski; cf. N. J. Richardson, Gnomon, 39 (1967), 277-81; SEG 23. 80). However, probably: (a) the connotation was 'ancestral' something, appropriately for Apollo Pythios, iSg ~marp6g orTL t6hE1, Dem. xviii. i4i; (b) like J1tnLo$8ctg this is an adjective functioning substantively, 'the ancestral (thing)' (the Eleusis text militates against construction as an adjective with crm1iXtcL.

[. .4-5. .]oKov. -[.]-[.]'aKov Oliver. Four letters are probably missing, or five if iota(s) were included. There are uncertain traces of the tops of these letters: upper horizontal(s?) in first and second (and/or third) place(s)?; or perhaps the upper section of a wide round letter aligned a little to the right of the tau in the previous line. I have been unable to find a plausible supplement consistent with these traces. If one discounted them, Ziehen's Xrityv] Loiov (woollen fillet or ribbon, cf. LSCG 55. 25, 2nd c. AD) would be possible; as Hauvette-B. recognized, 8]icKov would not fill the space. Probably a diminutive.

ocpa1pq [v previous eds.; likely enough, but it is difficult to rule out ocpalpC[;g. Sphere(s) or ball(s). Allusion to omphalos?

Fragment 2 The text accords with Dow 1941, except where noted. Since then the stone has been cleaned, revealing additional letter strokes.

Dow, unpublished ap. Hansen, 6o-i (briefly, Dow 1968, 174), identified 11. 2-12 as relating to the Kronia, with recipients Apollo (4), Leto (5), Britomartis (6), Kourotrophos (7) and Zeus Neanias (io). The grounds for this are not strong: (a) the Kronia took place on 12 Hekatombaion (Dem. xxiv. 26). It is more likely that, at the start of the second column of a biennial sequence, we are in Metageitnion (see further below); (b) the Kronia was a festival of Kronos and (Rhea) the Mother of the gods (see Phot. s.v. Kp6vEa; other references, Theodoridis ad loc.), neither of whom was mentioned here; (c) three of the securely read/restored deities are the ubiquitous Apollo, Leto, and Kourotrophos. The only distinctive recipient is Zeus Ne[meios], probably at a separate event from the other three and in any case not suitable for the Kronia. See further, Parerga II.

I. Of the upsilon the lower vertical is preserved. The alignment of the surviving letters of this heading in relation to the text below corresponds approximately with the alignment of the equivalent letters of the heading at F3A, 30 over the col. 3 text there (since the spacing of the letters in these headings is not precise, the slight difference is insignificant), and the wording of the heading to this point was probably the same; i.e. our heading was probably the twin of the one on F3A, relating to the other biennial sequence in the calendar (similarly Dow I960, 286-7). This is supported by 1. 1o, as I would restore it (see below). There may have been further wording making clear which sequence fell in which year, as in Tetrapolis Calendar, but this is uncertain (see note on F3A, 30).

2-3. '[Evb] EKdl [r L] Or [6(])6]CK d lu[TL]? rather than 'EKd t[rjt], because of the following line, which is evidently of the form which in this calendar follows a date', Dow 1941, 37. This gains confirmation from probable (not quite certain) trace of the right side of delta now visible at the preserved start of 2. Dow's interpretation of 3 as an authority rubric is unsure. Omission of the article in such a rubric would be unique in this calendar (Hansen, 61, takes it to imply that there 'was no single, unified list of new

372 S. D. LAMBERT

sacrifices'). It is difficult, however, to see a likely alternative, unless one assumes spacing irregularity or line-end word division (e.g. -]KTdlet[rpt recipient &p] I vevy, cf. FiA, 5; there is a recipient squeezed into the same line as a date rubric on an unpublished fragment of this calendar). Omission of an authority rubric after a date is not in itself impossible, cf. F6A, 7. The month was probably Metageitnion, the second of the year. This is the likely month of the offerings in the equivalent position in F3A (i.e. col. 3). If the month were the first in the year, Hekatombaion, col. I of this sequence would be occupied by the first ten or eleven days of Hekatombaion; but the other biennial sequence has no items before 15 Hekatombaion and there is only one known festival datable to before N2th, the apparently minor (and in any event presumably annual) Hekatombaia (Mikalson, Calendar, 26). If, on the other hand, the month were Boedromion, col. i must have contained two and a half months of sacrifices; this is also unlikely. It is unclear whether there was a connection between 2-7 and the sacrifices by the deme Erchia in the city on 12 Metageitnion to Apollo Lykeios, Demeter, Zeus Polieus and Athena Polias (Erchia Calendar, A 1-5, B 1-5, F 13-18, A 13-17; Parker, Tria Lustra, 26-7, suggests the occasion may have been a deme assembly in the city, at which, inter alia, admissions may have been conducted). On the possible association of Apollo Lykeios with the passage of men into adult military and civic participation see M. H. Jameson, Archaiognosia, I (i980), 213-36; S. E Schr6der, AM IO0 (1986), 167-84; on Kourotrophos, the deity whose presence in a sacrificial group commonly connotes family or rearing of the young, 'Two Notes', 76-7.

4. The deity here was recognised as Apollo by Dow ap. Hansen, 60o. An epithet is possible, but with the offering also included in the same line, would probably be uncomfortable in terms of spacing (normal maximum line length in stoichedon sections of Face A is c. 16 letters).

5. The deity here was recognised as Leto by Dow ap. Hansen 60o. In the context of an offering to

Apollo and Kourotrophos, one to Apollo's mother Leto is very natural. 6. 'Probably KpLt[-" Dow 1941 (Britomartis, suggested by Dow later, ap. Hansen 60, in the context of

his theory that the festival here is the Kronia, is not persuasive). The animal qualified as 'select' will have been specified at the end of the previous line, as in F3A, 69-70. Since the deity was female, the

offering probably was also (cf. Explanatory Note 4). 7. Rest. Dow 1941- 8-9. If Io is correctly restored, it probably belonged to a different event from that in 11. 2 ff. In that

case 8 or 9 probably contained a change of date and/or authority. 8. [...].t and 'the second letter may be iota' Dow 1941. I confirm that there is uncertain trace of one,

or perhaps two, verticals in the second stoichos, together with unsure trace of the diagonal of nu. The third letter is now revealed as probably the top and lower two strokes of a rather squat sigma. Among the possibilities are: (a) [FKtrl].L ot[ca vo <3, with two iotas in one stoichos, as at F6A, 7 and F7A, I. EKTrlL would be more likely than any other number, since another number would protrude more than three spaces to the left, which occurs nowhere else for such a rubric on this Face. If 2 is correctly read as -].Kdlar1Lt, however, this cannot be correct; more likely therefore, (b) [iK rC]y

o.T[r[Xhv <3. For this

authority rubric cf. F3A, 77. Elsewhere the authority rubric protrudes only two spaces to the left, but date rubrics vary in their protrusion between two and three spaces (e.g. F6A, 7), so this is not an

insuperable objection. 9g. [...]c[- and 'the second letter may be tau' Dow 1941. I confirm that one obtains an impression of

tau. There are also traces of the third letter, but it is very difficult in this stoichos to distinguish damage from inscribed trace. The stronger possibilities are: F or P, or O or O, or K, or perhaps P. In the fourth stoichos there may be (uncertain) trace of the extreme left of the horizontal and part of the vertical of T. With alpha the only sure letter in this line, reconstruction is hazardous. Among the possibilities would seem to be: (a) [mob]de..[EL] <2. The order, authority rubric followed by date rubric, is not normal, but is not implausible, e.g. if events on more than one date were listed under the same authority rubric (as perhaps F6A); (b) [o]1.pact [ryoig. Cf. the items 'for the phylobasileis' at FiA, 8 and F7A, 4.

io. [A] ~1 NE [1twi] Lambert, [A]L t NE [avYct] Dow 1941. The placing of the two iotas of ALL in one stoichos is a characteristic of both faces of this calendar, and Dow's realization that we have to do with Zeus here is convincing; his restoration of the epithet is less so. No cult of Zeus Neanias is attested in


Attica nor, so far as I know, elsewhere. As Parker suggests per ep. there would be two possible views of such a deity: (a) 'Zeus as a young man'; conceivable, but surprising of Zeus, who is not usually connected with adolescence rituals (the parallels cited by R.E. Wycherley, GRBS 5 (1964), 179 n. 38, are not compelling); (b) 'Zeus Neanias', i.e. identification of Zeus with the hero Neanias. This hero is well attested in Attica (Tetrapolis Calendar, A col. 2, 21; Thorikos Calendar, 27, with Parker, 'Festivals', 146, who stresses the connection with rites of adolescence; Agora, xix. L6. 14o-I; cf. Paus. i. 33. 8, SEG 37. I1I and 139, 38. 42, 41. 175, 43. 6; D. Tsiafaki, LIMC viii. I s.v. Neanias). Such identifications, Parker urges, happen in two situations: (i) as a means of glorifying someone who is already a very prominent hero (e.g. Zeus Asklepios); (ii) where there is a strong functional overlap, e.g. Zeus and Eubouleus, Artemis and Hekate. Neither (i) nor (ii) is obviously relevant here. Of the epithets of Zeus beginning NE [- listed by H. Schwabl, RE2. xix (1972), 339-40, there is only one that stands out as likely, NE[EtF0Wi (for the likely spelling -e- not -Et- see Threatte i. 316, also however ii. 731). The Nemean Games took place at the right frequency (biennially) and at the right time of year (summer) for Zeus Nemeios to be a plausible recipient of an offering here; as Wycherley noted, cult of Zeus under this epithet is not otherwise attested in Attica, but as Parker writes, 'it is normal for member states of amphictyonies and other such bodies to have filials of the amphictyonic cult at home (the Athenian cult of Poseidon Kalaureates is a model case) and cult of Zeus Nemeios at Athens could be predicted.' If this restoration is correct, two important consequences flow: (a) since the Nemean Games took place in odd Julian years, i.e. those ending 9/8, 7/6 etc., we obtain an absolute dating of this biennial sequence to those years. This is consistent with the likely dating of the other biennial sequence, starting in F3A, col. 2, to the even years; (b) we obtain new evidence for the date of the Nemean Games. See further, Parerga II.

II. Rest. Dow 1941, except [APF I-?] Lambert. On the price of rams in this calendar see Explanatory Note 4. If this one was 'select', however, it might have been more expensive.

12. [. .]gE[- Dow 1941. The epsilon is likely in context, but other letters, including F and even A/A/A, can not be ruled out from trace.

13. Before the nu there is an uncertain segment of an upper right curve and possibly right foot of Q. 'Possibly [tIc T]Wv v[- -]' Dow 1941. For extras such as honey to be under a separate rubric, while not perhaps impossible, would be curious. Any restoration here will be hazardous, but t] jov seems plausible enough. N[-: something, person or divinity, 'Nemean'?

14. []*1XL[- Dow 1941. Dow recognised that honey was among the possibilities here and this has been confirmed by cleaning of the stone, which has revealed trace of the initial mu and that the iota is followed by a vac. of 1.2 cm., implying that the lower left half of the following stoichos was vacant; what is probably the bottom of the vertical and left tip of the horizontal of the tau is also detectable.

x5. Dow tentatively read O/0 followed by E (or perhaps I or O) in the first two stoichoi. I confirm uncertain traces of these letters. Cleaning has also revealed that the letter after the kappa is the left section of O or more likely Q, part of the left foot of which may be visible. I have not hitherto been able to make sense of this string of letters.

x6. [F]kaXc[o Lambert. Dow 1941 read the alpha followed by likely iota (top). Cleaning has revealed enough to yield the word. On oil, cf. Explanatory Note 5.

x8. Dow 1941 thought the letter in third place might be iota. The impression might, however, be caused by a casual mark. The fourth might be gamma or pi, or more likely E.

xg. 1.1vt[- Lambert. [..]vr[- and 'the first letter may be pi' Dow 1941. The 'pi' might alternatively be

the lower right vertical and right horizontal of H. The epsilon is faint and uncertain. For the restoration, not quite sure, cf. FIA, 20 and 22. As at FIA, 22, the commodity may be wine (after honey in 14 and oil in 16) and the unit(s) fiftieth(s). Cf. Explanatory Note 5.

20. [. .]v,[- and 'the first letter may be omicron or theta' Dow 1941. Not enough can be seen to confirm the first letter.

21. [. . .]y[- Dow 1941. Pi or epsilon are also possible. Before this, the upper vertical, top- and uncertain mid- horizontal of epsilon (or I). Followed by mark resembling central horizontal of E (could be casual).

22. [. .].[- Dow 1941. One does indeed get an uncertain impression of mu in the third stoichos. Cleaning has revealed that it is followed by a somewhat firmer impression of the same letter.

374 S. D. LAMBERT

Fragment 3 Col. I Unless noted otherwise, my text of this col. accords with Hansen's.

From its position in the final column of a sequence it is highly likely that the month in 19 was the last of the year, Skirophorion. This is confirmed by the immediately preceding text, connected with the state Plynteria, which took place in the penultimate month of the year, Thargelion. Since one of two biennial sequences (either first or second) begins in col. 2, col. I should contain the end of an annual sequence or of the prior of two biennial sequences. Previous writers (cf. Dow 1960, 281-2 n. 8) have opted for the former, but this is questionable. See further below.

1-4. The end of an event in Thargelion prior to 29th (5), possibly something to do with the Plynteria, in connection with which the Praxiergidai performed rites on 25 Thargelion (Plut. Alk. 34. i).

5-15. From the mention of a cp&pog, 'cloak' (7), and 'pure' or 'clean' somethings (8), it seems that these contributions had to do with the state Plynteria, a festival entailing washing/cleaning of a statue of Athena at Phaleron (probably the old wooden one in the shrine of Athena Polias) and/or its clothes, which involved the genos Praxiergidai and which is dated by Photios to this day, 29 Thargelion (thus first, Sok. 1936; on the festival L. Ziehen, RE xli (1951), io60-5, Hansen, 96-8 and pp. xxvi-xxxi and works there cited, M. Christopoulos, Kernos, 5 (1992), 27-39; on the Praxiergidai, Parker, Athenian Religion, 307-8). Plut. Alk. 34. I

dates the removing of the kosmos and the veiling of the image at the Plynteria to 25 Thargelion; it is possible that the procession to Phaleron and back and the cleaning ceremonies extended over more than one day. In any case, our text suggests that the 29th, whether or not, as Photios thought, it was strictly a day of the Plynteria, was the day on which, after the washing, the statue was given a new cloak. Whereas 25 Thargelion was a day on which 'no Athenian would undertake serious business' (Xen. Hell. i. 4. 12, date, Plutarch) and indeed no meetings of the Council or Assembly are attested for it (or indisputably attested for 26-8 Thargelion, Mikalson, Calendar, 160-1), up to five meetings of the Assembly (two certain, three possible), are attested for 29 Thargelion, in years ranging from 338/7 to 147/6? (Mikalson, Calendar, 161-2; C. Habicht, Hesp. 57 (1988), 238). A striking feature of these five meetings, however, is that all (except the last?) took place in even-numbered Attic years (i.e. those ending o/9, 8/7, 6/5 etc.; that will still be the case ifJ. Morgan ap. S. V Tracy, Athenian Democracy in Transition (Berkeley, 1995) 36 n. 2, is correct to redate IG ii2. 585 from 300/299 to 314/3). If our 29 Thargelion event took place biennially, it will have been in odd years (as F2A; see note on F2A, io). If these are coincidences, they are remarkable ones. If they are not, the explanation is perhaps that, while the Plynteria proper took place annually, the provision of the new cloak and the other rites listed in this column were biennial events and that, usually in the years when they did not take place, 29 Thargelion was the day on which normal business resumed after the Plynteria. For biennial contributions to annual events cf. col. 2 (Synoikia). The fact that Skirophorion in this sequence occupied less than a full column is also suggestive that it may have belonged to a biennial sequence rather than the fuller annual one. For the space occupied by the latter cf. note on FIA.

5-6. Oliver, followed by Hansen, restored 6 with certainty from e.g. FiA, 3. This line therefore protruded two spaces to the left, as e.g. at F3A, 77 and FiA, 3. Where the source of authority is preceded by specification of a date in this calendar, the latter invariably protrudes one space to the left of the former. As Oliver saw, followed by Hansen, this implies [86VTupat] in 5.

7. 'A0ryvd]ct Sok. 1936, followed by Hansen. For the spelling, different from 12, cf. FIIB, 6 and Threatte i. 273-4. The inclusion of this item indicates that the state funded a new cloak for the statue of Athena, perhaps every other year (see above).

8. Epio)v] KcLecpwv Sok. LSS, Hansen. The tendency hitherto to connect this line with the previous one, i.e. 'for Athena a cloak of pure [wool?]' is probably correct; but ?plwov is not quite sure.

g-II. [ihacm]peg I [tirra?]peg [vnpd]hLov Sok. 1936, but not LSS. Or, [raooil]pg I [. . .5. .]pe;g [orp6cp]tov or [oiolv]tov Hansen. [r1tlrtL]peg ? | [poKt]peg ? [noyy]liov ?, 'four wipers, a spongelet,' cf. Hesych. s.v. atiKt1lp, Mansfield. The possibilities are very wide and none of these restorations is compelling.

12-13. ['Arva]LatL ['Epy1dv]rllt oig Sok. 1936, followed by Hansen. On the spelling, ['Arlva]1atL (cf. 7) see Threatte i. 273-4. The price of a sheep for a female deity in this calendar is 12 dr., and can be


restored as such here. Though largely restored, the epithet seems very likely. Sokolowski compared Paus. v. 14. 5 (sacrifice to Athena Ergane before the washing of the statue of Zeus Olympios at Olympia). For Athena Ergane on the Acropolis cf. IG ii2. 2939, 4328-9, 4338; J. M. Hurwit, The Athenian Acropolis (Cambridge, 1999) index, s.v. Athena Ergane.

14-15. ['Alvd]aLt mpbg I [T6v ve]bv Sok. 1936 and LSS. The deity in 14 is again very likely, but Sok.'s restoration of 15 was based on Oliver's [. . .5. .]. Correct is [. .4. .]. [T6py]ov ? [ ToX]ov ? Hansen, who remarks 'but the phrase with rp6og may well denote not the location but the purpose of the offering'. For the sheep price, cf. 13.

x6. Kiccpd6]atov Oliver, followed by Hansen. The word will have protruded one space to the left of the normal margin. We do not know how far to the left the digits in 17 will have protruded. This appears to have been the total cost for a whole month. The vacat following 17 occupied slightly less than the space of a normal line.

19-28. For offerings to Athena and Kourotrophos early in Skirophorion cf. those to Kourotrophos, Athena Polias, Aglauros, Zeus Polieus, Poseidon and another on 3 Skirophorion on the acropolis of Erchia at Erchia Calendar, A 57-65, B, 55-9 etc.; to Athena, Aglauros, Athena again, probably Kephalos, and P-, in Skirophorion at Thorikos Calendar, 52-6 (on which see most recently S. Scullion, ZPE 121 (1998), 119-21); and in Skirophorion 'before Skira' annually to Hyttenios and Kourotrophos and to the Tritopatreis and the Restless Ones, and in alternate years additionally to Galios, (probably) expense for use of a well, and a table for the Tritopatreis, at Tetrapolis Calendar, A, col. 2, 30-3 and 51-3. What connection, if any, these offerings have with each other and/or with our state items is obscure. At least the first two of the Thorikos offerings are specified as for the Plynteria; Robertson 1983 would interpret the Erchia offerings in the same connection and it is perhaps possible to interpret the well used in Marathon similarly; but that will not account for our offerings, as the state Plynteria was in Thargelion (cf. above, on the differing dates of the central and local Plynteria in Attica, see Parker, 'Festivals', 143)- One possibility is that our offerings (and some of the others?) had to do with the Arrhephoria, a festival of Athena known to occur in Skirophorion (cf. M. Jameson, BCH 84 (1965), 156-8, who, on the strength of the Erchia calendar, dated the state Arrhephoria to 3 Skirophorion or thereabouts, cf. W Burkert, Hermes, 94 (1966), 5 n. 2 and ZPE 1977, contra Robertson 1983).36 Note that our offerings may have been biennial (above, on 5-15).

xg. On the restoration of the month name, first proposed by Sok. 1936, cf. above and Hansen, 1o4-5- As in 31, it was non-stoich. in slightly larger and more spread-out lettering than other text. It has nine letters to be restored to the left, including 2 iotas; to the left of the same point were the first eight stoichoi of the date rubric; i.e. the month will have protruded c. 1-2 spaces to the left of the date rubric.

2 1-4, 26-7 rest. Oliver, except that he omitted to show prices to the left in 27 and possibly 26 (correctly shown by Hansen). No previous ed. seems to have noticed that the omicron and iota of xopog are inscribed in a single stoichos, as happens several times elsewhere with two consecutive iotas. The price of the piglet is restored from 78.

20. [...7. 7. .~ ]orucavo Oliver, [evt~cpacLt l]oraczuvo Dow (unpublished) ap. Mikalson, Calendar, 165, 7....l]otactlEvo Hansen. Where specification of a date precedes an authority rubric the date invariably protrudes one space to the left of the authority rubric. On that basis, Oliver's calculation of the number of missing letters was correct. Sometimes however, two iotas are accommodated in one letter space, e.g. 48 and 61, and this happened in the case of a date, -L ~craci~vo, in F6A, 7 and possibly F7. As Hansen saw, 8 letters are therefore also possible. Taking into account that this date must precede that in 28, it will therefore have been

8e1mupao (8 letters), teTpd&8, ngnaTJl, or P61tTrlL (7 letters).

25. [...5. .]pwt Oliver, [5atyEi]pw0 Sok. 1936, ['Ayvac]po1 Burkert, 258 (rejected by Robertson 1983, cf. SEG 33. 148). Before the rho I detected at autopsy a faint trace (probably but not certainly an inscribed mark) of a vertical or less likely curved stroke to the right of the stoichos. I have occasionally thought there might also be trace of the horizontal of H. Iota is possible (this letter is occasionally

36 Sokolowski LSS identified our festival as Skirophoria/Skira, but as he had observed in 1936 the date of that festival was 12 Skirophorion.

376 S. D. LAMBERT

placed to the right of the stoichos, as e.g. in KpLO)tov in 25); upsilon is not likely. Moreover, in no other case in this calendar is a divine being explicitly recipient of a vegetable or vegetable product (nor would that be explicable in the case of Aglauros, as it is in the special case of Zeus Hypatos on the acropolis, cf. Paus. i. 26. 5 with Tetrapolis Calendar, A, col. 2, 13 with p. 60). Burkert's suggestion should be rejected. Sokolowski's is possible; in that case [tYELpog would perhaps signify 'slaughterer', with the barley used for ritual sprinkling of the victim, or it might be a perquisite. Adequate basis for confident restoration, however, is lacking. See further below on 57-8 and Explanatory Note 5.

28. [iKTfl1 iTCa]iuTvo Oliver, assuming that this date rubric protruded 3 spaces to the left of the

normal column, the maximum apparent elsewhere. However, as Hansen recognised, a date one letter longer than this is also possible if two iotas were accommodated in one letter space (cf. on 20o), i.e. the possible dates are Tpi1LTlt, EKtet]L, OybOrlt or EvdltrLt.

Col. 2 Unless noted otherwise, my text accords with Hansen's. Both the biennial rubric above the line and the month name below it were in larger letters than normal. The month name (31) protrudes one space to the left of the date (32 and 44), which protrudes one space to the left of the authority rubric (33-4 and 45-6), which protrudes one space to the left of the rest of the text. Note that this is not precisely the same arrangement as in col. I and col. 3, where e.g. the authority rubrics protrude two spaces to the left of the main column.

30. 'A[0iyTrLotv] Oliver, [o 6 og ipXovrog (400/399) tapon-Cpa pacgoovrl Dow 1960, 289 (accepted by Hansen, io8). The heading marks the start of one of two, alternate, biennial sequences of sacrifices, cf. Tetrapolis Calendar, A col. 2, 34 (~t& F T6 1epov iFrog 1ponpcu 8pacytooiVve) and 40-1 (I'68 T6b FIEpov irog 00&Eat CL Etr Ei1poukovv pXovrca Tcrpanoro0Xi3L iot1pca pcatgooa~lv). Dow's absolute dating of this biennial sequence to 'even' years (o/9, 8/7, 6/5 etc.) is almost certainly correct. The biennial Eleusinia, probably the subject of col. 3, probably took place in those years; the Nemean Games, probably the occasion of an offering in the other biennial sequence (F2A), took place in the odd years; and see above, note on 5-i5, for an argument that F3A, col. i, also took place in odd years. However, his restoration is unsure: (a) this may have been the later, not the prior, biennial sequence (I suggest above that the immediately preceding text, i.e that in col. I, may have related to the prior biennial sequence); (b) there is insufficient basis for Dow's view that the biennial sequences of the new calendar started operation in 400/399 (see above, n. 19); (c) in the Marathon calendar the preposition is

1EUTdc. A restoration with d[uno is therefore unparalleled in this context. Oliver's restoration is not certainly wrong. The calendar included sacrifices outside Athens, but the Attic demes (e.g. Eleusis, possible location of col. 3), as components of the Athenian polis, could be covered by such a rubric, and the extra-Attic events on the group B fragment, F8A, may not have been within the same rubric system. In the absence of satisfactory parallels, however, we must conclude that initial alpha is insufficient basis to permit restoration.

31-58. 16 Hekatombaion was the date of the Synoikia (Plut. Thes. xxiv. 4, cf. Thuc. ii. 15), festival of the union of Attica, with which the sacrifices of this column were convincingly associated by Oliver (see also Ferguson, 'Trittyes', 144-58; Hansen, 107-16; N. Robertson, Festivals and Legends (Toronto, 1992), 32-89). The festival was almost certainly annual (attested explicitly for the sacrifice to Eirene which was part of it from 375/4, Isoc. xv. 109-10o, Schol. Ar. Peace 1019, IG iij. 1496. 94, 127, cf. Parker, Athenian Religion, 229-30, but also likely on other grounds, see Mikalson, Calendar, 30), though the state contributions recorded here were biennial. Recorded are a smaller prothyma for one old Ionian trittys (Leukotainioi) on the eve of the festival, and a larger event for the tribe (Geleontes) to which that trittys belonged on the day itself. These biennial sacrifices for long obsolete institutions look like a small-scale sideshow to an annual festival (cf. Dow unpubl. ap. Mikalson, Calendar, 30; Hansen, IIO-II); and it is an attractive speculation (though based on no positive evidence) that they were made biennial by Nikomachos' commission and that this is one of the commission's economies with ancestral sacrifices to which Lysias 30. 19-21 alludes. Cf. the Genesia in FiA, also small-scale and also authorised in part by the phylobasileis. The items in 41-3 and 55-6 would appear to be cash payments


in lieu of the parts of the animal listed (the animals themselves are covered in 38 and 50-1; on the absence of an amount against oKEXog in 54 see Explanatory Note 2). On the old Ionian phylai (and phylobasileis) and trittyes see Phratries, 251-61; P. Carlier, La Royauti en Grice avant Alexandre (Strasbourg, 1984), 353-9; note on F7A, below; on Zeus Phratrios and Athena Phratria, Phratries, 207-II; on the herald, Hansen, 115-

The text of this column is unproblematic (in 52, Hansen misprints F as I), except: 57-8. T[. .4. .]EL KpLOWv |t[i~t[& t].o Oliver, followed by Hansen (who indicates some doubt about

the letter before the kappa; I agree with Oliver that iota is sure), T[poqp]Fi Sok. LSS (one letter too short). There is a faint, possibly illusory, suggestion of omega after the tau. T[E4tEv]E is possible, i.e. a purificatory sprinkling of the precinct of Zeus and Athena with barley grains (though Jameson queries per litt. whether the amount of barley might not be rather large for that purpose). I have been unable to discover another plausible supplement for 1[. .4. .]1t; though if we have I letter+iota in one stoichos, as at F3A, 24 with oL, and several other points on this face with LL, we might have t.[. . 5..]et (perhaps TL1t . .3.]lt) The last three letters of 58 are in a chipped area; in last place there is a vertical break in the stone which may (but need not) be along the path of iota. It is possible that Oliver's and Hansen's reading is correct (and perhaps that the stone has deteriorated since). Elsewhere in this calendar, however, this word occurs in the singular, and one obtains a faint impression that the last letter is the top half of sigma. There is no monetary amount to the left of 58, suggesting either that Oliver and Hansen are right and that the number of medimnoi was specified in the next line, or that a further item followed (perhaps wine, as in 27) and that the amount for both items was specified against the second.

Col. 3 My text accords with Sokolowski, LSS, except where noted.37 Since Ferguson, 'Trittyes', 155 n. 52 and Sokolowski 1936, 454-5, it has been recognised that this column relates not, as Oliver suggested, to the (annual) Mysteries in Boedromion (third month of the year), but the Eleusinia, an agonistic festival which took place probably in Metageitnion, the second month (cf. below on 82-3). It was celebrated biennially, quadrennially and possibly annually also, see Simms, 'Eleusinia', 269 n. 2. Timing: IG ii2. 1496, 129-33 (Eleusinia in 332/I) with Simms, 270. This column relates to the biennial festival (30), which very probably took place in even-numbered Attic years in the Julian calendar, i.e. those ending 0/9, 8/7 etc. (thus Dow 1960, 288, Simms, 269 and Rhodes on Ath. Pol., pp. 608-9; a different view at Clinton, 'Eleusinia', 9-12). This accords with indications that the other biennial sequence in this calendar related to odd-numbered years (see F2A). This column is discussed in detail by Healey, Eleusinian Sacrifices (more briefly on 60-74, Healey 1984). Based on Dow's reading, '-K T V OT [rikvV (1. 77), interpreted as sacrifices authority for which was to be found on relatively recent stelai, Healey interpreted 77 ff. as newer elements of the Eleusinia, building on the older genos rite of the Eumolpidai at 60-74. There is some overlap between the deities listed in 77 ff. and those on IG is. 5 (early fifth century), and Healey suggested that IG is. 5 reflected the wording of the relevant 'stele'. It is not quite sure, however, that IG is. 5 relates to the Eleusinia. Clinton, 'Eleusinia', suggested (inconclusively) the Mysteries (cf. Robertson, Laws, 69; add. et corr. to IG is. 5) and (attractively but uncertainly) that our 77 ff. were sacrifices for the other major Eleusinian genos, the Kerykes (although the overlap between 75 ff. and the Kerykes priesthoods listed in the decree of 20/19 honouring the dadouch Themistocles, Clinton, Sacred Officials, 50-2, is not compelling; see Robertson, Laws, 69 and further below). All these sacrifices may have taken place at Eleusis; but the city Eleusinion or other city locations can not be ruled out.

6o. Sok. LSS misprints the price as Al I. On the significance of this offering see Healey (1984, 137-8). 6i. As usual in this calendar, the two iotas of AiLl occupy a single stoichos. On Zeus Herkeios, the

household deity also worshipped in formal subgroups of the polis, here specifically the Eumolpidai, cf.

37 My purpose in using LSS as a reference text for this column is partly to alert the reader to the numerous more or

(unfortunately sometimes) less minor errors to which his texts are liable. I do not normally draw attention to these elsewhere.

378 S. D. LAMBERT

Phratries, 213-6 (add to the references there, B. Petrakos, O Afjtog -ov Pactvo6lvrog, ii. E~,ypacpqg (Athens, 1999), no. I80, 1. 85)-

62-4. Offerings to the two chief divine personalities of Eleusis (unusually separated, cf. Clinton, 'Eleusinia', 5).

65-72. In 65, Sok. mistakenly omits the square brackets. On sheep for 15 dr. for male recipients cf. 61; there is a slight possibility that some or all of these victims were goats; cf. below on 82-3 and Explanatory Note 4. Healey noted some correspondence between the seven heroes listed here and the 06tL1oTo1o6koL pauokeig listed in H. Hymn Dem. 153-5 and 473-5, among whom are Eumolpos, Polyxenos, Diokles (sic) and Keleos. See also N. J. Richardson, Homeric Hymn to Demeter (Oxford, 1974), ad loc. Healey notes that several of the recipients are listed by cult-names or hieronyms, i.e. descriptive terms which concealed their real names, a common feature of Eleusinian religion (applied also to its cult personnel).

66. A1X1l1~ Oliver was a slip (thus still Sok., LSS), corrected first by Ferguson, 'Trittyes', 155 n. 52 (cf. Healey), and later (overlooking Ferguson's correction) Graf. The restoration

i[pL1t is not quite sure,

but it is difficult to think of a plausible alternative. 'Melichos hero': a cult-name, 'the mild one', concealing Eubouleus, with 'hero' added to distinguish him from Zeus Meilichios (Healey); or reflecting recognition in the Eleusinian circle of Zeus Meilichios, an important figure in the (originally Athenian) Lesser Mysteries (Graf). On Meilichios see Selinous, v. 2. However, as Parker points out per litt, since the

epithet of Zeus is MLXLXLOg, developing the alternative spelling MEL1XLXog in the fourth century (ousting the earlier form altogether after 300), but never in Attica MEkXLtog (cf. Threatte i. 194), it is

questionable whether there is a connection with our recipient. 67. Archegetes: Hippothoon, eponym of Hippothontis (the tribe to which Eleusis belonged), or

Eleusis/Eleusinos, eponym of Eleusis (Healey). 69-70. [- -] Oliver, [KpLObg] Healey, Sok. LSS. The ram in 64 cost 17 dr., but it may be that there was a

premium for 'select' animals (see Explanatory Note 4), so e.g. [oig] is also possible (2 dr. more expensive than a normal wether). Threptos, 'the nursling,' may be Triptolemos (Oliver, Korte) or perhaps more likely Demophon, nursling of Demeter in H. Hymn (Healey, cf. Clinton, Myth and Cult, ioi).

73-4. Or Ei[tioXn[iLStcg] T-ca1Ia. We see state funded sacrifices by the gene from a reverse

perspective, as it were, at Salaminioi Calendar, 20 and 87, where the genos Salaminioi notes sacrificial contributions from the polis. On the Eumolpidai, see Parker, Athenian Religion, 293-7.

75-6. Oliver's restoration of the priestess as that of Demeter, i.e. the chief priestess of Eleusis, supplied by the genos Philleidai, is convincing. Since 76 is followed by a new rubric it seems that the

apometra did not relate to what follows, but to duties performed by the priestess in connection with the above-listed Eumolpid sacrifices (on paragraphoi-that after 74 is omitted in error by Sok. LSS-see Explanatory Note 3, on apometra Explanatory Note 6).

77. o[v1t36Xv ? Oliver, o.[,i1kv Dow, Sok. LSS, Healey, who detected trace of the 'extreme upper left hand corner of a transverse stroke, which could be part of either T or Y' (Eleusinian Sacrifices, 193), o[vyypaqcpmv Robertson, Laws, 7o. Rhodes, 'Athenian Code', 94 n. 40, reports that the squeeze and

photographs at the Institute for Advanced Study reveal no reliable trace after the sigma. What appears to be a left horizontal of tau, however, is visible on Dow's photograph, 1961, pl. 10. At autopsy very slight traces are now visible (probably too slight to appear clearly on a squeeze); out of context they would be insignificant, but I agree with Healey that they probably do belong to a T or Y. While

certainty is impossible, I agree with Rhodes that ocrl~XMv is the most likely restoration, not least because it nicely reflects the wording of Lysias 30. 17 (see Introduction). The syngraphai were probably not a source of authority themselves, but were what specified the sources of authority on which Nikomachos' commission was to draw (see Introduction and note on FI2B, 4). There is another possible case of this rubric at FIA, 8.

77-8. The first inscribed sign in 78 is I in error for H. xoip[og -] Sok. LSS, incorrectly implying that there was more text in this line. A victim without a recipient would be unique on this Face of the calendar (though col. 2 and F6A, 8-Io, do not name divine recipients). Solutions were discussed by Healey, Eleusinian Sacrifices, 204-10. Noting that Ge is the first deity listed in IG is. 5, he considered


the possibility (first suggested by Ferguson, 'Trittyes', 155 n. 52) Exc t6ov cnrnjXv FitL Xoipog, but rejected it on the grounds that (a) such inclusion of a recipient after an authority rubric would be unparalleled and (b) it would be inexplicable why Ffti was not placed in line 78. He supposed instead that this was a 'preliminary purification sacrifice' with no deity mentioned (cf. Jameson, 'Sacrifice', 98-9). Though an unpublished fragment of the calendar includes a recipient squeezed in on the same line after a (date) rubric, Healey may well be right. For piglets specified without recipients cf. FiB, 12. See also next note.

79-80. Rest. Oliver. 12 drachmas is uniformly the price of a sheep for a female recipient in this calendar. In early or contemporary evidence Hestia was elder sister of Demeter (e.g. Hesiod, Theog. 453-4) or her daughter, in later sources even her mother, and there is abundant other evidence linking her to the Eleusinian circle, though she is not mentioned in IG is. 5 or Ar. Thesm. 297-300 (see, in detail, Healey, Eleusinian Sacrifices, 211-24) or among the Kerykes priesthoods, Clinton, Sacred Officials, 50-2. She traditionally received the first sacrifice of any series, and Healey points out that this tends to confirm that there was no deity listed before her, i.e. in 77-8. On the association of Athena with Eleusis see Healey, 225-30. It is fairly slight and her inclusion here might be interpreted as 'late'. It seems that she was not mentioned in IG is. 5. Among the Kerykes priesthoods at Clinton, Sacred Officials, 50-2, is one of Athena Horia (with Zeus Horios).

8x. Xd[pLtowv ac] Healey. We do not know what offering cost io dr. in this calendar (another case at 84); Healey's suggestion that it was a goat is possible, but uncertain. At IG is. 5 a goat is specified for Ge, Hermes Enagonios and the Charites, but it is not clear that the offerings in that text must correspond with ours. There is no other sure case of a goat in surviving fragments of this calendar (cf. Explanatory Note 4). On the association of the Graces with Eleusis see Healey, 231-48; the Kerykes had a priest of the Graces and Artemis Epipyrgidia (Clinton, Sacred Officials, 50-2; IG ii2. 5050), but Robertson, Laws, 69, doubts if this cult of the Graces was the same as ours.

82-3. Sok. LSS places oig by mistake at the end of 82, instead of 83. Oliver recognized Hermes in 82 and considered, but rejected, Enagonios in 83. His reservations were cogently answered, however, by Ferguson, 'Trittyes', 155 n. 52, since when the restoration has been widely accepted, including by Healey. The epithet probably reflects the agonistic aspect of the Eleusinia. See, in detail, Healey, Eleusinian Sacrifices, 249-56. The only question, as Ferguson recognized, is whether the victim was a sheep or a goat, atc. A goat is specified for Hermes Enagonios in IG is. 5, where he is listed with Ge and the Graces; 15 dr. is the price of a sheep for a male recipient at 61, but it might also have been the price for a goat. In Tetrapolis Calendar, goats were the same price as sheep offered to male divinities (12 dr.). The Kerykes had a priest of Hermes (Clinton, Sacred Officials, 50-2), but the epithet was Patroos.

84. [- -] Oliver, followed by Sok. LSS, Ep.[- Dow ap. Healey, 301 n. 8o, after cleaning the stone, 'E.p[[t^iL epithet max. 9 acd] Healey. At autopsy I noted the bottom horizontal and the lower section of the vertical of epsilon, also recorded by Dow and Healey. Healey, Eleusinian Sacrifices, 258-9, records 'the traces of the second letter barely discernible on the stone seem to favour a rho rather than a kappa'. At autopsy I could confirm only a very faint (unsure) trace of a left vertical. The possibilities include a second offering for Hermes (possibly with another, shortish, epithet; on H. Patroos, see previous note), or, if the traces of the second letter are regarded as too slight to imply rho, an offering to Hekate. See, in detail, Healey, Eleusinian Sacrifices, 257-61. His supposition that the victim was a goat is possible, but uncertain; cf. on 81.

85. 'H[pactlcrCt oig ?] Oliver, "H[paL ? oig]? Sok. LSS, 'Hp[aQKhdr oig] Healey. Healey, 262-3, records an upper vertical after the eta, which 'could possibly represent phi', but which 'would fit in very well with the letter rho'. At autopsy I detected possible (uncertain) trace of a left vertical. 15 dr. suggests a sheep for a male divinity, but a goat cannot be ruled out. See above on 82-3; Explanatory Note 4- Healey, 262-7, preferred Herakles to Hephaistos on the grounds that the former has attested connections with Eleusis (first non-Athenian to be initiated into the Mysteries, Eur. Herakl. 613 etc.) and would be suitable for an agonistic festival. This is plausible, but, with only the initial letter of the name securely preserved, can be no more.

380 S. D. LAMBERT

86. A[tovtoC1 Oliver, A[L1 Sok. LSS, A[okXL'0 considered by Healey, 268-77 (cf. Clinton, 'Eleusinia', 4 n. 12), but rejected in favour of A[ooololUpoLv] or A[LocKOUpoLg]. With only the initial letter preserved, no strong case can be made for any restoration. Healey, 278-85, noted that there is vacant space to the left of the line following 86 and that this probably implies that the following entry covered two lines (as e.g. 81-2). He speculates on some possible recipients.

Fragment 6

The text accords with Hansen's, except where noted. Underlined letters were printed as legible by Ziebarth but are not now clearly visible. The item at 4-6, on the same day and from the same source of authority, was probably related to the one at I-3; and it is possible that the one at 7-12 was in the same connected series (see further below). For paragraphoi marking off sub-items within a group see Explanatory Note 3. It has been generally assumed that the frequency of these offerings was annual, but this is uncertain.

Line before i. Possible bottom of lower vertical above final iota of lpFcaL in i. 1-3. 3. [A?]AA, [P]AA or [H?]AA Lambert, [.2.]A Hansen. Cf. F3A, 76 (apometra of ioo dr). I detect

probable trace of the bottom right corner of a penultimate delta, likely on any account. The apometra will have been listed after one or more offerings, as at F3A, 76 (Eleusinia); cf. FiB, 9 (Dipolieia, probably same priestess). The ancient statue of Hermes in the temple of Athena Polias, Paus. i. 27. I, lends circumstantial support to a thematic connection between this item and the subsequent one. The date must precede the 7th (7). At FiA, 22-4, there is the beginning of a description of an offering to Athena on 6th of a month (Boedromion) and, as Hansen points out, it cannot be ruled out that our text represents the end of that same event. It is also possible, however, that we are on 3rd (Athena's birthday) or 4th (Hermes' birthday) of a month (cf. Mikalson, Calendar, 16-7).

4-6. Errors were made in lines 4-6 and corrected by erasure and reinscription (clear on lower phot., Hansen, 65). Original text as read by Hansen: [[. .3.]MN[.] .E.]O Q[.]]] I

11d)pV[v]a, o[]]g] ? I

[ .[tpc].]]. ~4, col. 2, i///i. I.e. - or H. 5. Probably [A]] or [AH]- or [HV] H[H] Lambert, [A P] -Hansen. To the right of the preserved drachma sign is a crack which might or might not obscure a letter stroke. 6. A cautious reading is [. .3-5.] I I (thus Hansen), a bold one [-H] F. I . To the left of the first obol sign there is a crack in the stone where a drachma sign was probably inscribed; faint trace of it may be visible. For I.o cm to the left of this the surface is preserved in the upper half of the line. It was not inscribed (cf. the I.i cm between the obol and half-obol signs at FiA, col. 4). To the left of this, under the drachma sign in the previous line, what may be the upper tip of a vertical is visible, on the break of the stone. Sheep (oig) prices elsewhere in this calendar are 15 dr. for male recipients (i.e. wethers), 12 for female (i.e. ewes) and 4 for an oi0g kEToyv6C0yt (Explanatory Note 4; a ram, KpLOg, is 17 dr.). So probably this was a slightly more expensive sheep for a male recipient than usual (thus Hansen), or it was the same price as a sheep normally offered to female recipients (smaller/cheaper ewe suitable for the Hermaia as a festival at which youths sacrificed?), or perhaps most likely, it was an olg khenoyvo1twy, as 9-Io, although not explicitly specified as such. The hierosyna (6) were probably the same as for the olg khe~toyvdctwv at F3A, 39, i.e. 4 dr., 2 ob. The only epigraphically likely alternative would be [P ] EI I i.e. 8 dr., 2 ob., which would be implausibly high (cf. 8 dr. hierosyna for a poi)g kXctoyvwa)yto0 at F3A, 51. We do not know for certain that the hierosyna for different types of sheep varied in this calendar; but in Tetrapolis Calendar they did). On the fairly unusual locative, 5v + gen. sing., arising from ellipsis of a noun (e.g. ep6L) see Threatte ii. 384. This is the only reference known to me to a cult of Hermes in the Lyceum area, which, long before it became home for Aristotle's school, was the location of a 'gymnasium' (J. Travlos, Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens (London, 1971), 345 with plan, 291; functions of site, also an exercise area for troops, M. H. Jameson, 'Apollo Lykeios in Athens', Archaiognosia, I (1980), 213-36, especially 224-7; more recent discoveries, AR 1996-7, 8--o). For Hermes in the Lyceum's sister institution, the Akademy, see Paus. i. 30. 2. The occasion of this offering was perhaps the athletic Hermaia for youths, Plat. Lys. 206 D-E, Aeschin. i. 1o etc. (Deubner, 217).

7-0xo. The seventh was Apollo's day (Mikalson, Calendar, 19). Since there is no CK-rubric, the authority was presumably the same as for the items listed above. The phratry Achniadai had a cult of


Apollo Hebdomaios (Phratries, T2). 'pbopotaiov here should mean a 'sacrifice [sc. to Apollo] on the seventh' (by analogy with Hesych. s.v. y6yoaLoov' Ooot a ccapa 'A06,viotLg .TEXotZUVi OrE6L. On the 8th as Theseus' day, see Mikalson, Calendar, 20). A festival Hebdomaia is attested outside Attica (Hansen, 77-8), but we do not know what, if anything, more than this offering took place on this occasion in Attica. There is an uncertain implication in ig that other animals would have been provided for the same

Ovo1a from other sources (or in other cycles of the state system, cf. e.g. FiB).

Unless one assumed that this fragment belonged to a list of sacrifices outside the annual/biennial etc. system and taking place every month, there would be no implication that the state funded this offering on the seventh of every month. Jameson (above, note on 4-6), 227, raises the possibility that this offering was specifically for Apollo Lykeios in the Lyceum and therefore connected with the previous one (see further next note).

11-12. O[-?]I I....Kca

o[- -] Lambert, 0lulov Hansen. oi'[dr] I wv Sok. (from oig, ear), is unlikely on morphological grounds; see Threatte ii. 276-7 (cf. i. 238-61). This face uniformly has o for [o:] (e.g. LOTc(qr vo, 7) (also for [oU], e.g. P36g, F3A, 22; cf. Threatte i. 349-52; note, however, TovTo[- at F9B, 6). The surface at the end of i i and in 12 has deteriorated since discovery (cf. Oliver, 24-5, Hansen, 71) and while parts of the underlined letters are still verifiable (e.g. Y very clear on Oliver's phot., p. 24), their reading depends essentially on the testimony of editors before Oliver (Ziebarth: OYQ2N[.]\II, Ziehen: confident about OY and QN, less so about K, and Acould be A). According to Strabo ix. 2. Ii (cf. Boethius, 24) the pythaistai were required to watch in Athens on three consecutive days and nights for three consecutive months, for the lightning over Harma which would indicate that the theoria to Delphi, the Pythais, was to take place (for the Pythais cf. FIA). Whether they were responsible for conducting the hebdomaion, or merely received perquisites from it, and whether this coincided with their period of watch (probably in the spring), are uncertain. Cf. the sacrifices to Apollo with various epithets in Erchia Calendar, on 4 Thargelion and on 7 and 8 Gamelion (more than three months apart), to be 'handed over to the pythaistai', zv0*ia cT~Lig nmapasb6otog. These included an offering to Apollo Lykeios on 7 Gamelion. We cannot tell which of the several possible words in (probably) Ou- (OVoLvv etc.) and o- are to be restored here. Ziehen's O5~yov or Ovu |v arose from the assumption, based on a squeeze and unreliable, that there were certainly no more letters in Ii after the upsilon (the stone now, and in Oliver's phot., breaks immediately after it; only Threatte ii.

277, shows this correctly). On the implication of the genitive see Explanatory Note 2. Unless these were perquisites in kind (cf. F3A, 54) a price will have been noted to the left of 12, or possibly in the following line.

Fragment 7 My text accords in essentials with Dow's.

I. The surviving iota in this line is positioned at the right edge of the stoichos, whereas this cutter's iotas are normally placed fairly centrally or a little to the left. Dow's perception that, as in the equivalent text at F6A, 7, the final iota of the preceding word was placed to the left in the same stoichos, is convincing, as is his calculation of the number of missing letters to the left, based on the assumption that, as uniformly elsewhere on this Face, the date rubric protrudes one space to the left of a following authority rubric. The possible dates are 3rd (TpLnit) 8th (oy66bor), or 9th (Fvdar't).

2-4. Dow shows the first letter of 2 in square brackets, but it seems clear on his phot. For items for the phylobasileis on the authority of the phylobasileis cf. FIA, 5-7; F3A, col. 2 (bibliography ad loc.). Here and in FIA they are listed immediately after the authority rubric, like the trittys Leukotainioi of the phyle Gleontis at F3A, 35 and the phyle Gleontis itself at F3A, 47. It would seem that sacrifices funded from this authority source were specific to archaic groups and officials in a way that differed from other authority sources. More than with any other sacrifices listed in this calendar the general impression is of events which are not only archaic, but also 'aristocratic' in character (non-inclusive, officials funding themselves).

5. First letter: upper right curve as of e/O/2(Dow), or B/P ?

382 S. D. LAMBERT

FACE A (GROUP B)

Fragment 8

This fragment is compatible with our calendar, to which Dow I941, 31, convincingly assigned it (fragment group B; minor dissimilarities suggest that F8 belonged to a different stele from F9). In this calendar prices are always to the left of the text to which they refer. Those on this face should accordingly be read with col. 2 (Meritt's and Sokolowski's texts were ambiguous on this point). The identical victim type in 5, 8, 11-2 and probably 3, the appearance of Apollo in 4 and 7, and the absence of any indication of a change of event (perquisites, new date etc.), imply that all the offerings preserved in col. 2, some on Delos, some elsewhere, are connected. The festival Delia occurred both (since 426/5) at quadrennial (Th. iii. 104. 2, Ath. Pol. 54. 7) and sexennial (Ath. Pol. 54. 7) frequencies (there seems to be no satisfactory recent account; see, Stengel, RE iv (1901), 2433-5; Rhodes on Ath. Pol. 54. 7 and 56. 3; Parker, Athenian Religion, 150-1 with n. 116, 222-3); and there was also an annual event, Plato, Phaedo, 58 A-C, Xen. Mem. iv. 8. 2, with Rhodes, Ath. Pol. p. 626. Unfortunately it is uncertain at what frequency our offerings took place, or whether, as seems very possible, they pre- date in origin the founding of the quadrennial Delia. Certainly they are more modest than the provision for the quadrennial festival of 374 in the accounts of the Delian Amphictyons (e.g. ID 98 =

Tod, GHI II, no. 125, 36, og09 bovines). On the uncertain theory that group B fragments related to festivals at quadrennial or other more unusual frequencies, see Introduction. In any case probably, (a) all the offerings in our text related to the Athenian theoria to Delos, whether the annual one, or on the occasion of the quadrennial or sexennial Delia (on the theoria see FGH 328 Philochoros F 75; IG i3.

1468; Parker, Athenian Religion, 50--I); (b) those in 1-4 took place at the Attic Delion referred to in Solon F 88 Ruschenbusch (quoted below, note on F12A), the text of which perhaps stood in some relation to ours; probably at the setting out of the theoria; (c) the offerings in 6 ff. were made by the theoroi on Delos (thus also Sok. LSS, 31). Cf. the provision for the Delphic equivalent of the Delian theoroi, the pythaistai, at FiA, under the line and F6A, II-12; and for the theoria to Nemea (F2A, with Parerga II; also FI2A). The Delia took place in the Delian month Hieros, corresponding to Attic Anthesterion (Stengel; C. Triimpy, Untersuchungen zu den altgriechischen Monatsnamen und Monatsfolgen (Heidelberg, 1997), 64).

col. I 3. i?]$ Lambert, ct]1 Meritt. Meritt's restoration is possible. Goats appear fairly frequently in other

Attic calendars; not, however, otherwise in surviving fragments of this one, whereas the number six does (choes F3A, i; bovines FiB, 9).

col. 2 I. 11 dr. does not occur elsewhere in this calendar; we do not know to what item it related. 3. p[Epb6v TXov ?] rest. Lambert, cf. 5. Of the iota the lower section survives. 4. 'A.[6]k[h wvt epithet.?] rest. Lambert, A I ./ Meritt. There is perhaps trace of the right vertical of

the pi. 5. -t1[XLov] Sok. (attributing the rest., mistakenly it seems, to Meritt). For the spelling, trekov rather

than T -Ltov see Threatte i. 317. It is a common term for a sacrificial animal, whether as adjective, e.g. at IG i3. 78. 39, ov ... .TE'ov, or frequently substantively, e.g. IG is. 246. 24, 36; 3keXov Oijv, IG is. 250 A 18, B 23. On its meaning, 'full-grown', see Explanatory Note 4. -Lpog is also an adjective frequently used substantively. The normal term in Attic epigraphy for 'sacrificial victim' is LEPEdov (as e.g. IG is. 78. 39), though pl. hepd commonly has the sense 'sacrifices' (see IG is. Index, p. 1097; cf. LSJ tEp6g III I; SEG 32. 218. 203). One could construe l~p6v adjectivally here, 'sacred ltkEXov', but that would be otiose and it may rather be doing duty for iEpEov, 'a full-grown holy thing (i.e. sacrifice)', i.e. 'a full-grown sacrificial victim'.

6. There are two candidates for the restoration here: (a) tdt A[1L1t]. For Delia as the Athenian name of the Athenian' festival on Delos, see Th. iii. 104. 2, Xen. Mem. iv. 8. 2. On Delos the festival was


apparently called the Apollonia, and Td 'A[nokkvtLca] is also possible here. For Attic festivals in this calendar there were no such headings; but one would seem possible for an extra-Attic event. Another possible (but unlikely) case, F4B; mention of a festival also at FIB, 14; more likely (b) t86 [e 0BEcat vel sim. (Ev Ail~wLt td6[e?] Dow 1960, 284); cf. the sequence headings in F2A and F3A; also F3A, 73-4.

8. TE/ Meritt, Tl1k[eLov] Sok., [A H ] add. Lambert, cf. 5. 9-xo. HlooE L6v[L - -] I Kpt6g Meritt, HooEt&L6v[L] I Kptog Sok., [AP H] add. Lambert. The fact

that KpLog was not placed in the previous line suggests that Poseidon here may have had an epithet, but it does not necessarily imply it, cf. F3A, 63-4. I restore the price of the ram from F3A, 63-4 (cf. 69-70).

11-12. [A].gro[] Ep.[b6v] [A H?] [ltEov] rest. Lambert, [.] ITO [.]IE[- -] Meritt and Sok. In addition to the letters (upper sections) read by Meritt, I detect trace of the rho after the epsilon (and possibly upper right of the lambda). Leto bore Apollo on Delos according to Hom., Hymn Apollo etc. and is a natural recipient of worship in this context.

On the price of the offerings in this fragment see further Explanatory Note 4.

Fragment 9 The text accords with Dow's except where noted.

I derive the left edge of col. I (not shown by Dow) from the restoration of 4 (see below). Since letter spacing is quite variable in this non-stoichedon section of text, the numbers of letters shown to the left in 1-3 and 5 are approximate. I have endeavoured to give a schematic impression of the complex vacats at the end (see PLATE 35a). The surface of the small piece to the lower left (separated by a lacuna from the piece to the right) is entirely vacant, but with the marginal exception of the extreme bottom right corner of it (which contains an upright nick which may be a casual mark or just possibly the top of a vertical stroke), this vacat will have fallen between the column of numbers and the main column of text. It cannot, therefore, be ruled out that there was one or more short lines of text in col. I after 5. The three-line vacat in the numbers column after col. 2, 6 would be consistent with there being text to the right which required no numbers; that there was no such text, however, is suggested by the fact that the left two-thirds of the first letter-space of what would be 7 is vacant, ruling out any letter except an iota positioned implausibly far to the right. Most likely, we have the ends of both columns towards the bottom of the stone, though it cannot certainly be ruled out that the vacant space merely marks a break in the text, e.g. end of an annual, biennial etc. sequence. For a break between months, cf. F3A, col. I (less than the space of a line). See further Parerga I.

Col. I 3. T]pL9rr (sc. tepL;g) Xo6g Matthaiou per litt., K]pLril Xoobg Dow. The normal nominative in Attic

inscriptions is X6og/Xoig, see Threatte ii. 267-8. Threatte observes that the alternative XosEg, though attested in Aristophanes and Menander, does not occur in inscriptions; but this should be the genitive of this form (cf. Ar. Peace, 537). I had thought, [recipient + animal K]PLTil, XoiSg |fractional term, i.e. third, quarter vel sim., with the second line squeezed between lines 3 and 4 (the line spacing between 3 and 4 is greater than normal and there is a comparable squeezed-in line on an unpublished fragment). Matthaiou's suggestion, however, is easier, cf. SEG 31-154; LSJ s.v. tpTrog 112; FIA, 22, F2A, 19. The item measured by chous was probably honey, oil, or more likely wine, cf. Explanatory Note 5.

4. ['Art6Xkk?]vt rest. Lambert. -]vt Dow. NI at a line-end in this calendar suggests 'Arn61'kvt or possibly IHoo-L6vt. Before the nu the stone breaks in a manner that may suggest the upper right curve of omega. The restoration gains some confirmation from the fact that it yields a distance between cols. I and 2, c. 0.20, consistent with that on other fragments.

5. Mark as upper right diagonal of upsilon before nu, Dow. Or perhaps iota.

Col. 2 The small amounts in 5 and 6 suggest perquisites or extras, cf. F3A, col. 2. 6 might be t[i1tlOg. 15 dr. might be a sheep for a male recipient (i.e. a wether). Cf. Explanatory Note 4.

384 S. D. LAMBERT

Fragment 12 This fragment is known only from a slightly faulty transcript by Ross (which I have examined), making confident reconstruction difficult. It was convincingly attributed to this calendar by Dow I941, 31 (cf. 1961, 67); note the almost certain inclusion of the two iotas of AL' in a single stoichos in 8, a characteristic feature of this text. My text adheres to Ross's transcript except where noted. The transcript is clearly non-stoichedon, but it is uncertain whether on this point it was accurate (cf. n. 34 and note on FI2B). We have to do with a group of sacrifices located either in the Eleusis area or in the Tetrapolis region. Cf. Tetrapolis Calendar, 68-9 with n. 44 (and note the prominence of Eleusinian cult in that calendar). If the latter, the Oinoe referred to will be that in the Tetrapolis, if the former, the one in Hippothontis. For the inclusion in the calendar of contributions to sacrifices in Attica outside Athens cf. Steph. Byz. s.v. 'AyvoVlg = Solon, Nomoi, F83 Ruschenbusch: ... iv to;g i6ooiv 'F~rin1l 'AyvoOlvT1 0vol o E'rt tin AE6'; Salaminioi Calendar, 11. 20-1 and 87.

i. The letters printed are as read by Ross. No plausible reconstruction has yet been proposed. 2-3. KrPVl[K]OLv [1oLv Tr] 1]6 'EkEvoiLv[og perquisite] ? Lambert, [.]KHPYIOIN OEAEYIIN

Ross, KqrpV[K]OLv Kirchhoff, 6&] 16 'EXvoiv[og Hiller, np]|6 'EkhvoGv[Lwv Sok. To judge from references to officials elsewhere in the calendar, KrjpVKOLV is probably dative, followed perhaps by their perquisite(s) and preceded by text specifying the offerings etc. at the event(s) at which they officiated; for heralds cf. F3A, 42-3 and FIB, 14. The dual is striking, and it seems very likely that they are the same as the two mentioned by Athen. 234 E-F = Polemon F78 Preller = Solon F88 Ruschenbusch: v

b1 To^i; iMpEcvi rog EP TCAv AlkLaLGTorV oV"Tg yEypaTatCW Kai T(h) KilpUKE EK t1o0 yevovg TCv Krlp5KmWv to3 tr~ lg )toPLCrptL80 ogj- To V ro g 86 nLapacrLTEL v T AflkXp EvtLCV6v, which may well have originated in a passage of the calendar close to ours. The precise wording of 2-3 remains uncertain, but since the Kerykes were an Eleusinian genos, it seems likely that the run of sense was continuous. The two heralds may have had functions specific to Delian

Apollo, or they may be identifiable with two of the attested heralds in the Kerykes, which included the keryx himself (later known as the hierokeryx, Clinton, Sacred Officials, 76-82) and a herald of

Pythian Apollo (FD iii. 2. 59. 6 = SIG3. 773, cf. Parker, Athenian Religion, 301 n. 51; 7 below). It seems

likely that, as F8A, we have a group of connected sacrifices at two separate locations, (a) (1-3) and (b) Oinoe (4 ff.). If the Delion of the Solonian law is that at Marathon referred to by FGH 328 Philochoros F 75, which mentions sacrifices and divination carried out in connection with theoriai to Delphi at the Pythion in Oinoe and with those to Delos at the Delion in Marathon, and the two heralds in 2 were exercising their functions in that Delion, location (a) would be Marathon. The context of our events may be the same as those referred to by Solon and/or Philochoros, i.e. state- funded sacrifices carried out at the Delion and/or Pythion in the Tetrapolis in connection with

theoriai, but certainty is impossible. 4. O'v6oflt 'ApTL[at&t - -] previous eds., but the 15 letters will have filled a line of max. c. 16-17 (cf. 8

and io) and the deity will have been followed immediately by the offering in 5. Ziehen hesitated, but it would be surprising if this deity were not identical with the Artemis Oinaia who had a marked place in the theatre of Dionysos, IG ii2. 5116 (next to Demeter Achaia, IG ii2. 5117, a north-east Attic deity whose

priestess was supplied by the genos Gephyraioi and who also appears at Tetrapolis Calendar, A, col. 2, 27; if this is Tetrapolis Oinoe, the cults will have been neighbours). This Artemis cult is not otherwise

securely attested, though it is tempting to identify its priestess with that of Artemis to whom perquisites are allocated in IG i3. 255 (Face B), a later fifth century inscription with sacrifices (probably calendrically ordered) on one side and priestly perquisites on the other and which probably originated in the

Tetrapolis area. See 'Two Notes', 7i-5; on Artemis in this region, 72 with n. II; add Phratries, T4, 8-io. Artemis does not seem to be attested in connection with Hippothontid Oinoe (not a well documented deme); for Artemis at Eleusis and the surrounding region see S. Solders, Die ausserstdidtischen Kulte und die Einigung Attikas (Lund, 1931), 30, V

5. |AAA TPITTO!A[.]B Ross (I, upper section only). 3[6capxov - -] previous eds., but the 16 letters will have filled the line (see on 4). The initial vertical shown by Ross is close up against the delta and extends to the bottom, consistent with the right vertical of H (P is less likely). The tpir-rota


P6c pxog, offered three times in this fragment, was a group of three sacrificial victims headed by a bovine, cf. Ziehen, pp. io-i (citing in particular Eustathius ad k 130-I), and in Attica IG is. 5. 5 and 78. 37 (both Eleusinian). In neither of those two contexts is the value mentioned. No bovine price is surely preserved elsewhere in our calendar, except for two low-value

p61 ,LnoyvdtovE at F3A, 51, which cost 50 dr. (i. e. 25 dr. each, probably one male, one female). In the case of sheep, the khe~ oyvdwtwcv is about three to four times less valuable than the ordinary animal (see Explanatory Note 4). In other Attic calendars bovine prices range from 40-50 dr. (Thorikos Calendar) to 90 or even (probably intended for a pregnant one) 15o dr. (Tetrapolis Calendar; note that we may be in the same region of Attica). If, as was apparently normal (Eustathius), the other two animals were sheep or goats, their individual value will have been c. 12-17 dr. (see Explanatory Note 4). The price here, therefore, was probably 130 dr. (c. Ioo for the bovine, c. 15 each for two sheep vel sim.; for Ioo dr. bovines cf. also IG ii2. 2311, 72-81, Panathenaic prizes). Eustathius seems to imply that the bovine in a tpLotica 3o6apXog was a bull; but whether its gender, or that of the other components, was adjusted to the gender of the recipient, as was normal with sacrificial offerings (see Explanatory Note 4), is obscure.

6. In Ross's transcription E lacks bottom bar, as does E (i.e. = T with additional central horizontal). -] I 1 e ii1[Yog ntapEXev r iL] ep1ia Ziehen, comparing IG ii.j 1672. 41, 1FT'rTCa

i E4O0kotL8&v Eig EV)1Y MvrypploLg : AA FF F. Though rather distant from Ross's transcript, I incline to [L<tk>tt.<og> [amount]. Honey makes frequent appearances in this calendar (cf. Explanatory Note 5) and would be especially appropriate in an Artemisian context (cf. Phratries, T4, 8-io).

7. Lepi1cl 6<[t>[e1rpa] ? Lambert, IEPEAIAPOAA Ross. The gender of priests, like sacrificial victims, normally corresponded with that of the deity in question (though epicene Dionysos might be served by priestesses, cf. Steph. Byz. s.v. 1rtclXbatL) and it is highly unlikely that we have to do here with a priestess of Apollo. A reference to that god, who had a well-known shrine in Tetrapolis Oinoe, would be possible in this context, and one might, with Kirchhoff, transform priestess into priest (i.e. reading iLpE(t)cc or lepel), or after Ziehen, articulate -] I Lke~pa. 'Arnokk[Wv short victim]. Probably, however, we should simply read Ross's AA as mu and restore apometra for the priestess of Artemis, expressed precisely as at FIB, io (cf. F3A, 75-6 and Explanatory Note 6).

8-9. A<it> MopLo<t> Foucart, AHMOPIQTP BOAPXOH Ross, A'lt<r TPLi> tp[-rOl1av] P6<a>pXo<v> Kirchhoff. A vacat will have followed the offering in 9, as e.g. F3A, 69-70. It is plain that, while the words TpLTtOLCtav 36apxov could be fitted onto one line, as in 5, this was a tight squeeze and it was easier to run them over two (thus also io-ii). In 9, there will have been a price to the left, as in 5 (not noted by previous eds; the only uncertainty is whether it might have been adjusted for the gender of the recipient, cf. above and Explanatory Note 4). Foucart's conjecture for the deity is palmary, not least because it yields AuL with two iotas occupying one stoichos, which (though Foucart did not know it) is a characteristic feature of this calendar. Zeus Morios was overseer of the sacred olive trees of Attica, cf. Soph. OC 705 with 1. Apollodoros ap. I Soph. claimed Morios was an alternative title of Zeus Kataibates, whose altar was tEpt 'AKctrlayicv; if, as is likely, the location here was the same as in 4 and io, he was also worshipped in Oinoe. Cf. 'Two Notes', 73 (on location of Elaious, "place of olives").

0o-1I. OL[v(Yaixl ? Lambert, oi [v ? Kirchhoff, OL[vo- Hiller, OL[vooltL Sok. In II Ross read the top half of the rho (beta only other possibility) and, as in 9, H for N. Again, previous eds. have not noted that there will have been a price to the left (presumably same as 5). A sheep listed before a TphrtoTa P6cpxog, which will have contained sheep (or equivalents), would be surprising and different from 4-5 and 8-9. Oiv6Tot following the deity would be awkward, especially after 4, where the same locative preceded the deity. It seems more likely that the toponymic epithet applied to Artemis in IG i2. 5116, Oivaca, the deity probably referred to in 5, was here applied to Athena. Athena was apt to take epithets of this sort, cf. Pallenis, Skiras, Polias etc.

12. Ross shows nu followed by left two thirds of O/i. Among the possibilities is [A]v O [-.

386 S. D. LAMBERT

FACE B

The text accords with IG i3, except where noted.

Fragment 1

Col. I 5. K]Ep[a]

.L8[]ov ol'v[o] Sok., sp[..]88[.]ovoty IG i3 (but also noting Sok.'s conjecture). There is

an apparent bottom horizontal on the third legible letter of this line, but appearances may be deceptive in this extremely worn area of the stone, and it is difficult to see a plausible alternative to Sok.'s interpretation of it as the right half of mu (cf. LSCG 51, 162). For a unit of quantity preceding the item cf. F2A, 19?; for wine listed with barley e.g. F3A, 25-7, and see further, Explanatory Note 5. In col. 2 we are in mid-Skirophorion. Among possible contexts for Apolline events in col. I are the Delphinia (6 Mounichion) and the Thargelia (7 Thargelion).

Col. 2 7. [ITv Po6v?] add. Lambert. To left of main column: [.] [.] eds. since Oliver. At autopsy this seemed

to me an illusion caused by damage. 8-9. Rest. Oliver. Uniquely on published fragments of this face the start of 14 protrudes one letter into the margin, as earlier eds. recognised (not shown accurately by Sok. or IG i3). Use of such variations in the column edge on the Ionic face is common, but not at points equivalent to this. Perhaps there was a desire to avoid this long line running into a column of text to the right. If so, the implication would be that the right edge of the stone cut through the column of text, a phenomenon observable on face A, but not otherwise on face B (contrast F8B, cf. Introduction). IG i3 noted that the sense in 14 is incomplete. Ziehen, p. 66, ventured, AktOXLE[LoLoILv Zd PoiWpOtcC 8pWk-Tv], cf. Hesych. s.v. poV'rrg. Oliver's conjectures in 8-9, producing a reference to the driving of bovines around the table at the Dipolieia referred to by Porph. De abst. ii. 30, are very persuasive in light of the reference to that festival in 14. I tentatively restore the bovines in 7, in the genitive (implied by 9; on the case see Explanatory Note 2). An alternative would be &nb r1itg

mEp.k[doeog (T6v) po6v] (the definite

article is possible but not necessary). I do not share Sok.'s view that &dt6 is problematic on Oliver's

conjecture. I would construe it with [t6v P3o6v] tOWv mpotr[pov], '(sc. price of) the first six [bovines] from the driving round'. There would seem to be an implication that more than 6 bovines were driven round; perhaps one should envisage a process to select the six best, similar to that vividly described in Cos Calendar (for selection of the finest bovines cf. also Agora, xvi. 75, 45-6, Little Panathenaia). In any case, one may probably deduce that the state contributed the cost of these six (if not, one would not expect them to be mentioned here). That others were supplied from other sources is confirmed by IG i3. 244. 17-8 (contribution to Dipolieia by Skambonidai). Perhaps the gene associated with this festival, i.e. Thaulonidai, possibly Kentriadai and others, and/or the Dipoliastai (on all of whom see Parker, Athenian Religion, 299, 300, 320-1, 334) also contributed. For festival contributions shared between polis and gene cf. Salaminioi Calendar, 87. The specification of the festival perhaps implies that these kerykes are not the Eleusinian genos but a separate group of heralds, who may have been drawn from a genos Kentriadai

(cf. Parker, Athenian Religion, 300 and 320-1 n. 91; contrast the specification of Eleusinian heralds at FI2A, 2-3). On the Dipolieia see Deubner, 158-74; Simon, 8-12. The date was probably 14 Skirophorion (Y Ar. Peace 419, Etym. Mag. 210. 30 s.v. Bovcp6vta, pace Bekker Anecd. i. 238. 21; cf. Mikalson, Calendar, 171). The festival was probably annual; and while we can not be sure, it seems likely in this case that the state contributions listed here were also annual (for biennial state contributions to an annual festival cf. on

F3A, cols. I and 2). There is no other evidence connecting a priestess with the Dipolieia; the most likely to have been involved in a festival of Zeus Polieus on the Acropolis is that of Athena Polias, appointed from the genos Eteoboutadai (cf. X Ar. Clouds, 985).

Fragment 4

The readings are Clinton's, reported in 'Epidauria'. I adopt his line-numbering. Clinton, 'Epidauria', 18-19, presents a partial pre-publication of this fragment. He argues that it

relates to the Epidauria, the festival which took place during the Eleusinian Mysteries (apparently on 17


Boedromion, cf. Philostrat. Vit. Apoll. iv. 17 with Clinton, 18), commemorating the 'arrival' of Asklepios at Athens and his 'initiation' in the Eleusinion in 420. In general this is persuasive. His specific restorations of 16-19 to yield a list of perquisites for officiants are attractive, but there is not enough surviving text or parallels to make them compelling. I detail below some alternative possibilities.

Col. I 'The column . .. ends above the beginning of this excerpt [i.e. col. 2, 15], with a verb' Clinton.

Col. 2 15. Assuming that the trace after the delta is at least / (and alpha therefore the only possible restoration in context), Clinton's 'EJtL.Q[vpLotg -], i.e. the festival name in the dative, is persuasive before a reference to Demeter in the following line. Festival names do not occur elsewhere in surviving fragments of this text in cases other than the dative. -v AIXhCto TA/ [- -] at F8A, col. 2, 6 might be an exception if Tt A [i~Ala were restored, but that restoration is uncertain; there is no definite article in our case (unless, remotely, it was in the previous line); and it is more comfortable to take our fragment as relating to an attested festival in Attica than to an unattested Athenian rite outside Attica, as a strict parallel with F8A would require. The latter point also argues against a locative 'ExtLa [vpo^. However, it is not clear that 'Enxtl [vpLotg was precisely 'the date ... expressed by means of a festival name' (Clinton). If this were a date heading one might expect offering(s) to be listed after it, not only payments to officials; and that would be an argument for the alternative interpretation of I6ff. as listing offerings, detailed below. More importantly, however, elsewhere in the calendar date-headings are by month and day, not by festival name. The only other explicit reference to a festival on this face is at FiB, 14, KpVxotLv ho'L AmtoX1e1[o]. [g verb], which follows the Dipolieia offerings and where the festival name seems to be used not so much as a date, but to specify that the payment is for the kerykes at the Dipolieia as opposed to any other kerykes (e.g. the genos of that name; cf. also FI2A, 2-3). We might have a similar expression here, possibly to be construed with the previous line (whether relating to specified official(s) as at FiB, 14, 'for the x whoy at the Epidauria, amount', or as a heading for what follows, 'for the x who y at the Epidauria: for the priestess of Demeter etc.'); or perhaps 'E1t1.[vpiotg] I AB [T[pog htcpcat] 'for the priestess of Demeter at the Epidauria . . .'; that might imply that this was not the Eleusinian priestess of Demeter (an Epidaurian priestess? cf. the Epidaurian officials possibly listed below).

x6. Clinton suggested A4tE[tpog hLtp1at], comparing the ioo dr. apometra for the priestess of Demeter at F3A, 76. This is attractive, though if (what is far from sure, cf. notes on FxxB) prices were in line with Face A, Ioo dr. might alternatively have been for a bovine. Bovines lacking age teeth at F3A, 50-1, are priced at 25 dr. With sheep, those lacking age teeth are priced at 4 dr. at F3A, 37-8, whereas adult sheep are three to four times more expensive: 12 dr. (ewes), 15 dr. (wethers), 17 dr. (rams and possibly select sheep), cf. Explanatory Note 4. Moreover, a c. Ioo dr. bovine was probably a component of the rp1tTota P16apxog at FI2A, 5, 9 and

II (see note thereto). So possibly, Ahte[tpt 136g] or P13g KPLt'] (cf. the select bovine for Athena at F3A, 22). For offerings at a festival following perquisites for officiants at it, cf. F3A, 75 ff.

17. Clinton suggested h1Ep[ovwtoo1t], i.e. the four hieromnemones attested as recipients of perquisites from offerings to Asklepios at Epidauros in IG iv2. 41 (cf. 154-8, 167-8). Here they would have received 6o dr. each. He considers and rejects htP[oCp[opdvtt] on the grounds that the sum is too large. Again this is possible; but the involvement of Epidaurian officials in an Athenian festival would be striking and again there are other possibilities:

htPp.[~ct &t6.trPCpa (cf. FiB, io), following an

offering in the previous line (though the amount would be high); or htep[(eC)ac t1Xe()ca, cf. F8A, 3, 5, 8 with note. The value of a single such offering there is 12 dr., so 240 dr. here might be the price for twenty. In that case we might have offerings for Demeter on this occasion of I bovine (16) and 20 sheep (probably) (17). This does not seem implausible in the context of a major festival such as the Mysteries (cf. the 6 bovines for the Dipolieia provided for at FxB, 9, the hekatomb in F9B). For a bovine + sheep cf. e.g. Tetrapolis Calendar, A col. 2, 55 (for Hera). Demeter receives a sheep at F3A, 62.

388 S. D. LAMBERT

x8. &KO[[Xo0OoLg] Clinton, 'the Athenian Epidauria required a different sort of official but one who had a similar rank as the aoidoi.' The aoidoi were Epidaurian officials who receive perquisites with hieromnemones and phrouroi in IG iv2. 41. This restoration is attractive, though precise parallels are lacking and the divergence from the Epidaurian term at this point is a weakness in Clinton's scheme. Other (fairly weak) possibilities here are: (a) ctKo[~il0'T1OL or -otg name? Pog KptfCl]. dtKOiTrlog is used of the sea by Aesch. PV 139, of water nymphs by Theocr. Id. 13. 44, of the moon by Nonnos, e.g. ii. 189, etc.; perhaps here of an underworld power (but it may be a poetic term rather than a cultic one); (b) -

c c a Ko[- (cf. F2A, x5; for an uncertain case of line-end word division on this face, F9B, ii). xg. The phi in rasura. [[ p[opoig] Clinton, who would identify them with the Epidaurian officials

of this name, perhaps four in number, of IG iv2. 41. The restoration of officials here, following officials in the previous line, is persuasive. Other possibilities: remotely, (Eleusinian?, Epidaurian?) cpp[acTpTdppxotg] (cf. e.g. the perquisites for the phylobasileis in F3A, col. 2); (p[- P3g Kp1TCi], Fp- being a deity or hero in the dative.

20. [d&mt61tEpa] Clinton. This is not attractive. It is awkward at the end of a whole list of officiants (at F3A, 75-6, there is only one); and the term apometra never occurs elsewhere in the Attic evidence for male officiants or elsewhere in this calendar for more than one (cf. F3A, col. 2). Cf. Explanatory Note 6.

21. 'Below line 20 there is another numeral in the margin, H, but it was apparently added (with the unpreserved rest of this new line) after the document was published; line 21 is the last line in the column. Only the lower parts of these two columns are preserved', Clinton, 19 n. 9.

Fragment 8

This is the only point on either face where the left edge of a column of text appears to respect the left edge of a stele. Cf. Introduction, Order of Fragments. It is unfortunate that these, apart from F4B almost the only digits preserved on the Attic script face, are entirely without context. With so little available for comparison, speculation as to what the numbers might have related to is fruitless.

Fragment 9

The long and incomplete list of items for the relatively minor biennial Eleusinia at F3A, col. 3, suggests that it is quite plausible that a major festival might have occupied over a column of text. In this case the surviving text in both columns may have related to the quadrennial (Great) Panathenaia (cf. Parerga, 79 n. 15). Though not strictly deducible from this face, Face A suggests that we may be at or near column- ends (cf. Parerga I). The surviving text and our knowledge of this face are not sufficient to enable the left edge of col. i to be determined. We do not know, for example, the distance between columns on this face (it was apparently greater than on Face A, cf. Introduction, Technical Description, Fi).

Col. I Lines 9-11 contained items which, to judge from the rest of this calendar, are likely to have been priced. I accordingly include a price column (not shown by Dow or IG i3).

I. ]..t

? Lambert, ]E previous eds. I detect what are probably vertical and bottom horizontal strokes of

epsilon, followed by what may be a vertical. Perhaps a recipient in the dative. 9. The explicit specification of a female victim in 9, though not unusual in other calendars (see IG is.

250, Tetrapolis Calendar, A col. 2, 27) is unique in surviving fragments of this one. It suggests a female

recipient. Cf. Explanatory Note 4. ii. hEcCtZ][E3v, hd6z[1c?] or h6tl[Xa?] Lambert, heKaT6?]0.&v hom[-] Dow, followed by IG is.

The outer right and most of the inner right stroke of the mu are visible. The angle of these strokes and the relative shortness of the outer stroke both indicate mu in this hand and a dot is unnecessary. This effectively guarantees that Dow's tentative restoration is correct. A hekatomb was famously sacrificed at the (Great) Panathenaia (IG i". 375. 7) and is not, so far as I know, attested at any other Attic festival. (The Hekatombaia apparently did not necessarily entail sacrifice of a hekatomb; Mykonos Calendar, 29-3o, a bull and ten lambs). hor[- might have been military gear for participants in the Panathenaic procession or more likely 'nautical' gear for the Panathenaic ship, cf. SEG 28. 60. 64-70; IG ii'. 968.


48-9. It is unsure whether the word was completed in ii or, as seemed to me marginally more likely at autopsy, ran over onto 12. After ii the right ends of the following two lines were vacant. Either there was no text (thus Dow and IG is, cf. Face A), or (as in 6-7) it did not extend as far to the right as 9-11.

Col. 2 The text at this point may have been more prosaic than the normal calendar entries (note the absence of numerals to the left); cf. the Attic face of Fx2-13 and the under-the-line text on FiA.

7. -oki[Tag ? rest. Lambert. The very slight mark after the lambda is shown by Dow as the spring of a diagonal, by IG i3 as the spring of a vertical. It could be either (or neither). A reference to 'citizens' would be very plausible at the Great Panathenaia, the quintessentially civic festival in which both citizens and non-citizens participated.

8. cvv1ca ~p[xovatg ? Dow, followed by IG i3. While we cannot formally rule out e.g. vvca ip[vEg (cf. the six bovines at FxB, col. 2), Dow's restoration is very attractive; for the nine archons as recipients of perquisites at the (Little) Panathenaia, see Agora, xvi. 75. 36-7.

We are probably close to a column end, but the stone breaks immediately under 8, making it uncertain whether it was the last line.

Fragment 10 Dow's text was adopted unchanged by IG is. My text accords with Dow's except where noted.

I. oI//[- Lambert, O.[- Dow. Dow was probably right to identify the first letter as a high small omicron (as elsewhere on this face), rather than a rho, of the vertical of which there is no trace where one would expect it. The second letter is a vertical stroke to the left. 'The lower curve of the beta is partly visible on a squeeze', Dow 1941, 37; autopsy reveals this to be probably an impression caused by damage; no stroke adjoined the vertical at the bottom. One might think of o [v but the stone to the right is vacant where one would expect the left side of the following nu. Pi is possible, or less likely other letter with left vertical and no adjoining stroke at the bottom.

2. Llcv[i. ? Dow. In addition to the left vertical enough trace of the upper diagonal is visible to make nu certain (dotted by Dow). There is a large number of possible gods or heroes in Pan-: Pan, Pandora, Pandrosos, Pandion, Panops etc. See further next note.

3. Rest. Dow. Whether the offering was noted at the end of 3, as Dow thought, or in 4, is uncertain. Note the two iotas of ALL in one letter space, characteristic of both faces of this calendar. Of the many epithets of Zeus in Kae- listed by H. Schwabl, RE2. xix (1972), 317-22, Kataibates is the most likely in an Attic context at this period. Zeus Kataibates, to whom places where lightning struck were consecrated, is attested at the Academy (cf. on FI2A, 8-9), at Thorikos (Thorikos Calendar, io and 25, cf. Parker, 'Festivals', 145), and by inscriptions found on the Acropolis (IG ii . 4964-5, cf. G. W Elderkin, AJA 38 (1934), 32-3) and in the Olympieion area (IG ii . 4998). If this Zeus Kataibates was the one in the Academy, Hdv [otL would be possible in 2. Socrates passes the gate leading to the spring of Panops on his way from the Academy to the Lyceum at Plato, Lysis 203 A (cf. Hesych. and Phot. s.v. fdavoij). Alternatively, on the (uncertain) theory that group B fragments dealt with festivals at frequencies greater than biennial (see Introduction), one might relate this fragment to the quadrennial Herakleia at Marathon (cf. Ath. Pol. 54. 7) and take 2 to refer to Pan, whose cult was introduced in Attica after the battle of Marathon and who was worshipped in a cave in Tetrapolis Oinoe (cf. Tetrapolis Calendar, 56), and 3 to a cult of Zeus Morios/Kataibates in Oinoe (cf. note on F12A, 8-9). On paragraphoi marking off connected items see Explanatory Note 3.

Fragment 11

Dow's text was adopted unchanged by IG is. My text accords with Dow's except where noted. Offerings to the ubiquitous Kourotrophos, Leto and Athena are insufficient basis for identification of

a festival. Among the possibilities are one linked with that on 4 Thargelion in Erchia (see on 5, below) or with the offerings to Apollo Patroos, Leto, Artemis and Athena Agelaa on 7 Metageitnion in Salaminioi Calendar, 89-90 (the Metageitnia?). If one adopted the (uncertain) theory that group B

390 S. D. LAMBERT

fragments related to festivals at frequencies greater than biennial (see Introduction), possibilities might include the Pythais (cf. on FiA) or the Delia (cf. on F8A), but neither is compelling. On the paragraphoi as marking off items in the same festival see Explanatory Note 3.

I. There is an extremely faint mark which may well be the cross-bar of the alpha (Dow does not dot the letter), but -YXEt cannot be ruled out with certainty. In any case I have not yet been able to find a very convincing supplement for this line.

i~L].1XEt from the Semacheion of Agora, xix. P26. 221 might

suggest a south Attic location. Steph. Byz., however, makes the eponym of Semachidai a first declension male, l tccatog, though his genos seems to have produced priestesses of Dionysos. See Parker, Athenian Religion, 326.

2. Because of damage to the stone, it is uncertain whether there was a paragraphos after line 2. We do not know what the price of sows was on either face of this calendar, select or otherwise.

3. I can not confirm the punctuation (:) read by Dow between the two words. The marks in this area look to me casual. We do not know what the price of a select ewe was on this face. For ewe, prices on Face A see Explanatory Note 4. Either a recipient was fitted onto the end of line 2, or more likely two offerings were named consecutively for the same (female) recipient, as at FiA, 9-11.

4. [-?] LrC Lambert, [F H?] H.C Dow. Of the drachma sign the horizontal stroke is apparent. The

number of further digits, if any, to the left, cannot be determined. At F3A, 24, Kourotrophos receives a piglet, the price of which offering in F3A, 78, is 3 dr. (hence perhaps Dow's suggestion); but we can not infer that Kourotrophos always received piglets in this calendar. In Tetrapolis Calendar she receives both piglets at 3 dr. and sheep at i i dr. A price ending with a half obol but no whole obol is certainly surprising. Whatever the whole amount was and whatever offering it related to, it seems unlikely that the price corresponded with the equivalent offering on face A.

5. Fqt H[vOL'o Lambert, 4{t it[o6Ft ? Dow. Again, the horizontal stroke of the drachma sign is apparent. We do not know what offering might have ended with a drachma and an obol; but again it may not have corresponded with Face A. Dow's reading of punctuation in this case is convincing. a might just be

. from

trace, but not after yt, so I print pi as a certainty. Dow's A't A[6ikE ? is possible epigraphically, but polis at this time and in this context should mean acropolis ('in the city' is Av dtrEt) and there is not known to have been a cult of Leto there. Also possible are i

ir[1&otL (cf. IG i. 246. 33-6; 234. 12) or 1t FI[-

(toponym). Clearly preferable, however, is Aitro L [vOLo, cf. the offering ANiroi '[a uvL0o 'EPXLtotL along with Zeus, Apollo Paion, Hermes and the Anakes on 4 Thargelion in Erchia Calendar. 'EPXLtct there should imply that it would have been possible to make an offering to Leto in a Pythion other than at Erchia. The Pythion in the city would probably have been the other one uppermost in Erchian minds, and may well be that intended here, though that at Oinoe could not be ruled out (cf. on Fx2A).

7. After 7, 'the appearance of the squeeze suggests that a groove [i.e. paragraphos] ... was inscribed and then erased' Dow.

8. 'The traces will fit no other letter' Dow. Might be 4t[1t'rog.

Fragment 12 IG is makes this text, known only from a transcript by Ross, stoichedon. This is unsure (see n. 34 and note on FI2A). Ross's transcript of neither face is stoichedon. (I do not understand the comment of IG is on 9-II, 'ordo paullum turbata est'. It perhaps refers to the stoichedon, but with the exception of 1-2 and (roughly) 5-6, the letters of no line in R's transcript of this face are arranged under those of the

previous one). It is patent (pace Sok.'s note on LSCG I6) that the content was religious, but with the

possible exception of 3, neither the vocabulary nor the arrangement of the text corresponds with that of our sacrificial calendar. Either, therefore, it was from a non-calendrical section of the text on this face (cf. FIA, under-the-line, and F9B, col. 2), or it was from a religious law separate from the calendar (cf. FI3B). Ross's transcript of face A was slightly inaccurate and should be treated here also with a measure of caution.

2. &vaX]oidiov MIE[- - -] Kirchhoff, followed by IG iy. As Ziehen saw, Eaoo]odr= ov can not be ruled out. For this noun in religious contexts see e.g. LSCG index, p. 349; for ctvd&Xtca, index, p. 328. MIE[-, perhaps XELu- or ut1-, from XE3tw Cf. IG i3. 79. 8.


3. Cf. IG ii'. 1363. 8, 'Ai1t6Xovt lHu1ot Laci t E(cp' hEpoig (see LSCG p. 14); Salaminioi Calendar, jXcka bcp' tepoig Kcal ~ig ; kcha. v [acko0c- ?, cf. 2. Or possibly cf. LSJ s.v. 4Fkpov. 4. Syngraphai and its cognates occur fairly frequently in fifth-century texts (e.g. Lys. 30. 17 and 21;

Toig 1TPrp~lpog v6tovg ovyypdCpovot L Kca' oi0g nokEi0ovGo, Xen. Hell. ii. 3. 2 in reference to the Thirty; IG is Index, p. IIII, see especially IG is. 78). It denotes a document, draft or set of proposals that may form the basis for legislation (thus most recently, Rhodes, 'Athenian Code', 93-5; a fuller discussion at P. Foucart, BCH 4 (188o), 248ff.). The syngraphai mentioned by Lysias were the document according to which it was required that the state's sacrifices be from the kyrbeis and the stelai (in contrast, it is implied, to the sacrifices Nikomachos had inscribed). They seem therefore to underlie the revision of the laws of which our fragments were part (perhaps, as Rhodes suggests, they were the basis for 'the decree which ordered the anagrapheis to revise the sacrificial calendar and which specified the sources to be followed'). It may or may not be these same syngraphai, or rather the equivalent for the earlier phase of the commission's work, that are referred to here.

5. As Ziehen saw, the reference will be to tables used in a sacral context, on which see M. H. Jameson, in Cult Practice, 25-37. Cf. e.g. IG is. 255-

6. tqLi]v Hiller, followed by IG is. This is no more than possible. In any case, as Hiller saw, the reference will.be to bowls of offerings used in a sacral context. Cf. Semos ap. Athen. viii. 335 B, at Ahlktdl g, JpooC~ppovoV ai)r,1 (Brizo) odapoag ndvrwtv tkipaeg &yacO6iv rnkilXv 1x0v; the metic skaphephoroi at the Panathenaia (Ael. VH vi. I etc.); IG is. 243. 126 etc.

7. [y]vUk[tb]v Hiller (followed by IG is), 'long-shaped wallet' or 'hedgehog' (LSJ; according to Etym.

Mag. could also apparently mean piglet or lion or refer to Herakles, see LSJ supp.) is inadequately supported. How close Ross was to the inscribed letters at this point is uncertain. In his transcript the O is aligned under the A in the previous line, the Y however under the left side of the E. One letter may have filled the space, but two is also possible, especially if one was an iota.

Io. IG is notes two possibilities: KE]kOVELOv (a swing-beam for lifting water, cf. W K. Pritchett, Hesp. 30 (1961), 27) or (more likely in context) 7ro]kovwtov (word of obscure meaning, used in a religious context at IG i3. 1423).

Fragment 13 Meritt classified this as a document of the treasurers of Athena, c. 430. Lewis ascribed it to the legal revision of 410-404 on grounds of similarity of the stone and lettering (identifying the cutter with that of IG i3. 237, which, though found on the acropolis, he also ascribed to the law revision) and the findspot (cf. n. 18). In a fragment so small that no single word is securely restorable, there is very little to go on. The script is not comparable with the Attic face of F3 (which e.g. has a larger mu), but is broadly comparable with the Attic face of the other published group A fragment (FIB), the letter height is at the maximum attested on that fragment, and the stoichedon grid is within the rather wide range displayed by it; but the alphabet is not even certainly Attic and while, like FIB, the script is mostly in a slightly wavering stoichedon, the final tau of 2 is well to the left of its proper stoichos. If the fragment does belong to our texts, it was probably from a non-calendrical section of the text on this face (cf. FIA, under the line, and F9B, col. 2); or it may have been from a religious law separate from the calendar (cf. FI2B).

i. Before M a lower vertical. p6O]v.

[c[ ? IG is, cf. 3. 2. ] Tpig : t[- IG is, following Meritt. -]Tpeg (e.g. TpToroa]Tpig) however, is also possible. 3. n]p6itca [ IG is, perhaps correctly. -]po EOga[tL[dS&ti Meritt. 4. ]TONTEII[. -]ov TiCot[- IG is. For the dative form Lewis compares IG is. 236. 37, apparently from

the trierarchic law text of which Face B of our F3 is also part. There are obviously other possibilities, e.g. aot = trig [-, or a participle -ovr;g.

5. o]KEv2aooJ[. ant]KEvd1t1oo[t- Meritt, ixl]Kevctoo[ IG is. For this verb in the context of the trierarchic law cf. IG is. 236. 1. In a religious context, ntupa]oKevacoo[- would also be possible.

6. ~t Ti;] |I [- - .. 3pu]zavE Meritt, om. i~i r'g IG is, or e.g. a reference to the JTpuoTv1iov or rdr vi[a - Lambert.

392 S. D. LAMBERT

4. TRANSLATION

FACE A (IONIC)

Fragment Frequency38 Date Authority Festival39 Items listed

Group A

I. 1-2 A [4? Boedromion] ? Eve of Genesia ? ... Se [mnai? -], at least 42 dr. I. 3-22 A 5 [Boedromion] By month Genesia For Erechtheus, a lamb [price]

Tribe-kings For the tribe-kings: [deity], wineless

offering, [price], sow from those that are native, [price]; [deity?, offering, price], sow from those that are native, [price]; .... price ending / obol ........ 5[oth(s)? of oil? .

.. ; price ending ' obol; ... 50[th(s) ?] of wine, i dr.

I. 23-5 A 6 [Boedromion] Unspecified day ? For Athena .... I. col. 4 A A little after i. 23-5 ? ? ... 6 dr. ... i/2 ob ... 1.26-30 V - ? Pythais .. indicate ... according to ...

Harma... Apollo. These things are to follow the basket: tripod, epitoxides, garland, progonion, [-], ball(s?) ...

2. 2 ff. BI ii or 12 New? ? For Apollo, [offering, price]; for [Metageitnion] Leto [epithet?], a select [offering,

price] ... 2. 8ff. BI [II or 12 ? Theoria to Nemeia? For Zeus Ne[meios], a ram,

Metageitnion] [17 dr.?]; .... honey... oil... 5[. .. of wine?]

3. 1-4 BI (or A?) Before next item ? Plynteria? ... six choes [of wine, price.?], a (25 Thargelion?) chous [of oil, price.], a half-chous

of honey, [price?]; hierosyna, [amount].

3. 5-I5 BI (or A?) 29 [Thargelion] By month Plynteria? For Athena, a cloak of pure [wool?, price?];40 [3 items with

prices]; for Athena Ergane, a sheep [12 dr.]; for Athena? by (or for) [-], a sheep [12 dr.].

3. 16-17 Total (sc. for the month): amount ending I dr. 2 ob.

3. 19-27 BI (or A?) [2, 4, 5 or 7 By month ? For Athena, a select cow, Skirophorion] [price]; hierosyna [amount]; for

Kourotrophos, a piglet [3 dr.]; for

[-] a medimnos of barley [price], an amphora of [wine, price].

3. 28 BI (or A?) [3, 8 or 9 ? ?

Skirophorion] 3- 30-43 B2 15 Hekatombaion Tribe-kings Eve of Synoikia For the tribe Geleontes, for the

trittys Leukotainioi, a sheep

38 A = annual, BI = biennial, odd years (i.e. those ending 9/8, 7/6 etc.), B2 = biennial, even years (i.e. those ending o/9, 8/7 etc.), Q = quadrennial, V = variable, U = uncertain.

39 Since entries in this calendar are not headed by festival names, this column represents interpretation rather than translation.

40 Less likely: 'a cloak [price], pure [plural noun, price]'.



lacking age-teeth, 4 dr; hierosyna, 4 dr. 2 ob.; for the tribe-kings, (sc. in lieu of1 back, I dr.; for the herald, (sc. in lieu oj shoulder, feet, head, 4 ob.

3. 44-58 B2 16 Hekatombaion Tribe-kings Synoikia For the tribe Geleontes, for Zeus Phratrios and Athena Phratria, two bovines lacking age-teeth, 50 dr.; hierosyna, 16 dr.; for the tribe- king, a leg;4' for the herald (sc. in lieu of the breast, feet, head, 2 dr.

3 ob.; for [-] a? medimno[s?] of barley ...

3. 60-76 B2 [Metageitnion] ? Eleusinia For Themis, a sheep, 12 dr.; for Zeus Herkeios, a sheep, 15 dr.; for Demeter, a sheep, 12 dr.; for

Pherrephatte a ram, 17 dr.; for

Eumolpos, a sheep, 15 dr; for Melichos the hero, [a sheep?], 15 dr.; for Archegetes, [a sheep], 15 dr.; for Polyxenos, [a sheep], 15 dr.; for Threptos, a select [ovine?], 17 dr.; for Dioklos, [a sheep], 15 dr.; for Keleus, [a sheep], 15 dr.; the Eumolpidai [sacrifice] these. For the priestess [of Demeter], apometra, ioo dr.

3. 77-86 B2 [Metageitnion] Stelai? Eleusinia A piglet, 3 dr.; for Hestia, [a sheep], 12 dr.; for Athena, [a sheep], 12 dr.; for the Graces

[offering], Io dr.; for Hermes

Enagonios, [a sheep?], 15 dr.; for

[-, offering], io dr.; for [-, a sheep?], 15 dr.; for [-, a sheep?], 15 dr...

6. col. I, U Before 7th of a month ? ? ... for the priestess of Athena 1-3 Polias, apometra [30, 70 or 12O dr.]. 6. col. I, U Same as previous Same as Hermaia? For Hermes in the Lyceum, a 4-6 previous sheep [4 dr.?], hierosyna [4 dr. 2

ob.?] 6. col. I, U 7 [month] Same as 'For the seventh- A sheep lacking age-teeth, 7-12 previous day offering' [4 dr.], for the pythaistai ... 6. col. 2, U ? ? ? ... 5+ dr... i+ dr... 3-4 7 U 3, 8 or 9 [month] Tribe-kings ? For the tribe-kings ...

Group B

8. col. I U (A?) Before Fr. 8, col. 2 ? ? ... six? ... 8. col. 2 U (A?) [Anthesterion?] ? Theoria to Delos ... 11 dr.; for [deity, a full-grown

offering], I2 dr.; for Apollo [epithet.;] a full-grown offering, 12 dr. On Delos, the following are sacrificed:42 for Apollo [epithet.], a

4~ Less likely, 'in lieu of a leg'. 42 Less likely, 'on Delos, the Delia'.

394 S. D. LAMBERT

Fragment Frequency38 Date Authority Festival~9 Items listed

full-grown offering, [12 dr.]; for Poseidon [epithet.], a ram [17 dr.]; for Leto a full-grown offering [12 dr.] ...

9. col. I U ? ? ? ... a third (?) of a chous . .. for

Apollo43 ...

9. col. 2 U ? ? ? ... 3 ob., . . . 15 dr.,... 4 ob.,... 4 ob., ...

12 U ? ? ? ... for the two heralds ... Eleusi-

..; at Oinoe for Artemis, a triple offering lead by a bovine, 13o dr.; [quantity of honey, price??], for the

priestess, apometra [amount]?; for Zeus Morios, a triple offering lead

by a bovine, [130? dr.], for Athena

Oinaia, a triple offering lead by a

bovine, [130 dr.] ...

FACE B (ATTIC)

Neither dates nor authority rubrics are preserved on published fragments of this face.

Fragment Frequency Date Festival (see n. 39) Items listed

Group A

I. 1-6 A? [Before I, 7-15] ? ... medimnos of barley ... Apollo...

... keramidion of wine?

... medimnos of barley

I. 7-15 A? [14 Skirophorion?] Dipolieia (...?) [the bovines] from the driving round, the first six [price]; for the priestess, apometra [amount]; the piglets [price], wood [price], holy things [price]; for the heralds who [verb] at the

Dipolieia [perquisites]. 4 A? [17 Boedromion?] Epidauria . . . at the Epidauria, for the priestess of (or

bovine for?) Demeter, 1oo dr.; for the hieromnemones (or full-grown offerings?), 240 dr.; for the attendants?, ioo dr.; for the

guardians (or for Phr-?) [offering], ioo dr.

Group B 8 U ? ? ...25+ dr.,... 2+ dr., . . . 18+ dr.,. 3+ dr.,

9. Col. col.

I Q? Panathenaia? ... a female (sc. offering) ... a select

9. col. 2 [offering] ... a hekatomb, rigging?... ... the citizens? ... nine archons?

0 U ? See comm. . . . for Pan[- offering, price]; for Zeus

Ka[taibates ..

II U ? See comm. . . . for [-], a select sow, [price]; a select sheep [price]; for Kourotrophos, [offering], price ending I dr., A/ ob.; for Leto in the P[ythion], [offering],

43 Or 'for Poseidon'



price ending I dr., I ob.; for Athena ... for Athena ...

12 U ? ? ... payments? ... for sacred things ... [according to] the drafts . . . tables for ... (of) each bowl ...

13 U ? ? ... preliminary sacrifice? .... prepare ...

5. EXPLANATORY NOTES

1. THE ATTIC MONTHS

The Athenian year started after the summer solstice (i.e. c. July). The order of the months was: Hekatombaion, Metageitnion, Boedromion, Pyanopsion, Maimakterion, Posideon, Gamelion, Anthesterion, Elaphebolion, Mounichion, Thargelion, Skirophorion.

2. CASE VARIATIONS FOR ITEMS LISTED

The calendar displays a fluctuation between nominative (e.g. 3A, col. I) and accusative (3A, col. 2) for sacrificial animals and other items provided for. This is quite normal in list-type documents (cf. Erchia Calendar, A 5, o~g, 9-Io, next item, pvua ahItacLvav) and one should resist the temptation to

overinterpret it (e.g. as indicating different sources of authority). Genitives, however, are fewer and worth reviewing:

(a) 3A, 41-3 and 55-6, where the genitive seems to signify the sense, 'x dr. in lieu of item listed; oxrlkog at 3A, 54, might unfortunately be nom., acc. or gen. (cf. Threatte ii. I3i) and it is therefore impossible to be certain whether this item, which lacks a corresponding price in the margin, was an 'in lieu' item in the genitive, like those in 55-6, its price covered by the 2 dr. 3 ob. specified at 56 (or mistakenly omitted), or a perquisite in its own right in nom./acc., i.e. a leg from the bovines whose price was accounted for in 51. Given the change of recipient in 55, the latter seems more comfortable.

(b) 3A, 8. Probably, [. . .5..] Kaapiv should be construed with (pdpog in the previous line, i.e. 'cloak of pure -'.

(c) 6A, 11-12. Precise text uncertain, but genitive ending seems probable. Might be e.g. 'quantity of x (Ov-) andy (o-) z dr.', or perhaps an 'in lieu' item for the Pythaistai, like (a), or a genitive for item(s) in a list, like (e).

(d) 9A, 3. Piztr Xoi5g. Xocg is probably gen. of the word for 'chous' (see note ad loc.), governed by TpiLy, 'a third of a chous'.

(e) IB, 7-9 and 11-I3. A list of items in gen. plural. Prima facie this looks to be the only instance of genitives for items straightforwardly in the list (the 'in lieu' sense is clearly inappropriate here). It may or may not be significant that it is on the older, Attic script, face. A possible explanation is that the genitives in 7-9 were governed by missing text above and that, despite the intervening nom./acc. in Io, the items in 1-13 have been attracted into the case by 7-9.

3. PUNCTUATION AND PARAGRAPHOI

Punctuation (of the common : type) probably occurs at I B, 5, and x3B, 2 (the latter uncertainly attributable to our texts). In neither case does it have an obvious functional purpose. It occurs once on Face A, at F3A, 52, where it serves to separate text in different columns.

On Face A, paragraphoi do not seem to be used systematically, but where they do occur, they mark off subsections within a single unit: after IA, col. 3, 26, separating, in a passage relating to the Pythais, something for Apollo from details of the procession; after 3A, 74, separating sacrifices by the Eumolpidai at the Eleusinia from other items at that festival; in 6A, where the three items are probably also linked (cf. note ad loc.). The units subdivided in this manner may be festivals, or possibly items under the same authority source. As usual the evidence of Face B is too slight to support definite

396 S. D. LAMBERT

conclusions. Paragraphoi are used liberally in Fio-II, where again they seem to mark off sub-sections, but here at an item-by-item level in a way that looks different from Face A (and is not applied in Fi and F4). The usage at 9B, 6, looks more comparable to Face A, i.e. marking off sub-sections in a large block of text dealing with a single festival (perhaps the Panathenaia).

4. ANIMAL OFFERINGS

The following animal offerings are listed: A. Ovine Attic: I select sheep (IxB, 3)- Ionic: 6 sheep for female recipients (presumably ewes-see below) at 12 dr. (3A); probably io for male recipients (presumably wethers-see below) at 15 dr. (3A); i select [sheep, i.e. wether?] at 17 dr. (3A, 69-70); 3 rams at 17 dr. (2A, ii, 3A, 64, 8A, io); I (3-year-old?) lamb (IA, 5); 2-3 sheep lacking age-teeth (o0L XFLmOyvdLtOwv)44 at 4 dr. (3A, 37-8, 6A, 9-1o and 6A, 5?)- B. Bovine Attic: 6 bovines (in a single set, IB, 9); i hekatomb (9B, ii); very uncertainly, a bovine for Demeter at 100 dr. (4B, 16). Ionic: I select cow (3A, 22); 2 bovines lacking age-teeth45 at 50o dr. the pair (3A, 50-1). C. Porcine Attic: I select sow (iiB, 2); piglets (IB, ii; only case of plural items with no number specified); Ionic: 2 sows from native stock (IA, Ii); 2 piglets at 3 dr. (3A, 24 and 78). D. Caprine Though fairly common in other Attic calendars, no caprine is (yet?) securely attested in the state calendar. Possible cases are at 8A, 3 (col. i) and in col. 3 of 3A (see comm. on 3A, 82-3) and further below, E. E. Other Attic: One female animal (9B, 9). Ionic: 2 unknown (I for female recipients, I sex unknown) at io dr. (3A, 81 and 84); I unknown (may not be animal) at ii dr. (8A, i). To judge from animals commonly included in other calendars but not specified with price in this one, these may have been young lambs or some type of goat.

Four full-grown (ep&h TzXeca) at 12 dr. for a male recipient (female price uncertain) (8A; very uncertainly 20 such animals at 4B, 17). Probably this designates technically a full-grown animal of any type, in practice usually a sheep (cf. Rosivach, Public Sacrifice, 24 n. 42; G. Dunst, ZPE 25 (1977), 262; Selinous, 28). Interestingly the price for a teleon for a male recipient is the same as for a female sheep, not a male one. The implication would seem to be that it might be a lower quality animal than a normal wether or ram (older?, might be female despite gender of recipient?, or a goat rather than sheep?).

Three triple offerings led by a bovine, probably 13O dr. (I2A). Probably a bovine at c. Ioo dr. and two sheep at c. 15 dr. (see note ad loc.).

The following animals are required to be 'select' (Kplo6g) : a cow for Athena at 3A, 22; a sheep (ewe) at IIB, 3; an animal costing 17 dr. (ovine?, male) at gA, 69-70; a sow at IIB, 2; an unknown animal

44 The yvt61tovEg are the teeth which indicate the age of a young animal, a reference to the progressive replacement of deciduous incisors in the first few years of life (e.g. for a sheep between i and 4 years, for a bovine between 1.5 and 4 years). A hXFtoyvd61ov should be an animal which lacked such teeth, but exactly what this meant in a sacrificial context is unsure. Some ancient evidence (e.g. FGH 334 Istros F23) suggests that it was an animal that had just finished shedding its deciduous incisors (i.e. if a sheep, about 4 years old), but it seems difficult in that case to explain the very low price when compared with other

animals of the same species. Though not supported by the ancient evidence, most modern scholars have taken the view that it means an animal so young that it had not grown its deciduous incisors. For a helpful recent discussion see Rosivach, Public Sacrifice, 148-53, though I am doubtful about his argument that a XEL7toyvdgoCv meant a very old animal.

45 Cf. previous note. On the normal principle that male divinities receive male offerings, female divinities female ones (cf. n. 47), it may be that one of this pair was male (for Zeus), one female (for Athena).


(female) at 9B, io; an unknown animal (probably female) for Leto at 2A, 6? The meaning is generally accepted to be 'of special high quality'.46 One might naturally expect 'select' animals to be more expensive than ordinary ones; there appears to be no firm Attic evidence to confirm this, but it seems implied for Cos in Cos Calendar, B, 5-6. Some sort of selectivity probably also underlies iB, col. 2 (the 'first' 6 bovines).

For discussion of the agricultural and ritual context of animal offerings see especially Jameson, 'Sacrifice'; also Rosivach, Public Sacrifice. The normal sacrificial principle that male divinities receive male offerings, female divinities female, is adhered to, with the exception of the ram for Pherrephatte at 3A, 64. From this principle it can be inferred that the less expensive sheep offered to female divinities were probably ewes and the more expensive ones offered to male divinities wethers (i.e. castrated males; rams are specified explicitly as such).47

The relative proportions of different animals in this calendar are broadly consistent with those attested elsewhere, in particular as regards the predominance of sheep (see Jameson, 'Sacrifice', 99; F. van Straten, Hiera Kala (Leiden, 1995), 170-86). Jameson notes the likelihood that Attica needed to import cattle for sacrificial purposes (see also Rosivach, Public Sacrifice, 158-60); that this might be the case with other animals too seems confirmed by our new reading of xA, Ii and 13, in which sows sacrificed at the Genesia are specified as being from 'home-produced stock', the apparent implication being that they might otherwise have been imported.

Prices are broadly (but not precisely) in line with those attested in other late 5th- and 4th-century Attic calendars. If Plutarch can be believed, in the original Solonian calendar prices were 5 dr. for a (select?) bovine, I dr. for a (select?) sheep (Plut. Sol. 23. 3). The 5:1 bovine-to-sheep price ratio is approximately in line with our prices, but the I,ooo-2,ooo% inflation in animal prices over 200 years implicit in these figures (higher inflation for bovines than sheep) is notable. A full explanation will be complex; one factor seems likely to be increased demand for animals consequent on a substantial increase in the population of Attica during the sixth and fifth centuries.

The price data on the Attic face are too slight to support analysis. There are slight suggestions of both equivalence with the Ionic face (4B) and non-equivalence (xiB).

On the ritual significance of piglets (twice probably listed without recipient, once for Kourotrophos) see Jameson, 'Sacrifice', 98.

5. NON-ANIMAL ITEMS

In addition to the animal offerings, 'extras' are sometimes specified: Barley: at xB, I and 6 without informative context (at 6 probably following wine); 3A, 25-6 and 57-8

both listed after animal offerings (a cow for Athena + hierosyna and a piglet for Kourotrophos; two bovines for Zeus Phratrios and Athena Phratria + hierosyna and perquisites) and immediately preceded by a (different) damaged word in the dative which in neither case can be confidently restored (see notes ad loc.). At 3A, 25-6, the barley is listed before wine; at 57-8 the text breaks off after the barley. Probably in each case the amount specified was a medimnos (3A, 58 might be plural medimnoi), i.e. about 52 cc., cf. M. Lang and M. Crosby, Agora, x. 2-23, 34-6, 39-48. Price nowhere preserved (on barley prices see Pritchett, op. cit. below, 185-6; R. Stroud, Hesp. supp. 29 (1998), 74). Barley was the staple grain of Attica.

46 Pace Rosivach, Public Sacrifice, 23, there seems no reason to doubt this obvious sense. The concept of selection of choice animals is very common in Greek sacrificial practice, cf. Agora, xvi. 75, Cos Calendar etc.

47 On this see Jameson, 'Sacrifice', 91; van Straten, Hiera Kala, I81-86, and most recently S. Scullion, ZPE i34 (2001),

117-19. Scullion makes a good case for supposing that the recipient of a pregnant sheep at Tetrapolis Calendar, A, col. I, 28, was female (cf. Jameson, 98), but his conjecture, ['PFitL Mrlrpt OE]35v, remains unconvincing in the absence of evidence, in a sacrificial calendar or comparable context, for

the use of these two names in conjunction or for the sort of clarificatory description of the Mother (or any other deity) which he posits. One tends to think that those for whom such calendars were inscribed knew what deities they sacrificed to and did not require 'clarification'. There is insufficient basis for confident conjecture, but the most likely possibilities are, a topographical or other description of a recipient, e.g. [Fi1t (or other female deity with few letters) Ev . . c. 5 . .]tv, or perhaps [Ev 'A~tcrovpi]mv (the absence of stated recipient would be unique in what survives of Tetrapolis Calendar, but does occur occasionally in ours).

398 S. D. LAMBERT

Wine: probably at IB, 5 (a keramidion?, listed before barley); at IA, 22 (50 measures of some description, or perhaps rather a (or more than one) 50oth(s), for I dr.), listed at the end of a set of items for a sacrificial event (probably the Genesia); perhaps similar at 2A, 19 and 9A, 3 (third of a chous?); 3A, I (restored), 6 choes, listed before hierosyna at the end of an unknown sacrificial event, with oil and honey; 3A, 27, an amphora, listed at the end of a sacrificial event (cow for Athena, piglet for Kourotrophos) after barley. In the Attic system of liquid measures an amphora or metretes (= about 39 litres) was equivalent to 12 choes (about 3.28 litres; cf. Agora, x (1964), 44 and 58-9; W.

K. Pritchett, Hesp. 25 (1956), 195-6. I

chous usually = 12 kotylai; but in the 'Attic Stelai' the term stamnos is also used, Pritchett, 196). The term keramion could also be used in Attica as a liquid unit, including for wine (cf. e.g. Dem. 35. 10, 18; IG ii'. 1368 (Roman period); 1672. 13, pitch) but it seems to have been a variable measure (see Pritchett, 201; Viedebantt, RE 21 (1921), 254) and there appears to be no clear evidence as to what, if anything, it was equivalent to in Attica. Here the diminutive reinforces the impression that it might have been

deliberately vague, as it were a 'jug' of wine (for the relative vagueness of the Attic face cf. IB, 12, piglets specified, but with no numbers). On Attic wine prices see Pritchett, 199-203, who finds that in the late- fifth and fourth centuries they were normally in range c. 4-20 dr. an amphora. Add to those mentioned

by Pritchett IG ii2. 1672. 204, 16 dr. for two metretai; Tetrapolis Calendar, A col. 2, probably I dr. a chous

(restoring x6^[g H] at 45, X[6og H] at 50); unpublished, fourth cent., 2/2 dr. a chous (where the relatively high price may be because it is a perquisite, not for ritual use). At these prices one would expect a chous to cost 2 ob.-2/2 dr., an amphora c. 4-30 dr., which suggests that the amount of wine that cost I dr. at IA, 22 might have been a (or some) fiftieth(s) of an amphora.

Oil: (restored) at 3A, 2, a chous, price not preserved (for oil prices cf. Pritchett, 184), listed after 6 choes of wine and before a half-chous of honey. On the chous see above. Also occurs at 2A, 16, shortly after honey, and possibly at IA, 2o, before wine. For oil, wine and honey listed together in comparable contexts see IG i3. 232. 59-62; IG ii2. 1184. 9-II; 1356.

Honey: occurs at 3A, 3, a half-chous, listed before hierosyna, and after wine and oil. Price unknown. Also at 2A, 14, shortly before oil, and possibly at 12A, 6.

The Vrlpdalhov at the Genesia (xA, io) will by definition have contained no wine (cf. Selinous, 72). Interestingly, wine is also provided for at this festival (IA, 22). Presumably therefore it was used in some other part of the ritual, or else was a perquisite. Indeed, the significant question about all these extras is whether they were perquisites for priests or other officials or were supplied for use in the sacrificial ritual. Both are attested elsewhere (e.g. IG iij. 1184, priestess to be supplied with such items for the purpose of the festival; Phratries T3, 4-8, where they are among hierosyna, i.e. perquisites, for the priest). One may suspect ritual use, since other arrangements are made for payments to officiants (see below, 6), but this cannot strictly be inferred from the text, which in every case is either unclear or ambiguous. At 3A, 1-3, wine, oil and honey are followed by hierosyna, perhaps suggesting ritual use, but in col. 2 hierosyna are listed in addition to perquisites in kind for other officials; since we lack the text immediately preceding 3A, i we cannot be certain that this was not the case there. At 3A, 25-7 and 57-8 the answer is concealed in the damaged datives in 25 and 57. At 57, the dative, T[. .4. .]EL comes after names of officials in the dative followed by perquisites; but no known title of an official appears to suit the

remaining letters. Wood and hiera: these items occur uniquely at IB, 12-3, along with 'piglets', after the apometra for

the priestess at the Dipolieia. Hiera are presumably minor incidentals for the ritual; wood will be for

burning/cooking sacrificial items. Cf. Salaminioi Calendar, where provision is regularly made for Iacc

Fcp' kEpo-c KCL Eig T cia (3 or 3/2 dr.); 23B, 3. On the cloak for Athena for which provision is made at 3A, 7-8, the various items for the Pythais

procession at IA, 26-30, the 'rigging'? at gB, 11-2, and the various items at 3A, 9-1I and 12B, see notes ad loc.

6. PAYMENTS TO OFFICIANTS

There are two types of payments made to priestly or other officials in this calendar: payments in kind or explicitly in lieu; and monetary payments, normally designated as hierosyna or apometra.


Payments in kind or in lieu occur only at 3A, col. 2 (Synoikia; another possible case at 6A, 11-2, see above 2(c)). They are, for (apparently all four) tribe-kings, a monetary payment in lieu of a portion of meat (the back of a sheep) and, on the following day, for the tribe-king of the Geleontes apparently a payment in kind (the leg of a bovine, cf. above 2(a)), and for the herald payments in lieu of bovine portions. These are hierosyna in all but name (not so called because the recipients were not priests?). In these cases separate provision is in fact made for hierosyna (presumably for the officiating priestly personnel). These perquisites look to be part of the rather self-serving system specific to sacrifices on the authority of the tribe-kings.

apometra: IB, Io, for priestess (probably of Athena Polias) at the Dipolieia, amount unknown; 6A, 3, for priestess of Athena Polias, 30, 8o or 12o dr.; 12A, 7, probably for priestess of Artemis, amount unknown; 3A, 76, for priestess of Demeter, Ioo dr. Payments in amounts comparable with these apometra (whether or not so described) may have been made to the priestess of Demeter and possibly also to Epidaurian officials in the context of the Epidauria (4B, see note ad loc.), but this is not sure.

hierosyna: 3A, 4, amount unknown; 23, amount unknown; 39 and probably 6A, 6, 4 dr. 2 ob. for a sheep lacking age-teeth; 3A, 52, 16 dr. for two bovines lacking age-teeth.

All apometra and hierosyna in Attica, where expressed in monetary terms, have now been conveniently collected by W. T. Loomis, Wages, Welfare Costs and Inflation in Classical Athens (Ann Arbor, 1998), ch. 4- Though occasionally in kind (e.g. IG i3. 250), apometra were typically, as in our instances, monetary payments, in round, usually relatively high amounts. In preserved instances, in this calendar and elsewhere in the Attic evidence, the recipients are priestesses (the situation in IG i3. 250 is not quite clear); why this should be is obscure. Hierosyna were normally smaller and payable to either priests or priestesses (for the latter, IG ii2. 1356). It is clear from other contexts (e.g. Phratries, T3, 4-8; SEG 32. 150) that they would typically be portions of the animal sacrificed; but they could include monetary payments in addition to (as Phratries, T3), or in lieu of (e.g. explicitly at Salaminioi Calendar, 35-6) these payments in kind. In the latter case the amounts were graded according to the victim sacrificed (most clearly in Tetrapolis Calendar, but our calendar seems to have had a similar system), presumably reflecting the value of the portions substituted. For both apometra and hierosyna, it is usually, as in our case, unclear how far the payments were supposed to offset expenses, or were personal emoluments.

Other officials are mentioned as recipients of payments, but insufficient context survives to make clear what the type or amount of the payment was: heralds at the Dipolieia (IB, 14); heralds in an Eleusinian context (12A, 2); the pythaistai (6A, 11-2).

British School at Athens University of Liverpool

STEPHEN LAMBERT

PLATE 31

(a) I

(b)

LAMBERT THE SACRIFICIAL CALENDAR OF ATHENS

(a) Fragment I, Face A. Photo: Epigraphical Museum, Athens. (b) Fragment I, Face B. Photo: Epigraphical Museum, Athens.

PLATE 32


Fragment 2, Face A. Photo: American School of Classical Studies at Athens: Agora Excavations.

PLATE 33

:::: ;s

i:::, -:--

I

(a)

(b)


Photo: (a) Fragment 3, Face A. Photo: American School of Classical Studies at Athens: Agora Excavations. (b) Fragment 6, Face A. Photo: Epigraphical Museum, Athens.

PLATE 26

(a)

(b)

LAMBERT

THE

SACRIFICIAL

CALENDAR

OF

ATHENS

(a) Fragment

8, Face

A. Photo:

American

School

of Classical

Studies

at Athens:

Agora

Excavations.

(b) Fragment

8, Face

B. Photo:

American

School

of Classical

Studies

at Athens:

Agora

Excavations.

PLATE 36

(a)

(b)


(a) Fragment io, Face B. Photo: American School of Classical Studies at Athens: Agora Excavations. (b) Fragment ii, Face B. Photo: American School of Classical Studies at Athens: Agora Excavations.

The sacrificial calendar of Athens

Documents

Transcript of The sacrificial calendar of Athens