Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 May 2015
ΔεȖρ’ [’ Eλε
υσινίον [τρ
ιττύς τελ[ε
υτāɩ, Περαι
õν δἑ τριττ
ύς ἄρχεται
Thus IG I2 897, a trittys marker from the Peiraieus. It is likely that I2 885, a horos from the Agora with the same formula, listed the same two trittyes in the same order.
IG I2 901, a Peiraieus marker of earlier date and written from right to left, also names a trittys of Hippothontis. Wade-Gery restored the first four lines as follows.
ΔεȖρε Η[ɩπποθο
ν[τί]ς φυ[λέ τελε
υτᾱι Τε (or Ζε) [---ο
[ν] δέ τριτ[τύς
Eleusis was the largest coastal deme of Hippothontis and Peiraieus the largest city deme. Therefore the trittyes Eleusis and Peiraieus must be coastal and city respectively. Accordingly, it was taken for granted by Wade-Gery that IG I2 901 contained the name of Hippothontis’ inland trittys. Since no deme of Hippothontis starts with either zeta or with tau, it apparently follows, if Wade-Gery’s restoration is correct, that inland Hippothontis was not named after one of its constituent demes. Nor, like some other trittyes, can it have been named after one of the twelve poleis settled, according to Athenian tradition, by Kekrops. Although a parallel would exist (the inland trittys of the phyle Oineis was called Pedieis) an appropriate or even remotely plausible name for inland Hippothontis does not readily come to mind and one is puzzled that Dekeleia, the name both of the tribe’s largest inland deme and one of Kekrops’ poleis, was not chosen.
1 On possible functions of the Peiraieus trittyes horoi, see Wade-Gery, H.T.Mélanges Gustave Glotz, Vol. 2 (Paris, 1932), p. 883.Google Scholar
2 On the Agora markers and their functions, see especially Raubitschek, A.E.AJA 9 (1956), 279–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 As Eliot, (Coastal Demes of Attika [Toronto, 1962], p. 148Google Scholar note 8) points out, the restoration of Pedieis = inland Oineis (see below) as the second trittys is conceivable. If it is correct, then the preceding trittys would have to be Lakiadai, city Oineis (on the order of the trittyes in the horoi see again below).
4 Wade-Gery, op.cit., p. 887.
5 On the criterion of their PA aggregates: see the table at Gomme, A.W., The Population of Athens (Oxford, 1933), p. 63.Google Scholar As the evidence stands at present, with the exception of Skambonidai (see note 17 below), all trittyes which are named after one of their component demes received the name of the largest (taking bouleutic representation and the number of demotai listed in Prosopographia Attica as criteria of size).
6 Wade-Gery, loc.cit. at note 4 above.
7 For example, Tetrapolis-coastal Aiantis; see IG I2 900.
8 See Philochoros, , FGH 328 F94.Google Scholar
9 See SEG x 373 = xxi 110 and IG I2 899 as restored by Wade-Gery, op.cit. pp. 884–6. On Lewis’ view that Pedieis must be city Oineis, see below.
10 Equal largest, on PA aggregate, if Hamaxanteia was inland. Dekeleia’s bouleutic representation is at present unknown.
11 See Philochoros, loc.cit.
12 Lewis, D.M.Historia 12 (1963), 33.Google Scholar
13 See especially Jacoby on Philochoros, loc.cit.
14 Pollux iv 105.
15 Note the provenience, Chaidari, of IG II 2 1867 and 6090.
16 Lewis, loc.cit. at note 12.
17 In my doctoral dissertation, The Demes of Kleisthenes (Monash University, 1972).
18 IG I2 883 (.. ]αμεον), 884 (Lakiadai), and SEC xxi 109 (Skambonidai), all from Athens, are the exceptions. Their date is c.420.
19 See Raubitschek, loc.cit. at note 2.
20 At SEC xxi 112 is printed Merritt’s, B.D. (Hesperia xxx [1961], 264)Google Scholar restoration of Aναφλυστίον for the genitive of the first Antiochid trittys at SEG x 374. Since the inscription is not stoichedon I see no objection to reading ‘Aλοπεκέον.
21 Lines 1–4 contain the first part of the standard rubric of the formula I stones of c.450, the latter part of line 8 and those following the second. Lines 5–7 and the beginning of line 8 contained formulae, now illegible, which the latter markers did not include.
22 See Lewis, op.cit., 30.
23 See IG II 2 1149 and 1153.
24 Lewis, op.cit., 28.
25 Raubitschek, op.cit., 281.
26 Eliot, , Coastal Demes, pp. 149–150Google Scholar note 27.
27 Hommel, H.Klio 33 (1940), 183–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28 Lewis, op.cit., 29
29 See note 17 above.
30 Wade-Gery, op.cit., pp. 855–6.
31 Hommel, op.cit., 184 felt that the reading 𝛍 could not be ruled out, but, unlike Wade-Gery, he relied only on a photograph.
32 Hommel, op.cit., 185.
33 Eliot, , Coastal Demes, p. 148Google Scholar note 19.
34 See note 19 to his commentary on Philochoros, loc.cit.
