Last updated 2nd August 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. As we resolve the issues resulting from this, we are also experiencing some delays to publication. We are working hard to restore services as soon as possible and apologise for the inconvenience. 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: 23 December 2013
The appearance of a further instalment of these ‘Studies’ has been regrettably delayed, owing to several reasons. The present article is planned on different lines from its predecessor (JHS li (1931), 139–63), for, instead of offering a comprehensive study of one reconstructed stele, it attempts to review the post-Euclidean Hekatompedon-lists down to 390/89 as a group, and to establish their chronological sequence, in the light of fresh discoveries. It is proposed, also, to deal in subsequent articles with the corresponding lists for the Parthenon and the Opisthodomos in this period, and to continue the study of the later lists both of the Treasures of Athena and of those of the ‘Other Gods’ into the second half of the fourth century.
The opportunity of working continuously in the Epigraphical Museum for several weeks during the summer of 1931 enabled me to recognise that in many instances two or more fragments of these Traditiones which had been published separately could be assigned to one stele, and also to identify a few still unpublished pieces belonging to this series.
1 That this article appears over the names of the late Allen West and myself is a natural, but inadequate recognition of his share in its production. I first learned of his interest in the Traditiones in 1928 when we began to correspond on the subject, and we had long ago planned to publish jointly our views and discoveries in this field. After my own work on the stones in Athens in 1931, and a visit which he paid to me in England in 1932, a first draft of this article was jointly prepared, but our preoccupation with other, and separate, tasks delayed its completion. And now the tragic death of the more active partner, in a motor accident in September 1936, has left me with the difficult task of completing it with the aid of his letters and notes. In a few places I have modified, or even rejected, his suggestions, but only after most carefully re-examining the evidence, and I of course accept responsibility for its present form; but nothing can make up for the loss of his whole-hearted enthusiasm in the pursuit of the truth, or of his patient criticism. [A. M. W.]
2 Professor Ferguson, who generously acknowledges (op. cit., p. 95) the use made of this information, and has most skilfully woven it into the texture of his book, has, unfortunately, not been able everywhere to avoid interpretations, or textual emendations, based on readings which we have subsequently corrected. These, however, are seldom very important, and affect but little the value of his chapters dealing with the post-Euclidean Traditiones.
3 In favour of 406/5 are Ferguson (following Lehner and Kirchner), op. cit., pp. 10 ff., and Kolbe (reviewing Ferguson, book in Gött. Gel. Anz. 1934, 6, pp. 250 ff.Google Scholar); Dinsmoor, , AJA 1932, pp. 150 f.Google Scholar, after fully reviewing the evidence, decides in favour of 404/3, and later in an article written jointly with Ferguson, , AJA 1933, pp. 52–7Google Scholar, claims to confirm this conclusion by dating the much-disputed final list of the Proneos, i.2 255a in 405/4. Kolbe's criticisms, op. cit., pp. 252 f., seem to carry conviction, though his own restoration of the Proneos-list is not completely satisfying.
4 In the second part of this article, to appear later.
5 This combination is discussed below, pp. 78–83.
6 Note the punctuation, (:), the gamma with cross-stroke equal in length to the upright, the smallish theta and omikron, level with the top of the line; for the date, see below, p. 86.
7 Cf. JHS 1931, p. 151Google Scholar.
8 This date will be discussed in the second part.
9 The order of the Opisthodomos and Parthenon-fragments not included in this table will be discussed elsewhere. In any case, the evidence from length of line does not concern them, as they received so few additions.
10 See Ferguson, op. cit., pp. 50 ff.
11 For such names, see P.A. 4662–84. Only one Elpinike (P.A. 4677) appears to be known in addition to the sister of Kimon (P.A. 4678).
12 Mention of the Hekatompedon is not unlikely, in contrast to the items transferred from the ἀρχαἴος νεώς in l. 2. Another possibility would be 
, but as the preceding objects are weighed the repetition would be pointless.
13 This is a certain restoration, in the light of the list of the following year (i.2 265).
14 See Hesychius, s.v. Παᾶπις, quoted by Kirchner in his commentary on this line in IG ii.2 1383.
15 As Π. was an Egyptian, perhaps ἐ[ξ Αἰγύπτο] would be a likely alternative.
16 Cf. Ferguson, op. cit., p. 53.
17 This is, I think, preferable to West's suggestion (following Lehner, who did not know the exact description of the item, see his Schatzverzeichnisse, p. 36) that we should restore here 
which cannot be traced in any list prior to 1393, l. 29 (397/6 B.C.).
18 As in 1425, l. 91, 
. Another possibility would be [Χαλκιδικ]ά, on the analogy of the ποτέρια Χαλκιδικά in i.2 280, l. 86, cf. Aristoph. Eq. l. 237, but we do not hear of Chalcidian φιάλαι.
19 The presence of the wooden handle would account for the weight being perhaps unexpectedly large. West had suggested 
, but μία is superfluous, and ταύτην unnecessary.
20 To appear in Part II.
21 Op. cit., p. 57, note 1.
22 Cf. Ferguson, op. cit., Chs. i., vi., xi. It might be added that if 1383 belonged to 407/6 we should expect to find among the ἐπέτεια the knife with the ivory sheath dedicated ‘by the Boule in the year of Antigenes,’ which is not recorded there.
23 IG i.2 390a + 369; ii.2 1502. I have discussed these lists, and the other evidence for the Nikai, in the Centenary volume of the Athens Archaeological Society (in the press, April 1938).
24 Τιμόλς, P.A. 13792 (only). If the name had ended in -έλας or -ίλας there would presumably have been traces of Ε or Ι on the stone before the Λ, but this is not so.
25 Cf. P.A. 10225.
26 Op. cit., p. 57, note I.
27 Cf. Ferguson's table, op. cit. p. 9. Kolbe's scepticism as to the existence of the reversed tribal order of Secretaries to this board, Gött. Gel. Anz. 1934, pp. 251 fGoogle Scholar. seems too sweeping: it seems preferable to believe in the system, at any rate after 406/5, but to admit the possibility of exceptions to the rule.
28 Cf. p. 78 above, note 23.
29 When I first copied this many years ago the fragment was complete, but cracked through: I refound the missing piece and joined them together in 1931. [A. M. W.]
30 Here as ἀριστεῑο[ν].
31 Ferguson, op. cit., p. 138, note 2, seems to establish this conclusively.
32 Op. cit., p. 113, note 2.
33 To this year we propose to date 1385 (below, p. 86), where this χερνιβεῑον is to be restored after the πίναξ, in l. 15 f.
34 It is probable, but not quite certain, that the Г of 
was the last letter of l. 2, and not the first of l. 3, which is rather more crowded than l. 2.
35 This we hope to discuss on a subsequent occasion.
36 JHS 1908, p. 296Google Scholar, 2, and p. 301, 4.
37 P. 79.
38 For another 
, towards the end of the 4th century, see IG ii.2 3455 ( = P.A. 11942).
39 For Andokides' own statement as to his tenure of this office cf. P.A. 828, esp. p. 63, ad fin.
40 The length of the name and demotic of the Secretary are unknown, and may have been followed by a number of vacant spaces, if, as we suggest, the verb only began in the following line.
41 IG ii.2. Pars. ii. Add. p. 798.
42 P. 71 ad fin.
43 Restored incorrectly as the crown dedicated by Lysander; see below.
44 Lysander's crown weighs 66 drs., 5 obols, Aristomache's 26 drs., 3 obols.
45 We have drawn attention to the supposed allocation of silver for their manufacture indicated by the fragment (1503) from the foot of the stele 1370 + 1371 + 1384, belonging to the previous year. As official dedications by the City, they might justly occupy, on their first appearance, the first place in the list.
46 The separate list containing the Eleusinian treasures transferred to the Hekatompedon (1375 does not furnish an exact parallel, for it records a transfer from another sanctuary, and not a list of new dedications.
47 The hydriai, pinax and chernibeion together would only require about 18 lines (ca. 820 letters).
