Papers of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens — 5.1886-1890

Seite: 172
Lizenz: Creative Commons - Namensnennung - Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen Nutzung / Bestellung
1 cm


site of the deme of Dekeleia, a stele, on the front of which were pre-
served 57 lines of a phratrial decree, dated in the year 396/5 B. c. and
dealing with the phratry's most vital duties. This was published by
Koumanoudes in the 'EcS^epi?'ApxaooXoyiKrj (1883, G9ff.) and by
Kolder in the Addenda to the second volume of the Attic Corpus
(841b). It has been made the subject of S2>ecial articles by Szanto in
the Rheinisehes Museum (1885, 506-520) and by Gilbert in the Jahr-
biicher fur Philohgie (1887, 23-28). Szanto's paper is ingenious and
suggestive, but is pervaded by a most improbable view of the relation
of phratry to gens, and marred besides by some downright and inex-
cusable blunders. Gilbert corrects Szanto on one important point, the
question as to where that portion of the decree which was intended to
be of permanent application begins, but hazards a theory of his own
which is now demonstrably false. For in the summer of 1888 the stone
bearing this inscription was cleaned, with the result that the back also
was found to be inscribed. Of the new text, published by Pantazides
in the'E0?j/xept9 (newspaper) of Sept, 1/13, 1888, and by Lolling in
the 'ApxaioXoyitcov AeXrtov for August, lines 1—55 were engraved at
the same time with the portion previously published and form its con-
tinuation. These lines, like those on the front, are engraved aroLyj}-
86v, with occasional aberrations. Two or three lines are apparently
all that is lost at the end of the part on the face of the stone. Lines
56-68 were added many years afterward. So far as I can judge from
an excellent squeeze (I have not seen the stone), this portion would
belong to the third cent, B. C. or the first part of the second. The let-
ters are extremely irregular and unevenly spaced, which makes a more
exact determination of the date peculiarly difficult. Ae/ceXee? for
Ae/ceXeet? in B, 65 is probably only a blunder of the stone-cutter. I
give below the text of the whole document, with the restorations of
Kohler and Lolling, followed by a translation. The foot-notes do not
touch upon orthographical peculiarities, of which there are several.


Face A.
Aio? Qparpio

iepeus ©eoScopo? EiK^avrlSo 11 av\e<ypaijre xal earrjae t?;v o-t^Xijv. |

"The words 0e6Sapos EvipavriSo are engraved in rasura. The letters, if regularly
distributed, would have just filled the space. Instead of this, the letters of 0e68upos
loading ...