DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45246#0081
EPHESOS.
69
καλοΰσι. We shall have occasion frequently to refer
to this important passage. Without committing our-
selves to its entire historical accuracy, we may safely
with Schomann (Griech. Alt. i, 138) accept the con-
clusion, that the tribe named οί Έφεσεΐ? comprised the
original inhabitants whom the Attic colonists found
in the land. 01 Εύώνυμοι represented the Attic
colonists themselves, Εύώνυμον being a well-known
Attic deme. Τήϊοι and Καρηναΐοι indicate settlers
brought in from Teos and Karene*. I take Βέννα
to be a blunder for Βέμβινα, due either to Stephanos
or to his copyist, and in the gloss above quoted I
would write throughout έν Βεμβίνη and Βεμβιναΐοι.
The gloss itself, instead of following the gloss Βέννα'
πόλι? Θράκη? κ.τ.λ., should be placed after the gloss
on Βέμβινα’ κώμη τή? Νεμέα?. ' Ελλάνικο? δε Βέμβινον
και πόλιν φησίν. ό πολίτη? Βεμβινίτη?, ώ? Σταγειρίτη?.
παρά δε Έιανω Βεμβινάτη?. εοικεν ούν Αίγινάτη? και
Αίγινήτη? κατά τροπήν, ώ? Πανύασι? εν 'Ηράκλειά? πρώτη·
δέρμα τε θήρειον Βεμβινήταο λέοντο?.
και άλλο?’
και Βεμβινηταο πελώρου δέρμα λέοντο?.
τδ εκ τόπου επίρρημα Βεμβίνηθεν, και εί? τόπον Βεμβίναδε.
In the inscriptions we find invariably Βεμβίνη? (Βεμ-
βείνη?) or Βεμβειναΐοι. Bembina was a village of
Argolis hardly two miles from the Nemean temple
(Strabo, viii, p. 377 ; Theokr. xxv, 202 ; Pliny, N. H.
iv, 6, § 10). It was here that visitors were shown the
den of the famous lion (compare Pausan. ii, 15, § 2).
The statements of Ephoros, when thus corrected,
concerning the Ephesian tribes, are borne out with
slight exceptions by the inscriptions hitherto dis-
covered. In the series of honorary decrees of the
third and fourth centuries b.c. (Nos. ccccxlvii foil.)
five tribes only are mentioned, viz. Έφεσεΐ?, Τήϊοι,
Καρηναΐοι, Εύώνυμοι, Βεμβιναΐοι. In the documents of
the Roman period we find six tribes spoken of: see
No. dxciv, where C. Vibius Salutaris dedicates an
altar to the ‘sex phylais’; and compare his bequest,
No. cccclxxxi, lines 90 foil, and notes. From No.
dlxxviii we discover that the additional tribe owed
its name and perhaps its origin to Augustus : it was
called Σεβαστή. This document (No. dlxxviii) is an
important one, for besides other information it sup-
plies a complete list of the tribes. It is highly
probable that at Ephesos, as at Athens (Part i,
p. 65), the tribes had a recognised order of pre-
cedence. If so, their order will be indicated by this
document: I. Έφεσεΐ?. 2. Σεβαστή. 3. Τήϊοι. 4. Καρη-
ναΐοι. 5· Εύώνυμοι. 6. Βεμβειναΐοι (Βεμβιναΐοι, Βεμ-
βίνη?) f.
The only subdivision of the tribe at Ephesos, so
far as the inscriptions inform us, was the Thousand
or χϊλιαστύ?, i. e. a group of a thousand households,
corresponding very much to the φρατρία existing in
Attica and elsewhere. Similarly at Chios we hear
of ή χιλιαστύ? ή Χαλκιδέων (Rhein. Mus. XXII, p. 326) :
at Methymna (C. I. Add. 2168 b) ά γελληστυ? a ’Ερυ-
θραιών] : so at Kos (Bulletin de Corr. Hellen. v, 1881,
p. 211; compare Part ii, p. 64). In a Samian decree
(Hicks, Manual of Greek Historical Inscriptions,
No. 135) we read: και έπικληρώσαι αύτού? έπι φυλήν
κ\αί. χιλιαστύν και έκατοστύν και γένο?. At Lampsakos
(C. I. Add. 3641 3), Byzantion (C. I. 2060), Herakleia
(Ain. Polior. 11) we hear of the Hekatostys but not
of the Chiliastys. At Kalymna(Part ii, No. ccxxxn,
foil.) we read : έπεκλαρώθη έπι φυλάν και δάμον έλαχε
φυλά? Κυδρηλείων, δάμου ’Αμφιπετράν etc. At Tenos
(Part ii, No. CCCLXXVl) : και προ? φυλήν και φρα[τρίαν
προσγραφήναι] οποίαν άμ βούλωνται. And these exam-
ples may be illustrated by the phrase frequently
occurring in Attic honorary decrees: και είναι αύτω
γράφασθαι φυλή? και δήμου και φρατρία? ή? αν βούληται
(C. I. A. ii, No. 243 and passim·, compare Part i,
No. xi). The invariable phrase in the Ephesian
honorary decrees is : έπικληρώσαι δε αύτδν και εί?
φυλήν και χιλιαστύν J. Accordingly we may con-
clude that the Chiliastys was at Ephesos the only
subdivision recognised between the tribe (φυλή)
and the γένο?. It seems unlikely (as Menadier
argues, p. 25) that if the Hekatostys existed, it
should be entirely omitted from the many surviving
records. Menadier has been at pains to draw up a
list (p. 24) of all the known Ephesian Chiliastyes ; dis-
tributing them among the six Tribes. Before his
treatise came into my hands I had also done the
same; and as my list is made from a fresh exam-
ination of the marbles, and is therefore more com-
plete in several particulars, I append it here.
1. Έφεσεΐ?·. Nos. CCCCXLVII, CCCCXLIX, CCCCLIII,
CCCCLVIII, CCCCLX, CCCCLXI, CCCCLXXI, DLXXVIII,
DLXXIX, (DXC).
(1) Άργαδεύ?: Nos. CCCCXLVII, CCCCXLIX, CCCCLX.
(2) Βωρεύ?: Nos. CCCCLVIII, CCCCLXXI; Βορεύ?,
No. DLXXVIII.
(3) Αεβέδιο?: Nos. CCCCLIII, DLXXIX.
(4) Ο’ίνωφ: Nos. CCCCLXI, DLXXVIII.
Perhaps [’/lpya<5e]vy, or [5<»pe]vy in No. dxc.
2. Σεβαστή: Nos. DLXXVIII, (dxc).
(1) Ααβάνδηο?: Nos. DLXXVIII, DXC.
(2) Σιεύ? : No. DLXXVIII.
(3) .... μηο? : No. DXC.
* Καρήυη was a town of Mysia, north of Atarneus, and not far from the coast: see Herod, vii, 42; Diod. Sic. xx, hi. The MSS
vary between Εαρινή and Καρήνη, but Steph. Byz. writes it with ή s. v. Καρήνη, though with ϊ s. v. Biwa. No coin or inscription from the
place is known, nor is the site identified. The Ephesian tribe is always spelt Καρηναΐοι in the inscriptions.
t In No. dii Mr. Wood (Inscriptions from the Great Theatre, 7) reads φυλής ’Αδριανης, without any sign of the stone being fractured.
At Prusa in the second century a.d. the tribes were still fully recognised, though most of them had been renamed after members of the
Imperial house. They were twelve in number, and the ninth was 'Αδριανη (Waddington-Le Bas, Part v, Nos. 1176, IT77)·
I Other references to the χϊλιαστύς will be found in the Bulletin de Corr. Ηεΐΐέη. iv (1880), p. 437 > vii (1883), pp. 39, 517 foil.
Elesych. S.V. χειλιαστύες· al φυλαί, and S.V. εκατοστός' ως χιλιοστός· συγγένεια: also among his Γλώσσαι Εθνικαι, S.V. Σαμιοι' χιλιασυες (sic).
At Smyrna, in the decree to incorporate the Magnesians (C. I. 3137, line 75) no mention is made of any subdivision of the tribe ; και
ποιησομαι αυτούς πολίτας πάντας και τούς έκγόνους αυτών έφ’ ’ίση και όμοια τοΐς αλλοις πΌλί[ταΐί], και εις φυλάς αυτους επικληρωσας καταχωριώ εις ην αν
έκαστοι λάχωσιν (from the oath of the Smyrnaeans).
PART III. T
69
καλοΰσι. We shall have occasion frequently to refer
to this important passage. Without committing our-
selves to its entire historical accuracy, we may safely
with Schomann (Griech. Alt. i, 138) accept the con-
clusion, that the tribe named οί Έφεσεΐ? comprised the
original inhabitants whom the Attic colonists found
in the land. 01 Εύώνυμοι represented the Attic
colonists themselves, Εύώνυμον being a well-known
Attic deme. Τήϊοι and Καρηναΐοι indicate settlers
brought in from Teos and Karene*. I take Βέννα
to be a blunder for Βέμβινα, due either to Stephanos
or to his copyist, and in the gloss above quoted I
would write throughout έν Βεμβίνη and Βεμβιναΐοι.
The gloss itself, instead of following the gloss Βέννα'
πόλι? Θράκη? κ.τ.λ., should be placed after the gloss
on Βέμβινα’ κώμη τή? Νεμέα?. ' Ελλάνικο? δε Βέμβινον
και πόλιν φησίν. ό πολίτη? Βεμβινίτη?, ώ? Σταγειρίτη?.
παρά δε Έιανω Βεμβινάτη?. εοικεν ούν Αίγινάτη? και
Αίγινήτη? κατά τροπήν, ώ? Πανύασι? εν 'Ηράκλειά? πρώτη·
δέρμα τε θήρειον Βεμβινήταο λέοντο?.
και άλλο?’
και Βεμβινηταο πελώρου δέρμα λέοντο?.
τδ εκ τόπου επίρρημα Βεμβίνηθεν, και εί? τόπον Βεμβίναδε.
In the inscriptions we find invariably Βεμβίνη? (Βεμ-
βείνη?) or Βεμβειναΐοι. Bembina was a village of
Argolis hardly two miles from the Nemean temple
(Strabo, viii, p. 377 ; Theokr. xxv, 202 ; Pliny, N. H.
iv, 6, § 10). It was here that visitors were shown the
den of the famous lion (compare Pausan. ii, 15, § 2).
The statements of Ephoros, when thus corrected,
concerning the Ephesian tribes, are borne out with
slight exceptions by the inscriptions hitherto dis-
covered. In the series of honorary decrees of the
third and fourth centuries b.c. (Nos. ccccxlvii foil.)
five tribes only are mentioned, viz. Έφεσεΐ?, Τήϊοι,
Καρηναΐοι, Εύώνυμοι, Βεμβιναΐοι. In the documents of
the Roman period we find six tribes spoken of: see
No. dxciv, where C. Vibius Salutaris dedicates an
altar to the ‘sex phylais’; and compare his bequest,
No. cccclxxxi, lines 90 foil, and notes. From No.
dlxxviii we discover that the additional tribe owed
its name and perhaps its origin to Augustus : it was
called Σεβαστή. This document (No. dlxxviii) is an
important one, for besides other information it sup-
plies a complete list of the tribes. It is highly
probable that at Ephesos, as at Athens (Part i,
p. 65), the tribes had a recognised order of pre-
cedence. If so, their order will be indicated by this
document: I. Έφεσεΐ?. 2. Σεβαστή. 3. Τήϊοι. 4. Καρη-
ναΐοι. 5· Εύώνυμοι. 6. Βεμβειναΐοι (Βεμβιναΐοι, Βεμ-
βίνη?) f.
The only subdivision of the tribe at Ephesos, so
far as the inscriptions inform us, was the Thousand
or χϊλιαστύ?, i. e. a group of a thousand households,
corresponding very much to the φρατρία existing in
Attica and elsewhere. Similarly at Chios we hear
of ή χιλιαστύ? ή Χαλκιδέων (Rhein. Mus. XXII, p. 326) :
at Methymna (C. I. Add. 2168 b) ά γελληστυ? a ’Ερυ-
θραιών] : so at Kos (Bulletin de Corr. Hellen. v, 1881,
p. 211; compare Part ii, p. 64). In a Samian decree
(Hicks, Manual of Greek Historical Inscriptions,
No. 135) we read: και έπικληρώσαι αύτού? έπι φυλήν
κ\αί. χιλιαστύν και έκατοστύν και γένο?. At Lampsakos
(C. I. Add. 3641 3), Byzantion (C. I. 2060), Herakleia
(Ain. Polior. 11) we hear of the Hekatostys but not
of the Chiliastys. At Kalymna(Part ii, No. ccxxxn,
foil.) we read : έπεκλαρώθη έπι φυλάν και δάμον έλαχε
φυλά? Κυδρηλείων, δάμου ’Αμφιπετράν etc. At Tenos
(Part ii, No. CCCLXXVl) : και προ? φυλήν και φρα[τρίαν
προσγραφήναι] οποίαν άμ βούλωνται. And these exam-
ples may be illustrated by the phrase frequently
occurring in Attic honorary decrees: και είναι αύτω
γράφασθαι φυλή? και δήμου και φρατρία? ή? αν βούληται
(C. I. A. ii, No. 243 and passim·, compare Part i,
No. xi). The invariable phrase in the Ephesian
honorary decrees is : έπικληρώσαι δε αύτδν και εί?
φυλήν και χιλιαστύν J. Accordingly we may con-
clude that the Chiliastys was at Ephesos the only
subdivision recognised between the tribe (φυλή)
and the γένο?. It seems unlikely (as Menadier
argues, p. 25) that if the Hekatostys existed, it
should be entirely omitted from the many surviving
records. Menadier has been at pains to draw up a
list (p. 24) of all the known Ephesian Chiliastyes ; dis-
tributing them among the six Tribes. Before his
treatise came into my hands I had also done the
same; and as my list is made from a fresh exam-
ination of the marbles, and is therefore more com-
plete in several particulars, I append it here.
1. Έφεσεΐ?·. Nos. CCCCXLVII, CCCCXLIX, CCCCLIII,
CCCCLVIII, CCCCLX, CCCCLXI, CCCCLXXI, DLXXVIII,
DLXXIX, (DXC).
(1) Άργαδεύ?: Nos. CCCCXLVII, CCCCXLIX, CCCCLX.
(2) Βωρεύ?: Nos. CCCCLVIII, CCCCLXXI; Βορεύ?,
No. DLXXVIII.
(3) Αεβέδιο?: Nos. CCCCLIII, DLXXIX.
(4) Ο’ίνωφ: Nos. CCCCLXI, DLXXVIII.
Perhaps [’/lpya<5e]vy, or [5<»pe]vy in No. dxc.
2. Σεβαστή: Nos. DLXXVIII, (dxc).
(1) Ααβάνδηο?: Nos. DLXXVIII, DXC.
(2) Σιεύ? : No. DLXXVIII.
(3) .... μηο? : No. DXC.
* Καρήυη was a town of Mysia, north of Atarneus, and not far from the coast: see Herod, vii, 42; Diod. Sic. xx, hi. The MSS
vary between Εαρινή and Καρήνη, but Steph. Byz. writes it with ή s. v. Καρήνη, though with ϊ s. v. Biwa. No coin or inscription from the
place is known, nor is the site identified. The Ephesian tribe is always spelt Καρηναΐοι in the inscriptions.
t In No. dii Mr. Wood (Inscriptions from the Great Theatre, 7) reads φυλής ’Αδριανης, without any sign of the stone being fractured.
At Prusa in the second century a.d. the tribes were still fully recognised, though most of them had been renamed after members of the
Imperial house. They were twelve in number, and the ninth was 'Αδριανη (Waddington-Le Bas, Part v, Nos. 1176, IT77)·
I Other references to the χϊλιαστύς will be found in the Bulletin de Corr. Ηεΐΐέη. iv (1880), p. 437 > vii (1883), pp. 39, 517 foil.
Elesych. S.V. χειλιαστύες· al φυλαί, and S.V. εκατοστός' ως χιλιοστός· συγγένεια: also among his Γλώσσαι Εθνικαι, S.V. Σαμιοι' χιλιασυες (sic).
At Smyrna, in the decree to incorporate the Magnesians (C. I. 3137, line 75) no mention is made of any subdivision of the tribe ; και
ποιησομαι αυτούς πολίτας πάντας και τούς έκγόνους αυτών έφ’ ’ίση και όμοια τοΐς αλλοις πΌλί[ταΐί], και εις φυλάς αυτους επικληρωσας καταχωριώ εις ην αν
έκαστοι λάχωσιν (from the oath of the Smyrnaeans).
PART III. T