Hogarth, David G.; Smith, Cecil Harcourt [Contr.]: Excavations at Ephesus: the archaic Artemisia: Text (London, 1908)

130 * The Archaic Artemisia of Ephesus.

following words, as far as the first iaTaOiqcrav in 1. 4, admit of several
interpretations according to the principle on which the clauses are arranged.
The great difficulty is to account for the repetition of rjveixGrjaav. If nothing
serious is lost on the right, there are only two items of value, i.e. only two
subjects for the three verbs, and it is necessary to make one of these refer
either forward, or backward, to the subject of another. Three courses are
possible : (1) To detach the first rjvdxdr}o-av and understand it as forming,
with Ik 7roXew9, a heading having- reference to the two statements which follow.
(2) To make the second i]vd\dr]o-av refer back, stating a supplement to the
entry &c 7ro\e&j? .... fxviat. (3) To leave icna.Qr\<ja.v high and dry in a clause
by itself, referring back to both the two r/veC^drjcrav clauses. After much
hesitation, I prefer the first course, since it involves the least distortion of the
natural order of words ; and I read the three clauses thus : 'Ek 7roXew?
i)veiyQy](Ta.v ' dpyvpal k.t.X. r/pei^0r]aav ' 4k tov SopaTos k.t.X. io-TaGrjo-av. In
that case, both the last items are contributions of the City.

There is, however, an obvious difficulty. The same sum in the same
clause is stated to be both in silver and h> tw Trpa>Ta) Ypucrw. What can the
latter phrase mean which does not involve a contradiction in the terms of the
entry? There is no parallel to this phrase that I know of; but one may
suggest that Yjavcrd?, so qualified, does not mean the metal gold, but either
any precious metal of standard weight, in ingots, or coined metal. Of these two
guesses I prefer the first, since the contribution of a great amount of coined
silver money is not probable at this early stage in the history of Lydian and
Ionian currency. Therefore, at a venture, I translate: 25 silver minae were
contributed in standard ingots. On that interpretation it is intelligible why
this sum, alone of all the items in this account, was not " weighed out"
(icrTcidrjcrav) : for had it not already been weighed and reduced to standard
form ?

The second item of 6 minae is "weighed out." It is derived Ik tov
SopaTos. What is this source ? Dr. Keil, citing a well-known Coan inscription
(S.G.D.I. 3632, commented on by Toepffer in Atli. Mitth. xvi. pp. 411 ff.),
and a Magnesian one, new to me (Kern, Inschr. v. Magn. no. 99), which
both show that certain Temple-revenues included a toll on local wood-traffic,
interprets Soparos as meaning generically wood, and more particularly ship-timber.
But ipJXov is the word used in these inscriptions, and it is very strange that the
epic use of Sopv for a particular piece of wood—a tree, a plank, or the like—
should assume a generic meaning in a statement of account. The only
general and abstract sense, which, as it seems to me, Sopv could bear, is that