DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4945#0150
Silver. 139
Two verbs only are found in text A., io-Tadrjo-av and T)vdydr)<ja.v. The
first, according to my arrangement of the clauses, is used of all the items
enumerated except one, which I conjecture to have been of a kind that did
not need weighing. In that case all the sums are accounted for by this
process of weighing, and perhaps passed to expenditure. Two items are said
to be contributed, out of a total of seven. These come from the City of
Ephesus, and one from its war-booty (?). It is an obvious suggestion that all
the other items, of which iaTaOrjcrav alone is used, refer to internal
assets of the Temple itself: (1) Gifts in precious metal (Swpa) ; (2) Bullion
stored in gold and silver (two entries) ; (3) Proceeds of ship-dues ? (e/< tov
vavriKov ?), collected probably in the Sacred Port; (4) Tithes of salines
or salt-dues (e'/c tov aA.05). It is one of the entries under No. 2 which tells
most in favour of icnaQ-qa-av having a sense beyond mere verification. Why
should Se/ca a! IvQivZe fiveau, already deposited in the Temple, be merely
weighed for verification ? One would suppose that already done at the moment
of deposit. But if they were now weighed out for some particular purpose of
expenditure, the entry gains point, and with it every entry in the text.
What could such purpose have been ? The metal might have been weighed
out for minting, had we any reason to suppose that coining was carried on in
the Artemision ; but it is more probable that it was weighed out for disbursement
in the ordinary sense, on some extraordinary object in which the Temple and
the City both were interested, and to which the former felt bound to devote
a great part of its available assets. The sums so devoted by the Temple
itself, on my interpretation, amounted to no less than 163 minae, and involved
the realisation of capital locked up in both gifts and bullion. One cannot help
suggesting that this purpose was the fabric of the Temple itself, at one or
other of the epochs in which it underwent reconstruction. If so, the
"Croesus" restoration begun about 550 B.C. suits best the date which the
epigraphic character of the inscription seems to demand.
In text B. we get new verbs, avvetv and e'pya£ecr#ai, and we find those who
render the account speaking in their own name. Further, beside very large
sums, 40 and 30 minae, quite trivial values are recorded, such as the twelfth
of a stater. Sources of the revenue are mentioned less often, but in two out of
three cases are the same as in text A., e'/c tov SopaTos and Ik tov a'Xo?, the third
case being a doubtful one, Ik tov Krjnov, which, if correctly read, may be com-
pared with the eV ttoXcw? of text A. While these items, however, are derived
from similar sources to those in text A., certain others appear to be derived, not
from Temple treasures, but, we may guess, from sums made up (avvuv) in various
T 2
Two verbs only are found in text A., io-Tadrjo-av and T)vdydr)<ja.v. The
first, according to my arrangement of the clauses, is used of all the items
enumerated except one, which I conjecture to have been of a kind that did
not need weighing. In that case all the sums are accounted for by this
process of weighing, and perhaps passed to expenditure. Two items are said
to be contributed, out of a total of seven. These come from the City of
Ephesus, and one from its war-booty (?). It is an obvious suggestion that all
the other items, of which iaTaOrjcrav alone is used, refer to internal
assets of the Temple itself: (1) Gifts in precious metal (Swpa) ; (2) Bullion
stored in gold and silver (two entries) ; (3) Proceeds of ship-dues ? (e/< tov
vavriKov ?), collected probably in the Sacred Port; (4) Tithes of salines
or salt-dues (e'/c tov aA.05). It is one of the entries under No. 2 which tells
most in favour of icnaQ-qa-av having a sense beyond mere verification. Why
should Se/ca a! IvQivZe fiveau, already deposited in the Temple, be merely
weighed for verification ? One would suppose that already done at the moment
of deposit. But if they were now weighed out for some particular purpose of
expenditure, the entry gains point, and with it every entry in the text.
What could such purpose have been ? The metal might have been weighed
out for minting, had we any reason to suppose that coining was carried on in
the Artemision ; but it is more probable that it was weighed out for disbursement
in the ordinary sense, on some extraordinary object in which the Temple and
the City both were interested, and to which the former felt bound to devote
a great part of its available assets. The sums so devoted by the Temple
itself, on my interpretation, amounted to no less than 163 minae, and involved
the realisation of capital locked up in both gifts and bullion. One cannot help
suggesting that this purpose was the fabric of the Temple itself, at one or
other of the epochs in which it underwent reconstruction. If so, the
"Croesus" restoration begun about 550 B.C. suits best the date which the
epigraphic character of the inscription seems to demand.
In text B. we get new verbs, avvetv and e'pya£ecr#ai, and we find those who
render the account speaking in their own name. Further, beside very large
sums, 40 and 30 minae, quite trivial values are recorded, such as the twelfth
of a stater. Sources of the revenue are mentioned less often, but in two out of
three cases are the same as in text A., e'/c tov SopaTos and Ik tov a'Xo?, the third
case being a doubtful one, Ik tov Krjnov, which, if correctly read, may be com-
pared with the eV ttoXcw? of text A. While these items, however, are derived
from similar sources to those in text A., certain others appear to be derived, not
from Temple treasures, but, we may guess, from sums made up (avvuv) in various
T 2