No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Some more unpublished fragments of Attic Treasure-Records
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
Extract
This paper contains some further results of my studies of unpublished fragments of Attic Treasure-records in the Epigraphical Museum, and deals with three small fragments from lists of the fifth century B.C., of which the first belongs to the Pronaos-records, and the second and third to those of the Hekatompedon. They are of interest as giving us contributions to a more exact text of this important class of documents, for the first establishes definitely the exact number of silver ϕιάλαι in the Pronaos each year during the period 434/3–431/0, and the third sheds fresh light on the arrangement of the first eight records of the sacred objects in the Hekatompedon. At the end is appended a note containing some further information as to the last of the three inscriptions published recently by myself in this Journal (J.H.S. xxix. pp. 182 foll.). It remains to acknowledge the kindness of Mr. B. Leonardos, Ephor of the Epigraphical Museum, in permitting me to study and publish these fragments, and of Mr. M. N. Tod in reading the proofs of this paper with his usual care.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1911
References
1 See also, for subsequent additions to these lists, I.G. i. Suppl., pp. 26, 130; and the commentary in Boeckh-Fränkel, , Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener 3, vol. ii. pp. 174 follGoogle Scholar.
2 As in I.G. i. 117 (restored), 119, 121, 122; in i. 118 the whole item is missing, and likewise in i. 120, where practically nothing is left of the record of the year (431/0 B.C.) except the heading.
3 The surface of the largest fragment of the stele (c in the Corpus) is worn almost smooth in places and is much whiter in colour than our new fragment: this is no doubt owing to its subsequently being used, perhaps for a doorstep, after our fragment was broken off it.
4 In I.G. i. 122, l. 10, seven weigh 
in i. 123, l. 11, two weigh 
The φιἀλαι ἐξελευ θερικαί dedicated in the 4th centmy B.C. weigh invariably 100dr. Cf. Tod, , B.S.A. viii. p. 198Google Scholar.
5 In I.G. i. 124 l. 12, four weigh only 
but in i. 129, l. 11, seven weigh 
and in i. 130, l. 11, four weigh 
6 In I.G. i. 118, l. 7, I calculated that for the weight of 113 φιάλαι there were some sixty-five different weights, consisting of nine figures each, which possibly might have stood heie, between 11304 and 11832 dr. alone.
7 The stone is damaged here, the line of the break just missing the upper part of the hasta, but destroying the two smaller strokes which the letter would have had if it was 
thus: 
8 For another instance in the same phrase see I.G. i. 32 A, l. 28, and Meisterhans-Schwyzer, , Grammatik der attischen Inschriften 3, p. 111Google Scholar.
9 See Larfeld, , Handbuch der griechischen Epigraphik ii. p. 14Google Scholar, who shows in diagrammatic form the allotment of each period to its stone, by which we may see that wherever we have any direct evidence there is no exception to this rule between the years 434/3 and 415/4. For the Pronaos it is true down to 411/0, but for the Parthenon the records after 419/8 are too uncertain for us to draw any conclusions from them.
10 The thickness of the stele likewise furnishes evidence in support of this conclusion. At the top, above I.G. i. 141, it is ·16, and increases gradually lower down, being ca. ·185 where ascertainable in the lower half of the stele. This is a common feature in such stones.
11 In l. 2 there is plainly 
(and not, as in the Corpus, 
only) before the 
and in l. 10 I see 
and not only 
The surface is much damaged here, and nothing is visible of the weight in l. 4. Van Hille, l.c. l. 36, reads 
not 