Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
War, Food, and Politics in Early Hellenistic Athens$

G. J. Oliver

Print publication date: 2007

Print ISBN-13: 9780199283507

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2007

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199283507.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2017. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: null; date: 19 February 2017

(p.282) Appendix 6 Regional Representation in the Epidosis of 248/7 BC?*

(p.282) Appendix 6 Regional Representation in the Epidosis of 248/7 BC?*

Source:
War, Food, and Politics in Early Hellenistic Athens
Publisher:
Oxford University Press

Dow compared the proportion of demes from the three trittyes (inland, city, and coast) in the epidosis of 248/7 with two other documents of the late third and early second centuries: a list of officials (IG ii2 1706) and a later epidosis (from the archonship of Hermogenes, IG ii2 2332).1 A slightly greater number of Athenians from demes in the Mesogeia than either the City or Coastal regions appears in the list of officials but there is little difference in the later epidosis. However, there were twice as many individuals from demes of the Inland trittys in 248/7 compared to those from the City demes.2 Is this difference significant?

A comparison with the fourth‐century representation of politicians reveals that little regional bias can be found in terms of the representation of the regional trittyes.3 It is necessary to consider not only what has survived on Agora xvi. 213 but what has been lost from the surviving stones to determine an answer. There is no obvious geographical, deme, trittys, or tribal order in the listing of the names. The only distinction seems to be the prominence given to certain individuals: Antiphon (a former archon), Eurykleides and his brother Mikion, Dromeas, and Diokles head the first column. However, when we start to consider the representation on the level of the deme (as opposed to the trittys) we find some demes are better represented than others (see Table A6.1 below). Erchia provides the largest number of contributors (nine), followed by Sphettos (seven). Erchia's nine contributors is in proportion to the size of the adjustment to the deme's quota of councillors in the Hellenistic period. Its quota of eleven demesmen on the Council is an increase of over half from the provision in the Classical period. It was one of the few demes to benefit from an above average increase (of four) in the quota adjustments of 307/6. Sphettos also falls into this category because its quota had increased by two. The relatively strong representation of these demes in the epidosis seems (p.283) to complement the implicit demographic trend that the quota allocation of 307/6 seems to have addressed in respect of the successful demes of the fourth century.4 In other words, the quota adjustment of 307 suggests strong growth in the demes that gained an above‐average increase.

If such change is carried forward, then the epidosis of 248/7 confirms the same phenomenon: the same demes that present relatively large quota increases in 307 are also well represented among the contributors. What Ferguson saw as a politically oriented regional interest may in fact reflect better the strength in numbers of certain demes in the third century, an extension of their development in the fourth century.

It is nevertheless remarkable that some demes are not represented in the epidosis of 248/7, particularly Rhamnous where we know of so many demesmen in this period. This may indicate that Rhamnousians resided largely in their deme and played less of a role in the operations of the polis at Athens. But it is more likely that the fragmentary condition of the inscription accounts for this under‐representation. For example, the deme of Acharnai is a large deme but is represented by only two contributors. Individuals from the demes Anaphlystos and Piraeus are also absent.5 In fact neither Mesogeia nor any geographic region of Attica monopolized the epidosis in the way Ferguson had proposed. There is no obvious concentration of any group of demes on the list of contributors. It is likely, therefore, that the missing fragments of the list would have balanced the representation of the demes.

The third column of the inscription (fragment d) preserves only the initial letters of the names of the contributors; the first column at the bottom of fragment c and the start of fragment d is missing; and a break in the text between fragments c and e and fragment d has caused at least three lines of text to disappear.6 These gaps may well have contained members of the other demes we would expect to find.7

(p.284)

Table A6.1. Deme representation on the epidosis list and in the Council

Demes represented

No. of contributors

Quota of councillors in deme, 307/6 to 224/3

Adjustment to original quota in 307/6

Erchia

9

11

+4

Sphettos

7

5

+2

Paiania

5

Upper 1/Lower 22

Upper ‐/Lower +11

Phlya

4

8?

+2?

Phyle

4

6

+4

Eiresidai

3

3

+1?

Halai

3

Aixonides 11?/Araphenides 9

Aixonides +4/Araphenides +4

Kephisia

3

8

+2

Oion

3

Dekelikon 3/Kerameikon 1

Dekelikon ‐/Kerameikon ‐

Acharnai

2

25

+3

Alopeke

2

12?

+2

Aphidna

2

16

Eleusis

2

13?

+2

Kolonos

2

2

Melite

2

7

Oe

2

6

Phrearrioi

2

9

Themakos

2

1

Aigilia

1

7

+1

Athmonon

1

10?

+4?

Azenia

1

2

Eitea

1

2

Epikephisia

1

1

Euonymon

1

12

+2

Eupyridai

1

2

Koile

1

3

Kollytos

1

4

+1

Kolonai

1

2

Lamptrai

1

Upper 5/Lower 10

Upper ‐/Lower +1

Myrrhinous

1

8

+2

Oinoe

1

Oinoe (X) 2/Oinoe (XI) 4

Oinoe (X) ‐/Oinoe (XI) ‐

Otryne

1

1

Pambotadai

1

1/0

Pergase

1

Upper 3/Lower 2

Upper +1/Lower 2

Philaidai

1

3

Steiria

1

3

Sunion

1

6

+2

Teithras

1

4

Thria

1

8?

+1

Notes:

(*) This discussion here refers to Woodhead's text of the inscription, Agora xvi. 213.

(1)  Dow 1937.

(2)  The number of those from the Mesogeia/City/Coast are 47/27/19 in the Diomedon epidosis; 39/22/33 in IG ii2 1706; and 54/50/57 in IG ii2 2332, contributions in the archonship of Hermogenes (Dow 1937: 107 n. 3).

(3)  Hansen's (1983: 157 ff.) accounts of rhetores and generals in the fourth century reveals similar levels of representation: 38 per cent Mesogeia, 26 per cent City, 36 per cent Coast.

(4)  Rosivach (1993: 401 and fig. 1) shows that a number of demes benefited from an increase of over 20 per cent. Those demes that did not have such a large increase had been affected by a smaller population growth. Rosivach, in the belief that the reapportionment broadly reflected deme population, argues that the urban demes suffered from a slower rate of growth than other demes in the rest of Attica and dismissed the argument for migration from the countryside to the city in the fourth century and later. Traill (1975: 59–60) on the quota increase argues that the reapportionment did not reflect population change because no deme suffered a reduction in its quota.

(5)  Acharnai would have had 25 councillors on the Boule after 307/6, Kydathenaion 12, Anaphlystos 12, Aphidna 16, Rhamnous 8, Marathon 10, Piraeus (?)11, Traill 1975 Map 3.

(6)   Agora xvi. 213 ll. 41–4. At least three lines, but probably no more than six, i.e. between nine and eighteen contributors.

(7)  It is perhaps worth noting that Thoukr[itos] (III.71) and Thea[i]t[e]tos (III.67) may represent Myrrhinous (Pandionis) and Epikephisia respectively, otherwise not represented in the surviving better‐preserved fragments of the inscription.