Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens$

Nikolaos Papazarkadas

Print publication date: 2011

Print ISBN-13: 9780199694006

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2012

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199694006.001.0001

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: 26 February 2017

APPENDIX I The Sacred Orgas

APPENDIX I The Sacred Orgas

Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens

Papazarkadas Nikolaos

Oxford University Press

(p.244) i. The History of the Sacred Orgas

The earliest evidence of Athenian interest in the exploitation of sacred land in the fourth century stems from a decree which boasts an abundance of information and pertains to a unique situation. This is I.Eleusis 144, the famous document from 352/1 concerning the so-called Sacred Orgas (ἱερὰ ὀργάς).1 The detailed information recorded on that stele is almost unparalleled in Attica, thus rendering I.Eleusis 144 a prime means of understanding Athenian administrative responses to problems concerning sacred land. On the other hand, as will be shown below, the decree under examination was passed in a period of intense international feuds and, furthermore, addressed the problem of the ambiguous ownership status of a tract of land. This peculiarity, as well as the accumulated secondary bibliography, makes a lengthy historical treatment inescapable. Far from being an undesirable necessity, such a diachronic approach allows the Sacred Orgas affair to be used as a case study.

The historical background to this fundus sacer is complex and has ramifications that reach back at least as far as the origins of the Peloponnesian War. Of all the alleged misdeeds of the Megarians that prompted the Athenians to pass the infamous Megarian Decree, the most severe was the Megarians’ illicit farming of the sacred and undefined land.2 The incident of (p.245) the Megarian intrusion, related very succinctly by Thucydides, had for years been underrated by modern scholars, who failed to appreciate sacrilegious conduct as a sufficient justification for military action.3 An important shift in scholarly focus was marked by the publication of de Ste. Croix’s classic The Origins of the Peloponnesian War, a whole appendix of which was devoted to the Megarian decrees.4 It is beyond the scope of this study to address the problem of the exact number of the decrees, their chronological sequence, or the extent to which their content can be described as provocative.5 However, in order to grasp the importance of the fourth-century events, it is necessary to realize that the Athenians regarded the sanctity of the Sacred Orgas highly enough to treat its violation—fictional or not, that is irrelevant—as quasi-ἀσέβεια, the worst type of religious crime, when it suited their aims.6

Scholars have often maintained that the same land was ravaged by the troops of the Lacedaemonian king Kleomenes in the late sixth century.7 According to an Athenian tradition reported by Herodotus, it was this sacrilege that caused the mental illness and, subsequently, the self-inflicted death of Kleomenes.8 The identification of the Sacred Orgas with the late (p.246) Archaic temenos of the Two Goddesses is already present in Pausanias’ travelogues.9 In all likelihood, either Pausanias drew a personal, flawed inference, or by the second century of our era two different traditions, Kleomenes’ foray and the disputes over the Sacred Orgas, had merged in popular narrative. To begin with, Herodotus speaks of a disaster that took place within the area of Eleusis (ἐς ᾽Ἐλευσῖνα ἐσβαλών). The Sacred Orgas, however, lay on the frontier between Attica and the Megarid, near, but outside, Eleusis.10 Entries in various Lexica, as well as poetic extracts, seem to emphasize the Megarian, rather than the Attic, geographical proximity of the area.11 Yet, it is unlikely that the sacred and undefined land of the Classical period would have been a temenos in late Archaic times.12 The latter, ambivalent, term can equally well apply to a shrine or to a sacred estate, but always implies a fixed area with more or less clearly defined boundaries.13 One can, therefore, surmise that the Eleusinian temenos of Herodotus’ account, whether a sanctuary, a grove, or something similar, was a unit distinct from the Classical Sacred Orgas.

(p.247) The first time we hear of this particular piece of land in the fourth century is in the context of I.Eleusis 144. At this point the exact chronological order of the historical developments becomes uncertain. The tract in question is now named ἱερὰ ὀργάς and, by the casual way that horoi are mentioned in the query posed to the Delphic oracle, as well as by a vague mention of some upturned boundary stones, we can be pretty certain that it had ceased being an undefined area.14 The initial delineation of the Orgas could have taken place any time between 432 and 353, but we cannot be more precise.15 The 13th oration of the Demosthenic corpus contains a passing attack on the ‘accursed Megarians’ who had trespassed upon the Orgas. The orator narrates how the Athenians passed a decree which even allowed for military action, but which, it is implied, was never put into force.16 The speech has traditionally been dated to 353/2.17 Didymus, the scholiast to Demosthenes, following the Atthidographic tradition of Philochorus connects the extract to an invasion of an Athenian force under the general Ephialtes in the archonship of Apollodoros (350/49).18 This patently contradicts Demosthenes’ claim that the Athenians remained idle despite their declared and legally ratified resolution to cope with the problem. As Daverio-Rocchi has demonstrated, the discrepancy can be reconciled, if we dissociate the two events, (p.248) thus ascribing an interpretative error to Didymus.19 Recently, however, Engen proposed a new dating of the speech On the Organization. Comparing it to the 15th Demosthenic oration On the Freedom of the Rhodians, which scholars unanimously consider to be genuine, Engen reached the conclusion that it was delivered after the decree I.Eleusis 144, but before the Athenian march against the Megarid of 350/9, and more precisely between June and November of 351.20 A further point has to be made here. At the time of the delivery of Isocrates’ speech On the Peace, the Athenian orator praised the Megarians for their pacifist policy.21 If the dispute between the Athenians and the Megarians over the Orgas had already begun, Isocrates would have made a fool of himself by falsely lauding his country’s foes. The speech, consequently, constitutes a terminus post quem for the conflict. Since On the Peace has of late been dated, on intertextual grounds, to between 354/3 and 353/2, the inception of the conflict can be reasonably placed somewhere between 353 and 351.22

On the basis of the extant evidence, various chronological reconstructions are tenable, but the traditional view which places the inception of the Attico-Megarian hostilities before I.Eleusis 144 seems preferable (contra Engen). The main merit of Engen’s aforementioned analysis lies in his effort to place I.Eleusis 144 in a historical perspective, but his contextualization remains deficient because of his failure to account for some further historical parameters. In 355 Athens emerged from the so-called Social War defeated, humiliated, and drained of her financial resources.23 Shortly afterwards, Xenophon, moved by Athens’ dire economic circumstances, published his handbook entitled Ways and Means (Πόροι) in which he put forward suggestions for the rapid recovery of the city. Three points in that pamphlet intermingle with the content of I.Eleusis 144: the leasing of the temene, the restoration of the sanctuaries, and the recommendation to consult the Delphic oracle over ways to achieve prosperity for the polis in the future.24 Although these are relatively minor points, since the kernel of Xenophon’s argumentation concerns the exploitation of the silver mines, the overlap is still striking and some degree of interrelation has to be accounted for.

(p.249) More significantly, the late 350s were the period when the so-called Third Sacred War was raging throughout Greece.25 Strangely, one of the pretexts of that war had been the alleged cultivation of the sacred plain of Kirrha by the Phocians, themselves members of the Delphic Amphictiony, as well as their subsequent refusal to pay the fine imposed on them.26 Scholars have long noticed the similarity between the Sacred Orgas and the plain of Kirrha, since both were consecrated to divinities and were meant to remain uncultivated.27 However, the chronological affinity between the Megaro-Athenian conflict of the 350s and the Third Sacred War has passed unnoticed.

The uncultivability of the plain of Kirrha had constituted a favourite means of political manipulation in the history of the Delphic Amphictiony. The famous Amphictionic law of 380, known only from a copy erected in Athens, required members of the Amphictiony regularly to supervise the sacred land and, through the hieromnamones, impose fines upon any transgressors.28 The Athenians themselves had apparently been bound by this obligation and, later on, in 340, their pylagoros, the famous orator Aeschines himself, played on this obligation in order to distract attention from Athens’ own misdemeanours.29 Given this, it is worth asking what the Athenians were up to in 352. In that year the Phocians were still in firm, albeit illegal, control of the Delphic sanctuary. For the Athenians, the Phocians’ only significant loyal allies, the circumstances were favourable as far as their Delphic affinities were concerned. It may not be coincidental that the (p.250) Athenians got involved in the Third Sacred War only in 352, despite obligations arising from an earlier official alliance with the Phocians.30 If they intended to manipulate the policy advocated by the oracle, then the time was ripe.31 Athenian manipulation of the oracle did not mean receiving the right answer; rather it meant receiving an answer. We should not let ourselves be misled by the Athenian-biased sources. Despite the anti-Megarian rhetoric, it seems that in 352 the real culprits were the Athenians, not their western neighbours.32 The question posed to the Delphic oracle was articulated in a way that, in effect, ensured that the edge-lands of the Sacred Orgas would be consecrated one way or another.33 But by predetermining the consecration of these marginal lands to their own divinities the Athenians ensured that this peripheral zone would come under their effective control. A Delphic oracle under the Phocians would certainly raise no objections to such a subtle deceit, or at least that was the impression of the Athenians.

Nevertheless, the list of the ναοποιοὶ περὶ τὸν πόλεμον of 353–1 shows that the Megarians were also one of the few Amphictionic people to align themselves with the Phocians.34 Given the exigency of the situation, it is doubtful whether the Phocians could allow themselves the luxury of alienating any of their allies for the sake of a triviality.35 For the Phocians the whole (p.251) issue must have constituted an unnecessary nuisance that they would have been keen to dispose of at the least political cost. On the whole, the turbulent international situation—and by this I mainly refer to the rapid emergence of Philip II in the political arena of mainland Greece36—must also account for the delay in the settlement of the Megaro-Athenian conflict, at least as much as the military equilibrium between the two main protagonists. The Delphic answer was unprecedentedly delayed, in all likelihood because of Megarian opposition. Since the military intervention of the Athenians in the Megarid must have preceded the compromise between the two sides, the final demarcation of the area, a result of the Delphic answer itself, should have occurred at least in 350/49, if not later. This is one of the few fortunate occasions where the literary sources supplement the lacuna left by the epigraphical ones. Didymus, once more citing the Atthidographers Androtion and Philochorus, tells us that Apollo chose the second option, that is, that the eschatiai around the Orgas had to remain uncultivated.37 At first sight the Delphic verdict seems to have been unfavourable to the Athenians, since they were prevented from making a profit out of the eschatiai. Yet, these eschatiai were to be consecrated to the Goddesses (note καθιέρωσαν). The Athenians could always return to the oracle with a renewed request for permission to cultivate these sacred edge-lands. The Orgas does not feature again in any Classical sources.38 A document from Roman Athens, however, implies that the Sacred Orgas could still be considered by the Athenian polis as an area under its protection, a fact that has escaped scholarly attention so far.39 Despite the elliptical phraseology, it is obvious that the eschatiai were still considered sacred, marked by boundary stones, protected against any potential transgressors, and most importantly, income raised through their (p.252) exploitation was to be used for the repair of the Eleusinion. The degree of overlap between the actual situation of the mid-fourth century and that of the Roman Imperial period is so striking that continuity must be assumed. In other words, unless the Augustan epigraphical text reflects an innovation, the Athenians must have at some point rendered the Sacred Orgas cash-generating, and our ignorance of the event results from non-preservation of the pertinent data.40

II. The Administration of the Sacred Orgas

Keeping this succession of events in mind, one can proceed with the examination of the administrative scheme employed by the Athenians with regard to the Sacred Orgas. At first glance the issue is treated as part of the agenda of internal affairs of Athens.41 The delimitation of the disputed area was assigned to an elected board of fifteen men, five members of the Boule and ten from the citizenry. Nevertheless, it has largely passed unnoticed that the convention of the elected committee had to take place in the City Eleusinion.42 This means that more was at stake than merely a spatial organization, though the latter was obviously meant to be the end of the whole procedure, and, in fact, the Orgas was eventually defined with circularly arranged horoi.43 That the delegates had to work on the basis of a map seems rather unlikely, though not impossible.44 The oath sworn implies that at least two parties were involved as litigants. If the restoration μήτε χάριτος ἖νεκα μήτ᾽ ἔ[χθρας ψηφιεῖσθαι] is sound, then we can posit some sort of interstate (p.253) conflict.45 On the basis of the extant evidence the Megarians are the obvious candidates to make up one of the parties in this suit, though admittedly their ethnic is not preserved anywhere on the stone.46 But even if, at that stage, the Megarians had not become embroiled in the Orgas episode, can we seriously surmise that the Athenians would not have expected them to become so, given the common, bitter experiences of the past? Furthermore, the very decision of Athens to seek a response from Delphi strengthens the assumption that the problem was not exclusively one of internal politics, for in the past the Athenians had taken pains to consult the Pythian oracle only over religious matters of interstate significance.47 Nevertheless, there is scope to speculate that the implied transgressors might have been private individuals, even ones of Athenian origin, especially since private rapacity often targeted borderlands suitable for grazing.48

The task of the delimitation had to be supervised by the basileus, the hierophantes, the daduch, the gene of Kerykes and Eumolpidai as well as any interested Athenian.49 This extended supervisory board highlights two different aspects of the problem: the sacred character of the disputed area, especially its Eleusinian affiliations, and the wider public concern of the polis. The two gene of Kerykes and Eumolpidai had traditionally enjoyed a privileged and almost exclusive role in the administration of the Eleusinian cult.50 The daduch and the hierophant came from their ranks respectively.51 Philochorus and Androtion apud Didymus recount that the Megarians eventually conceded that the delimitation of the Sacred Orgas be undertaken by these very Eleusinian magistrates.52 This compromise underlines their (p.254) theoretically impartial agency. Despite their Athenian origin, the daduch and the hierophant were expected to act in the interest of the sanctuary, not of their polis. One can argue that the Megarian concession was the result of military pressure from the Athenians, but we should not lose sight of the fact that on at least two occasions—the recall of Alcibiades and the mock initiation of Demetrios the Besieger in the Eleusinian Mysteries—the two gene or their representatives acted in compliance with religious norms and regardless of what was advantageous for Athens.53 It is hard to say whether the daduch and the hierophant had permanent authority over the Sacred Orgas or whether their involvement in the events of the 350s was only an ad hoc undertaking. Both had a conspicuous role in the performance of various rites concerning the Eleusinian cult, but no independent attestation of any possible link between the Orgas and the cult as such exists.

As for the two gene, it is even more difficult to see how they could have effectively supervised the delimitation of the Orgas. In conjunction with the clause that allowed for the participation of any interested citizen, the two gene could simply be summoned with the aim of strengthening the public control of the procedure, simultaneously providing the aura of some religious authority.54 Nevertheless, it is worth noting that none of the other gene that had direct or indirect connections with the Eleusinian cults, namely the Eudanemoi, the Krokonidai, and the Koironidai, were delegated by the Athenians to participate in the delimitation of the sacred land.55 Perhaps it is not irrelevant that the Kerykes and the Eumolpidai provided from their ranks, apart from the daduch and the hierophant, some other officials who were in charge of performing rites concerning the cult and who would have (p.255) been expected to provide their religious expertise.56 We now know from an inscription dating to 20/19 that the priesthood of Zeus Horios and Athena Horia—protectors of boundary stones—belonged to the genos of Kerykes.57 Interestingly, the inception of the procedure for the delimitation of the Orgas, obviously meant to last more than a day, was set on the sixteenth day of the month Poseideon.58 According to the famous Erchian sacrificial calendar, on that particular day the demesmen of Erchia sacrificed a pig to Zeus Horios,59 a chronological coincidence that has been considered more than merely a happenstance;60 it seems even less so, if we combine it with the observation above about the priesthood of Zeus Horios. Finally, the well-known tale of the assassination of Anthemokritos may have some relevance here. He was the Athenian herald (κήρυξ) sent to the Megarians to settle a dispute, but the Megarians allegedly murdered him thus arousing immediate Athenian fury.61 The dispatch of Anthemokritos seems to have taken place in the context of the dispute between the Athenians and the Megarians over the Orgas in the 430s.62 Interestingly, in the Demosthenic Letter to Philip it is stated that one of the bans imposed on the Megarians for their killing of Anthemokritos was their exclusion from the Eleusinian Mysteries.63 Moreover, Anthemokritos’ monument was known to be located outside the Dipylon on the Sacred Way which led from Athens to Eleusis.64 Given the strong Eleusinian affiliations, there is a possibility that Anthemokritos was not only a publicly appointed messanger, but also a member of the genos Kerykes and that his murder was considered an insult towards the Eleusinian Goddesses whom Anthemokritos, by virtue of his genos, served.65 If so, the (p.256) involvement of at least the Kerykes in the supervision of the Sacred Orgas in the fourth century is anticipated by a practice already found in the 430s.

There are two different ways of looking at the nomination of the archon basileus. He was the paramount Athenian official in religious matters, but he also had a specific connection with the Eleusinian cult as is attested from other sources.66 Towards the end of the fifth century the assembly had empowered him with a similar task, namely the delimitation of the sacred area called Pelargikon.67 But the decree itself provides a more specific explanation of the basileus’ involvement. The answer sought by the Athenians from the Delphic oracle concerned whether or not the basileus could lease out the edge-lands of the Orgas. Leasing out sacred property seems to have been a regular obligation of the basileus.68 His role, far from being purely symbolical, had very tangible, economic ramifications.

With this we come to a second, and perhaps more substantial, point of the decree. Through a graphically elaborate process, the Athenians inquired of Pythian Apollo whether they could go ahead with the leasing of these marginal parts of the Orgas that had already been farmed by some unspecified individuals.69 The question was articulated in such a way as to leave no uncertainty about the sanctity of the ἐσχατιαί of the Orgas. If it became revenue-yielding, the income realized was to return to the nominal owners of the Orgas, the Eleusinian Goddesses, and that was to be achieved by using the money for the construction of the porch of the Telesterion and for such other repairs in the sanctuary as were deemed appropriate.70 This observation allows us to highlight the practical facet of the Sacred Orgas affair. Now, at approximately the same time the Athenians passed a law concerning the reorganization of the Eleusinian Mysteries,71 which allows for the possibility that the Orgas case was part of a wider programme regarding the cultic centre of Eleusis. Indeed, the quadrennial board of the epistatai of the Eleusinian cult of 356/5–352/3 had already published an architectural con (p.257) tract concerning the construction of the porch in question.72 So, it seems that in 352/1, when the Athenians broached the possibility of employing income from the eschatiai of the Sacred Orgas for their building project in Eleusis, it was the architectural programme that constituted their main incentive for raising the question and not the other way around. Yet again, it appears that the Sacred Orgas episode did not come out of the blue, rather it was an affair first moved by the Athenians, and not by their western neighbours.73

Yet further hints are offered by I.Eleusis 144 itself. First, an antecedent decree concerning the sanctuaries of Athens (or more broadly sacred affairs, τὰ ἱερά), proposed by a certain Philokrates, is vaguely mentioned, although, it must be said, the reading is heavily restored.74 This Philokrates might have been the famous demagogue who concluded the homonymous peace pact of 346,75 but the name is common and, in the absence of other attributes, the identification should remain hypothetical. He is almost certainly, however, the individual attested by the Atthidographers as proposing the decree for the delimitation of the Orgas with which the Megarians complied.76 Secondly, and most importantly, the preoccupation with the Orgas is placed in a wider context of concern for all Athenian shrines, or rather τεμένη, sacred estates.77 This point is of particular interest, since the law quoted names a series of Athenian magistrates as responsible parties not only in the care of the Orgas, but of all Attic temene.78 The nomination of some of these officials (p.258) is anything but surprising. The demarchs were in charge of letting out temene controlled by their demes, whereas the Areopagos had authority over the administration of the moriai, the sacred olive-trees of Athena.79 Similar powers over religious matters have been acknowledged in the case of the Athenian Boule.80 The presence of military officers, however, such as the general ἐπὶ τὴν χώραν and the περιπόλαρχοι, is baffling, to say the least.

The former office is first securely attested in this decree.81 It is hardly a coincidence that the next chronological attestation is that of Ephialtes, general ἐπὶ τὴν χώραν in 350/49 and leader of the force that invaded the Megarid in order to settle unilaterally the Sacred Orgas affair.82 The legal justification of his intrusion into the Orgas almost certainly lies in the law quoted in IG II2 204. The περιπόλαρχοι were officers under the command of the aforementioned general and, in their turn, commanders of the περίπολοι, patrols consisting, at least after c.334, of ephebes.83 The famous Attic ephebic oath, which contained a clause about the protection of sacred interests (RO 88, ll. 8–9, ἀμυνῶ δὲ καὶ ὑπὲρ ἱερῶν καὶ ὁσ|ίων) and which evoked the boundary stones of the fatherland as witnesses (ibid. ll. 16–20, ἵστορες…ὅροι τῆς πατρίδος etc.) might have some relevance here.84 After the reformation of the ephebic institution, Eleusis and the frontier between Attica and the Megarid was one of the posts assigned to the περίπολοι. Therefore, the involvement of military officers in the administration of the Attic sanctuaries as envisaged in the law evoked in I.Eleusis 144 must have been strictly military, one of protection of the peripheral sanctuaries and in particular their landed property either through defence or, if need arose, through (p.259) attack, as the story of Ephialtes’ raid clearly demonstrates.85 Overall, this marginally religious role of military magistrates is unprecedented in Athens. Only much later, in the Roman period, does a general, ὁ ἐπὶ τοὺς ὁπλείτας στρατηγός (hoplite general), assume a conspicuous role in the actual administration of sacred properties.86

In any case, what remains beyond doubt is the increasing Athenian activity in the sphere of sacred property from the mid-fourth century onwards. The law cited in lines 16–23 of I.Eleusis 144 may have constituted the basic legal framework for this boost in the realm of sacred land. Although one is tempted to identify this law with the νόμος τῶν τεμενῶν from 418/7,87 the mention of the στρατηγὸς ἐπὶ τὴν χώραν renders this identification implausible. The law was relatively new, since it obviously postdated the creation of the aforementioned military office, which in turn should postdate the archontic year 357/6.88 But if the law was indeed passed sometime within the second half of the 350s, the most suitable context would be the financial programme fostered by Diophantos of Sphettos or Euboulos of Probalinthos and his associates after the end of the Social War.89 This interest was to culminate in the second half of the century with a huge increase in the publication of relevant epigraphical documents, such as those recording an extensive programme of leases of sacred land starting from 343/2.90 If these leases were indeed instigated by Euboulos and his circle then the Orgas affair could be perceived as a preliminary model case.91


(1) I.Eleusis 144 (IG II2 204; Syll. 3 204; LSCG 32; cf. Le Guen-Pollet 1991, 95–101 no. 32); see now RO 58; SEG LIV 115.

(2) Thuc. 1.139.2, οἱ δὲ Ἀθηναῖοι οὔτε τἀ̂λλα ὑπήκουον οὔτε τὸ ψήφισμα καθῄρουν, ἐπικαλοῦντες ἐπεργασίαν Μεγαρεῦσι τῆς γῆς τῆς ἱερᾶς καὶ τῆς ἀορίστου καὶ ἀνδραπόδων ὑποδοχὴν τῶν ἀφισταμένων; cf. Thuc. 1.67.4. The story is also related by Plut. Per. 30.2, ὑπῆν μὲν οὐ̂ν τις ὡς ἔοικεν αὐτῷ καὶ ἰδία πρὸς τοὺς Μεγαρεῖς ἀπέχθεια, κοινὴν δὲ καὶ φανερὰν ποιησάμενος αἰτίαν κατ’ αὐτῶν, ἀποτέμνεσθαι τὴν ἱερὰν ὀργάδα (cf. Stadter 1989, 277). Shilleto 1872–80, 169 (with some hesitation); Stahl 1882–8, 342 (citing Goeller); Gomme 1945, 449; Parker 1983, 161 n. 99 think that the double definite article in Thuc. 1.139.2. suggests that ‘the sacred land’ (ἡ ἱερὰ γῆ) was different from ‘the undefined land’ (ἡ ἀόριστος γῆ); but the anonymous scholiast to Thucydides explicitly states that they were one and the same piece of land (Scholia ad Thuc. 1.139, τῆς γῆς τῆς ἱερᾶς: τὴν γῆν λέγει τὴν μεταξὺ Μεγάρων καὶ τῆς Ἀττικῆς, ἤντινα ἀνέθεσαν ταῖς ᾽Ἐλευσινίαις θεαῖς· τὴν αὐτὴν δὲ λέγει καὶ ἀόριστον). The date of the Megarian Decree, evidently a terminus ante quem for the unlawful cultivation of the sacred and undefined land (but note Pelling 2000, 105), is still the subject of fierce debate. The traditionally accepted date is 433/2–432/1 (e.g. Meiggs 1972, 430–1; de Ste. Croix 1972, 227 n. 2). Brunt 1993, 5–6, 16 favoured a date earlier than 433. Similarly Hornblower 1991, 111 dates the Megarian impiety to the early 430s.

(3) The sole exception seems to have been Connor 1962.

(4) de Ste. Croix 1972, 225–89.

(5) However, the chronological order most lucidly advocated by Cawkwell 1969 and 1997, 111–14 seems to me preferable (cf. Pelling 2000, 103–11). De Ste. Croix 1972, 248–52 (followed by Salmon 1984, 424–6) would place the ‘exclusion’ Megarian decree after the so-called ‘reasonable and courteous’ decree and the subsequent one of Charinos.

(6) Note the meticulous observations by de Ste. Croix 1972, 254–6 who claims that if the Athenians did not strictly treat the Megarians’ offence as ἀσέβεια, that was because they were keen to avoid military confrontation. Moreover, Thucydides might have downplayed the significance of an incident which was primarily religious; cf. Brunt 1993, 14 (but see Parker 1983, 166 n. 129; Hornblower 1991, 111 and 2002, 108). For religion in Thucydides, see the comprehensive account by Hornblower 1992. Howe 2008, 93–5, now thinks of the Sacred Orgas as an area primarily set aside for grazing, and (contra Bowden 2005, 91) resurrects the scenario of Megarian encroachment actually precipitating the Peloponnesian War.

(7) Foucart 1889, 436–7.

(8) Hdt. 6.75:…ἀπέθανε τρόπῳ τοιούτῳ, ὡς μὲν οἱ πολλοὶ λέγουσι Ἑλλήνων, ὅτι τὴν Πυθίην ἀνέγνωσε τὰ περὶ Δημαρήτου [γενόμενα] λέγειν, ὡς δὲ Ἀθηναῖοι μοῦνοι λέγουσι, διότι ἐς ᾽Ἐλευσῖνα ἐσβαλὼν ἕκειρε τὸ τέμενος τῶν θεῶν (…and Kleomenes died in this way because, as most Greeks maintain, he persuaded the Pythia to utter the story about Demaratos, or, as the Athenians alone claim, because he invaded Eleusis and ravaged the temenos (shrine; precinct) of the goddesses’). Neither Nenci 1998, 240–1, nor McQueen 2000, 160, examine the possible connection to the Sacred Orgas. Bowden 2005, 90–1, hastens to assert that Herodotus was thinking of the Orgas; he certainly did not use the name Ὀργάς.

(9) Paus. 3.4.2: ἐνταῦθα ὁ Κλεομένης ἄλλα τε ἐδῄωσε τῆς χώρας καὶ τῆς καλουμένης Ὀργάδος θεῶν τε τῶν ἐν ᾽Ἐλευσῖνι ἱερᾶς, καὶ ταύτης τεμεῖν φασιν αὐτόν (Then Kleomenes devastated parts of the countryside, and also, they say, he cut down the so-called Orgas itself which is sacred to the goddesses of Eleusis). Pausanias is clearly expounding Herodotus when he writes that Kleomenes’ suicide came about ‘because, as the Athenians say, he had devastated the Orgas’ (Paus. 3.4.5: Ἀθηναῖοι δὲ ὅτι ἐδῄωσε τὴν Ὀργάδα). Papachatzis 1976, 317, places Pausanias’ Orgas in the Eleusinian plain (but see below).

(10) The topographical problem has been treated by various scholars; see mainly Kahrstedt 1932, 8–11; Van de Maele 1983; Ober 1985, 225–6; Burford 1993, 19–20; L’Homme-Wéry 1996, 131–50; McDonald 1996, 321–3.

(11) Did. col. 14.31-5, κ(αὶ) (ἕστιν) ὁ λόγος τὰ νῦν τῶι Δη[μ]οσθένε[ι π]ερὶ τῆς Μεγαρικῆς Ὀργάδ[ος], ἡ̑ς κ(αὶ) Καλλίμαχός που μνημονεύων φησ[ί·] «Νισαίης ἀγλῖθες ἀπ’ Ὀργάδος» (And the speech of Demosthenes that we are presently concerned with is about the Megarian Orgas, which even Kallimachos has mentioned somewhere, when he says: ‘Cloves of garlic from the Orgas at Nisaia’; trans. by Harding 2006, 95); Harp. s.v. ὀργάς· Δημοσθένης ἐν τῷ Περί συντάξεως. ὀργὰς καλεῖται τὰ λοχμώδη καὶ ὀρεινὰ χωρία καὶ οὐκ ἐπεργαζόμενα, ὅθεν καὶ ἡ Μεγαρικὴ ὀργὰς προσωνομάσθη τοιαύτη τις οὐ̂σα, περὶ ἡ̑ς ἐπολέμησαν Ἀθηναῖοι Μεγαρεῦσιν (Orgas: Demosthenes in his speech On Organization. Orgas is the name of the bushy and mountainous areas that are not cultivated; hence the name of the Megarian Orgas, over which the Athenians and the Megarians fought, which was such an area); Suda s.v. ὀργάς· τὰ λοχμώδη καὶ ὀρεινὰ χωρία καὶ οὐκ ἐπεργαζόμενα οὕτως καλεῖται. ὅθεν καὶ ἡ Μεγαρικὴ ὀργὰς προσωνομάσθη τοιαύτη τις οὐ̂σα; EM s.v. ὀργάδα γῆν· παρὰ τὸ ἀργή τις εἰ̂ναι καὶ ἀνέργαστος…ἕστι δὲ καὶ γῆ ἐν Μεγάροις οὕτω καλουμένη ὀργάς (Orgas land: a land that is fallow and uncultivated…there is even a land called Orgas at Megara).

(12) As von Prott and Ziehen 1896–1906, 88 n. 9 aptly observed ‘orgadis nomen deest’.

(13) Latte 1934; I. Malkin, OCD 3 s.v. temenos.

(14) I.Eleusis 144 ll. 74–5: [οἵδε ἡιρέθησαν ἐπὶ τὴν ἱερὰν] ὀργά[δ]α ἀντὶ τ̣ῶν̣ ἐκπ̣επτωκό[τ|ων νέους ὅρους θεῖναι]. Of course, a lot is dependent on our comprehension of Thuc. 1.139.2 (see n. 2 above). Incidentally, Plutarch’s reference to the ἱερὰ ὀργάς with regard to the area on the eve of the Peloponnesian War (Pl. Per. 30.2) is probably an anachronism.

(15) von Prott and Ziehen 1896–1906 would date the delineation of the Orgas after the Peloponnesian War. Kirchner in the commentary of IG II2 204 merely notes that  ‘orgada terminatam fuisse iam ante hoc tempus ex v. 74…sequitur’.

(16) [Dem.] 13.32: οἱ̂ον ἃ πρὸς τοὺς καταράτους Μεγαρέας ἐψηφίσασθε ἀποτεμνομένους τὴν ὀργάδα, ἐξιέναι, κωλύειν, μὴ ἐπιτρέπειν. Since the 19th cent. the speech has frequently been considered spurious. Nevertheless, Usher 1999, 215–17 has argued anew for its authenticity, albeit somewhat hesitantly (contra the new editor of the Demosthenic corpus M. R. Dilts, Demosthenis Orationes, Oxford 2002). If Usher is right, scholarly scepticism about the historicity of the recounted events should be set aside.

(17) Blass 1893, 398; Cawkwell 1963, 48 n. 9 and more recently Usher 1999, 215. However, see below for an alternative date.

(18) Did. col. 13.44–51 (=FGrH 328 F 155): γέγονε ταυτὶ κατ᾽ Ἀπολλόδωρον ἄρχοντα καθάπερ ἱστορεῖ Φιλόχορος οὑτωσὶ γράφων: “Ἀθηναῖοι δ(ὲ) πρὸς Μεγαρέας διενεχθέντες ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὁρισμοῦ τῆς ἱερ(ᾶς) [Ὀ]ργάδος ἐπῆλθον εἰς Μέγαρα μετ᾽ ᾽Ἐφιάλτου στρατηγο(ῦν)τος ἐπὶ τῆι χώραι κ(αὶ) ὡρίσαντο τὴν Ὀργάδα τ(ὴν) ἱεράν” (This happened during the archonship of Apollodoros, as is recounted by Philochoros, writing as follows: ‘Because the Athenians had a dispute with the Megarians over the delimitation of the Sacred Orgas, they entered the territory of Megara with Ephialtes, the general for the homeguard, and marked out the limits of the Sacred Orgas’; trans. by Harding 2006, 91); with Gibson 2002, 132–4.

(19) Daverio-Rocchi 1988, 189–90.

(20) For the articulation of this intricate chronological argument see Engen 1999, 140–50.

(21) Isoc. 8.118–19; cf. Legon 1981, 265.

(22) Date of On the Peace: Rowe 2002, 156.

(23) Ellis 1994, 736–9; Hornblower 2002, 264–7.

(24) Xen. Vect. 4.19: μισθοῦνται γοῦν καὶ τεμένη; 6.1: ἱερὰ δ᾽ ἐπισκευάσομεν; 6.2: πέμψαντας καὶ εἰς Δωδώνην καὶ εἰς Δελφοὺς ἐπερέσθαι τοὺς θεοὺς εἰ λῷον καὶ ἄμεινον εἴη ἂν τῇ πόλει οὕτω κατασκευαζομένῃ καὶ αὐτίκα καὶ εἰς τὸν ἔπειτα χρόνον (cf. Gauthier 1976, 220–2).

(25) Buckler 1989, passim; Sanchez 2001, 173–99; Buckler 2003, 385–461.

(26) Dios. Sic. 16.23: οἱ δὲ Φωκεῖς ἐπεργασάμενοι πολλὴν τῆς ἱερᾶς χώρας τῆς ὀνομαζομένης Κιρραίας δίκας ὑπέσχον ἐν Ἀμφικτύοσι καὶ πολλοῖς ταλάντοις κατεκρίθησαν; Paus. 10.15.1: ὅτε Φωκεῦσιν ἐπεργαζομένοις τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν χώραν ἐπέβαλον χρημάτων ζημίαν (cf. Lefèvre 1998, 31–2; Sanchez 2001, 173–7; Rousset 2002a).

(27) Sanctity and uncultivability of Kirrha or Krisa: Aeschin. 3.108: καὶ αὐτοῖς ἀναιρεῖ ἡ Πυθία πολεμεῖν Κιρραίοις καὶ Κραγαλίδαις πάντ’ ἥματα καὶ πάσας νύκτας, καὶ τὴν χώραν αὐτῶν καὶ τὴν πόλιν ἐκπορθήσαντας καὶ αὐτοὺς ἀνδραποδισαμένους ἀναθεῖναι τῷ Ἀπόλλωνι τῷ Πυθίῳ καὶ τῇ Ἀρτέμιδι καὶ Λητοῖ καὶ Ἀθηνᾷ Προνοίᾳ ἐπὶ πάσῃ ἀεργίᾳ, καὶ ταύτην τὴν χώραν μήτ’ αὐτοὺς ἐργάζεσθαι μήτ’ ἄλλον ἐᾶν; idem 3.109:…καὶ τὴν πόλιν αὐτῶν κατέσκαψαν καὶ τὴν χώραν αὐτῶν καθιέρωσαν κατὰ τὴν μαντείαν· καὶ ἐπὶ τούτοις ὅρκον ὤμοσαν ἰσχυρόν, μήτ’ αὐτοὶ τὴν ἱερὰν γῆν ἐργάσεσθαι μήτ’ ἄλλῳ ἐπιτρέψειν, ἀλλὰ βοηθήσειν τῷ θεῷ καὶ τῇ γῇ τῇ ἱερᾷ etc. (the historical context is that of the First Sacred War for which see Lefèvre 1998, 14–15 for the earlier bibliography). For this kind of sacred marginal landscape see Horden and Purcell 2000, 428, 453.

(28) CID I 10.15–18: [αἴ τις τὰν γᾶν ἐπιερ]|γάζ̣[ο]ιτο̣ ἃν Ἀμφικτίονες ἱάρωσαν, ἐπεὶ κ̣[α] ἁ π̣έ̣[ρο]δ̣ο̣ς γ̣ί̣ν̣[η]τ̣α̣ι̣, ἀ̣ποτ[εισάτω - - - - - - - - - -] | στατῆρ̣α̣ς Αἰγιναίος κατ’ τ[ὸ] πέλεθρον ἔ̣[κασ]τον· τ̣ο̣ὶ̣ δ̣ὲ̣ ἱ̣[ερομνάμονες περιιόντων ἀεὶ τὰν ἱερὰν γᾶν] | καὶ π̣ρ̣[ασ]σόντων τὸν ἐπιεργαζόμενον. See Bousquet’s commentary on the Amphictionic Law in CID and the thorough treatments by Sanchez 2001, 153–63; Rousset 2002b, 188–92.

(29) Aeschin. 3.118–21; cf. Davies 2000, 207.

(30) Diod. Sic. 16.27.5; cf. Ryder 2000, 47.

(31) As Philomelos’ seizure of a response from Pythia (Diod. Sic. 16.27.1) demonstrates, the Phocians could become unscrupulously cynical; cf. Parke and Wormell 1956, 224; Fontenrose 1978, 250–1.

(32) A similar approach is taken by Scafuro 2003, who detects Athenian ‘political arrogance and pretence’, believing that IG II2 204 would have escalated tension between the two parties.

(33) I.Eleusis 144 ll. 23–30: γρά[ψαι δὲ τὸ]ν γραμματέα τῆς βουλῆς εἰς δύο κα|[ττ]ιτέρω ἴσω καὶ [ὁμοίω, εἰς μὲν] τὸν ἔτερον· εἰ λῶιον καὶ ἄμει|[νό]ν ἐστι τῶι δήμ[ωι τῶι Ἀθηναίων μισ]θοῦν τὸμ βασιλέα τὰ νῦ|[ν ἐ]νειργασμ[έ]να [τῆς ἱερᾶς ὀργάδος τὰ ἐκ]τὸς τῶν ὅρων εἰς οἰ|[κ]οδ̣ομία̣[ν] τοῦ προ̣[στώιου καὶ ἐπισκευὴν τοῦ ἱ]ε̣ροῦ̣ τοῖν θεο|ῖν εἰς δὲ τὸν ἔτερον κ[α]ττίτ[ερον· εἰ λῶιον καὶ ἄμει]νόν ἐστι | τῶι δήμωι τῶν Ἀθηναίων τὰ ν[ῦν ἐκτὸς τῶ]ν ὅ[ρων ἐ]νειργ[α]σμέν|α τῆς ἱερᾶς ὀργάδος ἐᾶν ἄνετα [τοῖν θ]εοῖν (The secretary of the council is to write upon two pieces of tin which are equal and alike, on one, ‘If it is preferable and better for the Athenian people that the basileus should rent out the parts of the Sacred Orgas currently being cultivated outside the boundaries, for the building of a colonnade and the equipping of the sanctuary of the Two Goddesses’; and on the other, ‘If it is preferable and better for the Athenian people that the parts of the Sacred Orgas currently being cultivated outside the boundaries be left to the Two Goddesses untilled’; trans. by Rhodes and Osborne 2003). But I follow Parker 1983, 161, and RO 58 in reading [ἐκτός], rather than the old [ἐντός] which is now favoured anew by Clinton.

(34) CID II 31.33–70. As Davies 1998, 4 aptly observes, ‘the “naopoioi in the war”…were politically acceptable to the Phokians in the worst years of the Third Sacred War’; cf. Giuliani 2001, 220. For the financial office of the ναοποιοί see  Lefèvre 1998, 263–6.

(35) Cf. Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 281.

(36) For Philip II in that period see Ryder 2000.

(37) Did. col. 13.54–6, κ(αὶ) τὰς ἐσχατίας τὰς περὶ τὴν Ὀργάδα καθιέρωσαν τοῦ θεοῦ χρήσαντος λῶιον κ(αὶ) ἄμεινον ἀνεῖσι κ(αὶ) μὴ ἐργαζομ(έν)οισι (And they also consecrated the edge-lands around the Orgas, after the sanctuary had replied that it was more profitable and better for them if they left the edge-lands untilled and did not work them); Did. col. 14.44–7: κ(αὶ) τὰς ἐσχατίας ὅσαι ἠ̂σαν πρὸς τῆι Ὀργάδι καθιέρωσαν, διαμαντευσάμ(εν)οι κ(αὶ) ἀνελόντος τοῦ θεοῦ λῶιον κ(αὶ) ἄμεινον (εἰ̂ναι) μὴ ἐργαζομένοις (And they consecrated the edge-lands, as many as were beside the Orgas, after they had consulted the oracle and after the god had replied that it was more profitable and better for them not to work them). Daverio-Rocchi 1988, 191, is a misinterpretation of the extract.

(38) The Orgas is not recorded e.g. in the Eleusinian Accounts IG II2 1672 of 328/7, unless it underlies the μισθώματα of ll. 242–7, for which see Chapter 2, Section 3.

(39) IG II2 1035, re-edited with improvements by Culley 1975 (=SEG XXVI 121), esp. ll. 20–12: τὰ δὲ ὄρη καὶ τὰς δημοτελεῖ[ς ἐσχατιὰς - - - Δή]μητρος καὶ Κόρης [….]ωσ[…6…]εισ[…]πασιν· εἰ δ̣[έ τι]ν̣ες ὑ̣π̣ερβάντες τοὺς ἱεροὺς ὅρους ἐπειργάσαν|[το τὴν ἱερὰν γῆν - - - ]ν[..]τον[..]ναιτηι̣α̣[…]σθ̣[.]ον [εἰς τ]ὴν ἐπισκευὴν̣ τοῦ [ἐν ’Ἐλ]ε̣υσῖνι ἱεροῦ etc. Maybe, instead of τὴν ἱερὰν γῆν (the sacred land), one should restore τὴν ἱερὰν ὀργάδα (the Sacred Orgas).

(40) Chronological preciseness is unattainable especially since the very date of IG II2 1035 (SEG XXVI 121) is unknown. Culley 1975 would place it in the Augustan period, but Baldassarri 1998, 242–6, preferred an earlier date within the 1st cent. BC, but after the sack of Athens by Sulla in 86. Schmalz 2009, 10–11, no. 2, has now returned to a date in the reign of Augustus. Evidently the date of IG II2 1035 constitutes the terminus ante quem for the cultivation of the Sacred Orgas.

(41) Daverio-Rocchi 1987, 102 speaks of ‘terra sacra poliade’.

(42) I.Eleusis 144 ll. 7–8; for the City Eleusinion see Miles 1998, passim, esp. 64–6.

(43) Did. col. 13.54: καὶ στήλαις ὡρίσθη κύκλωι λιθίναις Φιλοκράτους εἰπόντος (and it was delimited in a circle with stone stelae, upon a proposal by Philokrates).

(44) Our ignorance of ancient Greek maps is notorious, and perhaps something of the sort might have been in use, as Dilke 1985, 88 seems to imply. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the elected committee of I.Eleusis 144 could hardly have claimed expertise on land survey matters. Their task was more of a judicial, political type. Scafuro 2003, 134–5, cautiously broaches both possibilities (on-site tours vs. commissioners working from Athens) without favouring either.

(45) The aphorism of de Ste. Croix 1972, 388 n. 1, ‘[i]ndeed, there is nothing to connect the dispute about the eschatiai with Megara: the inscription (IG II2 204=SIG3 204)…speaks of that dispute as if it were something that concerned Athens alone’, seems rather stressed.

(46) In line 4, however, of I.Eleusis 144 it might be tempting to see the succession of letters Ε㲑Ν as the ending of the ethnic [Μεγαρ]έων (but I note that Clinton’s new reading of a slanting stroke before epsilon renders my suggestion above untenable).

(47) ML 52, ll. 64–7 (oracle uncertain); ML 73 (offering of the first-fruits); Thuc. 3.104.1 (usually assumed to refer to Delphi, but see Hornblower 1991, 525–6); Thuc. 5.32.1. Parker 1985, 325 n. 95, suspects Athenian consideration of the Megarian factor with regard to the inquiry.

(48) Burford 1993, 19–20, 23. The most famous case of private rapacity targeting sacred landholdings is that recorded in the bronze Tabulae Heracleenses (IG XIV 645), for which see Uguzzoni and Ghinatti 1968.

(49) I.Eleusis 144 ll. 12–14 (cf. Garland 1984, 76).

(50) For the Eumolpidai and the Kerykes see Parker 1996, 293–7 and 300–2 respectively.

(51) Daduch: Clinton 1974, 47–68; hierophant: ibid. 10–47.

(52) Did. col. 13.51–3: ὁρισταὶ δ᾽ (ἐ)γένοντο συγχωρησάντων Μεγαρέων Λακρατείδης ὁ ἱ[ε]ροφάντης κ(αὶ) ὁ δαιδοῦχος Ἱεροκ[λ]είδ̣η̣ς (with the Megarians’ agreement the men who marked out the boundaries were Lakrateides the hierophant and Hierokleides the daduch’; idem col. 14.37–43: Ὡρ̣ί̣σαντο δ(ὲ) κ(αὶ) Ἀθην[αῖο]ι πρὸς Μεγαρέας τὴν Ὀργάδα διὰ τ[οῖ]ν θεοῖν ὅπως βούλοιντο· συνεχώρησαν γ(ὰρ) οἱ Μεγαρεῖς ὁριστὰς γενέσθαι τὸν ἱεροφάντ(ην) Λακρατείδην κ(αὶ) τὸν δαιδοῦχον Ἱεροκλείδην (But the Athenians, too, marked the boundaries of the Orgas in the direction of the Megarians on account of the Two Goddesses, in whatever way they wanted. For the Megarians agreed that the boundary commissioners would be the hierophant, Lakrateides, and the daduch, Hierokleides); trans. by Harding 2006, slightly modified.

(53) ‘Face-saving compromise’: Clinton 1974, 18; refusal to ratify the return of Alcibiades: Thuc. 8.53.2; daduch’s opposition to Demetrios’ impious initiation: Plut. Dem. 26 with Mikalson 1998, 89; cf. Garland 1984, 77.

(54) Cf. Parker 2005, 91. In this sense, a good parallel can be found in Agora XVI 56 ll. 29–31, which, although it legislated the establishment of the board of the ἐπιμεληταὶ τῶν μυστηρίων (two of whom came from the ranks of the Kerykes and the Eumolpidai respectively), also recognized the jurisdiction of the two gene as such to the same effect, i.e. the supervision of the Mysteries.

(55) For these gene see Parker 1996, 293, 302–4.

(56) For instance, the altar-priest was selected from the Kerykes (Clinton 1974, 85–6), and it was members of the Eumolpidae that performed exegesis (ibid. 89–93).

(57) SEG XXX 93 l. 16; cf. Roussel 1934, 824–5; Zeus Horios: Pl. Leg. 842e.

(58) I.Eleusis 144 ll. 10–12.

(59) SEG XXI 541, col. E, ll. 22–30.

(60) Mikalson 1975, 92 citing Burkert observing that  ‘it seems to be no coincidence that the meetings to settle the boundary dispute began on the day of a sacrifice to Zeus Horios’.

(61) Plut. Per. 30.2, ἐπεὶ δ’ ὁ πεμφθεὶς κῆρυξ Ἀνθεμόκριτος αἰτίᾳ τῶν Μεγαρέων ἀποθανεῖν ἕδοξε, γράφει ψήφισμα κατ’ αὐτῶν Χαρῖνος, ἄσπονδον μὲν εἰ̂ναι καὶ ἀκήρυκτον ἔχθραν.

(62) Connor’s 1962 and 1970 ingenious attempt to place Antemokritos’ mission in the events surrounding the dispute of the 350s has not met with scholarly acceptance.

(63) [Dem.] 12.4, Μεγαρέων γοῦν Ἀνθεμόκριτον ἀνελόντων εἰς τοῦτο ἐλήλυθεν ὁ δῆμος ὥστε μυστηρίων μὲν εἰ̂ργον αὐτούς etc.

(64) Paus. 1.36.3 with Papachatzis 1974, 461–2; Harp. s.v. Ἀνθεμόκριτος; Suda s.v. Ἀνθεμόκριτος (cf. Travlos 1971, 180).

(65) Cawkwell reached a similar conclusion from a different starting point when he identified Anthemokritos as a spondophoros (Bearer of the Truce), and therefore a member of the Kerykes (but see Parker 1996, 301 n. 48; Agora XVI no. 48). This would mean, nevertheless, that Anthemokritos was not specifically concerned with the Orgas.

(66) Lys. 6.4; Arist. [Ath. Pol.] 57.1, with Rhodes 1993, 636–7; Carlier 1984, 329–37; Clinton 2008, 141 (see above, Chapter 2, Section 3).

(67) ML 73, ll. 54–5: τὸν δὲ βασ[ι]λέα hορίσαι τὰ hιερὰ τὰ ἐν τ[]|ι Πελαργικι;  cf. Foucart 1889, 441.

(68) See Chapter 2, Section 5.

(69) I.Eleusis 144 ll. 24–30, but with the restoration suggested  by Parker 1983, 161 n. 99: [τῆς ἱερᾶς ὀργάδος τὰ ἐκ]τὸς τῶν ὅρων, not [ἐν]τός as previous editors (cf. Harding 1994, 126–7) and now anew Clinton in the Eleusinian corpus. See also  Amandry 1950, 151–3; Fontenrose 1978, 251; Gauthier 1998, 70.

(70) Hintzen-Bohlen 1997, 18–21.

(71) Clinton 1980; see now I.Eleusis 138.

(72) IG II2 1666 (now I.Eleusis 143), esp. B ll. 53–4: [τοῦ π]ροστώιου τοῦ ᾽Ἐλευσῖνι ἀνακαθηράμενον etc.; cf. Kirchner’s commentary ad loc., and now Clinton 2008, 135–8.

(73) Bowden 2005, 91–2, has recently offered a different reconstruction, hypothesizing, inter alia, that the Athenians had experienced a bad crop which they attributed to their own impious cultivation of the eschatiai. The consultation of the Delphic oracle was, in this scenario, an attempt at appeasing the god. This whole story is not particularly convincing.

(74) I.Eleusis 144, ll. 54–5: [νῦν δὲ ἀν]αγράψα[ι] τὸδε τὸ ψήφισμα κα͜ὶ τὸ πρότερον τὸ | Φι[λ]ο[κ]ράτου[υς τὸ περὶ τῶν] ἱ[ερῶν].

(75) LGPN II s.v. Φιλοκράτης (76), according to the identification proposed by Dittenberger in Syll. 3 204, and recently reaffirmed by Clinton 2008, 142.

(76) FGrH 328 F155, καὶ ἀφώρισαν κύκλωι στήλαις κατὰ ψήφισμα Φιλοκράτους.

(77) I.Eleusis 144 ll. 16–18: [ἐπι]μελεῖσθαι [δ]ὲ τῆς ἱερᾶς ὀργάδος καὶ τῶν ἄλλω|[ν ἱερῶν τεμεν]ῶν τῶν Ἀθήνησιν ἀπὸ τῆσδε τῆς ἡμέρας εἰς τὸν | [ἀεὶ χρόνον οὕ]ς τε ὁ νόμος κελεύει περὶ ἑκάστου αὐτῶν etc. (From this day onwards those specifically so commanded by the law are to look after the Sacred Orgas and all the other sacred temene at Athens; trans. by Rhodes and Osborne 2003, slightly modified). The restoration [ἱερῶν τεμεν]ῶν, instead of Ziehen’s [ἱερῶν ἁπάντ]ων, goes back to Philios and has been recently resurrected by both Lambert 2005 (cf. SEG LIV 115), and Clinton 2008, 141.

(78) Whitehead 1986, 127–8 n. 39 suggests that IG II2 1362, an edict of the priest of Apollo Erithaseos, was a local enforcement of the law cited in I.Eleusis 144 ll. 16–23. This is certainly wrong. In ll. 16–23 of I.Eleusis 144 the citation is that of a law (νόμος), whereas IG II2 1362 mentions a decree (ψήφισμα). And whereas I.Eleusis 144 is, indeed, a decree, it should not be identified with the law quoted in ll. 16–23. The two texts were not identical.

(79) Demarchs: see Chapter 3, Section 2.ii; Areopagos: Wallace 1985, 106–7; De Bruyn 1995, 113–16; now Clinton 2008, 141.

(80) Rhodes 1972, 127–34.

(81) Rhodes 1993, 678–9; cf. Hamel 1998, 15–16; Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 278. According to Petrakos, I.Rhamnous 1 ll. 2–4 reads: [ἐπειδὴ Φιλοκλῆς] καὶ Διόδω̣[ρ]ος χιλίαρχοι κ̣[α|τασταθέντες ὑπ]ὸ Διομ̣[ήδ]ου [το]ῦ σ̣τρα[τη|γοῦ ἐπὶ τὴν χώραν] ἐπὶ ᾽Ἐλ̣[πίνο]υ̣ ἄρ[χ]οντο[ς] (i.e. 356/6). Nevertheless, Brun and Couvenhes 2006, have rejected this reconstruction of the archontic formula, and have strongly argued that the decree belongs to the Hellenistic period. Therefore the attestation of a general ἐπὶ τὴν χώραν in I.Rhamnous 1 (heavily restored, it has to be said) is impertinent to our discussion.

(82) FGrH 328 F155.

(83) On περίπολοι and περιπόλαρχοι: Pélékidis 1962, 35–47; Rhodes 1993, 508; Taylor 1997, 236–7 n. 66. For the date of the reorganized ephebic institution see Reinmuth 1971, 2, 123–4, contra Lewis 1973b, whose view has almost without exception prevailed.

(84) Siewert 1977, 109; Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 445.

(85) For other ways by which developments in the 330s, including the ephebic reform, affected land-tenure patterns in Athens, see Chapter 3, Section 1.ii.

(86) SEG XXVI 121 ll. 14–15; cf. Sarikakis 1951, 18–20, 71; Geagan 1967, 29–30 (see also Chapter 2).

(87) IG I3 84 l. 25, with Behrend 1970, 59–60; Walbank 1991, 154–5.

(88) RO nos. 48 and 52 both show that in 357/6 specific postings for generals had not been created yet (cf. Rhodes 1993, 678). As argued above (n. 81), I.Rhamnous 1 does not bear on the problem of the στρατηγός ἐπὶ τὴν χώραν in the mid-4th cent.

(89) See the still paramount article of Cawkwell 1963, esp. 48–9, for the main Athenian financiers of the late 350s; also Leppin 1995, 558–9.

(90) See Chapter 2.

(91) It is hardly a coincidence that with the exception of IG II2 1590a, leases of sacred property on Salamis which belong to approximately the same time as IG II2 204, but which, however, might have been issued by a local body (Taylor 1997, 181–2; see Chapter 4, Section 4 above), no other 4th-cent. inscriptions concerning sacred realty administered by the polis of Athens pre-date 350.