Epigraphic geography: the tribute quota fragments assigned to 421/0-415/4 B.C

Hesperia, Fall, 2004 by Lisa Kallet

List 34: 421/0 (IG [I.sup.3] 285)

List 34 consists of three, nonjoining fragments: frr. 1 (EM 6764), 2 (EM 6758), and 3 (EM 6652). One of these fragments (fr. 1, with its right and top edges preserved) contains roughly the right half of a prescript, including, fortunately, an archon name (Aristion) and dating formula [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]. (24) This is the only fragment for the period with a preserved archon name, and accordingly the only fragment that can be dated with certainty, to 421/0, the year in which Aristion held office. In addition to part of the prescript, fr. 1 preserves parts of place-names from what would have been col. II of the stele, and completely intact placenames and quotas for four cities, with part of the name and quota for an additional city; the fragment then breaks off. Two other fragments (frr. 2, 3) have remained with it, fr. 2 situated some 50 lines beneath the end of fr. 1 in the vertical position of what would have been col. II of the stele, and containing part of a Hellespontine panel (with no edges preserved), and fr. 3, with its left edge preserved, and containing names and quotas from an Ionic panel, positioned in col. I.

The association of all three fragments has gone unquestioned; neither fr. 2 nor fr. 3 has been shifted to other years. The fragments may indeed belong to the same list, and therefore all with certainty to 421/0, for the lettering and general appearance of the fragments are similar. Nevertheless, their reverses contain some unappreciated features that add interest to the association (Fig. 1). (25)

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

The reverse of fr. 1 is dressed, though not polished like the obverse, and on it an inscription of five lines extends to slightly less than half of the width of the fragment, which itself appears to be roughly half the width of the original stele (Fig. 1, top). (26) It contains a short rubric ("these [cities] paid the army"), followed by three ethnics: Hephaisties, Imbrioi, and Myrinaioi. The right half of the fragment on this side is uninscribed. It seems likely that the entirety of at least this upper part of the stele would have been similarly dressed. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that approximately three-quarters of the width of the stele was uninscribed. Moreover, it is clear that the stele would have been dressed below the extant portion, since at the middle of the bottom edge of the fragment, after a vacat of ca. four lines, is part of a nu and the tops of letter strokes compatible with IA. These letters (dotted in IG [I.sup.3]) are likely to be the end of the beginning of a rubric like that at the top, which would have continued onto the next line and been followed by a list of place-names, though there is no way of knowing how many lines it would have covered.

This opisthographic fragment and the extent of the dressing on the back raise a number of questions that bear on its association with the other two fragments. What is the relationship between the inscriptions on the front and back? Was the back dressed at the same time as the front, or later, when needed? If at the same time, was it in anticipation of immediate or future need for inscribable space? Was the uninscribed part of the reverse of the stele initially dressed because it had been intended for inscription as well? If the back was dressed at the same time as the front, but not inscribed until later, what factors determined how much of the back to dress? Finally, if dressed later, why was more of the surface dressed than was necessary?