AIO 3564 Account of payments to and from officials in Rhamnous

Account of payments to and from officials in Rhamnous

AIO 3564 Date: Late 6th to early 5th cent. BC

Face A

The money^[1] was paid, that (scil. money) to (the) religious officials (hieropoios),^[2] that (scil. money) written (5)on the (scil.= "this") lead tablet: to Neokles: 162 dr. to Pythodoros: (≥) 161 dr. to Teisamenos: (≥?) 100 dr. to Straton: 152 dr. – ________________________ (10) . . . ? public (demosion)^[3] . . . ? they have or they will have or it has or it will have from Dion: (≥) 100 dr. «from Straton»: . . . from Teisamenos: . . . uninscribed space

Face B

(14)Of the overseers (epistaton)^[4]

Previous - AIO 3531 Next - AIO 3566
Greek text

References:

AIO 3564 (Translated text) (AIO)

IG I³ 247 bis p. 957 (PHI) (IG Online)

SEG 60.93

SEG 55.1972

SEG 38.13

R. Osborne, The demos and its divisions, no. 1

I Rhamnous 181 (PHI)

Humphreys, Kinship, 1159-61

Russo, Ripartizioni, D81

Translation by: Stephen Lambert, Edward Jones

AIO Images:

Monument type: Lead tablet

Inscription type: Account

Findspot: Rhamnous (Rhamnous Nemesion 652 N)

Transliterations on Places on

[1] Textual Note. This lead tablet from the sanctuary of Nemesis at Rhamnous inscribed with accounts appears to have been reused for another purpose in antiquity and at that time was cut away to the right side and a section cut out of the lower left side. The text of lines 1-9 as preserved was contained within an inscribed L-shaped enclosure, of which most of the vertical is preserved, running down the left side of those lines, and most of the horizontal running across the tablet under l. 9. The effect is to divide the text above from what follows, and confirms that l. 10 should be read as a heading for ll. 11-13 rather than in relation to the names listed in ll. 6-9. There are also four circular indentations, one upper left, one upper right, one centre right, and one lower right. The one centre right has been punched right through to create a hole in the tablet. These perhaps indicate the cancellation or settlement of the account or completion of other due process (cf. Petrakos).

Except where noted below, AIO's translation follows the text of IG: 4 τὀς hιεροποιὸς = τὸ ἐς hιεροποιὸς, "that (money) for (the) hieropoioi" 5 hιγραμμένο. The meaning, "written", is clear, but the spelling is linguistically peculiar and it is unclear whether the initial H = eta (which would be the only case in this text which is otherwise in the old Attic alphabet), or = the aspirate, as normally in the Attic alphabet and elsewhere in this text, cf. Threatte, Grammar vol. II, p. 492. 7 Η𐅄Δ𐅂̣ IG (161 dr.). However, to judge from Petrakos’ drawing, the number may have extended beyond the preserved right edge of the tablet and might have been the same as line 6, Η𐅄Δ𐅂[𐅂] (162 dr.). 8 Η IG (100 dr.). There is a reasonable amount of space after the preserved number in Petrakos' drawing, but there might possibly have been other numerals to the right, e.g. Η[𐅄Δ𐅂𐅂] (162 dr.). 9 We agree with IG's reading of the number as Η𐅄𐅂𐅂 (152 dr.) which, unless there was an inscribing error, goes against W. S. Bubelis’ suggestion, Hallowed Stewards, 2016, 180 n. 20, that all the sums in ll. 6-9 were 162 dr. However, there is also a horizontal line after the number, which IG discounts, but which we take to be a paragraphos intended to mark the end of the list of payees (on paragraphoi in archival practice cf. M. Faraguna, ZPE 214, 2020, 115-28). 10 [δε]μόσιον : hέχ[οσι], "they (i.e. the epistatai?) have public (scil. money, i.e. the sums listed below)" IG, following Petrakos. This is possible (for the initial aspirate on hέχ[οσι] as a possible case of aspirate assimilation see Threatte, Grammar vol. II, Add. to vol. I, pp. 750-51, referring to vol. I, 38.0211 p. 457), but there are alternatives, e.g. [δε]μόσιον : hέχ[σοσι], "they will have public (money)", or [τὸ δε]μόσιον : hέχ[ει] or hέχ[σει], "the public treasury has, or will have: [scil. the amounts listed below]." In the heading in an account like this, the definite article before δεμόσιον, if included, might plausibly have extended beyond the normal left margin. 12 The letters in this line were corrected without erasure. The originally inscribed letters have been read as: ΑΤΟΡΑ: 𐅃ΟΝΔ (IG).

This account on lead is datable by its lettering and orthography to ca. 500 BC. It has a claim to be the earliest Attic inscribed account, and perhaps also the earliest public inscription to express sums of money not in words but in numbers, using the "acrophonic" system, whereby numbers were designated mostly by the initial letter of the number (e.g. Η = hekaton = 100, 𐅄 = pentekonta = 50 (5 x 10), Δ = deka = 10, 𐅂 = 1. On this aspect of the inscription see R. Osborne, in R. Sing et al., Numbers and Numeracy in the Greek Polis, 2021, 61-62). The inscription apparently pre-dates the accounts of the sanctuary of Nemesis inscribed in more monumental fashion on stone, I Rhamnous 182, though that inscription too is dated only by lettering and orthography. There are no Attic parallels for such an account on lead in the demes or elsewhere, at this period or later, which makes interpretation of the inscription difficult. It seems, however, that the account records the payment of specific sums of money to four named hieropoioi ("religious officials") in ll. 1-9, and the receipt (by the epistatai or the public treasury) of specific sums of money from two of the same officials and one other (also a hieropoios?) in ll. 10-13 (various explanations can be envisaged for the disparity between the two lists of names and it is fruitless to speculate in the absence of a clearer idea of context than the text permits). For interpretations of these accounts in context see J. H. Blok, Mnemosyne 63, 2010, 61-93, especially 77-9 (SEG 60.93); W. S. Bubelis, Hallowed Stewards (2014), 180-7; and more briefly, Humphreys.

While the precise context and purpose of this account cannot be pinned down, accountability of officials to the collective was a key element in democratic ideology and, both explicitly (see e.g. IG II² 1174) and implicitly (e.g. via the process of annual accounting of deme officials, euthynai, which underlies many of the honorific decrees which represent the majority of inscribed deme decrees, cf. RO 46, with notes), is a fundamental driver of the epigraphical record of the demes. For other early examples of the preoccupation of early deme inscriptions with accountability, see e.g. I Rhamnous 182, IG I³ 244, 253, AIO 847.

For the deme Rhamnous and its inscriptions in general see I Rhamnous 182. [2] Both this inscription and the apparently somewhat later set of accounts of Nemesis inscribed on stone refer to hieropoioi ("religious officials"). According to the fifth of the five annual entries in I Rhamnous 182, the money other than that which is loaned out in packets of 200 and 300 drachmas, is said to be "with the hieropoioi" (para + dative, l. 33), which tends to suggest that in that context anyway the hieropoioi held the deme's residual monetary capital. Hieropoioi are also attested in Rhamnous in the series of decrees of the deme extant from the end of the fourth century and through the third century (e.g. I Rhamnous 15, 63). The exact character and purpose of the money which is recorded in ll. 1-9 as being paid to these officials is obscure. A religious purpose and context seems likely, such as money for sacrifices or religious buildings (cf. Blok, who prefers the latter), but I Rhamnous 182 raises the possibility that the transactions involved loans, or interest payments on capital held by the hieropoioi, rather than straightforward monetary transfers of the amounts specified (on this possibility cf. Humphreys). [3] Demosion means "public" (not "of the deme"), and to demosion could mean the public treasury (i.e. of the polis). In either case the use of the term here perhaps suggests the involvement of the polis. There are other indications that the cult of Nemesis attracted involvement beyond the deme, which might have included the polis (see notes on I Rhamnous 182, and note the likely significance of the reference to the epistatai, below n. 4). Blok suggests that the term had a significance comparable to hosios in the accounts of Ikarion (IG I³ 253), i.e. it designated money which did not belong to the gods (hieros), but to humans, and was set aside for purposes pleasing to the gods. [4] The single word epistaton, "of the epistatai ("overseers")" is inscribed on the other side of the tablet from the rest of the text. Whether one takes this as the front or back, it would seem to indicate that, at least for the purposes of this account, the transactions detailed on the other side are under the purview of these officials. Epistatai are commonly attested in polis contexts (e.g. IG I³ 32, cf. I Eleusis 28a, with n. 1), including in building projects (e.g. IG I³ 449, 460, 474), but are not otherwise attested in Rhamnous or other demes. This, like the term demosion (above n. 3), suggests the involvement of the polis in whatever these accounts related to. For further remarks on these accounts see the notes to I Rhamnous 182.

Added: 2 Apr 2026
Updated: 2 Apr 2026
Feedback

ID: AIO_3564