IGI3 258 Decree of the deme Plotheia

Decree of the deme Plotheia

IG I³ 258 Date: c. 420 BC (?)

Capital totals (kephalaia):^[1] for the demarch, 1,000 dr. for the two treasurers for the sacred rites through the year, 5,000 dr. to the Herakleion, 7,000 dr. (5) to the Aphrodisia, 1,200 dr. to the Anakia, 1,200 dr. to exemption from contributions (ateleian), 5,000 dr. to the Apollonia, 1,100 dr. to the Pandia, 600 dr. (10) from rents, 134 dr. 2½ ob.. The Plotheians decided. Aristotimos proposed: to allot (kuameuen) the officials worthily of the money that each office controls; and these are to provide the money securely (15) for the Plotheians.^[2] Concerning whatever loan there is a decree or setting of interest, they are to lend and exact interest according to the decree, lending as much as is lent annually to whoever (20) offers the greatest interest, whoever persuades the lending officials by their wealth (timēmati) or guarantor;^[3] and from the interest, and the rents on whatever rent-bearing purchases may have been made from capital (kephalaiōn), (25) they shall sacrifice the rites (hiera), both the common rites for the Plotheians, and for the Athenians on behalf of the community (koino) of the Plotheians, and for the quadrennial festivals;^[4] and for the other rites, for which all the Plotheians have to contribute money for (30) rites, whether to the Plotheians or to the Epakrians or to the Athenians, the officials from the community who are in charge of the money for the exemption from contributions (ateleian) shall pay on behalf of the demesmen;^[5] and for all the common rites in which (35) the Plotheians feast, they shall provide sweet wine at the community’s expense, for other rites up to [half a chous] for each Plotheian present, but for the trainer (didaskalōi) [at or of the -] a jar (kadon)^[6] . . . burning . . . (40) . . . practitioner (?) (dēmiourg-) . . . . . .

Previous - IG I³ 256bis Next - IG I³ 259

References:

IG I³ 258 (Translated text) (IG Online) (PHI)

IG II² 1172 (PHI)

SEG 60.97

Koerner, Gesetzestexte 21

OR 159

Humphreys, Kinship, 863-5

Russo, Ripartizioni, D76

Translation by: Stephen Lambert, Robin Osborne

Images: Louvre - (1, 2)

Monument type: Stele

Inscription type: Decree (Deme Plotheia)

Findspot: Unknown (Louvre Ma 844)

Transliterations on Places on

[1] Plotheia was a very small deme of the tribe Aigeis, returning one representative to the Council of 500 in the 4th century BC, probably implying a population in the 5th century of no more than ca. 100 adult males (IG II³ 4, 76 and 75, Agora XV 42 and 43). It was located in north-east Attica in the area of Palaio-Stamata (Bala) (where an altar for Aphrodite dedicated by a man from Plotheia, IG II³ 4, 1542 and two private dedications by Plotheians, IG II³ 4, 1543 and IG II³ 4, 1544, were discovered), north of Mt. Pentele and of the deme Ikarion, to the west of the southern end of the Marathonian Tetrapolis. For a recent discussion of the deme and its members see Humphreys; on demes in general, RO 46.

As well as a Cleisthenic deme, as commonly with demes whose religion is well documented epigraphically (e.g. Thorikos, OR 146), there are enduring signs of much older institutional identity; in this case Plotheia was also a component of the pre-Cleisthenic trittys of the Epakrians (see below). In this (awkwardly worded) inscription, which can only be dated approximately by its letter forms and linguistic features (a date much earlier than ca. 420 is unlikely, but a somewhat later date can not be ruled out), it conducts a financial overhaul, providing our best (albeit in detail somewhat opaque) insight into how a deme might manage its overall finances. It compliments the insights into the volume and detail of local religious activity supplied by sacrificial calendars (e.g. of Thorikos, OR 146) and the light cast by the accounts of Nemesis at Rhamnous (OR 134) on a deme’s financial management of a major sanctuary. The inscription begins with a list of capital sums allocated to different funds or purposes (headed by the same term, kephalaia, that is used for capital in l. 24) and proceeds in the body of the decree (ll. 11 ff.) to make arrangements for the deployment of this capital. The rather heterogeneous purposes (ll. 1-10) include specific festivals (no festival named Aphrodisia is otherwise attested in Attica, but Anakia and Pandia are known, and Apollonia was a festival of the Epakrians, see R. Parker, Polytheism and Society, 2005, Appendix 1, and on Apollonia, SEG 32.144 with Parker, Athenian Religion, 1996, 330); a fund for the demarch’s expenses (it is unclear how far these would have extended beyond sacrifices for which he was responsible), one for the regular annual sacrifices of the deme (which, obscurely, have different arrangements from the named festivals); a large sum for the Herakleion, not it seems purely for sacrifices, but more broadly for the upkeep of the sanctuary, which was perhaps the only one directly administered by the deme (other local sanctuaries may have been under the purview of other groups, e.g. the Epakrians or local genē, cf. RO 37, and see further below); and a fund for exemption from contributions (ateleia), which is elucidated in ll. 28-33. The total of these capital sums is 22,100 dr., from which the deme would perhaps have generated ca. 500 dr. a year in income (cf. J. H. Blok, Mnemosyne 63, 2010, 72–7, comparing Nemesis at Rhamnous). The list is rounded off by a note of the present level of income the deme enjoys from rents, again somewhat clarified in the text of the following decree. [2] Whether there were more officials in this deme than the demarch and the two treasurers of ll. 2-3 is obscure (for debate on the identity of the "officials" here see D. Whitehead, in Symposion 2009, 67-72 = SEG 60.97). In any case it is noteworthy that the process of allotment of deme members to offices with financial responsibilities is not to be entirely random, but based, albeit it seems in a loose way, on their wealth. This parallels the way in which central Athenian officials with financial responsibility were drawn only from those who were wealthy (Ath. Pol. 8.1, 47.1). [3] From this clause, ll. 15-22, it is clear that the principal means of generating income from the deme’s capital for the purposes listed at the head of the decree was via loans, which are already regulated by decree(s) of the deme. Cf. the arrangements in Rhamnous, OR 134. It is implied that rates of interest may be variable, and that the officials are expected to assess the credit-worthiness of those who will potentially borrow money. [4] From this clause (ll. 22-7) it is apparent that to the income from loans is to be added the lesser sum accruing from rents (presently, it seems, that listed in l. 10) and together they are to be deployed for religious rites, here rather confusingly categorised differently from in ll. 1-9: Plotheian, Athenian and quadrennial. L. Migeotte, Symposion 2009, 53-66 (SEG 60.97) infers the abandonment of an old system, whereby the Plotheians used their capital to buy revenue-bearing property, and its replacement with a new one that consisted exclusively of loan interest and existing rentals. [5] This clause seems to imply that at some point the Plotheians have all undertaken to make personal contributions to certain rites, Plotheian, Epakrian (which might or might not all be quadrennial, cf. previous note) and Athenian, but also that the costs of such notionally personal contributions should in fact be offset from the income from one of the blocks of capital specified at the head of the decree (l. 7, fund eis thn ateleian). Migeotte, however, suggests that this fund was used to cover losses from occasional tax exemptions granted by the deme. For sacrifices funded by personal contributions of group members cf. SEG 50.168 Face B, Marathonian Tetrapolis, though this is the only case where “all” members seem to have contributed (or does this mean “all who attended”?), albeit only notionally. “The Epakrians” here seem to have been a pre-Cleisthenic trittys (Parker, Athenian Religion, 1996, 330; N. Papazarkadas, CQ 57, 2007, 22–32), which appears with other major ancient cult locations, including Eleusis, the Tetrapolis, Brauron, and Thorikos, in Philochoros’ list of the twelve original poleis of Attica (FGrH 328 F 94). Another fragment of Philochoros (206) shows that the small deme of Semachidai was also part of the association, a deme which seems to have derived its name from a like-named genos which supplied priestesses of Dionysos (Steph. Byz. s.v. Semachidai, with Parker, Athenian Religion, 326). For the Epakrians see also SEG 32.144; SEG 57.159. [6] Post-sacrificial feasting, though a crucial element of the social significance of sacrifice, is not central to sacrifice qua communication with the gods, and, while alluded to indirectly in various contexts, is rarely provided for explicitly in inscriptions such as sacrificial calendars (cf. OR 146 n. 6; IG I³ 255 B l. 4). Here the deme officials are obliged to supply sweet wine for the festivities from deme funds. Given the Dionysiac connotations of wine, the presence in the region of priestesses of Dionysos (previous note), and the proximity to Plotheia of the deme Ikarion, with its association with the reception of Dionysos in Attica and the origins of tragedy (cf. Papazarkadas, 30), there is attraction in the suggestion of Wilamowitz, Aristoteles und Athen (1893) II, 154 n. 23, that the “trainer” who is to be supplied with an extra large quantity of wine, was a trainer of choruses at the local Dionysia.

Added: 30 Sep 2016
Updated: 1 Nov 2024
Feedback

ID: AIO_1182