IRhamn 31 Decree of Rhamnous and resident Athenians honouring the trierarch Menandros of Eitea, 224/3 BC

Decree of Rhamnous and resident Athenians honouring the trierarch Menandros of Eitea, 224/3 BC

I Rhamnous 31 Date: 224/3 BC or shortly after

Damaged relief depicting a ship above a moulding inscribed with the archon date (epi ...) The Rhamnousians and those citizens living at Rhamnous decided.^[1] Timokrates son of Epigenes of Oe proposed: since Menandros having been appointed trierarch for the year of Niketes' archonship (224/3) managed (5)the equipping of the vessel well and with love of honour (philotimōs) spending from his own resources as much as those responsible for these things required of him;^[2] and he also provided oil for the youths (neaniskois) in order that, by taking care of their bodies, they might become stronger;^[3] and he sacrificed also to Zeus Soter and Athena (10)Soteira for the health and preservation and harmony of those sailing with him, so that being of one mind and kept safe they might also later be useful to the People;^[4] and he entertained (hupedexato) with love of honour (philotimōs) from his own resources; and crowned the officers (hupēretas) on the vessel for their love of honour (philotimias) (15)towards themselves;^[5] and donated the cost of guarding the vessel (nauphulakia)^[6] from his own resources and when visiting Rhamnous sacrificed to Nemesis with the general and the religious officials (hieropoiōn) chosen to accompany him;^[7] ⟦ . . . ⟧ and also donated sacrificial animals and wine; and so that there may be an incentive for those appointed (20)trierarchs at any time, knowing that they will obtain thanks worthy of their benefactions, for good fortune, those Athenians sailing together in the undecked vessel (aphraktōi) shall decide to praise Menandros son of Teisandros of Eitea and crown him with a gold crown according to the law (25)for his excellence ⟦ . . . ⟧ and love of honour (philotimias) towards themselves; and he shall also have freedom from tax on sailing (ateleian tou plou) for the future^[8] and to inscribe the decree on a stone stele and stand it by the gate;^[9] and to choose forthwith three men from themselves to implement what has been decreed; and the expenditure incurred (30)shall be accounted for to the community (koinōi).^[10] These were chosen: Timokrates son of Epigenes of Oe; Archestratos son of Aischines of Erchia; Diokles son of Dion of Hamaxanteia.^[11] In crown The Athenians who sailed with him (honoured) (35)Menandros son of Teisandros of Eitea.

Previous - Oetjen, Athen im dritten Jahrhundert, no. 21 Next - Oetjen, Athen im dritten Jahrhundert, no. 23

References:

I Rhamnous 31 (Translated text) (PHI)

R. Osborne, The demos and its divisions, no. 51

Oetjen, Athen im dritten Jahrhundert, no. 22

Knoepfler, Trésor documentaire, 134, 162, 208.5-6

Translation by: Stephen Lambert

Monument type: Stele

Inscription type: Decree (Deme Rhamnous and Athenian residents, including crew of the vessel commanded by the honorand)

Original location: Rhamnous (by the gate)

Findspot: Unknown (EM 13099)

Transliterations on Places on

[1] This decree honours the trierarch, Menandros son of Teisandros of Eitea, who had also been one of the commissioners for the decree honouring Archandros of Eleusis in ca. 248 BC, I Rhamnous 28, 7; and at about the same time as this decree, he contributed, as member of the Amphieraistai, a cult group connected with the sanctuary of Amphiaraos at Rhamnous, to the cost of works on the sanctuary, I Rhamnous 167, 31 (see further below, n. 11). Other members of his family are also attested in Rhamnousian contexts, cf. Teisandros, Teisandros, Teisandros, Dromeas. Eitea was close to Rhamnous (cf. SEG 28.102), and connections between members of that deme and Rhamnous were common. Cf. on the "peribolos of the Eiteans" at Rhamnous, I Rhamnous 418, with notes.

This inscription belongs in the period after the liberation of Athens from Macedonian control in 229 BC, when the city maintained neutrality under the aegis of the Ptolemies (cf. e.g. IG II³ 1, 1146). It is primarily of interest as the most important, indeed the only substantial document of the Athenian trierarchy post-dating 307 BC. See P. Fawcett, Hesperia 93, 2024, 29-82, at 42-43 and 44-45, and for a fuller discussion, C. A. Thomsen, in P. Bang et al. eds., Between Athens and Rhodes: Studies ... Gabrielsen, 2024, 73-92, who reviews evidence for the Athenian fleet at this period and argues that the trierarchy was not abolished by Demetrios of Phaleron, as some scholars have thought (other relevant inscriptions include IG II³ 1, 1035, 1051, 1238, IG II³ 4, 270). However, It is also possible that the trierarchy was re-introduced at this period as part of the restoration of the "ancestral constitution" (patrios politeia) after the liberation of 229 BC (cf. below n. 4).

The precise duties of the vessel are not specified, but it was perhaps charged with patrolling the coast of Attica in general and the east coastal area in particular. Rhamnous was optimally located for traffic across the straits to Euboea. For the threat posed by coastal raiders cf. e.g. I Rhamnous 403 and 407, IG II³ 1, 1137. The decree announces itself as passed by the deme Rhamnous and other Athenian citizens living there (1-2), but the citation at its end shows that this included also those members of the vessel's crew who were Athenian citizens (for non-citizen crew on Athenian triremes cf. IG I³ 1032, see also IG II³ 1, 418). There is not necessarily any inconsistency, since the fact that this decree was passed and erected at Rhamnous suggests that the crew were based there for a considerable time and/or had other connections with Rhamnous (cf. above on Menandros and his family, and below, n. 11), and, like citizen soldiers posted to the Rhamnous garrison, they could be included under the heading of "Athenian citizens resident at Rhamnous". On the fluidity of definition of groups passing decrees at Rhamnous at this period see N. Jones, Associations (1999), 76-80, Osborne, pp. 53-56, Oetjen, pp. 139ff. (cited with approval by Knoepfler p. 43 n. 56), Thomsen, 81-84, and cf. I Rhamnous 17, with notes. On the deme Rhamnous and its inscriptions in general see I Rhamnous 182. [2] Thomsen (above, n. 1), 84-85, notes that the trierarch was appointed, as in Classical Athens, and the office had not become elected like some other liturgies in the Hellenistic period. It seems that, as with the Classical trierarchy, while the vessel was supplied by the city (though it was not a trireme apparently but a light "undecked" vessel), equipping it was the responsibility of the trierarch. Cf. IG I³ 236a with [Dem.] 47 and V. Gabrielsen, Financing the Athenian Fleet (1994). [3] The supply of oil was typically a liturgy connected with exercise by ephebes and youths more generally in the gymnasium (cf. e.g. IG II² 1102, AIO 1798, esp. ll. 19-31, with notes), though it is not clear whether the youths (neaniskoi) who were the object of the trierarch's generosity on this occasion were on ephebic service, or were, or included, crew of the trierarch's vessel. The fact that no specific occasion is mentioned (e.g. the Nemesia festival) perhaps suggests that there was not a formal agonistic context in this case. [4] Sacrificing to the "Saviours", Zeus Soter and Athena Soteira, was a common way of seeking to ensure divine favour for a voyage by sea and the most prominent Attic sanctuary of this pair of deities was in the Piraeus (cf. e.g. IG II³ 1, 416 and IG II³ 1, 903). It is uncertain, however, whether this sacrifice was conducted there. That would be appropriate at the beginning of the trierarch's year of office, assuming he collected his ship in the Piraeus. However, sacrifices to Zeus Soter and Athena Soteira also feature at this period in decrees honouring generals at Rhamnous in the context of commemorating the restoration of the "ancestral constitution" in 229 BC, see I Rhamnous 22, 1-4; 411, 9-11; 421, 12-15; cf. IG II³ 4, 308. [5] The term hyperetai ("officers") designated the specialist leadership roles on a ship, such as the kybernetes ("helmsman"), the keleustes ("boatswain") etc. Cf. IG I³ 1032; and for an undertaking by Athens to supply such specialists to the rulers of the Bosporan Kingdom in the 4th cent. BC, IG II³ 1, 298, ll. 59-65. [6] The "costs of guarding" the vessel (nauphylakia) are perhaps to be related to its being an "undecked", or "undefended/unfortified" vessel (aphraktos, 22), and would seem to be the costs of hiring security to protect the vessel when in harbour. On the twin (East and West) harbours of Rhamnous, see D. Blackman et al., Arch. Eph. 160, 2021, 181-222. [7] Nemesis was the major deity of Rhamnous and the hieropoioi were officials of the deme responsible for the financial administration of the cult, cf. I Rhamnous 181 and 182. The cult was under the control of the deme, and this sacrifice by the trierarch is most likely key to explaining the association of the deme Rhamnous as party to the decree. The general, with whom, along with the hieropoioi, the trierarch conducts the sacrifice, is the general of the coastal territory based at Rhamnous (cf. I Rhamnous 403). The citizen soldiers under his command were among the "citizens resident" in the deme, who, along with the citizens who crewed the trierarch's vessel, are also parties to the decree (1-2). [8] Exactly what is meant by ateleia tou plou ("freedom from tax on sailing") is unclear. It might be freedom from a harbour tax (ellimenion, levied perhaps by the deme Rhamnous on ships using the harbour there), or a tax on goods imported or exported (from/to Rhamnous?), in both cases potentially payable in future perhaps by the trierarch in a private capacity. Osborne, however, suggests that it gives or purports to give Menandros freedom from the obligation to sail in person on any vessel of which he is trierarch in future. Cf. Petrakos' note ad loc. (vol. II p. 39), Fawcett, Hesperia 93, 2024, 42-43 and 44-45, Thomsen (cited in n. 1, above), 88. [9] I.e the East Gate, cf. I Rhamnous 10, with Petrakos' notes. [10] The phrase about "accounting to the community (koinon)" is formulaic in this context. It is unclear what it meant in a case such as this where the group passing the decree is more than usually ad hoc. It is notable that, despite the association of the deme as party to the decree, none of the commissioners for inscribing it is a demesman of Rhamnous. [11] Osborne, 54-55, notes that I Rhamnous 167, apparently contemporary with our decree, shows two of the men charged with implementing the honours for Menandros, Archestratos of Erchia and Diokles of Hamaxanteia, playing leading roles in the Amphieraistai, a group which refurbished the local sanctuary of Amphiaraos; and that Menandros himself figures among the contributors to the works (on his other links with Rhamnous cf. above n. 1). On the other hand, that decree was proposed by a demesman of Rhamnous, and another Rhamnousian is singled out in it. This association of Rhamnousians with other citizens in a cult group, the unit of community par excellence in the Greek world, is another sign of the fluidity of association in this deme between members and citizen non-members (cf. above, n. 1).

Added: 2 Apr 2026
Updated: 2 Apr 2026
Feedback

ID: AIO_3569