IGII2 2496 Lease of buildings in Piraeus by [the deme] Kytherros

Lease of buildings in Piraeus by [the deme] Kytherros

IG II² 2496 Date: ca. 325-300 BC

For good fortune; in the priesthood of Philippides.^[1] On the following terms Antimachos son of Amphimachos, Pheidostratos son of Mnesichares, Demaretos son of Leosthenes, (5)Ktesias son of Ktesiphon, Ktesippos Relief^[2] son of Ktesiphon, Ktesichares son of Ktesiphon, Ktesias son of Timokrates, Chaireas son of Mnesichares,^[3] the section-members (meritai)^[4] of Kytherros, leased the workshop (ergastērion) in Piraeus and the (10)dwelling (oikēsin) attached to it and the shed (oikēmation) at the (epi tou) dung-heap (koprōnos)^[5] for all time to Eukrates son of Exekias of Aphidna^[6] for 54 drachmas each year, free of all taxes (ateles hapantōn),^[9] on condition that he pays 30 in Hekatombaion and twenty- (15)four in Posideon, and carries out the necessary repairs to the workshop and the dwelling in the first year; but if he does not pay the rent according to what has been written or does not carry out the repairs, he shall owe double and Eukrates shall vacate the workshop without (20)making an excuse (literally: "saying a word"); the guarantor that he will do what has been written within the time specified shall be Exekias of Aphidna;^[7] and the section members (meritas)^[4] of Kytherros shall confirm the lease for Eukrates and his descendants,^[8] and if not, they shall owe 1000 drachmas; and Eukrates shall inscribe this agreement (sunthēkas) (25)on a stone stele and stand it by the hero;^[1] and if there should be a property-based tax (eisphora) due or any other charge of any kind,^[9] Eukrates shall pay it according to the valuation of seven minai. Gods.

Previous - Papazarkadas, Sacred and Public Land, 72-3, 84-5 Next - Papazarkadas, Sacred and Public Land, 132-35, 183-86, 197-99, 235f.

References:

IG II² 2496 (Translated text) (PHI)

SEG 61.1615

SEG 51.17

Syll.³ 1216

Lawton 156

Papazarkadas, Sacred and Public Land, 124-5

Humphreys, Kinship, 914-6

Russo, Ripartizioni, D61

Translation by: Stephen Lambert

Monument type: Stele

Inscription type: Lease (deme Kytherros)

Original location: [Piraeus], "next to the hero"

Findspot: Piraeus, close to harbour of Zea (NM 1477)

Transliterations on Places on

[1] This is a lease from the Piraeus (findspot, confirmed by l. 9) by meritai ("section-members", see below) of the deme Kytherros (the attribution in older scholarship, based on much less information, e.g. on the names of the persons mentioned, and fewer Attic comparanda, e.g. for the term meritai, to a group of immigrants from the island of Kythera [settlement: Kythera], has more recently been abandoned; see the literature cited by D. Whitehead, Demes of Attica, 1986, 383. Scholarship since 1986 has accepted the attribution to the deme). The property leased is a group of buildings in Piraeus and the lessee is a man neither from Kytherros, nor Piraeus, but Aphidna. The othography (e.g. uniform -ου not -ο in genitive, cf. Threatte, Grammar I, 238-259, especially 256, together with sporadic -ει in place of -ηι for datives), suggests a date after the middle of the 4th cent. BC (thus IG), perhaps ca. 340-330 BC or later (-ει for -ηι remains rare in ca. 340-325, but quickly becomes common thereafter, Threatte I, 378, cf. 369), but these orthographical datings are based largely on polis inscriptions, and as with other inscriptions from the Attic demes whose Cutter has not been identified by Tracy, and which lack firm prosopographical or other chronological indicators, it is difficult to assign a more precise date. Provision for payment of the property-based tax, the eisphora, occurs in inscriptions through to the end of the 4th century BC (for more detail on this dating criterion, see AIUK vol. 4.3, p. 20). Lawton would date the relief on stylistic grounds to the last quarter of the 4th cent. BC, and we follow that dating on AIO.

Kytherros was a small deme of Pandionis (bouleutic quota 2 before 307/6, attested e.g. by IG II³ 4, 21, 40-42, Agora XV 42, 192-194; the deme was transferred to Antigonis in 307/6 and retained there its quota of 2, Traill, Political Organization, 1975, Table XI). Assigned to the coastal trittys by Traill, Demos and Trittys (1986), 130, cf. 47, it was located conjecturally, but persuasively, by him at Pousi Kaloyerou, north-east of Myrrhinous (pp. 47-51 with map 1, p. 50). As befits a "city" of the ancient Attic Dodekapolis (Strabo 9.1.20 = Philochoros FGrH 328 F94) there are rock-cut Mycenean tombs ca. 1 km south of the Pousi Kaloyerou site at Ligori (which was already identified by Stais as indicating the area of the Kytherros of the Dodekapolis; Humphreys points to "the flourishing late Mycenaean site on the coast at Perati"). The deme is most notable as the location of the large estate of Phainippos, described in considerable detail in Dem. 42 (discussed by Traill, 47-49, and Humphreys). This is the only extant inscription produced by Kytherros. For a recent discussion of the deme see Humphreys. On demes in general, RO 46.

For Attic leases, including by demes, see IG I³ 84 with notes. This one is unusual in that we have to do with a deme leasing a property in the territory of another deme. On the question of how Kytherros acquired the property in the first place, Humphreys raises the possibility "that a demesman of K. resident in Piraeus had ‘discovered’ a hero and given the deme a shrine with an endowment for its upkeep". In general on demes owning properties in other demes see Rationes, p. 187, cf. 241, where I noted that it might come about by borrowers from the deme defaulting and the deme acquiring the property that had been used as security for the loan. The lease is also notable in that, in stating both the value of the property and the rental, it is one of very few pieces of epigraphical evidence that makes clear the return on capital for a lease, viz. 7.7 % (54 dr. per annum rent on a property valued at 7 minai [= 700 dr.], cf. 8% rent attested by Isaios 11.42, with A. Burford, Land and Labor, 1993, 179 with n. 31).

Philippides (who is not identifiable) was presumably priest of the hero, next to whom (i.e. to his statue?) the stele was to be set up (25, cf. Lawton, Russo, pp. 88, 185). While it is not unlikely that he was a member of the deme Kytherros, that is not certain. This might simply be a hero shrine close by the leased properties (for a lease set up on leased property adjacent to a hero shrine, cf. IG I³ 84). Humphreys and Papazarkadas, 137 n. 178, tend to think that the properties that were the subject of this lease were related in some way to the hero cult. [2] The relief is unusually placed in the top right-hand corner of the body of the stele rather than, as more commonly, in a separate panel at the top. This perhaps reflects the fact that the stele as a whole, including the relief, was set up explicitly at the expense of the lessee (ll. 24-25). It depicts a seated male ("the hero" of the text), holding out a drinking cup towards a standing female, who pours into the cup from a wine-pourer. Since the figures are on the same scale, the standing female perhaps represents a heroic figure, rather than a mortal (perhaps "the heroine" with whom "heroes" in Attica were commonly paired, cf. e.g. IG II² 1358, Face A col. 2, passim, though there is no mention of one in the text. Cf. Lawton, who similarly thinks of a heroine). [3] None of the 8 "section-members" (meritai) is otherwise known, and with two exceptions none of their names is otherwise attested in the small deme Kytherros, but all are well-formed according to Attic onomastic practice; none of them is surprising for an Athenian citizen; and it is quite common for men who played a more or less prominent role in their demes to be otherwise unknown. The exceptions are Ktesippos son of Ktesiphon (l. 5), who was doubtless a relation of Ktesippos son of Simylos of Kytherros, who is listed as liable for liturgies ca. 380 BC (IG II² 1929, 20) and Ktesias son of Timokrates (l. 7), who is doubtless related to Timon son of Timokrates, treasurer of Athena in 377/6 BC (IG II² 1410, 4-5; 1411, 1). The fact that the meritai were clearly interrelated, and that two of them were from liturgical families, tends to confirm that they were a "section" within the deme which perhaps undertook a role in its financial administration (Papazarkadas, see next note). Whether there was more than one such "section" (or "committee", Papazarkadas) in this small deme is not quite clear, but parallels suggest it is likely (the deme might, for example, have contained 5 or 6 merē with ca. 8 members each). [4] This is one of several references in deme inscriptions to deme "sections" (merē), their leaders (merarchai, IG II² 1203), or, as in this case apparently, members (meritai). As Papazarkadas, 115 with n. 69, notes, the closest parallel to our case appears to be I Rhamnous 180, ll. 3-4 and 36-7, where land is leased out by "the demesmen of the "section" of Archippos and Stesias (ek tou Archippou merous kai Stesiou). For merē interpreted as deme sections see M. H. Jameson, in Hesp. Suppl. 19, 1982, 72-73. For an (uncertain) restored case of meritai representing their deme in a land transaction, see Rationes Centesimarum, stele 2, F8B, 49 with Papazarkadas, 134. [5] The precise character of this property is unclear. The lack of reference to any land shows that it is not a typical agricultural lease, but there are other cases of demes leasing non-agricultural properties (cf. the notes to IG I³ 84) and it seems most likely that the property was a small "industrial" complex consisting of a workshop (ergasterion, a term that might accommodate a wide range of activities), possibly for the production of something, a dwelling (oikesis) for the workman or workmen employed in it (more likely metics or slaves than the lessee himself) and an associated "shed" (oikemation, literally "a little house"), perhaps for storage (e.g. of equipment, raw materials, or the finished product). The description of the shed as epi tou kopronos (Humphreys translates "on the dungheap", but the possible alternative "hard by the dungheap" seems more likely) tantalises. The simplest interpretation is that this is a heap of dung produced by livestock (for grazing of livestock in the Piraeus cf. IG II² 2498, ll. 12-13) and being stored for use as fertilizer, but there are other possibilities. It has been suggested by B. A. Ault, Hesperia 68, 1999, 549-73 at 550-59, for example, that koprones might be more general waste-disposal pits (cf. Papazarkadas, 134). Whether the work carried out in the workshop was also agricultural in character or e.g. involved processing of an agricultural product, would be unclear (for elaborate arrangements made by a deme for profiting from olive wood from trees on its property, cf. IG II² 2492), but, if so, it would be interesting that the operation was managed separately from the land itself (unless that was perhaps also owned by the deme Kytherros?). Note that there also seems to have been a hero-shrine in the vicinity (cf. above, n. 1). [6] Eukrates son of Exekias of Aphidna is not otherwise known (cf. next note and Papazarkadas, 154). [7] Exekias the guarantor appears to be the father of the lessee (cf. previous note). Demes secured their property interests by a variety of means, cf. Papazarkadas, 119; and on fathers guaranteeing leases by their sons, 321. [8] For another heritable deme lease involving a named father and son, cf. IG II² 2492. For a possible attempt by a deme to address problems caused for such leases by extensive mortality in the Peloponnesian War, cf. IG I³ 247. On perpetual leases see also Burford, Land and Labor, 178 (for a helpful summary of this volume see SEG 43.1221). [9] For a discussion of the tax provisions of this lease - the lessee is to be "free of all taxes" (ateles hapanton) in 13, but is obliged to pay the eisphora (a periodic tax levied by the city on all property holdings in Attica) and "any other charge" on it in ll. 26-27 - see Papazarkadas, 124-25. The easiest explanation is that the eisphora is not regarded as a "tax" (telos), and that "freedom from taxes" signifies primarily in practice freedom from the tax that was charged by the deme on property in its territory owned by non-members (the enktetikon, which we know was levied in the Piraeus, cf. IG II² 1214. Papazarkadas thinks our decree might relate rather to freedom from taxes payable in Kytherros). A similar contrast between taxes due to the polis, mainly in practice the eisphora, and taxes due to the deme, mainly in practice the enktetikon (freedom from the latter being expressed in the language of "ateleia"), is found in other deme leases (e.g. IG II² 2498, ll. 6-8), and is reflected also in honorific decrees of demes awarding ateleia (as e.g. I Eleusis 70, 71, 72, l. 29, 99, l. 16). The force of hapanton with ateleia is probably to emphasise that the lessee is to be free from any taxes whatsoever that might be levied by the (or, in our case, either?) deme (hapanton does not occur in IG II² 2498, but there is probably no difference in effective force). The reference to "any other charge" (than the eisphora) in relation to city taxes has a similar force in creating (or, as the case may be, closing off) liability to any polis tax or levy whatsoever that might be payable on the property.

Added: 21 Jan 2024
Updated: 22 Jan 2024
Feedback

ID: AIO_2838