AgoraXIX P5 Sale of confiscated property and mine leases, 367/6 BC

Sale of confiscated property and mine leases, 367/6 BC

Agora XIX P5 Date: 367/6 BC

Confiscated property In the archonship of Polyzelos (367/6) the official sellers (pōlētai),^[1] Polyeuktos of Lamptrai^I, Deinias of Erchia^II, Theaios of Paiania^III, Theotimos of Phrearrhioi^IV, Aristogenes of Iphistiadai^V, Glaukon of Lakiadai^VI, Kephisokles of (5) Piraeus^VIII, Nikokles of Anaphlystos^X, to whom Exekestos of Kothokidai was secretary,^[2] sold the following, having received them from the Eleven (hendeka),^[3] Phaiax of Aphidna and his fellow officials: on the tenth of Mounichion Theomnestos son of Deisitheos of Ionidai registered as public property a house in Alopeke (10) belonging to Theosebes son of Theophilos of Xypete, bounded to the north by the road to the Daidaleion and the Daidaleion,^[4] to the south by Philippos of Agryle, Theosebes having been convicted of robbery of sacred property (hierosulias) and not having awaited judgement,^[5] for its value in excess of the 150 drachmas for (15) which the property was pledged as security to Smikythos of Teithras.^[6] Witnesses to the registration (klētēr) Diogeiton of Alopeke, Philoitios of Ionidai. Kichonides son of Diogeiton of Gargettos and the society (koinon) of members of the phratry (phraterōn) Medontidai^[7] entered a claim (enepeskēpsato) that 100 drachmas was owed to him and to the phratry members on the house in Alopeke (20) which Theomnestos of Ionidai registered as belonging to Theosebes of Xypete, bounded to the north by the road to the Daidaleion and the Daidaleion, to the south by Philippos of Agryle, “this house having been mortgaged (apodomeno) to me and the phratry members by Theophilos of Xypete, the father of Theosebes”. (25) It was decided that the money was owed. Isarchos son of Philon of Xypete contends (amphisbētai) that he is owed 30 drachmas on the house in Alopeke which Theomnestos son of Deisitheos of Ionidai registered, “I having buried Theophilos, whose house this was, and his wife”.^[8] It (30) was decided that the money was owed. Aischines of Melite and the society of orgeones entered a claim on the house which Theomnestos of Ionidai registered, that they were owed 24 drachmas, “we having lent Theophilos this amount on the security of this house”. It (35) was decided that it was owed. Purchaser, Lysanias son of Palathion of Lakiadai, 575 drachmas. The city has a fifth of this as deposit and the sales tax and the herald’s fee,^[9] and Smikythos of Teithras has the one hundred and fifty drachmas, in a single payment, in accordance with the registration.

Mines (40) These mines were sold (eprathē) in the first prytany, of Hippothontis:^[10] Dexiakon at Skopias in Nape, bounded on all sides by Nikias of Kydantidai, purchaser Kallias of Sphettos, 20 drachmas; Diakon at Laurion, bounded to the east by the estate of Exopios, to the west by the mountain, purchaser Epiteles of Kerameis, 20 drachmas; at (45) Sounion, on the property of the children of Charmylos, bounded to the north by Kleokritos of Aigilia, to the south by Leukios of Sounion, purchaser Pheidippos of Pithos, 20 drachmas; Poseidoniakon in Nape, from those on the stele, on the property of Alypetos, bounded by Kallias of Sphettos and Diokles of Pithos, purchaser Thasylochos of Anagyrous, 1550 drachmas; (50) Hagnosiakon, from those on the stele, purchaser Telesarchos of Aixone, 1550 drachmas; Artemisiakon, from those on the stele, purchaser Thrasylochos of Anagyrous, 150 drachmas. In the second prytany, of Antiochis, at Laurion the mine itself and the cuttings, bounded to the north by Diopeithes of Euonymon and the furnace of Demostratos of Kytherros, to the (55) south by the workshop of Diopeithes and the waggon road and the torrent of the Thorikians, purchaser Kephisodotos of Aithalidai, 20 drachmas; Demetriakon on the property of Timesios in Nape, bounded by Nikias of Kydantidai, to the south by Diokles of Pithos, purchaser Demon of Agryle, 20 drachmas; in Maroneia Hermaikon, bounded by Diophanes of Sounion, (60) purchaser Philinos of Sounion, 20 drachmas. In the third prytany, of Oineis, in Laurion, Theognideion,^[11] from the stele, bounded by the land of Exopios, purchaser Kallias of Lamptrai, 50 drachmas. In the fourth prytany, of Kekropis, at Sounion, in Nape, Pyrrhieion,^[11] bounded to the east by Kallias of Alopeke, to the west by Nikias (65) of Kydantidai, purchaser Kallias of Sphettos, 20 drachmas; at Thorikos Archegeteion on the property of Demophilos, bordered to north and south by Demophilos, purchaser Kephisophon of Sybridai, 20 drachmas; in Nape on the estate of the wife of Charmylos,^[12] bounded by the estate of the wife of Alypetos,^[12] to the north by Teleson of Sounion, to (70) the east by the estate of Teleson of Sounion, to the west by Epikrates of Pallene, purchaser Epikles of Sphettos, 20 drachmas. In the fifth prytany, of Aigeis, Archegeteion and the cuttings, lacking a stele, at Besa on the property of Kephisodotos and Kallias, bounded to the east by the tower and house of (75) Kallias of Lamptrai, to the north by the workshop of Kephisodotos, to the south by the Archegeteion, purchaser Kephisodotos of Aithalidai, 20 drachmas. In the seventh prytany, of Leontis, at Sounion at Thrasymos, Kerameikon, bounded by Diopeithes of Euonymon, purchaser Aleximachos of Pelekes, 20 drachmas; at Sounion in Nape on the property of the children of Charmylos (80) bounded to the north by Pyrrhakos of Aigilia,^[13] to the south by Leukios of Sounion, purchaser Pheidippos of Pithos, 20 drachmas. In the ninth prytany, of Erechtheis, at Sounion, from those on the stele, Leukippeion^[11] at Besa, purchaser Chairedemos of Hagnous, 150 drachmas.^[14]

Previous - SEG 11.1198 Next - SEG 13.2

References:

Agora XIX P5 (Translated text) (PHI)

SEG 12.100 (PHI)

RO 36

Translation by: Stephen Lambert, Jane Ashwell, Robin Osborne

Images: Agora Excavations - (1)
Aleshire - (1)
Ohio - (1, 2)

Monument type: Stele

Inscription type: Account

Findspot: Agora (Ag. I 5509)

Transliterations on Places on

[1] The “official sellers” (poletai) were responsible for public sales of confiscated property (e.g. that confiscated from those condemned for the mutilation of the Herms and the profanation of the Mysteries, 414/3 BC, and from the Thirty and associates, 402/1 BC, cf. IG I³ 421, Agora XIX P1-2), contracts for public works (e.g. OR 137, l. 7, IG I³ 84, l. 5, RO 25, ll. 47-49, IG II³ 1, 292, ll. 65-66), mine leases, and tax collection contracts, cf. Ath. Pol. 7.3, 47.2-4. Largely on the basis of IG I³ 84, ll. 11-12, it has been thought that they also had a role, jointly with the basileus, in leasing sacred properties (doubted by Papazarkadas, Sacred and Public Land, 52-54, cf. M. Langdon in Agora XIX pp. 64-65). This is the earliest surviving account recording mine leases. Tax collection contracts are never inscribed on stone, perhaps because they were more ephemeral than mine leases. Ath. Pol. 47.2 says the poletai recorded them on whitened boards, which they handed over to the Council, and which were erased when the payment was made. [2] Only 8 out of the full complement of 10 poletai are listed, there being no representatives of tribes 7 and 9. It is unclear whether this means that there were two vacancies on the board or that the other two were simply absent or engaged on other business. [3] The Eleven were responsible among other things for bringing to court registration of property that was forfeit (for debt or as a penalty following judicial conviction), Ath. Pol. 52.1. The poletai then oversaw the sale (apparently by auction, note the herald’s fee, l. 37). [4] The sanctuary of Daidalos (the mythical skilled craftsman best known as father of Ikaros) was presumably located in the small deme Daidalidai (connoting, “descendants” or “followers” of Daidalos), which most likely abutted both the large city deme Alopeke, Theosebes’ deme, and Agryle, the deme of the owner of the property bounding Theosebes’ house to the south (ll. 12-13). [5] Names from the root Theo- (god) are common, but the fact that the names of all the protagonists in this case are religiously significant (Theosebes connotes “god-revering”, Deisitheos, “god-fearing”, Theophilos “god-loving”, Theomnestos "god-mindful"), combined with the nature of the offence involved, suggests that Theosebes perhaps held a cult office with financial responsibility and been convicted of embezzlement of cult funds. The simplest, but not the only possible, reconstruction is that he belonged to the hereditary society of orgeones from which his father had borrowed money (ll. 30-32), that the society was responsible for managing the sanctuary in question (perhaps the sanctuary of Daidalos close to which the family’s house lay, ll. 11-12 etc., or perhaps one in the family’s home deme of Xypete) and that the registrant (and prosecutor?), Theomnestos, was a fellow-member of the society. On orgeones cf. LSCG 45 n. 1. Whether there is any causal connection between Theosebes’ offence and the multiple indebtedness of his estate to which this record attests, is unknowable, but not implausible (though the amounts of the individual debts are not especially high). Similarly we cannot tell how, if at all, the offence was connected with the death of Theosebes’ parents (ll. 28-30). [6] It transpires that the house had been used as security for three loans. The first mentioned was made by an individual, Smikythos of Teithras, and was accounted for in the original registration (ll. 14-15). The other two had been taken out by Theosebes’ father before Theosebes inherited and only came to light later in the legal process. They were made by hereditary groups to which, most likely, the family belonged, a phratry and a society of orgeones (the latter possibly but not certainly a subgroup of the former). Though the language used to describe the security transactions varies (“hypothecation”, hypotheke, for Smikythos’ loan, “sale subject to redemption”, prasis epi lysei for the collective loans), there was probably no real legal difference between them (E. M. Harris, CQ 38, 1988, 351-81 at 377-78; cf. Dike 16, 2013, 123-46). Most of our other evidence for mortgaging of property is from surviving inscribed boundary markers of the encumbered properties (horoi), see Agora XIX H84 with notes and bibliography cited there. This case is important evidence that the owner of the property retained an interest to the extent of its value in excess of the loan. [7] On phratries see IG II² 1237, on the Medontidai, Lambert, Phratries T7-10. [8] Though the house at issue in this case was in the city deme Alopeke, the family that owned it belonged to the deme Xypete, west of the city, as did Isarchos, who claims against the estate the cost of burying Theosebes’ father, Theophilos. It is possible that Isarchos had a family connection with Theophilos, or even that he was demarch of Xypete carrying out a duty imposed on demarchs to bury the dead not buried by their relatives (cf. Dem. 43.58). Though not impossible, it would be slightly unusual for someone to own property in the city, but no property in their home deme. It is possible that Theophilos and his wife merely rented property in their deme, or that they lived there with relatives, or that they did not live in their deme at all, or that, in addition to his house in Alopeke, Theophilos had owned a house in his own deme and it had been inherited by a brother of Theosebes. This, however, would beg the question, why the brother did not take responsibility for the burial of his father. Unfortunately we do not know enough to reconstruct this family's property arrangements in full. [9] Lysanias has been required to pay a deposit of 20% of the sale price. For deposits of this value on other sales by the poletai, RO 26, ll. 55-61. To this was added a sales tax, probably at 1% (cf. Lambert, Rationes stele 1), and a herald’s (i.e. auctioneer’s) fee. [10] This is our earliest detailed evidence for the city’s system for sale of mining rights (primarily for silver) in southern Attica (the series of mine lease records runs to ca. 300 BC, the latest being Agora XIX P51). According to Ath. Pol. 47.2 there were two categories of mine, “working” mines let for three years, and (newly) “conceded” mines let perhaps for seven years (the figure is largely illegible, cf. Langdon, Agora XIX p. 60). The new concessions are perhaps identifiable with the mines leased here for the low sum of 20 dr., suggesting new mines or, since some of them have established names, perhaps old mines being reopened. In later records a distinction is made between “new cuttings”, kainotomiai, and “piled-up mines”, anasaxima or “old piled-up mines”, palaia anasaxima. The “working” mines of Ath. Pol. are perhaps identifiable with “those from the stele” in our inscription, which are leased for higher sums (1550, 150 and 50 dr.), suggesting that their productivity is already established. The frequency at which the payments are to be made is unfortunately unclear. We are also in the dark on how far these leases were the city’s main source of income from the mines. We hear for example in a later record of a 2% tax “in the works” (Agora XIX P26, ll. 474-75) and Sud. s.v. agraphou metallou dike mentions a standard charge of 1/24th of the yield. The city apparently claimed the mineral rights, but it is clear from these records that the land on which the mines were located was in private ownership and the landowners had a significant stake in the mining business (cf. n. 14). We do not know, however, what, if any, fees, the mine-lessee might have to pay the landowner (G. Davis, Historia 63, 2014, 263-66 suggests that the original ownership of the silver was vested not in the city, but in the landowners, that the landowners agreed terms for its exploitation with the "lessee", and that, despite the language of sale and purchase, e.g. ll. 40 and 44, the city's role was merely to ensure mines were registered so that their production could be taxed). See further RO pp. 180-81; and for a vivid depiction of the complexities of silver-mine finance, Demosthenes 37. [11] The mines are mostly named for gods and heroes, lending a religious gloss. It was doubtless hoped the relevant divinity would endow the mines – speculative and chancy ventures even in the modern world – with success. For example Poseidoniakon (47), named for Poseidon, god among other things of earthquakes, a risk to mining operations; Demetriakon (57), for Demeter, appropriate to a venture designed to make the ground fruitful; Hermaikon (59), for Hermes, bringer of luck to risky ventures. The names may also reflect local sanctuaries. Two are named Archegeteion, after the Founding Hero, in one case at Thorikos (65-66), where the allusion may be to Thorikos himself, a figure who appears in Thorikos’ sacrificial calendar (OR 146). In the second case naming for a local sanctuary is more explicit, as the mine named Archegeteion in Besa (72) is duly located with reference to an “Archegeteion” = sanctuary of the Founding Hero (ll. 75-76). A few of the mines, however, are apparently named for individuals, Theognis (61), Pyrrhias (63-64) and perhaps Leukippos (82; Papazarkadas, 291-93, thinks of landowners or sometime landowners). The locations of the demes Sounion, Thorikos and Besa are known, but the precise locations of the non-deme designations, Laurion and Maroneia (modern Laurion is to the south of Thorikos), and of the areas within demes, Nape, Thrasymos etc., are unknown, as are the locations of the specific mines. [12] Women could be carriers of property in Athenian law (for example they carried portions of their paternal estate into their marital house in the form of dowries, and might carry the entire paternal estate as an heiress, epikleros), but not dispose of it. RO p. 181 suggested that the wives of Charmylos and Alypetos may have been widowed recently enough for their property not yet to have passed into the control of a man. Note, however, that the Poseidoniakon mine, also in Nape, is located on the property of Alypetos (48), suggesting that he was still alive, and that other mines are located on the property of the children of Charmylos (ll. 45, 79. Their anonymity suggests that they were minors). Perhaps therefore the property of Alypetos’ wife was simply her dowry or inheritance as heiress, here designated separately from her husband’s property. Charmylos does indeed seem to be deceased, but his children are designated as owning property separately from his wife, again suggesting that the wife’s property was peculiarly hers, i.e. a dowry or heiress’s inheritance. In this case the wife's property might have devolved upon the children when they reached adulthood. [13] This is a significant name, given that there was a group attested on Delos, the “Pyrrhakidai of the Aigilieis” (I Délos 66, cf. 67, 1416B ll. 57-63), plausibly interpreted by Papazarkadas, 294-95, as an Attic genos, or part of a genos, Pyrrhakidai (attested also in the hellenistic records of the official Athenian pilgrimage, theoria to Delphi, F.Delphes III.2.7, 8. 13, 10) based in the deme Aigilia, just as there was a part of the genos Salaminioi based in Sounion (RO 37). This man was perhaps, therefore, a member of the genos after whose eponym he was, not implausibly, named. [14] This set of accounts does not create an overall impression of very vigorous mining activity, with just five lease renewals across the whole year, alongside a handful of new ventures or re-openings of old mines. It is possible that this impression is to an extent an administrative artefact; this account, the first to record mine leases, might have coincided with a reform or revival of the city's mine management systems and may not fully reflect the level of mining actually underway in the early 360s. On the other hand, the impression of relatively low-level exploitation at this time, at least as regards new cuttings, is consistent with the remarks of Xenophon in the Poroi ca. 355 BC (4.28): “development has only recently got underway again” and “there are not as many new cuttings now as previously”, and pointing out that improved exploitation of the mines was important if the city’s dire financial situation (which prevented Athens from continuing the Social War with some of its allies at that time), was to be ameliorated. Later poletai records suggest intensified production from the 340s, e.g. while 17 mines were leased in our complete record of 367/6, over 80 are listed in the fragmentary record of 342/1, Agora XIX P26. Literary evidence seems to bear this out, with a rash of mine litigation to an extent produced by intensified activity, e.g. Dem. 37, of ca. 346 BC; [Plut.] Lives of the Ten Orators 843d, Lykourgos’ prosecution of Diphilos for illegal mineworking yielding 160 talents; Hypereides Eux. 34-36, of 330-324 BC, stating explicitly that more new cuttings were being undertaken than previously. On the perhaps related issue of the extent of imitation Attic silver in circulation in Attica at this period see RO 25, with n. 2. J. Kroll, Revue Belge de Numismatique 157 (2011), 3-26, at 15-19 suggests that Athenian silver coinage was actually quite plentiful in the first half of the fourth century, but that most of it disappeared in a wholesale reminting for which there is evidence in an unpublished inscribed law of 354/3 (SEG 54.114, 56.26, 61.119). Of the fifteen located mines in our record, most are in Sounion; one at Maroneia (59), location of the richly profitable mines of the early-5th century (Ath. Pol. 22.7); three at Laurion, two at Besa, one in Thorikos. Nape, location of six of the Sounion mines, scarcely features in later lease records, while Thrasymos, location of one mine in this record, is frequently mentioned in later lists. Two sites not in our lists appear in later ones, Aulon and Bambideion. Several of the lessees and landowners mentioned in this inscription are from very prominent and wealthy families. Nikias of Kydantidai (landowner, ll. 41-42, 58, 64-65, cf. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families, p. 406) is grandson of the famous Nikias son of Nikeratos, who was a general in the Peloponnesian War period and whose great wealth (for which see also Thuc. 7.86.4), was said to consist almost entirely in mining interests and slaves (by Plutarch, Nikias 3.3; Nikias allegedly had 1,000 slaves whom he hired to work in the mines at 1 obol a day, Xen. Poroi 4.14, cf. Mem 2.5.2). The elder Nikias’ son, Nikeratos, died (killed by the Thirty) rather less rich than his father, suggesting “that his inherited property in the mines suffered disastrously from the Dekeleian War and the flight of slaves (Thuc. 7.27.5)” (Davies, pp. 405-406). His son, our Nikias, made an advantageous marriage to a daughter of Thrasyboulos of Steiria (Dem. 19.290) and our accounts document his continuing extensive landholdings in the mining region. Leukios of Sounion (landowner ll. 46, 80, in later records also a mine lessee, APF 9057) was a liturgist (IG II³ 1, 550, l. 17) and donated land for a new agora to his deme in the Lykourgan period (IG II² 1180). Thrasylochos of Anagyrous (lessee of two mines, ll. 49 and 51-52, APF pp. 385-86) was (apparently older) brother of Demosthenes’ opponent, Meidias (Dem. 21), himself challenged Demosthenes to an antidosis (exchange of property) in relation to a syntrierarchy (Dem. 27.17) and appears as owner of a workshop in the mines in the 350s. Diophanes of Sounion (landowner, ll. 59-60, cf. also P20, 67, APF pp. 167-68) was brother of an archon of the genos Salaminioi, Sounion branch (RO 37, l. 69). Kallias of Alopeke (landowner, l. 64, APF pp. 254-70), was member of one of the wealthiest and most prominent of all Athenian families, which included the Kallias son of Hipponikos of Alopeke who lived ca. 520-445, whose wealth derived to a large extent from mining interests (documented, Davies p. 260), was a member of the genos Kerykes, and who, unusually for a politically prominent man, also held one of the major Attic priesthoods, the dadouchy of the Eleusinian Mysteries (Blok and Lambert, ZPE 169, 2009, 116, dadouch no. 1). Our Kallias is probably this man’s grandson, also a son of Hipponikos, who lived ca. 450-365, and was appointed to the dadouchy in his turn at some time before 400 (Blok and Lambert, dadouch no. 2). He was prominent and initially wealthy, but was allegedly worth less than 2 talents by 387 (Lys. 19.48), the decline in his financial fortunes, like those of Nikias’ family, attributable in part to the collapse of mining revenues after 413 (Davies, p. 261). Epikrates of Pallene (landowner, l. 70, APF 4909) was, or was related to, the Epikrates of Pallene who was syntrierarch ca. 350, the Epikrates of Pallene prosecuted in the 320s and alleged to have made 300 talents profit from the mines in 3 years (Hyp. Eux. 35), and perhaps to the wealthy Epikrates who proposed the law on ephebes (cf. RO 89). For a comparative discussion of the socio-economic profile of the landowners and mine lessees in this account and in P26 see K. Shipton, in C. Tiersch ed., Die Athenische Demokratie im 4 Jhdt. (2016), 253-60.

Added: 15 Sep 2017
Updated: 5 Jan 2023
Feedback

ID: AIO_1292