SEG 39.148 Decree of Kydantidai and Ionidai

Decree of Kydantidai and Ionidai

SEG 39.148 Date: 331/0 BC

Gods^[1] Uninscribed space Leonteus son of Antiphanes of Kydantidai proposed: Kydantidai and Ionidai shall decide: since the payment officers of the archonship 5 of Aristophanes (331/0) and the priest of Herakles managed the Herakleia well and with love of honour, the (festival of) drink-offerings and the summer (festival), to praise them and crown each of them with a foliage crown for their justice 10 and love of honour towards Kydantidai and Ionidai, the priest Meidon son of Arkephilos of Kydantidai and the payment officers, Leonteus son of Menestratos of Kydantidai, Phormos son of Prokleides of Kydantidai; and to inscribe 15 this decree on a stone stele and stand it in the Herakleion.

Previous - SEG 38.68 Next - SEG 40.74

References:

SEG 39.148 (Translated text) (PHI)

SEG 41.71

SEG 48.42

SEG 55.255

Humphreys, Kinship, 875-8

Russo, Ripartizioni, D62

Translation by: Stephen Lambert

Monument type: Stele

Inscription type: Deme (Kydantidai and Ionidai)

Original location: Kydantidai and Ionidai (Herakleion)

Findspot: Unknown (Vorres Museum 3)

Transliterations on Places on

[1] Associations of more than one deme are well attested in Attica, for example the Tetrapolis (AIO 2618), the Tetrakomoi (IG II³ 4, 225), and the Trikomoi (IG II² 1362, for a possible Trikomia in the Erchia region, see IG II² 1213). Moreover some demes were split into two or more parts for some purposes, but came together to pass decrees (e.g. Upper and Lower Lamptrai, IG II² 1204 and Upper and Lower Paiania, IG I³ 250; on the split demes see also IG I³ 515, with notes). This inscription is notable as the only extant joint decree of two demes, and where the joint body was not apparently referred to by its own name, like "Tetrapolis". This may suggest a more recent association than the others, which were clearly pre-Cleisthenic in origin (though the archaic title, kolokratai, does not suggest this, see below), or more likely perhaps one that operated in respect of this cult of Herakles alone (the association represented by the Tetrakomoi was similarly limited to specific aspects of the religious life of its communities, while the Tetrapolis seems to have had wider reach, subsuming most of the religious observance of its component demes). The two demes are Kydantidai and Ionidai. Both were very small demes of the inland trittys of Aigeis (bouleutic quotas 1 or 2, see further below) and this is the only extant decree of either (though IG I³ 247 has sometimes been assigned to Kydantidai, IG II² 1173 might also be a decree of Kydantidai; and Kydantidai is also a candidate for the the deme list AIO 2840). This decree implies that Kydantidai and Ionidai were probably neighbours, as the first editor, A. P. Matthaiou, noted (Horos 7, 1989, 7-16, see his remarks on this at 11 = SEG 39.148). It is uncontroversial that they were probably in eastern-central Attica (Mesogaia), west of the coastal trittys of Aigeis which included Halai Araphenides (see SEG 46.153), and in the area of the other demes of the inland trittys of Aigeis, the largest of which was Erchia (modern Spata, see AIO 593). Ionidai might not have been very distant from "Ion's tomb", which was further down the east coast from Halai at Potamos, Paus. 1.31.3. The precise locations of Kydantidai and Ionidai, however, are uncertain (Matthaiou raises the possibility that Kydantidai was at Koropi, south-west of Spata and the findspot of AIO 2840; Humphreys, who discusses the issue in detail, suggests linking the demes to two of the several settlement sites east of Spata). On demes in general see RO 46, with notes.

From the inscription we learn that the demes staged two festivals of Herakles (annually?), one "summer festival" (therina), and the other a festival of drink-offerings or libations (spondeia), which presumably took place in the winter. The name seems to suggest that it involved alcoholic consumption; if so, that was appropriate for Herakles, who in myth was a heavy drinker (cf. I Eleusis 85). For their management of the festivals in 331/0 BC, the decree honours the priest of Herakles and two officials called kolokratai, attested only here in a deme. It was common enough, however, for demes to have officials with the same titles and functions as officials of the city and these kolokratai recall the kolakretai, city officials attested until the late 5th cent. BC (but not thereafter), as responsible for making payments from the city's revenues. Most likely the kolokratai were responsible for making payments from deme funds for the two festivals of Herakles. That they and the priest of Herakles showed "love of honour", philotimia (ll. 6, 10), in the exercise of their duties might but does not necessarily imply contributions from their own pockets, cf. IG II² 1197, with n. 2. Praise for their justice, dikaiosyne (l. 9), implies that they had exercised some discretion. For more detailed discussion of these officials and their title see D. Whitehead, ZPE 95, 1993, 159-162, and A. P. Matthaiou, Horos 8-9, 1990-1991, 183-9 (SEG 41.71, see also C. Lasagni, in E. Culasso Gastaldi ed., La Prassi della democrazia, 2004, 94-96, SEG 55.255; Humphreys, 876 n. 92). The three men are awarded a foliage crown, a common honour in demes, and this inscribed decree, to be erected in the Herakleion (a patently appropriate location, cf. Russo, p. 88).

As commonly in deme decrees, the proposer, Leonteus son of Antiphanes (l. 1), is not otherwise known, except that (also not uncharacteristically) he was apparently related to (cousin of?) one of the honorands, Leonteus son of Menestratos (l. 13). Neither this honorand nor the priest of Herakles, Meidon son of Arkephilos of K. (ll. 11-12) is otherwise known. The third honorand, however, Phormos son of Prokleides of K. (l. 14), is identifiable as member of a family several members of which were commemorated on a large stele from the Kerameikos (IG II² 6609). These included Deinias son of Phormos of K., who was a witness for Apollodoros in the Neaira case (Dem. 59.123, Humphreys would correct the transmitted text which makes him son of Phormides) and is also cursed on a curse tablet of the Lykourgan period (SEG 58.265).

Cult of Herakles was widespread in Attica, and is attested in a deme context also at Eleusis (I Eleusis 85) and Halimous (see SEG 2.7, with notes), and cf. Aixone (IG II² 1199, with notes). The decree also dates, like nearly all honorific decrees of demes, to the second half of the 4th cent. BC, more specifically to the years following Athens' defeat by Philip II and Alexander of Macedon at Chaironeia in 338 BC, which were notable for the attention paid to religious observance, both at city level (cf. e.g. IG II³ 1, 444, 447) and in the demes (e.g. SEG 21.519). Apart from this inscription nothing is known of the festivals of Herakles in Kydantidai and Ionidai, nor of their Herakleion (though Humphreys, 876 n. 90, notes that it is among possible identifications of the temenos of Herakles attested by the horos, IG II² 2609, found, not necessarily in situ, WSW of Spata = Erchia). Cult of Herakles was not uncommonly found in Attica in connection with the phratry system, in particular in genē (see IG II² 2345, with notes), and there is uncertain evidence for a phratry called Ionidai in SEG 46.229, but we do not know enough about the context of this decree to tell whether that was relevant in this case. In the public land-sale programme of the Lykourgan period, a non-territorial group (i.e. not a deme or kome) sold at least five properties, three of them at Kydantidai, to probably 4 buyers from Kydantidai Rationes Centesimarum, stele 2, F16A, 1-10. The seller is not identifiable with certainty, but might have been the association of Kydantidai and Ionidai (assuming that was classed as a non-territorial group in this context, like other cult groups of Herakles in these sale records, cf. Rationes pp. 198-9 and 203-4), or the putative phratry Ionidai.

Kydantidai appears to be the dominant partner in this inscription, supplying the proposer and all three honorands, though it is possible this was an artefact of the particular circumstances of office-holding in 331/0 BC (on the family connection between the proposer and one of the honorands see above), rather than a more general feature. As Humphreys notes, following Traill, it seems that the two demes may have shared a bouleutic quota of 3 between them. At least, in 341/0 BC Kydantidai had 2 councillors, Ionidai 1, IG II³ 4, 76, 20-4, while in ca. 340 BC, Kydantidai had 1 councillor and Ionidai 2, IG II³ 4, 75, 5-7, 22-23. In 336/5 (?) Kydantidai again had 2 and Ionidai 1, Agora XV 42, 125-9, and Kydantidai also had 2 in 335/4 BC, Agora XV 43, 45-49. These figures tend to suggest that Ionidai was the smaller of the two demes; and there is some confirmation of the relative social weight of Kydantidai in that its wealth index (number of very wealthy members in proportion to bouleutic quota) was very high (5), whereas that of Ionidai was zero (R. Osborne, Demos, 196 and 197; the average for all demes was 1.39). Publishing this kind of decree on stone may well therefore have had a hortatory intention directed more at the relatively more prosperous Kydantidai, in which the most famous family was that of the very wealthy and prominent general of the Peloponnesian War period, Nikias (a descendant of whom, Nikeratos, was quite prominent at this period, cf. IG II³ 4, 18). On this and other prominent families connected with Kydantidai, and the much smaller number connected with Ionidai, see Humphreys. On the hortatory intention as a driver of the habit of publishing deme decrees on stone at this period, see the notes to RO 46.

Textual Note. AIO follows the text of the first edition by A. P. Matthaiou, Horos 7, 1989, 7-16 (SEG 39.148). There are some inscribing errors, two of which are (unusually) printed incorrectly by PHI, viz. in l. 5 the stone reads ΗΡΑΚΑΕΩΣ (ΗΡΑΚΑΩΣ PHI) and in l. 7 ΣΠΟΝΔΓΙΩΝ (ΣΠΟΝΔΑΓΙΩΝ PHI).

Added: 21 Jan 2024
Updated: 14 Mar 2024
Feedback

ID: AIO_2836