Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike International License 4.0.
All citation, reuse or distribution of this work must contain somewhere a link back to the DOI (
Thirteen fragments from a series of
Face A is inscribed in the Ionic alphabet and, usually, in a precise stoichedon. Letters:
Face B is in the earlier Attic alphabet and what Lambert describes as "rough stoichedon". Letters:
For punctuation and paragraph markers on the stele, cf. Lambert, p. 395-396.
Face A:
Face B:
Encoded for EpiDoc schema 8.17 on 01-01-2017 by J.-M. Carbon.
Edition here based on
Cf. also: Ziehen
Further bibliography:
(Instead of a translation of the often difficult fragments, we offer a detailed commentary; for a translation see that of S. Lambert, AIO, for Face A and Face B.)
(Au lieu d'une traduction, nous offrons un commentaire détaillé des fragments.)
The widely accepted and generally convincing view is that this rather disparate group of fragmentary stelai, excavated for the most part during the still ongoing excavations of the Agora, constitute parts of the law code of Athens. A revision of this set of laws seems to have taken place in two key stages in the history of democratic Athens: 1) after the Council of Four Hundred was overthrown at the end of the Peloponnesian war, for a duration of six years in ca. 410-404 BC (= Face B), and 2), after the regime of the Thirty, in ca. 403-399 BC (= Face A). About this process of revision, we are particularly well, albeit tendentiously, informed by Lysias' speech against one of the members of the commission tasked to write up the laws, Nikomachos (Lys. 30, ca. 399 BC; for discussion, see Dow 1960; Rhodes). Though, as Lambert writes (p. 354), the accusations against this man are "predictable", namely that he had omitted ancestral sacrifices and inserted new ones, the speech nonetheless provides us with some glimpses into the purpose of the commission: it was to ensure that "the sacrifices from the
To a degree, discussion remains open about the unity of the thirteen fragments presented by Lambert. This is a degree of uncertainty for which he himself makes careful allowances (Lambert, p. 354 n. 8 and 355; see below on frs. 12 and 13). For recent criticism of the overall coherence of the fragments, see Canevaro - Harris (writing, p. 41, “nothing compels us to accept this attribution”, i.e. to the revision of the Solonian laws). Yet the unity of most of the fragments appears difficult to doubt: first, on the basis of the consistency of the letterforms employed by the cutters of each face (see Lambert, p. 360); second, because of the form of the stelai themselves: the thicknesses of frs. 1-3, 5, and 7 (cf. Lambert's "group A"), are perfectly coherent (ca. 12 cm), those of frs. 8-9 equally so (ca. 9 cm; cf. Lambert's "group B", and p. 361-362; see also Gawlinski, p. 39); finally, and perhaps most importantly, due to their format (two faces in Attic and Ionic script, respectively), content, and formulary. Concerning the presence of the two faces, Lambert argues (p. 355) that the "simplest hypothesis" is that face B contains remains of the work of the commission including Nikomachos in ca. 410-404 BC; this may later have been set against a wall to obscure the text; face A seems to be inscribed (perhaps over erased text) and therefore contains the revision of the sacrificial calendar in the second term of the commission (ca. 403-399 BC). In terms of their form, as frs. 2-3 reveal—the only ones with the top partly preserved—, the stelai show “clamps in the top” (Lambert, p. 355); and where sides are preserved, they show anathyrosis. Therefore, some kind of attachment between the different stelai was intended, not necessarily constituting the hypothesised "stele-wall" (cf. Dow 1961) as Canevaro - Harris rightly criticise, but nevertheless a form of structural organisation of the stelai for publication must be presumed. As a comparandum, cf. the four month-stelai of the sacrificial calendar of the city of Kos (CGRN 86, ca. 350 BC), which probably formed a unified monument. The case is usually made that this version of the Athenian law code was published in or near the Stoa Basileios in the Agora (see Lambert, p. 356 with n. 18, for full details, and also Gawlinski on the findspot of fr. 5, very close by; on the wider context of displaying this and other laws in the Agora, cf. now Shear, p. 85-96, 243-247). Some uncertainty perhaps remains (it should be recalled that in Pausanias’ time the laws of Solon were said to be displayed in the prytaneion, Paus. 1.18.3, and a cluster of the fragments, frs. 3, 8-11, were indeed found in this area).
Prices were listed in a separate column to the left of each column of text (on face B, female sheep always costed 12 dr., male wethers, 15 dr., rams, 17 dr.; other prices varied or are only for rarely attested animals: see Lambert, p. 396-397). Totals were counted for each month (see Face A, fr. 3, col. I, lines 16-17). Yet, though its focus was clearly on the accounting of the expenses of festivals and other celebrations (see Lambert; Canevaro - Harris), the document overall takes the form of a sacrificial calendar. Indeed, most Attic calendars from ca. 400 BC onward (if not earlier; see above on 'Solon') were accounting documents, containing specifications of the prices of sacrificial animals and other necessities (for an excellent example, cf. CGRN 52, from the deme of Erchia; for an exception, see the perhaps earlier calendar of the deme of Thorikos: CGRN 32). In its later face (A), the state calendar was organised, like that of the Marathonian Tetrapolis (cf. CGRN 56), in different periods or sequences: there was an annual sequence, "followed by two biennial sequences for items funded by the state in alternate years" (Lambert, p. 356; see below on the headings of Face A, fr. 2, and fr. 3, cols. 2-3); other sequences (quadrennial, etc.) will also have been included but now appear lost. As part of these sequences, other headings provided the month and date of different occasions. Lambert claims that festivals as a general rule seem to have remained unnamed in the calendar, which may indeed have been a general principle of composition for Face A (cf. fr. 8 for an apparent exception, which is probably to be discarded). But there seem to be numerous exceptions as far as Face B seems to be concerned: frs. 1, 4, 5. On Face A, rubrics specified the sources of authority for the sacrifices listed: ἐκ τῶν φυλοβασιλικῶν (from the
Face A
Fragment 1, col. 3, lines 1-25 (4-6 Boedromion?): The interpretation of lines 1-2 remains unclear (see Lambert for some possibilities). The rituals falling on the date of the fifth (line 3) in this column have been identified by Dow as belonging to the festival of the Genesia (see Lambert for full details, who assigns this fragment to the annual sequence of the calendar). This was a civic festival falling on the date of 5 Boedromion and it appropriately appears to have been cited in the
Fragment 1, cols. 1-3 (below the line, unspecified period?): Below a horizontal line that has been incised across the face of the stele is what appears to be a separate and probably continuous section of text across three columns, but of uncertain relation to the text above as well as perhaps of a different character (it does not appear to contain any accounting of expenses, though this may have come in a missing passage). Lambert (p. 370) attractively hypothesises that, "since it relates to an irregular event which only took place when lightning was sighted above Harma, it could not readily be accommodated in the regular annual" sequence above the line. Though the first passage is highly fragmentary, it has been convincingly interpreted by Lambert (with further refs.) as referring to the possibility of the sign that was awaited by the Pythaistai, as prescribed by an oracle, before undertaking the journey to Delphi; this took the form of rare or occasional lightning falling over Harma (the mountaintop fortress at the northwestern boundary of Attica near Phyle); cf. Str. 9.2.11. For the Pythaistai, who were required to maintain watch for this sign of lightning for three consecutive months, cf. here their role in the calendar of Erchia CGRN 52, lines Α23-36 + Γ31-37 + Ε31-46 (7-8 Gamelion) and lines Α52-56 + Β45-54 + Γ54-58 + Δ47-52 + Ε47-58 (Thargelion 4), and cf. also their presence, as ritual agents or participants, in Face A, fr. 6, below. Despite the intervening lacuna, the text in column 3 supports an unified view of this passage, mentioning Apollo as well as a list of offerings which are said to "follow the ritual basket (κανοῦν)", perhaps in the procession during the Pythais (for the κανοῦν in a different context, see also here CGRN 94, line A28). As Lambert comments, the items here are "more or less characteristically Apolline", including notably a tripod and some sort of components of a bow (ἐπιτοξίδας). A crown is also mentioned and there is also to be an animal as part of this procession, since προγόνιον here must designate a newborn lamb (cf. CGRN 94, lines A10-15). The last two items are less clear: perhaps ribbons or fillets for the newborn animal (the restoration of Ziehen which is adopted here; though Lambert does not think this may match the traces on the stone) and apparently a sphere. For both crowns and fillets, see here CGRN 146, Phyxa, lines 12-19, and cf. CGRN 64, Epidauros, lines 6-7; for spheres as a ritual object, see also here CGRN 15, Gortyn, line 4. For the Athenian Pythais, see now Rutherford, p. 222-230.
Fragment 2 (11 or 12 of unknown month): Line 1, in larger lettering also separated by a horizontal dividing line running the preserved width of the face, must constitute a heading, probably indicating a biennial sequence to the rituals (compare on fr. 3 below; see Lambert for further details). In line 2, the date should be the 11th or the 12th, [ἑνδ]ε̣κάτ[ηι] or [δωδ]ε̣κάτ[ηι], not attributed to a month; Lambert (2002) originally suggested that the month concerned was Metageitnion; he now (AIO) views 12 Hekatombaion as a possibility, thinking of a connection with the Kronia ("though there is no obvious thematic connection"). In line 3, a form of authority for the sacrifices may have followed, but this remains unclear. For possible identifications of the festival concerned, involving Apollo, Leto (perhaps receiving a selected female animal, line 6, though this is not certain), Kourotrophos, and Zeus, see Lambert (with further refs.), who tentatively compares the sacrifice on 12 Metageitnion at Erchia, CGRN 52, lines Α1-5 + Β1-6 + Γ13-18 + Δ13-17. It is particularly the epithet of Zeus, beginning in Ne[---], and thus plausibly to be identified as Nemeios (so Lambert), which makes a contextual identification of the rituals possible. The Nemea were biennial (see also now the Games Dial of the Antikythera mechanism, Iversen, p. 142), which can be seen to match particularly well the periodicity of the rituals in the calendar of Athens here. Iversen (p. 142-143 n. 54, 174-175 with n. 174), however, considers that Lambert's restoration can be doubted since he argues that the Nemea must have been celebrated in Argive Panamos (= Athenian Hekatombaion). Indeed, this would either entail that the restoration of Zeus Nemeios should indicate that the month here is probably Hekatombaion (so now Lambert, AIO) or that, as Iversen proposes, Dow's restoration Zeus Ne[anias] should be rehabilitated (comparing the sacrifice to Neanias on 16 Pyanopsion at Thorikos, CGRN 32, lines 25-27—but he was worshipped in Mounychion in the Tetrapolis, CGRN 56, col. II, line 21) and thus the sacrifice in the state calendar will have fallen in Pyanopsion. See Lambert and Iversen for further details about this debate.
Fragment 3, col. 1, lines 1-17 (end of Thargelion): As Lambert has reconstructed it, this column preserves the end of the month Thargelion and then the last month of the year, Skirophorion. This should also form a part of a biennial sequence, preceding the one found in cols. 2-3 of the same fragment (cf. Lambert). Lines 1-4 contains the end of a list of elements belonging to a ritual before the one falling on line 5 (perhaps 25 Thargelion, see Lambert). From the mention of a φᾶρος (line 7), a large piece of cloth or a mantle, as well as of pure or clean wool (?, cf. line 8), it is inferred that the rituals falling in this dated rubric (beginning in line 5) must, according to Lambert, have belonged to the state Plynteria. This is a festival which is alternatively dated to 25 or 29 Thargelion; see Mikalson, p. 160-163, for the sources. Lambert argues that both dates may be meaningful: the removal of adornment and clothes on the old statue of Athena Polias may have taken place on 25 Thargelion, which was an ἡμέρα ἀποφράς (day on which no official business could be conducted); perhaps over the following days (in which no political meetings are attested) and on the 29th in particular, the statue would be washed at Phaleron and redressed with the φᾶρος which is mentioned here. For the debate about these dates and the role of the
Fragment 3, col. 2, lines 19-28 (beginning of Skirophorion): As part of these rituals, which must fall in the period of 2-9 Skirophorion (the two dates in lines 20 and 28 are said to be ἱσταμένο), Athena in the first instance receives a select cow and is accompanied by Kourotrophos, who receives a piglet. Lambert (with refs.) compares other known sacrifices in early Skirophorion but concludes that any connection with the state calendar is "obscure". The strongest possibility, as Lambert seems to admit, is of a connection with the Arrhephoria. This festival, which appears to have fallen on or around 3 Skirophorion, involved sacrifices "in the city" to Athena Polias, Kourotrophos, but also Aglauros, Zeus Polieus and Poseidon, according to the calendar of Erchia: cf. CGRN 52, lines Α57-65 + Β55-59 + Γ59-64 + Δ56-60. For the demesmen of Erchia, the sacrifice was of a female sheep "instead of a bovine": i.e. a cow was expected, as we find here; the ancillary Kourotrophos also received a piglet, as is usual (on the goddess, see Pirenne-Delforge). However, see Lambert for a discussion of the probable dates which fit in the lacuna of line 19 (τρίται appears too short, so that the date of the state Arrephoria may have been prior to or later than the date which is found at Erchia).
Fragment 3, col. 2, lines 30-58 (15-16 Hekatombaion): A heading in line 30 is inscribed above a horizontal line incised on the face of the stele. As it makes clear, the rites belong to one of two biennial sequences. Running continuously for over 25 lines, this is one of the best preserved passages from the whole of the state calendar (the other, in col. 3, is discussed immediately below). The dates are fully preserved and 16 Hekatombaion is known as the date of the annual festival of the Synoikia, which commemorated the mythical unification of Attica into the city of Athens (see Lambert, with further refs.; Mikalson, p. 29-31; Parker 2005a: 480-481). Since the festival seems to have been annual, it is not clear why it is found as part of a biennial rubric. The day before the Synoikia, 15 Hekatombaion, records the offering of a sheep having lost its milk-teeth for the
Fragment 3, col. 3, lines 60-86 (Eleusinia?, unknown date after Hekatombaion): This elaborate series of sacrifices, to many gods which demonstrate a connection with Eleusis (Demeter, Persephone, Eumolpos, etc.), and which must be sacrificed by the cult agents of the
Fragment 5, col. 1 (unknown month): This fragment also contain a thin horizontal line inscribed across the width of the face. Gawlinski (p. 42) argues that this represents a line dividing this section of the calendar from another one, now essentially lost, above (compare the division of the text through such a line on this face, fr. 1, above); another possibility would be a heading indicating the periodicity of the rituals (cf. Face A, frs. 2 and 3 above). Gawlinski's argument is based on the appearance of the stone and, more compellingly, on the fact that the text here is not inscribed stoichedon, as is the text below the line on fr. 1. But since amounts appear to be missing for this section, she concludes that "the reason for setting apart this section of the text is not readily apparent". Though all indications of date are missing from this piece of the calendar, Gawlinski remarks that Apollo is particularly prominent (2 or 3 attestations). In line 2, the god appears as Prostaterios; together with Artemis Boulaia, he received a customary sacrifice by the Athenian Boule (the location of the sanctuary is unknown; see Gawlinski). In line 4, Apollo appears as Ὑπὸ Μακραῖς ("Under the Long Rocks"), in which guise the god was worshipped in a cave on the north slope of the Acropolis. Gawlinski discusses the cult, well noting its frequent appearance also in Eur.
Fragment 6 (until the 7th of an unknown month): This fragment preserves two fragmentary dated rubrics. Line 7 identifies the date as the 7th of an unknown month. Lines 1-6 must therefore have concerned an earlier date in the month (see Lambert for possibilities). On this occasion, it is clear that the priestess of Athena Polias received emoluments from a sacrifice which must have concerned this goddess; the entry then concludes with the offering of a sheep to Hermes in the Lykeion, which was a gymnasion and military exercise area (on this sanctuary, see Lambert; for sacrifices to Hermes as a god frequently associated with the gymnasion, compare here again CGRN 147, Kos). In the next entry, on the 7th, though Apollo is not specified by name, it is clear that he is the god concerned by the rituals. A sheep having lost its milk-teeth is to be sacrificed "as a seventh day offering", while perhaps parts of the animal or other ritual necessities were to be provided to the Pythaistai. Though a "seventh day offering" is not otherwise attested in Attica, it is found elsewhere (cf. here the Hebdomaia at Miletos, CGRN 201, lines 4-6) and the association of Apollo with the seventh day of the month is remarkably widespread in the ancient Greek world (for some discussion and Attic examples, cf. here e.g. CGRN 52, Erchia, lines Α23-36 + Γ31-37 + Ε31-46 (7-8 Gamelion), and CGRN 84, Salaminioi, lines 89-90 (7 Metageitnion)). The cult of Apollo Hebdomaios is also attested in Athens (see Lambert). For the Pythaistai, the ritual agents involved in the official pilgrimage to Delphi, see above on fr. 1, cols. 1-3, lines 26-30.
Fragment 7 (unknown date): This small fragment first preserves part of a date in the first decad of an unknown month (see Lambert for possibilities). Its source of authority was the part of the code dealing with the
Fragment 8, col. 2 (Delia, unknown period): The traces fragmentarily preserved in an earlier column to the left (col. 1) are not included here; they were probably connected with those found in the better preserved column 2 (so Lambert, with further details). The latter are identified with the Delia, since a sacrifice is explicitly mentioned as taking place "on Delos" in line 6; the remainder of the line could be restored as mentioning the festival itself, either τὰ Δ̣[ήλια] or perhaps τὰ Ἀ̣[πολλώνια], but this may also have been the usual heading τάδ̣[ε θύεται] (see Lambert). The Delia took place in the local month of Hieros, which corresponds to Attic Anthesterion. Unfortunately, the periodicity of the rituals in the state sacrificial calendar is uncertain, but the Delia are known to have taken place annually, as well as quadrennially (but only since 426/5 BC, see Thuc. 3.104.2;
Fragment 9, col. 1 (unknown date): This small fragment preserves the conclusion of a list of offerings (a measure of the third portion of a
Fragment 12 (unknown date): Lambert raises two possibilities for the interpretation of this fragment: 1) it concerns sacrifices in the area of Eleusis (cf. line 3; Oinoe, lines 4 and perhaps 10, would then be the little known deme in Hippothontis); 2) it concerns the Marathonian Tetrapolis (Oinoe will then be one of the four consistuent members or "cities" of the Tetrapolis; see also Lambert in AIO). On balance, Lambert seems inclined to view a connection with the Tetrapolis ("but certainty is impossible"), as indeed are we; see below. The “two heralds” who are cited here (line 2), probably as the recipients of a stipend or perquisite, are perhaps those of the
Face B
Fragment 1, cols. 1-2 (the latter: Dipolieia, 14 Skirophorion): It may appear that Face B in this fragment contains the original material, of which Face A is the revised version (see Lambert, p. 355 n. 14). The very fragmentary first column cannot be reconstructed with any certainty. Since column 2 appears to date to mid-Skirophorion (see below), Lambert raises the possibilities that the sacrifice to Apollo in line 2 could be connected with the Delphinia (6 Mounychion) or the Thargelia (7 Thargelion). As Lambert reconstructs and discusses it (with further refs.), the beginning of column 2 appears to make provisions for the city’s contribution to the Dipolieia (a festival which is explicitly mentioned in line 14). The date of this festival was 14 Skirophorion (see Mikalson, p. 171) and it seems to have been annual. It was an archaic festival of Zeus, taking place on the Acropolis, which involved the driving of bovines around the sacrificial table and prominently featured the sacrificial knife in the ritual (the main source is late: Porph.
Fragment 4 (Epidauria, 17 Boedromion): As yet not fully published, this fragment contains the remains of 14 lines before the apparent mention of a festival and some of its characteristics. In the restoration of Clinton adopted by Lambert, this is the Epidauria (line 15), a festival which took place during the Eleusinian Mysteries (on 17 Boedromion, cf. Clinton) and commemorated the arrival of Asclepius in Athens in 420 BC and his "initiation" into the Great Mysteries of Eleusis, cf.
Fragment 5 (until the 9th of an unknown month? Herakleia?): This part of a column is inscribed stoichedon (of a length of 20 or 21 stoichoi according to Gawlinski's calculations) and preserves parts of the lists for two days in an unknown month. Lines 1-10 includes parts of a dated entry earlier in the month, while line 11 introduces the date of the 9th of the month for a set of sacrifices (running probably over lines 11-19; Lambert, AIO, suggests that the tenth of the month is also a possible reading). One commonality between both entries is the inclusion of sacrifices to Heracles (lines 7-8 and 11-11a; for sacrifices to this god in Attica, cf. Gawlinski who collects the evidence). In the second case, after the date, we find the letters ΗΡΑΚ inscribed out of stoichedon and above the line register; this is also written in an Ionic rather than the expected Attic spelling (hερακ-); and some letters inscribed below the line and above the next (here line 11a) below appear to supplement what needed to be inscribed. Gawlinski observes that the cutter has made some mistakes, but comes to a different conclusion, thinking of a "deliberate" spelling of the theonym Heracles, followed by an offering perhaps squeezed into the lacuna to the right. An attractive alternative that lines 11-11a may represent a heading, since no offering or price seems to be possible in these lines, is suggested by Lambert, AIO. Lambert reads lines 11-11a as Ἡρακ[λείο]|ι̣ς. However, he admits that this "makes it difficult to explain the overrun of the lines" (see AIO for other possible restorations), and moreover, that there are at present no grounds for identifying this Herakleia with any of the multiple festivals known by this name in Attica (Parker 2005a: 472-473). In the first case, Heracles is accompanied by heroes (line 10); in the second, during the Herakleia, if correctly restored, by the Tritopatres (line 12), by an unknown figure in line 14 (see Gawlinski for some possibilities), and by the Hyakinthides. For the Tritopatres, see here CGRN 13, Selinous, Face A; in Attica, CGRN 52, lines Δ41-46, and CGRN 56, col. II, lines 32 and 53). As for the Hyakinthides, they are to be identified with a mythical group of sisters who were sacrificed for the benefit of Athens: one source makes them the daughters of Erechtheus, another of a Spartan called Hyakinthos (see Gawlinski for full refs.); they had a shrine in Athens (cf.
Fragment 9, cols. 1-2 (Great Panathenaia?, 28 Hekatombaion): Lambert has associated this fragment, containing a highly fragmentary list of offerings and other specifications, with the penteteric "Great" Panathenaia. One of the key elements for this hypothesis is the citation of a hekatomb, line 11, which Lambert argues was specially associated with this quadrennial iteration of the festival (cf.
Fragment 10: This small fragment contains but a few traces. The traces in line 1 are unclear and there are many possible restorations for the apparent beginning of a theonym in line 2 (see Lambert). In line 3, the restoration of Zeus as Kataibates remains the most likely. The god was honoured where lightning struck (on the topic, see here CGRN 11, Thalamai) and is attested in many places in Attica, cf. here CGRN 32, lines 10 and 25 (and see Lambert for others).
Fragment 11: This other small fragment begins with the fragmentary offering of a selected sow and a selected ewe; the recipient cannot absolutely be determined, though she is likely to have been a goddess. This was followed by a sacrifice to Kourotrophos (very likely a small offering, such as a piglet; on this goddess, see above Face A, fr. 2), as well as others to Leto, in the Pythion, and in two separate cases to Athena. On the possibilities for an identification of the rituals concerned, see Lambert, though as he is the first to admit, none are compelling.
Fragment 12: As Lambert details, the attribution of this fragment to the sacrificial calendar remains uncertain, since "neither the vocabulary nor the arrangement of the text corresponds". It must therefore have either been a non-calendrical section of text (cf. Face A, fr. 1, cols. 1-3, below the line) or it belongs to a religious law from the Solonian code which was reinscribed alongside the calendar. That being said, a connection with the revision of the law remains palpable: the fragment seems both to refer to expenditures (line 2) and to the instructions provided by the commission for reinscribing the Solonian laws (the συγγραφαί, line 4). However, the latter term remains common (see Rhodes) and is probably to be viewed with caution (see Lambert). Other references in the passage concern cultic apparatus: cult tables, σκάφαι or trays for carrying and presenting offerings (see the sources collected in Lambert, notably in connection with the Panathenaia, and cf. now here CGRN 225 A, Marmarini, lines 29-39).
Fragment 13: This is again a fragment which is only tentatively assigned to the sacrificial calendar (see Lambert for past and current identifications): it may have been from a non-calendrical section of the text (cf. again Face A, fr. 1, cols. 1-3, below the line) or it may belong to a law codified alongside the calendar. For the preliminary sacrifice, πρόθυμα, apparently alluded to in line 3, compare here CGRN 46 and CGRN 54 (Piraeus, in the cult of Asclepius), as well as the offering to Zeus in the calendar of Teithras, CGRN 46, lines A3-4; for other possible readings of this fragment, consult Lambert.