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 (
Twenty marble fragments, which were assigned by Jeffery to a large structure, possibly an
Boustrophedon.
Attic letters:
Encoded for EpiDoc schema 8.17 on 01-01-2014 by J.M. Carbon.
Edition here based on Lewis
Cf. also:
Further bibliography:
(Given the extremely fragmentary character of the text, no translation is attempted; see Commentary.)
(En raison du caractère très fragmentaire du texte, aucune tentative de traduction n'est proposée; voir Commentary.)
Given its findspot and content, Jeffery hypothesises that the rituals inscribed as part of this originally lengthy account related to the
The organisation of the inscription suggests an account or a calendar of some sort, probably organised by deity or perhaps by festival, but these are often unclear in the fragments. At any rate, a precise calendrical logic is difficult to substantiate. After the more significant sextuple/hexacolon punctuation (∶∶∶), deities appear to be cited or perhaps ritual occasions (see below on lines A26-27); in many cases, it is uncertain which of these two options is actually the case. Smaller dicolon punctuation (:) separates individual offerings or other clauses.
Lines A20-21: Perhaps the dative of a festival is mentioned here as a heading for a part of the accounts. Possibilities include [Προαρκτ]ουρ|ίοι[σι] as reported in Lewis, or [Ἀπατ]ουρ|ίοι[ς] suggested with some hesitation by Sokolowski. The first occasion would be connected with the Prerosia (cf. Hsch. s.v.), of uncertain/variable date, while the Apatouria are thought to occur in Pyanopsion (cf. Mikalson). But the Apatouria, connected to phratries, would be surprising here if the text is of a public character or stems from a
Lines A24-25: The βουτύπος mentioned might designate any sacrificial agent, but in Athens and especially in the context here, he must refer to the sacrificial agent or priest at the festival of the Dipolia, cf.
Lines A26-27: The sextuple/hexacolon punctuation appears to signal the commencement of a new section in these accounts, either a new occasion or recipient for sacrifices. It occurs before what is likely a deity in line 35, below, and certainly before Erechtheus (almost certainly the deity) in line 50. The two options for restoration in this heading would therefore be Zeus Polieus, as given here, or the Dipolia itself, Διπολ[ίοισι]; both remain possible. The festival is known to have occurred on 14 Skirophorion (see Mikalson). Cf. also
Line A35: The sextuple/hexacolon punctuation marks a new section and the letter traces suggest a goddess, either Κόρ[ει] or Κορ[οτρόφοι], either of which might suit the possible character of the document.
Line A38: The reading ἔτνος refers to a thick soup made with peas or beans, cf.
Lines A43-44: The
Lines B1-B8: Jeffery's reconstruction of the text, followed by Sokolowski and Lewis, is based on the apparent similarity of the fragment with the provisions of the deme of Cholargos for the Thesmophoria, CGRN 79. This part of the account could therefore have pertained to that festival, taking place on 10-13 Pyanopsion. No certainty is possible, however; see Lambert for a nuanced and cautious discussion.