The stone records three successive decisions of a sub-civic group on the island of Chios called the Klytidai, or "descendants of Klytios". The name of the Klytidai refers to a famous family of seers from Elis (Hdt. 9.33, with a crux; Paus. 6.17; Philostr. VA 5.25). Whatever the actual origin of the Klytidai of Chios, the sacrificial consultation of the gods to which the inscription provides evidence that some of them practised divination. The Klytidai are known to have owned substantial lands in the northeastern part of the island, where the temenos mentioned here was probably located (see Graf, p. 34-35). The dossier of regulations is concerned with the opportunity for the group to build and use a common building within their precinct. Two successive sacrifices are offered in order to know if the god or gods (undetermined) are in favour of different aspects of this project. The first sacrificial offering (lines 1-10) concerns the building of an oikos in their temenos and the transfer of the sacred objects of the group kept by particular families in their households into the new building. The divine response is positive. With a second sacrificial offering (lines 10-22), the group asks whether the sacred objects are to be kept in the new house on a one-time basis (the day of the sacrifice), or continuously. The divine answer seems to have suggested that the objects should remain permanently in the common house. Without mentioning a further sacrificial consultation, the third decision (lines 22-36) defines who is authorised to use the new house and the land next to it. The final part of the text (lines 36-41) concerns the fine payable to Zeus Patroios by those who fail to comply with the prescriptions and the curses they incur. It also refers to the inscribing of the dossier and the placement of the inscription.

The document has been subject to a social and political reading, inspired by Aristotle’s analysis of Cleisthenes’ transformation of the political landscape at Athens (Pol. 1319b). According to these views, the decision of the Klytidai was supposed to be the sign of a reform aimed at diminishing the importance of ancestral groups within a democratic city (e.g. Jones 1987: 192-194; Le Guen-Pollet, p. 28). However, the available evidence does not give any clue in that direction and the exact status of the group itself remains unclear (see below, lines 28-30). Moreover, even while kept in particular households, the sacred objects of the group were probably used collectively during “the sacrifice” (ἡ θυσία, line 17, probably the annual festival of the group), but taken back afterwards by specific families. The decision of the Klytidai does not therefore imply the transfer of a religious practice from the “private” to the “public” sphere, nor is it the sign of a democratic practice replacing an aristocratic one. What the text does allow us to grasp is the depositing of the hiera “at the centre” of the group, even if the background of the decision escapes us (cf. Rhodes - Osborne, p. 439; Brulé). For a partly analogous construction of collective space and the placement of communal sacred objects within it, compare the dossier of regulations of the family of Diomedon on the island of Kos, CGRN 170, especially lines 56-59, 70-131, with Commentary.

Lines 1-2: Since the two other decisions of the Klytidai start with a dated reference to the prytanis and the calendar month (lines 10-11 and 22-24), it might be possible that this was also the case in the first missing line (see Layout). The dating formula employed by the Klytidai is attested in records of civic decisions on the island (CGRN 170, lines 1-3); this could therefore be an official reference to the civic dating formula. Alternatively, the prytaneis could have belonged to the group itself. If that is right, the group would then have had its own prytaneis, in addition to other officials such as archons (see below, lines 36-37). Overall, however, the space is limited and the preserved formulation does not readily match that of the other enactments of the Klytidai in the document. The mention of someone or something "older" or "oldest" in the first extant line also does not correspond and is intriguing. It could potentially point to a different sort of official of the group, perhaps an elder or eldest member who acted as priest (compare the seniority assumed by the tribal elder for a sacrifice in CGRN 141, Lindos, with Commentary). But it is especially the dative Κλυτίδαις which does not match the later expression, ἔγνωσαν Κλυτίδαι (lines 10-11 and 22-24). Instead, the dative might suggest that it belongs to the phrasing of the question that will be addressed through sacrificial divination in lines 6-10 (one might think of an oracular, deliberative formula like [εἰ λῶιον καὶ ἄμεινόν ἐστι (τοῖς)] Κλυτίδαις κτλ.). In a similar context of matters related to cult and cult buildings, one would have expected consultation in an oracular sanctuary (e.g. CGRN 24, Athens, lines 3-4, 10; CGRN 104, Halikarnassos, lines 1-11, 15, 49; CGRN 227, Anaphe). However, in the present case, the group manifestly has the necessary competence to obtain divine answers through the process of sacrificial divination.

Line 3: The adjective τεμένιος is very rare. The expression οἶκος τεμένιος ἱερός closely associates the sacred building to the precinct.

Lines 4-6: The opposition that starts here between what is “private” (or “individual”) and what is “common” runs through the whole document. The contrast between αἱ ἰδιωτικαὶ οἰκίαι where the sacred objects were kept until this time, and ὁ κοινὸς οἶκος, the place to house them in the future, is generally seen as setting “private houses” and “a common house” (or collective building) against each other. However, οἰκία and οἶκος are not exact synonyms and the first goes beyond a material meaning in referring also to the family that lives there (hence the translation chosen here of “household” in English and “maisonnée” in French). In the present context, the word could be closer to “family” (cf. Brulé, p. 391-392, who refers to “lineages”). This would explain why the members of the group plan to keep their common objects in a common building, rather than leaving them assigned to individual families, given all the risks posed by matters of transmission and inheritance. According to Forrest (p. 179), the ἱερά were not considered “common” to the Klytidai before this decision. Yet the use of the ἱερά in the common sacrifice of the Klytidai (see lines 16-17), as well as their patrimonial and ancestral dimension (see lines 25-26), suggest that they already had a collective dimension when they were housed by individual families.

Lines 6-10: The first sacrifice has provided an indication in favour of the construction of a house or building and the transfer of the sacred objects. The verb καλλιερεῖν in lines 6-7 (as well as below, line 21) is normally a global reference to a sacrifice performed under good auspices (see e.g. CGRN 145, Kos, line 22; CGRN 156, Mykonos, line 20; CGRN 232, Argos, line 25). In the present case, the repeated mention of a μαντεία (lines 15 and 39) clearly implies and emphasises the divinatory aspect of the sacrificial ritual. Though often taking a human subject, the verb appears to be used with τὰ ἱερά as the implied subject, a formulation that is paralleled elsewhere (cf. e.g. Hdt. 7.134: καλλιερῆσαι θυομένοισι οὐκ ἐδύνατο, scil. τὰ ἱρά). We do not know exactly which method or methods of sacrificial divination were practiced by the Klytidai. For the divine signs associated with the burning of the divine portions on a sacrificial altar (a form of empyromancy), see Aesch. Pr. 484-499; extispicy, for instance, is another possibility.

Lines 10-22: For the dating formula, see above on lines 1-2. The second sacrifice performed in the month of Plynterion (April/May) suggests that there must have been some contention within the group about whether the κοινὰ ἱερά should be temporarily (namely during “the sacrifice”—ἡ θυσία—of line 17) or permanently housed in the common house. Perhaps the families who had previously treasured these objects resisted and interpreted the first divinatory advice (i.e. μαντεία, line 15) differently. The symbolic capital linked to the possession of these cult-objects must have been important. It was therefore necessary to question again the deity (or deities) who finally decided in favour of the permanent transfer of the cult-objects to the common house.

Lines 22-27: For the dating formula, see above on lines 1-2. The third step in the process does not mention a divine consultation or divination. Perhaps it did not seem to require one, since the decision here involves regulating access to the building and the adjoining land. The leasing of sacred land to third parties is a well-attested practice (see IG II² 2499; cf. Jones 2016) but the decision taken by the Klytidai is to limit the use of the house and land not only to their own group, but also to a collective involvement of their members.

Lines 28-30: φατρίαν has been considered a mistake (Sokolowski writes φρατρίαν without any comment; also Forrest, p. 179) but the form is attested elsewhere (see LSJ s.v. φράτρα II.3). Most commentators of the inscription have considered that the term refers to a phratry (e.g. Haussoullier, Graf, Le Guen-Pollet, Rhodes - Osborne). Against this background, it has been debated whether the phrase means that the use of the common house and land was granted to the phratry but not to an individual (Graf, p. 37), or that it should be allowed neither to the phratry nor to an individual (Rhodes - Osborne, p. 437). In the first option, the next interpretative step was to identify the Klytidai with “the phratry” (despite the absence of any article and the specific spelling of the word). The second option implied that the Klytidai were not a phratry. This has opened a seemingly never-ending debate about the status of this group: genos, phratry, tribe (Graf, p. 35-36 and Brulé, n. 58). With Brulé (p. 393-398), one could suppose that a phatria in Chios was a subdivision of a larger group, such as the Klytidai, whatever generic name the city gave them. For example, the group of the Labyadai of Delphi, whose generic name is not known either, is made up of patriai (CID I 9, Face A, line 25). In Miletos at the end of the 5th century BC, five imbricated levels of individual identity are attested: phylai, demoi, patriai, phratriai, and oikoi (Jones 1987: 320-325). It remains uncertain to which of these levels the Klytidai belonged, though they certainly included the ἰδιωτικαὶ οἰκίαι of the present text and may have encompassed the phatriai which are also mentioned.

Lines 33-35: The money of the fine is sacred to Zeus Patroios, who was certainly an important deity for the group (a dedication to the same god comes from the region of the island where the sanctuary is presumed to have been located: see Dunst; Dionysus and Apollo are also attested: Graf, p. 35). An interesting parallel can be made with the famous Delphic inscription issued by the sub-civic group of the Labyadai and referring to a sacrifice to Zeus Patroios and Apollo “during the Boukatia” (CGRN 82, Face D, lines 45-49). The oath of the tagoi, chief-magistrates of the group, must be sworn “by Zeus Patroios” (Face A, lines 13-15), and a collective oath of the group to vote fairly “according to the laws of the Delphians” is sworn “by Apollo, Poseidon Phratrios and Zeus Patroios” (CID I 9, Face B, lines 12-17). The cult-objects of the Klytidai are also said to be πατρῶια in lines 25-26, affirming their ancestral character in addition to the quality of κοινά that was used in the first part of the text (lines 4 and 8).

Lines 36-37: The Klytidai possess epimeletai and refer to νόμοι (probably their own, as again in the case of Labyadai, CID I 9, Face A, lines 2-3). From an earlier 4th-century lease of land by the Klytidai, it is also known that they possessed an archon and perhaps hieropoioi (Malouchou - Matthaiou, p. 399-400: Face A, lines 7-8; Face B, lines 7 and 54-55). Compare also the ἀρχεύων of the tribe Elpanoridai at Halasarna, in Kos, and the reference to a hieros nomos of the group: CGRN 145 (Kos), lines 1 and 34-36. On curses as forms of sanctions in ritual norms, see CGRN 191 (Philadelphia), lines 43-44, and IC III iv 9 (Itanos), line 81.

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 (https://doi.org/10.54510/CGRN244), as well as the year of consultation (see “Home” for details on how to cite or click “Export Citation” to create a reference for this specific file).