UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Attic manumissions : a commentary on IG II2 1554-59 and Agora I 3183 and 4763 Joss, Kelly L. 2001

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2001-0416_fixed.pdf [ 5.59MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0090432.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0090432-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0090432-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0090432-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0090432-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0090432-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0090432-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0090432-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0090432.ris

Full Text

ATTIC MANUMISSIONS: A COMMENTARY ON IG 112 1554-59 AND AGORA I 3183 AND 4763 By KELLY L . JOSS B.A. , The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1999 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES, DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICAL, NEAR EASTERN AND RELIGIOUS STUDIES We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA July 2001 © Kelly L. Joss, 2001 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of [JdHiCoil Q)de<> The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date A>q.*lfo} DE-6 (2/88) - 1 1 -ABSTRACT The following paper is based on eight opisthographic fragments as assembled and published by D.M. Lewis in Hesperia XXVIII (1959) - IG II2 1554-59 and Ag. I 3183 - and Hesperia XXXVII (1968) -Ag. I 4763. Although the existing text is fragmentary, much of it remains intact and is legible. Both faces of the stele consist of entries recording the results of fictitious trials for abandonment, in which, in every case, chattel slaves were acquitted from their masters and given metic status. Along with each acquittal, there was a payment of a phiale worth one-hundred drachmas. This stele now stands as the most complete manumission document surviving from ancient Athens and its existence compels us to ask many more questions than can perhaps be answered. Manumissions were exceedingly uncommon at Athens, as attested by the near absence of literary and epigraphical evidence for them, and it is unclear why such a document would appear suddenly, having no predecessors, save for a few fragments found to be from around the same period, never to be followed by further evidence of its kind. Why would it have been necessary to simultaneously manumit so many slaves in the last quarter of the fourth century? Surely, it wasn't to honour them, judging from the format of the entries. What, then, was the purpose? With this question in mind, the following topics were explored. Chapter one focused on the legal aspects of the document such as what was meant by the apophugon procedure and who paid for the phiale. Chapter two involved charting the deme-distribution of the former masters and slaves, with the purpose of finding a general area of domicile. for those named on the document. The third chapter discussed the various occupations listed in conjunction with the former slaves, with the ultimate motive of finding what types of slaves were being released and what this might reveal about the document's purpose. The following conclusions were formed: the slave probably bore the responsibility for the payment of his release, which here took - 1 1 1 -the form of a phiale. Based on Plato's reference to paramone agreements in Laws 915a, it is viable that such agreements were practiced at Athens and, furthermore, that .they were similar to those found at Delphi. The deme-distribution of both the former masters and slaves provides evidence that the majority probably had domiciles in city-demes. Lastly, the fact that the highest percentage of former slaves were involved in wool-working and domestic-service lends some credence to the slaves' manumissions having been based upon something other than solely the attainment of freedom. These slaves would have been virtually unskilled and, therefore, the cheapest for the masters to release. As for the other more skilled slaves listed, they would almost certainly have been living-apart, already in a. quasi-free state. In essence, these slaves appear to have been token manumissions, although their new legal status is indisputable, assembled from the more politically active city-dwellers, whose purpose was to allow the state to gather revenue for the oncoming and inevitable war with Macedon. This revenue took the initial form of phialai payments and then, subsequently, the perpetual metoikion payments, required of every metic. The text of the inscription, as published by D.M. Lewis (1959 and 1968), along with his assembly of the fragments, is included. I have also written an English translation. Charts and maps of the former masters' and slaves' deme distribution and slave occupations are also included, as well as an appendix on slave names. -iv-TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract List of Tables List of Maps Abbrevia fci oris Introduction Text of the Stele (Greek) Text of the Stele (English) Chapter I Chapter II Legal Issues 1.1 Payment of the Phialai 1.2 The Formula 1.3 Comparison with IG II2 10 The Demes 2.1 Former Master's Demes 2.2 Freedmen's Demes 2.3 Correlation of the Former Masters' and Freedmen's Demes n-iii v vi vii 1-9 10-27 28-43 44-59 47-53 53-56 56-59 60-69 63-65 65-67 67-69 Chapter III Conclusions Appendix Slave Occupations 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 Industry Retail Entertainment Transport Domestic Agriculture General Work Comparison with IG II2 10 Slave Names 76-101 86-93 93-95 95 96 96-97 97-99 99-100 100-101 102-107 108-112 Bibliography of Works Cited 113-116 -v-LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Face A 70 Table 2: Face B 72 — These record information from each entry on the stele. The entries in the charts are listed in alphabetical order by the former masters' demes. The order of each horizontal entry is as follows: line number, status of former master (citizen or metic), his deme, freedman's deme, gender, occupation. -Vl-LI ST OF MAPS Seven Fragments of the Manumission Stele as Assembled by D.M. Lewis (1959) Deme Map A: Face A Deme Map B: Face B — Using a deme map of Attica taken from John Traill (1975), I have charted the deme distribution of the former masters and slaves. Journals: -vi l-ABBREVIATIONS ABSA AJA CJ CQ CR JNES ZPE Journal of the British School at Athens American Journal of Archaeology Classical Journal Classical Quarterly Classical Review-Journal of Near Eastern Studies Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik Reference: FRA IG 112 LGPN LSJ PA M.J. Osborne and Sean G. Byrnes, The Foreign Residents of Athens; Peeters, Leuven, 1996. J. Kirchner, Inscriptiones Graecae: Editio Minor; Berlin, 1927. M.J. Osborne and S.G. Byrne, A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, vol. ii; Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1994. H.G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ed. vii; Oxford, 1997. J. Kirchner, Prosopographia Attica, vols, i-ii; Berlin, 1901-03. SAG L.C. Reilly, Slaves in Ancient Greece; Ares Publishers Inc, Chicago, 1978. -1- Joss Introduction The following thesis is based upon eight fragments as published by D.M. Lewis in Hesperia XXVIII (1959) - IG II2 1554-59 and Ag. I •3183 - and Hesperia XXXVII (1968) - Ag. I 4763. Koehler had earlier assigned IG II2 1556-58 to the same stele, and in fact, as Lewis notes,. 1556 joins 1557. * Kirchner assigned IG II2 1554 to 1555 and lastly, Lewis added 1559, Ag. I 3183 and later Ag. I 4763 to the.' group.2 These fragments are part of one large opisthographic stele, consisting of five columns on Face A written in stoichedon, with sixteen letters in the first four columns and seventeen in the fifth, and four columns on Face B, written in non-stoichedon. Although the existing text is fragmentary, much of it remains intact and is legible. Both faces of the stele consist of entries recording the results of fictitious trials for abandonment,3 in which, in every case, chattel slaves were acquitted from their masters and given metic status. Because these trials all seem to have the same result, this document appears to represent a series' of legal fictions, each having the predetermined result of acquittal. The masters are listed as either citizens or metics and the former slaves are listed along with their occupations and given the metic designation - OIKCOV EV + domicile. Along with each acquittal, there was a payment of a phiale worth one-hundred drachmas. Because all of these fragments record manumissions and 1 Lewis (1959), 208. 2 Please refer to pp 10-11 for a diagram of the fragments' placement (taken from Lewis [1959]). 3 Discussed in Ch 1. -2- Joss constitute part of the same stele, they will henceforth be referred to together as the Manumission Stele. Following the Introduction, I have included a copy of the layout of the fragments (only the first seven as published by Lewis in 1959) as well as the inscription as published by the same scholar (1959 and 1968). These are followed by an English translation. As will be seen below, there are three different types of marble found in the descriptions of these fragments - Pentelic, Hymettian and subcaeruleus. One would expect that if all of the fragments came from the same stele, they would all consist of the same type of marble. This discrepancy has not been noted by Lewis and cannot be rectified in this paper. The epigraphical information for the fragments is as follows: 1 IG 112 1554 Height, 0.26m.; width, 0.50m.; thickness, 0.11m. Height of letters, 0.005m on both sides. Opisthographic fragment of Pentelic marble, wholly intact on the left side. Face A is written in stoichedon with 16 letters per line and includes parts of columns one and two. Face B is non-stoichedon and retains parts of columns three and four. 2 IG 112 1555 Height, 0.20m.; width, 0.18m.; thickness, 0.10m. Height of letters, 0.005m. on Face A (Face B has been damaged and does not retain any inscription) -3- Joss Fragment of Hymettian(?) marble, broken on all sides. Face A is written in stoichedon with 16 letters per line and includes parts of columns one and two. Face B has been lost but presumably it would have included part of column four. 3 IG 112 1556 Height, 0.18m.; width, 0.22m.; thickness, 0.115m. Height of letters, 0.004 on both sides Opisthographic fragment of Hymettian marble, broken on three sides. Face A is written in stoichedon with 16 letters per line for column four and 17 for column five. Face B is non-stoichedon and includes parts of columns one and two. 4 IG 112 1557 Height, 0.47m.; width, 0.28m.; thickness, 0.125m. Height of letters, 0.004 on both sides Opisthographic fragment of Hymettian marble, intact on the right side. Face A is written in stoichedon with 16 letters per line for column four and 17 for column five. Face B is non-stoichedon and includes parts of columns one and two. 5 IG 112 1558 Height, 0.41m.; width, 0.26m.; thickness, 0.115m. Height of letters, 0.004 on both sides -4- Joss Opisthographic fragment of Hymettian marble, broken on three sides. Face A is written in stoichedon with 16 letters per line for column four and 17 for column five. Face B is non-stoichedon and-includes parts of columns one and two. 6 IG 112 1559 Height, 0.205m.; width, 0.37m.; thickness, 0.115m. Height of letters, 0.005 on both sides Opisthographic fragment of blue marble {subcaeruleus) , broken on all sides. Face A is written in stoichedon with 16 letters per line and includes parts of columns one to four. Face B is non-stoichedon and includes parts of columns two to four. 7 Ag. I 3183 Height, 0.214m.; width, 0.262m.; thickness, 0.115m. Height of letters, 0.005 on both sides Opisthographic fragment of Pentelic marble, broken on all sides, found in a wall of a house dated to 638/9, located west of the Church of the Holy Apostles on 9 January 1935. Face A is written in stoichedon with 16 letters per line and includes parts of columns three and four. Face B is non-stoichedon .  and includes parts of columns two and three. -5- Joss 8 Ag. I 4763 Height, 0.14m.; width, 0.125m.; thickness, 0.055m. Height of letters, 0.005 Marble fragment, intact on the left side, found in the wall of a late pit southeast of the Agora, east of the Late Roman Fortification, on 20 April 1937. Face A is written in stoichedon with 16 letters per line and includes part of column one. Face B has been lost but presumably would have included part of column four. NB: All the dates in the following paper are BCE. The main clue for dating Face A of . the Manumission Stele is found at line 189ff where we find three sons of Demon of Phrearrhioi - Demotion, Dem(?) and Demophilos - joining to free a woman who was presumably a family slave." The fact that the father was not present as one of. the manumittors implies that he was probably dead by the time of the manumission. There was, however, a Demon of Phrearrhioi alive in 323 or 322, as seen on IG 112 1632.48. Based on this evidence, Face A cannot be earlier than 323. It also cannot be much later than this date, since there are men present on the stele who were born in 389/8 (A.140)5 , ca. 380 (A.219)6 and one before 397 (A.557)7 . Furthermore, it is probably not after Demetrios of Phaleron's reforms in 317/16 since the name ' Lewis' prosopographical study of the masters' names (1959) has been most helpful in this section. 5 LGPN: p 472, Chairippos (16). 6 LGPN: p 229, Thrasymedes (16). 7 LGPN: p 80, Autokles (23). -6- Joss of one of the masters (A. 548) has been found on a gravestone (IG 112 6437) which appears to have been made before restrictions were placed on extravagant grave markers. Based on the above evidence, the date for Face A likely lies in the very early twenties. Face B appears to be later than Face A as it was not as carefully planned and executed, although the date, if indeed later, does not appear to have been much after that of Face A. The main clue is found at line 328ff where there are two brothers joining to free a family slave. One of the brothers, Antisthenes, is found on another inscription, dated 326/5, where he is recorded as having paid for half of a new trireme as the heir of the elder Antisthenes.6 Since the elder Antisthenes is last known from an inscription dating to 334/3, he could have died after this point and was surely dead by 326/5 when the younger Antisthenes made a contribution in his name; the stele then should not be dated earlier than 334. Furthermore, there is a man called Misgolas at line 335 whose accepted birth date is 390,9 so the date for Face B is probably not much lower than 320, although it is possible. Thus we have for Face A of the Manumission Stele a date probably between 323 and 320 and not much lower, if at all, for Face B. As will be discussed in Chapters 1 and 3, manumission seems to have been exceedingly uncommon at Athens. This stele, along with a group of related manumission stelai,10 which all appear to have been produced within a twenty year time frame, is the only extant epigraphical evidence for manumissions at Athens. That there would be no evidence for such procedures from before or after this 8 Cf. Kirchner's stemma, PA 1196. 9 PA 10225. Cf. Lewis (1958), 108 for a discussion of the problems with this date. 10 Lewis (1959) , 233-35. -7- Joss period rouses suspicion that this document is linked to contemporaneous events limited to this particular time in Athenian history. The mid to early twenties was a period of. great turmoil for the Athenians, as they were feeling the heavy weight of Macedon upon them. Drastic measures had been taken by Lycurgus' coalition to systematically prepare for' the inevitable battle between the two powers and at the same time to bolster the Athenians' patriotism and political spirit which had eroded after so many failed campaigns over the past thirty years. The Athenians knew that if they were to compete with Macedon's enormous revenues and manpower, they had to act quickly to gain resources to update their warships and rebuild their fortifications. From 338/7 until his death in 326/5, Lycurgus took the helm as chief Finance Minister and was hugely successful at gaining vast amounts of money, thereby increasing Athens' annual income to 1200 talents, up from 400 in 346.n He not only used this money to strengthen Athens' military and naval capacities but also to fund Athenian building projects and festivals. How he managed to gain such revenues is not exactly clear. He did encourage wealthy Athenians 'to perform liturgies for Athens while prosecuting those he felt were not doing or had not done their civic duty.12 At the same time, those who had done their civic duties were given honours, thereby encouraging others to do the same;13 Williams states that over half . of the inscriptions from this period appear to be honorary.14 After 11 Williams, 7; Ferguson, 10. 12 Cf. Lye.52.3; PA 9422, 2746. 13 Cf. M.N. Tod (1962), nos. 178, 193, 198-9. " Williams, 14 no. 37. -8- Joss Lycurgus' death, his coalition, perhaps with Demades as the new chief financier, who had collaborated with him in finances, no doubt continued to raise money for Athens. When Alexander died in 323, the Athenians, knowing that Macedon was about to enter its own political turmoil as its generals struggled for power, decided to go to war. How does the Manumission Stele fit into this context? One hundred and twenty-three slaves can be identified as having been freed as a result of these feigned trials. The question arises, why were so many slaves being released at this tumultuous time in Athens? I would like to suggests three reasons. First of all, as mentioned above, with the release of each slave there was a payment of a phiale worth one hundred drachmas. Even in the stele's fragmentary condition, a total of 12,300 drachmas can be seen as having come to the state15 as a result of these acquittals and the total was doubtless even higher. Coupled with the phialai payments, each freedman was registered as a metic, obligating him/her to pay the metoikion (metic tax) . This tax was ongoing so the state was assured of receiving a continuous payment from every metic as long as he or she resided in Attica. Thirdly, every male metic would have been liable to fight on behalf of Athens in the event of warfare, an obligation slaves did not generally have.16 The high date for the document, 323, is more likely as this marked the beginning of the Lamian War; by 322/1, the Athenians had surrendered to the Macedonians after being defeated at the Battle of Crannon. These releases could have been simply another effort 15 That these phialai were payments to the state rather than dedications to a god is discussed below, p ,. 16 See below, p 76 no.73 for an exception. -9- Joss to gather revenue and manpower in preparation for the war. Aside from providing some evidence into the political atmosphere of fourth-century Athens, the Manumission Stele gives us valuable evidence for legal issues, such as the little known apophugon procedure, as well as deme distribution and slave occupations. It is these topics on which the following paper will seek to provide a commentary. The first chapter will focus on legal issues and questions concerning the document: what the evidence is for dike apostasiou trials, what were paramone agreements, who paid for the phialai, what formula was used and what this document has in common with the oft-compared IG II2 10. The second chapter will chart the deme-distribution for the former slaves and masters. In the process, I hope to illuminate any patterns of distribution relating to the former masters and their slaves. Maps for visual reference and cross-reference charts listing former masters and slaves and their demes will be included at the end of this chapter. Chapter three will discuss the social roles chattel slaves played in Athenian society by an analysis of the occupations listed on the stele. I will also try to uncover whether there is any pattern to the kinds of slaves that were being freed, in the hope of further understanding the purpose of this document. - 1 0 -S e v e n Fragments o f t h e Manumiss ion S t e l e a s A s s e m b l e d b y D.M. L e w i s (1959) FACE A Joss Vacat } 1556 ' Y?T\ ^J>vix£siX> ^iJT^U^' & 1557 •^ ifc 155H -3-I3A83 »: i - ' ^ , ^ *>? 15 CWl ¥•.'••'•* l'v- Y . N 1558 £'>•> Vacat - 1 1 -FACE B Joss -12-Text of the Stele (Greek) (as published by D.M. Lewis i n 1959 & 1968) Joss 25 30 35 40 70 75 FACE A Column I 23 lines missing ]9 . . . . (f)i.dk crradu • H ] ** . . . J o t K <i)V airtxpv J yoiv Jarou . . . * . . . <£«£X cr\Ta6(i:Y\ . .. .' ifi] Ilctpa OLKWV diroijivy^wv rro . . . . .10. . . . . K] VSOV T ..*... <f>LaX <TT]adfw :H ' ey] KoUv ouuov a.TTo<pvy]oiv ..]paro , . ] 1,WK . . ]Kpa Aa]/X7TT . . J /oar about 28 lines missing o]uc a.TTO<j)vy] o>v v ] 1TQ)\ <^U£XTJ] ora:H ey Ko\]Xv oi K .. . .* air]<xf>vy 10 1 / ojKparo 12 12 13 - 1 3 - Joss [ . . ' . . . <f)tdXrj] a-radjjL-.H [....."..... ]fcu>v i f [....* o]lK d.TTO<j> [vy . . . . * . . . .]oKpdro about 12 lines missing 92 [ V ]Xe [ . . . . * d ] ncxfnry [ . . . . I" ] V 'OXvp.1T 95 [ioSa>pov 'A]yp <f>ui crra:H [... ' . . . .] raXa iv KvS [OIKOU] a.iro<j>vyovcra r AvcriSiKov Avaurrp 6.TOV 'A\apvi <jud crra: H 100 [K] I7TOS ip Uei OIKWV ^aX/ccu dvocftvywu vv Aiovvanov UroTtXi} <f>idXij <na.6pJbv \H : r r r MvT)crid£a{v} ip. IIci oi 105 KO raXa. dTro<f)iryovo-a i Aiovvcriov UroreXf} <f>idkr) o~ra.dp6v:H : ecr Sdrvpos 'Ayvovv OLK i yecopyo diro<j>vywv n 110 KT)4>UTIOV Kr)(f)io-oSrj I fiov IlaXX^ <f)id crra#:H ; [K]aXXta<?> KairrfX ip lie [i OI]KCOV dno<j>vyoiv c r 115 [. .'. . ,]iv HoXvevtcro [... ' . ... ^M£XT/] era :H [vacat] Column II 11 lines missing 128 [ .". }ov [. . .6. . . <f>idX o~T]adp:H 130 [ i:-. ]/?ipK [ . . OIKWV dTr]o<f)irywv v - 1 4 - J o s s [....*... .jATj/xoorpet [TO &ped]pp <f>idk o~ra-£\ [. .5. . .]o? iv KvSa OLK 135 [<w XPV ] °"°X° dircxf>vyoi>v [lLi/]dwf>pova Ev0v*Xe , , OU? XoXXc <j)td OTO.Q '. H Buoy ifi MeX ouc<u Sa*c •n/XioyXu dvo<j)xryoi)v 140 Xai/jMnrov XatpcS^ /iov 'AXatc *cat KOI ep aft TWV fierd Xcupiir •no 'AXatc <f>idk o-rad:V\ 'Cl(f>ekttt)v kv KoXXv oi 145 KS) KKLVOTT a.TTO^>vyo}v F>vv6kefwv Einrokep, o 'Aypv <fudk o-radpx>:H Moo-xuov ip, Tleip O[IK] aj ifiiropo airo<f>vy[ci)v "] 150 AVKIV3UI>I>OS ['Axa-pv] _<f>idX <rradpx>v [:H —"] tyikovucrj rfaXad-t £v] ACVKO OLK a[7ro<f>vyov] At\pxxr6hn\v [ . . .*. . .] 155 Xo &vkd [<f>idk o-radp. :H] ^— 1' A 8 o w - [ t o s . . . . ? . . . . ] About 28 lines missing 185 TTX^[ »......*] v KoX[Xv OIK <f>id o r a : H ] Mevimrt] [....* ] Takaxri diro<f>[iryo{kra] Arjfurruova A[rjpxavos] 190 Qpedppi, Arjp[. . . * . . . ] ArjfUDvo <&ped[ppi, ATJ/A] 6<f>ikov Arjpxj[vo^ ^*pc] dppio (fudkr) [oTa6p,:\-\] 'Ovjo-ipos 'A[kame( ?)ouc] 195 About 11 lines missing - 1 5 - Joss 207 [A]VKU7TCO[V ALOSOTOV] 'EWIKT) <f)id[\OT]ad p.[ \H] Mai^js dp<f>o[p] iv KoX[X] 210 OIK<O airo<j>vy<i)P Oivid8r)v OIVOK\£O 'Afia£av <f>idk oraOp,: H <J>tXumj raXcuri ep M cX OIKOV airo<fivyo\HT 215 'Eirtxapi&rjv Avcrimr ov Aa/MIT <f>id OTddp: H 'Apurropevrjs ip MeX OIK CTKVTOTO dlTO<f)Vy Qpaarvp-qSrj Rrj8eiSo 220 AevKOvo <f>ux arra6p:V\ 'Ov7)o~ip,T) o~r)cra[p]oir<i)k 'AXGWT OLKOV dv[o<f>vyo] QiXava 3> iXi [ . . . . 'AX] cone OIK <j>i [aX o-radp.: H ] 225 Hoo-ei8d>v[u><; . . . . c] v KoXXw O[IK a7ro<f>vyio] "Tyiaiv[ovra . . . * . . . ] X<> 'AyxfuX <f)id <xra#/i:H] Si/ia [ " ] 230 raX [ axri dtro^vyowra ] *ApX[ V ] ov <£a [Xijp <£«£ aradp: H ] z'acaf Column III 6s lines missing 241 [ Xrpo ] (ifiix Seop [ vrjor ] r _ l [ OX]vV0i <f>td\ o-ra[0:H] IT«rTO*cX'j}5 ip Me[X oi] K VTrO$T)p.a.TOTT diro<f>[v] 245 KaWiTTiriSrfv KaXX[t] ov 'AtbiS <f>id\ aradp [ :H] AuWo-io? c[v 2]#ca o [ t ] K yttopyb dTro[<f>]v[y]ci}v ['] - 1 6 - Jos ['A]ywui'i[8]Tji' [IIc]«rio-[T] 2 5 0 pa.ro KTJ^I <f>ia cnoB :JH IIOXVTI/IO? h> KoXXu OIK CTKVTOTO airo<f>vy KakXiav KaXXtaSov TiaxaviA <buxX o-rad.H 255 AafiTrpls ev XKO/J. OUC over TCTOT) asnexfavyov 'ApurroijxLvT 'Apurri wo 'A<j>i8 <£iaX arrad'.H Evneidt) TTCUSI tird 2 6 0 iv XK OLKOV diro<f>vyo 'Apurro(f>(t)VT 'Api[o*]Ti <ov 'A<f>i8v <j>uik O-[TO.8 :JH] ~~Eifi[. . . ]? iv Ko[XX(T)ouc] 53 lines missing 317 [. . .7. . . . airo<f>\ryov]<r [ \s ]Sov 3 2 0 [. A . . e/i Me]Xi oucov [. . .7. . . . a]iro<}>vyovo-[....*.... 'A]TTOWO8O> [pov . . . <f>tdk o-ra]6fi:H 3 lines missing 3 2 7 _ . A - ! P [ » ] AuSi] 'AXconeKTJ [OIKOV] TaXacrio avo<f>[vyovar] 330 &eo<f>i\ov'Av [..."...] EvoiwpA <f>ui [ X OTOB : H ] _ Meviosiv I / [...'. . . 7 ] 8I<£KOI/ a.7r[o<£vyaw"*] Aioy«'[Tji>. . . .* ] 335 ITO 'Ep [. . . 4>id crradp.: H ~ K a [ .". ] ~ ov[ .". ] »[ " ] About 10 lines missing - 1 7 - J o s s 335 [ - ] [ - ] 360 365 Column IV 5 lines missing W . . . . - . . ] « • . * . . . <f>idX oraBp.: ] H 11 • ! ~ OljKOJ v ano<fnry(ov Vtcv]mv .". ] AYAO . . . * . . . <f>td\ <rr]adp:H " ] ifiMeo LK(OI> . . . . diro]<f>v/(o v .". JoIIaX \r}V€a <f>u£\ oTadp.: ] H " 2f ] «[ " ; J ui)[. . . * . . . <j>id crraffiH] ~Aop[ " . . . . . J \i/3a[varro dircxfavy. . ] 370 Xrp[ '.' ] ip. II [tip OIK <f>id crra:H ] ~Aw[......'. ! 7 Ta[\axri.ov diro<f>vyov\ A [ . . . . . . . " . ]o 375 T. . . " . . . <f>idk <rra0]p,:H .". ip]M^ X owe. . . dircxf>vy. . ] ** I3. o]v ' . . . .<f>ia\ <rra0p,:]H " . . . .* eV 2]/ca/3<y v OLK . . . . * . . . . ] dno<j> . . . . * . . . . 8rjp.]ov Kvd rjppio <fnd <r] radp 'M m h> %K]aj3a)V o IK ] oc diro<f> . . . .8. . . . &T]]pX)V KvO rjppiov <f>td cr]ra6p.:V\ * ip] Ilet OIKO vera . . . . dir]o<f*vyov v 380 385 _ 1 8 - J o s s 390 [. . . .'. . . .tfrjfiov Kvd [rjppiov <f>id] crradfio:H . .* ]")"€«!> €V *H [<fxu OLKU)]V airo<f)vywv : ] AP.i . . Savo 395 [ . .A. . 4*]d\ oraffmH .'. . . fi]ur6cjrb 'AXoi [ITCK OIK] airo<j)vya> vvv .*. . .]8r)v *A[p]t[o-]Tap [xov Mv]/pp Topyado 2a» 400 [a-urrp]a.Tov KvSadjj " [<f)idkTj] oTa6p.6.H **'"' s. . . ] S ScuSoa-xurr 5. . . ] y OIKCO dircxfrvy .*. . .]»' Qikotvos ria 405 [. . / ]9Xo 1<f>UTTL [aS . . . " . . .]S<upo MetS . . \ . . . ] 0 I N A I 'ATTO [XX . . . . * . . . .]cuaov .". . . (f>La\ <rr]a.0p.:\~\ 410 [ !\ « > K o [XXv?ouc ]rrv 15 lines missing 427 [...'.. .]VT) raXfao-t iv] KoXXv OLKOV airo[<f>vy] "AvSpcav 'AXKI/JLOLXOV [IT] 430 atavi KaXXiinriS-qlv] TtfuovaKTos Tlaiavi ea <f>tdXr) <rra.dp.6v [ : H ] Tvpr/v avXoiroi iv Kv 8a#ij OIKO) d.iro<f>\rya)[v] 435 A f o [ . . . . , . \ 3 ] M[ <f>uLX crrad \H] 5 / i«ej missing 442 [ . . : . . . ' : . . . . _ . ] o S 2 ^ [ i fm <^ uzX o-r]a#/i:H vv [ rajXcuri iv K 445 [. . . OIKOV air]o^>vyov - 1 9 - J o s s V ]6yK\€ . .*. . . .]<f>id o-ra#:H . . * . . . . ] at&Tjpo kv .'. . . OLK]O) diro<fnry<b 450 \. . . .*. . . . ] Avcraviov .6. . . <£]M£X crra^rJH , . ' . . . .]#coXXa/> 'AXco irt OLK(U\ airotpvyu) .*. . .]apvr) 'Apixrro 455 r . . . ( ? ) XoX]Xe<£«£oTa0:H . . .s. . . ] vevpopd eu £ KCL OLK]<I) d.TTO(f)v-yco , r l . . .6. . .] Uo\vpTJTOV " . ..'...] <f>ta. a~rad :H " vacat Column V 460 [ ' ! . . . .« /*] n« oi [ ~ » I f f _ J V vvvvvvv Kwv airo\<p[vy\(o [Xa]piav XapcovvBov Eu wmipi <f>id\ crradfi'.H &ikcov ypafip.aT€ iv 0 [ o ] 465 piKhi OLKO) a.Tro<f>vya)v v <I>€p€xXei8Tj <£ep«cXe ov Htpidoi <f>ui\ ora :H 'PoSia raXacrt cv 0opi Ku> OLKOV dvo<f>xryov(ra 470 3>€p€*cXei87} <J>€p€*cX€ ou Hepido <f>idk <rrad: H KopSwrnj TratSioi' ev © optK oucov a7ro<^i/y[oi}] ^cpcficXjecSr; <J>€p€[*Xe] 4 7 5 _ o t / [Ilepi0]oi [<^ >u£X o-ra:H] K [ . . . \ . . ] » * [ . . . . \ . . . f 5 /incj missing 480 [....'. . . . o ]vp [yq tMA| IT OLKOV d.TTO<f>vyov "" Xavpiav 'AO-qvimrov IT - 2 0 - J o s s eipai %TTovhia.v 8 e a [ i ] TTJTO XoXap Sid a-rad: H 485 "EmKcpSii? 'Oijo-t oi/cai dtwreXoup diroSvyotv " ATJ [p.]oSikov Aypxxbdvo Haiavi Sid crradiH vvv 'HpaxXctSTj? ip. Me OIK 490 a» KaTri) dTro(j>vy<i>v vevt MeveSypov e/x Me OIK [ O ] _u(£M£AoTa0:HCT, , ,CM ' , ' &pdirra Kamp\i e/x Me OIKOV airoqtvyov 495 MeveSTj/xoi'ett MeXi o [ t ] _KOv^«£XoTa^:H , , , ; , , ," , 'Ira/ir) TaXcuri e/x Ilei o » «* » i ~ m e n I/cow airo<pvyov Xaipimrov Tt/xo/cXet 500 8ov 'Axapvc Sid <naJd: H 'E7Tiyovo<; ep.irop e/x l ie OIKCD awofptryo) Krrjcriav K-rrjcrcovos So piKi StdX <rra0p,:H vvv 505 A7j/xTjTp[ta] Ki6apo)iSb 'Eiriia)Si[art]c!> OIKO dno 'AOrjvoSwpov [0]eoSa>po MeXtre &€o8aipov 0eo 8wpo MeXiT Sid orad :H 510 &i\wv rapixoiroi i[p] Ko XXv OIKW diroSvyav M X.aip4Sikov $>ei8(0vo Haia Sid\ trradpoiH ** Xpxxriov iTcuSi 'HpcucX 515 ei eV "S,WT OIK diroSvy " Qopp'uav EvpAxo 'Pap,v _[ov] SidXa~rad,Hvvvc" 'OXu/xmd? raXaxri iv K vSa ot/cov dnoSxryov v 5 20 'Apx*8d [ p. ] cur 'Apx^S^p ov 'AXate ciidX crra# :H " 'EOTICUOS (TKVTOTO iv - 2 1 - J o s s ^.KafifSo) OLK aircxfrvyotv [E]i>6vftaxov Ev&ucov [H] 525 [VTTCJTCU <f>id\ (rradfi [ :H "] t _ ^ [ ] TaXao-[toev] K [ . . . ] 17 lines missing 544 [ * ]TO[V] Ev[*pa] , , [T]OVV 'ETTIJOJ <f>ui <rr[a:H] [2]tDTT7[p]tSl75 oiTjXaT [«>] Aiofui OIKWV d.ircxj)v[y] 'Avrifiivriv UUTTOKX [ £ ] ou Kt)<f>urU 4>uL <rra[#:H] 550 2Laxrrpdi-q naiSio i[v K] [ epa.fi. ] «i» oucov dir<xf> [ try ] ' AvrLpAvqv n«rroK[Xc] ou Ki}(f>uri "Ayvaiv Ev[#u] Kpi KvSa^Tjv <£u£ OT[a:H] 555 nXayyaiv raXaa-to cv [K] v8a otKowr airo^)vyo[v] AVTOKXC 'Ai'SpoKXcfov] Evcowjfii <f>iak (rra.0[ft :H] Yldfi<fnXo<; opewKOfi [i A] 560 eua OIKSJV a.iro<f>vyo)[v l] ®eoxdpr)v *Epyoxap[ou] IlpcuTiea <£iaX crradp, [ :H ] Nuchas XIJSCIVCDTO c/i, [II] « otK<ai>v diro<))vywv m 565 OtXoKpaTTJ 'ETTlKpaTO "EXewt KOI KOIPO epa VtOTWI' T<2V f i crd B€CM^ pdcrrov BadvXXov XoX apy4(i><! <f>idk (rtoBpjo: [ H ] t/acaf - 2 2 - Joss FACE B Column I [ ~ ~ ~ ] [K]CU Kotvby i[pa]vL[aT(iiv ] aK€(rrpiav ey Kcipt [OIK </>«£] Xi,:H ' 5 TvScv? Aapaxov 'OijOev [ ] v aproTTa)\r}v 'AXwTreKrj O[IKOVV] TO, <j)tdk: H ~Evdvy€\o<; ®eavyi\ov XoXXe Mwfiov CTKVXO<8>€<I/»>OJ' iv KvSa.0 10 oiKOVvra <£>u£X:H IIoXvoTpaTOS HokvcrrpdriaT) 'ETT iKT]<f>icrio<: 'S.oxriav ytuipybv iv H(f>aurria OIKOVTO. <f>idk: H AvTry'evT]$ *E7jry<e>»'ou9 iv MtXi 15 [O]IKO> WLvacroiv cr#cvro<T>o/xo iv M« Xi] OIKOV <f>id\rj "A\~\> l i d ] VKOKO<S 'AdTjvaSov irp6£fvo<; *Kp}x<iiv Ta^vSij^tov CK KOIXTJ? . . . ]iav TraiZCutiv ey ITeipa O I [ K ] 2 0 [<^iaX]ij:H IIdi>KaXo]s 'A#i}i>d 18ov ^po^e^os] 30 35 40 8 lines missing ]f dX7j:H] vacat ] IEP PO. 0Y iv I l jctp oiKoucrfai' <£w£:H] p.axo9 K]aXXi/id^ou Mapa#q> ] iir Ileip <OI>K rapix0 [<£•• ; H ] ]/xaxo? KaXXi/xdxov [Mapa0&>] ]c^»diTj TraiSa cv Ileipc OIK <f>ia\ri: ] H / iaxo? Ka]XXi[/x]dxo? Mapa# ]ev Ileip OIKO [<£u£ :H ] ] ] Mapa[6] 2 lines missing - 2 3 - J o s s 45 [ ] 8 w o [ — ] 3 lines missing ] OIK 50 [ ]vo[ ] ] Nauo-[ ] d.fi.]irekovpy [bv ] ]V <J>ttK7TpaT[ ] ] h> KV8CL9[T)V] OLK [ $M£X:H] 55 [. . .]o-t7nro5 E p [ . . . ] s ntaJXXfTji/c] Tax«r TT)V T[aXao-to]vp iy Ku[8a# OLK] <^U£XTJ:H &V(IO8[T)<; ]i7r7r[7iv] rakaxriovpy [ OIK <f>idkT]: H ] TLLV60€O<; M«/i[ ]? 'Av[r]Lyo)v 60 y&apybv ifi Ila [ OLKOVVTCL <f>ui: H ] [ .arpoJKXTjs 'Av[ — ]?Hv7?T [EVJKOXT; raire[ owe <£u£ :H ] [. ] aTpoKkr}? 'Av [ — — ] ? piyire [ T ] [ . . JorTirf ]OIK <f>id[ :H] 65 [ .aTp]oKX[Tjs 'Av s ] HVTTCT[ ] [ O]LK <f>Lai[ :H ] [ ] yEtTLKT)<f>Ur [ o] iKoCo-a <j>i:H [ • - - 6]ov[<s] 'Airo[. . ] 70 [ -i]fiUeLoiK [<J>L:H] [ ] 6ov<; 'Avo [. . ] [ —]8cov OLK [<f>i:H] [ ! ]o)p ol[ ] 17 lines missing 91 [ ]ann)v iro-TjKLarrpL i[v ] [ OIK $ i ] a : H [0]cpo-i7nros 'AvTi<f>dvov[ ] [. . ]privL(i)v 6p€co ifi II OIK [ $ t a : H ] 95 Qipo-timos 'AvTL<f>dvov [ ] ILLLOV TTOISLOV ifi II OIK <£«£ [ :H ] [ . . ] LiapT)S 'A\or7T€KTJ OLK ACTTT [ . . ] [. . . ] v iv TWV epy eirl Kvv OLK [. .5. . . ] s MTOTCXTJ? MCO-O) TaXa 100 [ \AX&» ] TTtlCTJO-lV OIK <f>ld\T] '. H - 2 4 - J o s s [. . j/toorpaTO? IloXvxapfjLiBov [ ] X QtiZiorpaTov -xpwroxoov [ey] K<u>8a# owe <fndk-q:H [. . ] Kpdrqs EvfeVov IIOXXTJ 105 NIKO^CVOS 'HyTjcrtou *Epxi ATj/xoarpaTO? A-qfLoo~rpa.Tov [II]aXX "Q.Kifiov raXa o» "H^at [OI]K ^>U£X7J:H [KjXeo^evos KCU icvptos KTTJO-OJVI 110 [8]7js Ow}0 Eu/cXea ey KoX OIK •yewp <£M£X : H MCVITTJ? Mevcovos KvBad "Array oa-irptoTToiKriv ey K OIK <f>idX:H Mei'i7Tj9 Mei/wvo? Kv8a# MaX 115 Oaacqv Tokaxriovpybv ey K<ei>p OIK <^M£XT7:H Mevmj? Mevw^os Kv8a# nXayyova 7rat8toi' ey K « OIK <f>i: H MevITTJV Mevojvos K.vSa0 120 Mocr^of Trav&iov ey Kei OIK <£t: H Mevirqs WLivwvos KvSad ' ApuTTOviicr)v iraiol ey Ke oi <f>ui: H Column II About 8 lines missing -} " - ] - - ] " - ] " - ] — ] - ] - ] - - ] —]ov 4*:]H 131 / | - -_ M [ — ? E T [ -0M[-135 'EJT[ -_ ' A p x [ " •EJT[-[ - " -140 [ [ - - -9 /»»« missing - 2 5 - Jos 151 ..ot[ - - ] Awrixdpr) [s ] KOI KOIVOV ep[avurru»v ] OIK [<f)ta:H] About 50 lines missing 205 [ }*vQo[.] [ ° ] ** ?!Wf ^f ;H [ — ] oXepov *EXcv 'Kxypica [ O]IK y€(op <f>id:H [ ]os XaipeSypov 'AXat 210 [. . . ] \ l [ . . 'A]\(inreKrj OIK p,v\a>9 <f>i:H [ . . . ] ta? 'ApurroKpirov 'A<f>t8v [ . ] irvpav ip. H OIK awX7/ $t :H ['E]irtxa/>t^o? 'Eirixapu'ou Aewc ['H]xa> rdkaxrvovpybv ip, Ha [O]LK 215 [<£]«£:H [NjeoirroXc/to? 'AwucXcov? MCXIT ArjpJav T€KTOV h> [ ] [O]IK <f>i:H [ . . . ]HP !P [ ] 220 [ ]e [ r [ ]t 7 lines missing 230 A[ ] __<£«£[ :H] AVTO[Kpdrrjs A-y ] 'ApicrTT)[v OIK <£i:H] AVTOKP6.T[T]<; Ay ] 235 lipakov nai8\iov owe] <f>id:\~\ AvroKpan)<i Ay[ ] Nwcapamjj/ ira[iBiov owe] <f>id:H 240 <£i/Xa£ta? &av[iov 'Avayvpdarios] FXvKepap Ta[Xacriou owe] <f>id:\~\ ~ Eu£ovXos K17 [ ] -26- Joss tfino Motrx [ ] vacat Column I I I About 5 lines missing 250 [ ]ov Ewov [ ] vacat [ ] X olx Kgvpe <f>i:H [NiKijparo? Ni]ta)pa.Tov MeXw [&ei&nnros] XaxTtSij/iou Ev7T 255 [ ] C/A Mekirrji OIK SOJCTV [*:H] [NiKJ^paros Nuajparov MeXt [<I>e]i8ti7Tros SaxriSi/Aov HVJT [. . ] i/aiva irauSiov ip. Me OIK $ i : H 260 Nuajparos NiKJjparov MCXIT (fctSunro? S&xriS^fiov Hire SrpaToviKTjj' c/i Mc OIK raXa <^ >ia:H Niici7paT05 Nt/ojpaTOw McXtr 265 >^ci8Mrxros SonnS^/iou HIWCT UpidvOrjv ep. Me OIK raXa <£M£:H AIXTMISTJS Xiueo? 'AAOWTCK XaKrrparjji> raXacrtovpy c/i M OIK <fu,:\~\ 270 [KjaXXta? KaXXiKparov? 'A<f>t8 r -J [. . jaroi' ey KoXXv OIK OVT) (f>i:H [..*.. .]KXTJS 'Apurro<f>dvov<! 'Axap r -,[ ] ep, M [OIK raXajtrioup <^ i :H [ ]ou Acv 275 [ - - ] < £ i : H About 50 lines missing 326 o v [ - - ] _> : [H ] 'AvTUT<.dyiv[t)^ 'Avrurdivovs Kv] 6T)P 'Avri<f>dv[ri<; '' Avrurdivovs] 330 KvOrjpp Xrparo [ ] - 2 7 - Joss 'AypvX oix <j>i: [ H ] NucdorpaTfo? ] 'Axap KXeo [ ] TaXaxrup [ <f>ui :H ] 335 MaryoXas [Nawcparous KoXXv]' NauKX[iJ? Navjcparov? KoXXv [ : ~ ~ ] owe <f>ui:H MuryoXa? Nawcparovs KoX 340 Xv NavxXijs Navjcparovs KoX "&8urrr)v vaiStov i Ixap, owe _<^:H Tt/lOOTpaTO? SfJUKplOV S ^ T [. . . ]/tatoi' T[€t]x«rn7v 2sfyryrroi 345 [owe <£«£] :H [ II] aptf>iXov <PvkacT [ ]s Z.(o<f>i\ov <Pv\a [ OI]K raXa <£i:H [ ] vacat 350 [ ' ]ra [----- — - ' l / ' M [OIK $ta:H] vacat 10-12 lines missing (?) -28-Text of the Stele (English) Joss Face A Column I ST0ICH.16 23 lines missing 25 30 35 40 ]v ...phiale weight:100]w ] resid ent[ ] escapes from ] atou phiale w]eig(ht):100 in] Peira(eus) resident]escapes from vw k]udos T phiale we]ig(ht):100 .in] Kolly(tos) resident]escapes from ]rato ]Synk - ] kra La]mpt ] rat about 28 lines missing 70 75 ]resident ]escapes from ]pol phiale] wei (gh.tj : 100 in Kol]ly(tos) resid e (nt) [ ] escapes from . . . o] kratos phiale] weig(ht):100 ]beiou P ] resid (ent) escapes fr (om) [ ] okratos about 12 lines missing 92 [ • • ] le [ ] escapes (from) -29- Joss [ ] n son of Olymp 95 [iodoros of A]gryle phia(le) wei(ght):100 [ ]wool (worker) in Kyd(athenaion) [resident] escapes from v Lysidikos son of Lysistratos of Acharnai phia(le) wei(ght):100 100 [K]ittos iri Pei(raeus) resident smi(th) escapes from w -Dionysios isoteles phiale weight:100 vw Mnesithea{n}in Pei(raeus) res 105 ide(nt) wool(worker) escapes from Dionysios isoteles phiale weight:100 vw Satyros in Hagnous resid(ent) farmwor(ker) escapes from w 110 Kephisios son of Kephisodemos of Palle(ne) phia(le) wei(ght):100 [K]all ia<s> r e t a i l ( e r ) in Pe i ( r aeus ) resident escapes from w [ ] i n son of Polyeuktos of 115 [ ph ia l e ] wei(ght ) :100 [vacat] Fragment published by Lewis in 1968 Ag. No. I 4763 two lines illegible [ ] e escapes from [Ar i ] s t [ an ]d ros [ ] [ . ] i s of Eu[o](nymon) p h i [ a ] l e [weight:100] [E] lp i s in M [ e ] l i ( t e ) [ r e s i d e ( n t ) ] 5 [ f l ] u t e g i r l escapes fr o (m) Leippo [ s ] in Mel i ( te ) resid(ent) and joi nt contributors [ w i t h . . . ] ontok[ ] 10 p h i a [ l ] e [weight:100vw] lacuna -30- Joss Column II 11 lines missing 128 t ]ou phial(e) wei]ght:100 130 [ ]r in K ..resident] escapes from v ]son of Demostra tos of Phrea]rr(hioi) phial(e) wei(ght):100 ]os in Kyda(thenaion) res 135 iden(t) [go]ldsm(ith) escapes from [Eu]thyphron son of Euthykl es of Cholle(idai) phia(le) wei(ght):100 Bion in Mel(ite) residen(t) sign etengr(aver) escapes from 140 Chairippos son of Chairede mos of Halai together with joint contrib utor(s) with Chairip pos of Halai phial(e) wei(ght):100 Ophelion in Kolly(tos) res 145 iden(t') bedma(ker) escapes from Eupolemos son of Eupolem os of Agry(le) phial(e) weigh(t):100 Moschion in Peir(aeus) resi den (t). mercha(nt) escapes from 150 Lukis son of Bion of [Acharnai] phial(e) weight: 100 Philonike woo(lworker) [in] Leuko(nion) resi (dent) escapes fr(om) Demosthenes [ ] 155 los of Phyle [phial(e) weig(ht):100] Adous [ios ] About 28 lines missing 185 pleph[ ] i n Kol[lytos resident phia(le) wei(ght):100] Menippe [ ] woolwor(ker) escapes from Demotion son of D[emon] of 190 Phrearrhi(oi), Dem[ ] of Demon of Phrea[rrhi(oi), [Dem] ohilos son of Demo[n of Phre] arrhio(i) phiale [weig(ht):100] Onesimos A[lope(?)] reside 195 n(t) cook [escapes from] -31- Joss About 11 lines missing 207 [L]ukisko[s son of Diodotos] of Epike(phisia) phia[le weig]ht:[100] Manes ampho[r](abearer) in Kol[l](ytos) 210 resi(dent) escapes from vw Oeniades son of Oenokleos of Hamaxan(teia) phial(e) weig(ht):100 Philiste woolwo(rker) in M el(ite) reside (nt) escapes fro(m) 215 Epicharides son of Lusipp os of Lampt(rai) phia(le) weig(ht):100 Aristomenes in Mel(ite) res(ident) shoem(aker) escapes fr(om) Thrasymedes son of Kedeidos of 220 Leukono(ion) phia(le) wei(ght):100 Onesime sesamesell(er) <in> Alop(eke) reside(nt) escapes fr(om) Philon Phili[.... Al] ope(ke) resid(ent) phi[al(e) weig(ht):100] 225 Poseidon[ios....]i n Kolly(tos) reside (nt) [escapes fro(m)] Hygiain[on ] son of chos of Ank[yl(e) phia(le) weig(ht):100] Sima[ ] 230 woolwor[ker escapes from] Arch [ ] son of os of Pha[ ler(on) ph i a ( l e ) weig(ht ) :100] vacat 317 320 -32- Joss Column III 8 lines missing 241 [Stro]mbich(?) son of Theom[nest(?)] [Ol]ynthi(os) phial(e) wei[g(ht):100] Pistokles in Me[l](ite) resid e (nt) sandalmak(er) escapes f(rom) 245 Kallippides son of Kall[i] os of Aphid(na) phial(e) weig(ht):[100] Dionysios in [S]ka(mbonidai) resi de (nt) farmwork(er) escapes from [A]gnoni[d]es son of [Pe]isis[t] 250 ratos of Kephi(sia) phia(le) wei(ght):100 Polytimos in Kolly(tos) reside(nt) shoemak(er) escapes fr(om) Kallias son of Kalliados of Paiania phial(e) weig(ht):100 255 Lampris in Skam(.bonidai) resi de(nt) nurse escapes fr(om) Aristophon son of Aristi on of Aphid(na) phial(e) weig(ht):100 Eupeithe serv(ant)/nurs(e) 260 in Sk(ambonidai) reside(nt) escapes fr(om) Aristophon Ari[s]ti on of Aphidn(a) phial(e) wei[g(ht):100] Eum[...]s in Ko[ll(ytos) resident] 53 lines missing '.] escapes fr(om) ] dos phial(e)] weig(ht):100 in Me]li(te) resident . i ] escapes fr (om) son of A]pollodo ros...phial(e)] weight:100 3 lines missing 327 [. .]0[ ] Lyde Alopeke [resident] woolwork(er) escapes fr(om) 330 Theophilos An [ '.] Euonym{e}(on) phia[l(e) weig(ht):100] Menios in [ ] waiting(man) escapes from -33- Joss Diogen[es. 335 pos of Er[ ] .phia(le) wei(ght):100 About 10 lines missing Column IV 5 lines missing 335 360. 365 ]p phial(e) weig(ht):]100 ] resident ^escapes' from ww]wv ]LULO phial(e) we]ig(ht):100 ] in Me(lite) resident [. . . ] escapes fro (m) ]os of Pal ;iene p h i a l ( e ) we ig(h t ) : ]100 ] ] e [ . . . ] io [ p h i a ( l e ) weig(ht) :100] Dor[ ] f rankincensese[11(er ) escapes f(rom)] 370 S t r [ . . ] in P[eir(aeus) reside(nt) phia(le) we(ight):100] Lys [ ] wo[oolwork(er) escapes fr(om)] D[ .]o [ phial(e) weig]h(t):100 [ in] Me [l(ite) reside (nt) .. .escapes fr(om)..]w [ o]sv [...phial(e) weig(ht) : ] lOOw [ in S ]ka<m>bo [n(idai) reside(nt) ] escapes (from) [ de]mos of Kyth [eros phia(le) w]eig(ht) :100w [ in Sk]a<m>bon(idai) res ide (nt) [ ] ik escapes f(rom) [ de]mos of Kyth [eros phia(le) w]eig(ht):100v [ in] Pei(raeus) resi dent [....]• escapes fro (m) v [ ] demos of Kyth [eros phia(le)] weigh(t):100 375 380 385 390 - 3 4 - J o s s [ . . . . ] farm(worker) i n He [pha i ] resident escapes from [ ] AR ( ?) . . dano 395 [ p h i ] a l ( e ) w e i g ( h t ) : 1 0 0 [ h] iredwork(er) Alo [pek(e) resi(dent)] escapes fro(m)vw [ ]des A[r]i[s]tar [chos My]rr(hin?),Gorgatho(s) So 400 [sistr]atos of Kydathe(naion)v [phiale] weigh (t) : lOOvwv [ ]s pinesplit(ter) [ ]n residen(t) escapes fro(m) [ ]n son of Philon of Pa 405 [ ]olos of Iphisti [ad(ai) ]doros Meid [ ] OINDI Apo [11 jeinios [ phial (e) we (ight) : 100 410 [ i]n Ko [lly(?) reside (nt) ] wv 15 lines missing 427 [ ] ne wool [work (er) in] Kolly(tos) reside(nt) escapes fr(om) Andron son of Alkimachos of [P] 430 aiani(a) Kallippide[s] son of Timonax Paian ia phiale weight[:100] Tyres flutema(ker) in Ky dathe (naion) residen(t) escapes from 435 Leo[ ] M[- - phial(e) wei(ght):100] 5 lines missing 442 [ ]os of Sph [ettos phial (e)] weight:100w [ wo] olwork (er) in K 445 [...reside(nt)] escapes fr(om) [ ]thykle [ ] phia(le) weig(ht):100 [ ] ironwor(ker) in [ ] residen (t) escapes fro (m) 450 [ ] son of Lysanios [ ph]ial(e) weig(ht):100 455 -35-] gluebo(iler) Alo pe(ke) resid(ent)] escapes fro(m)vw ]arnes son of Aristo ...(?) Chol[le] phia(le) weig(ht):100 ] cobbl(er) in S ka(mbonidai) ] residen(t) escapes fro(m)vw ......] son of Polyretosv ] phia(le) weig(ht):lOOw Joss vacat Column V STOICH. 17 460 [ in] Pei(raeus) res ident escapes fro (m)wwvw [Cha]rias son of Charonidos of Eu onymo(n) phial(e) weigh (t) : lOOw Philon secreta(ry) inTh[o] 465 rikos residen(t) escapes fromv Pherekleides son of Pherekle. os of Perithoi(dai) phial(e) wei(ght):100 Rhodia woolwork(er) in Thori kos resi(dent) escapes fro(m) 470 Pherekleides son of Pherekle os of Peritho(idai) phial(e) weig(ht):100 Kordype domestic servant in Th orik(os) resid(ent) escapes fr(om) Phere[kl]eides son of Phere[kle] 475 os of [Perith]oi(dai) [phiale weig(ht):100] K[ ]na[ ] 3 lines missing 480 [ n]ne[r in Mel] it(e) reside (nt) escapes fr(om)w Saurias son of Athenippos of P eiraeus <and> Spoudias son of Thea[i] tetos of Cholar(gos) phia(le) weig(ht):100 485 Epikerdes Oe resid(ent) vinedres(ser) escapes fromv De[m]ophilos son of Demophanos of Paiani(a) phia(le) weig(ht):100vw Herakleides in Me(lite) resi 490 d(ent) retail(er) escapes fromww Menedemos in Me(lite) resid en(t) phial (e) weig (ht) : lOOwwvw -36- Joss Thraitta retail(er) in Me(lite) resid(ent) escapes fr(om)ww 495 Menedemos in Meli(te) resi dent phial(e) weig(ht):100 Itame woolspin(ner) in Pei(raeus) res id(ent) escapes fr(om)wwv Chairippos son of Timoklei 500 dos of Acharnai phia(le) weig(ht):100 Epigonos merch(ant) in Pe(iraeus) resi (dent) escapes fro (m) w w w Ktesias son of Kteson of Th orikos phial(e) weig(ht) : lOOwv 505 Demetr[ia] cythara-pla(yer) <in> Epikephi[si]a resi(dent) esca(pes from) Athenodoros son of [Th]eodoros of Melite <and>. Theodoros son of Theo doros of Melit(e) phia(le) weig(ht):100 510 Philon saltfish-dea(ler) in Ko lly(tos) resi (dent) escapes fromw Chairophilos son of Pheidonos of Paia(nia) phial (e) weigh (t) :100w Chrysion domestic serv(ant) of Herakl 515 es in Xyp(ete) resi(dent) escapes fro(m)v Phormion son of Eumachos of Rhamn [ous] phial(e) weig (ht) : 100 w w w Olympias woolwork(er) in K yda(thenaion) resid(ent) escapes fro(m)v 520 Archeda[m]as son of Archedem os of Halai phial(e) weig(ht):100^ Hestiaios sandal-ma(ker) in Skambo(nidai) res(ident) escapes from [E]uthymachos son of Eudikos of [X] 525 [ype]te phial(e) weig(ht)[:100v] [....] woolworker [in] K[...] 2 7 lines missing 544 [ ]to[s] son of Eufkra] [t]es of Epike(phisia) phia(le) we[i(ht):100] [S]ote[r]ides donkey-dr(iver) [in] Diomei resident escapes fr(om) Antimenes son of Pistokl[e] os of Kephisia phia(le) weight:[100] 550 Sostrate domestic serv(ant) in [K] [eram]eis resi(dent) escapes fr(om) Antimenes son of Pistok[le] os of Kephisi(a) <and> Hagnon son of Eu[thy] -37- Joss kros of Kydathen(aion) phia(le) weight:[100] 555 Plaggon woolwor(ker) in [K] yda(thenaion) resid(ent) escapes f(rom) Autokles son of Androkleos of Euonymon phial(e) weight:[100] Pamphilos mulet(eer) [in L] 560 aki(adai) resident escapes fromv Theochares son of Ergochar(os) of Prasiai phial(e) weig(ht)[:100] Nikias frankincense(seller) in [P] ei(raeus) resii<d>ent escapes fromw 565 Philokrates son of Epikratos of Eleusis and joint contrib utors with Theoph rastos son of Bathyllos of Choi argos phial(e) weig(ht):[100] vacat -38-Face B Column I Joss NON STOICH. [- 3 and joint- contributors[ ] clothes-mender in Keiri(adai) [resi(dent) phia] le:100 5 Tydeus son of Lamachos of Oe [- - -] n baker <in> Alopeke reside nt phial(e):100 Euangelos son of Theangelos of Cholle(idai) Momos tanner in Kydath(enaion) 10 resident phial(e):100 Polystratos son of Polystrat{at} of Ep ikephisia Sosias farm-worker in Hephaistia resident phial(e):100 Antigenes son of Epig.<e>nes in Meli(te) 15 residen (t) Mnason sanda<l>mak(er) in Me [li(te)] resid(ent) phiale:<100> [Pa]nkalos son of Athenados proxenos [Ar]chon son of Tachydemos from Koile [...]ian domestic-ser<va>nt in Peira(eus) resid(ent) 20 phiale:100 [Pankalojs son of Athena[dos proxenos] 8 lines missing 30 35 36 40 ale:100] • ]phi vacat ]IEGRO.OU - - - - in P]eir(aeus) residen(t) [phia(le) : 100] - - -]machos son of K]allimachos of Marathon - - - -]a(t) Peir(aeus) <res>id(ent) saltfish deal(er) phi(ale):100 - - -machos son of K]allimachos of [Maratho(n)] - - -]ephane domestic servant in Peire(aeus) res(ident) phiale:]100 - - -machos Ka]Hi [m] achos of Marath(on) - - - - - - -]in Peir(aeus) resi(dent) [phia(le):100] -] j Mara[th] (on) 45 2 lines missing • ]demo[- - -] -39-3 lines missing Joss 50 55 60 65. 70 71 - - - - - - - - - - - - ]res(ident) ]no[ - -] ] Naus[ -] - - - - -vin]e-dress[er- - -] - - - - - -]n Phiostrat[- - -] - - - - - - ] i n Kydath[en](aion) resi(dent)[phial(e):100] ..]sippos son of Er[...]s P[a]ll[ene] Tachis ta w[ool-wor]k(er) in Ky[dath(enaion) resi(dent)] phialerlOO Thymad[es - - - - - - - - - - -]ipp[e] wool-work(er)[- - - - - - - -resi(dent) phialerlOO] Timotheos son of Meni[- - - - - - - ] s o f An[t]igon farm-worker in Pa(llene)[- - - - - - resident phia(le)r100] .atro]kles son of An[- - -ca.6 - - -]s of Xypet(e) Eu]koles tape[- - - - - - - - -resi(dent) phia(le)r100] .]atrokles son of Ah[- - -ca.6 - - -]s of Xypeft] (e) ...]ote [-------- -]resi(dent) phia (le) [r100] .atr]okl[es son of An - - - s] of Xypet[- -] _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ res]id(ent) phia(le)[rlOO] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ] Epikephis(ia) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -re]sident phi(ale):100 - - - - - - - - - - - - -th]e[s] Apo[..] - - - - - - - - - - - - i]n Pei(raeus) resi(dent) [phi(ale: 100] - - - - - - - - - - - -]thes Apo[...] - - - - - - - - - - - -]don resi(dent) [phi(ale)r100] - - - - - - - - - - - - ] o n res[- - -] 2 7 lines missing 91 [- - -]one horse-tend(er) in [- -] [- - resi(dent) phi]a(le)r100 [Th]ersippos son of Antiphanos [-----] [. . ] irtinion mulet(eer) in P(eiraeus) resi (dent) [phia(le): 100] 95 Thersippos son of Antiphanos[- - - - -] Simon domestic-servant in P(eiraeus) resi(dent) phia(le)[r 100] 97 [..]mares Alopeke resi(dent) Lept[..] ..]n in the work at Kyn(osarges) resi(dent) phia(le)r[100] . ...]s isoteles Meson wool-(worker) 100 [Alo]peke resi(dent) phialerlOO ..]mostratos son of Polycharmidos - -]1 Pheidestratos gold-smith in] K<y>dath(enaion) resi(dent) phialerlOO ..]krates son of Euxenos of Palle(ne) -40- Jos 105 Nikoxenos son of Hegesios of Erchi(a) , Demostratos son of Demostratos of [P]all(ene) Okimon wool-(worker) in Hephai(stia) resid(ent) phiale:100 [KJleoxenos and kurios Ktesoni 110 des of Oe Eukles in Kol(lytos) resi(dent) farm-(worker) phial(e):100 Menites son of Menon of Kydath(enaion) Attas pulse-dealer in K(?) resid(ent) phial(e):100 Menites son of Menon of Kydath(enaion) Mai 115 thake wool-worker in K<ei>r(iadai) resid(ent) phiale:100 Menites son of Menon of Kydath(enaion) Plaggon domestic-servant in Kei(riadai) resid(ent) phi(ale) 100 119 Menites son of Menon of Kydath(enaion) 120 Moschon domestic-servant in Kei(riadai) resid(ent) phi(ale) 100 121 Menites son of Menon of Kydath(enaion) Aristonike domestic-servan(t) in Ke(?) resi(dent) phia(le): 100 vacat Column II About 8 lines missing 131 /[ ] M[ ] Ept ] 0M[ ] 135 Ept- ] Arch[ ] Ept ] ,rt j [ ] 140 [- ]ou [__ phi(ale):]100 9 lines missing 151 . .oi[ ] Lusichare[s - - - - - - - - ] and joint contr(ibutors - - -] resid(ent) [phia(le):100] -41- Joss About 50 lines missing 205 [--------- -.-]antho[.] [_________ res]id(ent) dem(?) phi(ale):100 [------ -Jolemos of Eleu(sis) Achyrio [------ res]id(ent) farm-(worker) phia(le):100 [----- -Jos son of Chairedemos of Halai 210 [...] I\[..A] lopeke resid(ent) mill(er) phi(ale):100 [...]ias son of Aristokritos of Aphidn(a) [.]ityra in P(eiraeus) resid(ent) flute-(girl) phi(ale):100 [E]picharinos son of Epicharinos of Leuk(onoion) [EJchon wool-worker in Pa(llene) resid(ent) 215 phia(le): 100 [Njeoptolemos son of Antikles of Melit(e) Demeas carpenter in [- -] resid(ent) phi(ale):100 [...] I |OIG [ ] 220 [ ]e [ ]v [ ]i 7 lines missing 230 L[ ] phia(le) [:100] Auto[krateS'Ag - - - - - - - ] Ariste[- - - - - - resid(ent) phi(ale):100] Autokrat[es Ag - - - - - - -] 235 Simalon domestic-[servant - - - resid(ent)] phia(le):100 Autokrates son of A g [ - - - - - - -] Nikariste domes(tic-servant - - - resid(ent)] phia(le):100 . 240 Phylaxias son of Pan[ios of Anagyrous] Glykera wool-w[ork(er) - - - - resid(ent)] phia(le):100 Euboulos son of K e [ - - - - - - - - ] merch(ant) Mosch[- - - - - - - - - ] vacat -42- Joss Column III About 5 lines missing 250 [---------]os of Euon(ymon) [---------] vacat [-------- -]1 resid(ent) barber phi(ale):100 [Nikeratos son of Ni]keratos of Melit(e) [Pheidippos] son of Sosidemos of Xyp(ete) 255 [-----] in Melite resid(ent) signet-en(graver) tphi(ale):100] [Nikjeratos son of Nikeratos of Meli(te) [Phe]idipposson of Sosidemos of Xyp(ete) [...]non domestic-servant in Me(lite) resid(ent) phi(ale):100 260 Nikeratos son of Nikeratos of Melit(e) Pheidippos son of Sosidemos of Xype(te) Stratonike in Me(lite) resid(ent) wool-(worker) phia(le):100 Nikeratos son of Nikeratos of Melit(e)' 265 Pheidippos son of Sosidemos of Xypet(e) Prianthe in Me(lite) resid(ent) wool-(worker) phia(le):100 Lysides son of Chion of Alopek(e) Sostrate wool-work(er) in M(elite) resid(ent) phi(ale):100 270 [K]allias son of Kallikrates of Aphid(na) [..]stos in Kolly(tos) resid(ent) donkey-(driver) phi(ale): 100 272 [ ]kles son of Aristophanes of Achar(nai) [- — ] in M(elite) [resid(ent) wool-w]ork(er) phi(ale):100 [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ] o s of Leu(konoion) 275 [ ] phi(ale):100 About 50 lines missing 326 on[ ] phi(ale):[100] Antis<th>en[es son of Antisthenes of Ky] ther(os) Antiphan[es son of Antisthenes] 330 of Kyther(os) Strato[- - - - - - - ] Agryl(e) resid(ent) phi(ale): [100] Nikostrat[os - - - . - - - ] of Achar(nai) Kleo[- - - - - - - ] wool-wo(rker)[- - - - - - - phia(le):100] 335 Misgolas [son of Naukrates of Kolly(tos)] Naukl[es son of Naukrates of Kolly(tos)] [ ] resid(ent) phia(le):100 340 345 350 -43-Misgolas son of Naukrates of Kol ly(tos) Naukles son of Naukrates of Kol(lytos) Hediste domestic-servant i<n> Skam(bonidai) resid(ent) phi(ale):100 Timostratos son of Smikrios of Sphet(tos) ...]maios wa[11]-builder Sphettos resid(ent) phia(le)]:100 - - - - - - - - son of P]amphilos of Phyle - - - - - - - -]s son of Zophilos of Phyle - - - - - - - - res]id(ent) wool-(worker) phi(ale):100 - - - - - - - - - ] vacat ] t a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ]±n M(elite) resid(ent) phia(le):100] vacat Joss 10-12 lines missing (?) -44- Joss Chapter 1 LEGAL ISSUES As stated in the Introduction, the entries on the Manumission Stele are the results of fictitious trials for abandonment, called dikai apostasiou. They are considered legal fictions because every entry records an acquittal, resulting in the complete release of every slave on the document. These Attic manumissions all date within a small time frame of not more than twenty years and appear to be 'an isolated event, since there are no such inscriptions extant from before or after this period.17 This system of manumission registration appears to have been introduced suddenly at Athens and then just as suddenly abandoned. For a detailed explanation of the real action, we must rely on the ancient lexographer Harpokration, whose definition survives as 'the most complete' of its kind: It is an action against freedmen which is given to those who have freed them if they (the freedmen) should ever abandon them or register another as. prostates and not do the things which the laws bid. For those convicted, they must (again) be slaves, but those who are successful, already being free, must become so completely.18 Although the trials on the Manumission Stele were feigned, they. 17 Tod, 191-92 and n o . 41 and Lewis (1959) 2 3 8 . 18 Harpocrationis Lexicon in decern oratores Atticos, s. v. "apostasiou": SiKn TIC EOTI Kara TC3V O(7TEAEU6SPCO0EVTCOV SESOUEVII TOIS dnEAEu6Epcooaoiv lav d^iarcovTai TE dn'auTcov f\ ETEpov E7Tiypd<t>covT0(i TTpooTaTriv Kctt a KEXEUOUOIV OI vouoi UT\ noicoaiv. TOUS UEV dXovTas 5E7 SouAous EIVOI, TOUS 5E viKrpavTas TEXECOS riSn EXEU8EPOUS. A l t h o u g h i t i s p r o b a b l e t h a t H a r p o k r a t i o n was r e f e r r i n g t o A t h e n s when d e s c r i b i n g such p r o c e d u r e s , i t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o s a y w h e t h e r he was r e f e r r i n g t o C l a s s i c a l o r H e l l e n i s t i c t i m e s . -45- Joss give evidence of a process that was necessary to protect former masters when their former slaves abandoned them, or failed to fulfill their paramonai agreements once they had been freed. As Harpokration stated, among the conditions imposed upon the freedman, was the legal requirement that he have his former master as his prostates. He further states that if the freedman was found guilty of failing any of the conditions of his agreement, he would immediately revert to his former status as a slave. If found innocent, he would obtain apolusis and be freed "completely" from his paramonai obligations. Because of Harpokration's wording where he deals with the result of acquittal,19 we know that the defendants in these cases had already been released and were therefore living-apart {khoris oikountes) in a quasi-free state.20 There is very little evidence for paramonai agreements at Athens. Literary evidence is scarce and is only found in two authors. In Xenophon's Oeconomicus there is one dubious reference to paramone: Then what, he s a id , i f I show you bes ides t h a t in households in which a l l the . • s e r v a n t s a re f e t t e r e d , so t o speak, t he se f requen t ly run away but in households in which they are u n f e t t e r e d , these a re w i l l i n g to work and remain? (3.4) Although Xenophon uses the verb Trapa|i£vstv in the l a s t l ine of th i s passage, i t i s almost certain that here he i s referr ing to 19 He writes: rjSn iAEuSepous. 20 There has been much debate as to whether these freedmen were actually free. Although they had been manumitted and were therefore in a freer state than they had been previously (ie. they were not full-fledged slaves), they were still under paramonai agreements and thus remained obligated to their former masters. Because of the intermediary nature of the freedman's status, it is not difficult to understand why there would have been confusion among writers. See Harrison, 167 and no. 5. -46 - Joss slaves who were not khoris oikountes, and cer ta inly not freedmen. This reference should not, therefore, be used as evidence for paramone agreements. Better evidence i s found in P la to ' s Laws: The former master may i n d i c t the freedman, i f he does not a t t e n d those who freed him, or does not do so s u f f i c i e n t l y . And such tendance s h a l l c o n s i s t in the coming of the freedman t h r e e t imes per month t o the home of the man who freed him; and he must undertake to do whatever i s necessary which i s j u s t and wi th in h i s a b i l i t y . (11.915a) In teres t ingly , t h i s same idea of attendance af ter l ibera t ion , and punishment for fa i lure to do so, i s found in inscr ip t ions from Delphi, many of which contain clauses such as the following: A(The said freedman) must abide by (the said master) for the duration of his (the master 's) l i f e , carrying out every duty as far as he i s able. If he does not do t h i s , (his master) has the power to penalize him for doing as he wishes. '2 1 These acts cover the years between 201-100 BCE and t o t a l nine-hundred and seventy-four.22 In the absence of epigraphical evidence for paramone agreements at Athens, we cannot be sure that such agreements as the ones i l l u s t r a t e d in the Delphic inscr ipt ions were practiced there but when compared to the passage from Plato, which i s comparable to 21 Fouilles de Delphes: Les Inscr ipt ions du Theatre. Cf. for example, nos. 35, 50 and 51 for such paramonai (trapavieivdrco) c lauses . 22 Cf. Garlan, 8 1 . Condi t iona l manumissions become more numerous as uncond i t iona l manumissions began showing a gradual i nc rease in cos t throughout the y e a r s . Garlan (80) exp la ins the apparent growing r e l u c t a n c e for masters to u n c o n d i t i o n a l l y f ree t h e i r s l aves as a consequence of Roman occupat ion, which was making i t i n c r e a s i n g l y d i f f i c u l t for Greek masters to acqu i re foreign s l a v e s . -47- Joss the agreements from Delphi, the possibility for there being similar Athenian agreements is certainly viable.23 In light of this, it cannot be said that the defendants on the Manumission Stele were being released from paramonai agreements, as would be the case in the real trials as illustrated by Harpokration, but only that this document (and related stelai24) was a government posting, resulting from some, sort of legal process, which acted as public evidence of the freedman's release. Manumission agreements were often made in private, as there was no required legal procedure for a master to free his slave.25 By publishing the slave's release, any challenge to his liberation would be difficult. Garlan states that the situation of freedmen was "precarious" because they *ran the risk of having their liberation challenged.'26 Perhaps it was for this reason that the state saw it necessary to publish such manumission documents in an effort to avoid any confusion over the freedman's status. l.l Payment of the Phialai For each entry, there was a payment of 100 drachmas in the form of a phiale (a silver bowl). The phialai acted as registration fees, perhaps, as Lewis suggests, imposed by a Lycurgan Law documented by the fragment IG II2 1560.27 This fragment, dated ca. 23 It must be noted that Plato does not use the verb TTapaueveiv in Laws but rather SepaiTEUEiv. u Lewis (1959), 235 states that there are 17 in total. He later adds one new fragment (1968), making a total of 18. 25 It was not uncommon, however, for a master to desire publicity for his action. Often manumissions occurred in courtrooms or at the theatre. Announcements at the theatre, however, were banned in the mid fourth-century because of the frenzy they caused. 26 Garlan, 82. 21 Lewis (1959) , 237. -48- Joss 330, gives a law in column A related to the payment of something by weight (TO araQ\i6v is clearly legible at line 7), and column B is a list of manumissions along with payments of phialai, identical in formula to the entries on Face A of the Manumission Stele. These phialai do not appear to be commemorative offerings to Athena, as has been suggested.28 In fact, they do not appear to be dedications at all, .as were the payments from the Delphic manumission stelai.29 Rather, these bowls are often referred to as the phialai exeleutherikai, the likes of which were accounted for in the Athenian treasurers' financial reports for 321/0 and 320/319 BCE.30 These record the phialai exeleutherikai as having been melted down and made into large silver hydria of varying weight.. Since the list dates from approximately the same time period as the Manumission Stele, it is very tempting to think that the phialai named in the treasury report might actually have been the same ones listed on the Manumission Stele. This would then date the stele just prior to the Athenian financial reports. That the phialai were actually payments to the state rather than dedications to a god gains further support from fragments studied by Lewis in his later publication.31 On one of the fragments, IG II2 1575, phialai payments resulting from manumission procedures were listed on one side of the opisthographic fragment while liturgies were listed on the other. Presumably, these two types of transactions were listed back to back because both were 28 G a r l a n , 82 . 29 Payments d e d i c a t e d t o A p o l l o a r e l i s t e d i n Fouilles de Delphes: Les Inscriptions du Theatre. See f o r example n o . 3 5 . 1 9 - 2 0 : Tav 5E m p a v (covav) [EIS T] 6 lEpov TOU ' ATTOXXCOVOS EVExapai;ct|J6V. n o . 5 2 . 9 : Ti0Eyai Tav covav Kara TOV vopov, xav \iev EV TO kpov TOU ' ATTOXXCOVOS E [ vx 3 apneas • 30 IG 112 1469, Face A column I . 31 ( 1968) , 376 . -49- Joss coming to the. state as payments. It is difficult to tell who paid for the phiale, the master or the freedman. There are two stelai on which erasures concerning the case of the phiale occur and these have been used by Lewis to argue for who made the payment:32 IG II2 1569, which lists the former slaves as the active agents, like Face A of the Manumission Stele, and Ag.I 5656, which lists the former masters as the active agents, like Face B. On the basis of the cases in which the phialai were reentered - not all the endings had been reentered but all had their endings erased - Lewis regards it as certain that the case of the phiale was changed in order to clarify who made the payment. In the case of IG II2 1569, it appears that the case of the phialai was being changed from the accusative into the nominative. Lewis argues that this change indicates that the former slaves were not to be mistaken as having paid for the phialai, since both shared the same case. Conversely, for Ag.I 5656 Lewis argues that the former masters paid for the phialai, since here we see opposite cases, the former masters as the active agents and the phialai as the objects. According to this logic, on the stelai on which the former slaves and the phialai share the same case and those on which the masters are the active agents and the phialai the objects, the masters paid for the phialai. Since no erasures occurred on the Manumission Stele, nor on the majority of the extant manumission stelai, we cannot deduce on the basis of the two anomalous cases in which they do occur that the payment was made by the master on Face A, where both the slaves 32 Lewis (1968) , 369-71. -50- Joss and the phialai are in the nominative. Furthermore, on Face B both the masters' names and the phialai are in the nominative, a combination which Lewis' model does not explain. I am not convinced that the case of the former slaves' and masters' names had anything to do with that of the phialai. On Face A, the former slaves, who are in the nominative with the accompanying participle dcTro^ uycov/oGoa, seem to correspond to their former masters who are in the accusative (eg. Elpis escapes from Leippos) . On Face B, where the masters are in the nominative and the slaves in the accusative, the meaning appears to be the same but with the masters as the active agents (eg. Leippos [is defeated by] Elpis). The nominative case of the phialai is constant throughout the entire stele and appears to be a separate clause (Payment: 100 drachmas). Even if we are to accept Lewis' theory concerning the fragments in question and the assumption that the case of the slaves and masters had something to do with the payment of the phiale, it still remains very unclear who made the payment in the majority of the remaining evidence.33 It is definitely plausible that since slaves were presumably required to buy their own freedom - and they could indeed make money, as seen in the Erechtheion building accounts34 - those who were living apart and likely able to accumulate more funds than they would in their masters' oikoi, would have been required, and no doubt willing, to pay for the phialai as registration fees for the publication of their complete release. Further, and more convincing, evidence can be found in the 33 Westermann (94) presupposes that for the formula on Face A the verb "has deposited" was assumed for the slave but oddly not on Face B when it would have related to the master. 31 Randall, 199-210. -51- Joss presence of the eranoi on the Manumission Stele. Such contributors are found five times, thrice on Face A, at lines 141 and 566 and on Ag.I 4763 line 7, and twice on Face B, at lines 2 and 153. On Face A, they are listed in conjunction (kai) with the master, with someone named each time as the head of the contributors {meta + name). At A.141, the master is named as the head of the eranoi but at A.566 and Ag.I 47 63.7, men other than the masters are named. At B.2 and 153, the eranoi appear to be listed without a head contributor, perhaps because he was also the master and the particular writer of Face B, who was much more prone to abbreviations compared to the writer of Face A, did not deem it necessary to repeat his name.35 Who were the eranoi and how do they relate to the Manumission Stele? The LSJ describes eranoi as ya society of subscribers to a common fund, a club.' Therefore, an eranos was someone who contributed money to a certain cause; the term does not specifically apply to one who helped pay for someone's manumission. Some historians have thought that slaves named with eranoi were in the possession of an eranos-society, which would then be the manumittor.36 There are serious problems with this theory: first of all, why would some slaves who had the help of eranoi also be listed with a separate master if they were supposedly owned by the eranoi, such as the one at A. 567-70? Furthermore, the Manumission Stele is too early to have anything to do with so-called eranos-clubs, for which the earliest epigraphical evidence comes from the mid third-century.37 35 See below, no.40. 36 This is discussed by Finley, 104-105. This evidence is assembled by Poland, 28-33. 37 Ibid. -52- Joss There is only sparse literary evidence for eranoi as related to manumission. This is . found in Demosthenes 59 Neair. 29ff. According to Demosthenes, Neaira was given permission to purchase her freedom from her masters, who were marrying other women. She then went about collecting money from various eranoi, asking one of them to take all the money she had collected and purchase her freedom from her masters; she could not do this herself because she was a slave, inherently having no legal rights. This man would then have been named as the legal collector, although she had actually done the collecting herself.38 If we are to assume that this procedure was the same at Athens, then it was this man who was the legal collector who would be named as the head of the eranoi.. In the absence of proof for the procedure at Athens, Demosthenes' account at least gives evidence that Neaira's manumission was recognized there and perhaps gives us a clue as to the role of the eranoi, and of the head contributor in particular, in the case of the Attic manumissions. . The answer to who was responsible for the payment, former master or slave, may well be found at A. 141. Here the former master is named as also the head of the eranoi - although the second time he is listed, only his name and deme are repeated - and possibly also in the two entries on Face B where a head of the contributors is lacking. If the former master had always paid for the phiale, there would have been no distinction made by adding other named contributors, nor would he specifically have been named as such if he was assumed to be a contributor. Thus, the slave likely collected his own eranoi - as illustrated by Demosthenes - of whom 38 These points are discussed by Finley, 105. -53- Joss his master could doubtless be one, and the head contributor was named on the document as having helped secure for him the payment. 1.2 The Formula Each entry records the freedman, his technitikon (to be discussed in Ch 3), domicile, the former master, and the payment of a phiale. The arrangement of the details varies, however, between Face A and Face B. On Face A we have in every instance the defendant's name in the nominative, followed by the oikon en formula (metic designation for domicile), a technitikon and the participle apophugon (^ acquitted from'), followed by the plaintiff in the accusative. The oikon en formula and occupation are often inverted but the order stated here is the most common. On the other hand, the author of Face B has reversed the order of the defendant and _ plaintiff, naming first the plaintiff in the nominative, then the defendant in the accusative, his/her technitikon and the oikon en formula. The reversal of formula from Face A to Face B is difficult to explain. Lewis reasons that the two sides were inscribed at different times and by different people.39 There is evidence that Face B was inscribed later based on prosopographical information (see the Introduction) and the hasty manner in which it was inscribed suggests that it was not planned as carefully, making it appear to be a later addition. The evidence that it was inscribed by a different hand, however, is convincing: Face A was carefully planned and executed in stoichedon, there are no major 39 Lewis (1959), 233. -54- Joss abbreviations, no spelling mistakes and the script was drawn by a careful hand. Alternatively, Face B is not written in stoichedon and is rife with spelling mistakes and extreme abbreviations.40 A difference in hand, however, does not explain the departure from the more common formula with the defendant's name in the nominative. Lewis does discuss two other stelai which have the reversed formula, IG 112 1566 and IG II2 157.8. IG II2 1566 is opisthographic like the Manumission Stele, but oddly it suddenly changes formula on the same side from the common apophugon type to the more uncommon formula with, the master's name in the nominative. The other fragment, IG II2 1578, is even more anomalous as it lacks all reference to phialai, appearing to be an earlier inscription written before the institution of such payments.41 Lewis does not venture a new theory as to the reason for these reversals. Rather, he combines the theories of Tod and Kahrstedt,42 inferring that since Face B and the comparable IG II2 1566 both seem to have been inscribed at a later period, the legal responsibility for the payment of the phiale may have changed at some time from freedman to former master. Perhaps, more simply, the reversal was due to a formulaic modification which occurred at the request of the former masters wanting to be named first, although this is a hypothetical suggestion. Realistically, although we know that manumissions were occurring on both sides of the document as evidenced by the continuous payments for every 10 Often the words okcov and <t>idAr| degrade to simply o'iK<J>ior <^>ia. Although abbreviations are commonly found on epigraphical documents, this degree of abbreviation does not appear on Face A. 11 See above, p 14 for a fragment with the possible institution of this law. 12 (1959) , 238. -55- Joss entry, there is so little evidence for this procedure as a whole that these reversals cannot be explained adequately. On the Manumission Stele there can be identified three categories of metics: those with the honorary title isoteles (A.103 and B.99), privileged foreigners with the title proxenos (B.17) and the most common kind identified simply by the oikon en formula and the lack of patronymic (one metic does have a patronymic at B.14, but this is uncommon).43 The metics' oikon en designation is generally thought to be an indication of domicile, doubtless because they were usually registered in city demes where they likely worked, such as Melite or the Peiraeus. This differs from the citizen's demotic, which,, because hereditary, was not always an indication of domicile. Like the metic, however, the citizen's demotic had been the residence of the original citizen under Kleisthenes' reforms. The honorific character of both isoteleia and proxenia is emphasized by the lack of the oikon en formula and the common inclusion of a patronymic - although on the Manumission Stele,'the recipient of isoteleia, Dionysios (A. 103), is listed without one. What is most telling of the level of honour it was to be an isoteles or a proxenos is the fact that the metic gave the title pride of place before citizenship in another city.44 Unlike an isoteles, a proxenos did not have to be a metic. He could simply be a xenos who was given the title as an honour by the Athenians. He could also be an Athenian citizen who was given the title by another city-state. There is one proxenos, Pankalos, on the Manumission Stele (B.17-21), who is listed in conjunction ,3 See below, p 65ff, for a discussion of this designation. " Whitehead, 34. -56- Joss with Archon, an Athenian citizen. It is impossible to say for sure whether this man was an Athenian citizen who was given the title by another city-state or whether he was a metic who was honored by the Athenians. The fact that he was freeing his slaves in Athens, however, would indicate that he probably lived there and was therefore a metic. 1.3 Comparison with IG 112 1045 Since IG II2 10 and the Manumission Stele are often spoken of in conjunction with each other, I feel it prudent at this point to give a brief discussion outlining their similarities and differences. At first glance, there is good reason to compare the two inscriptions: both are long lists naming slaves (although this designation is in dispute for IG II2 10, see below), accompanied by various humble occupations,46 who appear to have undergone some sort of emancipation. Furthermore, both types of inscription are very uncommon, the only other comparable one being the Erechtheion Building accounts, on which slaves are also present and listed with their occupations.47 This latter inscription is of a very different type than the first two, however, since, .like slaves, metics and citizens were also listed with their occupations for the self-evident purpose of accounting for the work performed on the building. This latter list, therefore, does not figure in the present discussion and will not be spoken of further here. 45 For the following section, I referred to Osborne's text (1981). 16 Discussed in Ch 3. 11 Randall, 199-210. -57- Joss I referred above to the recipients on IG II2 10 as slaves. This designation is up for debate, since the word in question only retains the last two letters -oi. Since the recipients were obviously not citizens, as indicated by their lack of patronymic and demotic, as well as their being listed with occupations, which is exceedingly uncommon for citizens, we are left with three choices for their status: xenoi, metoikoi, or douloi.48 Their being xenoi is quickly rejected, since it is difficult to believe that there would have been such a great number of foreigners employed in Attica at one time performing various menial occupations and, furthermore, that these men would have risked their lives fighting to overthrow the Oligarchy for a state in which they did not wish to become permanent residents.49 Nor were they metoikoi, for why too would these men wish to risk their lives in such a pursuit? Their status would presumably remain the same under either rule. We are left, therefore, with douloi, who would stand to gain the most precious of all things; their freedom. Furthermore, both their lowly occupations and the Thracian origin of some of their names attests to . this designation.50 Even though the men on IG II2 10 appear to have been slaves, this inscription was apparently not a manumission document in the truest sense, although emancipation surely must have come part and parcel with the grant of isoteleia. Assuming that the procedure of manumission was the same in the fifth century as in the fourth, 18 For discussions of this document, see Peter Krentz, Phoenix XXXIV (1980), 298-306; M.J. Osborne, v.II; David F. Middleton, CQ XXXII (1982), 298-303; Ph. Harding, ZPE LXVII (1987), 176-82. 50 None of these men were listed as mercenaries. See Harding (1987), 177. -58- Joss the slaves' masters would probably have been listed5" and there would likely be some proof of . dike apostasiou (the apophugon formula) which resulted in an acquittal for the defendants, all of which are seen on the Manumission Stele.52 The purpose of IG 112 10 is different from the Manumission Stele; it is to honour the recipients for performing an important role in the overthrowing of the Oligarchy and the subsequent reinstitution of the democracy. Judging from the structure of the inscription, which lists the recipients under tribal headings only,53 it is clear that they were either naturalized or given isoteleia, both of which required membership in tribes.54 The former is easily rejected, since there was no assignation to demes, which was essential after Kleisthenes' reforms. We are left, then, with the grant of isoteleia, the likes of which is attested by literary evidence (Xen.JJell. 2.4.25) . Although these recipients would have had to become metics in order for their new title to make sense, they presumably were not designated as such, namely with the oikon en formula, not only because this would have been assumed but also because the purpose of the decree was to honour the recipients with isoteleia, not to formalize their new status as metics, as was the case on the Manumission Stele. Furthermore, the title of. isoteles displaced the common metic designation.55 51 These are not public slaves, as seen by their occupations, which are very similar to those on the Manumission Stele. 52 Although the Manumission Stele is about eighty years later than this document, we have no other Attic manumission documents to compare it to. 53 The heading for the first category is missing but the space available suggests that these recipients were listed under tribal headings like the rest. See Harding (1987), 176 no. 7. 51 Osborne, 33. He further argues for citizenship for the first group of recipients, but this is conjecture and not based upon epigraphical evidence. 55 See above, p 55. -59- Joss There is much more to be said about IG 112 10, but this is not the place for such a discussion. It is similar to the Manumission Stele only its most general appearance regarding slaves listed by their occupations, which are similar, and in the fact that emancipations had taken place, although the purposes of the documents are doubtless very different. The occupations listed on IG II2 10, however, are much the same as those on the Manumission Stele, meriting its revisitation in Chapter Three. -60- Joss Chapter 2 THE DEMES Both Tables 1, representing Face A, and 2, representing Face B, are written in alphabetical order according to the former masters' demes (the Tables are given at the end of this chapter, pp 70-73) .. The word 'New' written beside a line number indicates that the entry is from the fragment published later by Lewis in Hesperia XXXVII, Ag.I 4763. The 'C under 'Status' stands for 'citizen' and the 'M' for 'metic' and each letter stands for a different man. Groups of '(B)'s signify brothers. The freedmen are listed with their demes, genders and occupations. In the case that a slave was joint-owned, each of his/her masters are named. I have also included maps to illustrate the demes of both the masters and freedmen (also located at the end of this chapter, pp 74-75) : Map A refers to Face A and Map B to Face B. For these, the map from J.Traill's publication (1975) was used. Below, section one is concerned with the former masters in relation to their statuses and demes, while section two focuses on the freedmen' s demes. The last section will correlate the demes of the former masters and their slaves. The freedmen's occupations will be discussed in the next chapter. Before beginning a study of the former masters' demes, however, some clarifications should be made. First of all, at B.69 Lewis has filled in 'ATTO-' for the deme, based on B.71 which probably refers to the same man. That he considers the 'A' as being the first letter of a name is apparent by his capitalization of it, -61- Joss and, judging from the placement of the word, it is the name of a deme. He would not have capitalized the first letter if he thought it simply composed the preposition C^XTTO' , in which case he would have also added the accent. The problem with a deme beginning with XATTO' , however, is that there is only one, Apolloneis, and this deme was not created until ca. 200. If Apolloneis was indeed present on this document, Face B would have to be dated no earlier than 200, at the inception of this new deme, about 120 years later than the presently accepted date for the document. Based on prosopographical information (discussed in the Introduction), this late date is impossible. Since Lewis makes no comment regarding his assessment of these letters, I must conclude that his capitalization of the XA' at both B.69 and 71 is in error. Considering that the letters are clearly legible at B.71, they must have composed the preposition ACXIT6' , followed by a deme name which is now missing. The spelling of two other demes may cause some confusion. At B.110 there is written Oif)0ev. Since the only demes beginning with ^Oi' both have nus, OIVOE and OTov, they cannot be possibilities in the inscription because of the inclusion there of a theta for the ablative.5* This must be a mistake for the deme ' Ofj, seen previously at B.5 and written there correctly as' OfjSEV and also at A. 485 as' Of\o\. At B.13 is inscribed ' H4>aicrria and the abbreviated form' H(j>ai is seen at B. 107 and also at A. 392-3. ' H<t>aiOTia is simply a corruption of the name ' l(J)iOTia5ai - which does, in fact, appear at A.405 -56 The vowel, or rather diphthong, is seen at B.110 but must be assumed at B.5 because of local damage to the stone. For this use of the ablative, see Smyth, no. 342. -62- Joss resulting from the regular process of "iotacism". As Lewis states, ' H4>aicrria is the version used commonly in the manumission stelai.57 Furthermore, at. B.98, the deme for the freedman is not apparent. Lewis judges that there is only room for one letter before *uv' and edits the locale as XEK TCOV spy ETTI KUV OIK' , amending Tod's earlier text yk< TCOV spy ETTI [I]ouv OIK',58 Lewis further expands the phrase to 4 K TCOV spy [a^ opEycov] ETTI Kuv[oaapyEt] oiKfouvTa]' .D9 According to his suggestion, the freedman was apparently employed at Kynosarges, but this is not a deme so it cannot be his demotic. As suggested by Lewis, since Kynosarges was close to the former master's deme of residence, Alopeke,60 and, because he was a metic, the freedman could have been registered in his former master's deme. Regarding the name of the locale, Lewis sees a kappa as the first letter and argues for it having been an abbreviated form of Kynosarges, based on his assertion that there is only space for one letter before ^uv'. Conversely, Tod sees a sigma and suggests that the deme was Sounium, abbreviated to ^louv' . I would like to suggest a combination of these two theories: since every other freedman is listed with a deme, it seems unlikely that here the deme would have been omitted. If Lewis' assertion that there is only room for one letter before *uv' is true, the writer of Face B, clearly more hasty and careless in comparison to the writer of Face A, could have erroneously misspelled the deme-name, writing 57 Lewis (1959) , 2 2 8 . Cf. IG I I 2 1 5 7 0 . 8 2 . 58 Lewis (1959), 231. In h i s r e s t o r a t i o n of the i n s c r i p t i o n , he wrote xev' b u t ' in h i s commentary he wrote ^K' . The former must be a mis take , s ince i t does not make grammatical sense . 59 Cf. M.N. Tod, 12-13 for o the r p o s s i b i l i t i e s . 60 Lewis (1959) , 2 3 1 . For l o c a t i o n , s e e Herod . 5 . 6 3 : Km 'AyxnioXiou e'iCM xa<j)cu rfis ' ATTIK% 'AXoTTEKfjoi, dyxou xou 'HPCXKAEIOU TOU EV KuvoodpyEi. -63- Joss 'luv' instead of 'louv' . Lastly, I have not included Peiraeus in my assessment of city demes, although it is recorded as such by Garland and Traill.61 Garland, however, refers to the Peiraeus as its own city, distinguishing it from the city of Athens, a reference that is in line with classical authors.62 Peiraeus was by the fourth century an entity unto its own, consisting of an enormously diverse metropolitan population rivaled nowhere else in Attica, including the Asty. Because of the port's incomparable commercial advantages, it attracted a great number of foreigners, who were needed to fill the many jobs the busy port required. Considering the ample opportunities for employment in the Peiraeus, it is not surprising that many metics were registered in this deme." Therefore, in adherence to the classical tradition, I will henceforth keep Peiraeus separate from my calculations of city demes. 2.1 Former Master' s Demes The total demes represented for the former masters are thirty-three for Face A and twenty-two for Face B; these totals refer to all the legible demes. For two entries on Face A, only the first letters are legible, ten are missing altogether and one is an isoteles, written without a deme. On Face B, nine demes are 61 Traill (1975), 52; Garland, 2. 62 Cf. Aris't.Pol. 5.1303b. 12 and Thuc.2.13.7, 2.94.1 and 8.92.7. 63 For example, Garland (59-61) states that the bustling Peiraeus offered unrivaled opportunities for employment that simply did not exist in the countryside. He states further that sixty-nine of the metics whose demes are known are in Peiraeus, a number rivaled only by Melite at seventy-five. On the Manumission Stele, Melite has the most freedmen at twelve followed by Kollytos at ten and then Peiraeus at eight. Face B has eight in Peiraeus and seven in Melite. -64- Joss missing, seven because of damage to the stone and two because the honorary titles proxenos and isoteles displaced the deme-names.'64 Out of the thirty-three demes on Face A, eight are coastal (24%), nine are inland (27%), and sixteen are city demes (48%). There 'are four metics represented, three of whom are in city demes (1-Alopeke and 2-Melite) . Out of the twenty-two demes on Face B, six are coastal (27%), seven inland (32%) and nine city (41%). There are four metics in total on Face B, two in city demes (1-Alopeke, 1-Melite) and two are named without a deme, one being an isoteles and one a proxenos, as mentioned above. On Face A, the most former masters are from city demes (47%), then a number from inland (31%) and coastal demes (22%). Comparable to Face A, Face B has the most from city demes (42%), then there are a number from inland (33%) and a few from coastal demes (25%). As mentioned earlier, some deme-members would not necessarily live in their deme, as membership was hereditary for citizens, but the pattern on the 'Manumission Stele lends some credence to the notion that many deme-members did indeed dwell in their deme's locale. It makes more sense that most of the masters on this stele would have lived in or close to the city where such a document would have been published. Conversely, it does not seem likely that someone who lived further away would have had such an opportunity, nor be interested, in publishing his slave's release on a document in the city, far from where he lived, unless, of course, he had a second home in or near the city where he employed his slave. On Face A, six masters released more than one slave (1% of the 64 For visual references, refer to Maps A and B and Charts 1 and 2 at the end of this chapter. -65- Joss total). Four out of the six were citizens but two out of the four metics also released more than one slave. On Face B, however, there are no extant metics who released more than one slave, but there are six citizens (1.4%) who released multiple slaves, two pairs releasing jointly-owned slaves. Some of these masters appear to be more affluent than the ones on Face A, with one pair releasing four slaves and one man releasing five, whereas the most slaves released by one master on Face A was three. 2.2 Freedmen's Demes The official metic designation oikon en, combined in every entry with the freedman," is seen in its embryonic form on IG I2 329.14 (with metoikos and possibly oikon en)66, dated to 414/3; thereafter, the word ^metoikos' appears to have been dropped.67 By the late fifth century, we see only the oikon en formula and this designation endures until the last quarter of the fourth century. The Manumission S-tale records the most instances of oikountes en. Does the designation of domicile indicate that metics were members of demes? Logically, one could not belong to a deme without belonging to a tribe.68 Whereas a citizen, when he wished to pursue a matter in court, would go to the four judges of his tribe, metics were required to go to the Polemarch who would then distribute their cases among the tribes. This judicial process is 65 With the exception of B.98. See below, p 33. 66 See Whitehead, 28 and no. 4. 67 Whitehead, 63 no. 30 notes an exception, IG II2 1951, which has not only the oikon en formula but also the abbreviation metoi. He suggests that this may be evidence of deme changing. 68 Enrollment into a deme, phratry and tribe was essential for citizenship after Kleisthenes' reforms. Cf. Osborne (1972) for the procedure. described by Aristotle: -66- Joss Only p r i v a t e cases are handled by him (the Polemarch), which concern the o rd ina ry me t i c s , as well as isoteleis and proxenoi. He must, upon tak ing and d iv id ing them i n t o ten p a r t s by l o t , p lace a share with each t r i b e , and then the t r i b e must render j u ry men to the A r b i t r a t o r s . He himself p rosecu tes a c t i o n s for both apostasios and aprostasios (an ac t i on for not having a prostates) , both appoin t ing and as s ign ing by l o t cases concerning m e t i c s . Namely, o the r kinds of mat ters 6 9 which the Archon handles for c i t i z e n s , the Polemarch handles, for m e t i c s . (Ath.Poi.58) The fact that metics were required to go elsewhere for legal help would indicate that they did not belong to t r i b e s . In th i s l igh t , the deme was merely a functional umbrella which gave them legal s t a tu s . There i s no evidence that metics' residence in the i r demes was immutable, as was the c i t i z e n s ' , but rather to the' contrary. Presumably, unless the phrase oikon en i s nonsense, i f a metic changed domicile, his deme would change. He was therefore not x of a deme, l ike a c i t i zen , but rather ^residing in ' a deme. Furthermore, the formula i t s e l f i s non-honorific, appearing only on formal documentation and i t s usual lack of patronymic70 further emphasizes i t s non-honorific qual i ty . I t never appears in l i t e r a r y sources, nor in pr ivate inscr ip t ions , such as tombstones. The freedmen's deme-distribution represent a much less varied picture than that of the former masters ' . This i s not surprising since metics were usually registered in c i ty demes or the 69 Except ones involving homicide, which would be tried in the Palladium. Cf. Rhodes, 655. 70 A.223 is unusual. Cf. Whitehead, 64 no. 39. -67- Joss Peiraeus, where they were more likely to be employed, rather than inland or coastal demes. On. Face A, there is a total of sixteen different demes represented, twelve of which are city demes. Thus, 75% of the freedmen's demes on Face A are city demes, as opposed to 48% for the former masters. Furthermore, if we look at the actual distribution of people, forty-nine out of sixty-two freedmen (79%) were registered in city demes, and eight in Peiraeus (13%), whereas out of fifty-five former masters, only twenty-six were in city demes (47%). Not surprisingly, there is a wider deme-distribution for former masters than freedmen. On Face B, there are ten demes for the freedmen, eight of which are city demes. Here, 80% of the demes represented are city demes, with twenty-six out of thirty-four freedmen registered (76%) and eight in Peiraeus (24%).71 This contrasts with the twenty-two demes for the former masters, nine of which are city demes (41%). Furthermore, fifteen out of thirty-six former masters are in city demes (42%) . Again we see a higher percentage of metics in city demes as opposed to former masters, although there is still a large number of former masters in city demes. 2.3 Deme Correlation Between Former Masters and Slaves On both Faces, it is uncommon for the freedman to be registered in the same deme as his former master. There are only three occurrences of this on Face A and all three times the former master is a metic. There are five metics in total and the 71 I assume that the single letters XM' and 'P' inscribed by the writer stand for the common demes 'Melite' and 'Peiraeus'. Cf. For 'M' B.268, 273 and 'P' B.212 and perhaps 214. -68- Joss remaining two could very well have had their former slave in their deme - in one case, the deme cannot be read because of damage to the stone and in the other instance, the deme-name is displaced by the title isoteles. There are six cases of common demes between former masters and freedmen on Face B, four of which form a group of slaves released from the same master - two of the masters are metics and two are citizens. The case of the citizen who shares his deme Melite with his four freedmen does not appear to be such an anomaly because Melite registered several freedmen on the Manumission Stele and it is known to be a common deme for metics.72 Sphettos, on the other hand, is a little more difficult to explain. It is an inland deme, appearing only twice, here (B.343) and once at A. 443. Unfortunately, at A.443 the stone is damaged and the freedman's deme is illegible. Thus, out of a total of eighty-nine entries for both Faces for which the demes of former masters and their freedmen can be correlated, there are only nine cases of deme-sharing, including the four slaves released by the same master. In light of this, deme-sharing appears to be exceedingly uncommon. When it does occur, four times out of six the former master is a metic (here I have counted the master who released four slaves only once). It is difficult to say why it is the case that freedmen were not usually registered in their former citizen-masters' demes whereas metic-masters appear to share their demes with their former slaves. In most cases, citizens are not in common ^metic' demes, so it would appear that this is the reason why freedmen were not registered in 72 Although there are two citizen brothers at A. 508-9 who did not have their freedmen registered in their deme Melite. -69- Joss in the same deme as their former master. Usually when a citizen was a member of' a deme such as Melite at A. 508-9, or Peiraeus at A.483, however, the freedman was registered in another deme, although many of his counterparts on the document were registered in Melite and Peiraeus. In these cases, the masters probably resided in their former slaves' demes but, because demes were hereditary, they were registered elsewhere. -70-TABLE 1: FACE A Joss LIME STATUS MASTER DEME FREEDMAN DEME M/F OCCUPATION 99 95 147 223 228 246 258 262 484 137 455 566 208 545 3(New) 331 4 62 558 141 521 212 405 250 549 553 186 400 554 383 386 390 216 220 7(New) 491 493 508 509 399 254 430 431 488 513 111 C C C M C C C tl C c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c II c c c c II II c c M M II C (B) C (B) C C C C C C C Acharnai Agryle Agryle Alopeke Ankyle Aphidna Aphidna it Cholargos Cholleidai Cholleidai Eleusis Epikephisia Epikephisia Euonymon Euonymon Euonymon Euonymon Halai Halai , Hamaxanteia Iphistiadai Kephisia Kephisia ii Kollytos Kydathenaion Kydathenaion Kytheros II II Lamptrai Leukonoion Melite Melite II Melite Melite Myrrhinous/outta': Paiania Paiania Paiania Paiania Paiania Pallene Kydathenaion -Kollytos Alopeke Kollytos Melite Skambonidai Skambonidai Melite Kydathenaion Alopeke Peiraieus -. -Alopeke Peiraieus Kydathenaion Melite Kydathenaion Kollytos -Skambonidai Diomeia Kerameis -Alopeke (as line 553) Skambonidai Skambonidai Peiraieus Melite Melite Melite Melite Melite Epikephisia ii (as line 400) Kollytos Kollytos (as above) Oe Kollytos Hagnous F -M F M M F F F M M M --F F M F M F M M M M F -M --F F M F M F F II M F II M M M Wool-worker -Bed-maker Sesame-dealer -Sandal-maker Nurse Servant/Nurse -Goldsmith Glue-boiler Frankincense-dealer ---Wool-worker -Wool-worker Signet-engraver Wool-worker Amphora-bearer Pine-splitter. Farm-worker Donkey-driver House-servant -Hired-labourer ---Wool-worker Shoe-maker Flute-girl Retailer Retailer Harper n Shoe-maker Wool-worker II Vine-dresser Salt-fish dealer Farm-worker -71-TABLE 1: FACE A Joss 362 371 483 467 468 472 232 133 190 191 192 155 562 516 443 504, 524 194 392 34 73 263 410 433 320 376 30 100 104 113 433 456 ' 448 C M C C II II C c C (B) C (B) C (B) - C C C C C C -c -----c c c M ii c c c — Pallene Peiraieus Peiraieus Perithoidai II II Phaleron Phrearrhioi Phrearrhioi Phrearrhioi Phrearrhioi Phyle Prasiai Rhamnous Sphettos Thorikos Xypete ------M ? --T ? (isoteles) II ---— Melite -Melite Thorikos Thorikos Thorikos -K ? -II II Leukonoion Lakiadai Xypete -Peiraieus Skambonidai Alopeke Iphistiadai Kollytos Kollytos Kollytos Kollytos Kydathenaion Melite Melite Peiraieus Peiraieus Peiraieus Peiraieus Kydathenaion Skambonidai — M M F M F F F M F 11 II F M M -M M M M M ---M F -M M F M M M M -Frankincense-dealer Wool-worker? Secretary Wool-worker House-servant Wool-worker -Wool-worker n II Wool-worker Muleteer Servant of Herakles -Merchant Shoe-maker Cook -----Flute-maker ---Smith Wool-worker Retailer Flute-maker Cobbler Iron-smith -72- Joss TABLE 2: FACE B LINE STATUS MASTER DEME FREEDMAN DEME M/F OCCUPATION 272 333 97 267 240 211 270 69 8 207 12 67 105 252 210 18 335 339 336 340 112 114 117 119 121 328 329 213 34 36 39 14 217 253 257 260 264 5 110 110 55 104 106 346 C C M C C C C C c c c c c c c c C(B) C(B) II C it C(B) C(B) C M C C Acharnai Acharnai Alopeke Alopeke Anagyrous Aphidna Aphidna Apo_? Cholleidai Eleusis Epikephisia Epikephisia Erchia ,Euonymon Halai Koile Kollytos ii Kollytos II Kydathenaion Kytheros Kytheros Leukonoion Marathon Melite Melite Melite c c c c c c c Oe Oe Oe Pallene Pallene Pallene Phyle Melite Melite Peiraeus Kollytos Peiraeus Kydathenaion Iphistiadai Iphistiadai Alopeke Peiraieus Skambonidai (as line 335) (as line 339) Keiriadai Keiriadai Keiriadai Keiriadai. Keiriadai Agryle (as above) Peiraeus Peiraeus Peiraeus Peiraeus Melite Melite Melite Melite Melite Alopeke Kollytos (as above) Kydathenaion (as line 105) (as line 105) F Wool-worker F Wool-worker • M Building-worker F ' Wool-worker F Wool-worker F Flute-girl M Donkey-driver M Tanner M Farm-worker M Farm-worker F F Wool-worker M Barber M Miller F House-servant F House-servant M Pulse-dealer F Wool-worker F House-servant F House-servant F House-servant F Wool-worker M Salt-fish dealer F House-servant M Shoe-maker M Carpenter M Signet-engraver F House-servant F Wool-worker F Wool-worker M Bread-dealer M Farm-worker F Wool-worker Wool-worker -73- Joss TABLE 2: FACE B 347 343 61 254 258 261 265 100 54 103 19 33 3 52 91 93 96 235 236 C C C C ii •i II M C. C M(?) -. ------II Phyle Sphettos Xypete Xpete II II II (isoteles) --(proxenos) -------II (as above) Sphettos -(as line 253) (as line 257) (as line 260) (as line 264) Alopeke Kydathenaion Kydathenaion (as line 18) Peiraeus Keiriadai --Peiraeus --II M. M F -M F -M -M F F F Wall-builder -Wool-worker -Gold-smith -Clothes-mender Vine-dresser Horse-tender Muleteer House-servant House-servant House-servant - 7 4 -Deme Map A: Face A Joss O ' NAME • Appraxmate location, few rafflM* O NAME1 » Deme-si te . name uncertain For the corresponding modern locations see tort NB: The question-marks indicate e i ther a s p l i t or divided deme, for which only the f i r s t half of the name has been recorded on the Manumission S te le . Former S laves : GREEN | Former Masters : RED I Both: BLUE C - 7 5 -Deme Map B: F a c e B Joss Q* NAME -Aoprojumate location, few O NAME1 - D e m e - l i t e , name uncertai For the correspondng modern locations see text NB: The quest ion-marks i n d i c a t e e i t h e r a s p l i t or d iv ided deme, for which only the f i r s t ha l f of the name has been recorded on the Manumission S t e l e . Former S laves : GREEN | Former Masters : RED | Both: BLUE -76- Joss Chapter 3 Slave Occupations In the words of the Cambridge scholar M.I. Finley, 'with little exception, there was no • activity, productive or unproductive, public or private, pleasant or unpleasant, which was not performed by slaves at some times and in some places in the Greek world.' The exceptions for Athens, of course, were politics and warfare.73 Finley's statement is borne out . in the Manumission Stele, which includes a high degree of diverse occupations involving agriculture and industry, among others. Since slaves doubtless took part in almost every aspect of the Athenian work force, to what degree were slaves differentiated from the citizen body? Cohen states, perhaps a little too broadly but nonetheless effectively, that 'the residents of Attika were remarkably homogeneous in appearance and worked in commerce, agriculture, and craft without differentiation of status or compensation. In daily life, individuals would have little or no knowledge of the "status" of the persons with whom they had contact, and virtually no way of determining to which of the three groups a person belonged.'74 Although there would likely have been apparent differences in slaves newly acquired from other nations (ie. in language and 13 A rare case in which Athenian slaves were employed for military service is found in Xen. Hell. 1.6.24, who says that along with freemen, slaves and knights, who were also not usually liable for' military service, were put aboard ships to fight in the battle of Arginusae in 406. For their bravery, the slaves were granted citizenship, which was also a very rare occurrence. This grant, no doubt, was to encourage the slaves to perform in a patriotic manner. There is also a reference to this battle in Arist.Frogs 33, where Xanthias the slave asks his master Dionysos mournfully: Ti ydp syco OUK evauudxouv; - in which case he would have been free. 14 Cohen, 105. -77- Joss manner of dress), for second-generation slaves such differences would have been minimal, if at all apparent, as these individuals would have been assimilated into Athenian culture from birth. In fact, it has been commented on in Classical literature how alike Athenian slaves looked in comparison to citizens, so much so that it became necessary to enact a law against anyone hitting a slave because he might have actually been a citizen mistaken for a slave, although this is probably an exaggeration.75 Although Cohen's statement of individuals having no knowledge of the status of those with whom they dealt is generally questionable, since presumably foreigners would have stood out to native Athenians and there is also evidence that slave-women wore a discernible style of clothing,76 the stress here must be placed upon whether they would have particularly cared; since slaves were so deeply woven into the fabric of almost every aspect of Athenian life, surely their constant presence was unexceptional to citizens, who were accustomed to dealing with them on a daily basis. For instance, when a citizen wished to have his shoes mended, it is doubtful whether he would have specifically asked for the services of someone of a particular status to perform the task - he simply would have approached a cornier, not a citizen, metic, or slave, to perform the task for which he had been trained.77 There is no reason to think that the handiwork of slaves was inferior to that of citizens. Athens was not self-sufficient, requiring rather large imports 75 pse.udo-Xen.Const.Ath. 1.10. 76 As apparent from stelai depictions of slave-women wearing xgandys', a type of slave garment (Cf. Babler). 77 In fact, an Eleusinian inscription, IG II2 1672.190, records a citizen-cobbler as having made shoes for the slaves working on the project. - 7 8 - Joss •of grain to feed her inhabitants.7 8 Her enormous s ize , 2,500 km2, as well as her hefty population, estimated to be around 300,000, made her the an t i thes i s of a xface-to-face' society, a term which has often been at t r ibuted.7 9 Moreover, a census taken at Athens reportedly between 317 and 307 numbers the foreigners at approximately half that of the politaiso and the Athenians believed the i r serv i le population to exceed that of the free.8 1 In l ight of t h i s , a great mingling between Athenians and resident foreigners would have taken place. Furthermore, there appears to be no di f ferent ia t ion of pay between the three groups; the s t a te indiscriminately employed people of a l l s ta tuses , working side-by-side to perform similar tasks for similar compensation. Rather than pay having been based on s t a tus , i t appears to have been based upon the work done.82 Even in the smaller se t t ing of the oikos, members seem to have worked alongside each other, carrying out similar tasks.8 3 I t must be noted, however, that there i s no evidence for the daily wages of everyday workers of most occupations, regardless of s t a tu s . The only evidence we have i s from monumental structures8 4 and various occupations serving the s t a t e , such as jurors , bouleutai, archons and ekklesiastai.*5 I t cannot be assumed that the wages of workers 78 In the four th cen tury , Athens r equ i r ed an e x t r a 720 000 medimni of g r a in to feed her popu l a t i on . This number i s almost twice the 402 000 medimni of g ra in t h a t A t t i k a produced annual ly , meaning t h a t Athens needed to import g ra in to feed approximately ha l f of her popu la t i on . Cf. Harding (1988), 68 and (1995), 108 no. 20. 79 Cohen, 12-13 and 104. 80 Hansen, 93. 81 Isager and Hansen, 16-17. 82 Cf. Erechtheion accounts, Randall, 207-9. 83 For example, Iskhomakhos' wife is found in Xen.Oec.7.6 performing the same task of wool-spinning as the servants. This must not be mistaken for social equality, however, since it was the wife's primary function to oversee and delegate work to the slaves. Cf. Xen.Oec. 6.35-36; Cohen, 37-38. 84 Randall, 199-210; Eleusis,- IG II2 1672-3. 85 Arist.Ath.Pol.62.2. -79 - Joss on state-governed monumental s t ructures would have been a ref lect ion of the average daily wage, for such .work performed elsewhere. These figures do, however, give evidence for there being equali ty among the s tatuses regarding payment for the work performed. Because there were s t r i c t laws governing the r ights of c i t izens and metics, contrasting with the near absence of r ights for slaves,86 i t i s often supposed that t h i s d i s t inc t ion of s ta tus was a constant presence in the l i f e of the individual . In fact , there was l ike ly a much more fluid re la t ionship between the s ta tuses than i s often assumed; in an en t i ty such as Athens, which was highly cosmopolitan and accustomed to the constant influx of foreigners resul t ing from her ever-bustling port , dai ly in teract ions between residents of a l l s ta tuses would have taken place, with no real d i f ferent ia t ion of tasks between them; very unlike North American slavery which i s often inaccurately compared to ancient slavery. Slaves appear to have been allowed a rather l ibe ra l role in the i r business a f fa i r s ; we find in the pseudo-Xenophontic Constitution of the Athenians a good explanation for th i s equali ty between free persons and slaves: ' If your s lave fea r s me, t h e r e w i l l be a danger t h a t he w i l l give you the money in h i s possess ion so as not to be a t r i s k himself . ( 1 . 1 1 ) 86 There was p r o t e c t i o n for the s lave aga ins t murder and sexual abuse. Cf. An t iph .5 .48 ; Scho l .A i skh in .2 .87 ; Harr ison, 171; Cohen, 158ff; Dem.21.47. Furthermore, ou t s i de the oikos, s l aves were under no o b l i g a t i o n of subse rv ience . Cf. MacDowell, 8 1 . There i s a l so no evidence for a s lave having been abandoned by h i s master in o ld age, but r a t h e r t o the c o n t r a r y . Cf. Cohen, 146 and no .79 . -80- • Joss Since slaves were often in the position of having to deal with large sums of money as bankers,87 they necessarily would have had to have some autonomy; i t would be a problem if slave employees fe l t the need to defer to free customers, in which case the bank i t s e l f would have been in danger. Such ega l i ta r ian dealings are depicted further in Demosthenes (52.5), when a slave banker der is ively asks a prominent c l ien t who's pressing a claim, 'And what business i s i t of yours?' Like bankers, merchant-slaves would have also required some degree of respons ib i l i ty as the ' legal representa t ives ' of t he i r master 's property.ee This 'uppityness' i s often griped about by ancient wri ters , 8 9 but was nonetheless to lera ted and for good reason; banausic occupations were required if the Athenian residents were to enjoy the luxuries they so desired, although such ' s lav ish ' work was generally in tolerable to the c i t i zen . This was due, in par t , to the p o l i t i c a l and social pressure to play an active role in c i ty -a f f a i r s . Xenophon, for instance, gives several reasons why banausic work i s held in disdain among the politai: The ignoble a r t s , as they a re c a l l e d , a re spoken a g a i n s t , and a r e , n a t u r a l l y enough, held in u t t e r d i sda in in our s t a t e s . For they s p o i l the bodies of the. workmen and foremen, forc ing them to s i t s t i l l and l i v e indoors , and in some cases to spend the day a t the f i r e . The sof ten ing of the body involves a s e r i o u s weakening of the mind. Moreover, these s o - c a l l e d l i b e r a l a r t s leave no spare time for a t t e n t i o n to one ' s f r i ends and c i t y , so t h a t those who follow them are reputed bad a t dea l ing with f r i ends and bad defenders of t h e i r coun t ry . (Oec.4.2-3) 97 Slaves were p r e f e r r e d over the f ree in such occupat ions because of the need for c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y and continuous s e r v i c e . 88 Westermann, 16. 69 See e s p e c i a l l y pseudo-Xenophon 1 .10-11. -81- Joss The Athenians' had an innate loathing for repetitive work and the reliance upon an employer for a living. This stemmed from the importance the Greeks placed upon personal freedom and self-sufficiency. Although ideally every citizen would have been completely • self-sufficient, not having to rely on anything but husbandry to keep himself and his family, in reality, many had to supplement their living by producing an excess of goods to sell to the public.90 Some even took employment, but only for short durations, as this was considered by some writers an abhorrent expedient.91 It must be remembered, however, that this disdainful attitude towards such work was promulgated by political theorists who thought that the politai should spend more time in the pursuit of the ideal state. A great number of freedpersons did in fact take part in these so-called banausic professions (see below), as has aptly been pointed out by Ehrenberg,.for example: The distinction between 'banausic' professions and those carried on by 'liberally educated people', which was inherited from the period of aristocracy, had more importance in literature than in real life.52 Still, a large part of industry was worked by slaves in various ergasteria. Ergasterion is often translated as ^workshop', but this term can be misleading as it, at least in the modern sense, suggests an actual building set up and used specifically for industrial pursuits. In fact, there is no conclusive archaeological or literary evidence for separate buildings as 90 Xen.Afem.2.7. 91 Dem.57.45; Isoc.14.48 92 Ehrenberg, 144. -82- Joss workshops. It appears, rather, that industry usually took place in the owner's domestic dwelling and that the term ergasterion more specifically applies to a work-force rather than a shop." Demosthenes, for example, in a deposition of his father's property, records two ergasteria left by his father but mentions only the slaves employed and the raw materials; he does not mention a separate building for the workshops but he does record the worth of his father's house {Aphob.1.27.9; cf. also 27.32). He later describes the slaves as having been left in the house by his father (27.24). In another speech, Demosthenes clearly states that industry worked by slaves took place at the owner's residence (48.12-13). Based on this evidence, and the lack of archaeological evidence for buildings used specifically as workshops, it can thus be presumed that most industry took place in the oikos. Businesses required employees to perform regular, repetitive service. As Cohen states, *in Attika, .free persons were not available for "employment"'.94 An explanation of this comes from Aristotle who states that xit is the nature of the free man not to live under the control of another.'95 Because of this work-ethic, which . stressed self-sufficiency and self-employment, there was a great demand for labour. This demand provided ample work for slaves, who did not have the luxury to be so discriminating. Sometimes business-owners would purchase their own slaves to work as their employees but it was also possible for slave-owners to xrent out' their slaves for such service; these slaves were called 93 Fischer-Hansen, 91-120, in agreement with the perception that classical workshops were not physically separate from dwellings, gives a study of archaeological evidence for ergasteria in Western Greece. 94 Cohen, 142 . 95 A r i s t . Rhetoric 1367a32: EAeuBspou yap TO pr| npos d'XAov £fjv. -83- Joss andrapoda misthophorounta or douloi misthophorountes, who would, no doubt, also be khoris oikountes. Certain businesses would have required the slave to live-apart from his master: a slave who was managing a bank would have to be living-apart in order to keep his customers' assets separate from his master's, which would also release the master from any-personal liability.96 Certain other businesses, like smithing or tanning, or multiple businesses such as the perfumeries of Hyperides,97 would also likely be operated out of separate residences. Furthermore, if a slave became of great economic benefit to his master's oikos, as could happen in ancient Athens as a result of the employment opportunities and training which could be provided for slaves,98 there would no doubt have been tension between his master and him if he was to remain in a servile position within the household. For a slave-owner who was able to *rent out' his slave, the enterprise would have been a good investment, both profitable and easy. He could have his slave out making money for him - his slave would be required to hand over part of his earnings - and not have to worry about taking care of any of his needs, as such slaves would likely be providing • for themselves and, perhaps, their family. On the contrary, manumission was not profitable for slave-. owners - there is little proof for paramonai agreements at Athens,99 nor was there a continuing patronus-cliens relationship as Rome later had100 - so a khoris oikon arrangement was a good way 96 Cohen, 151. . 97 Speeches 3.6, 9-10. "' Cf. Cohen, Ch 5. 99 See p 46ff. 100 Cohen, 145. - 8 4 - J o s s for an owner to make . money and i t provided the slave with the means to perhaps one day pay for his own manumission.101 Even without the insurance of complete l ibera t ion , being permitted to operate one's own oikos would have provided enough incentive for promising slaves to work hard to release themselves from the demeaning posit ion they held as resident in the i r owner's oikos. Such an arrangement gave the slave many of the benefi ts of manumission but did not cause the owner to lose income on account of manumitting his s lave. Although manumission does not appear to have been exceedingly common at Athens, i t did indeed take place, as a t t es ted by the manumission stelai .1 0 2 The Manumission Stele provides us with invaluable evidence for slave occupations. I t must be kept in mind, however, that such documentation cannot be viewed as a cross-section of the t o t a l slave population; a l l of the slaves on the s t e le were cha t te l , none were state-owned. The occupations are not those which public slaves, or demioi, would be involved in, such as mining, coin minting, policing and other services which aided the public co l lec t ive ly . Rather, the slaves ' main purpose was to serve the i r individual masters. Moreover, t he i r occupations can be used as evidence for the i r masters' own livelihoods and income; slaves would often be trained in the i r master 's profession. On the Erechtheion building 101 I n t e r e s t i n g l y , Xenophon gives many i n c e n t i v e s t h a t should be provided for s l aves to improve t h e i r work but does not mention manumission as one of them. See Oec.5.16, 9.12, 12.6 (a share in the p r o f i t s of the oikos), 13.10 (decent c lo th ing) and 13.9 (decent food) . Furthermore, a l though manumission i s not a l e g a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for a master , t h e r e may have been s o c i a l p r e s s u r e to free a s l ave once he or she had earned enough money for h i s / h e r manumission. Cf. Westermann, 18-19. 102 I t could have taken p lace more f requen t ly than we know but the p rocess may have been more informal , thus leav ing us with no o the r ep ig r aph i ca l ev idence . I f t h i s was the case , however, then one would expect t h a t t h e r e would be more l i t e r a r y evidence for manumission. -85- Joss accounts, for example, almost every slave followed the profession of his master, with three possible exceptions.103 It was a profitable venture for a skilled citizen or metic artisan to purchase an unskilled, and therefore cheaper, slave, train him as an apprentice and then have him working in his own shop or hire him out. The most logical trade to train a slave in would be a skill which was in continual demand, such as the ones seen on the Manumission Stele. I.t is interesting to note, however, that no sculptors or pot-painters are seen on either the Manumission Stele, nor on IG 112 10. The term banausoi is often applied to much of the work done by slaves. It originally referred to furnace-workers (ie. potters and smiths) but it was eventually used for all manual workers.104 The word had a strong pejorative connotation, likely because of the Athenians' negative views of technai but also presumably because there was a great number of slaves performing such occupations, so that this type of work eventually became perceived of as 'slavish'. In Euthydemus' conversation with Socrates, for example, he clearly states that most of the people involved in the banausic arts are slavish.105 Some crafts were disdained because the job was unsavory by nature; these would include smithing and tanning, both of which will be discussed below. The occupations on the Manumission Stele can be roughly divided into seven categories: Industry, Retail, Entertainment, Transport, Domestic, Agriculture and General Work. It must be noted, however, that slaves were not necessarily confined to such 103 Randall, 204. 101 Flaceliere, 119. 105 Xen. Mem. IV. 2 . 2 2 : Oi ydp TTXEIOTOI TCOV ye xa roiaOra ETTIOTCCHEVCOV avSparroScoSeis elaiv. -86- Joss categories and occupations; they have here been categorized simply for the purpose of loose organization. As Jameson suggests,106 only the rich would have had their slaves working at one occupation, whereas the average slave-owner likely would have put his slave to a variety of tasks. The occupations listed on the Manumission Stele therefore likely indicated only the major function of the slaves, who presumably continued their occupations upon liberation. The following section will be a discussion of the "seven categories as they relate to the stele. 3.1 Industry 3.1a Smithing On the Manumission Stele there are four smiths: two gold-smiths (A.135, B.102), one smith (A.101),107 and one iron-smith (A.448), all male.108 Because of their craft, smiths were exposed to dangers such as inhaling poisonous gases produced during the smelting process.109 They were also in danger of serious accidents, such as burns from pouring molten metals and working with hot irons. In depictions on red-figure vases, smiths are often shown half-nude, no doubt because of the heat associated with the furnaces, and there is usually a jar standing close by, which could indicate that smiths always had water on hand to quench their thirst.110 A good example of a crippled smith is seen in Homer's depiction of 106 Jameson, 137 and no .78 . 107 xa^KE^S o r i g i n a l l y app l i ed only to bronze-workers but l a t e r was used for a l l meta l -workers . Cf. ABSA VIII 203 and Tod, 12. 108 The s tone has only oiSnpo, so the word could have been aiSrpoTTcoAns, oiSnpoupyos or oiSrpoKOTTOs , among o ther p o s s i b i l i t i e s . Cf. M.N. Tod, 9. 1Q9 Burford, 72. 110 F l a c e l i e r e , 133. -87- Joss the smith-god Hephaistos as a limping buffoon.111 Although his deformity was caused by an event unrelated to smithing, the fact that this god, whose occupation was arguably the most dangerous of all the banausic arts, was just as widely known to be crippled, might perhaps suggest a connection between deformity and smithing. 3.1b Tanning Tanning, also an unsavory occupation, was disdained because of the terrible smell associated with working with dead animals. This occupation is mocked by Aristophanes who twice comments on the stench of leather.112 A later writer describes the tanner as annoying everyone because he smells so bad, forcing him to have his shop far from town.113 In classical Athens, however, the evidence shows tanners who were registered in city demes;114 this is the case with the one tanner on the Manumission Stele, who was registered in the city deme Kydathenaion (B.9). The evidence would then indicate that some tanners, at least, practiced their trade in the heart of the city. 3.1c Wool-working Wool-working is the most common of all the industrial occupations listed for both sides of the stele. I agree with Tod's 111 Iliad VIII.410ff. 112 Knights 892: OUK ES Kopaicas aTTo^BepEl, fiuparis KCXKIOTOV O£COV; (GO t o t h e c rows , you B r u t e , s t i n k i n g most h o r r i b l y of l e a t h e r ! ) ; Wasps 3 8 : o£ei Kaicio~rov TOUVUTTVIOV fJupons aaTTpas (Your dream s m e l l s most h o r r i b l y of p u t r i d l e a t h e r ) . 113 A r t e m i d o r o s Oneirokritos 1 . 5 1 . 111 B u r f o r d , 80 . -88- Joss translation of TCxAccaioupyos as Vool-working' rather than ''wool-spinning' because the task need not be confined to just spinning, but probably referred to spinning, carding and weaving.115 Out of a total of forty-six industrial workers, twenty-four are wool-workers (52%): eleven out of twenty-seven (41%) of those on Face A (and a probable one more, which would make a total of 44%)116 and twelve out of nineteen (63%) on Face B are wool-workers. All of these are women. Wool-working is the main feminine activity for both sides: the women average 4 6% wool-workers on Face A and 4 6% on Face B. Thus, out of fifty women recorded for both sides of the stele, 46% were employed at wool-working. In most cf the cases, the name or gender of the participle makes it certain that the wool-workers were female. There is no reason to think that men took part in this employment; when wool-working is mentioned in literature it either clearly applies to women117 or else the gender is uncertain.118 It is never clearly stated that the workers were male so there is no reason to believe that this was the case. Until evidence should be. found to firmly support men having been wool-workers as well as women, it can be considered a feminine occupation. Furthermore, if I may draw a parallel between Classical and Mycenaean Greece, Mycenaean women most commonly were involved in textile production. This is seen, in part, by the textile inscriptions from Knossos, which state that women in Phaistos were allotted a fixed quota of wool to work, after which they would 115 M.N. Tod, 10. 116 At A.480, o[up]y has been restored, but the worker is obviously a female, .as confirmed by the gender of the participle. 117 Plato Ion. 540c; Xen.Mem.2.7. 118 Cf. M.N. Tod, 10-11. -89- Joss send on the finished product to Knossos.119 Since there was indeed a sizable work-force of wool-workers at the palace's disposal, it appears that there would have been a rather large excess of finished Mycenaean cloth intended for export. Further evidence for this trade is gleaned from depictions on Egyptian documents of Mycenaeans holding out lengths of cloth as offerings.120 Of course exported textiles were probably more elaborate than ordinary cloth, which was produced in all ancient societies, in order to make it a desirable commodity. Combining the tablets from Knossos and Pylos, also documented by Chadwick,121 the workers were very likely slaves. This is evidenced by some indication of provenance and the fact that they always lived near the palaces and were continually employed, with about two-thirds located near Pylos.122 Further evidence for a Bronze Age textile industry, presumably for trade, is carefully and convincingly laid out by Killen.123 In the Linear B tablets from Knossos dealing with sheep (Series D), some list only sheep while others list both sheep and wool. Killen concentrates mainly on the former in which only sheep are listed. On these tablets, there is an inordinately high number of rams. He suggests that these flocks were not used for breeding but rather for wool-production, in which case the rams would have been wethers; normal flocks used for breeding would not have had such a large number of uncastrated rams. He parallels such flocks with records from Medieval England, where it was principally wether flocks, prized for their wool-production, which provided a good 119 Chadwick, 151. 120 Kantor, 58f; Chadwick, 150-1. 121 Chadwick, 79. 122 Ibid., 152. 123 K i l l en , 1-15. -90- Joss part of the economy of the time. He further enhances his conclusion by comparing the ratios of ewes to rams for the Pickering Manor in Yorkshire to the records of Pylos and Knossos;124 the ancient records' ratios bear a striking similarity to the those of the Medieval manor, whose flocks were primarily involved in wool-production. Concerning the Manumission Stele, a quarter of all the workers were employed in wool-working. This number is not seen for any other occupation listed, which leads me to think that these workers were not just producing wool for local use but were perhaps producing for export. According to the palace accounts from Mycenae, textile production was a centralized industry, worked by slave women who lived near the palace. Although we know that the slaves on the Manumission Stele were chattel, there is no reason to think that these women were working solely for the usage of their masters or the local residents. Rather, they could have been producing cloth, at least in part, for export, much like their earlier Bronze Age counterparts. Furthermore, as with the Mycenaean workers, the workers from the Manumission Stele resided near the city, or rather, the area of centralized control which had supplanted the more archaic palace structure of Mycenaean Greece, if I may make such a comparison. Although Athenian trade in wine and olives is widely recognized, textile trade has not been sufficiently studied; taking into account the Bronze Age evidence for industrial wool-production and trade, there is no reason to believe that such an industry did not exist in Athens, but rather to the contrary. This 12< Killen, 6. -91- Joss document provides some indication that there was an industry in wool-production which was not confined to just local consumption and furthermore, that it was worked, in part at least, by slaves. 3.Id Shoe-working There are a number of other industrial activities from the Manumission Stele. Three different occupations involving shoe-working are seen: namely shoe-making (A. 218, A. 252, A. 522, B.15), cobbling (A.456) and sandal-making (A.244) . The first two involve different aspects of shoe-working: a OKUTOTOHOS was, literally, a leather-cutter and a VEupopa<J>os was a shoe-mender or stitcher (from the word for sinew, TO vsupoy and pdtTrrco for stitching).125 Although each could be separate stages of shoe-development, it is more likely that the aKUTOTopos was a general shoe-maker while the vEupopot(J)os was involved in mending worn shoes. Since there is also a mender of clothes, an aKEOTpia, on the Manumission Stele (B.3), this type of task-delineation is not impossible.126 There is also one sandal-maker, which, as Tod states, can also refer to a general shoe-maker.127 The word is abbreviated to mroSrprroTT, which could conceivably end with either -TTOIOS (or other such variants)126 or - TTCoXris. These three words together, shoe-making, cobbling and sandal-making, demonstrate the great care that was taken to show that the slave's occupations, although similar, were not the same. 125 For other spellings, see M.N. Tod, 8 and 10. 126 Both words could also, of course, simply be the final stage of production, namely the finishing of shoes and cloth. Mending, however, is the more common meaning for these words. 127 M.N. Tod, 1 1 . ' 128 Ibid. 129 Ibid. -92- Joss 3.le Wood-working There are also various wood-workers on the stele: a bed-maker (A.145), a pine-splitter (A.402) a carpenter (B.217) and a flute-maker (A. 433; first epigraphical appearance in Attica)130 . Possible endings for the bed-maker, since the word is abbreviated to KAIVOTT, are -TTOIOS, -Tniyos, and -Trpicrrns.131 The word for pine-splitter, SaiSooxioxTis, has not been found elsewhere; because it very likely refers to someone who makes torches, I have placed it in the banausic category. TSKTCOV, usually refers to a worker in wood, especially a carpenter or joiner, although it can also be a general term for any craftsman. Because of the specification seen for other craftsmen on this document and the many variants of the word which have the meaning ^carpenter', however, it is more likely that the term was intended specifically to denote a worker in wood.132 3.If Other .There is also a glue-boiler (A. 452; a rare word)133 and two signet-engravers (A.138-9, B.255). The occupation Aglue-boiling' (XoXXsvpos) is only found on this document, but' the word Nx°Ma'' used in the context of building operations, has been found twice on other epigraphical documents.134 130 Lewis (1959) , 2 2 9 . 131 M.N. Tod, 7 . ' " Cf. LSJ. 133 M.N. ' Tod, 8 . 134 IG 112 1 6 7 2 . 6 8 , 1 6 8 2 . 2 8 . Cf. M.N. Tod, 8 . 3 . 2 R e t a i l - 9 3 - J o s s There i s a t o t a l of e l e v e n vendor s on t h e s t e l e . On Face A t h e r e a r e e i g h t : a male s e s a m e - s e l l e r (221) , two male f r a n k i n c e n s e - s e l l e r s ( 3 6 9 , 5 6 3 ) , a male s a l t f i s h - s e l l e r (510) , a merchant (501) and t h r e e kapeloi ( 1 1 3 - m a l e , 4 9 0 - m a l e , 4 9 3 - f e m a l e ) . On Face B, t h e r e a r e t h r e e : a male p u l s e - s e l l e r (113) , a male s a l t f i s h - s e l l e r (35) and a male b r e a d - s e l l e r ( 6 ) . Two of t h e kapeloi were male (KCCTIT|XOS) and one female (KCCTrnXts) . One female and one male (A. 490,493) be longed t o t h e same m e t i c -m a s t e r and p resumably worked i n h i s b u s i n e s s . . Un l ike an cxuTOTrcoXris, who s o l d h i s own w a r e s , a KccuriXos s o l d o t h e r s ' p r o d u c t s . Th i s i s s t a t e d a s such by P l a t o who w r i t e s : r| TCOV KCCTTTIXCOV TZXVT) TT\S TCOV auTOTTcoXcovSicopioTat TEXVTJS {Pol.260c); meaning t h a t t h e KOCTTTIXOI s e l l t h e goods which o t h e r s p r o d u c e . Th i s i s l i k e w i s e s t a t e d by t h e s c h o l i a s t on A r i s t o p h a n e s , i n . h i s e x p l a n a t i o n of t h e f i v e d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s of v e n d o r s : KCXTITIXOS 6E 6 ayopcx£cov CXTTO TOU auTOTrcoXou Kai TTCOXCOV sv TT\ xcopoc sv ?\ r|y6paa6v (PJut . 1155) .135 The word ^KcxnTiXos/KairriXts' was d e r i v e d from t h e a c t i o n of p o u r i n g wine i n t o cups and on ly l a t e r came t o encompass a l l l o c a l r e t a i l e r s . 1 3 6 A kapelos cou ld be e i t h e r a w i n e - s e l l e r , an i n n - k e e p e r o r a g e n e r a l r e t a i l e r and a kapeleion cou ld be e i t h e r t h e shop of a kapelos o r , more e s p e c i a l l y , a t a v e r n . 1 3 7 On t h e whole , a l l such h u c k s t e r s were looked down upon a s b e i n g d i s h o n e s t p e o p l e who 135 Cf. M.N. Tod, 5 - 6 . 136 Ehrenberg, 114. 137 Cf. LSJ: TOKarniAElov. -94- Joss would do anything to make a buck .from some unsuspecting customer.136 Retailers were also the frequent recipients of abuse, as seen, for example, in the treatment of a bread-seller: Come, stand by me, by the gods I • entreat you. There he is, the one who ruined me, who struck with his torch and threw down from there bread worth ten obols and four to boot. (Arist. Wasps 1388-91) The poor attitude towards retailers is in direct contrast to that towards another type of retailer, the merchant (A. 501). The main difference between the two is that a kapelos sold his products locally, whereas a merchant was not confined to his own locality - the term 'InTropos' originally meant 'one who was a passenger on another man' s ship'. Being a merchant was profitable and they were often wealthy and highly regarded. Although merchants and other retailers in essence had the same occupation, kapeloi are likely criticized more harshly not because their practices were inferior but more likely because they were everywhere and their trading touched more people personally. - As mentioned above, there are two salt-fish sellers on the Manumission Stele. Fish was a staple of the Athenian diet and salted-fish was a common, albeit 'little esteemed' food, presumably because it was not fresh.139 Salted fish, apparently cheaper than fresh fish, needed time for its preparation and often 138 Ehrenberg quotes (114 no. 9) from adesp.567: KcmnXov <J)povo(ja. He suggests that the sense of the phrase is not favourable but rather indicates the . retailer's dishonesty. 139 Ehrenberg, 131. -95- Joss came from distant seas. With the possible exception of the bread-seller, who likely made as well as sold his. bread,140 all of the retailers listed were professionals who bought from producers and resold to the public; in short, they were middlemen. The only difference between the general retailers and those who sold specific goods was probably that the former were shopkeepers while the latter sat in the agora and sold their wares. Furthermore, men and women are both seen as working in this type of employment; on the Manumission Stele there are nine men working as vendors and two women. Women as retailers are also mentioned by Aristophanes, in which case the occupation appears to have a rather pejorative nature, since vending is mentioned in conjunction with mud-wrestling, waitressing and other such occupations.141 3.3 Entertainment > There are three entertainers on the stele, all female. Two are flute-girls (A.5[New], B.212) and one a harper (A.506). These women were likely hired out by their masters to perform at various symposia. The harper would have sung as well as played the cythara. Such female entertainers are commonly found in classical literature and appear to have been largely hetairai.112 1,0 M.N. Tod, 5 ; A r i s t . Wasps 2 3 8 : t % dpTOTrcoXiSos Xa66vT' EKAEVJAJPEV TOV oXpov. The word *o\\ios' refers to a table for kneading bread. Cf. LSJ. 141 Arist. Lys. 457-8. 1,2 Ehrenberg, 178; Arist.Wasps 1358,1368; Thes. 1177; Plato Symp. 176e,212d. 3.4 Transport -96- Joss Four freedmen on the document can be described as transporters: two donkey-drivers (A. 546, B. 271) and two muleteers (A.-559, B.94)-. In Classical literature, slaves appear as muleteers and copper transporters.143 Since men employed in such occupations were acting as legal representatives of their master's property (or someone else's, if they were hired out), they would have had to be trustworthy.144 Since their occupations would have required a fair bit of freedom.and mobility, it is not hard to imagine that these men were khoris oikountes and were likely available for hire to anyone who required their services. 3.5 Domestic Servants There has been a fair bit of discussion concerning the descriptions TTCUSI'OV (A. 259, 472, 514, 55'0; B. 19, 96,118,120,122, 235, 238, 259,341) and Trais (B.37), the most common occupation after wool-working, and again, dominated by women; over a quarter of them (28%) were employed as servants. Jameson takes the name to mean "no profession yet,"145 meaning that we should understand the designations TTCUSIOV and TTCUS as literally denoting "children". His argument is, in part, that since one slave, who is designated TITOT) (A.256), is released along with one who is designated TTOUSI TI'T6 (A.259), the latter should thus be the "child of the nurse". He 1,3 Arist.Thes.491; Plato Lysis 208b. l" See above, p 79ff. 1,5 Jameson, 135 no. 63. -97- Joss also notes that, since in two entries TTCUSICC are freed together (A.118,120,122 and B.235,238), and in three other entries are released along with other slaves (B.35,37; 94-96; 255-66) these could have been family units. Although these arguments are impressive, in the context of the document they do not make sense. Tod's assertion that traiSiov and TTCUS should be taken to mean "servant"146 and that TTOctSi TIT6 is simply a double designation, servant and nurse,147 is more compelling because it is difficult to imagine that children could have bought their own freedom (none are mentioned with eranoi). Even if the masters did pay for their freedom, it is even more difficult to imagine that these children would have been registered as metics. Moreover, master's were under no obligation to free entire families. 3.6 Agriculture We do not see the occupational variety amongst agricultural workers that we see for the other categories discussed thus far. We have only farm-workers (A. 109, A.248, B.12, B.208, B.lll) and vine-dressers (A.486, B.52). Considering that Classical Greece was mainly an agricultural society,148 since most Athenians appear to have owned at least a small plot of land,149 and most Athenian households probably owned at least one slave, slavery must have played a significant role in 1,6 M.N. Tod, 9. • 1,1 The designation xT!T6n' probably meant more specifically ,wet-nurse' . Cf. LSJ for variations of this word. 1.8 Jameson, 124. 1.9 In 403 BCE, only 5000 out of some 20 000 citizens did not own land. Cf. Gomme, 26; Jameson, 125 and no. 13. -98- Joss agriculture. There have been two major arguments posited for the small number of agricultural workers on the Manumission Stele: the first is that agricultural slaves were less likely to be khoris oikountes, and thus were less likely to have the funds to purchase their freedom.150 For this reason, their numbers are quite small for such documents. The second reason is more compelling and lies in the translation of yscopyos in the context of the other occupations on the document.151 The translation * farm-hand' ,152 although perfectly permissible in a general context - especially one referring to slaves - may be misleading. As with most of the other slaves on the document, who were very likely undertaking work on their owner's behalf, these workers were probably . employed as farm-managers on either their owner's or rented land, in which case they would presumably have earned more money than a general farm-hand and. would thus have been more able to purchase their freedom.153 Moreover, as mentioned above, most Athenians probably owned land, so farm-work would have come part and parcel for all members of the oikos. It is unlikely that someone would have been named specifically as having the occupation xfarm-hand', since all but the richest citizens would have taken part in agriculture.154 As Jameson states, *if we have trouble identifying "agricultural slaves" in Athens it may be in part because they were everywhere.'155 Therefore, farm-work would have been an assumed 150 Jameson, 134 . 151 Jameson, 1 3 5 . 152 M.N. Tod, 6. 153 In Lysias 7.10, there is a metic who rented land, presumably continuing his earlier profession when he was a slave. 154 Jameson, 124. 155 Jameson, 137. -99- Joss occupation for all household members, making it less likely to be listed as a specific occupation. In light of this, the farm-workers on the Manumission Stele likely held managerial-type positions on behalf of their owners, were probably khoris oikountes like most of the other workers on the document, and were therefore able to accumulate the funds to purchase their freedom. The other listed agricultural occupation, vine-dressing, required skill. Viticulture was also the most laborious of farming activities in Classical Greece.156 Because of the skill demanded for such work, it is possible that such agricultural experts would have been rented out to work on other people's farms as need demanded. Moreover, vine-dressers perhaps acted as retailers as well as producers, selling wine to consumers or inn-keepers.157 Skilled agriculturists would presumably have been less numerous than general farm-hands. By reason of their skill and paucity, they surely were paid more and were therefore able to accumulate more funds than the average unskilled slave, making it possible for them to purchase their freedom. 3.7 General Work There are nine men who, with the possible exception of one, fall under this last category: a hired-labourer (A.396), an amphora-bearer (A.209), a secretary (A.464), a wall-builder (B.344), a female/male? horse-tender (B.91), a building-worker (B.98), a miller (B.210), a cook (A.195) and a barber(B.252). 156 Cf. Jameson, 130 and no. 45. 157 Ehrenberg, 130. -100- Joss At B.344 (wall-builder), Lewis has edited the occupation as T[EI]X>OTTIV. Tod had earlier read it as a[Tt]xicmiv and Lolling as T[O]KIOTTIV ,"6 As Lewis states, his interpretation of the word would be its earliest appearance, but none of the suggestions are impossible. At. B.91 (horse-tender), Lewis interprets TTOTiKicrrpi (dotting the "n" and second "s") as xan hapax legomenon with extraordinary spelling', positing that the freedwoman was a Horse-tender (from the verb vjnixco, meaning to rub down a horse).159 This would be the only instance of 'ITS' found in Attica.160 The type of occupation at B.98 is not clear; Lewis takes the man to be a building worker, comparing the occupation to those contracted in 2G_ II2 1665. Tod, along with others, suggests that 'epy' should be expanded to 'epyccarpicDv', so that the meaning of the phrase is 'resident at Sounium from the workshops.'161 Granted, this is a rather general depiction for a freedman's occupation in comparison with the others on the document, but it is not impossible. He could have been working on the location of a large building project. 3.8 Comparison with IG 112 10 The Manumission Stele's list of occupations bears a striking resemblance to the late fifth-century inscription IG II2 10.162 Both have slaves working mainly in retail and industry and there 158 Lewis (1959) , 233. 159 Lewis (1959), 231; Cf. LSJ. 160 Cf. Lewis (1959) 231. 161 M.N. Tod, 13. For the locale, refer to p 62. 162 Cf. p 56ff. -101- Joss are a number of the same occupations: tanners, retailers, smiths, merchants, hired-help and farm-workers. There are, however, some notable differences; on IG 112 10 there are more slaves working as retailers - 40% as opposed to 11% on the Manumission Stele. Furthermore, IG II2 10 has neither wool-workers nor domestic-servants, the likes of which are so dominant on the Manumission Stele. Since IG II2 10 is a list of male slaves only, these differences are not surprising, as wool-working and domestic service appear to be feminine occupations. As far as masculine occupations are concerned, however, it appears that chattel slave occupations remained fairly constant during the eighty or so years between the two documents. -102- Joss Conclusion D.M. Lewis has done a great service for classical scholars by piecing together fragments of this large Manumission Stele. It now stands as the most complete manumission document surviving from ancient Athens and its existence compels us to ask many more questions than can perhaps be answered. We have seen that manumissions were exceedingly uncommon at Athens as attested by the near absence of literary and epigraphical evidence for such procedures. Without contemporary literary evidence for these trials, we must rely on Harpokration for a definition of the procedure, even though it is not clear what time period he was referring to when he described it, nor even if he was referring to Athens. Furthermore, his definition relies upon there being paramonai agreements between master and freedman, for which we too have very little evidence from Athens and of that only literary. We have seen, however, that Plato's reference [Laws 11.915a) bears close resemblance to the Delphic manumission agreements, lending some credibility for there being similar Athenian agreements between masters and freedmen. The answer to who paid for the phiale is equally elusive, as the document appears to list the payment as a separate clause. We have seen, however, that the presence of the eranoi may help resolve the issue, since at A. 141 the former master is also listed as the head contributor. If it was the case that the former masters always paid for the phialai, it would not make sense to list this man as also the head contributor, as his role would have been assumed. It seems much more likely that the slaves were -103- Joss expected to make the payment and, if they were unable, they could collect a group of contributors to loan them the funds, as illustrated in the case of Neaira (Dem.59). The Manumission Stele can also bear evidence to the domiciles of the former masters and slaves. We have seen that the greatest percentage of both were from city demes, with an average of 45% of the former masters and 7 6% of the freedmen. Furthermore, it is not surprising that more freedmen were registered in city demes, since we have seen that metics' demes were not hereditary but rather, were indications of domicile, unlike those of citizens'. Even though there are few cases of deme-sharing between former masters and their slaves, this could simply be due to the former master's domicile being different from his deme. His former slave was probably registered right where he worked, which could well have been the same domicile as his master; it is unlikely that these slaves had worked far from their masters' residence. Another intriguing element of the stele are the many diverse occupations listed, which as a group can tell us a great deal about the socio-economic role of slave activity in fourth-century Athens. Slaves were employed in almost every aspect of daily life, from industry to retail to agriculture. As stated in Ch 3, however, these occupations as a whole must not be taken as a cross-section of slave-activity in fourth-century Athens, since all the slaves are chattel and most would likely have been khoris oikountes. These numbers do not take into account the demioi, the likes of whom probably made up a fair amount of the slave population. There must have been a constant mingling of people from all -104- Joss statuses, at times working side-by-side at the same tasks, perhaps receiving the same pay. The strong presence of slaves allowed citizens more time to take part in city-affairs, releasing them from many of the repetitive but necessary tasks of daily life. In turn, slave-work enabled both Athenians and resident-foreigners alike to have easy access to goods and services, the fruits of city-living. There are eight instances in which groups of slaves have been released under one master (with the exception of one, B.253-66, where there are two masters) . What can these groups tell us about the masters? In four of these instances, there is more than one slave in the same occupation. In the case of A.489-96, the master, who was a metic, released two retailers, one male and one female. It seems probable here that this metic owned a store and had two slaves running it together, since both were resident in Melite. Furthermore, these slaves were almost surely khoris oikountes and were very likely also a married couple. The other three instances have multiple females being released, all combinations of wool-workers, domestic servants and nurses: at A. 255-262, the two entries record nurses, one with an apparent double-designation (see Ch 3). At B.112-122, one master released five slaves in total: one pulse-dealer, one wool-worker and three domestic servants. Lastly, at B.253-266, two masters jointly released four of their slaves: one signet-engraver, one domestic servant and two wool-workers. With the exception of the group of retailers, all include at least one wool-worker, nurse or domestic servant. Why do these women, working at such occupations, figure so -105- Joss highly in the numbers released? Domestic servants (including nurses) and wool-workers make up 41% of the total workers on the document. In the case of domestic servants and nurses, having no apparent trade with which they might have supported themselves, two questions arise: first of all, since presumably they were not khoris oikountes, as most of the others freed evidently were, how would they have accumulated enough capital to purchase their freedom? Secondly, what sort of employment would they have undertaken upon their release? I would like to make some suggestions in answer to these questions. Since, as suggested in the Introduction, masters might have felt compelled to release slaves in order to contribute capital to the state during this time of emergency, as a sort of liturgy, perhaps some masters did not wish to release slaves who were generating good income working as skilled artisans, shopkeepers or the like. Instead, they released female slaves who performed general domestic services. Such slaves, could even have been those described by Hopkins as Anot producers at all, but consumers, tokens of their master's wealth.'163 Even though the new metics would owe the state metoikia payments, these sums probably paled in comparison to what some masters were making from their khoris oikountes slaves. Perhaps the masters even took on these payments on behalf of their domestic servants; if the khoris oikountes slaves were bringing in more money, as presumably they were, it would- be a worthy venture. Thus, these domestic servants could have continued in the service of their former masters or else were married off after their liberation. 163 Hopkins, 166. -106- Joss Wool-workers, of course, were producers, but how worthy was their art? Every woman appears to have been taught this skill. Even if wool was being produced for export, such slaves probably did not bring in the amount of money that a . slave at another trade, such as smithing or wood-working, would have. Furthermore, it is difficult to imagine that these women would have been khoris oikountes. They were more likely working out of their master's oikos. Thus these slaves, along with domestic servants, probably generated very little income, if any at all, for their masters and were therefore the cheapest to release. After their release, these too most likely continued working in the same manner they had previously, albeit with modified legal status. Perhaps the answer to the purpose of this document lies in its anomalous nature. As we have seen, there is no evidence for such procedures from much before or after this period, making it appear that this document is tied to a contemporaneous event. The greatest worry for Athens at this time was Macedon and we know that measures were being taken by Lycurgus' coalition to gather revenue for the inevitable war between the two powers. In light of this, I would like to suggest that the purpose of these manumissions was not so much to manumit slaves but was invoked by the state as another way to gather revenue, perhaps after the wealthy had been exhausted of liturgies. Furthermore, there is evidence.that the majority of the masters were city-dwellers, the likes of whom would be more apt to be politically active and perhaps felt more intensely the need to provide financial assistance to the state. In order to make the manumissions legally binding, the state used, or perhaps enacted, these trials, all of -107- Joss which were legal fictions serving to acquit the slaves. The ultimate purpose was to gather phialai as revenue, which were soon after melted together into various hydria, as evidenced by the contemporary Athenian financial reports. The new metics would then continue to contribute capital in the form of metoikion payments and the male metics would also be liable to fight in the oncoming war; all in all, an excellent resource for Athens during this time of emergency. -108- Joss Appendix: References for Slave Names Found on the Manumission Stele Note - I have included only whole names, extant or restored. The digit following the slave's name records the total number of instances in which the name has been attached to a slave. Occasionally I have indicated an alternate spelling of the same gender below the appropriate line. As seen below, the names are listed in order of occurrence on the Manumission Stele and I have given the numbers for the names as listed in Osborne's and Byrne's The Foreign Residents of Attica. {FRA) and Reilly's Slaves in Ancient Greece {SAG). A. 100 [KjtTTOS A. 104 MvTiai0Ecc{v} A. 108 lotTupos A. 112 [K]aAAicc<s> A. 138 Bicov A. 144 'H^EAICOV A. 14 8 Mooxicov A. 152 OIXOVIKTI A. 156 ' A 5 O \ J O [ I O S ] A. 187 MEVITTTTTI A. 194 'OvTiainos A . 2 0 9 Mdvris A. 213 OiXia-rn A. 217 'AplOTOpSVTlS A. 221 'Ovnoinn A. 225 rFoaEi6cov[ios] 1 : 1 : 6 : 6 : 1 : 1 2 : 4 : 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 0 : 1 4 : 1 : 2 : 2 : 5 : FRA FRA FRA FRA FRA FRA FRA FRA FRA FRA FRA FRA FRA FRA FRA FRA 7 7 7 4 ; SAG 1630 7 8 6 6 ; SAG 1908 7 9 8 4 - 8 9 ; SAG 2 4 6 3 -7 7 4 3 - 4 8 ; SAG 1547 7 5 1 6 ; SAG 533 8 1 4 7 - 4 9 ; SAG 3237-7 8 7 1 - 7 2 ; SAG 1914-8 1 1 1 ; SAG 3128 7409 7 8 4 9 ; SAG 1864 7 9 2 5 ; SAG 2 1 6 1 - 7 0 7 8 2 2 - 3 4 ; SAG 1809-8 1 0 6 ; SAG 3109 74 6 7 ; SAG 3 2 1 - 2 2 7 9 2 3 ; SAG 2 1 5 9 - 6 0 7 9 6 5 - 6 6 ; SAG 2350-•68 •48 -16 -11 -53 A. 24 3 rTiaTOKAfJs A. 247 Aiovuaios A. 251 TTOXUTIHOS A. 255 AanTrpi's A. 259 EwreiOri A. 328 AU5TI A. 332 MEVIOS A. 433 TupTiv A. 4 64 Oi'Xcov A. 4 68 'PoSta A. 473 KopSuTTTl A. 485 'EirtKepSris A. 489 'HpaKAstSris' A. 4 93 0patTTa 0 pat aaa A. 4 97 'ITCCMTI A. 501 'Emyovos A. 505 Arpr|Tp[ta] A. 510 Qi'Xcov A. 514 Xpuaiov A. 518 'OXuiiTTids A. 522 'Eariatos A. 54 6 [I]GOTr|[p]i5r|S A. 550 IcoaTpatT) A. 555 TTXayycov A. 559 ndp4>iXos A. 563 NiKt'as 1 : K ? ) 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 : 14: 3 : 1 : 1 : 16: 4 : 3 : 1 : 3 : 13: s ee 1 : 3 : 1 : 5 : 4 : 2 : 6 : 8 : - 1 0 9 -FRA 7 9 5 1 ; SAG 2320 2 2 : FRA 7 5 6 8 - 7 0 ; SAG 7 3 2 - 5 4 FRA 7961; SAG 2345 FRA 7801; SAG 1724 FRA 7 648; SAG 1082 FRA 7808; SAG 1760 FRA 7848; SAG 1863 FRA 8086; SAG 3031 FRA 8120-24; SAG 3157-67 FRA 7977; SAG 2417-19 FRA 7784; SAG 1674 FRA 7589; SAG 922 FRA 7679-88; SAG 1394-1401 FRA 7715-18; SAG 1480 SAG 1477-79 FRA 7735; SAG 1536 FRA 7587; SAG 917-19 FRA 7551-55; SAG 647-57 above, A.4 64 FRA 8144; SAG 3222 FRA 7919; SAG 2108-2110 FRA 7619; SAG 996 FRA 8055-59; SAG 2878-79 FRA 8048-49; SAG 2802-05 FRA 7955-56; SAG 2325-26 FRA 7929; SAG 2187-92 FRA 7893-94; SAG 2020-26 - 1 1 0 - J o s s Ag. I 4763 A. 004 [E]XTTI'S B . 0 0 9 Mcopos B . 0 1 2 Icooiocs B . 0 1 5 Mvdacov B . 0 5 5 TaxtOTTi B . 0 5 9 ' A v [ T ] i y c o v B . 0 6 2 [EU]K6XTI B . 0 9 6 r i p o s 2JJJOV B . 1 0 2 OetSeaTpaTOs B.107"nKtlJOV B . 1 1 0 EUKATIS B.112"ATTCCS B.114 MaA8dcKri B . 1 1 8 nXayycov B . 1 2 0 Moayps B.122 'ApiaToviKTi 'AptaTovtKa B .214 [Hjxco B .217 A n i t a s B . 2 3 3 'ApiOTTi B . 2 3 5 IipaXov B . 2 3 8 NiKapiaxri B . 2 4 1 FXuKEpa B .262 iTpccTOVttai iTpaTOViKa 1 5 : 1 : 1 9 : 4 : 1 : 1 : 1 : 9 : 4 : 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 : 2 : s e e 2 : 1 : 4 : 1 : 2 : 1 : 1 : 2 : 3 : 5 : 7 : ERA 7 5 8 3 ; SAG 8 6 6 - 8 8 0 FRA 7 8 8 1 ; SAG 1927 FRA FRA FRA FRA FRA FRA SAG FRA FRA FRA FRA FRA 8 0 4 3 - 4 6 ; SAG 2 6 5 6 - 7 2 7 8 6 5 ; SAG 1 9 0 2 - 0 5 8066 7430 7 6 4 0 ; SAG 1058 8 0 0 0 - 0 4 ; SAG 2 4 9 4 - 9 6 2 4 9 0 - 9 3 8 1 0 0 ; SAG 3053 8 1 4 6 ; SAG 3228 7 6 3 8 ; SAG 1056 7 5 0 3 - 0 5 ; SAG 426 7 8 1 9 - 2 0 ; SAG 1808 a b o v e , A . 5 5 5 FRA FRA SAG FRA FRA FRA FRA FRA FRA FRA SAG 7 8 7 3 ; SAG 1 9 1 8 - 1 9 74 6 8 ; SAG 328 3 2 4 - 3 2 7 7 6 9 5 ; SAG 1418 7 5 4 9 - 7 5 5 0 ; SAG 6 4 4 - 4 5 7 4 5 6 ; SAG 297 7 9 9 5 ; SAG 2489 7 8 9 0 ; SAG 1 9 8 5 - 8 6 7 5 3 4 ; SAG 5 7 2 - 7 4 8 0 1 8 ; SAG 2 5 6 1 - 6 5 2 5 5 4 - 6 0 -Ill- Joss B.266 TTptccven 1 : FRA 7969; SAG 2366 B.268 IcocrrpaTn see above, A. 550 B.34l'H8iaTT\ 2 : FRA 7673; SAG 1371-72 'HStOTCX 1 : SAG 137 0 Some of the names on Face B are of questionable spelling. I have not made any attempt at conjecture but have left them as they appear on the stele. I have, however, made assumptions concerning the gender of some of the names, tending towards the feminine for persons involved in occupations such as wool-working and domestic-service, the most common occupations for female slaves.164 Although the vast majority of the names are Greek, some do give an indication of other ethnicities: at A.209, the name 'Manes' is thought to be of Phrygian origin and occurs fourteen times on epigraphical documents,165 at A. 328 we have a woman simply called 'the Lydian', at A. 433 there is an Etruscan man by the name of 'the Tyrian'166 and at A.493, a woman called 'the Thracian'. The name 'Chrusios' (A. 514), meaning 'fair-haired', is also a likely indicator of a foreign slave. There are several names which denote characteristics that the slaves either had or the masters hoped they would come to have: these include names such as 'Assistance' (A. 144), 'Useful' (A. 194 & 221), 'Trustworthy' (A.243), 'Much-honoring' (A.251), 'Obeys Well' (A.259), 'Profitable' (A.485), 'Strong as a Horse'- (A.187), 'Strength' (A.332), 'Quickest' (B.055), 'Speedy' (B.107), 'Sweet' (B.241) and also 'Sweetest' (B.341). 16' Cf. Ehrenberg, 173. See also Ch 3. 165 Ehrenberg, 172. 166 Lewis (1959) , 229. -112- Joss Furthermore, the name 'Sosias' (B.012), although originally a name for freepersons as well, came to be used in comedy exclusively and commonly for slaves.167 This was also apparently the case in reality, since ^Sosias' ranks as the most common slave name on the Manumission Stele, occurring a total of nineteen times on epigraphical documents. Ehrenberg, 172. -113- Joss BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS CITED Aristophanes, The Clouds, The Knights, The Wasps, ed. Loeb, trans. Rogers; Harvard University Press,.Cambridge, 1960. - The Frogs, ed. Loeb, trans. Rogers; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1961. Aristotle, Athenian Politics, ed. F.G. Kenyon; Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1958. - Politics, ed. Loeb, trans. Rackham; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1959. - Rhetoric, ed. Loeb, trans. Rackham; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1953. Babler, Balbina. rev. of The Athenian Nation by Edward E. Cohen. Bryn Maw Classical Review 2001.05.19 (2001). <http://ccat. sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2001/2001-05-19.html> Burford, Alison, Craftsmen in Greek and Roman Society; Thames and Hudson, London, 1972. Chadwick, John, The Mycenaean World; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1976. Cohen, Edward E., The Athenian Nation; Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2000. Demosthenes, Private Orations: VI, ed. Loeb, trans. Murray; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1956. Ehrenberg, Victor, People of Aristophanes; Shocken Books, New York, 1962. Finley, M.I., Land and Credit in Ancient Athens; Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, 1951. Fischer-Hansen, Tobias, "Eragasteria in the Western Greek World," Polls and Politics: Studies in Ancient Greek History; edd. P. Flensted-Jensen, T.N. Nielsen and L. Reubinstein, Copenhagen, 2000. Flaceliere, Robert, Daily Life in Greece; The MacMillan Company, New York, 1965. -114- Joss Garlan, Y., Slavery in Ancient Greece; Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1988. Garland, Robert, The Piraeus; Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd., London, 1987. Gomme, A.W., The Population of Athens in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC; Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1933. Hansen, M.H., Demography and Democracy; P.J. Schmidt A/S, Copenhagen, 1985. Harding, Ph., "Metics, Foreigners or Slaves? The Recipients of the Honours- in IG imo," ZPE LXVII, 176-82; 1987. - "Athenian Defensive Strategy", Phoenix XLII, 68; 1988. - "Athenian Foreign Policy," Klio LXXVII, 108; 1995. Harrison, A.R.W., The Law of Athens; Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1968. Herodotos, Histories, ed. Loeb, trans. Godley; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1963. Homer, Iliad, ed. Loeb, trans. Murray; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1963. Hopkins, Keith, "Slavery in Classical Antiquity," Caste and Race: Comparative Approaches, 166-77; 1967. Isager, S. and Hansen, M.H., Aspects of Athenian Society in the Fourth Century BC; Odense Universitetsforlag, Odense, 1975. Isocrates, Isocrates, ed. Loeb, trans. Norlin; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1962. Jameson, M.H., "Agriculture and Slavery in Classical Athens," CJ 73, 122-45; 1977/78. Kantor, H.J., "The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millenium B.C.," AJA li. 1, 58f; 1947. Killen, J.T., "The Wool Industry of Crete in the Late Bronze Age," ABSA LIX, 1-15; 1964. -115- Joss Kirchner, Johannes, Prosopographia Attica, vol. i-ii; Berlin, 1901-03. - Inscriptiones Graecae: Editio Minor; Berlin, 1927. Krentz, Peter, "Foreigners Against the Thirty: IG 22 10 Again", Phoenix XXXIV, 298-306; 1980. Lewis, D.M., "When Was Aeschines Born?", CR NS VIII, 108; 1958. - "Attic Manumissions," Hesperia XXVIII, 208-238; 1959. - "Dedications of Phialai at Athens," Hesperia XXXVII, 368-9; 1968. Liddel and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, ed. vii; Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1997. Lysias, Lysias, ed. Loeb,. trans. Lamb, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1967. MacDowell. D.M., The Law in Classical Athens; Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1978. Middleton, David F., "Thrasyboulos' Thracian Support", CQ XXXII, 298-303; 1982. Osborne, M.J., "Attic Citizenship Decrees," ABSA LXVII, 129-56; 1972. - Naturalization in Athens, vol.i-ii, Palais der Academien, Brussel, 1981-2. Osborne, M.J. & Byrne, Sean G., A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, vol. ii, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1994. - The Foreign Residents of Athens; Peeters, Leuven, 1996. Plato, Ion, ed. Loeb, trans. Fowler; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1962. - Laws, ed. Loeb, trans. Bury; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1961. Poland, Frans, Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesen; Leipzig, 1909. -116- Joss Randall, Richard, "The Erechtheum Workmen," AJA LVII, 199-210 1953. Reilly, LX.C, Slaves in Ancient Greece; Ares Publishers Inc, Chicago, 1978. Rhodes, P.J., Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia; Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1981. Smyth, Herbert Weir, Greek Grammar; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1920. Thucydides, Thucydides, ed. Loeb, trans. Smith; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1962. Tod, C.S., The Shape of Athenian Law; Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1993. Tod, Marcus, N., "Epigraphical Notes on Freedmen's Professions," Epigraphica XII, 3-26; 1950. Traill, John S., "The Political Organization of Attica," Hesperia Suppl. XIV; 1975. - Demos and Trittys; The Coach House Press, Toronto, 1986. Valmin, Natan, Fouilles de Delphes: Les Inscriptions du Theatre; Ecole Francaise d'Athenes, Paris, 1939. Westermann, W.L., "Two Studies in Athenian Manumission," JNES V, 93-99; 1946. r -Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity; The American Philological Society, Philadelphia, 1955. Whitehead, David, The Ideology of the Athenian Metic; The Cambridge Philological Society, Cambridge, 1977. Williams, James Maddox, Athens Without Democracy: The Oligarchy of Phocion and the Tyranny of Demtrius of Phalerum, 322-307 B.C., Diss. Yale University, 1982. Ann Arbor: UMI, 1983. 8310530. Xenophon, Hellenica, ed. Loeb, trans. Brownson; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1961. - Memorabilia, Oeconomicus, ed. Loeb, trans. Marchant; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1959. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0090432/manifest

Comment

Related Items