² Epigraphical evidence is at least as prominent as literary evidence in Whitehead, D., The Demes of Attica 508/7—ca.250 B.C.: A Political and Social Study (Princeton, 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for his evaluation of the various sources see Ibid. 39–55. For my views on Kleisthenes see especially ‘The tribal reform of Kleisthenes the Alkmeonid’, Chiron, 14 (1984), 1–41; Athenian Politics c.800–500 B.C. (London, 1990), ch. 5; and ‘The trittyes of Kleisthenes’, Chiron, 24 (1994), 161–207.

³ See e.g. Langdon's reports on rock-cut inscriptions and drawings in Lavreotiki, in ‘The farm of Timesios: rock-cut inscriptions in south Attica’ (with L. V. Watrous), Hesp. 46 (1977), 162–77Google Scholar; ‘some inscriptions in Lavreotiki, southern Attika’, AAA 11 (1978 [1980]), 108–15; ‘The grave of Posthon at Sounion’, Hesp. 54 (1985), 145–8; and ‘Two hoplite runners at Sounion’, Hesp. 60 (1991), 309–12; around Vari, and Vouliagmeni, in ‘The ΖΩ/ΒΑ horoi at Vari in Attica’, GRBS 29 (1988), 75–81Google Scholar, and ‘The topography of Coastal Erechtheis’, Chiron, 18 (1988), 43–54; and on the foothills of Hymettos in ‘Hymettiana I’, Hesp. 54 (1985), 257–70.

⁴ Lohmann, H., Atene/Ἀτήνη: Forschungen zu Siedlungs- und Wirtschaftsstruktur des klassischen Attika (Cologne, 1993), i. 54, ii. 447–8Google Scholar; cf. Hellenika: Jahrbuch für die Freunde Griechenlands (1983), 98–117 at 99–100.

⁵ See for earlier summaries Stanton, G. R., ‘some Attic inscriptions’, BSA 79 (1984), 289–306 at 301–5Google Scholar, and ‘The rural demes and Athenian politics’, in Coulson, W. D. E. et al. (eds), The Archaeology of Athens and Attica under the Democracy (Oxbow Monographs, 37; Oxford, 1994), 217–24 at 221–2.Google Scholar

⁶ For the idea of a commission see Andrewes, A., ‘Kleisthenes' reform bill’, CQ, NS 27 (1977), 241–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Stanton, ‘The tribal reform’ (n. 2), 3.

⁷ Young, J. H., ‘Studies in South Attica: country estates at Sounion’, Hesp. 25 (1956), 122–46 at 124–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Langdon and Watrous (n. 3), esp. 163 fig. 1, 175–7; Goette, H. R., ‘Die Steinbrüche von Sounion im Agrileza-Tal’, AM 106 (1991), 201–22 at 207 fig. 2.Google Scholar I am grateful to Dr Goette for sending me offprints of this and other articles, as well as copies of articles in advance of publication. Photograph of second threshing-floor: Lohmann, Atene (n. 4), pl. 82. 2.

⁸ Goette, H. R., ‘Αγρόϰτημα ϰλασιϰών χρόνων στην Σούριζα (Λαυρεωτιϰή)’, in Doukellis, P. N. and Mendoni, L. G. (eds), Structures rurales et sociétés antiques: Actes du colloque de Corfou, 14–16 mai 1992 (Annales littéraires de l'Université de Besançon, 508; Paris, 1994), 133–46Google Scholar; full publication is forthcoming in ‘Studien zur historischen Landeskunde Attikas, III: Sounion III’, AM 110 (1995). The main building and the threshing-floor (interpreted as a reservoir) are marked in Konofagos, K. E., Το αρχαίο Λαύριο (Athens, 1980), 240 fig. 10. 25.Google Scholar Goette sees two (and only two) similar settlements in the deme, at the ‘Cliff Tower’ and the ‘Princess Tower’ (both, he believes, belonging to Timesios: see Goette (n. 7), 209 n. 24, and ‘Neue attische Felsinschriften’, Klio, 76 (1994), 120–34 at 134). For these two sites see Young (n. 7), 122–6, and Goette, ‘Neue attische Felsinschriften’, 133–4 and fig. 10 on p. 129. In addition to Konofagos's important book, works dealing with mining in this area are: É. Ardaillon, , Les Mines du Laurion dans l'antiquité (Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d'Athènes et de Rome, 77; Paris, 1897)Google Scholar; Hopper, R. J., ‘The Laurion mines: a reconsideration’, BSA 63 (1968), 293–326Google Scholar; Kalcyk, H., Untersuchungen zum attischen Silberbergbau: Gebietsstruktur, Geschichte und Technik (Europäische Hochschulschriften, iii. 160; Frankfurt a.M., 1982)Google Scholar; id., ‘Der Silberbergbau von Laureion in Attika’, Antike Welt, 14.3 (1983), 12–29; Jones, J. E., ‘The Laurion silver mines: a review of recent researches and results’, G&R ² 29 (1982), 169–83Google Scholar; id., ‘Laurion, Agrileza, 1977–83: excavations at a silver-mine site’, AR 31 (1984–5), 106–23; Photos-Jones, E. and Jones, J. E., ‘The building and industrial remains at Agrileza, Laurion (fourth century BC) and their contribution to the workings at the site’, BSA 89 (1994), 307–58.Google Scholar

⁹ See Kordhellas, A., ‘Λαυρεωτιϰαὶ ἀρχαιότητες’, AM 19 (1894), 238–44Google Scholar, with further directions to the site by P. Wolters at 244–7. See also Lauter, H., ‘Das Teichos von Sunion’, in Lauter et al., Attische Festungen: Beiträge zum Festungswesen und zur Siedlungsstruktur vom 5. bis zum 3. Jh. v. Chr. (Attische Forschungen, 3 = Marburger Winckelmann-Programm 1988; Marburg, 1989), 11–33 at 26–7.Google Scholar New deme documents continue to be published. A. G. Kaloyeropoulou published an inscription with τ]Οῖς δημὸταις in line 9, possibly from Sphettos: ‘Fragment from a decree of an Attic deme’, Ancient World, 13 (1986), 3–5. Matthaiou, A. P. published the first known decree jointly passed by two demes: ‘Ψήφισμα Κυδαντιδῶν ϰαὶ Ἰωνιδῶν’, hόρος, 7 (1989), 7–16Google Scholar with pl. 1. U. Linnemann published a fragmentary inscription seen by many people in the northern wall of the church of the Panaghia at Thiti with, he believed, references to δῆμ[ος - - -] and Λαμπ[τραὶ- - - ] ‘Ein unbekanntes Demendokument der attischen Landgemeinde Lamptrai’, AA (1993), 101–9 with fig. 3. However, in ‘studien zur historischen Landeskunde Attikas, IV: Der Hügel der Panagia Thiti bei Vari und seine Inschriften’, forthcoming in AM 110 (1995), H. R. Goette argues that there is no tau-rho ligature as claimed by Linnemann in the left-hand column, which should be read [- - -]πται and that the inscription comes from a family grave monument (Δημ[- - - ] will thus be a name—possibly a patronymic?).

¹⁰ Goette, H. R. will publish the results of his survey in ‘studien zur historischen Landeskunde Attikas, I: Sounion I’, AM 110 (1995)Google Scholar, and in a forthcoming book. H. Lauter claims that the only ‘town-like’ settlement in the deme is to be found within the garrison: Lauter (n. 9), 26.

¹¹ Thompson, H. A., ‘Note on the identification of the property of the Salaminians at Sounion’, Hesp. 7 (1938), 75–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar (cf. [La Rédaction, ], ‘Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques dans l'Orient hellénique (novembre 1922-novembre 1923)’, BCH 47 (1923), 498–544 at 510)Google Scholar; Osborne, R. G., Demos: The Discovery of Classical Attika (Cambridge, 1985), 31 and map 4 (on 30)Google Scholar; Goette, ‘Neue attische Felsinschriften’ (n. 8), 129 fig. 10.

¹² As Lauter points out, P. Wolters in 1894 did not want to accept an inexplicable removal of the stone for a distance, and therefore concluded that one must situate the agora of Leukios at a considerable distance from the garrison of Sounion: in Kordhellas (n. 9), 245, cited by Lauter (n. 9), 26. Lauter (Ibid. 27) believes that the stone was carried off in modern times. He pointed (Ibid. 26 n. 67) to the removal of IG ii² 1175 some 15 km to a chapel, but the dimensions of this stone, known only from a transcript by Fourmont, are unknown. He has to admit that there is no association in the case of IG ii² 1180 with the building of a church or chapel. Moreover, Wolters (244–6) was firm in attributing the slagheap beneath which the decree lay buried to the second period of mining, in ancient times. The mining company removed and reprocessed ancient slag-heaps (Ibid. 241), not 19th-cent. ones.

¹³ Of course, if one wanted marble slabs for a building and was prepared to quarry for them, there are ancient quarries much closer to the upper Agrileza valley: see, most recently, Goette (n. 7), 201–22.

¹⁴ Osborne, R. G., ‘The demos and its divisions in classical Athens’, in Murray, O. and Price, S. R. F. (eds.), The Greek City from Homer to Alexander (Oxford, 1990), 265–93 at 279–85 with appendices A and B (287–93).Google Scholar

¹⁵ In a future study S. Diamant plans to argue that, until Athens took decisive control in the early 5th cent., Sounion might be considered more as a pan-Saronic Gulf sanctuary for all sailors to propitiate Poseidon than as an Athenian sanctuary, and that this would account for the richness of the votive offerings in the archaic period. The evidence is preserved in such reports as that by Staïs, V., ‘Σουνίου ἀνασϰαφαί’, Arch. Eph. (1917), 168–213Google Scholar, especially 189–213. B. S. Ridgway pointed to the location of the promontory as virtually an obligatory stop for all sailing traffic from the islands and the east to Athens; the use of Naxian stylistic features (it would have to be admitted that these are not actually attested until after the earliest kouros from Sounion) as well as Naxian marble in the Sounion kouroi; and the engraving of inscriptions directly on the body (cf. inscription 1 below) in the manner of Egyptian and Near Eastern sculpture: The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture ² (Chicago, 1993), 70.

¹⁶ Ergon (1981), 42. Petrakos had generously facilitated the study of leases at Rhamnous by Jameson, M. H., whose paper ‘The leasing of land in Rhamnous’ in Studies in Attic Epigraphy, History and Topography Presented to Eugene Vanderpool (Hesp. supp. vol. 19; Princeton, 1982), 66–74Google Scholar, is fundamental. Jameson noted (Ibid. 69) that ἐν ῾`Ερμει occurs for a different place in the lease IG ii² 1591, now reedited by Walbank, M. B., ‘Leases of sacred properties in Attica’, Hesp. 52 (1983), 100–35, 177–231 at 105 (= Agora, xix L6. 66).CrossRefGoogle Scholar The god Hermes is honoured at Sounion: Watrous (n. 3), 168–73; and Goette, ‘Neue attische Felsinschriften’ (n. 8), 133; note Osborne's joke: Osborne (n. 11), 32.

¹⁷ See already Jameson's comment (Jameson (n. 16), 66 with n. 2) on the stone and hand of the two texts as available to him. Jameson confirmed the single stele in ‘Agriculture and Greek inscriptions: Rhamnous and Amorgos’, in Kaloyeropoulou, A. G. (ed.), Πραϰτιϰὰ τοῦ Η Διεθνοῦς Συνεδρίου Ἑλληνιϰῆς ϰαὶ Λατινιϰῆς Ἐπιγραφιϰῆς, Ἀθήνα, 3–9 Ὀϰτωβρίου 1982, ii (Athens, 1987), 290–2 at 291Google Scholar: ‘Joins made since this Congress prove that 2493, 2494 and the new fragments belong to a single stele of 99 lines, containing leases for the two properties followed by a brief calendar of sacrifices.’

¹⁸ Cf. Peek, W., ‘Attische Inschriften’, AM 67 (1942 [1951]), 1–217 at 21 (on EM 4211, his no. 24)Google Scholar; Pouilloux, J., La Forteresse de Rhamnonte: étude de topographie et d'histoire (Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d'Athènes et de Rome, 179; Paris, 1954), 108 n. 2.Google Scholar Petrakos has added to the evidence by his announcement of a discovery at Rhamnous which indicates that IG ii² 1309 also belongs to Rhamnous and not Sounion: Ergon, 38 (1991), 5; see SEG xli. 248D.

¹⁹ Petrakos, V. H., ‘Ἡ ἐπιγραφιϰὴ τοῦ Ὠρωποῦ ϰαὶ τοῦ Ῥαμνοῦντος’, in Kaloyeropoulou, (n. 17), i (Athens, 1984), 309–38 at 336.Google Scholar

²⁰ Oikonomidhis, A. N., Σούνιον: ἀρχαιολογιϰὸς ὀδηγός (Athens, 1957), 7Google Scholar, had already questioned the attribution of the decree to the deme, as did D. Whitehead (Whitehead (n. 2), 389) before Petrakos's announcement was widely known. Whitehead wondered whether it might be a decree of the Athenian state. Lauter (n. 9) was obviously unaware of Petrakos's announcement when he wrote (26) that ‘offenbar stammt nur ein einziges Demendekret nichtmilitärischen Inhalts aus “Sunion”‘.

²¹ Pouilloux (n. 18), 107–10 no. 2. See also the summary of the changes to IG ii² 1181 at SEG xxxiv. 151.

²² Whitehead (n. 2), 389–90, 407; EM 8106; Plate 50.

²³ Whitehead (n. 2), 401–7, esp. 404–6. For the various corporate bodies publishing decisions at Rhamnous see Osborne (n. 14), 287–9. G. J. Oliver updates this and other lists in Appendix 1 of his Oxford D.Phil, thesis, entitled ‘The Athenian state under threat: Food, politics and the Athenian economy, 307–229 BC’ (Oxford, 1995).

²⁴ McCredie, J. R., Fortified Military Camps in Attica (Hesp. supp. vol. 11; Princeton, 1966), 91–2Google Scholar; cf. Young, J. H., ‘studies in South Attica: the Salaminioi at Porthmos’, Hesp. 10 (1941), 163–91 at 165, 184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁵ Whitehead (n. 2), 406.

²⁶ Ibid. 407. The same is true in another ‘decretum militum qui Sunii in statione erant’ found lying on the surface inside the fort by H. R. Goette in 1994. It is dated to the arkhonship of Mnesidemos, known from Dionysios of Halikarnassos (Deinarkhos, 9) to belong in 298/7 BC. Goette suggests assigning IG ii² 1270 to the same arkhonship by supplementing Μνησι]δὴμΟυ rather than Πειθι]δὴμΟυ in line 1. See ‘Studien zur historischen Landeskunde Attikas, II: Sounion II’, forthcoming in AM 110 (1995). Other phraseology in the inscriptions listed by Whitehead (e.g. 1300. 17–19, 1302. 3, 10–11) points to the Athenians stationed in the garrison as their instigators. There are parallels between ii² 1260 and the five other inscriptions published at the same time by Staïs, (‘Ἀνασϰαφαὶ ἐν Σουνίῳ’ Arch. Eph. (1900), 113–50 at 131–50).Google Scholar For example, concern for the soldiers (1260. 22–4 ἐπι]μεμὲληται . . . [στρ]ατιωτῶν) is seen also in IG ii² 1270. 14–16 (διχαιοσὺ[νη]ς ἣν ἒχων διατελεῖ περὶ τε . . . χαὶ τοὺς στρατιὼτας ) As indicated below, mercenaries seem to be mentioned in both inscriptions (1260. 3, 1270. 7). Another 3rd-cent. inscription from Sounion, IG ii² 2857, a dedication by Theomnestos, who was general for the coastal countryside in the arkhonship of Menekrates (220/19 BC)—so also ii² 1302—is cut in the same style (‘pointillist’) as ii² 1300 and 1308: see Tracy, S. V., Attic Letter-cutters of 229 to 86 B.C. (Berkeley, 1990), 228 with 229 fig. 41.Google Scholar

²⁷ Sounion is mentioned in lines 8 and 22. It is natural to study this inscription with the supplements by Wilhelm, A., Beiträge zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde (Sonderschriften des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien, 7; Vienna, 1909), 57–60 no. 46 (with photograph at 58 fig. 26)Google Scholar, which have been adopted in the Corpus. But it is salutary to use the far less adventurous text by Maier, F. G., Griechische Mauerbauinschriften, i (Vestigia, 1; Heidelberg, 1959), 110–12 no. 23.Google Scholar Maier points out, for example, that χατασταθεὶς if restored in line 10, would have a parallel in IG ii² 1281. 2 (Wilhelm here prints χειροτονηθεὶςὺπὸ τοῦ] δὴμου). See also SEG xix. 120.

²⁸ Staïs, V., Arch. Eph. (1900), 147 no. 5Google Scholar; Maier (n. 27), 110 (in the temple precinct). Osborne (n. 11), 35 with n. 60, speaks of up to five agoras: the one replaced by Leukios' donation, the one donated by Leukios, the hellenistic and Roman site excavated by the Second Ephoreia at Limani Pasa (Passolimani, Pascha Limani, etc.) (Salliora-Oikonomakou, M., ‘Αρχαία Αγορά στο Λιμάνι Πασά του Λαυρίου’, A. Delt. 34 (1979 [1986]), Mel. 161–73Google Scholar; cf. Konofagos (n. 8), 398), an agora on the neck of the Cape promontory (Thompson (n. 11), 75–6), and the one suggested by J. H. Young (n. 24). Only the epigraphically attested ones (the first two) are certainly to be identified as agoras of the classical period. The ‘agora in Koile’ (SEG xxi. 527) may be in Koile, not Sounion (so Osborne (n. 11), 35). Kakavoyiannis, E. H. identified it with the agora at Limani Pasa (‘Σουνιαϰά–Λαυρεωτιϰά’, A. Delt. 32 (1977 [1982]), Mel. 182–217 at 206–7).Google Scholar

²⁹ It is tempting to see a reference to state activity also in the allusion to a peripolarkhos being elected ‘by the demos’ in lines 9–10. However, it is not certain that such an officer commanded mercenaries as well as citizen soldiers in this period, as might be inferred from IG ii² 1193, where the peripolarkhos Smikythion is honoured for bringing a sufficient garrison to Eleusis; cf. Griffith, G. T., Greek Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World (Cambridge, 1934), 87–8Google Scholar, and Gomme, A. W., A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, iii (Oxford, 1956), 529.Google Scholar For a peripolarkhos in NW Greece in the late 3rd or early 2nd cent. BC who may have been a foreign mercenary see SEG xxxviii. 521 with Cabanes, P., ‘Recherches épigraphiques en Albanie: Péripolarques et peripoloi en Grèce du Nord-Ouest et en Illyrie à la période hellénistique’, CRAI (1991), 197–221, esp. 202–3, 209–10, 214, 220–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Cabanes allows that Athenian peripolarkhoi could command mercenaries as well as citizens (210–13). See also SEG xli. 1747 and, for new evidence concerning peripolarkhoi in 4th-cent. Athens, xli. 148–150.

³⁰ EM 8099; Plate 51. The inscription occupies only the top third of the stone. The nu at the beginning of line 17 and the iota at the beginning of line 18, restored by all previous editors, can in fact be read on the stone.

³¹ Maier (n. 27), III, retains Staïs's τῆς and rejects Wilhelm's ἂ]λης and thus reads ‘the whole of the paralia’.

³² Wilhelm (n. 27), 57–60. Dinsmoor, W. B., The Archons of Athens in the Hellenistic Age (Cambridge, Mass., 1931), 175–6, placed the inscription much later, after 247 BC.Google Scholar

³³ Ergon, 40 (1993), 7. The cutter of IG ii² 1262 is studied along with others in Tracy, S. V., Athenian Democracy in Transition: Attic Letter-cutters of 340 to 290 BC (Berkeley, 1995), 39 n. 20, 136–49.Google Scholar

³⁴ I do not have much progress to offer on the reading of ii² 1260 (EM 8106). The lettering is more worn on the right edge than when first published. The sigma in line 1, read by Wilhelm and adopted by Michel, C. (Recueil d'inscriptions grecques: Supplément (Paris, 1912), 83 no. 1518)Google Scholar and J. Kirchner (in IG ii²), is confirmed. Garlan, Y. (‘Études d'histoire militaire et diplomatique’, BCH 93 (1969), 152–61 at 158–9 d)CrossRefGoogle Scholar corrected the text of Wilhelm, accepted in the Corpus, of line 12 to Ν τῶν ἐν τε῀ι Χὼραι χαὶ In line 24 a dotted rho might be read at the beginning of the preserved portion. Maier (n. 27), III, described the decree as a garrison inscription.

³⁵ Because this is ‘undoubtedly … the demotic’, Raubitschek, A. E. (Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis: A Catalogue of the Inscriptions of the Sixth and Fifth Centuries B.C. (Cambridge, Mass., 1949), 472)Google Scholar preferred to date the two inscriptions at the end of the 6th cent. BC. On the kouroi from votive contexts at Sounion see Ridgway (n. 15), 69–70.

³⁶ Jeffery, , LSAG ²73–4Google Scholar. For an example of an inscribed torso from the Ptoion in Boiotia see Holleaux, M., ‘Fouilles au temple d'Apollon Ptoos: torse archaïque’, BCH 10 (1886), 269–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar with BCH 11 (1887), pls 13–14. For two kouroi from Samos where the inscription is cut into the marble statue itself see Kyrieleis, H., ‘Neue archaische Skulpturen aus dem Heraion von Samos’, in Kyrieleis, (ed.), Archaische und klassische griechische Plastik: Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums vom 22.–25. April 1985 in Athen (Mainz am Rhein, 1986), i. 35–45Google Scholar, and Floren, J. in Fuchs, W. et al. Google Scholar, Die griechische Plastik, i. Die geometrische und archaische Plastik (Munich, 1987), 350Google Scholar with n. 31 and pl. 30. 5, 353 with n. 41 and pl. 30. 6.

³⁷ 0.047 in the Corpus repeats a typographical slip, from Papathanasopoulos, G., “Σούνιον Ἱρόν”: Συμβολή στήν ἐξέταση τῶν ϰούρων τοῦ ἱεροῦ ϰαί στή διερεύνηση τοῦ προβλήματος τῆς παλαιότερης ὑπαιθρίς λατρείας στό Σούνιο (Athens, 1983), 42.Google Scholar

³⁸ Staïs, V., Arch. Eph. (1917), 203 fig. 14.Google Scholar See also pl. 12 in Papathanasopoulos (n. 37) with the drawings and discussion at 40–3, 68–9. Note also his indication of the curve of a rho in the second-last letter-space (see below) of the first line in the drawing on p. 43.

³⁹ J. Bousquet, as reported in a postscript to the article by Picard, G., ‘L'hérôon de Phrontis au Sounion’, RA ⁶ 16 (1940), 5–28 at 28.Google Scholar Picard argued that a heroon of Phrontis was to be located in an enclosure on the eastern wall of the citadel. H. Abramson accepted the inference from the Homeric account of the hero's death near the Cape (Od. iii. 278–83) that Phrontis should have a sanctuary at Sounion, but rejected Picard's identification of it; he proposed a temenos (the ‘small temple’ of Athene) 8.5 m north of the Athene temple as the shrine of Phrontis in the classical period: ‘A hero shrine for Phrontis at Sounion?’, CSCA 12 (1979), 1–19. Abramson relied on the Homeric passage and the Protoattic plaque from the sanctuary of Athene, and made no reference to what Picard (in the postscript) saw as explicit naming of Phrontis.

⁴⁰ Papathanasopoulos (n. 37), esp. 69 fig. 12.

⁴¹ Oikonomidhis (n. 20), 42. His supplementation of the other fragment (line 4) as [- - - - - Πατρὶ] Θεο῀ν is preferable to C. Picard's attempt (Picard (n. 39), 28, after n. 3) to find a reference to the sanctuary of Phrontis (Φρον[τὶδι]) which might be expected from the Homeric account of the hero's death (n. 39 above). There seems to be nothing inscribed after the nu.

⁴² Including Kern himself; he also reads ἀργιχὲραυνος for the identical line in fr. 168. 1 (there the second half of line 5 reads Ζεὺς αὐτὸς ἀπὰντων ἀρΧιγὲνεθλος)

⁴³ Il. xix. 121; xx. 16; xxii. 178; Pindar, , Ol. viii. 5.Google Scholar W. L. Lorimer, however, preferred the reading of P and R, ἀρχιϰέραυνος, in his edition of the Aristotelian, On the kosmos (Paris, 1933), 99.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ West, M. L., The Orphic Poems (Oxford, 1983), 218–19.Google Scholar Cf. Kleanthes', Hymn to Zeus, 2, 7–14, 32 (SVF i. 537).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See ZPE 47 (1982), at end, supplementary p. 9; cf. West (n. 44), ch. 3.

⁴⁶ Papayiannopoulos-Paleos, A. A., ‘Πειραϊϰὴ ἀρχαιολογία’, Πολέμων, 7 (1958–1959), 26–64 at 54.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Cook, A. B., Zeus: A Study in Ancient Religion, ii (Cambridge, 1925) 1335Google Scholar; iii (1940) 1258.

⁴⁸ Ramsay, W. M., ‘Prymnessos and Metropolis’, AM 7 (1882), 126–45 at 135–6.Google Scholar The epithet is also applied to Zeus in Ael. Arist. Or. xliii. 8, 31 Keil. M. L. Lazzarini was thus mistaken in her claim that ἀρΧηγὲτης is not attested as an epithet of Zeus, : Le formule delle dediche votive nella Grecia arcaica (Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 8th ser., 19.2; Rome, 1976), 155.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Kyrene: Pindar, , Pyth. v. 60.Google Scholar Naxos in Sicily: Thuc. vi. 3. 1. Brauron: Ar. Lys. 644; title referring to Artemis, not Athene: Walbank, M. B., ‘Artemis Bear-leader’, CQ NS 31 (1981), 276–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁰ Respectively, Paus. x. 32. 12; Xen. Hell. vi. 3. 6; Ael. Arist. Or. xxiv. 50 Keil.

⁵¹ Lolling, H. G. (‘Bericht über Ausgrabungen in Rhamnus’, AM 4 (1879), 277–86 at 285–6)Google Scholar identified this priest as Xenokra [tes] son of [Xen]okrates of Rhamnous, named on an inscription found in the same trench, but I am assured that the latter inscription must be earlier (different letter-forms: unfortunately the letters cannot be discerned on pl. 55. 1 in Pouilloux (n. 18) ). For the discovery of a boundary stone of the ἣρως ἀρχηγὲτης at Rhamnous see Ergon (1991), 6 = SEG xli. 124, 248J.

⁵² See Pouilloux (n. 18), 142 no. 26 with pl. 54. 3; Lazzarini (n. 48), 276 no. 707; Petrakos, V. H., ‘Νέες ἔρευνες στὸν Ραμνούντα’, Arch. Eph. (1979 [1981]). 59 no. 7 With fig. 27 on 60Google Scholar; Hansen, P. A., Carmina epigraphica Graeca saeculorum viii–v a.Chr.n. (Texte und Kommentare, 12; Berlin, 1983), 169 no. 314.Google Scholar Pouilloux (loc. cit.) and Kearns, E., The Heroes of Attica (BICS supp. vol. 57; London, 1989), 93, remind us that the hero is nameless.Google Scholar

⁵³ Ps.-Arist. On the kosmos 401^a–b; Dio Chrys. i. 39–41; xii. 75–7 (μυρὶας ἂλλας ἐπιχλὴσεις in i. 39 and xii. 75).

⁵⁴ Realizing the lack of any published photograph, E. H. Kakavoyiannis added one (pl. 76) to his article (n. 28; see 189, 202, 204). Photographs of a squeeze (which are less clear, especially for the erasures) appear in Nemes, Z., ‘Some observations on the publications of the Attic demeinscriptions’, Acta classica Universitatis Scientiarum Debreceniensis, 20 (1984), 9–10 Pls 2–3.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Nemes (n. 54), 3–10 at 7.

⁵⁶ Threatte, L., The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions, i (Berlin, 1980), 256.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Ibid. 189 (list of last examples of E = [e.]). Texts with only E for [e.], such as IG i³ 258, end about 378/7 BC (Ibid. 181–2).

⁵⁸ Ibid. 184.

⁵⁹ I note ἐν στὲλει λιθὶ[ν]ει in IG i³ 118. 35–6 alongside ἐν στὴληι λιθὶνηι in i³ 110. 22–3, both state decrees of 407 BC. Threatte (n. 56), 368, points to the resistance to analogy shown by λιθὶνει (for λιθὶνηι) as a sign that phonetically ηι was passing from [ε^.i] to [eⁱ]: ‘After 375 B.C. there is a continuous increase in EI at the expense of HI for ηι in all positions’ (Ibid. 369).

⁶⁰ Ad IG ii. 5 (Berlin, 1895), 297 no. 57a e; cf. Wolters in Kordhellas (n. 9), 246.

⁶¹ See further Davies, J. K., Athenian Propertied Families 600–300 B.C. (Oxford, 1971), 341.Google Scholar

⁶² The tracks to which I refer are marked on the fold-out maps at the end of Konofagos's book (n. 8) and on map 2 in Mussche, H. F., ‘Holzwege im Laurion’, in Mussche, (ed.), Studies in South Attica, ii (Miscellanea Graeca, 9; Gent, 1994), 77–95.Google Scholar

⁶³ See P. Wolters in Kordhellas (n. 9), 244–6; Langdon, ‘Two hoplite runners’ (n. 3); and Goette, ‘Neue attische Felsinschriften’ (n. 8), 130–3. The excavation dump is quite close to the mnema of Aiskhines inscription (no. 4) published by Goette.

⁶⁴ Konofagos (n. 8), 375–89.

⁶⁵ Langdon, ‘Some inscriptions in Lavreotiki’ (n. 3), 109–10 no. 3 with fig. 5.

⁶⁶ Jones, ‘Laurion, Agrileza, 1977–83’ (n. 8), 106–23; Photos-Jones and Jones (n. 8), 307–58.

⁶⁷ Young (n. 7), 126–7.

⁶⁸ Langdon, ‘Some inscriptions in Lavreotiki’ (n. 3), 109 no. 2 with fig. 4.

⁶⁹ Traill, J. S., Demos and Trittys: Epigraphical and Topographical Studies in the Organization of Attica (Toronto, 1986), 121.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Young (n. 7), 133–43; Pečírka, J., ‘Homestead farms in classical and hellenistic Hellas’, in Finley, M. I. (ed.), Problèmes de la terre en Grèce ancienne (Civilisations et sociétés, 33; Paris, 1973), 113–47Google Scholar; Nowicka, M., Les Maisons à tour dans le monde grec (Bibliotheca Antiqua, 15; Wroclaw, 1975)Google Scholar; Jones, J. E., ‘Town and country houses of Attica in classical times’, in Mussche, H. F. (ed.), Thorikos and the Laurion in Archaic and Classical Times (Miscellanea Graeca, 1; Gent, 1975), 63–136 at 116–19.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Ashton, N. G., Siphnos: Ancient Towers B.C. (Athens, 1991), esp. 26–31, 150–2.Google Scholar

⁷² Young (n. 7), 129–31. On the towers in the Agrileza valley see now Mussche (n. 62), 84–93.

⁷³ Kordhellas (n. 9), 238–44 with P. Wolters, Ibid. 244–7; cf. Stanton, ‘The tribal reform’ (n. 2), 20, and the discussion above, under no. 2. M. K. Langdon also continues to maintain this identification of the deme centre, despite the excavation of an apparent agora at Limani Pasa (M. Salliora-Oikonomakou (n. 28): Chiron, 18 (1988), 48 and n. 20; Hesp. 60 (1991), 311 n. 5, 312. Cf. Lauter (n. 9), 26–7.

⁷⁴ Konofagos (n. 8), 375–89. See above, no. 2 (also n. 63).

⁷⁵ Lauter, H., ‘Zwei Horos-Inschriften bei Vari: Zu Grenzziehung und Demenlokalisierung in Südost-Attika’, AA (1982), 299–315 at 314.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Stanton, ‘Some Attic inscriptions’ (n. 5), 298–303, 305.

⁷⁷ Traill (n. 69), 116–22; cf. my review in Gnomon, 63 (1991), 25–30 at 29.

⁷⁸ Ober, J., ‘Rock-cut inscriptions from Mt. Hymettos’, Hesp. 50 (1981), 68–77 at 73–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁹ Jones, J. E., Graham, A. J., and Sackett, L. H., ‘An Attic country house below the Cave of Pan at Vari’, BSA 68 (1973), 355–452Google Scholar, esp. 397–414 and the appendices by M. I. Gheroulanos and J. E. Jones (443–52); Jones, J. E., ‘Honey and hives of Hymettus: beekeeping in ancient Greece’, Archaeology, 29 (1976), 80–91.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Langdon, ‘Hymettiana I’ (n. 3), 258 with n. 4.

⁸¹ Langdon, writing before the publication of Traill's register of rupestral horoi, declined to view the Alepovouni horoi as part of a deme boundary: ‘I do not envision deme boundaries being so regular’ (Ibid. 259).

⁸² Ober, J., ‘Greek horoi: artifactual texts and the contingency of meaning’, in Small, D. B. (ed.), Methods in the Mediterranean: Historical and Archaeological Views on Texts and Archaeology (Mnem. supp. vol. 135; Leiden, 1995), 91–123Google Scholar, esp. 116, 119. Ober argues that ‘the horos is a marker of socially vital distinctions’ and that ‘the nature of the distinctions in question is contingent on a knowledge of changing and historically specific social codes’ (96). So with respect to the rupestral horoi of Attike he asks what distinction or set of distinctions was intended by the chiseller (115). He doubts that an identifiable referent can be found for the type of horos discussed in this section. In the process of rejecting the deme-marker explanation he describes his own hypothesis that the Alepovouni series marked a Roman bee preserve as ‘Simply a speculation’ (119). Ober feels that some of the subjectivity might be taken out of the debate ‘if there were independent textual authority pointing clearly to where we should look for deme-borders’ (121). I cannot offer such evidence for deme boundaries, but there is an intriguing reference to a ridge in a record of disputes over land allotted to the tribes Aigeis, and Aiantis, (Agora, xix. L8. 103–4).Google Scholar

⁸³ Traill (n. 69), 118; cf. id., ‘An interpretation of six rockcut inscriptions in the Attic denies of Lamptrai’, in Studies in Attic Epigraphy (n. 16), 162–71, esp. 168.

⁸⁴ Stanton, ‘The rural demes’ (n. 5), 217.

⁸⁵ Ober (n. 82), 119, mentions ‘imitation (e.g. by private individuals or by local officials)’ as a possible explanation of the physical evidence.

⁸⁶ Gnomon, 63 (1991), 29.

⁸⁷ Traill (n. 69), 117.

⁸⁸ Lauter (n. 75), 299–315. In a book published shortly after this report D. Koutsoyiannis does not refer to the OPOC or even to Kaminia, though he does discuss what he and the younger generation call ῾Λδφο του Σπετσιὼτη ᾿ (Παληὰ Βουλιαγμὲνη Vouliagmeni, Attiki, 1984), 132–3). Indeed, he seems not even to be aware in chapter 3 of the conclusions of Eliot, C. W. J. (Coastal Demes of Attika: A Study of the Policy of Kleisthenes (Phoenix supp. vol. 5; Toronto, 1962) )Google Scholar and his successors on the demes along the Saronic Gulf coast, for he includes in the run of demes Azenia rather than Atene between Anaphlystos and Sounion (41, 55).

⁸⁹ Langdon, ‘The topography of Coastal Erechtheis’ (n. 3), 43–54. The location of the two horoi is shown on fig. 1. The drawing and photograph of Langdon's no. 2 (figs. 2 and 3) can be compared with Lauter's photograph of no. 1 (= SEG xxxii. 230) at AA (1982), 302. See also the photograph of the OPOC discovered by Langdon with modern Vouliagmeni in the background in Goette, H. R., Athen–Attika–Megaris: Reiseführer zu den Kunstschätzen und Kulturdenkmälern im Zentrum Griechenlands (Cologne, 1993), pl. 16. 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar My surmise: ‘Some Attic inscriptions’ (n. 5), 299.

⁹⁰ Similarly, Langdon's OPOC is slightly to the west of this ridge. On Lauter (n. 75), 301 fig. 1, the new inscription is 3.2 cm to the left of the arrow pointing to the first OPOC discovered on this ridge, while the most northerly OPOC (as Langdon indicated) is 4.2 cm to the left.

⁹¹ Stanton, ‘Some Attic inscriptions’ (n. 5), 305: ‘The demesmen of Anagyrous (Vari) apparently found it necessary to draw a line along the barren ridge of Kaminia to remind the members of Halai Aixonides to keep to the area appropriate to their deme.’

⁹² Goette, ‘Neue attische Felsinschriften’ (n. 8), 120–4. Already in Athen–Attika–Megaris (n. 89), 151–2, Goette had announced that there were three inscriptions on the ridge. For the sanctuary see Lauter, H. and Lauter-Bufe, H., ‘Ein attisches Höhenheiligtum bei Varkiza’, in Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Werner Böser (Karlsruher Geowissenschaftliche Schriften, 2A; Karlsruher, 1986), 285–309.Google Scholar

⁹³ Goette interpreted the marker to the right of OPO as a lunate sigma cut with only two strokes (‘Neue attische Felsinschriften’ (n. 8), 123 with fig 5). He apparently did not notice the corresponding marker to the left of the letters, but it can just be seen on his fig 4.

⁹⁴ Published by M. K. Langdon (see n. 3 above).

⁹⁵ Papayiannopoulos-Paleos, A. A., Ἀρχαῖαι ἑλληνιϰαὶ ἐπιγραφαί (Athens, 1939), 75–6 no. 13Google Scholar, and ‘Ἀττιϰά’, Πολέμων, 3 (1947), 95–6; Peek (n. 18), 147–9 no. 322 with pl. 9. 1, esp. 148. On the oddities of this text (τερποννὸς for τερπνὸς etc.) see Threatte (n. 56), 408, 476; Hansen (n. 52), 246 no. 441. For an unlikely interpretation see Oikonomidhis, A. N., ‘An Etruscan in fifth century Athens (IG I² 923)’, Ancient World, 10 (1984), 127–8 (SEG xxxiv. 42).Google Scholar For a much later (2nd cent. CE) example of a wedge-shaped marker at the end of a line, on a funerary stele (Sparta Museum 7576), see Kourinou-Pikoula, E., ‘Ἐπιγραφὲς ἀπὸ τὴ Σπάρτη, II’, hόρος, 8–9 (1990–1991), 95–6 no. 4 with pl. 21. 2.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ The location of the Goettes' horos surely rules out H. Lauter's view that the boundary of the deme was marked all the way in an arc from the ΖΩ ι>OPO< ιBA inscriptions on Lathoureza along the ridge of Kaminia and east to the hill sanctuary above Varkiza: Lauter, H., Attische Landgemeinden in klassischer Zeit (Attische Forschungen, 4 = Marburger Winckelmann-Programm 1991 Marburg, 1993), 63–4 and n. 173, pl. 35.Google ScholarLangdon, M. K. has a more satisfactory explanation than this of the inscriptions on Lathoureza: GRBS 29 (1988), 75–81.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Langdon, ‘The topography of Coastal Erechtheis’ (n. 3), has recently re-iterated the strong case for identifying Vari as Anagyrous, not Coastal Lamptrai as Lauter (n. 75), 305–11, suggested. Lauter evidently felt the difficulty (cf. Langdon, op. cit. 48) that Anagyrous lacked a site: see his full discussion at Attische Landgemeinden (n. 96), 151–5, suggesting that Anagyrous be placed between Glifadha and Voula, where there is a modern placename Agyra.

⁹⁸ I have visited the ridge in different seasons (Feb. 1983, May and Nov. 1992, Oct. 1994).

⁹⁹ Jones (n. 70), 104–7; Osborne (n. 11), 24–6 with map 3 on p. 23. See, for reports since then, A. Delt. 36 (1981 [1988]), Chr. 48–53; 37 (1982 [1989]). Χρον. 54–8; 38 (1983 [1989]), Chr. 51–2; 39 (1984 [1989]), Χρον. 34–43; 40 (1985 [1990]) Chr. 54–66; and now I. Andreou in Coulson et al. (n. 5), 191–209.

¹⁰⁰ Langdon, ‘The topography of Coastal Erechtheis’ (n. 3). 44.

¹⁰¹ Eliot (n. 88), 63–4 with fig. 5 on 57; Traill (n. 83), 162–71; Lauter (n. 75), 299–315.

¹⁰² Stanton, ‘Some Attic inscriptions’ (n. 5), 300–1.

¹⁰³ Ibid.; Traill (n. 69), 118–19. Lauter, however, looks favourably on the explanation that IIM was an abbreviation for Pambotadai and is prepared to reject his earlier explanation and place Pambotadai at Thiti: Attische Landgemeinden (n. 96), 103–4. For a theory that Pambotadai is to be located in the north-east of Attike, near Pikermi, see Miller, S. G., ‘Pambotadai found?’, BCH 117 (1993), 225–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar, with my rejoinder in ‘The trittyes of Kleisthenes’ (n. 2), 186–7.

¹⁰⁴ Traill (n. 69), 118 n. 13; cf. id. (n. 83), 167 n. 17, and Lauter (n. 96), 103–4.

¹⁰⁵ Kopros also should be on the coast: see Honigmann, E., s.v. ‘Kopros’, RE xi.2. 1365Google Scholar; cf. Vanderpool, E., ‘New evidence for the location of the Attic deme Kopros’, Hesp. 22 (1953).CrossRefGoogle Scholar ‘75–6.

¹⁰⁶ Stanton, ‘some Attic inscriptions’ (n. 5), 301.

¹⁰⁷ Langdon, ‘The topography of Coastal Erechtheis’ (n. 3), 48.

¹⁰⁸ Mitsos, M., ‘Ἐϰ τοῦ Ἐπιγραφιϰοῦ Μουσείου’, A. Delt. 20 (1965), Μελ. 79–83 at 83Google Scholar; cf. Eliot (n. 88), 59 (site E); Lauter, H., ‘Zu Heimstätten und Gutshäusern im klassischen Attika’, in Krinzinger, F. et al. (eds), Forschungen und Funde: Festschrift Bernhard Neutsch (Innsbruck, 1980), 279–86 at 284Google Scholar; Langdon ‘The topography of Coastal Erechtheis’ (n. 3), 48 n. 21, 50 (‘The absence of appropriate habitation sites’ for Pambotadai and Kedoi in the coastal region of Vari-Lambrika).

¹⁰⁹ Vanderpool, E., ‘News letter from Greece’, AJA 59 (1955), 223CrossRefGoogle Scholar; BCH 79 (1955), 210; Eliot (n. 88), 58; Mitsos (n. 108), 80–3; Petropoulakou, M. and Pentazos, E., Ἀττιϰή (Ancient Greek Cities, 21; Athens, 1973), 104 no. 14Google Scholar; Lauter (n. 75). 313.

¹¹⁰ Lauter (n. 96), 93–6 and pl. 35; cf. Themelis, P. G., ‘Ἐπιτύμβια ἀπὸ τὶς Λαμπτρές’, AAA 8 (1975), 275–91.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Traill, by contrast, attributed the ‘very slight apparent widening of the tops of several strokes’ to weathering and denied the use of apices: Traill (n. 83), 168 n. 21.

¹¹² ‘studien zur historischen Landeskunde Attikas, IV’, AM 110 (1995), forthcoming.

¹¹³ IG ii² 1100. 1, as interpreted by Oliver, J. H., The Ruling Power (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 43.4; Philadelphia, 1953), 960–1Google Scholar; ii² 1368. 2; Avi-Yonah, M., Abbreviations in Greek Inscriptions (The Near East, 200 BC—AD 1100) (Supplement to The Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine, vol. 9; Jerusalem, 1940), 50Google Scholar; Robert, L., Hellenica, xi–xii (Paris, 1960), 384 and n. 2Google Scholar; Threatte (n. 56), 102; Ameling, W., ‘Der Archon Epaphrodeitos’, ZPE 61 (1985), 133 n. 1.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Stanton, ‘some Attic inscriptions’ (n. 5), 305. Since Traill in 1982 (n. 83) simply repeated E. Vanderpool's distances of 1961, I might mention that the distance between the road (near which was no. 1 in the series, before its destruction) and no. 2 is considerably less than the distance between nos. 2 and 3.

¹¹⁵ Traill (n. 69), 117, 119. Six inscriptions: Lohmann, H., in Wells, B. (ed.), Agriculture in Ancient Greece (Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen, 4th ser., 42; Stockholm, 1992), 29–57 at 29, 33.Google Scholar However, only five have been properly recorded: Lohmann, Atene (n. 4), i. 54–9, ii. 447–8 and pl. 67. I measured the overall length of no. 4 as 1.02 m in 1987. The length of 1.10 m in Hellenika (n. 4), 100, and Agriculture (above), 33, is corrected to 1.01 m in Atene, ii. 448.

¹¹⁶ Lohmann, Hellenika (n. 4), 99–100.

¹¹⁷ They are accepted as deme boundaries by Lohmann, H.: Hellenika (n. 4), 99Google Scholar; in Agriculture (n. 115), 33; Atene (n. 4), i. 55–7.

¹¹⁸ A date in the 4th cent, has already been accepted by Lohmann, H., Hellenika (n. 4), 100Google Scholar; Traill (n. 69), 118; Lohmann, , in Agriculture (n. 115), 51.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Lohmann, , in Agriculture (n. 115), 30Google Scholar; Atene (n. 4), i. 248, 253–6.

¹²⁰ Langdon, ‘some inscriptions in Lavreotiki’ (n. 3), 109 no. 2 with fig. 4.

¹²¹ Traill (n. 69), 117.

¹²² Ibid. 140.

¹²³ Langdon ‘some inscriptions in Lavreotiki’ (n. 3), 109–10 no. 3 with fig. 5.

¹²⁴ Traill (n. 69), 117, 120 and pls 16. 2 and 16. 3.

¹²⁵ The deme that controlled the valley to the south, which meets the modern road from Porto Raffi to Kouvara, is unknown.

¹²⁶ Identified as Konthylidai by Travlos, I. N., Bildlexikon zur Topographie des antiken Attika (Tübingen, 1988), 387 fig. 486Google Scholar; cf. Traill (n. 69), 129.

¹²⁷ Ober (n. 78), 73–7 with pl. 28. These four inscriptions were first reported in print by Culley, G. R., ‘The restoration of sanctuaries in Attica, II’, Hesp. 46 (1977), 282–98 at 290 n. 27CrossRefGoogle Scholar, then by Langdon, ‘Some inscriptions in Lavreotiki’ (n. 3), 110 n. 5.

¹²⁸ Stanton, ‘Some Attic inscriptions’ (n. 5), 302.

¹²⁹ Langdon, ‘Hymettiana I’ (n. 3), 257–60 with pls 70 a–b.

¹³⁰ Traill (n. 69), 119, raised the possibility of ‘a hill-top sanctuary shared by two demes’, but pointed out that it remains to establish the presence of the sanctuary.

¹³¹ It is tempting to think that this was the ‘Oros’ reported to SirGell, William as written ‘in large characters’: The Itinerary of Greece; Containing One Hundred Routes in Attica, Boeotia, Phocis, Locris, and Thessaly (London, 1819), 93.Google Scholar Most scholars have concluded that Gell was copying E. Dodwell, who refers to a hill near the monastery of Kesariani: cf. A Classical and Topographical Tour through Greece (London, 1819), i. 484–5. This view is supported by Gell's failure to mention the horos, as far as I can see, under ‘Athens to Hymettus’ or ‘Athens to Dodwellopolis’ in his notebook of 1805 (no. 1 as described by Woodward, A. M. and Austin, R. P., ‘Some note-books of Sir William Gell’, BSA 27 (1925–1926), 67–70).Google Scholar However, Gell allows 39 minutes to the hill with the horos and another 28 minutes to the monastery of Syriani (= Kesariani). This proportion of 10 : 7 is about right for Alepovouni. Moreover, Gell mentions the ‘Oros’ as on the top of the hill to the right when he is at ‘the metochi, or farmhouse, belonging to Syriani’. According to J. R. McCredie, the metochi belongs to the monks at Sirgiani: McCredie (n. 24), 51 n. 83. It is near the present Theological School of the University (see ibid, and McCredie, ‘Dodwellopolis: addendum to Fortified Military Camps in Attica’, in Studies in Attic Epigraphy (n. 16), 100).

¹³² Ober (n. 78), 74–5. Destruction presumed: Stanton, ‘Some Attic inscriptions’ (n. 5), 301 n. 67 (to update the directions therein: the buses [223, 224] now go further and one gets out at—naturally—παλαιὸ τὲρμα; from there go back to 2 Maïou, then turn left on to Irenis); Langdon, ‘Hymettiana I’ (n. 3), 257 n. 3.

¹³³ Stanton, ‘Some Attic inscriptions’ (n. 5), 305.

¹³⁴ The grotto above the inscription is marked as no. 7 on plan 26 in Pappas, A. A., Κολωνάϰι–Λυϰαβηττός. Ἐνας Σύντομος Ιστοριϰός Περίπατος στο Παρελθόν (Athens, 199).Google Scholar The modern road that terminates below the chapel of Aghios Georghios is shown on plans 26 and 27. Like plan 28, which shows quarries on Likavitos, neither of these plans indicates the points of the compass. For the comparative heights above sea level of Skhisti Petra, Aghios Gheorghios, Kefissos, Ilissos, and so on see plan 25.

¹³⁵ The Greek name was clearly in use in the early 19th cent. (see the reference to Wordsworth in n. 138), but the nickname ‘Froschmaul’ naturally appears on the Karten von Attika.

¹³⁶ Whereas today two roads separate them, quite recently Skhisti Petra was connected with Likavitos: see the large map in Judeich, W., Topographie von Athen ² (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, iii.2.2; Munich, 1931).Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Traill (n. 69), 119.

¹³⁸ Wordsworth, C., Athens and Attica: Journal of a Residence there (London, 1836), 60Google Scholar; cf. IG ii² 2521.

¹³⁹ Traill (n. 69), 117. Photograph: pl. 16. 1 and Stanton, ‘The rural demes’ (n. 5), 221 fig. 5.

¹⁴⁰ Traill (n. 69), 119. Very little information is available on the quarrying of Skhisti Petra (see Pappas (n. 134), 228), but drill-holes for explosives are evident on all sides of the rock.

¹⁴¹ Traill (n. 69), 119–20.

¹⁴² For a critique of this military theory see Stanton, ‘The trittyes of Kleisthenes’ (n. 2), 164–9.

¹⁴³ Honigmann, E., s.v. ‘Κυδαθηναιείς oder Κυδαθήναιον’, RE xi.2. 2302.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ Traill (n. 69), 117, 120.

¹⁴⁵ n. 4 above.

¹⁴⁶ Traill (n. 83), 168.

¹⁴⁷ Traill (n. 69), 118.

¹⁴⁸ Goette, ‘Neue attische Felsinschriften’ (n. 8), 124–8 with figs. 7–9. It is difficult to imagine what the last word could be apart from a form of ὃριος One would expect ὲναι rather than εὶναι at this date (Ibid. 126 n. 15; cf. Threatte (n. 56), 172, 176–7).

¹⁴⁹ A start can be made with Thompson, W.E., ‘The deme in Kleisthenes' reforms’, Symbolae Osloenses, 46 (1971), 72–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lewis's, D. M. appendix to ‘The Athenian rationes centesimarum’ on eskhatiai in Problèmes de la terre (n. 70), 210–12Google Scholar; Langdon, M. K., ‘The territorial basis of the Attic demes’, Symbolae Osloenses, 60 (1985), 5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar; G. V. Lalonde's introduction to the horoi from the Athenian Agora in Agora, xix (5–21); and Rousset, D., ‘Les frontières des cités grecques: premières réflexions à partir du recueil des documents épigraphiques’, Cahiers du Centre G. Glotz, 5 (1994), 97–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar