The suggestions of Chapter 3 obviously have some bearing on other early Greek lists. I can only outline some points here which need further development.

What we can suggest from the anthropological studies discussed in Chapter 3.2 is that we could well expect one of the earliest uses of writing to be the recording of lists. Those in the religious sphere (e.g. sacred laws, calendars) might be the first (Ch. 1.1). The aims of such lists might not be the ones we tend to àssume: the initial incentive need not have been preoccupation with dating by officials. Given the continuing use of memory even where written documents did exist (Ch. 1.2), we cannot assume that there must be written lists where there are eponymous officials – especially since eponymous officials are mnemonic aids in themselves. But once lists are started, such dating would be easier (cf. Jeffery (1976), 34–6, and LSAG 59ff. on use of early lists for dating, and below). We have already seen striking examples where documents are not used for the documentary purposes we would expect (Ch. 1.2.2). Nor should we be surprised to find bare lists without any comment at all (Jacoby, Atthis 58f stresses bareness; contrast surprise of ML no. 6, p. 10).

That applies to the keeping of lists with each successive official. But what about the earlier reaches of the lists which correspond to periods before they were kept in writing? There was much room here for speculation and manipulation.