GEI041
PDF
Translation:
[ - - - resolved] that the priest of Dionysos at the Dionysiac festival and the prytanis in the prytanic office and the sacred herald at the assemblies pray for prosperity also for the Association of the Artists of Dionysos (i.e. as well as for the city); to buy for them a parcel of land in the city or territory to the value of six thousand drachmas, and to proclaim as sacred the land bought, which the people have dedicated to the Association of the Artists of Dionysos, as being free of the taxes that the city imposes; to appoint two men, to buy property for referral to the people; in order that the money be available for the purchase, the treasurers in office are to give to the men to be appointed three thousand drachmas from the amount transferred from the fortification account, which was given for the payment of corn; let the incoming treasurers pay out the remaining three thousand drachmas from the first payments to be made to <the technitai> from the royal treasure for city administration; a stay of repayment is also to be granted to them for five years beginning in the month Leukatheon and the prytany of Metrodorus.
In order that all may be aware of the decrees of the people, this resolution and the <award of the> crown is to be engraved on a stone slab and set up by the temple of Dionysos. Also there is to be engraved on the side wall of the theater entrance this decree and <the award of> the crown. Let the treasurers in office make payment for the inscription of the crowns and decrees and the erecting of the slab; the delegates who have been appointed are to hand over this decree to the Artists of Dionysos and commend them for the goodwill, which they continue to display toward the people of Teos.
(These people) were appointed to purchase land: [ - - - ], son of Epitimides; Thersion, son of Phanes.
(Csapo and Slater, with modifications) Commentary:
This inscription concerns the granting of sacred land to the technitai of Dionysos in Teos and furnishes some details about the land purchase. We can compare OGIS 213, a Milesian decree which assigns to Antioch I the location where he will build the stoa promised to the city, specifying that the tamias will purchase that location (see especially ll. 16-20: probably, information about the fund for the purchase was furnished at the incomplete ll. 20-21); I.Magnesia 53, ll. 68-71 (decree from Klazomenai), where ξένια for theoroi who attend the festival of Artemis Leukophryene are financed by the tamias with the fund for the dioikesis (τῆς δὲ ἀποστολῆς | τῶν ξενίων ἐπιμεληθῆναι τοὺς στρατηγοὺς | καὶ τοὺς πολεμάρχας καὶ τὸν ταμίαν, τὸ δὲ ἀνά|λωμα δοῦναι τὸν ταμίαν ἐκ τῆς διοικήσεως). In the present inscription, the citizens charged to buy the land are distinguished from the tamiai, who are charged only to provide the money from several funds. In the Hellenistic Age, together with the progressive centralization of the city administration, the same magistrates were often charged to administer both public and religious expenses (Migeotte 2006b, passim: see for instance OGIS 267, ll. 5-6: the strategoi appointed by Eumenes I for the city of Pergamum administer [τάς τε κοινὰς τ]ῆς πόλεως καὶ τὰς ἱερὰς προσόδους); there were constant money transfers between public funds and religious ones (on these transfers see infra, commentary to ll. 16-18). In this context, we can understand why in this inscription the granting of sacred land to the technitai of Dionysos (a sacred association) is financed with funds for the city administration; compare I.Magnesia 98, ll. 63-67, where the psephisma about the feast and the sacrifice of a bull for Zeus will be financed by oikonomoi ἐκ τῶν πόρων ὧν ἔχουσιν εἰς πόλεως διο[ίκησιν] and be posited εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦ Διὸς εἰς τὴν παραστά|δα (compare the present inscription, ll. 23-24: the psephisma and the (award of the) stephanos will be inscribed εἰς τὴν παρ[α|στά]δα τοῦ θεάτρου). See infra, commentary to ll. 16-18.
Some graphic data (in particular the pi with short stroke) suggest a period between the 3rd and the 2nd century (Holleaux 1924, 25-26 n. 5). There are at least two references to Teos’ dependence on a Hellenistic king. The first one is at ll. 8-9: the technitai are exempted «from the tributes imposed by the city». This formula of limitation is typical in inscriptions from cities and communities which depend on someone else (see Jones 1971, 55-56; Rubinstein 2009, 115 and n. 1): cf. IG II2 1185; IG V 2 510 (IPArk 36r), ll. 2-4; CIG 2673b (I.Iasos 36r), ll. 2-4; 2677a (I.Iasos 45), ll. 8-11. The second one is a reference to some contributions from a royal treasure for city administration (ll. 16-18): the future participle reveals that these contributions were regular (Holleaux 1924, 25 n. 2). Therefore, the present inscription should be dated to a period of dependence on the Attalids. The kingdom of Pergamum dominated Teos during three periods (228-223, 218-201, 188-133). That Teos was included in the first conquest of Asia minor by Attalus I (228 BC) is certain from Polyb. 5.77.6: in 218, Attalus I reconquers Asia minor during Achaeus’ expedition against Selgae; Teos and Colophon restore the «former pacts» with him (Cardinali 1906, 93-95; Herrmann 1965, 102, with further bibliography; contra Walbank 1957-1979, ad loc., with not convincing objections). A third period of dependence began when, with Apamea peace, Eumenes received the tributes from those cities that had already paid tributes to Attalus (Polyb. 21.24.8; Liv. 37.55.6: see Cardinali 1906, 73-74, 81-88). That Teos paid tributes to Attalus is proved also by honorific inscription in Teos to Antioch III and Laodice (ll. 19-20, 33-34: see Herrmann 1965, 101-104). This inscription is dated between 205/4 and 202/1 (Herrmann 1965, 95-97). The privileges given by Antioch to Teos prove that the present document cannot be dated to the period of dependence on Philip V of Macedon and Antioch III (201-188).
The technitai mentioned in the inscription are surely the κοινόν of Ionia and Hellespont: they are cited for the first time in Syll.3 507, a honorific decree to this κοινόν by the Aetolians and the Delphian Amphictiony (227 BC). According to Strabo 14.1.29, the κοινόν took up residence in Teos, before it moved first to Ephesus, then to Lebedus for some contrasts with Teos (see Pickard-Cambridge 1968, 294; Aneziri, Techniten, 81; cf. I.Pergamon 163 = Aneziri, Techniten D12). The donation attested in this inscription is probably to be connected with the settling of technitai in Teos (Aneziri, Techniten, 179; cf. Rigsby, Asylia, 287). A consequence of this settling can be individuated in two honorific decree to Teos by the Aetolians and the Amphictiony (Syll.3 564, F.Delphes III.2 134 a-b), where Teos receives the ἀσυλία and all other honours «like the Artists of Dionysos», scil. oἱ τεχνῖται οἱ ἐπ’ Ἰωνίας καὶ Ἐλλησπόντου: the text is integrated according to copies from the temple of Dionysos in Teos, probably the same temple cited in the present inscription. The Delphian decree should be dated before 201 BC (see Colin in F.Delphes III.2, 135-136; cf. Herrmann 1965, 93-94); consequently, this inscription could be dated to the period of dependence on Attalus I, probably the second one (218-201).
However, John Ma has recently argued that the decrees of asylia conferred to Teos were consequent to the «consecration of Teos to Dionysos», to the asylia and to the exemption from tributes conferred to the city by Antioch III, as attested by the already-cited honorific decrees by Teos to Antioch and Laodice (SEG 41 1003, I, ll. 15-20). Ma is surely right when he thinks that the Cretan asylia decrees to Teos (Rigsby, Asylia 136-148) are consequent to the asylia conferred by Antioch (cf. Herrmann 1965, 134-136): Teos ambassadors to Crete were sustained by Hegesander of Rhodes, one of Antioch’s ambassadors. Even Rome conferred asylia to Teos with the mediation of another of Antioch’s ambassadors, Menippus (Syll.3 601: letter from the praetor peregrinus M. Valerius Messalla). These documents are similar to Teos’ decree for Antioch (see Ma 2004, 205-206 on the use of verb ἀνίημι). But in Aetolian and Delphian asylia decrees for Teos there is no mention of Antioch (a problem in Ma’s reconstruction: Ma 2004, 206). We can find a solution if we distinguish these decrees from the Cretan and Roman ones: in Aetolian and Delphian inscriptions, the asylia is due to the presence of technitai, not to the royal honours, which are probably later (these decrees have not the same verbal coincidences with Teos decree about Antioch as the Cretan ones). In addition to this, Cretan and Roman decrees should probably to be dated to the beginning of the 2nd century (Messalla is praetor peregrinus in 193: see Liv. 34.54-55), while Aetolian and Delphian decrees should be dated to the end of the 3rd century (see supra).
- l. 3. ἱεροκῆρυξ is a herald who makes announcements during festivals and religious ceremonies (cf. Milet I 3, Delphinion 145, ll. 36-40; I.Pergamon 246, OGIS 332, ll. 43-47; SEG 2 258, ll. 18-25; Syll.3 577, ll. 37-41).
- ll. 8-9. The complete name of the κοινόν is οἱ περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον τεχνῖται τῆς Ἰωνίας καὶ Ἑλλησπόντου: the use of the short name has no significance here, because in Teos the identity of the κοινόν would be clear. In some Magnesia inscriptions regarding the κοινόν (I.Magnesia 89, 94, 98) we find only the short form of the name. It is even possible that the complete formula was used at the beginning of the present document, now lost: cf. CIG 3067 (Le Guen, Technites 45), ll. 1-2, 5-6: the Ionian technitai are here connected with οἱ περὶ τὸν καθηγεμόνα Διόνυσον τεχνῖται; the cult of Dionysos Kathegemon was bound with the Attalid dynasty (on Dionysos and the Attalids, see Musti 1986; the union of these two κοινά is probably to be dated to the reign of Eumenes II: see Pickard-Cambridge 1968, 292). There is the same alternation between the long name and the short name in Aneziri, Techniten D 13 (see Robert , Ét.anat., 446 ff.) On the double name, see also Aneziri, Techniten, 71-80 (but it is not probable that it was the original name).
- l. 9. Rubinstein 2009, 115-116, distinguishes two types of ateleia, honorific and economic, bound to a particular activity (frequently conferred when there was a contract between the city and a person or a group). Some cases of honorary ateleia can even be considered as economic, conferred in order to make future financial contracts more accessible: analogously, in the present inscription the ateleia aims to strengthen the relationship between Teos and the κοινόν. Another type is the ateleia conferred to an entire group of citizens or another community: the ateleia conferred to κοινά such as the technitai are similar in some respects (among many examples, Rubinstein 2009, 132 n. 4, cites a decree concerning the Aetolian technitai κοινόν: IG IX2 1 136). Dionysiac κοινά were often looking for these types of honours in order to be protected during their journeys all around the Greek world (Csapo, Slater 1996, 240; cf. Syll.3 460; 399).
- l. 11. In Syll.3 578, ll. 21-23, another inscription from Teos, the expenses by the paidonomos and the gymnasiarchos have to be approved by the assembly (same formula: ἐπ’ ἀναφορᾶι τῆι πρὸς τὸν δῆμον).
- ll. 16-18. πόροι εἰς τὴν πόλεως διοίκησιν appear in order to finance honorific and religious expenses in I.Magnesia 89, ll. 84-86 (honorary decree for technitai); 94, ll. 10-11; 98, ll. 66-67; in an inscription from Colophon (Picard, Plassart 1913, 236-238), they furnish money for inscriptions ἔκδοσις (compare for instance, besides the Magnesia inscriptions, IG XII 5 653, ll. 61-63; 715, l. 9; 716, ll. 12-13; 717, ll. 11-12). The term διοίκησις refers here to a fund for city administration, divided among several necessities. It reveals a certain degree of economic centralization. However, in most cases, evidence does not provide clear indications about the organization of these funds. A high degree of centralization, attested in decrees which organize the total administration of a city (τὰ τῆς διοικήσεως ψηφίσματα), is generally rare and contested (Schuler 2005, and Rhodes 2007, are skeptical about the effective centralizatison affected by these nomoi or psephismata about dioikesis; more emphasis on the centralization in Migeotte 2006b, 389 n. 51). In the present case, the centralization is attested rather in the transfer of some money from one fund to another: the first half of money necessary for the estate is taken from the fund εἰς τὴν ὀχύρωσιν formerly transferred to the fund for the payment of the corn.
At a first glance, these funds seem distinguished from the central fund εἰς τὴν τῆς πόλεως διοίκησιν (Schuler 2005, 401). Rhodes 2007, 361, provides a better interpretation: «the king provided a grant towards the routine expenditure of the state, and that may have been kept in a single treasury, whose name we do not know, but alternatively it may have been apportioned among various funds by some kind of merismos / diataxis». Compare Miletus’ economic administration, with a high degree of centralization and special magistrates (ἀνατάκται) charged to the sharing of public expenses (ἀνάταξις); see Migeotte 2006a, 78-83; Migeotte 2006b, 382-383; on similar divisions in Athens and in the Hellenistic world, see again Rhodes 2007, 353-355, 358-359 (μερισμός in Athens: Arist. Ath. Pol. 48.1-2). In Miletus again we find a special fund for fortification (I.Delphinion 147, ll. 64-66), cited about another money transfer in order to finance the inscription: this transfer is here due to the assignment of the κατασκευὴ τῆς στήλης and ἀναγραφὴ τοῦ ψηφίσματος to the τειχοποιοὶ μετὰ τοῦ ἀρχιτέκτονος (ll. 62-64; cf. I.Delphinion 145, ll. 82-83). Another money transfers is attested in IG XII 5 1010, ll. 5-8 (from Ios, 3rd century BC): the money for an honorific garland has to be furnished by ὁ ἡγορακὼς τὸν σῖτ|ον τὸν δημόσιον from the money he has to give to the agoranomos.
In other cases, the existence of special funds besides the ones for general administration is surely attested: SEG 39 1243, col. V, ll. 52-53: ἀπὸ τῆς φυλακῆς καὶ τῆς διοικήσεως (Colophon honorary decree; this protection fund is similar to the fortification one in Teos; an analogous protection fund is attested in I.Kyme 12, ll. 3-4).
Teos’ fund for city administration (dioikesis) is cited even in the honorary decree for Antioch and Laodice (SEG 41 1003, II, ll. 19-21): the tamias assigns to the prostatai of the symoriai a part of the dioikesis according to a division plan (τοὺς δὲ ταμίας τοὺς ἑκάστοτε γιν[ομένους | διδό]ναι τοῖς τῶν συμοριῶν προστάταις τὸ ταγὲν ἐκ τ[ῆς διοι|κήσε]ως κ.τ.λ.). This passage concerns the expenses for sacrifices and feasts in honour of the king and the queen. Other attestations of Teos’ dioikesis fund are SEG 4 601, ll. 15-16 (decree to confirm the philia with Tyrus: here it finances the xenia sent to Tyrus by Teos’ tamiai); I.Magnesia 97, ll. 24-27 (it furnishes money for ambassadors’ ephodion).
It is very interesting that the notion of διοίκησις is connected with the royal contributions: the activity of benefactors, such as wealthy citizens with extraordinary administrative powers and, in Hellenistic times, kings, improved the economic centralization; vice versa, the centralization increased the power of the élites and of individual men (Xen. Hell. 6.1.2; see Schuler 2005, 390-391, 400-401; Migeotte 2006b, 385-387 and n. 31). In Pergamum too, Eumenes I, in order to reorganize the city administration, provided five strategoi, who were charged both to public and religious expenses (see supra, introductory note). On dioikesis, see in general the already cited Schuler 2005; Migeotte 2006a; Migeotte 2006b; Rhodes 2007. A survey of the inscriptions discussed in these four studies (some of which have been cited supra) is provided in SEG 55 1989.
βασιλικόν designates the royal contributions for city administration, distinguished from the πολιτικόν, the city treasure (I.Mylasa 201, ll. 8-9; OGIS 225, ll. 9-10, RC 18, ll. 13-14): from the future participle we can argue that these contributions were regular (cf. OGIS 229, 106-107, especially l. 7: τἆλλα ὅσα εἰώθει ἐκ βασιλικοῦ δίδοσθαι αὐτοῖς). Korragos’ inscription (SEG 2 663, I.Prusa 1001) cites royal contributions εἰς τὰ ἱερὰ καὶ πόλεως διοίκησιν (Holleaux 1924, 25 n. 3). Korragos is honoured because he asked the king to furnish these contributions (we do not know the name of the city of this inscription). Complete epigraphic documentation on βασιλικόν in Holleaux 1924, 37-38.
- ll. 22-23. The most ancient temple of Dionysos in Teos was the one by Hermogenes (Vitr. 3.3.6-8; see also 4.3.1; 7, praef. 12). The temple was destroyed during a quake in 14 BC and reconstructed by Augustus; a second reconstruction is attested in the 2nd century AD, probably after another quake (see Uz 1988). The temple cited here is that of Hermogenes: Teos’ excavations have not revealed the existence of former temples (Gros 1978, 694-695; contra Aneziri, Techniten, 178). The estate given to the κοινόν was surely distinguished from the temple ground: the estate had not been bought yet, so its location was indeterminate (l. 6: ἐν τῆι πόλει ἢ τῆι χώραι, cf. Aneziri, Techniten, 177).
- l. 26. The phrase structure is not very clear: it can be corrected with the genitive τῆς κατασκευῆς (cf. Syll.3 694, l. 34, cited in SEG apparatus), but we can also interpret τὴν κατασκευήν as an accusative of respect.
Bringmann, K. and H. von Steuben (1995), Schenkungen hellenistischer Herrscher an griechische Städte und Heiligtümer, Berlin
Cardinali, G. (1906), Il Regno di Pergamo, Roma
Csapo, E. and W.J. Slater (1996), The context of ancient drama, Oxford
Demangel, R. and A. Laumonier (1922), ‘Inscriptions d’Ionie’, BCH 46, 307-355
Gros, P. (1978), 'Le dossier vitruvien d’Hermogénès', MEFRA 98, 687-703
Herrmann, P. (1965), ‘Antiochos der Grosse und Teos’, Anadolu 9, 29-160
Holleaux, M. (1924), ‘Inscription trouvée a Brousse’, BCH 48, 1-57 (now in Holleaux, Études, II, Paris 1968, 73-125)
Jones, A.H.M. (19712), The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, Oxford
Ma, J. (2004), Antiochos III et les citées de l’Asie Mineure Occidentale, Paris
Meier, L. (2012), Die Finanzierung öffentlicher Bauten in der hellenistische Polis, Mainz
Migeotte, L. (2006a), ‘La planification des dépenses publiques dans les cites hellénistiques’, in B. Virgilio (ed.), Studi Ellenistici XIX, Pisa-Roma, 77-97
Migeotte, L. (2006b), ‘La haute administration des finances publiques et sacrées dans les cites hellenistiques’, Chiron 36, 379-394
Musti, D. (1986), 'Il dionisismo degli Attalidi: antecedenti, modelli, sviluppi', in L’association dionysiaque dans le sociétés anciennes. Actes de la table ronde organisée par l’École française de Rome (Rome 24-5 mai 1984), Roma, 105-128
Picard, C. and A. Plassart (1913), 'Inscriptions d’Éolide et d’Ionie', BCH 37, 155-246
Pickard-Cambridge, A. (19682), The Dramatic Festivals of Athens, Oxford
Schuler, C. (2005), ‘Die διοίκησις im öffentlichen Finanzwesen der hellenistischen Poleis’, Chiron 35, 387-403
Rhodes, P.J. (2007), ‘διοίκησις’, Chiron 37, 349-362
Ruge, W. (1934), s.v. ‘Teos’, RE, V.A1, cols. 560-564
Rubinstein, L. (2009), 'Ateleia grants and their enforcement in the classical and early hellenistic periods', in L. Mitchell and L. Rubinstein (eds.), Greek History and Epigraphy. Essays in honour of P.J. Rhodes, Swansea, 115-143
Uz, D.M. (1988), 'The Temple of Dionysos at Teos', in W. Hoepfner and E.-L. Schwandner (eds.), Hermogenes und die hochhellenistische Architektur, Mainz am Rhein, 51-61
Walbank, F.W. (1957-1979), A Historical Commentary on Polybius, 3 vols., Oxford Author: Stefano Fanucchi Last update: March 2017 DOI: 10.25429/sns.it/lettere/GEI041
Teos. Granting of land to the artists of Dionysos
[ - - - ]..[ - - - ]
[τὸν] ἱερέα το[ῦ Διονύσου ἐν τοῖς Διονυσί]οις καὶ [τὸν]
[πρ]ύτανιν ἐν τῶι πρυ[τανείωι καὶ τὸν ἱε]ροκήρυκα [ἐν]
[τ]αῖς ἐκλησίαις γίνεσθαι τἀγαθὰ καὶ τῶι κοινῶι τῶ[ν πε-]
5[ρὶ τ]ὸν Διόνυσον τεχνιτῶν· ἀγοράσαι δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ κ̣[τῆ-]
[μα] ἔγγεον ἐν τῆι πόλει ἢ τῆι χώραι ἀπὸ δρα(χμῶν) 𐅆Χ
[καὶ] προσαγορεύεσθαι τὸ ἀγορασθὲν κτῆμα ἱερὸν ὃ ἀν[έθη-]
[κε] ὁ δῆμος τῶι κοινῶι τῶν περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον τ[ε-]
[χ]νιτῶν, ὂν ἀτελὲς ὧν ἡ πόλις ἐπιβάλλει τελῶν· ἀ[πο-]
10δεῖξαι δὲ καὶ ἄνδρας δύο οἵτινες κτηματωνήσου[σιν]
[ἐ]π’ ἀναφορᾶι τῆι πρὸς τὸν δῆμον· ἵνα δὲ τὸ ἀργύριο[ν]
[ὑπ]άρχηι εἰς τὴν κτηματωνίαν, τοὺς ταμίας τοὺς [ἐ-]
[ν]εστηκότας δοῦναι τοῖς ἀποδειχθησομένοις δρα(χμὰς)
[Χ]ΧΧ ἐκ τοῦ μετενηνεγμένου ἐκ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ὀ[χυ-]
15[ρ]ώσεως ὃ δέδοται εἰς τὴν τιμὴν τοῦ σίτου· τὸ δὲ ὑπ[ο-]
[λι]πὲς δρα(χμὰς) ΧΧΧ δότωσαν οἱ εἰσιόντες ταμίαι ἐκ τ[ῶν]
[πρ]ώτων δοθησομένων αὐτοῖς ἐγ βασιλικοῦ εἰς τ[ὴν]
[τῆ]ς πόλεως διοίκησιν· δεδόσθαι δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐπο-
[χὴ]ν ἔτη πέντε ἀπὸ μηνὸς Λευκαθεῶνος καὶ πρυτ[άνε-]
20[ως] Μητροδώρου· ὅπως δὲ καὶ τὰ δόξαντα τῶι δήμ[ωι]
[πά]ντες εἰδῶσιν, ἀναγράψαι τόδε τὸ ψήφισμα εἰς [στή-]
[λη]ν λιθίνην καὶ τὸν στέφανον καὶ ἀναθεῖναι παρὰ
[τὸ]ν νεὼ τοῦ Διονύσου· ἀναγράψαι δὲ καὶ εἰς τὴν παρ[α-]
[στά]δα τοῦ θεάτρου τὸ ψήφισμα τόδε καὶ τὸν στέφαν[ον]·
25[τῆ]ς δὲ ἀναγραφῆς τῶν στεφάνων {Ι} καὶ ψηφίσματ[ος]
[καὶ τ]ῆς στήλης τὴν κατασκευὴν τὴν ἔγδοσιν π[ο-]
[ιείσθ]ωσαν οἱ ἐνεστηκότες ταμίαι καὶ τὸ ἀνάλωμ[α]
[δότ]ωσαν οἱ ἐνεστηκότες ταμίαι· τοὺς δὲ πρεσβ̣[ευ-]
[τὰς] τοὺς ἀποδεδειγμένους ἀποδοῦναι τὸ ψήφι[σ-]
30[μα τόδ]ε τοῖς περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον τεχνίταις καὶ ἐπ[αι-]
[νέσαι α]ὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τῆι εὐνοίαι ἣν ἔχοντες διατε-
[λοῦσι] περὶ τὸν δῆμον τὸν Τηΐων. ἀπεδείχθη-
[σαν κτ]ηματωνήσοντες (vac. )
[. 6.]Σ Ἐπιτιμίδου (vac. ) Θερσίων Φάνου.
[τὸν] ἱερέα το[ῦ Διονύσου ἐν τοῖς Διονυσί]οις καὶ [τὸν]
[πρ]ύτανιν ἐν τῶι πρυ[τανείωι καὶ τὸν ἱε]ροκήρυκα [ἐν]
[τ]αῖς ἐκλησίαις γίνεσθαι τἀγαθὰ καὶ τῶι κοινῶι τῶ[ν πε-]
5[ρὶ τ]ὸν Διόνυσον τεχνιτῶν· ἀγοράσαι δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ κ̣[τῆ-]
[μα] ἔγγεον ἐν τῆι πόλει ἢ τῆι χώραι ἀπὸ δρα(χμῶν) 𐅆Χ
[καὶ] προσαγορεύεσθαι τὸ ἀγορασθὲν κτῆμα ἱερὸν ὃ ἀν[έθη-]
[κε] ὁ δῆμος τῶι κοινῶι τῶν περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον τ[ε-]
[χ]νιτῶν, ὂν ἀτελὲς ὧν ἡ πόλις ἐπιβάλλει τελῶν· ἀ[πο-]
10δεῖξαι δὲ καὶ ἄνδρας δύο οἵτινες κτηματωνήσου[σιν]
[ἐ]π’ ἀναφορᾶι τῆι πρὸς τὸν δῆμον· ἵνα δὲ τὸ ἀργύριο[ν]
[ὑπ]άρχηι εἰς τὴν κτηματωνίαν, τοὺς ταμίας τοὺς [ἐ-]
[ν]εστηκότας δοῦναι τοῖς ἀποδειχθησομένοις δρα(χμὰς)
[Χ]ΧΧ ἐκ τοῦ μετενηνεγμένου ἐκ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ὀ[χυ-]
15[ρ]ώσεως ὃ δέδοται εἰς τὴν τιμὴν τοῦ σίτου· τὸ δὲ ὑπ[ο-]
[λι]πὲς δρα(χμὰς) ΧΧΧ δότωσαν οἱ εἰσιόντες ταμίαι ἐκ τ[ῶν]
[πρ]ώτων δοθησομένων αὐτοῖς ἐγ βασιλικοῦ εἰς τ[ὴν]
[τῆ]ς πόλεως διοίκησιν· δεδόσθαι δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐπο-
[χὴ]ν ἔτη πέντε ἀπὸ μηνὸς Λευκαθεῶνος καὶ πρυτ[άνε-]
20[ως] Μητροδώρου· ὅπως δὲ καὶ τὰ δόξαντα τῶι δήμ[ωι]
[πά]ντες εἰδῶσιν, ἀναγράψαι τόδε τὸ ψήφισμα εἰς [στή-]
[λη]ν λιθίνην καὶ τὸν στέφανον καὶ ἀναθεῖναι παρὰ
[τὸ]ν νεὼ τοῦ Διονύσου· ἀναγράψαι δὲ καὶ εἰς τὴν παρ[α-]
[στά]δα τοῦ θεάτρου τὸ ψήφισμα τόδε καὶ τὸν στέφαν[ον]·
25[τῆ]ς δὲ ἀναγραφῆς τῶν στεφάνων {Ι} καὶ ψηφίσματ[ος]
[καὶ τ]ῆς στήλης τὴν κατασκευὴν τὴν ἔγδοσιν π[ο-]
[ιείσθ]ωσαν οἱ ἐνεστηκότες ταμίαι καὶ τὸ ἀνάλωμ[α]
[δότ]ωσαν οἱ ἐνεστηκότες ταμίαι· τοὺς δὲ πρεσβ̣[ευ-]
[τὰς] τοὺς ἀποδεδειγμένους ἀποδοῦναι τὸ ψήφι[σ-]
30[μα τόδ]ε τοῖς περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον τεχνίταις καὶ ἐπ[αι-]
[νέσαι α]ὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τῆι εὐνοίαι ἣν ἔχοντες διατε-
[λοῦσι] περὶ τὸν δῆμον τὸν Τηΐων. ἀπεδείχθη-
[σαν κτ]ηματωνήσοντες (vac. )
[. 6.]Σ Ἐπιτιμίδου (vac. ) Θερσίων Φάνου.
[ - - - resolved] that the priest of Dionysos at the Dionysiac festival and the prytanis in the prytanic office and the sacred herald at the assemblies pray for prosperity also for the Association of the Artists of Dionysos (i.e. as well as for the city); to buy for them a parcel of land in the city or territory to the value of six thousand drachmas, and to proclaim as sacred the land bought, which the people have dedicated to the Association of the Artists of Dionysos, as being free of the taxes that the city imposes; to appoint two men, to buy property for referral to the people; in order that the money be available for the purchase, the treasurers in office are to give to the men to be appointed three thousand drachmas from the amount transferred from the fortification account, which was given for the payment of corn; let the incoming treasurers pay out the remaining three thousand drachmas from the first payments to be made to <the technitai> from the royal treasure for city administration; a stay of repayment is also to be granted to them for five years beginning in the month Leukatheon and the prytany of Metrodorus.
In order that all may be aware of the decrees of the people, this resolution and the <award of the> crown is to be engraved on a stone slab and set up by the temple of Dionysos. Also there is to be engraved on the side wall of the theater entrance this decree and <the award of> the crown. Let the treasurers in office make payment for the inscription of the crowns and decrees and the erecting of the slab; the delegates who have been appointed are to hand over this decree to the Artists of Dionysos and commend them for the goodwill, which they continue to display toward the people of Teos.
(These people) were appointed to purchase land: [ - - - ], son of Epitimides; Thersion, son of Phanes.
(Csapo and Slater, with modifications) Commentary:
This inscription concerns the granting of sacred land to the technitai of Dionysos in Teos and furnishes some details about the land purchase. We can compare OGIS 213, a Milesian decree which assigns to Antioch I the location where he will build the stoa promised to the city, specifying that the tamias will purchase that location (see especially ll. 16-20: probably, information about the fund for the purchase was furnished at the incomplete ll. 20-21); I.Magnesia 53, ll. 68-71 (decree from Klazomenai), where ξένια for theoroi who attend the festival of Artemis Leukophryene are financed by the tamias with the fund for the dioikesis (τῆς δὲ ἀποστολῆς | τῶν ξενίων ἐπιμεληθῆναι τοὺς στρατηγοὺς | καὶ τοὺς πολεμάρχας καὶ τὸν ταμίαν, τὸ δὲ ἀνά|λωμα δοῦναι τὸν ταμίαν ἐκ τῆς διοικήσεως). In the present inscription, the citizens charged to buy the land are distinguished from the tamiai, who are charged only to provide the money from several funds. In the Hellenistic Age, together with the progressive centralization of the city administration, the same magistrates were often charged to administer both public and religious expenses (Migeotte 2006b, passim: see for instance OGIS 267, ll. 5-6: the strategoi appointed by Eumenes I for the city of Pergamum administer [τάς τε κοινὰς τ]ῆς πόλεως καὶ τὰς ἱερὰς προσόδους); there were constant money transfers between public funds and religious ones (on these transfers see infra, commentary to ll. 16-18). In this context, we can understand why in this inscription the granting of sacred land to the technitai of Dionysos (a sacred association) is financed with funds for the city administration; compare I.Magnesia 98, ll. 63-67, where the psephisma about the feast and the sacrifice of a bull for Zeus will be financed by oikonomoi ἐκ τῶν πόρων ὧν ἔχουσιν εἰς πόλεως διο[ίκησιν] and be posited εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦ Διὸς εἰς τὴν παραστά|δα (compare the present inscription, ll. 23-24: the psephisma and the (award of the) stephanos will be inscribed εἰς τὴν παρ[α|στά]δα τοῦ θεάτρου). See infra, commentary to ll. 16-18.
Some graphic data (in particular the pi with short stroke) suggest a period between the 3rd and the 2nd century (Holleaux 1924, 25-26 n. 5). There are at least two references to Teos’ dependence on a Hellenistic king. The first one is at ll. 8-9: the technitai are exempted «from the tributes imposed by the city». This formula of limitation is typical in inscriptions from cities and communities which depend on someone else (see Jones 1971, 55-56; Rubinstein 2009, 115 and n. 1): cf. IG II2 1185; IG V 2 510 (IPArk 36r), ll. 2-4; CIG 2673b (I.Iasos 36r), ll. 2-4; 2677a (I.Iasos 45), ll. 8-11. The second one is a reference to some contributions from a royal treasure for city administration (ll. 16-18): the future participle reveals that these contributions were regular (Holleaux 1924, 25 n. 2). Therefore, the present inscription should be dated to a period of dependence on the Attalids. The kingdom of Pergamum dominated Teos during three periods (228-223, 218-201, 188-133). That Teos was included in the first conquest of Asia minor by Attalus I (228 BC) is certain from Polyb. 5.77.6: in 218, Attalus I reconquers Asia minor during Achaeus’ expedition against Selgae; Teos and Colophon restore the «former pacts» with him (Cardinali 1906, 93-95; Herrmann 1965, 102, with further bibliography; contra Walbank 1957-1979, ad loc., with not convincing objections). A third period of dependence began when, with Apamea peace, Eumenes received the tributes from those cities that had already paid tributes to Attalus (Polyb. 21.24.8; Liv. 37.55.6: see Cardinali 1906, 73-74, 81-88). That Teos paid tributes to Attalus is proved also by honorific inscription in Teos to Antioch III and Laodice (ll. 19-20, 33-34: see Herrmann 1965, 101-104). This inscription is dated between 205/4 and 202/1 (Herrmann 1965, 95-97). The privileges given by Antioch to Teos prove that the present document cannot be dated to the period of dependence on Philip V of Macedon and Antioch III (201-188).
The technitai mentioned in the inscription are surely the κοινόν of Ionia and Hellespont: they are cited for the first time in Syll.3 507, a honorific decree to this κοινόν by the Aetolians and the Delphian Amphictiony (227 BC). According to Strabo 14.1.29, the κοινόν took up residence in Teos, before it moved first to Ephesus, then to Lebedus for some contrasts with Teos (see Pickard-Cambridge 1968, 294; Aneziri, Techniten, 81; cf. I.Pergamon 163 = Aneziri, Techniten D12). The donation attested in this inscription is probably to be connected with the settling of technitai in Teos (Aneziri, Techniten, 179; cf. Rigsby, Asylia, 287). A consequence of this settling can be individuated in two honorific decree to Teos by the Aetolians and the Amphictiony (Syll.3 564, F.Delphes III.2 134 a-b), where Teos receives the ἀσυλία and all other honours «like the Artists of Dionysos», scil. oἱ τεχνῖται οἱ ἐπ’ Ἰωνίας καὶ Ἐλλησπόντου: the text is integrated according to copies from the temple of Dionysos in Teos, probably the same temple cited in the present inscription. The Delphian decree should be dated before 201 BC (see Colin in F.Delphes III.2, 135-136; cf. Herrmann 1965, 93-94); consequently, this inscription could be dated to the period of dependence on Attalus I, probably the second one (218-201).
However, John Ma has recently argued that the decrees of asylia conferred to Teos were consequent to the «consecration of Teos to Dionysos», to the asylia and to the exemption from tributes conferred to the city by Antioch III, as attested by the already-cited honorific decrees by Teos to Antioch and Laodice (SEG 41 1003, I, ll. 15-20). Ma is surely right when he thinks that the Cretan asylia decrees to Teos (Rigsby, Asylia 136-148) are consequent to the asylia conferred by Antioch (cf. Herrmann 1965, 134-136): Teos ambassadors to Crete were sustained by Hegesander of Rhodes, one of Antioch’s ambassadors. Even Rome conferred asylia to Teos with the mediation of another of Antioch’s ambassadors, Menippus (Syll.3 601: letter from the praetor peregrinus M. Valerius Messalla). These documents are similar to Teos’ decree for Antioch (see Ma 2004, 205-206 on the use of verb ἀνίημι). But in Aetolian and Delphian asylia decrees for Teos there is no mention of Antioch (a problem in Ma’s reconstruction: Ma 2004, 206). We can find a solution if we distinguish these decrees from the Cretan and Roman ones: in Aetolian and Delphian inscriptions, the asylia is due to the presence of technitai, not to the royal honours, which are probably later (these decrees have not the same verbal coincidences with Teos decree about Antioch as the Cretan ones). In addition to this, Cretan and Roman decrees should probably to be dated to the beginning of the 2nd century (Messalla is praetor peregrinus in 193: see Liv. 34.54-55), while Aetolian and Delphian decrees should be dated to the end of the 3rd century (see supra).
- l. 3. ἱεροκῆρυξ is a herald who makes announcements during festivals and religious ceremonies (cf. Milet I 3, Delphinion 145, ll. 36-40; I.Pergamon 246, OGIS 332, ll. 43-47; SEG 2 258, ll. 18-25; Syll.3 577, ll. 37-41).
- ll. 8-9. The complete name of the κοινόν is οἱ περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον τεχνῖται τῆς Ἰωνίας καὶ Ἑλλησπόντου: the use of the short name has no significance here, because in Teos the identity of the κοινόν would be clear. In some Magnesia inscriptions regarding the κοινόν (I.Magnesia 89, 94, 98) we find only the short form of the name. It is even possible that the complete formula was used at the beginning of the present document, now lost: cf. CIG 3067 (Le Guen, Technites 45), ll. 1-2, 5-6: the Ionian technitai are here connected with οἱ περὶ τὸν καθηγεμόνα Διόνυσον τεχνῖται; the cult of Dionysos Kathegemon was bound with the Attalid dynasty (on Dionysos and the Attalids, see Musti 1986; the union of these two κοινά is probably to be dated to the reign of Eumenes II: see Pickard-Cambridge 1968, 292). There is the same alternation between the long name and the short name in Aneziri, Techniten D 13 (see Robert , Ét.anat., 446 ff.) On the double name, see also Aneziri, Techniten, 71-80 (but it is not probable that it was the original name).
- l. 9. Rubinstein 2009, 115-116, distinguishes two types of ateleia, honorific and economic, bound to a particular activity (frequently conferred when there was a contract between the city and a person or a group). Some cases of honorary ateleia can even be considered as economic, conferred in order to make future financial contracts more accessible: analogously, in the present inscription the ateleia aims to strengthen the relationship between Teos and the κοινόν. Another type is the ateleia conferred to an entire group of citizens or another community: the ateleia conferred to κοινά such as the technitai are similar in some respects (among many examples, Rubinstein 2009, 132 n. 4, cites a decree concerning the Aetolian technitai κοινόν: IG IX2 1 136). Dionysiac κοινά were often looking for these types of honours in order to be protected during their journeys all around the Greek world (Csapo, Slater 1996, 240; cf. Syll.3 460; 399).
- l. 11. In Syll.3 578, ll. 21-23, another inscription from Teos, the expenses by the paidonomos and the gymnasiarchos have to be approved by the assembly (same formula: ἐπ’ ἀναφορᾶι τῆι πρὸς τὸν δῆμον).
- ll. 16-18. πόροι εἰς τὴν πόλεως διοίκησιν appear in order to finance honorific and religious expenses in I.Magnesia 89, ll. 84-86 (honorary decree for technitai); 94, ll. 10-11; 98, ll. 66-67; in an inscription from Colophon (Picard, Plassart 1913, 236-238), they furnish money for inscriptions ἔκδοσις (compare for instance, besides the Magnesia inscriptions, IG XII 5 653, ll. 61-63; 715, l. 9; 716, ll. 12-13; 717, ll. 11-12). The term διοίκησις refers here to a fund for city administration, divided among several necessities. It reveals a certain degree of economic centralization. However, in most cases, evidence does not provide clear indications about the organization of these funds. A high degree of centralization, attested in decrees which organize the total administration of a city (τὰ τῆς διοικήσεως ψηφίσματα), is generally rare and contested (Schuler 2005, and Rhodes 2007, are skeptical about the effective centralizatison affected by these nomoi or psephismata about dioikesis; more emphasis on the centralization in Migeotte 2006b, 389 n. 51). In the present case, the centralization is attested rather in the transfer of some money from one fund to another: the first half of money necessary for the estate is taken from the fund εἰς τὴν ὀχύρωσιν formerly transferred to the fund for the payment of the corn.
At a first glance, these funds seem distinguished from the central fund εἰς τὴν τῆς πόλεως διοίκησιν (Schuler 2005, 401). Rhodes 2007, 361, provides a better interpretation: «the king provided a grant towards the routine expenditure of the state, and that may have been kept in a single treasury, whose name we do not know, but alternatively it may have been apportioned among various funds by some kind of merismos / diataxis». Compare Miletus’ economic administration, with a high degree of centralization and special magistrates (ἀνατάκται) charged to the sharing of public expenses (ἀνάταξις); see Migeotte 2006a, 78-83; Migeotte 2006b, 382-383; on similar divisions in Athens and in the Hellenistic world, see again Rhodes 2007, 353-355, 358-359 (μερισμός in Athens: Arist. Ath. Pol. 48.1-2). In Miletus again we find a special fund for fortification (I.Delphinion 147, ll. 64-66), cited about another money transfer in order to finance the inscription: this transfer is here due to the assignment of the κατασκευὴ τῆς στήλης and ἀναγραφὴ τοῦ ψηφίσματος to the τειχοποιοὶ μετὰ τοῦ ἀρχιτέκτονος (ll. 62-64; cf. I.Delphinion 145, ll. 82-83). Another money transfers is attested in IG XII 5 1010, ll. 5-8 (from Ios, 3rd century BC): the money for an honorific garland has to be furnished by ὁ ἡγορακὼς τὸν σῖτ|ον τὸν δημόσιον from the money he has to give to the agoranomos.
In other cases, the existence of special funds besides the ones for general administration is surely attested: SEG 39 1243, col. V, ll. 52-53: ἀπὸ τῆς φυλακῆς καὶ τῆς διοικήσεως (Colophon honorary decree; this protection fund is similar to the fortification one in Teos; an analogous protection fund is attested in I.Kyme 12, ll. 3-4).
Teos’ fund for city administration (dioikesis) is cited even in the honorary decree for Antioch and Laodice (SEG 41 1003, II, ll. 19-21): the tamias assigns to the prostatai of the symoriai a part of the dioikesis according to a division plan (τοὺς δὲ ταμίας τοὺς ἑκάστοτε γιν[ομένους | διδό]ναι τοῖς τῶν συμοριῶν προστάταις τὸ ταγὲν ἐκ τ[ῆς διοι|κήσε]ως κ.τ.λ.). This passage concerns the expenses for sacrifices and feasts in honour of the king and the queen. Other attestations of Teos’ dioikesis fund are SEG 4 601, ll. 15-16 (decree to confirm the philia with Tyrus: here it finances the xenia sent to Tyrus by Teos’ tamiai); I.Magnesia 97, ll. 24-27 (it furnishes money for ambassadors’ ephodion).
It is very interesting that the notion of διοίκησις is connected with the royal contributions: the activity of benefactors, such as wealthy citizens with extraordinary administrative powers and, in Hellenistic times, kings, improved the economic centralization; vice versa, the centralization increased the power of the élites and of individual men (Xen. Hell. 6.1.2; see Schuler 2005, 390-391, 400-401; Migeotte 2006b, 385-387 and n. 31). In Pergamum too, Eumenes I, in order to reorganize the city administration, provided five strategoi, who were charged both to public and religious expenses (see supra, introductory note). On dioikesis, see in general the already cited Schuler 2005; Migeotte 2006a; Migeotte 2006b; Rhodes 2007. A survey of the inscriptions discussed in these four studies (some of which have been cited supra) is provided in SEG 55 1989.
βασιλικόν designates the royal contributions for city administration, distinguished from the πολιτικόν, the city treasure (I.Mylasa 201, ll. 8-9; OGIS 225, ll. 9-10, RC 18, ll. 13-14): from the future participle we can argue that these contributions were regular (cf. OGIS 229, 106-107, especially l. 7: τἆλλα ὅσα εἰώθει ἐκ βασιλικοῦ δίδοσθαι αὐτοῖς). Korragos’ inscription (SEG 2 663, I.Prusa 1001) cites royal contributions εἰς τὰ ἱερὰ καὶ πόλεως διοίκησιν (Holleaux 1924, 25 n. 3). Korragos is honoured because he asked the king to furnish these contributions (we do not know the name of the city of this inscription). Complete epigraphic documentation on βασιλικόν in Holleaux 1924, 37-38.
- ll. 22-23. The most ancient temple of Dionysos in Teos was the one by Hermogenes (Vitr. 3.3.6-8; see also 4.3.1; 7, praef. 12). The temple was destroyed during a quake in 14 BC and reconstructed by Augustus; a second reconstruction is attested in the 2nd century AD, probably after another quake (see Uz 1988). The temple cited here is that of Hermogenes: Teos’ excavations have not revealed the existence of former temples (Gros 1978, 694-695; contra Aneziri, Techniten, 178). The estate given to the κοινόν was surely distinguished from the temple ground: the estate had not been bought yet, so its location was indeterminate (l. 6: ἐν τῆι πόλει ἢ τῆι χώραι, cf. Aneziri, Techniten, 177).
- l. 26. The phrase structure is not very clear: it can be corrected with the genitive τῆς κατασκευῆς (cf. Syll.3 694, l. 34, cited in SEG apparatus), but we can also interpret τὴν κατασκευήν as an accusative of respect.
Bringmann, K. and H. von Steuben (1995), Schenkungen hellenistischer Herrscher an griechische Städte und Heiligtümer, Berlin
Cardinali, G. (1906), Il Regno di Pergamo, Roma
Csapo, E. and W.J. Slater (1996), The context of ancient drama, Oxford
Demangel, R. and A. Laumonier (1922), ‘Inscriptions d’Ionie’, BCH 46, 307-355
Gros, P. (1978), 'Le dossier vitruvien d’Hermogénès', MEFRA 98, 687-703
Herrmann, P. (1965), ‘Antiochos der Grosse und Teos’, Anadolu 9, 29-160
Holleaux, M. (1924), ‘Inscription trouvée a Brousse’, BCH 48, 1-57 (now in Holleaux, Études, II, Paris 1968, 73-125)
Jones, A.H.M. (19712), The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, Oxford
Ma, J. (2004), Antiochos III et les citées de l’Asie Mineure Occidentale, Paris
Meier, L. (2012), Die Finanzierung öffentlicher Bauten in der hellenistische Polis, Mainz
Migeotte, L. (2006a), ‘La planification des dépenses publiques dans les cites hellénistiques’, in B. Virgilio (ed.), Studi Ellenistici XIX, Pisa-Roma, 77-97
Migeotte, L. (2006b), ‘La haute administration des finances publiques et sacrées dans les cites hellenistiques’, Chiron 36, 379-394
Musti, D. (1986), 'Il dionisismo degli Attalidi: antecedenti, modelli, sviluppi', in L’association dionysiaque dans le sociétés anciennes. Actes de la table ronde organisée par l’École française de Rome (Rome 24-5 mai 1984), Roma, 105-128
Picard, C. and A. Plassart (1913), 'Inscriptions d’Éolide et d’Ionie', BCH 37, 155-246
Pickard-Cambridge, A. (19682), The Dramatic Festivals of Athens, Oxford
Schuler, C. (2005), ‘Die διοίκησις im öffentlichen Finanzwesen der hellenistischen Poleis’, Chiron 35, 387-403
Rhodes, P.J. (2007), ‘διοίκησις’, Chiron 37, 349-362
Ruge, W. (1934), s.v. ‘Teos’, RE, V.A1, cols. 560-564
Rubinstein, L. (2009), 'Ateleia grants and their enforcement in the classical and early hellenistic periods', in L. Mitchell and L. Rubinstein (eds.), Greek History and Epigraphy. Essays in honour of P.J. Rhodes, Swansea, 115-143
Uz, D.M. (1988), 'The Temple of Dionysos at Teos', in W. Hoepfner and E.-L. Schwandner (eds.), Hermogenes und die hochhellenistische Architektur, Mainz am Rhein, 51-61
Walbank, F.W. (1957-1979), A Historical Commentary on Polybius, 3 vols., Oxford Author: Stefano Fanucchi Last update: March 2017 DOI: 10.25429/sns.it/lettere/GEI041
TM Number:
864932
Author: Stefano Fanucchi
Last Update: March 2017
DOI: 10.25429/sns.it/lettere/GEI041
1<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> 2<?oxygen RNGSchema="http://www.stoa.org/epidoc/schema/latest/tei-epidoc.rng" type="xml"?> 3<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:lang="en"> 4 <teiHeader> 5 <fileDesc> 6 <titleStmt> 7 <title>Teos. Granting of land to the artists of Dionysos</title> 8 <editor>Donatella Erdas</editor> 9 <editor>Anna Magnetto</editor> 10 <editor>Stefano Fanucchi</editor> 11 </titleStmt> 12 <publicationStmt> 13 <authority>Laboratory of Computer Sciences for Ancient Languages, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa</authority> 14 <idno type="filename">GEI041</idno> 15 <availability><p>for internal use only</p></availability> 16 </publicationStmt> 17 <sourceDesc> 18 <ab>Aimed for 19 <bibl xml:id="ErdMagCS"><author>D. Erdas</author>, <author>A. Magnetto</author>, 20 <title>Corpus delle iscrizioni economiche greche</title> in c.s.</bibl>; 21 this version born digital</ab> 22 <ab> 23 <msDesc> 24 <msIdentifier/> 25 26 <physDesc> 27 <objectDesc> 28 <supportDesc> 29 <support> 30 <p> 31 <material>Blue marble</material> <objectType>stele</objectType> (<dimensions><height unit="metre" quantity="0.22"> 0.22</height><width unit="metre" quantity="0.46"> 0.46</width></dimensions>); broken on upper side, on the right and on the left 32 </p> 33 </support> 34 </supportDesc> 35 <layoutDesc> 36 <layout>the writing is left to right</layout> 37 </layoutDesc> 38 </objectDesc> 39 <handDesc> 40 <handNote>Ionic letters</handNote> 41 </handDesc> 42 </physDesc> 43 44 <history> 45 <origin> 46 <ab><origPlace><placeName>Teos</placeName>, temple of Dionysos</origPlace></ab> 47 <ab><origDate notBefore="-0225" notAfter="-0175" precision="low" cert="low" evidence="lettering">late 3rd century – early 2nd century BC</origDate></ab> 48 49 </origin> 50 <provenance> 51 <listEvent> 52 <event type="found"> 53 <p>a Turkish cemetery near <placeName>Sivrihissar</placeName> (western Turkey)</p> 54 </event> 55 <event type="observed"> 56 <p><placeName>Sivrihissar</placeName>, archeological museum (?)</p> 57 </event> 58 </listEvent> 59 </provenance> 60 </history> 61 62 </msDesc> 63 </ab> 64 </sourceDesc> 65 </fileDesc> 66 67 <encodingDesc> 68 <p>Marked-up according to the EpiDoc Guidelines and Schema, version 8</p> 69 <projectDesc> 70 <p>Sample for a Corpus of Greek Economical Inscriptions</p> 71 </projectDesc> 72 </encodingDesc> 73 <profileDesc> 74 <langUsage> 75 <language ident="grc">Ancient Greek</language> 76 <language ident="la">Latin</language> 77 <language ident="grc-Latn">Transliterated Greek</language> 78 <language ident="en">English</language> 79 <language ident="it">Italian</language> 80 <language ident="fr">French</language> 81 <language ident="de">German</language> 82 </langUsage> 83 <textClass> 84 85 <keywords scheme="subject"> 86 <term>purchase of land</term> 87 <term>technitai</term> 88 <term>sacred land</term> 89 <term>royal contributions</term> 90 <term>city administration</term> 91 <term>tax exemption</term> 92 </keywords> 93 <keywords scheme="type"> 94 <term>decree</term> 95 </keywords> 96 <keywords scheme="context"> 97 <term>sanctuary</term> 98 </keywords> 99 100 </textClass> 101 </profileDesc> 102 </teiHeader> 103 <text> 104 <body> 105 106 <div type="bibliography" subtype="referenceEdition"> 107 <head>Reference edition</head> 108 <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2205">Demangel, Laumonier 1922</ref>, 312-319 (ed. pr.);</bibl> 109 <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2206">ll. 2-3 according to Robert, <title>Ét.anat.</title></ref>, 39-44</bibl> 110 </div> 111 112 <div type="bibliography" subtype="editions"> 113 <head>Other editions</head> 114 <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl0041"><title level="j">SEG</title></ref> 2 580;</bibl> 115 <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl0002">H.W. Pleket, <title>Epigraphica</title></ref> 37;</bibl> 116 <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2207">Pickard-Cambridge 1968</ref><edition>2</edition>, 314;</bibl> 117 <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2208">Bringmann, von Steuben 1995</ref>, no. 262;</bibl> 118 <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2209">B. Le Guen, <title>Technites</title></ref> 39;</bibl> 119 <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2210">S. Aneziri, <title>Techniten </title></ref> D2;</bibl> 120 <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2211">Meier 2012</ref>, no. 51 (ll. 5-18)</bibl> 121 </div> 122 123 <div type="bibliography" subtype="illustrations"> 124 <head>Photographs</head> 125 <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2205">Demangel, Laumonier 1922</ref> (squeeze)</bibl> 126 </div> 127 128 <div type="bibliography" subtype="translations"> 129 <head>Translations</head> 130 <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2212">Csapo, Slater 1996</ref>, 246-247 (in English);</bibl> 131 <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2209">B. Le Guen, <title>Technites</title></ref> 39 (in French)</bibl> 132 </div> 133 134 <div type="bibliography" subtype="other"> 135 <head>Bibliography</head> 136 <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2213">Cardinali 1906</ref>, 78-102;</bibl> 137 <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2214">Holleaux 1924</ref>, 24-27;</bibl> 138 <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2215">Ruge 1934</ref>, cols. 560-564;</bibl> 139 <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2216">Jones 1971</ref><edition>2</edition>, 55-56 and n. 40;</bibl> 140 <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2207">Pickard-Cambridge 1968</ref><edition>2</edition>, 279-321;</bibl> 141 <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2217">Herrmann 1965</ref>, 101-104 and <foreign xml:lang="la">passim</foreign>;</bibl> 142 <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl1991">Rigsby, <title level="m">Asylia</title></ref>, 279-292;</bibl> 143 <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2212">Csapo, Slater 1996</ref>, 239-242, 246-247;</bibl> 144 <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2218">Ma 2004</ref>, 63-73, 260-265;</bibl> 145 <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2219">Schuler 2005, 387-403</ref>;</bibl> 146 <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2220">Migeotte 2006a, 77-97</ref>;</bibl> 147 <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2221">Migeotte 2006b, 379-394</ref>;</bibl> 148 <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2222">Rhodes 2007, 349-362</ref>;</bibl> 149 <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2223">Rubinstein 2009</ref>, 115-143</bibl> 150 </div> 151 152 <div type="edition" xml:lang="grc" xml:space="preserve"> 153 <ab> 154 <lb n="1"/><gap reason="lost" unit="character" extent="unknown"/><gap reason="illegible" unit="character" quantity="2"/><gap reason="lost" unit="character" extent="unknown"/> 155 <lb n="2"/><w lemma="ὁ"><supplied reason="lost">τὸν</supplied></w> <w lemma="ἱερεύς">ἱερέα</w> <w lemma="ὁ">το<supplied reason="lost">ῦ</supplied></w> <persName type="divine" ref="GEIListPers/#div0011"><name nymRef="Διόνυσος"><w lemma="Διόνυσος"><supplied reason="lost">Διονύσου</supplied></w></name></persName> <w lemma="ἐν"><supplied reason="lost">ἐν</supplied></w> <w lemma="ὁ"><supplied reason="lost">τοῖς</supplied></w> <w lemma="Διονύσια"><supplied reason="lost">Διονυσί</supplied>οις</w> <w lemma="καί">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ὁ"><supplied reason="lost">τὸν</supplied></w> 156 <lb n="3"/><w lemma="πρύτανις"><supplied reason="lost">πρ</supplied>ύτανιν</w> <w lemma="ἐν">ἐν</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τῶι</w> <w lemma="πρυτανεῖον">πρυ<supplied reason="lost">τανείωι</supplied></w> <w lemma="καί"><supplied reason="lost">καὶ</supplied></w> <w lemma="ὁ"><supplied reason="lost">τὸν</supplied></w> <w lemma="ἱεροκῆρυξ"><supplied reason="lost">ἱε</supplied>ροκήρυκα</w> <w lemma="ἐν"><supplied reason="lost">ἐν</supplied></w> 157 <lb n="4"/><w lemma="ὁ"><supplied reason="lost">τ</supplied>αῖς</w> <w lemma="ἐκκλησία">ἐκλησίαις</w> <w lemma="γίγνομαι">γίνεσθαι</w> <w lemma="ὁ"><w lemma="ἀγαθός">τἀγαθὰ</w></w> <w lemma="καί">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τῶι</w> <w lemma="κοινός">κοινῶι</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τῶ<supplied reason="lost">ν</supplied></w> 158 <w lemma="περί"><supplied reason="lost">πε</supplied><lb n="5" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">ρὶ</supplied></w> <w lemma="ὁ"><supplied reason="lost">τ</supplied>ὸν</w> <persName type="divine" ref="GEIListPers/#div0011"><name nymRef="Διόνυσος"><w lemma="Διόνυσος">Διόνυσον</w></name></persName> <w lemma="τεχνίτης">τεχνιτῶν</w>· <rs type="economic"><w lemma="ἀγοράζω">ἀγοράσαι</w></rs> <w lemma="δέ">δὲ</w> <w lemma="αὐτός">αὐτοῖς</w> <w lemma="καί">καὶ</w> 159 <rs type="economic"><w lemma="κτῆμα"><unclear>κ</unclear><supplied reason="lost">τῆ</supplied><lb n="6" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">μα</supplied></w></rs> <w lemma="ἔγγαιος"><w lemma="ἔγγεος">ἔγγεον</w></w> <w lemma="ἐν">ἐν</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τῆι</w> <w lemma="πόλις">πόλει</w> <w lemma="ἤ">ἢ</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τῆι</w> <w lemma="χώρα">χώραι</w> <w lemma="ἀπό">ἀπὸ</w> <w lemma="δραχμή"><expan><abbr>δρα</abbr><ex>χμῶν</ex></expan></w> <num type="acrophonic" value="6000">𐅆Χ</num> 160 <lb n="7"/><w lemma="καί"><supplied reason="lost">καὶ</supplied></w> <w lemma="προσαγορεύω">προσαγορεύεσθαι</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τὸ</w> <rs type="economic"><w lemma="ἀγοράζω">ἀγορασθὲν</w></rs> <rs type="economic"><w lemma="κτῆμα">κτῆμα</w></rs> <w lemma="ἱερός">ἱερὸν</w> <w lemma="ὅς">ὃ</w> 161 <w lemma="ἀνατίθημι">ἀν<supplied reason="lost">έθη</supplied><lb n="8" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">κε</supplied></w> <w lemma="ὁ">ὁ</w> <w lemma="δῆμος">δῆμος</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τῶι</w> <w lemma="κοινός">κοινῶι</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τῶν</w> <w lemma="περί">περὶ</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τὸν</w> <persName type="divine" ref="GEIListPers/#div0011"><name nymRef="Διόνυσος"><w lemma="Διόνυσος">Διόνυσον</w></name></persName> 162 <w lemma="τεχνίτης">τ<supplied reason="lost">ε</supplied><lb n="9" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">χ</supplied>νιτῶν</w>, <w lemma="εἰμί">ὂν</w> <w lemma="ἀτελής">ἀτελὲς</w> <w lemma="ὅς">ὧν</w> <w lemma="ὁ">ἡ</w> <w lemma="πόλις">πόλις</w> <w lemma="ἐπιβάλλω">ἐπιβάλλει</w> <w lemma="τέλος">τελῶν</w>· 163 <w lemma="ἀποδείκνυμι">ἀ<supplied reason="lost">πο</supplied><lb n="10" break="no"/>δεῖξαι</w> <w lemma="δέ">δὲ</w> <w lemma="καί">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ἀνήρ">ἄνδρας</w> <w lemma="δύο">δύο</w> <w lemma="ὅστις">οἵτινες</w> <rs type="economic"><w lemma="κτηματωνέω">κτηματωνήσου<supplied reason="lost">σιν</supplied></w></rs> 164 <lb n="11"/><w lemma="ἐπί"><supplied reason="lost">ἐ</supplied>π’</w> <w lemma="ἀναφορά">ἀναφορᾶι</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τῆι</w> <w lemma="πρός">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τὸν</w> <w lemma="δῆμος">δῆμον</w>· <w lemma="ἵνα">ἵνα</w> <w lemma="δέ">δὲ</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τὸ</w> <w lemma="ἀργύριον">ἀργύριο<supplied reason="lost">ν</supplied></w> 165 <lb n="12"/><w lemma="ὑπάρχω"><supplied reason="lost">ὑπ</supplied>άρχηι</w> <w lemma="εἰς">εἰς</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τὴν</w> <rs type="economic"><w lemma="κτηματωνία">κτηματωνίαν</w></rs>, <w lemma="ὁ">τοὺς</w> <rs type="economic"><w lemma="ταμίας">ταμίας</w></rs> <w lemma="ὁ">τοὺς</w> 166 <w lemma="ἐνίστημι"><supplied reason="lost">ἐ</supplied><lb n="13" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">ν</supplied>εστηκότας</w> <w lemma="δίδωμι">δοῦναι</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="ἀποδείκνυμι">ἀποδειχθησομένοις</w> <w lemma="δραχμή"><expan><abbr>δρα</abbr><ex>χμὰς</ex></expan></w> 167 <lb n="14"/><num type="acrophonic" value="3000"><supplied reason="lost">Χ</supplied>ΧΧ</num> <w lemma="ἐκ">ἐκ</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="μεταφέρω">μετενηνεγμένου</w> <w lemma="ἐκ">ἐκ</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="λόγος">λόγου</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τῆς</w> 168 <w lemma="ὀχύρωσις">ὀ<supplied reason="lost">χυ</supplied><lb n="15" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">ρ</supplied>ώσεως</w> <w lemma="ὅς">ὃ</w> <w lemma="δίδωμι">δέδοται</w> <w lemma="εἰς">εἰς</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τὴν</w> <w lemma="τιμή">τιμὴν</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="σῖτος">σίτου</w>· <w lemma="ὁ">τὸ</w> <w lemma="δέ">δὲ</w> 169 <w lemma="ὑπολιπής">ὑπ<supplied reason="lost">ο</supplied><lb n="16" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">λι</supplied>πὲς</w> <w lemma="δραχμή"><expan><abbr>δρα</abbr><ex>χμὰς</ex></expan></w> <num type="acrophonic" value="3000">ΧΧΧ</num> <w lemma="δίδωμι">δότωσαν</w> <w lemma="ὁ">οἱ</w> <w lemma="εἴσειμι">εἰσιόντες</w> <rs type="economic"><w lemma="ταμίας">ταμίαι</w></rs> <w lemma="ἐκ">ἐκ</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τ<supplied reason="lost">ῶν</supplied></w> 170 <lb n="17"/><w lemma="πρῶτος"><supplied reason="lost">πρ</supplied>ώτων</w> <w lemma="δίδωμι">δοθησομένων</w> <w lemma="αὐτός">αὐτοῖς</w> <w lemma="ἐκ">ἐγ</w> <rs type="economic"><w lemma="βασιλικός">βασιλικοῦ</w></rs> <w lemma="εἰς">εἰς</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τ<supplied reason="lost">ὴν</supplied></w> 171 <lb n="18"/><w lemma="ὁ"><supplied reason="lost">τῆ</supplied>ς</w> <w lemma="πόλις">πόλεως</w> <rs type="economic"><w lemma="διοίκησις">διοίκησιν</w></rs>· <w lemma="δίδωμι">δεδόσθαι</w> <w lemma="δέ">δὲ</w> <w lemma="αὐτός">αὐτοῖς</w> <w lemma="καί">καὶ</w> 172 <w lemma="ἐποχή">ἐπο<lb n="19" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">χὴ</supplied>ν</w> <w lemma="ἔτος">ἔτη</w> <w lemma="πέντε">πέντε</w> <w lemma="ἀπό">ἀπὸ</w> <w lemma="μείς">μηνὸς</w> <w lemma="Λευκαθεών">Λευκαθεῶνος</w> <w lemma="καί">καὶ</w> 173 <w lemma="πρύτανις">πρυτ<supplied reason="lost">άνε</supplied><lb n="20" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">ως</supplied></w> <persName type="private" ref="GEIListPers/#pvt0261"><name nymRef="Μητρόδωρος"><w lemma="Μητρόδωρος">Μητροδώρου</w></name></persName>· <w lemma="ὅπως">ὅπως</w> <w lemma="δέ">δὲ</w> <w lemma="καί">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τὰ</w> <w lemma="δοκέω">δόξαντα</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τῶι</w> <w lemma="δῆμος">δήμ<supplied reason="lost">ωι</supplied></w> 174 <lb n="21"/><w lemma="πᾶς"><supplied reason="lost">πά</supplied>ντες</w> <w lemma="εἴδω">εἰδῶσιν</w>, <w lemma="ἀναγράφω">ἀναγράψαι</w> <w lemma="ὅδε">τόδε</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τὸ</w> <w lemma="ψήφισμα">ψήφισμα</w> <w lemma="εἰς">εἰς</w> 175 <w lemma="στήλη"><supplied reason="lost">στή</supplied><lb n="22" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">λη</supplied>ν</w> <w lemma="λίθινος">λιθίνην</w> <w lemma="καί">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τὸν</w> <w lemma="στέφανος">στέφανον</w> <w lemma="καί">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ἀνατίθημι">ἀναθεῖναι</w> <w lemma="παρά">παρὰ</w> 176 <lb n="23"/><w lemma="ὁ"><supplied reason="lost">τὸ</supplied>ν</w> <w lemma="ναός">νεὼ</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τοῦ</w> <persName type="divine" ref="GEIListPers/#div0011"><name nymRef="Διόνυσος"><w lemma="Διόνυσος">Διονύσου</w></name></persName>· <w lemma="ἀναγράφω">ἀναγράψαι</w> <w lemma="δέ">δὲ</w> <w lemma="καί">καὶ</w> <w lemma="εἰς">εἰς</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τὴν</w> 177 <w lemma="παραστάς">παρ<supplied reason="lost">α</supplied><lb n="24" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">στά</supplied>δα</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="θέατρον">θεάτρου</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τὸ</w> <w lemma="ψήφισμα">ψήφισμα</w> <w lemma="ὅδε">τόδε</w> <w lemma="καί">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τὸν</w> <w lemma="στέφανος">στέφαν<supplied reason="lost">ον</supplied></w>· 178 <lb n="25"/><w lemma="ὁ"><supplied reason="lost">τῆ</supplied>ς</w> <w lemma="δέ">δὲ</w> <w lemma="ἀναγραφή">ἀναγραφῆς</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τῶν</w> <w lemma="στέφανος">στεφάνων</w> <surplus><orig>ι</orig></surplus> <w lemma="καί">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ψήφισμα">ψηφίσματ<supplied reason="lost">ος</supplied></w> 179 <lb n="26"/><w lemma="καί"><supplied reason="lost">καὶ</supplied></w> <w lemma="ὁ"><supplied reason="lost">τ</supplied>ῆς</w> <w lemma="στήλη">στήλης</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τὴν</w> <w lemma="κατασκευή">κατασκευὴν</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τὴν</w> <w lemma="ἔκδοσιν">ἔγδοσιν</w> 180 <w lemma="ποιέω">π<supplied reason="lost">ο</supplied><lb n="27" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">ιείσθ</supplied>ωσαν</w> <w lemma="ὁ">οἱ</w> <w lemma="ἐνίστημι">ἐνεστηκότες</w> <rs type="economic"><w lemma="ταμίας">ταμίαι</w></rs> <w lemma="καί">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τὸ</w> <rs type="economic"><w lemma="ἀνάλωμα">ἀνάλωμ<supplied reason="lost">α</supplied></w></rs> 181 <lb n="28"/><w lemma="δίδωμι"><supplied reason="lost">δότ</supplied>ωσαν</w> <w lemma="ὁ">οἱ</w> <w lemma="ἐνίστημι">ἐνεστηκότες</w> <rs type="economic"><w lemma="ταμίας">ταμίαι</w></rs>· <w lemma="ὁ">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="δέ">δὲ</w> 182 <w lemma="πρεσβευτής">π<corr>ρ</corr>εσ<unclear>β</unclear><supplied reason="lost">ευ</supplied><lb n="29" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">τὰς</supplied></w> <w lemma="ὁ">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="ἀποδείκνυμι">ἀποδεδειγμένους</w> <w lemma="ἀποδίδωμι">ἀποδοῦναι</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τὸ</w> 183 <w lemma="ψήφισμα">ψήφι<supplied reason="lost">σ</supplied><lb n="30" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">μα</supplied></w> <w lemma="ὅδε"><supplied reason="lost">τόδ</supplied>ε</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="περί">περὶ</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τὸν</w> <persName type="divine" ref="GEIListPers/#div0011"><name nymRef="Διόνυσος"><w lemma="Διόνυσος">Διόνυσον</w></name></persName> <w lemma="τεχνίτης">τεχνίταις</w> <w lemma="καί">καὶ</w> 184 <w lemma="ἐπαινέω">ἐπ<supplied reason="lost">αι</supplied><lb n="31" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">νέσαι</supplied></w> <w lemma="αὐτός"><supplied reason="lost">α</supplied>ὐτοὺς</w> <w lemma="ἐπί">ἐπὶ</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τῆι</w> <w lemma="εὔνοια">εὐνοίαι</w> <w lemma="ὅς">ἣν</w> <w lemma="ἔχω">ἔχοντες</w> 185 <w lemma="διατελέω">διατε<lb n="32" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">λοῦσι</supplied></w> <w lemma="περί">περὶ</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τὸν</w> <w lemma="δῆμος">δῆμον</w> <w lemma="ὁ">τὸν</w> <rs ref="GEIListPlace/#plc0115" type="ethnic"><w lemma="Τήϊος">Τηΐων</w></rs>. 186 <w lemma="ἀποδείκυμι">ἀπεδείχθη<lb n="33" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">σαν</supplied></w> <rs type="economic"><w lemma="κτηματωνέω"><supplied reason="lost">κτ</supplied>ηματωνήσοντες</w></rs> <space unit="character" extent="unknown"/> 187 <lb n="34"/><gap reason="lost" unit="character" quantity="6"/><w part="F"><orig>Σ</orig></w> <persName type="private" ref="GEIListPers/#pvt0262"><name nymRef="Ἐπιτιμίδης"><w lemma="Ἐπιτιμίδης">Ἐπιτιμίδου</w></name></persName> <space unit="character" extent="unknown"/> <persName type="private" ref="GEIListPers/#pvt0263"><name nymRef="Θερσίων"><w lemma="Θερσίων">Θερσίων</w></name> <persName type="private" ref="GEIListPers/#pvt0264"><name nymRef="Φάνης"><w lemma="Φάνης">Φάνου</w></name></persName></persName>. 188 </ab> 189 </div> 190 191 <div type="apparatus" xml:lang="en"> 192 <head>Apparatus criticus</head> 193 <p> 194 l. 1: <foreign xml:lang="grc"><supplied reason="lost">εὔχεσθαι</supplied></foreign> Robert. 195 l. 3: <foreign xml:lang="grc"><supplied reason="lost">καὶ τὸν ἱε</supplied>ροκήρυκα</foreign> Robert : <foreign xml:lang="grc"><supplied reason="lost">εὔξασθαι δὲ τοὺς δ</supplied>ύο κήρυκα<supplied reason="lost">ς</supplied></foreign> Demangel and Laumonier (the restoration is too long). 196 ll. 6-7: <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀν<supplied reason="lost">έθη|κε</supplied></foreign> Crönert <foreign xml:lang="la">apud</foreign> <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl0041"><title level="j">SEG</title></ref></bibl> : <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀν<supplied reason="lost">ατίθη|σι</supplied></foreign> Demangel and Laumonier, maybe too long : <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀν<supplied reason="lost">έδει|ξε</supplied></foreign> <bibl>Roussel (<ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl1999"><title level="j">BE</title></ref>, 1924, no. 353</bibl>). 197 l. 28: <foreign xml:lang="grc"><orig>ΠΒΕΣ<unclear>Β</unclear><gap reason="lost" unit="character" extent="unknown"/></orig></foreign> stone. 198 </p> 199 </div> 200 201 <div type="translation" xml:lang="en" xml:space="preserve"> 202 <head>Translation</head> 203 <lb/><p><gap reason="lost" unit="character" extent="unknown"/> <supplied reason="lost">resolved</supplied> that the priest of Dionysos at the Dionysiac festival and the prytanis in the prytanic office and the sacred herald at the assemblies pray for prosperity also for the Association of the Artists of Dionysos <supplied reason="explanation">as well as for the city</supplied>; to buy for them a parcel of land in the city or territory to the value of six thousand drachmas, and to proclaim as sacred the land bought, which the people have dedicated to the Association of the Artists of Dionysos, as being free of the taxes that the city imposes; to appoint two men, to buy property for referral to the people; in order that the money be available for the purchase, the treasurers in office are to give to the men to be appointed three thousand drachmas from the amount transferred from the fortification account, which was given for the payment of corn; let the incoming treasurers pay out the remaining three thousand drachmas from the first payments to be made to <supplied reason="omitted">the <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">technitai</foreign></supplied> from the royal treasure for city administration; a stay of repayment is also to be granted to them for five years beginning in the month Leukatheon and the prytany of Metrodorus.</p> 204 <lb/><p>In order that all may be aware of the decrees of the people, this resolution and the <supplied reason="omitted">award of the</supplied> crown is to be engraved on a stone slab and set up by the temple of Dionysos. Also there is to be engraved on the side wall of the theater entrance this decree and <supplied reason="omitted">the award of</supplied> the crown. Let the treasurers in office make payment for the inscription of the crowns and decrees and the erecting of the slab; the delegates who have been appointed are to hand over this decree to the Artists of Dionysos and commend them for the goodwill, which they continue to display toward the people of Teos.</p> 205 <lb/><p><supplied reason="subaudible">These people</supplied> were appointed to purchase land: <gap reason="lost" unit="character" extent="unknown"/>, son of Epitimides; Thersion, son of Phanes.</p> 206 <lb/> 207 <lb/><p>(Csapo and Slater, with modifications)</p> 208 </div> 209 210 <div type="commentary" xml:lang="en" xml:space="preserve"> 211 <head>Commentary</head> 212 <lb/><p>This inscription concerns the granting of sacred land to the <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">technitai</foreign> of Dionysos in Teos and furnishes some details about the land purchase. We can compare <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2118"><title level="m">OGIS</title></ref> 213</bibl>, a Milesian decree which assigns to Antioch I the location where he will build the <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">stoa</foreign> promised to the city, specifying that the <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">tamias</foreign> will purchase that location (see especially ll. 16-20: probably, information about the fund for the purchase was furnished at the incomplete ll. 20-21); <bibl><title level="m">I.Magnesia</title> 53, ll. 68-71</bibl> (decree from Klazomenai), where <foreign xml:lang="grc">ξένια</foreign> for <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">theoroi</foreign> who attend the festival of Artemis Leukophryene are financed by the <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">tamias</foreign> with the fund for the <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">dioikesis</foreign> (<foreign xml:lang="grc">τῆς δὲ ἀποστολῆς | τῶν ξενίων ἐπιμεληθῆναι τοὺς στρατηγοὺς | καὶ τοὺς πολεμάρχας καὶ τὸν ταμίαν, τὸ δὲ ἀνά|λωμα δοῦναι τὸν ταμίαν ἐκ τῆς διοικήσεως</foreign>). In the present inscription, the citizens charged to buy the land are distinguished from the <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">tamiai</foreign>, who are charged only to provide the money from several funds. In the Hellenistic Age, together with the progressive centralization of the city administration, the same magistrates were often charged to administer both public and religious expenses (<bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2221">Migeotte 2006b</ref>, <foreign xml:lang="la">passim</foreign></bibl>: see for instance <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2118"><title level="m">OGIS</title></ref> 267, ll. 5-6</bibl>: the <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">strategoi</foreign> appointed by Eumenes I for the city of Pergamum administer <foreign xml:lang="grc"><supplied reason="lost">τάς τε κοινὰς τ</supplied>ῆς πόλεως καὶ τὰς ἱερὰς προσόδους</foreign>); there were constant money transfers between public funds and religious ones (on these transfers see <foreign xml:lang="la">infra</foreign>, commentary to ll. 16-18). In this context, we can understand why in this inscription the granting of sacred land to the <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">technitai</foreign> of Dionysos (a sacred association) is financed with funds for the city administration; compare <bibl><title level="m">I.Magnesia</title> 98, ll. 63-67</bibl>, where the <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">psephisma</foreign> about the feast and the sacrifice of a bull for Zeus will be financed by <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">oikonomoi</foreign> <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἐκ τῶν πόρων ὧν ἔχουσιν εἰς πόλεως διο<supplied reason="lost">ίκησιν</supplied></foreign> and be posited <foreign xml:lang="grc">εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦ Διὸς εἰς τὴν παραστά|δα</foreign> (compare the present inscription, ll. 23-24: the <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">psephisma</foreign> and the (award of the) <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">stephanos</foreign> will be inscribed <foreign xml:lang="grc">εἰς τὴν παρ<supplied reason="lost">α|στά</supplied>δα τοῦ θεάτρου</foreign>). See <foreign xml:lang="la">infra</foreign>, commentary to ll. 16-18.</p> 213 <lb/><p>Some graphic data (in particular the <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">pi</foreign> with short stroke) suggest a period between the 3rd and the 2nd century (<bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2214">Holleaux 1924</ref>, 25-26 n. 5</bibl>). There are at least two references to Teos’ dependence on a Hellenistic king. The first one is at ll. 8-9: the <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">technitai</foreign> are exempted «from the tributes imposed by the city». This formula of limitation is typical in inscriptions from cities and communities which depend on someone else (see <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2216">Jones 1971</ref>, 55-56</bibl>; <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2223">Rubinstein 2009</ref>, 115 and n. 1</bibl>): cf. <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl0029"><title level="m">IG</title> II</ref><edition>2</edition> 1185</bibl>; <bibl><title level="m">IG</title> V 2 510 (<title level="m">IPArk</title> 36r), ll. 2-4</bibl>; <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl0029"><title level="m">CIG</title> 2673b (<title level="m">I.Iasos</title> 36r), ll. 2-4</ref>; 2677a (<title level="m">I.Iasos</title> 45), ll. 8-11</bibl>. The second one is a reference to some contributions from a royal treasure for city administration (ll. 16-18): the future participle reveals that these contributions were regular (<bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2214">Holleaux 1924</ref>, 25 n. 2</bibl>). Therefore, the present inscription should be dated to a period of dependence on the Attalids. The kingdom of Pergamum dominated Teos during three periods (228-223, 218-201, 188-133). That Teos was included in the first conquest of Asia minor by Attalus I (228 BC) is certain from <bibl>Polyb. 5.77.6</bibl>: in 218, Attalus I reconquers Asia minor during Achaeus’ expedition against Selgae; Teos and Colophon restore the «former pacts» with him (<bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2213">Cardinali 1906</ref>, 93-95</bibl>; <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2217">Herrmann 1965</ref>, 102</bibl>, with further bibliography; <foreign xml:lang="la">contra</foreign> <bibl>Walbank 1957-1979, <foreign xml:lang="la">ad loc.</foreign></bibl>, with not convincing objections). A third period of dependence began when, with Apamea peace, Eumenes received the tributes from those cities that had already paid tributes to Attalus (<bibl>Polyb. 21.24.8</bibl>; <bibl>Liv. 37.55.6</bibl>: see <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2213">Cardinali 1906</ref>, 73-74, 81-88</bibl>). That Teos paid tributes to Attalus is proved also by honorific inscription in Teos to Antioch III and Laodice (ll. 19-20, 33-34: see <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2217">Herrmann 1965</ref>, 101-104</bibl>). This inscription is dated between 205/4 and 202/1 (<bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2217">Herrmann 1965</ref>, 95-97</bibl>). The privileges given by Antioch to Teos prove that the present document cannot be dated to the period of dependence on Philip V of Macedon and Antioch III (201-188).</p> 214 <lb/><p>The <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">technitai</foreign> mentioned in the inscription are surely the <foreign xml:lang="grc">κοινόν</foreign> of Ionia and Hellespont: they are cited for the first time in <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl0014"><title level="m">Syll.</title></ref><edition>3</edition> 507</bibl>, a honorific decree to this <foreign xml:lang="grc">κοινόν</foreign> by the Aetolians and the Delphian Amphictiony (227 BC). According to <bibl>Strabo 14.1.29</bibl>, the <foreign xml:lang="grc">κοινόν</foreign> took up residence in Teos, before it moved first to Ephesus, then to Lebedus for some contrasts with Teos (see <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2207">Pickard-Cambridge 1968</ref>, 294</bibl>; <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2210">Aneziri, <title level="m">Techniten</title></ref>, 81</bibl>; cf. <bibl><title level="m">I.Pergamon</title> 163</bibl> = <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2210">Aneziri, <title level="m">Techniten</title></ref> D12</bibl>). The donation attested in this inscription is probably to be connected with the settling of <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">technitai</foreign> in Teos (<bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2210">Aneziri, <title level="m">Techniten</title></ref>, 179</bibl>; cf. <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl1991">Rigsby, <title level="m">Asylia</title></ref>, 287</bibl>). A consequence of this settling can be individuated in two honorific decree to Teos by the Aetolians and the Amphictiony (<bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl0014"><title level="m">Syll.</title></ref><edition>3</edition> 564</bibl>, <bibl><title level="m">F.Delphes</title> III.2 134 a-b</bibl>), where Teos receives the <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀσυλία</foreign> and all other honours «like the Artists of Dionysos», <foreign xml:lang="la">scil.</foreign> <foreign xml:lang="grc">oἱ τεχνῖται οἱ ἐπ’ Ἰωνίας καὶ Ἐλλησπόντου</foreign>: the text is integrated according to copies from the temple of Dionysos in Teos, probably the same temple cited in the present inscription. The Delphian decree should be dated before 201 BC (see <bibl>Colin in <title level="m">F.Delphes</title> III.2, 135-136</bibl>; cf. <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2217">Herrmann 1965</ref>, 93-94</bibl>); consequently, this inscription could be dated to the period of dependence on Attalus I, probably the second one (218-201).</p> 215 <lb/><p>However, John Ma has recently argued that the decrees of <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">asylia</foreign> conferred to Teos were consequent to the «consecration of Teos to Dionysos», to the <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">asylia</foreign> and to the exemption from tributes conferred to the city by Antioch III, as attested by the already-cited honorific decrees by Teos to Antioch and Laodice (<bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl0041"><title level="j">SEG</title></ref> 41 1003, I, ll. 15-20</bibl>). Ma is surely right when he thinks that the Cretan <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">asylia</foreign> decrees to Teos (<bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl1991">Rigsby, <title level="m">Asylia</title></ref> 136-148</bibl>) are consequent to the <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">asylia</foreign> conferred by Antioch (cf. <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2217">Herrmann 1965</ref>, 134-136</bibl>): Teos ambassadors to Crete were sustained by Hegesander of Rhodes, one of Antioch’s ambassadors. Even Rome conferred <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">asylia</foreign> to Teos with the mediation of another of Antioch’s ambassadors, Menippus (<bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl0014"><title level="m">Syll.</title></ref><edition>3</edition> 601</bibl>: letter from the <foreign xml:lang="la">praetor peregrinus</foreign> M. Valerius Messalla). These documents are similar to Teos’ decree for Antioch (see <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2218">Ma 2004</ref>, 205-206</bibl> on the use of verb <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀνίημι</foreign>). But in Aetolian and Delphian <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">asylia</foreign> decrees for Teos there is no mention of Antioch (a problem in Ma’s reconstruction: <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2218">Ma 2004</ref>, 206</bibl>). We can find a solution if we distinguish these decrees from the Cretan and Roman ones: in Aetolian and Delphian inscriptions, the <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">asylia</foreign> is due to the presence of <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">technitai</foreign>, not to the royal honours, which are probably later (these decrees have not the same verbal coincidences with Teos decree about Antioch as the Cretan ones). In addition to this, Cretan and Roman decrees should probably to be dated to the beginning of the 2nd century (Messalla is <foreign xml:lang="la">praetor peregrinus</foreign> in 193: see <bibl>Liv. 34.54-55</bibl>), while Aetolian and Delphian decrees should be dated to the end of the 3rd century (see <foreign xml:lang="la">supra</foreign>).</p> 216 <lb/><p> - l. 3. <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἱεροκῆρυξ</foreign> is a herald who makes announcements during festivals and religious ceremonies (cf. <bibl><title level="m">Milet</title> I 3, <title>Delphinion</title> 145, ll. 36-40</bibl>; <bibl><title level="m">I.Pergamon</title> 246</bibl>, <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2118"><title level="m">OGIS</title></ref> 332, ll. 43-47</bibl>; <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl0041"><title level="j">SEG</title></ref> 2 258, ll. 18-25</bibl>; <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl0014"><title level="m">Syll.</title></ref><edition>3</edition> 577, ll. 37-41</bibl>).</p> 217 <lb/><p> - ll. 8-9. The complete name of the <foreign xml:lang="grc">κοινόν</foreign> is <foreign xml:lang="grc">οἱ περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον τεχνῖται τῆς Ἰωνίας καὶ Ἑλλησπόντου</foreign>: the use of the short name has no significance here, because in Teos the identity of the <foreign xml:lang="grc">κοινόν</foreign> would be clear. In some Magnesia inscriptions regarding the <foreign xml:lang="grc">κοινόν</foreign> (<bibl><title level="m">I.Magnesia</title> 89, 94, 98</bibl>) we find only the short form of the name. It is even possible that the complete formula was used at the beginning of the present document, now lost: cf. <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl0029"><title level="m">CIG</title> 3067</ref> (<ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2209">Le Guen, <title level="m">Technites</title></ref> 45), ll. 1-2, 5-6</bibl>: the Ionian <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">technitai</foreign> are here connected with <foreign xml:lang="grc">οἱ περὶ τὸν καθηγεμόνα Διόνυσον τεχνῖται</foreign>; the cult of Dionysos Kathegemon was bound with the Attalid dynasty (on Dionysos and the Attalids, see <bibl>Musti 1986</bibl>; the union of these two <foreign xml:lang="grc">κοινά</foreign> is probably to be dated to the reign of Eumenes II: see <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2207">Pickard-Cambridge 1968</ref>, 292</bibl>). There is the same alternation between the long name and the short name in <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2210">Aneziri, <title level="m">Techniten</title></ref> D 13</bibl> (see <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2206">Robert , <title>Ét.anat.</title></ref>, 446 ff.</bibl>) On the double name, see also <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2210">Aneziri, <title level="m">Techniten</title></ref>, 71-80</bibl> (but it is not probable that it was the original name).</p> 218 <lb/><p> - l. 9. <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2223">Rubinstein 2009</ref>, 115-116</bibl>, distinguishes two types of <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">ateleia</foreign>, honorific and economic, bound to a particular activity (frequently conferred when there was a contract between the city and a person or a group). Some cases of honorary <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">ateleia</foreign> can even be considered as economic, conferred in order to make future financial contracts more accessible: analogously, in the present inscription the <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">ateleia</foreign> aims to strengthen the relationship between Teos and the <foreign xml:lang="grc">κοινόν</foreign>. Another type is the <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">ateleia</foreign> conferred to an entire group of citizens or another community: the <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">ateleia</foreign> conferred to <foreign xml:lang="grc">κοινά</foreign> such as the <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">technitai</foreign> are similar in some respects (among many examples, <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2223">Rubinstein 2009</ref>, 132 n. 4</bibl>, cites a decree concerning the Aetolian <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">technitai</foreign> <foreign xml:lang="grc">κοινόν</foreign>: <bibl><title level="m">IG</title> IX<edition>2</edition> 1 136</bibl>). Dionysiac <foreign xml:lang="grc">κοινά</foreign> were often looking for these types of honours in order to be protected during their journeys all around the Greek world (<bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2212">Csapo, Slater 1996</ref>, 240</bibl>; cf. <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl0014"><title level="m">Syll.</title></ref><edition>3</edition> 460; 399</bibl>).</p> 219 <lb/><p> - l. 11. In <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl0014"><title level="m">Syll.</title></ref><edition>3</edition> 578, ll. 21-23</bibl>, another inscription from Teos, the expenses by the <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">paidonomos</foreign> and the <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">gymnasiarchos</foreign> have to be approved by the assembly (same formula: <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἐπ’ ἀναφορᾶι τῆι πρὸς τὸν δῆμον</foreign>).</p> 220 <lb/><p> - ll. 16-18. <foreign xml:lang="grc">πόροι εἰς τὴν πόλεως διοίκησιν</foreign> appear in order to finance honorific and religious expenses in <bibl><title level="m">I.Magnesia</title> 89, ll. 84-86 (honorary decree for <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">technitai</foreign>); 94, ll. 10-11; 98, ll. 66-67</bibl>; in an inscription from Colophon (<bibl>Picard, Plassart 1913, 236-238</bibl>), they furnish money for inscriptions <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἔκδοσις</foreign> (compare for instance, besides the Magnesia inscriptions, <bibl><title level="m">IG</title> XII 5 653, ll. 61-63; 715, l. 9; 716, ll. 12-13; 717, ll. 11-12</bibl>). The term <foreign xml:lang="grc">διοίκησις</foreign> refers here to a fund for city administration, divided among several necessities. It reveals a certain degree of economic centralization. However, in most cases, evidence does not provide clear indications about the organization of these funds. A high degree of centralization, attested in decrees which organize the total administration of a city (<foreign xml:lang="grc">τὰ τῆς διοικήσεως ψηφίσματα</foreign>), is generally rare and contested (<bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2219">Schuler 2005</ref></bibl>, and <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2222">Rhodes 2007</ref></bibl>, are skeptical about the effective centralizatison affected by these <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">nomoi</foreign> or <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">psephismata</foreign> about <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">dioikesis</foreign>; more emphasis on the centralization in <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2221">Migeotte 2006b</ref>, 389 n. 51</bibl>). In the present case, the centralization is attested rather in the transfer of some money from one fund to another: the first half of money necessary for the estate is taken from the fund <foreign xml:lang="grc">εἰς τὴν ὀχύρωσιν</foreign> formerly transferred to the fund for the payment of the corn.</p> 221 <lb/><p>At a first glance, these funds seem distinguished from the central fund <foreign xml:lang="grc">εἰς τὴν τῆς πόλεως διοίκησιν</foreign> (<bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2219">Schuler 2005</ref>, 401</bibl>). <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2222">Rhodes 2007</ref>, 361</bibl>, provides a better interpretation: «<quote>the king provided a grant towards the routine expenditure of the state, and that may have been kept in a single treasury, whose name we do not know, but alternatively it may have been apportioned among various funds by some kind of <foreign xml:lang="gcr-Latn">merismos</foreign> / <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">diataxis</foreign></quote>». Compare Miletus’ economic administration, with a high degree of centralization and special magistrates (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀνατάκται</foreign>) charged to the sharing of public expenses (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀνάταξις</foreign>); see <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2220">Migeotte 2006a</ref>, 78-83</bibl>; <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2221">Migeotte 2006b</ref>, 382-383</bibl>; on similar divisions in Athens and in the Hellenistic world, see again <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2222">Rhodes 2007</ref>, 353-355, 358-359</bibl> (<foreign xml:lang="grc">μερισμός</foreign> in Athens: <bibl>Arist. <title level="m">Ath. Pol.</title> 48.1-2</bibl>). In Miletus again we find a special fund for fortification (<bibl><title level="m">I.Delphinion</title> 147, ll. 64-66</bibl>), cited about another money transfer in order to finance the inscription: this transfer is here due to the assignment of the <foreign xml:lang="grc">κατασκευὴ τῆς στήλης</foreign> and <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀναγραφὴ τοῦ ψηφίσματος</foreign> to the <foreign xml:lang="grc">τειχοποιοὶ μετὰ τοῦ ἀρχιτέκτονος</foreign> (ll. 62-64; cf. <bibl><title level="m">I.Delphinion</title> 145, ll. 82-83</bibl>). Another money transfers is attested in <bibl><title level="m">IG</title> XII 5 1010, ll. 5-8</bibl> (from Ios, 3rd century BC): the money for an honorific garland has to be furnished by <foreign xml:lang="grc">ὁ ἡγορακὼς τὸν σῖτ|ον τὸν δημόσιον</foreign> from the money he has to give to the <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">agoranomos</foreign>.</p> 222 <lb/><p>In other cases, the existence of special funds besides the ones for general administration is surely attested: <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl0041"><title level="j">SEG</title></ref> 39 1243, col. V, ll. 52-53</bibl>: <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀπὸ τῆς φυλακῆς καὶ τῆς διοικήσεως</foreign> (Colophon honorary decree; this protection fund is similar to the fortification one in Teos; an analogous protection fund is attested in <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2112"><title level="m">I.Kyme</title></ref> 12, ll. 3-4</bibl>).</p> 223 <lb/><p>Teos’ fund for city administration (<foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">dioikesis</foreign>) is cited even in the honorary decree for Antioch and Laodice (<bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl0041"><title level="j">SEG</title></ref> 41 1003, II, ll. 19-21</bibl>): the <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">tamias</foreign> assigns to the <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">prostatai</foreign> of the <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">symoriai</foreign> a part of the <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">dioikesis</foreign> according to a division plan (<foreign xml:lang="grc">τοὺς δὲ ταμίας τοὺς ἑκάστοτε γιν<supplied reason="lost">ομένους | διδό</supplied>ναι τοῖς τῶν συμοριῶν προστάταις τὸ ταγὲν ἐκ τ<supplied reason="lost">ῆς διοι|κήσε</supplied>ως κ.τ.λ.</foreign>). This passage concerns the expenses for sacrifices and feasts in honour of the king and the queen. Other attestations of Teos’ <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">dioikesis</foreign> fund are <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl0041"><title level="j">SEG</title></ref> 4 601, ll. 15-16</bibl> (decree to confirm the <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">philia</foreign> with Tyrus: here it finances the <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">xenia</foreign> sent to Tyrus by Teos’ <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">tamiai</foreign>); <bibl><title level="m">I.Magnesia</title> 97, ll. 24-27</bibl> (it furnishes money for ambassadors’ <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">ephodion</foreign>).</p> 224 <lb/><p>It is very interesting that the notion of <foreign xml:lang="grc">διοίκησις</foreign> is connected with the royal contributions: the activity of benefactors, such as wealthy citizens with extraordinary administrative powers and, in Hellenistic times, kings, improved the economic centralization; <foreign xml:lang="la">vice versa</foreign>, the centralization increased the power of the élites and of individual men (<bibl>Xen. <title level="m">Hell.</title> 6.1.2</bibl>; see <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2219">Schuler 2005</ref>, 390-391, 400-401</bibl>; <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2221">Migeotte 2006b</ref>, 385-387 and n. 31</bibl>). In Pergamum too, Eumenes I, in order to reorganize the city administration, provided five <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">strategoi</foreign>, who were charged both to public and religious expenses (see <foreign xml:lang="la">supra</foreign>, introductory note). On <foreign xml:lang="grc-Latn">dioikesis</foreign>, see in general the already cited <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2219">Schuler 2005</ref></bibl>; <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2220">Migeotte 2006a</ref></bibl>; <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2221">Migeotte 2006b</ref></bibl>; <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2222">Rhodes 2007</ref></bibl>. A survey of the inscriptions discussed in these four studies (some of which have been cited <foreign xml:lang="la">supra</foreign>) is provided in <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl0041"><title level="j">SEG</title></ref> 55 1989</bibl>.</p> 225 <lb/><p><foreign xml:lang="grc">βασιλικόν</foreign> designates the royal contributions for city administration, distinguished from the <foreign xml:lang="grc">πολιτικόν</foreign>, the city treasure (<bibl><title level="m">I.Mylasa</title> 201, ll. 8-9</bibl>; <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2118"><title level="m">OGIS</title></ref> 225, ll. 9-10</bibl>, <bibl><title level="m">RC</title> 18, ll. 13-14</bibl>): from the future participle we can argue that these contributions were regular (cf. <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2118"><title level="m">OGIS</title></ref> 229, 106-107</bibl>, especially l. 7: <foreign xml:lang="grc">τἆλλα ὅσα εἰώθει ἐκ βασιλικοῦ δίδοσθαι αὐτοῖς</foreign>). Korragos’ inscription (<bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl0041"><title level="j">SEG</title></ref> 2 663</bibl>, <bibl><title level="m">I.Prusa</title> 1001</bibl>) cites royal contributions <foreign xml:lang="grc">εἰς τὰ ἱερὰ καὶ πόλεως διοίκησιν</foreign> (<bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2214">Holleaux 1924</ref>, 25 n. 3</bibl>). Korragos is honoured because he asked the king to furnish these contributions (we do not know the name of the city of this inscription). Complete epigraphic documentation on <foreign xml:lang="grc">βασιλικόν</foreign> in <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2214">Holleaux 1924</ref>, 37-38</bibl>.</p> 226 <lb/><p> - ll. 22-23. The most ancient temple of Dionysos in Teos was the one by Hermogenes (<bibl>Vitr. 3.3.6-8; see also 4.3.1; 7, praef. 12</bibl>). The temple was destroyed during a quake in 14 BC and reconstructed by Augustus; a second reconstruction is attested in the 2nd century AD, probably after another quake (see <bibl>Uz 1988</bibl>). The temple cited here is that of Hermogenes: Teos’ excavations have not revealed the existence of former temples (<bibl>Gros 1978, 694-695</bibl>; <foreign xml:lang="la">contra</foreign> <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2210">Aneziri, <title level="m">Techniten</title></ref>, 178</bibl>). The estate given to the <foreign xml:lang="grc">κοινόν</foreign> was surely distinguished from the temple ground: the estate had not been bought yet, so its location was indeterminate (l. 6: <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἐν τῆι πόλει ἢ τῆι χώραι</foreign>, cf. <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl2210">Aneziri, <title level="m">Techniten</title></ref>, 177</bibl>).</p> 227 <lb/><p> - l. 26. The phrase structure is not very clear: it can be corrected with the genitive <foreign xml:lang="grc">τῆς κατασκευῆς</foreign> (cf. <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl0014"><title level="m">Syll.</title></ref><edition>3</edition> 694, l. 34</bibl>, cited in <bibl><ref target="GEIBibl/#bibl0041"><title level="j">SEG</title></ref></bibl> apparatus), but we can also interpret <foreign xml:lang="grc">τὴν κατασκευήν</foreign> as an accusative of respect.</p> 228 <lb/> 229 <lb/><p>Bringmann, K. and H. von Steuben (1995), <title level="m">Schenkungen hellenistischer Herrscher an griechische Städte und Heiligtümer</title>, Berlin</p> 230 <lb/><p>Cardinali, G. (1906), <title level="m">Il Regno di Pergamo</title>, Roma</p> 231 <lb/><p>Csapo, E. and W.J. Slater (1996), <title level="m">The context of ancient drama</title>, Oxford</p> 232 <lb/><p>Demangel, R. and A. Laumonier (1922), ‘Inscriptions d’Ionie’, <title>BCH</title> 46, 307-355</p> 233 <lb/><p>Gros, P. (1978), 'Le dossier vitruvien d’Hermogénès', <title>MEFRA</title> 98, 687-703</p> 234 <lb/><p>Herrmann, P. (1965), ‘Antiochos der Grosse und Teos’, <title>Anadolu</title> 9, 29-160</p> 235 <lb/><p>Holleaux, M. (1924), ‘Inscription trouvée a Brousse’, <title>BCH</title> 48, 1-57 (now in Holleaux, <title>Études</title>, II, Paris 1968, 73-125)</p> 236 <lb/><p>Jones, A.H.M. <bibl>(1971<edition>2</edition>)</bibl>, <title level="m">The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces</title>, Oxford</p> 237 <lb/><p>Ma, J. (2004), <title level="m">Antiochos III et les citées de l’Asie Mineure Occidentale</title>, Paris</p> 238 <lb/><p> Meier, L. (2012), <title level="m">Die Finanzierung öffentlicher Bauten in der hellenistische Polis</title>, Mainz</p> 239 <lb/><p>Migeotte, L. (2006a), ‘La planification des dépenses publiques dans les cites hellénistiques’, in B. Virgilio (ed.), <title>Studi Ellenistici</title> XIX, Pisa-Roma, 77-97</p> 240 <lb/><p>Migeotte, L. (2006b), ‘La haute administration des finances publiques et sacrées dans les cites hellenistiques’, <title>Chiron</title> 36, 379-394</p> 241 <lb/><p>Musti, D. (1986), 'Il dionisismo degli Attalidi: antecedenti, modelli, sviluppi', in <title level="m">L’association dionysiaque dans le sociétés anciennes</title>. Actes de la table ronde organisée par l’École française de Rome (Rome 24-5 mai 1984), Roma, 105-128</p> 242 <lb/><p>Picard, C. and A. Plassart (1913), 'Inscriptions d’Éolide et d’Ionie', <title>BCH</title> 37, 155-246</p> 243 <lb/><p><bibl>Pickard-Cambridge, A. (1968<edition>2</edition>)</bibl>, <title level="m">The Dramatic Festivals of Athens</title>, Oxford</p> 244 <lb/><p>Schuler, C. (2005), ‘Die διοίκησις im öffentlichen Finanzwesen der hellenistischen Poleis’, <title>Chiron</title> 35, 387-403</p> 245 <lb/><p>Rhodes, P.J. (2007), ‘διοίκησις’, <title>Chiron</title> 37, 349-362</p> 246 <lb/><p>Ruge, W. (1934), s.v. ‘Teos’, <title level="m">RE</title>, V.A1, cols. 560-564</p> 247 <lb/><p>Rubinstein, L. (2009), 'Ateleia grants and their enforcement in the classical and early hellenistic periods', in L. Mitchell and L. Rubinstein (eds.), <title level="m">Greek History and Epigraphy. Essays in honour of P.J. Rhodes</title>, Swansea, 115-143</p> 248 <lb/><p>Uz, D.M. (1988), 'The Temple of Dionysos at Teos', in W. Hoepfner and E.-L. Schwandner (eds.), <title level="m">Hermogenes und die hochhellenistische Architektur</title>, Mainz am Rhein, 51-61</p> 249 <lb/><p>Walbank, F.W. (1957-1979), <title level="m">A Historical Commentary on Polybius</title>, 3 vols., Oxford</p> 250 251 </div> 252 253 <div type="commentary" xml:lang="en"> 254 <head>Author</head> 255 <p> Stefano Fanucchi</p> 256 </div> 257 258 <div type="commentary" xml:lang="en"> 259 <head>Last update</head> 260 <p>March 2017</p> 261 </div> 262 263 <div type="commentary" xml:lang="en"> 264 <head>DOI</head> 265 <p> 10.25429/sns.it/lettere/GEI041</p> 266 </div> 267 268 269 </body> 270 </text> 271</TEI>