CIEGL XIII: Thematic Panel 1.1, ‘Public Inscriptions of Classical and Hellenistic Athens: IG II3 and History, Chronology, Location’

The first thematic panel of Monday included communications on diplomatic (Lambert) and political (Scafuro) practice and chronology (Tracy). Simone Follet, who was also scheduled to offer a communication, was unable to attend.

Stephen Lambert (Cardiff University), “The Shape of Athenian External Relations 352/1-322/1: the Perspective of the Inscribed Decrees”, offered an overview of trends and patterns in Athenian foreign policy during the third quarter of the third century BC, based on his work for the forthcoming fascicle of IG II3. He observed that, as expected, few treaties or decrees honouring cities survive from the period between the battle of Chaironeia and the Lamian war. This should not be taken to imply, however, that diplomatic activity itself had diminished; honorific decrees for individual foreigners testify to the contrary. From now on, there is an increasing emphasis on diplomacy through the mediation of individuals.

Stephen Tracy (ASCSA, Athens), “- -sinos, A New Archon of Athens”, presented an unpublished inscription from the Library of Hadrian (inv. no. BA 457), read and restored by Paraskevi Bardani. This ephebic catalogue’s main interest lies in the certain mention of a new third-century BC Athenian archon, whose name (in the genitive) ends in [—]σίνου (perhaps [Τελε]σίνου). Letter-type, parallels in the disposition of the catalogue, possible prosopographical connections and the few remaining gaps in the Athenian archon-list led the speaker to a tentative dating in the late 260’s.

Adele Scafuro (Brown University), “A Crown for the Asking: Athenian Requests to Honor Athenians, the Epigraphical Evidence: 337/6-279 B.C.”, dealt with requests by Athenian citizens for honours, especially in the context of an office they held. First, she examined the relative terminology (paralleled by the one used for verbal reports in front of the Council or the Assembly). Then, she focussed on procedure, especially in cases where honours were voted before the honorand’s service was concluded. She argued that the procedure was simpler than previously assumed: the honorand went through the euthyna after his term of office and was only then allowed to have the decree in his honour inscribed; since the document he had in his possession was the original one, voted before his service was concluded, the inscribed text still includes the –now irrelevant– phrase “… after he goes through the euthyna”. Finally, the speaker tentatively suggested that Clinton, I. Eleusis no 95 (IG II2 1191), a text problematic in several details, includes the honorand’s request for honours.

This entry was posted in news. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.