AIO 2841 Decree of [Melite?] honouring Satyra, priestess of the Thesmophoroi

Decree of [Melite?] honouring Satyra, priestess of the Thesmophoroi

AIO 2841 Date: ca. 160 BC

. . . son of -kles proposed: since the priestess of the Thesmophoroi . . . the demesmen, Satyra wife of Krateas of Melite [sacrificed] . . . well and piously all the appropriate [sacrifices which the laws prescribed] and repaired all the temples (5) . . . and repaired (?) everything in the [sanctuary] of Pl[outon, and has contributed an additional sum] from her own resources of more than a hundred drachmas [for the sacrifices which take place] annually, for good fortune, [the demesmen] shall decide, to praise the priestess of the Thesmophoroi, Satyra wife of Krateas of Melite, and crown her with a myrtle crown (10)[for her good will and piety towards] the goddesses and the People [of the Athenians] or deme [of the Meliteans?] and grant her permission to set up a painted portrait, just as . . . of Demeter and Kore . . . the demesmen on a stone stele . . . and allocate the expense of these things (15)[from the] . . . .^[1]

Previous - AIO 2840 Next - AIO 2842

References:

AIO 2841 (Translated text) (AIO)

SEG 46.160

SEG 42.116 (PHI)

SEG 48.36

SEG 48.46

Tracy, ALC 253b

Agora XVI 277 (PHI)

Agora XXXI 35

Humphreys, Kinship, 1037-45

Women and the Polis, 173-75 no. 18

Russo, Ripartizioni, D66

Translation by: Stephen Lambert

Images: Agora Excavations - (1)

Monument type: Stele

Inscription type: Decree (Deme Melite?)

Findspot: Agora, in modern wall west of Eleusinion (Ag. I 5165)

Transliterations on Places on

[1] 1. The deme Melite: Melite, the deme generally thought to be responsible for this decree (on the possibility that it was rather Eleusis, see below), was a medium-sized deme of the city trittys of Kekropis, located in central Athens (for discussion of its precise location see G. Lalonde, Hesperia 75, 2006, 83-119, especially 113-6, who takes its eastern border to coincide with the west side of the Agora). Its bouleutic quota before 307/6 BC is taken by Traill, Demos and Trittys, 1986, 134, to have been 7; the quota is not directly attested in Council and prytany catalogues at that period, though it is clear that the deme had at least 4 councillors in IG II³ 4, 23, and perhaps Agora XV 20. Melite was shifted from Kekropis into Demetrias in 307/6 BC and its quota is more firmly attested as 7 between then and 224/3 BC (see Traill, Political Organization, 1975, Table XII). Its quota between 224/3 and 200 BC is not known. After 200 BC the bouleutic quotas ceased to operate. For a recent discussion of the deme and its members see Humphreys. This is probably one of two or possibly three extant decrees of the deme (for the others see IG II³ 4, 1057; and possibly AIO 2842). IG I³ 243 was also once thought to include a deme decree of Melite, but G. Lalonde, Horos 13, 1999, 9-16 (at 13-15) showed that the fragment (fr. 10) containing the demotic of Melite does not belong with the rest of this inscription. This was confirmed by Matthaiou, in publishing a new fragment (Horos 26-31, 2014-2019, 9-26). The occurrence of the demotic of Melite without context on a small fragment is insufficient basis for identifying it as a document of the deme. AIO 2840 was formerly believed to be a catalogue of demesmen from Melite, but it probably belongs rather to a deme of the Mesogaia. This decree and IG II³ 4, 1057 both reflect a tendency for intramural demes to be more integrated with polis structures than their rural counterparts (see further Agora XVI 68, with notes). On demes in general, see RO 46.

2. Date: This inscription is one of the two latest surviving deme decrees altogether (for the other see I Eleusis 229, cf. Whitehead, Demes, xxvii, 362). Its date is indicated approximately by Tracy's identification of the lettering as in the general style of the "Cutter of Agora I 247", whose dated work falls within the range 194/3-148/7 BC (for these dates see Horos 26-31, 2014-2019, 48) and by the identification of the husband of the priestess as the Krateas son of Nikolaos of Melite on IG II² 6890, a funerary columella from the Kerameikos, datable to the second cent. BC (this is the only other occurrence of the name in Attica). Our inscription was accordingly dated by Woodhead, following Tracy, to "ca. 180 BC". However, like I Eleusis 229, which also documents revival of Eleusinian cult at this period, it belongs more comfortably in the period of revival of Athenian cults and institutions that followed Athens' reacquisition of control over Delos in 166 BC and the consequent upturn in the economic well-being of the city (note the financial contributions and especially the extensive repairs ascribed to the honorand to "all the temples", which, if this included the whole City Eleusinion or all the temples in the deme, would have been a major undertaking). For another inscription that may refer to repairs to the City Eleusinion in the mid-second cent. BC, see IG II² 2330 = Agora XXXI 74 with p. 84. An example of this revival more generally is the Hellenistic Pythais, F.Delphes III 2, 3 (and see further the notes to I Eleusis 229). Note also that, like I Eleusis 229, this decree relates to more minor and/or more local festivals of Demeter and Kore than the Mysteries. This is redolent in both cases of antiquarian revival.

3. Melite or Eleusis?: There is general agreement that this decree was passed by the deme Melite (note the two references to "demesmen" in ll. 2 and 13). That is consistent with its findspot (albeit in a modern context) in the Agora, not far from the City Eleusinion, which was close to the territory of Melite (though apparently not included in it, cf. Russo, 79 n. 176); with the likely reference in ll. 5-6 to the [sanctuary] of Pl[outon], which was apparently located in the vicinity of the City Eleusinion (cf. Clinton, Myth and Cult. The Iconography of the Eleusinian Mysteries, 1992, 18-22; IG II² 1363, 24; CGRN 103, 19); and consistent above all with the fact that the priestess of the Thesmophoroi (= Demeter and Kore, whose temple within the Eleusinion might be referred to also in l. 11) honoured by this decree is wife of a man from Melite (see sects. 4 and 5 below on the implications of this). It also accords with indications that the Thesmophoria was a diffused rite, celebrated in the demes, and that it was managed by the wives of demesmen. On this, see especially Clinton 1996, followed by Parker, Polytheism, 271. Clinton 1996 argues that the inference commonly drawn from Aristophanes' Thesmophoriazousai that there was (also) a central Athenian celebration of the Thesmophoria, which took place in a Thesmophorion located in central Athens, is incorrect. For (inconclusive) dissent, see N. Robertson, GRBS 37, 1996, 319-79, at 338, 358 n. 115, 359 n. 117. If Clinton 1996 is right, it would seem that Melite may have used the City Eleusinion for its Thesmophoria (at least at this period; note that in I Eleusis 229 the demarch of Eleusis takes on roles in relation to minor Eleusinian polis festivals, possibly for the first time. Our decree may also reflect an initiative whereby a deme priestess took over some responsibility for Eleusinian polis cult in or close to the territory of the deme). Admittedly, the only reference to Melite in the preserved text is in the demotic of the husband of the priestess, and while there is evidence for appointment of archousai for the festival from the wives of demesmen, it is less certain that the "priestess of the Thesmophoroi" in the demes was supplied by the same mechanism (see, however, below, sect. 5). It is notable that the only other extant deme decree datable after 166 BC is of the deme Eleusis, and Clinton's earlier (1974) suggestion, that our decree is also of that deme, cannot be ruled out with certainty. On that theory, the deme Eleusis will have been involved both in the revival of minor festivals of Demeter and Kore at Eleusis and in a revival of the Thesmophoria in the area of the City Eleusinion; though the inference that would follow, i.e. that Satyra was the daughter of a man from Eleusis and only coincidentally wife of a man from Melite, is not very comfortable.

4. Thesmophoria: The Thesmophoria was a three-day women's festival for Demeter celebrated in the early autumn. This inscription complements several other items of evidence for the Thesmophoria in the demes (collected, together with key literary sources by Clinton 1996, 121-23, cf. SEG 46.20). Since the method of appointment of priestesses at this festival is key to identifying the deme responsible for this inscription, I note comparanda in the other inscriptions which document the festival, viz. IG II² 1177 (Piraeus, mentions a priestess, but does not make clear how she was appointed); IG II² 1184 (Cholargos, mentions archousai and a priestess, but doesn't make clear how the latter was appointed); IG II² 1363, 22-27 (Eleusis, a sacrificial calendar of the polis or the deme Eleusis, mentions a priestess and a (separate?) priestess of Plouton in the context of provision for the Thesmophoria); CGRN 103 (Phrearrhioi, mentions priestesses in fragmentary contexts, possibly including a priestess of Plouton at 19-20). IG I³ 232, ll. 59-67, from the City Eleusinion (early 5th century BC), may also provide for this festival, and if so, might relate to a predecessor of the arrangements reflected in our inscription. Priestesses, therefore, are mentioned in most of these inscriptions, but nowhere else are they specifically "of the Thesmophoroi", nor, as usual in the demes, is it clear how they were appointed. On this topic cf. Whitehead, Demes, 182 n. 30, with SEG 2.7, n. 3 (priest of Herakles in Halimous); RO 46, n. 2 (priest of Apollo in Halai Aixonides); CGRN 57, n. 1 (priests and priestesses in the area of Aixone). See further, however, next section.

5. Decrees honouring priestesses: There are other deme decrees honouring priests (e.g. RO 46, I Eleusis 72), but this is the only one honouring a priestess (for a Council decree (?) honouring a (deme?) priestess of Demeter, however, see IG II³ 1, 1189). For polis decrees honouring priests and priestesses see Priests and Priestesses; for priestesses note especially the well-preserved decrees, IG II³ 1, 1002 (priestess of Aglauros, 250/49 BC), IG II³ 1, 1026 (priestess of Athena Polias, 236/5 BC), and the fragmentary IG II³ 1, 1189 (priestess of Demeter; cf. also much earlier, IG I³ 953). Our decree resonates at several points with these polis decrees. For example, as in our decree, both the well-preserved polis decrees refer to the husband of the priestess: IG II³ 1, 1002 was probably proposed by the priestess's husband (cf. Priests and Priestesses, p. 77); and at the end of IG II³ 1, 1026, the decree for the priestess of Athena, who was apparently an heiress (epikleros), there are several lines praising her husband (26-33), who was, it seems, a wealthy individual who had supported his wife and thereby the priesthood itself financially. Like our priestess of the Thesmophoroi this priestess of Athena is nevertheless said to have contributed "from her own resources", including a hundred drachmas for the ancestral sacrifice of the Praxiergidai. Compare the "over 100 drachmas" our priestess is said to have contributed to the funding of "the annual sacrifices". On the formal limitation of "a medimnos of barley" (= ca. 3 drachmas) that was supposed to apply to a woman's capacity to enter legal transactions see Isai. 10.10, with J. Blok, EuGeStA 8, 2018, 24-34. It is not clear whether this was strictly relevant to donations, though it is doubtless significant in these decrees honouring priestesses for their benefactions that the priestess was more or less explicitly supported by her kyrios, usually her husband. I note here one important difference between this decree and the polis decrees: the two polis priestesses may have been supported financially by their husbands but, as priestesses supplied by a genos, they inherited their eligibility for their priesthood from their fathers, and are referred to in their formal nomenclature in the decrees as daughters of their fathers (IG II³ 1, 1002, 31; 1026, 23-24), not wives of their husbands. Our priestess may also very well have been supported in her benefactions by her husband (might the reference to payment "from her own resources" imply that she was also an epikleros?), but in this case she is also referred to in her formal nomenclature as the wife of her husband. This difference most likely implies that, as we have seen, she was eligible to be appointed priestess of the Thesmophoroi in this deme because she was the wife of a man of the deme. This contrast with the nomenclature of the polis priestesses strengthens the argument that this is a decree of Melite.

Female benefactors, who are usually queens if foreign, priestesses if Athenian, are not common in decrees produced by organs of the Classical and Hellenistic Athenian polis. They do occur occasionally at Athens in decrees of associations including non-citizens (cf. e.g. IG II² 1292, 23-25) and are more common in the Greek world outside Athens, on which see R. van Bremen, Limits of Participation (1996). Decrees honouring women both at Athens and outside are collected in Women and the Polis. In general on the competences of Athenian citizen women see J. Blok, EuGeStA 8, 2018, 1-48.

6. Awards: myrtle crown and painted portrait: The priestess is awarded two honours: a crown of myrtle, which was characteristic at this period for awards connected with service to Demeter and Kore (for comparanda on AIO, see search sv. "myrtle crown") and permission to set up a painted portrait; the restorations "just as [for other priestesses?]" and "[in the temple of?] Demeter and Kore" are insecure (see below, Textual Note. For a temple of Demeter and Kore in the City Eleusinion, see Paus. 1.14.1). For awards of painted portraits in Athens and elsewhere in the Greek world see G. Biard, La représentation honorifique dans les cités grecques aux époques classique et hellénistique, 2017, 144–46, with catalogue of epigraphically attested examples at 405–410. Assuming that our inscription dates ca. 160 BC, it is the earliest attestation of such an award in Attica by the city or one of its formal subgroups. Earlier Attic cases are all by less formal groups or associations, viz. IG II² 1271, 16-18, award to a non-Athenian by a thiasos of Zeus Labraundios, 298/7 BC; I Rhamnous 10 , 20-21, award to a general by Athenian soldiers stationed at Rhamnous, 252/1 BC; IG II² 1327, 24-5, award to Hermaios son of Hermogenes of Paionidai, treasurer of the orgeones of Kybele, 178/7 BC. This is arguably of a piece with the breaking down at this period of conventional distinctions between formal citizen subgroups and other groups and associations, observable not least in the decree-making habits of the garrison demes of Eleusis and Rhamnous. Both myrtle crown and painted portrait were inexpensive awards compared with the common alternatives, a gold crown and a statue, confirming the impression that the deme was short of funds (cf. Biard's remarks, 144-46; it is unclear whether the payment provision in 14-15 covered the cost of the portrait as well as the stele); though it is notable that the deme still seems to have had enough money to fund an inscription.

Textual Note. The key textual bibliography is O. Broneer, Hesperia 11, 1942, 265-74 no. 51 (ph.) (SEG 42.116, which also records other earlier bibliography); Agora XVI 277 (Woodhead); K. Clinton, in R. Hägg ed., The Role of Religion in the Early Greek Polis (1996), 111-25, at 121-22 (SEG 46.160, which does not record Clinton's new readings correctly. We accordingly note them below. Agora XXXI 35 (ph.) reproduces the Agora XVI text). Note also that Clinton earlier questioned that the deme of this inscription was Melite, and suggested rather Eleusis (Sacred Officials of the Eleusinian Mysteries, TAPhS 64.3, 1974, p. 71, see the notes to SEG 42.116 = "Clinton 1974" below). I am grateful to K. Takeuchi for sharing his notes on an autopsy. 2 in. προκεκριμένη ὑπὸ τῶν] δημοτῶν ("preselected by the demesmen") Bron., cf. Isaios 8.19 (on which see Clinton 1996, 122), but that passage relates to appointment of two women (archousai) to administer the Thesmophoria in the deme Pithos, not to appointment of a priestess. Clinton 1996 (114, n. 8) also notes that Isai. refers not to the whole process of appointment but to preselection of a number of women from whom two were selected by lot for service as archousai, and suggests κατασταθεῖσα ὑπὸ τῶν] δημοτῶν ("appointed by the demesmen") . It is not certain, however, that the text in this lacuna referred to the appointment of the priestess by the demesmen, rather than, e.g. to the celebration of the festival "by" or "on behalf of the demesmen", so it is best left unrestored. 3 in. ἔθυσεν ὑπὲρ τῶν δημοτῶν ("sacrificed on behalf of the demesmen") eds. following Broneer, is also uncertain, as is the restoration of 4 in., though the latter probably gives the right sense and we retain it in our text for ease of reference. 5 in. τοὺς ἐν τῶι Ἐλευσινίωι ("in the Eleusinion") Bron., is speculative; τοὺς ἐν τῶι -ca. 11- Clinton 1996. med. παρε]σκεύακεν and π̣ά̣[ν]τ̣α ("prepared ... everything") Bron., ἐπε]σκεύακεν ("repaired") J. and L. Robert, REG 57, 1944, 200 no. 78, κατε]σκεύακεν and Π̣ΛΟ̣Ι̣Α̣ ("constructed ...uncertain word") Clinton 1996, ΙΙΛΙΤΑ ? Takeuchi. 6-11 The precise wording of the these lines is uncertain, but with other editors we retain Broneer's restorations of the start of the lines as probably giving the right general sense, subject to the points noted below. 6 ὑπὲρ τὰς ("more than a") Bron., confirmed at autopsy by Takeuchi, τὰς ("a") omitted by Clinton 1996 (apparently a slip). 8 τοῖς Μελιτεῦσι ("the people of Melite") eds., but the article would be very unexpected with a collective demotic, so better is δημόταις ("demesmen") Lambert. 11 Μελιτέων ("of the people of Melite") eds., may be correct, but Ἀθηναίων ("of the Athenians") would also seem possible in this context. 12 [δέδοται καὶ ἄλλαις ἱερείαις ἐν τῶι ναῶι] ("just as has been awarded to other priestesses in the temple of D. and Kore") or [δέδοται καὶ ταῖς ἄλλαις ἱερείαις] ("just as has been awarded also to the other priestesses of D. and Kore") Bron. 13-15 [ἀναγράψαι δὲ τόδε τὸ ψήφισμα τὸν ταμίαν] τῶν δημοτῶν ἐν στήλει λ[ι|θίνει καὶ στῆσαι πρὸς τῶι Ἐλευσινίωι· τὸ δὲ] ἀνάλωμα εἰς ταῦτα με[ρί|σαι ἐκ τῆς κοινῆς διοικήσεως] ("and the treasurer of the demesmen shall inscribe this decree on a stone stele and stand it at the approach to the Eleusinion; and to allocate the expense of these things from the common funds") Bron., but, though it is possible a deme treasurer was involved here, there is not enough preserved text to imply any particular wording in the lacunae (Whitehead, Demes, 96-97, gives an idea of the possible variations), let alone a specific place of erection in l. 14 (πρὸς τῶι -ca.10- Clinton 1996).

Added: 21 Jan 2024
Updated: 25 Mar 2024
Feedback

ID: AIO_2841